Master Index of Archived Threads


Benson -- Julio Redux?

Frayed Knot Jan 21 2006 08:29 AM

WFAN keeps running updates that "according to reports" the Mets and Orioles "are in serious discussions" for some new version of a Kris Benson for Jorge Julio swap. They don't, however, mention anything as to the source of those "reports": are these coming out of Baltimore? ... from newspapers? ... via the 'IFPSA'?

seawolf17 Jan 21 2006 08:31 AM

Yeah! Let's add more middle relievers! Maybe we can have an entire team of middle relievers, and every game, Willie can manage an inning at a time!

Frayed Knot Jan 21 2006 08:52 AM

OK so the source is apparently David Lennon & Jon Heyman at [url=http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spmets0121,0,2428445.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines]Newsday[/url] - although I have no idea why WFAN seems reluctant to say that. The Newsday story mentions that the Mets "are feeling optimistic" that Benson would go to Bal'mer "most likely" for Julio in a deal that would "include a prospect". This would presumably open up a startrs spot for Heliman, leaving ... ummm, who exactly, Brian Bannister? as the 6th man.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 21 2006 08:59 AM

That "prospect" better be a good one, and he'd better be going from Baltimore to New York.

Edgy DC Jan 21 2006 09:16 AM

Remind me. That 5.90 ERA Julio had last year. He was using his good arm then, right? He wasn't throwng with his left arm just to have fun, or to pay tribute to Mazzilli after he was fired or anything?

Edgy DC Jan 21 2006 09:31 AM

I checked just now with the National Anna Benson Crisis Alert Center. They told me they're on code yellow and reviewing the chatter regularly, ready to go to orange immediately if necessary. They're not sure if she's woken up yet.

MFS62 Jan 21 2006 09:48 AM

Edgy DC wrote: I checked just now with the National Anna Benson Crisis Alert Center. They told me they're on code yellow and reviewing the chatter regularly, ready to go to orange immediately if necessary. They're not sure if she's woken up yet. Mind if I check in on her to see if she's still sleeping? Later

Nymr83 Jan 21 2006 10:03 AM

this trade was bad when we still had Seo, now its downright idiotic

MFS62 Jan 21 2006 10:20 AM

This gets weirder: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/ When you net it out, the Mets would be getting an expensive one year rental of a declining-skills, expensive, starter and a reliever with an ERA over 5 for Heilmann, Benson AND Diaz. This weakens the team at starter, bullpen(depending on where you slot Heilmann), and outfield. That prospect had better be the second coming of Rogers Hornsby or this is insane. Later

Bret Sabermetric Jan 21 2006 10:25 AM

See why this organization scares me? You folks have to seriously consider nutty stuff like this. With another organization, you'd just be saying, "Doesn't make sense. There must be something wrong about this rumor." With the Mets, you look at their track record and go, "Omigod, are they THIS stupid? Maybe..." and it messes up your morning worrying about it, even if it's not true.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 21 2006 11:48 AM

To me this only makes sense if it's part and parcel of a larger scheme involving Barry Zito. As I've said before Zito just seems to make a lot of sense given the Mets' ambitions for this year and the current state of the rotation. A trade for him would provide certain solutions, albeit dramatic ones, for current players with iffy roles on this team like Heilman and Diaz, and obviously allow Beane to collect on his guy before it's too late. I don't see how Diaz fits the team in 06 and suspect he's better off traded than underutilized. ********************************************************************* +++++++DANGER: WILD SPECULATION BELOW+++++++ *********************************************************************** So perhaps this rumor is about the Baltimore prospect moreso than Julio; and after this deal is done Baltimore Prospect, Diaz and Heilman (and say a Met prospect like Humber?!?) go to Oakland for Zito. The crazy deal looks then like this: Mets cough up Heilman Diaz Benson O's Prospect Mets Prospect (Humber or Bannister?) Mets get Zito Julio O's Get Benson A's Get Heilman Diaz O's Prospect Mets Prospect

heep Jan 21 2006 12:36 PM

I don't think Diaz is going anywhere. A favorite of Minaya, 0 to three, great potential. Just a hunch.

Frayed Knot Jan 21 2006 01:07 PM

]This gets weirder Mebbe, but that site has the look of one that'll reprint anything no matter the source; newspapers, websites, cousin's freind's landlord, HVAC guy ... ]See why this organization scares me? Yeah, I really envy those fans who are spared the agony of hearing trade rumors involving their guys and then always wind up liking the trades that eventually do come off anyway. Remind me again who those teams are? ]Zito I'm Really Leery (Really is Tim's long-lost brother) about going overboard for someone who's been good - though not really great - since his CY season and is headed for his last year before FA-gency. I hope BZ isn't another on of these rumored "obsessions" we keep hearing about. ]Diaz Adam Rubin from the Daily News speculated on a radio program a month or so back that he didn't think the Mets were all that high on Diaz ... but who knows.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 21 2006 01:23 PM

If they were high on Diaz, why go cough up Cameron for Nady? Not like me to be so speculative, but I've convinced myself this is the plan. The Internet sez the O's are giving up Julio, RHP prospect John Maine (lotsa K's in the minors) plus another prospect, for Benson and a Met guy, perhaps Diaz.

SI Metman Jan 21 2006 02:00 PM

[url]http://www.newsday.com/sports/ny-spbenson0122,0,5930212.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines[/url] Heyman sez its a done deal. JD's WATP is very plausible there. If they trade Diaz, they could replace him with Jeff DeVanon who the Mets are reportedly interested in, or perhaps take a very cheap flier on one Sammy Sosa.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 21 2006 02:23 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: [Yeah, I really envy those fans who are spared the agony of hearing trade rumors involving their guys and then always wind up liking the trades that eventually do come off anyway. Remind me again who those teams are? It's just a matter of nervousness about stupid trades, is all. I don't know how to measure units of nervousness, but it runs very high in Mets fans. Not so much in Sox fans, that I've noticed. Not high at all in Yankee fans, who suffer from insufferable confidence. Jets fans tend to have it, but more about draft picks than trades. Knicks fans, who mostly feel their whole roster is composed of seven-foot lumps of doody, actually seem to like trade talk, no matter how stupid--they're fearless in a way, too badly abused for too long to know any better. I'm sure there are others, but these are the teams and the fans that I know best.

metirish Jan 21 2006 02:26 PM

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya......

A Boy Named Seo Jan 21 2006 02:30 PM

[url=http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060121&content_id=1298993&vkey=news_nym&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym]Mets.com[/url] says it's done, too. The Duke, that's what I'm calling John Maine, has some pretty dern good minor league numbers, and he's just 25 this May. 3-year cumulative minor league totals: 337.2 IP, 257 H, 104 BB, 384 K, 19 HR, 2.75 ERA, 1.07 WHIP

MFS62 Jan 21 2006 02:53 PM

Old report, but promising. Monday, May 10, 2004 By John Sickels Special to ESPN.com John Maine Baltimore Orioles Position: RHP Height: 6-4 Weight: 190 Born: 5/8/81 Bats: Right Throws: Right Background John Maine attended college at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte. As a sophomore in 2001, he led Conference USA with 12 wins, 144 strikeouts, and posted a 3.82 ERA, earning conference Pitcher of the Year honors. However, his junior season in 2002 was less successful, and he dropped to the sixth round in the draft that June. This turned into a bargain pick for the Orioles. Maine pitched brilliantly in his '02 pro debut, then zipped through A-ball in 2003, leading the minor leagues in strikeouts and posting a stellar 185/38 K/BB ratio. He began 2004 in Double-A, but earned his way to Triple-A after just five starts. Maine is one of the better right-handed pitching prospects in the game, and should arrive in Baltimore later this summer. Scouting report Maine is a good athlete, tall and somewhat lanky and thin, with broad shoulders. He has a "loose" arm and doesn't look overly vulnerable to injury. His biggest problem in college was erratic mechanics, which would hurt his command on occasion. But this has been much less of a problem in pro ball, and his command has been very sharp. His fastball runs in the 90-93 mph range, with excellent sinking and running action. He has made major improvements with his curveball and changeup, giving him a solid three-pitch arsenal. Maine can throw any of his pitches for strikes, and has overcome a previous habit of relying too much on his fastball. He is intelligent, emotionally mature, and has sound pitching instincts, understanding the necessity of changing speeds and keeping hitters off-balance. Although he doesn't throw quite as hard as some of the elite prospects in the game, he's proven he can dominate professional hitters. Performance There is little to complain about in Maine's statistical profile. His K/IP, K/BB, and H/IP ratios have been uniformly excellent at every level, particularly the K/IP. He doesn't give up very many home runs, another positive predictive marker for the future. Although he has just six starts at Double-A and above, his numbers show little deterioration at the higher levels, obviously a good sign. We need to see how he does with the additional Triple-A starts coming his way, but there is nothing in his record to indicate serious adjustment problems ahead. Health record Maine has had no serious injury problems. His occasionally erratic mechanics in college made some scouts worry about his long-term health, but he has been more consistent and efficient in pro ball. If you've been reading these reports long enough, you know that doesn't guarantee he'll stay healthy. But it does reduce the risk. What to expect Statistically, Maine offers just about everything. Scouting-wise, while he doesn't blow the ball past people with pure velocity, his stuff is more than respectable, and his command has been excellent. He's getting his shot now in Triple-A, and if he continues to pitch well, a promotion to Baltimore is likely later this season. Maine projects as a solid mid-rotation starter, and is a good example of the bargains that can be found in the middle rounds of most draft classes.

86-Dreamer Jan 21 2006 02:59 PM

I am more sickened than shocked. Benson, Seo & Cameron all traded for crap.

Valadius Jan 21 2006 03:13 PM

FUCK!!!!!!!!!

Nymr83 Jan 21 2006 03:28 PM

what stupid fuckin trade, half the fuckin rotation got traded for shit relievers, good job omar. i cant wait for this bastard to get fired

smg58 Jan 21 2006 03:37 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 21 2006 03:38 PM

Maine wasn't in BA's top 10 of the Orioles' prospects. Julio had a good year in 2002 and otherwise has absolutely nothing to recommend him. I'd need more confidence in Heilman being consistent as a starter (assuming that's the route they're going) in order to think this helps the rotation, but it WILL hurt the bullpen.

Beenso Jan 21 2006 03:37 PM

trading another starter for a reliever. that makes sense. any word on the prospect? un-fucking-believable

Beenso Jan 21 2006 03:40 PM

nevermind.

smg58 Jan 21 2006 03:44 PM

John Sickels had rated him #6 last year, but this is what he said in hindsight ([url]http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2005/11/20/151524/77[/url]): 6) John Maine, RHP 6-11, 4.56 in 23 starts for Triple-A Ottawa, though his component ratios were up to previous standards. Hit hard in 10 games in the majors, with a poor 24/24 K/BB in 40 innings. I still think he will be a useful pitcher but I don't like him as much as I used to.

Frayed Knot Jan 21 2006 03:47 PM

I don't get the fascination with Julio John K. Maine (I guess his parents couldn't afford a middle name) hails from exactly where you'd expect someone named Maine to be from ... that's right; Fredricksburg, Virginia. Went 2-3 in 10 games (8 starts) & 40 IPs last year w/Baltimore w/28 ERs, 24 Ks, & 28 BBs From last year's Baseball America (Dec '04): [u:30ce6dbef7]Strengths[/u:30ce6dbef7]: Maine succeeds more with command than pure stuff. He added a slider to give him four pitches, along with his fastball, curveball and changeup. He throws 90-91 mph with natural deception, and adds and subtracts from his fastball nicely. He's not afraid to work inside. [u:30ce6dbef7]Weaknesses[/u:30ce6dbef7]: None of Maine's pitches is overwhelming, which explains why he struggles when he moves up to a new level. He also needs to refine his command and throw quality strikes after learning that advanced hitters lay off balls out of the zone. [u:30ce6dbef7]Future[/u:30ce6dbef7]: Maine has a ceiling of a No 3 starter and probably a #4 or 5 on a first division club. But he's a pitcher's pitcher and should get the most out of his ability. (no word whether he's also a pro's pro)

SI Metman Jan 21 2006 03:57 PM

Nymr83 wrote: what stupid fuckin trade, half the fuckin rotation got traded for shit relievers, good job omar. i cant wait for this bastard to get fired I wonder if you'll change your opinion if Omar uses the 14 million in savings on Barry Zito...

Frayed Knot Jan 21 2006 03:57 PM

]It's just a matter of nervousness about stupid trades, is all. I don't know how to measure units of nervousness, but it runs very high in Mets fans Y'mean that you sense more nervousness when a trade is discussed involving one of the members of your (once ... and possibly future) team than you do when the Phils are rumored to be shopping Abreu, or when the Cubs discuss Prior? -- WOW! Next thing you'll tell me is that you're more nervous watching your closer in the 9th than you are watching one trot in from someone else's pen. You do realize that you're sliding closer and closer to the lack-of-perspective type of internet fan that you used to make fun of don't you?

KC Jan 21 2006 04:04 PM

Sliding closer? He fell off the cliff into the rapids and washed down into the lake below.

Nymr83 Jan 21 2006 04:06 PM

SI Metman wrote: ="Nymr83"]what stupid fuckin trade, half the fuckin rotation got traded for shit relievers, good job omar. i cant wait for this bastard to get fired I wonder if you'll change your opinion if Omar uses the 14 million in savings on Barry Zito... so far omar has shown he's an idiot, his only good moves havent been trades they've been spending wilpon's money, something anyone could do. he's going to get Zito? i'll believe it when its done and then put these moves into context, but for now he's just plain stupid

Bret Sabermetric Jan 21 2006 04:22 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: Next thing you'll tell me is that you're more nervous watching your closer in the 9th than you are watching one trot in from someone else's pen. You do realize that you're sliding closer and closer to the lack-of-perspective type of internet fan that you used to make fun of don't you? I'm trying to be objective here. Mets fans have treated their closers with more ignorant bashing than I've ever seen anywhere. Are Phillies fans as bad? Maybe, though I don't see how. Foulke was screwing up (and screwed up) last season, but the Sox fans' dissatisfaction with him never approached "String-Benitez-up" proportions. I don't know how to prove a negative. Would you care to demonstrate that every teams' fans are precisely equal in their attitudes towards their team? I need your study calibrated down to sixteen decimal places, please. I believe there are significant differences in how fans react historically to different problems and options, but I don't know how to support my beliefs. I'm not nearly as sure as you are, though, that this automatically makes me an unwashed boob.

PatchyFogg Jan 21 2006 04:40 PM

Here's my Carnac bit for a day: "Remember the Maine" What did Jim Duquette do when Omar told him he needed a white guy in the trade so that Anna's words wouldn't ring true?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 21 2006 05:00 PM

KC wrote: Sliding closer? He fell off the cliff into the rapids and washed down into the lake below. I prefer to think of it as the deep end of the 'Pool, KC.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 21 2006 05:10 PM

I have to think this is prelude to another deal but... You could argue Maine is Benson, only younger.

KC Jan 21 2006 05:12 PM

Works for me, bret.

KC Jan 21 2006 05:13 PM

Not sure where to stick this, but is anyone really all that jazzed up about the notion of bringing in Zito?

OlerudOwned Jan 21 2006 05:15 PM

This wouldn't be so bad to me if not for the Seo trade. God fucking dammit.

Frayed Knot Jan 21 2006 05:25 PM

As usual Bret, I seem to be losing track of (and perhaps interest in) your viewpoint(s). On page 1 you seem to be railing against club mgmt by saying that their moves are so untrustworthy to the point where a constant nervousness and impending sense of disaster roam rampant among the fan base whenever something's about to go down. Now, on Page 2, the dagger is pointed toward the fans themselves as if the fault lies with them for being too cranky and/or stupid to know the difference anyway.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 21 2006 05:44 PM

KC wrote: Not sure where to stick this, but is anyone really all that jazzed up about the notion of bringing in Zito? I'm not the biggest Zito fan out there by as long shot but yes, I think it'd be a pretty good idea, and for a couple reasons: * Right now you could argue the Mets look pretty good as a contender. Add Zito and they'd look pretty good to win a postseason series with Pedro-Glavine-Zito going 1-2-3. * They seem to be aiming to win those postseason series NOW!!! -- i.e., before Pedro gets too old. They have most of the rest of what they need, as I said. * A similar strategy (Mikey Dolphinface) tipped the 2000 team -- even though that club was worse offensively & defensively than its predecessor, it went further. * In addition to being a pretty good lefthanded pitcher, Zito has a brand image that will mean boffo boxoffice for the Mets. Mike & the Dog think he's the grestest pitcher ever. Chix dig him, guys think he's cool, and he could out-endorse Gary Carter circa 1985. * Getting him in the organization NOW!!!! makes sense considering he'd experience what is prolly gonna be a good team and good crowds, and the chance to reunite with the pitching coach for whom he had the most success. Looking ahead he could see years with Wright & Beltran and a new TV station and a stadium before the end of his next contract, etc etc.... I don't have to tell you Steinbrenners been whacking off for three years awaiting his free agency. * In the end I sorta feel about Zito the way Bret Sabermetric argued about Delgado -- the guy they could use.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 21 2006 05:48 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: As usual Bret, I seem to be losing track of (and perhaps interest in) your viewpoint(s). On page 1 you seem to be railing against club mgmt by saying that their moves are so untrustworthy to the point where a constant nervousness and impending sense of disaster roam rampant among the fan base whenever something's about to go down. Now, on Page 2, the dagger is pointed toward the fans themselves as if the fault lies with them for being too cranky and/or stupid to know the difference anyway. Yes, it's very complicated. The team and its fans have a symbiotic relationship wherein there occurs a cycle of unusually clueless deals followed by grave concern that turns into confusion and bitterness on the fans' part which is in turn followed by even stupider deals followed by hysteria and gnashing of teeth. At some point in here, there is a sacrificial firing of the GM, and the fans revert briefly to the ritualistic Adoration of the New GM, who then makes a deal so colossally moronic the fans all think "Why us? Why can't we ever catch a break?", followed by a deal that makes the first one one look like the steal of the century, which tends to make even the best fans question their loyalty, until the Mets draft a fireballing kid from Nowhere Flats who has never not struck out a batter in middle school, high school and college, and the fans think "At last! We're genuises," but then the New GM (same as the Old GM) trades him for a pair of Sox, and the wailing begins anew... The fans are nervous because the management is clueless so to placate them the management makes deals which turn out badly, making the fans more apprehensive than they ought to be...No one is blameless here, although the fans aren't doing this for a living.

Zvon Jan 21 2006 05:56 PM

I agree with all youz. This is lame as it stands now. This BETTER be part of the ........ wait for it....... Zito Shuffle. _____________________________________ Zito whoa-ooo O mar, one more arm oughta get it One last trade before we quit it One more for the road __________________ Bozvon Skaggs

Nymr83 Jan 21 2006 06:00 PM

] Right now you could argue the Mets look pretty good as a contender i'd argue that they looked alot stronger 2 weeks ago. Pedro, Glavine, Traschel, Heilman, Zambrano with Bannister as your 6th starter and Lugo/Sanzhez in the pen doesnt excite me as much as Pedro, SGlavine, Seo, benson, Traschel with Zambrano as the 6th starter and Heilman in the pen.

Zvon Jan 21 2006 06:03 PM

I dunno Bret. Nothing that a Met (management of otherwise) has ever done off the field has made me nervous. Angry, disillusioned, ballistic (MM'77), and almost every other emotion I can think of ranging from good to bad, but never nervous. I save my nervousness for the close important games. :)

Johnny Dickshot Jan 21 2006 06:13 PM

]i'd argue that they looked alot stronger 2 weeks ago. Pedro, Glavine, Traschel, Heilman, Zambrano with Bannister as your 6th starter and Lugo/Sanzhez in the pen doesnt excite me as much as Pedro, SGlavine, Seo, benson, Traschel with Zambrano as the 6th starter and Heilman in the pen. Possible, which is one reason why I think there's another shoe to drop. Even if it's a guy like Weaver. If not, looks like Heilman becomes Benson; Maine/Soler becomes Seo; Julio/Sanchez becomes Hernandez/Heilman; and Zambrano remains Zambrano. You've gotten younger and cheaper, if not as steady.

Nymr83 Jan 21 2006 06:40 PM

Seo has produced in the majors in 2 of his 3 seasons while Maine has barely played and Soler hasnt thrown a pitch in the united states.... There had better be "another shoe" waiting to drop.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 21 2006 07:14 PM

I'm not jumping off any ledges over this one (Julio is young and throws hard may turn out great and I like the prospect, too), but it does seem unnecessary if there's nothing else to come. It adds another guaranteed contract to an already full bullpen (still full if Heilman moves to the rotation), and as good as Heilman may be, he's still a bit of an uncertainty as a starter.

