Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Newsday: Matthews: Minaya should open Mets’ vault for A-Rod

Question…is Newsday a step up or a step down from Gotham Baseball?

Think of how easy a transition this would be. Rodriguez could hold on to his apartment in Manhattan. He still could sunbathe in the park. (Flushing Meadow, not Central.) The Mets, having learned from past mistakes, could offer Alex and Cynthia their own reality show on SNY. (Anna Benson is going to be sooooo jealous!) And just like that, all those unsold luxury boxes and season subscriptions to Citi Field will vanish like Carlos Delgado during “God Bless America.”

Best of all, with the stroke of a pen, the Mets can give their fans real reasons to go to the ballpark next year, aside from getting one last look at Shea Stadium.

For the first time in their history, the Mets would have the best player in the game while he still was the best player in the game. For the first time in their history, they could sign a free agent and watch him get better, not worse.

Repoz Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:41 AM | 213 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mets, rumors

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Neil Kinnock...Lord Palmerston! (Orinoco) Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:01 AM (#2599766)
Wally Matthews should always be read as satire.

From Central Park, it takes about as long to go to the Bronx as Shea. I don't know what his point is other than to dump on Queens. This is especially delicious coming from a Long Island paper.
   2. HowardMegdal Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:10 AM (#2599773)
For the first time in their history, they could sign a free agent and watch him get better, not worse.

Yes, as he enters his age-32-36 peak?

Even when he advocates something I support, I come away disagreeing with him. That Matthews supports the signing of A-Rod either means A) it's so obvious, even Matthews gets it or B) I'm all turned around on this issue, and Sam M. is right.
   3. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:17 AM (#2599786)
He thinks Arod is going to get BETTER?

Also:

Sure, they would have to rearrange some furniture -- how about A-Rod to third, David Wright to first and Delgado to the American League as a DH? Or A-Rod back to short and Jose Reyes to Minnesota for Johan Santana? -- but you're adding a Ming vase here. You can lose an end table.

David Wright to first?

Jose Reyes does sound like one of the more plausible people who could be traded for one year of Santana, not that there have been that many plausible scenarios for that one-of-a-kind trade situation. Reyes is just a little better than Jason Bartlett.
   4. Honkie Kong Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:19 AM (#2599792)
Why would the Mets want to sign ARod? even if ARod is willing to risk staying in NY.
Arod is not going to play 2B, and I sure as hell don't see Wright/Reyes moving. they would be much better off spending their money on pitching

EDIT : Crispix, even if the Mets trade wright to the Twins for Santana, do they really want to tie $50 mil of payroll in 2 players? $70 in 3 if you count Beltran
   5. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:22 AM (#2599795)
Even when he advocates something I support, I come away disagreeing with him. That Matthews supports the signing of A-Rod either means A) it's so obvious, even Matthews gets it or B) I'm all turned around on this issue, and Sam M. is right.

Do I even need to say it? ;-)
   6. a wider scope of derision Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:25 AM (#2599798)
Yes, as he enters his age-32-36 peak?


Maybe Stan Conte will be back in business by then.
   7. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:27 AM (#2599799)
Crispix, even if the Mets trade wright to the Twins for Santana

The day that happens will be

(a) the worst day in my baseball fan life since June 15, 1977;
(b) my last day as a New York Mets' fan for a long, long time;
(c) the occasion of my last post at BTF, and boy, will it be a beaut; and
(d) the time I'll be glad I have a lot of friends who are excellent criminal defense lawyers, because I'm going to need one, almost as much as Omar Minaya is going to need a mortician.

This is NOT a multiple choice quiz. All of the above are correct.
   8. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:30 AM (#2599803)
Trading either Wright or Reyes for Santana would be incredibly stupid for the Mets. It'd be sacrificing the future of the franchise for a marginal upgrade at best.
   9. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:30 AM (#2599804)
Crispix, even if the Mets trade wright to the Twins for Santana, do they really want to tie $50 mil of payroll in 2 players? $70 in 3 if you count Beltran

Well, no team wants to do that. And I said trade Reyes, not Wright. (because that's what Matthews said -- he would also consider moving Wright to first...uggghhhh, okay, that would maximize his value alright)

Any trade by any team for Santana would probably be incredibly stupid for the future of that team, because the Twins are a team that would not see any value in any package that didn't consist of prospects, and said prospects would have to be super-good and low-risk to be worth Santana. But at the same time, why would a team give up a lot for him if he might be gone at the end of the year? It would be like the Astros trading for Randy Johnson, but even more risky. I don't know if he'll get traded at all.
   10. Honkie Kong Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:31 AM (#2599806)
The day that happens will be

Hey, I am on your side. I think they shouldn't do it! But if they sign ARod, that is the best way to maximise value. Wright sure as hell isnt as valuable at 1B or LF.
Stick with Wright, make some marginal pitching moves and wait for next year. Lots of big names are hitting the pitching market.
   11. Honkie Kong Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:31 AM (#2599807)
Well, no team wants to do that. And I said trade Reyes, not Wright.

I know, but I don't think ARod can handle SS anymore. Probably more comfortable at 3B, which makes Wright teh candidate likely to be traded, if they sign ARod
   12. Xander Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:32 AM (#2599808)
Can the Phillies please sign this man.
   13. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:39 AM (#2599814)
Probably more comfortable at 3B, which makes Wright teh candidate likely to be traded, if they sign ARod

Wright is going nowhere. He's not leaving third base (Howard's arguments to the contrary notwithstanding). He's not getting traded. He is the rock upon which the Mets are building the franchise through about 2023, and in about 2028 he goes into the Hall of Fame as the greatest player (by far) in team history. Period.

A-Rod is going to LA or someplace like that. If by some bizarre happenstance he crosses boroughs, it'll be to play another position. He moved for Jeter, and David Wright is a better player right now than Jeter was when A-Rod joined the Yankees. So he'll move for Wright, too. Left field, first base, I don't give a damn where. But he moves. Wright stays. End of story.
   14. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:40 AM (#2599816)
Lots of big names are hitting the pitching market.

That's what we thought would happen this year. Then Buehrle, Zambrano, Westbrook and Smoltz all re-signed, and now it's less interesting.
   15. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:47 AM (#2599822)
That's what we thought would happen this year. Then Buehrle, Zambrano, Westbrook and Smoltz all re-signed, and now it's less interesting.

There's just a lot more guys this year than last. Heck, the Mets have three pretty intriguing guys themselves that could be FAs this year: Pedro, Perez, and Hernandez.
   16. HowardMegdal Posted: October 30, 2007 at 06:15 AM (#2599836)
Any trade by any team for Santana would probably be incredibly stupid for the future of that team, because the Twins are a team that would not see any value in any package that didn't consist of prospects, and said prospects would have to be super-good and low-risk to be worth Santana. But at the same time, why would a team give up a lot for him if he might be gone at the end of the year? It would be like the Astros trading for Randy Johnson, but even more risky. I don't know if he'll get traded at all.

It wouldn't be stupid if you can keep the core of this team together- and the monster trade (Milledge/Gomez/Pelfrey/Humber) allows you to do that. I only pull the trigger on that deal assuming they get that 72-hour window and sign Santana.

Adding Johan Santana for the forseeable future is a good idea for the future of any team.

Wright is going nowhere. He's not leaving third base (Howard's arguments to the contrary notwithstanding). He's not getting traded. He is the rock upon which the Mets are building the franchise through about 2023, and in about 2028 he goes into the Hall of Fame as the greatest player (by far) in team history. Period.

FWIW Sam, I think you're right. And it doesn't sit right with me to do otherwise. But if the opportunity presents itself... well, you know my thoughts on this.

For what it's worth, I can certainly understand why you disagree. Is there any part of you that can appreciate what kind of team they'd have next year with A-Rod at third and Wright at second?
   17. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: October 30, 2007 at 06:22 AM (#2599838)
Can the Phillies please sign this man.


I think Philly would be a great fit for A Rod. Over under on home runs at Citizens would be at 35 for me.

I'm only talking about right field...

:)
   18. VegasRobb Posted: October 30, 2007 at 06:45 AM (#2599845)
No room in the outfield for one of Wright, Reyes, ARod?
   19. Big Ears Teddy shouldn't see TFTIO Posted: October 30, 2007 at 06:52 AM (#2599846)
Trading either Wright or Reyes for Santana would be incredibly stupid for the Mets. It'd be sacrificing the future of the franchise for a marginal upgrade at best.

Santana -- the best pitcher in baseball -- would be a marginal upgrade at best for the Mets? I'm sorry, which of Glavine, Maine, or Perez would he be a marginal upgrade from?
   20. PreservedFish Posted: October 30, 2007 at 07:04 AM (#2599849)
Last year Wright's VORP was 81, plus solid fielding. Reyes was 46, plus great fielding, in a disappointing year. Santana averages around 70. I think the quote you're objecting to is stupidly phrased, but it might be accurate. An upgrade, sure, but is it worth it to so nakedly sever ties with the young stars of your organization?
   21. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: October 30, 2007 at 07:04 AM (#2599850)
Santana -- the best pitcher in baseball -- would be a marginal upgrade at best for the Mets? I'm sorry, which of Glavine, Maine, or Perez would he be a marginal upgrade from?

The production that Santana would provide - the production Reyes or Wright would provide = marginal upgrade.

That's what I meant.

EDIT- Or what PreservedFish said, minus the calling my phrasing in the above post stupid.
   22. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: October 30, 2007 at 11:17 AM (#2599872)
Alex Rodriguez isn't going to agree to play first base or left field, and he sure has hell isn't going to agree to play second base, which is extremely hazardous to one's legs. So what do you do--move your young, awesome-fielding third baseman over to first or LF so you can plug in a decent defensive 3B in his place, pissing him off in the process? Or move your young, awesome-fielding shortstop over to second base, which you've already tried and failed at once a couple years ago, and put a poor defensive SS in his place, pissing him off in the process?

Signing Alex Rodriguez does not work unless you trade David Wright.
David Wright is the most valuable property in Major League Baseball.
Ergo, signing Alex Rodriguez does not work for the New York Mets. Period.
   23. Amit Posted: October 30, 2007 at 11:53 AM (#2599875)
Hey Baron von Retard,

Explain why playing A-Rod at third would piss him off? And how did Jose fail at second exactly?
   24. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: October 30, 2007 at 12:21 PM (#2599882)
the time I'll be glad I have a lot of friends who are excellent criminal defense lawyers, because I'm going to need one, almost as much as Omar Minaya is going to need a mortician.

"Almost," *snicker*, well typed, old man.

in about 2028 he goes into the Hall of Fame as the greatest player (by far) in team history. Period.

Tom Seaver, exclamation mark! 8-)

He moved for Jeter, and David Wright is a better player right now than Jeter was when A-Rod joined the Yankees. So he'll move for Wright, too.

Wright doesn't have the Jeter cachet, so if the Mets were so dumb as to sign him, probably Wright <u>would</u> move.
   25. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: October 30, 2007 at 12:26 PM (#2599886)
Ah, bad language in the run-on sentence on my part. What I meant was moving Wright off of third would be likely to piss Wright off, or moving Reyes off of shortstop would be likely to piss Reyes off. The point is, 3B and SS are probably the only positions Rodriguez would agree to play (although I'm sure if you paid him enough money he'd play catcher if you really wanted him to).

Jose Reyes at second base a couple years ago wasn't exactly a disaster, but I don't remember him drawing accolades for playing well out there. Do you? Why in the world would you move a great defensive SS off of the position to accomodate a poor defensive SS, which there's little question older, bigger Alex Rodriguez would be?
   26. jonm Posted: October 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM (#2599892)
Any trade by any team for Santana would probably be incredibly stupid for the future of that team, because the Twins are a team that would not see any value in any package that didn't consist of prospects, and said prospects would have to be super-good and low-risk to be worth Santana. But at the same time, why would a team give up a lot for him if he might be gone at the end of the year? It would be like the Astros trading for Randy Johnson, but even more risky. I don't know if he'll get traded at all.


True, but there are exceptions. Johnson was a mid-season trade so that's not comparable. The trades to see as templates for a Santana deal would have to be the Pedro deal of 1997, the Schilling deal of 2003, and the Beckett deal of 2005. Santana's more valuable than Schilling and Beckett were at the time, but he's less valuable than Pedro was at the time.
   27. Amit Posted: October 30, 2007 at 12:35 PM (#2599895)
I remember Jose being not very good at second, but also not very good at short initially. He held down the position - the reason the experiment failed was that Matsui was horrible. If Matsui had been as advertized, and Jose's hitting had come around half as well as it did in 2006, nobody would call it a failure.

"Why in the world would you move a great defensive SS off of the position to accomodate a poor defensive SS, which there's little question older, bigger Alex Rodriguez would be?
"

Because the new SS happens to hit like Alex Rodriguez.
   28. Amit Posted: October 30, 2007 at 12:38 PM (#2599896)
"The trades to see as templates for a Santana deal would have to be the Pedro deal of 1997, the Schilling deal of 2003, and the Beckett deal of 2005. "

Hampton 2000 works too. Stros got Cedeno, Dotel & a scrub.
   29. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: October 30, 2007 at 12:53 PM (#2599904)
The Mets should put Rodriguez at first and Delgado behind the plate. :)
   30. BDC Posted: October 30, 2007 at 01:02 PM (#2599909)
AROD as a FA signing would improve any team he goes to, even if that team had Mike Schmidt and Honus Wagner imported from the distant past and having MVP seasons every year at third and short. If you're a manager handed AROD, you deal with it happily. These hitters will still hit a ton no matter where they play in the field, after all. It's simply an embarrassment of riches.

Whether he'd improve the Mets 10/300 worth or whatever outrageous salary he'll command is a whole nother issue, though.
   31. The District Attorney Posted: October 30, 2007 at 01:02 PM (#2599910)
moving Wright off of third would be likely to piss Wright off
That's not quite the impression I get from this:
But to persuade A-Rod to come to Shea, Wright says simply, "I'd have to switch [positions]."

And where, exactly, would the displaced Wright play?

"Anywhere," he said matter-of-factly.
Look, he's a choirboy. His attitude is the least of the problems here.

