Benson -- Julio Redux?

January 23, 2006

You'd think I knocked over a bank from your last post. I just rearranged the slots (which YOU set up--it's not like the Mets have announced that their chief strategy is going to be pitching Zambrano out of one particular slot) to make for a comparison between Zambrano and himself, which seemed eminently fair to me.

Basically, all the older pitchers showed no signs of getting better, just getting worse slowly, which doesn't fill me with confidence for next year, and Zambrano again made no breakthroughs from what he's already shown he can do. If this is the peak of Zambrano's ability--and every passing year of the same or similar performances is further evidence of that--then he'll just become another Benson-type project who we dump overboard at age 31 without ever accomplishing much for this franchise.

OE: fixed typos

January 23, 2006

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
Excellent idea.

As she goes from player to player she'll learn unexpected and embarrassing things: the team's superstar, for instance, turns out to be as gay as a french horn; and while enjoying her connection with the team's trainer, learns also he has a particularly nasty strain of herpes.

Dickshot-- Wonderful. It was an error to assume that every player on the team would be straight, non-diseased, sexually functional, etc.

Cooby--what's your point?

Scarlet--Of course the idea is to create three-dimensional characters--would it be hypersensitive to read into your post an implication that two-D characters are my forte?

January 23, 2006

]Well, okay, but if you saw it, then why would you ask if I thought the Benson trade was "about shutting the door on [Heilman]" when that was clearly nowhere near my point?

Well, if your point was to inquire "How much do you want to bet that Willie would use Heilman for mop-up duty for the first three months again, sending Mediocrity Personified out in the 7th & 8th in the form of Sanchez & Julio?" then I want to know if you seriously believe that, because I don't think there's any indication of Heilman heading for mopup duty. Now, if this situation can't be established without the hypothetical trade happening first, then so be it. But I don't think we're going to see three months of mopup duty for Heilman under any circumstances.

]How is calling defenders of the Benson trade "apologists" name calling? Isn't that the definition of an apologist?

No. If I defend a cop who is accused of using un-necessary force, I'm a guy making an argument. If I defend said cop, because I always defend cops in such situations, I'm an apologist for the police department. The latter case assumes the person is a reactionary replacing prejudice (or self interest) for objective reason. An apoligist doesn't argue in defense of a single action, but in defense of a doctrine or an institution. It's tends to be used pejoratively in debates.

January 23, 2006

Often wrong, never in doubt, always self-righteous.

January 23, 2006

By the way, I certainly think it's possible we could see Heilman start off the season getting crappy innings, if only because number six starters (if that's what he is) tend to be kept in reserve (so they're fresh when needed to start), but if the need arises in the bullpen before the starting rotation (and I only hope that Jorge Julio could live up to a name like Mediocrity Personified), Heilman will likely be thrown deeper into the breach a lot quicker than last season.

So, yeah, I guess your scenario could happen. I'm skeptical though.

Elster88 · January 23, 2006

Bret Sabermetric wrote:
It makes my morning, Rot, to see Edgy pulling his passive-aggressive, tone-correcting, schoolmarmish, superior behavior with posters other than myself.

Just to stir the pot a little more....I admit to not having read thoroughly lately, but I can't remember Edgy directing a single post at you in at least the past six months. Probably been longer.

A Boy Named Seo · January 23, 2006

Love the story idea, Bret. What about a player who is such a kinky bastard, so sexually deviant, that he freaks her the hell out?

Get to work on it NOW!!!

January 23, 2006

] Well, if your point was to inquire "How much do you want to bet that Willie would use Heilman for mop-up duty for the first three months again, sending Mediocrity Personified out in the 7th & 8th in the form of Sanchez & Julio?" then I want to know if you seriously believe that, because I don't think there's any indication of Heilman heading for mopup duty. Now, if this situation can't be established without the hypothetical trade happening first, then so be it. But I don't think we're going to see three months of mopup duty for Heilman under any circumstances.

No, see, you're still missing my point (and possibly the word "would" in the sentence you quoted, which should create a dependece on the hypothetical I established in the preceding sentence). Anyway, I wasn't seriously predicting how much Heilman will be used (although if you're interested, I do have a prediction in the "Predict 2006 for Seo, Heilman & Benson" thread), but using the proposed acquisition of Weaver, which some have proposed here, to illuminate just how inept I think Willie is.

Maybe this is clearer:

Willie is so inept at bullpen management that if we signed Weaver, I'm willing to bet that he'd not only take Heilman out of the rotation, he'd put him behind Julio & Sanchez on the depth chart.

]No. If I defend a cop who is accused of using un-necessary force, I'm a guy making an argument. If I defend said cop, because I always defend cops in such situations, I'm an apologist for the police department. The latter case assumes the person is a reactionary replacing prejudice (or self interest) for objective reason. An apoligist doesn't argue in defense of a single action, but in defense of a doctrine or an institution. It's tends to be used pejoratively in debates.

I see. Well, no offense, but you're wrong. The word "apologist" can and is used to describe defenders of individual actions. And, in fact, that's exactly how I used it when I said: "Most of the apologists of this trade seem to think it's is the precursor to signing a starting pitcher."

I mean, isn't it pretty clear that I'm not calling anyone a blanket apologist in that sentence? Since I, you know, call them apologists of a specific action?

Now, if I had said, "Most of the Apologists seem to think the trade is a precusor to signing a starting pitcher," I could see getting a little upset, since there's just no reason to bring religion into an honest sports debate . . .

January 23, 2006

From the American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language

SYLLABICATION:	a·pol·o·gist
PRONUNCIATION:	http://www.bartleby.com/images/pron.jpg http://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/schwa.gif-phttp://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/obreve.giflhttp://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/prime.gifhttp://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/schwa.gif-jhttp://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/ibreve.gifst
NOUN:	A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

January 23, 2006

]Willie is so inept at bullpen management that if we signed Weaver, I'm willing to bet that he'd not only take Heilman out of the rotation, he'd put him behind Julio & Sanchez on the depth chart.

And I'm thinking that that's unlikely, and I'm missing nothing.

And for somebody who is wrong, I pretty much nailed the definition posted.

January 23, 2006

Who, by the way, are the alleged apologists?

January 23, 2006

I think this trade has generated more discussion than Piazza's non contract. I'm really kind of puzzled as to why.

Elster88 · January 23, 2006

Maybe not, if you factor in all of the talk starting from offseason 2004-2005. Piazza's possibilities for this offseason were beaten into the ground by May.

January 23, 2006

Nope, I'm talking about the non-move itself.

You've got a feller who barely broke .500 in winning percentage in his TWO PARTIAL YEARS here vs a franchise player and there's about 10 threads running here on the former, on a forum where that is frowned upon.

Not chastising anyone, I just honestly don't get it

January 23, 2006

]And I'm thinking that that's unlikely, and I'm missing nothing.

Okey dokey, smokey. So when you said this

]Really? This trade, whatever it's other traits, appears to have opened a door for Heilman. You really think it's about shutting the door on him?

That was related to my point about Wilie's ineptitude . . . how?

Or how about when you said this a few posts later:

]Well, if your point was to inquire "How much do you want to bet that Willie would use Heilman for mop-up duty for the first three months again, sending Mediocrity Personified out in the 7th & 8th in the form of Sanchez & Julio?" then I want to know if you seriously believe that, because I don't think there's any indication of Heilman heading for mopup duty.

You didn't get my point, or if you did, you didn't bother to address it. Maybe you get it now, although it's hard to tell, since your, "I think that's unlikely" statement also doesn't address any of my main points.

I mean, are you saying it's unlikely that we'll sign Weaver? Or that it's unlikely that if we DID sign Weaver, Willie would move Heilman to the pen? Or that if we signed Weaver & moved Heilman to the pen, he wouldn't be behind Julio & Sanchez?

You've about 4 responses to my posts, but none of them have shed any light on any issues I've brought up.

]And for somebody who is wrong, I pretty much nailed the definition posted.

Ah, yes, because:

]An apoligist doesn't argue in defense of a single action.

dovetails perfectly with:

]A person who argues in defense or justification of something

Well done.

I think the only person to nail anything was Bret. Arguing with you is infuriating. I mean, you haven't said anything meaningful on any of the topics I tried to raise.

And I'm still bewildered about how "Most of the apologists of this trade seem to think it's is the precursor to signing a starting pitcher" offended you.

