Santana would be a Met if they included Fernando?

asking for Fmart on top of that

is way too much. substituting FMart for Gomez i could understand. that said, i hope the trade finally happens.

by Travis G on Jan 9, 2008 11:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

To me

I think the Twins would have to give some kind of prospect along with Johan to get that package.

by Roo on Jan 10, 2008 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Im pretty sure the Twinkies wont be doing that. If theyre going to send prospects back why wouldnt they just do it for the Hughes deal or the Ellsbury deal? If Im overpaying Im going to want the marquee prospects I want most back. It certainly seems like Smith(rightly) values Hughes and Ellsbury above FMart(not even considering the distance to the majors not fitting their needs angle).

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

So, Mulvey/Guerra/Humber/Gomez/Martinez for Santana? I'm assuming the Mets would get a window to negotiate. This would definitely qualify as an "all-in" type move, and if they did offer up all 5, I'd be surprised if another team could top the deal. I know, it's chic to bash on the Mets system, and I don't particularly like their system all that much. But that might be too much to pass up, and too much for another team to overbid on.

I wouldn't be surprised if this happens. Part of me thinks that the insignificant Pagan trade was meant at giving them a decent OF option in case they thinned out and went all-in. Admittedly, I'm a tad surprised Pelfrey isn't one of the three pitchers named. I wonder if the Mets are holding him off (which doesn't make sense if they are going that aggressive) or the Twins don't want him.

I'm just not sure this is a great move on the Mets part. I can't say that I honestly feel that if they made this move, they'd be the clear cut favorites in the NL, and if they did make this move, they'd thin out their system a ton and have to spend to compensate (can't wait for comments on Wilpons and spending from Mets fans). Just not sure this is wise, when, on paper right now, they still have a good shot at winning the NL East and might even be the favorites at this point in time (certainly debatable on that one).

Dunno.

by toonsterwu on Jan 9, 2008 11:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pelfrey

Most teams see him about as valuable as Humber. The Mets get more value in keeping him than trading him even if he is a bust.

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt

Totally makes sense that a deal including Guerra, Gomez, Mulvey, Humber, AND Martinez would get it done. Especially considering the reported next best packages from the Yankees and Red Sox. Why would the Mets do that, though? No offense to the poster, but it's like saying "The deal would be done with the Yankees if they included Joba Chamberlain along with Hughes." Of course, but why would the Yanks do it?

Like Travis G said, it makes more sense of FMart is substituted, not added. Though, stranger things have happened (especially with teams in desperate need).

by Stephcaflowne on Jan 9, 2008 11:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I

am a Mets fan, so I have no reason to dog the Mets but Chamberlain and Hughes are pretty damn safe bets (with Chamberlain DOMINATING in limited major league duty) Gomez and Fernando are far more likely to flame out in my honest opinion.

by Peter North on Jan 9, 2008 11:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Joba

He wasn't huge and lights out in college or the minors, and had 16 relief and lost his composure due to flies.

I struggle seeing him as a starter, but what do I know?

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 7:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Please explain...

I hope you mispoke there, but this needs clarification.

"wasn't huge and lights out"

Come again?

Here's his composite stats from the minors this year:
88.1 inn, 62 h, 135/27 k/bb, 2.45 ERA

How is that not lights out?

And have you ever tried to pitch with that sort of action going on around your noggin? It's not surprising that Joba lost it, it's surprising that Fausto didn't.

Also, I don't believe his curve is quite there yet, but BA ranks it as the best in the system, and that's his third best pitch.

by ajake57 on Jan 10, 2008 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Joba

Lightning in a bottle.

Also, in my freshman year in high school (I am a sophomore now), we were playing on a field that might as well have been a dump. Gnats everywhere. Beer cans every couple of inches. LOTS OF WEEDS.

It was a big game, too.

Starting that game was like any other. As a pitcher, my eyes don't tell me much. I just face my body in the correct position and let loose.

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ok

i just think we can cut him a break, all things considered. i don't think he's in rick ankiel territory.

by ajake57 on Jan 11, 2008 1:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

huh?

in college yeah but in the minors? REALLY?

The only real risk with Joba at this point is the injuries, and those are really hard to figure anyway. people's been singing doom and gloom for CC Sabathia for a few years now and he's still going strong. as is D-train (though he's certianly showing warning signs i guess)

by RollingWave on Jan 10, 2008 8:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BTw, the link for the article is

http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/13627791.html

by toonsterwu on Jan 9, 2008 11:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Response

Geez, frickin add Fernando Martinez and get the deal done if that's all it's going to take

by mrkupe on Jan 9, 2008 11:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Someone pllzzzz

pulllll the freaking trigger already .. this soap opear has dragged on for way too long.

by RollingWave on Jan 9, 2008 11:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

oh, let's get Bedard over with as well ...

by toonsterwu on Jan 9, 2008 11:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

uhhh

i didn't read the original post because I was drooling over the thought of seeing santana in the NL and in a big park. Damn.

Jack Cust is this year's Marcus Thames

by Team Moneyball on Jan 9, 2008 11:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sounds like

the entire Saints draft for Ricky Williams.

I have a feeling it might work out just as well. That's just too much to give up and on the flip side the Twins still arent getting the premium prospect they want, at least on the level of Hughes or Ellsbury. I never bought the "Mets dont have enough" angle.

Another thing is... fmart isnt a throw in you do to make it happen. If thats the case it aint happening. Thats like if they went to the Sox and said "we love your Lester/Lowrie/etc... deal, now just throw in Clay and we have a deal!" Not that FMart is anywhere near as good a prospect as Clay, but he is their BEST prospect. He is the centerpiece or not of a deal, not a fringe element that is thrown in to make it happen. As a centerpiece he falls short of the other offers, IMHO, but if you did combine him with those other five pretty good prospects... well, then youre cooking with fire.

by alskor on Jan 9, 2008 11:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My guess

isn't that they want F-Mart added to the deal but that they want F-Mart to replace someone in the deal, most likely Gomez.

by cubsfan2883 on Jan 10, 2008 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There has been some speculation

that he was to replace Gomez, but read rotoworld's take:

"The Star Tribune's Joe Christensen believes the Twins would send Johan Santana to the Mets if New York added Fernando Martinez to its current offer of Carlos Gomez, Deolis Guerra, Phil Humber and Kevin Mulvey.

If Christensen has the players exactly right, that'd qualify as new news. However, it's been assumed for a while now that the hold up with the Mets is that the Twins want both outfielders, while the Mets are only willing to part with one. The Mets are right to stand pat with the current offer. Four quality prospects for Santana is sufficient. Adding Martinez, even if he replaced one of the pitchers, is too high of a price to pay. "

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=2993

IMHO, an offer that replaces Gomez especially, but also either Humber or Mulvey would then not be able to trump the best offers by the Sox and Yanks.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree and disagree

I agree with the logic value-wise, but it has seemed that they're trying to use the Santana deal to get back a center fielder. Fernando is a center fielder the way that Lance Berkman used to be a center fielder, he's really better cut out for a corner. And considering that neither Humber nor Mulvey are sure things by any means, I can see where they might want to really hedge their bets.

by MontrealMets on Jan 10, 2008 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Blah

Quantity over quality surely can't be the best move for the Twins. All these guys are good prospects and whatnot, but basically they are getting two low ceiling starters and three giant question marks. I'd rather have the Boston offer.

by aCone419 on Jan 10, 2008 1:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

which one?

the ellsbury or the lester one?

by toonsterwu on Jan 10, 2008 1:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

take your pick

i personally still prefer either offers the red sox had out there.

the twins have said from the beginning that they were looking for a 'quality over quantity' deal. i see a lot of busts just waiting to happen in the mets offer. then again, i was standing 3 feet from peter gammons and steve phillips during the winter meetings while they discussed how the santana to sox deal was "a sure thing" and "would happen tonight." so my guess is that nobody knows what the twins are thinking, even the people they tell it to.

by ajake57 on Jan 10, 2008 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

The more I look at it, the more Gomez, Mulvey and Humber look a lot closer to what the O's were supposedly getting for Roberts than the BOS and NYY offers for Johan.

