SB Nation User Blog: GenJackRipper

Go to Hell Barry! A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds!

GenJackRipper — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:55:45 -0000

Go to Hell Barry! A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds!

Jerry Manuel's Plan 9 From Outer Space

GenJackRipper — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:48:54 -0000

Jerry Manuel's Plan 9 From Outer Space

Lost in the shuffle was Manuel pulling a move so astonishingly stupid that it even bemused Steve Phillips, who, for the portions of the game I caught, seemed much less reprehensible than usual. Perhaps someone at ESPN told him to cool it?

Nieuwenhuis, Glimmers of Hope, and a Pole..ahem...Poll!

GenJackRipper — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:24:58 -0000

No reflections or attempts at analysis here. I'm just indulging in some feel-good non-analytical Nieuwenhuis love, one of the few pieces of good news this season and proceeding to convey how good the news of his emergence is.

I am stating the obvious, but as I said, this is more an expression of optimism than serious analysis. The emergence of Nieuwenhuis (I'm even excited about being able to spell his name from memory!) is especially great news for the Mets because now they actually have two candidates who stand a good chance of filling both their gaping outfield holes. Before Nieuwenhuis started looking legit, their outfield was the thinnest part of their system, with only guys like Puello and Marte having long-shot chances of contributing beyond Fernando. (Brahiam Maldonado is quietly starting to make himself interesting again. He has a loooong way to go before being legit, but he could be one of those guys who just needed to develop some plate discipline to really turn a corner, and he might be in the process of doing just that. It is not uncommon for this to take shape relatively late in someone's development, and if he has all the other tools, his poor station on the age-level curve might not be that much of a problem.)

The Mets now can afford to tread water with stopgaps in the corners for a year and see how these guys pan out, and I remain bullish on Fernando Martinez. (Though there is more hope than thought at the prospect of him staying healthy.) If N! can play a good center field (and I'm not advocating this, and am aware that it's becoming a tiresome subject) the notion of trading Beltran to get younger and cheaper (should he recover completely) becomes seriously viable. He has two years remaining on his contract, which, while expensive, is more than fair, so I don't really buy into the idea of his contract rendering him unmovable. Of course, this would require a extreme high-end outcome for Nieuwenhuis (essentially to be a credible replacement for the best center fielder in baseball) to be an option. Also, it would be pursuing a long term strategy that is aimed for the years when Wright and Reyes hit their late 20s/early 30s, so the slightest delay would be risky. So I fully acknowledge that it is far more likely to be the wrong move than the right one. (Hopefully this will be enough to avert too much criticism for bringing out the Beltran saw!)

Nieuwenhuis strikes out too much, but he walks just enough that a merely moderate decrease in his strikeout totals would be enough to truly mitigate that liability. His contact rates (another weakness) have exploded to the tune of an approximate 35 point jump in batting average in about 100 PAs, which is astounding. And he is in the midst of showcasing power that is downright elite. He cannot possibly stay this hot (Albert Pujols probably couldn't even in AA) but how much of this is for real will be truly something to closely watch.

So here's hoping for yet another glimmer of hope. We do have faint lights in all corners (and some bright ones) from the starting rotation (an upside of dominance to effectiveness from Santana, Mejia, Holt, Pelfrey, and Niese) to the right side of the infield (Davis/Evans--we have some insurance in case Ike can't overcome his splits--Havens, and Tejada--you know what? showing only moderately less power and far more patience than Fernando did at the age of 19 in the same league doesn't scare me one bit from a slick middle infielder--to the left half of the infield--Wright and Reyes are entering their primes, but they still have a long way to go--to the aformentioned outfield, to the bullpen (Rustich and Moviel, and they have upside as starters as well) and even a lottery ticket with Thole, and enough cash to supplement those lights that fizzle out or max out as backups (a strong possibility for Thole particularly).

Does this constitute the makings of a glorious future? Of course not. Aside from Mejia, all these guys are good candidates to bust and thinking that all of your prospects from your As to your B- guys become strong major leaguers is laughable. But the bad luck can't continue forever--outside of Chicago. I'm confident that a decent portion (read: 2-4) of these guys will become viable major leaguers, and that's grounds for some solace in an organization that is otherwise perpetually on the brink of a truly devastating, franchise-crippling mistake.

And speaking of our prospect odds, here's a poll far y'all

Poll

What is the best approximation of the order--from greatest to least--of our prospects' likelihood of having some success (not necessarily great success) in the majors and not busting? (To avoid the necessity of 1000 permutations, I'm only listing 4 playe

Niese/Mejia/Holt/Fernando

4 votes

Niese/Mejia/Fernando/Holt

10 votes

Mejia/Niese/Holt/Fernando

6 votes

Mejia/Niese/Fernando/Holt

7 votes

Fernando/Niese/Mejia/Holt

15 votes

Fernando/Mejia/Niese/Holt

3 votes

Fernando/Mejia/Holt/Niese

5 votes

None of these are even close

4 votes

54 votes | Poll has closed

Wright Lobby for Better Team (new name court. of firejerrynow)

GenJackRipper — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:00:12 -0000

No, this is not about Dub's magic helmet. This is about Davy starting to get too nice for his own good. It started with his backing down on a perfectly reasonable stance against Mike Francessa's vendetta, which was a transparent scheme to generate ratings based on sensationalism (and if it resulted in the Mets stupidly dumping Wright, all the better for Mike, who would then be able to trash the Mets for a decade--and who doubtless would be leading the chorus ridiculing the Mets for making the move for which he lobbied ferociously).

Here is what David Wright should be saying, and what he hopefully is intimating behind the scenes.

"Mr. Wilpon

To be frank, I am here to offer an ultimatum. I am here demanding that you adjust the dimensions of Citi Field and restructure the management of this team. This is not simple selfishness on my part. I do not claim to be entitled to play in a ballpark tailor-made for me. However, after what I have done for the Mets--which amounts to playing a key role in raising them from their traditional positions as the perennial bottom-feeders of the league--I have earned the right to play in a ballpark that is not for all practical purposes designed to stunt my value and productivity. It is not me being selfish, but you who are being unbelievably callous in devastating your premiere player for the sake of pursuing a fetish of a scrappy team built on pitching and "speed". It is not only callous, but absurdly stupid, since speed is a highly fetishistic baseball fixation held by those who hang on to bogus fantasies of "baseball the way it was meant to be played and used to be played", and since we are weak on pitching outside of Santana, who is in his decline phase regardless.

Furthermore, I also have the right, not as a superstar, but as a player, to play under an organization that at least gives me a fighting chance at a championship, not one that will almost certainly doom me to the fate of the great player who never won, and who will unjustly gain the reputation as a compiler who just didn't have what it takes to win, a reputation that will be propagated by a mentally deficient New York baseball media.

For this reason, I demand that you restructure this organization, starting from the top and replace Minaya and Manuel with managers who know what they are doing. To be frank Mr. Wilpon, neither of these people is remotely suited to run a baseball team in their respective capacities. They are each laughing stocks of the league and as soon as Ed Wade is inevitably fired, will take their place as amongst the three worst people at their respective jobs. Manuel is currently the worst manager in baseball. Only Dusty and Ozzie come close, and Dusty has the edge in that he does not bizarrely and arbitrarily humiliate his players.

As for the ultimatum, I will simply demand a trade unless you accede to the aforementioned conditions.

If you want to ask who am I to make such an ultimatum, I will respond in two ways. I am the man who played the largest role in making the New York Mets relevant again. I along with my good friend and colleague Jose Reyes, gave the Mets hope again. And furthermore, Reyes, Beltran and Santana are with me 100% and will also demand to be traded unless these conditions are met. This will be no skin off my back. I along with the rest of the premiere players of the Mets have been subject to grotesque calumnies from all corners in New York, amidst the unfathomably stupid allegation that the Mets' failures lay at the feet of their best players, including one who OPSed a like a billion in September of 2007. Do you think I would have the slightest qualm about going to a team where I am appreciated rather than slandered, whose management is competent rather than futile, and whose ownership cares about winning rather than pyramid chasing?

And also, in light of the fact that Minaya has not been able to build a long-term contender despite inheriting two of the best players in baseball in the prime of their careers, are you willing to go all in on Minaya being able to build one from scratch after those players have decided that they have finally had enough? You must know that you run the risk of returning to perennial mediocrity. How would that fare for your pocketbook? (I have your attention now don't I?) How much fun would it be to root for the LA Dodgers when the team you happen to own is making a fraction of its earning potential or perhaps losing money? There's a bad economy out there Wilpon, and I don't think even Bloomberg would risk the backlash of giving you another billion dollar gift in these times.

So what will it be? This must be tough on that ego of yours (especially yours Fred, we know how proud you are of getting daddy's money). But it's your ego or your wallet. Ball's in your court. How long can you keep them in the air?"

And by the way, Jack D. Ripper is behind me 100% as well, and he would have no problem switching allegiances to the teams that get Wright, Reyes and Beltran. He's done it before. He's not exactly the most stable guy either, so I woudn't be quick to piss him off much more.

Omar Installment II: Would This Have Been Too Much To Ask?

