Seo for Sanchez

[Guest Hillbilly]

Now obviously I don’t know all the facts and am speculating, but I think the Mets tried hard to retain Hernandez. I don’t know if they offered him that much or not. I know that they wouldn’t have given him a chance to be the team’s closer like Pittsburg will which might have made a difference in Robo’s final decision. Also you’re betting that age wouldn’t catch up with him – we’ll see.

It has been argued that Cameron was the first domino to fall that ultimately netted us our first baseman and closer. In that salary needed to be cleared before Omar was to get the OK to add Delgado and that obtaining Delgado was important to demonstrate the Mets competitiveness while they courted Wagner. Clearly trading Cameron helped clear payroll, but the rest remains speculative. But speculating is what we are doing. So would you keep Cameron if it meant no Carlos Delgado and no Wagner? If so what would you do about a closer and first baseman/power bat? Or alternatively what other reasonable scenarios would have allowed you to clear payroll?

Valentin and Franco can be cut loose if they don’t work out. Remember the Braves were planning on Franco being part of a starting platoon, so we hurt them in the process of signing Franco. I like that deal, but have little opinion on the Valentin deal. But I do think we have a strong bench.

[Centerfield]

I see no reason why Cameron would have to be traded before trading for Delgado so long as Cameron was traded before spring training. And if the offer for Nady was there, it would have remained as the CF market grew thinner. And if for some reason, they couldn't lose Cameron's contract, then you don't make that deal for Paul LoDuca.

And with respect to Seo, one way we could have improved the bullpen without trading Seo would be to put Jae in it. I understand we had a surplus of starters, but trading the one who pitched the best in the second half of last year probably isn't the way to deal with that.

Bottom line is we traded a good pitcher for one that is not as good.

[Guest Hillbilly]

We’ll never know, but I’d bet my last dollar that Omar was instructed to move salary before he added salary, and was restricted from trading for Delgado (or getting a power bat for the middle of lineup) until that was done. I think this makes sense and is the philosophy that would prevent me from buying a new house until my old one is sold. So that I don’t get stuck with two house loans to pay or the Mets don't get stuck without a starting catcher. I really, really, really believe that we didn’t trade Cameron because we wanted Nady, but rather I believe that we wanted to get the best we could because we wanted to lower payroll so we could add Delgado, who helped us land Wagner. I’ll be the first to admit that in a vacuum Cameron for Nady makes no sense. But I believe it happened for the reasons I outlined in this tread.

The Seo trade will be easy to elevate as this year unfolds (and beyond).

[Centerfield]

By the way, welcome back Hillbilly. Good to have you around again.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Not that I'm buying your interpretation, but if Omar was instructed that he had to make a dumb deal before he would allowed to pursue a good one, then the Mets are more foolish than I think, which is saying something.

What, his word isn't good enough for Fred? What, he thought a GG CFer with speed and power would be impossible to unload in this market?

[Benjamin Grimm]

The impatient charge against Omar rings true to me.

Because he's pushy and eager, he'll occassionally get to beat some other team to a good deal. But he'll probably more often act rashly and make a deal that's not as good as one he might have made had he been patient.

[Elster88]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: What, he thought a GG CFer with speed and power would be impossible to unload in this market?

Bret, you kill me:
http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=1792&start=0

Bret Sabermetric wrote: And some of you are wondering why Cameron didn’t fetch more than a so-so corner outfielder? Maybe you’re mistaking his present value as a possibly blinded (certainly possibly vision-impaired) defensive wizard for his past value—say, from the dim, distant ages of June of 2005, when it was bruited about that he could go for an impact player—a closer, for example, or two young players far better than the X-man

That second statement comes from 11/19/05. Truly amazing.

[metirish]

I guess all those Korean people won't be coming to Shea this year,I really don't know what to think of this deal as I liked Seo, I'll take a wait and see approach.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Man, you're just tripping over yourself, Elster, trying to catch me in a contradiction, aren't you?

I said I didn't buy Hillbilly's premise. I didn't say, ever, that Cameron had no value, just less than the some Met fans were supposing. But whatever value he had or didn't have, it's never smart to instruct your GM to make stupid deals tin order to be allowed to make good ones.

[nymr83]

in responce to hillbilly's question (what would we have done) my answer is: pretty much nothing.
I'd have made the Delgado trade, signed Billy Wagner, and then sat on my ass waiting for the better offers that would come for Cameron, the desperate Marlins ready to give up loduca for nothing (or molina suddenly finding himself without a market), a middle reliever that didnt cost Seo's arm, etc. Because there was no urgent need for Sanchez, Nady, or Loduca and i'd rather have back what we gave to get them.

[Centerfield]

Since you put it that way 83, that's probably what I would have done too.

[Guest Hillbilly]

="Bret Sabermetric"]Man, you're just tripping over yourself, Elster, trying to catch me in a contradiction, aren't you?.

Not only did he catch you in a contradiction, he didn't trip on anything while doing it.

1)Back to the discussion at hand: yeah but, what if management didn’t allow you to expand payroll without out clearing some first. Do you deal Cameron then, assuming that it was a necessary prelude to obtaining Delgado and Wagner.

2)I agree that with time the catching market would have soften in the Mets favor, but I’m not upset with LoDuca trade.

3) I do think that there's a need to address the bullpen.

Perhaps in another thread we should hash out the pressures that GM’s are under to trade prospects to win now. I wonder how long most GMs last with a club. Do they have the ability to sit back and wait for prospects to develop, when there is only a probability that they will be GM of said team by the time those prospects make an impact? Take Omar trading for Colon while heading up Montreal as an example. If Omar is trying to build his own resume and reputation, he should take the chance by trading the farm and trying to steal a pennant. If it works, he’s a genius. If it doesn’t work, the team is in Washington, he’s who-knows-where and there’s no fan base or ownership to be accountable to. An absolute no-brainer. It other cases, things aren't as clear like trading a 19 year old with a great arm for a serviceable catcher, if the Mets haven’t won something by the time the kids a star, Omar is long gone anyway, since that means he would have spent money like a drunken sailor and have nothing to show for it. On the da flip side, if the kids a star, but the Mets made some noise by the time he made it big, Omar comes back with ‘sure but we won (fill in the blank) under my tutelage despite some mis-steps along the way'.

Like I say – these things aren’t happening in a vacuum.

[nymr83]

] things aren't as clear like trading a 19 year old with a great arm for a serviceable catcher

i think you hit it right on the head there...the key word is SEVICEABLE, you shouldnt trade your top prospects for mediocre players, its perfectly ok to trade them for good players (and i encourage it.)

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

I just don't buy your premise, Hillbilly. I hate to be pushed into the position of defending the Mets's front-office skills but Fred's not dumb enough to tell Omar "You can't spend money until you save me some money first." He may tell him, "You can't spend money unless you find a way by Spring Training to bring the budget back where it was," but he'd just be hamstringing Omar, and to no gain at all.


Anyway, Cameron's value was highest back in June, when everyone was thinking he'd bring a terrific return back, but you were too caught up in the excitment of the pennant race we were in (if you put your brains in escrow) to deal him at his peak value, and then he went and broke his face and got older and further removed from his GG days, and his numbers went right to hell, BUT he still had more value than Nady, probably. There was just a gigantic chasm between the absurd fantasies (based on his June '05 value) and the actual return (Xavier F. Nady) that I was trying to point out.

Carry on.

[Guest Hillbilly]

Well Bret, it's not really my premise. But after logically looking at the series of moves made this off season induction leads me to conclude this is the most reasonable explanation. Below I have a small sample of hits from a google search of 'Cameron clear payroll'. I do however, agree with you, that many Met Fans held an inflated view of Mike’s trade value.

The best I can tell, your premise is that Omar makes stupid trades because he's an idiot with far less smarts than you and the Mets are a half-assed cheap organization. You’ve become an arrogant version of ambler.

http://www.metsblog.com/blog/Opinion/_archives/2005/12For Cameron, the Mets acquired Xavier Nady, a young right fielder, with power, who can also play first base - a description that closely resembles that of Victor Diaz, who is already on the team. Most people around baseball believe the Mets could've landed a relief pitcher for Cameron, instead - though Minaya disagreed with this assessment in subsequent newspaper reports. Ultimately, it seems Cameron was rushed-out-the-door to clear payroll for the acquisition of Carlos Delgado and his $43 million contract…

http://revengeofthemets.blogspot.com/If true, then the Mets will surely explore trade options as salary could be freed up in the pursuit of first baseman Carlos Delgado. Cameron is due around $13-14 million over the next two years and Delgado would surely demand around that price annually for at least the next three seasons.

http://bruce.mlblogs.com/bruce_markusens_coopersto/2005/11/cameron_for_nad.htmlCameron for Nady--Why?
On the surface, the rumored and anticipated swap of Mike Cameron for Xavier Nady makes little sense for the Mets. I mean, why would you trade a starting caliber outfielder (who has Gold Glove potential when healthy) for a unproven power hitter who may end up doing nothing more than being a right-handed platoon first baseman? And that's in a league where there aren’t many left-handed starters to begin with. So what gives here from the Mets' perspective?
A few scratches below the surface, however, show that Mets general manager Omar Minaya might still know what he’s doing. By trading the expensive Cameron (owed $7 million in 2006) for Nady (who stands to make well below $1 million), the Mets save about $6 million in payroll. And while you can’t actually “play money”—a concept that is sometimes forgotten by Sabermetric analysts who are obsessed with payroll—you can use the savings to defray the costs of other players who might be more helpful to the Mets next summer, such as a cleanup hitter like Carlos Delgado or Manny Ramirez, and a top-notch closer like Billy Wagner or Trevor Hoffman.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Hillbilly wrote: The best I can tell, your premise is that Omar makes stupid trades because he's an idiot with far less smarts than you and the Mets are a half-assed cheap organization. You’ve become an arrogant version of ambler.

Ambler was humble?

Actually, it's hard to call an organization with so gross a payroll "cheap." I think they're penny-wise and pound-foolish. I think they've got a screwed-up sense of what "value" is. I think they think too much about what will make the fans happy (big names, ethnic appeals). I think they worry too much about taking the back page back from the Yankees. I think they don't know which young players can play and which can't unless te proves it over and over and over, at which point they'll probably trade him. I think when they make a mistake in judging a veteran, they give him chance after chance after chance to show he's still got it, and when millions of dollars and hundreds of games have been lost in this futile exercise they'll dump him for a fifth of what they could have gotten when they first saw him playing badly or lackadasically. I think they're too reluctant to face the truth of the low quality of the teams they've fielded over the last five years and have come to believe some of the bullshit they've sold to their more gullible fans, and have based some foolish moves on those misguided beliefs. I think they're more interested in luring fannies into the seats than in actually winning a pennant. I think they've shown atrocious judgment in hiring executives, ranging from the hopelessly corrupt to the nepotistic to the clueless to the untested, and hanging onto them instead of saying "Christ, another mistake!" and firing their inept asses.

Speaking of which, the Mets are not half-assed. They are fully assed. They have a quality assagement team, they are run by a fully qualified assanger, and ass oh ass do they know how to find players to ass their ballclub.

.OE: fixed coding and punctuation

[Guest Hillbilly]

I disagree with you, but I think your response was damn funny! Nice work.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I think the Mets *should* have gotten more for Cameron, and might have gotten more for Seo. But we don't know what happened in negotiations.

The only issue I have with the "Cameron to clear payroll" idea is that Nady actually makes more than $1 million, as a result the contract he as a top draft choice got. It's less than 7 mills for sure, but more like 3 IIRC, so one of those bloggy links is a bad guess. That's not to say 4 or 4.5 mills is chickenfeed, or that Nady is, necessarily. Critics never bother to mention that both the Seo and Cammy trades both brought back younger guys. Nady might actually be good.

That said I think it's safe to say Cammy *was* available for 8 months or so, and if the Mets erred in valuing him then the teams killing themselves to get a center fielder now must have really fucked up, no?

[seawolf17]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Speaking of which the Mets are not half-assed. They are fully assed. They have a quality assagement team, they are run by a fully qualified assanger, and ass oh ass do they know how to find players to ass their ballclub.

LOL

[Guest Hillbilly]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: That said I think it's safe to say Cammy *was* available for 8 months or so, and if the Mets erred in valuing him then the teams killing themselves to get a center fielder now must have really fucked up, no?

I think the CFer market shifted after Johnny Damon signed with MFY. Timing seems to be driving a lot of the moves this off season. Teams that moved quickly like the Mets and Blue Jays may have overpaid is some cases, but teams that employed a more cautious approach are left without starters in key positions.

[Guest KC]

>>>Speaking of which the Mets are not half-assed. They are fully assed. They have a quality assagement team, they are run by a fully qualified assanger, and ass oh ass do they know how to find players to ass their ballclub.<<<

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that'll be nmyr83's new sig line by Tues.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Yeah, except that was ripped off from 'The Graduate'

Mr. Braddock: Don't you think the idea's kinda half-baked?
Ben: No, it's completely baked.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Yeah, except that was ripped off from 'The Graduate' Mr. Braddock: Don't you think the idea's kinda half-baked? Ben: No, it's completely baked.

I'm a big fan of Charles Webb's dialogue.

[nymr83]

]I think they've shown atrocious judgment in hiring executives, ranging from the hopelessly corrupt to the nepotistic to the clueless to the untested, and hanging onto them instead of saying "Christ, another mistake!" and firing their inept asses

who exactly was corrupt? i think most GMs are "nepotistic" to some degree or another. we've had our share of clueless though.

]If I were a betting man, I'd bet that'll be nmyr83's new sig line by Tues.

well, not now that you said it.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

You wanna defend the moral purity of skirt-chasing GMs first, or do you prefer to start with the racist head scouts?

