Yesterday, I perused the "Trade Rumors" article on MLB.com. One section was devoted to the Texas Rangers possibly become sellers. Jacob deGrom was listed both in the article's title and this section as one of the potential trade candidates - arguably as clickbait. (Why trade deGrom if you're close to a wild card, after all? Even so, seeing deGrom's name sure as Hell baited me to read the article.)
But here's what killed me. After noting deGrom's full no trade clause, the author included the following sentence:
"However, Rosenthal writes that it's 'not out of the question' that deGrom waives his clause to pitch for a team located closer to his Florida residence -- like the Braves, perhaps."
Can you imagine if Jacob deGrom, a homegrown Met, ends up playing for the Braves - maybe even winning the World Series with them?! Just the thought of it turns my stomach.
deGrom also happens to be my favorite player. I still root for him. So ...
I don't think it's biased to say Raley is a top "get" for a playoff team.
If you help a rival -- maybe I'm being partisan, but I care it's the Phillies -- it should be a great deal. No non-division team was willing to give up more?
I meant to respond to your comment but responded to another (related) comment by mistake. Here's what I wrote:
Yesterday, I perused the "Trade Rumors" article on MLB.com. One section was devoted to the Texas Rangers possibly become sellers. Jacob deGrom was listed both in the article's title and this section as one of the potential trade candidates - arguably as clickbait. (Why trade deGrom if you're close to a wild card, after all? Even so, seeing deGrom's name sure as Hell baited me to read the article.)
But here's what killed me. After noting deGrom's full no trade clause, the author included the following sentence:
"However, Rosenthal writes that it's 'not out of the question' that deGrom waives his clause to pitch for a team located closer to his Florida residence -- like the Braves, perhaps."
Can you imagine if Jacob deGrom, a homegrown Met, ends up playing for the Braves - maybe even winning the World Series with them?! Just the thought of it turns my stomach.
deGrom also happens to be my favorite player. I still root for him. So ...
What exactly does the front office think all these mid-level prospects are going to do for the 2027 Mets? The odds are that most of these so-called prospects will never become productive major leaguers. I notice there aren't any top-10 prospects in these deals—just organizational depth and lottery tickets.
Who's left to build around next year? Polanco? Baty? Vientos? That's not the core of a contender.
If Steve Cohen wants this team competing next season, he'll have to do what only he can do: open the checkbook for proven major leaguers—not another wave of "potential." The Mets don't need more players who might develop someday. They need legitimate hitters who can bat .275, get on base, and produce immediately. Otherwise, 2027 could look a lot like 2026.
That's true—the free-agent class isn't loaded. But that's exactly why I'm puzzled by these trades. If there aren't many impact free agents available, then why trade away proven major leaguers for a collection of mid-tier prospects who may never contribute? Unless Cohen is willing to spend aggressively or the front office has a major trade plan, I don't see where next year's offense is coming from.
"...the Mets system, which is still considered strong despite losing two top 100 prospects in their trade that brought in Freddy Peralta earlier this year." Huh? I've repeatedly read recently that their farm system is regarded as 5th or 6th from the bottom. Please tell us who it is that considers the Mets farm strong...
Wow we have a bunch of Steves here! Good. Our planet can never have enough….
Always a risk when dealing to a division rival. But if ever there was a “rent-a-player,’ this looks like it. He was free as a bird after game 162. If Mets want him back, they can chase him with $$$ just as they would have if he stayed. Let’s see if he moves out of his apartment….
Philly needs help after digging out from an almost as bad start as the Mets. Rental makes great sense. ESPN reporting they also picked up Arraz, so they are going for a trophy with an open checkbook. Braves look a bit rickety, so maybe not a bad bet.
Getting to the point where the predecessor “Baby Mets” are starting to look like Old Timers Day. Also looks like the big bet Leadership is making is going to be a 100% pitching buy this Winter. Oh, and “who’s on First?”
Dont like this trade at all. Basically a salary dump. You got two non prospects for a top left handed reliever. Unless Raley is being an accomodation to stay close to NY, this trade does not make much sense. Mets dont need slap-hitting speed merchants. You can always help they can work with pitcher in the lab, but the hitter is the hitter.
With each passing minute the talk about trading Weaver looks dumber and dumber. Let's see, we have a bad team that doesn't score runs, fields poorly, has maybe average starters if they retain Holmes, but a real good bullpen. Therefore, let's toss the only good part of the team overboard! It's nuts. If the guys are free agents, sure, send them out as rentals. But dumping Brazoban isn't smart and the idea of trading Weaver is nutso unless you're forgetting about '27.
Brazoban is more disposable than Weaver. Brazoban has been up/down during his career. He's not irreplaceable. You can sell high. Weaver is more of a lock in my view.
That's a terrible trade for the Mets, especially helping the Phillies. They got absolutely zero back for him.
A crap trade.
Yesterday, I perused the "Trade Rumors" article on MLB.com. One section was devoted to the Texas Rangers possibly become sellers. Jacob deGrom was listed both in the article's title and this section as one of the potential trade candidates - arguably as clickbait. (Why trade deGrom if you're close to a wild card, after all? Even so, seeing deGrom's name sure as Hell baited me to read the article.)
But here's what killed me. After noting deGrom's full no trade clause, the author included the following sentence:
"However, Rosenthal writes that it's 'not out of the question' that deGrom waives his clause to pitch for a team located closer to his Florida residence -- like the Braves, perhaps."
Can you imagine if Jacob deGrom, a homegrown Met, ends up playing for the Braves - maybe even winning the World Series with them?! Just the thought of it turns my stomach.
deGrom also happens to be my favorite player. I still root for him. So ...
I don't mind robbing the Phillies in a trade for an excellent reliever that they need, but that's all they gave up for him? Grand theft by them!
Yes.
I don't think it's biased to say Raley is a top "get" for a playoff team.
If you help a rival -- maybe I'm being partisan, but I care it's the Phillies -- it should be a great deal. No non-division team was willing to give up more?
Or even something comparable?
I meant to respond to your comment but responded to another (related) comment by mistake. Here's what I wrote:
Yesterday, I perused the "Trade Rumors" article on MLB.com. One section was devoted to the Texas Rangers possibly become sellers. Jacob deGrom was listed both in the article's title and this section as one of the potential trade candidates - arguably as clickbait. (Why trade deGrom if you're close to a wild card, after all? Even so, seeing deGrom's name sure as Hell baited me to read the article.)
But here's what killed me. After noting deGrom's full no trade clause, the author included the following sentence:
"However, Rosenthal writes that it's 'not out of the question' that deGrom waives his clause to pitch for a team located closer to his Florida residence -- like the Braves, perhaps."
Can you imagine if Jacob deGrom, a homegrown Met, ends up playing for the Braves - maybe even winning the World Series with them?! Just the thought of it turns my stomach.
deGrom also happens to be my favorite player. I still root for him. So ...
Let’s see where Clay Holmes goes.
What exactly does the front office think all these mid-level prospects are going to do for the 2027 Mets? The odds are that most of these so-called prospects will never become productive major leaguers. I notice there aren't any top-10 prospects in these deals—just organizational depth and lottery tickets.
Who's left to build around next year? Polanco? Baty? Vientos? That's not the core of a contender.
If Steve Cohen wants this team competing next season, he'll have to do what only he can do: open the checkbook for proven major leaguers—not another wave of "potential." The Mets don't need more players who might develop someday. They need legitimate hitters who can bat .275, get on base, and produce immediately. Otherwise, 2027 could look a lot like 2026.
Problem is the FA market coming up is mighty thin once you get past Skubal. Next year isn't looking promising.
That's true—the free-agent class isn't loaded. But that's exactly why I'm puzzled by these trades. If there aren't many impact free agents available, then why trade away proven major leaguers for a collection of mid-tier prospects who may never contribute? Unless Cohen is willing to spend aggressively or the front office has a major trade plan, I don't see where next year's offense is coming from.
"...the Mets system, which is still considered strong despite losing two top 100 prospects in their trade that brought in Freddy Peralta earlier this year." Huh? I've repeatedly read recently that their farm system is regarded as 5th or 6th from the bottom. Please tell us who it is that considers the Mets farm strong...
The same people who've been raving about our "pitching lab." 🙄
Wow we have a bunch of Steves here! Good. Our planet can never have enough….
Always a risk when dealing to a division rival. But if ever there was a “rent-a-player,’ this looks like it. He was free as a bird after game 162. If Mets want him back, they can chase him with $$$ just as they would have if he stayed. Let’s see if he moves out of his apartment….
Philly needs help after digging out from an almost as bad start as the Mets. Rental makes great sense. ESPN reporting they also picked up Arraz, so they are going for a trophy with an open checkbook. Braves look a bit rickety, so maybe not a bad bet.
Getting to the point where the predecessor “Baby Mets” are starting to look like Old Timers Day. Also looks like the big bet Leadership is making is going to be a 100% pitching buy this Winter. Oh, and “who’s on First?”
Steve
Dont like this trade at all. Basically a salary dump. You got two non prospects for a top left handed reliever. Unless Raley is being an accomodation to stay close to NY, this trade does not make much sense. Mets dont need slap-hitting speed merchants. You can always help they can work with pitcher in the lab, but the hitter is the hitter.
With each passing minute the talk about trading Weaver looks dumber and dumber. Let's see, we have a bad team that doesn't score runs, fields poorly, has maybe average starters if they retain Holmes, but a real good bullpen. Therefore, let's toss the only good part of the team overboard! It's nuts. If the guys are free agents, sure, send them out as rentals. But dumping Brazoban isn't smart and the idea of trading Weaver is nutso unless you're forgetting about '27.
Brazoban is more disposable than Weaver. Brazoban has been up/down during his career. He's not irreplaceable. You can sell high. Weaver is more of a lock in my view.