Master Index of Archived Threads


Church for Francouer

...one of hate.

4 votes

...one of dislike.

14 votes

...one of neutrality.

9 votes

...one of like.

10 votes

...one of love.

6 votes

Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:33 PM

How do you really feel?

metirish Jul 10 2009 07:37 PM

I love it, something needed to change and maybe this shakes things up a bit and we win a few games here.

seawolf17 Jul 10 2009 07:39 PM

Never mind change for change's sake. We got a younger player with better years ahead of him. Love it.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 07:49 PM

In order to have better years ahead of him, he will have to change his approach as a hitter and player (he's throws well, but has worse range than he should with his speed, and is really not a great fielder at all). He has shown no such ability to make adjustments at any point during his career so far, and seems if anything to be regressing quickly (See Reyes for contrast). The only reason it isn't "hate" for me is that it's more pointless than it is deleterious-- the real harm is that we'll never really know if Church could have brought back better catch.

Fman99 Jul 10 2009 07:49 PM

My initial reaction was to not like it. I have decided to be indifferent and see how it works out.

metsmarathon Jul 10 2009 08:00 PM

not like. not hate, but definitely not like.

sharpie Jul 10 2009 08:02 PM

like.

smg58 Jul 10 2009 08:31 PM

Dislike. Church is simply the better player.

DocTee Jul 10 2009 08:44 PM

Dislike. Church is better.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:50 PM

If stats and years-long trends don't give you pause... ... the consensus from FAN is unequivocal support for the trade. Enjoy!

Nymr83 Jul 10 2009 11:40 PM

hate hate hate. church is just better and i dont see that changing. francoeur has done nothing but take two steps back at the plate each of last 2 years

Benjamin Grimm Jul 11 2009 05:29 AM

I'm in the middle. My sense is that Church is better, but it's possible that Francouer may have a better future ahead of him. I probably wouldn't have pulled the trigger on this one, though.

themetfairy Jul 11 2009 05:35 AM

I worry this one will come back to bite us in the ass.

bmfc1 Jul 11 2009 07:13 AM

I like Church but I think we've seen him as good as he'll be. A good #6 hitter, semi-dangerous against righties, not feared against lefties, an excellent fielder, needs some love and support to avoid losing confidence (don't we all). Francoeur has more upside than Church but his upside, '06 and '07, may have come and gone. If new surroundings can help him get back to even close to that level, it's a good trade for the Mets. If he doesn't improve on his current level, then it's not. Because of the greater upside, and given that we're looking toward the 2010 Mets, I like the deal. However, I fear that since Bobby Cox, who is smarter than what we've got, couldn't turn him around, then he won't improve. At minimum, it shows that Omar is alive and since he's the only GM we've got, that's nice to see.

Frayed Knot Jul 11 2009 07:41 AM

[quote="themetfairy":3vo0fxg3]I worry this one will come back to bite us in the ass.[/quote:3vo0fxg3] That's actually the one thing I don't worry about. Church is already 30 y/o and isn't likely to become something we haven't already seen. The question remains whether Francoeur is going to be an improvement or not but, at worst, he's probably a lower-on base guy w/a bit more power and probably a wash in the field. The upside, on the other hand, if things all break our way is pretty good. Now I prefer trades that don't bank too much on 'Hope' but at least this isn't a prospect for suspect deal that we could feel in the gut for years to come.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 11 2009 07:54 AM

I'm concerned that in the event these guys do what they've always done (which is most likely), we're screwed longer and harder than the Braves are. Also it's such a balls-out challenge trade you have to figure both GMs knew exactly what they were doing, and so does your CAHNfidence go behind Omar or Wren/Schuerholz? Yeesh. OTOH, I will be at the Jeff Francoeur Debut tonight and I'm gonna stand up and cheer.

Ashie62 Jul 11 2009 08:13 AM

Love it..Francouer will be in the lineup everyday beyond this year. Now get Adam Dunn or IB for this year and next It is an in-sason rebuilding.. Face it..the injured core will be seen at spring training

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 11 2009 08:58 AM

Congratulations, Omar. You just made the team worse. Ryan Church is no world beater, but he can play in the major leagues. Jeff Francoeur cannot. Francoeur is a significantly worse defensive and offensive player than the player the Mets traded away. I was going to list a bunch of outfielders' WARs to demonstrate how many people play baseball better than Jeff Fucking Francoeur (a list that includes Endy Chavez, Angel Pagan and every replacement-level player in the majors and minors), but since that list would take far too long to type, I figured this would sum it up best: Jeff Francoeur's 2009 WAR: -.06 Fernando Martinez's 2009 WAR: -.05 Jeff Francouer hurt his team more than Fernando Martinez hurt the Mets because he played more games. With Fartinez, however, it isn't unreasonable to expect improvement as he plays more games. The more games Francouer plays, the worse he makes his team. He is NOT good enough to be a major league baseball player; just as Omar is, apparently, NOT good enough to be a major league baseball general manager.

metsguyinmichigan Jul 11 2009 09:39 AM

Another ex-Met who is going to kick our ass in some big game.

themetfairy Jul 11 2009 10:42 AM

The Dugout has some fun at the expense of this trade.

Edgy DC Jul 11 2009 10:57 AM

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]Congratulations, Omar. You just made the team worse. Ryan Church is no world beater, but he can play in the major leagues. Jeff Francoeur cannot. Francoeur is a significantly worse defensive and offensive player than the player the Mets traded away. I was going to list a bunch of outfielders' WARs to demonstrate how many people play baseball better than Jeff Fucking Francoeur (a list that includes Endy Chavez, Angel Pagan and every replacement-level player in the majors and minors), but since that list would take far too long to type, I figured this would sum it up best: Jeff Francoeur's 2009 WAR: -.06 Fernando Martinez's 2009 WAR: -.05 Jeff Francouer hurt his team more than Fernando Martinez hurt the Mets because he played more games. With Fartinez, however, it isn't unreasonable to expect improvement as he plays more games. The more games Francouer plays, the worse he makes his team. He is NOT good enough to be a major league baseball player; just as Omar is, apparently, NOT good enough to be a major league baseball general manager.

Why is he being compared to all these guys and not Ryan Church. That's the only relevant player here.

[quote="metsguyinmichigan"]Another ex-Met who is going to kick our ass in some big game.

Does it really matter who beats us if we lose? Either the trade helped the team or it didn't.

dgwphotography Jul 11 2009 11:58 AM

Dislike. I always got the feeling that Church never got a real shot to play regularly, mainly because the manager didn't like him...

Kong76 Jul 11 2009 12:04 PM

I took, "eh, like." Just a smidgen over neutral.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 11 2009 01:23 PM

[quote="Edgy DC"] Why is he being compared to all these guys and not Ryan Church. That's the only relevant player here.

I did compare him to Ryan Church:

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"] Francoeur is a significantly worse defensive and offensive player than the player the Mets traded away.

If you want their WAR for the last few years, here you go:
Francouer
Church

These other players are relevant because they illustrate, by comparison, exactly how terrible Francouer is. Most of us saw how awful Fernando Martinez was this season. Francouer is not only just as awful, there is no reason (unlike with Martinez) to expect him to improve. I think it's important to point out, while evaluating this trade, that Francouer is a worse player than, let's say, Fernando Tatis.

This would have been a bad trade without having to give up Ryan Church. A trade that lands you Jeff Francouer while costing you nothing would be a net loss if Francouer then takes playing time away from a replacement player like the 2009 version of Fernando Tatis.

Edgy DC Jul 11 2009 01:57 PM

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"][quote="Edgy DC"] Why is he being compared to all these guys and not Ryan Church. That's the only relevant player here.

I did compare him to Ryan Church:

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"] Francoeur is a significantly worse defensive and offensive player than the player the Mets traded away.

Yes, I read your your thesis paragraph. And you used data not to support that, but to compare him to other players.

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]If you want their WAR for the last few years, here you go:
Francouer
Church

Thanks. I know where to find stuff.

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]These other players are relevant because they illustrate, by comparison, exactly how terrible Francouer is. Most of us saw how awful Fernando Martinez was this season. Francouer is not only just as awful, there is no reason (unlike with Martinez) to expect him to improve. I think it's important to point out, while evaluating this trade, that Francouer is a worse player than, let's say, Fernando Tatis.

This would have been a bad trade without having to give up Ryan Church. A trade that lands you Jeff Francouer while costing you nothing would be a net loss if Francouer then takes playing time away from a replacement player like the 2009 version of Fernando Tatis.

They are not relevant to the position you took. Nobody here is comparing him to Chavez. What matters is Church.

One is a 0.4 wins above replacment this season, and the other is -0.6. I got it.

