I think the plan for Murphy should be to put him at second base in the offseason, and keep him there until he proves that he is not capable of playing the position. If we get lucky, and a year or so down the road, we find ourselves with a logjam of near-MLB ready 2B talent in Havens and Flores, then I'd stick Murphy back in left or at first if his bat is good enough to justify it. But, for the time being, I want him at second if he actually can do it passably (I know that is far from a given).

Murphy has actually seemed good in LF, some difficult running plays and catches against the wall.

Have there been any plays that he noticeably screwed up out there so far?

He may not supplant Wright at 3B, but he seems to be setting up a very unpleasant "talk" between Sam M. and David very soon.

(When asked about playing Murphy at second base in 2008, Jerry Manuel claimed he didn’t want to put Murphy at a new position during a pennant race—leaving unanswered, of course, why he plays him in left field.)

Welllllll . . . that's a question that kind of answers itself. You can put a guy who is barely adequate in left field -- he can't be Hundleyesque out there, of course -- because . . . well, it's left field. But anybody who watched Ruben Gotay play second base should know that there's a much higher price to be paid for a barely adequate second baseman. And the reports I saw about Murphy's play at second base in the few games he played at Binghamton were that he was less than barely adequate.

Me? I don't want a guy who has played a total of 15 games in his pro career at second base handling that position for the Mets in a pennant race. Even if it is Daniel Murphy, about whose bat I have made my views abundantly clear.

As for next year, I have no problem at all sending him to Arizona over the winter with one mandate: learn to play second base as well as you possibly can, and we'll see in St. Lucie next spring if it's good enough. If it is, the position is yours for 2009.

Have there been any plays that he noticeably screwed up out there so far?

Yes. He's butchered a couple of fly balls that he misjudged the trajectory on pretty badly. Again, not Todd Hundley bad. But barely adequate about covers it, IMHO.

I dunno, I have to disagree about barely adequate, I think he's been better than that.

Maybe you meant my joke.

And the reports I saw about Murphy's play at second base in the few games he played at Binghamton were that he was less than barely adequate.

This is from Toby Hyde's Mets Minor League Blog, seeing Murphy live. In short, Hyde thinks Murphy can handle the position now- and it isn't as if Damion Easley is adequate defensively, either. So the question becomes, want an extra 200 points of OPS over Argenis Reyes? I do!

Dan Murphy played second for the first time in a week now that the B-Mets have enough bodies to fill the other positions. He did some things very well and some things not so well, but it was an encouraging performance. Through five innings, he fielded all of the routine grounders and popups, without incident. In the sixth, behind a tiring Antonini, he made a nice play moving to his left, before setting and throwing a strike back towards second to initiate a 4-6-3 double play. In the seventh, he made a brilliant play. With a runner on second, and no outs, he fielded a bouncing ball moving towards the middle of the diamond and fired a strike to third, to nail the lead runner. It was very creative. The eighth inning brought some craziness. With the B-Mets up a run, thanks to Murphy, the Defenders had a runner at second and one out. Shaded up the middle at double play depth, Murphy ranged wide to his left angling into short right to field a softly hit grounder. B-Mets Manager Mako Oliveras said of the play, “he made a great catch.” Murphy then spun, and fired the ball. He fired the ball inside of first, back in the direction of home plate. The ball skipped by catcher Solomon Manriquez, who was late to back up, took an odd hop around the fence and kept rolling allowing the runner on first to come in to score to tie the game and the batter to land on third thanks to the two-base throwing error. Oliveras explained Murphy’s error, simply, “what he did wrong was he didn’t move his feet. … one rule of fielding is you never get your head up… that’s what happened on that throw.” As for whether the spin was the right choice on the play, Oliveras explained that as an infielder “you let the ball tell you what to do and the ball made him spin.” The skipper raves about Murphy’s work at the keystone, saying “I think he’s doing a heck of a job.”

Maybe you meant my joke.

David and I have an understanding that transcends the need for conversation. He knows where he stands, and that -- while Daniel is a star in the face of the sky -- he remains The David.

This is from Toby Hyde's Mets Minor League Blog, seeing Murphy live. In short, Hyde thinks Murphy can handle the position now- and it isn't as if Damion Easley is adequate defensively, either. So the question becomes, want an extra 200 points of OPS over Argenis Reyes? I do!

BA's Matt Eddy, Hot Sheet Chat, Aug. 8:

Defensively, Murphy probably fits best in left field, where he's currently stationed. A fringe-average defender at third, he'll have a lot of work in front of him to become even playable at second base.

They also had another report -- which I can't find right now on their site -- talking about issues with his footwork and athleticism for second base in more detail. Put simply, I'm with Manuel on this in what I assume he is his unspoken premise here (not wanting to say anything negative about Murphy, for obvious reasons as his manager): you don't give a middle infield position in a pennant race to a kid who is at best unproven and inexperienced at the position, and by at least some reports (we don't know what their internal scouting reports say) was less than stellar in a brief try-out there in Binghamton. Maybe later . . . but not now.

Oh, Sam, I don't think anyone (at least not anyone on this board) is suggesting Murphy be given major league time at second base down the stretch. That does not seem like a good idea to me at all, outside of a possible rare occasion once Church is back. But if he can be even 5-10 runs below average defensively at second, I'd want that to be his position next year.

I would make second base his position entering next year, and I would only change that plan if both of the following happen: he proves he absolutely cannot play the position at the major league level AND there is no room for him to start in the 2009 Mets outfield. If both those things happen, then I'd send him to New Orleans and have play second base there. He's young enough and seemingly athletic enough that I would not allow a rough start eliminate second base from the plan.

Oh, Sam, I don't think anyone (at least not anyone on this board) is suggesting Murphy be given major league time at second base down the stretch.

Um, I believe that is precisely what Howard is suggesting. How else to read this:

This is from Toby Hyde's Mets Minor League Blog, seeing Murphy live. In short, Hyde thinks Murphy can handle the position now- and it isn't as if Damion Easley is adequate defensively, either. So the question becomes, want an extra 200 points of OPS over Argenis Reyes? I do!

Howard? Have I misunderstood your position? You would rather use Murphy at 2B right now than Easley and Fake Reyes, correct?

Oh, Sam, I don't think anyone (at least not anyone on this board) is suggesting Murphy be given major league time at second base down the stretch.

I am- the inexperienced Reyes is better defensively, but far less of an offensive player. Easley is no good defensively, and I doubt he is the hitter Murphy is. I think there is a reasonably good argument for putting Murphy at second if Church returns to full-time work- not because my ideal is an untested second baseman in a pennant race, but because this isn't a binary choice- it isn't Murphy or no Murphy, it is Murphy, or Reyes, or Easley.

RE #9: You are right. I think because I don't feel that way, I read Howard's post in a way that fit what I was thinking. But looking it over again and thinking about it some more, you're probably right.

EDIT: Howard makes it clear. I don't feel that way about it though :)

You would rather use Murphy at 2B right now than Easley and Fake Reyes, correct?

Let me put it this way- I'd sure like to see him at second, see what he can do. I have no reason to believe Manuel has even seen him at second.

That said, I don't think your objections are remotely unreasonable. It is probably a bit of a safer way to go. I just don't see it as likely that Murphy is worse defensively than Easley, or enough worse defensively than Reyes to make up for the huge edge I think you get from Murphy at the plate over the final 35 games.

In other words- this isn't an objection on par with Willie's frequent use of Mota. Just would be a preference of mine. And I am a huge advocate for defense at 2B- from a fan perspective, I'd rather keep Reyes out there. But especially on aq staff with so many flyball pitchers, Murphy's advantage there is likely even bigger. Let Reyes play 20% of the time- when Pelfrey pitches.

Howard, if the Mets had Church and Alou in their lineup, I would probably agree with you. But they don't. Moving Murphy to second would mean Chavez or Evans playing instead. That might be an upgrade overall, but it's far from a given, and much more risky.

Howard, if the Mets had Church and Alou in their lineup, I would probably agree with you. But they don't. Moving Murphy to second would mean Chavez or Evans playing instead. That might be an upgrade overall, but it's far from a given, and much more risky.

Not so. I'm thinking this way, if Church comes back:
C Castro/Schneider
1B Delgado
2B Murphy
3B Wright
SS Reyes
LF Tatis
CF Beltran
RF Church

Of course, the other factor in this whole discussion is Castillo. I assume that at some point, he will be ready to return. Or at least that his return and ability to handle full-time duty when he does come back is no LESS likely than Church's. His availability would hand yet another option to Manuel. And if they ever got to the point where he had Castillo and Church BOTH available and healthy, it would put to the test how different Manuel truly is from Randolph. How much playing time would he give to Evans and Murphy in that case, or would his line-up end up being Tatis/Beltran/Church in the OF and the kids giving up their playing time to Manuel's ultimate decision to go with "veteran presence" and "experience" down the stretch, because those guys have "been there" and "know how to handle it"? And every other damn cliche you can think of . . . .

And if they ever got to the point where he had Castillo and Church BOTH available and healthy, it would put to the test how different Manuel truly is from Randolph. How much playing time would he give to Evans and Murphy in that case, or would his line-up end up being Tatis/Beltran/Church in the OF and the kids giving up their playing time to Manuel's ultimate decision to go with "veteran presence" and "experience" down the stretch, because those guys have "been there" and "know how to handle it"? And every other damn cliche you can think of . . .

What you say isn't as important as what you do, but I thought I read a quote from Manuel where he said Tatis would be the only losing playing time when Church comes back.

I believe Rubin today said Church will be back Friday.

As for Murphy, when I read something like this

Dan Murphy played second for the first time in a week now that the B-Mets have enough bodies to fill the other positions. He did some things very well and some things not so well, but it was an encouraging performance.

that doesn't exactly strike me as a guy I want to stick at second base in the middle of a pennant race. Particularly the way he is hitting; you don't want to do anything to potentially screw that up.

Tatis/Beltran/Church in the OF and the kids giving up their playing time to Manuel's ultimate decision to go with "veteran presence" and "experience" down the stretch, because those guys have "been there" and "know how to handle it"? And every other damn cliche you can think of . . . .

The problem with this, Sam, is that assuming Tatis continues hitting like he's been hitting, don't you have to put him in left as often as possible? Church in right is far better defensively than any of the alternatives (you know, because he's actually an outfielder), and if Castillo is healthy, he's the best option defensively besides Reyes, and a much better hitter. So would you really be against that lineup?

that doesn't exactly strike me as a guy I want to stick at second base in the middle of a pennant race. Particularly the way he is hitting; you don't want to do anything to potentially screw that up.

The hitting part is valid. But wouldn't a similar description of Easley's play at second be:

"Damion Easley stood near second base. He watched as base hits traveled into right field."

So would you really be against that lineup?

Even assuming Tatis continues hitting like he's hitting, he's not as good as Daniel Murphy. So yes, I would be against that line-up. It should be Murphy (with Evans or Tatis getting starts against the toughest LHPs)/Beltran/Church. You could also use platoon Tatis with Church if you like, but I doubt the offensive gain is worth the defensive cost.

I have zero doubt whatsoever that Murphy is not just a hotter hitter than Tatis, but a better true-talent hitter as well.

Easley, at least, can turn a double play. Murphy is unknown in every respect.

I have zero doubt whatsoever that Murphy is not just a hotter hitter than Tatis, but a better true-talent hitter as well.

Zero doubt?

Tatis 2007: AAA; 572 PAs: .276/.359/.485
2008 AAA 139 PAs: .242/.345/.592
MLB 249 PAs: .298/.361/.489

Murphy 2007: FSL: 59 PAs: .285/.338/.430
2008 AA: 407 PAs: .308/.374/.496
MLB 55 PAs; .404/.491/.617

Tatis 2007: AAA; 572 PAs: .276/.359/.485
2008 AAA 139 PAs: .242/.345/.592
MLB 249 PAs: .298/.361/.489

What would people predict for Tatis going forward: .270/.340/.460 ?

I've been treating Tatis as a pure dumb luck find that may fall apart at any moment, but he has been so consistent that he is starting to look legit. He's like the new Benny Agbayani, the awkward fielder and the hitter with solid numbers that you don't quite believe in. And a flair for the magical.

What would people predict for Tatis going forward: .270/.340/.460 ?

I've been treating Tatis as a pure dumb luck find that may fall apart at any moment, but he has been so consistent that he is starting to look legit. He's like the new Benny Agbayani, the awkward fielder and the hitter with solid numbers that you don't quite believe in. And a flair for the magical.

I wouldn't count on ANYTHING from Tatis. I'd put the over/under on his major league career from here on out at .240/.310/.400. Stranger things have happened, though.

Looks like Sam is getting a case of the "David Wrights" with Murphy. The way he talks about Murphy, he's going to be a .320/.410/.500 hitter in the majors. He's been a nice surprise, but - unless he can actually play second, he's looks like he'll be a marginal offensive corner OF, especially without good D. Would you really want to pencil him in out there?

Then again, he was right about Wright himself, so...who knows?

Zero doubt?

You heard me.

Zero. Doubt.

I admit you don't get that conclusion from the data. But you might as well throw out the 2007 data on Murphy, because it is in SO few PAs and he has clearly taken a massive step forward as a hitter this season. It is my view based on what I see from what Murphy is capable of with his approach at the plate, his age and thus his ability to continue to improve from where he is right now, and the fact that he has the platoon advantage in most ABs.

There would never, ever be a PA against a RHP that I would give to Tatis over Murphy. It would be a complete waste on every level -- from a competitive POV, and from a development POV.

Tatis has had such an odd career. A 140 OPS+ as a 24 year old and out of baseball at the age of 29? Crazy. The thing that makes me think that Tatis will continue to hit is that he is been drawing a ton of walks lately, 9 in his last 37 PA. It's hard for me to think he's not for real when he has an OPS of 1.009 since July 1. A crappy hitter wouldn't be able to that for that long. I think an .800 OPS is realistic of his ability.

Looks like Sam is getting a case of the "David Wrights" with Murphy. The way he talks about Murphy, he's going to be a .320/.410/.500 hitter in the majors. He's been a nice surprise, but - unless he can actually play second, he's looks like he'll be a marginal offensive corner OF, especially without good D. Would you really want to pencil him in out there?

I would point out that in its "Best Tools" issue, Baseball America named Murphy the best hitting prospect in the Eastern League. It's not just me who thinks this kid is a pure hitter. Finding him a position may prove challenging, at least in the short term, but putting him ahead of Tatis should not be the challenging part.

He's been a nice surprise, but - unless he can actually play second, he's looks like he'll be a marginal offensive corner OF, especially without good D. Would you really want to pencil him in out there?

There are two ways of looking at this. One is to say, "the average LF hits X" (X = surprisingly high number), "any team under X without taking advantage of freely available talent is stupid blah blah blah" etc etc

And then you can look back at Endy Chavez and Shawn Green and Roger Cedeno and Derek Bell and Benny Agbayani and Timo Perez and Jeromy Burnitz and Richard Hidalgo and realize that a 24-year old Daniel Murphy starting every day in LF and hitting something like .280/.350/.430, even if you're giving 15 runs below X, is still a very beautiful thing.

With hope, of course, that he will develop into a better hitter with time.

What would people predict for Tatis going forward: .270/.340/.460 ?

BPRo projected him to have a .271 EQA before this season... weighted mean of .265/.340/.437

Bill James wrote that hitting skills were surprisingly resilient- a player could seemingly lose the ability to hit through injury and years later start raking again.

I just keep my fingers crossed, and hope/assume that a HEALTHY Tatis at age 24-25 was a true talent 130 OPS+ hitter, and now years later a HEALTHY Tatis at age 33 is a true talent 110-115 hitter...

I've been treating Tatis as a pure dumb luck find that may fall apart at any moment, but he has been so consistent that he is starting to look legit.

I tend to look at it like I did Jose Valentin in 2006- take enough toasty over the hill used to be good veterans- throw them out there- and one or two may have more gas left in the tank than you would have guessed.

The problems are of course:
1: What if none have anything left?
2: You might have to sort through a lot of sucky retread performances before you find a good one
3: You may be tempted to re-up the guy the next year
4: You may be tempted to rely upon your "ability" to find a retread with something left...

I think Tatis can hit and deserves a spot in the big leagues but I'll be very disappointed if he is re-signed by the Mets. There's not going to be enough PA for Church/Delgado/Evans/Murphy/F-Mart/Carp as it is.

The problems are of course:
1: What if none have anything left?
2: You might have to sort through a lot of sucky retread performances before you find a good one
3: You may be tempted to re-up the guy the next year
4: You may be tempted to rely upon your "ability" to find a retread with something left...

As has been discussed many times here before though, I think Minaya has done a good job dealing with those problems. He's had a surprisingly high success rate with seemingly washed up players (Tatis, Valentin, Easley, Kool-Aid, Oliver, even Endy). That could just be luck, or it could be good scouting and performance analysis. I certainly am not in a position to know. At this point though, I have to trust Minaya more than I would a random GM, which makes problems 1 & 2 less of an issue.

On #3, I certainly don't want the Mets thinking that they can now just pencil in Tatis as their starting LF in 2009. I'm really not worried about it though. Valentin was brought back for 2007, but he wasn't handed a ton of money. There also weren't any other particularly exciting options floating around. All the other veteran retreads that experienced new life with the Mets were either let go of after one year or were held onto as reserves. I'd think management will probably offer Tatis a role on the bench for next year, which I would like. If someone else is offering him more than that, I would assume the Mets will let him go without thinking twice.

On #4, I don't worry about it with the Mets. They have enough money so that when these types of players are relied upon, it's as secondary options. I can live with that.