We're talking a speed demon who cant hit or take a walk so far, and who strikes out 25% of the time and two back of the rotation guys.

So who am I describing? The METS offer - Gallagher is better than either of the Mets pitchers, the other pieces are comarable in a lot of ways. Especially b/c I dont really care for Gomez.

FMart could change the equation, but they probably still need to add even more.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 2:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed with those three

not high on any of them.

personally, i like Guerra a lot more than near anyone else on the site, so that changes the trade a little. i also like FMart more than almost anyone.

if you don't like Guerra (understandable), and there's no FMart, it is a trash trade. to me, with both included, i can definitely see taking it over the Sox or Yanks offer.

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 10, 2008 3:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gomez vs Cedeno

I think it's a little harsh to start comparing Gomez and Ronny Cedeno. Cedeno has had HOW many major league at bats to prove he can't hit? Gomez was rush to the bigs last season out of need. Everybody including the Mets know that. But he still hit well in AAA at age 21 and still has that "might develop power" thing hanging over him (I'm not liking those chances myself). Cedeno has no upside whatsoever. He's pretty much what he is.

by Lunkwill Fook on Jan 10, 2008 9:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The Twins are still dreaming. Let the Mets

take advantage of the Twins' hopes for Gomez. I'd propose the same deal and add Heilman to make some good coffee a little more sweet.

The Mets offer puts up a fight to the Red Sox's, in standard terms, and may even slightly beat the Yankees' deal, which is essentially Hughes for Santana.

If the Twins have a love affair with Gomez, this dream may be a reality.

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I read the article to mean...

...that if Fernando replaces Guerra or Humber, it's a done deal. The Twins have said they will fill the center field hole with the Santana trade. And Martinez is not ready, so they need Gomez and Martinez and two arms. If I were Bill Smith, I would prefer Guerra and Mulvey. But I don't think he'll be too picky if he can get Gomez and Martinez in the deal.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Jan 10, 2008 10:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If the Mets offer is even being considered

The twins should look at a Yankee deal without Hughes.

A Jackson, Tabata, Horne and Marquez package is better than anything the Mets can offer.

by emac2 on Jan 10, 2008 11:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

No

it's not.

by jeck on Jan 10, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

in fact its my opinion that the yankees can't match a mets offer whether they include hughes or not w/o joba

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course they could

Hughes, Kennedy, Tabata, Jackson, Horne > whatever package the Mets could put together. The Yankees have much more depth of prospects (plus Hughes) than the Mets, and more star power. It's not close, unless you really overrate F-Mart, Gomez, and Guerra.

by jc3 on Jan 10, 2008 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He does.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Jan 10, 2008 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...?

The thing is, the Yanks would be dumbasses to include both Hughes and Kennedy in a deal, along with at least Melky, who at least can kind of hit.

BTW, Alan Horne is worse than Kevin Mulvey. Horne is going to be a mediocre hurler, no doubt.

Final point: Twins + Gomez = <3.

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Point

Just pointing out that "the Yankees can't match any Mets offer without including Joba" is really just an inaccurate statement. I completely agree that the Yankees should never make an offer like that...

by jc3 on Jan 10, 2008 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

If Fmart replaces Humber is a done deal, they need a stopgap cf and Gomez could work.

by jahs34 on Jan 10, 2008 11:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

As a Mets fan...

This is a tough one. I think I have to pull the trigger if it's FMart replacing Gomez, but not if it's both. I think the world of Fmart, and I'm probably one of his biggest backers on this board. However, Johan would transform the Mets and really make us a very viable contender for the World Series.

Moreover, I view the trade as essentially FMart and Guerra for Santana, as Humber and Mulvey aren't exactly top of the pops prospects. Guerra's obviously expendable when the return is Santana, and so the question is FMart. I really, really believe that he could become a superstar. I think his 50% is Carlos Lee-type production. I mean, I'm really THAT high on him.

But, I also think Johan means a legit chance at a World Series for a team who's window of opportunity is kind of tenuous at the moment. Perez is headed for FA. Wagner, Castillo, Pedro, and Delgado aren't getting any younger. After the Milledge deal, the roster is pretty much a win-now kind of club, which just happens to have a great young core (and even Beltran is 30 next season).

I think the Mets would HAVE to make this move. But, then, don't say I didn't tell you so when Mauer, Young and FMart are leading the 2012 Twins to a World Series.

by GuyinNY on Jan 10, 2008 11:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

What could Santana get at the deadline?

If say the Reds were to trade for Johan, since the O's are asking for sooooo much, and its obvious that Johan would only spend the season in cincy, what could Santana get them come the trade deadline. Would a few months of Santana and the prospects recieved at the deadline be worth Bailey Cueto Votto and one other not named Bruce?
And dont say the Twins wouldn't make a deal without Bruce because no one has offered them pitching prospects this damn good.
Hughes and no one else. Humber and Mulvey, not much. Only Lester < Bailey Cueto

by kennythered on Jan 10, 2008 12:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well

If I'm to understand you correctly, you'd be saying "What could Johan fetch Cincy at the deadline?" and the simple answer is nothing. If the Reds get Santana, and he remains healthy, they will contend barring massive injury to the rest of the roster. And with the farm as depleted as it would be anyway, it would only make sense to go all in.

In the off-chance that Santana is healthy and having a productive contract year (think 10+W's, sub-3.00 ERA at the break), and the Reds have for some reason fallen out of contention? I bet he could snare a whole heckuva lot, but then Cincy would be looking to break even at best, with the way the pitching trade market looks this winter.

So, odds are, I think that if Johan does wind up in Cincy, it's more a question of what Jay Bruce or Adam Dunn could fetch to supplement whatever needs they have.

by GuyinNY on Jan 10, 2008 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In the NL Central

A few months of Johan will get the Reds to the playoffs. So why not use him to get them to the playoffs or close to it (put butts in the seats), trade him at the deadline replenish the system, and up the payroll again with the resigning of Dunn and another FA in a position of needs liek they did this year in Cordero.

by kennythered on Jan 10, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

This post doesn't make any sense. Trade your best prospects for Johan and be in win now mode and then get close to the playoffs or in the playoffs and then trade him at the deadline, while you are in win now mode, for more prospects. It was just confusing breaking down your thoughts.

If you trade your best prospects for Johan, then you are in win now mode and you don't deal him after he has lifted your team to a different level. This is real life baseball not sim a league.

by JFP on Jan 10, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Johan

has stated he wont agree to a trade during the season. He has a full no trade.

