Master Index of Archived Threads


Manny to Mets Rumors Rear Their Hideous Heads . . . Again

Rotblatt Nov 08 2005 07:19 AM

Alterternately, this could be placed in the "Worst Trade Proposol Ever" Thread. From the Boston Herald: ]The centerpiece of the deal, coming from the Mets’ side, would be center fielder Mike Cameron and two of the following three prospects: outfielder Lastings Milledge and right-handers Aaron Heilman and Yusmeiro Petit. They're desperate to move Manny at this point. He's gone so far as to say that he wouldn't report to Spring Training unless he gets moved. We're one of the few teams that can afford him. Why the fuck would we give up two of the best prospects in baseball for a declining slugger owed over $60M? For that much, we should be getting someone like Adam Dunn or Ryan Howard--cheap(er), good production, young and FILLS A HOLE IN OUR LINEUP. I mean, what are we going to do with two left fielders? Three, if you include Diaz, who hasn't proved he's competent in right. We should laugh at Lucchino, tell everyone who'll listen that the Sox are living in la-la land, then wait for him to call us back. FWIW, my idea of a decent trade would be Cameron + one of Zambrano or Trachsel + 2nd-tier prospect (maybe Diaz or Hernandez). If we get Shoppach back, we throw in cash and a third-tier prospect.

Elster88 Nov 08 2005 07:41 AM

I really don't want to go through this again. Can't we just link to that other thread? All of the conversation about pretty much exact same deal has been played out. It'll save some time.

smg58 Nov 08 2005 07:45 AM

The Manny rumors won't go away until he's actually dealt somewhere. The price suggested here is too steep, but if the Red Sox are that desperate to deal -- and so far, I can't trust the accuracy of anything being reported -- the price should come down far below this level.

Rotblatt Nov 08 2005 07:55 AM

]I really don't want to go through this again. Can't we just link to that other thread? All of the conversation about pretty much exact same deal has been played out. It'll save some time. I couldn't actually find a "Manny Only" thread, although I did find a poll entitled "Alternatives to Manny" so there must have been one at some point. Of course, I just searched for the word "Manny," though, so if someone got clever in the naming, I might have missed it. I can move this into the A-P thread, but I figured this merited its own thread.

Edgy DC Nov 08 2005 07:59 AM

Make this the Manny thread. I wouldn't yet call Petit one of the best prospects in baseball, though Milledge qualifies. And, yeah, I'm ag'in' this deal.

metirish Nov 08 2005 08:03 AM

I'm so sick of this Manny talk, like most are I'm sure, sure I wouldn't say no to him but it seems the price is high, no need for Omar to go crazy here, he should be playing the Sox,wait them out and see what you can get him for.

Edgy DC Nov 08 2005 08:04 AM

Playin' Hardball at the GM meetings. Red Sox: "Ramirez for Milledge, Heilman, Cameron, and Petit!" Mets: "How about Ramirez for Felix Hereida?" Red Sox: "Please. How about Ramirez for Milledge, Heilman, Cameron, and Bannister?" Mets: "How about Ramirez for a scorecard from Pedro's last shutout? Would you like one of those? Which one of you four guys am I dealing with anyhow?"

Johnny Dickshot Nov 08 2005 08:06 AM

I want Manny only if he comes ridiculously cheap, and if he don;t he don't. If the Red Sox come with that offer, Omar should just cue a laugh track until they come down. Way down.

metirish Nov 08 2005 08:08 AM

LOL.....ok ok the Sox aren't that desperate yet......could be come Feburary though.

Edgy DC Nov 08 2005 08:08 AM

The Mets really are in a good situation right now and should let teams come to them.

MFS62 Nov 08 2005 08:10 AM

If they're that anxious to rid themselves of him and his big salary, if I were Omar I'd start the negotiations by offering Prentice Redman, Craig Brazell and Heredia. When you have them by the,er, wallets, their hearts and minds will follow. Later

Willets Point Nov 08 2005 08:26 AM

The Point-Petit family are strongly against this trade. The nice thing is that Yusmeiro is desirable since his name comes up in every freaking trade proposal.

Vic Sage Nov 08 2005 10:33 AM

- Cameron, Trax & V. Diaz (+ Bannister, if they include Shoppach) We take on the 3 remaining years of Manny's contract (with all its cost, potential risk and potential reward), without sacrificing either the future or the present, Boston gets rid of huge payroll obligation/problem-child who wants out, and they get a desperately needed solid SPer, a solid CFer to replace Damon, and a young bat with some promise. They can also have a 2nd tier pitching prospect like Bannister if they include Shoppach. I'd also have to consider including Petit instead of Bannister + V.Diaz (since I don't have much confidence in AA pitchers), but any deal for Manny that includes Milledge should be laughed at. As for dealing for "need" and "position"... thats a crock. The Mets have a DESPERATE need for a .300/30hr/120rbi bat in the middle of the lineup. He can play LF, and Cliff can either move to RF or 1B (both of which he's played before, adequately). If you can get a bat like Manny's, you shouldn't concern yourself overmuch with, of all things, LF DEFENSE!

Rotblatt Nov 08 2005 11:03 AM

="Vic Sage"]As for dealing for "need" and "position"... thats a crock. The Mets have a DESPERATE need for a .300/30hr/120rbi bat in the middle of the lineup. He can play LF, and Cliff can either move to RF or 1B (both of which he's played before, adequately). If you can get a bat like Manny's, you shouldn't concern yourself overmuch with, of all things, LF DEFENSE! Well, it was actually RF defense I was worried about (although Manny's defense at LF is marginally troubling to me, as is his age & baserunning--all outweighed by his bat so far), but I think you missed my bigger point, which is that if we're going to give up that much, we shouldn't have to move people out of position--we should get exactly what we need handed to us on a silver platter. IMO, exactly what we need = Adam Dunn or Ryan Howard.

Nymr83 Nov 08 2005 11:31 AM

maybe we should start a new Armando-bashing thread too, they're going to be far outnumbered by Manny threads soon. i doubt Howard is available. if Dunn is i want him now and at whatever cost (in prospects and cash.) Milledge and Pettit? Diaz, Petit, and Bannister?

Frayed Knot Nov 08 2005 11:47 AM

"at whatever cost" is a phrase that'll get you into trouble almost every time. Which is what's at the heart of any potential Manny story. No one wants to say no to that kind of bat. It's just when it comes to taking the whole package: the defense, the money still owed, the options beyond that, the baserunning, discipline and concentration lapses that make Manny so infuriating to his current employer, then there is a cost at which you say no and walk away. And that goes for Manny, Wagner, Dunn or whoever.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 08 2005 11:49 AM

I also fear a pursuit of Jim Thome.

metsmarathon Nov 08 2005 12:51 PM

cameron, trax, and diaz i could live more comfortably with. cameron, heilman, and petit/milledge, not so much at all. granted, i like cameron, so i think i'd prolly lean the most towards an HBO position. until we can work them down to diaz and trax, with no cammy, that is.

Nymr83 Nov 08 2005 01:15 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I also fear a pursuit of Jim Thome. Mo Vaughn part II. I hope they'll stay away.

Elster88 Nov 08 2005 01:17 PM

He was hurt, yes. But he doesn't weigh 350 lbs., either. Why all the hate? A slugging lefty first baseman? Hmmmm.... Staying away from Thome because of Mo was like when Fred got gunshy after Mo/Burnitz/Alomar and refused to go after Vlad. Speaking of Vladdy Daddy, how does everyone feel about his back these days? (No, I will not get over it.)

Centerfield Nov 08 2005 01:20 PM

If Vlad were here there would be all this talk about how he can't handle playing in New York because of his struggles in the post-season. "I can't describe it man, it just takes something extra to handle the pressure of playing in New York and this guy clearly doesn't have it."

Elster88 Nov 08 2005 01:30 PM

That's all well and good. It would still be nice to be hearing Met-related playoff discussion, even one as assinine as the one you describe.

smg58 Nov 08 2005 06:44 PM

Centerfield wrote: If Vlad were here there would be all this talk about how he can't handle playing in New York because of his struggles in the post-season. "I can't describe it man, it just takes something extra to handle the pressure of playing in New York and this guy clearly doesn't have it." But that would mean we were actually IN the postseason! Give me some idea how healthy Thome is and I'll tell you if he's worth pursuing. Given how the Phillies didn't return our calls when they shopped Schilling, I'd be nervous if they were eager to talk to us here. I'd be a lot less nervous about Thome if they also start shopping Ryan Howard, but I consider that a very remote possibility. Dunn's home/road splits aren't quite as scary as Soriano's, but they concern me enough that I wouldn't consider emptying the farm system, or even giving one of Milledge or Petit, for him (.221 BA, 14 HR, .805 OPS on the road this year; .230 BA, 46 HR, .835 OPS on the road from 02 to 04). He could turn into Burnitz (with more walks being the only difference) very easily.

Frayed Knot Nov 08 2005 09:11 PM

I'd be more cautious about getting Thome than I would about Manny. He's almost as expensive per/year and is nearly 2 years older. He also Ks more, hits for a lower average, runs slower (even if more enthusiastically), doesn't have appreciably more power, and is about on the same place on the defensive spectrum.

MFS62 Nov 09 2005 10:02 AM

The Many rumor came up again this morning, along with my breakfast, when I was listening to the 20-20 update on ESPN Radio. The announcer said there is talk about a "3 team deal that would bring Manny to the Mets". But then he gave no details. Has anyone else heard or read the details of this rumored deal? Later

sharpie Nov 09 2005 10:08 AM

Could involve the D-Rays which would be the nexus of 2 threads.

mlbaseballtalk Nov 09 2005 10:23 AM

Funny note, the national ESPN guy mentioned it as the Mets talking to the DRays about Baes and Huff for part of the three way and when it was picked up by the local guy, he made it sound that the deal was geared towards accquiring Baes for the bullpen! In other words, yet another reason not to listen to 20/20 speculations

Vic Sage Nov 09 2005 02:59 PM

]Well, it was actually RF defense I was worried about (although Manny's defense at LF is marginally troubling to me, as is his age & baserunning--all outweighed by his bat so far), Why would moving Floyd to RF, where he was a starter for the Marlins just a few years ago, create a RF defense to worry about? He was practically a gold-glover this year, with a great number of assists. Do you really think he'd be such a defensive LIABILITY in RF as to be any factor at all in whether or not to acquire Manny's bat? Yes, Manny in LF is troublesome, but as i said, you don't necessarily pass on a bat like his because you're concerned about LF DEFENSE! ]but I think you missed my bigger point, which is that if we're going to give up that much, we shouldn't have to move people out of position--we should get exactly what we need handed to us on a silver platter. I don't think giving up Cammy, Trax and Diaz (which was MY proposal), is giving up so much that we need to be too concerned about Cliff's move back to RF. ]IMO, exactly what we need = Adam Dunn or Ryan Howard. well, i'd agree, of course. They're both young, relatively inexpensive and highly productive. But that's precisely why i don't think we could get either of those guys without giving up significantly more than we might have to for an older, very expensive headcase.

Rotblatt Nov 10 2005 08:12 AM

]I don't think giving up Cammy, Trax and Diaz (which was MY proposal) Or was it . . . MINE? ]FWIW, my idea of a decent trade would be Cameron + one of Zambrano or Trachsel + 2nd-tier prospect (maybe Diaz or Hernandez). -Rotblatt, first post in thread. ]Why would moving Floyd to RF, where he was a starter for the Marlins just a few years ago, create a RF defense to worry about? He was practically a gold-glover this year, with a great number of assists. Do you really think he'd be such a defensive LIABILITY in RF as to be any factor at all in whether or not to acquire Manny's bat? Yes, Manny in LF is troublesome, but as i said, you don't necessarily pass on a bat like his because you're concerned about LF DEFENSE! Chill out, dude. We're on the exact same page. Well, not exactly, because I'm marginally concerned about Manny's defense, baserunning and diva-ness, but we both think his bat outweighs any potential problems and both think the alleged proposal in the article stunk. Let's agree to agree, shall we?

HappyRecap Nov 14 2005 07:31 AM I started a thread on Manny and am now officially

tired of thinking of him as a Met, let alone discussing him. Whatever they give up, if they do a deal, will be too much. HappyRecap

Elster88 Nov 14 2005 07:53 AM Re: I started a thread on Manny and am now officially

HappyRecap wrote: Whatever they give up, if they do a deal, will be too much. I don't like stupid statements like this. But you're probably just exaggerating so I'll forgive you.

Rotblatt Nov 22 2005 10:37 AM

Ortizzle thinks Manny's gone. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5104878

Elster88 Nov 22 2005 10:39 AM

I love it when ballplayers make statements that are by no means sure to come true.

sharpie Nov 22 2005 10:56 AM

Ortiz was the one who last year said that Pedro "wasn't going to no Mets."

Centerfield Nov 22 2005 10:56 AM

Ortiz said exactly the opposite about Pedro last year.

Elster88 Nov 22 2005 10:57 AM

sharpie wrote: Ortiz was the one who last year said that Pedro "wasn't going to no Mets." Aha!! He's smarter than all of us. By using the double negative he meant that Pedro was in fact going to the Mets. A tricky genius, that one.

MFS62 Nov 22 2005 11:05 AM

Here's a link to his comments from a Spanish newspaper. http://www.elheraldo.com.co/hoy051122/deportes/noti4.htm Looks like Fox did a direct translation. But there have been reports (can't find the specific link) that Manny recently told Ortiz that he wants to go to an American League team on the West coast (Angels?) where he could spend some time at DH. IMO, this has implications for the Mets. The Angels had been mentioned as a possible suitor, and the Mets major competition, for Delgado. If the Angels get Manny, the odds are they won't have money to pay Carlos. This could mean Delgado becomes a Met. Yes, its premature, and speculative, but its a slow day at work. Later

Valadius Nov 22 2005 06:43 PM

ESPN is reporting that Manny wants to go to a team out west, although not necessarily in the AL.

Frayed Knot Nov 27 2005 10:35 PM

In the meantime, these Manny-to-Mets rumors still won't go away. Both Newsday and the Times (and maybe others) mentioned it in their Sunday editions. Newsday's Jon Heyman - under a banner headline reading; Minaya Still Wants Manny - keeps the fires burning though really doesn't add much fuel. A second-hand quote attributed to Minaya saying; "I'm going for it", could mean almost anything, while another "mets official" characterizes things as "not impossible" all while admitting to numerous hurdles. And over at the old gray lady, Murray Chass warns us to "not be too stunned" if/when the stunning event occurs while also tossing in more of the same 'lotsa things need to fall in place first' kind of caveats. There's likely some truth to this stuff; after all, why shouldn't Omar check into things to see how badly Boston wants to deal? But I suspect that some of the usual press factors are at work here as well. 1) the usual warning about writers rooting for stories that make their jobs more interesting. Manny would certainly do that and so it's worth it to them to keep the embers warm and their fingers crossed. 2) an attempt by the scribes to not get scooped on this. If it does come through in the future they can always claim that they told us it was in the cards all along. 'See, right there, on November 27th, we said that ... '

Johnny Dickshot Nov 27 2005 10:41 PM

What bothers me is the way the press frequently dismisses Minaya as if he's a dimwit motivated by a freakish attraction to "big names" while barely acknowledging the "big names" he pursued also happened to be the best players he could afford. Some hack the other day wrote Minaya "lives for the big names." Oh, stfu.

Nymr83 Nov 28 2005 12:16 AM

since the "big names" are often, but not always, the best players, isn't that a good thing? i'd rather go for the "big names" like Delgado, Ramirez, Martinez, Beltran, etc. than go for the no-names the Mets have overpaid in the last decade (Cedeno, Vaughn, Bonilla, etc)

Benjamin Grimm Nov 28 2005 06:59 AM

Vaughn and Bonilla were "no-names"?

