I'm trying to get a sense of where folks think the team as currently constructed is likely to end up. Are we contenders? Pretenders? Somewhere in between? I'm also fascinated by the idea of "the wisdom of crowds", particularly as it applies to our beloved Mets.Obviously enough if someone thinks the Mets are a true talent 70 win team, then there's not much urgency in adding players here and there simply to get to 77 wins (although that might make things a little less depressing). That money might be better spent on development and scouting for future seasons when the team has a chance to make the postseason. On the other hand, if someone thinks the Mets are a true talent 83 win team, then adding those same 7 wins to get to 90 makes a lot more sense since 90 wins typically puts a National League team into the thick of contention.
Over all, I'm trying to get more context for threads as they appear in AA over this offseason. It may help us to understand why certain things are said or proposed, and other ideas shot down, if we know that the vast majority of posters here think the team today is a 78 win team. Similarly, other ideas may get traction and the rationale for them may become clearer if the majority instead feels the Mets today are an 84 win team. No move takes place in a vacuum, and when it comes to player acquisitions (or declining to make those acquisitions) context is everything. It's likely senseless for a 70 win team to spend $14m on a one year deal for a 2 win player. It makes comparatively much more sense for a 90 win team to make that kind of move, since the difference between 90 and 92 wins is often the difference between going home at the end of the regular season, and having a shot at the World Series.
* * *
I think it's simply a point of fact to note here, above the poll, that the Mets in 2010 had a Pythagorean record of 81-81, with 656 runs scored versus 652 runs against.