Mets trade OF Church to Braves for OF Francoeur

[Benjamin Grimm]

]Mets trade OF Church to Braves for OF Francoeur July 10th, 2009 @ 4:04pm NEW YORK (AP) - The slumping New York Mets have traded outfielder Ryan Church to the Atlanta Braves for outfielder Jeff Francoeur. The deal came Friday, with the injury-ravaged Mets trying to avoid falling farther back in the NL East race. Church is hitting .280 with two home runs and 22 RBIs. Francoeur is hitting .250 with five homers and 35 RBIs.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Welll, that seems a bit of a waste.

A bit? I meant, "a lot." Unless there's a handcuff move for this, it's just bizarre.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Guest

[Guest Kong76]

Holy carp.

(too lazy to look for funny pic)

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

This helps us how?

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Isn't he supposed to be a horrible fielder?

[metirish]

I like it......do not ask me why yet.....


we need some SO to balance the stats

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Big arm-- slightly bigger than Church's.

By virtually every defensive metric available, has been a significantly poorer overall defender than Church over the last 3 years.

Walks less than a paraplegic. Slugs less than Church.

Slightly more expensive.

But he's younger. And he has that arm.

[metirish]

I guess one thing that surprises me is that the Braves would trade a local guy like that.....

[Guest Swan Swan H]

My in-laws live in South Carolina, and they watch a lot of Braves games. Every time I see them they say "You know who the Mets should get? Jeff Francoeur." They go on about his arm, and I start to talk about OBP and stuff, but realize it doesn't matter to them in the least.

Oh well, they're very nice people, and I'm sure they will be happy about this. If the Mets had given up any more than Church I'd be miffed, but this is a whatever trade to me.

[Guest Number 6]

I always used to wonder how frustrating this guy was to Braves fans, what with his fantastic talent and pitiful understanding of the strike zone. Guess I'm going to find out for myself.

[MFS62]

I'm thinkin' Ron Swoboda redux.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

="metsguyinmichigan"]Isn't he supposed to be a horrible fielder?

Def not a bad fielder. GREAT athlete (Braves bought him out of a football scholarship at Clemson) w/a real good speed & arm.

But I'm not sure I like this.
Francoeur was a very highly rated prospect - mostly on account of that athleticism - who zoomed through the minors on those raw skills but (at least partially because of that early success) never really learned to control the strikezone. As mentioned above, never walks and, worse yet, has walked less and less as the seasons have gone on.
I remember when Jay Bruce was struggling w/Cincy after his great initial splash last year some talking head (or writing head) was saying how that was a good thing because now he'll have to learn to adjust the way Francouer never did.

I guess Church was a FA at the end of the year (or is it one more?) and JF should be still 2 years away so you can claim it's a future move to some extent - but I don't see how it helps now. Francouer is potentially better IMO but that doesn't mean he will be.

[Gwreck]

Church has one more arbitration year.
Francoeur has two.

That's about the extent of the advantage to the Mets in this deal. Seems like a stupid, trade-for-the-sake-of-making-a-trade deals.

[Frayed Knot]

Plus 5 years in age difference.
Of course you'll have to re-sign and/or extend him in order to take advantage of those years so maybe that won't matter.

[Guest gerrard00]

Wow, the season is saved!! Oh, wait.

I really don't get this trade at all. I also think that Church has never really gotten a fair shot at being an every day player.

[Ceetar]

This is a mind boggling trade. Ryan Church is simply a better baseball player than Francoeur, who has too many consecutive vowels in his name.

However,

1. Jerry Manuel obviously didn't like him, and this is the second player he's managed to get rid of that he didn't like.

2. Pressure's on Howard Johnson, to impart some knowledge to a guy with some talent. And some patience.


http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/07/jeff-francoeur-for-ryan-church-why/

[bmfc1]

Omar says that Francoeur is a gold glover:

http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/mets/archives/2009/07/church_traded_f.html

[Gwreck]

Watched Church's meeting with the media on SNY.

Rubin pressed Church (talking about "the censor button off now") to see if Church would offer an opinion about the concussion, after Rubin proffered that "obviously it was handled incorrectly." Didn't get much of a response from Ryan though.

I did like that Church thanked the NY fans.

[G-Fafif]

="MFS62":2j01mofu]I'm thinkin' Ron Swoboda redux.[/quote:2j01mofu] I'd be willing to test that theory in the fourth game of a World Series. Otherwise, I agree with trade for trade's sake. Not a great formula for building a winner, but a decent distraction after a 12-23 stretch.

Ceetar Jul 10 2009 05:16 PM

="G-Fafif":1vbv4344] ="MFS62":1vbv4344]I'm thinkin' Ron Swoboda redux.[/quote:1vbv4344] I'd be willing to test that theory in the fourth game of a World Series. .[/quote:1vbv4344] As would I, however I think it's more likely that Church is the one playing in that game now. That's the second better player Manuel has (presumably) chased out of here. metirish Jul 10 2009 05:18 PM Do I remember correctly that Randolph didn't like Church , now apparently Manuel didn't either, what gives? Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 05:43 PM Re: why? ="Ceetar":2iip6thy]This is a mind boggling trade. Ryan Church is simply a better baseball player than Francoeur, who has too many consecutive vowels in his name. However, 1. Jerry Manuel obviously didn't like him, and this is the second player he's managed to get rid of that he didn't like. 2. Pressure's on Howard Johnson, to impart some knowledge to a guy with some talent. And some patience. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/07/jeff-francoeur-for-ryan-church-why/[/quote:2iip6thy] Mind boggling? Wright for Wes Helms is mind boggling. This is a trade for a guy with a fair amount of upside, giving up a guy who, at 30, has never proven himself as an everyday player, here or in Washington, and has never been able to get 500 ABs in a season. Clearly your mind is easily boggled. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 10 2009 05:44 PM I guess Francoeur has more upside than Church IF potential can translate to perrformance. If not, it seems to have been done to say Omar did something while Flushing was burning. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 05:45 PM Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 05:48 PM Really we have to see what more moves they make if any and if this is a 2009 trade or edging towards re-building in some way. This really isn't one of those trades that should solicit pissedoffedness from Mets' fans ... but I'd be disappointed if it doesn't 'cause I like to chuckle at them. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 05:49 PM ="bmfc1":109oa161]Omar says that Francoeur is a gold glover: http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/mets/archives/2009/07/church_traded_f.html[/quote:109oa161] So did the Gold Glove voters in 2007. Not to say that they're always dead on, but Francoeur has one more Gold Glove on his mantle than you, me or Ryan Church. By the way, Baseball Reference shows the following sim scores for the past three years: Francoeur: 22: Duke Snider, 23: Greg Luzinski, 24: Harold Baines. Church: 27: Brian Jordan, 28: Chet Laabs, 29: Chet Laabs. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:10 PM Say what you want. If there's got to be trades, challenge trades are fun to track. This also extends the trackablity of the Milledge trade. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:55 PM Oh my god John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:56 PM Jusdt finding out about it here now. What? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:58 PM the fuck? Methead Jul 10 2009 06:02 PM Can't believe I have to root for Francoueuer now. We're going from a player management didn't like to a player fans won't want to like. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:03 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:11 PM *moved* John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 06:04 PM I got nothing against Frenchie, I just... well... I don't know why the Mets would go get a dude with such glaring deficiencies... I mean... it's not like Church was going to write Beethoven's 9th symphony but ... wow. Centerfield Jul 10 2009 06:13 PM Franceour sucks. We shouldn't trade for guys who suck. Benjamin Grimm Jul 10 2009 06:16 PM I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:17 PM ="Ceetar":7neo982y]Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger.[/quote:7neo982y] Of course he has more upside because he is younger. Bill James proved that players tend strongly to peak at age 27. Recent studies have pushed that up to 29-30. In any case, that's Francoeur's future and Church's past. And this stuff about Church being better? The guy has managed 320 ABs ONCE in his career. When he was Francoeur's age he was just breaking into the majors. Washington thought so little of him they traded him for half of Lastings Milledge. You say nobody gave him a chance. He's been in the majors for six years, and nobody lasts six years without getting a chance. After six years you don't play because you don't deserve to play. For one game, tomorrow, against a righthander, I'd still take Church. And, I don't have exceptionally strong feelings one way or another about the deal, really. But to call this 'mind boggling' shows that, as you are, as you nearly always are, driven by agenda rather than fact. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:24 PM Ceetar has an agenda after 72 posts? I gotta pay more attention. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:26 PM Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:28 PM Ah, one of those :-) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Swan Swan H":7ohkrgxl]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:7ohkrgxl] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now. Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":wesessgo]I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point.[/quote:wesessgo] Definitely dangerous, just not consistently so. bmfc1 Jul 10 2009 06:53 PM August 29, 2005 Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:00 PM ="Ceetar":321wp213] ="Swan Swan H":321wp213]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:321wp213] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now.[/quote:321wp213] Where to start... Tatis, the disaster, has an OPS 29 points higher than Murphy, which would make Murphy what, a catastrophe? A debacle? I don't have my thesaurus handy, so that's the best I can do right now. I wish Murphy was playing better, but an everyday first baseman with a .671 OPS is the real disaster. I agree that Murphy has more potential than Tatis for the future, but but get a grip. You sling around hyperbole that has no basis in fact. You blame Manuel for mismanaging, then talk about how bad the players are. Did Jerry build this roster? I disagree with a lot of his moves as well, but when he looks at the bench and sees what he sees, what can he do? I understand that Omar couldn't have planned for these injuries, but John McGraw couldn't goad this bunch into first place. Why are you putting 'bandwagon' in single quotes? Did I mention anything about a bandwagon? Do you not think the folks on this board know the term? metsguyinmichigan Jul 10 2009 07:01 PM Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:03 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1seevtwr]Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm.[/quote:1seevtwr] Hell, at this point I'd take him. DocTee Jul 10 2009 07:12 PM ]Walks less than a paraplegic. Slugs less than Church. This is the funniest comment I have read in ages. And it almost distracts me from the fact that I hat this transaction. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:15 PM ="Ceetar":34bzg42g]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:34bzg42g] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:21 PM ="Edgy DC":f7pn2b10] ="Ceetar":f7pn2b10]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:f7pn2b10] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:f7pn2b10] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it? seawolf17 Jul 10 2009 07:24 PM I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:28 PM Let's get to the important stuff - what number will he wear? The conversation is already underway at MBTN. I'm guessing 4. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:29 PM ="Spacemans Bong":2y0d9r5p] ="Edgy DC":2y0d9r5p] ="Ceetar":2y0d9r5p]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it?[/quote:2y0d9r5p] I guess not. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:33 PM ="seawolf17":52topbyk]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:52topbyk] Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:38 PM ="Ceetar"] ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Not the TEAM, the TERM, the term bandwagon. Read, for Chrissakes. Oh, and this: ]Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. May be the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. Besides, Tatis' OBP is higher than Murphy's which has nothing to do with doubles or swinging hard or whatever that is supposed to mean. And I still don't see how Church's 2007 was better than Francoeur's anyway. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:39 PM ="seawolf17":14kh53td]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:14kh53td] Where are his two good years? metsmarathon Jul 10 2009 07:40 PM i'm not a fan of this trade. its not that i don't like jeff francoeur - i mean, i'm never gonna spell that correctly with any consistency whatsoever, but that's really besides the point - and if we had traded lastings milledge for jeff francoeur straight up, i'd be pretty ok with that trade. its just that i liked churchie, and felt like he didnt get enough of a chance to show how good of a player he really was, be it because of a pesky concussion or two, or a pesky relationship with a manager. i liked his defense - he had good range and a good arm, and can play centerfield in a pinch. can francoeur? jeff has power (which the team needs but shouldn't imo be the most important quality we look for in any player) and a big arm (which is important in this field), but i liked church's skill set just fine. i suppose i may come to like it, and it gives us a few things to track, but i don't like it right now, and would rather we had traded something like a pedro feliciano for him instead, tho that likely would not have gotten the deal done. on a scale of 1-5, i'm no higher than a 2. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:50 PM go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 07:58 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:07 PM ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Here's the thing, though-- Francoeur really didn't have two very good years. He had a good Murphy-like dip platooning/mostly swinging from the heels with men on in 2005. He then proceeded to swing even harder at a lot more pitches, and had an SI cover because he looked like a Georgian Mickey Mantle and had hit a bunch of home runs in that first good half-season. His "good years" in 2006 and 2007? He slugged less than .450, had OPS+ ratings of 86 and 103, and was less valuable offensively than Church in both years, and a shit-ton other folk whose names you wouldn't immediately associate with not-shitting-themselves offensively. He had a walk rate of 6.1 percent in his putrid 2008 and it was a career high. Even worse, his strengths aren't strong, either-- he has an isolated power rate (SLG-AVG, so as to isolate XBH) of .158... Church, in more at bats, has a rate of .171. His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. I'm a little annoyed because I think Church could have been interesting trade bait for something else other than this. Omar just traded a decent if underwhelming outfielder for someone who's been perhaps the worst regular offensive player in the majors during the last two years-- Tony Womack-in-2001 bad, but more durable. He's young-ish yet; in 5 years, he may be better. I would feel confident wagering the life a beloved family pet that he won't be. (Plus, those vowels is gonna kills my spellings. "French" it'll have to be.) sharpie Jul 10 2009 08:02 PM It's not a question of Murphy vs. Tatis -- it's that both Murphy and Tatis don't equal a major league first baseman. Get Delgado back, then relegate them both to pinch hitting duties. And swapping Church for Francouer? Fine. Maybe it'll work 'cause what we got now aint' working. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:03 PM ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 08:13 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 09:11 PM The point is not that the positions of Down with Jerry and Omar and Up with Murphy are invalid. The point is that seeing everything through that prism and everything as further evidence in that direction is irrational in a complex and random world and just just blinds one to the difficult nuances of the game and actually weakens the argument. (No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 08:17 PM ="Swan Swan H"] ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:18 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:22 PM ="Edgy DC"](No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) "I beg to differ... and I would trade you Ziggy Palffy for a hamburger today." "I would add $30 million on top of that. Also, would you like to accompany me to a friend's truck party?" Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 08:20 PM FWIW, Francouer and the Braves have been going with 1-year (non-arb determined) contracts all along and he's currently playing for $3.375mil As mentioned before, he'll be under Met control for the remainder of this season plus two more. Methead Jul 10 2009 08:21 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"] His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. That line - that single line - just gave me an ulcer. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:35 PM ="bmfc1"] August 29, 2005 The editorial staff at SI occasionally makes errors in judgement. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:56 PM ="Ceetar"] ="Swan Swan H"] ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) Tatis has hit into six more DPs (11-5). Murphy has made six more errors (7-1), and can't play 2B or SS. What else ya got? Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 09:15 PM ]I was using one game. Yeah, we got that. The point is you don't do that when more data is available, unless you're so fixated on your point that you're willing to distort the facts to support it at all costs. Frankly, I like sticking with Murphy. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 09:30 PM Murph versus Tatis, distorted perception, how much boggling can one trade engender... this thread got out of hand in a hurry. (I think Swanny killed a guy with a trident.) OlerudOwned Jul 10 2009 10:21 PM Jeff Francoeur has had 4 seasons, including this one, with 300 or more plate appearances. He OBP'd .300 or higher in one of them. He's an abhorrent hitter and he's made no strides at improving. The worst part is that I've had so much fun at his expense already. Now I'm sort of guilty. (Not my work.) Nymr83 Jul 10 2009 11:45 PM i dont have much to add, i'll just go on record as not liking it. metirish Jul 11 2009 07:10 AM blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Francouer[/url:1x30hppv] not surprisingly the fans their that responded to the blog think Francouer is the better player gerrard00 Jul 11 2009 08:41 AM How long before the first nasty tabloid back page making fun of Frenchy's willingness to swing at anything? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 11 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish"]blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Yep, it does. ]He�s not a bad guy � on the contrary, he�s a fine fellow � but neither is he easy to coach. He�d been a success in every sport at every level but couldn�t master the adjustments every successful big-league hitter must make. It�s not that he didn�t try to change. He changed his swing several times. Trouble was, he couldn�t change himself. Francoeur is a baseball player with a football mentality, and that doesn�t cut it over the long haul. A baseball player must be measured in his approach. The same aggressiveness that made Francoeur one of the greatest high school football players this blessed state has ever seen... ultimately rendered him a substandard big-league hitter. Oh, and 85% of the paper's readers appear to be behind the trade. themetfairy Jul 11 2009 10:44 AM I think I initially posted this in the wrong thread, but The Dugout[/url:oq70zs26] had some fun with this trade. dgwphotography Jul 11 2009 12:16 PM ="Swan Swan H":2elfj25m]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:2elfj25m] I can get behind that sort of agenda (at least until Murphy shows he can't play everyday) Willets Point Jul 11 2009 06:48 PM Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur Kong76 Jul 11 2009 06:56 PM That will help me remember how to spell his name when Schaefer voting. Franco e u r LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 12 2009 10:12 AM ="Willets Point":qi4r3fkj]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:qi4r3fkj] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no? Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 10:58 AM Murphy will not be a Mets starter next year..Frenchie will Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 11:05 AM Ryan Church was a part-time stiff..pleez...now Dump Muffy anf Fartman for Dunn and 1B is set for this year and next Nymr83 Jul 12 2009 11:49 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3ajyn4wm] ="Willets Point":3ajyn4wm]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no?[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Terry Francona is the only one i can think of, but he counts, sorry mets DocTee Jul 12 2009 11:53 AM Tito Francona, too.

[Ceetar]

="G-Fafif":1vbv4344] ="MFS62":1vbv4344]I'm thinkin' Ron Swoboda redux.[/quote:1vbv4344] I'd be willing to test that theory in the fourth game of a World Series. .[/quote:1vbv4344] As would I, however I think it's more likely that Church is the one playing in that game now. That's the second better player Manuel has (presumably) chased out of here. metirish Jul 10 2009 05:18 PM Do I remember correctly that Randolph didn't like Church , now apparently Manuel didn't either, what gives? Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 05:43 PM Re: why? ="Ceetar":2iip6thy]This is a mind boggling trade. Ryan Church is simply a better baseball player than Francoeur, who has too many consecutive vowels in his name. However, 1. Jerry Manuel obviously didn't like him, and this is the second player he's managed to get rid of that he didn't like. 2. Pressure's on Howard Johnson, to impart some knowledge to a guy with some talent. And some patience. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/07/jeff-francoeur-for-ryan-church-why/[/quote:2iip6thy] Mind boggling? Wright for Wes Helms is mind boggling. This is a trade for a guy with a fair amount of upside, giving up a guy who, at 30, has never proven himself as an everyday player, here or in Washington, and has never been able to get 500 ABs in a season. Clearly your mind is easily boggled. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 10 2009 05:44 PM I guess Francoeur has more upside than Church IF potential can translate to perrformance. If not, it seems to have been done to say Omar did something while Flushing was burning. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 05:45 PM Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 05:48 PM Really we have to see what more moves they make if any and if this is a 2009 trade or edging towards re-building in some way. This really isn't one of those trades that should solicit pissedoffedness from Mets' fans ... but I'd be disappointed if it doesn't 'cause I like to chuckle at them. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 05:49 PM ="bmfc1":109oa161]Omar says that Francoeur is a gold glover: http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/mets/archives/2009/07/church_traded_f.html[/quote:109oa161] So did the Gold Glove voters in 2007. Not to say that they're always dead on, but Francoeur has one more Gold Glove on his mantle than you, me or Ryan Church. By the way, Baseball Reference shows the following sim scores for the past three years: Francoeur: 22: Duke Snider, 23: Greg Luzinski, 24: Harold Baines. Church: 27: Brian Jordan, 28: Chet Laabs, 29: Chet Laabs. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:10 PM Say what you want. If there's got to be trades, challenge trades are fun to track. This also extends the trackablity of the Milledge trade. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:55 PM Oh my god John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:56 PM Jusdt finding out about it here now. What? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:58 PM the fuck? Methead Jul 10 2009 06:02 PM Can't believe I have to root for Francoueuer now. We're going from a player management didn't like to a player fans won't want to like. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:03 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:11 PM *moved* John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 06:04 PM I got nothing against Frenchie, I just... well... I don't know why the Mets would go get a dude with such glaring deficiencies... I mean... it's not like Church was going to write Beethoven's 9th symphony but ... wow. Centerfield Jul 10 2009 06:13 PM Franceour sucks. We shouldn't trade for guys who suck. Benjamin Grimm Jul 10 2009 06:16 PM I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:17 PM ="Ceetar":7neo982y]Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger.[/quote:7neo982y] Of course he has more upside because he is younger. Bill James proved that players tend strongly to peak at age 27. Recent studies have pushed that up to 29-30. In any case, that's Francoeur's future and Church's past. And this stuff about Church being better? The guy has managed 320 ABs ONCE in his career. When he was Francoeur's age he was just breaking into the majors. Washington thought so little of him they traded him for half of Lastings Milledge. You say nobody gave him a chance. He's been in the majors for six years, and nobody lasts six years without getting a chance. After six years you don't play because you don't deserve to play. For one game, tomorrow, against a righthander, I'd still take Church. And, I don't have exceptionally strong feelings one way or another about the deal, really. But to call this 'mind boggling' shows that, as you are, as you nearly always are, driven by agenda rather than fact. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:24 PM Ceetar has an agenda after 72 posts? I gotta pay more attention. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:26 PM Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:28 PM Ah, one of those :-) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Swan Swan H":7ohkrgxl]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:7ohkrgxl] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now. Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":wesessgo]I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point.[/quote:wesessgo] Definitely dangerous, just not consistently so. bmfc1 Jul 10 2009 06:53 PM August 29, 2005 Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:00 PM ="Ceetar":321wp213] ="Swan Swan H":321wp213]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:321wp213] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now.[/quote:321wp213] Where to start... Tatis, the disaster, has an OPS 29 points higher than Murphy, which would make Murphy what, a catastrophe? A debacle? I don't have my thesaurus handy, so that's the best I can do right now. I wish Murphy was playing better, but an everyday first baseman with a .671 OPS is the real disaster. I agree that Murphy has more potential than Tatis for the future, but but get a grip. You sling around hyperbole that has no basis in fact. You blame Manuel for mismanaging, then talk about how bad the players are. Did Jerry build this roster? I disagree with a lot of his moves as well, but when he looks at the bench and sees what he sees, what can he do? I understand that Omar couldn't have planned for these injuries, but John McGraw couldn't goad this bunch into first place. Why are you putting 'bandwagon' in single quotes? Did I mention anything about a bandwagon? Do you not think the folks on this board know the term? metsguyinmichigan Jul 10 2009 07:01 PM Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:03 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1seevtwr]Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm.[/quote:1seevtwr] Hell, at this point I'd take him. DocTee Jul 10 2009 07:12 PM ]Walks less than a paraplegic. Slugs less than Church. This is the funniest comment I have read in ages. And it almost distracts me from the fact that I hat this transaction. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:15 PM ="Ceetar":34bzg42g]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:34bzg42g] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:21 PM ="Edgy DC":f7pn2b10] ="Ceetar":f7pn2b10]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:f7pn2b10] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:f7pn2b10] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it? seawolf17 Jul 10 2009 07:24 PM I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:28 PM Let's get to the important stuff - what number will he wear? The conversation is already underway at MBTN. I'm guessing 4. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:29 PM ="Spacemans Bong":2y0d9r5p] ="Edgy DC":2y0d9r5p] ="Ceetar":2y0d9r5p]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it?[/quote:2y0d9r5p] I guess not. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:33 PM ="seawolf17":52topbyk]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:52topbyk] Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:38 PM ="Ceetar"] ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Not the TEAM, the TERM, the term bandwagon. Read, for Chrissakes. Oh, and this: ]Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. May be the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. Besides, Tatis' OBP is higher than Murphy's which has nothing to do with doubles or swinging hard or whatever that is supposed to mean. And I still don't see how Church's 2007 was better than Francoeur's anyway. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:39 PM ="seawolf17":14kh53td]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:14kh53td] Where are his two good years? metsmarathon Jul 10 2009 07:40 PM i'm not a fan of this trade. its not that i don't like jeff francoeur - i mean, i'm never gonna spell that correctly with any consistency whatsoever, but that's really besides the point - and if we had traded lastings milledge for jeff francoeur straight up, i'd be pretty ok with that trade. its just that i liked churchie, and felt like he didnt get enough of a chance to show how good of a player he really was, be it because of a pesky concussion or two, or a pesky relationship with a manager. i liked his defense - he had good range and a good arm, and can play centerfield in a pinch. can francoeur? jeff has power (which the team needs but shouldn't imo be the most important quality we look for in any player) and a big arm (which is important in this field), but i liked church's skill set just fine. i suppose i may come to like it, and it gives us a few things to track, but i don't like it right now, and would rather we had traded something like a pedro feliciano for him instead, tho that likely would not have gotten the deal done. on a scale of 1-5, i'm no higher than a 2. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:50 PM go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 07:58 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:07 PM ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Here's the thing, though-- Francoeur really didn't have two very good years. He had a good Murphy-like dip platooning/mostly swinging from the heels with men on in 2005. He then proceeded to swing even harder at a lot more pitches, and had an SI cover because he looked like a Georgian Mickey Mantle and had hit a bunch of home runs in that first good half-season. His "good years" in 2006 and 2007? He slugged less than .450, had OPS+ ratings of 86 and 103, and was less valuable offensively than Church in both years, and a shit-ton other folk whose names you wouldn't immediately associate with not-shitting-themselves offensively. He had a walk rate of 6.1 percent in his putrid 2008 and it was a career high. Even worse, his strengths aren't strong, either-- he has an isolated power rate (SLG-AVG, so as to isolate XBH) of .158... Church, in more at bats, has a rate of .171. His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. I'm a little annoyed because I think Church could have been interesting trade bait for something else other than this. Omar just traded a decent if underwhelming outfielder for someone who's been perhaps the worst regular offensive player in the majors during the last two years-- Tony Womack-in-2001 bad, but more durable. He's young-ish yet; in 5 years, he may be better. I would feel confident wagering the life a beloved family pet that he won't be. (Plus, those vowels is gonna kills my spellings. "French" it'll have to be.) sharpie Jul 10 2009 08:02 PM It's not a question of Murphy vs. Tatis -- it's that both Murphy and Tatis don't equal a major league first baseman. Get Delgado back, then relegate them both to pinch hitting duties. And swapping Church for Francouer? Fine. Maybe it'll work 'cause what we got now aint' working. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:03 PM ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 08:13 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 09:11 PM The point is not that the positions of Down with Jerry and Omar and Up with Murphy are invalid. The point is that seeing everything through that prism and everything as further evidence in that direction is irrational in a complex and random world and just just blinds one to the difficult nuances of the game and actually weakens the argument. (No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 08:17 PM ="Swan Swan H"] ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:18 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:22 PM ="Edgy DC"](No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) "I beg to differ... and I would trade you Ziggy Palffy for a hamburger today." "I would add $30 million on top of that. Also, would you like to accompany me to a friend's truck party?" Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 08:20 PM FWIW, Francouer and the Braves have been going with 1-year (non-arb determined) contracts all along and he's currently playing for $3.375mil As mentioned before, he'll be under Met control for the remainder of this season plus two more. Methead Jul 10 2009 08:21 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"] His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. That line - that single line - just gave me an ulcer. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:35 PM ="bmfc1"] August 29, 2005 The editorial staff at SI occasionally makes errors in judgement. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:56 PM ="Ceetar"] ="Swan Swan H"] ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) Tatis has hit into six more DPs (11-5). Murphy has made six more errors (7-1), and can't play 2B or SS. What else ya got? Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 09:15 PM ]I was using one game. Yeah, we got that. The point is you don't do that when more data is available, unless you're so fixated on your point that you're willing to distort the facts to support it at all costs. Frankly, I like sticking with Murphy. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 09:30 PM Murph versus Tatis, distorted perception, how much boggling can one trade engender... this thread got out of hand in a hurry. (I think Swanny killed a guy with a trident.) OlerudOwned Jul 10 2009 10:21 PM Jeff Francoeur has had 4 seasons, including this one, with 300 or more plate appearances. He OBP'd .300 or higher in one of them. He's an abhorrent hitter and he's made no strides at improving. The worst part is that I've had so much fun at his expense already. Now I'm sort of guilty. (Not my work.) Nymr83 Jul 10 2009 11:45 PM i dont have much to add, i'll just go on record as not liking it. metirish Jul 11 2009 07:10 AM blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Francouer[/url:1x30hppv] not surprisingly the fans their that responded to the blog think Francouer is the better player gerrard00 Jul 11 2009 08:41 AM How long before the first nasty tabloid back page making fun of Frenchy's willingness to swing at anything? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 11 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish"]blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Yep, it does. ]He�s not a bad guy � on the contrary, he�s a fine fellow � but neither is he easy to coach. He�d been a success in every sport at every level but couldn�t master the adjustments every successful big-league hitter must make. It�s not that he didn�t try to change. He changed his swing several times. Trouble was, he couldn�t change himself. Francoeur is a baseball player with a football mentality, and that doesn�t cut it over the long haul. A baseball player must be measured in his approach. The same aggressiveness that made Francoeur one of the greatest high school football players this blessed state has ever seen... ultimately rendered him a substandard big-league hitter. Oh, and 85% of the paper's readers appear to be behind the trade. themetfairy Jul 11 2009 10:44 AM I think I initially posted this in the wrong thread, but The Dugout[/url:oq70zs26] had some fun with this trade. dgwphotography Jul 11 2009 12:16 PM ="Swan Swan H":2elfj25m]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:2elfj25m] I can get behind that sort of agenda (at least until Murphy shows he can't play everyday) Willets Point Jul 11 2009 06:48 PM Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur Kong76 Jul 11 2009 06:56 PM That will help me remember how to spell his name when Schaefer voting. Franco e u r LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 12 2009 10:12 AM ="Willets Point":qi4r3fkj]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:qi4r3fkj] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no? Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 10:58 AM Murphy will not be a Mets starter next year..Frenchie will Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 11:05 AM Ryan Church was a part-time stiff..pleez...now Dump Muffy anf Fartman for Dunn and 1B is set for this year and next Nymr83 Jul 12 2009 11:49 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3ajyn4wm] ="Willets Point":3ajyn4wm]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no?[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Terry Francona is the only one i can think of, but he counts, sorry mets DocTee Jul 12 2009 11:53 AM Tito Francona, too.

[metirish]

Do I remember correctly that Randolph didn't like Church , now apparently Manuel didn't either, what gives?

[Guest Swan Swan H]

="Ceetar":2iip6thy]This is a mind boggling trade. Ryan Church is simply a better baseball player than Francoeur, who has too many consecutive vowels in his name. However, 1. Jerry Manuel obviously didn't like him, and this is the second player he's managed to get rid of that he didn't like. 2. Pressure's on Howard Johnson, to impart some knowledge to a guy with some talent. And some patience. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/07/jeff-francoeur-for-ryan-church-why/[/quote:2iip6thy] Mind boggling? Wright for Wes Helms is mind boggling. This is a trade for a guy with a fair amount of upside, giving up a guy who, at 30, has never proven himself as an everyday player, here or in Washington, and has never been able to get 500 ABs in a season. Clearly your mind is easily boggled.

PiggiesTomatoes Jul 10 2009 05:44 PM

I guess Francoeur has more upside than Church IF potential can translate to perrformance. If not, it seems to have been done to say Omar did something while Flushing was burning.

Ceetar Jul 10 2009 05:45 PM

Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger.

Kong76 Jul 10 2009 05:48 PM

Really we have to see what more moves they make if any and if this is a 2009 trade or edging towards re-building in some way. This really isn't one of those trades that should solicit pissedoffedness from Mets' fans ... but I'd be disappointed if it doesn't 'cause I like to chuckle at them.

Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 05:49 PM

="bmfc1":109oa161]Omar says that Francoeur is a gold glover: http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/mets/archives/2009/07/church_traded_f.html[/quote:109oa161] So did the Gold Glove voters in 2007. Not to say that they're always dead on, but Francoeur has one more Gold Glove on his mantle than you, me or Ryan Church. By the way, Baseball Reference shows the following sim scores for the past three years: Francoeur: 22: Duke Snider, 23: Greg Luzinski, 24: Harold Baines. Church: 27: Brian Jordan, 28: Chet Laabs, 29: Chet Laabs. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:10 PM Say what you want. If there's got to be trades, challenge trades are fun to track. This also extends the trackablity of the Milledge trade. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:55 PM Oh my god John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:56 PM Jusdt finding out about it here now. What? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:58 PM the fuck? Methead Jul 10 2009 06:02 PM Can't believe I have to root for Francoueuer now. We're going from a player management didn't like to a player fans won't want to like. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:03 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:11 PM *moved* John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 06:04 PM I got nothing against Frenchie, I just... well... I don't know why the Mets would go get a dude with such glaring deficiencies... I mean... it's not like Church was going to write Beethoven's 9th symphony but ... wow. Centerfield Jul 10 2009 06:13 PM Franceour sucks. We shouldn't trade for guys who suck. Benjamin Grimm Jul 10 2009 06:16 PM I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:17 PM ="Ceetar":7neo982y]Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger.[/quote:7neo982y] Of course he has more upside because he is younger. Bill James proved that players tend strongly to peak at age 27. Recent studies have pushed that up to 29-30. In any case, that's Francoeur's future and Church's past. And this stuff about Church being better? The guy has managed 320 ABs ONCE in his career. When he was Francoeur's age he was just breaking into the majors. Washington thought so little of him they traded him for half of Lastings Milledge. You say nobody gave him a chance. He's been in the majors for six years, and nobody lasts six years without getting a chance. After six years you don't play because you don't deserve to play. For one game, tomorrow, against a righthander, I'd still take Church. And, I don't have exceptionally strong feelings one way or another about the deal, really. But to call this 'mind boggling' shows that, as you are, as you nearly always are, driven by agenda rather than fact. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:24 PM Ceetar has an agenda after 72 posts? I gotta pay more attention. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:26 PM Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:28 PM Ah, one of those :-) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Swan Swan H":7ohkrgxl]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:7ohkrgxl] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now. Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":wesessgo]I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point.[/quote:wesessgo] Definitely dangerous, just not consistently so. bmfc1 Jul 10 2009 06:53 PM August 29, 2005 Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:00 PM ="Ceetar":321wp213] ="Swan Swan H":321wp213]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:321wp213] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now.[/quote:321wp213] Where to start... Tatis, the disaster, has an OPS 29 points higher than Murphy, which would make Murphy what, a catastrophe? A debacle? I don't have my thesaurus handy, so that's the best I can do right now. I wish Murphy was playing better, but an everyday first baseman with a .671 OPS is the real disaster. I agree that Murphy has more potential than Tatis for the future, but but get a grip. You sling around hyperbole that has no basis in fact. You blame Manuel for mismanaging, then talk about how bad the players are. Did Jerry build this roster? I disagree with a lot of his moves as well, but when he looks at the bench and sees what he sees, what can he do? I understand that Omar couldn't have planned for these injuries, but John McGraw couldn't goad this bunch into first place. Why are you putting 'bandwagon' in single quotes? Did I mention anything about a bandwagon? Do you not think the folks on this board know the term? metsguyinmichigan Jul 10 2009 07:01 PM Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:03 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1seevtwr]Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm.[/quote:1seevtwr] Hell, at this point I'd take him. DocTee Jul 10 2009 07:12 PM ]Walks less than a paraplegic. Slugs less than Church. This is the funniest comment I have read in ages. And it almost distracts me from the fact that I hat this transaction. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:15 PM ="Ceetar":34bzg42g]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:34bzg42g] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:21 PM ="Edgy DC":f7pn2b10] ="Ceetar":f7pn2b10]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:f7pn2b10] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:f7pn2b10] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it? seawolf17 Jul 10 2009 07:24 PM I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:28 PM Let's get to the important stuff - what number will he wear? The conversation is already underway at MBTN. I'm guessing 4. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:29 PM ="Spacemans Bong":2y0d9r5p] ="Edgy DC":2y0d9r5p] ="Ceetar":2y0d9r5p]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it?[/quote:2y0d9r5p] I guess not. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:33 PM ="seawolf17":52topbyk]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:52topbyk] Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:38 PM ="Ceetar"] ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Not the TEAM, the TERM, the term bandwagon. Read, for Chrissakes. Oh, and this: ]Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. May be the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. Besides, Tatis' OBP is higher than Murphy's which has nothing to do with doubles or swinging hard or whatever that is supposed to mean. And I still don't see how Church's 2007 was better than Francoeur's anyway. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:39 PM ="seawolf17":14kh53td]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:14kh53td] Where are his two good years? metsmarathon Jul 10 2009 07:40 PM i'm not a fan of this trade. its not that i don't like jeff francoeur - i mean, i'm never gonna spell that correctly with any consistency whatsoever, but that's really besides the point - and if we had traded lastings milledge for jeff francoeur straight up, i'd be pretty ok with that trade. its just that i liked churchie, and felt like he didnt get enough of a chance to show how good of a player he really was, be it because of a pesky concussion or two, or a pesky relationship with a manager. i liked his defense - he had good range and a good arm, and can play centerfield in a pinch. can francoeur? jeff has power (which the team needs but shouldn't imo be the most important quality we look for in any player) and a big arm (which is important in this field), but i liked church's skill set just fine. i suppose i may come to like it, and it gives us a few things to track, but i don't like it right now, and would rather we had traded something like a pedro feliciano for him instead, tho that likely would not have gotten the deal done. on a scale of 1-5, i'm no higher than a 2. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:50 PM go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 07:58 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:07 PM ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Here's the thing, though-- Francoeur really didn't have two very good years. He had a good Murphy-like dip platooning/mostly swinging from the heels with men on in 2005. He then proceeded to swing even harder at a lot more pitches, and had an SI cover because he looked like a Georgian Mickey Mantle and had hit a bunch of home runs in that first good half-season. His "good years" in 2006 and 2007? He slugged less than .450, had OPS+ ratings of 86 and 103, and was less valuable offensively than Church in both years, and a shit-ton other folk whose names you wouldn't immediately associate with not-shitting-themselves offensively. He had a walk rate of 6.1 percent in his putrid 2008 and it was a career high. Even worse, his strengths aren't strong, either-- he has an isolated power rate (SLG-AVG, so as to isolate XBH) of .158... Church, in more at bats, has a rate of .171. His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. I'm a little annoyed because I think Church could have been interesting trade bait for something else other than this. Omar just traded a decent if underwhelming outfielder for someone who's been perhaps the worst regular offensive player in the majors during the last two years-- Tony Womack-in-2001 bad, but more durable. He's young-ish yet; in 5 years, he may be better. I would feel confident wagering the life a beloved family pet that he won't be. (Plus, those vowels is gonna kills my spellings. "French" it'll have to be.) sharpie Jul 10 2009 08:02 PM It's not a question of Murphy vs. Tatis -- it's that both Murphy and Tatis don't equal a major league first baseman. Get Delgado back, then relegate them both to pinch hitting duties. And swapping Church for Francouer? Fine. Maybe it'll work 'cause what we got now aint' working. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:03 PM ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 08:13 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 09:11 PM The point is not that the positions of Down with Jerry and Omar and Up with Murphy are invalid. The point is that seeing everything through that prism and everything as further evidence in that direction is irrational in a complex and random world and just just blinds one to the difficult nuances of the game and actually weakens the argument. (No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 08:17 PM ="Swan Swan H"] ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:18 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:22 PM ="Edgy DC"](No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) "I beg to differ... and I would trade you Ziggy Palffy for a hamburger today." "I would add $30 million on top of that. Also, would you like to accompany me to a friend's truck party?" Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 08:20 PM FWIW, Francouer and the Braves have been going with 1-year (non-arb determined) contracts all along and he's currently playing for $3.375mil As mentioned before, he'll be under Met control for the remainder of this season plus two more. Methead Jul 10 2009 08:21 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"] His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. That line - that single line - just gave me an ulcer. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:35 PM ="bmfc1"] August 29, 2005 The editorial staff at SI occasionally makes errors in judgement. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:56 PM ="Ceetar"] ="Swan Swan H"] ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) Tatis has hit into six more DPs (11-5). Murphy has made six more errors (7-1), and can't play 2B or SS. What else ya got? Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 09:15 PM ]I was using one game. Yeah, we got that. The point is you don't do that when more data is available, unless you're so fixated on your point that you're willing to distort the facts to support it at all costs. Frankly, I like sticking with Murphy. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 09:30 PM Murph versus Tatis, distorted perception, how much boggling can one trade engender... this thread got out of hand in a hurry. (I think Swanny killed a guy with a trident.) OlerudOwned Jul 10 2009 10:21 PM Jeff Francoeur has had 4 seasons, including this one, with 300 or more plate appearances. He OBP'd .300 or higher in one of them. He's an abhorrent hitter and he's made no strides at improving. The worst part is that I've had so much fun at his expense already. Now I'm sort of guilty. (Not my work.) Nymr83 Jul 10 2009 11:45 PM i dont have much to add, i'll just go on record as not liking it. metirish Jul 11 2009 07:10 AM blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Francouer[/url:1x30hppv] not surprisingly the fans their that responded to the blog think Francouer is the better player gerrard00 Jul 11 2009 08:41 AM How long before the first nasty tabloid back page making fun of Frenchy's willingness to swing at anything? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 11 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish"]blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Yep, it does. ]He�s not a bad guy � on the contrary, he�s a fine fellow � but neither is he easy to coach. He�d been a success in every sport at every level but couldn�t master the adjustments every successful big-league hitter must make. It�s not that he didn�t try to change. He changed his swing several times. Trouble was, he couldn�t change himself. Francoeur is a baseball player with a football mentality, and that doesn�t cut it over the long haul. A baseball player must be measured in his approach. The same aggressiveness that made Francoeur one of the greatest high school football players this blessed state has ever seen... ultimately rendered him a substandard big-league hitter. Oh, and 85% of the paper's readers appear to be behind the trade. themetfairy Jul 11 2009 10:44 AM I think I initially posted this in the wrong thread, but The Dugout[/url:oq70zs26] had some fun with this trade. dgwphotography Jul 11 2009 12:16 PM ="Swan Swan H":2elfj25m]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:2elfj25m] I can get behind that sort of agenda (at least until Murphy shows he can't play everyday) Willets Point Jul 11 2009 06:48 PM Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur Kong76 Jul 11 2009 06:56 PM That will help me remember how to spell his name when Schaefer voting. Franco e u r LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 12 2009 10:12 AM ="Willets Point":qi4r3fkj]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:qi4r3fkj] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no? Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 10:58 AM Murphy will not be a Mets starter next year..Frenchie will Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 11:05 AM Ryan Church was a part-time stiff..pleez...now Dump Muffy anf Fartman for Dunn and 1B is set for this year and next Nymr83 Jul 12 2009 11:49 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3ajyn4wm] ="Willets Point":3ajyn4wm]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no?[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Terry Francona is the only one i can think of, but he counts, sorry mets DocTee Jul 12 2009 11:53 AM Tito Francona, too.

