Totally Premature Mets Roster Speculation
by Eric Simon on Feb 9, 2010 5:00 AM EST
Email
PrintJust over a week remains until the onset of Spring Training, and while the Make-The-Mets-O-Meter is not quite ready for its 2010 debut, it's never too early to start rosterbating. Sprinkled liberally in between a colorful assortment of public-relations snafus, the Mets shed some players from their 2009 squad and replaced them, for better or worse, with different guys. Here's what we know so far.
Starting pitchers
We've got Johan Santana, Mike Pelfrey, John Maine, and Oliver Perez all as locks for the rotation. Whatever you think of them -- the latter two in particular -- this is what one-through-four will look like so long as unforeseen (or perhaps entirely foreseen) injuries don't step in and derail that plan. Santana is a year older and missed the last month of the 2009 season following arthroscropic surgery on his throwing elbow, but barring a precipitous decline he should still be very good. Mike Pelfrey's ERA blew up last year but his xFIP was basically unchanged, and with some better luck on his flyballs -- specifically, them not turning into homeruns -- he should put up 2008-like numbers. I like John Maine but I'm not bullish on his outlook for this year or subsequent years. He'll be good if his arm doesn't fall off, but that's a big 'if'. Oliver Perez is kaljskljdaflsd.f.......... *blerp*.
Starting infielders
David Wright and his presumably chiseled pecs will be back at third where they all belong, hopefully passing on Citi-Field-specific hitting tips and just going at it as he has in the past. His HR/FB took a nosedive last year, plummeting from 16.7% in 2008 all the way down to 6.9%. Some of that was the ballpark; the rest of it, who knows? Even if it rebounds to the 10-12% range -- and not all the way back to his 13.9% career mark -- he should still see a nice bump in homeruns.
Jose Reyes is healthy and rearing to go, and the Mets need him to get back to the five-win shortstop monster he was from 2006-2008.
Luis Castillo is all we've got at second right now. Orlando Hudson is off the market; Felipe Lopez is still out there, and while I haven't read anything specifically linking him to the Mets, Joel Sherman hasn't yet told me that Lopez would never sign with the Mets so we'll just keep him on the 'maybe' list for now.
Daniel Murphy, a perfectly capable utility player, is apparently your starting firstbaseman. How does that taste? If it's any consolation, Fernando Tatis might get some reps over there against tough lefties, so there's that.
Starting outfielders
Carlos Beltran Angel Pagan is expected to be given the starting centerfielder job while Carlos Beltran is on the mend, which is a much better thing than giving the spot to GMJ. Jason Bay was the big free agent signing of the offseason and he'll be in left, providing top-notch offense and, I'm told, he has agreed to stand in the outfield with a glove on one hand, which is probably the best we can hope for at this point. Jeff Francoeur will presumably be in rightfield once he gets back from bat-shopping with Chris Coghlan.
Catchers
Omir Santos and Henry Blanco. Does it matter who's the starter and who's the backup?
Relief pitchers
Francisco Rodriguez will be there. Pedro Feliciano, Sean Green, Kelvim Escobar, and Ryota Igarashi are locks.
Bench guys
Alex Cora and Gary Matthews Jr, plus the aforementioned Tatis.
--
That's 21 players who are basically guaranteed spots on the Opening Day roster, which leaves us with four spots left unclaimed. Here are some of the more in-house options.
Other pitchers
We've got Fernando Nieve, Jon Niese, Nelson Figueroa, Pat Misch, Josh Fogg, Tobi Stoner, and Bobby Parnell -- plus guys like Clint Everts, Eddie Kunz, and Jay Marshall -- as many as three of which could make the team out of Spring Training. One of them will be the fifth starter, but the Mets have two days off in the first two weeks so they could reasonably do without that last starter until 4/19, which would give them an extra hitter or reliever in the interim. Jon Niese should really be given a shot at that last spot; he clearly has the most upside of anyone on this list, and nothing against Figueroa and company, but there'll be something more exciting about watching Niese pitch than any of the rest of these guys. This of course means he'll be promptly shipped to Buffalo.
Other hitters
Nick Evans, Anderson Hernandez, Chris Carter, Shawn Bowman, Fernando Martinez. Andy Green and Mike Hessman are probably longer shots, in part because they're not on the 40-man roster and the Mets wouldn't want to make a personnel move and risk losing Jack Egbert or Arturo Lopez. A couple of interesting names in there, but apart from Martinez, who will likely begin the season in Triple-A, this is an especially unsexy bunch.
--
Comment starter: You've got four spots to fill; who are your picks for the 25-man roster?
195 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Let's see
Fernando Nieve gets the 5th rotation spot.
Parnell in the bullpen
Nick Evans and Chris Carter onto the bench.
Goodbye Sir Dr. Sen. Brain SOCKS! D.D.S.R.S.V.P
that's out of your choices.... I'd personally put Catalanotto in over Evans
Goodbye Sir Dr. Sen. Brain SOCKS! D.D.S.R.S.V.P
Predictions
I agree with the 21 guarantees. My other four were Anderson Hernandez, Fernando Nieve, Bobby Parnell, and Jay Marshall, based on the assumption that the Mets will carry 12 pitchers.
The 25-man roster: 12 pitchers and 13 position players.
*Evans was sent down when Livan Hernandez was activated for his first start.
If they decide for 1 more position player, replace Figgy for Evans.
this is a truly pathetic team, apart from like 4 people.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
"Oliver Perez is kaljskljdaflsd.f"
I’ve forgotten much of my Old Norse, but is “kaljskljdaflsd.f” the word for “well-bearded” or is it the word for “in the best shape of his life”? I get these things confused.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 9:03 AM EST reply actions
I actually think the catching tandem will end up being Thole and Blanco.
I think Niese will win the 5th starter’s job, Parnell and Jay Marshall will round out the pen, and Frankie Cats will take the last spot on the bench.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
I don't think Sean Green should be a lock.
He can easily be released or put on waivers. He had some great streaks here and there, but overall I’d rather have Bobby Parnell, and even Figueroa, get a spot in favor of this guy.
btw,
how could Murphy be considered a UT player? UT normally means capable of filling in at several positions… at this point we’ve identified just 1 position Murphy is capable at.
and how in the world could Igarashi be considered “a lock” when the guy hasn’t thrown 1 pitch in the US much less the ML??? That’s not to say I don’t assume he’ll make it…. I do at this point, but no way should he be a lock.
and Michkin has it pretty close above. I’d just flip FrankieCat for Carter (tho I’d much prefer Felipe Lopez to either) and also flip Figgy and Nieve (assuming he’s 100% healthy) bet the 5th spot and the pen.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 9:52 AM EST reply actions
Murphy is a "utility player"
because he can play 1B, 3B, LF and possibly even 2B in a pinch.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 10:08 AM EST up reply actions
with all due respect,
Murphy hasn’t shown that he can play anywhere at the ML level other than 1B…. and I doubt he will be playing anywhere besides 1B this Spring either.
2B…. LOL!
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
No, he probably won't be playing other positions.
It’s pretty clear that this team has made him the starting first baseman. However, he played at third for his entire minor league career (he clearly wasn’t going to slot in at third with the Mets), and played some second base in past off-seasons. I’m not saying he’s anyone’s idea of a starter at second base, but I’d imagine he has the skills to handle the position. Hell, do you remember how many people on this site were hoping he would get the opportunity to move to second base?
And, yes, he can play left field. He had a couple of high-profile cock-ups in 2009 but he handled it well enough down the stretch in 2008 and he displayed decent range in limited time in ‘09. I’m not saying he’s a Gold Glover out there, or even an everyday starter in the outfield (or, hell, maybe any position), but the idea that he’s completely incapable of playing LF is just plain wrong. He’d be an outstanding utility guy for a lot of teams but the Mets have gone with him as a starting first baseman. Let’s hope he shows enough bat this year to make that a good decision.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
I basically
couldn’t disagree more. I’d be willing to say that Murphy will probably never log another ML inning in the OF unless we’re talking 19th inning situation.
and suggesting that the Mets “try” Murphy at 2B on an internet message board (I was never one to advocate that) and actually playing there in a ML game w/o any preparation are 2 completely different concepts…. and when was the last time Murphy played any 3B? 2008? Yes, I suppose he could play there in a pinch, but he was considered a weak 3Bman in the minors and not having played there in nearly 2 years will likely end poorly for him…. You have to accept that Murphy has poor defensive instincts.
The fact that Murphy really has no viable position beside 1B and that the situation here being that he’s supposed to be just a placeholder for Ike means that he really has no future here, imo. He really has no value if he can’t handle at least a few positions and I think he’s far from that right now. This was the reason I’ve advocated for trading him this winter to the AL where at least he’s also a cheap DH option. There were a few 1Bmen available who could have been had on 1 yr deals, but clearly the team is infatuated with Murphy.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
The numbers don't back that argument up.
Plus/Minus has Murphy as the 2nd best first baseman in the majors defensively last season, and had him as slightly above average in left field. UZR seems to agree with his value at first base, and had him as above average in left in 2008 but below average (but still better than Bay) in 2009. Most scouting reports on his minor league time suggest that he was a fairly capable 3rd baseman who moved because he was blocked and the Mets liked his bat, and reports on his play at 2nd seemed to indicate he could handle it in a pinch. If Tatis is viewed as a decent utility man, Murph ought to be considered that as well.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
this is precisely why
some people have disdain for Sabres. Murphy was a joke in LF and no team will consider him viable there ever again despite what some numbers indicate.
and look, I never saw DM play 2B or 3B, but he simply doesn’t appear to have the necessary athleticism to play a ML caliber 2B or 3B imo… which is not to say he can’t do the work necessary to get there some day.
I just don’t see DM as a viable UT player. To me, his upside is as a Scott Hatteberg/Lyle Overbay type of 1Bman.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
Murph did look bad in LF, no question there, although in a pinch he could fill in there briefly
I don’t think we can conclude he doesn’t have the athleticism to play 2b or 3b though. He had very good range as a first baseman, and while it is hard to extend that to 2b or 3b where he would need to range to his left more than at 1b, there is nothing to suggest he is incapable of such an adjustment given his current skill level. He came up as a third baseman, so it is likely he has decent range to his left as well. Will he ever be a starter at any of those positions? probably not. Is he capable of competent play at multiple infield positions, I would think probably.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
to me, this doesn't
make one a UT player. Maybe his goal is to become a viable UT player eventually but he certainly isn’t one now.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
and he basically
needs this season to prove that he should be an everyday player.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
The skillset required for 3rd base is very similar to the one required to play 1st.
A better arm is required to make the throws, but other than that its the same type of reactionary position. If you feel he can capably play first, I don’t see why he wouldn’t be able to play 3rd. He should have some experience there, considering he played it for his entire amateur and minor league career.
As far as left goes, his bat just isn’t good enough to justify his defense there regularly. He’s been capable enough there though that he could play it in a pinch, which is exactly what he’d be doing as a utility guy. Nobody is saying he should be considered for a strting role there, just that he’s got the ability to play it if the need was to arrive.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
forget about DM's bat for LF,
his glove alone lost several games there. This is the best example we have to demonstrate the weakness of defensive metrics. Murphy had very poor reads on balls, had poor jumps on balls, and mishandled balls that he got to…. all of which resulted in games lost.
What sort of consolation is it to say that the guy’s defensive metrics indicate he isn’t bad in LF??
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
"What sort of consolation is it to say that the guy’s defensive metrics indicate he isn’t bad in LF??"
I guess it is consolation that, even considering those few high-profile cock-ups, he’s not incapable of adequately playing a position that he barely played before his 2008 call-up. In fact, you might even say that he could provide some utility to a team that needed an okay left-handed batter that could play more than one position.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
I guess we'll have to accept our chasm on
the concept of “adequate”
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
Based on what you've seen, did you consider Sheffield adequate in left?
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
I think that's why you need to look at defensive metrics for a second opinion.
Sheffield didn’t have nearly as many botched plays in the outfield, he was fairly solid when he actually got to the ball. The thing that made Sheff grossly in adequate was that he struggled to get to anything. Murphy could make a misread on a ball from time to time, but at least if he read the ball right he had the ability to make the play. Most balls that Murphy read wrong and didn’t correct to make the play were balls Sheff wouldn’t have gotten to anyway.
According to both UZR and Plus/Minus, Sheffield cost the Mets more runs in less inning in left just due to his inability to get to the ball. You don’t really need to be a believer in defensive metrics to buy into that either, just watching him showed that he had no range.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
I don't disagree with
much of that at all. That jives with my observations of Sheffield… he caught everything that he got to. Not misplaying balls in your area is one of the primary functions of an OFer… it’s like the baseline.
sure Murphy at 23 had more range, but what did he do with it is the issue.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
So . . .
Sheffield was adequate because, even though he had terrible range, he caught most balls hit to him within that limited range.
Murphy, however, is “completely incapable” (see your comment below) of playing LF because, even though he has very good range and could get to balls that Sheffield couldn’t dream of reaching, in a few instances he made poor plays.
Is that about right?
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
no,
in many instances he made poor reads, took poor routes and misplayed the balls that he “got to”.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think it was really as many as you think
he made a few VERY memorably bad plays that stick in your head, but he was pretty generic out there most of the time. The problem was those bad plays happened to come at bad times.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Alot of the plays he made were ugly, and that tends to stick in peoples heads.
The thing is, though, alot of those were plays that he made. Regardless of how pretty they were, they still became outs.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
i'll agree with that
he could hardly be described as graceful out there, but he didn’t miss nearly as many plays as he’s being pegged for, and most of the mistakes he made were simply lack of experience as opposed to lack of ability.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
okay,
the history re-writing is nearing epic proportions now…
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
I really hate errors as a stat usually, but this may be a place for them.
Murphy only made 3 errors in left last year, one of which was a throw to the wrong base. I don’t think he made as many miscues as you are remembering, just many of the plays he made were very ugly.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
all of which
suggest that he has poor instincts and the Mets may have gotten lucky that he actually caught a few balls that he could have misplayed half the time.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
as a professional ball player
I doubt he “got lucky and caught a few balls”. He probably had some bad reads due to a lack of experience, but his range was far better than Sheffields for sure, and he made more plays for outs in zone than sheffield did.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
This.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
The end result was often the same though.
If Murph misread a ball and it dropped in in front of him a runner got on base. When Sheff just didn’t have the ability to reach the same ball, it was still a runner on base. What the metrics will tell us is that both players were below average at preventing runs last year and why, but all the major metrics seem to agree that even though it was uglier, Murphy’s superior ability to get to the ball made him a more valuable fielder than Sheff.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
that could be
the result. I won’t argue that. My contention is that Sheffield was an adequate/capable OFer whose mobility is limited by age. Murphy, while not having the mobility issue does have the capability issue though… and not being capable is something he may not get past. I’d suggest that there are lots of kids who could attempt to cover LF like Murphy did with similar results none of which makes them a LFer.
so even if the end result is the same fro these 2 players, the component reasons are polar opposite.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
but he wasn't an adequate OF
just catching everything that comes to you doesn’t make you a good outfielder. I could stand in one place, and catch every ball that was hit directly to me, that doesn’t mean I’m a good fielder. Range is as important as glove to an OF. Murph made a few misplays with the glove, Sheffield didn’t have range on EVERY ball hit.. range isn’t variable.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
fine,
I can accept that both were unacceptable. The problem is that adequate range together with poor instincts and mechanics is not a good indication of future viability.
Bottom line is that Murphy is not an OFer other than to play an inning in a real pinch… that doesn’t make one a UT player any more than Jason Bay could play 1B in a pinch.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
its easier to fake a decent LF
with good range and poor instincts than the other way around.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
and I agree he's not anybodys first choice in OF
but he can play there if needed.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
Which is basically what a utility player is.
Someone you wouldn’t necessarily start on an everyday basis, but who can play a few positions well enough to fill in if needed.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
yup
thats all you want from a utility guy. On a side note I wonder what the great Super Joe is up to
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
I saw him with the PawSox in 2007.
Pretty sure he retired after that.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
to me, a UT player
is someone who is capable of playing adequately on the IF and OF. Murphy doesn’t qualify… nor will he get a chance to this year… so I don’t see who we can consider him a UT player.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
I think the opposite is actually true.
Most fans think that Murphy was atrocious while Sheff was decent, even though the truth of the matter is that they are of about the same value in the end. It’s really hard to see poor range watching from home just due to the fact that we don’t have a camera on the outfielder at all times, and SNY usually doesn’t show the outfielders initial reaction unless there is a miscue.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
But if the end result is the same, Murphy would likely be the more desireable player going forward.
Murph can get to so much more stuff that with some experience his value would greatly increase. Sheff’s range won’t improve and he’s solid when he can get there, so he’s pretty much at his maximum defensive contribution.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
frankly, it
isn’t relevant what Sheffield can do, is it?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed, I just used him as an example of the polar opposite player with very similar end results.
It also didn’t hurt that most Mets fans got to watch him regularly last year.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
His defensive metrics take into account his overall body of work, not just plays like the dropped flyball against the Marlins.
They indicate that even though he may take odd routes to the ball, his range is still above average for the position. He’s been above average both seasons on balls over his head but struggled with shallow ones. That sort of data would indicate that he needs to work on his reads of the ball leaving the bat, which I think is a fair assesment since he first played the outfield in 2008. With such limited experience there, it certainly would be fair to think that’s a position he could be called on to play occasionally going forward.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
again, I'm not saying he's forever hopeless
from eventually having the ability to play a ML caliber LF…. but now he is completely incapable of playing there, and any attempt at aligning certain "metrics’ to suggest otherwise is more or less a waste of time. No one who saw DM play LF will advocate playing him there again in a real game before putting a lot of work in.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
I'd put him back there
if the situation called for it. Nobody is saying we should give Murph 4-5 games per week in LF, what we’re saying is for a few innings here and there, or an occasional game, he’s probably ok there. It may not be pretty, but he’ll generally get the job done.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
"his glove alone lost several games there."
Don’t you think you’re exaggerating just a little bit?
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
No
I think you’re exaggerating a lot actually.
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
wow,
so many people offering up excuses in one place. Stunning.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
So you're saying that
if an average LF was playing instead of Murphy during April/May the Mets would have won 3 or 4 more games? Dude, I have to call BS on this.
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
You have yet to offer any examples.
OK, we’ll say the Mets lost that game against the Marlins because of Murphy’s failure to make a catch, and not because Josh Johnson was awesome against our line-up. There’s one.
What other games did the Mets lose because of a misplay by Daniel Murphy in left field?
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
do you really
think that I’m going to research every game on the schedule when Murphy’s follies in LF were widely documented during the time he (tried to) play there?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
If you're going to argue that "his glove alone lost several games"
then, yes, I would expect you to be able to present that evidence instead of just asserting it as fact. Otherwise your entire argument is without any credibility.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
How about coming up with one other game?
or is that too tough for you?
a whole website of
Dan Murphy lovers! Who’d believe it?!?!
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
So is that a 'no'?
Because then I can just stop paying attention to anything else you say on this topic.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
you have just proved that you don't really read this website
except when you are getting ready to troll on it
and are you some kind of internet message board authority?
is talking baseball out of line now?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 1:04 PM EST up reply actions
talking baseball is what it is all about
not making silly hyperbolic claims and then getting rude when people ask you to back them up with evidence. You have done that several times now and I for one, won’t hesitate to call you on it.
where did I get rude?
just b/c I am not going to sift thru the records of half a season of games to satisfy someone’s badgering on an internet message board for something that is so well documented (Murphy’s pathetic attempt at playing LF)…?
sorry I don’t feel that it’s necessary to do that. Then you have the balls to make condescending remarks like you’re some kind of authority. If you don’t like or agree with the opinions being given then move on.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
The thing that causes this type of reaction from me is when people claim something is well documented and don't either provide a link or stat.
If it’s a well documented thing, it really shouldn’t take very long to just cut and paste a link. Just doing that in many cases keeps the argument on whatever topic is being discussed and the merits of both arguments.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
to link a bunch of stats wouldn't
be an issue, but to sift thru retro-sheet or other game summaries is going to take me time I’m not able to give.
I said well-documented to make a point. If it weren’t already well-documented then I would effort to provide the details. I guess we have a different recollection of Murphy’s time in LF and how it was near-universally perceived. Perhaps some of you didn’t agree with the team moving him out of there….?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
I think that's where it gets hard for me to understand you're view on him.
I remember looking back and thinking he was very ugly out there and being fairly nervous anytime a ball was hit to left. Really looking at the numebers, he only played 27 games there and his errors were all pretty high profile, which I think caused some of that reaction. I get the feeling that the general fan perception is more of your idea of well-documented, which really isn’t all that important in the grand sceme of things and quite subject to change from week to week. Even most scouting reports I read on him last year seemed to feel that he was, while raw, capable.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
the arrogance of some people
is astounding when you have the balls to say something they don’t agree with…
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
The calls asking for evidence are wholly justifiable.
Doesn’t matter what the debate is; advanced baseball stats, “normal” baseball stats, baseball, politics. If you claim something, and others have contention with it, you need evidence to back your argument up. That’s like Debate 101.
I can remember Murphy committing that one massive error against Florida. So, that’s one. I don’t recall any other massive errors, either, in the outfield that would lend credence to saying that his play cost the team many games. The onus is on you to prove it, not the other way around.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 9, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
You forgot
Internet debate 101. State something as if it’s fact, and continually insist it’s true regardless of how wild your claim is or how little evidence you have to back it up. This is proven to be 100% effective at winning the Internets.
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
there was one other game
it was against the Cardinals and it lead directly to the winning run. that is all I am aware of. The Mets were still thought to be a contending team in May and early June so it is understandable that they would want to move Murphy out of LF. But once they faded I would have moved him back to the OF and benched Sheffield. Murphy’s bat will probably never play at 1B but it certainly could at LF or 2B.
you see
and I didn’t even have to use retrosheet. Are you impressed?
which
just vindicates me for what I’ve been contending all along… that Murphy single-handedly lost a couple of games just by mis-playing balls in LF (in just a month’s worth of games).
Why did we need to go thru this arduous exercise for something everyone here was obviously well aware of already?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
You said "several" games.
That’s more than two.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
are you gonna
hold out your position on this until I come up with another Murphy miscue that cost the Mets a game?
is that where we are now? I just want to know…
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
Just trying to keep you honest.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
Well
that second game they probably still lose even if he catches that ball that went for a triple. The first game, they could have scored more than 1 run, and made the error a moot point. To say that Murphy single-handedly lost any game, let alone several is unfair and inaccurate. Look, nobody’s saying he’s a very good left fielder. We’re just saying you’re exaggerating how bad he was. Now maybe you were using hyperbole to make your point. That’s fine, but when you were asked about it, you got defensive and doubled down on your original statement.
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
I could
say that you’re just doubling down on your position also.
none of this silliness changes the fact that Murphy is a horrendous LFer and will more than likely never play the OF in the majors again.
I suppose if you close your eyes and click your heels maybe he’ll become a better OFer tho….
Yeesh!
as of now, perhaps we could go out on a limb a little ways and call DM a CIer…. to me that doesn’t quite make him a UT player yet.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
he's not a great outfielder
but i’d bet good money he plays in the outfield again in his career at some point.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
That was actually his only two non throwing errors in the outfield.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
you said yourself that
errors aren’t a fair representation of defensive quality… or have i misrepresented you?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
No, thats why I'm more of a Plus/Minus fan.
Plus/Minus looks at every single play to left field when he’s playing there and breaks down defensive misplays. Dewan’s definition of a defesive misplay can be found here. Any time Murph made an odd read or odd route on a ball and it resulted in a runner either being on base or advancing further than he should it is accounted for.
That data indicated that he was 6 runs below average on shallow hits, exactly average on medium balls, and 7 runs above average on deep hits. Shallow hits are weighted less due to the fact that they generally result in fewer bases than balls hit over the outfielder.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
and out of curiousity,
Sheffield’s plus/minus?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
-2, Murph was +1
Pretty similar all around, very different ways to get to that number. UZR had them at -1.7 and -2.4 respectively to give you a second metric.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
if UZR
is so close, doesn’t that indicate Sheff’s range was similar to DM’s?
I thought you said the numbers indicated that Sheff’s range was far less than DM’s.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
Fangraphs has Sheff
at -8.7 UZR in LF last year.
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
That's a factor in determining the total.
Misplays are also a factor. Murphy had several more misplays, which include things like a base hit when Murph took a step back and then ran forward. Murphy’s range was much better which allowed him to account for these misplays.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
Just checking:
I see Murphy at -2.4 in LF last year and Sheff at -11.6 under UZR.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
My mistake...I was looking at the wrong column on Sheff.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
Thats not the case at all...plenty of people here have no use for him.
The general pattern around here is to try to find either stats or facts backing up the opinion being presented. It just makes it easier for everyone to understand how that opinion was reached.
I think what I’m struggling with is why he wouldn’t be capable of being a utility guy. He’s passable at first and below average in left from what we’ve seen in the majors. Most scouting reports I’ve read seem to indicate he’s passable at 3rd, and we’re not likely to get a look for ourselves anytime soon with Wright there. Most reviews of him at 2nd seem to indicate he could fill in there if he had to, although he’d be a liability long term. That kind of guy seems like the perfect fit for that role to me.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
when, where and for how long has
Murphy played 2B?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
He played some in Bingo and spent the 2008 AFL season there.
Here’s a link I can find from Bingo. Here’s one from the AFL. There’s lot’s of others out there, but they all say basically the same thing.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
thnx
for the links. Again, it’s just not enough at this point to throw him there in anything other than a real pinch. To me, that isn’t really a UT player. idk, to me he needs more ML experience playing the field frankly before I’d be comfortable shifting him around.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
if you had just said that from the start
in that manner, nobody would have jumped on you. perfectly reasonable argument
As a non-sequitur
Thank god he shaved that moustache. He looked creepy in that.
If there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
if you would like to demonstrate that his glove cost them multiple wins
I’d suggest you look at his defensive runs cost in LF. UZR (runs cost versus average player) was -2.4 in LF in 2009 over 27 games. The conversion from RAR to WAR is runs/10. So according to that calculation his defense cost them 0.24 wins when compared to a replacement level player. I’ll give you since you can’t have fractional losses we can round up to 1 loss worth of runs given up in his playing time, but the numbers just don’t bear out more than that. I’m doing this somewhat back of the envelope and my analysis could be flawed so if somebody finds something wrong with my calculations please let me know, but numbers seem to suggest he didn’t really cost them much in his limited appearances at all.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
I can actually think of one other one
but because this fool is a troll and lazy I don’t want to help him so let him try to come up with it on his own.
oh geez,
another keyboard tiger….
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
excuses for what?
Nobody here thinks Murphy is going to be a superstar. Most people here don’t even want him playing first. We just don’t think you are making sense.
Do you understand...
… what a utility player is? Because I’m not sure you do.
Joe McEwing, Mark DeRosa, Jose Oquendo… all utility players tend to be guys who can handle a number of different positions, while not necessarily excelling at them over any extended period of time.
Murphy has demonstrated an ability to at least somewhat credibly handle multiple positions… and seems to be more comfortable playing an aggressive infield than at either corner OF position. And yes, he’s likely to play first this year… but introducing him to multiple positions later will increase his value either to this team or as trade bait.
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Feb 9, 2010 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
what positions has Murphy "demonstrated"
that he’s credibly able of handling at the ML level?
Do you understand that he hasn’t demonstrated any other than 1B?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
theres no reason to believe a guy who played 3b his entire minor league career
suddenly can’t play it at all at the major league level. He’s clearly a good defensive 1b, and while he’s not an ideal choice for LF, he’s not totally immobile there, just inexperienced. The point of a utility player isn’t to be an all star at every position, it is just to be able to fill in at those positions for limited amounts of time. I think you’re expecting too much of a utility player. They’re not there to carry the team, they’re there to fill in in emergencies and on occasional off days.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
thats werid, seeing as
Murphy played third and second in the minors
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
This is why he's more suited to a utility role than a starting role.
He doesn’t play any one position particularly well, and he doesn’t have the bat to sustain him at a position where his defense isn’t as important. As of right now, I can’t see him having a future as either a starting 1B or a DH. He appears to have the skills to fill in at a few positions capably enough but not well enough where you’d want him out there every day. I agree that he likely doesn’t have a future with the Mets at 1B but he might have a future with the Mets or any other team in a Tatis-like role of playing several positions and providing a decent bat off the bench. Also, no one was advocating that he just start playing second base without preparation; if I recall correctly, he worked on playing second base during the 08-09 off-season and, for whatever reason, it never panned out.
I actually think that, unless the work with Mex turns Murphy into an other-worldly fielder, he’s going to be hurt by focusing exclusively on first base. In any case I will remain, as always, cautiously optimistic.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
If I remember correctly,
didn’t he get injured early in the Arizona Fall League while he was playing at 2nd?
Coming this April, fun times with Jeff and Gary!
Yes, something like that.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 9, 2010 11:30 PM EST up reply actions
no respect
Murphy is still a young player and it’s difficult for him to get settled, get in a rhythm and have confidence with the Mets moving him around so much. I liked the idea of Murphy at 2B last offseason rather than LF because it seemed a better fit at the time with his 3B/INF experience in the minors and his offensive ability is better suited for 2B than OF or 1B.
Not to mention, had the Mets worked Murphy at 2B last offseason/season he’d be better prepared to platoon/replace Castillo this season. At this point in Castillo’s career he’s as much a defensive liability as Murphy but the advantage goes to Murphy because he has something to prove and wants to play, Castillo…not so much.
Looking to the future, the Mets have Ike Davis inline to assume 1B as early as this season but no prospects ready for 2B so why not Murphy?? It’s worth a shot. He’s getting scrutinized enough at every other position why not try 2B since the Mets are ready to be rid of Castillo and have no 2B of the future waiting in the wings??
As is the case
With virtually every utility player in the history of baseball.
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Feb 9, 2010 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
Igarashi is the only guy other than BB-rod who is under contract beyond this season already.
Just that likely makes him a lock to break camp with the team, even if he ends up being terrible and getting released at some point.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
does that mean he cannot be
sent down for seasoning if it’s determined that he can’t get ML hitters out?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 10:28 AM EST reply actions
He would have to clear waivers and be willing to accept the demotion.
If he didn’t want to accept the assignment to the minors he’d still be due the entire value of the contract, so I really think he’s as close to a lock as it gets.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
BTW
what’s the deal with Egbert and Arturo Lopez?
anyone?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 10:31 AM EST reply actions
Egbert is a question mark
he was highly regarded for a while, never panned out. Hasn’t played much beyond low/mid A ball. Was originally supposed to be a starter coming up, but now he’s not likely to be more than a middle reliever. Ok curveball, crappy fastball. Thats all I know about him.
Lopez I haven’t looked into at all.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
Niese is still not ready from what the reports say.
Nieve probably gets the 5th starter spot. I hope Figgy gets the long man job. Hopefully, Castillo starts on the bench and we can pick up Lopez to man 2B.
