What did we learn from that debacle of 1977? The Mets got a virtual bag of baseballs for the player commonly known as “The Franchise.” Pat Zachry, Steve Henderson, Doug Flynn, and Dan Norman were supposed to replenish the talent pool in exchange for The Franchise. Zachry was a former Rookie of the Year and was supposed to slide in to the rotation behind Jerry Koosman who suddenly became the Mets’ No. 1 starter after years of playing second fiddle. Zachry was a bust. Henderson was supposed to be a five-tool star making everyone forget about losing one of the best pitchers in baseball history. The only thing “five” about Henderson was his uniform number. He never could live up to the hype or, rather over hype, heaped upon him. Flynn was an all-field, no-hit second baseman. He was, in fact, a fabulous fielder and ranked right up there with Rey Ordonez as a middle infielder. But Flynn was a better country music singer than he was a baseball player. And Norman…well…Norman the calf in the movie City Slickers was more athletic than Norman the baseball player.
And do you think Koosman was happy about Seaver leaving? True, he won 20 games in 1977. But then he LOST 20 games the next year in 1978, winning only eight (8) games. Did he suddenly become a horrible pitcher? Well…no…he suddenly had to go up against all of the No. 1 starters of the other teams rather than No. 2 or No. 3 starters. And an inept offense becomes even more inept against a No. 1. So Koosman went from having little offensive support to NO offensive support. That’s a lot of pressure.
That alone gives a clear indication how important that ace, No. 1 starter, means to a team.
But why would anyone want that kind of pressure? Seaver finally pitched his first no-hitter after leaving the Mets. And he did it on a day when he had probably his worst “stuff.” Why? Because he just relaxed and pitched. He didn’t have to worry that one…ONE…pitch would turn into an instant loss. Isn’t that what deGrom is dealing with each and every time he goes out there?
There is no way that any team is going to allow the Mets to rob them blind in exchange for deGrom. So there will never be a package that will yield what the Yankees got from the Cubs in exchange for a rental in Aroldis Chapman. The Cubs did what they HAD to do in order to capture their first World Series title in over 100 years. What Gleyber Torres becomes for the Yankees in the long term remains to be seen…but for now, it looks like the Yankees truly stole one from the Cubs. But, again, you never know, especially how injuries have been the ruination of so many outstanding players recently.
And given the recent history of the injuries to pitchers, and the length of careers to today’s pitchers, isn’t it conceivable that any team looking to obtain deGrom would be taking a huge risk? By the same token, aren’t the Mets taking a huge risk in keeping him, especially when he appears to be at the height of his value?
It’s a conundrum because does it benefit the team, the franchise, more to keep him…or to see who the Mets could attempt to rob blind and get the best possible package?
Jacob deGrom is the type of player that you build around. He it the type of player that you want to rely on when a game is on the line, when you need a win in the worst way. He is the type of person you want the media to turn to…because you know he is dependable, truthful, and never controversial. He is the type of player you feature on the cover of your media guide.
But if the Mets keep him, will they benefit from his talents? Can they win before he begins the downside of his career? And on the other side of that, why would deGrom want to stay? Does he benefit in any way from remaining a Met if nothing significantly changes? There is obviously a benefit to being a player in New York especially when you have the personality can deal with the pressure, the hounding media, and still perform well and conduct yourself like a cool professional. But the game after game extra stress that is being put on his arm, with nothing to show for it…is it worth it? He is a dominant pitcher, even when he doesn’t have his best stuff. He is masterful, just like The Franchise was in his heyday. But deGrom, leading the major leagues with an ERA under 2.00 in a hitter’s era, is now only 5-5 two-thirds of the way into the season after being saddled (unfairly) with yet another loss against the lowly Padres.
Only deGrom can decide how much he can take before he feels like he needs to escape. Seaver felt that way in 1977. As much as Seaver, who is the one person who deserves a statue in Flushing, loved being a Met, loved New York and everything it had to offer, finally had had enough. Everyone has their breaking point. The question is, what will be deGrom’s breaking point?
