Most Hated Shortstop in Met History

[Elster88]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Elster88"] ]The vast majority of teams will try to get some kind of a return on investment rather than let an $8 million per year guy sit on the bench. Vast majority = all Well, if you're going to go all high finance on me, there's an adage that applies here: "Don't Send Good Money After Bad," that addresses the problem I'm identifying. If you've made a mistake, it's suicidical to continue with that mistake just to justify having made it. If you've spent 8 million on a stock that's gone into the shitter, at some point you need to take what you've invested and put it elsewhere, even if that means taking a loss on the original mistake. That's precisely what Fred refuses to do, and what I'm fauiting him for here. Look at it in baseball terms for a second. I don;t think anyone disputes that if the Mets had Ordonez at just under $500,000 rather than just under $5,000,000 per year, he would have lost his job. Well, since that money had already been lost by the time everyone on this planet decided that Ordonez deserved to lose his job, and nothing was going to earn Fred back a nickel, why did he keep his job for a few more years? Look, Fred, sometimes your front office is going to make bad choices--if you're not going to allocate some money to take care of your ballteam when this happens, your team is not going to win, and ultimately that will cost you more money than you're saving with your present policy.

Hey you're preaching to the choir. Fred should be faulted. But so should every other owner/GM combo in baseball.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

First off, I'm not in favor of just cutting someone if you can trade him or package him in a deal where, though you lose money, you get some kind of return and improve your team (but not your profit margin) overall. The value is falling pretty steadily in most of these cases like Alomar and Ordonez, but I believe they could have gotten a better return if they weren't so focussed on $$$$. They start out thinking "We have to get full value on Alomar" and so over-price him, and end up dumping him for even less after that season is lost.

Of course, there are Giambis every now and then, whose salary is so huge that even Steinbrenner is reluctant to take that size hit, and so saves his bacon, but with that as your watchword, you'll just hang on to every useless player until eternity passes. Wait, wasn't that last year's slogan: "Mets in 2005! Hang On To Every Useless Player Until Eternity Passes!"

[Elster88]

2005? I guess you mean Piazza? Minky's butt was placed firmly on the bench in crunch time last year. Glavine came back to form.

Edit: Ah! Ishii too. Spent way too much time trying to get him to turn around.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

No, I don't believe it was.

Seems to me that was a better description of a team that say, got nothing for Derrick Lowe, paid too much for Matt Clement, let Millar stink up the joint all year long and asked too much for Manny Ramirez.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Second off, I don't want to get too far afield here, this thread is hopelessly hijacked already, but look at what Larry Brown is doing with the Knicks. He seems to be saying, "I don't give a fuck who makes how much money--you'll play if you're in shape, if you've got talent and intensity, if you do what what I want you to, and if I think you can make the team better someday. You think your multi-zillion dollar deal obliges me to give you "your" minutes? Think again, and do your thinking on my bench."

This is where WWSB could use a slightly larger pair.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: asked too much for Manny Ramirez.

"Take him off our hands for nothing" is asking too much? Man, you're strict. Lowe was a free agent--is every club that lets an FA go guilty of getting nothing? Again, very strict standards. Clement got off to a pretty good start--it's not like he started off bad and the Sox stuck wtih him anyway. By the time he started pitching consistently badly, the season was past the trade deadline.

Elster--don't forget about Matsui.

[Elster88]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Elster--don't forget about Matsui.

With Kaz they didn't really have any other options, and I think they've been trying to get rid of since the middle of last year. Actually my argument has been all along that Willie was playing Cairo waaaaay too much.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

My point was only to suggest these are issues all teams face.

[Elster88]

Me too me too.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: My point was only to suggest these are issues all teams face.

And that point is well taken. But some teams cope with the issues better than others.

So to return to our originally scheduled discussion, the Mets actually made Ordonez into a much hated figure. If they would have benched him (and taken the hit) he would be viewed as overpriced, certainly, but not so much despised. Might even have helped him out. ("Hmmmm, maybe I need to rethink swinging at those fastballs up around my eyes"). Whenever I hear someone claim that Reyes is showing better strike zone judgment, I think of Ordonez, and say "Show me the stats." Reyes is a lot better than Rey was, but this business of leading him off is so far an experiment that hasn't shown results: when do you just send him to the bottom of the lineup? This year? Next year? Never?

