Frank Cashen's Top Ten

[Frayed Knot]

They made the tough but unpopular decision not to protect him, but that's not necessarily the same thing as wanting him gone or having this all calculated to do so.
The 'official' explanation (if there can ever be such a thing) that they risked exposing him because they thought he was unlikely to get scooped up due to age and salary is plenty logical.

[seawolf17]

Jeff Pearlman wrote that they cut Seaver because they needed that money for Bobby Bonilla.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: That's also interesting because, after Seaver was fumbled away.... I never bought the company line that Seaver was "fumbled" away ... that Seaver somehow got away from the Mets against their will or intent ... (we left Seaver tied to the mailbox, we were in the store for only three minutes, but when we came out, Seaver was gone. Gone). I think the Mets knew what they were doing all along, and it was calculated to the nth degree. They made the tough but unpopular decision to protect their young players over a fading legend and had their story about baseball customs, and oversights and unwritten rules and gentleman's agreements in place beforehand to try and deflect the negative press and sentiment that they knew would result.

By all accounts, the Mets were trying to reacquire him immediately, and still were for two years after. They may have known the risks, but were far from pleased with the outcome.

Were you pleased?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: That's also interesting because, after Seaver was fumbled away.... I never bought the company line that Seaver was "fumbled" away ... that Seaver somehow got away from the Mets against their will or intent ... (we left Seaver tied to the mailbox, we were in the store for only three minutes, but when we came out, Seaver was gone. Gone). I think the Mets knew what they were doing all along, and it was calculated to the nth degree. They made the tough but unpopular decision to protect their young players over a fading legend and had their story about baseball customs, and oversights and unwritten rules and gentleman's agreements in place beforehand to try and deflect the negative press and sentiment that they knew would result. By all accounts, the Mets were trying to reacquire him immediately, and still were for two years after. They may have known the risks, but were far from pleased with the outcome. Were you pleased?

I think I was indifferent. Really. The Mets were on to something -- I was as optimistic and as hopeful as Keith Hernandez's dad, and I didn't envision Seaver as being a part of that future. I didn't see the timing. Tom Seaver was the greatest Mets ever, but Tom Seaver wasn't Tom Seaver any more. I probably regarded Seaver in '84 the way I might think of Bartolo Colon today, notwithstanding that this analogy has its flaws -- like that the Mets immediate future in between the '83 and '84 seasons was looking much brighter than that of the present Mets.

[Guest d'Kong76]

seawolf17 wrote: Jeff Pearlman wrote that they cut Seaver because they needed that money for Bobby Bonilla.

And today is Bobby Bonilla day!

[Edgy MD]

Listen, I was optimistic too, and with good reason. But the facts are the facts.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: By the end of 1983, the Mets organization might've been baseball's richest. Prospects had to be protected. Sentimentality is the enemy of success.

I'd say that trying to posture as being above sentimentality is just as blinding. Moreso.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Hard decisions would have to be made.

This is beyond dispute. The Mets made the wrong one. The Sox made the right one.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't lose a second of sleep when the Mets left Seaver unprotected, and lost him to the White Sox.

Neither did I, but let's stop congratulating ourselves.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets were now in business and Seaver was an old pitcher and who wants an old pitcher?

It depends on the old pitcher. The White Sox apparently saw one they wanted more than hundreds of other players.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't think it would matter.

You were incorrect.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Neither did the Mets, apparently.

The historical record does not support this contention.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: But it might have.

It did.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Seaver, as it would turn out, had one last hurrah in his tank -- he was one of the AL's best pitchers in 1985. Not the best, or second best, but definitely near the top of the list.

He had 11.6 pitching WAR from 1984-1986, more than any Met pitcher not named Gooden.