January 23, 2006

Arguing with me is infuriating. Good, stop. I'm not really arguing much of anything. I asked you a question. If the answer is no, fine. Say so and leave it, I don't care.

]That was related to my point about Wilie's ineptitude . . . how?

It was related to your point that you would concude that after the hypothetical trade, you imagine Heilman would end up at the back of the bullpen pitching mopup innings for three months.

]You didn't get my point, or if you did, you didn't bother to address it.

I quoted you and asked you a question about it.

]I mean, are you saying it's unlikely that we'll sign Weaver? Or that it's unlikely that if we DID sign Weaver, Willie would move Heilman to the pen? Or that if we signed Weaver & moved Heilman to the pen, he wouldn't be behind Julio & Sanchez?

I think it's clear that I'm saying that if the team signed Weaver, and moved Heilman to the pen, he wouldn't be pitching all that much mopup.

]You've about 4 responses to my posts, but none of them have shed any light on any issues I've brought up.

How about that last comment?

]Quote:
And for somebody who is wrong, I pretty much nailed the definition posted. Ah, yes, because:

Quote:
An apoligist doesn't argue in defense of a single action.

dovetails perfectly with:

Quote:
A person who argues in defense or justification of something

Well done.

You cut the definition in the middle of a sentence.

January 23, 2006

="Edgy DC"]

] I'm thinking that that's unlikely, and I'm missing nothing.

Shouldn't he be banned from using the word "unlikely" ever again?

Elster--He hasn't responded to a post of mine since shortly after he described my (dead-accurate) predictions for Piazza's 2004 season as "unlikely." Rather than 'fess up and admit that maybe my opinion wasn't quite as loony as he'd maintained, he preferred picking fight after tedious fight after never-ending fight with me, and then suddenly (when he found he was getting as good as he was giving) just began treating my posts as non-existent.

The tactic was perfectly fine with me (I think I invented it, in fact, with Ms. Met--drove her clinically insane, as I recall, though I'm not sure how you'd tell the difference) because now I'm spared the time-wasting posts getting him to admit that water is wet, and that up is higher than down. Once in a while, some poor soul like Rotblatt walks into his passive-aggressive traps, and I try to lend a word of support on such occasions. but, long answer short, I've been dead to my former friend and partner for maybe a year now.

Funny and sad, both at the same time.

metsmarathon
Jan 23 2006 05:21 PM

Hillbilly wrote:
I was a surprised to see this deal, especially in addition to the Seo trade. But if you compare the current starting staff to last year�s staff, the pitching suddenly doesn�t look that bad.

Opening Day
2004.

1. Pedro
2. Glavine
3. Benson
4. Zambrano
5. Ishii

Projected for 2005.

1. Pedro
2. Glavine
3. Zambrano
4. Trachsel
5. Heilman

Which is the better staff? I actually think it is very close, and if Heilman takes a(nother) step forward, this year�s staff will likely be improved. Problem is depth beyond these 5 guys. The 2006 staff will have a greatly improved bullpen.

At first I thought that trading Benson would be a prelude to adding Zito or Weaver. But after some reflection I don�t think that�s the case. I think its faith (investment) in Heilman to further progress this year.

the 2006 staff looks even better if i call heilmann my #3, trax my 4, and zambrano my 5, which is how i have them rated in my head.

i think i'm teh apologist y'all are hating...

old original jb
Jan 23 2006 06:23 PM

Explanation to Cooby

Maybe it's the Edgy/Sal thing that has people posting on these threads, but I feel that people are up in arms because they are more worried about the pitching than about who plays catcher, and despite a flurry of trades, both starting pitching and the pen are still a big question mark.

Piazza's offense and ability to play far into the season was declining anyway. The offense he provided has been replaced at other spots in the lineup. His defensive catching skills have been replaced too. A

It is amediocre (after Pedro) starting rotation that is giving fans the heebee jeebees, and the plan of stocking up on promising but questionable hard throwing right handed relievers in exchange for excess starters just doesnt seem to make much sense. We still don't have enough left handed middle relief so after all this, the pen is still not complete.

The irrational part, to me, is decrying these trades as bad by thinking that the current crew of starters is necessarily any worse than the prior crew. But maybe that's what rankles so much; the starting rotation seems to be mired in mediocrity, no matter which of seven or eight pitchers land in the five starting spots. We had all these starters, and yet there seems to be no way to parlay them into something really great.

As a certified Omar apologist, I will say that the reason for this conundrum is not Omar's alleged stupidity, but that none of the pitchers involved were all that great to begin with. Seo and Heilman have both the biggest upsides but also the greatest chances to fail. The rest are either total question marks or utter mediocrities.

For what it's worth, I'd have been happiest with Seo and Heilman both starting, Zambrano AND Benson traded, and either Jorge Julio or Duaner Sanchez playing the role of excess right handed disgruntled setup man.

I will conclude by saying that a mediocre rotation with one ace is far better than what many teams have--and as a certified Omar apologist, I will add that if he hadn't been able to sign that ace and without Omar's apparently superior salesmanship and reduced fecklessness (compared to prior administrations) we would probably be looking at a four year rebuilding job without Delgado, Wagner, or Beltran on board.

TheOldMole
Jan 23 2006 06:25 PM

]

="Edgy DC"]
Quote:
I'm thinking that that's unlikely, and I'm missing nothing.

Shouldn't he be banned from using the word "unlikely" ever again?

I think that would be unlikely.

Johnny Dickshot
Jan 23 2006 07:00 PM

Nice post jb.

KC
Jan 23 2006 07:08 PM

>>>Rather than 'fess up and admit that maybe my opinion wasn't quite as loony as he'd maintained, he preferred picking fight after tedious fight after never-ending fight with me, and then suddenly (when he found he was getting as good as he was giving) just began treating my posts as non-existent.<<<

I don't think this fairly sums up what went down. You really frame it to make
edge sound like a real bastardly prick and often it was you were the bastardly
prick in the history of this small community.

I find this fued to be terribly stressful and unecessary. It maikes me physically
ill sometimes when this stuff flairs up. ILL.

Nymr83
Jan 23 2006 08:21 PM

Re: Explanation to Cooby

old original jb wrote:
Maybe it's the Edgy/Sal thing that has people posting on these threads, but I feel that people are up in arms because they are more worried about the pitching than about who plays catcher, and despite a flurry of trades, both starting pitching and the pen are still a big question mark.
Piazza's offense and ability to play far into the season was declining anyway. The offense he provided has been replaced at other spots in the lineup. His defensive catching skills have been replaced too. A

Exactly. Piazza is gone (in the sense that he can't sign til may 1st and even if he could he's not the player he used to be.) There would be no point in getting too mad about who is catching because all the candidates were varying degrees of mediocrity, there simply is no Piazza-type out there.

] It is amediocre (after Pedro) starting rotation that is giving fans the heebee jeebees, and the plan of stocking up on promising but questionable hard throwing right handed relievers in exchange for excess starters just doesnt seem to make much sense. We still don't have enough left handed middle relief so after all this, the pen is still not complete.

agreed. first of all, slightly above average starters are much harder to find (IMO) than slightly abve average relievers.
I and others (i think Elster for one would agree) are against trading quality starting pitching for anything but an elite reliever just on principle. While i'd change my mind if we had 8 or 9 starters and no relievers cutting it down from 7 starters to 6 wasn't a great idea, cutting it down to 5 is a downright bad idea imo unless those 5 resemble a braves staff from the mid-90's.

] The irrational part, to me, is decrying these trades as bad by thinking that the current crew of starters is necessarily any worse than the prior crew. But maybe that's what rankles so much; the starting rotation seems to be mired in mediocrity, no matter which of seven or eight pitchers land in the five starting spots. We had all these starters, and yet there seems to be no way to parlay them into something really great.

we had 7 starters and i'd say 1 is great, 3 were solid, and 3 were suspect in one way or another, now we have 5 and we traded a solid one and the best suspect, if anyone gets hurt you'll be getting an introduction to Brian Bannister, i don't think thats a good thing.

] As a certified Omar apologist, I will say that the reason for this conundrum is not Omar's alleged stupidity, but that none of the pitchers involved were all that great to begin with. Seo and Heilman have both the biggest upsides but also the greatest chances to fail. The rest are either total question marks or utter mediocrities.

fine, then don't trade them. there was no reason not to go into the year with heilman pitching the 8th and zambrano in long relief to solve the rotation glut. everyone wants pitching in june and july, i'd bet benson gets you more then and so does Seo if he shows good stuff again.

] For what it's worth, I'd have been happiest with Seo and Heilman both starting, Zambrano AND Benson traded, and either Jorge Julio or Duaner Sanchez playing the role of excess right handed disgruntled setup man.

i'd have been happiest trading only zambrano, i think with the age of the rotation and the question marks it makes total sense to keep 6 guys around, especially when you arent getting something significant for dealing 2 of them.

] I will conclude by saying that a mediocre rotation with one ace is far better than what many teams have--and as a certified Omar apologist, I will add that if he hadn't been able to sign that ace and without Omar's apparently superior salesmanship and reduced fecklessness (compared to prior administrations) we would probably be looking at a four year rebuilding job without Delgado, Wagner, or Beltran on board.

I'll conclude that the rotation a month ago was better than it is now, and thats the whole point of anger at the trades.
Delgado allegedly didn't sign last year BECAUSE of omar, Beltran was thrown way more dough than anyone else was offering.

Zvon
Jan 23 2006 08:23 PM

ahhhhhh, the passion of the Met fan.

Personally, I think Anna Benson put one of those "Youll rue the day you traded me!" voodo hex curses on all Met fans.

She's a witch, I tell ya.

ScarletKnight41
Jan 23 2006 08:43 PM

Zvon wrote:

She's a witch, I tell ya.

How do you know?

Zvon
Jan 23 2006 10:00 PM

ScarletKnight41 wrote:

="Zvon"]
She's a witch, I tell ya.

How do you know?

cause ....
she turned me into a newt!

ScarletKnight41
Jan 23 2006 10:11 PM

Zvon
Jan 23 2006 10:13 PM

ScarletKnight41 wrote:

....................................I got better.

ScarletKnight41
Jan 23 2006 10:23 PM

DocTee
Jan 23 2006 11:57 PM

Anyone have access to what peeps in Bal'mo are saying? I'm curious what their impression of this deal is.

Edgy DC
Jan 24 2006 12:20 AM

Tony is pissed. Death to the mods. (Best handle in that thread: TejadaTheyFall.)

Frobby went sour on Maine. He seceded from Maine, or... whatever. Olehippi says he was rushed.

BigBird has a connection on the inside.

The Sun says that Mazzone hearts Benson.

Sapper says peeps are hypocrites for not jumping after fellow Benson Buncer Lowe.

Initial reaction was mixed, but my initial read is more positive than negative. (The thread is over ten pages.) I like the fear that Julio could turn into Benitez.

Edgy DC
Jan 24 2006 12:29 AM

]How can anyone be 'sad' to see Julio leave? His fastball gets straighter every year. He gets visibly shaken everytime he gives up a hit. He has no good pitches, just one hard one. I will go help him pack his bags if he needs a hand.
FruitLoopKid

Bret Sabermetric
Jan 24 2006 06:00 AM

KC wrote:
>>>Rather than 'fess up and admit that maybe my opinion wasn't quite as loony as he'd maintained, he preferred picking fight after tedious fight after never-ending fight with me, and then suddenly (when he found he was getting as good as he was giving) just began treating my posts as non-existent.<<<

I don't think this fairly sums up what went down. You really frame it to make
edge sound like a real bastardly prick and often it was you were the bastardly
prick in the history of this small community.

I find this fued to be terribly stressful and unecessary. It maikes me physically
ill sometimes when this stuff flairs up. ILL.

I think we've both been pricks from time to time, maybe me more than Edgy. I think the sentences you quoted, though, as are as accurate as memory allows, though I respect those who remember differently.

For those who want to blame St. Edgy's persecution on me, I have to wonder if they also enjoy his tone with Rotblatt in this thread, or other posters from time to time, where he indulges in the same prickly, needlessly difficult baiting and parsing of terms and irrelevant nit-picking and far-fetched analogies and incessant harsh criticism and literalization of anyone else's analogies and other debating devices designed to frustrate St. Edgy's interloquitor rather than to further the discussion.

Sorry to cause you stress. I was trying to answer Elster's question to me. I'll try not to discuss this topic in the future without a direct question before me.

KC
Jan 24 2006 06:46 AM

Lol, yes our recollection of past events is very different.

I'm not blaming Edgy's persecution on anyone, or even acknowledging
that such a thing exists.

Let's try and move on, for the fifty-sixth time.

Bret Sabermetric
Jan 24 2006 07:40 AM

KC wrote:
Lol, yes our recollection of past events is very different.

I'm not blaming Edgy's persecution on anyone, or even acknowledging
that such a thing exists.

Let's try and move on, for the fifty-sixth time.

So moved.

I've written the first few pages of my story, which has set a new record for me: the word "fuck" ("fucked," actually) appears five words into the story, the closest to the beginning it has ever made its appearance in my work. "By the time I'd fucked half of my husband's teammates, I was reconsidering my vow. Not my wedding vows--Teddy and I were going to stay married to each other despite anyone's infidelities--but my vow to have sex with each and every one of his teammates, including coaches, managers and the training staff, if Teddy ever slept with another woman."

And so on, for several pages so far. I like her voice, this Anna I've invented (a movie star, rather than a model, and far more articulate than, I think, than Anna is, though just as scatterbrained and loopy.) It's kind of fun, and a little creeepy, trying to think how Anna thinks.

MFS62
Jan 24 2006 09:32 AM

Is it easier to think how someone else thinks or write like someone else writes? Or is it the same thing?

After writing song parodies on another board, someone asked me if I could write prose/ text in the styles of other writers. As a result, I've written pieces (with baseball themes) in the styles of:
Anne Rice
Star Trek (actually 8 of them)
Mickey Spillaine
Law and Order
Charles Dickens
Ian Flemming

I've posted many of them here.

The most difficult problem before you is probably the fact that you've used "Anna Benson" and "think" in the same sentence.

Later

Elster88
Jan 24 2006 09:50 AM

]We still don't have enough left handed middle relief so after all this, the pen is still not complete.

Amazing isn't it? You'd think that after trading two starting pitchers almost exclusively for bullpen help (have to say "almost, or I'd get killed for not acknowledging our new stud prospects) we'd be able to fashion a complete bullpen.

HappyRecap
Jan 24 2006 01:39 PM

not a complete pen

Having read a lot of the posts on this topic, I sincerely hope the pen is not the group that will be heading north to NY in April.

Maybe Minaya has some tinkering (really liked DickShot's trade idea from this past Saturday where we landed Zito) to do but outside of Wagner there doesn't seem to be guys who have a long track record for success.

Then again, guys like Bell, Fortunato, Ring, Feliciano, etc...are all still here (I think) and maybe one of these guys will step up and be a season-long contributor.

abogdan
Jan 24 2006 01:44 PM

]The irrational part, to me, is decrying these trades as bad by thinking that the current crew of starters is necessarily any worse than the prior crew. But maybe that's what rankles so much; the starting rotation seems to be mired in mediocrity, no matter which of seven or eight pitchers land in the five starting spots.

The current crew isn't worse, but at least when you have 7 to 8 "mediocre" starters, you have a better chance that one or two of them well put together above average seasons and be valuable contributors. Or, if one or two of them decline, you have someone to jump in and pitch mediocrely (just made that word up). If Seo or Trachsel sucked, there was Zambrano and Heilman waiting in the wings to step in and replace their crappy innings with mediocre ones. Now, if Zambrano and/or Heilman take a step backwards, there isn't anyone that the Mets can plug in and reasonably expect to be any sort of improvement.

Edgy DC
Jan 24 2006 01:52 PM

I agree with you and try to oft say that redundancy is a good thing. they played off a lot of redundancy and that leaves me worried that the season is one broken finger or two blisters from breaking.

G-FaFiF summed up the rotation like this: Pedro (toe), Glavine (age), Trachsel (rust), Zambrano (Zambrano) and...Heilman?

This year, for better or worse, the Mets will be looking for the redundancy to come initially from Bannister, Soler, Maine and Iriki (I hear the music now) and maybe others in the second half. I guess we live in fear. I am glad the Mets got a prospect of sorts back.

Johnny Dickshot
Jan 24 2006 01:54 PM

]Iriki (I hear the music now)

Iriki, you're so fine
You're so fine you blow my mind
Iriki (clap-stomp, stomp-clap)
Iriki

Elster88
Jan 24 2006 01:56 PM

]Zambrano (Zambrano)

LOL.

rpackrat
Jan 24 2006 02:02 PM

I disagree that the rotation is mediocre. In fact, I'll go so far as to predict that the Mets' starters will end up in the top 5 in the league in ERA+. That said, the Seo and Benson (and Cameron) trades were bad trades. Any time you get back less talent than you give up, it's a bad trade. If Omar had a little more patience, he could probably have filled his bullpen needs and gotten more (e.g., prospects or useful role players) as well.

Frayed Knot
Jan 24 2006 02:34 PM

I think the "impatient" label applies better to the Cameron deal but less so to the others. The Benson trade in particular was months in the making and apprently went back and forth over the inclusion of a prospect.

In the Benson & Seo cases, I think Omar believes:
- that Julio's "power arm" means he's going to be better than his recent record shows
- that the 'odd men out' were those two to remain in the rotation: most likely Heilman and Zambrano; will do at least as good a job and for considerably less money
- that there's sufficient backup even beyond the new back-end guys (Maine, Bannister, Soler, Iriki) so that the rotation won't be in danger
- and that the imported bullpen guys (Julio, Bradford, Sanchez) are better bets and were neccessary over the in-house wannabes: Ring, Bell, Fortunato, etc.

Time will tell how all these bets turn out.

metsmarathon · January 23, 2006

Hillbilly wrote:
I was a surprised to see this deal, especially in addition to the Seo trade. But if you compare the current starting staff to last year�s staff, the pitching suddenly doesn�t look that bad.

Opening Day
2004.

1. Pedro
2. Glavine
3. Benson
4. Zambrano
5. Ishii

Projected for 2005.

1. Pedro
2. Glavine
3. Zambrano
4. Trachsel
5. Heilman

Which is the better staff? I actually think it is very close, and if Heilman takes a(nother) step forward, this year�s staff will likely be improved. Problem is depth beyond these 5 guys. The 2006 staff will have a greatly improved bullpen.

At first I thought that trading Benson would be a prelude to adding Zito or Weaver. But after some reflection I don�t think that�s the case. I think its faith (investment) in Heilman to further progress this year.

the 2006 staff looks even better if i call heilmann my #3, trax my 4, and zambrano my 5, which is how i have them rated in my head.

i think i'm teh apologist y'all are hating...

January 23, 2006

Maybe it's the Edgy/Sal thing that has people posting on these threads, but I feel that people are up in arms because they are more worried about the pitching than about who plays catcher, and despite a flurry of trades, both starting pitching and the pen are still a big question mark.

Piazza's offense and ability to play far into the season was declining anyway. The offense he provided has been replaced at other spots in the lineup. His defensive catching skills have been replaced too. A

It is amediocre (after Pedro) starting rotation that is giving fans the heebee jeebees, and the plan of stocking up on promising but questionable hard throwing right handed relievers in exchange for excess starters just doesnt seem to make much sense. We still don't have enough left handed middle relief so after all this, the pen is still not complete.

The irrational part, to me, is decrying these trades as bad by thinking that the current crew of starters is necessarily any worse than the prior crew. But maybe that's what rankles so much; the starting rotation seems to be mired in mediocrity, no matter which of seven or eight pitchers land in the five starting spots. We had all these starters, and yet there seems to be no way to parlay them into something really great.

As a certified Omar apologist, I will say that the reason for this conundrum is not Omar's alleged stupidity, but that none of the pitchers involved were all that great to begin with. Seo and Heilman have both the biggest upsides but also the greatest chances to fail. The rest are either total question marks or utter mediocrities.

For what it's worth, I'd have been happiest with Seo and Heilman both starting, Zambrano AND Benson traded, and either Jorge Julio or Duaner Sanchez playing the role of excess right handed disgruntled setup man.

I will conclude by saying that a mediocre rotation with one ace is far better than what many teams have--and as a certified Omar apologist, I will add that if he hadn't been able to sign that ace and without Omar's apparently superior salesmanship and reduced fecklessness (compared to prior administrations) we would probably be looking at a four year rebuilding job without Delgado, Wagner, or Beltran on board.

Theoldmole · January 23, 2006