If they keep leading him off, and if he keeps turning in a .300 OBP, the Mets will turn Reyes too into a much hated Mets shortstop.

[Elster88]

]If they would have benched him (and taken the hit) he would be viewed as overpriced,

You keep saying this but I'll respond with the same question that I have about benching Kaz. Who in God's name would've stepped in? Your usual contention is that it doesn't matter since we're not in a race, and to play some random kid and see if he shows you something. But in Rey's case, the Mets were in contention for most of his Met-career.

What's Rey up to these days?

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Yeah, and I mainly meant to respond to the "2005 slogan" regarding the Sox.

]Whenever I hear someone claim that Reyes is showing better strike zone judgment, I think of Ordonez, and say "Show me the stats." Reyes is a lot better than Rey was, but this business of leading him off is so far an experiment that hasn't shown results: when do you just send him to the bottom of the lineup? This year? Next year? Never? If they keep leading him off, and if he keeps turning in a .300 OBP, the Mets will turn Reyes too into a much hated Mets shortstop.

This is what I asked earlier. I think (?) Reyes may be eligible for arbitration next winter, but for our purposes now, let's just pretend he is, and let's pretend he has a 2006 year that's more or less in line with his ZiPS projections of 281/311/400 (he was .273/.300/.386 actual results last year).

Given the options, do you:
a) trade him
offer arbitration
c) buy out arbitration years with a 3-4 year deal

[nymr83]

Bret- i'd have sent Reyes to the 8-hole a long time ago. but i fear that he could lower his already abysmal OBP and STILL be considered a good leadoff hitter by certain people who like to ignore stats.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Yeah, and I mainly meant to respond to the "2005 slogan" regarding the Sox. ]Whenever I hear someone claim that Reyes is showing better strike zone judgment, I think of Ordonez, and say "Show me the stats." Reyes is a lot better than Rey was, but this business of leading him off is so far an experiment that hasn't shown results: when do you just send him to the bottom of the lineup? This year? Next year? Never? If they keep leading him off, and if he keeps turning in a .300 OBP, the Mets will turn Reyes too into a much hated Mets shortstop. This is what I asked earlier. I think (?) Reyes may be eligible for arbitration next winter, but for our purposes now, let's just pretend he is, and let's pretend he has a 2006 year that's more or less in line with his ZiPS projections of 281/311/400 (he was .273/.300/.386 actual results last year). Given the options, do you: a) trade him offer arbitration c) buy out arbitration years with a 3-4 year deal

The 2005 slogan was just a throwaway line. I'd finished my post, noticed that my last line ended "just hang on to every useless player until eternity passes" and, caustic fucktard that I can be, thought that made a pretty funny slogan. Sorry if I poked a sensitive spot.

Of the three options, I'd say that the safe answer would be d) see how much he wants to buy out the arb. years, but that's just to kill a little time. It's going to be a LOT, I'm sure, and I don't want to pay a LOT for someone who hasn't shown me that he's actually going to deliver a LOT. I'd say, based on the Rey Rey experience, that choice is the winner.

If he takes a major step ahead in 2006 (starting with an OBP over over .335) then we reconsider.

[nymr83]

right now i've got to go with "offer arbitration." he's done nothing to deserve a multi-year deal.

[Frayed Knot]

Except that a multi-year deal helps the club also - at least the right kind of deal does. What clubs absolutely love as much as sell-outs and good weather is as much "cost certainty" as is possible to have.
By inking a 3rd/4th year player to a 3 or 4 year deal the club knows exactly what he'll cost them for the next couple of years and, they not only get to avoid the often-contentious process of arbitration, they could wind up paying less over that time than the player would earn taking on a year-by-year basis. The player will often gladly give up the possibility of more cash because the longer term deal assures him of a job for another 3/4 years, security which wouldn't be available otherwise. Sometimes these deals favor the club (Boston w/Nomar way back when) and other times the player.

