Q.O. for Walker

[Edgy MD]

Neil Walker: Looking at a qualifying offer of $17.2 million. Coming off a good year, but a year that ended on the DL. A year that ended with surgery.

[Benjamin Grimm]

My feeling isn't as strong as "of course not" but I voted no. Spend that $17 million elsewhere.

[Edgy MD]

Well, the idea isn't so much to spend it on him, as to gain a free first-round draft choice when he passes that up for a longer-term contract with less annual value, a la Murphy 2016.

If he accepts, they may opt to trade him, even if that means eating $2-4 million.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Thanks for the contributions, but no. Depending on how things shake out
$17 mil could approach 20% of the team's payroll. For Walker? No.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Guest

[Ceetar]

obviously. He won't accept, there are too many teams that need 2B and not enough 2B to go around, which is exactly why you offer him, because even if he takes it, there is one less chip on the market but the same amount of teams and now you have one of the chips.

Right now what's the worst case? that they keep him and he stays/gets hurt again and is useless? Could happen to anyone. You could ease him in and use Reyes at second too.

I suspect the Mets expect him back, though it might be a negotiated deal. I suspect letting Herrera go means they weren't super worried about needing to fill the position.

[ashie62]

No way is he back,

[Edgy MD]

If you believe that, then that's why you make the offer, no?

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, whether or not he ultimately returns and whether or not they extend the qualifying offer to him are separate questions, quite possibly with different answers.

The reason guys Walker's age (turned 30 a month ago) turn down QOs (tempting as they may be) is that they don't want to delay, or possibly ruin with a bad year or an injury, what is often their first chance at hitting the FA market.
Six months younger than last year's QO-offered 2nd sacker (so actually six months older at FA time since it's a year later) Walker is a switch-hitter, a better defensive player, and, prior to this past season anyway, had a slightly better offensive career going as compared to Muffy [113 OPS+ vs 109].

Would it wildly screw up their plans if he opts to accept rather than hit the FA market? Yeah probably as I think they view 2B as the spot with probably the most in-house options: (in no particular order) Flores, Reynolds, Cecchini, Reyes, TJ Rivera
As mentioned they could trade him after the "signing" (the mere act of agreeing is the equivalent of signing) although it wouldn't be easy to get equal value if other teams know they have to deal him.


So, yeah, I suspect they will do the offer and see how it plays.

[TransMonk]

I make the offer.

[Fman99]

Don't offer it. He's damaged goods until he proves otherwise.

[smg58]

I make the offer. The worst case scenario is a one-year-deal for somebody who was pretty good for us before the injury.

PS $17.4M is the lowest that Fangraphs has him worth over the last six seasons. Seeing that made the choice really easy.

[seawolf17]

I'm a no. Not coming off an injury. Settle for a two-year, $25M kind of deal? Maybe.

[Edgy MD]

Well, if you want to bring him back, making a qualifying offer is generally something of a prelude to re-signing the guy, isn't it?

[seawolf17]

Not necessarily. Make the offer now. If he's not interested, wish him the best and send him on his way.

[Centerfield]

You people are crazy. Of course you make the offer. Free draft pick. He's a middle infielder in the middle of his prime who hits 20+ HR's. He's getting a multi-year deal for big money.

And if he accepts it? You just got a power-hitting 2nd baseman in his prime on a one year commitment. Win win.

[Centerfield]

And by the way, if you buy the Mets philosophy, that they are not against spending money, but against long-term commitments, there is no way you don't make the QO.

Not saying I necessarily buy this, but just something to keep in mind.

[Edgy MD]

seawolf17 wrote: Not necessarily. Make the offer now. If he's not interested, wish him the best and send him on his way.

No, I mean to say that two-year offer is unlikely to happen if the QO isn't extended first.

[Chad ochoseis]

Seems to be straightforward. If there's a good chance that he'll recover from surgery, he's worth the QO. If not, not.

From this article, it sounds like microdisectomies have a good recovery rate:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/pros-and-complications-microdiscectomy-and-why-tiger-woods-missing-masters-back-surgery-273900


So, QOing him is the easy part. The hard part is whether to actually try to keep him (3 years, 45M?) or let him walk and take a chance with Flores/Rivera/Reynolds/Reyes.

[nymr83]

It seems obvious to me that you make the offer.

As mentioned they could trade him after the "signing" (the mere act of agreeing is the equivalent of signing) although it wouldn't be easy to get equal value if other teams know they have to deal him.

if you don't make the offer, you get NOTHING, not "equal value", in a trade, since there wouldn't be a trade. so the question to ask (assuming the Mets don't want him and would try to trade him if he accepts) is not about equal value - its about whether you would trade the dollars you are eating in the trade for the players you are getting back.

If, for example, you think you'd need to eat 5 million to trade him to the Dodgers for Alex Wood the proper question is "would I trade 5 million for Alex Wood"? - because you never planned on keeping Walker anyway.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I would make the offer. I don't expect him to accept it, so you want to at least get the draft pick when he signs elsewhere. If he surprises the Mets by accepting the QO, then you have a solid bat for the line up.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

It is an ABSOLUTE no-brainer. You make the offer.

Free draft pick OR one year challenge deal for a nice piece of a contending lineup OR a shortish multiyear, mutually-agreeable deal for the same.

Seriously... how is this even a question for you nay-sayers?

[Guest d'Kong76]

I like to nay-say and didn't quite grasp all the details?

[Frayed Knot]

Nymr83 wrote: if you don't make the offer, you get NOTHING, not "equal value", in a trade, since there wouldn't be a trade. so the question to ask (assuming the Mets don't want him and would try to trade him if he accepts) is not about equal value - its about whether you would trade the dollars you are eating in the trade for the players you are getting back. If, for example, you think you'd need to eat 5 million to trade him to the Dodgers for Alex Wood the proper question is "would I trade 5 million for Alex Wood"? - because you never planned on keeping Walker anyway.

Sure. I was just trying to dissuade anyone from getting the idea that if Walker unexpectedly accepts the QO that he could just then be easily flipped for an equivalent player.
More likely the return on dealing him would be a lower level player or a high salary that the other team doesn't want. But, yeah, certainly better than no return at all.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Do you think this decision is tied in to what the Mets think and expect of David Wright? If you think Walker's damaged goods, then based on what little I know, Wright appears to be damaged goods x10.

[Edgy MD]

Possibly, but I think it comes down to whether Neil Walker is an asset at $17.2 million for one year, or something more like a liability.

[Centerfield]

The decision on Walker really should have nothing to do with Wright. Other than the fact that both injuries relate to the back, the two injuries could not be more different. One is a relatively common and quick procedure with a high chance of recovery, while the other is a degenerative career-ending condition.

Neil Walker was the Mets' second best hitter this year. If you take his bat out of an already anemic offense, we are looking at some heavy listing for the rest of the off-season.

[Frayed Knot]

That they might consider Walker in their plans for 2017 based on how Wright's progress/lack of is supposedly going is certainly a possibility, but I think the decision of to QO or not to QO stands on its own.
Just as with Murphy last year, you offer so as to secure a future draft pick even if resigning him isn't 'Plan A'. The only way you don't would be if it's decided that not only is Walker completely out of all 2017 plans but it also completely screws up everything should he unexpectedly accept.

That Walker might accept the QO remains a possibility. Prior to a year or two ago no player ever accepted a QO, but I believe a couple did last year and then there were the cases of Ian Desmond, Dexter Fowler, and Howie Kendrick all of whom rejected QOs only to find themselves going most of the winter without offers before agreeing to one-year contracts very late and for less than what they rejected because the market dried up when it turned out that teams were more hostile than expected towards FAs with draft picks attached to them.
* Kendrick - got a one year, $10 mil deal which he didn't sign until early February and was forced to play a lot of OF as opposed to his usual 2B in order to get semi-regular ABs
* Desmond - Rangers, one year, $7 mil deal which he didn't sign until Feb 29th. He also was forced to switch to the outfield, a move which turned out well for him although it'll probably prevent him from selling himself as a SS when he hits the market again this year
* Fowler - and odd winter for him as he supposedly had a three-year offer w/Baltimore before suddenly showing up at Cubs spring training in late February on a one-year $9 mil deal

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Not to suggest he was at all bad, but I think Walker in general looked better than he actually was, and saying he was the club's "second best hitter" is a bit misleading as he was miles behind the first-best and at best, inches in front of the next-best.

He also disappeared at times, both on and off the DL, and had the kind of season that looks like a massive outlier given his track record, particularly as it came to his best offensive contribution, power vs. lefthanded pitching. Otherwise, he didn't walk enough, or hit enough for xtra bases when he wasn't parking them.

The guy was a career .373 slugger vs LHP career but jacked that up to .610 this year! That doesn't look sustainable, especially given he'll be 31 and coming off back surgery. I'll also suggest he was the very definition of a guy swept up in the rising offensive seas leaguewide, and so his particular contribution could probably be replicated by a lot of guys with a decent stick and the same opportunity.

So I'm highly suspicious of Walker going forward, and to the extent he'll cost $17M just to have back, more than willing to kiss him goodbye and take my chances with several cheaper in-house candidates or even a less costly import.

And if he's back, well great. Every good team could use a switch-hitting veteran infield backup.

[Centerfield]

Yeah, Walker performed about 50 points higher than his career OPS, almost all of that coming from his increased production from the right side.

Can he replicate that? No clue, but I would be skeptical. And even in this, a strong year for him, he was almost Dudian in his streakiness. But his HR production has been 16, 23, 16, and 23 in his last four seasons (is he due for another 16?), so that's something.

That being said, he was, unquestionably, one of the top hitters on this team. 2nd in OPS, 3rd in OWAR, even though he missed the last 6 weeks of the season. If you lose him, you will have to make up that lost production somewhere else (I don't believe TJ Rivera will sustain a .333 average, and talk about a guy who never walks!).

If we retain Cespedes, I'd be fine with going cheap at 2B and try to use those resources to upgrade other areas. But if Cespedes walks, and Walker walks, and Cabrera regresses back toward career norms, you are looking at a 26th ranked offense that just lost their top three guys.

And I do agree that losses of key players can be balanced out by incremental increases in other positions, but if you lose Ces and Walker, you are running out of positions to upgrade, just to break even.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: And I do agree that losses of key players can be balanced out by incremental increases in other positions, but if you lose Ces and Walker, you are running out of positions to upgrade, just to break even.

hell, breaking even is never breaking even anyway since players don't play the same year to year. But just replacing Loney/Campbell's AB with Duda's, you've made up the difference between Cespedes and a decent LF. Likely beyond the difference between Cespedes and Conforto.

And if you can add even 70 games worth of Wright's bat into the IF mix.

The problem is mostly that you've got various options at a lot of places and it's a gambling game to see which ones are going to hit and which aren't and trying to spend money on bringing in guys that are going to replace the ones that aren't going to hit.