Great article, and I find myself in complete agreement with the thesis.

Ever since the end of the Frank Cashen era, the Mets have had their one shining moment in making the Subway Series, but other than that their well-deserved reputation has been that of being high-spending underachievers and spectacular collapsers.

You could chalk it up to mere bad luck if it were only a couple of seasons, but no team in baseball has so consistently gotten less results to show for the money spent for years on end, so it's hard to avoid the conclusion that something is fundamentally wrong with the organization.

I agree with almost everything in the piece, except the implication that the Mets might need to trade some of the stars to make a better structure work. That should absolutely not need to happen. Their failure to acquire the right complementary players, or to hold on to those they have had, does not result from an inability to afford them. They have simply not had the right decision-makers in the FO to identify, develop, acquire, and retain the players to fit around the stars. The problems are in the way they have structured (or more accurately, failed to structure) the front office, and in the lack of acumen of the individuals making the decisions.

It would be a shame if the blame for the failings ends up, even indirectly, being ascribed to the nature of the roster -- or at least to the superstar part of the roster. Just as the Rangers were spending enough money on the part of their roster not going to A-Rod that they should have been able to win if they had just been spending it wisely, the Mets have plenty of money to spend that is not going to Wright, Reyes, Beltran, K-Rod, and Johan . . . if they would just spend it wisely. The thing we need to ask ourselves is what, exactly, is preventing them from spending it wisely. Marchman does an excellent job here talking about the long-standing pattern of FO bungling . . . . That's what has to change. Not the left side of the infield.

EDIT:

Count the stars: Howard, Utley, Rollins, Victorino, Werth, Ibanez, Hamels, Lee, Lidge, Pedro

I feel bad saying this, but in the context of this discussion, Pedro is a scrub. He is a complementary player (at most) for the 2009 Phillies.

Why does he think Sullivan is a bad defensive OF? Has he been screwing up this season?

I thought he was good when he was with Colorado. His UZR in CF was bad, but I wonder if that's just a tough park to play center in. Taveras +30 runs career for the Astros and Reds, but -7 runs for the Rockie. Dexter Fowler is one of the worst Cf's by UZR, but doesn't look it.

Anyway, Sullivan's real problem is he can't hit enough regardless...

The Mets are a stars-and-scrubs team.

Count the stars: Howard, Utley, Rollins, Victorino, Werth, Ibanez, Hamels, Lee, Lidge, Pedro

On the cusp: Happ

Count the stars? That would work with the Mutts too if you ignore the DL

plus as someone else noted, Pedro 2009 a star?
Do you really think Werth is as good as he has been in 2009? If you count him as a "star" then you can't count Rollins. Pre 2009, Werth was no better than Church...

What the Phillies have done very well is they have assembled a batch of guys all peaking (age 27-30 or so) at the same time:
Ruiz, Howard, Utley, Feliz, Rollins, Ibanez, Victorino, Werth may be a very good lineup 2008/09, but will likely not be as productive in 2010, or 2011

Happ is a nice story, but his peripherals are rather mediocre to say the least
That sub .250 BABIP IS going to regress in the direction of league average, so unless his K rate jacks itself up to his minor league levels, his ERA+ is going to regress to league rather strongly too.
trust me, Mets fans deluded themselves about Maine being on the cusp of stardom too, Happ looks like a #3 having a nice run.

Would like to see Bobby Valentine come back. Too bad the Wilpons didn't like him. For all his arrogance, he could manage!

Come to think of it, given the Wilpons absurd obsession with the Dodgers, maybe they should appreicate Valentine more.

I don't care what Lidge has done in the past. His ERA this year is 7.03. He is not a star.

I don't care what Lidge has done in the past. His ERA this year is 7.03. He is not a star.

Only a star would get that kind of leash he has so he could majestically suck for an entire season, though. If he was a scrub he would have been discarded long ago.

Weren't the Wilpons the guys who wanted Bobby V and Nelson Doubleday wanted someone like Tony Larussa or Jim Leyland?

Yeah, but Brad Lidge's FIP is only 5.88.

Seriously, that Phillies bullpen has a big red X on it that people will try to aim at.

Put together a team that’s built around iffy secondary talent and a structure that’s—if anything—not built to accommodate it and you get messes like the Lou Piniella Mariners or the Mets of the last few years.

The Lou Piniella Mariners went to the playoffs 4 times in 10 years, set a record for wins in a season, and finished with a .542 winning percentage during his reign (while turning the franchise from something of a joke to a well respected organization). To call them a mess seems somewhat absurd.

I don't usually like to comment on my own stuff, but I've had a lot of email from Phillies fans about this, so I probably should have clarified the point. By calling the Phillies a stars and scrubs team I didn't mean that guys like Werth and Victorino are scrubs, just that the Phillies are basically built around a few really first rate players who are complemented with secondary talent picked up on the cheap. Of course this describes a lot of teams, but in terms of organizational philosophy I'd contrast this to the White Sox, who key in on having a lot of good players rather than a few great ones, or the Yankees, who back the stars up with more stars.

Re: the Mariners, when you look at the talent they gave away trying to fill out that bullpen and some of the chances they blew, I don't think 'mess' is too strong a word. YMMV of course.

YMMV?

It's almost as if general manager Omar Minaya has no idea at all what he's doing.

Almost as if...?

Your Mileage May Vary

YMMV?

"Your mileage may vary" - a somewhat clever acronym to mean "you and I may have a difference of opinion on this subjective matter".

I don't usually like to comment on my own stuff, but I've had a lot of email from Phillies fans about this, so I probably should have clarified the point. By calling the Phillies a stars and scrubs team I didn't mean that guys like Werth and Victorino are scrubs, just that the Phillies are basically built around a few really first rate players who are complemented with secondary talent picked up on the cheap. Of course this describes a lot of teams, but in terms of organizational philosophy I'd contrast this to the White Sox, who key in on having a lot of good players rather than a few great ones, or the Yankees, who back the stars up with more stars.

I think the Phillies are the perfect example of how to stack a team that has stars. It's different from a team like the White Sox or the Yankees, but it's even more different from the Mets. Werth and Victorino and Blanton and Ruiz and Happ and Madson are all above average regulars. The Mets don't have two guys like thta.

Well the Mets are going for the same thing, structurally—they're just not good at it.

I think the Phillies are the perfect example of how to stack a team that has stars. It's different from a team like the White Sox or the Yankees, but it's even more different from the Mets. Werth and Victorino and Blanton and Ruiz and Happ and Madson are all above average regulars. The Mets don't have two guys like thta.

I really hate defending the Mets, but really, is this true? The difference between Jason Werth and Ryan Church is one guy posting a top-of-the-spectrum slash dot line while the other ran his head into the wall too many times. The difference between AJ Happ and John Maine is that Maine already had his flukishly effective year and we'r still waiting for Happ to regress down from his. The difference between Ryan Madson and JJ Putz is that Putz got hurt. All of these things are essetnailly random variations. I'd be more inclined to believe the "Phillie knows how to build a winner while New York doesn't" theory if someone had spent the off season explaining how Madson would be healthier and Happ would come out of nowhere and Church would crack his skull open on the OF wall. Otherwise it seems a lot like post facto reasoning.

Re: the Mariners, when you look at the talent they gave away trying to fill out that bullpen and some of the chances they blew, I don't think 'mess' is too strong a word. YMMV of course.

Don't get me wrong - they did make some terrible moves with respect to the bullpen - but despite that, they were still able to field continously competetive (and periodically excellent) teams for the duration of Piniella's reign. Basically, they were a well run organization who just made some bad moves around the edges, as almost every organization is known to do.

For comparison, just look at the hitters that Cleveland was giving away in the same period (Giles, Sexton, Burnitz) in the same sort of trades, and yet no one would refer to that organization (at that time) as a mess.

The signing of Raul Ibanez looks much more ordinary now than 2 months ago.

A DL stint, and a really bad slump has Ibanez down to .278/.347/.563 in 449 PAs, and .190/.277/.321 in his last 28 days, and 94 PAs.

I really hate defending the Mets, but really, is this true?

Church and Maine and Putz all had injury problems going into the season. It's not just that they got hurt.

I'd be more inclined to believe the "Phillie knows how to build a winner while New York doesn't"

Well, this is Philly's third straight year of building a winner, and the Mets third straight year of not. That might or might not be enough to convince, but it isn't the Phillies are having one flukey year of sucess.

Church and Maine and Putz all had injury problems going into the season. It's not just that they got hurt.

I still don't buy it. Predicting which relief pitcher will get hurt and which will pitch dominantly and which will not get hurt but suck a*s regardless is about as scientific as reading chicken entrails. Find me a preseason article warning the Phillie faithful that Brad Lidge was going to post a 7+ ERA this year. Find me a preseason article suggesting that Jason Werth was going to turn into JD Drew at the age of 30.

If Philly doesn't buy into AJ Happ's 2009 the way the Mets bought into Maine's 2006 then you'll have more of an argument, but right now the primary differences I see is that Ryan Howard, Shane Victorino, Chase Utley, Cole Hamels and Cliff Lee aren't all half dead.

Even if Werth doesn't turn in by far the best season of his career, the Phillies went into the year with two average corner outfielders while the Mets had a guy who never rebounded after his latest concussion and a rookie who they figured would continue to play better than he ever had before. Even if Happ doesn't post numbers far beyond his capabiilty, the Phillies didn't go into the year with only one starter who they could count on (like the Mets did).

Sam Hutcheson is taking the Mets' side in a debate. So this is what rock-bottom looks like.

Well, this is Philly's third straight year of building a winner, and the Mets third straight year of not.

Hyberbole at best. In 2006 the Mets won the division. In 2007 and 2008 the Mets competed for the division right down to the wire both seasons. In 2009, the Mets pissed off Cthulu. Yes, the Phils edged out the Mets the last two years. Yes, they ran the tournament in 2008. That does not imply the division of capabilities you are implying here. I love a good Mets debacle as much as any red-blooded American boy but this is post hoc rationalization at its finest. The Phillies got lucky with the Ibanez signing and managed not to have Jamie Moyer die on the mound. The Mets got eaten by a tiger. Everything else is assignment of false narrative to an essentially random string of events.

The Mets problem isn't that they bought into John Maine, it's that they bought into friggin' Oliver Perez. Sheesh, talk about your albatrosses; he's 100% untradeable and they're saddled with the bum for two more full seasons at a time when the owners have discovered that much of their retirement is up in smoke.

Was there even one other team in baseball that was seriously interested in Perez at anywhere near the money the Mets are paying him? That one deal alone should make Minaya a pariah.

I agree with Joey B. The Perez deal should be enough to get Minaya fired. He bid against himself for the most unpredictable pitcher in the game. One who isn't even that good when he's on.

On a related note, has the Ollie deal replaced the Zito deal as the most untradeable pitcher contract? If Minaya offered Ollie to the Giants for Zito, would Sabean do it? He'd be a saving a boatload of cash, but I can't imagine he would pull the trigger. I would think Omar would do this if he could.

Maybe in the off season. Zito still has 4 years left on his deal vs. Perez's 2 years at a lower rate. There is nothing from stopping the Giants from just eating Perez's contract and releasing him, but I guess you can say the same for the Mets.

If you're saying the Phils at full strength aren't much better than the Mets at full strength, you better have some better explanation than randomness.

The Phillies have Cliff Lee now, so they have two ace-quality pitchers (Hamels's bad 2009 notwithstanding) as compared to the Mets' one. I'll take them over the Mets at full strength in 2009, sure, but in 2007 and 2008? The Mets lost the division by one game in 2007 - that could absolutely be explained by randomness or luck. In 2008, they led the division by half a game with nine games to go; the Phils blew by them after that and won the division by three. The Mets very clearly could have won the division. If you asked me which team was better from 2007 to 2008, or even just in 2007, I would probably say that Philadelphia was. But you sound as if wasn't close at all, and I just don't see that.

I'm not going to get into the "makeup" of the team. I don't know about it, and it would be unfair of me to speculate about it, especially considering that I'd essentially be saying something about the character of twenty-five guys whom I've never met.

Yes, they could have won the division, and should have won the division, but they lost it by freezing in the headlights.

No, what finally happened is that the Mets' pitching staff - more specifically, the bullpen - finally came back to earth after several months of pitching over their heads.

-- MWE

Blowing a 7.5 game lead with 17 games to go is not randomness or luck. It's a monumental failure. An historic failure. Yes, they could have won the division, and should have won the division, but they lost it by freezing in the headlights. To me, that speaks to the makeup of the 25 players involved.

The 2007 Mets went 5-12 in their last 17 games. How often do you think a ML team goes 5-12 at any point in a season?

Just as a reminder, John Maine is the idiot who only tells the trainers about pain when it gets to the point that it is so bad that he has no choice.