"I appreciate the knee-jerk label. Thanks!"
I wasn't directing that towards you at all. I'd dissect your dissection, but we'd just be going in a circle at that point.
"I'm praying this ragtag bunch pulls off a miracle."
God forbid. Trade, Trade!!!
"Did you really think that I said that the Mets just need 2 prospects and then we'll have a dynasty? "
No, but trading for prospects has less of a success rate for most teams than just developing a farm from within. It most likely won't even contribute to a dynasty. People feel smart advocating trading everyone for prospects, but at some point you actually need players who are good now, not in 4 years when a slew of unforeseen changes will occur anyway.
"IF Santana pitches great, maybe he gets a nice return. But IF Santana pitches great, why cant the team be good?"
Right. Why build to be good if you're already good? It's a hypothetical catch 22, but it's worth thinking about.
"We got Zack Wheeler for Beltran"
"No, but trading for prospects has less of a success rate for most teams than just developing a farm from within."
That doesn't even make sense. So Wheeler has a higher likelihood of failure because we traded for him instead of drafting him?
"It most likely won't even contribute to a dynasty."
Name me any team that had extended success without bringing up young players from the minors. And isn't the late 90s yankee model considered the model everyone should strive for? young top talent with talented vets.
"People feel smart advocating trading everyone for prospects, but at some point you actually need players who are good now"
Now i don't want good players? Where are you inferring this from? I'm throwing down a plan of strategy here that i think we need to enact for long term success. If you have a better idea, let me know. Of course they should sign players also that can put us over the top.
<< if santana pitches well through july, there will be teams looking to give up some decent talent for him.>>
DREAM ON! He's making around 25 mill this year and next? How many seasons with the Mets has he finished healthy? I like him, he's got the heart of a lion but NO ONE is giving up good prospects to get him with that contract.
<<Hence the "if Santana gets hot" part of the question.>>
HENCE the question remains. I don't care HOW hot he becomes. He's making between 20-25 mill per year for the next few years. He's had a surgery after EVERY season that he's pitched for the Mets. He's lost 4-6 mph off of his fastball since he joined the Mets. He's not anything close to the pitcher the Mets traded for. I say that as someone that is a big fan of his. You'd have to be INSANE to trade "top prospects" for a guy that you're going to have to pay 55 million to for the next 2 years. He has about FORTY wins since 2008. You tell me how you'd feel if the Mets had given up say Jon Niese and Matt Harvey for Santana in 06 and then you're stuck paying that 55 mill for a guy that might give you 10-14 wins IF he's healthy. NO ONE thinks Santana is going to pitch 200 innings this year.
<<"I'd trade him for a bucket of balls right now."
Glad you're not the GM.>>
At this point in time Santana has a NEGATIVE value. If someone came to the Mets and said I'll TAKE Santana from you AND pick up the WHOLE contract they'd be crazy NOT to take them up on it. The Mets are on the hook for about 55 mill for the next 2 years.
He had an injury that others have never fully recovered from. In his first 2 games, his era was 0.95. We can't expect that level in every game, even if he hadn't been injured. He was our Ace before the injury and is showing that he can be again. Getting rid of a player like Johan would show that we don't want to win. The A's, Expos and other teams that constantly trade stars for prospects don't usually make the Post Season.
We have a good team and need to develop our farm system without sacrificing our Major League Team (Like through the draft). Some trades may help, but we shouldn't trade our best players unless we get equal Major League talent in return.