Should have block-quoted the above text. Those are Metsblog's words, not Dijaler's.

Can Olt play the OF?

He's the kind of potential impact bat the Mets need to get if they trade Dickey.

If they need to trade Dickey, fine. Still not thrilled, but better this than a package of lottery tickets.

Keith Law had Olt at #46 in his midseason Top 50 prospects. Olt seems a bit old for a guy who isn't yet banging down the door of the major leagues, and I don't love the idea of moving him to OF. If we had a need at 3rd, it would be one thing, but as is, this doesn't seem terribly enticing.

Can Olt play the OF?

He's the kind of potential impact bat the Mets need to get if they trade Dickey.

Olt's pretty slow, but he's young and athletic enough to play 3B, so I have to imagine he could at least fake LF for a couple of years. Of course, the Mets being the Mets, he'd probably wind up a good-not-great hitter and an atrocious OF, leaving his actual value ~nil.

A case where the distinction between "will" and "would" would be nice :) Either side of such a trade would be a gamble, but I like getting the established pitcher better – possibly just because I'm getting older and less patient :)

Mike Olt!

A case where the distinction between "will" and "would" would be nice :)

Yeah really. This headline should be reserved for reporting that the two teams have agreed on a deal.

Let me see if I have this straight. You trade an All-Star outfielder for a lottery ticket pitcher, then trade the Cy Young Award winner for a lottery ticket outfielder. You give up an All-Star and a 20 game winner for 2 handfuls of magic beans. And this is a plan for building a winning team.

In the other thread I mentioned that my guidelines for trading Dickey would be for established talent, not "potential", although perhaps thats years of distrust of the Mets FO talking.

I've never seen a more misleading headline than this here. The Metsblog article's actual headline has an "if" in it.

That being said, we can tell the headline is not true because this thread has less than 100 posts after an hour.

So presumably the Rangers and Mets are haggling over Dickey-Olt, and the Royals and Mets are haggling over Dickey and Myers.

Who are the Jays and Mets haggling over? Anthony Gose? If so, I don't see why the Mets would be spending much time talking with the Jays.

Sorry about that - the excerpt captures the "if," which I thought was enough to justify truncating the headline.

This is a wildly misleading headline, and frankly abusive of the rules. Literally the ONLY reason to truncate the REAL headline of the linked blogpost is to trick people into clicking on this thread and reading it. (Original headline: "Rangers will trade Mike Olt for Dickey, but only if they lose out on Greinke.")

Very poor taste.

Who are the Jays and Mets haggling over? Anthony Gose? If so, I don't see why the Mets would be spending much time talking with the Jays.

I hope it's d'Arnaud. Gose doesn't look like much to me.

I'm only loosely hanging around Hot Stove topics - I have little patience or interest, generally (yes, this makes me a bad fan).


So I apologize for asking a question probably asked and answered a lot - feel free to tell me to get lost.



WHY ARE THE METS TRYING TO TRADE DICKEY? Isn't he signed for another year? Isn't he, like, really good?

Who are the Jays and Mets haggling over? Anthony Gose? If so, I don't see why the Mets would be spending much time talking with the Jays.

Yeah - I think it's D'Arnaud. I have a suspicion the it's going to end up being Gose/Arencibia, which doesn't thoroughly displease me.

As a Jays fine, my stamp of approval would be given immediately to Gose & Arencibia for Dickey, and I don't think a straight up trade of D'Arnaud for Dickey would be bad at all. I have a feeling D'Arnaud is going to have a lot of trouble sticking at C for health reasons.

WHY ARE THE METS TRYING TO TRADE DICKEY? Isn't he signed for another year? Isn't he, like, really good?

Presumably they figure on him turning into a pumpkin. His career has been a little surreal, after all – hence the gamble for the receiving team in any trade.

EDIT: Or to put it another way, he'll never have more trade value than right now. So they need to get what they can, if they really want to go this route.

This is a wildly misleading headline, and frankly abusive of the rules. Literally the ONLY reason to truncate the REAL headline of the linked blogpost is to trick people into clicking on this thread and reading it. (Original headline: "Rangers will trade Mike Olt for Dickey, but only if they lose out on Greinke.")

Very poor taste.

Get over yourself.

Get over yourself.

Seconded. It wasn't a link to a pop-up frenzied porn site or anything.

He's the kind of potential impact bat the Mets need to get if they trade Dickey.

but isn't he right handed? in that park, i don't think it's very likely for any RH hitter to be an impact bat.

There's not a park in the league for which the home team should avoid getting good RH hitters.

Really don't get what the Mets are doing here.

Seconded.

Thirded. The Bob Costas Award for self-appointed guardian of BTF is locked up for 2012 though.

I don't want to sound santimonious, but I was big time irritated by that headline, too. I don't think anyone's kids should be taken from them or anything, but I hope this is a rare exception.

Not mad or anything, but the headline needs to be fixed. Now.

I blame the author's phrasing in the article and headline more than the manner in which it was excerpted for BBTF. The full headline is not much better than the chopped one: it incorrectly implies that the Rangers and Mets have an agreement on an Olt-Dickey trade that will happen if the Rangers don't sign Greinke.

WHY ARE THE METS TRYING TO TRADE DICKEY? Isn't he signed for another year? Isn't he, like, really good?

He's not going to be part of the next good Mets team. Or something.

but isn't he right handed? in that park, i don't think it's very likely for any RH hitter to be an impact bat.

The Mets had the most losses in MLB against LH starters last year (21-38). They were 53-50 against RH starters. Any OF, catcher or ballboy they acquire has to hit lefties hard. The only RH hitters of note last year were Wright and Hairston, and Hairston was a part timer. If they were even a few games above .500 against lefties they would have been in the WC2 hunt until the last week or so (StL 88-74). I'd go for Olt, if available. Dayan Viciedo of the ChiSox is another. These guys are out there.

Yeah, that headline gave me a heart attack, but c'mon. The actual headline isn't any better.

Let me see if I have this straight. You trade an All-Star outfielder for a lottery ticket pitcher...

When the alternative is losing him for nothing as a FA? Darn right, you do.

EDIT: Or to put it another way, he'll never have more trade value than right now. So they need to get what they can, if they really want to go this route.

I suppose. But they need to get something huge in return (which is what everyone is saying, I guess and fairly obvious). But, geez, you have a Cy Young winner signed to one more year. Seems a no-brainer you keep him as an ace. Unless you have 3 other aces but, um, they don't.

He's not going to be part of the next good Mets team. Or something.

So they don't want to sign anyone over 15?



And, thanks for the replies.

When the alternative is losing him for nothing as a FA? Darn right, you do.

But the alternative is signing him to a 2 year extension, probably around $25-30 million.

I'm more and more convinced the Mets should just keep Dickey.

When the alternative is losing him for nothing as a FA? Darn right, you do.

If that's the only option, sure, but I don't think it is. The Mets could try to extend him before or during the 2013 season, they could trade him at the deadline in 2013, or they could make him an offer after the 2013 season and either get him back or get a compensation pick.

If the Mets can get someone like Wil Myers (although I can't understand why the Royals would make that trade), I think they have to trade Dickey, but otherwise, I don't see them getting good value and I certainly don't see them spending comparable money on a better player.

When the alternative is losing him for nothing as a FA? Darn right, you do.

Having just endured the worst season that the Red Sox have had in 45 years I have a new outlook on this. I realize the general thinking is that you either are or are not contending but one of the things I took away from this season is that 80-82 is a #### all better than 69-93. If the Mets can deal Dickey for serious pieces that will help them contend in 2014/2015 then yes, do it, but they should not be dealing him for the best available offer. Giving fans something to root for once every five days is not the worst thing in the world.

tl;dr Trade him for Wil Myers? Yes. Trade him for a couple of OK prospects? No.

When the alternative is losing him for nothing as a FA? Darn right, you do.

If that's the only option, sure, but I don't think it is. The Mets could try to extend him before or during the 2013 season, they could trade him at the deadline in 2013, or they could make him an offer after the 2013 season and either get him back or get a compensation pick.

If the Mets can get someone like Wil Myers (although I can't understand why the Royals would make that trade), I think they have to trade Dickey, but otherwise, I don't see them getting good value and I certainly don't see them spending comparable money on a better player.

Fairly sure that was a reference to Beltran, not Dickey, especially considering the clause in Beltran's contract that forbade the Mets from offering arbitration and recouping the draft picks. Even in a situation where the Mets let Dickey walk, they probably make him a QO and get a sandwich pick, so it would never be a question of letting him walk for nothing.

of the things I took away from this season is that 80-82 is a #### all better than 69-93

I vastly preferred the A's 74-88 in 1998 to their 81-81 in 2010. 1998 gave me Eric Chavez, Jason Giambi, Mark Mulder, Ben Grieve and Miguel Tejada to look forward to. 2010 gave me a bunch of A's fans telling me that Cliff Pennington was an all-star and Daric Barton was better than Prince Fielder. Ugh.

One of the things I took from the last season is that RA Dickey can make a horrible team an absolute pleasure to watch.

Twins should try to trade yet another CF (Aaron Hicks) for Dickey. Heck, throw in Benson and Mastroianni too. Could the Twins get an exemption from MLB to only use 8 players in the field next year, and just replace their CF spot with another DH in the lineup? Could be the new market inefficiency.

Sorry for the Twins hijack. (Take that, Mets fans!)

Re possible Dickey trade: the Mets have very few MLB hitters but a surprisingly deep SP staff, at least potentially. The gamble would be that it's still good enough even without Dickey, and an extra impact player allows them to contend in 2013 or 2014.

It may not make perfect sense, but the Mets have made so many dumber moves in the last 10 years that the fan base is not yet activating the pitchforks and torches over this.

of the things I took away from this season is that 80-82 is a #### all better than 69-93

Eh, I found the 69-93 much more amusing than an 80-82 would have been. There's entertainment value in being as bad as the Red Sox were (granting that it wouldn't be as entertaining if it happened every season). They went 9-26 after the trade. They had a WORSE September/October record than they did in 2011! That is just impressive levels of sucking.

WHY ARE THE METS TRYING TO TRADE DICKEY? Isn't he signed for another year? Isn't he, like, really good?

He's not going to be part of the next good Mets team. Or something

Neither are anyone's grandchildren. If the Mets can't afford to sign Dickey to 2/26 for 2014 and 2015, then there's little chance that they're going to be able to afford to add the FA's in his stead necessary to getting the team into contention. Otherwise they're just shuffling the deck chairs.

They'd need to trade Dickey for a pre-arb guy who'd bring them 3 or 4 wins those years AND spend the 13m per they didn't spend on Dickey on a player or players who'd bring in a few more wins to make it worthwhile to trade Dickey, AND that would need to make the difference between not contending and contending ('cuz, after all, if it's the difference between 74 and 77 wins, who wouldn't rather have Dickey?). And it still wouldn't be nearly as much fun as watching Dickey pitch every fifth day for the next three years.

Thinking about it another way, any scenario that makes trading Dickey a good idea probably involves all of

a) Dickey not being very good
b) the Mets exercising good judgment in trading him
c) the Mets exercising good judgment in the players they sign instead of Dickey in free agency
d) the Wilpon's finances turning around in the next several years
e) the Wilpons deciding to put at least 20m+ of their improved finances into payroll
f) a) through e) making the difference between, say, 86 and 89 wins



Screw that sexfecta. Keep him.

.

If you want unfortunate headlines, try clicking

METS CLOSE TO DEAL WITH DICKEY!!

on Metsblog only to find out after clicking that it links to a story from 2009. Thanks, ########.

You get in trouble with sexfectas at the horse track...

The fact that Dickey hasn't been traded yet says to me that the initial offers for him aren't good enough for the Mets to consider. Which means they're probably holding out for value. They got more than expected for Beltran, and Alderson has a good track record, so I'm not worried. But even if I know that the player coming back is highly likely to be excellent I'll still miss Dickey if I go. As a Mets/ Red Sox fan, it's been 17 years since I haven't had a knuckleballer in my life. I'm not sure what I'd do without one.

You get in trouble with sexfectas at the horse track...

Someone's been reading Crank 2 inspired fanfic.

Without Michael Young, are they still going to trade Michael Olt?

.

Mets Consider Bringing K-Rod Back

is not, in fact, an Onion headline. Amazingly enough.

Re 48:

That article is from July.

@49: Really? Jesus. Not that it makes it all that much better, but if it's not really a threat to happen, good enough.