Edgy DC Nov 28 2005 07:08 AM

Cedeño also, for that matter.

metirish Nov 28 2005 07:35 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 28 2005 07:38 AM

Klapisch seems to think a deal is close... ]Monday, November 28, 2005 By BOB KLAPISCH STAFF WRITER Omar Minaya spent the entire Thanksgiving holiday working the phones - or, to be more specific, working the Red Sox for a possible deal for Manny Ramirez. According to a National League executive, the Mets made notable progress, a development that was seconded by a club official who said Sunday night, "We have a shot." Ramirez is, and always has been, Minaya's biggest prey, although the hunt until now has been slowed by two obstacles. First, Ramirez' $20 million annual salary was more than the Wilpon family was willing to spend. And second, Ramirez, 33, would almost certainly cost the Mets hot-shot outfield prospect Lastings Milledge. That's one reason Minaya was exploring a deal for Alfonso Soriano - until the Rangers' demands included Milledge, said the NL source. Once the price tag became too steep, Minaya resumed an earlier dialogue with the Red Sox, who were surprisingly receptive. It's still unclear whom, exactly, the Red Sox would demand in addition to Milledge, but Minaya may be willing to convince ownership that with Ramirez in a lineup that already has Carlos Delgado, the East can be conquered outright in 2006. Ramirez seems poised for a trade. Just last week he asked one of his former handlers in Cleveland to join him in New York, if and when a trade finally happens. The friend, who asked to remain anonymous, said Sunday: "Manny's first choice is still Anaheim, because he feels he could play there without fans bothering him too much. He walked around the malls there and no one noticed him. He liked that. "He's not crazy about New York, but he said he would go there if that was the only way to get out of Boston. He's just fed up with people bothering him all the time, showing up at his house." Minaya still will have to lean on the Wilpons to make room on the payroll for Ramirez. With a $30 million offer on the table for Billy Wagner - which is likely to balloon now that B.J. Ryan is finalizing a five-year deal worth $47 million with the Blue Jays - Ramirez could turn the Mets into a $115 million to $120 million investment next year, and that's even if Boston assumes some of the slugger's salary. Still, the temptation to score a blizzard of runs could be great enough to make Ramirez worth any price. Although he batted under .300 for the first time since 1998, Ramirez nevertheless finished third in the American League with 45 home runs and tied for second with 144 RBI. More poignantly, Ramirez batted .358 with runners in scoring position, cementing his reputation as a nearly-uncontainable force under pressure. Indeed, Manny's focus - and lack of it - have become legendary. In 2005, he batted only .237 with the bases empty, but his average zoomed to .346 with runners on. Of course, Ramirez's mood swings and erratic behavior have exasperated Boston officials for years, and the fact that the Mets are moving closer to a deal suggests the Red Sox have had enough of the outfielder's antics. But Minaya believes Ramirez will be happier in New York and therefore less likely to stray. Ramirez's friend also said Manny's friendship with Pedro Martinez, "would make it easier for him [to play for the Mets]." With Delgado in town today for his first press conference as a Met, the talk with be all about the new-look, newly-muscled offense. Apparently, this dialogue now requires an asterisk. It says: to be continued. E-mail: klapisch@northjersey.com

Valadius Nov 28 2005 07:37 AM

I had read that his preference was Seattle but the Mariners can't afford him...

Elster88 Nov 28 2005 07:40 AM

I've now heard and read that his preference was Toronto, Anaheim, Seattle, and Chicago. Don't put too much stock into what you read.

seawolf17 Nov 28 2005 07:40 AM

]"He's not crazy about New York, but he said he would go there if that was the only way to get out of Boston. He's just fed up with people bothering him all the time, showing up at his house." Hey, guess what? You're a celebrity. You don't want people noticing you, then retire and move to Montana. ]In 2005, he batted only .237 with the bases empty, but his average zoomed to .346 with runners on. What a great stat! I'm too lazy to look up his career numbers, but that's fascinating.

metirish Nov 28 2005 07:41 AM

that's Manny being Manny...

Benjamin Grimm Nov 28 2005 07:45 AM

At what point do the Mets stop looking like Mets and start looking like the American League All-Star team? Winning a World Series with Manny, Beltran, Delgado, Pedro, and Molina, plus NLers like Glavine and Benson and Floyd, wouldn't mean as much as it did in 1969 or 1986, when so many of the players were either home-grown or long-timers. I guess Glavine and Floyd have been around for a while now, but the only players on the team who really seem like Mets are Reyes and Wright, as well as Heilman and Seo. I do like seeing them get great players, and I'd much rather see them win than lose, but I wonder if we're going to far, if we're getting to a point where we're rooting for a bunch of strangers.

Valadius Nov 28 2005 07:49 AM

That's why I'm against trading young talent like we did with Jake-Monster and Petit. I like a team built from within, with chemistry and camaraderie.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 28 2005 07:50 AM

I forgot about Trachsel. Trachsel feels like a Met by now too.

Rotblatt Nov 28 2005 07:51 AM

Manny would be nice and all, but at this point, I don't think anybody can make the case that we NEED him. On the other hand, it looks like the Sox might need to get rid of him, which means, IMO, we should sit on our hands until the Sox's price drops below Milledge. If it never gets that low, we've still got one of the best lineups in the National League, especially if you believe, as I do, that Beltran's likely to improve on his 2005. Sit tight, Omar. Let the Sox come crawling to you.

Nymr83 Nov 28 2005 07:52 AM

Glavine will always be a Brave to me so put him in a worse category than all these "AL guys." right now Wright, Reyes, Floyd, Heilman, Seo, Traschel are the only guys i can feel good about.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2005 07:57 AM

"Good morning, Manny! Hit me a homah today!"

metirish Nov 28 2005 07:58 AM

I can feel good about any player wearing a Mets uni,of recent years Mike Stanton was a guy I didn't like,partly because he came from the yankees but more so because he belittled the Mets after 9/11...

Nymr83 Nov 28 2005 07:59 AM

hey edgy! give us a forum! [/end hijack] i think the Manny talk is dead at this point, the Mets are looking for a Catcher it seems. odds are good they will either overpay for a mediocre one or trade too much for a bad one.

Nymr83 Nov 28 2005 08:00 AM

metirish wrote: I can feel good about any player wearing a Mets uni,of recent years Mike Stanton was a guy I didn't like,partly because he came from the yankees but more so because he belittled the Mets after 9/11... he did? what did he say? i didn't remember this and i'm always looking for anti-patriotic celebrities to make fun of

ABG Nov 28 2005 08:08 AM

"More poignantly"?

ScarletKnight41 Nov 28 2005 08:08 AM

Nymr83 wrote: ="metirish"]I can feel good about any player wearing a Mets uni,of recent years Mike Stanton was a guy I didn't like,partly because he came from the yankees but more so because he belittled the Mets after 9/11... he did? what did he say? i didn't remember this and i'm always looking for anti-patriotic celebrities to make fun of If you recall, after 9/11, every member of the Mets (and even some ex-Mets, like Rick Reed) contributed one day's salary to the relief efforts. The Yankees made no similar effort (I'm sure that many individuals made generous contributions, but it wasn't a top to bottom kind of thing like the Mets did). Stanton, a MFY at the time, belittled the Mets' contribution as being merely a publicity stunt. Fuck him!

metirish Nov 28 2005 08:10 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 28 2005 08:11 AM

]he did? what did he say? i didn't remember this and i'm always looking for anti-patriotic celebrities to make fun of I never said Staton was un-patriotic... thanks SK for explaining that..

Elster88 Nov 28 2005 08:10 AM

So, how 'bout that Manny Ramirez guy? Do you think the Mets will get him?

old original jb Nov 28 2005 08:12 AM re: Manny

Maybe it's a moot issue by now, but I could put up with an awful lot if someone hits .346 with runners in scoring position. A player like that would have come in handy more than a few times in the past several years-=- as I seem to recall doing a lot of cursing at my TV set at the ends of innings during which players with lesser RISP stats failed to get it done for the Mets. As for a team of All Stars, strangers, and rentals, I think that in the current climate, one of the story lines of any given season is how that cast gels and develops an identity as a team for the season that they are together. The Mets have a core for the next few years; it is Pedro, Beltran, Wright, and Reyes. Heilman or Seo could become part of that core if they become too valuable to trade. Like it or not, in this day and age, four or five players is about as much of a core as you can ask for.

metirish Nov 28 2005 08:12 AM

Yes we will ,it's Omars great crusade.....he dreams about Manny apparently..

Elster88 Nov 28 2005 08:13 AM

I'm worried about what Pedro has left in the tank. Course, I was worried about that last year and had those worries rammed down my throat with extra mustard.

ScarletKnight41 Nov 28 2005 08:14 AM

No problem Irish. Long timers here have heard me rant on this subject before (and Elster probably still has the shakes as a result ;) ).

