Sheesh, is Citi Field built on an ancient Indian burial ground?

My head says "combination of small sample size and confirmation bias" but my heart can't stop nervously laughing.

Mike Jacobs? Really?

Sheesh, is Citi Field built on an ancient Indian burial ground?

This seems significantly more serious than that as far as curses go.

Well, there goes the pennant.

EDIT: For gits and shiggles, there's a good chance this is what the Mets will be throwing against the wall as their Opening Day lineup:

Gary Matthews, CF
Luis Castillo, 2B
David Wright, 3B
Jason Bay, LF
Jeff Francoeur, RF
Mike Jacobs, 1B
Rod Barajas, C
Alex Cora, SS
Johan Santana, P

Who was it that said hope springs eternal? Feh!

Ack.

Santana should be batting 5th in that lineup.

I can't wait for the articles that say Wright isn't a leader b/c that offense isn't scoring.

This seems significantly more serious than that as far as curses go.

Cthulhu is buried in centerfield.

As Omar Francesspool gets his wish of Mike ("he's got a solid ML bat!") Jacobs starting over his whipping boy, Murphy.

What's strange about this is Murphy was one of the few Mets who didn't get hurt last year.

Omir Santos better watch himself.

Cthulhu is buried in centerfield.

And Omar has just signed Zalgo to back up Jacobs at 1B.

The site was completely safe when it was Shea's parking lot.

That's going to be a bad defensive rightside of the infield. I think I'd prefer to have Tatis play than Jacobs. The Mets also have Carter but they don't seem to like him.

Anyway, Murphy's injury isn't anything that is going to make or break the season.

I'm betting Omar is just locked in his office praying over and over that the Rays release Hank Blalock.

I may have to retract my support for Dayton Moore as the worst GM in the bigs.

Mike Lowell. You know Omar wants to.

The Mets don't have the budget to take on Lowell's monstrous contract even if they want to. The Red Sox are going to have to eat at least 90% of that contract before the Mets could even consider Lowell.

I know this is just "Let's cheapshot Omar, take 731."

I know this is just "Let's cheapshot Omar, take 731."

Caught. But then, the Sox already intend to assume most of Lowell's contract anyway when sending him to whoever. Can the Mets afford a $3M 1B-3B-pinchhitter who hits decently? I actually think he'd be a good fit at 1B as a stopgap (since I don't think Murphy has any business playing there).

Francoeur,Jacobs,Barajas? Who is Johan gonna bunt over.

Like I said, the Sox would have to eat at least 90% before the Mets would even consider it. It'd help if he were lefthanded because the Mets have Tatis already who can do what Lowell would do, and can also play a corner outfield spot.

Amazing. I'm still awed that Plan A was having an average hitting (for the position) starting 3bman in Murphy as the starting 1bman even though as a 1bman he's only as good as a backup. The sheer genius of being able to take a guy who would be a league average hitter at third with likely an above average glove, room to grow, a character guy and a hard worker by all accounts and who's cost-controlled, and not be able to turn him (perhaps along with a spare part or two--Brian Stokes, anyone?) into a league average 1bman is simply pitiful roster management. Or demented genius!

Oh, and that Plan B was a guy cut by the Royals.

EDIT: For gits and shiggles, there's a good chance this is what the Mets will be throwing against the wall as their Opening Day lineup:

Gary Matthews, CF
Luis Castillo, 2B
David Wright, 3B
Jason Bay, LF
Jeff Francoeur, RF career OBP v rhp .300
Mike Jacobs, 1B .325
Rod Barajas, C .282
Alex Cora, SS .311
Johan Santana, P .226

I couldn't help adding the OBPs. It's like watching a train derail frame by frame. Santana's OBP doesn't look entirely out of place among that group. I hope Jason Bay enjoys taking a walk. He's good enough at it and with this lineup he'd nail down something like 140BBs in 2010.

edit: @4, please don't tell me Pagan got hurt, otherwise GMJ has no business starting over him against a righthanded pitcher.

edit2:

Pop Quiz:

Against righthanded pitching, whose OBP was higher last year--Rod Barajas's or Johan Santana's?

Man, I'd start Carter. Jacobs defense is so bad he was moved to DH for Billy Butler.

Given that the Red Sox would assuredly eat most of Lowell contract, why wouldn't the Mets throw a C+ prospect at them? The Sox are looking at cutting him. $2M salary relief and a marginal arm will look good to them.

Lowell is generally projected to be between a 110 RC+ bat. Not a lot better the Murphy, but I have a lot more confidence in Lowell being above average. He should be at least average defensively at 1B.

I know this is a non-indicator, but I'm playing a season with the Mets on MLB The Show, and it's really difficult to win with their offense and a mediocre/crappy bullpen. I don't know if it's me or the Met roster, but in nearly 20 years of video game baseball, I've never sucked so badly. If this were my team, I'd kick Frenchy to the bench before the season starts, cut Matthews, and bring in Dye or Sheffield to start in RF or hand the job to a Tatis/Pagan combo. But if it was my team, Anderson Hernandez would be on it over Cora (damning with faint praise, I know), and Rod Barajas would be replaced with a little leaguer or someone else with a better sense of the strike zone...

Yes, the OF would be horrible defensively with Sheffield or Dye, but Francouer seems clueless out there as well. If the Mets are committed to getting nothing out of RF, they should at least bring in a glove. Anyone else get the sense Matthews is cut the instant Beltran comes back from the DL? Jacobs isn't in the same boat- with a hot April (many HRs), Murphy doesn't make it back in the lineup until Jacobs tanks beyond tolerance.

Agree re: Lowell. Makes a lot of sense. And would allow them to rest Wright more regularly.

Man, I'd start Carter. Jacobs defense is so bad he was moved to DH for Billy Butler.

Hey, we agree.

Hey, we agree.

####! What's next, Mideast peace? ;-)

Amazing. I'm still awed that Plan A was having an average hitting (for the position) starting 3bman in Murphy as the starting 1bman even though as a 1bman he's only as good as a backup. The sheer genius of being able to take a guy who would be a league average hitter at third with likely an above average glove, room to grow, a character guy and a hard worker by all accounts and who's cost-controlled, and not be able to turn him (perhaps along with a spare part or two--Brian Stokes, anyone?) into a league average 1bman is simply pitiful roster management.

If you think that Murphy is an above average glove at third (why do you think that, btw?) isn't it reasonable that he'd be above average at first? He looked good there at the end of last year. Also, Murphy has a career OPS .275/.331/.437 batting line in the majors entering his age-25 season.

Is it that unreasonable to hope for some improvement with the bat and above average defense at first? Because that would make him a decent player for the position, probably a shade under average but close enough considering he'd be making the minimum. Something like a .775-.800 OPS with solid-good defense. Minaya obviously didn't have the budget to improve the team as much as he wanted. Also, the Mets probably don't want to block Ike Davis, who could be ready before the end of the year.

It's funny that we are talking about Mike Lowell in this thread and writing off Murphy, considering Lowell didn't have his first above average season at the plate at 26.

Sometimes, guys get better. I don't think people ever thought Angel Pagan was ever going to have a solid season.

Anyone else get the sense Matthews is cut the instant Beltran comes back from the DL?

That's my preference, but who's your fifth OFer in that case? I doubt Pridie is much worse than Matthews, but if you dump Matthews and Beltran misses a week-plus, you need someone who can play CF, and that's Pridie. Unless, of course, when Pagan misses a day (as he surely will) you want to go with an OF of

Bay: LF
Francouer: CF
Tatis: RF

That's going to be painful to watch.

Man, I'd start Carter. Jacobs defense is so bad he was moved to DH for Billy Butler.

After a week. In the rare indisputable decision made by the Royals. My condolences, Mets fans.

It's funny that we are talking about Mike Lowell in this thread and writing off Murphy, considering Lowell didn't have his first above average season at the plate at 26.

When did Lowell get the cancer?

If you think that Murphy is an above average glove at third (why do you think that, btw?) isn't it reasonable that he'd be above average at first? He looked good there at the end of last year. Also, Murphy has a career OPS .275/.331/.437 batting line in the majors entering his age-25 season.

This is admittedly based largely on my observations so feel free to dismiss them (particularly since Total Zone has Murphy as an average fielding 3bman in the minors), but given that 3b was Murphy's primary position during his most formative years and that with substantial practice and time in the field at the major league level he seems (according to witnesses and UZR) to have turned himself into an above average fielding 1bman then, I believe it's likely that were he to revert to his primary position (3b) he would take those skills with him.

Another point was that Murphy's bat already makes him an (slightly above) average hitting 3bman. Last year the average NL 3bman had an OPS of 752. Murphy's career OPS is 768. You don't need to believe Murphy is more than average with the glove at third to know that he's better than what nine teams NL teams were sending out there in 2009. That's a valuable ballplayer. Throw in the other adjectives I used in my post, especially cost-controlled, and that's a very valuable ballplayer.

The problem is, Murphy's a well-below average hitter for first base, one of the worst in the majors, to the point where the Mets are very ready to bench a cheap, above average major league third basemen, simply because they've failed to cash in on his value and chose to play him out of position, thereby wasting much of that value. In my book that makes the Mets failure to get anything like optimum value out of Murphy--presumably by trading him at some point since the 2008 season ended--a genuinely poor use of resources. Murphy is a very valuable commodity, and the Mets are treating him as fungible.

As for whether Murphy can eventually become a league average hitter at first with an above average glove, I believe that he can. But that's not the best use for the Mets of his value, and as we'd both have to acknowledge, at this point Murphy succeeding as a hitter at 1b is hardly a sure thing, nor will his value as a 1bman ever approach his value as a 3bman.

Man, I'd start Carter.

That's a good idea. Gary Carter would be the third best hitter on this team.

I think I'd prefer to have Murphy at first for the 2010 season than what the Mets would get for him, even assuming that he's an above average third baseman defensively (a shaky assumption at best). What do you think teams would offer for him?

That's my preference, but who's your fifth OFer in that case? I doubt Pridie is much worse than Matthews, but if you dump Matthews and Beltran misses a week-plus, you need someone who can play CF, and that's Pridie.

My point is that you don't need two backup CFs on the roster. Pagan/Matthews makes sense as long as Beltran's out. But once he's back, they're going to have to have their 2nd backup at AAA, or else they're using 3 roster spots to cover 1 position. Put another way- I'd rather have Jacobs on the roster than Matthews, once Beltran comes back. I'd almost rather have a Marlon Anderson-type than Matthews.

Murphy is a very valuable commodity, and the Mets are treating him as fungible.

Are they? They've handed him 1B. They're talking up Ike Davis long-term, but if Murphy becomes a .375/.450 guy, he'll hold the position in 2011, or become a very valuable trade chip. The Mets can't trade him as a 3B because he's not at this point, and they can't start playing him at 3B to rebuild his value.

Everyone is shitting on Jacobs, but he's the backup. If he was a better player, he'd be Plan A, not Plan B. I think Omar has made some dumb, dumb moves, but Jacobs on a minor league deal isn't one of them. It will become a dumb move if Jerry keeps him starting at 1B after Murphy comes back, but that's another conversation...

Sometimes, guys get better. I don't think people ever thought Angel Pagan was ever going to have a solid season.

I'm in that camp. I had no idea why the Mets would be messing around with him. At this point, I hope he takes Frenchy's job long-term...

EDIT: For gits and shiggles, there's a good chance this is what the Mets will be throwing against the wall as their Opening Day lineup:

Jeez! That might well be the worst opening day starting lineup for the amount of team payroll being spent in MLB history.

Thanks, Omar!

Has anyone called the Louisville police department to go check to see if Sam M has hanged himself?

Everyone is shitting on Jacobs, but he's the backup. If he was a better player, he'd be Plan A, not Plan B.

The problem is he's worse than Chris Carter. He's been a zero-WAR player the last three years b/c of his defense(putrid) and OBP.

The Royals cut him for goodness sake!

I think I'd prefer to have Murphy at first for the 2010 season than what the Mets would get for him, even assuming that he's an above average third baseman defensively (a shaky assumption at best). What do you think teams would offer for him?

Given that I would bet huge sums of money that at this point Murphy would be an above average fielding third baseman (after all, if by most accounts he was at least slightly above average at first base last year, why would we not expect him to be at least slightly above average at his natural and comparable position at which he has hundreds of games more experience fielding, and for which he had a very good arm, a proper third baseman's arm), I can't quite go along with your claim. Nonetheless, my point--as I explicitly stated--was that as of the end of the 2008 season the Mets had quite the prize on their hands: a young, cost-controlled 3bman who looked like he could also handle 1b, and whose bat could clearly play well at 3b even if he took a step backwards from his 2008 season and couldn't hit quite as well as you need a 1bman to hit. I can't see a scenario where a diligent front office couldn't find a way to swap Murphy's promise (largely realized, btw--remember, we're arguing about whether Murphy's an above average glove at third, not whether he can field the position adequately) at 3b for the equivalent promise in another organization's young player at 1b. Instead, the Mets rolled the dice when there was really no need to do so, and took practically a sure thing (and its equivalent value in trade) and decided, hey, let's see if we can wind up with as much value as we had in the first place. It's a typical Met FO move: the best that happens is that you don't get worse, and the downside is what happened. By failing to capitalize on an asset, the Mets got worse.

edit: it occurs to me on rereading your post that we simply may be talking at cross purposes. You're talking about Murphy's current value to another organization while I'm talking about how the Mets mishandled the 1b situation from the end of the 2008 season through today. At this point, having mismanaged Murphy, the Mets are unlikely to be able to turn him into a 1bman who would be the equivalent of Murphy at 3b. That 1bman would have an average or above average glove, and would hit at least as well as the average NL 1bman: .282/.373/.486/858. So, yeah, the Mets have stuck themselves but good with this unnecessary little experiment.

The Royals cut him for goodness sake!

The Royals cut him rather than pay him 3.25+M; that doesn't mean he can't be a decent reserve.

Murphy really can't play 3b. All of the scouting reports said he was marginal at the position. He is a good 1b because 1b is easy and most first basemen wouldn't even be marginal at 3b. How valuable is a marginally above average hitter for 3b who might not be able to field the position who everybody in the world knows is blocked? Murphy had value when people thought he might be an .885 OPS hitter. The Mets didn't ruin Murphy's value so much as that assumption turned out to be false.

The Mets 1b sprained his knee. The Mets CF is rehabbing his knee. Their shortstop had a frickin' thyroid condition. Lots of teams in the majors would field a crap lineup if that happened to them. Of course, when it happens to the Mets, it means that they are incompetent.

I still think Murphy should have been given more of an opportunity to play 2B. The guy is a talented infielder; is it so outlandish to think he might play fair defense at the position? He could be a -5 runs defender and the Mets would have had an above-average 2B that was cost-controlled for years.

I wonder if they're expecting Reese Havens to be the 2B of the future or the SS of the future?

Has anyone called the Louisville police department to go check to see if Sam M has hanged himself?

Last year, I probably would have over a Murphy injury late in spring training. The 2009 season disabused me of placing too much emphasis on Murphy's importance to the Mets.

I mean, this just isn't that big a deal. Even if Murphy misses a month, the difference between what he is likely to do in that time and what Jacobs and/or Tatis are likely to do is pretty minimal.

As to whether the Mets should have tried to turn Murphy's value as a third baseman into a real first baseman, when exactly were they supposed to do that? Going into last year, they thought their first baseman was Carlos Delgado. He was coming off a pretty damned impressive (9th in the MVP voting), productive (3rd in HRs; 5th in RBIs in the NL), and healthy (159 games) 2008. Were the Mets supposed to make this deal when Delgado got hurt? Perhaps, but nobody was just going to hand the Mets a league-average first baseman for Daniel Murphy at that moment, when he was (a) stinking at the plate, and (b) making a hash of LF. I just don't see it.

Murphy really can't play 3b. All of the scouting reports said he was marginal at the position. He is a good 1b because 1b is easy and most first basemen wouldn't even be marginal at 3b. How valuable is a marginally above average hitter for 3b who might not be able to field the position who everybody in the world knows is blocked? Murphy had value when people thought he might be an .885 OPS hitter. The Mets didn't ruin Murphy's value so much as that assumption turned out to be false.

We'll have to disagree on Murphy as a 3bman, then. Total Zone disagrees with you. If you have some specifics, that would help... At any rate, if Murphy is as much as five runs worse at 3b than he is at 1b, which looks unlikely, that's no reason to switch him off his original position when you factor in positional run value.

The Mets 1b sprained his knee. The Mets CF is rehabbing his knee. Their shortstop had a frickin' thyroid condition. Lots of teams in the majors would field a crap lineup if that happened to them. Of course, when it happens to the Mets, it means that they are incompetent.

This seems... extreme. The Mets clearly haven't handled their 1b situation well in the Minaya era. From 2005-2009 they've spent $64 million to get 9.8 WAR out of the position. They did what they do, which is overspend on an old guy and not get nearly enough out of him (hey Pedro!) or play someone out of position, or try a young guy without adequate minor league experience.

As for Beltran's knee and Reyes' thyroid, I haven't noticed anyone blaming the FO for those things in particular but rather, in the case of Beltran, the comical way the FO handled his decision to have recent surgery. Imo the FO, by disabling Reyes as of March 26th and sitting him out for the first week of the season, is doing absolutely the right thing. I think a lot of people around here probably agree.

As to whether the Mets should have tried to turn Murphy's value as a third baseman into a real first baseman, when exactly were they supposed to do that? Going into last year, they thought their first baseman was Carlos Delgado.

Which certainly means that--if you consider Delgado a very low risk to fail and therefore believe you have 1b and certainly 3b covered--you ought to get all the value you can for Murphy since, on the Mets, in your scenario, he's redundant. If you look at it another way, that Delgado, even if he's dandy in 2009, is someone you'd like to replace after that with a real 1bman, then getting comparable value at 1b for Murphy (namely a guy who is young, cost-controlled, and whose downside looks to be league average for the position) makes all the sense in the world. You can stand having that player coming off the bench for much of the year, apprenticing, giving Delgado plenty of rest, getting 300 or so ABs, and getting him ready to be a starter in 2010. Lastly, if you consider Delgado, who had a nifty 2008 but a dreadful 2007, a real injury risk going into his age 37 season, surely that's all the more reason to have a real 1bman in the wings.

Hell--the Mets weren't even thinking of putting Murphy at 1b going into 2009. They had him in LF, fer crying out loud, a position at which he had had all of 14 chances in the minors. Talk about doing your damnedest to jeopardize a young player's value, and not being aware of the value of what you've got right in front of you!

It's not hindsight to see that the 2008-2009 offseason was the time to deal Murphy. If you happen to think he should have been dealt for something other than a 1bman I don't have a problem with that.

Jeez! That might well be the worst opening day starting lineup for the amount of team payroll being spent in MLB history.

The 2008 Mariners are listed as $117,666,482 by BB-ref...
CF Ichiro Suzuki
2B Jose Lopez
LF Raul Ibanez
1B Richie Sexson's corpse
3B Adrian Beltre
RF Brad Wilkerson's corpse
DH Jose Vidro's corpse
C Kenji "Please let me go home" Johjima
SS Yuniesky Betancourt

(P: Érik Bedard)

The 1997 White Sox outspent everyone in baseball except the Orioles and the Yankees, and their opening-day lineup indeed contained some stars, but...

RF Tony Phillips (age 38)
CF Dave Martinez
1B Frank Thomas
LF Albert Belle
DH Harold Baines (age 38)
3B Chris Snopek
2B Ray Durham
C Ron Karkovice
SS Ozzie Guillen
P Jaime Navarro

At least you guys have Santana.

At this point, having mismanaged Murphy, the Mets are unlikely to be able to turn him into a 1bman who would be the equivalent of Murphy at 3b. That 1bman would have an average or above average glove, and would hit at least as well as the average NL 1bman: .282/.373/.486/858. So, yeah, the Mets have stuck themselves but good with this unnecessary little experiment.

So you basically think the Mets could have traded Murphy, after the 2008 season, for a cost controlled, average defensive first baseman that can post an OPS around .850?

So you basically think the Mets could have traded Murphy, after the 2008 season, for a cost controlled, average defensive first baseman that can post an OPS around .850?

You a formidable rhetoretician, sir. In point of fact I wrote, "At this point, having mismanaged Murphy, the Mets are unlikely to be able to turn him into a 1bman who would be the equivalent of Murphy at 3b." That's clear, is it not? At the end of 2008 the Mets had a 23 year old third baseman who had just turned in a line of .313/.397/.473/871 playing out of position. That's an OPS+ of 129. Instead of capitalizing on this extraordinary good fortune, the Mets FO effectively said, "Hey! What the hell! Rather than trade Murphy to a team that can really use a young, promising 3bman whose downside is very likely that of a league average regular with five or six cost-controlled seasons ahead of him, for equivalent value at a position of need for us, let's roll the dice and see if he can play a position he's played for all of thirty-six games in his professional career, one that he's unlikely to be anything like the defender he is at 3b, and whereat he'll need an OPS substantially higher in order to make the same contribution! How can it fail???

The better and, I daresay, obvious course, was to seek to trade Murphy to a team that needed this incredibly cheap 3bman whose downside was average major league regular (his first three years alone at 3b would have been worth at least $20 million while his salary would not have exceeded $2 million) in return for an equivalent player at a position of need for the Mets. If you think there's too much hindsight involved in believing that position of need was 1b, then by all means pick another position of need. A 23 year old 1bman with a projectable OPS of 850 (i.e. league average) would have been fair return for Murphy. If you think that number is skewed by the presence in the NL of Pujols and Fielder, fair enough. It might be 10 points of OPS too high, but it's not way off by any means. To the right team that's how valuable Murphy was. $20 million of surplus value for his first three years, then something in the neighborhood of $12 million of surplus value for his next three years.

Even last year, Murphy's supposedly terrible year, the year he struggled for the entire season, he was a mere 11 points of OPS below average for a 3bman, and his fielding was clearly solid. With the right organization he would have been a 24 year old 3bman making the major league minimum, and contributing around 2.4 WAR (using Tango's positional adjustments of +2.5 for a 3bman, and -12.5 for a 1bman). Last year that would have been worth right around $10 million, for a player whose salary was all of $401,000. General managers are in general not unaware of the value of cheap ML regulars, of whom Daniel Murphy was easily projectable to be, even now. Should we really be thinking the Mets have extracted the maximum value from Daniel Murphy, third baseman?

OBC, I have generally not been opposed to the content of your message. It's not a pleasant message and having to see it often can bring a fan's mood down, especially when it is usually delivered in a caustic tone. That said, it is as valid a position to take as our slightly more optimistic view. But I think you are being entirely unreasonable in your estimation of what the Mets could have received for Murphy after the 2008 season.

This does give me considerable insight into why you probably think Minaya can't tie his shoes.

Whatever. Murphy had all of 196 games at 3B in the minors -- TZ is meaningless. The Mets shifted him early and often. He failed at 2B and he failed at LF (a very easy position) and did so rather completely at both by all reports. He's done OK at 1B, the easiest position to play.

And Murphy's minor-league hitting performance was hardly anything special. And he'd been a 13th round pick. Nobody would have given the Mets squat for Murphy. Sure, if they'd been willing to eat Adam LaRoche's contract (for example), they probably could have flipped Murphy in the salary dump.

Contrary to "messing with him", the Mets have tried everything possible to find a way to get him into the lineup, probably in part because they knew they'd get nothing for him in trade.

They had him in LF, fer crying out loud, a position at which he had had all of 14 chances in the minors. Talk about doing your damnedest to jeopardize a young player's value, and not being aware of the value of what you've got right in front of you!

The LF experiment was a good one, even though it didn't work out. The Mets handed a position to an untested player with promise. He didn't handle the position well. It was a gamble. I don't think anyone expected Murphy to be comically bad out in LF. It's too bad they don't have Mike Carp right now, not that he'd set the world on fire, but he's basically the 1B equivalent of Murphy.

I think you're massively overstating his trade value. It's generally very hard to get fair value when you're trading prospects for prospects, especially when the prospect in question is relatively unheralded. Guys like Murphy just aren't all that rare.

FREE CHRIS CARTER!

We'll have to disagree on Murphy as a 3bman, then. Total Zone disagrees with you. If you have some specifics, that would help... At any rate, if Murphy is as much as five runs worse at 3b than he is at 1b, which looks unlikely, that's no reason to switch him off his original position when you factor in positional run value.

Well, Murphy was never listed on Baseball America's of BP's list of the Mets top prospects, so it's a bit hard to find scouting reports on his defense (some of that is circumstantial, but that fact should tell you something about the perception of Murphy in the game). As Walt mentions, minor league defensive statistics over less than 200 games are meaningless. I'm just going off of my recollection of what was written about him at the time.

A young, cost controlled LF or 1b who hits like Murphy did in 2008 is a valuable player. Certainly, he would be more valuable at 3b, but that option wasn't available to the Mets and Murphy's pedestrian pedigree would likely have prevented the Mets from getting that kind of value for Murphy on the trade market. So they let it ride and hoped Murphy would continue to hit. He didn't. A young, cost controlled LF, 3b or 1b who hits like Murphy did in 2009 is not a valuable player. The Mets didn't do anything to ruin Murphy's value so much as Murphy just didn't hit. You can make the argument that by shifting Murphy's position, the Mets caused Murphy to hit worse than he otherwise would have in 2009. There's nothing anybody can do to really argue with that except to point out that it didn't seem to bother Murphy in 2010.

Pop Quiz:

Against righthanded pitching, whose OBP was higher last year--Rod Barajas's or Johan Santana's?

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

A young, cost controlled LF, 3b or 1b who hits like Murphy did in 2009 is not a valuable player.

Lumping LF and 1b in with 3b makes that statement clearly untrue. In 2009 Murphy hit .266/.313/.427/741. The average National League 3bman hit .261/.333/.419/752. Murphy therefore hit right around the average for an NL 3bman. As a 24 year old making the major league minimum and who, despite Walt's unhelpful "TZ is meaningless", gave every indication of being able to handle 3b in college and in the minor leagues, Murphy was a very valuable ballplayer. I don't doubt he projects as at least a 2 WAR player, probably better. (His "dreadful" 2009 would have been worth 2.3 WAR at 3b.) His curve for the next five or six years probably includes a 3 WAR season as a 3bman. That puts his value over and above his salary at around $30 million for the time he's under a team's control. Murphy, to state the obvious, picks up a win at 3b as against LF, and a win and a half at 3b as against a 1bman.

If you move Murphy to LF you lose a win. If you move him to 1B you lose a win and a half. The problem is obvious and his name is David Wright, so rather than gamble wildly as of the end of 2008 that Murphy will be able to handle LF, a position he played as an emergency fielder for all of four games in the minors, you aim to find a trading partner from whom you can get something like equal value. Could they have found such a partner? Damned if know. But, clearly, trying to find a trading partner would have been the best way to maximize Murphy's value. Were I a GM with a hole at 3b, and looking at Murphy's projections, how would I not give up a comparable 1bman, or RFer, or LFer, or C?

Contrary to "messing with him", the Mets have tried everything possible to find a way to get him into the lineup, probably in part because they knew they'd get nothing for him in trade.

Murphy had no trade value at the end of 2008? That's not a credible claim.

Whatever. Murphy had all of 196 games at 3B in the minors

Uh, right. Because after the 196th game they promoted him to the majors. He was a 3bman in college. He was a 3bman in the minors. It was his position.

He failed at 2B and he failed at LF (a very easy position)

Clearly not, and very clearly not for a guy who had played it in a small handful of games in his entire career. The skillset for a successful 3bman has little to do with the skillset for a successful lfer.

And Murphy's minor-league hitting performance was hardly anything special.

Making my argument for me. If it was "hardly anything special" why on earth would you ever expect him to hit enough to play LF or 1b?.

It's generally very hard to get fair value when you're trading prospects for prospects,...

Hang on--isn't this precisely the time when you get fair value? No one was likely to give up an established, league average 1bman for Murphy (though he was worth more than that), but surely a comparable prospect in trade wouldn't have been out of the question?

Guys like Murphy just aren't all that rare.

I'm not claiming he's god's gift, but I'm dead certain Murphy is exactly the kind of guy Billy Beane drools over: a guy who has an excellent shot at being a 2-3 WAR player for the forseeable future at the league minimum. Murphy at 3b is exactly the kind of cheap, solid regular you build penant-winners around.

I think you're massively overstating his trade value.

That's possible. I don't think I'm overstating his value, and I don't think I'm overstating how poorly the front office did in not selling high (or even, simply, at par) rather than engage in dubious experiments (it's freaking hard to succeed at a position at which you have no experience), but yes, it's certainly possible there was simply no trading partner who would have given full value for Murphy. There's no ground on which I can claim otherwise.