Cautious Optimist -- How to we get from here to a period of sustained success? The Problem of Time Alignment

 

Every team needs a foundational anchor, and the ideal anchor for a major league team is the pitching staff, in particular, the starting rotation and the back of the bullpen.   In a recent post I made a case that the Mets' current staff has the clearest path forward of any of the team's units and is closest to being ready for prime time.  My view has not changed since the most recent injury to Holmes.

The picture is more complicated and significantly less clear when it comes to position players.  This is true when viewed offensively, defensively or both at once.

The outfield is another bright spot in the pathway from pathetic to post season

Currently, Soto is in left, Ewing in center and Benge in right.  Taylor is the fourth outfielder, and the fifth is Melendez who is currently playing himself off the roster at an accelerating pace. 

Robert is on the roster and the IL simultaneously, which has been a destination location for him for years now.  He was, and will likely remain, 'fools gold,' as the luster continues to fade.  The Mets have an option to double down on this mistake in the form of an option that they have no reason to exercise, and almost certainly will not.  

On the other hand, if Robert recovers sufficiently this year, he could be traded at the deadline or replace Taylor who could be traded instead. I prefer Taylor as the 4th outfielder for the remainder of the year -- and perhaps beyond -- but so too might other teams at the deadline.  

It's safe to say that over his remaining career Robert's days on the IL will outnumber those he spends on the field in a Mets uniform.

So let's talk about next year's outfield unit.  The most likely starters, left to right, are Soto, Ewing and Benge.  The 4th and 5th outfielders are the question marks.  The 4th could be Taylor or Morabito.  Both are right handed hitters necessary to complement a starting trio of lefties; and both are stellar defenders with strong arms.

Taylor might be traded before then or not re-signed as a free agent.  Morabito may not be ready yet or he could prove himself to be better than just a 4th outfielder.  

We don't know the answer to those questions yet, and may not by the end of this season either. My guess is that Morabito becomes the 4th outfielder next year, and if he continues to progress will see more time in the field than would a usual 4th outfielder given his defensive skills and the need to provide Soto with more opportunities to DH.

If the club carries a 5th outfielder, it could be Pache, Tauchman, even Baty (more on him below).  For the first time in years, the FO doesn't have to shop for a CF, or for any starting outfielder. 

Now things get complicated. Catcher

I view Alvarez's current injury as both a bit of addition by subtraction and a potential opportunity. Of the  disappointing first wave of baby Mets, he is by far the most disappointing. He had the farthest to fall, given the hoopla surrounding him as the # 1 minor league prospect in all of baseball just a few  years ago. But fallen he has.

His defense is passable though he does not call a good game, and his superpower -- framing -- is no longer as important as it once was. The Mets are a significantly better defensive team with Torrens behind the plate, and, in my view, no worse offensively.  In fact, I would argue that they are marginally better as Torrens has a better approach, understands the game better and can hit situationally.

Others have attributed Alvarez's offensive decline to injuries, but while I don't discount their impact on his performance, the root of his decline is his hitting sequence and overall mechanics.  He is also an impatient hitter and lacks an overall strategic approach.

It isn't that he swings so hard at everything.  It is that his sequence is so poor, this is pretty much the only way he can generate reasonable bat speed.  He is the paradigm of powerless effort.  Speaking of power, his once prodigious power has proven short lived. Not surprising to me, but unwelcome by all, and not likely to resurface any time soon, certainly not without a major change in his mechanics.

When he is ready to return to baseball activities, someone on the coaching staff should replace his inefficient movement pattern with a more efficient one.  Happy to help!

The Mets have no one ready in the minors to replace Alvarez, so I am betting that he gets another year, if only to rebuild his trade value.  I do not believe he is a viable DH option nor a potential at 1B.  It is catcher or bust: sadly maybe both.

Ok. Who's playing where in the infield?

There are two questions about the infield: 

1.    Whose playing where next year?

2.    How do the Mets go from next year to the next wave of position players?  

Of the two, the second is the more difficult question to answer, and presents the major barrier to the Mets ability to turn themselves into a consistent contender any time soon.  The problem is not just a matter of 'who plays where?'; the more troubling problem is time alignment.

Stearns' decisions last offseason have contributed to both issues more than I had originally appreciated, but we can't overlook the contribution that the collective failure of the three remaining baby Mets have made to the problem the team faces.

We are fast approaching the time when we have to consider cutting ties with Vientos, Baty and Mauricio.  To earn a spot on a major league team that envisions contending for championships, a player must perform above major league average on one or the other side of the ball, preferably both  None of these players do, and certainly have not done so reliably to this point. 

Perhaps, I am in the minority, but I feel about Baty and Vientos much like a high schooler feels about a 'tease.'  Just enough to keep you wanting and hoping for more, so much so that you keep lowering your expectations about what you will settle for in order for the chase to be worth the effort.  Eventually, however, you have to move on from the tease and look for a more meaningful and lasting relationship- or at least a more promising one.

I would normally say that we will want to consider keeping Baty since he can play 3rd, 2nd 1st and serve as the 5th outfielder. He is a one man insurance policy of sorts, but he is not a plus defender at any of those positions, and not a major league average hitter either, but he can pinch hit and fill in at DH in a pinch.  

If there is an argument for keeping him around, it depends on the Mets needing a McEwing player for the final roster spot.  

I know, I am allowing myself to be seduced by the tease or the Siren's call. My brain tells me to call off the chase, but hope survives as my dreams of success continue unabated and unfulfilled.

With that venture into psychotherapy temporarily out of the way, we can return to the question of what does next year's infield alignment look like. The only certainty, barring injury, is Lindor at SS.  Less certain, but still highly likely, we should expect to see Semien handling most of the duties at 2nd while Bichette occupies the hot corner. 

We don't have a genuine replacement for Semien on the farm near ready to contribute at the major league level.  And Bichette's subpar season, the impending potential lock-out and his salary means that it is unlikely that Bichette will opt out of his current contract.

So whose on first next year?  I don't believe that person is currently on the roster.  The reasons are manifold: 

    *    Polanco is injury prone.

    *    He has no experience at 1B to speak of.

    *    He is only signed through next year.

    *    There is no obvious replacement for him currently in the minors. 

Clifford is not ready.  He doesn't hit enough homers to justify his K-rate.  Reimer doesn't appear ready either, and we may need to call upon him when and if Bichette leaves. Nor is Guzman, who may well be the future 1st baseman -- but he is unlikely to arrive in Queens before 2028, if then.

Maybe, Vientos you say, as he is looking better these days at 1B and in the box.  But that's how it is ease with teasers. Let's make a deal, then, and agree that the Mets need to demand more than either Baty or Vientos have shown themselves capable of providing, so unless things change dramatically for either or both, we move forward assuming neither provides an answer for a team with championship aspirations. 

I'll strengthen your resolve when you falter and you'll strengthen mine.

When your will falters simply remember that both are capable of producing the worst outs imaginable: weak popouts and turned over ground balls to the right side of the infield by Baty; and horrifyingly short at bats by Vientos featuring swings and misses by Vientos at breaking pitches that invariable end up in the opposite batter's box or beyond.

Polanco should be the lead DH reducing the likelihood that he spends an inordinate amount of time on the IL.  

When everyone is playing 1B in the majors, that's a sign that you have no one to play 1B. The club needs a real 1B and someone who can play the position for 3 years.  

Having traded away both Acuna and Williams, we also need to sign a free agent or make a trade for a high quality defense first utility infielder.  

Ironically, the names I am penning in for next year, constitute a much less potent offensive force than they might have just a few years ago. 

If we don't get much punch from a 1B signing or trade, this will be a genuine weakness in next year's team, highlighting further the impact of losing Alonso in the short term, as well as what appears to be Stearns' penchant for replacing aging players with aging players with more attractive back of the card statistics but with injury histories, almost guaranteeing a dropoff in expected performance.

To sum up: next year's most likely starting infield: Bichette, Lindor, Semien and ?.  

Back-ups: Polanco, in a limited role; unknown defense first utility infielder/defensive replacement.

How to we get from next year to the next wave? 

In theory Stearns' offseason moves were designed with two goals in mind: to create a highly competitive team over the next two years, and to build a bridge to the next wave of prospects/replacements capable of leading the team to a period of sustained success.  After that, the formula would call for periodic rinsing and repeating.

In fact, Stearns' off-season moves have made accomplishing either of those goals, let alone both, harder than they were before the offseason began! 

In those moves we acquired a IB with a history of injury and no experience at the position, a 2B who remains a plus defender but a minus offensive player (at the princely sum of 50m/year between the two of them); a 3B who had never played the position, was coming off an injury, dislodging the best fielding of the baby Mets from his natural position, at a cost of 40+m/year and only one year of team control, thus potentially destabilizing that position for 2027, while presenting a challenging defensive alignment for the current system.

That is NOT the formula one would adopt for putting together a championship run or even contending at a high level in 2026, let alone in 2027. 

The truth is that had all gone well in 2026, the situation would have been even worse for 2027 than it is now.  Bichette would likely have opted for free agency; Semien would be one year further into offensive decline, while the trades of Acuna and Williams would have robbed the team of high level defensive back-ups on the infield.

But this is not the main barrier to transitioning to the next wave of players

It's not just that competing at a high level has become more difficult in 2026 and 2027 (barring drastic changes), the transition to the next wave of replacement drawn from the farm taking root in 2028 is considerably less likely than it might have been had Williams not been traded; and that defense first infielder capable of playing all over the infield sounds an awful lot like Acuna.  

By 2028, Polanco will be gone. Bichette too as he would be foolish to risk waiting until his age 31 season if his goal is to land a long term contract.  And Semien likely would no longer be playing at a level -- either offensively or defensively -- that would warrant anything beyond part time duty.  

Come 2028, the team would thus be called upon to fill gaping holes at 1B, 2B and 3B. While not bereft of talent, the minor league affiliates do not boast players at any of those positions likely to be ready to perform at the major league level in 2028, or to do so at a level that would complement the quality of the outfield and pitching staff. 

I may miss a few prospects, and excuse me if I do, but by my (intended as charitable) accounting, the Mets minor league affiliates have the following 2028 candidates for the major league roster and the positions they would qualify to fill:

1B: Clifford, Reimer, Guzman, Cuero

2B: Voit, Pena, Ewing (the current CF)

3B: Reimer, Lindor, Pena

Setting Lindor aside, the most promising (talent wise) are, IMHO, Pena and Guzman. Both are currently playing A ball. At the other extreme, the least promising is Clifford, who must cut down on strikeouts to have a shot, as must Cuero, who may be the most versatile, if not among the most talented, of the lot.

In between the extremes, we have Voit, who has shown defense and speed, but no offensive prowess as yet; Reimer, who has shown flashes of power, a great work ethic and modest defense.  He is also experiencing a down year that is threatening to halt (at least temporarily) his previous upward trajectory.

Ewing is our current CF and even if he has the tools to be a sound 2B, I have repeatedly counseled against moves that result in weakening the team at two positions to solve a problem at one of them.

Unless Morabito is capable of dislodging Ewing from his starting outfield position both offensively and defensively by 2028, it makes no sense to move Ewing to 2B.

So Guzman and Pena are, let's assume, the best talents and those closest to being genuine replacements in the infield.  It is reasonable to assume that both -- still in A ball and very young -- would be better served by more seasoning and development, and that rushing them for OD 2028 might well prove counterproductive. 

Nor should we forget that Pena can only play one position, while we would need him to play full time at two of them if we expect to cover three positions with only two players!

The biggest issue is?

From my point of view the biggest issue is not that the infield is unsettled at this time, (which it is) or that it is hard to see the path forward to its being excellent, either offensively or defensively as early as 2028 (which it is).

The big issue is that the path forward for the team as a whole is not appropriately time aligned.  Even were we to fill out the infield with assets from within the organization, we are realistically looking at adding one of either Guzman or Pena in 2028 (at best), another in 2029, and a third by 2030.

And that means that we will not be getting the best out of our outfield and pitching staff in terms of a complementary infield (and catcher?). 

We can't risk getting fooled again by the four original Baby Mets as that will  make the transition ever more difficult and less aligned with the best years of our outfielders and pitching staffs. 

We can't settle for 'thoughts and prayers'; we need to plan.

Any plan capable of keeping the various units of the team time aligned will call for a portfolio of trades and free agent signings as our current infield propects are injected into more prominent roles in a staggered fashion.

This is what successful teams do; and they do it far more often than we imagine.  Take the Dodgers.  Most of their pitching staff and all of their stars except for the catcher, Smith, and their best young starter, Yamomoto, have been acquired by trade or free agency.  A roughly similar narrative has applied to the Yankees over the past decade at least.  The Braves rely more on trades and home grown talent than either the Yankees or Dodgers do.

In my book the model for the Mets is really the Braves, not the Dodgers. The Dodgers have competed successfully by signing lots of top tier free agents regularly.  The Mets are open to doing so as well, but it is a mistake to do so as often as the Dodgers do and especially to long term contracts.  Too many long term free agents like the Dodgers have can create a heavier reliance on ever more trades and free agent signings as the team's various units otherwise will fall out of alignment.  This is one reason for endorsing the general strategy of minimizing, if possible, the number of years in a free agent signing.

I think of the Braves as a more apt model than the Dodgers because only the Braves are as close to being time aligned along the various units of the roster as the Mets are.  The Yankees and Dodgers draw less often from their minor league affiliates than do the Braves and the Mets.  This frees money for the best and mot impactful free agents and flexibility for strengthening other units when they need support.

But as a noted in my first series of posts, trading and FA signings, are driven in large part by failures to develop and assess talent correctly.  This is where the FO matters most to executing on time aligned plans, through its constant assessment of minor leaguer prospects throughout the league and development and projection of their own. 

What are the chances that our front office can measure up to the standards our best competitors have set.?  More on that next time.  Meanwhile, I'd like to know what you think?

Getting the team aligned and comparably excellent throughout the various units is not just the most important goal we face, but also the most challenging.  Find out why I am optimistic about the Mets ability to pull this all together, why doing so will be costly in terms of eating salary, and why it is better to face this problem now than to kick it down the road -- next time when I look at the state of our FO and return to my discussion of analytics.