Master Index of Archived Threads


Mets Sign Bret Boone

MFS62 Jan 04 2006 09:16 PM

http://www.komotv.com/stories/41097.htm Plus, more on the Seo deal. Boone? I guess this shows how much they are looking for a replacement for Kaz. It also shows little willingness to give Hernandez or Keppinger a full shot. Rather, they would plug the gap with a veteran, albeing wasjed up one. Later

KC Jan 04 2006 09:37 PM

I hate to sum up my frustration with some of the comments made today about these small moves like Omar is sinking the ship and fucking up the team like a drunken buffoon in one post, but c'mon these are small news items - relatively speaking. The National League will soon forget who Seo was to the Mets and if any- one is really lamenting Boone being our starting 2B they can stop because there's no way he'll keep the job over a full season and that's even if he can win it out of spring training - which I highly doubt. Ah, January on a baseball board - if I only I had hair to pull out ...

Elster88 Jan 04 2006 09:45 PM

It's something to talk about at least. Activity on the board is way down.

metsmarathon Jan 04 2006 10:33 PM

if he does keep the job for the full season, then, well, its not such a bad move afterall, is it?

Edgy DC Jan 04 2006 10:38 PM

The disproportionate responses to minor league deals offered to vets confuses me. "Do you think he could possibly have anything left in the tank?" Well, the nature of the deals says he has to show something every week. Take Jay Bell for example. No, wait, don't.

smg58 Jan 05 2006 12:45 AM

I've got no problem at all with minor league deals to players like Boone when the upper levels of the farm system are thin at that player's position. This happens not to be the case at second base, and I think all Boone can do for the Mets is block somebody else's progress. I doubt it will have any major consequences for the team, but I see no need for it.

Rotblatt Jan 05 2006 07:45 AM

On a per-start basis, Seo was as good as Pedro last year. There aren't many guys who made 14 starts last year you can say that about.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 05 2006 07:48 AM

Most of these are CYA deals--if Omar can't figure out which of any of the young 2B men can play MLB ball, or if none of them are (both of which would be the Mets' fault), or if he has to go with Matsui again (which would REALLY be the Mets' fault), he can always play BB (like he played Cairo last season) when Matsui (surprise!) neither hits not fields adequately. If BB (surprise!!) turns out to be washed up, he can always retreat into "Who knew? Three-time All-Star" Robbie Alomar mode.

KC Jan 05 2006 09:05 AM

There's no similarity whatsoever to the Alomar situation.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 05 2006 09:25 AM

No, none at all. Bret Boone is more like this year's Andres Gallaraga.

Centerfield Jan 05 2006 09:27 AM

I just hope Bret doesn't cry if he gets cut in spring training.

Edgy DC Jan 05 2006 09:37 AM

I'm hoping Suzi gets him to go easy on the highlights.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 05 2006 09:41 AM

KC wrote: no similarity whatsoever. None. Except 1) both second basemen 2) both second (or more) generation MLB 3) both w/MLB brothers 4) both former All-Stars 5) both past their peaks 6) both provide "who knew?" coverage to Met GM's ass when we learn that he can no longer play. The huge difference of course is that one is a major investment, the other a minor investment, but the CYA principle is the identical. Omar looks better after Boone gets the job and sux claiming "Who knew? He was a proven, 3x A-S bbbyyy" than he does if Keppinger gets the job and sux. That's all. No way to be making decisions, IMO, is all. Bret Boone has as much to do with helping the Mets making the playoffs as you do, KC. Your bat speed may be better.

Elster88 Jan 05 2006 09:44 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 05 2006 09:52 AM

]Omar looks better after Boone gets the job and sux claiming "Who knew? He was a proven, 3x A-S bbbyyy" than he does if Keppinger gets the job and sux. Is it possible that Omar is just exploring different options since he's not enamored with Matsui? Or is this motivation just pure ass-coverage and the inability to take younger guys seriously? What's your theory on the Kennedy assassination? How do you spell assassination? You are pointing out the similarities between Boone and Alomar that anyone can see. But there are no similiarities at all in the reasons they were brought to the team.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 05 2006 09:46 AM

Elster88 wrote: Is it possible that Omar is just exploring different options since he's not enamored with Matsui? Or is this motivation just pure ass-coverage and the inability to take younger guys seriously? What's your theory on the Kennedy assassination? How do you spell assassination? 1) Yes 2) IMO, yes 3) Lone nut 4) Two asses in a row.

