Five historic trades Sandy Alderson wouldn’t have done

It’s been a roller coaster ride of a first half. Despite numerous injuries, offensive woes and many head-scratching moments, the New York Mets are still very much alive for October baseball. It has been well documented, however, that if they would like to get to that point, they need to make some moves to help the current roster.

With the trade deadline two weeks away, Mets General Manager, Sandy Alderson, becomes a primary figure in the rumor mill. He has been an important architect in the turnaround of this franchise in recent years. He has made many strong moves to solidify a future for this organization.

While many eyes will be on Alderson, he will not make a move just primarily for the sake of making one. He has never been the type to deal simply to appease the media and the masses. His track record throughout his career has shown us that he values prospects, potential, promise and the health of the team future over the team present.

He will make moves that help the current team in the moment, but not at the expense of mortgaging the future of the farm system. This mentality can be very frustrating with a success-driven, win-now-at-all-costs media and fan base critiquing his every move.

While there will be plenty of time for that in the next few weeks, it may be somewhat of an interesting experiment to look back on historic trades in franchise history and, applying his mentality, examine whether or not he would have pulled the trigger and how it would’ve affected New York Mets and baseball.

Keeping in mind that hindsight is 20/20 and at the time, moves make sense to some degree or another, it’s logical to recognize particular moves and how they shaped our team. When using his approach, it could be argued that some of the most notable names in team history may not have been. Names like Keith Hernandez and Mike Piazza may or may not have been spared for various reasons.

The following, however, are most likely trades he wouldn’t have made given our knowledge of his philosophy, offers at the time they occurred and other factors.

Nolan Ryan:

As 1971 is coming to a close, the Mets are looking to push themselves over the top and return to the glory of 1969. They need an impact player that they can play at third base and the California Angels are enamored with their young players. Ryan was coming off of a mediocre start to his career. He was a member of the 1969 Miracle Mets but was not a major contributor on the roster.

As the next few years went on, he hadn’t quite embraced his potential. To say it nicely, he couldn’t find the plate at the tail end of 1971. He was so erratic that he made Oliver Perez look like a control pitcher. With that said, in the first half of that season, he was dominant. He even had an NL high 16 strikeout game.

When the Angels offered Jim Fregosi in exchange for Ryan, pitcher Don Rose, catcher Francisco Estrada and outfielder Leroy Stanton, the Mets saw it as a chance to upgrade the offense. Fregosi had been a six-time All-Star prior to the deal and was mired in a downward spiral of his own.

The Mets had hoped that a simple change of scenery would do both Ryan and Fregosi some good. It did for Ryan anyway. He went on to become one of the greatest pitchers in all of baseball history. Perhaps, being traded, and the bad taste that it left him, was just the chip on his shoulder that he needed to become so great.

Under Sandy Alderson’s philosophy, there would have been far too much young talent given up for Fregosi, no matter how many All-Star nods he had. A catcher, an outfielder and two pitchers, including one that was already performing up to MLB standards would have an impossibly, expensive asking price for one aged and slumping veteran.

In this light, it would be realistic to think that the Mets hold onto Ryan and maybe he develops into what we know but maybe he doesn’t. It was, after all, that chip that fueled him to prove what a mistake the Mets had made.

Tom Seaver:

Fast forward after the Nolan Ryan trade. It’s late Spring of 1977. Ryan is excelling in California and Mets Franchise pitcher, Tom “Terrific” Seaver is on a bad team that is entering another bad season. The shine of the 1973 NL Championship team has been long forgotten. Seaver wants to see the team around him improve.

He wants to taste October baseball again. He’s in his prime. He really can’t be blamed for wanting that. He publicly admonishes Mets ownership for not making the necessary improvements to get him back there. This is followed by a media battle that involves him, his wife, Nolan Ryan’s wife and Mets management.

On the heels of this massive media storm and the negative attention it has caused, the Mets trade Seaver to the Cincinnati Reds and another outspoken player, Dave Kingman, to San Diego. It is labelled “The Midnight Massacre” and the anniversary of it becomes an annual black eye to Mets fans.

The Seaver deal included infielder Doug Flynn, outfielders Steve Henderson and Dan Norman and pitcher Pat Zachry. On the surface it seems like a good deal. The Mets get speed, power and youth in Norman, Flynn and Henderson and an MLB ready pitcher to take Seaver’s spot in Zachry.

At first glance this most definitely seems like a move that Sandy Alderson may have made, but it’s not. This move was really made to appease a disgruntled player, his family, the press and remove the ongoing negative attacks on management. This is not something that Alderson would care about doing. He has never allowed internal pressure from a player or the media to become a deciding factor in making a trade.

This would be the equivalent of dealing Matt Harvey after he openly complained about the six-man rotation. If a GM is so sensitive to the outcry of negative opinions, he can’t do his job well.

Had this deal not happened, perhaps Seaver throws a no hitter in Queens. Perhaps he becomes a lifetime Met. Perhaps he pitches in the 1986 World Series with a rotation that includes Dwight Gooden and Ron Darling. Maybe, then, it doesn’t go seven games. Who knows?

Gary Carter:

Moving on from the mediocrity of the late 70’s Mets, it is December of 1984. The Mets have built an incredible farm system and youth movement on the strength of their drafts and multiple savvy moves in recent years.

The organization and its fan base is excited for the future after seeing the team fall just short of the pennant in the 1984 campaign and having two players win Rookie of the Year awards in back-to-back seasons.They have a veteran leader in the infield in Keith Hernandez, but they need a veteran to can help to handle the young pitching and handle a bat from the right side. Enter Gary Carter.

At first, Carter doesn’t even want to leave Montreal. He’s committed to a lengthy deal that still has years left on it and he has enjoyed great success as the face of the franchise and of baseball in Canada. As it’s offered to him for his consent, he chooses not to veto it, as is his right as a ten year veteran. He cites the young nucleus in Queens as his reason for accepting the deal.

In return, the Mets give up two young MLB players, catcher Mike Fitzgerald and shortstop Hubie Brooks and two prospects, outfielder Herm Winningham and pitcher Floyd Youmans. This trade is pretty much the same type of deal as the Seaver trade in the sense that it’s a one-for-four deal but from the standpoint of Montreal.

This move is highly credited as the one that put the team over the top and won the 1986 World Series. If Sandy Alderson had his finger on the trigger, it may not have happened. From the philosophy of not mortgaging the future for the present, this move wouldn’t have made sense to an Alderson regime.

One player, often compared to Johnny Bench, at the time, may not have been enough to pry that much talent and youth from the Mets farm system. Of course, as previously mentioned, hindsight is 20/20 and we know how good Carter was prior to the trade, but in the same way that an aging All-Star like Fregosi was too high of a price tag, this, also, would have been to Alderson.

In addition to the level of talent given up, Carter’s contract was very high for the day (seven years, $12.5 Million) and the Mets wouldn’t had wanted to pay half of that deal in the market of the day. Had these reasons hindered this deal, the Mets may not have had the veteran, right-handed, power bat to help them win it all two years later. They may not have had the strong defense of Rafael Santana starting in the field but rather the less reliable Hubie Brooks.

Would this have altered the course of the young nucleus? Most likely so.

Mike Hampton:

Continuing our journey, we arrive to December of 1999. The new millennium is almost upon us. The Mets are one deal away from being major World Series contenders. They find that deal in Houston where an underpaid ace, Mike Hampton, is disgruntled. He has one year left on his contract and has already told the team not to bother offering him an extension.

He fully intends to shop his value on the open market in the 2000-2001 free agency period. Sensing that he will leave them empty handed, they deal him to New York along with outfielder Derek Bell and his $5 Million contract for minor-league pitcher Kyle Kessel and MLB talent, speedy outfielder Roger Cedeno and fireball reliever Octavio Dotel.

This seems like a good deal. It certainly works out to the favor of the Mets as they reach the Subway Series that season with Hampton and Bell as major contributors. By the end of the following year, Hampton is gone in free agency. As a show of compensation, MLB rules stipulate that the Mets receive an extra draft pick from Hampton’s new team, the Colorado Rockies.

Would Alderson have done this deal? Most likely not for two reasons: too much value given up for a “rental player” and no guarantee of Hampton taking a Mets-favored contract and staying beyond one year. Essentially, they would be losing too much value and paying too much for older players with no promise of keeping the more valuable one on a long-term basis.

This impacts the team in a few ways. They would have kept Dotel and probably not had to overpay on closers for the next several years but much more importantly, they wouldn’t have received that crucial compensation draft pick from Colorado.

Why is that so important? They used that pick to draft David Wright. Imagine the past several years without him.

Johan Santana:

More recent history takes us to the final trade of the list. In January of 2008, the Mets were looking for an ace to help them compete with the rest of the division and stand out in the league. GM Omar Minaya had been saying all winter long that he was going to make a big splash in that regard.

That splash was made when he landed the most dominant lefty pitcher of the time in Johan Santana. He came with one stipulation, though. He had to have a new contract in place prior to the trade in order for it to be approved by MLB. Santana did not come cheap, however. The cost of an ace was outfielder Carlos Gomez, pitchers Phil Humber, Kevin Mulvey and Deolis Guerra and an eventual six year contract worth $137.5 Million.

With the Mets, Santana was an All-Star but never pitched them into the postseason. He did bring one enormously, notable thing to Mets history: a no hitter. It is most likely that Alderson wouldn’t have made this deal, however. For one thing, there was the common denominator of too much talent being given up.

Besides this reoccurring theme, it is very highly likely that the Alderson would not have negotiated such a large contract and the deal would’ve fallen through. Two MLB caliber players and two highly touted prospects wouldn’t have been a reasonable price for Santana’s services.

Today, Gomez is still playing at a high level, while the other three named aren’t in baseball. Ironically, Humber reached the long-sought no hitter before Santana eventually would. With that said, had this deal not been made, the Mets still wouldn’t have one, but they would most likely have had an effective outfielder, in Gomez, until he reached such a high value that it was impossible to re-sign him.

In closing, it’s important to reiterate that Alderson has done a lot of good for the New York Mets. His trades have brought us the likes of Zack Wheeler, Noah Syndergaard and Travis d’Arnaud, just to name a few. No GM is going to get the better end of every deal and Sandy Alderson is no different.

With that pointed out, however, it is reasonable to assume that the deals previously listed would not have been a reality under Alderson’s often overly-careful watch. There are times when it is a necessity to take a big risk in the trade market to alter the current destiny of a team at the price of giving up quantity of talent in exchange for quality of it.

Though this strategy is rarely advised, the history reveals that these moments, though rare, are indeed undeniable. Hopefully, in the next few weeks, we can add another favorable one.