They have nine unrestricted free agents, the majority of whom were midseason rentals: Blevins, Cespedes, Clippard, Colon, Johnson, Murphy, O'Flaherty, Parnell, and Uribe. I wouldn't be shocked if none of them are back.
Agreed. d'Arnaud's offensive production in the post-season was crummy, but he spent a big chunk of the season on the DL, so I'm not sure he was totally healthy. Normally, he's a top tier hitting catcher, might be the best in the game at calling/framing for the pitchers, great at making plays at the plate, but just plain bad at throwing runners out. He can get better (although he'll never be great) at the last one, but the first three things more than make up for the last one.Mike Trout is busy...
We'd all love a centerfielder who would be among the 3 best in baseball.
Your hard-on for d'Arnoud is wildly misplaced.
He is a .300 hitting catcher with + power who calls a great game. He frames pitches well. He has a below average arm. There are 1-2 5 tool catchers in all of baseball. Who are you getting that is better?
Here's a quick summary of the Mets financial picture for next year:
1) They have five players under contract, totaling $60M:
Wright $20M
Granderson $16M
Cuddyer $12.5M
Niese $9M
Lagares $2.5M
2) They have 11 arbitration eligibles: Carlyle, Duda, Edgin, Familia, Harvey, Mejia, Recker, Reed, Tejada, Torres, and Young. They will definitely make qualifying offers to Duda, Familia, and Harvey -- and probably to Reed and Tejada. Figure those five will cost somewhere between $20-25M. So that gets us up close to $85M for 10 players.
3) They have nine unrestricted free agents, the majority of whom were midseason rentals: Blevins, Cespedes, Clippard, Colon, Johnson, Murphy, O'Flaherty, Parnell, and Uribe. I wouldn't be shocked if none of them are back.
4) IF none of the FA's come back, and only five of the arbitration eligibles come back, that means we need 15 inexpensive players. Let's say they cost $10M in total.
SO... unless a couple of guaranteed contracts get moved, the MINIMUM payroll size we are talking about is $95M. There's not a whole lot of available spending money. If they resign Cespedes, he will take it all.
Lastly, the above analysis does not contemplate locking up some of the young arms long term, which would be more costly now, but might be prudent in the long run.
As a Mets fan I have one final request of Mr. Wilpon. Please move Jackie Robinsons picture from Citi Fields entrance, he was never a Met dam it!! I want to see Tom Seaver, Rusty Staub, Cleon Jones, Dwight Gooden.
To Hudson: I'll back off on D' Arnaud because he may be able work on his defensive skills. I agree with you he has a good rapport with the young pitchers and he does make contact with the ball. But will you meet me half way and agree in upgrading the SS position, respectfully asking D. Wright to retire and paying for a better CF and 3rd basemen. Should the Mets put Matz on the market to see what they could get for him?
No one can dispute that in this World Series great hitting beat great pitching. The Royals bats clearly dominated our great young pitchers. Should we trade for some clutch hitters?
Here's a quick summary of the Mets financial picture for next year:
1) They have five players under contract, totaling $60M:
Wright $20M
Granderson $16M
Cuddyer $12.5M
Niese $9M
Lagares $2.5M
2) They have 11 arbitration eligibles: Carlyle, Duda, Edgin, Familia, Harvey, Mejia, Recker, Reed, Tejada, Torres, and Young. They will definitely make qualifying offers to Duda, Familia, and Harvey -- and probably to Reed and Tejada. Figure those five will cost somewhere between $20-25M. So that gets us up close to $85M for 10 players.
3) They have nine unrestricted free agents, the majority of whom were midseason rentals: Blevins, Cespedes, Clippard, Colon, Johnson, Murphy, O'Flaherty, Parnell, and Uribe. I wouldn't be shocked if none of them are back.
4) IF none of the FA's come back, and only five of the arbitration eligibles come back, that means we need 15 inexpensive players. Let's say they cost $10M in total.
SO... unless a couple of guaranteed contracts get moved, the MINIMUM payroll size we are talking about is $95M. There's not a whole lot of available spending money. If they resign Cespedes, he will take it all.
Lastly, the above analysis does not contemplate locking up some of the young arms long term, which would be more costly now, but might be prudent in the long run.
I have always felt that this was Boras' endgame - tell the world how unhappy Harvey is with how he's being handled, and privately tell the Mets "you'd better lock him up now or he's off to the Bronx in three years".I know Francessa is persona non grata around here, but he has been adamant that the Mets will go to harvey this offseason and offer him "life changing money" which would lock him up for 4+ years. He's talking like $60MM for 4-5 years. He feels Harvey would take it because it's a) life changing money and b) starts the clock on his second block buster deal sooner and c) it being in his head that he's already had a Tommy John and why risk injury?
It's certainly interesting
No, not really. This season he played in 154 games, and in 2014 he played in 149. He missed a lot of time in 2013 because Niese broke his jaw in two places with a 90 mph fastball. I see projected contract numbers for Heyward of 9 years/200 million, so he is not going to be a Met anyway.Isn't Heyward always hurt?
No one can dispute that in this World Series great hitting beat great pitching. The Royals bats clearly dominated our great young pitchers. Should we trade for some clutch hitters?
I'm sorry Andy but I respectfully disagree with you. I actually watched every game and yes the Mets committed many more errors. But our best pitching could not stop the Royals from rallying with relentless base hits, doubles and a game 1 ninth inning homer that will never be forgotten in KC. This is not me talking but solid BB fans who are students of the game. The Royal bats were experienced and clutch. No real weakness throughout their entire lineup which was the difference in the series. This year they were clearly the better team.The Royals didn't dominate the series. I know they won in 5, but did you actually watch? They won because of some hideous defense at crucial points in the game.
Do they win game 1 if Cespedes catches a routine flyball? Or Wright's error was correctly scored as an out?
Do they win game 4 if Cespedes doesn't kick Perez hit into left field for a double instead of a single and Murphy cleanly fields the ball hit by Hosmer?
Do they win game 5 if Duda makes a decent throw home?
I'm sorry Andy but I respectfully disagree with you. I actually watched every game and yes the Mets committed many more errors. But our best pitching could not stop the Royals from rallying with relentless base hits, doubles and a game 1 ninth inning homer that will never be forgotten in KC. This is not me talking but solid BB fans who are students of the game. The Royal bats were experienced and clutch. No real weakness throughout their entire lineup which was the difference in the series. This year they were clearly the better team.
I think you're both right actually. The Royals didn't dominate the series. They were the better team, but that margin wasn't huge. The Mets had a weak infield defense, a center fielder who seems more concerned with golf than baseball and way too many streaky hitters. Despite all that (thanks to that outstanding starting pitching) the Mets had leads in all 5 games.I'm sorry Andy but I respectfully disagree with you. I actually watched every game and yes the Mets committed many more errors. But our best pitching could not stop the Royals from rallying with relentless base hits, doubles and a game 1 ninth inning homer that will never be forgotten in KC. This is not me talking but solid BB fans who are students of the game. The Royal bats were experienced and clutch. No real weakness throughout their entire lineup which was the difference in the series. This year they were clearly the better team.
7TH inning or later in what, 2 or 3 of them?I think you're both right actually. The Royals didn't dominate the series. They were the better team, but that margin wasn't huge. The Mets had a weak infield defense, a center fielder who seems more concerned with golf than baseball and way too many streaky hitters. Despite all that (thanks to that outstanding starting pitching) the Mets had leads in all 5 games.
I think the Royals were the better team and deserved to win, but the Mets also easily could have won the Series. (When a team leads in every game in the Series, you hardly can say it couldn't have won the whole thing.) That's baseball, though.
Wow 74 pages and they lost!
mets fans need to get some sleep and wait another 30- years or so
nice try but compared to the Yankees they are still in second place
Last I checked the Mets don't compete with the Yankees unless it happened to be post-season. And as much as I would have liked to have beaten KC this was their year. At the onset of this thread I don't think anyone would have complained if someone's crystal ball had said that the Mets would win their division and make a run all the way to the Fall classic.Wow 74 pages and they lost!
mets fans need to get some sleep and wait another 30- years or so
nice try but compared to the Yankees they are still in second place
Yeah, but they should have won it all. I mean....they were leading for more innings in the Series than the Royals. That counts for something, doesn't it ?
If by "middle of the last century" you mean 1969... and the 1986 team was even further than the middle of the century.Did not the Royal win right and the mets lost and the "amazing mets" was back in the middle of the last century right?
And don't the Yankees win it like every 5 years or something close to that
If by "middle of the last century" you mean 1969... and the 1986 team was even further than the middle of the century.
The Yankees have one title in the last 15 years. They were a great team in the late 90s, no doubt.
As far as the comment about Harvey should request a trade to the Yankees or Rangers? As if the Yankees have the resources to trade for him. What could they offer that the Mets would possibly consider?
If by "middle of the last century" you mean 1969... and the 1986 team was even further than the middle of the century.
The Yankees have one title in the last 15 years. They were a great team in the late 90s, no doubt.
As far as the comment about Harvey should request a trade to the Yankees or Rangers? As if the Yankees have the resources to trade for him. What could they offer that the Mets would possibly consider?
Cespedes is too streaky and has low baseball IQ. Murph is the one I'd have thought about keeping, but his defensive liabilities given other possibilities out there leads me to believe he should be left to walk. If he somehow takes the qualifying offer then I'm good with that too, but no one has before.Sign Murphy, sign Cespedes = Wins in 2016.
Not brain surgery here, but the Wilpons are lame owners..
Right. Top 30 guys in trade value are traded for cash all the time. [roll]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Cespedes is too streaky and has low baseball IQ. Murph is the one I'd have thought about keeping, but his defensive liabilities given other possibilities out there leads me to believe he should be left to walk. If he somehow takes the qualifying offer then I'm good with that too, but no one has before.