Master Index of Archived Threads


Omar's failure

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 08:26 AM

This morning, I'm totally not getting the great job Omar supposedly did over the winter. Like the Kaz-for-Zambrano deal, he didn't do much crucial prep in gauging the Benson-for-Julio deal: let me get this straight, Mazzilli exposed Jorge Julio's unknown weakness yesterday by having an old, slow guy run on him at will? You have to be the guy's former manager to come up witih that plan? for this, we gave up a decent starting pitcher, that we only need slightly more than we need air itself? Challenge deals like Benson (or Kaz, for that matter) rarely get the unanimous reaction that we dumb fans gave this one: "How the fuck can you do that?" we all pretty much said at the time. "Now we're short a starting pitcher." The optimets among us said that Julio must be much better than we thought--but in fact, he's much worse. Much, much worse. A pitcher who can be run on at will had better get nearly everybody he faces out, which ain't Julio, by a long shot. This trade was a total, reckless, irresponsible trade by Omar, showing how he can win without an actual rotation. I'm sick of these WTF? challenge trades in which the Mets demonstrate that they're mentally challenged.

Rotblatt May 21 2006 08:57 AM

This seemed to be an appropriate thread for the following from the Post: ]Rival executives describe no GM as more aggressively pursuing a trade than Omar Minaya, who is hunting for pitching. And the key word is "pitching." Minaya sees a starting market that right now is underwhelming with Odalis Perez, Kyle Lohse and Bruce Chen. So he is also looking at late-inning relievers with the idea that would liberate Aaron Heilman to return to the rotation. Minaya, for example, has called Texas several times about closer Akinori Otsuka, whom the Mets GM has liked since the righty was with San Diego. He has been told no deal. So NOW Minaya realizes that it's hard to get a decent fucking starting pitcher? And that relievers are easier to acquire? Freakin' moron.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 09:17 AM

The unseen part of this equation is how lucky he's been in some ways: If you told him that Glavine, Pedro and Trax would be healthy through May 20th, and have the w/l record they do (something like 13-6) and the ERA and K they have, even he would agree that would be totally unexpected. So if he was expected a worse record from them, just how good was he expecting the end of the rotation to be for the team to be competitive? Challenge trades are great because they miminize the amount of "Yes, but..." deflective BS that GMs (and some fans) like to spread out to obscure the real issues. By acquiring relievers and trading starters this winter, Omar plainly declared the Mets' starting depth to be much stronger than it's been. No way around that. If the season continues like this (bad tail end of the rotation, and the bullpen not nearly compensating), no way does Omar get a pass. This is his staff, constructed just as he wanted it. Even Victor's arm troubles can't be blamed on TB anymore. They fooled us? They lied to poor widdle defenseless us? Okay, but when you saw how VZ pitched, what did you do about it, Omar? WTF did YOU do, asshole? You traded off your rotation, that's what.

old original jb May 21 2006 11:33 AM

The great job he did over the winter was getting Delgado in trade. Minaya does his best work by being able to execute the obvious moves. This is in contrast to the "too clever by half" gyrations of the prior management group that brought us injured Moe and Jeromy Burnitz instead of seriously pursuing players like Vladimir Guerrero. They were unable to execute the obvious moves most of the time, and so instead presented "alternatives" as if they were what we should have wanted all along. Did Minaya trade one starter too many this offseason? It really depends on what Soler, Pelfry, and Heilman are able to do and how long Bannister takes to recoup. If none of these guys will step up then the starting depth was indeed way overestimated. If one or more can, then the (admittedly) risky strategy of building bullpen depth at the expense of two starters won't look so bad. My gut feeling is that MInaya is better able to recognize his failures than those who have held his office before him, less likely to cling to losing strategies once they stop working for him. He went out on a limb on this one, but I think he at least has the sense to crawl back in if he needs to rather than hold on until the branch falls off. In sum, he did a great job getting Delgado and building the bullpen, but in building the pen took a big risk with starting pitching. Unfortunately, this represents a huge improvement in management over prior administrations

Nymr83 May 21 2006 11:37 AM

]The great job he did over the winter was getting Delgado in trade I don't look at this as a good trade as much as a "see i can spend fred's money" move. The cameron trade is looking good so far despite all the negative reaction. I still don't like it, but Nady has been good.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 11:39 AM

Could you not have done much of what Omar accomplished, given his budget and a six-week Berlitz course in Spanish? I just don;t think we're sufficiently recognizing here that he CHOSE to deal Benson and Seo for middle relief, and now is hustling madly to find two mediocre starters (and failing so far.) This isn't an innocent oversight, this is an arrogant policy-decision that has blown up in his face almost immediately, that the Mets are trying desperately to spin as "who-knew?" Who knew we'd need five starters? Who knew starters would be hard to find? Who knew Lima couldn't really pitch? Who knew how often starting pitchers get injured? Not Omar.

KC May 21 2006 11:43 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 21 2006 01:54 PM

No, you are spinning it as, "who knew". oe: spelled "as" wrong

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 11:49 AM

So this was the plan if a couple of starters went down early? To pitch hopeless retreads who got bombed out for a few weeks and then promote kids from AA? If that's knowing, I'll take ignorance.

old original jb May 21 2006 11:52 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 21 2006 11:58 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Could you not have done much of what Omar accomplished, given his budget and a six-week Berlitz course in Spanish? No. The six week Berlitz course would have been the approach used in the past, and it would have resulted in Pedro and Carlos playing for a team in the Bronx. Plus I somehow don't think that Fred and Co. would have trusted me with as big a budget. What I'm saying is that I think that actually landing the big deals on a consistent basis is a lot tougher than it looks to us armchair GM's and this seems to be Omar Minaya's real strength--one which has been missing from the organization for a long time.

KC May 21 2006 11:53 AM

>>>promote kids from AA? <<< I think you need to find out who Soler is, he's not a kid from AA.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 11:58 AM

No, I'm not quite that ignorant. Look, spin it how you like, they weren't telling us that "Soler is the solution, he's just a few more starts away, be patient" a few weeks ago. That's all I'm pointing out here. NOW he's the solution because of a lack of other options. I'm just trying to point out that distinction. If you'd rather make this out to be some anti-Mets agenda thing on my part, and therefore discount it completely, color me shocked.

KC May 21 2006 12:05 PM

I don't need to hear how many starts a pitcher might be away from coming to the bigs weeks before he might or not be needed from the front office. I pay very little attention to what the front office says, why would they (or should they) make their plans or wishes known? Like Vito said, "never tell anyone outside the family what you're thinking again".

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 12:19 PM

I don't see what so wrong about implying that you've got plenty of viable options in the minors. They implied the opposite for several weeks, up until this morning (or yesterday afternoon, technically). Seems to me there's several options available once you've traded off the back end of your rotation: 1) .We have guys in our bullpen who can step into a starter's role if we need them to. Rejected 2) we have guys in the minors who are ready and rarin' to go. Likewise rejected 3) #5 pitchers are a dime a dozen, we can pick someone good up any time we want BZZZZZZZZZZ---wrong 4) We have some injured starters who could come back , maybe not immediately, but we're just talking about a few starts of tryout camp, max The cupboard is bare 5) There are some quality FA pitchers still available Not if you're the Mets. Clemens might do on other rosters, but never here. so we're stuck with 6) Pray to God these five starters somehow make it through the seaon unscathed because the fans will rightly be howling for our skins if anyone on our staff of aged and fragile pitchers gets hurt So you've got some howling here. Ignore it. Maybe it's the wind.

metsmarathon May 21 2006 12:32 PM

my personal thinking all along was that soler was to be an option if anything untoward happened to our rotation. that said, i'd still like to see heilman in there, but i guess there are still other options to explore. in a way, its a good, if frustrating, thing to know that he's still available as a last resort.

GYC May 21 2006 12:49 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Could you not have done much of what Omar accomplished, given his budget and a six-week Berlitz course in Spanish? I just don;t think we're sufficiently recognizing here that he CHOSE to deal Benson and Seo for middle relief, and now is hustling madly to find two mediocre starters (and failing so far.) This isn't an innocent oversight, this is an arrogant policy-decision that has blown up in his face almost immediately, that the Mets are trying desperately to spin as "who-knew?" Who knew we'd need five starters? Who knew starters would be hard to find? Who knew Lima couldn't really pitch? Who knew how often starting pitchers get injured? Not Omar. I can't blame him too much: Pedro Glavine Trachsel Zambrano - injured Bannister - injured Heilman - unwilling to use him (unrightfully so) Iriki - suspension Oliver - maybe didn't see him for rotation Maine - injured Lima - hahahha Gonzalez - see above Soler - coming up (apparently) Pelfrey (?) - was supposed to come up but a poor performance prevented it All potentional options... I don't think you can plan for 3 injuries and a suspension.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 12:51 PM

So there's your vote for "Who knew?", KC.

GYC May 21 2006 12:54 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: So there's your vote for "Who knew?", KC. When you have 13 people who could potentially start in the majors, I mean, come on. Although, I'm definitely not giving Omar an excuse or pass because his complete refusal to use Heilman, or at least Oliver, in the rotation. At the same time, shame on him for even thinking that Lima or Gonzalez would work in the rotation.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 12:58 PM

GYC wrote: ]When you have 13 people who could potentially start in the majors, I mean, come on. Actually there's 15, counting you and me.

KC May 21 2006 01:53 PM

BS: >>>So there's your vote for "Who knew?", KC.<<< I wasn't aware that GYC was with the club's front office. I would have showered or at least combed my hair.

GYC May 21 2006 01:55 PM

="KC"]BS: >>>So there's your vote for "Who knew?", KC.<<< I wasn't aware that GYC was with the club's front office. I would have showered or at least combed my hair. Well, that was unnecessary.

KC May 21 2006 01:58 PM

You misunderstand GYC, I think. Bret says the front office is spinning then uses your post as an example of "who knew" after I said he's the one who's saying "who knew" and .... Maybe I should go rent a movie, or pay more attention to the Sawx/Phils game.

GYC May 21 2006 02:03 PM

KC wrote: Maybe I should go rent a movie, or pay more attention to the Sawx/Phils game. It's just me.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 02:03 PM

Ridiculous. The Mets come up empty, and now they're claiming that they dealt off starting pitchers because no one could possibly anticipate this problem. A blind man on a galloping horse could see this coming, and almost every one here, sighted or not, did anticipate it. The real way for you to frame this argument, KC, is to say that EVEN IF THE METS HAD HELD ONTO BENSON AND SEO and broken camp with seven viable starters, then Zambrano and Bannister and Maine and Lima and Gonzales AND BENSON AND SEO had been hurt or ineffective, I would stil be making this Met-hating argument. That's the way to go here. I have no rebuttal for that argument. Get on the stick here, okay?.

KC May 21 2006 02:12 PM

BS: >>>and now they're claiming that they dealt off starting pitchers because no one could possibly anticipate this problem<<< The Mets are claiming what? We're gonna need some quotes.

Gwreck May 21 2006 02:14 PM

I really think at this point this thread is becoming pointless. Nobody doubts the Mets had plenty of starting options after the 2005 season. Nobody doubts that trading away Seo has worked out pretty well. Few if any supported trading away Benson once we traded Seo. Few if any doubt that the injuries/suspension this year are more than normal but Lima time could've been avoided if we retained a little more starting depth than before. But we've reached point of Horse. Dead. Beaten.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 02:20 PM

Go through the papers from this past winter. Or are you claiming now that no one in the press wondered or asked about the back end of the rotation before Tuesday? This is one of those situations where deflective BS and spin isn't not only insulting but completely unnecessary. No one ever dealt off two starters without having an answer for how they'd be replaced. It's just that Omar's answer--Zambrano and Maine and Bannister and Lima and Gonzales and a cast of thousands--is the wrong answer. No quotes needed. Omar's actions argue eloquently the case that he fucked up very badly, with an arrogant presumption that he had enough starting pitching. Remember, again, this wasn't caused by injuries or unforeseen circumstsances--it's was deliberately created by Omar as a planned decision. My point is that is was wrong, and now everyone with eyes can see that.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 02:22 PM

Gwreck wrote: pointless. Horse. Dead. Beaten. Which is another way of saying "OK, The Mets fucked up, and we don';t wanna hear about it any more, Bret." I recommend you join the hordes who don't read any thread I've posted in, Gwreck. As to your content--How fast would you swap Sanchez back for Seo now, Gwreck?

Gwreck May 21 2006 02:29 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 21 2006 02:37 PM

No, it's another way of saying that I don't think there's much of a fundamental disagreement and the thread seems to be getting repetitve. I don't disagree that the Mets fucked up. We disagree perhaps as how many times one can say "Omar screwed up!" I personally think that after a certain point, it becomes unproductive to keep going back to a particular screwup. Much more interesting: considering who will actually play. What options we have. Relative merits of Heilman in bullpen vs. rotation. That's going to be the interesting stuff. As to the other question, which I think is interesting... I'd put Heilman in the rotation before I'd trade for Seo back. (I wasn't nearly as big a fan of Seo as some were, though).

KC May 21 2006 02:36 PM

The Mets have not "claimed that they dealt off starting pitchers because no one could possibly anticipate this problem". Until you provide substantiation for this or retract it, it's just a big red sore thumb at the noses of any attempt at fair discussion of the subject.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 02:53 PM

Action speaks louder than words. By trading Seo and Benson, they were claiming they had enough starting pitching without them.

KC May 21 2006 03:01 PM

It's very difficult to respond to posts when you constantly change them. Please, if you have something to add that significantly adds to or changes the point you're trying to make can you please just add another post? Thanks. Re: actions speak louder than words, all I was going to say is, "yeah, they do ... make up stuff and refuse to substantiate it" or whatever.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 03:14 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 21 2006 03:55 PM

Okay, what does "We have traded Seo and Benson for relief pitchers and have not added any front-line starting pitchers to replace them" mean? Can I get a translation, please?

KC May 21 2006 03:18 PM

BS: >>>and now they're claiming that they dealt off starting pitchers because no one could possibly anticipate this problem<<< The Mets are claiming what? We're gonna need some quotes.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 03:53 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ]Okay, what does "We have traded Seo and Benson for relief pitchers and have not added any front-line starting pitchers to replace them" mean? Can I get a translation, please?

old original jb May 21 2006 04:01 PM

OK, for the sake of progress can somebody just say "Uncle"? Then we can get out the torches and pitchforks, get on the 7 Train and gather outside of Omar's office.

martin May 21 2006 04:04 PM

bret, the mets still have options. they tried some crappy ones, and they didnt work, so they move on. they are still in first place, so i dont feel like it is time to panic, especially with pelfrey and soler on the way. i thought the seo trade was terrible, but now i think i was wrong because sanchez is great. the benson trade didnt bother me much though, because benson is a .500 pitcher. for a short term here there has been a shortage of starting options. but that is changing with soler on the way, pelfrey working on his stuff, bannister and maine rehabbing and heilman waiting his turn. so there are two open spots at the back of the rotation. pretty soon there will be 5 relatively good options to fill them. i am not worried, definitely no more worried than i would expect any team to be who had two starters down with injury. we put lima out of the picture, and gonzales' days are probably numbered. everything seems fine to me.

KC May 21 2006 04:07 PM

2:12 pm comes before 3:14 pm, substantiate it or revoke it.

KC May 21 2006 04:12 PM

jb: >>>OK, for the sake of progress can somebody just say "Uncle"? <<< No. Make stuff up, it will get pointed out from time to time. We've been civil, I see no reason for anyone to complain.

Bret Sabermetric May 21 2006 04:39 PM

KC needs quotes. I never claimed to have quotes. I claimed that the Mets' actions speak for their comfort in dealing away Seo and Benson and getting no starting pitchers in return. He can ask me for quotes until he's purple in the face --he seems to like that--and I will keep insisting that this is a tacit admission of a failed policy decision. (Look up "tacit"--it's a good word. It means "saying, but not in so many words.") martin's point is more interesting to me than continuing to go around around this bush with KC. "everything seems fine to me." Me, I see disaster, and blood running like the sluices in an abbatoir. The Mets are a tendon's thickness away from a 90-loss season (that tendon being the one in Pedro's arm, of course)--the Mets have been extremely fortunate so far, it's true, but when your pitching staff consists of a lot of rookies (which I like but not for a competitive team this season) you're going to go through some serious growing pains. To go through growing pains with a 100-million dollar roster seems goofy, but I'm used to that by now. Look at your choices, martin: you've got one spot being filled by a project (Soler) with good stuff who hasn't shown zip in MLB competition yet, or in AAA for that matter, another (Bannister) a project who's looked good briefly but who has made jams for himself that it remains to be seen if he has great skill or great luck in working his way out of, another project (Pelfrey) who projects to be good in a year or two but this year would be pushing it, and on and on. Don't get me wrong, I wish they'd give all these guys a chance and build a great rotation, but to count on all of them coming through NOW just because you've fucked up your rotation so you need them NOW? It's just not very realisitic, or very well planned.

KC May 21 2006 04:46 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 21 2006 06:47 PM

I was just answering you, didn't mean much by it towards you for sure. OE: This post was in response to another post that has bitten the cyber-dust. Sorry for the confusion.

old original jb May 21 2006 05:26 PM

It's a sad day when people stop getting the old torches 'n pitchforks allusions.

KC May 21 2006 05:36 PM

Especially when I accidently delete them. See the RLF post entitled, "I fucked up".

old original jb May 21 2006 05:42 PM

Vic Sage May 22 2006 10:03 AM

1) trading mediocre SP for good setup guy = bad idea (though it has actually turned out OK, cuz Seo has sucked and Sanchez has been lights out) 2) subsequently trading another mediocre SPer for failed closer = really bad idea that was roundly criticized here, there and everywhere (though starting to be less disastrous, as Julio has pitched better and Benson continues to be mediocre) 3) trading SPers when the front of your rotation is old and fragile = bad idea made worse (still a bad idea!) 4) keeping a quality arm in the bullpen (to pitch 70+ IP) instead of 4th slot in rotation (to pitch 180+ IP) = bad idea (though Heilman has been invaluable in the pen) 5) Keeping Heilman in pen while promoting Lima and Gonzalez = bad idea made worse (still a bad idea) 6) promoting Soler, once he'd shown he could get hitters out = good idea (we'll see what he can do) 7) upon seeing how bad the market is for even a mediocre SPer is (duh! Omar doesn't have Omar as a trading partner!), he may turn toward getting another RPer and moving Heilman to rotation = very good idea (depending on what he gives up for RPer) 8) Pedro / Glavine / trax / Heilman / Soler-Bannister = good enough

Rotblatt May 22 2006 11:06 AM

I like the idea of bringing in a relief pitcher to fill Heilman's spot, but I don't get why we'd make a trade when we have Heath Bell in the minors. I know he hasn't been great in the majors for the last two years (5.05 ERA, 1.42 WHIP over 3 years and 73 innings), but he's pretty much mastered AAA: 18.7 IP, 0.96 ERA, 1.04 WHIP, 31 K, 3 BB, 0 HR, and 7 saves Why not give him a legitimate chance to succeed in the majors? Especially since Julio seems to be straightened out: 8.7 IP, 2.08 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, 10.38 K/9 in May If Bell fails during, say, 5 to 10 low-pressure appearances, THEN we can try and trade for someone.

Centerfield May 22 2006 11:10 AM

I don't see how Julio is "straightened out". On Saturday, he pitched two innings, and gave up two leadoff walks...one of them which came around to be the winning run. Am I the only one that still finds this unacceptable? Or has he set the bar so low that we are just content he's not giving up multiple runs per inning?

duan May 22 2006 02:20 PM

Julio's been pitching MUCH better and he's starting to become a valuable 4th/5th man in a pen. He's only given up 2 er's in this month and while his WHIP has still been in the 1.5 department he hasn't given up a dinger either, so you have to give him a run in two innings again the yankees.

Rotblatt May 22 2006 02:47 PM

Centerfield wrote: I don't see how Julio is "straightened out". On Saturday, he pitched two innings, and gave up two leadoff walks...one of them which came around to be the winning run. Am I the only one that still finds this unacceptable? Or has he set the bar so low that we are just content he's not giving up multiple runs per inning? Well, allowing 3 baserunners and a run over 2 innings certainly isn't great, but it's not awful, either. Especially when you consider that the run only scored because Castro inexplicably didn't try and throw out Cairo at all. I know it's somehow supposed to be Julio's fault, but I don't get that. First off, pickoffs get called from the bench and I don't remember any pick-off attempts. Secondly, if Julio's so slow to the plate, why not try a pitch-out or something? But I digress. My point is that allowing 3 baserunners and 1 run over 2 innings is hardly evidence that Julio (still) sucks, especially in the context of his performance through the rest of May, which was pretty darn good.

Nymr83 May 22 2006 04:32 PM

Julio has progressed to the point where getting rid of him is no longer "addition by subtraction" but he's still got BB and HR issues and those are both huge problems for trusting someone in close games. I'm fine with him in his present role but he shouldn't be moving up the depth chart yet.