Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Looking Forward to ... > Discussion
Looking Forward to ...
— BTF's Preseason Previews

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Looking Forward to 2008: New York Mets

No team in MLB is looking forward to 2008 as much as the New York Mets are.  Perhaps the 1964 Phillies looked as forward to the 1965 season.  The Phillies at least had the consolation that there was no Wild Card to simultaneously choke their way out of.  The Mets had gone into 2007 after a rough playoff loss to the St. Louis Cardinals in a seven-game NLCS featuring late inning heroics from So Taguchi and Yadier Molina.  The Mets then acquired the best pitcher in baseball, Johan Santana, from the Minnesota Twins for a minimal package.  So the Mets, and their fans, are really looking forward to 2008.

But it isn’t all good times.

Just five days before my birthday, I got an early birthday present: the Mets acquired P Johan Santana from the Minnesota Twins for OF Carlos Gomez, P Phil Humber, P Deolis Guerra, and P Kevin Mulvey.
It wasn’t the worst package that could be thought of – Gomez and Humber are certainly pretty good prospects.  Nonetheless, taking the Mets team that has won 165 games the last two seasons and replacing a 40-year old *done* Tom Glavine with Johan Santana makes the Mets the team to beat in the National League East.  As long as the other teams don’t improve significantly more, or they don’t fall off the map anywhere else.

The other big trade for the Mets was sending their other good prospect Lastings Milledge to the Washington Nationals for Brian Schneider and Ryan Church.  This was not a good trade in the eyes of many fans.  Milledge was clearly being sent out because he was a little too, er, loose with his enthusiasm.  Randolph was unhappy with Milledge’s lack of old-school decorum, and he let him know it. 
There was another deal that caused Mets fans to celebrate – Guillermo Mota was sent packing.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The 2008 Mets should improve.  Roughly, Carlos Delgado will be “about the same”, which isn’t great, but passable.  Luis Castillo will be “about the same”, which isn’t great, but passable.  David Wright and Jose Reyes should continue to improve, as they enter their peak phases.  Carlos Beltran is at a great level and he should repeat 2007.  The questions really come up at the corner outfielders and catcher.

Catcher – Last year the Mets ran Paul Lo Duca (yes, that’s two words) out there.  Lo Duca was a poor defensive catcher, a dn the acquisition of Schneider is going to improve on that considerably.  Offensively, Schneider is four years younger but has never really hit as much as Lo Duca might.  He is going to hit about what Lo Duca did in 2007, and hopefully provide a handful of runs defensively to make the change a net positive.  If Schneider approaches an OPS+ of 90, it’ll be a big improvement.  He’ll be hitting seventh or eighth, so that’s better than Lo Duca hitting second.  Compared to 2007, there’ll be no change in runs scored, though.

First Base – Carlos Delgado is on his last legs.  Probably.  He is listed in the media guide as 6’4”, 265 pounds.  Maybe the big Carlos, but not the 2008 Carlos.  Carlos started 2007 miserably, and posted a 119 OPS+ after the All-Star Break.  He has started 2008 much better, and it hasn’t been great, so hopefully his season will result in a somewhat better year – probably about ten runs over the season.  And that’s just getting back to league average with the bat.

Second Base – Ugh, another second baseman.  Luis Castillo has no power, and he’s old.  Remarkably, his PAs for the Mets were worse than the work they were getting from Damion Easley and Ruben Gotay.  Unfortunately, Castillo is not good defensively, so whatever decent runs he creates with his bat, he’s likely to give back with his glove.  His performance is likely to be a net zero compared to 2007, if not a decrease in runs by about five.

Third Base – David Wright is awesome.  His career has a nice slope so far, with OPS+ of 118, 139, 133, 150 and has come out of the gate knocking the cover off the ball.  He has already hit four more home runs than he did last April.  He won a Gold Glove in 2007.  Yes, his defense improved by ten runs, but that just got it back to league average.  He is improving, and he could earn a GG this season if he continues to improve.  He is looking at a good arc and adding another 15-20 runs to his performance.

Shortstop – Jose Reyes start the season looking to set all sorts of unprecedented improvements.  At the ASB, he had an OPS+ of 122.  In September, he posted an OPS+ of 58.  If you want to look for a non-pitcher, non-manager goat, Reyes volunteered.  Which was the real Jose Reyes?  Well, neither.  He’s not the Reyes that posted a huge OPS in April, but should be able to do as well as he did in 2006, which, compared to 2007 is an increase of 15 runs or so.  His defense also continued to be solid, improving slightly over 2006, and he should at least maintain that.  A full season with Castillo could also improve their ability to turn the doubleplay – something that bit them often enough to matter in the last two months of 2007.

Left Field – Moises Alou missed half of the season in 2007.  He’s already on the DL and will probably miss half of 2008.  Barry Bonds is a free agent and could be taking these at bats.  Alou has posted OPS+ of 131, 138, 132 and 138 the last four years.  His batting average was .341 in 2007.  He hasn’t lost bat speed, and even though he’ll be 41, there’s no obvious reason for him to see significant, if any real decline.  What about this injury – won’t it slow him down?  You might think so if Alou weren’t injured in the last two seasons and continued to hit this well.  But that still leaves half of the season.  The Mets are counting on Angel Pagan, so far, and Pagan, just 26, has played well.  Offensively anyway.  He hasn’t looked great in the outfield, but he’s got decent speed, and may adapt.  Alou was bad defensively, so Pagan, while not good, may be average.  Pagan isn’t a bad hitter as a centerfielder, but his 300 ABs for the Cubs weren’t going to be enough from left field.  The Mets will need to catch some lightning from him.  The 2007 Mets LF weren’t good without Alou, so it looks like a wash.

Center Field – Carlos Beltran is in a nice area in his career.  He’s got a good run of 130 OPS+, and should be able to produce that again in 2008.  It would be nicer to get the 2006 performance, but that just balanced out his terrible 2005 performance.  He’s still terrific with the glove, albeit still gun-shy from his collision with Mike Cameron two years ago.  He is still the upper echelon defensively in center, but he clearly pulls up sooner on ‘tweeners.  Beltran could be better, but he could be worse – he isn’t likely to be far from his 2007 performance in either direction.

Right Field – Whew – Shawn Green is gone.  He was a terrible pick-up to begin with.  To be fair to Green, he actually didn’t play that poorly.  He also didn’t play well enough to keep Lastings Milledge out of the lineup.  He is also not a good fielder.  The Mets traded for Ryan Church.  Church has a decent bat, and should easily outhit the Mets 2007 RF.  He’s also a good fielder.  Not the best, but solidly above average.  Church is about an average hitter for a right fielder, but just 29, and could hit a little better with more regular play.  His glove and bat will add about 15 runs (10 and 5) over the 2007 crowd.  How well he handles lefties will be a big factor.  He hasn’t been too bad thus far in his career.

Bench – If there is anything Willie Randolph cannot do, it is construct a bench.  Okay, he can’t manage a pitching staff either, and doesn’t really know good tactics, but let’s focus on the bench.  Damion Easley, Brady Clark, Marlon Anderson, Raul Casanova, Endy Chavez.  If I were constructing a bench, only Endy might be on it.  To be fair, when Alou comes back, Brady Clark will likely get cut, and I suppose Angel Pagan is tolerable as a bench player.  Having two second basemen is pathetic.  Also, Ramon Castro will be on the bench later, so Casanova is just temporary.  There is no home run threat sitting on the bench.  How can someone think he can small ball his way like that?  Willie learned how to manage with a DH – couldn’t he get a DH to sit on the bench and play some first base? 

Rotation – Johan Santana, John Maine, Oliver Perez, Mike Pelfrey, Pedro Martinez – Johan has been really good so far.  He’s running out of gas about 100 pitches, and that might be related to having to play both sides of the ball.  He’s also given up a few home runs, but is still dominating for six innings.  As the season progresses, I think he’ll be able to stretch those innings out.  He’s basically replacing Tom Glavine in the rotation – nearly all the other innings will be similar.  How many runs does he save over Tom Glavine?  About twenty.  That’s right – 100 ER versus 80 ER.  Now, that’s using Santana’s 2007 stats.  If he reverts to 2005-6, then it is closer to 30 runs.  And if some overzealous analysts are to be believed on the difference between the AL and the NL, Santana may not allow a run all season (oops).  Santana is awesome, and he’ll have a great ERA.  He’ll save about twenty to thirty runs over Glavine.

