Master Index of Archived Threads


Leaving the Nest

Centerfield Dec 02 2022 10:05 PM

Thinking where deGrom ranks in terms of gut wrenching free agent departures of home grown Mets. Immediately jumps near the top of the list. deGrom. Strawberry. Reyes. Wheeler. A little drunk. I'm sure I'm missing a ton.

Edgy MD Dec 02 2022 11:34 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Not a ton, necessarily, but a ton of Syndergaard. Obviously, his home-growniness is asterisked, as is Wheeler's, having started with a different organization but joining as minor leaguers. I don't know how gut-wrenching Alfonzo's exit was for other folks, as the Mets sort of walked away from negotiations on that one. I didn't like it, though. No sir. Muffy? How about Muffy?

G-Fafif Dec 03 2022 05:35 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Alfonzo to SF was the killer for me. Cooled my Met ardor for a year-plus. Blamed management rather than the player. I was pretty sore about Reyes leaving from a Wilpon perspective. Couldn't fully enjoy the early surge of 2012 without him; watching 2015 highlights felt incomplete without my mentally photoshopping him in for a while. They were my two favorite position players ever, Nos. 3 and 4 in my personal pantheon behind Tom and Doc. When Jose retired, I decided I was done having a Favorite Player, but allowed deGrom to nominally fill that role the last few years. Jacob's departure feels like Straw's: just business, no matter how stunning it is from a strict "but he's a Met!" instinct.

roger_that Dec 03 2022 06:01 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

=G-Fafif post_id=113757 time=1670070922 user_id=55] Alfonzo to SF was the killer for me. Cooled my Met ardor for a year-plus. Blamed management rather than the player.

I loved Fonzie too, but ya gotta admit they let him go at exactly the right moment in his career. He became the Giants' Jason Bey and Carlos Baerga put together.

Johnny Lunchbucket Dec 03 2022 06:23 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

deGrom is like Strawberry most. Darryl left with a more obvious chip on his shoulder is the only difference. I think Cohen will go nuts to replace him though, hopefully not Bonilla Nuts

G-Fafif Dec 03 2022 06:31 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

I'd have preferred they'd moved on from Alomar at exactly the right moment in his career and declined his option for 2003, allowing Fonzie to glide back to second where he would have partnered with and mentored young Jose and made the Met version of the Places in the Heart montage wherein everybody who died on Sally Field comes back to life and sings together in church whether or not they were harmonious or even knew each other in life a reality. Not a great signing for the Giants, as they didn't really get classic Edgardo, though in 2003, once he stopped pressing to prove he was worth his contract, he provided sufficient protection for Bonds en route to SF's division title. Then again, Fonzie's decline and how it might have played out if he'd stayed with the inevitably crummy Mets of that period is covered by my "I don't care" card. I used to be friends with somebody who'd end every discussion of how the Mets were ultimately better off not being stuck with this or that player's contract with "I don't care." It's a handy card to carry.

smg58 Dec 03 2022 07:07 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

The loss of Strawberry marked the clear end of an era. As sad as I am to see Jake go, I don't think that's the case here. While I was mad about both Reyes and Fonzie, in hindsight they were both let go at the right time. I'm angrier about Wheeler in hindsight. He's pitched better for the Phillies than I would have thought. Thor, like deGrom, was given an unreasonable offer from somebody else that he was better off taking. It would be more of a gut punch if I thought the Mets weren't trying (see Reyes and Alfonzo), but I was a lot more ready to move on from Thor than I am from Jake.

MFS62 Dec 03 2022 07:21 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Olerud leaving for the M's was the first one that came to mind. Later

Edgy MD Dec 03 2022 07:36 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

I have an I Don't Care card too. It's funny how these lamentations suggest most of us have such a card of varying degrees of effectiveness, but Muffy gets no play in this thread, despite (1) leaving under the designation of He's a Met. He just is. (as Lunchie put it at the time), and (2) turning into a no-doubt All Star and MVP candidate for a few years after initially leaving. Lamentations are stronger for the guy who left and declined than for the guy who left and improved. I'm not sure what that means, except perhaps that I Don't Care cards are powerful talismans that require further study.

Frayed Knot Dec 03 2022 11:34 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

- Strawberry was the one guy in this group that I said FU to upon leaving. IIRC the Mets offered to make him the 2nd highest paid player in MLB at that point (behind only the already sour smelling contract of Jose Canseco) but Straw acted as if he was being insulted (he did that a lot) and pouted his way to LA only to have two teams give up on him before that four-year contract ended. That the 'Worst Team Money Can Buy' writers lamented his departure and used it (over and over again) as the cause of the team's downfall didn't make it so. They were just lamenting his ability to fill their notebooks in the same way gossip sheets today would mourn the loss of the Kardashians. The bigger problem was that, instead of trying to fill Straw's hole "in the aggregate" -- as Billy Beane (allegedly) said concerning the loss of Giambi -- Phillips/Wilpon sought to replace Strawberry in terms of pr by hoping that 'stealing' away a club nemesis would lessen the sting. - Fonzie signed a four year deal with the Mets and was great for the first two then increasingly lousy after that. As much as I loved him as a player, not re-signing him was the right move AND it looked that way at the time to those who wanted to see it. - Reyes hurt more. IIRC it was an odd contract he signed w/Miami (very backloaded ... plus they flat out lied to him about their intentions) and obviously closest to the D.R. so maybe it was inevitable. But it also didn't appear that the club made much of an effort. - Olerud gets away from the construct of 'home-grown' players but that's OK. I think this was the most short-sighted one as GM Phillips, while he didn't quite site RBIs as a be-all standard for a #3 hitter, did use vague phrases about JO's 'lack of aggressiveness' and dearth of 'run producing' which pretty much painted him as clueless to the value of OBA and to the general analytic revolution that was swirling all around him at the time. - Wheeler was shortsighted too although one suspects those excuses were merely covering for 'we didn't want to spend the money' as the 'Pons tried to recover from Madoff and were coming to grips with the realization that they were going to have to sell the team.

roger_that Dec 03 2022 12:45 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Consider (or re-consider) my thesis: imagine if the Mets had dealt off each of their Big Young Five (deGrom, Harvey, Syndergaard, Matz, Wheeler) after their best seasons with the team. The sky's the limit for what each of them would have brought in return, close to an entire power-packed lineup's worth of value to the right (pitching-desperate) club. My thesis goes that pitchers are fragile, and often seem to promise more than they're capable, physically, of delivering, often (usually?) coming down with career-ending arm injuries in their late twenties. Yes, we would have gotten killed if we'd dealt off deGrom, but at his unhittable, yet affordable, peak we could have gotten a few amazing hitters in return for him. And we would have gotten away with murder swapping out Harvey, Matz, and Thor at their peaks when they were perceived by some as Cooperstown bound. ALWAYS TRADE PITCHING FOR HITTING. To do otherwise is to display greed and short-sightedness.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 03 2022 02:02 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Like Seaver for Henderson, Norman and Flynn.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 03 2022 02:03 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Or Ryan for Fregosi.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 03 2022 02:04 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

I'm sure the Royals were thrilled to have traded Cone for Hearn.

Edgy MD Dec 03 2022 02:14 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Indeed, any of those players could have brought a big package, and any of those packages could have produced well or poorly. One of the many reason to reject the entire philosophy behind trading. In our minds, we can always get more value. In reality, there's another smart party who doesn't want that to happen, and many vagaries of fate trying to screw you both. It's a coin flip at best, and a sophisticated, scientific way of running your organization shouldn't involve coin flips.

roger_that Dec 03 2022 02:31 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: Indeed, any of those players could have brought a big package, and any of those packages could have produced well or poorly. Of course. Goes without saying, you can get burned on any type of deal. Burned badly on occasion. But as a principle, hitters are more durable than pitchers, generally and over the long run. If you consistently trade pitching at the point it's valued the highest (and of course if you know which hitters to trade for, which also goes without saying--I'm not advocating making colossally dumb trades on principle) you will make out like a bandit in the long run. And of course, as stated, you need to find trading partners desperate for good pitching, and to have good pitching to trade. There are teams that overvalue pitching. Right now, I'd say that the Rangers are overvaluing deGrom, for example. He could provide value by winning 100 games for them over the next five years, and if you asked them, they would probably be hoping for upwards of 50 wins from deGrom for certain. But the Mets are saying, in effect, that's pretty unlikely, and their resources are better directed elsewhere. Hitters are more valuable, but not all organizations agree. The Mets would do well to take advantage of such organizations.

roger_that Dec 03 2022 02:34 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

The Mets did well, in the main, by holding onto deGrom this long, and they would have done well to hang onto Wheeler, it looks like. But you never know who's going to remain valuable and who is not, which is why I think they would have done very well to trade all five whenever they could have gotten top value in return

batmagadanleadoff Dec 03 2022 02:37 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

If trading's a coin flip, then I guess so is drafting. Me, I'm against absolute and inflexible rules that say you should always do this or never do that. I mean, it's pretty easy to pick out a pitcher's peak and thus, the optimal time to trade him 10 or 15 years after the fact. And as to your emotional but intellectually illogical attachment to all Mets just because they're Mets, such that you think they should never be traded, all I can say is that if the Mets drafted as little as a tenth as effective as you seem to think they draft, they'd be winning the pennant every single season.

Frayed Knot Dec 03 2022 02:57 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

[Typical Fan]Trade PlayerX for a buncha prospects while we've got the chance!!!![/fan] Five years later: [Fan]I didn't mean THOSE prospects!!![/fan]

Edgy MD Dec 03 2022 03:50 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

I'm against drafting also. But drafting is the law of the land. If hitters are more durable than pitchers, then trading partners probably know that.

roger_that Dec 03 2022 05:16 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: trading partners probably know that. Some know it better than others. Some, in dire need of starting pitching, override their better instincts, and smart teams will take advantage of that fact. When the Mets had five young aces, they were in a good position to take advantage of that fact. Now those five aces are all gone and they don't have much to show for having had them.

Edgy MD Dec 03 2022 09:06 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Well, apart from the ambiguity in the term "ace," they have a whole bunch of wins, three playoff appearances, a pennant, and a lot of good times. A LOT of good times. They also have Nick Morabito, Isaiah Greene, and a compensation pick this June. Plus, there's a significant amount of Matz DNA still floating through Khalil Lee's body.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 03 2022 10:26 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: trading partners probably know that. Some know it better than others. Give me a break, already. Pretty much everybody knows that hitters are more predictable, more consistent, more reliable and more dependable than pitchers. Certainly, everybody in MLB upper management. Could you spare us with these every other week posts you write about how you invented some idea or doctrine or "thesis" when all you're doing is rehashing the most obvious of baseball principles and passing it off as brilliant insight?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 03 2022 10:40 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy kinda beat me to this, but those pitchers led a Madoff-scandal ravaged and laughing stock baseball team that came out of nowhere and got to the World Series. (Those pitchers and Cespedes playing Babe Ruth for about a month and a half). Two of those pitchers were rookies. deGrom was a sophomore in his first full season. And Harvey had missed the season and a half preceeding the 2015 campaign. They were all essentially newbies. So you would've traded them all for different newbies? Is that what you're saying?

roger_that Dec 04 2022 05:47 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: Well, apart from the ambiguity in the term "ace," they have a whole bunch of wins, three playoff appearances, a pennant, and a lot of good times. A LOT of good times. They also have Nick Morabito, Isaiah Greene, and a compensation pick this June. Plus, there's a significant amount of Matz DNA still floating through Khalil Lee's body. Yeah, I know all that (we do get TV broadcasts down here), and I also understand the ambiguity (and the conciseness) in the three-letter word "ace" to summarize five very different pitchers, but my point remains: the Mets have, in retrospect, overvalued these five pitchers, held on to most of them beyond the point that they could bring real value in exchange, and would be in much better shape if they had systematically adhered to the position that pitchers are fragile and dangerous to build around. True (and obvious) they wouldn't have won those three playoff appearances and that pennant, but they could have won five pennants and maybe some World Series if they'd swapped them out at their peaks of value, so your argument is perhaps less devastating than you think. I'm not looking to rob you, Edgy, of your fond memories of the good times--rather, I'm trying to show that, with a different philosophy and sharper evaluation of the value of bright young pitching stars, you may very well have had better memories of the past five years. I do find it amusing that some in this exchange are challenging my thesis (of trading young pitching off good years for hitting) as being widely known in the baseball world (and so useless as a strategy) while others are challenging the fact that there's a shred of truth to it--the combination effectively refutes its uselessness, since I'm not claiming that no one is unaware of it, just that some teams perceive it more powerfully than others, meaning you should offer pitching to the teams that need it most severely and/or buy into the thesis less.

Edgy MD Dec 04 2022 07:39 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Some?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 04 2022 12:21 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

I do find it amusing that some in this exchange are challenging my thesis (of trading young pitching off good years for hitting) as being widely known in the baseball world (and so useless as a strategy) .... Me, I'm just noting the blowhardiness aspect of your post -- that it's your "thesis" -- that you imply that you invented this idea or thought of it first. I'm not challenging the as you say "usefullness of the idea. Just pointing out that any reasonably on-the-ball baseball fan and everybody in MLB upper management already knew this a long time ago and that all things equal, a hitter is preferable to a pitcher because a hitter is more predictable, more consistent. But are things ever equal given that a healthy pitcher has way more of an impact over his team's fortunes than a healthy hitter does over the course of a season? A healthy everyday playing position player will get about 700 PA's per season while a healthy starter will face about 800 or even 900 batters per season. This discrepancy was even more pronounced back in Tom Seaver's Mets days when pitchers threw more innings than they do today. Batters back then had about the same number of PA's as they do now but everyday healthy starting pitchers faced 1,200, 1,3000 and even 1,400 batters per season. Mickey Lolich, in 1971, faced 1538 batters. Pitchers were so much more valuable than hitters back then that they should've won their league's MVP awards way more often. There's a reason why good starting pitchers are generally more coveted than good position players. What exactly is it that you're suggesting in your "thesis"? That a team trade away all of its young pitching? Or to trade pitchers when they're no good anymore? (There's a huge market for washed up pitchers, I suppose. And a really good washed up pitcher could yield a team an Aaron Judge or a Barry Bonds in his prime. Is that what you're saying?) Or maybe a team needs a Delorean time machine to effectively implement your "thesis"? Because if I had one of those, I would've traded Matt Harvey about a month before it was discovered that he sustained an injury that would lead Harvey to opt for season ending TJ surgery. And if I really worked that time machine, I coulda sent Harvey back to 1992 and traded him for Barry Bonds and then flew Bonds back to 2013 to play for the Mets. Or maybe I'd have Bonds on the 2000 Mets and then maybe they beat the Yanks in that year's series. That's my thesis. I thought of it first. It's a brilliant idea. If I owned the Mets and head read your "thesis" years ago, woulda traded these pitchers as soon as this magazine cover hit the stands. [FIMG=333]https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/vloAAOSwF~VhwkM1/s-l1600.jpg[/FIMG]

MFS62 Dec 04 2022 12:56 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Pitcher or hitter? It depends. This discussion reminds me of the comment "Good pitching will always stop good hitting" It is widely attributed to Casey Stengel or Yogi Berra, but was actually said by Pirate pitcher Bob Veale in 1966 who added "and vice versa". https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/good_pitching_will_always_stop_good_hitting Later

batmagadanleadoff Dec 04 2022 01:08 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Pitcher or hitter? It depends. This discussion reminds me of the comment "Good pitching will always stop good hitting" Intuitively, I'd say that that comment's true. I know that watching the prime of Tom Seaver, I felt that the Mets could beat any team on the days that Seaver started. And they usually did. I know that the odds-makers recognize this notion that good pitching beats good hitting because baseball is the only sport that I can think of where the worst team in the league can be favored to beat the best team in the league, depending on the pitching match-ups. The 1988 Mets were the best team in baseball but came up short in their quest for the NL pennant because they couldn't get past an Orel Hershiser who was historically great in 1988. And if the Astros could've won just one playoff game that wasn't started by Mike Scott, there very likely wouldn't have been a Mets-Red Sox WS because at the end of the '86 season, Scott was unhittable. The Mets prevailed over the Astros probably because Scott pitched only two playoff games. The Mets were the better team but Scott was Koufaxian.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 04 2022 01:24 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Pitcher or hitter? It depends. This discussion reminds me of the comment "Good pitching will always stop good hitting" Intuitively, I'd say that that comment's true. I know that watching the prime of Tom Seaver, I felt that the Mets could beat any team on the days that Seaver started. And they usually did. I know that the odds-makers recognize this notion that good pitching beats good hitting because baseball is the only sport that I can think of where the worst team in the league can be favored to beat the best team in the league, depending on the pitching match-ups. The 1988 Mets were the best team in baseball but came up short in their quest for the NL pennant because they couldn't get past an Orel Hershiser who was historically great in 1988. And if the Astros could've won just one playoff game that wasn't started by Mike Scott, there very likely wouldn't have been a Mets-Red Sox WS because at the end of the '86 season, Scott was unhittable. The Mets prevailed over the Astros probably because Scott pitched only two playoff games. The Mets were the better team but Scott was Koufaxian. And I thought of another great thesis while I wrote that post above: my thesis is to trade all of my crappy players for superstars. Isn't that brilliant? James Mccann for Mike Trout! Yoan Lopez for Mookie Betts! I'm gonna have a moratorium to polish up my thesis, now. Then, I'll see if I could sell my thesis idea to Steve Cohen. Don't nobody here try and steal my thesis idea. Youse know I thought of it first.

G-Fafif Dec 04 2022 01:37 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

The Dodgers followed the conventional wisdom, trading Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields. Rules and exceptions and all that, but that trade looms nearly 30 years later in the greater baseball consciousness as a cautionary tale about always trading pitchers for hitters.

Edgy MD Dec 04 2022 04:16 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

It's certainly true that good investing encourages you to divest of any asset at peak value, and pitchers being what they are, they are a highly unstable asset. I've made clear that I believe the current market over-values starting pitching. But it's also certainly true that nobody knows where peak value is until it has passed. So you try to win and try to enjoy it when it happens.

roger_that Dec 05 2022 05:45 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: nobody knows where peak value is until it has passed. Again, yes, of course. I'm merely suggesting that with young pitchers that peak value tends not to last as long as it does with batters. So if you've got a desirable young pitcher coming off a good year, it's a good move to see if you've got any takers, and to trade aggressively if you find a team willing to give you a good hitter in exchange. I think, in the long run, you'll do very well following this principle. Of the Mets Five Young Aces, this means not dealing all of them at once. I'm not sure, for example, what Steven Matz' peak would have been: probably the winter after his first six starts, in retrospect, and more realistically near the trading deadline of 2019, when the Mets were double-digits out and Matz had just thrown a 5-hit shutout against the Pirates to bring his record to 6-6. And again it goes without saying that you're going to trade off some prize pitching for bupkis if you follow these principles, Ryan, Martinez, blablabla. That's trading, not a serious argument against avoiding trading. I can supply counterexamples to any principle you'd care to espouse. Doesn't make you wrong.

metsmarathon Dec 05 2022 05:57 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

if you always trade your good pitchers, you better damned well have great hitters, or you'll lose a fuck-ton of games. the way i hear it that tends to make a lot of sense is, develop pitchers, pay for hitters. and if you think about it, it's not just that pitchers are more high risk. i think the key to doing things this way is that if you're an organization that prioritizes developing quality pitchers, you'll seemingly always have another one ready to come up when the injury bug eventually hits, since you've been building organizational depth. that said, if you don't have organizational depth in hitting, well... you'll find yourself in similar dire straits, but maybe not with quite so much of a stable of albatrosses. The better strategy might be to not make overly long commitments for pitchers moreso than hitters. but any sufficiently large contract can become a franchisal anchor. i think though that really the best organizational strategy is to develop great young players, and supplement them with great reliable older players, be they on offense or defense, and be willing to be flexible as the market and your roster demands. yeah, we should probably do that.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2022 07:00 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

He can't even figure out when was the best time to trade Steven Matz almost eight years after Matz debuted and almost three seasons after Matz left the Mets. But he's gonna know in real time and without the benefit of this extraordinary hindsight that he can't even leverage -- when to trade all of his pitchers. What a lunatic. And what a rule. I especially like the Edgy exception to not deprive Edgy of the Mets 2015 WS run. I guess that one's to keep Edgy on his good side just in case he needs somebody to arbitrarily red-light one of my posts for no reason at all other than that I disagreed with him. I suppose it's worth keeping Matt Harvey around and having Edgy on his side even if Matt Harvey's very promising future was almost gone by the time he took the all-star mound at Citi Field. So when would he have traded Seaver? Right after he won the rookie of the year award? Or right after he led the Mets to the top of the baseball world in 1969? Anyways, I'm still honing my latest postulation. It's all about trading all players, not just pitchers, just as they're about to decline. I figure that no other team would figure on those players declining. Think Bernard Gilkey right after the '96 season. Or Jason Bay like five minutes after we signed him to a lucrative free agent contract. I postulate that I could load up my team with three or four Babe Ruths with that postulation. Of course, as soon as those new Babe Ruths have so much as one Ruthian season, I'm gonna have to trade them, too. Because this postulation requires me trade all of my players as soon as they're really good and then hope I get really really lucky and get some other really good players in return. Of course, if I ever traded a Nolan Ryan for a Jim Fregosi, I wouldn't have to trade Fregosi soon after because of how sucky he turned out to be and there wouldn't be a GM out there that I could trick into giving me another Babe Ruth, this time for a washed up Fregosi. Maybe that's a good thing. Because all of this trading could get so tiring, especially when I'm trading away the really good players. After that, I'm gonna get in my time machine and buy up some mid 60s Warren Buffet stock. That'll be my next postulation. But for now, I'm gonna get me a moratorium.

roger_that Dec 05 2022 07:05 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

=metsmarathon post_id=113892 time=1670245054 user_id=83] if you always trade your good pitchers, you better damned well have great hitters, or you'll lose a fuck-ton of games.

The way you're saying this, it sounds like you think I'm promoting going with bottom-of-the-barrel pitching staff, which is too stupid to think you think this is what I'm saying.



Obviously you need top-line pitching.



The way to get this, to my mind is to strive to have at least three veteran starting pitchers signed at any one time, and to have at least two young pitchers in your system ready for their shot at a starting job. (Probably more than that, in case of injury, but at least five quality pitchers.) The model for a veteran is Scherzer, whom you're paying out the butt but on a relatively short-term deal. Of course these veterans are going to blow up on you and their careers end abruptly but on short term contracts that's not going to kill you--if you have a young guy ready to replace him, good, but if you don't you're going to have to break the bank to sign another veteran or to trade your hitting (both bad ideas, but if you're realistically in a pennant race, you do what you gotta do). More likely if one of your veterans collapses on you, it's time to reassess where you are in the current race and to sign veteran replacements in the off-season.



It was great fantasizing about the Mets Fab Five, but it was just a fantastic hope that all five would be healthy and effective over the course of a career. They were fungible. They were expendable.

Edgy MD Dec 05 2022 07:47 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: nobody knows where peak value is until it has passed. Again, yes, of course. I'm merely suggesting that with young pitchers that peak value tends not to last as long as it does with batters. And I understand that. So do many. If you look at the BillJamesOnline ranking of all starting pitchers in the league, they have all absolutely been the cat's pajamas at some point in the recent past, and many of them might be again. But for now, it's a big list of once dazzling moundsmen who are now figuring it out from start to start, searching for a way to get their form back. Nobody knows who is closest to the top of his game, but all teams hope they have a better idea then everybody else. Jacob deGrom, despite just getting a contract worth half the value of Texas is ranked all the way down at 78th, because the greatest pitcher in history is still worth absolutely nothing when he's on the injured list. We get it. On the other hand, somebody's gotta pitch, and all teams have to figure out who to deal off and who to keep. It's hard. Trading any pitcher who has just had an All-Star season or won a major awardTM is a perfectly valid philosophy, but it is hardly failsafe, and if you kept that as a hard or fast rule, your potential trading partners would figure out your pattern quickly and the market for your pitchers would grow thinner. It's a process with a lot of moving parts, many of them microscopic but crucial, and it forces teams to act on a case-by-case basis, rather than a hard and fast policy. But yes, as hard and fast policies go, trading all young pitchers who seem to be peaking is as valid as any.

roger_that Dec 05 2022 09:18 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: your potential trading partners would figure out your pattern quickly and the market for your pitchers would grow thinner. Well, "quickly" is funny. This policy will backfire sometimes, which will keep some "potential trading partners" thinking that they can take advantage of your willingness to deal hot young pitchers, and of course those potential trading partners will also change GMs frequently, resupplying the number of people who haven't yet caught on. By the time a clear pattern has emerged, there's probably close to 100% turnover on who's making trading decisions on a particular team. Oddly enough, this entire principle depends on having a good supply of MLB-ready pitching in your own organization at all times. Without that, the whole thing collapses. Also no one's yet pointed out the idiocy of comparing 2022 pitchers to those of the young Seaver or young Ryan era, when you could hang onto your star pitching at dirt-cheap rates indefinitely, but since no one who isn't an idiot has made such remarks, perhaps it's better if we all continue to ignore such remarks.

Fman99 Dec 05 2022 10:11 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

I'm not done being pissed at deGrom yet. This may last a long while

Edgy MD Dec 05 2022 10:48 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Oddly enough, this entire principle depends on having a good supply of MLB-ready pitching in your own organization at all times. Without that, the whole thing collapses. Edgy MD just above that wrote: On the other hand, somebody's gotta pitch ... . Please don't call people idiots. You can refute their points without ad hominem attacks. It's really easy, and I don't really have the energy to play the cop today. I get it. We all get it. Please don't drive this thread into the Red Light Forum.

nymr83 Dec 05 2022 10:52 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

=Fman99 post_id=113911 time=1670260280 user_id=86] I'm not done being pissed at deGrom yet. This may last a long while

Fuck him. until his playing career ends and we can perhaps accept him back in to the fold.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2022 10:59 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Oh, for God's sake. Trading ANY player that's peaking is a sound strategy. Isnt this just another way of saying that it's better to trade a player on the way down rather than on the way up? And that's just a pretentious way of saying that its preferable to trade away a player for some other player that's even better and has more value and more gas in his tank. Jesus Christ. Shouldn't you be out looking for the 16th center fielder on the Mets depth chart? I mean, what are youse pontificating about? That you're gonna fleece all the other GM's out there by trading lesser players for better players? Here's what you do: Go out and buy yourself a baseball team and then go and trade all your players at the precise moment when their carrying costs exceed their value, which you'll always calculate accurately in real time. Then come back here in 25 years and tell us how you made out. Or better yet, tell us now when you would've optimally traded away Matz and deGrom and Seaver and Matlack and Roy Lee Jackson and then brag to us about all of the Hall of Fame swag you wouldve gotten in return for all of those trades you pretended to make. I have to go now. My latest invention is the string theory of baseball. I'll tell you all about it later.

The Hot Corner Dec 05 2022 12:32 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

All I know is that the Atlanta (who I generally consider a pretty savvy organization) really screwed up when the opted to hold on to their young pitchers (Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz. They definitely should have traded those guys when they first became good. Their team would have been so much better off. My basic thought is there is no one single plan that will build a consistent winner in every situation. The real challenge of building a consistent winner is to use a myriad of various strategies (wise drafting, strong player development, making trades that more often than not benefit your team, or simply making smart free agent signings that pan out more than they fail) when everyone you are competing against is attempting to do the very same thing.

metsmarathon Dec 05 2022 12:49 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

The Hot Corner wrote: All I know is that the Atlanta (who I generally consider a pretty savvy organization) really screwed up when the opted to hold on to their young pitchers (Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz. They definitely should have traded those guys when they first became good. Their team would have been so much better off. My basic thought is there is no one single plan that will build a consistent winner in every situation. The real challenge of building a consistent winner is to use a myriad of various strategies (wise drafting, strong player development, making trades that more often than not benefit your team, or simply making smart free agent signings that pan out more than they fail) when everyone you are competing against is attempting to do the very same thing. this. hell, they even did the unthinkable and signed greg maddux as a free agent for five damned years! what were they even thinking!?

Edgy MD Dec 05 2022 01:03 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

They were smart enough to deal Pete Smith near peak value, though.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2022 02:35 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Oh my god. This thread's never gonna end. Here's my next great idea of a thesis: Whenever I make a baseball trade, I'm gonna get a better player in return. Because the opposing GM's have no idea about my plan and what it is I'm trying to accomplish. Aren't I a genius?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2022 02:37 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

If it was up to me and I had a say, I would've traded Jon Matlack in October of 1974 for Mike Schmidt and Dave Parker.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2022 02:39 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

How? Because I would've hypnotized both the Pirates and the Phils to such a degree with my magic charming thesis powers that they would've been willing to time-share Matlack just to have him because even to have Matlack for half a season and on a shared basis, they woulda coughed up Parker and Schmidt, respectively.

stevejrogers Dec 05 2022 04:03 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: It's funny how these lamentations suggest most of us have such a card of varying degrees of effectiveness, but Muffy gets no play in this thread, despite (1) leaving under the designation of He's a Met. He just is. (as Lunchie put it at the time), and (2) turning into a no-doubt All Star and MVP candidate for a few years after initially leaving. Lamentations are stronger for the guy who left and declined than for the guy who left and improved. I'm not sure what that means, except perhaps that I Don't Care cards are powerful talismans that require further study. Not to sound like I'm a member of QAnon, but a part of me thinks that stuff like Gary being on the negative side on Murphy's abilities, and especially him being interviewed following Billy Bean's clubhouse discussion that spring was part of a concerted effort to grease the skids, and make his impending departure less of a kick in the groin than others have been.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2022 04:22 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: It's funny how these lamentations suggest most of us have such a card of varying degrees of effectiveness, but Muffy gets no play in this thread, despite (1) leaving under the designation of He's a Met. He just is. (as Lunchie put it at the time), and (2) turning into a no-doubt All Star and MVP candidate for a few years after initially leaving. Lamentations are stronger for the guy who left and declined than for the guy who left and improved. I'm not sure what that means, except perhaps that I Don't Care cards are powerful talismans that require further study. Not to sound like I'm a member of QAnon, but a part of me thinks that stuff like Gary being on the negative side on Murphy's abilities, and especially him being interviewed following Billy Bean's clubhouse discussion that spring was part of a concerted effort to grease the skids, and make his impending departure less of a kick in the groin than others have been. It was the scumbag Wilpons so any despicable thing was possible, especially with the idiot tyrant failson calling the shots more and more. And put me down for lamenting Murphy's departure. I loved the Murph. But never mind all of that. In my next thesis, I trade Randy Tate the day after his near no-hitter! Talk about trading someone at the peak of his career! And who do I get in return? None other than George Foster. Because I'm way smarter and way ahead of Frank Cashen. The trick is to get Foster just before he enters his prime, not just as he enters his decline. See how my thesis works? Pre-peak. And post-peak. Sell em when they're high and get 'em when they're low. I'm a freakin' genius. I'm smarter than Frank Cashen and smarter than Bob Howsam. Tate for Foster. I really nailed that one!

Edgy MD Dec 05 2022 04:52 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

You're stockpiling outfielders but sleeping on that Craig Swan-for-Ozzie Smith deal. Or Paul Molitor. You can let the Brewers and Padres bid against each other and maybe get them to throw in some incentives. More importantly, though, is which pitchers the Mets should trade now and who they can get. Because that's where we are. Or we can leave it be. Your point has been made as clearly as his own.

MFS62 Dec 05 2022 05:16 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

And the MFYs never should have traded Jay Buhner.* Later * = Seinfeld reference

vtmet7 Dec 06 2022 08:24 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

don't see any Nimmo FA threads, so don't know where to comment on Nimmo's path... Now that Trea Turner signed that long term deal; there is a post in one of the Mets groups on Facebook, whereas it's suggested that the Mets should offer Nimmo a 6 year, $150 Mil contract...I realize that contracts are escalating and that Nimmo is a Boras guy; but IMO that is crazy high for Nimmo...

metirish Dec 06 2022 08:35 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

If Brandon gets that offer from any team he better bite their hands off , crazy , lot of chatter about the MFY and Nimmo

whippoorwill Dec 06 2022 09:03 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

=vtmet7 post_id=114063 time=1670340275 user_id=80] don't see any Nimmo FA threads, so don't know where to comment on Nimmo's path... Now that Trea Turner signed that long term deal; there is a post in one of the Mets groups on Facebook, whereas it's suggested that the Mets should offer Nimmo a 6 year, $150 Mil contract...I realize that contracts are escalating and that Nimmo is a Boras guy; but IMO that is crazy high for Nimmo...

Agree

Marshmallowmilkshake Dec 06 2022 10:01 AM Re: Leaving the Nest Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 06 2022 10:37 AM

Edgy, I'm not asking to be combative, just trying to understand. (And I don't mean to hijack -- might be better to split.) You mentioned you don't like the draft, and you have said you don't like trading in the past. Do you advocate for a system where teams build entirely on free agents, from the low minors through the majors? I'm not arguing, just curious how it would work. In a way it's like how the rest of the world works, with employers looking to build a quality staff and employees able to have a greater say in where they work and live. If I'm good at what I do, my services will be in demand and I can have a say in where I work and how I get compensated. People make decisions based on how the view the quality of the employer and the compensation -- and the employers hire those who they think have the skills needed to advance the work. Teams could attract and retain players at all levels based on both the players' desire to be there, and the team's desire to have them. I get how that works in the rest of the world, but I don't know how it works within the structure of a league. I guess the question is whether MLB is the employer, or are the individual teams employers who compete in the same industry. Curious to hear your thinking.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 06 2022 10:17 AM Re: Leaving the Nest Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 06 2022 10:20 AM

What's not to get? It works just like you said it would work. So long as a player's not signed to a contract, he's a free agent, free to sign with anyone. That goes for amateurs and pros. No draft. No reserve clause. That's how it works in the real world for plumbers, ditch diggers, accountants and supermarket baggers. You want capitalism and free markets? Good. Then make it available for everybody, not just the billionaires.

Edgy MD Dec 06 2022 10:19 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

There's certainly nothing combatative about inquiring. The draft is un-American. It isn't about the fairness in distribution of talent, but all about cost control. Young athletes have an ability that's in great demand for a short period of time, and the industry gets together and agrees only one team can recruit that athlete. It's wrong and incredibly ironic, as America projects free commerce through the world, and the world's sports leagues scratch their heads when they hear this nonsense about the Americans distributing talent through a draft. If the league is the employer, then the league is a cartel, and in virtually all other industries in the US, an industry conducting themselves as a cartel subjects themselves to criminal penalties under antitrust laws, or civil penalties when engaging in monopolization or resale price maintenance. Sports leagues, to different extents, do these things as a matter of course on every day that ends in a Y and it's just considered business. We protect baseball from the system we purport to believe in and it's unjust through and through. We accept this model because we see it as the way it has always been and assume it's kind of the same elsewhere. But it isn't and it's not. It hurts young athletes, it hurts baseball, it hurts small towns, it hurts big cities, it hurts the economy, it hurts America, and it hurts other baseball-playing nations.

MFS62 Dec 06 2022 10:41 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Interesting. Just read this and I'm at work, so my initial thoughts: Would you have a salary cap or other controls (minor league roster sizes, the number of minor league teams a major league team could own) to make sure a few rich reams wouldn't sign all the good players? What about a salary floor and revenue sharing to keep teams alive (and employ more players)? I realize there are only so many roster slots on a team, but eventually, those slots are filled. What about a limit on contract length, or do you retain a player indefinitely? I'll revisit that list as I have time. Maybe the concept deserves its own thread? Later

batmagadanleadoff Dec 06 2022 10:44 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Salary cap? Sure. Why not? Right after Congress limits the number of ice cream flavors Haagen Dqzs would be allowed to sell.

Marshmallowmilkshake Dec 06 2022 10:47 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: There's certainly nothing combatative about inquiring. The draft is un-American. It isn't about the fairness in distribution of talent, but all about cost control. Young athletes have an ability that's in great demand for a short period of time, and the industry gets together and agrees only one team can recruit that athlete. It's wrong and incredibly ironic, as America projects free commerce through the world, and the world's sports leagues scratch their heads when they hear this nonsense about the Americans distributing talent through a draft. If the league is the employer, then the league is a cartel, and in virtually all other industries in the US, an industry conducting themselves as a cartel subjects themselves to criminal penalties under antitrust laws, or civil penalties when engaging in monopolization or resale price maintenance. Sports leagues, to different extents, do these things as a matter of course on every day that ends in a Y and it's just considered business. We protect baseball from the system we purport to believe in and it's unjust through and through. We accept this model because we see it as the way it has always been and assume it's kind of the same elsewhere. But it isn't and it's not. It hurts young athletes, it hurts baseball, it hurts small towns, it hurts big cities, it hurts the economy, it hurts America, and it hurts other baseball-playing nations. Thank you for explaining! This is interesting. Curious what kind of impact it might have on the minors, especially the low minors, and whether it would force the league to improve conditions and compensation for the players at those levels. Again, didn't mean the hijack, was just curious how you thought it would work.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 06 2022 10:48 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=114081 time=1670348650 user_id=68] Salary cap? Sure. Why not? Right after Congress limits the number of ice cream flavors Haagen Dqzs would be allowed to sell.

And right after Congress then limits how much money the Trumps and the Wilpons would be allowed to make from real estate.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 06 2022 10:50 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=114083 time=1670348888 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=114081 time=1670348650 user_id=68] Salary cap? Sure. Why not? Right after Congress limits the number of ice cream flavors Haagen Dqzs would be allowed to sell.

And right after Congress then limits how much money the Trumps and the Wilpons would be allowed to make from real estate.


Oh, and a thousand apologies for I dont know what. Also, you have a very lovely daughter. And you look real nice in that new suit. Have you been working out? That was a great bowl of pasta. I must have your recipe. But only if you dont mind me asking. Apologies once again.

Edgy MD Dec 06 2022 10:59 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Would you have a salary cap ... God, no. I object to industries acting as cartels, so why would I be OK with them fixing salaries? ... or other controls (minor league roster sizes, the number of minor league teams a major league team could own) ... Minor league affiliation should be tossed along with the draft. This is also how cartels control costs. It's one of the worst things to ever happen to baseball. to make sure a few rich reams wouldn't sign all the good players? Go teams! Sign whoever will agree to sign with you. I'm not sure why a "rich team" should be a thing. Teams who manage resources and business well should get richer while teams who don't do that should get poorer. What about a salary floor and revenue sharing to keep teams alive (and employ more players)? If two teams play, there will certainly be revenue sharing, because both teams are contributing to the product. I disagree that one company has an obligation to keep its alleged competitors alive. Again, other industries aren't asked to operate this way. I realize there are only so many roster slots on a team, but eventually, those slots are filled. I'm not sure how this is relevant. What about a limit on contract length, or do you retain a player indefinitely? None of this is revolutionary, but if a team wants to offer a player a lifetime contract, with a lifetime salary, and the player agrees, good for both of them. I'll revisit that list as I have time. Maybe the concept deserves its own thread? Really, I hope it's not too much of a concept. I just ask that baseball operate as virtually all other industries are asked to operate.

MFS62 Dec 06 2022 11:02 AM Re: Leaving the Nest

Thank you for filling in the blanks. I have a concern that if minor league teams are no longer owned (and subsidized) by major league teams, many minor league teams, leagues and jobs would be lost. To me, that would be like saying everyone has the opportunity to attend college, but we're getting rid of many high schools. Later

batmagadanleadoff Dec 06 2022 01:03 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Pitcher or hitter? It depends. This discussion reminds me of the comment "Good pitching will always stop good hitting" Intuitively, I'd say that that comment's true. I know that watching the prime of Tom Seaver, I felt that the Mets could beat any team on the days that Seaver started. And they usually did. I know that the odds-makers recognize this notion that good pitching beats good hitting because baseball is the only sport that I can think of where the worst team in the league can be favored to beat the best team in the league, depending on the pitching match-ups. The 1988 Mets were the best team in baseball but came up short in their quest for the NL pennant because they couldn't get past an Orel Hershiser who was historically great in 1988. And if the Astros could've won just one playoff game that wasn't started by Mike Scott, there very likely wouldn't have been a Mets-Red Sox WS because at the end of the '86 season, Scott was unhittable. The Mets prevailed over the Astros probably because Scott pitched only two playoff games. The Mets were the better team but Scott was Koufaxian. And I thought of another great thesis while I wrote that post above: my thesis is to trade all of my crappy players for superstars. Isn't that brilliant? James Mccann for Mike Trout! Yoan Lopez for Mookie Betts! I'm gonna have a moratorium to polish up my thesis, now. Then, I'll see if I could sell my thesis idea to Steve Cohen. Don't nobody here try and steal my thesis idea. Youse know I thought of it first. Will Sammon writing for The Athletic on the Mets' Verlander signing: For as much as baseball has changed and will continue to evolve, this much has remained the same: There is no player in the sport who controls the tempo, tenor and outcome of a game as thoroughly as an elite starting pitcher.

Edgy MD Dec 06 2022 01:15 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

=MFS62 post_id=114089 time=1670349766 user_id=60] Thank you for filling in the blanks. I have a concern that if minor league teams are no longer owned (and subsidized) by major league teams, many minor league teams, leagues and jobs would be lost. To me, that would be like saying everyone has the opportunity to attend college, but we're getting rid of many high schools. Later

History suggests that it would be the exact opposite. The minor leagues flourished before affiliation.

MFS62 Dec 06 2022 01:33 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: History suggests that it would be the exact opposite. The minor leagues flourished before affiliation. That was when there were 16 major league teams, all East of the Mississippi, and before you could see major league baseball on tv. So if a dad wanted to take his kids to see a ball game, it was a local minor league game. Times change. I feel that in today's America, full free agency would have a negative effect on the minors. And the leagues, where major league teams could evaluate and develop players before they signed them, would contract. We can never know for sure. Later

Edgy MD Dec 06 2022 01:42 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Yes, we can know for sure.

MFS62 Dec 06 2022 01:47 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

Edgy MD wrote: Yes, we can know for sure. How do we test your idea without full implementation? Later

Edgy MD Dec 06 2022 01:54 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

It's not really an idea. For every other industry, it's just life. It doesn't need a test, any more than breaking up any monopoly or cartel needs a test. Either we believe in our laws and values or we don't.

vtmet7 Dec 08 2022 07:19 PM Re: Leaving the Nest

=whippoorwill post_id=114066 time=1670342639 user_id=79] =vtmet7 post_id=114063 time=1670340275 user_id=80] don't see any Nimmo FA threads, so don't know where to comment on Nimmo's path... Now that Trea Turner signed that long term deal; there is a post in one of the Mets groups on Facebook, whereas it's suggested that the Mets should offer Nimmo a 6 year, $150 Mil contract...I realize that contracts are escalating and that Nimmo is a Boras guy; but IMO that is crazy high for Nimmo...

Agree


Apparently he got even more than that, less AAV but more years and overall salary...IMO, that's an insane contract for Nimmo.