Choosing which players to do this with is, of course, the trick and it's the purpose of Dickshot's multiple choice question. Dealing with Reyes one year at a time may cost the team more in the long run but they'll retain the option to get out from under him at any time; assuming that is that he'll play poorly enough to cause them to want to non-tender a 23 or 24 y/o with his (supposed?) talent.
That was the same choice they had w/Ordonez following the '99 season. The combo of factors there: injury, phony age, regression of player, regression of market, and a deal that was too big (anticipating growing market) and too back-loaded to begin with, made it the wrong deal at the wrong time to the wrong player.
We/they will get to visit the same choice next year with Reyes and in the one after that w/Wright.

[nymr83]

lets not forget the injury factor either....he stayed healthy for once but unless he does it a 2nd straight year i wouldnt start counting on him to do it often...

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Frayed Knot wrote: Except that a multi-year deal helps the club also - at least the right kind of deal does.

Yes, Captain Obvious, but what can we learn from the Ordonez debacle? To me, it's that if you have a shortstop who struggles to get his OBP above .300, but who shows a lot of potential to develop as a star, maybe you shouldn't be paying him as a star until he gets that OBP up above league average for a couple of years. Until that point, which may well not arrive, pay him year-to-year, and if you lose him, you lose him. Shortstops with good gloves are a dime a dozen, no need to pay them like superstars quite yet.

The arbitration process need not be acrimonious: "We love Jose, and really want him to get on base enough to justify leading him off, as we've been doing to the detriment of our ballclub for years in the faith that he will develop this crucial skill. We agree that with better strike zone judgment, which we will do anything to help Jose acquire, he deserves a long term contract at many multiples of the salary he currently warrants, and we hope he gets his OBP up where we can sign such a contract."

If you're bound and determined to read that as acrimonious, then I've got to think that acrimony is just a bargaining position meant to justify outrageous demands for a salary level you haven't begun to earn.

Further, with such long-term deals, the hidden danger is that the club makes a GOOD deal: say the Mets sign Reyes to a five-year contract at a modest 3 Mil per year (after the kind of 2006 Dickshot projects, .311 OBP etc.). Fabulous, right? But say Reyes then proceeds to get on base at a consistent .375 clip, with power and Gold Glove fielding and 100 steals per year--doubly fabulous right? Not exactly. Then what you've got is one pissed-off shortstop, feeling underpaid and resentful that he could be earning Jeter-money on the open market.

Think of how much you'd pay (or give up) to ACQUIRE another player like Reyes just now: a lifetime .303 OBP, some speed, a few flashes of power, good glove. Are you going to swap Beltran to get that? Floyd? He's just not that valuable --yet.

Here's his current list of Similar Batters through Age 22

Jack Doyle (962)
Mark Koenig (955)
Red Kress (951)
Jack O'Connor (948)
Joe Cronin (947) *
Joe Tinker (945) *
Mike Caruso (944)
Alfredo Griffin (943)
Wil Cordero (943)
Juan Uribe (942)

I'd suggest a weighted average of these players is not worth a long-term big-bucks commitment. Some decent years mixed in here and there, but a lot of pretty poor years as well. If this list doesn't change in a year's time, I'd say that passing on buying out Reyes' arb. years seems pretty sound. (Koenig, for example, had a lifetime .316 OBP in some pretty strong lineups at a time when MLB offense was going crazy.)

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Elster88 wrote: ]If they would have benched him (and taken the hit) he would be viewed as overpriced, You keep saying this but I'll respond with the same question that I have about benching Kaz. Who in God's name would've stepped in? Your usual contention is that it doesn't matter since we're not in a race, and to play some random kid and see if he shows you something. But in Rey's case, the Mets were in contention for most of his Met-career. What's Rey up to these days?

I'm not talking about picking some kid out of the stands and putting him at second (though wouldn't that be cool?) Anderson Hernandez would be one such choice--if they'd plucked him out of AAA in June, and said, "Fuck it, let's see what he can do," you think the Mets would have lost a lot more games than they did? Or this Balderis kid that Healey's top-10 link discusses. Or re-acquire Wigginton. I don't care. My point is that if someone does very poorly and he's a minimum salary guy, the call gets made much diferently than if he's a big contract guy, though the baseball qua baseball decision is identical.

Now you can argue that the big-contract guy has probably shown ability in the past (else, why the big contract?) but I'm arguing that at least SOME of that decision is an attempt on the part of the guy who signed the player to the big contract to delay, or avoid entirely, HIS looking like a horse's ass.

That's what I argue about Kaz Matsui, virtually throughout his Mets career. Someone screwed the pooch in scouting him (no Japanese scout noticed that the guy has no backhand move, and no range? How much sake were these guys drinking?) and this stupid organization bid against itself in signing him to an All-Star level contract--when they saw they weren't getting All-Star level play, they made choices that have nothing to do with an honest appraisal of abilities (or lack thereof) on the field of play.

As to Ordonez, to whom the quote above refers, I've already said, "Relaford or Scutaro" or whoever the backup ss was at the time. The object wasn't to improve the team, it was to send the message that persistent inadequate play results in reduced playing time. (In Scutaro's case, the team might have been improved.) And the argument that Rey-O could conly play ss is absurd. Any ss can play any infield position. There's no difference between playing ss and 3b, other than the reduced need for range (because of the foul line) at 3b. The only difference in skills between ss and 2b is learning to cover 1B and learning to turn the DP with your back to the runner, both of which can be learned easily in a few weeks of practice. Otherwise the difference between 2b and ss is the reduced need for a consistently strong throwing arm at 2b. I've never heard of a good ss being inadequate to play any other infield position, and never expect to.

Ah, but did Rey-rey want to play another infield position? That may have been the nub of his problem--there were lots of skills he didn't want to acquire, like bunting or laying off high fastballs.

[MFS62]

Some other shortstops of note. They really may not belong on this list, but their careers certainly frustrated me:
1) Ryan Jaroncyk - drafted #1 by the Mets, spent one year in the minors, then decided he didn't like baseball and quit the game.

2) A guy named Bucci (forget his first name) signed by the Mets, played a few years in the organization and loooked like he had some potential. One year he was dissatisfied that he wasn't promoted and asked for a trade. When he didn't get it, he quit the game.

3) This guy was special. He was signed out of the Dominican Republic at age 16. He had played two years there in the highest level of amateur ball. One year he won the Triple Crown. The other year, he hit 47 home runs in around 250 at bats (that is not a misprint). He spent a few years in the Mets organization, but was left exposed in the Rule V Draft and taken by Milwaukee. His development was hurt by having to have spent an entire year on the major league roster. He is still in their system (AA last year) and is still only 24 years old. Who knows?
He may eventually fulfill his potential. I would like to see him do it.
His name is Enrique Cruz.

Later

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

I think this goes in its own thread, labelled "Shortstops you've never heard of and never will and couldn't care less about."

[Guest KC]

Note: I haven't read 62's response yet, but got logged out a couple of times
writing and pasted this from notepad

I guess what I find so frustrating about some of this thinking is that it's so
damn well laid out and makes so much god damn sense when you take it
on it's own - these last two tablespoons are extraordinary examples of well
thought out analysis sprinkled with historical stuff and references - sign me
up.

My problem is that if Reyes was traded last week along with some other
prospects for a bonified all-star,. not an old one, a medium aged one. One
with no loop holes, no short comings, one who could pass all of the litmus
tests required for being a "real deal". Ya know, the perfect trade where a
couple of Mets scouts pull Omar aside and say, "we don't think Reyes is
ever really gonna pan out - his OBP is where it is and ain't gonna move" and
got him to pull the trigger on this trade of a lifetime - there would have been
two other finely written long tablespoons about why the Mets can't plan for
the future properly or this or that and how can you trade away the future bbbyyy.