Oliver Perez was just ridiculously young when the Mets got him.  He is just 26 this year, and has some nasty stuff.  He threw 177 IP last year, and I suspect he’ll move that up another 30 innings this year, and tweak up his ERA+ as well.  Perez allowed a lot of unearned runs last year, and that could be linked to his level of maturity.  Hopefully another year will stabilize that, and he’ll respond better to errors behind him.  So far, so good.

John Maine was another steal of a young pitcher.  He’s still learning, but is strong enough to get to 200 innings and a solid ERA+ in the 110 area.  For a third starter, that’s strong.  He’s got interesting stuff, and I think he will continue to improve.

Mike Pelfrey was a high draft pick and a big prospect.  He’s presently unpolished, but he is learning on the job while El Duque and Pedro are out of action.  Pelfrey has some nasty stuff, and it is going to be a matter of control and not making mistakes.  He can throw 120 innings around league average, and that’s going to be better than they got from him, Brian Lawrence and Jason Vargas.

Then there is the fifth slot.  Many had high hopes for Pedro Martinez, but he didn’t pitch in 2007 much, so that he is not pitching in 2008 isn’t trouble – yet.  Nelson Figueroa has pitched those starts up to this point, and done very well.  He last pitched in the majors in 2004 for the Pirates.  His stuff looks good in the games I have seen, but remember – he’s a place holder for Pedro/El Duque, and if he can get the ball to them without posting an ERA of 6, then the Mets will have done all right.

The rotation seems to be better than the 2007 group by a pretty good margin.  It looks like about thirty runs, and could easily creep upwards depending on the growth of Perez/Maine/Pelfrey.

Bullpen – Billy Wagner, Aaron Heilman, Pedro Feliciano, Joe Smith, Scott Schoenewies, Jorge Sosa, Duaner Sanchez.  I bad-mouth Rick Peterson a lot, but I do think he gets to pick his pitchers, and this selection is very good.  Wagner is a stud as a closer.  He’s started much better than in the last few years, and has even had better velocity than last year.  He’ll prevent a few more runs, and that will mean a few more wins.

The set-up man, Aaron Heilman has stumbled out of the gate, and could easily lose his job to Duaner Sanchez (this has occured since I wrote this).  Schoeneweis was mismanaged horrifically last year, so that should improve slightly.  Smith started the season strong, but the league got to him later.  I don’t know if it was experience with his stuff or if Joe got a little worn down.  They aren’t hitting him yet this year, so I am leaning toward tiredness.  Pedro Feliciano is not a LOOGY, and if Willie/Peterson learn that, the Mets will be better off.  It’s a good bullpen, and I expect them to allow twenty fewer runs than last season.

Help – Oh, there’s no help.  These are the players they have.  Don’t expect some Gregg Jeffries to show up at the end of the year.

Results – Last year the Mets scored 800 runs and allowed 750.  They added Santana and have maintained the status quo, plus some player improvement, via regression and aging, so this year, they’ll score 830 runs and allow 710 runs.  That’s assuming no one goes bonkers – good or bad.  So the Mets will get home around 93-69.

Mets ZiPS Projections

Chris Dial Posted: April 26, 2008 at 06:52 PM | 89 comment(s)
  Related News: Projections

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages
   1. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 26, 2008 at 07:35 PM (#2760006)
The Mets are 12-11 which isn't a horrible start to the season but there are things to be worried about. Maine and Perez have been effective but aren't pitching very deep into games. That has to improve. Sanchez has been excellent so far and he has a lot of weapons so he can get by with a heater that is 91-92 MPH, and I hope he can regain some velocity as he gets stronger. Willie has been managing the bullpen so far like he has 4 *oogies, which is OK if the starters are pitching deep into games and Heilman and Sanchez are reliable set-up men. Sanchez hasn't been used for two innings yet or on back to back days for an inning apiece.

Schneider and Church have been better than expected with the bat, and Wright has been superb, but everyone else has been disappointing.

All in all, they are lucky to be 12-11 and right with Atlanta considering how poorly they have plyed up to this point. They'll be better with the bat but they need more innings from their starters.
   2. Carmona My House (Crispix Attacks) Posted: April 26, 2008 at 07:40 PM (#2760018)
Help – Oh, there’s no help. These are the players they have. Don’t expect some Gregg Jeffries to show up at the end of the year.

This is a grave insult to Anderson Hernandez, Anderson Machado, Tony Armas Jr. and Shawn Wooten.
   3. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 26, 2008 at 07:40 PM (#2760019)
All in all, they are lucky to be 12-11 and right with Atlanta considering how poorly they have plyed up to this point.

And Philly, obviously.
   4. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 26, 2008 at 07:53 PM (#2760040)
BTW, does anyone know what's up with Claudio Vargas? The Mets signed him two weeks ago and he hasn't made an appearance yet in the minors.
   5. Chris Dial Posted: April 26, 2008 at 08:14 PM (#2760063)
they are lucky to be 12-11


I think there Pythag is better than that.
   6. Chris Dial Posted: April 26, 2008 at 08:14 PM (#2760065)
This is a grave insult to Anderson Hernandez, Anderson Machado, Tony Armas Jr. and Shawn Wooten.


I don't think Hernandez is ready.
   7. Sam M. Posted: April 26, 2008 at 08:19 PM (#2760077)
If there is anything Willie Randolph cannot do, it is construct a bench.

It isn't Randolph's job to construct a bench. It's Omar Minaya's job; it's Randolph's job to ##### and moan (loudly, but behind the scenes) about the bench Omar is constructing. Of course, I have no reason to believe Randolph has done so -- to the contrary, I have no doubt at all that this bench is pretty much the bench he wants or at least is most comfortable with. Populated with Proven Veterans™ whom Willie trusts, who fit his profile of "character" and reliable professionalism blah, blah, blah . . . you know my tirade about this by now.

But still, the primary blame for this (or at the very least an equal share of it) should go to Omar. Oh, for the days of Frank Cashen and Davey Johnson willing to platoon and use young players on the bench like HoJo and Kevin Mitchell. Not this gang, though.
   8. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: April 26, 2008 at 08:23 PM (#2760084)
Why didn't they at least grab Reed Johnson when he was available? He's a scrappy veteran who's actually a decent player. (I guess that answers my question.)
   9. Sam M. Posted: April 26, 2008 at 08:27 PM (#2760092)
Help – Oh, there’s no help. These are the players they have. Don’t expect some Gregg Jeffries to show up at the end of the year.

If there is help, it's at Binghamton, and it's to replace Delgado if he really has fallen off a cliff. But if the Mets are counting on that to happen, they are in deep trouble, because the odds that anyone down there could really help are slim, and the chances that Willie Randolph would ever given one of them the chance to do it are even slimmer.
   10. Chris Dial Posted: April 26, 2008 at 09:33 PM (#2760170)
But still, the primary blame for this (or at the very least an equal share of it) should go to Omar


Of course you are wrong here. The reason our bench is constructed of second basemen is because Willie wants them. Omar may have to acquiesce, but we have 2B because Willie likes them. Willie even made a comment to the effect that as long as he was a manager certain players would always have a spot on his bench.

The people that influence the decision are often more important than the actual act.

Willie has Marlon Anderson and Damion Easley because Willie wants them.
   11. Chris Dial Posted: April 26, 2008 at 09:34 PM (#2760171)
Why didn't they at least grab Reed Johnson when he was available? He's a scrappy veteran who's actually a decent player. (I guess that answers my question.)


BEcause he's not? He's not any better than what we have.
   12. Chris Dial Posted: April 26, 2008 at 09:39 PM (#2760176)
Delgado has an April OPS+ of 52 right now (OPS .556). Last April it was 44 and .522.

He posted a OPS+ 126 in May last year. I'm not counting him out, but as I say above - I really don't expect him to rebound back to 2006 levels. This start is no more damaging than last year's.
   13. Sam M. Posted: April 26, 2008 at 10:43 PM (#2760263)
Of course you are wrong here. The reason our bench is constructed of second basemen is because Willie wants them. Omar may have to acquiesce, but we have 2B because Willie likes them.

Of course I am right here. Omar Minaya has responsibility and authority for consructing the roster in the off-season. Omar may have to "acquiesce"??? Are you kidding? If Omar Minaya wanted to have a bench that even faintly nodded in the direction of rationality, that's what the Mets would have, and Willie Randolph would have to pout and make due without four second basemen masquerading as pinch hitters and utility bench players.

Perhaps you can argue that Omar's failure is not sitting Willie down and telling him he can't have this ridiculous bench just because he wants it, but that doesn't really change the reality that it is Omar's failure. It's in his job description to assemble the roster. That includes the bench. I'm certainly not quarreling with the notion that Randolph wants the bench he has, which is positively idiotic. But the fact that Omar didn't build a roster with better bench players than this is HIS fault, not Randolph's.
   14. Chris Dial Posted: April 26, 2008 at 10:47 PM (#2760265)
Perhaps you can argue that Omar's failure is not sitting Willie down and telling him he can't have this ridiculous bench just because he wants it, but that doesn't really change the reality that it is Omar's failure.


What the hell do you think acquiesce means?

and
"The people that influence the decision are often more important than the actual act."
   15. SteveM. Posted: April 26, 2008 at 10:52 PM (#2760269)
The Mets sure have a lot of dreck.
   16. Sam M. Posted: April 26, 2008 at 10:53 PM (#2760272)
Omar doesn't "have to" acquiesce. He has chosen to. And in making that decision, for which he has authority, he takes the blame.

I know what acquiesce means, Chris. And I think for the time being, I'm going to stop acquiescing in discussions with you. The tone has gotten to be not worth whatever substantive value there is to be had in it. Let me know when you want to trade ideas instead of snide remarks.
   17. TheUFactor Posted: April 26, 2008 at 10:57 PM (#2760278)
Virtually the entire difference between first half 2007 Reyes and second half 2007 Reyes is BABIP. Maybe he did hit a few more LD in the first half, but the majority of that has to be luck. Reyes so far this year has totally screwed up his approach and isn't displaying the gains he'd made in batting eye the last two years. This has to change, and soon.
   18. Chris Dial Posted: April 26, 2008 at 10:59 PM (#2760279)
Omar doesn't "have to" acquiesce. He has chosen to. And in making that decision, for which he has authority, he takes the blame.

I know what acquiesce means, Chris.


your above sentence indicates otherwise.

And I think for the time being, I'm going to stop acquiescing in discussions with you. The tone has gotten to be not worth whatever substantive value there is to be had in it. Let me know when you want to trade ideas instead of snide remarks.


Same to you. Re-read your critique in #7.
   19. Chris Dial Posted: April 26, 2008 at 11:00 PM (#2760280)
The Mets sure have a lot of dreck.


As I said.
   20. Chris Dial Posted: April 26, 2008 at 11:01 PM (#2760281)
Reyes so far this year has totally screwed up his approach and isn't displaying the gains he'd made in batting eye the last two years. This has to change, and soon.


Agreed. I was lamenting the loss of Rickey as a mentor in the game chatter earlier.
   21. dahlian believes that water softener is imperative Posted: April 26, 2008 at 11:53 PM (#2760313)
Same to you. Re-read your critique in #7.

Chris, you are setting new records for complete and utter incoherence. I don't know how you can possibly construe that post to be a refutation of Sam's (correct) argument.
   22. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 27, 2008 at 12:00 AM (#2760317)
I think Easley is a fine bench player. He has some pop and can take a walk. He hits lefties pretty well and can play adequately at anywhere except centerfield and catcher. He is off to a slow start with a low BABIP but so is nearly everyone else on the Mets.
   23. Chris Dial Posted: April 27, 2008 at 12:11 AM (#2760322)
Thanks, dahlian, that's terribly helpful.
   24. Ravecc Posted: April 27, 2008 at 01:17 AM (#2760347)
I agree that Willie chose this bench, but Omar did not exactly give him a good pool to choose from. There was a glaring need for a right-handed bat off the bench, and Willie’s choices were Easley, Abreu, Tatis, Clark and Saenz.

The lack of depth is also on Omar. Even with the addition of 2 catchers, they can’t fill a 40-man roster.
   25. Lassus Posted: April 27, 2008 at 01:31 AM (#2760353)
Actually, did Tatis have any time on the club to start the year? I don't even remember. We have so little power, can he really be worse than what we have on the bench? I doubt it.
   26. Mets Fan Posted: April 27, 2008 at 11:05 AM (#2760423)

I know what acquiesce means, Chris. And I think for the time being, I'm going to stop acquiescing in discussions with you. The tone has gotten to be not worth whatever substantive value there is to be had in it. Let me know when you want to trade ideas instead of snide remarks


You could be waiting a while. This guy seems like a real schmuck.
   27. haplo53 Posted: April 27, 2008 at 04:56 PM (#2760770)
Agreed. I was lamenting the loss of Rickey as a mentor in the game chatter earlier.


I think we should be pining for the other Rick.
   28. Chris Dial Posted: April 27, 2008 at 05:23 PM (#2760790)
Which Rick? Down? I think Reyes' problem is in his head, and Rickey can help with that.
   29. Chris Dial Posted: April 28, 2008 at 07:54 AM (#2761144)
Sam,
I took my own advice and re-read #7, and in doing so found my reaction over the top. Please accept my sincerest apologies.
   30. Banta Posted: April 28, 2008 at 08:20 AM (#2761148)
This guy seems like a real schmuck.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this comment seems offBASE...
   31. Chris Dial Posted: April 28, 2008 at 08:28 AM (#2761151)
offBASE...

Doubtful - based on chatter comments (Was "freeballin'")
   32. Sam M. Posted: April 28, 2008 at 08:31 AM (#2761152)
# 29 -- Done. And # 7 could have been more constructive -- like mentioning that while I disagree with not assigning Minaya blame for the consruction of the bench, I thought the rest of the preview was excellent. Which it was.

By the way, our disagreement on this (I think) is more semantic than real, and mirrors our difference on how to apportion the responsibility for the misuse of the bullpen last season (particularly Schoenweiss, but others, too). In both cases, I want to put the bulk of the "blame" on the guy who has the ultimate responsibility for the decision -- Minaya for the roster, Randolph for which pitcher is brought in each situation. In both cases, if I understand you correctly, you tend to take principal aim at the guy who has the input, and whom you perceive to have mostly influenced the decision -- Randolph for the roster, Peterson for the pitching changes. Neither POV is necessarily wrong; I just tend to think that the guy with the ultimate decision should shrug off the bad advice and do the right thing. And he has to take most of the blame for NOT making the right call. In putting most of the blame there, I don't mean to let the guy giving the bad advice off the hook, nor do I really disagree with you that he (whether it's Randolph or Peterson) deserves criticism for giving bad advice.
   33. Chris Dial Posted: April 28, 2008 at 08:39 AM (#2761156)
In both cases, I want to put the bulk of the "blame" on the guy who has the ultimate responsibility for the decision --


Agreed, and I "half-read" that, leading me to argue. Again, my apologies.

The reason I shove more blame on Randolph is that Omar would do something different with a different manager - part of his job is to give the manager a team he can trust. Part of it is also to overrride themanager when the manager trusts the wrong players. But Milledge is gone - not because Omar didnt' like him, but because Willie didn't. Omar should definitely show more managerial courage and tell Willie to adjust, but he is certainyl familiar with the Beane/A's manager situ and Cashman/Torre issue.
   34. Mets Fan Posted: April 28, 2008 at 08:59 AM (#2761164)
Seems like if we paused for a second, we could all agree that both Omar and Willie pretty much suck. Let's call it what it is. Any team with Reyes, Wright, Beltran, and Santana is going to be pretty decent. Omar gets no credit for the first two and minimal credit for the latter two (he got them, but they were no brains all bucks moves). Omar does get credit for adding Oliver and Maine to the mix, both in great trades. But everything else he's done, more or less, has been neutral at best or objectively stupid at worst. So this is the team we have. And Willie just stinks, for reasons already discussed.
   35. Sam M. Posted: April 28, 2008 at 09:08 AM (#2761169)
Omar does get credit for adding Oliver and Maine to the mix, both in great trades. But everything else he's done, more or less, has been neutral at best or objectively stupid at worst.

