I don't blame Sandy too much for this, given the situation this is probably something he had to do. There's issues I've had with some of the things he's done, like spending more on Francisco and Rauch last year than Cespedes got per year when those 2 had absolutely no future here. On one hand he asks us what the difference is between winning 70 or 80 games because neither gets you in the playoffs, which I agree with, but on the other hand he makes a decision like that with the limited money he was given. But that's getting a little off topic, the Wilpons ultimately didn't leave him with that big a choice on Dickey.
The intro of this article should've been directed at the Wilpons. It's because they don't care at all about winning that this happened. If they had spent along the way, not crazily but filling holes for the last 3 years, it wouldn't have been necessary to deal a Cy Young award winner. And it is truly incredible that they've raised ticket prices for this upcoming season. If this organization has any success going forward, it will truly and factually have been in spite of the Wilpons.
Wrong...It's a hack article from the NYT who are notorious Yankee bootlickers.
About D'naud's supposed health issues...knee? A torn PCL, no big deal...it's the least critical of the knee ligaments are hardly EVER needs surgery to correct. The back issues? It didn't seem to hinder his progress in the Minors.
The Mets won 75 games last year during RA's career year. What makes you think we would have done any better this year if he stays? If the Mets have ONE area where they have a surplus, it's starting pitching. When you have many holes to fill, you have to look at what you have in surplus and move it to improve your team.
EVERY single baseball exec or former exec that went on record said either the Mets came out on top in this deal, or that it filled needs and was good for both teams... I'll take their work over columnists whose job is to sell papers and resort to controversy to do it.
These alleged back issues are what concerns me more than anything as well.
This may explain why he was traded twice before making it to the majors. The probability of his back getting worse is high.
I hope The reports are wrong concerning the bulging disks.
Wait, I thought no one was allowed to question this trade?
Oh, I see, the Times are NYY shills. But the author claims to be a lifelong met fan, and gasp, a realist?
But no, lets crown SA a genius, TDA the next Piazza, and kick the last two MVP's and CYA winners to the curb so we can finally compete in the distinguished game of Moneyball.
Here's to 2016. I'm told I have to be patient.
Like I was in 2010Like I was in 2011Like I was in 2012
"We're targeting a SP""We're not punting on 2013"
"The Mets won 75 games last year during RA's career year. What makes you think we would have done any better this year if he stays? If the Mets have ONE area where they have a surplus, it's starting pitching. When you have many holes to fill, you have to look at what you have in surplus and move it to improve your team."
But trading away a 20 game winner and adding a AAA catching prospect will?
Or you mean the following year?
Love how people say keeping RA would not have mattered, yet adding some prospects will. Thats rich.
The author's a supposed Met fan.
I'm sure the times can find other subjects than the NYM to sell papers.
It's OK, some people have other opinions on the trade.
You also have a team (GM's, execs, scouts, etc.) also willing to do the trade. They probably had an opinion as well.
"The Mets won 75 games last year during RA's career year. What makes you think we would have done any better this year if he stays? "
What? How is R.A. responsible for us having only 75 (wasn't it actually 74 wins?) wins?The truth is that in 33 starts, he won 20 games and lost only six. To see his impact extropolate that out to 162 games. 20/33=X/162. You will find that we are playoff contenders with him. That we weren't, is becuase of problems that were not fixed by trading him. As we had 74 wins and he took the mound only 33 times says that most of the problems had nothing to do with him.
Someone fix this broken record, please!
His presence isn't going to make this a winning team. In fact, nothing this franchise could do right now (short of signing every big name FA, which we know is impossible) is going to make this a winning team.
So I ask again: What is the point of keeping him here? To watch this team battle valiantly for 3rd place in the division instead of settling in 4th?
Tell me how this makes sense again. I can't seem to follow it.
What, you're telling us there is no other way possible to aquire talent than trading your best commodity?
No possible other scenarios?
How bout intangibles? Dont need those either?
You had a 20 game winner, CYA winner on the fukcing cheap?!?!?
....AND you dont even get proven MLB ready now talent (which we were told he would only be traded for).
Find another way.
'Find another way.'
Let's see... The Mets basically had very little in the way of trading chips other than Wheeler, so that was basically out of the question.
The team has no money to sign big name FAs.
There is no immediate help on the way sans Wheeler.
I love it... 'Find another way'. Let me just grab my magic lamp and wish for a full roster. I know it's lying around somewhere.
"His presence isn't going to make this a winning team."
But his departure does hurt this team. There were about 4 20+ game winners in the Majors. Dickey is the only one who played for a team with a losing record. You can't replace this production, especially since so many on this board think that pitching should be a priority. How do you then want to trade the best pitcher in the Majors?
'But his departure does hurt this team'
Hurt the team do WHAT? Win 75 games as opposed to 70?
Here's the thing: This team stinks. It's far away... And there are no stopgap measures that will help, even if they were possible. Which they aren't, because the team has no money.
So I'd love to hear how you would add the 20 wins necessary to put this team into the playoffs. I'm all ears.
"There were about 4 20+ game winners in the Majors. Dickey is the only one who played for a team with a losing record. You can't replace this production,"
I explained how it hurts the team. That you choose to ignore anything that you don't agree with is your problem, not mine.
"Hurt the team do WHAT? Win 75 games as opposed to 70?"
So you would be OK with this team losing 162 games since we won't win the World Series? I don't think anybody else would. We still haven't lived down losing 120 games in 1962. Just because its harder to win or we don't have as much talent as some teams doesn't mean you give up. Your attitude would keep us from ever winning. I'm glad the team doesn;t feel that way.
Some of you guys are starting to sound like Philadelphia sports fans...in other words, you live to complain.
SA was brought here, and he has said this SEVERAL times, to rebuild our farm system so the team can a be winner...year after year...
You can do that several ways...build from the very beginning (rookie league) or do a hybrid approach, which he is doing now..by cherry picking prospects from other teams.
Several of you have said that these prospects are no guarantee...but neither is Dickey..The same guys that complained about this trade would be complaining in July if Dickey was 5-8 after we signed him to a 2 year extension.
SA and most other baseball execs don't listen to us fans....and in most cases, with good reason.
"SA and most other baseball execs don't listen to us fans....and in most cases, with good reason."
Yup. And they don't listen mostly because we're usually divided (and often emotionally) on any issue.
First, S.A.was never brought in Specifically to rebuild the farm system. That may be his method, but he was brought in to turn the team around, regardless of how he does it.
Next: "Several of you have said that these prospects are no guarantee...but neither is Dickey.."The difference is that Dickey has proven himself over the last 3 yrs. These prospects cannot show that they have done anything.