Bait and Switch Propaganda

By Matt Himelfarb
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Exactly six years ago in Port St. Lucie the sweat was dripping off Fred Wilpon’s face at an abnormal rate for a mundane, breezy sixty-degree day; normal February weather in Florida. His grim and stern expression, melting while being bombarded with, “Why’s A-Rod not in New York?” questions would ultimately foretell a painful period Mets fans would endure until Omar Minaya came along.

But in spring training of 2007, and in a media age whose primary focus is to report a trade rumor, albeit not always true, the spotlight has mostly been on what the Mets already have, an oft-injured yet smiling Pedro Martinez, than what they don’t have; namely Barry Zito.

Why the reason for no vehement outcry? Simple. Minaya and the media this year have been bound together by a single consensus: Bait and Switch.

Sounds far-fetched? Anyone that’s familiar with this highly-developed propaganda needs to know only one thing. Minaya is expanding his empire, ending any thoughts of impeachment. Arguably the most prominent fixture of this “gig” was in late December, with the San Francisco Chronicle tired of writing about the ad-infinitum Barry Bonds saga. According to several Mets officials who wished to not be identified, Ray Ratto of the chronicle soon informs Omar of their next bait and switch plan, in which Ratto will include the following nugget. “The Athletics are also likely to dispatch their winningest pitcher, Joe Blanton, to New York as part of a deal that would fetch one of Billy Beane’s longest-held desirables, outfielder Lastings Milledge. Minaya soon concurs. However, just days after, Minaya seems to have a change of heart about trading Milledge, instead choosing to side with two pitchers with a combined age of eighty-eight, and that Milledge would now be the heir apparent to Cliff Floyd as it was just a year ago. In the end, the bait and switch process is successful, the Chronicle sells its stories, and in stark contrast to how the normal bait and switch process works in retail, Minaya keeps the fans zealous about the off-season, seemingly expecting their General Manager to pull the trigger.

Of course, there are more feasible explanations to offer the average fan in this inconceivable propaganda. For example, over a month before that pagan information was written in the Chronicle, Willie Randolph, according to Baseball America in November was quoted as saying: “Milledge is going to come to spring training and fight for a job, just like some of those young pitchers are. Who knows? Those guys could be used in trades. They might not even be here.” All of that easily insinuated the assumption we would all reach, if we weren’t getting Zito, then someone else from Oakland, (Joe Blanton, Rich Harden, Danny Haren) was coming to Flushing. If there’s any reason, however, to dispel the initial belief that it was the Wilpon’s who wanted Willie Randolph as their manager, not Minaya, then it’s Randolph who is the second most prominent figure in Minaya’s bait and switch propaganda.

Most importantly, is the fact that this off-season is totally irrelevant, if not alien, to last year’s off-season theme: Replacement value. To paraphrase that, it was not the mere fact they acquired Carlos Delgado and Paul Lo Duca, but rather how they did it. For instance, at the time Delgado was traded for 1B Mike Jacobs and RHP Yusmerio Petit, and Lo Duca was dealt for Gabriel Hernandez. Many minor league fanatics, (like myself) and other diehard fans who had already watched the Mets produce a strong batch of homegrown talent, most notably David Wright and Jose Reyes, found this move increasingly hard to digest. However, at the time Petit was dealt, not only was Philip Humber injured and Mike Pelfrey not yet signed, but the Mets found more than one replacement in the lower minors for Hernandez; Deolis Guerra, who at 6-5 and at seventeen years of age posts a higher ceiling than Hernandez, and Jonathan Niese, who posted a 3.93 era with 132 strikeouts in 123 innings pitched and a deadly sinking fastball. It was somewhat easy to predict, considering Guerra had been signed along with Fernando Martinez for $700,000 in August of 2005 and Niese had been a seventh round draft pick the year before, but what that shows us is that replacing someone such as Niese or Humber if they were dealt, isn’t catching lightning in a bottle.

By the same token, when the Mets dealt Mike Jacobs, who was rated sixth overall in their system according to BA, there seemed no way of replacing Delgado when his contract expired. After Mike Carp struggled in 2005 in 89 games due to an on going wrist problem, he came back in 2006 at St. Lucie hitting balls to all fields and cutting down on his strikeout rate ( 2005- 96 so’s in 313 at-bats, 2006- 107 so’s in 491 at-bats.) Therefore, there’s no reason to think that if the Mets dealt Carp, that 1B Nick Evans, a hitter who has already shown an ability to hit to all fields, while offering great power projection with his uppercut swing, could step up.

So, if the 2005 off-season was successful while trading top tier pitching prospects, it’s inconceivable to think Minaya wouldn’t have taken that same approach in 2006.

Which is, tentatively, bait and switch.

Have any questions, comments, or want to make fun of Matt’s enigmatic ideas about the reason for an inactive off-season? Email him at liberalgeek@optonline.net

FU Emailbag:

Was the loss (unless he fails to stick with Washington) of Jesus Flores something the Mets should have foreseen and should they have protected him?
John Vozab, Armenia, New York

Flores was signed in 2002 out of Venezuela, at the age of 18. The new collective bargaining agreement, which was in effect at the time of the last rule 5 draft, states that any player signed at age 18 or younger, the club can keep that player for five years, (as opposed to four) before being forced to either place that player on their 40-man roster, or let him go into the rule 5 draft. The Mets decided they were better off not wasting a roster spot. However, the Nationals must keep Flores on their 25-man roster the entire year, or be forced to offer him back to the Mets for $50,000. If any other club had taken him, I would say it would be a definite that Flores would be back with the Mets by opening day; as good as he is, it's hard to imagine keeping a player who hasn't played above Class-A on a big league roster. If that situation played out, the only possible problem for the Mets would be the waiver process, since a returned rule-5 player must first go through outright waivers, meaning a third club could possibly claim him, but that third club would also have to keep him on their 25 man roster all year.

The problem is, the Nationals aren't going anywhere this year, and losing an extra spot for a bench player or mop-up reliever won't mean anything to them, so keeping Flores on the off-chance a year on the bench doesn't hurt his development is worth the minimal risk. In addition, Manny Acta, the new Washington manager and former 3rd base coach for the Mets, knows Flores quite well. From my understanding, the Mets could've protected him by trading one of the Jon Adkins' of the world, but as bad as it may seem now, the chances of Flores having success in the big leagues is remote.

Any Questions pertaining to the Mets? Feel free to email Matt Himelfarb at liberalgeek@optonline.net, or any other FU writers.