Even I -- and I've been pretty critical of a lot of things about the organizational philosophy they are following right now -- don't go that far. Signing Billy Wagner, for example, while it brought in a guy I pretty much don't like on a personal level, has been an excellent move, and one I was awfully dicey about at the time, given Wagner's age and fastball dependency. Omar was right.
   36. rfloh Posted: April 28, 2008 at 09:20 AM (#2761177)
But everything else he's done, more or less, has been neutral at best or objectively stupid at worst.


Duaner Sanchez for Jae Seo? It's not Omar's fault that he didn't foresee that Duaner would get injured in a taxi accident. And even with the accident, it's been a good trade.

Jorge Julio for Duque, even with Duque's injury-proneness has been good.
   37. Mets Fan Posted: April 28, 2008 at 09:20 AM (#2761179)
Well, yeah Wagner was ok, but I put that in the category of all bucks no brains. Wagner was arguably the best closer on the market and Omar signed him.

I also suppose Seo for Sanchez was a postive, even if Sanchez never pitches another game. But given Sanchez's (albeit unpredictable) health issues, it's not been a very significant one.
   38. haplo53 Posted: April 28, 2008 at 09:36 AM (#2761186)
Which Rick? Down? I think Reyes' problem is in his head, and Rickey can help with that.


Yes. I think he helped Reyes a lot more than we realize.
   39. Chris Dial Posted: April 28, 2008 at 09:37 AM (#2761188)
I liked Seo, and thought he could have been a deent starter.
   40. Doris from Rego Park Posted: April 28, 2008 at 09:51 AM (#2761199)
Well, yeah Wagner was ok, but I put that in the category of all bucks no brains. Wagner was arguably the best closer on the market and Omar signed him.

To be fair to Omar, how many here wanted B.J. Ryan instead?
   41. Banta Posted: April 28, 2008 at 09:55 AM (#2761201)
And also to be fair to Omar, the Mets don't have Barry Zito today either.
   42. CrosbyBird Posted: April 28, 2008 at 10:11 AM (#2761226)
Seems like if we paused for a second, we could all agree that both Omar and Willie pretty much suck.

I definitely don't agree with this. Minaya, IMO, is a pretty average GM. He makes some good moves, some questionable moves, and the occasional stinker. The thing I think Minaya has been best at is avoiding the enormous, market-setting contract to the second-tier FA. If all he did was throw money at the most expensive player, we'd have Soriano or Lee or Zito on the roster. I'm fairly confident that he won't keep Oliver Perez if the contract demanded is something insane.

To be able to hold onto Fernando and Pelfrey while getting Santana is a pretty impressive piece of bargaining. Minaya is also pretty good at setting up contracts with deferred money; Santana's deal is around $123M/6 in 2008 dollars, Pedro deferred $10M, Beltran $22M, etc.

Randolph, on the other hand, is a terrible manager. He's not particularly sound tactically in general. His bullpen usage is atrocious. He doesn't manage a bench well. He is generally passive, even when the team is a sinking ship around him. Except, of course, to criticize a young player for doing something exciting and getting energized about the game.

Not that it's a major component of his ability, but he also comes across as a stubborn, surly, miserable person in his interactions with the media. Even after a win, the guy is just a killjoy.
   43. Chris Dial Posted: April 28, 2008 at 11:29 AM (#2761311)
I think Minaya is an above average GM. The Nady and Trax trades are insanely good.
   44. CrosbyBird Posted: April 28, 2008 at 12:09 PM (#2761365)
I think Minaya is an above average GM. The Nady and Trax trades are insanely good.

I thought Trachsel was let go as a FA. You mean Benson into Maine and Julio, Julio into Duque, right?

I could be convinced that Minaya is above-average, especially if you only consider his Met years. I do give him some blame for the bench, even though I agree that Randolph is driving that a little. I also think he should have intervened in the Milledge situation before the player's value was destroyed.

He also gets a bad rap for things beyond his control. If Alou gets injured and there's a hole, that's reasonable to blame Minaya for not being prepared. If Sanchez gets injured in a car accident, that's not reasonable.

Minaya has some pretty confusing moves though. If you're going to sign Schoenweis for 3 years, why not just keep Bradford? Was the market for Castillo so strong that he needed a 4 year deal? Why is Brady Clark on the roster?

I don't think Minaya was wrong to cut bait on Bell without the benefit of hindsight, nor do I think Bannister for Burgos was a terrible move at the time.
   45. Chris Dial Posted: April 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM (#2761375)
I thought Trachsel was let go as a FA. You mean Benson into Maine and Julio, Julio into Duque, right?


Yes.
   46. JPWF13 Posted: April 28, 2008 at 12:34 PM (#2761387)
I don't think Minaya was wrong to cut bait on Bell without the benefit of hindsight, nor do I think Bannister for Burgos was a terrible move at the time.


I'm not going to criticise Bannister for Burgos either- While I thought Burgos would likely be awful- there was a chance that he'd be really really good- Bannister didn't seem to have any upside.

I hated them cutting Bell loose - 27/6 k/bb in 24ip, 43/13 k/bb in 47 ip and 35/11 k/bb in 37 ip-
he actually pitched well in 2005/06- except both years he had 1-2 HORRIBLE outings, and giving up 5 runs in 1 ip will destroy your ERA if you're only given 35 ip.

In 2006, Heath Bell, prior to 9/26 had pitched 36 innings, 34/10 k/bb, ERA of 3.81, that last game of the season he didn't have it, 1.2 ip. 7 hits 6 runs, ends year with an ERA of 5.11 and his Mets career was over. (He'd also had a very bad outing early in September).

He was inconsistent but he was very effective in the large majority of appearances- unlike say, Mota 2007.
   47. Raskolnikov Posted: April 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM (#2761405)
I thought Trachsel was let go as a FA. You mean Benson into Maine and Julio, Julio into Duque, right?

I could be convinced that Minaya is above-average, especially if you only consider his Met years. I do give him some blame for the bench, even though I agree that Randolph is driving that a little. I also think he should have intervened in the Milledge situation before the player's value was destroyed.

He also gets a bad rap for things beyond his control. If Alou gets injured and there's a hole, that's reasonable to blame Minaya for not being prepared. If Sanchez gets injured in a car accident, that's not reasonable.

Minaya has some pretty confusing moves though. If you're going to sign Schoenweis for 3 years, why not just keep Bradford? Was the market for Castillo so strong that he needed a 4 year deal? Why is Brady Clark on the roster?

I don't think Minaya was wrong to cut bait on Bell without the benefit of hindsight, nor do I think Bannister for Burgos was a terrible move at the time.


I'll just merge this comment with Sam's in the other thread, as the points seem to be related.

On Milledge - is it possible that maybe Minaya liked Schneider and Church? We're blasting Omar for the Milledge trade (I was as angry as anyone else), but it looks like he's got one good player and one serviceable player in return. Without Church and Schneider and with Milledge, we might be off to an even worse start as well as the very real chemistry problem.

Alou wasn't brought as an alternative to a promising young player. He was brought in to fill the hole left by a declining Floyd. What would have been the alternative? Keep Nady? Then we don't have Ollie. Sign Soriano or Lee? Do we still think those were good signings. Why do we assume that Omar is ignorant and that he didn't realize the risks of having a 40+ yo OFer? I'd rather think he knew the drawbacks and still thought that Alou was our best option.

Bradford was a mistake. I thought so at the time but I didn't realize the magnitude of it. I don't think any of us predicted the hole he would leave behind. One could argue that the reasoning behind the move - saving money and time commitment, getting a draft pick, and having Sanchez, Heilman, and Smith carry the load was very rational. Again, I would have signed Bradford, but I can see the value of getting the sandwich instead. Sam, if you're arguing that the organization needed to move towards youth, then the Bradford move was certainly in that direction.

Signing Schoenweis was a mistake. We all agree on that. But it appears that SS can be useful as a LOOGY and the 2nd lefty. So in the scale of magnitude of mistakes, this one is minor. Inefficient use of resources.

I am probably one of the more anti-Castillo Primates here, but I can see why Omar would want to resign him. With the loss of Stache and no good prospect in the horizon, Omar needed to solidify the position. So the choice was between Gotay and Castillo. With Castillo, you know what you will get, which is valuable for a contender. Omar probably knew that he was committing too long with the contract, but again, one doesn't have a spectrum of options. It's either a) sign Slappy for too long, b) go with Gotay, c) find another option.

