|
="Edgy DC":2psa92ly]I still sympathize with them over how absoultely destroyed they were over the Willie Randolph firing for no good reason.
[/quote:2psa92ly]
I cannot agree with you here, Edgy. That was horribly handled. It was the right move but two weeks too late. It should have been done when the team was at home on an off day instead of flying three men across the country only to ax them a day later. You don't treat people that way.
That's one of the biggest reasons why I don't trust the Wilpon's basic intuition.
|
Edgy DC
May 07 2009 09:57 AM
|
|
Was Randolph the first manager ever to get fired on the road?
|
Mex17
May 07 2009 09:59 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 07 2009 10:06 AM
|
|
="Edgy DC":2ubkr0cl]Was Randolph the first manager ever to get fired on the road?[/quote:2ubkr0cl]
Point taken, but it could have been avoided.
More to the point, it seemed like it was not orchestrated in any way and that they were just flying by the seat of their pants with it. In a nutshell that is my worry. . .is there order in the front office/ownership group or are they just winging things? The Kazmir trade is another example (and one that pre-dates Omar). . .rumor has it that Al Goldis was playing Iago to Wilpon's Othello by telling him that that team was good enough to make a run for it that season (not true) and as a result Duqette's long term plan, not to mention his authority, was undermined on a whim.
|
RealityChuck
May 07 2009 09:59 AM
|
|
The Wilpons do make a lot of PR errors, which can be disastrous in NYC, but which would only be a minor problem elsewhere.
Besides, were they the ones who objected to Gooden's writing on the wall, or was it some other Mets official? It seems that whenever the Mets have a PR screw up, everyone blames the Wilpons, even though it might have been a lower level official who made it.
In any case, the Wilpons made a lot of mistakes when they first took over, but since hiring Minyana, they've been far less a disaster. They seem to be slowly learning how to run the club, and have certainly been serious about putting a contender on the field.
As for the occasional claim that they're not willing to spend money (like on Manny*), it's pure cognitive dissonance. Fans complain about the high salaries being paid to ballplayers, unless it's their team, in which case the team is made up of cheapskates. But you can't have both.
*Yes, I read the news today. Oh, boy.
|
Ashie62
May 07 2009 04:59 PM
|
|
The Wilpons seem to be timid decision makers and maybe delegate too much to Omar.
The Wilpons want to win, I just believe Omar is the wrong guy
|
Edgy DC
May 07 2009 05:34 PM
|
|
="Mex17":3bav0pdv]="Edgy DC":3bav0pdv]Was Randolph the first manager ever to get fired on the road?[/quote:3bav0pdv]
Point taken, but it could have been avoided.
More to the point, it seemed like it was not orchestrated in any way and that they were just flying by the seat of their pants with it. In a nutshell that is my worry. . .is there order in the front office/ownership group or are they just winging things? The Kazmir trade is another example (and one that pre-dates Omar). . .rumor has it that Al Goldis was playing Iago to Wilpon's Othello by telling him that that team was good enough to make a run for it that season (not true) and as a result Duqette's long term plan, not to mention his authority, was undermined on a whim.[/quote:3bav0pdv]
I don't think there's any evidence that Randolph was fired on a whim. It had been speculated on for weeks, and he seemed helplessly a-dangle for much of that time.
Al Goldis is simply gone. I think all reports show suggest that Jeff Wilpon learned enough from that incident to hire a talent evaluator to GM his team, and not let any underlings circumvent him.
|
Ashie62
May 07 2009 06:15 PM
|
|
I don't see how Randolph was fired on a whim. It seemed long, drawn out, ruminated over and done as a last resort
|
Frayed Knot
May 07 2009 07:01 PM
|
|
| ="Ashie62"]The Wilpons seem to be timid decision makers and maybe delegate too much to Omar.
The Wilpons want to win, I just believe Omar is the wrong guy |
Owners get into more trouble when they don't delegate authority, or when they do but then override decisions made by the guy(s) who are supposedly in the job because for their judgement for that position.