I would trade Reyes for Santana; in fact, if the Mets did sign A-Rod, that'd be my Plan B on how to accommodate everybody (Plan A would be moving A-Rod to 1B or OF, and Plan C would be moving Reyes to 2B or Wright to 1B or OF.) I certainly understand why one would oppose it (although overwrought "I'll never root for the team again if it happens!!" prose pieces don't impress me at all.) If you don't re-sign Johan, it's awful, and even if you do re-sign him, you're paying him fairly as opposed to getting Reyes cheap... I do understand that logic. However, you don't ultimately win by getting players cheap. The ultimate purpose of getting some players cheap is so you have the money available to pay fair value for the superstars, for instance, the best SP in baseball.

In the end, I think it depends on what you end up thinking of Reyes. If you think he is settled in at 350 OBP/450 SLG and that's pretty much what he's going to do going forward, then you're probably willing to sacrifice that, even if you're getting it cheap, in order to bring in Johan Santana. And that's what I think, personally. If you think Reyes is likely to be a Jeter/Yount/Trammell type, then having that at an undervalued contract is solid gold and you're probably not letting it go.

But really, the whole thing is dippy. The Mets are not gonna spend absurd money on A-Rod, when he is the worst fit for their roster of any team in baseball, and when it could be a complete PR disaster if the slightest thing goes wrong (and "not winning the World Series" could easily end up qualifying as "something going wrong" in this context.) And I don't think they're acquiring Santana either, although I'm sure they're at least kicking it around. I don't think they see Reyes as tradeable, and I don't think they want to trade the entire farm system, and under those conditions, I don't think you can get it done.
   32. Jay Is Simply Without Words Today... Posted: October 30, 2007 at 01:11 PM (#2599915)
Wallace Matthews is the Ann Coulter of sports columnists, only dumber and with his invective aimed at Mets fans instead. *yawn*
   33. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: October 30, 2007 at 01:12 PM (#2599916)
Look, he's a choirboy.

Yeah, except that he uses the f-word like a comma. Didn't you watch the 2006 HR Derby?
   34. Dudefella Posted: October 30, 2007 at 01:49 PM (#2599955)
in about 2028 [Wright] goes into the Hall of Fame as the greatest player (by far) in team history. Period.


Greatest player over hits Mets career, or over his career overall? Even throwing out the Willie Mays-style players who went there to die, you've got guys like Seaver, Gooden, Piazza ... I'm sure some others that I'm forgetting ... who spent a good bit of time with the Mets, had some great years there, and also had some very good-to-great years elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm as high on Wright's career as anyone, but "greatest player (by far) in team history" leaves a lot of ground to cover.
   35. Mr. Imperial Posted: October 30, 2007 at 01:49 PM (#2599956)
The fact that Newsday continues to employ Wallace Matthews is simply baffling. It's the only readable tabloid in New York and the rest of the sports section, while not particularly memorable, is generally solid. Matthews belongs back at the Post with the Kernans and Vaccaros of the world.
   36. JPWF13 Posted: October 30, 2007 at 01:59 PM (#2599960)
Wright doesn't have the Jeter cachet, so if the Mets were so dumb as to sign him, probably Wright would move.


You have no idea how the Mets fan base regards Wright do you?
   37. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 02:17 PM (#2599989)
Greatest player over hits Mets career, or over his career overall? Even throwing out the Willie Mays-style players who went there to die, you've got guys like Seaver, Gooden, Piazza

I was thinking of players actually developed by the Mets, so that lets out Piazza. And Gooden? Gooden (along with Straw) had as much talent as any player home-grown by the Mets, but that's easy; David Wright is only about three years of consistent performance at his current level away from being a greater player than Doc actually was. Sad as that is to say.

No, the competition here is Tom Seaver -- or perhaps Reyes, depending on the arc of the rest of Reyes's career. And Seaver spent a decent portion of his career elsewhere (maddening as that was). David Wright will be -- if the Mets do right by him and just leave him the heck alone -- the greatest Met ever. He will be our Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Tony Gwynn, Yaz. One player, one team, one career.

More to the point: this era of Mets' management/ownership has a chance to get the Tom Seaver thing right, the way the '70s edition didn't. Treat the home-grown superstar like a home-grown superstar, period. Don't push him aside for the next bauble you want to bring in, and don't trade him away because some tabloid jerk starts a fight. It says everything you want to know about David Wright that he'd be willing to move for A-Rod. It will say everything you want to know about the Wilpons whether they ask him to.
   38. Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine Posted: October 30, 2007 at 02:23 PM (#2599999)
No, the competition here is Tom Seaver -- or perhaps Reyes, depending on the arc of the rest of Reyes's career. And Seaver spent a decent portion of his career elsewhere (maddening as that was). David Wright will be -- if the Mets do right by him and just leave him the heck alone -- the greatest Met ever. He will be our Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Tony Gwynn, Yaz. One player, one team, one career.

I think this is 100% right. As an A's fan, I'm envious. Our chance was with Eric Chavez and that's not exactly working out.
   39. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: October 30, 2007 at 02:26 PM (#2600005)
You have no idea how the Mets fan base regards Wright do you?

I guess not...but OTOH the fan base doesn't get any say in it.

Edit: And by "move" I meant move to another position, not to another team.
   40. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: October 30, 2007 at 02:38 PM (#2600023)
Maybe Stan Conte will be back in business by then.

Michael Kay would be so proud.


Our chance was with Eric Chavez and that's not exactly working out.

Unnecessary back surgery is gonna make everything better, though.
   41. CrosbyBird Posted: October 30, 2007 at 02:45 PM (#2600033)
More to the point: this era of Mets' management/ownership has a chance to get the Tom Seaver thing right, the way the '70s edition didn't.

I really like the idea of Reyes/Wright being like Bagwell/Biggio were for the Astros. Certainly, I will not be unhappy with "settling" for them on the left side of the infield.

But as great as they are, I can't justify not at least making some noise in the A-Rod sweeps. You have to throw something out there.

Alex Rodriguez is too good a player to simply remove yourself from the process. It is a mistake for the Yankees and it would be a mistake for the Mets. That doesn't mean that it's a sign-at-all-costs situation, but the Mets should put something like "play 2B/RF for us at X million for Y years" on the table and if he rejects the offer, he rejects it.
   42. rfloh Posted: October 30, 2007 at 02:46 PM (#2600034)
#31

BPro has Santana year by year, from 2004, by runs above average: 47, 36, 38, 25.

They had Reyes at 16 batting runs above average in 2007. RZR had him at +12 runs defensively. ZR had him at +13 runs. UZR had him at +23 runs.

So, if Reyes never improves offensively, that is, 2007 is his how he is going to be for the next several years, he is about 30 runs above average.
   43. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 30, 2007 at 02:49 PM (#2600039)
Alex Rodriguez is too good a player to simply remove yourself from the process. It is a mistake for the Yankees and it would be a mistake for the Mets. That doesn't mean that it's a sign-at-all-costs situation, but the Mets should put something like "play 2B/RF for us at X million for Y years" on the table and if he rejects the offer, he rejects it.


I think this sums it up best. Every team in the majors should be willing to make a legitimate offer to A-Rod within the context of their own budget/personnel situation. But it is the case that A-Rod is probably less valuable to the Mets than he is to any other team out there from a pure talent perspective, just because the Mets have the best left side of the infield around.

