Sandy Extendo

[nymr83]

Centerfield wrote: 4. A 90 game winner is lucky to win a division. 90 wins would have won zero divisions in 2017.

In the past 10 years, of the 60 division winners, 5 had exactly 90 wins while 6 more had less than 90 wins... i didn't bother checking the records of all the 2nd place teams (because you could make the argument that many of these teams didn't need the 90+ they won) but basically Centerfield is right - 90 wins is fairly bad odds to win your division.

The first half of 2015 sure wasn't magical, but I think the "badness" of it is getting a little overblown too. being barely above 500 and staying in the race until reinforcements arrived - and some guys already on the team started playing better - it wasn't all Cespedes - shouldn't be underrated. setting yourself up to make a run is a whole shit load better than being 5 or 6 games under .500 with nowhere to go

[Guest d'Kong76]

Hence the old school of thought - you can't win the division in April
and May but you sure can lose it.

When did winning the pennant become a bad thing for Mets' fans? I clearly
remember even on the old forum back in spring 2001 there was a lot of dread
still over not winning the WS and the notion of raising the NL Championship
flag mean very little to most. When I was a kid, just becoming a Mets' fan,
being in the WS in 1973 was a really big fucking deal!

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Nymr83 wrote: Centerfield wrote: 4. A 90 game winner is lucky to win a division. 90 wins would have won zero divisions in 2017. In the past 10 years, of the 60 division winners, 5 had exactly 90 wins while 6 more had less than 90 wins... i didn't bother checking the records of all the 2nd place teams (because you could make the argument that many of these teams didn't need the 90+ they won) but basically Centerfield is right - 90 wins is fairly bad odds to win your division.

Yes but we're talking about the National League East in 2015 and not every team in every year.

One thing all 60 of the 60 division winners have in common was that they were "lucky" to some degree, and I'd also say it's likely that 100% of them did something to improve themselves after their season started. I just wouldn't use that fact to justify an embarrassing show of ignorance by fans of those teams.

[Guest 41Forever]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: One thing all 60 of the 60 division winners have in common was that they were "lucky" to some degree, and I'd also say it's likely that 100% of them did something to improve themselves after their season started. I just wouldn't use that fact to justify an embarrassing show of ignorance by fans of those teams.

I agree. I'd say that to win a division, or go all the way and get the ring, requires all kinds of things to break the right way. The Mets in 2015 benefited from the Nats getting banged up and the Nats in 2017 clearly benefited from the Mets disastrous and endless string of injuries. Heck, I always wonder what Chase Utley's takeout of Reben Tejada did to the Mets' chances in the series. They rolled through the Cubs without him, but IIRC, he was having a solid run at short before Utley slide.

[Centerfield]

If you think the sign was embarrassing and foolish I'm not going to argue with you on that. Certainly I think there are better uses of one's money.

But the evidence is overwhelming that the idea was correct. The 2015 team, as constructed at the outset was not good enough. Whatever may have happened in spring training or during one subset of games in April, after 102 games, they were two games over .500, with a 28th ranked offense, and four games behind Washington.

Once the addition was made, the offense improved (jumped to #3), they went on a tear, and suddenly became a legitimate threat to win it all.

Very few times do you see the data line up so perfectly. If you disagree with these results, the burden is on you to prove otherwise. If you are going to call them ignorant, then you have to prove you were right and they were wrong. I don't think that can be done.

To your other points:

1. Improvement at the Deadline: I get what you are saying. Good teams improve themselves during the year, so it was premature for everyone to freak out. I disagree. If the team had a pattern of going the extra mile, getting reinforcements in July, perhaps then, one could make the argument that fans should have some faith. But given their history, I see nothing that would have given any of us reason to believe that Cespedes was coming.

2. Luck: Sure. Every team needs a few breaks to go their way. But a 90 win team needs more luck than a 97 win team.

[Guest 41Forever]

Metsblog has an interesting post, selecting Sandy's five best and worst moves as GM.

https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/sandy-aldersons-five-best-and-five-worst-moves-as-mets-gm/263895894

Click on the link to read the details of each move, but:

Sandy's five best moves: 5.) Dec. 4, 2013: Signs Bartolo Colon to a two-year deal 4.) Aug. 30, 2015: Acquires Addison Reed from the Diamondbacks for Miller Diaz and Matt Koch 3.) June 5, 2014: Selects Michael Conforto with the 10th overall pick in the MLB Draft 2.) July 31, 2015: Acquires Yoenis Cespedes from the Tigers for Michael Fulmer and Luis Cessa 1.) December 17, 2012: Acquires Noah Syndergaard, Travis d'Arnaud, Wuilmer Becerra, and John Buck from the Blue Jays for R.A Dickey and Josh Thole Honorable Mentions: Signing Curtis Granderson to a four-year deal in Dec. 2013, trading Jon Niese for Neil Walker in Dec. 2015, and trading Carlos Beltran for Zack Wheeler in July of 2011. Sandy's five worst moves: 5.) Dec. 7, 2011: Signs Frank Francisco to a two-year deal worth $12 million 4.) Dec. 23, 2015: Signs Alejandro De Aza to a one-year deal worth $5.75 million 3.) Dec. 7, 2011: Trades Angel Pagan to the Giants for Ramon Ramirez and Andres Torres 2.) Dec. 2, 2013: DFA's Justin Turner 1.) Jan. 6, 2016: Lets Daniel Murphy sign with the Nationals

First, honorable mentions are a cop out. If you really want to list seven moves, then call it "Sandy's seven best and worst moves." It's not like you are limited to five. But I digress.

I had completely purged Frank Francisco from my memory bank. Totally forgot about him.

I also forgot that Walker came in a trade for Niese. I'd make that move again and again.

Speaking of Niese, I guess if I was going to add two more to the bad side, I'd point to the Antonio Bastardo signing. Was Sandy responsible for the Collin McHugh trade?

I think the Juan Uribe flier turned out pretty good, too.

[G-Fafif]

If we're gonna relitigate the 2015 Mets, it's worth breaking them down into their streakiness.

2-3 (just like '86, it was noted ad infinitum)
11-0 (encompassing the 10-0 homestand that reset expectations)
23-27 (pitching carrying the hitting-AWOL day, featuring the coming of Thor)
0-7 (the obvious and absolute nadir)
16-13 (the arrivals of Johnson, Uribe and Conforto in response to the Zero Brigade lineup)
31-11 (the Cespedes-powered explosion)
6-6 (clinching period)
1-5 (division clinched, regulars rested)

It's impossible to subtract any fraction of a season (I can think of a couple of Septembers when that option would have been awesome), but without the miserable June losing streak in which they scored nine runs in seven consecutive losses, the 2015 Mets are a 90-65 outfit, the point being those Mets hung in remarkably well versus a flawed Nationals outfit before the cavalry arrived, never fully collapsing under the weight of their own offensive ineptitude.

Overall, a pretty good if incomplete and injury-riddled team that, once reinforced, played extraordinary ball, most notably against their primary rival.

[nymr83]

The Francisco and De Aza deals shouldn't be looked at as big negatives. The money on those deals should be trivial to Wilpon, if they didn't work out it doesn't matter.

DFA Turner should be #1 because it is pure talent evaluation. Not signing Murphy, who was a free agent, is more than that and he may just not have had monetary approval.

[Lefty Specialist]

G-Fafif wrote: If we're gonna relitigate the 2015 Mets, it's worth breaking them down into their streakiness. 2-3 (just like '86, it was noted ad infinitum) 11-0 (encompassing the 10-0 homestand that reset expectations) 23-27 (pitching carrying the hitting-AWOL day, featuring the coming of Thor) 0-7 (the obvious and absolute nadir) 16-13 (the arrivals of Johnson, Uribe and Conforto in response to the Zero Brigade lineup) 31-11 (the Cespedes-powered explosion) 6-6 (clinching period) 1-5 (division clinched, regulars rested) It's impossible to subtract any fraction of a season (I can think of a couple of Septembers when that option would have been awesome), but without the miserable June losing streak in which they scored nine runs in seven consecutive losses, the 2015 Mets are a 90-65 outfit, the point being those Mets hung in remarkably well versus a flawed Nationals outfit before the cavalry arrived, never fully collapsing under the weight of their own offensive ineptitude. Overall, a pretty good if incomplete and injury-riddled team that, once reinforced, played extraordinary ball, most notably against their primary rival.

And that 11 game winning streak that re-set expectations is why Met fans were so grumpy going into the trading deadline. We saw what that team could be, given a little offense. Terry started a Campbell/Mayberry 3-4 in the order to get the Wilpons' attention as much as anything. They got that offense (and more) from Cespedes and Murphy in August, September and October. But Mets teams have been sniffing around the playoffs lots of times in June and July only to crash and burn. So the unease at that point was well earned.

My guess is that this year the Mets will probably peak in spring training, and we'll have no angst at the trade deadline.

[Centerfield]

Nymr83 wrote: The Francisco and De Aza deals shouldn't be looked at as big negatives. The money on those deals should be trivial to Wilpon, if they didn't work out it doesn't matter. DFA Turner should be #1 because it is pure talent evaluation. Not signing Murphy, who was a free agent, is more than that and he may just not have had monetary approval.

The worst move he made was signing Michael Cuddyer. That move was wrong on so many levels.

1. Cuddyer was done. Not worth even the modest contract they gave him.
2. They relied on that signing as their big offensive improvement for that off-season.
3. Gave up a first round draft pick for him.

[Centerfield]

On the other hand, one of his best moves was signing Marlon Byrd, who he turned into Dilson Herrera, and eventually Jay Bruce. That is something out of nothing.

[nymr83]

Yeah, I didn't KNOW that Cuddyer was done, but I sure knew he wasnt worth losing that pick! Dumb CBA rule.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Getting Cuddyer to go away with a year left on his contract was an underrated win.

The correct answer is the Pagan trade.

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Getting Cuddyer to go away with a year left on his contract was an underrated win. The correct answer is the Pagan trade.

Pagan trade was real bad because there were three players involved and we lost the best one. That list is very retroactive. I mean, I'd have kept Turner but it wasn't like it was obvious. The Mets also didn't know (I assume) that the ball was juiced and was going to be further/remain juiced.

And like, Michael Cuddyer was a good hitter. He was a good add. _I_ was very happy with that and not alone. In retrospect, with his ditching on his contract, it seems possible he didn't have the drive to fight through an ailing and aging body. Or simply couldn't make the adjustments. Sometimes it's not a slow sloping decline, it's binary and you can't quite do it anymore. You're delusional if you think you knew that he was going to have a career low BB% and nearly a career worst K% and ISO. And even given that he was basically an average player.

2015 was a good and fun year, most of the year. They had a stretch of bad offense with a bit of abysmal offense in the middle, but throughout it all you could tell the Mets could really pitch and that the offense would get tweaked through promotion, chance, or trade and that would work wonders. The Mets ended up winning by 7 games, which was well more than the value added by Cespedes. Maybe it's all intangibles, I mean, Cespedes wasn't even that good coming into that trade. He too was probably a guy that really benefit(s/ed) from the juiced ball.

They continued to be pretty good in 2016, though the injury bug hit them hard and they didn't play the Nats as well head to head.

The 2018 squad is also pretty good. The Nats are not unbeatable juggernauts. The Mets might legitmately be one Max Scherzer elbow twinge from winning the division again.

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: I mean, I'd have kept Turner but it wasn't like it was obvious. The Mets also didn't know (I assume) that the ball was juiced and was going to be further/remain juiced.

Absolutely obvious. Cutting Turner was an unforced error. There was no decision to make, they didn't have to make a big financial commitment. There was absolutely no reason to let him go.

Every player in your organization is an asset, with the potential to be productive. Cutting one, especially one as versatile as Turner was, for no reason is dumb. And when you make dumb moves, they sometimes come back to bite you in the ass.

I wonder if this mistake is made if Minaya is in the organization at the time. Obviously Omar saw something in Turner that warranted him picking him up. You wonder if he would have been ok with just letting him walk.

[nymr83]

Well, you do have a roster limit of 25 (40 if he still had options and could be sent down), that is a cost for a guy who hadn't shown a ton and was 28 already

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

As I recall it, the champion of acquiring Turner was Wayne Krivsky, who'd been in the Cincinnati front office when Turner was signed.

Turner had already been given up by the Reds and Orioles when the Mets got him.

We've batted this around before but I sensed a strain of dissatisfaction with Turner's off-field behavior when he was a Met. I think they may have seen him as a influence on guys like Ike Davis and Harvey that was out of proportion to his contributions on the field. He also hurt himself a few times in incidents that made it look like he wasn't in shape. It's not entirely fair but the "versatile reserve" is a hugely valuable asset for any team but if they're not in ready to go at all times they are completely worthless. I suspect the club felt that Turner enjoyed too much nightlife to be ready every day.

[Centerfield]

Nymr83 wrote: Well, you do have a roster limit of 25 (40 if he still had options and could be sent down), that is a cost for a guy who hadn't shown a ton and was 28 already

The 2014 Mets opening day roster featured Omar Quintanilla, Andrew Brown, Eric Young and Josh Satin.

Not exactly a "what do we do with all this talent" type of team.

[Edgy MD]

The Mets have a history stretching back to something like 1996 of seeing infielders blossom after giving up on them. Kent and Vizcaino and Vina and Wigginton and Keppinger and Turner. On one hand, it's a downside of shopping for bigger names, that there's no room for the guys you've been developing. On the other hand, it sometimes demonstrates a lack of faith in the scouting decisions that brought them into your fold in the first place. On the other hand, it speaks well of the scouting decisions in the first place. On the fourth hand, I don't know.

But yeah, a guy costs a roster spot and an inflated salary that you believe he isn't worth, so while it certainly represents an error, I wouldn't call it unforced. This is why there are dozens and dozens of non-tenders every year at Thanksgiving.

And as for versatility, virtually every reserve/platoon infielder boasts the same calling card. Almost every infielder comes up with the tag of versatility until he loses it by hitting enough to stick somewhere. You don't think Gavin Cecchini would play second, third, short, left, right, third-string catcher, and drive the Zamboni if he thought it would keep him in the bigs?

The Mets had three reserve infielders around that time who were better hitters than defenders: Turner, Satin, and Campbell. They cycled one in when another failed. It's a strategy that works until guys run out of options. Turner ran out while another guy was ahead of him on the depth chart.

Maybe (probably?) their failure was in not coaching him and conditioning him to his full potential, though he still looks fat to me.

[Ceetar]

also #juicedball

but we've litigated this already.

I'd be willing to bet that the number of players that 'blossom' under other teams via arb cuts is not something the Mets are way out ahead in. I don't have the time or easy access to look this up though.