Gwreck

Here’s another rule question: what if your rookie season was split between teams? I recall that Jeff Kent’s rookie year of 1992 was partly with Toronto and then completed with the Mets. I bet he had 80+ hits for the total season (but not all of them with the Mets).

Good but not great catcher Travis D’Arnaud was acquired in 2013 at the same time as John Buck, who the Mets took back to eat salary and played for a year until his contract ran out. Travis should have been a rookie in 2014 then, and he probably (?) played most of that season as the starter.

What about Justin Turner? Similar to Stearns, he played a couple of games elsewhere first (Baltimore) but would have been a rookie with the Mets in 2011.

I didn’t see anything in the rules that you had to make your MLB debut as a Met. John Stearns played 1 MLB game for the Phillies before getting traded to the Mets so probably was still a rookie in…ummm…1976?

One of the five tools is hitting for average, right? Give me Alex Ochoa, 1995.

Daniel Murphy, 2009. Was he still a rookie then? (Or did he use up his eligibility in 08)?

Edgardo Alfonzo 1995

What about Kevin Mitchell, 1986? He probably had a few hits.

Jose Reyes 2003

One of the “projected” guys has to be Jared Young, 2026

Francisco Alvarez, 2023

Todd Hundley, 1991

Tyuoshi Shinjo, 2001

Ike Davis, 2010

Ty Wigginton, 2003

Jay Payton, 2000, number 12 on the list.

Justin Hagenman is being given the start as part of a plan to give Scott some more rest. Hagenman missed most of this year after breaking a rib during spring training. He turns 30 next month and 2025 was his fourth year of AAA in three different organizations: 2022 he had a 5.57 ERA with the Dodgers organization; 2023, a 3.26 ERA with Boston’s org; 2024, repeated AAA and 4.91 ERA, and 2025 was 5.58 ERA in Syracuse. He also had 23.2 innings in the majors last year (4.56 ERA). Suffice to say I’m glad for him he gets a shot in the majors again but is he really a candidate to help the Mets in 2027? And thus should he be on the roster now? Ehhhhhh

A few thoughts: -Alvarez’s numbers are down slightly but not tremendously off what he did in past years. And he too of course also was hurt (as he seems to be every year). Even if he finishes with a .718 OPS/101 OPS+, that’s not necessarily bad for a catcher; it’d be among the top third (or better) across MLB. It’s just not superstar numbers. And while he’s been hurt every year, there hasn’t been significant signs of improvement year over year. Of course, he’s still just 24, but is Alvarez just “ok” and not a star? It may have nothing to do with approach/philosophy. -Both Baty and Vientos had some awful years under prior coaches so it’s not as if this year is something out of the blue. Baty might be a bit more concerning as his peak was last year (so did a new philosophy this year cause a backslide?) but Vientos already significantly backslid from 2024 to 2025 without anything changing in terms of coaching/philosophy/etc. -Bichette is a long-established hitter and as noted has improved over an abysmal start to the year. Was it bad philosophy that contributed to that underperformance or was it bad luck/a tough adjustment period? I raise a few of those points somewhat as devil‘s advocate, since I’m generally in favor of a wholesale firing of the coaching staff anyway. But I’m not sure it was really a flaw in approach that did the Mets in versus some bad luck* and an absence of sufficient depth on the roster. *As I have probably said before, coming into the 2026 season, Bichette, Soto, and Lindor would have started for just about every team in MLB. They combined for 15.5 WAR in 2025 but 4.6 in 2026. Flip 11 wins for the Mets and they’re at 73-65, in position to get a wild card, highly problematic pitching staff notwithstanding.

I liked the sometimes-proposed idea that you could call up as many players as you wanted but you could only have a designated 25 active for that evening’s game.

Worth noting that Moreno bought the club in 2003, so the title doesn’t go on his ledger. Very much a tale of two halves: in the first 11 seasons from 2003-2014, Angels had a .553 winning percentage, winning seasons 9 of 11 years and 6 division titles. 12 season run from 2015-2026 has had a .455 winning percentage, one winning season, and zero playoff appearances.

One month to go in the season and 2 extra roster spots are available. What do we want to see to best evaluate things and set up 2027 for success? Rotation: McLean is probably going need extra rest and/or is going to hit an innings cap. He had 110 innings in 2024 and 114 last year; he’s now at 156. Scott’s at 108 innings (versus career high of 88); Thornton is at 124 (versus career high of 88). Seems like an obvious situation to get a sixth or even seventh starter up and pitching, meaning Tong — and why not Tobias Myers too? Continuing to pitch Stock is a headscratcher. Bullpen: Someone loses a spot when Williams comes off the IL but generally no concern, the tryout-for-2027 plan can continue, provided that Senga still is closing. Hitters: Continuing to give a roster spot to Cristian Pache makes little sense, but perhaps now with Morabito up Pache won’t play anymore. If Semien isn’t hurt, he certainly needs his playing time curtailed in order to get more PAs available for others.

With the caveat that it’s still just an 11-appearance sample, I’m not at all ready to say he isn’t closer material. I would certainly leave him in the role for the rest of the year (even when Williams comes back) to see what he can do.

As the season has gone on and the sample size has increased, I’m less convinced this is the issue and instead it’s more that the players the Mets had were just (a) bad or (b) hurt. Maybe there is a philosophy change that can make Semien play like he’s 5 years younger or keep Polanco healthy but those seem like separate issues. As for Alvarez, Baty, and Vientos…they’ve all had a lot of chances under several different regimes and the results are what they are. Time to stop hoping they’ll get significantly better and accept that Alvarez is a useful player but cannot be expected to be an offensive cornerstone; that Baty is not an everyday player; and that Vientos should be non-tendered.

Maybe it’s a distorted perception but I was of the impression that there was tepid support for the retirements and most if not all believed that at least some of the retirements were too much. Interesting thing I noted recently: there are only 2 clubs that have done it entirely correct, meaning that they have only retired numbers for HOF inductees for whom they were the primary team: Colorado and Toronto. Seattle (retired Randy Johnson’s number) and Baltimore (retired Frank Robinson’s number) are close calls.

Do you actually think a majority of Mets fans are in favor of the rash of number retirements lately? That sure seemed to be an ownership-driven decision.