We open up the Mets Mailbag at the All-Star Break to discuss the state of the team and what's to come ahead of the MLB trade deadline...
David Stearns has been a complete trainwreck the past two seasons. Even Steve admitted “it’s not going well,” so why would he publicly give him support to finish out this five-year contract? -- @HustleDiva1
Steve Cohen’s rationale for keeping Stearns, at least as he has articulated it publicly, is twofold: one, he hand-picked Stearns years in advance, waited for him, and made a significant financial commitment to him. He believed in him that much, and he believes he will adapt and adjust.
Two, Cohen has said he does not want to be perceived as a flighty billionaire owner in the George Steinbrenner mold because he believes that will deter top talent from coming to work for him. If a highly touted executive is choosing his or her next home, why would that person put his or her career in the hands of someone they know will turn on them at the first sign of trouble. Again, this is Cohen’s rationale. And certainly with Stearns, this year is not the first sign of trouble.
That being said, I did not hear Cohen say he is definitely keeping Stearns for the duration of his contract. In fact, when Joel Sherman pressed him on that during that excellent podcast interview last week, Cohen admitted that if things aren’t going well, he might have to make a move. I thought that was significant, particularly because Cohen did not think firing Carlos Mendoza would be necessary earlier this season, according to people familiar with his thinking. When things got worse, he changed his mind.
Cohen wants stability. He hopes Stearns will learn from failure and be a better long-term fit for it, and I will say that in a sport as fickle as this one, it does sometimes take time for people to get things right. And I also don’t think he will keep Stearns long-term if things get worse. The question I do not know the answer to, however, is what "worse" would have to look like if we have not seen it yet.
Is it unpopular opinion if I say that Torrens should be the everyday catcher and Taylor needs to be in the lineup more often? They are battlers and have a much needed approach in the batter’s box. Pretty good defensively as well. Have been for years but somehow seem undervalued. -- @kevind7195
That opinion is certainly not unpopular with me, and the catching perspective seems to be the prevailing notion with the Mets these days, too. Near the end of Mendoza’s tenure, he started committing to playing Torrens more behind the plate, and he has gotten more consistent playing time there since then as the Mets have used Francisco Alvarez more as a designated hitter. That balance has been complicated somewhat by the return of Jorge Polanco, who can only serve as the DH and therefore limits the Mets’ ability to use Alvarez in that position. But I believe the organization is seeing the importance of Torrens’ steadiness defensively and his ability to get the most out of pitchers, and I would expect him to split time more consistently with Alvarez down the stretch as much as possible.
I also think the organization views Torrens highly enough that they would be willing to trade Alvarez if presented with a return they deem suitable. I do not know whether they would trade Torrens, whom they signed to a team friendly extension earlier this season, though I would expect teams to ask. Obviously, I would not expect them to deal both.
As for Taylor, I think he is both undervalued and playing about as much as this team can afford to play him now. The Mets have committed to giving Carson Benge and A.J. Ewing regular at-bats, so outside of the occasional tough lefty matchup for Ewing, Taylor has no clear path to regular outfield duty. When he has gotten chances, he has been productive. He is a tremendously valuable asset as a fourth outfielder because of his ability to produce in limited duty. And because of that, plus the fact that he is a free agent after this season, he might end up being a valuable trade piece, too.
We were told this was a World Series team with better defense and a more well rounded offense. How could they have been this wrong?
I’m not here to argue with the premise of your question, but I will say the Mets are not the only people who read this group wrong. Oddsmakers, projection analysts, and even just regular baseball writers like me all predicted them to be contenders in the National League East with a chance to run through October if they added enough at the deadline. And of course, none of that materialized.
Injuries are part of the reason. Lindor missing so much time and needing time to recover his form really hurt them. Polanco and Luis Robert Jr. missing most of the first half didn’t help, though that was predictable. Spencer Jones shattering Clay Holmes’ leg made things very difficult. But everyone has injuries, and I think they miscalculated the extent of their depth.
I also think they misread their people. Freddy Peralta was more vulnerable to the pressures of a contract year than they thought. Devin Williams has been more susceptible to the pressures of closing in New York than Stearns clearly expected. Alvarez and Mark Vientos and Brett Baty were not ready to take the next steps forward the Mets needed them to take. All of that added up to a weaker, shallower lineup than they thought they had.
But I also think they were wrong about the state of their clubhouse. Whether or not they needed to clear Pete Alonso, Brandon Nimmo, and Jeff McNeill will be debated for years, though people in the clubhouse and around the team insist the vibes are better this year. But better vibes are not enough. Whether because of public discussions about a potential captaincy, injuries, or something else, Lindor is not the same person he seemed to be in years’ past – a little less… sure somehow.
Soto might someday exert his influence more forcefully on this clubhouse, but for now he insists he sees himself as one of the guys, not an enforcer. They do not have an emotional anchor, and with a struggling team and brand-new coaching staff, neither Mendoza nor Stearns nor anyone in the clubhouse could provide one. Emotional anchors matter most when things go wrong, and when they went wrong early this year, the void was glaring. It continues to be.
So mostly, I think they missed on the intangibles – the injury risk, the way pressure would impact players new to New York, the type of people they needed in the clubhouse and they type of young players they had. Few teams get those things right, and some that do luck into it. But the Mets will not build long-term success until they figure them out. And the good thing about intangibles is they are impossible to calculate. Maybe, then, they are not as far from figuring them out as it seems. Or something.
