Q and A - Addison Reed


Reese Kaplan asks -

Rethinking the Addison Reed trade in which the Mets received Gerson Bautista, Jamie Callahan and Steve Nogosek, was it a good deal?  He went 1-1 with 0 saves and a 3.33 ERA over 27 IP for Boston last year.  Then he left as a free agent. 

Erica Lay says –

I do think it was a good trade. Getting back three prospects for a setup man in his walk year is a good haul, even though they were low level prospects. The reality is we could’ve resigned Reed after the year and these would’ve equated to three free prospects. (I wish we had Reed in the bullpen now.)

Although none of these guys are high on the depth chart, pitching in Vegas makes it a little hard to tell what we have. Of course, having not seen them in person (except for Bautista’s brief stint in Queens) also makes it hard to gauge.

Bautista has pitched much better in Bingo than Vegas, but he’s giving up too many hits. He was walking more people in Vegas which makes me wonder if pitching in that environment makes pitchers leery of throwing strikes. He’s striking out batters at a good clip.

Callahan seems to really struggle with control no matter where he is but also has a decent K%.

Nogosek looks like he has the best numbers but he’s also 23 and only pitching at high A.

Ultimately, if any one of these guys turns into a decent bullpen arm, I think the trade was a good one.

Tom Brennan says –

The Addison Reed deal was a good one.  Time will tell if any of the three acquired players become a true major league asset, but they should have replicated the Yanks' Aroldis Chapman trade deadline flip strategy by re-signing Reed.  He is what the Mets bullpen lacks right now.

Mike Friere says –

For starters, there is no real debate that our current bullpen would be in better shape right now if the Mets somehow held onto Addison Reed for the 2018 season.  But, we also need to remember that AR was an impending free agent in 2017,  so dealing him to the Red Sox for the three prospects listed in the question is already a "win" based on the adage "something is better then nothing".   Plus, the Mets were terrible last year, so trading him away did not change much in the short term.  If any of the three prospects picked up in the trade develop into something akin to AR, then that is "gravy" so to speak.

In the off season, the Twins signed AR to a two year deal worth roughly 17.5 million dollars, which is pricey for a non-closer (which he would have been with Familia on our roster).  But, what makes this sting a bit is Sandy signed Anthony Swarzak for almost the same deal (2 years, 14 million dollars) and he is on the shelf for the foreseeable future.  
Even though AR would fill a need right now, I would still make the deal with the Red Sox.

Eddie Corona says –

To know if the Addison Reed deal was a good one would require us to know if there was a better offer we may have turn down.

Another factor is if we had paid some or all of the salary would that have improved the return. 

However, based on the current return I would say it was fair at best. If you are receiving relievers in return that is usually a bad sign. How often have you heard that the minor league reliever anyone received was a gem of a return?

However, Gerson Batista is a live arm with potential. I had expected a low level high upside prospect. Perhaps Batista is just that.

Reese Kaplan says –

At the time it didn't seem like much of a haul given the best that could be said was that they received "live arms" which I've since discovered is baseballspeak for throws hard but incredibly wild.  Thus far Jamie Callahan is living up to that billing, and although Gerson Bautista has eye popping heat, his brief trial in the big leagues and his struggles in both AA and AAA suggest he's still got some development in front of him.  Nogosek was the least heralded of these pitchers and surprisingly he's having the most success.  Granted, he's a bit long in the tooth at 23 still to be in A ball, but in ten games he's sporting a 1.72 ERA and a WHIP of just 0.77. 

So upon reflection was it a good deal or not?  Well, a lot of hard throwers (Nolan Ryan, for example) struggled to find command, so Bautista is the real wildcard of this bunch.  Nogosek had not done anything prior to this year to distinguish himself but let's see if it's sustainable.  Callahan is the big disappointment with a 4.82 ERA for his minor league career.  He has what Tim Peterson told me was "an electric arm" and I saw it in person when the 51s came here to El Paso, but control is his bugaboo as well. 

If you're evaluating strictly on what each has delivered up to this point, the Mets got skunked.  Addison Reed is pitching to a 2.76 ERA in a setup role for the Twins and would certainly have helped the club more than the ill-fated investments in both Jason Vargas and Anthony Swarzak, but that's a different question for a different day. 

Mack says –

            Let’s see. As of close of business 5-12:

                        Reed:             MLB:  17-AP, 2.75, 1.12, 19.2-IP, 20-K

                        Bautista:      AAA:  3-AP, 13.50, 3.50
                                                2-teams:       9-AP, 7.43, 1,95, 13-IP, 18-K

                        Callahan:     AAA:  7-AP, 9.72, 2.16, 8-IP, 9-K

                        Nogosek:      A+:     10-AP, 1.72, 0.77, 15.2-IP, 20-K

Love the numbers from Nogosek, but he’s at least two years away. And how many A+ level relievers have we seen over the years that put up these kind of numbers?  

