User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6326 seconds
64 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The Mets have a strong lineup?
This may sound odd, but I like watching Shinjo hit. He strides to the plate with supreme, if totally misplaced, self-confidence. He often takes two huge (and futile) cuts, as if he were, Mighty Casey-like, increasing the challenge. Or maybe he's just warming up. (Two to get loose, one to produce!). Then, when the inevitable strikeout or pop up comes, he looks utterly astonished.
It's not productive, but it's amusing.
Well, there is that of course, but I'm partial to the incredibly inefficient use of resources as being the Mets biggest problem. The Mets have been paying in the neighborhood of 1.30 mil/win for the past 2 years, which has to be close to the worst ratio in baseball. When you have a 100 mil budget, the definition of what constitutes a "poor" season should be a little less forgiving. A chimpanzee should be able to GM a team to an 88 win season on that kind of budget. Steve Phillips' failure to do so for 2 consecutive seasons is damning.
That's the best kind.
As far as the Mets futility goes, I used be disgusted but now I try to be amused.
The Mets need a few guys who can hit LHP. Shinjo does that well, plays the outfield excellently, and was a great fan favorite last time around (I know that shouldn't matter but it perhaps does after last season's debacle). Shinjo + Timo Perez = decent centerfielder.
I'll argue the claim that Lloyd sucks. He's had one bad season in his career (last year), and you don't have to reach too far to find extenuating circumstances; he spent half of the year pitching for the lame-duck Expos, and in the other half, he pitched for a Marlins team to which he had tried to block a trade (out of dislike for Loria). I suppose it's possible that he's on the long downhill slide at the age of 36, but it's also possible that he experienced random fluctuations in performance, as all relievers do sooner or later. You can say that the signing sucks, as it doesn't address an actual need, but there's no need to tar Lloyd with the same brush you're using for Phillips.
I get a kick out of imagining Lloyd as a tea-sipping English aristocrat with a whinnying laugh and a monocle. Particuarly since he's an Aussie, and while he's relatively sharp of mind, his small head and long neck make him look a bit microcephalic.
I agree that lots of people performed capably for the Expos last year, but it seems reasonable to me that Lloyd's performance might have been adversely affected by one of the many distractions he was facing: mourning, surgical recovery, professional uncertainty, and a desire to throttle Jeff Loria.
In any case, Lloyd's a lefty. He could lose both legs in a rabid weasel attack and still get NRIs until he's 45.
Chalk me up as another vote for Scutaro being more potentially useful than McEwing. Scutaro can handle all three of the hard positions in the infield, and the ability to play badly in the outfield or at first base isn't all that valuable. Both are probably better than Bell at this point (and I say this as a guy who grew up cheering for Jay when he was in Pittsburgh).
Wasn't "Woe Be Unto" one of the Jedi in the rebellion? I didn't know he's with the Mets now.
As it happens, the Cubs start the year off against the Mets.
Is anyone else seeing problems with the comments box in Netscape? It kinda works in IE, but I can't find the box at all in Netscape.
#### you Duquette. I'm sick and tired of this ######## organization. I don't care what they do anymore, this team is doomed.
Err, I assume this about Oakland claiming Scutaro (and Matt Watson) off waivers from the Mets?
From comments I've heard about Diaz's defense, he might have needed a new position anyway. How about RF?
I wouldn't count on the Mets winning 90 games, but this looks like a better lineup than they trotted out last year.
2B Reyes
If the Zips projection is right, and I thinkit is, the Mets are paying an awful lot of money to displace their most valuable property from his natural position. Kaz better be the best defensive shortstop in MLB to justify the $7mm per.
Victor Diaz supposedly runs well but has trouble with his footwork on the infield. Maybe he's like a stocky young Soriano at 2nd. It seems like he could play something a little tougher than first base. Maybe a corner outfield or third.
A good fielding SS with a .800 OPS? And he'll sell additional tickets (he will, really). He is 28, so a 3-yr deal is about right.
THe money the Mets spent on him doesn't matter. They didn't grossly overpay, and they are getting tons of stew back from Mo and Burnitz, so there shouldn't be an issue. Reyes is so young that a few seasons at 2B before returning to SS is fine too.
Diaz should replace Wigginton - who really sucks. Reyes at second won't significantly decrease his value. Depending on BIP distribution, the 2B gets as many opps as the SS often and turning the DP is critical. The offensive step up will matter, but that's mostly going to hinge on Marcus Giles.
