Church traded to Mets

by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 12:27 PM CST Comment 59 comments

Well there goes one plan B. The Mets sent Lastings Milledge to the Nats for Church and Brian Schneider. This is according to MetsBlog:

http://www.metsblog.com/2007/11/30/buzz-mets-trade-milledge-for-church-and-schneider/

Well, this is still too short. Stating the obvious: get fukudome. Ok still too short, so who do you guys think would be the next best plan B, as Church was regarded by most to be the next best option.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 59 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I dont get it

is schnider that good? Wasnt Lastings like a top 10-20 prospect?

by Kchance on Nov 30, 2007 12:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I wonder how Johnny Estrada feels about this.

Schneider's not a bad catcher, but he's not THAT good.

I think the larger picture here is that Lastings Milledge had... character issues that I think the Mets wanted to divest themselves of.

FREE CARMEN PIGNATIELLO!

by cwyers on Nov 30, 2007 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rumor has it...

that the Mets are shopping Estrada.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/11/heymans-lates-2.html

You ARE freaking out MAN!

by crw89 on Nov 30, 2007 2:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

seems like not a ton for milledge, but i guess he's still an unknown. still, the mets must be down on him. schneider played for team usa in the wbc i think, and he's a solid defender. i guess after they missed out on torrealba they needed a catcher.

Kevin Hart Watch: IP: 11 K: 13 ERA: 0.82 WHIP: 1.00 K/BB: 3.25 a productive farm system is a wonderful thing.

by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They got Estrada from the Brewers...

...although they could go ahead and non-tender him now, essentially trading away Guillermo Mota for a LITERAL used sack of baseballs.

FREE CARMEN PIGNATIELLO!

by cwyers on Nov 30, 2007 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

that and the 3 million bucks that they got out from under.

by Damen Jackson on Nov 30, 2007 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, even if they nontender Estrada...

...that was a hell of a deal for the Mets.

FREE CARMEN PIGNATIELLO!

by cwyers on Nov 30, 2007 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Matt Murton?

n/t

FREE CARMEN PIGNATIELLO!

by cwyers on Nov 30, 2007 12:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

there's my choice

if the cubs could just get over this lefty thing. seriously though, id be very interested in what murton could do with 550 at bats in his age 26 season.

Kevin Hart Watch: IP: 11 K: 13 ERA: 0.82 WHIP: 1.00 K/BB: 3.25 a productive farm system is a wonderful thing.

by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

if the cubs could just get over this lefty thing.

You make it seem as though there is no merit to the concept of having some lefties in the line-up, especially to break-up the 2-6 hitters.

You don't go for lefty over quality, but the Cubs right now, with several months before spring training, need to first aim for a quality lefty, and then go to plan C, D or E if that falls through.

And I know this will start a firestorm but it blows my mind how much people are overrating Matt Murton at this point of his career.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 30, 2007 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i think its an interesting question

how much does lineup balance affect the overall outcome of a game, season, etc.?

and i didnt even bring up murton.

but please tell me how he is being overrated? did i say, start murton every day, he'll hit 35 homers!!!!

no. i dont think anyone else did either.

a career line of .296/.365/.455 looks pretty similar to the lines people have projected fukudome for, and one would think from age 25 to age 27 murton is going to get better.

Kevin Hart Watch: IP: 11 K: 13 ERA: 0.82 WHIP: 1.00 K/BB: 3.25 a productive farm system is a wonderful thing.

by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

a few things

First was that when seemed to feel that the lefty issue was nonsense with the "as soon as the cubs get over...". With bullpens and specialist relievers playing a bigger role allowing an opposing team to go through the middle of your line-up without having to change relievers just isn't smart.

As far as Murton, the essence of your post was that you agreed with the previous post in that Murton should be the starter. You guys were talking about Murton. And ya, I believe anyone thinking that Murton, right now, is any more than a 4th outfielder on a winning team is overrating him. His offense is tremendously inconsistent. He has not shown the power potential for a corner outfielder. His defense is just plain bad.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 30, 2007 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i guess

you just didnt read any of that in context then buddy.

my question was, "so who do you guys think would be the next best plan B?"

