Reese Kaplan -- Risk Vs. Reward, Gary Sanchez Edition

In decision making there are four parameters people follow.  There's low risk, low reward...high risk, high reward...low risk, high reward...high risk, low reward.

In baseball we've seen all of these strategies work or fail to work. For example, who can forget the inclusion of Michael Perez on the 40-man roster to bring him up as a replacement for the temporarily visually-impaired Tomas Nido.  The risk was low given Nido's batting average having hovered around .118 and the reward is going to be low given Perez's track record facing major league pitching.

Then there is the next one which might be typified by taking a chance on a player like a Kodai Senga.  He was not known for his arm strength having pitched every 6 days and never had worked with American baseballs (let alone American baseball hitters).  The risk in bringing him in was a substantial contract (though arguably still below market rate for a 10 year veteran) and in his last start he demonstrated why that risk was entirely worthwhile as he brought his ERA well under 4.00 while fanning 12 batters.

Now the low risk with high reward is a little tougher to find.  Here you find inexpensive players who were cast aside by other teams due to performance, roster crunch or health issues.  Sometimes it's even a mix of all three.  The Mets seemed to live on this scrap heap during the Wilpon years and occasionally they got lucky.  Although he wasn't here very long, Nori Aoki is an example of someone picked up for peanuts who hit over .284 during his Mets career -- right on par with his .285 career batting average.

Then there are the high risk, low reward transactions.  You don't have to dig very deep to find a slew of them in Mets history.  Do names like Dellin Betances or Jed Lowrie ring a bell?  

This topic came to mind with the announcement that yesterday the Mets were planning to promote Gary Sanchez from the minors.  Part of the rationale for the decision making is the weird short term clause that would give him an opt-out if not put onto the major league club by May 19th.  

Part of it is the club's long history of trying to find lightning in a bottle by giving rebirth to someone who once was good but for whom the game has become increasingly challenging.  Then there's always the little niggling desire to thumb their nose at the crosstown rival NY Yankees who washed their hands of someone potentially prematurely.

Many folks are opining that Sanchez is the third category of low risk, high reward.  The low risk part no one can debate.  You're paying him major league minimum, he was an All Star and has seven straight major league seasons of double digit power, twice eclipsing the 30 home run mark.  

With the club's non-Alonso power shortage the fact that a slugger is available playing a position of need with the primary and secondary catchers both on the shelf, it would seem that the gamble on Sanchez was not quite as stupid as many in the media would have you believe.

The flip side, of course, is that the man was known for a great arm but otherwise poor catching skills.  His career batting average is just .225 and it's been quite awhile since he was a feared hitter at the plate.  The likelihood he would somehow become anything more than a spare part is beyond slim.

In fact, you could question who would be the first to go once both Omar Narvaez and Tomas Nido are deemed healthy enough to play?  Would the Mets keep a Sanchez around for DH duties on the right side and send Francisco Alvarez back upstate?  Would Nido be farmed to Syracuse?  Or would the Mets follow in the path of the Yankees, Twins and Giants who already have soured on their taste for having Sanchez playing regularly?

Don't get me wrong.  As a short term fit it's not a terrible one, but as a long term solution pretty much everyone is deluding themselves.  Look at Daniel Vogelbach to see what happens when a power hitter stops putting the ball over the wall.  The boo parade is loud and constant.  I'm of the low risk, low reward feeling about this transaction, but would be happy to be proven wrong.