Brady Clark was sent down.

Bell was a mistake. But I could see how Omar would have been wrong on that. And again, he was getting a young outfielder in return.

Bannister for Burgos was a mistake, but the concept was similar to Seo for Sanchez. Control starting pitcher for power reliever. One worked out, the other blew up.

Sam's arguing that disaster lies in the horizon. I think that's it hard to call at this point. If Fernando, Tejada, and Duda don't get a shot here, then that critique can be brought forth. But so far, there's just not enough evidence to state definitively that Omar is a burn the future to win now GM.
   48. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 28, 2008 at 12:56 PM (#2761408)
he actually pitched well in 2005/06- except both years he had 1-2 HORRIBLE outings, and giving up 5 runs in 1 ip will destroy your ERA if you're only given 35 ip.

So except for his bad outing, he pitched well? Bell posted a 5.38 ERA in 83.2 IP for the Mets in 2005 and 2006 and the Mets appeared to have a ton of depth at that position. (Sanchez, Heilman, Mota, and Burgos were all reasonable bets to be better than Bell). If the Mets knew Sanchez and Burgos would be hurt, they would have dealt Lindstrom, Bell, and Owens. Is Sanchez doesn't miss 2007, they likely don't miss Bell all that much.
   49. JPWF13 Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:00 PM (#2761420)
On Milledge - is it possible that maybe Minaya liked Schneider and Church?

Yes, I think there can be little doubt that Omar Likes both players.

Bell was a mistake. But I could see how Omar would have been wrong on that. And again, he was getting a young outfielder in return.


He got Jon Adkins who had been ineffective in both the majors and minors
and Ben Johnson a 26 year old with AAAA tattooed on his skull (I kid)

It was basically a mutual dump trade, I'll trade two of my aging busted ex-quasi prospects for two of yours.
   50. JPWF13 Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:09 PM (#2761427)
So except for his bad outing, he pitched well? Bell posted a 5.38 ERA in 83.2 IP for the Mets in 2005 and 2006 and the Mets appeared to have a ton of depth at that position. (Sanchez, Heilman, Mota, and Burgos were all reasonable bets to be better than Bell)


No, Bell's pattern was more like 5-6 appearances no runs, then a clunker 3+ run outing. He was wildly inconsistent. but I saw quite a few games where he was on (for the Mets)- and THAT pitcher is the one the Padres have.

I completely disagree that Mota and Burgos were reasonable bets to be better than Bell in 2007.
Aside from a fluke 18 inning stretch with the Mets in 2006, Mota had blown chunks ever since leaving the Dodgers. Bell had a 16.667 ip stretch in 2006 where he only gave up 2 runs as well
and Bell had better peripherals 2005-06 as well.

Burgos had a 5.52 ERA in twice as many MLB innings in 2006 than Bell- and had not pitched as well in the minors prior to that. What Burgos HAD was a golden arm- he could have been really good, but hadn't really performed yet.
   51. Raskolnikov Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:09 PM (#2761428)
I was as vocal as anyone about the foolishness of the Bell trade. But even a year ago, sabermetrics wasn't as commonly known as it is today. Most GMs still didn't understand the equivalencies of minor league statistics, and so we shouldn't be excessively harsh on Omar.

(To me, it's a bit like be excessive in criticizing Davey for pitcher workloads - only a small part of the baseball community knew at the time.)
   52. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:17 PM (#2761440)
Burgos had a 5.52 ERA in twice as many MLB innings in 2006 than Bell- and had not pitched as well in the minors prior to that. What Burgos HAD was a golden arm- he could have been really good, but hadn't really performed yet.

First, why are you using the past tense on Burgos? He is still really young and many pitchers have come back from TJ surgery and been successful.

You might not agree that he was a reasonable bet that he and Mota (who was just a year and a half removed from a 133 ERA+ as a reliever) were reasonable bets to be better than him but you can awknowledge that there's a reasonable argument that they were right?
   53. Sam M. Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:21 PM (#2761446)
(Sanchez, Heilman, Mota, and Burgos were all reasonable bets to be better than Bell).

Mota wasn't a reasonable bet to better than anybody. Not Schoeneweis, not Lawrence, not Soler. Not Park, or Williams, or Vargas. Not Doug Sisk, or Doug Flutie, or Anthony Young, or Anthony Kiedis.

Mota was the worst player in the history of the New York Mets. He was traded for a player just to release the other player. He wasn't a reasonable bet to be anything but a disgrace to the uniform. Which was an absolute lead-pipe cinch.
   54. Lassus Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:29 PM (#2761460)
Soler! Been awhile since I've heard that name.
   55. Sam M. Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:29 PM (#2761462)
If Fernando, Tejada, and Duda don't get a shot here, then that critique can be brought forth. But so far, there's just not enough evidence to state definitively that Omar is a burn the future to win now GM.

On what possible basis can you believe any of them, much less all of them (hey, you're the one who used the "and"), will get a shot with the Mets??? Since the Minaya/Randolph regime took hold, not a single position player developed by the franchise's farm system (whether drafted/signed by Minaya or not) has been given a job. That is either a failure of faith in young players, or a failure in development of young players, or both. Wright and Reyes? They were already in place. Are we supposed to give them credit for not jettisoning those two? That is supposed to make me believe home-grown young players have a shot?

Certainly, the picture is more mixed on the pitching side. Pelfrey has been given chances. That is some comfort, although his struggles are a problem when it comes to assessing how well the Mets are developing their talent. Some young guys have been given shots in the pen, like Smith, although they are always on a shorter leash than the Proven Veterans™ like Mota, who was 1,000x worse than Bell but not only didn't get traded for his struggles, but cost the Mets a division title he got so many chances.

Omar Minaya gives lip service to wanting to have a home-grown team, or at least to have one in part. But his actions speak volumes. His actions show he actually views the farm system as a breeding ground for trading chips. Period. Until that changes, the burden of proof shouldn't be on me to produce evidence that Omar is a "burn the future" GM. It should be on those who argue he isn't.
   56. Raskolnikov Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:47 PM (#2761484)
On what possible basis can you believe any of them, much less all of them (hey, you're the one who used the "and"), will get a shot with the Mets??? Since the Minaya/Randolph regime took hold, not a single position player developed by the franchise's farm system (whether drafted/signed by Minaya or not) has been given a job. That is either a failure of faith in young players, or a failure in development of young players, or both. Wright and Reyes? They were already in place. Are we supposed to give them credit for not jettisoning those two? That is supposed to make me believe home-grown young players have a shot?


On the basis that Omar has been raving about Fernando since signing him - paraphrasing one quote of his "And Fernando may be better than either of them (Gomez and Milledge." On the basis that Fernando was featured prominently this spring. On the basis that Omar refused to part with Fernando in the Santana discussions, risking quelching that deal. I mean, we've all paid close attention to how the Mets have handled Fernando since the first day he's worn a Mets uniform. Every single detail indicates that the Mets think Fernando is their next crown jewel.

On Tejada, the basis is that the Mets are aggressively challenging him - putting a 18yo in A+ ball. Judging from Omar's earlier patterns, he usually doesn't do that unless he thinks that this is a kid with some potential.

On Duda, I have no idea. I think that everyone - the fanbase and the Mets - are just waiting to see what we have in him.

I believe that Milledge would still be our RFer if there weren't the personality clashes. I believe that Omar didn't want to give him up, but that he needed to protect the clubhouse and because he liked Church and Schneider.

I believe that Omar would have fought for Gomez's right to be a starting Mets OFer in 2009, which at the current rate, is the probably the proper schedule for Gomez. I believe that Omar did *not* want to give up either him or Guerra, but that a chance to get Santana comes along too rarely.

I think that Omar is lukewarm on Pelfrey, but that the fact that he and Willie have given Pelfrey numerous chances are both due to circumstance and also shows that they will give a youngster a chance.

I believe that if Delgado wasn't available in a firesale, that Jacobs would have been our starting 1Bman in 2007 and possible beyond. I believe that Petit - like Soler - would have had a chance to start when we were completely out of starting pitchers in August and September 2007. We would not have heard of Soler, Pelfrey would not have been rushed, Ollie may never have had his shot, Lawrence would not have had a shot, and maybe Petit would have succeeded, but more likely would have had to go back to AAA to get more seasoning.

That's my perspective. I think there's some evidence, not strong, but some evidence, that Omar would play prospects given the right circumstances.
   57. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:48 PM (#2761487)
Mota wasn't a reasonable bet to better than anybody.

That's just not true.

But his actions speak volumes. His actions show he actually views the farm system as a breeding ground for trading chips. Period. Until that changes, the burden of proof shouldn't be on me to produce evidence that Omar is a "burn the future" GM. It should be on those who argue he isn't.

Your argument is overstated and based mostly on two moves. 1) The Milledge trade: I just don't think Omar thinks Milledge is that good because Omar thinks he is challenged defensively. 2) Flores: A legitimately bad move.

Minaya did choose IPOR over Matsui. And he traded for a younger and unestablished player in Nady. It's not like he is Ned Colletti and has a great system of young players he refuses to play.

You could argue that moves like going with Gotay instead of Castillo but it's not like Gotay is a star. It says a lot that he has been glued to the bench when KJ and Escobar have been hurt.
   58. JPWF13 Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:52 PM (#2761491)
But so far, there's just not enough evidence to state definitively that Omar is a burn the future to win now GM.

????????????
1: Traded Lee Stevens, Brandon Phillips, Cliff Lee, and Grady Sizemore for Bartolo Colon*
2: Traded BAldegroen for ManCaveItch
3: Traded Dante Brinkley and Gabby Hernandez for LoDuca
4: Traded Petit, Jacobs and Psomas for Delgado
5: Traded Jose Castro and Sean Henry for Conine
6: Traded Gomez, Humber, Mulvey and Guerra for Johan
7: Traded Milledge for Church and Schneider

Now look at BA's top 10 Met prospects list from 11/05:

TOP TEN PROSPECTS
1. Lastings Milledge, of
2. Yusmeiro Petit, rhp
3. Gaby Hernandez, rhp
4. Mike Jacobs, c/1b
5. Philip Humber, rhp
6. Carlos Gomez, of
7. Fernando Martinez, of
8. Anderson Hernandez, ss/2b
9. Brian Bannister, rhp
10. Alay Soler, rhp

7 have been traded since then.

*Many people (I was one of them) were willing to give Omar a pass on that one- allegedly the Expos were going to be contracted (which wasn't going to happen), now? I think it's fair to hang on him.
   59. Sam M. Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:55 PM (#2761495)
Your argument is overstated and based mostly on two moves.

How about the ludicrous draft philosophy the Mets have followed since Omar came along? College relievers? No going over slot since Pelfrey? If the Mets were really committed to building a strong, productive farm system that they intended to use to stock the major league roster (not exclusively, of course, but as a core part of the team), the GM would have made the case to ownership that drafting like you mean it is an essential part of doing that successfully. If that means taking some of the budget away from other areas to finance a reasonable drafting program, then put your money where your mouth is. I cannot take seriously Omar's pronouncements about his belief in his farm system as a conduit to Citifield as long as the Mets draft the way they do.
   60. Raskolnikov Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:56 PM (#2761499)
2: Traded BAldegroen for ManCaveItch

That was an awful trade at the time. Hmm, fair enough.
   61. JPWF13 Posted: April 28, 2008 at 01:59 PM (#2761504)
That's my perspective. I think there's some evidence, not strong, but some evidence, that Omar would play prospects given the right circumstances.


Hell even Dusty Baker will play a prospect given the right circumstance (having no choice being the primary factor).

It's not like he is Ned Colletti and has a great system of young players he refuses to play.


Some may think Omar is a terrible GM, I don't, I actually think he's about average, and an average GM in conjunction with the Wilpon's pockets can yield a good team (unlike- Steve Phillips and a few other yahoos we've had in recent years) He has strengths and weaknesses, to me is weaknesses are pretty glaring and I'm rather puzzled by the fact that he doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes.
   62. Raskolnikov Posted: April 28, 2008 at 02:00 PM (#2761506)
If the Mets were really committed to building a strong, productive farm system that they intended to use to stock the major league roster (not exclusively, of course, but as a core part of the team), the GM would have made the case to ownership that drafting like you mean it is an essential part of doing that successfully. If that means taking some of the budget away from other areas to finance a reasonable drafting program, then put your money where your mouth is. I cannot take seriously Omar's pronouncements about his belief in his farm system as a conduit to Citifield as long as the Mets draft the way they do.

Yeah, but don't most people believe that the slotting was Wilpon's call? That the Mets have pretty much declared that they will go above slot this summer indicates that Omar isn't fixed to this idea.

The drafting has been poor. I would like to see the drafting director fired if these draftees don't pan out. I won't defend Omar on that front.
   63. JPWF13 Posted: April 28, 2008 at 02:03 PM (#2761509)
That was an awful trade at the time. Hmm, fair enough.


Bladegroen looked like a good prospect before he got hurt.
The point was, that trading a 21 year old who looks like he could be very good one day for someone you know is a good back up....

well that's a win now kind of move is it not?

On the other hand Omar will trade for guys based upon what they might become- Burgos, AH, Maine etc.,

But when he trades for the prospect it doesn't seem to be part of a scheme- he doesn't give up anything he thinks might be useful NOW (hell I have no doubt he saw Benson as having negative value), he'll trade away what he views as a spare part.
   64. Raskolnikov Posted: April 28, 2008 at 02:05 PM (#2761510)
Basically, Sam, you seem to be arguing that the Mets need to find a better scouting director and perhaps a better farm director. I think I support that, but I could also see giving those two directors 1 more year.
   65. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 28, 2008 at 02:12 PM (#2761515)
I don't know what your expectations of the draft are but I expect two or three players from a draft to be productive. In 2005, the Mets only had one pick in the first 100 and Minaya picked Pelfrey. He also netted Jon Niese in that draft. He has used some of the other picks in minor trades like acquiring Castillo.

In 2006, he drafted Mulvey with his first pick and Joe Smith with his second. That's looking like a pretty productive draft right there. He also got Dan Murphy in the 13th round.

OK, he drafted some college relievers in 2007. But he is converting Rustich into a starter.

To say he has only drafted college relivers is again vastly overstating the case. More importantly, if he can turn 3rd and 4th round picks into productive major league pieces by drafting college relivers, he should continue to do so.
   66. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 28, 2008 at 02:17 PM (#2761522)
The Blade was hurt before the Mets traded him and wasn't much of a prospect at the time because of the injury. Wrist injuries tend to sap power.
   67. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 28, 2008 at 02:28 PM (#2761534)
The Blade was hurt before the Mets traded him and wasn't much of a prospect at the time because of the injury. Wrist injuries tend to sap power.

Maybe I am a Minaya fanboy but the Mientkiewicz deal was one I'd want the Mets to make. Mientkiewicz was just one year removed from a 3-year stretch in which he batted .290/.382/.437 (good for a 118 OPS+) and has always been an above average defensive first baseman. The Mets gave up a mediocre prospect for him. Mientkiewicz wasn't owed much money and it was only a one year commitment. Not a bad move to make.
   68. Ravecc Posted: April 28, 2008 at 02:32 PM (#2761541)
Every single detail indicates that the Mets think Fernando is their next crown jewel.

Willie was doing his best to poop on this party as well.

On Tejada, the basis is that the Mets are aggressively challenging him - putting a 18yo in A+ ball. Judging from Omar's earlier patterns, he usually doesn't do that unless he thinks that this is a kid with some potential.

Aggressive assignments and promotions is a general policy of the Omar/Bernazard farm. Guys like Tejada, Lagares, Veloz, Pena gets thrown off the deep end of the pool.

I believe that if Delgado wasn't available in a firesale, that Jacobs would have been our starting 1Bman in 2007 and possible beyond.

Omar was pursuing Delgado the year before. And Jacobs was called up to be the emergency catcher, sat on the bench unused, hit a HR his first AB and was STILL going to be sent down until Pedro intervened. The Mets, and most of the scouting community, didn’t think he would amount to much. He was lucky to have landed on the right team, because he’d have been Brett Harpered if he stayed with the Mets.
   69. JPWF13 Posted: April 28, 2008 at 02:38 PM (#2761550)
Maybe I am a Minaya fanboy but the Mientkiewicz deal was one I'd want the Mets to make.


I just hated Eyechart from day one, and he was absolutely terrible in 2004, but you are right, he had been a productive player from 2001-03

But, he was 27-29 from 2001 to 2003.

Just to throw a name out there, Benny Agbayani was reasonably productive from age 27-29 too (1999-2001).

You want your team to get that production, not the "production" that comes after that. Eye Chart and Agbayani are good examples of tweeners, guys who are just good enough that at their absolute peak they can play well enough to help you- even as a regular or quasi-regular (think Endy Chavez 2006- age 28), but if you try to keep playing them every day after the clock strikes 30...
   70. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 28, 2008 at 02:44 PM (#2761562)
It's not like Eye Chart was the Mets number 1 choice. They went hard after Delgado and there weren't many options left after that. If Jacobs hadn't been hurt in 2004, they could have gone with him.
   71. JPWF13 Posted: April 28, 2008 at 02:49 PM (#2761567)
because he’d have been Brett Harpered if he stayed with the Mets.


To be fair to the Mets, they didn't make him miss virtually all of 2006 with an injury after he hit an organizational best 36 homers in 2005- he'd only just reached AA as a 23 year old.

Harper's big problem now is that he's with an organization with the team that probably has its collective heads farther up their collective rectums than any other.
Harper's last 3 full seaosns he's hit .306/.383/.514 and .277/.344/.560 and .296/.350/.500 (in fact from 2005-07 he has 227 at bats in the Eastern League and has hit .273/.352/.533, 65 at bats and hit .338/.427/.446 and 476 at bats and hit .296/.350/.500).

He's 26, and the Giants, in a "rebuilding" year, were starting 36 year old Rich Aurillia (.224/.268/.313) at 1B, before skipping over Harper to play Bowker, who hit .307/.363/.523 last year as a 23 year old in AA.

Harper probably needs to go to Japan to try to make some money while he can.
   72. Sam M. Posted: April 28, 2008 at 02:57 PM (#2761579)
In 2006, he drafted Mulvey with his first pick and Joe Smith with his second. That's looking like a pretty productive draft right there. He also got Dan Murphy in the 13th round.

OK, he drafted some college relievers in 2007. But he is converting Rustich into a starter.


Those two drafts were a joke. Mulvey was a low-ceiling college starter, who is still a low-ceiling AAAA pitcher. The best thing that will ever be said about Mulvey is that he was part of the package for Santana. Then you got a college reliever whose ceiling is as a middle reliever, but whom I like and who has been nice to have because he has hit that ceiling quickly. And then 2007 . . . college relievers coming out of every pore. We'll see about that conversion . . . .

Their last two drafts have really cemented my view that the future is a lot bleaker than the present. That, and the manager's disdain for every young player who comes along, when it comes to playing time (Millege & Green . . . .) or his cutting remarks even about a guy who is performing well (John Maine last year).
   73. Russlan misses the good Jose Reyes Posted: April 28, 2008 at 03:12 PM (#2761599)
Those two drafts were a joke. Mulvey was a low-ceiling college starter, who is still a low-ceiling AAAA pitcher.

Sam, you are generally a very reasonable guy but this is a pretty ridiculous statement. He isn't a guy with ace potential but what did you expect with the 58th pick in the draft? He has a 0.92 ERA in 29.1 IP at AAA and is still only 22 years old. He looks like he has a very good chance at having a nice career as a starting pitcher.

Sam, I do not know what you are expecting from the draft.
   74. Ravecc Posted: April 28, 2008 at 03:14 PM (#2761604)
I thought the Mets fanbase has been especially brutal this year, so this surprises me.

Speaking of the fans, Delgado has certainly been able to hear them, for the Mets in their final season at Shea have averaged 50,334 fans over their first 12 home dates, tops in the National League. The last time the Mets led the senior circuit in attendance was in 1988. New York is on pace to draw over four million fans for the first time in team history, which also would be the first time it has happened in the NL since the Rockies got 4.48 million fans to come out for their inaugural season in 1993. The Mets are also giving the Yankees in their last season at Yankee Stadium a run for their money, having drawn just 254 fewer fans per game than the Bombers so far.

We're not so bad, eh?
   75. Sam M. Posted: April 28, 2008 at 04:58 PM (#2761703)
He isn't a guy with ace potential but what did you expect with the 58th pick in the draft?

I expect the Mets to go for guys with "ace potential." They were available at that stage of the draft, especially (but not only) if you are willing to go for the guys with supposed signability issues and go over slot to get them signed. Even if you don't do that, you can go for guys with high ceilings and be willing to be patient with their development, even if it takes longer. But the Mets' draft philosophy has been to go for guys whom they believe will yield quicker returns. I didn't like the Mulvey pick the minute they made it, and didn't like the college relievers that have been made at the highest levels of their last couple of drafts along with Mulvey.

If you draft for # 4 starters, # 4 starters is the best you're going to get. Unless, of course, you trade them along with three others for Johan Santana, so that's OK, too . . .
   76. Conor Posted: April 28, 2008 at 05:06 PM (#2761717)
I expect the Mets to go for guys with "ace potential." They were available at that stage of the draft, especially (but not only) if you are willing to go for the guys with supposed signability issues and go over slot to get them signed.



Are they really guys with ace potential available with the 62nd pick in the draft? Who did you have in mind?

The next 10 pitchers picked after Mulvey in that draft were:
Andrew Carpenter
Trevor Cahill
Sergio Perez
Dustin Evans
Justin Masterson
Matthew Long
Blake Wood
Keith Weiser
Nick Fuller
Anthony Butler

I don't see any guys with ace potential there, but I will be the first to admit that I don't know a ton about them. (Masterson is the only guy I have really ever heard of from that group) Did you have someone specifically in mind?
   77. dahlian believes that water softener is imperative Posted: April 28, 2008 at 05:12 PM (#2761726)
Sam,
I took my own advice and re-read #7, and in doing so found my reaction over the top. Please accept my sincerest apologies.


Where's my apology?
   78. Sam M. Posted: April 28, 2008 at 05:12 PM (#2761727)
Did you have someone specifically in mind?

No -- but I'm also not limiting myself to pitchers. In this context, "ace potential" was meant to signify a player, regardless of position, who had a heck of a lot more upside than Kevin Mulvey. Did the Mets really have to limit themselves to a pitcher in that spot? If so, why?
   79. JPWF13 Posted: April 28, 2008 at 05:16 PM (#2761731)
I'm not a fan of Omar's drafting and development record since he came over, but I really can't say drafting Mulvey when he was drafted was a bad thing-
   80. rfloh Posted: April 28, 2008 at 05:36 PM (#2761755)
Are they really guys with ace potential available with the 62nd pick in the draft? Who did you have in mind?

The next 10 pitchers picked after Mulvey in that draft were:
Andrew Carpenter
Trevor Cahill
Sergio Perez
Dustin Evans
Justin Masterson
Matthew Long
Blake Wood
Keith Weiser
Nick Fuller
Anthony Butler

I don't see any guys with ace potential there, but I will be the first to admit that I don't know a ton about them. (Masterson is the only guy I have really ever heard of from that group) Did you have someone specifically in mind?


Trevor Cahill is pretty damn good. He's one of the A's best pitching prospects, even including all the guys they got in the Haren and Swisher trades. This year, age 20, in A+ the hitter's league that is the CAL league, 39 Ks, 5 walks in 30 IP, 0 HRs, 1.8 ERA, 0.83 WHIP.

He definitely has ace potential.
   81. rfloh Posted: April 28, 2008 at 05:38 PM (#2761758)
Cahill over his minor league career, 167 Ks, 52 BBs in 144 IP.
   82. Conor Posted: April 28, 2008 at 06:00 PM (#2761771)
Cahill-

That name is beginning to ring a bell.

Anyway, that Mulvey pick was their first, even though it was 62nd overall. Maybe they figured that since their first pick was so late in the draft, they wanted to go safer there and then pick up some lottery tickets later on. Obviously, there are never any can't miss guys at that spot, and you would always like to at least get a guy who can contribute with your first pick, so they wanted to play it safer at that spot.

I mean, if you argue that their are ace, or star quality players available at that spot (though I would also assume you accept that they are much riskier there than say in the top 10) then you would also probably have to concede there would be guys like that available with their next picks, so getting going safe with that pick sounds like a good strategy to me.

