17
2012
Shortstop Wars Round 1: Reyes Vs. Tejada
An article by Craig Lerner
I thought it would be fun to track Jose Reyes this season as well as his replacement Ruben Tejada. It will be an interesting case study to see exactly how much the Mets actually lost offensively and defensively by replacing Reyes with Tejada, and if that difference is worth the $106 million dollars it would have cost to retain him.
The great thing about this from a fairness perspective, is that they both bat leadoff and play the same position. That puts the comparison on a very level playing field with no foul calls from either side.
The offensive categories I chose to monitor are as follows: Hits, Extra-Base Hits, Walks, Runs, RBI, Stolen Bases, Batting Average, On-Base Percentage, Slugging and OPS.
No shortstop comparison is complete without some defensive measures. It’s far too early to compile enough data to effectively compare Reyes and Tejada using UZR/150, that will come later in the season. For now we’ll stick to some of the dated, but still somewhat useful old standbys: Fielding Percentage, Assists, Double Plays and Errors.
Here goes Round 1 of Shortstop Wars:
Offense: It’s practically a clean sweep for Ruben Tejada who beats Reyes in every category except stolen bases. One thing to note is that Reyes was also caught stealing twice which actually gives him one net steal. The real kicker here is that Tejada has over 150 points more in OPS than Reyes. I don’t think anyone could have predicted that, even this early in the game.
Defense: Wow. Four errors already for Jose Ryes, this could get ugly. What’s noteworthy here is also the double plays. We all know what great arm Reyes has, but young Tejada is holding his own there.
Scorecard: These are very preliminary results and while it’s fun to see these two shortstops go head to head like this, a lot can change between now and September. But make no mistake, Ruben Tejada unanimously takes Round 1 in this bout. He was the clear winner on all the judges’ scorecards. Reyes wobbles back to his corner of the ring and collapses on his stool as his trainer tends to his battered face. “Hey Mickey, my eye, you have to cut my eye”.
Round 1 – Ruben Tejada
About the Author: Craig Lerner
I'm a data analyst and researcher for a leading news agency who loves life and is hooked on the Mets. I love following the Amateur Draft and have a particular fondness for the Mets Minor Leagues who I follow each day. Give me a cold beer, a summer day, and a Mets game, and I'm good to go.
79 Comments + Add Comment
NL East Standings
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braves | 22 | 18 | .550 | - |
| Nationals | 22 | 19 | .537 | 0.5 |
| Phillies | 19 | 22 | .463 | 3.5 |
| Mets | 15 | 23 | .395 | 6.0 |
| Marlins | 11 | 30 | .268 | 11.5 |
Last updated: 05/17/2013
Recent Comments
- Dave In Spain: on Mookie On Valdespin: Give The Kid A Chance, He’s A Very Spirited Kid…: 1. I have no problem with personality...
- DrDooby: on D’Arnaud To Remain In Boot Camp For Two More Weeks: The way it looks, d´Arnaud is...
- DrDooby: on Injury Update: Wheeler To Rejoin Las Vegas Rotation Next Wednesday: In terms of young talent, Sandy essentially...
- Matt Este: on D’Arnaud To Remain In Boot Camp For Two More Weeks: MATT HARVEY IS GOD !!!
- Matt Este: on D’Arnaud To Remain In Boot Camp For Two More Weeks: Promote PLAWECKI !! This kid is not...
MMO Mets Chat
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5354 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1270 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
Oh boy……
This is not going to end well
First thought: “Here we go again”. Maybe it’s best that it happened today instead of tomorrow.
Those numbers are hard to believe and sure to change but still…………………..
Craig, it’s important that you also include some mention or form SB attemptss/CS/SB%/NSB (which you did). I’d rather 25 steals from Tejada in 30 attempts than 60 from Reyes in 80 attempts. That’s very important.
I was thinking the same thing since Reyes has already been caught stealing twice.
I did consider including caught stealing originally. I’ll probably add that in the next update.
And yet again, this further proves that maybe the reason the Mets didn’t bother with an offer (after I am sure they knew parameters) is because they had confidence in Tejada?
It is still very early though, and I’m not suggesting Tejada is or ever will be Reyes, but he’s so far proving that he deserved the chance to be the starting SS.
EFFIN AWESOME IDEA!
Like this a lot but two things: 1) You should include strikeouts and 2) You need to account for Range Factor on defense.
