I didn't think what Milledge said was all that bad. He even cracked the one good line about trading young players off of his own Baseball MVP team. It's weird how everything Milledge does and says becomes the focus of such angst in New York.

I will focus on how Ryan Church and Brian Schneider will complement this roster.

Since it doesn't matter how much the latter hits, the trade will almost definitely be considered a short-term success.

I will focus on a real outfield prospect, Fernando Martinez, who hopefully will respect the game and produce on the field versus with his mouth.

Keep focusing. Martinez is 50/50 to play 50 games in a Mets uniform. His staying power with the Mets will diminish substantially if he fails to be an immediate star.

I will focus on how Ryan Church and Brian Schneider will complement this roster. I will focus on a real outfield prospect, Fernando Martinez, who hopefully will respect the game and produce on the field versus with his mouth.

Good luck with that.

Isn't this the same guy that called Milledge a thug last year for driving over the speed limit?

Edit: found it but it was a different author from Gotham Baseball

Look, the kid clearly has some thug tendencies — he drives his Hummer like a banshee (nearly running me over last spring training)

You found it? Well, then if you "found it" you would have noticed that it was on NYBaseballCentral, NOT Gotham Baseball, and from a writer that has had NOTHING to do with Gotham since April of 2006.

http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/?p=6266

This is the third or fourth time that the "thug" line has been attributed to Gotham Baseball Magazine, and it is not true.

I would love it if you guys, for ONCE, were as particular about your accreditation as you are about decimal points.

The last thing he should be talking about is the New York Mets.

Why? He's in the same division. He is likely to play many games against the Mets over the coming years.

Mark Healey and I were lambasted by the “maniacal” fringes of the fan base for even insinuating that the deal that sent Milledge to Washington was a good move

1) Who is the author quoting? Who called the people who didn't like the Milledge trade "maniacal"? I don't think you are allowed to quote yourself.

2) I didn't realize you got to say "I told you so" based on a spring training quotes. Will the author say "I was wrong" when Milledge puts up an OPS over .825?

I think Milledge is going to be a very good-star player but I recently read one quote of his that made me question his thinking. He said something like, I am only worried about what my family and team think (which I liked) but he also added I am not really even worried about that because they already know what I can do.

I do think Lastings lacks humility. He wouldn't be the first player to become an All-Star without it.

It’s about time someone spoke the truth about what Lastings Milledge Mike Silva is all about. Instead of worrying about the past, someone like Milledge Silva should be excited about the future. The last thing he should be talking about is the New York Mets Lastings Milledge. Of course that would stand true for someone that had their his priorities straight during a critical time in their his career. Clearly, that is not that case in this situation.

Fixed.

I can see Milledge having a Carl Everett type of career - good enough that teams will deal with him, but annoying enough that they will latch onto the first excuse to let him go. Milledge doesn't seem to have the anger issues that Everett did, so I think Milledge will be a bit less volatile than Everett.

Those "their" -> "his" fixes would have been correct without the rest of the fixes. The wishy-washy, grammatically incorrect singular they/them/their is a pet peeve of mine.

I can see Milledge having a Carl Everett type of career - good enough that teams will deal with him, but annoying enough that they will latch onto the first excuse to let him go. Milledge doesn't seem to have the anger issues that Everett did, so I think Milledge will be a bit less volatile than Everett.

Yes, and I bet you can convince Lastings that this guy really did once exist.

So is Mr. Healy going to do the same with Church and his recent comments and complaints that the Nationals deliberately benched him and shifted him around just to artificially deflate the salary? Or do we only kick the players we don't like when they're ran out of town?

This is a circular argument, those that love Milledge and think the trade was a farce, will continue to do so. Those that weren't all that upset to see Milledge go -- for whatever reason -- will instead look to Church and Schnieder to play well enough to justify their own convictions.

As I have written and commented on several times, Milledge's biggest booster in the organization is the guy that traded him, within the division no less.

I liked the deal, so did Silva, and most did not. Mike's commentary is as valid as any PECOTA-based opposition, IMO.

Mike's commentary is as valid as any PECOTA-based opposition, IMO.

It's a hack job, it's not commentary.

Milledge will never live up to his potential here, in Washington, or anywhere else he lands throughout his career.

This is not because of any shortcomings in talent, but because of a misguided ego and attitude.

He goes on to cite unnamed sources, misquotes Wright's statements on the issue and uses Billy "I should have hit that college kid in the head when he tried to bunt" Wagner's stance on the issue as a point of fact.

I can find half a dozen articles that cite Nats players and officials, including Lo Duca who was obviously familiar with Lastings' situation with the Mets, that say that Milledge is a good kid who works hard and will be a great ball player. It's not remotely valid commentary because it only provides some very selective quotes and even if the author is unaware of what the Nats organization has to say, which I find unlikely, it just means he half assed his job and did no research. If he purposefully omitted them, that makes it worse. Hack job.

I liked the deal, so did Silva, and most did not. Mike's commentary is as valid as any PECOTA-based opposition, IMO

Well you're wrong :-)

It was a bad deal, it was bad the day it was made, and it's bad today,

It wasn't Kazmir/Ryan/Otis bad, but it wasn't good.

will instead look to Church and Schnieder to play well enough to justify their own convictions.

Church may be able to, Schnieder won't, here's hoping Castro's back hold up enough to catch 80+ games this year.

I can go through half a dozen articles from Nats players, including Lo Duca, that say that Milledge is a good kid who works hard and will be a great ball player.

Hmmm, guys that just met him are going to give accurate and truthful quotes about Milledge? Well, if Billy Wagner isn't much of a character reference, I wouldn't be putting LoDuca on my resume either.

I've covered the Mets since 1998, and I have yet to find a guy that's coached Milledge that will say the same things about him ON the record that they say OFF the record.

This is a circular argument, those that love Milledge and think the trade was a farce, will continue to do so. Those that weren't all that upset to see Milledge go -- for whatever reason -- will instead look to Church and Schnieder to play well enough to justify their own convictions.

If only we had some way of measuring a baseball player's production, some way to quantify the value of what they do on the ball field. I wish somebody would come up with such a thing.

“Enough is enough,” David Wright said yesterday. “You’re a Washington National now. Don’t worry about what happened last year or the year before that. Just go out there and try to help the Nationals win. The veterans were never mean to him or singled him out,” Wright said. “They always tried to teach him. Some of that comes through tough love. I went through it, Jose [Reyes] went through it. All the young guys in the game go through that tough-love period. Some handle it better than others.”

I think Wright's words speak for themselves.

It's funny, they both were drafted out of high school, both had dads that were cops...the only time I ever remember Wright having to get "counseled" by a Mets FO member was by Jim Duquette, who told him not to work out so hard at Triple-A before home games because he was working too hard. Wright's the kind of guy who Tony Tijerina once put his job on the line for. When Wright was first being considered for a callup, the FO didn't want to do it. TJ stood up in a meeting and said "This kid's ready, and if he's not, fire me."

People's actions, not their words, speak volumes aboiut how they feel about a person.

Some of that comes through tough love. I went through it, Jose [Reyes] went through it.

Sigma Chi!

If only we had some way of measuring a baseball player's production, some way to quantify the value of what they do on the ball field. I wish somebody would come up with such a thing.

Well, let's make sure we do so on stats these players actually produce this year, not based on predictors.

I will focus on how Ryan Church and Brian Schneider will complement this roster.

If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Hmmm, guys that just met him are going to give accurate and truthful quotes about Milledge? Well, if Billy Wagner isn't much of a character reference, I wouldn't be putting LoDuca on my resume either.

I've covered the Mets since 1998, and I have yet to find a guy that's coached Milledge that will say the same things about him ON the record that they say OFF the record.

You can't really laugh off quotes of baseball people who actively sought out a player in trade and then turn and lean on the quotes of players on a team where a player was traded from. Neither side is likely to be objective about it. The only difference between the two is that you've decided to take the Mets' organization's word for it over the Nationals because it fits your conclusions.

I think Wright's words speak for themselves.

Not really, there's a noticeable difference between what Wright says and your colleagues summation, saying Wright called Milledge "bitter traded guy". Wright says he doesn't see how Milledge was treated differently, but he obviously was affected by it differently.

Btw, there are a ton of reports that Reyes was negatively affected by the tough love in the Mets clubhouse last year. Maybe the tough love is the problem. Or maybe Reyes doesn't have what it takes either. Or maybe Milledge did catch it worse. Or maybe Milledge is to self destructive to ever accomplish what he's capable of. But there's far too many maybes for me to be comfortable with anyone making blanket statements the way Silva has about another person's character, when he only knows in passing, to a mass audience. It's irresponsible and it's almost certainly wrong.

Well, let's make sure we do so on stats these players actually produce this year, not based on predictors.

Believe me, knowing this crowd, this conversation will be going on for several years.

Mike's commentary is as valid as any PECOTA-based opposition, IMO.

No, it's not, and not just because I disagree with it. This is part and parcel with the whole "I'm a human being and anything I do or say is valuable and must be respected because I'm a unique snowflake and if you doubt my arguments or take issue with my actions, you are disrespecting me as a person and that's your problem because I am who I am and I am wonderful" attitude that seems prevalent on The Real World.

Nate Silver puts a shitload of work into PECOTA. I can't say with any certainty, but it appears that it takes him the better part of a few months (or more) to prepare the projections. That work should be respected. Mike, on the other hand, cobbled together a few quotes he read in the newspaper and an anonymous quote from some minor league Mets instructor from last year and used that as the basis for trashing Milledge and calling those who disagreed with his point maniacal. That's a couple hours of work, at best. There are posts on BTF that into which people put more effort.

PECOTA, of course, is not infallible. If you disagree with PECOTA's method, you are free to argue with any number of the countless underlying statistics and characteristics on which it is based. But it is a tool that should be respected because it is the result of a great deal of work to incorporate these countless statistics and characteristics that many people do believe have predictive value. We don't, however, have to take Mike just as seriously merely because he can read the newspaper and find a Mets minor league instructor willing to anonymously #### on Milledge. PECOTA has earned respect. Mike, has not.

No, it's not, and not just because I disagree with it. This is part and parcel with the whole "I'm a human being and anything I do or say is valuable and must be respected because I'm a unique snowflake and if you doubt my arguments or take issue with my actions, you are disrespecting me as a person and that's your problem because I am who I am and I am wonderful" attitude that seems prevalent on The Real World.

Um, no. Mike's opinion is valid because he's as much a fan as any of you, and he's willing to put his name to what he does. He he also works his butt off for Gotham, and represents us at the ballpark. That's good enough for me.

Nate Silver puts a shitload of work into PECOTA. I can't say with any certainty, but it appears that it takes him the better part of a few months (or more) to prepare the projections.

In addition to a full-time job, Mike puts 40 hours a week into running all of Gotham's digital media.

PECOTA has earned respect. Mike, has not.

Mike has earned my respect by putting his heart and soul into Gotham, and just because he doesn't approach his arguments from a statisical viewpoint, you piss on him. That's really fair. He also has the respect of everyone that has appears on our programs and everyone that works with us. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you.

25: I hear Adolf Hitler was a great family guy.

25: I hear Adolf Hitler was a great family guy.

Damn Levski. You pulled that out of kevin's playbook didn't you!

and just because he doesn't approach his arguments from a statisical viewpoint, you piss on him. That's really fair.

So it's fair game for him to 'piss on' some player, but not for readers to 'piss on' him?

When you write such inflammatory one-sided stuff, you have to be ready for some nasty feedback. Not that one makes the other 'okay', but it certainly makes it 'fair.'

It’s about time someone spoke the truth about what Lastings Milledge is all about.

If you're going to write in absolutes like that, not even cushioned by, 'in my opinion'...you get what you deserve.

I work 15-20 hours a week on my page, too, and with a much smaller readership - but I NEVER pull out the 'woe is me, you should all be nice to me because of how hard I selflessly work' crap. It IS nice when it's recognized, and when folks take it a little easier on you, but I've been skewered here on BTF for writing much more balanced pieces than this one.

Mike has earned my respect by putting his heart and soul into Gotham, and just because he doesn't approach his arguments from a statisical viewpoint, you piss on him. That's really fair. He also has the respect of everyone that has appears on our programs and everyone that works with us. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you.

What's not good enough for me is him attributing -- in quotes -- the statement from David Wright that Milledge was the "bitter traded guy," when Wright said no such thing. Wright's comments were critical enough without that misquote.

What's not good enough is using Billy Wagner -- Billy Wagner! -- saying about another player that he should "open his ears and close his mouth," when that is about as good a prescription for action as anyone could possibly give Billy Wagner, who offers his opinion when it is unneeded and counter-productive a hell of a lot more than Lastings Milledge ever could.

What's not good enough is an obvious fact error like saying, "David Wright and Jose Reyes burst onto the scene and produced right away when called up from the minors," when that is manifestly NOT true of Jose Reyes, who struggled with injuries and performance issues.

Lastings Milledge was treated poorly, and he was traded by a team that has increasingly shown that it does not have room or patience to work young players into the line-up. Willie Randolph talks openly about his belief that you can't win with young players in New York, which is simply idiotic. His unwillingness to give ABs to Milledge that instead went to Shawn Green last year hurt the Mets. This one is simple: the anti-Milledge crowd has its view, both of how he was treated and whether he will be an outstanding major leaguer. We'll never be able to agree on the first one, but only time will tell on his emergence and whether that trade will be a debacle. IMHO, it won't be long before you guys are eating your words.

Mike has earned my respect by putting his heart and soul into Gotham,

BTW, I can think of a number of online baseball writers/owners who 'pour their heart and soul' into their pages, (some of whom love to tell you about it when you disagree with them, too!) but, just like some mainstream writers, they are still horse's ###'s who can't write (or think) worth a ####.

Just saying.

Does Heals9 work for Gotham? His choice of words in (25) sure makes it sound that way to me, for whatever that's worth.

Thought I'd poach Klaw's Insider bit today on his "top breakout candidates" and dump out.


Lastings Milledge, OF, Washington Nationals
Milledge, at age 22, hit .272/.341/.446 in limited playing time in the majors in 2007, which made the Mets' decision to dump him on Washington for platoon outfielder Ryan Church and non-hitting catcher Brian Schneider all the more peculiar.

Nats fans should be thrilled -- they are getting a four-plus-tool hitter who will turn 23 just after Opening Day. Milledge has one of the quickest bats in the majors and will use it to take the outside pitch to right field or to shorten up and pull balls out to left. His pitch selection is good, although he's been hurt by his own success and he never had to work the count to perform well offensively in the minors. His swing can get long and he still chases breaking balls down and out of the zone, but look for regular playing time and the lack of a spotlight to lead to a big boost in his performance.

Silva's arguing Millege's intelligence and attitude and character are going to torpedo his career. Is there any way for PECOTA to incorporate what Silva is arguing into its projections?

While I certainly have nothing against Millege and wish him a fine career, I think it would be somewhat amusing if all the Mets veterans/sports writers/et al were right and the Mets primates were wrong and Millege really turns out to be a bigger pain in the ass than his talent allows. Both sides seem to speak with a far more degree of certainty than seems warranted when it comes to Lastings.

While I certainly have nothing against Millege and wish him a fine career, I think it would be somewhat amusing if all the Mets veterans/sports writers/et al were right and the Mets primates were wrong and Millege really turns out to be a bigger pain in the ass than his talent allows. Both sides seem to speak with a far more degree of certainty than seems warranted when it comes to Lastings.

True. I learned from the Soriano for Wilkerson trade that I'm not as smart as I think I am. Re: Milledge, I guess I just don't what he's done that's so awful. Yeah, he's maybe a bit too brash, but he's also very young. Who knows how he'll mature? His talent warranted giving him some space to grow up a little. He's no Elijah Dukes for crissakes.

Mike's opinion is valid because he's as much a fan as any of you, and he's willing to put his name to what he does. He he also works his butt off for Gotham, and represents us at the ballpark. That's good enough for me.

Mike's opinion is certainly valid. In and of itself, his opinion certainly should be given as much weight as the opinion of Nate Silver or any poster on BTF. But any argument should stand or fall though not on the identity of its proponents, but on the quality of its logic. When somebody on this board makes reference to PECOTA, they are effectually saying "There is a system developed by Nate Silver which catalogs numerous traits of a player and their complete statistical profile, compares that player's traits and statistical profile to all major league players since 19--, finds the players in history that are most comparable to that player and makes a projection for that player based on the players in baseball history that are most comparable to such player. The system has proven to be more accurate than all other generally available projection systems." That is a powerful argument because it is logical, rigorous, systemic and reasonably well tested.

I was wrong to discount Mike's effort because I am sure he works hard at his job. The argument that he put down on paper against the Milledge trade though, was poor. It essentially boiled down to "Milledge is a bad guy." Maybe that is true, but it is based on limited evidence which can be interpreted in a variety of ways. And even if it is true, there isn't any effort to explain why it matters. The author states that he doesn't think that Milledge will be able to reach his full potential because of his attitude, but never gives any basis for that belief. This is where we get to the point with which I took issue - that the author's opinion is just as valid as PECOTA in terms of player projection (in the sense that there can be degrees of validity). Well, the creator of PECOTA has given a reasonable explanation of his methodology and makes thousands of predictions each year that can be tested. An argument that incorporates the level of research and accuracy that PECOTA evidences has to be given a significant amount of weight. I don't think Mike has constructed an argument against Milledge that is thorough enough or well reasoned enough to be given commensurate authority.

Mike has earned my respect by putting his heart and soul into Gotham, and just because he doesn't approach his arguments from a statisical viewpoint, you piss on him.

Maybe we piss on him because he is fond of calling us maniacal.

I think it would be somewhat amusing if all the Mets veterans/sports writers/et al were right

I'd be more inclined to believe it if it were all the Mets veterans/sportswriters/et al. If you count it up, you're left with Wagner, some NY sportswriters, Willie Randolph (who also seems to have issues with Reyes) and some annoynmous minor league coach.

And I am most certainly not a Mets primate.

Silva's arguing Millege's intelligence and attitude and character are going to torpedo his career. Is there any way for PECOTA to incorporate what Silva is arguing into its projections?

No because there is no way to objectively measure or quantify someone's "intelligence and attitude and character".

Those traits are important, but all we get are subjective impressions which can be wildly off base.
It is certainly possible that Milledge has all the negative traits that the NY media attributes to him - I personally haven't bought any of it because when they give "examples" they seem to speak more of the various writers' biases than any actual trait Milledge does or doesn't have.

Willie Randolph (who also seems to have issues with Reyes) and some annoynmous minor league coach.

The only issues that Willie has with Reyes are similar to those that Casey Stengel had with Mickey Mantle. Reyes is gifted enough physically that he can be a good player without much effort. Willie wants him to be better than that and thinks if he can instill in Reyes the right attitude and give him some direction, he can help Reyes do so.

Willie went to Reyes' home in the Dominican this offseason and said he thinks Reyes can be the best player in the game. It's hardly an acrimonious relationship.

Willie went to Reyes' home in the Dominican this offseason and said he thinks Reyes can be the best player in the game. It's hardly an acrimonious relationship.

And it seems that his relationship with Milledge was not acrimonious either. I read today while putting together my post in #15 that Milledge and Randolph met while Milledge was on the Mets and that they were positive meetings. The fact that he has been critical of both players shows that just because Willie was critical of Milledge, it hardly means he believes he was some kind of sociopath who needed to be moved, which is why I mentioned Randolph's issues with Reyes.

Gary Sheffield was a world-class ####### when he was younger, and that didn't stop him from becoming a great, great player. He may still be an ####### (never met him, don't know), but to conflate his assholeness and his performance is a mistake, especially if you're trying to build a winning baseball team. In Sheffield's case, he was pretty blatantly being a dick. Milledge has showboated a little and thinks a lot of his own talent. Some people need to realize that just because they don't like a person doesn't mean they can't be good at their job. I'm sure everyone here works with an absolute prick, someone they hate, who is also very good at their job. Really not that big of a deal, happens all the time...

Even if you are charitable a good portion of the greatest players of all time have been nasty egomaniacs. If Lastings has a thuggish mean streak, maybe it will contribute to making him an all-star, maybe the meek version of Lasting would be a big failure.

Pretty much all the inner circle of the HoF were world-class ########.

Is there a conspiracy to take Lastings down? Even if he was the biggest ####### in the world, what is the point of the constant character assassination? He didn't do anything to anyone. He didn't tank on the Mets; he played very well. He didn't complain even as Shawn Green kept playing in front of him. He didn't ask to be traded. He didn't do anything to the Mets.

So because Omar made a bad move in trading him away, all of a sudden, he's a bad guy? It's not necessary. Minaya made a bad move. It happens. It doesn't mean he's a bad person or an idiot or bad at his job. Everyone does it. Defending him by slandering a player with half-truths and misleading rhetoric is ########.

Unless he gets injured Lastings is going to be an all-star level talent in baseball very soon. And the Mets are going to regret trading him. I hope everyone claiming he's about to fail will own up to his or her mistakes when that happens.

So because Omar made a bad move in trading him away, all of a sudden, he's a bad guy? It's not necessary

well to be honest, the character assassination began long before he was traded.
Not necessarily on this board, but in the New York media for sure.

well to be honest, the character assassination began long before he was traded.
Not necessarily on this board, but in the New York media for sure.

Yeah, but the latest round seems specifically to be of the "Don't knock the trade because Lastings sucks!!!!!!!111111" variety. I don't think the New York media would care about Lastings anymore if he'd been part of the Santana package.

heals9

you and sliva need to explain exactly what these terrible things about milledges character exactly are

if you mean he listens to/records rap records then get off the all guys gotta act like white rednecks kick

if you mean he won't pretend he's so umble, then good for him - i HATE hearing about all these guys who aupposedly have no ego - what a crock. except for lou gehrig, exactly how many really great players were goody 2 shoes with no ego???

if you mean he won't get on his knees with mouth open in front of the sainted veterans, then good for him. the whole hazing thing is bullstuff

and billy wags sure as HECK ain't someone to go talking about a big mouth

Can we please start the season? This BBTF Mets v Gotham Baseball pissing contest over Milledge has become almost as bad as the Red Sox-Yankees threads.

All we need is for someone to mention Jim Rice now..
OOPS!

The number of able bodies in the Mets’ projected starting lineup has been reduced to two. Left fielder Moises Alou, already considered an injury risk, has now become an injury reality, flying to New York on Wednesday for an examination of his strained right groin

Good thing they don't have a bum like Milledge to pick up the slack.

Mike's opinion is certainly valid. In and of itself, his opinion certainly should be given as much weight as the opinion of Nate Silver or any poster on BTF. But any argument should stand or fall though not on the identity of its proponents, but on the quality of its logic. When somebody on this board makes reference to PECOTA, they are effectually saying "There is a system developed by Nate Silver which catalogs numerous traits of a player and their complete statistical profile, compares that player's traits and statistical profile to all major league players since 19--, finds the players in history that are most comparable to that player and makes a projection for that player based on the players in baseball history that are most comparable to such player. The system has proven to be more accurate than all other generally available projection systems." That is a powerful argument because it is logical, rigorous, systemic and reasonably well tested.

First of all, thanks for the above. Secondly, it was I, not Mike, that questioned PECOTA ecota as an "end all argument" defense of Milledge's upside. And it wasn't even in this thread, it was in a previous thread where Sam M. said that my comparison of Jay Payton and Milledge as similar players at this stage of their career was "debunked" by PECOTA. In my defense, I was making an attempt to try to express what I thought of Milledge's upside, and I used a Jay Payton comparison (for effect). I, like many BTFers feel about Milledge, thought Payton was going to be a special player. Therein lies the intent of my argument.

I was wrong to discount Mike's effort because I am sure he works hard at his job. The argument that he put down on paper against the Milledge trade though, was poor. It essentially boiled down to "Milledge is a bad guy." Maybe that is true, but it is based on limited evidence which can be interpreted in a variety of ways. And even if it is true, there isn't any effort to explain why it matters. The author states that he doesn't think that Milledge will be able to reach his full potential because of his attitude, but never gives any basis for that belief. This is where we get to the point with which I took issue - that the author's opinion is just as valid as PECOTA in terms of player projection (in the sense that there can be degrees of validity). Well, the creator of PECOTA has given a reasonable explanation of his methodology and makes thousands of predictions each year that can be tested. An argument that incorporates the level of research and accuracy that PECOTA evidences has to be given a significant amount of weight. I don't think Mike has constructed an argument against Milledge that is thorough enough or well reasoned enough to be given commensurate authority.

I don't think Mike was looking for commensurate authority, he was just writing his reaction to Milledge's quotes and the Mets' reaction to them. When he goes on assignment to ST in a few weeks, perhaps he can get additional info.

My own experiences with Milledge have been fine. He's made himself available the few times I spoke with him one-on-one, both in the minors and the majors. My being in favor of the Milledge trade has always been one based on talent, not personality. PECOTA and Milledge's stats my not support this theory, but perhaps this might explain it.

I don't believe that Omar Minaya,if he indeed thinks that Milledge is going to be a special player, who have dealt him to a team in the same division. Minaya is also not the type of guy that lets personality quirks or bad mojo (Mota) determine his trades. With the Wilpons again brining back Darryl as an instructor, I also don't tend to think this was morality driven either.

I do believe that Milledge's teammates (and if you think Billy Wagner was alone in this behavior, you'd be quite wrong) treated him harshly, well perhaps they did. However, Milledge pretty much created his own reality there. This is not some misunderstood kid whose shyness was mistaken for arrogance. This was a guy who came into that clubhouse with an ego and 'tude that "didn't come close to his game"...yes that's an unnamed source, sorry.

Yet, that fact (if you want to call it such) doesn't replace my original belief; Milledge is not special enough of a player for the Mets to have handed him a MLB job, and might have been less than confident that a demotion to AAA would have been an optimum option.

Could this be Dykstra redux? Maybe. But I have more faith in Minaya as a talent evaluator of positional players than Joe McIllvane.

you and sliva need to explain exactly what these terrible things about milledges character exactly are

I think Mike's point has more to do with Milledge's throwing the organziation that drafted him, gave him a whole lot of money, and then kissed his keister for four years in unseemly.

if you mean he listens to/records rap records then get off the all guys gotta act like white rednecks kick

Last time I checked, Mike and I grew up in Brooklyn, not Houston. I have Kid Rock in my iPod too. The entire clubhouse had problems with him.

if you mean he won't pretend he's so umble, then good for him - i HATE hearing about all these guys who aupposedly have no ego - what a crock. except for lou gehrig, exactly how many really great players were goody 2 shoes with no ego???

I think the consensus was that when the vets tried to counsel Milledge (and I mean gguys that the fans really like and respect), he was very disrespectful. Much like Ed Kranepool was towards Duke Snider in 1963. "Last time I looked, Duke, you weren't so good yourself", I beleive was the quote.

if you mean he won't get on his knees with mouth open in front of the sainted veterans, then good for him. the whole hazing thing is bullstuff

There are guys in that clubhouse, not as vocal as Wagner, that felt the same way.

and billy wags sure as HECK ain't someone to go talking about a big mouth

Say what you want about Billy. The guy never ducks the media after a bad game, and never gives you the "high hat" either.

In my defense, I was making an attempt to try to express what I thought of Milledge's upside, and I used a Jay Payton comparison (for effect). I, like many BTFers feel about Milledge, thought Payton was going to be a special player.

Well, but the fact that you see those two players as comparable is evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

I have Kid Rock in my iPod too.

Is this serious?

And it wasn't even in this thread, it was in a previous thread where Sam M. said that my comparison of Jay Payton and Milledge as similar players at this stage of their career was "debunked" by PECOTA.

I said no such thing. I said it was debunked by the fact that Milledge has already performed in the majors at a level that Jay Payton didn't reach until he was nearly 30. Actual, major league performance. Granted, you can argue that Payton's progress was derailed by injuries and we'll never know what might have been. Which could be true. Maybe a Jay Payton who hadn't lost critical development years to injuries would have been an all-star. But the fact is that Milledge is WAY ahead of where Payton was in terms of what he has been able to prove at the major league level.

IMHO, a player who can do what Milledge did at the age of 22 in 2007, despite being held back by a manager who had no faith in him, who gave PAs to Shawn Green that by any reasonable measure should have gone to Milledge, and who was being "treated harshly" by his teammates (by your own admission) -- well, I'd be pretty damned confident that this is a kid who is going to succeed in the majors. And I'd feel a lot better about the Mets as an organization if they would show the patience in a young player with that much talent to allow him to find his place and make the contribution. Not every kid fits in as immediately and as well as David Wright. But it appears that's who you have to be at this point to have any chance as a Mets' prospect. Sad.

To me character does matter in a player. Is he hard-working, is he focused on eating right, making the most of his talent, etc.

It is not hard to notice that the only kind of "character" that heals9 seems to care about is their interaction with the media.

I have Kid Rock in my iPod too.

Yes! Completely rewarded for reading a whole post on the Muts!

Edit: Uh, that shouldn't be interpreted to mean that I like Kid Rock, but that a) I found Kid Rock a hilarious example of rap and b) I just found it hilarious that someone has Kid Rock on their IPOD.

I think Mike's point has more to do with Milledge's throwing the organziation that drafted him, gave him a whole lot of money, and then kissed his keister for four years in unseemly.


I wasn't going to get involved here, but I can't let this go without comment. The Mets didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts, they drafted him, gave him a whole lot of money for *their* benefit. If they could have gotten Milledge in the 25th round and pay him less than a minimum wage employee, they would've done it.

I'm not sure why Milledge should be so loyal to the Mets. He never freely chose to play for them. There should be a big difference between how much loyalty to expect from someone who voluntarily signs a contract with your company and someone who's compelled to either work for your company or find a new profession.

Yeah, I hear this quite often...why should I care whether or not Billy Wagner talks to the media?

Since when did that become the measure of a person' character

Is he hard-working, is he focused on eating right, making the most of his talent, etc.

For some reason, the media never ever focuses on stuff like this. Nutritional habits, work(out) habits, things that can very clearly affect the player.

The Milledge Payton comparison thread

Sam's comments:

Love you too, Heals. Even though your comparison of Lastings Milledge to Jay Payton had been thoroughly debunked within two posts, and yet you still haven't acknowledged the force or implications of the fact that by age 22, Milledge has shown the ability to hold his own offensively and do things in the major leagues that Jay Payton couldn't do until he was much, much older. Your answer (# 32):

The comparison is based on the fact that both were highly touted OF prospects. Teir skin color is irrelevant.

Oh, and Payton actually once played CF for a full season for a team that won a pennant. Milledge is just a guy who has some nice minor league stats, who may or may not be better than Jacque Jones.

Convincing stuff, that. Someone tells you that Milledge had accomplished more in the majors than Payton at the same age, and been better in the minors, and you come back with the fact that Payton played for a pennant-winning team and that Milledge only has "some nice minor league stats." Sigh.

My response to heals9 comparison of Milledge and Payton:

Milledge has outperformed Payton at the same ages and levels.

Milledge was performing credibly in MLB at age 22, OPS+ 105. At age 22, Payton played well at AA in the Eastern league, OPS 929, relative to a league average of 704, but was mediocre at AAA in the International, OPS 678, relative to a league average 719.

It took Payton till age 29 to get a MLB OPS+ above 100, though he came close at age 27.

No mention of PECOTA.

For some reason, the media never ever focuses on stuff like this. Nutritional habits, work(out) habits, things that can very clearly affect the player.

I think they do, you just have to read the local papers for that kind of story. The New York ones keep tabs on how players are working out and if they're doing anything special (eating differently, yoga, whatever). There's been a lot of press given to Jeter's new workouts on his lateral movement and at least one story on Giambi getting fit. Last year there were a couple of pieces on how Cano had finally started to take conditioning seriously thanks to a few of the older guys on the team and how Melky had started shadowing A-rod's workouts.

The Mets resented Milledge's Pepsi and Ho-Hos diet and wanted him to go macrobiotic and chew his food more. When he refused, what choice did they have?

A comparison to Payton is as disingenuous as one can get. Milledge might be comparable to Jay when Jay was a prospect, but Jay got injured and then had a terribly middling career. Comparing someone to Jay Payton nowadays includes all of that, it isn't just a comparison to a 22-year old Payton (who wasn't even as good as Lastings at that age).

For some reason, the media never ever focuses on stuff like this. Nutritional habits, work(out) habits, things that can very clearly affect the player.

What CP said in #59. For all of A-Rod's issues with the media, he's been getting deservedly good press since his Texas days when it comes to his workout and fitness regimen. Whatever you think about the guy, he respects his talent by taking damn good care of himself.

Wow, just saw this. I'd like to add a few observations.

1. I think it is silly to hold Mike accountable for failing to present both sides evenly in a piece where he is arguing one side. This was opinion, and it carries with it different imperatives.

2. My issue with the Milledge trade is purely baseball-related- as in, they dealt away a guy I believe is ready to post a 115-120 OPS+ with plus defense in center field for parts far more easily acquired. He provided above-average production at 22, while learning a new position... etc. I believe they will live to regret this deal, and we won't need PECOTA to show why, as soon as 2008.

3. I know from experience that Gotham Baseball allows a diversity of opinions on Milledge- see my piece from last spring, "Mature at Lastings".

4. Mike Silva and Mark Healey are both knowledgeable baseball analysts. I believe they are both wrong about Lastings Milledge, however.

5. I can't say it didn't surprise me that David Wright spoke up against Milledge. Wagner, obviously, is prepared to speak out against anyone and anything. But that was surprising from Wright.

6. If/when the large majority of the baseball community and media is wrong about Milledge, it will be worthwhile to ask why everyone failed to see the emerging talent there.

7. I await Milledge's 2008 season with great anticipation and a solid helping of dread- since he is in the same division.

1. I think it is silly to hold Mike accountable for failing to present both sides evenly in a piece where he is arguing one side. This was opinion, and it carries with it different imperatives.

He doesn't need to present both sides evenly. He needs to understand the issues, what other perspectives are arguing, and to provide at least reasonable substance to his own stance. He fails on all counts.

For example - he argues against Milledge being much as a baseball talent. If he had understood what the opposing stance had been arguing (and this is been a topic hashed repeatedly), that players who put up Milledge's numbers at each age/level is unusual, then he would have had a stronger piece. Instead, he simply states Milledge isn't that special and calls him another Jay Payton.

Second, his main argument is that Milledge is a disruptive force in the clubhouse. Yet, as this thread shows, when critics dissect this stance, Mike can't support his opinion with much more than hearsay.

The "this was opinion" stance is why so much of the sportswriting is crap. And by crap, I don't mean compared to academic literature - I mea,n a high school student should be embarrassed with submitting such a work.

For example - he argues against Milledge being much as a baseball talent. If he had understood what the opposing stance had been arguing (and this is been a topic hashed repeatedly), that players who put up Milledge's numbers at each age/level is unusual, then he would have had a stronger piece. Instead, he simply states Milledge isn't that special and calls him another Jay Payton.

But that is Mike's opinion. Based on your interpretation of the stats to date, you disagree. I do, too. But that doesn't make us right- we don't know what Milledge's career will be, after all.

Second, his main argument is that Milledge is a disruptive force in the clubhouse. Yet, as this thread shows, when critics dissect this stance, Mike can't support his opinion with much more than hearsay.

It's not really clear to me how you'd definitively prove this one way or the other. Can you provide something more concrete than criticism from teammates, both on and off the record? I don't think the animus toward Milledge was a good reason to deal him, but I'm not sure anyone would dispute it was there.

The "this was opinion" stance is why so much of the sportswriting is crap. And by crap, I don't mean compared to academic literature - I mea,n a high school student should be embarrassed with submitting such a work.

But I take it opinion pieces that cite his stats, but not the large number of scouts and baseball insiders that don't think Milledge will become much of a player are worthy, in your opinion. Why is that? If you value one kind of evidence, and Mike values another kind of evidence, and we don't have a definitive answer, do you really think it is appropriate to label his opinion crap? Sorry- I'm with you on the issue of how good Milledge will be, but I think this is a pretty narrow-minded dismissal.

Secondly, it was I, not Mike, that questioned PECOTA ecota as an "end all argument" defense of Milledge's upside. And it wasn't even in this thread, it was in a previous thread where Sam M. said that my comparison of Jay Payton and Milledge as similar players at this stage of their career was "debunked" by PECOTA. In my defense, I was making an attempt to try to express what I thought of Milledge's upside, and I used a Jay Payton comparison (for effect). I, like many BTFers feel about Milledge, thought Payton was going to be a special player. Therein lies the intent of my argument.

Any evaluation of a player and consequently, any trade involving that player, has to start with a reasonable projection of what kind of value that player will produce. PECOTA gives us a good baseline from which to work. Against that backdrop, we can consider other factors such as why PECOTA may not be properly evaluating this player from a statistical perspective or whether this player possesses certainly personality traits, both positive or negative, that may impede a player's ability to hit his projection or allow him to exceed it.

My problem with some of the commentary I have read from Gotham Baseball (both on your site and here at BTF) is that it seems to discount Milledge's ability and to treat the "Milledge is really a jerk" argument as the endpoint in the discussion rather than just a stage. I think PECOTA is a valid counterpoint to the former argument. As to the latter, I'm not sure that anybody really has a good idea how a player's personality influences his performance and I'm skeptical of any attempt to make a value judgment on a player that rests in large part on personality factors. Precisely because these types of players are so annoying to have around, teams get them wrong all of the time. Guys like Gary Sheffield, Kevin Mitchell and Carl Everett immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there are others. The Mets needed to get more in return for a guy like Milledge than a platoon OF and a mediocre catcher because nobody really has a good idea how his issues will affect his value and, for a GM, it is foolish to act if you do.

Sorry- I'm with you on the issue of how good Milledge will be, but I think this is a pretty narrow-minded dismissal.

Well, in the "narrow-minded dismissal" derby, I think the Gotham crowd wins it hands-down. Mike dismisses his critics as the "maniacal" fringe of Mets' fandom in this article. Healey comes on to this thread with a typical put-down:

I would love it if you guys, for ONCE, were as particular about your accreditation as you are about decimal points.

Not exactly conducive to an open dialog and exchange of views.

But that is Mike's opinion. Based on your interpretation of the stats to date, you disagree. I do, too. But that doesn't make us right- we don't know what Milledge's career will be, after all.

This gets to my earlier point - for an opinion to be worthwhile, it has to have a reasonable basis. I think a lot of the opinions I have read criticizing Milledge do not have a reasonable basis. It's not merely that I disagree with those opinions, it's that I think often they were not supported by any real logic or facts. I think it is perfectly acceptable to discount those kinds of opinions.

I, for one, find it unbelievable that someone who had the gall to wear a gold chain on the field and high five fans is still in baseball.

Does anybody here know more about Milledge's school expulsion/sex with minors incidents? I haven't seen much concrete stuff on this... it certainly doesn't seem as bad as Dukes, but it could be indicative of problems down the road.

Silva's not a journalist. He's a sh!t-stirrer. And not a very original one at that.

"The New York ones keep tabs on how players are working out and if they're doing anything special (eating differently, yoga, whatever). There's been a lot of press given to Jeter's new workouts on his lateral movement and at least one story on Giambi getting fit. Last year there were a couple of pieces on how Cano had finally started to take conditioning seriously thanks to a few of the older guys on the team and how Melky had started shadowing A-rod's workouts."

Yeah, I do see articles on a player's training habits, if he is doing something "unorthodox", yoga, Nick Swisher doing "strongman" training etc, doing a new workout that will have him in the best shape of his life. And of course, in spring training, the papers always say that players are in the best shapes of their lives due to a offseason of working out hard (with a new regiment).

What I want to see more, and during the season, are articles similar to the Julio Franco article in the NYT a couple of years ago. Not articles on new workouts, eating differently, unorthodox workouts, but simply articles on players who work very hard at staying in shape, even if what they are doing is nothing "sexy": Franco and his commitment to working out and strict nutrition, Manny and his running with tires.

Does anybody here know more about Milledge's school expulsion/sex with minors incidents?

As far as I know all he did was have sex with a 15 year old when he was 17.

But that is Mike's opinion. Based on your interpretation of the stats to date, you disagree. I do, too. But that doesn't make us right- we don't know what Milledge's career will be, after all.

Sorry, at work, so can't write extensively as I would like.

No, not what I mean. What I mean is - Mike has two different channels he can go with in acknowledging the opposing perspectives.

1) Look up what Milledge supporters have been writing. This may take a bit of work, but it really isn't that hard to find on the net. This isn't like going to a library archive to dig up Stoic philosopher's stances in 15th century France. That way, he would understand why others see Milledge as a talent. Then he can counter them.

or

2) Write humbly. For example, "others have argued that Milledge is a baseball talent. My observations and opinions lead to a different position. In athletic attributes, he is most comparable to ..., Historically, he most resembles ..., Therefore, I don't see how he is that exceptional ...."

Instead, Mike comes out guns blazing. When his position falls apart, you and heals say "but that's his opinion." That's not much from my view.

Well, in the "narrow-minded dismissal" derby, I think the Gotham crowd wins it hands-down. Mike dismisses his critics as the "maniacal" fringe of Mets' fandom in this article. Healey comes on to this thread with a typical put-down:

I would love it if you guys, for ONCE, were as particular about your accreditation as you are about decimal points.

Not exactly conducive to an open dialog and exchange of views.

I don't think either side's put-downs are conducive to further discussion. And you can be sure that I will ask Mike if he believes I am part of the "maniacal fringe."

This gets to my earlier point - for an opinion to be worthwhile, it has to have a reasonable basis. I think a lot of the opinions I have read criticizing Milledge do not have a reasonable basis. It's not merely that I disagree with those opinions, it's that I think often they were not supported by any real logic or facts. I think it is perfectly acceptable to discount those kinds of opinions.

And I think that is a fine way to reinforce what you already believe. Look, you put more stock in his on-field performance to date and PECOTA projections than you do the evaluation of Milledge by the team that drafted him, the opinions of the vast majority of the baseball world, and of his own teammates. And I do, too.

But the idea that someone putting more faith in the latter isn't using logic or facts is simply not the case.

But I take it opinion pieces that cite his stats, but not the large number of scouts and baseball insiders that don't think Milledge will become much of a player are worthy, in your opinion.

That line of reasoning would hold up if Silva presented evidence that a large number of scouts and insiders thought that. He didn't. He had an annoynmous quote from a coach, a couple of players and implied (IIRC correctly) that Randolph and Minaya weren't all that high on him. Where is the "A scout from another team, who spoke only on condition of annoynmity" or the "baseball insider from a league opponent"? It's not there. It's a puff piece, written for the Mets, using only Met based opinions on a guy they didn't like and just traded away for 20 cents on the dollar.

And he presents his opinion, which just happens to be a ad hominem attack on a 22 year old, as fact:

Milledge will never live up to his potential here, in Washington, or anywhere else he lands throughout his career.

This is not because of any shortcomings in talent, but because of a misguided ego and attitude.

Instead, Mike comes out guns blazing. When his position falls apart, you and heals say "but that's his opinion." That's not much from my view.

And again, Rask, it isn't in response to his position falling apart that I said so, it was in reference to the criticism of his piece as one-sided.

I frankly don't think his piece falls apart. I think he expresses an opinion that I disagree with-and either his position or mine will "fall apart" when the future occurs, and we find out what kind of career Lastings Milledge has.

For some reason, the media never ever focuses on stuff like this. Nutritional habits, work(out) habits, things that can very clearly affect the player.

These are the very things that ought to be most coachable, that a good organization could cultivate in its prospects.

At the very least, it seems like it would be a lot easier to teach Lastings Milledge to work out properly than it would be to teach some random prospect to play baseball as well as Lastings Milledge can.

The "this was opinion" stance is why so much of the sportswriting is crap. And by crap, I don't mean compared to academic literature - I mea,n a high school student should be embarrassed with submitting such a work.

But I take it opinion pieces that cite his stats, but not the large number of scouts and baseball insiders that don't think Milledge will become much of a player are worthy, in your opinion. Why is that? If you value one kind of evidence, and Mike values another kind of evidence, and we don't have a definitive answer, do you really think it is appropriate to label his opinion crap? Sorry- I'm with you on the issue of how good Milledge will be, but I think this is a pretty narrow-minded dismissal.

No, I'm broadening the topic here. What I'm saying is that "this was opinion" is a weak position to take when defending a position - in terms of logic and rhetoric.

I'm widening this to argue against the stance that sportswriters and talk show hosts love to fall back on. Both groups like to bring up incendiary positions or opinions and then use the "but this is opinion" tool as a structural device. To me, one should be able to go beyond that level of reasoning by junior high school. Yet this device is used all the time at the professional journalistic level - particularly in the sports community.

More on this later.

Sorry- I'm with you on the issue of how good Milledge will be, but I think this is a pretty narrow-minded dismissal.

Well, in the "narrow-minded dismissal" derby, I think the Gotham crowd wins it hands-down. Mike dismisses his critics as the "maniacal" fringe of Mets' fandom in this article. Healey comes on to this thread with a typical put-down:

I would love it if you guys, for ONCE, were as particular about your accreditation as you are about decimal points.

Not exactly conducive to an open dialog and exchange of views.

Sam, Mike was quoting ME when he said "maniacal" and the accreditation comment was based on the thi multiple times that the "Milledge is a Thug" artcile has been mentioned as a Gotham Baseball article.

As far as open dialog and exchange of views every time a Gotham article is posted here by Repoz or someone else (which I greatly appreciate), there's a whole lot of snarkiness that gets posted before I even get on board. That goes both ways.

Consider this; if there was ever a player that Willie Randolph was going to get emotinally invested in, it was Milledge. What makes you think, based on last year's 5th starter debalce, specifcally w/ Brian Lawrence, that Willie was the guy calling the shots on Green / Milledge.

I have been critical of Randolph's bullpen managment forever, but I think that he has done a very credible job in every other aspect.

That line of reasoning would hold up if Silva presented evidence that a large number of scouts and insiders thought that. He didn't. He had an annoynmous quote from a coach, a couple of players and implied (IIRC correctly) that Randolph and Minaya weren't all that high on him. Where is the "A scout from another team, who spoke only on condition of annoynmity" or the "baseball insider from a league opponent"? It's not there. It's a puff piece, written for the Mets, using only Met based opinions on a guy they didn't like and just traded away for 20 cents on the dollar.

It certainly could have also included an additional non-Met source. Frankly, such criticisms of Milledge are out there. But that's a pretty slim reed to hang a dismissal on.

And he presents his opinion, which just happens to be a ad hominem attack on a 22 year old, as fact:

It is a prediction of the future. Would you feel differently if he had explicitly said, "In my opinion"? I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Mike Silva claims he has seen the future, and here is what absolutely will be. He is obviously giving his opinion.

What makes you think, based on last year's 5th starter debalce, specifcally w/ Brian Lawrence, that Willie was the guy calling the shots on Green / Milledge.

I think it is almost unimaginable that once Milledge was called up (obviously, Randolph only has so much influence on that decision, and you have to hold Omar responsible for keeping Milledge at New Orleans too long once he was healthy), that Randolph didn't make the decision to keep giving PAs to Green. Given everything Randolph says about young players in general, and his attitude towards Milledge's behavior specifically, there is simply no basis to believe that he did not strongly favor Green over Milledge.

Now, do I think it is quite possible that Randolph wished he could "get through" to Milledge, and that Milledge would start to behave in the clubhouse and on the field the way Randolph wanted him to? Absolutely. I don't think Randolph wanted Milledge to fail. But for Randolph, the measure of Milledge's success was not his performance on the field; it was his behavior and attitude. Until and unless he met with the approval of the Paul LoDucas and Billy Wagners in the clubhouse, and acted the way a rookie is "supposed" to act, he wasn't going to be rewarded by Randolph with PAs. And that hurt the team, and it hurt Milledge's development, and it created a bad dynamic in the clubhouse, and it hurt Milledge's reputation by exaggerating his supposed flaws (thus deflating his trade value).

If Randolph is ever going to succeed as a manager in a way I approve of, it has to include figuring out how to create an atmosphere that allows young players to thrive even if they are not perfect citizens like David Wright. Kids mature at different rates, and if you aren't patient with that, and allow some room for different attitudes and egos, you will be running talented players out of town at a dizzying rate. It's Kevin Mitchell all over again. Look how that worked out. It's just not enough for Randolph to want a kid like Milledge to succeed; he has to create positive conditions that make that likely, instead of setting him up to fail, and tolerating clubhouse conditions that don't give him a chance to grow.

A big ego and an overgrown attitude are problems to manage. Hence the job title. They are not reasons to sacrifice talent on the altar of good citizenship.

Frankly, such criticisms of Milledge are out there.

Then he should have presented them.

But that's a pretty slim reed to hang a dismissal on.

No, it's not. His supporting evidence boils down to one source, the Mets organization, which has a not insignificant reason to be less than objective in their appraisal of Milledge's value and future.

Would you feel differently if he had explicitly said, "In my opinion"?

Yes! Or any other sort of qualification. That would have changed the entire tone of the whole piece.

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Mike Silva claims he as seen the future, and here is what absolutely will be. He is obviously giving his opinion.

Go over to the MGL/Bill James thread and you'll find people criticizing MGL for his tone in the exact same way I am chosing to criticize Silva's. Of course it is his opinion, stating an opinion with such an absolutist tone is obnoxious and only serves the purpose of inciting those that disagree with you. It is an aggressive and provacative way to state an opinion, and it's fairly obvious that he meant for it to be read that way as the article progresses.

No, it's not. His supporting evidence boils down to one source, the Mets organization, which has a not insignificant reason to be less than objective in their appraisal of Milledge's value and future.

Actually, it includes three sources, two of whom were players on the record.

Go over to the MGL/Bill James thread and you'll find people criticizing MGL for his tone in the exact same way I am chosing to criticize Silva's. Of course it is his opinion, stating an opinion with such an absolutist tone is obnoxious and only serves the purpose of inciting those that disagree with you. It is an aggressive and provacative way to state an opinion, and it's fairly obvious that he meant for it to be read that way as the article progresses.

That's a fair point- I've already been to that MGL thread, and made that point there myself. This may well be knowing Mike, and knowing that he is simply stating an opinion- he's not an arrogant guy. But it is totally reasonable to say that it comes across differently to you.

Actually, it includes three sources, two of whom were players on the record.

All of whom work for the Mets.

Yeah, I hear this quite often...why should I care whether or not Billy Wagner talks to the media?

Since when did that become the measure of a person' character

Hey, if it works for Jeff Kent, it could work for anyone.

Actually, it includes three sources, two of whom were players on the record.

One of whom, David Wright, he actually misquotes, significantly overstating the substance of how critical Wright was. Or at least, his quote was different from that used by every other story about Wright's remarks. Perhaps Silva simply chose to use a different part of what Wright said . . . but I doubt it. I think he just tried to summarize, and it ended up being an overstatement that reflected more Silva's views put into Wright's mouth.

"Personally, I like Lastings. There were times when he messed up and he knew it and he learned from it. I don't see where this is coming from. I don't know if it's just trying to play that bitter traded guy role. I don't know what he's trying to accomplish by the things that he's saying."

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/SPORTS/802290368

All of whom work for the Mets.

One of whom apparently spoke before Milledge left the team. Moreover, it isn't clear to me why it would be in David Wright's interest to publicly rebuke Milledge, an in-division opponent.

I think he presented ample examples of those who are down on Milledge. would another source have added? Of course- it always does. But that is a far cry from dismissing his piece for lack of evidence.

One of whom apparently spoke before Milledge left the team. Moreover, it isn't clear to me why it would be in David Wright's interest to publicly rebuke Milledge, an in-division opponent.

Well, I doubt any of this public carrying on is really in anyone's interest. It isn't in Milledge's interest to have started this nor is it in Wagner's or Wright's interest to have continued it. That does not mean that all of those who are involved are speaking from biased positions due to their particular relationships with the Mets. Why do I think that? Because Paul Lo Duca, his objectivity in doubt because he now works for the same team Milledge does, spoke glowingly about Milledge's talent and work ethic this spring. I'll be happy to dig up the article and the quote if you like.

My point is everyone on the Mets is critical of Milledge. Everyone on the Nats speaks positively about Milledge. Both have self interests at play here. Chances are, they're both speaking party lines and the truth is in the middle.

I think he presented ample examples of those who are down on Milledge. would another source have added? Of course- it always does. But that is a far cry from dismissing his piece for lack of evidence.

Well then we differ on what counts as meaningful evidence. I am just not inclined to believe that the opinions of three people, who all work for the team that just traded Milledge, are objective. Any source from outside of the Mets organization would add a boatload of credibility to the criticisms, at least for me.

Edited to address some vagaries in my post.

"Personally, I like Lastings. There were times when he messed up and he knew it and he learned from it. I don't see where this is coming from. I don't know if it's just trying to play that bitter traded guy role. I don't know what he's trying to accomplish by the things that he's saying."

OK, Howard. Do YOU think -- based on that quotation -- that what Silva said about Wright is an accurate characterization of Wright's remarks? This is what Silva said:

I am glad that David Wright correctly responded by labeling him the “bitter traded guy”

As I read what Wright said, he didn't label Milledge that way at all. He said he didn't know if that was the game Milledge was trying to play, or what Milledge was trying to accomplish, but that he just didn't see where all Milledge's criticisms were coming from. And -- in other parts of the quote -- he basically said Milledge should just shut the hell up and worry about the Nats.

Critical of Milledge's shots at the Mets? Absolutely. But did Silva fairly capture Wright's overall picture of Millege. Not in my book.

Moreover, it isn't clear to me why it would be in David Wright's interest to publicly rebuke Milledge, an in-division opponent.

To defend his team and his manager. Milledge was basically trashing the Mets for mistreating him -- which is an indictment of the way Randolph and the players in the clubhouse conduct their business and treat a young player in their midst. Wright, as a team leader, is going to defend what goes on there from an attack like that. I don't blame Wright for doing that. For good or ill, Milledge is now gone and it's important for the team to be as united as it can be. That doesn't mean Milledge was treated the way he should have been, or the trade was a good idea. But I certainly see why Wright would speak up.

