6-4-2 — an Angels/Dodgers double play blog: What Weak Division? Dodgers 6, Mets 5

Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.

Friday, July 22, 2005

What Weak Division? Dodgers 6, Mets 5

Okay, so the Mets, despite a better record than the Dodgers, are in fourth place in the NL West. So the Mets have Pedro Martinez, who the Dodgers will see tomorrow (against rookie D.J. Houlton).

So what?

So the Dodgers finally found a team they could beat outside of their division, that's what. Jeff Kent's 3-5 night, with a home run, is the kind of production they need from him if they're going to win, but it wasn't only Kent who did the hitting; six Dodgers had multihit games, and four of them had extra-base hits. In short, Victor Zambrano so failed to live up to his name, that you wonder why the Mets traded for him last year in the first place, something Joe Sheehan asked last year about this time:

I'm as big a TNSTAAPP guy as anyone, but there's no way that you can justify giving up on Scott Kazmir--who had just started to put it together this summer--for Zambrano, who is 28, has thrown a million pitches the past two years, and will make good money in arbitration. That's an awful decision, and understand that I'm the last guy to defend a 20-year-old pitcher or the hype attached to him. The Devil Rays, already having a pretty good year, added another high-upside talent to their impression collection of same. Even if Kazmir ends up on the Billy Wagner path, that's a great return on a guy the Rays would likely have non-tendered this winter.

It's an interesting question: did the Mets get value out of this trade? And was it more than they gave up in getting him?

         2004  2005  Total
Player   VORP  VORP  VORP   Contract
===================================================
Kazmir    2.1  11.9  14.1    $320k+prorated $320k
Zambrano  0.0  20.1  20.1    $2.1M+prorated $330k

Zambrano's done reasonably well for the Mets, but you wonder whether he's going to survive into the second half. The Mets, Jonah Keri explained shortly after that trade went down, are a team minus a plan for a decade, during which time the Mets have

Wrecked the arms of Jason Isringhausen, Bill Pulsipher and Paul Wilson; Isringhausen would resurrect his career as a closer. Pulsipher would become a fringy journeyman type, currently playing for the Cards. Wilson would eventually find himself in Hells of various sorts.
A long ugly string of horrendous drafts.
Traded Jeff Kent and Jose Vizcaino to Cleveland Indians in exchange for Carlos Baerga and Alvaro Espinoza. Ironic, under the circumstances, no?
Made some good moves in 1999 but overreached on Robin Ventura. They picked up Al Leiter (good), unloaded A.J. Burnett (bad), and gave Robin Ventura four years when he would enter the season at 30.
Traded Kevin Appier for Mo Vaughn. The worst deal of this entire timespan, the Mets took on Vaughn's six-year contract that wouldn't expire until 2005. He would play for two years in a Mets uniform, in only 166 games.

That's not all of it, but it's certainly the worst of it. And while idiot ex-GM Steve Phillips is now safely dispensing his pearls at ESPN, the Omar Minaya Mets don't look that strong, either. An aging Pedro Martinez might be a good pitcher now, but his four-year contract is almost certain to be a bust by 2008 and maybe sooner. Carlos Beltran's eye-popping seven-year contract is even more over-the-top and less likely to yield benefits in its last years. The Mets spend money like they were the Yankees and get even less to show for it.

But back to the game. Recent New York (Yankees) escapee Weaver got through six with five earned and only two strikeouts. If there's anything to the talk that he might be coming back, it's beyond me; it seems to me Weaver's rapidly wearing out his welcome and isn't fooling anybody much these days. Brazoban managed a good game, even facing a still-dangerous Mike Piazza. We take from each game the positives we can, and todays included -- lucky us! -- a win.

Recap

// posted by Rob @ 11:26 PM link // 0 comments