With an older team, St. Louis still went ahead and signed older and quite productive aging players to lucrative two year contracts in order to stay competitive. On the other hand we had no desire in attempting to keep both Beltran and Pagan – two all-star outfielders – and now boast of what many are calling the worst outfield in baseball. At the same time, we didn’t try to sign other veteran free agent outfielders with some productive years left to two or three year contracts either. We also traded away a Cy Young Award winner over the concern of his “hard” knuckleball and an all-star shortstop due to concern about him being injury prone.

But we instead sign even older and less productive veterans because they do not cost us that much money. All this for a team many insisted were or are just two or three players away from getting back into contention.

That was the point – methodology.

And Fonzie, I don’t equate your personal vendetta with anything meaningful enough to get upset about but I am rather curious – is a personal vendetta against one disagreeing with you over a subject so inconsequential as baseball that necessary to feel like a man?

– “it was more likely that the winning was not sustainable. they were getting a ton of lucky breaks and it wouldn’t take much for that to even out.”

- “Falling behind too often and relying on late inning comebacks. It generally indicates you are getting lucky breaks.”

- ” Rodriguez was living on the edge and it came back to bite him eventually.”

That is a completely fair and valid arguemen. In fact, many of us (me included) were waiting for Baltimore to slip back to mediocrity in the second half (like they always did with previous good early season starts) for some of the same reasons. The difference is that many of us felt it was up to the players to prove whether or not they could sustain that success through 162 games and because of competitive integrity such opportunities should never be taken away from them by the front office. That was not the case with the Orioles nor had it been for other teams in such positions in mid-July, either.

But that is not the point I am getting at. Rather, it is something that Donal himself raised:

“I wasn’t trumpeting it in 2011 because I wanted people to enjoy the ride, but when asked directly, I said it wasn’t sustainable.”

Notice, Donal was not downplaying how well the Mets played the first two-thirds of the season. In fact, he actually used the reasons I cited for their good play to counterpoint why he felt it was not reasonable to believe they could continue to sustain such play over the remaining third of the year and that is where we then both go off in different directions

Which Fonzie, is quite different than your analysis of the club up to that point:

“104 games into the season which is exactly 2/3rds into the season they were only 2 games over 500. So no matter how you try and cherry pick it they were still mired in mediocrity.”

Donal gave them credit where credit was due.

OK, that is fair – you felt that way then but acknowledged there were others who were feeling like me at the time and you weren’t going to not let them enjoy the ride.

As said, I would have wanted it left to the players to prove either of us right simply because that is what sports is all about – competitive intigrety. But recognizing that one has to also not sacrifice a future for an outside chance is why I added no additions if it meant giving up a Kazmir.

BTW – have a cold so meant to write Duda was called up and having a fine rookie season, not Davis whom he was replacing at first.

Because when you took a deeper look into what they were actually doing, it was more likely that the winning was not sustainable. they were getting a ton of lucky breaks and it wouldn’t take much for that to even out.

I wasn’t trumpeting it in 2011 because I wanted people to enjoy the ride, but when asked directly, I said it wasn’t sustainable.

“They were playing great ball with the confidence of not giving up by often coming back from early deficits, ”

that is actually one of the signs. Falling behind too often and relying on late inning comebacks. It generally indicates you are getting lucky breaks.

” not beating themselves, executing the fundamentals, ”

Their fundamentals were quite poor. Go back to those game summaries and see how many mentions of lousy fielding and base running errors are made.

“Davis was called up and having a fine rookie year, Murphy was hitting in the clutch (.364 with runners in scoring position) and hitting against all type of pitching, Reyes was leading the league in batting, Beltran was having a come back season, Lucas Duda was having a fine rookie season filling in for Davis at first and Thole was holding his own with the bat. We had a decent bench with Turner, Hairston, Paulino and Tejada”

Davis missed almost the entire season, Murphy was playing first and third, Tejada was at 2B and Duda was in left because Bay was injured and Murphy covered first once Wright came back.

and Reyes’ second half was pretty damn soft hitting and numerous DL stints.

“In the bullpen KRod already had 23 saves ”

The result did not match the process. Rodriguez was living on the edge and it came back to bite him eventually.

You don’t measure a pitcher’s effectiveness in wins or saves.

” And if there wasn’t then, why should we have it let us say going toward 2014 for though we have indeed resolved the starting rotation problem we have in turn created problems with both the outfield and the bullpen and have done nothing to address it ”

They’ve tried fixing the bullpen, but it is generally a crap shoot. And the outfield issue is complicated.

The fact is, we are now in better position if they do get off to a hot start. We have pieces to trade and room to take on salary.

Wise move in the long term or not to obtain a highly rated pitching prospect? Debatable only in theory and answer not yet known. Professional move as far as competitive integrity is concerned? Not open for question.

And here are some interesting tidbits on the subject of just being a .500 team. Doesn’t prove anything one way or the other except that the point is being applied to one team instead of two that were very similar in records.

After 18 games

St. Louis 9-9
Mets 5-13 4 GB

Games 19 through 106

Mets: 50-38 .575
St. Louis: 47-41 .553 3 GB

After 106 games

St. Louis: 56-50 .528
Mets: 55-51 .518 1GB

A .528 pace projected through a 162 game schedule St. Louis have been a record of 85-77. At a .518 pace, the Mets would have been 84-78.

Again, doesn’t prove anything except that St. Louis, with five regulars 31 or older and playing the same pace as the Mets, didn’t feel the need to get rid of any of them for younger players, even with Puljos threatening to walk at the end of the year. They didn’t see themselves as an old team falling from a 91-71 record to that of an 85 game winner with a downward future. The 2011 team had an average age of 29.3. On the other hand, the Mets were a younger team at 27.8.

What they did do prior to 2011 was to sign a 35 year old free agent Lance Berkman to a two-year deal. What they did in 2012 was to also sign a 35 year old free agent Carlos Beltran to a two-year deal as well.

Again, two teams, similar records, two different approaches. Forget the stats, just look at the methodology and attitude.

What I don’t understand is not why one can be so enthusiastic about this team now but why one did not share that enthusiasm back in 2011 before those trades were made? They were playing great ball with the confidence of not giving up by often coming back from early deficits, not beating themselves, executing the fundamentals, getting the timely hit, etc. Davis was called up and having a fine rookie year, Murphy was hitting in the clutch (.364 with runners in scoring position) and hitting against all type of pitching, Reyes was leading the league in batting, Beltran was having a come back season, Lucas Duda was having a fine rookie season filling in for Davis at first and Thole was holding his own with the bat. We had a decent bench with Turner, Hairston, Paulino and Tejada. Run scoring was not our problem and we still wound up finishing 6th in the league at the end of the year despite the departed Beltran still winding up as our home run and RBI leader.

In the bullpen KRod already had 23 saves and Parnell and Beato were having fine first halves. Dickey was having a fine season and Gee and Neise were showing signs of improvement.

On the other hand, there were also things to hope for in the second half – David Wright had yet to get his season together before being injured and Angel Pagan was still struggling.

Yes, we had problems. We needed better starting pitching and needed to step it up on our poor defense.

So there was room for enthusiasm had the team been left in place. And if there wasn’t then, why should we have it let us say going toward 2014 for though we have indeed resolved the starting rotation problem we have in turn created problems with both the outfield and the bullpen and have done nothing to address it – and doing nothing is the reason why so many of us are less enthusiastic than we would like.

Remember it’s only a small faction of Met fans that had a problem with this trade. The large majority ( Smarter fan) was totally on board with that trade. The writing had been on the wall the previous 3 years.

It really doesn’t bother me if one has a different opinion than my own. I think we’ve both made out points.

Mets now have many years of one of the top pitching propsects in baseball.

Good deal mets.

You want to see the list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

The fallacy isn’t so much the statement you gave, but the conclusions you drew from it.

“If they lost their hearts, they deserved to lose?”

Yes, they are grown men and professionals. Show some pride.

“- Showing faith in the team hurts in the long-term? Did not I not also say ” without making subsequent moves that would be questionable (i.e, Kazmir)?””

How many moves? How much faith are you showing in them when you are trading a bunch of them away? They needed a catcher, another outfielder, a second baseman, 2 relievers (the only good one was mediocre at best) and another starter. With no depth in the minors to spare, who do you trade with?

“- If you are referring to not getting Wheeler, does that mean our future relies on just one prospect?”

False dichotomy, another fallacy. Wheeler doesn’t ahve to be the be all end all of the farm system, but a deal like that builds a sustainable winner better than clinging to the hope of an early playoff exit.

“- Metsie already showed the immediate drop in attendance just in August alone.”

Nifty that attendance dropped because they were losing again. The attendance drops because of the losing, not because of who is or isn’t on the team while they lose. He’s proved that as well, despite his best efforts.

” Only pointed out the Mets went 50-38 (.568) after that horrible start which is not the sign of a .500 team.”

the fact that you don’t get the problem with that is why you should stay out of these discussions.

“- I think you are doing a very good job of that all on your own.”

Well, I do have to quote you to show you your errors.

Or a Playoffs and possible World Series….

I think that is the point he is making….
You say it’s a trade for two months of Beltran but it is ony JUST THAT if they don’t win something….

And if they never win something with Wheeler you could just as easily say they traded away a Playoff season and Annual All Star for a guy who wins you nothing….

In the rhetorical sense yes, but not in reality. We were not giving up any of our prospects and Beltran was a member of the team and not a rental. In addition, Beltran often expressed a desire to stay with the club up to the time he was traded (though many don’t believe the sincerity of his words which is only of opinion).

And, as I pointed out, we would have very little to look forward to in the years ahead if most all we had to look forward to was Wheeler. It appears we have a formidable amount of young throwing arms that could take his place along with the core that has already developed on the major league level. If one had never heard of Zach, would one be any less optimistic for the future based on that potential?

And yet, we might have also had a good run in 2011, not necessarily resulting in any wildcard but indeed resulting in a building block for team maturity, confidence and the feeling of “ya gotta believe” along with knowing the front office will try and do it’s best to help you – instead of what we saw happening the past two seasons.

On another post, Kurt wrote: “No matter how good or bad your team looks on paper, you still have to play the games. I’ve definitely learned that over the years”.

That is something I believe is being lost in all this conversation by so many.

But remember, I specifically stated we should not give up our future for one year (i.e., Kazmir). All it would have meant is not obtaining Wheeler and as mentioned to Donal, is it that our system and the core we have on the team right now is so limited that we don’t have another potential arm to take the spot of the potential arm of Wheeler?

We had a nice 2011 going for us and if brought into focus with all that had transpired before that and since, the moves made at that time are representative continued cost cutting efforts and decreased spending than of improving the team. If one wants to improve the team why would the general manager himself at least be honest with us on that he signed “inexpensive” players knowing we could not win with them (the Francesa interview last September)?