The Dodgers are having a great offseason and the feeling among some is that they’re making the gap between themselves and the rest of the league too much to overcome.
Everyone is looking at the lineup, but where the Dodgers were always strong was the pitching. It was due to the lineup that they won or lost, but the pitching. Their failures in the playoffs were tied to Kershaw’s struggles. So, when they finally move him to a lesser role, they succeeded.
The Mets lineup can be very formidable. But, can you say the same for the pitching? Senga is injured; Manaea is more of a #2 than an ace; what will Holmes and Montas be? Peterson always seems to have a higher xERA than actual ERA, because he walks people at higher than average rate. This is the real reason the Mets aren’t anywhere near the Dodgers.
Senga was injured last year. He didn't have major injuries in Japan and he was healthy his first year in the U.S. Perhaps you've heard something I haven't about his injuries lingering into 2025. Otherwise, I wouldn't be any more worried about him being injured than any other pitcher.
I dont buy the idea there is only the Dodgers path to get to perennial success. Sure, theres no doubt things take time. And I admire all the work Cohen has done under the hood to improve the entire organization. However, I reject the idea that "time" is the primary limiter to success. To me success comes when the circles of the best players and coaching align or are forced into alignment (or both) at a time when there are weaknesses elsewhere in the competition. I see the Mets on a shorter (1-3 yr) time line to get to a championship and so I am now less tolerant of "wait and see if bag of prospects can prove themselves" while the best players making the most money are aging by the minute. I dont want to see 5 years from now, in year 9 of Lindors contract that we have the right prospects in place. For me, as Gus stated, Im quite underwhelmed with the pitching staff of dreams, hopes, and crossed fingers. So I think it was a big mistake not to bring in a real #1 (like a 1 on most every team), like Burnes. I hope whatever mystery dust Stearns has for being a pitching whisperer really come through. Vladi Jr in 26!!!
Chris, I’m nodding in agreement while reading your comment and asking myself why the Mets aren’t anywhere near taking this route with so much payroll in the balance? So, I present to you two views and tell me if you think either is in play:
1. The starters don’t go more than five or six innings, so why go crazy with big names and instead invest in a great bullpen. P.S.: It appears that Reed Garrett has graded out very good overall and close to Tanner Scott, according to a prominent website.
2. Hold the fort while waiting for Sproat, Tong, McLean and other top upper minors arms to graduate.
1. I guess, but really, even top pitchers are barely going more than 6 (really, 2 turns). The “great bullpen” plan, I think basically invented by the 2o15 Royals, could be a plan, but Im not sure Im seeing that in what we have for 25. So Im about 50/50 on that.
2. Yeah, I guess this feels more likely, even though it’s full of hope as well, but i get it. Scott (hopefully), Sproat, Tong are all on a path to get up soonish.
3. Let me propose: hubris. Stearns thinks he’s figured out something that no one else has or maybe can.
Or maybe he's figured out that signing starting pitchers on the wrong side of 30 to long-term deals ends up in failure more often than it ends up in success.
Do you want it fast or do you want it right? You saw what happened when they tried to accelerate the program by stockpiling guys on the wrong side of 30 back in the 2022 and 2023 offseasons.
One of Stearns' core principles is not to give SP a long-term deal who are on the wrong side of 30. But you want him to throw that out the window because you want an ace and you want one now? That seems, uh, foolish to me.
I'm not suggesting that anyone go out and turn cartwheels over this pitching staff here in January. It's just that maybe we can give the guy who's led his teams to five playoff berths in the last six years he's been in charge some slack and maybe acknowledge that he knows more about how to build a winning staff than guys on the internet.
Thats a false narrative. I now want it good and fast. The idea it "has" to be some painful forever circuitous route makes no sense to me. In any event, look at your curving path, we've been on that for many years now. We are years into Cohen ownership and you can count plenty of the years before that. The thing is, he is paying Soto a million dollars a week or thereabouts and to me the circles are aligning. Now is not the time to feel weak kneed. Im ok passing on Pete, as long as they win the Guerrero sweepstakes, at whatever the cost. If 25 is a CBT reset, then, I guess we live with what we have. I also think comparing signing Burnes for 6-7 years with the looooong past prime Scherzer/Verlander escapade is bonkers. Burnes would be out of the contract at an age younger than when either of the grandpas signed with the Mets. False equivalency.