So, the Mets should make an offer but realistically expect that somebody else who actually needs a third baseman is probably going to beat it.
   44. billyshears Posted: October 30, 2007 at 02:58 PM (#2600055)
I would really, really like for Alex Rodriguez to be a Met. But it really, really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

In any case, we are all talking about the wrong Yankees free agent. I actually think it might make a lot of sense to just blow Jorge Posada away with a 3 yr/$54 mil offer. I don't think there is another player available who would improve the Mets as much as Posada would.
   45. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: October 30, 2007 at 03:17 PM (#2600087)
I actually think it might make a lot of sense to just blow Jorge Posada away with a 3 yr/$54 mil offer. I don't think there is another player available who would improve the Mets as much as Posada would.

I think this is true, since everyone who played a single inning of catcher for the 2007 Mets is now a free agent.
   46. Win one for Agrippa (haplo53) Posted: October 30, 2007 at 03:18 PM (#2600090)
And before you start carping about A-Rod's postseason performance or lack thereof, just remember that these are the Mets we're talking about. Chances are there will be no postseason.


I hate Wally Matthews... and I hate it even more when he's right.
   47. Fat Al Posted: October 30, 2007 at 03:20 PM (#2600092)
In any case, we are all talking about the wrong Yankees free agent. I actually think it might make a lot of sense to just blow Jorge Posada away with a 3 yr/$54 mil offer. I don't think there is another player available who would improve the Mets as much as Posada would.


I think that Omar is very likely to do just that. But I think the "blow him away" offer will be closer to 4/64.
   48. CrosbyBird Posted: October 30, 2007 at 03:26 PM (#2600113)
I expect Omar to push hard for Posada. He's too perfect a fit for the club's needs. And I don't mind overpaying him by $3-4M per considering how much of an upgrade he is.

You have to expect that merely matching the Yankees will not be sufficient. I expect the Mets to communicate how serious they are with a monster offer. And I expect it to come early, before the market asserts itself.

The early contracts this offseason are going to be the better ones, I think.
   49. Fat Al Posted: October 30, 2007 at 03:30 PM (#2600120)
I expect Omar to push hard for Posada. He's too perfect a fit for the club's needs. And I don't mind overpaying him by $3-4M per considering how much of an upgrade he is.

You have to expect that merely matching the Yankees will not be sufficient. I expect the Mets to communicate how serious they are with a monster offer. And I expect it to come early, before the market asserts itself.


I just hope Posada gives the Yankees a chance to match whatever the Mets do. The Yankees really can't afford to lose him at this point.
   50. billyshears Posted: October 30, 2007 at 03:38 PM (#2600131)
I think that Omar is very likely to do just that. But I think the "blow him away" offer will be closer to 4/64.


You might be right - the fourth year will probably be necessary to get Posada. If 4/64 gets it done, I can live with that.
   51. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 03:47 PM (#2600144)
You guys are willing to sign a 35 year old catcher to a four year deal for $16M a year??? Good lord.
   52. Big Ears Teddy shouldn't see TFTIO Posted: October 30, 2007 at 03:54 PM (#2600164)
The production that Santana would provide - the production Reyes or Wright would provide = marginal upgrade.

That makes sense, yes. I don't agree, but that's a reasonable position to take. Of course, it's not like the Mets would trot out an eight man lineup; the difference in production is the difference between Santana and the worst of the Mets starters, minus the difference between Wright/Reyes (speaking as a Twins fan, please make it Wright) and whomever the Mets get to replace them in the lineup.

I would take David Wright for Santana straight up; I'm less sure about Reyes. Regardless, the mooted Dodgers deal is better. Best of all is Pohlad having a personality-changing stroke and opening the ####### pocketbook.
   53. Fat Al Posted: October 30, 2007 at 03:55 PM (#2600165)
You guys are willing to sign a 35 year old catcher to a four year deal for $16M a year??? Good lord.


After 2004, the Red Sox signed Varitek to what, 4/40? And he was 33 I think. So from the Yankees POV I think 3/45 would be worthwhile and I think that's where they are going. I think Omar is going to try to top that. Whether he should or not is a whole different question. For the Yankees, I don't think they can let Posada walk at this point. He was a large part of their offense this year and there is no obvious replacement out there.
   54. rpackrat Posted: October 30, 2007 at 03:57 PM (#2600169)
"In the end, I think it depends on what you end up thinking of Reyes. If you think he is settled in at 350 OBP/450 SLG and that's pretty much what he's going to do going forward, then you're probably willing to sacrifice that, even if you're getting it cheap, in order to bring in Johan Santana."

Taking nothing away from Santana, who I would love to see in a Mets uniform, a gold-glove caliber shortstop who consistently posts an .800 OPS and steals lots of bases is nothing to sneeze at. Especially when said SS is relatively cheap for the next few years.

"I think that Omar is very likely to do just that. But I think the "blow him away" offer will be closer to 4/64."

I would rather see the Mets add a couple of mil per year to a 3 year deal than add the 4th year. Posada is going to be very old for a catcher by the end of that deal, and the 4th year is more likely to bite a team than is throwing extra cash into a shorter deal.
   55. Fat Al Posted: October 30, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2600170)
I would take David Wright for Santana straight up; I'm less sure about Reyes.


You wouldn't take a signed Reyes for one year of Johan? Really?
   56. HowardMegdal Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:02 PM (#2600179)
It says everything you want to know about David Wright that he'd be willing to move for A-Rod. It will say everything you want to know about the Wilpons whether they ask him to.

Sam, if the man wants to move to win a World Series, and the Wilpons determine this and act accordingly by signing A-Rod, I'm not sure how it says anything negative about anyone. The issue with Seaver was money and the team being run poorly- this would be surrounding Wright with a HOF talent at his request.

You guys are willing to sign a 35 year old catcher to a four year deal for $16M a year??? Good lord.


I've really come around on Posada- though I'd certainly try to keep it to three years if possible. He's about three years behind the major catchers in games caught. It's reasonable to think you're signing, in terms of wear-and-tear, a 32-year-old catcher. Add to that the fact that even a steep drop in production still provides a league average catcher, and the idea becomes even better.

You're upgrading from a 2007 with a 80 OPS+ to a 2008 with a 154 OPS+. And while I don't believe he'll come close to that (it was driven by an unsupportable BA), He's a career 124 OPS+ hitter. He hits well from both sides of the plate. He'd have to lose a ton of different skills to merely become Paul Lo Duca.
   57. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:03 PM (#2600182)
I would take David Wright for Santana straight up

That's nice of you. I wouldn't trade David Wright for Johan Santana, even if they were signed to the exact same deal. Given that it would take an enormous amount of money to sign Santana to an extension, and given that the Twins right now have only one year of Santana to offer, that trade is monumentally one-sided.
   58. HowardMegdal Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:04 PM (#2600183)
For the Yankees, I don't think they can let Posada walk at this point. He was a large part of their offense this year and there is no obvious replacement out there.

See Rodriguez, Alex.
   59. billyshears Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:04 PM (#2600185)
You guys are willing to sign a 35 year old catcher to a four year deal for $16M a year???


When that 35 year old catcher is coming off of a 154 OPS+ season (and has had an OPS+ over 120 five of the past six seasons), has relatively little wear and tear for a 35 year old catcher and when catcher is the position where the Mets have the most glaring need, yes.

