Master Index of Archived Threads


Our Next Trade

Johnny Dickshot Mar 11 2006 11:05 AM

Can't help but think that with Pedro iffy, Diaz/Matsui/Hernandez/Keppinger and 10 or 11 pitchers unlikely to make the cut, and perhaps, injuries slowing Floyd? Delgado? etc ... the Mets move some of the above in a deal for a starting pitcher before camp breaks. It's typical of the Mets to keep guys like Bannister and Maine on the farm at least to start the year and would perfer instead a more experienced guy. That could be J. Gonzalez or Iriki, but who here would be surprised in the least if they cast some lines for more experienced guys? Guys like... Zach Day? Daily News today: ]DAY PLANNING: The Mets have spoken with Colorado about pitcher Zach Day, but aren't willing to meet the Rockies' initial asking price of Class-A outfielder Carlos Gomez, a team source said. Day went 1-3 with a 6.85 ERA in 17 games for Washington and Colorado last season. 1. Any other candidates out there? 2. Yes/no: Is Diaz is in the org when the season starts?

Elster88 Mar 11 2006 11:26 AM

I seriously doubt there will be any more trades in the next 23 days. My guess is Diaz and Nady are both on the opening day roster.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 11 2006 12:22 PM

I envision Diaz as the victim, ultimately, of the Cameron deal. The Mets will roll the dice and swap him out for a starting pitcher (early in the year, more likely than in ST), and claim that they had too many good young outfielders. My read is that they're weak in starting outfielders, but are looking for excuses to deal Diaz off and give the X-man every chance and every AB and every inning to accumulate stats and show that they were right to deal Cameron for what they did and when they did.

seawolf17 Mar 11 2006 12:30 PM

I envision Diaz, ultimately, as a failed prospect who never quite figured out a position to play. If we can get a warm body for him, then so be it.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 11 2006 12:38 PM

First time a starting pitcher misses a start, the Mets will open the "Victor Diaz Deal" hotline. His Met future is exactly as strong as Pedro's big toe, or Trax's back, or...

DocTee Mar 11 2006 02:52 PM

With Sosa retired, the Orioles need an outfielder. maybe we could get Kristin and Anna in return?

Bret Sabermetric Mar 11 2006 04:33 PM

1-800-GOTDIAZ?

SI Metman Mar 11 2006 04:43 PM

There were a few WATP's out there with Diaz and others going to the Cards for Jason Marquis, or Diaz going to the Braves for '02 Met John Thompson. Neither are likely to happen.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 11 2006 04:56 PM

Almost any projected trade is unlikely to happen. But some do, anyway.

KC Mar 11 2006 05:45 PM

Trading Diaz to make the Cameron deal look good is a pretty goofy plot. I believe that HVAC Guy at Shea really hears the clinking of champagne glasses in the ductwork while the powers that be count the daily gate re- ceipts than I believe that the Mets (and all teams) are that calculating and deceptive to their fans, media, and other onlookers. (or that the fans, media, and most onlookers would stretch it to that level)

Bret Sabermetric Mar 11 2006 06:46 PM

I'm not suggesting there's a conspiracy to shuffle Diaz off immediately at all costs to cover the sinister plot... But the Cameron deal is one that Omar has taken a lot of heat for (deservedly, IMO) and I think he's hoping that Nady makes it big and makes him look real smart. Since Diaz is competing with Nady for playing time, I think Nady will get chances that Diaz doesn't get, and Diaz will get sent down if he has a bad spring and Nady won't (a difference in options here), and I think that Omar's not a neutral referee in this fight. he's got money on the outcome. Not to say that Diaz can't win it--if he knocks Nady out, there's not much the ref can do about it, but if it's a draw, he can see that Nady gets the decision.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 11 2006 06:53 PM

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that when I was in day camp, the brat of the group was named Nady.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 11 2006 07:06 PM

seawolf17 wrote: I envision Diaz, ultimately, as a failed prospect who never quite figured out a position to play. If we can get a warm body for him, then so be it. This is sick. Diaz is only 24, and he's got an .800 OPS in 331 MLB at-bats. Nady OTOH is over three years older than Diaz (meaning he's very likely already hit his peak) and has an OPS of .734 in 775 MLB at bats. Nady is much, much closer to the point where we give up on him as a "failed prospect" yet (for reasons outlined above, having do with Omar's CYA policy) he's being pushed for the RF job and Diaz is being pushed onto the gangplank. I don't get it, to say the least. Well, I do get it, but KC doesn't want to hear it.

