|
In his latest for SI.com, Jon Heyman ranks Omar Minaya as the 8th best general manager in baseball, saying…
“His brilliant 2006 season in which he pilfered Oliver Perez from the Pirates and John Maine from the Orioles, two teams that could have used their services, was followed by a 2007 that featured some costly mistakes — trading Heath Bell, Brian Bannister and Matt Lindstrom and getting practically nothing for them in the offseason, and then doing little to help prevent a late-season collapse that left the Mets one game short.”
…i think it’s a pretty fair ranking…there’s no doubt in my mind that, even before acquiring Johan Santana, minaya had been far more good than bad while turning the Mets into contenders…
 |
 |
 |
RSS 2.0 You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Only 8th!?!? What a @#$%ING BUM!!! Fire Omar and Willie and everyone else too!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Wait…aren’t we still doing that??
I actually think one of Omar’s best moves happened last year — not signing Zito to an even bigger contract then he signed with the Giants. The Mets were desperate for a pitcher for the front of the rotation but Omar recognized that that Zito was a number 2 pitcher and that he was going to be way overpaid. Sure, the Mets would of been a better team, but I wonder if they had signed Zito if they would of been in the position to sign Santana. They are a much better team with Santana, both on the field and in the payroll since Santana is more likely to earn his money then Zito.
Bannister would have been a great fit
But we have not seen our side of the deal yet
It may still pan out
Please remember that Bannister had a Strikeout to Walk ratio of:
19 to 22 in 2006
77 to 44 in 2007
Face it. He may be a nice guy and an underdog, but he’s not that good. He was very very lucky to put up decent numbers last year. You can’t have a K/BB ratio and be successful.
He has a dreadful season coming up this year. I would peg him for a +5.50 ERA and a WHIP +1.50 in 2008.
I know Number41 wasn’t saying much about Bannister besides he may have been a good fit, but I am sick and tired of reading and hearing writers and Mets fans blast Omar over trading a 27 year old journeyman pitcher.
Same with Heath Bell, Bell stunk as a Met to the tune of a +5.00 ERA and many many walks in his time in Flushing.
Journeyman? First off, Bannister was 25 when he was traded. Prior to that he spent a little over 2 years in the minors and 1 in the bigs/DL. He also went to college, so his total professional service to date is barely 5 years. Hardly a journeyman.
With Bannister as added depth in the rotation last year, perhaps the season turns out differently. I’m not going to project what his 12 wins or 3.87ERA would have translated to in the NL, but if it’s close, than we certainly could have used those services. And certainly more than the services of Brian Lawrence, Jason Vargas, or the Phillip Humber experiment down the stretch.
It was a horrible trade at the time, and even worse in retrospect.
As for Heath Bell…the guy just couldn’t pitch in NY nor could he find a rhythem. He stated this many times, and feels SD is the refresh button he needed. His numbers speak for themselves.
and the k to walk ratio you state proves that perhaps he is improving.
Danny, going from 19:22 to 77:44 isn’t what I would call an improvement, it’s better, but not by much.
And I should have said “future journeyman”. Bannister, in my opinon isn’t much more than a 5th/6th starting pitcher.
I think ravi3 said this as well, Omar was dealing from strength with Bannister. The Mets have a whole clutch of SPs, Sosa, Vargas, Pelf and they had Humber too last year and don’t forget Dave Williams and Brian Lawrence.
Now, none of these guys are great, obviously, but the point is that Bannister had a shot, showed very little and a 23 year old that has 20 careers ML saves and a 100+ mph fastball was available. I would have made that same deal 10 times out of 10.
Funny how that in anyother profession, an improvement like that would get you a raise and a promotion.
I don’t know, man. Maybe I on too much of the Bannister Koolaid, but I honestly wasn’t surprised by his performance last year (minus that fact that he pulled it off in KC). When that trade went down, I knew that it would come back to haunt Omar. I talk about BB’s pedigree/etc. elsewhere on this thread, so I won’t repeat it. But I will say that I will always have an issue in trading a smart and tested rotation arm for an unknown bullpen project.
And another thing…a misconception is that Bannister is a 4-5 man. He was actually a 3 last year. He will be a 2 most likely this year.
I recall him barely making it past the 5th inning in 2006. Looking at his 2007 gamelogs, he routinely went into the 7th inning. That is an improvement as well. I just don’t see this guy crashing in 2008.
Regardless, I guess my overall point is that it was a horrible trade in respect to last year, b/c Bannister and his 150+ innings would have helped. He was traded for a risk to help fill the bullpen, a need that wouldn’t had been necessary if Omar would have simply gave Bradford his money (Omar’s 2nd worst move in his tenure).
So, as a result of this deal, we lose a starter and a bullpen spot that we were counting on….and it just so happens that our rotation and pen run out of gas in September. hmmm…..
As for the future, I think the page has turned. Our rotation in 2008 would be no better with Bannister, so I am past it. Johan is to credit for that one.
It is kind of not fair to penalize him for the Bell/Lindstrom/Bannister deals….Bell had not performed anywhere close to expectation, AND struggled to stay in shape while he was up here…Obviously, he needed a change of scenery. Lindstrom was not all that impressive with the Marlins.
As for the Bannister deal, yes he performed well, but Omar was dealing from a strength at the time to improve the ‘pen. If Heyman has an issue with that, how can he gloss over Epstein’s trade of Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo Pena? Arroyo was a better talen when he was dealt, and the Sox had many pitching injuries that year, and Pena didn’t do anything for them either. (not saying that Epstein should be moved down on the list, but the deal should at least be discussed)
Bell, Ring, Lindstrom, Owens, Bannister, and Flores were all lost within a one month span and nothing the Mets received in return has yet to yield any results and there was no pressing need to move any of those guys. There is really no excuse for that.
I’m in quasi-agreement on the latter four, but Bell and Ring had plenty of opportunities to prove themselves at the big league level for the Mets, but time and again they proved themselves to be AAAA level pitchers on the New York stage.
Flores also just finished A ball..There were other players that needed to be protected. Who would think that the Nats would keep a player who is so green on the big league roster all year? Soory to be a huge homer here, but I am just trying to play devil’s advocate here…Its easy to criticize a deal in hindsight, but I think its better to understand the logic behind the deal, and judge based on that
Exactly ravi3,
Flores was a single A catcher, who would ever think a team, even one as bad as the Nats, would keep a 21 year old catcher that is nowhere near ML ready on the roster all year.
It’s pretty clear that the Nats decided they could afford to carry Flores purely as a future investment - it’s also pretty obvious that they have every intention of letting him develop in the minors this year now that they have secured the rights to him.
Props to them as well. They saw an opportunity and took it. It’s not like they had anything to lose last year.
At least we didn’t lose a piece we needed for the Santana trade :)
bring back junior ortiz!!!
Bannister isnt very good. I wouldnt be even a bit surprised to see a 5.00 era this year from him. San Diego is known for taking other people’s junk relief arms and having them thrive in Petko. Owens and Lindstom are both like 29 year old career minor leaguers, they both throw hard, but not much else. When you look back in hindsight, sure you can criticize these moves, but if the worst thing you can say about Minaya during his tenure with the Mets is that he traded away Matt Lindstrom, Henry Owens and Heath Bell, it means he has done a nice job. The Flores arguement is silly, to put it nicely. Are you even aware of the circumstances in which he was lost? The Mets chose not to protect him, because the thought of a 20 year old catcher with zero experience above A-Ball spending an entire season on a Major league 25 man roster seems pretty silly. The Nats just happened to be so awful that they could afford to do this. It worked out really well for them no doubt, but seriously, would you expect a guy that never played above A-Ball, that is a catcher and only 20 year old at the time, to spend an entire season on a major league roster?
In NY we tend to rate our GMs based on the big moves they make. The big ones have been pretty decent on Omar’s side: Pedro, the Carloses, and now Santana. The smaller moves have been not so great (though I’d consider Maine and Ollie smaller, so they haven’t been awful.)
Heyman is right to point out the Bannister and Bell trades, especially. There really was no excuse to let go of pitching — young pitching at that — and get so little in return.
Lindstrom wasn’t all that young- he had taken time off to complete a Mormon mission, and is in his late 20’s…
Either way, in that deal, they acquired two guys who were both younger, and lefties, for two players that ultimately had no spot in the Met pen. Obviously looking back at the rash of injuries the team had with relievers, as well as the overuse of the pen, this deal can be critized, but of course, hindsight is 20-20.
Same thing with the Bell trade, at least in regards to why he was moved…I wasn’t thrilled with what they got back though/
I didn’t mind the Bannister trade, however. The guy always pitches with guys on base, and while he was able to navigate his way through jams, once the league has a good look at you, those high wire acts get a biiit tougher. Yes he had some success with KC (the kid does have a great head on his shoulders, so I don’t think he would fold under the pressure), but I don’t think he’ll be able to keep it up.