Centerfield Jan 21 2006 07:28 PM

This settles it. I officially hate Omar. Hard throwers. You know, Kane Davis threw pretty hard too.

Zvon Jan 21 2006 07:32 PM

A Boy Named Seo wrote: ..... and as good as Heilman may be, he's still a bit of an uncertainty as a starter. Well, Heilman did make that statement that he wanted in the rotation. And I liked hearing it, cuz it displayed a confidence I like to see in a pitcher. A readyness. The time is right and ripe that Heilman has an uncontested slot in the rotation. So I like that factor. But I saw good things in Benson, and wanted to see what he could do as a Met in '06. So it goes.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 21 2006 09:20 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 22 2006 09:59 AM

Zvon wrote: The time is right and ripe that Heilman has an uncontested slot in the rotation. Sounds like the cue for Heilman's exit. Meanwhile, Ed Coleman is all but calling himself a spineless, craven asskissing nincompoop. He's describing this trade on WFAN as being carefully designed to protect the Mets' shamefully weak starting rotation who are to a man incapable of going more than six strong innings, and are old besides--as if that's a good reason to swap out two-thirds of the youngest half of your starting pitchers. Staunchly refusing to criticize the team for any specific deals, the Eunuch does admit that "some of these trades puzzle" him, although he's explained and rationalized the Mets' brillliant thinking behind them all. He did admit that he doesn't think much of Jeff Weaver as a possible replacement for Benson, but admitted further --he SAID this, I'm not making it up--that if the Mets did acquire Weaver he would learn to like him. How the fuck does your acquisition of a shitty ballplayer make him into a good ballplayer? Weaver is what he is. Talk about rooting for the laundry. I've been called a fair-weather fan today, but there must be a term of approbation for what the Eunuch is (other than flaming asshole). He'll learn to like Weaver, if he becomes a Met. If that don't say it all about the quality of objective and useful analysis you get out of Ed Coleman... OE: cleaned up grammar, added a few "fuck"s for emphasis and clarity.

Zvon Jan 21 2006 11:52 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: I've been called a fair-weather fan today, but there must be a term of approbation for what the Eunuch is (other than flaming asshole). lmao.

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 12:08 AM

I was waiting for convincing evidence that Omar was an idiot. I think I've found it. Look at it this way. Would you have made a trade of Cameron, Seo and Benson for Julio, Sanchez, and Nady??? OF COURSE NOT. SO WHY IS DOING IT SEPERATELY OKAY?!?!? Bret, when does the next bus leave for Boston?

metirish Jan 22 2006 12:10 AM

Bret to be fair to Ed Coleman, he's a total bollox, Jeff fucking Weaver?, no way Jose or Omar, I heard Omar on the news tonight, I hate hearing him talk bullshit about power arms....

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 12:10 AM

Recommendation: Do not come home drunk and go to the CPF looking for news when it's possible a stupid trade was made that day. If anyone else wants a piece of Omar I'm beating him down in the Red Light Forum.

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 12:12 AM

The Mets traded Wigginton, Peterson and Huber for Jorge Julio.

metirish Jan 22 2006 12:15 AM

Jesus Elster I hadn't thought about the trade like that, it makes it look even worse, although Duke must love Benson or maybe he has a thing for Anna....

sharpie Jan 22 2006 12:59 AM

Elster, you forgot Maine. Why is anyone still pining for Wigginton at this late date? Also, we did get a year and change outta Benson. Who I'm not all that sorry to be rid of. This smacks so much of a Zito trade that it almost isn't worth talking about this til all is said and done.

Rockin' Doc Jan 22 2006 01:25 AM

I don't really like this trade, but at least the media reports of Hurricane Anna will be pretty amusing over the next few days.

Edgy DC Jan 22 2006 01:33 AM

]Would you have made a trade of Cameron, Seo and Benson for Julio, Sanchez, and Nady??? There are other people involved. ]The Mets traded Wigginton, Peterson and Huber for Jorge Julio. There are other people involved here also. They also got some value out of Benson before flipping him.

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 01:53 AM

No one is pining for Wigginton. Except maybe Bret? He was recently. I realize we got some value out of Benson. He helped us to a middle of the pack finish and a last place finish.

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 01:56 AM

Edgy DC wrote: ]Would you have made a trade of Cameron, Seo and Benson for Julio, Sanchez, and Nady??? There are other people involved. Thank you for stating the obvious. Would you agree that these are the principals? Or is it not allowed to mention these trades as a whole without naming each minor leaguer and the exact dollar amounts?

Edgy DC Jan 22 2006 02:07 AM

Not obvious enough for you to work into the equation. I think when the Mets throw in a guy --- Billy Traber for instance, or Matt Peterson in your other example --- it's typically worth remarking, but it's easier to overlook when players round out the package the Mets are receiving. You framed the question as if it you were presenting the bottom-line question under which to judge the deal. It's not. I don't like the deal either.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 22 2006 06:07 AM

The out-patients are out in force tonight. On the WFAN overnight, Met fans are hysterically denouncing this trade. In a way, it's a challenge trade--it's so godawful on the face of it, Omar is challenging us to a contest of "Who knows baseball, me or you?" which is how the Mets' deals (at least since 7/30/04) have gone: the team pulls off a trade that everyone hates (I keep my hatred, most of you let yours go after a few months), and it never really makes any more sense than that but Omar insists that it's our idea of true value that's off. Did this deal speak to Peterson's success as a pitching coach? Benson was the same damn pitcher after he got here as he was before--did Peterson show him how to make that breakthrough step? Has Peterson helped Zambrano improve from the mediocrity he was in Tampa Bay? Did he make Pedro or Glavine into better pitchers? If we'd known that Benson was going to continue his less-than-stellar pitching on the Mets, do you think you'd have been so accepting of the deal? Omar is in effect making the case that there is more value in what he's getting in deals like this Benson deal (and the other one) than meets the eye, that he knows value and all the decryers on WFAN (and on planet Earth) don't. But where's the beef? Meanwhile, he's stocking Hispanic ballplayers as if all the Americans are due to get banned from the game any minute now. Maybe he does know something we don't. The overnight host is making this argument that the deal was geared to divest the Mets of Anna Benson. Makes as much sense as anything else I've heard, which is to say None at all. BTW, I think Wigginton's going to have a better year (more Win Shares) in 2006 than Benson will.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 22 2006 10:37 AM

The real challenge of this trade is the Peterson-to-Mazzone aspect. One of the reasons I think the Mets acquired Benson in the first place was to prevent the Braves from getting him: KB fit the whole Mazzone Project M.O.: Local Georgia guy, good talent but not fully realized, and IIRC, they had their eyes on him at the deadline just like the Mets did. I'm sure that's part of the reason the O's are excited to have him now. And Benson was, till he broke down late, a pretty good success with Peterson. Maybe the Mets feel he'd continue to get hurt.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 22 2006 10:54 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: And Benson was, till he broke down late, a pretty good success with Peterson. Maybe the Mets feel he'd continue to get hurt. Don't you think that if Benson had stayed healthy here, a lot of credit would have been heaped on Peterson for "doing" that? At what point do the Mets acknowledge that Peterson's record in keeping pitching healthy, showing them new ways to pitch successfully, fixing their problems faster than Jiffy-Lube, is at best not measurable, and at worst is completely fraudulent? Does "never" work for you? I'm sure when he leaves, the Mets will be patting themselves on the back for having had the wisdom to hire the World's Best Pitching Coach who never showed anything tangible.

Rotblatt Jan 22 2006 11:18 AM

I absolutely hate this deal, in no small part because we just got rid of Seo. I mean, if we were clearing out Benson to ensure that Seo had a spot, I'd be almost okay with it, but this just makes no sense. And for all you people who think that these shit moves are a prelude to landing Zito, don't forget that we're going to have to give up even MORE talent to get him. I mean, seriously, if we're willing to give up a solid, middle of the order pitcher for a mediocre prospect and a below-average relief pitcher, how much do you think we'll give up for a former Cy Young winner? I'm thinking Diaz/Nady, Heilman & Milledge as a starting point for the negotiations, and frankly, that's a crappy fucking deal.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 22 2006 11:45 AM

]I absolutely hate this deal, in no small part because we just got rid of Seo. I mean, if we were clearing out Benson to ensure that Seo had a spot, I'd be almost okay with it, but this just makes no sense. Let's pretend just for a second then that Seo hadn't been traded. Why do you say "almost OK"?

metirish Jan 22 2006 01:27 PM

Jon Heyman's view on the trade( nothing new here) ] This trade is for the Birds - and for the Mets, too The Mets pulled the trigger on Kris Benson-for-Jorge Julio not because Barry Zito or Jeff Weaver is waiting in the wings but for several other reasons. Such as: 1) General manager Omar Minaya loves Julio's power arm (with Billy Wagner and Julio, who's hit 99 mph, the Mets have the hardest-throwing bullpen back end); 2) Minaya wanted to give Aaron Heilman a shot at the No. 5 starting spot he's been craving; 3) Mets people see other starting alternatives in Yusaku Iriki and maybe even No. 1 draft choice Mike Pelfrey by midseason; 4) While the Orioles rebuffed attempts at former No. 1 pick Adam Loewen, the Mets liked righthander John Maine, another hard thrower (though some note last year's regression); 4) The Mets got younger; 5) Anna Benson will have to don her Santa's helper get-up in Baltimore now; 6) They'll save $13 million because Kris Benson has $15.5 million left through '07 and Julio will make about $2.55 million via arbitration, providing flexibility should something tempting arise later (including Zito). A's GM Billy Beane told the Mets he won't offer Zito until at least midseason, if then. And even then, it'll be tough; Beane would insist on Lastings Milledge and the Mets envision him as a potential replacement for Cliff Floyd in '07. As for Weaver, the Mets' interest seems mild. Texas, Anaheim, Baltimore and perhaps Boston are more likely landing spots for Weaver. Santa's gift to Baltimore? Anna Benson played Santa's helper all right - she likely helped get the Orioles the starting pitcher they desperately needed. The Mets are too polite to admit it, but her "career" and her over-the-top Santa stripper suit at the kids' Christmas party could not have gone unnoticed. Mrs. Benson was in the city yesterday for a magazine "photo shoot." Unfortunately for her, there won't be as many photo ops in Baltimore.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 22 2006 01:43 PM

metirish wrote: Jon Heyman's view on the trade( nothing new here) ] 6) They'll save $13 million because Kris Benson has $15.5 million left through '07 and Julio will make about $2.55 million via arbitration, providing flexibility should something tempting arise later (including Zito). This is the part I don't get. Let's see now, the Mets were brilliant to acquire this guy in a trade rather than wait for him to go FA, surrendering (what I still think are) pretty good players for him, and then signing him to a big bux contract, AND they're patting themselves on the back for unloading said contract, which frees them up to sign another pitcher. Give me five bucks. I want to put it in one pocket, then put it in another, and then give back to you. Everyone makes money on this deal. My right pocket, my left pocket, and you, right? I'm a super-genius.

smg58 Jan 22 2006 02:04 PM

1) the power arm: and the balls go out (35 HR in 204.1 IP over the past three seasons) as fast as they come in. Granted, he should give up less HR at an NL pitcher's park, but that would elevate his numbers up to mediocre, instead of simply awful. 2) Heilman in the rotation: I'll believe it when I see it. Plus, the one-hitter notwithstanding, he was a lot more consistent in the pen. 3) Pelfrey and Iriki: I'll believe those when I see them too. Iriki was serviceable in Japan, which is like being serviceable in Norfolk. Pelfrey hasn't played any professional ball yet. And why is he more of a keeper than Petit or Kazmir? 4) Maine: If only some are noting last year's regression, how do the others justify ignoring it? 4) (yes, he had two 4's) getting younger: Was Heyman critical of Jacobs and Petit for Delgado? Or signing Billy Wagner? I like getting younger when it also means getting better, or at least clearing out older guys who can't help the Mets win anymore. I'm not sure the latter is true for Benson. 5) I don't like Anna either, but she wasn't in the Mets' rotation, her husband was. 6) Julio is arbitration eligible next year too, so it's closer to $10 million. But the Mets aren't strapped right now, and they've made some rather large investments this offseason with the ostensible purpose of winning right now. Perhaps there's another deal forthcoming, but otherwise you're gambling that Heilman over Benson in the rotation gives more than Julio over Heilman takes away in the pen.

seawolf17 Jan 22 2006 02:12 PM

smg58 wrote: 1) the power arm: and the balls go out (35 HR in 204.1 IP over the past three seasons) as fast as they come in. Granted, he should give up less HR at an NL pitcher's park, but that would elevate his numbers up to mediocre, instead of simply awful. 2) Heilman in the rotation: I'll believe it when I see it. Plus, the one-hitter notwithstanding, he was a lot more consistent in the pen. 3) Pelfrey and Iriki: I'll believe those when I see them too. Iriki was serviceable in Japan, which is like being serviceable in Norfolk. Pelfrey hasn't played any professional ball yet. And why is he more of a keeper than Petit or Kazmir? 4) Maine: If only some are noting last year's regression, how do the others justify ignoring it? 4) (yes, he had two 4's) getting younger: Was Heyman critical of Jacobs and Petit for Delgado? Or signing Billy Wagner? I like getting younger when it also means getting better, or at least clearing out older guys who can't help the Mets win anymore. I'm not sure the latter is true for Benson. 5) I don't like Anna either, but she wasn't in the Mets' rotation, her husband was. 6) Julio is arbitration eligible next year too, so it's closer to $10 million. But the Mets aren't strapped right now, and they've made some rather large investments this offseason with the ostensible purpose of winning right now. Perhaps there's another deal forthcoming, but otherwise you're gambling that Heilman over Benson in the rotation gives more than Julio over Heilman takes away in the pen. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. I don't like this deal right now.

Hillbilly Jan 22 2006 04:15 PM

I was a surprised to see this deal, especially in addition to the Seo trade. But if you compare the current starting staff to last year’s staff, the pitching suddenly doesn’t look that bad. Opening Day 2004. 1. Pedro 2. Glavine 3. Benson 4. Zambrano 5. Ishii Projected for 2005. 1. Pedro 2. Glavine 3. Zambrano 4. Trachsel 5. Heilman Which is the better staff? I actually think it is very close, and if Heilman takes a(nother) step forward, this year’s staff will likely be improved. Problem is depth beyond these 5 guys. The 2006 staff will have a greatly improved bullpen. At first I thought that trading Benson would be a prelude to adding Zito or Weaver. But after some reflection I don’t think that’s the case. I think its faith (investment) in Heilman to further progress this year.

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 08:27 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: The out-patients are out in force tonight. On the WFAN overnight, Met fans are hysterically denouncing this trade. In a way, it's a challenge trade--it's so godawful on the face of it, Omar is challenging us to a contest of "Who knows baseball, me or you?" which is how the Mets' deals (at least since 7/30/04) have gone: the team pulls off a trade that everyone hates (I keep my hatred, most of you let yours go after a few months), and it never really makes any more sense than that but Omar insists that it's our idea of true value that's off. Did Omar say something to this effect? I haven't been paying attention to the comments coming out of the front office.

GYC Jan 22 2006 08:29 PM Well...

the Korean cartoon site agrees: the only English words they have there are "really, really dumb." http://news.naver.com/sports/index.nhn?category=mlb&menu=news&mode=view&office_id=109&article_id=0000025362

Bret Sabermetric Jan 22 2006 08:30 PM

Okay you meant 2005 and 2006, not 2004 and 2005. But let's compare point by point 1. Pedro 2005 vs Pedro 2006. Pedro 2005 is better. In 2005, he's a year younger, a year further from breaking down. No brainer. 2. Glavine 2005 vs Glavine 2006. Same deal 3. Benson 2005 vs. Trachsel 2006. (I'm moving Zambrano down a slot because it's an easier comparison.) Benson wins narrowly, I think. He's younger, has more upside (not realized, but we didn't know that at the time, we were expecting Cy Young junior maybe.) About equally effective, if you don't consider age and potential as valid considerations. 4. Zambrano 2005 vs Zambrano 2006. Every year that his guy shleps on wihitout becoming a quality pitcher is another nail in his coffin. Eventually he'll have all the nails he needs, and we'll bury him and move on. 5.Ishii 2005 vs. Heilman 2006. Heilman's better. So I count that four rounds for the 2005 rotation, one round for the 2006 bunch. "By Yoo-namimous decision, the winnah is..."

cooby Jan 22 2006 08:31 PM

Why all the doom and gloom? Benson was not exactly the ace of the staff, I don't think he was even all that dependable anymore. Let him go.

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 08:31 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I'm sure that's part of the reason the O's are excited to have him now. Probably. But I'm sure the main contributor to their excitement is that the only major leaguer they had to give up pitched to a 5.86 ERA last year.

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 08:32 PM

I hope as much as the next guy that Zito ends up here....but I'm almost positive I remember, around the winter meetings, the A's saying they won't trade him in the offseason. I'll look for a quote.

Zvon Jan 22 2006 08:33 PM

="seawolf17"] I know you always have the av pic match the name,....... this one cracked me up wolf.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 22 2006 08:34 PM

Elster88 wrote: ="Bret Sabermetric"]Omar insists that it's our idea of true value that's off. Did Omar say something to this effect? I haven't been paying attention to the comments coming out of the front office. No, I'm just saying that these trades, which make sense to no one, are in effect Omar's arguing that he's getting value and we'll have to see how the trades work out. If he's improving the team by the trades, then he'll be able to brag, "See? You all doubted my ability to judge good pitching." But if it doesn't work out, we'll all say "What the hell were you drinking, Omar? No one lilked those deals. You could have have asked us if you should make tem and we would have saved you a lot of grief."

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 08:35 PM

I actually hope their is some method to his madness. Right now I think he honestly thinks he's making the team better......which scares me more than anything.

metirish Jan 22 2006 08:36 PM

] hope as much as the next guy that Zito ends up here....but I'm almost positive I remember, around the winter meetings, the A's saying they won't trade him in the offseason. I'll look for a quote. yeah I've read that today, Beane apparently has told the Mets that he won't trade him before the season and might not even trade him during the season....

Rotblatt Jan 22 2006 09:19 PM

]Let's pretend just for a second then that Seo hadn't been traded. Why do you say "almost OK"? Because I'm pretty sure that Willie would have pulled the same stupid crap he did last year and send Seo to AAA in favor of an inferior pitcher (Trachsel, Zambrano, Benson--take your pick). So by getting rid of Benson, we'd have been removing one more potential obstacle that WIllie might put in Seo's way. I'm all for idiot-proofing this team as much as possible, which is why I'm pretty fucking crabby that about this trade. Let say we DO sign Weaver, relegating Heilman to the pen. How much do you want to bet that Willie would use Heilman for mop-up duty for the first three months again, sending Mediocrity Personified out in the 7th & 8th in the form of Sanchez & Julio?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 22 2006 10:06 PM

it was at least as much Omar's call as it was Willie's to send Seo to the the lower depths.

metirish Jan 22 2006 10:12 PM

Willie when asked at the Knicks game about the trade of Benson said he was "not happy" with it....from the Daily news..relevent paragraph... ] Willie Randolph, who was at the Knicks' home game last night against the Hornets, said he was "not happy" about the trade, but that he was not surprised, either. "There are always guys coming and going. Part of the business," he said. "But it's good to get some strong arms coming in." http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/story/384812p-326612c.html

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 10:25 PM

Seo is not inferior to Benson.

rpackrat Jan 22 2006 10:51 PM

I haven't read the whole thread, so I apologize if someone has already said this, but why is anyone surprised by any of this stuff? Back when Steve Phillips was still our GM and folks were clamoring for his head and getting a woody for Omar, I pointed out that Omar's biggest claim to fame until then was ridiculously overpaying for a half season rental of Bartolo Colon. So why is anyone surprised that he continues in his longstanding habit of ridiculously overpaying in trades? Based on his pre-Met track record, why should anyone have expected anything different?

Zvon Jan 22 2006 11:03 PM

metirish wrote: ] Willie Randolph, who was at the Knicks' home game last night against the Hornets, said he was "not happy" about the trade, but that he was not surprised, either. "There are always guys coming and going. Part of the business," he said. "But it's good to get some strong arms coming in." I find this interesting.

Rockin' Doc Jan 22 2006 11:04 PM

Anna's response (thus far) is more subdued than I expected. New York Times online January 22, 2006 Right on Cue, Anna Benson Throws in Her Two Cents By BEN SHPIGEL Wearing a black jersey of her new favorite team, the Baltimore Orioles, Anna Benson entered a cramped conference room of a Manhattan public-relations firm last night, her makeup still fresh from an earlier photo shoot for the April issue of FHM magazine. She slapped her husband, Kris, on the thigh as they sat down, then listened as he talked about being traded to Baltimore. Then it was Anna's turn to respond, and true to her reputation, she did not go quietly. The trade brought pitchers Jorge Julio and John Maine to the Mets, and Anna used the hastily arranged news conference to sound off on all things personal, baseball and Mets. It was Anna Benson being Anna Benson. "I think everyone blows me out of proportion," she said. She is a rarity among today's professional men's athletes: the wife who has more of a public persona than her husband. Her time in New York was, in some ways, more remarkable than that of her husband. Benson was moderately successful in his 18 months as a Met, but Anna stole the spotlight, sharing intimate details of their sex life, blasting the anti-establishment filmmaker Michael Moore and, more recently, criticizing the Mets for trying to trade her husband. Hours before the news conference, Kris Benson, in a conference call, said that he was looking forward to working with the Orioles' pitching coach, Leo Mazzone, and to pitching in Camden Yards, the only major league stadium he said he had never visited. Anna said in a statement released after the trade that she and Benson looked forward to "christening the parking lot" at the stadium, referring to her desire to have sex at every major league park. Whether her brashness contributed to the Mets' persistence in trying to trade Benson is unclear. Mets officials have publicly denied it, and the deal has been months in the making, especially on the Orioles' part. Only the terms needed tweaking. The Bensons said they hoped and believed that Anna's outsized personality had not factored into the Mets' decision, but their responses yesterday indicated that they were at least a little suspicious. Benson said he did not think the trade was "cut and dry." Anna was a little more straightforward. "If they traded Kris because of what I've done, then that's a dirty, nasty, rotten trick," she said, adding that he would have signed elsewhere last winter if they had known he would be traded this quickly after signing a three-year contract. As she spoke last night, enunciating clearly and forcefully, a smile did not leave her face, even as she addressed some weightier subjects. She has criticized the Mets for acquiring Carlos Delgado, who has not stood for the playing of "God Bless America" during games because of his opposition to American foreign policy. Clarifying those remarks last night, she said that she wondered why the Mets were willing to acquire Delgado but then were leery when she considered modeling for Playboy. "Be liberal or not, make a choice," Anna said, adding that her posing for Playboy was a dead issue. In Baltimore, it is unlikely that Anna Benson's outrageousness will cause as much of a stir as it did in New York. She will continue to spout shocking comments, wear revealing outfits - like the low-cut dress she chose for the Mets' annual holiday party for children - and try to be, according to her, "the sexiest woman in professional sports." Asked whether the move would damage her career as a model and as an all-around show-business personality, Anna deferred to her husband. "This is never about me," she said. "This is about him."

Edgy DC Jan 22 2006 11:13 PM

]How much do you want to bet that Willie would use Heilman for mop-up duty for the first three months again, sending Mediocrity Personified out in the 7th & 8th in the form of Sanchez & Julio? Really? This trade, whatever it's other traits, appears to have opened a door for Heilman. You really think it's about shutting the door on him?

Frayed Knot Jan 22 2006 11:21 PM

Minaya's time & role while in Montreal were spent under such strange circumstances that I find it hard to "blame" him for what went on there or even objectively evaluate specific trades and use them as some sort of measuring stick of what he'd be elsewhere. But, having said all that, I did always find it strange how he was somehow the tabbed as "the golden child" in the minds of a sizable chunk of Met fans. While things were going downhill in the post WS years it seemed that everyone withing the whole Wilpon(s)/Phillips regime was being painted with the same 'get 'em all outta here' brush ... except Minaya. When he was named to run the dying Montreal franchise there was an 'oh my god we can't lose him' cry that defied logical explanation. Somehow, the masses simply assumed Duquette to be a tainted symptom of the problem while Minaya was somehow considered the antidote.

Zvon Jan 22 2006 11:40 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 23 2006 12:24 AM

*bad unspoken joke about Anna Benson quote deleted as it was meant only for the late night crews eyes to see.* Carry on.

Zvon Jan 23 2006 12:05 AM

......as a matter of fact, Ill even delete that astute observation above b4 i crash. i just had to say something tho.....lol,i just had to.

MFS62 Jan 23 2006 06:29 AM

Why should only you late night guys be able to enjoy some creative obscenity? Let us early morning folks enjoy it too. EDIT: Its 6:29AM, not 7:29 like the header shows. Later

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 06:49 AM

I was sleeping when Zvon posted and erased, but I'd guess he volunteered for Anna to blow him out of proportion any time.

abogdan Jan 23 2006 07:10 AM

Even with all of his faults, Benson was a perfectly average starting pitcher. There's value to 200 innings at league average ERA. In this market, that value is likely higher than Benson's salary, which looked ridiculous when his deal was signed a year and change ago. That value, is also much higher than a mediocre reliever and a formerly hot prospect who flopped in his ML debut and will be 25 next year. Awful trade. The team is worse today than it was before this trade was made. The Mets are going to need one of their minor league pitchers to get hot and contribute to the big league team by June for the rotation to survive the season.

Rotblatt Jan 23 2006 07:23 AM

="Edgy DC"] ]How much do you want to bet that Willie would use Heilman for mop-up duty for the first three months again, sending Mediocrity Personified out in the 7th & 8th in the form of Sanchez & Julio? Really? This trade, whatever it's other traits, appears to have opened a door for Heilman. You really think it's about shutting the door on him? Um, check out the sentence right before the one you quoted: ]Let say we DO sign Weaver, relegating Heilman to the pen. So yes, I really think that Heilman would be the odd-man out if we signed a Zito or a Weaver. Which I find retarded, because Zambrano should clearly be the odd man out. Most of the apologists of this trade seem to think it's is the precursor to signing a starting pitcher; if that happens, it seems like Heilman only benefits in the short-term. Unless, of course, there IS no "other move," in which case, there seem to be even more of us on the "this was a really bad move" side. Now maybe all these moves were done to try and make Heilman happy--getting Sanchez & Julio to replace him in the pen, and trading Benson to make a spot for Heilman in the rotation--but couldn't Omar have promoted Heilman without making bad trades? I mean, what was the rush?

KC Jan 23 2006 08:17 AM

>>>"This is never about me," she said. "This is about him."<<< Isn't that right, honey? Yes, dear. Can I have my ... NO!

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 08:52 AM

I'm thinking of writing a short story about a baseball wife who vows to screw the whole roster if hubby cheats on her. He does so, thinks she doesn't know about it but she finds out, and she decides to get through the whole team before telling him of what she's done. Story takes place as she's trying to nail (so to speak) those last few faithful (to their own wives) husbands on the team, wearing down their resistance. What do you think of the idea? I've got so many of these, I'm thinking of marketing them as a collection. Prolly should put some effort into getting them published in magazine form first, but it's an interesting idea to me a collection of stories about baseball based on actual incidents or potential incidents in the game's history.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 23 2006 09:03 AM

Excellent idea. As she goes from player to player she'll learn unexpected and embarrassing things: the team's superstar, for instance, turns out to be as gay as a french horn; and while enjoying her connection with the team's trainer, learns also he has a particularly nasty strain of herpes.

Elster88 Jan 23 2006 09:06 AM

]according to her, "the sexiest woman in professional sports This stuff cracks me up. I wonder if she'll ever realize that she's not in professional sports.

seawolf17 Jan 23 2006 09:08 AM

Elster88 wrote: ]according to her, "the sexiest woman in professional sports This stuff cracks me up. I wonder if she'll ever realize that she's not in professional sports. And even if she was, she wouldn't be in the Top 50.

Edgy DC Jan 23 2006 09:11 AM

]Um, check out the sentence right before the one you quoted: I saw it. No need for the tone. Your point wasn't about whether Heilman should be ahead of Zambrano in the rotation, but that he'd end up in the back of the bullpen pitching mopup innings. If that's your position, then fine, we'll put it in the prediction archives and see. Any reasonable debate tends to degenerate when the word "apologists" gets tossed around. There's no need for namecalling.

Elster88 Jan 23 2006 09:11 AM

I see a few people saying things along the lines of "I'm surprised that people are surprised that Omar's making dumb moves" or "I'm suprised that a chunk of Met fans had Omar as their savior, and are shocked when he makes dumb moves." (Note: These quotation marks do not contain actual quotes, but rather paraphrase what I've seen.) Who thought Omar was their savior? Is this referring to Mr. Random Radio Caller? I don't remember who thought of Omar as some sort of God Among GMs, and I don't see anyone around these parts saying "I can't believe Omar is making dumb moves, he was supposed to be our savior". I think the attitude around here all along was wait-and-see. At least it was for me. After last offseason, I was happy with Omar. After this offseason, I am not.

Elster88 Jan 23 2006 09:17 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 23 2006 09:28 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: I'm thinking of writing a short story about a baseball wife who vows to screw the whole roster if hubby cheats on her. He does so, thinks she doesn't know about it but she finds out, and she decides to get through the whole team before telling him of what she's done. Story takes place as she's trying to nail (so to speak) those last few faithful (to their own wives) husbands on the team, wearing down their resistance. What do you think of the idea? I've got so many of these, I'm thinking of marketing them as a collection. Prolly should put some effort into getting them published in magazine form first, but it's an interesting idea to me a collection of stories about baseball based on actual incidents or potential incidents in the game's history. I guarantee you'll get sued for copyright infringement. ____________________ This post had the designation 79) Jeromy Burnitz

cooby Jan 23 2006 09:18 AM

You're really hung up on that whole scenario, aren't you?

metirish Jan 23 2006 09:21 AM

Imagine if we lived in an internet world when Seaver got traded.............

ScarletKnight41 Jan 23 2006 09:21 AM

It only works if you come up with a good rationale for why it would happen. It doesn't work if the characters are all cardboard. It's one thing to make a quip about it. It's a totally different thing to do it. Come up with a rationale that bridges the quip and the act and you've got something.

Elster88 Jan 23 2006 09:27 AM

cooby wrote: You're really hung up on that whole scenario, aren't you? Que?

cooby Jan 23 2006 09:27 AM

Bret.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 10:23 AM

Elster88 wrote: ="Bret Sabermetric"]I'm thinking of writing a short story about a baseball wife who vows to screw the whole roster if hubby cheats on her. He does so, thinks she doesn't know about it but she finds out, and she decides to get through the whole team before telling him of what she's done. Story takes place as she's trying to nail (so to speak) those last few faithful (to their own wives) husbands on the team, wearing down their resistance. What do you think of the idea? I've got so many of these, I'm thinking of marketing them as a collection. Prolly should put some effort into getting them published in magazine form first, but it's an interesting idea to me a collection of stories about baseball based on actual incidents or potential incidents in the game's history. I guarantee you'll get sued for copyright infringement. ____________________ This post had the designation 79) Jeromy Burnitz Who has copyrighted what, exactly?

Elster88 Jan 23 2006 10:39 AM

Come on Bret, did I really need a note saying the copyright infringement thing was a joke? ]Who has copyrighted what, exactly? Kris and Anna have the story about a woman who sleeps with her husband's teammates copyrighted. NOTE: THE ABOVE STATEMENT ABOUT KRISTIN BENSON AND HIS WIFE ANNA IS A JOKE.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 10:50 AM

Sorry, I thought "I guarantee you'll get sued for copyright infringement" meant that you were guaranteeing I would get sued for copyright infringement. My bad.

seawolf17 Jan 23 2006 10:53 AM

Perhaps we need to bring back smilies after all.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 23 2006 10:54 AM

It's not just you, Bret. I didn't get the joke either. I just thought, "huh?"

Elster88 Jan 23 2006 10:57 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 23 2006 10:59 AM

I realize it wasn't that funny. But I didn't realize people would take it seriously. Come on, is there a more absurd statement that I could've made? I know it's a message board and it's hard to pick it up when a stupid little statement was supposed to be a stupid little joke, but geez.

Elster88 Jan 23 2006 10:58 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Sorry, I thought "I guarantee you'll get sued for copyright infringement" meant that you were guaranteeing I would get sued for copyright infringement. My bad. Apology accepted.

Rotblatt Jan 23 2006 11:47 AM

]I saw it. No need for the tone. Well, okay, but if you saw it, then why would you ask if I thought the Benson trade was "about shutting the door on [Heilman]" when that was clearly nowhere near my point? I figured you were either taking my quote out of context--giving the impression that I thought the Benson trade (and not the hypothetical Weaver trade I referenced in the sentence preceding the quote you pulled) would result in Heilman being used in mop-up duty--or that you misread my post. I just figured it was the latter. ]Your point wasn't about whether Heilman should be ahead of Zambrano in the rotation, but that he'd end up in the back of the bullpen pitching mopup innings. If that's your position, then fine, we'll put it in the prediction archives and see. No, my point was that I don't trust Willie to make smart use of the pitchers he's given. I then suggested that Omar could have helped Willie by weeding out the average veterans and hanging on to the younger guys with upside. Instead, alas, Omar got rid of one of the younger guys with upside and one of the average veterans, which I think will just confuse poor Willie. ]Any reasonable debate tends to degenerate when the word "apologists" gets tossed around. There's no need for namecalling. How is calling defenders of the Benson trade "apologists" name calling? Isn't that the definition of an apologist?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 11:55 AM

It makes my morning, Rot, to see Edgy pulling his passive-aggressive, tone-correcting, schoolmarmish, superior behavior with posters other than myself. It really does. When I notice this crap, I can once again reassure myself that all the issues between us were not caused by me alone, so though this frustrating for you to get caught up in, I can tell you 1) there's no help. This is just "Arguing issues with Edgy." Be prepare to to be talked down to and infuriated, or just walk away now and 2) someone needs to do it. Thanks.

Hillbilly Jan 23 2006 11:57 AM

But let's compare point by point Lets review your points, point by point. 1. Pedro 2005 vs Pedro 2006. Pedro 2005 is better. In 2005, he's a year younger, a year further from breaking down. No brainer. Oh I used my brain, and understand that declines for aging pitchers are inevitable. I also would say they are not predictable, linear, nor consistent. In 2005 Pedro had a fine year with no signs of decline. It’s completely reasonable to expect a ‘Pedro like” year from him again. 2. Glavine 2005 vs Glavine 2006. Same deal Here the data are clear. Glavine was by far his best in his first year with Mets, and last year he looked washed up. (Please don’t miss the sarcasm). Like I said declines aren’t linear, or predictable. Remember when your Red Sox thought Clemens was washed up? His numbers sure made it look like he was a pitcher about to be on the wrong side of 35 that was in the middle of a decline coming at the end of his career. I’m sure if you Red Sox fans could get over your bitter hatred of ‘Roger the traitor’, you’d admit that he had many good years ahead and worth ever penny we asked for prior to 1997 season. 3. Benson 2005 vs. Trachsel 2006. (I'm moving Zambrano down a slot because it's an easier comparison.) Benson wins narrowly, I think. He's younger, has more upside (not realized, but we didn't know that at the time, we were expecting Cy Young junior maybe.) About equally effective, if you don't consider age and potential as valid considerations. You moved Zambrano down a slot, because you thought it made it easier to ‘prove’ your preconceived notions and stay on the agenda. 4. Zambrano 2005 vs Zambrano 2006. Every year that his guy shleps on wihitout becoming a quality pitcher is another nail in his coffin. Eventually he'll have all the nails he needs, and we'll bury him and move on. You go on talking about nails, he’ll likely be a good middle of the rotation guy. His numbers beyond W&L looked a hell of a lot like Benson’s in 2005. 5.Ishii 2005 vs. Heilman 2006. Heilman's better. Which is not saying much, but this could be a whole hell of a lot better. So I count that four rounds for the 2005 rotation, one round for the 2006 bunch. "By Yoo-namimous decision, the winnah is..." ‘Yoo-namimous’ means 4-1? Somehow I think you made this up. The fact remains that there is not a large difference in the expected quality of this projected starting staff for 2006 and the opening day staff of 2005. With all your fancy logic of ‘nails’, ‘shelps’ and ‘Yoo-namimous decisions’ you did nothing to convince me otherwise. All you did was set up a bunch of strawmen and knocked them over one by one. Your right, it is a ‘no-brainer’!!!

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 12:06 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 23 2006 04:20 PM

You'd think I knocked over a bank from your last post. I just rearranged the slots (which YOU set up--it's not like the Mets have announced that their chief strategy is going to be pitching Zambrano out of one particular slot) to make for a comparison between Zambrano and himself, which seemed eminently fair to me. Basically, all the older pitchers showed no signs of getting better, just getting worse slowly, which doesn't fill me with confidence for next year, and Zambrano again made no breakthroughs from what he's already shown he can do. If this is the peak of Zambrano's ability--and every passing year of the same or similar performances is further evidence of that--then he'll just become another Benson-type project who we dump overboard at age 31 without ever accomplishing much for this franchise. OE: fixed typos

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 12:21 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Excellent idea. As she goes from player to player she'll learn unexpected and embarrassing things: the team's superstar, for instance, turns out to be as gay as a french horn; and while enjoying her connection with the team's trainer, learns also he has a particularly nasty strain of herpes. Dickshot-- Wonderful. It was an error to assume that every player on the team would be straight, non-diseased, sexually functional, etc. Cooby--what's your point? Scarlet--Of course the idea is to create three-dimensional characters--would it be hypersensitive to read into your post an implication that two-D characters are my forte?

Edgy DC Jan 23 2006 12:28 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 23 2006 12:36 PM

]Well, okay, but if you saw it, then why would you ask if I thought the Benson trade was "about shutting the door on [Heilman]" when that was clearly nowhere near my point? Well, if your point was to inquire "How much do you want to bet that Willie would use Heilman for mop-up duty for the first three months again, sending Mediocrity Personified out in the 7th & 8th in the form of Sanchez & Julio?" then I want to know if you seriously believe that, because I don't think there's any indication of Heilman heading for mopup duty. Now, if this situation can't be established without the hypothetical trade happening first, then so be it. But I don't think we're going to see three months of mopup duty for Heilman under any circumstances. ]How is calling defenders of the Benson trade "apologists" name calling? Isn't that the definition of an apologist? No. If I defend a cop who is accused of using un-necessary force, I'm a guy making an argument. If I defend said cop, because I always defend cops in such situations, I'm an apologist for the police department. The latter case assumes the person is a reactionary replacing prejudice (or self interest) for objective reason. An apoligist doesn't argue in defense of a single action, but in defense of a doctrine or an institution. It's tends to be used pejoratively in debates.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 12:32 PM

Often wrong, never in doubt, always self-righteous.

Edgy DC Jan 23 2006 12:35 PM

By the way, I certainly think it's possible we could see Heilman start off the season getting crappy innings, if only because number six starters (if that's what he is) tend to be kept in reserve (so they're fresh when needed to start), but if the need arises in the bullpen before the starting rotation (and I only hope that Jorge Julio could live up to a name like Mediocrity Personified), Heilman will likely be thrown deeper into the breach a lot quicker than last season. So, yeah, I guess your scenario could happen. I'm skeptical though.

Elster88 Jan 23 2006 12:52 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: It makes my morning, Rot, to see Edgy pulling his passive-aggressive, tone-correcting, schoolmarmish, superior behavior with posters other than myself. Just to stir the pot a little more....I admit to not having read thoroughly lately, but I can't remember Edgy directing a single post at you in at least the past six months. Probably been longer.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 23 2006 01:18 PM

Love the story idea, Bret. What about a player who is such a kinky bastard, so sexually deviant, that he freaks her the hell out? Get to work on it NOW!!!

Rotblatt Jan 23 2006 01:28 PM

] Well, if your point was to inquire "How much do you want to bet that Willie would use Heilman for mop-up duty for the first three months again, sending Mediocrity Personified out in the 7th & 8th in the form of Sanchez & Julio?" then I want to know if you seriously believe that, because I don't think there's any indication of Heilman heading for mopup duty. Now, if this situation can't be established without the hypothetical trade happening first, then so be it. But I don't think we're going to see three months of mopup duty for Heilman under any circumstances. No, see, you're still missing my point (and possibly the word "would" in the sentence you quoted, which should create a dependece on the hypothetical I established in the preceding sentence). Anyway, I wasn't seriously predicting how much Heilman will be used (although if you're interested, I do have a prediction in the "Predict 2006 for Seo, Heilman & Benson" thread), but using the proposed acquisition of Weaver, which some have proposed here, to illuminate just how inept I think Willie is. Maybe this is clearer: Willie is so inept at bullpen management that if we signed Weaver, I'm willing to bet that he'd not only take Heilman out of the rotation, he'd put him behind Julio & Sanchez on the depth chart. ]No. If I defend a cop who is accused of using un-necessary force, I'm a guy making an argument. If I defend said cop, because I always defend cops in such situations, I'm an apologist for the police department. The latter case assumes the person is a reactionary replacing prejudice (or self interest) for objective reason. An apoligist doesn't argue in defense of a single action, but in defense of a doctrine or an institution. It's tends to be used pejoratively in debates. I see. Well, no offense, but you're wrong. The word "apologist" can and is used to describe defenders of individual actions. And, in fact, that's exactly how I used it when I said: "Most of the apologists of this trade seem to think it's is the precursor to signing a starting pitcher." I mean, isn't it pretty clear that I'm not calling anyone a blanket apologist in that sentence? Since I, you know, call them apologists of a specific action? Now, if I had said, "Most of the Apologists seem to think the trade is a precusor to signing a starting pitcher," I could see getting a little upset, since there's just no reason to bring religion into an honest sports debate . . .

Yancy Street Gang Jan 23 2006 01:37 PM

From the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language SYLLABICATION: a·pol·o·gist PRONUNCIATION: -pl-jst NOUN: A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

Edgy DC Jan 23 2006 01:50 PM

]Willie is so inept at bullpen management that if we signed Weaver, I'm willing to bet that he'd not only take Heilman out of the rotation, he'd put him behind Julio & Sanchez on the depth chart. And I'm thinking that that's unlikely, and I'm missing nothing. And for somebody who is wrong, I pretty much nailed the definition posted.

Edgy DC Jan 23 2006 02:03 PM

Who, by the way, are the alleged apologists?

cooby Jan 23 2006 02:55 PM

I think this trade has generated more discussion than Piazza's non contract. I'm really kind of puzzled as to why.

Elster88 Jan 23 2006 02:58 PM

Maybe not, if you factor in all of the talk starting from offseason 2004-2005. Piazza's possibilities for this offseason were beaten into the ground by May.

cooby Jan 23 2006 03:03 PM

Nope, I'm talking about the non-move itself. You've got a feller who barely broke .500 in winning percentage in his TWO PARTIAL YEARS here vs a franchise player and there's about 10 threads running here on the former, on a forum where that is frowned upon. Not chastising anyone, I just honestly don't get it

Rotblatt Jan 23 2006 03:25 PM

]And I'm thinking that that's unlikely, and I'm missing nothing. Okey dokey, smokey. So when you said this ]Really? This trade, whatever it's other traits, appears to have opened a door for Heilman. You really think it's about shutting the door on him? That was related to my point about Wilie's ineptitude . . . how? Or how about when you said this a few posts later: ]Well, if your point was to inquire "How much do you want to bet that Willie would use Heilman for mop-up duty for the first three months again, sending Mediocrity Personified out in the 7th & 8th in the form of Sanchez & Julio?" then I want to know if you seriously believe that, because I don't think there's any indication of Heilman heading for mopup duty. You didn't get my point, or if you did, you didn't bother to address it. Maybe you get it now, although it's hard to tell, since your, "I think that's unlikely" statement also doesn't address any of my main points. I mean, are you saying it's unlikely that we'll sign Weaver? Or that it's unlikely that if we DID sign Weaver, Willie would move Heilman to the pen? Or that if we signed Weaver & moved Heilman to the pen, he wouldn't be behind Julio & Sanchez? You've about 4 responses to my posts, but none of them have shed any light on any issues I've brought up. ]And for somebody who is wrong, I pretty much nailed the definition posted. Ah, yes, because: ]An apoligist doesn't argue in defense of a single action. dovetails perfectly with: ]A person who argues in defense or justification of something Well done. I think the only person to nail anything was Bret. Arguing with you is infuriating. I mean, you haven't said anything meaningful on any of the topics I tried to raise. And I'm still bewildered about how "Most of the apologists of this trade seem to think it's is the precursor to signing a starting pitcher" offended you.

Edgy DC Jan 23 2006 03:57 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 23 2006 06:25 PM

Arguing with me is infuriating. Good, stop. I'm not really arguing much of anything. I asked you a question. If the answer is no, fine. Say so and leave it, I don't care. ]That was related to my point about Wilie's ineptitude . . . how? It was related to your point that you would concude that after the hypothetical trade, you imagine Heilman would end up at the back of the bullpen pitching mopup innings for three months. ]You didn't get my point, or if you did, you didn't bother to address it. I quoted you and asked you a question about it. ]I mean, are you saying it's unlikely that we'll sign Weaver? Or that it's unlikely that if we DID sign Weaver, Willie would move Heilman to the pen? Or that if we signed Weaver & moved Heilman to the pen, he wouldn't be behind Julio & Sanchez? I think it's clear that I'm saying that if the team signed Weaver, and moved Heilman to the pen, he wouldn't be pitching all that much mopup. ]You've about 4 responses to my posts, but none of them have shed any light on any issues I've brought up. How about that last comment? ]Quote: And for somebody who is wrong, I pretty much nailed the definition posted. Ah, yes, because: Quote: An apoligist doesn't argue in defense of a single action. dovetails perfectly with: Quote: A person who argues in defense or justification of something Well done. You cut the definition in the middle of a sentence.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 23 2006 04:36 PM

