Master Index of Archived Threads


Canadian Players take longer to develop

Gwreck Jun 26 2006 03:39 PM

So says Steve Phillips. From today's ESPN chat: Rob (Parsippany, NJ): Steve, What do you consider your best and worst move as GM of the Mets? Drafting David Wright? Trading for Mo Vaughn and Alomar? At least you do not have the Kazmir trade on your resume. Steve Phillips: (3:27 PM ET ) I think it is hard for the best move not to be trading for Piazza and then signing him to a long term deal. The worst move was probably trading Jason Bay. But the Bay deal was very interesting because we had acquired him from Montreal as 1 of 2 players for journeyman Lou Collier, a utility infielder. I never saw Bay play and I felt he was probably a 5th OF at the ML level. So we traded him to San Diego to get some pitchers in return. The Padres then traded him to the Pirates because they thought he was a No. 4 OF at the ML level. Ultimately he became a ROY and top 3 in the All-Star balloting. The lesson to be learned is Canandian players often take longer to develop because they have played far less baseball than kids in the US because of weather primarily. Bay was a late bloomer who may not be done blooming just yet. Plus he is a great kid.

metirish Jun 26 2006 03:44 PM

Typical of Phillips to blame the weather...

Edgy DC Jun 26 2006 03:48 PM

Trading for Piazza and signing him, being two separate moves, is kind of cheating. His best move may have been locking up Fonzie early. There are also non-move moves, like pulling out of the Juan Gonzalez courtship just in time.

Frayed Knot Jun 26 2006 03:51 PM

Bay might also be a case where a more Sabermetric view of prospects might have helped. I think sometimes prospects who are NOT labeled as hot property early on are treated as second-class talent from then on unless they really break through. Bay, though slightly old for some of his levels, had some decent numbers in the minors and a closer scrutiny might have led to his being kept even without eye-popping "tools".

Johnny Dickshot Jun 26 2006 03:54 PM

Phillips tended to trade away those he traded for. I'm pretty sure that's true of players and prospects leaguewide, but Steve seemed especially to believe in easy come, easy go.

Yancy Street Gang Jun 26 2006 03:57 PM

I think, since September 11, you're no longer allowed to carry any eye-popping tools onto airplanes. Really, they're not a good idea at all. Talk about something that will put your eye out!

metirish Jun 26 2006 03:57 PM

Trading for Mike Hampton was a decent move,and not signing him to a crazy deal was smater.

Frayed Knot Jun 26 2006 04:01 PM

metirish wrote: Trading for Mike Hampton was a decent move,and not signing him to a crazy deal was smater. Not that they didn't try.

Yancy Street Gang Jun 26 2006 04:01 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Phillips tended to trade away those he traded for. I'm pretty sure that's true of players and prospects leaguewide, but Steve seemed especially to believe in easy come, easy go. I agree with that. More than other Mets GM's, Phillips seemed to think of prospects as little more than trade fodder. I'm glad that both Reyes and Wright were still Mets property when he departed.

Willets Point Jun 26 2006 04:21 PM

Where's Jimmy the Greek when you need him to explain the eugenics behind this.

MFS62 Jun 27 2006 09:21 AM

Willets Point wrote: Where's Jimmy the Greek when you need him to explain the eugenics behind this. He'd probably say that the Canadian kids can't swim because the water up there is always frozen. Later

Frayed Knot Jun 27 2006 09:42 AM

"I'm glad that both Reyes and Wright were still Mets property when he departed" FWIW, Phillips claimed recently that he used to get all kinds of trade offers for Reyes back in the day. Plus he did draft Wright after he was passed on 37 times. Not to suggest that I disagree he was often quick to trade prospects - although that's also not such a bad thing. Ideally you'd like to use the farm system to get what you need on the big league level while protecting the gems. The trick, of course, is deciding who those gems are and I think part of the problem with someone like Jason Bay is that if they're not designated early on as one of the "chosen few" then they tend to be treated as if painlessly disposable. High draft picks and big bonus kids tend to get all the attention even as others may be developing better right under your nose.

Johnny Dickshot Jun 27 2006 10:04 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: ="Johnny Dickshot"]Phillips tended to trade away those he traded for. I'm pretty sure that's true of players and prospects leaguewide, but Steve seemed especially to believe in easy come, easy go. I agree with that. More than other Mets GM's, Phillips seemed to think of prospects as little more than trade fodder. I'm glad that both Reyes and Wright were still Mets property when he departed. I was referring mainly to the idea that if Phillips received a guy in a trade (Bay) that guy appeared more likely to be traded away than say, a free-agent signee or self-developed guy.

Yancy Street Gang Jun 27 2006 10:05 AM

The Phillips deal that bothered me the most was one that didn't happen; when he made that tenative trade that would have sent Alex Escobar to the Reds for Barry Larkin. I thought, at the time, that it would have been too big a hit on the future for too little present gain. In retrospect, though, it might have been a very good deal. Escobar turned out to be a nothing, and if the Mets had Barry Larkin instead of Mike Bordick they might have done better in the 2000 World Series.

Johnny Dickshot Jun 27 2006 11:05 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: The Phillips deal that bothered me the most was one that didn't happen; when he made that tenative trade that would have sent Alex Escobar to the Reds for Barry Larkin. I thought, at the time, that it would have been too big a hit on the future for too little present gain. In retrospect, though, it might have been a very good deal. Escobar turned out to be a nothing, and if the Mets had Barry Larkin instead of Mike Bordick they might have done better in the 2000 World Series. If by "done better" you mean "win in 5 games" I agree! Tho, Larkin did get hurt shortly after the non-trade was not consummated. (I sound like Joseph Heller). The issue with that deal was not only the future going away, but the fact that Larkin wanted an extension so as to waive his 5-and-10 rights. Would have been problematic for sure. Steve never pulled up short when going after Cincy guys -- does anyone recall the principals in the agreed-to-but-unconsummated Griffey trade? Escobar may have been in that too, along with Benitez?

metirish Jun 27 2006 11:16 AM

Dickshot I didn't remember the terms of the trade but a quick Google search and I found it on http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/G/Griffey_Ken_Jr.stm. ] In December, public sentiment turned against Griffey when Junior vetoed a trade to the Mets that would have sent the Mariners a bonanza of young talent, including starter Octavio Dotel, closer Armando Benitez and speedy outfielder Roger Cedeno. Although he later claimed he had rejected the deal because the Mariners had given him only 15 minutes to reach a major life decision, many felt that Griffey, who had a reputation for being hyper-sensitive to criticism, simply had no desire to play in the media maelstrom of Gotham.

soupcan Jun 27 2006 11:19 AM

Hhad that deal gone through it would have been a wash.

Yancy Street Gang Jun 27 2006 11:34 AM

There would have been no Mike Hampton, most likely. That was December of 1999 they're referring to, I assume? If so, that offer would have been made only days before the Hampton deal was closed.

ScarletKnight41 Jun 27 2006 11:37 AM

Without Mike Hampton, we wouldn't have David Wright.

Yancy Street Gang Jun 27 2006 11:38 AM

Wow. The ripple effect of that non-deal is mind boggling.

Gwreck Jun 27 2006 11:47 AM

ScarletKnight41 wrote: Without Mike Hampton, we wouldn't have David Wright. Not necessarily. The Mets had an earlier pick in that draft, with which they chose Aaron Heilman.