moonslav59

The Mets -M's deal is done. The M's send just $20M and save $64M. Cano, Diaz & $20M for Bruce, Swarzak, Kelenic, Dunn and Bautista Now, word is out the Mets are looking at Kluber.

They both have great teams and a closing window. I'm not saying or trying to imply Eovaldi is bad, but assuming Eovaldi is going to pitch even 150+ innings in 3 of the 4 years he likely will get on his next deal may be a huge stretch. Without the playoff heroics, I doubt the sense of wanting him back would be any where near what it is now. I'm not saying we should throw out what he did. He showed some big kahunas out there, and teams need guys like him. The love the team showed him after that 18 inning loss brought tears to my eyes (and his & Porcello). It was storybook! My big concern is our budget. I want us to keep Betts, but I think we will re-set the tax in 2020 or 2021. It will be very hard to keep Betts and have a decent team around him as well. Every dollar committed to 2020 and beyond could and likely will squeeze out someone, if not Betts, then maybe Bogey, Sale, Porcello or JBJ...or some other player we want or need. Sure, if Eovaldi gives us 190+ IP'd for 4 years, we may get by without Sale or Porcello or Bogey or Betts, but thinking of just 2019 worries me. Had we not won this year, the sense of urgency on the closing window would probably change my position. Yes, I'd love to win again in 2019, even if it meant we might not be as competitive in 2020 and beyond, but it's a difficult balancing act, and a lot depends on Henry's plans for if and when we re-set the tax. If he's willing to go 4 more years paying mega taxes, I'm all in on Eovaldi... 200%!. I love the guy. I also plan on being around many more years, and want us to be good in 2021 and beyond.

Alabama 54 Oklahoma 31 Notre Dame 26 Clemson 23 Title game: Alabama 27 Notre Dame 29

My projected FBS rankings: 1. Alabama 2. Clemson 3. Notre Dame 4. Oklahoma 5. Ohio State 6. Georgia 7. UCF 8. Michigan 9. Washington 10. Florida

Certainly, our farm is better looking at the lower levels, but all I heard when we traded Espinoza was that you can't count on guys that low in the system. Now, I'm being asked to trust guys that low in the system.

Pittsburg, Memphis twice and #24 Cincy is pretty bad for the best 3 teams played, but other teams lost 1-2 games- some to not great teams. I wouldn't put them in, but I think they belong at #6 or 7.

You are assuming a lot. We can probably extend Porcello at $20-22M a year. He's more reliable, and I'm not buying the more upside argument for Eovaldi. Porcello has Cy Young upsdie- proven. Eovaldi is one of the least proven pitchers looking at $60M/4 I can think of.

Maximizing 2019 might be minimizing 2020 and beyond.

Well, Alabama's comeback made sure ND won't face them in the semi finals. Hard to think Georgia doesn't belong in the 4, but Oklahoma squeaks in again. I can't see Ohio State passing OKL, even if the blow out N'Western. Clemson is up on Pitt right now. UCF won a wild one, but has no chance. Assuming Ohio St and Clemson win, here's my final rankings (not what I think the polls will show): 1. Alabama 2. Notre Dame (Clemson will be #2, if they beat Pitt) 3. Clemson 4. Oklahoma 5. Georgia 6. Ohio State (assuming they win. They will probably be ahead of GA.) 7. UCF 8. Michigan 9. Florida 10. Washington/LSU/Wash St.

He'd probably be less likely to get hurt by just pitching 65-70 innings a year vs 150-200, but $15M a year is a lot for a closer. I'm not sure he wants to close.

Wondering when the first domino will fall.

I'm a huge VTek fan, but I agree. Fisk was on another level.

So true. Some risks have not worked out... many have. To me, DD's best deals have been very low risk ones: The Eovaldi trade. The Pearce trade. The Nunez trade. The Brasier signing.

No. I think there are a few of us that are very hesitant, especially if the deal goes beyond 2-3 years.

Porcello is much less of a risk, even if his cost is more. He's been better and more dependable and durable that Eovaldi. Nathan is a huge risk. There's just no getting around it. Before the playoffs started, I doubt anyone would say we should sign him to $60M/4. Don't get me wrong, I'd love him to come back, but if it's an either/or situation, it's a more complex decision than it seems to be.

Yeh, he should have been enough to lead us to a ring. (LOL)

We spent a lot of money back in some of those years, but mostly on big power hitters. It seemed like every fan knew the reason we never won was due to lack of better pitching. Even guys like Tiant we largely lucky acquisitions that didn't cost a lot. We did go out and get the Mike Torrez's and Mike Boddickers here and there, but always just one. We didn't win until we added Schilling to Pedro. We didn't win once we lost Pedro, until we added Beckett. We didn;t win with just Lester, until we added Lackey. We didn't win with just Price, until we added Sale (and Porcello).

Yes, sending his contract a day late was a total travesty. Luis Tiant was great and deserved a ring, but sadly, we had little so little behind him. It's no coincidence that we never won a ring until we had 2 aces and more pitching depth than any teams in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

I meant that was the break even point on Cano alone. Now, add what Diaz is worth minus his expected contract cost. If that is worth $5-10M more a year vs market cost of a FA, then deduct that from what the M's should need to pay.

If after you deduct the lost cost of Bruce, Cano only costs the Mets $5-10M a year, then getting Diaz with cano is not bad at all, but let's wait and see how the money all shakes out.

Fisk did have a some pretty good talent around him, but the pitching staffs were never quite good enough or deep enough to get us over the hump.

As much as I want Eovaldi, I'd like to keep Porcello and maybe Sale, too, depending on how his durability looks in 2019.

You are right, he didn't fall fast and hard right after the signing like my statement implied.

Exactly. The system is now set up to really hurt the winning and big spending teams, and we are both. We got spoiled by the old system that actually helped the teams like us with comp picks and drafts where (good) prospects wanting big money fell to the bottom of the order. We also really struck gold on international signings for many years. That is much harder to do, now. I don't want to come off as a pessimist. Usually, posters criticize me for being too optimistic, but I just don't get how some can be so optimistic about our chances at rebuilding our farm into something close to what it used to be. It may not be impossible, but several decks are stacked against us.

I really like Eovaldi, but the point about him helping us in case "we lose Sale or Porcello" is a bit more complex. Signing him to more than 2 years may very well cause us to lose Sale or Porcello due to his added contract and our possible desire to re-set the tax in a year or two.