Re-Sign Reyes NOW!!!!

[bmfc1]

If you trade Wright and/or Reyes, each still in the first half of their careers, you would want several prospects in return and you would hope that any one of them becomes as good as Wright and Reyes are right now. If the prospect developed to that level, it would take years which means that you would go without Wright and/or Reyes production for that time and then would finally be back at the current level. In other words... it makes no sense baseball-wise to trade either of them. It might make sense financially but not on the field and certainly not to the fans who would be forced to watch Hu-like players as the prospects developed. I hope that Alderson figures out a way, as stated earlier here, to keep Ike, David & Jose together and build/re-structure around them.

[ashie62]

Sandy will do what the Wilpons tell him to do.

[TransMonk]

bmfc1 wrote: I hope that Alderson figures out a way, as stated earlier here, to keep Ike, David & Jose together and build/re-structure around them.

This. But it is going to be very expensive to keep Reyes (your league leader in hits at this point).

Behind all of the smiles and quoted loyalty, I think he (and his agent) are itching to see how much he can get on the open market.

[Edgy MD]

And there's no reason that an experienced agent can't arrive at an estimate of what that is and present it to the Mets.

[metirish]

TransMonk wrote: bmfc1 wrote: I hope that Alderson figures out a way, as stated earlier here, to keep Ike, David & Jose together and build/re-structure around them. This. But it is going to be very expensive to keep Reyes (your league leader in hits at this point). Behind all of the smiles and quoted loyalty, I think he (and his agent) are itching to see how much he can get on the open market.

I've no problem with the player wanting to check the open market , this is his one big shot at it. Once he wasn't extended and this went in to the season like this then he'd be a fool not to test the market.

[Edgy MD]

I'll disagree courteously. If the Mets come with a generous offer that Reyes' agents view as comparable to what he'd get on the open market, then it could be foolish to pass up an offer made while you're client is playing well and calibrated to good play, in favor of the relative abstraction that is competing offers at the end of the season, a season that could well be filled with less effective play and/or end in injury. A poor economy, too.

It's a bird-in-the-hand/birds-in-the-bush choice, and I think we'll have to see what the bird in the hand looks like before we judge what the foolish choice is.

[seawolf17]

Eight years, $150 million. Make it happen, Sandy.

[metsmarathon]

let me ask a question.

if the mets are unable/unwilling to extend reyes this year, AND the mets are significantly out of contention this year, BUT they are interested in bringing him back as a free agent, does it hurt their chances appreciably to trade him?

the biggest risk of course is that he is traded to a contender and falls in love with their team / city / competitiveness.

but if he hits free agency, our money is as good as anybody else's (hmm, i guess that's not necessarily true anymore, but assuming that it is...).

if we're going to lose him, i'd rather get something in return. but my preference is to sign him fast, snatch him up real quick, and not let go for a good long time. and then i'd do the same thing with david wright.

[metirish]

I'm in with that Edgy but I don't see the Mets making such an offer.......

[seawolf17]

I always wanted a team/player to do that. Make a secret agreement where the player promises to resign at some zany amount of guaranteed money, then trade him to a key division rival for a bunch of prospects, only to see him then resign with you in the offseason. Then you get the player back and all of your rival's prospects! That's a win-win, baby.

[Ceetar]

There are other financials to think about too. I know players don't think about their legacy that much if at all, but agents certainly can. There is value in staying with the Mets, in that it creates revenue for you long beyond your best years. Ask your first base coach before you take off for second.

Your number on the wall in LF, being referred to as "The best SS in franchise history" (not that he's not that already) and all that jazz.

Talk about how Citi Field is a great place for Reyes to play, stick around and after Citi's done with it they'll rename it after you.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The timeframe is a bit stretched out, but that's kind of what happened with the Phillies and Cliff Lee.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

seawolf17 wrote: I always wanted a team/player to do that. Make a secret agreement where the player promises to resign at some zany amount of guaranteed money, then trade him to a key division rival for a bunch of prospects, only to see him then resign with you in the offseason. Then you get the player back and all of your rival's prospects! That's a win-win, baby.

I think there's an unwritten rule in the Jock Code that forbids a player from re-signing with a team that traded him: It wouldn't appear manly enough. Cliff Lee was a loittle different, he was traded early in his career, and guys who get traded tend to get traded.

[Edgy MD]

One guy who ride that merry-go-round was Mike F. Bordick. He was traded in the midst of his best season in Baltimore and even as he went, there was an understanding in the local media here that the O's would be looking to re-sign him after the season. And indeed they did. They walk off with Melvin Mora --- and Leslie Brea and Mike Kinkade to boot.

What did the Mets get? A crap shortstop in the postseason. Was Aaron Heilman a compensation pick? Alhaji Turay?

Anyhow, any secret deal between the team and the player would obviously be illegal. More importantly, I can't imagine either party feeling much compelling them to adhere to the deal if fortunes changed by the time the season ended.

[Gwreck]

Of course a secret deal is illegal.

There is nothing stopping Alderson from sitting down with Reyes and his agent and explaining that obviously, the team is not going to compete for the playoffs this year and accordingly, the team is considering trading Reyes in order to get some additional prospects back, and that the Mets want to be competitive bidders for Reyes' services once he reaches free agency, and that leveraging Reyes' contract status for some additional players will only result in Jose coming back to a stronger team.

That being said, Alderson's first responsibility is to exhaust all possible efforts to sign Reyes to a contract extension NOW.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: One guy who ride that merry-go-round was Mike F. Bordick. He was traded in the midst of his best season in Baltimore and even as he went, there was an understanding in the local media here that the O's would be looking to re-sign him after the season. And indeed they did. They walk off with Melvin Mora --- and Leslie Brea and Mike Kinkade to boot. What did the Mets get? A crap shortstop in the postseason. Was Aaron Heilman a compensation pick? Alhaji Turay? Anyhow, any secret deal between the team and the player would obviously be illegal. More importantly, I can't imagine either party feeling much compelling them to adhere to the deal oif fortunes changed by the time the season ended.

Yeah, perhaps if Broken Hand Mike gota hit or two in the WS, and a ring, the Mets would've wondered if it was worth keeping an all-glove SS in 2001 and instead try to keep Bordick. I think he returned to the Os more because veryone else saw him with the Mets and he became damaged goods..

You'd probably imagine Reyes wouldn't be that way. He's Reyes. whereever he ends up he'll be wanted.


That Mora for Bordick trade probably was worse, in hindsight obviously, than the Kasmir thing.

[Centerfield]

No way. The Kazmir deal was far worse. The Kazmir deal exemplified stupidity in that:

1. The club allowed a GM that was on the hot seat to make a panic move.
2. The club was not realistic in their assessment of a team that was on the periphery of a wild card chase. They should have been "sellers" rather than buyers.
3. Blue-Chip prospects shouldn't be traded at the deadline. If you're going to move them, do it in the off-season when there is plenty of time and motivation for everyone to get involved. That maximizes value.
4. Kazmir was traded before alerting other teams that he was available. There was buzz among GM's afterwards that they wished they knew he was available. At that time, Oakland was dealing away aces. This, more than anything else, is utter foolishness. You don't make a trade without doing your due diligence.
5. They traded him for a guy that they knew was hurt.
6. They traded him for a guy who was not good.

[G-Fafif]

In my bluest and orange bones, I believe that no matter what the Mets do where Reyes is concerned, it will absolutely backfire.

They will re-sign him and he will deteriorate quickly and expensively.

They will trade him for prospects and the prospects will be proved suspect within 12 months.

They will let him go for draft picks and the draft picks will be used on Ryan Jaroncyk redux.

He will rescue the MFYs or MFPs from sinking into a post-Jeter or post-Rollins abyss.

We won't win with him.

We won't win without him.

He'll get picked off first and be out crossing from second to third on a grounder to short again and again.

He'll stop tripling and won't do much doubling.

He'll be blocking Ruben Tejada's or somebody else's path by 2013.

I will miss him horribly if I see him in another uniform.

I will bitch endlessly as he drains payroll and clogs the DL.

Perhaps you Taxi fans remember the two-part Fantasy Island-themed episode ("Fantasy Borough") in which each denizen of the garage imagined a wonderful scenario for him or herself while waiting for fellow ABC star Herve Villechaize to stop by the Sunshine Cab Company to pick up the briefcase he left in Tony's cab. Alex tried to fantasize but couldn't. Wound up making out with a gorgeous woman he discerned was his cousin.

That's me and my Jose. I just can't see any of it working out. I want to believe there's an answer. All I come away with are conclusions.