The record is pretty clear that the Mets were disappointed by the claim, and that the claim ultimately hurt them.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Listen, I was optimistic too, and with good reason. But the facts are the facts. batmagadanleadoff wrote: By the end of 1983, the Mets organization might've been baseball's richest. Prospects had to be protected. Sentimentality is the enemy of success. I'd say that trying to posture as being above sentimentality is just as blinding. Moreso. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Hard decisions would have to be made. This is beyond dispute. The Mets made the wrong one. The Sox made the right one. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't lose a second of sleep when the Mets left Seaver unprotected, and lost him to the White Sox. Neither did I, but let's stop congratulating ourselves. batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets were now in business and Seaver was an old pitcher and who wants an old pitcher? It depends on the old pitcher. The White Sox apparently saw one they wanted more than hundreds of other players. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't think it would matter. You were incorrect. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Neither did the Mets, apparently. The historical record does not support this contention. batmagadanleadoff wrote: But it might have. It did. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Seaver, as it would turn out, had one last hurrah in his tank -- he was one of the AL's best pitchers in 1985. Not the best, or second best, but definitely near the top of the list. He had 11.6 pitching WAR from 1984-1986, more than any Met pitcher not named Gooden. The record is pretty clear that the Mets were disappointed by the claim, and that the claim ultimately hurt them.

Your responses have little to do with anything I wrote. The Mets thought it was wiser to protect young promising high ceiling players whose futures were ahead of them than to protect one fading Hall of Famer whose future was behind him. At the time the Mets decided to leave Seaver unprotected, I happened to agree.

Congratulating myself? For what? For a move the Mets FO made? Or because there, I was on board with the company line? What? I'm not allowed to relay that the Seaver move didn't bother me? I get my balls busted here enough when I disagree with what the Mets say or do. Now apparently, I can't agree with the FO either.

Anybody here who thought Seaver had another Cy Young award caliber season left in him after 1983, and was an adult back then, step right up.

I already acknowledged that Seaver was one of the AL's best hurlers in '85, probably worthy of picking up Cy young votes, and that as things turned out, the Mets could have used that talent in '85 when they fell to the Cards at season's end. At least you didn't accuse me of putting arguments into your mouth when you weren't' looking, or offending your intelligence, whatever that's supposed to mean.

However the move turned out for the Mets was hardly the point of my post.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Really? Come on.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote. Really? Come on.

I changed "nothing" to "little" before I saw this last post of yours. But I stand by "nothing" as much as by "little".

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote. Really? Come on.

Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver? I don't remember. I don't even remember if this was ever disclosed. But what if it was Lenny Dykstra? Or Floyd Youmans? What if the Carter deal couldn't have been completed without Youmans? Maybe keeping Seaver means Kevin Mitchell never gets to play for the Mets. Or the Mets never get Bobby Ojeda? Maybe Seaver's veteran presence on the '84 Mets is Cashen's excuse to delay Gooden's promotion to the 25. Maybe Seaver sets off some butterfly effect chain reaction that prevents the Mets from winning the WS in '86. You can't simply swap in Seaver's '85 stats into the Mets for the weakest link and then say that the Mets should've kept Seaver.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote. Really? Come on. Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver?

Yes.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver? I don't remember. I don't even remember if this was ever disclosed. But what if it was Lenny Dykstra? Or Floyd Youmans? What if the Carter deal couldn't have been completed without Youmans? Maybe keeping Seaver means Kevin Mitchell never gets to play for the Mets. Or the Mets never get Bobby Ojeda? Maybe Seaver's veteran presence on the '84 Mets is Cashen's excuse to delay Gooden's promotion to the 25. Maybe Seaver sets off some butterfly effect chain reaction that prevents the Mets from winning the WS in '86. You can't simply swap in Seaver's '85 stats into the Mets for the weakest link and then say that the Mets should've kept Seaver.

That's kind of a glass half-empty butterfly effect chain reaction scenario.

Here's my much happier one:

The Mets protect Tom and he happily stays.

He becomes a wise friend and mentor to the young arms, giving them signed copies of "How I'd Pitch to Babe Ruth" and telling them stories about Gil Hodges and the Miracle of '69.

Tom takes an interest in the teen-age Doc Gooden, and worries that he'll run with the wrong crowd. Nancy says it's OK if the talented teen lives in their spare room in Greenwich. The neighbors are a little concerned -- it IS Greenwhich -- but they see the nice young man playing in the yard with Slider and making sure Sarah and Anne are getting off to school with their lunches.

The Mets fall a little short that year -- the Tigers are a team of destiny anyway -- but the young Mets hurlers eagerly await Tom's pearls of wisdom and develop thick legs and dirt-stained right knees, pounding the strike zone and visiting the art museums during down time.

He wins No. 300 -- at Shea, of course -- in mid-1985 as the Mets battle the tough Cardinals to the end. Whitey Herzog waves the white flag, saying the Cards just can't beat Seaver. (John Tudor is still a jerk.) The World Series with the Royals is a treat, and people are still talking about the George Brett-Tom Seaver showdowns. Don Denkinger's reputation remains intact because because the slugging Mets don't even have any close calls at first base.

Tom's even more of a wise elder statesman in 1986. Everyone suspects it might be his last year, but Tom's not saying because he doesn't want to detract from the team, and has no need for a collection of benches made form bats and prints of Three Rivers Stadium.

Still, he's a little worried about the behavior of the Scum Bunch in the back of the plane. Tom sits in the back and makes sure to Xerox copies of the New York Times crossword puzzle so everyone has one. The formerly rowdy bunch now competes to finish the puzzles first, avoiding booze and drugs to keep their minds sharp for the now fierce debates about five-letter words.

Tom does notice that Kevin Mitchell seems somewhat troubled. Knowing that idle hands are the devil's workshop, Tom helps Mitch volunteer at the Westport Humane Society, where he comes to love cats and treats them with kindness and respect.

The Mets win their second series in a row, and Tom even drills Roger Clemens in the thigh in Game Six because, well, it's just the right thing to do.

Dick Young pens a column called "What the hell was I thinking?" and reveals he made the whole thing up about Ruth Ryan.

Tom retires with dignity after the season with his three rings and 300 wins. Tom does notice that Mets co-owner Fred Wilpon seems a bit gullible, especially with his finances. The Franchise warns him about people who don't always tell the truth and that some deals are, in fact, too good to be true. Fred invests wisely and safely. Tom also catches wind that Fred wants a new stadium and sees some preliminary plans. Tom says a rotunda would be nice -- especially if it could be named after Sandy Koufax or Jackie Robinson, whom Tom has always admired -- but tells him to go easy on the ads on the scoreboard and suggests the Iron Triangle would make for a nice vineyard.

All of this is chronicled in a book by a young Jeff Pearlman called "The GOOD Guys Won."

See? Much nicer.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

[Zvon]

Classic MGiM.

[G-Fafif]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver?

Murray Chass had it in a Sporting News column shortly after the fact.

PITCHERS
Darling
Terrell
Fernandez
Swan (No Trade Clause)
Orosco
Sisk
Gooden
Leary
Kevin Brown
Youmans
Gardner

CATCHERS
Ortiz
Gibbons

INFIELDERS
Hernandez
Oquendo
Brooks
Gardenhire
Cochrane
Mitchell
Eddie Williams

OUTFIELDERS
Strawberry
Wilson
Blocker
Dykstra
Winningham
Jefferson

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: That's kind of a glass half-empty butterfly effect chain reaction scenario. Here's my much happier one: ....

Oh, Michigan! I am so humbled that I will be your man-servant. Rub my belly and I will grant you your wish. Your wish is my command.

[batmagadanleadoff]

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver? Murray Chass had it in a Sporting News column shortly after the fact.

Yeah, but do you know who was the last player to make the protected list? I assume that Seaver was the last unprotected guy. Otherwise, the Mets claim that they really wanted to keep Seaver is undermined, at least somewhat, anyways. So if Seaver was the last unprotected guy, it had to be at the expense of the last player the Mets decided to protect, right? It had to come down to a final choice between Seaver and the last player to make the protected list, right?

So who was that last guy?

[Guest d'Kong76]

Teams don't divulge that type of info, do they? It was
even less likely before the info-age that that type of stuff
would be leaked or speculated upon as fact on six different
social media venues.

We chose to protect player x over The Franchise ... sorry
fans but that's what we did.

Really?

[seawolf17]

Isn't it generally accepted that he was exposed because they thought nobody would eat his salary? That still happens every year -- old guys getting through waivers because nobody wants to eat the salary. Sometimes you get burned (Jose Canseco to the Yankees), sometimes you don't. Not everything has to be a feckin' conspiracy, fellas. They protected Terry Blocker and whoever the hell "Cochrane" was because they thought they had more value for what they were owed, which was next to nothing. Tom Seaver had an 88 ERA+ in 1982-83 and went 14-27, 4.18 in 55 starts. Let's not get too crazy here.

Side note: Tom is the only "Seaver" in major league history, which surprised me.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Not everything has to be a circuitous cluster fuck to
drive home various agendas either, but that's how some roll.

I'm glad there was only one Seaver, because, there
was only ONE Seaver.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

seawolf17 wrote: Isn't it generally accepted that he was exposed because they thought nobody would eat his salary?

Sure that went into it, as did this idea that teams would lay off Seaver because of an imaginary gentleman's agreement between owners not to do unthinkable shit like that to one another.

[Edgy MD]

seawolf17 wrote: Isn't it generally accepted that he was exposed because they thought nobody would eat his salary?

Largely, yes, and I said as much.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: Not everything has to be a circuitous cluster fuck to drive home various agendas either, but that's how some roll.

Cluster fuck? "Some roll?" Your buddy goes out of his way to write a dumb combative post just to get in that line on me about how I shouldn't congratulate myself for agreeing with something the Mets did. Not that he'll ever admit wrong, not to me anyway. And then, as always, you pile on with the Nelson Muntz bit, because this involves me. It's about time someone called the Mets on the gentleman's agreement not to draft Seaver. Why didn't the Mets leave Keith unprotected? Or Darryl? What? There wasn't a gentleman's agreement not to pick those players? But there was one for Seaver? It's the lamest thing I ever heard.

I'm sure the Mets wanted Seaver. Just not badly enough. I'm sure the Mets wanted everybody. I'm sure if it was up to them, the Mets would've protected 75 players instead of 25.


And you, you're still a fucking jackass. Write something interesting ferchrissakes, instead of spending all your time here figuring out how to try and offend me. Can you do that?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: Teams don't divulge that type of info, do they? It was even less likely before the info-age that that type of stuff would be leaked or speculated upon as fact on six different social media venues. We chose to protect player x over The Franchise ... sorry fans but that's what we did. Really?

Really? I think I knew that. If you weren't so busy responding to the post, instead of to the poster, your post would've come out a lot different.

[Guest d'Kong76]

It was a legitimate post, no reason to paint it otherwise.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: It was a legitimate post, no reason to paint it otherwise.

Of course. And mine's a clusterfuck starter. Because that's how I roll. Right?

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Teams don't divulge that type of info, do they? It was even less likely before the info-age that that type of stuff would be leaked or speculated upon as fact on six different social media venues. We chose to protect player x over The Franchise ... sorry fans but that's what we did. Really?

What part do you not understand?

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Teams don't divulge that type of info, do they? It was even less likely before the info-age that that type of stuff would be leaked or speculated upon as fact on six different social media venues. We chose to protect player x over The Franchise ... sorry fans but that's what we did. Really? What part do you not understand?

What part do you think I don't understand?

[Guest d'Kong76]

SEE!!!
I'm done, people get turned off by this nonsense.

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's about time someone called the Mets on the gentleman's agreement not to draft Seaver.

Frank Cashen 1984:
''Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I had the final decision, I
made a mistake. We made a calculated and regrettable gamble.''

There, thirty years ago the admitted they wet the bed.