RA Deserves His Own Thread

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: But dollars count --- and we've been down this road --- as they can be turned into production elsewhere.

so why bring it up? I disagree obviously. production is finite, money isn't. Losing Dickey lowers the ceiling of production by slotting in a almost definitely lesser product there. You have to try to maximize at a couple of positions or the aggregate will never be good enough. Especially given that Dickey is a good candidate to out-produce the money he's making the next couple of years which BOOSTS his trade value.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Dickey has one year left on his contract. How do you know what he'll be outproducing in 2014?

[metirish]

production is finite, money isn't.

??

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: But dollars count --- and we've been down this road --- as they can be turned into production elsewhere. Ceetar wrote: so why bring it up?

Why bring what up?

Ceetar wrote: I disagree obviously.

Money doesn't count and it can't be turned into production elsewhere?

Ceetar wrote: production is finite, money isn't.

I'm not sure what this means. I've never understood that the Mets' access to money is infinite.

Ceetar wrote: Losing Dickey lowers the ceiling of production by slotting in a almost definitely lesser product there.

Dickey won't be a Cy Young winner forever. In fact, it's overwhelmingly likely that he'll never be that again.

You have to try to maximize at a couple of positions or the aggregate will never be good enough.

Eggs in multiple baskets is often a more secure position. A diversified portfolio.

Ceetar wrote: Especially given that Dickey is a good candidate to out-produce the money he's making the next couple of years which BOOSTS his trade value.

Well, next year, anyway.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Eggs in multiple baskets is often a more secure position. A diversified portfolio.

An example of such is trading Angel Pagan for pieces to fill two holes. Alternatively, they could've kept Pagan and picked from the very large pool of guys to fill the spot Ramirez did. Same with Dickey. You're likely talking about something like Chris Young/Mike Pelfrey to complement Myers. That's not better in 2013, Maybe Myers and Wheeler step up and are better than Dickey/signed OFer in 2014, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on that either.

[Edgy MD]

OK, Angel Pagan.

1. That wasn't about obtaining a more secure position. It was about reducing salary and jettisoning a player the management had lost confidence in.
2. Obtaining a more secure position does not mean to guarantee protection from failure. The notion of a diversified portfolio is about risk management, not a risk-free existence.

Trading R.A. Dickey for Wil Myers would not be the same as trading Angel Pagan for Andres Torres and Ram�n Ram�rez?

Why bring what up? And what's with that finite/infinite thing?

I hate trades. All of them.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Where can I get me some of that infinite money?

[seawolf17]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Where can I get me some of that infinite money?

Let me connect you with my colleague, Mr. Madoff.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: OK, Angel Pagan. 1. That wasn't about obtaining a more secure position. It was about reducing salary and jettisoning a player the management had lost confidence in. 2. Obtaining a more secure position does not mean to guarantee protection from failure. The notion of a diversified portfolio is about risk management, not a risk-free existence. Trading R.A. Dickey for Wil Myers would not be the same as trading Angel Pagan for Andres Torres and Ram�n Ram�rez? Why bring what up? And what's with that finite/infinite thing? I hate trades. All of them.

there is no salary cap, hence infinite.

there is a maximum amount of production. it's the sum of the 25 players on the roster, and the playing time they'll get over the course of a season. Let's say, just for math's sake, that if each player is worth 4, they can all add up to a total of 100 wins. Dickey is a 4. If you trade him, almost definitely replacing him with a 2, the max total is now 98. You do that a couple of times and suddenly it's almost impossible to make the playoffs, no matter how secure you are. The Mets don't have a ton of 4s, and if you don't have any your max is 75.

Even if Myers is a 2, and that 2+2 gives you just as much production as the Dickey+0 outfielder we have now or the scrub we end up with if Alderson doesn't do anything (which is unlikely), you have a bunch more money saved but NOWHERE to spend that money. Especially given that Dickey doesn't cost much, and if they can work out a reasonable extension won't, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to spend the MONEY on the 0 because it provides the maximum value for production.

Trading Dickey is taking a step or two backwards in hopes of finding a better way forward, but there's only so much time you can spend looking for the best path when it's possible you're already on a good one.

Total wins is what you're after, and total wins is what begets more money. best economy of wins just saves the Wilpons some cash in the short term.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ceetar wrote: there is no salary cap, hence infinite.

Do you have infinite money to spend?

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: there is no salary cap, hence infinite. Do you have infinite money to spend?

Sure. I could go to the bank. I could take out a loan. I could sell my car. I could get a second job. I'll get a paycheck on Friday with more money. two weeks from then I'll get another one.

[metsmarathon]

trading dickey (not something i want to do at all) is something you do to not help you in the coming year, but to maximize the potential productivity in teh coming years.

dickey, one would liekly assume is at his peak production. i suppose there's a possibility that he could be better still, but i wouldn't stake any money on it. in all likelihood, he will be worse next year than he was this year.

with dickey, the mets are in the position where they will be spending more and more money on lesser and lesser production. (ditto for wright, but you could expect a more gradual dropoff given his age)

he may well give them a better chance at success in 2013 than wil myers and some other $10M spent on pitching. but wil myers will give you six years of cost controlled high-value production, with a possibility of inking him to a favorable extension. wil myers gives a better chance at future success than dickey.

i don't want to trade ra. i want to see where he winds up. but if we do trade him, a wil myers type player is exactly what i would hope to receive in return.

[Edgy MD]

there is no salary cap, hence infinite.

Yes, there is a salary cap, limited by the amount of money the organization has to spend.

there is a maximum amount of production. it's the sum of the 25 players on the roster, and the playing time they'll get over the course of a season.

I disagree. Those figures don't add up to production. They can achieve zero production (strike out all year long) or an amazing amount of production (hit homers almost into perpetuity, extended opening day by weeks as they score thousands of runs, until the players collapse, only to have their replacements continue by scoring thousands of runs in game two, which has been rescheduled by weeks).

Let's say, just for math's sake, that if each player is worth 4, they can all add up to a total of 100 wins.

Four what?

Dickey is a 4.

Every player on the team is as good as Dickey?

If you trade him, almost definitely replacing him with a 2, the max total is now 98.

Sure. Completely made up numbers? Why not?

You do that a couple of times and suddenly it's almost impossible to make the playoffs, no matter how secure you are.

No, you have saved $15 million dollars. Can be parlayed into improving yourself at another position. Of course, in your fantastical scenario, every player on the Mets is as good as Dickey --- and every player in AAA too, in case somebody gets hurt. So, maybe they can trade, two of those four for a six, and then go out and buy a five! YEAH!! BAM!! One hundred and six wins, Baby!

The Mets don't have a ton of 4s, and if you don't have any your max is 75.

They will have more with more money to spend.

Even if Myers is a 2, and that 2+2 gives you just as much production as the Dickey+0 outfielder we have now or the scrub we end up with if Alderson doesn't do anything (which is unlikely), you have a bunch more money saved but NOWHERE to spend that money.

Anybody? Can anybody parse this?

As for NOWHERE to spend that money, how about the free agent market.

Especially given that Dickey doesn't cost much, and if they can work out a reasonable extension won't, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to spend the MONEY on the 0 because it provides the maximum value for production.

Spending money on the 0. My brain is rending.

Trading Dickey is taking a step or two backwards in hopes of finding a better way forward, but there's only so much time you can spend looking for the best path when it's possible you're already on a good one.

Unless you trade him for a really good player that makes a lot less, then it's taking two steps forward, twirling, dropping your pants, laughing, pulling up your pants, taking another step forward, and accepting a congratulatory call from the president.

Total wins is what you're after, and total wins is what begets more money. best economy of wins just saves the Wilpons some cash in the short term.

No, money saved can be spent --- and often is spent --- in the pursuit of wins. I don't understand how this can be elusive.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/inc-well/How-Small-Business-Owners-Can-Reinvest-Money-Saved-by-Going-Green-159047035.html

http://www.biztechmagazine.com/article/2012/05/businesses-save-money-new-technologies-and-reinvest-other-areas

http://www.creditsesame.com/blog/infographic-the-rich-get-ready-to-reinvest/

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: there is no salary cap, hence infinite. Do you have infinite money to spend? Sure. I could go to the bank. I could take out a loan. I could sell my car. I could get a second job. I'll get a paycheck on Friday with more money. two weeks from then I'll get another one.

Infinite amounts of cars? Infinite amounts of houses to mortgage? Infinite amounts of paychecks to borrow against?

I've decided I don't want to marry you.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I bid $20 million a year for the knuckleballer.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I bid $20 million a year for the knuckleballer.

No. Atsa not enough. $Thirty million a year.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Total wins is what you're after, and total wins is what begets more money. best economy of wins just saves the Wilpons some cash in the short term. No, money saved can be spent --- and often is spent --- in the pursuit of wins. I don't understand how this can be elusive.

