Probably a decent prospect, but I wouldn't do it. The cost of replacing Dickey would probably be too much.

Dickey right now is arguably the best pitcher in baseball — back-to-back 1-hitters. Don't trade that guy, build around that guy.

I've gotta say, I find just asking the question to be kind of depressing, particularly coming from a Mets fan. Dickey's run is probably the best thing in baseball right now. Whatever you can "get for him," I'm almost certain it won't be half as captivating and entertaining for Mets fans as what Dickey's providing each start.

I've gotta say, I find just asking the question to be kind of depressing, particularly coming from a Mets fan.

Exactly. As a Blue Jays fan, it pissed me off when some other fans started asking how much the Jays could get for Bautista (mid-way through 2010).
He was the only reason to watch the Jays for a while there.

If he keeps winning games at the same rate as he has this year it will take him 316 more starts to get to 300 wins.

After letting Reyes go, trading Dickey would not be well received by the fan base - especially given his recent success. Doesn't seem like the way to sell tickets or grab TV ratings.

Exactly. As a Blue Jays fan, it pissed me off when some other fans started asking how much the Jays could get for Bautista (mid-way through 2010).
He was the only reason to watch the Jays for a while there.

Yeah. The parallel is actually pretty good. Jays fans who were ready to quit on the team after Halladay was traded had their interest re-kindled by Bautista. Trading him would have been devastating. I assume similar things with Reyes/Dickey/Mets.

The Mets are in a weird spot. They have only 13 million dollars in payroll obligation for 2014, Niese at 5 million and buyouts for Santana and Bay. They have some interesting pitching prospects (Wheeler, Harvey, Familia, and Mejia). The Mets are 24-30 in games not started by Dickey this season. If someone wanted to give up an excellent package for Dickey, I think the Mets would have to consider it. If the goal is to build a perennial contender, perhaps selling high on Dickey is the right move. They really aren't a good team right now despite the brilliance of Dickey.

Dickey has been on fire but nobody is as good as he is right now and it can't last. I think he's a legitimate number one type starter and he's a steal at the price so he's got excellent value. The thing is, the Mets need to be overwhelmed because it is certainly possible that Dickey is still a frontline starter in 3-4 years considering he's a knuckleballer without a lot of mileage on his arm.

The answer, of course, is "tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail." Which isn't to say trading him would be wrong if it could be treated dispassionately. It's just to say it couldn't be treated dispassionately, so the Mets just better hope to make the most out of this performance on the field, in the clubhouse and at the ticket booths and souvenir stands.

The thing is, the Mets need to be overwhelmed because it is certainly possible that Dickey is still a frontline starter in 3-4 years considering he's a knuckleballer without a lot of mileage on his arm.

I think it's impossible to predict what Dickey's aging curve will look like. I mean, I suppose it's always impossible with every player, so super impossible with Dickey. He throws the ball hard, so we can't expect him to cruise on into his 40s like Hough or Niekro. But how many players just figure it out at age 37?

But why on earth would they trade Dickey? You trade Colon or Sabathia or Johnson when you know you can't resign them. You don't trade those guys when you have every chance in the world to keep them on your team for years.

Seriously, why trade Dickey now? Yes he throws a bit harder than your classic knuckleballer, but even so he should still be a decent player for several more years and the team as it stands has an outside shot at the second wildcard. Why trade away the great story and the chance to be relevant in September for what is likely to be a good but not can't miss prospect?

I have a feeling that on an open market there would be some anti-knuckleball bias that would drive his price a bit lower. That and the age. Suppose he establishes himself as a legit 20 win, 2.00 ERA guy. Is he going to make $20 million in 2014?

I just bought MLB.tv specifically to watch R.A. Dickey pitch. I'm not even a Mets fan. Keep him.

Why trade him? The Mets could stay in this thing. The Phillies are down and the Braves are reeling. The Nats look like they will win the division, but they could fight with the Fish for a WC spot.

You trade Colon or Sabathia or Johnson when you know you can't resign them. You don't trade those guys when you have every chance in the world to keep them on your team for years.

Tell that to Indians fans.

There is no doubt Dickey has tremendous value to the Mets, but one has to think that a sure-fire playoff team....

If the season ended now, the Mets would be a playoff team, being a half-game ahead of both the Braves and the Pirates (!) for the second wild-card spot.

Anyway, haven't we already read this article a million times over the past couple of years, except with David Wright as the Mets star that should be traded?

DB

Anyway, haven't we already read this article a million times over the past couple of years, except with David Wright as the Mets star that should be traded?

It's just what people expect small market teams like the Mets to do.

They could probably get a sense of joy and awe for Mets fans everywhere every 5 days.

For instance, a team like the Texas Rangers would be crazy not to add R.A. Dickey if he were to become available. With Neftali Feliz, Derek Holland, and Alexi Ogando all on the disabled list, the once depth-filled Rangers rotation is currently looking mighty thin… could the Mets get both of Rangers’ top hitting prospects Jurickson Profar and Mike Olt? If Dickey pitches like an ace for the next year-and-a-half, while making a touch over $7 million in the process, perhaps surrendering “untouchables” like Jurickson and Olt are within reason.

Texas has a 5 game lead in the West, is getting all of those injured pitchers back by August, and has Oswalt joining the team later this week. Now that Harper and Trout are in the bigs to stay, Profar is probably the best prospect in baseball. If Daniels trades him for Dickey, he deserves to be beaten to death with a shovel.

They could get Alfonso Soriano for him.

For all the points others have raised, the Mets aren't trading Dickey, and they shouldn't trade Dickey. But Russlan gets at a point that has bothered for some time. Teams are getting smarter in preventing their stars from hitting free agency and in preventing large market teams from using their checkbook to accumulate talent in the draft (even before the changes to the draft). There just aren't any easy ways for bad teams to rapidly improve anymore. Given that, I think there is a fair case to be made that uncompromising devotion to a team's perceived success cycle is the new market inefficiency.

We have a pretty good idea what the Mets are going to be in 2012 and 2013. If 2014 is really when the Mets have a chance to begin being very good again (as in better than a run at the second wild card), then why not focus all of their resources towards that time so that the Mets can be really, really good beginning in 2014?

Of course, in the real world, Dickey is too good and too much fun right now and Mets fans dream that Ike will come around, Tejada and Thole will provide solid OBP from their positions giving the Mets a lineup that goes 1- 8 without any black holes and that Santana and Dickey will give the Mets a 1-2 punch that makes them dangerous in any playoff game or series. That dream is what makes baseball fun, which is basically the whole point.

What would they get?
Try torches and pitchforks from an angry populace.

Now that Harper and Trout are in the bigs to stay, Profar is probably the best prospect in baseball.

let's see, he was ranked #7 by BA, and everyone ahead of him is up, except Teheran who seems to be having some developmental hiccups


right after him is Shelby Miller who's putting up an ERA of 6.00 in AAA
then Trevor Bauer who has been pretty dominant in AA/AAA but his walk rate is high enough to give some pause
Dylan Bundy- looks good so far
Manny Machado- not hitting
Gerrit Cole- looks good so far
Skaggs- repeating AA for some reason, looks the same
Taillon, good k/bb, BABIP not too high, but nonetheless gives up a lot of runs

and I'm going to jump

Wil Myers: had a hiccup in his age 20 year in AA last year, hitting just .254/.353/.393, this year, split evenly between AA and AAA, he's hitting .337/.408/.718

and

Oscar Taveras: batting .328/.384/.587 in AA, at age 20, last year he hit .386/.444/.584 in the MidWest league,

If 2014 is really when the Mets have a chance to begin being very good again (as in better than a run at the second wild card), then why not focus all of their resources towards that time so that the Mets can be really, really good beginning in 2014?

What you say has a certain logic, but this kind of argument always seems to me like "why not start neglecting my wonderful girlfriend right now, because there's a chance Michelle Pfeiffer might be divorced by 2014, and if I spend the next two years doing nothing but writing my bestselling novel, Michelle and I might get together by then."

I'm 53 years old, so feel free to adjust the classic beauty in that equation to your own generation if needed :)

There just aren't any easy ways for bad teams to rapidly improve anymore. Given that, I think there is a fair case to be made that uncompromising devotion to a team's perceived success cycle is the new market inefficiency.

Eh. This seems like just a fancy way of saying, "developing players is even more important than it used to be." It doesn't necessarily follow that every team should be going all in on certain prospect cohorts, Billy Beane style.

An electrifying player in New York whose success might not be sustainable? What should we call this, Dick-sanity?

An electrifying player in New York whose success might not be sustainable? What should we call this, Dick-sanity?

RA-Dick-ulous.

I'm 53 years old, so feel free to adjust the classic beauty in that equation to your own generation if needed :)

Michelle Pfeiffer == Charlize Theron for you kiddies.

An electrifying player in New York whose success might not be sustainable? What should we call this, Dick-sanity?

I'm a pretty openly enthusiastic fan of Phillip K. Dick; one of my colleagues is fond of parsing that as "f_dp loves Dick", especially to my students.

Michelle Pfeiffer == Charlize Theron for you kiddies.

Given that Charlize Theron is currently appearing in a major motion picture as a wicked stepmother rather than as a dewy ingenue, you might need to further freshen your reference.

Charlize Theron is currently appearing in a major motion picture as a wicked stepmother

They really screwed that up, the wicked stepmother isn't supposed to be hotter than Snow White.

Michelle Pfeiffer == Charlize Theron for you kiddies.

Actually Kristen Stewart is probably the best choice for the modern paradigm of female attractiveness. Scarlett Johansson maybe. Mila Kunis? Megan Fox is kind of a thing but most reasonable intelligent men like myself and my friends don't really get the Megan Fox thing.

My personal favorite is Anna Kendrick though. Very cute and crazy talented.

Kristen Stewart? Was there an eye affliction epidemic that I missed somehow?

[33] Maybe a rise in lip biting fetishes?

Megan Fox is kind of a thing but most reasonable intelligent men like myself and my friends don't really get the Megan Fox thing.

The fact that you wrote that makes me question the intelligence of you and your friends.

The fact that you wrote that makes me question the intelligence of you and your friends.

His first sentence is way worse.

Look guys. I'm not saying that Kristen Stewart is my personal choice. I'm just trying to reflect what the zeitgeist is saying. And the zeitgeist says that the current generation leading lady who is best at appealing to a broad range of men is possibly Kristen Stewart. She's got both mainstream cred (Twilight) and hipster cred (Adventureland).

Zooey Deschanel is another possibility, too, I forgot about her. Definitely skews more hipster though.

Megan Fox is pretty, but she's got this sort of formless, faceless prettiness, that exists outside of the sphere of talent or personality. She's the anti-Deschanel. Where Deschanel is (500) Days of Summer, Fox is Transformers. Even their names - Deschanel vs. Fox - epitomize their particular cultural stratospheres. "Zooey Deschanel" is enigmatically European and hip. "Fox" is pretty straightforward in meaning and implication.

This list needs more Emma Stone.

Megan Fox is disgusting.

That is all.

but most reasonable intelligent men like myself and my friends

Well, of course.


Kristen Stewaret certainly is damned cute, if nothing else. Most especially in Adventureland, somewhat in Snow White, which rather sucked.

Given that Charlize Theron is currently appearing in a major motion picture as a wicked stepmother rather than as a dewy ingenue, you might need to further freshen your reference.

See 'Stardust' - that balances the scales nicely.

Megan Fox is physically attractive, but there's something about her face that makes her look both stupid and cruel. I'm probably being incredibly unfair to her, she may well be both bright and kind, but that's not the vibe her look gives off to me.

I can get behind Mila Kunis for sure.

And with that, we've discovered the only topic that can hijack a thread away from the Mets.

Okay, well, uh... candlesticks always make a nice gift, and uh, maybe they could find out where Dickey's registered and maybe a place-setting or maybe a silverware pattern.

This list needs more Emma Stone.

Unfortuately, yet another lost to completely unnecessary plastic surgery.

Okay, well, uh... candlesticks always make a nice gift, and uh, maybe they could find out where Dickey's registered and maybe a place-setting or maybe a silverware pattern.

Well done.

Actually Kristen Stewart is probably the best choice for the modern paradigm of female attractiveness. Scarlett Johansson maybe. Mila Kunis? Megan Fox is kind of a thing but most reasonable intelligent men like myself and my friends don't really get the Megan Fox thing.

My personal favorite is Anna Kendrick though. Very cute and crazy talented.

I'm sorry, but this is sort of a pet peeve of mine. I just don't understand when people express a preference for certain objectively very attractive female celebrities they don't know over other objectively crazily beautiful/hot female celebrities they don't know under the assumption that the merely very attractive female celebrities possess greater depth/talent/whatever.

I think what this is really about is that Anna Kendrick has the illusion of attainability whereas Kristen Stewart/Mila Kunis/Scarlett Johansen/Megan Fox don't (though if David Silver can get Megan Fox, she can't be that unattainable).

Seriously, if you're going to fantasize, go big or go home.

Seriously, if you're going to fantasize, go big or go home.

I fantasize about going home to a big house.