Elster88 Old-Timey Member Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 So, how 'bout that Manny Ramirez guy? Do you think the Mets will get him?
Guest old original jb Guests Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Maybe it's a moot issue by now, but I could put up with an awful lot if someone hits .346 with runners in scoring position. A player like that would have come in handy more than a few times in the past several years-=- as I seem to recall doing a lot of cursing at my TV set at the ends of innings during which players with lesser RISP stats failed to get it done for the Mets.As for a team of All Stars, strangers, and rentals, I think that in the current climate, one of the story lines of any given season is how that cast gels and develops an identity as a team for the season that they are together. The Mets have a core for the next few years; it is Pedro, Beltran, Wright, and Reyes. Heilman or Seo could become part of that core if they become too valuable to trade. Like it or not, in this day and age, four or five players is about as much of a core as you can ask for.
metirish Old-Timey Member Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Yes we will ,it's Omars great crusade.....he dreams about Manny apparently..
Elster88 Old-Timey Member Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I'm worried about what Pedro has left in the tank.Course, I was worried about that last year and had those worries rammed down my throat with extra mustard.
Guest ScarletKnight41 Guests Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 No problem Irish.Long timers here have heard me rant on this subject before (and Elster probably still has the shakes as a result ).
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I'd like to thank JB for introducing a great new punctuation mark in -=-
Vic Sage Old-Timey Member Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Yancy:]I do like seeing them get great players, and I'd much rather see them win than lose, but I wonder if we're going to far, if we're getting to a point where we're rooting for a bunch of strangers.Yancy, they're all strangers.You ever been out to dinner with a Met?Any of them ever bring the cranberry sauce to your T'giving dinner?Why don't fans get the fact that what we are rooting for is the UNIFORM... players come and go, management changes... the only constant is the team's name and the history it evokes. I've rooted for such Mets batteries as Seaver and Grote, Swan and Stearns, Ed Lynch and Hodgie, Doc and the Kid, Viola and Sasser, Sabes and Hundley, Leiter and the Pizza Man, and Pedro and Castro. And I'll root for Vasquez and Ramon Hernandez next season, if it comes to that, without skipping a beat. And if that combo gets us closer to a championship than Heilmann to Heitpas, I'm fine with that. I'm as sentimental as the next guy, but lets not over-romanticize the kids. Some kids turn out to be Mr. Wright, but most turn out to be Floyd Youmans.That being said, I agree with Rottweiler. We don't really NEED Manny anymore, not like we did before the Delgado trade, so I don't see the necessity of giving up Milledge. Unlike young pitchers (who can blow up at a moment's notice) 5-tool CFers who've actually produced at each stop in the minors (unlike "prospects" like ryan thompson or Alex Escobar who were mostly "potential", not "production") are diamonds to be surrendered under the direst of circumstances. This is not such a circumstance. If we can get Manny for Nady and other prospects, I'd be okay with it (even with the salary and the headaches). But Milledge is a keeper, like Wright and Reyes, and you only move him if absolutely necessary. Furthermore, this is Floyd's last season and, given his injury history, he is as likely to end up on the DL for a substantial period as he is to repeat this past season's performance. Milledge is the heir apparent, and is likely to get a callup this season.... maybe September, but maybe sooner, if Floyd goes down.Lets just overpay for Wagner, sign Ramon and go into ST with an open competition at 2B and RF. I'm good with that.
Elster88 Old-Timey Member Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Since 90% of the players don't give a fuck about the fans, I don't really care where the players come from. Just keep Asshead away from me. (Asshead being a pitcher who likes to throw bats)
Benjamin Grimm Old-Timey Member Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Oh, I know they're all strangers. It's just that I'd rather win with guys who've been around for a while, or who will be around for a while.But as I said above (I think) I'd rather win with the strangers than lose with the familiar faces.
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I don't root for a uniform.I dislike the Mets uniform two days in three.
Frayed Knot Old-Timey Member Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Rule 1: When a player's RiSP numbers are considerably better than his regular numbers counting on them to continue to be that way in the future will likely leave you disappointed.Rule 2: Refer often to rule 1Nice that Klapisch pulled that "clutch" number out of Manny's arsenal -- although one could probably find plently of contradictory numbers as well by looking around enough. Klapisch likely knows this (or he certainly should) but naturally he chose the one that makes for the best story.And speaking of Klapisch, while there's nothing "wrong" with the idea of that article, he follows the other two I mentioned by turning small tidbits: quotes saying, "we have a shot"; or un-named outside sources suggesting that progress has been made; into something more than it probably is in order to provide raw meat for the hungry masses.
Vic Sage Old-Timey Member Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Edgy:]I dislike the Mets uniform two days in three.so what happens on the 3rd day?The Midol starts to kick in?
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 They wear the classikc blue hat, of course. (The dot doesn't bother me.)Midol, ha, that's rich! Wait'll I tell the guys at the lodge.
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Every time I see the " mets get delgado (apparently)" thread pop up to the top, I get queasy, thinking they got Ramirez.
