Jan. 5.10: You asked for it, you got it.

Both Harry and Ray in a recent thread expressed interest in reading about Omar Minaya’s best deals. There have been more than a few. Some of his bad ones were actually good in the beginning, such as Oliver Perez and Guillermo Mota.

There were also decisions on Carlos Beltran, Carlos Delgado, Paul Lo Duca, Alex Cora and signing David Wright and Jose Reyes to long term extensions. The John Maine trade was good. Nobody could have thought he would be injured. Getting Xavier Nady was a good deal.

We must remember, that in all fairness, the Mets came within an inning of the World Series in 2006. Minaya put that team together.

Julio Franco, Moises Alou, Orlando Hernandez all had moments, but the negative reviews came with the subsequent contract extensions.

So, let’s have some fun with this today and talk about Omar Minaya’s Greatest Hits.

80 thoughts on “Jan. 5.10: You asked for it, you got it.

  1. Well as I said in the other thread, I think the 2005/2006 off season was one of the best off seasons in Mets history. Omar essentially built the team that would be 1 inning from the WS and compete for the division title the next two years that off season. He brought in Delgado, Lo Duca, Nady, Sanchez, El Duque in trades for essentially Cameron and Kris “Super Model” Benson. Then during the year made the necessary trade to bring in Still Juiced Mota, Hernandez and Perez which played key roles down the stretch after the “taxi” incidents of 2006. (Who would have thought that would only be the beginning of a string of bizarre health news coming out of our team).

    Of course he also had his best trade of his tenure in Santana which he played perfectly and gets too little credit for, and I am also a big fan of bringing in Francoeur for Church.

    To me, one of Omar’s strengths has been his trades, I only really have two trades that have turned out truly negatively (Bell and Lindstrom) and one that I have no problem with but others do for Bannister. When it comes to trades I will take Omar over most of the GMs we have had in our history.

  2. 1. I’ll comment later on the best of OMAR and the worst, but I’ll disagree for now on the Nady/OP Hernandez deal. That was about as bad a deal as made in Omar history. Of all of OPs bad seasons ’06 was maybe his worst until ’09. The lowly Pirates had given up on him (smartly in hindsite) and had sent him to the farm. Roberto Hernandez was washed up and provided no value as a Sanchez replacement. The Mets gave up a right fielder and began the jpurney to exposing the failire of the Met farm. Omar brought up not even ready for AAA Milledge and then brought in “I’ll wear a small cap to hide the fact I can’t run and field anymore” Green to replace Nady who was a solid protection and RBI guy in the botoom paert of the lineup. Omar could have OP for any bum or even for the famous PTNL and he didn’t need Hernandez because Hernandez was done. He wasn’t the ’05 Hernandez that helped the team and helped Heilman develop. Anbd as for OP helping the 06 Mets, well, lets see, he spent August in Norfolk where he threw a 1 hitter and came up and sucked as badly as he had in Pittsburgh flashing an appalling 6+ ERA. Then the playoff folklore of OP. He pitched one game vs the Cars where he sucked once more and then he pitched one good game in game 7, helped of course by a catch by Chavez which kept the game tied. So how did he help the Mets in ’06? ’07 he helped, but not in ’06.

  3. Not keeping the pen after 2006 was a huge error in judgement. Especially in light of what was brought in to replace the ones that left.

    Not improving the rotation during his whole tenure is my main problem with Omar. He brought in Pedro, Glavine, Johan. But in all these years he does not see fit to bolster the rotation and create competition for the staff. Apparently it is difficult to pick up players like Maine in a trade anymore. All FA pitchers are expensive. In the recent past most of his draft picks have been geared toward the pen not the rotation.

  4. So the Mets officially announced Bay today.

    In addition to 4/66 he gets a fifth year at 17 if he does 600 ab in the 4th year or avg 500 ab in the last 2. he also gets no trade.

    so 5/83.