LA Mets: I personally don’t mind K’s not being involved, curious why you want them though?
To me, a strikeout is an out and is represented in their Avg and OBP. I don’t really look at total K’s in a negative way if the player’s avg/obp are solid
How about BA/RISP and BA/RISP 2/O and High leverage? LOL.
As of right now I wouldn’t send Kirk down if Torres returns. Why?
Ruben is playing a solid shortstop and not disappointing at lead off. Kirk is proving he belongs and he appears to be going by the nickname Butch.. I keep Torres up much like a defensive replacement perhaps or a breather guy for corner outfielders and send down a Baxter.
If it ain’t broke kind of thing. When you rest Ruben you could lead off Torres when available or Murphy. Cedeno plays short. Probably this Wednesday we will see him in there.
We need to keep Butch around!
Where’s Des? In the recent past whenever Tejada did well he would disappear for long periods of time. At this rate he’ll be gone for good, lol.
What doesn’t show in the error column is the miscommunicaton between Hanley and Jose on several groundball to the left side where both were confused as to who was going to get to it and 2 infield pop ups that fell in because of the same. Also i was watching the Giants-Phils last night and Pagan let a fly ball drop in because of miscommunication between he and the RFer.
Fonzie, those aren’t considered errors. It’s in the rules, because neither fielder touched the ball or made a full effort to do so. Silly rule that skews FLD%, but a rule nonetheless. So that means Reyes made four errors ON TOP of those miscommunications with Hanley.
Have you seen the Miami games or are you speculating?
I saw that Pagan play on MLB Network…man, I don’t miss that guy at all.
I’ve seen the plays in question on highlights, but it’s a general rule about what constitutes an error in the official rule book. Case in point, Pagan’s bumble last night was not an error.
But you’re right. I couldn’t wait to ship him off somewhere.
And those misplays by guys like Pagan last year are reasons why Niese ERA was so high. For some reason Pagan seemed to misplay flyballs mostly when Niese was on the mound.
I saw it USMF. Courtesy of MLB Extra Innings on Directv.
I know they’re not considered errors that’s why is said it doesn’t show in the E column but needs to be mentioned.
Thanks for clearing it up. You were clear the first time, but now that I re-read it, I realized I read it wrong the first time. That’s why FLD% can suck it.
Well this is certainly the king of sample sizes type post.
Like any season long analysis sample sizes are scant initially and get better as the season wears on. That doesn’t mean you ignore fast and slow starts. I’ve seen people falling over themselves to give Nieuwenhuis the everyday job based on 21 at-bats in the last 24 hours. Baseball is all about stats and in the beginning of the season all sample sizes are small, but hardly insignificant.
Like I said to each his own but to me there’s still no doubt Jose is obviously going to be better than Ruben given enough of a sample size for now.
Are you going to go all 16 rounds? It’ll be interesting who will have the better all around numbers and who has the most “wins’ per 10 games.
Now just ignore what I just said…we need to move on man…I mean really…I love Jose (and I mean LOVE Jose…and yes I am a straight guy…not that there is anything wrong with that)…but it’s over…he’s gone…he’s not coming back.
You wouldn’t keep bringing up your ex and compare them to your new girlfriend/boyfriend every week would you?
It’s not healthy dude…move on…eat your tub of rocky road…slam a bunch of beer…cry if you must…I won’t judge you…you’ll be fine…he’s gone for a reason (mostly because the Mets were broke and Sandy had no intention to spend money he couldn’t afford to lose on a guy who has injury concerns) I know it hurts…but be prepared for Wright, Murphy or Santana to be gone soon too…
plus…I don’t want to hear that we let Reyes go because Sandy knew how good Tejada is…it was a simple money/risk evaluation. We had no money and there was too much risk. endo-story.
teams though do have to make cost/benefit analysis calculations all the time though. And sometimes, you go with expecting 90% of the production for 25% of the cost (or some such). Unless you have an unlimited budget of course, then screw it.
definitley have to include caught stealing. I believe in the theory that steals below a certain % (usually condsidered to be 75-80 I think) can be counter productive. At some point, the outs you make have to more than offset the extra bases you get.
stealing at the right time, and not getting caught, is what really matters.
Alex, dont flip out when you see this. lol
Holy crap: BREAKING NEWS from CNN, the Dominican Republic has spontaneously combusted.
It’s gone, ITS ALL GONE!
I’m not sure if it will stay like this all year, but let’s look at a few important numbers:
Jose Reyes $18 MILLION
Ruben Tejada $491 THOUSAND
Let’s say he’s only 80% of Jose’s totals in every category. How much of that performance gap can you make up with $17.5 mil?
Starter, Reliever, Outfielder, etc.
Also, how many childish, idiotic things has Ruben done this year? I’ll bet it’s less than Reyes.
I don’t see why Tejada can’t be a permanent leadoff guy. Aside from lack of stolen base speed, he’s doing everything else grandly. He’s patient at the plate, rarely misses when he swings, and he gets on base, setting the table for Murph and the 3-4-5-6 guys. But what really excites me the most about Ruben is that he’s only 22; he’s still got 5 or 6 years till he really peaks. He’s just going to get better and I think we can bat him leadoff and have great success.
Hate to break this to you boys, but by the All Star break Ruben will make all of us forget Jose Reyes!
I’ve already forgotten about him. The team is playing well that’s all that matters right now.
Looking at Reyes’s numbers, either he’s getting lazy, or April’s really not his month.
that’s actually September.
Though it was emotionally rough for me to see Jose leave, I didn’t think it would hurt the club because I thought Tejada was ready enough to step in and take over the hole. As a fan, it was a tough choice either way, although neither decision would have hurt the team – Tejada taking over or Jose staying and Tejada becoming the fifth infielder and adding to our bench strength.
What I didn’t like was the manner in which the fans were made to believe re-signing Jose was a priority when it was never the thought and that the money saved by not re-signing Jose was not used to strengthen other areas on the team. Because of this, I think a video tribute to Jose on the part of ownership would be another in a series of insults to the fans. Let us decide what type of tribute we should or should not give Jose, not the front office for this would only get many of us more angry with showing what hypocrites they are, being they didn’t think much of Jose to at least attempt to keep him and let the chips fall where they may be.
SHAKE
MY
HEAD
If you wish ~~~~
~~~~~ .
Feel better?
I’m surprised you still have a head to shake. I would have thought it exploded after you saw this. But knowing what a diehard Met fan you are, you must be thrilled at how well Tejada is doing so far, right?
If Reyes has another 0-4 today he will be at the Mendoza line. Only 2 multi-hit games all season.
Doesn’t look like this is unusual though. 05, 06, 08, 10 he had crappy April’s. 07, and 11 he had great Aprils and 09 was pretty meh.
This post is a lot like gasoline on a brush fire at this point, but after another month it will be very relevant and a great study of cost/benefit analysis.
This is a ridiculous story….While I understand why the Mets did not look to resign Jose Reyes and agree that it was as sound baseball decision, as a fan I do miss him. When healthy and on the field he is the most exciting player in the game.
I truly believed that part of that decision was based upon Sandy A’s belief that Ruben Tejada was ready to be a ML shortstop and would even be a good hitter for this team.
To compare the two is unfair to Ruben Tejada especially after two weeks!
Let’s see what the numbers look like after a full season should Jose stay healthy!
Hi Alan,
Yes, this decision makes us all feel like Mr. Spock – trying to put emotions aside and think logically.
Again, my gripe was with the way it was handled publicly, knowing Jose was such a fan favorite. At the end of the season Sandy could have said “we wish Jose well but looking at the overall situation facing the club we think we are fortunate to have a replacement to take over and thus could use the money that otherwise would need to be spent on Jose in other areas to which improve the club while still having a quality player at shortstop” – or words to that affect.
Of course, we know the Mets were looking to cut payroll below $100 million and that the money was never going to re-invested in the roster, but at least that would have been a semi-honest approach with the fan base which, if nothing more, would had eased the sting somewhat.
They weren’t so hesitant to tell us they had to get rid of Beltran and KRod because of payroll when we were playing so well last season, so why did they not do so this time around with Reyes?
I think your problem is that you are not happy with the results, no the comparison. This is baseball and player comparisons is as old as the game itself. This isn’t a story, it’s comparing an iconic player to his successor, it’s not only fair, it’s relevant.
No problem on this side. I think it was sound baseball thinking. We had Tejada waiting in the wings, he was impressive in the opportunities.
Saying as a Met fan it was very hard to deal with, is not saying one can’t see the logic behind the move. I just didn’t like the way it was being handled with the public and, like with KRod and Beltran (when it was openly a matter of money) the front office could have been more open with us about why they weren’t going to attempt to re-sign Jose at all.
Being candid with the fan base is often better than being caught up in false hype and spin when it comes to public relations.
Come on, lets be honest here. Krod was about money and Beltran was about prospect returns. They didn’t even save that much money by trading Beltran.
Tr,
They were BOTH about money – one doesn’t let go of the team’s top offensive player while still in the playoff hunt even if he would be gone the end of the year for any other reason.
except how is it about money, if they didn’t save any?
Joey do you know how much money they saved?
I am not arguing the ficticiuos point that they were still in the race. Lets put that aside. The point is that there is no way you could say the Beltran trade was about money as they didn’t save much money at all. The trade was for Beltran and Cash for Wheeler.
Joey, Beltran had nothing to do with money. The Mets paid him every cent he was owed.
I don’t think completely but it was close. Still no way that you could consider it a salary dump. Otherwise no way in hell do you get a top prospect.
Plus we were out of it and would have gotten nothing when Carlos left, just like so many guys we’ve brought in here before and there was no chance of Beltran signing here unless he had no other options and no place to play him unless we ate the last two years of Bay’s deal.
Very similar to the Maz for Darling and Terrill deal and one that couldn’t be passed over especially in a year in which we were closed out of the Division and had only the faintest hope of even being relevant in the Wild Card even with a closer let alone without one.
I think the bottom line is Joey just doesn’t like Sandy and will look for any reason to knock him like his 50 references a day about computers. I can’t see how a fan since 1962 can’t tell the difference between a mediocre team and a true contender. Why else would he continue to beat a dead horse day after day. The other argument was that keeping Beltran would’ve been a positive influence in the developement of the younger guys is a crock of shit as well. You can’t use that excuse when the team comes out of the gate 4-0 anf wins 7 of the 1st 10 games. I’m sorry but keeping a guy that’s walking at the end of the year just so you can finish around 500 is absolutely dumb when someone is offering one of the top pitching prospects in the sport.
It’s probably because I have been a Met fan from 1962 and remember when in June and early July 1969 all the pundents, including Bob Brown, the host of the pre and post game shows on the radio, spoke the same way as you did about last year’s team. They all insisted we get real and stop thinking in terms of being a pennant winner. And R.A. Dickey would have been more candid about the team’s chances if he believed they were re-buildng and would not say that the front office gave up on them when they shouldn’t.
Now, my gripe is less with the concept of money ball and computer analysis than it is with those who distort facts or leave out additional pieces of information to champion why they believe redefines the thinking of the game.
For example, finally got to see the Brad Pitt film on Starz, Now we all know movies based on true stories take liberties with fact versus fiction but there were some very important facts that were ommited and misleading which destroys much of the film’s credibility.
1) It emphasizes the losses of Giambi, Damon and Issringhaussen but fails to mention the return of that great, dominating pitching that simply outclassed the rest of the league along with the seven starting position players from 2001 that went to the AL Championship Series. Oakland’s return to the playoffs was not due to a rag-tag bunch of players that a computer programmer said to get as depicted in the film, it was about Miguel Tejada, Eric Chavez, Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson Barry Zito. Billy Koch, etc. And it put too much focus on Beane’s instance of playing Scott Hatteberg over Pena. I do not know how deep the divide was between the general manager and the manger on this isue but I mean Pena was hitting .216 when he was traded and Hatteberg was already a proven major league hitter. Did it take a computer programmer to suggest to Billy that Hatteberg playing first? I can see Art Howe making that mistake for reasons we all know.
2) The focus is Billy Beane’s adoption of money ball in 2002 and putting together a post-season team with the third lowest payroll in baseball at just over $40 million. Not mentioned, however, was that before he turned to money ball, the 2001 Oakland team already had the second lowest payroll in the majors at just under $34 million ($15% lower). Money ball had not even come into the equation in 2001 and most all the major players were coming back in 2002 anyway.
3) At the end the film states the Red Sox became World Champions adhering to the principles established by Billy Beane. How is that possible? The Red Sox had the second highest payroll in the majors at over $177 million, more than four times the Oakland payroll. They obtained Curt Schilling with an eight digit salary. All the other key contributors were on the team in 2002 – Kevin Millar and Marc Balhorn were not game changing acquisitions.
4) Art Howe was not that fat as depicted in the movie.
Perhaps my disdain for money ball and sabremetrics is more with it’s advoactes than the practices themselves. If they expressed their argument accurately instead distorting and manipulating facts and makng false claims to make their points, I might be more apt to listen.