Well then we differ on what counts as meaningful evidence. I am just not inclined to believe that the opinions of three people, who all work for the team that just traded Milledge, are objective. Any source from outside of the Mets organization would add a boatload of credibility to the criticisms, at least for me.

Again, I don't think the question is whether an additional source would add to his case. It is whether absent that, Mike presents evidence that Milledge was a distraction. Clearly, those within the team and organization are more qualified to speak about this.

Do YOU think -- based on that quotation -- that what Silva said about Wright is an accurate characterization of Wright's remarks?

Honestly, Sam, I do- and for the reasons you stipulated- Wright as team leader, defending his teammates and manager. You bet that's how I read it. Saying "I don't know if" was trying to soft-pedal it, but that seems to be the implication to me.

And I think that is a fine way to reinforce what you already believe. Look, you put more stock in his on-field performance to date and PECOTA projections than you do the evaluation of Milledge by the team that drafted him, the opinions of the vast majority of the baseball world, and of his own teammates. And I do, too.

I know how to distinguish an argument that is based on evidence and logic which contradicts my position from an argument that contains no relevant evidence and is not based on logic. The argument against Milledge has generally consisted of varying levels of documentation that he is a jerk. Let's assume that is true. Almost every piece breaks down because they fail to convert that alleged fact into a reasonable argument that that characteristic will hurt Milledge and the Mets on the field. Silva's piece makes the assertion that it will, but that assertion is not supported. Nobody has presented evidence that Milledge has poor work habits. Nobody has presented evidence that Milledge dogs it on the field. Nobody has presented evidence that his attitude so infects the clubhouse that it causes his teammates to play worse. It's just "He's a jerk, and that will hurt his play for reasons of which I'm not quite sure." There needs to be a causal link between stated facts that are presented in support of a position and the argumentative position. I don't think anybody has seriously attempted to establish that link.

Again, I don't think the question is whether an additional source would add.

Well, I happen to think that's exactly the question of what it would add. Without an additional source, the whole thing reads like some Mets propaganda puff piece to excuse why their GM so obviously goofed.

it is whether absent that, Mike presents evidence that Milledge was a distraction. Clearly, those within the team and organization are more qualified to speak about this.

Sorry, but that's not the question. There's nothing in the article about Lastings' effects on his teammates and his potential for distracting his teammates.

It is about one person, Lastings Milledge and whether or not it was a good decision to trade him. Mike supports his claims by questioning his upside due to his questionable character, not by saying he would have a negative impact on the team. That's what this is about and that's why his evidence lacks credibility. People within the Mets organization are among the last people I would ask for an objective look at Milledge's upside or character.

Mike supports his claims by questioning his upside due to his questionable character, not by saying he would have a negative impact on the team. That's what this is about and that's why his evidence lacks credibility. People within the Mets organization are among the last people I would ask for an objective look at Milledge's upside or character.

Perhaps, but I do think there is evidence that Milledge has some growing up to do. And I think there is even more evidence that these issues affected his trade value. Frankly, I blame the Mets for this at least as much as I do Milledge, on two levels. First, I think they exaggerated the problem, allowed their own announcers to hype it (even as the N.Y. tabloids were doing their level-best to fan the flames, too), and didn't attempt to show Milledge at his best. The Mets pretty much conducted a clinic in how to put to rest the doubts of the rest of MLB that Milledge was bad news . . . by convincing them that he is. They could, instead, have treated it as a non-issue, calmly played him like his performance merited, and by their own response sent the message that Milledge's so-called issues were minor.

Second, having made that bed, they then decided to trade him anyway, when his value had crashed. This is the last thing you do -- sell low. If his reputation has hurt his value, then just hold on to him and let his performance restore his value. But that requires patience, and actually turning a starting position over to a young player who is less than a model citizen. Can't do that. Nosiree.

People within the Mets organization are among the last people I would ask for an objective look at Milledge's upside or character.

When you are talking about something this subjective, it isn't at all clear to me where you are getting the objective evidence of his effect within the team. If it is the guys within the team, they are biased because they play for the Mets. If it is a guy within the organization prior to Milledge even being dealt- well, it's not clear to me why you have a problem with this. And of course, those outside the organization don't have any first-hand knowledge one way or the other.

But clearly, a whole lot of them didn't think enough of his baseball talent, or weighed heavily what they heard within the Mets organization, to avoid trading much talent for Milledge.

It's not clear to me that a higher standard of proof is even possible, for the reasons cited above. It doesn't mean such factors don't exist. And for Mike to take the circumstantial evidence of such factors, and reach a conclusion that Milledge wouldn't have helped the Mets- well, I don't agree, but it isn't an unsupported arguement.

I do get tired of people dismissing rival points of view, rather than disagreeing. There is a difference between disputing and dismissing. I think the latter is intellectually dishonest.

Almost every piece breaks down because they fail to convert that alleged fact into a reasonable argument that that characteristic will hurt Milledge and the Mets on the field. Silva's piece makes the assertion that it will, but that assertion is not supported.

The implication is that a divided clubhouse, fanned by the media in NY, would be a distraction. This seems so outlandish to you that it is utterly without logic?

Second, having made that bed, they then decided to trade him anyway, when his value had crashed. This is the last thing you do -- sell low. If his reputation has hurt his value, then just hold on to him and let his performance restore his value. But that requires patience, and actually turning a starting position over to a young player who is less than a model citizen. Can't do that. Nosiree.

A young player who performed above-average offensively and held his own at a new defensive position at age 22 to boot!

Notice that just as with Zambrano, both Church and Schneider got hurt extremely quickly. So when Milledge wins Player of the Month for April, it will be clear- the cosmos punishes the Mets immediately for monumentally massive mistakes.

When you are talking about something this subjective, it isn't at all clear to me where you are getting the objective evidence of his effect within the team. If it is the guys within the team, they are biased because they play for the Mets. If it is a guy within the organization prior to Milledge even being dealt- well, it's not clear to me why you have a problem with this. And of course, those outside the organization don't have any first-hand knowledge one way or the other.

I'll try again, there is a conflict of interests when it comes to talking about Lastings Milledge if you work for the New York Mets. They have to save face in front of their fans and the public in regards to this catastrophe of a trade. That's why I'm not going to not just take their word for it that Milledge's upside is limited by his character and his baseball intelligence.

But clearly, a whole lot of them didn't think enough of his baseball talent, or weighed heavily what they heard within the Mets organization, to avoid trading much talent for Milledge.

No kidding.

It's not clear to me that a higher standard of proof is even possible, for the reasons cited above.

It is, you already acknowledged that their is in post 81.

And for Mike to take the circumstantial evidence of such factors, and reach a conclusion that Milledge wouldn't have helped the Mets- well, I don't agree, but it isn't an unsupported arguement.

It's not an unsupportable argument, he just did a lousy job supporting it.

I do get tired of people dismissing rival points of view, rather than disagreeing. There is a difference between disputing and dismissing. I think the latter is intellectually dishonest.

If you're accusing me of being intellectually dishonest, I think that's a pretty unfounded statement based on my posts in this thread. I haven't dismissed anything, even though you have assigned that position to me. I have called out, or disputed what I believe is questionable support to a questionable conclusion. If I had dismissed it, I wouldn't be here debating the quality of his evidence. Your Mets fan brethren have been the dismissive ones in this thread, not me.

These are the very things that ought to be most coachable, that a good organization could cultivate in its prospects.

At the very least, it seems like it would be a lot easier to teach Lastings Milledge to work out properly than it would be to teach some random prospect to play baseball as well as Lastings Milledge can.

That is why I never agreed with the "we're not selling jeans" / fat catcher stuff. Athletes who take care of themselves should be lauded. Injuries are not just completely random variation. Note, I'm not saying that they should look good. An athlete with a big strong lower body and a big ass will not fit the standard definition of looking good.