Three Reasons Not To Re-Sign Jose Reyes

There are three good reasons the Mets should not re-sign Jose Reyes:

1. Albert Pujols
2. Prince Fielder
3. C.C. Sabathia

Not necessarily in that order.

Additionally, I’d add a fourth reason — Yadier Molina — if I weren’t 100% certain that the Cardinals would exercise their option on him. Because I do believe that a great catcher is more valuable than a great shortstop — if for no other reason than there are far fewer great catchers than there are great shortstops, but also because I believe a great catcher can have more of an impact on a team’s success or failure (and the sabermetricians have yet to provide stats to prove this, but we’re still early in the process and I hold faith that eventually they’ll figure it out).

Of course, it’s possible that none of the above three players are free agents by next Thursday, when the open free agent officially market begins. It’s also possible that the Mets re-sign Reyes during their “exclusive negotiation window” between now and then. But in the event that Reyes, Pujols, Sabathia, and Fielder are all truly “free” agents, and the Mets consider spending $90M+ to keep their All-Star shortstop, my feeling is that the money would be better spent on either of the slugging first baseman or the lefthanded pitcher.

You may argue that it won’t take $90M to sign Reyes, and/or, that $90M won’t be enough to sign any of the other three. You may be right, in which case this post is moot. But play with me here for a bit, just for the sake of conversation. Let’s just pretend that, say, the Mets actually have about $100M to spend. If that were the case, why couldn’t the brilliant Mets front office do something “out of the box” and offer a three-year, $100M deal to one of these four players, instead of some crazy 5- to7-year (or longer) contract? Considering that MLBers are no longer performing at peak performance in their mid- to late-30s (cough, cough, PEDs testing), and also considering the ostrich eggs laid by the likes of Jayson Werth and Carl Crawford in 2011, one might wonder if free-agent contracts will evolve toward a new format — perhaps one where players get shorter deals with higher dollar values per year. Most likely, it won’t happen this year, but couldn’t you see the possibility of things changing that way eventually?

But back to our discussion. Again, let’s pretend that the dollars and years required to sign Jose Reyes are similar to the cost of signing Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, or C.C. Sabathia — which of those four would you choose?

As much as I love to watch Jose Reyes play baseball, my objective side has to pick one of the other three. Sabathia would become the ace the Mets don’t have — someone they could build a pitching staff around. Great pitching remains rare and valuable, and there are few of Sabathia’s ilk in MLB right now — even fewer who are available.

As for Fielder and Pujols, both are game changers. Both are better than any hitter the Mets have had since Mike Piazza in his prime. Both can singlehandedly raise a lineup to a new level and make the hitters around them better. And either can turn a non-contender into a contender. Jose Reyes cannot — evidenced by 2011, when his outstanding season had little impact on the Mets’ performance as a team.

Some of you may be screaming, “hey, what about Ike Davis? why would the Mets sign a first baseman when they have a young star-in-the-making like Davis?”. With all due respect, Ike Davis is neither Albert Pujols nor Prince Fielder. Will he be some day? I doubt it, though you never know. First, Davis has to return from his season-ending injury and prove he’s healthy. Then, he has to step up his game dramatically to approach the production of Pujols or Fielder, then, he has to do it over a five-year period (at least) before you can mention him in the same sentence as those two monsters. Will Ike Davis become a perennial .290-.300 hitter who threatens to hit 40 HR every year, while walking 100+ times, driving in 120+ runs, and posting a .400 OBP and an OPS near .900? I’d be thrilled if he did, but not sure he’ll be that kind of player. Maybe he’ll reach those kind of numbers in his peak years, but it’s doubtful that will be his typical production.

So then, if the Mets did sign a monster first baseman, what would they do with Davis? For one, they could put him in left field — he can’t be any worse than Lucas Duda. He played some OF in college, and he has a spectacular arm, so it’s not a crazy idea. If he proves to be healthy, he might be the centerpiece of a trade that fills one of the Mets’ other holes. It would be a pleasant problem to have Ike Davis as excess talent, wouldn’t it?