[nymr83]

skirt-chasing doesn't make you "corrupt"... stealing from the team, intentionally doing your job poorly, etc make you corrupt.
racism? well i suppose if it affects your scouting judgments that would qualify, but i'm not sure who you are talking about

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

In the winter of 2003 (or 2004), Bill Singer, a recently hired special assistant to the director of scouting for the Mets, made racially insensitive remarks to the Dodgers Kim Ng at the MLB winter meeting. I can't remember what exactly Singer said, but it cost him his job and the Mets organization some embarrassment.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Did a little research and turned up this old article which details the incident.


Ng Is Victim of Racial Taunts
PHOENIX — New York Met official Bill Singer, a former All-Star pitcher with the Dodgers and Angels, directed racially insensitive remarks at Dodger executive Kim Ng in deriding her Chinese heritage this week, baseball officials who witnessed the incident said Friday.

Singer, hired last week as a special assistant to Met General Manager Jim Duquette, confronted Ng, a Dodger vice president and assistant general manager, late Tuesday night at the general manager meetings here.

According to witnesses, Singer approached Ng in the bar of the hotel where the meetings occurred. After asking Ng, the highest-ranking Asian American in the major leagues, questions about her background in a sarcastic tone, Singer began speaking nonsensically in mock Chinese before eventually leaving.

Although he did not confirm details, Singer expressed remorse for his actions in a statement provided by the Mets.

"I'm embarrassed by what I said when I met Ms. Ng on Tuesday evening," the statement read. "My comments were totally inappropriate and I'm truly sorry. I have apologized to her and hope that she will forgive me."

Ng declined to discuss the events of that evening, acknowledging only "there was a situation that occurred. I have talked to Jim Duquette about it, and that's all I'm going to comment on."

The Dodgers and Mets also commented Friday on the embarrassing situation.

"His conduct was inexcusable and extremely disappointing," said Dodger General Manager Dan Evans, Ng's longtime friend and mentor.

"Kim handled the entire situation in a professional manner, and we addressed the matter with the New York Mets the next day. I would prefer to keep that discussion with the Mets confidential."

Duquette responded through Jay Horwitz, the Mets' vice president of media relations.

"We learned of the matter recently and have addressed it with Bill Singer directly," Duquette said in a statement read by Horwitz. "While I cannot share the particulars of that discussion with you, suffice it to say, his comments were entirely unacceptable and inconsistent with the values and standards of our organization. We have extended our apologies to Kim Ng and the Dodger organization."

Responding to a reporter's question about Singer's job status, Duquette said that Singer is still "employed by us at the moment. However, this entire matter continues to be under review by the organization. We are reserving judgment on this."

Because of his status as one of Duquette's top advisors, Singer was part of the Mets' contingent at the meetings that ended Friday.

Singer is one of two special assistants recently added to the club's reorganized front office. He formerly was a special assistant with Pittsburgh and held a top amateur scouting position with the Dodgers in 1998.

A 20-game winner with the Dodgers in 1969 and Angels in 1973, Singer tossed a no-hitter for the Dodgers against Philadelphia on July 20, 1970.

On Tuesday, Singer approached Ng as many baseball people were gathering in the hotel bar after attending an instructional league game. Deals are often discussed after hours in bars, and the hot-stove league talk continued that night as Singer began questioning Ng at about 11 p.m.

Two officials within earshot described the exchange.

Singer: What are you doing here?

Ng: I'm working.

Singer: What are you doing here?

Ng: I'm working. I'm the Dodger assistant general manager.

Singer: Where are you from?

Ng: I was born in Indiana and grew up in New York.

Singer: Where are you from?

Ng: My family's from China.

Singer: (Nonsensically mock Chinese). What country in China?

Evans, not present at the bar late Tuesday, was informed about the incident by many people early Wednesday morning. He was said to be furious about what had occurred, Dodger sources said, and clearly expressed his feelings to Duquette.

Ng is in her second season with the Dodgers. In its May 5 edition, Sports Illustrated ranked Ng as the "38th most influential minority in the sports world." Before joining the Dodgers, she served as a vice president and assistant general manager for the New York Yankees and worked for Major League Baseball.

Ng began her baseball career with the Chicago White Sox in 1990, working under Evans in baseball operations.

"As always, Kim acted professionally," Evans said. "It's an unfortunate situation."

[nymr83]

Rockin' Doc wrote: In the winter of 2003 (or 2004), Bill Singer, a recently hired special assistant to the director of scouting for the Mets, made racially insensitive remarks to the Dodgers Kim Ng at the MLB winter meeting. I can't remember what exactly Singer said, but it cost him his job and the Mets organization some embarrassment.

I'm well aware of that, but Bret made allegations of CORRUPTION in the mets front office, this is inapproriate, not corrupt.
I'm still waiting for "corrupt" met official, Bret.....

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

What, this lineup of scumbags, scoundrels and rogues isn't entertaining enough for you?