apparently the Nats and Adam LaRoche are getting close and while i had proposed Davis and Murphy as part of a package for possibly Moore and Archer knowing the Rays would be a good fit and desperate for offense they're apparently talking to the Nats about Michael Morse and Danny Espinosa going to the Rays in return for starting pitching (Hellickson or Shields?)
as unpopular as possibly dealing Davis might be for him to bring back SP (and i think he'd bring back more than Morse will) would allow us to deal Niese and Dickey for possible young pieces at catching,OF,and 1b....
i thought Texas would be a good fit for Dickey and MLBTR does report that Texas wants to talk with the Mets this week about RA
but anyway,can you imagine the Nats adding Hellickson to that rotation?
can we lose any more ground to them?
Rays may be signing Loney to play first (he hit 6 HRs last season and batted .249) to replace Pena and obtaining Espinosa who had 17 hrs but hit .249 and Morse who hit 18 HRs in 400 abs
Davis and Murphy would be a stronger package and if we sweetened the pot a little could bring us back perhaps 2 starters,one of their top 5 and maybe a near ML ready prospect we could slot in as our #5....we would then be in a position to deal Dickey,Niese,and Gee for position players/prospects at positions of need
I can't imagine any way in the world the Nationals get Hellickson or Shields with Morse, who becomes a FA after the season, as a centerpiece. Just wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.
From our standpoint, still can't shake the feeling that trading Ike Davis would be way, way more trouble than it's worth. It's too risky for a team so bereft of power already.
I really can't see trading Davis, Dickey and Niese in one fellswoop. Even if we get another starter back and a first baseman. Which team has a first baseman we could get who might offer more solid offensive stats as Davis, while still supplying much needed power? We certainly can't go into the season being okay with Duda at first if we can't find a good first baseman elsewhere. I can't say I'm on board with trading Niese, unless we're really really really getting someone back in return. He's a young lefty who I think could be our number three guy for a while (assuming Harvey and Wheeler will become one and two). Sure, when we're ready to contend a solid veteran pitcher ala Bobby Ojeda would be great, but trading BOTH Niese and Dickey? I really don't know about that.
I'm still for giving Davis another year to show himself. I think Dickey and Murphy are the two best remaining pieces the Mets should use at trade bait.
Can't see trading Davis and Murphy for a pitcher. The Mets system strength is supposedly its young pitching, but no bats on the horizon.
The Nats can easily make that trade by replacing Morse and Espinosa with Laroche and probably Lombordozzi. Adding a SP makes sense for them, since E. Jackson is a free agent.
i would trade him for top of the line pitching.....look at the Nats,with that starting rotation they're looking to make it even stronger by trading TWO of their power sources,so i disagree with you there
i agree there is no rebuild after signing David
and as adamant as some are about not trading Davis or Niese or Dickey just be prepared for pretty much the same team next year with a little touch up as the Braves and Nats get stronger and stronger
if we're not going to think differently but work really,really hard to bring last year's team back we're done
i think the combo of Morse and Espinosa gets it done,which would be a little less,IMO,than Davis and Murph but obviously our FO is thinking otherwise
plus now that the Rays signed Loney their need for a 1b has faded away
truth of the matter is without picking up more pitching we don't have enough to be able to trade Dickey or Niese,we're actually thinner than people think as we overestimate what we've got
kind of disappointed at the same old Met FO thinking
we had Dickey,Davis,Wright and Niese last year and they were all healthy and had solid years to varying degrees and we lost 74 games
if we're just going to work towards bringing everyone back because you can't surrender a 30 hr guy and a young lefty nor a Cy Young award winner then we deserve to have the same team next year...
the Nats won 95 games last year and they're trying to improve their starting staff.....the Dodgers are going hard after Greinke to go along with Kershaw
i just feel as if the FO is afraid to really make any significant moves are change their thought process because of a possible backlash....
my thought is to stockpile younger players and prospects and fill more holes with them than the current 3 positions we may have set right now
it seems to me a lot of people have a disconnect between needing to keep our "best" players and wanting to win games....
how can almost ANYTHING be counterproductive when you're talking about a 90 loss team?
why on earth are we clamoring to keep THAT team intact?
