In the coming weeks, general manager Sandy Alderson will present ownership three avenues the Mets could follow this offseason:
1. Go the Dodgers route. Expand payroll greatly to try and purchase your way out of a variety of problems.
2. Extend David Wright and, perhaps, R.A. Dickey on long-term contracts, but essentially follow a similar course to the present: Continue to grow the farm, use about $10 million in available funds in a roughly $90 million-ish payroll to address needs and just keep running out the clock on the horrible contracts of Jason Bay and Johan Santana.
3. Think bigger picture by trading Wright, Dickey and Jonathon Niese to add eight-to-10 prospects and truly begin to address what has long been the Mets’ downfall: Lack of depth up and down the organization.
I would pick Door No. 3, because the Mets can’t lie to themselves any longer that they are close to success. They now have the same season on endless loop: Stay competitive in the first half, collapse horrifically in the second half because of attrition exposing their utter lack of quality depth.
Obviously, many fans want to see big spending by ownership. The tacit message is big payrolls correlate to ownership sending a powerful message they are doing everything possible to win. But be pragmatic here: You can complain — and you have — that the Wilpons must sell to owners willing to support larger payrolls. But that is fantasy. If the Wilpons did not lose the franchise during the height of their Madoff mess, they are not going anywhere. So don’t expect $150 million-plus payrolls any time soon.
Also, since the end of last season, the four teams that have damned the future by adding payroll or trading prospects to emphasize making the 2012 playoffs are the Marlins, Dodgers, Tigers and Angels. If the season ended yesterday, none would be in the postseason. The Mets’ four largest payrolls were from 2008-11 — between $120 million and $138 million. How did that work out? Big spending generally guarantees only this: big mistakes.
It is hard to get that many big-money decisions right. Even if the Mets had the financial will and way, what would they do this offseason? The two best free agents are Josh Hamilton (who has a history of drug problems) and Zack Greinke (who has a history of psychological problems). They are bad gambles anywhere, especially in an intense Northeast market. The drop off from that pair to the next tier of free agents is dramatic. The Mets would end up overpaying for good, but not great players. They tried that, for example, with Bay.
Besides, the Mets need a catcher, three outfielders, two starting pitchers and most of a bullpen, and that is assuming Ike Davis and Daniel Murphy are an acceptable right side of the infield for a championship contender. You are not going to be right buying that many players. You are going to purchase yourself into years of misery.
My expectation is the Mets are going to follow the second plan — a middle ground when bold definitive action is needed. I sense talking to multiple people in the organization that between the end of the season and when they must pick up a $16 million 2013 option, the Mets will work vigorously to extend Wright (my guess: seven years at $140 million).
Ownership knows it is unpopular. The Mets do not want to further antagonize an already hostile fan base by trading the organization’s most popular figure. Signing Wright essentially would be $20 million a year in ownership advertising: Look, we are willing to spend on the right guys.
I get it. Wright is the kind of person/player you want to associate with your franchise.
But Alderson always has professed to hate what he calls “second-generation contracts,” pacts done not early in the career, but extensions that carry players into their late 30s and almost certain decline.
If the Mets were ready to have a sustained period of success, then they should operate like a big-market team right now, retain Wright and the other above-average entities, increase payroll and go for it. But this season is yet another reminder that the organization has not come close to maturing to that level.
Two offseasons ago, the Mets essentially bought into the Oakland blueprint by empowering the former A’s braintrust of Alderson, J.P. Ricciardi and Paul DePodesta. They should follow it with this caveat: Unlike the A’s, this is an organization that should go to a
$150 million payroll when the cornerstones for a long-term contender are in place. They aren’t there yet.
For those who say you can’t trade Wright, Dickey and Niese, I would point out Oakland dealt three in-their-prime players last offseason: Andrew Bailey, Trevor Cahill and Gio Gonzalez. Yes, they did that because of problematic finances. But the A’s also did it because they recognized they did not have enough organizational depth to win long term even keeping that trio. They packaged each with a smaller piece and received 10 prospects back that include players such as Jarrod Parker, Josh Reddick, Ryan Cook, Tommy Milone and Derek Norris that have them ahead of the Angels and in contention now.