Edgy DC Nov 28 2005 08:15 AM

I'd like to thank JB for introducing a great new punctuation mark in -=-

Vic Sage Nov 28 2005 08:31 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 28 2005 08:35 AM

Yancy: ]I do like seeing them get great players, and I'd much rather see them win than lose, but I wonder if we're going to far, if we're getting to a point where we're rooting for a bunch of strangers. Yancy, they're all strangers. You ever been out to dinner with a Met? Any of them ever bring the cranberry sauce to your T'giving dinner? Why don't fans get the fact that what we are rooting for is the UNIFORM... players come and go, management changes... the only constant is the team's name and the history it evokes. I've rooted for such Mets batteries as Seaver and Grote, Swan and Stearns, Ed Lynch and Hodgie, Doc and the Kid, Viola and Sasser, Sabes and Hundley, Leiter and the Pizza Man, and Pedro and Castro. And I'll root for Vasquez and Ramon Hernandez next season, if it comes to that, without skipping a beat. And if that combo gets us closer to a championship than Heilmann to Heitpas, I'm fine with that. I'm as sentimental as the next guy, but lets not over-romanticize the kids. Some kids turn out to be Mr. Wright, but most turn out to be Floyd Youmans. That being said, I agree with Rottweiler. We don't really NEED Manny anymore, not like we did before the Delgado trade, so I don't see the necessity of giving up Milledge. Unlike young pitchers (who can blow up at a moment's notice) 5-tool CFers who've actually produced at each stop in the minors (unlike "prospects" like ryan thompson or Alex Escobar who were mostly "potential", not "production") are diamonds to be surrendered under the direst of circumstances. This is not such a circumstance. If we can get Manny for Nady and other prospects, I'd be okay with it (even with the salary and the headaches). But Milledge is a keeper, like Wright and Reyes, and you only move him if absolutely necessary. Furthermore, this is Floyd's last season and, given his injury history, he is as likely to end up on the DL for a substantial period as he is to repeat this past season's performance. Milledge is the heir apparent, and is likely to get a callup this season.... maybe September, but maybe sooner, if Floyd goes down. Lets just overpay for Wagner, sign Ramon and go into ST with an open competition at 2B and RF. I'm good with that.

Elster88 Nov 28 2005 08:32 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 28 2005 08:37 AM

Since 90% of the players don't give a fuck about the fans, I don't really care where the players come from. Just keep Asshead away from me. (Asshead being a pitcher who likes to throw bats)

Benjamin Grimm Nov 28 2005 08:33 AM

Oh, I know they're all strangers. It's just that I'd rather win with guys who've been around for a while, or who will be around for a while. But as I said above (I think) I'd rather win with the strangers than lose with the familiar faces.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2005 08:35 AM

I don't root for a uniform. I dislike the Mets uniform two days in three.

Frayed Knot Nov 28 2005 08:37 AM

Rule 1: When a player's RiSP numbers are considerably better than his regular numbers counting on them to continue to be that way in the future will likely leave you disappointed. Rule 2: Refer often to rule 1 Nice that Klapisch pulled that "clutch" number out of Manny's arsenal -- although one could probably find plently of contradictory numbers as well by looking around enough. Klapisch likely knows this (or he certainly should) but naturally he chose the one that makes for the best story. And speaking of Klapisch, while there's nothing "wrong" with the idea of that article, he follows the other two I mentioned by turning small tidbits: quotes saying, "we have a shot"; or un-named outside sources suggesting that progress has been made; into something more than it probably is in order to provide raw meat for the hungry masses.

Vic Sage Nov 28 2005 08:38 AM

Edgy: ]I dislike the Mets uniform two days in three. so what happens on the 3rd day? The Midol starts to kick in?

Edgy DC Nov 28 2005 08:42 AM

They wear the classikc blue hat, of course. (The dot doesn't bother me.) Midol, ha, that's rich! Wait'll I tell the guys at the lodge.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2005 10:53 AM

Every time I see the " mets get delgado (apparently)" thread pop up to the top, I get queasy, thinking they got Ramirez.

Rotblatt Nov 29 2005 01:32 PM

Okay, so Bob Klapisch thinks we'd be willing to give up Floyd, Heilman & Milledge to get Manny. Now, I know this is probably just another sports writer making shit up, but let's think about that a little. My gut feeling is we'd be giving up too much. Let's see if I'm right: Manny's VORP in 2005: 68.6 Floyd: 46.3 Heilman: 26.5 So BEFORE factoring in defense, salary or Lastings Milledge, we're already down 4.2 runs in 2006. Of course, Cliff & Heilman had near-career years last year, whereas Manny just did his usual thing; however, Heilman IMO looks like he's turned a corner and I wouldn't be surprised to see him hit around 25 runs above average next year. If Cliff gets 400 AB (he's averaged 437 over the past 3 years), he'll probably be good for 30 runs above average (33.3 average over past 3 years). Manny, meanwhile, has averaged a VORP of 71.7 over the past 3 years. Giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he won't decline at all, let's say he matches that in 2006. So the difference in runs so far is 16.7 in favor of the trade. According to RAA2, Cliff saved 15 runs last year, whereas Manny cost the Sox 12 runs. That's probably not fair to Manny, since that was a career low for him and a career high for Cliff, so let's look at 3-year averages. Manny's averages -10.3 runs over the past 3, whereas Floyd's averaged 3.3. So now it's looking like we only gain 3.1 runs in 2006 in favor of the trade. Talking salary, Manny's owed close to $20M. Cliff's owed $6.5M and Heilman maybe $0.5M. Is 3.1 additional runs worth $13M? One could make an argument that giving up Floyd & Heilman ALONE is not worth Manny even in the extreme short term. Once you throw Milledge in there, it's just blatant crazy talk if you ask me.

Elster88 Nov 29 2005 01:40 PM

Of course, that's putting a whole lotta stock in VORP. Not saying I agree or disagree, just pointing it out.

Rotblatt Nov 29 2005 02:14 PM

True. I suppose I could've used win shares too . . . 2005 Heilman: 9 WS Floyd: 26 WS Manny: 34 WS So we lose a WS, assuming that everyone replicates their numbers. Seems pretty comparable to VORP & RAA2 to me. Maybe I'll check out their historical WS data later this week . . .

Rockin' Doc Nov 29 2005 03:38 PM

VORP and WS both fail to take into account that Heilman and Milledge are substantially younger than Manny. If they indeed pan out as most hope, they should still be playing long after Manny has put his bat away. There is also the matter of cost to be considered. Manny costs more than Heilman, Floyd and Milledge combined. Personally, I think that is too much to give for Ramirez.

MFS62 Nov 29 2005 03:57 PM

If that deal is still in play, it is giving up too much. But if it does go down, we'd better be getting back most(if not all) of the money due Manny, and (not or) catching prospect Kelly Shopach. Later

smg58 Nov 29 2005 07:18 PM

That would be a wonderful deal for the Red Sox even with Shoppach added.

old original jb Nov 29 2005 09:03 PM Adding Vorps and winshares...

This seems wrong. Manny may be good for an equal Vorp or winshare total to Heilman plus Floyd, but (assuming Manny replaces Floyd) Heilman would be replaced on the roster by another player. To see whether the trade leaves the Mets in a better or worse position, compare the total Vorp or winshares before and after by adding Manny plus X and comparing to Floyd plus Heilman. To factor in Milledge, you'd have to estimate his likely Vorp or winshare total for a season, then add it to Floyd plus Heilman and add Manny plus X plus Y where X is Heilman's replacement and Y is the replacement for the potential Milledge. You then have to discount the Milledge part of the equation because it is in the future.

Edgy DC Nov 29 2005 09:10 PM

Almost by definition, such calculations assume that the VORP for Player X is 0.0. He's the RP in VORP.

Nymr83 Nov 29 2005 11:16 PM

thats wayyyyy too much to give up. frankly i would give them Milledge straight up if we're paying the entire salary and thats it. if they want Floyd and anyone else they need to pony up some $$ to pay for that big albatross of a contract that we'd be taking.

Elster88 Nov 30 2005 07:28 AM

I seem to be bashing people's sig lines a lot these days, but this: ]This team is more fun to watch in the winter than the summer. --soupcan, 11/28/05 is not true at all. Never has been really. I'll take losing baseball over the winter blues any day.

Valadius Nov 30 2005 09:53 AM

I don't WANT Manny. Period. I'd like to build from within for a change.

old original jb Nov 30 2005 10:56 AM re: VORP

]Almost by definition, such calculations assume that the VORP for Player X is 0.0. He's the RP in VORP. But it's still a big assumption that Heilman would be replaced with a random player of average performance. There are a lot of scenarios in which Player X could have a positive VORP and that would change the impact of the trade. If Heilman plus Floyd for Manny was followed with the signing of (your favorite top setup man here), then the Mets would be better off after the deals were concluded. The analogy that comes to mind is the pairing of chemical reactions in which a reaction that normally won't happen due to enthalpic considerations, does in fact happen because it enables a subsequent reaction which results in a net enthalpic change that is favorable. I think, therefore, that except in obviously lopsided situations, VORP or winshares may be of limited use in predicting the impact of transactions involving unequal numbers of players at different positions until you know who will replace all of the players involved. The main factor to consider is that the transactions don't happen in a vacuum, but are coupled to other transactions and roster moves which will ultimately alter the net VORP or winshares. As for use of this method to factor in the value of a minor league (read future) player, it gets so complicated I can't even think about it, except to recall that I think that Yogi Berra warned us all to be careful making predictions---especially about the future.

rpackrat Nov 30 2005 11:10 AM

A replacement level player is not an average player. Replacement level is defined as the level of freely available talent in the minor leagues. A replacement level player would be a below-average major leaguer.

old original jb Nov 30 2005 11:15 AM re; replacement player

Thank you for the correction. My argument, however stays the same, only more so, since it is likely that a traded Heilman would ultimately be replaced in the Mets lineup by a player who would have a positive value compared to that of a freely available minor league player.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2005 11:16 AM

Be careful making predictions---especially about the future.

Elster88 Nov 30 2005 11:23 AM

]I'd like to build from within for a change. You're right. This does need to be changed. The Mets never build from within. Oh wait we have Reyes, Wright, Seo, and Heilman all on the roster. Hmmmmmm.

soupcan Nov 30 2005 11:34 AM

Elster88 wrote: ]This team is more fun to watch in the winter than the summer. --soupcan, 11/28/05 is not true at all. Never has been really. I'll take losing baseball over the winter blues any day. Oh shush. We all would rather watch actual baseball - this is tongue in cheek you chucklehead. Just my luck - someone finds something I say entertaining enough to want to remember and someone else has to give 'em a hard time. How's a guy supposed to figure out what to put on his tombstone with critics like you around?

Elster88 Nov 30 2005 11:38 AM

That's Mr. Chucklehead to you. I know, soupy. Wasn't teasing you so much as teasing Nymr for using it as a sig line. There's lots of good stuff to use from the dry-wits at this board, and yours is a good one too. Just giving Nymr a hard time because he was next on my list to harass, I haven't bothered him in a while. I guess I can cross you off now too.

Rotblatt Nov 30 2005 11:53 AM

I didn't get into the "who's replacing Heilman" thing because it gets awfully complicated at that point. It's not clear who would replace his innings if he got traded, and if Robo (22.6) is on the way out, then we have ANOTHER big hole to fill. Padilla (15.2 in just 36.3 IP, although IMO he was pitching over his head) might be able to replace Robo or Heilman's numbers given a full year, but then we need someone to replace his. Wagner helps, no doubt, but he was "only" worth 30 runs last year--just 4 more than Heilman. In short, Heilman is NOT going to be easy to replace. Replacing his production, plus the production we got from Robo, will be extremely difficult. But for the sake of argument, let's say we resign Robo (who duplicates his 2005) & fill Heilman's spot with Farnsworth at $5.5M per year. Farnsworth was worth 26.1 runs over a replacement play last year, so he'd only be a slight downgrade from Heilman. In that scenario, we gain 29.2 runs between Manny & Farnsworth, but we also are taking on $18.5M instead of just $13M. And again, that's before we consider likely future performance. Manny will probably decline somewhat at $20M per year, Farnsworth & Heilman will probably stay around the same, but Farnsworth will cost $5M more, and Milledge will start to contribute, probably in 2007.

duan Nov 30 2005 12:07 PM nate silver did a really good job of analysing

the manny deal that DIDN'T happen round about the trade deadline - it's worth looking at here More often than not, the trade deadline winds up being anti-climactic. Between large contracts, seven-way wild-card races and a condensed time frame, it's awfully hard to find a deal involving superstar players that is suitable to all sides. The 2005 deadline, unfortunately, has been no exception; we pundits are stuck with the scraps of Geoff Blum and Kyle Farnsworth and a whole bunch of almosts and coulda-beens. Nevertheless, sometimes the coulda-beens are news unto themselves. Even though a deal was not consummated, it's remarkable that the Boston Red Sox, bathing in cash, coming off a championship and in the midst of a heated pennant race, were seriously contemplating trading Manny Ramirez, who remains one of the best hitters in baseball. What's also been surprising is the lack of editorial opinion on the deal. Under ordinary circumstances, a contending team considering trading one of its best hitters, a couple of its best prospects and a heap of cash would trigger a lot of questions about the sanity of that team's general manager. In this case, nobody has suggested that Theo Epstein has lost his mind, nor has there been much discussion about whether the deal would be a good one for the Sox. Much of that, I think, is because the would-be trade is awfully tough to analyze from a traditional, on-the-field perspective. The reason the Sox might have traded Ramirez would be to get out of the remaining years of his huge contract. There isn't much debate that Ramirez, even if he ages reasonably well, isn't going to be worth what the Sox will be paying him through 2008. But in order to analyze the deal, you have to have some notion of exactly how much Ramirez's remaining contract years are likely to cost the Red Sox. That's fairly tough to do, but we're going to give it a try. Ramirez is scheduled to make $23.2 million this year (a figure that includes the final prorated chunk of his signing bonus), $19 million in 2006, $18 million in 2007 and $20 million in 2008. His contract also includes team options for 2009 and 2010, but at such a steep price ($20 million per year) that it's safe to attribute no material economic value to them; they're not going to be picked up. What sort of return on investment are the Red Sox likely to get for their money? Let's walk through a quick, four-step process: Step 1: Determine the marginal cost of Ramirez's contract. This is straightforward. We take Ramirez's annual salary and subtract from it the major-league minimum salary of $317,000, the amount Red Sox are obligated to pay to whichever player fills Ramirez' roster slot. This produces a marginal cost of: 2005 $22.88 million 2006 $18.68 million 2007 $17.68 million 2008 $19.68 million Step 2: Estimate Ramirez's on-field productivity. This would ordinarily be very tricky to do, but fortunately we have PECOTA, which uses comparable players to estimate a ballplayer's performance several years into the future. PECOTA estimated, prior to this season, that Ramirez would be worth 7.8 wins above replacement (WARP) this year, 6.4 WARP in 2006, 5.1 WARP in 2007 and 4.1 WARP in 2008. Ramirez losing essentially half his value in the span of four years might seem like a fairly steep decline, but it has plenty of precedent. Ramirez's top comparable is Albert Belle, who hung up his spikes after his age-33 season. Also ranking high among his comps are Sammy Sosa and Dick Allen, who lost their skills plenty fast. Certainly, there are also some more favorable names on the list--guys like Frank Robinson and Tony Perez who aged well--but considering that there's some chance of a steep decline for Ramirez (possibly triggered by injury), and a near certainty of at least some decline, PECOTA's estimate seems reasonable. In fact, it may be too generous. Ramirez is on pace to finish at about 6.9 WARP this year, a fair bit worse than the preseason forecast, but for simplicity's sake, we'll go ahead and leave his PECOTA forecast as is. Step 3: Translate on-field productivity into cash. This is the trickiest part of the problem. We might have a pretty good idea of how many wins Ramirez is worth, but there hasn't been a lot of work done recently on just how much money a win is worth, in terms of increased ticket sales, media exposure, postseason sales and so forth. What's more, this number surely varies from team to team: a big-market team like the Mets that doesn't fill its stadium probably gets more cash benefit from an additional win than, say, the Padres do. But there is another approach to the problem, which is to determine how much teams are willing to pay for an additional win. In an analysis of last winter's free-agent market, I determined that the market price of an additional win is about $2.14 million dollars. We'll use that as our working estimate, which leads to a marginal revenue product (MRP) for Ramirez as follows: Year WARP MRP 2005 7.8 $16.69MM 2006 6.4 $13.70MM 2007 5.1 $10.91MM 2008 4.1 $8.77MM Step 4: Deduct output from cost to determine the marginal gain or loss associated with a contract. This is mostly just a simple subtraction problem, but we'll add a couple of additional wrinkles for the sake of completeness. First, both MRP and cost need to be prorated for 2005, since most of the season has been completed, and since most of Ramirez's contract has already been paid. We'll use one-third as our multiplier, since about two-thirds of the season has been played to date. Second, since a dollar today is worth more than the same dollar tomorrow, we need to discount future years of the contract to account for the time value of money. In order to do that, we'll apply a neutral discount rate of 5% per year. That gives us the following result: Manny Ramirez 2005(ROY)* 2006 2007 2008 Total Marginal Salary $7.63 $18.68 $17.68 $19.68 $63.67 WARP 2.6 6.4 5.1 4.1 18.2 Market Value $5.56 $13.70 $10.91 $8.77 $38.95 Net Value -$2.06 -$4.98 -$6.77 -$10.91 -$24.72 Discounted @ 5% -$2.06 -$4.75 -$6.14 -$9.42 -$22.37 * Rest of Year We estimate that the net present value (NPV) of Ramirez's remaining contract is negative $22.37 million dollars. Put another way, if Ramirez offered to let the team buy out the rest of his contract for $22.5 million, the Sox would benefit from taking him up on his offer. Thus, it's pretty easy to see why the Sox are almost obligated to listen to offers that could reduce the financial burden associated with Ramirez, even if some of these offers might marginally reduce their chances of repeating their World Series championship. Since a deal was never consummated, we can't know exactly what the Red Sox would have been willing to give up to get this $22.37 million liability off their books. But according to this Jayson Stark column, the Red Sox were at least reasonably close to agreeing to a deal in which they would have given up Ramirez, Hanley Ramirez, Jon Lester and $15 million in cash and received Aubrey Huff and Mike Cameron in return. Would this have been a good deal for the Sox? We can estimate the NPV for the other player contracts in the same way that we did for Ramirez. This is straightforward in the case of the veterans, who are locked into multi-year deals of their own, but more difficult for the prospects. Let's start with Aubrey Huff: Aubrey Huff 2005(ROY)* 2006 Total Marginal Salary $1.39 $7.18 $8.57 WARP 1.9 5.2 7.1 Market Value $4.14 $11.13 $15.27 Net Value $0.91 $3.95 $4.86 Discounted @ 5% $0.91 $3.76 $4.67 Huff is owed $4.5 million in 2005 and $7.5 million in 2006; after that, he can become a free agent. He hasn't quite lived up to his preseason PECOTA projection, which means that this estimate may be slightly too generous, but this still looks like a pretty cheap contract in the near-term. We estimate that the NPV associated with Huff's remaining contract is positive $4.67 million. Mike Cameron: Mike Cameron 2005(ROY)* 2006 2007 Total Marginal Salary $1.89 $7.68 $6.18 $15.75 WARP 1.8 3.4 3.1 8.3 Market Value $3.85 $7.28 $6.63 $17.76 Net Value $1.96 -$0.13 $0.15 $1.98 Discounted @ 5% $1.96 -$0.13 $0.14 $1.97 Cameron's contract includes a team option at $6.5 million in 2007; if the team does not exercise that option, he'll be owed a $500,000 buyout. PECOTA estimates that Cameron's market value in 2007 will be $6.63 million, making it worthwhile to exercise that option, so we've gone ahead and included that year of the contract. All told, his contract looks like a slight net positive for an acquirer. The economic value of a prospect comes in his first six years of major-league service, when he'll provide value to his team either essentially free of charge (before becoming arbitration-eligible) or at a material discount below market rates (arbitration years). To my knowledge, there hasn't been a study done of just what sort of discount a team can anticipate during a player's arbitration years, but it's clear that 1) arbitration awards or settlements tend to run at least somewhat below what a player would be paid in the free market, and 2) this discount tends to decrease--he makes a larger fraction of his market value--as the player's service time increases. My educated guesstimate is that we're looking at something like this for a typical player: MLB Year 1 $350,000 salary MLB Year 2 $500,000 salary MLB Year 3 40% of market salary MLB Year 4 60% of market salary MLB Year 5 70% of market salary MLB Year 6 80% of market salary Both Ramirez and Lester look like they're fairly close to major-league ready, especially for a team like the Devil Rays, so we'll assume that their first major-league seasons are in 2006, at which time their arbitration clocks start running. Each will be 22 next season, and assuming they stick in the majors, both would become free agents after their age-27 seasons in 2011. PECOTA's five-year forecasts give us estimates of each player's value through 2009. For Ramirez, those numbers are 2.5 wins (2006), 2.8 (2007), 2.6 (2008) and 3.0 (2009). He'll be at his age 26-27 peak in the two years that follow, so we'll make a reasonable extrapolation outward and assume 3.5 wins above replacement in 2010, and 4.0 in 2011. Note, by the way, that these WARP estimates are the weighted average, accounting for both favorable and unfavorable outcomes. If Hanley Ramirez becomes a regular major-league shortstop, he'll probably be worth somewhat more than 4.0 WARP in his age-27 season, but there are some unresolved questions about Ramirez' ability. He hasn't had a great year in Portland, and we have to hedge those favorable outcomes against the substantial chance that he isn't able to establish himself, and is worth very little to his club. Applying Ramirez's PECOTA forecast and the assumptions about his salary from above, we come up with the following estimate of his value: Hanley Ramirez 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Marginal Salary $0.03 $0.18 $2.23 $3.85 $5.24 $6.85 $18.38 WARP 2.5 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0 18.4 Market Value $5.35 $5.99 $5.56 $6.42 $7.49 $8.56 $39.38 Net Value $1.77 $1.94 $1.11 $0.86 $0.75 $0.57 $7.00 Discounted @ 5% $1.69 $1.76 $0.96 $0.70 $0.59 $0.43 $6.12 We figure the NPV of Hanley Ramirez's contract (more properly, the NPV of the right to sign him to cheap contracts) to be $6.12 million. Intuitively, that seems pretty reasonable for a B or B+ hitting prospect. Lester is the player involved in this conversation whose season has deviated most substantially from PECOTA's expectations. He's taken to Double-A very well. I'm going to go ahead and append an additional 0.5 wins/year to his forecast; I think PECOTA will do something similar when we run his new projection this winter. That said, any pitching prospect has substantial risk associated with him until he's demonstrated the ability to stay healthy for multiple major-league seasons, and pitchers don't experience the same predictable improvement in the age 23-26 range that offensive players do, so we shouldn't fudge upward too much. We'll estimate that Lester is worth 2.0 wins/year in 2010 and 2011, the years that aren't covered by his PECOTA forecast. Jon Lester 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Marginal Salary $0.03 $0.18 $1.11 $2.05 $3.00 $3.42 $9.80 WARP 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.0 10.3 Market Value $3.42 $3.85 $2.78 $3.42 $4.28 $4.28 $22.04 Net Value $1.13 $1.22 $0.56 $0.46 $0.43 $0.29 $4.08 Discounted @ 5% $1.08 $1.11 $0.48 $0.38 $0.34 $0.21 $3.59 We arrive at a NPV of $3.59 million for Lester. We can evaluate the entire trade from the Red Sox's perspective by adding up the estimated NPVs of the players involved in the discussions, and subtracting out the reported $15 million ransom that the Red Sox would pay to the Mets: Manny Ramirez +$22.37MM Aubrey Huff +$ 4.67MM Mike Cameron +$ 1.97MM Hanley Ramirez -$ 6.12MM Jon Lester -$ 3.59MM Cash -$15.00MM --------------------------- Net Value +$ 4.29MM The Red Sox gain about $22 million from shedding Ramirez's contract, and an additional $7 million or so from picking up Huff and Cameron at reasonable prices. In order to accomplish this, they must part with about $10 million worth of prospects and $15 million in cash. All told, the Stark version of the deal looks like it would have been a slight net positive for Boston, to the tune of about $4 million. That said, $4 million is not a large margin of error in the modern baseball economy, and you can make some other, reasonable kinds of assumptions that push the deal to about break-even, or just below it. It's no wonder, in other words, that the Red Sox were pushed just about to the brink with the proposed transaction. Theo Epstein may have been getting some value here, but only a little bit, especially considering some intangible factors like a potential public backlash against trading a superstar, or the additional marginal value associated with wins for a team that is in the midst of a tight pennant race. Remove Lester from the equation, or add a decent prospect or two coming in return--the Red Sox were reportedly trying to do both of these things--and the case for the deal becomes much clearer. No matter how you slice it, the deal looks like a terrible one for the Mets. They'd reportedly have been giving up Lastings Milledge--probably worth between $7-$8 million under this methodology--in addition to getting a raw deal on the valuation of Ramirez's contract. Frankly, I find it refreshing to go through a process like this on a deal that the Red Sox seemed to regard as fairly close to break-even, and come to the conclusion that the trade would, in fact, have been just about break-even for the Red Sox's bottom line. The names and numbers involved in the reports you've seen about the almost-trade are not pulled out of thin air--the Red Sox almost certainly have gone through a process exactly like this, and that's why they were willing to offer exactly what they were. It might seem cut-throat or Machiavellian to evaluate a deal in this fashion, but that's the perspective that a championship-caliber front office needs to apply.

seawolf17 Nov 30 2005 12:24 PM

/head explodes

smg58 Nov 30 2005 12:58 PM

Interesting analysis, and I'm sure GM's do something similar all the time. The question then becomes how certain you are of a prospect's value, and whether or not wins in a coming season are more valuable than wins in the future. I'd be curious to see how the Delgado trade would look in this analysis, and how contracts to players like Delgado, Wagner, Pedro, and Beltran stack up with Manny's.

