MILLEDGE TRADE

by MAN in the BOX on May 2, 2008 2:26 PM EDT Comment 17 comments

I know this topic has probably been visited many a time, but i'm new to this Mets page so I figured i'd re-visit it. I use to run a fansite on myspace called Mets Nation. Well I got rid of the site this past offseason, cause I just couldn't keep up with it. I do remember a lot of Mets fans cursing the Mets for trading Milledge. Well I just wanna get a feel from Mets fans a month in to the season. My opinion is that we got the better end of the deal. I love Ryan Church! Hell I said that right after the deal. I really wasn't high on Scheidner, but he's played pretty well despite the freak injuries he's been having lately. As for Milledge, I think he will be no better then Preston Wilson. I never saw all the hype. I actually ain't on board with the F-Mart hype yet either. The guy that will make strides will be Mr. Mike Carp. Mark my words. Well that's a different topic all together. So sound off on what your take is on the Milledge trade up to this point.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

WHY ALL CAPS?

We’ve discussed the trade many times here. Here are a few samples just from a quick search:

http://www.amazinavenue.com/story/2007/12/4/222158/335
http://www.amazinavenue.com/2008/4/10/391505/lastings-milledge-2008

For my part I continue to think the trade was a horrible one, and wish Lastings the best. Even considering that the organization had so clearly soured on Milledge, they should’ve been able to do better in return than the useful but not-getting-any-better Church and the useless Schneider. A single month of play is not evidence against Milledge’s great potential (the kid has superstar upside and, honestly, not much worse than Church as a worst-case scenario), and he ought to have been worth another A or A- caliber young player in return.

by anonymous on May 2, 2008 2:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why all Caps? I don’t know whenever i’ve typed a blog the Headline is always in caps. Does it really matter?

by MAN in the BOX on May 2, 2008 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yea, just avoid them

Makes it look like you’re yelling. I understand that some other sites post titles in all caps, but try to avoid doing so here if possible.

I argued at the time - and will continue to do so - that the trade conceivably would help the Mets in 2008 and/or 2009 (i.e. the Mets would be better with Church/Schneider than Milledge/Estrada), but that it was a terribly short-sighted move that would likely haunt the Mets as soon as 2009 and almost certainly beyond.

by Eric Simon on May 2, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a problem Eric. Thanks for your take.

by MAN in the BOX on May 2, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My take

I would have loved to see the Mets get a little more in return for Milledge. That said, I really like Church as well and feel he is a huge upgrade over Shawn Green, who everyone seems to forget was the right fielder last year, not Milledge.
As too Lastings’s poteintal I do see it, but I think Church will make people forget the trade quicker then Victor Zambrano did the worst trade in Mets history.

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

by sireric on May 2, 2008 3:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I think we’re in complete agreement that the Milledge trade, while potentially a very bad one for the Mets, doesn’t even come close to the Kazmir level of awfulness and probably shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same breath (we can revisit this when Lastings composes his HOF induction speech in 2030). The ‘08 Mets, at least, got no worse, and possibly somewhat better, as a result of this trade.

by anonymous on May 2, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention

Kazmir wanted to be a Met – I seem to remember him crying (along with countless numbers of fans) when he got traded away. Or being upset, something.

Milledge was a “clubhouse cancer,” and you can take that however you want it. But at least the Mets had a (bogus) reason for trading him for less than market value.

When asked why I was a Mets fan, I responded, "pain is my lifeblood."

by wrightHOF on May 3, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

While the trade worked out I felt we should have been able to have gotten Church and Schneider for less than Milledge.

And can we really say this is a win as a trade? It’s not just about April, or even 2008…but the years to come. If Church keeps this up we’re not missing Milledge any. But it’s not even halfway through this season…lets lay off the victory ganja and think we won this trade.