="Edgy DC"] ] I'm thinking that that's unlikely, and I'm missing nothing. Shouldn't he be banned from using the word "unlikely" ever again? Elster--He hasn't responded to a post of mine since shortly after he described my (dead-accurate) predictions for Piazza's 2004 season as "unlikely." Rather than 'fess up and admit that maybe my opinion wasn't quite as loony as he'd maintained, he preferred picking fight after tedious fight after never-ending fight with me, and then suddenly (when he found he was getting as good as he was giving) just began treating my posts as non-existent. The tactic was perfectly fine with me (I think I invented it, in fact, with Ms. Met--drove her clinically insane, as I recall, though I'm not sure how you'd tell the difference) because now I'm spared the time-wasting posts getting him to admit that water is wet, and that up is higher than down. Once in a while, some poor soul like Rotblatt walks into his passive-aggressive traps, and I try to lend a word of support on such occasions. but, long answer short, I've been dead to my former friend and partner for maybe a year now. Funny and sad, both at the same time. metsmarathon Jan 23 2006 05:21 PM Hillbilly wrote: I was a surprised to see this deal, especially in addition to the Seo trade. But if you compare the current starting staff to last year’s staff, the pitching suddenly doesn’t look that bad. Opening Day 2004. 1. Pedro 2. Glavine 3. Benson 4. Zambrano 5. Ishii Projected for 2005. 1. Pedro 2. Glavine 3. Zambrano 4. Trachsel 5. Heilman Which is the better staff? I actually think it is very close, and if Heilman takes a(nother) step forward, this year’s staff will likely be improved. Problem is depth beyond these 5 guys. The 2006 staff will have a greatly improved bullpen. At first I thought that trading Benson would be a prelude to adding Zito or Weaver. But after some reflection I don’t think that’s the case. I think its faith (investment) in Heilman to further progress this year. the 2006 staff looks even better if i call heilmann my #3, trax my 4, and zambrano my 5, which is how i have them rated in my head. i think i'm teh apologist y'all are hating... old original jb Jan 23 2006 06:23 PM Explanation to Cooby Maybe it's the Edgy/Sal thing that has people posting on these threads, but I feel that people are up in arms because they are more worried about the pitching than about who plays catcher, and despite a flurry of trades, both starting pitching and the pen are still a big question mark. Piazza's offense and ability to play far into the season was declining anyway. The offense he provided has been replaced at other spots in the lineup. His defensive catching skills have been replaced too. A It is amediocre (after Pedro) starting rotation that is giving fans the heebee jeebees, and the plan of stocking up on promising but questionable hard throwing right handed relievers in exchange for excess starters just doesnt seem to make much sense. We still don't have enough left handed middle relief so after all this, the pen is still not complete. The irrational part, to me, is decrying these trades as bad by thinking that the current crew of starters is necessarily any worse than the prior crew. But maybe that's what rankles so much; the starting rotation seems to be mired in mediocrity, no matter which of seven or eight pitchers land in the five starting spots. We had all these starters, and yet there seems to be no way to parlay them into something really great. As a certified Omar apologist, I will say that the reason for this conundrum is not Omar's alleged stupidity, but that none of the pitchers involved were all that great to begin with. Seo and Heilman have both the biggest upsides but also the greatest chances to fail. The rest are either total question marks or utter mediocrities. For what it's worth, I'd have been happiest with Seo and Heilman both starting, Zambrano AND Benson traded, and either Jorge Julio or Duaner Sanchez playing the role of excess right handed disgruntled setup man. I will conclude by saying that a mediocre rotation with one ace is far better than what many teams have--and as a certified Omar apologist, I will add that if he hadn't been able to sign that ace and without Omar's apparently superior salesmanship and reduced fecklessness (compared to prior administrations) we would probably be looking at a four year rebuilding job without Delgado, Wagner, or Beltran on board. TheOldMole Jan 23 2006 06:25 PM ] ="Edgy DC"] Quote: I'm thinking that that's unlikely, and I'm missing nothing. Shouldn't he be banned from using the word "unlikely" ever again? I think that would be unlikely. Johnny Dickshot Jan 23 2006 07:00 PM Nice post jb. KC Jan 23 2006 07:08 PM >>>Rather than 'fess up and admit that maybe my opinion wasn't quite as loony as he'd maintained, he preferred picking fight after tedious fight after never-ending fight with me, and then suddenly (when he found he was getting as good as he was giving) just began treating my posts as non-existent.<<< I don't think this fairly sums up what went down. You really frame it to make edge sound like a real bastardly prick and often it was you were the bastardly prick in the history of this small community. I find this fued to be terribly stressful and unecessary. It maikes me physically ill sometimes when this stuff flairs up. ILL. Nymr83 Jan 23 2006 08:21 PM Re: Explanation to Cooby old original jb wrote: Maybe it's the Edgy/Sal thing that has people posting on these threads, but I feel that people are up in arms because they are more worried about the pitching than about who plays catcher, and despite a flurry of trades, both starting pitching and the pen are still a big question mark. Piazza's offense and ability to play far into the season was declining anyway. The offense he provided has been replaced at other spots in the lineup. His defensive catching skills have been replaced too. A Exactly. Piazza is gone (in the sense that he can't sign til may 1st and even if he could he's not the player he used to be.) There would be no point in getting too mad about who is catching because all the candidates were varying degrees of mediocrity, there simply is no Piazza-type out there. ] It is amediocre (after Pedro) starting rotation that is giving fans the heebee jeebees, and the plan of stocking up on promising but questionable hard throwing right handed relievers in exchange for excess starters just doesnt seem to make much sense. We still don't have enough left handed middle relief so after all this, the pen is still not complete. agreed. first of all, slightly above average starters are much harder to find (IMO) than slightly abve average relievers. I and others (i think Elster for one would agree) are against trading quality starting pitching for anything but an elite reliever just on principle. While i'd change my mind if we had 8 or 9 starters and no relievers cutting it down from 7 starters to 6 wasn't a great idea, cutting it down to 5 is a downright bad idea imo unless those 5 resemble a braves staff from the mid-90's. ] The irrational part, to me, is decrying these trades as bad by thinking that the current crew of starters is necessarily any worse than the prior crew. But maybe that's what rankles so much; the starting rotation seems to be mired in mediocrity, no matter which of seven or eight pitchers land in the five starting spots. We had all these starters, and yet there seems to be no way to parlay them into something really great. we had 7 starters and i'd say 1 is great, 3 were solid, and 3 were suspect in one way or another, now we have 5 and we traded a solid one and the best suspect, if anyone gets hurt you'll be getting an introduction to Brian Bannister, i don't think thats a good thing. ] As a certified Omar apologist, I will say that the reason for this conundrum is not Omar's alleged stupidity, but that none of the pitchers involved were all that great to begin with. Seo and Heilman have both the biggest upsides but also the greatest chances to fail. The rest are either total question marks or utter mediocrities. fine, then don't trade them. there was no reason not to go into the year with heilman pitching the 8th and zambrano in long relief to solve the rotation glut. everyone wants pitching in june and july, i'd bet benson gets you more then and so does Seo if he shows good stuff again. ] For what it's worth, I'd have been happiest with Seo and Heilman both starting, Zambrano AND Benson traded, and either Jorge Julio or Duaner Sanchez playing the role of excess right handed disgruntled setup man. i'd have been happiest trading only zambrano, i think with the age of the rotation and the question marks it makes total sense to keep 6 guys around, especially when you arent getting something significant for dealing 2 of them. ] I will conclude by saying that a mediocre rotation with one ace is far better than what many teams have--and as a certified Omar apologist, I will add that if he hadn't been able to sign that ace and without Omar's apparently superior salesmanship and reduced fecklessness (compared to prior administrations) we would probably be looking at a four year rebuilding job without Delgado, Wagner, or Beltran on board. I'll conclude that the rotation a month ago was better than it is now, and thats the whole point of anger at the trades. Delgado allegedly didn't sign last year BECAUSE of omar, Beltran was thrown way more dough than anyone else was offering. Zvon Jan 23 2006 08:23 PM ahhhhhh, the passion of the Met fan. Personally, I think Anna Benson put one of those "Youll rue the day you traded me!" voodo hex curses on all Met fans. She's a witch, I tell ya. ScarletKnight41 Jan 23 2006 08:43 PM Zvon wrote: She's a witch, I tell ya. How do you know? Zvon Jan 23 2006 10:00 PM ScarletKnight41 wrote: ="Zvon"] She's a witch, I tell ya. How do you know? cause .... she turned me into a newt! :) ScarletKnight41 Jan 23 2006 10:11 PM <staring at you blankly> Zvon Jan 23 2006 10:13 PM ScarletKnight41 wrote: <staring at you blankly> ....................................I got better. ScarletKnight41 Jan 23 2006 10:23 PM ;) DocTee Jan 23 2006 11:57 PM Anyone have access to what peeps in Bal'mo are saying? I'm curious what their impression of this deal is. Edgy DC Jan 24 2006 12:20 AM Tony is pissed. Death to the mods. (Best handle in that thread: TejadaTheyFall.) Frobby went sour on Maine. He seceded from Maine, or... whatever. Olehippi says he was rushed. BigBird has a connection on the inside. The Sun says that Mazzone hearts Benson. Sapper says peeps are hypocrites for not jumping after fellow Benson Buncer Lowe. Initial reaction was mixed, but my initial read is more positive than negative. (The thread is over ten pages.) I like the fear that Julio could turn into Benitez. Edgy DC Jan 24 2006 12:29 AM ]How can anyone be 'sad' to see Julio leave? His fastball gets straighter every year. He gets visibly shaken everytime he gives up a hit. He has no good pitches, just one hard one. I will go help him pack his bags if he needs a hand. FruitLoopKid Bret Sabermetric Jan 24 2006 06:00 AM KC wrote: >>>Rather than 'fess up and admit that maybe my opinion wasn't quite as loony as he'd maintained, he preferred picking fight after tedious fight after never-ending fight with me, and then suddenly (when he found he was getting as good as he was giving) just began treating my posts as non-existent.<<< I don't think this fairly sums up what went down. You really frame it to make edge sound like a real bastardly prick and often it was you were the bastardly prick in the history of this small community. I find this fued to be terribly stressful and unecessary. It maikes me physically ill sometimes when this stuff flairs up. ILL. I think we've both been pricks from time to time, maybe me more than Edgy. I think the sentences you quoted, though, as are as accurate as memory allows, though I respect those who remember differently. For those who want to blame St. Edgy's persecution on me, I have to wonder if they also enjoy his tone with Rotblatt in this thread, or other posters from time to time, where he indulges in the same prickly, needlessly difficult baiting and parsing of terms and irrelevant nit-picking and far-fetched analogies and incessant harsh criticism and literalization of anyone else's analogies and other debating devices designed to frustrate St. Edgy's interloquitor rather than to further the discussion. Sorry to cause you stress. I was trying to answer Elster's question to me. I'll try not to discuss this topic in the future without a direct question before me. KC Jan 24 2006 06:46 AM Lol, yes our recollection of past events is very different. I'm not blaming Edgy's persecution on anyone, or even acknowledging that such a thing exists. Let's try and move on, for the fifty-sixth time. Bret Sabermetric Jan 24 2006 07:40 AM KC wrote: Lol, yes our recollection of past events is very different. I'm not blaming Edgy's persecution on anyone, or even acknowledging that such a thing exists. Let's try and move on, for the fifty-sixth time. So moved. I've written the first few pages of my story, which has set a new record for me: the word "fuck" ("fucked," actually) appears five words into the story, the closest to the beginning it has ever made its appearance in my work. "By the time I'd fucked half of my husband's teammates, I was reconsidering my vow. Not my wedding vows--Teddy and I were going to stay married to each other despite anyone's infidelities--but my vow to have sex with each and every one of his teammates, including coaches, managers and the training staff, if Teddy ever slept with another woman." And so on, for several pages so far. I like her voice, this Anna I've invented (a movie star, rather than a model, and far more articulate than, I think, than Anna is, though just as scatterbrained and loopy.) It's kind of fun, and a little creeepy, trying to think how Anna thinks. MFS62 Jan 24 2006 09:32 AM Is it easier to think how someone else thinks or write like someone else writes? Or is it the same thing? After writing song parodies on another board, someone asked me if I could write prose/ text in the styles of other writers. As a result, I've written pieces (with baseball themes) in the styles of: Anne Rice Star Trek (actually 8 of them) Mickey Spillaine Law and Order Charles Dickens Ian Flemming I've posted many of them here. The most difficult problem before you is probably the fact that you've used "Anna Benson" and "think" in the same sentence. :) Later Elster88 Jan 24 2006 09:50 AM ]We still don't have enough left handed middle relief so after all this, the pen is still not complete. Amazing isn't it? You'd think that after trading two starting pitchers almost exclusively for bullpen help (have to say "almost, or I'd get killed for not acknowledging our new stud prospects) we'd be able to fashion a complete bullpen. HappyRecap Jan 24 2006 01:39 PM not a complete pen Having read a lot of the posts on this topic, I sincerely hope the pen is not the group that will be heading north to NY in April. Maybe Minaya has some tinkering (really liked DickShot's trade idea from this past Saturday where we landed Zito) to do but outside of Wagner there doesn't seem to be guys who have a long track record for success. Then again, guys like Bell, Fortunato, Ring, Feliciano, etc...are all still here (I think) and maybe one of these guys will step up and be a season-long contributor. abogdan Jan 24 2006 01:44 PM ]The irrational part, to me, is decrying these trades as bad by thinking that the current crew of starters is necessarily any worse than the prior crew. But maybe that's what rankles so much; the starting rotation seems to be mired in mediocrity, no matter which of seven or eight pitchers land in the five starting spots. The current crew isn't worse, but at least when you have 7 to 8 "mediocre" starters, you have a better chance that one or two of them well put together above average seasons and be valuable contributors. Or, if one or two of them decline, you have someone to jump in and pitch mediocrely (just made that word up). If Seo or Trachsel sucked, there was Zambrano and Heilman waiting in the wings to step in and replace their crappy innings with mediocre ones. Now, if Zambrano and/or Heilman take a step backwards, there isn't anyone that the Mets can plug in and reasonably expect to be any sort of improvement. Edgy DC Jan 24 2006 01:52 PM I agree with you and try to oft say that redundancy is a good thing. they played off a lot of redundancy and that leaves me worried that the season is one broken finger or two blisters from breaking. G-FaFiF summed up the rotation like this: Pedro (toe), Glavine (age), Trachsel (rust), Zambrano (Zambrano) and...Heilman? This year, for better or worse, the Mets will be looking for the redundancy to come initially from Bannister, Soler, Maine and Iriki (I hear the music now) and maybe others in the second half. I guess we live in fear. I am glad the Mets got a prospect of sorts back. Johnny Dickshot Jan 24 2006 01:54 PM ]Iriki (I hear the music now) Iriki, you're so fine You're so fine you blow my mind Iriki (clap-stomp, stomp-clap) Iriki Elster88 Jan 24 2006 01:56 PM ]Zambrano (Zambrano) LOL. rpackrat Jan 24 2006 02:02 PM I disagree that the rotation is mediocre. In fact, I'll go so far as to predict that the Mets' starters will end up in the top 5 in the league in ERA+. That said, the Seo and Benson (and Cameron) trades were bad trades. Any time you get back less talent than you give up, it's a bad trade. If Omar had a little more patience, he could probably have filled his bullpen needs and gotten more (e.g., prospects or useful role players) as well. Frayed Knot Jan 24 2006 02:34 PM I think the "impatient" label applies better to the Cameron deal but less so to the others. The Benson trade in particular was months in the making and apprently went back and forth over the inclusion of a prospect. In the Benson & Seo cases, I think Omar believes: - that Julio's "power arm" means he's going to be better than his recent record shows - that the 'odd men out' were those two to remain in the rotation: most likely Heilman and Zambrano; will do at least as good a job and for considerably less money - that there's sufficient backup even beyond the new back-end guys (Maine, Bannister, Soler, Iriki) so that the rotation won't be in danger - and that the imported bullpen guys (Julio, Bradford, Sanchez) are better bets and were neccessary over the in-house wannabes: Ring, Bell, Fortunato, etc. Time will tell how all these bets turn out.