I think that makes a great deal of sense. In the short term, though, while Diaz learns to play 3b (or, more accurately, we learn whether he can learn to play 3b), the Mets should look for a platoon partner for Wigginton. Wigginton did very well against lefties (.835 OPS in 155 AB) in 2003, and if he has value for the long term it's going to be in a platoon role. I'd give him the opportunity to show that the plus side of his platoon differential is a genuine strength, because if it is, he's got real value.
I don't know if that's even close to true, but if the 90M payroll suddenly finds it way up to 110M after this, I wouldn't be surprised. Not that Matsui will generate 20M/year on his own, but that Wilpon might not want to surround his investment with an 80 win team.
Also, remember Reyes moving to 2nd isn't necessarily written in stone. If Reyes is struggling adjusting to 2nd in spring training, Matsui can be the big selfless hero by offering to go to 2nd or 3rd (with Wiggy at 2nd) for the good of the team.
How do you say PR Grand Slam in Japanese? Especially when the crosstown shortstop wouldn't even switch positions for ARod?
So, maybe it's not the perfect move for the Mets, it might be too risky, but it's got upside. And it's not Micheal Tucker.
For purposes of baserunning, Reyes is not the guy he's displacing. Joe F. McEwing is the guy he's displacing. Care to debate whether he'll be a greater baserunning threat than McEwing?
Every observer, from Bobby V. to scouts to rival GMs, sees Matsui as an outstanding fielder with outstanding speed. I'll take their word over yours, Big Guy. Maybe Kaz is about to start his decline, I don't know. But in terms of the player's location on the hill, it's just nothing like signing Tom Glavine and Mo Vaughn. They were over it; there's little basis for claiming Kaz is. (His SB were down last season primarily because he moved to the # 3 hole in the order.)
BTW, Gammons reported that the Yankees came in late with an offer for more money than Matsui took from the Mets, but Kaz turned 'em down, having committed to the Mets and feeling they'd wanted him more all along. I guess the Yankees were idiots for wanting him, too, eh?
True. But here, having Franco and Leiter as Assistant GMs (and Glavine as AGM-in-training) will come in handy. Because they will actually be vocal in the tabloids about how great he is defensively. They should have a package for the Diamond Vision screen of his defensive highlights ready to play in the early innings every game the first month of the season. Nothing like conditioning the masses . . . .
If he produces those numbers (a center fielder with a .359 OBP and 20 HR -- we didn't know such a thing existed), along with the defense he provides, he'll be the best overall center fielder the Mets have had since Dykstra, and maybe ever.
Given the way Cameron grumbled about playing in the M's home park (especially the batters' eye), I was confident he'd opt for a team w/a home park favoring hitters, or at least an unremarkable one. So I was pretty surprised he chose the Mets.
But when I looked at his 2001-03 #s on espn,in his tiny sample playing at Shea, he was 5-for-13, 1 BB. only 1 K. So maybe for him, it's more a batters' eye issue than a park size/prevailing winds issue. And Shea will give him the opportunity to make those long running catches he seems to relish.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=5492
Well, his OPS+ numbers have declined from 124 (2001) to 114 (2002) to 106 (2003). That's a trend I'd certainly like to see reversed, but I think it makes only a very thin case that his offense has started to decline. On the surface, certainly, his numbers should perk up this year based simply on the move away from Safeco.
If I were Cameron, it'd be the Mets' recent history in big acquisitions that would frighten me -- Vaughn, Alomar, Glavine. Even Floyd, though he hit well, could be seen as continuing the gloomy trend, having undergone surgery. We can only shudder to contemplate the macabre fate that awaits poor Mike Cameron (not to mention Kaz-Mat) . . . .
Floyd was a solid signing, and it certainly looked that way all year long (132 OPS+). He only had surgery so that he can be ready for spring training.
For the next three years, Floyd and Cameron will be making 13 million combined. I'd say thats pretty good bang for the buck.
Internal options are:
Can't blame it on the Duke though.
I do think the Wilpons ought to treat this off-budget, because it's $1 million they really shouldn't be spending, and which I'm confident Duquette would not have spent had it been his call.
Why? Because Art Howe needs a PROVEN CLOSER! Despite being in the cellar the 2nd half of last year and "rebuilding" this year, Howe refuses to explore making anyone a closer. He used a committee approach last season rather than try out Moreno or Ring or someone. Then this winter he's talking about how hard it was for his pitchers to not know their roles, and how getting a closer would fix that.
I think Duquette's throwing Art a bone on this one. But if I were Duquette I'd be pretty frustrated that I went to all the trouble to acquire 248 relief prospects last year so that I could now sign Looper.
And what's the deal with RF for the Mets. Player after player goes off the board and they do nothing. Are they looking for a star? Get Vlad. Did they want to avoid a long deal--they could have had Gonzo for 1 year, $4 mil. Did they want defense--why not Guillen? Who will they end up with out there, Cedeno?
I agree with you on Cameron (great signing) and Looper (not a wonderful signing although not a tragedy), but I think Matsui is another excellent signing. The Mets went into the offseason with holes in the lineup at CF, 2B, and RF. After Cameron and Matsui were signed, the only blatant hole in the lineup is RF.
Ask yourself this: are the 80 innings or so Looper will pitch next year likely to be better pitched than they would have been in his absence? I think the answer is clearly yes.
Moreover, there is a good to excellent chance that Looper will blossom under Peterson (see Taylor, Billy; Isringhausen, Jason; Koch, Billy; Foulkes, Keith) in the magical "Proven Closer" role, pumping up his value and making him eminently tradeable in mid-season 04 for decent prospects. So for about $5 million, they'd get a year and a half of reasonably competent closing, very possibly upgraded by Peterson to better-than-competent, until Ring or Yates is ready, and whatever Looper might then bring in trade.
It's a debatable move, for sure. But absurd, or awful? Not by a long shot.
That should have been mid-season '05, by the way.
This has been a great offseason. The Mets have trimmed about 30 million of payroll, kept ALL of their draft picks and improved their team as much as anyone. Oh and since their payroll is only about 80 million, they'll have enough financial flexibility next offseason to go get a top of the rotation pitcher and a RF and be in a great position to compete for the playoffs.
Mike Cameron is NOT a "second-tier" guy. He is one of the very best center fielders in the game, taking offense and defense together.
A fine team can be built around avoiding having "black holes" -- god-awful positions that drag the team down. The Mets had three of those last year, and have done a good job of filling two of them. Pokey frigging Reese? Give me a break. You'd honestly rather have Reese and Kaz Matsui? I just don't get that, at all. Victor Diaz will have a position if he proves he can handle the defensive responsibilities and improves his plate discipline. And if he doesn't have a position with the Mets, he'll have value to trade for someone who better fits their needs. That's what increasing the talent base will do for you; it'll give you multiple options and a surplus you can then rearrange into the shape you need.
The Mets didn't NOT go after Vlad because they signed Matsui and Cameron. They didn't go after Vlad because (a) they're gun-shy about long-term contracts, including the problems obtaining insurance, especially for players with recent injury histories, and (b) they believed it would be a waste of time, a judgment the Yankees obviously shared (since they pursued Sheffield instead). I believe if they'd targeted Vlad instead of Matsui and Cameron, they'd have ended up with none of the above. Now, wouldn't THAT have made for a fun 2004!
The Mets have made four post-seasons and two World Series since Wilpon owned the team. There is nothing inherent in his ownership that holds them back. IMO, they've turned an important corner, in several ways, and will in short order (i.e., no later than 2006) be back in contention, following the plan they've put in place. We'll see who is right.
But, in the real world, a plan that involves getting rid of alot of junk just doesn't have a shot of happening
I thought the point was don't pursue 34-year-old 2B. (Or maybe it was that the Mets should never ever acquire 2B from the Indians.)
As Sam points out, the Mets don't need Vlad to compete. By next offseason the Mets could have as much as 30 million to spend on a RF (Magglio, Beltran, Anderson, Nixon, Hidalgo) and a starting pitcher (Wood, Morris, Millwood, etc). Not to mention some nice trading chips (Victor Diaz, Wigginton, Jason Phillips) to acquire any of those two needs through salary dumps.
And if, by 2006, the fans do feel that way, then they'll be rewarded, because the deals will expire when that season is over.
Yes, Cameron's numbers were down last year, even away from Safeco, and that is somewhat worrisome. But the long-term record shows a very good hitter on the road, and a player apparently uniquely harmed by that park. We'll see. But if he just gives us Gold Glove defense and solidly above-average offense for a CF, I'll think it was worth it, by a long shot.
I certainly don't have any objection to making a play for Vlad. But I am quite happy about the moves they HAVE made: deals that are relatively short-term, for reasonable if not optimal money, and without sacrificing any talent or draft picks.
