This is an easy yes. Maybe he brings Bochy along. Give him a thirtysomething whiz of a GM as heir apparent. Wins all around, perhaps even on the field.

If Sabean's such an obviously wonderful choice why hasn't anyone tried to hire him away before this?

Sounds like Sabean is trying to get his name out there.

Good. What's the alternative? Somebody's Assistant GM sandwiched between Alderson and Alderson's son?

If there are others of stature who can exercise unquestioned authority like a POBO must, then they should get a look too.

If Sabean's such an obviously wonderful choice why hasn't anyone tried to hire him away before this?

He's an obvious choice for the Mets, who need an adult in the room to run things with autonomy and to groom a young GM to take over in a few years.

. . . Brian Sabean? This is the second time in a week I thought a thread had been resurrected by an adbot only to find the Mess still think it's 2005.

Wins all around, perhaps even on the field.

But probably not that many. Sabean built some okay teams that got very lucky, it's true. But is there any particular reason to think that he's a guy worth employing above and beyond a lot of other dudes? I can't see it.

who need an adult in the room

Like the Red Sox needed an adult in the room in the early 00s? Or more like the Rays needed an adult in the room a few years later?

What the Mets need is to break out of the we-need-someone-famous-to-run-this-organization treadmill, and do it well. They no more need an adult in the room than they need a trampoline at spring training.

But probably not that many. Sabean built some okay teams that got very lucky, it's true. But is there any particular reason to think that he's a guy worth employing above and beyond a lot of other dudes? I can't see it.

Yeah, nobody ever got more mileage out of building an 87-win team that inexplicably won the World Series the half the time it even managed to qualify for the postseason at all.

Yeah, nobody ever got more mileage out of building an 87-win team that inexplicably won the World Series the half the time it even managed to qualify for the postseason at all.

But again, one is not allowed to notice that the Giants have been fortunate of late, because of reasons.

What the Mets need to do is spend money and let smart baseball people run the the organization. It doesn't look like the new owner will be doing that.

. What the Mets need to do is spend money and let smart baseball people run the the organization. It doesn't look like the new owner will be doing that.

The evidence for this is … you got picked on growing up?

Yeah, nobody ever got more mileage out of building an 87-win team that inexplicably won the World Series the half the time it even managed to qualify for the postseason at all.

What is this a reference to? His Giants teams went to the playoffs with 97, 95, 100, 92, 94, 88, 87 wins. Those don't seem weirdly low.

What is this a reference to? His Giants teams went to the playoffs with 97, 95, 100, 92, 94, 88, 87 wins. Those don't seem weirdly low.

A stupid view that the team with the most regular seasons wins "should" win every World Series, and if they don't, it's somehow tainted/unfair.

Also, a stupid view that reduces the career of a guy whose teams averaged almost 90 wins per season over 18 seasons to that one year when it won the WS with only 88 victories.

What the Mets need is to break out of the we-need-someone-famous-to-run-this-organization treadmill, and do it well. They no more need an adult in the room than they need a trampoline at spring training.

Who was the last famous exec the Mets hired, besides Sandy?

Brodie? Porter? Minaya? Jim Duquette? Steve Phillips? Guys like Ricciardi, Baird, DePodesta were brought in as mid-level guys but none were running the show.

I don’t think they need to bring in a big name, but that certainly hasn’t been their MO over the years.

A stupid view that the team with the most regular seasons wins "should" win every World Series, and if they don't, it's somehow tainted/unfair.

Or the perfectly legitimate view that it's fair to notice when a team wins three world series in ten years without ever being particularly good. You know, reality.

I suspect some people unintentionally consider a team like the 2010 Giants worse for having won the World Series, compared to them hypothetically losing in the NLDS or whatever. It's such a weird resentment.

I wouldn't be thrilled with it, but I actually think Sabean might be a good choice for a few years. The Mets probably need someone to overhaul their player development system at some point and build everything up from the base, but right now I want the team to be competing for a World Series this year and next year while deGrom and Lindor are in their primes.

I love to watch fans of teams kvetch about this GM or that GM when THE PIRATES HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE WORLD SERIES FOR 43 YEARS. And they have only been to the World Series 3 times in the last *65* years and only 5 times in the last 97. I would actually start watching baseball again if the Pirates got Sabean as GM. How could it possibly be any worse?

Oh poor Pirates fans. Boo hoo.

Let's see

Cubs have been to the WS once in the last 75 year and have been to the WS 6 times in 102 years.

Or the perfectly legitimate view that it's fair to notice when a team wins three world series in ten years without ever being particularly good. You know, reality.

Ok, so which good team should have won the 2010 World Series? The Giants had the second-best record in the National League, so they seem like as good a choice as any.

Which good team should have won the 2012 World Series? The Giants slipped to third in the NL that year, but in a knot of teams with 94 to 98 wins, so they seem like as good a choice as any. Especially since the 98-win team purposely left one of its best players on the bench.

The Cubs should have won both times, clearly

It's interesting how things have come back around, but as most on-field-managers have embraced analytics, the need for direct supervision of the on-field product has waned since the days when Billy Beane and Art Howe clashed. Now, just as in Branch Rickey's day, the biggest task for a GM is to manage the player development system. Brian Sabean's strategy BITD was to draft and develop pitchers, and trade for or sign position players - the thinking behind it being that pitchers were scarce, but also fragile, so better to have a pipeline of pitchers and identify position players to trade for, as the latter would be likely surer bets. The strategy I think still makes sense, but of course requires other GM's to adopt an opposite strategy for the optimal result. Is Sabean the right man to do the same for the Mets? His front office was by all accounts pretty well run, though his protege Bobby Evans did not pan out as his successor. I think the biggest issue with Brian Sabean in this case is - does he have a successor in mind who he would bring along with him, and would that person be a good fit for NY?

.

Which good team should have won the 2012 World Series? The Giants slipped to third in the NL that year, but in a knot of teams with 94 to 98 wins, so they seem like as good a choice as any. Especially since the 98-win team purposely left one of its best players on the bench.

With the Giants acing the 88-win Tigers, the Commissioner should have stepped in for the good of the game and canceled the WS.

The Mets may be down to their 6th or 7th choice, as it is now reported that Giants’ GM Scott Harris & Dodgers’ Assistant GM Brandon Gomes have taken themselves out of consideration. Maybe the Mets will opt for a self-promoting blogger this time?

I feel like I’m as diehard of a “current playoffs water down the regular season too much” as anyone alive but saying the giants weren’t particularly good during their weird championship run is going way too far.

Or the perfectly legitimate view that it's fair to notice when a team wins three world series in ten years without ever being particularly good. You know, reality.

Well, in my book, a team that wins three World Series IS particularly good.

How about the 2013 Red Sox that snuck one fluke good year among three last place finishes. Is that win tainted too?

How many MLB franchises won more regular season games than the Giants during Sabean's tenure as GM. It can't be more than 4 or 5, right?

How about the 2013 Red Sox that snuck one fluke good year among three last place finishes. Is that win tainted too?

Of course not, the Red Sox are always awesome. Even when they finish last in the East, they are the most awesome last place team in the AL.

#30

Most wins from 1997-2014 (the time listed that Sabean was GM with day-to-day control):

                      
Tm     Wtm  Ltm tmW-L%
NYY   1729 1183   .594
ATL   1651 1263   .567
BOS   1600 1315   .549
STL   1595 1319   .547
SFG   1556 1358   .534
OAK   1549 1365   .532
LAD   1544 1371   .530
PHI   1496 1419   .513
CLE   1482 1433   .508
CHW   1480 1435   .508

Or the perfectly legitimate view that it's fair to notice when a team wins three world series in ten years without ever being particularly good. You know, reality.

I think Mets fans would trade 'not ever being particularly good' :eyeroll: for ten years in exchange for three world series wins.