Leaving the Nest

[G-Fafif]

The Dodgers followed the conventional wisdom, trading Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields. Rules and exceptions and all that, but that trade looms nearly 30 years later in the greater baseball consciousness as a cautionary tale about always trading pitchers for hitters.

[Edgy MD]

It's certainly true that good investing encourages you to divest of any asset at peak value, and pitchers being what they are, they are a highly unstable asset. I've made clear that I believe the current market over-values starting pitching.



But it's also certainly true that nobody knows where peak value is until it has passed. So you try to win and try to enjoy it when it happens.

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: nobody knows where peak value is until it has passed.

Again, yes, of course. I'm merely suggesting that with young pitchers that peak value tends not to last as long as it does with batters. So if you've got a desirable young pitcher coming off a good year, it's a good move to see if you've got any takers, and to trade aggressively if you find a team willing to give you a good hitter in exchange. I think, in the long run, you'll do very well following this principle.



Of the Mets Five Young Aces, this means not dealing all of them at once. I'm not sure, for example, what Steven Matz' peak would have been: probably the winter after his first six starts, in retrospect, and more realistically near the trading deadline of 2019, when the Mets were double-digits out and Matz had just thrown a 5-hit shutout against the Pirates to bring his record to 6-6.



And again it goes without saying that you're going to trade off some prize pitching for bupkis if you follow these principles, Ryan, Martinez, blablabla. That's trading, not a serious argument against avoiding trading. I can supply counterexamples to any principle you'd care to espouse. Doesn't make you wrong.

[metsmarathon]

if you always trade your good pitchers, you better damned well have great hitters, or you'll lose a fuck-ton of games.



the way i hear it that tends to make a lot of sense is, develop pitchers, pay for hitters. and if you think about it, it's not just that pitchers are more high risk. i think the key to doing things this way is that if you're an organization that prioritizes developing quality pitchers, you'll seemingly always have another one ready to come up when the injury bug eventually hits, since you've been building organizational depth.



that said, if you don't have organizational depth in hitting, well... you'll find yourself in similar dire straits, but maybe not with quite so much of a stable of albatrosses.



The better strategy might be to not make overly long commitments for pitchers moreso than hitters. but any sufficiently large contract can become a franchisal anchor.



i think though that really the best organizational strategy is to develop great young players, and supplement them with great reliable older players, be they on offense or defense, and be willing to be flexible as the market and your roster demands. yeah, we should probably do that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

He can't even figure out when was the best time to trade Steven Matz almost eight years after Matz debuted and almost three seasons after Matz left the Mets. But he's gonna know in real time and without the benefit of this extraordinary hindsight that he can't even leverage -- when to trade all of his pitchers. What a lunatic. And what a rule. I especially like the Edgy exception to not deprive Edgy of the Mets 2015 WS run. I guess that one's to keep Edgy on his good side just in case he needs somebody to arbitrarily red-light one of my posts for no reason at all other than that I disagreed with him. I suppose it's worth keeping Matt Harvey around and having Edgy on his side even if Matt Harvey's very promising future was almost gone by the time he took the all-star mound at Citi Field.



So when would he have traded Seaver? Right after he won the rookie of the year award? Or right after he led the Mets to the top of the baseball world in 1969?



Anyways, I'm still honing my latest postulation. It's all about trading all players, not just pitchers, just as they're about to decline. I figure that no other team would figure on those players declining. Think Bernard Gilkey right after the '96 season. Or Jason Bay like five minutes after we signed him to a lucrative free agent contract. I postulate that I could load up my team with three or four Babe Ruths with that postulation. Of course, as soon as those new Babe Ruths have so much as one Ruthian season, I'm gonna have to trade them, too. Because this postulation requires me trade all of my players as soon as they're really good and then hope I get really really lucky and get some other really good players in return. Of course, if I ever traded a Nolan Ryan for a Jim Fregosi, I wouldn't have to trade Fregosi soon after because of how sucky he turned out to be and there wouldn't be a GM out there that I could trick into giving me another Babe Ruth, this time for a washed up Fregosi. Maybe that's a good thing. Because all of this trading could get so tiring, especially when I'm trading away the really good players.



After that, I'm gonna get in my time machine and buy up some mid 60s Warren Buffet stock. That'll be my next postulation. But for now, I'm gonna get me a moratorium.

[roger_that]

=metsmarathon post_id=113892 time=1670245054 user_id=83]
if you always trade your good pitchers, you better damned well have great hitters, or you'll lose a fuck-ton of games.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: nobody knows where peak value is until it has passed. Again, yes, of course. I'm merely suggesting that with young pitchers that peak value tends not to last as long as it does with batters.

And I understand that. So do many. If you look at the http://www.billjamesonline.com/polls_ratings/starting_pitcher_rankings/?GameDate=2022-12-05&NumOfPitchers=0BillJamesOnline ranking of all starting pitchers in the league, they have all absolutely been the cat's pajamas at some point in the recent past, and many of them might be again. But for now, it's a big list of once dazzling moundsmen who are now figuring it out from start to start, searching for a way to get their form back. Nobody knows who is closest to the top of his game, but all teams hope they have a better idea then everybody else.



Jacob deGrom, despite just getting a contract worth half the value of Texas is ranked all the way down at 78th, because the greatest pitcher in history is still worth absolutely nothing when he's on the injured list. We get it.



On the other hand, somebody's gotta pitch, and all teams have to figure out who to deal off and who to keep. It's hard. Trading any pitcher who has just had an All-Star season or won a major awardTM is a perfectly valid philosophy, but it is hardly failsafe, and if you kept that as a hard or fast rule, your potential trading partners would figure out your pattern quickly and the market for your pitchers would grow thinner.



It's a process with a lot of moving parts, many of them microscopic but crucial, and it forces teams to act on a case-by-case basis, rather than a hard and fast policy.



But yes, as hard and fast policies go, trading all young pitchers who seem to be peaking is as valid as any.

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: your potential trading partners would figure out your pattern quickly and the market for your pitchers would grow thinner.

Well, "quickly" is funny. This policy will backfire sometimes, which will keep some "potential trading partners" thinking that they can take advantage of your willingness to deal hot young pitchers, and of course those potential trading partners will also change GMs frequently, resupplying the number of people who haven't yet caught on. By the time a clear pattern has emerged, there's probably close to 100% turnover on who's making trading decisions on a particular team.



Oddly enough, this entire principle depends on having a good supply of MLB-ready pitching in your own organization at all times. Without that, the whole thing collapses.



Also no one's yet pointed out the idiocy of comparing 2022 pitchers to those of the young Seaver or young Ryan era, when you could hang onto your star pitching at dirt-cheap rates indefinitely, but since no one who isn't an idiot has made such remarks, perhaps it's better if we all continue to ignore such remarks.

[Fman99]

I'm not done being pissed at deGrom yet. This may last a long while

[Edgy MD]

Oddly enough, this entire principle depends on having a good supply of MLB-ready pitching in your own organization at all times. Without that, the whole thing collapses.

Edgy MD just above that wrote: On the other hand, somebody's gotta pitch ... .

Please don't call people idiots. You can refute their points without ad hominem attacks. It's really easy, and I don't really have the energy to play the cop today.



I get it. We all get it. Please don't drive this thread into the Red Light Forum.

[nymr83]

=Fman99 post_id=113911 time=1670260280 user_id=86]
I'm not done being pissed at deGrom yet. This may last a long while

[batmagadanleadoff]

Oh, for God's sake. Trading ANY player that's peaking is a sound strategy. Isnt this just another way of saying that it's better to trade a player on the way down rather than on the way up? And that's just a pretentious way of saying that its preferable to trade away a player for some other player that's even better and has more value and more gas in his tank. Jesus Christ. Shouldn't you be out looking for the 16th center fielder on the Mets depth chart?



I mean, what are youse pontificating about? That you're gonna fleece all the other GM's out there by trading lesser players for better players? Here's what you do: Go out and buy yourself a baseball team and then go and trade all your players at the precise moment when their carrying costs exceed their value, which you'll always calculate accurately in real time. Then come back here in 25 years and tell us how you made out.



Or better yet, tell us now when you would've optimally traded away Matz and deGrom and Seaver and Matlack and Roy Lee Jackson and then brag to us about all of the Hall of Fame swag you wouldve gotten in return for all of those trades you pretended to make.



I have to go now. My latest invention is the string theory of baseball. I'll tell you all about it later.

[The Hot Corner]

All I know is that the Atlanta (who I generally consider a pretty savvy organization) really screwed up when the opted to hold on to their young pitchers (Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz. They definitely should have traded those guys when they first became good. Their team would have been so much better off.



My basic thought is there is no one single plan that will build a consistent winner in every situation. The real challenge of building a consistent winner is to use a myriad of various strategies (wise drafting, strong player development, making trades that more often than not benefit your team, or simply making smart free agent signings that pan out more than they fail) when everyone you are competing against is attempting to do the very same thing.

[metsmarathon]

The Hot Corner wrote: All I know is that the Atlanta (who I generally consider a pretty savvy organization) really screwed up when the opted to hold on to their young pitchers (Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz. They definitely should have traded those guys when they first became good. Their team would have been so much better off. My basic thought is there is no one single plan that will build a consistent winner in every situation. The real challenge of building a consistent winner is to use a myriad of various strategies (wise drafting, strong player development, making trades that more often than not benefit your team, or simply making smart free agent signings that pan out more than they fail) when everyone you are competing against is attempting to do the very same thing.

this.



hell, they even did the unthinkable and signed greg maddux as a free agent for five damned years! what were they even thinking!?

[Edgy MD]

They were smart enough to deal Pete Smith near peak value, though.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Oh my god. This thread's never gonna end. Here's my next great idea of a thesis: Whenever I make a baseball trade, I'm gonna get a better player in return. Because the opposing GM's have no idea about my plan and what it is I'm trying to accomplish.



Aren't I a genius?

[batmagadanleadoff]

If it was up to me and I had a say, I would've traded Jon Matlack in October of 1974 for Mike Schmidt and Dave Parker.

[batmagadanleadoff]

How? Because I would've hypnotized both the Pirates and the Phils to such a degree with my magic charming thesis powers that they would've been willing to time-share Matlack just to have him because even to have Matlack for half a season and on a shared basis, they woulda coughed up Parker and Schmidt, respectively.

[stevejrogers]

Edgy MD wrote: It's funny how these lamentations suggest most of us have such a card of varying degrees of effectiveness, but Muffy gets no play in this thread, despite (1) leaving under the designation of He's a Met. He just is. (as Lunchie put it at the time), and (2) turning into a no-doubt All Star and MVP candidate for a few years after initially leaving. Lamentations are stronger for the guy who left and declined than for the guy who left and improved. I'm not sure what that means, except perhaps that I Don't Care cards are powerful talismans that require further study.

Not to sound like I'm a member of QAnon, but a part of me thinks that stuff like Gary being on the negative side on Murphy's abilities, and especially him being interviewed following Billy Bean's clubhouse discussion that spring was part of a concerted effort to grease the skids, and make his impending departure less of a kick in the groin than others have been.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: It's funny how these lamentations suggest most of us have such a card of varying degrees of effectiveness, but Muffy gets no play in this thread, despite (1) leaving under the designation of He's a Met. He just is. (as Lunchie put it at the time), and (2) turning into a no-doubt All Star and MVP candidate for a few years after initially leaving. Lamentations are stronger for the guy who left and declined than for the guy who left and improved. I'm not sure what that means, except perhaps that I Don't Care cards are powerful talismans that require further study. Not to sound like I'm a member of QAnon, but a part of me thinks that stuff like Gary being on the negative side on Murphy's abilities, and especially him being interviewed following Billy Bean's clubhouse discussion that spring was part of a concerted effort to grease the skids, and make his impending departure less of a kick in the groin than others have been.

It was the scumbag Wilpons so any despicable thing was possible, especially with the idiot tyrant failson calling the shots more and more.



And put me down for lamenting Murphy's departure. I loved the Murph.



But never mind all of that. In my next thesis, I trade Randy Tate the day after his near no-hitter! Talk about trading someone at the peak of his career! And who do I get in return? None other than George Foster. Because I'm way smarter and way ahead of Frank Cashen. The trick is to get Foster just before he enters his prime, not just as he enters his decline. See how my thesis works? Pre-peak. And post-peak. Sell em when they're high and get 'em when they're low. I'm a freakin' genius. I'm smarter than Frank Cashen and smarter than Bob Howsam. Tate for Foster. I really nailed that one!

[Edgy MD]

You're stockpiling outfielders but sleeping on that Craig Swan-for-Ozzie Smith deal. Or Paul Molitor. You can let the Brewers and Padres bid against each other and maybe get them to throw in some incentives.



More importantly, though, is which pitchers the Mets should trade now and who they can get. Because that's where we are.



Or we can leave it be. Your point has been made as clearly as his own.

[MFS62]

And the MFYs never should have traded Jay Buhner.*



Later



* = Seinfeld reference

[vtmet7]

don't see any Nimmo FA threads, so don't know where to comment on Nimmo's path...



Now that Trea Turner signed that long term deal; there is a post in one of the Mets groups on Facebook, whereas it's suggested that the Mets should offer Nimmo a 6 year, $150 Mil contract...I realize that contracts are escalating and that Nimmo is a Boras guy; but IMO that is crazy high for Nimmo...

[metirish]

If Brandon gets that offer from any team he better bite their hands off , crazy , lot of chatter about the MFY and Nimmo

[whippoorwill]

=vtmet7 post_id=114063 time=1670340275 user_id=80]
don't see any Nimmo FA threads, so don't know where to comment on Nimmo's path...



Now that Trea Turner signed that long term deal; there is a post in one of the Mets groups on Facebook, whereas it's suggested that the Mets should offer Nimmo a 6 year, $150 Mil contract...I realize that contracts are escalating and that Nimmo is a Boras guy; but IMO that is crazy high for Nimmo...

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

Edgy,



I'm not asking to be combative, just trying to understand. (And I don't mean to hijack -- might be better to split.) You mentioned you don't like the draft, and you have said you don't like trading in the past. Do you advocate for a system where teams build entirely on free agents, from the low minors through the majors?



I'm not arguing, just curious how it would work. In a way it's like how the rest of the world works, with employers looking to build a quality staff and employees able to have a greater say in where they work and live. If I'm good at what I do, my services will be in demand and I can have a say in where I work and how I get compensated. People make decisions based on how the view the quality of the employer and the compensation -- and the employers hire those who they think have the skills needed to advance the work. Teams could attract and retain players at all levels based on both the players' desire to be there, and the team's desire to have them.



I get how that works in the rest of the world, but I don't know how it works within the structure of a league. I guess the question is whether MLB is the employer, or are the individual teams employers who compete in the same industry.



Curious to hear your thinking.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

What's not to get? It works just like you said it would work. So long as a player's not signed to a contract, he's a free agent, free to sign with anyone. That goes for amateurs and pros. No draft. No reserve clause.



That's how it works in the real world for plumbers, ditch diggers, accountants and supermarket baggers.



You want capitalism and free markets? Good. Then make it available for everybody, not just the billionaires.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

There's certainly nothing combatative about inquiring.



The draft is un-American. It isn't about the fairness in distribution of talent, but all about cost control. Young athletes have an ability that's in great demand for a short period of time, and the industry gets together and agrees only one team can recruit that athlete. It's wrong and incredibly ironic, as America projects free commerce through the world, and the world's sports leagues scratch their heads when they hear this nonsense about the Americans distributing talent through a draft.



If the league is the employer, then the league is a cartel, and in virtually all other industries in the US, an industry conducting themselves as a cartel subjects themselves to criminal penalties under antitrust laws, or civil penalties when engaging in monopolization or resale price maintenance. Sports leagues, to different extents, do these things as a matter of course on every day that ends in a Y and it's just considered business.



We protect baseball from the system we purport to believe in and it's unjust through and through. We accept this model because we see it as the way it has always been and assume it's kind of the same elsewhere. But it isn't and it's not. It hurts young athletes, it hurts baseball, it hurts small towns, it hurts big cities, it hurts the economy, it hurts America, and it hurts other baseball-playing nations.

[MFS62]

Interesting.

Just read this and I'm at work, so my initial thoughts:

Would you have a salary cap or other controls (minor league roster sizes, the number of minor league teams a major league team could own) to make sure a few rich reams wouldn't sign all the good players?



What about a salary floor and revenue sharing to keep teams alive (and employ more players)?



I realize there are only so many roster slots on a team, but eventually, those slots are filled.

What about a limit on contract length, or do you retain a player indefinitely?



I'll revisit that list as I have time.



Maybe the concept deserves its own thread?



Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

Salary cap? Sure. Why not? Right after Congress limits the number of ice cream flavors Haagen Dqzs would be allowed to sell.