It looks like the Mets are going to trade a Cy Young winner for a bag of magic beans. As much as I'm tempted to, I can't blame SA for this stupidity. He's working on orders from Fred & Jeff whowant to dump even more salary. The Wilpons are so cheap they want cash back to pay for Buck's miserable salary. That aught to tell you something.
So, we get a prospect/suspect minor league catcher with a bum knee. A prospect/suspect minor league pitcher who throws hard. Our minor league system is full of them already, they are a dime dozen. Of course he has no command of his pitches, no effective other pitches, is wild, and will most likely never amount to much. Did you guys see our versions of him? Mejia and Familia? Both have the same resume, both stink. We get John Buck, a journeyman Catcher who may very well be the best player we get out of this deal, and we also get a "non-elite" prospect/suspect or cash I think the Wilpons will take the cash.
We give up a Cy Young winner who doesn't make much, and isn't asking for much to extend his contract beyond next season. Thole, who isn't much...but remember when he was our magic bean and was going to be our "catcher of the future? And our own "non-elete" prospect. Flores? Who knows or cares.
This deal is so dumb, only the Mets could make it.
Note to the "trade everyone for prospects" crowd. It looks like you got your wish and Dickey is gone. But, remember the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for". A little history lesson...
The last time the Mets traded a Cy Young winner for magic beans was in 1977. We traded Tom Seaver for Pat Zachry, Steve Henderson, Doug Flynn, and Dan Norman. This was a much better package than the one we're getting now. Zachry was already a major league pitcher and had won Rookie of the year the prior season. Flynn, Henderson, and Norman were considered top prospects at the time...can't miss players....they missed. Zachry went into the tank as young pitchers often do, his rookie year was his career year and he never did much again. Flynn became a good glove no hit player for us and never amounted to much, Henderson stuck around as a backup outfielder for a few teams, never amounted to much either, Norman was a total flop and was soon out of baseball.
The Mets who were a mediocre team a little over .500 before the deal was made, didn't win as many as 70 games again until 1984. We suffered through 7 years of horrible 90+ loss years...except for the strike year.(not enough games to lose 90) That's what magic beans gets you.
But...this bag of magic beans is better...and we didn't win with Dickey...so we HAVE to trade him.
1-We didn't win with Seaver for several years either, and were told by M. Donald Grant that we had to trade him to get better. I say, you never HAVE to trade anyone, and if you do trade a star, you'd better be getting one back.
2-The Seaver bag of beans had a better resume than the Dickey bag of beans. Why is this deal better? Because Dickey is older than the 31 year old Seaver was? Well, Seaver was still pitching in the majors till 1986. The only magic bean still in the majors in 1986 was Henderson, a back up nobody who lasted till 1987. So age didn't help. There's a decent chance Dickey will still be pitching when our new bag of magic beans drive trucks for a living.
Dickey was catching lightning in a bottle. A minor league free agent who became a star. That happens once or twice in a generation. We're too stupid to keep him, and want to trade him for what's behind curtain number 3.
Anyone know if M. Donald Grant is still alive? He'd be the perfect GM for this team.
I pray this dumb deal falls through. In 1969 they said God was a Mets fan. If he is, it's time for him to step up to the plate and save us from ourselves.
"I pray this dumb deal falls through."
Oh yeah, getting a prospect who's the #1 catching prospect, a position that's the hardest to adequately fill, for a 38-year old pitcher (yes, I know he's a knuckleballer and just won the CY) who will still be on a 4th place team likely until 2014.
Yes, prospects don't always pan out, but ask the Nats and the Rays how well it worked for them.
I repeat...The Seaver bag of beans was better on paper than the bag of beans we're getting now. There is no logical reason to expect this deal to work out better. You've got wishful thinking and the Law of Averages on your side. That's it.
As a fan I have to hope we get lucky. As a realist I have to admit the deal is dumb for us. Fooling myself is not part of my nature. To those of you who can, great...until the concrete smashes you in the face.
God save the Mets
well what asking for cash back to help with the cost of Buck's contract SHOULD tell us is that there's no way we're spending our way out of this mess.....we're a 74 win team that just spent 120+ million on a 6 year extension for one player,ie they shot their bolt financially
if we're going down the road of once again criticizing ownership because of the financial mess they've gotten themselves into that's one thing
but IF we're talking about a realistic plan to try to get younger and build a winner i think you're missing the point with this deal
people can scream all they want that they want ownership to sell but at the end of the day we have to deal with the reality that they're not going anywhere
and basing ANY baseball decisions in 2013 on what a completely different organization did in 1977 is just full of beans
If you know that he's a knuckle baller who just won the cy young which destroys the dumb "hes to old theory" why even mention it.
Itslike saying I know people that say he is to old are wrong but he is kinda old.
My problem isn't trading Dickey. It's with what we got. If you trade a star, you'd better get one back.
If we had traded Dickey for proven talent, a younger decent outfielder with upside potential...not a loser like Gose either...and a TDA , I'd say okay, roll the dice. But to trade him for two lottery tickets and Buck??? Dumber than dumb.
You don't trade a cy young winner....you just don't.
It's playing with fire and asking for trouble.
I'd rather be a 500 team for the next 4 years than lose 90+ for the next 7...which is what happened when we traded Seaver for prospects. The bag of beans we got for Seaver was better on paper than the bag of beans we're getting for Dickey.
Pray the deal falls through.
God save the Mets...
"My problem isn't trading Dickey. It's with what we got. If you trade a star, you'd better get one back. "
I might be wrong, but I would hope SA explored that. Personally I think it would be very difficult to get back a young, major-league ready can't miss player for a 38-year old.
People like to criticize deals by saying "He shoulda done better", but maybe ... just maybe ... he tried and couldn't.
It takes two to tango.
as if dealing Dickey to the Angels for Pujols or the Yankees for Cano was a possibility,right?
if this deal goes through it's a great deal for the Mets and their future and for the Jays who are built to win now
amazingly so many people who are criticizing this deal are conveniently looking past one glaringly obvious fact: we're not winning anytime soon with the same team as 2012 and if we brought back Dickey that's the best we could hope for
our horizon for winning is a couple of years out at least
Met fans have to deal with that fact or continue to moan and groan about a "big market team","owners that need to sell", etc etc yada yada yada
Beans, beans, they're good for your heartthe more you eat them, the more you fartthe more you fart, the better you feelso eat your beans at every meal.
I wanted to retain Dickey, but lets see what the exact package is before we go haywire.
How would anyone besides the Mets and Jays know all of the details?
Maybe we should do with Dickey what we did with Reyes.
But people might complain.
"we're not winning anytime soon with the same team as 2012 and if we brought back Dickey that's the best we could hope for our horizon for winning is a couple of years out at least"
Why are you looking at one particular trade?When they did trade seaver were any of the players a top 15 prospect in all of baseball?
What would be the point of Keeping Dickey (who i think is great) You can end up with a great catcher for 10 years along with a very young pitching staff,a young ss a young 1st baseman. Then you can fill the hole sand get the relievers you need. Dickey won 20 games last year and the mets finished in 4th
I am sure they will lose just as well without him
I think I'll call you Mr. Sunshine from now on.
Seriously, what kind of deal would have made you happy? Dickey for 3 of their everyday players, our choice?
" If you trade the Cy Young winner, you had better get back another star, not a lottery ticket. "Okay, so if SA tried that and failed, you'd want him to keep Dickey then. And then in 2 or 3 years when his value dropped (be real, you want to bet he'll win another CY?) we can kill SA for not trading him when his value was high.
We have NO IDEA what other deals for him were being discussed.