No, the numbers are obvious.

Reed could be helping right now.

The others could be steak knives.


Anonymous said...

I don't know why Mack is comparing Reed's 2018 stats with the 3 prospects.

It was a smart, necessary move to flip Reed at the deadline. Did Sandy get back the best prospects? Nobody knows. Hopefully one of these guys works out.

Come winter, Mets should have (and easily could have) resigned Reed.

Trading for Ramos, that wasn't so hot. He should have been flipped this winter when teams were desperate for bullpen help. Clearly he's a guy with a closer's temperament; doesn't like being used in setup role. And somehow the fastball lacks zip.

So that's what I wanted: Sure, sign Szackaczch (or however you spell it), flip Ramos for a position player (they needed help all over the field this winter, and still do), then use that Ramos-money for Reed.

Too much proactive work for Sandy, who likes long lunches. He only makes moves out of absolute necessity.

Mack Ade said...

Anon -

send me an email at: macksmets@gmail com

I want to ask you something.


Mack Ade said...

Anon -

I do not know why you would question me using 2018 stats as a comparison. They are current. Is not what we do around here is quote current stats?

Thomas Brennan said...

I think current stats are indeed a relevant indicator as to the value we got back in that trade. If all 3 guys were crushing it right now, it would enhance our view of the "take" from that deal.

Hobie said...

The relevant current stats are Addison vs Ramos + Schwarzkopf (sp).

The take for Reed (& potentially for Ramos) is of secondary interest.

Dave Schulps said...

I’m with Mike, Erica and Anon on this. Reed’s current stats are irrelevant because this isn’t a question of keeping Reed for 2018 or not, but simply of whether the Mets got something of value for giving him away for the remainder of 2017. As has already been pointed out, had the Mets resigned him — and they certainly had the opportunity to do so — they would have had Reed PLUS three prospects. They chose not to. If the question is would you preferred to have resigned Reed rather than signing Swarzak, then his 2018 stats become relevant. Otherwise, you just have to hope that one of the three ex-Red Sox prospects ends up on the Mets and does enough to validate not having Reed around for the last half of 2017. Given how things turned out last season, it’s fairly obvious that having Reed here wouldn’t have changed anything, so the bar for what would make the trade seem like a success is very low indeed.

bill metsiac said...

Why are people writing off Swarzak before he's pitched an inning for us? Sure, in hindsight we'd all rather have Reed. But Mickey has been a highly successful PC, and he loved what he saw in Swarzak last year.

Can we wait until we actually see him pitch before declaring him worthless?

TexasGusCC said...

Seems everyone forgot why Reed was available for so long; teams were afraid of the post-Mets affect because Reed had accumulated so many appearances over the last three years pitching for Bozo. So, while Reed is healthy now, how long he will last and why last season’s Red Sox numbers were so bad, were unanswered and worrisome questions to GMs.

Anonymous said...

On the possible trade idea to trade both Noah and Jake for six kid players to rebuild waround...

I think many fans, writers, poets, and pundits underestimate the importance of not just having good starters, but rather really good starters on the mound. Case in point, the 2015 World Series to the KC Royals (4 games to one). Case in point no.2, the 2002 World Series to Roger Clemons' NY Yankees. Did you forget these? I didn't. Simply stated, we did not have the starting pitching that we needed to dominate these two opposing teams, and maybe not enough hitting as well.

I do think that the plan here was excellent from origination by GM Alderson, but certain key players being counted on (young drafted players) did not make it here to input their talent due to their own setbacks down in MiLB and yes injuries too. This is very hard to figure in for any GM on draft day. Maybe impossible in all fairness.

The NY Mets have one other thing here to consider as well, their own AAA and AA MiLB player depth level. They do have a few players who are close to contributing at the parent club level.

I favor keeping the four starters here now altogether, adding in one or two more (Crismatt, maybe Molina once fully back from injury), adding in a catcher like a JT Realmuto from outside.

I think the pen is better now with the additions of Gsellman and Lugo there. Roseboom when ready will help, as would adding in another lefty set-up from outside like maybe Alvarado from TBay.

This is not a total rebuild situation and I cannot see why so many think that dismantling the 2018 NY Mets starting rotation will actually help matters progress. Several pieces needed here the NY Mets have within their own organization at the AAA and AA levels.

Noah Syndergaard is 25 years old people. Jake deGrom 29 but he still has a solid and lively arm. Did you watch last night's game? I just don't think that you will be able to match their skill level by the pitchers coming back for them in a kid trade package.

Mack's Mets © 2012