Master Index of Archived Threads


Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Edgy MD Jun 30 2014 09:14 PM

Off Top of Mongo's Head: [list=1][*]Drafting and signing Dwight Gooden.[/*:m] [*]Dealing Bob Bailor and Carlos Diaz for Sid Fernandez and Ross Jones.[/*:m] [*]Drafting and signing Darryl Strawberry.[/*:m] [*]Dealing Neil Allen and Rick Ownbey for Keith Hernandez.[/*:m] [*]Trading Lee Mazzilli for Ron Darling and Walt Terrell.[/*:m] [*]Trading Walt Terrell for Howard Johnson.[/*:m] [*]Hiring Davey Johnson.[/*:m] [*]Drafting Len Dykstra.[/*:m] [*]Trading Hubie Brooks, Mike Fitzgerald, Herm Winningham and Floyd Youmans for Gary Carter.[/*:m] [*]Trading John Christensen, Wes Gardner, Calvin Schiraldi and LaSchelle Tarver for Bob Ojeda, Chris Bayer, Tom McCarthy, and John Mitchell.[/*:m][/list:o] Honorable Mentions: [list][*]Drafting Roger McDowell.[/*:m] [*]Drafting Dave Magadan.[/*:m] [*]Hiring Tim McCarver.[/*:m] [*]Trading Rick Aguilera, Tim Drummond, Kevin Tapani, David West, and Jack Savage for Frank Viola.[/*:m][/list:u]

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 01 2014 04:56 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Pretty impressive list!!! I'm not sure how I feel about the Viola deal. I know he won 20, but Aguliera was a star for a long time and I think Tapani was serviceable.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 01 2014 05:17 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Plus there was a whiff of desperation to the Viola deal that the others didn't have. Plus you mentally need to throw Mookie in that deal, since we'd need to replenish the bullpen (with Jeff Musselman) the same day. What I wanted then was a trade that made Darry Strawberry wake up.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 01 2014 05:32 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Cashen's Biggest Misses 1. 1984 draft. 1st overall pick to Shawn Abner and the next 8 rounds to high schoolers who never cracked the Majors (where are you now, 2nd rounder Lorenzo Sisney?) Jay Bell and Mark McGwire were there to get in round 1, and Maddux, Glavine and Leiter went in the 2nd round. 2. Dykstra-Samuel trade: Sounded like a clubhouse clearance sale. 3. Two 1st round picks in the '83 draft collecting only Eddie Williams (4th) and Stan Jefferson (20th). Roger Clemens went 19th.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 05:51 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

I didn't include the Viola trade on the top ten exactly for that whiff of desperation. Criminally and totally overlooked by me? Dealing Rick Anderson, Mauro Gozzo and Ed Hearn for David Cone and Chris Jelic. That's top-three-or-four stuff right there. List of misses has to include not protecting Tom Seaver. (Sentiment aside, it may have cost them 1985.) As far as Clemens (negative sentiment aside), the big miss probably wasn't so much not drafting him in 1983, but rather drafting and not signing him in 1981. Same can be said for 1984, pulling out of pre-draft negotiations with Mark McGwire and going instead for Shawn Abner.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 06:12 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

It's hard to judge the impact of draft decisions, because there is so much unknown that it's hard to reason out how much missing a future star who went 29 picks later was poor judgment or poor luck. I mean... Al Harazin's top 62 misses: [list:ewbzbphi]1. Passing on Mike Piazza in the first round of the 1992 draft. 2. Passing on Mike Piazza in the second round of the 1992 draft. 3. Passing on Mike Piazza in the third round of the 1992 draft. ... 62. Passing on Mike Piazza in the 62nd round of the 1992 draft.[/list:u:ewbzbphi] More broadly, that draft was a disaster. The Mets had 50 picks, including three first rounders, and walked away with all of two guys who saw big league time --- overall-number-niner Preston Wilson, and 20th rounder Allen McDill, who spent 38 games getting battered for the Royals and Red Sox.

Frayed Knot Jul 01 2014 06:45 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of the Viola deal at the time it was made and certainly wasn't on board with those who felt they HAD to do it. At some point in a team's development (like when those Top-5 overall draft picks quit falling in your lap) you need to switch gears from dealing prospects for established players to the other way around and I'm not sure Cashen recognized that as the late 80's morphed into the '90s

Benjamin Grimm Jul 01 2014 07:09 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Was Cashen still calling the shots at the time of the Viola and Samuel deals? I seem to recall that he had taken a step back by then. Those may have been McIlvaine deals. I do recall Cashen coming out of retirement for a week or two in 1998 to trade Mel Rojas for Bobby Bonilla.

sharpie Jul 01 2014 07:19 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Dealing Ed Hearn for David Cone should be in there.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 07:26 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

I think the the Viola and Samuel deals go on his ledger. Step back or no, one has to be certain he ultimately signed off. Regarding the switching of gears, for whatever reason, the team's drafts stopped being fruitful, and most of the fruit they garnered was dealt off before it was ripe, which speeded the decline of the orchard's output. The Viola trade gets the honorable mention because, whatever I thought of it, it gave the Mets their last 20-win season for a while, but WAR-for-WAR, yeah, the Mets lost. Regarding the brief interregnum he had in the late 1998, it was remarkably productive --- or "productive." Apart from trading Rojas for Bonilla, he re-signed Masato Yoshii for two years. There was one other deal he set in motion, but was completed a day or two after Phillips returned. I'm forgetting what that was right now, though. Dealing Ed Hearn for David Cone should be in there. Indeed. I subsequently acknowledged that oversight.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 01 2014 07:30 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

The Seaver move hurt, but I understand his thinking. I was at an event recently and met one of Dennis Lamp's cousins. He was very nice -- and said the same about Dennis. He said Lamp understands the indirect disdain from Mets fans as a result of Seaver being claimed.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 07:37 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

I don't understand any animosity toward Dennis Lamp. What does he have to do with anything? So, help me out. What gets knocked out of the top ten to make room for Cone? Drafting Dykstra, dealing for Carter, or dealing for Ojeda?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 01 2014 07:45 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

I guess the Dykstra draft.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 07:54 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Perhaps, but macho sentiment, rather than cold hard numbers, often carry the day when the Carter trade is celebrated.

seawolf17 Jul 01 2014 07:55 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Edgy MD wrote: List of misses has to include not protecting Tom Seaver. (Sentiment aside, it may have cost them 1985.) Gooden/Darling/Seaver/Sid/Aguilera would have been epic.

Centerfield Jul 01 2014 08:00 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

McReynolds for Mitchell was pretty crappy too. Mike Scott for Danny Heep has to be in the mix too. I wonder how much of this is luck, and how different Cashen's legacy might have been if Calvin Schiraldi had managed to get one more out. Right now, he is remembered as the architect of the 86 World Champions. He made all those great moves mentioned in this thread. But he also traded away a future MVP, a future Cy Young winner, a future batting champion and All-Star reliever. He also drafted and failed to sign a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher. If the Mets had fallen short in '86, I wonder if his legacy would focus on these moves instead of the ones that brought them to the World Series.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 08:04 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

seawolf17 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: List of misses has to include not protecting Tom Seaver. (Sentiment aside, it may have cost them 1985.) Gooden/Darling/Seaver/Sid/Aguilera would have been epic. It's an open question whether Aguilera or Lynch gets bumped to the pen.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 01 2014 08:50 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Edgy MD wrote: Perhaps, but macho sentiment, rather than cold hard numbers, often carry the day when the Carter trade is celebrated. Yeah, the Carter trade was a heartbreaker. I strongly believed in clutch back then and Hubie Brooks was "Mr. Clutch."

batmagadanleadoff Jul 01 2014 09:59 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: The Seaver move hurt, but I understand his thinking. By the end of 1983, the Mets organization might've been baseball's richest. Prospects had to be protected. Sentimentality is the enemy of success. Hard decisions would have to be made. I didn't lose a second of sleep when the Mets left Seaver unprotected, and lost him to the White Sox. The Mets were now in business and Seaver was an old pitcher and who wants an old pitcher? I didn't think it would matter. Neither did the Mets, apparently. But it might have. Seaver, as it would turn out, had one last hurrah in his tank -- he was one of the AL's best pitchers in 1985. Not the best, or second best, but definitely near the top of the list.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 10:15 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

This very question was wrestled to the ground and subdued by Faith in Fear seven years ago. The thing is that Seaver wasn't left unprotected because he was valued less than player X, but rather because he was a veteran with a rich contract. This was briefly the tradition in the brief days of the compensation draft, to expose veterans with rich contracts, partially because few of them were thought to be worth it after a year or two, partially because budgets were set by January and teams were averse to budget-busting acquisitions, partially because of an unstated (and unheeded, in the end) understanding that teams just wouldn't grab these guys. Chicago did exactly what they should have done with that last bit.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 01 2014 10:32 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

There was some feeling that selecting Seaver was the White Sox' way of exacting political revenge on Mets owners for their role in deposing Bowie Kuhn, but I suspect that was the Mets' way of dispersing the blame. Doubleday was spitting mad. I agree Chicago did the right thing. Ironically (or not) Reinsdorf & the Wilpons have since become close allies and feverent supporters of Selig.

d'Kong76 Jul 01 2014 11:02 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

If I recall correctly, the Viola thing was announced late in the evening. I have to cop to being one of the nuts hoping and listening to WFAN because I was sure it was the key to everything!

Benjamin Grimm Jul 01 2014 11:04 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

If the Mets had won five more games in 2006, would Omar Minaya's eventual obituary be as glowing as Frank Cashen's has been?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 01 2014 11:53 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

I loved the Viola trade at the time, but then, at the time, I was an 11-year-old half-a-hyperhormonal-dummy.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 01 2014 12:22 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

d'Kong76 wrote: If I recall correctly, the Viola thing was announced late in the evening. I have to cop to being one of the nuts hoping and listening to WFAN because I was sure it was the key to everything! Absolutely! I was in a rotisserie league at the time, and using only American League players. I had Viola, and was ready to pounce and call the league commissioner as soon as the deal was announced. Sadly, I jumped and claimd David West instead of Aguilera.....

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 01 2014 12:23 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Benjamin Grimm wrote: If the Mets had won five more games in 2006, would Omar Minaya's eventual obituary be as glowing as Frank Cashen's has been? ...and if Steve Phillips had won the series against the Yankees...

seawolf17 Jul 01 2014 12:40 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Edgy MD wrote: I don't understand any animosity toward Dennis Lamp. What does he have to do with anything?

