• Welcome Guest
New York Mets

Welcome to the New York Mets.
Before posting, please review our Message Board Guidelines

    • Needed a Total Rebuild which led to the Bourn Conflict
  • To:All
  • 2/17/13
  • stearnsy12

i was in the pre-offseason camp of undergoing a total rebuild which included dealing Wright,Dickey,and even Davis along with others

David would have brought back an excellent package of prospects and Ike was a perfect fit in Tampa Bay or with the Mariners as things shook out

while i am NOT suggesting,nor have i ever suggested,that David and Ike MUST go but only that they could have been used to pretty much rebuild the team much faster....i'll enjoy watching them play this year but then again i watched when we had an outfield of Bosclair,Hahn,and Theodore so you can't go by my standards

anyway,the Bourn Saga was a perfect illustration of how,by dealing Dickey but keeping Wright and others,we became a "tweener" rather than commiting to one plan or the other

we wanted to add Bourn because he'd help David in the lineup and might have avoided "punting" in '13 but we didn't want to give up the pick and deviate from the course of re-stocking our farm system

hence,we had a situation that left us frozen in the headlights: Let's give David some reinforcements but not at the cost of our future and we saw those conflicted philosophies play out the entire Bourn affair

i love the Dickey trade,love the sentimental notion of still having David here,but despite Yogi's sage advice when we came to a fork in the road we didn't take it but rather threw the car into neutral and idled......

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • Remember86

What may be happening, despite Fred Wilpon's public statements to the contrary, is that there are two conflicting sentiments going on behind the scenes. Kind of reminds me of a television show I used to watch which had alot of in-fighting going on and it effected what was seen on the screen to an increasing degree. But really, one plan not being followed to its rightful conclusion is an example of why the Wilpon era has been an unsuccessful one. The team just can't seem to stay on one road long enough to get to the originally desired destination (to continue with you metaphor).

It could be either Alderson and his guys wanted to go all out with a rebuild while Fred and Ethel preferred keeping Wright, someone had a change of heart along the way, or Fred still thinks they can have it both ways and succeeed, who knows? But what we have is a team with three of the same offensive holes they went into the offseason with and no real help in the farm in sight. Who knows about the bullpen. They picked up one probably good guy and a few members of the scrap heap. If Alderson got what he did for a 38 year old pitcher, just imagine what he could've gotten for David Wright. I'm with you, I have the same sentimental notion of liking that Wright is still here, but you just wonder what they promised him before he signed on the dotted line. Are they planning on returning payroll to 2010 levels next offseason? Do they think they'll be able to trade Santana at the trading deadline and getting something helpful for him?

I agree they're a tweener once again and for that they'll probably end up in fourth place and win 74 games this season.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • DFAB
I can understand why some say it would have been smart to trade Wright for rebuilding purposes...and I agree, he COULD have brought back a ton of talent. However, I feel they made the right move by keeping him. The Mets need their own Jeter. He is still young enough to be part of the core and he is a great veteran presence for the younger guys. I agree that Dickey needed to be traded but I just don't understand the logic behind trading Ike. He has show he can hit 30+ hrs and certainly has 40+ hr potential. We DESPERATELY need power and he is our best power guy. Unless we are getting 3+ MAJOR pieces in return for Ike, it makes no sense to trade him. I've seen proposals like Ike for Shields...I would NEVER do such a deal. We need to extend Ike after this season.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • TheGMan47
We didn't need a full rebuild. We already have a good core and we're not that far off from contending. A full rebuild would have set us back a few years. How has rebuilding worked out for the Royals, Pirates, and Mariners?
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • RobfromLI

Keeping David was tossing a bone to the fans. It was the Mets saying "We are not going to trade away the best player this franchise has ever brought up." And you know what? I'm OK with that.

I admit we could have gotten something nice for David but that assumes there are players out there that would fit the bill. And it would have placed yet another question mark on this team. With a healthy Ike, Tejada and Murph in the lineup to help Wright I think we will be happy that we kept him.

To me this is only a good thing.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • nvmets10

This is just about perfectly stated. As much as some here like to say that the plan is very obvious, the fact is their actions this offseason really did very little to clear up where we stand. The team remains in this frustrating purgatory its languished in for years.

It's not a rebuild because David wasn't traded and the lack of any major acquisition again has us still in the dark about the willingness to spend.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • brianinwi

Yes, you're both right. No question that the power move was to trade Wright this offseason. I'm sure the front office was weighing the potential long-term benefits of that in 2014 and beyond when those prospects start to bear fruit vs. the no doubt intense fan backlash that would have resulted from trading Wright. Look how many on this board have reacted to the Dickey trade, even though most analysts agree that this was a good move for the Mets. So, as much sense as it might make from a pure baseball perspective, I understand why they didn't pull the trigger on a Wright trade.

I think keeping Wright probably slowed down the rebuilding process (and Wright still has many productive years left -- it's not like he's headed for the old age home), but didn't kill it. They ended up NOT signing Bourn, keeping their draft pick and not locking up multiple years and money in a player who, at best, meant a couple more games won.

I think there are still options available to Alderson to improve the team through trade. The Mets seem to have infielders of various stripes coming out their ears: Flores, Lutz, Murphy, Valdespin, maybe Havens redux, Duda, Tovar... others. Some of these players will put up impressive numbers in Vegas. A couple of prospect swaps with an outfielder-rich organization, and things start looking up. There's no rule that says everything has to be done by Opening Day.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • MetObserver

"Yogi's sage advice when we came to a fork in the road we didn't take it "

Funny story I heard about that comment Yogi made. Yogi lived in Montclair adjacent to the College. And when he would have a gathering he often send people into the college parking lot since it was usually on a weekend and the school was closed. He would then direct them to a path and made that historic quote. The thing was that either fork you chose ended up at his house. So Yogi's statement was very factual.

Thought that was interesting and wanted to pass it on.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • JoseJose
Stearnsy I agree with you 100%. Amy argument for the Dickey deal is also against keeping Wright. I think this FO is so sensitive about PR considering they really can't afford a team any more, no less a NY team, that instead of making the best moves for the course they are on, they really don't have a course and they are just scrambling to get by, which includes keeping Wright for PR purposes and cutting overall costs. And yes, that does lead to the failure to get Bourn, despite the glaring holes he would have filled.
  • Reply to this Message
Message 548403.10 was deleted
  • 2/17/13
  • JoseJose
I agree with you and I am wondering what the TV show is that you referenced.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • bmcneely
didn't the Angels offer us Trout plus more for Wright 2 years ago? Maybe it was a rumor let me see what i can dig up. From what I can find it was Bojorous they were thinking of moving.

Edited 2/17/13   by  bmcneely
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • stearnsy12

as i recall we both agreed on dealing Wright and Dickey but you were pretty adamant about keeping Ike which is obviously a perfectly reasonable sentiment

but i think we agree that in overall direction we're neither here nor there and it showed in our dealings with Bourn

we've got a lot of holes to fill and have to hope that ownership is being truthful when they say they've got the money to spend next offseason (problem is not a lot in the way of top end outfielders will be available and like i always like to point out we won't be negotiating in a vacuum, there will be many other teams involved as well)

but retrospectively it's pretty obvious our divergent paths this year froze us when it came to making the move with Bourn

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • stearnsy12

like i've said from purely a sentimental perspective i like the idea of Wright being here but while i agree it's nice to have our own Jeter i'm not sure it's in the best interests of rebuilding the team....

i'm in the "minimal minority" when it comes to Ike,just not sure what we've got in him,and as i've posted here i would have theoretically dealt Ike for the Mariner's package they offered for Upton,even if it meant adding Murph to the deal

with Wright and Davis/Murphy deals i think we could have gotten back 6 or so top prospects and reloaded much faster

and again as i've said i can't argue with keeping Davis, i completely understand that he's got outstanding power and is a solid defensive first baseman as well....

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • stearnsy12
but if we're not rebuilding why didn't we sign Bourn?....if we're closer to competing now than with a rebuild why would we not give up the first round pick?
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • stearnsy12

i don't have a problem with David being here,i just believe the dealing of Dickey,keeping Wright,and then passing on Bourn because of the draft pick (which i agreed with) doesn't make sense as far as an organized plan goes

i didn't want Bourn if it was going to cost us the pick but now i'm trying to look at things from the FO's perspective and the series of moves/non-moves just leaves us in limbo IMO

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • stearnsy12

i agree, keeping David,trading Dickey,then passing on Bourn makes little sense to me in regards to "the plan"

i like the Lyons,Hawkins,and Atchison signings but will that take ML experience away from Familia,Carson,and others?

after this season when Santana and Marcum are gone are we going with Niese,Harvey,Wheeler,and Gee for '14?....and what of our outfield?....and what of our bullpen if Lyon,Hawkins,and Francisco will be gone?

the plan doesn't seem to be in "sync"

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • stearnsy12
that IS an interesting story and like most Yogisms there is truth and wisdom hidden beneath the surface
  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • stearnsy12

i can see where any franchise would want to keep a player of Wright's caliber but the same could be said of Dickey if that's the direction we were going in....

the way the Bourn thing evolved and twisted and turned at least to me shows how disjointed the thinking is in the FO

  • Reply to this Message
  • 2/17/13
  • kaztast1c
IMO no plan should have included Bourn. If we trade anyone of value then why add someone of such marginal value like Bourn? If we go all out rebuild there is no need for Bourn since we would be doing the exact same thing we are doing now which is evaluating young and cheap talent. If we trade no one and go forward with Dickey and Wright then why add someone like Bourn who wouldn't be putting us over the top while we STILL have to evaluate young and cheap talent at the corners.
  • Reply to this Message