Brian, this is a really strong post — especially the way you separate fan frustration from the actual roster decisions Stearns now has to make.
On Contreras/Polanco, my guess is still that Stearns preferred Contreras, but St. Louis wanted Jonah Tong and that ended the discussion.
And maybe the Nimmo-for-Semien deal was Stearns seeing the younger outfield picture earlier than most of us did. We did not all have an unequivocal view of Ewing, Benge, and Morabito at that point, and Morabito’s stock rose significantly after the Arizona Fall League.
I am also higher on Carson Benge than I expected to be this quickly. At his age, I see a three-tool player who could plausibly grow into five tools with strength and physical maturation. If the Mets reach the point of benching Semien, I would rather see Benge tested at second and Morabito in right, where Morabito’s outfield defense matters.
The larger roster question is how the Mets fit Morabito, Ewing, Benge, Soto, and whatever else Stearns builds next into the same long-term picture.
That is why the “extend Nimmo forever” sentiment always made me uneasy. Maybe his contract would have remained tradable after this season, but he would still have had four years left. A future CBA probably will not shackle the Dodgers or ball-and-chain the Mets, but grandfathering only protects contract validity. It does not guarantee trade value, defensive fit, aging-curve comfort, or roster flexibility.
Nimmo was a very good Met. But if the organization is turning toward younger athleticism and run prevention, where exactly would he have fit two or three years from now?
With Soto, Ewing, Morabito, and Benge all part of the conversation — and with the Mets still clearly ahead of Miami but not close to where they need to be — why wait until next spring to evaluate aggressively?
Alvarez is another fascinating case. Maybe he is finally starting to understand what has to change. That violent, max-effort swing may have contributed to the knee issue, and he was acquired by a previous GM. These are exactly the kinds of player-development calls Stearns has to make without sentimentality.
At some point, sentimentality becomes a roster obstacle.
I didn't recognize it at the time the deal was made but by Spring Training, it was my opinion that trading Nimmo was about opening a spot for Benge, more so than getting out of the last few years of Nimmo's deal.
Maybe 50% defensive upgrade, 40% opening up OF spot and 10% getting out from the final few years.
Regardless of the percentages, it's a good example of why one should consistently re-evaluate things, as an initial thought is not always correct.
All of us would gladly take Marcus Semien setting a Mets record for sacrifice flies, wouldn’t we?
And ****Bichette**** yesterday was a perfect example of the approach this lineup needs. He drove in the crucial runs by reading the conditions and not trying to overpower the wind blowing in. That is winning baseball: adjust to the park, take the RBI, and stop trying to turn every important at-bat into a launch-angle audition.
Nice post and enjoyed the comments back and forth. Biggest takeaway was the wake up call that maybe, just maybe, Stearns had a plan to bring up youth and that Alonso is not quite what he was and Diaz is on the shelf (that I’m thrilled about). Your proposed lineup contains a lot of young players who have talent and untapped potential. And yes, Stearns has to answer for Polanco and Semien, two disappointing whoppers.
If the actual plan included Benge and Ewing why was Tucker the number one (even though missed) priority? And if there actually was/is a plan, why would you let your first basemen walk and not pursue an actual first baseman? Especially after being cute with the term "run prevention" as an allude to needing more defense.
If youth was the plan, why spend a ton of money on Bichette, Polanco, and Semien. Why trade Williams and Sproat for a rental?
I see a mess of a "plan" that burned money and a season. Now some youth is being brought up because the plan totally backfired. Hopefully some of them are keepers but they are not here by grand design - they are here because it is the only move left to try and salvage a brutal offseason.
I believe the actual plan did include Benge but not Ewing.
They went after Tucker first because it was a better fit. When he opted for the Dodgers, the Mets pivoted for what they hoped would be an equivalent bat but a worse fit. They signed Bichette and within the week they traded for Robert to complete the OF.
You let your 1B walk because he was going to get paid much more than he was worth.
I believe it was a giant mistake not to sign Murakami, who was young enough to play 1B for a decade.
It was pretty clear the Mets needed someone to slot in at the top of their rotation. And the price of that was two young guys who were no longer considered at the top of the farm system at their respective positions. Part of the farm system's job is to create enough prospects to have good ones to trade.
No one has to like - as you put it - "the plan." But just because you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't exist. I wasn't a giant fan of Stearns' plan but it was easy to see why he did the things he did.
I didn't say he didn't have one. I said it was a mess of a plan. I stand by that. I did add some sarcastic rhetorical questions as it was that stupid a plan.
The only one dumber in the off-season was me as I renewed my tickets. You can't give them away now - and I have tried!
Brian, this is a really strong post — especially the way you separate fan frustration from the actual roster decisions Stearns now has to make.
On Contreras/Polanco, my guess is still that Stearns preferred Contreras, but St. Louis wanted Jonah Tong and that ended the discussion.
