What separates this deal from the Torrealba signing, which I defended, however mildly? A few things: age, draft picks and available talent.
First, this contract puts Castillo in blue and orange through his age-35 season. But at 31, he's already shown signs of decline all-around. He is taking fewer walks, thereby limiting his primary weapon. He is also stealing fewer bases and showing diminished range at second base. Already a below-average offensive player, Castillo will be fucking up the Mets lineup, stealing 500-600 plate appearances a year hitting second well into his declining years.Second, as a Type B free agent, Castillo would have netted the Mets a compensation pick in one of the supplemental rounds of the June amateur draft. In fact, we thought that was one of the primary motivational factors behind trading for him, as that draft pick is worth far more than the "prospects" the Mets gave up in the deal. We wrote:
...since Castillo will be a Type B free agent if he declines arbitration, when the Mets don't resign him they will get a draft pick in the sandwich round between the first and second rounds of the amateur draft, itself worth more than Martin and Butera.But by signing Castillo the Mets are making that deal even worse! They are stripping the deal of all its possible value.
Third, the available second base talent at Castillo's level is far more prolific than the available catching talent at Torrealba's level. In fact, the Mets have such a player already signed; his name is Damion Gotay, or Ruben Easley. Castillo's defense is the same as theirs at this point, and as an offensive platoon, Easley and Gotay are superior to Castillo. There was no good reason to give him this contract.With this deal, the near-deal for Torrealba and the speculated deal for Eckstein, the Mets have shown us something, and it's not pretty. They've shown us that they value illusory qualities of grittiness and "being a winner" more than actual on-field performance. They've shown us that they are more interested in pleasing the media and the ignorant fan base by signing players with name recognition rather than using far cheaper players who don't have any name recognition but can provide the same level of performance.
We were willing to excuse the Torrealba deal, giving Minaya and the Mets' front-office some slack. We showed how the signing at least marginally adhered to solid principles of management and was based in an understanding of the market. In the light of the Castillo deal, however, we can no longer maintain that stance.
This is just a waste of money.
16 comments:
Beautiful post. Nice and succint.
Nice post. Completely agree. Giving Castillo those years/$$ isn't just stupid, it's brain dead. Omar decided that he has to have this mediocre player so badly that we're going to have to keep him for 4 years.
Halfway through this contract, Castillo is going to be one of the worst players in all of baseball. I guess I could accept that if he was a good player now, but obviously that's not true either.
We're seeing some deep inside a very small box kind of thinking here with the Mets. Find the most famous player at a position of need and blow him away with a contract.
What it comes down to is that the Mets should be looking to upgrade 2B the moment Castillo signs his name on the contract. Instead, they'll have this guy for 4 years during which time he's going to get much much worse.
fine work as always. the only thing i can think of is the mets have more money than they can spend, given the pathetic crop of FA this year. i guess the best news about castillo coming over is the there is no chance we sign tiny david eckstein anymore. are we really going to have castillo starting for the next 4 years? something better has got to be coming in between now and 2011.
John,
I like your analysis and agree on Castillo. How would you fight off the people who bring up his "runs produced" numbers as a Met ?
I could not agree more. This one is a head scratcher. I really could live with a Gotay-Easley, or even Gotay-Hernandez. Castillo brings a few things to the table, but for only one to two years. I think his defense will be above average, he brings a good approach to the plate, and he brings some line-up stability. I am not sure if line-up stabilty is that important, but Castillo keeps Willie from fudging with the two hole. Four years is crazy. Like I stated in the Catching update, we traded Torrealba's bad contract for Castillo's.
-coolpapabell
Thanks for all the positive feedback, guys.
As for Castillo's run production numbers, I think it's mostly just context. Luis does get on base nicely, and that results in more runs, but those are somewhat mitigated by Castillo's total lack of power, which is a huge negative in the 2-hole.
With Castillo, I think you see something like Lo Duca 2006, where his numbers look better hitting second because he's surrounded by better players.
But it's an illusion, because that benefit would go to whoever bats there.
like all of you, i am repulsed by this deal. to express my anger publicly, allow me to add that this deal pretty much ensures that milledge will be forced to hit in the 8 hole all season, assuming he plays at all. i can't wait for 2008.
It's possible that there is a mitigating factor blocking this deal from being a total disaster, and that's Omar having Gotay involved in a good deal for a real ace.
If this is the case, it's just a matter of us eventually having to eat $6M-$12M of contract in 2 years, which I can live with.
Otherwise it's as dumb a move as can be made.
whether or not gotay is involved in a trade for a "real ace", this signing is terrible. anderson hernandez is a perfectly acceptable everyday second baseman. he's an amazing fielder and he wouldn't be that far below league average at the plate. ahern at league minimum is way better than castillo at 4/25.
eating $6-12 million is very significant; that's 6-12 that could have gone toward the "real ace" whenever he's up for free agency, for instance. it won't help much to trade for santana if we've got the money to sign him longterm tied up in a shitty second baseman.
also, the idea that we need a "real ace" is another one of this offseason's themes that really worries me. front to back, we have one of the best pitching staffs in the nl as it is. i don't know what qualifies one as a "real ace" (presumably an instantly recognizable name), but pedro, maine, and ollie are all pretty close, i should think. i do not advocate this team trading a lot of cost-controlled years by good prospects for a couple of mid-priced years by a "real ace". that type of trade is exactly the same sort of thing as this castillo signing: an un-creative and short-sighted solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
whatever happened to gomez for garza. garza's an ace as far as i'm concerned, and we'd have him cheaply for a long time in exchange for a third of what it would take to get santana or haren. why hasn't this happened yet?
All I'm saying is that if we got very good pitching like Garza for Gotay, the deal would not be a total disaster, but would have a redeeming feature. I'm not advocating trading all our chips away for Johan. This isn't Metsblog. Calm down.
I hate the signing as much as anyone else; I'm just looking for any positive spin whatsoever.
I agree with most everyone's sentiments here. The Castillo deal is good for two years, MAYBE 2 1/2 till he breaks down completely and pulls a Moises Alou on us. Like I think Ken Dynamo says above (who I think shares my brain sometimes), they have more money than to deal with, therefore traded the $$ they'd have spent on Torrealba on Castillo. Whatever.
but I'd like to expand on Samantha's sentiments about the pitching staff. Don't let the media fool you - the pitching staff is NOT the problem but rather overpaid overpriced and underwhelming veterans who refused to believe they actually have to WORK at winning a championship rather than let it be handed to them. True, we've lost Glavine's production, but we also didn't have Pedro for 5/6ths of the season. That's gotta count for something, true? As for trading for an ace, besides Peavy, C Zambrano, Oswalt (who is overrated, IMO), Haren (still very young and can hit the wall at any time), Santana...who out there is a bona fide "ace" these days? Crap, Barry Zito is getting paid "ace" money and he isn't even a .500 pitcher in a pitcher's paradise in the NATIONAL FREAKING LEAGUE! Pitching aces are overrated and what middle of the road dudes like Jon Garland are now commanding, i think it would benefit the Mets to look internally for pitching. Plus, everyone seems to overlook the fact that Pea and Maine won 15 games a piece, and that was with both of them injured (well, Maine pitched through pain, Pea had a prob with his back).
As for Carlos Delgado who is on the Coop's sh**list, I pray that I can trade him for a pair of shoes and let Mike Carp start. In the meantime we are stuck with him and his fat ass contract (not to mention his fat ass) for another year. And hope that he can turn it around
A couple things-
Gotay doesn't have much trade value, and he's not that great of an option as a regular second baseman. In a platoon deal with Damion Easley, he would be a great fit. He could even platoon with Castillo, who is a better right-handed hitter.
I don't know about Anderson Hernandez being the second baseman. He would have to have an amazing glove, as his bat is terrible. And since the second baseman has to bat second in Willie's mind, it would be a disaster.
I agree about the starting rotation-- that is, I disagree with all the talk that we need to go get a "bona fide ace." Sure the rotation has its problems, but so do all rotations. I really should get around to that Assembling the 2008 Mets, Part 4 but it's going to be a massive post.
As for Delgado, I really think he's in for a bounce-back season. The Mets have to hope so, too, as he doesn't have much value: mid-thirties, huge contract, coming off a big down year.
Thanks for all the comments.
I'm sure everyone worked pretty hard - they were just bad.
John, regarding trading prospects: I saw a poll on Newsday where, out of 2500 responses, something like 26% of people would refuse to give up Carlos Gomez, whereas only 14% wouldn't part with Lastings. Is this really the prevailing sentiment of the average fan? What is your opinion?
I think that Milledge is the better, more polished player, but some teams want Gomez more (the tools guys) and some want Milledge more (the stats guys). It's not that simple, but that gives you an idea. Therefore the Mets should trade Gomez to an organization that overvalues him.
All I can say is this blog is refreshing after being tortured by gritty Metsblog
Post a Comment