So Now What?

[Guest 41Forever]

Centerfield wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: The Mets half-ass it. They can't commit to a full teardown like Philly or Houston or Atlanta have done because they're in New York. I full teardown would have required 4-5 years of losing, and losing badly. They can't do that in New York. They don't have the money or roster-building skill to create a sustainable winner, so you get the Half-ass. Where you hope that David Wright will come back or the 5 guys who were supposed to be good actually pitch good at the same time, which never, ever happened. Where you pick an Adrian Gonzalez or a Jose Reyes off the scrap heap. Where an Eric Campbell or Ty Kelly get far more playing time than they ever deserved on a major league team. Problem with the Half-ass is that occasionally things go right, like in 2015. You then think that justifies continuing on the way you have because maybe this year we'll catch lightning in a bottle again. That usually engenders lots of blah seasons with a team going nowhere. I think we are getting caught up in some minutia here. This is the point and this is the inescapable reality of being a Mets fan since 2009. Until 2015, one could argue that the approach was one of rebuilding. (Even if they never committed to it the way the Astros did.) What's become evident the last few years is that the team will ever return to its pre-Madoff spending days.

I think you guys get too hung up on payroll. Astros last year were 18th, and are 11th this year. Tigers have been a top-5 payroll team since 2012. We went to the World Series with the 21st highest payroll.

The Mets have been to the playoffs twice in the last three seasons. Last year's injuries were a fluke. We were in first place this season until about a week ago. The division is wide open. This is a good season to be Mets fan.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Guest

[Centerfield]

41Forever wrote: Centerfield wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: The Mets half-ass it. They can't commit to a full teardown like Philly or Houston or Atlanta have done because they're in New York. I full teardown would have required 4-5 years of losing, and losing badly. They can't do that in New York. They don't have the money or roster-building skill to create a sustainable winner, so you get the Half-ass. Where you hope that David Wright will come back or the 5 guys who were supposed to be good actually pitch good at the same time, which never, ever happened. Where you pick an Adrian Gonzalez or a Jose Reyes off the scrap heap. Where an Eric Campbell or Ty Kelly get far more playing time than they ever deserved on a major league team. Problem with the Half-ass is that occasionally things go right, like in 2015. You then think that justifies continuing on the way you have because maybe this year we'll catch lightning in a bottle again. That usually engenders lots of blah seasons with a team going nowhere. I think we are getting caught up in some minutia here. This is the point and this is the inescapable reality of being a Mets fan since 2009. Until 2015, one could argue that the approach was one of rebuilding. (Even if they never committed to it the way the Astros did.) What's become evident the last few years is that the team will ever return to its pre-Madoff spending days. I think you guys get too hung up on payroll. Astros last year were 18th, and are 11th this year. Tigers have been a top-5 payroll team since 2012. We went to the World Series with the 21st highest payroll. The Mets have been to the playoffs twice in the last three seasons. Last year's injuries were a fluke. We were in first place this season until about a week ago. The division is wide open. This is a good season to be Mets fan.

This post is so stupid and lazy. People here take the time to think through their ideas before posting. When you write something this lazy you're going to piss people off. You talk about the Wilpons being tone deaf? Holy crap.

No one here ever said you need a high payroll to win. No one here ever said that high payrolls guarantee winning. So stop citing to facts that refute theories that are not offered.

If you read this thread, you'd see that the Astros approach was raised several times as an effective way to win. Blow it up. Lose, rebuild, then go for it. It is specifically cited as an effective method for small market teams. The downside is that you get peaks and valleys. Years of awful baseball followed by a brief period of contention, but if done right, you at least get a small window of greatness. Like Houston or Kansas City.

The other way is to go big market. Develop talent and bolster it with high priced talent. If done correctly, it can lead to long periods of sustained success. Like the Yankees, or Red Sox, or Dodgers, or Cubs etc.

If you do either method poorly, you will lose, regardless of your payroll.

But hey, look, another post for you to gloss over. Let's start the stopwatch on the next "But payroll doesn't guarantee winning" post.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I agree with CF, it isn't necessarily the amount of money spent on the player payroll, but rather the wisdom with which that money is invested. The Mets haven't spent their money wisely. They have generally spent their money on slow, veteran sluggers that are past their prime. The team needs an infusion of young talent that has speed and can get on base. Most importantly, the Mets need to add players that are in their prime (or whose best years are likely to be ahead of them) not prior stars whose best years are past.

[Ceetar]

Rockin' Doc wrote: Most importantly, the Mets need to add players that are in their prime (or whose best years are likely to be ahead of them) not prior stars whose best years are past.

Like Todd Frazier and Cespedes and Lagares?


The only guy who is old and past his prime (one year past) is Gonzalez, who's actually been somewhat fine and unlucky. Jason Vargas and Jay Bruce too, but the Mets have some depth there and it's not like they're relying on these guys to carry the team.

[MFS62]

Start rebuilding the pipeline as well as making moves at the major league level.
The next step will be the draft. Success builds on success. Draft players who have had success at winning programs, players who have performed, not those who they think might perform. And I would concentrate with the first few picks on college players who could be closer to major league ready than high school players. (I also posted other thoughts in the draft thread.)
Later

[Edgy MD]

Seven of the Mets' first eight picks last year were college players, from winning programs (Stanford, Oregon, Oklahoma State) too.

The idea that you want players that have played good, rather than players you think will play good, kind of undercuts the argument to believe in the scouting of Omar Minaya and the like.

[MFS62]

Seven of the Mets' first eight picks last year were college players, from winning programs (Stanford, Oregon, Oklahoma State) too.

I originally had specified position players, but it must have been accidentally deleted when I made some other edits.
From the scouting thread about Bart:

The Mets have gone the college route recently, taking three college arms with first-round picks in 2017 and two in 2016. The last college bat they took was Michael Conforto in 2014, and he got to the big leagues in a hurry.

Later

[Centerfield]

To illustrate what I mean, I feel like this is more or less a successful rebuild:

1. Step 1: Tear it down
During these years, it's expected that you won't win. You lose, you try to draft Bryce Harper and Steven Strassburg. You sign Ronald Acuna Jr. as an international free agent. You trade your valuable players for more prospects, or international pool money, and you build a core of young talent. You slash payroll to nothing. It's low, attendance is low, and you go into the season expecting to lose, a lot.

Win Expectation: 60-70.

2. Step 2: Develop the Talent
Eventually, your prospects make their way through the system and start making their debuts. You find useful players having good years, and maybe you sell them off to get more young talent. Attendance picks up as people start to buy in. People want to see the debut of Harper, or Acuna, etc. Payroll remains dirt low. So maybe with the increased attendance you make a few bucks and can store some of that away. Hell, maybe if everything goes right you snag a Wild Card and go on a surprise run. It's a bonus. You're not done yet.

Win Expectation: 75-85 games.

3. Step 3: Go for it.
Your prospects have all arrived. They are tearing it up. You start to increase payroll. You have to since some of your guys are arbitration eligible. For the first time in years, you sign free agents to fill out your roster. You trade minor leaguers to bring in Justin Verlander, or Andrew Miller. You keep this core together and try to win it all. The goal is to win the division and win the World Series. Unquestionably, you are one of the best teams in baseball.

Win Expectation: 95-100 games.

4. Step 4: Decline
You've lost some of your top guys but you remain competitive. You're already maxed out on payroll, but you try to catch lightning in a bottle and take a chance on some question marks. Coming back from TJ surgery? Let's try that guy for cheap. If we get a few breaks maybe we can steal the division, or snag a wild card. We're not deep though, so a few injuries will probably sink us.

Win Expectation: 80-85 games.

5. Step 5: Tear it down again
Your window as closed. Trade away your talent for prospects. Start over again.

I fee like the Mets will forever be stuck in Step 4.

[seawolf17]

I think we were all kind of hoping that we were somewhere in Step IV and II right now. Yes, there are older pieces, but the rotation is/was young and exciting, there were young guys all up and down the lineup (Rosario, Nimmo, Dom, Conforto) who had potential to break out, stud in the middle (Yo), and complementary pieces around them (Frazier, Lagares, Cabrera).

Part of the problem is none of those guys are/were "can't-miss" the way that the Harpers and Machados and Trouts and Acunas are, and the pitching is ephemeral, and Yo is dinged up, which means we're relying on Todd Frazier and Asdrubal Cabrera and Jason Vargas to lead us to the promised land.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't want the Mets to ever be in Step One. I don't think it's necessary. They should be always be doing Steps Two and Three simultaneously, like the Braves did so successfully in the 1990s.

Under the five-step scenario, those few years that you're in Step Three will probably get you a few playoff appearances, but won't guarantee a World Series win before Step Four takes over. The end result may not be any different from the cycle we've seen with the Mets.

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't want the Mets to ever be in Step One. I don't think it's necessary. They should be always be doing Steps Two and Three simultaneously, like the Braves did so successfully in the 1990s. Under the five-step scenario, those few years that you're in Step Three will probably get you a few playoff appearances, but won't guarantee a World Series win before Step Four takes over. The end result may not be any different from the cycle we've seen with the Mets.

I would love to always be in Steps 2 and 3 too. The problem with that model is that it requires the club to spend money. During the 1990's, Atlanta consistently had one of the top payrolls in baseball. I'm resigned to the fact that they won't spend like that again.

I know Step 1 sucks, but I'd be all for if it meant we got a Step 3.

I don't even remember the last time I felt like we were in Step 3.

[A Boy Named Seo]

I think what CF came up with is about right, although drafting a Bryce Harper or Steven Strasburg depends a lot on how bad you tank and how high your picks are, and signing a Ronald Acuña or Vlad Jr. depends on how committed the team is to dumping resources (human and financial) into international scouting. And luck! Lots of luck! The Astros swung and missed on Mark Appel (along with every other draft prognosticator) but they struck gold with George Springer, Carlos Correa and Alex Bregman with more studs waiting in the wings. Good fortune, for sure, but they had a plan and were committed to it and good things happened. I'm sure if they only got 1 ring out of this reboot, they'd be disappointed given the collection of talent, but they still got a ring out it.

And the supposed advantage of being a New York team is that if you could tie up your new budding stars to long-term deals in pre-arb, you could make your trade for Verlander or Andrew Miller, but could still do something outrageous like trade for Manny Machado and get right up to the luxury tax line if you needed to. That's something the Astros, or another small- to mid-market rebuilding team just couldn't do.

[Guest 41Forever]

Centerfield wrote: I don't want the Mets to ever be in Step One. I don't think it's necessary. They should be always be doing Steps Two and Three simultaneously, like the Braves did so successfully in the 1990s. Under the five-step scenario, those few years that you're in Step Three will probably get you a few playoff appearances, but won't guarantee a World Series win before Step Four takes over. The end result may not be any different from the cycle we've seen with the Mets. I would love to always be in Steps 2 and 3 too. The problem with that model is that it requires the club to spend money. During the 1990's, Atlanta consistently had one of the top payrolls in baseball. I'm resigned to the fact that they won't spend like that again. I know Step 1 sucks, but I'd be all for if it meant we got a Step 3. I don't even remember the last time I felt like we were in Step 3.

Lest I get called stupid and lazy again, but one hand you say this:

No one here ever said you need a high payroll to win.

Then this:

The problem with that model is that it requires the club to spend money. During the 1990's, Atlanta consistently had one of the top payrolls in baseball. I'm resigned to the fact that they won't spend like that again.

I think they were in step three in 2015, with the stud pitchers coming of age and adding Cespedes late in the season. I think we could say the same about 2016, adding Neil Walker prior to the season. Last season everything that could go wrong did go wrong. I think things are better now. They'll come out of this funk. Maybe I'm a Pollyanna, but I'm enjoying this season.

It also seemed like a weak-ish free agent class last year. Let's give them a chance in this upcoming year.

[Centerfield]

Centerfield wrote: I think you have to commit to one or another. Either go big and spend money and be like the Red Sox/Yankees/Dodgers, or embrace the small market mentality and go the nuclear route.

If you have a top payroll, you can try to win every year like the teams I mention.

If you don't, and you're a small market team, the best way to go for a championship is to do a nuclear rebuild.

The steps I mention above are the general steps of a successful nuclear rebuild.

There are teams that spend a lot of money but fail. Winning is hard.

There are teams that try a nuclear rebuild but fail. Winning is hard.

In my opinion, if you do neither of the two (don't spend money, never rebuild) you will forever be in no-man's land, where you win around 75-85 games year after year. You will never have any sustained success, and you only win once in a blue moon when everything happens to break the right way.

[seawolf17]

The case is made, though, and it makes some reasonable semblance of sense, that "New York fans need to have a winner." A Mets team that wins 60 games a year for three or four seasons doesn't sell season tickets, whereas "THIS MIGHT BE THE YEAR" does, at least a little bit.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I would never advocate for the Mets to do the tear-down thing. I would have them, each year, say where are our weaknesses and how can we best address them? And the option to spend big on a free agent or two has to be on the table.

And I think that this is what the Mets have been doing, but in a too wishy-washy manner. They went big on Cespedes, but they mix in too much bargain hunting. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with bargain hunting, but it's been a larger part of the plan than it should be.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm dubious of the tear down and I think fans badly underestimate their patience for such a thing, and I also think they more or less did a stealth one between 09-2015 and its results illustrate the trickiness of pulling it off.

I sorta wish they were more creative is all.

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I would never advocate for the Mets to do the tear-down thing. I would have them, each year, say where are our weaknesses and how can we best address them? And the option to spend big on a free agent or two has to be on the table. And I think that this is what the Mets have been doing, but in a too wishy-washy manner. They went big on Cespedes, but they mix in too much bargain hunting. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with bargain hunting, but it's been a larger part of the plan than it should be.

So spend more? Or spend more wisely? (Forego the Fraziers, Vargases and Bruces and go for one big ticket FA?)

I mean, I'd be on board with what you propose. Sure as hell beats a tear down. But do you think the Wilpons can afford this?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't know if the Wilpons can afford it. That, of course, is the rub. But it's the approach that a New York team should take. And if the Wilpons can't do it, then they should sell the team. But that's a whole 'nother topic.

I suspect they can afford to spend more than they've been spending. I wish they would.

So spend more? Or spend more wisely? (Forego the Fraziers, Vargases and Bruces and go for one big ticket FA?)

Maybe sign a Frazier and/or a Gonzalez (but skip Vargas and Bruce) and also go for a big ticket guy. Some bargains are okay, but as I said, they're leaning too heavily in that direction.

[batmagadanleadoff]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm dubious of the tear down and I think fans badly underestimate their patience for such a thing, and I also think they more or less did a stealth one between 09-2015 and its results illustrate the trickiness of pulling it off. I sorta wish they were more creative is all.

Lotsa folks think the teardown method is a no-brainer but the Cubs and 'Stros, given their remarkable and unlikely success with it, probably set a terrible example --- because everything has to pan out which means you need skill and off the charts luck. Especially in the draft. High draft position. Available phenoms. And the phenom picks gotta pan out even though more often than not, they don't pan out.

And I don't wanna sound like a broken record on this point, but given that the Mets signed Wright in 2012, they're never gonna teardown. The Wright signing set this team back immeasurably. First there was the stud prospect Sandy could've presumably flipped Wright for. Then the way Wright held 3B in limbo these last years as the Mets hoped for Wright's return to all star form -- and this is 3B, on the soft end of the defensive spectrum, where in today's game, a big market team should be getting all star if not MVP offense from.

[seawolf17]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Wright signing set this team back immeasurably. First there was the stud prospect Sandy could've presumably flipped Wright for. Then the way Wright held 3B in limbo these last years as the Mets hoped for Wright's return to all star form -- and this is 3B, on the soft end of the defensive spectrum, where in today's game, a big market team should be getting all star if not MVP offense from.

This is (partially) wrong. There's no way they would have flipped Wright for prospects. None whatsoever. He was coming off a season where he finished sixth in the MVP voting, and he *was* the franchise at that point. Only once had he played in less than 144 games in a season.

Any team would offer that deal 99 times out of 100.

[batmagadanleadoff]

seawolf17 wrote: The Wright signing set this team back immeasurably. First there was the stud prospect Sandy could've presumably flipped Wright for. Then the way Wright held 3B in limbo these last years as the Mets hoped for Wright's return to all star form -- and this is 3B, on the soft end of the defensive spectrum, where in today's game, a big market team should be getting all star if not MVP offense from. This is (partially) wrong. There's no way they would have flipped Wright for prospects. None whatsoever. He was coming off a season where he finished sixth in the MVP voting, and he *was* the franchise at that point. Only once had he played in less than 144 games in a season. Any team would offer that deal 99 times out of 100.

What are you saying: that the Mets should've gotten better than prospect(s) or that they were right to keep Wright?

[Centerfield]

The teardown method is risky, and yes, it's unlikely but I feel like it's really the only way for a small market club to compete.

Houston and KC pulled it off successfully. Other than them, the last 10 World Series winners followed the big market, spend money model. (Cubs, Giants, Red Sox, Yankees, Phils, Cardinals). The last time low payroll team won without a complete rebuild was the White Sox in 2005. (13th in payroll, no blow up rebuild).

[nymr83]

Bashing the Wright deal makes no fucking sense. He was a healthy all star caliber player, this was EXACTLY the type of contract the Wilpon Haters would bash the Mets for NOT handing out. You cant (credibly) just bash the result that was unforeseeable.

Where the Mets erred, and where you can more justifiably criticize them, is in the length of time it took to stop holding out hope on a Wright return and sign Frazier or someone like him. The Dodgers or Yankees would have treated it as a completely sunk cost much sooner.

[nymr83]

Centerfield wrote: The teardown method is risky, and yes, it's unlikely but I feel like it's really the only way for a small market club to compete. Houston and KC pulled it off successfully. Other than them, the last 10 World Series winners followed the big market, spend money model. (Cubs, Giants, Red Sox, Yankees, Phils, Cardinals). The last time low payroll team won without a complete rebuild was the White Sox in 2005. (13th in payroll, no blow up rebuild).

I would say the Cubs followed the tear down method too to get the top prospects only available at the top of the draft, but they followed that up with spending. Call it the "Big Market Tear Down" - Philly is trying to do the same.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Guest

[Guest d'Kong76]

I suppose one could Wilpon-bash for not reinvesting the insurance money
they've collected on Wright's non participation though. Right?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Centerfield wrote: The teardown method is risky, and yes, it's unlikely but I feel like it's really the only way for a small market club to compete. Houston and KC pulled it off successfully. Other than them, the last 10 World Series winners followed the big market, spend money model. (Cubs, Giants, Red Sox, Yankees, Phils, Cardinals). The last time low payroll team won without a complete rebuild was the White Sox in 2005. (13th in payroll, no blow up rebuild).

There's a good reason for this. Several reliable recent studies were conducted, including by MLB itself. They all show that the more money a team in today's game spends, the more it wins and the more it draws in revenues. Even when their spending exceeds the luxury tax. That a team could also win by spending less is beside the point and as Alfred Hitchcock would say, a big MacGuffin.

[nymr83]

d'Kong76 wrote: I suppose one could Wilpon-bash for not reinvesting the insurance money they've collected on Wright's non participation though. Right?

Oh 1000%

But that is not an indictment of the original deal

[Guest d'Kong76]

Just throwing it out there, not specifically responding to anything. Who
could possible keep up! hahahah

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nymr83 wrote: Bashing the Wright deal makes no fucking sense. He was a healthy all star caliber player, this was EXACTLY the type of contract the Wilpon Haters would bash the Mets for NOT handing out. You cant (credibly) just bash the result that was unforeseeable. Where the Mets erred, and where you can more justifiably criticize them, is in the length of time it took to stop holding out hope on a Wright return and sign Frazier or someone like him. The Dodgers or Yankees would have treated it as a completely sunk cost much sooner.

They were four or five years away from contending in 2012, 2015 notwithstanding. The team was putrid, even with the NL's Cy Young pitcher (who wouldn't be returning). Degrom was an infielder. And Wright was in his 30s, past his prime and already with an injury history. This was a dumb signing. A chickenshit signing by a chickenshit ownership group.