From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: idiots.
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:53:27 GMT

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.

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.

>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?

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?

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.
-- 
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