- For next year’s starting staff, it seems the Mets should bring in as much veteran pitching as possible. Sure, they have talented young throwers but the prospects are not fully mature and some are still on the way. With Harvey’s future in doubt and the need to upgrade the offense, the Mets will need additional starters to fill out the rotation even if only temporarily. In the best case scenario, Harvey will pitch the entire season. Even if he does, the rotation could start out with Harvey, Niese, Wheeler with Syndergaard coming up this summer, and Gee and Montero would be trade bait. In the meantime, the FO has discussed adding a mid-tier starter. My pick for that option is Bronson Arroyo. As far as the placeholding 5th starter, I’d like to see the team bring back Santana (as has been rumored) and Daisuke and let them fight it out. I could see either relegated to the bullpen if they don’t win the starting job. With the potential for injury, having one of Santana/Daisuke and Carlos Torres in the bullpen ready to step in, overall this could prove a very beneficial strategy. The Mets can never have enough pitching….if Harvey IS lost for the year, a rotation of Wheeler-Niese-Arroyo-Santana-Daisuke could be surprisingly effective enough (with an upgraded offense) to still compete for the playoffs. Once Thor passes Super-Two, Daisuke could move to the bullpen.
- I’m still excited about d’Arnaud. Given his pedigree and all the love he’s gotten from scouts, I’m not worried. Some pessimists will say that his numbers in AAA were inflated, however they’d be ignoring the rest of his body of work in the minors, especially his 2010 MVP campaign in the Eastern League. I’m glad he got a taste of the majors and was able to experience some growing pains in a meaningless season. Going forward, d’Arnaud and Wright are the only two players I consider part of the core of the Mets’ lineup. All other positions are up for grabs.
- With the talk of Murphy being available in trade and the Mets potentially interested in Howie Kendrick, I offer another potential solution – Asdrubal Cabrera. He’s only signed for one more season at $10M while Kendrick is signed for 2 years at $19M. Both players are overpaid, but I think Cabrera will cost less in terms of talent in trade. He’d purely be a salary dump as they have a SS to hold down the position (Aviles) until super prospect Francisco Lindor is ready….and the Indians expect to lose him to free agency. They’d be able to reinvest his money to upgrade other parts of the team. If acquired, Cabrera could be a solid SS, but if the Mets are able to address the SS position with someone else, Cabrera could be a short-term solution at 2B. With his salary comittment and assumed low cost of prospects, he would fit into the ‘Red Sox model’ it seems the Mets are going after. If Cabrera were on the FA market, signing him to a 1 or 2-year deal would fit this model. Some critics will say ‘why trade Murphy and then trade for Cabrera…why not just keep Murphy?’ While that’s understandable, the assumed return for Murphy would be greater than the cost for Cabrera. When looking at the big picture, I’d prefer the Mets had Cabrera and whatever Murphy can yield in trade than just Murphy and bupkis.
- The recent hot stove news about the Mets being interested in Mike Napoli has me intrigued. I think he’d be a welcomed addition to the lineup, provided the Mets upgrade other positions and he hits 6th or so. He made $5M last year, so I don’t think he’ll get that much of a raise. Napoli can play 1B and can hit for power, easily making Ike Davis expendable. I wondering if his catching days are completely behind him. The Mets are looking at bringing in an experienced catcher to back-up d’Arnaud. I could see a 3-headed monster at C/1B of d’Arnaud/Napoli/Duda. D’Arnaud would see the bulk of time at catcher with Napoli as the starting 1B. When d’Arnaud needs time off, Napoli could slide behind the plate, keeping him in the lineup every day. Duda could fill in at 1B on days that Napoli is catching and provide LH power off the bench on days when he isn’t starting.
- It’s early to think about the 2014 draft, but I like looking forward. My hope is that the Mets draft another high-ceiling hitter with the pick. I’ve always been a proponent of taking the BPA, but with a pick this high (10th), I think the Mets need to draft a potential stud hitter. If the team contends next year, this (hopefully) will be the last time for years that they’ll be drafting this high and the system is woefully low on position prospects that have the potential to make a big impact. One more hitter, and then back to drafting pitching as much as possible. As of right now, the two players I’d like to see are Michael Gettys and Jack Flaherty. Both have the potential to be stud outfielders at some point for the Mets in the future. A core of Nimmo, Cecchini, Herrera, Smith, Rosario, and Gettys/Flaherty composing the next wave would have this team in good shape for a long time. Start contending in 2014, continue improving, and then replace the short-term solutions with long-term pieces from the farm.
