The Mets are in the thick of it at the Trade Deadline: now what?
I know the season is barely underway, and drawing strong inferences from such a limited sample size is unwise at best. Still, I have seen enough over the past two years to feel justified in concluding that the biggest worry the Mets have right now is Mendoza's inability to manage the bullpen and the pitching staff more generally.
For the purposes of this post, I assume that this difficulty doesn't do the team in this year, and the Mets find themselves in the thick of a highly competitive race for a playoff spot or even the division title as the trade deadline approaches. What should they do?
The case is overdetermined that they should trade for Tarik Skubal, and not just because obtaining him reduces the extent to which we would have to rely on Mendoza's judgment in managing the bullpen! Without diminishing the importance of reducing the damage poor management of the bullpen can do, the case for trading for Skubal is overwhelming.
As the deadline approaches, all manner of potential 'big trades' are bandied about, but few materialize. Almost all 'buyers' share the same goals for the deadline: pick up a bat, a reliever or two, and maybe a mid-tier starter -- all aimed at increasing the odds of making the playoffs. Most teams have adopted the view that whereas how a team does prior to the playoff spots being settled is largely a matter of how the team is constructed and performs, once the playoffs are underway who makes it to the World Series is largely a crap shoot.
The working hypothesis is: get to the playoffs and then take your chances. This hypothesis is the assumption that drives the vast majority of buying decisions at the deadline.
The playoffs are grueling, but they are not a crap shoot. They are grueling because making it to the World Series requires winning a number of different series involving relatively evenly matched teams.
The fact is that the differences in roster and performance are relatively small in comparison to the differences in the outcomes.
The question is, what inference should teams draw from that fact.
My view is that the teams competing for a playoff spot when the deadline approaches have all drawn the wrong inference. Because the differences in roster and performance are small in comparison to the differences in outcome, they infer that the difference in outcomes is down to luck of one sort or another. Thus, the view that ultimate success is a crap shoot.
If they are right, then all you can control for is the prospect of making the playoffs. And thus, all the trades that are made around the deadline are designed to reflect that interpretation. Almost every 'buyer' can use a bat, a reliever and a mid-tier starter to strengthen their chances of making the playoffs. Each contender is prepared to deal away a few lesser minor league prospects for overpaid bats, relievers and an aging mid-tier starter from the marketplace of sellers -- those whose bets have failed who have re-conceptualized failure as 'building for the future.'
But these teams are working from the wrong inference.
Instead of inferring from the fact that outsized outcomes result from relatively small differences in performance that the playoffs are a crap shoot, the correct inference to draw is that there may well be small differences that matter a great deal to expected outcomes.
And the right strategy would then be to see if one can identify what those differences are, and to gain a strategic advantage by making trades at the deadline that create the relatively small differences that have outsized consequences!
I am betting that this year the Mets will be presented with an opportunity to create a strategic advantage in the playoffs while also building the foundation for sustained success at the highest level!
If that opportunity is presented how can they take advantage of it?
First, and foremost: don't follow the norm. Do precisely what most others fear doing because they are unwilling to gamble away the future in the absence of confidence that the gamble will have an immediate desirable payoff. Take advantage of their conservatism because it ends up reducing the costs to you of taking the chance they refuse to. Their conservatism means they will shy away from taking the right big swing, which means that there will be fewer bidders and the price will be supressed accordingly.
What specifically should the Mets do?
Trade for Tarik Skubal. It's that simple, though doing so won't be as simple. But it can and should be done, and it will be less difficult than it should be.
Let's start with some background conditions that apply to the Tigers and the Mets, otherwise we won't fully understand the value of the trade for each and the parameters that would make a trade both plausible and fair.
To understand all the ways in which a trade for Skubal makes sense for the Mets, both this year and going forward, we have to take a look first at the contractual situation of the pitchers in the current starting rotation. Their nominal ace, Freddy Peralta, is a free agent at the end of this year as is their longest tenured player, David Peterson. Holmes has one more year as does Senga. McLean is not yet arbitration eligible. Manaea has one more year on his contract and Tobias has two. Christian Scott, I believe, is also not yet arbitration eligible. This means that the only starting pitchers (loosely speaking) on the Mets roster (or likely to be on it sometime this year) signed beyond 2027 are McLean, Tobias Myers and Christian Scott.
I am as excited as anyone about some of the pitchers toiling in the minors, though we may disagree about some of the particulars. I am big on Santucci as a top tier talent, and believe in Wenninger as a solid back of the rotation starter. Scott can be a mid rotation arm on a good team. I am of two minds on Tong. He's mid rotation at best in my book, which isn't bad, but he's an injury waiting to happen -- which is bad.
The main thing you should notice is that there is no veteran presence among the names I have mentioned. And no matter how highly you rank this group of pitchers, it does not make for a top tier/WS ready staff.
I would also point out that what the Mets stated goal sustainable excellence calls for in terms of roster construction is an ongoing process of phasing in talented prospects into a stable core of veteran players. This must occur in the outfield, infield and pitching staff -- including both starters and relievers; starting pitching being more important than relief pitching in this regard.
Phasing in is not only essential to sustained success, it is also how you put your most talented young players in the best position for them to succeed.
The phasing in process has already begun in the outfield, but nowhere else -- yet. Taking a look at the contract situation for the starting rotation makes it very clear that the next phasing in should focus on starting pitching.
Skubal and phasing in starting pitching
When the current season ends, the Mets will have no veteran top tier pitchers under contract. The year after, they will have no veteran pitcher currently on the roster under contract at all. Phasing in requires veteran presence and a core of excellence so that as you bring top prospects in you are not putting too much pressure on them, and they are in a learning environment that provides the best conditions for their long term success.
This means that over the next year or two the Mets are going to need one or two top tier veteran pitchers in the rotation signed to appropriately lengthy contracts.
Everyone mentions that Stearns doesn't like long contracts, but they are ignoring that the outfield phasing in is easier to do because they have Soto in place who occupies one of the three available positions and this makes phasing in smoother; nor do they mention that Lindor is on a long term contract that makes phasing in on the infield less complicated than it would otherwise be -- which would be very complicated in fact.
And while I agree with Stearns that you wouldn't want to give a pitcher in the modern era a 10, 12 or 15 year contract, there are some pitchers who warrant contracts between 5 and 7 years, and Skubal may well be one of them! And if you are going to have coordinating phasing in the outfield and infield you need to be able to do it on the mound as well. Skubal is as good a place to begin as the Mets could hope for.
That's the future value for the Mets. The current value is even more obvious.
Skubal makes your staff WS caliber, as your top five are Skubal, Peralta, McLean, Senga and Holmes. You can move Holmes and Peterson to the bullpen along with Myers and your bullpen is as formidable as your starting rotation.
Can this make sense for the Tigers?
Now let's turn to the Tigers. The Tigers showed last year that they are good enough to be a playoff team. They also have a very sound manager. They were never going to trade Skubal during the offseason. If they trade him at the deadline, they get him for 2/3 or more of the season, setting themselves up for another trip to the postseason. At the same time, they were never going to let him walk away and get nothing for him.
Trading him at the deadline always made the most sense for them. They get a bit less than they would have gotten in the offseason, but not that much less. They get the benefit of his performance through most of the season this year which offsets some of the lost opportunity. They will demand a pitcher in return that will allow them to convert the position having Skubal for this long during the season has put them in into a playoff berth this year, and going forward.
They will therefore demand a low cost, high ceiling pitcher in return to continue the momentum this year and into the future.
They have other needs as well. They need a third baseman with power, some bullpen help and some pitching depth in the minors. While an offseason trade may have allowed them to address more of these needs, a deadline trade with the Mets certainly gives them an opportunity to address some of their needs at a very high level.
Trade possibilities
These are the background conditions facing both teams. The Mets can provide everything the Tigers need, but because Skubal comes with no guarantee that he will sign with them, the Mets will rightly press to offer something at each position a step below what they view as their top prospects at each position. So the Mets' initial offer would likely not include Tong, preferring instead to give the Tigers a choice among Scott, Thornton and Wenninger. They have two third baseman they could send in Mauricio or Vientos. They will not trade Reimer or Baty. They can add a catcher, of which there are many on the farm. They are surprisingly short on outfielders at the moment, but if Ewing makes it to the majors in relatively short order, there would be no place for Morabito. Frankly, I would want to save Morabito for another potential strategic trade.
At the end of the day, I believe what will clinch the trade for the Mets would be including Tong, perhaps a pitcher further down in the minors and Mauricio. Or Tong, Clifford and a catcher or pitcher further down. Or maybe Voit, if the Mets feel that Pena is close enough to be part of the coming wave in the infield. Or something as simple as Tong and Suero, who I quite like, but have difficulty seeing as having a role on the Mets.
The key variable that determines what the Mets have to give up for Skubal is who else will be competing with them for his services. There are really only three teams that are in play for a trade of this magnitude at the deadline: the Mets, Dodgers and Blue Jays. The Blue Jays minor leagues are not as strong as the Mets', and the Dodgers continue to experience injuries to starting pitchers. So I believe parting with Tong and two other prospects from a list that the Mets would provide to the Tigers would be enough to get it done. And all that's left after that is to win the bidding for him once he hits free agency.
Lets do it! The future is now.