The Mets have to find a way to move forward in 2008 without significantly sacrificing the future. There are very, very few players available this offseason, either through trade or free agency, who present that opportunity. That makes the players who do present such an opportunity, such as Posada, very, very valuable commodities. I think you would have to look at the money that you would pay Posada in that context as not just payment for Posada's services, but also as payment for the flexibility to keep prospects such as Milledge, Gomez, Pelfrey and Humber. I just do not think a conservative approach is a viable strategy for the Mets this offseason. If they don't go out and land a big fish on the FA market, they are going to feel forced into making a trade that could be a lot more harmful than merely overpaying for a good player.
   60. Banta Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:04 PM (#2600186)
I guarantee that Jose Reyes will have more value for the reminder of his career than Johan Santana. I think some of you guys are nuts.
   61. HowardMegdal Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:05 PM (#2600189)
That's nice of you. I wouldn't trade David Wright for Johan Santana, even if they were signed to the exact same deal. Given that it would take an enormous amount of money to sign Santana to an extension, and given that the Twins right now have only one year of Santana to offer, that trade is monumentally one-sided.

I'm with you, Sam- I would NOT trade Wright or Reyes for Santana. The very reason I empty out the system is to add Santana to a core that includes these gifted young players.
   62. CrosbyBird Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:05 PM (#2600190)
You guys are willing to sign a 35 year old catcher to a four year deal for $16M a year??? Good lord.

Yes, for a few reasons.

1) Posada came to catching very late in the game. He started his career as a 2B. The Yankees really used him sparingly early in his career behind the plate as season high in games caught (majors + minors) was 109 games until his age 28 season. He's been a full-time catcher for only 8 seasons so it's a different type of wear that what you'd normally expect from a catcher his age.

2) The Mets have an enormous hole at catcher, and it's a position they can fix with nothing but money. No moving players off of position, and no trading of young talent.

2a) The Mets have a financial advantage over most clubs and should use it. Overpaying for them isn't as bad as it is for other teams.

3) Posada is performing at a very high level right now and even a substantial dropoff keeps him as one of the better catchers in the game. 2005 was his worst season, by far, in the past 6 years, and it would be above average offensive production for a catcher (109 OPS+).

4) The market for catchers is just terrible right now. There isn't a single available catcher on the market that's close to Posada in ability. If you don't sign Posada, you're probably overpaying badly for a much worse player, or going with a complete question mark at the position.

Yes, it would be much nicer if Posada was 31, but then he'd get a 6 or 7 year deal.
   63. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:11 PM (#2600194)
You're upgrading from a 2007 with a 80 OPS+ to a 2008 with a 154 OPS+.

It's not the idea of Posada I'm opposed to. It's the idea of a four-year deal for an old catcher I'm floored by. Wear and tear and games played, sure. That's a factor. But sheesh . . . . That is apt to be one ugly deal by the end.

Sam, if the man wants to move to win a World Series, and the Wilpons determine this and act accordingly by signing A-Rod, I'm not sure how it says anything negative about anyone.

We are just worlds apart on this, Howard. I think it would say something awful about the Wilpons and Omar if they took Wright up on being the team guy he is. There are just some sacrifices you don't ask someone to make. You tell the new guy to move his ass someplace else, because third base on this team is David ####### Wright's position, and it will be until he has his retirement press conference, or until he can't handle the position any more and gracefully moves to first base.

What it would say about the Wilpons is that they just don't get it, they don't recognize what they have in this kid, and they're willing to push him around and move him like he's a piece of crap. Treat him that way, and he may say it's fine, but he won't think you think of him as something truly special. You know why? Because you'll have proven that you don't. You move David Wright to second base, you prove by your actions you think he's just another ball player. And if that's what the Wilpons think, then they are morons.
   64. Big Ears Teddy shouldn't see TFTIO Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:13 PM (#2600197)
That's nice of you.

Don't like it when fans of small-market teams eye your team's roster? Imagine that.

Let's be realistic: the Mets aren't getting Santana. They don't have the parts -- Wright (or Reyes) are too dear, and other teams can match or beat their offers. IF the Twins trade Santana this offseason (I think that there is a significant chance that they will resign him, or let him walk), it will be for position players in the high minors/first year or so up; and any trade would have to involve a Santana extension for the receiving team.
   65. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2600198)
What're the chances Alou's option doesn't get picked up? I assumed nil until I saw a quote from him suggesting he thought it mightn't.
   66. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:15 PM (#2600199)
I would take David Wright for Santana straight up; I'm less sure about Reyes.

I doubt there's a GM in baseball that would take more than a second or two before trading Santana for either one of those guys. It's so incredibily lopsided in the Twins favor.
   67. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:18 PM (#2600205)
What're the chances Alou's option doesn't get picked up? I assumed nil until I saw a quote from him suggesting he thought it mightn't.

As crazy as the contracts are this offseason, the Mets should pick up his option just to trade him. Picking up the option means the Mets get him for 6.5 million next season. There's no way they don't pick it up.

Btw, I don't think the Twins trade Santana. With Liriano coming back next season, there might not be a more fearsome 1-2 punch in the game. They could win the series with some luck and bounceback years from some of their players.
   68. CrosbyBird Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:19 PM (#2600206)
What it would say about the Wilpons is that they just don't get it, they don't recognize what they have in this kid, and they're willing to push him around and move him like he's a piece of crap. Treat him that way, and he may say it's fine, but he won't think you think of him as something truly special. You know why? Because you'll have proven that you don't. You move David Wright to second base, you prove by your actions you think he's just another ball player.

That's a little much.

You aren't just moving Wright for any old player. You're moving him for arguably the greatest player of his generation (Pujols is close, but I think his defense is a little overrated and his lack of baserunning ability is ignored in any comparison).

It's hardly an insult or treating him like he's a piece of crap.
   69. HowardMegdal Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:21 PM (#2600209)
Let's be realistic: the Mets aren't getting Santana. They don't have the parts -- Wright (or Reyes) are too dear, and other teams can match or beat their offers.

Let's be realistic- if the Mets decide to deal Gomez/Milledge/Pelfrey/Humber, it is extremely unlikely that another team tops that.

What it would say about the Wilpons is that they just don't get it, they don't recognize what they have in this kid, and they're willing to push him around and move him like he's a piece of crap.

Is that possible? Sure it is. But it is also possible that he came to the Wilpons with the idea, not just to be a good sport, but because he's desperate to win, and adding A-Rod to the lineup helps that trememdously. And I'd be unwilling to crucify the Wilpons for following the wishes of their star player.

I'm not saying it definitely is this way. I'm saying, based on what I know, that such a sequence is FAR from unlikely.
   70. rfloh Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:24 PM (#2600212)
BPro has Santana year by year, from 2004, by runs above average: 47, 36, 38, 25.

They had Reyes at 16 batting runs above average in 2007. RZR had him at +12 runs defensively. ZR had him at +13 runs. UZR had him at +23 runs.

BPro had Wright at 39 runs above average offensively in 2005, 37 in 2006, 58 in 2007. RZR had him at +24 runs, ZR had him at +1 run.

Any Mets fan who wants to trade Wright for Santana should be forced to adopt Derek Jeter as his favourite player. Any Mets fan who wants to trade Reyes for Santana should also be forced to adopt a Yankee favourite as as his favourite player.
   71. Big Ears Teddy shouldn't see TFTIO Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:25 PM (#2600214)
Let's be realistic- if the Mets decide to deal Gomez/Milledge/Pelfrey/Humber, it is extremely unlikely that another team tops that.

