Master Index of Archived Threads


Seo for Sanchez

What do you think of the Seo for Sanchez deal?

I love the Seo for Sanchez deal!	0 votes
I like the Seo for Sanchez deal.	6 votes
I have no opinion.	2 votes
I dislike the Seo for Sanchez deal.	14 votes
I hate the Seo for Sanchez deal!	8 votes

GYC Jan 04 2006 03:58 AM

[url]http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spmets044574692jan04,0,7751798.story?coll=ny-mets-print[/url] Mets set to say Seo long Frustrated in Baez talks, Dodgers would send Sanchez to Shea Email this story Printer friendly format BY KEN DAVIDOFF STAFF WRITER January 4, 2006 Unable to complete a deal for Tampa Bay's Danys Baez, the Mets have turned West to fill their void for a setup man. According to officials from two major-league clubs, the Mets had all but finalized a trade to land Duaner Sanchez from the Los Angeles Dodgers. In return for Sanchez, a 26-year-old righthander, the Mets will surrender righthander Jae Seo, the officials said. The trade will probably be announced by the end of this week. Sanchez pitched in 79 games for the Dodgers in 2005, going 4-7 with a 3.73 ERA, walking 36 and striking out 71 in 82 innings. He throws a fastball that reaches about 95 mph on the radar gun, and he also displays a curveball, slider and changeup. He instantly becomes the Mets' primary setup man to new closer Billy Wagner. With two-plus years of service time, Sanchez is not yet eligible for arbitration, a further asset for the Mets, who would still take Boston's ultra-expensive outfielder Manny Ramirez in the right deal. Seo, 28, went 8-2 with a 2.59 ERA for the Mets last season, starting 14 games. The Mets spent extensive time pursuing Baez, the Devil Rays' hard-throwing closer, and ultimately grew frustrated enough to look elsewhere. The Devil Rays preferred Aaron Heilman to Seo, and the Mets wanted to keep Heilman, who flourished last season. Heilman can now become the Mets' seventh-inning pitcher, further strengthening the club's weakest unit of 2005. With their setup man acquired, the Mets can focus on their last significant task of the offseason - upgrading at second base. They'd like to unload Kazuo Matsui - Boston and Tampa Bay have expressed interest, and the Mets are offering to pay $5 million of Matsui's $8 million salary - and find someone else to play the position. Notes & quotes: The Houston Astros signed free-agent outfielder Preston Wilson to a one-year, $4-million deal ... The Anaheim Angels, having lost starting pitchers Paul Byrd (Cleveland) and Jarrod Washburn (Seattle) to other teams through free agency, are speaking with former Yankee Jeff Weaver, whose younger brother Jered is in the Angels' minor-league system ... The Orioles hope to resolve the future of unhappy shortstop Miguel Tejada by week's end, and they could very well keep him. Baltimore, meanwhile, is negotiating with former Yankee Ruben Sierra ... The Yankees spoke yesterday with the representative for free-agent reliever Jeff Nelson, but Nelson, a two-time former Yankee, isn't close to deciding on his next employer.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 04 2006 04:33 AM

well I'm awake. Duaner Sanchez is the pitcher who threw his glove to catch a ball last year. See grainy video here: [url]http://www.dodgerblues.com/content/features_moments.html#sanchez[/url] "I'm the type of guy who has too much Adrenalin," Sanchez said. "... I overreacted on the play. That's about it." I try and skip anger and go straight to bargaining with my Met Grief, so the positives of Sanchez: He gives up more hits than you'd like, but he's still young (he'll be 26) and really improved his K numbers last year, throws pretty hard and seemed capable of a lot of appearances. More upside than Baez and evidently, a cheaper price. He also wears goggles on the mound.

Nymr83 Jan 04 2006 05:30 AM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FIRE OMAR

Johnny Dickshot Jan 04 2006 05:32 AM

Tooooo many O's

Rotblatt Jan 04 2006 06:47 AM

Stupid. He's essentially a glorified ROOGY--lefties hit .310 off him last year and .299 over his career. I'd sooner put Seo in the bullpen. He has a better career ERA, a much better WHIP, and infinitely better control. He is, essentially, a better pitcher. I bet Seo dominates in LA.

Elster88 Jan 04 2006 06:55 AM

I don't like this trade....but I'm not as high on Seo as everyone else is. He had a very good half a year last year. He should be at peak trade value right now. That said, we should be able to get more than a mediocre reliever for him, no? Maybe not.

sharpie Jan 04 2006 07:16 AM

Sanchez's Baseball Reference most similar by age guy - Braden Looper.

metsmarathon Jan 04 2006 07:17 AM

i have to keep telling myself that maybe jae seo was just a flash in the pan last year, and that maybe he's really just a back of the rotation guy... sanchez' scouting report from ESPN.com basically calls him a solid middle reliever, with ability to move up. he throws a two-seamer, curve, and split. all have average movement, and hte two seamer has plus velocity. his control, they claim, will improve with experience, and he's a plus fielder and competitor, with above average intelligence. nothing in there has me loving the trade. i mean, there's enough room for the trade not to suck. but right now, like mcdonalds, i'm not lovin' it.

Edgy DC Jan 04 2006 07:22 AM

We have a bet on the table from Rottblatt. At the very least, preditiction archives material.

seawolf17 Jan 04 2006 07:22 AM

You all are, of course, shitting me.

metsmarathon Jan 04 2006 07:40 AM

i assume you like the trade, wolfy? i do have to admit, that from a bullpen-building standpoint, i like the trade. it does resolve the uncertainty we had in our bullpen going into the season, what with all those starters floating around. with seo out of the way, and a setup man in hand, it frees up heilman for the rotation, as we no longer need him to deepen and strengthen our pen. which gives us a rotation, going in, of pedro, glavine, benson, heilman, and likely trachsel, with zambrano first one out of the pen. and we've still, presumably, got the elderly insurance in soler waiting in the wings, likely down in AAA. i think that seo is the best blend of our willingness to trade him and our ability to get something good back that we have in the rotation, so from that standpoint alone, he becomes the most sensible and most likely to be traded. the question then becomes wether or not sanchez is enough of a return for jae. and that's a tough one to answer, because we weren't going to get baez for jae, i don't think. i believe we should have been able to get more from trading jae than this, but i'm not really sure how much better we should have expected.

sharpie Jan 04 2006 07:44 AM

I'd rather see Heilman in the rotation than Seo. If trading Seo is the way that this happens, so be it (though I'd rather have found a taker for Trachsel). Haven't seen much of Sanchez but he does seem to have an upside. My counter-prediction is that Seo would not dominate in LA as I don't think he has dominating stuff.

Edgy DC Jan 04 2006 07:46 AM

sharpie and Rottie locking horns. Let's see some stakes and defining of terms. How about: Dominate = 120 or more ERA+ from a starter, or 135 or more ERA+ from a reliever?

sharpie Jan 04 2006 07:51 AM

OK, but no one has stepped up to say whether Sanchez will dominate or not.

86-Dreamer Jan 04 2006 08:07 AM

What is it about Seo and Heilman that makes most of us (and apperently both our GM and other GMs) think that Heilman is untouchable while Seo is fair game, despite both long and short term evidence that says it should be the other way around? 2005: Heilman 132 ERA+ in 108 IP, Seo 162 in 90 IP Career: Heilman 91 ERA- in 201IP, Seo 110 ERA+ in 397 IP and Seo has pitched all but 11 of those career innings as a starter, while Heilman has racked up an ERA of 5.93 in 134 innings as a starter. I don't get it.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 04 2006 08:25 AM

]What is it about Seo and Heilman that makes most of us (and apperently both our GM and other GMs) think that Heilman is untouchable while Seo is fair game, despite both long and short term evidence that says it should be the other way around? Upside. In the Omar Era, at least, the Mets seem to be making pitching decisions by boiling everything down to naked ability, asking: If "talent" were bullets, who'd commit the more gruesome shopping-mall shoot-em-up?

smg58 Jan 04 2006 08:26 AM

So the Mets are getting one of the many solid prospects in the Dodgers' system (the deepest in the league) in addition to Sanchez, right? The whole world needs starting pitching, so the Mets could obviously get more than a righty middle reliever with a 3.72 ERA for a cheap, young starter coming off a sub-3 ERA season, right? Right?

Elster88 Jan 04 2006 08:28 AM

I would hope so. Maybe other GM's aren't buying that the rest of his career is going to be similar to his 2005 season. _________________________ This post had the designation 91) Carl Everett

86-Dreamer Jan 04 2006 08:41 AM

and the indicator of that upside is .....? I guess some combination of the radar gun, age, height, and maybe ethnicity. and i don't mean to accuse our GM or anyone here of racism, but i think it is easier for many to look at Heilman and think "stud", and look at Seo and thing "fluke"

Elster88 Jan 04 2006 08:46 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 04 2006 09:17 AM

avi

metsmarathon Jan 04 2006 08:51 AM

i'm more wary of seo because i feel like i've been burned in the past. 2004 to be exact. i guess that could be why we feel more positive about heilman, who seems to have put it all together, than seo, who seems capable of putting it all together and having it all fall apart again. which is not to say that heilman cannot fall apart, only that he hasn't shown it to the extent that jae has.

seawolf17 Jan 04 2006 08:58 AM

People get blasted here when they play the race card. That's not always fair. Omar has a perceived reputation, fair or not, that he favors Latino players. To man, almost every player rumored to be heading our way this season has been Latino: Baez, Ramirez, Lugo, now Duaner Sanchez. I'm not saying it's politically correct, but it's the perception.

metsmarathon Jan 04 2006 08:59 AM

billy wagner, paul loduca, chad bradford

seawolf17 Jan 04 2006 09:00 AM

That's why I said "almost."

Edgy DC Jan 04 2006 09:03 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 04 2006 09:04 AM

I think Heilman's rep is perhaps boosted by his first-rounder status, his related bonus baby status, and the awesome college career that fed into that. The thing about relievers is that while their dominance isn't in as many innings (or in this case, only 20% more inings than Seo), their dominance can be more exciting because they showed up dominant in more games. Heilman gave up two earned runs in his last 24 games, covering 37.1 inings --- a 0.48 ERA over that stretch. I think Seo's rep is perhaps hurt by his post-operative status, his prior big-league track record of mediocrity being longer (if better) than Heilman's track record of sub-mediocrity. First time the Omar Loves Whitey angle has come up.

Valadius Jan 04 2006 09:04 AM

Omar, what in God's name are you fucking thinking???

Centerfield Jan 04 2006 09:07 AM

This is even dumber than the LoDuca trade.

Valadius Jan 04 2006 09:13 AM

There can be only one explanation: Steve Phillips has replaced Omar with an android.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 04 2006 09:17 AM

Ah, at last, Valadius articulates what I've long held as the question that, will, in time, show whether the Mets, and Omar in particular, know more than we do. On the face of it, this is a stupid, unpopular challenge trade. I don't like it, you don't like it, none of us are ordering tickets on the basis of it. If Sanchez's parachute doesn't open and Seo has even a seo-seo season for LA, ignorant pedantic posters like me will never drop it as evidence of Omar's blatent incompetence--Val's question, "WTF was he thinking?" will become our watchword. But if it succeeds, such ignorant louts will have to pause, at least, before launching their next tirade. (Well, not me, but some ignorant louts will feel compelled to pause.) The ONLY possible justification for it is that Omar knows something that the knowledgable Met fan does not, either about Sanchez or about Seo or both.

Nymr83 Jan 04 2006 09:40 AM

apparently we all know something Seo that omar doesn't....he's a better pitcher than the guy you got back! edit- i find it very obnoxious that when i change my sig quote the old one doesnt stay on previous posts.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 04 2006 09:44 AM

That's because you're not one of the administrator's pets.

Elster88 Jan 04 2006 10:01 AM

Nymr83 wrote: apparently we all know something Seo that omar doesn't....he's a better pitcher than the guy you got back! In theory at least. Time will tell.

Hillbilly Jan 04 2006 10:30 AM

It looks to me based on the wedding pictures that I've seen that Jae is out of shape. This might have been a contributor to the Mets making him available. For a guy that lost his job a couple springs back, not staying in shape seems like a concern. Overall I like this deal. Trade a back end of the rotation guy competing for the 4th or 5th spot, an area of depth, for a bullpen arm, a much thin part of the pitch staff.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 04 2006 10:36 AM

="Hillbilly"]IJae is out of shape. Seems to me that's a mighty big portion size he's carrying back to the table.

Elster88 Jan 04 2006 10:38 AM

He's been that size throughout his Met career.

heep Jan 04 2006 01:01 PM

This is not a bad move, not great either. I do not know enough about Sanchez. We will have to wait and see how he performs. The basis of this move is probably to keep Heilman and most likely give him a spot in the rotation. Smart. If Baez wants to close, we are going to lose him after this year. Omar is not dumb. My intuition tells me Omar wants Heilman for the long haul. If Heilman asked me to start I would start him. I'd rather have Heilman in the rotation than Seo, as all of you would. I think Heilman has more upside than Seo and will develop into a real smart pitcher. (FYI - nice read by Marty Noble on Heilman on www.mets.com.) As a side note, I really hope Ring steps it up this year and fills out his potential. Maybe its his attitude that the Mets do not like? I remember when Alomar was on the block, Ring (former Team USA) was the player that the Sox were most relunctant to move. Wait and see. Pedro Glavine Benson Trachsel Heilman Zambrano Ring Bradford Bell Sanchez Wagner

Elster88 Jan 04 2006 01:10 PM

Ed Coleman says it's a done deal. We give up Hamulack and Seo for Sanchez and the guy who closed after Brazoban went down last year (Schmoll? Schmoe?) I have yet to see it elsewhere.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 04 2006 01:12 PM

Seo for Schmoe?

