This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@eli1601
My friend Libby, who's an even bigger baseball fan than I, saw me reading your post and said strictly by the numbers it's the Ryan trade, that he had nearly his whole career ahead of him. So these are really her thoughts:
At the time Ryan wasn't a well established or beloved player. And they got a six-time All Star shortstop still in his prime. Thing is, they didn't need a shortstop. They needed a third baseman, so they moved Jim Fregosi there. And they did win the pennant in 1973 (talk about luck!).
But with Seaver, they ripped out the heart and soul of the team for no good reason.
They didn't need Doug Flynn at the time. How many NL second basemen's jobs in 1977 could he really have taken? The Mets had Felix Millan. Turns out Millan would get hurt. But they didn't know that would be the case at the time of the trade.
They got a top Cincinnati minor leaguer, Steve Henderson, and stuck him in left. But they didn't need a left fielder, either. Add in another promising minor leaguer, Dan Norman. But another outfielder they didn't need.
Pitcher Pat Zachry was shipped from the Reds. A reigning rookie of the year but who was getting shellacked in his sophomore year in Cincinnati. (Libby told me about his wife! So sad!)
The idea of trading an icon was bad enough. But the parts you got for a rebuilding team were not the parts you needed.
And the Reds were 7 games out. Lib thinks the Mets could have got more from elsewhere.
Mike Krukow, two years older than Zachry, was struggling with us that year. But he was still promising. And Seaver would have been a big upgrade in the rotation.
But our cupboard was pretty bare. We'd have created more holes than what adding Seaver could have helped us. And a Cubs-Mets trade just doesn't feel right.
Lib says Dodgers could have given you guys a lot more than what the Reds did, parts you needed. Harrelson was old and injured. But LA had Ron Washington at SS in AAA. They had plenty of spare major league capable OFs if you really wanted to go that route, every bit or better as Henderson. And how about Dave Stewart or Rick Sutcliffe instead of Zachry? They also had some guy named Pedro who was hitting over .400 in AAA but no place to place in LA. And Seaver grew up in California; the Dodgers had even tried signing him in the 60s before all that fiasco with the Braves.
You guys panicked. The trade was made not of an honest attempt to improve the club and win a pennant but to move a disgruntled star player who was disgruntled because of what management did to him. That's why the Seaver traded was probably the worst of the two.
My friend Libby, who's an even bigger baseball fan than I, saw me reading your post and said strictly by the numbers it's the Ryan trade, that he had nearly his whole career ahead of him. So these are really her thoughts:
At the time Ryan wasn't a well established or beloved player. And they got a six-time All Star shortstop still in his prime. Thing is, they didn't need a shortstop. They needed a third baseman, so they moved Jim Fregosi there. And they did win the pennant in 1973 (talk about luck!).
But with Seaver, they ripped out the heart and soul of the team for no good reason.
They didn't need Doug Flynn at the time. How many NL second basemen's jobs in 1977 could he really have taken? The Mets had Felix Millan. Turns out Millan would get hurt. But they didn't know that would be the case at the time of the trade.
They got a top Cincinnati minor leaguer, Steve Henderson, and stuck him in left. But they didn't need a left fielder, either. Add in another promising minor leaguer, Dan Norman. But another outfielder they didn't need.
Pitcher Pat Zachry was shipped from the Reds. A reigning rookie of the year but who was getting shellacked in his sophomore year in Cincinnati. (Libby told me about his wife! So sad!)
The idea of trading an icon was bad enough. But the parts you got for a rebuilding team were not the parts you needed.
And the Reds were 7 games out. Lib thinks the Mets could have got more from elsewhere.
Mike Krukow, two years older than Zachry, was struggling with us that year. But he was still promising. And Seaver would have been a big upgrade in the rotation.
But our cupboard was pretty bare. We'd have created more holes than what adding Seaver could have helped us. And a Cubs-Mets trade just doesn't feel right.
Lib says Dodgers could have given you guys a lot more than what the Reds did, parts you needed. Harrelson was old and injured. But LA had Ron Washington at SS in AAA. They had plenty of spare major league capable OFs if you really wanted to go that route, every bit or better as Henderson. And how about Dave Stewart or Rick Sutcliffe instead of Zachry? They also had some guy named Pedro who was hitting over .400 in AAA but no place to place in LA. And Seaver grew up in California; the Dodgers had even tried signing him in the 60s before all that fiasco with the Braves.
You guys panicked. The trade was made not of an honest attempt to improve the club and win a pennant but to move a disgruntled star player who was disgruntled because of what management did to him. That's why the Seaver traded was probably the worst of the two.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@eli1601
The Yankees moved out of Shea and won the pennant three years in a row. Coincidence?
Lib's ticked Kim Ng got the FL GM job. She wanted to be the first female GM.
The Yankees moved out of Shea and won the pennant three years in a row. Coincidence?
Lib's ticked Kim Ng got the FL GM job. She wanted to be the first female GM.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@eli1601 [quote]It would have killed me to see the Yankees in a World Series at Shea.[/quote]
But they eventually did!
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsHdCrA3iL0]
😂
But they eventually did!
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsHdCrA3iL0]
😂
beckyromero · 36-40, F