The Dickey-to-Toronto trade

[Ceetar]

Swan Swan H wrote: Do me a favor, when you come in off the ledge, close the window. It's supposed to get cold tonight.

why even bother then? I mean, just keep dumping anyone that makes a lot of money and go bare bones until your window opens up. Hope the Nationals don't maintain this run for a decade.

Or you could build the best team you can, and capitalize on opportunities that open up, which happens all the time.

That's not what the Mets are doing. It's a good trade, it's a good process, but the "Hope the situation is more in our favor next year" is not a marketable or exciting one.

Getting to watch R.A. Dickey next year might have been the single best thing that would happen, and it wasn't replaced with any assurances of other great things.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: And what if there are bees? Bees as far as the eye can see! SO MANY BEES! The gist is that you don't want to "punt" this season, right? The Mets finished in a distant, distant fourth with Dickey pitching the best season of his life. You don't think it's possible that moving him to fill a current and future weakness, with a host of youngsters-with-potential in the high minors for rotation backfill, actually improves the team for next year?

no. Even if d'Arnaud starts in the majors, is he going to be a more valuable player than Dickey? Even if he's close, that's a net loss for a fourth place team. I'm not saying the Mets won't be better overall due to any number of variables, but I don't see any reasonable way to expect the trade to pay instant dividends next year.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ceetar wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: And what if there are bees? Bees as far as the eye can see! SO MANY BEES! The gist is that you don't want to "punt" this season, right? The Mets finished in a distant, distant fourth with Dickey pitching the best season of his life. You don't think it's possible that moving him to fill a current and future weakness, with a host of youngsters-with-potential in the high minors for rotation backfill, actually improves the team for next year? no. Even if d'Arnaud starts in the majors, is he going to be a more valuable player than Dickey? Even if he's close, that's a net loss for a fourth place team. I'm not saying the Mets won't be better overall due to any number of variables, but I don't see any reasonable way to expect the trade to pay instant dividends next year.

The question about this year's improvement isn't predicated on D'Arnaud being more valuable than Dickey; it's about him being better than the guy he's replacing (and the same for Dickey's slot in the rotation). If D'Arnaud/Buck is significantly better than Thole/Nickeas (and that's a pretty damn good bet, no?), it might outweigh the difference between Dickey's woulda-performance and what our rotation backfill (Wheeler? Mejia? Familia? Other?) can muster... especially if said backfill is a little more filling than expected.

I'll miss Dickey, too. But the I-don't-want-to-let-you-go-because-I'd-miss-you-too-much dynamic has sunk far more-- and far more productive-- marriages than RAD-Mets; chasing that feeling is no way to make a ballclub, or "reasonably" weigh a trade.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

That's not what the Mets are doing. It's a good trade, it's a good process, but the "Hope the situation is more in our favor next year" is not a marketable or exciting one.

This is exactly the opposite of what Alderson is doing. He is trying to build a team that is sustainably good, with talented players they can count on for years to come.

[smg58]

Like I told Seawolf, Dickey is my favorite Met since Piazza. But I think it's clear that given the choice between offering him an extension and getting a "haul" for him, Alderson wanted the haul. There are perfectly valid baseball reasons for doing that, and this deal looks on paper like a haul. My emotions are very mixed, but I think the trade will make the Mets better in the long run.

[RealityChuck]

It's well worth a shot. The Blue Jays are giving up a lot. They may not pan out, but you could also sign Dickey and discover he no longer has the magic (the speed of his knuckler was a major factor in his success, and he may end up throwing it more slowly as he ages, making more hittable). Nothing is certain in baseball.

In this case, you fill the hole at catcher for next year and for years beyond, a pitcher who might be as effective as Dickey by the time he comes up, and save the money you would have had to have paid R.A. to search for an outfielder.

I'm sorry to see him go and would love to see him as a Met, but this is a chance to build a winner without him instead of losing with him.

