Sam, is it possible that you're just upset because those 3B-line seats would be just THAT MUCH FARTHER AWAY from David's golden smile if he's at 2B? And instead, you have to watch A-Rod struggle to catch pop-ups?

Seriously, if this happens, I'm not giving up on the Mets, but I may have to put Sam on ignore because the screeching will be hard to deal with. And I don't want that to happen. It's sad that that's the main reason now, but you should take what you can get to get people on your side, Sam. What would you do it he turned out to be a natural 2B, and way better than he is at 3B? Would you apologize if it's 10 years of brilliant, uninjured baseball? Or would it still be wrong?

I'm noting that NO REPORTS of that talk between Omar and Wright regarding a possbile pursuit of A-Rod have sufaced. Wasn't that supposed to have taken place already? Is no news good news or bad news?

Does anyone think that the Mets actually are likely to sign ARod? Or is the entire discussion academic for everybody? Because it is for me. I don't really see it happening.

Another question: does ARod demand to play third instead of first? If the Mets are actually ponying up the $350 million for him, and no other team is, do you really think he and Boras are going to sit down together and say ... "Well, I can play third for the Angels, even if it means losing $90 million." If there are any sides to ARod's character that I think we have nailed down pretty well, it is these two: he is eager to please, almost to a fault, and he wants to get paid as much as possible. If the Mets are actually waving the biggest check in front of his nose, I think that it would take about 10 seconds to negotiate a position switch.

Sam, is it possible that you're just upset because those 3B-line seats would be just THAT MUCH FARTHER AWAY from David's golden smile if he's at 2B? And instead, you have to watch A-Rod struggle to catch pop-ups?

Cute. But you know, what's funny about this thread is that I -- who am supposed to be such an incurable Wright fanboy -- am the one is being cautious and (I think) realistic in my assessment of how difficult this move would be and thus saying it would be nuts to ask him to attempt it, while some of the more . . . ambitious Mets' fans around here seem to think Wright is SuperhotcornerMan and can just leap tall position switches in a single bound and will be playing second base in no time like an old pro. I see a frustrating, long, arduous process of learning a brand-new position at the major league level -- and not just any position, but one of the hardest to play on the field, and one where it will hurt the team a lot if it is played badly. Putting Wright in the position where he believes (correctly) his performance is hurting the team is not something any Mets' fan should want to do to him.

What would you do it he turned out to be a natural 2B, and way better than he is at 3B? Would you apologize if it's 10 years of brilliant, uninjured baseball? Or would it still be wrong?

Well, of course I'd tell Howard (in particular) that he was right, and that I was wrong. But I don't think that's what is going to happen if they try this. Realistically, the best-case scenario is a terrible start defensively that costs the Mets a lot of runs, with blessedly little impact on his offense, and ultimately Wright becoming below average but not horrendous defensively by 2010. And him not getting seriously hurt. Hoping for anything better than that is a pipe dream, and even that would be very, very lucky. For the first two years, it is almost certain he would be the worst middle infielder in baseball. And you just don't do that to the best player on your team. I'm sorry -- you don't.

Sam - fair enough. I guess my main thing for this is: I do think it would be wrong and I do not want it to happen. However, because my judgment of wrongness doesn't even reach the 20% line of YOUR judgment of wrongness, it seems like I'm all ready to move him to anywhere and everywhere, and all positions.

Gee, that got sort of entendre-esque even quicker than normal.

Anyhow, for future reference, I'm NOT for it; I'm just not as against it as you are. So you don't come kill me later.

The point is larger than the specifics of 3B ? 2B, really. The point is that you can't just look at the physical gifts of an established major league player and decide "hmm, he has the skills to be playing a much different and much harder position than he is." Look at OF ? 3B conversions. Unlike moving a career corner infielder to the middle IF, that is not quite as b?tshit crazy, and so no one can pull the "well, no one ever did it before because no one's ever been as great as David Wright" routine; there are examples of it that you can examine. Bill James did a study on OF ? 3B conversions in an early Abstract. I believe he concluded that about one out of 20 of such attempted conversions worked. And yes, the ones that didn't work were very often career-destroying disasters. And yes, I believe that is still significantly less risky than the suggested Wright move.

(Note that the problem is both "much different" and "much harder." 1B ? LF is not comparable. Really, now.)

You're questioning Sam's motivations? I would like to know, what are Howard's? The alternative I assume everyone here prefers (well, besides not signing A-Rod at all...) is Wright or A-Rod to 1B. Relative to that, what you'd gain is the difference between Delgado's bat and Castillo's. What you'd lose is a ton of 2B defense at least short-term, and at least the possibility of screwing up David Wright; everyone seems to at least acknowledge those points. I don't even understand how you can acknowledge them, and yet still think it's a good tradeoff.

