Omar Minaya Did The Right Thing
It was with quite a bit of relief that last Friday's non-waiver trade deadline passed without the Mets doing something foolish to marginally improve a team that is all-but-mathematically eliminated from the 2009 playoff picture. The Mets didn't make any moves because, as Omar Minaya put it, "The cost would have probably been too high". Minaya went on to reveal his surprisingly rational take on this year's deadline.
"You have to take into account where you are in the standings, and you have to take in to account the prospects you have… One thing that has been good about this process has been that I got a good feel for a lot of the teams and how much they like our prospects. But, some of those prospects that some teams wanted were too high to give them, and we have some pretty good young prospects… Unless it is someone we were going to hold on to beyond one year, we’re gonna hold on to as many prospects as we can."
I said basically the same thing a month ago.
Trading good young minor leaguers for someone like Mark DeRosa is not in the best interest of this team, and certainly isn't in the best interest of next year's team and beyond. Decent big leaguers are not going to put this team over the top. If a superstar becomes available who might help the 2009 Mets as well as the 2010 Mets and maybe even the 2011 Mets, then perhaps you look to make a deal that will benefit the franchise for years to come.
The Mets put together a modest winning streak last week and I was more than a little concerned that the front office, filled with a hopelessly false sense of optimism, would pull a Jim Duquette Special and trade a bunch of good young players for a good-but-not-great veteran signed through the end of the season. Think Brad Holt and Ike Davis for Jarrod Washburn, or something. How does that taste? It'd be bad enough for a team who was just a couple of wins up or down from an actual playoff spot. The Mets were still a half-dozen games out of the Wild Card with a half-dozen clubs ahead of them. That's a losing hand no matter who's dealing.
Prior to last night's loss to the Diamondbacks, the Mets' PECOTA-adjusted likelihood of making the playoffs this season was .86% overall, .56% for winning the NL East and .29% for winning the NL Wild Card. If you're wondering whether I misplaced the decimal point there, or whether you should be reading them as fractions instead of percentages, I can assure you that those are their properly formatted playoff odds. The Mets are worse than 99-to-1 longshots to play October baseball. That's better than nothing, but only marginally so, and with last night's loss the odds are even longer.
Even apart from the math was that there wasn't a single locus of need on the team. The Mets fall well short of adequate at first base, shortstop, left field (before Gary Sheffield returned) and right field, and given some regression at center and catcher we're looking at the better part of a lineup that needs to be upgraded. They're also a couple of decent starters short of a playoff rotation and the bullpen isn't all it was cracked up to be coming into the season (J.J. Putz's injury has played no small part in that reality). In short, the Mets needed far more help than a trade or two were likely to remedy and there's nobody on the farm ready to step in any time soon. The Mets' middle-minors have improved dramatically this season, but their best non-Fernando Martinez prospects are newbies to Double-A so a jump to the big leagues is out of the question.
It may seem odd to dole out praise for non-moves, but we slag down the Mets' decision-makers whenever they follow up their productive brainstorming sessions with indefensible deals for the likes of Jeff Francoeur that it's only fair to commend them for not making the wrong move. We've heard that trades that don't occur are often as important as those that do; whether that's generally true or just a baseball colloquialism is a discussion for another day. What's important right now is that Omar Minaya had an opportunity to negligibly improve the 2009 Mets at the expense of the 2010 (and 2011) Mets and he seems to have resisted it. Maybe he was convinced by Mets ownership or others within the front office to sit this one out, or maybe he came to the decision on his own. I'll give him the benfit of the doubt this time and take him at his word that he surveyed the trade landscape and found it mostly uninhabitable.
Every other team in the NL East made a move last week. The Phillies and Marlins improved their 2009 teams; the Nationals hope to have improved their 2010 and beyond teams. The Braves chose an old face over a newer one with little impact to their playoff chances. The Mets did nothing, and it doesn't look like they were even close on anything. When the Red Sox dealt for Victor Martinez there was a brief whir about Adam LaRoche possibly coming to the Mets, and while LaRoche would have been an upgrade over Daniel Murphy at first, his so-so bat and so-so glove would have done little to fill the many holes discussed earlier.
