We all know the Kevin Costner flick "Field of Dreams".
"If you build it, they will come."
If you need an explanation of that, just watch the movie. Or Google it.
Anyway, the Brooklyn Nets (same city, different sport) were a borderline .500 team a few years ago. Before that, they were simply dreadful. No really good hoopster wanted to play with the Nets. "I wanna play with Lebron!"
For one thing, the Nets were Avis. The Knicks were the big team in town.
The Nets were a laughingstock team that was a distant second in the local market to those Knicks, and the crumbled Nets were just going to have to try to slowly rebuild.
They did so creatively over a few years, with some success, and then their rich owner really switched gears and got super-bold:
1) They signed Kyrie Irving, and also signed Kevin Durant, two superstars, both to huge contracts, even with Durant likely to miss a year at first as he was recovering from achilles tendon surgery.
All it took was a total willingness to spend. When I heard they were going after those 2, I thought, "I'll believe it when I see it." Well they sure did it. They got them both.
2) Durant came back healthy, and Irving and Durant were a dynamic winning duo when both were healthy. Then, a 3rd superstar, James Harden, wanted out of Houston mid-season and wanted IN to the new happening place, Brooklyn.
HARDEN WANTED FORMERLY SHUNNED BROOKLYN!!
Huge money, but money was no object to the rich Nets owner.
The only reason they did not win the NBA title this past year was injuries during the playoffs to Irving and Harden. Had they been healthy, the Nets would have been unstoppable.
The Mets should follow suit, I think, and spend, and spend, and spend, and transform this franchise into one of the few places in baseball for stars to really be, because the Mets have shifted into perennial powerhouse status.
I sure do want to see the Mets kids come up from the minors and excel.
But I also want to see the Mets dominant, and real soon, and the Nets' spend, spend, spend model works for me.
$275 million Mets payroll? $300 million?
SCREW THE CAP. SCREW THE LUXURY TAX.
If that's what it takes to quickly be a powerhouse, I say...do it.
If you REALLY build this Mets team up, if you build it into a powerhouse, they will come.
They will WANT to come.
Just like James Harden did with the Nets.
DO IT.
13 comments:
Sent to Mr Steve
Mack, I am not saying that is the right course. But I have zero doubt that if two of the 3 superstars had not gotten hurt in the playoffs that they would have won the NBA championship. They were collectively impossible to guard. Vastly superior to what a normally built Nets would have been.
O.K. Tom who would these superstars be?
I'm just the conceptualist, Gary, you're the GM. You've got an extra $100 million to spend. Go for it!
(Big) Apples and oranges, Tom. In the NBA, one or two superstars can dominate a game, but ask the Angels and Padres how far they went with players like Machado, Tatis, Ohtani, Trout, et al.
MLB teams have farm systems in which they groom and develop talent. No such thing (I don't count the "G" League) in the NBA. While (for example) the Mets can look to kids like Alvarez, Mauricio, Baty, Vientos et al and build on their futures. No such in the NBA.
With the NBA salary cap, and small rosters, teams can spend minimally on the backups because the few stars can carry them.
MLB teams carry more players and need to spend on depth.
I want the Mets to get superstars, but getting a few at the expense of the prospects can be a very tricky proposition.
A bit of a splurge wouldn't surprise me, at all.......it's similar to what the Dodgers did in the beginning of their most recent rise to power (before their farm system really started to crank out talent). It made them a better team in the short term, increased fan attendance (revenue) and served as a bridge to the next wave of talented players.
Can the Mets do this as well as LA did?
I hope so......it all starts at the top with the right POBO/GM hire(s), IMO.
(well, that and a much better sports medicine and training department)
Bill, I think the Mets should do both…spend big and keep the kids, as Mike Freire suggests. Luv them kids. Not all will excel and not all will have a big role with Mets in future, past the top 6 - and some of them (Baty, Alvarez, Ronny, Marky V, Ginn and Allan) May get squeezed out.
If we sign Baez (who qualifies as a "top" FA) the only IF position open is 3B, where IMO Cano should play for one year+ before making room for the best of Baty/Mauricio/Vientos.
At least one of them will move to the OF or be traded. If 4to is not signed, I'd be fine with Smith and McNeil getting an opportunity to raise their trade value or win one of those spots along with one of the "Big 4" prospects. Again, getting a "Top FA" with a deal for 3+ years means that there's no room at the inn for whichever of our kids doesn't take over at 3B.
Is that really beneficial?
Be Careful
For what you wish for.
The one time this strategy ACTUALLY WORKED, going out and getting experienced veteran star type of players here, was 1986. But it was a mixture of good veteran attainments and solid younger inhouse players like Strawberry, Gooden, and others as well that made it work and not just 30+ year old veterans.
Personally, and after decades of following this team, I prefer grooming your own smart draft picks and having a few of them each season who are ready for their opportunities to start.
Mets currently looking at...
...Tom Arnold for GM.
It isn't so much the money spent on forming a top flight team that normally gets it.
But rather, the quality of skills of the players your team is counting on to win.
It's the balance of veteran leadership and really talented new kids like Mark Vientos, Khalil Lee, and possibly too Wilmer Reyes. A balance.
One day this team will embrace this perhaps a little bit more.
Just going out and building a George Steinbrenner type team does not always work out so well.
BALANCE.
The NYK are doing things right now.
No more superstar acquisitions at high expense to the team, but rather players who can play well, and be a part of the team concept.
Carmelo Anthony comes to mind as an example of a player who could never carry a team to the finals on his back. He was very good as a player, but had ball hog syndrome. The other four on the court could have been statues.
Did not work.
No soup for you!
Bill nailed the truth with both of his comments. MLB ain't like the NBA, and spending on a couple (or more) big ticket names doesn't guarantee anything.
As far as this year goes, there is no 'Top FA' available to play outfield. By Top FA, we're talking Trout, Acuna, Soto, and not much else (maybe Judge). Guys like Castellanos, Schwarber, etc. are not better than Conforto. I suppose Eddie Rosario is a possible upgrade without a Q.O. but I want to make sure the Rosario that is playing in the playoffs is the player you are signing, not the one that went through Cleveland earlier this year.
There is no sense in signing the 'Top FA' shortstops this year.
With all that being said, I agree with the premise of the article. They have to create a reason for players down the road to want to come to the bright lights of Queens. I think that is done by hiring and setting stability in the front office from the POBO right down to the manager and bench coach. It would also help to set the wheels on the road to playing exciting baseball. Even if you don't care about the 2021 World Series, it has been fun seeing the way Atlanta plays the game. Taking the extra bases, hitting behind runners, etc. Establishing that game goes a long way toward winning and wanting to come
Post a Comment