smg58
-
Posts
5,863 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
New York Mets News, Rumors & Analysis
New York Mets Videos
2026 New York Mets Top Prospect Rankings
New York Mets Trade & Free Agent Rumors
New York Mets Fan Guides & Resources
2026 New York Mets Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by smg58
-
I see no harm in asking Wagner or Stringfellow if arbitration would be accepted if they offer it, and I see no point in pulling him back off waivers if the answer to that question is yes. Wagner's made it pretty clear that he'd take a little less money to be somebody's closer. However, a lot of type A's had to wait very deep into the offseason to get deals last year, and of that bunch only Manny got anything close to what he'd have gotten from an arbiter. Wagner knows he'd get less money from a team who has to surrender a first-round pick as well -- if I were a GM I'd have a hard time justifying giving up a first rounder for a guy I wouldn't sign for more than a year, unless I thought I was getting him for way less than he was worth.
-
There was a report this morning that the Sox were expressing concern about Wagner's arm, as he hadn't yet pitched in this series. I'm guessing it will take more than one walk and no hits in a scoreless inning with two strikeouts to force the Mets to pull him off waivers.
-
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090824&content_id=6589350&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb So the latest skinny is that Wagner wants the Sox to buy him out and not offer arbitration, and the Sox are hedging. He'd evidently take less money to be somebody's closer, but he doesn't want a potential type A label to kill his market value. But theoretically the Mets could still allow him to be claimed? Do we know if that's true or not? Keep in mind that there are approximately 3.4 million reasons why getting nothing for him wouldn't actually mean getting nothing.
-
I'd have simply cheered the fact that one of our high-profile guys on the DL actually returned.
-
Evans is just 23 and has 17 extra-base hits in 153 major league at-bats, along with a .919 OPS against lefthanded pitching. On the other hand, his 2/22 BB/K ratio in 71 career AB's against righties is rather dismaying. He's got a lot of learning to do against righties, for sure, but he's still young enough, and he'll at least be a useful platoon player at this level.
-
Sheffield wants out? (split from 8/20 IGT)
smg58 replied to Benjamin Grimm's topic in New York Mets Talk
Why didn't we just trade Sheffield at the deadline? If the commish OKed the Peavy deal, he'd have approved a deal involving somebody who was coming off the DL on August 1. -
Letting Wagner go would free up nearly $3M, if you include the buyout. Don't assume the Wilpons aren't (or shouldn't be, for that matter) considering that aspect of it.
-
Rizzo did sign Strasburg at a price that wasn't absurd, an deserves quite a bit of credit for that. He's probably already done more for the club than his predecessor.
-
I think there's a small amount of injury risk anytime you stretch out a pitcher who's been making mostly one-inning appearances. With Parnell, the chance of him being a bigger asset in the rotation than he is in the pen is worth the risk to find out. I don't think Stokes has the same upside.
-
I too have had enough of Livan, but there's nothing on the line and our options are nonexistent. Unlike Parnell, the guys we could call up a this point have no chance of being part of next year's rotation, so I see no benefit even looking ahead. As for Stokes, his .313/.420/.446 split against lefthanded batters is really not encouraging for a prospective starter, especially since he is a nice asset in the role he currently has. If we were much closer in the standings and I had to choose between Stokes and Livan I would give Stokes the ball. As it stands, Stokes is fine where he is and I see no point in messing with it. The fact that Livan and Tim Redding have managed to stay on the roster all year says everything about our injury luck that you need to know. And our luck has been even worse with the hitters. Sigh.
-
Odd - but somewhat meaningful - stat of the day
smg58 replied to Frayed Knot's topic in New York Mets Talk
He's earned the raise he'll get in arbitration next year, and I hope the Mets have no problem giving it to him. -
I'd laugh my ass off if Jeter got caught. The reactions of people like this guy would be very entertaining. I wouldn't worry about what it would do to the game because it's already been done. Steroids were tolerated to the point where there was zero incentive to stay clean, and even the players who did stay clean are guilty of looking the other way (along with Selig and reporters like Gene Wojciechowski).
-
Hall's defensive rep suffered from a bad first impression, but he was an above-average middle infielder by the time the Brewers moved him to center and eventually to third. Outside of this year he's always hit lefties well, and at least had some pop against righties. I see no reason why he couldn't be a solid utility man/platoon second baseman for a good team.
-
The Brewers DFA'd Bill Hall, demoted J. J. Hardy, and fired their pitching coach. Heads are rolling in Milwaukee.
-
I can forgive Pagan for playing like he's the centerfielder on a very desperate team. Taking him aside and telling him he's not improving the situation by trying to do too much out there seems perfectly appropriate. Putting him in the doghouse does not.
-
Even his defense is down this year too, though. I wonder if he's been playing hurt. That might actually be a positive for a prospective long-term buyer, assuming it's nothing that an offseason of rest wouldn't fix.
-
Curses! Beaten to the punch!
-
from http://www.bizofbaseball.com, a site I didn't know existed until a minute or so ago: A player with a no-trade clause who is claimed on Major League waivers must be pulled back if the player�s no-trade clause allows him to block a deal to the claiming club. However, the player may waive the no-trade clause and join the claiming club. So if I'm reading this right, the contract would have to specifically stipulate something about waiver claims in order for Rios to veto the claim.
-
from Cot's Alex Rios of 7 years/$69.835M (2008-14), plus 2015 club option * 7 years/$69.835M (2008-14), plus 2015 club option o signed extension with Toronto 4/4/08, re-working 2008 deal signed 2/5/08 ($3.5M signing bonus remains, 2008 salary reduced from $1.335M to $0.735M) o 08:$0.735M, 09:$5.9M, 10:$9.7M, 11:$12M, 12:$12M, 13:$12.5M, 14:$12.5M, 15:$13.5M club option ($1M buyout) o full no-trade clause, 2009-10 o limited no-trade clause, 2011 - end of deal (may block trades to 6 clubs) Rios is 28, playing like he's peaked, and owed a lot for quite some time. The Blue Jays probably would simply give him away if they could. But wouldn't the no-trade clause allow him to block a waiver claim as well?
-
-
Wagner's contract is actually a bit front-loaded, though. He's making $10.5M this year, but the team option is for $8M or a $1M buyout. Since the Mets would have to offer in arbitration a minimum of 75% of what he made this year, plus buy out the old contract first, it would be cheaper to pick up his option. So one way or the other, he's not going to arbitration.
-
Reed is the least useful of the four, so of course he'll be the last one standing.
-
Veloz has a .600 OPS in high A. The good news is that the Mets have one less featherweight middle infielder in their system.
-
He's a more experienced version of Argenis. Eh.
-
I'd love him as a fourth outfielder, unless somebody else thinks he's worth more than that. We do need to bring in at least one corner guy. I'm not yet convinced that Francoeur is worth tendering a contract to, and we still don't know what we have in F-Mart.
