Master Index of Archived Threads


Jonathan Kozol on Trading for Miguel Tejada

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 10:04 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 09 2005 10:15 AM

Jumping back and forth from the CPF to actual work, I occasionally get moments of epiphany when what I'm reading helps to illuminate what I'm thinking and feeling about baseball --- a pre-oocupation ever increasing the portion of my mind which it controls. This morning I'm reading an archival article that Jonathan Kozol wrote for us in 1973. He has since gone on to become one of the nation's leading educational theorists. Back in 1973, he wrote, We go on from movement to movement, thing to thing. Each of the things we do may be a good thing in itself, but 'moving on' is not a good thing if it is a way of thinning us out, of spinning out our worth or squandering our capability for love and for vocation along a boardwalk of inadequate completions. In that spirit, I'm typically unsettled by the current compulsive re-arranging of the furniture, while being able to see the reason in many of the individual moves in and of themselves. And I humbly disagree somewhat with Gotham Baseball that the Mets and their offeseason behavior have clearly established that they have a solid plan. Or that their fans are behind one. ("Marlins are available!? Get us some Marlins! Tejada said what? Let's get Tejada!") And I'm non-plussed that "moving on" (in somewhat of the sense that Kozol is using) is all the logic we have for not at least exploring a possible brief extension of the Piazza era, and instead make a perhaps costlier move that promises little chance of improvement. I fret about 'thinning out.' Thinning out the talent base. Thinning out the farm. Thinning out the identity of the team which I relate to. Thining out of the legendary plan and the values and the mission. I think we adapt, because we're amazingly adaptive creatures, and our relationship is often not just to the team --- and not to the laundry either, that's crapcake --- but to each other and the culture we're a part of as fans. But we shouldn't have to or be so willing to adapt so much. It diminishes the team, diminishes the fans, diminishes the relationship between the two. Kozol concludes in a way that is also relevant, if you change some of the education-specific nouns and consider these values as applicable to all mission-based organizations, aruging that, while there is the need for change and growth, there is: ...even a deeper need to find one solid core of concrete action and specific dedication in one neighborhood or in one city, with just one group of children and with just one group of allies and with one set of loyalties and with one deep dream of love and transformation." In short, no, I don't want to trade Reyes and a prospect or two for Tejada.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2005 10:09 AM

Me neither. And for pretty much the same reasons you have. I'm not anti-trade, as you are, but I agree in the need for some kind of stability. For this team to continue to seem like the Mets, it's important to keep guys like Reyes and Wright around. I don't want to root for an All-Star team.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 10:14 AM

But I want to grow the team I root for into an All-Star team, which may seem like a subtle distinction, but isn't so much.

metirish Dec 09 2005 10:15 AM

That's deep Edgy, I'd rather not trade Reyes either as he is such an exciting player and home grown and all that, it's certainly important to have players like Reyes, Wright, Heilman and others coming through the system,it helps us identify more with the team and it's kinda cool to see players make an impact like Wright and Reyes have done. Like any team you need to sign FA players and trade for others, but there has to be a balance and the right mix, else you end up like Real Madrid with an All-Star team that's not a team at all.

Elster88 Dec 09 2005 10:20 AM

I'd personally like to see a World Championship. The non-exploration of a deal with Piazza is completely different from a Tejada for Reyes, because in the Piazza situation, trading for Lo Duca cost us players for little appreciable gain. Tejada for Reyes is a significant upgrade. I'm willing to deal players that might not see the light of Queens for that. Or those that have seen the light but get on base at a clip in the low 300's. If we have to part with Diaz or Milledge and a pitcher, so be it.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 10:25 AM

It's not completely different in the context of the reasons stated

Elster88 Dec 09 2005 10:43 AM

What's done may not be completely different in the context stated, but to take it beyond that, it is completely different: To thin out the system and trade away/fail to pursue the familiar guys when the gain is insiginficant is completely different from thinning out the system and trade away/fail to pursue the familiar guys when the gain is siginficant. At least that's the distinction that I make. ___________________ This post had the designation 101) Ty Wigginton, stud third baseman and a great loss in the Kristin Benson trade.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 10:50 AM

Sure. But we're atually talking potential gain, while we're way too indifferent about an actual loss of a different type that is dismissed way too cavalierly.

metirish Dec 09 2005 10:56 AM

I think most of us would agree that Tejada would be an upgrade over Reyes, just as he would be the better player no matter who he might replace on whatever team, the way I read this thread was that while Tejada is the better player trading Reyes for him would be seen as a step too far for some fans.

Elster88 Dec 09 2005 11:02 AM

I haven't gotten too attached to Reyes yet. I think I'm subconciously avoiding attachment because I'm terrified of his hamstring completely detaching from his leg one day as he rounds second.

seawolf17 Dec 09 2005 11:09 AM

Me neither, Elster. He's too young and too unpolished. He could be Derek Jeter, or he could be UL Washington. It's too soon to tell. That's why I'm not ready to throw a long-term deal at him yet, or to pronounce him the savior of the franchise. Did I pick up a Jose Reyes Topps Rookie card just in case? Yes I did. But I'm not sold... yet. The player most similar to Jose Reyes, according to b-r.com, is Mike Caruso, a SS for the ChiSox in 98-99. In two full-time seasons, at age 21 and 22, he stole 34 bases, hit ten triples, batted .275, made almost sixty errors, then vanished off the face of the planet -- twenty ABs with KC in '02, and that's it. I'm not saying that's going to happen to Jose, but I'm just saying we need to temper our expectations.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 11:14 AM

Nobody is casting him as the savior of the franchise, nor even proposing a long-term deal. Nor is anybody speaking of expectations for him (though you are happy to dance with the subject and Elster clearly has expectations for Tejada). What and whose expectations need tempering?

G-Fafif Dec 09 2005 11:22 AM

Beyond their talents and their ceilings and their youth, Reyes and Wright give us emotional cover. The Mets are not trying to buy a championship. They developed two great young players! The second either one of them is gone (prior to said championship being actually garnered), we're rooting for just a bunch of Messians. Whatever happened to the good old days of building a team you loved with homegrown guys like Piazza, Olerud, Ventura, Henderson, Cedeno, Dunston, Hamilton, Leiter, Reed, Hershiser, Yoshii, Franco, Benitez, Cook and Wendell? The only prospects we watched climb the organizational ladder to 1999 were Alfonzo and Ordonez (I wasn't watching Agbayani, he just appeared). That was enough. I will borrow a line from my blogging partner: Having a team full of guys who came up through your system is like excellent posture. It's nice, but it doesn't make that much of a difference. This is not an endorsement of a trade for Jose Reyes or David Wright. Don't be crazy.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2005 11:26 AM

What would happen if tomorrow the Mets traded entire rosters with the Los Angeles Angels? They'd have a pretty good team. Their uniforms would be the uniforms that we're used to. If they won the pennant, we'd be happy. But wouldn't we feel a bit disassociated from them? I know we don't know the players personally, but it's the continuity from season to season that helps us relate to them. Of course, change is inevitable. I've seen the roster turn over a bunch of times since I signed on in 1971. I haven't walked away from the Mets because Seaver and Koosman and Grote and Jones and Agee are gone. Too much change too fast and you start to wonder why you care. "Home grown" is nice, but that's not exactly what I'm talking about. Imported players who stick around can become one of our guys. Piazza did. So did Hernandez and Agee and a bunch of others. Pedro Martinez probably will, and so will Beltran if he gets his act together.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 11:29 AM

]Whatever happened to the good old days of building a team you loved with homegrown guys like Piazza, Olerud, Ventura, Henderson, Cedeno, Dunston, Hamilton, Leiter, Reed, Hershiser, Yoshii, Franco, Benitez, Cook and Wendell? While seemingly a parody of my position, this really doesn't characterize what I'm saying either. Yancy's last paragraph is a fairer summary.

