Should Mets Sign Jimmy Rollins?


Nuts, right? Why the heck would the Mets sign Jimmy Rollins?

Well, why wouldn’t they?

Look at it this way: the Mets front office claims they want to field a competitive team and they refuse to say that the team is in “rebuilding mode”. They also claim that they really wanted Jose Reyes, but on their terms — which was somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-5 years and $75-90M. Right?

OK, if both of those things are true, then why wouldn’t the Mets make an offer for Jimmy Rollins — who could be available for a lesser contract commitment in terms of both years and dollars, and would provide an overall performance that might not be near Reyes’ level, but would be pretty darn good compared to most NL shortstops not named Tulowitzki.

Sure, Rollins is 32 years old — but that’s why he can be had for, say, a 3-year contract. He’s no longer capable of batting titles or MVP performances, so his annual salary would be at best $15M. Three years at $40-$45M is half of what the Mets supposedly were willing to give Reyes — right? So, if they had the wherewithal to give Reyes 5 years / $90M, they MUST have the capability of giving Rollins 3/$40M, correct?

What Rollins gives the Mets is the following: more potential homerun power than Reyes; similar defense; stronger leadership and intangibles; lower batting average and OBP — but still better than most NL shortstops; similar basestealing output and proficiency; similar if not better durability. In short, Rollins is a “notch below” Reyes, or “Reyes Lite” — and that’s why he’ll cost less than half of what Reyes costs.

Of course, we don’t know if Rollins is interested in joining the Mets, but that’s not the issue to argue right now. First, the Mets have to show interest in him, and make a viable offer. And they should, because such a move would prove that they are serious about competing for a playoff spot in 2012. Signing Rollins would change every pessimist’s opinion on where the Mets plan to be for the next few seasons. Additionally, having a strong personality and veteran winner such as Rollins around would be great for the Mets’ youngsters — and it would be a positive move for the clubhouse dynamic. Upon arrival, Rollins would be a leader on a team that’s been without one for far too long.

Think about it: Rollins may no longer play like a star, but he still has star quality. He is brash, has swagger, is willing to talk with the media, and can handle pressure. He’s MADE for New York.

And here’s the kicker: if Rollins plays to about what’s expected, and the Mets find themselves far out of the race come late July, Rollins would be a highly sought-after trading chip for a contending team. Shortstops who can play strong defense, provide above-average offense, and have postseason experience are difficult to find — look at how valuable Rafael Furcal has suddenly become. Rollins would have additional value because he wouldn’t be a two-month rental — he’ll have at least two more years left on his contract.

What do you think? Crazy idea? Why or why not? Answer in the comments.

Joe Janish began MetsToday in 2005 to provide the unique perspective of a high-level player and coach -- he earned NCAA D-1 All-American honors as a catcher and coached several players who went on to play pro ball. As a result his posts often include mechanical evaluations, scout-like analysis, and opinions that go beyond the numbers. Follow Joe's baseball tips on Twitter at @onbaseball and at the On Baseball Google Plus page.
  1. LongTimeFan December 11, 2011 at 6:03 am
    I guess you’re looking for some page views, Joe. The obvious is multi-year hating Alderson isn’t throwing that sort of money into a broken down 30-something shortstop, nor would Rollins sign with a team projected to go nowhere when his Phils still want him back, but at 3 years, not 5. I presume you already know all this but need something to write about that doesn’t mention the obvious.

    No doubt Rollins would ad status, attitude and star power to the Mets, but even the tiniest of embryos know this is not happening.

    • Steve S. December 11, 2011 at 9:56 am
      Agree with all your thoughts, LTF, and for $14 million/year or so, we’d be getting a SS with an OPS+ last year of 101 (compared to Tejada’s 96 with Rollins’s fielding a bit better at present, maybe).
    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 10:14 am
      I don’t write for “page views”, I write to stimulate discussion. And I think I have a relevant argument here — if the Mets are truly serious about putting “a good product on the field”, then I’d like to discuss why they should or shouldn’t consider Rollins, based on the fact that they claim to have wanted Jose Reyes “on their terms”.

      A 3-year contract for Rollins is not risky, and he’s not “broken down”. Compared to Reyes he’s as durable as Lou Gehrig. What IS risky is giving a NYC fan base a AAA team, because just as important as saving money is making money. What motivation will fans have to go to Citi Field in 2012, beyond the obvious (Shake Shack)?

      • Mike B December 11, 2011 at 2:16 pm
        Joe I guess the 130 games a year Rollins has avg the last 4 years shouldnt matter.

        All the reasons the mets didnt sign JOSE is probally exactly what has happened to Jimmy Rollins the last 4 years.

        • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 3:08 pm
          Mike, you guessed right — the fact Rollins has averaged 130 games/year the last four years does NOT matter. Not one bit.

          First, that average is skewed by 2010, when Rollins played in only 88 games due to a chronic calf injury that he kept reinjuring. He played in 142 games last year and 155 in 2009, suggesting that he’s durable enough.

          Even if he did play in only 130 games per season for the next three years, I would argue that 130 games of Jimmy Rollins will be more productive, overall, than the majority of NL shortstops who play 130+ games per year, and further, why would he have to play many more than 130 games when there is a very capable backup named Ruben Tejada available to spell him once a week?

        • sean December 11, 2011 at 4:56 pm
          btw in what universe is ranking 14th in ave amongst ss, 12th in ops (and in that park), 12th in extra base hits, 10th in OBP, 11th in Slg Pct, 23rd in 3b, all while losing a step defensively, make him more valuable in 130 games than most shortstops in a full season? the ONLY things he ranked in the top 9 for amongst shortstops is stolen bases (woopee) and hr, which, in cbp, isnt saying much considering its like a ittle league park

          maybe you should actually check the stats next time before you write an entire article based on the inaccuracy that a mediocre player is anything more than mediocre and calling us to pay him as if hes great

        • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 7:23 pm
          Sean, I am curious what universe YOU are quoting stats from, because there were only 9 shortstops who qualified for the batting title in the NL last year.

          Even though your tone is less than savory, I’m going to be nice and assume that you are comparing Rollins to all shortstops in MLB, whereas I am comparing him only to other NL shortstops. The players and teams in the Adulterated League don’t figure into my analysis, as the Mets only compete with them for a tiny fraction of the season.

        • Mike B December 11, 2011 at 6:22 pm
          So the year played 30 something games 3 years ago didn’t skew anything?

          If Rollins worth 15 million for the next 3 years Jose is worth 30 they are not even comparable at this point. Rollins is worth that kind of money to the Phils like Jeter is worth 17.5 a year to the yanks and no one else.

        • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 7:29 pm
          Mike, I don’t understand what your first sentence means.

          If you break it down by annual salary, then I might agree that Reyes is worth $30M in one season if Rollins is worth $15M.

          What I did, though, was consider the entire commitment, as that was what the Mets were balking at. And the entire commitment was 5 years / $75-$90M. It could’ve been backloaded, frontloaded, whatever — point is, the Mets didn’t want to go past 5 years and didn’t want to spend more than $90M. But that also mean they were WILLING to offer that much to a leadoff-hitting shortstop. Rollins is at least half as good a leadoff hitter and shortstop as Reyes, so that’s how the “half” commitment was worked out in my devious mind.

        • Mike B December 12, 2011 at 8:14 am
          Sorry Joe, I was responding from my Iphone, I was referring to Jose Reyes only playing 30 something games a couple of years ago.

          Essentialy my point is over the last 4 years both have had trouble staying on the field but when they are on field Jimmy is no longer half the player Jose is.

          So pretty much 5 years at 17 mil for a 28 year old that has an injury problem is a better gamble then 3 years at 15-17 for a 32 year old that has just as many injury problems.

      • sean December 11, 2011 at 4:24 pm
        wow….dumbest post ever….yes the mets should waste 14 mil a season on a player that hasnt had a good season since he stopped taking peds (thats right, rollins was d*mn sure on peds in 07) and won an mvp, for which he shouldnt have even finished in the top 3, all while we have a 22 year old short stop who put up better numbers in all but the power department last season and isnt falling apart…and if rollins has been durable, then hes just not good bc thats been the excuse for his subpar production the last 4 seasons…that hes supposedly fighting through injury…congratulations, you’ve just been added to my list of sports writers, whose opinions i do not take seriously
        • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 7:32 pm
          Thank you! I’m excited to be part of such an elite group!

          But are you absolutely certain this is the “dumbest post ever”? I mean, there are close to 4000 posts here at MetsToday.com — don’t you want to browse through at least a few dozen more and see if there’s something dumber?

      • clay hayes December 11, 2011 at 11:32 pm
        When are the mets going to spend money in the offseason again?
    • Tommy2cat December 11, 2011 at 6:27 pm
      The Mets should not sign Jimmy Rollins.
  2. Izzy December 11, 2011 at 10:01 am
    Rollins for three years. sure…. But he ain’t coming here to be on a crap team with crap ownership and a zombie gm for the same money the Phils will give him. Plus he won’t be mid season trade bait in Philly. He still wants more than the Phils have offered and one thing for sure, the chocalote loving gm isn’t going to outbid anyone.
  3. gary s. December 11, 2011 at 10:13 am
    We have the great Ruben Tejada at ss.No need for a washed up Rollins.Now if Utley was available, i would want Sandy to get him a box of chocolates.
    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 10:16 am
      Some would argue that Utley is more washed-up than Rollins. Have you seen Utley’s numbers the last three years? I know he’s been injured on and off but he’s really falling off a cliff, Robin Ventura style.
    • Steve S. December 11, 2011 at 11:12 am
      Forget Rollins or Utley. Give us Cole Hamels or Vance Worley!
  4. Andrew December 11, 2011 at 11:24 am
    The obvious point is that if Rollins wanted a 3 year deal he would have re-signed with the Phillies weeks ago. So if the Mets don’t want to go to the 5 years Rollins wants (and they shouldn’t, and you don’t suggest they should), they need to offer more per year than the Phillies. So you’re talking about something more in line with $48mil/3years just to get into the conversation. Not worth it.
    • DaveSchneck December 11, 2011 at 11:45 am
      Joe,
      Andrew nailed it. The Phillies want JR but don’t want to go 5. They will beat any 3 yr offer from the MEts and JR will go “home” sith a shot at another championship. I think the Mets do have another $10-$12 mil to spend but it eould be better spent on upgrading the starting pitching, catching, and offense.
      • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 3:15 pm
        Dave, he missed the nail completely.

        While Andrew has a very strong argument, it is running away from the original argument of my post — which is that the Mets should MAKE AN OFFER of 3 years / $40M.

        I don’t really care what Rollins would accept or not accept — this has nothing to do with that and it is another argument entirely. My point is that if the Mets SUPPOSEDLY “wanted” Jose Reyes on “their terms” — meaning, they were willing to spend $75-90M over 5 years for their starting shortstop, then what is preventing them from spending half that much for a starting shortstop who will give them much more than half the performance of Reyes?

        Easy: the Mets never did want Reyes in the first place, and don’t want to spend any money on anyone of quality — perhaps because the Wilpons are dead broke and need to sell the team.

  5. John December 11, 2011 at 11:36 am
    I don’t know if Tejada will be a quality MLB starting shortstop or not. Time will tell. I do know he is a very good fielder (one of the stat type guys said he was the best field SS in the majors statistically last year-if you believe that kind of stuff) and I do know that he has gotten better at every minor league level which leads me to believe that he has the mental makeup to be a good everyday player.
    But what I do know is that Jimmy Rollins is on the decline and is at best a slightly better than average ML shortstop at this point and that the odds are he will be less than average three years from now. Not an investment I would want to make if I were GM.
  6. Michael Aquilino December 11, 2011 at 11:47 am
    Not! he’s a jackass and he hates the Mets…that’d be a dispicable move. As a Met fan, I wouldn’t be able to stomach it.
  7. James December 11, 2011 at 11:50 am
    In Tejada I trust. I wouldn’t hand over the SS position to Rollins. In addition, if Murphy does in fact get traded to the Dodgers or some other team, and Rollins plays SS, and Tejada supposedly moves to 2B, and Rollins goes down with an injury, and Tejada has to play SS, who goes to 2B? I don’t know, too many if’s. Plus, Alderson just spent money signing Rauch and Francisco, and the Mets are already over the reported 100 million mark anyway. So no, Rollins would probably not make any sense, especially since the team looks like it’s focusing on 2013 or 2014. We need to stop focusing on immediate winning (as Minaya tried to do). We are NOT only one or two players away from winning it all. Rollins is not a solution.
  8. Justin December 11, 2011 at 11:50 am
    Haven’t we learned our lesson? There’s a reason there is no market for Rollins. Hes old, gets hurt, and is a shell of his old self.