Yes, I know this idea that Sabathia, Pujols, and Fielder are unlikely to be fetched for the same cost as Reyes, but if you were the Mets, and the cost turned out to be similar to sign one of the four, which would you choose and why? 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. Marcel wallace October 31, 2011 at 6:17 am
    Carlos beltran is probably the best position player the mets have ever had. I doubt 7th years of either pujols, fielder, or reyeswill equal the production that he have us.
    • Clancee October 31, 2011 at 6:45 am
      I am not even sure if either Pujols or Fielder have 7 seasons left in them. Fielder’s knees could become premature problems due to his size and Pujols is already 31 (while many baseball professionals think he’s really older).
      • Artie November 1, 2011 at 2:15 pm
        I agree that Fielder doesn’t have 7 years in him. He’s eating his way out of the league, and I predict knee/ankle/hip problems really ramp up for him.

        Reyes is ALL about his legs, and when they go — which could be early — he loses his triples and his sparkling 6-3s.

        But Pujols, I think has at least that. His desire drives him. Having him till he is 38, I don’t think is so terrible and a good investment.

  2. Clancee October 31, 2011 at 6:40 am
    The Mets won’t and shouldn’t resign Reyes. To me, the Mets’ needs are wide and deep. While they definitely need a gamechanger, their pitching (starting, middle and closer) is mediocre at best. They also need position players who can play their positions. I hope the Mets are looking for sold hitting defensive catcher, second baseman (Brandon Phillips) as well as boppers who can play center and right field. To me, spending way too much to re-sign Reyes would prevent the Mets from financially doing all that is needed in other critical areas.
    • izzy October 31, 2011 at 8:21 am
      Interesting, you say the needs are wide and deep and your first move would be to let go of your lead off man and defensive wizard at shortstop to create two glaring new holes, lead off man and key defensive player. And how many of these holes are going to fix by losing Reyes. talented players are expensive, Reys salary can be used to fix one hole maybe two so at best your strategy does nothing positive and at worst makes the team crappier.
  3. Tommy2cat October 31, 2011 at 6:44 am
    Joe – I don’t think Sandy wants to add another heavy contract until he’s out from under the Santana, Bay & Wright contracts. He has mentioned more than once the adverse impact their disproportionate contracts create for compliling the roster.

    Reyes is a fan favorite and uniquely skilled home grown talent. I think if we offer him something sensible, he’ll stay.

    Pujols is staying in St. Louis. Fielder would be great, but I don’t see that happening, especially because we have Ike and Duda as low-cost alternatives.

    Sabathia has seen his best days and the older he gets the greater becomes his health risk. We haven’t endured Santana’s absence so well on the field and in the bank roll. Why would Sandy invite a 2nd high cost risk on the mound.

    So, what to do? Re-signing Jose appears to be the best way to engender consistency and support for our home grown talent. The dude just won a batting title and plays stellar defense. We have a viable back up in Tejada, who will see his fair share of playing time in a platoon situation at 2nd, perhaps with Havens.

    If anything, I would non-tender Pelfrey, and earmark the 7m saved to re-signing Jose.

    I would also trade Wright & for Colorado’s catching prospect Wilin Rosario and pitcher Drew Pomeranz & platoon Murphy & Turner at 3rd base. That would save another 13m.

    Now, if we could spin a trade that included Ike, Pagan & a top pitching prospect for Baltimore’s Adam Jones, then we’d likely have enough $$$ to chase Fielder.

    Its doable. Strange, but true.

    • Clancee October 31, 2011 at 6:52 am
      I kind of like your thinking. My only concerns are with moving players to defend unfamiliar positions. While I really like Duda at bat, he is a horrible defender. I love Murphy but, he is a weak defender and Turner has a very good makeup but is just average. Adding Davis to the mix, that would total 4 lineup players either labeled as defensively weak and/or out of position. That doesn’t sound like a winning recipe to me.
    • Mike B October 31, 2011 at 10:29 am
      Tommy what would you say if the Mets traded two of thier top prospects for someone who batted 254 with 14hrs last year? But I agree that Wright should go if it meant replacing him with a Fielder. I can deal with Turner, Murph at 3rd and Tejada at 2nd. And like I said earlier you can trade Ike plus piching prospects for a front of rotation SP like King Felix.
      • Tommy2cat November 1, 2011 at 7:36 am
        Mike – Stats are a funny thing. Wright’s career numbers at Coors Field are off the charts. His career numbers generally are worthy of HOF consideration extrapolated over the course of his career. The dude played with a broken back last year.

        I don’t think that Colorado would hesitate at an opportunity to acquire David Wright.

    • Joe Janish October 31, 2011 at 10:43 pm
      Why does Alderson have to be concerned with big contracts already on the roster? Don’t the Mets play in the biggest media market on the planet? Don’t they bring in revenues that are in the top 5 in MLB? Maybe I’m missing something …
    • Oleg November 1, 2011 at 11:32 am
      David Wright is much more than a 13m per year player. Even with his broken back he’s surely worth more than that. He’s not a contract you look to dump – he’s a guy you want on your roster the next 2 years, at the least. How quickly you guys forget that he’s easily a top-5 third baseman in the MLB. And Reyes is easily a top-3 SS in MLB. So your strategy is to dump 2 top-5 guys at their positions, replace them with minor league platoon players, and then expect to build a winning team? JEEZ!

      Wright and Reyes are guys you build around. I don’t care about any of the collapses you want to reference. This team needs to rebuild the pitching staff in its entirety and you guys are hung up on restructuring the lineup…and creating holes in your infield and your top of the order…talk about making moves for the sake of making moves…

      • sean November 1, 2011 at 8:12 pm
        wright will make 15 mil next year and 16 mil in his option year…not 13…he even got 14.5 this year…just sayin…
  4. Rob October 31, 2011 at 9:25 am
    Joe: Your arguments are compelling, if the Mets had any intention of spending that kind of money on any of the players mentioned…or just spending that kind of money period. The interesting thing about your post is the notion that teams would spend $90m on a THREE year deal. I just don’t think that will ever happen….ever. Don’t forget that all GM’s ever seem to talk about is their annual payrolls. If you were to spend $30 or $40 million on one player, that annual payroll is going to skyrocket to a point where teams won’t be able to fill their other positions without simply promoting some minimum salary players from within. A nice opportunity for the minor leaguers, but not very realistic for the smaller market teams…or for the Mets. I wish I understood more about team finances…we all probably do…but I just don’t think that teams will head in a direction where they pay larger amounts over fewer years when that necessarily increases their annual payroll exponentially (okay…so I’m exaggerating the increase…but you get my meaning). Right now, the system is geared to more years because teams can then afford the annual expense and just budget it in to the future annual payrolls. In my humble opinion, the teams give long term deals absolutely knowing that they won’t pan out in the final years…but that’s the only way they can attract the player and they basically can then stretch it out over the longer term. Why pay a player for only three years and pay them in that term, when you can pay him over the longer term and get the same amount of expected years of productivity in the shorter term. Am I making sense? My brain hurts now.

    Thanks for the thought provoking post and keep up the great work!

    All the best,

    • Joe Janish October 31, 2011 at 10:47 pm
      Good points on the logic behind long-term deals.

      What I’ll argue, however, is that sort of thinking was de rigueur when the economy was strong, teams were making money and increasing revenues every year. Now, however, we’re seeing revenues hold steady or drop for some clubs, which makes me wonder if teams need to change their thinking. For example, maybe there are still back-loaded deals that pay out in the future, but perhaps they are of the Bobby Bonilla type, where the money is thinned out over decades.

      Just throwing that out there. Otherwise, I get what you’re saying and understand.

  5. Timo October 31, 2011 at 10:34 am
    Catchers are over-rated. They are supposed to be the captain’s on the field but I remember back in high school. Our captain was the left fielder. 🙂
    Cards are signing Pujols and Molina. Below is Molina’s salary for 2011 and 2012. They will pay that.
    11:$5.25M, 12:$7M club option ($0.75M buyout)
    2012 option increases to $7.5M if Molina is traded.

