So, I figured I'd go crazy here with some big moves in my AAOP. These 2012 Mets will look a LOT different than the 2011 Mets, but I think they'd be competitive. I acknowledge in advance that this will be controversial, and I'm a little sad that my plan ended up looking this way.

First off, the big question: my head says let Jose Reyes go. I love Reyes, but he's too much of a risk for a team with the financial problems the Mets have. And now that there's no Steve Einhorn bailing them out, I think the Mets need to start thinking about payroll flexibility.

If you look at the post-Reyes Mets, almost all of their offensive strength is in players on the easier side of the defensive spectrum (LF/RF/1B/3B). This is a problem, and one that we need to address this offseason.

1. First things first: we need to do a bad contract swap. Mets trade OF Jason Bay to the White Sox for SP Jake Peavy.

Other people here have proposed this one, and I'm in agreement on it. Bay needs to go to clear up space for other hitters, mostly. And Peavy might be a necessary get for the Mets, based on my second trade...

2. BIG DEAL #1 (This is the one I'll get the most criticism for...) - Mets trade SP Jon Niese and IF Jordany Valdespin to the Cincinnati Reds for C Yasmani Grandal, 1B/OF Yonder Alonso, and IF Zack Cozart.

In one fell swoop, the Mets will replace Reyes, bring in a top flight catcher prospect, and add an additional trade chip or corner OF in Alonso. The only way they can do something like this, though, would be to trade their top asset: Jon Niese. Niese is either a good pitcher with BABIP problems or a great pitcher with bad luck. Either way, you are addressing multiple needs at once, and the idea is that you will be able to survive without Niese long-term--you'll have the younger guys coming in over the next couple of seasons, and the team's improved financial position will allow it to spend a bit more on starting pitching in 2015 or so, we hope.

3. BIG DEAL #2 - Mets trade OF Yonder Alonso (or OF Lucas Duda, depending on who the Padres prefer), OF Angel Pagan, OF Kirk Neuwenheis, and cash to the San Diego Padres for OF Cameron Maybin and RHP Matt Lollis.

I think it would be hard to persuade the Padres to trade Cameron Maybin, but the Mets would be giving them a viable CF replacement AND a power bat at the corner, in addition to a pretty good prospect. Lollis is mostly to balance out Neuwenheis a bit, but I acknowledge that this might require a lesser prospect from San Diego to work.

The cash to the Padres is to pay the difference between Maybin and Pagan. It will probably be somewhere between $4 and $5 million.

4. Move David Wright to LF.

Wright's become a net negative at third base, defensively, and there's now a big opening in LF for the post-Bay Mets. The other option is to trade Wright and stick Alonso in LF, but I'd rather have Wright if I can. If Chipper can make the move in the middle of his career, then Wright can, too.

5. Sign the following players:

• SP Chris Capuano: 2 years, $15 million ($7.5 million/year)
  
• RP Frank Francisco: 3 years, $21 million ($7 million/year)
• RP Takashi Saito: 1 year, $1.5 million
• RP Joe Nathan: 1 year, $3 million (innings incentives to $7 million)
• SP Kenshin Kawakami, SP Brad Penny, and SP Scott Kazmir (spring training roster invites)
• OF Scott Hairston: 1 year, $1.5 million
• IF Adam Everett: 1 year, $700K
• SP Mike Pelfrey: 1 year, $5 million

On my count, that's $92.7 million before the minimum contracts and roster invites. Add in a bunch of minimum contracts (I'm guessing 14-15), and we're up to $99 million. Add in the Pagan cash, and we're up to $103 million or so. So there's still some flexibility in the payroll for the season itself.

What does that roster look like?

1. Murphy (3B)

2. Maybin (CF)

3. Davis (1B)

4. Wright (LF)

5. El Dudarino (RF)

6. Cozart (SS)

7. Tejada (2B)

8. Thole (C)

Bench

Hairston (OF)

Everett (IF)

Evans (1B/OF)

Pridie (OF)

Nickeas (C)

Pitching

SP - Johan Santana

SP - Jake Peavy

SP - R.A. Dickey

SP - Chris Capuano

SP - Mike Pelfrey

Bullpen

CL - Frank Francisco

RP - Joe Nathan

RP - Takashi Saito

RP - Tim Byrdak

RP - Manny Acosta

RP - Bobby Parnell

RP - Daniel Herrera

In the minors, you'd have whichever spring training invites didn't make the cut, or didn't graduate thanks to injury. You'd also have Josh Stinson, Dillon Gee, and Pedro Beato as future call-ups for injuries. On the hitting side, you'd have a premier catching prospect, Yasmani Grandal, in AAA, to pair with your already strong pitching prospects.