    Gotta stay away.

  9. chris December 11, 2011 at 1:07 pm
    rollins has already stated a couple weeks ago that he would never under any circumstances ever consider playing for the mets .. so end of discussion
    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm
      He did? Could you please provide a link to that comment?
  10. teacher_md December 11, 2011 at 1:08 pm
    I have been thinking that Rollins would be a great fit for us if he could be had for a steal. I’d rather do 2 years at 24 million tops and from what we’ve been reading that’s well below what he COULD get. And like others have posted, why would he come to US for less than market value? If we could magically get him for on the cheap for 2 years it would be a move that would strengthen us and keep us from hopefully sucking beyond belief for the short term.
    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 3:21 pm
      I like 2/$24M … i might even go as high as 2/$30M with some kind of an incentive-based team option for a third year.

      Look at how “hurt” Albert Pujols was that the Cardinals didn’t buy him enough chocolates … maybe Rollins feels the same way about the Phillies, you never know. It doesn’t hurt to make an offer and see what he says, does it?

  11. joseph December 11, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    YES, the New York should pick up Rollins now. I Would put Ruben at second and trad Murphy for b.j Upton and it would be nice to see Sandy make the moves now for his Team and the Loyal Mets fans

    It’s time to Rise NEW YORK LETS DO IT

  12. CESAR December 11, 2011 at 1:32 pm
    BAd ., but really bad idea., THE METS ARE ON THEIR WAY TO CLEAN ALL THIS MESS., NEXT SEASON WILL BE LAST SEAON AS A METS FOR WRIGHT., THIS TEAM IS STILL STACK WITH SANTANA A BAY CONTRACTS BUT AT SOON AS SANTA WILL SHOW SAMETHING., HE WILL BE TRADE.
    THE METS ARE CLEANING THE HOUSE., WHEN YOU CLEAN YOUR HOUSE ., YOU DONT SPEND ., YOU JUST KEEP COUTING YOUR LOSES., BUT THE TIME., WRIGHT, SANTANA AND BAY WILL BE OFF THE METS PAYROLL., THEY WILL HAVE SAMETHING CAMING FROM THEIR MINORS., THEN THEY WILL REBUILD
    SO ., ROLLINS IS NOT PART OF THE IDEA.,
  13. CESAR December 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm
    JUST KEEP CLEANING., METS DOESN{T NEED ROLINS., THEY NEED TO GET OFF THEIR BOOKS DAVID WRIGHT, SANTANA AND BAY AT SOON AS POSIBLE
    WE DONT NEED TO AD ROLINS TO THAT GROUP
    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 3:18 pm
      WHY ARE YOU YELLING?
  14. Joe December 11, 2011 at 2:32 pm
    “Stimulate discussion” vs. “getting page views” … well, tomato etc., but that is a reasonable argument. Some of the comments explaining he wouldn’t come here or would want more than three years/that salary is reasonable too.

    The Mets probably need to find at least one position player (other than back-up catcher) — not saying the person they get will impress people here but I’m betting they find SOMEONE — to advance their 50/50 strategy of playing good enough but doing it cheaply w/o much long term risk — and SS or 2B would be a logical place to go.

    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 4:36 pm
      There’s a MAJOR difference between writing for pageviews vs. stimulating discussion — it’s not toe-MAY-toe vs. toe-MAH-toe. I don’t make a dime from this website — every bitty penny goes into the cost of the webserver. And in fact I’m at a point where if the site gets unusually high traffic / too many pageviews, the server crashes — and the extra few cents made as a result of the traffic (literally, it’s cents) is not nearly enough to justify leasing a more expensive server that can handle the attention. So again, no, I don’t write for pageviews because I can’t afford to. I write because I like to talk about baseball and I enjoy presenting arguments for others to discuss. I’d be happier with a core of 10 people visiting and providing though-provoking comments than getting 50,000 people visiting and not leaving any comments.

      Now, on to your other point — of finding a position player to play “good enough” … agreed, which is why I think Rollins is a good fit. Who are you thinking? Kelly Johnson? Yuniesky Betancourt? I don’t see much else on the free agent market, and I don’t see the Mets trading for anyone. Some people are talking Jack Wilson and Cesar Izturis but to me they aren’t going to make any difference whatsoever, especially offensively.

      • Joe December 11, 2011 at 5:17 pm
        Yes, there is a difference, depending on HOW the page views are obtained and what sort of “discussions” one wants to get. There is also a lot of overlap.

        As to the other issue, yeah, we seem to be on the same page. I cited a more general point, going beyond your suggestion. As to who else, I have no one specific in mind, and am open to your or other suggestions.

        • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 5:29 pm
          Assuming that the Mets were serious about signing Reyes for 5/$75M, then I genuinely believe that making a 3/$40M offer to Rollins is a sensible alternative. Half the commitment for more than half the performance, is the way I look at it.

          Further, I don’t believe that such a contract should hamstring an organization or prevent them from doing anything between now and 2014.

          But then, I also don’t believe that saving money / stripping payroll now is going to motivate the Mets to spend more money in the future.

          What do you think about Kelly Johnson for 2B?

        • Joe December 11, 2011 at 9:45 pm
          He looks workable but is Toronto offering him up? What would the deal be?
        • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 10:00 pm
          Scratch Kelly Johnson. I had thought he was a free agent but he just accepted Toronto’s arbitration offer a few days ago. With that I don’t know that the Mets have anything worthwhile to offer to the Jays to pry him away — unless they’d be willing to take Bobby Parnell?
        • Joe December 12, 2011 at 9:52 am
          I’d swap the two … would you swap Murphy for someone like that, if the other team would? Anyways, congrats, you got your discussion. Long thread.
  15. Jujo December 11, 2011 at 3:00 pm
    The Mets should stay away from Rollins; too expensive, too brittle and he will not want to come to the Mets. Use those $ for real starting pitching; I am concerned with the fences coming in next year. The Mets starters had problems keeping baseballs in the yard last year. Pelfrey and Gee will give up over 30 HRs each. Lets look at the stats and find some starters who keep ball in the yard and keep their team in the game.
  16. Kranepool December 11, 2011 at 3:51 pm
    Joe,

    Here’s why I disagree with you: Rollins could be a valuable 3 year pickup for a playoff contender hoping that filling the SS hole can help push them to the top. But that is not the Mets in 2012 or 2013. We need to break the cycle of signing guys on the downhill to multiyear deals that handcuff our payroll. The whole point of developing young talent is to give them a genuine shot. Most guys who develop strong careers spend a year or two at below league average (Jose’s OPS in 1st 3 seasons: .768, .644, .686) when they reach the MLB. If we keep those guys on the bench or deal them away, we’ll never have a base of core young players. Tejada just turned 22; he improved from a clearly overmatched .587 OPS in 2010 to a much improved .695 in 2011. In another year or two, he could be exactly the kind of premier defensive SS with high OBP and a little pop that help contenders make the playoffs. Give him the shot and let’s see what he’s got. Same with Duda, Thole and Murphy. We’re not going to the playoffs, Rollins or no Rollins! So let’s see what we’ve got for 2014 and beyond.

    • Joe December 11, 2011 at 4:04 pm
      Can Tejada succeed at 2nd?
    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 4:37 pm
      In other words, you’re cool with the strategy of throwing away 2012. How many Mets games will you attend at Citi Field next year?
      • Kranepool December 12, 2011 at 5:32 pm
        Joe,

        Am I “cool with throwing away 2012″? Of course, I’d like to see the Mets win 90 games next year and make the playoffs. But I see no plausible possiblity that signing Jimmy Rollins to a multiyear contract will do that. The Mets’ starting rotation now consists of R.A Dickey (great guy and great story, but we’re all holding our breath waiting for the wheels to fall off), post-surgery Johan (who knows what he’s be), Niese (a 2/3 of the season guy), Pelfrey (a marginal MLB starter the last 2 years), and Dillon Gee (we already saw the wheels fall off). We’ll have somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of a legitimate lineup. So what FAs other than Rollins would you sign, or non-FAs would you trade for (and who would you trade for them) to move this team from 75 wins to 90? My point is that, rather than throwing away money on someone who won’t really help in the next 2 years, let’s develop the young talent we have. Unless you think resigning Mo Vaughn or Bobby Bo is the way to go…

  17. Chris December 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm
    reasons why this is a bad bad idea:

    1) Rollins has been declining the last three years.
    2) What happens in year three of the contract when Rollins is 35 and you have Valdespin or Havens ready for the big leagues but you have a bum and his contract clogging SS and Tejada is at second. (unless you are assuming Tejada isn’t going to be an everyday player.)
    3) Then you have Daniel Murphy, one of your biggest trade chips, sitting on the bench pissing away good trade value.

    you have to look at all the angles dude. you can’t just say oooo he’s a star, let’s sign him. he’s not even that good.

    and anyway Sandy has already basically said no one is getting more than two years right now, prob till 2013 or 14. let alone to a declining 32 year old.

    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 4:52 pm
      Hey dude, you have to look at all the angles:

      1) Dan Murphy is a DH

      2) Playing Tejada at SS leaves a hole at 2B, because Murphy is a DH

      3) The Mets just lost $70M and attendance is down significantly. They need to do something to bring more fans to the park in 2012. One of those things is putting a team on the field that might lead people to believe they are committed to winning. Signing Rollins would be one small splash they can make to help build that perception — maybe not in the mind of someone as smart as you, but the AVERAGE Mets fan.

      4) If the “bum” is underperforming in year 3 of the deal, and there’s someone better in the organization, then the “bum” rides the bench. Luis Castillo would have been on the bench, too, if the Mets had someone better than Argenis Reyes waiting in the wings.

      5) I don’t care what Sandy says about 2-year deals — this is my blog, not his, and I create the discussion topics. Bringing that up merely restricts our imagination and prevents us from arguing. Instead of blindly accepting what Sandy says how about providing an argument for or against it? And if he means what he says about 2-year deals, then why were the Mets willing to give Reyes 4-5 years? Or better yet: what if Tim Lincecum became available to the Mets, but only if they were willing to give him a three-year deal — would Alderson say “no”?

  18. argonbunnies December 11, 2011 at 4:43 pm
    Joe, sure, if we thought there was a possibility that Rollins would accept 3/$40, we should make the offer. Since there is no such possibility, I’m not sure what point it would serve.

    If we’re going to play pretend, and just imagine having Rollins on our team, I think there’s a 50/50 chance that he could improve Wright or hinder him.

    I’ve long thought that Reyes was the anti-Utley, and Wright was the anti-Rollins. Utley is super focused and max effort even when he doesn’t need to be. Rollins is super confident even when he doesn’t deserve to be. I hope I don’t have to go into how Reyes and Wright have been the opposite of these.

    So, if Rollins’ attitude rubs off on Wright, I think we’d seem some better ABs from David in big spots. On the other hand, everyone who hasn’t grown up playing with Rollins might find his bravado obnoxious and, based on his performance, embarrassing. This could be bad news.

    If Rollins was the final piece on playoff team, I’d say his attitude would be a boon. On a non-playoff team, it might be a boon or a negative.

    I will say, though, definitely, that Rollins on the Mets would make for quality entertainment.

    Finally, from a dollars per win standpoint, I don’t think Rollins is a better value than Tejada. Jimmy’s OBP is just too low.

    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 4:57 pm
      Finally! Someone willing to play pretend and present a plausible and compelling argument!

      Well done, bunnyboy.

      Agreed on the entertainment value, which is the main reason I’d like to see Rollins in Flushing — by himself he’d provide a reason to pay attention to the Mets on a daily basis (both on the field and off).

      Whether he’s a better value than Tejada remains to be seen. If Tejada can build off of his strong finish in 2011, then maybe — especially since Tejada will be making the MLB minimum. My concern is that Tejada has hit his ceiling. Of course, I could be way off; time will tell. But at the same time, I feel more comfortable with Rollins at short and Tejada at 2B then I do with Tejada at SS and ???? at 2B. Eventually I hope to see Reese Havens there, but until then, who? Will Dan Murphy break another leg on his first DP turn? Can Justin Turner play over his head?

  19. Candyman December 11, 2011 at 5:13 pm
    Wow biggest waste of time reading this post and the comments. This post sure does stimulate discussion, but it’s all mindless discussion. Rollins hates the Mets and will never sign here in a million years. Signing him would be the the total opposite of what Alderson is doing here, so clearly you’re not paying attention to the off season or the planet earth, in general.

    I’m sorry, don’t mean to sound too harsh, but you were called out for trying to elicit page views, which is exactly what you’re doing (it doesn’t matter that you are not making money off of this site). It’s ok to try and spurn a silly conversation about Rollins in a Mets uniform (just for fun), but please be honest with yourself and your readers.

    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 6:09 pm
      Wow you found this such a waste of time yet you spent time writing a comment — should I take that as a backhanded compliment?

      I’m being 100% honest: I would be absolutely thrilled to see Jimmy Rollins in a Mets uniform in 2012, and I absolutely do not see any valid reason that the Mets can’t at least explore the possibility and make a lowball offer.

      If signing Rollins is the opposite of what Alderson is trying to do, can you please explain what it is he IS trying to do? All I see is someone cutting payroll and filling the roster with average performers. To what end? To become the Pittsburgh Pirates? If that’s what happens on “earth” then I’ll stay on Planet Claire.

      BTW if my goal was to “elicit pageviews” then I would be posting naked photos of Anna Benson.

  20. will December 11, 2011 at 5:35 pm
    sorry but this is a bad idea in every way. I would rather take that money and invest in a starter or even another reliever since pitching is where the mets really lack.

    Even if we would have resigned reyes and signed fielder/pujols, that still does not make the mets competitive in 2012 with their starting staff filled with #4-5 starters.

  21. benji December 11, 2011 at 7:08 pm
    What is left out of this discussion is what a jerk Rollins will be on a losing team. Sign him and the younger folks will know what is was like having Richie Hebner or Vince Coleman. And the Mets will hemorrhage a few million more fans.
  22. gary s. December 11, 2011 at 9:11 pm
    Bringing in a fading Rollins woud be like when my NY Rangers hired Bryan Trottier to be the head coach.Total disaster.Just my 2 cents on the idea.Don’t think it’s a good one
    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 10:04 pm
      A total disaster compared to what you’re expecting without signing Rollins?

      :-)

      • gary s. December 12, 2011 at 5:24 pm
        i make the comparison because like Trottier, the met fan base hates jimmy rollins.I agree we need another ss to share the position with Tejada.I just don’t want any part of a fading rollins for 12-13 mill a year
  23. dave schneck December 11, 2011 at 9:43 pm
    Joe, on that point, tendering an offer, I agree with you completed. As was the case with Reyes, and as you can extend to Rollins, the lack of any offer suggests that the Mets stated intent is just smoke screen. With all his ivy league and GM pedigree, I’m not sure Alderson understands how these non-offers impact the trust of the Met fan, especially those who are paying customers.
    • Joe Janish December 11, 2011 at 10:14 pm
      Dave, yes, that’s pretty much what I’ve been trying to convey — that the whole “we want Reyes” schtick was a ruse, and if it wasn’t, then the Mets WOULD be looking into the likes of Rollins and other free agents. Because if a team truly wants someone like Jose Reyes, and they’re willing to pay even below-market value, that still means that there’s some kind of money available and intent to add a proven veteran to a lineup that desperately needs offense. Instead, the Mets’ reaction to losing Reyes is to sign a terrible closer, an injured setup man, and to trade for a decent middle reliever and an extremely questionable centerfielder — all of which came at low, low prices. Which makes a Mets fan wonder, “hey, you saved a bunch of money by not signing Reyes, so where are spending those dollars instead?”

      That’s not to suggest that the Mets should find another way to spend $75-90M over the next 5 years right away, BUT, it does suggest that there is more money available to spend then they are willing to part with. Or, there ISN’T any money to spend, which is why the team never tendered an official offer to Reyes in the first place.

      For all the “honesty” and “transparency” that has been “so refreshing” since Sandy Alderson took over, there is still a fair amount of straight-up bs to the fan base coming from the main offices in Flushing. It’s an old trick by slick liars: admit to a few disparaging truths, and people will tend to trust you — and not even blink when you tell a few lies.

      • DaveSchneck December 12, 2011 at 12:39 am
        Joe, I may not be quite as skeptical as you, but I am skeptical. If they bottom feed for the rest of this offseason, then I will agree that this is no different than Jeffy W. mouthing off about spending for a championship -caliber team after collapsing in 2007 and 2008 because they couldn’t produce a decent pitcher in Sept. to secure another win or two.
  24. burrito88 December 11, 2011 at 10:51 pm
    To me this makes less sense than re-signing Reyes. Part of the reason for not giving Reyes a 6 year deal is that he might see his production decrease and his injury rate increase during the last half of the contract. Signing Rollins to a 3 year deal might be the equivalent of getting the last 3 years of a 6 year Reyes contract, except that you’d be getting it now. To me, Rollins numbers look like they are starting to slip and they might continue to go down as he get older. Also can he still play 150 games?

    The big reason for not signing him though is that the Mets are not one player away from making the playoffs at this point. In reality also, they need some big stud starting pitchers to be able to move into contention .

  25. mic December 12, 2011 at 6:18 am
    Actually, I agree with signing Rollins.

    1. Mets and Rollins escalate the rivalry.

    2. 3 -4yr contract MIGHT be doable, fitting both the Mets and Rollins plans.

    3. OFFERING a contract to Rollins makes Amaro up the ante to rollins.

    4. A 3-4 yr contract means less obligation over the long haul which appeals to the Mets.

    5 Rollins offers creditability, respectability, a fan draw, and quicker road to competitiveness. PLUS a decent infield of Tejada, Wright, Rollins and Ike.

    6. For those dreaming of a rebuild and a rotation of Familia, Jenry, Harvey and Wheeler…a counter with a Met history that suggests the afore mentioned will leave in two seperate trades for average/journeyman ML starters within 3 yrs.

  26. soupy December 12, 2011 at 10:34 am
    joe,
    the kind of contract that you suggest to offer Rollins is the type of contract Alderson is trying to avoid. In actuality, Alderson is trying to rid the mets of contracts that they currently have ie Bay & Santana. Deep down, you have to believe Alderson wanted no part of a long term contract with Reyes and the Marlins got him off the hook by not even giving the mets the opportunity to give a reasonable offer. The way it looks, any moves the mets make for the remainder of the offseason will be minor league deals and perhaps another trade involving players making minimum salaries. The fact is the 40 man roster stands at 39 players, which doesn’t include Rauch or Francisco, so that means one player will be gone from that group (probably Paulino will be non tendered). I know Alderson has been getting a lot of negative criticism, but at least he has a plan. This plan may end up not working in the long run, but as a longtime fan I appreciate a plan. The prior regime had no clue, let alone a plan, so I can appreciate a leader that can formulate a plan as well as a leader that can speak publically. Time will tell if the mets have success, but I am optitimistic…plus the extra wild card team increases our odds.
  27. STEVE EPSTEIN December 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm
    CAN YOU SPELL M-O-N-E-Y?
    NEED I SAY MORE?
  28. mic December 13, 2011 at 6:22 am
    40M?

    To me that sounds like a prelude to ‘ SELL’