nmigliore Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Yeah I acknowledged it's very unrealistic. Ah well. I expect the bullpen to be pretty bad, as usual; even if Parnell comes back healthy and great, the rest of the group is largely unproven or just not good. I'm not usually someone to hem and haw about the bullpen when we always have bigger fish to fry, but Sandy has been absolutely horrendous at putting bullpens together since he got here: Year: ERA- Rank, FIP- Rank 2011: 29th, 25th 2012: 30th, 29th 2013: 27th, 29th I understand the fluctuation of relievers and all that, but that's just pitiful. If Sandy isn't the worst at bullpen construction, he's definitely up there. Edited February 7, 2014 by nmigliore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) I think part of it is Sandy's just not trying very hard. Maybe he doesn't think it's worth it to bring in anyone good for the 'pen (and anywhere from moderately to highly expensive) until the team is truly ready to contend. On one hand I get it, but it forever feels like this front office just isn't working as hard as we'd like. Like I said, 2014 was NOT supposed to be 2013 Part 2. Edited February 7, 2014 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- After considering a shakeup, the Mets' in-game radio team will remain intact with the switch to WOR. An industry source told ESPNNewYork.com that Clear Channel Media and Entertainment has decided to keep Howie Rose and Josh Lewin as the broadcast team. Howie was always happening but there were a lot of rumors that Lewin would be replayed. Glad they are keeping the duo together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Howie was always happening but there were a lot of rumors that Lewin would be replayed. Glad they are keeping the duo together. Yes, me too, I enjoy listening to them. Sandy was on with Mike Francesa yesterday...it was about what you'd expect from Sandy...I didn't hear it in full, but I've seen some quotes, read a synopsis or two, and heard some isolated clips. It's Sandy sounding meek, defeated, and passive, though he claims to be excited for the upcoming season. Also said some of the young Met arms who've been starters in the minors might find their way onto the roster as relievers. Sounds like the only way Drew becomes a Met is if he pretty much falls in Sandy's lap and doesn't really have anywhere else to go. I can't say Drew makes me want to pop champagne corks, but I still can't believe Tejada could actually be the Opening Day SS. Sandy claims to be looking at the trade market for a SS, but does anybody really think he gets one that way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Mets signed Jose Valverde to a minor league deal. Valverde, Farnsworth... party like it's the mid-2000's! Kidding aside, Valverde is good against righties, which would be nice if he was only asked to get righties out. 2011-2013 vs RHB: .228 wOBA, 2.91 FIP Career vs RHB: .259 wOBA, 2.89 FIP 2011-2013 vs LHB: .323 wOBA, 4.78 FIP Career vs LHB: .300 wOBA, 4.40 FIP I have no confidence that the Mets would use him in such role, however, given his history as a "proven" 8th/9th inning guy. In any case, the bullpen picture is becoming more clear: Parnell Farnsworth Valverde Black Rice Torres Barring horrendous springs, Farnsworth and Valverde figure to make it; Sandy noted the bullpen lacked "veteran experience" in his interview yesterday with Mike. Black is almost a lock to make it. Rice isn't anything special but is a pretty good LOOGY. Torres had some success out of the bullpen last season and can even serve as a longman. That leaves likely one spot open, granted plenty of things can happen in spring training (injuries) than alter the picture. Edited February 12, 2014 by nmigliore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Torres did such a nice job last year...hope he can do it again. Transition year is a perfect time to see what Black has, and if Parnell wasn't permanently affected by his injury. I get the feeling this bullpen is going to cough up some big leads though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) I guess it's relevant here: Phillies signed AJ Burnett, 1 year, $16 million. Nice add for them, even though they don't project as contenders. Don't lock in that 3rd place finish for us quite yet! Edited February 12, 2014 by nmigliore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I guess it's relevant here: Phillies signed AJ Burnett, 1 year, $16 million. Nice add for them, even though they don't project as contenders. Don't lock in that 3rd place finish for us quite yet! Nice move, if he has a good year, they might be able to move him to a contender and get a piece or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Jeter announced that 2014 will be his final season...wonder if these means Reyes to NYY eventually Wilpons will now drop everything and go gift shopping for Derek Jeter. Gotta roll out the red carpet for him for the subway series games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Jeter announced that 2014 will be his final season...wonder if these means Reyes to NYY eventually Wilpons will now drop everything and go gift shopping for Derek Jeter. Gotta roll out the red carpet for him for the subway series games lol, sad but so true. Hey, at least the Wilpons know how to honor a team that moved out West in the late 50s and players who won at the Mets' expense. Gotta give them credit for something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Mike Vorkunov @Mike_Vorkunov 2m Alderson also said a Stephen Drew signing is "unlikely" #mets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Thinking of this from the front office's perspective, I can construct a pretty strong argument against Drew: 1) Regression and overvaluing 1 year of data. There was a big gap between he and Tejada last season. By Fangraphs' WAR, Drew was worth +3.4 wins versus Tejada's -0.3. That's a pretty significant gap. But in 2012, Tejada was worth +1.8 wins versus Drew's -0.3. And in 2011, Tejada was worth +1.6 wins versus Drew's +1.7 in basically the same amount of plate appearances. Both players are likely headed towards a form of regression in 2014. in Drew's case, that's regressing down; in Tejada's case, it's regressing up, because it's hard to be as bad as he was last season. If we look at the two top projection systems out there -- Steamer and ZiPS -- this is what they think of Drew and Tejada in 2014: Steamer, Drew: .232/.314/.378, +1.8 WAR Steamer, Tejada: .260/.317/.339, +1.6 WAR ZiPS, Drew: .239/.312/.393, +1.6 WAR ZiPS, Tejada: .255/.309/.326, +1.5 WAR In both cases, the difference in projected value is basically negligible; ZiPS and Steamer think Tejada and Drew will be the same player in 2014. I personally think the gap is bigger, but probably around 1 win or slightly more, which is in line with what Fangraphs' Fan project. Which brings us to the next point..... 2) Marginal value of wins. If we put ZiPS/Steamer aside and assume the gap is closer to +1 win or slightly more in favor of Drew, we have to consider what the addition of +1 win does for the Mets. Fortunately, I've already rolled out a handful of projection systems that, on average, see the Mets as something around a 75ish win ballclub. That means 1 win makes the team a 76 win team instead of 75. Or a 77 win team instead of 76. Or a 78 win team instead of 77, depending on where you starting point is. But the point is, it doesn't make much of a difference given where the Mets are. If the Mets were projected to be over .500 over by a few games, then you enter a placement on the win curve where every added win could be huge, increasing the cost value of that win to your team. In short, adding 1 win to a projected 85-win team is a WAY more valuable than adding 1 win to a projected 75-win team. In the Mets' case, is adding 1 win in 2014 worth taking on additional $10 million or more in salary for the next two to three seasons? I don't think so. The concept of marginal value of wins is pretty simple to understand, but if you want read a little more about it, go here. 3) Draft pick compensation. The cost of signing Drew isn't just monetary. The Mets already gave up their 2nd round pick to sign Granderson. If they sign Drew, not only will he likely get an 8-figure deal over multiple years, but he'd also cost the Mets their 3rd rounder. Let's remember the Mets are still a rebuilding team that really shouldn't be in the business of handing away valuable draft picks and the bonus pool money that is attached to those picks, especially when you are only making what looks like a 1 win upgrade to the roster, or no upgrade, if we are to believe Steamer and ZiPS. So yes, while I think Drew is an upgrade over Tejada and would like to sign him, there IS a very good case against signing him. We'll see what happens from here -- perhaps Sandy saying Drew is unlikely is just a negotiation tactic -- but if they really don't sign Drew, it's because there is a very reasonable argument against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) All one had to do was take a look at Drew's numbers the past few seasons and factor in the number of games missed due to injury to realize 2 years and $20 mil isn't really a great investment...at this point, I think Drew's main appeal here is that he's not Tejada or Quintanilla. If the Mets are projected to win somewhere in the mid-70s, is it worth $10+ mil more per year to win in the upper 70s? Don't think we needed projection sites or sabes to tell us that. I do think Sandy would still take a shot at him at one year/$9 mil or less, or maybe even 2/16 or thereabouts. Sounds crazy, but a market for Drew at higher prices doesn't seem to be materializing. And though Tejada thrills no one, if Ike and Doofus are going to get another shot, then I guess Tejada should get one too. Drew might have to suck it up, sign a cheap one-year deal, hope he has a big year and stays healthy, and try the market again. Edited February 13, 2014 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) I wasn't trying to push sabermetrics down anyone's throat, I'm just used to talking in such language on another message board, on Twitter, and of course here. I think what I wrote is pretty easy to interpret regardless of whether you are big on sabermetrics or just a general fan. 2/20 is a fine investment for Drew for a team that isn't in the Mets' position. If we were an above-.500 team on paper, I'd be all for it. But given our spot on the win curve, the draft pick compensation, the questionable difference between Drew and Tejada.... not signing him is defensible. The terms are fine, the fit is what isn't. For the record, I'm not saying I'd complain if they signed Drew to a deal like that (I still want him, even if that may be a bit irrational in light of my last post), just that it's defensible if they don't. Edited February 13, 2014 by nmigliore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Early MLB over/unders are out: http://forums.viewfromvegas.com/user/discussion.aspx?id=378961&p=1&fps=0&anchor=a2214112 Mets at 71.5. That actually looks like a good over bet to me. They are better than this. Edited February 13, 2014 by nmigliore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I wasn't trying to push sabermetrics down anyone's throat, I'm just used to talking in such language on another message board, on Twitter, and of course here. I think what I wrote is pretty easy to interpret regardless of whether you are big on sabermetrics or just a general fan. 2/20 is a fine investment for Drew for a team that isn't in the Mets' position. If we were an above-.500 team on paper, I'd be all for it. But given our spot on the win curve, the draft pick compensation, the questionable difference between Drew and Tejada.... not signing him is defensible. The terms are fine, the fit is what isn't. For the record, I'm not saying I'd complain if they signed Drew to a deal like that (I still want him, even if that may be a bit irrational in light of my last post), just that it's defensible if they don't. I know, just don't think this was one of those cases that needed to be delved into that deeply. I do agree if the Mets were expected to contend, had money to spend, and really needed a decent SS, I probably wouldn't make a big deal out of 2/20 at all. As we both know, only needing a decent SS applies from the previous statement. It will be interesting to see how the whole Drew saga resolves itself...I wonder if he's starting to get a little nervous. Early MLB over/unders are out: http://forums.viewfromvegas.com/user/discussion.aspx?id=378961&p=1&fps=0&anchor=a2214112 Mets at 71.5. That actually looks like a good over bet to me. They are better than this. Couldn't agree more. If Grandy morphs into Jason Bay, Colon gets old overnight, and Wheeler has a year similar to Isringhausen's second year as a Met (as a starter), or the rotation gets killed with injuries, then yeah, they could go under. Just doesn't seem like they could possibly be THAT bad though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) I know, just don't think this was one of those cases that needed to be delved into that deeply. I do agree if the Mets were expected to contend, had money to spend, and really needed a decent SS, I probably wouldn't make a big deal out of 2/20 at all. As we both know, only needing a decent SS applies from the previous statement. It will be interesting to see how the whole Drew saga resolves itself...I wonder if he's starting to get a little nervous. Couldn't agree more. If Grandy morphs into Jason Bay, Colon gets old overnight, and Wheeler has a year similar to Isringhausen's second year as a Met (as a starter), or the rotation gets killed with injuries, then yeah, they could go under. Just doesn't seem like they could possibly be THAT bad though. But that's the ultimate worst case. I'm pessimistic...but even if those things happen they might be balanced out by a solid season out of Ike (25-30 hr) a breakout by d'Arnaud (80rbi) and Chris Young turning into Marlon Byrd two. And perhaps one of Valverde or Farnsworth becoming serviceable. We can sign Drew with an eye to 2015...because looking at the market if they don't pick up Drew they'd better make bigtime pushes for Asdrubel Cabrera or JJ Hardy. And now we know the Yankees will be in the market for a shortstop next year too so it makes it tougher for us. Maybe Colon will eventually be flipped for a SS...who knows. Edited February 13, 2014 by '7' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I still believe the Mets can flirt with 80 wins this season. The reason I brought up a worst-case-type scenario is because I was trying to find a way that the Mets can finish under. If the team stays relatively healthy and guys perform to expected levels overall, no way they go 71-91 or worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 An article about the Drew situation: http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/2/13/5409032/stephen-drew-free-agent-shortstop-homeless Funny little blurb about Tejada, in terms of what category he fits into: just give it time (6): Astros (Jonathan Villar), Brewers (Jean Segura), Diamondbacks (Didi Gregorius or Chris Owings), Mariners (Brad Miller), Pirates (Jordy Mercer), Red Sox (Xander Bogaerts). Probably shouldn't give it time (2): Marlins (Adeiny Hechavarria), Mets (Ruben Tejada). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) Drew actually makes sense for almost the entire AL East if he's willing to play another position. The Jays and O's have crap at 2B; the Yankees are counting on Brian Roberts (192 games over the last 4 years), Kelly Johnson (.715 OPS in 2013), and a 40 year old Derek Jeter to stay healthy and productive; the Sox could take him back and immediately improve their depth. Edited February 14, 2014 by nmigliore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) This is pretty dated news but I don't recall posting about it when it was announced, and just in case everybody happened to miss it: expanded replay/challenge system was approved for 2014. The basics: Replay involving home runs was instituted in August 2008. The expanded replay includes almost all on-field decisions, outside of balls and strikes. Managers will have at least one challenge to use. If any portion of a challenged play is overturned, then the manager who challenged the play can challenge one more play during the game. If a manager has used his challenges and the game is in the seventh inning, the umpiring crew chief can call for a replay. ... The following plays are now reviewable: Home run Ground rule double Fan interference Stadium boundary calls (e.g., fielder into stands, ball into stands triggering dead ball) Force play (except the fielder’s touching of second base on a double play) Tag play (including steals and pickoffs) Fair/foul in outfield only Trap play in outfield only Batter hit by pitch Timing play (whether a runner scores before a third out) Touching a base (requires appeal) Passing runners Record keeping (Ball-strike count to a batter, outs, score, and substitutions) http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/expanded-replay-no-guarantee-in-2014/ I'm very happy about expanded replay, it's long over-due. MLB is going to have a command center in NY to review plays, so hopefully that should expedite the process and cause less delays. The challenge system should be interesting, I definitely like the fact teams can have a say in what can be reviewed. Edited February 14, 2014 by nmigliore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Bonifacio ends up with the Cubs. Shame. Would've been a nice super sub signing for us. Maybe it means they're more "in" on Drew than they let on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 New York Mets @Mets 1h We will celebrate the life of Ralph Kiner during the 2014 season w/this uniform patch. #OriginalMet pic.twitter.com/xcXc556cCH New York Mets @Mets 1h We will have a ceremony on #OpeningDay14 for Ralph Kiner. The tribute will feat. a logo on the leftfield wall. http://atmlb.com/1cLU5m5 Nice tribute to Ralph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Dose Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 This is pretty dated news but I don't recall posting about it when it was announced, and just in case everybody happened to miss it: expanded replay/challenge system was approved for 2014. The basics: http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/expanded-replay-no-guarantee-in-2014/ I'm very happy about expanded replay, it's long over-due. MLB is going to have a command center in NY to review plays, so hopefully that should expedite the process and cause less delays. The challenge system should be interesting, I definitely like the fact teams can have a say in what can be reviewed. I'm very interested in the implementation, strategies, and new rules of the new replay system. How will base runners be reset when plays are overturned? If runners are advancing when a third out is called, will they be automatically returned? Advanced? Replay official's judgement? Presumably if a trap call gets overturned into a catch, then all runners that advanced believing the play to be a base hit will be returned to their original bases. What if one or two of the runners get put out on the play though? That could change which team prefers the original result of the play vs. the outcome of overturning the trap call. The article makes it sound like umpires will only initiate reviews for the potential benefit of one team after the sixth inning only if that team has used up its challenges. How does that make sense? NFL coaches are able to communicate with with personnel who are watching replays away from the field to help them decide whether to challenge. Will the MLB managers be guessing blind? Something that I didn't see on the reviewable list: runner out of the base path. That's a highly subjective call, so I don't have a big problem with it, but I have seen some plays in the past where thought that when the umps watch their film afterwards, they would wish that they had ruled differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmigliore Posted February 19, 2014 Author Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) Sandy Alderson, the best! One avenue that is closed that was open during the offseason is with Tampa Bay. There was a point at which the clubs were haggling for extra players to build around an Ike Davis-Matt Joyce swap. At once juncture, though, the Rays proposed simply doing a one-for-one deal, particularly because the players have such similar salaries (Joyce will make $3.7 million in 2014). But the Mets ultimately refused that request, and the Rays ended up re-signing James Loney to play first. Joyce will now serve as an outfielder/DH. http://nypost.com/2014/02/19/ike-davis-still-has-a-suitor-in-the-orioles/ This is just terrible. I long proposed such a one-for-one swap because it made so much sense for both sides. But nah, Sandy wanted more; of course he did. Edited February 19, 2014 by nmigliore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.