Defending the Mets’ Mess

The Mets’ trade deadline strategy seemed a bit dysfunctional. They traded pending free agent Asdrubal Cabrera for an upper-level pitching prospect, which seems like a good idea. However, that was basically the one positive thing the Mets did. They also traded Jeurys Familia, but the return was incredibly light and could have been stronger if the Mets were willing to pay down any of Familia’s salary to get better players back. They added Austin Jackson and kept Jose Bautista for some reason. Keeping Devin Mesoraco wasn’t that terrible because he will probably pass through waivers. Zack Wheeler was shopped extensively but did not move. All of this comes on the heels of a public relations debacle regarding Yoenis Cespedes’ injuries, and a disappointing Tuesday ended with an exclamation point thanks to a 25-4 loss to the Nationals that night.

It certainly appears as though the Mets don’t know what they’re going. Even more concerning, the Mets might actually agree. The following words come from the Mets’ Assistant General Manager, John Ricco, in Ken Davidoff’s New York Post piece from deadline day.

“I think all that happened today is we did not make a trade by the trade deadline,” the assistant general manager said Tuesday in a conference call. “It doesn’t necessarily mean we’re headed into one direction or the other [on the starting rotation]. We’ll make a more informed decision this offseason.”

Davidoff further elaborates on the difficult task the next Mets General Manager faces with an organization in disarray and an ownership group that has repeatedly underfunded the team in an embarrassment to the franchise and the game. The Mets — who over the past half-decade have not been tanking nor rebuilding in a way that would justify a low payroll — haven’t had a payroll higher than 15th in MLB since the 2012 season. From 2000 through 2011, the Mets’ average payroll ranked fourth in baseball, congruent with their status in a massive media market as a club with good attendance and a great local television contract. The Mets are still in a massive media market, generate solid attendance, and have a great television deal, but over the past five years they’ve spent money like the Royals.

As for what the Mets could have done on Tuesday, if what the Rays received for Chris Archer is any indication, Jacob deGrom would have fetched a haul. They could have received a decent package for Wheeler. They could have received a minor league lottery ticket for Bautista. They should still move Mesoraco this month. Continuing down the rebuilding path, the Mets could have waited for Noah Syndergaard to get healthy and then moved him over the winter. Maybe Steven Matz and Todd Frazier could have netted something. In selling off these parts, the Mets would then have a payroll around $110 million or so, with 40% owed to David Wright and Cespedes where insurance will presumably defray some of those costs.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

The situation in the above paragraph is a plan for a full-scale rebuild. The team could keep Michael Conforto and Brandon Nimmo as potential future core pieces, and give 22-year-old Amed Rosario another year at shortstop as Andres Gimenez works his way up the minors. Peter Alonso should be ready to take over first base at some point next year. The team has a few pitching prospects who might be ready at some point next season. Add in three or four more prospects theoretically acquired from dealing deGrom and Syndergaard, and the Mets would have a young, interesting team in 2019. They would be bad, but there would be some amount of excitement. Finishing in the bottom 10 in baseball would ensure a protected first-round pick the following season.

In theory, the Mets could then go spend $100 million in 2020 salaries on free agents like Nolan Arenado and Chris Sale to complement their growing young core and end a successful, quick rebuild. In reality, prospects might not work out, the pitching staff could end up incredibly thin, and becoming a contender in 2020 might be a bit too ambitious. So if 2021 is a more realistic goal for the playoffs, is tearing down the team the right move? It is admittedly a question that gets a lot harder with Cespedes’ situation up in the air.

At the beginning of June when trade rumors started to swirl around deGrom, I wrote that the Mets would be foolish to trade him. Reasonable minds differed on the subject, but my point was that the Mets’ collection of talent was very close to that of a contender.

If we take the projections from above and add three wins from the bullpen, that’s a .500 team. There’s rarely a reason to dismantle a .500 team that also has a fair amount of youth. In the Mets’ case, there is almost no justification for it. This year’s team is running a payroll around $150 million, just like they did back in 2009. The Mets probably should be running a higher payroll given their market and revenue, but even if we assume the Mets can only spend $150 million again next year, they will have a ton of payroll room to get better.

Looking at the version of the projected standings that don’t factor in schedule, the Mets are currently a .480 win percentage team, roughly 78 wins over the course of the season. That’s with Wilmer Flores playing out of position at first base and Jeff McNeil playing second base. They’ll have a hole to fill if they are without Cespedes next year, but he was only projected to be an average player anyway. The Mets really aren’t that far off. They certainly should have the money to sign Bryce Harper or Manny Machado, and both should be a consideration, but A.J. Pollock could also fit. Yasmani Grandal would fill an area of need. Even Patrick Corbin or Dallas Keuchel could provide the rotation with more stability.

Whether they go for it next year or step back and try to maximize their odds for 2020 or 2021, the Mets are going to need a bigger commitment from ownership. Rebuilding doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t work unless teams complement their youth movement with more expensive veterans. If they were going to take a step back, the trade deadline would have been a great opportunity to move deGrom. That isn’t necessarily the best choice, though. While the indecision at the deadline might have been due to a lack of vision, it wasn’t necessarily the wrong call. The Mets’ season is a disaster, but there are enough good players to make a run next season if the club is willing to add talent to supplement their current squad.





Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.

65 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
tb.25
7 years ago

“The Mets’ … strategy seem[s] a bit dysfunctional.”

Fixed that for ya 😉

That being said, please don’t write articles like this, I can’t handle losing another quality writer to an MLB team!

Sabometrics
7 years ago
Reply to  tb.25

Actually, I think you need an even heavier editing hand:

“The Mets[:] a bit dysfunctional.”

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
7 years ago
Reply to  Sabometrics

“The Mets[:] dysfunctional.”

All you people with your flowery prose. Get to the point!

Psychic... Powerless...
7 years ago
Reply to  HappyFunBall

I’ll up the ante and suggest that using “Mets” and “dysfunctional” in the same sentence is redundant.

hebrewMember since 2016
7 years ago

If they spend money on free agents to fill their holes, they will be good. I agree, but this seems like not only an obvious claim, but also one (considering Mets ownership) that is incredibly unlikely.

Machado at third would be an unbelievable fit, but there’s just no way the Wilpons back up the truck. These are guys that are forcing Jose Reyes upon, for cryin’ out loud!

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
7 years ago

Underfunding and needing a “bigger commitment from ownership” is only half of the Wilpon story. The other half is meddling. The baseball decisions have ALWAYS been made by a triumvirate of Fred, Jeff, and whoever was the GM, and that excessive involvement by the incompetent Wilpon family only stands to get a lot worse now that the generally competent buck-stops-here Sandy Alderson is out and a mess of a buck-passing interim-GM-by-committee is in his stead. Whoever they say it is, the effective head of the front office is now Jeff Wilpon. Unlike a rebuild headed by the guy who got d’Arnaud and Syndergaard for R.A. Dickey, this is not a situation where any fan would be very excited to see a rebuild as opposed to a team staying the course and gambling on its existing stars staying healthy.

Moltar
7 years ago

Yes, this is the missing piece to this article. Buy, sell, or hold, the Wilpon family has shown remarkably poor judgement on and off the field, and preside over an organization that lacks accountability top to bottom. Until that changes, there’s just no way the Mets can sustain success.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago

There’s nothing to defend here. It appears that at the end of the day, the team’s GMs were not empowered to actually pick a direction. They may not have been for a while.

If they hire an experienced, talented executive and empower him to run the team, the Mets are actually in a really good spot. If they–for example–signed Yasmani Grandal, Elvis Andrus, they could be contenders for a championship. If they sell, they could get top, top prospects back as headliners–think Victor Robles and Carter Kieboom, Kyle Tucker and Yordan Alvarez, Sixto Sanchez and Adonis Medina.

It’s going to depend a lot on who they hire, and what sort of latitude is given. But if they just stand pat it is going to be more of the same–a team that sinks when a couple of their incredibly talented players lands on the DL.

oozyalbies1
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The full tear down is not happening. And neither is the breaking of the piggy bank. They’ll always manage to do just enough to stay somewhat relevant and it has a lot to do with sharing a market with the Yankees.

And, to be fair, this is a team that was in the WS in 2015 (more recently than other big market teams like say, the Nationals, or the Giants, or the YANKEES). They also went out and spent some this offseason. Just on the wrong guys.

There was hope coming into this season, and it hasn’t worked out. Some of that has to do with Sandy Alderson. And Mickey Callaway. Some has to do with Jay Bruce and Michael Conforto and Todd Frazier. A lot has to do with Yoenis Cespedes.

The ownership’s biggest weakness is their shortsightedness, not having the will to bear a full rebuild and risk losing their viewership to their cross-town rivals.

But, it could be worse. We could’ve seen Tim Tebow in September.

hebrewMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  oozyalbies1

You have to realize that (much like the Hosmer signing in SD), the Front Office of the Mets wanted NOTHING to do with Bruce, but were forced to sign him by a foolish owner?

Jay Bruce was their “spending” in the offseason, and they overpaid for a mediocre player at a position of strength!

Josh
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Who would the Nationals be getting for Robles and Kieboom, exactly? And why would they trade with the Mets? Just asking.

While it’s certainly possible the Mets could have made some moves, apropos the article, based on my outsider observation the Chris Archer deal was the *only* one where anything like a top prospect changed hands. I think Pittsburgh got fleeced, to be honest. No other teams were tossing prospects around for veterans, even great ones. Heck, even young ones like Machado! Sure, the Mets have young pitchers who have team years left, unlike Machado, but why would anyone trade even younger, more controllable players for injury-prone pitchers?

The Mets have what they have. They can add pieces, probably can’t trade any (or there wouldn’t be any point, in my view, because the return would be unhelpful), and dance with the one who brung ‘em. As others have said, the team’s folly has been to overpay for FA they didn’t need and veterans who don’t help. The opportunity cost to the Mets of signing Jay Bruce was actually huge. Until that changes, they aren’t “building” towards anything. They’re just adding more doublewides onto the back of the house.

Noah BaronMember since 2016
7 years ago

The real question is whether their core can stay healthy. On paper, the team should be pretty solid next year without any outside acquisitions. Conforto, Nimmo, Bruce, Lagares, Alonso, Flores, Frazier, Rosario, d’Arnaud, and Plawecki is a decent offensive core even with Cespedes on the sidelines. DeGrom, Syndergaard, Wheeler, and Matz is obviously an elite top of the rotation. Still, they probably should go out and acquire a big infield bat who can actually defend his position (maybe Dozier), make a couple serious bullpen upgrades, and maybe even sign a quality starter to fortify the rotation. Still, they’re going to need much better production from Conforto, Bruce, Frazier, Syndergaard, Lagares, and d’Arnaud. The division is definitely winnable next year, and the NL in general doesn’t have any juggernauts. Interesting to see what they do.

Moltar
7 years ago
Reply to  Noah Baron

Without a change in the organizational culture surrounding injuries, they will not stay healthy. There’s also not enough depth nor talent near the majors to make up for the injuries when they do hit.

johansantana17Member since 2026
7 years ago
Reply to  Noah Baron

“Conforto, Nimmo, Bruce, Lagares, Alonso, Flores, Frazier, Rosario, d’Arnaud, and Plawecki is a decent offensive core even with Cespedes on the sidelines.”

No, it is not.

Josh
7 years ago
Reply to  Noah Baron

The Phillies and Braves are each 1 or 2 pieces away from having complete rosters, so in my view the NL East is not winnable by the Mets, who need a 1B, SS, 2B, RF, bullpen, and and and; anytime soon. Once the Nationals retool the rotation post-Scherzer and Strasburg (in 2-3 years) they’ll also have a young core to compete with. God help the Mets if any of those 3 teams makes a big trade or hits the phenom lottery in that time, too.

I’m not trying to be a grump, but looking at the NL East from the top-down, the Mets are a decent team treading water below two rising juggernauts in ATL and PHI and a mercurial powerhouse in DC. Dumb luck may get the Mets to the playoffs one year, but I don’t see a way for them to outcompete those three in the short term.

Paul G.Member since 2016
7 years ago

Historically, the Mets are a Jekyll and Hyde team. In any given season, they are going to either aspire to be the Miracle Mets accomplishing great things, or they are going to channel the ghost of 1962 and find creative ways to lose. On occasion, they are both at the same time. Speaking of that, anyone know where Armando Benitez is these days?

“Amazin'”

LHPSU
7 years ago

I don’t think saying the Mets spent like the Royals is a meaningful statement at all. It’s not like the Mets haven’t spent money (even if you don’t think they spend enough for an NY team), it’s how lousy they have spent their money.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
7 years ago
Reply to  LHPSU

It’s both, I think. A team that spends like the Yankees can afford to just soak up a Jay Bruce (or Jason Bay)-sized mistake or two every year, but a team that holds the line on a mid-market payroll can’t do that as easily. While I totally agree that all, or even most, of their problems aren’t attributable to payroll, still, if the Mets have sometimes seemed the poster team for the sunk-cost fallacy, that’s partly due to the payroll.

Moltar
7 years ago

To further your point, Jacoby Ellsbury is under contract until 2020. If he were a Met, he would be the The Reason the team can’t spend more money. As a Yankee, he’s an afterthought.

Youppi!
7 years ago
Reply to  Moltar

He’s an afterthought because Judge, Severino, Sanchez, Torres and Andujar make a combined ~$3m at 13.3 WAR. It pays to develop actual talent. The Mets just kinda suck… talk about misreading the market signing Bruce to $39m.

Moltar
7 years ago
Reply to  Youppi!

Yeah but Fred Wilpon thinks the Yankees are “unsustainable” and he’s never been wrong about a baseball thing in his life, so…

channelclemente
7 years ago

I think the Mets are experiencing the curse their ownership acquired from their culpability in the Madoff scandal. Goodness knows they earned the wrath of Jobu.

Moltar
7 years ago

I think MLB is seeing the ramifications of their decision not to hold the Wilpon group accountable for their financial transgressions. They were given a free pass (more than free, they were given interest-free loans just to make payroll), and now are completely unable to hold their subordinates accountable themselves. Selig made a very costly mistake, and the fans are paying the price.

sturockMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  Moltar

Absolutely right, which is why I don’t see any changes on the horizon. If MLB is not going to force the Mets’ organization to get its act together, it’s just not going to happen.

dukewinslowMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Moltar

If I had to short an MLB team on the financial markets, given the total opacity of the actual finances and the information we have, I would pick the Mets.

To engage in a bit of tea leaf reading, the actions of this team resemble a company where more than half of the projections involve bankruptcy. They look like they’re trying to plot the least risky course, but almost every decision-tree they mock up they’re too far gone. Of course, that implies someone in the building learned something in their Decision Models class, and didn’t spend their entire time at HBS drunk or hungover. We have no evidence of that, so far.

If they can’t see that their position is untenable, MLB needs to step in and take over the reigns. The Mets could do lasting damage to the sport.

MattyDMember since 2017
7 years ago
Reply to  Moltar

MLB (I.e., the owners) isn’t interested only in a competitive landscape. That’s good for the sport, but not sure it outweighs the desire for one fewer team bidding up free agents and having a loyal team going along with Selig (at the time) in labor negotiations and internal decisions.

Dooduh
7 years ago

I was with you up until you suggested this team was perhaps 1 player (even if elite) away… But that doesn’t even get to the hilariously unrealistic notion that the Mets will be anywhere near high bidder for MM or BH… as if those players will struggle to scrape together a market.

Come on. What about this team’s play over the past 2 years has some people continue to suggest they are a player or 2 away from contending? They’re currently on their way to a 68 win season right after a 70 win one. And they have a very thin farm system at the upper levels, so the pipeline needed to provide depth isn’t there.

These are the types of pieces that embolden this organization to double and triple down on bad choices.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Dooduh

It’s a stars and scrubs roster. It’s really hard to get stars, especially two league aces, and since it’s going to be hard to ever again get a bunch of players controlled for the next 3 years it makes sense to go for it.

The problem is that they have no depth at any position other than corner outfielder, so they get a black hole in the lineup anytime a player gets hurt (which happens to every team, although it seems like it happens more often to the Mets). You would think this would be an easy issue to fix, especially for a team in New York–buy a shortstop, a catcher, and maybe a 1st or 2nd baseman and your utility guys get to be utility guys instead of starters. And you can cut Jose Reyes entirely.

I think it’s totally reasonable to go for it. I also think it’s logical to sell. I do not think that staying the course for a likely 75 win season makes any sense.

Dooduh
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The problem is that 75 wins would be a fantasy at this point. They won 70 last season and are on their way to 67 or 68 this time around. People looking at this seem to be in denial about the basic facts. All we keep hearing is a re-stating of the players on this roster as if they are supposed to be an impressive assemblage of talent; aside from deGrom and Noah, they aren’t.

As said above, it’s a stars and scrubs collection as of now; add to that, a very meager pipeline in the upper minors over the next 2 years. That’s not a formula that wins. So, people can either keep deluding themselves, or advocate for the org to take the opportunity they have to cash in a few valuable assets and line up talent that will be ready to produce at about the same time their lower minors talent arrives.

johansantana17Member since 2026
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Syndergaard is a Disabled List ace, not a “league ace”

jcutigerMember since 2024
7 years ago

The Mets need to get younger and more athletic – the current GMs agree with that. They need to stop signing older players for that go for a discount. Do that again for 2019 and expect different results would be moronic. Either spend the money on Machado and someone like Pollock, etc. or burn it down.

sturockMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  jcutiger

Right you are, but ownership is not going to pony up for Manny Machado– and why would a Machado or Harper even want to play for the Mets when they can get big money from a more well-run organization? That’s a big problem right now. Furthermore, what GM would want to work for the meddling Wilpons?

ThomServo
7 years ago

The Mets are the embodiment of the Craig Edwards/Travis Shawchik/Rian Watt roster building philosophy.

Sure enough, this author looked at the Mets just a few weeks ago and saw ‘near contender,’ writing an article that they should look to add, go for it, and avoid cashing in high-risk assets like SPs. They did exactly that. And, foreseeably, they have nothing gained from their ill advised and regressive approach to ‘competing.’

And what’s this author’s proposal- the Mets should spend more! More FAs. Even though they have zero chance, for some reason Harper and Machado are mentioned. Much more realistic, less logical, older, less talented FAs are also mentioned. Patrick Corbin, come on down.

This is what ‘all 30 teams should go for broke’ looks like- the Mets- a decade of aimless nonsense from a broke club. Yes, even the Mets and Royals can fluke their way into contention every 40 years or so, but only for a short while.

No club in the majors is run as poorly as the Craig/Travis/Rian (and sometimes Meg- today’s ‘baseball should be only fun, no grumps’ article is emblematic of this new fangraphs ESPN/FOX style callow cheerleading) approach, but the Mets, Orioles and Royals sure come close.

fjtorres
7 years ago

Which fanbase would have greater reason to be offended if somebody equated the ownership of the Mets and Orioles?

cheekfullofchew
7 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

Orioles.

deadmanonleaveMember since 2016
7 years ago

I’m reasonably, a few years at least, new to baseball. MLB stepped in to take the Dodgers off that McCourt guy and sold them to people who’ve made them competitive. The Mets seem to be in the same position, big market club and fans, small market, tight owners. Any prospect the League might intervene?

jcutigerMember since 2024
7 years ago
Reply to  deadmanonleave

They had the opportunity with the Madoff scandal, but Bud Selig and Fred are big buddies.

deadmanonleaveMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  jcutiger

Would it take a scandal or criminality of a similar level for the league to have the opportunity to do so then? They can’t do it for reasons of inept ownership alone?
In England, and soccer and baseball are not at all organised similarly, we would be protesting against ownership, boycotting their businesses and pressuring the league/authorities to force a change.

Still League One and Two over here aren’t close to the size of a club like the Mets.

dukewinslowMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  deadmanonleave

Hicks and Gillette, the folks that almost ran Liverpool out of business, also owned the Texas Rangers. MLB’s treatment of them was far gentler than the EPL (who ran them out on a rail). The Wilpons are in an analogous situation, with perhaps less outside pressure due to leverage.
For those who follow both leagues, the real worry is that this situation resembles Portsmouth, who left the FA with a 300 million odd bill after their collapse.

Careless
7 years ago
Reply to  deadmanonleave

When you say “the league” what you’re talking about is the other owners. And they definitely don’t want a precedent that they can lose their own franchises because someone thinks they’re stupid.

oozyalbies1
7 years ago

O/U on days into AJ Pollock’s contract with the Mets before he’d require a DL stint?

hebrewMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  oozyalbies1

60

francis_soyer
7 years ago
Reply to  oozyalbies1

.5

carterMember since 2020
7 years ago

You would think they’d call Tebow up. I mean he’s not going to embarrass them, and who cares if he’s deserving? It’s a business and it would be a smart business decision.

fjtorres
7 years ago
Reply to  carter

He’d be a perfect fit as he’s on the DL and done for the season.

dl80Member since 2026
7 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

Can’t be below replacement level if you don’t play!

Dmjn53
7 years ago
Reply to  carter

Tebow is out for the season with a broken hamate

NATS FanMember since 2018
7 years ago

I’ll bet it takes many years to recover from being a primary victim of Bernie Madoff, so i would not expect management to spend more for until they feel truly back. As a finance professor I would think that should take 15 to 20 years considering the mess he put on their books.

Da Bear
7 years ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

Hey, Bobby Bonilla could always make a resurgent comeback in his age-73 season and vindicate everybody!

Moltar
7 years ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

I mean, disregarding the fact that the team itself is worth at least $2b and the Wilpons could cash out and ride yachts the rest of their lives while turning over the team to people who can afford it, it’s entirely possible to run a team effectively on a small budget. The Astros spent less money last year than the Mets are this year, to say nothing of the A’s and Rays, each above .500 with a shoestring budget. But the Mets are incompetent with that too. It’s an organizational failure more so than a financial failure.

feslenraster
7 years ago

The Mets aren’t that far off….sad to say they are way off.

Reflect
7 years ago

It’s worth pointing out here that even if the Mets did nothing different this prior offseason, they’d be roughly a .500 team if they simply didn’t give 800 PAs to negative value players, and 20 starts to negative value starting pitchers. So talent is a problem, but not as much of a problem as it seems.

A smart team would have DLed Bruce at the start of the year, given Conforto a proper rehab, DLed Frazier immediately after his injury instead of a month later, DFA’d Reyes and Adrian Gonzalez in May, and moved Harvey and Vargas to the bullpen. A smart team would have also addressed its catcher need immediately instead of hiding behind Nido and Lobaton for a month.

Just with that better roster utilization, the team gains approximately 7 more wins. It’s not that the good players aren’t good enough, it’s that the really bad players got way too much playing time, and mostly by choice (not necessity).

hebrewMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  Reflect

You have to realize that it’s the Wilpons who force the Bruces and Reyes’ of the world upon us, and shame their players for being injured, encouraging them to play through the pain, meaning longer DL stints later.

rosen380
7 years ago
Reply to  Reflect

“they’d be roughly a .500 team if they simply didn’t give 800 PAs to negative value players, and 20 starts to negative value starting pitchers. ”

Even if you ignore that teams can put themselves in a position to need some replacement level or worse guys based on the starters they pick [“injury prone” or the like].

Mets do end up right at .500 if you take their MLB leading -9.2 fWAR and swap 9.2 losses for wins. But an issue with that is once you do the same for the whole league goes from .500 to .540.

Make an adjustment to get the league back to .500 and then the Mets are most of the way back down, at 50-59

francis_soyer
7 years ago

The Mets went through an unexpected GM change mid-year, so yeah you would expect that things might look inconsistent.

And if you’re in the “trade the pitching camp”, please mention what exactly you would want in return.

The free agent signs were a bust.

I think getting rid of Harvey teed the players off, but I’m just guessing.

dl80Member since 2026
7 years ago
Reply to  francis_soyer

The Mets should be able to get better than the Pirates gave up for Archer for each of their ace pitchers. That would be a good start.

francis_soyer
7 years ago
Reply to  dl80

Define “better” than Austin Meadows and Tyler Glasnow.

Everyone’s a genius until they need to provide names.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
7 years ago

I am trying to get myself around to understanding this 78 win number that is mentioned near the end of the article. It mentions Jeff McNeil so it is recent and there is no way the Mets can reach 78 wins even if the opponents don’t even show up.

mike89
7 years ago

Too bad they locked themselves into another year with Frazier, Vargas, and Bruce. They’ll justify this for a reason why they won’t spend in this year’s FA class. They won’t cut ties with those players so they’ll have nothing to do this offseason.

They have too much pride to sell and too much greed to buy. A forever mediocre club

francis_soyer
7 years ago
Reply to  mike89

Some people were wary of Frazier. Others thought he was a great sign.

It’s good to look back at where people were on that frosty winter day

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mets-add-todd-frazier-at-bargain-price/

dl80Member since 2026
7 years ago

Don’t forget they are still paying back Madoff money, with a couple more years to go I think.

Roughly $10 million each in 2019-2020, plus interest: https://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2016/05/mets_agree_to_pay_back_16_million_in_bernie_madoff.html

They should still have a higher payroll anyway, but don’t expect it to change until at least 2021.

BranchRickey11937Member since 2016
7 years ago

I grew up watching the Mets of Seaver, Koosman, Agee. Looking back, those were wonderful baseball years and baseball memories, even though the team was usually mediocre. Occasionally it got lucky and won something, but usually there was at least the hope that they would play meaningful games late into the year. With those pitchers, there was the feeling that 2 or 3 times a week you were the best team in baseball, and that’s valuable when you want to go out to spend an evening at the ballpark.

BranchRickey11937Member since 2016
7 years ago

……So what I’m saying is that unless your team has really fallen apart and is going to be terrible no matter what, the idea that you would trade guys like deGrom for lottery tickets (which is what most star-for-prospect trades are) is really repulsive. Stay competitive, make better decisions about the talent that is available in the market, spend money wisely but spend it. Field a competitive team that wins things once in a while and you’ve delivered what fans need.

ryanredsox
7 years ago

Stop going to Mets’ games, stop buying Mets’ merchandise, stop watching Mets’ games. For the sake of baseball boycott the Mets till there is new ownership.

The Frankman
7 years ago

Jokes aside, the Mets aren’t TOO far away and with no experienced GM really shouldn’t be making massive moves yet. There certainly were questionable moves that need to be resolved in the offseason (trade Bruce, pay deGrom, etc.) but they didn’t do anything to handicap the franchise, poor Familia trade aside.