Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


I'm concerned. ... About the future.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jul 19 2012 08:30 AM



So I've been lying here... drifting ... thinking about Sandy's interview on the FAN the other evening, the one where he said there'd be no Harvey this weekend, he'd be unlikely to trade for hot properties at the deadline and that the bullpen would be a good fix but admitted it was all a giant crapshoot. And along with the poor stretch of recent play, the underlying message was: Wait till 2013 or 2014.

But really, what are we getting then? Let's say it all works out and we can slide Harvey and Wheeler into the Gee and Santana slots, or whatever. Let's say Pelfrey comes back and Niese and Dickey hang around and looks to be a decent bet we'll continue to field a decent starting 'ro. Let's be even more optimistic and figure that Mejia, Parnell, Ramirez, Edgin etc. combine for an actual decent bullpen. I can imagine that much.

Now the question is: Where's the offense coming from?

How committed can we be to Duda? Optimists like me had him at 30 home runs but he's looking like a 20-HR guy. That's a big difference, especially for a right fielder who can't play right field. He's not the worst bet to improve but, geez. I dunno yet.

Left field and center field are even bigger questions. It's plainly obvious Bay won't be part of the next great Mets team and Nieuwy has shown some ability but also looks like he'll whiff too much as an everyday player. Does he improve? Den Dekker appears as though he'll have similar profile if he even gets as far as Nieuwy. We could use an outfielder or two who can hit, that's for sure, but where are they coming from?

Davis? I guess at his best he's something between the ghastly slumper we saw early his year and the masher he's been for brief periods of hotness. I think he is what the is, a kind of Adam LaRoche type, not the kind of guy to build an offense around. He's also on pace for closer to 20 HRs than 30.

Tejada is a keeper. Good player!

I'd do what it takes to re-sign Wright in any scenario, worst case he moves over to first base after 3 more years.

I don't believe Muffy is a longterm solution at second base, and there are plenty of good questions about Valdespin, and even a healthy Reese Havens isn't knocking on the door anymore.

I think the time is running out on Thole being a real net positive behind the dish, only OK on D and a decent LH singles hitter, he really looks like a backup/platoon guy.

What I'm trying to say here is Alderson's no dummy, he knows this as well as we should at this point, and if he's really building toward 2013 and '14 he's still several pieces shy. Up to 3 outfielders, a second baseman and a catcher shy, and it's not like they're stacked up at AAA right now.

I think he's going to have to try and find some more offensive prospects in the trade market is what he have to do. Beltran for Wheeler was only a good start.

Right? Where do we go from here?

metirish
Jul 19 2012 08:39 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Up to 3 outfielders, a second baseman and a catcher shy, and it's not like they're stacked up at AAA right now.



yeah , need to go the FA route.....

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compe ... age_id=177


some great outfield help but likely not coming here....not much in the potential FA 2nd basemen

not an easy task at all......

Centerfield
Jul 19 2012 08:40 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I'm with you on this. Outside of Wright, they don't have a regular player even approaching an .800 OPS. Several missing pieces here.

Of course, the Mets might one day remember they are a big market team and sign a free agent masher in the OF. That changes the game quite a bit. But if they are not planning to go this route, they've got a lot of holes to fill in.

I'm about done with Murphy.

batmagadanleadoff
Jul 19 2012 08:40 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

The future is ...










plastics.

bmfc1
Jul 19 2012 08:51 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Well put JCL. A lot of food for thought. Some teams get a breakthrough hitter who wasn't on their radar. It doesn't appear that the Mets have any pleasant surprises at the moment.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jul 19 2012 08:54 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Great future in plastics.

But even this 2-part interview with Jonah Hill reveals little plastic on its way from the minors, unless you mind waiting for a 16-year-old shortstop German Rosario (and 19-year-old OF Nimmo, who's not mentioned).

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... farm-draft

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... farm-draft

Vic Sage
Jul 19 2012 09:09 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

i said most of this in the pre-season prediction threads, so obviously i concur when most of it has proved out so far. (i even made that Davis/LaRoche comparison i think). And i'm not sold on Tejada as a .320 hitter quite yet either, though he is a good defensive SS with a good approach at the plate.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Jul 19 2012 09:24 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I don't necessarily buy Tejada as a high-average guy. But a durable high-OBP guy with decent defense? That's a guy who signs for $8-10M a year on the open market. That's a guy you can pencil into your starting lineup (and leadoff slot) for a half-decade, at least.

On the FA market... Napoli intrigues, doesn't he? (As a catching bat AND right-handed compliment to Ike every third day or so.) And what about, say, bringing Pagan back on a 2-year deal?

Duda should probably go in trade for more arms, or middle-infield prospects. (If Sandy weren't worried about the ticket market floor dropping out earlier this year, he might have gone already.)

Ceetar
Jul 19 2012 09:27 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote:
I don't necessarily buy Tejada as a high-average guy. But a durable high-OBP guy with decent defense? That's a guy who signs for $8-10M a year on the open market. That's a guy you can pencil into your starting lineup (and leadoff slot) for a half-decade, at least.


He's had hot stretches before, and tailed off too. Let's see where he finishes. and durable? well..we'll see. This year, not so much.

I think all of Duda, Murphy, Tejada, Thole, Davis are on some sort of audition this season. If they were all, or most, for real, the Mets could definitely make the playoffs. But Alderson will have to make some upgrade decisions somewhere.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jul 19 2012 09:31 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

OK, so if I'm trying and assemble some position players through our current fleet I've got Duda, Muffy, Bay, Santana, Torres, Rauch, Francisco and Young on the trade block, just to start. Others?

TransMonk
Jul 19 2012 09:37 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Here's the way I see it:

2012 - Fun, surprising, but overacheiving team. Hope to finfish .500. Re-up David in the offseason.

2013 - Harvey comes up, the young kids on offense get one more year to prove they can be everyday players. Maybe a deadline deal if the team is as good. Hope to play meaningful games in September.

2014 - Wheeler comes up. The Bay and Santana contracts go away (somewhat offset by Wright, but there will be more cash than there is now). Fred opens up the checkbook to find FA replacements for the youngish players that aren't quite cutting it. Hopefully, Harvey, Wheeler, Niese (maybe Dickey) is as good as anything the Nats throw up. Hope to content for the division.

If Tejada, Thole, Duda, Davis, Newie, etc. aren't the answers by the end of next year, then they could be replaced, but I think they all get the opportunity to succeed in 2013.

Murphy is the wildcard. His being traded would never surprise me. Even if it were today.

Also, I would love to someday have Beato, Parnell and Mejia in the bullpen and feel REALLY good about it. But bullpens are a tough group to predict.

Ashie62
Jul 19 2012 10:18 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

1. Sell whatever you can in the next two weeks...Muffy....Hairston....

2. F/A Market

Then you might have something like this lineup below...You could find a 2B that can play second and a bona-fide OF Slugging threat in the F/A market....Justin Upton is supposedly available by trade.

1B Davis
2B ?
3B Wright
SS Tejada
LF Bay or SLUGGER
CF Den Dekker
RF Duda
C Thole

Flores is a ways off as a corner..

bmfc1
Jul 19 2012 10:23 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

With the ? at 2B, you could put Jordany there but Sandy said the other day that he sees JV as an OF.

Ashie62
Jul 19 2012 10:28 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

You could..I was thinking a really good glove to much with Tejada and picking up a true top shelf bomber for the offense.

Granted, that is difficult but can be done...

Alderson seems to be well versed in the art of deception. I have no real feeling for where he is coming from...

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 19 2012 10:28 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

If they could trade Bay and Santana they'd free up a lot of spending cash. Bay will be impossible to trade -- I suspect he'll be released before the end of spring training next year -- but I bet if they floated Santana over the next week or so they'd find some interest. Of course, that means a big step back for the remainder of 2012, but the way they've been playing lately they're looking less and less like they'll be serious contenders.

Vic Sage
Jul 19 2012 01:22 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

i'd be all about moving Santana before the deadline if i thought that (1) they'd get back actual prospects or players, rather than just dump salary, and (2) reinvest any salary savings in quality FAs, but i think the Wilpons would take next to nothing just to dump his salary and then put the savings in their pocket. so no thanks.

bmfc1
Jul 19 2012 01:49 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

VS: Outstanding. They'd justify doing that with some nonsense about making up for losses in attendance or other revenue.

Ceetar
Jul 19 2012 01:53 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

They're not moving Santana. The return they'd get is practically nothing, and you can never have too much starting pitching. particularly top of the line pitching. Harvey and Wheeler are still closer to pipedreams than mainstays in the 2013 or 2014 rotation.

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 19 2012 02:45 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

They'd move him to free up millions of dollars, not because of the player they'd get back.

Frayed Knot
Jul 19 2012 09:35 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Ashie62 wrote:
1. Sell whatever you can in the next two weeks...Muffy....Hairston....

2. F/A Market

Then you might have something like this lineup below...You could find a 2B that can play second and a bona-fide OF Slugging threat in the F/A market....Justin Upton is supposedly available by trade.

1B Davis
2B ?
3B Wright
SS Tejada
LF Bay or SLUGGER
CF Den Dekker
RF Duda
C Thole

Flores is a ways off as a corner..



But the whole point about this thread was to question how good are the likes of Davis, Tejada, Den Dekker, Duda, and Thole (either now or in the future) so this lineup is at least as iffy as the one we're wondering about now - and that's before we even get to "?" at 2B and "Slugger" in LF.
Dealing Muffy and Hairston isn't going to net much.



Yes, I think we're going to have to go outside the org for offense. Ideally SOME of the young parts we have now will blossom into above average ML players; the key is to figure out which ones and sell on the others, hopefully to someone who believes more in the guy we're selling than we do.
I remember the mid-90s Yanx opting to keep Bernie Williams over Gerald Williams. It wasn't a popular decision at the time or even necessarily the obvious one, but it was clearly the right one in the long run and even though they didn't really get much for GW (although Graeme Lloyd helped them win the '96 WS) such decisions are often what make or break a team.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jul 19 2012 09:49 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I guess if there's a Williams-Williams equivalent with this club it could be Duda-Davis. Let's just say Sandy decides he can only have 1 high-whiff lefty slugger and he'll be a first base. Who will have the better numbers in the coming years? That's a kinda tough decision.

Nymr83
Jul 19 2012 10:08 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
I guess if there's a Williams-Williams equivalent with this club it could be Duda-Davis. Let's just say Sandy decides he can only have 1 high-whiff lefty slugger and he'll be a first base. Who will have the better numbers in the coming years? That's a kinda tough decision.


If you decide that Duda's bat will never be good enough to justify his sub-par defensive presense in the outfield then you may get stuck with just that decision. And i don't know who i'd pick.

Edgy MD
Jul 19 2012 10:44 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

They've got three secondbasemen and half a dozen outfielders in the pipeline who might make a splash, depending on what you consider Valdespin to be. I'm sticking with the plan.

Duda will fascinate and scare me every day. He seems so awkward and shy of the spotlight. And he may be one of those guys who stats smacking the ball the minute his team becomes comfortably irrelevant.

Ceetar
Jul 19 2012 10:54 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
They'd move him to free up millions of dollars, not because of the player they'd get back.


yeah, but that's conspiracy theory stuff and hard to predict/guess/know what they're thinking/planning. So I'll stick to the baseball viewpoint.

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 20 2012 04:58 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Okay, the baseball viewpoint: Santana may be gone before July 31.

duan
Jul 20 2012 05:23 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I don't know, I think there's a lot we know in 7/8 days and I'm prepared to wait to figure it out.

Edgy MD
Jul 20 2012 07:36 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Nymr83 wrote:
John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
I guess if there's a Williams-Williams equivalent with this club it could be Duda-Davis. Let's just say Sandy decides he can only have 1 high-whiff lefty slugger and he'll be a first base. Who will have the better numbers in the coming years? That's a kinda tough decision.


If you decide that Duda's bat will never be good enough to justify his sub-par defensive presense in the outfield then you may get stuck with just that decision. And i don't know who i'd pick.

Davis in a heartbeat. And I LOVE my Duda.

But I'm not thinking it's going to come to an either/or thing. Independent decisions going forward.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jul 20 2012 07:41 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Just for fun, will poll this

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Aug 10 2012 09:55 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Joel Sherman surfing this very wave.

[url]http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/roster_lacks_building_blocks_C8Cv2P6cmUiGkWisPqlEWK

MFS62
Aug 10 2012 10:14 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
Joel Sherman surfing this very wave.

[url]http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/roster_lacks_building_blocks_C8Cv2P6cmUiGkWisPqlEWK

Sherman is to sportswriting what Tiny Tim was to singing.

Later

Vic Sage
Aug 10 2012 10:27 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

style and syntax aside, what did he say that you feel was untrue?

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 10 2012 10:43 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Howie Megdal, formidable challenger to Tim Marchman's throne as gloomiest writer on all things Mets, is also concerned about the future.

Here's two:

For the Mets, it's like the late '70s all over again

If you're old enough to remember the Mets of the late 1970s, the 2012 Mets might be ringing a bell for you.

Back then, as now, a group of popular players had just left: Tom Seaver, Tug McGraw; Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran.

The fans were frustrated, then and now, at an ownership group that wouldn't or couldn't spend enough money to keep the team from deteriorating.

And the Mets' spin, then and now, was that it was all part of a long-term plan.

The 2012 Mets are playing at a 77-win pace, whereas their 1977 counterparts finished 64-98.

But their rosters aren't dissimilar, statistically: Both teams had five everyday players worth at least one win above replacement player. (Briefly on this stat, commonly referred to by stats-geeks as WAR: It represents a player's value, measured in wins, over the best available player a team could replace him with.)

The 1977 fivesome was Lenny Randle (4.0), John Stearns (3.2), Steve Henderson (2.5), John Milner (1.6) and Lee Mazzilli (1.0). The 2012 fivesome is David Wright (5.6), Daniel Murphy (1.8), Ruben Tejada (1.8), Scott Hairston (1.5) and Josh Thole (1.1).

In 1977, all five of those players were 28 or younger. Randle played third base, Milner first base, Stearns catcher, and Henderson and Mazzilli were outfielders.

In 2012, four of the five are 29 or younger; Hairston, an outfielder, is a veteran of 32. Wright plays third base, Murphy second base, Tejada shortstop, Thole catcher.

Among pitchers, the 2012 Mets have three with at least one WAR: R.A. Dickey (3.4), Jonathon Niese (1.4), and Johan Santana (1.1). They are unlikely to have any other pitcher reach that threshold; the next two highest on their list, Mike Pelfrey and Dillon Gee, are both out for the season.

The 1977 Mets had three as well (four, really, but by this point in 1977, they'd traded Tom Seaver): Nino Espinosa (3.1), Jerry Koosman (2.7) and Skip Lockwood (1.5). Jon Matlack was just under that threshold at 0.9, while young, talented Pat Zachary and Craig Swan (0.7 and 0.5, respectively), stood ready to play the parts of Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler.

If that appears to sell Harvey and Wheeler short, consider that Zachary had been a huge prospect and was the center of the Seaver trade, while Swan went on to win an E.R.A. title. The median outcome for the two prospects can't be much different than what the Mets ultimately got from Zachary and Swan.

Median outcome isn't the same thing as predestined outcome, of course: Harvey and Wheeler could turn into the new Seaver and Koosman.

But it is unclear that anything other than hope for the future separates the 2012 team from the 1977 team, which, for those who may not remember, went on to become a 66-96 1978 team and a 63-99 1979 team, before the Mets were sold to a new owner.


http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... over-again

______________________

How long before the Mets find themselves in a Reyes situation with R.A. Dickey?

The Mets have finally started treating R.A. Dickey like a meaningful part of their future again. And on Thursday, Dickey returned the favor.

Just hours after Terry Collins announced that the Mets were scrapping an ill-advised plan to start Dickey on short rest repeatedly, Dickey went out and shut down the Marlins, 6-1. His complete-game victory was the first home win for the Mets in just over a month.

His success illustrates a challenge for the Mets: Dickey is an undeniably valuable commodity, but his long-term role, for a team unlikely to contend in 2013, has everything to do with what they can afford and when they can afford it.

Perhaps the smartest move Sandy Alderson has made (with the trade of Carlos Beltran for prospect Zack Wheeler a close second) was the signing of R.A. Dickey to a massively discounted contract after his breakout 2010 season. Dickey earned $2.75 million in 2011, $4.25 million this year, and the team holds a $5 million option on him for 2013, a no-brainer to pick up. For that money, he's been 16th in the major leagues in ERA+ among full-time starters since the start of the 2011 season. He's gotten more attention for 2012, but he's been a plus starter for three seasons now.

Where the difficulty comes in is evaluating exactly how aggressively the Mets want to or can push to keep Dickey around. Arguably, the major leverage they have would be in signing him to an extension this coming winter. Dickey would earn far more than $5 million in 2013 on the free agent market; a long-term extension that includes a significant bump up in 2013 could be enough to convince Dickey to stay with the Mets.