The pursuit of wins. That's it, but that's not what we're after. We're after actual wins, and the probability (which is all we have to work with really) is higher that Dickey gives them to you. No matter what you think about Myers potential. Trading a guy Dickey's age for a guy Myers age which his potential and financial commitment is easy if 2013 and 2014 don't exist. but they do. And what happens in those years greatly influences what happens in 2015.

I'm sure I can dig up a lot of business jargon articles too. Gotta spend money to make money, respect the customers you have NOW, etc.

If you're just going to make fun of my attempt to simplify a numerical representation of my point, I'll just stop here.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I bid $40 million

[Guest Swan Swan H]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: No. Atsa not enough. $Thirty million a year.

Every seat is a stone's throw from the stadium. And as soon as we throw enough stones, we're gonna build a stadium.

[metsmarathon]

Ceetar wrote: The pursuit of wins. That's it, but that's not what we're after.

jeez, c'mon edgy. you know better. we want actual wins, not just to go after them. if you chase the wins down they'll just run away.

Ceetar wrote: We're after actual wins

see. now the wins are all getting away and we're left behind. way to go.

[metirish]

"he who chases wins, wins no chase"

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: The pursuit of wins. That's it, but that's not what we're after. We're after actual wins...

Sheesh. You're talking to me like I'm a moron and not reading what your write yourself. Being in pursuit of something and being after something are the same thing.

Ceetar wrote: and the probability (which is all we have to work with really) is higher that Dickey gives them to you

.
This, of course, depends on who you get, what he costs, and how well your scout him.

Ceetar wrote: No matter what you think about Myers potential.

What if he's the most phenomenal athlete ever?

Ceetar wrote: Trading a guy Dickey's age for a guy Myers age which his potential and financial commitment is easy if 2013 and 2014 don't exist. but they do. And what happens in those years greatly influences what happens in 2015.

You really seem to know what happens in 2013 and 2014. I could say Myers hits 300 homers between the next two seasons, and the money saved is spent on another guy who hits 301 homers, just to be difficult, and Dickey quits baseball to become an astronaut. I have no clue. But there is room for professional speculation based on historical data.

Ceetar wrote: I'm sure I can dig up a lot of business jargon articles too. Gotta spend money to make money, respect the customers you have NOW, etc.

I didn't say you gotta do anything.

Ceetar wrote: If you're just going to make fun of my attempt to simplify a numerical representation of my point, I'll just stop here.

I didn't just do that. I genuinely take issue with your model. I outline my concerns above. Please don't play the martyr card again.

[Vic Sage]

production is finite, money isn't

This may be the most Ceetarded thing he's ever posted.

As the former president of the Trade In Tomorrow for Today Society (TiTTS, you say!), i'm all about not counting on prospects (ours or others) to become superstars, and winning now, for tomorrow we may all be dead.

that being said...

The Mets are not one SP away from contention, or even .500 level mediocrity. We have holes everywhere and, as reported, not so much of that infinite money to fill them with. Right now, we have a 38-year old pitcher coming off a CY season, with a $5m contract for next season. So we can either (1) let him play out the year and compete with every other team to re-sign him; (2) re-sign him now to an extension, or (3) trade him while he's at the peak of his value.

I think we can all agree that (1) is not a very good option. Lets call it the Reyes Option, in which we are likely to turn an asset into nothing whatsoever. That leaves signing him to an extension or trading him. an extension would likely require a 3-4 year commitment at $12-$15m/yr, or something in that range. So, even if the Wilpons could afford it (and i don't know that they can), we will be paying fair market value for a guy coming off a career year after his 38th birthday. I know he's a knuckler, and therefore we assume he's got many years left, but 40 is 40, and after the steroid era, bodies break down even when the arm doesn't. also, Dickey throws an unusually HARD knuckler, and he came to it late in his career after throwing a lot of fastballs and breaking balls in the majors, so its a crapshoot how much he's really got left. While i'm all for them re-signing Dickey, the Mets could be facing the reality of having to guarantee a broken down 42-year old $15m in a few years. Lets call this the Jason Bay Option... or Santana Lite.

Or the Mets can make a move, turning an aging pitcher coming off a career year into a few studly prospects, or an uber-prospect. We would be dealing from our 1 and only position of depth (SP) to fill some of our multitude of holes; we would be capitalizing on a career year from an old pitcher (a high risk position to begin with) into young everyday players (OFs and/or Cs) with futures. Wouldn't it be nice to be on the GOOD side of such a deal for a change?

you want to talk economics? Buy low and sell high. Rinse. Repeat.

[Edgy MD]

If there's any lesson of the last few years, it's that money isn't infinite.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: I think we can all agree that (1) is not a very good option. Lets call it the Reyes Option, in which we are likely to turn an asset into nothing whatsoever.

Well, they got Kevin Plawecki and Matt Reynolds. It's something, but the compensation rules are changing monthly these days.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Jon Heyman wrote: The Mets have fielded calls from six or seven teams that want to meet to discuss a trade for R.A. Dickey, which should keep Mets people busy at the Winter Meetings that begin Monday in Nashville, Tenn. The Mets and Dickey have been trying to work out a contract extension for two months, but it appears general manager Sandy Alderson has the go-ahead now to more seriously consider trade alternatives for the team's ace and 2012 National League Cy Young winner. The Mets reportedly increased their contract offer to Dickey recently, but it appears the trade meetings haven't been canceled to this point. There have been trade talks starting about a month ago, but they may accelerate now, provided Dickey doesn't lower his demands soon. The Mets will seek a catcher and outfield help in any trade. The Royals are one team to have shown interest, as was reported in this space a couple days ago. The Jays are a team that could match the Mets, as they have young outfielders (Anthony Gose) and a young catcher that may be expendable (J.P. Arencibia). Mets exec J.P. Riciardi, the former Jays GM, knows their system well. The Pirates, Dodgers, Angels, Rangers and Nationals are among teams in the market for a starting pitcher. The Royals have a top outfield prospect, Wil Myers, but would prefer to trade a package of even younger prospects in a Dickey deal. While Dickey pitched better than almost anyone in 2012 and is under contract for 2013 at a cheap $5 million, he's 38 and relies on a hard knuckleball, so it's not easy to agree on his value. That could be the issue in salary talks, too. The Mets and Dickey are believed to be talking about a two-year deal, but there is obviously a difference in the dollars. Dickey's unusual career -- he went from 10-year journeyman to solid starter in short order -- makes it hard to pinpoint his worth.

[Frayed Knot]

No harm is finding out what's available.
Sandy should walk into the winter meetings and announce that he's conducting a 'blow me away' contest with the winner getting his very ow RA Dickey - nail file, mountain climbing outfit, and other accessories sold separately.

And if he doesn't get the price he wants then go back/continue to talk. If both sides seem OK with two years I'm not too worried about what the final numbers are (with the usual caveat about it not being my money). I'm always more concerned with the length of these deals more than the per/year cost.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Here's my dream scenario: When they tell us Dickey is too old we offer up Matt Harvey instead and they accept.

[G-Fafif]

Ex-Met Orel Hershiser and not yet ex-Met R.A. Dickey talk knuckleball in ESPN: The Magazine.

TIM KURKJIAN: R.A., do you remember this heart-to-heart you had with Orel [then the pitching coach with Dickey's team, the Rangers] about your career? Let's start with that, the '05 conversation with Orel. R.A. DICKEY: OK. Well, I just kind of ran out of pellet juice, you know? When Orel was a pitching coach in 2003 and, you know, there was some real hope for me to become maybe a fourth or fifth starter, a really good swing man, I was low 90s -- you know, high 80s, low 90s, and could really change speeds well. But in 2004, 2005, I just started -- the velocity started dropping from low 90s to max 88, to max 86. I'd run out of gas as a conventional pitcher [with the Rangers] and was kind of just hanging on, just trying to survive as long as I could before I felt like the inevitable call would come. When Orel approached me, it was never a hard line in the sand. It was always, "We think you can become a great knuckleball pitcher." And the way they presented it to me made it very appealing. KURKJIAN: Orel, what do you remember about that conversation? I mean, you essentially had to go tell a veteran pitcher, "We don't think you can do this anymore." OREL HERSHISER: Well, you know, a compliment to R.A., because you don't have this relationship with every pitcher, every player. R.A. is such a personable and honest guy that we had a deeper relationship than just having a normal pitching coach/pitcher relationship. I mean, R.A. is a very outgoing guy. He's going to do everything he can to improve himself and to improve the team. And even during the times when he was pitching well, he was always a work in progress. I can just remember guys that you're actually closer to than pitchers who really don't want to let you into their life and to their career. You're their coach, but you're not there every moment, every decision with them. R.A. is that kind of open guy that he trusts people, wants to learn and makes his own decisions -- that made the conversation so much easier.

[G-Fafif]

R.A. on The Daily Show tonight, Tuesday.