Master Index of Archived Threads


Aggressive Omar

A Boy Named Seo Jan 26 2006 12:55 AM

Seeing Piazza and Molina both without employment with pitchers and catchers just a few weeks away made me want to check out the "[url=http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=1523&highlight=catcher+2006]Catcher 2006[/url]" thread again. Can't fault Omar for striking quickly on Delgado or Wagner, but looking at the timeline of events as far as catchers go, the LoDuca choice looks even more peculiar to me as a little time's passed. I think everybody seemed to agree that he got impatient with Molina and Hernandez both, but there never seemed to be a report of a Met offer to ether actually being rejected. Was there? I didn't see one in the thread and I don't specifically remember that happening. Of the handful of catchers available, LoDuca ended up being the first domino to fall. What irks me most, I guess, is now hearing rumors of Piazza and a few mils for one year, and the Dodgers and Blue Jays offering a single year to Benji, as well. Here's the timeline as it looked to me in the thread. Nov 1 - Mets contact Molina's agent Nov 11 - Mets meet agents for both Molina and Hernandez Nov 21 - LoDuca's name comes up for the first time Nov 22 - LoDuca's talked about again and so is Toby Hall. Seo and Anderson Herndandez's names are mentioned. Nov 25 - Omar offers similar contracts to Benji and Hernandez Nov 28 - Toby Hall's name mentioned again Dec 4- Mets trade for LoDuca Dec 7 - Estrada traded to AZ for 2 pitchers Dec 8 - Hernandez signs 4/27 with Baltimore Omar's made a couple of strange trades, but looking back, this one weirds me out the most. Did he overestimate the number of suitors for these guys? Get impatient at the inactivity? Just have an itchy trigger finger? All of the above? Who and what?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 26 2006 02:58 AM

Hate being an Omar-apologist, but one meme offered is that you may be confusing cause with effect. I.e., snapping up Lo Duca when he did cut down on the number of bidders expected in the "Looking-for-catchers" market so sharply, no one is ready to bid at anything close to the rates everybody was expecting. So everyone's stuck in place.

Rotblatt Jan 26 2006 07:58 AM

That's a good point, BS, but it's hard not to wonder what might have happened. I mean, Molina & Piazza are still out there and Molina's making noise about taking a year off if he can't get the money he thinks he deserves--how desperate is that? And Piazza apparently offered his services to the Yankees for $2M as a backup catcher/DH--and got turned down! Someone's going to get great deals on Molina and Piazza and I'm kind of bummed that we're stuck with LoDuca at $12.5M over 2 instead. Especially since we gave up a promising prospect for him. At the time, I think I was indifferent to the trade, but that's back when I expected Hernandez to sign for 4 years, $32M & Molina to sign for 3 years, $24M. And I still held the faintest glimmer of hope that we'd turn LoDuca and someone else into Vazquez (at the time, Arizona was interested in LoDuca.). Anyway, I can't really blame Omar for the trade, as it seemed okay to me at the time, but in hindsight, we probably should have waited.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 26 2006 08:17 AM

The Mets should at least think about signing Molina and dealing LoDuca.

seawolf17 Jan 26 2006 08:21 AM

You know? I hadn't thought of that, Yancy, but that's not outside the realm of possibility. I know LoDuca's a nice player, but he's certainly expendable. I don't know that I love Molina, but if he'll come cheaply for a year...

Yancy Street Gang Jan 26 2006 08:23 AM

And it would make the Mets more Hispanic!

Elster88 Jan 26 2006 09:26 AM

Rotblatt wrote: That's a good point, BS, but it's hard not to wonder what might have happened. I mean, Molina & Piazza are still out there and Molina's making noise about taking a year off if he can't get the money he thinks he deserves--how desperate is that? And Piazza apparently offered his services to the Yankees for $2M as a backup catcher/DH--and got turned down! Someone's going to get great deals on Molina and Piazza and I'm kind of bummed that we're stuck with LoDuca at $12.5M over 2 instead. Especially since we gave up a promising prospect for him. At the time, I think I was indifferent to the trade, but that's back when I expected Hernandez to sign for 4 years, $32M & Molina to sign for 3 years, $24M. And I still held the faintest glimmer of hope that we'd turn LoDuca and someone else into Vazquez (at the time, Arizona was interested in LoDuca.). Anyway, I can't really blame Omar for the trade, as it seemed okay to me at the time, but in hindsight, we probably should have waited. I think this probably could've gone into the Catcher thread, at least my comments are the same as there. The LoDuca move is one I give Omar a ton of credit for. As BS said, he cut off the game free agents play. Molina and Hernandez had a week to consider the offer, and didn't say one way or the other. They obviously wanted to play the game of running to another team to get a slightly better offer, then running back to the Mets, etc. The availability of LoDuca helped Omar avoid all that crap.

Frayed Knot Jan 26 2006 09:34 AM

Keep in mind also that Piazza never really was an option here unless he were to agree to a cut-rate deal for part-time action before all these other permutations played themselves out! The arbi-cutoff date forced that decision to be made early and, at that point, MP certainly wasn't going to give away all his other options to wind up with a deal (assuming the NYM actually offered him something) which is only now probably not looking so bad to him. It was mentioned in another thread that the Mets likely did with Piazza the same as they did with Leiter; offer them deals they would likely refuse: Yes, and it was the proper move in both cases. I didn't love the LoDuca deal, but it was better option than agreeing to 4/$32 for Molina IMO and playing the waiting game turned out to be a much worse decision for Molina than it did for Omar.

Elster88 Jan 26 2006 09:37 AM

It made me crack up when Molina was complaining shortly after the Mets got LoDuca. He was talking about his lack of options and said something like he really thought he was coming to New York. Well then why didn't you respond to their offer, jackass?

metirish Jan 26 2006 09:40 AM

Yeah he really dropped the ball on this did Molina,with 3 weeks to ST and he's still not signed, and I 'm kinda happy that the Mets didn't get him, he's old and fatish, LoDuca will do the biz I think.

duan Jan 26 2006 09:58 AM

seriously would anyone have a problem bringing Piazza back but only playing from May 1st. I wouldn't.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 26 2006 10:01 AM

I'd be fine with that.

Frayed Knot Jan 26 2006 10:07 AM

To do what ... pinch hit occasionally and DH 9 times a year? 3 catchers are rarely a good idea and 3 who all prolly think they should be starting 5 days a week is even worse. Plus only LoDuca can really play eslewhere (1st) and it's not like we're looking for ways to sit Delgado down more often.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 26 2006 10:07 AM

Let's just make sure we show him the proper respect by paying him a lot of money for a really, really long time. He meant so much to this organization, he deserves at least that token of gratitude. And of course a spot high up in the batting order. And his choice of positions.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 26 2006 10:09 AM

Pinch hit, DH, catch occasionally. If the price was right (a big if), I'd be comfortable with that.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 26 2006 10:10 AM

He's not going to be available on May 1.

MFS62 Jan 26 2006 11:42 AM

Elster88 wrote: It made me crack up when Molina was complaining shortly after the Mets got LoDuca. He was talking about his lack of options and said something like he really thought he was coming to New York. Well then why didn't you respond to their offer, jackass? Maybe he thinks slower than he runs. Later

Vic Sage Jan 26 2006 12:07 PM

I didn't like the LoDuca deal at the time, and i don't like it now. Its the same kind of deal Minaya has often made since day 1. In order to sign big $ FAs (Martinez, Beltran, Wagner), Freddie Morebucks makes Omar dump salary. Because god forbid we should have a payroll commensurate with our marketplace. So we trade Cameron away for Nady, and Benson for Julio, and we trade for LoDuca because he'll be cheaper than Hernandez or Molina (so he thought) The Delgado deal was basically a FA signing, a year late, that cost us top prospects. Seo was not a $ deal... it was either a personality conflict (Peterson didn't want him) and/or just plain stupid. Now he's trying to move Matsui and as much of his $$ as possible, in order to play... who? Keppinger? Anderson? Does that really make us better at 2b, or is it just a matter of reducing our expenses at that position (e.g., even if we only move $2m of matsui's deal, Keppinger makes the minimum)? Frankly, the signing of Randolph struck me as a $$ move, too, with Leyland and other options being more expensive for Freddie Morebucks. We need another frontline SPer, and we need one now. And we need one without giving up Milledge. Anybody else is expendable.

Elster88 Jan 26 2006 03:10 PM

Milledge, our right fielder of the future.

RealityChuck Jan 26 2006 03:34 PM

Vic Sage wrote: In order to sign big $ FAs (Martinez, Beltran, Wagner), Freddie Morebucks makes Omar dump salary. Because god forbid we should have a payroll commensurate with our marketplace. So we trade Cameron away for Nady, And the fact that Cameron demanded the trade has nothing to do with it? ]and Benson for Julio, And Benson being ineffective wasn't a factor? ]and we trade for LoDuca because he'll be cheaper than Hernandez or Molina (so he thought) And just as good. So why is that bad? ]The Delgado deal was basically a FA signing, a year late, that cost us top prospects. A FA who flat out refused to sign with the Mets, even though they gave him a better offer than the Marlins. How is missing that Moreno's fault? ]Now he's trying to move Matsui and as much of his $$ as possible, in order to play... who? Keppinger? Anderson? Does that really make us better at 2b, or is it just a matter of reducing our expenses at that position (e.g., even if we only move $2m of matsui's deal, Keppinger makes the minimum)? That depends on who they get for him, doesn't it? ]We need another frontline SPer, and we need one now. And we need one without giving up Milledge. Anybody else is expendable. Yes, let's rub our magic lamp and he'll appear. It's oh so easy to pick up a frontline starting player without giving up anything in return. Other GMs are happy to give up starting players if you ask them nicely.

seawolf17 Jan 26 2006 03:35 PM

RealityChuck wrote: Other GMs are happy to give up starting players if you ask them nicely. Why not? Ours does.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 26 2006 03:36 PM

Cameron demanded a trade? Benson was ineffective? LoDuca is as good as Hernandez?

seawolf17 Jan 26 2006 03:39 PM

Yeah, what Yancy said. I forgot to include those points in my thread. I don't know that Cameron was in any rush to get out of here. Benson went 10-8 last year; not Cy Young numbers, but certainly better than average, and far from ineffective. LoDuca is nice, but he's not quite Ramon Hernandez. edit: Plus, I like the fact that you referred to Omar Minaya as Omar Moreno. Funny.

rpackrat Jan 26 2006 04:31 PM

Cameron didn't demand a trade, but he did let it be known that he wanted to play CF again. I don't like that trade, either, but I'll bet Cameron's happy about it.

Vic Sage Jan 27 2006 12:07 PM

]And the fact that Cameron demanded the trade has nothing to do with it? no, it didn't. first, we don't know that he did; secondly, if he did, he can demand whatever he wants but the gm doesn't have to do it; third, even if he demanded it, and even if the Mets were inclined to just give him what he wanted, the TIMING of the deal (with Damon still in play) practically guaranteed that the Mets wouldn't get back as much in value as they could've. What would the bosox give for cameron after losing damon? more than nady, i'd wager. no, we moved cameron, and moved him when we did, to make $ room for Wagner. period. ]And Benson being ineffective wasn't a factor? he wasn't ineffective. he was an adequate 3rd starter. we just have a cheaper option available in Heilman. ] ]and we trade for LoDuca because he'll be cheaper than Hernandez or Molina (so he thought) And just as good. So why is that bad? Because (1) Loduca is NOT just as good as Hernandez, and (2) even if they were equivalent, we had to give up top prospects (not just money) to get him. After LoDuca's first season (an excellent one), he's been a barely adequate receiver with a good BA and no power or run production. At age 34, he's at the stage where decline is imminent and ANY decline would take him from "barely adequate" to "totally suck" pretty damn quick. Ramon Hernandez has power and is defensively sound, and has a MUCH higher upside, and is significantly younger, still in his prime. and he may've cost $2m/yr more, but he would've improved the team more, and saved us valuable prospects. ] ]Now he's trying to move Matsui and as much of his $$ as possible, in order to play... who? Keppinger? Anderson? Does that really make us better at 2b, or is it just a matter of reducing our expenses at that position (e.g., even if we only move $2m of matsui's deal, Keppinger makes the minimum)? That depends on who they get for him, doesn't it? Of course it does, but if they move him for a spare part or prospect, with the intent of turning the position over to Keppinger or Anderson (or god forbid, Boone), then its another $$ dumping move, because even Matsui's mediocre-to-crappy production last 2 years are at least equal to what Kepp or Anderson could reasonably be expected to produce this year as the Mets' 2Bman. ] ]The Delgado deal was basically a FA signing, a year late, that cost us top prospects. A FA who flat out refused to sign with the Mets, even though they gave him a better offer than the Marlins. How is missing that Moreno's fault? i didn't say it was his fault. i was simply suggesting the delgado deal is best understood in the category of Omar's "fa signings", rather than trades, because, though it is an atypical trade for him where we were taking on rather than dumping salary, it was a deal for a player that they had already made a significant FA bid to get, at the price they were willing to pay (now plus prospects) with a team that was in the process of dumping its entire roster. And once Omar wants a guy, once there is blood in the water, he seems to become single-minded. Which is sometimes good, sometimes not (if its the wrong player). ] ]We need another frontline SPer, and we need one now. And we need one without giving up Milledge. Anybody else is expendable. Yes, let's rub our magic lamp and he'll appear. It's oh so easy to pick up a frontline starting player without giving up anything in return. Other GMs are happy to give up starting players if you ask them nicely.

