It’s not even hard

[Centerfield]

You know. I look at these post-season games and it’s the same teams every year. Dodgers. Padres. Phillies. Braves. Yankees. Red Sox. Astros. Brewers. 
 

We’re not even asking the Mets to be great. Or elite. We’re just asking them to be kinda good. And that shouldn’t be hard when you have more money than everyone else and a third of the teams aren’t even trying. 
 

David Stearns really is something.  If someone put a gun to my head and said build a $350M team, but you have to finish last and you can’t make it look like you’re tanking I don’t think I could build a team that was this bad  

 

[ashie62]

Correct!

No one could be this bad "on command"

Personally I'm starting to question Steve Cohen's judgement.  There is zero effing way I would keep Stearns after not one but two historically bad seasons

Maybe Cohen's head is up his casino

[whippoorwill]

🫥
 

[Edgy MD]

I agree that I could do better.  I disagree that these were "two historically bad" seasons.

Distorting the picture only leads to poorer decisions.

[Gwreck]

 

1 hour ago, Centerfield said:

You know. I look at these post-season games and it’s the same teams every year. Dodgers. Padres. Phillies. Braves. Yankees. Red Sox. Astros. Brewers. 

Yeah, yeah, we all know Stearns fucked up.  No disagreement.

But instead of just repeating those same points again, let’s look at CF’s broader point:  how can the Mets have sustained success the way those other teams do?

Let’s examine:

Yankees/Dodgers years and years of steady management by Cashman/Friedman, smart player development, always able and usually willing to spend big.  Also huge institutional advantages leveraged in getting top players to want to play for their teams.

Braves: very similar with Anthopolous.  Outstanding player development and an aggressive strategy of signing young stars to extensions early that has largely paid huge dividends.

Astros: Major tank-a-thon for several seasons (check out 2011-2013 in particular) followed by oustanding draft successes with first-round picks including Springer, Correa, and Bregman.  Once the team got good, continued smart player development and some good acquisitions.  Years of steady leadership by Luhnow (until he got suspended).  Also, some cheating.  

Brewers: years and years of strong player development, disciplined approaches to veterans, willingness to trade players before they hit FA.  Also…umm…I think we have to give Stearns quite a bit of credit here.  The Rays weren’t mentioned by CF but have a similar approach.

Phillies: let’s not forget that they really only had two good runs in the last 30 years:  2007-2011 and then 2022-present.  There were 10 bad years in between and a lot of bad years prior to 2007.  But they hired Dombrowski and started having success a few years later.

* * *

And so then there’s the Mets.  They had deeply problematic ownership, then deeply problematic ownership with an austerity budget, and sure, Cohen coming in was huge but they’ve also had about 8 different GMs and field managers in the past 10 years.  Hiring Stearns is exactly the sort of move you make to build a team for sustained success.  Full stop.  I don’t have a single problem with Cohen doing that, and it made perfect sense.  Stearns had many successes in Milwaukee, he is ambitious and smart, he was given the mandate to build a perennial contender, and Cohen opened up the checkbook wide.  It’s basically the exact same move the Dodgers made hiring Friedman from the Rays 15 years ago.  Hell, for bonus points, Stearns is even a Mets fan since birth.

Three years in, are we happy with the results?  Of course not.  Maybe this was bad luck, maybe Stearns just isn’t that smart/was just lucky in his prior job.  There are other executives out there and sure, firing him now is justifiable.  But everything about his hire was procedurally sound to me.  Maybe we get luckier with the next GM?

[Cowtipper]

"It's not even hard."

That happens as you age.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

10 hours ago, Gwreck said:

And so then there’s the Mets.  They had deeply problematic ownership, then deeply problematic ownership with an austerity budget, and sure, Cohen coming in was huge but they’ve also had about 8 different GMs and field managers in the past 10 years.  Hiring Stearns is exactly the sort of move you make to build a team for sustained success.  Full stop.  I don’t have a single problem with Cohen doing that, and it made perfect sense.  Stearns had many successes in Milwaukee, he is ambitious and smart, he was given the mandate to build a perennial contender, and Cohen opened up the checkbook wide.  It’s basically the exact same move the Dodgers made hiring Friedman from the Rays 15 years ago.  Hell, for bonus points, Stearns is even a Mets fan since birth.

Three years in, are we happy with the results?  Of course not.  Maybe this was bad luck, maybe Stearns just isn’t that smart/was just lucky in his prior job.  There are other executives out there and sure, firing him now is justifiable.  But everything about his hire was procedurally sound to me.  Maybe we get luckier with the next GM?

This is spot on. It takes time to build something from the bottom up. I don't understand the thinking that this should all happen overnight. This year was awful with some bad decisions, but also bad luck. They're building a foundation for success. I would not be surprised at all to see a strong bounce-back in 2027, especially if they sign Skubal. 

[The Hot Corner]

It's time for Stearns to start getting results.  It is interesting to me that the Brewers have continued to thrive since Stearns left to run the Mets, while the Mets have been worse since his arrival.  

The Mets will need acquire front line starters for the 2027 rotation, but, unfortunately, I strongly suspect that Skubal will be wearing Dodger blue next season