    So lets focus on 1st base. We get Fielders and not resign Reyes. Then we trade Ike and Mejia to the Rays for James Shields (12:$7M club option ($2M buyout), 13:$9M club option ($1.5M buyout), 14:$12M club option ($1M buyout)). We would have the opportunity to keep him for 3 years. Trade Pelf for a centerfielder. Maybe Marlon Byrd.
    Problem is money. Alderson has stated publicly that his budget should fall somewhere in the $100-110 million range. Roughly half that money ($55 million) is tied up in guaranteed contracts for Santana, David Wright and Jason Bay, with another $6 million or so earmarked for pitchers Dickey, D.J. Carrasco and Tim Byrdak. Factor in arbitration raises to multiple players, and the Mets should have about $20-30 million to play with this winter. The only way they save more money if they Non-tender possibilities: Buchholz, Pelfrey, Paulino, Pagan. (Eligible for arbitration: Manny Acosta, RHP; Taylor Buchholz, RHP; Mike Pelfrey, RHP; Ronny Paulino, C; Angel Pagan, OF)

    We’ll just have to see how things work out. I’m not expecting BIG splashes this year even though they said things will happen.

    • Joe Janish October 31, 2011 at 10:48 pm
      Timo, I agree with everything you state except the high school part. Obviously you have become wiser as you’ve grown older.
    • Tommy2cat November 1, 2011 at 7:33 am
      I have two words for you:

      Jerry Grote.

  6. cpins October 31, 2011 at 11:49 am
    The premise is not based in any type of reality.

    Cards offered Pujols 8/$200m before the season.

    Sabathia is owed 4/$92m on his current contract – so unless his strategy is to opt-out in order to take a pay cut, he’s out of the Reyes-range.

    So Fielder is the only guy who doesn’t ALREADY have an offer better than $90m on the table. Would those that think he’d do a $90m deal be interested in a house I’ve got for sale?

    • Mike B October 31, 2011 at 12:09 pm
      Give the guy a beak, It’s Mets Cold Stove, what you expect him to write about?

      “You may argue that it won’t take $90M to sign Reyes, and/or, that $90M won’t be enough to sign any of the other three. You may be right, in which case this post is moot. But play with me here for a bit, just for the sake of conversation.”

      • cpins October 31, 2011 at 9:18 pm
        I’m fine with off-season speculation and some of it will no doubt be unlikely – but it ought to be grounded in some type of reality.

        CC just signed for a guaranteed $122m that could go as high as $142m. I could propose we trade Jason Bay for Tim Lincecum – discuss . . . but it’s not really a serious topic.

        • Joe Janish October 31, 2011 at 10:56 pm
          No base of reality? When this post was published, there was a possibility that all four of those players be available as free agents. “Free” meaning any of the 30 teams would have the chance to negotiate. This front office has been hyped as one that is very smart and capable of thinking “out of the box” to make things happen. Why is it so impossible to believe that the Mets genius Ivy Leaguers couldn’t come up with something creative to offer the top free-agents?

          But hey, I get it if you don’t want to play. No offense taken — you don’t want to play, and that’s fine. This post was to stoke imagination from people who were willing to let go of reality for a few minutes, not for those who prefer to point out how unrealistic it was. Congrats on your intelligence, you’re a smart cookie.

        • cpins November 1, 2011 at 11:35 am
          My apologies, I thought you were seriously proposing those guys could be had for $90m. I didn’t realize that it was meant “to stoke imagination from people who were willing to let go of reality for a few minutes,”
  7. Jimmy Prinzler October 31, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    I see that you havent buy on Ike Davis yet? I will be disappointed if Reyes is gone. Reyes is all-around player and he brings his huge spirits to team. I’d rather to keep Reyes and Davis instead of Pujols or Fielder with Tejada! Trade Wright instead!! a good SS is hard to find, thats why Yankees do not want to let Jeter go.

    • Jimmy Prinzler October 31, 2011 at 6:15 pm

      Did you realized that Davis is hitting .302 with .926 OPS along 7 HRs and 17 walks and 25 RBIs in just 36 games this year. Based on his pace, he would hit 31 HRs with 112 RBIs and 76 walks this year in his 2nd season if he hadn’t gotten hurt in a freak collision between Wright and Davis.

      • Joe Janish October 31, 2011 at 10:59 pm
        Yes, I did realize those things. I also realized that it was a very small sample size.

        Ike Davis has a huge hole in his swing that is unlikely to be corrected and will prevent him from being a super-duper star like Fielder / Pujols. That doesn’t mean he won’t be very good, and it doesn’t mean I’m not “sold” on him. I’m very happy the Mets have him and am looking forward to seeing him develop into an All-Star caliber player in the coming years. Further, I’m not actively advocating that he be replaced. All I’m saying is that if Prince Fielder or Albert Pujols were available to the Mets, I’d either find a new position for Ike or move him to another club.

        • mikeyrad November 1, 2011 at 1:00 pm
          “Ike Davis has a huge hole in his swing that is unlikely to be corrected.” Joe, please provide a source for this statement. If you can’t, I’ll assume that you made it up.
        • xgene November 2, 2011 at 9:53 am
          ..and Fielder has a huge hole in his defense… Don’t understand how people can’t appreciate Ike’s value and upside.
  8. Jimmy Prinzler October 31, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    FYI, CC just announced that he’s staying with Yankees.

    • Joe Janish October 31, 2011 at 10:59 pm
      Just saw that too, thanks Jimmy!
  9. Joe November 1, 2011 at 8:50 am
    “I know this idea that Sabathia, Pujols, and Fielder are unlikely to be fetched for the same cost as Reyes, ”

    Buying the lede there. Anyway, if I’m paying loads of money on the Mets, it wouldn’t be on one starting pitching that will pitch five days and even on the Yanks looks a bit spent at the end of the year. It would be on a fielder. IF the money is the same, Pujols probably. That’s fantasy though and it isn’t just fungible Part of the CHANCE of spending money is fan familiarity and favoritism of Reyes, part of the Mets brand.

    But, the money won’t be the same. So, it’s just whistling Dixie.

  10. Andrew November 1, 2011 at 11:32 am
    There’s an inherent flaw in the argument- the Mets do not exist in a free agent vaccuum. Ignoring the now unavailable Sabathia, you are operating under the assumption that Pujols or Fielder could be in the market of a contract in the same financial vicinity as Reyes. But in that scenario, let’s say Reyes is looking at 5/100, Fielder 4/100, and Pujols 3/100, the number of teams that could sign the latter two guys shoots up. There is no reason to believe that, at even money and years, Fielder or Pujols would choose the Mets over other teams, especially if the Brewers and Cardinals respectively are in the mix. This means the Mets would have to increase their offer, nullifying the central argument. It’s an interesting point in theory- Pujols is obviously the best of the 3 players, Fielder the youngest, Reyes at the most valuable position- but one that could never really exist in practice.
  11. CompScreen GM November 1, 2011 at 11:48 am
    I think this article is a huge bowl of stupidity. Normally, I save such harsh language for the people in the comments section. However, the article leads off by saying Yadier Molina is a great catcher. Molina, a plus defender, has been a league average hitter or better 2 times in his career. He cannot impact a team in the ways that Reyes, Fielder et al., can. Molina is good, and nothing more.

    And then the comments on how Pujols can carry a team whereas Reyes cannot. This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of baseball. 1) One player cannot actually “carry” the team, especially in the manner that a basketball player carries his team. Without Pujols the Cards only have Berkman, Holliday, Wainwright, Carpenter, Garcia and so on. All of whom are all star talents performing consistently. Without Reyes, the Mets have Wright, whose numbers have been so out of whack for the past 3 years we cannot actually say his 25 hr/25 SB abilities will actually manifest. Sure there is Davis, but it is not like he is an established middle of the order threat.
    2) Have you seen what the Mets record without Reyes is? If it were possible for a single player to carry a team Reyes would be the guy, even if Pujols is still the best player to ever hold a bat. Reyes, changes the game at the plate and on the bases, he scores runs like crazy, runs like the wind, scores from first. Without him the Mets have been completely lost on the field. When you say, just look at 2011 for proof that Reyes cannot carry a team you conveniently ignore or fail to mention that he did what he did without, Wright, Beltran, Bay, Davis on the roster or playing well. Oh yeah also without Santana.
    3) You claim that Reyes’ 2011 performance didnt lift the team but you cite no evidence what so ever to indicate the veracity of the statement. You just say it and expect us to accept it as true. Simply put, only a moron would think that Reyes didnt improve the team, and the players around him. He just didnt have the supporting cast that the Cards or Brewers did. Its easy to say that Reyes did nothing when Prince Fielder has Weeks, Hart, Grienke et al., playing with him. Also, Reyes bats first, Pujols and Fielder are 3/4 hitters, meaning their positioning in the line-up has some effect on how they are treated and the effects they have. I would argue that Reyes is more valuable, because as a leadoff hitter he gets more at bats per season than other hitters do. This article lacks everything that it needs to be taken seriously.

  12. Christina November 1, 2011 at 11:53 am
    CC was already re-signed by the Yankees.
    Plus, the Mets should NOT even consider going after Fielder or Pujols. Both will be far too expensive and both would not have a position. Ike Davis is our 1st basemen, David Wright is our 3B. We have youth in the outfield in terms of Duda (who hopefully learns to field better) and we should focus on pitching.
  13. SiddFinch November 1, 2011 at 11:58 am
    Since we’re playing hypothetical here. I’d sign Fielder, trade Davis to Rays for one of their starting five (preferably Hellickson or Price but probably would wind up w/ Shields) and one of their stud AA or AAA arms.

    I’d then look to sign Furcal to a heavily incentive-laden contract. If he didn’t take it I’d focus on 1) Aaron Hill or 2) Kelly Johnson for a short term deal.

    Sure Furcal would get hurt but you wouldn’t be investing too much in him plus he’d be a good mentor for Tejada. Or you go with Tejada at SS and bring in a power-hitting 2B to compliment Fielder and Wright in the line-up.

    Inking Pujols is the type of signing that has burned the Mets time and again, especially if he is older than 31. They just have no luck when signing or trading for thirtysomething star free agents.

  14. james v November 1, 2011 at 12:02 pm
    I like the idea of signing fielder than trading davis and mejia 4 shields, but i would keep wright ; i would see if the yanks would bite at santana i would even take back there bad sp(aj) he’s cheaper and might do better in NL.; i would do santana for aj and gardner that saves the mets around 6-7 mil we can use for the bullpen(broxton,nathan.rausch)
    I would let reyes go due to his injuries.Let pelfrey go also.
    lineup; gardner,tejada,wright,fielder,bay,duda,murphy and c
    rotation; shields,aj,niese,dickey and gee
    financially it works mets payroll now is in the 70’s plus 22 mil 4 fielder ,7 mil 4 shields, aj 16 mil ,5 mil for bp is around 120 mil minus santana’s 23 ,pelfrey’s6mil, pagan’s 2mil equals 89 mil with those changes so there’s still money left over to do something else?
    • Mike B November 1, 2011 at 1:04 pm
      James I would sign for that right now, with the extra money could we sign the best SS in the game?
  15. paul November 1, 2011 at 12:08 pm
    I think we should sign Reyes. From what I’ve read and witnessed, pitching yields the best value when developed, not signed to ridiculous FA contracts. I’d rather spend the money on position players and let the draft, trades, and 1-2 year deals fund the rotation.

    As for the bullpen, there doesn’t seem to be much of a correlation between money spent and success.

  16. James November 1, 2011 at 12:22 pm
    You say that Pujols and Fielder would make the lineup and the players around them better, as well as turning a team from a non-contender, into a contender, because Reyes “didn’t.” First off, the Mets have many holes to fill, and it’s not going to get done by signing any ONE player. The Mets have to be wise with their signings, and to me, signing another guy to a fat deal when it could be Reyes is just nonsense! Reyes has had proven success in New York, and it is not his fault the Mets didn’t make the postseason. No: it is MUCH deeper than that. Let’s start with the inconsistency in the bullpen and end with the multiple injuries to the starting rotation and the ineptness of Pelf. I didn’t see Fielder win any championships anywhere. Instead, can we see what happens with our home-grown talent and not hand out any ridiculous deals? Does anybody remember the Bay deal? Jeesh, this is like Minaya-talk all over again.
  17. Justin November 1, 2011 at 1:05 pm
    I can get on board with this….the question is… is the value you are bringing in at 1b greater then the difference of Reyes at ss with say a crappy backup option like Tejada.

    I’m not sure of the answer….Fielder projects horribly with his body type. Pujols, who is amazing, has been great for 10 years and that’s what you’re paying for. I would be so nervous giving him a huge deal when we don’t even know his true age…

  18. NormE November 1, 2011 at 3:27 pm
    I love the different viewpoints. Some really interesting ideas, but Alderson was brought in to run this team on the cheap. So, forget about Pujols or Fielder. Alderson will use the concept of value to justify signing or not trading players with low-cost contracts, thus keeping Davis and Tejada.

    I’m surprised there was so little reaction to Joe Janish’s statement about SS vs. catcher. Joe might be right but he is not the most disinterested party having been a catcher and having another Janish (not really a relative) as a marginal major league SS. A great player can have an outsized impact no matter the position. Who was more valuable to the Mets success in the ’80s, Keith Hernandez or Gary Carter? I’m not really sure. How do you measure the leadership qualities both on and off the field?

  19. argonbunnies November 1, 2011 at 7:00 pm
    First base:

    Ike Davis is a good hitter. Is he a good hitter for a first baseman? Probably good, but probably not great. When he came up, his swing was pretty long. Last year, he shortened it a bit, but it’s still longer than most. There are very few hitters in MLB with long swings who are elite hitters. Jim Edmonds was the last I can remember.

    Pujols is a great hitter. Fielder is incredibly streaky, but his overall body of work over the last 5 years certainly qualifies as “great”. The difference between the two has been huge, but I see that gap narrowing. Pujols is older and has experienced a steady decline since his MVP 2009. Rather than being clearly the best hitter in the league, he’s now merely in the top 5.

    So, let’s talk about Prince. Assuming he can get $100mil for 3 years or $160mil for 6 years, which would he take? To me, this seems like a genuinely tough decision. If I were Prince, I don’t know why I wouldn’t seriously consider the shorter deal. However, in the history of actual FA contracts, how many players actually do this? The closest I can think of are Halladay and Lee signing with a team that had just gone to the World Series twice.

    So, though I agree with Joe that, for $100mil, 3 years of Fielder is better than 5 years of Reyes, I doubt that’s really an option.


    If the above is an option, then I like Timo’s deal of Ike+Mejia for Shields.

    I would not bank on Shields being great for more than another 2-3 years, though. So Fielder + Shields is very much a strategy to win in 2012-2014. If Alderson thinks our supporting cast is strong enough to pull that off, go for it. If he doesn’t, we’re better off having Ike and Mejia for the long term.

    Catcher vs shortstop:

    Does anyone know where to find the composite batting lines for all MLB catchers and shortstops from last year? A few years ago it was easy to find a decent-hitting SS and impossible to find a decent-hitting C, but that may have changed.

  20. cdubbs November 1, 2011 at 8:20 pm
    anyone else see Pujols run this playoffs? as great as he has been, he is a thick dude and will not thin at this point. i think he’ll be an albatross in 2-3 years and likely need to DH. if the mets were a player or two away i would go for it, but as it stands now, that move makes no sense to me. i say reyes or none of those dudes.
  21. R. Tejada November 2, 2011 at 12:23 am
    How bout a trade of Johan for Josh Hamilton??
    Texas definitely needs an Ace in that rotation, & im sure they would be willing to part ways with Hamilton especially since they have Engel Beltre waiting in the wings. The Salaries should be pretty close to even on both players. This move would plug 2 holes for the Mets…. CF & power hitting cleanup hitter. & for Texas would give them a solid Ace which if they can Re-Sign Wilson will give them A solid 1, 2 Punch.
    • cdubbs November 3, 2011 at 4:49 pm
      get jon daniels a bottle of whiskey and maybe he’ll do it!