Don't trade Reyes

[Guest attgig]

seawolf17 wrote: From FaFiF: http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2011/06/24/robs-case-for-trading-reyes/ If the Mets were going to go balls-to-the-wall to get the guys they need to surround Reyes & Wright, then definitely sign Reyes. But you know they�re not going to do that. If they sign Reyes, that will be IT. If they sign Wright next year, that will be IT. And that leaves us with the same team we�re treading water with now, minus a few guys who are contributing, with two long-term big money deals added in. I refuse to have that kind of defeatism.

agreed. so much money outside of reyes/wright are coming off the payroll. it will NOT be "IT". Plus, with a front office that actually cares about draft picks and a farm system (plus, possible trades of other folks like a krod in particular), we can have some decent prospects come back our way.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

seawolf17 wrote: From FaFiF: http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2011/06/24/robs-case-for-trading-reyes/ If the Mets were going to go balls-to-the-wall to get the guys they need to surround Reyes & Wright, then definitely sign Reyes. But you know they�re not going to do that. If they sign Reyes, that will be IT. If they sign Wright next year, that will be IT. And that leaves us with the same team we�re treading water with now, minus a few guys who are contributing, with two long-term big money deals added in. I refuse to have that kind of defeatism.

I just filed my response there but didn't get too much into the writer's foot-stampiness and wound-lickingingness. I don't sign on for that part of it either.

[G-Fafif]

seawolf17 wrote: From FaFiF: http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2011/06/24/robs-case-for-trading-reyes/ If the Mets were going to go balls-to-the-wall to get the guys they need to surround Reyes & Wright, then definitely sign Reyes. But you know they�re not going to do that. If they sign Reyes, that will be IT. If they sign Wright next year, that will be IT. And that leaves us with the same team we�re treading water with now, minus a few guys who are contributing, with two long-term big money deals added in. I refuse to have that kind of defeatism.

Kind of an opposing viewpoint from a good friend whose writing (in e-mail form) I enjoy, so I asked him I could string his thoughts together into a post, and he said sure. His voice represents the nagging doubts deep inside my Met psyche.

Don't Trade Reyes. Are you absolutely sure?

Yes. Don't Trade Reyes. Are you sure that's the best thing?

Absolutely. Don't Trade Reyes. Isn't it worth exploring every avenue?

Um, well, yeah. But Don't Trade Reyes. But isn't he your most tradable commodity? And isn't he going to command a whole lot of money a cash-strapped organization isn't necessarily equipped to provide? And will the team be able to improve over the long haul if they make that commitment?

Shut up! Don't Trade Reyes! If you say so...still, you might want to think about it.

Quit nagging at me! Don't Trade Reyes! Fine. We won't. But are you sure...?

[ashie62]

Ceetar wrote: Ashie62 wrote: I think we be keepin Wright and Reyes be-leavin. this would be a comment from 2017?

That would be terrific!

But Jose's days as a Met may be windlng down..quickly..

[ashie62]

You don't have to trade Reyes.

You are guaranteed two draft picks and the chance to speak to him first.

[Guest Edgy DC]

seawolf17 wrote: From FaFiF: http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2011/06/24/robs-case-for-trading-reyes/ If the Mets were going to go balls-to-the-wall to get the guys they need to surround Reyes & Wright, then definitely sign Reyes. But you know they�re not going to do that. If they sign Reyes, that will be IT. If they sign Wright next year, that will be IT. And that leaves us with the same team we�re treading water with now, minus a few guys who are contributing, with two long-term big money deals added in. I refuse to have that kind of defeatism.

Yeah, agreed. I'm very happy with the idea of signing Reyes and Wright and building through their pipeline.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Ashie62 wrote: You don't have to trade Reyes. You are guaranteed two draft picks and the chance to speak to him first.

Sure, but the offer that comes may well be more valuable to the Mets than that.

Seems like two days ago that he was the valuable commodity teams were asking for at the deadline.

Seems like yesterday, as he struggled to get healthy, that the Mets were mocked for treating him as untouchable.

[TransMonk]

Buster Onley tweets:

Mets are 100 percent sure they are not trading Reyes

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

That's a positive start to resolving Reyes' future status with the Mets. Now, they just have to make him a competitive offer and get him resigned. Nice to see that Sandy Alderson says that "resolving the Reyes situation in a favorble way is a top priority."

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm not sure getting him re-signed will automatically follow making a competitive offer, though, especially since "competitive offer" remains a highly subjective term. Still some adventure to come.

[Vic Sage]

As long as he's going to keep this up, how about a deal like this:

4 years / $15m guaranteed, plus $2.5m/yr in makeable incentives (GGs, SSs, MVP votes, all-star appearances, post-season, ws);
PLUS, if he reaches 700+ plate appearances in a season (a threshold he exceeded from 2005 to 2008), he gets (1) an additional $2.5m, plus (2) it extends the deal for an additional season at $17.5m (plus the $2.5m in incentives), for up to 4 additional option years. If the PA threshold isn't met to vest any of the option years, the balance of contract can be bought out for $10m after last guaranteed year.

So, the deal would provide no less than 4yr/$70m, but could go up to 8 year/$160m, based on health and production.

[soupcan]

That's great until some other team guarantees him 7yrs./$140mm unconditionally.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The guy's going to get $100 million one way or another.

It looked true enough before the season and sure looks that way now, unless the MRI says something strongly different.

[Vic Sage]

It looked true enough before the season...

I'm not sure about that; he was coming off his 2nd consecutive injury shortened season, having played only 4 full seasons out of 8 in his career to that point (now 4 out of 9). And by "full", i mean showing up for 150+ games. Of the 4 full seasons he played, his OPS+ on 2 of the 4 were 101 and 102. So, until this season, i wouldn't say that it looked true enough that he was going to get a $100m guaranteed deal based on 2 great seasons, 2 good ones, and 4 mediocre-to-good partial seasons. Of course, this year he has put up 2/3rds of an MVP season, far and away the best of his career, so that definitely changed the calculations.

until his 2nd hammy of the 2nd half.

Now, if he goes on the DL again and misses 2-3 weeks, and comes back as comparatively weakly as he did after the 1st DL stint, is it still true enough that he's a 6yr/$120m player? And should the Mets sign him at that price anyway, if competition drives the price up to that level?

Sure, in a universe of infinite resources, like the Bronx, where you just swallow your mistakes and don't let them inhibit you from making future moves, well then of course, bring back the prodigal son at whatever price. But if you want the franchise to be run from a perspective of rationality within a universe of finite resources, which is what some of us celebrated in Alderson's hiring, does this kind of high risk / high reward player make sense (given that the rewards were primarily seen in 2006, 2008 and 2/3rd of 2011)?

i'm not saying not to try and re-sign him (i'm on record in this thread advocating against trading him and for re-signing him), but i would understand if Alderson chose to offer some kind of qualified deal (with a high payoff potential) rather than lock him in for 6-7yrs@$120-$140m, and if another owner wanted to give him that, then we lose him. I'd be sad, but i'd understand it.

[ashie62]

Edgy DC wrote: The guy's going to get $100 million one way or another. It looked true enough before the season and sure looks that way now, unless the MRI says something strongly different.

I'm looking at it that Reyes may be even more affordable to the Metsies.

I guess there is some GM out there that would guarantee Reyes 7 years but I doubt Sandy is one of them..