No, its not easy. In fact, its damn hard. So when Omar makes $$-driven deals (Cameron, Benson, Loduca), or just plain stupid ones (Seo), we lose the bargaining chips it requires to OBTAIN a top SPer without having to resort to losing our top prospect.

we needed a frontline SPer even before we gave away benson and seo for mediocre relievers, but now the need is even MORE pressing but, with Omar's deals having stripped us of chips we could've used, i'm deeply concerned he will use Milledge in a deal to get one, since we've nothing else of value to offer.

rpackrat Jan 27 2006 02:22 PM

]Because (1) Loduca is NOT just as good as Hernandez, and (2) even if they were equivalent, we had to give up top prospects (not just money) to get him. After LoDuca's first season (an excellent one), he's been a barely adequate receiver with a good BA and no power or run production. At age 34, he's at the stage where decline is imminent and ANY decline would take him from "barely adequate" to "totally suck" pretty damn quick. Ramon Hernandez has power and is defensively sound, and has a MUCH higher upside, and is significantly younger, still in his prime. and he may've cost $2m/yr more, but he would've improved the team more, and saved us valuable prospects. That's a pretty extreme overstatement in a number of ways. First, LoDuca is far better tha barely adequate. He ranked 8th among NL catchers in OPS last year (350 or more ABs), and managed that while playing his home games in the third-toughest hitter's park in the league. His defensive reputation is good. It's true that Hernandez would not have cost prospects, but he would have cost a draft pick. I'm not sure that there's that much difference in value between a well-regarded minor league pitcher and a high draft pick. I don't disagree that Hernandez is a better player but, at the time of the trade, it looked like Hernandez was going to get more $ per year, and a longer deal. He did, in fact, wind up getting a little more $, and a 4 year deal. There is something to be said for the flexibility that less $ and a shorter commitment bring.

Elster88 Jan 27 2006 02:52 PM

8th out of 16 is pretty much the definition of adequate. I guess that's better than barely adequate. One point in favor of the LoDuca trade was that it curtailed the rise in price on FA catchers this year. It might've cost more for Hernandez than it did if we had gotten into a bidding battle.

Edgy DC Jan 27 2006 02:59 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 27 2006 03:15 PM

Depending on whether he gets bumped up a notch or two if you buy packrat's claim that he's "good" defensively (rpackrat's word, and I assume he means that LoDuca is above average among those sixteen), and for playing in the "third-toughest hitter's park in the league." I don't know that his argument bears out, but if it does, I'd guess that could bump him up to fifth-seventh. Factor in that LoDuca's a Mets fan, and he's tops, baby.

KC Jan 27 2006 03:11 PM

I think PloDuke is going to shock the crap out of some roto geeks in 2006. Someone archive that.

Elster88 Jan 27 2006 03:39 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Depending on whether he gets bumped up a notch or two if you buy packrat's claim that he's "good" defensively (rpackrat's word Not too much of a bump. TORVO.

Edgy DC Jan 27 2006 03:47 PM

Hey, I'm a member (and, as such, excited (in a deptessing sense) to think a National League team my actually be challenging the Mets noiton that Piazza can't catch anymore. (I'm surmising there. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the Mets just weren't offering Piazza enough to find out, but perhaps offered him no less than the Pads are now offering.) I don't think, however, that the packster was merely talking about "defense" in terms of throwing our runners (TOR). Nor Vic, who had a seeming different opinion of LoDuca's LoDefense. But, rather, I think they both were offering a more holistic view — throwing, yes, but also gamecalling, plate-blocking, pop-gobbling, bunt-chasing, pitch-framing, ump-baiting, field-leadership — the whole damn bit. I've got to get my own argument here. I can't carry packy's forever. And I only really give any credence to this one of his three main points. (On edit: Those were Chuck's points. I'm not carrying packy's argument. He picked up Chuck's and dropped it, and now I've got it. Oh, woe.)