The Baby Mets are all duds

[Cowtipper]

They've each been in the league since 2022.

Average age is about 25 years old.

Combined, they've hit .229/~.292/.402 with a .694 OPS and 96 OPS+.

Both Vientos and Baty are a couple months from being 26.

Right now, Mauricio is the one who looks like he has the most actual potential, and he wasn't even a "Baby Met" as far as I'm aware.

Perhaps it's time to ditch 'em and start over (again).

More "surefire" "phenoms" that were "supposed" to be "saviors" for this team that didn't "pan" "out."

[MFS62]

We're waiting breathlessly (well, maybe not) for the corollary post of "Young players the Mets got rid of, who went on to have great careers with other teams".

Later

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Hate this smarty-pants stuff, trashing prospects they can't resist buying into in the first place then blaming someone else for overhyping them.

Be an adult fan.

[Cowtipper]

We're waiting breathlessly (well, maybe not) for the corollary post of "Young players the Mets got rid of, who went on to have great careers with other teams".

Later

 

I honestly thought Jarred Kelenic would be one of those, but we've gotten lucky so far. Actually, outside of PCA, a lot of the top prospects we've traded in recent years haven't panned out elsewhere.

Kelenic - no

JT Ginn - decent, not great

Isaiah Greene - no

Josh Wolf - no

Andres Gimenez - decent but not the star people expected

Amed Rosario - decent but not great

Justin Dunn - no

Anthony Kay - no

[Cowtipper]

Hate this smarty-pants stuff, trashing prospects they can't resist buying into in the first place then blaming someone else for overhyping them.

Be an adult fan.

 

Ha!

Shows you.

I usually hate all top prospects thinking they'll suck until they prove me otherwise, that way I'm never disappointed.

[Fman99]

I don't hate on guys wearing Mets colors. Don't treat em like they're Phillies for Chrissakes

[Edgy MD]

They've each been in the league since 2022.

 

No, they haven't

More "surefire" "phenoms" that were "supposed" to be "saviors" for this team that didn't "pan" "out."

 

I don't know who you are quoting.

[Cowtipper]

I don't hate on guys wearing Mets colors. Don't treat em like they're Phillies for Chrissakes

 

People who are expected to be good should actually be good. Otherwise, the powers that be gotta stop hyping them so much.

Jett Williams == dud

(calling it now)

On the other hand, David Stearns seems opposed to ever actually calling up any of the top prospects to figure out whether they'll do halfway well, anyway. Probably saving them all for a blockbuster trade to acquire three relief pitchers with WHIPS near 1.500, career ERAs over 6 and BB/9 rates over 4 (but with really good velo and K rates!!).

[Benjamin Grimm]

I feel your pain. The Mets have really sucked since Stearns was hired.

[Cowtipper]

I agree! This is a 130 win team without that dingleberry in charge. I sent my resume but they never responded.

[Frayed Knot]

1) anyone who treats every player who ever had a 'prospect' label attached to him as some kind of promise of future greatness deserves all the disappointment he/she gets

2) betting against EVERY prospect in every system is going to make one right a lot more often than wrong so stop acting as if you're being lied to against your will

3) didn't know that the book was closed on all these guys. When was it decided that this (partial) season is the truth on Vientos and last season (the larger sample size) the mirage ... other than, y'know, for purposes of cherry-picking evidence so as to confirm a predetermined conclusion?

[Cowtipper]

How long should they be willing to wait? The book I guess never closes until the person calls it quits. Every once in a while you'll get that guy that turns it on late -- Nelson Cruz, Edwin Encarnacion, Jose Bautista. And sometimes the Mets hold onto guys long enough for them to actually put it all together. Peterson took until his sixth season to have what looks like a good full year. But when the goal is to win and your team is hardly keeping a 1st place lead, how many more gambles are you willing to take?

Granted, the Mets used to ditch top prospects way too early, so I guess you could say we are witnessing the herMETic principle of polarity in action.

[Frayed Knot]

So you'd just release them all now?

[Edgy MD]

The dudley Mets are all babes.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'd hate to see them give up on Mark Vientos at this point. His 2024 season has earned him some patience. He may fizzle out like Ike Davis did, but he still has too much upside. Let's keep him for a while longer.

[Cowtipper]

So you'd just release them all now?

Did I say that?

[Frayed Knot]

Not precisely.

But "they're all duds" (or so I've heard) so do we keep and play them anyway even though we already know this apparently irreversible fact?

I suppose we could trade them all but wouldn't we just be getting different duds in return? Or is this one of those make believe scenarios where we get really good players in return because only WE know they're duds ... so don't tell anyone ?

Or there's acknowledging their collective dud-ness and releasing them en masse so as to not fall into the trap of chasing sunk costs?

[Bob Alpacadaca]

Yeah, if they're going to trade Vientos, I don't want it to be for a rental. Now, if the Pirates wanted to talk about Mitch Keller AND David Bednar for Vientos and a prospect, we could have a discussion.

[MFS62]

If we're going to deal with the Pirates, can we trade the future first offspring of Mr. and Mrs. Met to the Bucs for Livy Dunne?

please?

OK. So we might have to throw in Keith's cat to even up the deal.

Later

[Cowtipper]

Not precisely.

But "they're all duds" (or so I've heard) so do we keep and play them anyway even though we already know this apparently irreversible fact?

I suppose we could trade them all but wouldn't we just be getting different duds in return? Or is this one of those make believe scenarios where we get really good players in return because only WE know they're duds ... so don't tell anyone ?

Or there's acknowledging their collective dud-ness and releasing them en masse so as to not fall into the trap of chasing sunk costs?

 

Well, when is it time to throw in the towel? When they're 26 and struggling and worth less on the trade market? Or 27 and worth even less? Or 28 and worth even less? Right now they could still get something meaningful in a a deal. It's a matter of weighing how much it costs to keep them around, what they've cost us and what we could possibly get in return. They're still young enough to kind of have a prospect feel to them. But next year two of them will be 27 years old or close to it and should be entering their primes—and neither of them look anywhere close to having a good prime.

I don't think you understand trades. The goal is to get the better of the other team. So no, optimally, we wouldn't be getting other duds in return. The goal is to get better players in return, while shedding duds, and there are no doubt teams out there who think they can fix them or who will suffer less from having a .220-.230 hitter in their lineup (eg the currently struggling clubs). For those teams, Vientos, Baty etc. would fill the role of "holding down the fort," not the role of "holding up the potential of winning more games," which they're currently doing for New York.

All three have spent time in the minors this year, so clearly the Mets are also kind of wishy washy on them still. Time to stop being wishy washy and start making final decisions. Limbo is not a good place to be with three of what are supposed to have been solid contributors to a team that was anticipated to, and is trying to, be a playoff team.

And it's not that they're just struggling this year, it's that—outside of flashes of potential—they have consistently struggled since joining the Mets.

[Bob Alpacadaca]

Not precisely.

But "they're all duds" (or so I've heard) so do we keep and play them anyway even though we already know this apparently irreversible fact?

I suppose we could trade them all but wouldn't we just be getting different duds in return? Or is this one of those make believe scenarios where we get really good players in return because only WE know they're duds ... so don't tell anyone ?

Or there's acknowledging their collective dud-ness and releasing them en masse so as to not fall into the trap of chasing sunk costs?

 

I don't think you understand trades. The goal is to get the better of the other team. So no, optimally, we wouldn't be getting other duds in return. The goal is to get better players in return, while shedding duds, and there are no doubt teams out there who think they can fix them or who will suffer less from having a .220-.230 hitter in their lineup (eg the currently struggling clubs). For those teams, Vientos, Baty etc. would fill the role of "holding down the fort," not the role of "holding up the potential of winning more games," which they're currently doing for New York.

 

 

I don't agree with this at all. I'd be surprised if GMs all think that way. The goal is to obtain a player to fill a hole or improve in an area, not screw over another team. Trades that help both teams are fine. They don't necessarily need to be David Cone for Ed Hearn. Walt Terrell for Howard Johnson types of deals seem to help both teams well enough. The Mets aren't looking to trade one of these players becuase they think they are duds, it's because they have a surplus of infielders that other teams find attractive because of ability plus lower salaries and team control. They can deal from that surplus because they need a centerfielder and relief help.

Edited July 29, 2025 by Bob Alpacadaca

[Cowtipper]

No, what I'm saying is a team doesn't go into a trade to lose on it. They want to get more and spend less. Which translates to, whether in the short term or long term...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................getting the better of the other team.

[Frayed Knot]

Look, the Mets should be willing to consider trading any of their young players, those already in the majors and those not yet there. There are a mere handful of Bobby Witt Jr-type of young players upon whom you slap an 'Untouchable' sign, the rest are fair game. The key is to decide which ones to keep and which to move on from, and just as important is the timing of those decisions. The stupid way to deal with it is to cling to a dichotomy where young players/prospects are either future stars or forever busts, especially when most are far from being either. And the part about describing them as they suck now and are only going to get worse so we should trade them for someone really good or else I'll whine about it like I do each time Stearns fails to grab stud relievers off the waiver wire is really stupid.

Do I want to trade Vientos? No. But the fact that he (at least theoretically) has the higher ceiling and a great (mostly full) season under his belt means that other teams are going to consider that too and maybe he is the only one who nets you what the team really needs, especially seeing as how there are several already in the system who can step into his role and position. Keeping him and dealing someone else is fine too but the return is likely to be lower.

I don't think you understand trades. The goal is to get the better of the other team. -- I do understand them and no it's not.

[Edgy MD]

This day just keeps getting worse and worse.

STOP TROLLING, EVERYONE.

STOP MAKING EMPTY AND INDEFENSIBLE STATEMENTS JUST TO GET ATTENTION, EVERYONE.

AND STOP BEING NO-ACCOUNT CHILDREN IN A WORLD THAT NEEDS ADULTS.

EVERYONE.

Please.

[whippoorwill]

Why would the Mets need Bednar?

They have Mr horn

[Cowtipper]

AND STOP BEING NO-ACCOUNT CHILDREN

 

 

Are you new to the Internet?

[MFS62]

This is moving toward Red Light Forum territory.

Later

[Edgy MD]

AND STOP BEING NO-ACCOUNT CHILDREN

 

 

Are you new to the Internet?

 

No. What an odd question.

[Cowtipper]

This is moving toward Red Light Forum territory.

Later

 

? I think it's pretty tame. People are in disagreement, but we erudites have reasonably and cogently defended our points well in this intellectual exercise of Socratic dialecticism.