Offense Appears to be Set

It looks like Andres Torres, Jason Bay, and Scott Hairston will be healthy for opening day (In fact, Hairston started in center field today against the Nationals).  In addition, Adam Loewen was reportedly reassigned to minor league camp.  With those nuggets of news, the Mets lineup and bench appear to be set, barring any injuries (*snicker*) between now and April 5th.

So, the lineup looks like this:

CF Torres, 2B Murphy, 3B Wright, 1B Davis, RF Duda, LF Bay, C Thole, SS Tejada.

The bench will consist of:

IF Turner, IF Cedeno, OF Baxter, OF Hairston, C Nickeas.

Not exactly the ’27 Yankees, especially as far as the bench is concerned.  The lineup has the potential to score some runs if the middle of the order produces the way many believe it can.  But if the ol’ injury bug rears its ugly head again, there’s not much backup support, at least on paper.

But, to coin a phrase, that’s why they play the games.

Paul is a freelance writer, blogger, and broadcast technology professional residing in Denver. A New Jersey native, he is a long-suffering Mets fan, a recently-happy Giants fan, and bewildered Islanders fan. He's also a fair-weather Avalanche and Rockies supporter. In his spare time, he enjoys the three Gs: Golf, Guitars, and Games.
  1. Jimmy Prinzler March 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm
    Are you sure this lineup is from a team in Majors?? Looks like AAA lineup! Oh that’s right, Madoff encouraged Wilpon to use the AAA lineup!
  2. Izzy March 28, 2012 at 6:38 pm
    Too bad Bud the thug Selig doesn’t hate Fred Wilpon. If he did we’d have a wealthy and financially healthy ownership group now. Oh well, nothing like having to read stories about when each one of Wilpon’s loans are due and what he’s gonna do to pay the debt. Dodger fans are lucky, Met fans are screwed once again. Gee, maybe he’ll find a third pnzi scheme and we’ll be for another little while. Nothing like the antiquated buddy system to keep baseball and the Mets a joke.
  3. SiddFinch March 28, 2012 at 6:48 pm
    The starting 8 is solid, if unspectacular, but If this team is serious about contending they need to improve that bench.
  4. Peter March 28, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    I am sure you are already writing a post on this but I am going to ask the question anyway. I do not understand why the Mets are worth less than the Dodgers due to the fact that the Dodgers can bid out their TV rights soon. I thought that SNY was extremely profitable and that having your own network was the symbol of success? Everyone says that the Yankees are worth significantly more because of YES. Why, discounting everything else, does the fact the Mets have their own TV network not make them more attractive in that aspect than pretty much every franchise in baseball?

    • Joe Janish March 28, 2012 at 11:47 pm
      Peter, I’m not well-versed on the Mets-SNY situation and I’m even less well-versed on anything having to do with finances. But from what I have heard and read, it has something to do with the fact that their ownership in SNY actually limits their profit potential; it has something to do with existing deals with the cable carriers, I think. But beyond that, the Mets and SNY are technically two entities, and though Wilpon/Katz own both, it doesn’t necessarily mean they can take from Peter to pay Paul. The Mets entity is locked into an agreement that gives them $68M per year, regardless of what SNY’s actual profits. In other words, if SNY makes ten billion dollars, only $68M will flow to the Mets.

      Further, Mets ownership — principally the Wilpons and Saul Katz — don’t completely own SNY (they own 65%) and they owe a first right of refusal to the other investors before selling any of their shares. Therefore, it would be very difficult for a buyer of the Mets to also get shares of SNY as part of the deal. Without getting a piece of SNY, and being locked into a set annual fee, significantly limits revenue potential and therefore lowers the value of the Mets baseball franchise.

      At least, I THINK this is the explanation. If anyone else can chime in with better info, please do.

      • DaveSchneck March 29, 2012 at 9:02 am
        Peter and Joe,
        I am not familiar with transaction details, but I think Dodger Stadium is in the deal, and based on the age of the stadium the Dodgers have less debt that the Mets do. Once we can get beyond knowing that we are now “stuck” with the Wilpons, the selling price of the Dodgers is great news for Met fans. We try to piece together the profitability based on bits and pieces of public info, but regardless of claims like “losses of $70 million”, the Mets operate in the bigger market than the Dodgers, have a new stadium, and essentially their own TV station. Once they get their financial house in order, and keep Jeffy out of the baseball moves and better spend, the payroll will expand, and on-field product will likely improve. Then the value of the team will go up.
  5. Mike Kelm March 29, 2012 at 10:11 am
    So we have lots of backup second base and third base depth… woo hoo… We don’t have a fourth outfielder, we have two fifth outfielders- neither one of those guys do I want starting 60-80 games to give the others off. Then again, Lucas Duda in right field scares the heck out of me anyways.

    I’m curious- why the Davis-Duda-Bay order… doesn’t this put two lefty’s back to back then a righty? I’d think this would make it easier for opposing managers to bring in their LOOGY. In 1/3 as many at bats against lefties than he had against Righties, Bay hit 62 points higher and have 5 of his 12 home runs on the season. Duda on the other hand hit 25 points lower against lefties and had zero homeruns againts them out of his 10 for the season.

    • Paul Festa March 29, 2012 at 11:12 am
      Terry has said he’s going to go Davis-Bay-Duda in the opening series against the Braves because of the lefties in their bullpen.

      You could leave it that way, but then you have Duda and Thole batting back-to-back, unless you bat Thole 8th and Tejada 7th. That’s not out of the realm of possibility.

    • Joe March 30, 2012 at 11:25 am
      I’m not sure what the difference between a “fourth” and “fifth” outfielder or even a “not that good every day” OF and a “fourth” outfielder. The Mets don’t really have a good everyday CF. Other than that, the outfield is okay. Yes, Duda is not a strong RF, but given his offense, I think there are other things to be “scared the heck” about. Currently, from what I saw, the closer.
      • Mike Kelm April 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm
        As I see it, a fourth outfielder is a guy like Mookie Wilson was for the ’86 team. He can play multiple outfield positions and should see action at all three. He’s capable of starting if someone goes down and play at average levels. You should see him 90-110 games a season. More recently we had Endy Chavez do this role. The fifth outfielder is more the corner outfielder/pinch hit guy. Danny Heep or Lee Mazilli for example. While you don’t mind him starting every once in a while, you don’t want it being an every day occurrance.

        I could live with Torres as a fourth or fifth outfielder but you’re right- he’s a poor everyday CF.
        I actually see Torres as an okay fourth outfielder