As much as I would like to see Evans on the bench F-Cat is probably going to get the nod because he is not invisible when “Tha Gangsta” looks at him. And F-Cat is a coolish name so Jerry will love that.
is it possible Evans is a vampire and he can’t be seen by people wearing glasses? Or is he so devoid of skin pigment that Jerry sees right through him in sunlight?
I wonder if Jerry walks around asking “who is this Evans Omar talks about?”
"Wait till Biggus Dickus hears about this!"
by scott from peekskill on Feb 9, 2010 10:31 AM EST reply actions
Niese
I keep hearing he is not ready but can’t find any confirmation of this. Can you link to something?
I think him probably starting in the minors
has more to do with him having options left, where Figgy and Nieve don’t.
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
Yes, i read two articles linked on Metsblog (please don't hate me) and i will look for them and link them when possible.
"Wait till Biggus Dickus hears about this!"
by scott from peekskill on Feb 9, 2010 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, and Jesus Feliciano had a killer Carribean Series, he should be in the running for an OF bench spot.
"Wait till Biggus Dickus hears about this!"
by scott from peekskill on Feb 9, 2010 10:32 AM EST reply actions
Egbert, Arturo Lopez, Evans and
OMir Santos and anyone else I can think of for Chris Snyder….
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 10:33 AM EST reply actions
the sliver of hope
still remaining at this late date is that it’s not too late to do things to help this team imo. We’ll see if the “braintrust” has it in them to do anything.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 10:37 AM EST reply actions
I'm actually more
in favor of Ryan Doumit than Chris Snyder, but I’ll gladly roll the dice on a trade for either.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 10:51 AM EST reply actions
Niese
Should take his time recovering. I wouldn’t mind seeing him as first call-up once someone falters/gets injured, sometime around June.
Nieve’s out of options, no? I like Figueroa and him— one in the pen, one at the fifth slot.
I would like Lopez and something from the Carter/Evans collection. More likely, we’ll see Frankie Cats and Carter/Evans. Given these options, I’d live with that.
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Feb 9, 2010 11:29 AM EST reply actions
CLASSIC!
Oliver Perez is kaljskljdaflsd.f………. blerp.
Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!?
I think we should hold some sort of contest
to determine the like top 3 most athletic AAer’s, devise a plan to sneak them into spring training, and see if they can sneak onto the 40 man.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
I run a hell of a marathon, but my fastball tops out at about 70.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
I've hit 80 at my best (not sure how many in a row I could throw like that) and can place a circle change pretty well
but i’m sure as hell not running 26 miles. Thats what cars are for.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
I have no clue how fast I can throw my fastball, but I have decent location most of the time.
I’m probably injury prone, though.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 9, 2010 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
my issue is I hit like slappy
lots of contact, no power
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
40 MPH and absolutely no control
I have to be better than Perez though
Goodbye Sir Dr. Sen. Brain SOCKS! D.D.S.R.S.V.P
But you're 14, so you must have upside
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
Omar needs to make you an offer at any cost.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 9, 2010 11:31 PM EST up reply actions
Somehow I fear a scandal where we discover that metsguy234 is actually 47.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 10, 2010 12:03 AM EST up reply actions
72-75, but with plenty of motion
Mostly from man-boob jiggling.
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Feb 9, 2010 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
Recipe for success:
-Proclaim you are ITBSOYL (alternatively, proclaim you had LASIK, doesn’t need to be true)
-Proclaim the Mets are the team to beat
-Always dive into the dirt (even if you are CS by a mile)
-Run to 1B every time you pop up or when you strike out
-Proclaim you are willing to learn from other players, you are developing, you play with heart while keeping a straight face
-Proclaim you learned a new pitch, like you had none before, now you can throw a 50mph fastball
-Be a good clubhouse influence
-Be a team leader, even if you sucks at baseball, give unrequested advice to other players
-Make flashy plays, make easy plays look harder
-Say you were a Mets fan since 69 (even though you were born after the 80’s)
-Smile a lot when you are in giving interviews, but you have to “mean business” or be a “frown machine” when you are playing
I don't feel like trying to figure out where to comment in the mess of comments above
but I think it’s hilarious that last year when people on here had tempered expectations for Murphy and didn’t expect him to ever hold down a starting role or be a “anything” of the future other mets fans said people here were Murphy haters and weren’t willing to give prospects/young players a chance, now people on saying the exact same things they said about Murphy last year and suddenly they’re Murphy lovers.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Feb 9, 2010 1:00 PM EST reply actions 10 recs
I'll rec it once.
Only 9,998 more to go.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Feb 9, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
I was firmly in the sign Manny and let Murph play 2nd in Buffalo camp.
I even lobby for Adam Dunn.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
Adrian Gonzalez, anyone?
I’m not usually inclined to wishcast about trades for superstars that will never happen, but am I crazy to think the Mets (perhaps with a different front office) could pull off a trade for Adrian Gonzalez? He certainly was dangled last year, and I don’t think the Padres’ expectations have changed that much that they wouldn’t listen to a good offer of 3 prospects + 1 major leaguer, which I believe the Mets could put together. But clearly this lineup is screaming out for a real first baseman, and he’d immediately change the Mets from middling to contenders. I’m also rarely inclined to trade young talent for a starter, but given Gonzalez’s postion, age, contract, and prodigious talent it certainly seems worth doing if it were possible.
