BVW's plan

[Mex17]

If it turns out that the idea here is to absolutely go for broke now, make big trades that empty out the farm (Alonso excluded. . .except maybe in a package with Syndergaard for Goldschmidt. . .that is just one idea that popped into my head) and spend big in order to max out over the next 3 to 5 years, see what you can accomplish while deGrom is still in his prime and Syndergaard/Conforto/Nimmo/Diaz/Matz/Rosario/Alonso are still controllable (maybe Wheeler too if you can extend him a little), and then bottom out Astros style in order to really holistically build the system again with Baird and Guttridge as the primary lieutenants, who would be alright with that?

The idea would be that one or two champtionships over that 3 to 5 year period after a three decade drought, if that can be achieved, can provide cover for the real long term work that needs to be done afterwards.

Alderson was supposed to do that. He didn't. Now BVW has to, but not until after this run.

Who is in on this thought process?

Edited December 1, 2018 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't understand why the idea of a "teardown" or "bottoming out" is so appealing to so many fans. It just seems like masochism to me. It's absolutely not a prerequisite to sustained success. I want no part of anything like that.

[Mex17]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't understand why the idea of a "teardown" or "bottoming out" is so appealing to so many fans. It just seems like masochism to me. It's absolutely not a prerequisite to sustained success. I want no part of anything like that.

https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/10464218_10154263320520431_6241616349984624771_n.jpg?w=1000

https://www.amazon.com/Astroball-New-Way-Win-All/dp/0525576649/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1543667060&sr=8-2&keywords=astroball+book

[Benjamin Grimm]

So, it worked for the Astros. That doesn't mean it's the only way to do it.

[Frayed Knot]

Also, because things have worked that way in some instances doesn't mean they're destined to work each and every time they're tried. Each case is different, as will be each outcome.

And then there's the logic of saying B followed A therefore A must have caused B
Houston wound up with three consecutive #1 overall picks due to their, not merely bad but horrid, stretch of seasons (324 losses over 3 years) but actually wound up whiffing on two of them.
Carlos Correa was a great find but neither of the other two even reached the major leagues (and one I believe has already retired).
Now they hit on enough other moves obviously to get into the great position they've been in over the last two years -- some of which (Int'l signings for instance) had nothing to do with them scraping
the bottom for nearly half a decade. One could even argue that -- at least to a certain point -- their success has occurred despite their teardown rather than because of it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mex17 wrote: The idea would be that one or two champtionships over that 3 to 5 year period after a three decade drought, if that can be achieved, can provide cover for the real long term work that needs to be done afterwards. Alderson was supposed to do that. He didn't. Now BVW has to, but not until after this run. Who is in on this thought process?

I dont think that teams plan for winning a World Series because that feat requires so much luck that even fielding the undisputed best team in baseball isn't nearly enough to win it all. Also, the World Series champion isn't necessarily the best team. More so today with expanded rounds of post season. I think teams try to maximize their chances of winning the division and then hope for the best.

So the idea of holding a GM, who might only have a few seasons, to the goal of winning it all is, at least to me, unreasonable.

[Centerfield]

Of course the ultimate goal is to win it all. But as batmags says, there is so much luck involved. You can do everything right and not win one. Failing to win it all is not necessarily a failure.

The real goal is sustained success. Several division titles and a string of playoff appearances. And you hope to snag a title along the way.

If you fail to obtain sustained success, you have failed.

And I think a minimum is 3 out of 5.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

God, he's an agent. But if he doesn't move Syndergaard... I think this is the kind of Tony Robbins bullshit I could get behind for a while.

Tweetin' Tyler Kepner wrote: “Everything is possible and nothing is impossible,” says Mets GM Brodie Van Wagenen, as he introduces Cano and Diaz.

[Centerfield]

If I had to guess, BVW's plan is to win now at all costs, to hell with the future. Try to win during the deGrom/Syndergaard window.

Then tear it down and do an Astros-style rebuild. Hope that by the time the new wave comes in, the Wilpons are in a better financial situation.

[MFS62]

Centerfield wrote: Then tear it down and do an Astros-style rebuild. Hope that by the time the new wave comes in, the Wilpons are in a better financial situation.

Do we know if any of this money has made its way back to the Wilpons?
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2018-11-29/more-money-for-madoff-victims-nearly-10-years-after-his-arrest

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't think he's planning on a tear down. That may eventually happen if things don't go well, but I don't think it's part of the plan.

[smg58]

Centerfield wrote: If I had to guess, BVW's plan is to win now at all costs, to hell with the future. Try to win during the deGrom/Syndergaard window. Then tear it down and do an Astros-style rebuild. Hope that by the time the new wave comes in, the Wilpons are in a better financial situation.

I agree with the first part of this. But a few more trades like the last one, and the opportunity to rebuild sooner than 2024 will vanish.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm hoping his plan is to win now, and give himself time to figure out how to also win four or five years from now.

[Guest Mets Willets Point]

Show us the plan!

[Lefty Specialist]

You might be able to get away with a teardown in Houston, but not in New York. Not seeing it.

[A Boy Named Seo]

Mets Willets Point wrote: Show us the plan!

I was trying to find old pics of Ambler dressed up as a cowboy

[Guest Mets Willets Point]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Mets Willets Point wrote: Show us the plan! I was trying to find old pics of Ambler dressed up as a cowboy

The good old Ambler 4-pack!

[Centerfield]

Today's interview is enlightening. For the first time, since Brodie was hired, he dropped a hint that the top of the market is outside of his capabilities. In other words, they won't expand payroll and play like a big market team.

That he did the the day after the excitement from the Cano trade, I believe, is intentional.

Here's what I think is happening. The Mets can't afford a top tier payroll. This much is clear by now. The last few years, they've tried to fudge it, and been unsuccessful. After last winter, some foolishly believed that the Mets had made a commitment to win. No one is foolish enough to believe it again.

If they signed a bunch of second-tier scrubs again, even the pollyannas at the Daily News would have taken them to task. So they're going a different route.

Through trades, the Mets can add flashy, big name players without a big financial commitment. The Cano trade was payroll neutral. Realmuto wouldn't break the bank either. It matters not if the Mets actually get better or worse, the moves are exciting.

They can fool the fans again. We were "aggressive". Courageous. Bold and creative. When in actuality, these moves are just dumb. Do we really believe Sandy wasn't capable of taking on $100 million in salary for a 36 year old PED user? I'm guessing Sandy just knew better. And though he might not have been the best at finding prospects, when he found one he wasn't dumb enough to trade such a prize away.

In the end, the Mets payroll will end up somewhere in that second tier. Just like we were last year. But this time, they'll talk about adding Cano, and adding Diaz, and adding Realmuto, without mentioning the tremendous talent that left the organization. They'll couch it as an election. "We went the trade route, instead of free agent route. We chose creativity" Blah blah blah. And some media and fans will lap it up.

I've already heard some of the justification. "Look at how the Red Sox did it with the Chris Sale trade. They were brave enough to trade prospects....yyy". Sure, the Sale trade was creative. But signing JD Martinez wasn't creative.

Many said they'd judge the Cano trade on what the Mets do the rest of the way. If the Wilpons don't give Brodie a budget big enough to compete with the top 5, then it's the same old bullshit again.

[Benjamin Grimm]

What was the hint that he dropped?

[Centerfield]

When asked about Harper and Machado, he said "the two big boys do not have offers from us quite yet."

When asked if it was possible, he said the Mets would have to get "really creative" to make it work under the current payroll constraints.

So much for "we'll be in on every free agent".