At the begining of this saga he claimed he would just wait and test free agency if he wasnt traded before the season began.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Forgot about this, though you have to wonder what would happen if he hated his new city?

Anyway, I'd imagine that even if the Reds did have him, and they were seriously contending, then it would make the most sense to keep him for the playoffs since he could likely spark a pretty major run for them. And that run would generate alot of money, which could pay for whatever they needed in the offseason.

Besides which, the fan backlash to selling high on a winner in that situation would be overwhelming. If they did go through with Johan, they'd have to be in it to win-now.

by GuyinNY on Jan 10, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In all fairness

I cant even find the link anymore, but Im confident this happened, and others have mentioned it as well.

Youre right though, grain of salt situation.

The other issue is that if the Twinkies keep Johan... well pair him with Liriano plus a little luck and they may very well be in the middle of a playoff race. The PR hit could be monumental at that point.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I think that's one of the more understated things. Part of me wonders if Bill Smith is intentionally dragging this out, because on paper, I could see them contending this year. Sure, Adam Everett is an offensive wasteland that essentially takes Nick Punto's role. But Brendan Harris/Mike Lamb should help the offense be better than last year (and if Alexi Casilla develops, then it gives them some depth). Sure, another bat would be nice. The pen still looks solid, with or without Nathan (obviously, much better with Nathan back there and I'm assuming Neshek setting up). A healthy Santana/Liriano combination and maybe a midseason addition or two and this club doesn't look that bad and IMO could compete with the Indians/Tigers.

Of course, the only thing that stops me from buying this scenario is that the Minnesota writers all seem to believe Santana will be gone at some point. They can't all be off ... can they?

by toonsterwu on Jan 10, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No Way..

I would love to have Johan Santana on my staff but not for my top 5 prospects..

First of all I don't care what team your a fan of but Martinez,Gomez,Guerra,Mulvey,Humber destroys a package of Hughes,Melky or Lester,Masterson,Crisp..

It's not even close..

The Twins can have 4 prospects not named Guerra of Fernando Martinez..

by mesmerized on Jan 10, 2008 2:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Again

METS
Martinez - stud corner OFer
Gomez - speed guy who hasnt hit and doesnt walk
Mulvey - back of the rotation ceiling
Humber - back of the rotation ceiling
Guerra - 178 professional innings, 6.82 K/9

How does that come close to beating either the Yanks or Sox? Quantity isnt beating quality when it comes to a Santana trade. Besides the fact the Mets havent made this offer and steadfastly refuse to include both OFers. Take FMart out(which is apparently the offer on the table) and that offer is not even worth talking about.

Also, youre off on the reported Yanks and Sox offers. Its not just Hughes and Melky and the Sox have a fourth player, and also an offer involving Ellsbury.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Guerra - 178 professional innings, 6.82 K/9

I think Guerra is overrated based on his age/level and the Mets' hype. If the Twins would have signed him, he probably would have been in the Appy league last year. He likely would have put up better numbers, but he wouldn't be a top 10 prospect in the Twins system.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Jan 10, 2008 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like him

Dont get me wrong. He has more upside than the other pitchers, for sure, and his ARL was impressive.

But jesus, that doesnt beat Phil Hughes. Youre telling me Bill Smith would rather have three mediocre pitching prospects over Hughes?? No effin way that's true. Hell, anybody would take Lester over any of those three Mets pitchers, too.

If the Sox offer was just Lester, Coco and Lowrie that is a good deal better than the Mets current reported offer(No Fmart offer), never mind that there is a 4th player, possibly Kalish.

Lets put it this way, if Omar could trade Gomes, Guerra, Humber and Mulvey for:

The Yanks offer of Hughes, Melky and ?; or
The Sox offer of Lester, Coco, Lowrie and ?; or
The Sox offer of Ellsbury, Lowrie and ? ?

...youre telling me he wouldnt do that in a heartbeat?? No brainer. And THAT is why the mets offer isnt beating the current offers.

Add FMart and it can get a little interesting, but even then I think the Mets still have the 4th best offer.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mitigating factors

I don't think it's just about who has offered the best package. But, all things considered, the Twins would rather ship him to the Mets than have to face him in the playoffs in a couple of years.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Jan 10, 2008 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

I can buy that argument. Though I dont think its correct. I believe they need and want to get the best package they can, regardless of where he goes.

BUT in no way should anyone claim the Mets offer, either their present offer OR the best offer they can put together, "destroys" the other offers. That's just absurd.

Explain to me how the Mets so-so farm system can stay in the ring with two heavyweights like the Sox and Yanks. Its like claiming the Mariners could make an offer for Bedard that the Reds cant match - not possible. They may not want to, but they certainly could. IMHO, the Sox and Yanks have already made strong offers, each superior to all but the best the Mets could offer. And if the Mets did make their best offer it wouldnt take a whole lot(Kalish, Lester + Ellsbury, Kennedy?) to push the other two teams offers over the top again.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

rebuttal below

and comparing the value of throwing in fernando to doing so with kalish or ian kennedy is in nice terms, VERY misguided

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not misguided at all

You missed my point. I think a deal without FMart is NOWHERE IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD as the other offers.

With FMart, I said it gets closer, and is an interesting argument but could still be beat rather easily by the Sox or Yanks adjusting their offers with additions like Ian Kennedy or adding Lester AND Ellsbury. The addition of those players really shouldnt be a mark against FMart, those guys are pretty good.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe for the sox

if they added lester AND ellsbury, which they said they won't do

but kennedy does not have the value of a martinez period...and if its perceived that way right now (which it seems to be) then theres going to be a rude awakening for kennedy fans who forgot that in his last full season stint he couldn't keep Pac-10 hitters below a nearly 4era

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But

if the Yankees don't include Hughes (which appears to be the case) Kennedy, Melky, Marquez don't match the Mets offer.

by Peter North on Jan 10, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wrong

you can't just write off a player because hes high risk and thats just what you're doing with both gomez and guerra

you're essentially saying "since both could bust add another stud in as a safety net" but thats not the way it works...if you want the high potential players then you take on their risk and in order to make it easier for you to swallow that risk we've added in 2 of our surest arms (limited in potential as they may be) to counterract it

also you don't mention the other side of the coin where those 2 have as higher ceilings than nearly anyone at their positions in the minors...gomez could be a jose reyes clone and guerra could be the next cole hamels...then as a bonus you've got 2 mid-rotation starters which we're seeing with joe blanton can be very valuable

keeping that in mind i take the current mets offer over the yankee offer...hughes looked pretty good but an automatic stud with no risk involved? hell no, i've never seen so much acclaim over a mediocre season highlighted by a 5 inning ho-hitter against an anemic offense...with an inconsistent curve and straight-as-an-arrow fastball that was 4-5 mph slower than it used to be whose to say hughes isn't a midrotation guy himself? but i'll give ground and say hes still a nice centerpiece...but not when hes complemented by a cfer whose defense is subpar, can't hit for power, average or steal bases, never has even in the minors and offers almost no projection beyond what hes doing now...he only kept his playing time by hitting with men on base which is a function of luck...and then a back of the rotation type (marquez) whose k/ip has rarely been above 6.5 and whose never dominated at any level ever...at best hes on the level of mulvey or humber but thats a stretch as they're both more advanced...and obviously the throwin will not be on that same level either

the only sox offer i like is the lester/lowrie offer but ultimately lester looks like a 3-5 tops himself and lowries ceiling isn't nearly gomez's...then is the throwin on the level of a kevin mulvey? not likely so again i take the mets deal