If you think Omar is the wrong guy then advocate for getting rid of him rather than having him neutered but remain as a figure-head.
|
Mex17
May 08 2009 03:36 AM
|
|
I meant to imply that the Kazmir trade was based upon a whim.
The Randolph firing was not but it was executed like a Chinese Fire Drill.
|
Frayed Knot
May 08 2009 07:27 AM
|
|
I don't know that it was a whim, but the Kazmir trade was a classic example of exactly what some (though not necessarily you) advocate: ownership overriding their GM - or at least applying group pressure to - to make a major deal which he may not have made on his own. On top of that you can throw in the bureaucratic creakiness that occurs whenever there are multiple minds involved making it more difficult to reverse a decision like that as the circumstances for it change. In the Kazmir case it was the Mets losing a bunch in a row between the time the decision was apparently made but before the trigger was pulled which made the "we're only 1-game out - Let's go for it!" mindset seem silly once they were suddenly 6 games out and floundering (or whatever the exact conditions were).
The biggest complaint about the Randolph firing involved the hour of the day - a silly notion when you consider it was west coast time and where midnight is a perfectly normal post-game wrap-up hour for a business that often conducts itself from 7PM to 10. That east-coast based sportswriters were inconvenienced by the timing and their morning editions out of date by the time they were published in this internet age shouldn't be a concern of the GM.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
May 09 2009 04:20 PM
|
|
="Frayed Knot":2e7xx8gm]
And speaking of desperation deadline deals, how'd that Jason Kidd swap work out?[/quote:2e7xx8gm]
Point of fact: The Mavs are doing quite nicely with Kidd co-helming this year. Had they given up something else passable (draft pick-plus-Barea... or even Terry) instead of Devin Harris, they 'win' the trade, hands-down.
Point of fact dos: With even slightly less iffy refereeing-- Wade got a level of star treatment in the Finals that Jordan never did-- they win the championship in 2006.
Point of fact tres: Thanks to a number of factors (including the lottery and a more punitive luxury tax), maintaining "consistently good/not great" seems to have a slightly higher degree of difficulty to it in the NBA than in a comparable situation in MLB (if not quite as tough as in a hard-cap league like the NFL).
My larger point is, Cuban's not only done a credible job, he helped turn Dallas from inconsequential to a destination franchise in its league and its city-- wresting a decent share of attention away from the 'Boys in Texas is an achievement in and of itself. FWIW, his presence as a Met owner would almost guarantee more ink/airtime.
|
Kong76
May 09 2009 04:38 PM
|
|
Kazmir, Randolph, Gooden scribbles, Jeffie ... *yawn*
We left out Arod. Seems the torches just never go out for some.
|
Frayed Knot
May 09 2009 05:48 PM
|
|
| ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]The Mavs are doing quite nicely with Kidd co-helming this year. Had they given up something else passable instead of Devin Harris, they 'win' the trade, hands-down. |
IOW, had they made a different trade then the one they did it would have been more in their favor. Ummm, OK.
My point was (and I'm not a hoops-head - the "correct me if I'm wrong" line was serious not just a figure of speech) that the Kidd trade was the same sort of youth for experience 'win now' maneuver as the Kazmir trade was and had a similar not good enough in the short run AND detrimental in the long run outcome that the beginning of the thread complained about.
OK it certainly wasn't AS bad but I suspect this grass-is-greener 'if we change owners those things won't happen anymore' attitude is more wishful thinking than anything.
| ]My larger point is, Cuban's not only done a credible job, he helped turn Dallas from inconsequential to a destination franchise in its league and its city-- wresting a decent share of attention away from the 'Boys in Texas is an achievement in and of itself. FWIW, his presence as a Met owner would almost guarantee more ink/airtime. |
I'm not anti-Cuban - I don't really have much of an opinion about him one way or the other. He could be fine and I certainly don't like MLB black-balling him (if they truly are). But owner-generated ink is the last thing I care about. Plus, just like MFY fans are now longing for the days when George would DEMAND!!!! changes now that they're floundering even as they cite his lack of interference as a huge factor during their late-'90s salad days, Cuban's type of 'Look at Me!' meddling would be seen as cute and inspirational during winning times but irksome and destructive if they're not. I mean Jeez, people don't like it now when Jeffie even gets quoted in the papers, imagine if he went running on the field?!?
|
Edgy DC
May 09 2009 06:39 PM
|
|
| ]My larger point is, Wilpon's not only done a credible job, he helped turn the Mets from inconsequential to a destination franchise in its league and its city-- wresting a decent share of attention away from the Yanks in the Bronx is an achievement in and of itself. |
|
batmagadanleadoff
May 09 2009 07:07 PM
|
|
I thought that it was primarily Wilpon that once turned the Mets into an inconsequential franchise. I'm not giving him any credit for cleaning up the crap that he made.
|
Kong76
May 09 2009 07:31 PM
|
|
bmags: I thought that it was primarily Wilpon that once turned the Mets into an inconsequential franchise <<<
You did? What year did you start thinking that?
|
batmagadanleadoff
May 09 2009 07:42 PM
|
|
| ="Kong76"]bmags: I thought that it was primarily Wilpon that once turned the Mets into an inconsequential franchise <<<
You did? What year did you start thinking that? |
After it happened.
|
Kong76
May 09 2009 07:45 PM
|
|
Hard to answer direct questions when you're just a smoke blower.
|
batmagadanleadoff
May 09 2009 07:55 PM
|
|
During Wilpon's entire stint as owner (minor, major and middle), the Mets have always been the wealthiest team in the NL. The Mets didn't just start to roll in the money a few years ago after the SNY revenue began to accrue. And they don't compete with the Yankees, at least tactically, for more than six games a season -- and even then, only since '97.
So who's to blame for the years of bad GM's, bad managers and bad long term planning; the Harazins and Torborgs; the team's inability to parlay the city of NY as a magnet to attract star players. Where should've the buck stopped? The buck stopped at Wilpon's pocket, I say.
What's the difference when I knew?
|
Kong76
May 09 2009 08:01 PM
|
|
Why couldn't you just explain yourself the first time?
|
Edgy DC
May 09 2009 08:03 PM
|
|
Come on. You made more sense when you were using circular reasoning. Do you really want to get into this wealthiest team stuff? Do you really have any idea who produced the most broadcast revenue in 1982? I don't.
It's certainly a far cry from the contention that "it was primarily Wilpon that once turned the Mets into an inconsequential franchise."
|
batmagadanleadoff
May 09 2009 08:06 PM
|
|
Because you asked me when I knew, not what I knew. And when I knew is an irrelevant side issue. Besides, you don't need me to tell you that Brooks and Coleman as 2/3 of your outfield is more liability than asset and that Butch Huskey is not the messiah. Let me ask you: Do you like Wilpon? And if so ... always?
|
Kong76
May 09 2009 08:08 PM
|
|
doc g wannabe
|
Edgy DC
May 09 2009 08:10 PM
|
|
You really want to cherry pick from 1991?
|
batmagadanleadoff
May 09 2009 08:12 PM
|
|
I'm not sure what 1982 has to do with Wilpon. He was a five percent owner in 1982, probably scheming to figure out how to wrest majority control away from Nelson. Doubleday ran the operation. Cashen was the GM. And the Mets were one year away from laying the foundation that would eventually establish them as the best franchise, top to bottom, in all of MLB. I've got no complaints about 1982. In 1982, the Mets were cleaning their predecessor's mess, not their own mess.
|
batmagadanleadoff
May 09 2009 08:13 PM
|
|
="Edgy DC":rvcaw5h0]You really want to cherry pick from 1991?[/quote:rvcaw5h0]
That was one example. I'm not limited to 1991. Trust me.
|
Edgy DC
May 09 2009 08:27 PM
|
|
So what? It's ridiculous. And we're far outside of the comparison to/contrast with Mark Cuban territory.
|
Kong76
May 09 2009 08:28 PM
|
|
bmags: I'm not sure what 1982 has to do with Wilpon. He was a five percent owner in 1982, probably scheming to figure out how to wrest majority control away from Nelson. Doubleday ran the operation. Cashen was the GM. And the Mets were one year away from laying the foundation that would eventually establish them as the best franchise, top to bottom, in all of MLB. I've got no complaints about 1982. In 1982, the Mets were cleaning their predecessor's mess, not their own mess <<<
This is getting funny. You won't answer direct questions but you offer answers
to questions no one in the thread asked.
Classic.
|
Kong76
May 09 2009 08:31 PM
|
|
Got excited, forgot about Edge's b'cast revenue part ... uh, I think I'll go
tuck myself in.
|
batmagadanleadoff
May 09 2009 08:34 PM
|
|
| ="Kong76"]bmags: I'm not sure what 1982 has to do with Wilpon. He was a five percent owner in 1982, probably scheming to figure out how to wrest majority control away from Nelson. Doubleday ran the operation. Cashen was the GM. And the Mets were one year away from laying the foundation that would eventually establish them as the best franchise, top to bottom, in all of MLB. I've got no complaints about 1982. In 1982, the Mets were cleaning their predecessor's mess, not their own mess <<<
This is getting funny. You won't answer direct questions but you offer answers
to questions no one in the thread asked.
Classic. |
I thought that there was a comment in there about 1982:
| ="Edgy DC"]Come on. You made more sense when you were using circular reasoning. Do you really want to get into this wealthiest team stuff? Do you really have any idea who produced the most broadcast revenue in 1982? I don't. |
What am I avoiding? I'm not hot on Wilpon.
|
Edgy DC
May 09 2009 08:39 PM
|
|
Well, you're avoiding the two questions you quote me asking, for starters.
|
Edgy DC
May 09 2009 08:41 PM
|
|
And you're the one who brought up "major, minor, and middle," so 1982 doesn't come out of nowhere.
|
batmagadanleadoff
May 09 2009 08:42 PM
|
|
="Edgy DC":lcs9vupn]Well, you're avoiding the two questions you quote me asking, for starters.[/quote:lcs9vupn]
What's the question? That I used circular reasoning (according to you)? At least you didn't jump straight ahead to the part where you're mortally wounded because of some opinion I hold.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
May 09 2009 09:27 PM
|
|
="Frayed Knot":1ol7vfix]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":1ol7vfix]The Mavs are doing quite nicely with Kidd co-helming this year. Had they given up something else passable instead of Devin Harris, they 'win' the trade, hands-down.[/quote:1ol7vfix]
IOW, had they made a different trade then the one they did it would have been more in their favor. Ummm, OK.
My point was (and I'm not a hoops-head - the "correct me if I'm wrong" line was serious not just a figure of speech) that the Kidd trade was the same sort of youth for experience 'win now' maneuver as the Kazmir trade was and had a similar not good enough in the short run AND detrimental in the long run outcome that the beginning of the thread complained about. [/quote:1ol7vfix]
Fair enough about my apparent if-heavy suggestion-- I just meant that the trade wasn't terrible in conception, as a few critics argued at the time it was made, and many, MANY more argued just after Devin Harris started putting up all-star numbers (something that is MUCH easier to do, by the way, on a crap team).
It was very much a "win-now" deal, but not quite the same way as a prospects-for-star-player deal might be in baseball; moreso than in baseball-- where the game is structured around one-on-one confrontations and the players (counting stats and relatively minor stat noise from defense/home park aside) perform largely independent of context-- basketball personnel moves are made with heavy regard to style of play and how it meshes with the extant team concept (assuming there is one). Cuban seems to very much buy into the championship potential of his core-- Nowitzki, Howard, Terry-- and as such, seeks players who amplify their performance. (You can make a case for this as fools' errand or perfectly plausible fairly easily.) Even if fully blossomed, Harris was not going to lead this particular team anywhere anytime soon, and Cuban does seem very much committed to this particular team. Aged and limited though it may be, Kidd's skillset is that of a true point guard-- directing the offense, spearheading ball movement and off-the-ball movement by the other players-- and Harris isn't that guy (he's more of a combo guard, and gets virtually all of his assists on slash-and-kick play).
I do largely agree with you about look-at-me ownerism (as I believe most Forum members would); there are some to whom that matters, and more than a few semi-reasonable Met-following folk I know have made decent arguments to me for a more media-savvy owner.
|
Edgy DC
May 10 2009 05:13 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 10 2009 05:25 AM
|
|
="batmagadanleadoff":2e78h988]="Edgy DC":2e78h988]Well, you're avoiding the two questions you quote me asking, for starters.[/quote:2e78h988]
What's the question? That I used circular reasoning (according to you)? At least you didn't jump straight ahead to the part where you're mortally wounded because of some opinion I hold.[/quote:2e78h988]
Thanks for making up shit. Again.
Questions? You just quoted them. "Do you really want to get into this wealthiest team stuff? Do you really have any idea who produced the most broadcast revenue in 1982? I don't."
Circular reasoning:
<blockquote>"I thought that it was primarily Wilpon that once turned the Mets into an inconsequential franchise."
"You did? What year did you start thinking that?"
"After it happened."</blockquote>Now, you may enjoy the game of jerking people in circles and making up shit. I don't and I'm not interested in playing along. So how about letting up? The team is on a winning streak.
|
Benjamin Grimm
May 10 2009 05:21 AM
|
|
I do sometimes detect the smell of salamanders around here.
Anyway, speaking of Mets ownership, this letter appeared in the Daily News' "Voice of the People" this morning:
| ]Amazin' history
Hobe Sound, Fla.: I commend Bill Gallo for his fine article on Mets of the past and thank him for including my mother, Mets founder Joan Whitney Payson ("Something's missing in the Citi," April 19). May the spirit of Shea Stadium stay alive at Citi Field.
John Whitney Payson |
|
Edgy DC
May 10 2009 05:26 AM
|
|
I appreciate John's position, but he appeared to want little to do with the team and continuing his mother's legacy when she left him a cut of it.
|
Frayed Knot
May 10 2009 06:44 AM
|
|
| ]I do largely agree with you about look-at-me ownerism (as I believe most Forum members would); there are some to whom that matters, and more than a few semi-reasonable Met-following folk I know have made decent arguments to me for a more media-savvy owner. |
I have nothing against better media-savvy. It's just that when fans (and I realize this isn't your only objective) support moves - whether they're player, manager or front office related - and spout as their primary objective for doing so as, "it'll get us more backpage headlines" then they probably need to rethink their reasoning, or at least add to it.
|
MFS62
May 10 2009 07:55 AM
|
|
| ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]
Fair enough about my apparent if-heavy suggestion-- I just meant that the trade wasn't terrible in conception, as a few critics argued at the time it was made, and many, MANY more argued just after Devin Harris started putting up all-star numbers (something that is MUCH easier to do, by the way, on a crap team).
|
Sorry for getting to the party late.
Sometimes on a long thread, I look at the last page posts, then try to figure out when had been posted before. Then, if the thread seems interesting, I start at the beginning.
This seemed like an interesting one, until I saw what I've bolded above.
Memo to Leiteretc, don't throw my team under a bus, especially since it seems like your team has been looking for a true point guard since they drafted Dean Meminger to fill that role.
You may now return to your discussion.
Later
|
Elster88
May 10 2009 09:16 AM
|
|
| ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]
Fair enough about my apparent if-heavy suggestion-- I just meant that the trade wasn't terrible in conception, as a few critics argued at the time it was made, and many, MANY more argued just after Devin Harris started putting up all-star numbers (something that is MUCH easier to do, by the way, on a crap team).
|
Many, many more? How many is that? Do you have percentages/ratios? Can you quote articles?
|
Farmer Ted
May 15 2009 10:23 AM
|
|
If the Wilpons are going to take a beating for the Citi sponsorship "fiasco", spread the criticism south to Philly and Jeffrey Lurie.