Kemp + Kershaw?
   72. CrosbyBird Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:26 PM (#2600217)
Oh, I should add that as great as I think Santana is, I don't trade any young, cost-controlled position player who has a legitimate shot at an MVP season for any soon to be FA pitcher, ever.

I think the Mets need to make it very clear that they will be major players for the top FA, even if they don't ultimately sign them. The message has to be out there that extending with your former club has a good chance of costing you money that the Mets might have bid on you in a competitive FA environment.

When you are a wealthy club, you have to make players (and their agents) think that not at least testing the waters is going to ultimately cost them money. That doesn't mean signing players like Soriano or Carlos Lee for more than you think they are worth, but you should be willing to go up to what you think they are worth even if you you know it won't get the job done. Worst-case, you make another team make a poor financial decision.
   73. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:27 PM (#2600219)
You aren't just moving Wright for any old player.

It doesn't matter who you're moving him for. You just don't move him, period. You treat him like he is the heart of the franchise, and everybody else moves for him. This is the way championship organizations treat championship players. At least it's the way I hope the Mets operate.
   74. Dizzypaco Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:28 PM (#2600220)
You aren't just moving Wright for any old player. You're moving him for arguably the greatest player of his generation

That's not completely true - you are moving him in order to pay a huge amount of money to get arguably the greatest player of his generation. There is an important difference, because if you don't sign ARod, you might be able to trade for Santana, and resign him. Or maybe find some other way to spend $30 million. It seems to me that you don't spend a huge amount of money to acquire a thirdbaseman/shortstop, when the cornerstones of your team are your young thirdbaseman and shortstop.

I doubt there's a GM in baseball that would take more than a second or two before trading Santana for either one of those guys. It's so incredibily lopsided in the Twins favor.

It's not the idea of Posada I'm opposed to. It's the idea of a four-year deal for an old catcher I'm floored by. Wear and tear and games played, sure. That's a factor. But sheesh . . . . That is apt to be one ugly deal by the end.


I agree with Sam on this one.

This is true if you are considering salaries and contracts, given that Santana's is about to run out. This is not true if you are thinking pure talent.
   75. KronicFatigue Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:29 PM (#2600222)
Sam,

I have to admit that I stalk you a bit in the sense that any time i want to get a mets' fan opinion on something, i search out your thoughtful posts. That being said, i'm curious how you distinguish not moving Wright for Arod with this: "or until he can't handle the position any more and gracefully moves to first base"

In the latter case, you are saying David Wright can play third base until doing so is no longer valuable to the Mets. Then he has to move. I'm not seeing how that's different than saying "It's valuable to the Mets to get Arod, but b/c of several factors, the only realistic way to do is to move Wright off of third."

Why is David Wright SPECIFICALLY attached to third base? Does the same hold true for batting order? Or could Wright move for Arod in that situation?
   76. HowardMegdal Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:34 PM (#2600229)
Kemp + Kershaw?

Yes, Kemp + Kershaw. Kemp posted a 125 OPS+ on the strength of a .411 BABIP, while seven months older than Milledge, who posted a 105 OPS+ on the strength of a .316 BABIP. Hard to see a huge advantage there- I like Milledge more going forward, like his defense in CF particularly for the Twins.

And I like Kershaw, don't get me wrong- but you're talking about a guy with 24 IP above A-ball, and 17 walks in those 24 IP. Good pitching prospect? Sure. But a long way from ready, and the Twins need major-league ready players. Humber/Pelfrey are both there.

Oh, and the deal I mentioned also includes a Carlos Gomez.

So not seeing the Dodgers trumping the Mets deal if they choose to go after Santana full force. I doubt that they will, however...
   77. CrosbyBird Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:36 PM (#2600235)
That's not completely true - you are moving him in order to pay a huge amount of money to get arguably the greatest player of his generation. There is an important difference, because if you don't sign ARod, you might be able to trade for Santana, and resign him. Or maybe find some other way to spend $30 million. It seems to me that you don't spend a huge amount of money to acquire a thirdbaseman/shortstop, when the cornerstones of your team are your young thirdbaseman and shortstop.

I suppose I'm starting from the perspective that Wright and Reyes are untouchables, and the Twins will not take any package from the Mets for Santana that doesn't include one or the other. Santana isn't an option unless he opts for FA, at which point you practically hand his agent a blank contract and have him fill in the numbers.

The question is where you plan on spending that $30M. Say Posada and Rivera are Yankees, and Bonds is on an AL team. I don't see $30M worth of FA out there that merit long-term commitments. The list is really short.

Take Rivera, Posada, A-Rod, and Bonds out of the equation. Who are you excited about signing?
   78. HowardMegdal Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:36 PM (#2600236)
there is an important difference, because if you don't sign ARod, you might be able to trade for Santana, and resign him.

If the Mets treat this either/or, they are monumentally stupid. They can and should have the money for both, considering the new stadium, the new network, and the fact that the certain postseason bid will nearly make it up by itself.
   79. CrosbyBird Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:40 PM (#2600242)
Even if the Mets were to offer Milledge/Gomez/Pelfrey/Humber for Santana, I think the Twins reject that offer.

Milledge is the best of the lot, and he's not ML-proven and has "attitude problems." (Perception is everything.) I see other clubs coming up with fewer players but a better guy heading things up.

I don't think teams will look at BABIP in comparing Kemp and Milledge either. Or at least, a lot less than appearance and reputation. Does Kemp wear dreds and bling cross?
   80. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:41 PM (#2600245)
That being said, i'm curious how you distinguish not moving Wright for Arod with this: "or until he can't handle the position any more and gracefully moves to first base"

Because then we'd be talking about (say) the 38 or 40 year old David Wright, NOT the 24 year old version. How teams deal with aging superstars at the ends of their careers is completely different with how they deal with the guy who is the cornerstone of the franchise early in his career.

Moreover, we're also not talking about moving either Wright or A-Rod to first base; Carlos Delgado is the Mets' first baseman in 2008, with a virtually immoveable contract. Howard has talked about moving David Wright to second base, a move I find utterly appalling because of the injury risks involved and because of the learning-curve burden it would place on Wright for pretty much all of spring and the early season of 2008, when he should be concentrating on being the best player in the league. I think it is quite possible, and perhaps even likely, that Wright's 2008 season would be ruined by going through learning to play second base, and then by the toll the position takes on a player. . . I envision something like:

.277/.341/.445

A line I would absolutely blame on Howard all season long. There is simply no reason to risk the impact playing second base -- and especially playing it for the first time in his entire career -- would have on David Wright.
   81. BDC Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:46 PM (#2600252)
They felt Jeter was bigger than the team and let him play where he wanted to play

On the whole I agree with you, Kevin, except that Wright is still very young, likely a better fielder and perhaps soon a better hitter than AROD, so I doubt if it makes any sense for him to move to suit AROD. By your logic, why not have AROD, the greater star, move to the outfield?

Also, I am not sure that the Jeter-stays-at-short move was entirely a concession to vanity. The Yankees had two very good bats to get into the lineup, and they were both shortstops. Moving Jeter to third wouldn't have solved any problems. Moving him to center field would have opened up a hole at third base. The 04-07 alignment at least got them to the playoffs four years in a row ...
   82. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:48 PM (#2600256)
Did the Celtics do that with Havlicek, by making him 6th man for several years after it became apparent he was the heir to Russell?

Did the Patriots do that with Bledsoe, when it became apparent that his back-up was better than he?