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

little bit biased here

maybe your mets fandom is clouding your judgment, but:

a jose reyes clone who plays the outfield is not a super-high ceiling guy. that guy is good player, for sure, but not mega-elite or anything. certainly he doesn't have the ceiling of a jay bruce or a rasmus or a maybin. no way.
"guerra could be the next cole hamels." no. not a chance. they're vastly different--the only thing they have in common is a good change. even coming out of HS, hamels had a wicked FB in addition to his killer change, and he absolutely dominated minor league hitters from the moment he signed a pro contract. in his debut he struck out 115 hitters in 74.2 innings at age 19. guerra is nowhere near that level of dominance. he's not particularly at any level of dominance, in fact. he's not lefty, he doesn't have the heater, and he's not going to catch up to that kind of performance in the one year he has on hamels in ARL.

by jpahk on Jan 10, 2008 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

whose to say that?

i concede that its optimistic of me to make that comp but cole lived around 91-92 last season with his "electric" fastball and guerra is basically there at 18yrs old...his changeup is comparable though i suppose the fact that hes not a lefty hurts him but the point is guerras ceiling is extremely high and in order to acquire a player of that nature you have to take on the risk as well

as for gomez, rasmus and bruce are the 2 i would cite when i said "nearly anyone at his position"...although IMO maybin is overrated and gomez could eclipse him in 1 good season

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What?

"his changeup is comparable"

...to the best in the majors??

No. Way.

"although IMO maybin is overrated and gomez could eclipse him in 1 good season"

I'm asleep. You just put me to sleep.

So "Overrated": Phil Hughes, Austin Jackson, Alan Horne, Jeff Marquez, Cameron Maybin, Jed Lowrie, Jon Lester, Ryan Kalish

"Underrated": Every single Mets prospect.

Good to know.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ROFL

and we thought it was the Yankee / Red Sox fans that's delusionally overhyped about their prospects.

by RollingWave on Jan 10, 2008 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

its deolis

ass

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gomez, again

He's not Cameron Maybin. Maybin actually hits .300, draws walks, and hits for power. He put up a 316/409/523 line in the minors last year. Has Gomez even approached these numbers?

Gomez is obviously a terrific athlete. But it's also obvious that he can't hit. He doesn't get on base or hit for power at all. He's also been badly rushed, and who knows what that will do to him in the long run. Maybe he acquires a plus skill at the plate along the way, but until he does, he's just an athlete trying to play baseball.

by jc3 on Jan 10, 2008 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I will concede Gomez could pass Maybin in a year

Here are some ways it could happen that I can think of:

Maybin is run over by a Mack Truck
Maybin quits baseball to go smoke the reefer across the world, Ricky Williams style.
Maybin decides to exclusively bat lefty.
Maybin decides he only wants to pitch.
Maybin becomes a Mormon, goes on a Mormon mission in Africa and loses a leg to a hippo.
Maybin strangles David Wright with his bare hands and plays 08 in the California Penal League.
Gomez kills Maybin and eats his brain.

Now, pick any TWO of the above and Gomez might have a shot.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i get it

you and many others have bought into this sudden univerally popular mike and the mad dog dogma that gomez picked up a baseball bat for the first time 6 months ago

i've heard the same thing from all of the usual parrots who never actually check these things out for themselves and am not surprised when people like yourself take it to be true...i KNOW them not to be because i've watched the guy for a very long time but i also know thats how a lot of people gather their knowledge, if eneough people sa it, it must be true, so i'll accept that

and even if i concede maybin, thats 3 guys who have a clearcut higher ceiling than gomez in the entire minor leagues

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice concession

So in your opinion, there are ~3 guys with more upside than Gomez? Is that really what you want to say?

Is one of them FMart?

This thread is insane.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it's a nice reminder

why it's never worth dealing in reality with Mets fans on this board -- that's for sure

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 10, 2008 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The funniest thing is

if all these prospects are as good as the Mets fans think... WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU TRADE THEM FOR JOHAN SANTANA??

I dont remember a thread Ive laughed out loud at so much. This is fun.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sure

but most hippos have poor instincts on the basepaths.

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 10, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hippo

Beware a collision at the plate, however.

by RBI King on Jan 10, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you can't score runs....

....when you don't get on base.

and is there anything more free-swinging than a hippo?

my fear for Delmon Young is that he projects best as a hippo.

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 10, 2008 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

they have a surprisingly high obp

for players with no talents. i guess it's cause they crowd the plate so much. led the league in hbp 4 out of the last 5 years (i don't know how wilson got hit by 30 in 04)

by ajake57 on Jan 10, 2008 9:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Humor.

The words I am writing are about as skinny as Carlos Gomez.

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

-1

runs to room crying

yes, my room is covered in posters of Vince Coleman and Jack Morris.

Steals, CG's and the 4-man, FTW.

by GuyinNY on Jan 10, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but, seriously...

It is the fanboy contingent of our base that makes it so great/so hard to be a Mets fan.

I sometimes wonder if there's an anti-mets bias that plagues boards like these, or if it's just that we really are overrating our prospects?

P.S. I do think Gomez is very underrated by this community. I also think he's nowhere near the superstar in training some pawn him off as. His best-case is Carlos Beltran, his worst case is 4A, and the likelihood is that he's something like Carl Crawford Jr. in CF. I'll take that any day of the week.

But, when Phil Hughes is available? Not for Johan Santana.

by GuyinNY on Jan 10, 2008 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah....i feel you

i don't think most people appreciate the pain the few reasonable fans over major-market franchises have to go through just by association to the fool-hardy masses and the media. and i'd definitely put you in the handful of more-than-reasonable Mets fans.

on Mets prospects, you know i'm a HUGE FMart fan (i'd have him top 10) and a HUGE Guerra fan (probably top 25, or thereabouts). personally, i've never felt Gomez much. i'd probably rank him around 60 or so.

it's tough sticking up for Mets prospects even as an outsider though, just because of what you get associated with, so i can imagine it's even worse for you.

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 10, 2008 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Much the same for you. It really can be hard to be a rational Mets fan. And, I'm sure, a Dodgers fan.

by GuyinNY on Jan 10, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

I think it's way premature to say of a 21 year old that he can't hit. Nothing in his numbers suggests that he can't hit. I look at his numbers and I see someone who can at least hit well enough to be a competent MLB center fielder right now. With his tools, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that he will hit better when he has a chance to play for one team at a reasonable level for his age.

Since when is having power a prerequisite for a center fielder batting lead-off? What is a prereq is OBP and a decent BB/K ratio. A .363 OBP and a 15/23 BB/K ratio for a 21 year old in AAA suggests that he'll at least hit enough, with his plus defense, to be an average center fielder in his rookie year.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Jan 10, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

AAA numbers

I understand that he put up a .363 OBP in ~140 AB in AAA. If he's going to put up a ~.340 OBP, he'll be OK.

