2006-12-06 06:18:59 · 5 answers · asked by DANIEL B 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I actually think they did pretty well, because Bannister projects as no better than a fourth or fifth starter. He looked good at times in 2006, but he also pitched to form as the season went on.
Burgos is only 22, and he has the arm to be a potentially great setup man or closer. The Mets needed bullpen help for the upcoming season, and Burgos could be a key contributor both now and in the years to come.
I think the trade filled needs for both teams, and I don't think that the Mets in any way got the short end of the deal.
2006-12-06 07:12:44 · answer #1 · answered by Craig S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably because Bannister wasn't part of the plans Omar has for the future. Frankly I think we (the Mets) got the better end of the deal, so the real question is how did we get out of that deal just giving up a back end of the rotation or AAA level pitcher, for a younger better bullpen guy?
2006-12-06 14:29:30 · answer #2 · answered by vertical732 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Brian Bannister is not that good and Burgos is a proven major league talent, all-be-it with the Royals.
2006-12-06 16:30:21 · answer #3 · answered by pdigoe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They may have been tied down. It would appear as if they went in to it looking for what they got and KC knew that. So, KC was not going to give anymore and probably had the Mets arms tied.
2006-12-06 14:26:25 · answer #4 · answered by It's All about Utley 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
maybe because the mets didn't want much for him or they realized that they weren't gonna get much for him but still the mets got the better end of the trade in my book
2006-12-06 14:35:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