Master Index of Archived Threads


Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 12 2015 11:13 AM

Hmm. HMMMMMMM.... Mark Simon The New York Mets are going to need to replenish the offense they’re going to lose when Yoenis Cespedes and Daniel Murphy sign elsewhere. There are internal options for Murphy with Wilmer Flores and Dilson Herrera capable of replacing the 1.7 Wins Above Replacement that Murphy averaged over the last four seasons. Replacing Cespedes is going to be a tougher chore. There aren’t many players who can impact a game like he can when he’s going well. His ability to “homer on demand” rivaled that of Darryl Strawberry and Mike Piazza. Trying to sign a player of that caliber is going to cost a lot (so it’s not as easy as saying “go get Justin Upton”). The Mets front office is going to have to be creative in its pursuit. And it’s probably going to take a trade. There are two obvious good trade matches for the Mets -- the Cubs and the Boston Red Sox. Each could use another starting pitcher and has an abundance of young, controllable-contract talent. The Cubs are best equipped to trade a shortstop such as Addison Russell, Javier Baez or Starlin Castro, but if the Mets are going to give up an elite starter, they’re probably going to want to do better than that. We don’t see the Cubs wanting to trade Kris Bryant or Kyle Schwarber. That is why the Red Sox make the most sense. They have surplus outfielders (including two true center fielders in Mookie Betts and Jackie Bradley Jr.) and they have a clear need for an ace starter. Their starting pitchers had the third-worst ERA in the American League last season. The Red Sox could get that type of pitcher in free agency (David Price, Johnny Cueto) but the Mets offer some pitchers who are younger and have less wear on their arms. The logical potential trade here is something along the lines of Matt Harvey for Betts. Yes, the Mets could highly regret trading Harvey, but … -- He has three years of team control left, at which point he’s almost surely gone. -- He’s likely going to be quite pricey in those last two years. -- His agent already has caused the Mets a lot of stress in the last 12 months. Betts was a six-WAR player in 2015. He hit .291 with an .820 OPS, 18 home runs, 42 doubles and 21 stolen bases, while striking out only 82 times in 597 at-bats. He ranked seventh among center fielders with nine defensive runs saved. By comparison, Cespedes totaled 6.3 WAR between the Tigers and Mets in 2015, so their values were comparable. There are likely to be quibbles with such a deal on both sides (Harvey is controllable for three years before free agency, Betts has five), but those can be worked out by adding secondary players to the deal. The Mets rotation would take a hit, but you’d still be going into Opening Day with Jacob deGrom, Noah Syndergaard and Steven Matz at the top, with Jonathon Niese slotted in at No. 4. When Zack Wheeler returns, he fills the No. 5 spot. The improvement to the offense would offset the pitching hit. Betts is a considerably better player than Juan Lagares. He’s basically the kind of player the Mets want Lagares to be. Lagares still would have value to the Mets as a backup outfielder, and if his elbow heals, he could (in theory) play any of the three outfield spots. You have to give up something to get something. In this case, what the Mets would be getting would be an almost perfect fit.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 12 2015 11:20 AM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Willets Point would surely know better than I would, but I get the sense that there's been a fair amount of background buzz in Boston about Matt Harvey being a Red Sock in 2016. I've seen quite a bit of speculation about Harvey for Betts (I believe he wouldn't be the first Met named "Mookie") as well as for the shortstop, Xander Bogaerts. Bogaerts is also a Boras client, but he has four years of control left compared to Harvey's three.

Centerfield Nov 12 2015 11:26 AM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

I freakin' love our rotation. I'm not sure I can speak objectively about this. Besides. I think anyone named "Mookie" should automatically be a Met.

d'Kong76 Nov 12 2015 11:30 AM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

This would take some balls, maybe two sets of balls!

Benjamin Grimm Nov 12 2015 11:31 AM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

True. And we have a GM who fainted at the idea of rehiring Terry Collins.

