|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Oct 7, 2015 19:34:28 GMT -5
Can't believe there isn't a thread about him yet. We're going to hear his name quite a bit this off-season as he continues to make an arse out of himself in NY. Couple of questions. We'd have him for 3 years. He will be eligible for free-agency after the 2018 season. Scott Boras is his agent.
1. Do we want to deal with Harvey and his ego?
2. Do we want to give up Bogaerts or Betts? I think it would take one of them to get him. I don't want to do that
Is there a 3-way deal out there where we could package Swihart and Margot for an elite offensive player who is cost-controlled and deal him to the Mets? That's the only way I can see it working for us. Maybe, a guy like AJ Pollock
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Oct 8, 2015 0:36:06 GMT -5
Id much rather Strasburgh, at less of a cost, with his one year of control ,or Saleor Kluber if we have to overpay, or just stroke the cheque for Price or Greinke. But in no way do I agree with Betts or Boegarts in any deal
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 9, 2015 7:55:19 GMT -5
Answer to question #1......YES! Do we consider moving Betts or Bogey for him? NO! Do we match up well for the Mets to make a trade? Don't see it, but your idea about bringing in a 3rd team is great!
I do not want to move Swihart, but players like Brantley, Kipnis from the Indians (or Braun from the Brewers) are the type the Mets may sit up and take notice. The Pollock idea is good. Not sure the DBacks want to move him, but yeah that type of player would possibly work.
|
|
|
Post by popsie1947 on Oct 9, 2015 8:52:01 GMT -5
Santyana the Spanish Philosopher once said "those who have not learned from history are bound to repeat it".
Did we learn anything from the Hanley fiasco?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 9, 2015 11:11:00 GMT -5
So, am I missing something, or is Matt Harvey an egomaniac now because 1) there was a significant communication issue between him/Boras/etc. and the club regarding his innings, and 2) he missed a team workout?
I don't get why the Mets would ship him out of town on a rail.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Oct 9, 2015 15:35:14 GMT -5
2. Do we want to give up Bogaerts or Betts? I think it would take one of them to get him. I don't want to do that
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,799
|
Post by nomar on Oct 9, 2015 17:25:16 GMT -5
I don't get why the Mets would ship him out of town on a rail. I don't either, but let's hope they do.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Oct 9, 2015 18:33:57 GMT -5
Honestly, he's looking like he may relinquish his Dark Knight title to Degrom or Syndergaard based on effectiveNess alone.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 11, 2015 23:28:08 GMT -5
If the mets want to entertain offers for Harvey, I am all for it. Fact is cespedes is probably leaving and the mets need a bat and or middle infielder.
I think we have the pieces to make this deal happen.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 12, 2015 0:34:44 GMT -5
If the mets want to entertain offers for Harvey, I am all for it. Fact is cespedes is probably leaving and the mets need a bat and or middle infielder. I think we have the pieces to make this deal happen. Any of the Mets pitchers would be great to have. The problem is that since they're in the playoffs, they probably wouldn't have as much of an interest in prospects as other teams. Unless it was a 3-way, it would be tough, because I really don't want to give up Mookie or Bogaerts.
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Oct 19, 2015 11:28:05 GMT -5
If you want Harvey, it's going to cost Bogaerts. End of story. The Mets have been waiting a long time to be competitive again and their time has arrived. If they deal Harvey this off-season it will be to fill a need for 2016, and shortstop is a big need for them right now.
Now, I don't think it's a crazy idea to swap Bogaerts for Harvey, especially with Marrero on the roster, but the notion that the Mets will take prospects for Harvey is foolish. It's not like Harvey is a free agent after 2016 and they need to get something for him.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Oct 19, 2015 11:46:18 GMT -5
If you want Harvey, it's going to cost Bogaerts. End of story. The Mets have been waiting a long time to be competitive again and their time has arrived. If they deal Harvey this off-season it will be to fill a need for 2016, and shortstop is a big need for them right now. Now, I don't think it's a crazy idea to swap Bogaerts for Harvey, especially with Marrero on the roster, but the notion that the Mets will take prospects for Harvey is foolish. It's not like Harvey is a free agent after 2016 and they need to get something for him. Deven Marrero is not a viable or acceptable replacement to Xander.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 19, 2015 11:50:26 GMT -5
3 years of Harvey for the 5 or 6 years of Xander......The drop off from XB to Marrero to make Harvey your number one for 3 years......I may be crazy, but I think I make the trade.....
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 19, 2015 11:53:41 GMT -5
XB for Thor?....then I think it's about the same service time, maybe Syndergaard has another year of team control.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Oct 19, 2015 11:53:33 GMT -5
3 years of Harvey for the 5 or 6 years of Xander......The drop off from XB to Marrero to make Harvey your number one for 3 years......I may be crazy, but I think I make the trade..... Xander has 4 years left of team control.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Oct 19, 2015 11:57:03 GMT -5
XB for Thor?....then I think it's about the same service time, maybe Syndergaard has another year of team control. I think you're just making stuff up. Harvey: 3 years of control Bogaerts: 4 years Syndergaard: 6 years
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 19, 2015 12:30:42 GMT -5
If you want Harvey, it's going to cost Bogaerts. End of story. The Mets have been waiting a long time to be competitive again and their time has arrived. If they deal Harvey this off-season it will be to fill a need for 2016, and shortstop is a big need for them right now. Now, I don't think it's a crazy idea to swap Bogaerts for Harvey, especially with Marrero on the roster, but the notion that the Mets will take prospects for Harvey is foolish. It's not like Harvey is a free agent after 2016 and they need to get something for him. That's why a 3-way deal is interesting. Someone mentioned Pollock - could you get him or someone else similar to him for prospects and then flip that guy to the Mets for Harvey?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 19, 2015 12:39:08 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox could much more afford to move Betts than Bogaerts. They don't have another SS anywhere close to Bogaerts and SS are very difficult to find. They have 2 other options for CF and plenty of other OF are available. I suggested Betts for deGrom before. Trading Betts and signing Heyward could be a pretty big team upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 19, 2015 12:52:20 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox could much more afford to move Betts than Bogaerts. They don't have another SS anywhere close to Bogaerts and SS are very difficult to find. They have 2 other options for CF and plenty of other OF are available. I suggested Betts for deGrom before. Trading Betts and signing Heyward could be a pretty big team upgrade. It would hurt to lose Betts, but if you could get DeGrom, it would be hard to say no. Not to mention we also have 2 great CF in the minors, Margot and Benintendi that we're going to have to either trade or find a spot for eventually. Heyward seems like a possibility to become a terrible contract though, I'd probably want to aim for a smaller commitment.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,799
|
Post by nomar on Oct 19, 2015 17:53:54 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox could much more afford to move Betts than Bogaerts. They don't have another SS anywhere close to Bogaerts and SS are very difficult to find. They have 2 other options for CF and plenty of other OF are available. I suggested Betts for deGrom before. Trading Betts and signing Heyward could be a pretty big team upgrade. Degrom probably maxed out this year and wasn't much more valuable than Betts who is 22 and has considerable upside still to tap into offensively. I would understand giving up someone big like Devers + Owens+ for DeGrom, but with the prospect depth we have I see no reason to trade Betts or Bogaerts. Giving up Betts or Bogaerts for a 5 WAR pitcher makes us worse than giving up Margot+ for a 3.5-4 WAR pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 23, 2015 1:43:45 GMT -5
I am not sure how teams would value Devers given how far from the majors he is at this time.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Oct 31, 2015 12:07:47 GMT -5
I am not sure how teams would value Devers given how far from the majors he is at this time. He may have just turned 19 (a week ago) but he already has a full season of High A at bats under his belt. His line; 288/329/443 as an 18 YO, that's good but factoring in age those are dam good #'s., I think he's starting next year in Portland. He's on the fast track right now. I'll predict he's a Sept. 2017 call-up and stays up for good.
|
|
|
Post by carmenfanzone on Oct 31, 2015 12:37:30 GMT -5
The Mets are in the World Series. They are there primarily because of their young starting pitching. I would be shocked if they traded any of their 4 young starters. I know there offense is weak. But they made it to the World Series with a weak offense. Why mess with what got them there, especially since all 4 are going to have relatively inexpensive salaries for the next few years. If they want to improve their offense, why wouldn't they just sign as couple of mid level free agents and keep their starters? If they do not sign Colon and Cespades they should have the money to be able to do so.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Oct 31, 2015 12:49:42 GMT -5
I am not sure how teams would value Devers given how far from the majors he is at this time. He may have just turned 19 (a week ago) but he already has a full season of High A at bats under his belt. His line; 288/329/443 as an 18 YO, that's good but factoring in age those are dam good #'s., I think he's starting next year in Portland. He's on the fast track right now. I'll predict he's a Sept. 2017 call-up and stays up for good. Full season in low A, not High A. It would be a big time surprise if he skipped high A.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 31, 2015 14:10:24 GMT -5
The Mets are in the World Series. They are there primarily because of their young starting pitching. I would be shocked if they traded any of their 4 young starters. I know there offense is weak. But they made it to the World Series with a weak offense. Why mess with what got them there, especially since all 4 are going to have relatively inexpensive salaries for the next few years. If they want to improve their offense, why wouldn't they just sign as couple of mid level free agents and keep their starters? If they do not sign Colon and Cespades they should have the money to be able to do so. I could see Matz being dealt but agree on the big three. They still need a SS and the Cubs have a few.
|
|