But, it's an awfully small sample size. He's never shown anything close to his BB rate at any stop in the minors, nor his stint in the majors last year. As a matter of fact, his .350 OBP in AA was greatly influenced by his 20 HBP that year, a real outlier in his statistical profile (he only drew 27 BB).

From what I can read statistically and have seen in person, he has shown no plus skill at the plate. Maybe "he can't hit" is a little strong, but most prospects that I like either a) hit .300, b) draw walks, or c) hit for power. He hasn't done any of them over any appreciable period of time.

I'm also not saying that he's a bad prospect. But, he's certainly not elite. Not even close for my taste.

by jc3 on Jan 10, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not elite

I buy that. If the Twins get him, it's not for his upside. It's for what he can bring to the team for the next three or four years: a decent defensive center fielder who can platoon with either Pridie or Span.

That's precisely why the Twins insist on Martinez. They need at least one elite prospect. The Yankees have offered Hughes. The Red Sox have offered Ellsbury. None of the prospects the Mets have offered is elite. But if they offered Martinez...

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Jan 10, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not even the best speedy leadoff type

Gomez isnt even the best speedy centerfielder in the minors. I would take Maybin, Ellsbury, Jennings, Fowler over him just off the top of my head.

This is Gomez' minor league line:

.278/.336/.399

That doesnt look like a star player to me. Hell Melky Cabrera has better minor league numbers while progressing through the minors at a similar rate. Gomez has great speed, that is a fact, he could easily steal 40 bases a year at a good success rate, but so could Brett Gardner.

Gomez has a high upside but he is very far from it. I would say his best case scenario is something like Shane Victorino and his worst case is a pinch runner.

by Kanst42 on Jan 10, 2008 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i've not as big a fan of Gomez anymore but I have

to point this out.

Carlos Beltran minors: .268 .347 .436

Alex Rios: .293 .335 .401(good average but look at how low the OBP and slugging are)

Torri Hunter:.269 .334 .416(This is who the twins want Gomez to be with more speed. Hunter's slugging is inflated due to one half season in the minors at age 24 in which he hit .368 .403 .727, look at the numbers before that.

by Bravesin07 on Jan 10, 2008 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Torri Comp has its merits......

Hunter is one of those guys who if he wasn't on a horrible team wouldn't have gotten nearly as much rope as he did coming up. Torii really looked like a AAAA type player until he broke out in 2000. 7 years after he was drafted in the 1st round. He has speed, but couldn't run the bases. He had a gigantic swing with Josh Phelps sized holes in it. Power potential but only a couple of seasons with a .400 slg% coming up. Maybe Gomez is that type of guy, who knows.

That being said. I think that the safest thing for the Twins to do at this juncture is get a starting CF in Cabrera and the only guy who in my opinion has a legitimate chance of filling the Johan sized hole in that rotation, Phil Hughes

I am just now reaching the age of Dusty Baker prospectdum. maybe i should give Krivsky a call

by Terry Ryan Jr on Jan 11, 2008 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

can't give the numbers

and not note the trend. His numbers have gotten better at higher levels even as he's been pushed aggressively. Last two years as a 20/21 year old in AA/AAA: .282/.351/.421

Not as bad as your stat line suggests. I don't much care what he did in the Appalachian League at this point, ya know?

by jeck on Jan 10, 2008 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Youre way overvaluing the Mets prospects, IMHO

Humber and Mulvey have low ceilings comparatively. What's a mid rotation guy? Cahill would qualify, in my book. Easily take him over those two, as would the Mets.

Also, Lester is a 3-5 in your book? The two Mets pitchers get points over Marquez according to you, b/c theyre "more advanced" BUT Gomez gets points over Lowrie for the opposite reason. I really dont care for Gomez and I dont think he has all that high a ceiling.

"but i'll give ground and say [Hughes is] still a nice centerpiece"

Nice of you to concede Phil Hughes might be a decent centerpiece for a Santana deal.

And yes, Hughes = automatic stud with no risk involved. I dont know where you got that scouting report, but that seems far off and really really pessimistic.

I really just strongly disagree with your evaluation of the prospects involve, so its very unlikely were going to see eye to eye on this. You seem to be much higher on the Mets guys than everybody else Ive read or talked to and way down on Hughes, Lester, Melky and Lowrie.

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you're right

i am very high on some of the mets guys, at points too high, which is definitely a product of watching them...but even knowing that, if i see gomez on nearly the identical development curve that reyes was on 4 years ago then i'm obviously going to be optimistic and so on

though i will not back down on melky, i honestly feel like i'm taking crazy pills right now with all the people pumping him up this much...its honestly like an episode of the twilight zone, he does nothing well but i'm the only one to notice that

i also don't unquestionably love ellsbury (how come nobody cares that he'll never hit for any power?) and hughes (a low 91mph arrowstraight fb and an inconsistent albeit nasty hook do not = superstardom) the way everyone seems to, though i do like them both

like you said chances are we won't see eye to eye so oh well

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 5:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The posters here are smart

but the Twins and the media aren't. The Twins value Carlos Gomez more than Jacoby Ellsbury, and Mulvey nearly as much as Ian Kennedy. Guerra himself is also huge for them.

This is what it is in the eyes of the Twins' FO:

Hughes - A
Cabrera - B
Marquez - C+

Lester - B+
Lowrie - B
Masterson - B
Crisp - B-

Gomez - B+
Mulvey - B+
Guerra - B+
Humber - C+

The Mets should probably lock the offer with adding Aaron Heilman.

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 3:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Why do you say the Twins aren't smart?

And who is your source that the Twins love Guerra and Gomez?

The reason they want Gomez is as a stop-gap center fielder. The guy they really want is Martinez. John only rates him a B+, but most scouting services rate him higher.

Also, if you take John's ratings, the best package is this one:

Ellsbury A-
Lowrie: A-
Masterson: B
Kalish: B

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Jan 10, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well john is biased himself

he is notorious for killing mets prospects so i refuse to go by what he says

secondly, to assume that gomez's role is as a short-term stopgap in center is pretty inaccurate...the guy has already played stellar D and hes got all the raw tools of a jose reyes...his "inability with the bat" has become VASTLY overrated, the guy has shown the ability to hit around .280 and get on base at about a .350 clip and thats as a youngster everywhere hes played

and the lack of power talk is funny to me as melky offers little more than 10-15hr power and if ellsbury hits 15 in the next 3yrs i'd be shocked but people are slobbering over them...meanwhile gomez is very long and lean and clearly has the body of a kid thats gonna fill out and start yanking balls, even if it is just 15-20...couple that with 70 steals and hes carl crawford jr (who hit 5hrs in his first full season meanwhile gomez projected to 8 if he had the abs)

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Meet the Mets [fan]!, Meet the Mets [fan]!

Step right up and greet the Mets [fan]!

70 steals????

Man I guess Im wrong, he's going to be better than Joe Reyes!

So, in all honesty, you wouldnt trade Gomez, Humber and Mulvey straight up for Phil Hughes?

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no

i probably wouldn't

for whatever the reason (and i've given you a few already) i just don't think hughes is going to be an ace...maybe i'm wrong and if so i'll accept that but i just don't see him as a #1 anytime soon

and if hes not an ace i'm not giving up 18 combined years of salary controlled service years for him, especially not with my perceived upside of gomez

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No I wouldn't

Gomez has just as much upside as Hughes. And Mulvey has some very promising attributes. He keeps the ball low and throws 94 with 4 strike pitches. So Gomez got rushed? Does it matter that much? Hughes pulled a freakin' hammy!

