Gwreck

Of the teams in the postseason, the Orioles are among the best options. The Twins are probably inoffensive, and the Diamondbacks are at least something different…but Baltimore's probably it. Obviously Atlanta, Philadelphia, and the Dodgers are complete unacceptable in all forms. And the Texas teams probably are too.

Frayed Knot wrote: if one is going to point to Atlanta as a model to emulate, they've done quite well by not chasing even their own FAs into their 30s, Freddie and Swanson recently. They have done well recently. The production they've had from Olson is remarkably similar to what Freddie has put up for a team winning just as many games as Atlanta. The Braves probably got the better deal in the end (Olson is 4.5 years younger, but they had to give up a bunch of prospects) but it's still too early to make that call. I didn't point to Atlanta as a “model to emulate.” Not that I necessarily disagree with it, but it's fair that they've been blessed with a a certain amount of luck in players having a willingness to sign arguably below-market value contracts versus testing free agency.

Frayed Knot wrote: Of course Eppler could counter with, 'Have YOU noticed that they're doing quite nicely after NOT resigning Freddie?' If there's a Matt Olson-quality player out there available to replace Pete Alonso, I'd certainly entertain the idea. Who exactly that would be is not clear in this hypothetical.

Simplest explanation is that when you're the #1 guy, you don't want to be demoted to #2?

Tommy Hunter and his back spasms were mighty suspicious.

“I wanted David to have a clean slate and that meant me stepping down. I hope for nothing but the best for the entire Mets organization.”

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Letting Wheeler walk and suggesting he wasn't worth the $$ he sought is an underrated monumental screwup. Imagine where the team might be if Brodie Van Wegenen had never been hired. It was still the Jeff Era though, would have been tough for anyone. Fair, but they had room to take on $100M for Robinson Cano…imagine if they used that money for Wheeler instead.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Letting Wheeler walk and suggesting he wasn't worth the $$ he sought is an underrated monumental screwup. Imagine where the team might be if Brodie Van Wegenen had never been hired.

Ex-Mets in the postseason: ATL: D'Arnaud, Pillar PHI: Walker, Wheeler MIA: Robertson MIL: Canha LA: Amed Rosario ARZ: Pham, Miguel Castro, Paul Sewald BAL: McCann TOR: Bassitt TEX: Travis Jankowski HOU: Verlander

https://theathletic.com/4916752/2023/09/30/mets-tylor-megill-francisco-alvarez/https://theathletic.com/4916752/2023/09/30/mets-tylor-megill-francisco-alvarez/ Megill's improvement is not isolated in the Mets' rotation. Since the start of September, only the Brewers and Tigers own a better rotation ERA than the Mets. Peterson compiled a 3.88 ERA in his final 10 starts (including the one Thursday in the still-suspended game with Miami), Lucchesi a 1.48 ERA in his four second-half starts and José Butto will take a 3.38 September ERA into the season finale on Sunday. While those are all nice steps forward, the Mets are likely to save room for only one of those pitchers in next year's season-opening rotation, viewing the others as depth. All four will still have minor-league options in 2024.

Edgy MD wrote: Peterson, Megill, and Lucchesi should all be out of options in 2024. Tim Britton reported today that all 3 have option years remaining for 2024.

Edgy MD wrote: Remember that MLB likes to maximize the closing-day drama now by having all teams play a scheduled final game on the same day at the same time. So 3:10 it is. Having the games start at the same time makes a lot of sense for competitive reasons. Tough to chalk that one up to “maximiz[ing] drama.”

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=138400 time=1695927914 user_id=119]Would you be willing to part with some of our prospect capital to bring Soto to Citi and hope to sign him long-term?

Frayed Knot wrote: Y'know, for all the issues with starters (both young and old) this season, plus all the kvetching about the bullpen, the NYM staff holds a RA/G mark that's 0.14 better than the NL average Removing Verlander, Scherzer, and Carrasco's contributions (55 games started), the Mets starters have otherwise put up a 4.09 ERA in 101 starts. That would rank 9th in MLB (3rd in the NL). On the whole, the Mets starters have had a 4.27 ERA, 15th in MLB (7th in the NL). As for the bullpen, “kvetching” is not the correct word; the bullpen has been awful, 22nd in MLB (12th in the NL).

1. Mets have played a much weaker schedule in September. Compare to the 10 games in August against the Braves and Orioles, the two best teams in the majors. 2. Removing Carrasco helps bigtime. He's a nice guy but was just absolutely terrible all year. 3. Quintana's been quite good since he joined the team. What this means for their offseason posture, is anybody's guess, but it probably should mean ... something? Very little. The Mets should expect to add 3 additional starting pitchers from outside the organization if they want to expect to be competitive next season.

I should add that 1969-1970 is also a tie for third place, -17, 100 wins to 83.

With a .459 winning percentage, the 2023 Mets are tracking to 74 wins. Versus the 101 last year, this would easily be the biggest season-to season drop-off. The next closest: 1976 to 1977: -22 wins 2008 to 2009: -19 wins 2016 to 2017: -17 wins Still in play is the record for greatest swing (in either direction). 1968 to 1969: +27 wins 2021 to 2022: +24 wins 1983 to 1984: +22 wins

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Big spot for Vogey I yelled “stop at first” as loud as I've yelled anything else at the team this year.

Edgy MD wrote: Umps getting the count wrong. Embarrassing. Scoreboard in the stadium had it wrong too. McNeil seemed to know what was up though.

Edgy MD wrote: OK, let's answer right back. Pete listened.

Edgy MD wrote: That may be so. But the three young players entering the picture may have more staying power than a single Canó. I had to look it up to confirm but he McNeil actually played more in both left and right field in 2019 than he did at second. As noted elsewhere, I'm kind of rooting for him to take over at third, with Batientos starting 2024 primarily at DH, but we'll see. Interesting. I'd have to think left field is wide open too. My preference has always been for the Mets to fill a championship caliber starting lineup without even considering a position for McNeil. And then deploy him as needed around the diamond as the situations call for it.

Edgy MD wrote: McNeil is not only the oldest and operating without a contract beyond 2026, he also doesn't really have a clear position going forward. I doubt that's an issue. Take 2019 for an example: McNeil did not lead the team in innings at any of his defensive positions, but was still fourth on the team in plate appearances. And that was before the DH slot.

Frayed Knot wrote: Diaz's NYM (to-date) career hardly needs rehashing It probably needs a little more as we can't overlook the truly awful 2019 season Diaz had, on an 86 win team that ended 3 games out of the playoffs. There were of course a lot of flaws on that team, etc., etc. but it's not an overstatement to point out that if Diaz was merely “ok” that year it could have been the difference. Then there were 2 good seasons and a third that was of course incredibly good. And as for the Cano money? As it was the pre-Cohen days, that money could have instead have been much better used to retain Zach Wheeler, who of course wanted to remain with the Mets but wasn't given a competitive contract offer. Also, since Cano keeps coming up, I am compelled to point out again that the Mets actually got more WAR from Trevor Williams than they did from Cano. Again, the point is not that the Kelenic trade was good (it was not) or the Crow-Armstrong trade was good, but the absolute certainty that one was worse than the other is to my eyes unsupported.

Edgy MD wrote: I tend to think taking on Canó's bad contract was the price of taking on Diaz' benevolent one. At least that's the way the Mets front office were looking at it as they chose to swallow that pill. Doesn't necessarily make it wise, of course, but that's probably a big part of the thinking. The problem in the trade was that they both took Cano's contract and gave up the prospect. One of the other should have been good enough.

Frayed Knot wrote: Completely different situations though. Kelenic was dealt for a mid-20s top notch closer with four years of team control, plus the gamble on how much Cano had left (good while he was available before ultimately washing out). Even if the Baez trade was worse (TBD), it shouldn't go overlooked here how colossally stupid it was to trade for Cano, a 35-year old on the downside of his career coming off a PED suspension with an albatross contract. And this was before the Mets had a billionaire owner! Calling it a “gamble” on Cano is far too charitable. Also calling Cano “good” is not really accurate either. He had a middling 2019, and a good 2020 (all 49 games of it), and then was so bad/a clubhouse cancer that they had to release him with almost 3 years left on the contract. As for Baez, when he was acquired, the Mets were up 5 games in the division, and Lindor was hurt (he didn't return until August 24 that year).. Baez played very well down the stretch, and the Mets also got Trevor Williams who was a not insignificant part of the 2022 team. It may well have still been a dumb trade but it's far from clear if it really was that bad.