GenJackRipper — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 04:09:28 -0000

This isn't second-guessing. This is an illustration of how a GM who was not incompetent would have thought the '08-'09 offseason through. Any one of us could have thought this through and not laid a turd in the '08-'09 offseason.

Oliver Perez? His fastball has been losing velocity since 2004, and if it dips any more, his control problems will do him in and he could very easily fall short of replacement. (Good thing I know what replacement is!) Let someone else waste $4M on him. We could use the picks to beef up the farm.

We need a relief ace pretty badly. Our bullpen is a train-wreck. Feliciano was more unlucky than bad and has a solid track record of being able to eat lefties and hold his own against righties. So we will hold on to him (unless a no-brainer comes along). What...somebody wants to give me a warm body for Schoenweiss?? I would have settled for a cold body that somebody needed to bury. Done! OK...back to business. Frankie is an obvious choice, and we've got the cash for him, but he's coming off a career year in a meaningless category that might inflate his price tag disproportionately as compared to his real value. We'll offer him what I think he's worth...$4M/year for three years. If someone wants to give him more, let him risk it. If it doesn't happen, we've got a solid guy in Fuentes and we can outbid the Braves (by just enough) for Rafael Soriano. Trading Heilman would be selling real low...but his trends are not good, so we'll shop him. One more year of sucking and we can simply trade him for a french fry; (he doesn't make much money).

Hmmm...the Mariners have something interesting on the table. Putz for a boatload of average prospects. Obviously this will require some negotiating. Chavez for Reed isn't happening, but I can deal with Smith for Green. And he is not getting Carp, Carrera, Vargas, and Cleto (maybe in 2007). Considering the contract and the possibility of damaged goods, I'm keeping Carp..and he can take or leave the rest. If Putz does well, I can get picks for him in 2010 when he leaves for free agency. If he falls apart, such is life.

Hmmm...Lowe wants a fourth year, and at his age, that's probably going to bite us. If we want to win in 2009, we'll need to pay that price (the Braves are looming). If we play for 2010, we can pass on him and get some stopgaps. Odalis Perez and Randy Wolf will be solid options for a year or two, and if Jon Niese dominates AAA, either one will be easy to trade (especially considering the bargains that these two underrated pitchers will get us in this market). By 2010, F!Mart will be ready It depends on what we'll play for, but they're both good options.

Which do we take though? 2009 is risky. The corners will be weak no matter what, Delgado is at a constant risk of tanking, and the Wilpons will not dump Castillo. But it has good potential if things break right. If F! and Niese don't work out, 2010 could quickly turn into 2011 or longer, and Lowe will be solid for at least 2 years, so I'm inclined to go for Lowe, and we'll still have Ollie's pick to compensate. Santana, Lowe, Pelfrey, Maine, and Wolf will be formidable for a good chunk of time. Santana, Mejia, Holt, Pelfrey, Maine, Gee and Niese, in the long run? In addition to any surprises, drafts and minor-league trade acquisitions along the way? I like it.

Corner outfield...it's weak and Danny Murphy is way too much of a regression risk. Ibañez? Type A? With that kind of defensive liability for a very good (not great) hitter at corner outfield? OK, he's in an extremer pitcher's park but the bad outweighs the upside here. Do we want to take the kind of risk with Parker Bro...*ahem* Milton Bradley? Delgado's a risk and he can fill in (poorly) at second if it comes to that. Abreu, Burrell and Dunn are the best options, and Burrell is being lowballed by Tampa (and he was not offered arbitration!). That clinches it. Burrell it is. Murphy will be a (potentially super) sub to spell Burell against tough righties and back up Castillo in case he tanks. (We will let him sink or swim at second.)

If that's not enough we can shop Murph. He's killing the winter league and someone might bite. We could package him (with Carp, say) for a guy like (Lord willing) Adrian Beltre?

So what am I doing for the short term and the long term?

Short Term: Nice rotation. 3 of the best studs in baseball at premium positions. Church has a mediocre bat for a corner outfielder, but his glove makes him an average player, and Burrel should be adequate. Delgado with Evans to spell him against some lefties? Let's cross our fingers. Castillo? If he tanks, we might have to put Murph in that position and again cross our fingers. With Fuentes, Soriano, (perhaps K-rod) and Feliciano back in form (and without Schoenweiss) our bullpen should rebound (statistically, it's a certainty). And Parnell and Kunz could mature. Bench: Endy Chavez and some easily acquired strong backups. With our 4 superstars, we always have a chance. Estimated Cost: about $100M, but well-spent.

Long term: Schneider, Wagner, Delgado, and their contracts are gone in 2010, leaving us with only Castillo as a real albatross. Wright and Reyes get raises, but are still well under market value. We still have a very strong rotation and a good and inexpensive bullpen. Ike Davis and Nick Evans are a good bet for a cheap and effective first base platoon in Ike finds his power. F! should be ready. But he might not be, and we have no catcher (Thole is interesting, though) or right fielder unless we resign Church (and we really would like a better option). We have holes, but we only have $70M or so in well-chosen commitments and we'll have some money to spend to fill those holes if our prospects don't pan out. (Matt Holiday comes to mind.) The plan: F! Beltran, and Holiday in the outfield. Wright and Reyes on the left. Evans, Murphy, Castillo, and eventually Ike on the left (with an eye for a mid level and highly tradeable upgrade--Nick Johnson, Adam Laroche, Marco Scutaro, Mark DeRosa, Iwamura, or Adam Everett--if it's necessary). Johan, Lowe, Pelf, Maine, Niese, possibly Holt and Mejia on the mound. Soriano, K-Rod (or Fuentes) Feliciano, Parnell (perhaps) on the left. Cost: if prospects pan out (and we can trade Lowe) about $115M (we add Holiday). If not, about $135. We'll have to acquire some mid-level talent like Laroche and Scutaro.

If injuries or power outages to key players kill us, those are the breaks, but it's a solid plan.

OK, So Is It Omar or Injuries? (Now With Update!)

GenJackRipper — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:03:03 -0000

The Mets starting lineup (including our starting pitcher) on August 11th was very close to the worst possible starting lineup a professional team could field given the assumption of good faith, in that a clone of every starter in the game could have been acquired off the waver wire during the past week and a half; (indeed, our starting pitcher for that game was subsequently released). A fair question to ask then is, yes, the Mets have been ravaged by injuries. But they also field a payroll of about $130M (the $140 mark is misleading, since it accounts Sheffield's salary as being liable to the Mets). Even with these injuries, should this team be this bad?

From an analytical perspective, I would think that answering this question would involve two steps:

1st. Findo out how much in player WAR have the Mets lost to injury, and how much salary have they lost to injury.

2nd. After injuries are taken into account, examine how their leftover salary compare to the leftover WAR. All in all, what does this say about management?

The injuries endured by the Mets fall into two categories: those that concern us as humanitarians: (Alex Cora, Angel Pagan, Ramon Martinez, the Home-Run Apple) and those of baseball importance. The second category can be divided into three subcategories: those that are primarily germane to the Mets' long-term organizational health (Fernando Martinez), those that weakened the Mets at particular positions (Maine, Nieve, Niese, Putz, Church, and Schneider) and, of course, the Chuck-Norris roundhouse kicks to the groin that ripped the season a new one on the other side (Reyes, Beltran, Delgado). The 4 biggest injuries (including Maine's) have cost the Mets 12.6 wins (attributing to injuries the total differential in WAR from 2008 to 2009, which is a stretch for Delgado but remains somewhat plausible). The effects of the rest of the injuries are far more difficult to quantify. Schneider's drop in WAR cannot be plausibly attributed to injury, since Jerry Manuel's man-crush on Omir Santos plays a major role; and though it would have been nice if Niese and Nieve had held up long enough to spare Metsland a few more Livan starts, there isn't enough data to draw even the most cursory inference. (That Livan was allowed to be so prolifically bad for so long is almost totally the responsibility of management regardless, as is the lobotomy party that was the Perez contract, which is why Perez' post-lobotomy fatigue goes unmentioned here.)

So assuming all else to be equal besides the injuries, the Mets should be expected to win 76 games, which is exactly what they're on pace for. End of story then, right? Not exactly. First of all, the Mets are on the hook for over $90 million for those 76 wins, which in terms of marginal payroll efficiency means that the Mets this year have paid over $75 million for the 28 wins that would have been beyond the reach of a replacement-level team. (It is really even worse than these numbers suggest, since the Mets also have to be held accountable for the portion of their injured stars' salaries that was actually utilized.) This leads to the question: where has that money gone? Secondly, the 2009 Mets are not the 2008 Mets with injuries. They are different on several fronts, leading one to ask what the effect of these changes was.

Investigating one sector at a time:

The Bullpen: +2.3 WAR (from '08 to '09) / $29.37 MM / + $8 Million (from '08 to '09)

The Met bullpen was historically inefficient as bullpens go in 2008, posting a return of -0.2 wins on a $20 million investment. In 2009, the Mets are at least on pace to generate a positive return of 2 wins for an additional $8 million. (For the curious among us, about half of the differential comes purely from not having the option of inserting Scott Schoenweiss or Aaron Heilman into the late innings of a major league game. One and a half wins come from the rebound seasons of Pedro Feliciano and Bobby Parnell. About half a win comes from the likes of Elmer Dessens not being as far south of replacement level as a Jorge Sosa, and the balance comes from Frankie Rodriguez being one win worse than Billy Wagner. Frankie has been worth all of .3 WAR this season--good for a value of $1.3 million--while J.J. Putz's contribution has been negligible. The Mets shelled out $37 million (plus an absurd option for 2012), and a boatload of prospects in addition to Endy Chavez for these respective "commodities".

Wright, Santana, and Castillo, -3 WAR (generously) / $34.5 MM / + 10 Million

The Mets have (thus far) lost 4 wins from David Wright's stink-bomb (by his standards) of a season and Santana has skimmed 1.8 from his total last year. Assuming that Dub and Santana play out the year up to their standards, it is highly unlikely that they will come to within 4 wins of last year's production collectively. Luis Castillo has improved from last year's debacle by about a full win. These three collectively will--optimistically--produce 3 wins less than last year for $10 million more--going by the $13.5 million figure for Santana's salary in 2008.

The Mets' Outfielders and Daniel Murphy: - 4(!) WAR, / $5.31 MM / - $7.4 Million

Not supported by miracle seasons from Daniel Murphy and Fernando Tatis, and without the steady defensive presence of Endy Chavez, the Mets outfield productivity has dropped by an astonishing 4 wins. (To Omar's credit, he is only paying this year's contingent about $5 million compared to last year's $12 million, attributable to his shrewd and crafty decision not to resign Moises Alou.) Aside from Beltran, the Mets have fielded a replacement-level outfield. (I'm not even counting Nick Evans' bizarre output of -0.5 WAR in 47 PAs, which simply has to be a simple fluke in the WAR system. Nick might not be our 1B of the future, but he's not five full wins below replacement over a full season.) This number would be even worse if not for Angel Pagan's surprisingly adequate performance in center. (He's on pace for 3 wins over a full season.)

Ollie...-1.7 WAR / $12 MM / + $5.5 Million

Raise your hand if you saw this one coming. Pelf has been pretty much the same this year as last, except this year he's doing it without unsustainable strand rates, a better K rate, and without throwing one pitch 80+% of the time. Sam Page said it, as do I. Pelf is showing promising signs.

#5 Starters: + 0.3 WAR / $3.30 MM / -$8.2 Million

Sucking is cheaper without the greatest pitcher of our generation. Our replacement pitchers have actually been slightly better than one would expect, on pace to be about .8 wins above replacement level.

Catcher: -1.3 WAR / $7.5 MM / Negligible Payroll Difference

Schneider by himself accounts for the full 1.3 WAR drop from last year. It is likely that both gaps will narrow to the point where by year's end, Jerry Manuel will only have cost us one full win by overplaying Omir Santos.

Totals: -7.4 WAR / ~ $130 MM / Negligible Payroll Difference

All told, the Mets have lost 12.6 wins and approximately $ 30 million to injury. They have also lost 7.4 wins for reasons having nothing to do with injury between 2008 and 2009 and paid approximately $90 million for an expected victory total of somewhere between 69 and 77 wins. How has this money been so badly mismanaged? There are a number of primary culprits. But in my estimation, there is one dominant factor that explains Omar Minaya's wasteful management.

He gets bad players and overpays them.

There is more to this theory than you might think. Consider Oliver Perez, Alex Cora, Luis Castillo, Tim Redding, Brian Schneider, Jeff Francouer, and Scott Schoenweiss. These players are, collectively, about $33 million of suck. This might not be so bad if a couple of them were at all valuable or if a couple came real cheap. But in actuality, they all suck really hard and they are all wildly overpayed. These are incomprehensible wastes of money and roster space that burn payroll and take up spots that could either go to good players who cost money or crappy players who are at least inexpensive.

There is one other element to Omar's absurd inefficiency that should not go unmentioned.

He overvalues relievers, especially closers, drastically.

$25+ million in 2009 are going to three closers, who have produced .3 wins between them. No sooner have the Mets dug themselves from the Billy Wagner hole than Omar digs them into a new one with Francisco Rodriguez. The Mets will be on the hook for $11 million until 2011 and are at high risk of burning $17.5 on him in 2012 with an automatic vesting option.

Take away the pure suck blockages and the money burnt on relievers and the Mets payroll trims down to a reasonable $72-or-so million dollars. From those $72 million, remove the $30 million currently rehabbing and the Mets are sitting pretty at $42 million dollars for a 74-ish win team, which amounts to $28 million for about 25 marginal wins. Take into account how top-heavy the Mets are, that their injuries happen to befall their most valuable players, and that Johan Santana and David Wright combined make almost exactly $28 million, and this is a perfectly reasonable place to be for the 2009 New York Mets. Instead, the Mets are a laughingstock, with $90+ million of uninjured payroll fielding a near-replacement team.