[Piggiestomatoes]

I guess Francoeur has more upside than Church IF potential can translate to perrformance. If not, it seems to have been done to say Omar did something while Flushing was burning.

[Ceetar]

Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year.

Church had a better year.

They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger.

[Guest Kong76]

Really we have to see what more moves they make if any and if this is a 2009
trade or edging towards re-building in some way.

This really isn't one of those trades that should solicit pissedoffedness from
Mets' fans ... but I'd be disappointed if it doesn't 'cause I like to chuckle at them.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

="bmfc1":109oa161]Omar says that Francoeur is a gold glover: http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/mets/archives/2009/07/church_traded_f.html[/quote:109oa161] So did the Gold Glove voters in 2007. Not to say that they're always dead on, but Francoeur has one more Gold Glove on his mantle than you, me or Ryan Church. By the way, Baseball Reference shows the following sim scores for the past three years: Francoeur: 22: Duke Snider, 23: Greg Luzinski, 24: Harold Baines. Church: 27: Brian Jordan, 28: Chet Laabs, 29: Chet Laabs.

Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:10 PM

Say what you want. If there's got to be trades, challenge trades are fun to track. This also extends the trackablity of the Milledge trade.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:55 PM

Oh my god

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:56 PM

Jusdt finding out about it here now. What?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:58 PM

the fuck?

Methead Jul 10 2009 06:02 PM

Can't believe I have to root for Francoueuer now. We're going from a player management didn't like to a player fans won't want to like.

Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:03 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:11 PM

*moved*

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 06:04 PM

I got nothing against Frenchie, I just... well... I don't know why the Mets would go get a dude with such glaring deficiencies... I mean... it's not like Church was going to write Beethoven's 9th symphony but ... wow.

Centerfield Jul 10 2009 06:13 PM

Franceour sucks. We shouldn't trade for guys who suck.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 10 2009 06:16 PM

I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point.

Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:17 PM

="Ceetar":7neo982y]Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger.[/quote:7neo982y] Of course he has more upside because he is younger. Bill James proved that players tend strongly to peak at age 27. Recent studies have pushed that up to 29-30. In any case, that's Francoeur's future and Church's past. And this stuff about Church being better? The guy has managed 320 ABs ONCE in his career. When he was Francoeur's age he was just breaking into the majors. Washington thought so little of him they traded him for half of Lastings Milledge. You say nobody gave him a chance. He's been in the majors for six years, and nobody lasts six years without getting a chance. After six years you don't play because you don't deserve to play. For one game, tomorrow, against a righthander, I'd still take Church. And, I don't have exceptionally strong feelings one way or another about the deal, really. But to call this 'mind boggling' shows that, as you are, as you nearly always are, driven by agenda rather than fact. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:24 PM Ceetar has an agenda after 72 posts? I gotta pay more attention. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:26 PM Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:28 PM Ah, one of those :-) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Swan Swan H":7ohkrgxl]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:7ohkrgxl] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now. Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":wesessgo]I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point.[/quote:wesessgo] Definitely dangerous, just not consistently so. bmfc1 Jul 10 2009 06:53 PM August 29, 2005 Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:00 PM ="Ceetar":321wp213] ="Swan Swan H":321wp213]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:321wp213] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now.[/quote:321wp213] Where to start... Tatis, the disaster, has an OPS 29 points higher than Murphy, which would make Murphy what, a catastrophe? A debacle? I don't have my thesaurus handy, so that's the best I can do right now. I wish Murphy was playing better, but an everyday first baseman with a .671 OPS is the real disaster. I agree that Murphy has more potential than Tatis for the future, but but get a grip. You sling around hyperbole that has no basis in fact. You blame Manuel for mismanaging, then talk about how bad the players are. Did Jerry build this roster? I disagree with a lot of his moves as well, but when he looks at the bench and sees what he sees, what can he do? I understand that Omar couldn't have planned for these injuries, but John McGraw couldn't goad this bunch into first place. Why are you putting 'bandwagon' in single quotes? Did I mention anything about a bandwagon? Do you not think the folks on this board know the term? metsguyinmichigan Jul 10 2009 07:01 PM Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:03 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1seevtwr]Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm.[/quote:1seevtwr] Hell, at this point I'd take him. DocTee Jul 10 2009 07:12 PM ]Walks less than a paraplegic. Slugs less than Church. This is the funniest comment I have read in ages. And it almost distracts me from the fact that I hat this transaction. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:15 PM ="Ceetar":34bzg42g]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:34bzg42g] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:21 PM ="Edgy DC":f7pn2b10] ="Ceetar":f7pn2b10]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:f7pn2b10] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:f7pn2b10] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it? seawolf17 Jul 10 2009 07:24 PM I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:28 PM Let's get to the important stuff - what number will he wear? The conversation is already underway at MBTN. I'm guessing 4. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:29 PM ="Spacemans Bong":2y0d9r5p] ="Edgy DC":2y0d9r5p] ="Ceetar":2y0d9r5p]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it?[/quote:2y0d9r5p] I guess not. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:33 PM ="seawolf17":52topbyk]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:52topbyk] Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:38 PM ="Ceetar"] ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Not the TEAM, the TERM, the term bandwagon. Read, for Chrissakes. Oh, and this: ]Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. May be the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. Besides, Tatis' OBP is higher than Murphy's which has nothing to do with doubles or swinging hard or whatever that is supposed to mean. And I still don't see how Church's 2007 was better than Francoeur's anyway. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:39 PM ="seawolf17":14kh53td]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:14kh53td] Where are his two good years? metsmarathon Jul 10 2009 07:40 PM i'm not a fan of this trade. its not that i don't like jeff francoeur - i mean, i'm never gonna spell that correctly with any consistency whatsoever, but that's really besides the point - and if we had traded lastings milledge for jeff francoeur straight up, i'd be pretty ok with that trade. its just that i liked churchie, and felt like he didnt get enough of a chance to show how good of a player he really was, be it because of a pesky concussion or two, or a pesky relationship with a manager. i liked his defense - he had good range and a good arm, and can play centerfield in a pinch. can francoeur? jeff has power (which the team needs but shouldn't imo be the most important quality we look for in any player) and a big arm (which is important in this field), but i liked church's skill set just fine. i suppose i may come to like it, and it gives us a few things to track, but i don't like it right now, and would rather we had traded something like a pedro feliciano for him instead, tho that likely would not have gotten the deal done. on a scale of 1-5, i'm no higher than a 2. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:50 PM go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 07:58 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:07 PM ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Here's the thing, though-- Francoeur really didn't have two very good years. He had a good Murphy-like dip platooning/mostly swinging from the heels with men on in 2005. He then proceeded to swing even harder at a lot more pitches, and had an SI cover because he looked like a Georgian Mickey Mantle and had hit a bunch of home runs in that first good half-season. His "good years" in 2006 and 2007? He slugged less than .450, had OPS+ ratings of 86 and 103, and was less valuable offensively than Church in both years, and a shit-ton other folk whose names you wouldn't immediately associate with not-shitting-themselves offensively. He had a walk rate of 6.1 percent in his putrid 2008 and it was a career high. Even worse, his strengths aren't strong, either-- he has an isolated power rate (SLG-AVG, so as to isolate XBH) of .158... Church, in more at bats, has a rate of .171. His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. I'm a little annoyed because I think Church could have been interesting trade bait for something else other than this. Omar just traded a decent if underwhelming outfielder for someone who's been perhaps the worst regular offensive player in the majors during the last two years-- Tony Womack-in-2001 bad, but more durable. He's young-ish yet; in 5 years, he may be better. I would feel confident wagering the life a beloved family pet that he won't be. (Plus, those vowels is gonna kills my spellings. "French" it'll have to be.) sharpie Jul 10 2009 08:02 PM It's not a question of Murphy vs. Tatis -- it's that both Murphy and Tatis don't equal a major league first baseman. Get Delgado back, then relegate them both to pinch hitting duties. And swapping Church for Francouer? Fine. Maybe it'll work 'cause what we got now aint' working. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:03 PM ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 08:13 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 09:11 PM The point is not that the positions of Down with Jerry and Omar and Up with Murphy are invalid. The point is that seeing everything through that prism and everything as further evidence in that direction is irrational in a complex and random world and just just blinds one to the difficult nuances of the game and actually weakens the argument. (No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 08:17 PM ="Swan Swan H"] ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:18 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:22 PM ="Edgy DC"](No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) "I beg to differ... and I would trade you Ziggy Palffy for a hamburger today." "I would add $30 million on top of that. Also, would you like to accompany me to a friend's truck party?" Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 08:20 PM FWIW, Francouer and the Braves have been going with 1-year (non-arb determined) contracts all along and he's currently playing for $3.375mil As mentioned before, he'll be under Met control for the remainder of this season plus two more. Methead Jul 10 2009 08:21 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"] His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. That line - that single line - just gave me an ulcer. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:35 PM ="bmfc1"] August 29, 2005 The editorial staff at SI occasionally makes errors in judgement. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:56 PM ="Ceetar"] ="Swan Swan H"] ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) Tatis has hit into six more DPs (11-5). Murphy has made six more errors (7-1), and can't play 2B or SS. What else ya got? Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 09:15 PM ]I was using one game. Yeah, we got that. The point is you don't do that when more data is available, unless you're so fixated on your point that you're willing to distort the facts to support it at all costs. Frankly, I like sticking with Murphy. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 09:30 PM Murph versus Tatis, distorted perception, how much boggling can one trade engender... this thread got out of hand in a hurry. (I think Swanny killed a guy with a trident.) OlerudOwned Jul 10 2009 10:21 PM Jeff Francoeur has had 4 seasons, including this one, with 300 or more plate appearances. He OBP'd .300 or higher in one of them. He's an abhorrent hitter and he's made no strides at improving. The worst part is that I've had so much fun at his expense already. Now I'm sort of guilty. (Not my work.) Nymr83 Jul 10 2009 11:45 PM i dont have much to add, i'll just go on record as not liking it. metirish Jul 11 2009 07:10 AM blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Francouer[/url:1x30hppv] not surprisingly the fans their that responded to the blog think Francouer is the better player gerrard00 Jul 11 2009 08:41 AM How long before the first nasty tabloid back page making fun of Frenchy's willingness to swing at anything? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 11 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish"]blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Yep, it does. ]He�s not a bad guy � on the contrary, he�s a fine fellow � but neither is he easy to coach. He�d been a success in every sport at every level but couldn�t master the adjustments every successful big-league hitter must make. It�s not that he didn�t try to change. He changed his swing several times. Trouble was, he couldn�t change himself. Francoeur is a baseball player with a football mentality, and that doesn�t cut it over the long haul. A baseball player must be measured in his approach. The same aggressiveness that made Francoeur one of the greatest high school football players this blessed state has ever seen... ultimately rendered him a substandard big-league hitter. Oh, and 85% of the paper's readers appear to be behind the trade. themetfairy Jul 11 2009 10:44 AM I think I initially posted this in the wrong thread, but The Dugout[/url:oq70zs26] had some fun with this trade. dgwphotography Jul 11 2009 12:16 PM ="Swan Swan H":2elfj25m]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:2elfj25m] I can get behind that sort of agenda (at least until Murphy shows he can't play everyday) Willets Point Jul 11 2009 06:48 PM Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur Kong76 Jul 11 2009 06:56 PM That will help me remember how to spell his name when Schaefer voting. Franco e u r LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 12 2009 10:12 AM ="Willets Point":qi4r3fkj]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:qi4r3fkj] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no? Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 10:58 AM Murphy will not be a Mets starter next year..Frenchie will Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 11:05 AM Ryan Church was a part-time stiff..pleez...now Dump Muffy anf Fartman for Dunn and 1B is set for this year and next Nymr83 Jul 12 2009 11:49 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3ajyn4wm] ="Willets Point":3ajyn4wm]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no?[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Terry Francona is the only one i can think of, but he counts, sorry mets DocTee Jul 12 2009 11:53 AM Tito Francona, too.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Say what you want. If there's got to be trades, challenge trades are fun to track.

This also extends the trackablity of the Milledge trade.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Guest

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Oh my god

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Jusdt finding out about it here now.

What?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

the fuck?