2009 Player Preview: Ryan Church
by Sam Page on Feb 16, 2009 8:00 AM EST
Email
Print
Unless he asserts himself as the far superior player, Ryan Church's career as a Met will be forever tied to Lastings Milledge's career as a National. Although interesting, this comparison is unfair to both players and since Ryan wears the laundry, let's focus on him.
Church's Met career started well. Finally out of a bad situation in Montreal/Washington, where he was benched for Willy Mo Pena, among other scrubs, Church shined with the bat and in the field. Through May 18th, Ryan was hitting .307/.379/.542 with 9 homeruns. Suddenly, Minaya was a genius. Then on May 20th, Yunel Escobar's knee struck, handing Church his second concussion of the year. He spent nearly a month on the disabled list, came back too soon, and had to spend even longer out, ultimately not returning until late August. He hit only 3 homers the rest of the year and finished .276/.346/.439.
So, to what extent was Church's disappointing second-half injury or just the real Ryan Church? It's impossible to say. Still, the player who merely filled out the lineup in September certainly was not the same offensive presence from April/May. In that respect, Church is an enigma. Many Mets fans, perhaps with some right, hope for a player drastically better than any sophisticated projection system sees coming.
What we do know is that Church fields very well. He boasts a career 10.3 UZR/150 in RF for his career. Although his numbers didn't quite approach that last season, his injury could again be partly to blame.
So don't expect the world from Church in 2009, but remember what he's capable of. And, in case you were wondering:
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Regarding the sophisticated projection systems,
they don’t/can’t take injuries into consideration and PECTOA weighs second half numbers slightly higher than first half. So, put me down as a wishful Mets fan who expects Church to beat his projection.
I'm kind of over the whole Lasto/Church comparison
Unless Milledge turns out to be a superstar, the trade really wasn’t that big a deal.
"One of the nice things about baseball is that there are no rules you can't break." - Jim Bouton
+1
I’m so sick of it. The trade may end up being slightly better for the Nats in the long run, but I really think slightly better is all it will ever be. Milledge isn’t gonna be a superstar, and probably isn’t as good as an unconcussed Church. He’s younger, but the Mets are trying to win now, and it’s not like Church is 38, so the age thing doesn’t really matter much. I say get over it, and hope that Church can stay healthy this year.
another reason why Marlon Anderson's signing was a mistake.
If Omar never signed Marlon last year, he wouldn’t have caused Church’s first concussion. I know a stretch, but when are we gonna cut that scrub?
We can't cut Anderson
His brings leadership & and a club house presence. You win championships with guys like Anderson. His leadership is going to will Church, Murphy and Tatis into combining into like a 7 WAR player.
by Gina on Feb 16, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think Church will be better this his projection
But I don’t expect him to come near those April/May numbers, but I also expect his defense to be much better than it was coming down the stretch last season. I think something like .350 obp, .450 slg with plus defense is reasonable. The problem is, even though his injuries last year were freak, he’s been a pretty injury prone player most of his career. I definitely don’t expect him to get near 600 plate appearances.
Injury Prone is a stretch
Before his Post-Concussion Syndrome, Church had two trips to the DL: a fractured toe and a sprained rib, both in 2005.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
Still ridiculous
The trade was ridiculous then and even more so now. I guess no one here pays any more attention to Millledge, but he’ll be a 20/20 guy THIS year at the ripe old age of 24. Church was and is a platoon player.
by wrighteous brother on Feb 16, 2009 12:55 PM EST reply actions
Perhaps he will
But we got a half-decent starting catcher and a good-when-healthy right fielder. I don’t know if that makes trading a potential 20/20 guy that unforgivable.
"One of the nice things about baseball is that there are no rules you can't break." - Jim Bouton
Meh the "when healthy" part is kind of a big deal
Given his track record. I think it’s ridiculous to harp on it but I don’t see anyway you can look at it that it wasn’t a meh trade at best. Obviously it wasn’t terrible and it wasn’t the kind of thing that derails a franchise, like it certainly wasn’t anywhere near Kazmir for Zambrano. But we’ll be catcherless after this season, and are overpaying for Schneider as it is, again and even when Church is on the field his production probably isn’t going to be better than even with what we can expect Milledge to do this year, which as someone pointed out is only at the age of 24.
