Dec 09

Examining Mets’ Trade Assets

I keep hearing the Mets are willing to trade and have the chips to do so. However, it is well known they aren’t willing to part with Matt Harvey, Zack Wheeler, Jacob deGrom or Noah Syndergaard.

So, what’s left to deal, and what is their trade value?

As the Winter Meetings progress, let’s examine their trade assets:

Jon Niese: The pros of being left-handed with a manageable salary have been negated by mediocrity and injuries. That the Mets have hung a “For Sale’’ sign on him further lowers his value.

Dillon Gee: Could have value, but more likely at the trade deadline. Mets’ obvious desire to deal him lowers return.

Bartolo Colon: Mets eager to trade him, also. They would have to eat part of his contract. Again, more likely to attract interest at July deadline.

Travis d’Arnaud: Nobody would trade for him outright as he’s still unproven.

Lucas Duda: Has value, but if he goes who will hit home runs?

Daniel Murphy: Haven’t the Mets been wanting to deal him for years? If somebody wants him, he’s available. But, don’t expect him to draw a significant return.

Wilmer Flores: What does it tell you that the Mets are still searching for a shortstop before he even gets a chance?

David Wright: With six years and $107 million remaining on his contract, plus a recent injury history, he’s not going anywhere.

Michael Cuddyer: They just signed him.

Juan Lagares: He could have trade value for a team wanting to build with speed, defense and youth. Oh, wait, isn’t that what the Mets want to do?

Curtis Granderson: His power is in decline and he has three years and $47 million left on his contract. Sure, the Mets would like to deal him. But, who would take on that contract and what could you get?

Jeurys Familia, Jenrry Mejia and Bobby Parnell: Three power arms in the bullpen would attract interest. However, Parnell is coming off an injury that hurts his value. But, haven’t the Mets been wanting to build a bullpen for four years now?

Nov 20

Six-Man Rotation Won’t Happen For Mets

With the topic of cutting Matt Harvey’s innings comes the idea of a six-man rotation.

One reader threw it out there and my response was it was too bold for the Mets’ thinking. That’s part of it, but there other variables.

Baseball doesn’t change easily, and there was a time when the five-man rotation was a novelty. Six? It could happen sometime, but I don’t sense the Mets will be the trailblazers.

Here’s why I don’t think it will happen:

* Pitchers are creatures of habit, which are hard to break. They are accustomed to their present workload of starting every fifth day and adding another day would break that routine. Some might not mind, but Harvey, for one, would pitch a fit.

* Teams have made a considerable investment in their pitchers, and going to a six-man rotation would take away as many as seven starts a year. While that would be perfect for this season and Harvey, it won’t translate over the long haul. These guys want to pitch, and missing seven starts is a lot.

* The Mets have a plan for Noah Syndergaard, and it doesn’t include pitching before June and disrupting his Super Two status. Syndergaard will pitch this season, but not at the cost of moving up his arbitration year.

* The Mets are in position where things could break their way with their rotation and the last thing they want to do is make a move which would force all five starters to make an adjustment.

Six starters sounds good, but it won’t happen.

Oct 13

How Mets Should Handle Matt Harvey’s Innings

Operating under the assumption Matt Harvey will be ready for spring training and subsequently the start of the season, there will undoubtedly be an innings limitation.

In theory, the Mets want him ready for a postseason push. They haven’t announced what the cap would be, but let’s figure on 175-180 innings – which is at least three starts shy of the hoped for 200.

HARVEY: Innings will be an issue. (AP)

HARVEY: Innings will be an issue. (AP)

So, what are their options?

The first is to do nothing and let him pitch … pitch … and pitch. Undoubtedly, that’s Harvey’s choice, but it won’t happen. Why risk another injury?

Another is to pitch him without game or innings restrictions, then cut him in September if the Mets aren’t in contention. However, if they go that route and the Mets are in the race, they would be doing a disservice to their players and fans, and actually the integrity of the game because they wouldn’t be putting their best team on the field.
That’s not ideal, and neither is the pick-and-choose method, which would be to juggle him with off days and selected starts.

Also, not preferred is to pull him if the Mets are winning late in a game. Harvey will moan about this, and his noise would be amplified if the Mets’ bullpen blew the game.

One option because of the off days in April and the high probability of bad weather is to bag that month entirely or at least the first two weeks.

On the positive, it would keep him out of the cold weather. On the negative, he would still pile up innings in extended spring training games.

Finally, and I think it is the best – it’s something the Nationals didn’t do with Stephen Strasburg – is to have their figure in mind from the start and schedule accordingly.

That would mean making a schedule for the entire season and not deviate. Rainouts would only help the Mets because it would push him back.

In this format, the Mets could schedule skip days now for Harvey and not go on the fly. In addition, they could put him a rigid innings cap, but that would irritate him and lead to an occasional blown save.

However, if the Mets and Harvey knew from the outset his cap would be seven innings both parties could plan accordingly.

Harvey wouldn’t necessarily have to pace himself and Collins would know his bullpen options before the game started. They would accept the blown save as part of the deal.

This format would require discipline from Collins and acceptance from Harvey, which would be more likely because there wouldn’t be any surprises.

Like it or not, this is the hand the Mets have been dealt and must play.

In addition, they might consider plans for Jacob deGrom and Zack Wheeler.

All of this proves the cliché “you can never have too much pitching.’’

As frustrating as this might be, the Mets are set up for this complicated option because they have Rafael Montero, Carlos Torres and sometime in June, Noah Syndergaard. They also have depth with Jon Niese, Bartolo Colon and Dillon Gee.

 

Oct 08

Cespedes Just Fruitless Wishful Thinking

Sure, Yoenis Cespedes is an intriguing name, but like those that came before him – Troy Tulowitzki and Carlos Gonzales to name just two – it’s just more wishful thinking about something that has very little chance of happening.

I don’t want to rain on your off-season parade, but as good as he is, Cespedes will be too costly for the Mets, both in terms of potential salary and the prospects they must surrender to get him.

CESPEDES: To dream the impossible dream.

CESPEDES: To dream the impossible dream.

Let’s look at salary first.

Cespedes will make $10.5 million this season, after which he will become a free agent. The Mets can afford the $10.5 million for one year, but why would they give up talent for a one-year rental? That makes no sense.

As they did with Johan Santana, the Mets will have to agree to terms with Cespedes on a multi-year extension before completing a trade. That’s the way these things work. No extension; no trade.

Cespedes’ demands – and I’m guessing here – could be in the area of five-plus years and close to $90 million, if not more.

When you consider a five-plus contract for Cespedes, you must also take into consideration money they’ll be paying David Wright, Curtis Granderson, and in the future, possible long-term deals with Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler.

As far as what it would cost in terms of talent to acquire Cespedes, remember the Red Sox gave up Jon Lester, who is better than anybody in the Mets’ rotation.

Personally, how far-fetched is it to think Boston might not just re-sign Lester, which would give the Sox both Lester and Cespedes.

Sure, Jon Niese is just one name, but it will also have to take some of the young pitching among Harvey, Wheeler, Noah Syndergaard or Jacob deGrom. One of those four, plus Niese, is the starting point.

Sure, I like Cespedes and he’s look good in a Mets’ uniform, but I’ve been watching them long enough to know there’s little chance of this happening.

It’s fun to think about, but that’s what the off-season is all about.

Right?

Sep 26

The Obstacle In Trading For Power

It isn’t that Daniel Murphy doesn’t have value to another team in a straight trade; it is he won’t be able to bring back much in return by himself.

With the Mets’ greatest need power; Murphy is a line-drive gap hitter with limited power. To acquire a 30-homer bat, the Mets would have to sweeten the pot considerably. That would mean dealing one of their pitchers. The Mets don’t want to trade Matt Harvey, Zack Wheeler, Noah Syndergaard and Jacob deGrom, as that is their core.

The most likely pitchers they’ll offer are Jon Niese and Dillon Gee. Perhaps both. That probably won’t get it done, either.

The way I see it, to get a power bat the Mets must spend in the free-agent market or offer more in a trade. Because past history indicates they likely won’t do either, I see them hoping for bounce-back seasons from David Wright and Curtis Granderson, and improvement from Lucas Duda to get their power.

Otherwise, they’ll probably come back next season with roughly the same team.