Scott Hairston has two-year deal with  # Cubs pending physical, Ken Rosenthal reports.  # mets

m8644 wrote: did not see that coming.

omnimetfan wrote:

m8644 wrote: did not see that coming.

He wasn't going to wait around until the Mets make their decision.  The Mets are sure taking their time to fill out the roster.

sweeper5 wrote: Sandy may just have it in him to pull the trigger. Patience isn't always a virtue.

Even though the money doesn't make sense to him...you can't watch everyone else sign guys up...and be left with nothing.
You gotta join the parade at some point.

But..it is very frustrating to be picking 10... and then be bounced back to 11.....and thus lose the pick by signing Bourn.

DocK16 wrote:

sweeper5 wrote: Sandy may just have it in him to pull the trigger. Patience isn't always a virtue.

Even though the money doesn't make sense to him...you can't watch everyone else sign guys up...and be left with nothing.
You gotta join the parade at some point.

But..it is very frustrating to be picking 10... and then be bounced back to 11.....and thus lose the pick by signing Bourn.

He's already stated his philosophy on this.  It's not about an unwillingness to pull the trigger, it's about options.  If there are comparable options out there, Sandy invariably will wait out the market.  We may prefer one option over another, but that doesn't always mean the preferred player outproduces the other options.  Last season's reliever market is a perfect example of this.  People went on and on about relievers they felt we should've signed and it ended up the most maligned guy that we signed out-produced the vast majority of the third tier reliever market.  

Regarding Hairston, what we're talking about is one platoon player versus several others.  There's really no guarantee Hairston will repeat last season's numbers or even out-produce Brown, whom we got for next to nothing.  Fans prefer Hairston because he's a known commodity, but he's also an extremely limited player with just one redeeming quality (power) and enough negatives (most notably OBP) to negate most of the positive value he brings to the table.  I wouldn't have minded if we signed him, but I don't think he's a big loss either.  With Duda destined to return in LF, and Kirk/Cowgill manning CF, I have no problem going with Baxter/Brown over Hairston in RF.  I'd prefer someone better than Baxter, Brown, and Hairston, but Hairston vs those two is more than likely either a push or an upgrade for the Mets.

MookieLJL wrote: It seems like the Mets are aiming higher than Hairston and I hope something actually comes to fruition.

nickel7168 wrote: The Mets FO are bottom feeders and whoever is left unsigned when all players have reported to ST is where the Mets dumpster diving begins in the search for additional OFs, SPs, and RPs.

Patience has it’s rewards and the rewards are leftovers and they’re not quite free but they are cheap.  Sizemore, Pavano and Rauch are closer by the minute.

DuffyDyer wrote:

DocK16 wrote:

sweeper5 wrote: Sandy may just have it in him to pull the trigger. Patience isn't always a virtue.

Even though the money doesn't make sense to him...you can't watch everyone else sign guys up...and be left with nothing.
You gotta join the parade at some point.

But..it is very frustrating to be picking 10... and then be bounced back to 11.....and thus lose the pick by signing Bourn.

He's already stated his philosophy on this.  It's not about an unwillingness to pull the trigger, it's about options.  If there are comparable options out there, Sandy invariably will wait out the market.  We may prefer one option over another, but that doesn't always mean the preferred player outproduces the other options.  Last season's reliever market is a perfect example of this.  People went on and on about relievers they felt we should've signed and it ended up the most maligned guy that we signed out-produced the vast majority of the third tier reliever market.  

Regarding Hairston, what we're talking about is one platoon player versus several others.  There's really no guarantee Hairston will repeat last season's numbers or even out-produce Brown, whom we got for next to nothing.  Fans prefer Hairston because he's a known commodity, but he's also an extremely limited player with just one redeeming quality (power) and enough negatives (most notably OBP) to negate most of the positive value he brings to the table.  I wouldn't have minded if we signed him, but I don't think he's a big loss either.  With Duda destined to return in LF, and Kirk/Cowgill manning CF, I have no problem going with Baxter/Brown over Hairston in RF.  I'd prefer someone better than Baxter, Brown, and Hairston, but Hairston vs those two is more than likely either a push or an upgrade for the Mets.

there's very little to go on that would support the notion of Brown or even Baxter outproducing Hairston but the cost it would have taken to sign Hairston may not have justified the difference in production and it isn't like it's going to push the Mets over the top.