Plus, when you trade experience for youth, you not only get the prospects, but you get the saved money to redistribute elsewhere. In the A’s case, that helped them sign burgeoning star Yoenis Cespedes. Wright, Dickey and Niese are due $24 million next year.
Now making trades, like free agency, is risky. The Mets’ goal should be to begin next season in the top 10 in the sport in 25-and-under talent. Teams no longer can speed up that process in the draft and international markets because of spending limits via the new collective bargaining agreement. And though the Mets have Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler, they are not overly populated with high-end youngsters.
If you suggest Jeurys Familia, Wilmer Flores, etc., then you just have Mets-colored glasses. Every team has prospects of that level. Harvey and Wheeler are distinct. The Mets need more. That begins with Wright.
If a team obtains Wright and keeps him all year, it would get draft-pick compensation, which increases
the value of the third baseman in a trade. Also because Wright is not represented by an agent such as Scott Boras or Dan Lozano
likely to push him to free agency no matter what, an acquiring team would feel it has a chance to sign him long term, which also potentially improves the return to the Mets.
If the Angels were willing to give up three of their 10 best prospects for half a season of Greinke with no compensation, Wright should bring back at least one elite-caliber prospect and two B-plusses. Plus, if Wright doesn’t sign in a new locale, what precludes the Mets from acquiring the prospects and re-signing Wright next offseason? In that scenario, the Mets have both the prospects and Wright.
Remember, the A’s traded Gonzalez and Cahill—– their 2011 leaders in innings and wins — and are better in 2012. So it is not a death sentence if the Mets do the same with their innings/wins leaders Dickey and Niese.
The industry views Niese as better than Cahill and a grade down from Gonzalez. That should mean three-to-four very good prospects in a trade. Teams with deep systems pushing to win in 2013 — such as the Blue Jays, Red Sox, Royals and Padres — could solve multiple Mets long-term needs in exchange for a young, major league-proven lefty on a good contract (six years at $46.5 million after this season, including two options).
Dickey turns 38 next month and lives by a trick pitch. How long would you comfortably extend him for, and at what price? He is $5 million for 2013 and also could come with compensation picks for an acquiring team, so I think in a pitching-hungry atmosphere with a bad free-agent class, the Mets could get at least two very good prospects.
In addition, the Mets should see what is available for Lucas Duda and Daniel Murphy. For example, the Rays always have liked Duda. Could the Mets get lefty Jake McGee and another piece? The Indians badly need offense and want to close with Vinny Pestrano next year, so could the Mets turn Murphy into closer Chris Perez? Perez, McGee, Frank Francisco, Bobby Parnell and Josh Edgin would provide the Mets a power bullpen, which would help bring at least respectability next year.
Lastly, in this plan the Mets suddenly have
$35 million available for 2013 (dollars saved for Wright, Niese and Dickey plus the $10 million-ish they were going to spend). They should be the most aggressive team in signing one-year free agents in the $500,000-to-$4 million range. It will help them avoid the 2012 Astros-like humiliation of just tanking a season without resistance while not bogging down long-term finances.
Maybe a bunch hit, Santana can pitch successfully through a season, Harvey and Wheeler grow up fast and the Mets find themselves in a wild card race. But, if not, the limited pay/one-year commitment makes those free agents who play well for the Mets tradeable in midseason to further seed the system.
Sure, the Mets could, say, sign Torii Hunter and Francisco Liriano, combine it with what they have and hope that elevates them to 86-plus wins. But that isn’t good enough, and it certainly does nothing for long-term sustainability.
I know Mets fans don’t want to hear “be patient.” But this organization can’t do this with bandages any longer. They need bold action to deepen their talent foundation. They need to get to the point where they have fewer needs so that when it is time to grow the payroll toward $150 million, they can go to the top of the market on one or two items to finish off a championship contender.