Minaya Doesn't Feel Like He Has to Make a Trade

by Eric Simon on Dec 3, 2007 8:26 PM EST in Rumor Mill Comment 55 comments

In spite of all of the rumors swirling around, Omar Minaya isn't so sure the Mets are going to make a big splash this winter.

"You get in trouble when you feel you have to make a trade. You make a trade only if it makes sense. I don't feel like we have to make a trade."

He has a point. The Mets are probably a better team than they were when 2007 ended, and the Phillies haven't gotten any better. The Braves have marginally improved their personnel, though their youngsters could be expected to improve naturally.

Having said that, the Mets would be remiss if they didn't at least inquire about available arms like Erik Bedard and Dan Haren. Just because you don't have to make a trade doesn't mean you don't take the opportunity to improve your team for this year and beyond.

[LoHud]

0 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

well they didn't

make the playoffs last year, Philly did and they have to make up 200 reasonably solid innings they lost with Glavine. The Mets are an older team than both Philly and Atlanta and not getting any younger. Also, the Braves will have Texeira for the entire year and have a much better farm system to replenish their team. Now their offense doesn't look to good, their starting pitching is thin and the bullpen except for Wagner sucks. Based upon what they have now do you favor the Mets to win the division. I sure don't

Save America. Impeach Bush

by elifriedman on Dec 3, 2007 9:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well

They finished one game shy of the playoffs last year, they will have Pedro Martinez for far longer than they did last year, they will have a full season of Castillo at second instead of the dried up husk of Jose Valentin, they will have Ryan Church in right instead of Shawn Green, they will have Castro/Schneider behind the plate instead of Lo Duca, they still have a formidable back of the bullpen with Wagner, Heilman and Feliciano.

The Mets' starting pitching is decidedly *not* thin, unless you mean health-wise, in which case you may have an argument. Health aside, a top four of Pedro, Maine, Perez and Hernandez is quite good. Delgado should rebound somewhat, Wright and Reyes should continue to improve.

I realize you are our resident pessimist, but there is a lot more to be optimistic about this team than not.

by Eric Simon on Dec 3, 2007 9:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe you're right Eric

One shy of the playoffs is only a small part of the story isn't it considering the ridiculous collapse in September. Try not to kid a kidder.

but you make many assumptions. I don't think there is an upgrade at catcher. If you're depending on Duque as your 4th starter we're in big trouble. Reyes should "continue" to improve. He has much to do to bring him back to early 2006 and early 2007 form. Why should Delgado rebound and what about Castillo's health. I don't think they have a better than average back of the bullpen and are lousy in the middle.

Save America. Impeach Bush

by elifriedman on Dec 3, 2007 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

we're better now

addition by subtraction. but health will be a big concern, as alou, pedro, duque and castill etc are big risks.

by kendynamo on Dec 3, 2007 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

how

is our bullpen not above average? pedro dos, heilman, wagner?
their average WHIP is like 1.1. pretty damn good

by gogomets on Dec 4, 2007 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

dirty

should be back too...

by citimetro on Dec 4, 2007 8:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Lousy in the middle"?

And which clubs do have top-flight middle relief? That would be none. The league-wide state of pitching is such that no team has more than 3 truly reliable relievers. So any team is crossing its fingers when it goes to the pen in the 6th inning or earlier--and some of them do so in the 7th, 8th or 9th, too.

IMHO it's less important to worry about who's going to relieve in the 5th or 6th inning than to find starters who can consistently go 6+.

by madisonmetsfan on Dec 4, 2007 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I Agree with Eric

Having Pedro healthy for a full season automatically makes us better plus he is likely to be stronger next season as the healing process from shoulder surgery continues. I was really happy to see Pedro look close to the 2005 version upon his return even being able to hum a few in the low 90s when needed. That is very encouraging.

Also, I am not totally ready to give up on Pelfrey being a good starter. He showed some flashes in Sept and if he can string together some consistent outings we have the makings of a solid rotation. I am worried about the pen, especially the middle relief, but that is always a crapshoot. Hopefully Joe Smith will develop - he was rushed considering he was pitching for Brooklyn in 2006 - and maybe pick up another solid guy.

I still think this team needs work but it is not as bad as some make it seem.

by millsy on Dec 4, 2007 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do

Right off the bat, Reyes, Wright and Beltran are up there with any other team's top 3 position players. And right now certainly better than Atlanta's Teixera, Chipper and...?

Now, our big 3 are pretty much on par with the Phillies big 3 of Rollins, Utley and Howard, but the Mets have a deeper rotation and, until we know what to expect from Lidge, a clearly better bullpenn.

Of course that's pretty off the cuff analysis but it's December, and there's no reason to think they won't be right in the running.

by Nick T on Dec 3, 2007 9:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm.

I can think of one trade that doesn't make sense, that the Mets didn't have to make, a few days ago. Can we get a time machine here, so the suddenly enlightened and patient Present-Day Omar can go back and inform Past Omar about this principle?

by anonymous on Dec 3, 2007 10:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That said

I'm reading from Rotoworld the Mets are "close" for Bedard.

I'm really freaking crossing my fingers it doesn't include a swapping of shortstops.

I mean.... is this the same guy who if he doesn't get traded to another team is guaranteed to become a free agent?

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on Dec 3, 2007 11:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

shortstops?

Don't say that. Don't even think that.

by anonymous on Dec 3, 2007 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

omar

if omar didn't 'have' to make a trade then why the hell did he ship milledge off for schnieder and church? he already made a splash it was just in a bad way.

by kendynamo on Dec 3, 2007 11:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree here

Who does he think hes fooling. He just made a trade like that. Two average older players for a possible budding superstar. This ones going to bite him.

by sincethebeginning on Dec 4, 2007 8:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's relax a bit

with calling Milledge a budding superstar. I agree with you all that he certainly does have that kind of potential, but it's not like he came up like gangbusters.

Hunter Pence, Ryan Braun, and even Jacoby Ellsbury all came up and showed more, in my opinion, than Milledge did.

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 9:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Superstar? Not in RFK.

Milledge doesn't have the power to consistently clear the fences in DC (few do), so don't be too surprised if he puts up home numbers like .250 BA, 5-10 HR this year if he plays every day. The Nats are probably hoping he blossoms when they move to their new park. He may, but one never knows for sure.

by madisonmetsfan on Dec 4, 2007 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RFK = RIP

The Nationals are done with RFK. They are playing in their new ballpark this year. I don't know if it has a name yet. I also have no idea about the dimensions, but I'm guessing it won't be as big as RFK.

We've got ourselves a ball club, the Mets of New York town!

by kingcritical on Dec 4, 2007 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just looked for articles

couldnt find anything on the new nats stadium dimensions but definitely remember reading that its going to be much friendlier than RFK. not a CBP bandbox but enough to 'normalize' washington's stats, which i think had been second worst for hitting in the NL after san diego. milledge will do fine there.

by kendynamo on Dec 4, 2007 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dimensions:

Dimensions: Left field: 332 ft.; left-center: 377 feet; center field: 409 feet; right-center: 370 feet; right field: 335 feet.

Fences: Left field: 8 feet; center field: 12 feet; right field: 12 feet.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I said possible

But its funny we'll never really know since he never had a full time chance here. So i'm saying now that hes going to get that chance i'll bet you'll be another one those people complaining about this trade if he turns out to be good.

Another thing that gets me is why they waited to trade him now. Its almost as if the mets said hey lets platoon him so he has no chance of settling in and his numbers go down then lets trade when his value is very low. Stupid move.This guy never had a chance. Lastings Milledge has very raw talent and will most likely grow into at least a very good player. Those guys you mention may not stay that way and in fact most dont. Every year there are players who are unexpectendly good only to either never hear from them again or to just go on and have very average or below average careers.

Its the talent and the time to develop that turns out the good ones.

by sincethebeginning on Dec 4, 2007 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Then you don't know me very well...

I've wanted Milledge to start in RF since the Mets traded Nady. They jerked him around too much and never really gave him a fair shake, imo. It's kind of like the Heath Bell situation (who is also always liked), but worse, because Milledge has a lot of talent and produced all through the minors.

But facts are facts. His value has dropped, plummeted even. He played well when given a shot, but nothing to knock my socks off. I under stand why this deal was made, and Ryan Church is a fine OF. Maybe this is our Roberto Kelly for Paul O'Neil trade (hat tip to a poster on Think Factory.) And at the very least, I feel like the trade helps improve the team in two areas over the '07 team.

In the end, there are is a wide range of outcomes for this kid. Everyone is so quick to say there is a very good chance that he will turn out to be very good, but he could be anywhere from Quentin McCracken to Gary Sheffield, or someone in between like Mondesi or Encarnacion. There was a time when I had high hopes for Victor DIaz as an MLB hitter.

So no, I won't complain if Milledge fulfills his careers ZIPS projections, because I always liked him and had hoped he would be the starting RF this season. I never said I loved this trade, just that I understand it. It helps the team this year, while not hurting them in the future. It's pretty obvious now that they favor Gomez and Martinez over Lastings.

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Age

All those guys are two years older than Lastings. Keep grasping for straws, bro.

Better luck next time!

by vonhayes on Dec 4, 2007 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair point...

But what happens if the Mets hold onto Stings and he doesn't pan out. Then he's Ben Johnson and worthless. Probably worth less. At least Ben can play D.

No one wants to even consider Lastings doesn't make it.

Again, I think he will become a good player, but it doesn't mean he will. More guys flame out than make it.

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

players

that put his numbers at age 22 almost always become productive major league players. He's about as sure a bet as you can be at that age.

Keep Lastings Milledge Free

by DoctorK16 on Dec 4, 2007 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

which is why

sincethebeginning said "POSSIBLE budding superstar"

by Josh on Dec 4, 2007 10:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Come on, you're mincing words now...

"Possible" budding superstar. That doesn't even make sense when you think about it. You're either a budding superstar or you're not. How do you define a "possible" budding superstar.

Perhaps he meant possible superstar, which makes a bit more sense.

There are valid arguments to be made for and against Milledge, it's just that those who are in the pro-Milledge camp don't want to listen to the other side.

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The main thing is Church sucks

Even if Milledge isn't a superstar, and he's about league average for his entire career, he will still equal Church's productivity next year, and then far surpass it in every season after that.

If we had gotten Bedard, no one would be complaining.

Also, you're forgetting that park factors and adjustments exist. If Milledge, or anyone else playing at RFK (which doesn't exist), had a 150 OPS+, he'd be just as valuable as Matt Holliday, even if the raw numbers weren't the same.

by vonhayes on Dec 4, 2007 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Newsflash!

Milledge was not getting us Bedard. If he could, don't you think Omar would have made that trade?

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To be honest, I'm not sure at this point

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on Dec 4, 2007 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Too many obnoxious know it alls

I don't even know why I bother.

Church sucks. Yea, 43 doubles, he really sucks. I know, I know COUNTING STAT!!!! Fine, check out Neyer's assessment. His OPS+ over the last few years has been over 100... while not superstar status, it'll do. Especially since he is a defensive upgrade over both Green and Milledge.

It's just mind boggling how there is a contingency of people on this site and others who just refuse to even give any credence to the other side of this trade.

All people want to do is analyze this trade in a vacuum, regurgitate numbers, and point to age. The reality is Church and Schneider improve the team next year while not hurting the long term prospects since both Gomez and Martinez have leap frogged Milledge in the Mets' and other teams' eyes.

But no, these things don't compute. No matter what the numbers say, if Church and Schneider come in and perform to their career averages, the trade works isn't that bad. The Kazmir deal this is not.

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 3:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

career averages

Players capable of performing to Church and Schneider's career averages can be obtained without trading away one of your better prospects.

by Josh on Dec 4, 2007 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're assuming...

Milledge was one of our better prospects.

This is the point I've been trying to make.

I think he was, you think he was, a lot of us think he was.

But Minaya and the rest of baseball may not agree.

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

being new

I've recently discovered that it's better not to argue. You can make all the good points that you want, and you're either being absurd or pointing out useless stats. Most mets fans are pesimists due to the poor history of this team. You're better off just keeping it to yourself. Unless you like being a straight up dick.

If you gonna act like a fool, I'm gonna treat you like a fool....Fool ~Judge Greg T. Mathis~

by sireric on Dec 4, 2007 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

obnoxious not it alls?

Dude you sound like a straight up dick

Keep Lastings Milledge Free

by DoctorK16 on Dec 4, 2007 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"he is a defensive upgrade"

Did he play any rightfield last year?

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on Dec 4, 2007 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why was RF defense all of sudden so

important anyway, we watched Shawn Green glacially move to fly balls all year

Keep Lastings Milledge Free

by DoctorK16 on Dec 4, 2007 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There you go...

Minaya identified a problem with last year's team and addressed it. I doubt any Mets fan was happy with Green's defense.

Church is a better all around player than Shawn Green. That's pretty hard to argue against.

