THE CRANE POOL FORUM thecranepool.net (.com)


Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


All Purpose Mid-Season Trade Speculation Thread

Rotblatt
Jun 09 2005 12:11 PM

I figured we should have one of these. Who if anyone should be on the block? Who if anyone should we be targeting?

I've gone on the record (since destroyed in a firey blaze, most likely) as saying that we should try and target young 1B/Cs with significant upside who are blocked by regulars. My two favorites have been 25-year olds Ryan Howard and Kelly Shoppach.

As it turns out, SoSH just started a thread about what they think Stoppach will get in return. The answer so far: not much. "Decent bullpen arm" is about the average expectation, which makes me wonder if I'm valuing him too highly. One poster seems to think that he'll wind up a Mirabelli clone (MLB average OPS of .757 in part-time duty). On the surface, their comaprisons make sense, since Mirabelli & Shoppach have similar minor league averages--.806 OPS for Shoppach and .795 for Mirabelli--but Mirabelli stayed in the minors until he was 28 and dominated the younger players his age 27 & 28 seasons (.845 & .930 OPSs, respectively). By all accounts, Shoppach is ready now. His OPS so far in AAA is .963 with 11 dingers in 140 AB.

In my view, we'd use him as Piazza's backup the rest of the year, then run with him next year. If we can seriously get him for just a bullpen arm, I'd give up anyone not named Looper or Heilman in a flash. If DeJean starts turning it around, we'll have a surplus of arms, especially with 28-year old Padilla doing his best Pedro imitation in AAA (0.78 WHIP, 0.88 ERA, 9.2 K/9, 8.4 K/BB in 41 IP).

Shoppach scouting report:

]Kelly Shoppach was selected in the 2nd round, with the 48th pick overall in the 2001 amatuer draft by the Boston Red Sox. Shoppach grew up in Fort Worth, Texas with his parents Kenny and Gail Shoppach. He played his high school ball at Brewer High School before moving on to Baylor University. Shoppach is your typical dirt dog player, all hustle and no stop in him, an attitude instilled in him by his father.


Ryan Howard would take significantly more than a bullpen arm to land. OPS of 1.099 in AAA this season after putting up 1.033 in AA & .966 in AAA last year (374 & 111 ABs, respectively). The problem with trading for Howard is that the Phillies are in our division and currently in the mix, meaning it's very unlikely they'd trade him to us. They're also not likely to be interested in our OF or RPs. Our SP, on the other hand, could interest them, but we still have the whole inter-league trading problem.

Edgy DC
Jun 09 2005 12:17 PM

Brett Harper's stock is soaring right now. There's also some third base prospect who Inside Pitch (for what it's worth), says could move Wright to first in a few years.

My thinking is that they Mets are seriously focused on Harper and will look short-term for their first-basing solutions.

Rotblatt
Jun 09 2005 12:29 PM

Interesting! Harper wasn't really even on my radar.

In looking at his numbers, he certainly seems to be on the right track now. His first three seasons were pretty bad, but he finally earned a promotion to AA last year with a 1.004 OPS at the age of 23. Struggled a bit in AA over his final 174 ABs--his K/BB ratio plummetted and everything dropped--but still managed a .437 SLG. Repeating this year, he looks great, although he could stand to take more pitches: 195 AB, 17 HR, 18 BB, 48 K, .287 AVG, .347 OBP, .610 SLG.

How's his glove, Edge? And do you know the 3B's name?

MFS62
Jun 09 2005 12:51 PM

If that third baseman you read about is Shawn Bowman, he's far below the Mendoza Line.
David's spot is safe for now.

Later

Edgy DC
Jun 09 2005 01:19 PM

I'm just saying what was written, not that I buy it at all.

If the optimism that Inside Pitch showed in the Mets Top 50 prospects was warranted, we'd be sitting tiight waiting for the second coming of the 27 Yankees.

I can't get the source, because my subscription is to the magazine only, for $39.95, while the magazine plus the website access costs $79.95 -- which (a) is a bad policy, and (b) has me thinking we need to pool our brains and resources and start a fan mag of our own.

MFS62
Jun 09 2005 01:35 PM

Edgy DC wrote:
has me thinking we need to pool our brains and resources and start a fan mag of our own.


The thought of that is positively scary. Is the world ready?

BTW - congrats for the award for your publication.

Later

Willets Point
Jun 09 2005 02:03 PM

The WATP Weekly!

Rotblatt
Jun 09 2005 02:11 PM

Here's BA's list of best in the minor leagues, via ESPN:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2047028&num=1

methodology:
]It's our weekly snapshot of baseball's hottest prospects, combining prospect status with recent performance. This list is not a replacement or an update to our Top 100, because it will often change drastically from week to week based on performance. We are not replacing Delmon Young or Joel Guzman as the top prospects in baseball, rather we are giving you a snapshot of the hottest prospects. Keep up with news on these prospects plus many more on a daily basis with the Daily Dish and The Baseball America Prospect Report.

We love to hear your opinions, so send your list to Kevin at kevingoldstein@baseballamerica.com, but keep in mind there are only 20 spots on this list, and chances are there are more than 20 hot prospects during a week-long span. We aren't intentionally forgetting your guy, there's just only so much room. Also remember the key word in the title -- prospect -- so, 25-year-old Class A organizational players who are tearing the cover off the ball rarely apply.


Mettastic guys:

]17. Justin Huber, 1b, Royals (Double-A Wichita)
Continuing to put Texas League pitchers on the barbie, Huber ranks second in batting (.366), first in on-base percentage (.467) and second in slugging (.591), and tied for first in RBIs (36).
. . .
Special Mention Category
Brian Daubach, 1b, Mets (Triple-A Norfolk)
Daubach didn't make his major league debut until his was 26, but he put together four straight years of 20-plus home runs with the Red Sox from 1999-2002. Signed by the Mets in the offseason, the 33-year-old first baseman is batting .373-8-32 in 39 games for the Tides.


Guys on the list meeting my criteria that we could try and trade for:

]5. Conor Jackson, 1b, Diamondbacks (Triple-A Tucson) Creeping towards .400, Jackson has raised his average to .399 by going 10-for-15 in his last five games. Despite nearly four times as many walks (32) as strikeouts (9), Jackson's .495 on-base percentage doesn't even lead his own team because his teammate is


Okay, so that's not going to happen any time soon. Wouldn't it be nice to have a David Wrightish clone at 1B, though?

]13. Dan Johnson, 1b, Athletics (Triple-A Sacramento)
On the morning of May 1, Johnson was batting .224. Since then he's hit .427-6-20 in 22 May games, including a 16-for-36 run in his last nine.


He had a nice 2004, hitting 29 HR in 536 ABs while posting a .403 OBP. I doubt Beane will give him up, but if he plays well in Durazo's absense, it could mean Durazo would be available when he gets back. Only problem there is Durazo's weak glove.

]16. Josh Willingham, c, Marlins (Triple-A Albuquerque)
The PCL slugging leader (.669) has 33 RBIs in 36 games, much of it thanks to some deadly clutch hitting (.571 average with runners in scoring position).


With LoDuca signed for 3 years, Willingham might very well be on the block, but probably not to division rivals. He's still learning defensively, having switched from the infield a year or two ago. He's 26.

Edgy DC
Jun 09 2005 02:23 PM

I'm not really shopping, but, if I were, I wouldn't worry too much about Durazo's glove.

For one thing, he could get late inning defensive help from a grouchy Mientkiewicz.

Then he could win another championship, and, despite being again one of the lesser-used guys on a championship team, keep another championship ball.

Rotblatt
Jun 09 2005 02:28 PM

I like the way you think, Edgy.

MFS62
Jun 09 2005 02:34 PM

Rotblatt, thanks for the info.
That player at Sacramento would have me drooling if it weren't for the fact that I remember reading something about his home ballpark a while ago. IIRC, it had either a very short fence or the wind constantly blowing out (Like the famous Seals Staduim, SF, jetstream).
I wonder what his home/away splits are.

Later

Rotblatt
Jun 10 2005 03:17 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 10 2005 03:27 PM

SoSH is obsessed with trading for Adam Dunn. I don't quite get it, since their offense is, you know, pretty good, even with Millar sucking at 1B. Plus signing Dunn would mean either he or Ortiz (or Nixon or Manny) sits out during NL games, which might not matter much now, but come October . . . Plus, pitching is their bigger problem.

Anyway, they repeated a rumor heard of Dunn being shopped to the MFY for a ridiulous package of Cano, Duncan & Wang.

Now, as unrealistic as the specifics there are, they do raise an interesting idea--trading for Adam Dunn, who will soon be too expensive for the Reds (who have plenty of top-notch OF prospects) to keep. I think his contract is up after this year (he's making ~$4.6M).

Dunno about you guys, but for a guy like Dunn, I'd be willing to give up an awful lot. He's 25, a power lefty, he takes a shitload of walks, and can play either 1B or OF. Oh, and he can steal a base too.

You might ask, why would the Reds trade Dunn, but I think it's clear from Dunn's comments that he's not enamoured of the Red's organization. He hasn't liked Miley's use of him--not to mention Miley taking away his massage chair--and he's pissed off about Graves being let go

The knocks against him: not hitting lefties well this year (.628 OPS instead of 1.111, although he's hit them fine other years). Not particularly good defensively.

So what would it take to get him? Well, they desperately need pitching. I'd give up Petit or Humber in a heartbeat, and throw on Heilman as well. Plus Seo and their choice of Matsui, Cairo or Keppinger, if they really want a 2B.

This is assuming, of course, that we immediately sign Dunn to oh, say a 7-year extension.

The idea of Dunn, Wright, Beltran & Reyes being the backbone of our lineup for the next 5 years makes me very, very happy.

on edit:

Think of the lineup! I can't even come up with a batting order, because it's too bloody difficult! 1. Reyes 2. Cameron? Wright? 3. Beltran 4. Floyd? Wright? Dunn? 5. Dunn? Floyd? Wright? 6. Wright? Floyd? Dunn? 7. Piazza 8. Matsui . . .

Not to mention, we'd have a lot of flexibility in the offseason. If we didn't think Diaz was ready and wanted to move Cameron or Floyd for pitching, we could try and sign either an OF or a 1B, since Dunn can play either. And in general, we'd have enough offense to be able to trade some away, if needed . . .

metsmarathon
Jun 10 2005 03:22 PM

petit, heilman, seo, and keppinger?

all for adam dunn?

i think that's a bit of overpayment...

Edgy DC
Jun 10 2005 03:28 PM

I'm so stand-pat.

How about we wait until the trade deadline and see if he's htting lefties by then?

The Mets could potentially accomplish a lot by standing still the next few years.

Rotblatt
Jun 10 2005 03:39 PM

]petit, heilman, seo, and keppinger?

all for adam dunn?

i think that's a bit of overpayment...


Sure, it's a lot--maybe even more than we'd need to give up--but IMO, players like Dunn don't come around too often. If that's what it took to get him, I'd be fine with it, although less, of course, is better. Keppinger, despite his solid year so far, still isn't really considered much of a prospect, Seo is a #4 pitcher at best, and Heilman is still a mystery. Petit & Heilman probably have the most value for the Reds . . .

Dunn is just a monster. Despite hitting only .241 right now, he has a .398 OBP. And 15 HR to go along with a .560 SLG. And he's only 25!! In his worst year, he had a .354 OBP, 27 HR, and a .819 OPS. That's about what Beltran is on pace for so far this year.

Dunn is scary good, but undervalued by peeps because he K's so much and doesn't hit for average. Long-term, we need a 1B. If he's anywhere near the trading block, we need to elbow our way to the front of the line and start dealing.

metirish
Jun 10 2005 03:43 PM

I'd rather trade for Sean Casey who would fill the need at 1st,can hit , is a great guy, and loves NY...and I doubt would cost what Dunn would.

Edgy DC
Jun 10 2005 03:48 PM

I think players like Dunn come around a little more often than one might think when they're breathing in front of you.

Rotblatt
Jun 10 2005 03:51 PM

Splits v. Lefties:
2005: .639 (1.108 v. right) 68 AB
2004: .829 (1.015 v. right) 180 AB
2003: .787 (.832 v. right) 119 AB
2002: .906 (.829 v. right) 169 AB
3-year split (2002-2005): .846 (.902 v. right)

I'm guessing this year so far is just an abberation.

In terms of staying pat, I hear you, but we don't have internal options at 1B or C next year and are going to have to do something. Well, unless we get Floyd in at 1B, use Diaz in LF and Castro suddenly realizes the potential he had when he was a 1st round draft pick . . . All possible, but not terribly likely.

The FA market will be thin for 1Bs this offseason, which makes it a little more reasonable to me for us to try and trade for Dunn.

Nymr83
Jun 10 2005 03:52 PM

i'd pay up Seo or Heilman + Humber or Petit + Keppinger or Cairo for the guy easily. Dunn is a great young hitter and exactly what this team needs at 1B.

Frayed Knot
Jun 10 2005 03:52 PM

The speculation about Dunn stems from Cincy mgmt saying that they'll "talk about anyone" recently. That doesn't mean they're actively shopping Dunn but talk like that always sets off a frenzy. And now with Wily Mo Pena coming off the DL the strength of the Reds in clearly in the OF/1B dept.

fwiw, Dunn is in his 4th full season so would controlled by his team from now thru the end of '07. He's into the arb-eligible range so those wouldn't be cheap years but he wouldn't go on the open market until the winter '07/'08.
Casey already has hit his 6th year so he's under control for as long as his current contract lasts (I don't know what that is).

Things like that are major factors when deciding not only IF you should make a bid for these guys but also what the price should be.

Nymr83
Jun 10 2005 03:55 PM

also, we can get a discount from Dunn by promising him a new massage chair every season that we won't take away.

Rotblatt
Jun 10 2005 04:03 PM

]I think players like Dunn come around a little more often than one might think when they're breathing in front of you.


I don't get it. Are you talking about Diaz? There's still room for Diaz on the team--we'd make Dunn the 1B.

As for players like Dunn coming around often, here are his top 3 comps through Age 24 (from Baseball-Reference):

1. Reggie Jackson (948)
2. Darryl Strawberry (941)
3. Troy Glaus (924)

Most similar by age:

22. Darryl Strawberry (959)
23. Pete Incaviglia (944)
24. Reggie Jackson (948)

Thanks for the contract info, Frayed! I wasn't sure about any of that.

As for Casey, his contract was extended through 2006, according to ESPN.com. "Sean Casey had his contract extended through the 2006 season on Friday, the clearest message yet that the Cincinnati Reds have no intention of trading him. Instead, they picked up an $8.5 million option for the additional year."


Casey's a solid target too, but it sounds like Dunn might be a better bet . . .

seawolf17
Jun 10 2005 04:12 PM

Yeah! Let's get a guy whose career track is similar to Darryl Strawberry! That'd be a GREAT idea! (sarcasm mode turned off)

Honestly, I'd love to see Dunn at Shea.

Rotblatt
Jun 10 2005 04:13 PM

heh. Baseball Reference should have an Off-Field Career Tracker to go along with their on-field one . . .

seawolf17
Jun 10 2005 04:19 PM

If you think about it, the similarity score ranked by age tells you a lot. Look at Straw:

Curt Blefary (966) - age 22
Reggie Jackson (975)
Reggie Jackson (955)
Reggie Jackson (939)
Jose Canseco (932)
Reggie Jackson (944)
Jose Canseco (954)
Reggie Jackson (951)
Reggie Jackson (955)
Roger Maris (918)
Roger Maris (938)
Greg Vaughn (938)
Greg Vaughn (930)
Jay Buhner (961)
Jay Buhner (928)
Eric Davis (891) - age 37

He goes from Blefary, who flamed out at 25; to Reggie & Canseco, two feared sluggers; to Maris, a B-level power threat at best; to Vaughn, who struck out more than anything else; to Buhner, a career .254 hitter; to Eric Davis, who got hurt and fizzled after 30, except for one or two good seasons.

Obviously, you have Straw's "other" issues, but it's still a neat comparison.

Edgy DC
Jun 10 2005 05:14 PM

I just mean that when a guy with good numbers is on the market and you're wanting, you convince yourself that his skills are scarcer than they seem.

It was said over and over that our opportunity at Vladdie Guererro was an opportunity of great rareness. The Mets blew it. But went out and got a similarly valuable outfielder in Beltran this offseason. More expensive, perhaps, as the market shifted, but still.

I don't put much stock in similarity scores because they're not ballpark or era adjusted. The league is full of peeps right now hitting like young Reggie.

Now, there're some downright awful ideas among potential free agent firstbaseman, third basemen, and outfielders this offseason, but some good ones also. I'm not advocating any of them, only that the availability of such fallback alternatives in the offseason market (and presumably quite a few of them in the deadline trade market) should mean that the acquisition of Mr. Dunn shouldn't cost us so damn much of the future.

Rotblatt
Jun 10 2005 10:36 PM

I can respect that, Edge, but I still think that Dunn is a special player--right up there with Vladdy and Beltran. But even younger.

As for costing us too much of the future, I tend to think that giving up the chances that Petit will be an ace and Heilman will turn into a solid #2/3 pitcher are totally worth exchanging for a 25-year old slugger whose averaged better than a .380 OBP & .510 SLG through 4 years. Especially since we'd control him for 2+ years. I mean, his best is likely yet to come . . . Oh , and I view Cairo/Keppinger as replacement level players, for the most part--valuable pieces in the right circumstances, but basically throw-ins.

I might add that compared to the Kazmir trade, my idea is the epitome of prudence. Not that every trade is good simply because it's not as bad as that one, but just to keep things in perspective . . .

Willets Point
Jun 10 2005 10:55 PM

I get a nervous tick in my eye whenever I hear my adoptee's name in trade rumors.

Frayed Knot
Jun 10 2005 11:05 PM

fwiw;

Buster Olney on BB2N says that Cincy claims not to be in trade mode at this time.

Also Olney, plus Gammons the other day on the radio, both say that Prince Fielder remains a year or so away from being ready - which is only significant in that it means there's no push to deal Lyle Overbay any time soon (unlike Weeks being ready helping to push Spivey out the door)

smg58
Jun 11 2005 10:30 AM

Not Dunn. I would not trust a one-dimensional power hitter coming from that sandlot to here. Sean Casey would be a better fit. And why not ask about Ryan Freel, while we're at it? Freel leading off and Reyes batting second would make a lot of catchers nervous.

duan
Jun 11 2005 10:33 AM

holy jeebus no no no no to Sean Casey!

Rotblatt
Jun 11 2005 11:38 AM

Dunn's got at least three dimensions--power, ability to get on base, and speed. He's also no worse than average in the OF--I'm not positive about his ability at first, to be honest, but as I recall, his numbers over there seemed okay in limited duty.

Why so opposed to Casey, Duan? Just curious.

As for Freel, he's a fine player and he's having a nice season. I'm not convinced he's for real yet, and my guess is that they'd rather move Aurilia and keep Freel around.

Their OF, on the other hand, is a chock full of talent. Dunn, Kearns, Pena, Griffey, and Cruz to a lesser extent. I'm targeting Dunn because he's vocally unhappy in Cincinatti, is undervalued by his manager, and happens to play first, but I'd be happy to have either Keans or Pena too . . .

duan
Jun 11 2005 12:17 PM
cause he's the classic over rated player

he just isn't that good, had a *near fluke* season last year. in 2002 & 2003 he's ops of .696 and .758

and he comes with an 8.5 million price tag for 2006!

Rotblatt
Jun 11 2005 06:58 PM

Ah. Those are good reasons.

Edgy DC
Jun 11 2005 09:17 PM

I blanched at the invocation of Casey also, but to be fair, he had some time hitting something like that before 2002, also.

Vic Sage
Jun 14 2005 04:36 PM
Dunn is the one!

I totally agree with Rotblatt about Dunn.

wait, did i say that?

:?:

Johnny Dickshot
Jun 14 2005 04:42 PM

Prince Fielder anyhow was called up by the Brew Crew to be an interleague DH.

Gotta like them stones!

If he performs, maybe it'll be hard to send him back down a la Mets/Reyes.

Edgy DC
Jun 19 2005 05:21 PM

I just had a baseless premonition that Squishii is safe for now, but Tom Glavine just threw is last pitch as a Met.

Nymr83
Jun 19 2005 05:51 PM

Glavine has had good starts and awful starts, Ishii has mostly had bad ones. I'd rather dump Ishii...but if it was up to me i'd dump both.

Nymr83
Jun 19 2005 05:55 PM

edit- whoops, this aint the IGT!

Edgy DC
Jun 19 2005 06:19 PM

The point isn't really to dump anybody, but to make the trade that best helps the team.

DocTee
Jun 19 2005 07:57 PM

Today's SF Chronicle, picking up a story from the Sporting News, reports that the Giants offered Ray Durham straight up for Kaz Matsui---but the Mets balked. The contracts are about a wash, sez the paper, which also alludes to Durham's being a better hitter-- tho' worse fielder--, than KazMat.

metirish
Jun 19 2005 09:23 PM

Durham has some power in his bat, is about four years older than Kaz and has a career FP% of .978, I wouldn't like this deal really, is Durham signed through next season?

Rotblatt
Jun 20 2005 09:28 AM
From Newsday

]The Mets were among a handful of teams scouting Barry Zito's start against the Phillies yesterday in Oakland. Trading Zito is the only shot Athletics GM Billy Beane has to acquire some of the inexpensive prospects he covets by the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline. Zito is a favorite of pitching coach Rick Peterson.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/printedition/ny-spmnotes194311684jun19,0,2415796.story?coll=ny-sports-print

I don't like this. We're probably talking about losing either Petit or Milledge to get Zito, who hasn't exactly been lighting the world on fire. We'll also be adding yet another pitcher to the current blockade keeping Heilman from starting.

Willie, pretty please give Heilman the ball . . . And while you're at it, permanently move Wright up in the order, and release DeJean. Then call up Padilla to fill in for DeJean.

Oh, and if you don't mind asking Omar not to make any "We're still in the mix!" trades, that'd be great too.

Thanks, big guy! You're the best!

sharpie
Jun 20 2005 10:00 AM

Watch out with those pleas, Rotblatt, they tend to come true and then we lose, lose, lose.

TheOldMole
Jun 20 2005 10:22 AM

We are still in the mix.

Sandgnat
Jun 20 2005 10:34 AM

I see no need to trade prospects for major league talent this year. If anything I would be looking to do the opposite. This team is what it is, a .500 baseball team. I just don't see this being the year to go after it. I'd rather see us keep all of our options open for the next few years instead.

Rotblatt
Jun 20 2005 10:35 AM

]Watch out with those pleas, Rotblatt, they tend to come true and then we lose, lose, lose.


Ouch! I don't think it's Daubach's fault we lost 3 of the last 4, sharpie . . . Although he definitely hasn't helped much yet.

]We are still in the mix.


Sure, I suppose we're only 7 games out and anything could happen, but we're last in our division and just got beat by two of the worst teams in baseball. I also don't see how putting Zito (4.66 ERA, 1.32 WHIP) in the rotation will help us more than putting Heilman (3.56 ERA, 1.15 WHIP) in. I could be wrong, and maybe Heilman can't hack it as a starter, but we won't know until we try. Now would seem like a pretty good time to try, since Ishii's scuffling.

seawolf17
Jun 20 2005 10:37 AM

If we're making changes anyway, can we sell Glavine to a band of roving gypsies or something?

ScarletKnight41
Jun 20 2005 10:41 AM

Sell?

Don't hold out for too much - the gypsies might change their minds.

Rotblatt
Jun 20 2005 10:56 AM

I was really hoping Glavine would put up a string of impressive starts and we'd be able to trade him to a bonafide major league team for, say, a bag of balls.

The gypsies might be our best bet now, although we may have to package him with a ball boy or two . . .

Sandgnat
Jun 20 2005 10:58 AM

a monstrously huge one?

smg58
Jun 20 2005 11:57 AM

No, not a monstrously huge one -- the last time we traded an overpaid pitcher for a large batboy was Appier for Mo Vaughn, and that really didn't work out.

The Mets are in a similar position now that they've been in each of the last five Junes except 03: not a good enough position to justify going for broke, but not in a bad enough position to justify a fire sale. I do think they need to make next year the higher priority, but if they can find players that will help this year's team without costing us prospects we'll wish we had back, then make the deal.

The one guy they have to move is Glavine, even if that means releasing him before his option vests; that money would be better spent elsewhere. Yes, get Heilman into the rotation already, and if you can't find room for Seo then move him while he has value. If you can deal Matsui for a pitcher that Peterson could revive by the start of next season, then great, but Kaz will only get us somebody who's overpaid and underachieving. Durham is just not healthy enough anymore, so I think that deal would be a push. Cameron doesn't need to be traded, but if somebody makes a really good offer you would have to consider it.

Edgy DC
Jun 20 2005 12:00 PM
Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jun 20 2005 12:29 PM

I think they're in a better position, because they can deal veteran pitchers for minor leaguers without this season's rotation being emptied, because of the redundancy being provided by Heilman and Seo.

So they can look to the future without necessarily compromising whatever present remains.

TheOldMole
Jun 20 2005 12:01 PM

I agree about Heilman making more sense than Zito. Right now we have more starting pitchers than rotation spots, and there are always teams that will take a proven starter even if he's on a downswing - look at all the clamoring for Zito. I'd look into offering one or two of our starters around. People will always overpay for them.

Bret Sabermetric
Jun 20 2005 12:05 PM

Maybe the Dodgers will give us Derek Lowe for Glavine straight up.

I have it on good authority that Glavine's going to be a much better pitcher through 2005 at least, and just look at the stats:
PLAYER TEAM G GS IP H R ER BB SO W L ERA
Derek Lowe LAD15 15 97.2 106 54 40 17 65 5 7 3.69
Tom Glavine NYM15 15 85.1 112 51 48 34 42 4 6 5.06

Rotblatt
Jun 20 2005 12:46 PM

Hm. D-Lowe is signed through 2008 at around $9M per year. Glavine's got just the one year left at around $11M . . . So we'd save this year and the next, but we'd be down around $18M. Lowe's 32 now and would be 35 when his deal expires.

I like Lowe, and think he had been somewhat victimized by a poor Boston defense last year. Like Tom, he doesn't strike out many batters, but when he's on, he also doesn't walk many. He's certainly having a solid year . . .

I'd do that deal, I think. Looking forward the next few years, Pedro-Benson-DLowe-Heilman-Zambrano isn't bad at all . . . Of course, we'd still have to work Trachs in there somehow. Yeesh, but we have a lot of starting pitchers . . .

Willets Point
Jun 20 2005 12:58 PM

I think Bret is pointing out the stats to prove that he's right about an argument from last season.

Bret, in what way would you most appreciate our celebrating your rightness?

PS - As good an idea as that trade proposal may have been, I don't think Theo would have gone for it.

Rotblatt
Jun 20 2005 01:16 PM

Ah, I do seem to recall a discussion about that idea. I think I liked it then, too.

I'm a little dense today. Dodgers probably want to add a starting pitcher, not replace one of their effecitve ones with a less effective one, huh? I wonder if we could pull off a Glavine + relief pitcher (any of them, IMO, including Loopy) for Edwin Jackson . . .

I rather like reclamation projects, especially when the project is only 21 years old . . .

Bret Sabermetric
Jun 20 2005 06:04 PM

I think the deal got dumped by Theo as well. I said so at the time.

Oddly I had a talk this week with the gentleman who maintained that the Mets shouldn't do Glavine-for-Lowe because Glavine was a better pitcher for the remainder of '04 and for all of '05 (neither of which turned out to be true), and he brought up a Yankee-Met proposed deal (I think it was Cammy-for-Cano) that a Yankee fan said was unbalanced in the Mets' favor, and this gentleman maintained that it was unbalanced in the Yankees' favor. My whole argument here isn;t to show that I was right, but to show in a larger sense that Mets' management (supported by Mets fans) haven't made deals because they over-value their own talent. I mean, face it, Cammy isn't a superstar--he's a good player playing over his head right now. If you think he's really a .300 hitter with power and GG defense, then of course you're not considering trading him for some young punk.

Of course, the part that Cammy plays on the next Mets' playoff team escapes me, and the need for a good middle infielder on that team is crystal clear, but that's another deal that isn't getting done.

We're greedy. We have something (a good experienced CFer) that theYankees need desperately right now, but they're not going to overpay by more than 200% of Cammy's value and, for some, that doesn't cut it. LIke I said, greedy.

ABG
Jun 20 2005 06:59 PM

Re: Zito

I'd place the chances of Zito--assuming a move to the NL and pitching in Shea to even out the external factors--having an effective next 5-7 years higher than I would the chances of Petit or Humber. I would therefore trade either of those guys as the centerpiece for him.

I don't see how getting Zito is prohibitive of dumping Glavine or Ishii (if either is at all possible)--rather, I think it would make more sense from an organizational standpoint to replace at 66 or 75 cents on the dollar the prospects you trade for Zito to indeed get rid of those guys and pay their salaries.

I'm not all that concerned about Heilman's blocked ascension. If he continues to pitch well in the pen, hopefully he'll get more starts. If it doesn't happen this year, he'll have his shot in ST.

Rotblatt
Jun 20 2005 07:27 PM

Yeah, I think many Mets fans think Cam will keep hitting this way, which clearly isn't the case. I've really no idea what management thinks, though. In terms of the proposed deals I'd heard about from vaguely reputable sources, Cam was totally undervalued by other teams. Byrnes for Cameron, for example, would not have been a good deal for us. I haven't heard any other "real" trade offers--I thought the Cano for Cam thing was mostly fan-driven.

Cano's young, and he's advanced quickly through the minors, which on its surface is good, but it looks like he was rushed a bit, something I think the Yankees have a tendency to do in order to drive up their prospects' trade value. He basically had a great half season last year at AA, where he hit .301 and earned a .853 OPS. Then they promoted him to AAA midway throught the season, where everything but his BB/K plummeted. This year in AAA, he was great in just over 100 at bats--.932 OPS--but it remains to be seen how sustainable that is. That's better than he hit at any level, ever, and he, like Cam, looks to be playing over his head now.

Honestly, his stats and rate of advancement remind me of Reyes', but Cano was basically a year older at each stop and he doesn't have Reyes' speed. He also made less contact and got on base less than Jose. Given how much Reyes, who unlike Cano has had scouts drooling over him for years, is struggling now, I don't think we shoud hold Cano as the answer to our middle infield problem.

Not that I think Cano won't wind up being a decent 2B, but I doubt he'd help us much in the next year or two, or be much better than average even at his peak. I DO think we can do better than Cano for Cameron straight up . . . Now maybe if we threw Kaz Matsui and his salary into the equation, and got back a less advanced prospect from the Yankees, I'd change my mind . . .

Anyway, the bigger problem is that the Yankees are so short on tradeable players. I have a hard time thinking of Yankee prospects we'd want to take in my above proposal. Henn? Wang? We have pitching; what we don't have are first basemen or catchers, and neither do the Yankees.

I might be inclined to ride Matsui & his contract out and take our time finding a replacement for him, while looking for that young first bagger and catcher . . .


As for Zito, I agree that he's a safer bet than either Petit or Humber over the next few years, and I can certainly see the point of going after the more sure thing. Projections for minor leaguers are a crapshoot, but I have to think that we'd do better trading our prospects for ace pitchers in the offseason. The number of teams in the mix who need pitching are many. The number of teams trading pitchers are few--aces even fewer. Actually, it might just be Zito. We'd get scalped trying to do a deal now, just like we did last year. This year, we should be doing the scalping, not getting scalped.

Bret Sabermetric
Jun 20 2005 07:59 PM

You may be right about Cano, of course, but some of your argument is counter-logical: the Yankees rushed him through the system (i.e., played him at a higher level than he was capable of playing at) and he did well at those higher levels--shouldn;t the higher levels have exposed his weaknesses?

The big picture is the Mets, having screwed the pooch big-time the last few years (judging Piazza to be a good choice for cleanup, judging Glavine a start away from 1995, judging Matsui to be a Gold Glove shortstop, etc.) need to take some chances to get back to contention. If this means taking a stab at trading Cammy when he's hot to a team that needs a CFer bad, then you do it. Of course, you trade him for the best young player available--whether that's Cano, or Wang, or whoever, I don't know, but the structure of the trade is the same: you want to trade veterans other teams want for young players they're willing to sacrifice to get them.

We dont want to do that, and probably won't, but we need to.

metsmarathon
Jun 20 2005 08:15 PM

i'd be fairly happy with cameron for cano and a little bit of something else. but i'm not sure what that is. i tend to greatly undervalue yankee prospects.

also, i can only imagine the fan revolt that would happen if we traded our good outfielder for a yankee prospect turmed bust (always a risk when trading for prospects).

cano & wang for cammy, i'd prolly do in a flash - i think the yanks are undervaluing wang, and even if we don't need him, we could still use him in an other trade somewhere.

Bret Sabermetric
Jun 20 2005 08:23 PM

Okay then YOU find a team that needs a good CFer to get back in contention, with a young player or two available. You get these gifts, and you look down your nose, "Well, yeah, but it's the Yankees and I always think those thieving overrated scum are puffing up their zo-genante "prospects...'" IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY! You want to wait until you get assurance that a young player (whom the Yankees are putting into the lineup in the middle of a desperate pennant drive) is the real deal? You'll wait a long time for that assurance.

I love Cammy, think he's fabulous, but if you want to get better you take advantage of chances to sell high and buy low. The Mets refuse to do that, unless they get guarantees and a 300% return, and the chance to return merchandise for 30 days, and air miles... it is to laugh.

metsmarathon
Jun 20 2005 09:40 PM

sorry... the fan revolt thing was not an indication of my dislike for a cammy/cano trade, merely a side comment. i dont think that fan reaction should be a primary driving factor in transtactions. i think the "also" occluded that a bit.

i find myself more skeptical of yankee prospects than other prospects, typically. which is why at first blush i say i want a little bit more than just cano. like, maybe a middling prospect - idk.

but i wouldnt be terribly UNhappy with a cammy/cano trade, except that i like cammy, and it would be sad to see him playing in pinstripes. but if we could do no better than cano, from the myriad other teams who could perhaps use a hot-hitting GG CFer, then i'd likely be happy with cano.

i'd be happier with floyd for cano, but im not so sure that makes any sense whatsoever for the yanks... (well, it gets womack out of the outfield, and gives them an upgrade at leftfield while womack slides back to second.... but not as much an upgrade as cammy going into center)

Rotblatt
Jun 20 2005 10:13 PM

]You may be right about Cano, of course, but some of your argument is counter-logical: the Yankees rushed him through the system (i.e., played him at a higher level than he was capable of playing at) and he did well at those higher levels--shouldn't the higher levels have exposed his weaknesses?


Well, I'd say he did okay at those levels, but he's never had 500 at bats at any one level, and the only time he came close was over two seasons. I would expect his weaknesses to be exposed over the course of a full season. What the hell do I know, though? I'm just basing this on my impression of his stats and the few bits I've read about Cano. That being said, I'd do him+Wang as well. Or if we could unload Glavine . . .

]The big picture is the Mets, having screwed the pooch big-time the last few years (judging Piazza to be a good choice for cleanup, judging Glavine a start away from 1995, judging Matsui to be a Gold Glove shortstop, etc.) need to take some chances to get back to contention. If this means taking a stab at trading Cammy when he's hot to a team that needs a CFer bad, then you do it. Of course, you trade him for the best young player available--whether that's Cano, or Wang, or whoever, I don't know, but the structure of the trade is the same: you want to trade veterans other teams want for young players they're willing to sacrifice to get them.


I agree we should trade Cam if we can get fair value--or better--for him, but I think we can aim higher than whatever prospects the team that needs him the most has. The Yankees have a barren farm system and it's possible we'll get better prospects elsewhere. We should at least try, of course. . .

Johnny Dickshot
Jun 20 2005 11:14 PM

Cameron for Hidecki Matsui makes so much sense it'll never get done.

Yankees need the D, can prolly spare the O.

Mets need O, can prolly spare the D.

Contracts are nearly a wash.

Frayed Knot
Jun 20 2005 11:49 PM

I'm just not that high on Cano.

There's a decent sized sect of Yanqui fans who believe - because so many things went well for them in the mid-90s - that future call-ups are pre-destined to go work out perfectly for them forever and therefore have already inked Cano in as their starting 2nd baseman for the next 10 years.

Except that Cano has been considered a decent (not great) prospect who hasn't hit LHPs since A-ball, just now has poked his OBA above .300 (as it barely was in AAA), is slow for a middle infielder.
Maybe he becomes a good player; or maybe he struggles to even maintain a starting job in the big leagues. Ricky LeDee was a starter for some pretty good NYY teams also.

Meanwhile Floyd (on pace for 40+ HRs) & Cameron (60+ X-base hits last year despite the bad hand) are the best 2 offensive players on our offensive-starved team. Does Cano hit these highs even in his best years?
Oh yeah, and we currently have two 2nd basemen.

I just don't get it.

Edgy DC
Jun 20 2005 11:59 PM

Three, counting the guy who's playing there now.

Bret Sabermetric
Jun 21 2005 07:24 AM

I'm not making myself clear. I'm not saying the Mets must trade Cammy for Cano (I don't know Cano's peculiar skills very well, and I'm willing to take your word for his overhyped status)--I'm saying the Mets have players whom contenders desperately need. Cammy is the most glaring need, because the papers and the airwaves have been full of "the Yanks need a CFer, bad" for months, but my point is that we have plenty of vets and other teams (maybe not the Yanks, but I suspect they do) have plenty of young players on their rosters and their systems who will be big stars someday, and if the Mets want to get back into contention, they need to identify these players and package their aging stars to get them. (To use my favorite example, you could have gotten Heilman for half a tube of liniment this winter if you'd had the scouting to tell you he was any good. Now, not so much, right? This phenomenon is happening with perhaps hundreds of players at any given time whose teams think as little of them as the Mets thought of Heilman very recently.) My main point is that the Mets overvalue their own vets, and ask so much for them, that they've effectively removed themselves from the trade market. They've firmly established at this point that they don't recognize nor evaluate talent correctly, and our trading partners are looking to take advantage of the Mets, which they do on a regular basis these days.

Do you realize what we're saying with the "Benson-set-the-market" argument in another thread on this fine board? That there was NO NEED WHATSOEVER to trade young players for Benson during the 2004 season, which we're fessing up to by stating as fact that he set the market rate (as I believe he did) for pitchers of his type. If that's true, and it is, then we could have gotten him (or a similar pitcher) for the same money in the offseason when he wouldn't have cost us young players.

Now, you can deride those young players' abilities (I still hold out hope for Wiggy and Peterson) and you can claim that we were gearing up for a 2004 pennant drive (it is, again, to laugh....), but basically we dropped two cards that we might need someday in exchange for just about no advantage. That's not smart poker. We want to be accumulating young talent, not dispersing it freely.

OE: I was just reminded that we also dropped the Justin Huber card in the Benson debacle: "The Kansas City Royals recalled 1B Justin Huber from Double-A Wichita. He was hitting .332 with nine homers, 50 RBI, 50 runs scored and seven stolen bases as a 22-year-old in Double-A," according to Seawolf17 in the "Rico Brogna, Good Fit" Thread.

O further E: Wiggy is hitting .286 and batting cleanup for Indianapolis. He hit his 4th HR Sunday (don't know how many ABs) and is the kind of player we should be taking a chance on. Matt Peterson, at AA (Altoona), is doing less well (6-3 with a high ERA, but still in the rotation and third on the staff in IP) but I'd still rather have him in our system than in theirs.

Frayed Knot
Jun 21 2005 10:24 AM

I'm not saying, have never said, and likely WILL never say; "we can't trade [insert player here]". If someone wants to give us all kinds of goodies for Caneron or Floyd I'll help pack their bags (even though I've enjoyed having both here).

My point is - specifically about Cano but also as a more general statement - that there's a significant portion of Met fans who are so tied up in the grass-is-greener syndrome, and so enamored with this 'younger-is-automatically-better' mantra, that they believe we'll come out ahead if we can just take Cammy/Floyd, plus throw in a prospect or two, plus pay a chunk of their salary, if only it could land us some fair/middling prospect (nowhere near BA's top-100) like the great Robinson Freakin' Cano - who, to this point, has hit ML pitching to an exceedingly mediocre level for about as long as Rookie Carroca held the Bantamweight championship.

Rotblatt
Jun 21 2005 10:56 AM

It sounds like most of us are on the same page. We all think it's a good idea to trade Cam and/or Floyd for younger guys with potential. The question is how much potential and how young, I think . . . And personally, I'd rather have us pick up players who fill a need--like 1B or C--but I can see just getting the best prospect available too.

metirish
Jun 21 2005 11:00 AM

I've no idea why the Mets would want Cano, is he that much better than Keppinger?, I don't think so, I don't like the idea period of making any kind of deal with the MFY's,and certainly not for the prospects they have.

Edgy DC
Jun 21 2005 11:13 AM

You people make me sick. HE'S A YANKEE, THAT'S WHY!!

Honestly, the answer is that trade speculation is often generated by narrow-minded folks who don't look beyond the end of their nose. So 90% of what the Mets allegedly should be pursuing will be

(1) all-stars (37%),
(2) Yankees (20%),
(3) former all-stars (17%),
(4) former Yankees (10%),
(5) former Mets (9%),
(6) Rotodude Fantasy Prospect Guide coverboys (7%).

Rotblatt
Jun 21 2005 11:23 AM

I think the advantage Cano would have over Keppinger is age--he's three years younger. Neither is considered a great prospect, and IIRC their numbers are fairly similar, but Cano managed to produce them at younger ages.

In theory, he'd probably have a higher ceiling.

But I tend to agree that a Cano-type player who was a C or 1B would make more sense for us.

I wonder if a 3-way deal could be worked out. Cam for Cano + B-type prospect, who then get flipped for a Ryan Howard or Shoppach-type player. Maybe we throw in a prospect of our own if the prospect's value is closer to Howard's. What's San Diego got in the way of prospects? They're hurting in the 2B category, I think.

Bret Sabermetric
Jun 22 2005 07:23 AM

Edgy's sickness aside, the main reason that Yankees turn up so often (in my trade speculations, at least) is that I (and all of us) are so much more exposed to their roster than to any other team.I mean, of course I could speculate that "if there were a team that needed a centerfielder, and if that team were barely in contention, and if that team had money to burn, and if that team had certain young players who looked promising, and if that team's promising players played positions where we currently suck HMB, then could we not offer them Cammy?" but frankly "Cano" is only four letters and I hate being long-winded.

abogdan
Jun 22 2005 07:47 PM

]O further E: Wiggy is hitting .286 and batting cleanup for Indianapolis.


Indianapolis is AAA, right? Wiggy wasn't good enough to stay on Pittsburgh's major league roster. I agree the Benson trade didn't make much sense, but touting Wiggy's AAA stats after he lost his roster spot to Freddy Sanchez and Bobby Hill doesn't exactly strengthen the argument.

I also am not opposed to dealing Cameron for younger players, but Cano isn't enough for Mike. The Mets don't need another middle infielder trying to learn plate patience in the major leagues.

Bret Sabermetric
Jun 23 2005 06:23 AM

Yeah, it would be a stronger argument if Wiggy were batting cleanup for the Cardinals. My point was that we could still (easily) have Wiggy's potential (AND Peterson's AND Huber's) AND have Benson, but for the delusion that the 2004 pennant might depend on our dumping these potentially good young players .

Not good planning, not good policy, not good baseball.

And to take up Frayed Knot's rhetoric: I'm not saying (and never will say) that dumping good old guys for young bad players is smart. But young players (generally) tend to get better while old players (generally) tend to get worse. A team that is on the verge of winning can afford to acquire (and to keep) old players on the hope that they'll retain the skills they have a bit longer, but a bad team needs to swap out its old guys (generally) for new young guys they've scouted intelligently.

You guys are like addicts thinking that just one more fix, one more swig, will straighten you out. Look around you. You're living in the gutter. Clean yourselves up. You've had an awful baseball team, and a worse organization, for a long, long time. You need help.

OE: I also want to stop referencing Piazza all the time. He's just a convenient synecdoche for the Mets' problems, so easy I can't resist using him as an example of things that often involve him personally only marginally. It's all a matter of reviewing your current roster and IDing those players who will be helpful on the next playoff team: if you're looking over this roster and seeing Piazza, Glavine, Cameron, Floyd etc. on your next playoff roster, well, I can't help you. So the idea is to turn them into players who might be a part of that team. Will it cost you money? Hel, yeah, but as Soupy so eloquently argues, money is hardly a concern, because the big picture is Fred's real-estate portfolio.

The big point is: you've already spent that money. If you pay 5 bucks for an ice-cream cone, and it tastes like it has chunks of garbage in it, do you eat it? Do you say, "Hey wait a minute, I paid five bucks for this and I'm going to enjoy it if it kills me?" How about if you've paid five bucks and loved the first few bites but then discovered a bit of raw sewage? Do you eat the rest because you hoped to get a pleasant dining experience for more than half the ice-cream cone?

Now one might argue that you had no business spending that much money for an ice cream cone in the first place: that a logic you can apply to your next snack purchase, but you're not getting a refund on this one, whether you eat the raw-sewage ice cream cone, trade it to a friend, or pitch it out. The only question is: What do you do now that you're out the five bucks and you've got an ice cream cone that smells like the East River?

Me, I pitch it or swap it, if I can find a friend stupid enough to give me a peanut for it. YM, as Norrin liked to say, MV.

The other reason I don't enjoy using Piazza as a prime example is that I agree that no peanut-bearing friends exist anymore. But I think I'm the only one who wanted to bat Piazza 7th to start 2004. There's no sense blaming him: he is what he is, and we seem stuck with him. But thus my outrage at not having signed Delgado or Sexton or some decent FA IB man (or better yet gone with Valent/Wiggy/Phillips until we grew our own better 1Bman). And my outrage at not having signed Vlad in 2004. We need a heart of the order, despite the fact that we're paying Piazza a lot of money to hit poorly, and he have to pay money to get it.

A key idea, and one that would be revolutionary and productive for the Mets, would be to play players where the quality of their play, and not their salary, demands. if we paid every player an equal amount, whst would this team look like? Would Heilman be in the bullpen? Would Matsui be the first -string 2B man? Would Piazza be in the heart of the order? Once you've spent the money, if it turns out (as it will) that you've spent some of it foolishly, why persist in your foolishness? This principle applies to every one of our lives, but we disregard it when it comes to the Mets roster. This makes no sense to me. Use your bad decisions to make better decisions in the future, but sticking with them now only hurts you in every way imaginable.

smg58
Jun 23 2005 10:13 AM

Yes, I'm for giving playing time based on merit, but the bigger question is what to do with the overpriced players we have, and most importantly, how to make this team a real contender by April 06 at the latest.

Matsui: must go, but to whom, for what, and would he agree to it? I'd say your best hope is a viable reclamation project (maybe somebody like Eric Milton), but don't expect much.

Glavine: Hope he pitches well enough to be dealable, or that he doesn't make 200 IP and have his option vest.

Cameron or Floyd: They're both under contract one more year, and given the market adjustment are not overpaid at all, especially Floyd. If you think Diaz will give the Mats as much as Cameron in right by April, then find a suitor. It can wait until the offseason, but make the right deal. (For example, if the Red Sox somehow don't trade Stoppach in July and then Johnny Damon bolts, the Mets would be in an excellent position to take advantage.) Certainly don't trade both Floyd and Cameron, though.

What do we need? First base, second base, catcher, and (like everybody else) more pitching.

MFS62
Jun 23 2005 10:22 AM

Bret, I like your style.
That ice cream cone analogy was priceless.
Later

Willets Point
Jun 23 2005 10:26 AM

Yeah, that ice cream thing is definitely a bullet of cool.

Elster88
Jun 23 2005 11:13 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote:
But thus my outrage at not having signed Delgado or Sexton or some decent FA IB man (or better yet gone with Valent/Wiggy/Phillips until we grew our own better 1Bman). And my outrage at not having signed Vlad in 2004. We need a heart of the order, despite the fact that we're paying Piazza a lot of money to hit poorly, and he have to pay money to get it.
I especially agree with this.

Rotblatt
Jul 05 2005 02:18 PM
Newsday: Zambrano, Ishii on Block?

Has Victor Zambrano joined Ishii on the block?

]With Steve Trachsel expected back right after the July 31 trade deadline, the Mets probably are more interested in using Ishii as trade bait than as a viable member of their rotation for the future. And if the Mets can find a taker for Victor Zambrano, who has pitched better of late, they would be satisfied to supplement their starters with Seo and Aaron Heilman.


http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spmside054331756jul05,0,7932242.story?coll=ny-mets-print

I would be thrilled if we traded Ishii & Zambrano and called up Seo. For Ishii, any prospect would do; for Zambrano, I'd think we'd need at least a B prospect, if only because pitching is at such a premium right now. If he turns in another 2 or 3 starts like his last one, we might even be able to land an A prospect.

metirish
Jul 05 2005 02:27 PM

But the Mets can't trade Zambrano, doing so would be an admission that the Kazmir trade was a disaster.

Frayed Knot
Jul 05 2005 02:33 PM

What is your definition of a "B prospect" and why is dealing Zambrano for one a good move?

June-July: 40.2 IPs, 23 H, 2.65 ERA, 1.18 WHiP

Willets Point
Jul 05 2005 02:39 PM

I was wondering the same thing. Especially with the "if he turns in 2 or 3 starts like his last one" part. If a pitcher starts pitching consistently well, that may be the point where you might want to think about keeping him.

Edgy DC
Jul 05 2005 02:49 PM

metirish wrote:
But the Mets can't trade Zambrano, doing so would be an admission that the Kazmir trade was a disaster.


What if they trade him for somebody really really good?

seawolf17
Jul 05 2005 02:50 PM

Can we switch Zambranos with the Cubs? You think anyone will notice?

MFS62
Jul 05 2005 03:02 PM

seawolf17 wrote:
Can we switch Zambranos with the Cubs? You think anyone will notice?


I still can't get it out of my head* that Carlos was the Zambrano they (Wilpon and Peterson) thought they were trading for in the Kasmir deal.
Later

*= Hoping that all is well with Kiley Minogue and she is on her way to good health.

Edgy DC
Jul 05 2005 03:16 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 06 2005 09:44 AM

So you've said, but so far this year, the Mets wouldn't have been so screwed by such a misidentification:

PlayerTEAMWLERAGGSCGSHOSVSVOIPHRERHRHBPBBSO
C ZambranoCHC543.8517171000107.282474610647101
V ZambranoNYM473.801515000090.0854438594958


The Mets problems this season -- since 2000 -- in fact, have been primarily offensive, and time spent trying to quickly refine a pitching staff that has been more or less good enough, with plenty of young arms in development (if we allow them to develop) is time ill spent, I think.

metirish
Jul 05 2005 03:17 PM

]What if they trade him for somebody really really good?


It would need to be a real big name pitcher, and I mean big, but seriously imagine the crap Peterson would have to listen too if they traded Zam for prospects, he'd get hammered.

seawolf17
Jul 05 2005 03:20 PM

Edgy DC wrote:
So you've said, but so far this year, the Mets wouldn't have been so screwed by such a misidentification:

PlayerTEAMWLERAGGSCGSHOSVSVOIPHRERHRHBPBBSO
C ZambranoCHC543.8517171000107.282474610647101
V ZambranoNYM473.801515000090.0854438594958





Wow. And if Vagina Boy had struck out as many guys as his long-lost half-brother Carlos has, his overall numbers would probably look even better. Good post.

Rotblatt
Jul 05 2005 03:38 PM

]What is your definition of a "B prospect" and why is dealing Zambrano for one a good move?


"B" prospect for me: a Shoppach or Huber. I'm sure I could find a non-catcher one out there, but none are immediately springing to mind. And it sounds like Shoppach might even be a "C" prospect after his troubles for the Sox during his call up . . .

"A" prospect: a Ryan Howard type.

As for why dealing Zambrano would be a good move: we have plenty of cheap pitching with which to replace him and starting pitching looks like it will be at a premium this year, since so few teams have surplusses. What we don't have are viable options at 1B & C in 2006. We COULD try and sign a FA or 2 in the off-season, and I don't think that's a bad option, but it makes so much sense for us to deal pitching when every contender and its mother wants pitching right now. Doesn't have to be Zambrano, but I have to say I like that we're thinking about it.

Glavine or Ishii probably won't net us much, and while Heilman or Seo might yield as much as Zambrano (doubtful, IMO, since they haven't been starting against major leaguers this season), they're also younger and cheaper, so I'd rather keep them than Zambrano. A $2M Zambrano who's pitching well might be very attractive to a smaller-market team with prospects to spare . . .

]I was wondering the same thing. Especially with the "if he turns in 2 or 3 starts like his last one" part. If a pitcher starts pitching consistently well, that may be the point where you might want to think about keeping him.


Sure, if you think he has the potential to keep it up long term. I have my doubts, especially since his peripherals don't look that good to me.

1.18 K/BB, compared to 1.29 career; 1.49 WHIP--right on target for his career . . . His BB/9 is down to 4.9 from 5.3, but that's still atrocious. And his HR/9 is way down to 0.5 from .92, but I suspect a lot of that is due to Shea (1 HR given up at Sea, 4 elsewhere)

He's also not really young anymore--he'll turn 30 in August, and his price tag is just going to keep going up . . .

I don't think hanging on to him and moving someone else would be BAD, but I don't see why we should view him as untouchable. He's been extremely mediocre throughout his career and one good month isn't enough to make me think he's turned a corner. It is enough, however, to raise his price . . .

Rotblatt
Jul 05 2005 04:02 PM

I'd take Carlos in a fraction of a heartbeat. He's pitched 17.2 extra innings, don't forget, which means that despite their similar hits and walks, their WHIPs are vastly different. Carlos: 1.22, Victor: 1.49. DIPS ERAs is at 3.92 for Carlos & 4.61 for Victor.

And having nearly twice as many K's is a very large deal . . .

And I'm almost positive that if you factored in the park factor, you'd get another big discrepency. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how they do that, but Wrigley's at 1.123 for runs & Shea's at 0.974.

Is it as simple as dividing by park factor? If so, that would give Carlos a 3.42 ERA and Victor a 3.90, but I suspect it's a little more complicated . . .

Anyway, my point is that despite similar ERA's, Carlos has been a vastly superior pitcher this year.

on edit: changed "over" to "nearly" after rereading previous post.

MFS62
Jul 05 2005 04:18 PM

]Glavine or Ishii probably won't net us much


It depends on how good your minor league scoutring/ player evaluation is.
A good example was when "Veteran", "Steady" Doyle Alexander, needed for the stretch run, was traded by Atlanta to Detroit for a kid pitcher named John Smoltz.

You never know.

Later

Edit: typos

Frayed Knot
Jul 05 2005 04:46 PM

]"B" prospect for me: a Shoppach or Huber


Yeah, that sounds about right -- but you have to realize that guys like that are only somewhat likely to of ever become full-time ML starters. There's no way I'd deal an established (and currently good) starting pitcher who's reasonably young & priced, quite possibly improving, and under team control for the next 2+ seasons for guys that iffy.

Refer back to the 'Top Prospects of 2002' thread and check out the success rate of that crew and realize that guys like these aren't considered anywhere near at that level.

Edgy DC
Jul 05 2005 05:29 PM

Why would it have to be a pitcher? Why not a hitter? Why not a hitting prospect?

And peeps who want to scapegoat Peterson should be the last things the Mets should concerned about. I hope they are.

metirish
Jul 06 2005 09:36 AM

]Glavine open to trade talk


BY DAVID LENNON
STAFF CORRESPONDENT

July 6, 2005


WASHINGTON -- When Tom Glavine takes the mound tonight against the Nationals, he does so with the knowledge that his days with the Mets could be numbered.

The whole point of signing Glavine during the winter of 2002 was to get the Mets into the playoffs, specifically by making him the ace of the rotation and to a lesser extent, weakening the Braves by his departure.

That vision of the Mets' future never materialized, and unless they climb back into the NL East race, Glavine could be among those shipped elsewhere by the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline.

There's a twist with Glavine. His three-year, $34-million contract includes a full no-trade clause, but don't expect Glavine to throw a Gary Sheffield-type tantrum if and when the Mets approach him about a deal.

"I've thought about it," said Glavine, who has not had that discussion yet with the front office. "Obviously there's a real short list of teams I would even consider. I have no intention of wanting that to happen, but if they came to me and said look, 'We feel like we're better without you or whatever,' I'm not going to be like, 'Absolutely not.' Especially if it's a team I could see myself going to."

Glavine lives in Greenwich, Conn., during the season, but his permanent home is in Alpharetta, Ga., and he was raised in the Boston suburbs. Staying east of the Mississippi is important, but it's unlikely the Mets would send him back to the Braves.

The Yankees seem to match his criteria, along with having the need and the resources to pull it off. The Red Sox appear to be brimming with starters, especially with Curt Schilling's return imminent.

Another obstacle is Glavine's $10-million option for 2006, which is almost guaranteed to kick in now that he already has logged 96 1/3 innings. The Mets aren't thrilled about investing that much of next year's payroll for Glavine, who has a 25-35 record as a Met and will be 40 by Opening Day of next season.

But a contending team, in the market for an experienced starter and a borderline Hall of Famer, may think differently. Glavine has an eye on 300 wins - an automatic ticket to the Hall - and that could prompt him to want an extension for 2007. He currently stands at 267 wins.

"I have concerns beyond just being traded for this year," Glavine said. "If I'm going to be traded and spend two more years somewhere then it's real important as to where that is.

"So much of it depends on how I feel. A lot can change obviously, but from my standpoint, I haven't really made up my mind beyond pitching next year."

Yancy Street Gang
Jul 06 2005 09:55 AM

Maybe Glavine can go to Baltimore?

Edgy DC
Jul 06 2005 09:55 AM

]I'd take Carlos in a fraction of a heartbeat.


Yeah, but I'm not asking who you'd take, or what their peripherals project. I'm just narrowly pointing out that you wouldn't have been so screwed this year if you had Victor instead of Carlos.

From this point on certainly looks better for Carlos, to say nothing of his performance last year while Victor was disabled. (Carlos went 6-2, 2.37 in 83 2/3 innings after the trade deadline.)

But I'm still going to give credit where it's due.

Frayed Knot
Jul 06 2005 10:06 AM

I wish someone with actual info would spell out the story with Glavine's option.
The way I read it, it kicks in wtih 'X' numbers of innings pitched over the 2003-2005 seasons AND 200 IPs in '05. In other words, if he doesn't reach that 200 plateau this year (and he's slightly off it) then next year becomes a mutual option (w/a buyout if not picked up) not a guarantee.
If it's 'X' innings OR 200 this season then that's a different story.

If the 200 IPs is reached, then the contract kicks in a various price
levels depending on the total 2003-2005 IPs.
560 total + 200 this year = $6.5mil,
580 + 200 = somewhere in the $8.5 - 9.0 range
600 + 200 = $10.5mil (the max amount).

Whether that option is definite, only somewhat likely, or not probable could make a big difference as to how easy he'd be to deal.

smg58
Jul 06 2005 10:09 AM

The Mets do need hitting more than pitching, but I don't see where a real second ace would hurt if the Mets could get one.

Plus, it's not clear what's out there, and the pickings so far appear to be slim. I've already given my opinions on Dunn, and I'm not sure what other hitters out there would command more attention. I can understand why Minaya was interested in Sheffield, even if the Mets are probably better off not going there. Sean Casey would help, but he wouldn't put us near the top, much less over it.

Which brings us to pitchers. If the Mets could trade some quantity for quality, that would be ideal, but who? It would have to be someone they'd control next season, so anybody in their contract year is out. I'd be willing to gamblle that Jason Schmidt will be the old Jason Schmidt by April, but I'm not convinced he'd help us now, and the Giants may ask for the moon.

As for whom to trade? Well, we'll have eight guys capable of being in some team's rotation once Trachsel gets back. The Mets don't need to get much for Glavine if somebody else pays his salary next season. I'd like to see Ishii work out of the pen before I did anything with him, unless somebody surprises me with a good offer for him. You couldn't trade Zambrano for "B" prospects, for obvious reasons, but I'd consider packaging him to get a clearly better pitcher on this level. I see no point in keeping Seo if you can't find room for him up here; deal him while he has value.

smg58
Jul 06 2005 10:16 AM

The escalators on Glavine's salary require 200 IP this year; at the halfway point he's at 96. He could make 200 if he pitches even a little better, but would that be good for the Mets or bad?

PatchyFogg
Jul 06 2005 11:19 AM

Last night, Buster Olney told me on my show that he thinks the "Surprise Guy That's Available" is Soriano, and that the Mets will "go hard" on him--and Reyes would "have to be" part of the deal.

He also had a good line on the Mets trades last year: Their moves "didn't buy them a second longer of contention time."

cooby
Jul 06 2005 11:21 AM

I would not trade Reyes for anybody

Yancy Street Gang
Jul 06 2005 11:21 AM

I don't mind them probing Soriano.

I don't like the idea of Reyes being part of that deal.

Didn't we have this same discussion two years ago?

seawolf17
Jul 06 2005 11:23 AM

I would not, under any circumstances, deal Reyes for Soriano. I would deal Diaz, Heilman, Seo, Cameron, Glavine, Daubach, David Cone, Juan Samuel, Scott Kazmir, Victor Zambrano, a box of Robert Alomar bobbleheads, and Fred Wilpon's left nut for Soriano; but I would not deal Reyes.

I think Glavine's option vests earlier than 200 IP this year, because it also vests if he pitches a certain number of innings over the three years, and he's a lot closer than that. I think it's somewhere around 165 IP that locks the option this year.

Rotblatt
Jul 06 2005 11:25 AM

="smg58"]You couldn't trade Zambrano for "B" prospects, for obvious reasons, but I'd consider packaging him to get a clearly better pitcher on this level.


What are the obvious reasons?

I mean, the most obvious reason is that it would hurt us in the PR department, but IMO, every time Kazmir pitches without getting hurt or outperforms Zambrano in any given start, we're going to take a PR hit anyway.

If we can get a valuable prospect from him in return (and I definitely consider B prospects valuable), why not take our lumps and deal with whatever fallout we get?

Zambrano's ERA is tasty right now and I suspect several GMs will look at that, his career W-L record, and his salary and think "We got ourselves a gamer here," which, after all, is what a lot of us seem to think too. Maybe we can get 2 B prospects or a B prospect and a slumping youngster with upside. Hell, maybe even an A one.

It's my personal opion that gameness aside, Zambrano's not going to be able to keep up the Houdini act any more than Glavine or Leiter did last year. Wouldn't we be happier right now had we traded Glavine last year after his amazing April-June (ERA in mid 2's, WHIP in low 1's, but no K's) for a B prospect? And estatic if we had gotten an A prospect for Al last June (low 2's in ERA, low 1's in WHIP, but low K's and high BB)?

They both crashed and burned the rest of the season, and it was totally predictable for each of them. Zambrano's value might not get much higher than it is now, and we have about three replacements for him waiting in the wings.

Hell, if we could blow up the bottom 3/5 of our starting rotation and start over using Heilman & Seo, I'd be estatic. Not that Benson's K rate is much better (4.85 K/9 overall and 1.97in June.), but at least he's keeping the walks down.

I realize that trading off 2 or 3 of our starting pitchers would make us look like we're giving up, but I honestly believe that our other options--Heilman & Seo--are superior to Zambrano & Ishii and will help us even in the short run. Depending on how Trachsel looks in his rehab starts, I'd guess that he'd be better than Glavine down the stretch as well.

If we have to keep one of Glavine, Ishii & Zambrano, I'd keep Zambrano, but I really don't think he should be untouchable just because we made a retarded trade for him, especially when we have other options.

metirish
Jul 06 2005 11:27 AM

]He also had a good line on the Mets trades last year: Their moves "didn't buy them a second longer of contention time."


IIRC The Mets lost 3 of 4 after the trades, patchy I can't get your station from Westchester County, are you on the 'net by any chance, your guest list is impressive.

Say no to any deal that includes Reyes.

Frayed Knot
Jul 06 2005 11:31 AM

]I think Glavine's option vests earlier than 200 IP this year, because it also vests if he pitches a certain number of innings over the three years, and he's a lot closer than that. I think it's somewhere around 165 IP that locks the option this year.


Except that everything I read says 'X' innings over the 3 year period AND 200 this year, not either/or ... which certainly implies that the 165 this year only satisfies half the equation.

What's frustrating is that with all the info floating around these days I've yet to hear anyone definitively state the correct answer to this one.

Rotblatt
Jul 06 2005 11:32 AM

Ugh. Reyes for Soriano would be terrible. Soriano's stats look nice this season, but it's all about Arlington. His splits:

Home
.325 AVG/.356 OBP/.693 SLG/1.050 OPS

Away
.222 AVG/.257 OBP/.370 SLG/.628 OPS.

Plus, he should still be moved out of 2B into the outfield, and his total .840 OPS wouldn't be an upgrade for us.

I'd stay away from Soriano alltogether. He's one of those "He's a former Yankee, so he must be good" guys.

sharpie
Jul 06 2005 11:37 AM

Agreed. That would also leave us without a viable starting shortstop.

smg58
Jul 07 2005 10:28 AM

I'm not sure why Texas would make that deal if they stayed in the wild card hunt, and unless the Mets really like Anderson Hernandez, I'm not sure why they'd do it either.

Given the ballpark boost, Soriano actually hasn't been all that good since he left the Bronx. Stay away.

However, if the Mets really do like Anderson Hernandez, and Reyes can get us somebody really good (i.e., better than Soriano), I'm for it at this point. Reyes hasn't shown any improvement over what he did last year when his season kept getting interrupted. He might never have more value than he has now, and I wouldn't say no out of hand if somebody asks.

I wanted to clarify something on Zambrano while I'm at it. I absolutely agree that he has his maximum value right now, and yes I'd listen to offers. I just wouldn't expect the Mets to deal him for a prospect who doesn't have comparable stature to Kazmir.