Author Topic: Bay to the Mets  (Read 1753 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37293
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Bay to the Mets
« Reply #25: December 30, 2009, 09:53:10 PM »
BTW when did walks become something bad? Only LF and first basemans are suppose to walk? Doesnt make sense if the guy can get on base anyway its a plus not a negative.

The man has a point.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 30570
  • Hell yes!
Re: Bay to the Mets
« Reply #26: December 30, 2009, 09:58:51 PM »
Joe Sheehan, BP comments:

Quote
The Mets get better by signing Jason Bay, but not by as much as you might think. Bay’s defense is going to be a problem for them in left field, and I strongly suspect we’ve seen the best offensive years he’s going to have. Maybe Angel Pagan isn’t quite as good a player as he looked last season, and he’s probably a true fourth outfielder, but the defensive difference between Pagan and Bay eats a chunk of the offensive gap between them.

You know what would make me like this signing? If it weren’t Pagan, but Jeff Francoeur, who lost playing time to it. Were Pagan to platoon with Francoeur in left field, with the player not starting coming in for defense for Bay late in games, I think the Mets would be getting the most bang for their buck in the deal. They’d maximize their offense, solve a developing lineup-balance problem, and show an originality of thought that hasn’t been there lately.

As you know, I recommended signing Matt Holliday, and I stand by that. The difference between what Bay will make and what Holliday will make is going to end up being about $2 million a season, which is far less a gap than exists between the players. You’d have to guarantee that fifth year for Holliday, but he’s a year younger than Bay so you’re talking about the same range of player-seasons. It’s not that Holliday will be a bargain at five years and $90 million plus a vesting option, or six years and $114 million or whatever he’s going to sign for; it’s that his deal, compared to Bay’s, is going to be a much better contract for the team that signs him than Bay’s deal will be. If Bay costs $16 million a year, then Holliday is the better sign.

Anyway, the Mets still have Danny Murphy at first base, no starting catcher, and a big gap between their first starter and the rest of the rotation. If this is their last move, then they’ve wasted the money.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 22278
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Bay to the Mets
« Reply #27: January 03, 2010, 06:32:13 PM »
I kind of like this from Evan Brunell at Hardball Times.  I often post "Fangraphs said his WAR projects to be X, therefore he is someone we should go after."   Brunell I think correctly criticizes that logic as being always the best way to look at things.  
Quote
Not all deals can be evaluated in a vacuum like us pundits at THT, Fangraphs and other places tend to do. "This player is worth X WAR, and is thus worth Y money. He is not worth Z years due to M skillset and N indicators." Real-world situations don't work that way. The Mets needed a source of power to play left field, and they needed one now that could improve the team's chances of winning. The trade off in not blinking on the five years and signing someone like Marlon Byrd or Randy Winn instead is rather large for this particular team.

Some deals involve having to give ground to get ground. I think the Mets did rather well in making the fifth year a vesting option. It may be easily attainable, but at least it's not guaranteed. Not all deals can be completely and 100 percent "smart".

Take Neal Huntington of the Nationals [sic] and his decision to free Matt Capps, only to see him sign for $3.5 million in Washington. This is opposed to the Pirates offering Capps arbitration and seeing the right-hander get a similar salary via the process (likely slightly higher). While the financial and market valuation of Capps via the arbitration process may have taken a bigger bite out of the Pirates coffers than they preferred, there is no question they are worse off today than they would have been otherwise. I wish I could recall who and where I heard this, but someone referred to Huntington as being "too smart." That's exactly how I feel.

Neal Huntington is a smart general manager and is making the Pirates a far better team than they were when he arrived. Whenever he leaves the team, he will do so having improved the club's minor and major league talent. That is what smart general managers do. But was letting Capps go over half a million to a million dollars smart? Strictly from a dataset vacuum, it was absolutely the smart choice. Capps' production in 2009, previous and projected production along with likely arbitration salary -- in a vacuum -- made the non-tender a logical and smart choice. In real life and in baseball, it was a terrible choice.
Mind you, I still think Bay will be a defensive anchor for the Mets and that the move from Fenway to CitiField will hurt his power a lot.  Thus, Bay is likely to be short of what the Mets need to catch the Phillies absent a lot of other stuff happening.  But this article says sometimes an overpay or extra years can be right for a team in its particular circumstances.  I think there are a lot of people here have used that to defend some of the Nats moves like signing Pudge (another deal I don't like), as well as other if I were GM" moves.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 30570
  • Hell yes!
Re: Bay to the Mets
« Reply #28: January 03, 2010, 06:38:18 PM »
Has Bay actually signed yet?  I heard that there are perhaps issues with his shoulder that have raised concerns.

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93412
Re: Bay to the Mets
« Reply #29: January 03, 2010, 06:48:51 PM »
physical tomorrow

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 30570
  • Hell yes!
Re: Bay to the Mets
« Reply #30: January 03, 2010, 06:50:28 PM »
physical tomorrow


Mets have been burned before, this may not be the slam dunk it usually is.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37293
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Bay to the Mets
« Reply #31: January 03, 2010, 07:46:28 PM »
Has Bay actually signed yet?  I heard that there are perhaps issues with his shoulder that have raised concerns.

Which joint affects overratedness?

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 30570
  • Hell yes!
Re: Bay to the Mets
« Reply #32: January 03, 2010, 10:14:08 PM »
Which joint affects overratedness?

He's not the answer to all the Mets' woes, but just like one good player signing by us isn't the end-all.  He's a good player at a position they really needed to upgrade, so it's a good signing.

That being said, he's a poor fielder and Citi has a lot of ground to cover, he'll be a lot more exposed than he would be in say Fenway.  However, he's a dead pull hitter and so his power won't suffer like gap hitters would.  Kind of a mixed bag.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 17557
Re: Bay to the Mets
« Reply #33: January 04, 2010, 07:37:29 AM »
How is Jason Bay a worse fielder than the combination of Gary Sheffield,Cory Sullivan and Daniel Murphy?

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 22278
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Bay to the Mets
« Reply #34: January 04, 2010, 06:49:27 PM »
How is Jason Bay a worse fielder than the combination of Gary Sheffield,Cory Sullivan and Daniel Murphy?
+1, but I'm warning you blue, my view is based on stats.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 19978
  • Take two of these 30 minutes before first pitch.
Re: Bay to the Mets
« Reply #35: January 04, 2010, 06:55:55 PM »
10oF is warmer than -10oF but it's still really cold.