  5. Omar’s Greatest hits:

    Trades

    1. Kris Benson to Baltimore for John Maine and Jorge Julio

    2. Jorge Julio to Arizona for El Duque

    3. Ryan Church to Atlanta for Jeff Francouer

    4. Jae Seo and whoever that reliever was to the Dodgers for Duaner Sanchez and Steve Schmoll

    Though they were great acquisitions, I won’t count the trades that brought the Mets Paul LoDuca and Carlos Delgado, because those were gimmes — the Marlins were in fire-sale mode, but Minaya should also get props for these under the radar free agent signings, which proved huge:

    1. Jose Valentin
    2. Endy Chavez
    3. Chad Bradford
    4. Darren Oliver

    And of course, Minaya’s negiotiating skills (with both the Wilpons to back up the Brink’s truck for the players and the players’ agents) helped get got the Mets Pedro, Carlos Beltran and Billy Wagner.

  6. It is reported the Mets have not contacted the agent for Wang.

    Granted he is coming off surgery. But when healthy he has proved to be a good pitcher. They should at least throw their hat in the ring.

    It is not like we dont need rotation help.

  7. Keeping it to trades I will give my top 5 best and worst.

    Best:
    1.Santana for 4 scrubs-this is revenge for the Seaver trade a generation ago.

    2. Cammy for Nady. Nady gave the Mets perfect balance in their lineup.

    3. Benson for Maine. I still have faith Maine will come back. Wheres Benson?

    4. Seo for Sanchez. This would look a lot better but we cant blame Omar for the taxi accident.

    5. Delgado for Jacobs. True it was a salary dump, but Omar had set his sights on “his guy” and waited a year to pounce.

  8. Worst:

    1.Trading Nady- Chiti lays it out very well. Omar compounds his mistake giving erratic perez a huge contract.

    2. Putz- We dont know if those minor leaguers we sent will pan out but taking on a big contract with heath issues not a good idea. I miss Endy.

    3. Bell- One of the best closers in the game. never got a real chance in NYC.

    4. Loduca- Yes he gave one good year. Should have just upped to offer to Molina who has been one of the most producive catchers in recent years.

    5. Bannister- He will never be great but better than a guy sitting in the hoosegow for killing somebody.

  9. I admit Omar comes out ahead in the trade dept. Its some of the free agent signings and neglect of the minor league system that are his major weaknessess. Also selection of Managers and coaches. Btw Omar and Bay will be on the fan at 1 pm est.

  10. JamesSC (1): I had forgotten about Sanchez. For half a year he was nearly unhittable out of the Mets’ pen. …. I like the Francoeur trade, which was esstentially Francoeur for Milledge. …. When I look at Omar’s tenure, what is glaring to me was letting the bullpen leave after 2006 and not fixing it after 2007. Not fixing the rotation after 2009 will be up there. There’s still time.-JD

  11. Harry (2): Perez was essentiallly a throw-in for what was a Nady for Hernandez deal. You’re right, they could have had Hernandez probably for less, Minaya was simply trying to replace Sanchez at the time. I’d like a do-over on that one.-JD

  12. Ray (7): Minaya deserves patience on the Santana deal. Part of me wonders, however, if he still gave away too much because the Yankees and Red Sox had backed up and there were no other players for Santana.-JD

  13. #8: I disagree about most of your worst trades. While I would have prefered not to give up Nady, I still like what Perez gave us in 2007/2008 and of course in game 7 of 2006. Maybe Omar could have gotten him for less, but I was also for Hernandez who had been great for us the prior year and we were in a very sudden and immediate bind with the Taxi accident happening days before the deadline.

    I also strongly disagree about Lo Duca, he was a big big part of 2006 and Molina would have been nice but Lo Duca was better for the budget and ended up a perfect fit. Besides how can you call it a bad trade when the trade itself would have worked out great (I mean we gave up nothing of value), Molina may have been “better” and prevented the Schneider disaster, but the trade itself was good for the Mets.

    #12 My problems with Omar comes down to almost exactly what you say. I give him a bit of a pass on the pen in 2007 as pens fluctuate wildly and you can easily make those kind of mistakes, but not addressing the issue in 2008 was a joke. My other gigantic issue with Omar is the minors.

    But overall, I think people forget just how much work Omar did beyond just “signing some guys” in 2004/2005 to build this team that has been pretty good for 3 years before our disaster of 2009. I think he gets called completely incompetent and incapable of doing anything too much by too many shortsighted fans.

