Master Index of Archived Threads


The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

I hope it happens.

19 votes

I hope it falls through.

7 votes

Benjamin Grimm Dec 16 2012 05:34 PM

In case you missed it: It would be Dickey, Thole, and a non-elite prospect to the Blue Jays for Elite Prospects Travis d'Arnaud and Noah Syndergaard, catcher John Buck, and one non-elite prospect. Deal is contingent upon Dickey negotiating a contract extension with Toronto.

Swan Swan H Dec 16 2012 05:42 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Big 'hope it happens.' I attended one of the one-hitters, and the 19th and 20th wins, and loved watching Dickey bamboozle big league hitters, but I think this is a deal that has to be made. If Dickey is 35, maybe not, but his age, along with the many things that I have read about d'Arnaud and Syndergaard, make me hopeful that this could be a Ryan-Fregosi mismatch that goes the Mets' way. Hopeful, I say. I know there are no guarantees, but I'm looking forward to seeing ol' Travis catching Wheeler and Harvey in the post-season before long.

metirish Dec 16 2012 05:45 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

I agree with the gentleman above me.

Frayed Knot Dec 16 2012 05:56 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

With the usual caveat of this deal being what we've heard it'll be and that the throw-in prospect won't make us go "Whoa!!", I do not want to see the deal fall apart at this point. I can be as sentimental as the next guy (and boy is my mother going to be pissed) but we got Dickey for virtually nothing, then got the best three seasons of his career out of him, and now are selling high on him while observing the better a year too early than a year too late philosophy and for an attractive package that'll fill at least one glaring and immediate hole. Yeah, the players could ultimately turn out to be disappointing but if you take that attitude then you'd never make a deal. And, yeah, maybe this turns out to be dealing him two or three years too early, but when a guy's 38 I'm willing to take that chance.

MFS62 Dec 16 2012 06:05 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Frayed Knot wrote: With the usual caveat of this deal being what we've heard it'll be and that the throw-in prospect won't make us go "Whoa!!", I do not want to see the deal fall apart at this point. This. Leaning toward hoping it goes through, but I'll let you know when all the names are named. Later

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 16 2012 06:06 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Yeah, I like it.

Edgy MD Dec 16 2012 06:11 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Yabbut, imagine the turns in the story if it falls apart! You can't buy that sort of drama!

TransMonk Dec 16 2012 06:28 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Very much in favor.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 16 2012 06:43 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Between the feeling of finality and the package involved... at this point, it would be a tremendous disappointment if it didn't go, right?

Benjamin Grimm Dec 16 2012 06:55 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

I would certainly be disappointed if it fell through.

vtmet Dec 16 2012 07:03 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

while I appreciate what Dickey has done in the past 3 seasons; with or without him we still would have been in rough shape for the next several years... but with the trade, we fill a very important role on the roster for the near future...

Ceetar Dec 16 2012 07:09 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

and what about 2013? officially punting then? Not even going to pretend? Further lying, this time even more outright, about payroll? What happens if Wheeler has Tommy John in August and d'Arnaud isn't tearing it up? skip 2014 and hope everyone's ready for 2015? I get the process. It's a good trade, and the whole 'year too early, not year too late' thing makes sense (of course Dickey could have 3 good years...) but I'd almost always rather gamble on the established major leaguer over the prospect, as good as d'Arnaud looks and as sparse that position is in the league. I know the deal is good, but it just reeeeeks of desperation that they couldn't afford to let an asset go un-cashed.

seawolf17 Dec 16 2012 07:10 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: they couldn't afford to let an asset go un-cashed. Well, not for nothing, but they almost can't. So they're not.

Swan Swan H Dec 16 2012 07:14 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: and what about 2013? officially punting then? Not even going to pretend? Further lying, this time even more outright, about payroll? What happens if Wheeler has Tommy John in August and d'Arnaud isn't tearing it up? skip 2014 and hope everyone's ready for 2015? I get the process. It's a good trade, and the whole 'year too early, not year too late' thing makes sense (of course Dickey could have 3 good years...) but I'd almost always rather gamble on the established major leaguer over the prospect, as good as d'Arnaud looks and as sparse that position is in the league. I know the deal is good, but it just reeeeeks of desperation that they couldn't afford to let an asset go un-cashed. I've read this three times and I still wouldn't bet ten cents that I know how you voted.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 16 2012 07:19 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I do.

Ceetar Dec 16 2012 07:25 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Swan Swan H wrote: Ceetar wrote: and what about 2013? officially punting then? Not even going to pretend? Further lying, this time even more outright, about payroll? What happens if Wheeler has Tommy John in August and d'Arnaud isn't tearing it up? skip 2014 and hope everyone's ready for 2015? I get the process. It's a good trade, and the whole 'year too early, not year too late' thing makes sense (of course Dickey could have 3 good years...) but I'd almost always rather gamble on the established major leaguer over the prospect, as good as d'Arnaud looks and as sparse that position is in the league. I know the deal is good, but it just reeeeeks of desperation that they couldn't afford to let an asset go un-cashed. I've read this three times and I still wouldn't bet ten cents that I know how you voted. either way you'd be wrong. I missed the poll. oops. I wouldn't be unhappy if it falls through. I'm certainly not excited for prospects. I get that it..probably..makes the Mets better as soon as maybe 2014..but that's a ways away.

Nymr83 Dec 16 2012 07:26 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

I like it. I like it even more if 10 months from now we're talking about how d'Arnaud was robbed of his rightful ROY trophy only by the Mets leaving him down until June 1st while the Blue Jays have just won the AL East and the Yankees have lost a 1-game wildcard game as the higher-seeded wildcard and that Yankee management is privately (to the newspapers) claiming the 1-game thing is "unfair" as they lose to an 83 win Royals team. this could be win-win!

metsguyinmichigan Dec 16 2012 07:38 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Prospect trades scare me. How many of these guys just never pan out? And we still haven't filled the team's most pressing need -- the outfield.

Edgy MD Dec 16 2012 07:47 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

A lot of prospects never pan out. But a lot of All-Stars never repeat.

Swan Swan H Dec 16 2012 07:52 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Absolutely. John Buck was an all-star once. Went 1-2 in the 2010 game with a double.

metsmarathon Dec 16 2012 08:05 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

at this point, since i don't think the mets will be able to bring him back if the deal were to fall through, and i doubt very much that the mets would receive as promising a return, i regerettably vote that i hope the trade goes through. i may need to start making the blue jays my favorite al team...

Chad Ochoseis Dec 16 2012 08:07 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: I wouldn't be unhappy if it falls through. I'm certainly not excited for prospects. I get that it..probably..makes the Mets better as soon as maybe 2014..but that's a ways away. The Mets could keep Dickey, sign every single free agent still on the market, and trade away every prospect in the system for established major league talent, and they still wouldn't match up well against the Braves or the Nationals in 2013. So I'm all in favor of planning now for 2014 or even 2015. Prospects are high risk, high payoff. So get as many good ones as you can, and count on the law of averages - the two or three stars will more than make up for all the ones that don't pan out.

Ceetar Dec 16 2012 08:17 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Ceetar wrote: I wouldn't be unhappy if it falls through. I'm certainly not excited for prospects. I get that it..probably..makes the Mets better as soon as maybe 2014..but that's a ways away. The Mets could keep Dickey, sign every single free agent still on the market, and trade away every prospect in the system for established major league talent, and they still wouldn't match up well against the Braves or the Nationals in 2013. So I'm all in favor of planning now for 2014 or even 2015. Prospects are high risk, high payoff. So get as many good ones as you can, and count on the law of averages - the two or three stars will more than make up for all the ones that don't pan out. And what happens if Wheeler has Tommy John in August and Niese takes a step back again? Wait until 2016? You gotta be in it to win it right? Braves and Nats aren't locks for anything, given how volatile baseball can be.

Mets – Willets Point Dec 16 2012 08:40 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: And what happens if Wheeler has Tommy John in August and Niese takes a step back again? Wait until 2016? You gotta be in it to win it right? Braves and Nats aren't locks for anything, given how volatile baseball can be. Yup. Especially considering the "improved" playoff system that admits any team that just above suck. It would be nice to have a Cy Young Award winner in your rotation for those short series.

Swan Swan H Dec 16 2012 09:25 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: I wouldn't be unhappy if it falls through. I'm certainly not excited for prospects. I get that it..probably..makes the Mets better as soon as maybe 2014..but that's a ways away. The Mets could keep Dickey, sign every single free agent still on the market, and trade away every prospect in the system for established major league talent, and they still wouldn't match up well against the Braves or the Nationals in 2013. So I'm all in favor of planning now for 2014 or even 2015. Prospects are high risk, high payoff. So get as many good ones as you can, and count on the law of averages - the two or three stars will more than make up for all the ones that don't pan out. And what happens if Wheeler has Tommy John in August and Niese takes a step back again? Wait until 2016? You gotta be in it to win it right? Braves and Nats aren't locks for anything, given how volatile baseball can be. And what happens if the 38 year old has the injury, and you get nothing for him? What if Wright decides to quit and join a rodeo league? What if Murphy and Tejada move to Vermont, get married and open an antique shop?

Swan Swan H Dec 16 2012 09:29 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

And what happens if all of your worst-case scenario moaning actually takes place and they don't make the deal? The year is shot anyway, and when they come out on the other side they have a 39-year old pitcher instead of a stud catcher and a hot pitching prospect.

Ceetar Dec 16 2012 09:49 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Swan Swan H wrote: And what happens if all of your worst-case scenario moaning actually takes place and they don't make the deal? The year is shot anyway, and when they come out on the other side they have a 39-year old pitcher instead of a stud catcher and a hot pitching prospect. maybe the year isn't shot. it's freaking December.

Swan Swan H Dec 16 2012 09:54 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Do me a favor, when you come in off the ledge, close the window. It's supposed to get cold tonight.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 16 2012 09:59 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

And what if there are bees? Bees as far as the eye can see! SO MANY BEES! The gist is that you don't want to "punt" this season, right? The Mets finished in a distant, distant fourth with Dickey pitching the best season of his life. You don't think it's possible that moving him to fill a current and future weakness, with a host of youngsters-with-potential in the high minors for rotation backfill, actually improves the team for next year?

Swan Swan H Dec 16 2012 10:04 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: And what if there are bees? Bees as far as the eye can see! SO MANY BEES! Las Vegas plays the Salt Lake Bees May 24-27. Hopefully d'Arnaud will be called up by then.

Ceetar Dec 16 2012 10:05 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Swan Swan H wrote: Do me a favor, when you come in off the ledge, close the window. It's supposed to get cold tonight. why even bother then? I mean, just keep dumping anyone that makes a lot of money and go bare bones until your window opens up. Hope the Nationals don't maintain this run for a decade. Or you could build the best team you can, and capitalize on opportunities that open up, which happens all the time. That's not what the Mets are doing. It's a good trade, it's a good process, but the "Hope the situation is more in our favor next year" is not a marketable or exciting one. Getting to watch R.A. Dickey next year might have been the single best thing that would happen, and it wasn't replaced with any assurances of other great things. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: And what if there are bees? Bees as far as the eye can see! SO MANY BEES! The gist is that you don't want to "punt" this season, right? The Mets finished in a distant, distant fourth with Dickey pitching the best season of his life. You don't think it's possible that moving him to fill a current and future weakness, with a host of youngsters-with-potential in the high minors for rotation backfill, actually improves the team for next year? no. Even if d'Arnaud starts in the majors, is he going to be a more valuable player than Dickey? Even if he's close, that's a net loss for a fourth place team. I'm not saying the Mets won't be better overall due to any number of variables, but I don't see any reasonable way to expect the trade to pay instant dividends next year.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 16 2012 10:14 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: And what if there are bees? Bees as far as the eye can see! SO MANY BEES! The gist is that you don't want to "punt" this season, right? The Mets finished in a distant, distant fourth with Dickey pitching the best season of his life. You don't think it's possible that moving him to fill a current and future weakness, with a host of youngsters-with-potential in the high minors for rotation backfill, actually improves the team for next year? no. Even if d'Arnaud starts in the majors, is he going to be a more valuable player than Dickey? Even if he's close, that's a net loss for a fourth place team. I'm not saying the Mets won't be better overall due to any number of variables, but I don't see any reasonable way to expect the trade to pay instant dividends next year. The question about this year's improvement isn't predicated on D'Arnaud being more valuable than Dickey; it's about him being better than the guy he's replacing (and the same for Dickey's slot in the rotation). If D'Arnaud/Buck is significantly better than Thole/Nickeas (and that's a pretty damn good bet, no?), it might outweigh the difference between Dickey's woulda-performance and what our rotation backfill (Wheeler? Mejia? Familia? Other?) can muster... especially if said backfill is a little more filling than expected. I'll miss Dickey, too. But the I-don't-want-to-let-you-go-because-I'd-miss-you-too-much dynamic has sunk far more-- and far more productive-- marriages than RAD-Mets; chasing that feeling is no way to make a ballclub, or "reasonably" weigh a trade.

Swan Swan H Dec 16 2012 10:22 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

That's not what the Mets are doing. It's a good trade, it's a good process, but the "Hope the situation is more in our favor next year" is not a marketable or exciting one. This is exactly the opposite of what Alderson is doing. He is trying to build a team that is sustainably good, with talented players they can count on for years to come.

smg58 Dec 17 2012 05:06 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Like I told Seawolf, Dickey is my favorite Met since Piazza. But I think it's clear that given the choice between offering him an extension and getting a "haul" for him, Alderson wanted the haul. There are perfectly valid baseball reasons for doing that, and this deal looks on paper like a haul. My emotions are very mixed, but I think the trade will make the Mets better in the long run.

RealityChuck Dec 17 2012 06:57 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

It's well worth a shot. The Blue Jays are giving up a lot. They may not pan out, but you could also sign Dickey and discover he no longer has the magic (the speed of his knuckler was a major factor in his success, and he may end up throwing it more slowly as he ages, making more hittable). Nothing is certain in baseball. In this case, you fill the hole at catcher for next year and for years beyond, a pitcher who might be as effective as Dickey by the time he comes up, and save the money you would have had to have paid R.A. to search for an outfielder. I'm sorry to see him go and would love to see him as a Met, but this is a chance to build a winner without him instead of losing with him.

Ceetar Dec 17 2012 08:09 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Swan Swan H wrote: That's not what the Mets are doing. It's a good trade, it's a good process, but the "Hope the situation is more in our favor next year" is not a marketable or exciting one. This is exactly the opposite of what Alderson is doing. He is trying to build a team that is sustainably good, with talented players they can count on for years to come. oh? where? I hear there words put in Alderson's mouth often, but actions speak louder than words. He kept David Wright, certainly, but the Mets have no other players signed beyond this year. He's buying lots of tickets to the prospect lottery, but will he supplement them when the time comes? And that doesn't change that this process is NOT marketable or exciting for 2013 as currently constituted.

metsmarathon Dec 17 2012 08:16 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

i guess the takeaway is that we can finally find out whether or not you can rebuild in new york city. i like to htink that you can.

Swan Swan H Dec 17 2012 08:17 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: That's not what the Mets are doing. It's a good trade, it's a good process, but the "Hope the situation is more in our favor next year" is not a marketable or exciting one. This is exactly the opposite of what Alderson is doing. He is trying to build a team that is sustainably good, with talented players they can count on for years to come. oh? where? I hear there words put in Alderson's mouth often, but actions speak louder than words. He kept David Wright, certainly, but the Mets have no other players signed beyond this year. He's buying lots of tickets to the prospect lottery, but will he supplement them when the time comes? And that doesn't change that this process is NOT marketable or exciting for 2013 as currently constituted. Niese is signed through 2018. Murphy and Parnell are arbitration-eligible through 2015, Davis, Gee and Tejada through 2016.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2012 08:23 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: And that doesn't change that this process is NOT marketable or exciting for 2013 as currently constituted. I don't see why I should care a whole lot how "marketable" the Mets are. I think that this deal, if it happens, is likely to provide the Mets with more wins over the next decade than if it doesn't happen. Maybe not more wins in 2013, but more over the long haul. Yes, 2013 is important, but we're going to stop caring about 2013 by October 31 at the latest, and probably quite a bit before then. As we've seen, most catchers today are awful. The Mets have a rare chance to get a guy who may* be the best catcher in the league a few years from now, giving them a competitive advantage over everyone else. This is a very smart deal, and I'm glad we have a guy in place who was able to swing it. *I'm anticipating the response that there's no guarantee that Travis will become a star. It's silly that I have to even type this paragraph; of course that statement is true, but there's certainly no guarantee that standing pat would end up being a good idea either.

Edgy MD Dec 17 2012 08:32 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come? I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is.

Ceetar Dec 17 2012 08:39 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Swan Swan H wrote: Niese is signed through 2018. Murphy and Parnell are arbitration-eligible through 2015, Davis, Gee and Tejada through 2016. Totally blanked on Niese, but yeah. one pitcher and one hitter. Those others merely haven't had the chance to get away yet and are cheap and under control. And they won't get you anything in return. (Gotta play someone there right?) Who's to say if Davis has a big year as a left-handed power first baseman they don't leverage him for something else since power-hitting first baseman are generally not that hard to replace? Especially if 2014 doesn't look like 'the year'? Didn't Ryan Howard make 10 million in his first year of arbitration? Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: And that doesn't change that this process is NOT marketable or exciting for 2013 as currently constituted. I don't see why I should care a whole lot how "marketable" the Mets are. *I'm anticipating the response that there's no guarantee that Travis will become a star. It's silly that I have to even type this paragraph; of course that statement is true, but there's certainly no guarantee that standing pat would end up being a good idea either. Because, as a fan, the entertainment value of the team is pretty much the only thing. And that means winning. And the longer you wait to win, the longer it takes for the fans to come back, and what happens if it gets pushed back due to bad luck or simply doesn't happen? Improvement in 2013 raises interest in 2014 (and hence ticket sales and revenue, which makes investing in the roster easier). Of course d'Arnaud is no guarantee. He's a gamble. they all are. Maybe he's less of a gamble than some, but that's not the point. Everyone is a gamble, Dickey included, but you have three years of recent history and data that suggest Dickey is good, and none that Travis is besides projections and not always translatable minor league stats. The gamble here is that sacrificing the more sure thing now for the more sure thing later is that all the other things that you're also gambling on need to work out too. You could have 10 dice that roll a 6 80% of the time and still have them all roll 1s. And then where are we? Square one? That sustainable winner isn't a sure thing just via good farm system stocking, nor is it even a sure thing if you add in a financial investment we're not sure we're getting down the line. Simply put, I'd rather gamble on Dickey than d'Arnaud. I'd rather the Mets look to utilize other methods to continue to improve down the line and build a sustainable winner. it's not mandatory that it has to include trading Dickey...but I get that the current situation of the Mets, at least as it seems from the outside, seems to dictate that it does. They can't afford NOT to leverage this asset. (And I assume they didn't leverage Reyes because they weren't offered anything really worthwhile) But that desperation doesn't leave me excited about the future, it makes me wary that they'll ever be able to build that winner if other cracks, like Wheeler Pelfing, turn up. And just because I understand the process and hinted at goals, doesn't mean I like it. I wish it wasn't that way and I'm certainly fine with having rooted for it to work WITH Dickey.

Ceetar Dec 17 2012 08:40 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come? I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is. I don't know that it's..obvious. It's the one that makes the most sense..surely.. but take the outfield thread..what's the plan for that? I'm not convinced they will. Say we're a year in the future and the D'backs are dangling Upton. Do the Mets bite? financially?

Mets – Willets Point Dec 17 2012 08:43 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

This could go down in history like the Dan Norman trade.

Swan Swan H Dec 17 2012 08:46 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Or the Tom Parsons trade.

Swan Swan H Dec 17 2012 08:47 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come? I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is. I don't know that it's..obvious. It's the one that makes the most sense..surely.. but take the outfield thread..what's the plan for that? I'm not convinced they will. Say we're a year in the future and the D'backs are dangling Upton. Do the Mets bite? financially? So you are opposed to the one that makes the most sense. I always thought so.

Ceetar Dec 17 2012 08:48 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Swan Swan H wrote: Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come? I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is. I don't know that it's..obvious. It's the one that makes the most sense..surely.. but take the outfield thread..what's the plan for that? I'm not convinced they will. Say we're a year in the future and the D'backs are dangling Upton. Do the Mets bite? financially? So you are opposed to the one that makes the most sense. I always thought so. Just because it makes the most sense doesn't mean it's the one that works out the best. hey, you could've argued, as many did, that the Pagan trade made the most sense. Didn't work out that way.

Edgy MD Dec 17 2012 08:50 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come? I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is. I don't know that it's..obvious. What else could be the plan? Ceetar wrote: It's the one that makes the most sense..surely.. What is the what that makes most sense? Adding players who can help them long-term is the theory that makes the most sense? Trading Dickey for D'Arnaud is the trade that makes most sense? I'm not following. Ceetar wrote: but take the outfield thread..what's the plan for that? We were going to post in it until we ran out of things to say and then archive it a few months later. But I guess you're asking what the plan is for the outfield. I wouldn't be surprised that this trade doesn't simultaneously address all concerns both long-term and short-term, or have a contingency for all possible developments. But neither would keeping Dickey. Ceetar wrote: I'm not convinced they will. Say we're a year in the future and the D'backs are dangling Upton. Do the Mets bite? financially? I guess that depends on the situation on the ground at the time, as they say.

metsmarathon Dec 17 2012 08:54 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

if the mets are truly in as dire a financial strait as they appear frequently to be, then leveraging expensive aging talent for inexpensive prospective talent is hte only way to build a winning franchise, until the expenses work themselves out. keeping expensive aging talent for meaningless immediate marginal gains does not make for a marketable team. or a particularly winful team, either. since the financials appear to be shit, this is the way it must be. the mets must follow the example of the tampa rays. and in this trade, they have done so. if it works, perhaps sooner rather than later, the coffers will refill themselves and the mets can be players with money again. the solace to be found is that our current area of greatest need, the outfield, is probably hte area wherein it is easiest to find some spare part to fill in adequately for a time. i mean, hell, we went to the world series with an outfield of benny agbayani, jay payton, and derek bell.

Edgy MD Dec 17 2012 08:55 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Who's to say if Davis has a big year as a left-handed power first baseman they don't leverage him for something else since power-hitting first baseman are generally not that hard to replace? I think there's a period or a conjunction or something missing here. Who is to say anything? I think we all acknowledge that none of us know the future and we all deal in likelihoods of positive outcomes and not in certainties. Let's get that on the table right now.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 17 2012 08:56 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar Dec 17 2012 08:58 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Edgy MD wrote: I guess that depends on the situation on the ground at the time, as they say. I'm just started to get nervous that the situation on the ground is never going to be good enough to commit to. admittedly, I'm probably getting overly worked up over Alderson (or Wilpon) statements even though I know you can't take anything they say as even remotely resembling truth. But they seemed to suggest a 100+ million payroll this year, mentioned last year that they were in a "period of ascendancy" but from this view point it looks like we're going into a third year of rebuilding. Foundation is looking solid, but eventually you have to put something on top of it. metsmarathon wrote: if the mets are truly in as dire a financial strait as they appear frequently to be, then leveraging expensive aging talent for inexpensive prospective talent is hte only way to build a winning franchise, until the expenses work themselves out. keeping expensive aging talent for meaningless immediate marginal gains does not make for a marketable team. or a particularly winful team, either. since the financials appear to be shit, this is the way it must be. the mets must follow the example of the tampa rays. and in this trade, they have done so. if it works, perhaps sooner rather than later, the coffers will refill themselves and the mets can be players with money again. the solace to be found is that our current area of greatest need, the outfield, is probably hte area wherein it is easiest to find some spare part to fill in adequately for a time. i mean, hell, we went to the world series with an outfield of benny agbayani, jay payton, and derek bell. I agree with all this and have said as much. Doesn't make it any less sad or disappointing. And I don't get excited for AAA Mets, I get excited for MLB Mets, so I find the trade is making me sad for missing Dickey and isn't yet providing me anything. It's a very in the moment, emotional response, that's all.

metsmarathon Dec 17 2012 09:06 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Mets – Willets Point wrote: This could go down in history like the Dan Norman trade. i'm hoping for a version of the heatcliff slocumb trade, with better results on both sides.

Ashie62 Dec 17 2012 09:09 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

If the Mets were working with a big market budget this would be a helluva lot easier.

seawolf17 Dec 17 2012 09:18 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ashie62 wrote: If the Mets were working with a big market budget this would be a helluva lot easier. True, but even if the Mets were working with a big-market budget, I'd make this deal. Because then you put Dickey's $13-15 million a year toward another pitcher who's not 40 years old, PLUS you get a young catcher and another top young arm out of the deal.

Swan Swan H Dec 17 2012 09:26 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Looks like there is an agreement on the extension.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2012 09:48 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

So it seems that all that remains is the physical. As long as Dickey has recovered well from his abdominal muscle repair, and assuming that they don't discover any additional missing body parts, we have a done deal. Announcement may come as early as this evening.

Swan Swan H Dec 17 2012 03:23 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Dickey got physical, physical, and the deal is done. The Blue Jays also get catcher Mike Nickeas in the deal, Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reports. The Mets also get 18-year-old outfield prospect Wuilmer Becerra.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 17 2012 03:50 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Any time you have the chance to trade a Nickeas for a Becerra, or a worn 45 of "Besame Mucho," or a week-old bechamel... you've got to take that chance.

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2012 05:10 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Per John Sickels: Wuilmer Becerra, OF -- The Blue Jays spent $1,300,000 to sign Wuilmer Becerra out of Venezuela in 2011. They brought him directly to North America in 2012, skipping the Latin American summer leagues. Unfortunately, he got into just 11 games in the Gulf Coast League, his season ending early after being hit in the face by a pitch. Becerra is tall and lanky at 6-4, 190, but runs very well and could be a 20+ steal guy at higher levels if all goes well. He also has above-average power potential, and flashes good plate discipline. However, his swing mechanics are inconsistent and he may be more ripper than hitter. His arm isn't very good, so he profiles best at left field. At Becerra's age, anything can happen. Keep in mind that he wouldn't even be drafted until 2013 if he'd been born in the United States. He was born October 1st, 1994. iow, he's a long, long way off no matter what he eventually turns into

Swan Swan H Dec 17 2012 05:34 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

1994? Kurt Cobain was already dead when this kid was born. Boy, am I old.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2012 06:33 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

E-mail from the Mets wrote: METS ACQUIRE TRAVIS D'ARNAUD, JOHN BUCK, NOAH SYNDERGAARD AND WUILMER BECERRA FROM TORONTO FOR R.A. DICKEY, JOSH THOLE AND MIKE NICKEAS The New York Mets today announced that they acquired catchers Travis d'Arnaud and John Buck, righthanded pitcher Noah Syndergaard and outfielder Wuilmer Becerra from the Toronto Blue Jays in exchange for righthanded pitcher R.A. Dickey and catchers Josh Thole and Mike Nickeas. TRAVIS D'ARNAUD (pronounced "DAR-no") The 23-year-old d'Arnaud was ranked by MLB.com as the 11th-best prospect in all of baseball and the best catching prospect this past September. The righthanded hitter batted .333 (93-279) with 45 runs scored, 21 doubles, two triples, 16 home runs and 52 RBI with a .380 on-base percentage in 67 games with Toronto's Triple-A affiliate, Las Vegas (AAA) of the Pacific Coast League, last season. The Long Beach, Calif. native missed the final two months of the season after suffering a tear to the posterior cruciate ligament of his left knee which did not require surgery. He was named the Eastern League's Most Valuable Player in 2011 after hitting .311 (132-424) with 72 runs scored, 33 doubles, 21 home runs and 78 RBI with a .371 on-base percentage with New Hampshire (AA). D'Arnaud also led the EL with a .542 slugging percentage and was named the league's best defensive catcher by EL managers. A former first-round compensation selection by Philadelphia in 2007, d'Arnaud was acquired by the Blue Jays in the trade that sent Roy Halladay to the Phillies in December, 2009. The 6-2, 195-pounder has hit .286 (523-1,828) with 133 doubles, 66 home runs, 289 RBI with a .343 on-base percentage and a .474 slugging percentage in six minor league seasons. D'Arnaud has been named to four minor league All-Star teams during that span and twice played in MLB's Futures Game. His older brother Chase is an infielder with the Pittsburgh Pirates. JOHN BUCK Buck, 32, has 48 home runs over the last three years (2010-2012), the third-most in the majors as a catcher behind Brian McCann (63) and Matt Wieters (53). The 6-2, 230-pounder also has 160 RBI while playing behind the plate, ranking sixth in the majors during that span. Buck was an All-Star in 2010 when he hit 20 home runs and drove in 66 runs for the Blue Jays. The Kemmerer, Wyo. native batted .192 (66-343) with 15 doubles, 12 home runs and 41 RBI in 106 games for the Miami Marlins last year. Buck has hit .235 (737-3,131) with 159 doubles, 118 home runs and 423 RBI during his nine-year career with the Royals, Blue Jays and Marlins. NOAH SYNDERGAARD (pronounced "Sin-Der-Guard") Syndergaard, 20, went 8-5 with a 2.60 ERA (30 earned runs/103.2 innings) and finished third in the Midwest League with 122 strikeouts in 27 games, 19 starts, for Lansing (A) in 2012. The 6-5, 200-pounder issued 31 walks and allowed three home runs while holding opponents to a .212 batting average. The Mansfield, Tex. native ended 2012 as the third-best prospect in the Blue Jays organization according to MLB.com. Syndergaard was Toronto's first round selection (38th overall) in the 2010 First-Year Player Draft. Syndergaard is 13-8 with a 2.35 ERA (46 earned runs/176.0 innings) and 196 strikeouts in 45 games, 35 starts in three minor league seasons. WUILMER BECERRA (pronounced "Wilmer Ba-Ser-ah") Becerra, 18, hit .250 (8-32) with four doubles and four RBI in 11 games with the rookie-level Gulf Coast Blue Jays last year. The 6-4, 190-pounder is the son of former St. Louis Cardinals scout and Venezuelan star Wilmer Becerra. Looks like Buck will sneak in ahead of Brandon Nimmo to become the first Mets player born in Wyoming. And d'Arnaud (the only player above not referred to as a "pounder") is now in a race with Matt den Dekker to be the first Met with a name that starts with a lower-case letter.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2012 06:37 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Oops -- I missed it. They're all "pounders".

themetfairy Dec 17 2012 08:01 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Swan Swan H wrote: 1994? Kurt Cobain was already dead when this kid was born. Boy, am I old. That makes him younger than my older son....

Nymr83 Dec 17 2012 08:19 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Keith Law also praised the Mets' haul here.

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2012 08:21 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

MLB players (off the top of my head) with a double-A in their names: Kirk Saarloos - he was the one and only with two double-vowels Moose Haas Jim Kaat there are probably others

Swan Swan H Dec 17 2012 08:24 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Frayed Knot wrote: MLB players (off the top of my head) with a double-A in their names: Kirk Saarloos - he was the one and only with two double-vowels Moose Haas Jim Kaat there are probably others Some dude named Henry, played for the Braves.

Frayed Knot Dec 17 2012 08:26 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 17 2012 08:31 PM

Swan Swan H wrote: MLB players (off the top of my head) with a double-A in their names: Kirk Saarloos - he was the one and only with two double-vowels Moose Haas Jim Kaat there are probably others Some dude named Henry, played for the Braves. Oh yeah, Tommy Aaron, I remember him. I think he had a brother who played too. David Aardsma too, now the first man in baseball alphabetically. Also one-time Met Don Aase

Ceetar Dec 17 2012 08:26 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Nymr83 wrote: Keith Law also praised the Mets' haul here. instantly makes me question it.

Gwreck Dec 17 2012 08:59 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Yeah, he has no idea whatsoever what he is talking about.

Ceetar Dec 17 2012 09:14 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Gwreck wrote: Yeah, he has no idea whatsoever what he is talking about. no, but his work is full of arrogance and smugness, and that makes me doubt the sincerity of most of his statements.

Edgy MD Dec 17 2012 11:47 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Interesting that Dickey gets $1 million less than the supposedly discounted package he was asking from the Mets.

Gwreck Dec 18 2012 06:27 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: Gwreck wrote: Yeah, he has no idea whatsoever what he is talking about. no, but his work is full of arrogance and smugness, and that makes me doubt the sincerity of most of his statements. With all due respect, this makes no logical sense. Even if your claims of "arrogance and smugness" were true (I'd ask for an example but how would one even prove that?), that still provides no basis for motive or justification for disregarding the analysis. "The sincerity of most of his statements?" What, is he being impolite? Or do you want to just come right out and say that he's making shit up?

Frayed Knot Dec 18 2012 07:00 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

More unusual seven-player trade oddity: - this deal where four of the seven players swapped are catchers? (d'Arnaud, Buck, Thole, Nickeas) or - the McReynolds to the Mets deal where four of the seven players were named Kevin? (Kevin McReynolds + Adam Ging and Gene Walter for Kevin Mitchell, Kevin Brown, Kevin Armstrong and Shawn Abner)

Ceetar Dec 18 2012 07:02 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

I think he has a bias, particularly I think he is particularly set in his ways and dismissive of information he doesn't agree with. I think that colors his work. I'm sure it's all fine work, but given that it's nature is speculative anyway, I put little credence into his opinions. (And this was his opinion based on his research, it's not like he wrote a 5 page post on the trade) Same way I feel about Rubin's holier than thou attitude and opinion. Bias and attitude colors it and nothing they do is unique or exclusive that i need to put up for it. So i'll continue to be dismissive of both of them.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2012 08:13 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

What ways is he set in? All folks who give their opinions will disagree with others who publish opinions. Does he write stuff like, "John Sickels is wrong because he's ALWAYS wrong, and I wish he'd change his shirt once in a while. The funk off of that guy --- GEEZ!"? All opinions about what will happen in the future are speculative.

MFS62 Dec 18 2012 08:16 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

A Toronto story of the negotiations. A long cup of coffee. http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/ ... cy-griffin Later

Ceetar Dec 18 2012 08:22 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Edgy MD wrote: What ways is he set in? All folks who give their opinions will disagree with others who publish opinions. Does he write stuff like, "John Sickels is wrong because he's ALWAYS wrong, and I wish he'd change his shirt once in a while. The funk off of that guy --- GEEZ!"? All opinions about what will happen in the future are speculative. Neither is my opinion on him fact. Simply my opinion. That's all. And I certainly have no interest in PAYING for his. It's worth nothing to me.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2012 08:48 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

It'd be nice if you shared something about what your opinion is based on, seeing as how you disparaged him and all.

The Second Spitter Dec 18 2012 08:59 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

The Dickey trade was briefly mentioned during a break in play in the cricket -- not sure if the point has been raised previously, but it was noted by one of the comms that Dickey relies on outdoor conditions more than most pitchers (Magnus effect, etc) but now he'll be pitching approximately half his games indoors.

Ceetar Dec 18 2012 09:01 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Edgy MD wrote: It'd be nice if you shared something about what your opinion is based on, seeing as how you disparaged him and all. why? Am I building a case against him or something? I'm not squirreling away evidence or saving tweets or links over the years. This is how I find him to be.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2012 09:08 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Because when you disparage a guy, you should be willing to back that up. I hope when somebody trashes you, he backs his opinion up with accounts of things you actually did and said.

Ceetar Dec 18 2012 09:11 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Edgy MD wrote: Because when you disparage a guy, you should be willing to back that up. I hope when somebody trashes you, he backs his opinion up with accounts of things you actually did and said. I'm fine with people disliking me. I'm fine with them stating so if someone links me in another forum. Free country and what not. It's just chatter, I'm not writing a freaking essay here. Keith Law's statements mean less than nothing to me. I don't need to justify that, it's an opinion.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2012 09:14 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

You don't need to justify any of your opinions. You just discredit yourself if you don't.

metsmarathon Dec 18 2012 09:22 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

if you felt his opinion is bunk, would you not wish to persuade me to see his opinion as the same? would not my seeing his opinion as bunk aid in furthering the quality of metly discussion both here and in the real world? ceetar says so doesn't quite do it, but a good persuasive argument might. i'd hate to keep on being led astray by keith law if i don't have to be.

Ceetar Dec 18 2012 09:29 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Edgy MD wrote: You don't need to justify any of your opinions. You just discredit yourself if you don't. you are welcome to read and respect Keith Law. I wasn't trying to tell you you shouldn't, just that I don't. I'm not trying to discredit him just stating my opinion that I find the source distasteful. I tend to completely avoid these types of people, not work to discredit them. If people have good things to write, they get out. Specifically, I don't need his stamp of approval on the trade. I could say "Hey, John Meyer thinks the Mets trade was groovy!" but that's just another collection of opinion. relatedly, I also don't need Rubin's anonymous scouts saying things like: I usually criticize the Mets, but this time I'm going to give it a thumbs up! Clearly because I normally attack them, my praise must carry more meaning! or Rubin tweeting how weird it is to get texts praising the Mets.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2012 09:34 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: You don't need to justify any of your opinions. You just discredit yourself if you don't. you are welcome to read and respect Keith Law. I wasn't trying to tell you you shouldn't, just that I don't. I know what I'm free to do. Ceetar wrote: I'm not trying to discredit him just stating my opinion that I find the source distasteful. I tend to completely avoid these types of people, not work to discredit them. If people have good things to write, they get out. I used the word "discredit" to refer to what you brought on yourself. But of course you were trying to discredit him.

Ceetar Dec 18 2012 09:39 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You don't need to justify any of your opinions. You just discredit yourself if you don't. you are welcome to read and respect Keith Law. I wasn't trying to tell you you shouldn't, just that I don't. I know what I'm free to do. I'm not trying to discredit him just stating my opinion that I find the source distasteful. I tend to completely avoid these types of people, not work to discredit them. If people have good things to write, they get out. I used the word "discredit" to refer to what you brought on yourself. But of course you were trying to discredit him. only in the binary sense. Take a poll, "Do you respect Keith Law" I'm voting no. I'm not sure why this needs a debate.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 18 2012 09:42 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

I wish I had some pizza.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2012 09:43 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Now I do, too.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 18 2012 11:38 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Ceetar wrote: I'm voting no. I'm not sure why this needs a debate. 'Cause we like to talk about things, instead of just saying things at each other.

metsmarathon Dec 18 2012 11:45 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

i wish i knew why ceetar didn't respect keith law's opinions. because then maybe i could not respect keith law's opinions as well.

metirish Dec 18 2012 11:51 AM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Not even Keith Law could dissect the handbags going on in this thread.

Swan Swan H Dec 18 2012 12:08 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Enough, already. All this Keith Law talk is keeping Ceetar from finding some pervy pictures of Collin Cowgill's girlfriend.

Ceetar Dec 18 2012 12:08 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Swan Swan H wrote: Enough, already. All this Keith Law talk is keeping Ceetar from finding some pervy pictures of Collin Cowgill's girlfriend. fair point, I just got back from lunch. Waiting on my boss* to get back to me on something, so might as well..

TransMonk Dec 18 2012 12:13 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

What we got back was more than I was expecting for RA when the season ended. I am very happy and ready to move forward.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2012 02:08 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

Mets have a media conference call going with John Buck, Travis d'Arnaud, and Noah Homophaab. Wuilmer Becerra suspiciously absent.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2012 02:10 PM Re: The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

They don't get to show up at Citi Field for the ceremonial uniform unveiling? They did it for Chin-lung Hu, but not for these guys?