Anyway, would you take Guerra or Marquez & Cabrera?

I'd take Guerra.

And when you're the Twins, you are BFFs with Carlos Gomez. And my source is MetsBlog.com.

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your "source:

Is Homerrific. Try someplace more objective if you want to convince anyone.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 10, 2008 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Source

MetsBlog, next to FireJoeMorgan, is the most trusted blog in all of sports. They have signed a deal to break news and share sources with Sportsnet New York, and in addition, always makes sure that stories have adequate sources (Journal News, Daily News, Minorleagueball, rotoworld, Aaron Gleeman, etc.)

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fanboy

He's still a fanboy with a completely non-objective opinion. He might be the most respected Mets blogger out there, I don't know. I've never heard of him before personally nor do I recall ever seeing him cited as a source but from looking over his site I see nothing to suggest that he has any unique, firsthand insight into prospects or in regards to MLB. He's a collector/filter with an opinion. That doesn't make him a Source. BA is a Source. BP is a source. He takes information from sources and pontificates on it. That site is NOT a source.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 10, 2008 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

HA!

youve never heard of metsblog? ok you just disqualified yourself from this argument, go to bed now

but honestly hes right, metsblog is seriously considered one of the top sports blogs on the internet in terms of its pontificating but also for its reporting, just about every serious baseball fan knows this...oh except for you, and thats definitely jus a coincidence because you definitely know your baseball, you're not just trolling his thread to stir shit up by being antagonistic with every post you make

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

I hadn't heard of metsblog because I don't frequent fanboy sites. That includes SOSH or any other Red Sox fanboy site, because I don't want to waste my time with fanboy stupidity, self-aggrandizement and hype. I prefer sites with a balanced perspective orthat can produce real NEWS or reporting.

2. Any way you slice it, he's NOT reporting new news or information or even presenting some or unique sort of analysis on it (such as statistical analysis). He's collecting links from sources that have already broken stories and commenting on it, that's every post up there. Entertaining, sure. Is it particularly insightful? Doesn't seem to be. Is it news? Certainly not. You don't need to be insightful to be popular, all you need is a large potential audience and to be entertaining. Case in point.... Bil Simmmons. Remarkably entertaining, remarkably uninsightful.
That's the nature of most blogs, very few actually produce anything of substance, including metsblog.

3. You may not have noticed, but I'm already on record as saying I'd love to see Santana dealt to the Mets, for reasons already stated.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 10, 2008 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ok

whatever you say

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 11:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

for the record

matthew cerrone of metsblog.com:

"from what i can gather, having talked with people connected to the teams and to reyes and to santana, the Mets and Twins understand who can and cannot be involved in a potential trade..."

you're right, most blog sites are just compilations of links but thats what sets metsblog.com apart

by robcast23 on Jan 11, 2008 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

FJM?

"the most trusted blog in all of sports"?????

i mean, it's funny and all. but those guys are NOT quality sports analysts, and, to the degree that they do any analysis that isn't simplistic and uncreative/repetitive, they get things wrong almost as often the sources they mock.

and this is coming from someone who checks their site daily. because it IS funny.

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 10, 2008 11:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think I cracked the code

Is it possible these two brain surgeons RUN metsblog.

Explains a hell of a lot.

"[Diego Guerra's] changeup is comparable [to Cole Hamel's]...IMO [Cameron] maybin is overrated and [Carlos] gomez could eclipse him in 1 good season"-robcast23

by alskor on Jan 10, 2008 11:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wondered

If that might be the case. METSMETSMETS doesn't seem cogent enough to run a blog though...

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 10, 2008 11:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

again

its DEOLIS not DIEGO, mr. know it all brain surgeon

just change it, its embarrassing

by robcast23 on Jan 11, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Boy

That's shocking to hear coming from a Mets fan...

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 10, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Baseless accusation of John

He kills Met prospects when they deserve to be killed. Let me ask you something... where exactly are these "killed" Met farmhands contributing so much to winning teams? John loved David Wright. He even said that directly in his handbook. He graded Reyes fairly. He loved Scott Kazmir, calling he and Cole Hamels the best LHP in the minors at the time.

The Mets haven't exactly produced a lot of productive players lately, and the stars that they have had in their system have been greatly respected by John.

I don't know where you get off with this crap. Please point out a poignant example of this instead of just mudslinging. We all disagree at some point with some of John's grades, but it's all part of what makes it fun. I have confidence that he grades the way he feels the player should be graded, not based on his uniform. Try to show some respect in the future.

by jc3 on Jan 11, 2008 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

fine

i won't go into specific player ratings because thats way too subjective

but john has massive double standards about rushing prospects...he'll go on and on and on about how he hates the way the mets rush their prospects and its to the individual players detriment meanwhile he praises teams like the twins (surprise surprise) for being agressive with young guys like garza, same with the braves with guys like francoeur and salty

hes made mention more than once about how hes more suspicious of mets/sox/yanks players and the mets in particular because of their "propaganda" and how that may lead to a personal bias...good for him that hes at least aware of it but that doesn't make it anymore easy for mets fans to swallow when it persists season after season

by robcast23 on Jan 11, 2008 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rushing prospects

I do think there's a double standard when it comes to evaluating rushed prospects, but it's the opposite of what you claim and it is not organization specific. If a guy is unusually young for his level, he gets major points for that regardless of his numbers (e.g. Guerra). So there's a tacit pumping up of prospects who are rushed. That works for the Mets more than any other system because they rush more prospects than any other system. So if anything, Mets prospects get the benefit of the doubt because they're young for their leagues.

On the other hand, John is right to be outraged that the Mets ROUTINELY rush their prospects regardless of how they perform at the lower levels. It leads to more failed prospects than other organizations like the Twins, who only rush guys who dominate at the lower levels.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Jan 11, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

John occasionally get more enamored of ARL than I think is reasonable. Some of the posters here even moreso.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 11, 2008 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not buying that

more mets prospect fail than any other system due to being rushed? thats a complete bs generalization

not buying that for one second...for every failed mets prospect who was rushed (and thats actually really overblown, once again by john) theres just as many who weren't brought along quickly enough and so on...thats such an easy blanket statement to make without any actual basis

by robcast23 on Jan 11, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Then

Bring up an analysis. You're claiming John has a bias, bring some data. Bring some facts. Bring some proof.
If I wanted to say John has a bias against the Red Sox, I could point to the fact that he made a comment about how he was tempted to reduce prospects because of the fans. Not because of the players or their qualities, but because the bandwagon fans were getting annoying.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 11, 2008 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

easy blanket statements

"for every failed mets prospect who was rushed...theres just as many who weren't brought along quickly enough and so on"

this is the argument AGAINST making "easy blanket statements...without any actual basis"???

hilarious

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 11, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

whoops my fault

i assumed we could all agree on such a fundamental idea as 'many prospects do not pan out for a multitude of reasons, whether they're rushed, held down too long, etc.'...but i forgot that no matter what i say i'm going to be contradicted so i guess i shouldn't assume anything about this crowd

and if you're not willing to buy that statement then either you're completely ignorant about minor league baseball or you're really into antagonizing people, my guess at his point is a bit of both for most of you guys

by robcast23 on Jan 11, 2008 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

considering

that you're the one who started out with the blanket statements, namely those about John (which were certainly antagonistic), and were completely unwilling to back up that antagonism with any sort of facts... not yet another ridiculous blanket statement. I find your latest statement to be remarkably funny and ignorant, as would any rational reader.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 11, 2008 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh

and when you make blanket statements attacking John without backing it up, you WILL get attacked. Seeing as how this is John's website I don't see a problem with that.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 11, 2008 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not my point

The Mets rush more prospects than most organizations
Prospects are given extra credit for playing at a higher level than typical for their age

ergo

3. Mets prospects tend to be rated higher in part because they're rushed

That counters your claim that Mets prospects are rated lower because John has a chip on his shoulder against the Mets for rushing prospects.

That is all.

Now does John rail against the Mets because they routinely rush their prospects? Yes. Is rushing prospects considered a generally bad thing to do? Yes. Is there a correlation between rushing prospects and prospect failure? I don't know, but the argument is often made that a particular guy failed because he was rushed. You mentioned Garza and Gomez in this light I believe.

If I were dealing with the Mets, I would be very wary of getting damaged goods from overrated rushed prospects. But that's just me. Not John.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Jan 11, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Look Up:

The words: Bill Smith Carlos Gomez Upside

On Metsblog.com and tell me what you find.

Note: Metsblog doesn't post BS.

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ha ha

My last post applies here as well...

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 10, 2008 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

are u going to actually bring anything?

to this discussion or just shoot down completely legitimate comments with pithy one-liners?

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

don't get up, i'll do it

talk to the hand ha ha....

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Both

But, the pithy one-liner was faster when i was on my way out the door.

When you're coming across as a fan-boy, which several of you are, using the musings of writers on a fan-boy website are not going to convince anyone. Try citing an objective opinion that proves your point (sickels, BA, BP, THT, etc.). If you can't find an objective opinion that backs up your argument, then most likely, you're overrating the players being mentioned.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 10, 2008 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

personally

I'd love to see Santana dealt to the Mets. This gets him out of the AL and allows the Sox to keep their strong young prospects to either stay in Boston or use to address other needs (i.e. I'd love to see them deal a couple for a solid young catcher)

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 10, 2008 10:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

thanks

professor

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 10:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

irony defined

he says something cutting and quick -- you attack him for not contributing to the conversation.

he goes back and explains himself, pointing out that your contributions lacked substance because they're unsupported. i guess there's no winning with you when you disagree with a Mets prospect, huh?

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 10, 2008 10:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

chill

i was the one who said lets just agree to disagree...that did not mean i needed pretentious lessons about irony and supporting my arguments better and especially not to be mocked (albeit by someone who knows nothing so it could be worse i guess)

either way you don't like my opinions about the mets, thats fine...but since youre so fond of gracing us with little pearls of wisdom heres one for you, i often think you're very optimistic, to say the least, regarding dodgers prospects though i manage to keep it shut...many people in this thread would do well to try it

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

god knows i'm overly optimistic about Dodger prospects. good one.

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 10, 2008 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why

Why should he keep 'it' shut if he thinks you're wrong, or, for that matter, deluded? You want to get excited about your favorite team, hey, more power to ya dude. I do it all the time, I'm drooling over Lowrie, Lester, Buccholz, Ellsbury, Anderson, etc... but when you come to a forum like this, you best temper that enthusiasm/fanboyism with a little dose of reality, or someone who knows a lot more than you and has a firmer grip on reality is going to smack you down with that reality.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 10, 2008 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

then do it

if you can prove me wrong, do it because i've got no problem with that

but not by saying "of course a mets fan would say that!" like you've displayed you're adept at but by actually backing shit up like you explained so eloquently but never actually did

i get this all the time on this site, i'm optimistic on a mets prospect and 10 people rip me but i maybe get 1 substantial argument...everyone else says "can you believe this fanboy?!"

by robcast23 on Jan 10, 2008 11:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Prove what?

That you're a Mets fan? I don't think I need to.

You attacked John, saying he always knocks the Mets, yet you cited no evidence. The burden of proof is on YOU, not on me.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 10, 2008 11:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

fine

whatever you say bud, whatever you say.

by robcast23 on Jan 11, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's ok

I've known enough Mets fans to know what to expect.

BTW, you have no idea how bizarre it is seeing MY comments get defended around here. It's actually hugely entertaining...

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 10, 2008 11:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i know

it's pretty funny from where i'm sitting, too. though actually, i feel like you've been a lot more agreeable since the advent of the "this is me being polite" sig.

by jpahk on Jan 11, 2008 1:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Readiness...

The Twins have been asking for Major League-ready talent. So I will subtract and add to your grades to adjust them accordingly, if they're going to be in the Majors at all this season:

Hughes - A+
Cabrera - B+
Marquez - C

Lester - A-
Lowrie - B+
Masterson - B-
Crisp - B+ (get's another bonus for playing time accrued)

Gomez - A-
Mulvey - B+ (possible, but he's down in the depth chart at this point and has only logged 1 game at AAA, so I'll leave him there for now)
Guerra - B
Humber - C+ (no bonus for being horrendous in previous MLB experience)

by ajake57 on Jan 10, 2008 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Readiness:

OK, so the Mets offer would be better with Moises Alou, Orlando Hernandez and Aaron Heilman?

They are MLB ready!

DO IT OMAR!

Trust me. Talk to Twins fans. This team is being dubbed as a construction site for 2010.

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 11:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Readiness

A. Humber was actually a very effective reliever
B. Gomez isn't touching the MLB as a Met unless he gets a 5.000 OPS.

Marquez counts as a D, Guerra for a D, Crisp and Cabrera a B because they are dreadful, Gomez a B, Hughes a B+ (He isn't doing anything this year, bud), and Lester an A.

According to your system, as I mentioned just above here, Angel Pagan is the guy the Mets gotta be trading!

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 10, 2008 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's not get out of hand

Note: I'm replying to your last two posts here, metscubed.

My point was that the Mets' offer doesn't stack up to the other two when you compare them to the needs the Twins are trying to fill. I'm not saying offer different players, I'm saying look at it objectively.

I am also aware of what a likely timetable for a Twins return to playoff contention is, however, Twins fans don't make decisions.

If Humber is going to only be a reliever in Minnesota, it highly devalues him in a potential trade.

I gave Gomez the benefit of the doubt because he did have 125 at bats last year.

I was, by no means, knocking the talent of marquez and guerra, just stating that they aren't as valuable in the trade, if, in fact, the twins are looking for major league-ready players, because marquez is a year away and guerra is more than likely 3 years away (give or take). Incidentally, guerra couldn't be counted on to help the twins in 2010 anyway, because he would be terribly young and inexperienced, even if he was there for the full season.

Hughes and Lester, who may not be cy young candidates this year, will still contribute a significant number of starts (in all likelihood) to their teams this season.

