Comments on: Seth’s Impact Rookies

By: Jeff M

Jeff M — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:56:07 +0000

I hear what you’re saying, Tim. I think the expectation was that Wilson would be above average for a backup, which is important if the goal is to rest Pudge and keep him fresh for the stretch run. With that perspective, you can see why they thought it would be fair to give up a minor league infielder whose ceiling was probably only a step above replacement.

It obviously turned out to be a really bad deal, and it may have even been a bad deal at the time, but if you look at all of the bad deals over the last decade, this one doesn’t even merit the 5 comments that it has already drawn.

For the record: http://www.detroittigersweblog.....wilsonphp/

By: Tim D

Tim D — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:10:30 +0000

I’m not saying I projected Hernandez as a good player. I didn’t. But you can’t give up value for 30+ year old back up catchers. Get one off the waiver wire. Hernendez had value even as a defense only shortstop. I believe I said so at the time.

By: tiger337

tiger337 — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 03:06:48 +0000

I don’t think many people considered Hernandez a good prospect at this time last year. I don’t remember a lot of people being upset or surprised when they traded him. If he continues to develop, you have to give the Mets credit here.

By: Jeff M

Jeff M — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:23:22 +0000

It’s frustrating, Tim, but it’s also hindsight. It may be that the Mets knew something that we didn’t or maybe they just got lucky. Ya just have to find solace in remembering that DD has made it a priority to upgrade the scouting in the organization.

By: Tim D

Tim D — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:09:51 +0000

For Vance Wilson……..

The Tigers cannot afford to do this kind of thing. You can say “we already have Polanco,” but organizational depth is what allows deals to be made. Hernandez could be a better player than Infante, although the jury is still out. Aaargh.