"Even with the Mets having trade options in hand, a person familiar with the situation said Friday that there is a growing sense that they will pass because the prospective deals aren't good enough to move the reigning Cy Young Award winner. This represents a shift in thinking from the winter meetings, when trading Dickey looked just as likely as retaining him. But the person said there's no guarantee that staying with the Mets would come with a contract extension past 2013 for Dickey"

It becomes clearer and clearer that this organization has no real plan. The fact that they've even acknowledged possibly going into the season with Dickey not signed to an extension is amazing.

I just read Ryan Dempster has turned down a 2/$26 million and a 2/$25 million from two different teams, but we think 2/$20 million is a fair offer for the Cy Young winner.

either not trading dickey,going into 2013 without a dickey being signed past that year would be a failure . its like doing something smart,like not trading him for a unacceptable package to doing something dumb like not extending him beyond 2013.

im not understanding the mindset here.

Have we actually resigned him yet? This is likely more b.s. posturing by the Mets to get teams to ante up. If we do sign him, I wouldn't be that upset if it meant that we would be trading Jon Niese for a better haul than Dickey could have conjured.

i personally think his 2 year 26 million request is a fair offer.

"But the person said there's no guarantee that staying with the Mets would come with a contract extension past 2013 for Dickey"

Well, if you can't believe "the person", who can you believe? :)

Wow.

Well, this rebuild sure is going in the right direction. Because what team doesn't rebuild by resigning 38 year old pitchers to a 2 year contract when the team is terrible?

Makes perfect sense.

i woudlnt be upset if we signed him and traded niese (for a good package) either.but i atleast want them to sign him

Neither Dickey or the Mets want to go into the season without an extension.

The only reason they go into the season with Dickey unsigned is so they don't have to put a "no-trade" clause in his contract. This way he can be traded at the deadline if the team is out of it. Otherwise with a new contract and that clause Dickey could veto any trade.

Highly doubtful that the Mets would concede a NTC in a Dickey contract negotiation. Those things are quickly becoming a thing of the past, and a rebuilding team like the Mets would be beyond stupid for doing so...

id rather have that 38 y/o pitcher on a 2 year 13 per season deal than most 28 y/o's on a 80-100 million dollar deal.the results would be around the same

But, considering they're anonymous, shouldn't a team source put out something to reassure fans and say there's no way they'd go into the season without him either being dealt or signed to an extension? Why must basically everything we hear from these sources be troubling?

That would not make much sense from a negotiating stand point.

There are a lot of balls in the air but alot of what was said was said for a reason

Mets know Dickey wants an extention and does not want to simply pitch out his 2013 contract as he has everything to lose, He will be good again but will he win a second Sy? What if something happens? Add to that assuming he pitches even half as well in 2013 the Mets would give him a qualified offer which would be one year and around 13 Mill resulting in any team who signs him giving up a draft pick,

Now figure unless he wins 20 games how many teams will be lining up to pay 26 Mill for two years for a 39 year old on top of giving up the picks?

So the idea of them letting him just play out 2013 is for leverage.

As far as the other comments they are holding out for the best offer, Many here bashed Omar over Santana and said alot but at the end of the day he got his man for as little as possible .

Between not bothering to trade Reyes and extending Wright, I think it's fairly clear they really don't plan on a rebuild. But they're also not trying to win either. If there actually is one, the plan continues to be baffling.

I'm sure they don't WANT to, but that doesn't convince me it wouldn't happen.

Do you think they're negotiating based on an anonymous source in a Newsday article?

lol