I disagree with two commonly held views. The first is that 2027 is a transition year.
The second is that the Mets have the makings of a top tier starting rotation already in place.
In this post, I argue against the first of these claims. In the next, I argue against the second.
In principle, there are two reasons for thinking that 2027 should be viewed as a transition year. The first is that the Mets don't currently have the talent to compete in 2027. The second is that they are handicapped by too much money committed to players unable to contribute to a playoff run.
The difference between 2027 and 2028 is that the money committed to poorly performing players will be off the books after 2027; and the better players who can replace them who are not yet ready to do so will be ready in 2028.
Makes sense. I'm just not buying it.
I don't believe that there is such a thing as a transition year in baseball -- at least not when viewed from an ex ante perspective. A FO can reasonably go into a year thinking they are a few players short of being a legitimate contender, but they don't see themselves as transitioning. They look forward to the upcoming year as an opportunity for more development and growth, bringing them closer to the goal.
Transitioning signifies moving from one group of 'players' to another. In business, it typically refers to the process of replacing one leadership group with the next. Like the TV show, Succession, the process can be fraught as everyone wonders what role they will have under a new regime.
In baseball, it is fair to say that the Los Angeles Angels are entering a transition period. The Mets are not.
The Mets are serious about competing for playoff births, pennants and championships.
Teams intent on competing are continually engaged in two activities, neither of which amount to transitioning: 1.laddering up -- within a season and from season to season; 2. backfilling -- replenishing the talent pool from which they draw. They don't transition, as if there is a period that is called a transition that takes place between the time of 'just missing' and 'can't miss.'
This is not 'just' a semantic difference. It represents a difference in what the task or goal is, what attitudes are appropriate with regard to it, and what behavior is called for to achieve the goal.
Transitioning suggests a period defined by time. Laddering and backfilling may take time, but neither is defined by time. Both are defined by an attitude -- a way of approaching a task or a goal -- and the actions required to achieve it.
A team on the way up is constantly evolving, getting better. Getting rid of what isn't working and looking for things that do work and that fit together. In most environments, if you are not moving forward, you are losing ground.
Of course there are times that call for building a foundation or rebuilding a team. That's the situation in which the Angels find themselves; not the one the Mets do.
The first order of building a team is to amass talent. The second is identify and develop a group within the talent pool that represent the core of the team. The core is both the heart and soul of the team and its identity: how it plays the game. It is also the group that possesses the greatest magnetic or gravitational force (depending on your chosen metaphor).
In the late 90s the Yankees had their home grown core -- the Core Four.
Hard to find a Yankee fan now who doesn't wish for a return to that way of constructing the team. What fans don't realize is the extent to which putting a core together -- however strong the intent to do so may be requires a good deal of good fortune and luck.
People forget too quickly that the Mets of the first half of the 2020s had a core, arguably consisting of Alonso, Lindor, Nimmo, Diaz and, at the end, Soto.
It's an open question whether the Mets core failed to gel or to exert an adequate gravitational force or magnetic pull on the rest of the team or whether instead the FO failed to surround the core with sufficiently talented complementary players.
Count me among those in the second camp.
The truth is that the current Mets have a core: Lindor, Soto, Benge, McLean, Bichette (for now). It's not necessarily a complete core --as Bichette is more a temporary participant than are the others -- nor has it gelled sufficiently to pull in the rest of the team to pursue a common purpose.
If you want a contrasting team think of the Brewers and the outsized influence on everyone that Yellich and Contraras have. It's the kind of force of personality that sweeps up the younger players. It is more than a vibe; it is a way of approaching the task at hand.
On the Mets it is a role one would have hoped would be played by Lindor and Soto, but, if I had to lay a bet on it, I would put my money on the combination of Benge and Soto.
The Core defines the DNA of a team, and once that happens, the strategy of laddering up can begin in earnest. Until that time, the best a team can do is amass talent as best they can. Once the core is in place, the goal is to surround them with the right players: not just in terms of performance and position, but in terms of attitude and commitment.
For years, the Mets have been largely moving bodies in and out of Flushing without attention to the dynamics -- both on the field and in the clubhouse. In recent years, Stearns has put the team together by looking at computer print outs and searching for value at the edges. Neither has worked well.
Unsurprisingly, the team has not felt like a team. The pieces haven't fit. Now they can. They have to if the team is to succeed long term. Baseball is not about fielding a number of players at different positions. It's about putting a team together.
And that is the core explanation in my honest opinion or why there will be no excitement in 2028 if 2027 is not approached correctly. 2026 turned out to be a year of backfill; 2027 is the most crucial year of laddering up, building out from the core. This is not the time to simply wait until the contracts run out and more money becomes available.
This is the time to show that you understand the opportunity before you and seize it. This is the time to ladder up and build up from the core strengthening the team mindset and commitment to collective goals. This is not the time to wait for money to come off the books and settle for a mish mash of players in decline or injured. This is the time to make a statement about winning the right way.
If the goal is to start a run of sustained success in 2028, then 2027 is the key. And it starts by acknowledging that as currently constructed the 2027 Mets are not competitive.
But if you think the 2028 Mets will be competitive if we just wait out the 2027 season, you're sadly mistaken. Everything is path dependent. You have to build now in every way you can for 2028 to approach the heights the fans and the owner expect to reach in 2028 and beyond.
Step One in Laddering Up: Eliminating the Deadwood.
There is simply no question that the Mets have several high priced players who should not be on a team that is laddering up and aiming for greatness. Frankly these players are not even plausible place holders for a team with the ambitions the Mets have.
The corollary of backfilling talent while laddering up is eliminating deadwood in order to ladder up.
I want to discuss four players because they cost so much but have done little or nothing on the baseball field to warrant being on a team that is laddering up and leveling up their play. These are Semien and Polanco, Senga and Manaea.
There are others, most notably Mark Vientos and some borderline roster holders like Bret Baty, but they are not as crucial financially.
If the Mets can't trade Vientos or can't find a place for Baty or Mauricio, that won't for a second impact their payroll or show proof of their commitment to doing what needs to be done this year. Moving them, DFA'ing them, keeping them is all a matter of moving pieces at the margin.
Make the moves where they count and the fates of these three will be decided as a consequence.
What do you prove about your level of commitment to building for success by moving them if you don't touch the core four of Polanco, Semien, Senga and Manaea.
It is inarguable that neither Semien nor Polanco have provided any baseball reason for being on next year's team.
Semien was once a terrific player, but he has been in decline for several years and his performance has deteriorated rapidly over the recent past.
Polanco has never been a great player nor even a particularly good one. He has been better than average and has had a nice career. The problem is that he has been hobbled by injuries and last year was rendered completely unservicable by them.
It's foolish to expect him to be available full time next year; and even more foolish to expect him to perform to his 2025 level at the plate or in the field, and certainly not at 1B.
In my view, if Polanco and Semien suit up as Mets next year, the Mets are de facto have thrown in the towel for next year. That's not what would irk me. What irks would be that they have forfeited the chance to get significantly better next year -- better in ways that set the stage for 2028 and beyond.
Worse, if they are waiting for the bad contracts to come off the books, they are getting the math wrong Sure it will cost money to cut ties with Polanco and Semien. Both may be nearly untradeable given their salaries. And any trade that could be made would require the Mets to pick up a healthy portion of the salary owed them.
But it's not as if keeping them around would cost less. Quite the contrary in fact.
Dollars are one form costs can take; letting a season go by without doing what you can to ladder up and get closer to your goals is also a cost -- a very real one. It's one year less of Soto's prime; one year more of Lindor's potential decline; one more year with Mclean pitching with an inferior team behind him, and one year without Benge, Ewing and others not learning how to win or how to expect to do so; not to mention one last year (in all likelihood) of Bichette being around.
Don't let anyone tell you that these aren't real costs; they most certainly are. As are the psychological facts of being in a stalled environment, perhaps even a losing one.
And don't let anyone tell you that the Mets can't do better next year in terms of replacements for Semien and Polanco.
The Mets have three middle infielders on the farm who are likely to add more value to the team than Semien does. And as far a Polanco goes, does anyone really believe that he would bring more to the team than even Young would, let alone others who might be available -- either at DH or at 1B. C'mon. A little honesty here would be helpful.
Some combination of Petri, Rojas and Voit are building blocks in ways that Semien and Polanco are not.
If you ask me, on a striclty cost benefit analysis -- if you include the benefits of laddering up as part of the plan for being that much better in 2028 -- the balance calls for cutting ties with Polanco and Semien by whatever means turns out to be necessary, though of course looking for a trade first would make sense.