Johnny Dickshot Jan 04 2006 01:13 PM

Steve Schmoll, He's another sidearmer.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 04 2006 01:14 PM

It's on the Dodgers web site: http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20060104&content_id=1291228&vkey=pr_la&fext=.jsp&c_id=la Dodgers acquire Seo and Humalack from Mets for Sanchez and Schmoll LOS ANGELES -- The Los Angeles Dodgers General Manager Ned Colletti today announced that the club has acquired pitchers Jae Seo and Tim Hamulack from the New York Mets in exchange for pitchers Duaner Sanchez and Steve Schmoll. "With the addition of Seo and Hamulack, we have added some depth to our pitching staff," said Colletti. "Seo's had success as a starter and is another option for us in the rotation. He knows how to pitch and has a great work ethic. Hamulack has developed to the point of being a strong candidate for a left-handed role in our bullpen." Seo, 28, went 8-2 with a 2.59 ERA in 14 starts with the Mets in 2005 and the right-hander posted a 5-0 record in eight starts at Shea Stadium. With a combined 15-6 overall record with the Mets and Triple-A Norfolk, Seo registered 170 strikeouts and 46 walks in 212 innings. The South Korea native was named the Mets' Pitcher of the Month in August with a 4-0 record and 1.75 ERA in five starts. His 1.30 ERA through seven starts in 2005 was the third lowest by a Mets pitcher through his first seven starts of a season (Frank Viola, 0.87 ERA to begin 1990; Nolan Ryan had a 1.05 ERA in 1971). At Triple-A Norfolk of the International League, Seo went 7-4 with a 4.29 ERA in 19 starts. Seo broke into the Major Leagues with New York in 2002 and has compiled a lifetime 22-24 record and 3.85 ERA in 71 games (66 starts). Hamulack, 29, made his Major League debut in 2005 after making 382 Minor League appearances in 10 seasons. The left-hander went 2-2 with a 1.26 ERA and six saves in 21 games at Double-A Binghamton and 3-1 with a 1.02 ERA and six saves in 28 games at Triple-A Norfolk. In 64 innings overall, Hamulack registered 61 strikeouts, 15 walks and surrendered only one home run. The Mets purchased the New York native's contract on September 1 and he made his debut the following day against Florida, retiring the only batter he faced (Carlos Delgado). In six appearances with New York, Hamulack allowed six runs on seven hits in 2 1/3 innings and had no decisions. Sanchez, 26, was 4-7 with a 3.73 ERA in 79 games for the Dodgers in 2005. He ranked tied for second in the National League in appearances and topped his previous career high of 67 games pitched in 2004. He assumed the closer's role in August and converted all eight of his save opportunities through the remainder of the season. Schmoll, 25, originally was a non-drafted free agent who signed with Los Angeles in 2003 and made the 2005 Opening Day roster after an impressive Spring Training. He went 2-2 with a 5.01 ERA with three saves in 48 appearances. Schmoll also spent time at Triple-A Las Vegas and compiled a 0-3 record and 4.78 ERA with five saves in 22 games.

Edgy DC Jan 04 2006 01:16 PM

I don't think the Mets have a vision of entering the season with Zambrano as a bullpenner. If the season breaks that way, where he's more use to them in the pen (like last year), that's one thing. But pencilling him in there in the offseason devalues him. I think they'll find room for him in their rotation or somebody else's. They went into the offseason with nine guys with a strong starting case. They've shed two of the guys ahead of Heilman. They've shed one. The advantage that Seo has over Heilman is that he finished (and finished strong) in the rotation. I don't think they'd demote him. He's either dealt or starting. No wonder Benson's name comes up so much. Heilman and Seo are hard to deal well because their values are so unknowable and could bite somebody in the ass, Pedro's solid gold, Glavine and Trax have no-trade protection, Zambrano is coming off a disapponting finish, and Ishii had virtually no value.

seawolf17 Jan 04 2006 01:17 PM

Well, I guess at least they got two young, live arms. We'll see how this goes.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 04 2006 01:22 PM

And 2006 has officially begun.

Frayed Knot Jan 04 2006 01:27 PM

Baseball America's John Manuel during an on-line Q&A: Q: Newsday is reporting that the Dodgers are sending Duaner Sanchez to the Mets for Jae Seo. As a Dodger fan can you give me a long term opinion on this and what we can expect from Seo if the deal goes thru? John Manuel: Bullpen guys like Sanchez don't grow on trees, but they aren't hard to find either. The Dodgers got Sanchez on waivers, and he's fine, but nothing special. Same with Seo, but Seo can be a fourth or fifth starter type. If the Dodgers can afford the more-expensive Seo (and I'm sure they can), then I'd rather have Seo. This chat was before the deal was official and before it was expanded to include the extra guys. Essentially he's saying that he prefers Seo because of the starter vs. reliever thing and, while I'd tend to agree, the excess vs. need thing comes into play also. Unfortunately, I know little about Sanchez and less about Schmoll.

Edgy DC Jan 04 2006 01:27 PM

Wow. It's beeen finalized. I was wondering if this one was actually going down. The Mets also get "Steve Schmoll" --- a player Jerry Lewis could love. They've also reportedly signed Bret Boone to a minor-league deal.

Edgy DC Jan 04 2006 01:30 PM

Steve Schmoll, The Anti-Virus.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 04 2006 01:33 PM

Does his name rhyme with "poll" or "doll"? (Just in case I have to parody him next year!)

Elster88 Jan 04 2006 01:47 PM

"Poll" from the radio announcers.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 04 2006 01:51 PM

Schmoll, Schmazzle Hossenfeffer Incorporated

Diamond Dad Jan 04 2006 02:09 PM Sanchez

Can't figure out how to format this. Sorry. Sanchez, although briefly becoming the Dodger's best option for closer (after Gagne was injured and Brazoban forgot how to throw strikes), his minor league numbers are not particularly impressive. Year Team W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV INN H R ER HR HBP BB SO 1997 R-Arizona 4 4 5.13 21 6 0 0 1 59.2 57 50 34 3 2 48 44 1998 R-Arizona 2 3 1.79 14 8 1 0 1 50.1 36 19 10 0 7 24 44 1999 A-High Desert 0 0 7.53 3 3 0 0 0 14.1 15 13 12 2 1 9 9 1999 R-Missoula 5 3 3.13 13 11 0 0 0 63.1 54 34 22 3 3 23 51 2000 A-South Bend 8 9 3.65 28 28 4 0 0 165.1 152 80 67 6 11 54 121 2001 AA-El Paso 3 7 6.78 13 13 0 0 0 70.1 92 56 53 5 6 25 41 2001 A-Lancaster 2 4 4.58 10 10 1 0 0 59.0 65 44 30 7 7 18 49 2002 AA-El Paso 4 3 3.03 31 0 0 0 13 35.2 31 16 12 1 2 13 37 2002 AAA-Nashville 0 3 4.76 20 0 0 0 6 22.2 23 12 12 2 1 11 20 2002 AAA-Tucson 1 1 6.75 4 0 0 0 1 5.1 6 4 4 1 0 1 9 2003 AAA-Nashville 4 4 3.69 41 1 0 0 1 61.0 63 28 25 3 1 27 34 Seems like a so-so middle man. Of course, you need a middle man who can come in and get you a few outs in the 6th or 7th, and maybe this guy can, but his numbers are not impressive. Seems like we should have been able to get more for Seo.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 04 2006 02:25 PM

OTOH, by minor league numbers alone, Schmoll really rocked the casbah, vaulting from rookie ball to AAA in as year, tho he wuz a college graduate.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 04 2006 02:41 PM

It took balls. I like ballsy moves, when they show me that they had brains behind them, too, but everyone is looking to see if Sanchez's got game and/or if Seo does. Omar's got 'em hanging out there, for everyone to see. I'm disappointed that he couldn't structure the deal to include Matsui, since LAD's one of his trade-me-to-them teams.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 04 2006 02:46 PM

Speaking of balls, that Coleman's SUCH a fucking eunuch. Now he starts bad-mouthing Seo, acknowledging it's obvious how little the front office felt about him, how somebody, probably Peterson, felt his stuff was too limited, how he didn't take instruction well, yyyybbb. Up to this afternoon, he was all, "Well, Chris, I don't know, he is well thought of, I mean, sure, maybe not everyone, but, you know, he has pitched very well at times, and the Mets are aware of his upside, of course, who really knows..." At two o'clock today, all the waffling and quibbling and qualifiying ended.

Vic Sage Jan 04 2006 02:51 PM

2 more unexceptional RHed middle innings guys for our #4 SPer and one of our few LHed relievers. if they were going to move seo anyway, i'd have just as soon they made the stupid Baez deal. He's better than Sanchez, at least.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 04 2006 03:28 PM

Dodger Blues guy nicknamed Duaner "Dirty Sanchez". That makes me like the deal in itself.

sharpie Jan 04 2006 03:32 PM

A Boy Named Seo seems to like his namesake being traded to his neck o' the woods.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 04 2006 03:33 PM

This thread has just had its rating changed to "X."

Zvon Jan 04 2006 03:34 PM

This may help address our surplusses and needs, but i dont like this deal on face value. Maybe this will pan out and favor us, and thats all i can hope. Cause Seo as a chip could have been used much more wisely.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 04 2006 03:36 PM

Is Schmoll adoptable? Or are players with MLB experience past the point of adoptability?

Valadius Jan 04 2006 05:19 PM

I don't understand you, Omar. You've been making boneheaded deals of late. Something doesn't smell right.

Edgy DC Jan 04 2006 06:56 PM

Edgy said when he was just 38, you know there's nothing happening at all "Every time I put on the TV set, you know there's nothing going down at all" (Not at all) Then one fine morning he puts on a New York Met station, he couldn't believe what he saw at all. He started groovin' to those fine fine Metties, you know his life was saved by Locke and Schmoll (Locke and Schmoll) Despite all the complications, you can groove to that Locke and Schmoll station And it was all right! (It was all right!) Here he goes now...

Johnny Dickshot Jan 04 2006 07:35 PM

That was pretty flugging hilamrius.

Elster88 Jan 04 2006 07:46 PM

Valadius wrote: I don't understand you, Omar. You've been making boneheaded deals of late. Something doesn't smell right. Why the plurality? The Baez deal didn't happen, you know.

Centerfield Jan 04 2006 08:07 PM

Maybe he meant the LoDuco trade which also sucked.

Valadius Jan 04 2006 10:47 PM

That's the one I meant.

smg58 Jan 04 2006 11:07 PM

Hillbilly wrote: It looks to me based on the wedding pictures that I've seen that Jae is out of shape. This might have been a contributor to the Mets making him available. Based on wedding pictures where the guy's mid-region is blocked from view by his wife. I don't see how anybody can seriously make an issue out of that. Look, Seo has a 3.85 ERA over 397 innings (roughly two full seasons). I wouldn't count on 2.59 over a full year, but a 3.85 ERA (assuming, perhaps conservatively, that he couldn't do better) would still make him our third best pitcher. We added depth to our pen by making our starting rotation worse. We also reduced our options from the left side of the pen, where we were already too thin. I feel like I have to subtract a few wins from my projection for the team beacuse of this deal.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 05 2006 07:56 AM

Next pronounciation question: How do you say Duaner? I want to pronounce it Dwaner, which would rhyme with gainer.

Edgy DC Jan 05 2006 08:08 AM

"DWAHN-uhr" Rhymes with goner.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 05 2006 08:15 AM

Thanks! He will be, by the way, the first Duaner to play for the Mets. So we'll be getting our first Chad, our first Duaner, but perhaps not our first Danys. Still to be determined: Our fourth Manny? Or, hopefully, our fourth Barry.

Elster88 Jan 05 2006 08:15 AM

I voted dislike. Even though I'm not in love with Seo, I wouldn't have made this deal. A mediocre reliever and a prospect were the return for a decent starter and our own prospect.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 05 2006 08:18 AM

I voted dislike, too. Was Hamulack considered a prospect, though? I tended to think of him as a hanger-on who was lucky to be left handed.

Willets Point Jan 05 2006 09:10 AM

Is there going to be anyone left on this team I actually recognize?

Benjamin Grimm Jan 05 2006 09:18 AM

I think we have to start getting used to dramatic turnovers.

seawolf17 Jan 05 2006 09:42 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I think we have to start getting used to dramatic turnovers. I prefer apple myself.

Willets Point Jan 05 2006 10:11 AM

I prefer popovers to turnovers.

Hillbilly Jan 05 2006 10:35 AM

="smg58"] ="Hillbilly"]It looks to me based on the wedding pictures that I've seen that Jae is out of shape. This might have been a contributor to the Mets making him available. Based on wedding pictures where the guy's mid-region is blocked from view by his wife. I don't see how anybody can seriously make an issue out of that. Look, Seo has a 3.85 ERA over 397 innings (roughly two full seasons). I wouldn't count on 2.59 over a full year, but a 3.85 ERA (assuming, perhaps conservatively, that he couldn't do better) would still make him our third best pitcher. We added depth to our pen by making our starting rotation worse. We also reduced our options from the left side of the pen, where we were already too thin. I feel like I have to subtract a few wins from my projection for the team beacuse of this deal. I don't need to see this guys midsection to know he's out of shape. It looks to me like Jae has put on weight. I can see not liking this trade, but Jae's been up and down from the minors and has a total of 20 career in wins to show for those 397 innings. There's no way he was our third best stater.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 05 2006 10:50 AM

He's a 20 game winner! He throws close to 400 innings! He looks like Mickey Lolich! What's your fucking problem?

