Jan 12

How Can Ike Davis Not Be Upset By The Trade Talk?

New York Mets GM Sandy Alderson recently told MLB.com Ike Davis was not annoyed by the persistent trade talk since the end of the season.

“I don’t think any of this talk over the winter has bothered him,’’ Alderson said. “I think he’s anxious to get to spring training and show what he can do.’’

I can buy him being anxious for spring training, if for no other reason, than to prove he can play so he can get out of Dodge.

If you’re the Mets and think Davis isn’t bothered by the talk of him being a bust and of him being traded, then do you really want him back? If you’re the Mets, you don’t want to hear Davis is in a good mood as Alderson said, but royally hacked off.

What Alderson said and what Davis told the New York Daily News are two different things. Davis sounded hurt, which should be construed as a positive.

“I want to go back,’’ Davis said. “I want to have another chance. I want to win with the Mets. I don’t want to leave on this kind of note.’’

But, he seems resigned to the possibility of him leaving.

I’m no longer thinking the Mets will work a deal with Milwaukee, or to anybody else for that matter, before the start of spring training, which is little more than a month away.

If the Mets are to trade Davis, it will be closer to the start of the season, after teams have gone through spring training and know what holes they have in their line-up.

Until then, Davis isn’t going anywhere, at least not for the asking price for those on the line with Alderson.

“We’re not going to move Ike just to move Ike – or any other player for that matter,’’ Alderson said. “This is a trade market, not a yard sale, and right now we’re perfectly happy to go into spring training with Davis and [Lucas] Duda both on the team.’’

Alderson insists the Mets aren’t actively talking with anybody about Davis, and such discussions would come suddenly; say after an injury strikes down somebody else’s first baseman.

While the Brewers have been most prominently mentioned, the call could come from anywhere.

Your comments are greatly appreciated and I will attempt to respond. Follow me on Twitter @jdelcos

Jan 05

Mets Have Catching Concerns

Of all the New York Mets’ questions entering spring training, perhaps the most intriguing is at catcher, where an inexperienced Travis d’Arnaud is the starter without a veteran mentor.

Last year, he had John Buck. However, when d’Arnaud was injured, the job became Buck’s with young Anthony Recker as back-up. By the time d’Arnaud was ready for Citi Field, Buck was heading for Pittsburgh.

The Mets could use Buck back this year as a caddy for d’Arnaud, but manager Terry Collins said he’s comfortable with Recker as the back-up. But, it’s January, not July and the Mets aren’t riding a six-game losing streak and heading to the West Coast.

Truth is the window is small for both d’Arnaud and Recker, and we don’t know what either could do with 550 at-bats over a full season. That’s a major concern, as is both their abilities to call a game and settle a pitching staff.

Mets pitchers last year had a comfort dealing with Buck they didn’t have time to develop with d’Arnaud. Mets pitchers did have some sense of comfort with Recker, who produced more at the plate than d’Arnaud.

Teams have carried weak-hitting catchers before, but usually they had enough offense elsewhere to compensate. This Mets’ team doesn’t have that luxury.

Of the two, for a young catcher, defense and handling a staff take precedence over offense, but as a young player it is only natural d’Arnaud will fret if he’s not hitting.

The problem is the Mets don’t know what they have in d’Arnaud, either at the plate or behind it. Ditto for Recker. Those are significant concerns.

Your comments are greatly appreciated and I will attempt to respond. Follow me on Twitter @jdelcos

Jan 01

Understated Mets’ Positives Of 2013

Good afternoon folks. I was thinking about the best and worst with the New York Mets during the summer of 2013. As far as the best and worst, Matt Harvey is both. His development captivated the organization until the black cloud of Tommy John surgery.

Outside of Harvey’s injury, the other major negative was the continuing negative saga of Ike Davis. Ruben Tejada entered the season a question and was a disappointment, but not nearly as paralyzing as Davis’ self-destructive year at the plate.

What then, after Harvey’s early emergence, could we look at as positives?

I’m looking at two events, both in the offseason, which could be regarded as positives, although they might be considered symbolic.

The first was the extension of manager Terry Collins’ contract. A new manager would have meant the beginning of another rebuilding program. A new manager means new coaches and a new system, and with Harvey gone and other looming issues, we’re looking at an indefinite delay in the Mets’ rebuilding program.

Keeping Collins represented an endorsement by management its blueprint. It displayed a sense of confidence the team was heading in a positive direction.

Secondly, were the signings of Curtis Granderson and Bartolo Colon. Are these guys high-profile, high-impact additions? Probably not in the traditional sense, but during the Sandy Alderson era the Mets pointed to this winter as to when the organization would begin spending.

After letting Jose Reyes walk, trading R.A. Dickey and Carlos Beltran, and shedding the contracts of Johan Santana, Jason Bay and Oliver Perez, the Mets believed they were finally in position to financially compete.

Trouble is, too many Mets fans didn’t share the beliefs of Alderson and ownership. Too many times they had been disappointed, and again the Mets were asking their fans to believe.

Who knows how Granderson and Colon will work out? But, the Mets promised additions and lived up to their word. As with bringing back Collins, the additions the Mets made are indicative in a confidence they are moving forward.

And, considering how things had been since Beltran took that called third strike to end the 2006 NLCS, Mets fans need to take their positives when they can.

ON DECK: Tomorrow I’ll look at what I am looking forward to during the 2014 season.

Your comments are greatly appreciated and I will attempt to respond. Follow me on Twitter @jdelcos

Jan 01

Wishing You All A Very Happy New Year

Good morning all. I’ll have posts later today on the Mets and baseball related, but for now I just want to wish you a very Happy and Healthy New Year.

The blog has evolved over the years and there will be additions and improvements this season as well. Hopefully, the blog’s improvement will coincide with that of the Mets.

Of course, if there’s anything you’d like to see on the blog that has been in short supply, I am all ears.

For the veteran names who have been with me from the beginning, I am grateful for your friendship and the support you’ve given me. For the newcomers, thanks for joining us and I hope you’ll continue to be a part of things.

As always your comments and thoughts are most appreciated.

All my best,

JD

Your comments are greatly appreciated and I will attempt to respond. Follow me on Twitter @jdelcos

Dec 30

Mets Still In It For Stephen Drew, But Why?

The New York Mets reportedly still have interest in free agent shortstop Stephen Drew, which is puzzling. If the Mets are to be consistent with their previous spending policies, they should pass on Drew and move on with Ruben Tejada.

The Mets backed off on outfielder Michael Bourn last winter as to not give up a compensatory draft pick. As it turned out, the Mets made a good decision, one that enabled them to get a look at Juan Lagares.

DREW: Should pass.

DREW: Should pass.

Not only would Mets have to give up a pick for Drew, they’d also have to start the package at $14.1 million. This would be one big E-6.

This for a 30-year-old shortstop who hit .253 with a .333 on-base percentage, 14 homers and 67 RBI last year for Boston. Yes, Drew played a solid shortstop, but for where the Mets are, for what they are attempting to do fiscally, and for their rebuilding blueprint, he does not make sense.

None.

Nobody knows what the Mets will get from Tejada, but he’s worth another look, especially for a team whose timetable to compete remains a year down the road.

Giving Tejada another year is a better, less-taxing option than to get hooked into Drew for at least three-years, which is what agent Scott Boras most assuredly will be seeking.

There are no guarantees with or without Tejada, or Drew, as to their performance, but from a building prospect, the Mets still have needs, some of them pressing and likely costly, that will be better addressed than adding Drew.

Your comments are greatly appreciated and I will attempt to respond. Follow me on Twitter @jdelcos