Considering how much money the Wilpons have invested in this team and this season -- not to mention all of the money Bernie Madoff bamboozled them out of -- there had to be some temptation to do something to make this team more exciting, even if the effect on their postseason outlook would have been minimal. The Wilpons deserve credit, too, for seeing the big picture here. This team isn't much to look at right now and with only elastic timetables for the return of their injured stars, it could be an ugly last couple of months for Citi Field's inaugural run.
For an organization that has done a lot wrong in the past year, the Mets' brain trust somehow conspired to do something very right this week. There's an awful lot of work to be done to turn this team into a contender for 2010 given only minimal payroll wiggle room, but for right now we still have the kids to look forward to and maybe Minaya & Co. aren't quite as short-sighted and feckless as we thought.
34 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Couldn't agree more
I was downright terrified of Omar doing something at the deadline he would regret 24 hours later. This team is going nowhere, which was showcased this weekend against a bad-but-not-as-bad-as-us-apparently Dbacks squad. You have the rest of the season to evaluate Niese, Parnell, etc and figure out where exactly Daniel Murphy fits in, as well as to take time to heal the wounded for next year (among other things).
by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs on Aug 4, 2009 9:34 AM EDT reply actions
Might as well bring this up now:
What about the decision not to sell some of our players? Do you suppose a lack of interest in guys like Livan, Cora, Feliciano, etc., or was it maybe that nothing of any value was on offer in return? I know this is an entirely speculative exercise, but I did find myself wondering why the team didn’t go that route, either.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Aug 4, 2009 9:59 AM EDT reply actions
yeah
There was some talk in the deadline thread about hanging on to Feliciano being the right move given what Sherrill brought in trade — if that was the market for lefty relievers at the deadline, maybe it was a decent idea to keep Feliciano. That still leaves Cora, Castillo, Livan, and Schneider as decent chips who could’ve potentially been dealt for prospects without hurting the 2010 Mets very much. Much as I agree with the thrust of this piece that Omar was smart not to make some kind of hare-brained buyer’s move to “get back in contention,” much as I breathed a huge sigh of relief when the deadline passed, the right move was to do something in the other direction, not nothing.
I like what the Orioles got for Sherrill
and, well, Rob Neyer is much smarter than me so I’ll let him say the rest
I think maybe Schneider might have had value (not much) but Castillo and Livan are almost impossible to move, Livan because he isnt good and Castillo because the Mets wouldn’t gain anything if they had to pay his contract (which they would’ve to get anything).
Cora is tough because why would someone trade for Alex Cora when they can just sign Ray Durham?
Very good article
and something that needed to be said, given the easy slag is both more fun and more frequent.
If you project Reyes, Beltran and FMart back in 2010, I don’t think this is a train wreck of a lineup. The rotation is a problem if Maine is gone, but starting rotations are like basketball teams — one move can make a huge difference.
I’m not as down on the relievers as most others, and that’s one place where there are always a ton of ions ready to be attracted in the off-season.
The gaping holes are behind the plate and second base — 1/2 of the “up the middle” core that Tim McCarver used to always go on about. That an a 2-slot in the rotation are where I’d focus my attention.
Are you happy
with Daniel Murphy at 1B?
by TheBigStapler on Aug 4, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Put it this way. I'm not going to hang myself over having Daniel Murphy at 1B.
There are lots of guys I’d rather have there, but I don’t think they’re the priority that a catcher and a starter are. Also, Murphy has three of my strongest personal biases working in his favor: homegrown, contact hitter, and currently fucked up. I’m a sucker for any one of them — take all three and you’re talking Johnny Depp-level crush.
Evans/Davis
As squid has said, perfect placeholder platoon until Davis hits lefties or a slugger falls off a vine in the Mets lap. Evans crushes lefties. Davis crushes righties.
