Mets at the Deadline

[Edgy MD]

Part of a plan is having players in place who can do the job until others are ripe and ready. Hairston's success may be one the great lucky payoffs in team history of a veteran bench player cracking the lineup and succeeding --- the all-Valentin team --- but Branch Rickey'll tell ya luck is the residue of design. And George Patton'll tell ya that heroes are the ones who hold the line until reinforcements come .(I made that up. Repeat: I made that up. That's not an actual quote or even a paraphrase.)

Having people who are ready to step in when others fall or flounder is part of a plan, and not a little-considered one.

He's certainly not a bench player any more.

[Edgy MD]

I'll add that under the new collective bargaining rules, the calculus is changed for both buyers and sellers. Scott Hairston, should he jump at the end of the season, brings the Mets no free agent compensation, unless they are willing to offer him some real healthy compensation only to get spurned. But also, any team trading for him would be entitled to no compensation at all, should he jump at the end of his brief tenure.

I'll add also that the team may still make a waiver deal or two in July.

[Edgy MD]

Also adding --- having a 2.2% chance to make the playoffs ain't good, but it ain't nothing. That's 11 times what the Phillies were showing today.

[RealityChuck]

This mania to make a move -- any move -- just so that we don't sit around doing nothing it pure idiocy. If offers were made for Hairston (and, it's only speculation that other teams made them), there's no guarantee that the "prospects" we'd get for him would ever appear in a single MLB game. Teams aren't stupid. They don't give away good prospects for bench players unless they are forced to.

So how does it help the team to trade Hairston for a couple of cup-of-coffee players?

If an offer was made, then how do you know that the offer was anyone who would ever help the team? The assumption here is that it's always good to get prospects, but, really, if the prospects are going to be duds, then there's no reason to trade anyone.

An obvious parallel was Frankie Rodriguez last year. What happened to the prospects we got for him? Or the various prospects Omar picked up in the winter of 2006. Prospects, prospects, prospects -- bit deal.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, but I said as much using more words.

Rodriguez, as far as he goes, netted Danny Herrera
(<<<<),
who got hurt and was forced to miss the season, and Adrian Rosario, who was great at St. Lucie this year (0.89 ERA in 20.1 innings) and nearly the opposite at Binghamton (5.81 in 26.1 innings).

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Also adding --- having a 2.2% chance to make the playoffs ain't good, but it ain't nothing. That's 11 times what the Phillies were showing today.

If you give up when things look dire, you'll never have any miracles.

I think it's easy to look back at the last couple of years, particularly 2006-2008, and realize that there were plenty of times when we could've used the solid contributing averageish player, where what we ended up with were Jeremy Reeds and David Newhans and Ben Johnsons. Having Hairston instead of those guys makes a lot of difference. Next year we're going to want one of those guys, and the odds that the Johnson we pick up being the known quantity we have in Hairston?

[metsmarathon]

i don't think alderson is talking to us, the fan, when he says he wants to change and build and maintain a perception. he's talking about the perception among his own players and across the league. well, he also needs to change the mindset of the fans, so that they too view the mets as a winning franchise heading in the right direction. and selling off any piece that someone will pay you for runs strongly counter to that motive.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I certainly wasn't rooting for the Mets to make-a-move-any-move. But it's kind of silly to suggest that Hairston is more than what he is-- a 33-year-old, fungible bench guy with a great attitude on a hot streak.

Pick a right handed bat off the bench that's going to be reasonable to acquire for an equal price? What's the chances he's better than Hairston? My money's on Hairston being the quickest/most effective use of the Mets time and money to acquire and produce.

Maybe. But if not him, then Gomes, or Ross, or Andruw Jones, or Reed Johnson.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure who's suggesting he's "more than what he is." But there are two ways to do that. One is to suggest he's too valuable to trade. Another is to suggest he's too valuable not to trade.

[Edgy MD]

Sam Hairston, first US-born African American on the White Sox, back in his days as a Cleveland Clown.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Well, I guess we can agree there are arguments to be made either way, and although I think here probably is a $$ aspect to it the Mets aren't acknowledging it's not a big deal.

One thing that hasn't gotten a lot of thought here was Alderson's notion of there being some value in finishing in 3rd place (although he didn't come right out and say it). That's an easy thing to dismiss as unimportant at the moment, but last night I was doing some historical Met stuff and came to realize that there is a difference in perspective. You finish in 3rd place this year, then move up.

So like this guy says, let's build something this summer.

[youtube:1iwrk3w5]xgBfoOJR6Rs[/youtube:1iwrk3w5]

(is this a great song or what?!? Drink on top of water towers)

[Edgy MD]

The Hold Steady is the best band Brooklyn has produced during the latter-day hipster era. REM jangles from the guitars with more attack, and confident, insistent, but heartbroken vocals, straight out of Bob Mould's best days.

They kick right through so much bullshit as a band. They're the 2012 Mets as a band. They finish in third this year, then they move up.

[Vic Sage]

1) He's the cleanup hitter. He's the hottest hitter. There is a value in winning games today, for tomorrow may never come. Even should it come, it may not come for me, and it may not come for you. Even as we post, there are fans out there for whom tonight is the last Mets game they'll ever see. There are others for whom tonight is the first game they'll ever see. Whether they see it live in San Francisco, or stay up late and tune in by cable television, radio, internet, for them and for all fans, but particularly for them, may it be a win.

Yes, it's true, we could all be dead tomorrow, so lets live today to its fullest. Hakuna Matata. But given that, i still want my team to be smart, to plan long-term (even if an asteroid is on its way), and to make sacrifices in the short-term so that the team can benefit in the long-term. As for Hairston being the "cleanup hitter", that's an indictment of the lineup, not a testimonial for Hairston. That he's the "hottest" player is a description that implies its opposite; at some point he won't be, and the HUGE sample size that is his major league career to date indicates he'll revert to his mean level of production (i.e., a 100 OPS+ player, with a big platoon differential).

2) And each of those first-time fans may be a last-time fan if the team stinks tonight without Hairy.

One could do the math and figure out exactly how many wins Scotty is worth over a replacement-level player, but i'm not going to. I have a hunch its a few; not many. And even in the Mets 100+ win seasons, they lost at least 60 games. If a first-time fan watched a losing game in `86, did he never watch another? Possibly, i suppose. But you don't make organizational plans around such eventualities. You try to build the best organization to produce the most wins OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, leading to chances at sustained post-season play. Sometimes that requires sacrifice in the short-term.

3) There is a value to the other members of the team in not selling strong teammates out from under them. It tells them their struggles are not in vain. It keeps them together and motivated. It reminds them that their GM and front office gives a shit, and it's good that they give a shit. If the value of that sort of morale boost is merely marginal this year, it has a long-term benefit beyond this year. Think , for instance, of what it could mean to David Wright --- who has slogged through all sorts of shit with this team and kep' a cheery face and been a model citizen with, at times, less positive reinforcing organizational feedback than he likely deserves. If re-signing him is the number-one organizational priority this off-season, why invest yourself these last two months in making things even harder for the guy to win? Why make his career even more Sysiphian?

I think this is an excellent point. But players really have to think in the short-term; they only HAVE a "short-term" (though Edgy argues "so do we all" and metaphysically speaking, i can't argue with that).

4) "Might sign player to extension during balance of season/exclusive negotiating window." This shouldn't be poo-pooed. A player has a much greater history of returning to the team of his last contract than to the team who traded him mid-season the year before.

I don't poo-poo it (despite my enjoyment of the phrase). I just don't think enough about Hairston's future to value it over the potential of a prospect.

5) Diminishing the team has an effect on the profitability of the team, which hurts the financial returns, which diminishes future investment.

ah, now we're getting closer to the nub of it. the Wilpons want to get more money out of fans this season. Of course, losses this season would NOT necessarily diminish future investment, if he owner's had the wherewithal and willingness to withstand short-term losses to underwrite a plan for long-term success. But i've seen no indication that they have either the wherewithal or the willingess. And so my major complaint is that THIS is why Hairston (and the other aging part-timers with some residual value for a playoff team) were not moved. To cover Fred's financial ass.

6) The front office, doubtless, has done more than their share of professional calculations regarding how many wins keeping Hairston is worth and how many any potential packages (unbeknownst to us) were worth. They considered these using the best art and science of player evaluation and valuation that they keep privy to themselves, and were unimpressed with the birds in the bush vs. the bird in their hand. We all may disagree --- possibly correctly --- when applying our math, but it's wrong to think they haven't put a whole lot of thought into it with a whole lot more facts and data available to them.

I will totally concede that Sandy & Co did their homework; i just don't know that they had the final say. If they wanted to write off the season to get some legit chips, do we think Fred and his idiot son would let him? I have my doubts. I'm not saying i KNOW, and i wouldn't put the onus on anybody to prove a negative, i just have my suspicions. I don't TRUST THEM.

7) Wins are wonderful things. The idea that a win isn't worth anything unless it is the margin between a playoff appearance and its lack is a joyless thing that takes the excellent wonder of baseball and guts the shit out of it. It's a sad thing to stand for.

But then why are "wins" wonderful things? Can't you just enjoy the simple joy of the game without needing your team to win at all? There's a generation of Pirates fans who've grown up that way. But I doubt they're happy about it. No, I'm sorry, i don't go to church... whether its the church of baseball or otherwise. I don't require my team to win a championship every year (or any particular year), i just need to know that decisions are being made to get it into the best position possible, not just to make the owners the most money possible (these are not always the same thing). Then i'm more than happy to enjoy a season and let the chips fall where they may. Does that make me jaundiced, impure? Is that a position too "sad" for me to stand for? ok.

8) You invest in losing for later wins often enough, you just become a loser. Do this rarely and strategically.

agreed. but mightn't this be such a time?

9) Keeping Hairston shows faith in the plan. Showing faith in the plan keeps everybody on project. On focus. Trades re-write the plan, throwing chaotic elements into the machine, throwing shadows of uncertainty on the clarity of the work day

.

you've advocated against trades pretty much under any and every circumstance, so i take this point with a grain of salt. If we can agree that Alderson's plan is about getting younger and building with kids... how does moving 30+ part-time players for A-ballers contradict that? The question is rhetorical.

10) Speaking of the plan, maybe that fucking blueprint gets all bolluxed up if you trade Hairball and have to promote Duda or Den Dekker when you really think it's healthier for them to be in the minors.

Or maybe you pick up a similar spare part veteran, until they are. Meanwhile, you've continued to stock your low minors with lottery tickets.

11) Trades diminish team identity, watering down the brand. Maybe when you're the Yankees, it's cool that putting your logo on a mailbox will make the fans go and hump the mailbox. That's not the team I want to root for. I like continuity, and it can be maintained while progressing with team improvements.

Your talking in generalities. The specifics of the players i've identified in this thread have nothing... NOTHING... to do with the Mets brand or identity. None of them came thru the system or are tied to long-term deals.

12) Maybe they just like Scott Hairston. He demonstrates great work habits for the younger players, buys them clothes, treats women well, but warns his teammates when negative women are hanging around. He puts long hours in ironing the rough spots off his game but takes a child-like joy in celebrating the things he does well. Maybe, if anybody is more enthusiastic about showing up to community events, then it's his wife. And he brings his father around, and Jerry tells his son's Met teammates about the history of the game, and growing up the son of a disappointed negro leaguer finally getting all of seven plate appearances in the bigs, and how proud his father was when Jerry finally got the chance he had been denied, and it makes everybody really appreciate the chance they have, and try harder to be worthy of it every day. And if they trade Scott, well, fuck it, maybe they fear it'll just tell the players all that stuff's for shit, and they're all going to look out for number one, because no matter ho much they sacrifice for the city and the organization, if the team is 8 1/2 out on July 31, no matter how well they're playing and how much they're bringing to the organization, they'll get sold down the river just like Scott did.

a good point, but the Mets are not a civic works project. Unless all that good behavior translates into team success, i don't give a fuck. And the notion that trading a player is "selling him down the river" is just your own projection. He'd be going (in a deadline deal) to a team in a pennant race... you don't think players LIKE to be in pennant races? I think they do. If he loves NY so much, he can re-sign with us in the winter. I hear we'll have an opening in CF.

13) And a lucky number 13, maybe, just maybe, Scott Hairston knows where the bodies are buried.

quite possibly. unfortunately none of the corpses are a Wilpon.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Guest

[TransMonk]

That was an EPIC exchange and fun to read from top to bottom. Great work, gentleman.

[Edgy MD]

There's a any number of distortions and misrepresentations of what I actually wrote there, Vic. But thanks otherwise for your time in reading and otherwise thoughtful replies.

OE: I'm not arguing that the choices were necessarily correct, only saying that there's any number of reasons supporting them, answering the Gwreck question: "If there's no reason to believe trades will get you to the playoffs this year, why are we keeping upcoming free agents with trade value?"

They could certainly have made the wrong choice. That's true everyday. I'm saying the choice is reasonable and defensible.

[Vic Sage]

i quoted you verbatim. people can make of my responses what they will. I tried to be fair, and acknowledge points, but i'll accept your characterization of my characterization. However, I did not attempt to mischaracterize.

As the founder of Trade In Tomorrow 4 Today Society (TITTS, for those of you of more recent acquaintance), i find it awkward to have to make this argument, but the Wilpons have changed the parameters under which the Mets operate and so must I, as a fan, in assessing their moves.

[Edgy MD]

Well, if you believe Sandy, nobody was offering a prospect in their top 30, and even in the best system, it's hard to find a guy with more than a cup of coffee in his future that Baseball America (or whoever) hasn't noticed yet.

[MFS62]

Edgy DC wrote: And George Patton'll tell ya that heroes are the ones who hold the line until reinforcements come .(I made that up. Repeat: I made that up. That's not an actual quote or even a paraphrase.)

Edgy, I don't care whether or not you made it up. This ex-military guy thinks it is absolutely true.
Later

[Vic Sage]

i don't know that its in Sandy's job description to tell the public the truth about what he was and was NOT offered, especially if such facts might be used to embarrass his boss.
that being said, it might be entirely true we were offered virtually (if not literally) nothing. And if was a baseball decision, then fine. But Sandy's been talking alot about winning down the stretch, and getting to 3rd place, and shit like that, that makes me suspicious.

also, Piazza was a 30th round pick. Guys develop at different rates. One organization might prematurely bury a prospect that another team thinks has potential, and the change works wonders. I'm not saying its likely, i'm just saying it happens. Is it that less likely than re-signing a traded Hairston in the off-season? or signing an equivalent player, while getting the added value of a prospect? I don't think so. could be wrong. I'd be happy to just defer to Sandy, if i thought Sandy was in total control. but i don't think he is.

[Edgy MD]

OK, one at a time.

The Mets don't need to get to third place. They are in third place.

Piazza wasn't a 30th round pick. He was a 62nd round pick.

Lastly, neither I nor Alderson spoke of where people who were allegedly offered were drafted, but where they were supposedly objectively ranked as prospects within the system. Where Piazza ranked a year or two into his minor league career would be the real analogy. (Baseball America had him as #38 in all of baseball in 1993, so presumably top five in the Dodger system.)

You're a lawyer, and you're trained to find hairline cracks in an argument and drive a chisel in them so they appear to be gaping wounds that demonstrate a foundation that cannot hold. I'm impressed by you and think you belong in a courtroom, not at a desk, and I wish you to be on my side when I'm in trouble, even if I hate when you play your skills against me.

But you miss the basic thingie here, though, and that's that I'm not suggesting that keeping Hairston is some pre-eminent value that eclipses any other, only answering Gwreck in asserting that there is a value there to be weighed against others. Most of the factors I noted were clearly small, but real.

[Vic Sage]

But you miss the basic thingie here, and that's that I'm not suggesting that keeping Hairston is some pre-eminent value that eclipses any other, only answering Gwreck in asserting that there is a value there to be weighed against others. Most of the factors I noted were clearly small, but real.

i didn't miss that thingie; i totally concede it. I just think the actual weighing was really only between what you described in your points (5) and (6), the revenues for the balance of this season against what we might get in return. The rest is window dressing and some of which was your own personal mishaagas.

as for the factual misstatements in that last post, they were from lack of research, and i apologize, but my point is the same. low draft picks (and even undrafted FAs) in a system can sometimes, over time, develop into good major league players. and a guy who is ranked 50th in one team's system might be another team's 20th best prospect, so that whole "nobody offered us a top 30 prospect" line is just a way of shading the truth by Sandy, even if accurate (which i don't doubt it was). Perhaps we were offered a 40th prospect from a great system, who has high upside. Would that be sufficient to move Scott Hairston? Maybe not to you, but maybe to me, and maybe it would've been enough for Sandy in a vacuum, but not as an employee of the Wilpons. Just a hypothetical, you understand.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: The rest is window dressing and some of which was your own personal mishaagas.

No, there's actual value there throughout, to greater or lesser extents.

[Ceetar]

That Piazza in the rough prospect could just as well be a guy the Mets already have. Especially the level we're talking about, as they're guys Alderson probably had the opportunity to draft on his own if he thinks they had that upside.

And I think that's part of it. Sandy's been here long enough now, two drafts and two offseasons, that he's pretty comfortable with who he's selected to fill the minors at the lower levels. And there will be more opportunities for trades so it's not like this is nothing. Maybe Alderson's swapping a Valdespin for an outfielder next season and says "Hey, throw in that A level prospect you were offering for Hairston, just to even things out a bit." Since he knows the guy is not that highly valued, and the opposing GM certainly isn't going to feel fleeced out of him since Alderson doesn't even think he's worth Hairston. It's just filler, but he could get another lottery ticket.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: Perhaps we were offered a 40th prospect from a great system, who has high upside. Would that be sufficient to move Scott Hairston? Maybe not to you, but maybe to me, and maybe it would've been enough for Sandy in a vacuum, but not as an employee of the Wilpons. Just a hypothetical, you understand.

So if he doesn't trade minor league talent for major league talent, it's because the Wilpons won't or can't spend money.

If he doesn't trade major league talent for minor league talent, it's also because the Wilpons won't or can't spend money.

[Vic Sage]

ya see? that whole "distortion and misrepresentation" thing ain't so hard after all, is it? don't sell yourself short.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Metsblog reporting that Rosenthal reporting that the Mets and Fish were working on a deal that would have sent Bay to Miami for Heath Bell and Buck. I'd pull the trigger on that.

[Ceetar]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Metsblog reporting that Rosenthal reporting that the Mets and Fish were working on a deal that would have sent Bay to Miami for Heath Bell and Buck. I'd pull the trigger on that.

not in a million years. Money is equal next year, but both of their guys signed for a year beyond that. And both..suck.

So we'd have a sucky 'closer' or reliever, or whatever (And a vesting option! GAmes finished!) and a mostly worthless backup catcher. The alternative is having to pay 15 million for Bay to play for someone else when we release him.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: ya see? that whole "distortion and misrepresentation" thing ain't so hard after all, is it? don't sell yourself short.

What exactly were you suggesting about the Wilpons?

[RealityChuck]

Let's do a gedankenexperiment.

Let's assume you're a GM. Let's assume you're in the pennant chase and want a right handed bat off the bench like Hairston. Who would you give up?

To make it simpler, use the Mets minor leaguers. Who would you trade away to get him to come off the bench for two months?