Skip to content

The Mets would want a “monster package” for R.A. Dickey

Nov 19, 2012, 10:00 AM EDT

r.a. dickey getty Getty Images

That’s the word from Andy Martino:

One high-ranking major league executive who spoke recently with Mets officials came away thinking that the team “would want a monster package for (R.A.) Dickey, and if they don’t get it, probably would not trade him.”

How you know you collected baseball cards back in he day: you hear the term “monster package” and this is the first thing you think of.  Anyway, Martino goes on:

The executive, who has also discussed the market for Dickey with other GMs who have asked the Mets about him, loosely defined that “monster package” as a few high-end prospects or major leaguers, likely outfielders or catching help.

That’s not gonna happen. Dickey has had a great couple of seasons, but he’s 38. When was the last time a young Cy Young-caliber pitcher got that kind of haul?

Given Martino’s previous report about Dickey being amendable to a Jake Peavy-style extension, it seems extremely unlikely that the Mets would trade him. Because it’s extremely unlikely that anyone would give up that kind of talent in return.

  1. chill1184 - Nov 19, 2012 at 10:05 AM

    Makes sense, if your going to trade a Cy Young winner your going to want a good haul for him. Also your point Craig that no GM with a hint of semi-intelligent thought would gut the farm for someone of Dickey’s age, even though he throws the knuckleball or what someone here on HBT called the “angry knuckleball”.

    • dcfan4life - Nov 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM

      He does throw a knuckleball, but its faster than any in history. 38 is also old in any sport, and baseballs no exception. Future top prospects for 1 player with maybe 2-3 years left total let alone great years is just not feasable. The article is spot on.

      • hockeyflow33 - Nov 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM

        However, there is an argument to be made that knuckleballers are able to pitch well into their 40s

  2. deadeyedesign23 - Nov 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM

    He’s worth a 2 year contract to the Mets, but they’re asking other teams to value him at multiple high end prospects and major leaguers?

    If their evaluation of their finances is as skewed as their evaluation of their players I can see how they ended up in this situation.

    • chill1184 - Nov 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

      “He’s worth a 2 year contract to the Mets, but they’re asking other teams to value him at multiple high end prospects and major leaguers? ”

      Whats the question? If you feel that you can get a set price for something, you test the waters and see if anyone will bite.

      “If their evaluation of their finances is as skewed as their evaluation of their players I can see how they ended up in this situation.”

      Last time I checked Alderson and the rest of the front office has no ties to Madoff and Wilpon for the most part has kept quite (thank god).

    • dan1111 - Nov 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM

      1) In negotiations, you always start high. Does Scott Boras really think every player is the next Babe Ruth? Of course not. Nor should you take what Mets officials say about potential trades at face value.

      2) Dickey may have some hometown value to the Mets, but he is probably worth even more to teams who are immediately contending.

      3) Alderson has the reputation of being an outstanding GM. While it is still to early to evaluate his performance, I have yet to see anything that contradicts his reputation (if you think he should be held accountable for 2012, consider that the Mets paid $42 million just to Jason Bay and Johan Santana this season, getting very little in return. That is not far from the opening day payroll of some teams).

      4) As chill rightly pointed out, the current baseball management had nothing to do with the Wilpons’ financial mess.

  3. kopy - Nov 19, 2012 at 10:20 AM

    How you know you collected baseball cards back in he day: you hear the term “monster package” and this is the first thing you think of.

    That’s a risky click.

  4. drkincaid - Nov 19, 2012 at 10:20 AM

    I collected baseball cards, but that’s not close to what I thought of when I heard “monster package”.

  5. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM

    I don’t know that his age is relevant. A team would be trading for one year of control. Age typically is relevant only to predict the amount of time left before the end of elite performance. With a knuckleballer, the scale is different. Dickey may be 38, but he could still have 4 or 5 years of peak performance in him.

    • paperlions - Nov 19, 2012 at 11:35 AM

      Exactly. You get one year cheap, then have to pay full price or lose the guy. That one year of control isn’t worth that much…they’ll be lucky to get one high-end prospect for him…he’s essentially a salary dump…teams just don’t pay twice for players anymore….well, the Dodgers did….so I guess they can call up Ned and see if they can get what is left in the Dodger system.

  6. b453841l - Nov 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM

    Would something including “Big Unit” Randy Johnson be considered a “monster package”?

    • Charles Gates - Nov 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM

      Or including stud prospects.
      Or a guy that could go deep.
      Or Jeffrey Loria.

  7. lroc20 - Nov 19, 2012 at 10:47 AM

    Not happening

  8. phreakin - Nov 19, 2012 at 11:15 AM

    Let’s go Arizona. Upton, Bauer, and Skaggs for Dickey

  9. mojosmagic - Nov 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM

    Because of age and the fact he is a junk ball pitcher with no upside means the Mets are dreaming if they expect anything more then one excellent prospect.

  10. kyzslew77 - Nov 19, 2012 at 11:45 AM

    “That’s not gonna happen. Dickey has had a great couple of seasons, but he’s 38. When was the last time a young Cy Young-caliber pitcher got that kind of haul?”

    Well, some might disagree, but Greinke?

    • ptfu - Nov 19, 2012 at 12:40 PM

      Another comparison is the Mat Latos trade, which netted quite a haul of Reds players and top prospects. Latos was younger than Greinke at the time each was traded. He was also under contract for a lot longer. Then again, Latos isn’t really Cy Young-caliber (yet?).

  11. genericcommenter - Nov 19, 2012 at 12:03 PM

    Having an effective Dickey should not require a monster package.

  12. uyf1950 - Nov 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM

    The Mets ownership/management needs to get their collective heads out of their butts. They could want the moon and the sky. They could keep him another year or sign him to an extension. But the reality is NO MLB teams GM worth his salt is going to give them a “monster” package for a 38 year old Dickey.

  13. hisgirlgotburrelled - Nov 19, 2012 at 2:24 PM

    Have GM’s been measuring the size of this “monster package” in Andreltons?

  14. nightman13 - Nov 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM

    Monster package? Is that like Cookie Monster’s junk?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who's outside looking in on playoffs?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (2554)
  2. J. Hamilton (1992)
  3. J. Heyward (1931)
  4. M. Trout (1925)
  5. D. Ortiz (1875)
  1. J. Ellsbury (1820)
  2. S. Pearce (1805)
  3. C. Kershaw (1779)
  4. D. Jeter (1773)
  5. A. Pagan (1730)