Safeco 2002-2003
I think the Mets are going to miss Benitez a lot sooner than anybody'd expect. For all the ######## that went on about the man, he did a really good job for the boys in blue and orange.
After watching him blow four games in early April last year that effectevely ended any hope for the season, i doubt Mets' fans will be sad to see Benitez gone. He was great for us, but he is not the same pitcher he used to be.
The Mets bullpen last year was hardly awful. The problems they had were injuries, not quality:
Benitez -- 3.10 (49 IP)
Or change the value of the commodity, Walt. The argument about flipping him is integrally tied to the argument about Peterson: they bought at the "top of the market" for a guy who's been a decent, consistent relief pitcher. If Peterson can help him be better than that in the next year and a half, then he's in a very different market. I genuinely believe it is worth what they're investing here because of the chance that he will, working with Peterson, substantially "beat" the projections. (And, I might add, I'll stick by that even if the investment doesn't pay off -- not all of them do, after all, even those that made sense at the time.)
Plus, the market involved for a trade is talent, not $$$ as it was in signing him. Right now, teams are clearly valuing $$$ higher than they used to relative to talent. In July 2005, Looper won't cost a team that might be looking for a closer all that much, and his value (paradoxically) as a short-term rental will be higher -- and the market for him deeper -- than it was for a two-year contract. The Mets might well be able to get more talent (and more useful long-term talent) for him then than they could purchase for the same $$$ right now.
In order to argue that this is a good signing we need to talk about Looper's stuff (fastball in the high 90's) and Peterson's ability to help pitcher's (like Isrinhausen and Koch) harness their stuff. Peterson can't help every pitcher. I read somewhere that the reason Oakland acquired or drafted some pitchers was b/c Peterson saw something that could be easily improved. Supposedly Peterson thought Lilly could add velocity by improving his hip rotation and this was one of the reasons he was acquired. Maybe Peterson sees a way for Looper to be more consistent with his fastball. Ofcourse, that's all speculation and pretty optimistic. Chances are Looper will be just a 4.2 ERA pitcher and the Mets overpaid.
As for flipping him I think the Mets chances are okay. After 50 innings Looper's ERA will have as much to do with luck as with ability. With a little luck he'll have some good looking numbers at the trading deadline and some GM will see a healthy 29 yr old closer with a big time fastball and numbers to back it up. I'm guessing that Looper is a lot easier to market to GM's than a David Weathers with the same numbers.
Anyway, it was almost inevitble that the Mets would acquire some closer and almost inevitable that they'd have to overpay to get someone who's closed games. Even a progressive front office like Boston's feels the pressure to have a "closer." (I'm not making that up; I've heard from someone in the Red Sox organization that the Foulke signing was at least partially motivated by a desire to avoid media scrutiny) The Mets have always been very sensitive to media pressure and it was probably a stretch to think that they'd let Orber Moreno close games. Given that, the Mets could have wasted more money in other deals. The Looper signing is far from disasterous.
- Kept ALL their draft picks
The average RF last year posted a 275/350/459 line, is it unrealistic to believe that a platoon of Garcia/Spencer could approach that mark?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/e/espinal01.shtml
Signing Randall Simon is the type of signing that keeps a bad team in a #### cycle. Signing Randall Simon for trade value is ridiculous - nobody wants him now, so it's essentially like driving your 1983 Chevy Chevette around town to tempt someone into buying it.
I'm actually of the belief that bad teams actually want to play players with the potential to be good that could actually win games and be a bargain for 6 years.
Matt Stairs was the best player of the "Veteran guy we can flip" the Pirates have picked up recently and they forgot the part about flipping him.
Of course, this triumvirate of trash fits in just as easily.
If signing James Baldwin to fetch trade value later made sense, the Mets might as well just stop signing free agents and spend the dough on lotto tickets.
Good thing DL forgot to trade all three, isn't it? That way, we can have interesting discussions like this one.
Now if they make the team and take away time from ML-ready prospects, that's a problem.
Whatever the case, with Peterson at the helm of the organization's pitching, i'm sure the Mets will make the right decision.
If the crappy veterans are better than the prospects you have now, then maybe your prospects aren't that good. Out of Heilman, Yates, etc., none of them have looked good at the MLB level. None of them have looked that great at AAA either.
If a crappy veteran can play better until Peterson can help them the current prospects, then play the veteran and flip them for a prospect later. We're not talking about anyone playing in front of Reyes. This is for 5th starter and middle relief.
My guess is that none of these 3 guys plays an inning for the Mets this year.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main