[Ceetar]

Swan Swan H wrote: That's not what the Mets are doing. It's a good trade, it's a good process, but the "Hope the situation is more in our favor next year" is not a marketable or exciting one. This is exactly the opposite of what Alderson is doing. He is trying to build a team that is sustainably good, with talented players they can count on for years to come.

oh? where? I hear there words put in Alderson's mouth often, but actions speak louder than words. He kept David Wright, certainly, but the Mets have no other players signed beyond this year. He's buying lots of tickets to the prospect lottery, but will he supplement them when the time comes?

And that doesn't change that this process is NOT marketable or exciting for 2013 as currently constituted.

[metsmarathon]

i guess the takeaway is that we can finally find out whether or not you can rebuild in new york city.

i like to htink that you can.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Ceetar wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: That's not what the Mets are doing. It's a good trade, it's a good process, but the "Hope the situation is more in our favor next year" is not a marketable or exciting one. This is exactly the opposite of what Alderson is doing. He is trying to build a team that is sustainably good, with talented players they can count on for years to come. oh? where? I hear there words put in Alderson's mouth often, but actions speak louder than words. He kept David Wright, certainly, but the Mets have no other players signed beyond this year. He's buying lots of tickets to the prospect lottery, but will he supplement them when the time comes? And that doesn't change that this process is NOT marketable or exciting for 2013 as currently constituted.

Niese is signed through 2018. Murphy and Parnell are arbitration-eligible through 2015, Davis, Gee and Tejada through 2016.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ceetar wrote: And that doesn't change that this process is NOT marketable or exciting for 2013 as currently constituted.

I don't see why I should care a whole lot how "marketable" the Mets are.

I think that this deal, if it happens, is likely to provide the Mets with more wins over the next decade than if it doesn't happen. Maybe not more wins in 2013, but more over the long haul. Yes, 2013 is important, but we're going to stop caring about 2013 by October 31 at the latest, and probably quite a bit before then.

As we've seen, most catchers today are awful. The Mets have a rare chance to get a guy who may* be the best catcher in the league a few years from now, giving them a competitive advantage over everyone else. This is a very smart deal, and I'm glad we have a guy in place who was able to swing it.

*I'm anticipating the response that there's no guarantee that Travis will become a star. It's silly that I have to even type this paragraph; of course that statement is true, but there's certainly no guarantee that standing pat would end up being a good idea either.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come?

I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is.

[Ceetar]

Swan Swan H wrote: Niese is signed through 2018. Murphy and Parnell are arbitration-eligible through 2015, Davis, Gee and Tejada through 2016.

Totally blanked on Niese, but yeah. one pitcher and one hitter. Those others merely haven't had the chance to get away yet and are cheap and under control. And they won't get you anything in return. (Gotta play someone there right?)

Who's to say if Davis has a big year as a left-handed power first baseman they don't leverage him for something else since power-hitting first baseman are generally not that hard to replace? Especially if 2014 doesn't look like 'the year'? Didn't Ryan Howard make 10 million in his first year of arbitration?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: And that doesn't change that this process is NOT marketable or exciting for 2013 as currently constituted. I don't see why I should care a whole lot how "marketable" the Mets are. *I'm anticipating the response that there's no guarantee that Travis will become a star. It's silly that I have to even type this paragraph; of course that statement is true, but there's certainly no guarantee that standing pat would end up being a good idea either.

Because, as a fan, the entertainment value of the team is pretty much the only thing. And that means winning. And the longer you wait to win, the longer it takes for the fans to come back, and what happens if it gets pushed back due to bad luck or simply doesn't happen? Improvement in 2013 raises interest in 2014 (and hence ticket sales and revenue, which makes investing in the roster easier). Of course d'Arnaud is no guarantee. He's a gamble. they all are. Maybe he's less of a gamble than some, but that's not the point. Everyone is a gamble, Dickey included, but you have three years of recent history and data that suggest Dickey is good, and none that Travis is besides projections and not always translatable minor league stats.

