Master Index of Archived Threads


Extending Walker

Edgy MD Feb 20 2017 01:53 PM

Stories of Neil Walker talking extension get more legs every day, with independent reports at first, followed by quotes of confirmation from Walker, followed by quotes of confirmation by Sandy Alderson, saying he's talked with Walker's agents and will be talking with Walker soon. When, I ask you, does Sandy ever confirm anything in plain English like that? Yet I sit here and I have some pause. On the one hand spending good money on good players is a good thing. On the other hand, he’s coming off a career year combined with a season ending injury. That doesn’t scream “Time to invest!” On the one hand, three-year contracts cost you less in annual value than the big whoomp of a single year. On the other hand, that might have been more effective logic had they signed him to a three year deal before committing to his one-year burst of a free-agency-qualifying offer. That gives him the big leverage of negotiating with the whoomp year already guaranteed. On the one hand, he gave you more offense than you possibly expected. On the other, how much can you really expect that, and will the defense fade quickly now that he’s in his 30s and playing in the middle of the diamond? On the one hand, with a lot of question marks and transitions going on around the diamond, it’d be nice to have second base locked up for a few years. On the other hand, one place the Mets are rich in prospects seems to be in the middle of the infield. Wouldn’t it be smarter to invest that money in a spot where they are seemingly more impoverished? Well, on the one hand, he’s expressed his willingness to move, not only giving you an occasional alternative at first, but giving some serious insurance at third against David Wright not bouncing back following serious surgery. Yabbut, on the other hand, isn’t Flores long-term insurance against a fading Wright? Isn’t Cecchini? Don’t they already have Walker locked in for 2017, giving them Wright insurance for this one year, and allowing them to return to the market next off-season with a real picture of where they are with Wright, allowed to consider what they have in their in-house-options with one more year of information available to them, and allowed to consider from a free agent field that will include, among others … Neil Walker! Why commit now?

Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2017 01:56 PM Re: Extending Walker

My understanding is that if there was an extension, it would run through 2019, which isn't all that long. But yeah, I agree with "why commit now?"

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 20 2017 02:18 PM Re: Extending Walker

I'm surprised he's even back. I don;t know. I think he called their bluff, and wonder if this isn't some attempt by the Mets to reduce their burden to him this year. Can they do that? Rip up the 1/$17M deal and replace it with a 3/30?

Frayed Knot Feb 20 2017 02:21 PM Re: Extending Walker

As long as the player agrees to it they can rip and replace all they want. Not so sure he'd agree to that right now, effectively opting for two years of guaranteed money against the downside that he wouldn't be able to go out and earn 2 years @ $6.5 per otherwise.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2017 02:41 PM Re: Extending Walker

According to Kristie Ackert, the three-year deal they were discussing was worth more than $40 million.

Frayed Knot Feb 20 2017 02:49 PM Re: Extending Walker

If that's intended as a replacement for the current deal for a middle IF who'd be just turning 34 as the deal ends then one could at least make an argument in its favor. If it's in addition to the current QO deal then it starts to get a lot less attractive.

Edgy MD Feb 20 2017 03:07 PM Re: Extending Walker

I'm not sure, but it appears to me to be about tacking two years onto the current one.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2017 03:23 PM Re: Extending Walker

That's the impression I'm getting too. They would sign Walker through 2019.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 20 2017 03:30 PM Re: Extending Walker

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure, but it appears to me to be about tacking two years onto the current one. Why? I mean, why do that?

Edgy MD Feb 20 2017 09:26 PM Re: Extending Walker

Agreed. Best I can come up with is that it'll allow them to defer some money from the 2017 obligations. If they go, say, three years for $13.5 per, it pulls $3.7 million out of their 2017 salary sheet. That's not nothing, especially for a team that has been looking for a way to shed Jay Bruce, but is it worth committing at the position for two more years? I guess that comes with the "We can always trade him" out, but that's part of the reasoning that got them in this spot.

TransMonk Feb 20 2017 09:26 PM Re: Extending Walker

[tweet:fpymqobb]https://twitter.com/nypost_mets/status/833740357699465217[/tweet:fpymqobb]

Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2017 09:31 PM Re: Extending Walker

When (if) Walker becomes a free agent after the season, the Mets can't QO him, can they? I think the new CBA says that players can only get a QO once in their career. My guess is they'll let him play out the year and see where they're at in November. They can discuss bringing him back, or not, depending on how things look.

TheOldMole Feb 20 2017 09:45 PM Re: Extending Walker

Have forgotten what QO means.

Frayed Knot Feb 20 2017 09:57 PM Re: Extending Walker

Benjamin Grimm wrote: My guess is they'll let him play out the year and see where they're at in November. They can discuss bringing him back, or not, depending on how things look. I think that's the best way to go. People talk about his 'career year' last season, but it really wasn't a career year so much as it was a bit of an odd one. Basically his usual high number of doubles disappeared (35 per/600 ABs w/Pitt down to 13 per as a NYM!!) and had them turn into either extra singles (highest BA since his rookie year) or into HRs as he may only have tied his previous career best but, when you consider that 2016 was about 25 games/100 ABs short of his norm, it was definitely his HR-ing-est year ever. Whatever the cause for all that, 23 HRs and only 9 doubles is a strange combo no matter how you slice it and it's tough to say if that power jump is sustainable or what his year looks like if his pop suddenly returns to more normal levels for him. QO = 'Qualifying Offer', the minimum amount that must be tendered to a potential FA in order for the club to receive a draft pick as compensation for said FA leaving for another team. Last year that amount was $17.5 million.

MFS62 Feb 20 2017 10:15 PM Re: Extending Walker

I looked at an extension for Walker as protection for the next few years at third base, should Wilmer or another player from the organization not be a full time solution. Later

Lefty Specialist Feb 21 2017 03:47 AM Re: Extending Walker

No. You really need to see how well he'll play this year first before you even talk about this.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 21 2017 05:44 AM Re: Extending Walker

I know pitching is frahgeelay and all, but it strikes me as really strange that #ExtendWalker is a thing, while, say, #BuyOutThorsArbYears isn't.

Ceetar Feb 21 2017 12:10 PM Re: Extending Walker

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I know pitching is frahgeelay and all, but it strikes me as really strange that #ExtendWalker is a thing, while, say, #BuyOutThorsArbYears isn't. that doesn't usually happen until after like the first arb year though right? so early. I don't think qualifying offers get quite the return anymore right? I know it changed but I haven't studied it yet.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 21 2017 01:03 PM Re: Extending Walker

I'm not sure of the details either, but I think the team that loses the player still gets compensation, but the team that signs the player isn't penalized. I think the losing team gets a supplemental pick instead of stealing a pick from the signing team? Rather than guess like I'm doing here I should just look it up. Maybe later...

Ceetar Feb 21 2017 01:49 PM Re: Extending Walker

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not sure of the details either, but I think the team that loses the player still gets compensation, but the team that signs the player isn't penalized. I think the losing team gets a supplemental pick instead of stealing a pick from the signing team? Rather than guess like I'm doing here I should just look it up. Maybe later... doesn't appear to be officially published yet. but you're right, only one qualifying offer per player. But the compensation was nuked a bit, you only get compensation if the FA signs a big (says 50+?) contract. And the signing team only loses a third rounder, second if they're over threshold.