It comes down to credibility in the argument more than the argument itself.
My friend got struck by lightning while holding a wrench out side in a storm. Thus if I hold a wrench outside in a storm I too will get struck. I have another friend who was a teacher who played the lottery and won enabling him to quit his job. I bought a ticket today and quit because I too am likely to win.
TR,
Don’t mind at all that we see things differently regarding last year and the reasons you have expressed in the past are all valid – just please cut back on the facitiousness, ok?
Joey when you say the Beltran trade was about money what can you expect? Also, I am making my point that just because one or two examples of a perfect run show up in 1,000′s doesn’t mean it is something you should expect or make your moves based on that premise. The fact is that there was maybe, MAYBE a 5% chance of making the playoffs last year if they kept Beltran and Krod. Could it have happen? Sure, again lightening could have struck the 5 teams in front of us and avoided us like Bubba Gump Shrimp. Making moves based on that likelihood? Not so much.
Hi Fonz,
It’s probably because I have been a Met fan from 1962 and remember when in June and early July 1969 all the pundents, including Bob Brown, the host of the pre and post game shows on the radio, spoke the same way as you did about last year’s team. They all insisted we get real and stop thinking in terms of being a pennant winner. And R.A. Dickey would have been more candid about the team’s chances if he believed they were better off re-buildng and would not have said that the front office was giving up on them when they shouldn’t.
Now, my gripe is less with the concept of money ball and computer analysis than it is with those who distort facts or leave out additional pieces of information to champion why they believe redefines the thinking of the game.
For example, finally got to see the Brad Pitt film on Starz, Now we all know movies based on true stories take liberties with fact versus fiction but there were some very important facts that were ommited and misleading which destroys much of the film’s credibility.
1) It emphasizes the losses of Giambi, Damon and Issringhaussen but fails to mention the return of that great, dominating pitching that simply outclassed the rest of the league along with the seven starting position players from 2001 that went to the AL Championship Series. Oakland’s return to the playoffs was not due to a rag-tag bunch of players that a computer programmer said to get as depicted in the film, it was about Miguel Tejada, Eric Chavez, Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson Barry Zito. Billy Koch, etc. And it put too much focus on Beane’s instance of playing Scott Hatteberg over Pena. I do not know how deep the divide was between the general manager and the manger on this isue but I mean Pena was hitting .216 when he was traded and Hatteberg was already a proven major league hitter. Did it take a computer programmer to suggest to Billy that Hatteberg playing first? I can see Art Howe making that mistake for reasons we all know.
2) The focus is Billy Beane’s adoption of money ball in 2002 and putting together a post-season team with the third lowest payroll in baseball at just over $40 million. Not mentioned, however, was that before he turned to money ball, the 2001 Oakland team already had the second lowest payroll in the majors at just under $34 million ($15% lower). Money ball had not even come into the equation in 2001 and most all the major players were coming back in 2002 anyway.
3) At the end the film states the Red Sox became World Champions adhering to the principles established by Billy Beane. How is that possible? The Red Sox had the second highest payroll in the majors at over $177 million, more than four times the Oakland payroll. They obtained Curt Schilling with an eight digit salary. All the other key contributors were on the team in 2002 – Kevin Millar and Marc Balhorn were not game changing acquisitions.
4) Art Howe was not that fat as depicted in the movie.
Perhaps my disdain for money ball and sabremetrics is more with it’s advoactes than the practices themselves. If they expressed their argument accurately instead distorting and manipulating facts and makng false claims to make their points, I might be more apt to listen.
It comes down to credibility in the argument more than the argument itself.
Hi TR,
All I ask of anyone is to express their thoughts in the manner you just did.
Now, about our disagreement.
Starting that winter, the Mets were telling us two things – that they wanted to rebuild and they wanted to reduce payroll. The front office was not hiding the fact that Beltran was going to be out. What didn’t come into the equation at that time was 1) Beltran going to have the great season that he did and 2) the Mets playing great ball led by Beltran’s bat and clubhouse leadership and finding themselves in the thick of the wild card race by mid-July.
We both feel strongly about the direction the Mets were going. I felt that had the potential to make a real strong run at things and even if they didn’t make post-season, would experience what it was like to play important games in August and early September and build up a winning attitude in the clubhouse. Hence, one does not get rid of the closer and the top hitter in that type of situation.
Yet I also understand your take – that the Mets were playing over their heads, were going to falter and thus made the decision to get what they could for Beltran when his services were at a high premium. For an aging star not in our future, we get a top prospect who could.
Both our arguments are valid and it’s not because I believe in 1000 to one shots coming in. The Mets were playing great ball and David Wright had yet to return. Nobody was running away with the wild card. The team had played 14 games over .500 since that miserable start. Had they consistently been at .500 I would too have said trade Beltran.
As I’ve pointed out, no other team in the position the Mets were ever threw in the towel like they did. I don’t think the Wilpons would have allowed it to happen had the financial situation been different. As so many have pointed out, teams can build up their farm systems and still produce competitive clubs at the same time. That’s why I say it was due to money – despite the Mets having to fork up most of Carlos’ remaining salary – for they referred to both, rebuilding AND payroll. I don’t think they ever expected for Carlos to have the year he was and for the Mets to be in the position they were in a large part due to him.
BTW – I think I’ve said this before that my gut instinct is actually in agreement with you – that the team probably would have cooled off toward late August or early September. But from a competitive standpoint, if that fall is to come, it has to be at the hands of the players and never be undermined by a front office. And I really do believe that based on their past track records where money was no object, Fred and Jeff would never have thrown in the towel by letting either player go – even for a Zach Wheeler.
I am sorry but a .500 team is not playing great ball. There are ups and downs to a season but even if they had played 14 games above .500 from the miserable start they still would have had to play another 18 games over .500 the rest of the way to even get to 90 wins. Also they were not in the “thick of the wild card race”. That has been proven over and over again. You can’t be in the thick of something if you are 7 game out and behind 4-5 teams. That’s at best on the outskirts.
Finally all this is still going back to your comment that the Mets traded Beltran for financial reasons and that not only is not true but can’t be further from the truth.
We’ll keep it as it, TR.
If money was not the issue, then the general manager had little faith in his players and what they were achieving to date.
The players certainly felt differently. We know what R.A. said, and also Pelfrey: “In the same sense I would think if we ended up getting rid of him, the front office’s view is that we don’t have a chance, because he gives us our best chance to win. If he’s not here, then they felt we can’t rebound from where we’re at”
Or perhaps the manager, Terry Collins, when asked if he were pleading for the front office to keep Beltran. “”"I don’t think I have to plea, everybody knows my feelings about it.”
First of all the players better be angry and think they are still in it. My daughter wants to buy a toy every time we go to Walmart. She’s not going to understand the situation and honestly it’s not costing her a dime. However being the adult in the room I have to decide when she gets the new toy and when I save up for the larger toy she actually needs or something that will actually benefit her long-term. In other words, be the adult in the room.
Hi Tr,
We should not talk in terms of generalization. When a team is playing at a clip of 12 games over 500 for more than half a season, it is not a .500 ball club. It might wind up that way at the end of the year, but as of July, that was not the case.
The Mets problem was starting off at 5-13. In fact, after those first 18 games the Mets had a better record than the eventual world series champions. After starting off 9-9, during that same 85 game stretch that followed St. Louis’s record was just 47-41 while the Mets was 50-38.
- “Also they were not in the “thick of the wild card race”. That has been proven over and over again. You can’t be in the thick of something if you are 7 game out and behind 4-5 teams. That’s at best on the outskirts”
Does that mean St. Louis was was on the outskirts too? The Mets after game 105 (which was even after the Beltran and KRod trades) were just one game behind that of St. Louis and the Cardinals had five teams to jump over to the Mets six. Does one game and one additinal team make such a tremendous difference?
And if the Mets continued playing at the same clip for the remaining 56 games, it would have resulted in a 34-22 record and 89-73 finish (one game behind St. Louis).
This is not to say they would have finished at 89.73 – but with 56 games to go in the season, being in the position they were neck and neck with the eventual world champions and the way they were playing this team definately had a shot. After all, St. Louis finished at 90-72. And David Wright was going to come off the disable list.
I can understand you believing the team was playing over it’s heads and would have come back to earth (we also did not know the injuries that were to befall Murphy, Reyes and Niese but that is only looking back in hindsight). But with one third of the season left to go, they were in it.
- “Finally all this is still going back to your comment that the Mets traded Beltran for financial reasons and that not only is not true but can’t be further from the truth.”