Willets Point Nov 30 2005 01:10 PM

="seawolf17"]/head explodes Ditto.

Elster88 Nov 30 2005 01:11 PM

smg58 wrote: Interesting analysis, and I'm sure GM's do something similar all the time.. Really? I think some GMs are lacking in the brainpower department to handle that.

Elster88 Nov 30 2005 03:18 PM

Is getting Manny really that terrible if we don't give up Heilman or Milledge? Is the money what's scaring everyone? The Mets done got themselves a spanking new TV station and a city full of bandwagon hoppers (who will eagerly proclaim themselves Met fans to try to disguise their bandwagonness) that will be happy to buy tickets and jerseys. Not to mention loyalists like ourselves (I plan to go to 40 and a half games next year) and the hordes of media reps that will be taking pictures of Delgado during every seventh inning stretch, regardless of what's playing, God Bless America or Cottoneye Joe. I think Carlos should bring a tazer to every post-game interview session. And, as shown [url=http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=1866&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20]here[/url], a decent number of us don't care if the Mets spend 300 million next year.

Frayed Knot Nov 30 2005 09:30 PM

It's not the money that bothers me per se -- I don't particularly care what they pay these guys. Except to the extent where it handcuffs you for future moves, especially if/when said aging player starts to break down. Piazza & Sosa for instance, were two of numerous ballplayers who go from 'this guy's worth every penny', to, 'how much would we have to eat in order to get rid of him' in a fairly short period. Manny's contract - being one of those from the dot-com era 'boom years' - already overpays him (IMO) and that situation isn't likely to improve over the next 3. Then throw in my previously voiced complaints about his defense, baserunning, "dumpth", lack of a DH option, etc. and there's too much downside to make it a worthwhile risk. There's also the 'too many eggs' angle. I don't have a problem with the concept of dealing prospects for established major leaguers -- at least as long as the particulars make sense -- but whether you're a 'build from within' guy, or the type who likes to grab onto to the nearest 'TITTS' and hang on for dear life, there's a definite danger in going too far in either direction. Dealing what's left of the top dogs in our system after so much recent shedding and/or promoting -- [Kazmir, Huber, Petit, Jacobs, Bladergroen, Reyes, Wright - plus the injury to Humber, the visa problems of Soler, and the non-signing to date of Pelfrey] -- and we'd be leaving ourselves with nothing to promote which then throws you into a cycle where you have no choice but to chase FAs at top dollar every year (and lose future picks in the process) just to replace the current parts as they age. Mix all that in with the strides that Milledge made this season and he's one I'd like to hang onto.

metirish Nov 30 2005 09:34 PM

Good stuff FK, Omar does not strike me a s "build form within" GM though, it seems, and he may have even stated it that he wants to win a WS in a five year time frame, this is the second year...

metirish Dec 01 2005 07:28 AM

not sure if there is any truth to this...

HappyRecap Dec 01 2005 07:38 AM Post headlines

Phils "trumping" the Mets is only true if it is a fact that getting Manny is a good idea which I don't think it is. Co-workers of mine are based in Philly and can't stand Abreu. I don't have access to these stats but they claim that he his batting average drops considerably from the 7th inning on. And with runners on base, it is even worse. Of course, not having these numbers it is tough to agree or disagree but if true, not good.

Rotblatt Dec 01 2005 07:41 AM

Another quote that warmed my heart--from the Post this time: ]Reportedly, the Red Sox had interest in Mets center-field prospect Lastings Milledge as the centerpiece for any deal, but sources said it is "highly unlikely" the Mets will move either Milledge or righty Aaron Heilman. That puts the Mets and Red Sox at a crossroads regarding Ramirez. Excellent.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 01 2005 07:48 AM

We've discussed Abreu here before. Without implying that he's not been an absolutely tremendous player on balance he just looks sometimes like he's not paying attention. The Phillies acquisition of Abreu (for Kevin Stocker, via the D-Rays, who'd just expansion-drafted him from the Astros) is one of the greatest heists in recent baseball history, but might not have happened had the Astros (and presumably, the D-Rays, tho whether they knew anything was debateable) not had big questions about Abreu's attitude.

smg58 Dec 01 2005 07:50 AM

Philadelphia fans look for reasons to not like their best players. Abreu fizzled out late last year, but he's still an OBP machine and a solid all-around player. Burrell and Manny in the same outfield? Met fans would enjoy that.

metirish Dec 01 2005 07:52 AM

"Bobby Abreu has to be the most underrated five tool player in the game Ted"..... A pint of porter if you can name the man that utters those words every time the Mets play the Phillies...

seawolf17 Dec 01 2005 07:53 AM

Yep. This trade would actually help us, I think. Abreu and Manny are pretty close offensively, and although Abreu's not much defensively, we know Manny's probably worse. So this wouldn't be the end of the world at all. That said, ESPN is quoting a source as saying it's "highly unlikely." So we'll see.

Frayed Knot Dec 01 2005 08:15 AM

]The Phillies acquisition of Abreu (for Kevin Stocker, via the D-Rays, who'd just expansion-drafted him from the Astros) is one of the greatest heists in recent baseball history, but might not have happened had the Astros (and presumably, the D-Rays, tho whether they knew anything was debateable) not had big questions about Abreu's attitude. The Astros chose to protect fellow Venezuelan Richard Hidalgo in the expansion draft at the expense of Abreu, a decision helped along, according to some sources, by Abreu's perceived attitude (not bad ... more like a bit lackadasical). Abreu's not quite the hitter Manny is, but he's a considerably better defender & runner. It's just that he always seems that he should be a better defender & runner. He's got the talent, just seems to take too many plays off. The answer to the "underrated" question is, of course, Francis X.

Elster88 Dec 01 2005 10:51 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: We've discussed Abreu here before. Without implying that he's not been an absolutely tremendous player on balance he just looks sometimes like he's not paying attention. I've always felt the same way. He always looks like he's carrying a couple extra pounds too. It's tricky and dangerous to judge based on body language and weight, but I've gotten the same impression. Maybe he's one of those guys who was born on third and thinks he hit a triple. Or maybe he was just born on third and a triple (with all of the money that comes with it) is good enough for him.

dinosaur jesus Dec 01 2005 11:16 AM Re: Post headlines

HappyRecap wrote: Phils "trumping" the Mets is only true if it is a fact that getting Manny is a good idea which I don't think it is. Co-workers of mine are based in Philly and can't stand Abreu. I don't have access to these stats but they claim that he his batting average drops considerably from the 7th inning on. And with runners on base, it is even worse. Of course, not having these numbers it is tough to agree or disagree but if true, not good. I have checked the numbers a little bit. According to espn.com, in "close and late" situations (not sure what that means--maybe 7th inning on, game within 2 runs?) Abreu actually hit better last year than he did overall--.298, with a .571 SA and .422 OBP. Over the previous three years his numbers weren't quite that good in that situation, but they weren't bad. I seem to recall the same sort of thing being said about Rolen--that he didn't hit with runners on--and it was spectacularly untrue. Are Philly fans just in a permanent blind rage? It's nice to see you all again. I was up for a cup of coffee a couple of seasons ago, but it's been a while.

Elster88 Dec 01 2005 11:45 AM

Welcome back dinosaur. I thought I recognized your name but wasn't sure.

Rotblatt Dec 02 2005 01:29 PM

Rosenthal: ]One thing to remember about any Manny Ramirez trade: Ramirez's new team wouldn't simply need to satisfy the Red Sox with a package of players. It also would need to satisfy Ramirez, whose no-trade protection gives him the right to block any deal. Players generally receive financial inducements to waive their no-trade rights; otherwise, they're forfeiting value in their contract. Ramirez, guaranteed $57 million over the next three seasons, would entertain a contract extension from a potential suitor, according to his agent, Greg Genske. Perhaps more significant, he also would be willing to restructure his present deal. "It's entirely likely that if a team is going to give up what will be required to get Manny, it will want to extend his contract, change the structure or both," Genske said. "We're open to talking about it." The Angels and Mets are believed to be the teams most interested in Ramirez, but Genske said that Ramirez would be willing to listen to overtures from other clubs, including the Phillies. Of course, the Red Sox first must arrange a trade before Ramirez could negotiate with another club. Okay, so if Manny's willing to take less money--or at least restructure his contract--he must be really, really desperate to leave Boston. If you're gonna do this, then play hardball, Omar! Rake those beantown fuckers over the coals!

Frayed Knot Dec 02 2005 02:03 PM

"It's entirely likely that if a team is going to give up what will be required to get Manny, it will want to extend his contract, change the structure or both," Genske said. "We're open to talking about it." Of course YOU are! And besides, while 'Team Manny' may agree to restructure this deal, that rarely means to restructure it downward. Remember the Player's Assoc is adverse to even allowing players to restructure if the new amount means a lesser total value compared to present day money: see; Rodriguez, Alex. Usually what happens is that the player will take less money in the near term for more later on. ex. If Manny has 3 yrs remaining @ $19/per he is gauranteed $57mil. But he also has a couple of option years so he could agree to lessen the upfront in exchange for having one or more option years picked up thus increasing the total amount earned. He could also defer money for the same purpose (see; Vaughn, Mo) but again, in each case, the PA would want to know that too much wasn't deferred for too long which would reduce the overall value. Would committing to more than $57mil (or whatever Boston doesn't pick up) but lengthening the deal by a year or more make Manny more attractive? I'm not so sure it would. I'm always more afraid of the length of these deals than I am of the per/year amounts.

Zvon Dec 02 2005 08:07 PM

Manny would love that cute little ballpark in Philly(I have heard they are moving the leftfield wall back, tho). Abreu gets hard knocks because he never seems to get the big hit, but he's as solid as they come. The Phils would be fools to trade him. If they do, it better be to the AL cuz Abreu is a sleeping giant. Id rather see him stayin too comfortable with the Phils. Dont know if he'd be able to handle NY. If he starts gettin the big hit, he could,lol.

metirish Dec 06 2005 07:27 AM

Steve Popper says Omar had a meeting last night with the Boston bigwigs...interesting article too, free agents have offered to come to NY for less money,really?....Grudzielanek maybe? ] By STEVE POPPER STAFF WRITER DALLAS - In the media room at the Wyndham Anatole Hotel, the area around the podium featured some of the biggest powerbrokers in baseball - commissioner Bud Selig included - drawing crowds of reporters. But Omar Minaya slipped into the room and much of the crowd flocked to him, putting on display a fitting example of the magnet that the Mets' general manager has become. Free agents have offered to come to New York for less money than they could get elsewhere. Other teams with high-priced contracts to move ask for a sit-down with Minaya like asking a favor from the Godfather. And the media rushes to him because in the winter Minaya is where the action is. Minaya was in the media room to announce the deal that will bring the Mets Paul Lo Duca from the Florida Marlins in exchange for two minor leaguers. But that was old news already and what everyone wanted to know is: What's next? He wasn't saying, only insisting that he is now comfortable with his team. But he was quick to point out that he doesn't like to feel comfortable. According to one baseball executive the Mets conducted a face-to-face meeting with the Boston Red Sox on Monday night and that means that Minaya is still pursuing the biggest name in the winter meetings - Manny Ramirez. With Lo Duca secured and Carlos Delgado and Billy Wagner already having been fitted for their Mets jerseys, it might seem that Minaya should be comfortable. Watching from afar, Lo Duca saw little need for anything else. "First and foremost I think you don't want to put pressure on yourself," Lo Duca said. "But I think it would be a disappointment if we didn't win the NL East. I think we've got all the tools. "I think it would be a real disappointment with the team we're throwing out there right now not to be competitive to win the World Series." While Minaya has filled in the major holes, he still is working to make more moves - this time from a position of power, being able to turn away a deal that doesn't feel just right rather than having to overpay in dollars or talent. "I'm happy with the club," Minaya said. "I want to be able to say to ourselves, we're in a situation that we wanted to be. Usually you have objectives in the winter and you want to accomplish these objectives. Sometimes you accomplish two out of three. "We are in a situation where we've accomplished these objectives so we feel comfortable that if other situations arise in front of us that make sense from a baseball side and from a financial side, we'll have to consider it. But we don't have to go out and do [something]." While Ramirez might be the dream move for Minaya, who still longs for more middle-of-the-order power even with the addition of Delgado, he was searching for more mundane moves. While he said that Kazuo Matsui, "is our second baseman right now," the team remains interested in free agent Mark Grudzielanek. Mets officials have stated that the team would have to get creative, moving contracts, to be able to land another big contract. The team has explored interest in some of their players - including Kris Benson. Minaya pointed out that the Mets have replaced only the $30 million that came off their books with the departures of Mike Piazza, Braden Looper, Mike Cameron and a handful of other expiring contracts. "I think you always try to upgrade your team," he said. "You're never there. When I say I'm happy to be where we are today, the fact that we are [on] the first day of the winter meetings and our objectives and goals, which really were defined as a closer, the catcher and a power hitter, to be able to be there today and still be with a payroll right about where we were last year, that's what makes me happy. "I always say I don't want to get to the point where I'm comfortable. A comfort zone is not an area that I'm used to. I don't like comfort zones. I'm always thinking, 'What's an area that we can improve?' Let's not get too comfortable here. The fact of the matter is when you get comfortable, that's when your competition catches up to you." E-mail: popper@northjersey.com

seawolf17 Jan 06 2006 08:33 AM

Carlos Says [url=http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2281885]Yes[/url] ]Beltran would love to have Ramirez on Mets NEW YORK -- Carlos Beltran has heard the rumors, that the New York Mets inquired about a possible trade for Manny Ramirez. While trade talk between the Boston Red Sox and Mets appears to have cooled, Beltran would love to have Ramirez alongside him in the Mets outfield this year. "If it happens, that would be great," Beltran said Thursday during a telephone conference call. "Who doesn't want to have Manny on the ballclub? Who doesn't want to have that bat on the ballclub?" Beltran spoke several times during the offseason with Carlos Delgado, the hard-hitting first baseman the Mets acquired from the Florida Marlins to boost their offense and said that he spoke with Delgado just as reports of the trade were breaking. Beltran acknowledged that a deal for Ramirez likely was a long shot. "I think for the Mets to be able to get that done, it has to be a perfect deal," he said. "If it doesn't happen, I think right now with what we've got, we can accomplish what we need to do." Beltran struggled during his first season with the Mets, who signed him to a $119 million, seven-year contract last December. He was bothered by a leg injury, then had a head-to-head collision with right fielder Mike Cameron during an August game at San Diego, which left Beltran with occasional dizziness for a month. Beltran batted .266 with 16 homers, 78 RBI and 17 steals. In 2004, he played for Kansas City and Houston, combining to hit .267 with 38 homers, 104 RBI and 42 steals. In the 12 playoff games with the Astros, he had eight homers, 14 RBI and six steals, a performance he acknowledge "was something special." "2005 was for me a year of adjustment. I was playing all my career in a small market. Being able to sign with a big-market team in New York and playing over there was a little bit different," he said. "I know that if I stay healthy, I know I'm capable of doing a lot of good things on the baseball field, and I know I can help the team win ballgames and win the division." Notes The Mets will open spring training Feb. 16, with pitchers and catchers starting workouts on Feb. 18. Position players report Feb. 21 and start workouts two days later.

Willets Point Jan 06 2006 08:41 AM

Manny says: love that dirty water, Boston you're my home!.

Elster88 Jan 06 2006 08:45 AM

It's snowing on your toaster.

Willets Point Jan 06 2006 08:47 AM

You just noticed that now?

Elster88 Jan 06 2006 09:31 AM

I'm slow.