Image by Keith Allison via Flickr
A couple of writers that I’ve never heard of at the NY Times are touting the idea of the Mets trading for Roy Halladay and Vernon Wells. I hope that Elena Gustines and Jay Schreiber are only temporarily filling in for Ben Shipgel on the Bats blog there. We need the voice of reason back.
The writers touch on the idea of multiple needs on the Mets (and forgot to mention the Mets need a first baseman that can hit). They also only touch on the fact that trading for Halladay and Wells adds $36 million to the Mets payroll next year, which is the total amount that the Mets are likely to add based on the salaries that are coming off the books.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind the idea of bringing in Halladay and Wells. The problem that Gustines and Schreiber don’t address is how complicated it’s going to be to reconfigure the roster to address the existing shortcomings at catcher and first base within the $140 million payroll.
Let’s face it. We all know that this is Omar Minaya and Jerry Manuel’s last season with the Mets if they don’t win in 2010. Do you think they’re dumb enough to entrust their careers to Daniel Murphy at first base and Omir Santos at catcher for the entire season? I don’t. And that would be the scenario if they trade for Halladay and Wells, barring a massive reconfiguration of the roster.
To pull off this move, the Mets would need to unload Luis Castillo for starters which hasn’t proved to be easy. They would probably need to get rid of another player(s) in the $10 million/year range to cover the salary of bringing in a second baseman and catcher. It starts to get very complicated, more so than is likely to be realistic in one offseason.
It’s a nice headline for Gustines and Schreiber to advocate a trade with the Blue Jays for Halladay, even if it means taking Wells’ salary back. But it doesn’t look like they’ve thought this through. They must be taking their queues from Mike Francesa at WFAN without giving proper consideration to the roster as a whole.
The Mets Report 
I did a blog post on this very issue two weeks ago. I concluded that if the Halladay deal had to include Wells I would pass on it for the following reasons.
1. Wells has too much money remaining on his contract (I can't pay a .260 hitter that much money)
2. Where would Wells play? Assuming the Mets would NOT trade Beltran in this deal where would Wells play? Thats too much money for him to just sit on the bench.
3. I am assuming the BlueJays would not give the Mets a window to negotiate a long term deal with Halladay before the trade is official therefore the Mets would still have to try and sign Halladay long term. That's a risk I am not willing to take.
4. Dave – I know we disagree on this but in my opinion John Lackey is a better option. Long term he would most likely cost less money than Halladay (and Wells combined), plus we wouldn't have to give up any players in a trade to get him. Granted Halladay is a step or two above Lackey but I think Lackey rates to be better in the NL.
LikeLike
I'll agree with you that Lackey would cost less. There's no denying that. I read that the Blue Jays will give a window to negotiate with Halladay but who knows if that's true? The Blue Jays would give Halladay away for nothing to any team that would take Wells too. I think the idea for the Mets is for Wells to play left field. I'm not saying it's a great idea, but the Mets could get both players for next to nothing. Then they're stuck with Wells' bad contract though. It's a tough call.
LikeLike
mets should have been own by bloomberg screw the wilpons
LikeLike
Anthony, Lots of anti-Wilpon comments here and much of it is deserved. I'll jump on the bandwagon if they reduce the payroll this year. It was bad enough that they botched Citi Field. But they better keep putting money into the players.
LikeLike