Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pedsgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!pedsgd!bob
From: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mortgaging The Future (Paciorek Acquisition)
Message-ID: <208@pedsgd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 12:04:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: pedsgd.208
Posted: Mon Jul 22 12:04:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 02:36:10 EDT
References: <690@spuxll.UUCP>
Reply-To: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler)
Organization: Perkin-Elmer, Tinton Falls, NJ
Lines: 21
Summary: 

Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ
Keywords: 

In article <690@spuxll.UUCP> radio@spuxll.UUCP (Rick Farina) writes:
{ Argument against trading minor league prospects for oldish vets }
>What do you fellow netters think?
>
>--------
I agree completely, but as a long term Met fan, I can attest that this
sort of bozo trade is hardly out of character for them.
This trade makes little sense examined as a one-for-one deal. In the
global picture, it makes no sense. The meets have at least 5 major
league outfield prospects, some of whom have played
in the majors this year.( Christensen, Blocker, Dykstra, Beane, Abner ).
Also, of the outfielders they currently have, only George Foster is in his
30's, so they will be around awhile.
In the mean time, they are weak in the infield in general, and by my count,
the infielders have hit a TOTAL of about 17 homeruns. And then you trade
a power hitting infield prospect for an aging outfielder ? It defies logic.
Bob Weiler.