Blue Jays have 72 hours to sign extension with R.A. Dickey

Fox Sports is reporting that the Mets and Blue Jays have agreed to a deal that will send R.A. Dickey to Toronto, pending the Blue Jays being able to work out an extension with the knuckleball pitcher. Toronto has 72 hours, or until 2:00 PM Tuesday to sign Dickey.

Earlier reports had Dickey as part of a seven-player deal between the two teams. In return the Mets received top prospect Travis d’Arnaud, top pitching prospect Noah Syndergaard, catcher John Buck and an additional minor leaguer.

The last reigning Cy Young Award winner immediately traded also involved the Blue Jays, when they dealt Roger Clemens to the Yankees in 1999. The last reigning NL Cy Young Award winner dealt in the same offseason was Pedro Martinez in 1997.

The Mets also are expected to include Josh Thole and a minor leaguer in the deal. Neither unnamed minor league player is expected to be a difference maker.

This move represents a huge risk for Sandy Alderson, trading a popular player under a team-friendly contract. However, Alderson was faced with several unpopular choices. Would you rather that Alderson:

A. Brought back the same team in 2013 that finished 14 games under .500?
B. Traded 25-year-old Ike Davis?
C. Traded 25-year-old Jonathon Niese?
D. Traded 22-year-old Zack Wheeler?
E. Traded 38-year-old Dickey?

Realistically, the above choices are what Alderson had to choose from right now. People doubted that he would be able to get one top prospect for Dickey and Alderson got two, even if he did have to throw in Thole.

Earlier today, ESPN national baseball writer Buster Olney tweeted the following:

The broad perception in the industry is that if the Mets pull this discussed Dickey deal for d’Arnaud, it’s an incredible trade for them.

We can be sad about losing Dickey but at the same time grateful that Alderson and the Mets pulled off a deal to address one of their biggest needs in catcher. Now to get to work on that outfield…

26 comments for “Blue Jays have 72 hours to sign extension with R.A. Dickey

  1. Paul Gruber
    December 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    As a Met fan, I believe this is a good move… we need to get an outfielder like Michael Bourne for OF leadership, defense, speed, OB% etc. With a very young piching staff, anything could happen! Also, is there a way to get a “closer” like Gregerson from the Padres (and give up a young prospect)

    • December 16, 2012 at 4:14 pm

      You would have to think Gregerson is available. Last year the Padres offered him to the Mets for Daniel Murphy but the Mets nixed that offer.

      • Name
        December 16, 2012 at 5:08 pm

        Brian, Do You think JV and Meija would be too steep a price to pay for Gregerson?

        • December 16, 2012 at 5:12 pm


          I wouldn’t give Mejia for Gregerson, much less throw in anything else.

          • Name
            December 16, 2012 at 5:53 pm

            Hmm. I don’t do too much about the Mets minors, but do you think that the trade could center around JV with a(or a few) pitchers going with him.

  2. Name
    December 16, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    I’d rather try and see Alderson try to see if we can trade our surplus of B-level prospects to see if we can get a player in return. I still think that the same 2012 team with maybe 1-2 new bullpen faces, a full season of Edgin, and another OF bat could have contended for a playoff spot.
    I’m praying that Dickey hates Canada, the increased taxes, and the cold weather and will demand an outrageous contract that will scare off the Jays. Please Please Please.

  3. AJ
    December 16, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    As great a story as was R.A. Dickey this past season, and regardless of how personally likable he is, this is a gamble worth taking for the Mets. This was the smart move. Prospects are not certainties, but a 37-year old pitcher repeating a career year is no certainty either.

    This past season R.A. Dickey was one of few reasons to even watch the Mets in the second half. No one can reasonably expect the Mets to be contenders in 2013, but with young talent on the rise they can at least be enjoyable to follow, hopefully building toward contention in ’14 and beyond. If the future was now, keeping Dickey would be much more desirable, but if we’re still a few years away from contention then the better move is to keep building toward the future.

    I’m hoping watching the Mets this season will be like it was in ’84, when the team was fun and there was a sense that something good was in development. Adding d’Arnaud and Syndergaard to Harvey and Wheeler and the other up-and-coming talents keeps the momentum toward renewed respectability going, and I’m for that.

    It’s not a done deal yet, but I hope it happens. All the best to R.A. Dickey, and sincere thanks to him for being a bit of light in an otherwise dark period of Mets history.

    • Name
      December 16, 2012 at 4:27 pm

      I was expecting them to be contenders before they traded RA.
      “but a 37-year old pitcher repeating a career year is no certainty either.”
      … yet Torri Hunter got a 2 year 26 million dollar deal.

      Anyways. RA is so much more than just a bunch of stats. Boggles my mind why Alderson can’t see RA’s intangibles yet is willing to overpay for Wright’s.

      • December 16, 2012 at 4:32 pm

        It’s an interesting question as to who would have brought back a better package – Dickey or Wright. My guess is that even at his advanced age, Dickey had more trade value. If we could have gotten a top catching prospect and a top 50 SP prospect for Wright – I would have made that deal.

        • Name
          December 16, 2012 at 5:00 pm

          I would say Dickey too. Wright faded down the stretch and was projected to make $16 million compared to Dickey’s $5. Money always talks in baseball.

  4. steevy
    December 16, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    If D’Arnaud becomes the player people think he can be ,it’s a good deal.Even if the pitcher doesn’t pan out.If both pan out it is a great deal.

    • Name
      December 16, 2012 at 6:52 pm

      I think these player for prospects deals are impossible to evaluate because of the huge volatility of “returns” from the players.

      There are basically two ways people use to analyze trades. The rational (and preferred) method is to evaluate at the time of the trade. Another method is to evaluate after the fact.

      The reason that the after the fact the method doesn’t work is because once the trading is complete, it is really out of control of the GM’s hands at this point. Why should the GM get credit for something that is out of his control? You could say that he did his “due diligence” and was able to identify that player, but that’s a bunch of bull. What makes someone who has immediate sucess(Buster Posey) different from someone who takes some time to figure things out(Alex Gordon) to someone that never figures it out(Jeff Francoeur)? These 3 were all considered top prospects, but their careers took very different paths. Unless there were hints of injury or mental problems, the GM should not be judged on whether the player fails or suceeds.

      I also think that the at the time evaluating doesn’t really work because prospects are judged arbitrarly and that it is hard to put a value on the future production that is more than 2-3 years away.

      • December 16, 2012 at 8:25 pm

        It’s not just limited to prospects. Very few people were upset when we traded Pagan last year and we got established players in return. Looked like a good deal at the time but it turned out to be a bust.

        I don’t blame Alderson for making that trade one bit. At the same time, it has to count against his record to some degree, just for the complete failure it ended up being. Sure, it’s not Alderson’s fault that Torres couldn’t hit – yet he’s the one responsible for him being on the club in the first place.

        Maybe we use some kind of scale – 80% time of trade, 20% actual results, for example – but both have to be factored in somehow.

        • Name
          December 17, 2012 at 1:44 am

          I think i’m trying to digest this on more of a philosophical level.
          Usually when we make a decision, and a positive result happens, we think it is a good decision. Likewise, if a negative result happens, we think it is a bad decision. But digging deeper, was the result really a direct causation from the decision, or were other factors invovled that caused the result?

          So, i guess what i’m trying to say, is that most things are really out of Alderson’s hand. He really shouldn’t get any credit or blame for anything he does. But even though he shouldn’t get any credit/blame, I don’t think it is unrational for people to do that because he is the figurehead, and the person who does have the most “singular” influence on the results.

          Eh. I’m entering waters i really don’t want to venture in to. I think i’ll just stop here.

  5. JerryGrote
    December 16, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    From either team, I just love this trade. To get a reigning Cy Young winner on a 3/30 contract for two prospects neither of which would play in April in Toronto … that’s a deal. The Mets deal from a position of strength (internally, given our prospect funnel) and not only cover our single greatest need, but refill the funnel.

    If we should manage to sign Bourne, you have pretty good defense right up the middle with D’arnaud/Tejada/Bourne with fair production. In two years, the Mets could have the best (and cheapest) four top pitchers in baseball.

  6. Paul Gruber
    December 16, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    Exactly. His value is high but he will not be a closer for San Diego….. I was thinking of either Duda or Davis….. Both on the Mets is not needed and the one traded would play for SD

    • Name
      December 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm

      Whaaaaaat? You’re willing to trade Davis for Gregerson? I hope you don’t mean straight up.

  7. Chris F
    December 16, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    Like Name, I believe too much is placed on the prospect haul, at the expense of believing in a future that is still around many dark corners, and possible injuries. Asking fans to wait 2-3 years to be credible seems like quite a bit. I’m not excited about that. It’s what we seem to have though. I read that no contract will exceed 10M$/yr going forward…sounds like the Dodgers, eh? We seem to be stuck in a Tampa Bay, Oakland, Minnesota mind set, and accepting it, which is appalling in NYC.

    With Sandy’s gun now completely unloaded in terms of quality trade chips, it’ll be interesting to see how we get some semblance of an outfield, and targeted for peaking in what time frame. I anticipate Nimmo will be up before this team is remotely competitive.

    I would have preferred he sign RA, making citifield a destination for fans who wnat to cheer, and waited for the budget to increase next year to start solving the problems in ways that that won’t require and eternity to see come to bear. These moves are not stocking the minors…hardly. We got 3 blue chippers all with a hopefully soon mlb debut. The minors will be just as crap as they are now.

    On the radio today, it was said the Mets don’t have the “DNA” programmed for winning, and laid it all on the ownership. We don’t have a mentality to win, and as long as this ownership/management group is in, it just about pretending and hope for something that is not coming.

    I would have suggested SA fire the coaching staff nearly top to bottom. All these young arms under the guidance of Warthen…I wonder how many more ACLs and TJs re coming? And the bats being guided by Hudgens—will we ever hit another breaking ball? All these young hopefuls, and what will happen in the Show?

  8. Paul Gruber
    December 16, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    or Duda – it could be expanded —-Davis’s BA sucked – and the Mets actually have the making of a decent pitching staff.

    • Name
      December 17, 2012 at 12:44 am

      Gregerson could possibly be the centerpiece of a Duda trade, but definately not Davis.

      But i don’t think SD would be interested in either player considering they have Yonder Alonso.

  9. December 16, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    This is a business which requires hard choices sometimes. If Dickey had not pitched so well the Mets would have finished last with about 95-100 loses. So I understand the predicament but I’m not happy as a Met fan. The Mets are a flawed team with numerous holes to fill. With no Dickey, everyone moves up a notch on the starting rotation. Do you really expect the Mets to compete this coming season? Let’s all sit and wait for 2014 and HOPE our prospects continue to improve and EVENTUALLY the Mets might just start winning. But I don’t have any faith in this management. No lead off hitter, no outfield, no bullpen, no closer. What are our expectations for 2013? How about 100 loses and further declining attendance at Citifield. What’s the point? The team being assembled as of today is awful. What perplexes me is how a team like Tampa Bay can field such a superior group of players year in and year out with a limited payroll in the 60 million dollar range. What we need is better scouting and drafting to continue replenishing the players we don’t re-sign. Is it possible for us to just skip forward to 2014? The problems we face are not the players fault but Fred Wilpons mishandling of his family fortune. We would not be here commiserating if the Mets had money to spend. Mr. Wilpon please sell the team and spare us of this never ending misery.

    • Name
      December 17, 2012 at 1:01 am

      Ugh. I’m sorry, but im tired of the “Look at the Tampa Bays” argument. They went through 10, yes 10 years of hell and misery to be able to produce the talent they have. TEN years. Why is no one talking about those years?

      I know there are a lot of problems with the team, but i could probably name just as many on playoff contenders as well. I find it better to look at our strengths. We still have a decent rotation, and a solid infield.

  10. December 17, 2012 at 1:27 am

    Problem is the Mets are heading for 10 years of misery with the argument that the kids will make up for all the frustration. The point I was trying to make is that Tampa Bay with no revenue from attendance is still able to compete in a very competitive division. I don’t wake up every day with the expectation of coming in last place Like a Cleveland Indian or Pittsburgh Pirate. The Mets play in the number one market in America and will continue to be hamstrung by its current ownership for the foreseeable future.

  11. Name
    December 17, 2012 at 2:04 am

    You’re confusing me Pete. You start off trying to make one point, and then usually you end up trying to make another point.
    Anyways. My point was that the 10 losing seasons meant a lot of high drafts picks who are now at the MLB level and ergo they can win with a little payroll. It remains to be seen how long they can keep this up now that they are winning, which means they get lower draft picks. My guess is that they will start to run dry in 3-4 years, and if they continue to not spend any money, the kids they have coming up won’t be able to replace the ones going out and so they won’t be the perrenial contenders we know them to be now.

  12. December 17, 2012 at 2:29 am

    Sorry for the confusion. It’s disheartening to see the Mets struggle so badly. I do see the point in trading R.A.(especially if we can upgrade in catching). So many holes to plug, it’s a step in the right direction. With so many years of losing Tampa had the ability to constantly be drafting near the top every year. My point for comparison is in payroll for the two teams. Tampa doesn’t react. They are pro-active with players approaching free agency(James Shields). They can still be competitive with a 60 million dollar payroll. The Mets with a 90 million? payroll will probably lose 90 games this coming season.

    • December 17, 2012 at 8:27 am

      Tampa has won 90 or more games 4 of the last 5 years and the time they didn’t they won 84. While they did go through a streak of terrible years – worse than what we suffered last year for a decade – they have been on the other end for half a decade now. And they figure to challenge for 90 wins again in 2013 and are not looking like a crash candidate any time soon with a young roster and a deep farm system.

      Great drafting put them in position and they’ve made up for poorer draft position with smart trades and knowing when to let their own players leave via free agency. And they still continue to draft well.

      The 2008 team that won 97 games and made the World Series — they let Carlos Pena, Carl Crawford and BJ Upton leave as free agents without panicking. And they traded three of their SP — Matt Garza, Edwin Jackson and James Shields.

      I believe the Mets are going to get back to that position. They’ve had four bad years and 2013 will likely make it five straight sub-.500 finishes. But there’s no reason not to be optimistic about 2014 and beyond.

      The Rays did it with pitching. Garza, Shields, Price, Hellickson and Moore supplemented with Sonnanstine, Niemann, Davis and now Cobb. The Mets are building a similar position. Niese, Harvey, Wheeler, Syndergaard, Fulmer, Mejia, Montero and a host of guys, led by Dillon Gee, for the supplemental roles.

      I know you’re down about the Dickey deal but this is the time to look at the big picture. It’s better to be the 2007 Rays (66-96) than the 1976 Mets (86-76).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: