smg58

"Blewett" is an awkward last name for a relief pitcher. Or maybe I'm just sensitive because my first name is Scott.

We'd still be sellers, unfortunately, because too many other things have gone wrong.

I'd pay more for Raley right now, I think, but they both will find value. They are both quite a bit better than Gregory Soto, the best lefty non-closer dealt at last year's deadline, so the Mets should get more for each of them than they gave up for Soto (Wellington Aracena is currently the number 14 prospect for the Diamondbacks, after being traded a second time). Given the sellers' market and the fact that there is no bullpen that couldn't use an upgrade, I don't think asking for one of a team's top 10 prospects is unreasonable.

No real surprises. The free agents pretty much have to be moved. Weaver should be moved, as his value will never be higher than it is now and there are always comparable free agent relievers available in the offseason. Holmes is more complicated. Personally I'd gamble the difference between the draft pick and what we could get in a trade that we would be in a better bargaining position to bring him back for three years by holding on to him. But the right return could change my mind.

Their futility with RISP in the pandemic year was maddening, because that was a good team with (when nobody was on base) a great lineup. An average amount of luck (at bat; injuries are another thing) wouldn't have saved this team. So maybe this is a good year to get it out of our system.

https://www.mlb.com/news/chicago-bandits-advance-to-ausl-championship-series?p=0&partnerId=it-20260724-19101127-mlb-1-A&utm_id=it-20260724-19101127-mlb-1-A&lctg=140161442 The inaugural Athletes Unlimited Softball League play-in game was put in the books courtesy of a clutch walk-off hit by one Aliana Agbayani.

He'll be a fan favorite, for sure.

I don't think the Mets have anything to offer that would get a top-50 prospect. Peralta's ERA would need to be half what it currently is. I think if you want a relatively high-end prospect, you have to make a package offer. Peralta (with a good outing or two) plus Weaver might get us Gray, and that intrigues me.

You take what you can get for the impending free agents. Holmes: The injury has to cap his value. I'm willing to gamble that we wouldn't significantly beat the draft pick that would come with a QO, and then try to talk things out with him. Weaver: He's pitching over his head, and he won't be that hard to replace.

I'm for whoever comes to the interview and makes the interviewer think, "this guy knows things that I don't." I'm hoping that's not a low bar to clear.

You can't blame Ewing for the good contact, but good defense coupled with smart positioning sealed the W for Milwaukee. Also, I discussed this in another thread that both Robert and Taylor are obvious trade candidates and I was expecting both to be showcased as much as possible. So naturally Baty was playing right. While I think Baty could handle the position given the experience (McNeil never had a problem, Ewing is a converted second baseman, hell Lagares was a converted infielder), the need for him to play there doesn't exist right now..

"Given the underperformance" implies that people had the right to expect more from the team Stearns assembled. There is plenty to debate there, but guys not playing to realistic expectations are not the GM's problem. Guys getting hurt aren't necessarily the GM's problem either, unless they came in with an injury history (or are pitchers) and were paid like full seasons could be taken for granted (see Polanco, Jorge). As far as the "excessive reliance on spreadsheets" goes, anybody who can read a Fangraphs page knew Peralta got lucky last year. There's a lot of anger over dismantling the team's core (Alonso especially), but I get the anger and I get concluding the Mets had gotten as far as they could go with them to equal degrees. Like I said over the winter, I think Stearns would have been forgiven if he put a better team on the field, but he... didn't. What I didn't (and most likely won't) forgive Stearns for was the way he completely botched the deadline last year. Bringing in Mullins actually made the team worse. There were available relievers having better years than Helsley that would have cost less. (And Stearns would have known that if he relied excessively on spreadsheets.) And he didn't get any righthanded bats, which they needed. So I'm with ashie as far as Stearns handling this year's deadline goes. That being said, the mess we have is not all Stearns' fault. The team has gotten some crummy luck with injuries. Soto wasn't out for long, nor did it compromise his play for an extended period of time, but the season was already over by the time he got back. Lindor has just not been right. I don't think I appreciated how brutal losing Clay Holmes would be, but given how our other veteran starters have performed, it's been brutal. But we have a new young core emerging, some players will bounce back, and we'll have money to spend. Next year is not a lost cause, and the deadline needs to be approached that way.

We are presumably shopping both of them, so I would expect to see them both in there often. Which would mean plenty of Soto at DH (not necessarily a bad thing), and probably a fair amount of Ewing at second (not a good thing, but I'll deal with it if it optimizes the return).

Hunt was before my time, so I can't say much about him. But there is something to be said for being the first player to excel in a Mets uniform.

It was the most egregious/embarrassing, at least that I've seen (I don't get to sit and watch nearly as often as I'd like). He's not a good outfielder, but that was in the fine print and I can deal with most of it.

Fine. You shouldn't expect to get a high end prospect for a rental. Teams haven't really been doing that for a while, excepting very elite players, and Crow-Armstrong is exhibit A for why not. And on the other side, you have to wonder what offers were rejected in 2022 or 2023 because they included Parada.

Realism is important. You aren't going to get a high-end prospect for a rental, but you might as well get something. The players under team control consist of guys they'd be selling low on (Lindor, Alvarez, Baty), guys who are being paid more than they're worth (Polanco, Williams), guys who might opt out (Bichette), guys who will opt out but aren't healthy (Holmes), and one sell-high opportunity (Weaver). So I wouldn't expect anything eye-popping. Making the team worse to placate somebody who will opt out at his first chance anyway makes no sense. I don't see it happening. Alvarez has struggled to stay healthy, and it's hurt his performance both with the bat and the glove, but I think shipping him out under the assumption that improving on him will be easy would be a huge mistake. Weaver would be far easier to replace than either Lindor or Alvarez. Baty... the irony here is the Mets have held on to Baty when they presumably could have sold very high on him at a few trade deadlines or in offseasons, and now they'd be selling painfully low. Like with Vientos, I wouldn't cut bait just to be rid of him. I do think Baty has been playing hurt. But his upside, barring a substantially improved reading of the strike zone, is a useful reserve.

You would be selling low on Lindor, and then you'd be assuming you could find somebody better in the offseason than a (presumably) healthy Lindor would be in 2027. I've always worked under the assumption that on-field results are more likely to influence what goes on in the clubhouse than the other way around. Given how things went the second half of last season and the first half of this one, I'd be more concerned if everybody was happy. We can (and have, and will some more) grumble over the questionable personnel decisions, but the team has also had more than it's share of crummy injury luck. I think a full-on fire sale would do more harm than good. There's no point in selling low on anybody who's still under team control.

I would be surprised if somebody takes a flyer on Bichette. At his best he not worth $42M per year, and gambling on him opting out is something a smart team wouldn't do. Trading Alvarez makes no sense at all. As much as I like Torrens' defense, he's a black hole in a lineup that is already starved for offense. Dealing Alvarez would just add to next year's shopping list. We would be selling very high on Weaver, and I'm all for it. I think there will be too much doubt about Holmes to net us more than the QO would get us, so I'm for staying put with him. Plus, he could reasonably opt to take the QO. (He's definitely opting out of the contract.)

The Diamondbacks cut Pavin Smith, who was a very solid hitter in 2024 and 2025 before he got hurt and the wheels came off. Given that he would still be under team control, I think he'd make an interesting waiver claim.

He's a short-side platoon DH, or the 13th position player on the depth chart. I can't see arbitration getting him a whole lot more than that's worth, so I'm willing to leave the light on for him.

Bichette had to do something to shake himself out of the rut he was in. I think he'll work his way back to his normal approach, but getting more aggressive served its purpose.

But we need to rotate all these relievers in and out; otherwise we might have to think twice before taking Christian Scott out after five innings even when he's pitching well.

Not to nitpick too much on the manager that we already know is temporary, but Warren and Seelinger were left in far longer than was prudent.

The Mets lineup is essentially full strength -- not Semien or Robert, but it's really not clear that those two could outhit their replacements anyway. I think how the team hits over the next couple of weeks will influence how the team handles the deadline. Not that they're likely to be buyers by any stretch, but just getting a sense of who are guys you can win with in 2027.