Considering Wright's strengths and weaknesses, isn't simply looking at the defensive spectrum slightly misleading? He's got great hands and feet, great work ethic, great athleticism, and has already announced his willingness to make the switch. I'm not saying that third or second base are intrinsically harder than one another - they just generally require different skill sets.

Well, you should. Within a couple of decades after the adoption of the live-ball manner of play, it became pretty much universally understood that second base is intrinsically harder than third.

Harder in that it requires more athleticism, better hands and footwork, and a good work ethic? Harder in that fewer players can handle the position defensively?

I agree with #98 that the other defense comparisons aren't good analogues to a Wright move. His skill set may very well be more suited to 2B than 3B in the long run.

That said, under nearly all circumstances, I would not move Wright from 3B, because of how he's already established himself as a force at the position. Without a compelling reason, you don't move someone from where they are having great success.

But A-Rod is a compelling reason. A player that good comes along so infrequently that you at least have to entertain the idea of being a groundbreaker in terms of moving a player in a way that hasn't ever been done before. I'm not certain it would be the right decision ultimately, and the stakes are high, but the potential reward is so good that you have to at least be considering it.

The ultimate decision is too complicated for anyone to be so certain that it's impossible. For all we know, A-Rod is willing to play 2B for the Mets, or unwilling to play anywhere in NY.

The alternative I assume everyone here prefers (well, besides not signing A-Rod at all...) is Wright or A-Rod to 1B.

Not me.

If you sign A-Rod, he can't be your 1B or your LF. He's got to play a more demanding defensive position or he won't merit the mega-contract he'll get.

while some of the more . . . ambitious Mets' fans around here seem to think Wright is SuperhotcornerMan

This is an AIM name if I've ever heard one.

Bill James did a study on OF ? 3B conversions in an early Abstract. I believe he concluded that about one out of 20 of such attempted conversions worked. And yes, the ones that didn't work were very often career-destroying disasters. And yes, I believe that is still significantly less risky than the suggested Wright move.

Well, if you believe OF to 3B is crazy, and 3B to 2B more so, we'll agree to disagree on the second part, particularly as it relates to this specific player.

You're questioning Sam's motivations? I would like to know, what are Howard's?

Dear Lord- you caught me. I'm part of a super-secret cadre of terrorists bent upon world destruction. Soon, nuclear fires will rain down upon you, and you'll be able to trace our beginnings to our sinister plot to move David Wright from third to second.

I get that some people agree and some people disagree here- it is unfortunate that some people on BTF are so unsure of their own arguments that they find it necessary to question motivations, rather than simply debate the points.

I don't question Sam's motivations- heck, we agree about 98% of the time anyway!

But the rumors today lend more credence to the idea that we may get to see this happen.

#107, fair point. Add "Reyes to 2B" to the list of better options.

Howard, it's not a personal attack, and I'm very sure about my argument, although thanks for your concern about my psychological well-being. My point is that you are still dodging. Why is Wright to 2B the best possible alternative for the Mets? Better than A-Rod to 1B or corner OF, Wright to 1B or corner OF, and Reyes to 2B? I described the risk/reward for Wright to 2B in #105. How is that better than the risk/reward of the other possible moves?

The alternative I assume everyone here prefers (well, besides not signing A-Rod at all...) is Wright or A-Rod to 1B.

FWIW, my preferred alternative is A-Rod to second-while I clearly don't agree with Sam on the risk/reward of moving Wright to 2B, I am not of the belief that it is without risk, and I'd rather see A-Rod at 2B with an eye on moving him to 1B down the line should he slow down sufficiently.

But my guess is moving A-Rod to 2B makes it impossible to get him- or rather, if it is the difference between getting him and not getting him, the relative merits of Wright to 2B make that move a plus for the Mets.

I feel like I'm reading the buildup to the Iraq invasion, when it went progressively from bats$hit crazy to inevitable. It's like that Mr. Show when they decide they're going to blow up the moon, but no one knows why.

Arod is not a fit for the Mets. He isn't worth $30 M at 1B or LF unless he has another 2007. Arod's 2006 is OK for a 1b/LF, but not worth $30 M, even if you have money to burn. Moving Wright is tempting the good will of the gods. Moving Reyes wouldn't be too bright either. Look, I wish it had all turned out differently, we had signed Arod to displace St. Rey at short, never sniffed the ass of Mo Vaughn or had to endure Todd Zeile at 1B, never traded Kazmir, never watched Robbie Alomar turn into a turd, and I wish the Trade Center was still standing. But signing Arod now won't undo any of those things, just like invading Iraq didn't make 9/11 go away. I'd argue that if the Mets had signed Arod in the first place, maybe the balance it would've brought to NYC would've placated the terrorists, so we can blame all these years of maligned reality on Steve Phillips.

But that still doesn't mean we should sign A-Rod. If you need convincing, think about this- signing A-Rod and moving Wright to second has a high possibility of vindicating Phillips for his initial decision. The man has a public stage. He'll self-righteously ridicule the Mets every night on national TV, and David Wright will have to start working for the scat-eater again to pay his bills when no one else will give him an endorsement deal. Is that what you want?

I'm not sure the Mets should refrain from making deals because they increase the chances that Steve Phillips and the terrorists win.

I do think, however, that any band I eventually create has a good chance to be called Steve Phillips and the Terrorists.

Are we still talking about this?

Everything Sam has said in this thread is 100% right. You have a third baseman who is excellent defensively, has begun his at Hall of Fame level as a hitter and is a great team player. Isn't that enough for you people? You don't move him to a more challenging defensive position. Categorically. You get down on your knees and thank the gods that you have such a player and you don't do one damn thing to jeopardize his career or goodwill. Hell - if he calls you at 2am and asks you to bring him a sandwich, you bring him a sandwich. The Mets have something that is awesome. There is no need to try to make it awesomer. Christ.

And #111 is brilliant.

The best player of this generation is Alex Rodriguez, not David Wright. The best available player this offseason, and likely for the next ten years, is Alex Rodriguez, right now.

David Wright is not a defensive God at third. There is no evidence to say David could or could not make the switch to second. He has, however, already suggested it himself. Moving Wright to second would take care of a position of ridiculous scarcity for the next ten years.

But in balance, signing A-Rod and moving Wright would not be my plan... but the way its being dismissed as "bat$hit crazy" is, not fair. I don't make this move, but if the Mets did, I would not be upset. I can understand the people who don't want to do it, but I can't understand the people who think its not debatable.

And even if the worst case scenario happened, it wouldn't be a complete disaster. Worst case scenario, we'd have A-Rod at market value and Wright would have disappeared from the planet. If things go well, we're going to be paying out the ass to Wright anyway. He's not going to be great and free forever, and he'll be making 10+ by 2009 or so. It could be a very worthwhile gamble... and even if it doesn't work, well still have A-Rod.

I don't understand why everyone thinks that the only two possibilities are that Wright succeeds at 2b or fails and his career is ruined. He'll be able to handle the position. The only question is what defensive value he would provide from the position. Worst case scenario is that it is very negative like -20 bad. Assign this a percentage chance that is reasonable (15%?) and factor that in along with all the other outcomes into the cost of getting Arod. 2b isn't going to cause David Wright to spontaneously combust. He just might suck there.

I don't understand why everyone thinks that the only two possibilities are that Wright succeeds at 2b or fails and his career is ruined. He'll be able to handle the position. The only question is what defensive value he would provide from the position. Worst case scenario is that it is very negative like -20 bad. Assign this a percentage chance that is reasonable (15%?) and factor that in along with all the other outcomes into the cost of getting Arod. 2b isn't going to cause David Wright to spontaneously combust. He just might suck there.

FWIW, I am not eliminating this possibility. Hard to imagine, even if he's at -20 his first year there, that it isn't a huge plus once you add A-Rod to the lineup. I'd even say there's a possibility that his offense drops a bit. Is it going to drop 300 points of OPS? Because that's what you gain going Castillo to A-Rod.

#114

Wright's contract over the next 5 years $54M / 5. That isn't free, but it still is a bargain. That's about what a league average player gets as an FA nowadays. Wright has never been league average.

Also, we might have ARod at market value, but his contract is likely to be "inefficient", ie, it's likely to be more than he is actually worth in terms of runs.

It's not unreasonable to assume that ARod will decline somewhat. It's not unreasonable to assume that Wright can at least maintain his current level of production.

Wright on a HOF path > ARod at market value + ruined Wright.

Wright on a HOF path > ARod at market value + ruined Wright.

And what about A-Rod at market value + Wright anything short of ruined? Wright minus defender at 2B and decline from his production through age 24 (which I don't believe is the likely outcome) + A-Rod is still a huge gain. Perhaps not worth an additional 30 million- though the playoff/WS that resulted would dispute that.

#119

I'm contending that the worst case scenario, of an ageing ARod at market value and a ruined Wright, would be a disaster.

How much a minus defensively he might be, and how much his offensive production might be affected is the question. If he is -20 defensively at 2b, Jeteresque, and his offensive production declines to Jeter levels, would it be worth paying ARod market value? Or would it be better to wait a year, and throw money at someone who fits into the team better? I'm not sure.

Anyone who signs Arod at "market value" is going to be overpaying for him once he starts to decline. I love A-Rod. Phillips threw him under the bus when from all indications he wanted to be a Met. But as a Met, his best spot is at 1B, and even as a non-Met you've probably got to move him off 3B in a few years. So you're paying $30 M for a guy who had a 131 and 134 OPS+ in 2 of the last 4 years. The Rod's .915 OPS in '06 would've put him tied with Adam LaRoche for 7th among ML 1B, behind Konerko and Nick Johnson. His 1.067 in 2007 was behind only Pujols, so he'd be an elite level performer there only if he continued to have years like '07 and '05 rather than '04 and '06. Unless you're the 200-2005 Mets, digging up a decent bat at 1B isn't too hard...

The other thing is those runs that Wright would cost you on defense aren't just runs, they're increased pitch counts for your staff, which for the immediate future is not particularly durable mentally (Perez) or physically (Pedro and Duque and the bullpen). Especially if they get Posada and play Milledge, they can afford an offensive black hole at 2B as long as he plays great D.

His 1.067 in 2007 was behind only Pujols,

That's not park or league adjusted. His OPS+ in 2007 was substantially better than Pujols. There's really no question who was the better hitter (not giving any plus or minus for baserunning) last season.

so he'd be an elite level performer there only if he continued to have years like '07 and '05 rather than '04 and '06.

There's a middle ground between struggling like 2004 and 2006 and exploding like 2005 and 2007. 2000-2002 production and he would be an elite offensive 1B. 2003 production and he might be merely a fantastic offensive 1B.

I said before that A-Rod isn't worth what he'll get as a 1B, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be a great offensive player even at the position.

Anyone who signs Arod at "market value" is going to be overpaying for him once he starts to decline.

I think it depends pretty seriously on when his decline phase starts, and where he can play effectively. There was a time when A-Rod was a very good defensive player at SS, so I am unconvinced that he's finished as a useful player at a position other than 1B.

I also think something lost here is that paying a premium for the very elite talent is often a great idea, particularly for a team than can do it.

I also think something lost here is that paying a premium for the very elite talent is often a great idea, particularly for a team than can do it.

This is certainly true, I think. What's the point of being a rich team if it doesn't let you buy the best players? I think a lot of the concern over "getting a good deal" is overdone for the richest teams. If you get elite performance, it won't be a bad deal unless your a very small market team. The thing to avoid, as a rich team, is paying a lot for mediocrity because you think you can. YOu can overpay at one or two positions, but not all nine and throughout the rotation.

I also think something lost here is that paying a premium for the very elite talent is often a great idea, particularly for a team than can do it.

I totally agree with this. Regardless of what position Alex will play, he will be among the best FA hitters that will still be near prime over the next couple of years. With all teams getting more revenue, fewer great players are becoming available as FAs, so even if you think some hitters may be FA over the next couple of years, not all of them will be available.

That's not park or league adjusted. His OPS+ in 2007 was substantially better than Pujols. There's really no question who was the better hitter (not giving any plus or minus for baserunning) last season.

Would you give Pujols a $30 M/year contract right now? I don't have an answer myself. If I'm the Mets I do

I think it depends pretty seriously on when his decline phase starts, and where he can play effectively. There was a time when A-Rod was a very good defensive player at SS, so I am unconvinced that he's finished as a useful player at a position other than 1B.

Agreed. I hope for his sake it isn't until he's in his late 30s. But by then, you're likely looking at a guy who isn't a good defensive 3B, who'll probably stay there at least a season or two beyond when he should. I don't want to be the club dealing with that.

To give a contrasting situation, the Jays could make an offer and worry about Glaus later. He'd be a better fit for them then for the Mets IMO.

If he'd take $30/5 years, I'd grab him. But it's gonna take more than that I think. I remember when A-Rod first signed, I thought he'd wind up looking like a bargain with the way contracts were going up. If he had 2007 at SS, we'd be taking about it as one of the most valuable seasons of all time I think...

YOu can overpay at one or two positions, but not all nine and throughout the rotation unless you're the Yankees.

David Wright won the GG. He probably doesn't deserve it but he's a pretty good 3rd baseman. Does him winning the award affect the decision at all?