G-Fafif Jul 01 2014 02:57 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Ron Darling quotes Tom Seaver a lot from their days together as teammates, yet they were in the same clubhouse for less than a month. I wonder how much Seaver the sage said to Ronnie the rookie in September 1983, how much he said as their paths crossed over the decades and how much Darling imagines was said to him. It all comes out in the "we're a couple of old pitchers who understand how this game is supposed to be played," I guess.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 04:18 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

That's also interesting because, after Seaver was fumbled away, a common line (whether it was fed to reporters by anybody in management, I have no idea) held that Seaver was generally aloof toward the young pitchers, and that Torrez was more the mentor that management had hoped Seaver would be.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 01 2014 04:57 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Edgy MD wrote: That's also interesting because, after Seaver was fumbled away.... I never bought the company line that Seaver was "fumbled" away ... that Seaver somehow got away from the Mets against their will or intent ... (we left Seaver tied to the mailbox, we were in the store for only three minutes, but when we came out, Seaver was gone. Gone). I think the Mets knew what they were doing all along, and it was calculated to the nth degree. They made the tough but unpopular decision to protect their young players over a fading legend and had their story about baseball customs, and oversights and unwritten rules and gentleman's agreements in place beforehand to try and deflect the negative press and sentiment that they knew would result.

Frayed Knot Jul 01 2014 05:11 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

They made the tough but unpopular decision not to protect him, but that's not necessarily the same thing as wanting him gone or having this all calculated to do so. The 'official' explanation (if there can ever be such a thing) that they risked exposing him because they thought he was unlikely to get scooped up due to age and salary is plenty logical.

seawolf17 Jul 01 2014 05:23 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Jeff Pearlman wrote that they cut Seaver because they needed that money for Bobby Bonilla.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 05:55 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: That's also interesting because, after Seaver was fumbled away.... I never bought the company line that Seaver was "fumbled" away ... that Seaver somehow got away from the Mets against their will or intent ... (we left Seaver tied to the mailbox, we were in the store for only three minutes, but when we came out, Seaver was gone. Gone). I think the Mets knew what they were doing all along, and it was calculated to the nth degree. They made the tough but unpopular decision to protect their young players over a fading legend and had their story about baseball customs, and oversights and unwritten rules and gentleman's agreements in place beforehand to try and deflect the negative press and sentiment that they knew would result. By all accounts, the Mets were trying to reacquire him immediately, and still were for two years after. They may have known the risks, but were far from pleased with the outcome. Were you pleased?

batmagadanleadoff Jul 01 2014 06:07 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: That's also interesting because, after Seaver was fumbled away.... I never bought the company line that Seaver was "fumbled" away ... that Seaver somehow got away from the Mets against their will or intent ... (we left Seaver tied to the mailbox, we were in the store for only three minutes, but when we came out, Seaver was gone. Gone). I think the Mets knew what they were doing all along, and it was calculated to the nth degree. They made the tough but unpopular decision to protect their young players over a fading legend and had their story about baseball customs, and oversights and unwritten rules and gentleman's agreements in place beforehand to try and deflect the negative press and sentiment that they knew would result. By all accounts, the Mets were trying to reacquire him immediately, and still were for two years after. They may have known the risks, but were far from pleased with the outcome. Were you pleased? I think I was indifferent. Really. The Mets were on to something -- I was as optimistic and as hopeful as Keith Hernandez's dad, and I didn't envision Seaver as being a part of that future. I didn't see the timing. Tom Seaver was the greatest Mets ever, but Tom Seaver wasn't Tom Seaver any more. I probably regarded Seaver in '84 the way I might think of Bartolo Colon today, notwithstanding that this analogy has its flaws -- like that the Mets immediate future in between the '83 and '84 seasons was looking much brighter than that of the present Mets.

d'Kong76 Jul 01 2014 06:12 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

seawolf17 wrote: Jeff Pearlman wrote that they cut Seaver because they needed that money for Bobby Bonilla. And today is Bobby Bonilla day!

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 06:13 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Listen, I was optimistic too, and with good reason. But the facts are the facts. batmagadanleadoff wrote: By the end of 1983, the Mets organization might've been baseball's richest. Prospects had to be protected. Sentimentality is the enemy of success. I'd say that trying to posture as being above sentimentality is just as blinding. Moreso. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Hard decisions would have to be made. This is beyond dispute. The Mets made the wrong one. The Sox made the right one. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't lose a second of sleep when the Mets left Seaver unprotected, and lost him to the White Sox. Neither did I, but let's stop congratulating ourselves. batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets were now in business and Seaver was an old pitcher and who wants an old pitcher? It depends on the old pitcher. The White Sox apparently saw one they wanted more than hundreds of other players. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't think it would matter. You were incorrect. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Neither did the Mets, apparently. The historical record does not support this contention. batmagadanleadoff wrote: But it might have. It did. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Seaver, as it would turn out, had one last hurrah in his tank -- he was one of the AL's best pitchers in 1985. Not the best, or second best, but definitely near the top of the list. He had 11.6 pitching WAR from 1984-1986, more than any Met pitcher not named Gooden. The record is pretty clear that the Mets were disappointed by the claim, and that the claim ultimately hurt them.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 01 2014 06:30 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 01 2014 06:33 PM

