From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: idiots.
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:06:40 GMT

>>> = Some unknown person because the attributions were deleted.
>>  = Me, Scott Barman, my response to the above person
>   = Dean Carrano <dcarrano@eagle.wesleyan.edu>

>>>patched holes, badly.  Trading for Charlie O'Brien and Dick Schofield is
>>>really really dumb.  

This is the key.  It says "trading for" them was really dumb *NOT* what
they traded for to get these guys.  In response, I wrote:

>> 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?

To which Mr. Carrano replies:
>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.

That is not the point.  They needed a catcher and they went out and
traded for one.  Now if the original poster said "what they traded to
get Schofield and O'Brien was really, really dumb," I would have no
problem with this.  Please read what is written and what is responded
to before hand.  There are no hidden meanings in what I say here (unless
I say so first :-).

Later I said:
>> 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?

To which Mr. Carrano replies:
>Well, gee, why is trading Julio Valera and Julian Vasquez for Dick Schofield
>dumb?  

<CLICK>This is not the argument.  The original poster said trading for
them was dumb, not what they traded for them!

Please, if you're going to flame me at least flame me for something I said!

Mr. Carrano then says:
>  I don't care how badly you need a shortstop,
>it's not worth it if you have to make that trade.

I could agree, but then in the very next paragraph Mr. Carrano contradicts:

>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!"

If that's the thinking then you make the trade.  If it would have worked
out, then this discussion would not be happening.  The threw the dice
and craped out.  But that's the point.  They made the trade thinking it
would improve the team figuring that the future may take care of itself.
They tried to fill a need, and that's what the discussion is.

>  The Mets are becoming the mid-'80s Yankees. 

If they were then Schofield would have been signed as a too high paid
free agent and not traded for.  At least get your analogies correct.

>Donnels, or whoever?  (Actually, I love Chris Donnels, but he didn't do much
>for the Mets last year.  Go, Marlins!)

Chris Donnels was released by the Marlins last week.

>> 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?

They had a guy named David Cone, remember?

>>  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. 

Finally, the proper response to a statement.  This is where your
arguement goes.  And when you do, you'll find I agree with you.

>Then today, I hear that they've traded Mike
>Freitas for Mike Maddux.  Freitas was devastating!  And he's a reliever! 

He was devastaing?  To whom?  According to the papers here and the radio,
they seem to think this was an all right trade.  I didn't see the
numbers on him, but the concensus was that this was not bad in the grand
scheme of things.

>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.

Gee, let's see.  You're a general manager of a major league ballclub and
you know that the Mets need, for example, a left handed setup man.  You
get this call from Al Harazin, "please, trade me your left handed setup
man and I'll give you X."  You know the Mets are near desperate so you
think, "if he'll give up X for that left handed setup man, maybe I can
sweeten the pot and get Y, too.  Let's see how deperate Al is."  And it
goes from there.  It is called the reality of baseball.  They have to
get what they can from whatever source in order to field a team.  Is
this the best team they could field in 1993?  Absolutly not.  Any Mets
team without David Cone will not be as good as it could be.  But the
other GMs are not sheding a tear for the Mets and Al Harazin has to do
something.

It is not difficult for me to be a Mets fan.  I just laid out the $319
for my season plan tickets and I may be there for Opening Day (I have a
conflict that may prevent me from going, but I have tickets already).
You just have to realize that they will be no better than fourth place
and take it from there.
-- 
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