"I got my pregnant wife (the Yankee fan) with me. Hoping my kid learns to kick her everytime the Mets score." -Schifftis-

by future on May 2, 2008 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Preston Wilson

If Milledge becomes Wilson, we probably lost this deal.

And we didn’t get Mike Piazza in exchange for Milledge, either.

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on May 2, 2008 7:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

How do you figure? Presten Wilson was at best an average to above average player.

Career Numbers:

(1998-2007)
Hits 1055
Home runs 189
Batting average .264

Those don’t exactly jump off the page. I think when it’s all said and done the trade will be a wash.

by MAN in the BOX on May 2, 2008 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Wilson gave his teams 6 years of ball where his OPS+ was over 100. Assuming Milledge equals Wilson, he’ll be an above average player until he’s 29. If Church gives us those kind of seasons until he’s 35, I would be surprised.
That’s the argument. Church is definitely better than Milledge right now, but the difference was never good enough to trade away a 23 year old for a 29 year old. Unless you view Church as the missing piece to a championship, I don’t know how you could view this trade as a win yet.

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on May 2, 2008 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is no way of me proving this...

but you’ll just have to trust I am telling the truth (or not.)

When they made this trade I was dubious at first. Then I started thinking. Then I did some research.

IMO, the trade was eerily similar to the Paul O’Neill for Roberto (Bobby) Kelly swap.

The Mets traded a young, 5-tool CF for a late 20s, strong-armed, LH hitting OF with a rep for not being able to hit lefties. While Church does not have as lengthy a body of work as O’Neill did at the time, their stats in their pre-trade seasons are quite similar. The only difference was they didn’t swap leagues.

I liked Milledge when he was here, and I think Willie did an awful job developing him. I wished him nothing but success in DC. However, for all his 5 tools, I do not believe he has one superlative tool among them. When you think about it, the players who become true stars are the ones with a superlative tool or two (or 5 if you’re ARod or Griffey.) Think about it. Who would you rather have: Manny or Jose Guillen? Guillen probably has more “tools”, but Manny’s one tool, hitting (ok, this is technically 2 tools – hitting for power and average), is off the charts. (Let me make clear, I do not think Church has any superlative tools himself… just talking about Milledge here.)

So that was my take at the time. Sad to see Millz go, but not devastated and intrigued to see what Church could do with a full time gig. But I do agree, we sold low on Millz, and probably didn’t need to deal him to land Church (imagine if we had both?)

by SQUAD on May 7, 2008 12:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Completely Agree on O'Neill

I think this trade is very similar. O’Neill turned into an above avg RF with the Yankees while Kelly ended up having some solid years but kept bouncing around. I wouldn’t be shocked to see this trade work out similarly.

Incidentally, I really like Church. He is a solid hitter and terrific defender. So far, this trade looks like a good one.

by millsy on May 17, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I liked the trade

Once I did a bit of research and realized how good Church was defensively, I really liked the trade. When you factor in defense, Church was a top 10 overall left fielder, and Schneider in the top half of starting catchers. The one thing I was uncertain of was whether Church would be as good in RF as LF, but he’s apparently an even better fit in RF.

I saw Church vs. Milledge as almost a wash, as I don’t see Milledge having the upside to ever be much better than Church is now (maybe Church with a bit more speed), and I saw Schneider as a very valuable commodity. I’ve been wanting a catcher like Schneider here for years.

I thought the biggest problem with the makeup of last years team was that it was almost all guys who were older than 32 or younger than 26. If you want to win anytime soon, you need some productive players in their primes, from ages 27-32. Schneider is near the older end of that scale, but he should still be a productive player for about as long as Beltran.

Given the needs and makeup of the team, this was just a great team building trade. You upgraded 2 positions from last year, and improved the chemistry of the club, and in my view, didn’t give up any of your best trading chips (Milledge in my view ranked behind Pelfrey, Martinez, Gomez, Guerra, and Mulvey as far as players any good GM would be asking for from the Mets).

by acerimusdux on May 12, 2008 11:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs