IMAGINE you are made the Mets’ general manager. Yes, obviously, you will give better press conferences than your predecessor.
But the key to success is not about conjugating verbs well, it is about assembling a winning team. Sometimes I wonder if the current Mets general manager understands that the 2009 season is over and that his job is strictly about next year now.
It is about implementing from now forward a better injury protocol and far more defined boundaries for his executives so he does not have the kind of cross-job cannibalizing that was at the root of problems with Tony Bernazard.
Nevertheless, it is mainly about constructing a better roster. But to do so he must deal with these puzzling rules provided by your friendly neighborhood Wilpon:
1. No rebuilding. So you cannot, for example, investigate what Johan Santana might fetch in a trade. The Wilpons have too much invested in their new stadium and TV network, and now their only steady source of income is their baseball team. So they are not breaking anything down.
2. Nevertheless, you probably will be operating with far lower payroll. Fred and Jeff Wilpon can deny, deny, deny, but the combination of Bernie Madoff and a failing real estate market, in particular, has eaten severely into the family’s cash reserves.
The Mets have roughly $40 million in salary coming off the books and $10 million in raises due. But nobody should expect the general manager to be given $30 million to address catcher, first base, left field, a front-end starter and bullpen needs.
3. The Mets must protect their thin prospect base. They need an inexpensive feeder system. So no more four youngsters for Santana or depth-crushing seven pieces for J.J. Putz and spare parts.
So let’s recap: You must build a contender next year. You must do it with a reduction in payroll.
You cannot trade pieces of your prospect base to do it. Well, that should be easy, like climbing Everest in just a pair of boxer shorts.
Wait, here is one other item: You must create better 25- and 40-man roster depth. Why? Well, the common theme to explain how the Mets faltered in September 2007 and 2008 was lack of character. Maybe. But it was more about lack of talent. It is the same reason that 2009 has gone awry. The skill level beyond the elite players has been horrendous.
By September your frontline players are exhausted and need strong support. The Mets have not had it. In 2009, many frontline players have been injured and the backups have been jokes, which reflected terribly on how the Mets stocked not just their major league roster, but their 40-man roster and their minors in general.
“You have to be strong 11-to-30 on your roster or 11-to-40 on your roster,” a rival NL executive said. “The Phillies are. The Mets aren’t.”
One way to deepen the pool of talent is for the Mets to be terrible the rest of the way. And not only because that will net a higher draft pick next June. But also because any team that finishes with one of the 15 worst records can sign a Type-A free agent, and rather than lose its first-round pick, it would lose a second-rounder; and if that team were to sign a Type-B, it would lose nothing. The Mets entered the weekend with the majors’ 21st best record.
The Mets are not going to be able to afford to go too high on the Type-A list anyway for a Matt Holliday or John Lackey. They need to spread around what funds they have and again be thinking about deepening their roster. Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes and David Wright have lost value in 2009, so the Mets can’t trade them now at a low point.
So you have to hope that trio joins Santana and Francisco Rodriguez for a healthy 2010 nucleus of arguably five of the best 60 players in the majors.
The Mets then should augment with good, versatile players.
Both Mark DeRosa and Chone Figgins are free agents.
Both are on the borderline between Type-A and B, and the Mets would like them to fall into Type-B, so the Mets can protect their first two rounds of picks.
A canvassing of executives and agents varied widely on what they thought those two veterans would cost with most executives anticipating another depressed market in which players in their 30s (especially if they had draft compensation tied to them) would have trouble generating much in the way of years or money.
The agents, of course, saw it differently.
My rudimentary guess is two years at $10 million for DeRosa and three years at $24 million for Figgins.
Let’s assume the Mets could sign both to reasonable deals.
So, at full health, the Mets would have Figgins in left and
DeRosa at first. But the beauty is that if an injury hit anywhere other than catcher (and maybe shortstop) and the Mets did not have a suitable replacement, Figgins and/or DeRosa could shift over. Heck, Jerry Hairston is a free agent, too, and the Mets should consider him for their bench because of his jack-of-all-trades abilities.
Just look at what the versatility of Tampa’s Ben Zobrist or Atlanta’s Martin Prado means.
Also, Figgins — a serious player from a winning background — would be such a valuable role model to Reyes and take some of the top-of-the-order pressure off of him.
Also, Figgins’ style is conducive to a big Citi Field. Imagine a lineup top four of Reyes, Figgins (patience in the two hole to help Reyes’ speed), Wright and Beltran.
That is four base stealers (imagining Beltran and Reyes with healthy legs) and three switch-hitters.
This does not solve all the Mets’ needs. But it is a step toward diversifying/deepening the roster, protecting the system, and doing both on a restrictive budget while elevating the chance of contention in 2010.