From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The New Yuck Mets: A Look Ahead
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:59:47 GMT
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY

In article <1992Nov18.033005.17846@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.031537.614@asd.com> scott@asd.com (Scott Barman) writes:
>>Keith Hernandez... Gary Carter... if we go back farther in their
>>"history" we find Rusty Staub (70s vintage), Felix Millan... then we can
>>go back and find Don Clendenon.  Wow, some history!  I'll take it!!
>
>Yes, I had forgotten Hernandez and Carter.  I don't remember about
>Carter, but all they gave up for Hernandez was Neil Allen.  They didn't
>give up two draft choices, like they did for Murray.

Keith Hernandez was traded for Neil Allen and Rick Owenby.
Gary Carter was traded for Mike Fitzgerald, Herm Winningham, and ...
drat! I can't remember, but it was a pitcher.

>>>I'd be surprised if Tony Fernandez has more than one above average year left.
>>>He'll probably be about average, both offensively and defensively, next year.
>
>>Compared to their shortstops of the past few years, this would be a
>>great improvement!!
>
>I dunno; they used to have a real good shortstop, named after a hotel.
>(Who hit, in his worst year ever, almost as well as Fernandez did last year.)

Forget about Howard Johnson, he's not a shortstop and I wasn't
considering him in this.  I was thinking about Schofield, Elster, and
Raphael Santana before that!

>>>What you *really* get is a really overrated team losing ball games.  How
>>>much longer are the Mets going to coast on the fact that Dwight Gooden
>>>*used* to be a star pitcher?
>
>>When he gets to be around 30.  Gooden is 28 TODAY (Happy Birthday,
>>DOC!).  You want to throw a 28 year old on the scrap heap?  I guess this
>>is why you're a GM!
>
>He's not awful, but he's no longer much above average, if at all.  And
>hasn't been, for a couple of years now.  I wouldn't throw him on the scrap 
>heap ordinarily, but when he wants $5 million+ per year, I'd toss him out 
>and sign Maddux or even Cone.

No, he's not worth $5+ million per year, but that's what his contract is
and I don't think it's going to change.  IMHO, his contract was given to
him as much as a reward for the past as it was to keep him during a time
they were having p.r. problems while negotiating with Darryl Strawberry.
I have no problem with this scenario as long as they do "something" with
the pitching staff... and leaving good prospects out there to be drafted
during the expansion draft was NOT what I had in mind.

>[Eddie Murray]
>True, but I wasn't talking about their protected list.  I was talking about
>wasting the money on signing an average player, when they had someone 
>already to play first (Magadan).  Why did they do this, except so they
>could move another player out of position?

The big difference between Magadan and Murray are in the power numbers.
Say all you want about getting on base, which is what Magadan can do,
but you need someone to drive them in.  Eddie Murray was obtained for
that purpose.  I don't have the numbers in front of me but I am sure he
had 20+ home runs and 80+ RBIs.  This is what the Mets wanted for the #3
spot in the line up and this is what Murray gave them that Magadan could
not. 

Before we go on, I don't get hung up about money.  I know most of these
guys make in a year more than I might make in a life time.  That's OK
because I don't care.  What I care about is if they can play and do the
job they are asked to do.  Eddie Murray did his job and I have no
problems with the $7 million they are paying him for two years.

>>Neither is Coleman and if the Mets can find a suc.. err... taker for him
>>I am sure they would gladly give him up.  ...
>
>Um, yes, I know.  But the Mets think that he was a bad deal because he's
>been hurt almost his entire time with them, rather than because he's
>never been a very good player, and hasn't even been a good player in
>recent years.  Why did they sign him?  Because he's a big name.

Finish it: Because he's a big name and they needed the p.r. after losing
Darryl Strawberry and because there were some negative things coming out
about the alleged (non-)negotiations.  Coleman was supposed to fill a
couple of needs: lead off hitter, outfielder, and big name to replace
Strawberry.  So far, he is only a name.

Had he not been hurt would it have been a bad deal?  I don't know.  I
would speculate he would not have lived up to his billing, but I do not
think he would have been as bad.  Then again what did they lose?  Money? 
This was a free agent signing, not a trade.

>And did I mention Willie Randolph?  Now *that* was a brilliant acquisition.

I wouldn't call getting Randolph brilliant.  It was a good move for the
time.  Randolph was a one-year stop-gap until they found someone else.
He did good for the time he played.  Now all they have to do is find the
second coming of Ryne Sandburg...  :-)
-- 
scott barman			| <This space intentionally left blank>
scott@asd.com			|
 (I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball