A dozen years after Bing Devine with no trades

Last year, Scott Ferguson did a series here at the site where he reinvented the Mets, starting with who they picked for the original team in 1962 and making some common sense moves for the team from then on. It was an interesting and enjoyable series. I want to do something here partly inspired by Scott’s work but take some of the educated guess work out.

What if the Mets went a period of time, roughly a dozen years, and didn’t make a single trade? The Miracle Mets were built on the back of a mover and shaker but that individual was gone well before the ticker tape parade. And the men who followed in the front office made many, many more poor trades than good ones. Would the Mets’ franchise have been better off if they simply refused to make any trades and instead concentrated on the amateur draft?

One of the best things that happened to the early Mets was when the Cardinals decided they no longer needed Bing Devine. He was the architect of the Cardinals teams that were so good in the mid to late 60s. And the Mets scooped him up and he was employed by the club for three years, holding a couple of different titles but essentially he was the team’s GM between 1965-1967.

Devine made a ton of moves and helped lay the groundwork for the 1969 Miracle Mets. In no way was he the only executive responsible. But the guy at the top always gets credit for the work of the people who serve underneath him. Devine left before all of his moves paid dividends. While rumors had him upset with some interference from Donald Grant, the simple fact was that the Cardinals invited him back and Devine was eager to return home.

It was late in 1967 when Devine left the Mets. He was working on a trade for Tommie Agee and the deal was mostly done. However, it was his replacement, Johnny Murphy, who pulled the trigger on the deal. So, since the premise of this piece is no trades for a dozen years after Devine leaves, there is no Agee deal.

Agee was horrible in 1968. Tommy Davis, the main part that was dealt for Agee, wasn’t much better. The big difference was figuring out who to play in CF. Cleon Jones was the default starter but he was stretched in center. Don Bosch would play there some but he wasn’t the answer. By the end of the year, Amos Otis, who also got a cup of coffee in 1967, would come and take over the position.

So, the 1968 team was virtually unchanged. Jones would play mostly CF instead of LF and Davis would be the primary LF. The other difference was Otis taking over at the end of the year after putting up a top 20 season in the International League in OPS. There would have been no meaningful change in the team’s record.

There were no big offseason deals in 1969. The main change would be the lack of a midseason deal for Donn Clendenon. While no doubt that the Mets would miss his bat, they would have to balance that with keeping future 15-game winner Steve Renko and reserve infielder Kevin Collins. Agee had a monster year in 1969 and Clendenon added 12 homers down the stretch. It’s not unreasonable to assume the Mets would not have won the World Series or possibly even the NL East without these two players.

Agee and Clendenon also had big years in 1970. But Joe Foy did not. The Mets would have benefitted from Wayne Garrett and his .390 OBP being in the lineup in place of Foy at 3B. And Otis, the man traded for Foy, turned in an All-Star season in ’70. Renko won 13 games for the Expos and would have been a better option than offseason acquisition Ray Sadecki. Assuming the ’69 team didn’t win the World Series, would the young stars have returned hungrier in ’70? The real team finished six games behind the Pirates. The no-trade team would have been better but it’s hard to say for certain they would have leapfrogged Pittsburgh.

The real 1971 team finished with 83 wins. Renko would have been a major improvement for this team’s rotation and Clendenon was not much of a factor. Otis would have been a slight step up from Agee and Garrett would still have been a better 3B than import Bob Aspromonte. But these upgrades may not have been enough to catch the Pirates, who won 97 games

The no trade team would have been better than the real team in both ’70 and ’71. And that trend would have continued in 1972. Renko and Nolan Ryan would have given the team better starting depth than what they actually had. Agee was horrible in ‘72 and Otis would have been a major upgrade. Ken Singleton wasn’t as good as Rusty Staub this year but he was healthier and the team would have been better. And Garrett would have been better than Jim Fregosi. Still perhaps not have been enough to catch the Pirates. But it’s likely the Mets would have been winning 90 games a year rather than 83.

In 1973, the no trade team would have been better at CF, RF and with a better rotation. Otis and Singleton would have dwarfed what the Mets put out there. Renko won 15 games again and Ryan finished second in the Cy race. That would have easily outdistanced the contributions the Mets got from Felix Millan and George Stone.

By 1974, the Mets would have had to make a rotation out of Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Jon Matlack, Renko, Ryan, Buzz Capra and Jim Bibby. Capra won 16 games in Atlanta while Bibby won 19 in Texas. Otis and Singleton would have remained massive upgrades in the outfield and the only place where the real Mets would have been better was second base.

The Mets would have missed the bat of Dave Kingman in 1975 but that still wasn’t enough to make the real team’s offense better than what the Otis-Singleton no-trade team would have produced. This was the year the Mets couldn’t find a consistent #4 SP after Seaver-Koosman-Matlack. Ryan’s 22 wins would have been pretty nice to have.

With no trades, we never would have been subjected to Mickey Lolich in 1976. In reality, Lolich wasn’t anywhere near as bad as we thought – it’s just that the Mets were in no position to trade hitting for pitching like they did. No trades meant that Seaver would have stayed and Doug Flynn never would have come in 1977. And there would not have been the Richie Hebner debacle in 1979, either.

The pitching would have been so good and so deep and the offense would have had two building blocks with Otis and Singleton. By the end of the decade they would have desperately needed a catcher and most of a new infield. But the hope is that with the front office exclusively focusing on the draft that the minor league system could have turned out some better prospects that could have contributed.

Even with no new help from the minors, there would have been a ton of better baseball played in the 1970s. It’s impossible to say what would have happened once a team reached the playoffs but a division title would not have been out of the question in the 1974-1976 range specifically and generally any year during the 70s. Would the 1970 Pirates have gone 12-6 against the no-trade Mets?

There’s so much mythology built up around the 1969 Mets and rightfully so. But would you be willing to risk a known championship for a decade of inspired ball? It’s purely theoretical and there are no right or wrong answers. Flags fly forever plus just because Ryan was good in the American League doesn’t mean he would have done the same in Queens.

But having watched those no talent teams at the end of the 1970s, it sure would have been a lot more fun watching Otis, Renko, Ryan, Singleton and others instead of the mythical Flynn and Frank Taveras.