If we get Bourn,
The difference between the three NLE teams behind the Gnats might only be a few games,
Did the Braves and Phils really imrpove themselves? Or did they take hits?
Not even sure what the Phils did if anything real, The Braves added the uptosn but lost Chipper, Bourn and Prado which most likely is a net loss.
Mets have improved their pen, At a minimum remained even in the rotation (I think adding Gee and marcum as well as a full season of Harvey and maybe half a season of Wheeler and Santana hopefully healthy for a full season is an imoprovement even with the loss of Dickey.) and we have already imrproved the offense by not giving 1200 ABS to Bay. Torres, Thole and Shoppach, Buck along is a major improvement but if TDA is ready and all think he is then it is a real real improvement, If we get bourn to take 600 ABS well the offense should be back to where it was in 2011
Forgetting about the Gnats (and they could take a backwards step but call them the division winner) and forgetting about the fish they are the lat place team that leaves us with
Where we ranked last year
OffenseBraves 700Phils 684Mets 650
So only 50 runs separated usBraves lost Chipper, Bourn and Prada and gained the Uptons so they did take a offensive hit last yearPhils dont think they made any major upgrades (might be wrong) Nor do I think they really lost anyone of value.Mets got rid of 1200 dead ABS, so far added a much better catcher and hopefully will add Bourn, Also Should get more from Ike if healthy for the whole season instead of 3 to 4 months.
That should very well make up the difference giving us an offense in the same neighborhood as the Phils and braves.
RotationBraves 3.75 ERA Phils 3.82 ERAMets 3.83 ERA
All rather even, Dont think either the Braves or Phils made any major additions, And for us Marcum closely replaces Dickey with the slack being picked up by a number of the other guys, While we did lose Dickey we also had a number of starts made by guys with high 5 ERA's, This year Gee as our number five should make us more stable, Yes we lost at the front but gained everywhere else.
Pen Braves 2.76Phils 3.94Mets 4.65
With the additions we made including the just completed deal with Lyons and the subtractions we made getting rid of the guys with 9 ERAs who could not get an out to save their mothers life on paper our pen is much improved.
So rotation is on par with Braves and Phils, Offense now should be assuming we get Bourn and the biggest difference was the pen hopefully if all goes right with the guys we brought in should be on par as well.
No reason we can not contend with the Braves and Fish if we get Bourn.
How can you be so adamant that it isn't the same or possibly better? How many wins will Marcum supply, a full year of Harvey, a longer tenure for Johan? Since you know the answers to these questions why not state your knowledge as clearly as he did?
Not just attack and call someone delusional without any proof or ideas to the contrary.
It's the bad news bears syndrome. We get a bunch of scrappy kids for the OF and pen, import two talented players, and bingo! We're right there somehow!
Oh wait, this is real life.
NFC? Wrong sport LOL
Now besides your mindset which i assume is colored by years of watching the team fail what makes you say that?
As Captain Kirk said to Lieutenant Saavik in WRATH OF KHAN..."As your teacher, Mr. Spock, is fond of saying, I'd like to think that there are always… possibilities."
Saz my brother, you could make the Roman massacre at hands of Hannibal's Carthage Army, at The Battle of Cannae, look like a Roman victory. LOL
But no worries, your overly optimistic approach doesn't offend me, and is more welcome than some of the people who want to wallow in daily negativity about everything the Mets do or don't do.
Yes, and the Mets might shock the world win the World Series in 2013. Just about anything is possible, but that doesn't mean it is isn't highly unlikely. I think we go thought this type of discussion each year.
GMs can hope for the best, but they are also realist and must make their plans according to what is most and/or least likely based on the information they have at hand. As of the moment, I don't think anyone being 100% realistic, thinks the Mets have the horses to run with the Nats, Phils or Braves.
If they end up doing it, then props to them, but I am going into this year just the same way I went into last year... looking at this as a transitional season and not getting too caught up in the faint hope that we can win much of anything aside from a decent showing and 4th place.
To me the goal in 2103 is to build toward 2014 - and that is the year I expect this franchise to take a big step forward.
Marcum is a good pitcher but he has never won more than 13 games. I wouldn't expect him to exceed that number with this pen and this offense.
Harvey is very talented, but most rookies, even pitchers who wind up being aces, do not post Cy-Young caliber numbers in the 1st full season.
A longer tenure for Johan? Are you seriously counting on this guy to perform well for a full season?
This is the problem with his assessment. The likelihood of the scenarios he described coming to fruition is very low individually, let alone all of them in one season. His post was titled that there is no reason we can't compete. It wasn't titled we have a shot at competing if everything goes right. He actually thinks there is a good shot at us competing based on these unlikely assumptions.
>>>"Marcum is a good pitcher but he has never won more than 13 games. I wouldn't expect him to exceed that number with this pen and this offense."<<<
True, but I am less concerned with his actually win total, and more concerned with him just giving us 6-7 quality innings each time out. What the pen does or doesn't do is out of his hands. I think if Marcum is healthy, we have a very good chance that he'll give a good accounting of himself. He's got a solid resume.
>>>"Harvey is very talented, but most rookies, even pitchers who wind up being aces, do not post Cy-Young caliber numbers in the 1st full season."<<<
True. We'll have to see. Plus since the league got there first look at him last year, they will make adjustments to him, and we will have to see how well he does with dealing with those adjustments. But Harvey has a good head on his shoulders, and gut tells me that he's the real deal.
>>>"A longer tenure for Johan? Are you seriously counting on this guy to perform well for a full season?"<<<
I have a fairly good feeling the Johan, in his walk year, will have a good year. But my only concern right now is that he has a good 1st half so we can deal him in July. Johan is a gamer and if he's healthy, I have little doubt he'll perform.
>>>"This is the problem with his assessment. The likelihood of the scenarios he described coming to fruition is very low individually, let alone all of them in one season. His post was titled that there is no reason we can't compete. It wasn't titled we have a shot at competing if everything goes right. He actually thinks there is a good shot at us competing based on these unlikely assumptions."<<<
I think the Mets have a lot of question marks - too many would have to good well in for this team to finish near the top of the division, so it is highly unlikely.
Can't really argue w/ you on this. Mets can get at least 50 more runs from replacements for Bay & Torres. Even if that's platoons & don't get Bourn IMO. Losing Dickey's 20 wins can be made up for whole season of Gee (who can now pitch w/ feeling in his arm & finger vs last yr before going on DL), Harvey & Marcum. You're right -- guys that replaced Pelfrey, Gee & Santana (for 1/2 the season) had God awful ERAs & losing records. IMO BP's the only real question mark. Often BP arms vary in production from 1 yr to the next. See Heath Bell & R/ Ramirez. But between recent signings & kids I think BP will be at least adequate. Not horrible like last yr. Let's see what happens in the next week or 2 w/ Bourn. I have an idea how Mets can sign him & not lose their #11 overall pick. And NOT have to depend on MLB to rule in their favor -- sign & trade: Cleveland's 1st rd pick is protected because they have 1 of the top 10 picks. Indians gave up their 2nd rd pick to sign Swisher. Say Mets partner w/ Indians. Mets agree w/ Boras/ Bourn on 3 yrs/ $36M. Then Indians (by prior agreement w/ Mets) sign Bourn for that contract. Cleveland would lose their 3rd rd pick to sign Bourn. Beforehand Bourn OK's trade from Indians to Mets. Cleveland immediately trades Bourn to Mets. I know a team has to wait some period of time between drafting a player & trading him (6 months?). Mets could pre-arrange w/ Cleveland that the Michael Bourn trade would be for a Player To Be Named Later (plus cash?). Make the date of finalizing the PTBNL the day after that waiting period's over & send that 2013 2nd rd pick to Cleveland. Cleveland had to give up their 2nd rd pick to sign Nick Swisher so it would be like they got their 2nd rd pick back & as if they signed Swisher for their THIRD rd pick. Mets have TWO 2nd rd picks because they failed to sign their 2012 2nd rd pick. So if Mets do this sign & trade deal they would turn their unsigned 2012 2nd rd draft pick into Michael Bourn!! What Cleveland would gain from the Mets is one of the Mets TWO 2nd rd draft picks. Win-Win for Cleveland AND the Mets!!
BTW -- If MLB does grant an exemption so the Mets keep #11 overall pick then Mets have to give up a 2nd rd pick to sign Bourn. So w/ this kind of sign & trade deal with say Cleveland Mets would give up EXACTLY the same thing! BUT wouldn't have to depend on MLB to grant an exemption to the rule!!!
See the negitivity is based on where we were in the rankings last year but not factored were the positives, The changes we made and so fourth,
Our rotation was everybit as good as the braves and Phils that is a fact based on the stats,
Our offense fell 36 runs short of the Phils and 50 runs short of the braves, Neither team have inproved their offense, Infact I8 think both the Phils and Braves took steps backwards while the Met added a legit catcher the worst offensive spot we had last year and might very well add Bourn, So on paper if we do sign bourn we might very well surpass the braves and Phils buit at a minimumhave bridged the gap,
Our pen was the real issue the Braves had a mid 2 ERA, Phils high 3 we had a high 4 ERA, Think about that their pen gave up between a run and two more then ours did, That is the real difference.
On paper we have reworked that pen, Gotten rid of the trash and added some arms that have gotten the job done this past year.
"Our rotation was everybit as good as the braves and Phils that is a fact based on the stats"It absoljutely is not....it can only be a fact if it's based on actual stats. It's a fact based on stats that our record was 100-62 in 1969. It's a fact based on stats. It's a fact based on stats that Dickey won 20 games last year. You cannot say anything related to any aspect of our team for 2013 is a fact based on stats because there are no 2013 stats. what you are expressing is an opinion based on your very optimistic projections of previous stats....absolutely no facts there.
"I love your optimism and I wish I had the same feelings. But the sad truth,, regardless of whatever stats you post is that Mets even with Bourn are best case 3rd best team in NFC east."
Barring some unforeseen and catastrophic happenings with other teams, I agree.