Edgy MD wrote: Listen, I was optimistic too, and with good reason. But the facts are the facts. batmagadanleadoff wrote: By the end of 1983, the Mets organization might've been baseball's richest. Prospects had to be protected. Sentimentality is the enemy of success. I'd say that trying to posture as being above sentimentality is just as blinding. Moreso. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Hard decisions would have to be made. This is beyond dispute. The Mets made the wrong one. The Sox made the right one. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't lose a second of sleep when the Mets left Seaver unprotected, and lost him to the White Sox. Neither did I, but let's stop congratulating ourselves. batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets were now in business and Seaver was an old pitcher and who wants an old pitcher? It depends on the old pitcher. The White Sox apparently saw one they wanted more than hundreds of other players. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't think it would matter. You were incorrect. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Neither did the Mets, apparently. The historical record does not support this contention. batmagadanleadoff wrote: But it might have. It did. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Seaver, as it would turn out, had one last hurrah in his tank -- he was one of the AL's best pitchers in 1985. Not the best, or second best, but definitely near the top of the list. He had 11.6 pitching WAR from 1984-1986, more than any Met pitcher not named Gooden. The record is pretty clear that the Mets were disappointed by the claim, and that the claim ultimately hurt them. Your responses have little to do with anything I wrote. The Mets thought it was wiser to protect young promising high ceiling players whose futures were ahead of them than to protect one fading Hall of Famer whose future was behind him. At the time the Mets decided to leave Seaver unprotected, I happened to agree. Congratulating myself? For what? For a move the Mets FO made? Or because there, I was on board with the company line? What? I'm not allowed to relay that the Seaver move didn't bother me? I get my balls busted here enough when I disagree with what the Mets say or do. Now apparently, I can't agree with the FO either. Anybody here who thought Seaver had another Cy Young award caliber season left in him after 1983, and was an adult back then, step right up. I already acknowledged that Seaver was one of the AL's best hurlers in '85, probably worthy of picking up Cy young votes, and that as things turned out, the Mets could have used that talent in '85 when they fell to the Cards at season's end. At least you didn't accuse me of putting arguments into your mouth when you weren't' looking, or offending your intelligence, whatever that's supposed to mean. However the move turned out for the Mets was hardly the point of my post.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 06:32 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote. Really? Come on.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 01 2014 06:35 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote. Really? Come on. I changed "nothing" to "little" before I saw this last post of yours. But I stand by "nothing" as much as by "little".

batmagadanleadoff Jul 01 2014 06:48 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote. Really? Come on. Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver? I don't remember. I don't even remember if this was ever disclosed. But what if it was Lenny Dykstra? Or Floyd Youmans? What if the Carter deal couldn't have been completed without Youmans? Maybe keeping Seaver means Kevin Mitchell never gets to play for the Mets. Or the Mets never get Bobby Ojeda? Maybe Seaver's veteran presence on the '84 Mets is Cashen's excuse to delay Gooden's promotion to the 25. Maybe Seaver sets off some butterfly effect chain reaction that prevents the Mets from winning the WS in '86. You can't simply swap in Seaver's '85 stats into the Mets for the weakest link and then say that the Mets should've kept Seaver.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 07:09 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote. Really? Come on. Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver? Yes.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 01 2014 08:38 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 01 2014 09:38 PM

Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver? I don't remember. I don't even remember if this was ever disclosed. But what if it was Lenny Dykstra? Or Floyd Youmans? What if the Carter deal couldn't have been completed without Youmans? Maybe keeping Seaver means Kevin Mitchell never gets to play for the Mets. Or the Mets never get Bobby Ojeda? Maybe Seaver's veteran presence on the '84 Mets is Cashen's excuse to delay Gooden's promotion to the 25. Maybe Seaver sets off some butterfly effect chain reaction that prevents the Mets from winning the WS in '86. You can't simply swap in Seaver's '85 stats into the Mets for the weakest link and then say that the Mets should've kept Seaver. That's kind of a glass half-empty butterfly effect chain reaction scenario. Here's my much happier one: The Mets protect Tom and he happily stays. He becomes a wise friend and mentor to the young arms, giving them signed copies of "How I'd Pitch to Babe Ruth" and telling them stories about Gil Hodges and the Miracle of '69. Tom takes an interest in the teen-age Doc Gooden, and worries that he'll run with the wrong crowd. Nancy says it's OK if the talented teen lives in their spare room in Greenwich. The neighbors are a little concerned -- it IS Greenwhich -- but they see the nice young man playing in the yard with Slider and making sure Sarah and Anne are getting off to school with their lunches. The Mets fall a little short that year -- the Tigers are a team of destiny anyway -- but the young Mets hurlers eagerly await Tom's pearls of wisdom and develop thick legs and dirt-stained right knees, pounding the strike zone and visiting the art museums during down time. He wins No. 300 -- at Shea, of course -- in mid-1985 as the Mets battle the tough Cardinals to the end. Whitey Herzog waves the white flag, saying the Cards just can't beat Seaver. (John Tudor is still a jerk.) The World Series with the Royals is a treat, and people are still talking about the George Brett-Tom Seaver showdowns. Don Denkinger's reputation remains intact because because the slugging Mets don't even have any close calls at first base. Tom's even more of a wise elder statesman in 1986. Everyone suspects it might be his last year, but Tom's not saying because he doesn't want to detract from the team, and has no need for a collection of benches made form bats and prints of Three Rivers Stadium. Still, he's a little worried about the behavior of the Scum Bunch in the back of the plane. Tom sits in the back and makes sure to Xerox copies of the New York Times crossword puzzle so everyone has one. The formerly rowdy bunch now competes to finish the puzzles first, avoiding booze and drugs to keep their minds sharp for the now fierce debates about five-letter words. Tom does notice that Kevin Mitchell seems somewhat troubled. Knowing that idle hands are the devil's workshop, Tom helps Mitch volunteer at the Westport Humane Society, where he comes to love cats and treats them with kindness and respect. The Mets win their second series in a row, and Tom even drills Roger Clemens in the thigh in Game Six because, well, it's just the right thing to do. Dick Young pens a column called "What the hell was I thinking?" and reveals he made the whole thing up about Ruth Ryan. Tom retires with dignity after the season with his three rings and 300 wins. Tom does notice that Mets co-owner Fred Wilpon seems a bit gullible, especially with his finances. The Franchise warns him about people who don't always tell the truth and that some deals are, in fact, too good to be true. Fred invests wisely and safely. Tom also catches wind that Fred wants a new stadium and sees some preliminary plans. Tom says a rotunda would be nice -- especially if it could be named after Sandy Koufax or Jackie Robinson, whom Tom has always admired -- but tells him to go easy on the ads on the scoreboard and suggests the Iron Triangle would make for a nice vineyard. All of this is chronicled in a book by a young Jeff Pearlman called "The GOOD Guys Won." See? Much nicer.