Basically it comes to this: if you want to be serious about analyzing trade rumors, stop looking at what your team stands to gain or lose (and your personal opinions on the subject) and start looking at it how it needs to be looked at -- what are each teams needs, what are they getting, how does what they're getting fill those needs?

by ajake57 on Jan 11, 2008 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Mets

Bill Smith is over-playing his hand. As a Yankees fan, I can't shake the queasiness of signing Santana for $120+MM begining in 2009 and seeing him get hurt in 2008.

The risk is too high for that alone much less four quality prospects. (defintion "quality": ready for a cup of coffee with the big league club at a minimum.)

The Twins are up the creek without a paddle if the Yankees are really balking at more than a 5-year extension.

Fake Teams

by ephinz on Jan 10, 2008 3:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The problem with the Mets

Is they routinely rush their prospects, so their prospects don't excel or dominate at any level. On the other hand, their prospects are very young for their levels, so it's really tough to evaluate them on numbers alone.

The scouts say that Gomez has the tools to become a very good center fielder. He certainly held his own as a 21 year old in AAA. Based on those two facts, I have a hard time understanding why everyone is so down on him.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Jan 10, 2008 5:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

who's down on him?

i'm just saying he's not in the caliber of prospects like bruce, rasmus, or maybin. i think he'll be a good player. but i also find it totally unhelpful to hear arguments such as

"i see him play all the time and i love the guy"

and

"ellsbury doesn't hit for power either"

as an explanation for why gomez is better than, say, phil hughes.

by jpahk on Jan 10, 2008 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I don't really understand either. Now, my views on this trade are on this page already, but I really don't understand what's so hard to swallow about Gomez. ARL does matter, tools do as well, and it's not as though he's been Tim Battle out there.

I think Gomez has a good chance at being a very good player. I think Guerra is still too far away be taken seriously (since he doesn't have the sort of killer stuff that you like to see in a "phenom"). Humber and Mulvey do look like Mid-Back rotation starters, especially depending on how 2008 is for Humber. It's his 2nd full season back from TJ, and I'm anxious to see how he fares.

The Mets have a distinct advantage in this trade (and any other), and it is that they can afford to deplete their farm. With only a few (1-3) good drafts, and some top prospect Latin American signings, they can replenish the farm easily. Not to say that guys like FMart (or to a less extent Guerra) grow on trees. But, I'd be willing to roll the dice.

Well, maybe. But, hopefully it works out for the best! :)

by GuyinNY on Jan 10, 2008 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If this trade happens I don't have to

go to Binghamton next year because I wanted to see what the hype about Martinez and Guerra was all about.

by Bravesin07 on Jan 10, 2008 9:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

bing is a shit-hole

stadium is nice but the area sucks. went to school there before i transferred out. you better hope the deal goes through...

by znyfan on Jan 10, 2008 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What the Twins really like

Deolis Guerra and Phill Humber along with Fernando Martinez that deal would get done tommorrow... (of course Mulvey has to be there also)

The Twins WILL compete in 2008!!!

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jan 10, 2008 11:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The Twins aren't rebuilding A's style

they are trying to reload. If the Twins were to use the next 2 seasons to "be a construction site for the 2010 team" they would need to maybe take a look at this mets deal, because Fmart and Guerra would be the cornerstones of that deal (however I don't know if either will be close to ready in 2010). At least with any of the proposed Sox/Yanks deals the Twins are filling some holes and getting really good value in other areas. If there was a deal on the table as was reported for awhile by Gammons of Lester/Crisp/Lowrie/Masterson/Kalish for Santana one could argue that this Twins team might make off better in THE SHORT TERM. The Twins have the biggest disparity in talent on their 25 man in all of baseball with legitimate studs or gigantic building blocks all over the top 35% of that roster (Mauer/Morneau/Liriano/Santana/Nathan/Kubel/Delmon/Neshek/Cuddyer/)
alond with some guys who could contribute to a championship level team shortly (Baker/Perkins/Slowey/Casilla/) The Twins have a ton of actualized talent as well as a nice reserve of potential talent. They also have had in the last couple years more black holes than a team that has contended should ever be allowed. Smith really looks to be equalizing that level of talent and while most of the time I would say an ace isn't worth a starter at a couple of positions the twins have suffered from about 1000 PA of Punto and 700 PA of Tyner over the last couple years because there hasn't been ANY depth to speak of. All that being said, this isn't a team that is looking to be a powerhouse in 2010. This is a team that even without Santana could be a very viable contender in 2008

I am just now reaching the age of Dusty Baker prospectdum. maybe i should give Krivsky a call

by Terry Ryan Jr on Jan 11, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

Im a huge Mets fan and I flip flop on the prospect of acquring Santana all the time. But the more and more I try to think about a potential deal, the more Ive decided Omar should go for it. Our upper minors are depleted beyond a quick fix. The last few drafts havent really brought anything to the franchise. (hopefully Omar recognizes this and realizes its time to spend on the draft, but thats a different discussion). Any "talent" we have is very very young and light years away from the Big League Squad.

So if the price of acquiring the most dominant pitcher in baseball is a "potential" stud in FMART, a rubix cube in Gomez, Guerra, Mulvey and Humber (who's worth about as much as the uniform he puts on these days) for Santana then Im inclined to make the deal. However, since this is real life, we have to take into consideration the cash consequences. If Im making a deal with the Twins Id ask if FMART can be switched in for Gomez and the rest of the deal to be Guerra, Humber and Mulvey. The extra cash Im going to have to shell out to Johan is the reason Id only be willing to give up one of the OF'ers.

Yes any trade the Mets makes will be a major overpay, but thats they only way they will get Santana. And yes, any deal we make puts us in the bottom five of all baseball as far as minor league farm systems are concerned. However, in NY it is a win or else mentality. So when Santana combines with Ollie and John to stabilize the top of our rotation and then Pedro, ElDuque, and Pelfrey round out the rotation, that is still enough to compete and win the NL East. Remember even without Santana last year, the Mets were only one game away from the post season. And I have to believe that Santana could have easily pushed them over the top last year. So Id hedge my farm systems near future, make this deal, and invest heavily in the drafts and foreign scouting.

This is just my view thru my Mets colored glasses with a cup of Mets kool-aid sitting right next to me. (I really was trying to be rational so please go easy on me guys lol)

by tbach81 on Jan 11, 2008 9:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rational

A far more rational and reasonable argument than what some (though not all) of the Mets fans have been posting.
The deal certainly makes sense for the Mets, however, if the twins are looking to 'reload rather than rebuild' as is the common perception, then deals with Boston or the NYY make more sense since the talent is more MLB ready. If on the other hand the twins don't care when they compete, just that they get as high a return as possble, then there is certainly an argument to be made for the Mets offer.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 11, 2008 10:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mets Prospects

Before I respond, I'd just like to note that it looks like two Mets fans got a little silly up there. Hopefully it doesn't reflect on the rest of us.

I view the Mets offer differently than Sox or Yankees offer and I think that's what intrigues the Twins.

WIth the Sox and Yankees offer, you basically know what you're getting: one blue chipper plus a couple other good players.

With the Mets offer, you're not getting any real bluechippers but you're getting a LOT of potential. IF everything goes well (and that's a big if, of course), Gomez, F-Mart, and Guerra could all end up All-Star level (again, note I'm talking about potential). I think that has to be what is intriging the Twins.

by Lunkwill Fook on Jan 11, 2008 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

Minor League Ball -

Santana would be a Met if they included Fernando?

Comments