B, as in, after A, so no, no one said Murton should be the starter.

And its tough to have a consistent bat when you have 250 at bats sporadically sprinkled throughout the season. And despite his lack of consistent at bats, his career line is one to be impressed with for someone coming off of their age 23, 24 and 25 seasons in the big leagues.

Kevin Hart Watch: IP: 11 K: 13 ERA: 0.82 WHIP: 1.00 K/BB: 3.25 a productive farm system is a wonderful thing.

by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 2:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Um no...

... a plan B is someone you'd have as the starter if your first option didn't work out. So yes, when you say that Murton is plan B, then yes, that is as a starter.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 30, 2007 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

holy cow!

so you have inside information that plan A hasnt worked out yet?? Do share!

Kevin Hart Watch: IP: 11 K: 13 ERA: 0.82 WHIP: 1.00 K/BB: 3.25 a productive farm system is a wonderful thing.

by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 2:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ok

so obviously this is all semantics. but the point is, no one is suggesting we name murton the starter today. but come january, if we havent landed fukudome, whats a better option?

Kevin Hart Watch: IP: 11 K: 13 ERA: 0.82 WHIP: 1.00 K/BB: 3.25 a productive farm system is a wonderful thing.

by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

KAZ...

lets trade for Kaz, if he indeed does sign with the astros, and play him in RF!!!

"Secondly, there's a difference between being asleep at the wheel and passed out at the wheel, I would challenge passed out" ~ Tony LaRussa

by BigZ 4 Cy on Nov 30, 2007 3:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

haha

you know that really wasnt that funny, but here i am laughing so, i guess it was.

Kevin Hart Watch: IP: 11 K: 13 ERA: 0.82 WHIP: 1.00 K/BB: 3.25 a productive farm system is a wonderful thing.

by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 6:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If its true...

...than it's a good move by the Nats. I can't see how this could be true but getting a 22 year old with a ton of upside for Church and Schneider is a steal IMO.

by seang03 on Nov 30, 2007 12:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Could be good for both

The Mets are looking at next year and adding Schneider helps them a lot. The Nats are rebuilding so Milledge is a good gamble.

by rlpete on Nov 30, 2007 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Assuming this is a done deal

The Mets did well. Schneider isn't much with the bat but is solid defensively. Much better than Estrada. With the Mets lineup, Schneider is fine batting 8th. Church replaces Green in RF.

by rlpete on Nov 30, 2007 12:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Considering...

...he could have been a major chip in getting Santana, Bedard, or Haren I think it's a little premature. It seems like this deal could have probably been there in a month or so.

by seang03 on Nov 30, 2007 12:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I have changed my mind on the trade. Not sure it was the best deal for the Mets.

However the Mets did try and offer Milledge to the O's and were turned down. I don't think the Mets were ever seriously in the Santana trade discussions.

by rlpete on Nov 30, 2007 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Green

Now that the Mets have Church, would Shawn Green be available really cheap? I don't think he's anything more than a plan C or D, but he bats LH and is a legitimate RF, unlike Uncle Cliffy. He wouldn't be able to play 162, but a platoon with Orange might be workable.

I propose this only if the Mets pay part of the contract and accept Koyie Hill in return.

"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007

by DeRoMyHero on Nov 30, 2007 12:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

If we're going to dumpster-dive...

...for platoon partners for Murton, we have Josh Kroeger readily available in our farm system, assuming he doesn't get snagged in the Rule V draft.

FREE CARMEN PIGNATIELLO!

by cwyers on Nov 30, 2007 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Shawn Green...

... would be about Plan X on my list. I think he's done. I'd rather take a chance on Jody Gerut.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 30, 2007 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Green...

Shawn Green is a free agent, so I am not sure how the Church trade would have much of an impact on Green's price.

visit the mindful mission.

by big_lowitzki on Nov 30, 2007 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty official now...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3135229

by seang03 on Nov 30, 2007 1:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

It looks to me like

the offseason is really pinned on Fukudome now.

So this really is turning into Furcall Part 2 (aside from the fact that we really don't know if the Cubs are even close to signing Fukudome).

I'm going to be optimistic and say the Cubs do land him. But I think Hendry has to really overpay now. Go out there and offer $45 million for three years...

If Fukudome slips away, however, is the offseason salvageable?

"It's a long fly to left field. And there it goes. Ahhh crap." -- Harry Caray

by cubz1963 on Nov 30, 2007 1:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm sorry...

but I'm not sure that I follow. Fukudome is a very attractive target, but I hardly think the off-season is a failure if he doesn't sign with us. I don't agree personally, but the Cubs feel they need a LH hitting outfielder, a LH hitting infielder, and maybe a starting pitcher. They've got money, and some interesting assets to move to acquire those pieces. Oh, and the GM meetings next week. Why the drama?

by Damen Jackson on Nov 30, 2007 2:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed completely

Every other team in the division has actually gotten worse this offseason - the Brewers lost a few big chips and have a hole at 3B, and a bunch of question marks in the bullpen. The Cardinals just signed Izturis to be their starting SS. The Reds haven't made any big changes, save for adding a closer.

If we fail to add a RF I still like our odds next season. I'd guess we'd be odds-on favorites if the season started today.

by Wreckard on Nov 30, 2007 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There is not a shred of doubt

In my mind that the Brewers will be favored by most "experts" to win the Central.

The Cubs have not upgraded offensively, and I think they got as much out of their pitching as they could last season (even with the slow start by the pen).

"It's a long fly to left field. And there it goes. Ahhh crap." -- Harry Caray

by cubz1963 on Nov 30, 2007 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Cubs have not upgraded defensively

could we at least wait until the Winter Meetings before declaring this off-season a failure?

The artist formerly known as JoshinLA

by Josh77 on Nov 30, 2007 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

Offensively

The artist formerly known as JoshinLA

by Josh77 on Nov 30, 2007 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Offensively, defensively

it doesn't matter, it looks like the 2008 season is already over. </sarcasm>

by rlpete on Nov 30, 2007 3:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We have improved both

offensively and defensively at the catcher's spot over 07 with Soto our starter in 08. Pie is a defensive improvement in center, even tho Jones was good defensively. We've also kept Wood in the pen, thereby ensuring we have the best pen in the division again. Hell, getting Monroe out of here was an improvement. Not all improvements are made by signing free agents and trading players. I do hope we make some more improvements offensively this off season, but at this point I still like the Cubs as the central favorite.

by philadelphiacub on Nov 30, 2007 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's a deal

And like I said, I'm optimistic Fukudome gets done.

"It's a long fly to left field. And there it goes. Ahhh crap." -- Harry Caray

by cubz1963 on Nov 30, 2007 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Odds-On Favorites

Being odds-on favorites to win the NL Central (which is debatable anyway) completely misses the essential, namely that the Cubs objective for 2008 is not simply repeating as division champs but to win the World Series.

This team still needs significant improvement to have a legitimate shot at a NL pennant or WS Championship. A high OBP left handed hitting RF is just part of the shopping list ....

If It Takes Forever ....

by wrigley1 on Nov 30, 2007 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly!!!

Divison? Who cares, This is about winning the world series, not collecting divison titles.

That is the Andy McFail mentality.

Let me get back to you, will ya, Charlie? I got a guy on the other line asking about some white walls.

by JB 23 on Nov 30, 2007 8:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We have discussed this before.

You cannot do this. Once you get into the postseason, it's a crapshoot. The 2007 postseason should be proof of this.

You build a team to get to the playoffs. It is FAR more difficult to get in than it is to win a playoff series.