Rockin' Doc Mar 11 2006 07:15 PM

Call me crazy, but the fact that Diaz plays right field like a nearsighted, third string Little Leaguer may enter into the decision. Not that Nady is a gold glove fielder, but he is most definitely better than Diaz. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 11 2006 07:19 PM

Look at these "Similar Batters through Age 26 Mike Brown (976) Bobby Kielty (975) Butch Nieman (974) Leon Roberts (970) Wes Chamberlain (969) Larry Bigbie (968) Ricky Ledee (968) Bob Chance (967) Jayson Werth (966) Ned Harris (964) Have you fucking HEARD of any of them? I've heard of three but I haven't heard anything good about them. They're Nady 's most-comparables (Diaz hasn't played enough to have sim scores, I guess, but I'd think he'd have a hellluva better bunch once he get some more ABs.). Giving Nady a job based on his performance in MLB so far is like giving yourself a pill picked at random from the shelves of the Center for Disease Control. You want to keep a trained specialist close at hand in case anything goes wrong.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 11 2006 07:37 PM

Rockin' Doc wrote: Call me crazy, but the fact that Diaz plays right field like a nearsighted, third string Little Leaguer may enter into the decision. Not that Nady is a gold glove fielder, but he is most definitely better than Diaz. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Okay. You're crazy. You do realilze that Diaz actually has a better range factor and fielding percentage in Right field than Nady, don't you? it's only a small edge, probably not statistically significant, and based on a small sample (two small samples) and I realize that you've been traumatized by actually watching Diaz, but I suspect that after you watch Nady for a while, you'll stop the myopic Little Leaguer/near-Gold Glover comparisons.

KC Mar 11 2006 07:44 PM

BS: Well, I do get it, but KC doesn't want to hear it. Why can't I just disagree with your portrayal of a professional sports GM possibly making Move C to make Move B look good or to justify Move A to save face or because he "has money" on the moves? It's not a question of what I want to hear, it's what I'm hearing in this case - I think it's a ridiculous notion by a man who hates the Mets. No new ground being broken here this evening. Everything with you is table turned that I can't even have a chance to just try and get back to some normalcy. If we ignore you, you're hurt. If we take a position against yours, you're hurt. If we're pro-Mets, we're wrong and dumb and blind and whatever. When I end posts calling you out, I'm obsessed with you - but when you do it to me it's perfectly fine. I don't get it, except that you just want to be a pain in the ass.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 11 2006 08:11 PM

="KC"]BS: Well, I do get it, but KC doesn't want to hear it. Why can't I just disagree with your portrayal of a professional sports GM possibly making Move C to make Move B look good or to justify Move A to save face or because he "has money" on the moves? It's not a question of what I want to hear, it's what I'm hearing in this case - I think it's a ridiculous notion by a man who hates the Mets. No new ground being broken here this evening. Everything with you is table turned that I can't even have a chance to just try and get back to some normalcy. If we ignore you, you're hurt. If we take a position against yours, you're hurt. If we're pro-Mets, we're wrong and dumb and blind and whatever. When I end posts calling you out, I'm obsessed with you - but when you do it to me it's perfectly fine. I don't get it, except that you just want to be a pain in the ass. You're crazier than Doc. Even when I post stuff (like the stats above) that people here aren't discussing or haven't discussed, I get called "ridiculous" and you complain "I haven't broken new ground." You want new ground? You want revolutionary stuff that's never been written on a messageboard before? For what you're paying me? OK--How's this: kjgeheihfeibeijbeibveuvbefifvbeivebfveijvb Was that new enough for you? What horseshit you're peddling. It's all about posts from "a man who hates the Mets." Nothing whatever to do with the arguments I'm making, the stats I'm bringing to people's attention, the specific criticism I'm making of Omar. No. It's all because I supposedly "hate the Mets." Why don't you just come up with a boilerplate statement. "The above was posted by a man who has lost his mind and who hates the Mets and I've got my fingers in my ears and am not listening nananananana"? I wrote that you don't want to hear it because you said so by calling my point about Omar's motivations a "goofy plot"--you don't want me to point out that you're being dismissive of me? Then don't be so dismissive. Now, for those who are listening: it's mere logic that tells you that Omar has some real self-interest in seeing Nady succeed that he doesn't have in seeing Diaz succeed. You might not buy my whole CYA policy-thing (I'd think as loyal Mets-fans you'd resist buying that one to the bitter end), but you all see it at work every day, people pushing their own ideas and downplaying others' ideas. I'm not re-inventing human nature here, just commenting on it. What's kinda rare in the workplace is when someone's self-interests are screamingly obvious, and everyone knows why he's pushing what he's pushing, and he does it anyway.

Nymr83 Mar 11 2006 08:49 PM

Minaya definetaly has self-interest in seeing Nady do well, which is why Nady is undeservedly ahead of Diaz on the depth chart to start the spring, but i see no reason to believe that will continue if Nady doesnt play well.

KC Mar 11 2006 08:59 PM

If undeservedly means makes more money and can't easily be shipped to AAA. The funny thing is, Diaz often played with his head up his ass and looked terrible in the outfield , and didn't always hustle but today he's Bret's poster child for Omar Is a Hack Foundation when he's everything he often doesn't like in a player. Whatever.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 11 2006 09:11 PM

Wouldn't you rather be going with Diaz in RF now, and Cameron traded to whoever lost the bidding for Damon (Sox/Yankees) for a starter now? Wang maybe, or Bronson Arroyo? At that point, you may not have known that Omar was planning to deal off 29% of the starting pitchers, but don't you think maybe HE might have known that at that point? Or should have? I do. Yeah, Diaz is flawed, but he's still young, so I'd roll the dice. With Nady the die has probably been cast, already, and I see the eyes of some evil serpent staring at me.

Nymr83 Mar 11 2006 09:23 PM

KC wrote: If undeservedly means makes more money and can't easily be shipped to AAA. The funny thing is, Diaz often played with his head up his ass and looked terrible in the outfield , and didn't always hustle but today he's Bret's poster child for Omar Is a Hack Foundation when he's everything he often doesn't like in a player. Whatever. yes, undeservedly DOES include "makes more money" because thats not a good reason to play someone, but what i really meant was that Diaz is the superior hitter and thats all there is to it. I don't care who bret does or does not like i just think Diaz is better than Nady and the only reason Nady is considered ahead of him is because of what the Mets gave up to get him.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 12 2006 07:00 AM

Bingo. It's amazing that Koolaid drinkers like KC buy into the Mets' line of bullshit so fiercely that they actually ask, "Don't you think, you ninny, that because the Mets have mismanaged their budget and thrown great sums of money at inferior baseball players that they should continue playing these poor baseball players ahead of their lesser-paid but more highly skilled ones? How stupid is that, to bench Kaz Matsui and Xavier Nady just because they can't play baseball so well? What kind of asshole are you, anyway?" and bbbyyy (and then wonder why people get annoyed at them. I mean, are you trying to be a pain in the ass, KC?) If they swap Diaz out for zilch this spring, and he turns out to be a good player, and Nady doesn't, the Kool-Aid drinkers will say "Couldn't be helped. Nady made more money, had fewer options," and so on, not remembering that it was the Mets, not the Lord above, who traded Cameron (after his peak value declined) for a RFer who made more money, was harder to ship down, and had less potential than Victor Diaz. Nobody made them do that, and it most certainly COULD have been helped. All Omar had to do was strap some testicles on last summer and, while Cameron was still going great, trade him to some team that needed a CFer and would have paid the Mets dearly for Cameron. Problem is, he wanted (as Mets GMs have long wanted) to hang onto his star players because he thought he could catch lightning in a bottle last season. This is a club that is very bad at self-assessment. They're constantly rebuilding and competing at the same time, and so accomplishing neither goal. So they pass on opportunities when they hold the hammer, and always sell low and buy high. (In Kazmir's case, I think they were literally high--I'm not sure if it was crack or Koolaid, though.)

KC Mar 12 2006 08:10 AM

For the most part, I dont disagree with either of you. These rants and raves get all twisted out of shape and are more bent on calling me this or calling someone that and to cause a disturbance. Maybe I shouldn't check the board first thing in the morning so as not to have myself challenged and ridiculed and have my day off ruined. Thanks for getting the blood pressure going.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 12 2006 08:32 AM

Okay, I lied. I've never actually seen you drinking Koolaid. Why are we "ranting and raving" here? Because we're disagreeing with you (who is disagreeing with himself, it looks like)? If you'd stick to talking baseball, and disagreeing with my points wherever you have a reasonable disagreement (unreasonable = "You're a Met-hating crazy person who I'm not even listening to, Sal") you'll have fewer occasions to start bitching when the retorts come back your way.

metsmarathon Mar 12 2006 12:10 PM

when can we stop pretending that business decisions have nothing to do with a baseball team's player/personnel decisions?

Nymr83 Mar 12 2006 12:34 PM

="metsmarathon"]when can we stop pretending that business decisions have nothing to do with a baseball team's player/personnel decisions? when can we stop pretending that they should have anything to do with putting your best team on the field?

Johnny Dickshot Mar 12 2006 12:35 PM

The point of the "trade" (which I made up) isn't to jettison Diaz but to use an area of excess to feed a an area of shortness. And it wasn't for "zilch" as the conversation morphed to -- if there's no need to go get a pitcher right away, that is if Pedro's health is OK, etc etc, then there's no need to make it. If so it's possible to swap out Nady for Diaz. However I don't think it's a slam dunk. Nady is only 15 months older than Diaz, plays better D at his primary position and is more versatile. If the hitting isn't a wash it is fairly close, especially considering Nady played at Petco. You'd have to consider them more or less comparable.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 12 2006 01:04 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: . Nady is only 15 months older than Diaz, . According to BBref.com, it's over three years.

Nymr83 Mar 12 2006 01:04 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 12 2006 01:08 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Nady is only 15 months older than Diaz. Diaz was born December 10, 1981 Nady was born November 14, 1978 you may want to check your math. As far as your assertion that their hitting is a wash goes, its not even close. OPS+ factors in ballparks and Diaz has a career 109 mark while Nady has a 98. Thats not a "wash"

Johnny Dickshot Mar 12 2006 01:06 PM

My bad. Carry on.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 12 2006 01:13 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: especially considering Nady played at Petco. You'd have to consider them more or less comparable. No, I don't have to, actually, unless "more or less" covers most MLB outfielders, who are "more or less" comparable. Diaz is considerably younger, which is HUGE, and he has better stats AFTER ballparks are taken into account (OPS+ assumes ballpark factors) and his defensive stats in RF are actually better than Nady's, not that either of them are either definitive or superior. I'd be much more comfortable with Nady as the 4th outfielder (he has more experience than Diaz in CF and in LF) and as the backup to Delgado at 1B. But that's not how it's shaking out at this point. And not only isn't that right, or fair, but it's stupid. It hurts the Mets and, as far as I can tell, makes almost no sense (other than having a greater potential to boost Omar's reputation) to be pushing Nady for the job.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 12 2006 01:34 PM

Just speaking out of my ass here (bring that microphone a tad closer, guys) I'd estimate that Diaz has perhaps a 25% or 30% chance of becoming a big star, while Nady's chances are something on the order of 5 to 10%. Both are unlikely to happen, but to favor Nady over Diaz at this point is just wildly self-destructive for the Mets. And yet...

Bret Sabermetric Mar 12 2006 01:51 PM

And just for a frame of reference, I'm talking about a big star being someone who peaks at over 25 WS in a season AND accumulates over 250 career WS (examples: Keith Hernandez 29 peak/311 lifetime WS, Tom Seaver 32/388) while a small star gets one of the two but not both (Cleon Jones 30/141, McReynolds 31/202) and a regular non-star gets neither (Millan 20/152, Harrelson 19/141). I'd put Diaz at say 25% chance for Big stardom, 30% for small stardom, and 45% chance to be a regular non-star (or worse). For Nady, I'd say, the figures would be more like 5%, 25% and 70%. If this seems too extreme for you, let me just remnd you that for every single day that Nady doesn't emerge as a giant star, the chances of it ever happening decline. Diaz still has another year or two to dick around before making his move towards stardom. Three years at this stage of his career are tremendous.

Rotblatt Mar 12 2006 03:41 PM

Uh, defensively, y'all should remember that Diaz is a converted 2B. He's still learning. That being said, let's see what BP's FRAA think of Diaz, then Nady. 2003 AA JAX: 2B, 77 Games, -10 FRAA 2003 AA BIN: 2B, 43 Games, -7 FRAA 2004 AAA NOR: 125 Games, RF, 5 FRAA 2005 AAA NOR: 25 Games, 1B, 1 FRAA 2005 MLB NYN: 74 Games, RF, -3 FRAA TOTAL 2B: 120 G, -17 FRAA (-.14 FRAA/G) TOTAL RF: 199 G, 2 FRAA (.01 FRAA/G) TOTAL 1B: 25 G, 1 FRAA (.04 FRAA/G) So Diaz was justifiably moved from 2B and he did quite well at RF in Norfolk. The following year, but struggled a bit in the outfield but seemed to do okay at first. Nady 2003 POR AAA: RF, 32 G, -2 FRAA 2003 SDN MLB: RF, 96 G, -6 FRAA 2004 POR AAA: RF, 39 G, -2 FRAA 2004 SDN MLB: LF, 12 G, -2 FRAA 2005 SDN MLB: 1B, 33 G, 0 FRAA TOTAL RF: 167 G, -10 FRAA (-.06 FRAA/G) TOTAL LF: 12 G, -2 FRAA TOTAL 1B: 33 G, 0 FRAA Nady has been reliably below average in right field. If we're going to write anyone off defensively, shouldn't it be the guy who's 3 years older, has been playing his position for years, and is consistently below average? Offensively, it's not even close, at least if you're taking age into account, which, IMO, we absolutely should. Age 23 years: Nady: A, 169 AB, .278 AVG/.382 OBP/.580 SLG/.962 OPS AAA, 315 AB, .283 AVG/.329 OBP/.422 SLG/.751 OPS Diaz: AAA, 184 AB, .300 AVG/.353 OBP/.541 OPS/.894 OPS MLB, .257 AVG/.329 OBP/.468 SLG/.797 OPS Against tougher competition, Diaz kicked Nady up and down the field. It's just no contest. PECTOA forecasts (cumulative between 2006-2010) Diaz: [url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=Mean+VORP]Mean VORP[/url]: 95.9; [url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=Upside]Upside[/url]: 99.8; [url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=MORP]MORP [/url]: $19.4M Nady: Mean VORP: 45.6; Upside: 43.6; MORP: $6M One more time--no contest. Nady MIGHT be a better bet for this one year (although I really don't think so), but long term, Diaz is the far, far better guy to have.

Rockin' Doc Mar 12 2006 09:13 PM

Crazy? Well, I've been called far worse. Okay, I will admit that I haven't seen much of Nady. So I shouldn't have stated that he was "most definitely better" than Diaz as a defender. I guess I just couldn't imagine that Nady was as bad as Diaz. I do however, stand by my assessment of Diaz' defensive ineptness. Hell, if neither of them can catch cold in a blizzard, then go with whichever one of them offers the most offense. Maybe Diaz can learn to play right field satisfactorily, but that remains to be seen. I don't doubt that he can hit.

Frayed Knot Mar 12 2006 09:53 PM

Anyone who doesn't believe that Diaz has shown that he's a very, very shaky outfielder to date hasn't been paying attention.

Nymr83 Mar 12 2006 10:29 PM

I'm not doubty he is "shaky" but Nady is older, just as shaky, and doesn't have the excuse of having started playing the position recently.

DocTee Mar 12 2006 11:39 PM

Let's move Diaz back to second-- (sarcasm content-- high)

Frayed Knot Mar 12 2006 11:52 PM

I haven't seen enough of Nady to form an independant opinion but I don't think the Mets (or anyone I've heard for that matter) view him as "just as shaky"

cleonjones11 Mar 13 2006 01:09 AM

You don't HAVE to do anything. Let Diaz and Nady share right