Mets, Mariners Near Blockbuster Trade
There has been a fair bit of speculation in the last few days that the Mariners are preparing to move Robinson Cano to the Mets. Last night, most people went to bed expecting an announcement at some point today. Joel Sherman called the deal “near certain” to get done. Here’s his reported potential trade.
Mets Receive:
- Robinson Cano
- Edwin Diaz
- Some Cash
Mariners Receive:
On Tuesday, when I engaged in my own speculation and assessed Cano’s current trade value, I discussed how a deal with the Mets might look.
The reported potential framework of a deal involving Cano and $50 million going to the Mets comes close value-wise. The Mets are said to be trying to include Jay Bruce or receive Edwin Diaz or Mitch Haniger. There is a chance Cano could be packaged with Diaz or Haniger for some prospect return, but absent that, those two – particularly Haniger – don’t make sense to include as the Mariners try to rebuild; using those pieces to acquire talent for the Mariners next run at contention would seem to be a far better option than simply having to eat less money. As for Bruce and the $29 million owed to him over the next two seasons, that would likely need to come out of the money the Mariners are paying. Cano plus $30 million for Bruce is a deal that could make sense for both clubs. If the Mets were to insist on Diaz (the more likely supplemental piece to move) in the trade, New York would need to add prospects to the deal, essentially combining two separate trades into one.
Given what we know at this moment, separating this trade into two deals makes sense, so long as the rest of the money sent over to the Mariners is in the $20 million range. The first involves the Mets receiving Cano and whatever the Mariners don’t pick up of the $120 million he is due over the next five years. In turn, they move two contracts they no longer want. Anthony Swarzak is owed $8 million next season after a below replacement-level 2018 and Jay Bruce, who has been a replacement-level player since 2014 (with his pre-free agency 2017 the lone exception), is due $29 million. The Mariners sending somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 to $8 million annually from 2021 to 2023 would make this is a pretty reasonable deal for both sides, though it does lead to some questions about the Mets’ intentions, given both the other ways the club might have spent the money due to Cano and the fact that this trade is roughly salary neutral for the 2019 season, meaning that the Mets haven’t actually spent any more money yet.
Would they have been better off making the same salary commitment to A.J. Pollock, then signing a reasonably priced closer like David Robertson and keeping two of their best prospects? That’s the sort of question that comes with moves made by the Mets organization. Perhaps the club will now spend more money given that they’ve made two solid additions to the roster without adding any salary this season. According to Kiley McDaniel, the plan is to trade Noah Syndergaard — presumably to fill other holes cheaply — and then sign a free agent pitcher. That certainly doesn’t sound like a team getting ready to bust out after years of spending below their market.
As for second part, and arguably the more important part, of the trade, we see an elite reliever with four years of team control and a minimum salary in 2019 moved for a back-end top-100 prospect in first round pick Kelenic, a top-200 prospect in Justin Dunn, and a fungible reliever. The Mariners expressed resistance to the idea of trading Diaz earlier this offseason, but this is the sort of deal a rebuilding team should make given the lack of value their own team would receive on the mound in a losing season, and their need to replenish a depleted farm system.
This deal isn’t final yet. Will Trader Jerry continue his work on the farm? Will Brodie and Robbie reunite under the lights of the big city? Stay Tuned. We’ll have full trade analysis when the deal becomes official.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
The rest of the money is being reported as $60 million. Shoot me.
Saw that. I’d be surprised if DiPoto gave up that much cash without swapping Bautista for McNeil and/or asking for one of the Mets’ SS prospects.
Issue is that the M’s have no leverage with Cano as he has that no-trade. NYM is really the only option they have to get a deal done.
If the reports of 60M this actually turns into not a bad deal for Mets I think. They would basically then be getting Cano for 5/23 (after cash and Bruce and swarzak). Cano at that severely depressed price and Diaz for Kelenic (who admittedly seems like he is a year away from being a top 25 guy) Dunn and Batista is a fairly reasonable return. My only question is what do you do with McNeill then- can he play 3b?
McNeil can play 2B while Cano is relegated to 1B where he should be playing.
Peter Alonso deserves a fair shot at this point, doesn’t he? Cano at 3B, Frazier or Flores trade or as 1B/3B/LF backup?
Robinson is fine at 2B. He’s not a gold glove candidate but his bat is above average for the position, whereas at 1B he’d have a more average bat.
The math is off because you are assuming zero contribution from Bruce and Swarzak. I would guess both bounce back to be useful players and combine for at least 3 WAR.
Bruce has had one season in the last 5 with higher than .4 WAR. Swarzak has had one season in the last 9 with higher than .8 WAR. With all due respect it seems like someone else’s math is off.
Isn’t the reported $60 million figure including the $37 M from Bruce and Swarzak? If not, yes, that does change the deal considerably.
Martino is reporting 60M is cash and doesn’t include the Bruce and swarzak contracts.
He’s now backtracking and saying the $60M may or may not include some of the Bruce/Swarzak offset.
From what I’ve seen, $37mm is Bruce + Swarzak and $23mm is Cash.
That makes sense to me but we’ll see once the trade is announced.
“so long as the rest of the money sent over to the Mariners is in the $20 million range.”
what about the $60M range as now being reported?
I really hate being a Mariners fan sometimes. Why did I have to live in Seattle in 1995???
You got to see some good local music though.
Mariners are big in Belgium
I don’t disagree that trading Diaz or the right (or at least very defensible) move, but that return seems quite light considering what other elite relievers have gotten in recent years.
It may not be Justice Sheffield and Clint Frazier or Gleyber Torres, but it’s not bad considering it’s the only way they can move Cano.
That’s not true
I agree that the return is fair, if not just a tad much for Diaz.
The moves for Chapman and Miller were made midseason to teams that were actively contending and trying to get over the hump to make and win the World Series. They also included more established players who were clearly at or near the height of their performance at the time that they were traded, which lessened any perceived risk of their performance bottoming out.
While Diaz was incredible in 2016 and last year, 2017 was much less encouraging. Would we be shocked if he didn’t return Top 5 reliever value next year? And, given that the Mets, even with these moves, may only be borderline contenders, I’d think they would want a bit more of an offseason discount here as they don’t have the same desperation that Chicago and Cleveland had in 2015.
This is such a weird deal…both teams are simultaneously rebuilding and stocking up on major leaguers
What major leaguers are the M’s stocking? They are taking back Bruce and Swarzak on short term deals, who will both be gone after next season, but possibly sooner if they can flip them.
There’s no evidence the M’s want to flip those guys. My theory is the Mariners think they will actually contribute and make a fringe playoff run more likely
Disagree 100%. They are salary dumps plain and simple.
Their other trades this off-season have been centered around MLB-ready players; Mallex Smith, Justus Sheffield. Dipoto is sending mixed messages on the timeframe for his rebuild.
I don’t really know what to think about this deal because it is actual major league players getting traded.
What a great trade for the Mets. Block a 26 year old second year player (McNeal who had an 852 OPS 140 OPS+) w 5 years of control with a 36 year old veteran who had an 845 OPS 136 OPS+) who costs millions more and has the benefit of being suspended for PEDS already. Then, improve the bullpen by trading 2 former first round draft picks, PLUS a young flame throwing lottery card. Yeah baby. Plus as Cano ages he can slide to first base, blocking the Mets #1 prospect who hit 35 home runs in AAA or the DH role which the NL has not. What a brilliant trade.
PS> Does the Commissioner have the powers to revoke a franchise or trade for stupidity reasons?
“Does the Commissioner have the powers to revoke a franchise or trade for stupidity reasons?”
Jeffery Loria can answer that for you.
McNeill can play 3rd. He played there plenty in the minors.
He played 12 games at 3B in the minors last year and made 3 errors.
He played 105 games there in 2014, 28 games in 2015, and started 1 of the 3 games he played in 2016 there. Last year was not his only year in the minors. Also, errors are not an accurate measure of defensive skill.
He was slotted into second because of his weak arm. Played third a whopping 12 games in the minors and made 3 errors. Last season, even with Frazier injured, they played Reyes @ 3b because they felt McNeal couldn’t field the position.
The Mets get older, hurt their D, and get more expensive.
To be fair to McNeil, it could be that they played Reyes at 3B just because the Mets didn’t realize they were using his 2012 player page to evaluate his performance until September.
See what I said above in response to MrMet33 (are you guys the same person?).
Additionally, they played Reyes at 3rd not because they thought McNeil couldn’t do it but because they are dumb as hell and were determined to get Reyes as much playing time as possible. They honestly felt he deserved it.
Also, they’re not really getting older. Average age of Cano/Diaz =30. Average age of Bruce/Swarzak = 31.
They’re not really getting more expensive either, if the numbers that are being reported are accurate. In fact, they would be saving money in 2019 and breaking even in 2020.
They’re also not hurting their D since both DRS and UZR preferred Cano’s play at 2nd base to McNeil’s.
I honestly don’t love the trade and I’ll be furious if they don’t find a place for McNeil to play because I’m a huge fan of his. But stop with these false narratives please.
I am confident that the Mets will either find a roles for both Cano and McNeil, or be able to trade McNeil for some other really good players.
You know what, I take part of this back: I have no doubt that a competent team would find roles for Both Cano and McNeil, or be able to trade McNeil for some other really good players.
I don’t know enough about the new Mets’ FO to know if this is actually going to happen, although I think there’s a better chance than not they get plenty of value out of McNeil one way or another.
I’m not surprised to see an idiotic anti-Mets post in this thread, but I am very shocked to see it summarily mocked and downvoted.
“Does the Commissioner have the powers to revoke a franchise or trade for stupidity reasons?”
If he did the LOLMets would never get to make another trade.
The comments suggest that this deal is a lose-lose from the fans perspective. Gotta love that.
i dont like this for either team
Every 75-win team should trade good prospects for a closer and an aging bad contract. Those extra wins from Diaz could get them near .500!
The Mets had a ridiculously bad May and June due to a ton of their guys being hurt at the same time. The 77 win record is misleading. They were the best team in the NL East over the last 82 games (45-37).
I would put them mid 80s before doing anything, and this move makes them a fringey contender. If they do some more shoring up moves they will be near the top of the NL. That lineup especially is gonna be really good assuming Canó doesn’t crater.
It’s probably going to take 95+ wins to take the NL East in 2019 given the other teams and where they are right now.
The Mets lineup has holes in the infield, even with Cano, and pitchers get injured (last year the Mets finally had decent luck with SP health, will they again?).
The Mets being in that range to win the division would require a cascade of best-case scenarios, and then they would still need all 3 of the Phils, Braves, and Nats to not have great years and edge them out. If everything breaks right, maybe they could find themselves in the wild card race but that should be a consolation prize and not a goal (it should be a floor not a ceiling) for an organization that decides it’s gunning for the present and trading guys like Kelenic.
The Mets did not have particularly bad luck last year. They had some injuries, but their top-4 starters all started at least 25 games which is rarer than you might think and I imagine DeGrom will not be quite as amazing next season. Right now, I see the Mets at around 80-85 wins. They might be the 4th best team in the division when 2019 starts which is why it makes no sense for me for them to be going all-in.
“Every 75-win team should trade good prospects for a closer and an aging bad contract.”
Best summary of this trade yet. Only the LOLMets would ever do this.
When I went to bed and thought it was McNeil instead of Bautista, I was like “okay, I don’t like how the Mariners got there but I get it.” With Bautista instead of McNeil, it looks like a really bad deal for the Mariners and a great one for the Mets.
The whole process of the Mariners trading Robinson Cano makes little sense to me. They don’t actually have to trade him! But they seem to be convinced they have to, and including one of your most valuable players to complete the deal is not something that helps you win in the future compared to exchanging Diaz for a better return. He’s arguably the most dominant closer in the league and he’s got a million years of control left. Trading him for Kelenic, Dunn, and Bautista is a very light return, and saying “well, this is the cost of moving Cano’s contract” doesn’t make it better because you don’t. have. to. trade. Cano. And that’s before the questions about how much money they’re eating/taking back.
From the Mets perspective, they give up a super-talented guy in rookie-ball who could be a perennial all-star but doesn’t fit their contention window (a 50 as of now, I’m curious to see what Kiley and Eric make of him after rookie-ball), a guy with good stuff but some command/workload questions and might wind up in the bullpen (45+), and a probable okay-ish reliever and get arguably the best closer in the league (40). This deal is so good for the Mets that if they decided to reverse course in two years after deGrom’s contract is up, they might be able to trade his remaining 2 controllable years for something similar to what the 50/45+/40 they gave up (not guaranteed, maybe not even likely but possible based on the Chapman/Jansen contracts).
