I can’t remember the last decent deadline trade the Mets have conducted. I don’t know if it’s my age catching up to me or just maybe I’ve blocked it out due to my post-traumatic Mets disorder (PTMD).
The last deadline deal for the Mets, actually the last two…well, let’s just say we are still intimiately involved with liver Perez and Luis Castillo as a result. I guess the Mets still haven’t gotten over Duaner Sanchez’s midnight munchie run in Miami…PTMD.
The trade deadline in 2004 changed the dynamic of the team to the standpoint it is today. Trading Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano (and on the same day orchestrating a trade for Kris Benson) on what was later deemed “Black Friday” looked bad six days later when the pieces they traded for were out for the season.
The Mets, being a reactionary group, tried to right further wrongs by bringing in Omar Minaya.
How did that whole thing work out again?
I shouldn’t complain, considering this is the same franchise that once upon a time traded Tom Seaver at the deadline (it’s also hard to believe that the trading deadline was so early in the season back then), but also righted a wrong the same day six years late by orchestrating a deal for Keith Hernandez.
I get a lot of heat for suggesting the Mets can be sellers, especially when they are performing well as of late. Just remember that a team is not as good as it looks on a winning stereak nor is it as bad as they are on a losing streak.
They looked terrible in the first two games against the Yankees (a first place team), now look like world beaters (editor’s note: this is prior to the ending of Thursday night’s game) against the Los Angeles Dodgers (a last place team), which gives credence to the idea that the New York Mets are a .500 team.
Here are my thoughts: selling is not a bad thing (especially since getting rid of dead weight in the form of Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez set forth two precedents: one is that performance will determine whether you make the team and the other is that addition by subtraction is also a good thing).
So my question is, why can’t the Mets be buyers AND sellers? The old adage in business is that one must speculate to accumulate. The good news is, there is some value on the Mets, but one can’t accumulate until they speculate.
To think anothe team will give the Mets good prospects in return for crap is ludicrous, but also to think the Mets can get a high return for pieces like Francisco Rodriguez or Carlos Beltran is as well.
But to trade Mike Pelfrey, for example, with Beltran to a contending team in the American League or outside of the NL East, eating a significant portion of Beltran’s salary for a prospect or major league ready pitching talent could help.
Trading Francisco Rodriguez to a team who needs a closer is also essential — it’s a tough call, but according to most because of his ugly contract he’s the odd man out.
But selling shouldn’t preclude the Mets from buying as well. Take Daniel Murphy. This guy is a hard worker and has a Pete Rose element that most fans love (including myself…just don’t ask me my opinion Pete Rose himself).
I’d hate to see him go, but he could easily be a great pickup for a team that could potential overpay for him — which I think the Mets could be viewed as being a “buyer” in that situation.
“Buyer” in the eye of the beholder. But with Sandy Alderson at the helm, I can’t see him standing pat, the way Omar Minaya has done in the past several years, ewspecially when there was a glaring need for help everywhere in the team.
In summary, what do I think? I think the Mets could be on both sides of the retail establishment…at the time, at July 8, 2011, it might be too early to truly about it in its entirety.
But if you think about it, there are still many “IFs” that the Mets are experiencing.
IF Johan Santana returns. The pitching staff has been doing fine without him.
But this could determine the need for another starter if that’s determined prior to the deadline.
IF David Wright comes back if not just prior to the deadline, then just after.
Despite what I may think of him (I think he’s replaceeable), this team is not a serious contender RIGHT NOW without him in the lineup. If he can get protection from Jason Bay, he would perform.
IF Ike Davis needs surgery. Signs are pointing that he will need it. Again, the team is not serious without him in the lineup. He is an RBI machine who is not easily replaceable.
IF Jose Reyes’ hamstring tweak is just that: a “tweak.” If Jose Reyes is out for more than three weeks he is projected to be out…this team will go nowhere, despite any trade deadline moves.
I think the real litmus test will be during the Phillies series in upcoming weeks.
As of now, it’s good to take at least three out of four from the Dodgers, but the Dodgers are not a good team. San Francisco will also be a test of sorts with the great pitching they are facing (don’t get me started on the amount of All-Star pitching that on that team — eek).
Losing would make the front office’s decisions easier but…why can’t the Mets be btboh buyers AND sellers? The last few years we haven’t done much in terms of midterm trades or when they did, it’s gone badly.
I think most of it was fear or the old nottoo “Well, when this guy returns, it will be like a midterm acuqsition without giving up anyone!” That’s hogwash.
It was fear, pure and simple. That element is gone. While I am curious to see how it ends up, I have faith in the new regime that something WILL be done, it’s just a matter of WHAT will be done.
The Mets are fun to watch now but the contingencies are numerous. Reyes and his DL stint, Johan returning, K-Rod and option begone, and how the team performs in upcoming days.
Alderson is doing the right thing by gauging interest in certain pieces, listening and being open to offers, but he has one leg up on the previous regime: he’s not emotionally attached to certain players due to their past associations.
Original Story:
