Evaluating the Mets Deadline Deals

[Edgy MD]

I'm not with Radar.  Nobody in the world calls David Stearns "Boy Genius."  And expecting that the team was to use the deadline to improve their 2026 prospects is a false and moving standard.

The greater point, that the Mets management bringing the organization to this point is a demonstration of failure is point that is an obvious and uncontested observation that does not need straw man arguments and false standards to represent.

[Cowtipper]

Well, the upside is the Mets did the opposite of what they often do, which is trade solid prospects for wild card veterans. Rather, they traded solid veterans for wild card prospects. We got some legitimately good ones in this deal. And thankfully, none that have no upside. A lot of them are filler, but not necessarily filler that will peak at Single-A and never do anything. 

Now, the Mets have to keep those prospects, instead of doing their other habit of ditching them before they're even 24 or 25 (unless you're Baty or Vientos for some reason). 

Speaking of Baty and Vientos, they're two I would have liked to see traded. Alvarez always had the most upside out of all of them and is the youngest, so I've always been more hesitant to trade him. Baty and Vientos fit the standard "Mets top prospect" profile -- super hyped in Metsdom, but zoom out and compare them to the talent in the rest of baseball and they're pretty 'meh.' But Alvarez was/is a notch above them. 

Also speaking of Baty and Vientos, the Mets should've done even more gutting. Shock therapy -- rip the Band-Aid off now so we can have a few great years down the line. Baty, Vientos, Robert, Polanco, Williams, Senga, Bichette, Myers, Semien, Manaea, and let's not forget Megill, Garrett. All could've/should've gone if suitors were out there. They're too old and/or their contracts aren't long enough for them to be there for the future we're building. Soto and Lindor have long enough contracts and should still be good enough for when the time comes, hence they're not on the list. That would've given us a core of Soto, Lindor, Benge, Ewing, McLean, Scott, Thornton and Alvarez, Baty, Vientos et al were intended for the future that never happened, so it's time to say goodbye. The guys I would've kept will likely be there for the future that could very well happen. 

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

There are 3-4 good young pitchers and two good young outfielders, plus two hall of famers. It's not impossible to see that optimistically.

 

[ashie62]

That it even came to this, 8 plus deadline trades with varying levels of chaos is an embarrassment to the organization and fans

Yesterday was the cherry on the top of a David Stearns multi year fail

[Edgy MD]

We knew it had come to this a month ago and probably more.  So of course we all knew he was going to trading off parts, and there would of course be outrage if he didn't.

I know I hate trading players, but I just don't like damning a guy if he does and damning him if he doesn't.  That leaves a lot to be desired, as far as analysis goes.  

[Benjamin Grimm]

2 hours ago, seawolf17 said:

If Stearns' preference is for short-term deals so he's not hamstrung moving forward, then you're going to get guys who will sign short-term deals. 

This has been my thinking for quite a while now too. Is this the approach that he took in Milwaukee? Or has he changed his approach due to the uncertainty from the upcoming CBA negotiations? Whatever the reason, it's been a disaster. He not only has to salvage this team, but also his career. If he gets fired before he turns the Mets around, he's done. Not that I care about that, of course.

[Centerfield]

I think it’s hard to heavily criticize the deadline deals. There are some I would have done differently, but once you decide to sell, it’s just a matter of taking the best offer. Stearns can’t control the market. 
 

As far as his overall performance, I’m largely with Radar. I can’t think of an executive in history that has done less with more. His best year was 2024. An 89 win season with a $330M payroll. They won the third WC via tiebreaker. Two miracle HR made that season memorable, but they were a pitch away from being a disaster. 2025 was a disaster and 2026 is even worse. Over a billion spent in payroll and they’ve never once contended for the division. How is that possible.  And the trend is headed in the wrong direction. Every so often I ask myself is this rock bottom?  And for the last 200 games or so the answer is no. 

He cleaned out coaches that had some success before he got here and replaced them with guys who think like him, and the results have been the worst team imaginable.  I’m at the point where any good move is tempered by my fear that the Mets will ruin him.  “Hey we got a good pitcher.  Let’s change his arm angle and teach him a cutter”.  
 

Should we feel good about the young guys?  Sure.  Ewing looks good, but Benge is a corner OF that’s slugging below .400.  So maybe he can be good but he’s not good yet.  I like McLean and Scott.  I’m hoping Thornton is good while understanding his realistic outlook.

Ive said before.  Billy Eppler is kinda like a B- student.  A replacement level GM.  With a replacement level GM we make the playoffs all three years.

Stearns thinks he’s an honor student, but right now he’s failing out of school.

 

 

 

[Cowtipper]

Geniuses like Stearns think too much in theory and think theory and real-life are the same thing. 

[Centerfield]

To be clear, I have no issue with thinking too much.  And I don't want my thoughts to be misconstrued into an "analytics suck" position.

I think there's nothing wrong with analytics, or analyzing info, or thinking or generally trying to be smarter than your opponents.  I think all of those things are good things.

I don't think David Stearns proves that analytics suck.  I think David Stearns has proven to suck at analytics.  

[Cowtipper]

I think David Stearns has proven to suck,

Maybe he could handle a small market team like Milwaukee, but he was a big fish in a small pond there. Not so much in New York. He just can handle it. 

His unwavering commitment to stick with his methods despite their constant failures is itself a failure. 

I think these trades might pan out in the future, but, surprise surprise, it's because they're a slightly different tact than what he usually does, which is scratch the bottom of every barrel looking for an infinite number of diamonds in the rough and trading prospects away for veterans that might or might not pan out. 

[ashie62]

5 hours ago, Edgy MD said:

We knew it had come to this a month ago and probably more.  So of course we all knew he was going to trading off parts, and there would of course be outrage if he didn't.

I know I hate trading players, but I just don't like damning a guy if he does and damning him if he doesn't.  That leaves a lot to be desired, as far as analysis goes.  

My singular point of view as that a general manager who puts together a team that actually needs to do this kind of a dump has not done his job well

[Edgy MD]

I understand, but this thread is about evaluating the deals, not evaluating the situation that put the situation that has led up to the deals.

Maybe I should just crawl in the closet and weep.

[Gwreck]

No one is suggesting that Stearns has done a good job overall.  Full stop.

Once we get past that reality (and/or if we are able to stop incessantly complaining about Stearns’ age and/or other self-created perceptions about him), how do we evaluate these specific set of deals?

-One reaction I had is that it seemed like the Mets paid higher prices for relief help last year than what they received this year.  Of course the market is different year-to-year, but what it took to get Soto and Rogers and Helsley seemed like more than what the Mets got for Raley and Minter and Weaver.  

-The prospects acquired from PIT and CHC are the most exciting.

-One wonders how many of these new prospects will last in the Mets system beyond this year if the strategy is to use prospects as trade bait this offseason.

[Centerfield]

3 hours ago, Gwreck said:

-One reaction I had is that it seemed like the Mets paid higher prices for relief help last year than what they received this year.  Of course the market is different year-to-year, but what it took to get Soto and Rogers and Helsley seemed like more than what the Mets got for Raley and Minter and Weaver.  
 

Agree with this.  And if the market is softer, then you can't really blame Stearns for that.  It just sucks to be on the wrong end of it both years.  I doubt that Stearns took less than what he could have gotten, or that teams offered less because it was Stearns.

My only criticisms are:

1. Weaver.  If the return was this little I would have kept him.  Now, I have no idea how good Sammy Stafura is, but I know he's not ranked in the Top 100, and doesn't appear to be in the Mets Top 10 after the deadline.

2. Brazoban.  You could have held onto him with such little return.  I know Brazo is old, and relievers are unreliable.  But is the 2027 version of Brazoban worth more than the lotter tickets we got?  We'll know in a few years.

3. Peralta.  We could have held onto him and offered the QO.  Of course, if you're not willing to QO Peralta, then you have to take what you can get.  I would have been fine to take a 1 year flyer on Peralta for $24-25M.  

ON EDIT:  I think I'm wrong on Stafura.  I just saw Joe DeMayo's top 30 and Stafura is #2.  I thought I saw a list yesterday that had the top 10 without him.  Not sure what list it was, but it was obviously some other list, or it was incomplete.  

[Gwreck]

38 minutes ago, Centerfield said:

Now, I have no idea how good Sammy Stafura is, but I know he's not ranked in the Top 100, and doesn't appear to be in the Mets Top 10 after the deadline..  

According to the MLB.com rankings. Stafura is now the Mets #11 ranked prospect.

Weaver (and Brazoban) were certainly being sold high, but the reason I had a problem with the Brazoban trade was that he’s being paid under market value and has multiple years of control still attached. That can’t be replicated on the FA market the way paying $11M/year for a premium reliever (e.g., Weaver) can.

[ashie62]

I'm looking at Stafura and Rojas as the starting middle infield of the future