Edgy MD Jul 01 2014 08:55 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Zvon Jul 01 2014 08:58 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Classic MGiM.

G-Fafif Jul 01 2014 09:24 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver? Murray Chass had it in a Sporting News column shortly after the fact. PITCHERS Darling Terrell Fernandez Swan (No Trade Clause) Orosco Sisk Gooden Leary Kevin Brown Youmans Gardner CATCHERS Ortiz Gibbons INFIELDERS Hernandez Oquendo Brooks Gardenhire Cochrane Mitchell Eddie Williams OUTFIELDERS Strawberry Wilson Blocker Dykstra Winningham Jefferson

batmagadanleadoff Jul 01 2014 09:37 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: That's kind of a glass half-empty butterfly effect chain reaction scenario. Here's my much happier one: .... Oh, Michigan! I am so humbled that I will be your man-servant. Rub my belly and I will grant you your wish. Your wish is my command.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 01 2014 09:51 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver? Murray Chass had it in a Sporting News column shortly after the fact. Yeah, but do you know who was the last player to make the protected list? I assume that Seaver was the last unprotected guy. Otherwise, the Mets claim that they really wanted to keep Seaver is undermined, at least somewhat, anyways. So if Seaver was the last unprotected guy, it had to be at the expense of the last player the Mets decided to protect, right? It had to come down to a final choice between Seaver and the last player to make the protected list, right? So who was that last guy?

d'Kong76 Jul 02 2014 05:45 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Teams don't divulge that type of info, do they? It was even less likely before the info-age that that type of stuff would be leaked or speculated upon as fact on six different social media venues. We chose to protect player x over The Franchise ... sorry fans but that's what we did. Really?

seawolf17 Jul 02 2014 07:15 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Isn't it generally accepted that he was exposed because they thought nobody would eat his salary? That still happens every year -- old guys getting through waivers because nobody wants to eat the salary. Sometimes you get burned (Jose Canseco to the Yankees), sometimes you don't. Not everything has to be a feckin' conspiracy, fellas. They protected Terry Blocker and whoever the hell "Cochrane" was because they thought they had more value for what they were owed, which was next to nothing. Tom Seaver had an 88 ERA+ in 1982-83 and went 14-27, 4.18 in 55 starts. Let's not get too crazy here. Side note: Tom is the only "Seaver" in major league history, which surprised me.

d'Kong76 Jul 02 2014 07:31 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Not everything has to be a circuitous cluster fuck to drive home various agendas either, but that's how some roll. I'm glad there was only one Seaver, because, there was only ONE Seaver.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 02 2014 07:35 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

seawolf17 wrote: Isn't it generally accepted that he was exposed because they thought nobody would eat his salary? Sure that went into it, as did this idea that teams would lay off Seaver because of an imaginary gentleman's agreement between owners not to do unthinkable shit like that to one another.

Edgy MD Jul 02 2014 07:38 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

seawolf17 wrote: Isn't it generally accepted that he was exposed because they thought nobody would eat his salary? Largely, yes, and I said as much.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 02 2014 09:18 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 02 2014 09:20 AM

d'Kong76 wrote: Not everything has to be a circuitous cluster fuck to drive home various agendas either, but that's how some roll. Cluster fuck? "Some roll?" Your buddy goes out of his way to write a dumb combative post just to get in that line on me about how I shouldn't congratulate myself for agreeing with something the Mets did. Not that he'll ever admit wrong, not to me anyway. And then, as always, you pile on with the Nelson Muntz bit, because this involves me. It's about time someone called the Mets on the gentleman's agreement not to draft Seaver. Why didn't the Mets leave Keith unprotected? Or Darryl? What? There wasn't a gentleman's agreement not to pick those players? But there was one for Seaver? It's the lamest thing I ever heard. I'm sure the Mets wanted Seaver. Just not badly enough. I'm sure the Mets wanted everybody. I'm sure if it was up to them, the Mets would've protected 75 players instead of 25. And you, you're still a fucking jackass. Write something interesting ferchrissakes, instead of spending all your time here figuring out how to try and offend me. Can you do that?

batmagadanleadoff Jul 02 2014 09:19 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

d'Kong76 wrote: Teams don't divulge that type of info, do they? It was even less likely before the info-age that that type of stuff would be leaked or speculated upon as fact on six different social media venues. We chose to protect player x over The Franchise ... sorry fans but that's what we did. Really? Really? I think I knew that. If you weren't so busy responding to the post, instead of to the poster, your post would've come out a lot different.

d'Kong76 Jul 02 2014 09:28 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

It was a legitimate post, no reason to paint it otherwise.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 02 2014 09:30 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

d'Kong76 wrote: It was a legitimate post, no reason to paint it otherwise. Of course. And mine's a clusterfuck starter. Because that's how I roll. Right?