  14. (5) Gil: Bradford and Oliver were two guys that he should have never let get away. I don’t think the trades have been Omar’s downfall, it has been the lack of foresight to recognize the other issues on the team and do nothing about them. And as far as the minor leagues go, so far…not good..BUT , i’m not sure what a minor league system is supposed to produce in 4 or 5 years

  15. 11,14. John Bay is not guaranteed that money. He has to have a lot plate appearances to get the last year to kick in. What patience is needed for Santana? 3 or the 4 players we sent are not even twins anymore.

  16. John (14) Why has Omar negelected making trades for pitchers this time around?? It won’t be a successful team without someone to follow Santana and don’t tell me the three Stooges (Pelfrey, Maine and Perez) can do the job. They can’t.

  17. 7/8. Pretty good list but I’ll take out Delgado trade and replace it with Julio for El Duque.
    On the worst side I can’t put LoDuca trade in the list. Your logic is sound but the trade itself wasn’t a loser. I’d put the Keppinger for Gotay trade in its place as Keppinger has become a decent player and Gotay was a guy Keith could tell us that he played with his uncle.

  18. (17) Ray: Sorry I didn’t read what JD had said about the Santana trade or else I would have said something to that effect. LOL. Maybe…in a few years Guerra will finally turn out to be some one, but Humber is out of baseball I think, Gomez still suffers from Met fundamentals, and Mulvey has been very mediocre.

  19. (18) Annie: I think trading for pitching is next on his list after signing Molina.

  20. #19 Yes, I said the Bell and Lindstrom trades were bad, I am not as down on the Bannister trade as others because I thought he was heavily over-rated, but we got nothing at all for him so I certainly can’t mark it as a good trade. I just hear people say it was trading some quality #2 guy for something useless. To me it was trading a low upside journeyman for a high upside erratic pitcher (little did I know he was also insane).

  21. #20, I forgot about that deal, Keppinger for Gotay was a pretty bad deal, plus I hated hearing about Gotay and how great he was going to be from folks on MetsGeek and some other places. I will add that to my list certainly.

  22. #22 I honestly think Omar has something he could do now for pitching that he has not done yet because he is looking for something better. I think he will definitely bring in at least one “dependable” starter before Spring Training, the key to this offseason is how good that pitcher is IMO.

  23. 25. James: Omar should hire you as his PR spokeman and dump Jay Horwitz. I think Horwitz has been there since the Joan Payson days.

  24. I think you need to evaluate trades on two fronts: Did it make sense at the time, and how did it eventually turned out.

    For example, Jason Isringhausen was 26, out of options, posting a high ERA (6.41 to be exact) for a third straight season, had battled arm surgeries and TB, had injured himself in a fit of anger (I believe he punched a water cooler?) and had referred to the Mets’ PR rep as “Jewboy” during a conference call with team beat reporters. And, in the middle of a pennant race, the A’s offered the Mets their closer in exchange for Izzy. That deal certainly made perfect sense at the time; the idea that Izzy got his act together at a later date is more a testament to him than a poor reflection on Steve Phillips, who made the deal.

    Omar has shown an ability to acquire other teams’ unwanted contracts (Delgado, Lo Duca, Santana, Green, Castillo, Putz) without surrendering much of value in return. Take the Santana deal: Sure, he gave up four players, but those players weren’t named Pelfrey, Niese, Mejia, Martinez or Tejada. Ditto for the Putz deal, which, with the possible exception of Mike Carp, reads like a trade proposal from a WFAN caller of six spare parts for an all-star-calibre pitcher.

    The biggest criticisms seem to surround three deals involving Bannister, Bell and Lindstrom. Bannister projected to be a #4 starter while Burgos projected to be a closer; you make that deal in a heartbeat. The idea that Burgos subsequently got hurt and into legal difficulties doesn’t mean the trade didn’t make sense at the time. Someone wrote Bell wasn’t given a chance with the Mets — but he posted an ERA of almost 5 over 81 games and 100 innings with the Mets. You could make the case that the Lindstrom deal, of the three, made the least sense in that there was no compelling reason to give up on him. But, taken together, these were still minor deals where players outperformed their projected value.