But the comparison is so much more than the Mets' signings - it's to all pitchers 30 and above signed by all teams to big money, multi-year deals. It's a losing bet more times than not.
I guess it all depends on your interpretation of a long-term deal. Obviously, Stearns felt comfortable going three years. He didn't feel comfortable going six years, at a higher AAV, even to a younger guy with a longer track record of success.
The Dodgers certainly look intimidating and have had a popular offseason. They also look to have the money to go toe to toe with the wealthiest owner in baseball. It’s nice to look at them, be concerned about them, want to follow their model.
As the scribbly line at the top of the article illustrates, progress is messy…so, we don’t really know where the Mets are on a timeline.
What we do know is that the Mets are in the NL East. We do know that it is extremely hard to win without pitching, and in the modern game, it’s rad to win without pitching depth. On paper, the Dodger pitching depth is much much deeper than the Met depth. On paper, the Mets may be the third best team in their division. I expect Stearns to make multiple additions between now and opening day to significantly close those gaps.
As to where the Mets are on the success timeline...
One way to look at that is that perhaps the worst thing that could have happened in 2024 was for the Mets to experience the success that they did at the major league level. Entering the season, the majority of people thought they were (more or less) a .500 team. But they were better than that and advanced to the NLCS. If they had finished with 84 wins - which would have exceeded most forecasts - they would have failed to make the playoffs and people wouldn't have expected them to go toe-to-toe with the Dodgers, either in the offseason or in 2025.
From a purely theoretical POV, it would have been better for the Mets to have been worse with the major league team and been better with their top prospects. If Mauricio, Tidwell and Williams were all healthy and productive, we'd feel better about their MLB futures than we do now. We'd view them as three answers, rather than three question marks.
If the Mets won 84 games in '24 and 87 games in '25, we'd view them on an inevitable upward slant. But since they won 89 games in '24, an 87-win season this year will be viewed as going backwards.
I don't know how many images I viewed for this piece but the one pictured here wasn't chosen by accident.
There isn’t any “bad success”. This successes built memories for us fans that we will be talking about for a long time. If they didn’t make the playoffs, Lindor may have been shut down and that homerun against the Braves in the top of the ninth doesn’t happen. Or, that homerun in the top of the ninth in Milwaukee by Alonso. Or, the grand slam in the sixth by Lindor against the Phillies. Or, Jesse Winker immortal helmet slam. Or, the five runs in the eighth inning of Game 1 after Wheeler had them in handcuffs for seven innings and then came out of the game. Or, Mark Vientos’ two homerun game and series that became his coming out party nationally.
I feel the Mets grew as an organization and a fan base due to this success. As you pointed to, Stearns has gained much popularity and patience with the fans due to his “Aaron Rodgers” type “Relax” persona. We may not be thrilled with the rotation, but we comparing them to the team they are striving to be that has six or seven aces, when even the team in front of them in the standings has a better rotation - on paper at least - than the Mets do and just got Lazardo to make it better. Think deep down Stearns prefers what they have to what the Dodgers have?
I don't disagree with anything you wrote in the first graph, which is why I used the word "theoretical."
I can see the Mets growing as an organization. The fan base? The only thing the fan base is growing is more entitled and more impatient. Instead, they're demanding immediate answers to questions that require patience and more (successful) long-term answers.
I’m not sure it’s fair to label the fan base as growing more and more impatient. First, it is painting the group with a broad stroke. Now, I’ll do that myself lol and say that fan bases (in general) are always impatient and entitled, so I see it as more of a constant based on recency bias…which in the offseason is based on perceived infilled holes or filled holes with uninspiring solutions. All GMs deserve the entire offseason before being “graded”, and Stearns has certainly earned it based on his resume. Again, to us Met fans, the Dodgers are now the evil empire. To the rest of baseball, maybe the Uncle Stevie Mets are just as evil, if not more evil. It’s all relative.
I’ll agree with Gus on 2024…while it was disappointing to fall just short, it was a great ride, independent of negative future consequences. For the core, they now know they can handle prime time fall baseball.
I guess I view it as the difference between guys who call up talk radio and propose trading three trash players for one superstar and ones who have a better understanding of the game.
I agree, the talk radio caller is always impatient and entitled. But my opinion is that otherwise reasonable fans are now impatient and entitled, too.
The impatient part seems to be warranted. The Mets last World Series championship was wrapped up about two weeks after my daughter was born. Since then she has graduated from high school, college, a Masters Program, moved to the west coast, got married, and had two kids. She is now 38 years old. There are 30 MLB teams. On average, each team should win once every 30 years. Sorry, we're a little tired of waiting.
Maybe because my college basketball team last won it all in '83, my NBA team last won it all in '73 and my NFL team has never won the Super Bowl, the Mets' streak doesn't seem that terrible.
Still, I get your point. It's just that I believe in what Stearns and the Mets are doing, that they're doing things in a smart way to achieve the stated goal of long-term sustainability. It's neither Stearns nor Cohen's fault that the Mets didn't win it all in either 2000 or 2015 when they had the better teams.
If the plan was to just try to outspend the Dodgers then that's not sustainable long term. On paper, the Dodgers are way better than everyone else, but the beauty of baseball, as Brian pointed out, is that you can win 111 regular season games and still not come away with the championship.
The Mets have to find their own formula for success. It may not look like signing every shiney free agent out there (Soto aside). It may mean passing on the likes of Fried and Burnes in favor of guys with upside. We all saw how quickly Stearns was willing to pivot from players that didn't work out...but imagine we were paying one of those guys $20 M a year for the next 5 years and we felt stuck with them. I prefer the ability to cut a guy loose and search for a replacement.
Are the Mets as good as the Dodgers? No. The Mets just need to be good enough to reach the playoffs. Then the chips are on the table and anything can happen.
Can’t argue a single syllable of this. IOW, everybody complaining about signing A.J. Minter & not Tanner Scott, pipe down. LOL
Everyone is looking at the lineup, but where the Dodgers were always strong was the pitching. It was due to the lineup that they won or lost, but the pitching. Their failures in the playoffs were tied to Kershaw’s struggles. So, when they finally move him to a lesser role, they succeeded.
The Mets lineup can be very formidable. But, can you say the same for the pitching? Senga is injured; Manaea is more of a #2 than an ace; what will Holmes and Montas be? Peterson always seems to have a higher xERA than actual ERA, because he walks people at higher than average rate. This is the real reason the Mets aren’t anywhere near the Dodgers.
Senga was injured last year. He didn't have major injuries in Japan and he was healthy his first year in the U.S. Perhaps you've heard something I haven't about his injuries lingering into 2025. Otherwise, I wouldn't be any more worried about him being injured than any other pitcher.
I dont buy the idea there is only the Dodgers path to get to perennial success. Sure, theres no doubt things take time. And I admire all the work Cohen has done under the hood to improve the entire organization. However, I reject the idea that "time" is the primary limiter to success. To me success comes when the circles of the best players and coaching align or are forced into alignment (or both) at a time when there are weaknesses elsewhere in the competition. I see the Mets on a shorter (1-3 yr) time line to get to a championship and so I am now less tolerant of "wait and see if bag of prospects can prove themselves" while the best players making the most money are aging by the minute. I dont want to see 5 years from now, in year 9 of Lindors contract that we have the right prospects in place. For me, as Gus stated, Im quite underwhelmed with the pitching staff of dreams, hopes, and crossed fingers. So I think it was a big mistake not to bring in a real #1 (like a 1 on most every team), like Burnes. I hope whatever mystery dust Stearns has for being a pitching whisperer really come through. Vladi Jr in 26!!!
Chris, I’m nodding in agreement while reading your comment and asking myself why the Mets aren’t anywhere near taking this route with so much payroll in the balance? So, I present to you two views and tell me if you think either is in play:
1. The starters don’t go more than five or six innings, so why go crazy with big names and instead invest in a great bullpen. P.S.: It appears that Reed Garrett has graded out very good overall and close to Tanner Scott, according to a prominent website.