The Mets were stating since the winter that 2011 was going to be a transition year and they had to focus on reducing payroll and look ahead to 2012 when less commitments meant more could be applied to the free agent market. They were also contenders with 56 games left to go in the season. Considering both those circumstances, what other reason would they therefore trade their top offensive player and closer? The fact that Beltran was going to walk at the end of the year does not mean the Mets did right to get rid of him so they could get something in return. That is done by teams out of the race, not in one.
I am not going to argue the point about being in the race anymore. It’s pointless, last year was not the year to go all in for some 5% chance at making the playoffs.
My point remains that there is no evidence to support the claim that trading Beltran was done to save money. None. Absolutely none. It doesn’t matter if teams don’t “usually” trade someone when they are in or not in the race. That has nothing to do with the fact that they did not really save any money by trading him thus how can it be about money to start with? If it was about money then why didn’t they just say the hell with the prospect and just dump him?
One wasn’t in the playoff hunt in reality.
Hi TR,
I will not compare the feelings expressed by adult professionals to those of a child and compare the front office to one having to make an adult decision. If the players and manager felt they were out of it, they are well aware of what should and not be should said in the press and could have mentioned how getting a top prospect was going to help them become a really better ball club or expressed something else that would not contradict the front office.
To all i will say this, jose reyes is a marlin, give it a rest.. this is getting ridiculous, the only reason why craig lerner posted this is to make his LORD SANDY ALDERSON look good early on.. this is as asinine of an artcle as i have seen, but of course, craig lerner needed to post this article to make his lord as the genius he once proclaimed he was, we should be happy tejada is doing good, imagine how good we could’ve been for years to come having both of them in our middle infield, but that’s not the case, give it a rest people, i’ll take jose reyes 100000000000 times ahead of tejada, at the end of the year i am sure reyes will have better numbers, but for the sandy apologist and sabergoons tajada will have better #’s based on the $ he makes.
This is just getting ridiculous!
Actually you are missing the desire of certain authors. For some in the blogging world it’s not about information or service provided but for attention and clicks gained. I can’t help but think that this one is the latter. To me an article like this is not representative of what this blog provides at all. We have had issues with that before on ours as well.
I could be wrong and my apologies to the author but to each his own, perhaps others see it as informative.
Actually you are missing the desire of certain authors. For some in the blogging world it’s not about information or service provided but for attention and clicks gained. I can’t help but think that this one is the latter.
You are dead wrong. I have no vested interest in this site’s clicks and I don’t blog for clicks I blog for my enjoyment. Joe asks all of us to be original and different and I try my best to abide by that.
If you don’t have any interest in a head to head comparison between two players who in Mets minds are forever joined at the hip, that’s fine. But please don’t accuse me of being self serving because I took a lot of pride in my idea, and in my graphic, and in my charts.
To each his own. I guess to me just as the tribute to Jose is too early, any comparisons of these two are too early as well. IMO unless we are comparing Jose’s first full season to Ruben’s?
I’ve told you this before and I’ll reiterate. You can believe what you want about me, but it matters as much to me at the opinion of an ant. If you don’t like what I post, just pass over it. Or else I’ll have my lord visit you with a plague of frogs, locusts and boils.
LOL, as I said in my post I meant no harm and pre-apologized if I was wrong. I want no part of the plagues.
No problem, and actually I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with me. I was just taken aback by your mention of me being motivated by hits. I haven’t even a clue as to what the hits are on my posts. I love numbers, I love advanced metrics, and I love performance based analysis. Apparently that makes me some sort of a goon, but that was exactly why I was asked to write for this site in the first place.
Lerner did say,
“I thought it would be fun to track Jose Reyes this season as well as his replacement Ruben Tejada. It will be an interesting case study to see exactly how much the Mets actually lost offensively and defensively by replacing Reyes with Tejada, and if that difference is worth the $106 million dollars it would have cost to retain him.”
That pretty much explains his reasons for this post not that he needs to even do so. As long as he continues his case study throughout the rest of the season and not stop if Reyes has an MVP type year and Tejada doesn’t I don’t have a problem with it.
As bloggers though NJ we know what stories are bound to create drama and garner interest. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that either. Just saying that this one might fall into that category.
No I understand and you can speculate what you think it is. I am pointing out what 1st in fact he did say and what my view is on it.
Yeah, I even said in my response that I apologize if I am wrong and it could be for a different motive.
Yes, you did.
Thank you Mr. North Jersey. The plan as In described to Joe was to do an update every two weeks which will simulate a 12 round match.