Jump to content

Buck's 2022-2023 New York Mets


Just Regular

Recommended Posts

Like us, they salvaged a series finale to avoid being swept by LAD last weekend, as Scherzer pitched great, and now Verlander also has last night.

They have a getaway afternoon with the White Sox going for a sweep, and then a Red Sox-Yankees roadtrip before a 4-game home series with the Nationals before the deadline.

It'll be good theater if they are hot and still racing when Buck comes to OPACY soon after the deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SDP and NYM took the payroll expenditures to extremes.  SDP put a few more chits in the pot.  NYM folded.

Will Buck 'retire' again at the end of the season avoiding the draining work of coaching during a rebuild?  If so, that will knock him down a peg or two in my mind.

 

Scherzer: Mets Planning 2024 As "A Kind Of Transitory Year" With Focus On 2025 And Beyond - MLB Trade Rumors

According to Scherzer, “I was like, ’OK, are we reloading for 2024?’  [Eppler] goes, ’No, we’re not.  Basically our vision now is for 2025-2026, ’25 at the earliest, more like ’26.  We’re going to be making trades around that.’  I was like, ’So the team is not going to be pursuing free agents this offseason or assemble a team that can compete for a World Series next year?’  He said, ’No, we’re not going to be signing the upper-echelon guys.  We’re going to be on the smaller deals within free agency. ‘24 is now looking to be more of a kind of transitory year.’ 

A follow-up chat between Scherzer and Mets owner Steve Cohen took the same tack, which inspired Scherzer to waive his no-trade clause and approve the deal to the Rangers.  “That’s basically what Steve said: ’I never thought in a million years we’d be in this situation, being at the deadline and we’re actually selling.  But the math is the math.  And the math says this organization needs to retool.’  That was Steve saying that.  I said, ’I get it. I’m not here to say you’re wrong.’  It is what it is. I understand from Steve’s perspective that’s the direction he wants to take the team based on where everyone is at within their contracts, arbitration, free agency.  That was the new vision for the Mets.”

However, Scherzer also noted that “if they had said, ‘We’re going to hold on to all the ‘24 pieces,’ that would have been a different story.”

“But they were saying no, we’re going to be moving players that are under contract for 2024 before the deadline.  We walked through some players I had in mind who would be that.  It turned out it was much more extensive than that.  The players we ended up talking about who are free agents after ‘24, they were more substantial names.  Any player who was a free agent after 2024 at the right price could be moved right now at the deadline.  That’s a completely different vision from what everybody had in the clubhouse.  All the players had a vision of, we reload for 2024.  That was no longer the case.”

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Earlier in the season, you would have expected this weekend's 4 game series between the Braves and Mets in New York to be a big series.

Three games in, the Braves have outscored the Mets 34-3.   Tomorrow, the entire nation gets to witness the carnage on Sunday Night Baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • But that is not what you said. You said he’s a bad fielder, just not quite Trumbo-tier. Thus, you were stating he is close to as bad a fielder as Trumbo was, which is not correct. Generally speaking, no player makes up the loss of offensive value with defensive value as the age. It is usually one of the first things to go. I was not making any sort of argument that he was going to make up declining offense with defense, just pointing out that you made a preposterous statement.
    • At least relative to the rest of the league Santander has an interesting profile because he is comfortably above-average at making contact; his whiff rates are much better than Trumbo's so he's not really as much of a TTO player as you would think.  This gives him hope that he will age a little bit better than someone like Trumbo.  Though he's still got a good shot of being out of the league in 3 years.
    • It's not the money, it's the years.  I wouldn't mind signing him for a year or two, even at what I'd consider to be stupid money.  But what I DON'T agree with is signing him for any more than 2-3 years as I don't think he's going to age well.  And I expect him to get more than 3 years from someone, so I'm a hard pass.  Can we afford him?  Money wise, sure.  But I don't want to see us stuck with him 4-5 years down the road when his skillset has greatly diminished, but he's still playing every day because we owe him a lot of money and a lot of loyalty.  Let some other club take that risk, get the QO pick and move on.  
    • Santander does exactly ONE thing very well: Hit HRs He doesn't hit for average, he doesn't get on base, he's a very slow runner, and he is a very poor defender. If he stops hitting HRs so often, his value completely evaporates and his contract basically becomes dead money, and the Orioles cannot afford to eat large amounts of dead money like the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees of the world. I am simply using Trumbo, whose basic tool kit is very similar to Santander's, as a fairly recent, Orioles-related cautionary tale. Trumbo had his big walk year with the Orioles at age 30 and instead of doing the smart, obvious thing and taking the free draft pick, we gave him a big money extension that everyone except the FO knew was probably going to end poorly. Baseball Savant has Santander in the 22nd percentile in terms of overall fielding value. However you want to slice it, he isn't going to make up any lost value from declining offense with his defense. If his ability to slug goes south, the whole contract goes with it, because he has no other tools to make up for that with.
    • Santander is -2 OAA this year. He’s averagish to below average. There but there are much worse defensive right fielders such as Adolis Garcia and Castellanos -9, Lane Thomas and Renfroe -8, and Soto -4. Acuna and Tatis are also -2 OAA.  In 2016, Mark Trumbo was -15 OAA. They’re not even in the same universe.
    • Anthony Santander (age 27-29): .245 / .317 / .477 / .794    124 OPS+   9.0 rWAR Mark Trumbo (age 27-29): .244 / .299 / .443 / .742   105 OPS+  2.6 rWAR Is it really very meaningful that Trumbo was the better player when they were significantly younger? 29-year-old Santander is a better player by miles than Trumbo at the same age, and he has been for years. I think that’s what matters most to how you’d project them over the next few years.
    • I love Tony and I honestly think we are gonna miss his veteran leadership as much as anything. I’m very happy we have him for this year. But I do think he’d be a bad long term investment. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...