Lincoln Financial Group has received preliminary approval for a $2.5 billion injection from the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
May 15 2009 11:26 AM
|
|
="Elster88"]| ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]
Fair enough about my apparent if-heavy suggestion-- I just meant that the trade wasn't terrible in conception, as a few critics argued at the time it was made, and many, MANY more argued just after Devin Harris started putting up all-star numbers (something that is MUCH easier to do, by the way, on a crap team).
|
Many, many more? How many is that? Do you have percentages/ratios? Can you quote articles? |
Percentages/ratios as far as numbers of articles? For serious?
Vescey, Chad Ford and a sea of TV color guys, to name a few. Point is, the trade was much more resoundly crapped on after the fact-- I think the server for Basketball-Opinions-Reference.com is down this week, so I'll have to get back to you on the numbers.
I'll tell you this much-- Cuban's gone down several notches in my eyes after the Denver-Dallas series fiasco.
|
Elster88
May 15 2009 11:15 PM
|
|
="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]="Elster88"]| ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]
Fair enough about my apparent if-heavy suggestion-- I just meant that the trade wasn't terrible in conception, as a few critics argued at the time it was made, and many, MANY more argued just after Devin Harris started putting up all-star numbers (something that is MUCH easier to do, by the way, on a crap team).
|
Many, many more? How many is that? Do you have percentages/ratios? Can you quote articles? |
Percentages/ratios as far as numbers of articles? For serious?
Vescey, Chad Ford and a sea of TV color guys, to name a few. Point is, the trade was much more resoundly crapped on after the fact-- I think the server for Basketball-Opinions-Reference.com is down this week, so I'll have to get back to you on the numbers. |
No need to get all pissy. My point was that, though you said a few liked it but many didn't, how can you really know? I'm not sure what that translates to in real numbers since, as you sarcastically pointed out, there's no website that keeps track of it. Seems you're going on anecdotal evidence more than anything.
I've heard lots of people praise the trade. I thought it was a bad trade. Funny how I've heard people who once praised the trade are now saying that the Mavs are in trouble since they don't have a point guard that can penetrate and don't have a young point guard. Some real geniuses out there.
| ]I'll tell you this much-- Cuban's gone down several notches in my eyes after the Denver-Dallas series fiasco. |
Can't argue with that. He'd be a great owner if he'd just stay off the f-ing court. And if he didn't sit behind the bench. That's just creepy.
|
Mex17
Jul 15 2009 05:14 AM
|
|
Since the Halladay trade talk has started, I havebeen hearing a lot about the Mets barren farm system and how there is no help on the horizon nor anything to trade from the system. Technically that is Omar's fault, but the reason why am mentioning it in this old thread is because I have to wonder how exactly Omar is being held accountable for it.
Seems to me that he is not, and that is an indication of bad ownership.
|
Edgy DC
Jul 15 2009 05:36 AM
|
|
Technically, that is Omar's fault, if you believe it's true.
It also needs to be weighed against how you value what that talent was given up for --- be it minor leaguers traded for Johan Santana or the draft pick they gave up signing Francisco rodriguez.
Or, if you want to dig back futher, players given up for Delgado and LoDuca and picks given up for martinez and Beltran. Throw Church-Schneider/Milledge in there also.
|
Edgy DC
Jul 15 2009 07:21 AM
|
|
Halladay 2003 is the last guy to throw 250 innings. I'll say that for him.
I hope he stays where is and beats the Yankees six times a year.
|
smg58
Jul 15 2009 07:39 AM
|
|
If the system looks barren, it's because a lot of prospects (Murphy, Evans, Niese, Martinez) have already played at the top level. Maybe you could be critical of rushing them along or counting on them too much at this stage (none of them had even seen AAA until about this time a year ago), but I don't think it's fair to exclude those players and then say the system is thin.
John Sickels, who knows more about the minors than any NY sportswriter does, said the Mets system was in the middle of the pack and improving.
The guy to watch for in the system is Jennry Mejia. He's holding his own since the promotion to AA (3.74 ERA, 24 K's in 21 IP), and he doesn't turn 20 until October.
|
seawolf17
Jul 15 2009 07:44 AM
|
|
="Edgy DC":tzmk4ok3]I hope he stays where is and beats the Yankees six times a year.[/quote:tzmk4ok3]
Eff that. I hope he comes to the Mets and beats the Phillies six times a year. Who cares who beats the Yankees?
|
Mex17
Jul 15 2009 07:53 AM
|
|
| ="Edgy DC"]Technically, that is Omar's fault, if you believe it's true.
It also needs to be weighed against how you value what that talent was given up for --- be it minor leaguers traded for Johan Santana or the draft pick they gave up signing Francisco rodriguez.
Or, if you want to dig back futher, players given up for Delgado and LoDuca and picks given up for martinez and Beltran. Throw Church-Schneider/Milledge in there also. |
Two things. . .
1) I understand that it may not be possible to be at the top of the pack farm system-wise when you are in "win now" mode, but that does not mean that you have to be at the bottom either. I don't subscribe to Baseball America but if anyone does can they please post where they have the Mets ranked right now (say what you will about the NY tabloids and their agendas but what BA says is another matter entirely). I would say that they can be in the top 3/5th of MLB even when taking into account trading prospects in blockbusters and losing draft picks on account of FA signings. If they are below the 60th percentile then I think that someone is not doing their job.
2) The Red Sox seem to have a top notch system in spite of winning two titles this decade and remaining as one of the top teams in the league.
|
Edgy DC
Jul 15 2009 07:54 AM
|
|
I don't care about who beats the Yankees so much as who beats people for the Mets. I care that the Mets triumph on their own terms and with their own players.
If he comes here, I'll support him. Until then, he's the enemy and I view him at best with a heap of suspicion only slightly tinged with a grudging respect.
|
Frayed Knot
Jul 15 2009 07:56 AM
|
|
| ="Mex17"]Since the Halladay trade talk has started, I havebeen hearing a lot about the Mets barren farm system and how there is no help on the horizon nor anything to trade from the system. |
The pre-season assessment on the Met system, by those who pay attention to this sort of thing, was around average or a bit below (17th overall by BA for instance). A far cry from "barren" despite what you may hear from the barons of talk radio whose level of expertise generally includes having a vague idea of where one or two of the Mets farm teams are located.
| ]Technically that is Omar's fault, but the reason why am mentioning it in this old thread is because I have to wonder how exactly Omar is being held accountable for it. |
He'll be accountable for it just like he's accountable for everything else in the player development system. It'll be part of his final grade if you will.
But at the same time it's not like having a strong farm system should be an end unto itself. The goal is to have a good ML team, the farm system is merely one way to help that along. But there are also various ways to do that. So if that system is weaker at any particular moment because it's been tapped to provide players for the 2009 big league squad (Murphy, Niese, Parnell); or because others were sent away in order to fetch players from other orgs (Putz, Santana, Delgado, and virtually everyone else not named Reyes & Wright); or while still others were brought up to cover for injuries (Martinez, Evans) then the farm system is, in effect, doing its job.
What would be really stupid would be having a strong farm system while the ML team rots on the vine, an idea that reminds me a bit of the time Frank Burns was adverse to giving out the 4077's supply of excess insulin to an aid station because then "we'd have nothing to inventory".
|
smg58
Jul 15 2009 09:01 AM
|
|
="seawolf17":15pnzoax]="Edgy DC":15pnzoax]I hope he stays where is and beats the Yankees six times a year.[/quote:15pnzoax]
Eff that. I hope he comes to the Mets and beats the Phillies six times a year. Who cares who beats the Yankees?[/quote:15pnzoax]
I hope he beats the Phillies six times and the Yankees twice.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Jul 15 2009 09:42 AM
|
|
="smg58":2jjhq1hq]The guy to watch for in the system is Jennry Mejia. He's holding his own since the promotion to AA (3.74 ERA, 24 K's in 21 IP), and he doesn't turn 20 until October.[/quote:2jjhq1hq]
And he'll be in Triple-A by then, and in the majors by mid-next year, and "flamed out" by September, and traded in October.
Then he'll be an All-Star.
[And the system also looks barren because its high-ceiling guys-- Martinez aside-- aren't the ones who've seen major-league time. (Compare Evans, Murphy and Niese to Alvarez, Bard, Buchholz, Jayson Heyward, Feliz, McCutchens, Buster Posey or any of the Giant pitchers.)
|
Benjamin Grimm
Jul 15 2009 09:47 AM
|
|
Buster Posey?
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Jul 15 2009 09:58 AM
|
|
="Benjamin Grimm":2fume5nr]Buster Posey?[/quote:2fume5nr]
Giants catching prospect with live arm (he pitched in college), great batting eye and stroke. Could probably be a good backup in the majors right now.
|
Edgy DC
Jul 15 2009 10:06 AM
|
|
I doubt any of the OBGYN columinists who've declared barren-ness the last week or so know crap about the Giants' system.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Jul 15 2009 10:19 AM
|
|
="Edgy DC":2sv7tji6]I doubt any of the OBGYN columinists who've declared barren-ness the last week or so know crap about the Giants' system.[/quote:2sv7tji6]
Hell, I doubt they know crap about the Giants beyond Lincecum (maybe).
To those who actually do pay attention, though, the fact that we've got a bit of a Dannon system-- fruit on the bottom-- is a valid sticking point, and a big reason the system as a whole doesn't grade out higher.
|
Frayed Knot
Jul 15 2009 12:03 PM
|
|
| ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]To those who actually do pay attention, though, the fact that we've got a bit of a Dannon system-- fruit on the bottom-- is a valid sticking point, and a big reason the system as a whole doesn't grade out higher. |
True, the best ones (aside from Martinez) in terms of high ceiling are generally further away. That's also a reason why some* hear the phrase; 'no one ready to step in now' and translate that into "barren" since for teams wanting a haul of ML-ready players in exchange for their Halladays or Hollidays there's not a match in the Met system.
* Francesa, just to name one, has been dismissing Fartinez for about two years now based on the reasoning that; 'if he was any good he'd be here already'
|
Edgy DC
Jul 15 2009 12:09 PM
|
|
Because there are so many 18-year-olds in the league.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Jul 15 2009 03:21 PM
|
|
Thought someone would have mentioned this-- yipes:
| ]I never met him, never talked to him. We’d get the monthly statement. He was kind of like a mystery man. He’d turn down people. My brother said, ‘Can I get to invest with him?’—he turned him down. I think that added to the mystique.” King mentions that the man who got King with Madoff, New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon, lost $700 million. “Freddie says he’s not angry,” King says, “he’s betrayed.” |
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?i ... pageNum=12
So... we're not going to be buyers at the deadline, then?
|
Mex17
Jul 24 2009 04:05 PM
|
|
And now the new Bernazard things. . .with the reports that he probaby will not get the ax because he is "Jeff's guy". . .along with Phillips commenting on the "collegial atmosphere" and how it does not work for the team.
I'm just gonna keep collecting my evidence in this thread I guess.
|
metirish
Jul 26 2009 07:57 AM
|
|
Steve Phillips: The most trusted name in baseball.
|
Nymr83
Jul 26 2009 08:22 AM
|
|
Steve Phillips: The most trusted name in <strike>baseball</strike> Met-bashing.
|
Mex17
Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM
|
|
He may have a point regardless.
Overly-lenient parents usually result in disobedient children.
|
metirish
Jul 26 2009 10:02 AM
|
|
Steveo certainly had a fun time working there , at least until he was dragged into court.
|
Mex17
Jul 26 2009 11:04 AM
|
|
="metirish":2bhds3vd]Steveo certainly had a fun time working there , at least until he was dragged into court.[/quote:2bhds3vd]
With all due respect, you're still ducking the issue.
Tabloid sensationalism and personal agenas from critics notwithstanding, there is too much smoke around this front office/ownership group to ignore the presense of a fire.
|
Kong76
Jul 26 2009 11:15 AM
|
|
It's largely your issue (here), people don't need to entertain it if they don't want to.
|
Valadius
Jul 26 2009 03:09 PM
|
|
I'm just scared what happens when Daddy Wilpon is no longer around and Jeffy takes total control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
