Master Index of Archived Threads


johan a met

metsmarathon Feb 01 2008 04:37 PM

per wfan. yay! (irish's thread is better. it has a frickin' quote and all)

KC Feb 01 2008 04:42 PM

Yeah, but I was gonna put yay in his so I'm gonna put yay in yours since you used yay. Me likey yay.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 01 2008 04:43 PM

G-Fafif Feb 01 2008 04:52 PM

A card as AWESOME as the news itself. Take that, Jim Fregosi.

metirish Feb 01 2008 05:08 PM

Val will not be happy.

Valadius Feb 01 2008 07:13 PM

What's done is done. I'm pleased that we have a pitcher of Santana's caliber. I'm just a risk-averse person when it comes to trades. It's always hard for me to pull the trigger on anything I'm not 100% certain on.

RealityChuck Feb 01 2008 07:22 PM

soupcan Feb 01 2008 08:26 PM

="Valadius"]What's done is done. I'm pleased that we have a pitcher of Santana's caliber. I'm just a risk-averse person when it comes to trades. It's always hard for me to pull the trigger on anything I'm not 100% certain on. I was a little like Val as a younger fan. Always was excited to see the minor league guys come up and hoped to watch them blossom into major league stars. Always thought they were better than they were because I wanted them to be. Always got too attached to the guys that were on my team simply because they were on my team. If I was Mets GM in the '80s, in 1986 Lee Mazzilli would have been playing centerfield for something like his 10th consecutive year. Ron Hodges would've been behind the plate and the Cardinals would have been the National League champs. Trust me Val - this was a great move. (David West, Alex Ochoa, Alex Escobar, Gregg Jefferies, Shaun Abner....)

AG/DC Feb 01 2008 09:35 PM

Trust me, it works the other way three times over. If I was Met GM in 1973, Nolan Ryan strikes out 400 and clinches the Met World Championship. If I was Met GM in 1988-1990, Kevin Mitchell cheaply displaces an aging Gary Carter as the righthanded thunder in our lineup, as the Mets rival the mighty A's in World Series Battles of Titans. The Phillies phlail helplessly during the regular season, unable to find a sucker to take Juan Samuel. You can't unscramble the eggs, so you go forward, but history has shown the Mets far more damaged by trades than graced.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2008 05:15 AM

I don't buy that for a minute. Without trades, there would have been no Carter. Or Hernandez. Or Piazza, Grote, Staub, Olerud, Clendenon, Maine, Perez, and many others. I think the Mets have been well-served by many of their trades. Whether the good outweighs the bad, I don't know. But the margin isn't lopsided either way.

AG/DC Feb 02 2008 07:24 AM

It's been historically studied, though. The Mets, by at least one thorough study, had been served worse by trades than any other active team. You don't need to cite cases. Both sides can. The key is quantifying those cases.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2008 08:13 AM

Well, that doesn't make trades bad. If the Mets have made a lot of bad trades, then their trading partners have made good trades. The past doesn't necessarily influence the future. You're saying that for every good Mets trade, there have been three bad ones. (And of course, there have been many that were more or less neutral.) That's an extreme ratio, and I just don't believe it.

soupcan Feb 02 2008 09:09 AM

My point was less about the historical outcome of past Met trades and more about Val's hesitance to pull the trigger because of his affinity for the Mets minor leaguers involved. Amos Otis, Ken Singleton - I remember not-so-great deals too, but my point is that you have better odds that a trade will go your way when you get a Santana for four totally raw and unproven guys then if you don't pull that trigger. You have to play those odds. Have to.

Elster88 Feb 02 2008 01:29 PM

Is risk-averse a synonym for stupid?

SteveJRogers Feb 02 2008 01:56 PM

="soupcan"] Amos Otis, Ken Singleton - Singleton did net Rusty Staub though. Granted Staub got turned into an over-the-hill Lolich but still.

AG/DC Feb 02 2008 02:01 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, that doesn't make trades bad. No, but it does cancel the logic of no trades=no Piazza=bad. More than cancels it. Benjamin Grimm wrote: You're saying that for every good Mets trade, there have been three bad ones. (And of course, there have been many that were more or less neutral.) That's an extreme ratio, and I just don't believe it. I'm more saying that for every win gained in a trade, the Mets have lost three. That's still an extreme ratio that discredits the number I threw out there. Sorry about that. I think the thought that trades are good because they get us good players is shortsighted.

Frayed Knot Feb 02 2008 02:19 PM

="Elster88"]Is risk-averse a synonym for stupid? Not to speak entirely for Val here, but let's not forget that this trade/contract has a whole lotta risk attached to it. An injury to Santana early in the contract puts an anchor around the salary structure for years and the farm system could take at least as long to recover. One of the lessons in 'Moneyball' was that it's often easier to recover from the player you don't sign than it is from the one you sign at the wrong price. Now I disagree with him in that I think this WAS the right price (money + players) and will take my chances that we'll beat the odds of the roof caving in but there's a price for every deal at which you should walk away from the risk.

smg58 Feb 02 2008 04:21 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: Now I disagree with him in that I think this WAS the right price (money + players) and will take my chances that we'll beat the odds of the roof caving in but there's a price for every deal at which you should walk away from the risk. I'm with FK. I was very worried that the cost would be quite a bit higher, but by keeping Pelfrey and Martinez I think the trading cost was kept at about what one year of Santana is worth, and the contract is about what I thought it would be.

Valadius Feb 02 2008 04:42 PM

And let's not forget the catastrophe of the pre-2002 trades. Mo Vaughn, etc.

SteveJRogers Feb 02 2008 05:05 PM

Valadius wrote: And let's not forget the catastrophe of the pre-2002 trades. Mo Vaughn, etc. In all fairness though, as bad as Vaughn, Cedeno II, Burnitz II, and Robbie Alomar were, the players the Mets sent have not come back to bite them repeatedly in the butt the way Ryan, Otis, Seaver, Kazmir, etc did.

metsmarathon Feb 02 2008 05:18 PM

no, the players they got in return did.

SteveJRogers Feb 02 2008 05:26 PM

metsmarathon wrote: no, the players they got in return did. Part of Val's dislike of the Santana deal is the potential of those the Mets parted with. Yes the fact that Santana can easily turn into the next Victor Zambrano just as easily as he can turn into the next Al Leiter is a major concern, but I'm shooting down Val's argument about those the Mets gave up. For every Amos Otis and Kevin Mitchell, there are probably many more Ed Hearns, Alex Escobars, David Wests and Rick Ownbeys.

Nymr83 Feb 02 2008 06:06 PM

]Yes the fact that Santana can easily turn into the next Victor Zambrano just as easily as he can turn into the next Al Leiter is a major concern thats not "the fact" or even "a fact." Santana is extremely unlikely to pitch as poorly as Zambrano, he is far more likely to pitch like Leiter, and even more likely to better than both.

metsmarathon Feb 02 2008 07:04 PM

]Yes the fact that Santana can easily turn into the next Victor Zambrano just as easily as he can turn into the next Al Leiter is a major concern nothing in that sentence is even close to being correct. if santana turns into the next al leiter, then i think it is safe to say that we would ALL be very very disappointed in that. santana is the next santana. there is really no apt met-related analogy. the closest might be piazza, if you want to look for career arc to point of trade, and deserved superstardom of the goods received. but we traded more to get piazza. and i'm pretty sure we traded more to get leiter. and think we might have even traded more to get zambrano. santana can turn into zambrano? please! maybe if we had traded gomez, humber, mulvey, and guerra for rafael santana in the hopes that he could blossom into an ace starting pitching. leiter? he was a very good starting pitcher. he was not, and was not close to, the best pitcher in the game in the midst of his prime. that's santana. i don't understand the need to mischaracterize this in the service of making a greater point.

RealityChuck Feb 02 2008 07:09 PM

="SteveJRogers"] ="soupcan"] Amos Otis, Ken Singleton - Singleton did net Rusty Staub though. Granted Staub got turned into an over-the-hill Lolich but still. Not until after he led the team to the World Series. I watched the team in '73, and Staub was superb, especially in the World Series. But the argument here is futile. You need to trade to build a team, because no farm system is going to produce all the players you need at any given time. All trades are gambles, and some don't work out (the Mets track record is clearly worse than others). But there are all sorts of factors involved, and sometimes even keeping the player wouldn't have made a difference. For an example, look at Ollie Perez from the standpoint of Pittsburgh. He was in the minors and looked to be a total loss, but he turned it around in NY. It was one of Omar's better trades (N.B., Perez wasn't a "throw-in" as is often reported*), but if he had stayed with the Pirates, he probably would be trying to catch on somewhere else right now. Sometimes it would have been better to keep a player; sometimes the trade was the right thing to do. It's pointless to argue the team would have been better if it hadn't traded away it's minor league talent -- one of the reasons you build a farm system is to do exactly what the Mets did for Santana: have the bodies to make an offer. *According to Minyana, he had been in talks for a straight Nady for Perez trade throughout July, but he had decided to pass simply because he couldn't justify trading his starting right fielder for a pitcher who was so messed up he had to be sent down to the minors. Once Sanchez went down, he went back to Pittsburgh and told them he'd make the deal if they threw in Roberto.

AG/DC Feb 02 2008 07:52 PM

metsmarathon wrote: no, the players they got in return did. Money wasted hurt a lot also.

AG/DC Feb 02 2008 07:54 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: For every Amos Otis and Kevin Mitchell, there are probably many more Ed Hearns, Alex Escobars, David Wests and Rick Ownbeys. I'm telling you, when you get past probablies and look at facts, there's no way to argue that the Mets have historically come out on top in the trade game. Or anywhere close to it.

AG/DC Feb 02 2008 08:02 PM

="RealityChuck"] ="SteveJRogers"] ="soupcan"] Amos Otis, Ken Singleton - Singleton did net Rusty Staub though. Granted Staub got turned into an over-the-hill Lolich but still. Not until after he led the team to the World Series. I watched the team in '73, and Staub was superb, especially in the World Series. We're cherry-picking here. Staub didn't lead the team to the World Series. He was a wonderful part of it, and stood apart in a particularly weak offensive lineup for a division winner. But the pitchers were the lead players in that act. More importantly --- and I know about Staub's post-season performance --- Singleton was already better than Staub in 1973. He played every day and, with 103 RBI and 123 walks, he was Frank Thomas before there ever was a Frank Thomas. He easily gave his teams well more than Staub and Lolich ever gave the Mets.

Nymr83 Feb 02 2008 08:19 PM

AG/DC wrote: ="SteveJRogers"]For every Amos Otis and Kevin Mitchell, there are probably many more Ed Hearns, Alex Escobars, David Wests and Rick Ownbeys. I'm telling you, when you get past probablies and look at facts, there's no way to argue that the Mets have historically come out on top in the trade game. Or anywhere close to it. why don't we do this? i'll be happy to split the work if someone comes up with the parameters

SteveJRogers Feb 02 2008 08:42 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ="AG/DC"] ="SteveJRogers"]For every Amos Otis and Kevin Mitchell, there are probably many more Ed Hearns, Alex Escobars, David Wests and Rick Ownbeys. I'm telling you, when you get past probablies and look at facts, there's no way to argue that the Mets have historically come out on top in the trade game. Or anywhere close to it. why don't we do this? i'll be happy to split the work if someone comes up with the parameters Apparently from reading Edgy's reply about Singleton vs. Staub there might be a ton of working on setting up the parameters on this one. Good examples, can we argue that the fact that the Mets never really "needed" a Rick Augilera type closer, and Kevin Tapani's middle of the pack starter career negates Frank Viola's sweet but oh so short stay in Flushing? Do you also want to throw in intangibles such as "Well, Ryan would NEVER have been able to harness his ability the way he did in Anaheim" or "Scott was only good AFTER learning the split-finger or how to scuff a baseball" The same could also be said about Vaughn vs. Appier. Both turned up to be expensive headaches, would you rather call it a complete wash instead of a regular "bad Mets trade." Oh it was an expensive mistake, but is the transaction in a separate category since neither team really fared well with the player they received. And speaking of other categories, should we also create a "well Player X went somewhere else before blossoming" like Kevin Mitchell not panning out in San Diego before becoming a masher in San Fran? I've seen that "retort" used in defense of the Mitchell trade. It does seem like a daunting task to define the exact parameters to use.

SteveJRogers Feb 02 2008 09:12 PM

And yet another quantifier, Kris Benson never really was what the Mets thought they were getting, but do you want to say the trade ended up working out because; A) While Ty Wigginton (though where the heck would we play him, 2nd? 1st?) had a terrific season with TB in 2006 and with both TB and Houston last year and Jose Bautista is a starter in the majors Matt Peterson, the "centerpiece" of the deal (according to those who knocked this trade along with the Kazmir one), has yet to pitch a major league pitch and B) Benson ended up turning into John Maine and Jorge Julio, who in turn was traded for Orlando Hernandez. While the actual acquisition of Kris Benson did not pan out, the twists and turns of the deal might give off the impression that in the end it kind of did.

Rockin' Doc Feb 02 2008 09:49 PM

Like all major league franchises, the Mets have their share of hits and misses when it comes to past trades. Though it would be interesting, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to analyze and evaluate the longterm effects of past Mets trades. There are just so many parameters and tangents to consider over time for each trade. Few trades occur in isolation over the long run. Regardless of past trades, I think it would be hard to argue against the Mets acquisition of Johan Santana.

AG/DC Feb 02 2008 09:50 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: Good examples, can we argue that the fact that the Mets never really "needed" a Rick Augilera type closer, and Kevin Tapani's middle of the pack starter career negates Frank Viola's sweet but oh so short stay in Flushing? No and no. SteveJRogers wrote: Do you also want to throw in intangibles such as "Well, Ryan would NEVER have been able to harness his ability the way he did in Anaheim" or "Scott was only good AFTER learning the split-finger or how to scuff a baseball" Ugh. No and no. SteveJRogers wrote: The same could also be said about Vaughn vs. Appier. Both turned up to be expensive headaches, would you rather call it a complete wash instead of a regular "bad Mets trade." Oh it was an expensive mistake, but is the transaction in a separate category since neither team really fared well with the player they received. Win shares above replacement ________________________________ Salary ______________ Average Salary SteveJRogers wrote: And speaking of other categories, should we also create a "well Player X went somewhere else before blossoming" like Kevin Mitchell not panning out in San Diego before becoming a masher in San Fran? No, we shan't. SteveJRogers wrote: I've seen that "retort" used in defense of the Mitchell trade. Stop. Obscuring an issue is not an accomplishment. Having seen something doesn't make its usage valid. SteveJRogers wrote: It does seem like a daunting task to define the exact parameters to use. Then why do you come up with all sorts of un-measurable irrelvancies?

metsmarathon Feb 03 2008 11:34 AM

the furthest logical extent you could go with this (and it would be tough) would be to play it out to the end... player X was subsequently traded for player Y who was then traded for player Z, who left via free agency. but edgy's formula is the way any such thing should be measured, imo.

Frayed Knot Feb 03 2008 11:59 AM

Some place did such a study of franchise-trades a few years back (Hardball Times maybe?) and the Mets did indeed come out at the bottom of the gained/lost scale. Much of their negative came in the form of the Nolan Ryan deal as he racked up so many brownie points during his lengthy post-NYM career. Problem was that much of the response to the article pointed out flaws in his methodology (I forget exactly what the "scoring" system was) that even the author admitted that it wasn't a very accurate accounting. The other problem is that - unless you've got the same people making the same kind of deals via the same kind of logic - those past deals say virtually nothing about current or future ones.

KC Feb 03 2008 12:06 PM

I might have to agree with SJR re: Scott and his cheating. He got some really sick stuff all of a sudden. Other than that ... he's our resident whack job. I agree that this might be an interesting thing to research as a group. Screw arguing over what the parameters are and have ten people split up forty some odd years of significant trades and see who has the most win shares or something. We need someone to volunteer as moderator.

Nymr83 Feb 03 2008 12:13 PM

i think the first thing you should do is have a list of 40 years of trades (easily lifted from umdb) and cross off all the BS ones (Corey Brittan for Kane Davis) so that we're only talking about deals that matters.

KC Feb 03 2008 12:23 PM

Namor: >>>i think the first thing you should do ...<<< You're hired.

Nymr83 Feb 03 2008 03:22 PM

="KC"]Namor: >>>i think the first thing you should do ...<<< You're hired. i think you missed a key word there.

metsguyinmichigan Feb 03 2008 04:03 PM

I'd argue that a super-deep farm system isn't as important for a team like the Mets than it is for a mid- to low-market team. Other than Wright and Reyes, do we even have any Met-developed position players on the roster? It's nice to be able to fill the holes from within, but we have the luxury of going out and getting what we need. I'm saying it wouldn't be nice to be flush with kids on the farm. But we tend to use them as we did this week -- to trade them for big guys we want.

AG/DC Feb 03 2008 04:09 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: The other problem is that - unless you've got the same people making the same kind of deals via the same kind of logic - those past deals say virtually nothing about current or future ones. Well, close to nothing. But that's what we get into to when somebody is throwing around Keith Hernandez, Jon Olerud, and Rusty Staub.

AG/DC Feb 03 2008 04:26 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I'm saying it wouldn't be nice to be flush with kids on the farm. But we tend to use them as we did this week -- to trade them for big guys we want. And we don't tend to succeed that way.