Plus, Burgos is a great talent, if they can reel him in a bit, so I did, and still do, agree with this trade.
You’ll notice I didn’t mention the Lindstrom deal in my note. As for Bell and Bannister, nobody is saying they were sure things, but it seems, especially in the case of Bannister, we sold for very little. Burgos has a terrible track record, while Bannister’s was good. He pitched in a lot of trouble with the Mets, but his minor league numbers showed that he didn’t.
Look, nobody is saying that he was going to be Tom Seaver, but young cheap pitching, especially starting pitching, is an incredibly valuable commodity, and Omar dealt it for an erratic relief pitcher. That’s just not a good trade, even if Bannister never repeats this past year’d performance.
The thing with Burgos was that he was rushed up to the bigs, and never had proper coaching. Omar has an eye for that type of player, and my faith is still with him…Its too early to fairly evauate this deal though.
I did notice you didn’t mention Lindstrom, but that was after I typed the whole passage about him, and frankly I’m stubborn so I wasn’t going to take it out lol
Good for you!!!! lol!
Anyway, let the games begin!!!
Burgos was a classic Omar move - high risk, high potential reward.
He took a hard throwing kid who was rushed by a small market team to see what The Jacket can do with him. Don’t forget, he spent a lot of last season injured, so we’ve yet to see how he works out. There’s still the possibility he could end up replacing Wagner, in the best possible case - it’s still too early to really pass judgement on that trade.
I honestly cant believe some of the garbage people post here. Bannister is a number 5, maybe , maybe a number 4 guy, that is his absolute upside. Burgos has a horrible track record? Yeah, because he was 21 when we got him and had no business pitching above AA. This guy can reach triple digits and has filthy stuff, while Bannister was a 25 year old minor league pitcher posting decent numbers. I wouldnt even consider taking this trade back. Like Ravi said, we got 2 young left handed starting pitchers for Lindstrom and Owens, 2 career minor leaguers in their late 20’s. I bet tidewater was one fo those guys complaining that we traded away Xavier Nady for a young erratic left handed pitcher back in 2006. And comparing this trade to Kazmir’s, is literally one of the worst camparisons ever. Comparing Bannister and KAzmir is like comparing John Garland to Johan Santana.
You are in the minority as most Mets fans as well as most respected baseball writers have called the Bannister trade a mistake and would reverse it in a second if they could.
Burgos had a great fastball (and I say “had” because he may not have it anymore) but he had lousy control and the pitching IQ of a snail. He wold air it out on the first day of spring training instead of working up to a point where he could throw full throttle. It’s no wonder he needed TJ surgery.
As for Bannister, many tabbed him for a middle of the rotation starter, and if they had had him last year, the Mets may not have missed the playoffs considering the lousy replacements they had (Park, Williams, Lawrence). Bannister’s upside is yet to be seen.
I may be in the minority, but I really liked what I saw from Bannister in 2006. The guy battled and earned the rotation spot in ST and pitched his ass off in the regular season. He even proved well at the plate. What more could one ask from a rookie?
Another thing…Bannister has the MLB pedigree from his dad. He clearly has a strong head on his shoulders. You don’t trade smart and proven Rotation arms for a high risk bullpen project. That deal was horrible.
But in retrospect, with Bannister on this team now, perhaps Johan doesn’t even happen. Who knows?
nrmax88:
No, I recognized trading Nady was out of necessity. I also recognize that leftfielders who hit .275 with 20 HRs are not hard to replace, like say, young cheap starting pitchers. Trading starters for relievers is foolish in my opinion, unless you’re getting a tried and true bullpen guy which Burgos was not. ALSO, yes Burgos has (or had, we’ll see) a power arm, as do Lindstrom and Owens. Those trades were all to get younger, but not one of them made us better. It’s one thing if you’re trading a 31 or 32 year old to get younger, but trading a starter in his mid twenties for a reliever in his young 20s, the youth of the trade makes no sense. Also, he made these weird trades where he traded starters for relievers and then relievers for starters when he could have kept all of his pieces, all in their twenties in tact.
I have no problem with trading away players. I would have had no problem trading Kazmir for Zambrano had it been Carlos Zambrano! Young players are of a premium. Young pitching especially. I understand many trades. I did not understand the Bannister one.