[Guest themetfairy]

G-Fafif wrote: In my bluest and orange bones, I believe that no matter what the Mets do where Reyes is concerned, it will absolutely backfire. They will re-sign him and he will deteriorate quickly and expensively. They will trade him for prospects and the prospects will be proved suspect within 12 months. They will let him go for draft picks and the draft picks will be used on Ryan Jaroncyk redux. He will rescue the MFYs or MFPs from sinking into a post-Jeter or post-Rollins abyss. We won't win with him. We won't win without him. He'll get picked off first and be out crossing from second to third on a grounder to short again and again. He'll stop tripling and won't do much doubling. He'll be blocking Ruben Tejada's or somebody else's path by 2013. I will miss him horribly if I see him in another uniform. I will bitch endlessly as he drains payroll and clogs the DL. Perhaps you Taxi fans remember the two-part Fantasy Island-themed episode ("Fantasy Borough") in which each denizen of the garage imagined a wonderful scenario for him or herself while waiting for fellow ABC star Herve Villechaize to stop by the Sunshine Cab Company to pick up the briefcase he left in Tony's cab. Alex tried to fantasize but couldn't. Wound up making out with a gorgeous woman he discerned was his cousin. That's me and my Jose. I just can't see any of it working out. I want to believe there's an answer. All I come away with are conclusions.

This

[Theoldmole]

Well of course it's not the columnists' job to root for warm fuzzy stories about Reyes & Wright growing old with the Mets. They need to consider - as does the team - whether signing one or both (Reyes now because the contract is up) truly is the right move for the team and not just the public relations one.

No, their job is to sell newspapers. They have no obligation to the team, or to right moves, at all.

[Gwreck]

G-Fafif wrote: That's me and my Jose. I just can't see any of it working out. I want to believe there's an answer. All I come away with are conclusions.

You can't see him signing a seven year deal with the Mets at $120 million, in which Reyes performs for three years at his 06/07/08/11 level (he'll be age 29-31), followed by two years of above-average (but not superstar) performance (age 32-33) followed by two years of slightly above average to replacement-level performance (age 34-35)?

'Cause that's what I see.

[Guest attgig]

Gwreck wrote: Of course a secret deal is illegal. There is nothing stopping Alderson from sitting down with Reyes and his agent and explaining that obviously, the team is not going to compete for the playoffs this year and accordingly, the team is considering trading Reyes in order to get some additional prospects back, and that the Mets want to be competitive bidders for Reyes' services once he reaches free agency, and that leveraging Reyes' contract status for some additional players will only result in Jose coming back to a stronger team. That being said, Alderson's first responsibility is to exhaust all possible efforts to sign Reyes to a contract extension NOW.

i think all of that trade to resign won't work if the mets want any real prospects. if the price is high enough, the other team will ask for a negotiating window to work out something longer. if the mets refuse, then i don't expect them to get much back in return.

[G-Fafif]

Gwreck wrote: G-Fafif wrote: That's me and my Jose. I just can't see any of it working out. I want to believe there's an answer. All I come away with are conclusions. You can't see him signing a seven year deal with the Mets at $120 million, in which Reyes performs for three years at his 06/07/08/11 level (he'll be age 29-31), followed by two years of above-average (but not superstar) performance (age 32-33) followed by two years of slightly above average to replacement-level performance (age 34-35)? 'Cause that's what I see.

Conceptually, perhaps, though I'd like to wait to decide what 2011 is (he was all-world for a spell in 2010 before falling off). Deep down, I think 2006 was five years ago and I've not seen that Jose all that much since about August 2007. Real fine player at times. Real fine player at the moment. $17 million per annum player out into 2018?

Makes me queasy trying to answer that honestly.

[Ceetar]

so pay him closer to $20 for '13, '14, '15. have '16 '17 be closer to $14

[crossout:91deiz9d]Or you could convince him to defer a lot of it, while investing it with a ..[/crossout:91deiz9d]


I'd rather have him, even at 2010 levels, for years rather than have his 'replacement'.

I hardly think it's given, nor even likely, that he'll be bad at the end of the contract. Sure, he'll steal less bases, and get less triples. But are you watching? This isn't Luis Castillo. He's not getting 30 infield hits a year. His BABIP isn't even high, he's not getting on base an abnormal amount based on being able to beat throws. (Castillo's was like .335 career)

Addionally, he's got a strong arm. If he loses a step at SS, it won't be the end of the world and he'll still be able to make the throws or can transition to second or elsewhere.

[seawolf17]

Ceetar wrote: Yeah, perhaps if Broken Hand Mike gota hit or two in the WS, and a ring, the Mets would've wondered if it was worth keeping an all-glove SS in 2001 and instead try to keep Bordick. I think he returned to the Os more because veryone else saw him with the Mets and he became damaged goods.

If Broken Hand Mike had done that, he would have signed an eight-year, $150 million extension, and fans of the Cleveland Indians would be having this "should we sign Jose Reyes" debate right now.

[metirish]

Ken Davidoff goes two parter on us , but first who'll get traded.....some good stuff in here.


Which Mets will be going, going, gone?

The Mets kicked off action in Denver last night with a 15-19 record. Not awful. The Red Sox stood at 16-18, and Baseball Prospectus� playoff odds have Boston capturing the American League wild card. But we need no sophisticated equations to know that the Mets simply don�t look like a contender this season � although, if you like sophisticated equations, BP had the Mets with a 0.3-percent chance to win the National League East and 0.9 percent to get the NL wild card. A good organization plans for all scenarios, so you can bet that the Mets, under the intelligent leadership of Sandy Alderson, are preparing for the chance that they�ll be sellers come July. Not just any sellers, either. The Mets, their poor record notwithstanding, have the sort of potentially available talent that could make Citi Field the trade-deadline headquarters, and could replenish the Mets� talent base considerably. Let�s take a look. The players are listed in order of buzz they are generating: JOSE REYES Why he�ll be traded His contract expires after this season, and if he keeps up his strong start, he�ll put himself in line for an immense contract on the free-agent market. Why he won�t be traded Besides the slim chance that the Mets will be in the playoff race? If the Mets� ownership straightens out its finances and if Alderson alters his philosophy about long-term contracts, then Reyes � who could get a free-agent contract worth more than $100 million � could stay.2011 stats.331 BA, .379 OBP, 49 H, 12 SBs. Likely returnThe best of any other impending free agent. Look at what Seattle got from Texas last July for Cliff Lee, who was in a similar contract situation � a top-flight prospect (first baseman Justin Smoak) and three more young players with some promise. Possible suitorsBoston, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Oakland, San Francisco, St. Louis. Likelihood he�ll be traded: 80% CARLOS BELTRAN- Why he�ll be traded: Like Reyes, he can be a free agent, and like Reyes, he is playing well. Why he won�t be tradedThere�s no good reason. If the Mets aren�t in contention, they�ll have zero incentive to hold on to Beltran. They wouldn�t even recoup draft picks if they kept him and then lost him through free agency. 2011 stats: .295 BA, .536 SLG, 5 HRs, 18 RBIs. Likely return t depends wholly on how much money the Mets would be willing to include. With an $18.5-million salary, Beltran will have about $6 million owed him from August onward. The more the Mets provide, the better talent they�ll get back. Possible suitors: Atlanta, Detroit, Angels, Yankees, San Francisco, Tampa Bay. Likelihood he�ll be traded: 98 percent. FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ Why he�ll be traded: Like Reyes and Beltran, free agency beckons � but he has a $17.5-million vesting option for 2012 that activates with 55 games finished. He entered last night�s game on pace for 52. Why he won�t be traded: That vesting option could be a deal-breaker. There even could be teams looking to acquire him as a setup man, which would lower his trade value. 2011 stats: 1.17 ERA, 9 saves. Likely return: Like with Beltran, the dollars will be an issue; K-Rod has about $3.8 million coming to him in the final two months. Possible suitors: Boston, Cincinnati, Detroit, Florida, Angels, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Texas. Likelihood he�ll be traded: 55 percent. MIKE PELFREY Why he�ll be traded: With a $3.93-million salary, and with two more years before free agency, Pelfrey will keep getting more expensive for the Mets. Will he keep getting better? Why he won�t be traded: If he keeps slipping and sliding his way through this campaign, it might not make sense to sell low on him. 2011 stats: 2-3, 6.06 ERA. Likely return: Assuming he can look like his old self until July, Pelfrey could bring back a nice package, highlighted by a top-flight prospect, since a) he�d be a long-term investment rather than a rental and it doesn�t look like there�ll be much quality starting pitching available. Possible suitors: Cincinnati, Colorado, Florida, Yankees, Texas. Likelihood he�ll be traded: 25 percent. DAVID WRIGHT Why he�ll be traded: If a team knocks the Mets� socks off with an offer of impressive prospects. Think of the package Texas received from Atlanta for Mark Teixeira. Why he won�t be traded:He�s under team control through 2013, and even though he has declined since 2008, he still has value to the Mets. 2011 stats: .240 BA, 5 HRs, 16 RBIs. Likely return: He�d go only if the return were tremendous. In that Teixeira trade, Texas received five players, including the major league-ready Jarrod Saltalamacchia and young studs Elvis Andrus and Neftali Feliz. Possible suitors: Cincinnati, Colorado, Oakland. Likelihood he�ll be traded: 10 percent. The rest (Tim Byrdak, Chris Capuano, Scott Hairston, Jason Isringhausen) Why they�ll be traded: They�re all impending free agents. No reason to keep them around if the club isn�t contending. Why they won�t be traded: Someone might be hurt. Likely return: Nothing over which to throw a party. But good scouting and negotiating could produce a few interesting, lower-tier prospects. Likely suitors: Everyone could use bullpen and bench help. If Capuano improves and Dillon Gee produces, the purported Pelfrey suitors could be in on them. Likelihood they�ll be traded: Byrdak 80 percent, Capuano 70 percent, Hairston 75 percent, Isringhausen 85 percent.

The Jose Reyes trade dilemma, Part I

For Tuesday's Newsday, I produced a Mets inventory check, based on the increasingly safe assumption that the Mets won't be in contention come July. I listed the players in order of the buzz they're generating on the yakosphere (trademark Neil Best), and using that criteria, listing Jose Reyes first was a no-brainer. I've read many good arguments - some from fellow media folk, some from readers with whom I communicate - about why the Mets should not trade Reyes this season. Nevertheless, I can think of only one good reason to retain him, and that's if the Mets mount a surprising playoff run. In my mind, there are two distinct questions here concerning Reyes. The first is, "Should they trade him?" The second is, "Should they commit to him long-term?" They intersect. But they are different questions. So let's address the first question Tuesday, and the second one Wednesday. And the answer to the first one, again, is, "As long as they're not in the race? Absolutely." If the Mets were so inclined, then Fred and Jeff Wilpon, Sandy Alderson and Terry Collins could sit Reyes in a meeting room at Citi Field on, say, July 15 and deliver this speech: "Jose, we think the world of you. We want you to spend your prime as a Met. We want you to reitre as a Met. "But there really is no point in you hanging around here for the rest of the season. We're out of the race. Aren't you tired of playing out the string? We feel it's win-win if we trade you. You get to enjoy your first pennant race in a while, and you're gonna bring back some exciting young players in a trade. "Really, by trading you, we're making ourselves more appealing to you come free agency. You want to win a World Series ring, and by trading you, we'll be closer to that goal than we are today. "So go ahead to (Cincinnati, San Francisco, wherever), and have a great time. And we'll be waiting for you on the other side." Is there precedent for such an arrangement? I can of two quasi-parallels: 1) In spring training of 1997, the Indians traded Kenny Lofton to Atlanta. Lofton spent the '97 season with the Braves, then returned to the Indians as a free agent for the 1998 season. 2) In July of 2003, Baltimore traded Sidney Ponson to San Francisco. Then the Orioles signed Ponson the subsequent winter. There's an obvious risk in this strategy. Reyes could fall in love with his new club. Or, he could play so well, including on a postseason platform, that he could raise his price to a prohibitive level for the Mets, whose owners might not be able to afford a huge commitment and whose general manager might be philosophically opposed to it, anyway. We'll delve more into those issues Wednesday. For now, I think it's absolutely worth the risk of trading Reyes, given the return that should be coming. --UPDATE, 10:46 a.m.: Got two more examples of this "temporary separation" phenomenon on Twitter. My buddy Mark Hale from the New York Post asked if Cliff Lee - traded by the Phillies, only to return to them a year later - qualified. I suppose it would, although I don't think the Phillies ever thought they would get Lee back. And Rob Zloto asked about Mike Bordick, whom the Mets acquired from Baltimore to replace the injured Rey Ordonez in 2000 and who returned to the Orioles for 2001. Absolutely. A very good example.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/which-mets-will-be-going-going-gone-1.2866641

[Guest holychicken]

On Beltran:

"They wouldn�t even recoup draft picks if they kept him and then lost him through free agency."

Why is that?

[seawolf17]

They have an agreement not to offer him arbitration, I believe, which is where the picks come from.

[TransMonk]

seawolf17 wrote: They have an agreement not to offer him arbitration, I believe, which is where the picks come from.

Yup.

[Ceetar]

of course, there is some talk that the CBA will change and no one will get picks anyway.

Also, I'm not sure on the wording of the contract, but if the agreement is the Mets won't offer him arbitration, another team would likely see value in signing him AND getting picks at the end of that, making the potential return higher. Of course, they could change the CBA. I don't know how GMs are valuing that when it comes to trading.

There's still quite a bit of baseball left before even the mid-July "geeze, we're out of it aren't we?" questions, and that .9% number is an absolute joke.