Put another way, and this is certainly speculative, but if the Mets had gone for a higher upside guy with that pick and he bombed, would they have had to deal Fernando to the Twins?
   83. Sam M. Posted: April 28, 2008 at 06:39 PM (#2761799)
if the Mets had gone for a higher upside guy with that pick and he bombed, would they have had to deal Fernando to the Twins?

Worst case scenario: they'd have had to include Pelfrey. Fernando is NOT the substitute in that deal for Kevin Mulvey under any circusmtances. And if they'd had to put in Pelfrey, they simply could have signed Lohse to plug the hole. Simply put, even now I still like Pelfrey's upside, but he's hardly irreplaceable.
   84. Raskolnikov Posted: April 28, 2008 at 11:36 PM (#2762022)
And if they'd had to put in Pelfrey, they simply could have signed Lohse to plug the hole. Simply put, even now I still like Pelfrey's upside, but he's hardly irreplaceable

You confuse me, Sam. I thought we were arguing (and agreeing on the most part) that the veterans are a stopgap measure and that the Mets have to develop the youngsters foremost. Yet you would sign Lohse? You're supporting exactly what you're castigating Omar for.

As for Mulvey, that's a good pick. Not a great pick, but a good pick. Try to hit the lottery with "upside" too often and you can end up empty. See: Mets and OF prospects. I think Burnitz was our last decent developed OF followed by a staggering succession of toolsy athletes who can't hit. But that's the risk of falling in love with upside.

Russlan, I don't agree that the draft has gone even decently. Pelfrey and Niese are not a good yield for a draft. Neither is Mulvey, Smith, and Murphy. That is a terrible yield.

2-3 promising young pitchers do not lead to 2-3 productive players. Young pitchers fail. Young pitchers get hurt. Young pitchers break your heart.

I happen to have strong convictions about Pelfrey, I think he will be a stud. But if you gave me one prospect who's just beginning to figure things out, one awesome relief pitcher who's built to give you about 60 quality innings a year, one prospect just beginning to establish himself in AAA, and one establishing himself in AA, I'm going to tell you that in 5 years, probably 2 of them will still be around in professional ball.

The drafting director and the farm team needs to start producing a couple of decent hitting prospects every couple of years and hit an occasional jewel. Otherwise, they should let someone else take over such critical roles.
   85. Sam M. Posted: April 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM (#2762031)
You confuse me, Sam. I thought we were arguing (and agreeing on the most part) that the veterans are a stopgap measure and that the Mets have to develop the youngsters foremost. Yet you would sign Lohse? You're supporting exactly what you're castigating Omar for.

Who said I supported it??? I just was responding to the question of what they'd have done if the guy they might have picked in lieu of Mulvey had bombed (which is a big "if" to begin with), and had to substitute someone in the deal to get Santana. Obviously, I wouldn't have wanted that someone to be Fernando Martinez, and I don't think it would have had to be. By all reports, the Twins wanted Pelfrey over Humber, but Omar refused to budge; they'd have certainly taken Pelfrey as a sub for the non-existent Mulvey. And rather than give up Fernando to keep Pelfrey, I'd sign Lohse to fill in for Pelfrey. I want to get younger, but I'm not a complete ideologue about it!

Try to hit the lottery with "upside" too often and you can end up empty. See: Mets and OF prospects. I think Burnitz was our last decent developed OF followed by a staggering succession of toolsy athletes who can't hit.

To me, upside does NOT mean "toolsy athletes who can't hit." It means studs who can HIT, period. Toolsy athletes make me roll my eyes and shake my head. The next time a scout came to me with a toolsy athlete who didn't produce actual numbers, I'd fire his ass. And the better the competition he's facing when he does it, the better I like it. Those two things: strong competition, and strong productivity. THEN convince me that the numbers are a mirage that won't hold up (e.g., to wooden bats, or because of an exploitable flaw, etc.). But if you don't START with productivity, I don't even want to have the conversation.

And it means pitchers who have great stuff -- that perhaps needs to be harnessed -- but great stuff.
   86. Raskolnikov Posted: April 28, 2008 at 11:57 PM (#2762041)
To me, upside does NOT mean "toolsy athletes who can't hit." It means studs who can HIT, period. Toolsy athletes make me roll my eyes and shake my head. The next time a scout came to me with a toolsy athlete who didn't produce actual numbers, I'd fire his ass. And the better the competition he's facing when he does it, the better I like it. Those two things: strong competition, and strong productivity. THEN convince me that the numbers are a mirage that won't hold up (e.g., to wooden bats, or because of an exploitable flaw, etc.). But if you don't START with productivity, I don't even want to have the conversation.

And it means pitchers who have great stuff -- that perhaps needs to be harnessed -- but great stuff.


I guess I didn't explain enough. With anything outside a top 10 pick - in any sports draft - you're always going to be choosing between upside and reliability. Meaning - pitchers who can throw 95+ and/or have great stuff *and* have polish will get drafted in the top 10. Wilpon doesn't need to hire anyone to select those guys - Joe from Astoria could tell you to pick up the Homer Baileys, the David Prices.

Once you get farther away, and especially when you get into the 2nd round, you're making a tradeoff between potential and reliability. If the player had more of the weaker quality, then he would have been selected earlier. The Mets have made a conscious decision when selecting OFers to pick athletic upside over polish. If they had ended up with a stud, we'd all be ecstatic. Instead, we ended up with Greg Cain and Danny Stegall.

I think any reasonable draft should have a good mix of both - guys with polish who should contribute with some probability, and guys who may someday put it all together. Risk and yield have an inverse relationship - as anyone in finance can tell you.
   87. Sam M. Posted: April 29, 2008 at 12:06 AM (#2762046)
The Mets have made a conscious decision when selecting OFers to pick athletic upside over polish.

Yes, and that has been a really, really bad drafting philosophy, IMHO. When they are down in the middle rounds, making those trade-off decisions you are talking about, that is exactly when they should be looking for the guys who don't make the scouts drool with their five or seven or 33 tools, but who have been productive anyway, and especially against the best competition. Because, as you say, the guys who have all the tools AND have been super-productive . . . well, they are long gone.

But I don't think that's an "upside v. polish" issue. I think that's a false way to characterize the trade-off. I think the guy who can't hit but is an athlete . . . well, he won't learn to hit. Pitchers are different; a guy who can throw a baseball really hard MIGHT learn to control it. But an athlete who can't hit will not learn to hit -- not well enough to be anything but organizational filler. I don't think those guys have upside at all; I think they are a waste of draft picks, a waste of bonus money, and a waste of minor league roster spots. The only exception is middle infielders, but even then rarely. Outfielders? Hit the damn ball, or don't expect me to support drafting you.
   88. Conor Posted: April 29, 2008 at 09:22 AM (#2762175)
Who said I supported it??? I just was responding to the question of what they'd have done if the guy they might have picked in lieu of Mulvey had bombed (which is a big "if" to begin with), and had to substitute someone in the deal to get Santana.



Point taken, and you are probably right, I was just using that as a for instance. But you really think it's a big if that a guy taken 62nd overall bombs? I would say it is a big if if he doesn't.
   89. Conor Posted: April 29, 2008 at 09:32 AM (#2762182)
Yes, and that has been a really, really bad drafting philosophy, IMHO. When they are down in the middle rounds, making those trade-off decisions you are talking about, that is exactly when they should be looking for the guys who don't make the scouts drool with their five or seven or 33 tools, but who have been productive anyway, and especially against the best competition. Because, as you say, the guys who have all the tools AND have been super-productive . . . well, they are long gone.


Sorry; I can't edit and I forgot to put this in my last post...

who says they aren't doing this? We are obviously just talking about one pick here, and I really don't think it's a horrible idea to use your first pick (especially when it falls this far in the draft) on a guy who is safer. In general, I think you want your first pick to at at least give you something, because obviously the further you go down int he draft the odds greatly diminish of those guys ever producing.

They did use a pick in that draft on Dan Murphy, who was a pretty good hitter in college and has done a decent job in the minors, and has done very well this year.

Mulvey may never be an ace, but he's a guy who now has a 3.03 career ERA in the minors with a K:BB over 2.5 to 1.

Lucas Duda is another guy they drafted last year who can hit.

I am not saying I have been in love with their drafts or anything, but the Mulvey pick was a pretty good pick and I think you are being too harsh in your assessment of it.
Page 1 of 1 pag