    I think his worst deal may end up being the Milledge deal — if Lastings ever puts it together and becomes a batting-title-type hitter. Unlike other cases, Milledge clearly had potential. Whether he realizes it is another story altogether.

  25. #28 I agree with that to an extent on those three deals and I have argued similar points on all three trades in the past. I still feel that way about Bannister who was never much value to me now or then, but a GM doesn’t just get reviewed on what he did at the time but how things turn out. While those points are mitigating factors, fans will still look at what Bell has done and complain about that trade. And lets not forget there were a lot of people complaining about that trade at the time, if for no other reason than the deal didn’t make much sense as the players we received seemed of very little value.

  26. 27. Sadecki, I am very saddened by your post…..lol.
    29, GMs should be jusdged on how things turn out. He is afterall, fully informed on the potential of guys, health reports, scouting reports, off field issues, etc. All we get is stats, PR and sometimes visual observation.

  27. (30) “GMs should be judged on how things turn out.”

    So, if Jason Bay gets hit by a PAT bus tomorrow, that makes it a bad signing by Omar?

  28. #31/30. I think you can take both of those statements too far. When Sanchez was injured in the Taxi that didn’t detract from how good a deal that move was for Omar (IMO). That being said Izzy putting things back together is not completely irrelevant from the Steve Philips trade as that was definitely a possibility. His behavior and performance are also factors, but so is his results afterwards when evaluating the trade.

    In the end, GMs are paid to make the right decision and that means that the final result of their moves is what really matters.

  29. (32) “In the end, GMs are paid to make the right decision and that means that the final result of their moves is what really matters.”

    So, by this reasoning, what really matters would be Bay being hit by the PAT bus, which, in turn, would reflect poorly on Omar?

  30. As far as the Izzy trade, Phillips made a deadline deal moving a young pitcher with potential who hadnt put it together yet for a veteran who was damaged goods (bad knee) sound familiar?

  31. Putz was a bad deal because he too was damaged goods. Dont these guys read medical reports?

  32. (34) Your two comments are in contradiction: On the one hand, you’re saying it wasn’t Omar’s fault that Sanchez was injured in a taxi, but, on the other hand, you’re saying “the final result of their moves is what really matters.”

    Which one is it?

  33. (35) Arguably, Izzy _had_ put together, albeit in 1995. In the four subsequent years, he pitched a total of 239.2 big-league innings with a cumulative ERA of 5.41. His ERA+ for those three years (he sat out 1998 in its entirety) were 84, 54 and 69, respectively.

    To put that in perspective, Oliver Perez posted an ERA+ of 68 in 2006 and 60 in 2009. If Omar traded Oliver tomorrow, would you be describing Perez’ later success as a pitcher with potential who hadn’t put it together yet?

  34. 38. Perez has put it together twice. He has also been around a lot longer than Izzy was in 1999. Izzy lost a lot of time to injury his first few years. Last year was the first time Ollie was hurt. Looks like apples and oranges to me.

  35. #37 I think I will just stick with what I have said a few times now, if you keep equating that to I think he will be blamed if he gets hit by a bus then that is taking a sentence out of context and refusing to pay any attention to the actual point of the arguement.

  36. (40) Perhaps, then, you can explain what you mean by “In the end, GMs are paid to make the right decision and that means that the final result of their moves is what really matters”?

  37. (39) Izzy turned 27 the year he was traded; Perez turned 28 last year. I think they’ve very comparable: Two pitchers with great stuff who let maturity issues keep from succeeding.

  38. 42. The point of my original izzy post was that he was traded away for damaged goods. ollie has not (yet) So I guess your just in a fightin mood today.

  39. (42) No fighting mood — just trying to follow the logic of the position(s).

    Re the damaged goods, this has happened more than once with the Mets, although I’m not sure what this reflects: General managers who are reckless or medical staff that are incompetent.

  40. #40 in the end all GMs are going to be measured by what happens on the field. They make excellent money to make the hard decisions about when to give up on a player, when to move on from a player and which players to keep. So when they make the wrong decisions on those there may be “mitigating factors” and things that can explain away a lot of things, but it still comes down to what happened.

    So when you are evaluating a trade you certainly consider where the team was, what was the reasoning for the trade at the time, etc. But you can’t ignore what actually happened in results. Things looking good on paper is not what GMs get paid for, they have to look good on the field.

  41. So if Bay gets hit by a bus tomorrow and is injured for the rest of his career no one would hold that against him. But if he comes to Citi and plays horribly for the next 4 years even with no reason to expect it in his history, no one will give him a pass for that.

  42. (45) “You can’t ignore what actually happened in results.”

    It seems to me that the Mets got three months out of Duaner Sanchez before the taxi crash. As such, the results would indicate a bad trade by Omar, right?

  43. Wow, you are just going to refuse to even pay attention to my posts are you? Ok, well then have at it.

  44. (48) I’m reading them and trying to discern the logic contained therein. You seem to stipulate that a GM can’t be held liable for unforeseen events — but then you conclude that the GM is ultimately responsible for the results. These two points seem entirely at odds.

  45. 47. Very incorrect. They got four months of a solid bullpen, in large part because of him, which over came a very injury prone starting rotation and which helped build an insurmountable lead for the division title, while they gave up nothing that benefitted the Dodgers. If Sanchez would have been in a wreck in Spring Training the trade would have been a zero on both sides.

  46. #49 Because in the end excuses are only excuses, if the team loses and the players the GM brought in stink then the GM will go, Fair or not it will happen. When Steve Philips brought in Alomar it sure looked like a great trade at the time, but Alomar was absolutely horrible here. So instead it ends up looking like Steve Philips bought damaged goods. Fair or not it is true.

    GMs are paid to get the best player in the right situation. The taxi incident is completely unpredictable, but Izzy’s resurgence was much less so and as was Alomar’s decline.

  47. (51) This sounds like the GM is ultimately judged by the final results. I guess what I’m not clear about is where you draw the line between the GM not being liable for unforeseen events and/or decline and yet being held accountable based on the end results.

    I think the Alomar deal was a good trade. Since the GM’s job is to assemble the talent, I can’t imagine how Alomar’s inability to subsequently perform in a Met uniform should be a reflection of the GM, unless he had knowledge of an injury or a decline in ability. In Alomar’s case, the second baseman was coming off three consecutive .300 seasons, including a .336 season in 2001.

    I prefer to judge trades two ways: Did it make sense at the time and did it work out in the end. In this case, Phillips did a wonderful job in acquiring a first-rate talent for a team that was one year removed from a World Series appearance, without surrendering much value in return. Did it work out in the end? No, based on Alomar’s subpar performance. But I’m not sure how that’s Phillips’ fault.

    As another example, Nolan Ryan for Jim Fregosi made _a lot_ of sense at the time. Ryan had been floating around the bigs for five years, performing just below league average, and was about to lose his spot as a fourth starter to Jon Matlack. Fregosi, meanwhile, was a six-time all-star who was coming off a bad year at age 29; was it a reasonable gamble that his poor season in 1971 was an anomaly and not the start of his decline at age 29? Fregosi and Staub (which is another trade worth discussing, as Ken Singleton, arguably, had a better post-trade career) seemed to make perfect sense as prime-of-career additions to a team boasting a strong pitching staff but a weak offense. Did it work out in the end? Obviously, no. But do you fault a GM for trading a fourth starter for a starting third baseman?

    Bannister for Burgos: Is it Omar’s fault that Burgos decided to run over two women?

  48. 52. Tiffany, I think you are really going off the deep end now. How can you defend the Fregosi deal? Ryan was not your typical 4th starter. Typical 4th starters dont have 100mph fastballs and 16 strikeout games. Fregosi wasnt even a third baseman. He was a shortstop. Coming off a bad year, as you say. At least Alomar was coming off a great year. Im sorry this trade was the worst in Met history and there is no defending it.

  49. 52, As far as rusty goes. Yes he was about the same player as singleton after the trade, but it was his heroics in the 1973 postseason that got them to within one game of a world championship. After the stupid Lolich trade, he came back to be a player/coach and became one of the greatest pinch hitters of all time. How many full time players were able to make that? transition?

  50. #52. Yes in all of those cases the GM will get at least part of the blame. The situation at the time does affect how you evaluate the trade, but you can’t JUST look at it at the time of the trade to make the result.

    In the Ryan case the GM knew he was trading someone with potential that hadn’t put it together yet for an older “known” quantity coming off a bad season. His player went no where and Ryan went on to be an all time great. He doesn’t get all the blame for that (especially since he wasn’t the only team to pass on Ryan after that), but he still pulled the trigger with the information and the effects are what they are. He knew he was taking a risk of giving up a quality player for a player that was coming off a bad year. He thought he was making a good bet but he wasn’t and he was paid to make that decision.

    With Alomar it is a slightly different situation, Philips does look like he bought some broken goods who couldn’t handle playing in NY, but then again the players we gave up amounted to a hill of beans and he still got a likely HoF in the deal. It also didn’t help that the Indians had dumped another broken 2B on us a few years earlier in a similar deal :) If Philips had traded away a Kent in his deal he would actually get killed for this trade instead of it just being an oddball trade in our history.

  51. The only way to evaluate a trade is on the end result. Judging it at what made sense to fans at the time is definitely the wrong way to evaluate. One of the most important and best trades in Met history was originally panned throughout the press and widely by the fans. In this trade the Mets traded a very popular outfielder who was a .300 hitter for an outfielder they knew little about. At the time of the deal, the trade seemed bad, after a horrible first year in NY the trade seemed bad, but when Tommie Agee led the ’69 Mets in HRs and made those two awesome catches in game 3 of the Wrold Series, there wasn’t a sole around complaining that we gave up a damaged and quickly fading Tommie Davis for him.

  52. (56) To be fair, the 24-yr-old Agee had been on two AL all-star teams, had won the Rookie of the Year, a Gold Glove and had finished 8th in the AL MVP voting in 1966 as a rookie. Essentially, they were trading a 28-yr-old who was a two-time all-star, former rookie of the year and top-ten finisher in the MVP voting twice for a 24-yr-old with a nice set of credentials of his own, including the ability to play centerfield.

  53. (53) Typical or not, Ryan was a fourth starter who, despite his potential, had not moved up and held down a steady spot in their rotation — and was about to be unseated by Matlack. He had far more value to other teams than he did to an organization that already had Seaver, Koosman, Gentry and Matlack in its rotation.

    As for Fregosi, yes, he was a shortstop — one who had made six all-star teams, won a gold glove and had placed in the top 10 in MVP voting. While he was coming off a bad year at age 29, at age 28 he had socked 22 homers and finished 8th in the AL in extra-base hits. (To put that in perspective, Ryan Zimmerman and Derrek Lee finished tied for 8th in XBH in the NL in 2009.)

    As for Staub, despite his lovable persona and post-season heroics, I think Singleton became the better player almost immediately.

  54. 58. Congrats tiffany, you are the one and only metsfan who defends the Ryan trade. End results are what is going to determine bad trade or good. the end results have never been this lopsided since the owner of the redsox needed money to put on a broadway play. For Fregosi to drop so far at such a young age suggests that there was someting wrong with him too which strengthens my argument that mets management trades for players with health issues.
    post season heroics and great character do mean something to me and I would bet to many others as well. Not saying the staub trade was a great one for the mets but you keep on wanting to bring in perez and others to a discussion that has nothing to do with them.

  55. 57. You miss the point. The trade was hammered at the time it was made. You judge the trade at the moment in time, Mets lose, but history proves the Mets win. Spewing awards and stats made beofre a trade was made is irrelevant. What the trade did to the teams is what a GM is judged by. A good GM knows when a guy is going to slide and makes the dump, the bad GM bites on history.

  56. (60) No, I don’t think I’m missing the point: The “spewing of awards and stats made before a trade was made” is entirely relevant to whether the trade made sense at the time; in this case, the Mets were trading their legitimate slugger for a younger player who had already won Rookie of the Year, a Gold Glove and had been voted onto two All-Star teams. How those credentials could be deemed “irrelevant” to whether a trade made sense at the time is beyond me.

