Throughout the offseason, many were calling for Dillon Gee to be traded as part of an extravagant trade package for a superstar (i.e Troy Tulowitzki). However, there is certainly no shame in trading Dillon Gee in a three player deal or even a one for one swap. This is just one of the many examples of ways the team can get better. As much as I feel this won't go over too well, I don't feel like the Mets needed to make any big moves this offseason. Should they have done more than what they did? Of course they should have, but by no means is a "blockbuster" acquisition necessary.
 |
| Photo credit to NY Daily News |
In all honesty, I perfectly understand the point of view of the fans who have wanted to see the team pull off a big acquisition. To be honest myself, I wanted the Mets to trade for Starlin Castro months ago until I realized that we have a good option at short right now. That was when I came to the realization that big trades or signings don't always translate to winning teams.
I could quite easily cop out here and go with the Jason Bay signing or even the 2009 Mets, but that's too easy (plus, at least that horrible season led to us drafting a certain ace). I want to dig a little deeper. I want to give you the record of two teams.
Team A 71-91
Team B 96-76
The two teams come from 2003, and even from the same division. Team A was the Texas Rangers and Team B was the Oakland Athletics. The Rangers ranked fifth in all of Major League Baseball in team payroll. The A's, they ranked in the bottom ten in team payroll. It also helps to mention the Rangers had a roster of Mark Teixeira, Michael Young, Juan Gonzalez, Raphael Palmero, Rueben Sierra and their star player, Alex Rodriguez.
Now this was a team that had plenty of star power throughout. However, the team had a fatal flaw. Even with their lineup filled with big name stars, their pitching staff was vomit inducing. The team finished dead last in the majors in team ERA. It is clear to me that the team seemed to be overly focused on having big stars on the team instead of trying to address the entire team. You see, I am more geared toward trying to build a team of twenty five team players that will make the club better.
The two teams come from 2003, and even from the same division. Team A was the Texas Rangers and Team B was the Oakland Athletics. The Rangers ranked fifth in all of Major League Baseball in team payroll. The A's, they ranked in the bottom ten in team payroll. It also helps to mention the Rangers had a roster of Mark Teixeira, Michael Young, Juan Gonzalez, Raphael Palmero, Rueben Sierra and their star player, Alex Rodriguez.
Now this was a team that had plenty of star power throughout. However, the team had a fatal flaw. Even with their lineup filled with big name stars, their pitching staff was vomit inducing. The team finished dead last in the majors in team ERA. It is clear to me that the team seemed to be overly focused on having big stars on the team instead of trying to address the entire team. You see, I am more geared toward trying to build a team of twenty five team players that will make the club better.
 |
| Credit to sportingnews.printstown.com |
I talked about the Rangers, but now it is time I talk about the famous 2003 A's. These A's as most people know, are the team that inspired the phenomenal book turned into a hit film, "Moneyball". You all know the story of how in the offseason of 2002, Billy Beane tried to mitigate the losses of Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and Jason Isringhausen, all through free agency.
There is a scene in the actual movie itself where Paul Depodesta, played by Jonah Hill, says that a teams goal should not be to buy players, but rather to buy wins.
As the movie progresses, Billy Beane and company decide to invest in undervalued players like Scott Hatteberg due to his on base percentage (a highly overlooked stat at the time) and Chad Bradford (even though he was on the team beforehand, but let's roll with it) because of his submarine delivery, which was seen as unconventional and odd.
The reason these moves proved to be so significant was because even though these were unproven players, they filled a role that the team needed them for. In a sense, because of their limited budget, the A's couldn't afford to bring stars in, so they needed to bring in a roster of twenty five guys that would contribute in their own way.
There was another reason why I brought up the 2003 A's. The main reason I brought them up is because right now, they are perhaps one of the closest comparisons to the current Mets roster.
Maybe I am overflowing with optimism, but similar to the A's organization that developed great young pitchers that year like Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, Rich Harden and Ted Lilly, the Mets have a strong rotation they developed as well that also is very young. Also similar to the A's, the Mets are well documented in ownership not exactly giving their General Manager a whole lot of wiggle room financially.
I think it isn't too late. Even with pitchers and catchers reporting in two weeks, there are still moves the Mets can make to improve the big league club.
One example of a move the Mets can still make is trading Dillon Gee for a left handed reliever. A left hander out of the bullpen is a problem the Mets have had since Pedro Feliciano signed with the other New York team in free agency years ago.
Another move the Mets can make is trading Bartolo Colon to another club to help gain decent prospects to use as trade chips, or perhaps to alleviate Sandy Alderson's less than sterling reputation among opposing GMs, which I proposed in my Bartolo Colon article.
Either way, the Mets can still make moves. The moves I have in mind, however, are small moves because history has shown that major star power does not always translate to big results, and in the case of the 2003 Texas Rangers, it can result in major failure.
The thing to keep in mind is that the teams that tend to win are not the teams that build their teams around one, two or even three stars. They aren't the ones who are always making big splashes, but rather they are the ones who look to address the teams weaknesses, whilst building on their strengths. They look to build a complete roster of twenty five capable players that fit that teams philosophy. Most importantly, however, the teams that win are the ones that follow the philosophy of less is more.
There is a scene in the actual movie itself where Paul Depodesta, played by Jonah Hill, says that a teams goal should not be to buy players, but rather to buy wins.
As the movie progresses, Billy Beane and company decide to invest in undervalued players like Scott Hatteberg due to his on base percentage (a highly overlooked stat at the time) and Chad Bradford (even though he was on the team beforehand, but let's roll with it) because of his submarine delivery, which was seen as unconventional and odd.
The reason these moves proved to be so significant was because even though these were unproven players, they filled a role that the team needed them for. In a sense, because of their limited budget, the A's couldn't afford to bring stars in, so they needed to bring in a roster of twenty five guys that would contribute in their own way.
There was another reason why I brought up the 2003 A's. The main reason I brought them up is because right now, they are perhaps one of the closest comparisons to the current Mets roster.
Maybe I am overflowing with optimism, but similar to the A's organization that developed great young pitchers that year like Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, Rich Harden and Ted Lilly, the Mets have a strong rotation they developed as well that also is very young. Also similar to the A's, the Mets are well documented in ownership not exactly giving their General Manager a whole lot of wiggle room financially.
I think it isn't too late. Even with pitchers and catchers reporting in two weeks, there are still moves the Mets can make to improve the big league club.
One example of a move the Mets can still make is trading Dillon Gee for a left handed reliever. A left hander out of the bullpen is a problem the Mets have had since Pedro Feliciano signed with the other New York team in free agency years ago.
Another move the Mets can make is trading Bartolo Colon to another club to help gain decent prospects to use as trade chips, or perhaps to alleviate Sandy Alderson's less than sterling reputation among opposing GMs, which I proposed in my Bartolo Colon article.
Either way, the Mets can still make moves. The moves I have in mind, however, are small moves because history has shown that major star power does not always translate to big results, and in the case of the 2003 Texas Rangers, it can result in major failure.
The thing to keep in mind is that the teams that tend to win are not the teams that build their teams around one, two or even three stars. They aren't the ones who are always making big splashes, but rather they are the ones who look to address the teams weaknesses, whilst building on their strengths. They look to build a complete roster of twenty five capable players that fit that teams philosophy. Most importantly, however, the teams that win are the ones that follow the philosophy of less is more.
No comments:
Post a Comment