Master Index of Archived Threads


Are we considered "rebuilding?"

41Forever Aug 31 2017 12:48 PM

I saw some story advancing the Reds series as being between two "rebuilding" teams. I was struck by that because we started the season as legitimate World Series contenders. I think of rebuilding teams as being bad teams that are starting over. Is that what we are at this point? I like to think that our season was sunk because of a devastating -- and on-going -- string of injuries to key pieces. And that, once healthy, we are back to being World Series contenders again. Is that the case? We've traded away our center fielder, our right fielder, our first baseman, our second baseman, our main setup guy who became the de facto closer, and the back-up catcher who was the personal catcher for our best pitcher. I know they all had expiring contracts -- and we have two top prospects at short and first. But that's a lot of talent walking out the door. Our biggest strength is the rotation, with four of the five starters on the shelf. As we head into 2018, are we still a strong team that is looking to upgrade in a few areas, or are we preparing for a complete overhaul, which usually includes several years of sucking? What do you think?

MFS62 Aug 31 2017 01:23 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

We'll have a better idea when we know who the GM will be next year. Later

Edgy MD Aug 31 2017 01:23 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

I tend to go for evolution over revolution, but the "once healthy" phrase becomes more tenuous every day. Wright looks likely to never be healthy again, Harvey has been mostly broken three of the last four years and may never again be whole, Syndergaard and Familia need to show something before the end of the season to give anybody any confidence, and in the meantime, Bruce and Granderson and Walker and Rivera and Duda have been dealt off. There are in-house options at most of these spots, and while I'm confident the team will enter 2018 with an attitude toward contention, something new is likely to appear over the near horizon.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 31 2017 01:53 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

I think the plan is to bounce back and contend again in 2018. Whether it works out that way, of course, remains to be seen.

Frayed Knot Aug 31 2017 02:10 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Does it really matter how some headline writer opts to label it? The Mets were in a situation where they were going to have to replace a bunch of their position players over this winter no matter how things went, the bad season simply moved up that timetable a few months. I don't really care if one wants to call their upcoming changes this off-season as a rebuilding, a restructuring, a reloading, a re-tweaking, or a whatever.

dgwphotography Aug 31 2017 02:15 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

We were never a strong team this year. This team was built on strong starting pitching with no team speed and questionable at best defense. Hardly a recipe for success.

Edgy MD Aug 31 2017 02:18 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Recasting! Rearranging! Redecorating! Revamping! Repositioning! Rebranding! Relafording! Retooling! Restaffing! Reestablishing! Recapitulating! Reckoning!

41Forever Aug 31 2017 02:24 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Frayed Knot wrote: Does it really matter how some headline writer opts to label it? The Mets were in a situation where they were going to have to replace a bunch of their position players over this winter no matter how things went, the bad season simply moved up that timetable a few months. I don't really care if one wants to call their upcoming changes this off-season as a rebuilding, a restructuring, a reloading, a re-tweaking, or a whatever. I was less concerned about the headline writer and more with our own expectations. Can we reasonably expect to contend, or should we expect several years of sucking? That's where I was going.

d'Kong76 Aug 31 2017 02:29 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Decisions made from desperation / no way to go [youtube:243psdec]rmUMvxVia84[/youtube:243psdec]

MFS62 Aug 31 2017 03:29 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Did you all forget reinventing? Later

Frayed Knot Aug 31 2017 03:38 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

41Forever wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Does it really matter how some headline writer opts to label it? The Mets were in a situation where they were going to have to replace a bunch of their position players over this winter no matter how things went, the bad season simply moved up that timetable a few months. I don't really care if one wants to call their upcoming changes this off-season as a rebuilding, a restructuring, a reloading, a re-tweaking, or a whatever. I was less concerned about the headline writer and more with our own expectations. Can we reasonably expect to contend, or should we expect several years of sucking? That's where I was going. To be determined.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 31 2017 03:43 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

I always think they can contend if enough things go right, though as mentioned already there is considerable change ahead including a new manager most likely and the expectations of the Mets (by everyone) will be negatively impacted by this season. What I worry about is the prospect of other teams getting better to the point where if things go right for them they're a contender too.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 31 2017 04:30 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

I have no idea what the point of this thread is. All I know is that Frayed Knot is on fire and killing it in here. If the Mets can maintain a 90 win pace next year, they're contending. If they can't win half their games, they're not. Who the hell knows what's gonna happen? Going in, everybody thought 2015 was gonna be another pathetic Madoff ravaged season and nobody imagined that this season, the Mets would finish under .500, out of it before Memorial Day. Davey Johnson's Mets were supposed to win five pennants, but most of the time, they couldn't even make the playoffs.

Ceetar Aug 31 2017 05:13 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Maybe the market wasn't there, but they DIDN'T trade deGrom. That's the surest sign that they intend to need top flight SP in the near future. If Amed Smith are real major leaguers, the Mets will be in a pretty good spot.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 31 2017 05:43 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Trading for AJ Ramos to bolster the 2018 bullpen is also a sign that they're not in "rebuild" mode.

41Forever Aug 31 2017 06:16 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I have no idea what the point of this thread is. All I know is that Frayed Knot is on fire and killing it in here. If the Mets can maintain a 90 win pace next year, they're contending. If they can't win half their games, they're not. Who the hell knows what's gonna happen? Going in, everybody thought 2015 was gonna be another pathetic Madoff ravaged season and nobody imagined that this season, the Mets would finish under .500, out of it before Memorial Day. Davey Johnson's Mets were supposed to win five pennants, but most of the time, they couldn't even make the playoffs. Guess I didn't think it was that difficult. Rebuilding teams are generally considered a few years and a few players away. Other teams are built to win now. Do we -- at this moment -- think that our team is trying to win next year, or do we think that are we looking at a couple bad years before we are in the hunt again. That's all. Yes, come next June, we'll have a better idea.

Frayed Knot Aug 31 2017 06:32 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Re: Ceetar's point, if the Mets (as was suggested in several spots) had traded deGrom based on the reasoning that they have "only" three years of control left on him and saw no hope of competing during that time so you might as well get what you can for him now, then THAT would have been a clear signal that they were in blow it up and start all over mode in which case JdG probably would have been just the first of several younger players auctioned off. But, again, the only players they dealt were the ones they were likely to cut ties with anyway and the only thing that changed was the timetable.

41Forever Aug 31 2017 06:37 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Frayed Knot wrote: Re: Ceetar's point, if the Mets (as was suggested in several spots) had traded deGrom based on the reasoning that they have "only" three years of control left on him and saw no hope of competing during that time so you might as well get what you can for him now, then THAT would have been a clear signal that they were in blow it up and start all over mode in which case JdG probably would have been just the first of several younger players auctioned off. But, again, the only players they dealt were the ones they were likely to cut ties with anyway and the only thing that changed was the timetable. Good points.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 31 2017 09:52 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

41Forever wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I have no idea what the point of this thread is. All I know is that Frayed Knot is on fire and killing it in here. If the Mets can maintain a 90 win pace next year, they're contending. If they can't win half their games, they're not. Who the hell knows what's gonna happen? Going in, everybody thought 2015 was gonna be another pathetic Madoff ravaged season and nobody imagined that this season, the Mets would finish under .500, out of it before Memorial Day. Davey Johnson's Mets were supposed to win five pennants, but most of the time, they couldn't even make the playoffs. Guess I didn't think it was that difficult. Rebuilding teams are generally considered a few years and a few players away. Other teams are built to win now. Do we -- at this moment -- think that our team is trying to win next year, or do we think that are we looking at a couple bad years before we are in the hunt again. That's all. Yes, come next June, we'll have a better idea. I can't imagine anyone that thinks the Mets would be in a rebuild (teardown). The Mets have three pitchers with Cy Young caliber ceilings (Matz, Degrom and Syndergaard). Granted, they're accumulating serious injuries more than they're accumulating Cy Young seasons, but still. There's too much upside potential there. Cespedes hits like an MVP when healthy. And Conforto had his breakout season, establishing himself as a star. He's no fluke either. He was a high draft pick and most experts gave him a more than likely chance to develop into a potent hitter. So there's plenty of pieces here already, before you even get into the future potential of Smith and Rosario. Besides, I don't think ownership has even half the balls it would need to go into a teardown rebuild mode. And it takes big balls to go into a rebuild mode, especially in New York, and especially with this team's mostly sorry recent history. If it had those balls, David Wright would have never been re-signed. Sandy could have flipped Wright for a minor league superstud if the Mets let him.

d'Kong76 Aug 31 2017 10:49 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And it takes big balls to go into a rebuild mode, especially in New York, and especially with this team's mostly sorry recent history. Well, they were in The World Series less than two years ago. Unless you mean that the outcome was mostly sorry as well. In baseball years, less than two isn't all that long ago. Also, why is the seen "story" which led to 'being struck by' and 'liking to think' and 'is that the case' not simply shared for all to see? It's frustrating, and then it's suggested we not be concerned with the writer but rather what do we think? It's maddening! 41Forever wrote: Can we reasonably expect to contend, or should we expect several years of sucking? Yes.

41Forever Sep 01 2017 12:17 AM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And it takes big balls to go into a rebuild mode, especially in New York, and especially with this team's mostly sorry recent history. Well, they were in The World Series less than two years ago. Unless you mean that the outcome was mostly sorry as well. In baseball years, less than two isn't all that long ago. Also, why is the seen "story" which led to 'being struck by' and 'liking to think' and 'is that the case' not simply shared for all to see? It's frustrating, and then it's suggested we not be concerned with the writer but rather what do we think? It's maddening! 41Forever wrote: Can we reasonably expect to contend, or should we expect several years of sucking? Yes. Did you think I was making it up, Kong? [url]https://www.redreporter.com/2017/8/29/16222668/reds-vs-mets-game-1-previews-and-predictions Sorry, Kong. Didn't mean to offend again. I thought it was a legitimate point to discuss. Never mind.

d'Kong76 Sep 01 2017 12:23 AM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Not offended, the again was unnecessary and it's being discussed.

Edgy MD Sep 01 2017 12:46 AM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Today's game made me feel like un-building.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 01 2017 01:27 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Every game feels like a reckoning lately. Or at least a terrible defensive carnival of sorts.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 01 2017 06:36 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

41Forever wrote: Guess I didn't think it was that difficult. Rebuilding teams are generally considered a few years and a few players away. Other teams are built to win now. Do we -- at this moment -- think that our team is trying to win next year, or do we think that are we looking at a couple bad years before we are in the hunt again. That's all. Yes, come next June, we'll have a better idea. Not trying to be difficult. I think the Mets are always trying to win, no matter what the composition of the team. Like I said, if they re-signed Wright at the low point of the Madoff era with every sign pretty much indicating that they were at least three seasons away from being competitive, then they don't have the temperament for a rebuild, which I don't think is necessary anyway at this moment. The Wilpon Mets have always been slaves to their fans worst instincts, always too preoccupied with the zeitgeist, and always reacting to it in the worst ways possible. Look at Rey Ordonez, for example. He might be the worst hitter to ever come across in our lifetimes, yet the Mets let him accumulate about 3,000 plate appearances and embarked on a ridiculous years-long media campaign to push the unsupportable idea that he was more asset than liability, pushing the boundaries of credulity to suggest that more than just an asset, Ordonez was some kind of superstar. Hitters as dreadful as Ordonez are always coming across. Hitting a major league baseball is hard, even for a major leaguer. But those bad hitters, after a few months of that kind of ineptitude, get their asses stapled to the bench and some time shortly thereafter, they're back in the minors riding the buses. You know when the Mets finally got rid of Ordonez? Not when they realized how crappy of a player he was (if they ever did). No. They got rid of him because he called the fanbase "stupid". That's the Wilpon Mets in a nutshell. How good will the Mets be? How would you, or anybody, have answered this question in September of 1968?

Benjamin Grimm Sep 01 2017 06:44 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

I never bought in to Rey Ordonez. To me, he was a black hole in their lineup. Innings where 7-8-9 were due up were pretty much assured to be dead innings. I remember people saying, after the 2000 season, "The Mets don't need Alex Rodriguez because they have Rey Ordonez." To which I could only think, "HUH???" Anyway, I don't think it's a knock on the Mets that they don't go into full rebuild mode. They should try to win every year. I just wish they were better at it.

Zvon Sep 01 2017 09:01 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Anyway, I don't think it's a knock on the Mets that they don't go into full rebuild mode. They should try to win every year. I just wish they were better at it. Lol, this^. Any stats on how many runs Rey-Rey saved with his slick fielding? I loved the glove even then, and I loved to see Ordonez make those flashy plays, but I was fully aware of his "no bat" status. It didn't effect me as bad as it should have, being a fan from the Buddy Harrelson days. I thought we could carry him. Eventually I realized that Ordonez was 10 times worse than Buddy at the plate (who was no slouch) and he began to sour in my view. I enjoyed watching his fielding prowess but when he came to the dish it was "I'm gonna go get me a beer" time.

41Forever Sep 02 2017 02:01 AM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

[youtube:1d41bg68]Oget-BRY97M[/youtube:1d41bg68] Rey couldn't hit a lick, but I love to watch him in the field. Three Gold Gloves, the error-less game streak, and a huge highlight reel.

Ceetar Sep 02 2017 11:57 AM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Zvon wrote: Any stats on how many runs Rey-Rey saved with his slick fielding? Didn't get Defensive Runs Saved stats until 2002 and it lists 0 there, so I'm not sure how accurate that is. His Def score on Fangraphs had him at 18.4 that year for a total of fWAR of 0.8 accounting for offense (so net positive, but barely) The only year he was actually good was 1999 when it has him at 3 fWAR. That was good for the 9th highest among SS behind Mark Grudzielanek

Edgy MD Sep 02 2017 01:31 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

I think one day, perhaps soon, we'll be able to apply modern ball-in-play technology to archival film and video and get a good idea how good our defensive performers of yesterday were or weren't.

HahnSolo Sep 02 2017 06:15 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I remember people saying, after the 2000 season, "The Mets don't need Alex Rodriguez because they have Rey Ordonez." Wow I don't remember that at all. The mongos in Met nation were all over signing ARod, plus they were coming off a pennant with Mike FReaking Bordick playing SS down the stretch. I recall very few people pining for Ordonez over ARod.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 02 2017 06:22 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

I was on Team Ordonez. My optimism got the better of me, but my thought was, he's got the ability to get better offensively and would remain good defensively. But neither thing happened. Plus A-Rod turned out to be a fraud and a burden on every team that had him.

Ceetar Sep 03 2017 12:58 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I was on Team Ordonez. My optimism got the better of me, but my thought was, he's got the ability to get better offensively and would remain good defensively. But neither thing happened. Plus A-Rod turned out to be a fraud and a burden on every team that had him. meh, I mean, there IS an argument that they should've have spent that type of money on one player, but they were coming off a WS and do probably at least make the playoffs with A-Rod in 2001. That income pays for A-Rod, especially if they could've maintained it into 2002-2003. And A-Rod was definitely worth it for the Yankees (And the Mariners) and wasn't really any more of a fraud than anyone else. Imagine a world where the A-Rod led Mets destroy the Yankees in the WS and the entire 2002 season is framed as a potential Subway Series rubber game? (on the other hand, there may have been an untold amount of violence at the interleague subway series in 2002 if that happened) Hell, imagine the sickening syrupy prose in which a 2001 Subway Series is "healing" New York. Join us as we rage against the idiot national media who suggest we don't care who wins.

Frayed Knot Sep 03 2017 01:36 PM Re: Are we considered "rebuilding?"

Rey's situation was a bit like Lagares's a couple years back: a superior defensive player at a premium position seemingly on the rise. In 1999, Ordonez was (thought to be) 24 y/o was coming off his 4th Gold Glove and, while still at the low end of the offensive scale, did manage to raise his OPS by 59 points over the previous season which was itself of 67 point jump over the one before and he was rewarded with a four year contract buying out his arbitration years. I think there was also a subtle signal by GM Phillips in that deal and a similar one given to Armando around the same time towards the just traded for/FA-to-be Mike Hampton: we're making this a good place for you to stick around by taking care of both the defense and the back end of the games behind you. Problem was that two months into the deal Ordonez had aged two years (when his real DOB was revealed), was backsliding with the bat, had mysteriously lost his defensive magic, was lost for the season with a broken arm. He'd never recover even the hint of what he once (briefly) was. Lagares got his Gold Glove in 2014 at age 25 the same year he upped his rookie year OPS by 70 points and got a five year (plus option) deal out of it. Juan hasn't lost much if anything defensively but, like Ordonez, his hitting hasn't progressed the way they hoped and now he's in a situation where his contract calls for him to be the full-time player that he's yet to prove he can be.