It’s a fair price for an elite reliever, if that’s the kind of move you like.
If you thought the Mets were done with bullpen additions after adding Gregory Soto and Tyler Rogers, you thought wrong. David Stearns brought in further reinforcements in the form of Ryan Helsley, another one of the best relievers in baseball. The cost was three more prospects; IF Jesus Baez, RHP Nate Dohm, and RHP Frank Elissalt.
Helsley is famous enough that he doesn’t require much discussion, but let’s cover the basics. Since breaking out in 2022, he’s been the second most valuable reliever in baseball by fWAR, trailing only Emmanuel Clase. In that time, he’s tossed 204.2 innings of 2.02 ERA baseball w/ a 2.53 FIP and a 24.0% K-BB%. He’s been slightly worse this year – an ERA in the high 2s and expected rates in the 3s – but a recent adjustment to his arm angle has him looking more like his peak self. Like Rogers, he’ll be a free agent after this season.
Helsley’s slider is an elite, top-of-the-scale pitch, and he complements it with a super-high vert fastball from an over-the-top slot. That gives the Mets yet another distinct look out of the bullpen alongside Rogers and Edwin Diaz. Simply put, it’s one of the two best bullpen groups in baseball at this point (along with the Padres).
Unsurprisingly, paying for a name brand closer like Helsley came with a price point a good deal higher than those for Rogers or Soto. An overly simple analysis would note that all of Dohm, Elissalt, and Baez are top-20 prospects in the system at this point. In reality, both of Dohm and Elissalt fall into the same category of good-but-replaceable arms that the Met dealt away in other trades. Both are likely relievers with a small chance to start; Dohm has a better chance to get there as a starter, Elissalt would likely be a better reliever. But these are a 3rd round and 19th round pick from 2024, respectively. The Mets are good enough at pitching development that they can afford to trade these guys.
Jesus Baez doesn’t fit into that category. Here’s what we wrote about the 20-year-old on this offseason’s list:
Baez was one of the few bright spots offensively in the Mets system [in 2024], and of course he got hurt at the tail end as well. Before that, he was showing underlying metrics (e.g., contact, damage, approach) similar to Aidan Miller in the FSL, and Miller is going to be a top 50 prospect this offseason. The difference of course is that Miller might actually be a shortstop and should be a good third baseman if he can’t stick at the 6. Baez is definitely not a shortstop and might not be a second or third baseman either, a defensive picture complicated further by his late season knee surgery. Tumbling down the defensive spectrum will put more pressure on the bat, which despite those very positive underlying metrics has never really dominated a level either. Again, a lot to like here and it’s a real success story, but there are some problematic warts that will need to be monitored.
Since that point, Baez has bounced back from a slow start and posted a 125 wRC+ in Brooklyn while continuing to move around the infield. Yes, he hits the ball on the ground a bit too much and not always as hard as you want. No, the athleticism has not come all the way back and the defensive projection remains fringey. However, I remain bought in on the bat here and see Baez as an offensive-minded 2B, and I’d have had him ranked 6th or 7th in the system. That’s in line w/ Baseball America’s assessment, but a good deal higher than what the Baseball Prospectus guys (who know this system better than basically anyone) think.
Even if you are higher on Baez like I am, this deal is arguably still a coup. Helsley is very very good after all, and the Mets are going to have plenty of highly-leveraged innings to deploy him in. However, there’s a philosophical point to ponder here; is it ever worth it to pay for “elite” relievers? There’s so much inherent volatility in reliever projections, and the sample sizes are so small, that the actual difference between the top-end guys and the next tier of arms is, on average, fairly small. Consider guys like Phil Maton or Danny Coulombe, both inferior to Helsley but quite good in their own right. Both are also rentals, and both moved for relatively paltry packages relative to what the Cardinals received in this deal.
I understand that this is something of a SABR 1.0 mindset, an archaic mantra to never pay – or pay for – relievers that many of the smartest teams have moved beyond. Yet I can’t shake my skepticism in this revised way of thinking. Tanner Scott is a good (though imperfect, since he was a free agent signing rather than a trade) example of both sides of this coin; brought in at significant cost by the best run team in baseball this offseason only to post an ERA over 4 and miss extensive time with an elbow injury. Then again, the Cubs traded Gleyber Torres for Aroldis Chapman way back when and went on to win the World Series, so this sort of thing can work out.
Where you come down on this trade is therefore going to depend on a couple of uncertain assessments. If you’re all in on trading for name-value closers and see Baez as a 4 or 45, this is a slam dunk A. If you’re especially high on Baez and an ardent opponent to paying high prices for reliever, it’s probably more like a C. My instincts are more in the latter camp, but I’ll temper my view based on both the opinion of other baseball minds I trust and the fact that, once again, Ryan Helsley is extremely good. This deal receives a B.