(Oh, and they also get to pay somewhere between $30-60M for a guy projected to be an above-average regular for a couple of years, an average regular in year three, and then a bench-level piece for a couple of years. Obviously this part of the deal depends on whether they get to pay fair value for him–in which case it’s a wash–or whether he’s highly subsidized, in which case this part is also a heist)
There are ways this could turn out well for the Mariners, but they mostly revolve around Kelenic fulfilling his potential and become an all-world center fielder (or Dunn or Bautista turning into another Diaz, which actually seems even less likely to me). Considering Kelenic is a cold-weather bat and his skills he’s got all the potential in the world, and you could see him turning into a superstar. So if the Mariners win this deal, they’re going to win big. But given the bust rate of toolsy guys in rookie ball, it’s not *that* likely. And did I mention they didn’t have to move Cano? Have I said that yet?
DiPoto makes Jack Z look like the man
I disagree.
I think DiPoto’s a little behind the times, but part of that is that front offices are just smarter now, and he’s not the worst GM in the league.
In contrast, Jack Z was likely the worst general manager in the league in an era with lots of bad general managers.
Some of the bad GMs were quite entertaining. Remember how Ruben Amaro, Jr., didn’t understand the difference between ABs and PAs?
Good times.
Dave Stewart was probably my favorite. But in comparison to Steward and Amaro, Jack Z wasn’t any fun. He was just depressing.
It makes you wonder if that incredible run where the Brewers picked Fielder, Weeks, and Braun was really him or someone else (or if he just got lucky).
Let me just clarify one thing: Kelenic really does have the ability to become the best center fielder we’ve seen this century excepting Mike Trout. He’s also in rookie ball and while he was good, he didn’t dominate and he clearly has stuff to work on. This trade will look great for the Mariners if Kelenic turns into an all-star. It’s also a long, long way away from that and it’s still more likely things go wrong than go right.
How much (if any) excess money did you see in Cano’s 5/120 remaining contract years?
Valuing Cano is not all that easy. Craig had an article up on it a few days ago, and if you’re using a $9M/win framework (which is too high, but it doesn’t matter, since that is what the prospect values are pegged to as well) then you’re looking at $80M of value. But he has a no-trade clause, and he’s coming off of a PED suspension, and he is old, so this was always going to a buyers market. Given the limited leverage from the Mariners’ perspective, I pegged about $60M to be about right (Craig was more at about $70M), and thought maybe a team could squeeze the Mariners down to about $55M. Beyond that, I’m not sure if it’s worth it to trade the guy, because you need to save enough money to reinvest down the line. There is some value in actually winning games, especially since the Mariners aren’t doing a full-scale teardown.
Agreed on your number, and your risk assessment. And your variance statement- its always in the equation. IMO the variance is why opinions vary. Thanks.
They need one more real prospect to make me feel good about this deal. Like you, I was coming around on a package including Kelenic + McNeil, but with Dunn’s relief risk I really want one more potential regular or starter to avoid putting this deal in the conversation for one of the top-10 bad deals in franchise history.
But, as I said in a post further down, I think there’s ownership intervention at play here so I’m not confident the deal will meaningfully improve over what’s been publicly reported.
I think some are overrating Diaz’s value. This is a guy one year removed from posting a FIP / xFIP of about 4.00.
Love the team control, and he was obviously incredible last year. But neither he nor the Mets are at the level that Chapman / Miller and the Cubs / Indians were at in 2015, or where Kimbrel was the offseason prior.
There’s risk here for the Mets too in trading their “top prospect” (not including Alonso).
His xFIP by year: 1.88, 3.94, 1.78. His most recent FIP/xFIP is right in line with Chapman and Miller’s the years they were traded, consistent with his 2016, and he has 3.5 more years of control than Chapman and 1.5 more years of control than Miller the years they were traded. Maybe he’s only 90% of what Chapman was (and, like 97% of Miller), but I think most teams would value 4 years of that production over half a year of Chapman. He’s also 4 years younger than Chapman and 7 younger than Miller when they were traded.
There’s some hindsight bias in comparing deals where one piece really looks to have made it, but this is less of a haul for Diaz than either team got for significantly less service time of comparably dominant closers. Torres was a back-end Top-100 guy like Kelenic, but McKinney was also legitimate hitting prospect in his own right. Frazier and Sheffield, given their 2016 status, was a bigger haul than Kelenic and Dunn is today, for 1.5 years of a pitcher in his 30s.
I don’t think we’re overrating Diaz by calling this package light.
Agree with your overall point but Torres was an FV55 or top 25 or so prospect at the time of the trade, not a back-end Top-100. That’s what makes that Chapman trade such an outlier that can’t be comp’d to anything. I use the Kimbrel trade instead.
I would argue that Torres was something like an FV60 at the time of the trade. Eric had him as an FV55, but everyone else had him higher and Eric almost immediately upgraded him once he looked him in the offseason (had him as the #7 prospect in baseball at that point, although some of that improvement was what he did in the month after he was traded to the Yankees). He had a lot of helium in what was already a very well-regarded profile.
I would generally agree that the Chapman trade is something that doesn’t make sense as a benchmark. It was such a ludicrous overpay for a half-season of a reliever. I agree the better benchmarks are Andrew Miller (also an overpay, but not as egregious) and Craig Kimbrel.
Yeah, I was underrating Torres back in 2016. He came into that year as 41 on both BA and BP, and had improved his stock that year.
Yes, agreed that it’s a bit of a Catch 22. If Diaz were more established, he wouldn’t have as many controllable years. So how do you weight the risk of maintaining his 2018 performance against the fact that he’ll be cheap for another four years?
There is undeniably more risk in Diaz maintaining Top 5 RP value next year than there was in Chapman and Miller maintaining that level for the duration of 2016, and a ton more upside in that they’ll have him cheaply for four more years.
That’s why it’s difficult to compare the returns in the first place. Outside of the players being relievers, there isn’t a lot in common, with a very relevant piece being the acquiring team’s proximity to a World Series title.
It’s also worth mentioning that Diaz’s 2016 performance was significantly better in his first two months than it was from August onward, where his over-reliance on his fastball led to an inability to prevent HRs and produced an ERA ~3.75 in the season’s final months. He’s really only had one elite full season.
PS. Miller was better than Chapman in 2016 himself, not even factoring in the additional control.
As a Mets fan, this trade makes no sense to me. Why give up top prospects for a closer when there’s a bunch of stud free agent relievers? Hopefully it’s not just Brodie undervaluing the prospects because he didn’t draft them so they’re not “his guys”.
Because they wanted $60m instead of $30m. I think that’s shortsighted, but that is what they have always done: prioritize saving money.
SadTrombone has your answer. They are getting a fantastic deal on Diaz! He should command an FV55 or Top 45 prospect in the game as the headliner (since that’s what Kimbrel required in Margot a few years ago) and instead they only have to give up Kelenic, an FV50 or #85 prospect as the headliner.
Seattle should only have to throw in $6M in cash (I put the calculation in the previous Craig post on Cano) after they take Bruce & Swarzak. If the Mets are getting significantly more, this is a crazy steal for the Mets and a mind-boggling one for the Mariners. Why are they so desperate to shed Cano’s liability that they would hamstring the return on their best asset? Will they do something with the Cano savings or save it for Year 4 or 5 of their rebuild?
From the Mets’ side, of course, if you add a great closer (who has no comparable on the FA market), what else do you need to add to the rest of the team to compete in the tough NL East? They could still trade Diaz in 2 years for more than Kellenic and Dunn if things don’t work out on their “going for it” plans.
This is shaping up to be a very exciting offseason!!!
Thank you. They don’t need to trade Cano. Cano is good. He might still be very good.
Putting Diaz on the level of pre-2015 Kimbrel is overrating him.
Kimbrel had accumulated 11.1 fWAR in his four full seasons prior to being traded (averaging ~2.8 fWAR), and consistently posted ERA / FIP / xFIPs under 2.00.
While Diaz was amazing last year, he put up a FIP / xFIP of ~4.00 in 2017 and only 1.0 fWAR. His 2016 also was not on the level of his 2018, although admittedly was closer to, if not only slightly below, Kimbrel’s average season between 2011-2014.
Fair point. Kimbrel had two 3-win, two 2-win, and one 1.5-win seasons under his belt at the time of his trade to the BoSox. He also had a 3 year, $35M contract. Diaz has had 3-win, 2-win, and 1-win seasons and has 4 years of control at something like $18.5M.
Kimbrel put up 1.2, 3.3, and 1.5 win seasons with the BoSox. What’s the case (outside injury) that Diaz can’t match that and give the Mets one more year to boot?
I’m thinking that 1 extra year of cheap control makes Diaz even more valuable than Kimbrel was, but I’m fine with calling them even given Kimbrel’s longer track record.
The case is general volatility of relievers.
He relies heavily on his dominant fastball to play up an average-to-above-average slider. Of course this isn’t unlike other relievers, but that’s why I look for more of a track record to establish value in relievers. Show me you can live off of 1-2 pitches at an elite level for more than one season, and I can get more excited
Not the best comp considering his foray into the rotation, but we could be looking at Joba Chamberlain. He’d shown us 1.5 years of amazing too.
Even look at Dellin Betances, who was able to bounce back this year after a very down 2017, but he has a ++ breaking ball to rely on 50%+ of the time, which Diaz does not as of now.
Or Tommy Kahnle, who’s controllable years were seen, by some, as the centerpiece of the deal that sent him to the Yankees. Of course he spent the majority of this year in AAA.
So even in a good but not best case scenario, you could be getting a reliever who ping pongs between 1-3 win seasons, and you’re giving up an OF who could be a future 5-6 win player, although he is far from realizing that.
Relievers just don’t carry the same value in the offseason trade market as they do midseason, when their return is highly predicated moreso on their immediate value than future control.
Jeff Sullivan wrote an article this summer called “How Well Do Good Relievers Hold Up?” and concluded that the volatility was overstated. I’d also say that volatility occurs more amongst non-closers than closers, though this is more from my memory than any study I’ve read. So I wouldn’t use any of those Yankee setup men as comparisons for Diaz.
I’m also not sure how you’re imagining a 5-6 win season for Kelenic, who isn’t yet as good a prospect as Margot was and Margot hasn’t turned out to be even a 3-win player yet.
If there’s something idiosyncratic you’ve noticed about Diaz that makes him susceptible to “losing it” or if he reminds you of another closer who was fantastic (15k/9 – 2bb/9) and then collapsed, let’s hear it. Else, I think he can match Kimbrel’s Red Sox performance and the Mets got a steal!
Fair points, and while the volatility may be overstated, it is still evident. Just look at Diaz’s own career.
Margot is not specifically relevant here, outside of being the return piece for Kimbrel. But, point taken: prospects don’t always hit. Kelenic was just the 6th overall pick, and put up legit numbers in the only professional sample we have. His upside is higher than Diaz’s, regardless of how likely or unlikely that is of coming to fruition.
I also never said that he’d collapse, but I don’t think he need to for the M’s to come out on top here. They’re undoubtedly selling high, and usually teams trading for closers are more positioned to win in the immediate future, thus offsetting the players future volatility. Are the Mets there?
If Kelenic becomes anything of significance (3+ win player), and Diaz is just, say, Dellin Betances, who I think is a very good comp (despite not being “closer”, although he lost that job more than once over the years), or even Craig Kimbrel, and they don’t win a World Series with him contributing, then will they really be happy?
They are taking a far greater risk than the M’s are. They obviously feel like they’re close. We’ll see.
Even after reading this, I’m really not sure what the Mets gain from the move. And I actually like it quite a bit more from the Mariners side than I first thought. But still, this is a huge trade that doesn’t seem like a true firesale on one side or true needle mover on the other.
Worst deal ever for the Mets! The worst thing for a team is if they are not fully committed for competing and making big investments, or not fully committed to rebuilding. Doing this stupid dance were they pretend (or even worse actually think) they are gonna be winning is a nice way to flush money and many seasons down the drain.
Make no mistake. They’re going for it.
I’d be shocked if they proceeded with talks surrounding Syndergaard after making this deal.
Brodie! Stop the shenanigans! Go sign Daniel Murphy and David Robertson and keep your farm system. “Say No to caNO”
“41-year-old Robinson Cano” is maybe the most Metsy of all possible Mets players.
It’s also going to be so Mets when they announce in 2021 that they can’t sign a guy to a big contract while paying off Cano, while also saying they won’t bench Cano or move him off of 2nd or out of the top half of the order out of respect for the veteran. People in this comment thread are acting like the Mets will be rational in the last few years of his deal. There’s just nothing in their history that says they will be.
Luckily for them he’ll be a FA at 41
There is a remote possiblity–very remote, in all likelihood–that if this deal does go through and if the Mets are good enough to make the playoffs in 2023, the final year of Cano’s current contract, they could have a 41-year old Cano playing for them on or after October 22, 2023(and that’s the only way–if they are in the playoffs, either NLCS or World Series, depending on how the schedule breaks down in 2023).
But yeah, probably won’t happen. 😉
You can easily see him turning into the Mets’ next Robbie Alomar by the end of his contract, but with Diaz included the deal has a chance to be a good one for the Mets even if he does.
This has shades of the Bedard debacle, where every day a report comes in that the other team is asking more (or, in this case, offering yes) and the Ms FO is going along with it.
This screams ownership intervention to me. Can’t imagine DiPoto makes this deal if his hands aren’t tied. In this case it could be a double-bind: an ownership mandate to trade Cano and Cano using his no-trade to say it’s New York or nothing. I don’t love all the moves DiPoto’s made but he doesn’t strike me as so dumb that he doesn’t have a basic understanding of Cano’s value.
You might be on to something.
The splitting of the “two” deals helps me wrap my head around the different pieces, but why does it feel like the Mariners lost both trades then?
Part 1 – Cano is still a valuable contributor (as opposed to Bruce/ Swarz who are both ~0.5 WAR) and the $60M number being referenced by others doesn’t make sense if you’re the one giving up the good player.
Part 2 – Can someone at FanGraphs do a recap returns for high-end relievers? I know we’re past the Miler & Chapman returns and we can’t all be Brian Cashman, but this package feels light. Kelenic has upside and Dunn has a solid floor, but Diaz was the de-facto best reliever last year and I thought would fetch more.
Ironically, even though the Mets “win” both parts of the deal, I’m still left super confused where they think they are in the rebuild vs contend curve? Does adding Cano & Diaz really help them catch the Phils/Nationals/Braves?
This is the most interesting and worst trade (from all perspectives) I think I’ve seen in a long time.
It doesn’t cleanly split into those two trades. Mariners get Kelenic, Dunn (solid starter or closer upside,) and Bautista (7th inning to possible closer upside.) Kelenic is a 6 overall pick and has considerable upside so his inclusion likely is what gives us the inclusion of some of Cano’s money.
I’ll take a stab using the Kimbrel for Margot (FV55), Asuaje (FV45), and 2 FV40’s 3 years ago.
Diaz seems to only have returned Kelenic (50FV) + Dunn (45+) + Bautista (40). From Craig Edward’s recent work on prospect value, the drop from Margot to Kelenic is $18M-$22M and the lack of a 2nd FV40 is another $2M. So, say for simplicity, a loss of $22M versus the Kimbrel deal.
We thought if Cano were a FA now, he’d get something like a 3 yr, $55M deal. He’s owed $120M, so the M’s need to buy down $65M just to give him away for free. The M’s are taking back Bruce & Swarzak who are owed $37M and will give the Mets some cash as well.
Something tells me, the M’s won’t give back $28M cash but more like $6M cash after subtracting the loss they take from settling on Kelenic as their headliner instead of a 55. Thus, to save ~$75M ($120M – $37M – cash they give to Mets), they settle for an FV50 headliner instead of an FV55 in return for Diaz.
*I’m making some crude assumptions like Cano could get 3X$18M like Kiley thought Donaldson would get. If he’s more like Cozart’s 3X$13M, then the M’s would need to $15M more cash or $21M cash total to the Mets.
1) I think there are some reasonable questions about how much Cano is worth. If the Mariners are taking back/covering $60M that part looks like it’s a win for both sides. If the Mariners are taking back/covering $80M or more then it’s definitely a win for the Mets.
2) The Diaz part of the deal is a screaming bargain for the Mets. It is a light return.
3) This absolutely helps them catch the Phils/Nationals/Braves, especially if they can upgrade at some combination of catcher, shortstop, and center field.
Rosario will be the SS, and I don’t know that you’ll see any significant move for an OF considering they’ll have Conforto, Nimmo, Cespedes (at some point), and Lagares. They’ll be in the market for a 4th OF type, but nothing major.
Wilson Ramos should be their next target. They could really use a RH bat.
It’s a good move for the Mets if they continue to make additions, which I think is a fair expectation given BVW’s aggressive approach thus far. Plus, this deal being salary neutral for the upcoming season should mean even the penny-pinching Wilpons will bring out the checkbook at least once or twice.
At a minimum, I would expect the team to sign another high-end reliever (Andrew Miller, perhaps) and address the opening in the outfield, especially given the uncertainty in Cespedes’s health, both in the short-term and long-term. With two or three additional moves of significance, I think this team can be at least somewhat competitive even in a tough NL East.
Outside of the main discussion, which is that the trade works out pretty fairly, whether by luck or opportunism the Mariners picked up Bruce and Swarzak at the perfect time. Because of the last year Bruce just had, he went from being valuable piece who was a pretty consistent performer made redundant because of the current construction of the Mets to a straight up “bad contract” salary dump. Instead of fetching the Mets some sort of value as part of another trade, he actually costs them in this trade calculus. Because of current circumstance Mets kind of have to sell him, unfortunately at absolute rock bottom price and the Mariners are getting a good opportunity for another sale down the line. Despite what WAR says, the guy shows up every day, hits dingers, and even plays better defense than he receives credit for. Teams still want that. Swarzak has similar overall value upside but is less of a sure thing to meet it.
Jay Bruce has less than 0.5 WAR is 4 out of the past 5 seasons. So, yes, he was consistent – consistently replacement level.
War is an overall good metric, though far from the only one. It is not very good at the margins, which is where other ones become especially useful. So that aside, (in addition to the fact that I actually addressed your point in my original comment,) how does that refute my point? Say we do literally only use WAR. For purpose of simplicity, let’s say he can rebound up to 2017’s 2.6 WAR. That’s positive value. Say he does only achieve 0.5 WAR as you think, that’s still positive value. The Mets needed to get rid of him so they sold him after a throw away year where he was hurt and provided negative value. The Mariners are getting someone who will probably contribute “something” who as part of this particular trade was priced as somebody who will contribute “less than something.”
0.5 WAR for a season of at bats from a 32 year old on a rebuilding team is not positive value because it comes with the opportunity cost of blocking a younger player who might actually be part of the team’s future. Bruce will only be valuable to the Mariners if he bounces back and can be flipped for future pieces. The half a win of expected value means nothing to them.
Except that the Mariners farm system is so bad that he’s not blocking anyone. As the Mariners are selling off pieces one asset they do have is payroll space. They’re using that payroll space (in this case by picking up the contracts of Bruce and Swarzak) to get more talent back.
Which is exactly what they should be doing.
Meanwhile, the Mariners still need warm bodies to put a team on the field, and Swarzak and Bruce can fill those roles. Also, by picking up players coming back, potential MLBPA concerns about salary dumping are addressed.
“0.5 WAR for a season of at bats from a 32 year old on a rebuilding team is not positive value because it comes with the opportunity cost of blocking a younger player who might actually be part of the team’s future.” That discussion, while important to baseball as a whole, is not relevant to my point. What I’m saying is in the context of this trade, he was bought at a negative price, as in the Mets had to give up more value in prospects or cash for the Mariners to take him. You can see this by just imagining the deal where the Mets just give the three prospects, they would invariably have gotten much more money. The Mariners do consider him valuable, and although we can’t be sure exactly why, it is probably in hopes of a bounce back year so they can flip him. This is evidenced by the fact that they chose to take him and the money they now owe him over the additional money they would have had to send to the Mets in the deal without his inclusion. It is unlikely he is as bad this year as he was last year, so I think they do stand to gain something from this. You are correct in that 0.5 WAR does not directly mean something to a rebuilding team (under the assumption that they don’t care about their record, which is more or less true,) but it does indirectly pay off the better he performs because he will command that much more on the trade market.
0.5 WAR for an everyday player with Bruce’s salary is not “positive value” in any possible way you could conceive of that term. Above replacement level does not mean worth rostering.
Bruce’s main value to the M’s is helping them tank for draft position while giving the appearance of trying to remain competitive to casual fans who like dingers.
“Above replacement level does not mean worth rostering” Actually, that is quite literally what it means. Theoretically, replacement level is calculated to be the average level of production of your next best option who you would replace the player with, which will be the average “26th” man. Because it’s an average, the actual value you have to provide in terms of WAR to be the 25th man varies with quality of the ballclub. However, it can definitely be said that not many, if any ball clubs are good enough to have 25 players running half war and above seasons. Thus, in pure baseball terms he would be worth rostering. Especially considering the low actual value of whoever ends up being the Mariner’s 26th man. This is all beside the point that the Mariners don’t believe they’re getting a player solely defined “0.5 WAR.” Even though they quite obviously are trying to buy low in hopes of a bounce back, they probably assign other value calculations to players, like the ability to sell more tickets by appearing competitive that you yourself mention.
Most teams want to give those RL-26th-man-slots to 21-27 year-olds not to 32+ yr old journeymen like Jay Bruce. “Let’s give at-bats to see what we have in and develop this young player” is the idea.
But rebuilding teams by definition already have lots of younger players. They also need a few veterans to teach the younger ones. Outside of any and all performance, Bruce is widely recognized as well spoken and a good clubhouse guy. Teams all still want that. Many would take a slightly worse player who is clubhouse glue over a slightly better one who is a clubhouse cancer. So I can see how you might think that they specifically overpaid in terms of money for him, but I can’t get the apparent outrage that he could even be on a team. He might be good, will more probably be decent, and he will be a good leader. He will probably fetch a higher price on the trade market next year than what they got him for.
No, it isn’t “literally” what above replacement means. Above replacement means better than what you’d expect from the average organizational player called up from Triple-A. Whether a player who can give you marginally better than replacement level production is worth rostering depends on a lot of factors, including cost, whether or not he’d block someone who could be around longer or possibly get better, and where the team’s at in terms of expected win curve. Good teams, and teams trying to be good, don’t roster 0.5-win everyday players on purpose. Especially not 0.5-win players who are expensive and old.
In the abstract, “above replacement” means better than those who would replace him, which if every team is trying to win every game means shouldn’t be replaced. Obviously, every team doesn’t try to win every game but in order to create models you have to have some assumptions, and this assumption has been pretty much accepted at least in economic academia regarding baseball since Gerald Scully first calculated the marginal revenue product of baseball players in 1974. Obviously in concrete reality theoretical definitions break down a little bit, and that’s where your point comes into play. Every team’s replacement value will be different, because they have different options at their disposal. In the Mariner’s case, they are not a good team who is trying to be good, they are a mediocre team who is trying to be bad. That is why they have 0.5 WAR Jay Bruce, and that is why he’ll get playing time if he isn’t flipped first (also, nobody ever said he’s an every day player at this point either.) It’s simply a case where the cost they paid to acquire him will be less than either a. the price they can get to sell him, or b. the value he will provide to the franchise (ticket sales, mentorship, appearance of legitimacy, some actual baseball playing.)
Bruce is a sunk cost. It never made sense for the Mets to have re-signed him to the current deal in the first place, and considering the team’s outfield depth this is a better use of the dollars than he was. WAR says he kinda sucks because he kinda sucks but he has considerably more utility to an AL team with less outfield depth.
Yep. Which is part of the Mariners thinking as well.
In my youth I lived through the Mets rolling out an aging Roberto Alomar every day @ 2b. Now my children will tell tales of the Mets rolling out Cano every day @ 2B.
If Cano has any sense he will invoke his no-trade clause. Why would he want to go to the Mets (ahem)? The first time he has a slump or plays poorly because he is playing injured the Mets fans will savage him. Cano is set for life financially; why change anything?
The only way moving makes sense for Cano is if there is a third team involved.
It’s really not hard to see why:
– Have you forgotten that he was already stud player on the Yankees whose fans aren’t known for taking it easy on their stars (see: Stanton, Giancarlo during some slumps)
– He’s already dealt with the market before.
– He probably believes he can help the Mets make the playoffs considering that the team does happen to have some non-stiffs that are going to suit up with him (Nimmo, Conforto, McNeil, Alonso (fingers crossed)). Maybe Cespedes gains some semblance of his former self (but I’m not counting on it). An addition of someone like Grandal wouldn’t be out of the question I hope. There are also other RP arms available that could help a garbage bullpen.
– He’s Dominican. As a fellow Dominican who has been living on the west coast for a while, it’s just really different being surrounded by the vibe and culture that you find EVERYWHERE in NYC because there are so many of us in the city.
Because New York. He actually was considering the Yankees deal for 3 years and $65mil less because he loved the city and it’s far more convenient proximity to his home in the DR.
I seem to recall he still lives in NYC, and was actually lived in NJ in his youth? This may not be exactly correct, but he has a lot of ties to the area, and I’m sure it’s something that matters to him.
Even if he “lives in NYC”, it’s not like he’s flying back there every night when he’s done at Safeco.
I think you’re kind’ve making my argument for me. Now he can live there full-time, and I think it absolutely matters to him.
He is also assuredly from the Dominican Republic, and has a ton of family there. Proximity to his home has always mattered to him, at least IIRC from when he was an FA.
I thought he still had a house or something NYC, but I can’t find that anymore. So it might not be true. But according to wikipedia, he lived in Newark in middle school for 3 years. Also, the Yankees signed him for a $100K bonus. How times have changed…
“In my youth I lived through the Mets rolling out an aging Roberto Alomar every day”
Every day for 1.5 years, immediately after a a 6.6 win season for the Indians [and averaging 5+ wins the three years before that].
“Would they have been better off making the same salary commitment to A.J. Pollock, then signing a reasonably priced closer like David Robertson and keeping two of their best prospects?”
Not necessarily. This assumes the owners are willing to spend that money. And, if they would be willing to, now it will be a much easier pitch because the club has put itself in more of a win-now position by selling prospects for ML performers. As you point out, this trade is currently salary neutral, so they actually still can make those moves you highlighted, and are in a better position for doing so to make business sense.
I just can’t imagine what’s it’s like to be a Mariners fan these days. The team won 89 games and mgmt is tearing things down, trading away controllable assets. It’s crazy. Why aren’t they pushing more chips in the pot???
Where is the outrage around the game..?
Because they drastically outperformed their talent and mgmt (+ fans) knows that?
Because smart teams (a) understand that a team’s true talent next year isnt’t the same as its won-loss record from last year and (b) can tell the difference between an upward swing and a last gasp, and when 80% of your productive roster is 30 or older, there’s a good chance you’ve just experienced the latter.
As an Ms fan I’m very happy with the idea of rebuilding because this core, in this division, just ain’t it. I give ownership some credit for recognizing that. I’m less happy with the execution so far. We’ll see what they get for Segura and Haniger before final judgment is appropriate.
If there’s an AL team that’s lolmets, it’s the Mariners. This has quickly evolved into a fantasy league trade.
Seems to me there could be more reason(s) behind the scenes for the M’s to trade Cano than saving $$ if they are willing to add Diaz in order to make the trade work. May be more than swapping bad contracts and getting prospects in return.
Just in no world would the Mets be better off in any context signing AJ Pollock.
He’d sprain his wrist signing the contract, or twist his ankle deboarding the plane in Port St. Lucie.
Could the Mets have offered a similar package and maybe add another player to get a guy like Realmuto or Goldy? Maybe it will work out, and I get the value Diaz brings, but I’d hate to give up what seems like a such a prime prospect in Kelenic without receiving an impact bat closer to his prime than Cano is.
Maybe on Realmuto, but I don’t know that they’d be better of renting Goldschmidt.
The Marlins refused to trade Realmuto because the Nationals didn’t include both Victor Robles and Carter Kieboom. I heard since then that this was an especially high asking price because they didn’t want to deal within the division. Leaving aside that this is a silly issue for a rebuilding team to get hung up on, all of those problems would also apply for the Mets.
Am I the only one disappointed to see the Mariners so aggressively tearing down their team? I guess I am sad every time I see it happen.
Given the age of the roster and the team’s lack of success, both in the past in the likely future, I imagine a lot of Mariner’s fans are actually glad to see the team aggressively tearing things down. Now, whether those fans are also happy with the *return* they’re getting for the aggressive sale of assets is another question entirely.
Every time? The last teardown I can remember was the Freddy Garcia trade, and that one was half-assed too.
It’s disappointing that the team’s been run so badly that we’ve never had a real contention window, necessitating getting to this point.
On the disappointment meter, the idea of rebuildling now comes nowhere near how I felt back when the team traded away Adam Jones, Shin-Soo Choo, Asdrubal Cabrera, and Chris Tillman for 1 season of two halves of a mediocre DH platoon and an injury-prone starter.
I think he means every time he sees a team doing it, not the Mariners.
Hm, maybe. Guess I was assuming this was coming from an Ms fan. Not sure why anyone else would be “sad” apart from general sports purism.
Diaz for the three minor leaguers seems like a good deal for the Mets, unless you weigh one or two of them at their ceilings.
Cano and cash for two expensive, superfluous veterans seems like a great deal for the Mets.
If the goal is simply to win, Cano without the cash in exchange for Bruce and Swarzak makes the Mets a better team, and Diaz for three distant minor leaguers makes a much better team.
Adding the cash to offset the cost of Cano will enable the Mets to get a third good player.
Any Mets prospects who are “blocked” immediately become trade bait, if they are truly good enough to play in the majors.
Maybe this deal will pay off in five years for the Mariners, but maybe not. However, it definitely pays off for the Mets for the next few years.
You’re ignoring that “Cano without the cash” hampers the Mets’ financial flexibility necessary to get other major-league players since they’re now in “win-now” mode. That’s why they needed to “win” on the Diaz part of the trade.
I don’t get it. Why is a non-WS contending team trading away their most likely option in their farm for a perennial All-Star stud to build the next contender around? I suppose the Mets might be getting value and better by doing this, but it takes them from what, a 78-80 win team to an 86 win team? Is that really worth giving up your shot at a Top 10 OF.
And it could just be me, but there’s a fairly good shot that Justin Dunn is 90% of what Edwin Diaz is now by September. He falls in that Diaz/Hader/Betances starter turned into shutdown reliever camp fairly easily. It’s a wipeout slider, and it’ll work on OHB if they only get to see it once.
Meanwhile for the Mariners, Haniger/Kelenic/2019 Draft pick is a pretty good start to competing in 2022, with Sheffield + whoever you get for Segura in the rotation and Justin Dunn the lockdown reliever. Dipoto is rebuilding, and who else has a potential star in their system they are willing to move right now.
If “giving up your shot at a Top 10 OF” means you expected the Mets to be serious bidders for Harper, then, (1), LOL, and (2), how does this deal actually decrease the likelihood of that happening anyhow?
No, by a shot at a Top 10 OF, I’m referring to Kelenic. Kiley McDaniel is on record as saying the Braves made Acuna untouchable before he became a consensus Top 10 prospect in 2017. I think the Nationals did the same with Juan Soto last year. The Yankees made Andujar untouchable for most of the past 12-24 month. Kelenic belongs in the same bucket as those guys, but the Mets seem quite willing to trade him despite being far from contention in 2018. It would be one thing if the Mets were willing to spend on superstars, but they aren’t, so guys like Kelenic (like Degrom and Conforto before him) are their best shot at coming by them.
OK, well, I like Kelenic but it seems to me like there’s a lot of premature chicken-counting going on in this thread. He’s a good prospect but he’s a long way from MLB. Even if he turns into an All-Star this deal may end up defensible for both sides, and that is still, by far, not the likeliest outcome.
Soto put up nearly 4 wins as a 19 year old in MLB. When Acuna was 19 he put up something like a 160 wRC+ across AA/AAA.
In contrast, Kelenic is a 19 year old right now, and he just finished rookie ball, and he did okay. Acuna and Soto have literally never put up a batting line in the minors as average as Kelenic just did across a couple of rookie leagues. His tools are special, but he’s got a long way to go and he might not get there.
I’m not really sure it’s fair to make the age comparisons given the domestic/international differences in when you can sign.
As for comparing the stat lines, neither Soto nor Acuna were unlucky enough to run a .300 BABIP over 200 PA. If Kelenic runs an even normal .330-.340 BABIP, he probably has a 130-140 WRC+ in advanced Rookie ball the year after being draft as a High Schooler (which means his competition was mostly college draftees).
Once again, many things could happen. Kelenic could get hurt. He could never develop. However I just think it’s one thing for a 90 win Cubs team to trade away a guy like Gleyber Torres (and that was a vast overpay) and another for a highly flawed Mets’ team to trade away a potential star for a 36 year old 2B/1B and a reliever (although based on the way I just phrased that, you can probably tell that I think Diaz is more volatile and less likely to remain dominant than most think. I also don’t see the point of a shutdown reliever on a team that couldn’t even get the lead for Degrom half the time…)
As a Mariner fan, I hate this. Liked it when it included McNeil and the money was rumored to be like $20-30, hate it now. Feel like we should be able to get two top 100 prospects and a top 200 prospect if we’re giving up Diaz. Would’ve been happy with McNeil in place of a top 100 guy, but how do you switch from him to a valueless nothing like Bautista? Best thing I can say about this trade is Mets fans seem to hate it so maybe I’m missing something? If any Mets fan wants to sell me on it, I’d appreciate it. And I already like Kelenic, but ONE good prospect? And he’s never even played A ball? Mariners got embarrassed here. Just humiliated.
Totally disagree. You gave up Diaz not for the prospects, but to offset Cano’s salary. My quick and dirty math:
Diaz is worth about $50M (guessing he’d get ~$70M on a 4-year deal and will get paid ~$20M).
Cano about -$60M (he’d get about $60M over 5 years).
Bruce -$18M (would get $8M/2, will get paid $26M).
Swarzak -$6M ($2M/1, getting paid $8M).
Kelenick – 50FV, ~$30M
Dunn – 45FV, $12M
Bautista – 40FV, $5M?
and $20 Million is worth, well, $20 Million.
Add it up for the Mariners: -50 + 60 – 18 – 6 + 30 + 12 + 5 – 20 = $13M. So not a huge win, and you can fiddle with the numbers a bit to make it look better or worse. But no matter how you look at it, it’s decent at worst for Seattle.
Plus you got the upside of the prospects (some would argue they’re worth more than my numbers), got rid of Cano, only have one year commitments on the salary dumps you’re taking back (and stranger things have happened, they could have decent 1st halves and you can dump that at the trade deadline), and sold high on Diaz after a season where he was really overworked.
When the Mariners were rumored to be including $60M, I liked it a lot for the Mets. With only $20M it’s a pretty clear win for Seattle.
I keep checking Bautista’s numbers trying to make sense of this. Why would we want him? How could subbing him in for McNeil not be a deal breaker?
“How bout you give us a good player?”
“Yeah, okay. Actually, no. We’d rather give you a bad player.”
“Yeah, that’s fine too.”
Gerson Bautista obviously got crushed in his brief major-league cup of coffee, but he still showed the kind of stuff that makes even a non-scout like me sit up and take notice. I don’t disagree that the package the Mariners are getting feels a little light (of course there’s also the payroll relief to consider), but he’s at least an interesting arm if you give him a chance.
Yeah, he’s fine, but how do you start with a deal that seems fair and then the other team removes the single most valuable player from the table (and yes, I value McNeil over Kelenic – a guy who’s had a successful half season in the majors is WAY more valuable than a guy who’s never even made it to A ball – that’s true in almost every situation, including this one) and replace him with a handful of dirt and you don’t walk out of the room? If Jerry thought the first offer was fair and then settled for this, he got destroyed. The Mets stole his lunch, ate it in front of him, made him thank them for it, then had a foursome Jerry’s wife, mom, and daughter and made Jerry thank them for that too. I guess Jerry can take heart in knowing that if this is the most embarrassing thing that happens to him this offseason, at least he hasn’t been proven to be a sexist, racist monster, but unfortunately it won’t be.
I’m fully expecting a follow up report that Brodie Van Wagenen has moved into Jerry’s house and is banging Jerry’s wife while Jerry sits outside in the rain holding a tiny umbrella because he couldn’t even negotiate his way to a doghouse. Just humiliated. Beaten in every possible way.
“Would they have been better off making the same salary commitment to A.J. Pollock, then signing a reasonably priced closer like David Robertson and keeping two of their best prospects?”
Yes. But it’s the LOLMets. Count on them to do the wrong thing.
I wouldn’t worry about. They’re gonna flip Diaz for two prospects who are both better than Kelenic and a third prospect who’s about as good as Dunn. You know, like the Mariners should be doing.
If I’m a Mets fan I’m thrilled with the news.
With 0 dollars tied down in 2021 if it takes (overpaying) Cano by 10 mill a year in his last 2 years to be competitive the next 2 years, the years they HAVE Degrom Noah Matz its well worth it imo- Keeping McNiel all the while would be impressive for Broadie…..
I don’t understand anything about this trade. I thought Jerry was trying to dump salary and be somewhat competitive by his previous moves this offseason, but this is a rebuilding move that is sending money? Are the Mets really trying to contend, while possibly trading Thor?? Do they really think they have a shot in a division with both ATL and PHI, with PHI possibly adding Harper or Machado?? Do they really think they have a shot at a wild card spot in a race that will probably include one of ATL/PHI, two of CHC/MIL/STL, and two of LAD/ARI/COL?? I really don’t get this, any of this.