Murph I say let him be a jack of all trades utility guy (owner of many gloves, master of none) and maybe he’ll go all Ben Zobrist down the line. Sometimes in sports you have to make the most of youroportunity. Murph made the most of it last eyar and scewed it big time this year. Yeah, it is just high babip last year, low one this year, but you get labeled anyway, and there’s always a new flavor of the month to try. It’s funny, but Ty Wigginton seems to have supplanted Melvin Mora at third for the Orioles, speaking of Mets who are now making the most of their opportunities…elsewhere.
There's a gaping hole at second base?
Umm, you do know that Luis Castillo has a .393 OBP, right? He’s good for a .360+ OBP next year. I’m fine with that at second base.
The holes will be at first base and the rotation. I’m good with Santana-Pelfrey-Niese, and even Perez, but I’d like to try and package Maine for something.
by Pat Andriola on Aug 4, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
He's under contract for 2 more seasons
In a perfect world, Castillo keeps performing like he has and Reese Havens is MLB-ready by then.
by TheBigStapler on Aug 4, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Why give up on Maine?
An injury-plagued year will not help his trade value. Do you really think he’ll bring back a power-hitting corner OF or 1B, which is what the Mets badly need? And assuming he’s healthy for ‘10 (perhaps a big “if”, perhaps not), he’s more consistent than Pelfrey and mentally tougher. And I want to see Niese’s next 10-12 starts before I write his name in the rotation in ink instead of pencil.
by madisonmetsfan on Aug 4, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
So you want a superstar to fall in our laps
but don’t want decent to above average players? Sorry, but that’s been the entire problem with this team for 3+ years. It’s top heavy, with not enough decent, supporting guys to chip in. Saying that you’re glad no trades were made is one thing, but frankly, you don’t know what trades were on the table, so it’s an uninformed opinion to have. It’s entirely possible the Mets could have made a trade at the deadline that would have helped the team for 2010, and that should be the concern, 2010. And going on quotes from Omar at this point is dubious.
It's a thanksgiving that we didn't make the dreaded "hail mary to save the GM's job" panic trade.
That’s a verifiable statement — we didn’t. Saying so is perfectly reasonable and not uninformed.
But you don't know what other trades were out there
to be had. It didn’t have to be a hail mary type trade. To rejoice over nothing happening is really setting the bar so low.
As sad as this is to say:
It’s a low-bar kind of front office.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Aug 4, 2009 12:39 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
But we wouldn't have made a "good" deal.
We would have traded multiple good prospects for someone that could be signed through free agency that has dozens of dopplegangers.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on Aug 4, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
We could go on all day
and the fact remains, you don’t know that. We could have traded a prospect that would not amounted to anything down the road for someone that could have helped them in 2010. And that’s a potentially much better exchange in value than a first round draft pick you’d lose by going after a type-A free agent.
We could indeed go on all day
But if you read what Eric wrote:
I was more than a little concerned that the front office, filled with a hopelessly false sense of optimism, would pull a Jim Duquette Special and trade a bunch of good young players for a good-but-not-great veteran signed through the end of the season.
That’s what Eric’s talking about – avoiding these types of deals. He’s not saying he’s happy no trades were made, but specifically the kind of trade that minimally improves this season’s team at the expense of the future. I don’t see anyone advocating for superstars only, as you alluded to originally.
Unless you’re a member of the Mets’ front office, you’re just as uninformed as the rest of us about what trades were or were not available. It’s rather pointless to endlessly speculate on imagined trades that Omar didn’t make.
I mean, of course he should have traded Argenis Reyes for Halladay! Damn Omar for not making any trades at the deadline!
Sure
Or we could have traded a prospect that turned into a superstar down the road for someone who helped a little in 2010, and then we’d be kicking ourselves. Sure, it makes sense to make that kind of a trade if you presuppose that the prospect you trade away isn’t going to amount to anything down the road, but that’s not how it works.
If you think the Mets should have done a trade...
Present to me one plausible trade that:
(1) Does not involve trading a “core” player.
(2) Would not strip the farm system bare.
(3) Does not presume idiocy on the part of the other team.
Of course I want the Mets to get better, but what could they really have done that would help them?
































