Master Index of Archived Threads


Revisionism Theater, Part II

AG/DC Jan 17 2008 02:04 PM

Nobody seems to want to buy my notion that Bud Harrelson was actually a capable skipper, so try this one on for size. We can rail all we want about 1977, but Tom Seaver's presence may not have made as meaningful a difference in the early Torre era as it would have in the early Johnson era. I submit: If Tom Seaver doesn't get claimed in the free agent compensation draft of 1983, the Mets win the division in 1984 and 1985.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 17 2008 02:19 PM

There's a school of thought that goes had the Mets not bungled Seaver away in 83 they would never have been so aggressive with Gooden, and all the good/bad that implied. I mean, we got along OK without Seaver, pitching wise, specially by 85. Not to disagree with your point -- Seaver woulda helped not hurt, but one of the things I admired about the 84s was how positively un-Met-like they were, casting out any and all old guys (Torrez, Swan, etc) just as they were getting good. Very exciting.

AG/DC Jan 17 2008 02:38 PM

Yeah, they cut loose three veteran pitchers that year (add Tidrow to the pile). If those 72 innings go to Seaver, that's a big "oh boy" right there. Of course, Seaver's innings might well have come at the expense of Sid Fernandez or Gooden, as you say. How about them getting 90 innings and a 3.50 ERA out of Fernandez and then sending him back down to open 1985? The idea that the 230+ inings Seaver gave the White Sox would've meant the division for the Mets in 1984 and 1985 is a no-brainer in retrospect. But in retrospect, you're allowed to subtract those innings from the right guys. That doesn't always work going forward.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 17 2008 02:41 PM

I'm more likely to buy that argument for 1984 than for 1985. (Not sure why, though. The Mets finished a lot closer in 1985.) I'd like to think that Seaver's 1984 innings and starts would have replaced those of Torrez, and not of Gooden. But we really can't be sure of that.

HahnSolo Jan 17 2008 03:26 PM

I kind of agree with Lunchbucket. Gooden probably would have been brought along more slowly. If you believe that, then he doesn't provide those 41 wins in those two years. Maybe Gooden takes Sid's spot. Then maybe Sid never develops the way he did. it's a good argument. But if having Seaver back in those years meant that I didn't get to see Doc's 1985...I don't know. Yeah, I would rather have won the division, but Doc's 85 season was so special.

AG/DC Jan 17 2008 06:53 PM

OK, say what you want about 1984. 1985 plus Seaver equals division gold. Seaver gets Berenyi-Aguilera's spot, and Aggie becomes the righthander in the bullpen so sorely needed when Sisk couldn't get it together. In Bats, Davey actually writes about Cashen telling him that he was trying to swing a deal to get Seaver back in mid-1995, but Johnson discourages him, because he doesn't want to mess up the 1986 rotation. He may have thrown away the 1985 division right there (depends, of course, on who the Mets give up) and they ended up going out to get Ojeda for the 1986 rotation anyhow.

Willets Point Jan 17 2008 11:07 PM

="AG/DC"] In Bats, Davey actually writes about Cashen telling him that he was trying to swing a deal to get Seaver back in mid-1995, but Johnson discourages him, because he doesn't want to mess up the 1986 rotation. He may have thrown away the 1985 division right there (depends, of course, on who the Mets give up) and they ended up going out to get Ojeda for the 1986 rotation anyhow. The other reason is that by 1995, Seaver was 9 years retired and Johnson was managing the Reds.