Two year deal for Dickey?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dunbummin

As much as I love Dickey, whether he stays or goes is not really relevant to the team's success in 2013. They can be a 74 win team or a 90 win team, with or without him, depending on what Sandy does this winter. If he goes, he will probably be replaced with an inexpensive young starter who can give us 12-14 wins. A maturing staff (Niese, Harvey, Gee, Pelfrey and Wheeler at mid-season) should more than make up the slack. Then it all depends upon how well Sandy bolsters the offense and bull pen as to how many additional games the team wins. Maybe they'd win a few more games with Dickey next year (does anyone really expect he can win 20 again?) but they will probably be a much stronger team beyond next year if they trade him.

---

There's seems to be an assumption that the Mets have a surplus of starting pitching, so much so that they can afford to trade their ace --with little consequence --for players to be named later.

Don't buy it. Dickey is not only dominant but he's an innings eating machine. You toss him aside and suddenly you're putting a burden on the young pitchers that they never had to worry about before.

And of course, that translates to more work for the bullpen. we know where that will lead.

I'm sounding like a lone voice in the wilderness now but the Mets would be making a huge mistake to trade Dickey. Sure, if they can fill two or three holes you trade Dickey or any pitcher really in a heartbeat.

But the chance of that happening is nill. More likely, they'll get prospects who are more suited for the bench than as starters.

But as the Zen Master said, we'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fanofclendennon

There's seems to be an assumption that the Mets have a surplus of starting pitching, so much so that they can afford to trade their ace --with little consequence --for players to be named later.

Don't buy it. Dickey is not only dominant but he's an innings eating machine. You toss him aside and suddenly you're putting a burden on the young pitchers that they never had to worry about before.

And of course, that translates to more work for the bullpen. we know where that will lead.

I'm sounding like a lone voice in the wilderness now but the Mets would be making a huge mistake to trade Dickey. Sure, if they can fill two or three holes you trade Dickey or any pitcher really in a heartbeat.

But the chance of that happening is nill. More likely, they'll get prospects who are more suited for the bench than as starters.

But as the Zen Master said, we'll see.

---

They're not gonna pay him, and that's all there is too it really.

As I have been saying for years, the Mets are not a baseball team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marty Mcfly

They're not gonna pay him, and that's all there is too it really.

As I have been saying for years, the Mets are not a baseball team.

---

I agree, but that's another discussion. See, if they don't want to pay him, what then is the point?

But in the context of what they need to be doing to improve the team, it doesnt make sense to trade RA. To your point, it makes even less sense not to trade him if they don't extend him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fanofclendennon

I agree, but that's another discussion. See, if they don't want to pay him, what then is the point?

But in the context of what they need to be doing to improve the team, it doesnt make sense to trade RA. To your point, it makes even less sense not to trade him if they don't extend him.

---

1. That's the question I keep asking myself. As a Mets fan I am hardened to losing, but losing without even trying? I'm find it hard to reconcile myself to that as in any way being acceptable, or to be party to it.

2. Trading RA can make sense in certain contexts IMO, firstly a real rebuild in which we blow the team up and trade DW and RA, secondly if it's a choice between RA and Niese.

3. There are two acceptable options to me, a trade now, or a new deal. The easy way out for the creeps who own/run the team is sadly, option C,which is doing nothing and just letting the deals run out, like they did with Jose. That's their best chance of protecting att. next year whilst adding no extra cash to long term payroll - which unless you are brain dead has been their MO since day 1.


What they do about RA and DW will pretty much decide whether I am in or out for good.

This team just isn't ready to compete. We had the best pitcher in the league in R.A Dickey last year and still only managed a 4th place finish. At this point, with the way the Wilpons are willing to not spend any money, I think it's neccessary the Mets just rebuild.

It will suck. The Mets will suck, but it's something that needs to be done. Would you rather keep Dickey, stay a 4th place team, and get nothing for him when he retires/walks in free agency, OR trade him now, save 36 million dollars, and get players in return who have a shot to develop inot the core of the future New York Mets. Like FoC says, yes, there's a chance that they don't turn into productive starters, btu that's the gamble this team needs to take.

Whether Dickey is on the team or not, the Mets will not go anywhere, bearing some break out years and a lot of luck. Winning is just not in the Mets code for 2013.

With all of that being said, Niese has been rumored to be traded, and for some good players, and Sandy has shown interest in Upton. IF Sandy gets the okay from Wilpon to take on some salary and build somewhat of a competetive team, then resigning Dickey would be the obvious thing to do - but there's a more likely chance that we don't spend money and fill the holes we have with - here it comes FoC - affordable placeholders.

But the haul we'd get back for Dickey wouldn't be full of affordable placeholders, we'd be receiving a bundle of young talented players. Again, there's a chance that they may be busts, but there's also a chance that they fulfill their potential and become the David Wrights or Jose Reyes or R.A Dickeys (Stats wise, of course).

If those guys don't pan out, it would've been what? 2, 3, 4 years before we could determine that? By that time, we'd have Santana's salary off the books, Bay's salary off the books, we would've be paying Dickey 12 million a year. We'd be able to spend money again. We'd have guys we already have develop into major leaguers, such as Flores, Nimmo, and Wheeler.

All of this is why I'm a fan of trading Dickey. To make a long story short, rebuilding would be smarter than signing Dickey to go along with "affordable placeholders" and stay where we are in the stanidngs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetsFanatic19

This team just isn't ready to compete. We had the best pitcher in the league in R.A Dickey last year and still only managed a 4th place finish. At this point, with the way the Wilpons are willing to not spend any money, I think it's neccessary the Mets just rebuild.

It will suck. The Mets will suck, but it's something that needs to be done. Would you rather keep Dickey, stay a 4th place team, and get nothing for him when he retires/walks in free agency, OR trade him now, save 36 million dollars, and get players in return who have a shot to develop inot the core of the future New York Mets. Like FoC says, yes, there's a chance that they don't turn into productive starters, btu that's the gamble this team needs to take.

Whether Dickey is on the team or not, the Mets will not go anywhere, bearing some break out years and a lot of luck. Winning is just not in the Mets code for 2013.

With all of that being said, Niese has been rumored to be traded, and for some good players, and Sandy has shown interest in Upton. IF Sandy gets the okay from Wilpon to take on some salary and build somewhat of a competetive team, then resigning Dickey would be the obvious thing to do - but there's a more likely chance that we don't spend money and fill the holes we have with - here it comes FoC - affordable placeholders.

But the haul we'd get back for Dickey wouldn't be full of affordable placeholders, we'd be receiving a bundle of young talented players. Again, there's a chance that they may be busts, but there's also a chance that they fulfill their potential and become the David Wrights or Jose Reyes or R.A Dickeys (Stats wise, of course).

If those guys don't pan out, it would've been what? 2, 3, 4 years before we could determine that? By that time, we'd have Santana's salary off the books, Bay's salary off the books, we would've be paying Dickey 12 million a year. We'd be able to spend money again. We'd have guys we already have develop into major leaguers, such as Flores, Nimmo, and Wheeler.

All of this is why I'm a fan of trading Dickey. To make a long story short, rebuilding would be smarter than signing Dickey to go along with "affordable placeholders" and stay where we are in the stanidngs.

---

You build a team by adding to the good and getting rid of the bad. Exceptions of course is when you decide that someone good won't be good for long so you want to sell high to get value while you can.

Another way to build is to trade a surplus of players at one position to fill a void at another position.

Now, anyone who thinks RA Dickey is at the end of his game hasn't been paying attention. And anyone who thinks the Mets have a surplus of starting pitching has a false sense of security. Besides, when you have a surplus, you don't trade your number one commodity.

Getting rid of RA Dickey is just the wrong thing to do. To add insult to injury, they'd be doing it for all the wrong reasons even if many posters are convinced otherwise.

Do not be deceived.

But this team has gone nowhere with Dickey.

2010 - 79-83
2011 - 77-85
2012 (with Dickey at his best) - 74-88

This team is obviously just not winning games, even with the best pitcher in the National League. Unless the plan is to win now with a big time trade this offseason, then the Mets need to rebuild aorund young and talented players who would be under team control for plenty of years.

I'm not saying resigning Dickey would be bad, and I obviously know he has plenty of good years left, just that with the way the franchise looks as of this exact moment, keeping him wouldn't make the Mets any better. Trading him while his value is through the roof and giving him the chance at a World Series title would be the right thing to do, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetsFanatic19

But this team has gone nowhere with Dickey.

2010 - 79-83
2011 - 77-85
2012 (with Dickey at his best) - 74-88

This team is obviously just not winning games, even with the best pitcher in the National League. Unless the plan is to win now with a big time trade this offseason, then the Mets need to rebuild aorund young and talented players who would be under team control for plenty of years.

I'm not saying resigning Dickey would be bad, and I obviously know he has plenty of good years left, just that with the way the franchise looks as of this exact moment, keeping him wouldn't make the Mets any better.

---

It's a logical fallacy to say that because this team has done nothing with Dickey they will do better without him. Now granted, if they can trade Dickey for two or more impact players at other positions, then you do it of course. But that's a fantasy akin to hitting the jackpot on the slots. It's not smart planning.

They haven't done anything with Dickey! The facts are there. 4th place finish, 4th place finish, 4th place finish. They are not winning ball games even though they have a great pitcher on their side.

I never said they'd do better without him. I actaully said they'd suck even more in the near future.

Quote:

---

It will suck. The Mets will suck, but it's something that needs to be done.

---

They'd be much better off in 3-5 years from now when this team would be building around the young players they have/would acquire and they'd have money to spend.

Keeping Dickey gives us one very good player. Trading him would give us the opportunity to get a bundle of very good players.

It's not a fantasy to trade Dickey in hopes of getting back productive players. You say that the players we'd get back would become nothing but bench players. Why? There's an equal chance they become very good for us and form a new core.

It's not stupid or illogical or a fantasy to trade Dickey, it's the smart thing to do under the circumstances the Mets are in right now.

Ha, FOC, I saw this thread and immediately '''aint no sunshine when she (he's) gone" popped into my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetsFanatic19

It's not a fantasy to trade Dickey in hopes of getting back productive players. You say that the players we'd get back would become nothing but bench players. Why? There's an equal chance they become very good for us and form a new core.

It's not stupid or illogical or a fantasy to trade Dickey, it's the smart thing to do under the circumstances the Mets are in right now.

---

More often than not, when you trade a player because he either is or will become very expensive, you don't get premium players in return.

That's because teams are reluctant to empty their talent vault for a player they'd have to pay a fortune to obtain. A perfect example is the Johan Santana trade. Every team in baseball wanted Santana to pitch for them, obviously, but they were reluctant to surrender too much talent knowing they'd have to sign him first to a very expensive extension.

That's how we were able to get the best pitcher in baseball at the time for Carlos Gomez, Philip Humber, Kevin Mulvey, and that other pitcher whose name always escaped me.

To your point, there's always a possibility one of the young players could develop into baseball's next superstar. Heck, maybe a few might fall short of superstardom but would be productive starting major leaguers.

It's just not too likely. When a team acquires a very expensive player, it wants to utiliize its affordable resources to supplement that player, knowing full well they won't be able to go out and buy another player to fill a void.

Dickey isn't expensive though. He's making 5 million this year and will likely get a 12 million/year deal, which is very affordable for team with money. Santana's situation was totally different, and we still gave up a lot for him (at the time). Humber and Gomez were our two top ML ready prospects. Santana also was injury prone and was about to earn his mega deal (which he got).

We're not going to get a record breaking offer from a team, but I think a team on the brink of a title, like Texas, would give up a very good offer from him. Not saying that his will happen, but say Texas offered Martin Perez and Mike Olt or Elvis Andrus for Dickey. You would turn it down?

If the Mets run the team thinking that it's unlikely that any prospect will turn out to be a good major league player, then they'd get sucked into only spending money, and we know where this leads. Should the Mets trade Wheeler and Nimmo and Flores now, just because it's more likely that they turn out to be busts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetsFanatic19

Dickey isn't expensive though. He's making 5 million this year and will likely get a 12 million/year deal, which is very affordable for team with money. Santana's situation was totally different, and we still gave up a lot for him (at the time). Humber and Gomez were our two top ML ready prospects. Santana also was injury prone and was about to earn his mega deal (which he got).

We're not going to get a record breaking offer from a team, but I think a team on the brink of a title, like Texas, would give up a very good offer from him. Not saying that his will happen, but say Texas offered Martin Perez and Mike Olt or Elvis Andrus for Dickey. You would turn it down?

If the Mets run the team thinking that it's unlikely that any prospect will turn out to be a good major league player, then they'd get sucked into only spending money, and we know where this leads. Should the Mets trade Wheeler and Nimmo and Flores now, just because it's more likely that they turn out to be busts?

---

Fair point in that the Dickey contract will be in a considerably lower stratosphere than Santana's. But I'm still skeptical.

Your analogy is a straw man argument in that you've repackaged my words into an indefensible argument that doesn't resemble the point i was making.

Dickey is basically a sure thing so you hold on to him. Then you try to develop the Floreses of the world to complement him.

You don't know what Wheeler will become. And despite his early success, you don't even know what Harvey will become. That's why you don't trade Dickey.

But yeah, the devil will be in the details. Can't really say with 100 percent conviction whether or not they should trade him or not until i know the names of the players we'd be getting back.

Until then, all i have to fall back on is probability which says that most prospects don't succeed at an all star level.

Trading Dickey would automatically mean this team is rebuilding and that won't bring near future success. It shouldn't be a problem then if Dickey is traded and we don't have a true ace, because that would only be the difference between 75 wins and 60 wins, and if the Mets are rebuilding, you could argue that 65 wins would be better for this team than 75 wins.

By the time the Floreses and Wheelers and Harveys and Nimmos are developed, Dickey will be at the end of his career and, most likely, not as nearly dominant as he was in 2012.

We already have guys to build aorund, such as Wright, Ike, Ruben, Harvey (I think everyone is convinced), Niese, and Gee. That's a solid group to build around, consisting of veterans, near veterans, and still growing players. Build our prospects around them. Imagine the possibilities with the guys we have now, the guys we'd get back for Dickey, and the money we'd be saving. We could develop them and create a very solid grown team, or we could use the money we save by trading Dickey along with the money off the books, we could trade some of them for some productive guys and contend again that way.

It begins and ends with young and talented players. If we have a surplus of them, there's more of a chance that things turn out for the better than for the worse.