Now, if you don't agree with me, please post your plan to "win the World Series" rather than "collect division titles". I think you'll see that isn't possible.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Dec 1, 2007 4:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Understood...perhaps I didnt pharse right...

..Your correct, getting to postseason is the initial objective as "anything can happen" But the point I was trying to make is we need to build a team to win the World Series, not building a team to just win a weakened Divison and lets cross our fingers and hope everything goes our way in October. We have done that before.

Let me get back to you, will ya, Charlie? I got a guy on the other line asking about some white walls.

by JB 23 on Dec 1, 2007 8:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Collecting Division Titles

Al,

Generally I am in agreement with you -- and certainly in the current "wild card" era there has often been something of a crapshoot in the postseason. However, IMHO, simply having a team built good enough to win the weakest division in the game is not sufficient.

Some questions for consideration:

How many times has a club with the worst record of the playoff teams: 1) advanced? 2) won the pennant? 3) won the WS?

Where do you now see the Cubs stacking up: 1) against the rest of the NL? and 2) against the generally stronger AL?

My reply to your, 'please post your plan to "win the World Series" rather than "collect division titles" ', is that these are not mutually exclusive pursuits. So, want to win the division year after year and have a realistic shot at winning a WS or two? Start with DOMINANT pitchers at the top of the rotation and a high OBP/OPS offense complimented by decent team defense.

Where do the Cubs need to improve, based upon the formula above? 1) While the Cubs' pitching is pretty decent, add an "ace" to tandem with Big Z. 2) Get away from the temptation of bringing on more low OBP regulars. Don't get me wrong, I really like Fonzie, but the Cubs don't need more everyday players (much less at the top of the order) that have gobs of unproductive/wasted ABs. Now everybody on this board has beaten the dead horse of who they'd like to see the Cubs get this winter and there's no need to do that again here. But clearly, a player like a Fukodome would be a big step in the right direction if he can play anywhere near his lifetime numbers in Japan along with excellent defensive skills. 3) Most importantly for the future of our beloved Cubbies beyond 2008 is that they are sold to a new owner whose passion for winning matches and/or surpasses our own as fans. Personally, it will be a BITTER disappointment if the first statement from a new owner is anything other than "Our goal, this year and every year, is winning the World Series".

OK, enough of my hot air ..... have at it.

If It Takes Forever ....

by wrigley1 on Dec 1, 2007 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What I was trying to say was...

... that you were implying that building a team to make the playoffs, and building a team to win the WS, are two different things.

They're not. You're right, building a dominant team as you suggest will give any franchise the chance to win the WS every year. But will they? Up to 2007, seven different teams (Yankees, D'backs, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, White Sox, Cardinals) had won the seven previous WS, some of those teams "coming out of nowhere" to do so, and some of them weren't even expected to make the playoffs the year they won (Angels, Marlins, White Sox).

Of course your goal is to win the championship. Every team's is. But to say you build a team specifically to "win the World Series" isn't quite right. You build a team to be a perennial playoff team. Getting in is the key. Once you're in anything can happen, as we have seen over the last few years.

I hope that makes more sense.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Dec 1, 2007 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

More ...

Yes. Building a perennial playoff team is the key ... do that and odds are a WS championship will happen. Boy would it be nice looking back in a few years and seeing a continuous string of Cub playoff appearances!

Minor point of disagreement, however. In my heart of hearts I am certain that the Cubs' aim (leaving the rest of the clubs out of this) most seasons since 1945 has NOT been to win the championship. More accurately, the club did not really have any defined goal at all due to poor ownership and management. And like the saying goes, "Without a destination any road will do." We can see where that has gotten us ....

Brighter days ahead -- GO CUBS GO !!!

If It Takes Forever ....

by wrigley1 on Dec 1, 2007 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think...

... that's an overgeneralization. Under the Wrigleys, yes, that was generally true -- although once they had the team in place with Santo, Banks, Williams, etc. I think they DID make moves to try to win (i.e. trading for Hands & Jenkins, etc).

