Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Matt Harvey

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I still say it's nuts to let Harvey go, that unless he makes an outrageous demand salary-wise next time around (and granted, his agent IS Scott Boras, so that's a possibility) that it's worth keeping this staff together.

    The Phillies were supposed to do great things with their super staff when they assembled a bunch of star veteran pitchers together...this is a bunch of YOUNG pitchers, grown together organically on this team.

    If it were me, until and unless that clubhouse turns against him, his performance outweighs these low-grade antics. It's not like he's being arrested or having altercations with the police or anything like that. So he's the Met with an attitude--as long as he performs, big deal, still worth keeping him. In fact, I'd argue if he DOES back up his talk, it'd help to give this team a bit of edge and attitude given how green it is in terms of playoff experience.

    For me, Terrell Owens is a classic example of a guy right on the border of "too much trouble." He poisoned the locker room in San Fran, Philly and Dallas...

    But he also put up HALL OF FAME numbers for those teams, had one of the most memorable catches of the past 20 years for San Fran, played on a broken ankle for Philly in the Super Bowl, and...um...he still entertained me as a Cowboy? OK, the first two are better examples, but still, my point is T.O. is Point 0 on the gradient from "More Trouble than Worth" to "Worth the Trouble"--so much trouble, but so much value...he could go either way.

    My point?

    Harvey is NOWHERE NEAR T.O. levels in terms of trouble, and we've already seen how much talent he has, with next year being a non-Tommy John year, this year being good as it was, and there's no reason to assume he'll decline.

    The best argument for trading Harvey would be money, IF that became an issue. I think both sides will find a way to make him stay--partially because I think as long as he pitches well the Mets won't mind these little things, and partially because if Harvey IS a guy with an ego he'll want to be the Met that actually DOES get traded to Milwaukee .

    Trading him for a bat is impossible to evauate without seeing 1. How well THIS offense does in the playoffs and 2. Who among them comes back and who leaves...if it's d'Arnaud, Duda, Murphy, Flores, Wright, Granderson and Conforto...I like those guys enough that trading Harvey for a bat seems like a waste to me. If Cespedes somehow stays (which is a big if, but at least a possibility) then trading for a bat becomes more superfluous still. Again, not saying it COULDN'T happen, trading for a bat, but without seeing how this offense performs, who stays and goes, and seeing if Matz will work out (he has only throw a few games and gotten hurt a couple times already--trade Harvey and have Matz remain shaky, or less than what we thought, and suddenly a super staff is "just" deGrom and Syndergaard, and that's NOT enough to win the division again) we can't say.

    But as for these antics? Eh. Unless he's getting busted for stanazolol and damages the team big-time with the suspension...show up late, but when you arrive, ya better SHOW UP.
    "Ya Gotta Believe!" -Tug McGraw ... "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life." -James T. Kirk ... "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -Sherlock Holmes ... "It is out of the deepest depth that the highest must come to its height." -Friedrich Nietzsche ... "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet

    Comment


    • The problem's the flaunting aggressiveness Harvey projects. It's the stuff heroes are made of on a playing field - if he can deliver the goods - but not so endearing off the field. He's delivered little yet constantly in our collective face. I think that's a big part of why he seems to engender such visceral hostility.

      We've watched him go to the "best" clubs and events, date the "best" women... He keeps us in the loop through social media and gossip columns. This is how he's branded himself. He's a guy who's pitched a little but been photographed a lot. Less Derek Jeter than Bo Belinsky, but not happy-go-lucky like Belinsky.

      Then there's the innings debacle...

      As a marketable commodity he seems to need someone to protect him from himself. Going forward the only place he should be highly visible is on the pitcher's mound.


      "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

      Comment


      • Harvey is locked up tight as a Met through 2018. So much -- so much -- can happen between then and now, that as a Mets fan, I am not even worrying about what will happen after that year. Talk of mega-200 million dollar contract is a bit premature. He still has to earn it. If he walks, then he walks. It won't be the end of the world. How many teams have won a World Series without Matt Harvey?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mongoose View Post
          The problem's the flaunting aggressiveness Harvey projects. It's the stuff heroes are made of on a playing field - if he can deliver the goods - but not so endearing off the field. He's delivered little yet constantly in our collective face. I think that's a big part of why he seems to engender such visceral hostility.

          We've watched him go to the "best" clubs and events, date the "best" women... He keeps us in the loop through social media and gossip columns. This is how he's branded himself. He's a guy who's pitched a little but been photographed a lot. Less Derek Jeter than Bo Belinsky, but not happy-go-lucky like Belinsky.

          Then there's the innings debacle...

          As a marketable commodity he seems to need someone to protect him from himself. Going forward the only place he should be highly visible is on the pitcher's mound.
          ...So?

          If I recall, Mets fans were MORE than happy to embrace the whole "Harvey Day" thing in 2013, and still wear varying grades of ridiculous-fun Batman masks to the game...

          You can't put a spotlight on a guy, treat him like he's special, and then get upset with him for his thinking that he's special.

          He's pitched two full seasons, one of which was an All-Star season, the other of which we made the playoffs while he went 13-8 with a 2.71 ERA (6th in the NL) 188 K's and a 1.02 WHIP (7th.) He'll get votes for NL Comeback Player of the Year...might not win, but he has a better chance than Cespedes winning NL MVP (I'll punt on that, Pauly.)

          If it weren't for his implosion that game against the Nationals (which we won anyway) and the innings limit debacle (which was stupid but I'd argue a "shared stupidity," if you will, the Mets, Boras, and Harvey ALL get errors on that play) we'd be talking about what a good comeback season he's been having...

          Because he HAS. So, again, when one season is an All-Star year and another's a good comeback year from Tommy John Injury, AND he'll pitch in the playoffs...who cares if he's "branded himself" as a big shot? He's not a schlub, and anyway, again, part of that initial branding was done by others...it's not as if Harvey walked out on the mound for the first time in 2012 and declared himself the Dark Knight, after all...not as if he started the Twitter and Facebook campaigns to get people to wear Batman gear...

          "Going forward the only place he should be highly visible is on the pitcher's mound."

          The days of that being the case with athletes, on the whole, died a LONG time ago...and is definitely RIP with this generation. As long as Harvey pitches the way he does, he'll be visible, and should be. He should enjoy being a little big shot. If he gets rocked and thus gets mercilessly mocked all over New York, then he'll just have to put on his big boy pants and deal with it for a week or two and then go out and throw a gem, won't he? That's how it works? Again...

          Harvey: 13-8 with 188 strikeouts, a 1.02 WHIP and 2.71 ERA.
          deGrom: 14-8 with 205 strikeouts, a 0.979 WHIP and 2.54 ERA--better, but not by that much, and he wasn't coming off of injury or dealing with "innings limits."
          Syndergaard: 9-7 with 166 strikeouts, a 1.047 WHIP and 3.18 ERA--not as good, but his first year up.

          I've said it before, I'll say it again--you'd have to be nuts to break up that Big 3.
          "Ya Gotta Believe!" -Tug McGraw ... "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life." -James T. Kirk ... "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -Sherlock Holmes ... "It is out of the deepest depth that the highest must come to its height." -Friedrich Nietzsche ... "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet

          Comment


          • Originally posted by EasilyFound View Post
            Harvey is locked up tight as a Met through 2018. So much -- so much -- can happen between then and now, that as a Mets fan, I am not even worrying about what will happen after that year. Talk of mega-200 million dollar contract is a bit premature. He still has to earn it. If he walks, then he walks. It won't be the end of the world. How many teams have won a World Series without Matt Harvey?
            He's not pitching for the Mets until 2018 at 600K or whatever he is getting. Let's see in the off season how Boras handles this. Harvey is 53 weeks younger than Kershaw. Harvey makes 600K; Kershaw gets $215 million for 7. Holdouts? Trade demands? Lets see how this plays out AFTER the post season.

            This isn't baseball pre-Curt Flood or Marvin Miller.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Shea Knight View Post
              I still say it's nuts to let Harvey go, that unless he makes an outrageous demand salary-wise next time around (and granted, his agent IS Scott Boras, so that's a possibility) that it's worth keeping this staff together.

              The Phillies were supposed to do great things with their super staff when they assembled a bunch of star veteran pitchers together...this is a bunch of YOUNG pitchers, grown together organically on this team.

              If it were me, until and unless that clubhouse turns against him, his performance outweighs these low-grade antics. It's not like he's being arrested or having altercations with the police or anything like that. So he's the Met with an attitude--as long as he performs, big deal, still worth keeping him. In fact, I'd argue if he DOES back up his talk, it'd help to give this team a bit of edge and attitude given how green it is in terms of playoff experience.

              But as for these antics? Eh. Unless he's getting busted for stanazolol and damages the team big-time with the suspension...show up late, but when you arrive, ya better SHOW UP.
              So basically anything short of a drug bust or completely damaging the team he should stay? Dont you think that there are players on that team right now...today... that are sick of it already? We wont hear it because that stays where it belongs, but I would be willing to bet that some are tired of all things Matt Harvey drama. He is obviously a guy that says one thing and does another.

              Think about this and stay with it:

              Lets assume for one second that Boras is taking him free agent. This is a good assumption because all of Boras' clients go FA when its time. Lets also assume based upon past history that Harvey/Boras ask for the moon. Which is another good assumption. Then lets also say that Wilpon isnt going to pay it...That is not an assumption but more of a guarantee. So basically Harvey is going to the high bidder. That is pretty much a lock in my estimation.

              Now if all of the above is true (and it is) Harvey is going to the high bidder, and it wont be the Mets. Ok.

              So now the Mets are in a position where they have to trade Harvey.... NOW....well not now but in December. Why you ask. Think about it - When will Harvey have the most value? The answer is when he is traded with 3 years before Free Agency.....not 2........not 1.......not at the deadline of his last year. Why you ask again. The answer is because your giving that team 3 years of Harvey instead 2, 1, or a two month rental. Which makes the get back on the trade much higher.


              The Mets will be in the same situation next year with the offense as they were this year because Cespedes is gone and there is a 50/50 chance that Murphy will go. How are they going to make up that difference? Trading Harvey does that in my opinion.

              Keep Harvey and yes you have an excellent pitcher, but you have the potential to lose him for nothing, and the potential for a ton of baggage to be carried around.
              Last edited by Paulypal; 10-08-2015, 07:38 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mandrake View Post
                He's not pitching for the Mets until 2018 at 600K or whatever he is getting. Let's see in the off season how Boras handles this. Harvey is 53 weeks younger than Kershaw. Harvey makes 600K; Kershaw gets $215 million for 7. Holdouts? Trade demands? Lets see how this plays out AFTER the post season.

                This isn't baseball pre-Curt Flood or Marvin Miller.
                Yes, If I was a betting man I would bet the house on more drama from Harvey. From listening to "the experts" talk about this incident is does not seem like such a big deal. My concern is that he has had many of these incidents that are not a big deal but when you put them together it is easy to see there might be a problem. Anyway, I hope he dominates the next month. If I was the Mets GM, which I am not, I would still be all ears at the Winter Meetings if someone brought up the name Harvey and was willing to make me a deal I couldn't refuse.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mandrake View Post
                  He's not pitching for the Mets until 2018 at 600K or whatever he is getting. Let's see in the off season how Boras handles this. Harvey is 53 weeks younger than Kershaw. Harvey makes 600K; Kershaw gets $215 million for 7. Holdouts? Trade demands? Lets see how this plays out AFTER the post season. This isn't baseball pre-Curt Flood or Marvin Miller.
                  Harvey is eligible for arbitration after the season is over. His salary is likely to increase to somewhere in the neighborhood of $4-6 million per year.
                  Last edited by RUKen; 10-08-2015, 10:33 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mandrake View Post
                    He's not pitching for the Mets until 2018 at 600K or whatever he is getting. Let's see in the off season how Boras handles this. Harvey is 53 weeks younger than Kershaw. Harvey makes 600K; Kershaw gets $215 million for 7. Holdouts? Trade demands? Lets see how this plays out AFTER the post season.

