• Welcome Guest
New York Mets

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

    • Toronto's surplus of OFs not in the deal?
  • To:All
  • 12/16/12
  • mysticpiazza
D'Arnaud and Syndergaard are undoubtedly key chips to acquire, but I'd like to see one of their speedsters thrown in the deal. Given the number of speedy roster infielders they already have (Reyes, Itzuris, Lawrie) and surplus of speedy outfielders who's starting jobs are questionable (Rajai, Bonifacio, Gose), I think they'd have more than enough speed in their lineup to compensate for losing one outfielder. My first choice of the 3 would be Bonifacio, who can play multiple positions, is still only 27, cheap, and might be viewed as an expendable utility player compared to Rajai or Gose.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/16/12
  • spydermet
That's why I think this was a bad trade for us. Toronto was supposed to be a good trade partner because of their surplus of catchers AND OUTFIELDERS. Alderson had said he wanted to fill a couple of needs in any trade of Dickey. I don't doubt that we did get quality players back, but we only filled a need for a catcher. Bonifacio being included would have made this a great deal for us.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/16/12
  • wright75

one word: Syndergaard

this guy is on the same level as harvey and wheeler... the mets could have their own big three in about two years


Edited 12/16/12   by  wright75
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/16/12
  • DFAB
I'm a little surprised we didn't get an OF piece but to say this was a BAD trade is crazy to say. We got TDA! The "off limits, no way he will be traded" "best catching prospect"...and we got him, along with a GREAT pitching prospect. We may even be able to deal for an OFer using a Familia/Mejia and another prospect.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/16/12
  • TheChosen1
If getting an OFer meant not getting Snydergaard in this deal, then we find our OF elsewhere.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/16/12
  • swimmer000
uhm, their outfielders arent that good. you would rather have one of their bu.m as..s outfielders than syndergarrd? youre nuts
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/16/12
  • mysticpiazza
No YOU'RE nuts! So now a kid with less than 200IP in SINGLE A ball has more value than 3 or 4 proven ML outfielders who could immediately give this team the element of speed and defense we're sorely lacking? I hope Syndergaard's the real deal. Enjoy waiting 3 years minimum before he pitches a ML game.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/16/12
  • dejavu1

Big 4: Niese should be included.

Who knows how others develop too, our rotation will be scary if all goes according to plan.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/16/12
  • swimmer000
have you looked at the numbers of gose and Raj? if we wanted one of those outfielders we could have just settled on den dekker or sign some scrub named andres torres. You dont think the mets could have had one if they wanted one? They didnt ask for any of them because they s.uck, they are all 4th or 5th outfielders. Not starters. so my question is, are you nuts? and forget waiting 3 years, thats kids on the fast track, but tis not about that, we have a rich farm system for pitching that opes up other trades for offensive players to be added to our team. you wont be able to do much with the likes of the players you are suggesting.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/17/12
  • cjct

u get talent and then worry about need later.

maybe by getting snydergaard means that we have harvey, wheeler, niese, snydergaard, gee, fulmer, mejia, familia.

we now can possible make a package for a good young OF that we actually want. Mets might have done there research on Gose and had concerns he would hit major league pitching.

u get talent first and then can work around things.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/17/12
  • spydermet

Any time you don't complete your objectives, it is bad. Again, Sandy's objective was to fill several holes with the Dickey trade. He didn't do this. If Janssens, Bonifacio or Gose had been included, we would have more immediate help. Syndegaard may be a great pitcher, but we have Harvey and Wheeler. We need an outfielder. We need a reliever. We need speed. Another starter is good to have, but not a need. This is assuming we couldn't get both. Instead of Buck and the last prospect, I would have insisted on one of those I listed above. We could also have thrown in another player such as Flores or Lutz.

I'm not complaining about the players we received. What I am doing is not getting overly emotional over minor leaguers with no proven record in the Majors, whose acquisition still leaves us with many holes, as fair compensation for the best pitcher of the year.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/17/12
  • spydermet
We find our outfielder where? Be more specific than elsewhere and consider what else we have to give up. We also need relievers. Janssens would have filled a need as well. We don't specifically need Gose included. That is what the Jays balked at.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/17/12
  • sheadro
Exactly. We now have A lot resources to target players through trade. You shouldn't take lesser value because of need in a trade like this. If we don't match up with them on an outfielder fine we got a better asset that could be flipped for a player we like more, or gives us flexibility and depth to trade another
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/17/12
  • _BigNick
Who says he has to fill all the holes with one single trade? Why would he have to operate that way? There are other opportunities, other teams, other possible free agents. We're potentially about to acquire the best catching prospect in baseball, who plays all parts well. We've also added another live arm to add to our farm. Who said we can't flip that arm for an outfielder? This is a great trade for the Mets. If the pieces to be named aren't too bad, we did great, and even if they are we still did great. There's a reason why you won't find any single baseball mind that says we're losing this trade, especially when you take into account our position as a team.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/17/12
  • swimmer000
so you would have rathered an inferior package to fill needs in a minimal way, because all of those players are part time players that are not long term solution.. His goal was not to fill several holes through Dickey, his goal was to get the best deal possible and he did that.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/17/12
  • _BigNick
"We find our outfielder where? Be more specific than elsewhere and consider what else we have to give up. "
Free agency, potential future trades. I named some names yesterday, there's some value in next year's class and trades will be available.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/17/12
  • spydermet

"youre nuts"
Yes, I am. I have the paperwork to prove it. What's your excuse?

"you would rather have one of their bu.m as..s outfielders than syndergarrd?"
I'd rather have one of their outfielders or a reliever, but why can't we have both Syndegaard and an outfielder and reliever?

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/17/12
  • swimmer000
we would have had to give up more or take out d'arnaud or syndergaard. The players we may have had to include or lose would not have equated in value. No sense of grabbing someone else's garbage when we have our own.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/17/12
  • spydermet

"maybe by getting snydergaard means that we have harvey, wheeler, niese, snydergaard, gee, fulmer, mejia, familia."
We really need to make getting an 8th pitcher for a 5 man rotation a priority? 7 wasn't enough?

"we now can possible make a package for a good young OF that we actually want."
Possible is the key word there. What if we can't. Other teams won't want to help us unless it helps them more. Any players we would give up would take away from our strength and perhaps even mean that this trade ends up helping another team if Syndegaard is needed to get another outfielder. I can't predict what will happen, and neither can you. We could have avoided this problem in this trade.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/17/12
  • sheadro

"but why can't we have both Syndegaard and an outfielder and reliever"

Because this is the maximum value we were able to get. It's not like Sandy said "whoa guys slow down you're giving up too much for Dickey." I'm sure both sides made concessions and this is where they were able to agree. We have a lot of needs and we filled the toughest one to find (catcher) in a big way. We can't expect to fill them all with one trade. We traded a CY Young pitcher, there is no way to fool our selves into thinking that we are trying to make the 2013 team better. We weren't thinking of short term needs. If we want Raja Davis we can sign him next year

  • Reply to this Message