Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: idiots.
From: dcarrano@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:14:48 EST
 <Dec.8.11.30.27.1992.4447@pilot.njin.net> <1992Dec10.072725.8542@Princeton.EDU> <1992Dec14.195327.15056@asd.com>
Organization: Wesleyan University

>>>my rough analysis of the nl.
>>
>>>the mets came in with a good plan, but overrate their own team's
>>> ability (harazin did that specifically), and fell victim to
>>> perceived images of people (ie. bonilla, murray, randolph)
>>> than their atual value.  but they went about it trying to fillholes,
>>> and the moves only look awful in hindsight.  at the time, they
>>> weren't awful - just not great.  
>>
>>Most of the Mets moves weren't awful.  It's just the combination of all
>>of them that makes them so bad.  They don't really seem to evaluate ANY
>>of their players, good or bad; I think they run the team by what the
>>tabloids say.  The papers didn't like Strawberry, so they let him go.  Gooden
>>is a winner, have to keep him.  Coleman is a big name.  (We've been
>>through this argument before.)
> 
> You have it partly right.  The problem with the Mets move is that the
> evaluation process are of the individual players themselves, not what
> those players will do in combination with others on the team or those
> who they are pursuing.
No, no, no!  I totally disagree.  The Mets always make moves based on a
perceived clubhouse chemistry, and the team has always been worse off as a
result.  Witness:

1. The failure to resign Strawberry - Debatable whether they could have done
it or not.  But certainly, it didn't help that he was regarded by many as a
problem child.
2. Dykstra and McDowell for Samuel - At the time, I distinctly remember hearing
that McDowell had become a clubhouse problem.
3. Cone - Because he was outspoken, the front office didn't like him - when he
realized this, he decided he didn't want to stick with the Mets, even though
I'm sure he'd rather be on the Mets than KC if he could be treated more kindly.

We got lucky on the Franco-for-Myers deal - another trade of a more talented
player for a less talented one based on personality considerations. 
Fortunately, Myers has inexplicably gone downhill since.  I also believe that
Saberhagen for Jefferies will go down as a similar deal, and perhaps the worst
of all of them.

I definitely see the Mets' attitude the last couple of years as being, "On
paper, we have the best team, but we're not winning.  So, let's try to improve
the clubhouse chemistry."  Unfortunately, they give up good players and replace
them with worse ones to do so.  The best clubhouse chemistry comes when you're
putting a team of good players on the field, because that means that the team
wins a lot of games.

> They (wrongly) assumed that if the person can
> play, he can perform with others who can play.  They completly ignored
> the role player in all of this.
Well, I totally disagree with the first sentence, but I do agree with the
second.  I would like to point out, though, that trades like Dykstra and
McDowell for Samuel are *not* good examples of "ignoring the role player", as
many Mets fans seem to think.  When Lenny was traded, he was an everyday
player, and if the Mets front office had any sense, they would have seen that
he was a better everyday player than Samuel.  This inability to evaluate talent 
has led to the lack of a bench.  But it's not like they had a bench, and then
lost it or traded it away.  They just don't know enough to know who to put
there.  (Dave Gallagher is a perfect example of the type of guy Torborg loves,
for no apparent reason.  And hey - I remember hearing that Pecota would be a
great clubhouse influence.  Scrappy!  Plays a bunch of positions!  YAY!)

> Public Relations is not lost on the Mets.  Afterall, they are in the
> most media intensive areas of the country.  To say signing Vince Coleman
> was more of a public relations move, I would call that correct.  But to
> say letting Strawberry go because the papers didn't like him is totally
> wrong.  In fact, the sentiment was more on the lines of, "sure
> Strawberry is an *sshole, but he's an *sshole who can hit, be a threat,
> and adequately field.  Sign him!"  But it was Strawberry, the Los
> Angeles native, who said in a 1988 interview that he wanted to play "at
> home."  It was Strawberry who was openly critical with Mets management
> (specifically then GM Frank Cashen, who of course did nothing to help
> this situation by criticizing back).  It was Strawberry (and his agent,
> of course) who broke off mid-season talks with the Mets on a contract
> extension.  It was Strawberry who ran to negotiate with the Dodgers,
> refusing to take calls from the Mets until they had a deal nearly
> finalized and saying, "give us your offer" without giving the team a
> chance to negotiate their position.  Strawberry wanted LA and he got it,
> reguardless of the feelings of the Mets' front office.
Could be very true.  Only Straw knows how badly he wanted to sign with LA, and
no one knows what his attitude would have been like in late 1990 had he been
treated differently in '88, '89, early '90, etc.  I don't remember the papers
saying "Sign him!", though - a couple of writers did, but it was by no means a
quorum.  (Am I using that right?)

>>But the most serious mistakes they made were the ones where they forgot
>>that you have to allocate players among 8 positions on the field;
>>collecting random players and playing them anywhere doesn't work.  When
>>they *did* realize this problem, instead of trying to solve it, they
>>patched holes, badly.  Trading for Charlie O'Brien and Dick Schofield is
>>really really dumb.  
> 
> You're using the WRONG examples!  Charlie O'Brien was acuired as a
> backup catcher when all the Mets really had was Makey Sasser.  At the
> time, there was nobody else.  Todd Hundley was a rookie and doing spot
> duty.  Hundley really needed more time at AAA because of his hitting but
> was pressed into action because of a falling apart team.  When they got
> O'Brien, Hundley was sent back to the minors until September.  In 1991,
> O'Brien was the backup to Rick Cerone.  If it wasn't O'Brien, it was
> Sasser, who the pitchers were not comfortable with because of his
> problem returning the ball to the pitcher.  O'Brien was brough in to
> fill the backup role and that's what he will do next year.  So tell me,
> if they needed a backup catcher, what is wrong with trading for one?
Well, when they got O'Brien, it was to start.  They had gotten sick of Sasser's
catching, and justifiably so.  The point is not that trading for a catcher was
a bad idea.  The problem was a) they gave up way too much.  Julio Machado was a
flame-throwing, extremely promising right-hander out of the bullpen - just what
the Mets need.  (Of course, his problems with the law have retarded his
career.)  O'Brien was a non-hitting, defensive catcher - there are tons of them
out there, and getting one certainly doesn't necessitate giving up a top
pitching prospect.  b) Getting a guy like O'Brien doesn't solve the catching
problem.   Sure, he's a catcher, but he's still a problem - namely, he is a
scrub of the first order.  The Mets plugged holes badly by giving up tons of
talent for guys who aren't that good.

> Schofield was brought in to play shortstop.  Because Kevin Elster's
> shoulder was not responding to his surgery, who was going to play short?
> Howard Johnson was committed to center field...
Don't be silly.  He's Howard Johnson, right?  He's not committed to play
anywhere.  ;-)

> and they did not feel
> comfortable with Bill Pecota at short on an every day basis.  Besides,
> Pecota got hurt himself.  The Mets needed a shortstop.  Schofield was
> made available and the Mets made a trade.  They plugged a whole with
> someone who was actually a shortstop.  So tell me, why is that dumb?
Well, gee, why is trading Julio Valera and Julian Vasquez for Dick Schofield
dumb?  Hmmm.  Valera is an average major league pitcher in all respects, but
considering the Mets' staff, I think they could have used him somewhere. 
Vasquez was the Mets' best prospect.  (Do they have something against Hispanic
pitchers, or what?)  Dick Schofield is a bum.  I'd rather play Dwight Gooden at
shortstop than make that trade.  I don't care how badly you need a shortstop,
it's not worth it if you have to make that trade.

I think the Mets' front office was thinking, "We're only a shortstop away!
Schofield is a proven veteran - he'll be good.  He had a good offensive year a
few years ago, right?  Get him!"  The Mets are becoming the mid-'80s Yankees. 
Every day of the week, they're on the lookout for mediocre veterans they can
add to the team.  This is not filling holes - adding bad players, and giving up
good ones, will always dig you deeper into the hole you're already in.
 
> Please David, at least if you're going to bash the Mets, use good
> examples: like using a second baseman at thrid (Pecota)...
Didn't hurt much at all.  After Magadan went down, the Mets were trying anyone
and everyone at third.  Is Pecota that much worse than Chico Walker, or Chris
Donnels, or whoever?  (Actually, I love Chris Donnels, but he didn't do much
for the Mets last year.  Go, Marlins!)

> a third baseman at second (Jefferies)...
Well, Jefferies would have to be giving up a hell of a lot of runs at second
before I would consider moving him to third.  As a third baseman, he is a
slightly above average hitter, but at second, he's one of the best around.  I
disagree with the idea that he was any *more* out of position at second than at
third.  After the Mets switched him back and forth every other week, he no
longer had a natural position.  (Not that I believe in "natural positions"
anyway, but you know what I mean.)  Also, at second he would have been
replacing Keith Miller, but at third we had HoJo.

> a third baseman in center field (HoJo)...
I can't argue with this.  HoJo should have either been at third (which would
have meant not signing Murray - fine with me), or in right.  He's not a good
enough outfielder to play center, and learning on the job made it worse.  I
would have gone with LF Bonilla, CF Coleman, RF Johnson.  I don't think that
the position switch hurt his offense, though - and his offensive decline hurt
the Mets much more than his defense did.

> getting a
> 39-year old pitcher to be the fifth starter (Tannana) after having *a
> potential Cy Young winner on your staff*.
Who in the world would that be?

(Of course, signing Tanana is phenomenally stupid, anyway.)

>  O'Brien and Schofield were
> good trades for the reason made.  It was the circumstances around them
> that stunk.
Well, yeah, O'Brien and Schofield themselves didn't kill the team.  But the
attitude that acquired them has.  Torborg *loves* veteran TWGs.  He can't get
enough of them.  The Mets continue to acquire mediocre veterans, trying to fill
holes.  But the hole isn't really filled unless you get someone good to play
there.  Also, giving up top prospects to get bad veterans is stupid. 

Then today, I hear that they've traded Mike
Freitas for Mike Maddux.  Freitas was devastating!  And he's a reliever! 
What's the point?  The Mets' front office sees no option other than playing for
this year.  Even if they have no hope, they're still going to acquire veterans
(Tanana) and act like they do.  And gee, if you are going to play for next
year, why mediocre veterans?  At least get good ones.  It's very difficult for
me to be a Mets fan these days, but I'm trying my best.

Dean Carrano
dcarrano@eagle.wesleyan.edu | dcarrano@wesleyan.bitnet