AG/DC Feb 04 2008 02:51 PM

Phillie Phans: http://www.philliesphans.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39772&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

metirish Feb 05 2008 08:30 AM

] A left handed ace going against a lefty heavy lineup in the phillies- I hate this. I believe this clearly shifts the power in the East to the Muts ] This is really terrible news. On the face of it, it's bad. It puts the best pitcher in baseball on the team that will undoubtedly be our toughest obstacle in getting back to the playoffs. On closer inspection, it's even worse. First of all, the Mets lost nothing. Humber is the keystone? Please raise your hand if you were ever worried about Phillies hitters having to deal with Phil Humber for six years? Anyone, anyone? Oh and to add insult to injury, Humber hasn't been dominating since he had Tommy John surgery. Carlos Gomez might get lucky and become Jacque Jones someday. Kevin Mulvey might be the best player the Twins landed. Highly regarded at Villanova, great numbers through the minors, right on target age wise. Maybe too few strikeouts for a power-pitcher, but he's done well anyway. I don't even know who Deolis Guerra is. Anyway you cut it, the Mets losing these guys doesn't mean their farm is shot or they lost a key piece they're going to need down the road. Overall, I'm just baffled as to why the Twins would accept this trade. Further, the Mets get to keep Fernando Martinez, Wright, and Reyes who will continue to hurt the Phillies for many years to come. The price of the contract extension and Santana producing for the length of it, you say? How many Cy Young Award winners in recent history have slipped into mediocrity after winning one? Bartolo Colon and Eric Gange. Two guys who weren't the best pitchers in the league that year anyway. How many multi-Cy Youngers turned out not to be worth their pricetags? None that I can think of. The Mets are plenty willing and able to spend money when they want to. Even a contract like Santana's won't break the bank. Frankly, they've been Phillie-esque with their budget after 2003. One player doesn't make that much of a difference. We won the division by one game and got swept in the playoffs. One player can certainly make a huge difference. And it's not like the Muts are surrounded by a bunch of lousy players. Not a happy lot.

AG/DC Feb 05 2008 08:34 AM

I don't think it's true that Humber is the keystone. I don't think any of these four has a particular value that makes them the jewel in the package. Gomez is probably the most desirable of the lot, but not by much. They all are likely to have some sort of big league career. They all have a chance to star. They all have to take something to prove.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 05 2008 08:38 AM

I think if anyone is the main player in the package, it's Gomez. But as Edgy said, it's really a package of four, not a 3 plus 1. Gary Cohen, on this week's Hot Stove Report on SNY, said he thinks Humber is going to be a star pitcher. He sounded VERY high on Humber. That opinion isn't really in line with most others I've heard or read.

metirish Feb 05 2008 08:39 AM

Seems a lot of posters on that board think that Smith was intent on trading Santana out of the AL.

metirish Feb 05 2008 08:42 AM

Never heard anything like this. ] No sweat. Santana's got the inverted "W" delivery: an injury waiting to happen and an albatross around the neck of the Mutts for 6 or 7 years NOTE: I am not wishing an injury on anyone, simply pointing out the possibility.

AG/DC Feb 05 2008 08:54 AM

Nor I. An easier term for "inverted W" is "M."

Benjamin Grimm Feb 05 2008 08:58 AM

That picture looks more like an X than an M (or an inverted W) to me. If his delivery was shaped like a Z or a Q, then I'd really be concerned.

Frayed Knot Feb 05 2008 09:03 AM

What pitching "expert" is that injury quote from? And after 8 injury-free years in MLB - including the last 4 as a full-time starter w/134 starts & 900+ IPs - I'm guessing that whoever it is he has a fairly adaptive definition of "waiting to happen". * Hey, I'm HoJo !!

AG/DC Feb 05 2008 09:23 AM

I'm guessing that there's a lot of bullshit masquerading as informed analysis on the internet. I'm sure he'll feel vindicated if and when Santana eventually gets injured. All pitchers are injuries waiting to happen, as pitching is a generally a pretty un-natural activitiy. It's moreso with the 97% of pitchers ( or so) who throw overhand but I'm going to bet that it has little to do with the alphabet.

PatchyFogg Feb 06 2008 11:52 AM

AG/DC wrote: I'm guessing that there's a lot of bullshit masquerading as informed analysis on the internet. From that Phillies fan site, it seems that Mulvey's the best prospect solely because he went to school in Philadelphia.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2008 11:55 AM

That only indicates he's not the smartest.

Rockin' Doc Feb 06 2008 06:31 PM

Lunchbucket - "That only indicates he's not the smartest." Ba-dum-bum