Mets reject Blue Jays on Halladay Package

[smg58]

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":lq51jb1x]Playing the what-if game, though... assuming the trade were to happen, we're looking at this team locked in as a poor man's 2001 D-Backs-- with Santana and Halladay's paychecks, and Reyes due to make open-market rates after 2011, there's no money to sign anything but replacement-level or steeply discounted (due to injury history, or "correctable" mechanical flaws) talent for C, 1B, and corner OF over the next several years. The offense would end up being even more top-heavy than we're used to-- Wright, Reyes and what's left of Beltran, surrounded by Castillo, Murphy, Evans, Ike Davis (maybe?), and a REALLY ugly bench-- wouldn't it?[/quote:lq51jb1x] The contracts for Beltran, Castillo and Perez run out after 2011 as well, so it's not like there's already zero payroll flexibility that far ahead. In the meantime, we're freeing up the money spent on Delgado, Wagner, and Schneider, plus Putz in all likelihood. It will also take more than one home run to justify tendering a contract to Francoeur. That's a quarter of the team's current payroll right there. I've got no problem with building a more balanced team, but I don't think a deal for Halladay necessarily rules that out.

Edgy DC Jul 21 2009 12:14 PM

This has surely morphed. If the Mets weren't going after the top two targets in the starting pitcher market, certainly Teixera wasn't in the cards under any circumstances, Omar or no Omar.

Nymr83 Jul 21 2009 03:16 PM

]Was pursuing Texiera really explicitly rejected because the team needs to focus on the bullpen? they had to make a decision on Delgado' option before they could talk to Texiera, if Delgado had become a free agent they could have gotten outbid on Texiera anyway amd then had to give Delgado more years (which would have sucked imo), so i think they made the right move there.

Centerfield Jul 21 2009 04:16 PM

I didn't mean to re-hash the Delgado/Texiera arguments again. I realize the degree of difficulty was high on that one. I just wish we had a GM that was willing to explore it and not be constrained by "We are set at first"-type thinking. Similarly, I don't want the Mets to not pull the trigger on a Halladay deal (if one is, in fact, available to them) because of the mindset that "we need bats". We do need bats. But if we can get an ace, we should look to get that ace, then get bats with the money freed up when Wagner, Putz, Delgado, Schneider and Franceour come off the books.

Edgy DC Jul 21 2009 04:44 PM

Understood. To be fair, though, the extension that Halladay would require would eat up a fair chunk of that money.

[Guest Edgy DC]

This has surely morphed. If the Mets weren't going after the top two targets in the starting pitcher market, certainly Teixera wasn't in the cards under any circumstances, Omar or no Omar.

[nymr83]

]Was pursuing Texiera really explicitly rejected because the team needs to focus on the bullpen?

they had to make a decision on Delgado' option before they could talk to Texiera, if Delgado had become a free agent they could have gotten outbid on Texiera anyway amd then had to give Delgado more years (which would have sucked imo), so i think they made the right move there.

[Centerfield]

I didn't mean to re-hash the Delgado/Texiera arguments again. I realize the degree of difficulty was high on that one. I just wish we had a GM that was willing to explore it and not be constrained by "We are set at first"-type thinking.

Similarly, I don't want the Mets to not pull the trigger on a Halladay deal (if one is, in fact, available to them) because of the mindset that "we need bats". We do need bats. But if we can get an ace, we should look to get that ace, then get bats with the money freed up when Wagner, Putz, Delgado, Schneider and Franceour come off the books.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Understood. To be fair, though, the extension that Halladay would require would eat up a fair chunk of that money.