Napoli's contract was converted to 5mm base plus nearly 9 million in escalators. which he seems to have been able to reach. so supposedly he will have made close to 13mm for this year which is the what his original 3 year 39 mm was suppose to pay him. i believe he can also either be extended or be given a qualifying offer.
ReplyDeleteNapoli will cost you at least $13mil a year for two years...
ReplyDeleteMichael, you and I think a lot about the direction the Mets should go. What we need now is the season to end and sign someone to get the party started.
I have no prove of this but I just have a gut feeling that the Mets will sign Byrd in the first 48-Hrs of the signing period... but I see it as a 2-year deal, not the one year deal Charlie seems to think all he's worth.
I really hope if Byrd comes back its as a 4th OF. If he's starting next year I think we have a problem.
ReplyDeleteYep, we need the first couple of dominoes to fall so the market can take shape.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult sifting through all of the reports of what the team wants to do or doesn't want to do. If you add it all up, they want to trade for power (another 'heavy' as Collins put it, get a legit leadoff hitter, and fill in all other holes with mid-tier FAs. That sounds fine, but they have to accomplish the first two before adding the mid guys or we'll be following a marginally improved team at best. The Mets have 3 GMs on their payroll, time to walk and chew gum at the same time.
who would be the top 3 outfielders then? all outsiders?
ReplyDeleteWell, CF I would have the MDD/Lagares platoon to start and attempt to trade for a young up and comer to take over at some point.
ReplyDeleteI'd like Sandy to scratch his itch in trading for an OF with power for one corner. For the other Id like a true leadoff type.
Hey Michael,
ReplyDeleteCan bupkis turn the dp?
What would your reaction be if Sandy drafts another pitcher in the first round?
I see nothing wrong with bringing back Byrd as long as Sandy can upgrade the other corner OF spot and 1B.
The caveat on Byrd is that TC can't run him out there every day as he did this year.
Want to tell me the first time Alderson drafted a pitcher in the first round?
ReplyDeleteI'll give you a hint. It's only happened once and it was a supplemental pick (Fulmer) who has turned into one of our best prospects.
His first picks each of the three years as GM have all been hitters.
Stephen, point well taken. I should have explained that the Mets are stronger in minor league pitchers than they are in position players. Picking #10 means, to me, that taking a 1st round pitcher should not be the priority.
ReplyDeleteA strength now could overnight become a glaring weakness. That is why you ALWAYS draft the best player available in the early rounds.
ReplyDeleteLet's say we trade Montero and Syndergaard to get Tulo. Let's say Niese doesn't stay healthy and Wheeler isn't the pitcher we thought he'd be. All of a sudden, we are scrounging the FA heap for healthy, productive starters.
Similarly, let's say Puello, Nimmo, Cecchini, Plawecki, and Smith all become BA top 100 players and excel at their positions. Let's say Lagares and Young progress and become average-to-good players.
See how easy it is? One trade, some projection, some regression.
Always ALWAYS draft the best player on your board in the first round, without exception.
I think if 'drafting for need' vs. drafting BPA in different terms. If an organization is weak in catching, they shouldn't take the best catcher available to fill that need. But, if an organization is so unbalanced towards pitching and away from hitting like the Mets are, they should be attempting to draft the best hitter available. That being said, if an ace pitcher fell to the Mets at #10 they should grab him...I just don't see that happening. It's much more likely that an elite hitter will fall to them and I'm glad for that as the system is starving for one. As I said in the post, this is hopefully the last time the Mets will have this high of a pick for years and Id like to see a Top 25 type hitter in the system, something I think Gettys and Flaherty can become.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right, and one figures to be available. However, the draft is so hit or miss. We all know that too well.
ReplyDeleteI honestly believe the Mets have drafted well the past three years.
The reason BPA is proven to work can be illustrated with the current Mets: How great would Trea Turner be for the Mets? We need a shortstop, he's close to major league ready and one hell of a prospect. We're not going to get him. However, I would say our biggest need, both on the Mets, and organizationally, is middle infield talent. Let's say we go for need and draft the next shortstop off the board. Then Sandy trades for Tulo. While we may pass on a Tikki Touissant or a Tyler Beede and get a guy ranked 25-30, we get that organizational depth. So what? We now have a SS for the next 7 years.
You draft the best player available for that very reason. You'd think catching is pretty solid, right? d'Arnaud a top-30 prospect and finding himself, Plawecki a fringe top 100 guy. We draft a catcher. Mets fanbase is enraged. Later in the summer, the Mets trade Plawecki for a stud outfielder. A season or two later, d'Arnaud cannot stay healthy behind the plate and his defense suffers. His bat keeps him in the lineup in a forced move to first base.
All of a sudden, selecting a catcher looks reallllyyyy good.
You can do the same for pitcher, third, second, or any position on the diamond. You always ALWAYS take the best player available. Worst that happens if they succeed at that spot is they get logjammed and a traded for more talent.
The more talent you have, the more you win. The more talent you have, the more ability you have to acquire more and more diverse talent.
Always ALWAYS ALWAYS draft the best player on the board in the first round, regardless of...well...anything.
The only disagreement I would have is that I'm very liberal when it comes to converting young prospects to other positions. If the Mets drafted a young hitter who all of a sudden finds himself blocked because of a move by the big club, he could be switched to another position... Or be trade bait himself, provided this is an elite prospect.
ReplyDeleteAs far as previous drafting, I think the Mets made this very mistake in 2012. They needed MIF and catching prospects and passed on Giolito and McCullers, the two I thought they should take, no matter the pitching depth in the system.
However, in this draft I think the talent depth will line up with the need for a hitter.
Dude do you realize how much of a risk those two pitchers were? It's great to play monday morning qb with that draft and you can go back and look at my posts on the guys...I wanted them too. McCullers all but told teams not to draft him because he was going to college and Giolito has already had arm troubles. I'm not even sure Giolito is going to be all that good. McCullers has had some nice success but both guys were HUGE risk, high reward guys. Way too much of a gamble for not just the Mets but 14 teams before Giolito and 34 before McCullers.
ReplyDeleteLol, it's not Monday morning quarterbacking if you're being consistent. As a fan I wanted the Mets to take the risk. They were my two picks and I know Mack thought we should've taken Giolito as well.
ReplyDeleteWrong again. Mack wanted Courtney Hawkins.
ReplyDeleteWrong again? Where was the first instance you're referring to?
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks, Mack and I corresponded more than once prior to the draft about taking Giolito. Especially around the time Lucas's father was featured on the site.
You just love being adversarial for no reason, I hope you're enjoying yourself.
Let's keep personal addresses out of this.
ReplyDelete- You were wrong to want the "risk" of two arms--one injured and one who everyone thought was going to college. Trust me, there's a reason he fell 40 picks down the draft. He was a top 15 talent. It's not that every team once and half of the league twice passed on McCullers. And he STILL projects as a future reliever. Giolito...who knows.
- The Mets DID take a risk. Any time you take a "toolsy athlete" out of high school, you are taking a risk. Especially when that player isn't really known for any one tool but rather his "work ethic". You kidding me? That's a huuuuuge risk and one that may never pay dividends.
- Giolito wasn't even supposed to be around. So I'm not sure what you and Mack talked about but that's one hell of a crystal ball. Consensus on this site (Mack included) was Courtney Hawkins. I was the only one who strayed from that because I wanted Stroman. I would have been fine with Hawkins. I totally understand passing on Giolito. He was (is) an injury concern and that far down in the draft, many thought he would pull an Appel.
Plus, weren't you the guy who said that if an organization has a strength, you try to draft towards the weakness in regards to hitting vs. pitching? Even in 2012 the Mets had quite a bit of pitching an nooooo hitting. So you're advocating the Mets go back and switch to HITTERS for two PITCHERS? That's really inconsistent logical argumentation.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want being personally addressed, don't dish personal addresses out.
ReplyDelete- I wasn't "wrong" to want to risky picks, that's a matter of opinion. And if we're really going down that road, at this point in time I'm proven "right". That, of course, can change.
- As far as the risk of these two going to college, it's a negotiating tactic many HS use to get as much $ as possible. If a talent like McCullers falls to your second pick, take him. There's always a compensation pick in the next draft if he fails to sign.
- As soon as rumors started that Giolito might fall I wanted him on the Mets, period. So what if he was facing TJS, his upside was and still is very high and we keep hearing about how the procedure is almost routine and doesn't damage many careers long term. At that point, he was worth the risk.
- I couldn't care less about how Giolito and McCullers end up in a few years. Based on their status NOW the Mets would be in a far better bargaining position this winter.
- I'd disagree wholeheartedly about the Mets' pitching depth at the time. They didnt know what Harvey would become what he did and didnt know what they had in Wheeler. Gee raised his stock THIS year, Montero wasn't on too many radars, and Syndergaard was still in the Toronto organization. The Mets' pitching depth has taken a serious upswing since June of 2012 and you're really stretching the truth to make your point. There's nothing inconsistent about my argument, not to mention that neither Cecchini nor Plawecki profiled as elite talents, the type of hitting I'd advocate taking over pitching in 2014.
- I'm not dragging Macks name into this any further while he can't comment - even if he could I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate it. However, as to clarify my earlier point, I have an email from him where he specifically says the Mets should grab Giolito if he falls and that IF McCullers is still on the board for the second pick he would be the best available and that the Mets have to take him. Any downplaying of Lucas after the fact and understanding the Mets passing on him because if the injury risk is fine, but beforehand Giolito dropping to them was the ideal. I would agree that had we known the Mets were going after hitting that Hawkins would've been better in comparison to Cecchini, but overall Giolito was the best player on the board, creaky elbow and all.
If Terry can't put him out there every day, then he's not an everyday player.
ReplyDeleteBupkis wouldn't need to turn the DP because the Mets would have Murphy AND Bupkis.
If Sandy adds a pitcher with elite hitters still on the board, my reaction will be disappointment.
- Opinions can be wrong. Yours is. There was risk with who the Mets took.
ReplyDelete- I'm not convinced McCullers is a better prospect or better draft pick than Plawecki. I'm not sure how you are.
- No he wasn't. That is an unknowable claim that you are making knowable. It's not, and you can't be sure the way you are.
- No they wouldn't.
- Pitching was our strength just a year ago. Only pitcher we didn't have that we do now is Syndergaard. Montero was very much a force in the organization and I could make the case that the system had more stock with a healthy Mateo and Fulmer and a productive Lara and Tapia than they do now. You really should know this.
- Your opinion of the way they should have drafted has logical holes. You're entitled to write whatever you want to write but you're just not quite there yet with your analysis.
The two biggest copouts from debaters who are wrong is "Let's just agree to disagree" and "I'm not responding to this anymore". If you were right, and/or if you had balls, you wouldn't just write a novel of complete bullshit then pussy out.
ReplyDelete"Montero and Fulmer were still in Savannah at that time, hardly to be considered a force at that low a level. Mateo was in BROOKLYN...he won’t be building value until he’s made it past low-a ball. Teams don’t know what they have at lower levels".
This is a joke, right? If you're not joking, this is literally the most idiotic thing I have ever read. Ever. From any source. Anywhere.
Lance McCullers Jr: Played all season in A ball.
Lucas Giolito: Playes most of the season in rookie ball and finished up with 14 innings in, yep, Low-A.
This is literally the most contradictory you be. Literally. You're denying talent at the low minors as depth but fapping to prospects in another organization at the same levels. You must see the foolish contradiction there.
"What GM would consider these pitchers at such low levels significant depth? NONE"
Actually, all of them would. All 29 other GMs, their assistants, scouts, and actually most people with a clue would consider young talent in the lower minors "depth". What do you think that word means?
"2012 – Building pitching depth, still could use more (you can always use more pitching, genius), mistake to pass up high-ceiling pitching (who says it is high ceiling? Isn't everything in the first round generally considered high ceiling? Isn't that why they're there?) talent for mid-tier hitting talent (again who is saying Cecchini is a mid-tier hitter other than you? Most experts actually liked the pick. Again, he was a first round pick by everyone. He's considered upper tier). Pitching stronger than hitting, but pitching not strong enough and should come first (False, you draft the best player on your board, without exception. Cecchini was. Giolito's arm troubles pushed him down boards. Not just ours, but FIFTEEN other teams' boards).
""No he wasn’t” – Whom are you referring to and what are you talking about?" .... Dude I literally responded point for point. Really not that hard to follow.
Honest, serious question time. Do you actually follow the minor leagues and the draft? You sound like a complete amateur and endanger the validity of this site. There's a reason fifteen other GMs with vastly more knowledge than your vapid cranium possesses passed on the guy. There's a reason 34 picks went before McCullers. With the new CBA, it has not become a cost thing. It's a risk/reward analysis on every player.
And come on, the biggest error of yours is suggesting that the Mets did not take a risk with their pick. "Wahhhhhh I want the Mets to take a risk. WAHHHHH we already have pitching we need a hitter! WAHHHHHH I would rather two pitchers instead of two hitters from last year's draft. WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH a toolsy athletic middle infielder isn't risky enough! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"