In the Dallas Green era there's no doubt in my mind that management team was committed to winning. One of the biggest mistakes Tribco made was not giving Green the team presidency, as he wanted (and had, in my opinion, earned). Green would probably still be here, and would have put good people in place, and the Cubs would surely have won at least once since 1984.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Dec 1, 2007 6:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Handful of Years

Only in a handful of years in the last 60+ has there been a commitment to winning. Exceptions do not prove the rule.

If It Takes Forever ....

by wrigley1 on Dec 2, 2007 8:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We'll see

Obviously I hope you're right. But we've been down this road before, and I recognize it. It's the road to nowhere.

"It's a long fly to left field. And there it goes. Ahhh crap." -- Harry Caray

by cubz1963 on Nov 30, 2007 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And in trading Church and Schneider

the Nationals shed that final position players they inherited from the Expos.

They still have a bunch of pitchers still on the team from Montreal: Chad Cordero, Luis Ayala, Jon Rauch, Shawn Hill at least. But as far as position players go, Church and Schneider were the last Expos.

The artist formerly known as JoshinLA

by Josh77 on Nov 30, 2007 2:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not quite

unless Nick Johnson doesn't come back.

by rlpete on Nov 30, 2007 3:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Milledge

This seems to lopsided. Milledge is a very talented player. Schneider's ok, Church is pretty good, but their 31 and 29, respectively. I think if they would have made a package around Milledge they could have gotten Blanton or someone else. I think the Met's were just looking to trade Milledge no matter what, as if he was damaged goods. Like Billy Beane said in Moneyball, once you say you have to make a trade, you screw yourself.

by thecoolest on Nov 30, 2007 4:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

The Mets have had enough with Milledge, petty things, late for meetings, running his mouth when he hasn't done a damn thing etc.. Listened to Omar Minaya on WFAN out of New York he said it was key to get Schneider. Now what they do with Estrada who knows. Milledge is a overated ballplayer IMO.
I wouldn't have a problem with Shawn Green, if Fukudome doesn't work out.

by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Nov 30, 2007 5:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Green

I don't think Green is a viable option. He looked washed up last season.

by thecoolest on Nov 30, 2007 6:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Green as a platoon player

is not the worst idea in the world. The last four years his line against right handed pitching has been:

2007 - 326/383/482
2006 - 282/343/422
2005 - 306/374/513
2004 - 281/372/487

With the exception of 2006 he has been brutal against lefties. He's clearly not the player he once was, abut if you could get him for 4-6 million to platoon in RF with Murton he could be a useful player.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain

by circuitclout on Nov 30, 2007 8:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is why Jim Bowden asks for so much

because every once in a while, someone gives it to him. This reminded me of when I thought the Cubs might get Brad Wilkerson to be their lead-off hitter, that he would be a less expensive trade option and then Bowden went and got Alfonso Soriano for him.

Speaking of Wilkerson - "Plan B" - does the "B" now stand for "Brad"?

by DGU on Nov 30, 2007 7:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

IDK

I wouldn't mind seeing Wilkerson in a Cub's uni next year.

by thecoolest on Nov 30, 2007 9:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think the Mets come out ahead

on this deal. Church is a good ballplayer and is only 29. Schneider is a serviceable C and, at 31, could have several decent years ahead. Milledge (whom I've had in a fantasy league) has never done anything. He does have upside, but I think this makes a lot of sense for the Mets, especially if Green is a FA.

I think chances are that Church outperforms Milledge over the next 3 years, and Schneider could catch 300 games/3 years. By then, Milledge will either be a bust or an established MLB player. I think the odds favor the Mets, but I can see what the Nats are thinking (hoping) here.
I think they gave up too much for him, however. Unless they were shaving salary, which I'm not sure why they'd do, given the new ballpark.

by bleacher on Dec 1, 2007 12:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs