Church for Francouer

[Centerfield]

I don't think anybody can fairly think the Mets acquired him with the expectation that he will continue as he's playing, or that they will stick with him long if he does.[/quote:3viceep9]

Am I reading this right? Are you saying that the Mets acquired him and are expecting that he won't continue to be the player he has been? If so, that's some pretty dumb logic.

The guy has been in the bigs since 2005 and his numbers have been steadily trending downward. One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot. If anything, you can expect him to get worse.

I thought Vince's post was pretty clear. Franceour sucks. His OPS is .638. Lower than Tatis, Schneider, Reed, Evans, and most importantly, Ryan Church.

He's gives up 50 points of OPS to Church over his career as well. He's a worse player than Church, even before you factor in speed and defense (Church can play an adequate CF if pressed into it, Franceour cannot).

The two justifications for this trade are faulty.

1. He plays everyday: This would be a good quality if he was good. Sucking every day is bad.

2. He is younger: Again, it just means he has more years of suck ahead of him.

I understand Ryan Church was no stud, but nothing tells me that Franceour is any more likely to end up being a solid player than Church. And Franceour has further to go.

[Centerfield]

Yeah! CF is right!

(double post converted to read as support for above position to the non-observant reader)

[Guest cooby]

This isn't the guy that looks like Eddie Munster is it?


Edit: No I am thinking of Brian McCann I don't know why I always get those two mixed up

[metirish]

Francouer seems like an extremely upbeat guy....I like that about him.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Francouer seems like an extremely upbeat guy....I like that about him.[/quote:3f1ayle5]

He seems like a likable guy-- and he seemed genuinely geeked at game's end when doing the handslap thing. Not a bad start... until messing up the hit-and-run mid-game, anyway.

I sincerely hope he shows up Centerfield, Vince, Olerud and me-- I would like nothing more re: Frenchy than to look like an idiot in a year or two. It's just that all the statistical evidence points to that being about as likely as a lottery win.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

The guy is 25 years old. Church had yet to have a major league AB when he was the age Francoeur is today. I'm willing to think that there are still better days ahead.

So, call me an idiot, CF. You wouldn't be the first.

[ashie62]

The guy is 25 years old. Church had yet to have a major league AB when he was the age Francoeur is today. I'm willing to think that there are still better days ahead.

So, call me an idiot, CF. You wouldn't be the first.[/quote:1540ibkt]

I'm an idiot but I fully agree with Swan Swan

[Guest Swan Swan H]

[Guest Edgy DC]

Ralph Kiner votes yea.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Ralph is an idiot.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'd keep such opinons to myself.

Ralph knows The Thing.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Not my opinion.

CF says:

One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot.

Ralph says he thinks Francoeur can improve. Ergo, Ralph is an idiot.

Just doin' the math, here.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I don't think anybody can fairly think the Mets acquired him with the expectation that he will continue as he's playing, or that they will stick with him long if he does.[/quote:tg82d78a]

Am I reading this right? Are you saying that the Mets acquired him and are expecting that he won't continue to be the player he has been? If so, that's some pretty dumb logic.[/quote:tg82d78a]

I guess I'm wrong.

Are you seriously arguing that he's going to continue as a sub-replacement player? And that nobody has any reason to think he's a reasonable bet to get better?

[smg58]

The best thing you can say about Francoeur is that a change might do him good. He drove in over 100 runs as recently as 2007, but he's never had an .800 OPS in a full season; I don't know what kind of upside people think he has. As for a power boost, he has five homers in 308 AB's, and I don't see him finding the left field wall in Citi easy to clear.

Plus, until and unless he turns things around in a really big way, there's no reason to think of him as more than a two-month rental. The Braves would have almost certainly non-tendered him -- he's already making over $3M in his first year of arbitration (half a million more than Church, but at least the Mets got some cash thrown in to acquire the inferior player), and guys generally don't get pay cuts in their second year of arbitration. How well does he have to perform before you'd bring him back at $5M?

[Elster88]

I don't think anybody can fairly think the Mets acquired him with the expectation that he will continue as he's playing, or that they will stick with him long if he does.[/quote:1c8sj9b0]

Am I reading this right? Are you saying that the Mets acquired him and are expecting that he won't continue to be the player he has been? If so, that's some pretty dumb logic.[/quote:1c8sj9b0]

I guess I'm wrong.

Are you seriously arguing that he's going to continue as a sub-replacement player? And that nobody has any reason to think he's a reasonable bet to get better?[/quote:1c8sj9b0]

My worry is that it seems just as likely that he could continue at his current level of production (or get worse) instead of getting better. Since the same probably holds true for Church, I'd rather have kept the better player.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

After see Francoeur play for two days, my initial impression is he's a bit deficient in the "baseball instincts" category. I may be wrong, but I don't see him in a Met uniform long-term. Sorta like Bubba Trammell.

That said, he got a great reception from most fans who, at least, are prepared to give him a chance.

[smg58]

I've got no problem at all with giving him a chance. I wouldn't have brought him here, but the bottom line is he's here. I'm rooting to be wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first time, and probably wouldn't be the last either).

[Frayed Knot]

Newsday's Ken Davidoff (on the radio yesterday) thought Francoeur would be non-tendered by the Mets at the end of the year if this 2nd half looked reasonably like the 1st half and the last year or so.
Purely speculation on his part of course, but if they are going to do that with him seems to me they would have been willing to do the same with Church. Personally I think the OF-deficiency around Met-ville would kill the idea of letting either guy just walk away but those are winter-time questions for another day.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

If you want their WAR for the last few years, here you go:
Francouer
Church

[Guest Edgy DC]

How in the world is Church the value of a jackpot payout? We're talking about two players having terrible years.

GMs cannot make moves based on what a player is not.

What does that mean? Trades are made for different assessments of talents and different hopes of what they might be able to do with that talent.

Francoeur has established himself, over a long enough period of time, as one of the worst players in the majors.

No he hasn't. Unless you mean worst fulltime players. At any time there are dozens of worse players.

Minaya made this move assuming he is not one of the worst players in the majors.

He made the move hoping the team could do more with what's left of his talent over two years than they could do with what's left of Church's.

Under this reasoning,

Which I disagree with.

he may as well have traded for Francoeur for his heretofore unseen knuckleball.

That makes no sense.

He's no more a replacement level outfielder than he is Phil Niekro.

So you're certain he will never achieve even replacement-level status for a two or three month period?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Listen , I don't want the trade either, but it's the absolute arrogant certainty over and over again every time there is a deal made that I just don't get. The "idiot" and "mind-boggling." The gallery has been wrong often enough --- including, apparently, regarding the trade in which Church was acquired --- that there should be some humility.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

There's always a rush to be the most outraged.

I have to say, as much as I agree with the general sentiment of this deal being likely to make a bad O worse, I got a kick out of seeing Francoeur cash in the other night -- and on a play that will look better in the boxscores that it did in real life.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

How in the world is Church the value of a jackpot payout? We're talking about two players having terrible years.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Church is the value of a really crappy jackpot payout. Francoeur is that really crappy lotto: there is a slight chance he will be a little better than Church over the remainder of their contracts.

[nymr83]

This assumes that the manger operates with absolutely no influence from the GM. Maybe this is true, but I personally don't buy it. However, even if Manuel can stick Francoeur on the end of the bench without ever playing him and not hear a peep from above, Omar has still managed to make the team worse by hindering the roster's depth. There is no reason why this team can't put 25 replacement-level (or better) players in the dugout everyday. Francoeur would not be (is not) included in that group.

thats pretty absurd, you really think Francoeur, who is 25 years old and has a 25 homer and 100 rbi season on his resume, is bad enough thay he doesnt belong on a major league bench? you'd rather bring argenis reyes or nick evans to the plate when you need an extra-base hit in the late innings?

This trade made the Mets worse because they gave up a player that is much more likely to help them than the player they got in return.

i would agree with that statement if you're talking about the remainder of the 2009 baseball season.

Not only that, the player they got in return is actually less likely to help them than a player one can easily find in the minors or at the end of a team's bench.

but then you went on to say this. please point to players the mets could "easily find in the minors" better than francoeur, and please bear in mind that other teams top prospects aren't "easily found", they'd cost more than church.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I think we're wearing a hole in the turf going in circles here.

To sum up: roughly 60 percent of us think this was a bad-to-terrible trade (even with the relatively modest cost of Ryan Church) and/or are more bothered by what they believe the trade portends about Mets management's player evaluation; roughly 40 percent of us think this was a good-to-great trade, and/or have problems in principle with people being disproportionately aggrieved and/or Manichean in mindset regarding transactions.

What Minaya almost undoubtedly seems to have done-- if you don't take the cynical view that this was a trade-for-trade's-sake situation-- is that he's made a scout's-mindset trade. One could also argue that some of his worst acquisitions-- Perez, e.g.-- seem to occur when he lets this mindset predominate.

Now can we just sit back and watch?

Fine, I'm certain he can achieve the lofty goal of reaching or exceeding 0.0 wins above replacement over a three month period.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

please point to players the mets could "easily find in the minors" better than francoeur, and please bear in mind that other teams top prospects aren't "easily found", they'd cost more than church.[/quote:c58tsx0p]

Francoeur has made outs in over 700 of his last 1000 PAs while slugging around .350. Jeremy Reed is better than him. So is Fernando Tatis and Nick Evans, among many others.

Since when are you a scout? [/quote:c58tsx0p]

Francoeur has 2600 major league PAs. He's at the point where statistics are much better tools for evaluation than scouting reports.

Fine' date=' I'm certain he can achieve the lofty goal of reaching or exceeding 0.0 wins above replacement over a three month period.[/quote:c58tsx0p']

Well, I'm also certain he CAN play at replacement level for three months. No one can be certain whether or not he WILL, but his stats tell us he most likely won't.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Since when are you a scout?

[Centerfield]

Not my opinion.

CF says:

One can certainly hope he improves, but anyone expecting him to improve is an idiot.

Ralph says he thinks Francoeur can improve. Ergo, Ralph is an idiot.

Just doin' the math, here.

[Centerfield]

To further clarify...

I think Fernando Martinez will one day be a star. I do not expect this, and that is why I would not give him a big money, multi-year contract.

When Mark Texiera was on the market last year, I expected him to continue to perform as he has, which is why I was willing to give him a big money, multi-year contract.

I think Jeff Franceour might improve. Which is why I would have been willing to give him a shot in a low-risk, high-reward-type move. But I do not expect him to improve. Which is why I would not have given up a superior player to obtain him.