Think about it, maybe the issue isn't money with R.A. Maybe its a no trade clause.

If you believe like I do that the Mets first choice is to trade Dickey, then obviously having a Dickey under contract for 3 years gives him more value than the 1 year right now. Obviously having him signed is a good <fallback especially under market rate.

To me the only logical reason for not signing him yet, is if he is asking for a full no trade clause.

Thoughts?

P.S. why is the word (1 word) fall-back banned?

Starts with an F and ends with CK ???

good guess?

the sticking point is jeff wilpon feeling he has to beat everyone in negotiations.

no, the sticking point is that the mets want to trade him and so are stalling negotiations

thats what is so stupid about the whole "mets are lowballing and being cheap and blah blah blah" arguments from the "realists" on this board

reality check: the mets first choice is to trade dickey for 2 top prospects...that hasnt yet materialized....the mets have dickey under contract next season and hes made it known what he will sign for....the mets have offered a lower offer that will come up IF they can not make the trade happen....its really not that difficult to understand

oh and 3 years of dickey doesnt have more value bc a lot of teams are skeptical that he is worth that type of deal....its actually been said REPEATEDLY that teams would rather acquire him at 1 year/5 mil instead of 3 years/31 mil (or likely even 3 years/25 mil)

If teams are skeptical he's worth a three year below market deal why in the world would they trade two top prospects for him?

The sticking point is actually a NMC clause

No mountain climbling, or any other stupid thing that could jeopardize your career under contract.

bc the value that he offers in the short term to a team competing for a world series is worth it...also they know hes OPEN to a reasonable extension if he can show that last year was not a fluke

and, in the end, they wont trade their top 2 prospects for him

eventually the deal that will be in the middle ground will be one of a teams top 2 prospects and then another top 10 prospect that would on the fringes of a top 100 list

and its not below market if the market has yet to be determined

the tops that the market would go on dickey is a 4 year deal worth roughly 40 mil

Im pretty sure you didnt actually read my post as you began to explain what I already said.

Understanding that the Mets want to trade Dickey is at the foundation of my hypothesis, My point wouldn't make any sense if you removed that, so why did you go on a long tangent about it? Obviously they want to trade him, but equally obvious is that plan B is retaining him. When I say they would like to sign him without a NTC its because they want to trade him...hence the No trade Clause. Signing him at less than market rate now without a NTC would have given them flexibility to do plan A better (trade) without jeopardizing plan B (retaining).

You are wrong about him having more value at 1 year when a team could control him for 3 years at less than market value. If a team is inclined to trade a couple of prospects for the guy, they'd want the most for them. The Mets would probably have signed him already, as it would enhance their position on the sell market, because having a CY Young award winner under team control is attractive to potential buyers, but not if there's a no trade clause.

A) i didnt miss your point - the point is they dont WANT to have him under contract beyond this year UNLESS they are keeping him....so the delay is that they are waiting on a trade

B) YES he does have more value as a one year rental... you should read an article or two about it b/c it has been written about ad nauseum - teams have expressed that they would rather not take on his contract once it is expanded to 3 years/ ~28-31 mil .... the general consensus is that the mets can actually get more for him at 1 year/5 mil than at 3 years /28-31 mil, however the fact that he is WILLING to sign a reasonable extension adds to his value as teams would like to have the option to resign him if he continues to pitch at that level...it may be your opinion that he SHOULD have more value if resigned but the truth is all evidence points to the contrary

I can't believe that, even if teams are saying that. I'm calling that a bluff for negotiation posturing. How could you say in all seriousness that 3 years at say 33mil give or take is not favorable for a CY Young winner? That's foolish, especially if you already gave up a top prospect. You would wan to think that it was worth giving up a long term piece in your prospect for the guy, no?

I'll tell you what, I will bump this if a team trades for Dickey and doesn't at least attempt to extend him.

now im actually hearing that this is not the case but that the mets refuse to do it bc it would be bad form and would harm them in future negotiations...which i do get...they probably saw all the heat that the marlins took for trading reyes and MB after the "gentleman's agreement" and don't want to risk having to overpay in the future bc players think they may sign and trade them

either way, it was out there for about 2 weeks, which goes to show you that you can't necessarily believe what reporters say during the offseason bc half of it is bull

" ...which goes to show you that you can't necessarily believe what reporters say during the offseason bc half of it is bull"

..Which is why I don't, too. I like to do my own critical thinking, even if it turns out I'm wrong. I didn't look up anything when I posted this, I just thought it made sense.

The argument you just made makes more sense to me as a counter argument - that they don't want to pretend they were interested only to then turn around and trade him. I get that actually, but I think players understand that its pretty much all business, while they may feel upset about it initially (which is not irrational in the moment when it happens) I think they come to understand, that in fact, there was a priority all along and nevertheless WOULD have been appreciated if not for the trade.

Now the other piece that I didn't know about until someone told me (I think on this forum) was that the potential team has the ability to see if the player in question would sign with the tentative team he would be traded to. Of course having him signed without the NTC eliminates that hurdle anyway.

See, of course the Jays wanted to sign him that's what the entire deal hinged on.

Just for claims purposes, I didn't know teams were allowed to explore an extension just before trade finalization, but the general concept of my point remains the same. Its obvious teams want a player they are trading top prospects for, under control for more than a year.