From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: idiots.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:11:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.195327.15056@asd.com> scott@asd.com (Scott Barman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.072725.8542@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In article <Dec.8.11.30.27.1992.4447@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:

>>>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.  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.

But they didn't pick people who could play!  They picked Randolph,
Murray, Coleman, etc.  (Some of these could play, but not well enough
for the Mets' needs.)

Which player did badly because of the combination of others, as opposed
to just being old and overrated?

>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

Yes, but if they *won*, the press would be no problem no matter *who*
they had on the team.

>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.

Yes and no.  I agree that Strawberry had said he wanted to play for LA.
But I think that had a little bit to do with the way he was treated in
NY.  He was *never* appreciated, no matter how good a season he had.  And
that's just my view as an outside observer.  How do you think it felt to him?

>>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?

Because it was a panic move.  They were contending, desperately needed a
catcher, and picked the first one.  Who trades for a Charlie O'Brien?
Jamie Quirk, I'm sure, was available.  Or someone else.  These are the
types of people who get *released*, not who get traded for.

What *about* Rick Cerone?  Or Todd Hundley?  Why couldn't they do the
job as well as Charlie O'Brien?

When they *wouldn't* have cost the Mets a couple of players?  Kevin Brown is
the only one I remember, but I believe there was someone else in the
trade also.

>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 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?

Because there were people available for free, like Alvaro Espinoza, who
were just as good.  Certainly you don't give up Julio Valera AND Julian
Vasquez for *Dick Schofield.*  They got Tony Fernandez for less than
this.  It wasn't dumb.  It was idiotic.  It honestly ranks as one of the
worst trades I've ever seen, in fact.  (Tettleton for Jeff Robinson
being the worst, of course.)

As for HoJo, this is where a professor writes "passive voice" on your
post.  He wasn't "committed to center field."  They committed him there.
They could have uncommitted him just as easily.  Like they eventually
did, anyway.

>Please David, at least if you're going to bash the Mets, use good
>examples: like using a second baseman at thrid (Pecota), a third baseman
>at second (Jefferies), a third baseman in center field (HoJo), getting a
>39-year old pitcher to be the fifth starter (Tannana) after having a
>potential Cy Young winner on your staff.  O'Brien and Schofield were
>good trades for the reason made.  It was the circumstances around them
>that stunk.

Obviously the Mets pattern of putting players anywhere on the field is
dumb, but I think using Pecota at third is much less dumb than using
Pecota.  But at least he had had a few good years.  Why did they use
Schofield, who has *never* been any good?  Or O'Brien, likewise?
Hundley had potential, if not production.  O'Brien had *neither.*

And who trades for backup catchers and lousy shortstops?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball