CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
This article is a great counter-argument to the supposed common wisdom of reporters like Buster Olney, John Perrotto, and pretty much the entire NY sports media that the Mets are better off trading Reyes, and sooner rather than later.
The Mets are hovering around .500 right now. This is not a team that needs a complete overhaul. It needs a better long-term strategy, which includes the draft and better scouting, but the team has pieces in place and 60 million coming off the books. For most teams, that is a position that in one off-season can build a very competitive team.
The issue with the Mets remains their embarrassing ownership situation, which is so bad right now that it's hard to see the Mets being able to make good player decisions now and into the future. There will be no fixing a Wilpon-run Mets team.
This is one of the few articles written that posits that it doesn't make BASEBALL sense for the Mets to let go of Reyes, unless someone is willing to drastically overpay in a trade.
I don't think the Mets would try to retain Reyes and Wright just to reach a .500 record. The whole idea is that they are both young enough to be an important part of the Mets future, even if it takes a year or two for Alderson and friends to construct a strong team.
Articles like this are why I won´t give up my BP subscription. BP actually tries to give (does give)objective analysis; too much sportswriting these days is either about jumping on the bandwagon (ex., ¨Bud likes the new playoffs, so let´s sell it to the fans¨) or trying generate storylines in a vacuum (ex., ¨I'm bored, let's start an Albert Pujols trade rumor¨).
Most of the coverage of the expanded playoffs debate takes it for granted that a. this is going to make baseball better and more exciting and b. this is inevitable.
As a Mets fan, I know how much having an extra wild card would have benefited them a few years ago and I STILL think its a terrible idea.
As a Met fan, Scott Hatteberg at 2b sounds pretty good considering last year we had a gimpy Castillo and a green Ruben Tejada collectively slug under .300 in 400+ PA at the position.
His "career" is less than two full seasons long.
I think Matt Wieters is a great example of why it's silly to but players on this list who are active and not even in their prime years yet.
The only thing that's busted with regards to Matt Wieters is PECOTA's prediction that he'd go crazy on the league immediately. That, and other projections from other publications, unfairly make it seem like if Wieters doesn't hit .300/.400/.500 or better he hasn't lived up to expectations.
As other people here have said, Wieters even now is a worthy everyday Catcher, with room for growth, and that should be enough to avoid being labeled a bust. There are plenty of prospects out there who were equally touted and didn't even manage Wieters current level of respectability.
If Wieters is a bust, so are Jose Reyes, Carl Crawford and Jay Bruce, to name a few guys who struggled in their first season or two in a full season at the highest level of baseball.
Baseball pundits--cough Buster Olney cough cough--have been predicted the divorce of Jose Reyes and the Mets for several years running. There are probably a number of reasons for this, from the juiciness of a negative-press story about the Mets or the exciting possibility that a major trade could go down, but none of them have much to do with reality.
This article gets to several key reasons why Jose Reyes is still valuable to the Mets: a. that there aren't any good alternatives and b. that Jose Reyes, even at less than his best, is still valuable.
The fact that the Mets haven't extended Reyes is being read as an indication that they don't want to keep him, but after some fluctations in his health and numbers, it makes perfect sense for him to re-establish what kind of player he is, be it the 2.4 WARP guy or the 5+ WARP guy.
It seems logical that Reyes' 2011 performance will determine his market price, and that either way, he's a fit for the Mets. He won't command Carl Crawford money unless he hits like Carl Crawford (or Jose Reyes circa 2006-2008), and then he might be worth it.
What no writer is saying is that if the Mets can't afford Reyes, it says less about the player Reyes is and more about the financial state of the Mets. And if the Mets can't afford Reyes, even the nine-figure contract Reyes, then the Wilpons have very clearly lost the ability to run a healthy franchise in New York. Which would probably be the scariest possibility of all.
I think Fukudome gets an unwarranted bad rap. There's a difference between being overpaid and being useless. Fukudome gets on base and has sporadic power, which isn't a star, but it also isn't a player who you should be trying to dump at all costs.
I don't think Christina's trade is a bad idea, but the Cubs shouldn't trade Fukudome just to get rid of his salary. They should do it if they have a plan to put the saved money to a different, better use.
I believe straights and flushes don't count in most versions of Razz.
Kevin, do you think Mejia should stay in AA next year to work on his secondary pitches, or should he be tested in AAA?
I think one theme that comes up here is whether or not normal labor and free-market "rules" should apply when talking about so many millions of dollars.
I would tend to air on the side that they don't. Joe Sheehan is spot on when he talks about the unfairness of players having no choice in what team they are assigned to for six years, etc, but I feel when we get to money issues he is off the mark.
It's important for players to have leverage, but I really can't find any tears for Stephen Strasburg and his ilk if he only manages to get 15-20 million in this draft market, as opposed to 50+ million if he were a free agent.
I also had a big issue with his Mark Prior example:
1. His injury wasn't expected. Even Dusty Baker in his stupidity wasn't trying to save the Cubs millions during Prior's two years and blow out his arm just before he would have "had" to be paid. He just wasn't thinking at all.
2. If Mark Prior never had his injury, he would have made absurd amounts of money, with the Cubs or just about anyone else, and his story wouldn't really be all that relatable to the draft.
3. The only way Joe can relate Prior's injury back to the draft is almost to suggest that 1. Prior's injury was inevitable and 2. the Cubs, or baseball's system, should have paid him like he was a free agent during the brief period when he was actually good. If this actually happened, if Prior got some kind of 6 year, 120 million deal the day he signed, the Cubs would have been completely hamstrung by the ensuing injury. Why is that any better or more fair than what actually happened to Prior?
Adam Wainwright's second half of 2007--2.7 ERA, K:BB > 2--was even better than his 2008 numbers, so it really doesn't seem like he's a fluke.
He also finished well down the stretch last year, so it's hard to understand why he's considered such an injury or flop risk.
Rumors are floating around that the Mets and Red Sox are talking about Brian Schneider. How could the Mets get back for him? Would David Pauley for Brian Schneider be a reasonable swap for either team?
Mets: Don\'t do anything stupid. Plug the obvious holes with the obvious free agents. Throw as many bullpen arms at the wall as possible in ST.