Are the Mets good or lucky? (Or both?)

Ted Berg has an interesting way of looking at things. I think this line sums it all up nicely:

"What once seemed very unlikely now seems just unlikely."

In the Wall Street Journal, Brian Costa writes that the Mets may actually be this good.

Both are great reads to help you come up with your own opinion.

WSJ's analysis of the current and future New York Mets

The Wall Street Journal has a couple of articles on the New York Mets today. They have a preseason position-by-position preview, with plenty of useful and useless information for each player, such as this tidbit on David Wright:

"Useless Information: Is trying to sell his Flatiron District bachelor pad for $6.25 million after relocating to the Upper East Side last year."

WSJ also has a great piece on how the Mets are trying to avoid doing with Zack Wheeler, Matt Harvey, Jeurys Familia, and Jenrry Mejia what they did with Jason Isringhausen, Bill Pulsipher, and Paul Wilson (aka 'Generation K'). Apparently they convened a post-mortem after Generation K disintegrated:

"Could the injuries have been prevented? Maybe not, Pulsipher said. But a few years after the three of them debuted, Mets officials convened to try to figure out why they broke down.

The numbers revealed a common thread: a rapid increase in workload. Isringhausen threw just over 90 innings in 1993, then threw more than 193 innings the following year. For Wilson, the jump was even more dramatic, from 49 innings in 1994 to 186 in 1995. Pulsipher logged just under 140 innings in 1993, then threw 201 in 1994."

All-in-all, the WSJ article and the recent Mets.com article both talk about how the Mets are optimistic about their prospects. The WSJ article also talks about the limits the Mets now have on their pitching prospects, so there's hope the team has finally learned from its erroneous ways.