Master Index of Archived Threads


Defending the Milledge deal

iramets Dec 01 2007 04:52 AM

I basically think it sucks, always prefer hot prospects to tried-and-true suspects, etc., BUT there are some ways this deal could be defended and, since Omar can't talk his way out of anything (if I was a cop questioning him, I'd want to arrest him just because someone who can't complete a single sentence like that MUST be lying about something), I'll take a shot: 1) Milledge had a much worse attitude than the Mets ever let on. IOW, all the disciplinary measures the Mets tried on him to make him into a better teammate, better citizen, better human being simply didn't work or, worse, backfired. The kid was all "Fuck this shit, I'm the best player EVAH, and I'm going to swagger where and when I feel like it. Don't be telling ME how to run the bases, I'm the King, I'll be here when you're long gone, sucker!" etc. In this scenario, the Mets had been successful in the short term keeping this obnoxious image inside the clubhouse, but they'd reached the likely limits of containment, and feared that word would circulate about this clubhouse poison and detract from the package they could get for him PLUS: 2) Milledge's on-the-field talent had plateaued. Now, it looked to me like he was progressing in some ways, but maybe not. Maybe a professional eye would say "He should be doing X at this point in his career but he's still doing Y, and maybe he'll never do X." So it looked like his talents may still be perceived as star-potential, but really not, while his off-field attitude had not improved or maybe even worsened. AND (OR?): 3) The business of dealing off top prospects is just the Mets' business plan. The Mets have decided to deal off any top picks (whom they've paid a fortune in signing bonuses to) who doesn't show clear signs by a certain early point of blossoming into a superstar. (Under this reasoning, the Kazmir deal was just a mistake in judgment, the cost of doing business, so to speak). Hot prospects are not future big leaguers for the Mets but simply are signable commodities for a big-market team; once the Mets have paid huge bonuses to sign them, the top prospects then are affordable for spare parts to smaller market teams who can't afford to play the signing-bonus game but who want cheaper players in years 1-6 of their MLB careers. Hence Kazmir, Pelfrey, Heilman, Milledge etc are dangled before other teams as a source of affordable talent to get back talent that's further along in the MLB pipeline, and were never intended by the Mets to play on the MLB Mets in the long term. Fans get all invested in them, and the team is never going to state that openly as their business plan, so we experience these cycles of disappointment. For the foreseeable future, and maybe for the recent past, the Mets' top draft picks are NOT here to stay. With rare exceptions, they're just serving in a Mets' uniform to let the hype simmer a while, as small market teams build an interest in acquiring young cheap players, whom the Mets have sunk gazillions into acquiring, for tested commodities on the small-market teams' MLB roster. DON'T be disappointed when they're swapped out, 'cuz they were never intended to be MLB players in a Mets uni.

smg58 Dec 01 2007 09:59 AM

I think the fact that Wagner publicly expressed hope just this week that the Mets wouldn't trade Milledge indicates that the clubhouse issues were blown way out of proportion. I certainly don't think Milledge has anywhere near plateaued as a hitter, but people looking for a centerfielder (i.e., Billy Beane does not need corner outfielders) were probably not impressed enough with his defense. To me that's all the more reason to deal the prospect (Gomez) whose biggest asset, his centerfield glove, is of limited value to us, while keeping the guy who (unlike Gomez) could start in rightfield right now without killing the lineup. But so far at least, the Mets have been more protective of Gomez. I don't think it's a matter of policy to deal off prospects, especially since rushing top-level prospects into levels they aren't quite ready for tends to hurt their stock more than help it. That policy worked better for Reyes and Wright because they came up when the Mets weren't contending, and the team could afford to let them play through their struggles at Shea while guys like Milledge and Pelfrey have been bounced back and forth.

iramets Dec 01 2007 10:09 AM

The Mets are a "have" organization. When they want another team's players, especially those who earn more salary than their "have not" team wants to be paying them but which the Mets can afford to pay, they can't just say "We'll give 20 million for Church and Schneider." Well, they could, but that still leaves Washington with the problem of who'll they put in the field, so the Mets offer instead a ballplayer they've already signed for a 20 million dollar bonus (I'm just making up figures here, but it's a lot of money the Mets pay their top draft picks) and that looks like a good deal for the Nats, far more attractive than just giving them the 20 mil outright. To the cynical, that's what Milledge represents to the Mets: money walking around in a uniform that will be palatable to other teams.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 01 2007 11:16 AM

I think option 3 is the closest but the policy driving it isn't trading young players but acquiring reliable production. I'm sure if they could have gotten Church and Schneider for something less than Milledge they woulda. I would guess their argument for the guys they got is somewhat better confidence of what they'll provide at the end of the year. I don't like it but that's what I think it's about. They wanna write in pen, not pencil.

iramets Dec 01 2007 12:16 PM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think option 3 is the closest but the policy driving it isn't trading young players but acquiring reliable production. Well, of course the object of a deal isn't to lose players, good or bad, young or old, but to gain players. The Mets are in the somewhat rare position of being able to afford kids who demand (and get) huge signing bonuses, and in the even rarer position of being able to ignore the temptation of playing these guys for cheap their first few years AND in the corollary position of being able to take on the somewhat inflated salaries of other teams' players who've only just begun to earn big bucks. All of which adds up to it making sense for the Mets to think of the Big Bonus kids as desirable commodities that let them get their hooks on other teams' youngish semi-stars. I just find it unexciting, and a little sad, to construct a team along those lines, because the most exciting type of team to follow, to my mind, is that young team with a severe budget and a smart GM who manages to build a contending team through great scouting, sharp trading, fundamentals, spit and baling wire. The Mets' policy is very much like all the things we here like to blast the Yankees for. I guess I liked being a Met fan better when they were young and cheap and smart Not saying it's wrong, just not my kind of team, is all.