Trade David Wright NOW!!!

[Gwreck]

You heard me.

Time to be brutally honest here: the Mets have no realistic chance of competing for division titles and/or wild cards in the next two seasons. Nor is there a reasonable expectation of having the necessary funds to re-sign David after he reaches free agency at the end of the 2013 season, nor will the Wilpons be forced out as owners.

Come 2014 or 2015, yes, I do think we can be competitive again. I may not like the decision to jettison Reyes but I am willing to show some faith in Sandy and have him rebuild our farm system.

Jim Bowden (now an ESPN columnist) suggests that Wright could be traded to the Angels for a package of Peter Bourjos and Hank Conger:

New Angels general manager Jerry Dipoto will be busy this week. He is targeting starting pitcher C.J. Wilson and closer Ryan Madson, the two best hurlers in their respective markets. He also might be in the market for a third baseman, and the Mets match up well with the Angels. With Reyes leaving the Mets, it only makes sense for Mets GM Sandy Alderson to trade David Wright now and begin the rebuilding mode in earnest. The Mets might be able to get a package of Peter Bourjos and Hank Conger for Wright. Wright would solve the Angels� nagging third-base problem, and they could insert prospect Mike Trout in center field.

I'd do it. Bourjos and Conger each have less than two years of ML service time so it's going to be a long while until free agency for both. They also happen to play positions (CF and C) that we could really use some competent players in so as to not be a total embarrassment. Murphy moves to third base.

[metirish]

I'd do it , no idea if they are top prospects but I'd trust the judgment of Alderson with that.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

It's a nice thought, but I really don't think they're getting both for him, and I'm not sure one would be worth the PR hit of losing Wright.

[Edgy MD]

Go Mets. This means Wright, too.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I am definitely not on board with trading Wright.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I don't think I could do that right now.

Maybe in the summer if/when things are rotten.

[Vic Sage]

half measures are half-assed... If we're in a rebuild mode, then rebuild.
yes, trade wright, in the right trade.

I do seem to recall, however, that David had something in his contract that made trading him difficult... either an automatic and expensive extension, or a vesting something or other. Anyone know?

[Benjamin Grimm]

If the Mets keep him, he becomes a free agent after 2013.

If the Mets trade him, he becomes a free agent after 2012.

[Edgy MD]

Rebuild to what? They're already among the youngest teams in the league.

[Vic Sage]

right. so whoever gets him, gets him for 1 year (or less, if its a mid-season deal).

it's tough because, the longer we wait, the less value he has (in terms of remaining time on his deal), but he's likely to restore some of his luster this season, with the fences pulled in.

I'm tempted, actually, to let him play out the year and reestablish his value. THEN trade him before 2013, when the same 1-year deal scenario will still be available to buyers... unless i'm misinterpreting the provision. Would the Mets be totally prohibited from dealing him after 2012?

Edited December 5, 2011 by Guest

[Vic Sage]

Edgy DC wrote: Rebuild to what? They're already among the youngest teams in the league.

yeah, but not the cheapest, with Bay, Santana and Wright still on board.
and there's a difference between being up and coming, and just young.

[metirish]

David Wright 3b
6 years/$55M (2007-2012), plus 2013 club option
6 years/$55M (2007-12), plus 2013 club option
signed extension with Mets 8/06
$1.5M signing bonus
07:$1M, 08:$5M, 09:$7.5M, 10:$10M, 11:$14M, 12:$15M,
13:$16M club option ($1M buyout)
award bonuses: $50,000 each for Gold Glove, All Star selection
if traded, Wright may void 2013 club option
1 year/$0.374M (2006)
renewed by Mets 3/06
1 year/$0.3225M (2005)
re-signed by Mets 3/05
drafted 2001 (1s-38)
$0.96M signing bonus
agent: Levinson brothers, ACES
ML service: 7.075

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/12/new-york-mets.html

[TransMonk]

Vic Sage wrote: half measures are half-assed... If we're in a rebuild mode, then rebuild. yes, trade wright, in the right trade.

This.

[Vic Sage]

With regard to his contract, then, if all Wright can do is "void" the 2013 option, then presumably the Mets can wait and exercise the option after 2012 season, and THEN trade him. He'll still be available to another team for only 1 full year (just as he would this off-season), and in theory he could enhance his value by coming off a better year (playing in Citi in 2012 with the fences in and, hopefully, healthy).

So i say play him this year, trade him afterwards. With Bay and Santana not coming off the books until after 2013 (both with vesting options for 2014), they'll likely be unmoveable... but David won't. We may be able to get players of value for him.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Rebuild to what? They're already among the youngest teams in the league. yeah, but not the cheapest, with Bay, Santana and Wright still on board. and there's a difference between being up and coming, and just young.

Well, call me ceetar, but I don't think they're merely young. Ike Davis ain't Gary Rajsich. Lucas Duda ain't Mike Vail. I'll even go so far as to say Ruben Tejada ain't Tim Bogar. I'm willing to go forward.

You get kicked out of TITTS or something?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, Lucas Duda might be Mike Vail.

But yeah, I do think the youth of the current team is better than some of the other youth movements we've hung our hopes on in the past.

I'm not worried about Bay's 2014 option. It will be easy enough to avoid.

If David Wright was 34 I'd say, yes, by the time the Mets contend again, he'll likely be past his prime. But the Mets outlook may* be a lot brighter in a couple of years, and David will still be young enough to contribute, so I don't want to bail on him.


*Before anyone jumps down my throat, note that I said may and not will.

[Vic Sage]

Yes, Ike Davis seems like a legit 2-way player, with significant minor league production (and bloodlines, for whatever that's worth) to back up his major league production so far. But I'm not confident in Duda being an everyday OFer, nor Tejada providing much with the bat, long term. Nor am i salivating over Murphy's future, either. No, I don't think that's the core of a championship team. We're going to need to make some moves to find such core guys, and Wright's the only guy on the roster who is (1) likely to net us a young stud or 2, and (2) will be an expensive FA over 30, by the time we're any good again.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Guest

[Vic Sage]

You get kicked out of TITTS or something?

The principle behind TiTTS was that the Mets were a rich big-market franchise that could outspend its opponents and so didn't have to rely on building through the minors, as other more franchises with less resources did. You let other major league teams become your farm teams. Of course, you still had to make good decisions and spend wisely, and with Minaya, we didn't. Ironically, now that we finally have a GM i trust, we're clearly not being operated like a rich big-market club anymore, so TiTTS is not the philosophy to adopt right now.

Now, instead, its time to maximize value and turn as many guys 30+ into younger assets with higher upside.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: Yes, Ike Davis seems like a legit 2-way player, with significant minor league production (and bloodlines, for whatever that's worth) to back up his major league production so far. But I'm not confident in Duda being an everyday OFer, nor Tejada providing much with the bat, long term. Nor am i salivating over Murphy's future, either. No, I don't think that's the core of a championship team. No, I don't think that's the core of a championship team.

Well, there's Wright, too.

Wright's still got more future ahead of him than a gaggle of players. A parliament of players. A murder of them.

If he's got to go, it'll be an issue of his affordability, or an overwhelming offer. We'll see. But starting from the must-be-dealt position undercuts a team's perspective and contaminates everything.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: You get kicked out of TITTS or something? The principle behind TiTTS was that the Mets were a rich big-market franchise that could outspend its opponents and so didn't have to rely on building through the minors, as other more franchises with less resources did. You let other major league teams become your farm teams. Of course, you still had to make good decisions and spend wisely, and with Minaya, we didn't. Ironically, now that we finally have a GM i trust, we're clearly not being operated like a rich big-market club anymore, so TiTTS is not the philosophy to adopt right now. Now, instead, its time to maximize value and turn as many guys 30+ into younger assets with higher upside.

You crack me up.

[Vic Sage]

Edgy DC wrote: If he's got to go, it'll be an issue of his affordability, or an overwhelming offer. We'll see. But starting from the must-be-dealt position undercuts a team's perspective and contaminates everything.

i'm not saying he "must" be dealt. i don't even think he "must" be dealt.

I'm saying it would be a good idea, after next season, if he's recovered some or much of his value, to cash in on it and sell high (for a change), and turn him into some blue chippers. Because he's the only significant asset we have to deal, and by the time we're any good, he's likely to be past his peak.

You crack me up.

"You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?"

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: Edgy DC wrote: If he's got to go, it'll be an issue of his affordability, or an overwhelming offer. We'll see. But starting from the must-be-dealt position undercuts a team's perspective and contaminates everything. i'm not saying he "must" be dealt. i don't even think he "must" be dealt. I'm saying it would be a good idea, after next season, if he's recovered some or much of his value, to cash in on it and sell high (for a change), and turn him into some blue chippers. Because he's the only significant asset we have to deal, and by the time we're any good, he's likely to be past his peak.

Well, that's not the title of this thread.

[smg58]

I don't see much point in keeping Wright. The difference between him and Murphy at third is much smaller than the difference in their salaries, and how long they'd be under team control. Short-term PR should not be as important as long-term best interests.

Bourjos is one of the game's best defensive outfielders, and his bat is at least decent. Conger has some upside, too. I'd make that deal if it were offered, especially if we free up the full salary. We could fill a few pitching holes well with that.

[Vic Sage]

smg58 wrote: I don't see much point in keeping Wright. The difference between him and Murphy at third is much smaller than the difference in their salaries, and how long they'd be under team control. Short-term PR should not be as important as long-term best interests. Bourjos is one of the game's best defensive outfielders, and his bat is at least decent. Conger has some upside, too. I'd make that deal if it were offered, especially if we free up the full salary. We could fill a few pitching holes well with that.

first of all, it won't be the difference between Wright and Murphy... it'll be the difference between Wright and whoever they use at 2b when Murphy moves to 3b... probably turner. I'd suggest that is a bigger dropoff, but that's not my point. Nor is the difference in salary relevant, because the Wilpons have made it clear that they're just going to put that difference in their pocket, not on the field.

the issue is maximizing assets. If Bourgos and Conger are available now, with Wright coming off a poor and injury-riddled year and only available to a buyer for 1 season, they might do even better if David has a decent year. He'll still have 1 year available to deal, at the same salary. Now if you think Bourgos and Conger are so good, that an equivalent or better value won't be available to the Mets next year even if Wright is coming off a good season, then i'd agree. make the deal. But i don't think its true. there's always another crop of young blue chippers around, and if David reestablishes his A-S bone fides, he'll bring more in return. QED.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, you replace Wright with Murphy, you not only lose the difference between them, but you lose thet half-to-two-thirds of secondbase play that you're hoping for from Murphy, plus your backup firstbaseman/pinch-hitter, thirdbaseman, and maybe-leftfielder.

It's like, you're not really replacing Wright with Muprhy, but with chunks of Turner and/or Valdespin or somebody.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'd be more willing to buy into the strategy if it could be summed up in a hilarious anagram.

[Benjamin Grimm]

How about a haiku? They seem to be all the rage lately.

[Benjamin Grimm]

David is aging
Next pennant race is far off
Trade now for some youth

[seawolf17]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: David is aging Next pennant race is far off Trade now for some youth

Well, there you go.

I'm torn on this, but as a fan base, it's not like we could be madder. You might as well trade him now while we're already on the ground; gives us more time to learn to love the new guys.

[Vic Sage]

with their money gone,
The Wilpons may sell or trade
the entire roster.