From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: The New Yuck Mets: A Look Ahead
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:24:51 GMT

In <1992Nov19.185947.17662@asd.com> scott@asd.com (Scott Barman) writes:
>In <1992Nov18.033005.17846@Princeton.EDU>  (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In <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!

He isn't a shortstop, but he *should* be.  He's not the greatest
defensively, but he isn't that awful, and he's most valuable there by
far.  (By playing him there, it enables you to get their pathetic
shortstop o' the year's bat out of the lineup.)

>>>>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 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.

I don't care about money, either.  I think players deserve anything and
everything they can get.  I'd always rather see them get it than the
owner.  I just think a team should pay the *right* people.

Murray did *not* do his job.  He was an average first baseman last year.
Not that the Mets should have expected anything different, but they did.
Murray wasn't even much of a slugger last year.  

And that *isn't* what the Mets needed.  They had their power hitters.
They could have used any of them.  Bass, Boston, Bonilla, all could do
that job.  HoJo, too, though he had a miserable year.  (Of course, if he
had been their shortstop instead of an outfielder, it would have been a
miserable year for him, but an average shortstop performance.)

And all of them, except HoJo, slugged as well as Murray.  They needed
someone to get on base; Murray didn't do that.

>>>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.

And that's all he was before they signed him, too.

>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.

What ability?  He doesn't have much to live up to.

When you sign a free agent, you lose *DRAFT PICKS*.  Sign lots of bad
free agents, and you lose lots of draft picks, and your farm system
dries up, and you start sucking.  (See Yankees, 1980s.)

>>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...  :-)

Sarcasm.   But in all actuality, he wasn't that bad.  He did get on
base.  Of course, he cost the Mets draft picks, and did NOTHING to solve
their long-term problem.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "If America is a Christian country because a majority
niepornt@phoenix.    | of the population is Christian, is it also a female 
   princeton.edu     | nation?  Or a white nation?"  -- Michael Kinsley,
Roland:Sign Treadway | to Governor Kirk Fordice of Mississippi.