OT: Raise the Jolly Roger: Down The Drain

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChaosAgent

Registered User
May 8, 2018
17,737
12,094
Quite the contrary, I did write this about Fraizer earlier this season--



I'm not sure how much better he can get though. I don't think there's much untapped power. Plate discipline is about where'd you'd want from a guy like him. He can already move around the diamond and can put bat on ball pretty well. Best thing I could see him improving at would be refining his base-running and maybe adding a step or two by working with a speed and quickness guru, and I don't think that would spike his value.

Don't mistake my want to cash in on him for wanting to move him for any old offer. If the teams that are asking on him are looking for a guy they can get cheap because he doesn't have the sexy numbers, you don't move him. But if there are legit offers on the table that can net you a pair of players above A-ball with substantially higher ceilings or someone offers a similarly cost controller starter and sweeteners, I'm certainly going to push for that.

I think his ceiling is probably a 3 WAR player and if someone wants to pay a 3 WAR player price, I pull the trigger.

Fair enough! I remember someone wasn't a Frazier belieber whereas I was/am an AF fanboy. I think getting an OBP well north of .350 should be his goal.

Honestly AF might even be an extension candidate. Doubt it'd cost big money, he wasn't a big bonus guy. That maybe puts Tucker in play for pitching. If Cherington could get 5 yrs/$30M or something it'd be tempting.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,124
3,668


This obviously invokes worries for some that we'll see a trade analogous to the Cole one, but I actually see this as a good indication. Whatever Cherington does is going to have to be a decent bit more complicated than simply a complete teardown and rebuild from the ground up, due to how many of the best organizational pieces are currently in MLB or close.

However, if there's a mediocre assessment of certain guys like Reynolds and Keller, then the story changes somewhat, but probably for the worst: we'll be in rebuild mode for a couple more seasons before there's much sunlight. I still think the core of the organization is in ok shape, but where he needs to get creative is in how to extract talent, both in trades and in utilizing what we've got better.

Aside from all us, the starting point for that is making sure Keller can his his ceiling as a very strong #2 type. He's fallen off in the hype train a bit, but he's already missed more bats than I anticipated he would, so I'm curious to see what's ahead for him, and who we'll get as pitching coach.
 

ChaosAgent

Registered User
May 8, 2018
17,737
12,094

This obviously invokes worries for some that we'll see a trade analogous to the Cole one, but I actually see this as a good indication. Whatever Cherington does is going to have to be a decent bit more complicated than simply a complete teardown and rebuild from the ground up, due to how many of the best organizational pieces are currently in MLB or close.


History's not going to look back that unfondly on the Cole trade. I'm serious. As great as Cole became in Houston, he was headed down the path of "wasted potential" here. It expedited Searage's badly-needed departure. And we got Musgrove for a long period of time...well at least until this deadline when I expect us to get more for him than we did for Cole. +Martin and Feliz may turn into something.

If the other package on the table revolved around Andujar and Clint Frazier...would you trade Musgrove for that? I don't think I would right now.

Cherington's looking for upper minors and 1st year players because he's correctly identified the organizational strength of those 7 young hitters, which you've called out.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,393
77,973
Redmond, WA


Oh boy we're the mystery team in on Cole!

But for real, I wonder if this has some relevance with a potential Bell extension. Maybe Cherington indicated that he wants to get Bell under a long term deal.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,124
3,668
Boras is kind of talking out of his ass IMO, in one of the other soundbites he says that there hasn't been a winning approach here in 5-6 years. We won 98 games 5 years ago.

It is curious to see him single us out in that way, but it might just be posturing. I'd be pretty surprised if Bell would sign anything, just because he's not going to reach free agency until his age 30 season and it would be his best chance to cash in. I guess the best analogue might be Belt, who signed a deal when he was 28 for basically 5/72. If Bell would be willing to sign that, it would certainly be worth thinking a lot about, since AAV of 14M would be quite a good deal if you think he'll sustain the production he's shown/flashed (not to the extent of May 2019 but still).

I guess the more I think about it, it's not totally impossible, as Bell would still be 32 and able to get a payday when it's up, and he'd make more money in the short term on his arbitration. There's a good bit of risk involved from both angles, and I'd lean towards rather using him to get a big return to further kick off the retooling.

However, if the plan really is to mostly re-tool, then certainly a big extension like that to the sole power hitter on the team would go a long way for most fans. And in the meantime Cherington can continue tinkering with the roster and with guys on shorter contracts such as Marte, Kela, and Archer.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,393
77,973
Redmond, WA
Boras is kind of talking out of his ass IMO, in one of the other soundbites he says that there hasn't been a winning approach here in 5-6 years. We won 98 games 5 years ago.

It is curious to see him single us out in that way, but it might just be posturing. I'd be pretty surprised if Bell would sign anything, just because he's not going to reach free agency until his age 30 season and it would be his best chance to cash in. I guess the best analogue might be Belt, who signed a deal when he was 28 for basically 5/72. If Bell would be willing to sign that, it would certainly be worth thinking a lot about, since AAV of 14M would be quite a good deal if you think he'll sustain the production he's shown/flashed (not to the extent of May 2019 but still).

I guess the more I think about it, it's not totally impossible, as Bell would still be 32 and able to get a payday when it's up, and he'd make more money in the short term on his arbitration. There's a good bit of risk involved from both angles, and I'd lean towards rather using him to get a big return to further kick off the retooling.

However, if the plan really is to mostly re-tool, then certainly a big extension like that to the sole power hitter on the team would go a long way for most fans. And in the meantime Cherington can continue tinkering with the roster and with guys on shorter contracts such as Marte, Kela, and Archer.

The way I'm looking at it is that if you re-sign Bell right now, you'll at least get the fan's attention for the next few years and your infield will be relatively set with Bell at 1st, Newman at 2nd, Tucker at SS and Hayes at 3rd. You still need to address some other spots on your roster, but you can at least pencil in this group for the next 3-5 years if you sign Bell to that kind of deal and it's not really cost prohibitive to do so. I think it depends on how close Cherington thinks they are to contending. Can they be good for 2022? Then I think it's a smart move to sign him now.

I think it depends on what you can get back in trades for those other guys. Can you restock your prospect pool and get what you need for Marte, Frazier, Kela, Archer and such? If so, and you think you can be a playoff team by 2022 or 2023, I think it's a good call. It's a gamble, but it's a reasonable one. If you think you're further off than what that group can bring you back, it's pointless and you're better off trading Bell.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,124
3,668
The way I'm looking at it is that if you re-sign Bell right now, you'll at least get the fan's attention for the next few years and your infield will be relatively set with Bell at 1st, Newman at 2nd, Tucker at SS and Hayes at 3rd. You still need to address some other spots on your roster, but you can at least pencil in this group for the next 3-5 years if you sign Bell to that kind of deal and it's not really cost prohibitive to do so. I think it depends on how close Cherington thinks they are to contending. Can they be good for 2022? Then I think it's a smart move to sign him now.

I think it depends on what you can get back in trades for those other guys. Can you restock your prospect pool and get what you need for Marte, Frazier, Kela, Archer and such? If so, and you think you can be a playoff team by 2022 or 2023, I think it's a good call. It's a gamble, but it's a reasonable one. If you think you're further off than what that group can bring you back, it's pointless and you're better off trading Bell.

I think you lay it out succinctly and clearly. I initially balked at this idea when I read it, and I still think Boras is basically just talking out of his ass, but it would make a great deal of sense, and if development/internal improvement tracks a bit and you can move Marte for the right return, then the attempted window is more like 2021/22 than 23/24, in which case everything needs to be up for grabs.

It's also not a bad financial gamble regardless of the overall plan. He could make it and then see how things are shaking out with the 2020 team, even if Marte has already been dealt. You could easily pivot more to addressing the 2021 team starting at next year's deadline and offseason, or if things don't work in the way you'd plan with a guy like Hayes, Keller, for instance, then Bell is still probably a valuable trade asset for a longer-term rebuild.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,778
7,804
Oblivion Express
Signing Bell to a long term deal would be a horrendous baseball move.

He's a LEGIT .750-800 OPS 1B who is terrible defensively. No DH means you're forced to surrender runs because you're playing a shitty defensive player who doesn't hit enough to offset the other liabilities.

Why in the hell would you want to have that on a rebuilding team?

Plus it's Boras. Bell ain't signing now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jules Winnfield

WheresRamziAbid

Registered User
Oct 31, 2013
7,183
2,049
Signing Bell to a long term deal would be a horrendous baseball move.

He's a LEGIT .750-800 OPS 1B who is terrible defensively. No DH means you're forced to surrender runs because you're playing a ****ty defensive player who doesn't hit enough to offset the other liabilities.

Why in the hell would you want to have that on a rebuilding team?

Plus it's Boras. Bell ain't signing now.

Dude give it a rest he ahas a career 118 wRC+ hes just fine
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,124
3,668


Cherington seems to be putting out a variety of messages, which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Create some ambiguity and then make whatever moves you are going to make.

When the dust settles though I expect some sense of clarity about the direction, plan, window, etc.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,124
3,668


I like Nimmo enough that Nimmo and prospects wouldn't be too terrible for me, and we should obviously be considering taking Lowrie's measly one year salary to max any return. Nimmo strikes me as a pretty similar player to Reynolds, and I think the kinds of questions people have about both of them are similar.

Hypothetically, though, in a scenario where the plan was a nearly immediate retooling, Nimmo would be the right kind of player to gamble on replacing Marte. One more year of control, and brings you most of what you get with Marte minus speed. I think Marte is better in CF (than Nimmo and generally than he's being given credit for now), but if the Mets were enamored and wanted to give up additional pieces, it's a move that makes sense. I'd still rather have some good 45/50 FV pitchers, but that might be easier said than done.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,393
77,973
Redmond, WA


They're certainly not going light for a catcher, Chirinos' 3.8 WAR from last year was much greater than basically every other alternative.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,393
77,973
Redmond, WA
So Nimmo, Peterson and maybe another prospect for Marte? That sounds reasonable, get a younger replacement CF and a solid pitching prospect with #3 upside plus maybe another prospect.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,124
3,668
Names being speculated about with the Mets that would be interesting certainly include Nimmo and their catching prospect Alvarez. He's extremely young still so it would be a far in the future move (like, Priester will probably be in MLB for a few months before he debuts kind of future), but that would be an interesting route to take. Get one potential really solid player for the long-term and one good replacement for the short term.

It's foolish to try and re-tool entirely for the 2020 season, but there is some potential to be a significantly better team than last year due to the collapse. A lot of the core remains, with the obvious injury and arrest asterisks, and a lot of the variance is basically resting on a hope and a prayer about stuff. We should be engaged in a rebuilding process of some kind, but with so many of the best players basically being pre-arb guys, I don't really see a viable path to a total rebuild at this moment. So some kind of modified scenario where you pursue certain trades and pick up what assets you can along the way makes sense. I'm a fairly strong believer that tanking for draft picks in MLB is really an unsure thing, and while I certainly don't want to see a different GM take on Huntington's most recent plan to chase mediocrity, actually trying to win is always more exciting than totally punting.

In any case, going after a player like Nimmo would require at the least a reasonable investment in Chirinos as a stop gap catcher, and then some improvements elsewhere on the roster. The thing Cherington has to decide is exactly what shape the best return he can get should take. I have no problem with good, younger, more controllable talent, especially if the prospects on offer aren't really exciting ones.
 

DJ Spinoza

Registered User
Aug 7, 2003
25,124
3,668


I didn't even notice this one a little bit ago when I grabbed the other from Martino. It's certainly an interesting development, since there's a reasonably strong argument that this is a mostly lateral move assuming no injuries, so the question would be what kind of pieces are offered on top of Nimmo.

I don't want to downplay Marte, but I think you can probably argue that a healthy Nimmo is more valuable, certainly in a trade anyways, due to his control. But the injury questions probably complicate that, which is to our favor. Mets fans seem to want to include Nido in all their deals, which I take to be a bad sign about him. Their system is not great but could certainly include some decent sweeteners. Petersen as a second piece would be ideal, aligning well with Keller even if his upside isn't the same.

But make no mistake, getting Nimmo in a deal is certainly indicating a direction, and that direction is still to compete in 2020 and especially 2021, which is in line with Cherington's still vague recent comments as I read them (from today, don't have them handy). In fact, if the Mets were willing to do it, then it would be even more of a wise move to take Lowrie's salary in the deal and be able to get exactly the pieces we want on top of Nimmo. Lowrie is a good bounce back candidate who could at the very least likely be flipped at the deadline, but if things break right, it's feasible that the move would make the 2020 team a decent bit better, albeit one still with some holes, especially at pitcher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->