Frayed Knot Jan 05 2006 10:12 AM

]5) both past their peaks Boone is coming off a year where he was cut twice and is being signed to a minor league camp invite to possibly compete for a backup/bench position. Alomar was a reigning All-Star who finished 4th in the MVP voting the winter we traded several promising players to get him, was in the midst of a long-term contract and was the no-questions asked starter coming in. You're right ... how similar!!!!

Bret Sabermetric Jan 05 2006 10:22 AM

The similarity is written on their birth certificates. An analogy isn't an equation. A comparison isn't a precise DNA match. An observation isn't a guarantee. A "these dudes are old" isn't "AH HA Batman I will now reveal--your secret identity!" I'm just pointing out that both moves --one a sure thing (ha), the other a long shot--are both preferred to finding out which young player can play (or finding young players who can.) This club would rather drink bleach martinis than do that. Don't give me Reyes and Wright please. I meant "when not forced to."

Elster88 Jan 05 2006 10:24 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 05 2006 10:26 AM

That's a lot of gloating that the Alomar move didn't work out. What were your thoughts before he joined the team? I take it you knew he wouldn't pan out? Signing Bret Boone and seeing if a rookie can get the job done are not mutually exclusive. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. If Boone doesn't play well, he gets cut. Same as Galarraga.

Elster88 Jan 05 2006 10:26 AM

Reyes and Wright were only brought up because the team was "forced to"? I'm getting more confused by the minute.

Frayed Knot Jan 05 2006 10:31 AM

]The similarity is written on their birth certificates Alomar was 34 when he joined the team, Boone (assuming he makes it)will be 37 ]3) Lone nut You've previously claimed to be a big conspiracy theorist

Bret Sabermetric Jan 05 2006 10:32 AM

Elster88 wrote: That's a lot of gloating that the Alomar move didn't work out. What were your thoughts before he joined the team? I take it you knew he wouldn't pan out? Signing Bret Boone and seeing if a rookie can get the job done are not mutually exclusive. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. I was gung-ho for the Roberto Alomar deal. But, since it didn't work out, I've come to realize that even if an old guy can REALLY play, it's no guarantee that he hasn't just suddenly the moment you got him totally lost it. So the-- what?-- 1%? 3%? chance Alomar would play as poorly as he did 1) screwed up the Mets for a while and 2) provided CYA while giving Wiggy (or whoever) the job would have had approximately the same results and freed up a ton of money besides. I'm not saying that Wiggy (or whoever) is as good a solution as Alomar, but every organization (outside of the Bronx) just needs to fill a couple of holes with young talent so as to free up money for their older players. Blocking young players (as Boone will do and Alomar did) just so your GM's ass is covered is a principle I don't endorse.

Elster88 Jan 05 2006 10:43 AM

I'm just not buying that it's prospect-blockage. They dumped Galarraga last year. Maybe they're getting things right now. ___________________ This post had the designation 90) Danny Heep

Yancy Street Gang Jan 05 2006 10:46 AM

Getting Alomar was not a CYA move. It was a let's-improve-the-team move. The Mets were coming off a disappointing followup to a pennant-winning season. They wanted to act decisively to keep the team from continuing to decline. And they did. They did act, that is. The Alomar move was a smart one that didn't work out. The Mo Vaughn move was a gamble that wasn't likely to work, and didn't, but if it had it could have been huge for them. I have no doubt that the Mets were trying to win a pennant with those moves. You make it sound like they were just looking in advance for scapegoats. That just doesn't ring true. Obviously the decline we saw in 2001 accelerated in 2002. Their moves failed. But I don't doubt that they were trying.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 05 2006 10:53 AM

Nothing to do with Boone/Alomar, but Galarraga had a good spring IIRC, and was set to make the team, but retired. He wasn't cut. Edit: Google tells me I was right about the retirement part, wrong about everything else. Proceed.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 05 2006 11:02 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: You make it sound like they were just looking in advance for scapegoats. No, no, no. The CYA is only a small part of the advantage of going for win-right-now-this-second moves. Obviously, I supported the Alomar deal because I thought it would help the team to win, not because I needed my ass covered. But it takes real guts to stick a kid in the lineup whose looks you like, even when he's not your top rookie, a former number one draft pick, or burning up the minors at several levels. You just say "This boy can play--if he can't I'm gonna get myself crucified, but I'm willing to take a shot on what I see with my own eyes." The Mets aren't a bold visionary team is all I'm saying. Few teams are, but I believe bold vision is helpful to success. Shit, Yancy, you could have made most of the deals the Mets have made. "Mo Vaughan? Hey, Fred, you gonna pony up? Okay, Mo Vaughan. Alomar? I'll check. Fred, can we do Alomar? Okay, Alomar. Pedro. Hold on. Fred?" But you couldn't pick a minimum wage 22-year old out of training camp because you're impressed by his DP skills, could you? It remains to be seen if Omar can, or if he's willing to. I object to Boone because he's a safe, no-brainer, known commodity. No one but me will fault him for going with a known product.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 05 2006 11:16 AM

I agree with you that Omar, so far, has shown that he can woo expensive free agents and that he can spend Fred's money. He hasn't shown that he's able to make the canny kinds of moves that you describe, either in trading for, or opening up positions for, young players. And of course, that's the more difficult skill. I hope he can do it. He hasn't shown that he can or can't. Second base, 2006, is an opportunity for this. Bret Boone is a CYA move, in a way that Alomar wasn't, in that even if Omar is thinking of going with Hernandez or Keppinger at second base, if they both hit .150 in the Grapefruit League, he'll at least have a veteran option at second base. Me, I'd bet (and this can go in the Prediction Forum) that Bret Boone never plays a single game for the Mets. That's why I don't care much one way or the other about this move. I'm hoping that, if he makes the team, he does it on merit, and instead of blocking Keppinger and/or Hernandez, he can serve as a mentor for them.

KC Jan 05 2006 12:48 PM

Boone will either win a spot, light a fire under Kaz, or one of the kids will emerge. I don't see any reason to look for GM conspiracy theories here and I really don't see a need to use this transaction as a step off point to rehash old moves made by the Mets and draw analogies to them that require a huge amount of stretching just because someone has decades of bitterness built up over his baseball team. I'm not going to keep shouting at the wind over this one, but I don't buy the whole "The GM of Mets and the in-people behind closed doors" cook up moves that will fool the fans and have built-in face saves while they clink champagne glasses waiting for the season tickets checks to roll in from the Johnny Lunchbuckets in the stands. Old and tired crapola.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 05 2006 01:04 PM

You'd have a better case if they didn't search for every has-been retread former name player and give him ABs and IPs over young, cheap talents, some of whom will go on to win games for other teams because the Mets had no spots open for them. I wouldn't give Boone two swings in spring training. This is all brand-new, fresh anger here. I've got a wholesale supplier.

KC Jan 05 2006 01:09 PM

You'd have a better case if you could demonstrate that the Mets invite an inordinate amount of players to spring training than other teams.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 05 2006 01:15 PM

KC wrote: You'd have a better case if you could demonstrate that the Mets invite an inordinate amount of players to spring training than other teams. Not "invite an inordinate amount of players to spring training," but "sign and play and inordinate number of old veterans during seasonsthat they're out of contention" that I have to prove the Mets do more of than other teams. You're saying that's hard to do?

sharpie Jan 05 2006 01:16 PM

Well there was Garth Brooks.

KC Jan 05 2006 01:20 PM

Gmta, sharpie - I almost qualified the statement with, "who aren't country singers".