|
="metsguyinmichigan"]I disagree with the placement of the Pedro signing, simply because it set the stage for several of the other signings that came later. For example, I don't think you have Beltran without Pedro there.]
This is perilously close to the logic that Jeter is not only a great player because of what he does, but because of what he makes the players around him do.
I don't buy any of that, not for a millivanillisecond. It's just an excuse to spout whatever biases you hold and not be accountable for them.
Look, if Pedro doesn't throw another pitch again, which is possible, or another effective pitch again, which is also possible, are you still going to claim that his acquisition was a good one for the Mets? That's just insane--to sign a guy for long for that much, and still claim that he provided leadership, attractiveness to other FAs, spirit, tutelage in being a winner, etc., that went way beyond his one good season? Remember, you were all questioning his signing for that length and that money because there were questions about his contributions over the length of the top-dollar contract. So, now that he's certainly going to undershoot the performance levels even his biggest defenders set as minimums (but he's established as a Met icon) suddenly it doesn't matter what his actual performance on the field is? WTF?
I don't know how many more games Pedro has to win during his tenure here to be counted as a successful acquisition, but it is a lot, probably more wins than he's capable of accruing in the remainder of his contract. If you want to set up a system jerry-rigged to show Omar is a great GM, fine, but that's not exactly what I was going for in asking this question.
Elsewhere (since banished to the RLF), I observed:
| ]Please note the eagerness to add a wrinkle to Omar's acquisition of Delgado that helps his perceived excellence (and the absence of eager suggestions that FA acquisitions whose post-season performances were less than stellar (Franco?), or non-existent (Pedro), should be counted against Omar's record. |
in response to Gwreck's point that we really should count Delgado's excellent post-season play in 2006, almost immediately following his inquiry into the unfairness of WS going to players on good teams. This is precisely what crediting post-season play does, since all post-season teams are good teams. Please note also that Gwreck doesn't see that his second point contradicts his first, in that post-season WS points (if there were such things) always go to players on good teams. Note also that he calls for Delgado's WS total to go up because of his excellent 2006 post season, while making no acknowledgement of those Mets whose WS totals would go down. (Actually, everyone's WS total would go up, since WS is a system that just measures contributions to wins, so I guess someone like Franco would be penalized by having 0 points added to his regular season WS.) IOW, Gwreck proposes a system that blatently contradicts his previous concern, and no one even notices the blatent contradiction for several days.
Now, I'll probably get into trouble for saying this, but I think YOU GUYS (tm) need some kinda policeman to see that you're not breaking any laws of logic. Setting up an objective system for evaluating GMs is hard enough, but some of you are even looking to do that. You're looking to set up a system that will prove your preconceived point, that Omar is an excellent GM.
|
Elster88
Jul 01 2007 09:51 AM
Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Jul 01 2007 11:06 AM
|
|
iramets wrote:
="metsguyinmichigan"]
I disagree with the placement of the Pedro signing, simply because it set the stage for several of the other signings that came later. For example, I don't think you have Beltran without Pedro there. |
This is perilously close to the logic that Jeter is not only a great player because of what he does, but because of what he makes the players around him do.
I don't buy any of that, not for a millivanillisecond. It's just an excuse to spout whatever biases you hold and not be accountable for them.
|
There's a huge difference between motivating a player to sign and helping a player to perform better. I assume the latter is what you mean by the reference to Jeter. The former is extremely possible.
For you not to recognize the possbility that Pedro's signing influenced Beltran is just willful ignorance in the pursuit of furthering your own argument.
OTOH, AFAIK Beltran has never actually said that Pedro's signing helped convince him to come here. I wouldn't use Beltran as a criterion to grade the Pedro signing until I do see such a quote.
On the third hand, appearance and feelings do mean something to players when they sign. I'm sure seeing that Pedro was signed made Beltran think the Mets were going to build a team. But I'm equally sure that if another team had offered more money Beltran would not have signed here.
|
iramets
Jul 01 2007 10:48 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 01 2007 10:52 AM
|
|
And if Beltran had continued playing on the level that he did in 2005, would you be blaming Pedro?
The point is that players do what they do. You can't subscribe to the truism that "It's all about the money" (that is pretty universal) and also claim that players sign for less money (or equal money) with some teams because of who their teammates are.
If Pedro is so attractive a teammate, or a token of Omar's seriousness on building a team, or whatever the hell you're claiming, then it's a slamdunk. The Mets have won the next 12 World Series in advance already, because Omar can now sign up all the players he wants to, at rock-bottom rates, and keep these excellent players from signing up with other teams.
Oh, it doesn't work like that? And it doesn't work that you can blame the suckitude of players signed as FAs on the players already on the team? (Who's responsible for telling Schoenweis the Mets would be a good team to sign with? Off with his head!!) What, it only works to credit GMs with creating favorable psychological conditions in cases where the later FA signings have worked out? I see.
You talk as if no FA have ever signed with bad teams for a shitload of money, or as if this is not actually common. If it's all about the money, and we usually argue that is, you can't be making exceptions to your own rule when you want to, and have me buy it as anything other than your bias.
|
iramets
Jul 01 2007 10:50 AM
|
|
Elster88 wrote:
But I'm equally sure that if another team had offered more money Beltran would not have signed here. |
The Yankees supposedly offered Beltran more money.
|
Elster88
Jul 01 2007 11:00 AM
|
|
iramets wrote:
| ="Elster88"] But I'm equally sure that if another team had offered more money Beltran would not have signed here. |
The Yankees supposedly offered Beltran more money. |
I'm fairly sure they did not. I was 100% sure until you posted otherwise.
|
metsmarathon
Jul 01 2007 11:05 AM
|
|
i think that beltran's agent offered the yankees less cost to sign him than they were requesting from the mets.
|
Elster88
Jul 01 2007 11:10 AM
|
|
iramets wrote:
If it's all about the money, and we usually argue that is, you can't be making exceptions to your own rule when you want to, and have me buy it as anything other than your bias. |
Where in my post did it say there's an exception to the "Follow the Money" rule?
iramets wrote:
You talk as if no FA have ever signed with bad teams for a shitload of money, or as if this is not actually common. |
Where the hell did I EVER say that?
Are you off your meds?
|
Elster88
Jul 01 2007 11:14 AM
|
|
iramets wrote:
And if Beltran had continued playing on the level that he did in 2005, would you be blaming Pedro?
The point is that players do what they do. You can't subscribe to the truism that "It's all about the money" (that is pretty universal) and also claim that players sign for less money (or equal money) with some teams because of who their teammates are.
If Pedro is so attractive a teammate, or a token of Omar's seriousness on building a team, or whatever the hell you're claiming, then it's a slamdunk. The Mets have won the next 12 World Series in advance already, because Omar can now sign up all the players he wants to, at rock-bottom rates, and keep these excellent players from signing up with other teams.
Oh, it doesn't work like that? And it doesn't work that you can blame the suckitude of players signed as FAs on the players already on the team? (Who's responsible for telling Schoenweis the Mets would be a good team to sign with? Off with his head!!) What, it only works to credit GMs with creating favorable psychological conditions in cases where the later FA signings have worked out? I see.
You talk as if no FA have ever signed with bad teams for a shitload of money, or as if this is not actually common. If it's all about the money, and we usually argue that is, you can't be making exceptions to your own rule when you want to, and have me buy it as anything other than your bias. |
This is giving me a headache.
My two main points were
1) You can't dismiss out of hand the idea that the Pedro signing could have influenced Beltran. You'll also note (well you would have if you were paying attention) that I did dismiss it because I don't remember Beltran saying it happened.
2) Comparing the idea (that the Pedro signing could have influenced Beltran) to the dogma of Derek Jeter is a poor analogy at best and stupid at worst.
Do you disagree with either of those two points?
iramets wrote:
And if Beltran had continued playing on the level that he did in 2005, would you be blaming Pedro? |
THIS is interesting. But again, if you follow what I was saying, then I would blame Omar while grading the Pedro signing. I wouldn't blame Pedro.
|
iramets
Jul 01 2007 01:58 PM
|
|
metsmarathon wrote:
i think that beltran's agent offered the yankees less cost to sign him than they were requesting from the mets. |
That sounds right to me. My bad.
|
iramets
Jul 01 2007 02:18 PM
|
|
Elster88 wrote:
This is giving me a headache.
My two main points were
1) You can't dismiss out of hand the idea that the Pedro signing could have influenced Beltran. You'll also note (well you would have if you were paying attention) that I did dismiss it because I don't remember Beltran saying it happened.
2) Comparing the idea (that the Pedro signing could have influenced Beltran) to the dogma of Derek Jeter is a poor analogy at best and stupid at worst.
Do you disagree with either of those two points?
|
I don't know that I need to, since you apparently disagree with yourself on point #1. You say that I can't dismiss out of hand a concept that it's apparantly ok for you to dismiss out of hand. WTF is that? LMK how your debate turns out, and I'll take on the winner, okay?
On point #2, you place me neatly between "poor' and "stupid" for arguing that signing Pedro must be judged on its own merits, not the merits of attracting other ballplayers like Beltran, whom you then argue did NOT sign because of Pedro anyway. In fact, you never know (not even if Beltran signs a confession to this effect) what the value of particular players on a roster does to influence FA signings, ever. It could all be bullshit, a meaningless though friendly gesture, a deep-seated desire on Beltran's part to suck Pedro's dick in the clubhouse after everyone's gone home. But if Player A influences Player B, and then Player B blows chunks from Day One, you're certainly not going to detract from your evaluation of Player A's career--so you can't credit Player A with influencing the signing if Player B's career works out either.
The previous year, Omar failed to sign Delgado because one of his scouts, Tony Bernazard, supposedly insulted Delgado by talking to him in street Spanish--everyone on this site gave Omar a pass on that screwup (even though the Mets signed Mientkewicz for the same money as Delgado ?!?!?!?, and so lost out on what looks like one of Delgado's two remaining seasons he was worth Big Bucks). Why not crucify Omar for hiring Bernazard and letting Delgado slip through the Mets' fingers? Because it's only fair to credit Omar for those FAs whom he actually signs? Because it doesn't matter what Delgado says his reasons for not-signing were? Why don't Delgado's supposed reasons matter, but Beltran's supposed reasons (which you don't even accept) do? Dont you see how desperately you're searching for stuff to credit Omar with, while rejecting anything that works out against him? If you adopt a standard in the interests of fairness, then that standard applies, whether it suits your biases or not.
|
Frayed Knot
Jul 01 2007 06:47 PM
|
|
| ]even though the Mets signed Mientkewicz for the same money as Delgado ?!?!?!? |
No, the Mets traded for Meintkiewicz and assumed a one-year contract that was for ~1/3 of what Delgado was making on a per/year basis over 4 yrs.
|
iramets
Jul 01 2007 07:07 PM
|
|
Nice try. Check out what Delgado was actually [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/delgaca01.shtml]paid[/url] under his contract for 2005, and what Mientkewicz was [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mientdo01.shtml]paid[/url] by the Mets for 2005.
And always keep spinning.
Do you think the Marlins are feeling they did bad in foisting Delgado off on the Mets about now? They got a real Carlos Delgado type-year in 2005 (at Doug Mientkiewicz rates), swapped him out for parts (which may be useful and which certainly were cheap) when his big bucks kicked in and the Mets got one big year out of him (at a big salary), and now it looks like the Mets have the big salary to pay the next few years but are getting a Doug Mientkiewicz-type performance at Carlos Delgado rates. (Except for the Mientkiewicz glove, of course.)
|
Frayed Knot
Jul 01 2007 07:19 PM
|
|
Delgado made what he was making in 2005 because that's the way the Marlins structured the contract; very low in the first year then way backloaded in the remaining three. But claiming that the Mets could have "signed" them for the same amount of money distorts reality. If I get a Mercedes for $2 down and finance the rest I'm not going to go around bragging that I got a luxury car for less than what you paid at Starbucks.
P.S. When the Marlins traded him to NY they paid a chunk of money to make it happen specifically because they had to equalize the unbalanced contract, which, of course, means that they wound up paying about triple for Delgado that year than the Mets did for Mkwicz.
|
iramets
Jul 01 2007 07:34 PM
|
|
="Frayed Knot"] If I get a Mercedes for $2 down and finance the rest I'm not going to go around bragging that I got a luxury car for less than what you paid at Starbucks.
P.S. When the Marlins traded him to NY they paid a chunk of money to make it happen specifically because they had to equalize the unbalanced contract, which, of course, means that they wound up paying about triple for Delgado that year than the Mets did for Mkwicz. |
How about if you get the Mercedes for $2 down, make no payments for a year, drive it around for a year and then sell it to me for the full price? I'm pretty stupid then, aren't I, letting you drive around for 2 bucks in a new Mercedes for a year, especially when I could have bought it for the same price myself a year earlier, huh?
PS Tell me about the specific anount of money the Mets had to pay to equalize the contract. All I can find is that they included cash in the deal, no specified amount, and no specific mentions of equalizing contracts either.
|
Frayed Knot
Jul 01 2007 07:43 PM
|
|
| ]How about if you get the Mercedes for $2 down, make no payments for a year, drive it around for a year and then sell it to me for the full price? I'm pretty stupid then, aren't I, letting you drive around for 2 bucks in a new Mercedes for a year, especially when I could have bought it for the same price myself a year earlier, huh? |
Which isn't even remotely congruent to what happened here.
| ]PS Tell me about the specific anount of money the Mets had to pay to equalize the contract. All I can find is that they included cash in the deal, no specified amount, and no specific mentions of equalizing contracts either. |
I remember it being about 7 to 9 million dollars, meaning that the Marlins paid about 1/4 of Delgado's contract for 1/4 of the length, and that they paid approx 3 times for one year of Delgado than what the Mets paid for one year of Mkwicz.
|
iramets
Jul 01 2007 07:48 PM
|
|
Assuming you're correct about the money (without a cite, just taking your word for the amounts you claim to be remembering accurately), the Marlins still made out like bandits, in that they got a year of Delgado at Delgado rates AFTER THAT YEAR WAS IN THE BOOKS, and then dumped him off on some poor schnooks who had to gamble that they'd get value for their investment.
So far, not so much. After seven seasons of an average OPS+ in the 150s, the Fish signed him for a LT, BB contract, got a year of 161 OPS+ out of him, and then unloaded him. So far, at Shea, he's had an OPS + of 134 in 2006, and now he's at 84 for the year in 2007. Hosed again!!
|
Frayed Knot
Jul 01 2007 08:10 PM
|
|
Except that they committed to the full amount of the contract before that year - or any year - was in the books. How they chose to divide it up is basically an accounting deal and unless they found someone who was willing to take on the expensive years of the contract absolving the Marlins of all but the cheap year (they didn't) it worked out the same as it would if the per/year amount was just the total divided up evenly.
|
Edgy DC
Jul 01 2007 08:18 PM
|
|
Delgado's contract is for four years, $52 million, $12.33 million per year on average. Mientkiecz got less than a third of what Delgado was signed for on a per annum basis
They didn't sign Mientkiewicz, but picked him up in a trade with a one-year obligation.
|
metsmarathon
Jul 01 2007 08:48 PM
|
|
from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Delgado]wikipedia:[/url]
"On November 23, 2005, the Mets traded Mike Jacobs, Yusmeiro Petit and Grant Psomas to the Marlins for Delgado and $7 million."
so that first year cost the marlins about 11 mil, then, leaving 3 years, 41 mil remaining on the contract ($13.67M)
|
Elster88
Jul 02 2007 06:11 AM
|
|
iramets wrote:
="Elster88"]This is giving me a headache.
My two main points were
1) You can't dismiss out of hand the idea that the Pedro signing could have influenced Beltran. You'll also note (well you would have if you were paying attention) that I did dismiss it because I don't remember Beltran saying it happened.
2) Comparing the idea (that the Pedro signing could have influenced Beltran) to the dogma of Derek Jeter is a poor analogy at best and stupid at worst.
Do you disagree with either of those two points?
|
I don't know that I need to, since you apparently disagree with yourself on point #1. You say that I can't dismiss out of hand a concept that it's apparantly ok for you to dismiss out of hand. WTF is that? LMK how your debate turns out, and I'll take on the winner, okay?
|
You dismissed it because you didn't like the way it sounded. I dismissed it because no one can show evidence that it happened.
Do you see the difference?
|
iramets
Jul 02 2007 07:10 AM
|
|
Elster88 wrote:
="iramets"]Elster88 wrote:
This is giving me a headache.
My two main points were
1) You can't dismiss out of hand the idea that the Pedro signing could have influenced Beltran. You'll also note (well you would have if you were paying attention) that I did dismiss it because I don't remember Beltran saying it happened.
2) Comparing the idea (that the Pedro signing could have influenced Beltran) to the dogma of Derek Jeter is a poor analogy at best and stupid at worst.
Do you disagree with either of those two points?
|
I didn't like the way it sounded BECAUSE no one can ever show why Beltran signed with the Mets. All you can show is that he did.
As to the money--again, no one can show causality, or what the money is for. Since the Mets included young players in the deal--it wasn't simply a cash for player purchase-- who knows if any or all or none of the money was compensation for any of the young players, and not reimbursement of Delgado's salary for 2005. The Mets and Marlins agreed on a deal--presumably if the Mets had taken some of the younger players out of their side of the deal, the Marlins could have reduced or eliminated the money.
I don't know that I need to, since you apparently disagree with yourself on point #1. You say that I can't dismiss out of hand a concept that it's apparantly ok for you to dismiss out of hand. WTF is that? LMK how your debate turns out, and I'll take on the winner, okay?
|
You dismissed it because you didn't like the way it sounded. I dismissed it because no one can show evidence that it happened.
Do you see the difference? |
|
Rotblatt
Jul 02 2007 09:21 AM
|
|
metsmarathon wrote:
from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Delgado]wikipedia:[/url]
"On November 23, 2005, the Mets traded Mike Jacobs, Yusmeiro Petit and Grant Psomas to the Marlins for Delgado and $7 million." |
Interesting. Still a smart play by the Marlins, though. Petit and Psomas haven't exactly worked out yet, but Jacobs has been solid, and the Marlins still saved themselves a chunk of change. And on its own, Delgado circa 2005 at just $11M is pretty damn good value.
From our end, we didn't make out so bad in Delgado's first year, but the early returns for the remainder of his contract don't look so great.
In terms of a subjective analysis of Omar, I'd chalk up the failure to sign Delgado outright in 2005 as a negative, but I don't think there's any objective way of measuring the impact that failure to sign him had. I think we have to evaluate the subsequent trade for Delgado on its own merits, and at the moment, even with Delgado's shit year, we're coming out ahead.
In terms of the impact signing Petey had on subsequent free agent signings, I can't think of an objective way to measure that, so I feel like we should just leave that aspect of signing Petey out of our data set.
He'll probably come out as a net negative so far, but if we take into account his effect on ticket sales/jersey sales/etc., Omar might not fair so badly on this end. Not to mention his help in boosting the fledgling SNY--although again, I'm not sure how we'd measure that.
I mean, one way I think we HAVE to evaluate Omar is on the bottom line--that's second only to performance, IMO.
|
|
|