Now it does seem like the Cubs have a different take on this since they're more or less in a similar spot to the Mets... they may feel like Hairston could be a marketable commodity during the season where it seemed that Alderson didn't feel as if Hairston would have yielded anything of significance.

and wrt guarantees, they're never part of the analysis... just what is likely and what is not likely given all available information.  Regarding Hairston, he could produce close to what he did in 2012 if used correctly... but it's prob not fair to expect him to outperform that.

In fairness....Sandy has more hands-on experience with Hairston's trade value than Theo (or anyone else). For all we know, Sandy shopped SH last July and found his value to be almost nothing?

Kooos wrote:

DuffyDyer wrote:

DocK16 wrote:

sweeper5 wrote: Sandy may just have it in him to pull the trigger. Patience isn't always a virtue.

Even though the money doesn't make sense to him...you can't watch everyone else sign guys up...and be left with nothing.
You gotta join the parade at some point.

But..it is very frustrating to be picking 10... and then be bounced back to 11.....and thus lose the pick by signing Bourn.

He's already stated his philosophy on this.  It's not about an unwillingness to pull the trigger, it's about options.  If there are comparable options out there, Sandy invariably will wait out the market.  We may prefer one option over another, but that doesn't always mean the preferred player outproduces the other options.  Last season's reliever market is a perfect example of this.  People went on and on about relievers they felt we should've signed and it ended up the most maligned guy that we signed out-produced the vast majority of the third tier reliever market.  

Regarding Hairston, what we're talking about is one platoon player versus several others.  There's really no guarantee Hairston will repeat last season's numbers or even out-produce Brown, whom we got for next to nothing.  Fans prefer Hairston because he's a known commodity, but he's also an extremely limited player with just one redeeming quality (power) and enough negatives (most notably OBP) to negate most of the positive value he brings to the table.  I wouldn't have minded if we signed him, but I don't think he's a big loss either.  With Duda destined to return in LF, and Kirk/Cowgill manning CF, I have no problem going with Baxter/Brown over Hairston in RF.  I'd prefer someone better than Baxter, Brown, and Hairston, but Hairston vs those two is more than likely either a push or an upgrade for the Mets.

there's very little to go on that would support the notion of Brown or even Baxter outproducing Hairston but the cost it would have taken to sign Hairston may not have justified the difference in production and it isn't like it's going to push the Mets over the top.

Now it does seem like the Cubs have a different take on this since they're more or less in a similar spot to the Mets... they may feel like Hairston could be a marketable commodity during the season where it seemed that Alderson didn't feel as if Hairston would have yielded anything of significance.

and wrt guarantees, they're never part of the analysis... just what is likely and what is not likely given all available information.  Regarding Hairston, he could produce close to what he did in 2012 if used correctly... but it's prob not fair to expect him to outperform that.

 

In fairness....Sandy has more hands-on experience with Hairston's trade value than Theo (or anyone else). For all we know, Sandy shopped SH last July and found his value to be almost nothing?

omnimetfan wrote:

nickel7168 wrote: The Mets FO are bottom feeders and whoever is left unsigned when all players have reported to ST is where the Mets dumpster diving begins in the search for additional OFs, SPs, and RPs.

Patience has it’s rewards and the rewards are leftovers and they’re not quite free but they are cheap.  Sizemore, Pavano and Rauch are closer by the minute.

First, the signing of Marcum takes the Mets off the bottom feeders list, I suppose.

I would like to see Rauch re-signed at this point.  He was fantastic in the 2nd half of 2012 after he got some relief from his injuries.