Did the Steelers do that with Bradshaw, when Gilliam outplayed him in pre-season?

Did the Packers do that with Hornung, when Lombardi had Elijah Pitts sitting on the bench for the 2 super bowls?

Did the Reds do that with Rose, by leaving him at second, then rightfield, when younger, more talented players came along?


The Celtics didn't #### around with Bill Russell.

The Patriots don't screw around with Tom Brady.

The Steelers didn't play around with Jack Lambert.

The Packers didn't go moving Bart Starr.

I don't recall the Reds moving Johnny Bench until the end of his career.

And here is the real rub:

That's a major failing on the Yankees part. They felt Jeter was bigger than the team and let him play where he wanted to play. And look where it has gotten them.

If the Mets signed A-Rod, and moved David Wright for his sake, THEN they would be doing exactly what the Yankees did. Because the situation would be that A-Rod made his playing 3B a condition of the deal, just as (back then) Jeter wouldn't move for anybody, so A-Rod had to switch. This time, it would be A-Rod who was bigger than the team, so Wright has to switch. Don't you get it?

If Pedroia was moved to 3rd, he'd hit .340 .440 .550.

If Pedroia was moved to the New York Penn League, he wouldn't put up a .990 OPS, Kevin. ;-)
   83. HowardMegdal Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:52 PM (#2600260)
A line I would absolutely blame on Howard all season long. There is simply no reason to risk the impact playing second base -- and especially playing it for the first time in his entire career -- would have on David Wright.

FWIW, if in his first season, his offense suffered a bit, but he learned to play the position well- even that line is better by far than they'd have any reason to expect from, for instance, Castillo, while A-Rod is a good bet to match or exceed what Wright would do at 3B. They still come out ahead in your worst-case scenario- and I can't believe his offense would suffer that much.

But think about that, Sam- this is your nightmare scrnario, and the Mets come out well ahead in 2008. Now think of the upside.

Remember the last 24-year-old 3B who the Mets moved to 2B for his age-25 season? Edgardo Alfonzo's line dropped from .278/.355/.427 all the way down to .304/.385/.502. Ruined his career.
   84. rfloh Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:56 PM (#2600265)
#86

Even before he was switched permanently to 2b, Alfonzo had a record of playing at 2b and SS.
   85. Amit Posted: October 30, 2007 at 04:59 PM (#2600266)
Any chance Jorge is livid over the Yankees' managerial situation?

He always struck me as Torre's #1 guy.
   86. HowardMegdal Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:07 PM (#2600275)
Even before he was switched permanently to 2b, Alfonzo had a record of playing at 2b and SS.

Yes, I know. And part of the argument against moving Wright is that he's learning a new position. But a lot of the argument comes from the idea that the added stress of 2B will hurt his offense. Well, Alfonzo's two best offensive years came JUST after moving from 3B to 2B.
   87. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:09 PM (#2600278)
people who are spitting over the idea of a santana trade seem to have forgotten how perilous the mets starting pitching is.
   88. PreservedFish Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:13 PM (#2600283)
Posada just screams "trap" contract. Does anyone really think he found a new gear at age 35, or is he just the same guy that always hits .275, 22 homeruns, 840 OPS ... and is that guy, who is a poor defender and likely to get much worse over the life of the contract, worth more than $12 million a year?

Meanwhile, Ramon Castro might be one of the best catchers in the majors. I know that sounds absurd, but look at it. Here are the list of catchers that I can be fairly sure are better hitters than Ramon Castro: J Posada, R Martin, B McCann, V Martinez, J Mauer. That's five guys, four of them young and untouchable. Castro's career OPS is 723, and as a Met it's around 780. If he can keep up 780, that puts him right aside Varitek and Johjima in the second tier of catchers, and makes him easily one of the best in the NL. If you've got a player of that quality already in the organization, it makes sense to keep him there. Just re-sign Castro. It's simple and makes sense. Get splashy somewhere else.
   89. JPWF13 Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:13 PM (#2600285)
If Pedroia was moved to 3rd, he'd hit .340 .440 .550.

If Pedroia was moved to the New York Penn League, he wouldn't put up a .990 OPS, Kevin. ;-)


Pedroia hit .357/.426/.535 between the Sallie League and the FSL
I think it's pretty clear he'd top 1.000 in the NYPL

Of course Wright would likely hit .425/.575/.900 in the NYPL...
   90. Cowboy Popup Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:14 PM (#2600289)
But a lot of the argument comes from the idea that the added stress of 2B will hurt his offense. Well, Alfonzo's two best offensive years came JUST after moving from 3B to 2B.

And as has already been pointed out, it's a completely different scenario because Alfonzo had already played second base as a professional while Wright hasn't. Placido Polanco can move seamlessly from 2nd to 3rd. That doesn't mean Scott Rolen can too.
   91. rfloh Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:15 PM (#2600290)
#91.

Was not the pitching even more perilous at the start of the season?

Would you trade either Wright or Reyes for Santana?
   92. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:18 PM (#2600294)
You never addressed the Havlicek thing. Havlicek was twice the player Satch Sanders was and was several years younger but Sanders started over Havlicek and havlicek was the future of the franchise.

Can you explain that, in the context of your thesis that championships don't mess with their young superstars?


The Celtics were wrong. But even if they weren't, they didn't move John Havlicek around from position to position to make room for some newly acquired player. They simply kept him out of the starting line-up, which did absolutely nothing to compromise or risk his career or affect his performance. That decision didn't "mess" with Havlicek in anything like the way changing David Wright's position would. Apples and oranges.

You move the talent to best advantage. There is no room for egos.

If that were true, then you tell that to A-Rod, not to Wright. In this hypothetical scenario, it would be A-Rod's insistence on playing 3B as a condition of signing with the team that would be creating the problem in the first place. The optimal distribution of the talent would keep Wright at third, NOT have A-Rod there. If there is no room for egos, then that goes as much for A-Rod as it does for Wright.
   93. HowardMegdal Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:20 PM (#2600298)
Posada just screams "trap" contract. Does anyone really think he found a new gear at age 35, or is he just the same guy that always hits .275, 22 homeruns, 840 OPS ... and is that guy, who is a poor defender and likely to get much worse over the life of the contract, worth more than $12 million a year?

If Paul Lo Duca is getting $7 million a year? Seriously, Posada at that production, the Mets will be thrilled.

Meanwhile, Ramon Castro might be one of the best catchers in the majors. I know that sounds absurd, but look at it. Here are the list of catchers that I can be fairly sure are better hitters than Ramon Castro: J Posada, R Martin, B McCann, V Martinez, J Mauer. That's five guys, four of them young and untouchable. Castro's career OPS is 723, and as a Met it's around 780. If he can keep up 780, that puts him right aside Varitek and Johjima in the second tier of catchers, and makes him easily one of the best in the NL. If you've got a player of that quality already in the organization, it makes sense to keep him there. Just re-sign Castro. It's simple and makes sense. Get splashy somewhere else.


I was firmly in this camp until the arthritis in the back became an issue. The chances of this improving are virtually nil. Get Castro to start with a good backup is a fine plan- the backup needs to be Torrealba or better, and there isn't better than Torrealba out there. And still, this isn't as good a bet as Posada.


And as has already been pointed out, it's a completely different scenario because Alfonzo had already played second base as a professional while Wright hasn't. Placido Polanco can move seamlessly from 2nd to 3rd. That doesn't mean Scott Rolen can too.