But 2013 looms as a season without much room for the Mets to bump up anyone's salaries. The payroll is at $91.6 million in 2012, down from $143 million in 2011. As it stands now, if the Mets simply pick up Dickey's option, along with David Wright's, they'll have more than $73.6 million committed to six players: Dickey, Wright, Jason Bay, Johan Santana, Jonathon Niese and Frank Francisco. If you consider the $5.5 million it will cost the Mets to buy out Santana's 2014 option and the $3 million to do the same with Bay 2013 costs, that elevates the already-committed 2013 money to just over $82 million for six players.

So if the Mets simply filled out the roster with entirely league-minimum players, payroll would remain the same in 2013 as it was in 2012. And there's no reason to think that number is going up to any significant degree. Bay and Santana come off the books in 2014, but if the Mets wait until the winter of 2013 to try and sign Wright and Dickey, they'll be going up against every other team that could use a star third baseman and frontline pitcher. The reasons to act now are significant; the reasons to wait are self-inflicted.

So it isn't any wonder that even though Dickey has been open to negotiating an extension, it hasn't happened. Instead, we are treated to another "talks to begin in the near future" column that simply recycles the team line on Jose Reyes and David Wright.

But the Mets run a real risk that if Dickey is simply allowed to play through his 2013 option, he'll hit the open market as a reliable, top-shelf starting pitcher. His market value will be diminished somewhat be his age (he'll have just completed his age-38 season) but even that is mitigated by his role as a knuckeball pitcher. His comps are people like Phil Niekro, who threw 12 200-inning seasons from age 35 on, and others who pitched well into their 40s, like Charlie Hough and Tim Wakefield.

The Mets know what kind of valuable pitcher they have in R.A. Dickey, just as they know what they have in David Wright, and had in Jose Reyes. But the plan appears to simply hope financial circumstances change before they are forced to give him up.


http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... -ra-dickey

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Aug 10 2012 10:54 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I think Medgal's first article there is a reach, any two crappy teams might have similarities, his almost seem chosen just to provocatively fit the comparison he wants to make. It wasn't convincing to me anyway. He also overstates Zachry as "huge", sloppily compares McGraw to Beltran etc etc

Now, his larger point may still be up for debate (it's obviously possible we lose 90+ games for the next 2 years) but I don't think anyone trades 1977 for 2012 today and thinks it's a good deal.

The Sherman-bashing is so predictable. He made the very same points astute fans would.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 10 2012 10:58 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
I think Medgal's first article there is a reach, any two crappy teams might have similarities, his almost seem chosen just to provocatively fit the comparison he wants to make. It wasn't convincing to me anyway. He also overstates Zachry as "huge", sloppily compares McGraw to Beltran etc etc.


I agree. Megdal's been sounding like a bad broken record to me ever since the Picard suit settled: He contrives to diss the Mets.

Edgy MD
Aug 10 2012 11:03 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Any credibility he had with me he staked on the impossibility of the case coming to a settlement.

When he's accurate, it's because he's throwing at a big target.

Frayed Knot
Aug 10 2012 11:17 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Most if not all of the 'This Year' is just like 'That Year' comparisons are too forced to mean much.
Analyze your current problems on their own merits and take the steps that will hopefully fix them under the conditions that exist now.

Gwreck
Aug 10 2012 11:21 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Edgy DC wrote:
Any credibility he had with me he staked on the impossibility of the case coming to a settlement.


I thought he staked it on the Wilpons having to sell, because of -- in addition to the Picard suit -- future debt payments for the Stadium, SNY and team (loan from Chase, wasn't it?) that they would not be able to afford.

Obviously things are on a financial upswing for the Mets this year (settling with Picard, selling those partial shares; better record than expected) but I think it's premature to say Megal was wrong.

I mean, look at what CF said above. If the Mets are missing the pieces needed to contend, they are going to need to fill them with expensive free agents. I suppose when that time comes (whether this offseason or next) we'll have a better idea of their financial health.

Edgy MD
Aug 10 2012 11:33 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Megdal explicitly stated on more than one occasion that a settlement couldn't happen.

Ceetar
Aug 10 2012 11:39 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Gwreck wrote:
Edgy DC wrote:
Any credibility he had with me he staked on the impossibility of the case coming to a settlement.


I thought he staked it on the Wilpons having to sell, because of -- in addition to the Picard suit -- future debt payments for the Stadium, SNY and team (loan from Chase, wasn't it?) that they would not be able to afford.

Obviously things are on a financial upswing for the Mets this year (settling with Picard, selling those partial shares; better record than expected) but I think it's premature to say Megal was wrong.

I mean, look at what CF said above. If the Mets are missing the pieces needed to contend, they are going to need to fill them with expensive free agents. I suppose when that time comes (whether this offseason or next) we'll have a better idea of their financial health.


Some of those partial shares were bought _themselves_ If they had (was it 3?) $60 mill to do that, I think it's far-fetched that they haven't seen the road ahead and what they need to do and afford to get through it. Unless you think that that was their only $60 million, and the other 9 minority guys were simply the only 9 people in the world that could afford it and were willing to invest, but that seems unlikely.

Frayed Knot wrote:
Most if not all of the 'This Year' is just like 'That Year' comparisons are too forced to mean much.
Analyze your current problems on their own merits and take the steps that will hopefully fix them under the conditions that exist now.


This is a narrative. You can often make it fit however you like it. It can make good stories. (say comparing it to 84 like some of done) but it's otherwise totally meaningless in terms of predicting the future. Hell, if we knew this was like 77, sell everyone for prospects and gamble that way because we know it's not working out. If it's like '84 it's time to acquire the big free agents to put us over the hump with the prospects we know are going to grow and work out.

But I can't comment on what '77 was like. but no-hitter, R.A. Dickey's amazingness? Wright's half season of MVP and getting to see potential in a couple of other places in various degrees from Davis and Tejada and Nieuwenhuis and Harvey among others? I can't imagine the late 70s were like that.

Edgy MD
Aug 10 2012 11:46 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

The 2012 Mets average 29,099 fans. The 1977 team averaged 13,171.

Both are odd numbers, and both are obviously inflated, so there you go.

metirish
Aug 10 2012 11:57 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

MFS62 wrote:
John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
Joel Sherman surfing this very wave.

[url]http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/roster_lacks_building_blocks_C8Cv2P6cmUiGkWisPqlEWK

Sherman is to sportswriting what Tiny Tim was to singing.

Later




good article I thought


“There are multiple things that have kept us from playing very good,” Collins conceded.

In other words, this isn’t a simple plug job. Not when you are three outfielders away from having a legitimate major league outfield. Not when you don’t have a starting catcher in a sport already short on catching. Not when significant parts of the Mets’ own hierarchy remain unsold that Ike Davis or Daniel Murphy can be part of a first-division right side of the infield. Not when Jonathon Niese is showing second-half endurance issues once more and Dillon Gee has become a physical uncertainty. Not when Jason Bay and Johan Santana are choking the payroll for one more season.



these are fears well expressed here on this forum......

Ceetar
Aug 10 2012 12:17 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

metirish wrote:
MFS62 wrote:
John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
Joel Sherman surfing this very wave.

[url]http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/roster_lacks_building_blocks_C8Cv2P6cmUiGkWisPqlEWK

Sherman is to sportswriting what Tiny Tim was to singing.

Later




good article I thought


“There are multiple things that have kept us from playing very good,” Collins conceded.

In other words, this isn’t a simple plug job. Not when you are three outfielders away from having a legitimate major league outfield. Not when you don’t have a starting catcher in a sport already short on catching. Not when significant parts of the Mets’ own hierarchy remain unsold that Ike Davis or Daniel Murphy can be part of a first-division right side of the infield. Not when Jonathon Niese is showing second-half endurance issues once more and Dillon Gee has become a physical uncertainty. Not when Jason Bay and Johan Santana are choking the payroll for one more season.



these are fears well expressed here on this forum......


Nothing he said here was 'untrue' but he's creating the team in his head that he thinks the Mets should be, not what the Mets actually need to be to win.

Presuming all major league teams have three legitimate outfielders is a stretch anyway, but to say there's no chance Duda or Nieuwenhuis become one is just silly. Andres Torres is already there and Hairston, though unsigned, is a very good 4th guy.

I know Thole's not great an has taken a step back this year offensively but he's OBP is in the top half of catchers. The shortage of catchers helps Thole, it doesn't hurt him.

vague allusions to what what the "Mets' hierarchy feels about Davis and Murphy's ability to be 'first-division' aren't helpful to anything. Davis has shaken off a bad start and Murphy's certainly shown himself to be mostly capable.

The second half isn't exactly fully closed yet, but Jon Niese has NOT shown endurance issues, merely had a bad start or two. first half ERA 3.73, second half 4.09. But its' been 33 innings in the second half. not enough to make sweeping judgements.

Dillon Gee had a medical issue. Does that mean he's a physical uncertainty for NEXT season? never mind he's the 5th starter..

I know Johan's ERA ballooned when he was apparently pitching hurt, but I wouldn't describe his contributions as choking. Sure, he's paid a lot, probably more than he'll produce, value wise, but he's still producing value.

Ashie62
Aug 10 2012 05:26 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

They stink and will eventually improve, I hope.

themetfairy
Aug 10 2012 05:38 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I believe. I believe.

It's silly, but I believe....

smg58
Aug 11 2012 10:02 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I've always thought, and still think, that Thole could be the backup catcher on a good team. We've seen enough of him to know what to expect.

Murphy is still a bit of a puzzle. His .299/.342/.423 line this season is almost identical to his career line (.295/.344/.437). He's a known commodity with the bat, and those numbers would be rock solid if his glove at second was at least average. He's lugging a -8 in runs saved from the Fielding Bible at second, but on the bright side it's not really a worse number than what it was in May. I don't think the Mets necessarily need to improve on him; I certainly wouldn't move him for less than a starting player, and the team has bigger issues. Like the outfield, for example...

Bay has been horrible this year, and while injuries have factored in, he still hasn't given the Mets more than mediocrity for their $65 million. Torres' one good year with the bat is getting further and further away. His glove keeps him from being awful, but he's hardly inspiring and I wouldn't give him a raise to come back. Duda, quite frankly, needs a .900 OPS to make his outfield defense tolerable, and that ain't happening. He's dealable to a team looking for a first baseman or DH, but he won't boost his value playing out the string in Buffalo. Nieuwenhuis hit as well as a guy with a very high K rate in the minors and little AAA experience could be expected to hit. He has talent, but it's raw. I think he'll improve next season, but how much is an open question.

I think the glass is half full with the pitching. A rotation of RA, Johan, Harvey, Niese, and Gee is actually pretty decent, especially with Wheeler getting closer to a call-up. Familia and Mejia might be in a position to help out in either the rotation or the pen -- but they should decide before training camp whether they want Mejia to pitch as a starter or reliever and then stick with it. The best thing you can say about the pen is that it can't get any worse. I'd bet on Ramirez bouncing back, but that second year they gave to Francisco is going to hurt. Parnell is what his numbers say he is, which is really not bad but nod good enough to be the closer. Alderson needs to find one or two diamonds in the rough to make the pen competitive, but that's not impossible.

And there's always the question of whether or not the Mets are willing to spend. It's possible that the team will use whatever money it has lying around this offseason to extend Wright and Dickey, and that they may have to wait for Bay and Santana to come off the books to get aggressive again on the spending. But we'll see.

Vic Sage
Aug 13 2012 09:12 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

themetfairy wrote:
I believe. I believe. It's silly, but I believe....


A MIRACLE ON ROOSEVELT AVE?

Vic Sage
Aug 13 2012 09:35 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 13 2012 10:07 AM

I've always thought, and still think, that Thole could be the backup catcher on a good team. We've seen enough of him to know what to expect.


agreed; problem being he's our starter, and our backup shouldn't be on a major league roster. Are there any answers in the pipeline? i don't know.

Murphy is still a bit of a puzzle. His .299/.342/.423 line this season is almost identical to his career line (.295/.344/.437). He's a known commodity with the bat, and those numbers would be rock solid if his glove at second was at least average. He's lugging a -8 in runs saved from the Fielding Bible at second, but on the bright side it's not really a worse number than what it was in May. I don't think the Mets necessarily need to improve on him; I certainly wouldn't move him for less than a starting player, and the team has bigger issues. Like the outfield, for example...


Murphy's not a puzzle; when we ask ourselves what he is, we know... we just don't like the answer. He's punchless and speedless but he's a solid contact hitter who could be useful in the 2 slot in a lineup with sufficient power and speed elsewhere. But his best defensive position is probably 3B, and that makes him less useful to us since our best player plays there. So he's been played mostly out of position (1B, OF, 2b) with the Mets and hasn't completely embarrassed himself but would have to improve greatly to be average. He might be of more value to a team willing to live with his lack of HR/RBI power at 3b or 1b or DH, and they should see what he's worth, but i wouldn't move him just to move him. I'd prefer to use him as a super-utility guy and find a better 2bman.

Bay has been horrible this year, and while injuries have factored in, he still hasn't given the Mets more than mediocrity for their $65 million. Torres' one good year with the bat is getting further and further away. His glove keeps him from being awful, but he's hardly inspiring and I wouldn't give him a raise to come back. Duda, quite frankly, needs a .900 OPS to make his outfield defense tolerable, and that ain't happening. He's dealable to a team looking for a first baseman or DH, but he won't boost his value playing out the string in Buffalo. Nieuwenhuis hit as well as a guy with a very high K rate in the minors and little AAA experience could be expected to hit. He has talent, but it's raw. I think he'll improve next season, but how much is an open question.


Agreed; it's too soon to write off Nieuwenhuis, and Valdespin may end up pretty good too. Baxter, too, has been consistently productive in a backup role. But i've never had much confidence in Duda, or much use for Torres. Bay? oy.

I think the glass is half full with the pitching. A rotation of RA, Johan, Harvey, Niese, and Gee is actually pretty decent, especially with Wheeler getting closer to a call-up. Familia and Mejia might be in a position to help out in either the rotation or the pen -- but they should decide before training camp whether they want Mejia to pitch as a starter or reliever and then stick with it.


i think the glass is half empty. RA will likely to continue being productive until he starts breaking down physically (he is 37), but Johan has already broken down, and despite his no-hitter this year, i have no reason to believe he'll be a reliable SP going forward. Harvey shows flashes, but his control is erratic, and Niese is inconsistent too. Gee is pretty consistently shit, with a career 92 ERA+ to support that view. Maybe Wheeler is close, maybe he's not. Neither Familia nor Mejia have performed well at higher levels of minors so far, and there seems to be all kinds of doubts and confusion as to what their best roles would be.

The best thing you can say about the pen is that it can't get any worse. I'd bet on Ramirez bouncing back, but that second year they gave to Francisco is going to hurt. Parnell is what his numbers say he is, which is really not bad but nod good enough to be the closer. Alderson needs to find one or two diamonds in the rough to make the pen competitive, but that's not impossible.


the one area where Sandy decided to be active in the FA market and spend some money and it totally imploded. I like Sandy and his approach, but this fact does not instill me with confidence.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 13 2012 09:43 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I'd cut Sandy a lot of slack on the bullpen he put together. I mean the Wilpons gave him what -- three dollars and eighty two cents and a half off coupon on 20 cans of cat food to assemble essentially an entire pen?

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Aug 13 2012 09:48 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Bullpens aren't worth really investing in anyway, the whole thing is a crapshoot, guy to guy, appearance to appearance. What you want are good arms and good luck.

I think we're more or less in agreement here that our needs for next year are up to 3 outfielders, a catcher, and maybe a second baseman.

Edgy MD
Aug 13 2012 09:59 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
Bullpens aren't worth really investing in anyway, the whole thing is a crapshoot, guy to guy, appearance to appearance. What you want are good arms and good luck.

And redundancy and, frankly, either the control or the guts to throw strikes.

Ceetar
Aug 13 2012 10:00 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I'm concerned that they'res a major preparation flaw in the pitching, on the coaching side. Mix in some new faces and there's no reason to think it'll completely suck again next year. They could also use some better defense.

Crapshoot wise, it's certainly possible Ramon Ramirez goes back to being a good reliever next year. Parnells good, and there's reason to believe in Edgin at least as a lefty reliever. Rauch has been pretty good (although not under control for next year right?) and I guess Francisco has been almost serviceable, except for a couple of spurts where he's horribly, horribly bad.

Vic Sage
Aug 13 2012 10:12 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
I'd cut Sandy a lot of slack on the bullpen he put together. I mean the Wilpons gave him what -- three dollars and eighty two cents and a half off coupon on 20 cans of cat food to assemble essentially an entire pen?


my problem isn't with how little he had to spend (though that's a larger issue), or that he didn't get value for the money, it was the decision to spend what little resources he had on a bullpen, knowing that pens are so erratic and how many internal options we had (which were not substantially better or worse than what we could buy for $3.82 + cat food coupon). It's that decision that makes me start to question his judgment. But maybe we were locked in everywhere else and, for what he had to spend, figured the only place he could have an impact is the pen. which is fair enough. believe me, i'm happy to give Sandy the benefit of the doubt.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Aug 13 2012 10:25 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Yeah, I'm not sure the actual amount of $$ he had to spend could have spent elsewhere as effectively. I trust that they studied that part out and determined as much anyway.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 13 2012 10:37 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Unless the Mets pulled another R.A. Dickey, I didn't expect for there to be significant improvement from outside acquisitions. They weren't trading prospects and were financially broke. Any real improvement would've come from Duda hitting where he left off -like an All Star. Duda didn't. Or from Bay, showing signs of his pre-Mets days. That didn't pan out either. It's hard to imagine Bay worse than his previous Mets seasons, but Bay managed to lower the impossibly low bar he'd already established. Dickey's Cy Young caliber season is more than offset by Johan's deterioration, Pelf's season ending injury and the rest of the starting staff's inconsistency and mediocrity. Ike Davis is Dave Kingman this season, albeit with a better glove but without the league leading HR totals. We're gonna have to suffer a few bad seasons as part of the rebuild. There's no way around it. And no guarantee that the Mets'll be competitive in a few years, either.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 14 2012 09:47 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

What I don't get is why the young 'uns like Nieuwenhuis, Duda and Valdespin aren't getting the lion's share of the at-bats going forward? And this Duda demotion -- I've mulled it in my head over and over and over and it still makes no sense to me. Fielding's all the same whether in the Minors or Majors and the guy has little to prove hitting-wise in AAA. I'll give the Mets the benefit of the doubt that they know hundreds and hundreds of things about Duda for every one tiny thing that I know about the guy 'cause that's the only way I can make Duda's demotion jibe. It seems to me though, that the Wilpons are back in meddle mode and that even a rebuild, under this ownership, is about as half-assed as everything else they do. Because now they have to fool the foolable portion of the fan base into thinking they're playoff contenders this year so maybe they can pull in the extra attendance that they apparently still desperately need. So we get to watch Torres and Bay, who won't be part of the future and are barely part of the present, quality-wise.

Ceetar
Aug 14 2012 10:04 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I'd be surprised of Duda's not back on the next homestand. I suppose they might be managing the roster crunch by not demoting someone like Valdespin to bring him back (They're not going to just release Bay. the potential payoff, however miniscule, of him showing anything between now and March 20th is too high for what's at this point maybe 30 AB until rosters expand) until 9/1, but someone getting hurt could change that. Or they do actually trade Hairston, but no one's offering anything for him, so..

The flip side to fielding being the same in the minors and majors is that basically he's still getting in the fielding work they want, and probably more than he would up here. And he wasn't hitting. It's one thing to have a guy take his lumps, but he wasn't playing well at all on either offense or defense, so they decided to get Valdespin the ABs.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 15 2012 05:18 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

The Future ... as Envisioned Almost Nine Months Ago

Baseball ProGUESTus
Sunset in Flushing
December 9, 2011

Believe it or not, most of our writers didn't enter the world sporting an @baseballprospectus.com address; with a few exceptions, they started out somewhere else. In an effort to up your reading pleasure while tipping our caps to some of the most illuminating work being done elsewhere on the internet, we'll be yielding the stage once a week to the best and brightest baseball writers, researchers and thinkers from outside of the BP umbrella. If you'd like to nominate a guest contributor (including yourself), please drop us a line.

Jonathan Bernhardt is a freelance writer born in Baltimore who lives and works in New York City. He is an occasional contributor to the Et tu, Mr. Destructo? blog.

Jarrett Seidler is a life-long New York Mets fan and IT manager living in New Jersey, where he lives and works.

___

It is December 8th, 2011, Major League Baseball’s annual Winter Meetings are well underway, and New York Met Jonathon Niese is one of the more valuable commodities in baseball. He has been for some time now: a six-foot-four, 25-year-old, left-handed starter who can locate both his fastballs and mix in a major-league change is a highly valued asset in any organization. The real draw with Niese, though, is his out-pitch: a bending 12-6 curve that, given a bit more time, could become dominant.

He hasn't overwhelmed the NL East so far, but few pitchers in their early 20s do. Niese's strikeout-to-walk ratio has improved every season; his first year in the majors, just under 44 percent of his pitches that were put in play were groundballs. Last year, 51.5 percent. This is exactly the sort of development a team wants to see, because groundball contact leads to an out almost 80 percent of the time, and by definition, it cannot clear the fences. Meanwhile, the percentage of plate appearances against him that end in a base on balls has dropped by half since he entered the league—from 11.6 percent in 2008 to 6.3 percent in 2011. By his peripherals, he is a fine young pitcher for any team to have in the back of its rotation, and if his development continues, he'll be moving to the front quickly.

The Mets could use him up there. Ace Johan Santana missed the entire season with a shoulder injury that still hasn’t fully healed, and there's no way to say how good he'll be when he returns. After breakout knuckleball superstar R.A. Dickey, the Mets’ leaders in innings pitched in 2011 were Mike Pelfrey and Chris Capuano. Pelfrey is a headcase who throws a number of pitches, none of which consistently strikes batters out; Capuano has departed for the Los Angeles Dodgers in free agency. And as fantastic a story as R.A. Dickey is, a 36-year-old knuckleballer who started being effective only two years ago is almost the definition of unprojectable.

The Mets had a bad 2011, and Niese is exactly the kind of commodity an established team in the biggest sports market in the world covets as it tries to bounce back into contention: young and talented, with another season of team control before arbitration. Even as a back-of-the-rotation starter, he is promising and cheap enough to allow the team to focus its short-term payroll on other roster spots. Factoring in his age, projectability, and the scarcity of his skill set, he should be effectively untouchable.

On December 8th, the Mets begin shopping Niese.

--

It is July 31, 2011, Major League Baseball's non-waiver trade deadline looms, and New York Met Jose Reyes is one of the most valuable commodities in baseball. He has been for some time now: an elite shortstop in full command of all his tools, Reyes can hit for average and power, has great speed and an arm that plays well from the hole, and defends his position well. The biggest complaint anyone has about his game is his durability, followed by throwing errors. When a shortstop's greatest perceived flaws are that he doesn't play enough games and that maybe he rushes a throw or two, he is a rare find.

It's impossible to complain about Reyes's bat: he hit .354/.398/.529 (.927) in the first half. He is not only the best-hitting shortstop in baseball, he is one of the best-hitting players period. And Reyes is not only hitting, he's hitting hard: by the time the dust settles on the 2011 season, shortstops in the NL will have slugged .374 with Reyes—and .356 without him.

Reyes is not actually this fantastic a hitter; he hasn't seen any noticeable spike in the percentage of line drives or fly balls that he hits as opposed to grounders, but his batting average is over .350 on balls in play. A massive part of his power surge is due to his 16 triples; he hits 12 of these at home in the cavernous confines of Citi Field. This is clearly a career year for his bat, and it comes right as his contract with the Mets is about to expire. Reyes will hit unrestricted free agency at the end of the season unless he is re-signed.

In theory, Mets General Manager Sandy Alderson has a choice: he can keep Reyes and try to re-sign him at the end of the season, or he can trade Reyes to a contender for prospects. By the end of July, the Mets are 55-53, well behind the division-leading Philadelphia Phillies (68-39) and the second-place Atlanta Braves (63-36). They are not in a position to make up that ground; their season is, essentially, over. If they are making moves at the deadline, they should be selling, and Reyes is their highest quality piece.

Except that Alderson has already made his decision, or had it made for him: the Mets all but announce through Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman and Buster Olney of ESPN that Reyes will not, under any circumstances, be traded. They do this over a week before the deadline, and there is justification for it at the time: Reyes has just come back from a hamstring injury that kept him from participating in the All-Star Game, to which he was selected as a starter. Nevertheless, that isn't the sort of injury that keeps a franchise shortstop off the market if his team thinks he'll simply walk in the offseason. The move is taken as a sign that the Mets are committed to re-signing Reyes, and why wouldn't they? He and third baseman David Wright are pillars of the franchise, and Reyes is a top-five talent at the most difficult position to play—and groom a replacement—in Major League Baseball. And he's just now entering the traditional prime years of his career. Why not lock him down for five or six more seasons? Even if the next two aren't any good, with a New York market team's money and resources and a somewhat weak National League, they should be back in the thick of things by the middle of the decade.

But this point of view ignores what's really wrong with the Mets, and Jose Reyes remains on the team through the July 31st deadline. Reyes hits .305/.356/.428 (.784) in the second half, which is much less impressive than his numbers from early in the season— and still 100 points higher than the OPS of the average NL shortstop. He remains on the team through August, when the team is 10-16, and September, when it’s 12-16, and the playoffs, which it misses. He remains on the Mets through October and November, when no progress is made on any sort of new deal in New York. He remains on the Mets up until the moment free agency officially begins on December 1st.

As the Mets open talks with multiple teams about Jonathon Niese's future on December 8th, Jose Reyes is being introduced in a conference room in a Dallas hotel. He has just signed a six-year, $106 million deal with the Miami Marlins. The Mets never even made him an offer.

--

Why did the Mets let one of their franchise players walk, and why are they now shopping one of their most valuable major-league pieces?

Because the Mets are owned by the Wilpon family, and their troubles are legion. There is not space enough here to recount the legal turmoil their ties to Bernie Madoff have put the team through, as well as the failures of their real-estate investments when the housing bubble collapsed. Imagine them as a caricature of everything wrong with the financial sector of the American economy, and you'll have paid them their due.

They will not be selling the team; not at all. And so that the Wilpons can recoup all the losses they've recently suffered, the Mets will have to tighten their belts and pretend that $90 million is the highest payroll they can afford to run in a metropolitan area over 11 million strong, broadcasting on their own TV station. Sandy Alderson essentially has to act as if he's running a small-market team under the watchful eye of a big-market media. It's an unenviable task, doubly so since he has to pretend like it's all his idea. His problems begin with the decision not to trade Reyes. Unless Alderson is completely unaware of how compensation worked under the previous collective bargaining agreement, the decision to not deal Reyes at the deadline and then not credibly try to re-sign him falls squarely on ownership; otherwise, one hopes, Alderson would have dealt him and gotten something back. As it is, the Mets will receive the Marlins' second-round pick and nothing more.

Part of the low-yield return for Reyes is simply bad luck. Under Alderson's predecessor Omar Minaya, the Mets had generally hewed closely to Major League Baseball's draft pick slot recommendations, often drafting easy slot signees with early picks and rarely buying out signability players in the later rounds. Alderson and Vice President of Player Development Paul DePodesta completely reverse this philosophy, plowing the extra couple million dollars a year into player development to maximize impact talent. In 2011, the Mets award bonuses of at least $250,000 in the 11th and 13th rounds to high-upside prep right-hander Christian Montgomery and athletic shortstop Brad Marquez, give a nearly unprecedented $650,000 bonus to shortstop Phillip Evans in the 15th round, and pay about 125 percent of slot to first-round outfielder Brandon Nimmo and supplemental-round pitcher Michael Fulmer to buy them away from college. Suddenly, the Mets are spending heavily to get their preferred talent in the draft, increasing both the projected value of draft picks obtained for Type-A free agents like Reyes and making rebuilding more feasible in general.

And then everything goes wrong. First, the Elias Sports Bureau ranks Reyes only in the middle of the Type-A tier, meaning it's possible that the Mets won't even get the highest possible pick from Reyes's new team if that team signs someone above him on the list. Reyes then signs with the Marlins, a team with a first-round pick already protected from Type-A free agent signings. The Mets will still receive a supplemental first, but the compensatory pick from Miami will be a second-rounder at best—if baseball’s newest big spender signs Prince Fielder as well, that pick drops to a third.

Meanwhile, the new CBA implements a strict cap on yearly draft spending. All teams will now have to abide by Major League Baseball's slot regulations—the ones the Mets had just started ignoring this year—at the risk of heavy financial and competitive penalties. This lessens the relative value of the picks the Mets will get back for Reyes, but worse, it eliminates the Mets' ability to buy projectable athletes away from college only a year after they'd started tapping that pool of talent.

The new agreement leaves only two avenues essentially uncapped: MLB's traditional free agent market, and the international posting system that brought players such as Ichiro Suzuki and Daisuke Matsuzaka from the Japanese professional league to America. Any player in either market is at best already developed and worst declining—neither of which is an attractive option to a team in New York's position.

The reason the Mets are shopping Niese in this environment is because Alderson realizes that with the restrictions imposed upon him, a Mets rebuild will not be short. For a few years, it will be ugly. R.A. Dickey will likely play out the rest of his career on teams fighting the Washington Nationals for fourth place or, at best, the Atlanta Braves or Miami Marlins for third, assuming he's not dealt somewhere else. The Mets' strategy is to spend like they're a Kansas City, a Pittsburgh, or a Baltimore, though one hopes with a bit more competence; Alderson and company are stalling until the cavalry arrives and hoping pitching prospects Zack Wheeler, Matt Harvey, and Jeurys Familia will lead the charge.

When running a full-on, tire-fire, small-market rebuild under a CBA designed to prevent them, the ability to acquire elite talent through the trade market is essential. While Jose Reyes was off-limits at the deadline, long-time Met Carlos Beltran was not; Alderson sent him to the San Francisco Giants and got Zack Wheeler in return. Wheeler was taken sixth overall in the 2009 Amateur Draft and was ranked the 52nd-best prospect in baseball by Baseball Prospectus this past offseason; Baseball America had him 55th. This year he struck out over 10 batters per nine and showed improved command at High-A, mixing an excellent fastball with a developing curve, and he has the potential to lead a rotation. When you can get a guy like that for two months of a right fielder with an arthritic knee who contractually couldn’t return draft picks as a free agent, you pull the trigger and walk away.

Harvey and Familia have broadly similar profiles to Wheeler: good fastballs, potential out-pitch breaking balls, changes that need lots of work, and tons of strikeouts. Harvey was ranked 75th by BP despite never having thrown a professional pitch before this season. Working off his fastball and an excellent curve, he struck out over 10 batters per nine in a year split between High-A and Double-A. Familia rebounded from major control problems in 2010 to dominate the same levels and may reach the majors the fastest of the three.

They're not the only talented pitching prospects the Mets have; there's Jenrry Mejia, who already appeared on the big-league club in 2010 as part of Omar Minaya's last, farcical year as general manager, and Michael Fulmer and Darin Gorski have promise as well. But Wheeler, Harvey, and Familia are the most promising and exciting of the bunch, and the Mets are betting the rebuild that the three of them turn into the next Generation K.

Generation K, of course, was an abject failure. In 1995, the Mets had three young strikeout artists who caught fire in the minor leagues, skyrocketed through the organization, and looked poised to dominate the majors for years to come. By the end of 1996, that dream was done. Only one of the three men, Jason Isringhausen, pitched in the majors for any substantial length of time, and he quickly moved from the rotation to the bullpen. The other two, Bill Pulsipher and Paul Wilson, ended up like so many other elite pitching prospects, their careers derailed by arm injuries, their time in the majors bitterly short. Hopefully the current crop fares better, but the odds aren't in their favor. The overhand throwing motion is one of the most unnatural, destructive things an arm can do, and many young people with bright futures ahead of them suffer for it. In 2011, Generation K remains as much a cautionary tale against expectation as it does a wistful descriptor.

And that's what the current Mets rebuild is depending on: a crop of very good pitching prospects, any of whom could explode at any time. The hitting side of their system is a hodge-podge of filler and risky players with potential. The 2011 class, led by Brandon Nimmo, was very heavy on high-upside, high-school talents, most of whom made only token appearances in rookie ball after signing. It will be years before the Mets can evaluate whether they have any keepers in that lot. They have toolsy hitters Wilmer Flores and Cesar Puello several levels up in A-ball, but neither has converted his tools into skills yet. The most polished position prospects in the system are center fielder Kirk Nieuwenhuis and second baseman Reese Havens, both of whom missed much of 2011 with injuries. Havens cannot stay healthy, averaging only 63 games played in his three professional seasons, and Nieuwenhuis’s ultimate future may lie in a corner instead of center. Both will get their shot; with Angel Pagan gone to San Francisco and Ruben Tejada moving over to shortstop, center field and second base could be open on the major-league team as early as spring training. But these players don’t have the high ceilings of their pitching counterparts. New York doesn’t have any cornerstone prospects who play the field; the next Jose Reyes or Carlos Beltran isn't waiting in Double-A. Those guys the Mets will have to go out and get.