Vic Sage Dec 09 2005 12:08 PM

]I think we adapt, because we're amazingly adaptive creatures, and our relationship is often not just to the team --- and not to the laundry either, that's crapcake --- but to each other and the culture we're a part of as fans. But we shouldn't have to or be so willing to adapt so much. It diminishes the team, diminishes the fans, diminishes the relationship between the two. mmmm, crapcake. I hear they make good crapcakes in Baltimore. If they want to pack up a crate of crapcakes along with Tejada and send that package to Queens, i'd have a crapcake-eating grin on my face. as to our relationship to the team... the only constant is the IDEA of the team. It is the national league franchise of NYC, inheritors of the mantle of the Dodgers and Giants. Players change, ownership and management changes, "fan culture" changes. Edgy, believe it or not, i was a Mets fan before I had a "relationship" with you or any other Mets fans, or had any notion of "fan culture". I inherited a rooting interest from my parents, and it grew in relative isolation thru my adolescence. I can enjoy watching games by myself, or with others, but I require no "relationship" with other fans. I enjoy this site, but i've only been involved in it for a few years, while my fandom goes back to 1971. Sure, i enjoy arguing about them, but it doesn't matter to me who wears the Jersey. I long ago cured myself of the delusion that "my team" was connected in any way to any particular player. They come, they go. My hope is that they play good ball while they're here, and if they go, we get appropriate value for them in return. I root for my team, good or bad. I don't become a Red Sox fan because i hate the management; I don't become a Yankee fan because i'm sick of the losing. I root for my team because they connect me to ME... to my own youth, my own family history, my own core values. Those values don't include demonizing change, or spiritualizing continuity, for its own sake. My values are about choosing (choice being an existential act, not a spiritual one) to connect to the IDEA of my team, not any particular guy who happens to be wearing the uniform today. In my loyalty to the IDEA of my team, i am always rewarded by its constancy, its unchanging nature, despite all the change swirling around me. IF the Mets should stop being the national league outpost in NYC, if they should contract, or pick up and leave, or switch leagues, i'll be betrayed (like the generation before me), and i'll question my fandom at that time. But until that time, they are my team come hell, highwater, bad trades or good ones. I don't believe I'll get greater joy from a WS title that results from homegrown kids rather than one that is delivered by mercenaries. I do, however, believe an all-star import team is unlikely to ever WIN a WS, without a balance of youthful excuberance and talent pushing it forward. Which is why i think Omar needs to pull back from the bridge too far. I think the team can be improved enough with available FAs, with no need to surrender any more significant young talent. Milledge, Wright.. I believe we move them at our peril, at this point. But Reyes is not a guy i ever trusted, and still don't. I believe, like Billy Beane does, that OB% is not just a skill but a talent, and while it's a skill that can be improved, if you don't have that talent, then the improvement will only ever be marginal. IMO, Reyes has a better chance of developing power over time, based on his frame and his swing, than he does of ever raising his OB% to a productive level, and its on that basis that his future potential rests. But if you can get Tejada for him, you're getting the player Reyes only has the potential to one day be.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 12:12 PM

]Those values don't include demonizing change, or spiritualizing continuity, for its own sake. This isn't what I'm doing either. But if you want merecenaries, go to it. Clemens is available for the pluckiing.

Vic Sage Dec 09 2005 12:20 PM

There are guys who i don't want to have to root for. Clemens is one of them. Not because he's a mercenary, but because i perceive him to be (rightly or wrongly) a cowardly, headhunting, unnaturally bulked up jock-bully. But Davey Cone was as much a gun-for-hire as ever threw a Laredo, and i'd take someone of his ilk in a heartbeat. So, I'd be irritated if the Mets signed Clemens... right up till he threw his first shutout. Then i'd get over it and start perceiving him (rightly or wrongly) as a misunderstood hero who i have the honor of watching on his march to Cooperstown as one of the greatest pitchers of all time. See how that works?

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 12:32 PM

Well, i see it, but I wouldn't say that it works.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 12:37 PM

Next ten posts coming all at once...

soupcan Dec 09 2005 12:41 PM

Having homegrown guys doesn't make a championship any more or less enjoyable but I think a fan is able to take a bit more pride in his team if there are several 'organization guys' that play key roles. We can say we were there then. We were fans and watching when Reyes and Wright and Heilmam broke through. We had an eye on Milledge and Bannister when they were but babes on the farm. It's just another feather in a die-hard fan's hat is all. That being said though - I think its a generally wise idea to mix an organizations own developed players with some FAs. Look at the core of those late-90's Yankee teams - Jeter, Pettitt, Williams, Rivera, Posada. As much as critics like to say that the Yankees bought their rings, their fans can point to those 5 guys in their defense. I'd like to be able to say the same about Reyes, Wright, Heilman, and maybe Milledge. Hey Tejada's great but do we NEED him? If your answer is no, not really. Then its not worth giving up on the Reyes pedigree and potential.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 12:47 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 09 2005 08:24 PM

Vic Sage: It works for me. Is that INCONSTANT of me? Edgy DC: You're the one with the whole blow-against-the-ubermensch position. Vic Sage: Does that mean I have to fall in line with your RELIGION? Is religious observation compulsory again? Edgy DC: Nobody mentioned anything about religion. Or any of that other crap your trying to stick to me. Vic Sage: No, you just forward your doctrine and expect me to kneel. And that's crapCAKE. (Yes I do all-caps because I don't use your fascio-elitist coding tools.) So you're acknowledging that religion is crap? Edgy DC: You're getting way far away from the argument. Vic Sage: You're AVOIDING the argument. THE FIRST COMMANDMENT (Exodus 20:2-6) I am the Lord, your God, you shall not have any other God besides me... Edgy DC: Oh, Jesus. metsmarathon: is that a curse?

Elster88 Dec 09 2005 12:48 PM

Love the throwaway marathon line at the bottom. LOL.

Zvon Dec 09 2005 01:32 PM

Vic Sage wrote: So, I'd be irritated if the Mets signed Clemens... right up till he threw his first shutout. Then i'd get over it and start perceiving him (rightly or wrongly) as a misunderstood hero who i have the honor of watching on his march to Cooperstown as one of the greatest pitchers of all time. See how that works? Like we did with Pedro. Who, after the scene when he headlocked Zimmer, didnt have anything but ill will for Martinez? And talk about a guy with a rep as a headhunter. remember when he pointed to his head as if to say Ill drill you right in the noggin? But Pedro plays for us now, and we see him close up. We bury those memories, almost canceling them out with new Met memories. Wow, he's such a hard worker. Gosh, he's such an unselfish and good teamate who even lightens the team on the bench. Boy, he seems to give 100% plus everytime I see him out there. Seven inning pitcher, my ass. Both the opening post by Edge (awsumly written) and the responses, especially VicSage's are well put forth, and well recieved. Both angles apply to my beliefs. I like a team that you can grow with and thats grows with you. I like a modem of consistancy. I like familiar faces and seeing Met career statistics accumulate. I accept the state of flux teams go through. Sometimes changes are warrented and/or justified and sometimes made just for the sake of change. Some changes I jump for joy about. Some I bang my fist down in anger. And everything in between. But Ive learned thats part of the game. I accept it. I felt my 1st winds of change with the Mets (that personally affected me) when they traded Agee. He was my hero. But that turned out to be warrented, not by the trade itself or who was involved (Houstons Rich Chiles & Buddy Harris), but because he had reached his peak and was pretty much done at that point. Seaver was another story, because he had plenty of gas left in the tank, and he showed it when he ironically went on to pitch his no-hitter with the Reds. We all know he, at some point during those years he was away, would have pitched the Mets 1st (and maybe only) no-hitter. You can say thats mere speculation,....but come-on. You know he would have. (The Ryan deal I cant equate, because I seriously didnt see him going on to accomplish what he did, at that time) Im just ramb'lin now, so more to the point: Reyes is my shortstop. Im not interested in any other. Not even a better shortstop. I want to take the ride this guy provides, come hell or high water, at this point in time. If he comes up lame next season (or the season after that..), or really blows chunks as far as playing the game, I can change my opinion. Just like teams change personnel, I have the right to do that. But Ive really enjoyed seeing this kid on the road to baseball maturity. And I expect to continue to do so as long as he provides the positive aspects that make a good player. Reapeat the above paragraph and substitue Wrights name for Reyes. The same sentiments apply. Both still have some growing to do. Its even fun to watch em mess up, like when Wright turned the bag on that grounder down the line in Philly. WHAT AN IDIOT, I screamed. But I bet Ill never see him make that mistake again. The fact that he did that in the 1st place is one of those things that make him who he is. Niether one is 'The Franchise", at least not yet. But both are the anchor a team should have for thier fans. There should be some sense of stability on any baseball team and its a proven fact that you can go out and buy a complete all star team, and not be the best team out there. Its the intangables that make the game so great. Bottomline, if the Mets even think of moving either while they are young and still growing I will go ballistic. If they live up to our hopes and thier potential they should stay Mets as long as they wish to stay Mets, and we as fans should give them the support to insure they want to. These two should be off the table as far as any quick fix trading goes. Im my mind, the only two right now. That can change, like baseball does.

metirish Dec 09 2005 01:36 PM

]Who, after the scene when he headlocked Zimmer, didnt have anything but ill will for Martinez? And talk about a guy with a rep as a headhunter. That never bothered me at all, no bullshit but Pedro was a favorite of mine for years, if he was pitching and they were on TV then I would tune in...he syas he was pointing at his head to tell Posado to think about what he's saying or doing......

Elster88 Dec 09 2005 01:38 PM

metirish wrote: ]Who, after the scene when he headlocked Zimmer, didnt have anything but ill will for Martinez? And talk about a guy with a rep as a headhunter. That never bothered me at all Me neither. Asshead is in a ballpark of anger and disgust of his own.

Elster88 Dec 09 2005 01:40 PM

]Reyes is my shortstop. Im not interested in any other. Not even a better shortstop. I want to take the ride this guy provides, come hell or high water, at this point in time. When I read lines like this, Sal's complaint---that fans get too attached to their guys at the expense of the overall quality of their team---rings true.

Zvon Dec 09 2005 01:44 PM

Elster88 wrote: When I read lines like this, Sal's complaint---that fans get too attached to their guys at the expense of the overall quality of their team---rings true. Talk to me again when Reyes is no longer on the up quality side of the equation. Right now your just blowin wind.

Elster88 Dec 09 2005 01:45 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 09 2005 01:47 PM

]Reyes is my shortstop. Im not interested in any other. Not even a better shortstop. I want to take the ride this guy provides, come hell or high water, at this point in time. ]If he comes up lame next season (or the season after that..), or really blows chunks as far as playing the game, I can change my opinion. So he's your shortstop, come hell or high water....OR loss of ability. Do you see how ridiculously those two quotes contradict each other? You're saying he's your guy no matter what. And then in the next line you basically say "unless he sucks." That's basically what I'm saying. He's my guy, unless I can get something much better. You're saying you refuse to replace him unless he doesn't perform at certain level. That is not saying you like him. That is saying you like his playing ability. You're not any more attached to him than I am.

ScarletKnight41 Dec 09 2005 01:47 PM

Pedro was never my favorite, but Zimmer attacked him on the field during that fight. I never faulted Pedro for defending himself from the old fool. Plus, even though Pedro has certainly endeared himself to all of us this past year, I don't love him blindly. He can be a diva at times, and I'm still sure that eventually he'll break our hearts. Nonetheless, he's been everything we've asked him to be and more this past year, and with that he's earned some props.

Elster88 Dec 09 2005 01:48 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 09 2005 01:56 PM

Zvon wrote: ="Elster88"] When I read lines like this, Sal's complaint---that fans get too attached to their guys at the expense of the overall quality of their team---rings true. Talk to me again when Reyes is no longer on the up quality side of the equation. Right now your just blowin wind. Then I can talk to you right now, because he's not on the upside of quality to what I am comparing him too (Tejada). I want to improve the quality of the team by getting Tejada.

G-Fafif Dec 09 2005 01:50 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Imported players who stick around can become one of our guys. I agree that this sentence nails the sentiment square on the head. We all likely see Cliff Floyd as one of Our Guys. He wasn't once. Pesonally, I couldn't stand him for years. Thought he was surly, unnecessarily harsh toward Valentine and too much of a Met killer to ever adopt. Now he is, to borrow an unfortunate construction from another team, a true Met. He came over in a flurry of moves that I didn't like. I didn't recognize my team. But he endured. Glavine, even, endured from then and I tend to think of him as a Met. This is really more an issue for December (which is fine, because we need issues for December) than it is for June. Come June if the Delgado, Wagner, Julio Franco, Tike Redman Mets are in first place, and those guys are playing beautifully alongside David Wright, Jose Reyes, Cliff Floyd and Pedro Martinez, then we're less likely to think of the new guys as mercenaries or interlopers. They'll be Mets and we'll be happy. Assimiliation happens. Why not Clemens? Because unlike what some talk show hosts would have you believe, life and fandom are not either/or propositions. We do make choices. We do stretch and narrow parameters as logic and emotion instructs us. That's why not Clemens. He's fucking Roger Clemens, that's why. Invoking Robin, Mike, Al and other 1999 Mets who came from elsewhere wasn't intended as parody, Edge. They are proof that you never know where Our Guys are going to come from and how quickly they will become Our Guys. Robin Ventura was just some American Leaguer to me. Olerud was taking over for my man Rico. Mike was the guy who, to my warped sensibility, was getting credit that Todd Hundley deserved. Leiter was an annoying Marlin. Rick Reed beat us an important game in 1988 and then played in replacement games. Turk Wendell was a flake. And so on. Especially in this era, baseball teams are a process. The process tends to spit some guys out faster than we care for and absorb some guys we're reticent to have. The proof, generally speaking, lies on the diamond.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2005 01:50 PM

]Pedro was never my favorite, but Zimmer attacked him on the field during that fight. I never faulted Pedro for defending himself from the old fool. That's how I saw it too. It's Zimmer who was the thug that day.

Elster88 Dec 09 2005 01:52 PM

]He's fucking Roger Clemens, that's why. I agree completely, though I prefer Roger Fucking Clemens.

G-Fafif Dec 09 2005 02:17 PM

Elster88 wrote: ]He's fucking Roger Clemens, that's why. I agree completely, though I prefer Roger Fucking Clemens. Yeah, I don't think anyone prefers the other thing.

Vic Sage Dec 09 2005 02:20 PM

="Edgy DC"]Vic Sage: It works for me. Is that INCONSTANT of me? Edgy DC: You're the one with the whole blow-against-the-ubermensch position. Vic Sage: Does that mean I have to fall in line with your RELIGION? Is religious observation compulsory again? Edgy DC: Nobody mentioned anything about religion. Or any of that other crap your trying to stick to me. Vic Sage: No, you just forward your doctrine and expect me to kneel. And that's crapCAKE. (Yes I do all-caps because I don't use your fascio-elitist coding tools.) So you're acknowldging that religion is crap? Edgy DC: You're getting way far away from the argument. Vic Sage: You're AVOIDING the argument. THE FIRST COMMANDMENT (Exodus 20:2-6) I am the Lord, your God, you shall not have any other God besides me... Edgy DC: Oh, Jesus. metsmarathon: is that a curse? now that is... i mean, THAT is funny. why? because its true...

Zvon Dec 09 2005 02:21 PM

Elster88 wrote: So he's your shortstop, come hell or high water....OR loss of ability. Yes. Thats baseball, and its a game where if you do whats expected or hoped for you shine in a fans eyes. Im passionately for him now. If you fail, you falter in a fans eyes. Its no contridiction. Its the way it is. (for me, at least) ]You're not any more attached to him than I am Apparently I am because I think he should be untouchable this off season. I want him playin short for the Mets in 2006 no matter who we could get. Even if A-Rod was available to play short for the Mets, Id rather watch Reyes either flourish or fail over the next few years. I see his potential. If it is realized I want to see him become the player he could be with the Mets. This is not a personal affront, just the way I feel. My opinion. I respect yours. I simply disagree.

Elster88 Dec 09 2005 02:27 PM

]This is not a personal affront, just the way I feel. My opinion. I respect yours. I simply disagree. Same.

Nymr83 Dec 09 2005 04:13 PM

]Who, after the scene when he headlocked Zimmer, didnt have anything but ill will for Martinez the old man was LUCKY that pedro had enough respect to simply push him to the ground. if someone charged at me i'd clock them and pedro should have done just that. whatever "shield" being old/handicapped/sick/etc gives you is forfeit when you are clearly the aggressor

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 09:06 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 09 2005 09:51 PM

I wouldn't say Zimmer was headlocked. Invoking Robin, Mike, Al and other 1999 Mets who came from elsewhere wasn't intended as parody, Edge. Well, calling them "homegrown" guys when they're not certainly had an ironic point to make. Look, I wasn't born yesterday. I know where where veal came from and I know where the presents under the tree came from and I know where Turk Wendell came from, and it wasn't Norfolk and Binghamton. I don't reject players because they came through wheeling and dealing. But I think two related points are clear. (1) The credibilty of Plan C is suspect when you summon the perspective to recall how quickly Plan A and Plan B were tossed aside. Eventually, you have to respect your own plan enough to see it through and not jump on the next shiny oppotunity. You don't like the 2003 Mets? Tough crap, this was the team you demanded Steve Phillips assemble after 2001, you fickle ones. We demand constant change, holding the team in contempt every time they fail, never blaming ourselves for the unrestrained values promoted in this roto-culture. Another lesson I learned from school heads as I edited today --- many problems, left alone, are better at solving themselves than we are when we try and move Heaven and Earth to solve them. It takes twin doses of humilty and faith in the resources you carefully and and deliberately set in place. That's leadership. (2) Every time people start lusting after the sour athlete who is crying that he's not winning enough, and start making plans to sell down the river the guy they were cheering their hearts out for --- and demanding the heart from --- not weeks earlier, I'm depressed. Basically, once we start throwing around plans to deal humans --- even rich ones --- we're diminished. The player, the game, and ourselves. I'm neither the smartest nor the most talented guy around. But smart folks I know wonder why I give so much of the time and energy to baseball. It's not to diminish myself. But there's been like a half dozen mis-understandings of my initial point in this thread. I guess I should just sit out the off-season.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 09 2005 09:38 PM

I see what you're saying anyway. I often find fans' covetousness distateful and ugly too. On the other hand, I'd guess the majority of trades aren't made so as to screw over or rob the dignity of a guy and indeed frequently provide them with better career opportunities than they might have had otherwise.

Nymr83 Dec 09 2005 09:40 PM

There is no reason to stick to a plan if a better one comes along. The only plan the Mets need to have is to put the best possible team on the field. If that means dealing a guy who was yesterday untradeable (Reyes) because a better player (Tejada) is available then just do it. it doesn't have to fall in line with the old plan.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 09:58 PM

What's better is always a guess. Plans don't come along. They're created. Planning is not recognizing a gold nugget and trying and buy it in the marketplace. Planning is knowing where to find them in the ground, and so investing your resources. If you keep deciding that yesterday's values don't matter today, I'm going to ask why I should put much stock in today's values. Every time. New circumstances shouldn't matter so much. Circumstances always change. Act, don't react.

Nymr83 Dec 09 2005 11:05 PM

yesterday's values are irrelevant to today, new circumstances matter plenty as your plan must be re-evaluated based on them.

Edgy DC Dec 10 2005 06:37 AM

Well, then, yeah, I don't believe in that irrelevance for a minute. My original post says why.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 11 2005 08:17 PM

This is a funny argument. Edgy’s full of crap and Vic’s full of cake, and I don’t know who I disagree with more. Um….Edgy. He’s made about six offensive points, while Vic’s only offended me thrice in this thread, but they’re both being silly and sentimental here—let’s keep the violin music down, hey, fellas? Edgy offends me because his sentimentality is so reactionary: “But we shouldn't have to or be so willing to adapt so much. It diminishes the team, diminishes the fans, diminishes the relationship between the two.” Yeah—adaptability, change, all sorts of progress are deeply upsetting to those who fool themselves into thinking that everything will stay the way it is, or that it should stay, at some glorious frozen moment of time. Such sentimentalists (usually but not always drunks) often get angry or sad or both when you try to talk sense into them. Edgy tries defending his silliness by listing all the things he’s a hard-headed realist about: when he was and wasn‘t born, where veal, Xmas presents, Turk Wendell and maybe even babies come from, but for all his hard-bitten, gritty, world-weary, tough-guy stance, he’s still your basic six-year-old going wah-wah-wah they keep trading all my PWAYERS away! Wah! He dresses it up in fancy sentences, but is he saying much more than WAH! when he opines that ”once we start throwing around plans to deal humans --- even rich ones --- we're diminished. The player, the game, and ourselves”? Diminished? No, making your team better (a strange concept for a Met fan, I know) doesn’t diminish you at all—hanging onto crappy players while they get crappier and crappier (and while you tell yourself that they’ve got a big comeback year left in them) diminishes you and your team, big-time. The Mets have lacked a plan since way before Edgy first mocked Ambler for demanding to see it. Now he angrily challenges some undefined “you” to live with a failed plan: “Tough crap, this was the team you demanded Steve Phillips assemble after 2001, you fickle ones.” Uh, I didn’t ask for this—I asked for the opposite of this. Instead of buying other teams’ retreads and giving up our prospects, I asked that we get some talent-scouts together and rebuild with kids, ours and everyone elses’. To do that, you might have to give up some valuable players who have value in the short-term, while you’re putting a new team together. What I wanted in 2001 was to acknowledge that the Mets had a nice run from 1997 to 2000, and that run was over. By 2001, they had gotten good value out of Piazza’s seven-year deal, three solid years worth, and he could have been dealt off to any team looking for a catcher or a bat or both. What I was angry about was that the Mets held on to Piazza because of what he HAD done, and denied what he was probably GOING to do over the last four years of his contract. This denial stemmed from his enormous popularity with the fan base, which is an ass-backwards way of doing business. The business of a baseball team is winning pennants. Piazza was never going to win another pennant after 2000. (I wrote that here once, which got KC so pissed off he adopted it as his mocking sig line “’The Mets will never play another post-season game as long as they have Mike Piazza’—Sal Q”—for some strange reason, KC changed sig lines after a while.) Now they could have been cynical in keeping Piazza all those years (I think they were, hoping he’d keep the fan base satisfied even if the team went south, which they did), or they could have been acting sentimentally themselves (which I doubt) or they could have been too befuddled to recognize that his skills would decline fast (which is entirely possible, given their general befuddlement). But if I were a shareholder in the Mets organization, and I felt (as I do) that it’s good business to win pennants, and fun besides, then I would have felt (and did feel) defrauded by the team policy of not assembling a team geared to win pennants. They kept pretending they were a good team, for the last five years at least, while their W-L record spoke otherwise—and loudly. I did not believe, and I don’t believe now, that they’re very perceptive about what the team’s ability is. The one thing I do agree with Vic about is that the Mets needed to acquire Carlos Delgado desperately—last year. As you may recall, I offered the opinion that it was shameful, unforgivable really, for the Mets to come away last winter without having signed Delgado. If they would have had Delgado, as I opined last winter and spring, they could have won perhaps 88 to 90 games, which would have put them in the pennant race at least through September. Only Vic and I, as I recall, were furious that the cheap bastards had decided that Mientkiewicz would be their first baseman. Now they’ve virtually admitted what colossal dumbasses they were, having paid Mientkiewicz about what the Marlins paid Delgado for 2005, and then they’ve given up some bright prospects for the privilege of paying the expensive part of Delgado’s contract.. Meantime, they’ve completely fucked away another summer of my life (and Pedro’s life) doing business on the cheap (and not even saving any money, the dumb shits). But where Vic’s wrong is in the principle of defining himself by his chosen baseball team. What diminishes you, in my view, is to allow ANY label to be attached to you so permanently that you define yourself by it, rather than defining it by you. I have been an ardent Democrat, but I refused to support Clinton when he wagged his finger in my face and claiming that he hadn’t had sexual relations with that woman. I had been an ardent Mets fan, but when they traded Seaver I stopped coming to the park for a while. I had been the world’s biggest fan of Norman Mailer, but when he started writing flaccid, crappy books, I found other books to read. Eventually, I started voting Democratic again (when they gave me supportable candidates), started following the Mets again (when they brought up Hubie and Mookie and Wally), started reading Mailer again (when he wrote OSWALD’S TALE, a wonderful book). I wear the labels I wear proudly BECAUSE I choose to wear them. I can’t just put my emotions and my mind into a blind trust and say “I’m going to support my team no matter what.” I’m going to support them as long as I like, and whenever I don’t like, I won’t support them. Figuring out what you will support, and what you won’t support, is difficult, I won’t deny that. It IS about the laundry, to the degree that part of everyone is a lazy slob who finds it convenient to stick with the same tastes, year after year, without questioning those tastes too closely. Having a taste for something, and allowing yourself to be labeled by those tastes , is fine, up to a point. But when you’re tasting Kool-Aid, maybe it’s time to let the cup pass from your lips. I mean, Julio F. FRANCO? To a 2-year contract? I'd be getting killed around here if I made up such absurd hyperbole.

Nymr83 Dec 11 2005 08:25 PM

welcome back (again.) who are you rooting for now that boston has abandoned sanity?

Bret Sabermetric Dec 11 2005 08:43 PM

Still holding out hope that Theo will come back and restore some sense. (There was a report today in a Boston paper that he would come back, but my sources tell me he's having too much fun). We'll see. Last season showed me that I can just follow baseball, and or a few teams simultaneously, and get as much out of it as rooting for a team. I mean, I followed the NL all season (probably more closely than the AL, while rooting for the Sox) and found myself reasonably well informed throughout the playoffs and entertained. I also found some terrific Red Sox bars near where I work, so I really hope Theo gets his fill of the partying, and soon.... I did re-connect with my closest boyhood friend recently, the shortstop on our softball team, and he asked me if I was still a loony Mets fan, because he still is. Haven't had the heart to answer him directly yet.

metirish Dec 11 2005 09:01 PM

The report I read outta Boston was that Theo might have a role to play in the running of the Sox, the owner Henry loves the guy, there has to be more going on with Theo though, you would think that other teams would have snapped him up by now, we will wait and see. Theo did have a major fuck up with Renteria so he's not God, that deal is costing the Sox, they kicked in $11 million to trade him to the Braves, so if you add in what they paid him last season he cost them close to $23 million for one horrible season.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 11 2005 09:17 PM

you would think that other teams would have snapped him up by now, They've tried.

Nymr83 Dec 11 2005 09:58 PM

="Bret Sabermetric"]you would think that other teams would have snapped him up by now, They've tried. where have you seen this

MFS62 Dec 12 2005 07:31 AM

="Bret Sabermetric"] Only Vic and I, as I recall, were furious that the cheap bastards had decided that Mientkiewicz would be their first baseman. Ahem Welcome back. Later

Bret Sabermetric Dec 12 2005 07:56 AM

Sometimes my recall is less than total, MFS62. That said, and present company excluded, I'm quite sure that within a few months, we will be completely united in remembering our powerful and unanimous opposition to Mienkiewicz. Sic semper Mets fans.

metirish Dec 12 2005 08:00 AM

Not to piss on the parade guys but if memory serves Delgado chose to join the Marlins when an equel if not better offer was on the table form the Mets, so no the mets were not cheap.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 12 2005 08:06 AM

Stop hogging the Kool Aid.

Rotblatt Dec 12 2005 09:14 AM

Well, I, for one, still think signing Mientkiewicz was a decent bet, given that we had failed to sign Delgado (my #1 choice). Clearly, that bet (perhaps in part made from sentimentality, as I got to witness a GOOD Mientkiewicz season first hand) failed spectacularly. I may actually owe Vic something or other for being so wrong, now that I think about it . . . Anyway, welcome back, BS.

Vic Sage Dec 13 2005 07:41 AM

i love that his initials are BS. And you can send me a No Prize. I've always wanted one.