By pointed out, I assume you mean by me in my previous paragraph.
And you're right, because Polanco did it, it doesn't mean that Wright or Rolen could, too. But it's sure not an argument against the idea.
   94. The Artist Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:24 PM (#2600301)


I doubt there's a GM in baseball that would take more than a second or two before trading Santana for either one of those guys. It's so incredibily lopsided in the Twins favor.


Ugh, pass. Sam's quote about not trading Wright (with a matching contract) for Santana I understand, because that's not baseball related - its personal. This one is ridiculous - Santana is the best pitcher in baseball. Reyes, no matter how much kool-aid you're drinking, is not one of the 20 best players in baseball (he hit .280/.354/.421). I realize you're a Mets fan, but put down the rose-tinted glasses.
   95. The Artist Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:27 PM (#2600307)
Yes, Kemp + Kershaw. Kemp posted a 125 OPS+ on the strength of a .411 BABIP, while seven months older than Milledge, who posted a 105 OPS+ on the strength of a .316 BABIP. Hard to see a huge advantage there- I like Milledge more going forward, like his defense in CF particularly for the Twins.

And I like Kershaw, don't get me wrong- but you're talking about a guy with 24 IP above A-ball, and 17 walks in those 24 IP. Good pitching prospect? Sure. But a long way from ready, and the Twins need major-league ready players. Humber/Pelfrey are both there.

Oh, and the deal I mentioned also includes a Carlos Gomez.

So not seeing the Dodgers trumping the Mets deal if they choose to go after Santana full force. I doubt that they will, however...


Err Howard - dream on. There isn't a GM in baseball who wouldn't fall over himself to deal Milledge for Kemp. As for Kershaw, both BA and BP suggest he's probably the best or second best pitching prospect in the minors (after David Price). Humber and Pelfrey (who has exactly one pitch) aren't exactly equivalent. If you're the Twins, you'd rather have high level talent, and the Bums offer is significantly better that regard.
   96. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:29 PM (#2600311)
Reyes, no matter how much kool-aid you're drinking, is not one of the 20 best players in baseball (he hit .280/.354/.421).

Yeah, but that one didn't have the "matching contract" qualifier. If you could obtain Reyes, with his contract, for Santana (with only one year remaining on his deal), I think you'd have to do it. Of course, it depends on who you are; are you a team that can re-sign Santana, or one that knows it is going to lose him? Big difference? But as an asset, because of his reasonable contract, Reyes is a more valuable asset than Santana is.

As for my Wright comment, I stand by it, even as a pure baseball matter. IMHO, a great position player is more valuable than a great starting pitcher, because of the injury risk. And the numbers show Wright is at least as great as Santana. So matching contracts? Give me the position player.
   97. Sam M. Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:34 PM (#2600318)
Now, you may be right that trying to move Wright to an other position will damage his development. But all that does is hightlight Wright's limitations as a baseball player even further: that he is that inflexible, he can't thrive elsewhere. Heck, if Yount could do it as a 30-something, then Wright could do it, if he's as good as you think he is.

The issue is not whether Wright could move to center field, the way Yount did. The issue is whether (a) he could move to second base, and more importantly, (b) whether the Mets should move him to second base. I think it's a terrible idea, and I have no idea at all whether he could eventually do it well or not. I simply don't want them to.

And are you ever going to respond to the point that it is really A-Rod's ego that is the operative one here? You keep talking about "no room for egos," but seem to think it is perfectly fine that moving Wright around would be all about doing so for the sake of A-Rod's unwillingness to move. Ironic.
   98. Amit Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:43 PM (#2600330)
"Posada just screams "trap" contract. Does anyone really think he found a new gear at age 35, or is he just the same guy that always hits .275, 22 homeruns, 840 OPS ... and is that guy, who is a poor defender and likely to get much worse over the life of the contract, worth more than $12 million a year?"


This strikes me as the opposite of the A-Rod situation, in the Posada is more valuable to the Mets than he might be to virtually any other suitor.

Castro is also not "in the organization" at the moment. He's a FA.

Not that Jorge would ever to it, but a Posada/Castro platoon could be just what the doctor ordered.
   99. CrosbyBird Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:45 PM (#2600332)
Posada just screams "trap" contract. Does anyone really think he found a new gear at age 35, or is he just the same guy that always hits .275, 22 homeruns, 840 OPS ... and is that guy, who is a poor defender and likely to get much worse over the life of the contract, worth more than $12 million a year?

Posada OPS by year, 2003-2007: .923, .881, .782, .866, .969.

That looks a lot better than what you're suggesting he "always" does.

Not to mention that Posada's OPS has always had a particularly high OBP component. 60-70 BB to go with 15-20 HR and I don't really care what his BA is, he's one of the best hitting catchers in baseball.
   100. Cowboy Popup Posted: October 30, 2007 at 05:50 PM (#2600342)
By pointed out, I assume you mean by me in my previous paragraph.

And yet you still use Alfonso as an example for why the Mets should try Wright at second.

But it's sure not an argument against the idea.

No, the argument against the idea, which you dismiss all too easily is the fact that learning to play 2nd base for the first time at the Major League level is impractical and ridiculous. It could lead to injury, it will almost certainly result in lower production at the plate, and it is very likely that he won't be good at it. He's never turned a double play from that side of the bag. He's never communicated with a first baseman on groundballs. This has nothing to do with tools or physical skill, it has everything to do with experience. Second base is one of the two or three most difficult (and probably the most dangerous) positions on the diamond to play and asking someone with no experience to learn how to play it at the major league level is asking for disaster. Why does everyone understand this but you?
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4805 - 7:07pm, Nov 25)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogKap: Cubs have made 'significant' offer to Jon Lester | CSN Chicago
(3 - 7:06pm, Nov 25)
Last: I am Ted F'ing Williams

NewsblogOz: Mike Trout Q&A: His workouts, goals & what he’s thankful for
(3 - 7:05pm, Nov 25)
Last: philphan

NewsblogRolling Stone: The 15 Worst Owners in Sports
(34 - 6:58pm, Nov 25)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogMeet the teenagers who landed a shocking MLB scoop
(38 - 6:56pm, Nov 25)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

Newsblogred sox - So … is there any money left for pitching? Red Sox roster building reconsidered - WEEI | Alex Speier
(118 - 6:54pm, Nov 25)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogHow Twitter Has Changed Baseball Coverage For Better or Worse
(7 - 6:38pm, Nov 25)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogWendy Thurm on Twitter: "What the hell kinda panda is that?"
(6 - 6:33pm, Nov 25)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogSchool of Roch: Melky Cabrera a "fallback option" for the Orioles
(26 - 6:32pm, Nov 25)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogAdam Rubin: My Hall of Fame ballot
(50 - 6:24pm, Nov 25)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(514 - 5:51pm, Nov 25)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogBig Unit, Pedro, Smoltz headline Hall of Fame ballot
(78 - 5:06pm, Nov 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1130 - 4:59pm, Nov 25)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogJazayerli: The Legacy Of The 2014 Royals, Part 1.
(39 - 4:49pm, Nov 25)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogThe Effects of Pitch Sequencing – The Hardball Times
(4 - 4:26pm, Nov 25)
Last: madvillain

Page rendered in 0.8717 seconds
52 querie(s) executed