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.

G-Fafif wrote: Ceetar wrote: The home run was fun. What home run? I lost a sentence there. I meant I enjoyed his and Maine's little home run competition and Maine's home run probably features in both my memories of Maine AND Paul Lo Duca.

Pelfrey, a solid back-end rotation guy who seemed like a bit of a kooky guy but always seemed to put the work in, despite never getting the #1 pick results many demanded of him. The home run was fun. the dominating April of 2010 was fun, especially hearing a Baltimore talk show host in May describe him as the Mets ace. Always seemed to get a bad rap.

nah, it's just like Davidoff's piece, in that it's wildly speculative. This is akin to all those screaming debate shows, he's taking the opposite viewpoint just because. The only information I've been able to find is that the post reported that some unnamed anonymous person (And I bet in an organization the size of the Mets you can find one person to find something less positive on any other employee) said the Mets are concerned about the off the field distractions and an allusion to them being "not happy" (that's it, DAMNING! not happy? how cruel!) about his comments at the holiday party. Pretty much everything else on both sides was negotiation stuff. In fact, the Mets still thought SO MUCH of Dickey that they singled him out to be one of two current players to be part of the holiday party. Sure, the two departments might not actually talk to each other, but why is no one writing how much the Mets loved Dickey that even as they leveraged him for the future, they wanted him to be part of their holiday party? The Mets treated R.A. Dickey just fine (outside of Jerry Manuel who's no longer here) in my eyes, and I'm tired of the witch hunts just because the Wilpons are easy targets and disliked. This is the same crap the media pulled with the Walter Reed stuff, and it's disgraceful. It's things like this which is why I have so very little respect for the traditional media types.

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.

Swan Swan H wrote: And what happens if all of your worst-case scenario moaning actually takes place and they don't make the deal? The year is shot anyway, and when they come out on the other side they have a 39-year old pitcher instead of a stud catcher and a hot pitching prospect. maybe the year isn't shot. it's freaking December.

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: Well, Wright, Ike, Niese, Harvey, Nieuwenhuis, Duda, etc etc. Some of the other 25 will capture our hearts I'm sure, that's how baseball works. I mean, it's not like Mets fans packed the park for Dickey starts. That would be the problem that all teams with four straight losing seasons face, particularly when they price their tickets as if they're perennial contenders. For the record, I think the trade is a good one. And is another good move by Sandy. But also speaks volumes that the Mets are planning on finishing in third or fourth place* in 2013. *I assume there's no way we can be worse than the Marlins in 2013. well, they price their tickets as entertainment in New York, it has nothing to do with record or quality. Winning is what sells, and that's the sucky part of this trade, that it doesn't seem like they're committing to 2013. Keeping Dickey and mucking around in the outfield with..something..goes a long way towards selling rebuilding instead of selling 'coiled snake waiting for the right year to strike'. And more excitement in 2013 translates to revenue that carries over to 2014.

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Ceetar wrote: I wouldn't be unhappy if it falls through. I'm certainly not excited for prospects. I get that it..probably..makes the Mets better as soon as maybe 2014..but that's a ways away. The Mets could keep Dickey, sign every single free agent still on the market, and trade away every prospect in the system for established major league talent, and they still wouldn't match up well against the Braves or the Nationals in 2013. So I'm all in favor of planning now for 2014 or even 2015. Prospects are high risk, high payoff. So get as many good ones as you can, and count on the law of averages - the two or three stars will more than make up for all the ones that don't pan out. And what happens if Wheeler has Tommy John in August and Niese takes a step back again? Wait until 2016? You gotta be in it to win it right? Braves and Nats aren't locks for anything, given how volatile baseball can be.

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Nice job Mets. Now we have nothing left to root for. Might as well become a Blue Jays' fan and root for Dickey and Reyes. Well, Wright, Ike, Niese, Harvey, Nieuwenhuis, Duda, etc etc. Some of the other 25 will capture our hearts I'm sure, that's how baseball works. I mean, it's not like Mets fans packed the park for Dickey starts.

Nymr83 wrote: I've heard it said top shelf college baseball is close to AA competition wise. If true Harvey has been right on target. I dont think thats true at all. While there may be some players capable of playing in AA, the overall level of competition is probably akin to the lowest levels of the US minors or the equivalent of the NY-Penn league. there will be a wider variety of talent though than there is at any given minor league level with the college players ranging from guys who are ready for AA to guys who wouldnt make hte first cut in minor league spring training camps. People said the San Diego State program that Strasburg went to was akin to AA, not sure the validity of it though.

Swan Swan H wrote: Ceetar wrote: and what about 2013? officially punting then? Not even going to pretend? Further lying, this time even more outright, about payroll? What happens if Wheeler has Tommy John in August and d'Arnaud isn't tearing it up? skip 2014 and hope everyone's ready for 2015? I get the process. It's a good trade, and the whole 'year too early, not year too late' thing makes sense (of course Dickey could have 3 good years...) but I'd almost always rather gamble on the established major leaguer over the prospect, as good as d'Arnaud looks and as sparse that position is in the league. I know the deal is good, but it just reeeeeks of desperation that they couldn't afford to let an asset go un-cashed. I've read this three times and I still wouldn't bet ten cents that I know how you voted. either way you'd be wrong. I missed the poll. oops. I wouldn't be unhappy if it falls through. I'm certainly not excited for prospects. I get that it..probably..makes the Mets better as soon as maybe 2014..but that's a ways away.

and what about 2013? officially punting then? Not even going to pretend? Further lying, this time even more outright, about payroll? What happens if Wheeler has Tommy John in August and d'Arnaud isn't tearing it up? skip 2014 and hope everyone's ready for 2015? I get the process. It's a good trade, and the whole 'year too early, not year too late' thing makes sense (of course Dickey could have 3 good years...) but I'd almost always rather gamble on the established major leaguer over the prospect, as good as d'Arnaud looks and as sparse that position is in the league. I know the deal is good, but it just reeeeeks of desperation that they couldn't afford to let an asset go un-cashed.

RealityChuck wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I think the notion that the Mets rush their prospects if overstated, and most of the evidence supporting it is left over from the Minaya/Bernazard era.Matt Harvey. Only twenty games in AAA. Harvey pretty met the stated plan of innings though. 20 games isn't nothing. I think the Minaya/Bernazard rushing thing is overstated too. They specifically put in the work to evaluate players and fast track guys they felt could handle it. It's so hard to ultimately decide if a guy was rushed and ruined because of it or overexposed, etc. Would Pelfrey have developed quality secondary stuff if he'd had another year in the minors? probably not. After all, he's shown to be a guy willing to work hard and incorporate other pitches in the majors, i.e. the split finger fastball. Could be simply that he's one of those hard throwing top picks that doesn't dominate. It happens. But as for d'Arnaud, I'd be surprised at this juncture if he started in the majors. It's a stretch to think the 20ish games of him over Buck is going to have any significant impact on the results of 2013 and it buys them another year of control. Hopefully he hits just fine and gets called up and we read fun fluff pieces about him loving Piazza and all that.

And no one told Sandy?!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Beltran was terrific, but retiring his number would be ridiculous. not the thread for it, and I've made my case. Seems like there are 'secret' pieces still involved in the trade, but no one's talking. makes it sound like we're awaiting physicals though.

Swan Swan H wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: A couple more: d'Arnaud is listed as #15 on the Jays 40-man roster, and as far as I can tell 15 is open. (Widey - your site is down!) The Mets did pretty well with a guy wearing #15 behind the plate in the late '60s and early '70s. Fred Lewis departed. 15 shouldn't be open though. but then, I'm still hoping this doesn't happen. And why wouldn't 15 be open? Are you expecting Val Pascucci back? I want them to retire the number of the future Hall of Famer who spent 7 years with the team and was probably the best CFer of last decade.

Valadius wrote: I've taken a spin through Blue Jay-land. They weren't happy when it looked like they would have to only give up Arencibia and Gose. D'Arnaud and Gose has them practically shaking with rage. They still haven't gotten over losing Halladay, it seems. yeah, but then they'll get to watch Dickey pitch and get over it real fast.

Swan Swan H wrote: A couple more: d'Arnaud is listed as #15 on the Jays 40-man roster, and as far as I can tell 15 is open. (Widey - your site is down!) The Mets did pretty well with a guy wearing #15 behind the plate in the late '60s and early '70s. Fred Lewis departed. 15 shouldn't be open though. but then, I'm still hoping this doesn't happen.

bmfc1 wrote: The name of Anthony Gose is showing up on Twitter: http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=gose--001ant Good speed but look at those strikeouts. .785 in the PCL. Appreciably better projected than say Nieuwenhuis?

Edgy MD wrote: Maybe it's the whole Connecticut thing --- it most definitely is, in part --- but I've got no stomach for reading about any trades of any R.A. Dickeys. never did. was at the company party all day but it seems like a lot of speculation and none of the specific details you'd..maybe..get if the main cogs were in place.

Edgy MD wrote: It certainly would, as it sure seems to be under market. And even if Dickey gets the full two years, $26 million, he should ask for and would probably deserve a no-trade clause. Could be something like that is the sticking point, and not the money.

funny, also a 'report' today that the supposed extension Dickey is asking for would also be attractive to suitors.

I stopped reading after ESPN. Might as well tell me what your neighbor's kid ranked them as, I'd put more stock in it.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: What's the deal on Mike Olt? He sounds like he's a good player (He's 24 and .288/.398/.579 with 28 homers in 95 games in the Texas League in 2012), but the Mets seem unenthusiastic and I also read that the Braves didn't want him. Is it because of questions about his ability to play the outfield? His lack of AAA experience? Or is it something else? might not be major league ready yet for one and the Mets need major league outfielders. Doesn't play the outfield. Maybe he can, maybe he can't..do we need another guy learning on the job?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I kinda like it better than this Olt thing being bandied about, but hey I'm all for them doing better. Yeah, throw in Trout too. We just ought not underestimate what a right-handed slugger and a centerfielder who can go get it would mean to the club. I expect it will look a lot like Hairston and Torres except with more runs scored against by the lack of Dickey pitching.