  57. (59) I doubt I’m the only one who thought the trade made sense at the time. But if, as you say, the end results are what is going to determine bad trade or good, would it be a bad signing if Jason Bay gets hit by a bus tomorrow? How about the Celtics’ selection of Len Bias — bad pick? Do you hold their GM accountable for selecting a guy who died? Sounds like you have to, if “end results are what determines bad trade or good.”

  58. 62. Why dont you stop with your ridiculous if Bay gets hit by a bus argument. First of all, its not a trade. So that kills your argument right there. But if such a thing should happen, bays signing would not be a bad signing as Sanchez was not a bad trade. Mets at least would be compensated by insurance. By the way what came first the chicken or the egg? I like discussion and even argument but not to just have an argument for the sake of an argument which it looks like is happening here.

  59. 62. Also, you may not be the only one who defends the Ryan trade, but you are the first I have ever seen. And Ive been around awhile.

  60. (63) First off, I’m hoping you can continue with this discussion without making it personal. I don’t think I’ve made any disparaging comments about you during this thread, but if you’d like to go that route, let me know.

    That said, I don’t see the difference between a trade or a signing, per se, to this discussion. I believe the discussion is about whether to hold a GM accountable for something that might have made sense at the time, but didn’t work out in the end. If you think it’s about me and ridiculous and being the only Mets fan yadda yadda yadda, please clarify.

    To your point about Bay not being a bad signing if hit by a bus, a la Sanchez wasn’t a bad trade because of the taxi accident: How can you take this position when you’re simultaneously saying that the end results are what determines good from bad? Seems to me the end results were that Omar traded a young starter with decent market value for three months of a set-up man. If your end results are your criteria, then I don’t see how that’s a good trade.

    If, however, you think trades should be judged not only by the end result but also by whether they made sense at the time (which is what you’re seemingly saying re Bay and Sanchez), then I’m with you.

    I think if you judge a trade solely on the end results you’re likely rewarding a GM for good luck a good portion of the time.

  61. 65. very easy to answer your question. Sanchez was very productive until the accident as chiti elaborated. seo did nothing. Mets win. Its not personal. I like your posts most of the time. You are using for the cause of argument something that has a very small chance of happening. I would rather argue on what is tangible. If you feel the Ryan trade was defensible, thats ok, its your opinion and different opinions make these sites fun. I hope you keep on posting here whether we agree or not. Sorry if you feel insulted.

  62. 65. btw, I loved the one you put on Chiti, since I was his opponent on Myers. Still waiting for Chitis response :D

  63. #65 Of course GMs get credited for good luck, how many times do people laud a GM for a 70th something round pick that ends up coming up big on the rare occasion that it does.

    The difference between getting hit by a bus is that there is absolutely no way to possibly have any idea it is going to happen. Changes in performance are generally nothing like that. No one could say for CERTAIN that Izzy was going to become what he did when he went to the A’s, but lots of people expected him to get better with a change of scenery and another chance.

    GMs get benefited frequently when they trade young untapped potential that never pans out for a proven commodity because the trade looks good when they don’t pan out. When that GM trades away one that does turn out big he gets killed because his job is to pick right and he didn’t. Do that too frequently and you dont get your job anymore.

  64. 67. Sadecki: Whereer the post is about Myers where I was gotten, you’ll hae to repeat or give me the number.
    61. If you think the performance of a player after a trade is made is not important to a GMs performance then there is no discussion. I guess a A good GM gets old players with awesome histories. A giood GM never keeps a kid because a kid has no awards. Enjoy your losing team. I’m glad we won the Fregosi trade. Those awards sure helped the Mets. We must have been a great team in 62-63 having all those award winning players who went to the Hall. The standings must have been posted upside down.

  65. (69) No, Harry, I don’t think the performance _after_ the trade is irrelevant; in fact, the astute reader will note how many times that I’ve written that you have to look at _both_ whether the trade made sense at the time and whether it worked out in the end. But don’t let that get in the way of your reasoned argument here.

    To clarify again, since you seem to enjoy twisting the words of others: I think the Fregosi trade made sense at the time. If you feel the need to write your own embellishments to this stated position, I really can’t stop you from being yourself, eh?

  66. (68) I don’t disagree with what you’re saying — I just don’t find it consistent with the end-results-mean-everything position.

