Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 39  Next >

2013 Outfield

Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 10:39 AM

2013 Outfield 


"Is The Mets’ Outfield Already Better Than Last Year? – Fun With Numbers




****************************************************************************************************

The best pitch is one that looks like a strike....................but it isn't.           Warren Spahn
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/9/2013 11:18 AM

RE: 2013 Outfield 


I dont have any problem admitting that our OF is better than last year. I dont think you need to see a lot of stats for that. The problem is, 0 isnt much or enough better than -1...
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 12:20 PM

RE: 2013 Outfield 


I understand the addition by subtraction with Bay, but the trouble with all of the projections is that they fail to account for the below replacement level production that will crop up during the year when guys get hurt. I see no reason to assume the 2013 OF > 2012 OF. Maybe >=. But really it looks pretty similar. You lose the best guy and the worst guy and replace them with ???

The OF still sucks. We know that much.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 12:50 PM

RE: 2013 Outfield 


Given his talk in improving the OF back in Oct... If Cogwill, Brown and even re-signing Hairston are the final moves in that quest. I think it will be more than fair to criticize SA a bit. As Duff brought up, In general, I don't understand the hardline in not wanting to give out 2 yr contracts. 

No matter how optimistic or reasonable projection you may have for Brown/Cogwill in their splits... at the end of the day, their value dictated them getting MinL deals. At best, it's 50/50 they'll produce what we would hope or expect for. 

I think SA & co. had Ross, Ludwick in mind when the off-season started, in terms of FA's. They misjudged what they would get.

"Seen It All"

loyal_Jues (IG)

Last edited 1/9/2013 12:58 PM by Gstacks177

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 12:53 PM

RE: 2013 Outfield 



Gstacks177 wrote: Given his talk in improving the OF back in Oct... If Cogwill, Brown and even re-signing Hairston are the final moves in that quest. I think it will be more than fair to criticize SA a bit. As Duff brought up, In general, I don't understand the hardline in not wanting to give out 2 yr contracts. 

No matter how optimistic or reasonable projection you may have for Brown/Cogwill in their splits... at the end of the day, their value dictated them to getting MinL deals. At best, it's 50/50 they'll produce what we would hope or expect for. 

I think SA & co. had Ross, Ludwick in mind when the off-season started, in terms of FA's. They misjudged what they would get.
Fair to a point, but to assume that Sandy would have predicted landing TDA for Dickey might be a leap.  In one sense, he did not get the OF he promised, but on hte other hand, he delivered a Catcher well beyond anyones expectations.   Now, rubber does have to meet the road with TDA, meaning, will he realize his potential.

I personally prefer the TDA option to the Ross/Ludwick option.  Cheaper.  Longer Control.  Significantly higher upside.
“Every day is a new opportunity.  You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again.” - Bob Feller
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 12:58 PM

RE: 2013 Outfield 



nevets72 wrote:
Gstacks177 wrote: Given his talk in improving the OF back in Oct... If Cogwill, Brown and even re-signing Hairston are the final moves in that quest. I think it will be more than fair to criticize SA a bit. As Duff brought up, In general, I don't understand the hardline in not wanting to give out 2 yr contracts. 

No matter how optimistic or reasonable projection you may have for Brown/Cogwill in their splits... at the end of the day, their value dictated them to getting MinL deals. At best, it's 50/50 they'll produce what we would hope or expect for. 

I think SA & co. had Ross, Ludwick in mind when the off-season started, in terms of FA's. They misjudged what they would get.
Fair to a point, but to assume that Sandy would have predicted landing TDA for Dickey might be a leap.  In one sense, he did not get the OF he promised, but on hte other hand, he delivered a Catcher well beyond anyones expectations.   Now, rubber does have to meet the road with TDA, meaning, will he realize his potential.

I personally prefer the TDA option to the Ross/Ludwick option.  Cheaper.  Longer Control.  Significantly higher upside.
Why are you acting as if those moves are mutually exclusive?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:08 PM

Re: 2013 Outfield 


I wasn't.  The reality is, he exceeded expectations in one area but did not meet expectations in another.  My point is, I prefer this scenario than making certain fans happy by signing Cody Ross to a 3/$30 deal (or whatever the heck it was) and saying the OF has improved (marginally in my opinion) so Sandy is a a stand up guy versus complaining about Sandy.

That is the point.  The total other end of Mutally Exclusive.  Take the entire body of work into consideration.

For the record, I was never enthralled with either Ross or Ludwick.  I prefer Bourn, but I do understand the limitations there.  In some way, given we got Syndergaard in the Dickey deal, I might be willing to accept that as being my defacto 2013 first round pick so I can go sign Bourn.  But, I digress and it is a pipe dream.
“Every day is a new opportunity.  You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again.” - Bob Feller
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:13 PM

RE: 2013 Outfield 



nevets72 wrote:
Gstacks177 wrote: Given his talk in improving the OF back in Oct... If Cogwill, Brown and even re-signing Hairston are the final moves in that quest. I think it will be more than fair to criticize SA a bit. As Duff brought up, In general, I don't understand the hardline in not wanting to give out 2 yr contracts. 

No matter how optimistic or reasonable projection you may have for Brown/Cogwill in their splits... at the end of the day, their value dictated them to getting MinL deals. At best, it's 50/50 they'll produce what we would hope or expect for. 

I think SA & co. had Ross, Ludwick in mind when the off-season started, in terms of FA's. They misjudged what they would get.
Fair to a point, but to assume that Sandy would have predicted landing TDA for Dickey might be a leap.  In one sense, he did not get the OF he promised, but on hte other hand, he delivered a Catcher well beyond anyones expectations.   Now, rubber does have to meet the road with TDA, meaning, will he realize his potential.

I personally prefer the TDA option to the Ross/Ludwick option.  Cheaper.  Longer Control.  Significantly higher upside.
I don't really think 1 had anything to do w/ the other. And I loved the Dickey trade. 

If they really liked Ludwick, why not outbid CIN's 2/15 offer, by giving him 2/16 or 2/17? I didn't love him, but he's a career .800 OPS, .466 SLG% bat. Coming off a .877 OPS, .531 SLG% season...

"Seen It All"

loyal_Jues (IG)

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:15 PM

RE: 2013 Outfield 


Still strange that you were comparing TDA to Ross/Ludwick in terms of upside, control-ability, and price when they have nothing to do with each other.

I suppose you are just saying that you are happy with the offseason because TDA and NS represent such a coup. In other words...the 1 good move he made is enough for you and you don't care if he does anything else to improve the team.

I don't particularly like Ross or Ludwick...and I don't like Bourn either... but I would have liked to have seen an established MLB outfielder added. If you look at the Mets OF in pieces, you can say "OK, Having KN for 1 OF spot is ok"...but having 3 KN level players, IMO, is just not enough
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:17 PM

Re: 2013 Outfield 


The other side of Ludwick is:

He will be 34 years old, he posted a curiously high OPS last season after averaging less than 750 OPS in the three previous years (combined).

Yes, 2/$15 looks palatable, but are we getting 670 OPS of 2011 or 870 OPS of 2012?
“Every day is a new opportunity.  You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again.” - Bob Feller
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:21 PM

Re: 2013 Outfield 


I dont think D'arnaud- Dickey has anything to do with the OF.

D'arnaud's acquisition didnt cost anything so it isnt likely that we used our resources on him.

With the trade of Dickey and the adjustments on Bay's deal, what our payroll, not including Santana's 2014 money?   80 mil?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:21 PM

Re: 2013 Outfield 


To be clear, I am not enthralled with the OF situation.  I, also, do not think there were alternatives that will make this team a 90 win team.  So, if my assumption is any add will not substaintially improve the club, I will add in a manner which gives me the greatest flexibility in the future.  I can see a Ross/Ludwick situation being a limiting factor next offseason were they to have been signed.

I want a better OF, no doubt.  But I am willing to take incremental steps to improvement at this point.  I will not judge Sandy from deal to deal.  That is my perspective.  I'd rather see where this goes the next 2-3 years.

Reality is, if he sticks to the plan, and it works, he *could* have accomplshed a lot with this organization.
“Every day is a new opportunity.  You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again.” - Bob Feller
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:22 PM

Re: 2013 Outfield 



oct271986 wrote: I dont think D'arnaud- Dickey has anything to do with the OF.

D'arnaud's acquisition didnt cost anything so it isnt likely that we used our resources on him.

With the trade of Dickey and the adjustments on Bay's deal, what our payroll, not including Santana's 2014 money?   80 mil?
Except that Dickey could have returned a OF prospect instead of a Catching prospect.
“Every day is a new opportunity.  You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again.” - Bob Feller
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:26 PM

Re: 2013 Outfield 



nevets72 wrote:
oct271986 wrote: I dont think D'arnaud- Dickey has anything to do with the OF.

D'arnaud's acquisition didnt cost anything so it isnt likely that we used our resources on him.

With the trade of Dickey and the adjustments on Bay's deal, what our payroll, not including Santana's 2014 money?   80 mil?
Except that Dickey could have returned a OF prospect instead of a Catching prospect.
But when Alderson promised an upgraded OF in October, no one knew that Dickey was getting dealt.   Alderson was not basing his entire array of options on the yield he would receive from a player he didnt know he was dealing.

Last edited 1/9/2013 1:29 PM by oct271986

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:27 PM

Re: 2013 Outfield 



nevets72 wrote:
oct271986 wrote: I dont think D'arnaud- Dickey has anything to do with the OF.

D'arnaud's acquisition didnt cost anything so it isnt likely that we used our resources on him.

With the trade of Dickey and the adjustments on Bay's deal, what our payroll, not including Santana's 2014 money?   80 mil?
Except that Dickey could have returned a OF prospect instead of a Catching prospect.
Right... this little debate started though because you made a statement suggesting that the Dickey trade and signing Ross/Ludwick were mutually exclusive options... I know you didn't intend to do that, but you did.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:28 PM

Re: 2013 Outfield 



nevets72 wrote: To be clear, I am not enthralled with the OF situation.  I, also, do not think there were alternatives that will make this team a 90 win team.  So, if my assumption is any add will not substaintially improve the club, I will add in a manner which gives me the greatest flexibility in the future.  I can see a Ross/Ludwick situation being a limiting factor next offseason were they to have been signed.

I want a better OF, no doubt.  But I am willing to take incremental steps to improvement at this point.  I will not judge Sandy from deal to deal.  That is my perspective.  I'd rather see where this goes the next 2-3 years.

Reality is, if he sticks to the plan, and it works, he *could* have accomplshed a lot with this organization.
This argument was valid...2 years ago.

This is Alderson 3'rd off season and he has shown an incredible lack of creativity and a frankly a disinterest in minor tweaks and upgrades.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:30 PM

Re: 2013 Outfield 



oct271986 wrote:
nevets72 wrote:
oct271986 wrote: I dont think D'arnaud- Dickey has anything to do with the OF.

D'arnaud's acquisition didnt cost anything so it isnt likely that we used our resources on him.

With the trade of Dickey and the adjustments on Bay's deal, what our payroll, not including Santana's 2014 money?   80 mil?
Except that Dickey could have returned a OF prospect instead of a Catching prospect.
But when Alderson promised an upgraded OF in October, no one knew that Dickey was getting dealt.   Alderson was basing his entire array of options on the yield he would receive from a player he didnt know he was dealing.
I disagree to a point.  I think Alderson looked at Dickey as a resource he could utilize to improve this team.  I would not be surprised if he thought he may even be able to bring in a OF prospect.
“Every day is a new opportunity.  You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again.” - Bob Feller
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 2:36 PM

RE: 2013 Outfield 


I think that the plan is to only have one OF and have an extra two infielders. So KN and Cowbell will platoon for the entire OF and the Mets will put one extra fielder between 1B and 2B and another guy between SS and 3B.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/9/2013 2:50 PM

Re: 2013 Outfield 




---------------------------------------------
--- nevets72 wrote:


oct271986 wrote:
nevets72 wrote:
oct271986 wrote: I dont think D'arnaud- Dickey has anything to do with the OF.

D'arnaud's acquisition didnt cost anything so it isnt likely that we used our resources on him.

With the trade of Dickey and the adjustments on Bay's deal, what our payroll, not including Santana's 2014 money?   80 mil?
Except that Dickey could have returned a OF prospect instead of a Catching prospect.
But when Alderson promised an upgraded OF in October, no one knew that Dickey was getting dealt.   Alderson was basing his entire array of options on the yield he would receive from a player he didnt know he was dealing.
I disagree to a point.  I think Alderson looked at Dickey as a resource he could utilize to improve this team.  I would not be surprised if he thought he may even be able to bring in a OF prospect.

---------------------------------------------

I agree.....I said early on that we had to trade one of Wright/Dickey/Davis/Niese to really upgrade this roster....a trade chip was more valuable than our cash in this market.


17 & 14 = Best Duo In NY Sports
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/9/2013 4:21 PM

Re: 2013 Outfield 



nevets72 wrote:
oct271986 wrote: I dont think D'arnaud- Dickey has anything to do with the OF.

D'arnaud's acquisition didnt cost anything so it isnt likely that we used our resources on him.

With the trade of Dickey and the adjustments on Bay's deal, what our payroll, not including Santana's 2014 money?   80 mil?
Except that Dickey could have returned a OF prospect instead of a Catching prospect.
Would have STRONGLY preferred Will Myers or Oscar Taveras to the combo of TDA/Syndergaard.

In isolation, the Dickey return was still good, but I so much would have preferred to get big corner OF slugger.   Catching prospects seem to either underachieve with the bat or take a lot longer to make a good offensive contribution (Posey the exception to the rule).
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 39  Next >