Edgy MD wrote: And then the team may get a redux of the Walker situation. A player who isn't part of the plan accepting the offer, not having a position, and taking up a big chunk of the salary. Or alternatively, they carry him for the rest of the season, let him take at-bats from young players, he gets the offer, he rejects it, and the Mets get a pick between rounds two and three, the upside is two more months of burying their real centerfielders in exchange for ad second/third sandwich draft pick, and again, the risk of the former situation, that he accepts it. Neither situation is a disaster, but neither is ideal. I understand why the team may still be looking to trade. Walker would have worked out fine if he didn't lose six weeks. The Mets didn't (and still don't) have a better option at second base. Cecchini, like Herrera last year, has given the Mets reasons to keep him in AAA. (Herrera, by the way, has yet to play an inning with the Reds and is out for the year. The bright side is that we might be able to claim him on waivers this offseason.) Maybe it prevented the Mets from making a long-term offer to a better second baseman, but there's no guarantee of that. I'll agree that the Bruce situation is less cut-and-dried. The Mets have enough outfield depth in house to justify moving on. But if other teams insist on not valuing players that have value, we might as well hold on to them. Walker's salary will be off the books, as will Granderson's. That leaves a fair amount of money to play with even if Bruce does come back.