Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, September 21, 2017

‘Highly unlikely’ Mets risk Harvey burning them — with another team | New York Post

The Mets appear willing to gamble on the disappointing right-hander, even at the risk of potentially wasting $6 million in 2018 should the struggles that have defined Harvey’s last two seasons persist.

And that means tendering a contract to the arbitration-eligible pitcher.

“It’s highly unlikely that we’re not going to bring him back next year,” general manager Sandy Alderson told The Post on Wednesday after the Mets’ 9-2 loss to the Marlins.

Jim Furtado Posted: September 21, 2017 at 08:53 AM | 16 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: matt harvey, mets

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Nasty Nate Posted: September 21, 2017 at 09:30 AM (#5535692)
Would an arbitrator really give him a raise?
   2. BDC Posted: September 21, 2017 at 09:48 AM (#5535706)
It’s highly unlikely that we’re not going to bring him back

Could you state that with any more negatives?
   3. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: September 21, 2017 at 09:49 AM (#5535707)
Can the Mets tender him, then back out sometime during spring training, while only having to pay a portion of the salary? I am not aware if that is still possible but it definitely used to be.
   4. Batman Posted: September 21, 2017 at 10:13 AM (#5535742)
I wouldn't disagree with anyone who said it’s highly unlikely that we’re not going to bring him back.
   5. geonose Posted: September 21, 2017 at 12:34 PM (#5535908)
Can the Mets tender him, then back out sometime during spring training, while only having to pay a portion of the salary?


Unless the last CBA changed things, yes, they can. I don't know the particulars - there's a drop dead date, for example, and if I recall correctly the percentage for which the team is on the hook is different depending on when the player is cut - but it's been done a lot.
   6. flournoy Posted: September 21, 2017 at 12:36 PM (#5535913)
I just took a certification exam where most of the practice material was phrased, "Which of the following is not false? A. Something is not something. B. Something else is neither this nor that. C. Etc...." Don't try this stuff late at night.
   7. The Duke Posted: September 21, 2017 at 12:37 PM (#5535915)
#4 I see what you are doing there
   8. bfan Posted: September 21, 2017 at 01:21 PM (#5535966)
Could you state that with any more negatives?


agreed; does that mean the same as "highly likely that we will..." or is there some clever escape hatch that I am missing? Is this just another example of modern garbage speech.
   9. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: September 21, 2017 at 03:17 PM (#5536103)
Even if you want to give Syndergaard the benefit of the doubt and say he's a good bet to be productive next year, the Mets have a lot of question marks in their rotation. Matz, Wheeler, Gsellman, Harvey, Lugo, and Montero are all question marks going into next season.
   10. ReggieThomasLives Posted: September 21, 2017 at 03:20 PM (#5536106)
It's highly unlikely that I won't be the GM who doesn't bring him back in the future, but not the next year that he is not available.
   11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 21, 2017 at 03:55 PM (#5536137)
For $5M (I don't see how a 6.59 ERA gets him a raise), no reason to not see if he can turn back into some semblance of his former self.
   12. Walt Davis Posted: September 21, 2017 at 05:35 PM (#5536193)
Cuz you pretty much always get at least a tiny raise in arb ... 93 innings of a 4.86 ERA got him $800 K last year. Actually it probably won't go to arb if the Mets want him. Maybe they can get him on an offer of $5.5.

It's also my impression that the arb cut rule is still in place. I think it's 1/5 or 1/6 of the total? So it would cost the Mets about $1 M to bring him to camp and see what he's got -- that seems like a no-brainer really. I'm not sure if that sort of thing pisses players off but there's nothing they can do to stop it and I suppose if you're cutting a guy then, you don't care if he never wants to come back.

I had always thought that the rule applied only to actual arbitrator's decisions -- i.e. if a 1-year deal had been agreed to then it would be fully guaranteed. But sometime in the last couple of years, this was done in a non-arbitrated case. Maybe that's part of the negotiation in not going to the arb.
   13. weiss-man Posted: September 21, 2017 at 08:20 PM (#5536249)
It's very Met-like to worry more about the possible reaction to a move instead of whether the move is a correct one to make.
   14. TheHomeRunsOfJuanPierre Posted: September 22, 2017 at 01:09 PM (#5536854)
Please bankroll Harvey, Furtado. Your obsessive disorder must pay off.

   15. Nasty Nate Posted: September 22, 2017 at 01:19 PM (#5536865)
Cuz you pretty much always get at least a tiny raise in arb ... 93 innings of a 4.86 ERA got him $800 K last year.
I don't know if this distinction matters, but the parties agreed to that raise; an arbitrator didn't give it.
   16. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: September 22, 2017 at 01:54 PM (#5536913)
Please bankroll Harvey, Furtado. Your obsessive disorder must pay off.

Did you make your account just to complain in every Mets thread? This is an actual story that is of interest to people.

My optimism regarding Harvey is almost entirely gone. His early success was always based more on his dominant stuff than it was on his control, and he clearly has not been able to adjust to diminished velocity/movement. He's not getting his 97 MPH fastball back, I don't think.

Still, I agree with everyone who says bring him back and see what he's got in spring training. For 1/$6, he at least provides some theoretical upside.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(319 - 8:13am, Dec 11)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

NewsblogYankees in talks on Giancarlo Stanton trade
(186 - 8:09am, Dec 11)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogJack Morris, Alan Trammell elected to Hall | MLB.com
(65 - 7:34am, Dec 11)
Last: BDC

NewsblogThe Giancarlo Stanton Trade Shines a Light on the Sad Difference Between the Mets and Yankees
(29 - 7:16am, Dec 11)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogThe Official Mets Fan Self-Immolation Thread
(787 - 7:00am, Dec 11)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogMets have talked to teams about trading Matt Harvey: sources - NY Daily News
(1 - 6:52am, Dec 11)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogOTP 04 December 2017: Baseball group accused of ‘united front’ tactics
(1731 - 4:26am, Dec 11)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogAlan Trammell worthy of Cooperstown call
(45 - 2:12am, Dec 11)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogRyan Thibs has his HOF Ballot Tracker Up and Running!
(332 - 12:49am, Dec 11)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT - 2017 NFL thread
(378 - 12:49am, Dec 11)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

Gonfalon CubsLooking to next year
(299 - 12:15am, Dec 11)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogShohei Ohtani’s Value Has No Precedent | FiveThirtyEight
(26 - 10:34pm, Dec 10)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogShohei Ohtani agrees to deal with Angels | Los Angeles Angels
(59 - 9:37pm, Dec 10)
Last: PreservedFish

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot
(18 - 8:37pm, Dec 10)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogRosenthal: He’s 53 and hasn’t played in the majors since 2005, but Rafael Palmeiro is eyeing a comeback, and redemption – The Athletic
(94 - 8:07pm, Dec 10)
Last: McCoy

Page rendered in 0.3208 seconds
47 querie(s) executed