UH OH! Omar interested in Alou II (Matsui)?
Posted by trs86 on 11:49am, Thursday December 3rd 2009
This from MLBTR: “Patrick Newman of NPB Tracker reports that the Mets asked to see the results of Hideki Matsui’s physical. I guess this means they’d consider letting him play the outfield.”
Also in the update they have comments on John Maine as well as the potential of using Blanco and Coste to lower Molina’s demands.
Sphere: Related Content
Nah, no way. Just doing his due diligence on the market.
Unless/until the commissioner steps up to the podium to announce the National League will also have the DH, this is a terrible idea.
Thanks Heb.
I reserve further comment.
Perhaps Omar thinks this is the AL.
He was listening to Paul Simon’s “You Can Call Me AL” and got confused.
I think this is just another case of the Mets using the media to bring other players prices down? PLEASE!
This is waaaaay off topic and a really minor thing, but does anyone know anything about the health of Taylor Buchholz? He’s on MLBTR’s list of likely non-tenders and when healthy in 2008 was a very effective set-up man for the Rockies. He turned 28 last month so he’s not over the hill. Depending on his health he’s a guy I’d love to see in the set-up mix.
it is waaaaaay off topic. lol.
How about Scutaro at 2B? Don’t know much about him, but he seems to have little more power than Castillo and should be cheap.
Don’t think he will be cheap at all. With Polanco off the market he is in the top 3 I would think.
I’d love to have him but his name seems to come up rumored with a lot of teams. I have no idea what sort of money he should expect but he did make “only” $1.1 mil last year so depending on how the market shakes out he could both get a big raise and still be cheaper than Castillo/rumored Polanco.
that’s a good point.
But I think he’d be cheaper than ODog though
I think Omar is obligated to look into every possible solution.
Not looking into Matsui’s health would be a more valid criticism than simply investigating his condition.
Anyway, if they can somehow determine he is healthy, we know he can still hit. I just doubt the former more than the latter.
Don’t forget he was playing in a wiffle ball stadium batting behind A-Rod and Tex, and protected by a by Cano and Posada behind him. That situation will get you quite a few rbi.
Available FA OF that I’d rather the Mets sign to either platoon or start outright in LF than Hideki Matsui, alphabetically:
Rick Ankiel
Rocco Baldelli
Jason Bay
Marlon Byrd
Mike Cameron
Frank Catalanotto
Endy Chavez
Coco Crisp
Johnny Damon
Darin Erstad
Ryan Freel
Vladimir Guerrero
Eric Hinske
Matt Holliday
Reed Johnson
Mark Kotsay
Xavier Nady
Scott Podsednik
Fernando Tatis
Randy Winn
Now, I base that solely on defensive ability, my opinion on that formed through a combination of what I’ve seen and looking at UZR/150 ratings. So Hideki, you should be proud to know I’d take you over Jermaine Dye, Brian Giles, Gabe Kapler, Jason Michaels and Gary Sheffield.
What would the list look like if you considered offense too?
(I would also note that some of these guys are just as likely as Matsui to not be physically capable of playing LF regularly and others like Catalonotto and Hinske has defensive metrics benefitting from small samples).
It would be a lot shorter. Admittedly I was being a tad snide in compiling this.
In being more truthful, when I consider who I would like the Mets to sign as either a platoon or as a primary LF, I must factor in offense, defense and what I perceive as a likely contract the player might sign, and I would have to make two lists, one for platoon guys and one for starters. I won’t tackle the platoon list right now.
My starters list would be along these lines:
Mike Cameron
Matt Holliday
Jason Bay
Marlon Byrd
Johnny Damon
Hideki Matsui
Jermaine Dye
but in the context of the combination of the factors mentioned above, the only one I really want would be Cameron, the others are all a compromise for me either in that I think I’m going to have to pay them too much or I just don’t trust some key aspect of their ability (offensive consistency or defense), or both.
After digging into the whole concept of “slugging LF” the other day, I have convinced myself (if no one else) that just getting a slugging LF really doesn’t help enough to make that pursuit worthwhile. I think any of the guys on the above list only help enough when combined with some combination of improvement (both offensively and defensively) at 1B, 2B and C (at least two of the three positions if not all three).
In the absence of being able to improve both offensively and defensively at three of the four (LF, 1B, 2B, C) I prefer to concentrate on defensive improvement at any individual one position.
Your list looks sound to me. I might consider Winn over Matsui or Dye, praying he regains his offensive form. I just can’t see Matsui or Dye playing passable defense at this stage of the game and I’d like to protect Johan and Ollie as much as possible.
Damon’s defense also concerns me, though his throwing arm is a bigger problem than is catching the ball. The thing that attracts me to Damon is his all around offensive game and his intangible winningness. While I’m not a big believer in that stuff, I think this current team could use a jolt of professionalism. I’d probably also take Damon over Byrd if push came to shove.
If Damon is playing in our outfield, understand we will need a cut off man to get it to the cut off man on balls hit to the wall.
Daniel Murphy has shown a propensity to run all over the place to be a cutoff man whether the play calls for it or not, so he could probably handle that role for Damon.
Yeah, but he’d probably just slip and fall before he could catch the throw.
Or slip and fall after catching Damon’s throw while turning to throw it in.
Either way, eerily realistic.
I can’t argue against any of that, I can merely elaborate on my thought process.
I threw Byrd ahead of Damon solely on defense. Byrd is one of the guys I fear in the “offensive consistency” category. I have no idea what to expect from the guy. He seems more likely to go .280/10/60 than do better than that.
I also think I understand what you’re referring to about Damon. I lived in Boston during his time there and the dude was bigger than life. I’m a huge fan of the Grizzly Adams look.
Whoops, I forgot to add that I left Winn off because I’m frightened by the precipitous drop in offense vis a vis his age.
I’d really like to get Winn as the 4th outfielder if Pagan is traded.
I think he’d be really valuable as a solid defender at all 3 outfield positions and as a switch hitter off the bench. He also seems to have that professionalism this team lacks.
With Francoeur’s inconsistency, Beltran’s knees and the likely imperfect solution in LF, a solid vet like Winn but would be a good score for about 300 at bats worth of playing time.
I agree entirely with that thought. That’s a very sound idea.
Maybe if you email it to Marty Noble, he’ll publish it in the context of “omigod an email with a reasonable idea” and perhaps someone with the Mets will see it.
We can meet for a bagel and hope Omar overhears our conversation.
An interesting read from Fangraphs below on the decision not to offer Wolf arbitration. One theory not raised by Cameron, baseball blogger extraordinaire, is that perhaps Wolf has some sort of injury which might prompt him to accept arbitration and that his agent think Wolf might fail a physical with a new team…
Wolf Decision Raises Questionsby Dave Cameron - December 2, 2009 - Share this Article
Let me just quote the lead paragraph of this LA Times story.
The decision by the Dodgers not to offer arbitration to pitcher Randy Wolf or any of their other free agents Tuesday should not be viewed as a sign that their uncertain ownership situation is affecting them financially, General Manager Ned Colletti said.
“Our decision was made strictly from a baseball perspective,” Colletti said.
If that’s true, Dodger fans should be pretty upset today. If this was a baseball decision, then Ned Colletti either doesn’t like draft picks or he doesn’t like Randy Wolf, who really should have been an easy arbitration offer decision.
Wolf, as a Type A free agent, would have netted the Dodgers two draft picks had he signed elsewhere. He’s made it known that he’s looking for a multi-year deal this winter, and coming off a strong 2009 season, he’s very likely to get one. The odds of Wolf accepting arbitration to take another one year deal were not very good. This is his chance to cash in with some long term security, and he wasn’t going to give that up to get a few million extra in 2010.
Even if Colletti disagrees with that assessment, the downside of Wolf accepting arbitration is not that high. He’d probably end up getting somewhere around $14 or $15 million in arbitration – our valuation says he was worth $13.6 million last year, and he’s likely to be a $10 or $11 million pitcher in 2010. The risk that they would have taken was to pay slightly more than his actual value for a quality mid-rotation starter on a one year deal.
And the Dodgers are not exactly overflowing with starting pitching. In some cases, you could make the argument that an arbitration offer could muck up the roster if a player accepts when the team had another player ready to take his job. The Dodgers have no such player ready to take Wolf’s rotation spot.
As a baseball decision, this is a bad one. Of course, there’s a pretty decent chance that this was not a baseball decision, and that the Dodgers are being hamstrung by the McCourts’ divorce, leading to uncertain budgets and the need to count pennies carefully. That would make a lot more sense than believing that the Dodgers thought that Wolf would accept arbitration over pursuing a multi-year contract as a free agent, and that they would be unhappy with that result.
Interesting. Unless they intend on using that cash somewhere else like Lackey or Halladay.
If I’m reading that correctly, I can understand not wanting to be forced by an arbitrator into giving Randy Wolf a 1yr/$14.5 mil contract.
Ya, it’s hard to imagine him duplicating the numbers he put up last year. Don’t get me wrong he’s a solid pitcher, just not what his ‘09 will tell you, and for that reason, I could see LA not wanting to pay him for his ‘09 numbers.
MLB.com is reporting the Polanco deal is done for 3 years.
The signings of Castro and Polanco reflect an emphasis on defense for Philly.
Whereas the signing of Schenider reflects the importance of staying off acid.
LOL!
I can envision a scenario in which the Phils lefty hitters give Schneids a few pointers and he winds up in double figure HR as a back up.