Someone please bring me back down to earth on this or tell me how it can happen.
It would probably depend entirely on how much they were asking for him
the Padres don’t have to trade him for another year, assuming they can’t extend him, so they’d probably have to be blown away by an offer.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
The most recent scuttlebutt...
… in the SD and national media has the Padres FO claiming that an extension is unlikely.
But he’s still one hell of a resource in trade.
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Feb 9, 2010 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
Does anyone think that if F! outplays Pagan and GMJ in Spring Training,
That he’ll get a shot to play CF while Beltran’s out? Or should we just assume that he’s going down to AAA regardless?
Personally, I like Parnell, Evans, Niese (if healthly) and Figgy, with Nieve, Marshall, Fogg and Misch as injury replacements (hopefully in that order). I am really hoping that F! does outplay Pagan and GMJ that they end up either releasing GMJ or trading Pagan for a player of equal or greater value in another position.
If there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
they won't release GMJ, but I hope we don't have to see him much
I think F! will get a shot at CF, but when the dust clears it will likely to go Pagan unless he has a horrible spring (and given his history in spring training, I wouldn’t bank on that) since he’s played the position before with pretty good results. F! would likely have to blow them out of the water with his spring training to take over the spot.
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 9, 2010 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
I'm counting on them to release GMJ when Beltran comes back.
I don’t think they’ll ever start F! even if he outgrits Frenchy. He’ll have to prove he can play +100 games in AAA before they call him up.
I really feel GMJ will be a good enough player to be worth the 1 million he's being paid.
Not that that is really saying much.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
I imagine Martinez is going to end up in AAA regardless
And I’m not really sure we can afford to move Pagan regardless, we don’t exactly have a lot of of depth, let alone controllable useful of depth.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
I don't think we should move Pagan either,
but if we could find equal or greater value for him at another position (C, 1B, 2B or pitching), I would probably be fine with it.
If there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
But then what are we left with in the of?
Bay and F-mart, if he’s ready in 2011, and Beltran for 2011, then what bring back Frenchy for even more money? And after Beltran walks? I just don’t think those other needs are big enough for it to make sense to move a cheap controllable player like Pagan with no replacements I can think of.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Okay good points
And coupled with the comment below, three of those positions of weaknesses can be solved in the FA market, though I have zero confidence in Minaya actually signing one of these people. As far as OF depth, I guess I just feel that when Beltran walks, a corner OF or a 1B will be available in the offseason of 2011(the firstbaseman would move Ike Davis to RF, a spot where he is also learning). You’re probably right that trading Pagan is short-sighted.
If there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
It really depends on the return.
Another fairly young cost controlled player at a position of need (pitcher?) would work.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Has he actually played any RF in the minors
Cause my deepest dreams involve Ike Davis in rf rather than 1b.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
I was under the impression that he played RF in the Olympics?
Or some form of National team. I thought that he was getting time in the minors, but I can’t find any evidence of that. How sad. I was hoping he’d be learning both.
If there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
IBAF World Cup
In September. And yeah, he played exclusively in RF.
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Feb 9, 2010 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
Especially when guys like
Lopez are still available, and Branyan and Torrelbea, and there’s usually a bunch of cheap first basemen available in free agency.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
I dont get people wanting Branyan.
His numbers are pretty ordinary and he does not field 1b very well. Aside from this, he will cost at least 10x more than Murphy to play the position.
"Wait till Biggus Dickus hears about this!"
by scott from peekskill on Feb 9, 2010 7:08 PM EST up reply actions
If we were to trade one OF, let Frenchy go on a hot streak, with unsustainable high BABIP, then trade him for prospects.
The problem is, at that time, the Mets would offer him a 3/36+vesting option while trading Pagan for an injured reliever or old backup catcher.
Yeah have the mets ever sold high?
Or at least in the last 4-5 years can you think of them selling high on a player?
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Nady
I think it’s fair to argue that his value was at an all time high at that point.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
wasn't it higher when the Yanks got him?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, but when the Mets dealt him he was at the highest value he'd had at that point of his career.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
I'd agree,
but it prob doesn;t change the point, which is that the Mets hold onto players generally beyond their usefulness and rarely trade high.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 9, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
True, concerning Nady.
We were also trading from a “position of weakness”, needing to absolutely get some kind of reliever. I think that negates the fact that Nady hadn’t yet experienced his annual second-half drop off.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 9, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah but of course
like all the good deals we have made, we some how still managed to make a mess of it down the road.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Four open spots:
Parnell, Figueroa, Evans, and I don’t know who else…
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 9, 2010 1:29 PM EST reply actions
Lefty option for the Mets pen??
The Mets could still use a lefty reliever and on the Dan Patrick show this morning Rich Eisen mentioned an old BJ Ryan story, is he in baseball shape? He’d be a cheap option for a spring training invite or minor league contract. Ryan requested his release from the Cubs because Ryan didn’t feel his velocity would improve.
Should the Mets pursue another low risk/high reward player since they need another LRP?? Is Ryan willing to work on his mechanics with the Mets to avoid injury and get the most out of him as a lefty specialist/setup option? Can Warthen help/work with him so he can help the Mets? He’d be a great addition to the Mets suspect pen if he could return to form at 80 or 90%. Thoughts?
Open spots
Parnell, Figgy, Evans and Marshall
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
Who?
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 9, 2010 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
