Keep in mind the Phils, Braves, Nats are already good teams. The Mets are not.
While picking up a mediocre player is something good teams do all the time to help out with depth, the Mets have no depth. Picking up mediocre older players is utterly pointless. And if they did so, this forum would be alive with posts bashing SA for making moves to appease the fans.
If there was a blockbuster type player out there whom we could have acquired for something other than an already important player (few as those are) or a key prospect (ditto), please let me know.
"So because the Mets are bad they should not make moves to improve the team other than blockbuster moves that we know they won't make?"So we'll win 76 games next year instead of 74? Sounds good.
"OFs and BP pitchers are going, and we need em bit ain't gettin' em. "Which OF'ers and pitchers we missed out on would have honestly floated your boat?
And I didn't say he shouldn't make moves (also please keep in mind ST hasn't started yet). I said if he got some of these players currently moving around, my optimism (such as it is) wouldn't improve noticeably.
I want to see Dickey (if possible) bring back two REAL prospects, or at least one real, major-league ready, impact player who's still young.
Would Ludwick, for example, really improve us with a look to the future?
We now have Alderson quoted saying bringing Dickey back without an extension is a real possibility.
“I don’t think it’s necessarily the optimum result, but it’s a possible result, and if that is the one that ultimately transpires, we’ll be happy with that.”
In order to receive draft pick compensation if Dickey was to play out his contract the Mets would have to make a qualifying offer. Hypothetically, what if Dickey has a down year compared to 2012, say 13-13 with a 3.75 ERA.
This year's qualifying offer was $13.3 million. Let's say next season it's $14 million.
Are the Mets going to make a qualifying offer that Dickey could accept? This is what I don't understand about why they are low balling him with an extension. If he's not traded the only way to get compensation is to be willing to commit the money and if they're willing to take that risk, why not just sign him?
"So we'll win 76 games next year instead of 74? Sounds good."
I'm sorry but this is kind of a frightening way to operate. No, perhaps the move of, say, a Ludwick alone doesn't put us over the top and into a World Series. But that shouldn't also mean you take a "screw it, why bother?" view either. It doesn't mean it's okay to just keep throwing out bottom of the barrel trash. That's incredibly disrespectful to everyone, including what could be a pretty fantastic rotation. Is a Ludwick or Ross going to ruin our future if we sign them to a two or three year contract at under $10 million per season with at least $40 million coming off after next year?
If you want them to go get a younger mediocre player, I have absolutely no issue.
I'm sorry if the prospect of a mid-30's mediocre player doesn't make me do backflips.
I want moves that make sense for the future. That means NOT dumping prospects, and NOT signing old guys. He does NOTHING for me. His presence won't increase my optimism for next year one iota. He's had 2 solid years and one good year in 10 seasons in the bigs.
"Is a Ludwick or Ross going to ruin our future if we sign them to a two or three year contract at under $10 million per season with at least $40 million coming off after next year?"
Nope. Doesn't help the future either. So why should I get upset when someone like Ludwick "slips through our fingers"?
I'm not saying I don't want him. Please understand that. I just won't kill SA for not getting him or similar players.
Should note, by the way, there's a bit of a difference between Ross (31) and Ludwick (34).
But does every acquisition have to make you do backflips? Everything can't be a high impact splash destined to benefit the organization 10 years down the road. You do have to, you know, just field a team. And we can't really even do that right now in the outfield. At least not without it being a complete embarrassment. I guess my question is then, do you have absolutely no problem with it again being a complete embarrassment?