For fans, a rebuild is often humbling and occasionally humiliating. There are moments of rage during press conferences, envy as rivals grow stronger, and despair as summer marches on, loss after loss. The losing isn't so bad; it's not competing that hurts. Hope is fleeting and untelevised; it lives only in minor-league box scores. A rebuilding team is a miserable shadow of something meant to be fun. And there could be a moment coming for Mets fans more painful and distressing than any moment that's come before, even more so because it is the sort of move that is absolutely essential to a rebuild's success. The Mets have their eyes on tomorrow, and Sandy Alderson knows that to get there he must bargain away today.

Today, the New York Mets are David Wright.

--

Wright is a conundrum. He turns 29 in a few weeks and should be in the prime of his career, but after hitting .312/.396/.537 (.933) from age 23 to 25, he's slowed to a more modest .284/.364/.463 (.827) since. Perhaps Wright’s dropoff at the plate is due to his ballpark and a string of fluky injuries, including a severe concussion from a fastball to the head in 2009 and a broken back that he played with for nearly a month in 2011. Or, more forebodingly, perhaps it’s a sign of an early decline.

In theory, the Mets control Wright for the next two years at $31 million, making him an attractive commodity in a market where many teams are looking to avoid long-term commitments. But the Mets can only effectively market one of those two years. The final year of Wright's contract is a team option with a twist: if Wright is traded before the option is picked up, Wright can void the option year and become a free agent after the 2012 season. At the time of his extension in 2006, it seemed inconceivable that the Mets would ever trade David Wright; he was the young superstar face of a franchise poised to compete in the National League. Five years later, that minor provision is suddenly a major factor for both Wright and the Mets. The new CBA further complicates things, as it removes free agent compensation for departing players acquired during the previous season. Thus, players like Wright may have more value as full-year rentals even though the market can be most competitive near the trade deadline; it depends how the buyer values compensatory picks.

Given that it barely matters when Wright is traded, Alderson now needs to figure out which is the real David Wright: the superstar on track for the Hall of Fame, or the solid third baseman with growing injury concerns. If it's the latter, he should trade Wright immediately, because his value will never again be higher. Even if he thinks Wright will come back strong but not as what he once was, he should still deal him—just not until the trade deadline, or even after the 2012 season. (The Mets are free to exercise Wright's team option and then deal him, after all.) And if Alderson thinks that the real David Wright is that guy who hit the majors at age 23 and set New York City on fire, a legitimate Hall of Fame third baseman, then he might even explore extending Wright long-term as a bridge to those hopefully-contending teams four or five years down the road.

Make no mistake: it is sunset in Flushing. The Mets said as much when they didn't offer Reyes a contract. Nevertheless, Wright was not on the table at this year's Winter Meetings; it remains to be seen if the Mets will part with him, and if not, whether that's Alderson's call or ownership's.

As Jose Reyes begins moving his life down the coast to Miami and Jonathon Niese waits by the phone for the other shoe to drop, all that's left for Mets fans is the sighing, the cursing, the bitter unfairness, and the waiting. But soon it will be spring, and they'll find themselves checking reports from spring training; hearing names like Wheeler and Harvey and Familia maybe for the first time. A year will pass, then two, and those names will become familiar to their lips. They will worry about these names and their arms, perhaps more than is healthy. In time, they will begin to hope. They will check the minor-league box scores and try not to think of 1996.

Then they will wait, and wait some more. And one day the sun will rise again.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/artic ... leid=15644

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 15 2012 12:35 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Check with Sandy': Mets plead ignorance on plans for next year
By Howard Megdal
12:26 pm Aug. 15, 2012

If you don't have any idea what the debt-plagued Mets are capable of doing this winter to improve a 55-61 team, you're not alone. Apparently, general manager Sandy Alderson and owner Fred Wilpon don't have any idea, either.

On Saturday night, Newsday's David Lennon approached Wilpon prior to the game at Citi Field and asked him whether the team will be able to improve this winter.

"Check with Sandy," came the reply from the man who will determine just how much Sandy can spend.

Brian Costa of the Wall Street Journal asked Alderson on Tuesday what payroll will be going forward. Alderson said he isn't sure.

"I haven't had any conversations with ownership about it," Alderson said. "I'm still focused on 2012, as is the rest of the front office. Over the next several weeks, that focus will shift, but it really hasn't yet."

That's strange for a number of reasons. For one thing, the Mets just acquired a catcher, Kelly Shoppach, who the Mets view as a possible contributor in 2013. And earlier this year, the team told Costa it was preparing to offer David Wright a long-term contract. So by the team's own acknowledgement, they are thinking about 2013, at least a little. That should be a welcome relief to those who believe a multi-million dollar corporation ought to plan at least two months ahead.

It also flies in the face of Alderson's planning last year. Alderson spoke of payroll projections all year, revealing a number between $130 and $150 million in February, $120 million in May (after Fred Wilpon had asserted in Sports Illustrated that the number would be closer to $100 million), and between $100 and $110 million in September. Ultimately, the Mets clocked in at just under $92 million.

If, as the Mets have maintained, the settlement of the lawsuit against them by the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims and a concurrent minority sale eliminated the uncertainty they were facing, wouldn't things like payroll be stable enough to be revealed just two months until free agency begins? And if Alderson was willing to discuss it last year, why wouldn't he be willing to this year?

The answer is that stability never made sense as a reality stemming from the settlement and minority sale. The sale paid a number of past-due obligations, and runs out within 2012, leaving ownership with massive debts and a money-losing team to address them. And the settlement, which likely requires the Mets' owners to pay nothing, came about because the trustee didn't believe the owners had any money to pay even the $83 million judgment that served as a floor in the litigation before the trial was to begin.

The reason the payroll question is so massive, as Alderson undoubtedly knows, is that the Mets have a large amount of salary already committed for 2013.

Jason Bay and Johan Santana will make $50 million in 2013, between salary and buyouts of their 2014 options. Without contract extensions or other renegotiation, R.A. Dickey and David Wright will earn another $21 million; any extension would probably have to revise those numbers upwards, to entice either to stay. Jonathon Niese and Frank Francisco will earn another $9.5 million. That's a total of $80.5 million for six players, including two in Bay and Santana who are anything but certain to contribute to the Mets in 2013.

So if Alderson is to do anything but fill out the roster with league-minimum players--that salary is $490,000 in 2013, or $9,310,000 for 19 players, bringing the Mets to around $90 million--he'll need an increased payroll. The catcher he just acquired, Shoppach, a free agent this winter, will require more money than the minimum to be retained.

Yet Alderson's comments yesterday are based on the idea that he hasn't so much as discussed whether he can retain the catcher he just traded for. Of course, at this time last year, Alderson was busy insisting that the then-ongoing Madoff litigation would have no effect on the team's ability to spend, something he then insisted had changed once the litigation had conclded.

With the team eager to lock in its season ticket holders for 2013, pushing that renewal date forward several months in 2012 to August 31, they have a clear commercial incentive to trumpet any newfound ability to spend money on players to the world. The fact that they are instead falling back on the implausible claims, like the owner of the team referring budget questions to a general manager who says he hasn't discussed or thought about them, is as revealing as anything they could have said.


http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... -next-year

Centerfield
Aug 15 2012 01:45 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I get this bad feeling that the Mets are going to suck for a long time.

Ceetar
Aug 15 2012 01:49 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Centerfield wrote:
I get this bad feeling that the Mets are going to suck for a long time.


seems unlikely.

TransMonk
Aug 15 2012 01:57 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

The Mets have sucked for four years now. However unlikely it seems to Ceets, I don't see a terribly bright light at the end of this tunnel.

Yup, anything's possible, ya gotta believe, it ain't over 'til it's over, yyybbb. The next year or two (at least) still looks pretty trying to me.

Ceetar
Aug 15 2012 02:02 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

TransMonk wrote:
The Mets have sucked for four years now. However unlikely it seems to Ceets, I don't see a terribly bright light at the end of this tunnel.

Yup, anything's possible, ya gotta believe, it ain't over 'til it's over, yyybbb. The next year or two (at least) still looks pretty trying to me.


David Wright, R.A. Dickey, Ruben Tejada, Matt Harvey, Zach Wheeler*, Ike Davis, Jon Niese etc.

They also played pretty good for the first four halves of those seasons, so why think it's the second half that's going to shine through going forward? Maybe a couple of adjustments and they don't sink next year.

TransMonk
Aug 15 2012 02:16 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I'm not saying there aren't bright spots...but overall, given the roster as a whole, the farm system as a whole and the questions surrounding financial flexibility, I'm not betting on a true contender in the immediate future.

Ceetar
Aug 15 2012 02:29 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

and I know this thread is about concern, but I'm not really any more concerned about the future than I have been. Things don't seem particularly stacked against the Mets to me is all.

Edgy MD
Aug 15 2012 02:47 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Read enough Megdal, I'd be concerned about the future of a lot more than the Mets.

Gwreck
Aug 15 2012 03:37 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Ceetar wrote:
Maybe a couple of adjustments and they don't sink next year.


If by "a couple of adjustments" you mean "a couple of better players."

The problem with your theory is that it depends on average players all having a good year all at the same time. I don't think that's a responsible strategy if you want to be in meaningful contention.

metsguyinmichigan
Aug 15 2012 03:38 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

"Debt-plagued?"

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Aug 15 2012 04:41 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

metsguyinmichigan wrote:
"Debt-plagued?"


A description of the Wilpons, if not the Mets, necessarily.

Megdal appears again to be shoehorning a whole lot of context into a couple of "magic quotes."

Ashie62
Aug 15 2012 04:45 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I'm more concerned about Wrights interview talking about the goals of the franchise and wanting to play for a winner.

That doesnt sound like a man signing this oft season.

Ashie62
Aug 15 2012 04:47 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

TransMonk wrote:
The Mets have sucked for four years now. However unlikely it seems to Ceets, I don't see a terribly bright light at the end of this tunnel.

Yup, anything's possible, ya gotta believe, it ain't over 'til it's over, yyybbb. The next year or two (at least) still looks pretty trying to me.


Mets are 12 of 16 in attendance.

Edgy MD
Aug 15 2012 05:37 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Every player ever will make the same sounds. Wright can be accommodated or he can't. The difference will not be his assessment of whether or not Nimmo has the goods.

Ashie62
Aug 15 2012 05:52 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Edgy DC wrote:
Every player ever will make the same sounds. Wright can be accommodated or he can't. The difference will not be his assessment of whether or not Nimmo has the goods.


Nimmo is not on his radar..The dedication to winning is.

Edgy MD
Aug 15 2012 07:42 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Which is measured how?

Ashie62
Aug 15 2012 08:41 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Edgy DC wrote:
Which is measured how?


Maybe he want to be with someone like the Angels or Cards..ez livin for life.

Edgy MD
Aug 15 2012 08:57 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I don't see how that answers the question.

Ashie62
Aug 15 2012 09:07 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Edgy DC wrote:
I don't see how that answers the question.


Hes looking for a winning culture..Will the Mets show him that?

Discussion closed.

Edgy MD
Aug 15 2012 09:11 PM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

I didn't realize you had that power.

Ceetar
Aug 16 2012 05:43 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Gwreck wrote:
Ceetar wrote:
Maybe a couple of adjustments and they don't sink next year.


If by "a couple of adjustments" you mean "a couple of better players."

The problem with your theory is that it depends on average players all having a good year all at the same time. I don't think that's a responsible strategy if you want to be in meaningful contention.


That's always going to be the case in some extent though. You get guys you think are going to have good years, and some of them don't. But I think that describes _this_ season pretty well. The Mets had a lot of players that may just be average but might've been more. Duda, Torres (dreaming on 2010, even though he's not been bad), Davis, Murphy, Tejada, Thole, Gee, Niese, Santana (via him being injured and us having to use an average starter)

But the thing is, we have a year more of data (with some yet to come) in which to make the assessment on which of those players are average, which are good, and which are average capable of having good years. Or average that had a good year that you can convince someone else is a good player. So now the Mets make a couple of adjustments to roster, but acquiring players to replace the ones they've determined not to be part of the solution. Some of those are going to be average guys we're hoping show something, but it should raise the chances of more guys having good years.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 16 2012 06:06 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

Ceetar wrote:

But the thing is, we have a year more of data (with some yet to come) in which to make the assessment on which of those players are average, which are good [yada yada yada] ... So now the Mets make a couple of adjustments to roster, but acquiring players to replace the ones they've determined not to be part of the solution.


And why wouldn't that hold true for every other struggling team? Hey! Maybe next season, there's so much improvement going around that the league sets some sort of record when every team finishes over .500. You know what? I think the Mets are gonna need to win 105 games in 2013 just to qualify for the one game WC eliminator.

Ceetar
Aug 16 2012 06:58 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Ceetar wrote:

But the thing is, we have a year more of data (with some yet to come) in which to make the assessment on which of those players are average, which are good [yada yada yada] ... So now the Mets make a couple of adjustments to roster, but acquiring players to replace the ones they've determined not to be part of the solution.


And why wouldn't that hold true for every other struggling team? Hey! Maybe next season, there's so much improvement going around that the league sets some sort of record when every team finishes over .500. You know what? I think the Mets are gonna need to win 105 games in 2013 just to qualify for the one game WC eliminator.


Of course it's true for every other team! But the Mets have a little higher of a base than the Astros..with Wright and Dickey, et al. And even if they never really shake this off again, they're a 75 win team not a 65 win one. they don't need quite as many adjustments as the Royals. Small changes yield big results sometimes. Just another solidly good hitter, let's say an outfielder, would do amazing things for the overall offense for instance. Particularly if he can hit home runs.

batmagadanleadoff
Aug 16 2012 07:06 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

So what about the 18 teams that have better records than the Mets? Can't they make the same adjustments to improve? You remind me of a friend I had who would always return from Atlantic City having won big at the casinos. He never lost. So he said. Of course, he calculated his winnings by counting his two big winning hands doubling down at Blackjack but wouldn't count the 30 straight losing hands in between that he suffered. You remind me of that guy. Because you'll remember the dramatic game winning bomb Torres or Valdy hit but ignore the thirty or forty outs they make for every homer they hit. Then you'll extrapolate next year's projection for these guys based only on their highs.

Edgy MD
Aug 16 2012 07:16 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

It would seem to me that just getting back up to average in leftfield would take the team a nice ways. But I checked and leftfield isn't even the team's weakest offensive position relative to the league, thanks to Hairston getting hot when Bay got hurt. When Thole got hurt, by comparison, Nickeas was... not hot.

[list]c 14th of 16
1b 13th of 16
2b 4th of 16
3b 1st of 16
ss 6th of 16
lf 12th of 16
cf T8th of 16
rf 14th of 16

p 3rd of 16
dh 5th of 16
ph 2nd of 16

infield 7th of 16
outfield 14th of 16[/list:u]

Now many of those numbers are tempered by other realities. We look sweet at second, but our defense is below average, and Murphy's relative health may have put us ahead of a team or two with a stronger player who got hurt. But we've got a possible lead on a catcher to take cuts against lefties and maybe help out with catching Dickey, so I think top priority (beyond re-signing Dickey and Wright) remains replacing Bay and letting a whole bunch of guys fight for right (or left, if we sign a rightfielder), center, and first.

Ceetar
Aug 16 2012 07:53 AM
Re: I'm concerned. ... About the future.

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
So what about the 18 teams that have better records than the Mets? Can't they make the same adjustments to improve? You remind me of a friend I had who would always return from Atlantic City having won big at the casinos. He never lost. So he said. Of course, he calculated his winnings by counting his two big winning hands doubling down at Blackjack but wouldn't count the 30 straight losing hands in between that he suffered. You remind me of that guy. Because you'll remember the dramatic game winning bomb Torres or Valdy hit but ignore the thirty or forty outs they make for every homer they hit. Then you'll extrapolate next year's projection for these guys based only on their highs.


the same adjustments? no, two teams can't sign the same players. I'm not saying it's simply "Plug in this guy" or that it'll be easy. The Mets leapfrog some of those 18 teams by finding the better adjustment which will come from evaluation and budget and all sorts of things. Doesn't mean they will find the better player, just that they can.

Don't compare me to that guy. You can't only look at highs, but there's some calculation for floor too. Torres for instance, has been basically league average this year by OPS+. (Actually, he's dropped to 93. was 97 last time i looked) the chances Torres is somewhat capable are pretty good. (career 97 OPS+) he's older but not that old. So while you don't pencil him for 2010 Torres, you know he's probably not going to kill you. Valdespin might make a good lefty pinch-hitter guy, but I'm not comfortable expecting him to be more than that. I think what's killed the Mets more than anything this year is that when some of these guys struggle, they _really_ struggle. Torres too. Duda. Nieuwenhuis. Davis. the left fielder. It's so feast or famine that it feels like when one guy does real well, there's someone else balancing him out by not hitting anything. So a couple of adjustments. get a good outfielder. replace some of these marginal guys that go into month long slumps maybe in favor of a Torres like guy that's going to at least get on base. Murphy seems like this guy to me, even when he's slumping is good enough with the bat usually to slap a single here or there. though you'd like him to walk more.