Post-Trade-Deadline Grumbling (Split from Aug 4 IGT)

[Edgy MD]

And your untouchable future superstar could be Shawn Abner or Billy Beane. Which is much likelier.

You're going to have to show me your work.



And please keep in mind that I didn't write anything about "untouchable" or "future superstar."



I just don't equate trading with "going for it."



I also support your notion that you should never go to a supermarket again. Line cutters are everywhere.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=102259 time=1659636932 user_id=68] And your untouchable future superstar could be Shawn Abner or Billy Beane. Which is much likelier.

You're going to have to show me your work.

[Ceetar]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=102270 time=1659639359 user_id=68]
He's only been here for a short while. We won't become the Dodgers in a season or two. But I'm confident that we're on the way.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=102259 time=1659636932 user_id=68] And your untouchable future superstar could be Shawn Abner or Billy Beane. Which is much likelier. You're going to have to show me your work.

What's the difference?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I sense that the Mets would have been willing to trade Vientos or Maurico but not Baty or Alvarez.



I can definitely understand wanting to keep Alvarez. If he turns out to be as good (or even half as good) as they're saying, he'll be a real asset because catchers are hard to come by. Baty, who they may be looking at as the third-baseman of the future, could more easily be replaced with a free agent. Nobody in this year's group looks super promising. Nolen Arenado may (or may not) opt out, but he's already 32. Justin Turner has the highest WAR among the 3Bs, but he's 38 years old.



I would have loved to have seen them bring in a proven young All-Star with a big bat (as the Padres did) but I understand why they didn't. So I'm not grumbling, at least not yet. Let's see how October goes. And then, the subsequent off-season. The Mets may have to rebuild their starting rotation and may need some of these trade chips then more than they do now. (deGrom, Bassitt, Carrasco, and Walker can all be free agents. As can Nimmo and Diaz.)



Here's the list: https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-2022-23-free-agents-by-positionhttps://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-2022-23-free-agents-by-position

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Ceetar post_id=102273 time=1659640077 user_id=102]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=102270 time=1659639359 user_id=68]
He's only been here for a short while. We won't become the Dodgers in a season or two. But I'm confident that we're on the way.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You're going to have to show me your work. What's the difference? The difference is that a statement of fact has weight when backed by evidence. I realize it's easier to mischaracterize and distort my position, but that doesn't have any weight. Not with me. So it's a futile exercise.

I don't believe I've mischaracterized your posts because I've been reading them for 15 years now. You're practically against every trade, before they're even made. You've convinced yourself that Mets prospects are better than other team's prospects simply because they're Mets. And Cohen's sample size is way too small. I'm not gonna use Wilpon era data where that ownership group was incompetent and I can't even say that my interests as a fan and the Wilpons' interests as owners was even perfectly aligned, especially during the 10 year Madoff era.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Anthony DiComo in the Mets Beat e-mail newsletter wrote: Eager to make a splash at the 2021 Trade Deadline, the Mets dealt their fifth-ranked prospect, 2020 first-round Draft pick Pete Crow-Armstrong, for two months of Javier Báez and a year-plus of Trevor Williams. They've at least partially regretted it ever since. Although Báez (thumbs-down episode notwithstanding) was productive for the Mets down the stretch, and Williams has been a glue guy for their pitching staff this year, the Mets missed the playoffs in 2021. And the cost was significant. Crow-Armstrong, who was injured at the time of the deal, is healthy now and is thriving in the Minors as the No. 75 prospect in baseball. Were he still in the Mets organization, Crow-Armstrong would rank fourth on their MLB Pipeline list behind Francisco Álvarez, Brett Baty and Ronny Mauricio. Billy Eppler wasn't the Mets' general manager at the time of that deal, but he's determined to avoid repeating the mistake, which is the simplified reason why he did not acquire a catcher or a left-handed pitcher prior to this year's Deadline. Although Willson Contreras, Sean Murphy or one of many lefty relievers could have helped the Mets, Eppler considered the cost too significant. “Some of that undisciplined thinking can lead to years of mediocrity and doing the same thing over and over and over again,” Eppler said. “One of the things we've talked about here is just really trying to maintain that organizational discipline, to crush any urge to make a snap or an impulsive decision and give up large amounts of future World Series odds or expectation in exchange for just some marginal gains right now.”  Within that answer, Eppler referenced the fact that when Mets officials evaluate trades, they do so using analytical models -- common practice around the league. Replacing Dominic Smith with Daniel Vogelbach, for example, will increase their odds to win a championship by a certain percent. Parting with Colin Holderman in that same deal will decrease their odds in future seasons. Mets owner Steve Cohen has been vocal in his desire to build something sustainable in Flushing, which in Eppler's eyes meant navigating the Trade Deadline without spending any of the organization's “Top 19 prospects.” It's a group that includes Álvarez, Baty, Mauricio, Mark Vientos, Alex Ramírez, Matt Allan and about a dozen others. Statistically speaking, most of those players will not develop into stars. But if the Mets keep their list of potential impact prospects long enough, it will create a pipeline of future contributors and trade chips. The counterargument is that rationality does not win titles. As Dodgers president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman once said in reference to the winter Hot Stove season, “If you're always rational about every free agent, you will finish third on every free agent.” The Dodgers have made deals in the past that many would consider irrational, swinging Deadline blockbusters for Yu Darvish, Trea Turner, Max Scherzer and others. They've remained extremely competitive due to their deep pockets and ability to continue infusing their farm system with talent. The Dodgers are not just richer than most teams in baseball; they're smarter, too. It's a place the Mets yearn to reach, and they were willing to sacrifice incremental improvements to this year's roster to do so. The price on Contreras remained high enough that no club acquired him, despite the fact that he plays for a fourth-place team and can become a free agent after this season. (Chicago's only incentive to keep its starting catcher was to extend him a qualifying offer this winter, and to increase its odds of re-signing him.) The Mets never came close on Contreras, according to a source. They did nearly acquire some lefty pitching, Eppler said, but couldn't strike a deal despite significant inventory around the league. As an example, a person familiar with negotiations said the Tigers was seeking multiple offensive pieces for lefty closer Gregory Soto; the Mets had little interest in dealing players such as Vientos or Mauricio for a relief pitcher. In one sense, this represents sound strategy, because the Mets figure go as far as Jacob deGrom and Scherzer take them. If either of those two suffers another injury, the team may not be able to recover. And if both are healthy, how much difference will a lefty reliever make? But in another sense, the Mets' current window of contention appears small. deGrom is 34 with a significant injury history and may be playing his final season as a Met. Scherzer is 38 with a growing list of aches and bruises. Taijuan Walker, Chris Bassitt and Carlos Carrasco can all become free agents after this season. If ever there was a year to do something irrational, this might be it -- even if it means sacrificing the next Crow-Armstrong, whose ultimate value is still unknown.

[Edgy MD]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=102279 time=1659641000 user_id=68]
I don't believe I've mischaracterized your posts because I've been reading them for 15 years now.

[Ceetar]

why are you confident? Because he's the wealthiest owner in baseball, for starters. Because this is just Cohen's second full season and you can't build Rome in a day. All I can reasonably hope for is that there's a contending team on the field. Post-season is mostly luck. And this year, we have more than a contending team.

But much of the staff is the same. It's still Sandy making the same Sandy comments and moves. They're on their...4th? GM and he's putting out lame excuses, even that article by DiComo seems negative, and quotes Andrew Friedman: "If you're always rational about every free agent, you will finish third on every free agent.”



I trust Friedman's view of things above literally anyone in the Mets front office right now. And Eppler can talk about "future championship value" all he wants, The Mets have A LOT of expiring contracts that will be tough to fill, even if you were gonna spend another $100 million next year. That means they're tentatively banking on MeGill and Peterson to be key pieces.

[whippoorwill]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I wish my cats would upgrade their litter box.

Ugh mine too. My son got one of those self cleaning litter boxes and I'm not impressed btw

[metsmarathon]

the mets could have a 6-7 year window, or a 1-year window, depending on how hard they went at this trade deadline. i think they're looking at this team as capable of competing this year, but also being a juggernaut moving forward with the good prospects they have just about to ripen.



alvarez, baty, vientos, and mauricio could all be playing in flushing next year, which frees up a fair bit of capital to throw at pitchers. i like what they're doing in this regard.

[MFS62]

I don't care if the State Department begs, I am NOT throwing Alvarez into any deal for Brittney Griner.



Later

[Lefty Specialist]

Jacob just turned 34 in June. So still closer to 30 than 40. Just saying.



And with all their time off this year, I'd imagine both will be fresh in October, barring more injuries.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=102279 time=1659641000 user_id=68] I don't believe I've mischaracterized your posts because I've been reading them for 15 years now.

Statements of faith are a dime a dozen. If you won't back up what you assert, then you won't.

[Edgy MD]

Really annoying.



Youssa say, "And your untouchable future superstar could be Shawn Abner or Billy Beane. Which is much likelier."



Then meesa say, "You're going to have to show me your work."



And then youssa all, "What's the difference?" Real cool-like.



And meesa all, "The difference is that a statement of fact has weight when backed by evidence." Just dorky as shit, but meesa am what meesa am! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Meesa think it's an easy enough narrative to follow. Or youssa can just write things about how intransigent meesa am. Or youssa can make it about Rey Ordóñez. That's fine. But it's just changing the subject to other things youssa won't back up. It's certainly not going to convince meesa that the value of deadline acquisitions are generally more likely (much more likely) to benefit the contending team making the acquisitions than the players they trade would have.

[duan]

I think in relation to Contreras there's a clear

“We're not sure he's that much of an improvement… maybe we can bring up Alvarez on Sept 1 and if he hits the ball leave McCann or Nido off the playoff roster … “

DH they improved - kind of a mad way to to it, but hey if it works it works and neither guy cost so much.

Lefty reliever is the first noodle scatcher to me. It's such a gaping hole that you'd have to try and find some kind of patch.

The other is Matt Vientos. If you aren't prepared to see if he's good enough to contribute at DH now then why not trade him. You've just acquired two guys for that role who're under control for a couple of years.

Maybe nobody else values him at all but it strucke that he looked like a very expendable part …

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Really annoying. Youssa say, "And your untouchable future superstar could be Shawn Abner or Billy Beane. Which is much likelier." Then meesa say, "You're going to have to show me your work." And then youssa all, "What's the difference?" Real cool-like. And meesa all, "The difference is that a statement of fact has weight when backed by evidence." Just dorky as shit, but meesa am what meesa am! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Meesa think it's an easy enough narrative to follow. Or youssa can just write things about how intransigent meesa am. Or youssa can make it about Rey Ordóñez. That's fine. But it's just changing the subject to other things youssa won't back up. It's certainly not going to convince meesa that the value of deadline acquisitions are generally more likely (much more likely) to benefit the contending team making the acquisitions than the players they trade would have.

You'd like for me to back up the value of making baseball trades? Is that even possible? It's like a Rorschach test. Or interpreting the bible. You can twist it and bend it to prove anything or make it mean anything. It would be a totally nebulous and pointless exercise. Take, for example, the Amos Otis for Joe Foy trade. It was a horrible trade, right? So what? What's the point? That the Mets should never make a trade ever again because of how bad the Otis trade went? Would that be your point? Or something like that? And that's assuming the Otis trade was bad. Because it wasn't. I could say it was a fucking great trade. I could. If I was rooting for the Royals. Because every trade that's good might also be just as bad. It depends on your perspective. What the Otis trade really was was a disproportionately lopsided trade. An unusually lopsided trade. But no matter what it was, is that supposed to be a lesson to never make a trade ever again, or at least, never to trade young players who've had limited playing time? Is that what you're getting at. That past trades might justify present day trades and it's on me to prove some point using that methodology?



That you're generally against the Mets making any trade, especially of home-grown Mets draftees is indisputable. You're emotionally attached to those Mets and the proof is all over this forum, going back decades. And if I were to dig out some of those posts, which I have no intention of doing, you'd still find some way to wiggle out of admitting the point. And there's nothing wrong with that attitude. You're entitled. You're trade averse unless the trade seems so lopsidedly in the Mets favor that there's almost no risk involved. That's the trade you're confy with. Like Ownbey for Keith.





I'm not sure what Ordonez has to do with this conversation. I did bring him up earlier, but it had nothing to do with weighing the value of trades.

[kcmets]

moved per avi

[Edgy MD]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=102311 time=1659654846 user_id=68]You'd like for me to back up the value of making baseball trades?

[Edgy MD]

I think in relation to Contreras there's a clear “We're not sure he's that much of an improvement… maybe we can bring up Alvarez on Sept 1 and if he hits the ball leave McCann or Nido off the playoff roster … “

I would guess that there's some truth in this, or at least "We're not sure he's that much of an improvement… considering the value we place in the players they are asking for."

[Ceetar]

the mets could have a 6-7 year window, or a 1-year window, depending on how hard they went at this trade deadline. i think they're looking at this team as capable of competing this year, but also being a juggernaut moving forward with the good prospects they have just about to ripen. alvarez, baty, vientos, and mauricio could all be playing in flushing next year, which frees up a fair bit of capital to throw at pitchers. i like what they're doing in this regard.

penciling in those guys as replacements for our offense from this year is what cheap teams do. Even if it frees up the budget for "pitching" I don't know if there's that much pitching available compared to what they're going to potentially lose. At least in the sense that the Mets aren't going to be the only ones after them ,and letting them all happen in free agency means having to overpay for all of them and you STILL might not get them all.



There's a lot of turnover coming, which is why fumbling the offseason AGAIN with the GM, and then doing nothing of significance, AGAIN, at the trade deadline is problematic. There's no redundancy or overlap and that's how one failed FA or a key injury at the wrong time derails your plans.

[metsmarathon]

yeah, man, they really fucked up the past offseason. inexcusable what they allowed to happen to the team.

[Ceetar]

Already being a good team hides a lot of mistakes, but that doesn't mean they're not there, and that we shouldn't look for them to be corrected.

[metsmarathon]

last year the mets were 46-38 (0.548 winning percentage) when degrom went down. that's good.. pretty good i guess. 88-win team. having a cheat code for a pitcher sure helped hide a lot of flaws.



after a bug fix removed that cheat code from our lineup, the mets went 31-47 (0.397 winning percentage). that's bad. 64 win team right there. there were a lot of flaws.



until two days ago, the mets were again without their cheat code. and in fact lost the game in which he returned. their record in that time? 66-37. 103-win pace. they are 100 percentage points better this year without degrom than they were last year WITH him! they are a full 15-wins-better team without jacob degrom, than they were last year WITH HIM. FIFTEEN!!! they're forty fucking wins better than the team that didn't have him last year.



yeah, they really fucked up last offseason. so many mistakes made. i hope they make even half as many this coming winter. we should be so lucky.

[Gwreck]

=Ceetar post_id=102363 time=1659663145 user_id=102]fumbling the offseason AGAIN with the GM,

[Ceetar]

I don't feel like rehashing the [CROSSOUT]deadline[/CROSSOUT]offseason, some non-moves worked out (like McNeil bouncing back, MeGill pitching amazing, etc.





https://blogs.fangraphs.com/which-teams-improved-the-most-at-the-trade-deadline/https://blogs.fangraphs.com/which-teams-improved-the-most-at-the-trade-deadline/



Here's a link to ZiPS before/after the deadline. Mets went from 81.6% to win the division, to 79.4, 15.6% to win the World Series, to 14.9. This speaks not just to the relative quality of the moves they made, but in comparison what the teams they'll have to face were doing.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Guest

[Gwreck]

=Ceetar post_id=102422 time=1659708912 user_id=102]I don't feel like rehashing the deadline, some non-moves worked out (like McNeil bouncing back, MeGill pitching amazing, etc.

[metsmarathon]

my god, we went from second-likeliest team to win the world series all the way down to.... second most likely team to win the world series. holy fuck, what a disaster.



the astros added a 1b/of/dh, a catcher, and a reliever, - two of those players were ones the mets were thought to be in the running for - and their chances of winning the world series dropped nearly as much as ours!



The dodgers chances of winning it all dropped a full 3.1%! what utter shit management they have, amirite? do they even know what they're doing in LA?

[Ceetar]

I mean, yeah, that's what Soto does for a team. He's freaking Juan Soto. (and hey, the Dodgers supposedly tried for that too!)



My point is the Mets _do_ have holes, and then did less to fill them than all their competition. Maybe they were good enough, it's certainly possible, but that doesn't mean it was a good trade deadline or that I'm wrong to be annoyed that they didn't do more to maximize their chances in 2022.



This is after they made similar calculus last year, and that time it definitely didn't work. And I don't think it reflects well on their decision that part of the justification was them second-guessing the decisions they made just last year. Sure, that wasn't Eppler, but it WAS Sandy, and others are the same as well, who aren't as prominent.