Master Index of Archived Threads


Most Hated Shortstop in Met History

Most Hated Mets Shortstop

Ron Gardenhire	1 votes
Kazuo Matsui	1 votes
Rey Ordonez	18 votes
Other	6 votes

mlbaseballtalk Dec 13 2005 04:43 PM

Thinking about the Ron Gardenhire entry in UMDB where the memory writer says he heard Ed Randall describe, laughably, the current Twin manager as "a beloved former Met" (also I think Topps has Gardenhire in their "All Time Fan Favorite" sets but to be fair he only played MLB as a Met, never as a Twin) and it kind of dawned on me that Gardenhire kind of was the Kaz Matsui/Rey Ordonez of his day. Probably not as heavily promoted though. To be fair, SS was a pretty barren from trading Frank Taveras after the 81 season, untill Kevin Elster's first full season in 88. I mean there is a reason Gardenhire is still in the top ten in Games Played! But is he the most hated guy to play short? So here are the candidates: Ron Gardenhire Hit .240 in his only shot as a regular. Put it this way, there is a reason he is managing in Minnesota Rey Ordonez Like Matsui he was heavily promoted prior to his debut. Like Matsui his hitting prowess left much to be desired, though unlike Matsui he did have a way with the glove, though too much time was spent making the overly flashy play. Probably believed his own hype and ripping the fans the last week of the 2002 season sealed his fate Kazuo Matsui Didn't have as bad of a year hitting his one year at short, but couldn't adapt at all to the way infield is played every wherelse on the Globe with the exception of the Land Of The Rising Sun

ScarletKnight41 Dec 13 2005 04:45 PM

I loved Gardenhire. He signed a ball for me during 1985 spring training, and his enthusiasm for the game and for the Mets was wonderful. He was a nice guy - definitely not worthy of hatred.

DocTee Dec 13 2005 04:53 PM

I voted other, since I detest Jose Oquendo.

Zvon Dec 13 2005 04:56 PM

Jeeze...wheres the love for Rey? Just cuz he had no bat? Buddy H wasnt the best hitter in the world and you know he'd be a top fiver. Probly number one in my book, but Im old school. That list needs to be expanded so it has more of a chance to include someone we really might hate.

Zvon Dec 13 2005 04:58 PM Re: Most Hated Shortstop in Met History

="mlbaseballtalk"] Rey Ordonez ripping the fans the last week of the 2002 season sealed his fate oh,...there was that....

Johnny Dickshot Dec 13 2005 05:02 PM

Hate is an ugly emotion.

KC Dec 13 2005 05:15 PM

I voted for Rey, but the description leaves a lot to be desired. Rey played like 5 or 6 full season with the Mets and a couple of partials due to injury and "stuff". Comparing him to Matsui is kind of whack. Rey had his own Mets video day - he was at one time a special Mets defensive gem - shit, I even got Sallie Q to admit that at least once or twice. OE: Three gold gloves, the error free game streak ... c'mon ... don't make me dig up pictures of ostriches and links to Rey Ordonez Death Watch.

MFS62 Dec 13 2005 05:21 PM

I voted "other" and was thinking of Al Moran as soon as I read the title of the thread. I took the question to mean who I disliked (I don't like the "h" word) the most, rather than who was most disliked by Mets fans in general. My feelings for Moran grew out of the frustration that they couldn't find anybody better. Also, the first year he was here, he had this awful looking stance that made you just know he couldn't hit a lick. (or a baseball for that matter) When he showed up the following year, he still had that same lousyy stance. And that is what moved him to the top of this category in my mind. Later

metirish Dec 13 2005 05:24 PM

I voted "other" but couldn't name any SS I hate...Kurt Abbott, Mike Bordick, Joe Mc...nah, as for Rey I admit when I first started following the Mets I loved Rey, I was amazed by what he could do with the glove, as time went on I became frustrated with his lack of skills with the bat...still he was one of the first Mets that was a fave so I like him....I've gotten over ripping the fans.

Edgy DC Dec 13 2005 06:44 PM

TheOldMole Dec 13 2005 06:53 PM

I don't think I've ever hated a Mets shortstop.

Valadius Dec 13 2005 07:09 PM

Hated? No. Couldn't stand? Look no further than Rey Ordonez.

vtmet Dec 13 2005 07:18 PM

]don't make me dig up pictures of ostriches and links to Rey Ordonez Death Watch. I just saw the Ambler Rey Ordonez Death Watch article the other day for the first time (ok, I must not keep up with everything that has ever happened at the MOFO apparently)...that was one of the funniest things ever...Ambler doesn't really look like that guy in that article, does he?

KC Dec 13 2005 07:24 PM

Yeah, that's really him. You could be too, for all I know.

Elster88 Dec 13 2005 07:37 PM

I hate Kevin Elster. I think this topic is stoopid*. But I'm stoopid too. *This should in no way be construed as saying that the poster who posted this topic or those who responded it are stoopid. This is also not a message that this is not or should not be interesting to others. I respect your rights to discuss this topic and do not think less of you for doing so. I don't want to be abusive or single any one out for unfair treatment because I disagree with their opinion.

Nymr83 Dec 13 2005 08:00 PM

how about Mike Bordick? Ordonez gets hurt and everyone is all like "wow this guy is great, he's the savior, he can hit" and he came here and laid an egg.

cooby Dec 13 2005 08:05 PM

TheOldMole wrote: I don't think I've ever hated a Mets shortstop. I'm with old mole. How can you hate a shortstop? They are too little.

Zvon Dec 13 2005 09:06 PM

great pic Edge. I went to the Ult Mets database to see a list of SS's, and I also cant seem to hate any of em. I didnt know Tim Bogar, so I cant even say I disliked him, but he may be my least favorite met shortstop. I liked Bordick. Cause he was an old man like me,lol.

Elster88 Dec 13 2005 09:44 PM

]everyone is all like "wow this guy is great, he's the savior, he can hit" I don't think anyone who had a clue was "like" this.

Nymr83 Dec 13 2005 11:04 PM

everyone was saying it at the time, the Mets got him mid year while he was having an amazing season with the Orioles-- he had a 113 OPS+ as an Oriole (78 as a Met) that year (a mark which would have been the best of his career) .297/.350/.481 with the Orioles in 433 plate appearences including 16 homers, 22 doubles, 70 runs and 59 RBIs in 100 games. in 59 games as a Met that year (not counting postseason he came and hit .260/.321/.365 with only 4 homers, 8 doubles, 18 runs and 21 RBI in 59 games (211 PA) in the playoffs he proceeded to get 4 hits (all singles) in 33 at bats as well as 6 walks (none in the world series against the yankees, several against the then insanely wild Ankiel if i recall) he did not drive in a run. so after a great 100 games in baltimore he came here and didnt live up to expectations and then took an even bigger nosedive in that small sample size that everyone remembers- the playoffs

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 05:31 AM

A HBP didn't help his postseason any. I think he had a broken threumb or something.

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 06:58 AM

Nymr83 wrote: everyone was saying it at the time, Who are you referring to? If you're talking about WFAN callers, then what I said still stands: Anyone who had a clue didn't say this.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 07:14 AM

Elster88 wrote: ="Nymr83"]everyone was saying it at the time, Who are you referring to? If you're talking about WFAN callers, then what I said still stands: Anyone who had a clue didn't say this. Elster, there are amnesiacs here who'll deny it, I expect, but Rey had dozens of vociferous defenders on the old MOFO. I probably have a few Rey/anti-Rey threads saved on my hard drive, but take my word for it, some of these nutjobs made Rey into one of the Mets' most indispensible players, maintained that his hitting was eminently acceptable in the context of his great glove work, that Rey was underappreciated, that he was a much better hitter most people thought, etc. And, far from KC's memory, I freely conceded that Rey was a fabulous defender. My argument was that he could be the best defensive player in baseball, and might well be, but since the value of defensive play was limited, he was an overall drag on the Mets and was getting many more innings than his overall play warranted. I thought rey would have been fine as defensive replacement and utility infielder and that Bobby V. made a huge mistake in slotting him in as a regular shortstop.

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 07:26 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Elster88"] ="Nymr83"]everyone was saying it at the time, Who are you referring to? If you're talking about WFAN callers, then what I said still stands: Anyone who had a clue didn't say this. Elster, there are amnesiacs here who'll deny it, I expect, but Rey had dozens of vociferous defenders on the old MOFO. I probably have a few Rey/anti-Rey threads saved on my hard drive, but take my word for it, some of these nutjobs made Rey into one of the Mets' most indispensible players, maintained that his hitting was eminently acceptable in the context of his great glove work, that Rey was underappreciated, that he was a much better hitter most people thought, etc. I was challenging Nymr's contention that "everyone" was calling Mike Bordick a savior. I doubt anyone was foolish enough to put the words "savior" and "Bordick" in the same sentence. Not saying anything about Rey here or what people thought about Rey.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 07:27 AM

I've never had trouble remembering that I was romanced by Rey-O's glove and acrobatics to the point where I argued pretty hard for his retention. My feeling was that Rey given the chance could improve his hitting to the point where he'd be around average at his position, and that his athletic ability asnd eye-hand in the field indicated he could. He never did, of course and that helped me understand that guys with his skills (low OBP, little plate discipline) and as it turned out, his attitude (didn't listen to coaches, bad teammate) are unlikely bets to do so. But giving him the chance wasn't the worst thing I suppose because he was f-u-n to watch.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 07:33 AM

I thought Bordick was a no-brainer, especially after the Larkin deal fell through (Phillips deserves credit for trying there: I think with Larkin we could have won us the WS that year). Anyway there wasn't much not to recommend Bordick: He was having a good year, solid gloveman and lauded for his character. No question he slumped badly, then got hurt in the playoffs. That really killed us because it forced the Mets to rely on barely-alive Kurt Abbott, his bad back and zero range. As it played out, the 2000 season provided the lesson that teams with poor depth at skill positions can't expect to win the World Series. This was a flaw in the approach from the very start.

metirish Dec 14 2005 07:36 AM

I agree with Dickshot, Bordick was a solid pick up at the time, didn't he hit a homer in his first AB?..

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2005 07:38 AM

I was also glad to get Bordick, although the word "savior" never crossed my mind. I had really grown to dislike Rey Ordonez, and was happy to get a veteran to bridge the gap between Rey and Alex Rodriguez, who everyone just knew would be a Met in 2001. I also preferred the Bordick deal to the attempted trade for Barry Larkin, because I was more willing to give up Melvin Mora than Alex Escobar. It goes to show you never can tell.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 07:42 AM

Sorry, Elster, misread the context of that quote. But I did search through my hard drive, and found this gem, among others, from back in the day: Why Does Everybody Wanna Dump Ordonez??????? Page 1 2 << Prev Topic Next Topic >> Author Comment Rowdy As Usual Mets Rookie posts: 6 (11/21/00 1:11:56 pm) Reply Why Does Everybody Wanna Dump Ordonez??????? He's the best SS in baseball (defensively). If we spend the money to get Hampton & Mussina, Ordonez is a luxury at SS. You all say it that pitching and defense ALWAYS win games!!!!!1 If you don't get AROD, keep Rey Rey. That's the LAST i wanna hear of Bordick!!!!!!!!!!! metfan8500 Mets Veteran posts: 125 (11/21/00 1:13:24 pm) Reply Re: Why Does Everybody Wanna Dump Ordonez??????? I aggree. I never said I wanted to get rid of Ordonez. Lets get players that we REALLY need. Pitching and outfield. We have a pretty solid SS. Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward; they may be beaten, but they may start a winning game. keith Mets Starter posts: 58 (11/21/00 1:29:39 pm) Reply I was thinking the same thing As mets fans, how many arguements did you get in defending Rey Rey, saying he was the best out there with a glove? I know I did. Now everyone is ripping the guy apart because of a handfull of games he batted 180 or so? In 99 the guy had 60 RBI, not many number 8 hitters do that. Also in 99 he started off slow and turned it on in June with, I beleive, an almost 400 BA for the month. If there is no AROD then let Rey Play! BaseballWizard Mets All-Star posts: 243 (11/21/00 1:31:28 pm) Reply Re: Why Does Everybody Wanna Dump Ordonez??????? No one is questioning Ordonez's defense. I think it is the incredible disappearing bat that everyone has a problem with. If we were to sign Moose and Hampy and have to keep Ordonez for reasons of budget, I for one would not be disappointed. Realistically, I doubt that we will be able to sign both those gentlemen and the fact of the matter is this ... as much as we need to keep the pitching staff together we also need to add some offensive pop. Ordonez can be like another pitcher in the batting order and in fact Hampy is a better hitter than Rey. While ARod is more costly than Rey he is only a shade or two below Rey in the dept of defense and with the improvement in the bat dept there is no question that overall he would be a huge upgrade to Rey. The bottom line is this ... A team must take and make any opportunities that it can to make itself better. Of course there are constraints like $$$, therefore the team needs to figure out how to get the most bang for its buck. I think the difference in opinion right now is what exactly that is. dak11 Mets Starter posts: 66 (11/21/00 3:05:14 pm) Reply Keith You are wrong.. "In 99 the guy had 60 RBI, not many number 8 hitters do that" - Copied off of ESPN "Hitting Ordonez is the worst-hitting regular in the majors. His batting average is adequate, but represents the sum total of his offensive contributions. He's far too aggressive, rarely walks and has virtually no power. His on-base plus slugging percentage was the lowest in the National League last year, as it was in 1998. In the postseason, television announcers praised him for his 60 RBI from the No. 8 spot, but the average NL team got 66 RBI from its eighth-place hitters last year. And 13 of 15 Senior Circuit clubs got more offense from their shortstops. To his credit, Ordonez is a fine bunter. His 49 walks last year, while still too low a total, were more than he had in the previous two years combined" Please notice the part where it's said that the AVERAGE NL team got 66 RBI's from it's 8th place hitter.. Ordonez is below average.. espn.go.com/mlb/profiles/.../5560.html "Also in 99 he started off slow and turned it on in June with, I beleive, an almost 400 BA for the month" One month batting .400 doesn't help all of those month's batting sub/low .200's. Imagine if that was true for a minute.. For a whole month he batter .400 and he STILL ended up with only a BA of .258. I'm not saying we have to get rid of him. But his offensive production up to this point of his career has been horrible. If he does not improve this (specifically OB%) then his defense should not keep him on the Mets and/or in the majors. IMO. edgy DC Mets Hall-Of-Famer posts: 1741 (11/21/00 3:19:44 pm) Reply Re: Keith Well, wait a minute there. Sixty-six rbis from the number eight slot is not the same as from the number eight hitter. That would presumably include all one hundred and sixty-two games, each time through the lineup. I assume Rey started something like 154 games, and was removed in maybe 10-15 for a pinch hitter. Do those 66 average RBIs include pinch hitters batting in that slot. Of course it's all academic. Rey had his best year in '99, with a .636 OPS. But RBIs are largely a team stat and he had Roger Cedeno having an excellent year in front of him for much of the season. Even from there, he's going to have to do a little better to keep his spot. While your visiting ESPN.com, see how well he did with RISP, I imagine it was pretty good (relatively). All I ask for is a little better--.650/.660 OPS--if (glory) he can maintain his '99 defensive level. It's interesting that posters here, including his defenders, don't see him as the excellent bunter ESPN.com sees. He obviously only gets to bunt in late innings with a pinch hitter following him, but I wonder which opinion is more accurate. HOME BOYS ONLY!!! Remington Steele Mets Rookie posts: 8 (11/21/00 3:31:01 pm) Reply Your Steele The One For Me I actually would not mind having Rey back at short next year. Not withstanding his attempts at bunting in the playoffs in '99, which was horrible. Good point about Cedeno batting ahead of Rey, thus giving him more chances for an RBI even with a ground out. He also saw more fastballs because of Roger. dak11 Mets Starter posts: 67 (11/21/00 3:44:05 pm) Reply Edgy He batted .263 (W/ runners in scoring position) , slightly better then his batting average for the year. 3 year avg. .262 (97-99) To be fair Bordick only batted .248 last year and .251 (w/ runners in scoring position) in 99. 3 year avg. .246 (97-99) edgy DC Mets Hall-Of-Famer posts: 1742 (11/21/00 3:49:30 pm) Reply Re: Edgy Thanks, dak. While Bordick is useful for comparison's sake. I think he is ruled out of the Mets' plans. One thing about RISP batting average is that I imagine most number eight hitters in the NL have distortedly low averages in such a situation, because they can easily be pitched around with runners on second and third, and, if the pitcher can't catch them chasing a pitch or two, a walk sets up a force with the pitcher coming up who can usually be gotten on fastballs. HOME BOYS ONLY!!! Ms Met Mets Hall-Of-Famer posts: 1757 (11/21/00 5:18:19 pm) Reply I knew there was a reason I like you Rowdy! That's what I've been saying all along. You're not half bad, you know?! We could do better at SS, certainly with ARod in there, but we could also do MUCH worse - DEFENSIVELY, at least. And, as I've said many times, and as is STILL the case - SS is still PRIMARILY a DEFENSIVE position. If we don't land ARod, we MUST keep Rey-O and add the extra offense where we NEED it most - in the OUTFIELD! Obviously, key to all this is keeping the pitching staff solid. Starting with retaining our own FA's. Without the pitching, it won't much matter WHO'S hitting in the #8 spot, or any other spot for that matter. Two other things: 1.) Mr. Steele: I don't know what ESPN was basing those remarks on, but I would not call Rey a "good bunter" by any means. He has a terrible propensity to pop the ball up, whether he's bunting or swinging! 2.) keith - This is hardly a new issue. People have been ripping Rey for his lack of offense since he came up to the majors! It's practically an Olympic sport around here! VIVA EL REY-O, METS SS '01!!!! NY METS - 2000 NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPS!!! 2001 BELONGS TO US!! Rey ordonez Sucks Non-Roster Player (11/21/00 5:55:49 pm) Reply The Name Says it All Rey sucks. It's a fact everywhere except among a deluded few in this forum. Send Rey back to Havana for a box of cigars. doc g Mets Hall-Of-Famer posts: 512 (11/21/00 6:08:03 pm) Reply | Edit Why does everybody about wanna dump Ordonez? Why does everyone around here think water is wet? doc g Mets Hall-Of-Famer posts: 513 (11/21/00 6:27:50 pm) Reply | Edit And why can't I get the "edit" function to work? to continue my previous thought.... "Why does everyone around here think birdies go 'tweet-tweet'?" BaseballWizard Mets All-Star posts: 253 (11/21/00 9:53:05 pm) Reply Ms Met -- have to disagree ... No position is PRIMARILY one or the other. Ultimately, each position MUST be a balance of the two. Sure, historically, SS has been one of the weaker hitting positions as has catcher, but, no team should just say "Well we have a guy with a great glove who cares if he can hit." IMHO, saying that any position is primarly one or the other is out of date thinking. It is also something of an excuse for players who are weak in one aspect or the other. I am not trying to claim that every guy on the field has to be a god with the glove and the bat, but, a players excellence with one is not a reason to excuse the other. Unfortunately, what can be seen in baseball today is a great deal of the opposite of your agrument ... "Who cares about the glove, can he hit?" Rotisserie baseball is a clear example of that. No one would ever willing draft an Ordonez because of his extremely weak bat. Unless of course there was no real choice. More than not the fringe fans want to see home runs and offensive explosions. Many do not appreciate the mastery of a well pitched game or dazzling defense. Sure defensive plays make the highlight reels but little thought is given to what that kind of defense means to the game. OK, as I get off my soap box ... here is a summary: 1. Defense IS extremely important SO IS SOLID OFFENSE. 2. Excellence in one is not an excuse for a total lack of the other. 3. The old way of thinking ... that a position is primarily one or the other is becoming outdated and, IMHO, should and that goes both ways. hoss23 bph Mets Rookie posts: 19 (11/21/00 10:26:57 pm) Reply defense You win by being defensivly strong up the middle. Catcher, 2nd and short and CF. Now as far as Catcher goes I think that besides throwing out runners, which Mike gets a bad rap for because Met pitchers are not good at holding runners on but still below average, Mike is very good at calling a game, blocking a ball and controling his pitchers. Second with Fonzie up a second don't really have anything to complain about, Jay or Hamilton in CF. Both can play a very good center, I believe that Daryl has gone some rediculous amount of games without making an error and Jay can flat out go get um. Throw the best defensive SS in the Bizz in there and you have to say we are pretty strong up the middle. So I feel we need to, like everyone is saying retain our pitchers and go get another very solid one and we need a bat in left or right to give us the extra pop that was sorely missed last year at times. If we can be very solid 1-7 then whatever Rey does with his bat would be gravy s long as he maintains the high level of defense. Rey Ordonez Sucks Non-Roster Player (11/22/00 2:37:23 am) Reply So I suppose The fact that Rey Ordonez is an almost sure out everytime he comes to the plate, and is the world's greatest rally killer this side of the pitcher means nothing? Except when Hampton pitches, having Rey in the line-up is like having the pitcher bat twice every go around. He sucks. MrMet Mets All-Star posts: 247 (11/22/00 7:48:20 am) Reply Re: So I suppose I don't want to get rid of Ordoñez but if we could get AGod it would be better (maybe we could ship Rey out on AGod's private jet) Ciao edgy DC Mets Hall-Of-Famer posts: 1747 (11/22/00 9:08:40 am) Reply Re: So I suppose Mr. Met, I salute you for finding a way to get the "en-yay" Spanish character into Rey's last name. As tedious as it is to watch Rey bat during a prolonged slump, the hostile tone of the poster who preceeded you is getting more tedious. HOME BOYS ONLY!!! Rey Ordonez Sucks Non-Roster Player (11/22/00 9:38:51 am) Reply Look DC Don't be edgy. I am not hostile, except to muddled thinking. Someone HAS to point out how bad Rey is in the eyes of almost the entire world, because in here there are those who persist in seeing value in the valueless. And in the end, that hurts this team because it creates in the minds of ownership and management that fans will except suckitude from players, so long as they are ours, whatever "ours" actually means. Good Players Only! (GPO) Weis Guy Mets Rookie posts: 5 (11/22/00 10:10:05 am) Reply Re: Look DC You can say what you want about his offense but Rey Rey gobbles up Sojo's groundball and we are still tied going into the bottom of the ninth of Game 5 BaseballWizard Mets All-Star posts: 258 (11/22/00 10:26:47 am) Reply Re: Look DC Weis, While I agree that Ordonez gets to that Sojo dribbler, there is the whole point of can he get the throw there in time. I can not say he would or would not have gotten a clean throw to Ziele or that Ziele could have fielded a poor throw. There is still a possibility that one runs scores even with Rey on the field. Page 1 2 << Prev Topic Next Topic >> Author Comment Ms Met Mets Hall-Of-Famer posts: 1771 (11/22/00 1:44:59 pm) Reply Wizard... You misread me, Oz. I am NOT making excuses for Rey! He sucks as a hitter - I've ALWAYS admitted that, and you're right - no amount of defense, no matter how good, makes up for that. What I'm saying is that there are certain positions on the field where DEFENSE is more crucial than others. At those positions, it behooves any team to have the best possible DEFENSIVE players they can. SS is at the TOP of that list, and always has been. Certainly those players should also be able to hit, but in truth whatever offense you get from them is gravy. The better the gravy, the nicer it is, but as long as you're getting the necessary GLOVEWORK from them, you tolerate the rest. And you make up for whatever they may be lacking offensively with power in the REST of your lineup. You can only field ONE player at each position, but you have EIGHT bats in the lineup, outside of the pitcher. It's MUCH easier to make up for a lack of OFFENSE than it is a lack of DEFENSE. Last season, and the performance of Morborbott, should be all the proof you need of that. I hear what you're saying, but I do not feel that this kind of thinking is at ALL out-dated. Yes, offense is becoming more and more important to the game as the game progresses, but the last time I looked they still issued GLOVES at the beginning of each season. I don't think it's such a stretch to expect players to know how to USE them! As I've always said - you need offense AND defense to win games. Sacrificing one for the other NEVER really works, it just leaves you WAY off kilter. It's not about one OR the other, it's about achieving a BALANCE between the two. That's what makes for a winning team! NY METS - 2000 NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPS!!! 2001 BELONGS TO US!! Page 1 2 << Prev Topic

