johan a met

[stevejrogers]

And yet another quantifier, Kris Benson never really was what the Mets thought they were getting, but do you want to say the trade ended up working out because;

A) While Ty Wigginton (though where the heck would we play him, 2nd? 1st?) had a terrific season with TB in 2006 and with both TB and Houston last year and Jose Bautista is a starter in the majors Matt Peterson, the "centerpiece" of the deal (according to those who knocked this trade along with the Kazmir one), has yet to pitch a major league pitch and

Benson ended up turning into John Maine and Jorge Julio, who in turn was traded for Orlando Hernandez.

While the actual acquisition of Kris Benson did not pan out, the twists and turns of the deal might give off the impression that in the end it kind of did.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Like all major league franchises, the Mets have their share of hits and misses when it comes to past trades. Though it would be interesting, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to analyze and evaluate the longterm effects of past Mets trades. There are just so many parameters and tangents to consider over time for each trade. Few trades occur in isolation over the long run. Regardless of past trades, I think it would be hard to argue against the Mets acquisition of Johan Santana.

[Guest AG/DC]

SteveJRogers wrote: 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?

No and no.

SteveJRogers wrote: 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"

Ugh. No and no.

SteveJRogers wrote: 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.

Win shares above replacement
________________________________

Salary
______________

Average Salary

SteveJRogers wrote: 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?

No, we shan't.

SteveJRogers wrote: I've seen that "retort" used in defense of the Mitchell trade.

Stop. Obscuring an issue is not an accomplishment. Having seen something doesn't make its usage valid.

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

Then why do you come up with all sorts of un-measurable irrelvancies?

[metsmarathon]

the furthest logical extent you could go with this (and it would be tough) would be to play it out to the end... player X was subsequently traded for player Y who was then traded for player Z, who left via free agency.

but edgy's formula is the way any such thing should be measured, imo.

[Frayed Knot]

Some place did such a study of franchise-trades a few years back (Hardball Times maybe?) and the Mets did indeed come out at the bottom of the gained/lost scale. Much of their negative came in the form of the Nolan Ryan deal as he racked up so many brownie points during his lengthy post-NYM career.
Problem was that much of the response to the article pointed out flaws in his methodology (I forget exactly what the "scoring" system was) that even the author admitted that it wasn't a very accurate accounting.


The other problem is that - unless you've got the same people making the same kind of deals via the same kind of logic - those past deals say virtually nothing about current or future ones.

[Guest KC]

I might have to agree with SJR re: Scott and his cheating. He got some really
sick stuff all of a sudden.

Other than that ... he's our resident whack job.

I agree that this might be an interesting thing to research as a group. Screw
arguing over what the parameters are and have ten people split up forty some
odd years of significant trades and see who has the most win shares or something.

We need someone to volunteer as moderator.

[nymr83]

i think the first thing you should do is have a list of 40 years of trades (easily lifted from umdb) and cross off all the BS ones (Corey Brittan for Kane Davis) so that we're only talking about deals that matters.

[Guest KC]

Namor: >>>i think the first thing you should do ...<<<

You're hired.

[nymr83]

="KC"]Namor: >>>i think the first thing you should do ...<<< You're hired.

i think you missed a key word there.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

I'd argue that a super-deep farm system isn't as important for a team like the Mets than it is for a mid- to low-market team.

Other than Wright and Reyes, do we even have any Met-developed position players on the roster?

It's nice to be able to fill the holes from within, but we have the luxury of going out and getting what we need.

I'm saying it wouldn't be nice to be flush with kids on the farm. But we tend to use them as we did this week -- to trade them for big guys we want.

[Guest AG/DC]

Frayed Knot wrote: The other problem is that - unless you've got the same people making the same kind of deals via the same kind of logic - those past deals say virtually nothing about current or future ones.

Well, close to nothing. But that's what we get into to when somebody is throwing around Keith Hernandez, Jon Olerud, and Rusty Staub.

[Guest AG/DC]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I'm saying it wouldn't be nice to be flush with kids on the farm. But we tend to use them as we did this week -- to trade them for big guys we want.

And we don't tend to succeed that way.

[Guest AG/DC]

Phillie Phans: http://www.philliesphans.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39772&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

[metirish]

] A left handed ace going against a lefty heavy lineup in the phillies- I hate this. I believe this clearly shifts the power in the East to the Muts

] This is really terrible news. On the face of it, it's bad. It puts the best pitcher in baseball on the team that will undoubtedly be our toughest obstacle in getting back to the playoffs. On closer inspection, it's even worse. First of all, the Mets lost nothing. Humber is the keystone? Please raise your hand if you were ever worried about Phillies hitters having to deal with Phil Humber for six years? Anyone, anyone? Oh and to add insult to injury, Humber hasn't been dominating since he had Tommy John surgery. Carlos Gomez might get lucky and become Jacque Jones someday. Kevin Mulvey might be the best player the Twins landed. Highly regarded at Villanova, great numbers through the minors, right on target age wise. Maybe too few strikeouts for a power-pitcher, but he's done well anyway. I don't even know who Deolis Guerra is. Anyway you cut it, the Mets losing these guys doesn't mean their farm is shot or they lost a key piece they're going to need down the road. Overall, I'm just baffled as to why the Twins would accept this trade. Further, the Mets get to keep Fernando Martinez, Wright, and Reyes who will continue to hurt the Phillies for many years to come. The price of the contract extension and Santana producing for the length of it, you say? How many Cy Young Award winners in recent history have slipped into mediocrity after winning one? Bartolo Colon and Eric Gange. Two guys who weren't the best pitchers in the league that year anyway. How many multi-Cy Youngers turned out not to be worth their pricetags? None that I can think of. The Mets are plenty willing and able to spend money when they want to. Even a contract like Santana's won't break the bank. Frankly, they've been Phillie-esque with their budget after 2003. One player doesn't make that much of a difference. We won the division by one game and got swept in the playoffs. One player can certainly make a huge difference. And it's not like the Muts are surrounded by a bunch of lousy players.

Not a happy lot.

[Guest AG/DC]

I don't think it's true that Humber is the keystone. I don't think any of these four has a particular value that makes them the jewel in the package. Gomez is probably the most desirable of the lot, but not by much. They all are likely to have some sort of big league career. They all have a chance to star. They all have to take something to prove.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think if anyone is the main player in the package, it's Gomez. But as Edgy said, it's really a package of four, not a 3 plus 1.

Gary Cohen, on this week's Hot Stove Report on SNY, said he thinks Humber is going to be a star pitcher. He sounded VERY high on Humber. That opinion isn't really in line with most others I've heard or read.

[metirish]

Seems a lot of posters on that board think that Smith was intent on trading Santana out of the AL.

[metirish]

Never heard anything like this.

] No sweat. Santana's got the inverted "W" delivery: an injury waiting to happen and an albatross around the neck of the Mutts for 6 or 7 years

NOTE: I am not wishing an injury on anyone, simply pointing out the possibility.

[Guest AG/DC]

Nor I.

An easier term for "inverted W" is "M."

[Benjamin Grimm]

That picture looks more like an X than an M (or an inverted W) to me.

If his delivery was shaped like a Z or a Q, then I'd really be concerned.

[Frayed Knot]

What pitching "expert" is that injury quote from?

And after 8 injury-free years in MLB - including the last 4 as a full-time starter w/134 starts & 900+ IPs - I'm guessing that whoever it is he has a fairly adaptive definition of "waiting to happen".






* Hey, I'm HoJo !!

[Guest AG/DC]

I'm guessing that there's a lot of bullshit masquerading as informed analysis on the internet.

I'm sure he'll feel vindicated if and when Santana eventually gets injured.

All pitchers are injuries waiting to happen, as pitching is a generally a pretty un-natural activitiy. It's moreso with the 97% of pitchers ( or so) who throw overhand but I'm going to bet that it has little to do with the alphabet.

[patchyfogg]

AG/DC wrote: I'm guessing that there's a lot of bullshit masquerading as informed analysis on the internet.

From that Phillies fan site, it seems that Mulvey's the best prospect solely because he went to school in Philadelphia.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

That only indicates he's not the smartest.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Lunchbucket - "That only indicates he's not the smartest."

Ba-dum-bum