What Omar lacks (and this has been pointed out before) is the ability to translate a perception of on-field value to monetary value, as well as the ability to gauge his options with regard to their contributions on a per-dollar basis. He is completely incapable of doing this. His mind operates in the following manner: "K-Rod good closer...good relievers are important...offer 3 years and $37 million...dat sounds right!" without taking things into account like: "How important are good closers compared to good relievers in general, and how do these two options compare in terms of efficiency?" That last thought is not one that will ever find its way into Omar's brain.

I don't know why Omar misjudges talent the way he often does, and I don't particularly care to know. My theory is that he thinks he can predict the future when someone kicks him in the nuts, and that's how he makes his decisions. It would explain why Omar was so invested in Tony Bernazard, as Bernazard was probably essential to Omar's player evaluation system, since he would kick Omar in the nuts harder and more reliably than anyone else. Hell, it was probably Tony Bernazard who put the idea in Omar's head in the first place. The point however, is that the debacle of 2009 cannot be excused because of injuries. Injuries happen, and the Mets have not really suffered an abnormally large amount of them. They have simply been unfortunate in that their injuries struck 3 of the 5 most valuable members of a team that only has 6 valuable members. That last number is the real problem.

(Update: A couple of trenchant comments have impelled me to take another angle at the Mets cost effectiveness, this time in accordance to the roster's Tenure Status)

Principle Players Who Have Not Yet Been Eligible for Free Agency:

Utilized Salary: $16.14 Million WAR: 8.2 (Wright/Reyes/Pelfrey/Feliciano/Parnell/Maine)

(All players developed by the Mets or acquired before reaching arbitration eligibility)

Principle Players Acquired as Free Agents or In the Course of A Contract Negotiated as a Free Agent:

Utilized Salary: $67.9 Million(!) WAR: 7.6 (Beltran/Delgado/F. Rodriguez/Santana/Wagner/Castillo/Perez/Castro)

(No player developed by the Mets)

Complimentary Players Not Yet Eligible for Free Agency:

Developed By The Mets: (F. Martinez/Murphy/Evans/Santos/A. Hernandez/Niese)

Utilized Salary: $1Million; WAR: .9

Acquired by Trade: Putz/Socks/S. Green/Church/Reed/Schneider/Francouer/Nieve/Pagan

Utilized Salary: $9.13 Million; WAR: 1.3

Total: Utilized Salary: $10.13 Million; WAR: 2.2

Complimentary Free Agents:

Utilized Salary: $6.1 Million; WAR: 1.8 (Cora/Sheffield/Tatis/Livan/Redding)

Fossum and Jetsam

"Utilized" Salary: ~$1 Million; WAR: -1.2 (9 Players)

This shows that the Mets have gotten 8.2 wins from their principle home grown players (of which there are only 5, two of which are relievers) in spite of injury, and that these wins have cost $16.14 Million--almost exactly 2 million per marginal win, exactly half of the free agent rate.

At the same time, the Mets' big-ticket Free Agents have produced 7.6 wins at the cost of 67.9 million (again, discounting injury from cost) for a value of $8.93(!) million per marginal win, and over double the cost of wins in a free agent market. Omar's performance on free-agency can with total justification be called disgraceful.

Omar's complimentary free agents have brought the Mets 1.8 wins at the cost of $3.4 million per win.

The Mets' home grown complimentary players are producing little, but at good value, and we should expect Fernando Martinez, Jon Niese, Nick Evans and Daniel Murphy to become more productive and more valuable as time passes. The Mets complimentary players acquired by trade, on the other hand, have brought the Mets only 1,3 wins at the cost of $9.13 Million, a cost-per-win of $7.02 million that is only slightly less embarrassing in per-dollar terms than his big signings.

And finally, the Mets have had 9 players on their roster that qualify as waiver-wire material. Some of these were stop-gaps while the injuries piled up, but 9 roster spots taken by 9 different AAA call-ups?

The second (last?) final verdict:

While it's true that Omar has not been efficient in a value-per-dollar sense in free agency, it has been pointed out that it is nearly impossible for any GM to be efficient in a free agent market. While there is much truth to the notion of the inefficiency of free agency, this in itself does not excuse Omar's profligacy, for a number of reasons.

1st: Unless I am mistaken, the market for free agency stands at about $4.1M per win and is deflating. This means that Minaya is paying twice the market rate for free agent wins, with the market rate defined as the amount (on average) that each free agent dollar yielded in wins throughout MLB. Omars performance is being measured according to the league average and he is thus shown to be falling short of his peers.

2nd. Although Castillo has been productive this year, his contract remains a liability, as are the contracts of Billy Wagner, Scott Schoenweiss, Frankie Rodriguez, Oliver Perez, Tim Redding, and Alex Cora. These contracts are not a part of the natural order of things. They are not the way free-agency works. They are incompetently managed wastes of money and were readily apparent as such from the moment they were offered, and they are a major part of the reason why Omar has been as inefficient as he has been in the free agent market. I can accept paying a premium for one of the top pitchers in all of baseball and the best center-fielder in the game, but if Omar had negotiated free agency like an average GM, we would see the occasional albatross balance out with the bargains and we would be paying perhaps $5-$6 million per free agent win; we would not see money being incessantly thrown away on relievers and crappy pitchers so as to balloon our free-agent value to $8 million per win, especially in the 2008-2009 FA market, when guys like Orlando Hudson, Bobby Abreu, Rafael Furcal, Andy Pettite, and Pat Burrell were signing for peanuts.

3rd. Omar has not neglected his farm as badly as advertised. He has been reluctant to trade the Mets' true blue-chippers and that could pay off as quickly as the second half of 2010, when guys like Niese, F!, Mejia, and Ike Davis start to make their presence felt. When that happens, the Mets will be left with $30 M of bad money with their deals for K-Rod, Slappy, and Ollie. This isn't insurmountable for a big-market team, but what happens when the next Ollie comes along? We are talking about a guy who thinks Jeff Francouer is a valuable player and thinks that closers are A) real and B) worth multi-year 8 figure contracts, and thinks Dan Murphy could be a viable 1st baseman. Omar's problem isn't neglect of the farm. It's translating player value to dollar value and economizing his baseball decisions to get the most bang for the buck. It's attention to detail and covering all bases. Omar is basically Jim Bowden lite.

Omar has had one major uncredited ally in his tenure with the Mets: inflation. In an inflationary environment, a contract to Carlos Beltran that initially seemed exhorbatant now seems like a bargain. However, once MLB hit a deflationary environment, Omar's multi-million dollar gaffes became even more glaring and his victories ever more qualified. Johan Santana, for all the acclaim that trade brought, will not come close to living up to his salary this year, even by free agent standards of compensation. Also, Fangraphs and the stat sites will eventually have to revise free-agent wins downward to match the deflationary environment, making Omar look even worse.

Omar has always been foolish and inefficient with his money. We see it now with everyone tightening their pockets. If Omar is allowed to continue running the Mets as the industry continues to deflate, we will be in for a depressing run of baseball for the foreseeable future.

The Bernazard Fiasco--the Fallout

GenJackRipper — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:02:55 -0000

Reprecussions positive and negative:

Positive:

1.) Obviously Bernazard had to go. Yes, I don't trust Rubin and I think that was a hit piece, but Bernazard's behavior and comportment has no place in any profession, and it's about time he got what was coming to him. He was competent, but hardly irreplaceable.

2.) I would not be surprised if Fred Wilpon actually did still root for the Dodgers. If he devoted half of his exqusite P.R. sensitivity to the business of being in command of a baseball team, the Mets would be perpetual playoff locks. Ergo, a debacle like this was pretty much the only thing that gives Mets fans strong grounds for hoping that Omar Minaya is demoted from his position at GM. His talents are undeniable, but the evidence that he is, all in all, the wrong man for the job is now overwhelming.

Negative:

1.) I am no fan of Adam Rubin, and my impression of him is that he is smart enough to realize that the copious quantities of ink trashing the Mets farm system are spent in the service of intellectual dishonesty and just plain dishonesty. I would not be the least surprised if he was in fact belittling the Mets farm in order to push key players out of their posts so as to attain a position in player development. Rubin, being fairly intelligent, comes off looking way too good when pitted against Minaya's rambling, incoherent codswallop. On a better note, there is little chance that the Wilpons will now take the P.R. risk of rewarding him with such a position, as it would simply raise suspicions further.

2.) If Omar gets fired, the N.Y. media might be dangerously emboldened. The N.Y. media have displayed too much influence already and Omar would have been much better off throwing Bernazard under a bus and making the decision seem like a no-brainer so that the media would have played the traditional role of informing rather than becoming agitators and advocates, and--even worse, getting its way. If the media were to become even more powerful in this town than it is, be prepared for 100 years of baseball futility.

David Wright: Behind the Blow

GenJackRipper — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:43:37 -0000

Occasioned by David Wright's being completely overmatched by a AA/AAA fringe pitcher Rodrigo Lopez, I take this opportunity to ask, what are David Wright's luck-neutral stats?

There are two projections I'll make: one pessimistic and one optimistic. For the pessimism, I regress Dub's BABIP to his career .350 and keep his K%, XBH% , BB%, GB/LD/FB and HR/FB constant.

A .350 BABIP over (297 ABs - 82 Ks) is 75 hits for a .252 BA. Giving him the same XBH% yields 23 XBHs, and obviously, the same HR/FB results in 5 HRs, since I'm holding his batted ball profile constant. This yields 15 doubles, five homers and 3 triples for 111 total bases and a .373 slugging percentage. His 44 BBs and 2 HBPs give him 121 times on base for a .352 OBP. So David Wright is posting, in reality, a .252/.352/.373 vital stats line that resembles a down year for Luis Castillo. This, for a 3rd baseman in the NL in 2009, is crap.

Let us give him some more generous assumptions. Citi Field has theoretically robbed him of 6 home runs and Wright's LD% is matching his career high of 2008 at 25%. (It's probably safe to say that Wright got unlucky in 2008 given his expected BABIP.) So if we add about 20 points of BABIP and up his homers to 11, the line adjusts to .269/.367/.468.

So, given the most generous assumptions possible, Wright has been a somewhat-above-average NL 3rd baseman. With less generous assumptions, he has been a more-or-less severe liability at the plate. What is dragging all his numbers way down is of course, his inordinate number of strikeouts. This gives a better account of Wright's struggles with making contact better than I ever could.

There is obviously something wrong with David Wright's approach, and I don't think I'm qualified to make a guess about what it is, nor do I trust Keith Hernandez, who quite simply diagnoses the same ailment to every batter who struggles (He's uppercutting, his swing is too long, he's not going the other way, etc.) I don't blame Hernandez for what appears to be an obvious bias in favor of contact hitters and against power hitters and strikeouts, as that was the way he played and his substandard power for his position is what is unjustly keeping him from the Hall of Fame. However, I would like to ask the Mets community if anyone has any clue what is ailing David Wright, how serious it is, and whether they have a clue as to what he should be doing. His current rate of production is simply substandard for a Major League 3rd baseman whose defense has stagnated after much promising improvement over his career, and it is further exascerbated by how awful he looks at the plate. Good pitchers, like Sabbathia, Gallardo, and A.J. Burnett, have made him look like a minor leaguer, and he has occasionally been blown away even by fringe pitchers.

Alex Cora looked much better against Rodrigo Lopez than Wright. I doubt immensely that from this point on, Wright will be a worse hitter than Alex Cora (even in this immensely productive--for Cora--year). But the fact is, our superstar's luck-neutral performance has been average at best and Slappyesque at worst. Does anyone have a clue as to what gives?

Trayd Rayis? Not exactly.

GenJackRipper — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:42:17 -0000

I would say it's slightly better than typical Metsblog chatter, but not much better. As it's essentially Reyes for 2 average players of the type that are easily obtainable without sacrificing superstars and two prospects, one of which is a Niese-type that isn't particularly difficult to find, you're essentially betting Reyes on Bucholtz, and that's far too steep a bet for one prospect, regardless of how strong he is. What surprises me is that no one considered the more reasonable option: redo the deal with Beltran instead of Reyes and Anderson instead of Bowden.

Beltran is a bona-fide superstar signed for 2 more years at a contract that, while certainly not cheap, is not outrageous. As he is not home-grown, much older than Reyes, and had expressed a desire to play for the Yankees, there is little reason to consider him an essential component of the team's identity as is Reyes, whose phenomenal growth Met-fans watched lovingly for years (before many turned on him and Wright for the most retarded reasons imaginable like the piss-ant fairweather friends we all know several Met-fans to be). He is a huge upgrade over Ellsbury and would lock the Sox up as a favorite in the division--and give them a good shot at humiliating the Yanks in 14 straight games. Plus, the New York media would overlook the fact that the trade almost punts 2009, since they are stupid enough to think that Ellsbury's whiteness and grission compensate for Beltran's unbelievable awesomeness. ("WHooOOOo's kidding whOOOoooOOOoo? Of coa's Ellsbury's bedda' than Beltran!!")

Beltran for Lars, Bucholz, and Elsbury is a deal. Easily leveraged around Murphy and certain other lower-level Red-Sox prospects.

Ironically, though the Yanks and Mets don't do deals, their needs and resources seem to compliment each other. Every word I said about the above trade could be said regarding Beltran for Austin Jackson, Phil Hughes, and Melky. ("WHooOOOo's kidding whOOOoooOOOoo? Of coa's Melky's bedda' than Beltran!! He's got like 10 clutch hoemuhs")