The gamble here is that sacrificing the more sure thing now for the more sure thing later is that all the other things that you're also gambling on need to work out too. You could have 10 dice that roll a 6 80% of the time and still have them all roll 1s. And then where are we? Square one? That sustainable winner isn't a sure thing just via good farm system stocking, nor is it even a sure thing if you add in a financial investment we're not sure we're getting down the line.

Simply put, I'd rather gamble on Dickey than d'Arnaud. I'd rather the Mets look to utilize other methods to continue to improve down the line and build a sustainable winner. it's not mandatory that it has to include trading Dickey...but I get that the current situation of the Mets, at least as it seems from the outside, seems to dictate that it does. They can't afford NOT to leverage this asset. (And I assume they didn't leverage Reyes because they weren't offered anything really worthwhile) But that desperation doesn't leave me excited about the future, it makes me wary that they'll ever be able to build that winner if other cracks, like Wheeler Pelfing, turn up. And just because I understand the process and hinted at goals, doesn't mean I like it. I wish it wasn't that way and I'm certainly fine with having rooted for it to work WITH Dickey.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come? I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is.

I don't know that it's..obvious. It's the one that makes the most sense..surely.. but take the outfield thread..what's the plan for that? I'm not convinced they will. Say we're a year in the future and the D'backs are dangling Upton. Do the Mets bite? financially?

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

This could go down in history like the Dan Norman trade.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Or the Tom Parsons trade.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come? I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is. I don't know that it's..obvious. It's the one that makes the most sense..surely.. but take the outfield thread..what's the plan for that? I'm not convinced they will. Say we're a year in the future and the D'backs are dangling Upton. Do the Mets bite? financially?

So you are opposed to the one that makes the most sense. I always thought so.

[Ceetar]

Swan Swan H wrote: Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come? I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is. I don't know that it's..obvious. It's the one that makes the most sense..surely.. but take the outfield thread..what's the plan for that? I'm not convinced they will. Say we're a year in the future and the D'backs are dangling Upton. Do the Mets bite? financially? So you are opposed to the one that makes the most sense. I always thought so.

Just because it makes the most sense doesn't mean it's the one that works out the best.

hey, you could've argued, as many did, that the Pagan trade made the most sense. Didn't work out that way.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come? I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is. I don't know that it's..obvious.

What else could be the plan?

Ceetar wrote: It's the one that makes the most sense..surely..

What is the what that makes most sense?

Adding players who can help them long-term is the theory that makes the most sense? Trading Dickey for D'Arnaud is the trade that makes most sense? I'm not following.

Ceetar wrote: but take the outfield thread..what's the plan for that?

We were going to post in it until we ran out of things to say and then archive it a few months later.

But I guess you're asking what the plan is for the outfield. I wouldn't be surprised that this trade doesn't simultaneously address all concerns both long-term and short-term, or have a contingency for all possible developments. But neither would keeping Dickey.

Ceetar wrote: I'm not convinced they will. Say we're a year in the future and the D'backs are dangling Upton. Do the Mets bite? financially?

I guess that depends on the situation on the ground at the time, as they say.

[metsmarathon]

if the mets are truly in as dire a financial strait as they appear frequently to be, then leveraging expensive aging talent for inexpensive prospective talent is hte only way to build a winning franchise, until the expenses work themselves out.

keeping expensive aging talent for meaningless immediate marginal gains does not make for a marketable team. or a particularly winful team, either.

since the financials appear to be shit, this is the way it must be. the mets must follow the example of the tampa rays. and in this trade, they have done so. if it works, perhaps sooner rather than later, the coffers will refill themselves and the mets can be players with money again.

the solace to be found is that our current area of greatest need, the outfield, is probably hte area wherein it is easiest to find some spare part to fill in adequately for a time.

i mean, hell, we went to the world series with an outfield of benny agbayani, jay payton, and derek bell.

[Edgy MD]

Who's to say if Davis has a big year as a left-handed power first baseman they don't leverage him for something else since power-hitting first baseman are generally not that hard to replace?

