which trade you'd most like undone

[roger_that]

On the old trading deadline day, this seems an apropos topic, and not as easy (SEAVER! SEAVER! SEAVER!) as it might seem.



The perspective I'm asking you to look at this topic through today is: Which trade cost the Mets their chance for the most championships?



Seaver had some good years after 1977, but the team as a whole sucked pretty badly, and I'd argued that his presence didn't cost them anything until the team improved, by which time he was definitely on the downside of his career. Maybe he would have helped in 1985, but if they had retained his services, the 1985 Mets probably wouldn't have had Dwight Gooden. Maybe 1984? But that's really about it.



Other nominees might include Staub for Lolich, but how many championships did that cost? Not many. Lolich wasn't that bad anyway, mostly unlucky. Maybe Staub on the other end: we might have been better with Ken Singleton than Rusty, but maybe we don't win in 1973? Maybe.



Ryan? Otis? These have haunted me but I'm not sure what they cost. I'm sure we've made some poor trades more recently, too, but I'll let you guys make some nominations of players we've traded off who could have helped when the team was competitive. (You need to account for the players the Mets got in return for these players, of course.) There is an answer out there--I'm not sure exactly what it is.

[Edgy MD]

Do you mean to suggest that Tom Seaver was so good in 1981 that the Mets are in a lesser draft position in 1982 and likely don't get Dwight Gooden?

[roger_that]

No, I'm remembering that his presence in the rotation was blocking Gooden's promotion in 1984, and who knows how long that would have gone on. Although what you're suggesting also makes sense. Seaver was pretty damned good in 1981.

[Edgy MD]

Well, that's mere speculation. He was gone before spring training began in 1984, so he never got a chance to block anybody.

[Ceetar]

Melvin Mora perhaps.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I was thinking that if the Mets hadn't traded Jeff Kent in 1996, he might have put the 1999 or 2000 Mets over the top. (Or maybe the 1998 Mets.) But they got pretty good production out of Robin Ventura and Edgardo Alfonzo, so maybe it wouldn't have made that much of a difference.



Maybe they should have kept Kevin Mitchell? Or not traded Mike Scott for Danny Heep?

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

While losing Amos Otis didn't hurt them in 1969, it would have been nice to have had him on the team in 1973.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Do you mean to suggest that Tom Seaver was so good in 1981 that the Mets are in a lesser draft position in 1982 and likely don't get Dwight Gooden?

We discussed the Seaver trade this way once. The team was so bad, keeping Seaver wouldn't have made a meaningful difference in the standings. On the other hand, with Seaver, the Mets wouldn't have been bad enough to draft Strawberry and they wouldn't have made it up that year because the 1st round of the 1980 amateur draft is among the worst ever. Without Strawberry, and probably some other prospects that the Mets don't get to draft, including Dykstra and yes, maybe Gooden, Keith probably doesn't stay after '83 and without Straw and Keith, the Mets probably don't bother trading for Carter.



It wasn't the Mets intent to tank in 1977, if that was even a tactic back then, but they essentially did even if they blundered into it, and the next regime was able to parlay the Mets high draft picks from fielding awful teams into gold.





Obviously, I'd take back the Ryan trade. Fregosi was practically DOA. Would Ryan have delivered another pennant? A world series title? Who knows? But Ryan became a dominant pitcher instantly for the Angels and the Mets already had baseball's best pitching staff under Berra. Ryan would've replaced the Mets 5th starter, a huge talent increase. Seaver, Matlack, Koosman and Ryan! Having Ryan wouldn't have hurt the Mets.

[Fman99]

Seconded on the Ryan trade.

[Edgy MD]

I really wish I could undo the Harry Chiti trade.

[MFS62]

Edgy MD wrote: I really wish I could undo the Harry Chiti trade.

I actually did laugh out loud at that.



Later

[Lefty Specialist]

Ryan from a 'gee we would have been better' standpoint.



Seaver from a 'did you have to rip my heart out and stomp on it?' perspective.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Seaver from a 'did you have to rip my heart out and stomp on it?' perspective.

This was true throughout Seaver's entire Reds stint. But looking back at that trade 45 years later, cooly, dispassionately and removed of any emotion, the Mets were better off in the long run, trading Seaver to Cincy. The team was going nowhere even with Seaver. It was awful, its farm had dried up and the owners were not gonna pursue top tier free agents. With Seaver, the great teams of the 80s might not have happened.

[Frayed Knot]

Subject to change as I think about this a bit more, but right now I'm going with the Kazmir deal. Not that losing Kazmier himself was all that sinful, but he may have been at his peak value as a prospect at that moment and the club seemed to make little effort to maximize the return. Indeed several clubs expressed surprise that he was even available for a deal implying, if not flat out stating, that they were willing to come forward with a better package had they known.



In all, it was just a perfect example of the narrow vision from the 'Pons, their unwillingness to find and/or trust an independent baseball man in the front office, and their conceit that they, along with their trusted 'wise old advisors' knew more than they actually did.

[Ceetar]

yeah. obvious this is all bunk and nothing unfolds exactly the same anyway, but the Mets probably win the World Series in '06 with Kazmir instead, and probably at least make the playoffs in 2007, 2008. Of course, they might not have gone big for Santana without the '07 collapse, so maybe no no hitter? But Willie Randolph would be probably be heralded as the best Mets manager in decades, and would be managing somewhere else in baseball now.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Not me. The Mets won in spite of Randolph. If the Mets won x games with Randolph, they would've won more than x games with practically any other manager. He was the worst Mets manager ever. I loathed him. And I never tire of saying so.

[G-Fafif]

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=96072 time=1655319374 user_id=119]
While losing Amos Otis didn't hurt them in 1969, it would have been nice to have had him on the team in 1973.

[Ceetar]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=96093 time=1655334737 user_id=68]
Not me. The Mets won in spite of Randolph. If the Mets won x games with Randolph, they would've won more than x games with practically any other manager. He was the worst Mets manager ever. I loathed him. And I never tire of saying so.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

I'll just throw out one of my pet trades-- not arguing this was necessarily more devastating than say Ryan-Fregosi, but coughing up Carp, Carrera, Chavez, Heilman, Joe Smith, Cleto and Jason Vargas across 2 teams for 3 absolutely worthless players-- Putz, Jeremy Reed and Sean Green (the relief pitcher)-- was a colossal waste of resources. Had we taken nothing in return, and released every player except Joe Smith, they'd have been way better off. Complete indictment of Omar's stunning incompetence, and the clubs' naked ambition to appear like they were improving vs. actually improving.



Still pissed off about it.

[kcmets]

You know what I'm saying?

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

=G-Fafif post_id=96094 time=1655336448 user_id=55]
=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=96072 time=1655319374 user_id=119]
While losing Amos Otis didn't hurt them in 1969, it would have been nice to have had him on the team in 1973.

[kcmets]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=96089 time=1655331534 user_id=68]But looking back at that trade 45 years later, cooly, dispassionately and removed of any emotion, the Mets were better off in the long run, trading Seaver to Cincy. The team was going nowhere even with Seaver. It was awful, its farm had dried up and the owners were not gonna pursue top tier free agents. With Seaver, the great teams of the 80s might not have happened.

[G-Fafif]

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=96117 time=1655343141 user_id=119]
=G-Fafif post_id=96094 time=1655336448 user_id=55]
=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=96072 time=1655319374 user_id=119]
While losing Amos Otis didn't hurt them in 1969, it would have been nice to have had him on the team in 1973.

[roger_that]

Otis, Ryan, Singleton prolly combined for 15 AL ALl-Star appearances in the 1970s.



As long as we're bashing Met managers here, I want to put in a word against Saint Gil, who seems to have been most eager to dump Nolan Ryan. It's weird, because as a player, he had the closest view of a young Sandy Koufax struggling for years and years with Ryan's exact problem and promise, so you'd think he would have had the most patience with Ryan, but apparently not. From what I've read, he was the most willing of all the Mets high command to dump Ryan, and the most impressed by Fregosi, which must be the blackest mark on his resume, if true, which I believe it is.

[roger_that]

Probably not. No 300 games.[TWEET]https://twitter.com/metsrewind/status/1537262604007129090/photo/1https://twitter.com/metsrewind/status/1537262604007129090/photo/1[/TWEET] Interesting perspective, though.



Makes me think of my scariest personal moments, and how some of them worked out pretty well for me.



OE: WTF? Try again: [TWEET]https://twitter.com/metsrewind/status/1537262604007129090/photo/1https://twitter.com/metsrewind/status/1537262604007129090/photo/1[/TWEET]



OE again: I'll just paste the nut quote :



“It was both the worst day and the best day as I look back on it now. The team was being run into the ground. If I had stayed, would I have won 300 games? It would have been nice to be a Met my whole career, but I'm eternally grateful to have experienced all I did.” - Tom Seaver

[roger_that]

Looking over the Ryan deal, it's now clear to me that Ryan-for-Fregosi cost us a few pennants and World's Championships, in 1972, a WC in '73, then '74, '75, and '76. Most of these years the Mets finished in 3rd place, a few games over .500, while Ryan racked up WAR like 6.0 with 300 IP and an ERA well below 2.00, Meantime, we were starting never-weres like Hank Webb, Randy Tate, Harry Parker. Maybe 1974 is pushing it (a 71 win season is hard to overcome with any one player) but the mid-70s could have been a terrific period for the Mets with Ryan and minus Fregosi. Instead I remember it like a lingering migraine.

[Gwreck]

I'll second Kazmir. You add him to the 2006-08 teams and they win a championship there.

[batmagadanleadoff]

... led the league in K's in 2007.

[roger_that]

Both Kazmir and Ryan deals are equals in value received (bupkis) but Ryan had so much longer a career as a dominating pitcher (even if considered an innings-eater, which he was, too) that I think he maybe answers the OP here, in terms of "numbers of World's Championships his loss cost the Mets." I think Ryan's peak was higher than Kazmir's too, and he repeated that season about a dozen times.

[roger_that]

Mora is also a great choice, though. In the three seasons from 2003-5, he had 14.6 WAR, but the Mets were pretty sucky in the Art Howe years so it's pretty questionable if he was sufficient to get them into contention. Also the issue of the 2000 pennant comes up--he was swapped out for Mike Bordick, generally felt to be a poor trade, but you really can't complain about the immediate results.