2028 starts in 2027 (if there is baseball in 2027). That's my mantra.
Every minute you spend not going forward is another minute you spend losing ground.
Turning now to Senga and Manaea. Both have been injured; both have underperformed. Each can lay claim to one very good year, but were guilty of massive drop offs thereafter. Senga was winless as a starter this year. He did well when pressed into high leverage relief after the deadline, Manaea pitched horrendously in the first half of the year but was able to rise to 5th starter competency in the second half of the season.
As to Senga: would you keep him next year as a high leverage reliever at 15m+ if some other team offered to take him off your hands and pay his salary? Of course not.
The job he would be taking in the pen (if he is not the actual closer) probably has a market value between between 1/2 and 1/3 of what the Mets would be paying him. If you can trade him even if you have to pay half his salary, you will still come out ahead, and any prospect with some promise would be gravy.
As for Manaea, it's insane to pay a number 5 starter 25m+. Not to mention that he is yet another 5 inning+ pitcher who has been more down than up since he's been a Met. You'd have to pay 15m of his salary in a trade if you wanted a decent prospect back.
Trade them both if you can. Work out a deal to release them otherwise.
They are not bad guys; they are not bad players. They are just the wrong players for this team at this time.
The team already has a much more cost effective #5 starter from the left side in Thornton. He's efficient and committed to working on his craft. By my lights, he'll always be a back end of the staff pitcher at best, but ridding the team of Manaea and Senga allows you to be honest about where the Mets pitching staff actually stands.
I'll get into that in much greater detail in my next post.
So as I see it, if this is a so-called transition season, it will be entirely because the Mets have chosen not to level or ladder up -- for reasons of money; and that would be unforgivable in my book.
Isn't this the point of Steve Cohen's wealth? Wealth, as RVH constantly reminds us, is an asset. It has to be spent wisely. Putting an end to these bad signings and severing ties is a whole lot better use than signing these players was in the first place.
In effect, not doing so amounts to doubling down on mistakes you've made, throwing good money after bad. And doing so for no other purpose than waiting for their contracts to end.
That's not how you win, and not what you do when you can afford to do better; and it is certainly not what you do when every step you take should be made with an eye towards a better future, instead of letting the past mistakes linger as a dark cloud over the organization.
And it's not as if there aren't reasonably priced alternatives for all of these players. Some in the organization already. Others available in free agency and still others obtainable through trades.
I am not calling for more AAAA players. Been there, done that, and it has gotten us nowhere.
You want names of real players who could be part of the future who the Mets should go after instead?
Sure, why not.
For Semien, the Mets have three players in house who are much more likely to be part of the future of the franchise: Rojas, Voit and Petri. I can't tell you that any of them will have a better career than Semien has had, but that is not the issue. All can bring somethings to the Mets and to the kind of ball they want to play that he cannot.
For Polanco as a DH (He's simply not a 1B), I personally would split the job among Soto, Lindor and Bichette, so they are all in the lineup all the time. Instead of a full time DH, I would look to obtain another starting outfielder and have Morabito in the wings. If Morabito hits .250 and runs the bases well, given his defense, he's your rotating 4th outfielder.
For Senga (I'm viewing him as a reliever since he was useless as a starter) how about Adrian Morejon (and there are others as well).
To replace Manaea, how about someone who could occupy a spot closer to the top of the rotation at less than half the price in Reid Detmers. I wouldn't hesitate trading Thornton and Vientos and a prospect infielder or outfielder or catcher in the system, e.g. Parada.
All this is doable but doesn't guarantee that the Mets will be a pennant contender. But it sure puts the team a lot closer to competing for the biggest prizes come 2028.
Occasionally, we get to see someone 'fail up -- sometimes spectacularly.
But more often than not successful people who make mistakes own up to those mistakes, repair or correct them and then move on.
All this will require money -- but only for one year or so as the Mets will have lots of money coming off the books in that time frame. In the scheme of things, it's a small price to pay to show that the team is serious and has cut ties with poor decisions rather than doubling down on them.
If the FO severs ties with the deadwood on this team -- and repairs its self-inflicted wounds -- there is a decent chance that 2028 may well be the year so many of my colleagues here think and hope it will be.
That's only half the story however.
We have to turn our pitching staff into the team's anchor and we are two starters and several relievers away from that. Or so I will argue next time.