                    This isn't baseball pre-Curt Flood or Marvin Miller.
                    And this isn't the NFL, where arbitration eligible players hold out or demand trades. Doesn't the arbitration system generally favor the player who performs well? The way for Harvey to get a great arbitration salary is to perform at the highest level possible so he can obtain a salary comparable to those paid at the same level of performance. Generally, holding out and demanding a trade at that stage of your career is counter productive. No?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
                      So basically anything short of a drug bust or completely damaging the team he should stay? Dont you think that there are players on that team right now...today... that are sick of it already? We wont hear it because that stays where it belongs, but I would be willing to bet that some are tired of all things Matt Harvey drama. He is obviously a guy that says one thing and does another.

                      Think about this and stay with it:

                      Lets assume for one second that Boras is taking him free agent. This is a good assumption because all of Boras' clients go FA when its time. Lets also assume based upon past history that Harvey/Boras ask for the moon. Which is another good assumption. Then lets also say that Wilpon isnt going to pay it...That is not an assumption but more of a guarantee. So basically Harvey is going to the high bidder. That is pretty much a lock in my estimation.

                      Now if all of the above is true (and it is) Harvey is going to the high bidder, and it wont be the Mets. Ok.

                      So now the Mets are in a position where they have to trade Harvey.... NOW....well not now but in December. Why you ask. Think about it - When will Harvey have the most value? The answer is when he is traded with 3 years before Free Agency.....not 2........not 1.......not at the deadline of his last year. Why you ask again. The answer is because your giving that team 3 years of Harvey instead 2, 1, or a two month rental. Which makes the get back on the trade much higher.


                      The Mets will be in the same situation next year with the offense as they were this year because Cespedes is gone and there is a 50/50 chance that Murphy will go. How are they going to make up that difference? Trading Harvey does that in my opinion.

                      Keep Harvey and yes you have an excellent pitcher, but you have the potential to lose him for nothing, and the potential for a ton of baggage to be carried around.
                      "So basically anything short of a drug bust or completely damaging the team he should stay? Dont you think that there are players on that team right now...today... that are sick of it already?"

                      Yep. Sure. But winning is the best cure all, and if Harvey pitches a gem and, all the more, if the Mets somehow do move on, I BETCHA that'll put the kibosh on that for at least a while...and then there's winter, one way or another...time for any tensions spent from a long hot summer together to cool down, and you get to actually enter spring training with the feeling of contenders.

                      On Harvey, Boras, the Wilpons and resigning--I'll wait and see.

                      Your points are all perfectly logical. I don't dispute that. But I'm going to wait and see what happens with this team, because I think that could have an impact. I've said this twice before, actually, with two other players you thought the Mets should've dealt--Reyes and Wright. One went, one resigned, and while the money situation isn't the same, the "Face of the Franchise" element is (even with the whole staff basically being the "identity" of the Mets, Harvey's the face insofar as...well, we've gone over that, he's put himself out there, so to most everyday people, he's the "big name," more so than deGrom or Syndergaard.)

                      I know you'd have preferred both go (strictly talent-wise I'm fine with Wright at 3B to this point, though obviously now need someone for the future coming up soon...Reyes we'll never know, I still think he might have been better without the injuries and staying might've been better for him but worse for us...too many variables, but he HAS sharply declined, no doubt there) but just historically, one stayed, one didn't.

                      Part of the difference WAS that Wright really did want to stay with the Mets. He liked the team growing up, was talked into sticking around for a plan (like this) and stayed...whereas Reyes didn't care as much.

                      I think Harvey DOES want to stay, given the New York spotlight he apparently loves and his starring role as "The Dark Knight of Gotham" and the fact it's a winning team now...BUT it's fair to say he'll probably care about the money at least as much as well.

                      So, again...we'll see what happens. A quick exit, especially if Harvey doesn't pitch the best, and you might be right. A better showing by him or a better run by the Mets...and I could see Harvey working something out. He's not a "home team discount" kind of guy but doesn't strike me as a "hired gun" either...

                      So, we'll see.

                      "So now the Mets are in a position where they have to trade Harvey.... NOW....well not now but in December. Why you ask. Think about it - When will Harvey have the most value? The answer is when he is traded with 3 years before Free Agency.....not 2........not 1.......not at the deadline of his last year."

                      Even granting that, however, you said the same thing at the All-Star Break...in fact, you said the same thing about Harvey himself, trade him while we he has the most value. What did we do instead? We bought at the deadline rather than sell. Even if Cespedes turns out to be a rental (which may be the case) the fact is that the Mets had to have had a TON of offers for the pitchers on their staff. They didn't budge. They didn't break up their staff even when you and those with your same contract-related points made those same arguments. I'll repeat what I said then...

                      1. This staff is what the Mets have been building towards for a while, and now that it's here, if I'm them, I DON'T want to break it up after all that time

                      2. I also said "At least see what they can do"...and having now having SEEN what they can do...you absolutely would not break that up unless you HAD to is my feeling. The comparison keeps being made to--of all staffs--Glavine/Maddux/Smoltz/Avery with Harvey/deGrom/Syndergaard/Matz. Do we have three HOFers? Almost certainly not, you can never bet on that...but when you get THOSE kinds of comparisons? When the staff takes you this far?

                      3. I also made the case then that PART of the reason to keep the staff together from a Wilpon standpoint is that this staff is SO good, both on the field and in terms of generating revenue and attendance, that this can help from a cost perspective when, to keep your team competitive, you only "need" to pay 3/4 ace-worthy pitchers and a few obligatory good bats. (To be clear, I'm NOT saying that actually works--we saw how well it was working before the break with the no-offense Mets, that it'll keep you in the race but only as long as those pitchers keep firing on all cylinders with no room for failure...and luckily, for the most part, the pitching did just that before help arrived--but rather how a Wilpon might approach it. You have a product that SEEMS competitive that way, even if it's not "a real contender," a team with marketable identities in those pitchers, AND you don't pay for stars all around Steinbrenner-style. The fans get an exciting team that either squeaks in or falls just short and thus come to your games and make you money, and you save money by not spending the extra tens of millions that could make it an actual contender. For Wilponzi, that's a win-win.)

                      4. I said then, as well, that Harvey likes New York and where would he prefer to go that's big-time AND a win-now team? Ironically, maybe the best answer to that is the team they're about to play--the Dodgers would go CRAZY for a Greinke/Kershaw/Harvey rotation, and Magic Johnson has shown that he WILL spend the money, AND the Dodgers have bats to deal in the outfield, hence the crazy "Harvey for Puig" talk at the deadline. The biggest factor against that right now, leaving aside the possibility of Harvey wanting to stay in New York and/or the Mets deciding the talent's worth it and finding a deal? It's the money...on the DODGERS' end. What, you're going to trade a talented diva like Harvey who costs big money...for ANOTHER talented diva who costs money like Puig? Or any of the other Dodgers outfielders? What sense does that make, especially when Conforto/Granderson/Lagares would probably be fine to start 2016 with if Cespedes doesn't come back? We're going to break up a mega-staff because we don't like expense or divas...to trade with a team that'll give us an expensive diva?

                      5. I also asked back then--what would you trade Harvey FOR? Fine, say he has the most upside now and decide that that upside's better served in trade value rather than on the diamond for us...I disagree, but that's a given by now.

                      d'Arnaud at catcher, he's staying...
                      Duda at 1B is fine, almost 30 HRs again (got there the hard way, but hey, he got there)...
                      2B will be Flores/Murphy depending on who plays short, and both are fine...
                      SS will be Flores/Tejada, see the above...
                      3B will likely be Wright and a fair deal of Murphy to give a d'Arnaud/Duda/Flores/Tejada/Murphy infield some of the time, which is pretty decent...
                      Conforto/Lagares/Granderson in the outfield...even without Cespedes, that's a good mix of offense and defense.

                      "The Mets will be in the same situation next year with the offense as they were this year because Cespedes is gone and there is a 50/50 chance that Murphy will go. How are they going to make up that difference? Trading Harvey does that in my opinion."
                      hen
                      WHO was almost dealt at the break? Not Harvey--WHEELER, AS I SUGGESTED. If you want to trade pitching for an outfielder...one preferably NOT named Carlos Gomez this time...

                      We (almost) did it before--why not do it again? Or, if Wheeler comes back and is dynamite, and Matz cools a bit after his fast start, maybe he goes?

                      The Mets currently have five young, exciting arms. Three are heading a staff--and, really, the team--heading into the first playoff series in 9 years...one might pitch, but is FAR less proven...and one has been gone all year, and showed flashes when he has pitched but is nowhere NEAR as proven as the first three.

                      We almost traded Wheeler for an outfield bat we (thought we) wanted BEFORE...we couldn't do that again? Or do so with Matz? OR TRADE *BOTH*...wanna bet there isn't a team out there that wouldn't give us a good bat or two to get BOTH of those guys, especially if Matz pitches in the playoffs?

                      That's the beauty of the Mets' situation for a change--we don't necessarily HAVE to trade our first or second choices to get what we need back. Harvey/deGrom/Syndergaard's plenty fine, add Niese if he stays, add whoever the ancillary 5th starter is and we still have the rotation we want, even IF we trade Wheeler for a bat like we almost did, or deal Matz, or deal both for even better/more options?

                      "Keep Harvey and yes you have an excellent pitcher, but you have the potential to lose him for nothing, and the potential for a ton of baggage to be carried around."

                      Not a ton of baggage...showing up late once and an innings kerfuffle that's warranting of the silly term "kerfuffle" because that's what it was, silly (and not likely to occur again, not in that way anyway) and being a bit of a ham? THAT'S a ton of baggage?

                      That's more like a handbag and Harvey-only vanity mirror...weighed against the Batmobile roaring over the plate at 98mph?
                      "Ya Gotta Believe!" -Tug McGraw ... "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life." -James T. Kirk ... "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -Sherlock Holmes ... "It is out of the deepest depth that the highest must come to its height." -Friedrich Nietzsche ... "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet

                      Comment


                      • depends on what you get for him. you obviously don't give him away but if someone blows you away with an offer I would think about it.
                        I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Shea Knight View Post
                          "So basically anything short of a drug bust or completely damaging the team he should stay? Dont you think that there are players on that team right now...today... that are sick of it already?"

                          Yep. Sure. But winning is the best cure all, and if Harvey pitches a gem and, all the more, if the Mets somehow do move on, I BETCHA that'll put the kibosh on that for at least a while...and then there's winter, one way or another...time for any tensions spent from a long hot summer together to cool down, and you get to actually enter spring training with the feeling of contenders.

                          On Harvey, Boras, the Wilpons and resigning--I'll wait and see.

                          Your points are all perfectly logical. I don't dispute that. But I'm going to wait and see what happens with this team, because I think that could have an impact. I've said this twice before, actually, with two other players you thought the Mets should've dealt--Reyes and Wright. One went, one resigned, and while the money situation isn't the same, the "Face of the Franchise" element is (even with the whole staff basically being the "identity" of the Mets, Harvey's the face insofar as...well, we've gone over that, he's put himself out there, so to most everyday people, he's the "big name," more so than deGrom or Syndergaard.)

                          I know you'd have preferred both go (strictly talent-wise I'm fine with Wright at 3B to this point, though obviously now need someone for the future coming up soon...Reyes we'll never know, I still think he might have been better without the injuries and staying might've been better for him but worse for us...too many variables, but he HAS sharply declined, no doubt there) but just historically, one stayed, one didn't.

                          Part of the difference WAS that Wright really did want to stay with the Mets. He liked the team growing up, was talked into sticking around for a plan (like this) and stayed...whereas Reyes didn't care as much.

                          I think Harvey DOES want to stay, given the New York spotlight he apparently loves and his starring role as "The Dark Knight of Gotham" and the fact it's a winning team now...BUT it's fair to say he'll probably care about the money at least as much as well.

                          So, again...we'll see what happens. A quick exit, especially if Harvey doesn't pitch the best, and you might be right. A better showing by him or a better run by the Mets...and I could see Harvey working something out. He's not a "home team discount" kind of guy but doesn't strike me as a "hired gun" either...

                          So, we'll see.

                          "So now the Mets are in a position where they have to trade Harvey.... NOW....well not now but in December. Why you ask. Think about it - When will Harvey have the most value? The answer is when he is traded with 3 years before Free Agency.....not 2........not 1.......not at the deadline of his last year."

                          Even granting that, however, you said the same thing at the All-Star Break...in fact, you said the same thing about Harvey himself, trade him while we he has the most value. What did we do instead? We bought at the deadline rather than sell. Even if Cespedes turns out to be a rental (which may be the case) the fact is that the Mets had to have had a TON of offers for the pitchers on their staff. They didn't budge. They didn't break up their staff even when you and those with your same contract-related points made those same arguments. I'll repeat what I said then...

                          1. This staff is what the Mets have been building towards for a while, and now that it's here, if I'm them, I DON'T want to break it up after all that time

                          2. I also said "At least see what they can do"...and having now having SEEN what they can do...you absolutely would not break that up unless you HAD to is my feeling. The comparison keeps being made to--of all staffs--Glavine/Maddux/Smoltz/Avery with Harvey/deGrom/Syndergaard/Matz. Do we have three HOFers? Almost certainly not, you can never bet on that...but when you get THOSE kinds of comparisons? When the staff takes you this far?

                          3. I also made the case then that PART of the reason to keep the staff together from a Wilpon standpoint is that this staff is SO good, both on the field and in terms of generating revenue and attendance, that this can help from a cost perspective when, to keep your team competitive, you only "need" to pay 3/4 ace-worthy pitchers and a few obligatory good bats. (To be clear, I'm NOT saying that actually works--we saw how well it was working before the break with the no-offense Mets, that it'll keep you in the race but only as long as those pitchers keep firing on all cylinders with no room for failure...and luckily, for the most part, the pitching did just that before help arrived--but rather how a Wilpon might approach it. You have a product that SEEMS competitive that way, even if it's not "a real contender," a team with marketable identities in those pitchers, AND you don't pay for stars all around Steinbrenner-style. The fans get an exciting team that either squeaks in or falls just short and thus come to your games and make you money, and you save money by not spending the extra tens of millions that could make it an actual contender. For Wilponzi, that's a win-win.)

                          4. I said then, as well, that Harvey likes New York and where would he prefer to go that's big-time AND a win-now team? Ironically, maybe the best answer to that is the team they're about to play--the Dodgers would go CRAZY for a Greinke/Kershaw/Harvey rotation, and Magic Johnson has shown that he WILL spend the money, AND the Dodgers have bats to deal in the outfield, hence the crazy "Harvey for Puig" talk at the deadline. The biggest factor against that right now, leaving aside the possibility of Harvey wanting to stay in New York and/or the Mets deciding the talent's worth it and finding a deal? It's the money...on the DODGERS' end. What, you're going to trade a talented diva like Harvey who costs big money...for ANOTHER talented diva who costs money like Puig? Or any of the other Dodgers outfielders? What sense does that make, especially when Conforto/Granderson/Lagares would probably be fine to start 2016 with if Cespedes doesn't come back? We're going to break up a mega-staff because we don't like expense or divas...to trade with a team that'll give us an expensive diva?

                          5. I also asked back then--what would you trade Harvey FOR? Fine, say he has the most upside now and decide that that upside's better served in trade value rather than on the diamond for us...I disagree, but that's a given by now.

                          d'Arnaud at catcher, he's staying...
                          Duda at 1B is fine, almost 30 HRs again (got there the hard way, but hey, he got there)...
                          2B will be Flores/Murphy depending on who plays short, and both are fine...
                          SS will be Flores/Tejada, see the above...
                          3B will likely be Wright and a fair deal of Murphy to give a d'Arnaud/Duda/Flores/Tejada/Murphy infield some of the time, which is pretty decent...
                          Conforto/Lagares/Granderson in the outfield...even without Cespedes, that's a good mix of offense and defense.

                          "The Mets will be in the same situation next year with the offense as they were this year because Cespedes is gone and there is a 50/50 chance that Murphy will go. How are they going to make up that difference? Trading Harvey does that in my opinion."
                          hen
                          WHO was almost dealt at the break? Not Harvey--WHEELER, AS I SUGGESTED. If you want to trade pitching for an outfielder...one preferably NOT named Carlos Gomez this time...

                          We (almost) did it before--why not do it again? Or, if Wheeler comes back and is dynamite, and Matz cools a bit after his fast start, maybe he goes?

                          The Mets currently have five young, exciting arms. Three are heading a staff--and, really, the team--heading into the first playoff series in 9 years...one might pitch, but is FAR less proven...and one has been gone all year, and showed flashes when he has pitched but is nowhere NEAR as proven as the first three.

                          We almost traded Wheeler for an outfield bat we (thought we) wanted BEFORE...we couldn't do that again? Or do so with Matz? OR TRADE *BOTH*...wanna bet there isn't a team out there that wouldn't give us a good bat or two to get BOTH of those guys, especially if Matz pitches in the playoffs?

                          That's the beauty of the Mets' situation for a change--we don't necessarily HAVE to trade our first or second choices to get what we need back. Harvey/deGrom/Syndergaard's plenty fine, add Niese if he stays, add whoever the ancillary 5th starter is and we still have the rotation we want, even IF we trade Wheeler for a bat like we almost did, or deal Matz, or deal both for even better/more options?

                          "Keep Harvey and yes you have an excellent pitcher, but you have the potential to lose him for nothing, and the potential for a ton of baggage to be carried around."

                          Not a ton of baggage...showing up late once and an innings kerfuffle that's warranting of the silly term "kerfuffle" because that's what it was, silly (and not likely to occur again, not in that way anyway) and being a bit of a ham? THAT'S a ton of baggage?

                          That's more like a handbag and Harvey-only vanity mirror...weighed against the Batmobile roaring over the plate at 98mph?
                          Well we obvious look at this from two different perspectives. You think if Harvey pitches well they should work it out. I think if he pitches well it just increases his trade value.

                          Wheeler/Matz do not have the value Harvey does. You want to trade Matz if he cools....well do you ever think about the other team your trading with????? Why would they want a player that has "cooled", has two injuries and 7 MLB starts? Would you give up top notch offensive players for Matz at this point? I hope not, and neither would any GM.

                          Wheeler is coming off of TJ surgery....what kind of value do you think that is? Who do you think he brings back?

                          Harvey brings back twice as much as those two.

                          I am hoping as much as anyone that Harvey pitches well enough for the next 3 weeks for the Mets to win a WS. That would be great as a fan, but that doesnt remove the fact that this is a business first for the players, the owners, and unfortunately it trickles down to the fans. We can root all we want and have all the favorite players we want but at the end of the day they can go.

                          Believe me i know of what I speak. My favorite Met player ever (and its not close) was Darryl Strawberry. He had a great year in 1990, and was a Dodger in 1991.

                          Baggage - yes a ton of baggage. Harvey loves the night life, loves being the media darling that in itself can be problematic. Add in the fact the innings debacle, being late, and the fact that he likes being on page 6 as much as he likes being on the back page is baggage. Remember he is dispute with the team about where he was going to rehab? Personally I still shake my head at his "give me the ball" mentality that he was projecting since he has been here and his complete retraction of that attitude. Without a doubt showed another side to him.

                          Matt Harvey has accomplished nothing in baseball. Nothing. Huge upside but has accomplished ZIP - yet he is talked about way too much all by his own doing. So HELL yes a ton of baggage.

                          Dont you think any team that signs him or trades for him has to take everything into consideration? Or do you think they just say...its Matt Harvey...the Dark Knight...he throws 98....give up the ranch for him?

                          Regardless of what happens tonight and tomorrow night with the Dodgers, regardless of everything I typed above Monday is going to be a huge game. I hope Harvey has is "A" game.
                          Last edited by Paulypal; 10-09-2015, 06:19 AM.

                          Comment


                          • "Wheeler/Matz do not have the value Harvey does...Wheeler is coming off of TJ surgery....what kind of value do you think that is? Who do you think he brings back?"

                            As I said, the Brewers were willing to give us what we (then) wanted, Carlos Gomez, an outfield bat...which would be precisely what we'd want again should Cespedes leave...

                            Gomez was and is no Cespedes, but it's not like we'll likely be trading for Gomez again, right? It'll be another noted outfield bat, and now the precedent has been set, the "market value," if you will, of Wheeler being worth one. Throw in Matz (inured or cooled, together with Wheeler, someone would still pay for the two together) and you can get a quality outfield bat, and maybe a Kelly Johnson-type utility fielder.

                            And that's precisely what we needed and got this year, right? A quality outfield bat and a utility infielder or two?

                            "Harvey brings back twice as much as those two."

                            But we also LOSE twice as much...actually, more than that, one sense since he has more than twice their wins, ERA, strikeouts, etc.

                            Hence the beauty of this balancing act: Keep Harvey, trade one of those two (or both) and you have the same Big Three rotation that got you here next year, WITH playoff experience, WITH whatever outfield bat/other offensive help you get out of the deal, WITH the continued chemistry, continuity and identity that Harvey/deGrom/Syndergaard have given the Mets as a team, that they're now being compared (however prematurely) to other "Big Threes" of the past. (Again, they have to actually EARN that status to make it stick, but I don't think we should discount the fact that they get compared to such impressive trios in terms of what they can do, especially given how well they've already done...it's not like this is Generation K where it was all talk and little to no payoff at the big league level.)

                            Conversely, you trade Harvey, and you have a gaping hole in the strength that got you here...are you willing to gamble on Wheeler (who unlike Harvey wasn't an All-Star or had any such credentials before the injury) or Matz (less than 10 starts right now) filling that void? Whatever you get back for him, you also have LOST a lot as well.

                            Which is why I advocate Wheeler or Matz, particularly the former since the market's already been set and it'd be in the ballpark of what we'd want anyway. I think that's the best balance between my "Keep 'em All for a Super Staff" approach and your "Trade 'em When They Have the Most Resale Value" approach...keep the top-tier guys, pay them (you have to pay SOMEBODY, event he Wilpons, and again, three guys who at least give you Wild Card hopes and All-Star players each year HAS to appeal to Wilponzi more than paying for a whole team top to bottom Steinbrenner-style) and then trade the surplus you have, some of which has already been valued as being worth what you'd want in return.

                            The best argument against that would be Wheeler probably wouldn't get back a Cespedes...but I also think it's fair to say Cespedes would be hard to replicate, especially for a whole season? You yourself said that of his own performance--chances are we won't be catching lightning in a bottle twice in a row, and not over 162 games...BUT getting a decent outfielder OR (if we want to say some combo of Cespedes/Granderson/Conforto/Lagares stays and works for us...likely the latter three, I'd be OK with that) maybe a utility man and quality 3B prospect for when Wright down the line? Wheeler has already been valued at that, he could fetch that...he and Matz could definitely fetch that...

                            So why "overpay," as it were, by trading one of the consensus best young pitchers in baseball when his two full years are an All-Star season and a very good bounce back year that included a playoff trip?

                            "Baggage - yes a ton of baggage. Harvey loves the night life, loves being the media darling that in itself can be problematic."

                            When did New York become such a Puritanville? Isn't that part of the allure of coming to New York...the night life? And it's not like New York sports heroes haven't enjoyed the night life there and been successful too--

                            Joe Willie Namath? Or, sticking with baseball, every drunken member of the Mickey Mantle/White Ford era Yankees? Heck...the '86 Mets? When did liking the night life become a ton of baggage for a NEW YORK-BASED team? If it were Kansas City or Minnesota I might understand...but it's NEW YORK. New York, LA, Chicago...I could hear an argument to a lesser degree on San Francisco and maybe Boston...that's where you'd go if you wanted to play AND enjoy the spotlight and nightlife, yes?

                            WHY is this a ton of baggage? ESPECIALLY for a New York team? If he were late every day and was hungover and vomiting on the mound, OK...but having these little blips now and then? The innings limit thing won't happen again, that was TJ-specific, and the rehab thing was also TJ-specific...so it's not like we need to really worry about those being recurring issues...

                            The biggest recurring issue IS his attitude as a diva, and I'll say it again--the 49ers just got rid of a diva coach in Jim Harbaugh...see how well THAT turned out?

                            Diva and prima donna do trace back to yet another of my loves, not the Mets but the Met and opera, and the great opera stars of the past and present...who are ridiculously pampered and catered to...with the understanding that they hit those impossible notes PERFECTLY, and that makes it worthwhile for everyone. And in the opera world, from a beauty AND business standpoint, it DOES work, because even if you don't know a thing about opera, you KNOW who Placido Domingo is, or you might have known Maria Callas back in the day, and might consider going to see THEM, if not the opera. Swap "opera" for "team" and Placido for our Big Three pitchers, and you have it.

                            Thankfully, only Harvey so far is Mr. Nightlife...you're saying a New York team can't deal with one prima donna, especially when he backs it up? Leading me to...

                            "Matt Harvey has accomplished nothing in baseball. Nothing. Huge upside but has accomplished ZIP"

                            An All-Star start, wherein he struck out three (Cabrera, Bautista, and Adam Jones, pretty good hitters), flirted with no-hitters a few times, and this year off surgery went 13-8 with a 2.71 ERA and 1.02 WHIP.

                            for the first two full years of a big league career...that's not zip. That's pretty darn good. No playoffs, but that's not his fault...and in a few days, he'll have that on his resume as well, so there we are.

                            "Dont you think any team that signs him or trades for him has to take everything into consideration? Or do you think they just say...its Matt Harvey...the Dark Knight...he throws 98....give up the ranch for him?"

                            But you can't have it both ways...? Either Harvey's night life is such a distraction even a New York team (and I emphasize that but, again, New York, LA, and maybe a couple of cities more, but mainly those two are the "big" media and metro centers that traditionally don't just deal with distractions but arguably invite them by their very nature, it's as built into the culture as is "the Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field" in Green Bay) can't keep him, and he's a prima donna times twenty, he IS Terrell Owens and thus so talented but so toxic it's a coin toss whether anyone would want him...OR his night life activities are so minor a team and city that ISN'T as used to media distractions as New York wants him, in which case...

                            Are they really that bad after all?

                            Oh well, at least we get to debate this on a playoff day.
                            "Ya Gotta Believe!" -Tug McGraw ... "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life." -James T. Kirk ... "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -Sherlock Holmes ... "It is out of the deepest depth that the highest must come to its height." -Friedrich Nietzsche ... "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Shea Knight View Post
                              "Wheeler/Matz do not have the value Harvey does...Wheeler is coming off of TJ surgery....what kind of value do you think that is? Who do you think he brings back?"

                              As I said, the Brewers were willing to give us what we (then) wanted, Carlos Gomez, an outfield bat...which would be precisely what we'd want again should Cespedes leave...

                              Gomez was and is no Cespedes, but it's not like we'll likely be trading for Gomez again, right? It'll be another noted outfield bat, and now the precedent has been set, the "market value," if you will, of Wheeler being worth one. Throw in Matz (inured or cooled, together with Wheeler, someone would still pay for the two together) and you can get a quality outfield bat, and maybe a Kelly Johnson-type utility fielder.

                              And that's precisely what we needed and got this year, right? A quality outfield bat and a utility infielder or two?

                              "Harvey brings back twice as much as those two."

                              But we also LOSE twice as much...actually, more than that, one sense since he has more than twice their wins, ERA, strikeouts, etc.

                              Hence the beauty of this balancing act: Keep Harvey, trade one of those two (or both) and you have the same Big Three rotation that got you here next year, WITH playoff experience, WITH whatever outfield bat/other offensive help you get out of the deal, WITH the continued chemistry, continuity and identity that Harvey/deGrom/Syndergaard have given the Mets as a team, that they're now being compared (however prematurely) to other "Big Threes" of the past. (Again, they have to actually EARN that status to make it stick, but I don't think we should discount the fact that they get compared to such impressive trios in terms of what they can do, especially given how well they've already done...it's not like this is Generation K where it was all talk and little to no payoff at the big league level.)

                              Conversely, you trade Harvey, and you have a gaping hole in the strength that got you here...are you willing to gamble on Wheeler (who unlike Harvey wasn't an All-Star or had any such credentials before the injury) or Matz (less than 10 starts right now) filling that void? Whatever you get back for him, you also have LOST a lot as well.

                              Which is why I advocate Wheeler or Matz, particularly the former since the market's already been set and it'd be in the ballpark of what we'd want anyway. I think that's the best balance between my "Keep 'em All for a Super Staff" approach and your "Trade 'em When They Have the Most Resale Value" approach...keep the top-tier guys, pay them (you have to pay SOMEBODY, event he Wilpons, and again, three guys who at least give you Wild Card hopes and All-Star players each year HAS to appeal to Wilponzi more than paying for a whole team top to bottom Steinbrenner-style) and then trade the surplus you have, some of which has already been valued as being worth what you'd want in return.

                              The best argument against that would be Wheeler probably wouldn't get back a Cespedes...but I also think it's fair to say Cespedes would be hard to replicate, especially for a whole season? You yourself said that of his own performance--chances are we won't be catching lightning in a bottle twice in a row, and not over 162 games...BUT getting a decent outfielder OR (if we want to say some combo of Cespedes/Granderson/Conforto/Lagares stays and works for us...likely the latter three, I'd be OK with that) maybe a utility man and quality 3B prospect for when Wright down the line? Wheeler has already been valued at that, he could fetch that...he and Matz could definitely fetch that...

                              So why "overpay," as it were, by trading one of the consensus best young pitchers in baseball when his two full years are an All-Star season and a very good bounce back year that included a playoff trip?

                              "Baggage - yes a ton of baggage. Harvey loves the night life, loves being the media darling that in itself can be problematic."

                              When did New York become such a Puritanville? Isn't that part of the allure of coming to New York...the night life? And it's not like New York sports heroes haven't enjoyed the night life there and been successful too--

                              Joe Willie Namath? Or, sticking with baseball, every drunken member of the Mickey Mantle/White Ford era Yankees? Heck...the '86 Mets? When did liking the night life become a ton of baggage for a NEW YORK-BASED team? If it were Kansas City or Minnesota I might understand...but it's NEW YORK. New York, LA, Chicago...I could hear an argument to a lesser degree on San Francisco and maybe Boston...that's where you'd go if you wanted to play AND enjoy the spotlight and nightlife, yes?

                              WHY is this a ton of baggage? ESPECIALLY for a New York team? If he were late every day and was hungover and vomiting on the mound, OK...but having these little blips now and then? The innings limit thing won't happen again, that was TJ-specific, and the rehab thing was also TJ-specific...so it's not like we need to really worry about those being recurring issues...

                              The biggest recurring issue IS his attitude as a diva, and I'll say it again--the 49ers just got rid of a diva coach in Jim Harbaugh...see how well THAT turned out?

                              Diva and prima donna do trace back to yet another of my loves, not the Mets but the Met and opera, and the great opera stars of the past and present...who are ridiculously pampered and catered to...with the understanding that they hit those impossible notes PERFECTLY, and that makes it worthwhile for everyone. And in the opera world, from a beauty AND business standpoint, it DOES work, because even if you don't know a thing about opera, you KNOW who Placido Domingo is, or you might have known Maria Callas back in the day, and might consider going to see THEM, if not the opera. Swap "opera" for "team" and Placido for our Big Three pitchers, and you have it.

                              Thankfully, only Harvey so far is Mr. Nightlife...you're saying a New York team can't deal with one prima donna, especially when he backs it up? Leading me to...

                              "Matt Harvey has accomplished nothing in baseball. Nothing. Huge upside but has accomplished ZIP"

                              An All-Star start, wherein he struck out three (Cabrera, Bautista, and Adam Jones, pretty good hitters), flirted with no-hitters a few times, and this year off surgery went 13-8 with a 2.71 ERA and 1.02 WHIP.

                              for the first two full years of a big league career...that's not zip. That's pretty darn good. No playoffs, but that's not his fault...and in a few days, he'll have that on his resume as well, so there we are.

                              "Dont you think any team that signs him or trades for him has to take everything into consideration? Or do you think they just say...its Matt Harvey...the Dark Knight...he throws 98....give up the ranch for him?"

                              But you can't have it both ways...? Either Harvey's night life is such a distraction even a New York team (and I emphasize that but, again, New York, LA, and maybe a couple of cities more, but mainly those two are the "big" media and metro centers that traditionally don't just deal with distractions but arguably invite them by their very nature, it's as built into the culture as is "the Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field" in Green Bay) can't keep him, and he's a prima donna times twenty, he IS Terrell Owens and thus so talented but so toxic it's a coin toss whether anyone would want him...OR his night life activities are so minor a team and city that ISN'T as used to media distractions as New York wants him, in which case...

                              Are they really that bad after all?

                              Oh well, at least we get to debate this on a playoff day.
                              As I said, the Brewers were willing to give us what we (then) wanted, Carlos Gomez, an outfield bat

                              It wasnt just Wheeler.....was it?

                              But we also LOSE twice as much...actually, more than that, one sense since he has more than twice their wins, ERA, strikeouts, etc.

                              This remains to be seen doesnt it? With the quantity of young arms the Mets have and the fact that Harvey for brings back the most - he is the likely choice for me to go. Wheeler or Matz dont bring back that impact bat right now. Nor should they be expected to at this point. Harvey does. I dont see it as a gaping hole in their strength if Harvey is gone IF Wheeler comes back to what he was doing at the end of 2014, and Matz develops like we believe he can. Their strength is not only quality but quantity of starting pitching.

                              I am not talking about Cespedes or another OF'er. I am talking about landing Manny Machadao and putting him at shortstop. A player of that ilk. A young big time impact player for Harvey, and then some.

                              So why "overpay," as it were, by trading one of the consensus best young pitchers in baseball when his two full years are an All-Star season and a very good bounce back year that included a playoff trip?

                              Seriously? Playoff trip? One that he can only pitch once a series in. If they get back a great player for Harvey - which they will - then I feel that the other team may have overpaid.

                              oe Willie Namath? Or, sticking with baseball, every drunken member of the Mickey Mantle/White Ford era Yankees? Heck...the '86 Mets?

                              What do Joe Namath and Mickey have in common? Raging alcoholics that had shortened careers and in Mantles case for certain destroyed what could have been one of the best players ever. So although NY provides the night life...maybe Harvey shouldnt seek it out as much as he does and realize he is a baseball player by trade.

                              Thankfully, only Harvey so far is Mr. Nightlife...you're saying a New York team can't deal with one prima donna, especially when he backs it up? An All-Star start, wherein he struck out three (Cabrera, Bautista, and Adam Jones, pretty good hitters), flirted with no-hitters a few times, and this year off surgery went 13-8 with a 2.71 ERA and 1.02 WHIP.

                              You used the term prima donna ...I dont nor have I ever, but anyway he backs it up? With what? He didnt back it up...to me he BACKED OUT.

                              Yes very nice All Star game start. Big deal. It means nothing. Maybe its something you can hang your hat on but I dont.

                              Harvey is a very good pitcher, and has potential to be great, but he isnt yet.

                              One more good month out of Harvey and they should start taking offers.

                              Comment


                              • Well, I'm glad deGrom was the game 1 starter and Harvey had enough #2-3 starter stuff to get us through game 3.
                                :lightbulb:Definition of a homerun: When the baseball gets hit to a DISTANCE that the fielder cannot get it into homeplate before the batter rounds the bases.

                                Associated Press -- Citi Field's smaller dimensions helped opponents more than the New York Mets.
                                Thanks Sandy Alderson.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X