No- I believed both before and after the award that he is among the finest at his position, making the challenge of a trip two rungs over on the defensive spectrum a manageable leap, particularly given his particular defensive strengths.

But it is hard for me to put much stock in Gold Gloves when we have better fielding data. Go back 50 years, and I have to rely on it quite a bit. Today, not so much.

Just read this for the first time. My take:

Wright could probably pull it off. Yes, it would be nearly unprecedented, but we are talking about a young, athletic guy who works hard and is much faster than most 3b. The issue would be the pivot, and there is risk there.

That said, I don't think it is worth it, largely because Rodriguez will be 33 in July. If this were the 2000 Rodriguez, it might be worth the gamble (although in that case you move Reyes to 2b). If the Mets get into the ARod sweepstakes, they should put him in RF for one year, and then put him at 1b in 2009. They could sell this to him by saying:

1. It will shut down much of the "not hacking New York" stuff but get you away from the Yankees. After our 2007 disasater, it also positions you to lead us into post-season and be a hero--in New York.
2. The HoF is assured. A move to the OF then to 1b will allow us to point out the unselfish part of your career (player of immense skill repeatedly changing positions to accommodate others) and the less rigorous defensive demands will better position you for a run at Bonds. And you are such a good athlete and complete player you won't want to be a DH in your late 30s.

As to the disagreement on the board, I have immense respect for Sam, as I think we all do, and I ultimately agree with him. But I think he is, oddly, underestimating Wright--switching from 3b to 2b at the big league level would be very hard, but it is not like asking him to play 2b is asking Wright to take over for Jack Bauer, so I think Sam is perhaps being a little bit overprotective.

So, to wrap up, you only move Wright if you acquire Pedroia and Pedroia wants to play third.

Would you give Pujols a $30 M/year contract right now? I don't have an answer myself. If I'm the Mets I do

Yeah, I'd give Pujols that deal. Pujols is probably the only other player in baseball that I'd do it for.

If the Mets don't have Wright at 3B, I think A-Rod > Pujols. With a hole at 1B in 2009 and 3B/SS covered, Pujols > A-Rod.

Unfortunately, Pujols isn't available.

Why are people so ready to move Wright to a harder position rather than move Reyes to an easier one? Is it because there's still a bad taste from the Matsui debacle?

Here's the breakdown as I see it:

ARod at 3b, Wright to 2nd: You know ARod's going to be a pretty decent 3B and you have no idea how Wright will handle 2nd. If history is any guide, he's going to be a disaster.

ARod at SS, Reyes to 2B: Reyes has played 2B fine, and history tells us that the move is an easy transition. We're not sure how ARod would handle SS, but he was a good SS before moving to 3B, so it seems likely that he would at least be passably below average.

The first option is just fraught with disaster while the second option seems much less likely to blow up in your face. That's what I'd do if I were getting ARod.

Why are people so ready to move Wright to a harder position rather than move Reyes to an easier one? Is it because there's still a bad taste from the Matsui debacle?

I think it is because you would be replacing a young GG-caliber ss with a 33-year-old who is coming off average performance at 3b. People would rather move a 25-year-old to a harder position than a 33-year-old. As I said in #130, Reyes to 2b would be the move if ARod were 25.

I am not saying you're wrong, but I think the reasoning for many is roughly what I said above.

Why are people so ready to move Wright to a harder position rather than move Reyes to an easier one? Is it because there's still a bad taste from the Matsui debacle?

Here's the breakdown as I see it:

ARod at 3b, Wright to 2nd: You know ARod's going to be a pretty decent 3B and you have no idea how Wright will handle 2nd. If history is any guide, he's going to be a disaster.

ARod at SS, Reyes to 2B: Reyes has played 2B fine, and history tells us that the move is an easy transition. We're not sure how ARod would handle SS, but he was a good SS before moving to 3B, so it seems likely that he would at least be passably below average.

The first option is just fraught with disaster while the second option seems much less likely to blow up in your face. That's what I'd do if I were getting ARod.

I tend to think that Wright woudl be better at 2nd than A-Rod would be at short at this point. Also, Reyes is clearly the best defender of the 3 and shold be at the most important defensive position with A-Rod and Wright splitting 3rd and 2nd.

The best option is probably A-Rod at 2nd b/c he's the one most likely to have to move positions again during the length of the contract and it's not worth moving Wright of 3rd base for a couple of years just to move him back when A-Rod needs to move to a less challenging spot. Still, it's a little hard to picture A-Rod at 2nd.

Also, I view Reyes as more fragile than Wright and worry about the potential injury risk (at 2b) with Reyes more than I do with Wright.