d'Kong76 Jul 02 2014 09:33 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Teams don't divulge that type of info, do they? It was even less likely before the info-age that that type of stuff would be leaked or speculated upon as fact on six different social media venues. We chose to protect player x over The Franchise ... sorry fans but that's what we did. Really? What part do you not understand?

batmagadanleadoff Jul 02 2014 09:39 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

d'Kong76 wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Teams don't divulge that type of info, do they? It was even less likely before the info-age that that type of stuff would be leaked or speculated upon as fact on six different social media venues. We chose to protect player x over The Franchise ... sorry fans but that's what we did. Really? What part do you not understand? What part do you think I don't understand?

d'Kong76 Jul 02 2014 09:40 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

SEE!!! I'm done, people get turned off by this nonsense.

d'Kong76 Jul 02 2014 09:56 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's about time someone called the Mets on the gentleman's agreement not to draft Seaver. Frank Cashen 1984: ''Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I had the final decision, I made a mistake. We made a calculated and regrettable gamble.'' There, thirty years ago the admitted they wet the bed.

Edgy MD Jul 02 2014 10:02 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Frank's Catholickness bursting through there.

d'Kong76 Jul 02 2014 10:05 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Also from the Jan '84 NY Times column by Joe Durso: Cashen, asked if his own position might be jeopardized, replied: ''If you're going to keep making decisions like this one, I guess it could endanger my career. We had Seaver on one of our early lists of players to be protected. But then we discussed what the White Sox needed and changed the list several times. We made up our list defensively. We took a calculated gamble.''

d'Kong76 Jul 02 2014 10:28 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Here's a tidbit I don't remember from Seaver by Gene Schoor: "What the Mets did," continued Seaver, "was to disrupt my family life. I did have some idea that I wasn't going to be protected. Bill Murray of the Daily News told me I was not on the list. But I really didn't believe it..."

seawolf17 Jul 02 2014 10:35 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Figured out who the oddball guys were. [u:wjx6zr64]PITCHERS[/u:wjx6zr64] Kevin Brown, not that one. Third overall January draft pick. 15-7, 2.74 ERA in single A in 1983, but never made it to the bigs. http://www.baseball-reference.com/minor ... own-004kev [u:wjx6zr64]INFIELDERS[/u:wjx6zr64] Dave Cochrane, eventually traded for Tom Paciorek. Fourth-round pick, coming off a 25-HR season in single A. http://www.baseball-reference.com/minor ... chra001dav Eddie Williams, first-round pick in 1983. Traded later in 1984 for Bruce Berenyi. Played in 395 major league games over ten seasons. http://www.baseball-reference.com/minor ... llia005edw

Edgy MD Jul 02 2014 10:46 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Eddie Williams at least still had some first-round luster. FaFiF came to the highly defensible conclusion that the guy you want to shake your head over is Ron Gardenhire. He had failed as a big leaguer for three consecutive seasons by then and would fail for two more. His health was as wobbly as his slugging percentage, and numerous guys had passed him on the organizational depth chart. One may speculate that his season of duty as one of Davey Johnson's Tidewater Warriors may have bought him an advocate in the organization, but beyond that, it's just headscratching.

G-Fafif Jul 02 2014 10:57 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

Figured out who the oddball guys were. Edgy yesterday linked to a piece I wrote about this in 2007. Thought I'd repost the protected guys portion, in which each players' place on the list was examined. Mind you, Tom had turned 39 the previous November 17, so he wasn’t quite in Cy Young trim any longer. Still, he had given the Mets a pretty good show in 1983, beginning with his triumphant walk in from the bullpen at Shea on Opening Day. The W-L was tepid (9-14 on a 68-94 club) but the ERA was respectable (3.55) and the 231 innings were hefty — led the team, in fact. Plus he was Tom Seaver, a Hall of Fame head attached to a capable arm linked to a stature second to none among New York Mets. “As soon as I got their list, I looked to see which kids they protected,” White Sox GM Roland Hemond said in Jack Lang’s The New York Mets: Twenty-Five Years of Baseball Magic. “But when I saw the list and saw that Seaver was not protected, I almost jumped out of my seat. Seaver, in my mind, was still a quality pitcher who could win ten or fifteen games. Where are you going to get someone who can guarantee you that? That’s the reason we picked Seaver.” Still, if you had to choose between protecting 39-year-old Tom Seaver and 19-year-old Dwight Gooden (who turned 43 on Friday, though I contend he’ll always be 24-4), there was no question you’d go with Doctor K. You’d have to see some kind of doctor if you didn’t. Gooden, Ron Darling, Sid Fernandez…these pitchers were clearly the future of the team. Of course you wouldn’t risk exposing them in a draft, even one that was cockamamie. But didja see some of the other names, names of Mets players who were protected instead of Tom Seaver? I do believe the acronym “WTF?” was invented for just this scenario. As we are almost 24 years beyond Debacle II, we know a few things. We know it was right to hold Doc and Ronnie and El Sid in abeyance. We know you wouldn’t have dangled Keith Hernandez or Darryl Strawberry if your life depended on it. We know Jesse Orosco had just come off a legitimate All-Star season and was, save for Bruce Sutter, the best closer in the N.L. at the time. In January 1984, these six Mets were unquestionably untouchable and history bears out that designation. That leaves twenty Mets considered less expendable than Tom Seaver. Two of them, Hubie Brooks and Mookie Wilson, had established themselves as regulars, though neither was quite untouchable at this juncture. Brooks was an adequate third baseman with not a lot of power. Centerfielder Wilson didn’t get on base enough for a leadoff man (new manager Davey Johnson would drop him in the order). But they were regulars and in the spirit of Hobie Landrith, you were going to have a lot of balls get by third and through center if you lost your starters at those positions. Hubie and Mookie had plenty of good baseball left in them, so we can’t argue with reserving their spots. That brings us to 18 Mets, several of whom had shown promise in 1983. Doug Sisk — don’t laugh — was a sharp setup man in his first full Met year. Somebody had to get the ball to Orosco in 1984, and Sisk would indeed be very good at that for a while. Junior Ortiz was considered something of a coup when he was acquired the previous June, an outstanding defensive catcher who was penciled in to get most of the work behind the plate in the coming year. Jose Oquendo was just a baby, having turned 20 in ’83 and had longtime starting shortstop written all over him. Walt Terrell, while not in the sensation class of Gooden, Darling and Fernandez, showed flashes of dependability in his midseason callup (and, as everybody who was a sentient Mets fan then probably remembers, he hit three homers as a rookie). Let’s give Cashen those four players in the context of January 1984, which leaves us 14 Mets to consider instead of Seaver. Really 13, because before you can say “Craig Swan was clearly washed up by 1984,” he had a no-trade clause, which made him poolproof. So you couldn’t replace Seaver with Swannie on the unprotected list even if you wanted to. Some guys clearly look like very bad choices in hindsight, but let’s try to think in January 1984 terms. Five of the remaining 13 protected players had been top picks in a fairly recent June amateur draft. Just as you wouldn’t take a chance on giving up Strawberry (1980) or Gooden (1982), it was reasonable for the Mets to keep their hands on Eddie Williams (their No. 1 and fourth in the nation in 1983) and Terry Blocker (same status, 1981). You could argue they were not genius picks in the first place, but that’s another story. You can’t risk them while they’re still practically in utero. Likewise, Stanley Jefferson (’83) and John Gibbons (’80) had been first-round picks in years when the Mets had a surfeit of first-round choices. Those two still had a real shot at big league success. The other top June pick was Tim Leary, the Mets’ first selection in 1979, a hard-throwing righty who had gone through all kinds of arm-rehab hell to get back in the Mets’ plans by 1984. In fact, he was supposed to become Tom Seaver once and, as he was only 25, perhaps again. So let’s give the benefit of the doubt to not making available these five youngsters thought to have high ceilings entering ’84. That brings the total down to eight players the Mets protected instead of Tom Seaver. Since I don’t think we have to think too hard about Lenny Dykstra and Kevin Mitchell given what they would contribute in short order and become in the long term, we’re really down to six Mets. Let’s examine them individually. Floyd Youmans was a second-round amateur pick the same year Gooden was selected in the first round. In fact, he was Gooden’s pal. He hadn’t put up hellacious numbers in the minors like Doc, but he was the same age as Dwight. You can’t be risking Floyd Youmans in January 1984. Herm Winningham was the Mets’ first pick in the old January amateur draft in 1981. He swiped 50 bags at Lynchburg in ’82. That’s a lot of stolen bases in an era when speed was highly valued. You can’t be risking Herm Winningham in January 1984. Kevin Brown, one of twelve different Kevin Browns who have been drafted by Major League clubs since 1981 if not nearly the most famous of them, was a first-round January pick in 1983. In his first professional season, at Columbia, he struck out 221 batters in 170.2 innings. Though he would never rise above Double-A, you can’t be risking this particular Kevin Brown in January 1984. Frank Cashen is pardoned for those three. In fact, he’s pardoned for everybody mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, which encompasses 23 of the 26 Mets who were protected instead of Seaver. Some contributed big-time to the Mets of ’84, ’85 and especially ’86. Three — Brooks, Youmans and Winningham — helped bring Gary Carter to the Mets, not a bad historical consolation prize if we’re talking Mets Hall of Famers. Some did nothing but sure looked like they’d do something. You can’t fault Cashen for not having the clearest crystal ball on the block. But the remaining three? The three who had to be kept at arm’s length from the White Sox instead of Tom Seaver? Ensuring their continued Metliness in lieu of Seaver’s was worse, worser and worst. In terms of risking Tom Seaver, they were January 20, 1984?s Worst Decisions in the World. 1) The Mets took precautions to reserve Dave Cochrane instead of Tom Seaver. Who the hell was Dave Cochrane? Dave Cochrane was a third base prospect chosen in the fourth round by the Mets in 1981. He wasn’t quite 21 on the day Tom Seaver was plucked by the White Sox. Would have Dave Cochrane been chosen instead? Cochrane did show pop in the low minors: 22 homers in 70 games at Little Falls in ’82, then 25 in 120 at Lynchburg. Of course he struck out more than 100 times in both seasons. The Mets had Hubie for third base, though as mentioned, Hubie wasn’t much for homers. Hmmm…you know, the White Sox would eventually accept Dave Cochrane in a trade for Tom Paciorek in 1985 (the Jeff Conine of his day, as our friend CharlieH put it to me this past September), but that seemed more an out-of-it team dealing a veteran for whomever they could get swap than Dave Cochrane as holy White Sock grail. Cochrane’s Met stock dropped like a rock after Howard Johnson came aboard. It kept dropping as Dave journeyed through five American League seasons, accumulating about 500 at-bats with the Sox and Mariners and homering only eight times. Couldn’t have known that in ’84, but scouting’s got to be worth something. The Mets were never satisfied with Hubie Brooks or third basemen in general, yet here we have to go with hindsight. It was a bad call to protect Cochrane over Seaver. 2) The Mets took precautions to reserve Wes Gardner instead of Tom Seaver. Who the hell was Wes Gardner? Wes Gardner is the first Met prospect I can recall being groomed (or at least hyped) as a potential closer. Drafted in the 22nd round of the June 1982, draft, the righty struck out around a batter an inning at Little Falls and Lynchburg, saving 15 while used exclusively in relief in 1983. He would be 23 in 1984, when he eventually made it to the big club off a big year at Tidewater (20 saves, 1.61 ERA). It was almost foresightful of the Mets to think in terms of cultivating a reliever instead of just converting a failed starter. I almost can’t blame the Mets for being certain they would hold onto him. I can definitely understand the attraction. And Lamp, the guy who started all the trouble, led the White Sox in saves in ’83 with 15. Chicago needed to replace him. But freaking Wes Gardner proved to be freaking Wes Gardner when he actually got a chance in New York, and if you can remember freaking Wes Gardner when he got his chance, you know he was totally freaking Wes Gardner. After 37.1 mostly dispiriting innings in ’84 and ’85, Wes was shipped north to Boston as part of the deal that brought us Bobby Ojeda. As the Red Sox had tired of Ojeda after ’85, I have to believe Gardner wasn’t the make-or-break element of that key trade. It was a bad call to protect Gardner over Seaver. 3) The Mets took precautions to reserve Ron Gardenhire instead of Tom Seaver. We knew who the hell Ron Gardenhire was. And you have to be totally kidding me that Ron Gardenhire was protected from the compensation pool instead of Tom Seaver. For that matter, Ron Gardenhire was protected instead of Calvin Schiraldi, Mike Fitzgerald, Brent Gaff, Tom Gorman, Wally Backman, Brian Giles, Ed Lynch, Mike Torrez, Rusty Staub, Danny Heep, Ron Hodges, John Christensen, John Stearns and George Foster to name a whole bunch of 1984 Mets who, whatever their perceived liabilities that January or in retrospect, I would have protected over Ron Gardenhire. The Mets protected Ron Gardenhire over Dave Kingman, who was still rotting on the roster in wait of his inevitable release, and I would have kept Kingman — no matter that he was completely obsolete as a Met after the acquisition of Keith Hernandez — over Gardenhire. Ron Gardenhire hit .062 for the Mets in 1983. He drove in one run. He stole no bases. He lost his shortstop job early to Oquendo. What was clever on his part that year was by getting demoted to the Tides, he wound up catching the eye of Davey Johnson, who totally dug his spit and vinegar. Ron Gardenhire remastered Triple-A in 1983 after having done the same in 1981. Gardy became a Davey special in ’84, like Backman, like Kelvin Chapman, like Jerry Martin. He hit .246, ceded short to Rafael Santana after an injury (before Santana got hurt and gave way to Brooks who had given way to Ray Knight at third down the stretch) and wasn’t a regular or semi-regular again. Where the unforeseen revival of the Mets in 1984 is regarded, Gardenhire wasn’t on the same map as Wally Backman, was less of a help than the shockingly resuscitated Kelvin Chapman and not that much more of a factor than the legendarily useless Jerry Martin, no matter how much spit and vinegar he displayed at Tidewater a year earlier. He would eventually become a heckuva manager for the Twins, but protecting Ron Gardenhire over Tom Seaver was a hellaciously bad call by the Mets general manager. Cochrane and Gardner at least had promise attached to them. Gardenhire had peaked in the minors and hadn’t proven anything in the majors. And who the hell, given the chance to peruse 25 organizations’ depth charts, was going to skip over everybody else available in all of baseball to grab a 26-year-old middle infielder of limited range in the field and no particular accomplishment at bat? Admittedly, the White Sox were no great shakes at short (though the combination of Scott Fletcher and Jerry Dybzinski had just helped them to a division title in ’83), but they did have Ozzie Guillen developing in the minors. In other words, there was no legitimate chance in this or any life that Chicago would have chosen Ron Gardenhire instead of Tom Seaver…or any of the couple of thousand players left unprotected by every other club. None. And even if they had, so what? But the Mets protected Ron Gardenhire and left Tom Seaver hanging on the vine. And as Seaver himself would learn in his future endeavors, you always pick the most enticing grape you see. The White Sox thrived on starting pitching in 1983, and adding Tom Seaver figured to make them that much stronger. It didn’t, but it wasn’t Seaver’s fault. Seaver went to a new league and won 15 games in 1984 and 16 more (including his 300th) in 1985. Even at ages 39 and 40, he clearly had Amoco Unleaded left in the tank.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 02 2014 11:27 AM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

d'Kong76 wrote: SEE!!! I'm done, people get turned off by this nonsense. I don't know what your problem is. If I didn't already know that all of your responses to my posts are personal, thinly veiled premises to Nelson Muntz me, I'd say you're a crazy idiot. I write a post expressing my indifference at the Mets failure to protect Seaver. I also opine that a year later, Seaver was one of the AL's 's best three or for pitchers -- thus acknowledging, at least by implication, that the Mets decision to leave Seaver unprotected was a bad one. And for that, I'm scolded for "congratulating myself", after which, you jump in to tell me that I'm also a clusterfuck starter, because that's how I roll. Two days after you know which way I swing. And you're tired of this nonsense?

d'Kong76 Jul 02 2014 07:14 PM Re: Frank Cashen's Top Ten

[youtube:1iu7z4bi]_UnPzp2lmNk[/youtube:1iu7z4bi]