And maybe the Nimmo-for-Semien deal was Stearns seeing the younger outfield picture earlier than most of us did. We did not all have an unequivocal view of Ewing, Benge, and Morabito at that point, and Morabito’s stock rose significantly after the Arizona Fall League.
I am also higher on Carson Benge than I expected to be this quickly. At his age, I see a three-tool player who could plausibly grow into five tools with strength and physical maturation. If the Mets reach the point of benching Semien, I would rather see Benge tested at second and Morabito in right, where Morabito’s outfield defense matters.
The larger roster question is how the Mets fit Morabito, Ewing, Benge, Soto, and whatever else Stearns builds next into the same long-term picture.
That is why the “extend Nimmo forever” sentiment always made me uneasy. Maybe his contract would have remained tradable after this season, but he would still have had four years left. A future CBA probably will not shackle the Dodgers or ball-and-chain the Mets, but grandfathering only protects contract validity. It does not guarantee trade value, defensive fit, aging-curve comfort, or roster flexibility.
Nimmo was a very good Met. But if the organization is turning toward younger athleticism and run prevention, where exactly would he have fit two or three years from now?
With Soto, Ewing, Morabito, and Benge all part of the conversation — and with the Mets still clearly ahead of Miami but not close to where they need to be — why wait until next spring to evaluate aggressively?
Alvarez is another fascinating case. Maybe he is finally starting to understand what has to change. That violent, max-effort swing may have contributed to the knee issue, and he was acquired by a previous GM. These are exactly the kinds of player-development calls Stearns has to make without sentimentality.
At some point, sentimentality becomes a roster obstacle.
Thanks for the kind words!
I didn't recognize it at the time the deal was made but by Spring Training, it was my opinion that trading Nimmo was about opening a spot for Benge, more so than getting out of the last few years of Nimmo's deal.
Maybe 50% defensive upgrade, 40% opening up OF spot and 10% getting out from the final few years.
Regardless of the percentages, it's a good example of why one should consistently re-evaluate things, as an initial thought is not always correct.
All of us would gladly take Marcus Semien setting a Mets record for sacrifice flies, wouldn’t we?
And ****Bichette**** yesterday was a perfect example of the approach this lineup needs. He drove in the crucial runs by reading the conditions and not trying to overpower the wind blowing in. That is winning baseball: adjust to the park, take the RBI, and stop trying to turn every important at-bat into a launch-angle audition.
Please don't count me among those glad for Marcus Semien's outs, I mean sacrifice flies.
Two of them came in games the Mets lost and the other came in a 9-run win. Here is the Win Probability Added for those sac flies:
(-0.152)
0.005
(-0.059)
Total: (-0.206)
They did more harm than good, leaving the Mets in a worse-off position, even with three runs scoring.
Applauding this is, at best, damning with faint praise.
Nice post and enjoyed the comments back and forth. Biggest takeaway was the wake up call that maybe, just maybe, Stearns had a plan to bring up youth and that Alonso is not quite what he was and Diaz is on the shelf (that I’m thrilled about). Your proposed lineup contains a lot of young players who have talent and untapped potential. And yes, Stearns has to answer for Polanco and Semien, two disappointing whoppers.
If the actual plan included Benge and Ewing why was Tucker the number one (even though missed) priority? And if there actually was/is a plan, why would you let your first basemen walk and not pursue an actual first baseman? Especially after being cute with the term "run prevention" as an allude to needing more defense.
If youth was the plan, why spend a ton of money on Bichette, Polanco, and Semien. Why trade Williams and Sproat for a rental?
I see a mess of a "plan" that burned money and a season. Now some youth is being brought up because the plan totally backfired. Hopefully some of them are keepers but they are not here by grand design - they are here because it is the only move left to try and salvage a brutal offseason.
I believe the actual plan did include Benge but not Ewing.
They went after Tucker first because it was a better fit. When he opted for the Dodgers, the Mets pivoted for what they hoped would be an equivalent bat but a worse fit. They signed Bichette and within the week they traded for Robert to complete the OF.
You let your 1B walk because he was going to get paid much more than he was worth.
I believe it was a giant mistake not to sign Murakami, who was young enough to play 1B for a decade.
It was pretty clear the Mets needed someone to slot in at the top of their rotation. And the price of that was two young guys who were no longer considered at the top of the farm system at their respective positions. Part of the farm system's job is to create enough prospects to have good ones to trade.
No one has to like - as you put it - "the plan." But just because you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't exist. I wasn't a giant fan of Stearns' plan but it was easy to see why he did the things he did.
I didn't say he didn't have one. I said it was a mess of a plan. I stand by that. I did add some sarcastic rhetorical questions as it was that stupid a plan.
The only one dumber in the off-season was me as I renewed my tickets. You can't give them away now - and I have tried!