Master Index of Archived Threads


Mookie Betts

seawolf17 Oct 01 2019 11:01 AM

Gwreck brought this up below, and I was thinking about it the other day too. Does some sort of Betts/Syndergaard deal make sense? Obviously including other players. I don't know what it looks like, but I feel like it does make some sense.

LWFS Oct 01 2019 11:08 AM Re: Mookie Betts

It would START with something like Syndergaard and Dominic Smith, and possibly include Nimmo and/or a couple of minor leaguers (Ronny Mauricio?). (Another reason to hate the Diaz/Cano trade: Kelenic-- especially after this year-- and Syndergaard and mid-level pitching prospect almost certainly gets this done.)

Centerfield Oct 01 2019 11:23 AM Re: Mookie Betts

sEnD thEM CAnO aNd DiaZ

HahnSolo Oct 01 2019 11:52 AM Re: Mookie Betts

=LWFS post_id=23430 time=1569949707 user_id=84] It would START with something like Syndergaard and Dominic Smith, and possibly include Nimmo and/or a couple of minor leaguers (Ronny Mauricio?). (Another reason to hate the Diaz/Cano trade: Kelenic-- especially after this year-- and Syndergaard and mid-level pitching prospect almost certainly gets this done.)

+1 (or whatever the proper shout-out is around here) on all of this. If Boston is serious about shaving payroll they could potentially slot Dom 1B and Brandon RF into their lineup at a fraction of Mookie's costs. Mookie's only got one more year under contract but if the cost is Noah (definite issues with management at times), Dom (love him but he's a bench guy for us), and Brandon (love him but he's not Betts), along with whatever prospect you want to throw in, I would pull the trigger on that deal.

Edgy MD Oct 01 2019 12:19 PM Re: Mookie Betts

I vote no. Among other things, that's a lot of years (two of Syndergaard, three of Nimmo, and five of Smitty) for one year of Betts.

Ceetar Oct 01 2019 12:28 PM Re: Mookie Betts

=seawolf17 post_id=23428 time=1569949270 user_id=91] Gwreck brought this up below, and I was thinking about it the other day too. Does some sort of Betts/Syndergaard deal make sense? Obviously including other players. I don't know what it looks like, but I feel like it does make some sense.

No. The drop off from Syndergaard to whoever replaces him is much greater than the dropoff from Betts to whichever guy we're playing there next year.



The OF is full and Mookie isn't really a centerfielder.



Mets were 7th in the second half in wRC+. Their offense actually isn't bad. Some areas of concern are defense in general. So you could look to find a non-horrible CFer. And swap Ramos for a better defensive catcher, but probably trading some offense. Between McNeil, Davis, Lowrie and Cano you've probably got 3B/2B AND an OF spot locked up. Conforto and Nimmo are locks for the other two OF spots, and who knows what you do if/when Cespedes is playing.

Gwreck Oct 01 2019 01:55 PM Re: Mookie Betts

Couple of things: This idea came up from Tim Britton of the Athletics yesterday; not an original thought by me. I think that Syndergaard is actually about as much as the Mets would need to offer to get the deal done, because the team acquiring Betts gets one year at whatever his arbitration salary is (figure $25-30M). Send back Syndergaard (2 years control, less money) and you're not off from a fair deal. Maybe you include Dom Smith. Betts is an out-of-the-box idea, but there are very limited options that improve defense while not being completely useless on offense (eg. Lagares, Keon Braxton). Betts would be the best defensive outfielder on the Mets, and with Conforto in left, Nimmo in right, and McNeil back in the infield, that's the defensive upgrade we are looking for without also sacrificing a spot in the lineup. Obviously this move also requires re-signing Wheeler and then finding another starter to replace Syndergaard. And it is a one-year plan.

Vic Sage Oct 02 2019 01:59 PM Re: Mookie Betts

i'm sorry, but what now? Mookie Betts is an MVP/All-Star/GG/SS player IN HIS PRIME. he's like 26-27. He's the kind of guy Philly is paying whatisname to be even though he isn't. Mookie does EVERYTHING. He averages near 8 WAR per full season. He's never hurt. He is a 5-tool player. If Boston traded him for Syndy (whose best year was a 5 WAR) and some part-time guys like Dom and/or Davis, and boom/bust a-ball prospects (we have no A+ prospects), the Boston fans would and should burn down Fenway. You don't do the deal because we'd get 1 more year of Noah than of Betts? RUFucking kidding me? Tell you what... make the trade and then sign him to the Harper+ deal he's going to get somewhere else.

Edgy MD Oct 02 2019 02:11 PM Re: Mookie Betts

The deal suggested above is Syndergaard, Nimmo, and Smith for Betts Obviously he's worth more if an extension is negotiated before the deal is consummated, but that wasn't on the table either.

Gwreck Oct 02 2019 02:23 PM Re: Mookie Betts

I don't know where everyone got the idea that the Mets would give up Nimmo in a deal for Betts. I'm of the opinion that the salary relief plus additional year of control plus that power pitchers are harder to find means that Syndergaard would be the biggest piece to give up. And I could certainly see Smith being added as well, but not Nimmo. Vic's not wrong that Betts is more valuable but any trade is for only one year of Betts. He's going to test the FA market and get paid accordingly after 2020.

Vic Sage Oct 02 2019 02:30 PM Re: Mookie Betts

you don't trade that much away unless your going to extend the player. I don't like rentals, as an organizational philosophy. But if the deal is Syndy, Nimmo, Smith and Mauricio in a sign and trade? I do that in a heartbeat. Hell, i'll throw in Davis too! and the Sox only do it if Betts has made it clear he won't re-sign with them (and other big market teams can't make a better offer). If Betts is intent on becoming a FA, then you don't trade for him. You just sign him to a bigger contract than anybody else when he goes on the market and don't give up anybody. But of course they won't do that either.

LWFS Oct 02 2019 06:17 PM Re: Mookie Betts

Take the sign-and-trade guarantee off the table, and Syndergaard-plus-Smith-for-Betts might feel fairer... but I'm not sure it wins the day (there are likely at least five other teams at this poker table, one must think).