The first comment from it though is kind of depressing:

Only thing that would make if funnier would be if the Atlanta rep said something like the following: "He sucks so much we tried to pawn him off on the Royals, but they decided to go with a sucky first baseman from the Marlins instead".

Sadly, they were able to pawn him off on us. Does that make us worse than the Royals???

I can only assume they operate in some bizarro world of contract negotiations where they try to get the best deal for the player, and say “Screw the Mets!”

The Mets have no reason to consider marrying Frenchy. The team has every reason to fear a relapse to worst-player-in-the-league territory. On the other hand, finding a league average corner OF (which is what Frenchy was in NY, regardless of whether he can duplicate the feat) without giving up much is not as easy as it sounds. If the FO is serious about potentially adding a Holiday, a Crawford, or some other OF bat a Frenchy/Pagan platoon in right is less likely to result in heaving and retching on my part.

Anything they spend on Frenchy beyond what you specify probably means this FO didn’t learn anything from the Opie fiasco last off-season.

   I was happy with the trade when it occured as it involved two underperforming outfielders who needed a change of geography and might benefit from it. Personally I can’t quite understand the total LOVE/HATE feelings Francouer generates from otherwise rational people, but I like the tone of the article. Francouer did a decent job and provided a much needed spark to a team that looked like the cast of “Night of the Living Dead”. He isn’t talentless, but he isn’t a great player either and he obviously has issues that need addressing. That said, the Mets don’t have sufficient talent or money to address everything wrong with the team currently and even if they did, Omar and Jerry would negate the effort until they’re dismissed. But Francouer showed enough, in my opinion, to be worth bringing back for next season to see if he’s interested or able to minimize his negatives, while continuing to expand his positives. I don’t see a need for a long-term contract at this point, and think given the horrible record of the current Mets’ administration, they’d be better off paying up for him in a longer-term deal AFTER a successful 2010 campaign or parting ways with him if he regresses. The look-see for next year I think is worth it however.

    I think what’s missing in your statistical analysis is the “gerbil effect”. I don’t think Manuel was going to allow Church to reach his potential, wasn’t going to play him consistantly and seemed all too quick to undercut him. I’m not bashing Church, but he didn’t perform in a superior fashion after the trade and while he was at one time a very capable player, I’m not sure quite what to think of him now.
      Meanwhile Francoeur’s lack of walks contributing to a low OBP is a negative, but his increased slugging over Church and driving in of runs probably complemented the exisiting talent (people like Castillo and Wright who were getting on base but not being driven in to result in runs) better than Church was doing. This doesn’t make him an all star by any means, but I don’t see the results making him clearly inferior to Ryan Church at this point either. Either way, while I think bringing him back makes sense, I don’t think a long-term deal does. And while I’m not willing to play cheerleader to the “intangibles” debate, I think in all considerations, one has to remember that statistics are mathmatical computations and there is a human, social interaction that plays a part in what result you get in the field. Giving Francoeur ZERO credit for any positive from that, I’d argue that Manuel’s handling of Church was simply going to generate a performance that was less than he was capable of.

    Sorry, I wasn’t attempting to imply that I disagreed with the idea that Francoeur’s range of seasons was the least predictable. In fact I’d quite agree with that. Intuitively I suspect that decent teams in seasons where they win big, usually will have a few of their less predictable players hitting the top ends of their ranges, while bad teams in decconstruction would have more sub-par performances. And I’d also agree that given Francoeur’s age difference, he’s more likely to extend the outter ranges of his performance. That said, if he extends them on the upside he becomes a much more attractive player to have on the team, if he extends them on the downside, he should join Omar and Jerry in the unemployment line.

    Absolutely! It’s a reason to fire Jerry! A manager’s job is to figure out what his players CAN do and to maximize their opportunities to do those things, while knowing what they CAN’T do, and minimizing the times they’re asked to that. I wasn’t suggesting that Church caused the problem, but that Manuel’s handling of him and his playiing time was ill-advised and kept him from reaching his full potential. I’m concerened there may be a carryover effect (lack of confidence) or it may be the results of multiple concussions that have left Church a more unpredicatable and less productive player after leaving the Mets. But I didn’t mean to imply the problem was Church, but that put in unfavorable conditions with someone who didn’t appear to trust his abilities undercut his net performance.

  i must have missed something, francouer was the best player on the mets after he got here getting him for ryan church was a steal, why do you and others bad mouth him, hes not the best but the can do a lot worse, he should be a solid player for thgem in rf for years to come

what language are you speaking, i play fantasy baseball but i read the se post and have no idea what you are talking about, fangraphs, war babip, just give me avg, rbi and hrs, anyway you look at hes better than ryan church or other people on the roster