What I don't get is that "A trade that lands you Jeff Francouer while costing you nothing would be a net loss if Francouer then takes playing time away from a replacement player like the 2009 version of Fernando Tatis." If you're worried that a poor player is going to play over a not-as-poor player, then your problem is with the manager, and has nothing to do with this trade. And if the only choices next season is a replacement-level player and a somewhat sub-replacement level player, it doesn't much matter who plays.

You appear certain that sub-replacement is Jeff Francoeur's destiny for the rest of his career. Maybe it will be. All transactions are crapshoots. I'm certain the Mets were capable of understanding that Jeff Francoeur is having the worse year. But a continuation of this year isn't what either team is looking for.

Frayed Knot Jul 11 2009 02:01 PM

[quote="dgwphotography":1kl1dgmq]I always got the feeling that Church never got a real shot to play regularly, mainly because the manager didn't like him...[/quote:1kl1dgmq] Church did start 19 of the 22 games to start the season, and then 28 of the 30 between getting off the DL thru the trade. There were a few gaps in between although he still started most of the time aside for the stretch leading up to, and then being put on, the DL. The manager not liking him always seemed more like speculation fanned by Jerry's spring training (motivational?) comments than actual fact. Bottom line is Church just didn't hit well enough.

Nymr83 Jul 11 2009 02:59 PM

If you're worried that a poor player is going to play over a not-as-poor player, then your problem is with the manager, and has nothing to do with this trade thats true except to the extent that the front office tells the manager that they didnt acquire he guy to sit on the bench... i dont know how much relative power Jerry has there, it probably varies widely between teams.

OlerudOwned Jul 11 2009 04:57 PM

The worst justification for this trade is that Francoeur stays on the field. He has negative value on the field.

Zvon Jul 11 2009 05:12 PM

Dislike. Its like a none move all dressed up like a move. We needed certain things at this point of this season. This is not what we needed. If it turns out to make a difference in the direction this seasons heading, or if even within the next year Francouer improves on his deficiencies, then I'll thank Omar. Right now all I feel about Omar is disappointment. As I do with this season so far.

Edgy DC Jul 11 2009 06:38 PM

[quote="OlerudOwned":3gvqmbzk]The worst justification for this trade is that Francoeur stays on the field. He has negative value on the field.[/quote:3gvqmbzk] I don't think that's the worst justification for this trade. I don't think anybody can fairly think the Mets acquired him with the expectation that he will continue as he's playing, or that they will stick with him long if he does.

Centerfield Jul 12 2009 08:27 AM

[quote="Edgy DC":3viceep9]I don't think anybody can fairly think the Mets acquired him with the expectation that he will continue as he's playing, or that they will stick with him long if he does.[/quote:3viceep9] Am I reading this right? Are you saying that the Mets acquired him and are expecting that he won't continue to be the player he has been? If so, that's some pretty dumb logic. The guy has been in the bigs since 2005 and his numbers have been steadily trending downward. One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot. If anything, you can expect him to get worse. I thought Vince's post was pretty clear. Franceour sucks. His OPS is .638. Lower than Tatis, Schneider, Reed, Evans, and most importantly, Ryan Church. He's gives up 50 points of OPS to Church over his career as well. He's a worse player than Church, even before you factor in speed and defense (Church can play an adequate CF if pressed into it, Franceour cannot). The two justifications for this trade are faulty. 1. He plays everyday: This would be a good quality if he was good. Sucking every day is bad. 2. He is younger: Again, it just means he has more years of suck ahead of him. I understand Ryan Church was no stud, but nothing tells me that Franceour is any more likely to end up being a solid player than Church. And Franceour has further to go.

Centerfield Jul 12 2009 08:28 AM

Yeah! CF is right! (double post converted to read as support for above position to the non-observant reader)

cooby Jul 12 2009 08:54 AM

This isn't the guy that looks like Eddie Munster is it? Edit: No I am thinking of Brian McCann I don't know why I always get those two mixed up

metirish Jul 12 2009 09:02 AM

Francouer seems like an extremely upbeat guy....I like that about him.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 12 2009 09:57 AM

[quote="metirish":3f1ayle5]Francouer seems like an extremely upbeat guy....I like that about him.[/quote:3f1ayle5] He seems like a likable guy-- and he seemed genuinely geeked at game's end when doing the handslap thing. Not a bad start... until messing up the hit-and-run mid-game, anyway. I sincerely hope he shows up Centerfield, Vince, Olerud and me-- I would like nothing more re: Frenchy than to look like an idiot in a year or two. It's just that all the statistical evidence points to that being about as likely as a lottery win.

Swan Swan H Jul 12 2009 11:23 AM

The guy is 25 years old. Church had yet to have a major league AB when he was the age Francoeur is today. I'm willing to think that there are still better days ahead. So, call me an idiot, CF. You wouldn't be the first.

Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 11:33 AM

[quote="Swan Swan H":1540ibkt]The guy is 25 years old. Church had yet to have a major league AB when he was the age Francoeur is today. I'm willing to think that there are still better days ahead. So, call me an idiot, CF. You wouldn't be the first.[/quote:1540ibkt] I'm an idiot but I fully agree with Swan Swan

Swan Swan H Jul 12 2009 11:40 AM

Edgy DC Jul 12 2009 12:37 PM

Ralph Kiner votes yea.

Swan Swan H Jul 12 2009 12:38 PM

Ralph is an idiot.

Edgy DC Jul 12 2009 01:52 PM

I'd keep such opinons to myself. Ralph knows The Thing.

Swan Swan H Jul 12 2009 01:58 PM

Not my opinion. CF says: One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot. Ralph says he thinks Francoeur can improve. Ergo, Ralph is an idiot. Just doin' the math, here.

Edgy DC Jul 12 2009 02:04 PM

[quote="Centerfield":tg82d78a][quote="Edgy DC":tg82d78a]I don't think anybody can fairly think the Mets acquired him with the expectation that he will continue as he's playing, or that they will stick with him long if he does.[/quote:tg82d78a] Am I reading this right? Are you saying that the Mets acquired him and are expecting that he won't continue to be the player he has been? If so, that's some pretty dumb logic.[/quote:tg82d78a] I guess I'm wrong. Are you seriously arguing that he's going to continue as a sub-replacement player? And that nobody has any reason to think he's a reasonable bet to get better?

smg58 Jul 12 2009 03:33 PM

The best thing you can say about Francoeur is that a change might do him good. He drove in over 100 runs as recently as 2007, but he's never had an .800 OPS in a full season; I don't know what kind of upside people think he has. As for a power boost, he has five homers in 308 AB's, and I don't see him finding the left field wall in Citi easy to clear. Plus, until and unless he turns things around in a really big way, there's no reason to think of him as more than a two-month rental. The Braves would have almost certainly non-tendered him -- he's already making over $3M in his first year of arbitration (half a million more than Church, but at least the Mets got some cash thrown in to acquire the inferior player), and guys generally don't get pay cuts in their second year of arbitration. How well does he have to perform before you'd bring him back at $5M?

Elster88 Jul 12 2009 03:55 PM

[quote="Edgy DC":1c8sj9b0][quote="Centerfield":1c8sj9b0][quote="Edgy DC":1c8sj9b0]I don't think anybody can fairly think the Mets acquired him with the expectation that he will continue as he's playing, or that they will stick with him long if he does.[/quote:1c8sj9b0] Am I reading this right? Are you saying that the Mets acquired him and are expecting that he won't continue to be the player he has been? If so, that's some pretty dumb logic.[/quote:1c8sj9b0] I guess I'm wrong. Are you seriously arguing that he's going to continue as a sub-replacement player? And that nobody has any reason to think he's a reasonable bet to get better?[/quote:1c8sj9b0] My worry is that it seems just as likely that he could continue at his current level of production (or get worse) instead of getting better. Since the same probably holds true for Church, I'd rather have kept the better player.

The Second Spitter Jul 12 2009 04:39 PM

After see Francoeur play for two days, my initial impression is he's a bit deficient in the "baseball instincts" category. I may be wrong, but I don't see him in a Met uniform long-term. Sorta like Bubba Trammell. That said, he got a great reception from most fans who, at least, are prepared to give him a chance.

smg58 Jul 12 2009 05:13 PM

I've got no problem at all with giving him a chance. I wouldn't have brought him here, but the bottom line is he's here. I'm rooting to be wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first time, and probably wouldn't be the last either).

Frayed Knot Jul 12 2009 06:21 PM

Newsday's Ken Davidoff (on the radio yesterday) thought Francoeur would be non-tendered by the Mets at the end of the year if this 2nd half looked reasonably like the 1st half and the last year or so. Purely speculation on his part of course, but if they are going to do that with him seems to me they would have been willing to do the same with Church. Personally I think the OF-deficiency around Met-ville would kill the idea of letting either guy just walk away but those are winter-time questions for another day.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 12 2009 08:50 PM

[quote="Edgy DC"][quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]If you want their WAR for the last few years, here you go: Francouer Church

Thanks. I know where to find stuff.

Sorry, Edgy- I honestly tried to word that so it wouldn't sound snarky. I failed.

[quote="Edgy DC"]They are not relevant to the position you took. Nobody here is comparing him to Chavez. What matters is Church.

Again, I don't think it's irrelevant to point out that Francoeur is a significantly worse player than several specific Mets and ex-Mets that Mets fans have seen everyday.

[quote="Edgy DC"]What I don't get is that "A trade that lands you Jeff Francouer while costing you nothing would be a net loss if Francouer then takes playing time away from a replacement player like the 2009 version of Fernando Tatis." If you're worried that a poor player is going to play over a not-as-poor player, then your problem is with the manager, and has nothing to do with this trade. And if the only choices next season is a replacement-level player and a somewhat sub-replacement level player, it doesn't much matter who plays.

This assumes that the manger operates with absolutely no influence from the GM. Maybe this is true, but I personally don't buy it. However, even if Manuel can stick Francoeur on the end of the bench without ever playing him and not hear a peep from above, Omar has still managed to make the team worse by hindering the roster's depth. There is no reason why this team can't put 25 replacement-level (or better) players in the dugout everyday. Francoeur would not be (is not) included in that group.

As for the difference between Francoeur and the replacement player he would be taking away playing time from not making a huge difference, think about how many wins below replacement Francoeur is, then think about how the last two seasons played out. This team is not good enough to surrender any value on the field.

[quote="Edgy DC"]You appear certain that sub-replacement is Jeff Francoeur's destiny for the rest of his career. Maybe it will be. All transactions are crapshoots. I'm certain the Mets were capable of understanding that Jeff Francoeur is having the worse year. But a continuation of this year isn't what either team is looking for.

Jeff Francoeur is what he will be. He's 25 years old, but he's had over 2600 PAs in the majors. There may players that took a huge leaps forward as players after being this terrible this far into their careers, but you can count them on your fingers and toes. Francoeur is NOT a crapshoot. You can get pretty good odds playing craps. Francoeur is more like a lotto ticket; and since Omar gave up Church to get him, he's a lotto ticket that costs just about as much to buy as the jackpot could possibly, if incredibly long odds play out in your favor, pay out.

But what if the lotto ticket was free? It still wouldn't matter. There is a finite amount of playing time in a baseball season, so to take (torture) the metaphor further, getting Francoeur for free would be like finding a lotto ticket with very long odds and a low payout, then wasting time watching Yolanda Vega while you could be picking pennies out of a fountain.

GMs cannot make moves based on what a player is not. Francoeur has established himself, over a long enough period of time, as one of the worst players in the majors. Minaya made this move assuming he is not one of the worst players in the majors. Under this reasoning, he may as well have traded for Francoeur for his heretofore unseen knuckleball. He's no more a replacement level outfielder than he is Phil Niekro.

Edgy DC Jul 12 2009 09:10 PM

How in the world is Church the value of a jackpot payout? We're talking about two players having terrible years. GMs cannot make moves based on what a player is not. What does that mean? Trades are made for different assessments of talents and different hopes of what they might be able to do with that talent. Francoeur has established himself, over a long enough period of time, as one of the worst players in the majors. No he hasn't. Unless you mean worst fulltime players. At any time there are dozens of worse players. Minaya made this move assuming he is not one of the worst players in the majors. He made the move hoping the team could do more with what's left of his talent over two years than they could do with what's left of Church's. Under this reasoning, Which I disagree with. he may as well have traded for Francoeur for his heretofore unseen knuckleball. That makes no sense. He's no more a replacement level outfielder than he is Phil Niekro. So you're certain he will never achieve even replacement-level status for a two or three month period?

Edgy DC Jul 12 2009 09:14 PM

Listen , I don't want the trade either, but it's the absolute arrogant certainty over and over again every time there is a deal made that I just don't get. The "idiot" and "mind-boggling." The gallery has been wrong often enough --- including, apparently, regarding the trade in which Church was acquired --- that there should be some humility.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 12 2009 09:40 PM

There's always a rush to be the most outraged. I have to say, as much as I agree with the general sentiment of this deal being likely to make a bad O worse, I got a kick out of seeing Francoeur cash in the other night -- and on a play that will look better in the boxscores that it did in real life.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 12 2009 09:51 PM

[quote="Edgy DC"]How in the world is Church the value of a jackpot payout? We're talking about two players having terrible years.

Church is the value of a really crappy jackpot payout. Francoeur is that really crappy lotto: there is a slight chance he will be a little better than Church over the remainder of their contracts.

[quote="Edgy DC"]

GMs cannot make moves based on what a player is not.

What does that mean? Trades are made for different assessments of talents and different hopes of what they might be able to do with that talent.

Yes, but if the Mets assessed Francoeur correctly, there would be no way he would be on the team. The only explanation for this trade is that the Mets have assessed him to be something he is not: a major-league outfielder with a decent shot at some sort of upside.

[quote="Edgy DC"]

Francoeur has established himself, over a long enough period of time, as one of the worst players in the majors.

No he hasn't. Unless you mean worst fulltime players. At any time there are dozens of worse players.

There are, because of injuries, late-career performance collapse or horrific front offices, several players in the majors at any time that have no business being there. Jeff Francoeur, I admit, is better than many of them. This does not mean that he has any business in the majors, nor does it absolve him (for me, at any rate) from the "among the worst players in the majors" label. My definition of the "worst players in the majors" does not only include the cup of coffee types. It also includes most of the guys on the fifth page of this list.

[quote="Edgy DC"]So you're certain he will never achieve even replacement-level status for a two or three month period?

There is absolutely no reason to expect him to. Might lucky stars shine on Citi Field and Francoeur somehow, against the odds, play as well as Ryan Church? Of course. Baseball is a game of probability, and since there are so many dice rolling at once, long odds come in all the time. It is, however, a mistake to run a baseball team by crossing fingers and hoping for the best. This trade made the Mets worse because they gave up a player that is much more likely to help them than the player they got in return. Not only that, the player they got in return is actually less likely to help them than a player one can easily find in the minors or at the end of a team's bench.

Edgy DC Jul 12 2009 10:03 PM

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]Church is the value of a really crappy jackpot payout. Francoeur is that really crappy lotto: there is a slight chance he will be a little better than Church over the remainder of their contracts.

I'm certain his upside is better than Church 2009. Virtually everybody's is.


[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]Yes, but if the Mets assessed Francoeur correctly, there would be no way he would be on the team. The only explanation for this trade is that the Mets have assessed him to be something he is not: a major-league outfielder with a decent shot at some sort of upside.

Give me a break. This is bogus. If it's true of Francoeur, it's true of dozens of guys in the league at any time, Church included. Since when are you a scout?

What matters in the deal is not Francoeur, but Francoeur relative to Church.

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]There are, because of injuries, late-career performance collapse or horrific front offices, several players in the majors at any time that have no business being there. Jeff Francoeur, I admit, is better than many of them. This does not mean that he has any business in the majors, nor does it absolve him (for me, at any rate) from the "among the worst players in the majors" label. My definition of the "worst players in the majors" does not only include the cup of coffee types. It also includes most of the guys on the fifth page of this list.

They're there despite you're derision. Finding good players is hard.

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]There is absolutely no reason to expect him to. Might lucky stars shine on Citi Field and Francoeur somehow, against the odds, play as well as Ryan Church? Of course. Baseball is a game of probability, and since there are so many dice rolling at once, long odds come in all the time. It is, however, a mistake to run a baseball team by crossing fingers and hoping for the best. This trade made the Mets worse because they gave up a player that is much more likely to help them than the player they got in return. Not only that, the player they got in return is actually less likely to help them than a player one can easily find in the minors or at the end of a team's bench.

"Baseball is a game of probability." Can you be any more condescending?

"It is, however, a mistake to run a baseball team by crossing fingers and hoping for the best." I guess you can.

Fine, I'm certain he can achieve the lofty goal of reaching or exceeding 0.0 wins above replacement over a three month period.

Nymr83 Jul 12 2009 10:07 PM

This assumes that the manger operates with absolutely no influence from the GM. Maybe this is true, but I personally don't buy it. However, even if Manuel can stick Francoeur on the end of the bench without ever playing him and not hear a peep from above, Omar has still managed to make the team worse by hindering the roster's depth. There is no reason why this team can't put 25 replacement-level (or better) players in the dugout everyday. Francoeur would not be (is not) included in that group. thats pretty absurd, you really think Francoeur, who is 25 years old and has a 25 homer and 100 rbi season on his resume, is bad enough thay he doesnt belong on a major league bench? you'd rather bring argenis reyes or nick evans to the plate when you need an extra-base hit in the late innings? This trade made the Mets worse because they gave up a player that is much more likely to help them than the player they got in return. i would agree with that statement if you're talking about the remainder of the 2009 baseball season. Not only that, the player they got in return is actually less likely to help them than a player one can easily find in the minors or at the end of a team's bench. but then you went on to say this. please point to players the mets could "easily find in the minors" better than francoeur, and please bear in mind that other teams top prospects aren't "easily found", they'd cost more than church.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 12 2009 10:25 PM

I think we're wearing a hole in the turf going in circles here. To sum up: roughly 60 percent of us think this was a bad-to-terrible trade (even with the relatively modest cost of Ryan Church) and/or are more bothered by what they believe the trade portends about Mets management's player evaluation; roughly 40 percent of us think this was a good-to-great trade, and/or have problems in principle with people being disproportionately aggrieved and/or Manichean in mindset regarding transactions. What Minaya almost undoubtedly seems to have done-- if you don't take the cynical view that this was a trade-for-trade's-sake situation-- is that he's made a scout's-mindset trade. One could also argue that some of his worst acquisitions-- Perez, e.g.-- seem to occur when he lets this mindset predominate. Now can we just sit back and watch? [quote="Edgy DC"] Fine, I'm certain he can achieve the lofty goal of reaching or exceeding 0.0 wins above replacement over a three month period.

Actually, can we wager first? Because this would make an EXCELLENT shame bet.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 12 2009 10:35 PM

[quote="Nymr83":c58tsx0p]please point to players the mets could "easily find in the minors" better than francoeur, and please bear in mind that other teams top prospects aren't "easily found", they'd cost more than church.[/quote:c58tsx0p] Francoeur has made outs in over 700 of his last 1000 PAs while slugging around .350. Jeremy Reed is better than him. So is Fernando Tatis and Nick Evans, among many others. [quote="Edgy DC":c58tsx0p]Since when are you a scout? [/quote:c58tsx0p] Francoeur has 2600 major league PAs. He's at the point where statistics are much better tools for evaluation than scouting reports. [quote="Edgy DC":c58tsx0p]Fine, I'm certain he can achieve the lofty goal of reaching or exceeding 0.0 wins above replacement over a three month period.[/quote:c58tsx0p] Well, I'm also certain he CAN play at replacement level for three months. No one can be certain whether or not he WILL, but his stats tell us he most likely won't.

Edgy DC Jul 12 2009 10:55 PM

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"][quote="Edgy DC"]Since when are you a scout?

Francoeur has 2600 major league PAs. He's at the point where statistics are much better tools for evaluation than scouting reports.

And you completely cropped that out of context. I wrote "If it's true Francoeur, it's true of dozens of guys in the league at any time, Church included." That's true. When they are left to sort among a lot of players with varying levels of unsuccessful track records --- you can't just make 20% of the league go away --- they still are forced to rely on opinions of professonal observers.

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]Well, I'm also certain he CAN play at replacement level for three months. No one can be certain whether or not he WILL, but his stats tell us he most likely won't.

I'm really not interested in any more patronizing logic and semantics lessons, especially while you're coming up with absolute certanties like "He's no more a replacement level outfielder than he is Phil Niekro." I'm willing to bet that he will.

Centerfield Jul 13 2009 08:09 AM

[quote="Swan Swan H"]Not my opinion. CF says: One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot. Ralph says he thinks Francoeur can improve. Ergo, Ralph is an idiot. Just doin' the math, here.

Then your math is faulty. Or your reading comprehension.

I said that one can hope that Franceour improves. Such a sentiment is an acknowledgment that improvement is a possibility. Someone, such as Ralph, can even think that Franceour will improve, which means that Ralph believes that improvement is more likely than not to happen. None of these are the same as expecting him to improve. Expecting Franceour to improve means that, barring someone unforeseen circumstance, Franceour will be a better player.

If Omar had a hunch, or decided to take a gamble, that is one thing. There is no sure thing in any trade.

But if you tell me Omar expects Franceour to improve, and relied on that expectation to the point he gave up a superior (even if only slightly) player, then that is idiotic.

Centerfield Jul 13 2009 08:15 AM

To further clarify... I think Fernando Martinez will one day be a star. I do not expect this, and that is why I would not give him a big money, multi-year contract. When Mark Texiera was on the market last year, I expected him to continue to perform as he has, which is why I was willing to give him a big money, multi-year contract. I think Jeff Franceour might improve. Which is why I would have been willing to give him a shot in a low-risk, high-reward-type move. But I do not expect him to improve. Which is why I would not have given up a superior player to obtain him.

Edgy DC Jul 13 2009 08:27 AM

Why are people giving logic and semantic lessons over this?

metirish Jul 13 2009 08:34 AM

[quote="Edgy DC":1ohlgo84]Why are people giving logic and semantic lessons over this?[/quote:1ohlgo84] There comes a point when I tune out these threads , it usually occurs when the old reading comprehension jab is thrown in. It happens with all of these threads.

Edgy DC Jul 13 2009 08:35 AM

Nice work, Centerfield.

Swan Swan H Jul 13 2009 08:38 AM

[quote="Centerfield"][quote="Swan Swan H"]Not my opinion. CF says: One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot. Ralph says he thinks Francoeur can improve. Ergo, Ralph is an idiot. Just doin' the math, here.

Then your math is faulty. Or your reading comprehension.



Must be. That's symptomatic of an idiot.

Wechsler IQ Test Ratings of Idiocy

Wechsler IQ test ratings identify those as idiots who score less than 70 points in a WAIS session. However, different thresholds are applied to classify mental retardation in the following five levels.

1- Profound Idiocy

Wechsler IQ test results identify those as profound idiots who score 1-10 points in WAIS IQ test scale. They can’t answer even a single question correctly out of 100000 items. They are viewed as suffering from profound mental retardation.

2- Severe Idiocy

Wechsler IQ tests classify those as suffering from severe mental retardation who score 11-25 points. They are considered severe idiots because they can’t answer more than one question out of 100000 items.

3- Imbecility

Wechsler IQ test ratings identify those as imbeciles who suffer moderate mental retardation. They score 26-40 points on Wechsler scale. Their mental age is considered no more than a child of five years old. They can’t answer more than three questions correctly, for an IQ test questionnaire of 100000 items.

4- Moron

Wechsler IQ test ratings identify those as morons who score 41-55 points on a Wechsler IQ test scale. Their mental development has stopped at the mental age of a child of 8-12 years old. They can answer less than 13 questions correctly for an IQ test questionnaire comprising of 10000 items.

5- Border Line

Wechsler IQ test ratings identify those on borderline who score 56-70 points on a Wechsler IQ test scale. They can’t answer more than two questions correctly for an IQ test questionnaire of 100 items. They are better than morons but still don’t qualify to be average.


I figger on a good day I can squeeze out a 4.

Centerfield Jul 13 2009 09:38 AM

[quote="Edgy DC":3todp77b]Nice work, Centerfield.[/quote:3todp77b] Sorry. What Irish basically means is that he asks the bartender for the tab as soon as he sees me stumble in. Getting back to the point, it drives me crazy when people distort my position when it's right there for them to read. It's one thing to misremember, but to quote my language and still get it wrong...that's sloppy and a waste of everyone's time. Secondly, I hate the "Well I must be an idiot then...and [insert name of announcer/reporter/columnist] must be an idiot too...because he agrees with me" line of reasoning. If you disagree with me, back it up. Tell me why we should expect improvement from Franceour. Or more specifically, why the Mets are justified in such expectations. Tell me what we can hang our hats on beyond just blind hope. Thirdly, if I point out a distinction between what I wrote, and how you interpreted it, address it. [quote="Edgy DC":3todp77b]Why are people giving logic and semantic lessons over this?[/quote:3todp77b] Because logic and semantics are the centerpieces of good debate. I ask that my GM exercise good logic when deciding whether or not to pull the trigger on a proposed trade. I ask that people on this forum exercise good logic when evaluating that trade. Semantics are just as important during evaluation of a trade. Semantics is, as far as I know, another way of saying "meaning". And when you are debating a point, the words you choose, and more specifically, the meaning of the words you choose, are critical. You cannot say "The Mets were expecting him to be better", then state that I am bringing up irrelevent semantic points when I point out that the Mets had no basis for "expecting" anything.

Swan Swan H Jul 13 2009 09:49 AM

When your position includes language like "One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot" it does not inspire debate. It inspires anger. You are not demeaning a position, you are demeaning a person or persons. I am not misinterpreting that, and I am offended by it whether I agree with you or not. I don't think that pejorative comments make for good debate, but on that point it appears we disagree.

Edgy DC Jul 13 2009 09:52 AM

Because logic and semantics are the centerpieces of good debate. Logic and semantics maybe. But logic and semantics lessons are the centerpieces of patronizing claptrap. You cannot say "The Mets were expecting him to be better", then state that I am bringing up irrelevent semantic points when I point out that the Mets had no basis for "expecting" anything. Firstly, I don't recall writing that. Secondly, I'm objecting to your tedious and twisting definition of "expect." Your distinguising of hope and think from expect. Not your rebuttal. Give me. A fucking. Break. I'm not a child. By expect, I simply mean somebody considers the likelihood of something happening to be better than half. I imagine the Mets consider the likelihood of Francoeur putting up an OPS+ of better than 68 to be better than half. Why we have to talk like this, I have no idea.

Centerfield Jul 13 2009 10:01 AM

[quote="Swan Swan H":1sg1g7co]When your position includes language like "One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot" it does not inspire debate. It inspires anger. You are not demeaning a position, you are demeaning a person or persons. I am not misinterpreting that, and I am offended by it whether I agree with you or not. I don't think that pejorative comments make for good debate, but on that point it appears we disagree.[/quote:1sg1g7co] If my language angers you, chastise me for my lack of manners. Making illogical arguments centered around a distortion of my thesis does nothing but waste time. If I offended you with that statement I apologize. I did not think anyone here actually had an expectation that Franceour would improve.

Frayed Knot Jul 13 2009 10:05 AM

[quote="metirish"]There comes a point when I tune out these threads.

It's usually at that point where the argument becomes less about the original question and more about the arguments themselves.

It happens with all of these threads.

Although not as often since Sal/Bret left

holychicken Jul 13 2009 10:06 AM

The only reason this trade does not make me come right out and say hate is that Francoeur is younger so maybe we are looking towards the future (even so, I don't think it is a great "getting younger" move). However, what scares me is that this may be Omar actually thinking that he is improving our chances this year with this move.

Centerfield Jul 13 2009 10:09 AM

[quote="Edgy DC"] Because logic and semantics are the centerpieces of good debate. Logic and semantics maybe. But logic and semantics lessons are the centerpieces of patronizing claptrap. You cannot say "The Mets were expecting him to be better", then state that I am bringing up irrelevent semantic points when I point out that the Mets had no basis for "expecting" anything. Firstly, I don't recall writing that. Secondly, I'm objecting to your tedious and twisting definition of "expect." Your distinguising of hope and think from expect. Not your rebuttal. Give me. A fucking. Break. I'm not a child. By expect, I simply mean somebody considers the likelihood of something happening to be better than half. I imagine the Mets consider the likelihood of Francoeur putting up an OPS+ of better than 68 to be better than half. Why we have to talk like this, I have no idea.

Are you saying that I should not point out the distinction between those words? They mean entirely different things.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 13 2009 10:10 AM

[quote="holychicken":3jbaklyx]The only reason this trade does not make me come right out and say hate is that Francoeur is younger so maybe we are looking towards the future (even so, I don't think it is a great "getting younger" move). However, what scares me is that this may be Omar actually thinking that he is improving our chances this year with this move.[/quote:3jbaklyx] Exactly. Either it's an apparently cynical move, or it's one that betrays severe flaws in the org's player evaluation... again.

Edgy DC Jul 13 2009 10:16 AM

[quote="Centerfield"]Are you saying that I should not point out the distinction between those words? They mean entirely different things.

Way to change the subject again.

No, I'm not. You quote all these words I am saying and then ask if I'm saying something I'm not. How Bretastic.

I'm saying there's no need. I haven't confused those words. And acting as if I have moves us further away from the actual subject and makes you more and more patronizing.

I understand when people are using rhetoric not to clarify their position, but to obscure it, and make it unassailable in the haze of nonsense.

How many times do I need to ask for a break?

Fman99 Jul 13 2009 10:21 AM

[insert cock joke here]

Centerfield Jul 13 2009 10:50 AM

[quote="Edgy DC"][quote="Centerfield"]Are you saying that I should not point out the distinction between those words? They mean entirely different things.

Way to change the subject again.

No, I'm not. You quote all these words I am saying and then ask if I'm saying something I'm not. How Bretastic.

I'm saying there's no need. I haven't confused those words. And acting as if I have moves us further away from the actual subject and makes you more and more patronizing.

I understand when people are using rhetoric not to clarify their position, but to obscure it, and make it unassailable in the haze of nonsense.

How many times do I need to ask for a break?

I wasn't trying to change the subject. I was asking you to clarify your response.

I pointed out the distinction between these words to Swan, not you. I think it's clear that he was using them interchangeably.

I realize that explaining the meanings of these words can sound patronizing. But honestly, I don't know how else to debate with someone who is not using them correctly. I know I can be flippant, but part of the reason I come off as if I'm preaching to a child is because he was offering me silly, childish arguments.

You said you understood my point about the distinction between these words. If this is a valid point, then why are you accusing me of rhetoric?

Edgy DC Jul 13 2009 10:59 AM

[quote="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3k4uus7z]Actually, can we wager first? Because this would make an EXCELLENT shame bet.[/quote:3k4uus7z] Who am I betting?

Swan Swan H Jul 13 2009 11:26 AM

I've moved from an idiot to a child. Progress, I suppose, providing we're talking about a fully functional child. My point was always about your choice of words, one word specifically, and the condescending attitude it implied to me. If I didn't make my point clear, mea culpa. I think it's clear enough now.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 13 2009 11:34 AM

[quote="Edgy DC":27c7sxps][quote="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":27c7sxps]Actually, can we wager first? Because this would make an EXCELLENT shame bet.[/quote:27c7sxps] Who am I betting?[/quote:27c7sxps] I had thought VCF or Ceetar at the time. But depending on the terms, I'll be the other guy. Difference in WAR, then (as calcu-moo-lated by the good mathies at Fangraphs)?

Centerfield Jul 13 2009 11:48 AM

You made the distinction in your earlier post that you took offense to my characterizing persons as "idiots", rather than positions. In response, I made it a point to criticize your arguments, and not you. Nonetheless, you took it personally. Why point out a distinction if you intend to ignore in anyway? Let me be clear, I don't think you're an idiot. Or Edgy or anyone else. I said if anyone expects Franceour to improve they are an idiot. Expectations must be supported by some rationale. Nothing I have seen, or been offered in this thread, gives me any reason to expect improvement. As I said before, his declining numbers would suggest just the opposite. I don't believe any of you really expect improvement.

Edgy DC Jul 13 2009 11:49 AM

I'm just betting that he reaches 0.0 WAR (Good God, y'all! What is it good for?) over a three month period within the two years he has left on his contract. If he doesn't by the end of 2010, or he doesn't and gets released and unclaimed, or he gets non-tendered, his contract is over and I lose thataway also. I'll bet my new Mr. Met lunchbox I just won on e-bay.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 13 2009 11:52 AM

[quote="Edgy DC":3n8pc5sh]I'm just betting that he reaches 0.0 WAR (Good God, y'all! What is it good for?) over a three month period within the two years he has left on his contract. If he doesn't by the end of 2010, or he doesn't and gets released and unclaimed, or he gets non-tendered, his contract is over and I lose thataway also. I'll bet my new Mr. Met lunchbox I just won on e-bay.[/quote:3n8pc5sh] Gotcha. Hmm. Will have to get back to you on what I'll stake... as I'm not sure I have anything cool that you'd want which isn't beaten all to hell.

Edgy DC Jul 13 2009 11:59 AM

For clarity, change "contract" to something like "Mets control."

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 13 2009 12:01 PM

[quote="Edgy DC":g6xnj3fk]For clarity, change "contract" to something like "Mets control."[/quote:g6xnj3fk] I got your meaning.

Edgy DC Jul 13 2009 12:14 PM

Who else wants some Mr. Met? All you have to do is root for the new Mets rightfielder to perform at a sub-replacement level. Piece of cake right?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 13 2009 12:17 PM

As explained in the Game Thread, we came through the turnstyles too late to get that giveaway but were able to gather one in that was carelessly left in our row. Until then I was willing to part with $10 for it and was about to ask the guys sitting next to us. Lunchpail loves his lunchpail by the way. He put his wooden subway cars in it, which means something.

Swan Swan H Jul 13 2009 12:26 PM

And, for the last time, my objection is to your characterization not of the position but the person. Were you to have said "... if anyone expects Franceour to improve they are taking an idiotic position" I'd have no problem with that. I take idiotic positions on many things on a daily basis; road rage, petty jealousies and envies, vague feelings of paranoia, annoyance with the kids playing on the dead end where I bought a house so my kids, when they were kids, could play. I'm fine with that. Instead, you said "... if anyone expects Franceour to improve they are an idiot." You may not see the difference. I do, and it offends me. That said, I have wasted too much of my time and yours on what offends me. I am fairly certain that no one here gives a damn about what offends you, me or anyone else, nor should they. Well, maybe Cooby does, because she's that kind of person, but even that's a stretch. If I mischaracterized your position I apologize. If I didn't, well, I'm letting it go. Either way, I'm gonna work a few more hours, go see Wilco and Yo La Tengo, and forget about all this. Getting myself involved in arguments like this are the reason I stopped posting here, and I'm enjoying myself too much to get wrapped up in this sort of thing again.

holychicken Jul 13 2009 12:34 PM

That lunchbox is pretty pimp. Well, as pimp as a lunch box can be. Fill it with nickles and I will trade pretty much any player for it.

metirish Jul 13 2009 12:48 PM

[quote="Swan Swan H":rqmlcp9b] and I'm enjoying myself too much to get wrapped up in this sort of thing again.[/quote:rqmlcp9b] Go and watch your music , let your hair down and forget this. Your reemergence here has brought some much needed life to this place, that's how I feel anyway. To put it another way , your reemergence here is like that long term DL guy coming back , it's like making a trade, or an in-season call up that brings energy to the squad....

Swan Swan H Jul 13 2009 12:50 PM

Have you seen my hair? Not enough to let down, that's for sure.

metirish Jul 13 2009 12:52 PM

[quote="Swan Swan H":3cdidhcn]Have you seen my hair? Not enough to let down, that's for sure.[/quote:3cdidhcn] Of course I didn't mean literally let it down. :)

Swan Swan H Jul 13 2009 12:55 PM

Wilco will love me, baby

TransMonk Jul 13 2009 01:04 PM

[quote="Swan Swan H":3sqgt1qq]Have you seen my hair? Not enough to let down, that's for sure.[/quote:3sqgt1qq] I always picture you looking like Warren Zevon.

Centerfield Jul 13 2009 01:05 PM

Jesus, don't stop posting because of me. I don't want that on my head. Sorry for being a prick. Nothing personal intended.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 13 2009 01:17 PM

[quote="TransMonk":2r6ozvkx][quote="Swan Swan H":2r6ozvkx]Have you seen my hair? Not enough to let down, that's for sure.[/quote:2r6ozvkx] I always picture you looking like Warren Zevon.[/quote:2r6ozvkx] I've got Edgar Winter in mind. Or Ed Begley in a blond wig.

Swan Swan H Jul 13 2009 01:18 PM

[quote="Centerfield":2wtqpvdj]Jesus, don't stop posting because of me. I don't want that on my head. Sorry for being a prick. Nothing personal intended.[/quote:2wtqpvdj] Not you, CF, it's all about me getting my own shorts in a knot for no good reason. And as for my appearance, it's more Warren Buffett then Warren Zevon.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 13 2009 01:32 PM

As long as its not Jimmy Buffet.

cooby Jul 13 2009 05:51 PM

[quote="Swan Swan H":39g4mmbl] That said, I have wasted too much of my time and yours on what offends me. I am fairly certain that no one here gives a damn about what offends you, me or anyone else, nor should they. Well, maybe Cooby does, because she's that kind of person, but even that's a stretch. .[/quote:39g4mmbl] That's right, buddy!

Rockin' Doc Jul 13 2009 09:12 PM

As a result of our pilgrimage to the baseball mecca in Flushing, I was unaware of the outfielder swap between the Mets and the Braves. I'm sitting in Stout NYC with my friend enjoying a few cold beers while watching the Angels put the finishing touches on their come from behind thrashing of the evil ones. Our waitress turns on the Mets game just in time to see Pagan's nice running catch in deep center field to end the Reds half of the first inning. The Mets come to bat and instantly get a rally brewing as Pagan singles, Castillo walks, and Wright singles to right. Bases loaded with no outs and I'm ready for Sheffield to bust one and get the scoring started. Sheffield pops up for the first out. Then I see Francoeur stepping into the batters box. RD "When the hell did this happen?" Friend "Don't ask me." RD "I just hope they didn't trade Church to get him." Francoeur hits a fisted flare down the right field line to plate Pagan and Castillo. I cheer and some of the sting is removed from the sudden realization that the Mets had indeed swapped right fielders with the Braves. Obviously, my initial reaction to the news of the trade wasn't very positive. However, after some thought and consideration, I'm rather neutral to the deal now. I like Church and feel he wasn't given a fair shot by Manuel this season. Both Church and Francoeur are good defensive right fielders. Both historically can be expected to hit .265 to .275. Francoeur provides more power, but with more strike outs and a lower OBP due to his free swinging approach at the plate. Ultimately, the Mets got younger by 5 years which could be a good thing. Time will tell I guess.

Vic Sage Jul 14 2009 03:01 PM

I dislike hackers with low OB% and lower BB IQs. This is a lateral move (at best) with Omar net letting stupid facts getting in the way of his "scout" sensibility that loves "tools" despite demonstrated lack of production. However, the big ole hard-headed French donkey is younger and, if he works hard and becomes coachable, he has the potential to one day be... ... older.

Edgy DC Jul 29 2009 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 29 2009 10:27 AM

Offense CF RF Player G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB Inn UZR* A Inn UZR* A Francoeur 14 60 55 4 18 2 0 3 16 0 1 1 6 .327 .350 .527 .877 129 29 0 2 0 2 1 - - - 120 -0.7 2 Church 13 41 33 7 7 0 0 1 4 0 0 8 6 .212 .366 .303 .669 81 10 1 0 0 0 0 3 0.4 0 90 2.1 1 * Ultimate Zone Rating, as per www.fangraphs.com.

Valadius Jul 29 2009 09:55 AM

Wow. That's quite a contrast.

metirish Jul 29 2009 10:00 AM

Only 6 SO's , that's a surprise I suppose, One walk isn't . Francouer credits working with Wright , Sheff and Hojo "The coolest thing here is that with David and Sheffield I have a couple righthanded guys I can talk to about hitting. In Atlanta it was lefthanders I talked to, but this has helped," said Francoeur. "To have some guys that go through what I go through with sinkers and sliders and to able to pick their brains, it's been awesome." Wright and (hitting coach Howard) Johnson told Francoeur he needed to get his front foot planted quicker, and Sheffield showed Francoeur how to change his grip to use his top hand more. "For a big, strong guy he's already a talented player, he just wasn't in control of his bat," Sheffield said. "When you can tap into something you never tapped into then you can see the talent really comes through."

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 29 2009 10:06 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 29 2009 10:09 AM

[quote="metirish"]Only 6 SO's , that's a surprise I suppose, One walk isn't . Francouer credits working with Wright , Sheff and Hojo "The coolest thing here is that with David and Sheffield I have a couple righthanded guys I can talk to about hitting. In Atlanta it was lefthanders I talked to, but this has helped," said Francoeur. "To have some guys that go through what I go through with sinkers and sliders and to able to pick their brains, it's been awesome." Wright and (hitting coach Howard) Johnson told Francoeur he needed to get his front foot planted quicker, and Sheffield showed Francoeur how to change his grip to use his top hand more. "For a big, strong guy he's already a talented player, he just wasn't in control of his bat," Sheffield said. "When you can tap into something you never tapped into then you can see the talent really comes through."

Sheff's got to keep busy somehow, right?

It seems that athletic hackers-- especially ones who have been told that they strike out too much-- don't tend to strike out so much; they're just coordinated enough to make bad contact and ground out/pop out on those pitches they should be laying off. It's weird-- he'll take on the first pitch sometimes, but only apparently because he's planned to, no matter what; I've seen him swing at the exact same pitch-- say, a slider down and in, or a fastball away-- the second time around that he let go the first time at least three times. (Crap-- does that make sense?)

And the one walk? Intentional, just before the Tatis slam.

Gwreck Jul 29 2009 10:07 AM

I'm not finding a definition for that URF. Is that negative number good or bad?

Edgy DC Jul 29 2009 10:25 AM

That's because I had a meeting to get to as I finished the chart, and put the wrong term in there. What I meant was... UZR (ultimate zone rating): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is in both range runs, outfield arm runs, double play runs and error runs combined.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 29 2009 10:34 AM

Not for nothing but I hope Francoeur's hand is OK. He's done good.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 29 2009 10:38 AM

[quote="Gwreck":1n33xom5]I'm not finding a definition for that URF. Is that negative number good or bad?[/quote:1n33xom5] And the negative number is bad-- it's adjusted to be sort of a "runs above average" (for the position) figure. That Church is at 2.1-- a significant number over even a half-season-- indicates that he's done a bunch already, run-savings-wise. [quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1n33xom5]Not for nothing but I hope Francoeur's hand is OK. He's done good.[/quote:1n33xom5] Agreed-- I'm rooting for him. But if he's not... happy Met Mitzvah!

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 29 2009 10:53 AM

Don't think anyone was expecting Francoeur to be this awful in the field. That might not just be a product of small sample size, though. His UZR for the last five years: 2005: 13.2 2006: 8.3 2007: 17.1 2008: -4.7 2009: 1.0 (on the Mets: -0.7) That's pretty erratic. It'll take more time to see if he's actually lost ability or not. As for his hitting, it sure looks fluky to me. His 17.6 LD% might increase a little, but that .326 BABIP will regress. The .200 ISO, his highest since his rookie year (and his highest BY FAR since his second year) has been aided by a 12.5% HR/FB ratio, his highest since his first two years. I'd sell if anyone's buying. Funny thing is, as hot as Francoeur's been with the bat, Church has been such a stud in the field (and our guy such a horrorshow) that he's still been more valuable since the trade (although just barely: 0.2 WAR for Francoeur, 0.3 for Church).

Frayed Knot Jul 29 2009 10:57 AM

[quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3ivcaypb]Not for nothing but I hope Francoeur's hand is OK. He's done good.[/quote:3ivcaypb] I don't understand how those HBPs on the hand don't break at least one bone like every single time. The negative UZR (from such a small sample size) was probably influenced by that drop last week. IMO those stats are barely meaningful in large doses and totally ignorable in small.

Edgy DC Jul 29 2009 10:57 AM

Churchie's RF UZR (includes range, errata, and assists) projects over 150 games to 26.9 runs saved over average in right, and in center, 64.2 runs. Obviously that's a small sample size (3 innings in center), but nothing to sneeze at no matter how much stock you place in such numbers. Interestingly, his numbers were much more sober as a Met, probably due in part to a larger sample size. Francoeur projects to puking up 12.7 runs more than average defensively over 150 games. That's not good. But his Braves numbers were in the positive range, and typically have been.

Edgy DC Aug 06 2009 08:39 AM

Lookie and see that Church has evened things up --- thanks largely to his wacky walk rate. Francoeur still has an edge in value right now due his greater playing time, but that's not the sort of edge that will allow the Mets to claim trade victory. Church has come back down a little bit with his fielding supremacy, but so too has Francoeur slipped back defensively. Offense CF RF Player G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB Inn UZR A Inn UZR A Francoeur 22 93 85 7 24 3 0 4 19 0 1 2 8 .282 .312 .459 .771 101 39 0 3 0 3 1 - - - 193 -1.3 2 Church 15 49 39 9 10 0 0 1 4 0 0 10 6 .256 .408 .333 .741 101 13 1 0 0 0 1 3 0.4 0 107 2.1 2

Benjamin Grimm Aug 06 2009 08:44 AM

Francoeur has hit four homers? He may end leading the team!

Vince Coleman Firecracker Aug 06 2009 02:57 PM

Their WAR since the trade: Church: 0.4 Francoeur: 0.0 So, Francoeur's been a replacement player and Church has been a decent, but not great player. We haven't really learned much from this trade that we didn't know before, and I don't think we'll see much change (except, of course, that I still think replacement-level production is way too much to expect from Frenchy over the long term).

Edgy DC Aug 06 2009 03:01 PM

I don't get how a guy with a 101 OPS+ fails to be even a fraction above a replacement player. My understanding of a replacement player is the typical guy you can pull off the waiver wire. And that's not a guy with a 101 OPS+, defense accepted.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Aug 06 2009 03:03 PM

Problem is, he's playing a premium offensive position (and playing it poorly on the defensive side). If he were a centerfielder, even a kinda bad one, it'd be a much different story.

Edgy DC Aug 06 2009 03:09 PM

That makes some sense. I still don't see rightfielders hitting at league average floating around the waiver wire, but yeah, they come cheaper than similar-hitting thirdbasemen.

Nymr83 Aug 06 2009 03:57 PM

they're not floating around in the middle of the season, but there were plenty of guys available in the offseason that would have given the mets better production in a corner outfield slot, and very little excuse not to sign one (particularly with the cheap deals Abreu and Ibanez got). with all the injuries it probably wouldnt have mattered anyway, but omar can be blamed for not getting one of those guys, Abreu only got a single year at 5 million. wow.

Kong76 Aug 06 2009 04:06 PM

I clearly remember the clamoring for Abreu to be signed for one year here at 6, 7, even 8 million and Omar ignored us.

Frayed Knot Aug 06 2009 04:17 PM

Very few thought the deal for Ibanez was "cheap" at the time. It's also a bit tough to bust on Omar for signing too many older players and then turn around and blame him for NOT signing a 37 y/o to a 3-year deal.

Kong76 Aug 06 2009 04:48 PM

I was joking about Abreu, was there clamoring?

Nymr83 Aug 06 2009 05:40 PM

[quote="Kong76"]I was joking about Abreu, was there clamoring?

I started a luke-warm thread on him here that quickly went to other topics.

then I started another thread here reminding Omar that Abreu and Dunn were both still available. I admit I get bored alot in the offseason.

Centerfield then started the Go Get Abreu threadhere in which a few people said they wanted him, especially for one year, and they signed for one year and we all forgot about it.

Edgy DC Aug 06 2009 06:36 PM

[quote="Nymr83":2qv1cxeo]they're not floating around in the middle of the season, but there were plenty of guys available in the offseason that would have given the mets better production in a corner outfield slot, and very little excuse not to sign one (particularly with the cheap deals Abreu and Ibanez got).[/quote:2qv1cxeo] Career-long starters with four 100-RBI seasons on their resume is certainly not what I associate with the term "replacement level."

Nymr83 Aug 06 2009 06:46 PM

my point was that the mets easily could have had a better than replacement, and better than avg, player at the position in the offseason

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 06 2009 07:11 PM

Abreu's deal was cheap, and a super-short commitment... and signed relatively late in the offseason. The Phillies' signing of Ibanez-- a 3-year commitment to a 37-year-old for more money per year than any other corner OFer not named Manny Ramirez got-- seemed a little unwise at the time. Both will outperform their deals this year-- Abreu by a country mile.

Edgy DC Aug 26 2009 01:23 PM

I missed when and how this became a discussion about what should have been done over the offseason. Offense CF RF Player G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB Inn UZR A Inn UZR A Francoeur 40 166 155 19 48 10 2 6 24 0 3 5 22 .310 .337 .516 .853 122 39 0 3 0 3 1 - - - 347 -5.0 3 Church 29 106 92 18 25 10 0 2 16 0 0 14 15 .272 .368 .446 .814 115 13 1 0 0 0 1 96 -2.3 0 129 2.6 2

Edgy DC Oct 06 2009 02:58 PM Re: Church for Francouer

Well, I don't have to give up my Mr. Met lunchbox, as Francoeurfinishes with 0.3 WARs, even by the relatively strict and elusive math of fangraphs, who rate him with a pretty disastrous defensive performance with the Mets. For those of you more concerned about the trade for Church, Churchiefinished with 0.5. Edge to the Braves, but it's fair to call it for the Mets if you look at the perspective of dollars, control, and age --- which all have a value in wins.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 06 2009 03:22 PM Re: Church for Francouer

I'm not unhappy with Francoeur. He can be part of a championship outfield, as long as the Mets get somebody kickass to play left field next year.

Ashie62 Oct 07 2009 05:33 AM Re: Church for Francouer

[quote="Benjamin Grimm":2ibb0ml5]I'm not unhappy with Francoeur. He can be part of a championship outfield, as long as the Mets get somebody kickass to play left field next year.[/quote:2ibb0ml5] Francouer will likely remain a serviceable plus Met, while Ryan Church would have not returned in my opinion.

Nymr83 Oct 07 2009 06:07 AM Re: Church for Francouer

[quote="Benjamin Grimm"]I'm not unhappy with Francoeur. He can be part of a championship outfield, as long as the Mets get somebody kickass to play left field next year.

I'm ok with ____________. He'd be ok if we get a great player at another position. Easy blank to fill, so lets ask if we actually like Francoeur without worrying about the other roster spots, and I'm not the biggest fan of him.

smg58 Oct 07 2009 06:40 AM Re: Church for Francouer

Francoeur reminds me a bit of Rich Hidalgo. When he swings the bat well you wonder how he's not one of the league's star players, then you look at his overall numbers and wonder how it can possibly be the same person. My guess is if we keep him around long enough we'll find out. Plus, even his numbers with the Mets (an .836 OPS for a corner outfielder with a mediocre glove) are nothing to get excited about. I'd sell while I can.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 07 2009 07:38 AM Re: Church for Francouer

That's weird. I saw a dude with a Richard Hidalgo 15 t-shirt the other day. Everything I've heard from the Mets seems to suggest they love Frenchie and he's here to stay.

Edgy DC Oct 07 2009 08:09 AM Re: Church for Francouer

Mid-season rightfield acquisitions made in the midst of lost seasons: Claudell Washington, 1980 Ellis Valentine, 1981 Richard Hidalgo, 2004 Jeff Francoeur, 2009 All were in the midst of a dreadful season and downward trend in their careers. All save Valentine did better than you might have expected and had at least something of the rebound the Mets were hoping for. But Valentine is the only one of the first three that the Mets brought back for a second season. We'll see with Jeff, but the Mets have him under control for another year under any circumstances. (Sean Green doesn't qualify for this club, because 2006 wasn't lost when he was acquired. He did his best to help lose it, but whatchagonnado?) All are from the Wilpon era. Also, due to the season restart after the 1981 strike, the season turned out to be not so completely lost (while, in another sense, it was particularly lost), but it certainly seemed so at the time. Anyhow, Valentine did what he could (blow) to try to make the second half as hopeless as the first.

Frayed Knot Oct 07 2009 08:14 AM Re: Church for Francouer

"We'll see with Jeff, but the Mets have him under control for another year under any circumstances." Two actually, if they so choose.

metirish Oct 07 2009 08:16 AM Re: Church for Francouer

Hidalgo gave us that great week of home runs , a highlight for sure that season....

Ashie62 Oct 07 2009 03:38 PM Re: Church for Francouer

And the 2004 Motion Picture "Hidalgo" starring Viggo Mortenson was nominated for the Golden Trailer award for best Drama..

OlerudOwned Oct 07 2009 10:13 PM Re: Church for Francouer

Jeff's walks have actually managed to go down each of the last two seasons.

Edgy DC Oct 07 2009 10:47 PM Re: Church for Francouer

This thread sucks. I put my box on the line, and it turns out, Francoeur redeems my ass, but nobody took me up on the bet.

The Second Spitter Oct 08 2009 04:06 AM Re: Church for Francouer

I thought only women had boxes. There's some talk that the Braves may not even offer arbitration to Church, which I have to say I find astonishing.

Fman99 Oct 08 2009 09:03 AM Re: Church for Francouer

[quote="Edgy DC":1qeydsrb]This thread sucks. I put my box on the line, and it turns out, Francoeur redeems my ass, but nobody took me up on the bet.[/quote:1qeydsrb] Put your box on the line, I'll give it a kick for you.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2009 08:43 AM Re: Church for Francouer

The Braves are in the clubhouse on this one with a score of 0.5 WAR. The Mets trail at 0.4 --- largely diminished due to Francoeur's erratic use of his prodigious arm --- but are still on the course.

metirish Dec 09 2009 09:07 AM Re: Church for Francouer

No idea what that really means, I do think though that Francoeur is all but guarenteed to be the Mets right fielder on opening day while Church is looking for a new team. I'd say this deal worked out in the Mets favour.

smg58 Dec 09 2009 10:58 AM Re: Church for Francouer

It depends on how Francoeur responds to getting handed a full-time spot and a raise in arbitration. If we wind up paying $5M for a .650 OPS in right field, the Braves still get the last laugh.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Dec 09 2009 11:14 AM Re: Church for Francouer

[quote="metirish"] I do think though that Francoeur is all but guarenteed to be the Mets right fielder on opening day while Church is looking for a new team. I'd say this deal worked out in the Mets favour.

Non-sequitor. This assumes that both the Braves' and Mets' management make no mistakes, and ignores any differences between the two teams in terms of finance, personnel or anything else. Two other things:

1. In 2009, Francoeur had a 0.4 WAR for his half-season with the Mets last year. He also had a -0.4 WAR during his half season with the Braves. That gave him a 0.0 WAR for the season. Francouer was a replacement-level player in 2009. In 2008, he was good for a -1.3 WAR. If Ryan Church never plays another game of baseball, that 0.1 WAR lead he has right now has a pretty good chance of holding up.

2. Ryan Church will play more baseball games. And in those games, he is a much better bet to be a better player than Jeff Francoeur.

Frenchy is, apparently, a streaky player with loooong streaks. The Mets traded for him as he started a long hot streak. There will be a long cold streak that will expose him. I don't want to root against any Met, and Francoeur seems like a nice guy, and if he does well, it'll help the team I love, but check this out: from the end of the 2005 season until the time the Mets picked him up, Francoeur was 39.5 runs below replacement with the bat. That's ri-goddamn-diculous. Combine that with what appears to be declining range in right, and you're left with a player that has an outside chance of helping you a little bit but a better chance of being a black-hole sized drain on the team.

It's a big mistake if the Mets go into this season without a solid backup plan for Francoeur in right. Fernando Martinez is a good backup plan if he can stay healthy. So is Angel Pagan. But Francoeur had that Daniel Murphy-in-2008-style small sample size outburst in 2009 and he looks like a good ballplayer and he seems like a nice guy and fans seem to like him; so I think he's going to be given waaay too much rope if he starts to flounder. Like, enough rope to hang the whole season.

If it's my team, and I had the choice between the two players, I'd take Church for 2010, and I think I'd be right.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Dec 09 2009 11:40 AM Re: Church for Francouer

Also, I'd suggest this offseason is probably the best chance the Mets will have of selling high on Francoeur. There may be GMs out there that like him more than Omar.

metirish Dec 09 2009 11:42 AM Re: Church for Francouer

2. Ryan Church will play more baseball games. And in those games, he is a much better bet to be a better player than Jeff Francoeur. Come now , you don't kow that. Church 2004 - 30 Games 2005 - 102 2006 - 71 2007 - 144 2008 - 90 2009 - 111 Total = 548 Francouer 2005 - 70 2006 - 162 2007 - 162 2008 - 155 2009 - 157 Total - 706 From what saw with Church and his time with the Mets was not much , I like the guy and it was very unfortunate that he was injured for some time. I do wonder where on the list of things to do for the Mets is having a solid backup plan for RF...I don't disagree with you on that but I have a feeling Minaya thinks he made out like a king with the trade.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Dec 09 2009 12:01 PM Re: Church for Francouer

[quote="metirish"] 2. Ryan Church will play more baseball games. And in those games, he is a much better bet to be a better player than Jeff Francoeur. Come now , you don't kow that.

Whoops, not clear enough on my part. I didn't mean Church will play more games than Francoeur (I actually believe it's almost a sure bet that Francoeur will play more games than Church), I meant that Ryan Church will still play games on the major league level. "His career isn't over." Yeah. That's how I should have phrased it.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 09 2009 12:11 PM Re: Church for Francouer

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]Also, I'd suggest this offseason is probably the best chance the Mets will have of selling high on Francoeur. There may be GMs out there that like him more than Omar.

Perhaps one of these clubs?

(Any amateur detectives out there?)

metirish Dec 09 2009 12:17 PM Re: Church for Francouer

From the link So, while there has been a sense that sabermetrics is now part of MLB, some are using it only sparingly, while two clubs have yet to get on-board with the objective analysis world, at all. Guesses?

Edgy DC Dec 09 2009 12:21 PM Re: Church for Francouer

The Marlins (who don't pay for anything they're not forced to), and the Yankees (who are smarter than computers).

metsmarathon Dec 09 2009 12:34 PM Re: Church for Francouer

pirates and royals

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 09 2009 12:34 PM Re: Church for Francouer

Ban Baumer, SAFE at home. [url]http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/images/uploads/defensive_evaluation_jsm_60min.pdf I thought he was dead. Turns out he's doing some inneresting stuff.

metirish Dec 09 2009 12:59 PM Re: Church for Francouer

Ball-hogging correction = never heard of it.....an interesting read even if it went over my head ofr the most part.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 09 2009 02:45 PM Re: Church for Francouer

[quote="metsmarathon":19beie79]pirates and royals[/quote:19beie79] MFYs most definitely have one. A friend of a friend attended a Pitch F/X presentation this past year at which the MFYs were well-represented. And I would have thought KC would be right there. But apparently, they do have some sort of department (albeit not a very vocal one). Twins? Phils? Braves?