I pay attention to Milledge
he’s not that good. They both had 2 good months last year, but Church’s 2 good months was better than Milledge’s. Everyone here seems to be assuming that Milledge is gonna repeat his 2 good months for an entire season (career?) while Church’s 2 good months were an aberration. Church is a better fielder than Milledge, and IMO will be a better hitter for at least one more season. For a team that’s going to be in the middle of a pennant race this year and already has a weak outfield, I’d prefer Church to Milledge. And when you consider that we have Fernando (who has far more potential as a hitter than Milledge) on the way, I don’t think this move crippled the future of the organization, either.
All true
But Milledge retains a good deal of projectability while Church is what he is. I think most of us thought Church would modestly outperform Milledge in ’08 and maybe ’09, but then Milledge hits his age 26/27 seasons, and you know…
You can win now and plan for the future – see Boston Red Sox. But the real problem with the trade for me was that we just sold ridiculously low on L-Millz because he had a rap album and high-fived some fans. Trading him wasn’t a pure baseball move, just an overreaction to amusing on- and off-field antics that people like Marty Noble and Billy Wagner disapproved of.
Good point
The problem with reporters is that if 1 or 2 of them starts saying something about a player, soon everyone will echo them. This doesn’t just apply to negative judgements: I think broadcasters and writers are definitely to blame for the permanent branding of Derek Jeter as “clutch” and David Eckstein as “scrappy”. In this case, the media simply ran Milledge out of town. A couple of minor incidents led thousands of people to believe that he was a “troublemaker”.
"One of the nice things about baseball is that there are no rules you can't break." - Jim Bouton
fair enough
could Omar have gotten more for Milledge? Possibly, though I seem to remember the Twins having no interest in him as part of the Santana talks, and they eventually ended up taking Carlos Gomez, who ain’t exactly Willie Mays. I just think people are a little too critical – it wasn’t the greatest trade ever, but it wasn’t terrible either. It netted us a solid outfielder who is better right now than Milledge and a starting catcher for at least 2 seasons.
And Milledge may be projectable, but what if he becomes a bust? What if he turns into Corey Patterson, who was a far more highly regarded prospect? I just haven’t seen anything from Milledge to make me regret him not being a Met, and I was a big fan when he was with the organization.
Well
why was it imperative to get rid of L-Millz? Maybe Omar couldn’t have gotten more at the time, but — if the Mets were dead set on trading him — at least hold on to him until he reestablishes a higher market value. Or they could have just kept him. Is Ryan Church even a league-average RF? That the Mets essentially caved to the media and some crusty old vets and chose to get rid of Milledge at any price pisses me off.
On Carlos Gomez – he was clearly rushed and his bat’s a work in progress, but he’s already the best defensive outfielder in the game according to at least one metric. He’s no bum.
On your last paragraph – Milledge really only has been a pro for 1.5 seasons and he’s 23. You haven’t seen anything from Milledge, but (a) he’s been on the Nats for a single, injury-interrupted year; and (b) he put up pretty decent production for a 22/23 year old the last two years. I don’t necessarily think Milledge will be a superstar or anything, but he’s already coming pretty close to Church’s numbers and has plenty of room to grow.
You can play the “what if” game with any prospect – not a great comparison but imagine if, in 2004, we said what if Reyes becomes another [insert bust here]? What about Pelfrey as late as May 2008? Now, I’m certainly not opposed to trading prospects or guys like Milledge – but the Milledge trade had very little to do with baseball. The Mets gained very little by making that deal other than the peace of mind knowing that Marty Noble and Jon Heyman were off their backs. At best, swapping Milledge for Church is a lateral move now, and a backwards one for the ten years after that. That’s my problem.
they gained 2 starters
for one prospect whose trade value had plummeted. Maybe it shouldn’t have plummeted, but it had. And last year, Milledge was pretty awful for the first two-thirds of the season, and pretty good for the last third. Now, maybe he figured it all out, or maybe he just had a good month and a half. It’s hard to say, and we won’t know for sure until this season gets going. But if he had started hot and faded, and Church started cold and came on at the end, I don’t think many people would be complaining about the trade right now. Church had a 106 OPS+ last year (a career low, which was dragged way down by his post-concussion numbers), while Milledge had a 91. So Church was the better hitter and was a better fielder as well. The Milledge trade upgraded the team at two positions for 2008 and probably 2009 (hate Schneider all you want, but he’s probably better than Cancel or Casanova or whoever else would have been the other part of a Castro platoon), and we have better outfield prospects on the way for 2010.
And on another point, in 2004, Reyes was a 20 year old who already had put up better numbers in the big leagues than Milledge has as a 23 year old. I don’t think that’s even remotely comparable. I’m not saying Milledge is terrible, but he’s not the top-shelf prospect we thought he was going to be when the Mets drafted him.
And fair enough about Carlos Gomez, I forgot how good a fielder he is.
Fwiw
I doubt very much that the twins look at advanced stats but Gomez was a 2.0 WAR player last year according to fangraphs. That’s how good his defense is in center field. And he just turned 23 himself.
Although to jason i think Church is right at league average with just his offense, so when you factor in his defense he’s probably just above average.
I have a question.
But the real problem with the trade for me was that we just sold ridiculously low on L-Millz because he had a rap album and high-fived some fans. Trading him wasn’t a pure baseball move, just an overreaction to amusing on- and off-field antics that people like Marty Noble and Billy Wagner disapproved of.
That the Mets essentially caved to the media and some crusty old vets and chose to get rid of Milledge at any price pisses me off.
The Mets gained very little by making that deal other than the peace of mind knowing that Marty Noble and Jon Heyman were off their backs.
Three times in this discussion jason has alleged that Omar traded Milledge based on motivations other than improving the team. Has there ever been any confirmation of this? I don’t recall ever reading an article that confirmed this to be a fact. Ordinarily I wouldn’t make a big deal about something like this, but there were three times in this discussion where you represented what I believe is conjecture as fact. I don’t think it’s fair to Omar or the Mets to perpetuate what has never been proven to be true.
Also, regarding this comment:
At best, swapping Milledge for Church is a lateral move now, and a backwards one for the ten years after that. That’s my problem.
Really? I would argue that swapping Milledge for Church was an upgrade last year; there was no way of predicting that Church was suffer two concussions. And do you really think trading Milledge sets the organization back ten years? I think you’re being a bit dramatic there. Milledge is not as great of a prospect as we thought he was. Sure, he has “5 tools”, but are any of those tools superlative? Plus, how does he project as a corner OF? I’m pretty sure we can do better than Milledge on the corners, and since Beltran has CF on lockdown (not to mention that Milledge’s defense in CF is suspect to begin with), I would argue that Milledge never really had a future in NY to begin with.
As for trading him while his value was low, I think Milledge had been exposed as a prospect. Everything about him seemed to be overhyped after we got to see him in the bigs. His defense was worse than advertised, ditto for his arm. While his bat speed is definitely his best asset, I doubt he will ever hit for a high average, and he has poor plate discipline to boot. There have been plenty of guys to come down the pike with Milledge’s skillset and reach the majors with a ton of hype, only to flame out.
And cjmulrain makes a great point, the Twins had no interest in Milledge during the Santana discussions. They were all about Carlos Gomez. Also, don’t you find it odd that the Nationals have like 7 outfielders on their 40 man? If Milledge was such a can’t miss guy, why would they acquire Dunn and Willingham this past offseason when they already had Kearns, Wily Mo, Dukes, and Milledge?
I don't think he's saying it sets the organization ten years.
Just that for one year Church was an upgrade, now they’re probably even, and Milledge will likely pass him in a year or two. It really just isn’t a trade that makes much sense. And I know this isn’t what you’re arguing but I really don’t buy the win now argument. If a player is only going to be an upgrade for 1-2 years, and you’re trading a guys who’s under your control for 6 more years, AND you have a farm system as think as ours I don’t think that’s ever a good trade.
And I don’t think a few awful at bats exposes someone at 22, and I would imagine most gms don’t think that way either, Andy Laroche has been awful in his short career and he’s still been highly regarded, and I think he’s 2-3 years older than Milledge.
yes, but
people still think Laroche has the potential to be a really good hitter. Milledge, not so much. Find me one person who thinks that Milledge is going to turn into a very good hitter who’s not a disgruntled Omar hater or a wide-eyed Nats fan (wait, those don’t exist…never mind).
And it keeps getting ignored that the Mets got 2 starters for one guy who wasn’t even guaranteed to be on the ML roster going into last season. Schneider may not be great, but he’s about a league average catcher, and Church is an above average outfielder. They got both of them for a guy who right now is a below average outfielder and who didn’t really fit into the Mets long-term plans, as SQUAD pointed out. Milledge doesn’t project as a corner outfielder, and Beltran is pretty well entrenched in center. With Fernando on the way up (and Gomez still in the fold when the trade was made), what was Milledge’s role?
Maybe, maybe Omar could have gotten more for Milledge, though I don’t think it was very likely. But what he got made the Mets a better team last year and probably this year, and didn’t really have much impact on the long-term future of the organization, which was already being placed on Fernando’s shoulders even while Milledge was still here.
As does ZiPS
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
Well maybe not awesome
But they expect him to be a 3.0-3.5 WARP player over the next 7 years. And I don’t necessarily think getting two average players for a borderline ml ready top prospect, coming off an injury plagued season where he was rushed because of injuries, is really that much of an accomplishment. Would trading F-mart for two guys like Church and Schneider now be considered a good trade? I know we have a higher opinion of F-mart now but Milledge was closer to ml ready and had shown more in the minors. He just happened to suffer a few injuries that season and barely got any at bats in the minors before being called up due to the rash of injuries we had in the outfield, coupled with the incident with the rap record and suddenly it seemed like all of mets world turned against him.
Also Milledge projects to be basically the same, if not better, offensive player that Church is projected to be this year, except over the next 6 years, where as Church even before last seasons injury plagued season was projected to see a rapid decline.
we'll see
I don’t think Milledge is ever going to be much of a player, and I think this trade will ultimately go down as a “who really cares” kinda thing – not great but not terrible for either team. I don’t think it’s worth getting worked up about it.
To springboard off of a discussion from a later thread...
Where PECOTA falls short is actually watching the players. Yes, I know Milledge put up great minor league numbers, but from what I saw of him in the majors, his approach at the plate is pretty bad. He swings at bad pitches and despite his quick bat, he does not have the plate coverage of a Soriano, Nomar, Vlad, or Sheffield.
IMO, Milledge is going to be a Juan Encarnacion type player. He’ll be a solid starter in the bigs, but nothing special, due to some exploitable flaws. However, he could end up better, but I still think his ceiling is a Raul Mondesi/Jose Guillen level, and not a Grady Sizemore/Beltran level.
Re: Approach
Last year Lastings was 23. Soriano wasn’t even in the majors at age 23. When he did get called up he struck 3 times and walked none. When he was 24 he got called up and walked once and struck out 15 times. If Lastings continues this improvement there’s no reason to limit his ceiling to Jose Guillen:
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
It's not just about striking out though.
Having poor knowledge of the strike zone doesn’t necessarily translate to strikeouts. So his strikeout rate has fallen, that’s definitely a good sign, but if he still swings at bad pitches, but makes contact more, that doesn’t mean he’s driving those pitches.
I have no way of knowing what is true: whether Millz improved his pitch recognition and that is why his strikeout rate dropped, or if he became a better bad ball hitter. Since I don’t watch the Nationals that much, I’ll have to end my argument here.
One more thing.
Just because that graph above is trending that way, doesn’t mean Milledge will continue to improve indefinitely. Eventually he will level out.
There's a huge area
Between Mondesi/Guillen and Sizemore/Beltran. I don’t think anyone expects him to be sizemore/Beltran. My point was that he’ll more than likely be even with Church this year and probably outproduce him after that. I don’t expect him to ops .900 while playing all-world defense. But I think he could be a 355/470 player.
One more thing.
I don’t think these discussions ever get anywhere because those like cjmulrain and myself leave stats behind somewhat during these discussions. And while I understand and respect the opinion of commentors like Gina, I do believe those on my side of the argument stand on firm ground.
Milledge hasn’t exactly lit the world on fire in his time in the majors, and while I understand that he is still very young, a guy with his approach generally doesn’t turn into an all star unless he has uber skills or adjusts his approach (which has been shown to be a very difficult thing to do.) A guy like Reyes is incredible to me, because he has both uber skills and has changed his approach, which is very difficult to accomplish.
Re: Laroche
The thing about Laroche is that I don’t watch him play everyday, so he might have a better approach at the plate than Milledge, which would lead some to think that once he gets used to the speed of the game or gets stronger, he could be a good ballplayer. Plus, isn’t Laroche a pretty good defensive 3B? Don’t we show a bit more patience with 3B prospects? Corner OFers are a dime a dozen and I’m pretty sure the Mets could easily acquire a corner OF who will outproduce Milledge on the corners.
Addendum
I forgot to add that my opinion of Milledge is based on the fact that I did get to see quite a bit of him when he played for the Mets.
And don’t get me wrong, I really like Lastings. I wasn’t jumping for joy when we traded him, but I understood why Omar did it. And while I do think he will end up being a valuable commodity (mostly because he will be cheap and under control) early in his career, I am not going to wring my hands over losing him. I also think Milledge will be a classic example of a dude who gets overpaid once he reaches free agency.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Amazin' Avenue
Related FanShots on Amazin' Avenue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