i'm not saying that there isn't risk to changing the philosophy of the team but geez let's be realistic here,it's keeping the status quo and maintaining that security of not doing anything but the same old thing that's got us in such a mess
our minor league system is NOT stocked with young pitching until you start getting down to Savannah and St. Lucie,they're years away
the idea that we have a "surplus" of pitching is just not true
Santana will be gone after this year,we may bring back a 38 year old pitcher,and we're hoping a guy with a circulatory issue to his pitching arm may be ok otherwise it's Mejia and Famila or Hefner
and we're actually entertaining the idea of trading Dickey or Niese with THAT rotation?...what will we have? Santana,Niese,Harvey,Gee,and Hefner?..and then we hopefully add Wheeler but lose Santana?...no,the truth of the matter is we don't have tremendous depth until we start to get to Pill,Montero,Tapia,and Fullmer who have yet to pitch even a full season at A+ ball yet
we'll see what happens,but Sandy has his work cut out for him if he can't make a deal because he wants to hang onto the few good players we've got
For Hellickson? I would seriously consider it.
But for a team starved for offense, I understand your point.
i'm not saying that there isn't risk to changing the philosophy of the team but geez let's be realistic here,it's keeping the status quo and maintaining that security of not doing anything but the same old thing that's got us in such a mess"
because the lack of speed, power, outfield, bullpen, and intangiles were responsible for a 90 loss team. ike is your ONLY power threat. Why would you get rid of your top run producer who is a better defender at 1st than most in the league? Who is talking about keeping the team in tact? We have zero power and your proposing getting rid of the the one power threat we have. We are stuck with David Wright. Now you want to strip what little protection he has? Its very counter productive to not surround 122 million dollars with the only only protection he has. You have Ike, and D Wright. For now since we're broke, you keep Murph unless you can drasticall improve the glove AND bat. So that leaves FIVE bats to worry about. Plus a Bullpen. And a few SP arms. How is THAT keeping anything status quo? Trading Ike is absolutley the wrong move
but if the Rays are willing to deal either Hellickson or Shields for Morse and Espinosa and were willing to sign 6 hr James Loney to play first i'd think that if we packaged Davis,Murphy,and maybe even Duda and sent them to the Rays we could get back Hellickson plus,maybe Cobb or even Archer for helping them rebuild their offense
NOW we've got a surplus of pitching,the surplus of pitching people think we have now but really don't....if we deal Dickey we've got Niese and unproven Harvey and Wheeler and then you have to go down to A+ ball for our next legit SP prospects
with Santana,Niese,Dickey,Hellickson,Harvey,Archer,and Gee you have the surplus to deal for other pieces....Dickey to Texas for Olt and Murphy to play right OR even Niese and Gee and see if we can pry away Olt and Profar along with Murphy even if we have to include someone like Parnell (they're looking for bullpen help too)....if you deal Niese,Gee,and Parnell to Texas for Olt,Murphy, and Profar i'd check in with the Angels and see if they'd give us Kendry Morales for Dickey,they've got Trumbo and Pujols and need another stud to put in behind Weaver....now you've got Profar,Olt,Wright,Morales,David Murphy,Tejada, and with the money you've saved on Davis,Dickey,Murphy,and Parnell you could turn around a sign a Bourn or Ludwick and you've got a starting rotation of Santana,Hellickson,Harvey,Archer,Gee with Wheeler coming with a very solid lineup
that was my thinking anyway
that was my thinking anyway"
Okay i dont agree with it at all. First of all all of that is very nice but not likely to happen. I also think we have too many holes to worry about starting pitching. What you want to do.... IS A REBUILD. Its clear we're not going to do that. We're not going to go out and get a Bourne or a Ludwick. We'll pocket the cash and trot our more scrubs. Regardless, to me thats STILL not worth our very young and still reletivly cheap starting first baseman. His bat run production is just too good to give up at such a young age when we clearly dont have a lot going on. Same thing with Niese. hes a young cheap lefty whos improving every year. With The Outfield, catcher, bullpen, AND a few Sp arms needed, you cant get rid of Ike when its clear we wont do much more to improve the line up. You stock up a surplus of pitching if you had nine guys capable of playing baseball. We dont. Ike might be our best glove and he is our only power threat. Now that we're stuck with DW, you cant get rid of a guy in his mid twenties NOW who can produce like that. SOMEONE has got to protect DW