The New York Mets couldn\u2019t finish off a sweep of the Colorado Rockies on Thursday, with Craig Kimbrel giving up the deciding grand slam in the eighth inning. The seeds of that defeat were planted Wednesday night, when, despite an eight-run lead in the middle of the sixth, the Mets had to use their three high-leverage relievers to finish the game. Hence Kimbrel in the eighth of a tie game Thursday and a missed opportunity.<\/p>\n
Back-to-back series wins to start the trip are nice, of course, in the beggars-can\u2019t-be-choosers sense, given where the Mets were after their homestand. But Thursday\u2019s loss is a reminder of all the ground the Mets need to make up because of their start. Sometimes, even taking two of three doesn\u2019t feel like enough.<\/p>\n
In Wednesday\u2019s mailbag<\/a>, we focused on David Stearns\u2019 job \u2014 what he did and didn\u2019t do in the winter, what his status would be. Today, let\u2019s take a more around-the-organization perspective on the trade deadline, internal evaluations and the minor-league system.<\/p>\n I blame the dead bird on Opening Day for this miserable season. Which tradeable players on this roster still hold value and what type of players could they bring back? <\/strong>\u2014 Camilo Z.<\/strong><\/p>\n Let\u2019s start with this: It\u2019s way too early to discuss which direction the Mets are going to take at the trade deadline, and if we were to plot it out, I\u2019d still guess the Mets are likelier to be buyers at the deadline than sellers.<\/p>\n So, take it with a large grain of salt, but if the Mets were to sell, they\u2019d have a couple of intriguing players to deal.<\/p>\n That starts with Freddy Peralta, who would have a good chance of being the best starter available at the deadline \u2014 and as good a starter as has been available at the deadline in the last three years. The Mets traded two top-100 prospects for Peralta in the winter, and they\u2019d be slated to land a draft pick (after the fourth round) were he to sign elsewhere this offseason. I would think Peralta would be able to bring back a single top-100 prospect and maybe one other prospect in a July trade.<\/p>\n Clay Holmes is pitching like an All-Star, one who would definitely opt out of the final year of his initial three-year deal with the Mets to hit free agency again this winter. Holmes doesn\u2019t have the track record Peralta does, and he\u2019d project more to an acquiring team as a potential playoff starter than a surefire one. Further, opt-outs and player options can muddle a player\u2019s trade value: Teams don\u2019t like the worst-case scenario of trading for a guy likely to opt out only to get stuck paying for a long injury absence. So Holmes\u2019 value might be less than you\u2019d expect.<\/p>\n Brooks Raley is set to be a free agent at the end of the season, and Raley has been excellent again since returning from Tommy John surgery last summer. A.J. Minter, if he returns to full health between now and Aug. 3, would also fetch something of note on the trade market. David Peterson would need to surge back to his All-Star form from the first half of last year to have significant market value, as well.<\/p>\n Beyond those impending free agents, there\u2019s not a whole lot of movable pieces here. Bo Bichette\u2019s complex contract makes trading him tougher. Luis Robert Jr. needs to get healthy and perform to be of interest to other teams. Guys such as Marcus Semien, Sean Manaea and Kodai Senga would have to be straight salary dumps at this point.<\/p>\n Does it make sense to take a run at trading for Mike Trout? \u2014 Dom Z.<\/strong><\/p>\n Would I enjoy watching Mike Trout play baseball every day? Yes. Can I envision a scenario, however narrow, in which it would make a single iota of sense for the Mets to try to trade for Trout? Maybe. Can I imagine David Stearns actually doing that? No.<\/p>\n Trout is owed about $142 million over the next four seasons. He\u2019s played in fewer than half of the Los Angeles Angels\u2019 games over the last five years. The Mets unloaded a more reliably productive player in Brandon Nimmo who was making significantly less because of concerns about his long-term fit. They are not about to bring in Trout to replace that lost offense.<\/p>\n Assuming some positive regression is likely, how much meaningful offensive improvement is it practical to expect from this roster as currently constructed? If the team gets fully healthy and several everyday players normalize to their historical production, what is the highest realistic ceiling? It feels like the optimistic case depends on a lot of hitters improving regardless of front office moves, so I\u2019m curious where the line is between reasonable upside and wishful thinking. <\/strong>\u2014 Anonymous<\/strong><\/p>\n