I think there's a period or a conjunction or something missing here.

Who is to say anything? I think we all acknowledge that none of us know the future and we all deal in likelihoods of positive outcomes and not in certainties. Let's get that on the table right now.

[batmagadanleadoff]

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I guess that depends on the situation on the ground at the time, as they say.

I'm just started to get nervous that the situation on the ground is never going to be good enough to commit to. admittedly, I'm probably getting overly worked up over Alderson (or Wilpon) statements even though I know you can't take anything they say as even remotely resembling truth. But they seemed to suggest a 100+ million payroll this year, mentioned last year that they were in a "period of ascendancy" but from this view point it looks like we're going into a third year of rebuilding. Foundation is looking solid, but eventually you have to put something on top of it.

metsmarathon wrote: if the mets are truly in as dire a financial strait as they appear frequently to be, then leveraging expensive aging talent for inexpensive prospective talent is hte only way to build a winning franchise, until the expenses work themselves out. keeping expensive aging talent for meaningless immediate marginal gains does not make for a marketable team. or a particularly winful team, either. since the financials appear to be shit, this is the way it must be. the mets must follow the example of the tampa rays. and in this trade, they have done so. if it works, perhaps sooner rather than later, the coffers will refill themselves and the mets can be players with money again. the solace to be found is that our current area of greatest need, the outfield, is probably hte area wherein it is easiest to find some spare part to fill in adequately for a time. i mean, hell, we went to the world series with an outfield of benny agbayani, jay payton, and derek bell.

I agree with all this and have said as much. Doesn't make it any less sad or disappointing. And I don't get excited for AAA Mets, I get excited for MLB Mets, so I find the trade is making me sad for missing Dickey and isn't yet providing me anything. It's a very in the moment, emotional response, that's all.

[metsmarathon]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: This could go down in history like the Dan Norman trade.

i'm hoping for a version of the heatcliff slocumb trade, with better results on both sides.

[ashie62]

If the Mets were working with a big market budget this would be a helluva lot easier.

[seawolf17]

Ashie62 wrote: If the Mets were working with a big market budget this would be a helluva lot easier.

True, but even if the Mets were working with a big-market budget, I'd make this deal. Because then you put Dickey's $13-15 million a year toward another pitcher who's not 40 years old, PLUS you get a young catcher and another top young arm out of the deal.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Looks like there is an agreement on the extension.

[Benjamin Grimm]

So it seems that all that remains is the physical. As long as Dickey has recovered well from his abdominal muscle repair, and assuming that they don't discover any additional missing body parts, we have a done deal. Announcement may come as early as this evening.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Dickey got physical, physical, and the deal is done. The Blue Jays also get catcher Mike Nickeas in the deal, Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reports. The Mets also get 18-year-old outfield prospect Wuilmer Becerra.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Any time you have the chance to trade a Nickeas for a Becerra, or a worn 45 of "Besame Mucho," or a week-old bechamel... you've got to take that chance.

[Frayed Knot]

Per John Sickels:

Wuilmer Becerra, OF -- The Blue Jays spent $1,300,000 to sign Wuilmer Becerra out of Venezuela in 2011. They brought him directly to North America in 2012, skipping the Latin American summer leagues. Unfortunately, he got into just 11 games in the Gulf Coast League, his season ending early after being hit in the face by a pitch.

Becerra is tall and lanky at 6-4, 190, but runs very well and could be a 20+ steal guy at higher levels if all goes well. He also has above-average power potential, and flashes good plate discipline. However, his swing mechanics are inconsistent and he may be more ripper than hitter. His arm isn't very good, so he profiles best at left field. At Becerra's age, anything can happen. Keep in mind that he wouldn't even be drafted until 2013 if he'd been born in the United States. He was born October 1st, 1994.



iow, he's a long, long way off no matter what he eventually turns into

[Guest Swan Swan H]

1994? Kurt Cobain was already dead when this kid was born. Boy, am I old.