Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Mets - Signed Alou

New York Mets - Signed OF Moises Alou to a 1-year contract; claimed P Jason Standridge; acquired P Adam Bostick and P Jason Vargas from the Florida Marlins for P Henry Owens and P Matthew Lindstrom.

The Alou deal is $8.5 million.  I like it, though, as it’s only for one year.  While Alou wasn’t the healthiest last year, he at least has a track record of not missing almost all of the season, unless a treadmill is involved.  When we’re talking 40-year-old players, the difference between a 1-year and 2-year contract is big.

The pitcher moves are simply depth moves.  Minor league relievers, even promising ones like Henry Owens, have very limited trade value and it usually comes down to which team wants to try it with which reliever.  Bostick and Vargas add minor league depth to the Mets, further guaranteeing that a Jose Lima won’t appear for the Mets sometime down the road, which is a very good thing.

2007 ZiPS Projection - Moises Alou
———————————————————————————————————
          AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB   BA   OBP   SLG
———————————————————————————————————
Projection   400 60 114 23 1 20 66 43 48   2 .285 .358 .498
———————————————————————————————————
Opt. (15%)  453 77 138 31 3 26 93 56 47   3 .305 .384 .558
Pes. (15%)  286 36   73 14 0 11 37 27 38   1 .255 .324 .420
———————————————————————————————————

 

2006 ZiPS Projections
——————————————————————————————-
Player       W   L   G GS   IP   H   ER HR BB SO   ERA
——————————————————————————————-
Bostick     6 11 27 27 151 154   95 21 85 101 5.66
Lindstrom     3   5 42   5   70   76   47 13 43 48 6.04
Owens       3   2 33   0   42   37   19   4 20 44 4.07
Standridge   5   4 45 10 108 107   52   9 47 66 4.33
Vargas       7   9 29 24 149 147   83 21 64 109 5.01

 

 

Dan Szymborski Posted: November 21, 2006 at 05:47 PM | 149 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: November 21, 2006 at 06:08 PM (#2242973)
Whoops Transaction Oracle! The Giants didn't sign Alou. The Mets did. Although when this gets fixed above, I will look like the silly one for this post.
   2. a wider scope of derision Posted: November 21, 2006 at 06:13 PM (#2242977)
Whoops Transaction Oracle! The Giants didn't sign Alou. The Mets did. Although when this gets fixed above, I will look like the silly one for this post.


I can't wait for the Mets to resign Bonds!
   3. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: November 21, 2006 at 06:16 PM (#2242981)
What? The Oracle has spoken and is perfect! Dare not challenge the Oracle!
   4. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 21, 2006 at 08:03 PM (#2243047)
That's a pretty nice projection. I wonder what this does this lineup.
   5. bibigon Posted: November 21, 2006 at 08:18 PM (#2243082)
Dan, how strongly does age push down a player's performance.

Lets say Alou's last four seasons were the same, but instead, he was 33 years old now - how would his ZIPS compare? In general, how strong would you say the aging factor is assuming two guys have identical performance records, and both are on the wrong side of the aging curve, but one is only on the wrong side by a couple years, while the other is ancient?
   6. Banta Posted: November 21, 2006 at 08:41 PM (#2243156)
That's a pretty nice projection.

Especially since his pessimistic one is probably what Shawn Green should be expected to do this year.

I don't particularly care how the year starts, but if the Mets have an outfield of Alou, Beltran, and Milledge by June or July, I'll be pretty happy.
   7. Bob Koo Posted: November 21, 2006 at 09:00 PM (#2243195)
For the record, I love this deal. Especially because it's only for one year and Alou is one of those guys that can fall out of bed and hit. Let Milledge get more time in at AAA, while Chavez and Johnson spot start and come in for defensive purposes. And when Alou or Green get hurt, Milledge will get more on-the-job training.
   8. 1k5v3L Posted: November 21, 2006 at 09:06 PM (#2243206)
Alou is one of those guys that can fall out of bed and hit.


You forgot the obligatory trip to the bathroom...
   9. shoewizard Posted: November 21, 2006 at 09:21 PM (#2243230)
I wonder what the combined negative RSpt is for Alou and Green?

Alou is fine on his own at this price, as already said, the guy just flat out hits..... but I don't think the Mets can afford to have BOTH these guys playing the OF at the same for too many games.

Beltran is going to be exhausted come August.
   10. CSULB Guy Posted: November 22, 2006 at 09:26 PM (#2244266)
Jason Vargas only has 46 major league plate appearances, but he's hitting over .300 for an OPS+ of 93. He hasn't drawn walks so far, but he should be capable of more in that department. Go back to 2003, and Vargas was a much better hitter than Troy Tulowitzki, leading the Dirtbags in OBP by over 50 points. (For some unexplained reason, Weathers batted Tuolwitzki 4th and Vargas 5th.) If you don't like him as a pitcher, how about trying him as an OF/1B/PH?
   11. CSULB Guy Posted: November 22, 2006 at 09:48 PM (#2244307)
I meant 2004, not 2003. Hmm... all the minors use the DH now? He doesn't seem to have much of a minor league hitting record. But note that that NCAA .354/.469/.531 from 2004 (position: P and DH) was with his home games in an extreme pitchers park.
   12. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: November 22, 2006 at 11:15 PM (#2244429)
CSULB Guy, are you still attending Long Beach, or did you graduate already?
   13. The Hop-Clop Goes On (psa1) Posted: November 23, 2006 at 01:15 AM (#2244490)
CSULB: all minor league games A+ and below use the DH. In AA and AAA games, if one of the teams is the affiliate of an AL team, they use the DH. Only when both teams are NL affiliates do pitchers hit.
   14. CSULB Guy Posted: November 23, 2006 at 02:11 AM (#2244517)
Understood. And using major league style rules, it wouldn't make sense to let a pitcher hit, because it jams up your flexibility and leaves you in bad shape when you take out the pitcher. (NCAA rules differ - he can remain as DH after he's been removed as pitcher.) Still, I'm a little surprised Vargas's teams haven't given him a shot at least as a PH. He'd be a classic PH type: lefty high-average hitter. Of course then, it matters what his pitching role is. Starting pitcher/PH works (and it's a classic 30's thing: Red Ruffing, Wes Ferrell, etc.) Relief pitcher/PH wouldn't work; he'd never get a chance to hit because he might be needed to pitch.
   15. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 25, 2006 at 10:39 PM (#2245717)
.250/.330/.407

That's what Met leftfielders hit last season. Say what you want about Alou's defense but he's going to be huge upgrade offensively. He should be a good upgrade overall.

Jeez, Met chatter has been really down of late. I honestly think this is just Met fans having more confidence in Minaya than in previous offseasons. The previous two offseasons, I think we were more worried about what he might do.
   16. baudib Posted: November 25, 2006 at 10:44 PM (#2245718)
I liked Omar on BTF before it was cool.
   17. Rob Base Posted: November 25, 2006 at 10:51 PM (#2245721)
Same here, baudib.

Russlan, I think there just haven't been any stories the last few days. That said, I want to talk about the Mets. Now.
   18. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 25, 2006 at 11:01 PM (#2245727)
I liked Minaya early but must admit I always was more than a little worried about some of the possible trades that were floated out there. Now, I'm not even worried at all. I just want to see how this offseason plays out.

Base, since there are no articles or stories let's make one because I too want to talk about the Mets. What's up with Randolph and his contract?
   19. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 25, 2006 at 11:16 PM (#2245732)
Another thing we really haven't discussed is what the Mets are going to do if one of or both Zito and Glavine don't resign. The 2007 Mets will probably have a very good lineup and an excellent bullpen. How well they will do depends on their starters. The Mets made the playoffs in 2006 despite a rotation that averaged 5.7 IP/S and put up an ERA+ of 92. Just for perspective, Kaz Ishii averaged 5.5 IP/S and put up ERA+ of 91.
   20. Rob Base Posted: November 25, 2006 at 11:27 PM (#2245736)
Randloph probably deserves a first tier manager's contract. The Mets were paying Howe $2 million/year. Willie certainly deserves at least that.

Who is his successor if he goes? (I don't think he will go, but you never know). HoJo and Oberkfell seem like obvious alternatives. Carter? Julio Franco? (only half kidding on that last one)
   21. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 25, 2006 at 11:42 PM (#2245739)
The Mets were paying Howe $2 million/year. Willie certainly deserves at least that.

I don't think the salary is the big deal as much as the number of years.

With respect to the pitching, would you guys be happy to go with the Mets have if just one of Zito/Glavine signs with the Mets, assuming Schmidt is going to stay on the West Coast? Should the Mets sign a second tier guy like Suppan/Lilly/Padilla or trade for an ace?

Personally, I don't like the idea of signing second tier types but the Mets do need guys that we can have confidence to give you 180-200 IP of 100 ERA+ pitching. The thing is, do you roll the dice with the young guys or pay through the nose for good but not elite pitching?
   22. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 25, 2006 at 11:44 PM (#2245740)
With respect to the pitching, would you guys be happy to go with the the pitchers the Mets have if just one of Zito/Glavine signs with the Mets
   23. Шĥy Posted: November 25, 2006 at 11:52 PM (#2245743)
Randloph probably deserves a first tier manager's contract.

I don't think so. In 2005, the consensus was that Willie was one of the worst managers in baseball. He may have improved in 2006 but I think many of his flaws were covered up by the increased talent level and many of his poor decisions were ignored since the Mets were never in a tight race and played so well. I'm still skeptical about Willie and don't think that he deserves a contract much better than middle of the pack.
   24. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 26, 2006 at 12:27 AM (#2245752)
I really don't think that any manager is worth significantly more than any other one, except in rare cases. Bobby Cox is such a case. Willie Randolph is not. The Mets would have made the playoffs last year if Bob Melvin had been their manager.
   25. Rob Base Posted: November 26, 2006 at 12:42 AM (#2245758)
I really don't think that any manager is worth significantly more than any other one, except in rare cases. Bobby Cox is such a case. Willie Randolph is not. The Mets would have made the playoffs last year if Bob Melvin had been their manager.

You're not accounting for other aspects of the manager's value - to fans, to players currently on the team, to players who might consider playing with the team, to the franchise's brand, as a spokesperson for the organization. Plus, as a couch potato, I try never to underestimate the psychological aspect of the game.

The Mets would have made the playoffs with Moqtada al Sadr as manager, but they probably wouldn't want him. Or Melvin.
   26. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 26, 2006 at 02:17 AM (#2245793)
If Randolph goes, I'm guessing that Carter will be next in line. He got a ton of positive reviews for the job that he did in St. Luice, where he handled many of the next wave of Met prospects at various points and got a league championship out of the deal as well.

-- MWE
   27. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 26, 2006 at 04:41 AM (#2245836)
Al-Sadr is a brilliant political strategist. I'm not sure how he handles a bullpen though.

I don't think Willie was a bad manager in 2005. He's good at all the off-field stuff and the players all seem to like him.

I don't buy into all this garbage about on-field tactics other than bullpen management. I don't think it makes a huge deal in the standings.

I think how a manager handles his bullpen is very important and that's why people thought he was much better in 2005. In 2005, the only guy who was reliable the entire year was Kool-Aid. He had a closer that was a ROOGY at best and a bunch of junk until Heilman established himself at the end of the year. Willie is a "hands-off" manager who doesn't try to overmanage. He's pretty predictable and Minaya knows that.

Running a good clubhouse is a lot more important than knowing when to put on the hit and run IMO and there's no reason to make this a distraction.
   28. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: November 26, 2006 at 05:44 AM (#2245858)
Another thing we really haven't discussed is what the Mets are going to do if one of or both Zito and Glavine don't resign. The 2007 Mets will probably have a very good lineup and an excellent bullpen. How well they will do depends on their starters. The Mets made the playoffs in 2006 despite a rotation that averaged 5.7 IP/S and put up an ERA+ of 92. Just for perspective, Kaz Ishii averaged 5.5 IP/S and put up ERA+ of 91.


I just sh#t my pants. Seriously.
   29. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 26, 2006 at 05:56 AM (#2245863)
Arkitekton, there's two ways to look at those numbers. The Mets won 60% despite a mediocre rotation. There likely to be much better and there's every reason to think the Mets will win 95 games with modest upgrades to their rotation.

The real wildcard in the rotation is Ollie. We don't really know what to expect from him next year. An ERA between 3.50-5.50 wouldn't surpise me.
   30. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 26, 2006 at 06:05 AM (#2245867)
With respect to the pitching, would you guys be happy to go with the Mets have if just one of Zito/Glavine signs with the Mets, assuming Schmidt is going to stay on the West Coast? Should the Mets sign a second tier guy like Suppan/Lilly/Padilla or trade for an ace?

Personally, I don't like the idea of signing second tier types but the Mets do need guys that we can have confidence to give you 180-200 IP of 100 ERA+ pitching. The thing is, do you roll the dice with the young guys or pay through the nose for good but not elite pitching?


I'm hoping Glavine stays and they don't sign Zito. I'd also like to sign Padilla.

Glavine/Padilla/Maine/Duque/Perez with Pelfrey, Humber, and crew waiting in the minors doesn't look too bad to me.
   31. Шĥy Posted: November 26, 2006 at 06:18 AM (#2245871)
there's no reason to make this a distraction

You're right. The Mets should set Willie's value at a certain amount and set how much they are willing to exceed that amount (which should not be that much). If Willie still demands too much then the Mets should just move on. Willie can be replaced very easily.
   32. Шĥy Posted: November 26, 2006 at 06:24 AM (#2245876)
I'm hoping Glavine stays and they don't sign Zito.

I see no reason why any Met fan should hope that the Mets don't sign Zito. Zito has a lot of value and as long as his price doesn't go to high, he should be a priority.
   33. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 26, 2006 at 07:03 AM (#2245887)
Have you seen the contracts this offseason? Why would you think his price isn't going to be too high?
   34. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 26, 2006 at 07:14 AM (#2245890)
Padilla is a guy that interests me as well. The guy is obviously talented and I wouldn't be surprised if he outpitched Zito over the next few years. That said, he isn't as reliable or durable as Zito and he isn't exactly going to be cheap.
   35. tomseaver Posted: November 26, 2006 at 11:25 AM (#2245910)
The thing I really like about Willie is that the players seem to love him and seem to really respect and play their hearts out for him. I know that is a dreaded "intangible" but managers have most of their value in intangibles. I will take that over someone perfect on strategy every day.
   36. tomseaver Posted: November 26, 2006 at 11:27 AM (#2245911)
...and I can't believe "tomseaver" was still available as a screen name!
   37. The District Attorney Posted: November 26, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#2246017)
Probably because people remember his announcing.

I don't understand at all why they didn't just re-up Glavine for $14M. Even if they're 99% sure he'll come back for $12M, I don't see why they're taking that 1% chance, given how much money they have and how screwed they are if he leaves.

They should be going all-out for Zito or Willis either way, so that shouldn't be a factor.
   38. Sam M. Posted: November 26, 2006 at 06:17 PM (#2246026)
I don't understand at all why they didn't just re-up Glavine for $14M.

Sigh. Because they made an agreement with him mid-season 2006, and they honored it. Period. In return for him giving back some $$$, they made these faux "options" for 2007 which both sides agreed they would not exercise, so that Glavine would have the freedom to decide where he would play next season. The Mets, bless them, actually have some integrity in how they treat their players, and they kept their word. It is probably the one thing that gives them a fighting chance for Glavine to return, because he doesn't trust Schuerholz and he does trust the Wilpons.

As for Randolph, what the heck do you want from the guy? He was terrific in 2006 in every respect. He handled every personnel issue adroitly and firmly, from Feliciano's little mini-meltdown to Heilman's need to step up after Sanchez's injury. I've also come to believe, though I didn't think so at the time, he handled the Milledge situation correctly by NOT giving him playing time in September. That was long-term thinking designed to get the kid to see how he needed to conduct himself to earn his shot, not have it handed to him. Good for Randolph, because nothing will tell the Mets what they need to know about Milledge better than how he responds to that this spring. Not immediately, in the heat of the moment -- that's too soon to absorb what Randolph was trying to do. But if he hasn't "gotten it" by the spring, the Mets will know what they need to know.

They should lock him up and pay the dollars.
   39. Astro-Bonilla Posted: November 26, 2006 at 07:48 PM (#2246081)
Amazingly, the Alou signing and the little cat signing are the best of pick-ups this offseason.
   40. Astro-Bonilla Posted: November 26, 2006 at 07:48 PM (#2246082)
out of all the outfield signings.
   41. Mister High Standards Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:10 PM (#2246090)
Alou isn't a good player at this point in his career. He can hit still but he is a huge negative everywhere else on the diamond. Last year he was worth about 13 runs above average with the bat, but gave all of it back plus more in other aspects of his game. I would expect him to be slightly below average next year, with a overall value likly similar to Endy Chavez at this point. In other words I don't see this as an improvement for the mets in real terms unless it keeps them from doing something stupider.
   42. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:20 PM (#2246092)
Alou isn't a good player at this point in his career. He can hit still but he is a huge negative everywhere else on the diamond. Last year he was worth about 13 runs above average with the bat, but gave all of it back plus more in other aspects of his game.

I don't buy that Alou is going to be slightly below average at all. Last year in roughly two thirds of a season, Alou put up a VORP of 27.9. Dial had him at -12/150 in the field and that's prorated to 8 for two thirds of a season. That means he was worth 2 wins above replacement last year if you believe that he was twice as bad as Green in the outfield.

Alou is still a fantastic hitter and I don't think he can give that much on defense.
   43. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#2246093)
prorated to 8 for two thirds of a season.

That's supposed to be -8 runs obviously.
   44. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:27 PM (#2246096)
"Dial had him at -12/150 in the field and that's prorated to 8 for two thirds of a season."

Yeah, but that only translates to five runs above average (Using 13 runs above average in LF, which MHS and Bpro have him at). MHS obviously thinks he might lose 6-7 runs when he gets a year older. I wouldn't be surprised, although I don't know, if Moises were a bad baserunner either and probably loses more runs there.
   45. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:35 PM (#2246099)
I'm not a fan BP's fielding metrics but Alou was worth 4.6 WARP-3 last year in 2/3 of a season. If he could stay healthy, he'd definitely be worth 8.5 million. He has health/age issues which is why he isn't a bargain at that price but free agency isn't where you expect to get bargains.
   46. The District Attorney Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:52 PM (#2246108)
Well, I personally would have used the money at 2B rather than in LF, as I have more confidence in Milledge being a productive full-time starter than I do in Valentin (but would be quite happy with Valentin as a supersub.) If they can get something for Milledge that justifies giving up a top-25 prospect who is under contract cheap for several years, then I'll be out of second-guesses.
   47. Mister High Standards Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:52 PM (#2246109)
Russlan - 2 wins above replacement in those number of outs is likely below average.

And he is a poor baserunner.

If he is replacing Greens at bats its an ok move. If he is replacing Endy Chavez or Milledge it is more likly than not just running in place.

He would have made more sense to an team that could hide him in the field a little better. Houston, Oakland, Detoit (prior to sheffield), Toronto (prior to Thomas), Philidephia, or STL (smaller outfields than Shea).

I don't think that makes them worse, just doesn't really help them much either. If they were definitly going to sign a corner bat, this likly wasn't the best option cost efficient option either as I thin Dellucci and Nixon are better players right now.
   48. Sam M. Posted: November 26, 2006 at 09:03 PM (#2246112)
I don't think that makes them worse, just doesn't really help them much either.

The idea of using both Green and Alou in the OF surrounding Beltran frightens me to death. The notion that it will somehow be OK because they will go to Chavez for late-inning defense is not nearly satisfactory -- six or seven innings of sub-par defense in the corners is going to hurt their pitchers and ultimately put a physical strain on Beltran. For that reason, I am actually comforted by my conviction that there is little likelihood that Alou and Green will each get 600 PAs, and almost no chance they both will. Chavez is going to get a lot more than just a couple of defensive innings a night when the Mets are ahead.

The bottom line, though, is that they HAD to increase their options in the OF, because they need to be in a position six weeks from now to deal Milledge if all else fails in the quest to add a starter. Alou might not have been the best choice, but he was a fairly reasonable one on a one-year contract.
   49. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: November 26, 2006 at 09:15 PM (#2246124)
Well, I personally would have used the money at 2B rather than in LF, as I have more confidence in Milledge being a productive full-time starter than I do in Valentin

On whom exactly? The 2b options out there are pretty mediocre. Julio Lugo might be better than Valentin, but does the upgrade really justify the cost? Stache proved last year that he can play second base with the best of them, and even in a bad year, I think he has enough power and plate discipline to be a pretty productive 8th hole hitter.

As for the Alou thing, well we needed a 6th hole hitter, and Moises sure can do that. The guy can flat out rake, and I'm guessing that if he continues to be productive on offense (and I think he will), the Mets will live with his defense. The problem really is Green. I'm sure by June Randolph will be pissed with his offense/defense combo, and we will start seeing an Alou-Beltran-Chavez OF on a regular basis.
   50. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 26, 2006 at 09:17 PM (#2246127)
If they were definitly going to sign a corner bat, this likly wasn't the best option cost efficient option either as I thin Dellucci and Nixon are better players right now.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. First, both of those guys have to be platooned as neither can hit lefthanders, something the Mets struggled with last year and something they really needed to address. Trot Nixon can't stay healthy and he only posted a .767 OPS last year in a much friendlier environment.

Dellucci has posted some fine numbers and I wouldn't have minded picking him up at a lower price but he needs to be platooned and his fine defensive numbers are in a very small sample.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.
   51. The District Attorney Posted: November 26, 2006 at 09:41 PM (#2246142)
Yeah, I'd rather have Lugo than Alou given the rest of the Mets' roster, and if we wanted to give a short contract to an older guy, I'd have preferred Ray Durham. Plus there are other ways to get players besides FA, obviously. I have no big objection to Alou, though; it's not a bad contract IMO (who knows, could turn out to be a lot better than whatever Lugo and Durham are gonna get), and if he stays healthy, it seems likely that he'll earn it. The main way it could screw us up is most likely not because of anything Alou, Lugo or Durham do, but if it prompts a sell-low dump of Milledge.

It certainly does seem like given the rest of the lineup, the regular LF would have to be a righty hitter. BTW, don't be surprised if Alou hits 4th rather than 6th. Again, I have no big problem with it, but, that would be what I would expect.
   52. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 26, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#2246146)
The main way it could screw us up is most likely not because of anything Alou, Lugo or Durham do, but if it prompts a sell-low dump of Milledge.

If the Mets trade Milledge, it will have little to do with Alou. Alou's 41 years old and Green is not signed past this year. These two aren't long term answers.
   53. Sam M. Posted: November 26, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#2246147)
There won't be a "sell-low dump of Milledge." If Milledge is traded, it will be for pitching value. There is no reason whatsoever Minaya can't simply hold onto him, playing in New Orleans, rather than just give Milledge away. I don't think you can name a single player Omar has simply dumped for nothing -- even Benson, who had a pretty bad contract and an even worse spouse.
   54. Ravecc Posted: November 27, 2006 at 04:18 PM (#2246456)
Because they made an agreement with him mid-season 2006, and they honored it. Period. In return for him giving back some $$$, they made these faux "options" for 2007 which both sides agreed they would not exercise, so that Glavine would have the freedom to decide where he would play next season.


Yeah, Omar has made it clear Jeff Wilpon is driving the Glavine bus. I may not agree with the decision to decline Tommy’s option, but I have to admire them sticking to their word in the midst of a changed market. It wasn’t like they wanted to sell Tommy off for spare parts, like Sheffield was, but Tommy said the magic word (“family”) and the Wilpons bent over backwards to accommodate him. I hope Tommy appreciates all this and if he comes back, he better not sign for more than the $11m net cost to the Mets if they had picked up his option.

What puzzles me is why the Mets needed to restructure Glavine’s contract in the first place. They had a reasonable payroll, had just successfully launched a new network without the angst of YES, pulling in fans in large numbers and were virtually assured of the postseason. What did they need the extra $$$’s that Glavine gave back for?
   55. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 27, 2006 at 07:34 PM (#2246600)
In an attempt to spark discussion, what would you guys give up for John Patterson? Keep in mind that he missed most of last season with a forearm injury but is expected to be 100% for Opening Day next season. I love Patterson's talent but he is going to be 29 years old next season and he's only had one great year. That being said, he won't be a free agent until after the 2009 season and is talented enough to be an excellent front of the rotation starter.
   56. Mister High Standards Posted: November 27, 2006 at 07:47 PM (#2246610)
I wouldn't expect the Nationals to trade Patterson. It would be very short sited on their part as they have a dire need to for impact players on either side of the ball. Patterson is one of the few the Nationals have control of who might be such a player.
   57. Dan Broderick Posted: November 27, 2006 at 07:54 PM (#2246613)
I really don't think Patterson is a good match for this team since he gets hurt all the time. What the 2007 Mets need is a reliable front line starter (AKA Barry Zito) who can almost be guaranteed to give the team 200 above average innings. Patterson at this point is a lottery ticket and we already have a bunch of those.

That said, (to paraphrase Whitey) if the Nats want to give Patterson away, I'd take him. But I don't think the Mets should give up anything too valuable for him.

On the Glavine issue, the longer he remains unsigned I think the better our chances are of bringing him back. It is apparent that he wants to return to Atlanta but Atlanta's pursuit has been less than urgent. I hope (assume) the Mets have an offer out there and Glavine can't/won't wait forever. Nothing wrong with being the second choice.
   58. Sam M. Posted: November 27, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#2246624)
On the Glavine issue, the longer he remains unsigned I think the better our chances are of bringing him back. It is apparent that he wants to return to Atlanta but Atlanta's pursuit has been less than urgent.

There's nothing to be optimistic about in the way it's unfolded, at least not yet. Glavine made it clear he wasn't going to make any decisions about where he wants to be until after his Thanksgiving weekend vacation with his family. The Mets honored that and are waiting for word from him -- and the Braves may be, too. When he decides where he wants to be, I assume he'll begin talks with that team as step one.
   59. Raskolnikov Posted: November 27, 2006 at 08:06 PM (#2246628)
Actually, I like Patterson more than Willis. I agree that he would not be enough to anchor this rotation for next year. In order of preference, it would go:

1) Sheets
2) Peavy
3) Patterson
4) Willis


Also, the Mets might want to save their trading chips for midseason if Zambrano is still not extended and becomes available. Now I'll leave before the barrage of Cub posters arrive telling me that Zambrano will absolutely be extended by spring training.
   60. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 27, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#2246629)
I wouldn't expect the Nationals to trade Patterson. It would be very short sited on their part as they have a dire need to for impact players on either side of the ball. Patterson is one of the few the Nationals have control of who might be such a player.


FWIW and it really ain't worth that much, but Gotham Baseball has said that Bowden offered Patterson straight up for Milledge and Minaya said no.

A year ago, I would have happily traded Milledge for Patterson. The thing is, the market for starting pitchers is just crazy right now that guys like Padilla, Meche, Lilly, guys who don't have the upside of Patterson, are going to get 30+ million. In that kind of market, a guy who is three years away from free agency and will likely make less than 10 million dollars over that period are especially valuable.
   61. depletion Posted: November 27, 2006 at 08:19 PM (#2246640)
I was thinking about the Mets getting Patterson as he was coming back from the DL. He didn't inspire confidence after his return (didn't he go back out again?). I don't think he's worth much at all until he shows a month of decent ML work. It might have been a good trade at some point last year, but not now. If I'm Bowden, I do that trade unless they really think Milledge is too much of an idiot. Manny Acta ought to know the truth in this matter, so DC has an edge over most other clubs in their pre-trade intelliegence.
   62. Dan Broderick Posted: November 27, 2006 at 08:24 PM (#2246643)
Glavine made it clear he wasn't going to make any decisions about where he wants to be until after his Thanksgiving weekend vacation with his family.

Well it's 2:24 on the Monday after Thanksgiving so things are looking up :)
   63. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 27, 2006 at 09:20 PM (#2246689)
1) Sheets
2) Peavy


I can't imagine any reason why those two would be traded by their teams.

I doubt the Nats trade Patterson without getting a pretty good return, but I doubt someone gives up something that good to get him.
   64. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 27, 2006 at 09:39 PM (#2246704)
Even if the Nationals do want to trade Patterson, you'd think they'd wait until he shows he's healthy. Teams will give up more if they know he's fully recovered.
   65. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 27, 2006 at 09:41 PM (#2246705)
This seems like as good a place as any to post this.

I was looking at Heilman's stats as a reliever, and I knew he was good, but I didn't know he was that good;

154.2 IP, 2.97 ERA (143 ERA+), 122 H, 146/53 K/BB, 6 HR! And he's only allowed a .589 OPS.
   66. billyshears Posted: November 27, 2006 at 10:14 PM (#2246745)
FWIW and it really ain't worth that much, but Gotham Baseball has said that Bowden offered Patterson straight up for Milledge and Minaya said no.

I actually find that very tempting. Patterson's health record is very scary, but I think he has the potential to be an ace. If you wait to make the deal and Patterson proves that he is healthy, Milledge won't be enough to get it done.
   67. Raskolnikov Posted: November 27, 2006 at 10:35 PM (#2246768)
Even if the Nationals do want to trade Patterson, you'd think they'd wait until he shows he's healthy. Teams will give up more if they know he's fully recovered.

I actually find that very tempting. Patterson's health record is very scary, but I think he has the potential to be an ace. If you wait to make the deal and Patterson proves that he is healthy, Milledge won't be enough to get it done.


I do like Patterson a lot, although how do you know that this isn't Washington selling its Enron stock early?

The other player that would be undervalued on that squad would be Ryan Church, although I don't know whose doghouse he was in for the past 2 years.
   68. Sam M. Posted: November 27, 2006 at 10:56 PM (#2246778)
If I'm Bowden, I do that trade unless they really think Milledge is too much of an idiot. Manny Acta ought to know the truth in this matter, so DC has an edge over most other clubs in their pre-trade intelliegence.

And you know what? That is a great point, and that in and of itself makes me more confident about Milledge. If the rumor is true that Bowden sought to acquire Milledge, and if it came after they hired Acta, then it indicates something meaningful about one insider's view of Milledge's alleged character issues and their long-term significance. Now, maybe Acta just has bad judgment in such things, but I tend to think it's quite a good sign that the first thing he said when he got there was (evidently) NOT, "Stay the heck away from Milledge. He's bad news."
   69. Astro-Bonilla Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:04 AM (#2246992)

Alou isn't a good player at this point in his career. He can hit still but he is a huge negative everywhere else on the diamond. Last year he was worth about 13 runs above average with the bat, but gave all of it back plus more in other aspects of his game. I would expect him to be slightly below average next year, with a overall value likly similar to Endy Chavez at this point. In other words I don't see this as an improvement for the mets in real terms unless it keeps them from doing something stupider.

1. Last season a league average starting player went for about 9 million, and the market is way up this year. If he is league average this is a good signing.
2. I don't see any reason to project Chavez as being as good as he was last year. You have to count 04-05 into the projection for 07...
   70. Raskolnikov Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:32 AM (#2247011)
Via Metsblog and Gotham Baseball, the Mets are close to resigning Bradford to a 2 year deal.

We need to bait some other teams to sign our other arb'ed FAs and recoup some draft picks.

But I like Bradford in this pen. Let's get it done.
   71. 1k5v3L Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:38 AM (#2247013)
From BA:

NYM: Chad Bradford (A), Cliff Floyd (A), *Tom Glavine (A), Orlando Hernandez (B), Roberto Hernandez (A), Guillermo Mota (B), Darren Oliver (B), Jose Valentin (B).


The Mets re-signed Bradford, El Duque and Valentin. I really doubt they offer arbitration to Floyd. Glavine, Bert, Mota and Oliver will most likely return back to the Mets. Not sure there are tons of opportunities to re-coup those draft picks.
   72. J. Cross Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:50 AM (#2247023)
I don't think Glavine is a sure thing to return. He's said that it's 50/50 and he could certainly leave. Hopefully the Mets agreement to turn down his option doesn't mean that they won't offer arbitration. I don't think Roberto Hernandez will necessarily return (I sure hope he doesn't) but I'm not sure that the Mets can offer him arbitration. I think that they could offer Mota and Oliver arbitation and, I believe, another team could sign them without losing a pick while the Mets get a supplemental pick. If the Mets could get two supplemental picks that would make up for any picks they might lose. That said, I'll admit I'm being optimistic here. More likely the Mets don't recoup those draft picks.

Actually, this new CBA seems to encourage type B free agents to move to new teams.
   73. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: November 28, 2006 at 04:16 AM (#2247041)
New CBA rules don't apply until next offseason, so teams would still have to give up a pick to get a B free agent this year. I probably would have let Bradford go in return for picks, but I'm not going to complain at all about him coming back. There's no reason to give a multi-year deal to any of Hernandez, Mota, or Oliver, and there's also no reason to not be willing to have any/all of them back for one year, so I hope that Minaya offers them all arbitration and lets them do whatever they want. I'd take draft picks over any of them, but none of them will command more than a couple million were they to accept, and they'd all have a use in the Mets' pen. The only thing they could do that would bother me is let everyone they don't want walk without offering arbitration. Floyd is the only I wouldn't offer arbitration to at this point (though I still wish he was coming back, solely for sentimental reasons), but I think everyone is in agreement about that.
   74. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: November 28, 2006 at 06:49 AM (#2247156)
A couple of things relating to my last post. First, according to RotoWorld, it appears that Bradford is on the verge of signing a 3 year deal with the Orioles, so I guess he isn't necessarily coming back to New York. He did a great job for the Mets. If he does indeed go to Baltimore, I wish him well and hope the Mets can find another ROOGY who can be even half as good as Bradford was last year. That said, as good as he was last year, he's still only a 60-70 inning guy with a recent injury history. If you can get a sandwich pick and an early second rounder in return for that, I think it's a fairly easy decision. Minaya's had good luck finding people like him. Hopefully he can do it again.

Second, I had forgotten about Mota's suspension when I posted before. I have no idea how that affects his status with the Mets, but I would guess it probably means that he doesn't get offered arbitration.
   75. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 28, 2006 at 07:31 AM (#2247179)
Bradford's a HUGE loss in my opinion. Feliciford was an awesome tandem and the Mets bullpen needs to replace Bradford badly. At the very least, I think this means that Heilman is going to remain in the bullpen which he isn't going to be too happy about.
   76. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: November 28, 2006 at 07:41 AM (#2247187)
So much for Gotham Baseball's report on Bradford.

I don't care about the picks, btw. I'd rather have Chad. This guy is a life-saver and chances are we will never see the guys we draft in Met uniforms. I mean, seriously, does anyone care about Kevin Mulvey or that guy from San Jose State we drafted?
   77. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: November 28, 2006 at 08:02 AM (#2247191)
OFF, you are right that the chances are that the draft picks won't ever become anything. But from time to time a draft pick becomes something much more valuable than Chad Bradford could ever be. People were not very happy when Mike Hampton went to Colorado, but Mike Hampton became David Wright via draft compensation. Right now, I don't think you'd find many Mets fans complaining about that, and Hampton was far more valuable than Bradford.

Of course, I don't mean to imply that it's likely that these picks will turn into someone like Wright, or even become prospects on the level of Milledge and Pelfrey. But if it's even 10% that just one of these picks turns into a future regular for the Mets, I think it's worth giving up Bradford. And if it's even 1 or 2% that one of them becomes a David Wright, I'd do it. I'd rather be giving up Roberto Hernandez or Darren Oliver for those picks, but Bradford's OK. He's a 31 year-old middle reliever, and he could very easily lose it at any moment.

And if the Mets offer Hernandez and Oliver arbitration, and another team decides to go and sign them anyway, I'll be even happier. There's still a very strong core of Wagner, Heilman, Sanchez, and Feliciano, and I trust Minaya to fill any holes that may appear.
   78. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 28, 2006 at 08:08 AM (#2247192)
OFF, what are the chances that Joe Smith is the 2007 version of Chad Bradford? He's probably not ready as he got beat up in AA after PWNING the NYPL.

Sersiously, I agree with OFF. I'd much rather have Bradford than some third round pick.
   79. Dan Broderick Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:10 PM (#2247271)
Losing Bradford would suck and I would not mind (of course it's not my money) the Mets coughing up the extra bucks and years to keep him around. Come on Omar, get this done.
   80. Raskolnikov Posted: November 28, 2006 at 06:36 PM (#2247507)
I thought that as a type A FA, the Mets are assured of no worse than a sandwich pick for compensation for Bradford.
   81. George Washington Posted: November 29, 2006 at 02:33 PM (#2248305)
I thought that as a type A FA, the Mets are assured of no worse than a sandwich pick for compensation for Bradford.

Does somebody know the answer to this? I'm curious as well.
   82. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: November 29, 2006 at 09:45 PM (#2248529)
The Mets are getting both a sandwich pick, and the O's third rounder.
   83. CrosbyBird Posted: November 30, 2006 at 12:06 AM (#2248536)
Bradford's OK. He's a 31 year-old middle reliever, and he could very easily lose it at any moment.

This should be an interesting Peterson-Mazzone challenge. Bradford was a totally different pitcher in his two years away from Peterson, then last year, when reunited, he was back to 2002-2003 performance.

I have become convinced that Peterson is either better than average as a pitching coach, or sat on a horseshoe since coming to the Mets.
   84. Mark S. is bored Posted: November 30, 2006 at 04:30 AM (#2248545)
I thought that as a type A FA, the Mets are assured of no worse than a sandwich pick for compensation for Bradford.


From SOSH:

If Team 2 signs two Type A free agents, one from Team 1 and one from another team, the team whose free agent ranks highest by major league baseball would receive Team 2's first round pick (or second round pick if the first round pick is protected), and the other team would receive Team 2's pick for the second round (or third round if the first pick is protected). Both teams would still receive a sandwich pick after the first round.
   85. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: November 30, 2006 at 11:55 PM (#2248611)
Reports are saying that the Indians are close to signing Hernandez. I hope everyone can agree he's worth a first rounder and a sandwich pick, or whatever they end up getting for him.
   86. Raskolnikov Posted: December 01, 2006 at 12:06 AM (#2248618)
Reports are saying that the Indians are close to signing Hernandez. I hope everyone can agree he's worth a first rounder and a sandwich pick, or whatever they end up getting for him.

Let's hope that they do it before the Dec. 1st deadline. Although Shapiro is such a sneaky GM, I bet that's why they're not announcing it yet.

But Kool-Aid for a sandwich, I make that trade every time.

Two sandwiches for the Mets this offseason would be yummy.
   87. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 01, 2006 at 12:28 AM (#2248640)
Hernandez is a Type B FA, correct? Doesn't that mean the team that signs him doesn't have to give up anything? The Mets get a sandwich pick snd Cleveland doesn't give up anything.
   88. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 01, 2006 at 12:40 AM (#2248647)
Hernandez is a type A. That's actually bad news if you't want him back because no team is going to give up a pick.
   89. Raskolnikov Posted: December 01, 2006 at 12:46 AM (#2248657)
Russlan, good to see you back.

Indians are #13 in 2007 draft order, so their #1 is protected. But knowing Shapiro, he's probably waiting for the Mets to decline arbitration, so that they won't have to give up anything. The Mets have this unusual history of almost never offering arb.

Still, I hope Omar changes tack this offseason. A sandwich for Kool-Aid would be a great yield.
   90. Шĥy Posted: December 01, 2006 at 12:56 AM (#2248663)
If Hernandez hasn't signed yet, there is no way you can risk offering him arbitration.
   91. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 01, 2006 at 01:09 AM (#2248674)
What would Hernandez get in arbitration? I can't imagine it's more than $3-4 million. If he were to accept, it would only be a one year commitment, and the Mets almost certainly wouldn't be harmed by using him as the 4th or 5th guy out of the pen. Even if he hasn't signed yet, I think they should offer arbitration if they think there's any chance he won't accept.

That doesn't mean I think they will though. As Rask pointed out, the Mets have declined to offer arbitration in situations that seemed more obvious than this. But I still think it would be foolish to not do so.
   92. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 01, 2006 at 01:14 AM (#2248678)
Russlan, good to see you back.

Thank you, Rask. I hadn't relaized I had gone anywhere though. I'd rather the Mets get some picks for him but I wouldn't hate having Kool-Aid back at 2-3 million dollars either. I don't think he'd get more than that anyway in arbitration though I might be wrong about that.
   93. Raskolnikov Posted: December 01, 2006 at 01:17 AM (#2248679)
Thank you, Rask. I hadn't relaized I had gone anywhere though

I was referring to the Primer Blackout. Also known as the curse of Rob Base. Base has been banned from the site, and he told me to send his regards to you all.
   94. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 01, 2006 at 01:24 AM (#2248688)
Has Base been permanently or is he just suspended?
   95. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 01, 2006 at 01:37 AM (#2248697)
Base got banned? why? constant squabbling with levski?
   96. 1k5v3L Posted: December 01, 2006 at 04:40 AM (#2248802)
I had nothing to do with whatever it is that happened to Base. If you want details, ask Furtado.

***

There is no way the Indians sign Kool-Aid before the arb deadline. Rubin of Newsday wrote on his blog that the Mets aren't going to offer arbitration to Kool-Aid anyhow, and everyone in baseball knows about it. Shapiro is not a moron.

Fwiw, mlbtraderumors.com quotes a Mets source as saying that the Mets are shopping Brian Bannister around for a reliever. The Dbacks were interested in Bannister last year (supposedly there was talk of a Bannister for Aquino trade) but I doubt they're interested now. They've already got several guys like Bannister (or better) fighting for the last two spots in the rotation.
   97. 1k5v3L Posted: December 01, 2006 at 04:42 AM (#2248805)
Fwiw, Base squabbled with everyone who'd give him the time of day.
   98. Sam M. Posted: December 01, 2006 at 05:07 AM (#2248825)
If you want details, ask Furtado.

Well, if you really want details, Base decided to share them (and his correspondence with Jim Furtado) on Metsgeek.com. Go to this page, start with comment # 48:

http://www.metsgeek.com/?p=1505&cp=6#comments

He posted the correspondence with Jim in comment # 91.

I'll make no comment on it.
   99. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 01, 2006 at 05:36 AM (#2248845)
From rotoworld.com

Tom Glavine's agent said Thursday he hadn't spoken to Braves officials since Tuesday and still had not begun contract discussions.

Glavine has told the Mets he'd have an answer for them before the winter meetings begin Monday. He could get a guaranteed two-year deal and a no-trade clause from the Mets, whereas the Braves might not do better than $7 million for one year. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution believes it's possible the Braves are looking to make a trade to free up salary before they make an offer to Glavine. However, if that's the case, they're going to have to get it done soon. Tim Hudson and Marcus Giles are the Braves most commonly mentioned in rumors.
   100. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 01, 2006 at 05:39 AM (#2248846)
I've never had a problem with Base, I hope he gets to come back.

Though I'm not surprised there have been complaints about him.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5527 seconds
47 querie(s) executed