Guest Rotblatt Guests Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Okay, so Bob Klapisch thinks we'd be willing to give up Floyd, Heilman & Milledge to get Manny. Now, I know this is probably just another sports writer making shit up, but let's think about that a little. My gut feeling is we'd be giving up too much. Let's see if I'm right:Manny's VORP in 2005: 68.6Floyd: 46.3Heilman: 26.5So BEFORE factoring in defense, salary or Lastings Milledge, we're already down 4.2 runs in 2006. Of course, Cliff & Heilman had near-career years last year, whereas Manny just did his usual thing; however, Heilman IMO looks like he's turned a corner and I wouldn't be surprised to see him hit around 25 runs above average next year. If Cliff gets 400 AB (he's averaged 437 over the past 3 years), he'll probably be good for 30 runs above average (33.3 average over past 3 years).Manny, meanwhile, has averaged a VORP of 71.7 over the past 3 years. Giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he won't decline at all, let's say he matches that in 2006. So the difference in runs so far is 16.7 in favor of the trade. According to RAA2, Cliff saved 15 runs last year, whereas Manny cost the Sox 12 runs. That's probably not fair to Manny, since that was a career low for him and a career high for Cliff, so let's look at 3-year averages. Manny's averages -10.3 runs over the past 3, whereas Floyd's averaged 3.3. So now it's looking like we only gain 3.1 runs in 2006 in favor of the trade. Talking salary, Manny's owed close to $20M. Cliff's owed $6.5M and Heilman maybe $0.5M. Is 3.1 additional runs worth $13M? One could make an argument that giving up Floyd & Heilman ALONE is not worth Manny even in the extreme short term. Once you throw Milledge in there, it's just blatant crazy talk if you ask me.
Elster88 Old-Timey Member Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Of course, that's putting a whole lotta stock in VORP. Not saying I agree or disagree, just pointing it out.
Guest Rotblatt Guests Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 True. I suppose I could've used win shares too . . . 2005Heilman: 9 WSFloyd: 26 WSManny: 34 WSSo we lose a WS, assuming that everyone replicates their numbers. Seems pretty comparable to VORP & RAA2 to me. Maybe I'll check out their historical WS data later this week . . .
Guest Rockin' Doc Guests Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 VORP and WS both fail to take into account that Heilman and Milledge are substantially younger than Manny. If they indeed pan out as most hope, they should still be playing long after Manny has put his bat away. There is also the matter of cost to be considered. Manny costs more than Heilman, Floyd and Milledge combined. Personally, I think that is too much to give for Ramirez.
MFS62 Old-Timey Member Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 If that deal is still in play, it is giving up too much.But if it does go down, we'd better be getting back most(if not all) of the money due Manny, and (not or) catching prospect Kelly Shopach.Later
smg58 Old-Timey Member Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 That would be a wonderful deal for the Red Sox even with Shoppach added.
Guest old original jb Guests Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 This seems wrong. Manny may be good for an equal Vorp or winshare total to Heilman plus Floyd, but (assuming Manny replaces Floyd) Heilman would be replaced on the roster by another player. To see whether the trade leaves the Mets in a better or worse position, compare the total Vorp or winshares before and after by adding Manny plus X and comparing to Floyd plus Heilman. To factor in Milledge, you'd have to estimate his likely Vorp or winshare total for a season, then add it to Floyd plus Heilman and add Manny plus X plus Y where X is Heilman's replacement and Y is the replacement for the potential Milledge. You then have to discount the Milledge part of the equation because it is in the future.
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Almost by definition, such calculations assume that the VORP for Player X is 0.0. He's the RP in VORP.
nymr83 Old-Timey Member Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 thats wayyyyy too much to give up. frankly i would give them Milledge straight up if we're paying the entire salary and thats it. if they want Floyd and anyone else they need to pony up some $$ to pay for that big albatross of a contract that we'd be taking.
Elster88 Old-Timey Member Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 I seem to be bashing people's sig lines a lot these days, but this:]This team is more fun to watch in the winter than the summer. --soupcan, 11/28/05is not true at all. Never has been really. I'll take losing baseball over the winter blues any day.
Valadius Old-Timey Member Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 I don't WANT Manny. Period. I'd like to build from within for a change.
Guest old original jb Guests Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 ]Almost by definition, such calculations assume that the VORP for Player X is 0.0. He's the RP in VORP.But it's still a big assumption that Heilman would be replaced with a random player of average performance. There are a lot of scenarios in which Player X could have a positive VORP and that would change the impact of the trade. If Heilman plus Floyd for Manny was followed with the signing of (your favorite top setup man here), then the Mets would be better off after the deals were concluded. The analogy that comes to mind is the pairing of chemical reactions in which a reaction that normally won't happen due to enthalpic considerations, does in fact happen because it enables a subsequent reaction which results in a net enthalpic change that is favorable.I think, therefore, that except in obviously lopsided situations, VORP or winshares may be of limited use in predicting the impact of transactions involving unequal numbers of players at different positions until you know who will replace all of the players involved. The main factor to consider is that the transactions don't happen in a vacuum, but are coupled to other transactions and roster moves which will ultimately alter the net VORP or winshares.As for use of this method to factor in the value of a minor league (read future) player, it gets so complicated I can't even think about it, except to recall that I think that Yogi Berra warned us all to be careful making predictions---especially about the future.
Guest rpackrat Guests Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 A replacement level player is not an average player. Replacement level is defined as the level of freely available talent in the minor leagues. A replacement level player would be a below-average major leaguer.
Guest old original jb Guests Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 Thank you for the correction.My argument, however stays the same, only more so, since it is likely that a traded Heilman would ultimately be replaced in the Mets lineup by a player who would have a positive value compared to that of a freely available minor league player.
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 Be careful making predictions---especially about the future.
Elster88 Old-Timey Member Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 ]I'd like to build from within for a change.You're right. This does need to be changed. The Mets never build from within.Oh wait we have Reyes, Wright, Seo, and Heilman all on the roster. Hmmmmmm.
Zach Thornton Syracuse Mets - AAA LHP On Sunday, the southpaw tossed five shutout innings as the bulk pitcher. He gave up 2 hits, walked 2 and had 5 strikeouts. Explore Zach Thornton News >
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.