Should Mets part ways with Reyes?

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

https://www.outsidepitchmlb.com/new-york-mets-yet-part-ways-jose-reyes/54701

Thought this was an interesting post. I think it's a no-brainer that the Mets will bring Reyes back. He's a bargain, played above expectations. And if things go bad, they can cut him without losing much.

This writer thinks "the right move for the organization would be to look towards the future and move forward with these dynamic, exciting players than to try and hold on to players from the team’s past."

Being a homegrown player and a fan favorite despite his off the field problems, Reyes is probably wanted back by most Mets fans. Considering David Wright’s injury history there would appear to be room for him on the roster but if you dig a little deeper the Mets have much bigger offseason concerns and shouldn’t want to deal with a 33-year-old infielder that has spent time on the disabled list in three of his last four seasons. Reyes’ best asset are his legs which are usually the first thing to go in baseball players and if you take away his speed/base stealing ability he becomes much more of an average player than the electrifying player we have watched his entire career.

What do you think?

[Edgy MD]

I think of all the dynamic and exciting players, unless/until Brando Nimmo establishes himself, Reyes is the best option they have as a leadoff batter. Really he's the most viable leadoff hitter they've had since he left.

I'm generally of the mindset of forcing young players to win jobs, rather than handing fulltime roles to them them. Like Granderson and Bruce, he's a veteran in the last year of his contract, the perfect guy to pit against upcoming talent.

[Frayed Knot]

That quoted passage sort of implies that bringing back Reyes is akin to depending on him or building around him.
But there's nothing in his contract or in the way he was used last season which even gives him a steady position going forward much less where it blows a hole in the roster if and when he comes up lame or loses production.
There's simply no downside in bringing him back unless you want to cite the pr hump which they've pretty much already crossed.

[Edgy MD]

Two other factors for not moving on at this very point:

[*:6v3fwury]His trade value is likely still depressed. The Mets didn't give up anything but dignity when they pulled him into the boat last season. A team dealing for him now would give up some of that, some talent, and at least some (not yet reported) salary.[/*:m:6v3fwury]
[*:6v3fwury]The team has little to no idea what they'll be getting from David Wright in spring. X-factors like that tend to make teams conservative in protecting their backup plans and redundancies.[/*:m:6v3fwury][/list:o:6v3fwury]

[Centerfield]

No. They should not.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think keeping him is a no-brainer, unless some irresistible trade possibility emerges, and including Reyes is the way to get it done.

[Ceetar]

of course not, that's dumb.

I mean, should the Mets release Granderson?

No. that's dumb. Maybe you want to phase him out, play other people, see what you have, but there's always room for guys that can hit and play and you don't just release them for the hell of it. The only way Reyes takes time from say T.J. Rivera (who's probably not good) is if he plays better than him, and then that's kinda what the Mets need, is the best player.

[MFS62]

Reyes is an experienced, productive major leaguer who they will pay only the major league minimum, the balance of his existing contract paid by his prior team(s).
Why is this even under discussion?
Ridiculous.

Later

[Edgy MD]

Actually, we don't know at this point what salary the Mets and Reyes have agreed to for 2017.

The team offered him a 2017 option, but the figure hasn't been disclosed. In fact, I don't think they've even officially picked it up yet.

[Fman99]

No brainer. Bring him back, leadoff/3B.

[Edgy MD]

Well, if Wright somehow is ready for opening day, Reyes may end up at second or as a super sub.

I still don't think center is out of the question.

[Zvon]

MFS62 wrote: Reyes is an experienced, productive major leaguer who they will pay only the major league minimum, the balance of his existing contract paid by his prior team(s). Why is this even under discussion? Ridiculous. Later

This^.
3rd, off the bench, whatever.
I think the only thing that will light Jose's fire is getting another chance to get to the post with New York.
He wants to be squeezed like a wet towel of all he has left to give. I say we squeeze.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Jon Heyman wrote: The Mets have hard decisions like what to do about Yoenis Cespedes and his opt out clause, Neil Walker and the qualifying offer and Jay Bruce and the $13-million option. But they have made two decisions already, and these are no big surprises! They will pick up Jose Reyes’ 2017 at the major-league minimum, and they will reject Jon Niese’s $10-million option, sources say (not that you’d need sources for those two calls).

Jon Heyman is apparently writing for a website called "Today's Knuckleball". I know he's been around for a long time. Wasn't he with Newsday and Sports Illustrated? I've never heard of "Today's Knuckleball".

[Guest d'Kong76]

I lose track, but I think he's a steady MLB Network guy.

OE:

Jon Heyman is an insider for MLB Network and senior baseball writer for the FanRag Sports network and Today's Knuckleball. He writes primarily about baseball. Heyman is also a baseball insider for WFAN Radio in New York. Wikipedia

Edited October 21, 2016 by Guest

[Centerfield]

I write for "Yesterday's Knuckleball".

All my articles are half price after 4 p.m.

[Edgy MD]

I figured there would be a modestly respectful bump in the Mets' outlay to Reyes for 2017. I'd bet that Heyman is wrong about that. I think you do need sources.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I figured there would be a modestly respectful bump in the Mets' outlay to Reyes for 2017. I'd bet that Heyman is wrong about that. I think you do need sources.

I see no indication anywhere that the Mets would have to up the payment. I'm trying to figure out if the Mets actually 'own' his rights for 2017 or is he technically a free agent and the Mets just get the exclusive window to negotiate with him? They only have to offer him league minimum though, and if he rejects that he forfeits that money from the Rockies as well. This is where it gets murky though, could other teams offer him more? Reyes himself would not get more money, it'd just be deducted from the Rockies number, but say a club with a lesser income tax than Colorado wanted to offer him $4 million. "See, look, you'll get more money this way if it comes from us so screw the Mets?"

I believe as this is technically a new contract and not his original, the Mets don't have rights to the '18 option year.

[Gwreck]

After being released from his contract with the Rockies and becoming a free agent, Reyes signed a minor-league contract with the Mets.

Reyes' Mets contract will mirror the same length as the Rockies' contract (ie. he will not reach free agency until the end of the 2017 season, assuming the 2018 option is declined). Because it was a minor league contract that was "selected" when they called him up, the Mets must pay Reyes the major league minimum salary. Colorado is credited that amount against all other sums they owe him under the contract.

To answer questions:
Yes, the Mets' financial obligation will go up a little in 2017, presumably because the ML minimum salary will go up from what it was in 2016.
Yes, the Mets could keep Reyes for 2018; but they'd need to be paying him $22 million for that privilege; the Rockies would not be responsible for that; only for the $4M buyout if the option was declined. Otherwise he becomes a free agent at the end of 2017.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, it sounds like the thing to do if the Mets want Jose for 2018 is to decline the option, let the Rockies pay him the $4 million, and then sign him to a new contract for 2018. Obviously, they'd have to compete with the other 29 teams for his services. The price to avoid that competition would be $22 million, and they're not going to go for that.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: After being released from his contract with the Rockies and becoming a free agent, Reyes signed a minor-league contract with the Mets. Reyes' Mets contract will mirror the same length as the Rockies' contract (ie. he will not reach free agency until the end of the 2017 season, assuming the 2018 option is declined). Because it was a minor league contract that was "selected" when they called him up, the Mets must pay Reyes the major league minimum salary. Colorado is credited that amount against all other sums they owe him under the contract. To answer questions: Yes, the Mets' financial obligation will go up a little in 2017, presumably because the ML minimum salary will go up from what it was in 2016. Yes, the Mets could keep Reyes for 2018; but they'd need to be paying him $22 million for that privilege; the Rockies would not be responsible for that; only for the $4M buyout if the option was declined. Otherwise he becomes a free agent at the end of 2017.

aha, I couldn't figure out out of the CBA whether or not 2016-2017 were linked in any way. It's sorta like the Mets have the contract and the Rockies are responsible for paying it.

There doesn't seem anything in there about it _having_ to be ML minimum though. I wonder if a sneaky club could do something like make a trade with the Rockies and instead of sending cash and having to get MLB approval, raise the Mets portion of the Reyes contract in order to lessen the Rockies burden.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I would think that this third team would only be able to take on a portion of Reyes' salary themselves, if they could even do that.

[nymr83]

given the salary and production this year there is no reason to cut him before spring training. if better options show up in the spring, do it then.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't see them cutting him in the spring, either, even if someone better comes along. At most I can see him being reduced to a lesser role. He'd be ideal as the veteran utility guy that most winning teams tend to have. And with Jose, the Mets might not need to make another trade for Kelly Johnson.

[Frayed Knot]

Again, there is ZERO incentive to cut or otherwise get rid of Reyes prior to next season (aside maybe for some odd scenario where the other team insists on Reyes being part of some package trade) nor is/was there any incentive for Reyes to insist on anything over the ML minimum for 2017; he's getting his same $20+ mil salary no matter what happens so why should he care how much of it the Mets pay?

As for 2018 you evaluate that later on. Obviously you're not going to pick up the option but there are too many variables between now and then to make a call on it any time soon.

[ashie62]

Don't we need Reyes to play third base?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Maybe. But there's also Wright (maybe) and Flores.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I don't expect much from Wright going forward due to his health problems. I hope I am wrong, but I think it would be foolish for the Mets to count on Wright. So I would definitely keep Reyes around as insurance at third base, a back up to Cabrera, possible second base depth, or as a switch hitting sub with speed off the bench.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

There is no cogent, fact-based argument for NOT bringing him back, given his and the Mets' situations.