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 07:44 AM

I don't know why I enjoy reading old forum threads when I wasn't even a participant. You should pop those into the archives, Bret.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 08:14 AM

Behold now as Johnny Dickshot creates poetry using only capitalized words from Ms. Met's posts: MUCH DEFENSIVELY STILL PRIMARILY DEFENSIVE MUST NEED OUTFIELD! PRIMARILY MUST SO IS SOLID OFFENSE NOT ALWAYS DEFENSE DEFENSIVE TOP GLOVEWORK REST ONE EIGHT MUCH OFFENSE DEFENSE ALL GLOVES USE AND NEVER WAY OR BALANCE

Vic Sage Dec 14 2005 08:19 AM

Tony Fernandez

Centerfield Dec 14 2005 08:25 AM

I've never hated a Mets shortstop, but I can't imagine anyone getting more abuse than Rey. His contract didn't help matters.

Vic Sage Dec 14 2005 08:26 AM

i miss the days of clubbing Ms. Met like a baby seal... I still have one of the Bard's poems in the archives, in which he commented on the latest YGB / Ms.Met contretemps: YGB was his tag and posting his bag as he jousted with Metfans illogical He fought with Ms. Met Her goat he did get She found his attitude rude, pedagogical They swashed and they buckled as the Forum all chuckled at their badinage, crude and rhetorical Ms. Met called for peace hoped the fighting would cease trumpeting truce that was truly historical And so all waited reply YGB's taunting to fly would it be something mean, allegorical? Or would he just be a "gentlemen", he Creating peace that was not metaphorical alas, peace never came to that MoFo of yore, and Ms. Met was driven out from amongst us. she was such an easy target. I do miss her.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 08:31 AM

Amazin. That was almost 6 years ago!

KC Dec 14 2005 08:38 AM

>>>And, far from KC's memory, I freely conceded that Rey was a fabulous defender.<<< How's it far from my memory when that's what I said a post or two above this? We should get cooby to hack into Sal's desktop.

TheOldMole Dec 14 2005 08:41 AM

I liked Rey. He gave us some amazing defense, and I'm not too upset by someone saying something dumb in a moment of anger. I guess I felt really let down by Bordick.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 08:46 AM

Besides, the Met fans are stupid comment came in response to a question about fans booing Mike Piazza. Met fans ARE stupid!

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 08:54 AM

]i miss the days of clubbing Ms. Met like a baby seal... WTF? Who clubs baby seals?!? Do you stomp on kittens for a change of pace?

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 08:55 AM

KC wrote: Rey had his own Mets video day - he was at one time a special Mets defensive gem - shit, I even got Sallie Q to admit that at least once or twice. Getting me to admit something that I freely conceded any time anyone asked isn't such a trick. The real underlying problem (that I argue persists to this day) is that for his last couple of seasons, Rey's playing time was dictated by his contract and the Mets' refusal to concede that they made a mistake in signing him to it. Before contracts got so pricey, it wasn't uncommon (especially under such managers as Stengel, Weaver, Herzog and the like) simply to bench your $40,000 shortstop to play a $15,000 rookie if the $40,000 guy wasn't giving what you needed at bat. It still required a complete set of testicles to do so, and some judgment as to the rookie's ability, but if a guy wasn't performing adequately, he sat, sometimes for a while, sometimes for a career. I was disappointed that Bobby V. lacked the stones to play Rey in proportion to his actual skills. That, and the same problem with his closer (in an earlier day, when a star closer had a few bad games, you'd pitch him in middle relief for a few weeks until the fans were yelling "Hey, give Mando a shot again--he couldn';t be worse than THESE clowns") but he wouldn't buck the prevailing values of the 21st Century, and for that I felt sadly he had to go. That what I felt let down by, Mole.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2005 08:58 AM

I remember thinking the same thing about George Foster way back when. He stayed in the lineup longer than he would have if his salary was lower.

KC Dec 14 2005 08:58 AM

I'm convinced there is a web-site for just about everything ... http://www.newgrounds.com/seals/

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 08:59 AM

LOL. Beautiful.

KC Dec 14 2005 09:07 AM

>>>Getting me to admit something that I freely conceded any time anyone asked isn't such a trick.<<< Whatever. I have a whole list of things for you to concede, but that would require a trick and three quarters.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 09:22 AM

KC wrote: >>>Getting me to admit something that I freely conceded any time anyone asked isn't such a trick.<<< Whatever. I have a whole list of things for you to concede, but that would require a trick and three quarters. You're not truly insolent unless you call me "dude" with that "Whatever." Doesn't have the same bracing sting. Ask me to concede part of your list. You may be surprised by how easily certain concessions will be granted. One reason I like reviewing these old Rey and Mando issues is that, perhaps foolishly, I think that after the furor and the defensive arguments die down a bit, we can actually examine the mistakes the Mets made way back when. At the time, as now, people had a very hard time granting that the Mets made any grievous errors in judgment, but now that that concession isn't so hard to wring out of people, I believe maybe we can judge things like maximum contract length for a mediocre player, tolerable and intolerable performances from your closer, etc. This would be a great time for such a discussion, now that Wagner has yet to blow his first game for the Mets. If a blown save in every ten save situations is acceptable to you, then say so, and stay out of Wagner's face as long as his BS/S ratio is under 10%. Hysterical over-reactions in the heat of the moment start more pointless discussions than anything else.

Vic Sage Dec 14 2005 09:29 AM

Hey, BS (I love calling you that!), doesn't this remind you of all those pointless debates where we were actually on the same side of the argument? memories, in the corners of my mind, hazy, water-colored memories of the waaaaay we were.......

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 10:33 AM

]One reason I like reviewing these old Rey and Mando issues is that, perhaps foolishly, I think that after the furor and the defensive arguments die down a bit, we can actually examine the mistakes the Mets made way back when. Fine with me, so long as we use the same perspective on the solutions and other options available at the time. For example, you profess wonder that Valentine went with Ordonez for so long -- yet do so without addressing the fact that his available alternatives for the most part sucked bhmc too. I don't mean to step on your point that Rey-o's salary, post the re-sign, and the expectations related to it were a reason he got the opportunities he did. Bigger picture, the Mets in his era were often guilty of a thin farm system and inadequate bench, which made continuing to play disappointing players often the only alternative in spite of their struggles.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 10:45 AM

Sure. But if something's not working, it's not working. If I sell you a big bag of shit and assure you "It's really delicious" and you get get home and unwrap it and discover it's not as delectible as you'd believed, do you decide to eat it anyway because you paid a lot of money for it? Do you throw it away and go without lunch because you spent your lunch money already? I keep repeating, as with Piazza, that the Mets, having spent money, and having discovered at some point that they're no longer receiving the value they'd hoped for, would rather persuade themselves that they've got something valuable than assess realistically and go out and do whatever they need to do at that point. Can't trade Rey without eating some contract? Then eat the fuckijng contract, if your judgment tells you he's not a qualilty shortstop. Or sign an FA ss and tell Rey he's now your utility infielder. Or rebuild with your hot prospect who's only a year or two away, and find a stopgap solution until Reyes is ready (you ain't winning with Rey anyway, so it's not much of a risk.).

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 10:47 AM

Ahem. ]the Mets in his era were often guilty of a thin farm system and inadequate bench, which made continuing to play disappointing players often the only alternative in spite of their struggles.

RealityChuck Dec 14 2005 10:53 AM

Jose Oquendo

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2005 10:55 AM

Also, they were winning with Rey. Almost a wild card in 1998, NLCS in 1999. I can see them continuing to put him out there as long as he was the best they had. What the Mets could've and should've done was import another shortstop who was better. They didn't even try to do that until Rey was injured during the 2000 season. Maybe they would have gone further in 1998 and 1999 if they had benched Ordonez (despite his salary) and brought in someone better.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 11:02 AM

You know, I'll bet if you could get Bobby into a private conversation at this point, he'd express regrets that he didn't bench Rey and get Phillips and Doublepon angry. If he'd have started Desi Relaford or Marco Scutaro for a few weeks, and told Phillips and the press, "Rey's not hitting, time to try something new," and stuck to it, I can't see the Mets' w-l record having been much worse than it was, and maybe they would have gotten him a better shortstop. Because he DIDN'T act confrontationally, the status quo prevailed. And Bobby got fired anyway.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 11:16 AM

I see your point, though in the same private conversation, BV would also admit that both Relaford and Scutaro would be inadequate shortstops for a pennant contender, and that losing Relaford's versatility while placing a bad hitter who only plays one position on the bench would also not serve the goal of contending. Getting back to an earlier point: How misguided do you suppose was the idea that Ordonez given the chance to prove himself could develop into a better hitter? IOW, at what point do you give up on a guy likee him?

KC Dec 14 2005 11:26 AM

What about the .8756 runs per game that Rey Rey saved vs. Scutaro's projected .3767 runs per game? Huh? Huh? I thought so.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 11:41 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: How misguided do you suppose was the idea that Ordonez given the chance to prove himself could develop into a better hitter? IOW, at what point do you give up on a guy likee him? Good question. But Phillips just flatly predicted that Rey would develop batting skills, and rode that horse into the ground. I'm not sure that there is a timetable, as much as I am sure that you decide what the timetable is in this case and stick to it, instead of just deciding that you'll stick with Rey indefinitely.

MFS62 Dec 14 2005 11:45 AM

Maybe they wanted to see how long his one home run per year streak would last? Later

Willets Point Dec 14 2005 11:49 AM

Dear God, the Great Rey Debates rear their ugly head again.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 11:49 AM

NY Post 5/19/2000 But three weeks of extra batting practice and back-to-back games of putting good wood on the ball have Ordonez convinced he's coming around at the plate. Call it wishful thinking, but the Mets say they believe him. "He's hit the ball hard five times in a row," said Bobby Valentine before last night's game with the Rockies was rained out. "The last at-bat [Tuesday] he hit the ball hard and I thought he had a perfect approach. If Rey has the right approach, he can hit. That's my belief and I'm sticking to it." GM Steve Phillips agreed, saying the only thing standing between Ordonez and being a solid hitter is himself. "Rey should be able to hit, will hit," Phillips said. "He has great eye-hand coordination, which he shows in the field. At times it's part of his problem at the plate, because he has great coordination but he lacks discipline at the plate with his pitch selection. "He swings at bad pitches, but he rarely misses them. He puts them in play. I think with his coordination, as his plate decisions get better, he'll wind up getting better pitches to swing at; and because he makes good contact he'll become a good hitter." He has far to go. Granted, last year he set a big league-record by going his last 100 games without an error, and hit a career-high .258. The Mets rewarded him with a four-year, $19 million deal in the winter, but so far this year he's hit just .183 with eight RBIs and no home runs.

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 11:50 AM

Better to debate Rey than to argue over who is the most hated whatever.

KC Dec 14 2005 11:57 AM

Bret, do you have the thread that broke the news that Rey was re-signed to that big fat contract? That would make for some entertaining reading. I kinda recall gloating that he had prevailed and The Great Debate would then live on, but I may be mistaken.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 11:58 AM

Well, this is all support for my vote: "Rey, hands-down, no one else is even close." That Post article is Exhibit A in the New York State vs. Phillips and Valentine et al. trial on the charge of "Impersonating a Knowledgable Baseball Person." I'd find Phillips guilty sooner than Valentine, since Bobby didn't necessarily have much to with signing Rey to that contract. Phillips, sounding as cocky as Bobby, certainly did.

Hillbilly Dec 14 2005 12:02 PM I voted 'other'

Hubie Brooks almost killed me once!! My buddies and I were leaving Shea when my friend yells out ‘look out for that BMW!!!” While driving out of the way I could see a terrified Hubie behind the wheel. It was late in 1984 in one his maybe two dozen starts at shortstop. So it’s got to be him on top of my most hated list for being there when my drunk-ass stumbled in front of his car. The nerve of that bastard!!

KC Dec 14 2005 12:04 PM

Edgy almost killed me in a similar manner once.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 12:11 PM

KC wrote: Bret, do you have the thread that broke the news that Rey was re-signed to that big fat contract? That would make for some entertaining reading. I kinda recall gloating that he had prevailed and The Great Debate would then live on, but I may be mistaken. I don't think I'd started archiving yet. The earliest threads I have date from the early 2000 season, I think.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 12:14 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 14 2005 12:16 PM

Heavily Edited (see below)

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2005 12:14 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 14 2005 12:27 PM

]That Post article is Exhibit A in the New York State vs. Phillips and Valentine et al. trial on the charge of "Impersonating a Knowledgable Baseball Person." What exactly do you expect a GM to say publicly about the SS he just signed to a 4-year deal? "Y'know, he really suxx ... and I truly expect he always will. Can't play, never could" You're treating this as "proof" of something when evidence that would say the opposite is non-existent virtually by definition. Rey's deal came after his best season when there was a plausible reason to believe that he was an improving player. It was one of 3 deals that SP handed out to arb-eligible players (Fonz & Mando were the others) in order to gain "cost certainty" throughout the arb-years and maybe the 1st FA year. He got good value on the two and missed on the 3rd. Going in to 2000, MLB was probably at it's most highly inflationary period (where you always like to lock in costs now "knowing" that it'll only cost you more later) since the beginning of the FA period in the late '70s. The problem with Rey was that - within months of signing the deal - not only did he "age" 1--1/2 years (birth cerrt discrepancy), stop improving, and miss 100+ games with a broken wrist, but the market actually reversed itself and became DEflationary for the first time in years; a condition which lasted until just about a year ago. Phillips bet on an improving player and an inflationary market and got neither.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 12:21 PM

rewritten from above avi'd post, I had my years wrong. So at the time the Mets bought out Ordonez' arb years, he was a 26 year old SS with 3 Gold Gloves in 4 years, and had just had his best year offensively -- which granted, wasn't great. Is Reyes arb-eligible next winter? If so, can anyone tell now the minimum standards he'd have to meet this year in order to either buy out his arb years with a contract or trade him?

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 12:34 PM

My complaint is mostly with how long it took for Phillips to move off "Rey's a MLB hitter, and he's getting better, I just know it" pap to "Uh, we have a real problem here, we need to deal with it realistically, and not as we wish it would be." Far as I know, he never really moved off that all, so I hold him responsible for making an extravagant judgment that turned out to be costly and ruinous. What, am I supposed to give him a pass because he didn't see the market changing, or Rey's limited growth potential, or any of the other things you cite? I thought that was his fucking job. Are you telling me he did a terrific job of analyzing Rey's growth potential but the poor dweeb just got unlucky and we should feel sorry for him? He couldn't do his job, not that that will distinguish him particularly among the Mets' lying and incompetent front office personnel. And in answer to "What would you have him say to the public, Bret?", my answer is "Nothing." STFU, in preference to saying misleading stuff and spin and general BS, that's what. On second thought, his self-aggrandizing quotes make it easier to mock him later on, so I'm voting to have more puffy quotes from empty-headed baseball professionals. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2005 12:43 PM

I remember my disbelief when Ordonez got that contract. Again, the conventional wisdom, such as it was, was that the Mets were a year away from signing Alex Rodriguez as a free agent. My fear was that a commitment to Ordonez meant a lack of interest in Rodriguez. Then some of the sportswriters/analysts speculated that the deal made Ordonez more tradable, because other teams would like the cost-certainty that came with Rey's guaranteed contract. That seemed like an odd argument at the time. I couldn't see how dramatically overpaying somebody for four years makes them marketable, but I hoped that there was at least one other team out there that saw things that way. What I now wonder is if that's really what Phillips was thinking: that signing Rey would make him a valuable trade chip once Rodriguez was signed. I have my doubts about that. And anyway, if that was the plan, it obviously didn't work out.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 12:51 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 14 2005 12:51 PM

After 99 the Mets had 3 options eessentially: 1. Trade him 2. Go to arbitration 3. Buy out his arb-years The Mets as a rule hated option 2 and in an inflationary market, decided that 3 made the most LT financial sense. Choosing 1 would have been bold at the time but would have required them also to get a SS back either in that deal or in another. In retrospect, perhaps the Mets should have seen this as an exception to their general objections to option 2.

Iubitul Dec 14 2005 01:08 PM

Vic Sage wrote: Tony Fernandez Ah yes. Tony "I'll start trying when I get to Toronto" Fernandez.....

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2005 01:36 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 14 2005 01:54 PM

]What, am I supposed to give him a pass because he didn't see the market changing, or Rey's limited growth potential, or any of the other things you cite? Not suggesting that Phillips be let off the hook here. He backed the wrong horse, at the wrong time, with the wrong deal. btw, my objection to the deal at the time was the "backloadedness" of it which - when combined with the market correction - made the 3rd & 4th years of the deal even worse to deal with. $4+mil/year was bad enough, but when it was structured as more like $2 + $4 + $6 + $6, it made disposing of the contract even more problematic.

Nymr83 Dec 14 2005 01:44 PM

yes he did, BUT all GMs are going to make mistakes (hey Billy hows Hatteberg doing? Theo, Renteria?) the question is what do you do about those mistakes once you've made them.

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2005 02:03 PM

Well, for those who start with the impression that the contract was a bad deal before it was ever inked, there'll never be a point that's NOT defined as dumping out too late. As it was, the Mets wound up eating 1/4 of the time and approx 1/3 of the money in that deal and - until the advent of Reyes - tried numerous other candidates [Sanchez, Bordick, Relaford, Lopez, Abbott] who turned out to be no better than the one they were dumping.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 02:04 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 14 2005 02:23 PM

This is why I'm suggesting the Mets are fundamentally cheap. They've never budgeted for "What if we screw up?" Their answer to that question seems to be "Pretend like nothing's wrong, and maybe it'll fix itself," which hasn't worked out so well. Theo, thankfully, doesn't have to worry about Renteria any more, but the Sox seem willing to eat contracts, deal people off for less than they valued them a year ago, and other similar moves to improve the team on the field after an off-field screwup that the Mets have been loathe to entertain. Look, we fans are usually the last to know. If we've decided that Diaz is a klutz with the leather, or that Alomar looks like he's not playing very hard, or that Ishii can't piss accurately enough to wet the bed, it's a safe bet that the professionals have already made that call. Whether we're ahead of the Mets' front office, which is a frightening reflection on their ability, or whether they're unwilling to cope with truths they've learned ago, they need to be willing to make contingency plans and to act on them. Sometimes this costs money, sometimes this calls for chalking off money you've already spent, but always this needs to be done in order to make a little progress.

seawolf17 Dec 14 2005 02:07 PM

But ultimately, the dollar determines at least some piece of what they do. Maybe Fred doesn't want to pay guys millions of dollars not to work for him; that's his prerogative. It's all play money to us.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2005 02:08 PM

I don't think the Mets are unique in this way. The vast majority of teams will try to get some kind of a return on investment rather than let an $8 million per year guy sit on the bench. Some teams never have this problem because they never agree to pay anybody a big contract.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 02:10 PM

seawolf17 wrote: Fred doesn't want to pay guys . Found my new sig line. Thanks

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2005 02:13 PM

He's sure throwing a lot of money around for someone who doesn't want to pay guys. You may say he's cheap, but he's much better than Lorinda de Roulet.

KC Dec 14 2005 02:19 PM

>>>Look, we fans are usually the last to know.<<< I forgot to inquire, are you a Mets fan again?

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 02:27 PM

]The vast majority of teams will try to get some kind of a return on investment rather than let an $8 million per year guy sit on the bench. Vast majority = all

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 02:27 PM

KC wrote: >>>Look, we fans are usually the last to know.<<< I forgot to inquire, are you a Mets fan again? Why is it always about me, me, me, KC? Can't we talk baseball for Chrissakes?

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 02:29 PM

]Theo, thankfully, doesn't have to worry about Renteria any more, but the Sox seem willing to eat contracts, deal people off for less than they valued them a year ago, and other similar moves that the Mets have been loathe to entertain. This is an odd complaint: Is there any team out there over the past few years paying more money for guys not playing for them than the Mets?

KC Dec 14 2005 02:30 PM

There's too much of a history. It's a perfectly acceptable question from where I'm sitting. I'm truly curious. Sorry if it offends you. My bad. Won't happen again until tomorrow.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 02:41 PM

Elster88 wrote: ]The vast majority of teams will try to get some kind of a return on investment rather than let an $8 million per year guy sit on the bench. Vast majority = all Well, if you're going to go all high finance on me, there's an adage that applies here: "Don't Send Good Money After Bad," that addresses the problem I'm identifying. If you've made a mistake, it's suicidical to continue with that mistake just to justify having made it. If you've spent 8 million on a stock that's gone into the shitter, at some point you need to take what you've invested and put it elsewhere, even if that means taking a loss on the original mistake. That's precisely what Fred refuses to do, and what I'm fauiting him for here. Look at it in baseball terms for a second. I don;t think anyone disputes that if the Mets had Ordonez at just under $500,000 rather than just under $5,000,000 per year, he would have lost his job. Well, since that money had already been lost by the time everyone on this planet decided that Ordonez deserved to lose his job, and nothing was going to earn Fred back a nickel, why did he keep his job for a few more years? Look, Fred, sometimes your front office is going to make bad choices--if you're not going to allocate some money to take care of your ballteam when this happens, your team is not going to win, and ultimately that will cost you more money than you're saving with your present policy.

seawolf17 Dec 14 2005 02:42 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ]Theo, thankfully, doesn't have to worry about Renteria any more, but the Sox seem willing to eat contracts, deal people off for less than they valued them a year ago, and other similar moves that the Mets have been loathe to entertain. This is an odd complaint: Is there any team out there over the past few years paying more money for guys not playing for them than the Mets? Keep in mind that Senor Bonilla will be on the payroll until the year 2289.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 02:44 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ]Theo, thankfully, doesn't have to worry about Renteria any more, but the Sox seem willing to eat contracts, deal people off for less than they valued them a year ago, and other similar moves that the Mets have been loathe to entertain. This is an odd complaint: Is there any team out there over the past few years paying more money for guys not playing for them than the Mets? Well, MoVo was covered pretty much by insurance, right? Who else exactly has been let go with mega-money coming to him recently?

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2005 02:52 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 14 2005 03:01 PM

They cut Bonilla w/about $6mil left Ordonez with 1/3 of his money still out there Cedeno with about 1/2 ($10mil? or so) Alomar had about 1/2 season's worth ($3-$4 mil?) Also, it's plenty easy for outsiders to say they should be eating more money for breakfast. But, unlike the investment example, going out and buying another SS (or whatever position you're trying to replace) means you have to pay the new one in addition to the one you're sitting on the bench, resulting in a huge portion of your payroll tied up in one position. So, unless we're buying into the limitless payroll scenario, let's not act so surprised if/when payroll considerations play a hand in decisions that are made or pretend that this practice is unique to one team. At what point, for example, was it prudent to cut Giambi last year when "it became obvious" that he had lost it? Lost it, that is, right up until the part where he led the majors in HRs over the 2nd half of the season. Until some corp hires me as their accountant, I'm not going to go advising them about how much is reasonable to simply write off.

Nymr83 Dec 14 2005 02:54 PM

Frayed Knot beat me to it....who else would you like to have seen cut with tons of money owed sal? please don't tell us piazza because even if he was making too much there was still no adequate replacement out there.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 03:05 PM

Legend had it the Mets were gonna whack Jerry Koosman while still a minor leaguer but for the fact HE owed THEM money.

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 03:11 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Elster88"] ]The vast majority of teams will try to get some kind of a return on investment rather than let an $8 million per year guy sit on the bench. Vast majority = all Well, if you're going to go all high finance on me, there's an adage that applies here: "Don't Send Good Money After Bad," that addresses the problem I'm identifying. If you've made a mistake, it's suicidical to continue with that mistake just to justify having made it. If you've spent 8 million on a stock that's gone into the shitter, at some point you need to take what you've invested and put it elsewhere, even if that means taking a loss on the original mistake. That's precisely what Fred refuses to do, and what I'm fauiting him for here. Look at it in baseball terms for a second. I don;t think anyone disputes that if the Mets had Ordonez at just under $500,000 rather than just under $5,000,000 per year, he would have lost his job. Well, since that money had already been lost by the time everyone on this planet decided that Ordonez deserved to lose his job, and nothing was going to earn Fred back a nickel, why did he keep his job for a few more years? Look, Fred, sometimes your front office is going to make bad choices--if you're not going to allocate some money to take care of your ballteam when this happens, your team is not going to win, and ultimately that will cost you more money than you're saving with your present policy. Hey you're preaching to the choir. Fred should be faulted. But so should every other owner/GM combo in baseball.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 03:21 PM

First off, I'm not in favor of just cutting someone if you can trade him or package him in a deal where, though you lose money, you get some kind of return and improve your team (but not your profit margin) overall. The value is falling pretty steadily in most of these cases like Alomar and Ordonez, but I believe they could have gotten a better return if they weren't so focussed on $$$$. They start out thinking "We have to get full value on Alomar" and so over-price him, and end up dumping him for even less after that season is lost. Of course, there are Giambis every now and then, whose salary is so huge that even Steinbrenner is reluctant to take that size hit, and so saves his bacon, but with that as your watchword, you'll just hang on to every useless player until eternity passes. Wait, wasn't that last year's slogan: "Mets in 2005! Hang On To Every Useless Player Until Eternity Passes!"

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 03:22 PM

2005? I guess you mean Piazza? Minky's butt was placed firmly on the bench in crunch time last year. Glavine came back to form. Edit: Ah! Ishii too. Spent way too much time trying to get him to turn around.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 03:26 PM

No, I don't believe it was. Seems to me that was a better description of a team that say, got nothing for Derrick Lowe, paid too much for Matt Clement, let Millar stink up the joint all year long and asked too much for Manny Ramirez.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 03:28 PM

Second off, I don't want to get too far afield here, this thread is hopelessly hijacked already, but look at what Larry Brown is doing with the Knicks. He seems to be saying, "I don't give a fuck who makes how much money--you'll play if you're in shape, if you've got talent and intensity, if you do what what I want you to, and if I think you can make the team better someday. You think your multi-zillion dollar deal obliges me to give you "your" minutes? Think again, and do your thinking on my bench." This is where WWSB could use a slightly larger pair.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 03:41 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: asked too much for Manny Ramirez. "Take him off our hands for nothing" is asking too much? Man, you're strict. Lowe was a free agent--is every club that lets an FA go guilty of getting nothing? Again, very strict standards. Clement got off to a pretty good start--it's not like he started off bad and the Sox stuck wtih him anyway. By the time he started pitching consistently badly, the season was past the trade deadline. Elster--don't forget about Matsui.

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 03:44 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Elster--don't forget about Matsui. With Kaz they didn't really have any other options, and I think they've been trying to get rid of since the middle of last year. Actually my argument has been all along that Willie was playing Cairo waaaaay too much.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 03:44 PM

My point was only to suggest these are issues all teams face.

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 03:51 PM

Me too me too.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 04:03 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: My point was only to suggest these are issues all teams face. And that point is well taken. But some teams cope with the issues better than others. So to return to our originally scheduled discussion, the Mets actually made Ordonez into a much hated figure. If they would have benched him (and taken the hit) he would be viewed as overpriced, certainly, but not so much despised. Might even have helped him out. ("Hmmmm, maybe I need to rethink swinging at those fastballs up around my eyes"). Whenever I hear someone claim that Reyes is showing better strike zone judgment, I think of Ordonez, and say "Show me the stats." Reyes is a lot better than Rey was, but this business of leading him off is so far an experiment that hasn't shown results: when do you just send him to the bottom of the lineup? This year? Next year? Never? If they keep leading him off, and if he keeps turning in a .300 OBP, the Mets will turn Reyes too into a much hated Mets shortstop.

Elster88 Dec 14 2005 04:07 PM

]If they would have benched him (and taken the hit) he would be viewed as overpriced, You keep saying this but I'll respond with the same question that I have about benching Kaz. Who in God's name would've stepped in? Your usual contention is that it doesn't matter since we're not in a race, and to play some random kid and see if he shows you something. But in Rey's case, the Mets were in contention for most of his Met-career. What's Rey up to these days?

Johnny Dickshot Dec 14 2005 04:29 PM

Yeah, and I mainly meant to respond to the "2005 slogan" regarding the Sox. ]Whenever I hear someone claim that Reyes is showing better strike zone judgment, I think of Ordonez, and say "Show me the stats." Reyes is a lot better than Rey was, but this business of leading him off is so far an experiment that hasn't shown results: when do you just send him to the bottom of the lineup? This year? Next year? Never? If they keep leading him off, and if he keeps turning in a .300 OBP, the Mets will turn Reyes too into a much hated Mets shortstop. This is what I asked earlier. I think (?) Reyes may be eligible for arbitration next winter, but for our purposes now, let's just pretend he is, and let's pretend he has a 2006 year that's more or less in line with his ZiPS projections of 281/311/400 (he was .273/.300/.386 actual results last year). Given the options, do you: a) trade him b) offer arbitration c) buy out arbitration years with a 3-4 year deal

Nymr83 Dec 14 2005 04:49 PM

Bret- i'd have sent Reyes to the 8-hole a long time ago. but i fear that he could lower his already abysmal OBP and STILL be considered a good leadoff hitter by certain people who like to ignore stats.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 14 2005 05:01 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Yeah, and I mainly meant to respond to the "2005 slogan" regarding the Sox. ]Whenever I hear someone claim that Reyes is showing better strike zone judgment, I think of Ordonez, and say "Show me the stats." Reyes is a lot better than Rey was, but this business of leading him off is so far an experiment that hasn't shown results: when do you just send him to the bottom of the lineup? This year? Next year? Never? If they keep leading him off, and if he keeps turning in a .300 OBP, the Mets will turn Reyes too into a much hated Mets shortstop. This is what I asked earlier. I think (?) Reyes may be eligible for arbitration next winter, but for our purposes now, let's just pretend he is, and let's pretend he has a 2006 year that's more or less in line with his ZiPS projections of 281/311/400 (he was .273/.300/.386 actual results last year). Given the options, do you: a) trade him b) offer arbitration c) buy out arbitration years with a 3-4 year deal The 2005 slogan was just a throwaway line. I'd finished my post, noticed that my last line ended "just hang on to every useless player until eternity passes" and, caustic fucktard that I can be, thought that made a pretty funny slogan. Sorry if I poked a sensitive spot. Of the three options, I'd say that the safe answer would be d) see how much he wants to buy out the arb. years, but that's just to kill a little time. It's going to be a LOT, I'm sure, and I don't want to pay a LOT for someone who hasn't shown me that he's actually going to deliver a LOT. I'd say, based on the Rey Rey experience, that choice b) is the winner. If he takes a major step ahead in 2006 (starting with an OBP over over .335) then we reconsider.

Nymr83 Dec 14 2005 05:40 PM

right now i've got to go with "offer arbitration." he's done nothing to deserve a multi-year deal.

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2005 07:34 PM

Except that a multi-year deal helps the club also - at least the right kind of deal does. What clubs absolutely love as much as sell-outs and good weather is as much "cost certainty" as is possible to have. By inking a 3rd/4th year player to a 3 or 4 year deal the club knows exactly what he'll cost them for the next couple of years and, they not only get to avoid the often-contentious process of arbitration, they could wind up paying less over that time than the player would earn taking on a year-by-year basis. The player will often gladly give up the possibility of more cash because the longer term deal assures him of a job for another 3/4 years, security which wouldn't be available otherwise. Sometimes these deals favor the club (Boston w/Nomar way back when) and other times the player. Choosing which players to do this with is, of course, the trick and it's the purpose of Dickshot's multiple choice question. Dealing with Reyes one year at a time may cost the team more in the long run but they'll retain the option to get out from under him at any time; assuming that is that he'll play poorly enough to cause them to want to non-tender a 23 or 24 y/o with his (supposed?) talent. That was the same choice they had w/Ordonez following the '99 season. The combo of factors there: injury, phony age, regression of player, regression of market, and a deal that was too big (anticipating growing market) and too back-loaded to begin with, made it the wrong deal at the wrong time to the wrong player. We/they will get to visit the same choice next year with Reyes and in the one after that w/Wright.