Edgy MD Nov 12 2015 11:54 AM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Centerfield wrote: I freakin' love our rotation. I'm not sure I can speak objectively about this. Besides. I think anyone named "Mookie" should automatically be a Met. Sure, but they shouldn't have to give anybody up. It should just be a Mets right of first refusal..

Centerfield Nov 12 2015 12:01 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield wrote: I freakin' love our rotation. I'm not sure I can speak objectively about this. Besides. I think anyone named "Mookie" should automatically be a Met. Sure, but they shouldn't have to give anybody up. It should just be a Mets right of first refusal.. That's what I'm saying. In fact they should have to give us Bogaerts for this transgression.

Mets Willets Point Nov 12 2015 12:02 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Mookie Betts is a natural 2nd baseman for anyone thinking of options for the Mets to beef up the middle infield. The fact that he's excelled after being moved to centerfield (in deference to Pedroia) just makes him more versatile, depending on what other players the Mets want to bring in. And his name is Mookie. And his last name rhymes with Mets. I do see "Harvey to Red Sox" stories popping up ever since Inningsgate, although Xander Bogaerts seems to be the name of who the Red Sox would surrender. Not sure that would be a good trade for the Mets. Not sure giving up Harvey would be good for the Mets. Although starting pitching seems to be the area of strength the Mets have to work with in trade. Seeing that Boston is the capital of "management negotiating with players through the media" and "media stirring up resentments against players with angry fans" I can see Harvey falling into a pot of boiling water pretty quickly up here.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 12 2015 12:27 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

I dunno guys, unless we find out Betts is a murderer or something I'm inclined to pursue this trade, for the reasons listed above: We need offense at skill "D" positions, we have pitching coming out of our asses, and Harvey IMO is the most likely guy to go. I'd be scared-er if they said, Syndrome or deGrom instead. This would also free us up to trade Lagares for a starter, or pick between Montero/Verrett, re-sign Colon, etc etc. Gotta give to get!

d'Kong76 Nov 12 2015 12:37 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

I'm cool with moving him, Mets don't do ballsey and this would be ballsey! I like the Sox and they are my AL team, I wouldn't mind see The Harvester mow down the AL East while we get something good in return.

Edgy MD Nov 12 2015 12:44 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Do we have any reason to believe something like such a deal has been discussed among the pros?

Benjamin Grimm Nov 12 2015 12:47 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Not that I've seen. As far as I can tell, it's just been fan and media buzz. But the media buzz may have its sources from within the Boston organization. I doubt that it's coming from the Mets side of the equation.

d'Kong76 Nov 12 2015 12:47 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 12 2015 12:52 PM

Edgy MD wrote: Do we have any reason to believe something like such a deal has been discussed among the pros? Which pros would that be?

Ceetar Nov 12 2015 12:51 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

I saw Mark Simon write it up as a good fit, I assumed that's where it originated.

Edgy MD Nov 12 2015 12:54 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Which pros would that be? Well, Dombrowski and Alderson to start with. Their lieutenants after that. Please forgive me. Laid up as I am, I'm not sure which level I'm getting aboard the conversation. I don't know if this has been reportedly discussed or is just Simon Says media-generated speculation.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 12 2015 12:55 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

The Red Sox ARE prospect-loaded up the middle. And they DO need pitching, don't they, if they're to conduct this quick bounceback to respectability-plus on which they're planning; they've been strongly linked with the Samardzijas and Cuetos of the market this offseason. Media-generated speculation it may be, but it's media-generated spec that's giving me a November baseball boner, so... gimme.

d'Kong76 Nov 12 2015 12:58 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Edgy MD wrote: Which pros would that be? Well, Dombrowski and Alderson to start with. Their lieutenants after that. C'mon, GM's don't do that.

Vic Sage Nov 12 2015 03:00 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Young CFers with speed, power and a good glove rarely become available with so many years of team control left. So I'd give up Harvey for Betts in a second, even if his name wasn't Mookie. Good players have longer, more consistently productive careers than good pitchers. Arms are fragile. Plus, Betts would be under team control for longer than Harvey will. Plus we'd be dealing from excess to fill a position of need. This makes too much sense for the Mets -- The Sox would never go for it. We'd probably have to include another prospect. Hey, maybe they'd take Cuddyer!

Edgy MD Nov 12 2015 03:07 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Vic Sage wrote: Good players have longer, more consistently productive careers than good pitchers. It's heartbreaking, isn't it? I remember a video 10 years back of young NL East guys Ryan Howard, David Wright, and Dontrelle Willis messing about and zinging each other. Howard is winding down. Folks argue about how much Wright may be winding down. But Willis has been out of the game for over four years, and was ineffective for four years before that. Other guys feel their athleticism wind down. For pitchers, their viability is there, then it isn't. Yeah, new science has allowed us to rebuild the arm, but sustaining a high level of effectiveness is a crapshoot. An 11th grade female soccer player with a catastrophic knee injury seemingly has a better chance of returning to peak performance than a professional baseball player with a catastrophic elbow or shoulder injury.

seawolf17 Nov 12 2015 03:12 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

I'd make this deal.

Gwreck Nov 12 2015 03:15 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Why not just sign Heyward and not have to give up Harvey? You lose a pick for signing Heyward, gain a similar-level pick for losing Murphy. All it costs is money and the Mets should have plenty of it. --- (Yes, I realize that's a separate issue). On the assumption that the Mets can't afford premium free agents, this is probably not a half-bad deal.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 12 2015 03:15 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

I can't imagine the Red Sox go for it, but they may offer up Jackie Bradley Jr. He's no Mookie, but he did go to the U of South Carolina. At this point we pull back Harvey and offer, uh, Niese or something.

MFS62 Nov 12 2015 03:26 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Willets Point would surely know better than I would, but I get the sense that there's been a fair amount of background buzz in Boston about Matt Harvey being a Red Sock in 2016. There were a lot of stories/ sound bytes floating around a few months ago (later on Yahoo sports) in which several BoSox reporters were heard on WEEI radio (The Boston equivalent of WFAN) discussing how good Harvey would be atop their rotation. And, according to them, Matt is very high on their trading list. This wasn't caller blithering, this was guys who cover the team. Also- because the sports reporters on 3 of the 4 Connecticut TV stations think they're applying for jobs in Boston, they give us a lot of Boston sports results and even lead with Boston sports news. They have made similar comments about Harvey being a BoSox target, but I'm not sure if they were rehashing the comments made on WEEI. Later

Centerfield Nov 12 2015 03:35 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Gwreck wrote: Why not just sign Heyward and not have to give up Harvey? You lose a pick for signing Heyward, gain a similar-level pick for losing Murphy. All it costs is money and the Mets should have plenty of it.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 12 2015 03:38 PM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

Gwreck wrote: Why not just sign Heyward and not have to give up Harvey? You lose a pick for signing Heyward, gain a similar-level pick for losing Murphy. All it costs is money and the Mets should have plenty of it. One potential reason (at least in theory) would be that the money the Mets would save by getting Betts instead of Heyward could be allocated to filling a different need, like maybe a shortstop and a pitcher to replace Harvey.

Vic Sage Nov 13 2015 09:55 AM Re: Let's talk about that Harvey-for-Mookie-Betts deal

One potential reason (at least in theory) would be that the money the Mets would save by getting Betts instead of Heyward could be allocated to filling a different need, like maybe a shortstop and a pitcher to replace Harvey. yes, but that is the exact rationale some of us are tired of hearing about. They could sign Heyward AND spend cash to upgrade elsewhere. That would take them from a bottom third payroll to a middle third payroll. Don't you think that a franchise that owns NYC real estate (one of the most valuable assets on the planet), a new stadium (and the parking,merchandising,ads,and vendor revenues it generates) and its own network, not to mention the licensing revenue from the Mets' intellectual property, should be providing this team with the resources to be at least in the ballpark of the top 10 other payrolls in MLB? I do. Others here do. and we're tired of hearing about the financial constraints.