I think this would be an interesting way to address the team's problems. It would cost them Jon Niese, but I think otherwise, you're really blasting off out of the Omar Minaya era into the future. You would also have young talent on the tougher end of the defensive spectrum: Maybin, Cozart, and Grandal would replace Pagan, Reyes, and Thole up the middle. And they're already quite strong at the corners, with Duda, Wright, Davis, Murphy, and Satin. Essentially, you would be building the core of a young offense to match the young pitching that's coming up. I think once 2013 rolled around, you would have some serious financial flexibility AND the young talent to start competing again.

A couple of months ago, Ike Davis was crushing the ball, rapidly establishing himself as the Mets' most valuable commodity in his second full season. Davis has improved in leaps and bounds in every year as a pro, and if he simply were to sustain his first two months across a full season, he'd be one of the better players in the majors.

Davis had an unfortunate injury path--day-to-day became 15 days on the DL, which became a couple of months off, which became season-ending surgery (it's not official yet, but it's coming).

At the same time, the Mets were trying to figure out their best solution at second base. Brad Emaus had been a disappointment and was exiled back to Toronto. Justin Turner had started out hot, but Terry Collins was still flirting with the platoon arrangement with Daniel Murphy at second.

Once Davis went down, Murphy slid over to first, reprising his position from 2009. Murph played solid defense at first in 2009; he often looked unorthodox, but he tended to hold his own there. Turner snagged the second base job full-time. As a temporary solution with the goal of winning in 2011 in mind, this was a good outcome.

Flash forward to the present, where it no longer looks like the Mets will be competing for a playoff berth in 2011. The Phils and Braves have had excellent years and have left the Mets many games back. And the Mets are about to trade the great Carlos Beltran. It's been a good run, especially considering the low expectations from local and national media and the sheer number of injuries they've had, but it's time to start looking to 2012. This implies that they should be trying to figure out who fits in--and where.

Which brings me back to Daniel Murphy. For all the talk about Murphy at second, he's played the equivalent of fewer than 20 games there in his major league career. He spent over twice that much time in left field, of all places. Here's how Murph's defensive history shakes out:

1B - 1188 innings (58.2%)
LF - 464 2/3 innings (22.8%)
3B - 220 2/3 innings (10.8%)
2B - 168 innings (8.2%)

The Mets have 60 games remaining. That means that if Murphy stays healthy, he'll get a chance to log another 500 or so innings at 2B, assuming a few double switches and off-days. That would quadruple his major league experience there. Murphy is now an established major league hitter, sporting a career .287/.337/.439 line and a 109 OPS+ in 1,086 PAs. It is worth using the season's last two months to figure out where Murphy fits in going forward. Back when Davis seemed like he would return, it made sense to have Murphy fill in at first, as a stopgap, so that they could get their best players on the field at once. Long-term, though, if Murphy has a future with the Mets, it's at second base (or third if Wright is eventually moved to the outfield).

This implies that Justin Turner be relegated to bench duty/occasional starts against lefties. It's unfortunate, because Turner has done very good work for the Mets this year. But it's time to evaluate for the future and get Murphy some extended work at second. If Murphy isn't going to stick at second, I'd rather know by the end of the year than in June 2012.

First base, then, is the question mark. The solution is pretty clear at this stage, if you're set with Duda in right and Murph at second: the Mets should give plate appearances to Nick Evans at first and hope for the best from the defense (which will have quite a few negative spots). Once Beltran gets dealt, I'd stack the lineup as follows:

1. Reyes (SS)
2. Evans (1B)
3. Murphy (2B)
4. Wright (3B)
5. Duda (RF)
6. Bay (LF)
7. Pagan (CF)
8. Thole (C)

Overall, you're not losing much offense from Turner to Evans; in fact, you might be gaining a bit of power. (The downgrade is on run prevention.) I'll leave it to a poll.

Poll

Which arrangement would you prefer for the last two months of the season?

55%

Murphy (1B), Turner (2B)

76 votes

44%

Evans (1B), Murphy (2B)

62 votes

138 votes | Poll has closed

Sam Page's provocative post from this morning caused quite a stir, but most people weren't buying into his prediction (on a METS fan site, no less). Personally, I was skeptical as well. But the post kind of lingered, probably because I desperately hope he's right.

This year's Phillies, while seemingly formidable, are rather one dimensional: they have exceptional starting pitching. The rest of the team is merely pedestrian, particularly if Utley misses a lot of time. If the starting pitching lives up to expectations, it will paper over the team's weaknesses. But what if it doesn't?

I am extremely doubtful that the pitchers will not pitch up to their expected performance level; all four seem to be in their prime. Injuries, however, are a possibility.

So I figured, why not run some numbers?

First off, this is NOT a sophisticated analytical study, or anything like that. Run prevention isn't that smooth, or linear, but I feel like for the purposes of a back-of-the-envelope calculation, it's useful. Our underlying assumption is that Baseball Prospectus' PECOTA simulator of the Phillies is a plausible starting point for projecting where they finish; everything else stems from that.

According to BP's depth charts, PECOTA tells us that the Phillies will score 742 runs. That will be a constant in the study. We'll be tinkering with the runs allowed, though. PECOTA tells us that the Phillies will allow only 664 runs. Using Pythagenpat with those numbers, the Phillies would finish at 89-73, which would probably be good enough for the playoffs.

BP also provides Value Over Replacement Level (VORP) projections for every player based on their projected playing time. VORP is measured in runs, so 1 VORP = 1 run. I made a chart of the projected innings pitched and projected VORP for each pitcher, as per PECOTA. At the same time, I took their totals from 2010 and added those to the chart as well. PECOTA seemed rather pessimistic on the Phillies, so I felt like making an optimistic estimate for the sake of comparison.

	pIP	pVORP	2010IP	2010VORP
Halladay	229	49.9	250.7	77
Lee	219	45.9	212.3	40.6
Oswalt	200	34.7	221.7	44.7
Hamels	184	30	208.7	50.4
TOTALS	832	160.5	893.3	212.7

So we have two versions of the future here. In PECOTA world, the Phillies allow 664 runs. In the more optimistic world of 2010, the Phillies allow only 612 runs. (That's 664 + PECOTA VORP - 2010 VORP).

The more interesting question, though, is about injuries. How many innings will the Big 4 pitch? Because we're assuming that run scoring is linear for the sake of the calculation, all we need to do, then, is divide VORP by IP and get a value of every inning pitched by the Big 4. (We'll take the Big 4 in aggregate, again for simplification. Obviously, losing Halladay would be much worse than losing Oswalt.)

PECOTA: 160.5/832 = .193 VORP/IP (call this VORPrate)

2010: 212.7/893.3 = .238 VORP/IP

Those numbers are, essentially, how many runs per inning the Phillies' Big 4 prevent in comparison to a replacement-level player (in other words, the type of player who would get those innings if one of them got hurt.) Now, we project out, based on innings pitched. The formula here is projRA + projVORP - (proj. IP * VORPrate). So, we have two different sets of inputs:

PECOTA: 664 + 160.5 - (proj. IP*.193)

2010: 612 + 212.7 - (proj. IP * .238)

And here's how it plays out:

Proj. IP	Proj. RA (PECOTA)	Proj. Record (PECOTA)	Proj. RA (2010)	Proj. Record (2010)
0	825	73-89	825	73-89
50	815	74-88	813	74-88
100	805	75-87	801	75-87
150	796	76-86	789	76-86
200	786	77-85	777	77-85
250	776	78-84	765	79-85
300	767	78-84	753	80-82
350	757	79-83	741	81-81
400	747	80-82	729	82-80
450	738	81-81	718	84-78
500	728	82-80	706	85-77
550	718	83-79	694	86-76
600	709	84-78	682	87-75
650	699	86-76	670	89-73
700	689	87-75	658	90-72
750	680	88-74	646	91-71
800	670	89-73	634	93-69
850	661	90-72	622	94-68
900	651	91-71	610	95-67
950	641	92-70	598	97-65

So, for PECOTA, we have an easy rule of thumb: start the Phillies from 73 wins (which feels about right intuitively for a Phillies team without the Big 4, right?). For every 50 innings the Big 4 pitches, add 1 win to that.

For 2010, the rule of thumb is a tad more generous: it's more like "add 1 win for every 40 innings the Big 4 pitches."

So from there, all we're left to do is to guess how many innings they'll end up with. You think they'll get 750? They're mean expectation is probably somewhere between 88 and 92 games. Only 600? Then they're probably between 84 and 87 wins. From the looks of this, if they don't get at least 700, they're in trouble. (Disclaimer: random variation may propel them to an outlying season, where they significantly outperformed their run differential or their batting components. Here, all we are doing is looking for an expectation.)

Now, you could take issue with some of the other constants. You could object that even my optimistic model undersells the Big 4, or that the offense will be better than 742 runs, or that the bullpen would be better than the BP estimate, or that the replacement pitchers would be better than replacement-level. But this is simply a model to show how critical those 4 pitchers are, and how fragile the Phillies' are; it's very much a stars and scrubs model of teambuilding (much along the lines of the Minaya-era Mets). But the Phillies' stars are pitchers, who are (generally) more injury prone.

So, what about fourth place? In a fairly competitive NL East, 82-83 wins might still be 4th place, particularly if you're bullish about the Mets. BP pegs the Braves at 87, the Marlins at 84, and the Mets at 81. If the Mets exceed expectation and the Braves and Marlins merely meet theirs, the division may well have 4 teams over .500. If the Big 4 is in the 400 to 500 innings range, Sam may well be right. For the Phillies to only get 500 innings out of the Big 4 would require that at least two miss a LOT of time, or three spend significant time on the DL. Is that unlikely? I think so. Is it impossible? Hardly.

In short, I don't think Sam's prediction is crazy. I do not think it is the most likely outcome this year, but I certainly can respect him for going out on a limb.

Anyone who watches Spring Training games is either a diehard fan of a team or treating an acute case of baseball withdrawal from the long and lonely winter of "other sports." (Or both.) This leads to the twin temptations of March: blind optimism and faith, and overinterpretation of results.

I, for one, will not begrudge anyone the right to be blindly optimistic in the spring. I certainly am, and that's part of the fun of "Hope and Faith," and all that. We must be optimistic about the season, trying to put together that sequence or series of events that will propel the Mets into a wild card berth or a miracle division title over the hated Phillies. So there's nothing wrong with that.

But I think there is something wrong with the second temptation: to overinterpret Spring Training statistics. They are, essentially, meaningless. That is not to say that Spring Training is meaningless. Our usually-reliable data becomes useless, or worse, misleading, in March.

Continue reading this post »

The statistical revolution in sports began among baseball fans and has made an impact across the board, but baseball is fairly easy to quantify because it's such an individual sport. As a Met fan, I know that Carlos Beltran and David Wright are independent entities; to evaluate their performance in tandem would be silly.

In football, however, it's almost impossible to separate players entirely. Offensive players rely on other offensive players to get opportunities to move the ball forward and put points on the board. Chris Snee and Brandon Jacobs are not comparable to Carlos Beltran and David Wright; what Snee does has a direct impact on what Jacobs can do.

I think, however, that the concepts undergirding the statistical revolution are far more important than the numbers themselves. With this, I have been thinking a lot about the notion of "replacement level player," and what it means in football.

A "replacement level player" provides the level of performance an average team can expect when trying to replace a player at minimal cost. In baseball, if you have more than a couple of replacement-level players, they will impact your team's ability to score runs rather dramatically. But in football, it seems to me that you can thrive with a couple of well-placed replacement-level players. I keep going back to the Indianapolis Colts. It's just not possible that the Colts have a brigade of good wide receivers who can fill in when all of their top ones get hurt at the same time. And yet Peyton Manning makes no-names like Blair White and Jacob Tamme look good. (You may also be able to add Pierre Garcon to that list. Either the Colts have miraculous scouts who can find very talented players at tiny schools, or Manning makes the players around him look really good.)

The Giants did the same thing: Derek Hagan looked pretty good when he was brought in off the streets, but how much of that was Hagan, and how much of that was Eli Manning making a receiver look good? (I come down very strongly on crediting Manning, with Hagan's value-added being a general familiarity with a complex playbook.)

A running back who avoids mistakes--think BenJarvus Green-Ellis--can produce quite well if working behind a great offensive line. BJGE isn't a home-run hitter, with a season long of 33 yards, but he was exactly what the Pats needed at running back. (He was an undrafted free agent in 2008.)

So, where does this leave the Giants with running backs? The Giants have two remarkable physical talents at running back--a bruiser the size of a defensive end, and a smaller back with elite-type agility, moves, and breakaway speed. Neither back is replacement-level, certainly. The two backs racked up 2,058 yards on 423 carries, which is stellar (4.9 Y/C). And yet the two backs fumbled 9 times, which is a clear detraction from their yardage.

I wasn't sure how I would convert fumbles into yardage-deduction, but Football Outsiders made a chart once, and based on the proximity to the goal line, you can estimate the yardage per turnover being worth 49-57 yards. The Giants lost 7 fumbles, so you could argue that those losses cost the Giants about 370 yards. Subtract that from the 2,058 yards, and now all of a sudden, the Giants' RB production looks a lot worse (4.0 Y/C).

Based on this very-rudimentary analysis, the Giants would be paying quite a bit for two running backs who were "only" producing 4.0 Y/C. The Giants' O-line, too, seems to be able to sustain lesser backs. DJ Ware got 3.7 Y/C in limited work.

If I were the Giants, I would spend resources bolstering the offensive line, whether it be in free agency or through the draft. I would probably cut ties with Ahmad Bradshaw entirely; while he is an elite-level talent, his added production just doesn't seem worthy of a high salary.

My argument is that a replacement-level back, coupled with some improvement/reemphasis on the offensive line, could produce similar levels of production at a significantly-reduced cost. The Giants should look for one attribute to emphasize in this back: ball security. The back does not need top-line speed, or great moves, or enormous size--he just needs to meet NFL thresholds and be able to survive an NFL workload. They could also target a nice fullback who can handle short-yardage situations to go with the replacement-level back. Their home-run hitters can be the extremely talented wide receiver corps they have built, potentially augmented with the return of Plaxico Burress.

I suspect that such a player will be available in the later rounds of the draft, which implies that the Giants should stay away from using a first rounder on a running back. That player may also be available on the free agent market.

So, my strategy going forward would be to look for the best-available player on the offensive line or defense in the first round, and to address the running back position with a couple of middle-tier free agents or a mid-round draft pick. I think this team is awfully close to being in the Super Bowl, and I strongly believe that if they had cut down on the mistakes this season, they would have been there quite handily. I think cutting ties with the mistake-prone running backs would be one way to signify that the turnovers will simply not be tolerated.

My impression while watching the disastrous fourth quarter was that the Giants were blitzing quite a bit. I noticed that the game was on NFL Network tonight, so I figured, why not take a look at what the defense did? (This was extremely difficult to stomach, but my curiosity got the best of me, and I turned it off immediately following the game being tied.) I did my best to chart what the front was doing. I don't have DVR, unfortunately, so I couldn't rewatch plays if I didn't catch everything. (If anyone else can stomach a second helping of the disaster, my judgments can be confirmed or refuted.) My chart of what I saw is below:

Result of Play	Defense
1. 2nd-13, PHI37 15:00 M. Vick incomplete pass to the left	Blitzed 6 (Boley, Grant)
2. 3rd-13, PHI37 14:56 M. Vick incomplete pass to the right	Blitzed 6 or 7 (Rolle, Phillips)
3. 1st-10, PHI20 12:34 M. Vick passed to D. Jackson down the middle for 30 yard gain. D. Jackson fumbled. K. Phillips recovered fumble and returned for 3 yards	Didn't see, but it looks like no blitz (NFL Network cuts part of play, but I see Boley, Phillips, and Rolle near the ball)
4. 1st-10, PHI25 8:09 M. Vick passed to J. Maclin to the left for 10 yard gain	Rush 4 (zone overload from Vick's right, RE drops into coverage)
5. 1st-10, PHI35 7:28 M. Vick passed to B. Celek down the middle for 65 yard touchdown. D. Akers made PAT	Blitz 5 (zone blitz again; Tuck is in coverage)
6. 1st-10, PHI44 7:27 M. Vick passed to D. Jackson down the middle for 13 yard gain	Rush 4
7. 1st-10, NYG44 6:58 M. Vick rushed up the middle for 35 yard gain	Blitz 7 (Boley, Phillips, Grant)
8. 1st-9, NYG9 6:05 M. Vick incomplete pass to the right	Blitz 6 (Unclear)
9. 2nd-9, NYG9 5:59 NY Giants committed 5 yard penalty	Blitz 6 (Boley, Grant)
10. 2nd-4, NYG4 5:41 M. Vick incomplete pass down the middle	Blitz 6 (Boley, Grant)
11. 3rd-4, NYG4 5:28 M. Vick rushed to the left for 4 yard touchdown. D. Akers made PAT	Blitz 6 (Rolle, Phillips)
12. 1st-10, PHI12 3:01 M. Vick incomplete pass to the right	Rush 4 (zone overload from Vick's left; Ross and Phillips come)
13. 2nd-10, PHI12 2:56 M. Vick incomplete pass down the middle	Rush 4
14. 3rd-10, PHI12 2:50 M. Vick rushed to the left for 33 yard gain	Blitz 7 (Boley, Ross, Rolle)
15. 1st-10, PHI45 2:41 M. Vick passed to J. Avant down the middle for 13 yard gain	Rush 4
16. 1st-10, NYG42 2:13 M. Vick incomplete pass down the middle	Rush 4
17. 2nd-10, NYG42 2:07 M. Vick rushed up the middle for 22 yard gain	Blitz 6 (Goff, Grant)
18. 1st-10, NYG20 1:58 M. Vick passed to B. Celek down the middle for 7 yard gain	Rush 3 (JPP drops into coverage)
19. 2nd-3, NYG13 1:16 M. Vick passed to J. Maclin to the left for 13 yard touchdown. D. Akers made PAT	Blitz 5 (Grant comes, LE into coverage)

 

So, on my count, here's what I have:

Giants rushing 4 or fewer: 8
Giants rushing 5 or more: 11

The Giants blitzed on more than half of the plays in the 4th quarter. It is hard to argue that the coaches "took their foot off the gas" when they're blitzing that often. Hell, the Giants dropped 8 into coverage only once in the whole quarter. Moreover, two of the "4 or fewer" calls were actually "zone blitzes," of sorts--they still brought only 4 rushers but overloaded on one side. Additionally, before the fateful final drive, the Giants actually called 8 blitzes out of 11 defensive plays, and one of the 3 times they rushed 4 was a "zone blitz"-type look. There is no shame in running a base defense; the Giants' defensive line should be good enough to periodically generate pressure without the aid of blitzers, and they could have used some additional people in Vick's running lanes.

Ultimately, it's hard to fault Fewell too much for being aggressive--we hear so much about "prevent defense preventing you from winning" that it is seen as more innovative to run lots of blitzes. I do, however, absolutely fault him for the call on 3rd and 10 from the Philadelphia 12. There was no need to call a blitz there; he had quite a bit of space to give up (88 yards in 2:50), and blitzes always leave you vulnerable to big plays. Dropping 8, or even 9, into coverage would have been a far better call in that situation. (Aaron Ross pretty clearly blew contain on that play, but you leave yourself open to single-player mistakes on blitzes.)

It definitely seems clear, though, that the Giants didn't go into prevent mode at all.

I'll start with a brief introduction: I've been a casual Devils fan for many years, but this is the first year I've seriously watched hockey (where I watch most games on TV, rather than just watching when they happen to be on). I've found myself utterly mystified by how poorly this season has gone. I decided to delve into how bad the shooting has been.

Continue reading this post »

I am going to take a stab at running the Mets at the deadline here.

I like to think of the role of the general manager as twofold: the first, and most important part, is to compile value (in terms of total WAR). The second, and more interesting part, is to convert value into wins, which is the "puzzle building" component of front office work. I tend to think that Minaya is very good at the second part, and simply does not think from the perspective of the first part.

But at this point, the Mets are probably on the fringe of having a store of value that could propel them into the playoffs, so we're into Minaya's territory right now (Minaya inherited a team with Jose Reyes and David Wright, and proceeded to added massive WAR infusions in Carlos Beltran and Johan Santana, but I don't think that he was thinking in terms of building the team's store of value as much as building a winner). The "puzzle" component of converting that value into wins leaves the Mets with three needed improvements:

1. The Mets need a starting pitcher, so that Takahashi can return to the bullpen, upgrading both sections.

2. The Mets need to upgrade second base; the Castillo/Tejada/Cora thing has been a disaster this year.

3. The Mets need to address their 3 catcher situation; the catchers aren't good enough to carry all of them.


1. Trade Barajas for a low-level prospect, PTBNL, or cash considerations.

I was one of those people who ripped the Mets for not kicking the can down the road when they decided to deal Ramon Castro and keep Omir Santos. Barajas, however, is no Castro, and Thole is no Santos (he's much, much better). The Mets should have dealt Barajas to Texas (as was suggested here) when he was hitting well; Texas ended up settling on cycle-hero Bengie Molina and probably would have happily given that package to the Mets for Barajas. (Texas dealt Chris Ray, a possible late season bullpen infusion, and Michael Main, a fringe minor leaguer, to nab Molina).

So, at this point, the Mets should deal Barajas. The return isn't important, but it's worth getting something. If they would rather not deal Barajas, then Thole has to be sent down. None of those catchers (Thole included) hits well enough to be worth a bench slot of a more defensively-versatile (or offensively-skilled) player.

Now, my WATPs:

2. Trade Reese Havens and Jeurys Familia for Rickie Weeks.

Weeks has mostly been a disappointment in his career, considering how highly he was touted when he first broke into the bigs. He has never played over 130 games in a season, and his career OPS+ falls at 103, which is rather pedestrian. This year, he's been healthy, though, and he's put up a friendly .270/.368/.447: nothing excellent, but not too shabby.

I'm not sure how much it would take to get Weeks, but on my count, he is a free agent after 2011. An optimistic valuation going forward has Weeks worth 6 WAR over that time period. More pessimistically, you could note that the highest value Weeks has ever had over a stretch of two seasons is 5.2 WAR. So reasonably, Weeks is worth between 4 and 6 WAR over the time period.

3. Trade Fernando Martinez and Dillon Gee for Ted Lilly

Lilly's price is inflated by his likely Type-A free agent status. Lilly is absolutely a rental; there is no conceivable reason you would ever want to re-sign him; your best bet would be to offer arbitration and hope he goes elsewhere.

I have no problem if people disagree with the amount of talent it would take to pick up these players; it is really hard to gauge how highly teams value their own players, and the prospects of other teams. But I think the players themselves are fairly realistic, attainable targets, based mainly on service time, age, and the expected cost-cutting of the Brewers. I also think they would represent a tangible improvement for the Mets, something on the order of 2-3 wins the rest of the way.

Lastly, a good second baseman would make Castillo redundant. The most disconcerting part of the roster, to me, is the lack of a guy who could realistically/desirably play third base, in case of an injury. I would have no issues DFAing Castillo under these circumstances and going to the scrapheap to find a more versatile back-up infielder, or to just bring up Nick Evans, if you are confident that he could fill in at 3rd in a pinch. You would have a very balanced bench going forward:

C - Henry Blanco

OF - Jeff Francoeur

2B/SS - Alex Cora

1B/3B/OF - Nick Evans

PH - Chris Carter

The Mets' pitching staff is quite in flux right now, and I haven't seen a write-up on it yet. I figured it would be nice to try to organize it myself, just for reference. As far as I can tell, it currently looks like the following.

Johan Santana
Mike Pelfrey
Hisanori Takahashi
R.A. Dickey

Francisco Rodriguez
Pedro Feliciano
Fernando Nieve
Oliver Perez
Raul Valdes
Manny Acosta
Jenrry Mejia
Elmer Dessens

The Mets are currently carrying four starters and eight relievers. Here's what the Mets have going forward:

- Saturday, 5/22: Mike Pelfrey

- Sunday, 5/23: Johan Santana

- Monday, 5/24: OFF DAY

- Tuesday, 5/25: R.A. Dickey

- Wednesday, 5/26: Hisanori Takahashi

- Thursday, 5/27: Mike Pelfrey

- Friday, 5/28: Johan Santana

The Mets can actually avoid bringing up another starter until Saturday, 5/29. Unfortunately, Jon Niese will not be eligible to be pulled off the DL until 6/2 on my count, so they are going to need at least one spot start. With so much notice, though, they can reorganize the AAA staff accordingly (depending on if they want Misch or Stoner to make the start).

At the same time, the Mets are going to be adding Ryota Igarashi to the roster soon (probably Sunday, considering he pitched two straight days in AAA and they may as well give him the night off tonight). So, the Mets have three players they can send down: Manny Acosta, Elmer Dessens, and Jenrry Mejia. Two of them will probably be sent down by the end of the month.

There would also be some logic in sending down two pitchers this weekend--perhaps Dessens and Mejia--to bring up Igarashi and an extra bench bat (Hessman, maybe?) to have for the next week, just for old times' sake (I don't think anyone carries 14 hitters/11 pitchers anymore). But I can see the wisdom in expanding the bullpen for the next week; the bullpen leads the majors in total innings pitched and could probably use some reinforcements/time off.

The in-house option of putting Perez back in the rotation is also on the table, but I tend to think they'll reach into the minors for the spot start.

So, to summarize:

1. The Mets are currently carrying four starters and eight relievers; they had been carrying five starters and seven relievers.

2. The Mets have to send someone down this weekend to make room for Igarashi.

3. The Mets will need a spot starter to fill in for Maine/Niese for next Saturday, but the spot starter should only have to make one start, if Niese is on track for a return in early June. Unless Oliver Perez gets the nod, a second bullpen pitcher will have to be sent down to the minors.

And, the unfortunate conclusion: the Mets can navigate the rest of the month without optioning Mejia to the minors, if they so choose.

Going into Spring Training, we assumed that 21 roster spots were guaranteed: those of Rod Barajas, Henry Blanco, Daniel Murphy, Luis Castillo, Jose Reyes, David Wright, Jason Bay, Angel Pagan, Jeff Francoeur, Fernando Tatis, Gary Matthews, Alex Cora, Johan Santana, Mike Pelfrey, Oliver Perez, John Maine, Francisco Rodriguez, Pedro Feliciano, Kelvim Escobar, Sean Green, and Ryota Igarashi. (I took this from a post on this site from February.)

That left 4 slots. But a few Mets went down to injuries (Kelvim Escobar, Jose Reyes, and Daniel Murphy), opening up the field a bit and leaving 7 slots for debate. I think it would be nice to take stock of those decisions...

1. 5th starter slot: Jon Niese (beats out Nelson Figueroa, Hisanori Takahashi, Fernando Nieve)
2. Backup first baseman: Mike Jacobs (beats out Chris Carter, Frank Catalanotto)
3. Murphy's roster slot: Frank Catalanotto (beats out Chris Carter)
4. Reyes' roster slot: Ruben Tejada (beats out Russ Adams)
5. Bullpen slots (3): Hisanori Takahashi, Fernando Nieve, Jenrry Mejia (beats out Raul Valdes, Nelson Figueroa, Pat Misch, Bobby Parnell, Kiko Calero)

That's basically what happened. Here's what I think:

Continue reading this post »

I managed to stumble across the Mets' 40-man roster on Mets.com and noticed something that seemed off to me: the Mets have 5 catchers on the 40-man roster. I quickly looked at all 30 teams to see if this was abnormal. (For the purposes of this, I am assuming that MLB.com's 40-man rosters are accurate.)

2 Catchers (10)

Baltimore
Cincinnati
Detroit
Houston
New York (A)
Oakland
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Seattle
Toronto

3 Catchers (12)

Arizona
Atlanta
Chicago (A)
Chicago (N)
Colorado
Florida
Kansas City
Milwaukee
San Diego
San Francisco
Texas
Washington

4 Catchers (7)

Boston
Cleveland
Los Angeles (A)
Los Angeles (N)
Minnesota
St. Louis
Tampa Bay

5 Catchers (1)

New York (N)

The Mets are the only team with 5 catchers on the current 40-man roster. This suggests to me that this is bad practice--if it were a good idea to carry so many catchers on the 40-man, you would think that other teams would do it, as well.

This is a minor point, I suppose, but the Mets have had serious issues with 40-man roster management in the past (see: Jesus Flores in Washington). The Mets have Rod Barajas, Henry Blanco, Chris Coste, Omir Santos, and Josh Thole on the 40-man. Barajas and Blanco will likely make the big league club. Thole is a prospect and a candidate to be starting in 2011. Coste was brought in specifically to mentor Thole. This leaves Santos as the odd-man out.

The way I see it, the Mets have two options:

1. Trade Santos.
2. Continue to have a disproportionate number of catchers on the 40-man roster.

Even if the haul isn't worth much, I think you are better off with the additional slot on the 40-man than a catcher who is at least 4th on a reasonable depth chart, and is preventing you from using the slot on a player at a position of need. Middle infield, anyone?

I have been thinking quite a bit about David Wright's chances for a strong rebound 2010, and I keep coming back to the same point, so I felt like writing a FanPost. Such is the joy of having a good online community in which to participate. :)

I want to point to a handful of different assessments of David Wright's 2010 from various writers and analysts. I have ranked them from most optimistic to least optimistic; you can quibble with my ordering if you'd like.

Continue reading this post »

I don't have any explanation for this, but this is certainly the weirdest split I've seen this season, and I wanted to see what this community thought. Check out this split on Daniel Murphy.

4/1-7/31: .247/.317/.373

8/1 - 9/21: .297/.309/.516

Murph has exactly 2 unintentional walks since July 31. His power over that stretch is actually respectable, and could even be passable for a first baseman if sustained (average isolated power for a 1B in 2009 is .208). But what happened to the patient hitter from the beginning of the season? Is this just a fluke? Or a change in approach? Could he possibly combine the best of both worlds?

I suppose we could write it off as "small sample," but this seems awfully strange.

This is my first fanpost here, and, while it may be a bit presumptuous to solicit feedback, I figured I'd throw it out there.

Something I was thinking about today: there are two types of "Conventional wisdom" floating around about the Mets and baseball. There's the one that focuses on grission and heart and being a Phillie, and then there's the other that focuses on things like performance and hitting and defense. The first worldview indicates that the Mets should trade players like Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran b/c they don't have "heart." The second finds it ludicrous that to improve a team, you would suggest trading its best players.

I don't mean to disparage, actually. I want to challenge a bit of the sabermetrics worldview's conventional wisdom.

Here's my thought exercise: pretend you're the GM of the Mets. You're having a meeting with Fred Wilpon and Jeff Wilpon, and they lay out a maximum dollar value that they are willing to spend on player personnel in 2010. The number they give you is ______.

I imagine that the number they give you could fall anywhere between $37 million (Marlins' payroll) and $136 million (Mets' current payroll). I think it is highly unlikely that they would push it as low as $37 million, but we simply do not know how much the Wilpons were hurt by the Madoff scandal (news reports are so scattered), or how much they would want to shave, or if they are interested in making the team more attractive for another buyer.

I think there is a payroll value where the sabermetrics worldview breaks down, and the grission-y worldview is right. Somewhere, there is a payroll cap where the optimal strategy to building a competitive team is to trade Beltran, and Reyes, and maybe Santana, in exchange for lower cost, less-effective players. I don't know where that limit is, but I think it exists.

Two (compound) questions:

1. What's the number where the grission-y worldview is right?

2. Let's assume that the Mets are forced to drive their payroll down to $90 million ($10 million higher than league median payroll). What do you do? Who would you deal? Who would you insist on keeping?

I'm still formulating my own answers, but I figured I'd throw it out there just as a thought exercise. Thanks!