Mets May Trade Scott Hairston Before September 1st

Ken Davidoff of the New York Post writes:

The Mets have yet to place Scott Hairston on waivers this month, according to an industry source, which makes sense. It figures that the Mets want to reap the benefits of Hairston for a while longer before putting him through the waivers process, at which time they’ll have a decision to make.

That time will come by Aug. 31, and really, the Mets’ decision should be simple. If they want to send the correct message to their fans, they’ll trade the righty-hitting outfielder.

The Mets must cease worrying about small goals such as finishing at .500 or better, or keeping their fans mildly interested through the regular season. Given where they are in their development — in need of myriad key pieces — they need to think about a bigger picture.

And Hairston is the one player whose value could be maximized at this juncture of the season.

Of course we should trade him, but as far as getting max value for him, that ship sailed when Alderson told teams he wanted one of their top three organizational prospects for him.

Because of his unrealistic and preposterous stance he blew a golden opportunity to help the team fill anyone of a dozen different sore spots.

The areas this team needs help in have doubled under his tenure and even something as basic as one everyday outfielder is nowhere on the horizon.

Now, he’ll end up trading Hairston to the lowest bidder instead of the highest bidder because that’s how waivers works. It’s just another blunder in a season full of them for this front office.

But what really irks me is the comment Alderson made alluding to the fact that Hairston had priced himself out of the Mets plans for 2013. You say that, and know that, and yet you STILL hung onto him because you feared the team needed him more than the return we could have gotten for him? Smart, real smart….

Go ahead and trade him now for the next Chris Carter…

Unreal…

One thought on “Mets May Trade Scott Hairston Before September 1st

  1. Who is Chris Carter?

    They may have wanted to keep him because we were competitive. In some sense I cannot blame him as being relevant is a good thing and good for morale. However we soon imploded because of general weakness of the team and here we are.

    If he sold at the time it could be viewed as bailing on a promising season.

    That said, this team isn’t really going anywhere and you maximize value. So was it a bad move? Perhaps. I guess it depends on what was available.