Elster88 Jan 05 2006 11:48 AM

Who are the four folks who like the trade? I haven't heard any pro-trade arguments yet.

Frayed Knot Jan 05 2006 11:59 AM

'Hillbilly' & 'Heep' - both on page 2 - make cases for liking the deal.

seawolf17 Jan 05 2006 12:05 PM

I think "heep" is really Duaner Sanchez, and "hillbilly" is really Steve Schmoll.

Elster88 Jan 05 2006 12:25 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 06 2006 07:36 AM

Hillbilly makes the best argument for the Seo trade, which is hopefully the reasoning Omar had. "Seo is nothing special and Sanchez will help the bullpen." I say hopefully because other proposed motivations are ethnic cleansing and personal animosity.

86-Dreamer Jan 06 2006 06:54 AM

Do any others here regularly read Tim Marchman's column at the NY Sun? I think he is the best of the lot among NY baseball columnists and had a pretty good article about Seo trade today. It is a paid site, so can't provide link, but here is the full article with hopes that some may sign up to read him: Seo Trade Reveals Crack In Minaya's Armor Baseball BY TIM MARCHMAN January 6, 2006 URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/25447 As I've often written in this space, the most important thing for the general manager of a baseball team as rich as the Mets to do is to get the big calls right. In baseball, as in life, the most important benefit of money is that it allows a margin of error. A plutocrat who loses $1,000 playing the horses quickly withdraws another $1,000 from the bank and gambles again; an everyman who does the same might not eat for a while. Much the same is true of rich and poor baseball teams. Carlos Delgado is a great player, but the Mets can afford to bet that he's not about to do a Mo Vaughn impression in a way the Cleveland Indians can't. This being so, our plutocrat cannot afford to make a habit of wadding up cash and throwing it in the gutter for laughs. Soon enough, he'll regret the lack of cash, even if it only means that he can only afford gold hubcaps instead of platinum ones. And baseball teams cannot give away good players for no reason; they'll come to regret it. Over the last two winters, Omar Minaya has become the idol of Mets fans because he has grasped the first principle here. But he has yet to demonstrate that he has grasped the second. He, and Mets fans, may come to regret it. This week's trade of starter Jae Seo and a D-grade prospect for Dodgers reliever Duaner Sanchez and another D-grade prospect is just another in what is now a fairly lengthy list of minor stupid moves, none of which are enough in by themselves to get agitated about, but which are in their totality troubling. Among these are last year's trade of useful backup catcher Jason Phillips for useless starter Kaz Ishii, as well as several deals Minaya has made this winter. Minaya sent the underrated Mike Cameron to San Diego for the redundant Xavier Nady, valuable pitching prospects to Florida (which was in the middle of a fire sale) for merely decent catcher Paul LoDuca, and probably paid too much for Delgado, who wasn't in extremely high demand. Again, each move was defensible. But Minaya has sacrificed a starting center fielder, a no. 3 starter, a top-10 pitching prospect, and several useful reserves like Phillips and Mike Jacobs, all needlessly. What's most galling is that he's done so not out of necessity, but impatience. This winter, the most valuable properties on the market are outfielders and, especially, starting pitchers. Such mediocrities as Jacques Jones and Esteban Loaiza are pulling down big-money deals, while teams like the Red Sox and Yankees have been rabidly scrambling to fill yawning voids in center field. The likes of Jeremy Reed, Corey Patterson, and Joey Gathright are being bid on like oil futures; above-average starter Jarrod Washburn fetched a 4-year, $37.5 million deal. So, you would think that a GM with a Gold Glove center fielder with 30-home run power and a cheap young starter coming off a season in which he rang up a 2.59 ERA would sit back, let the market come to him and fill some holes. That's not Minaya. It's clear that once he gets an idea in his head, whether it be, "I must trade Mike Cameron," or, "I must trade Jae Seo to improve the bullpen," he reaches a point at which he just wants to move on to the next order of business rather than wait until some minimal standard of acceptability is met. This is the downside to the decisiveness everyone finds so appealing when it nets a player like Pedro Martinez, and it leads to thoughts like, "I must have Carlos Delgado, and I'm not waiting out the Marlins over some Triple-A pitcher, because another team might swoop in and grab him." Which is fine in the isolated instance - but when it leads to the team losing significant talent in every trade it makes, it becomes a problem. Jae Seo isn't a great pitcher - the most likely outcome for this season is that he's going to pitch about as well as Steve Trachsel, throwing 180 innings with a 4.20 ERA or something similar. He might be better than that, though, and he's a far sight better than Duaner Sanchez, who isn't even good. (Over the last three years, he's allowed lefties a .302 batting average - he's essentially a crummier version of Braden Looper.) You can say much the same of the other Minaya's given up, and when you can't, you can at least say that they didn't have to be given up. With the Marlins desperate to move salaries and the Mets offering to pay all of Delgado's huge contract, would they really have not made the deal had Minaya not budged on prospect Yusmeiro Petit? If the Mets really needed an older, worse version of Victor Diaz, did they really need to give up Mike Cameron? This kind of thing comes around to haunt even the richest teams eventually when it goes on regularly enough - just ask the Yankees.

Rotblatt Jan 06 2006 07:02 AM

Great article. That really sums it up for me.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 06 2006 07:06 AM

Come on, you Minaya-basher bashers--put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

smg58 Jan 06 2006 07:07 AM

Wow, a sportswriter who talks sense.

Nymr83 Jan 06 2006 07:31 AM

i'm signing up for the sun.

MFS62 Jan 06 2006 07:50 AM

He's the first sportswriter who I've noticed has used the term "impatient" when describing Omar. Looking at his moves, and the timing of those moves, it makes sense in many cases. It reminds me of the reputation of old GM Frank "Trader" Lane, who at times seemed to make a deal just to make a deal. Later

Elster88 Jan 06 2006 08:15 AM

Taking a look at the contract that Washburn gives perspective. It makes me dislike the trade more.

Hillbilly Jan 06 2006 10:06 AM

So those of you that think this is a great article, what would you have done to improve the team? I think trades are interesting, because overtime they can be evaluated. The author points to the Ishii trade as a bad one. I guess I can agree with that because Ishii pitched poorly for the Mets in 2005. On the other hand, I don’t think we missed Phillips one bit and all Jason could get this year was a minor league deal, so if we had held on to him, we won’t have retained any value. Really this trade hurt us the most because the team stuck with Ishii far too long. So let’s make this easy. How would you add badly needed depth to the bullpen without trading Seo? Please keep in mind the current market that we’ve seen this year where set up men and middle guys are getting multiple year big money deals.

86-Dreamer Jan 06 2006 10:42 AM

I would have re-signed Roberto Hernandez for the 1 year, $2.75 million deal he accepted with Pittsburgh. Failing that, I would have an open competition in ST and be more than willing to use Seo and/or Zambrano in the pen if I could not find a trade of equal value. I also would have kept Cameron as my RF, and not spent guaranteed money on Valentin & Franco.

Hillbilly Jan 06 2006 11:17 AM

Now obviously I don’t know all the facts and am speculating, but I think the Mets tried hard to retain Hernandez. I don’t know if they offered him that much or not. I know that they wouldn’t have given him a chance to be the team’s closer like Pittsburg will which might have made a difference in Robo’s final decision. Also you’re betting that age wouldn’t catch up with him – we’ll see. It has been argued that Cameron was the first domino to fall that ultimately netted us our first baseman and closer. In that salary needed to be cleared before Omar was to get the OK to add Delgado and that obtaining Delgado was important to demonstrate the Mets competitiveness while they courted Wagner. Clearly trading Cameron helped clear payroll, but the rest remains speculative. But speculating is what we are doing. So would you keep Cameron if it meant no Carlos Delgado and no Wagner? If so what would you do about a closer and first baseman/power bat? Or alternatively what other reasonable scenarios would have allowed you to clear payroll? Valentin and Franco can be cut loose if they don’t work out. Remember the Braves were planning on Franco being part of a starting platoon, so we hurt them in the process of signing Franco. I like that deal, but have little opinion on the Valentin deal. But I do think we have a strong bench.

Centerfield Jan 06 2006 11:39 AM

I see no reason why Cameron would have to be traded before trading for Delgado so long as Cameron was traded before spring training. And if the offer for Nady was there, it would have remained as the CF market grew thinner. And if for some reason, they couldn't lose Cameron's contract, then you don't make that deal for Paul LoDuca. And with respect to Seo, one way we could have improved the bullpen without trading Seo would be to put Jae in it. I understand we had a surplus of starters, but trading the one who pitched the best in the second half of last year probably isn't the way to deal with that. Bottom line is we traded a good pitcher for one that is not as good.

Hillbilly Jan 06 2006 12:12 PM

We’ll never know, but I’d bet my last dollar that Omar was instructed to move salary before he added salary, and was restricted from trading for Delgado (or getting a power bat for the middle of lineup) until that was done. I think this makes sense and is the philosophy that would prevent me from buying a new house until my old one is sold. So that I don’t get stuck with two house loans to pay or the Mets don't get stuck without a starting catcher. I really, really, really believe that we didn’t trade Cameron because we wanted Nady, but rather I believe that we wanted to get the best we could because we wanted to lower payroll so we could add Delgado, who helped us land Wagner. I’ll be the first to admit that in a vacuum Cameron for Nady makes no sense. But I believe it happened for the reasons I outlined in this tread. The Seo trade will be easy to elevate as this year unfolds (and beyond).

Centerfield Jan 06 2006 01:05 PM

By the way, welcome back Hillbilly. Good to have you around again.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 06 2006 01:58 PM

Not that I'm buying your interpretation, but if Omar was instructed that he had to make a dumb deal before he would allowed to pursue a good one, then the Mets are more foolish than I think, which is saying something. What, his word isn't good enough for Fred? What, he thought a GG CFer with speed and power would be impossible to unload in this market?

Benjamin Grimm Jan 06 2006 02:12 PM

The impatient charge against Omar rings true to me. Because he's pushy and eager, he'll occassionally get to beat some other team to a good deal. But he'll probably more often act rashly and make a deal that's not as good as one he might have made had he been patient.

Elster88 Jan 06 2006 02:22 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: What, he thought a GG CFer with speed and power would be impossible to unload in this market? Bret, you kill me: [url]http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=1792&start=0[/url] Bret Sabermetric wrote: And some of you are wondering why Cameron didn’t fetch more than a so-so corner outfielder? Maybe you’re mistaking his present value as a possibly blinded (certainly possibly vision-impaired) defensive wizard for his past value—say, from the dim, distant ages of June of 2005, when it was bruited about that he could go for an impact player—a closer, for example, or two young players far better than the X-man That second statement comes from 11/19/05. Truly amazing.

metirish Jan 06 2006 03:07 PM

I guess all those Korean people won't be coming to Shea this year,I really don't know what to think of this deal as I liked Seo, I'll take a wait and see approach.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 06 2006 03:29 PM

Man, you're just tripping over yourself, Elster, trying to catch me in a contradiction, aren't you? I said I didn't buy Hillbilly's premise. I didn't say, ever, that Cameron had no value, just less than the some Met fans were supposing. But whatever value he had or didn't have, it's never smart to instruct your GM to make stupid deals tin order to be allowed to make good ones.

Nymr83 Jan 06 2006 03:42 PM

in responce to hillbilly's question (what would we have done) my answer is: pretty much nothing. I'd have made the Delgado trade, signed Billy Wagner, and then sat on my ass waiting for the better offers that would come for Cameron, the desperate Marlins ready to give up loduca for nothing (or molina suddenly finding himself without a market), a middle reliever that didnt cost Seo's arm, etc. Because there was no urgent need for Sanchez, Nady, or Loduca and i'd rather have back what we gave to get them.

Centerfield Jan 06 2006 03:54 PM

Since you put it that way 83, that's probably what I would have done too.

Hillbilly Jan 06 2006 04:33 PM

="Bret Sabermetric"]Man, you're just tripping over yourself, Elster, trying to catch me in a contradiction, aren't you?. Not only did he catch you in a contradiction, he didn't trip on anything while doing it. 1)Back to the discussion at hand: yeah but, what if management didn’t allow you to expand payroll without out clearing some first. Do you deal Cameron then, assuming that it was a necessary prelude to obtaining Delgado and Wagner. 2)I agree that with time the catching market would have soften in the Mets favor, but I’m not upset with LoDuca trade. 3) I do think that there's a need to address the bullpen. Perhaps in another thread we should hash out the pressures that GM’s are under to trade prospects to win now. I wonder how long most GMs last with a club. Do they have the ability to sit back and wait for prospects to develop, when there is only a probability that they will be GM of said team by the time those prospects make an impact? Take Omar trading for Colon while heading up Montreal as an example. If Omar is trying to build his own resume and reputation, he should take the chance by trading the farm and trying to steal a pennant. If it works, he’s a genius. If it doesn’t work, the team is in Washington, he’s who-knows-where and there’s no fan base or ownership to be accountable to. An absolute no-brainer. It other cases, things aren't as clear like trading a 19 year old with a great arm for a serviceable catcher, if the Mets haven’t won something by the time the kids a star, Omar is long gone anyway, since that means he would have spent money like a drunken sailor and have nothing to show for it. On the da flip side, if the kids a star, but the Mets made some noise by the time he made it big, Omar comes back with ‘sure but we won (fill in the blank) under my tutelage despite some mis-steps along the way'. Like I say – these things aren’t happening in a vacuum.

Nymr83 Jan 06 2006 05:03 PM

] things aren't as clear like trading a 19 year old with a great arm for a serviceable catcher i think you hit it right on the head there...the key word is SEVICEABLE, you shouldnt trade your top prospects for mediocre players, its perfectly ok to trade them for good players (and i encourage it.)

Bret Sabermetric Jan 06 2006 05:20 PM

I just don't buy your premise, Hillbilly. I hate to be pushed into the position of defending the Mets's front-office skills but Fred's not dumb enough to tell Omar "You can't spend money until you save me some money first." He may tell him, "You can't spend money unless you find a way by Spring Training to bring the budget back where it was," but he'd just be hamstringing Omar, and to no gain at all. Anyway, Cameron's value was highest back in June, when everyone was thinking he'd bring a terrific return back, but you were too caught up in the excitment of the pennant race we were in (if you put your brains in escrow) to deal him at his peak value, and then he went and broke his face and got older and further removed from his GG days, and his numbers went right to hell, BUT he still had more value than Nady, probably. There was just a gigantic chasm between the absurd fantasies (based on his June '05 value) and the actual return (Xavier F. Nady) that I was trying to point out. Carry on.

Hillbilly Jan 07 2006 10:41 AM

Well Bret, it's not really my premise. But after logically looking at the series of moves made this off season induction leads me to conclude this is the most reasonable explanation. Below I have a small sample of hits from a google search of 'Cameron clear payroll'. I do however, agree with you, that many Met Fans held an inflated view of Mike’s trade value. The best I can tell, your premise is that Omar makes stupid trades because he's an idiot with far less smarts than you and the Mets are a half-assed cheap organization. You’ve become an arrogant version of ambler. [url]http://www.metsblog.com/blog/Opinion/_archives/2005/12[/url]For Cameron, the Mets acquired Xavier Nady, a young right fielder, with power, who can also play first base - a description that closely resembles that of Victor Diaz, who is already on the team. Most people around baseball believe the Mets could've landed a relief pitcher for Cameron, instead - though Minaya disagreed with this assessment in subsequent newspaper reports. Ultimately, it seems Cameron was rushed-out-the-door to clear payroll for the acquisition of Carlos Delgado and his $43 million contract… [url]http://revengeofthemets.blogspot.com/[/url]If true, then the Mets will surely explore trade options as salary could be freed up in the pursuit of first baseman Carlos Delgado. Cameron is due around $13-14 million over the next two years and Delgado would surely demand around that price annually for at least the next three seasons. [url]http://bruce.mlblogs.com/bruce_markusens_coopersto/2005/11/cameron_for_nad.html[/url]Cameron for Nady--Why? On the surface, the rumored and anticipated swap of Mike Cameron for Xavier Nady makes little sense for the Mets. I mean, why would you trade a starting caliber outfielder (who has Gold Glove potential when healthy) for a unproven power hitter who may end up doing nothing more than being a right-handed platoon first baseman? And that's in a league where there aren’t many left-handed starters to begin with. So what gives here from the Mets' perspective? A few scratches below the surface, however, show that Mets general manager Omar Minaya might still know what he’s doing. By trading the expensive Cameron (owed $7 million in 2006) for Nady (who stands to make well below $1 million), the Mets save about $6 million in payroll. And while you can’t actually “play money”—a concept that is sometimes forgotten by Sabermetric analysts who are obsessed with payroll—you can use the savings to defray the costs of other players who might be more helpful to the Mets next summer, such as a cleanup hitter like Carlos Delgado or Manny Ramirez, and a top-notch closer like Billy Wagner or Trevor Hoffman.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 07 2006 11:35 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 07 2006 01:30 PM

Hillbilly wrote: The best I can tell, your premise is that Omar makes stupid trades because he's an idiot with far less smarts than you and the Mets are a half-assed cheap organization. You’ve become an arrogant version of ambler. Ambler was humble? Actually, it's hard to call an organization with so gross a payroll "cheap." I think they're penny-wise and pound-foolish. I think they've got a screwed-up sense of what "value" is. I think they think too much about what will make the fans happy (big names, ethnic appeals). I think they worry too much about taking the back page back from the Yankees. I think they don't know which young players can play and which can't unless te proves it over and over and over, at which point they'll probably trade him. I think when they make a mistake in judging a veteran, they give him chance after chance after chance to show he's still got it, and when millions of dollars and hundreds of games have been lost in this futile exercise they'll dump him for a fifth of what they could have gotten when they first saw him playing badly or lackadasically. I think they're too reluctant to face the truth of the low quality of the teams they've fielded over the last five years and have come to believe some of the bullshit they've sold to their more gullible fans, and have based some foolish moves on those misguided beliefs. I think they're more interested in luring fannies into the seats than in actually winning a pennant. I think they've shown atrocious judgment in hiring executives, ranging from the hopelessly corrupt to the nepotistic to the clueless to the untested, and hanging onto them instead of saying "Christ, another mistake!" and firing their inept asses. Speaking of which, the Mets are not half-assed. They are fully assed. They have a quality assagement team, they are run by a fully qualified assanger, and ass oh ass do they know how to find players to ass their ballclub. .OE: fixed coding and punctuation

Hillbilly Jan 07 2006 11:58 AM

I disagree with you, but I think your response was damn funny! Nice work.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 07 2006 12:13 PM

I think the Mets *should* have gotten more for Cameron, and might have gotten more for Seo. But we don't know what happened in negotiations. The only issue I have with the "Cameron to clear payroll" idea is that Nady actually makes more than $1 million, as a result the contract he as a top draft choice got. It's less than 7 mills for sure, but more like 3 IIRC, so one of those bloggy links is a bad guess. That's not to say 4 or 4.5 mills is chickenfeed, or that Nady is, necessarily. Critics never bother to mention that both the Seo and Cammy trades both brought back younger guys. Nady might actually be good. That said I think it's safe to say Cammy *was* available for 8 months or so, and if the Mets erred in valuing him then the teams killing themselves to get a center fielder now must have really fucked up, no?

seawolf17 Jan 07 2006 12:32 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Speaking of which the Mets are not half-assed. They are fully assed. They have a quality assagement team, they are run by a fully qualified assanger, and ass oh ass do they know how to find players to ass their ballclub. LOL

Hillbilly Jan 07 2006 12:44 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: That said I think it's safe to say Cammy *was* available for 8 months or so, and if the Mets erred in valuing him then the teams killing themselves to get a center fielder now must have really fucked up, no? I think the CFer market shifted after Johnny Damon signed with MFY. Timing seems to be driving a lot of the moves this off season. Teams that moved quickly like the Mets and Blue Jays may have overpaid is some cases, but teams that employed a more cautious approach are left without starters in key positions.

KC Jan 07 2006 01:08 PM

>>>Speaking of which the Mets are not half-assed. They are fully assed. They have a quality assagement team, they are run by a fully qualified assanger, and ass oh ass do they know how to find players to ass their ballclub.<<< If I were a betting man, I'd bet that'll be nmyr83's new sig line by Tues.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 07 2006 01:12 PM

Yeah, except that was ripped off from 'The Graduate' Mr. Braddock: Don't you think the idea's kinda half-baked? Ben: No, it's completely baked.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 07 2006 02:02 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Yeah, except that was ripped off from 'The Graduate' Mr. Braddock: Don't you think the idea's kinda half-baked? Ben: No, it's completely baked. I'm a big fan of Charles Webb's dialogue.

Nymr83 Jan 07 2006 04:10 PM

]I think they've shown atrocious judgment in hiring executives, ranging from the hopelessly corrupt to the nepotistic to the clueless to the untested, and hanging onto them instead of saying "Christ, another mistake!" and firing their inept asses who exactly was corrupt? i think most GMs are "nepotistic" to some degree or another. we've had our share of clueless though. ]If I were a betting man, I'd bet that'll be nmyr83's new sig line by Tues. well, not now that you said it.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 07 2006 04:57 PM

You wanna defend the moral purity of skirt-chasing GMs first, or do you prefer to start with the racist head scouts?

Nymr83 Jan 07 2006 06:27 PM

skirt-chasing doesn't make you "corrupt"... stealing from the team, intentionally doing your job poorly, etc make you corrupt. racism? well i suppose if it affects your scouting judgments that would qualify, but i'm not sure who you are talking about

Rockin' Doc Jan 07 2006 08:20 PM

In the winter of 2003 (or 2004), Bill Singer, a recently hired special assistant to the director of scouting for the Mets, made racially insensitive remarks to the Dodgers Kim Ng at the MLB winter meeting. I can't remember what exactly Singer said, but it cost him his job and the Mets organization some embarrassment.

Rockin' Doc Jan 07 2006 08:26 PM

Did a little research and turned up this old article which details the incident. Ng Is Victim of Racial Taunts PHOENIX — New York Met official Bill Singer, a former All-Star pitcher with the Dodgers and Angels, directed racially insensitive remarks at Dodger executive Kim Ng in deriding her Chinese heritage this week, baseball officials who witnessed the incident said Friday. Singer, hired last week as a special assistant to Met General Manager Jim Duquette, confronted Ng, a Dodger vice president and assistant general manager, late Tuesday night at the general manager meetings here. According to witnesses, Singer approached Ng in the bar of the hotel where the meetings occurred. After asking Ng, the highest-ranking Asian American in the major leagues, questions about her background in a sarcastic tone, Singer began speaking nonsensically in mock Chinese before eventually leaving. Although he did not confirm details, Singer expressed remorse for his actions in a statement provided by the Mets. "I'm embarrassed by what I said when I met Ms. Ng on Tuesday evening," the statement read. "My comments were totally inappropriate and I'm truly sorry. I have apologized to her and hope that she will forgive me." Ng declined to discuss the events of that evening, acknowledging only "there was a situation that occurred. I have talked to Jim Duquette about it, and that's all I'm going to comment on." The Dodgers and Mets also commented Friday on the embarrassing situation. "His conduct was inexcusable and extremely disappointing," said Dodger General Manager Dan Evans, Ng's longtime friend and mentor. "Kim handled the entire situation in a professional manner, and we addressed the matter with the New York Mets the next day. I would prefer to keep that discussion with the Mets confidential." Duquette responded through Jay Horwitz, the Mets' vice president of media relations. "We learned of the matter recently and have addressed it with Bill Singer directly," Duquette said in a statement read by Horwitz. "While I cannot share the particulars of that discussion with you, suffice it to say, his comments were entirely unacceptable and inconsistent with the values and standards of our organization. We have extended our apologies to Kim Ng and the Dodger organization." Responding to a reporter's question about Singer's job status, Duquette said that Singer is still "employed by us at the moment. However, this entire matter continues to be under review by the organization. We are reserving judgment on this." Because of his status as one of Duquette's top advisors, Singer was part of the Mets' contingent at the meetings that ended Friday. Singer is one of two special assistants recently added to the club's reorganized front office. He formerly was a special assistant with Pittsburgh and held a top amateur scouting position with the Dodgers in 1998. A 20-game winner with the Dodgers in 1969 and Angels in 1973, Singer tossed a no-hitter for the Dodgers against Philadelphia on July 20, 1970. On Tuesday, Singer approached Ng as many baseball people were gathering in the hotel bar after attending an instructional league game. Deals are often discussed after hours in bars, and the hot-stove league talk continued that night as Singer began questioning Ng at about 11 p.m. Two officials within earshot described the exchange. Singer: What are you doing here? Ng: I'm working. Singer: What are you doing here? Ng: I'm working. I'm the Dodger assistant general manager. Singer: Where are you from? Ng: I was born in Indiana and grew up in New York. Singer: Where are you from? Ng: My family's from China. Singer: (Nonsensically mock Chinese). What country in China? Evans, not present at the bar late Tuesday, was informed about the incident by many people early Wednesday morning. He was said to be furious about what had occurred, Dodger sources said, and clearly expressed his feelings to Duquette. Ng is in her second season with the Dodgers. In its May 5 edition, Sports Illustrated ranked Ng as the "38th most influential minority in the sports world." Before joining the Dodgers, she served as a vice president and assistant general manager for the New York Yankees and worked for Major League Baseball. Ng began her baseball career with the Chicago White Sox in 1990, working under Evans in baseball operations. "As always, Kim acted professionally," Evans said. "It's an unfortunate situation."

Nymr83 Jan 07 2006 09:31 PM

Rockin' Doc wrote: In the winter of 2003 (or 2004), Bill Singer, a recently hired special assistant to the director of scouting for the Mets, made racially insensitive remarks to the Dodgers Kim Ng at the MLB winter meeting. I can't remember what exactly Singer said, but it cost him his job and the Mets organization some embarrassment. I'm well aware of that, but Bret made allegations of CORRUPTION in the mets front office, this is inapproriate, not corrupt. I'm still waiting for "corrupt" met official, Bret.....

Bret Sabermetric Jan 07 2006 09:42 PM

What, this lineup of scumbags, scoundrels and rogues isn't entertaining enough for you?

metirish Jan 07 2006 09:49 PM

Well there was the grounds keeper last year that was caught up with the mob, not a front office type but ....

Bret Sabermetric Jan 08 2006 05:02 AM

Don't forget the rumors of a mobbed-up player, either. I'm not about to start slandering individuals about whom you won't believe me without actual inditements being handed down, so if you like I'll withdraw "corrupt" for now, and we can stick with nepotistic, inept, careereist, clueless, etc. , okay?

KC Jan 08 2006 07:05 AM

>>>I'm not about to start slandering individuals<<< Shit, I can't believe I took that pitch ... Louie, grab my leather.

Elster88 Jan 08 2006 05:57 PM

]speaking nonsensically in mock Chinese Shaq did this as a joke to Yao when he first joined the league. I found it hilarious but some media folk were offended.