johan a met

[metsmarathon]

per wfan.

yay!

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

[Guest KC]

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

Me likey yay.

[Benjamin Grimm]

http://leaptoad.com/mets/jpeg/JohanSantana1972traded.jpg

[G-Fafif]

A card as AWESOME as the news itself.

Take that, Jim Fregosi.

[metirish]

Val will not be happy.

[Valadius]

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

[RealityChuck]

[soupcan]

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

I was a little like Val as a younger fan.

Always was excited to see the minor league guys come up and hoped to watch them blossom into major league stars. Always thought they were better than they were because I wanted them to be.

Always got too attached to the guys that were on my team simply because they were on my team.

If I was Mets GM in the '80s, in 1986 Lee Mazzilli would have been playing centerfield for something like his 10th consecutive year. Ron Hodges would've been behind the plate and the Cardinals would have been the National League champs.

Trust me Val - this was a great move.

(David West, Alex Ochoa, Alex Escobar, Gregg Jefferies, Shaun Abner....)

[Guest AG/DC]

Trust me, it works the other way three times over.

If I was Met GM in 1973, Nolan Ryan strikes out 400 and clinches the Met World Championship.

If I was Met GM in 1988-1990, Kevin Mitchell cheaply displaces an aging Gary Carter as the righthanded thunder in our lineup, as the Mets rival the mighty A's in World Series Battles of Titans. The Phillies phlail helplessly during the regular season, unable to find a sucker to take Juan Samuel.

You can't unscramble the eggs, so you go forward, but history has shown the Mets far more damaged by trades than graced.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't buy that for a minute.

Without trades, there would have been no Carter. Or Hernandez. Or Piazza, Grote, Staub, Olerud, Clendenon, Maine, Perez, and many others.

I think the Mets have been well-served by many of their trades. Whether the good outweighs the bad, I don't know. But the margin isn't lopsided either way.

[Guest AG/DC]

It's been historically studied, though. The Mets, by at least one thorough study, had been served worse by trades than any other active team.

You don't need to cite cases. Both sides can. The key is quantifying those cases.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, that doesn't make trades bad. If the Mets have made a lot of bad trades, then their trading partners have made good trades.

The past doesn't necessarily influence the future.

You're saying that for every good Mets trade, there have been three bad ones. (And of course, there have been many that were more or less neutral.) That's an extreme ratio, and I just don't believe it.

[soupcan]

My point was less about the historical outcome of past Met trades and more about Val's hesitance to pull the trigger because of his affinity for the Mets minor leaguers involved.

Amos Otis, Ken Singleton - I remember not-so-great deals too, but my point is that you have better odds that a trade will go your way when you get a Santana for four totally raw and unproven guys then if you don't pull that trigger.

You have to play those odds. Have to.

[Elster88]

Is risk-averse a synonym for stupid?

[stevejrogers]

="soupcan"] Amos Otis, Ken Singleton -

Singleton did net Rusty Staub though. Granted Staub got turned into an over-the-hill Lolich but still.

[Guest AG/DC]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, that doesn't make trades bad.

No, but it does cancel the logic of no trades=no Piazza=bad. More than cancels it.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: You're saying that for every good Mets trade, there have been three bad ones. (And of course, there have been many that were more or less neutral.) That's an extreme ratio, and I just don't believe it.

I'm more saying that for every win gained in a trade, the Mets have lost three. That's still an extreme ratio that discredits the number I threw out there. Sorry about that.

I think the thought that trades are good because they get us good players is shortsighted.

[Frayed Knot]

="Elster88"]Is risk-averse a synonym for stupid?

Not to speak entirely for Val here, but let's not forget that this trade/contract has a whole lotta risk attached to it. An injury to Santana early in the contract puts an anchor around the salary structure for years and the farm system could take at least as long to recover.
One of the lessons in 'Moneyball' was that it's often easier to recover from the player you don't sign than it is from the one you sign at the wrong price.

Now I disagree with him in that I think this WAS the right price (money + players) and will take my chances that we'll beat the odds of the roof caving in but there's a price for every deal at which you should walk away from the risk.

[smg58]

Frayed Knot wrote: Now I disagree with him in that I think this WAS the right price (money + players) and will take my chances that we'll beat the odds of the roof caving in but there's a price for every deal at which you should walk away from the risk.

I'm with FK. I was very worried that the cost would be quite a bit higher, but by keeping Pelfrey and Martinez I think the trading cost was kept at about what one year of Santana is worth, and the contract is about what I thought it would be.

[Valadius]

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

[stevejrogers]

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

In all fairness though, as bad as Vaughn, Cedeno II, Burnitz II, and Robbie Alomar were, the players the Mets sent have not come back to bite them repeatedly in the butt the way Ryan, Otis, Seaver, Kazmir, etc did.

[metsmarathon]

no, the players they got in return did.

[stevejrogers]

metsmarathon wrote: no, the players they got in return did.

Part of Val's dislike of the Santana deal is the potential of those the Mets parted with. Yes the fact that Santana can easily turn into the next Victor Zambrano just as easily as he can turn into the next Al Leiter is a major concern, but I'm shooting down Val's argument about those the Mets gave up. For every Amos Otis and Kevin Mitchell, there are probably many more Ed Hearns, Alex Escobars, David Wests and Rick Ownbeys.

[nymr83]

]Yes the fact that Santana can easily turn into the next Victor Zambrano just as easily as he can turn into the next Al Leiter is a major concern

thats not "the fact" or even "a fact." Santana is extremely unlikely to pitch as poorly as Zambrano, he is far more likely to pitch like Leiter, and even more likely to better than both.

[metsmarathon]

]Yes the fact that Santana can easily turn into the next Victor Zambrano just as easily as he can turn into the next Al Leiter is a major concern

nothing in that sentence is even close to being correct.

if santana turns into the next al leiter, then i think it is safe to say that we would ALL be very very disappointed in that. santana is the next santana. there is really no apt met-related analogy. the closest might be piazza, if you want to look for career arc to point of trade, and deserved superstardom of the goods received.

but we traded more to get piazza. and i'm pretty sure we traded more to get leiter. and think we might have even traded more to get zambrano.

santana can turn into zambrano? please! maybe if we had traded gomez, humber, mulvey, and guerra for rafael santana in the hopes that he could blossom into an ace starting pitching.

leiter? he was a very good starting pitcher. he was not, and was not close to, the best pitcher in the game in the midst of his prime. that's santana. i don't understand the need to mischaracterize this in the service of making a greater point.

[RealityChuck]

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

Not until after he led the team to the World Series.

I watched the team in '73, and Staub was superb, especially in the World Series.

But the argument here is futile. You need to trade to build a team, because no farm system is going to produce all the players you need at any given time. All trades are gambles, and some don't work out (the Mets track record is clearly worse than others). But there are all sorts of factors involved, and sometimes even keeping the player wouldn't have made a difference.

For an example, look at Ollie Perez from the standpoint of Pittsburgh. He was in the minors and looked to be a total loss, but he turned it around in NY. It was one of Omar's better trades (N.B., Perez wasn't a "throw-in" as is often reported*), but if he had stayed with the Pirates, he probably would be trying to catch on somewhere else right now.

Sometimes it would have been better to keep a player; sometimes the trade was the right thing to do. It's pointless to argue the team would have been better if it hadn't traded away it's minor league talent -- one of the reasons you build a farm system is to do exactly what the Mets did for Santana: have the bodies to make an offer.

*According to Minyana, he had been in talks for a straight Nady for Perez trade throughout July, but he had decided to pass simply because he couldn't justify trading his starting right fielder for a pitcher who was so messed up he had to be sent down to the minors. Once Sanchez went down, he went back to Pittsburgh and told them he'd make the deal if they threw in Roberto.

[Guest AG/DC]

metsmarathon wrote: no, the players they got in return did.

Money wasted hurt a lot also.

[Guest AG/DC]

SteveJRogers wrote: For every Amos Otis and Kevin Mitchell, there are probably many more Ed Hearns, Alex Escobars, David Wests and Rick Ownbeys.

I'm telling you, when you get past probablies and look at facts, there's no way to argue that the Mets have historically come out on top in the trade game. Or anywhere close to it.

[Guest AG/DC]

="RealityChuck"] ="SteveJRogers"] ="soupcan"] Amos Otis, Ken Singleton - Singleton did net Rusty Staub though. Granted Staub got turned into an over-the-hill Lolich but still. Not until after he led the team to the World Series. I watched the team in '73, and Staub was superb, especially in the World Series.

We're cherry-picking here. Staub didn't lead the team to the World Series. He was a wonderful part of it, and stood apart in a particularly weak offensive lineup for a division winner. But the pitchers were the lead players in that act.

More importantly --- and I know about Staub's post-season performance --- Singleton was already better than Staub in 1973. He played every day and, with 103 RBI and 123 walks, he was Frank Thomas before there ever was a Frank Thomas. He easily gave his teams well more than Staub and Lolich ever gave the Mets.

[nymr83]

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

why don't we do this? i'll be happy to split the work if someone comes up with the parameters

[stevejrogers]

Nymr83 wrote: ="AG/DC"] ="SteveJRogers"]For every Amos Otis and Kevin Mitchell, there are probably many more Ed Hearns, Alex Escobars, David Wests and Rick Ownbeys. I'm telling you, when you get past probablies and look at facts, there's no way to argue that the Mets have historically come out on top in the trade game. Or anywhere close to it. why don't we do this? i'll be happy to split the work if someone comes up with the parameters

Apparently from reading Edgy's reply about Singleton vs. Staub there might be a ton of working on setting up the parameters on this one.

Good examples, can we argue that the fact that the Mets never really "needed" a Rick Augilera type closer, and Kevin Tapani's middle of the pack starter career negates Frank Viola's sweet but oh so short stay in Flushing?

Do you also want to throw in intangibles such as "Well, Ryan would NEVER have been able to harness his ability the way he did in Anaheim" or "Scott was only good AFTER learning the split-finger or how to scuff a baseball"

The same could also be said about Vaughn vs. Appier. Both turned up to be expensive headaches, would you rather call it a complete wash instead of a regular "bad Mets trade." Oh it was an expensive mistake, but is the transaction in a separate category since neither team really fared well with the player they received.

And speaking of other categories, should we also create a "well Player X went somewhere else before blossoming" like Kevin Mitchell not panning out in San Diego before becoming a masher in San Fran? I've seen that "retort" used in defense of the Mitchell trade.

It does seem like a daunting task to define the exact parameters to use.