  67. #71 you blame Harry for twisting your words when your entire arguement is that I am going to ignore 70% of what you are saying because I have one sentance and I am going to repeat it until I am blue in the face.

  68. That came out a little harsher than intended. But anyway the point is that this arguement is just going in circles with anything I point out being ignored as against the end results. If you think GMs are evaluated on how things should have worked out and not on end results then GMs must get fired too frequently for you.

  69. (72) I’m sorry if you can’t understand that an end-results-are-all-that-matter position is inconsistent with cutting GMs slack for things that happen that are beyond his control. My sincere apologies for your lack of understanding.

  70. (73) No — I think they should be evaluated on _both_ whether it made sense at the time and whether it worked out in the end. Have I not communicated this position enough during this thread?

    The same way I wouldn’t provide too much credit to a GM drafting Mike Piazza in the 62nd round, I wouldn’t find too much fault when someone like Melvin Mora suddenly adds a new power dimension to his game. I think both of these developments go far beyond what is typical and, probably, reasonable to expect. Yet, when you focus solely on the end results, you end up debiting and crediting the GM for mere happenstance that he can’t possibly control. That’s why I prefer to evaluate a trade on _both_ fronts: Did it make sense at the time and did it work out in the end. If you omit one of those factors, you’re evaluating in a vacuum.

    I think the circular nature of our discussion is that you are saying you believe in evaluating the GMs on end results — but you’re also saying he shouldn’t be held accountable for things like death and dismemberment that are beyond his control. If you’re allowing for such accommodations, then you’re not an end-results-are-all-that-matter guy.

  71. Everything a GM does in the end comes down to how it all works out. Looking at individual trades you can “rate” them however you want, but if a GM makes all trades that look great on paper and seem to make tons of sense but when the team plays he loses 100 games no one is going to care that it “looked” like he made the right move at the time.

    So while those factors are important and are definitely included when looking at a trade in the end it all comes down to the results not what “looked” good.

  72. 74. A general can have what seems as a great strategy, but his job is to win the war. A CEO’s job is to make his company prosper. If he buys what seems are good smaller companies but the final result is corporate losses he failed. A DAs job is to convict. A great strategy and a not guilty verdict is failure. A GM’s job is to make his team better and to win. The reasonableness of a trade when made, or a signing when made doesn’t really matter. If the team loses he failed and his trades failed. He’s the guy on top and he needs to be accountable for the results of his work. If a guy dies like Bias did, he gets a little time to recover, but ultimately he still beter figure out a way to get beyond the loss or he’s gonna be gone.

  73. (77) While I certainly understand the emphasis on the actual outcome, I don’t think it’s that simple; indeed, if it were, there would be about 29 GMs looking for work each off-season.

    But, to test your theory, who won the 2009 Billy Wagner trade? While Wagner only contributed 13 late-season innings to the Sox, they did make it to the post-season, and it’s unlikely that Chris Carter and Eddie Loria are ever going to amount to anything but entries on Internet baseball websites. Did the Sox win this deal because Wagner was a bigger contributor to their success in 2009 than Carter and Loria will ever likely be to the Mets? Or, did the Mets win because they dumped $3 million in salary? Or, did the Mets lose because they would have been better off by keeping Wagner, offering arbitration and then getting a compensatory draft pick who would be, arguably, worth more than either the Carter/Loria package or the $3 million saved by jettisoning Wagner?

    How about that deal that sent Sheffield to the Tigers for three minor-league pitchers, one whom promptly blew out his arm, another that was put on waivers and another who is still toiling in the minors at age 25? Did the Tigers win that deal, because Sheffield performed better than those three pitchers — or did the Yanks because the salary savings allowed them to pursue better players? Or, was it simply a good deal for the Yanks because they won two years later?

    In short,I don’t think an approach that looks solely at the end results allows for the consideration of things like salary dumps, which are all about the context of whether something makes sense at the moment, rather than whether it led to a winning outcome for the team.

  74. In those deals the GM who is trading a player in a salary dump, the “result” they are looking for is the budget savings so that is the key. In the Sheffield deal Cashmen did an excellent job as that money he saved on Sheff helped him rebuild his team and win the WS last off season.