Why the Mets Failed to Acquire Mark DeRosa
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 1, 2009 8:43 PM EDT
28 comments
According to a report in the NY Post, the Indians were ready to trade infielder/outfielder Mark DeRosa to the Mets in exchange for reliever Bobby Parnell, but the Mets felt the asking price was too high.
Instead as we know the Indians sent DeRosa to the Cardinals in exchange for relief pitcher Chris Perez and PTBNL.
As I said yesterday, I don't believe Omar Minaya will allow injuries to be an acceptable excuse for this teams failure. He knows this roster needs upgrades, injuries or not, and all indications are he is planning on doing it.
However, I must admit if in fact these reports are true, I think Minaya may have made a big mistake. I understand DeRosa is 34 and may be slightly overvalued based on the weak market, but he certainly can bring more to this team then Bobby Parnell.
Just for fun lets look at how John Sickels, of Minor League Ball compares the two players.
Bobby Parnell, RHP, Grade C+: Stats don't match scouting reports, but he has a good sinker and could be an effective setup man.
Chris Perez, RHP, Grade B+: Outstanding closer-quality stuff, just needs to throw strikes.
So as you can see Sickels certainly has Perez rated much higher than Parnell, and rightly so. This isn't even mentioning the fact that the PTBNL is by all accounts not going to be a "throw in". So why would the Cardinals make this deal and not the Mets? Who knows. Now I must say because the Mets deal never came to fruition we have no way of knowing if more players were involved, but either way it appears the Cardinals offered more.
DeRosa could have been a perfect addition for the Mets. He provides quality character and more importantly leadership, something the Mets are clearly lacking. His ability to play several positions would have given the Mets great flexibility. As their roster steadily got healthy they could have moved DeRosa around to fill in the missing pieces.
Now in the end Minaya may prove us all wrong and go out and acquire an even bigger bat, say Matt Holliday. If that's the case then I'll keep my mouth shut, however, if he fails to get a bat before the July 31 deadline because he was unwilling to part with Bobby Parnell, then I "reckon" he's going to have to a lot of Met fans to answer to.
0 recs |
28 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The mets dont have enough bullpen depth to give up Parnell
by Heyward is the next crime dog on Jul 1, 2009 9:43 PM EDT reply actions
Unrelated, but is there a Twitter set up for Daily Dish yet?
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
Okay.
DeRosa could have been a perfect addition for the Mets. He provides quality character and more importantly leadership, something the Mets are clearly lacking. His ability to play several positions would have given the Mets great flexibility. As their roster steadily got healthy they could have moved DeRosa around to fill in the missing pieces.
David Wright is a fine leader and a spectacular player, what does he have to do to get people to understand this. I sincerely doubt DeRosa would step in and take over this team from a guy like David. And who exactly is of poor character on the Mets? The only thing the Mets are “lacking” is healthy major league baseball players.
Also, sure DeRosa can play a variety of positions, he’s worse than I am at most of them, but I guess technically he could play them. The trade just wouldn’t have helped as much as people think. He’s a butcher in the field, the only position he isn’t is occupied by a player just as good as him, and his offense wouldn’t sustain in the mammoth park that is CitiField.
If the team was at full strength and just needed one more piece to go over the top, fine, but DeRosa is not going to help this team right now and he’s not worth two somewhat highly rated prospects.
And I didn’t mean for that first part to sound so asshole-y. I just hate when people say this team doesn’t have leadership or character because besides those two things being meaningless, the Mets have both fine character and a a damn good leader.
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
David Wright is a role model not a leader
Big difference. David Wright is a great example for young players on how to play the game, however, I wouldn’t characterize him as a leader among men. Just because a guy puts up good #‘s doesn’t earn him that title. (I have a feeling were going to have to agree to disagree on this one)
I will admit reading back my words though I may have “overstated” DeRosa a bit in terms of leadership. I guess what I meant to say is another veteran presence.
But back to the main point, besides arguing who is a better leader Wright or DeRosa, you missed the actual question. Would you have given up Bobby Parnell to get DeRosa?
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 2, 2009 8:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Leadership
I’m not really one to argue about baseball player leadership because I think it’s a tough thing for a fan to really recognize let alone evaluate, but my guess is that you spend far too little time watching Wright during Mets games and in the Mets clubhouse to make an assertion like “I wouldn’t characterize him as a leader among men”.
You're Probably right...So I'll let John Franco Say it for me
“Watching them almost every day, there’s no leadership there,” Franco said on “MLB Home Plate” on Sirius XM Radio. “Nobody wants to step forward and be a leader. Something is missing and it’s hard to put your finger on it. They got some great, talented players – (Jose) Reyes and (David) Wright and (Carlos) Beltran, now (Johan) Santana’s there – but I just can’t put my finger on it.”
Franco, who pitched for the Mets from 1990-2004, also singled out Wright as someone who should be more of a leader, but isn’t.
“I tried talking to him and tell him to come forward and be that guy, but I think David feels that being that he’s such a young player and you have the (Carlos) Delgados and (Gary) Sheffields and veteran guys like that,” said Franco, the Brooklyn-born lefty who also pitched at St. John’s. “He’s afraid that they’ll look at him like, ‘Be quiet and sit down.’”
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 2, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
We all read that yesterday
Did you intentionally leave out Wright’s reaction to it?
“With all due respect to Johnny, he doesn’t know what’s going on in this clubhouse,” Wright said Wednesday, after the Mets beat the Milwaukee Brewers 1-0 to stop a five-game losing streak. “I don’t feel the need to have to defend myself as a leader. If these guys in here respect me and think of me as a leader, that’s what I need.”
Draw your own conclusions.
Didn’t hear anybody on his own team refuting those statements, and you can best believe Adam Rubin asked.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 2, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Don't fall into that trap
We’ve heard the knock on Wright before that he isn’t a team leader, and the only reason it’s news now is because a former Met is stirring up the pot by simply rehashing an old story. Maybe Wright’s a crappy leader, but nobody on his team has come forward and said that, either. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter; leadership is nebulous and can ultimately come from anyone. Whether or not Wright is Joey McLeaderson is basically immaterial. My argument is that John Franco wouldn’t know enough to make a statement either way, and that he’s basically resorting to media sensationalism to try and make his name as a commentator.
Like I said in the begining. I had a feeling we were going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I totally respect David Wright as a baseball player, he’s a real talent and by all acounts a very nice guy. I just don’t see him being the guy to pull the team together when the wheels fall off. Maybe a team doesn’t even need that guy, who knows. You’re right that the reality is their is no way to quantify leadership, but it just seems all good teams have a certain “something” about them, and I just don’t see that from the Mets.
Putting the Wright thing aside. Would you have given up Parnell for DeRosa? Which is actually what the story was about lol.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 2, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Probably
but there were other reports that said Cleveland wanted someone else in addition to Parnell, possibly Brad Holt or Reese Havens, neither of which I would give up for DeRosa.
One last point
“but it just seems all good teams have a certain "something" about them, and I just don’t see that from the Mets.”
Yea, it’s called winning baseball games. Good teams win baseball games, bad teams don’t. Media types always look for something outside of the obvious to explain why teams lose games. The Mets lose games because they have terrible players (now), not because of any perceived lack of leadership, grit, hustle, grission, edge, or anything else.
So you’re telling me that the last two seasons the Mets were not a “good” baseball team. On paper they had one of the best teams in the NL, so how do you explain their performance over the last two years, and please don’t blame the bullpen (alone) for a collapse of that magnitude.
They seemed to be fine throughout the course of the season, and once it hit September they forget how to win. Games are different down the stretch, it gets harder, you have to want it more than the next guy. Anybody who has played the game will tell you that. Winning a game in May is not the same as winning a game in October. The Mets seem to have guys who win games in May, but don’t have guys who can close the door shut. Please prove me wrong show me an instance where this team did anything meaningful.
Let’s take the Red Sox for instance. Can you look yourself in the mirror and tell me guys like Pedoria, Papelbon, Youkilis, Beckett don’t play the game with a different element than Jose Reyes and David Wright? There is a reason those guys have titles, which goes beyond that their team is better.
You can’t make the game so black/white, it’s not just good teams vs. bad teams. Their are so many unidentifiable elements that exist among a team that determine if your a “good” team or “bad” team.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 2, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Let’s take the Red Sox for instance. Can you look yourself in the mirror and tell me guys like Pedoria, Papelbon, Youkilis, Beckett don’t play the game with a different element than Jose Reyes and David Wright? There is a reason those guys have titles, which goes beyond that their team is better.
People think that the Red Sox won because these guys had some special ability going beyond their skill on the diamond. But it’s exactly the opposite. Because they won, people think they must have had some special intangible ability.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
I’m just saying it’s an addition to ability. It’s not just ability alone.
I’ll admit ability is the key factor, without it you can’t win, but you need to have a little something more to be great. It’s what differentiates the good players from the great ones.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 2, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Talent is what separates good teams from great teams.
If the Mets had, lets say Frankie Rodriguez last year, they’re in the playoffs. To say one team “wants it more” is flat out stupid. Wright hit .340/.416/.577 last September and .352/.432/.602 two Septembers ago. But I guess a real leader would’ve made the second base combination of Castillo and Argenis a .800 OPS duo instead of the .443 and .206 they each put up respectively. A real leader wouldn’t have let the bullpen blow 5 games September 2008 and 4 in 2007. If he wanted it more he would’ve hit like Rollins, .313/.411/.458 in 08 and .298/.333/.542 in 07. It’s laughable to think “leadership” and “good moral character” are what makes a team win. A player can only control what he does on the field, and to think Wright, Reyes or Beltran are the reasons the Mets haven’t won is beyond ridiculous.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe leadership is the key to winning a championship. Maybe that’s why high priced teams like the Mets and Yankees haven’t won anything recently, their leaders just must really suck.
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
by Evan_S on Jul 2, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No, the Yankees have Captain Jeter.
He’s clutchtastic!
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
They don't forget HOW to win.
The last game of the 2008 season featured Nick Evans batting fifth, Ramon Martinez batting sixth and Ryan Church — who should rarely play against lefties — batting seventh vs. Scott Olsen.
In September 2007, the Mets couldn’t get credible starting pitching, ultimately giving starts to Brian Lawerence and Phil Humber and watched their “ace” implode in his final three starts, not even giving the team a chance to win. The bullpen, taxed throughout the season, couldn’t pick up the slack for the starters. Oh, and the manager continually summoned Jorge Sosa and Guillermo Mota for high leverage duty.
How would a team who knows HOW to win persevere through incompetent roster construction and management? Should David Wright chew out 75-year old Tom Glavine for throwing 83 mph fastballs over the plate to Justin Maxwell? Carlos Delgado, if he wasn’t so concerned with his own stats, would’ve tackled Cameron Maybin before he caught the Ryan Church fly ball that ended last season.
by All Shook Down on Jul 2, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I best believe you made that up
Here’s an article with video about Wright taking Pelfrey aside during games and telling him to pitch better. That article also doesn’t include the video where Wright physically grabbed Pelfrey in the dugout and started yelling at him, to which Pelfrey knowingly nodded. I don’t know what leadership exactly is in baseball, nor do I care, but if I had to guess, I bet that’s it.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
Not to mention
Wright’s answer is so P.C——what’s he going to say, Franco’s right I suck as a leader, I mean c’mon.
by Matt Buggenhagen on Jul 2, 2009 11:10 AM EDT reply actions
What do the Mets do now?
There are some guys in the utility mold of DeRosa available… Teahan is probably the biggest name out there….
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
"Failed" to acquire DeRosa?
Hardly. DeRosa does not play good defense. Sure, he can play a lot of positions, but he can’t really play any of them well. “Leadership” and “quality character” are not reasons to make trades. Sure, I’m sure lots of baseball teams would love Roberto Clemente on their team, but that’s because he was good. The “character” was an added bonus.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
Matt Buggenhagen is right here Eric Simon witrh this analogy. David Wright is a clown compared to other players this year. Give the guy a break, because your a “Mets fan” and ’ he’s a “Yankees fan” doesn’t mean that he’s wrong for stating the fact. David Wright is a good ball player but is not a leader in ANY aspect of the game……Enough said…..
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