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you can't be single-minded

when it comes to discussing a baseball trade when is it ever safe to do so. Stop using terms like obnoxious to describe those of us who hate the trade. I recall right after the Kazmir trade was made many were saying you have to wait and see at least a couple of years before you can evaluate a trade. The real problem I have with the trade is that I'm convinced that the trade was made in large part on issues that had little to do with talent but lots to do with image and PR. However, I think enough has been said. We should wait and see how things turn out.

Save America. Impeach Bush

by elifriedman on Dec 4, 2007 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose

being called obnoxious isn't cool, but it's alright to call someone a dick? How about don't call those of us who don't think this trade was horrible dick's.

If you gonna act like a fool, I'm gonna treat you like a fool....Fool ~Judge Greg T. Mathis~

by sireric on Dec 4, 2007 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I called him a dick

because he called the dissenters on this ridiculous trade obnoxious. We're having a debate, the name calling on his part wasn't called for.

Keep Lastings Milledge Free

by DoctorK16 on Dec 4, 2007 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

splitting some serious hairs

If your having a serious debate and not just whinning then you don't mind a little back and forth. One shouldn't get to offended when being called obnoxious.

If you gonna act like a fool, I'm gonna treat you like a fool....Fool ~Judge Greg T. Mathis~

by sireric on Dec 4, 2007 6:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Really

Then one should be too offended when I call one a dick, now should you. Or a dumb fuck? Or an asshole? Or douchebag? Whats a little name calling among friends right.

Keep Lastings Milledge Free

by DoctorK16 on Dec 4, 2007 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever...

I could care less if someone on a message board calls me a dick. If that's how I come across, then maybe I deserve to be called a dick.

I just call it like I see it. Some of the posters on here act holier than thou with regard to their opinions and are obnoxious to those with a dissenting opinion.

The way you guys treat any new posters or those with contrary opinions is eerily similar to how Milledge was treated in the Mets clubhouse.

I'm waiting for someone to respond to my post with "Know your place, Rook!!"

Ok, now that I got my snarky response out of the way can we just drop this grade school silliness and get back to debating the merits of the Omar era?

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No,

I called the people who belittle the opposite side obnoxious.

There is a difference between dissenting and posting snide one liners when someone is making an earnest effort to explain why this trade makes sense.

The funny thing is that I personally would prefer to have kept Lastings, but when I objectively look at the trade I can't say it's terrible.

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I said what I said and stand by it...

Didn't mean to offend anyone, but anyone who defends the trade gets slammed even though they use actual statistical information and rationale for *understanding* the deal (note I didn't say defending or liking) when those on the dissenting side have used a fair amount of conjecture and tea leaf reading to defend their side.

Case in point:

"I'm convinced that the trade was made in large part on issues that had little to do with talent but lots to do with image and PR."

How do you know that? Do you have sources in the front office? There is no way to confirm this point of view and in reality it doesn't really make sense. The Mets DRAFTED him with image and PR issues... so why dump him when he's ready to contribute to the big league club?

"Milledge is about as sure bet at his age as there is"

While this is probably a correct assumption, the fact is there is no way of knowing if he will in fact turn out to be a productive MLB player for sure. You can give me all the projections in the world, but there is no such thing as a can't miss. As someone mentioned either above or in another thread, there are plenty of guys who have great first years only to fizzle out. Todd Hollandsworth anybody?

And lastly, I see comparisons stating that Milledge and Church had similar years last year. While those rate stats are nice and may be telling, Church did it over 400+ atbats while Milledge did it over 200+. We have no idea how Milledge would do over the course of 162 games after the league has a chance to get a book on him. Church has proven to be able to handle this. Whether or not you regard it as overwhelming proof, it's a larger body of work than Milledge has.

In short, I feel like any time there is a contrary opinion, the dissenting committee swings by and beats the poster over the head, overwhelming him/her with stats and counter arguments. Or, someone just posts something like "nice try buddy, Church sucks!!"

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

184

Milledge only had 184 at bats, not 200+. I agree with you 100% and I didn't call you an asshole or anything, isn't this a nice INTELLEGENT conversation.

If you gonna act like a fool, I'm gonna treat you like a fool....Fool ~Judge Greg T. Mathis~

by sireric on Dec 4, 2007 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was rounding up...

I appreciate the help though.

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Counter-Arguments

Saying that we don't know if what Milledge could do in more at bats is a circular argument. Maybe we'd know if Willomar had found the extra abs for him in 2008. It's likely he'd be no worse than Shawn Green. Of course we don't know what Milledge will do in the future, that's why he's a prospect. You give him the chance to play, or you trade him for someone who we already don't know is mediocre or worse(Schidner). Considering his minor league performance and his live bat this year in the majors, he's a a good bet to improve. Could he be Hollandsworth, who despite his flaws is a serviceable major leaguer, on the bottom side of his range yes. He also could be freaking Gary Sheffield If you don't think that the supposed personality issues that everyone whines about with Milledge A)didn't kill his value, B)play at least a partial role in this trade, I really don't know what to tell you. This was a kid that people wanted in trades for Manny Ramirez and even Dan Haren, now he's only worth a catcher than can't hit and a so-so corner OF who's 29 already. Nobody here bashed you, anonymous I believed asked for further explanation, most of the Mets fans I seen/talked are appealed by this deal. You presented a contrary argument, and then called everybody obnoxious for challenging that argument.

Keep Lastings Milledge Free

by DoctorK16 on Dec 4, 2007 9:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's frustrating, I agree...

But we need to remember a few things.

He was never going to dealt straight up for anyone of the caliber discussed. It would have always been as part of a package.
His value has dropped, precipitously, in the past 24 months.

There was talk that Beane had no interest in him anymore.

I'm not making the argument that off-field stuff didn't influence this trade, all I'm saying is that there is no way of us knowing if it did, and if so, how much. All we can do is assume.

Same thing for how we project him. I agree with you, Milledge seems like a fairly safe prospect to project, but it's still just a projection. It is impossible to deny that his final stats are influenced a lot by his favorable splits vs. LHers.

My whole point about posters being obnoxious is that those trying to play devil's advocate and explain the other side of this deal were pooh poohed as being "wrong" or swept aside with proclamations that are just speculation. Regardless of how strong the speculation may be, it's still not rock solid fact.

To just brush aside a dissenting opinion with statements of: "Well, Milledge is going to be just as good as Church next season and the only reason this deal went down is because off the field stuff" as if its gospel is a tad obnoxious. Because there is no way of knowing the former or proving the latter.

Also, there was a complete lack of even considering whether Milledge's fall from grace came from him being exposed as less than what we all assumed he was. The common response was, but in 184 atbats his rate stats were.... and for a 22 year old that's... and players his age project like so...

And I'm not ragging on that stuff, it's all great stuff... I love that stuff.

Anyway, I have no idea what I'm trying to say. I was just shocked that no one seemed interested at all in any kind of intelligent discussion on the topic. It's not like we traded Miguel Cabrera away... those poor poor Marlins fans.

by SQUAD on Dec 4, 2007 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

uhh

"We have no idea how Milledge would do over the course of 162 games after the league has a chance to get a book on him."

Why do you think we don't know that? The Mets screwed up with Milledge in more than one way. The fact that they still want Proven Veterans over potential is scary to me.

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on Dec 4, 2007 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

also

Duquette drafted Milledge not Minaya, so maybe Duquette didn't care but Omar(and his manager Willie) did.

Keep Lastings Milledge Free

by DoctorK16 on Dec 4, 2007 10:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

furthermore

Duquette drafted him before the statutory rape allegations, he might have dropped had those been known at the time.

Keep Lastings Milledge Free

by DoctorK16 on Dec 4, 2007 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Phew

Man. Gotta love debates. Anyway, what are you going to do. We need to get over it. Lasto is gone, and (i dont care what his potential is) if he performs, we can all slap minaya (In my personal opinion, It was the Wilpons that forced Minaya's hand to move Millege because of his image) and milledge becomes mediocry or Our new teamates are good, then we can sing Minaya's praises.

"As for 1966--oy. Chilcott was a catcher who never reached the majors. The number two pick was held by the Kansas City A's. They picked Reggie Jackson"

by NewMet5 on Dec 4, 2007 9:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

In the immortal words of Rodney King

can't we all get along. Well maybe not he was recently shot on the street. Anyway, how about a point of agreement. Let's not get rid of players because they right rap music or play loud, rock music in the clubhouse or smoke a joint every now and then. I would be happy if decisions were made because of talent and chemistry and not perceived personality shortcomings. I know ballplayers make lots of money and I don't mean this in a purely racial sense, but the mets brass have a bit of a plantation mentality.

Save America. Impeach Bush

by elifriedman on Dec 4, 2007 9:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs