RealityChuck

="SteveJRogers"]="soupcan"] Amos Otis, Ken Singleton - Singleton did net Rusty Staub though. Granted Staub got turned into an over-the-hill Lolich but still.Not until after he led the team to the World Series. I watched the team in '73, and Staub was superb, especially in the World Series. But the argument here is futile. You need to trade to build a team, because no farm system is going to produce all the players you need at any given time. All trades are gambles, and some don't work out (the Mets track record is clearly worse than others). But there are all sorts of factors involved, and sometimes even keeping the player wouldn't have made a difference. For an example, look at Ollie Perez from the standpoint of Pittsburgh. He was in the minors and looked to be a total loss, but he turned it around in NY. It was one of Omar's better trades (N.B., Perez wasn't a "throw-in" as is often reported*), but if he had stayed with the Pirates, he probably would be trying to catch on somewhere else right now. Sometimes it would have been better to keep a player; sometimes the trade was the right thing to do. It's pointless to argue the team would have been better if it hadn't traded away it's minor league talent -- one of the reasons you build a farm system is to do exactly what the Mets did for Santana: have the bodies to make an offer. *According to Minyana, he had been in talks for a straight Nady for Perez trade throughout July, but he had decided to pass simply because he couldn't justify trading his starting right fielder for a pitcher who was so messed up he had to be sent down to the minors. Once Sanchez went down, he went back to Pittsburgh and told them he'd make the deal if they threw in Roberto.

But, ultimately, without a no-trade clause, he would have been a Met on Tuesday. He could make demands, but the Mets would still have him on the roster whether he liked it or not. The team could have said "We just need you for a year and wi'll see about working things out afterwards." Now the Mets may have chosen to negotiate a new contract before the trade went through; that was the team's right and certainly it made sense. At the same time, they could have gotten Santana, then started negotiating an extension afterwards. But the no-trade clause made it essential that they come to an agreement with Santana.

Biggest day for the franchise since they won the NL championship in 2000. This is going to be monster.

Frayed Knot wrote: ="RealityChuck"]Technically, the only thing they need to agree on is that Santana waive his no-trade clause. If he didn't have one, there wouldn't be an issue. Santana would be in orange and blue. The N-T clause is pretty much irrelevent by this point.Well, at this point, yes. But when you made the point, not at all. The no-trade clause is the reason why the Mets needed to negotiate with Santana. Until Santana says he's going to waive it, there is no deal. Now, he used that to get a monster contract. But without the no-trade clause, he has far less leverage with the Mets (without the clause, they could use him as a one-year rental and see if they could resign in September). ]The Twins wouldn't get much back unless they agreed to allow this "window" for contract talks, the Mets weren't going to give up all that talent without getting him to sign long-term, and Santa Anna himself (by all reports) also wanted this to be a permanent move rather than one-year stopover. All true, but the clause allows Santana to demand a long-term contract, and also requires that the Mets negotiate with him to agree to be traded. ]Once those parameters were in the mix, virtually any player has himself a no-trade deal since he can just kill the trade by making demands he know can't/won't be met.Not without no-trade. Oh, he can say he wants a long-term contract, but the team getting him doesn't have to listen to him, and can factor the possibility that he may walk when offering prospects.

Technically, the only thing they need to agree on is that Santana waive his no-trade clause. If he didn't have one, there wouldn't be an issue. Santana would be in orange and blue. But Santana is not going to waive the clause without something from the Mets, and at this point he's in as strong a negotiating position as he's ever going to be in. After 5:00 he's dependent on the Twins, and he doesn't like that, especially since the Mets are willing to pay a signing bonus that much more than he will get in Minneapolis*. But there are beginning to be signs that it's done. *Why are they the Minnesota Twins, and not the Minneapolis Twins (as Newsday used to bill them in the early 60s)? Because if they were the Minneapolis Twins, the entire St. Paul market would have been closed to them. If you think Mets vs. Yankees fans have a rivalry, it's nothing compared to the Minneapolis Millers and St. Paul Saints. And the rivalry spilled over elsewhere: there's the story of the congregation of a Minneapolis church walking out on the minister because he was reading from St. Paul.

I wish it would end, but there's no way the Mets are going to do anything other than make Santana the highest paid pitcher in baseball. The number of years can be dealt with. OTOH, Santana looks like a greedy jerk if he doesn't come to an agreement. So there will be agreement; both sides need it. But even when you agree, these can take time.

Fman99 wrote: For the first time in months, given the enormity of the story, I thought I'd check the NY rags' sites to see what their take was on it. And of course, it's all about the MFYs. Just reinforces why I prefer to get my commentary from blogs these days.You only think of the enormity of the story if you're a Twins fan; they have every reason to complain about its the enormity. But there is no enormity at all if you're a Mets fan. However, it seems clear that if the MFY were willing yesterday to offer the same deal they did in December, Santana would be wearing pinstripes. But this doesn't take away from the great job Omar did in this situation -- he made an offer and judged that the other teams would drop out while the Twins became more and more desperate. Consider this: if the MFY had agreed to the trade they offered in December, it still would have been good work by Minyana -- he did everything he could. I could imagine the outrage, though.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: "One of the best players in franchise history." That's saying a lot! Walter Johnson pitched for that franchise!I don't think the people in Minneapolis think of it in those terms. Despite the history, most figure the team only dates back to 1961.

That's what I've always seen: that Gomez was clearly better now, but Martinez has more potential. Of course, there is no greater curse than great potential (especially in baseball).

Great deal and worth the wait. The Santana Network can close down. Finally. In any case, the Mets got an true ace at the height of his powers and still managed to keep Pelfrey and Martinez. The farm system will need restocking badly, but the parent team may not need any farmhands for the next year. The next step is to sign another starter to eat the innings when Martinez and Hernandez go down.

Vic Sage wrote: ]If Popper and Klapisch were truly interested in seeing a better team instead of just running their mouths off, they'd know this sort of thing. Putting pressure on Minyana only means he's going to get a worse deal. Chuck, you are proceeding from a false assumption. The media has no vested interest in a seeing the local team get better. Their only interest is in having a story to tell. They sell stories. To tell compelling stories, they need conflict. So, if they've reported a rumor of a trade as fact, then the trade either has to happen or fall apart for the story to continue. This waiting around stuff is a story killer. The outcome of the trade, similarly, is not important either. If its great or a disaster, it furthers the story. Even if it turns out a good trade for both sides, their is some mileage to be gained. Oh, I agree. But if they are presuming to tell a general manager how to run his business, then the assumption is that they are giving this advice to improve the team. (If they don't want the team to get better, why give advice?) They can write a column afterwards no matter what ("Mets make smart move for Santana" or "Did the Mets give up too much for Santana?" -- I guarantee you'll see that one if the trade happens). But a good sportswriter will stick to the pros and cons of the issue instead of spouting nonsense in order to fill a column. The problem with Santana now is that there is no news, so columnists are stuck with speculation. That's OK, but the total lack of sense in their suggestions is what set me off.

Maybe it's because they don't actually have to negotiate things themselves, but this entire Santana madness seems so say, "no." Item: Steve Popper last Wednesday: ]So Mets, get it done. Give up four prospects. Give up five. Give up Fernando Martinez. Get it done. Item: Bob Klapisch today ]Colleague Steve Popper offered the Mets sound advice in Wednesday's Record, urging them to hurry up and trade for Johan Santana. Whatever it takes, is the message Omar Minaya needs to hear, because unless Santana is wearing a Mets' uniform by opening day, they can forget about winning the East in 2008. Get it done. Whatever it takes. So if the Twins want Wright and Reyes for Santana, do it. Right? Oh, and we can throw in Beltran, too, if they want it. That'll certainly get us Santana. Is that what they really want? Whatever it takes? And then, there's this: you negotiate from strength. Omar Minyana wants to give up as few prospects for Santana as he can, while the Twins want as many as they can get. So part of the negotiation dance is that Minyana will say, "we don't want him all that much." Thus the Twins have to wonder how much he means that. If Omar can convince them he's not interested enough to give up five prospects, but will trade four, then the team gets Santana and loses one fewer prospect. This is basic negotiation. See if the other guy blinks. But with reporters screaming at Omar to "get it done," the Twins are going to want more. The pressure is put on Minyana, forcing him to give up more prospects. If Popper and Klapisch were truly interested in seeing a better team instead of just running their mouths off, they'd know this sort of thing. Putting pressure on Minyana only means he's going to get a worse deal.

Even if Livian is signed, Pelfrey and Humber will get innings this year. El Duque and Pedro are unlikely to stay off the DL all season. And if they trade both Pelfrey and Humber to get Santana, Livian is a good addition.

It's meaningless unless you are alleging Minyana picks Latinos over non-Latinos. He's traded for them, and traded them away, passed over them for non-Latinos and picked them up. An analysis of the roster is crude and meaningless.

Much as I admire Clemente, this makes little sense. He didn't have the impact of Robinson and there were plenty of Puerto Rican ballplayers before Roberto. He did die trying to help others, which is admirable, but not enough to do this. What did he do for the average Latin ballplayer? It looks like he was at least the 12th Puerto Rican ballplayer to play in the majors. There wre over 50 Cubans preceeding him. He's probably the best of the group, but he's no Jackie Robinson.

="Nymr83"]yeah i knew that much, though if they were disseminating the same information as KCmets in the same style under that... which robert parker book did you have something under the same name published? Playmates. My short story of the same name came out a few years earlier.

Nymr83 wrote: I just had my first copyright class today, give me a few months... I'll make it easy: Titles aren't copyrightable. If it were, Robert B. Parker would owe me big time.

Cardwell had a pretty good career with the Mets; he was the one who made the Dennis Ribant for Don Bosch trade into a decent one for the team. He was also one of the last of the Schenectady Blue Jays to play in the majors. It was fun seeing the word "Schenectady" at the bottom of his baseball card statistics (long before I moved here).

As a public figure, Clemens is not likely to win any libel lawsuit, since he does have to prove that not only was the assertion false, but that the person who published it knew definitively that it was false, yet published it anyway. Clemens has to prove: 1. McNamee lied. 2. McNamee knew that he was lying. 3. Clemens reputation suffered because of the lie. #3 is easy enough to prove; #1 is quite a bit harder, and #2 is a bitch. "Defamation of Character" is just another way to describe libel or slander.

Obligatory movie quote: "How many syllables, Mario? How many syllables?" Welcome to the board.

Yes, After the Thin Man. My fingers got ahead of me.

San Francisco should also have AFTER THE THIRD MAN, favorite of mine since it's one of the few New Year's Eve films (and for the identity of the murderer). Boston The Departed Fever Pitch The Last Hurrah

Edgy DC wrote: Correct and correct. Buzz could never break an unbreakable Mets rotation, so he was sold to Atlanta, where he was suddenly busted up to 218 innings, won an ERA title, and never pitched effectively again. The Mets might have known he was capable of something like that, as he went something like 44-18 in the minors.he was probably traded because Ralph Kiner never could pronounce his name. "Buzz Capray" was the best he could do.

SteveJRogers wrote: Course that being said, then the deal would have been Reggie Jackson for Rusty Staub, or Nolan Ryan and Reggie Jackson for Jim Fregosi (the last one I don't even want to fathom)!By the standards of the time, Fregosi was one of the best shortstops in baseball, a perennial all-star. He was coming off an injury year, but there was no reason to believe he wouldn't rebound (his problem was a second injury when he was trying to adjust to third base). Nolan Ryan, OTOH, was a wild "live arm" whose numbers were getting worse each year (he walked 116 batters in 152 innngs and his ERA jumped half a run in a year that the leage ERA dropped by .6 runs) and who had lost 10 of his last 12 decisions in 1971. There was no guarantee he would ever be anything than an Amborix Burgos (and Ryan has said he never would have succeeded if he stayed with the Mets). The Angels gambled on Ryan, and it happened to work out well, but no one in 1971 would ever have predicted Ryan was a potential Hall of Famer. In hindsight, it was a terrible trade, but at the time it was pretty fair. Now, the Amos Otis trade, OTOH . . . .