Interview With Tim Marchman

By Matt "The Stat" Himelfarb
Posted Thursday, December 20, 2007

One of the most innovative writers in New York, Tim Marchman of the N.Y. Sun was nice enough to answer a few questions for F.U. on the state of the Mets.

1) On to the Mets questions. What's your take on the recent Mets-Nats trade, and does it suggest that Omar was not given full autonomy in this deal?

It made the Mets stronger for the coming season and rid them of a nuisance, so on its own terms it was a good trade. I'm not sure that the team should be playing for 2008, and I don't think Lastings Milledge's nuisancehood should matter to the Mets given his talent and contract, so I consider it a stupefyingly bad trade.

Either way, the trade doesn't seem to me to have much to do with Minaya's autonomy. Even if the Wilpons flatly told Minaya to get rid of Milledge because they consider Caspar Milquetoast the ideal Met (and I have no reason to think they did), they would have been within their rights to do so.

2) It has been reported recently by Sports Illustrated that the Mets were not willing to include both Carlos Gomez and Fernando Martinez in a deal for Johan Santana; do you believe the Mets are being too cautious here, and that type of reluctance has stopped Omar from acquiring a starter this winter?

That isn't being too cautious. Being reluctant to make a bad deal is likely what's stopped Minaya from trading for an ace, but that's not a bad thing. If the Mets were better and if Gomez and Martinez were pitching prospects you could make a case for such a deal, but it doesn't seem to make much sense right now.

3) There's been a lot of buzz around the blogsphere that the Mets should consider moving Orlando Hernandez to a setup/spot starter role; do you believe this would be a good move on their part, and has it had an affect on how far the Mets are willing to go to acquire a starter?

It seems like a good idea to me, but I wouldn't want to be the one who had to sell it to El Duque. I don't think his status affects plans for the rotation one way or the other; everyone knows he's not good for more than about 20 starts at best.

4) You wrote right after the collapse about how the Mets needed to rethink their veteran approach. Do you believe resigning Luis Castillo and Moises Alou only reinforces that belief, or was it simply a case of there not being any better options in-house or on the market?

Those were both good moves; Alou is still terrific when he's healthy and the Mets have the depth to cover him when he's hurt, and Castillo was the best option in a bad market. What I didn't like was starting Lawrence over Pelfrey, or letting Humber rot on the bench for weeks after he'd finished strong in the Pacific Coast League before tossing him on the hill in a must-win game. If you won't trust a kid over someone like Lawrence or Mota, when are you going to trust them?

5) Do you believe the Mets lacked a certain bit of fire last year, and how do think is the best way to go about fixing that problem without sacrificing production?

If they'd won two more games no one would really be complaining about their lack of fire; they just weren't as good or as well-managed as everyone thought they were. I figure the best way to fix that is to get better players.

6) Do you think Willie Randolph should have been fired following the collapse?

Probably not, but that's just because I think bad managing is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. Replacing Randolph wouldn't have had any real effect.

7) Anyone in particular still on the market that you believe the Mets should make a big push for?

Barry Bonds. He's still the best hitter in baseball and his court case doesn't start until the end of the year.

You can contact matt at: matthimelfarb@gmail.com