2. Hold the fort while waiting for Sproat, Tong, McLean and other top upper minors arms to graduate.
What else can it be?
1. I guess, but really, even top pitchers are barely going more than 6 (really, 2 turns). The “great bullpen” plan, I think basically invented by the 2o15 Royals, could be a plan, but Im not sure Im seeing that in what we have for 25. So Im about 50/50 on that.
2. Yeah, I guess this feels more likely, even though it’s full of hope as well, but i get it. Scott (hopefully), Sproat, Tong are all on a path to get up soonish.
3. Let me propose: hubris. Stearns thinks he’s figured out something that no one else has or maybe can.
Or maybe he's figured out that signing starting pitchers on the wrong side of 30 to long-term deals ends up in failure more often than it ends up in success.
Do you want it fast or do you want it right? You saw what happened when they tried to accelerate the program by stockpiling guys on the wrong side of 30 back in the 2022 and 2023 offseasons.
One of Stearns' core principles is not to give SP a long-term deal who are on the wrong side of 30. But you want him to throw that out the window because you want an ace and you want one now? That seems, uh, foolish to me.
I'm not suggesting that anyone go out and turn cartwheels over this pitching staff here in January. It's just that maybe we can give the guy who's led his teams to five playoff berths in the last six years he's been in charge some slack and maybe acknowledge that he knows more about how to build a winning staff than guys on the internet.
Thats a false narrative. I now want it good and fast. The idea it "has" to be some painful forever circuitous route makes no sense to me. In any event, look at your curving path, we've been on that for many years now. We are years into Cohen ownership and you can count plenty of the years before that. The thing is, he is paying Soto a million dollars a week or thereabouts and to me the circles are aligning. Now is not the time to feel weak kneed. Im ok passing on Pete, as long as they win the Guerrero sweepstakes, at whatever the cost. If 25 is a CBT reset, then, I guess we live with what we have. I also think comparing signing Burnes for 6-7 years with the looooong past prime Scherzer/Verlander escapade is bonkers. Burnes would be out of the contract at an age younger than when either of the grandpas signed with the Mets. False equivalency.
But the comparison is so much more than the Mets' signings - it's to all pitchers 30 and above signed by all teams to big money, multi-year deals. It's a losing bet more times than not.
Even Manaea? Burnes at 30+6 is a better deal than Manaea.
I guess it all depends on your interpretation of a long-term deal. Obviously, Stearns felt comfortable going three years. He didn't feel comfortable going six years, at a higher AAV, even to a younger guy with a longer track record of success.
The Dodgers certainly look intimidating and have had a popular offseason. They also look to have the money to go toe to toe with the wealthiest owner in baseball. It’s nice to look at them, be concerned about them, want to follow their model.
As the scribbly line at the top of the article illustrates, progress is messy…so, we don’t really know where the Mets are on a timeline.
What we do know is that the Mets are in the NL East. We do know that it is extremely hard to win without pitching, and in the modern game, it’s rad to win without pitching depth. On paper, the Dodger pitching depth is much much deeper than the Met depth. On paper, the Mets may be the third best team in their division. I expect Stearns to make multiple additions between now and opening day to significantly close those gaps.
As to where the Mets are on the success timeline...
One way to look at that is that perhaps the worst thing that could have happened in 2024 was for the Mets to experience the success that they did at the major league level. Entering the season, the majority of people thought they were (more or less) a .500 team. But they were better than that and advanced to the NLCS. If they had finished with 84 wins - which would have exceeded most forecasts - they would have failed to make the playoffs and people wouldn't have expected them to go toe-to-toe with the Dodgers, either in the offseason or in 2025.
From a purely theoretical POV, it would have been better for the Mets to have been worse with the major league team and been better with their top prospects. If Mauricio, Tidwell and Williams were all healthy and productive, we'd feel better about their MLB futures than we do now. We'd view them as three answers, rather than three question marks.
If the Mets won 84 games in '24 and 87 games in '25, we'd view them on an inevitable upward slant. But since they won 89 games in '24, an 87-win season this year will be viewed as going backwards.
I don't know how many images I viewed for this piece but the one pictured here wasn't chosen by accident.
There isn’t any “bad success”. This successes built memories for us fans that we will be talking about for a long time. If they didn’t make the playoffs, Lindor may have been shut down and that homerun against the Braves in the top of the ninth doesn’t happen. Or, that homerun in the top of the ninth in Milwaukee by Alonso. Or, the grand slam in the sixth by Lindor against the Phillies. Or, Jesse Winker immortal helmet slam. Or, the five runs in the eighth inning of Game 1 after Wheeler had them in handcuffs for seven innings and then came out of the game. Or, Mark Vientos’ two homerun game and series that became his coming out party nationally.
I feel the Mets grew as an organization and a fan base due to this success. As you pointed to, Stearns has gained much popularity and patience with the fans due to his “Aaron Rodgers” type “Relax” persona. We may not be thrilled with the rotation, but we comparing them to the team they are striving to be that has six or seven aces, when even the team in front of them in the standings has a better rotation - on paper at least - than the Mets do and just got Lazardo to make it better. Think deep down Stearns prefers what they have to what the Dodgers have?
I don't disagree with anything you wrote in the first graph, which is why I used the word "theoretical."
I can see the Mets growing as an organization. The fan base? The only thing the fan base is growing is more entitled and more impatient. Instead, they're demanding immediate answers to questions that require patience and more (successful) long-term answers.
Very fair point.
I’m not sure it’s fair to label the fan base as growing more and more impatient. First, it is painting the group with a broad stroke. Now, I’ll do that myself lol and say that fan bases (in general) are always impatient and entitled, so I see it as more of a constant based on recency bias…which in the offseason is based on perceived infilled holes or filled holes with uninspiring solutions. All GMs deserve the entire offseason before being “graded”, and Stearns has certainly earned it based on his resume. Again, to us Met fans, the Dodgers are now the evil empire. To the rest of baseball, maybe the Uncle Stevie Mets are just as evil, if not more evil. It’s all relative.
I’ll agree with Gus on 2024…while it was disappointing to fall just short, it was a great ride, independent of negative future consequences. For the core, they now know they can handle prime time fall baseball.
I guess I view it as the difference between guys who call up talk radio and propose trading three trash players for one superstar and ones who have a better understanding of the game.
I agree, the talk radio caller is always impatient and entitled. But my opinion is that otherwise reasonable fans are now impatient and entitled, too.
The impatient part seems to be warranted. The Mets last World Series championship was wrapped up about two weeks after my daughter was born. Since then she has graduated from high school, college, a Masters Program, moved to the west coast, got married, and had two kids. She is now 38 years old. There are 30 MLB teams. On average, each team should win once every 30 years. Sorry, we're a little tired of waiting.
Maybe because my college basketball team last won it all in '83, my NBA team last won it all in '73 and my NFL team has never won the Super Bowl, the Mets' streak doesn't seem that terrible.
Still, I get your point. It's just that I believe in what Stearns and the Mets are doing, that they're doing things in a smart way to achieve the stated goal of long-term sustainability. It's neither Stearns nor Cohen's fault that the Mets didn't win it all in either 2000 or 2015 when they had the better teams.
If the plan was to just try to outspend the Dodgers then that's not sustainable long term. On paper, the Dodgers are way better than everyone else, but the beauty of baseball, as Brian pointed out, is that you can win 111 regular season games and still not come away with the championship.
The Mets have to find their own formula for success. It may not look like signing every shiney free agent out there (Soto aside). It may mean passing on the likes of Fried and Burnes in favor of guys with upside. We all saw how quickly Stearns was willing to pivot from players that didn't work out...but imagine we were paying one of those guys $20 M a year for the next 5 years and we felt stuck with them. I prefer the ability to cut a guy loose and search for a replacement.
Are the Mets as good as the Dodgers? No. The Mets just need to be good enough to reach the playoffs. Then the chips are on the table and anything can happen.