Did Mets Cut Kyle Farnsworth for Financial Reasons?
I realize I’m a day late on this, but sometimes life gets in the way of blogging (crazy, I know).
Considering that the Mets would have owed Kyle Farnsworth a guaranteed $750,000 had he remained with the club through Saturday, one might surmise that the move was financially motivated. Was it?
I’m not so sure I can kill the Mets for cutting Farnsworth loose a few days short of the guaranteed contract vesting, because I didn’t think Farnsworth should have been on the 25-man roster in the first place, and I didn’t see anything terribly impressive from him in his brief stint in the orange and blue.
The timing is awful, though, from a PR perspective — it might’ve looked better had it been done a week ago. And was the decision made as much because Farnsworth of the dough as it was about his ineffectiveness? Absolutely.
What made the move more awkward was that it came so soon after the righthander was named the team’s closer — and only a few days after notching a save against the Yankees.
I didn’t see Farnsworth as a long-term bullpen option — as in, as long as another month or two. Did you? Did you have any confidence that Farnsworth would do something other than get lit up every time he climbed the mound?
The problem with the move is that the Mets don’t appear to have anyone better waiting in the wings. His replacement on the roster, Josh Edgin, was terrible in the spring, has tallied an unsightly ERA in AAA so far this year, and has lost significant speed from his fastball. We’ll see how it works out.
What’s your take? Are you surprised to see Farnsworth go? Do you think it was all about the finances? Were the Mets correct in dropping him? Answer in the comments.