Nymr83 Dec 14 2005 08:02 PM

lets not forget the injury factor either....he stayed healthy for once but unless he does it a 2nd straight year i wouldnt start counting on him to do it often...

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 03:57 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 15 2005 06:25 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: Except that a multi-year deal helps the club also - at least the right kind of deal does. Yes, Captain Obvious, but what can we learn from the Ordonez debacle? To me, it's that if you have a shortstop who struggles to get his OBP above .300, but who shows a lot of potential to develop as a star, maybe you shouldn't be paying him as a star until he gets that OBP up above league average for a couple of years. Until that point, which may well not arrive, pay him year-to-year, and if you lose him, you lose him. Shortstops with good gloves are a dime a dozen, no need to pay them like superstars quite yet. The arbitration process need not be acrimonious: "We love Jose, and really want him to get on base enough to justify leading him off, as we've been doing to the detriment of our ballclub for years in the faith that he will develop this crucial skill. We agree that with better strike zone judgment, which we will do anything to help Jose acquire, he deserves a long term contract at many multiples of the salary he currently warrants, and we hope he gets his OBP up where we can sign such a contract." If you're bound and determined to read that as acrimonious, then I've got to think that acrimony is just a bargaining position meant to justify outrageous demands for a salary level you haven't begun to earn. Further, with such long-term deals, the hidden danger is that the club makes a GOOD deal: say the Mets sign Reyes to a five-year contract at a modest 3 Mil per year (after the kind of 2006 Dickshot projects, .311 OBP etc.). Fabulous, right? But say Reyes then proceeds to get on base at a consistent .375 clip, with power and Gold Glove fielding and 100 steals per year--doubly fabulous right? Not exactly. Then what you've got is one pissed-off shortstop, feeling underpaid and resentful that he could be earning Jeter-money on the open market. Think of how much you'd pay (or give up) to ACQUIRE another player like Reyes just now: a lifetime .303 OBP, some speed, a few flashes of power, good glove. Are you going to swap Beltran to get that? Floyd? He's just not that valuable --yet. Here's his current list of Similar Batters through Age 22 Jack Doyle (962) Mark Koenig (955) Red Kress (951) Jack O'Connor (948) Joe Cronin (947) * Joe Tinker (945) * Mike Caruso (944) Alfredo Griffin (943) Wil Cordero (943) Juan Uribe (942) I'd suggest a weighted average of these players is not worth a long-term big-bucks commitment. Some decent years mixed in here and there, but a lot of pretty poor years as well. If this list doesn't change in a year's time, I'd say that passing on buying out Reyes' arb. years seems pretty sound. (Koenig, for example, had a lifetime .316 OBP in some pretty strong lineups at a time when MLB offense was going crazy.)

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 05:03 AM

Elster88 wrote: ]If they would have benched him (and taken the hit) he would be viewed as overpriced, You keep saying this but I'll respond with the same question that I have about benching Kaz. Who in God's name would've stepped in? Your usual contention is that it doesn't matter since we're not in a race, and to play some random kid and see if he shows you something. But in Rey's case, the Mets were in contention for most of his Met-career. What's Rey up to these days? I'm not talking about picking some kid out of the stands and putting him at second (though wouldn't that be cool?) Anderson Hernandez would be one such choice--if they'd plucked him out of AAA in June, and said, "Fuck it, let's see what he can do," you think the Mets would have lost a lot more games than they did? Or this Balderis kid that Healey's top-10 link discusses. Or re-acquire Wigginton. I don't care. My point is that if someone does very poorly and he's a minimum salary guy, the call gets made much diferently than if he's a big contract guy, though the baseball qua baseball decision is identical. Now you can argue that the big-contract guy has probably shown ability in the past (else, why the big contract?) but I'm arguing that at least SOME of that decision is an attempt on the part of the guy who signed the player to the big contract to delay, or avoid entirely, HIS looking like a horse's ass. That's what I argue about Kaz Matsui, virtually throughout his Mets career. Someone screwed the pooch in scouting him (no Japanese scout noticed that the guy has no backhand move, and no range? How much sake were these guys drinking?) and this stupid organization bid against itself in signing him to an All-Star level contract--when they saw they weren't getting All-Star level play, they made choices that have nothing to do with an honest appraisal of abilities (or lack thereof) on the field of play. As to Ordonez, to whom the quote above refers, I've already said, "Relaford or Scutaro" or whoever the backup ss was at the time. The object wasn't to improve the team, it was to send the message that persistent inadequate play results in reduced playing time. (In Scutaro's case, the team might have been improved.) And the argument that Rey-O could conly play ss is absurd. Any ss can play any infield position. There's no difference between playing ss and 3b, other than the reduced need for range (because of the foul line) at 3b. The only difference in skills between ss and 2b is learning to cover 1B and learning to turn the DP with your back to the runner, both of which can be learned easily in a few weeks of practice. Otherwise the difference between 2b and ss is the reduced need for a consistently strong throwing arm at 2b. I've never heard of a good ss being inadequate to play any other infield position, and never expect to. Ah, but did Rey-rey want to play another infield position? That may have been the nub of his problem--there were lots of skills he didn't want to acquire, like bunting or laying off high fastballs.

MFS62 Dec 15 2005 06:46 AM

Some other shortstops of note. They really may not belong on this list, but their careers certainly frustrated me: 1) Ryan Jaroncyk - drafted #1 by the Mets, spent one year in the minors, then decided he didn't like baseball and quit the game. 2) A guy named Bucci (forget his first name) signed by the Mets, played a few years in the organization and loooked like he had some potential. One year he was dissatisfied that he wasn't promoted and asked for a trade. When he didn't get it, he quit the game. 3) This guy was special. He was signed out of the Dominican Republic at age 16. He had played two years there in the highest level of amateur ball. One year he won the Triple Crown. The other year, he hit 47 home runs in around 250 at bats (that is not a misprint). He spent a few years in the Mets organization, but was left exposed in the Rule V Draft and taken by Milwaukee. His development was hurt by having to have spent an entire year on the major league roster. He is still in their system (AA last year) and is still only 24 years old. Who knows? He may eventually fulfill his potential. I would like to see him do it. His name is Enrique Cruz. Later

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 06:49 AM

I think this goes in its own thread, labelled "Shortstops you've never heard of and never will and couldn't care less about."

KC Dec 15 2005 06:56 AM

Note: I haven't read 62's response yet, but got logged out a couple of times writing and pasted this from notepad I guess what I find so frustrating about some of this thinking is that it's so damn well laid out and makes so much god damn sense when you take it on it's own - these last two tablespoons are extraordinary examples of well thought out analysis sprinkled with historical stuff and references - sign me up. My problem is that if Reyes was traded last week along with some other prospects for a bonified all-star,. not an old one, a medium aged one. One with no loop holes, no short comings, one who could pass all of the litmus tests required for being a "real deal". Ya know, the perfect trade where a couple of Mets scouts pull Omar aside and say, "we don't think Reyes is ever really gonna pan out - his OBP is where it is and ain't gonna move" and got him to pull the trigger on this trade of a lifetime - there would have been two other finely written long tablespoons about why the Mets can't plan for the future properly or this or that and how can you trade away the future bbbyyy. There would be a lot of pissed of fans if Reyes was traded away because it came out that his SIM scores on bbr.com weren't up to snuff at age 22. And under most circumstances I can't help but think that the very people posting and calling the radio about Jose's OBP would be moaning and groaning about getting rid of him too soon only to see him flourish elsewhere. To some degree it happened with Kazmir. People in the org didn't like some stuff about his delivery, scouting and coaching and decision making is tricky business - but look at the outcry over that move - likely from the same tablespooners.

Elster88 Dec 15 2005 07:02 AM

]To some degree it happened with Kazmir. To some degree? It's still happening to a huge degree. And what boggles my mind is that people say things like "after what he showed last year I'm even more pissed about this deal." I always want to shout at those people and ask them what the hell were you watching last year. It was nice but nothing to make you call for anyone's head. I don't remember who it was, but someone here was even blaming Omar and Willie for the Kazmir trade. Lash out at anyone and everyone if you're cranky. Throw those temper tantrums.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 07:10 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 15 2005 07:21 AM

KC wrote: - there would have been two other finely written long tablespoons about why the Mets can't plan for the future properly or this or that and how can you trade away the future bbbyyy. There's a real difference between trading a guy off because you don't think he's MLB material for at least a few more years, who then comes up to the majors immediately and starts pitching as well as the older veteran you've swapped him out for, and failing to sign a guy to a long-range contract who's demonstrated very little ability to get on base on the MLB level for the past three seasons. I love Reyes, will be dejected if he doesn't become a big star, but I'm not quite in the "Pay him zillions or risk losing his all-but-certain-stardom!!!" camp yet. Fortunately for the Mets, they're not quite in that position yet, either. Meanwhile, guess who's available to solve the Mets' 2b problem? A player who had a near .900 OPS last year at AAA. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05342/619237.stm

Johnny Dickshot Dec 15 2005 07:21 AM

="MFS62"] 3) This guy was special. He was signed out of the Dominican Republic at age 16. He had played two years there in the highest level of amateur ball. One year he won the Triple Crown. The other year, he hit 47 home runs in around 250 at bats (that is not a misprint). EDITED: Oh, I see you mean, amatuer ball. He was pretty average in the Mets' system. [url]http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/C/enrique-cruz.shtml[/url] Cruz was selected in Rule 5 after 2002, and doesn't appear to have ever led his league in anytthing.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 07:27 AM

Yeah, Cruz had a good year last year at AA Huntsville, but he just turned 25 without having yet played AAA (did play a bit of MLB --poorly--at age 21).

Frayed Knot Dec 15 2005 07:45 AM

btw, I'm not arguing in favor of a multi-year deal for Reyes now, or even a year from now; just pointing out that a long-term deal isn't something that a club enters into only when forced to by circumstances. Reyes is under NYM control for the next 4 years (if they so choose) so how they go about paying him over those years is a big decision for them. Boston saved millions by doing such a deal w/Nomar while the Yanx wasted at least as much by taking things year-by-year w/Jeter. Arbitration doesn't NEED to be acrimonious ... except that both sides almost universally try to avoid it like the plague. The Mets didn't "bid against themselves" for Matsui. There were numerous teams trying to sign him.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 15 2005 08:04 AM

I raised the Reyes point to demonstrate that while it's easy to criticize deals when they're done, these decisions are rarely so obvious at the time you make them.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 09:04 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I raised the Reyes point to demonstrate that while it's easy to criticize deals when they're done, these decisions are rarely so obvious at the time you make them. And a fine point it was, though I don't really notice this thread becoming filled fast and furious with firm commitments to or against Reyes even a year in advance of any decision, with plenty of time to rethink before the decision needs to be made. What's your call, Johnny? Reyes goes .311 OBP next year, are you eager to sign him to a longterm bigbux deal?

MFS62 Dec 15 2005 09:18 AM

Bret, in his first five full years in the majors, Roberto Clemente had OBP numbers of: .284 .330 .288 (reverted) .327 .322 But obviously there were other attributes to his game, and visions of what he could become, that made the Bucs not want to get rid of him. Reyes really has only the equivalent of two full major league years behind him, with a top OBP of .334. Waiting for that third year to make a decision makes sense. But if they wanted to lock him up long turn, Iwouldn't have much heartburn over it either. Later

Benjamin Grimm Dec 15 2005 09:26 AM

Me neither. Even if his OBP never improves, (and it probably won't by a whole lot) he's still a far better player than Ordonez ever was. His future may not be as a leadoff hitter, but if he's ever demoted in the lineup (and replaced with a better leadoff guy) he'd be one of the better 8th-place hitters in the game. I've seen the Mets with so many easy outs in the 8th spot that I'd really appreciate a guy like Reyes there.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 09:32 AM

MFS62--what Dickshot is positing is that AFTER 2006 if Reyes puts up a .311 OBP, do you sign an arbiration deal woith him or go for the bigbux? In fact, since there is a poll here that we're pretty much ignoring, I'll start my own poll on the subject.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 15 2005 09:34 AM

If I have this figured right (and I may not) Reyes will be eligible for arbitration in 2007, 08, and 09, and can be a free agent after the 2009 season.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 15 2005 10:15 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Johnny Dickshot"]I raised the Reyes point to demonstrate that while it's easy to criticize deals when they're done, these decisions are rarely so obvious at the time you make them. And a fine point it was, though I don't really notice this thread becoming filled fast and furious with firm commitments to or against Reyes even a year in advance of any decision, with plenty of time to rethink before the decision needs to be made. What's your call, Johnny? Reyes goes .311 OBP next year, are you eager to sign him to a longterm bigbux deal? Keep in mind, when you say "bigbux" you actually mean "usually less $$ overall than the 3 or 4 consecutive 1-year deals it would take to get him to free agency" You say, no LT contract unless his OBP is north of 335 this year. I wouldn't be that rigid (or unrealistic given that a pretty large jump). 311 is still pretty stinky, so maybe I go for a year at a time until he gets into a 330ish range too

seawolf17 Dec 15 2005 10:57 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ="Bret Sabermetric"] Johnny Dickshot wrote: I raised the Reyes point to demonstrate that while it's easy to criticize deals when they're done, these decisions are rarely so obvious at the time you make them. And a fine point it was, though I don't really notice this thread becoming filled fast and furious with firm commitments to or against Reyes even a year in advance of any decision, with plenty of time to rethink before the decision needs to be made. What's your call, Johnny? Reyes goes .311 OBP next year, are you eager to sign him to a longterm bigbux deal? Keep in mind, when you say "bigbux" you actually mean "usually less $$ overall than the 3 or 4 consecutive 1-year deals it would take to get him to free agency" You say, no LT contract unless his OBP is north of 335 this year. I wouldn't be that rigid (or unrealistic given that a pretty large jump). 311 is still pretty stinky, so maybe I go for a year at a time until he gets into a 330ish range too Right, but if he leas the league in triples and SBs and scores 100 runs, then you're going to have a pretty ugly arbitration fight on your hands. He might not just sign a one-year deal.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 11:20 AM

seawolf17 wrote: He might not just sign a one-year deal. I think that's what arbitration is: a one-year deal at a figure chosen by Mr. Arbitrator.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 11:24 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 15 2005 11:28 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: You say, no LT contract unless his OBP is north of 335 this year. I wouldn't be that rigid (or unrealistic given that a pretty large jump). 311 is still pretty stinky, so maybe I go for a year at a time until he gets into a 330ish range too That's pretty much what I mean, Johnny. If he goes .311, let's see an arbitrator. If he breaks .335 in 2007, I'll go for a multi-year deal. If not, it's back to the arbitrator again. if he gets to his final year of arbitration-eligibility without having broken .335, well, I'll offer him a LT contract, but I don't think he's going to like what I'm offering to pay him.

Frayed Knot Dec 15 2005 11:26 AM

]He might not just sign a one-year deal. If that's all that's offered, he really has no choice -- at least for the next 4 seasons ('06 - '09) Arbitration is merely a fall-back option that 3rd - 6th year players have to have their salary determined by an outsider if they and the team can't agree on an amount.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 15 2005 12:42 PM

I found this website in the UMDB referrer logs. It's all about hating Mets players.

MFS62 Dec 15 2005 12:49 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I found this website in the UMDB referrer logs. It's all about hating Mets players. Any such site that doesn't have Al Moran listed among the worst shortstops just doesn't have a proper sense of Mets history. Later

Nymr83 Dec 15 2005 07:22 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="seawolf17"] He might not just sign a one-year deal. I think that's what arbitration is: a one-year deal at a figure chosen by Mr. Arbitrator. unfortunately, i don't think Mr. Arbitrator has any idea who Bill James is or what OPS means....guys like Reyes tend (in my opinion) to get more in arbitration than better players with the same service time.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 07:43 PM

Nymr83 wrote: unfortunately, i don't think Mr. Arbitrator has any idea who Bill James is or what OPS means....guys like Reyes tend (in my opinion) to get more in arbitration than better players with the same service time. I'm guessing you didn't know that Bill James was the source of my using the phrase "Mr. Arbitrator"--in an essay he wrote on what info you do and don't want to tell Mr. Arbitrator (and James indeed wrote that "You do, in fact, call him 'Mr. Arbitrator' "), he explains at length how you have to make sure not to say anything that Mr. A doesn't understand, how you have to be sure never to say anything incorrect or factually off, etc. James used to make a good chunk of his living, mostly working for players but sometoimes for clubs, testifying as an expert in arbitration hearings and he knows how sophisticaed some (not all) arbitrators are statistically.

Nymr83 Dec 15 2005 08:42 PM

i meant "they dont know who he is" more as a knock on their knowledge of sabermetrics in general. i have the feeling that most arbitrators don't care what your OBP looks like and that they'll see a regression in OBP and SLG accompanied by an increase in a more team-oriented stat (RBIs) and see that as a step forward for a player. i also think they overrate statistics, like the stolen base, that most people have since seen to be far less important than they were once thought to be.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 05:12 PM

Nymr83 wrote: i meant "they dont know who he is" more as a knock on their knowledge of sabermetrics in general. i have the feeling that most arbitrators don't care what your OBP looks like and that they'll see a regression in OBP and SLG accompanied by an increase in a more team-oriented stat (RBIs) and see that as a step forward for a player. i also think they overrate statistics, like the stolen base, that most people have since seen to be far less important than they were once thought to be. I think James tried to educate them on the fly. If an agent was claiming that his client stealing 50 bases against 30 caught stealings was positive, James would demonstrate that 50/30 was actually more harmful than if he'd never tried to steal at all. And even if they had a better case, like Reyes' 60/15 ratio, he could quickly and easily show how little value those SBs had.

Little Napoleon Dec 17 2005 11:57 AM

Nymr83 wrote: how about Mike Bordick? Ordonez gets hurt and everyone is all like "wow this guy is great, he's the savior, he can hit" and he came here and laid an egg. You got it! Mike Bordick. Hits a hr in his first game (against the Cards I think) and then literally and completely disappears for the rest of his time with the franchise. That's a good one. You cant hate Gardenhire- he's a good guy.