There would be a lot of pissed of fans if Reyes was traded away because it
came out that his SIM scores on bbr.com weren't up to snuff at age 22. And
under most circumstances I can't help but think that the very people posting
and calling the radio about Jose's OBP would be moaning and groaning about
getting rid of him too soon only to see him flourish elsewhere. To some degree
it happened with Kazmir. People in the org didn't like some stuff about his delivery,
scouting and coaching and decision making is tricky business - but look at the
outcry over that move - likely from the same tablespooners.

[Elster88]

]To some degree it happened with Kazmir.

To some degree? It's still happening to a huge degree. And what boggles my mind is that people say things like "after what he showed last year I'm even more pissed about this deal." I always want to shout at those people and ask them what the hell were you watching last year. It was nice but nothing to make you call for anyone's head.

I don't remember who it was, but someone here was even blaming Omar and Willie for the Kazmir trade. Lash out at anyone and everyone if you're cranky. Throw those temper tantrums.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

KC wrote: - there would have been two other finely written long tablespoons about why the Mets can't plan for the future properly or this or that and how can you trade away the future bbbyyy.

There's a real difference between trading a guy off because you don't think he's MLB material for at least a few more years, who then comes up to the majors immediately and starts pitching as well as the older veteran you've swapped him out for, and failing to sign a guy to a long-range contract who's demonstrated very little ability to get on base on the MLB level for the past three seasons. I love Reyes, will be dejected if he doesn't become a big star, but I'm not quite in the "Pay him zillions or risk losing his all-but-certain-stardom!!!" camp yet. Fortunately for the Mets, they're not quite in that position yet, either.

Meanwhile, guess who's available to solve the Mets' 2b problem? A player who had a near .900 OPS last year at AAA. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05342/619237.stm

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

="MFS62"] 3) This guy was special. He was signed out of the Dominican Republic at age 16. He had played two years there in the highest level of amateur ball. One year he won the Triple Crown. The other year, he hit 47 home runs in around 250 at bats (that is not a misprint).

EDITED: Oh, I see you mean, amatuer ball. He was pretty average in the Mets' system.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/C/enrique-cruz.shtml

Cruz was selected in Rule 5 after 2002, and doesn't appear to have ever led his league in anytthing.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Yeah, Cruz had a good year last year at AA Huntsville, but he just turned 25 without having yet played AAA (did play a bit of MLB --poorly--at age 21).

[Frayed Knot]

btw, I'm not arguing in favor of a multi-year deal for Reyes now, or even a year from now; just pointing out that a long-term deal isn't something that a club enters into only when forced to by circumstances. Reyes is under NYM control for the next 4 years (if they so choose) so how they go about paying him over those years is a big decision for them.
Boston saved millions by doing such a deal w/Nomar while the Yanx wasted at least as much by taking things year-by-year w/Jeter.


Arbitration doesn't NEED to be acrimonious ... except that both sides almost universally try to avoid it like the plague.


The Mets didn't "bid against themselves" for Matsui. There were numerous teams trying to sign him.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I raised the Reyes point to demonstrate that while it's easy to criticize deals when they're done, these decisions are rarely so obvious at the time you make them.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I raised the Reyes point to demonstrate that while it's easy to criticize deals when they're done, these decisions are rarely so obvious at the time you make them.

And a fine point it was, though I don't really notice this thread becoming filled fast and furious with firm commitments to or against Reyes even a year in advance of any decision, with plenty of time to rethink before the decision needs to be made. What's your call, Johnny? Reyes goes .311 OBP next year, are you eager to sign him to a longterm bigbux deal?

[MFS62]

Bret, in his first five full years in the majors, Roberto Clemente had OBP numbers of:
.284
.330
.288 (reverted)
.327
.322

But obviously there were other attributes to his game, and visions of what he could become, that made the Bucs not want to get rid of him.

Reyes really has only the equivalent of two full major league years behind him, with a top OBP of .334. Waiting for that third year to make a decision makes sense. But if they wanted to lock him up long turn, Iwouldn't have much heartburn over it either.

Later