*** Official NY Mets Our OFFSEASON Has Come Thread ***

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
Church was worth more than 7 wins last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not picking on you, but i want to get this out there:

WARP3 sucks. it bites the big one. if you gave everyone credit for his full WARP3 rating, the average team would win something like 120 games.

the nats totaled 59.4 WARP3 last year. since it's established that a replacement-level team can win about 49 games, they should have gone 108-54 instead of 73-89...if you believe WARP3 is useful for this exercise.

re: milledge being as good now as church, it's true. ZIPS link

[Suigin406]

obviously gomez and milledge were not both going to be on roster next year, not with all the depth we have there already and not to mention with the lack of FAs out there that trading was the only way to improve the pitching

gomez isn't even ready to play and needs more ABs, the mets can't afford to give him the experience up here, so he was not going to be on the roster anyway imo...

regardless, milledge wasn't coming back and vyse, the mets for sure know that alou will miss a lot of games, there is a lot of depth in the OF to compensate

edit: i think what white and needle said pretty much lol

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Church was worth more than 7 wins last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not picking on you, but i want to get this out there:

WARP3 sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I qualified it by noting that the defensive credit BP gives Church is considered accurate, hence it's not far off. I bet a .280 OF with very good D = 7 wins.

[ QUOTE ]
re: milledge being as good now as church, it's true. ZIPS link

[/ QUOTE ]

That link really doesn't say much =/

[ QUOTE ]

I was assuming that one of them would have been traded this offseason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubtful, but at least you should've said as much, I'm not going to assume you're assuming Alou's going to be traded, why would I?

[ QUOTE ]
why the personal attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't personal or an attack, I thought you were just being lazy

[ QUOTE ]

Vyse,

Barring injuries to outfielders in spring trading there is no way the Mets were going to have both Milledge and Gomez on the 25 man roster for opening day. Not with Chavez, Easley and Anderson already on the bench. Right or wrong they would have sent Gomez down to New Orleans to get his at bats, which is the same thing they did with Milledge the last couple of seasons.

Think before you post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, wrong player, same general point. They have no OF depth. No one who doesn't suck, anyway. If they don't like / trust Milledge -- and it's obvious they don't -- then why would they want two spots in the lineup -- OFs no less -- that they don't trust for production?

After that the question is whether or not they SHOULDN'T trust Milledge. I partially buy into that but not fully. But it's not a HORRIBLE bad, it's just not a particularly good one.

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I qualified it by noting that the defensive credit BP gives Church is considered accurate, hence it's not far off. I bet a .280 OF with very good D = 7 wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, now i am picking on you. that is a ridiculous valuation. church is projected to be about a league-average bat. there is no realistic level of defense that can make a league-average corner bat into a 7-win player.

furthermore, church projects at -1 runs of defense in a corner next year. he had a good year in '07, but has not established a level of good play.

as a general rule, BP's defensive numbers are not very good, and you would do well to look elsewhere. although the fielding bible does agree church had a good year.

[Vyse]

PECOTA > whatever other projections so I ignore them.

I can't find much that says Church wasn't awesome defensively.

I don't know if you can espouse your own opinions or just regurgitate what you've found on the internet, but just linking stuff and saying "loldisagreeaments" doesn't do anything

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
PECOTA > whatever other projections so I ignore them.

I can't find much that says Church wasn't awesome defensively.

I don't know if you can espouse your own opinions or just regurgitate what you've found on the internet, but just linking stuff and saying "loldisagreeaments" doesn't do anything

[/ QUOTE ]

According to 2007 PECOTA;
2008 MORP=Milledge $14.1, Church $6.7
2008 EQA=Milledge .287, Church .287
2008 Defnese in CF=Milledge -1, Church -2


Milledge is younger and more likely to improve while Church is older and more likely to decline. My guess is when the new PECOTA cards come out in Febuary, even after playing time adjustments, Milledge is going to be worth $3MM+ more than Church, according to MORP. The beating from 2009-2013 will be gargantuan.

[Wynton]

One thing people are not noting is that Milledge was really pretty poor defensively, despite his tools (kind of like Strawberry was at first). From what I've been reading, Church is considered very good defensively.

That should be taken into the equation.

[rwperu34]

I don't want to come off as somebody in the anti-Church camp, I'm not. I think he's a pretty good ballplayer overall. If you can keep him as half of a platoon, he's really good. I'm sure you guys can tell by my valuation of other players, I'm more in the pro Milledge camp.

The real problem I have with this deal is, there is no real reason to make it right now. Pretty much no matter what happens between Milledge and Church in 2008, you would be able to make this deal at the trade deadline. The flip side is, when Milledge "hits", you've either got a great RF, or more to work with on the trade market. At the very least, give Milledge spring training to build value and see what you can get in late March. It could be more, but it can't be less.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
PECOTA > whatever other projections so I ignore them.

I can't find much that says Church wasn't awesome defensively.

I don't know if you can espouse your own opinions or just regurgitate what you've found on the internet, but just linking stuff and saying "loldisagreeaments" doesn't do anything

[/ QUOTE ]

lolol this is exactly what you do all the time