10:$9.7M, 11:$12M, 12:$12M, 13:$12.5M, 14:$12.5M, 15:$13.5M club option ($1M buyout)

That's Rios's contract from Cot's.

He's been worth about 3-4 WAR over the last 3 years (regressing his ridiculous 2008 UZR), and he's been worth about 1 WAR this year, even with the slump. The guy is a legitimately great defensive OF, who can hit some, and is only 28.

The contract is not an albatross. If the Mets can get him for basically free, they should jump at it.

Price writes, "I say trade every prospect they have in order to get help. ... It's clear holding onto anyone with an eye to the future is a huge mistake."

The Mets have prospects?

Is Rios better than Church? Because with the hopefully full recovery of Beltran and with Fernando locking down one corner OF position for next year, I'm not sure Rios provides much of an upgrade. And that's not even considering the possibility of bring Sheffield back as well.

The Mets have prospects?

Of course they do. Even some halfway decent ones.

-- MWE

Of course they do. Even some halfway decent ones.

Really?
Can you name any????

Ok seriously- have you seen Holt pitch yet? I keep hearing conflicting things on the number of pitches he has...

Can Thole actually hit or is he another Arom Baldiris?

Does Ike Davis have a chance? He was godawful in the NYPen league, but come May this year he's actually started hitting.

I wouldn't hold up any trade on account of Ryan Church.

If he only costs money, I'm all for this as a Mets fan.

Ok seriously- have you seen Holt pitch yet? I keep hearing conflicting things on the number of pitches he has...

There are some scouts who like Holt and think he could be another Pelfrey (with a better start to his MLB career I would hope) and other see him as a reliever. It all depends on how they good they think his off speed pitches will be.

Can Thole actually hit or is he another Arom Baldiris?

Thole can be a good hit/bad field catcher. They only questions is how bad fielder.

Does Ike Davis have a chance?

If Ike keeps hitting in AA this year, expect him in the mix for MLB 1B next year when Delgado is gone.

Others:

Havens had power, patience and a poor BABIP.

Jenrry Mejia is charging up the prospects lists (19 years old in AA with over a K/IP and close to a 3-1 K/BB ratio)

Reuben Tejada (.279/.352/.360 in AA at 19 years old) could be a decent 2B or trade bait depending on how Havens does.

Then there's Marte and Flores (hitting .309/.340/.426 in June) in A ball. They are highly thought of because of their age, but need to start producing more.

There are some scouts who like Holt and think he could be another Pelfrey

That's an odd comparison, their stat profiles are completely dissimilar

That's an odd comparison, their stat profiles are completely dissimilar

They're not looking at stat profiles. They're looking at a ground ball pitcher with a good moving FB who can use his offspeed pitches off the FB to get outs.

There's also Niese, who's still a pretty decent pitching prospect by most standards.

Doesn't Martinez still count?

Is Rios better than Church? Because with the hopefully full recovery of Beltran and with Fernando locking down one corner OF position for next year, I'm not sure Rios provides much of an upgrade. And that's not even considering the possibility of bring Sheffield back as well.

Yes, he's better than Church, but the Mets need both, this year and next.

On what planet has FMart locked down a spot? He's 20, with a 546 OPS and exactly 190 AB of really good offensive performance in the minors. He looked helpless against high heat vs. the Yankees. He needs to be in AAA for at least another year. Why would the Mets want to burn his service time struggling in the bigs? Austin Jackson has as much claim to have "locked down" a spot next year as Martinez.

Sheffield is 39. You caught lightning in a bottle. Don't go back to that well again.

If them Mets have the chance to get really good young MLB talent (that still might break-out to be great) for mostly money, they have to do it.

Do the Mets have the money to take on Rios' contract this year? If they do, why didn't they just sign Dunn?

Do the Mets have the money to take on Rios' contract this year? If they do, why didn't they just sign Dunn?

He's only making $5.9M in '09, so now that's only $3.0M, vs. $10M for Dunn in the off-season.

They're not looking at stat profiles. They're looking at a ground ball pitcher with a good moving FB who can use his offspeed pitches off the FB to get outs.

That is a description of Holt I have never read/heard before- and it is at complete variance with his stat profile.

In fact when googling Holt and Pelfrey together it seem sthey are only lumped together by virtue of being high Met colelge pitcher draft picks, plus Bernazrd said that Holt was similar to Pelfrey... but then Tony B also said:

"Holt's fastball is more of a high fastball, where Pelfrey's is more of a sinking fastball," Bernazard said before the game. "Holt is more developed with his secondary pitches than Pelfrey was at this stage."

Those secondary pitches are a curveball and a change-up, which Holt is still learning to throw consistently.

Baseball America said that Holt was like Pelfrey, only without the sinker... (which frankly is a bizarre observation- Pelfrey's ability to get ground balls and keep pitches in the park IS HIS DEFINING characteristic.

I think what is going on is wishcasting- the two most recent College Fastball pitchers drafted by the Mets in the 1st round were Humber and Pelfrey. Humber blows chinks, while Pelfrey is likely a 3 and perhaps a #2...

I don't think the 3 are at all similar.

I'm surprised Holt has more of a rising fastball considering he has a 1.83 GO/AO ratio.

I'm surprised Holt has more of a rising fastball considering he has a 1.83 GO/AO ratio.

considering his K rate I'd be stunned if he had a sinking fastball- he'd be a bettrr version of Brandon Webb- the Mets are not that lucky.

I think Holt & Pelfrey have a similar profile at a very high level of generality: they both have the same basic weakness as starting pitching prospects, which is the fact that they have one big-time pitch, a fastball, and relatively weak secondary pitch that makes everyone doubt whether they can be successful more than once through a major-league order and over a long period of time. But everything I've read suggests that Holt's fastball is, indeed, very different than Pelfrey's. And it does seem that he's been doing a good job so far of improving his secondary stuff, at least compared to what the scouts thought he had when he was drafted. Right now, I think Holt is probably about as good a prospect as Pelfrey was when Pelfrey was drafted, or close to it.

Anyway, of all the things written in this thread so far, the one I agree the most with is this:

On what planet has FMart locked down a spot? He's 20, with a 546 OPS

I think Fernando Martinez has shown definitively that he's not ready yet, which is totally fine and to be expected. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that he will be next year, either, and certainly not that he's "locked down" anything whatsoever for 2010. I'm not sure who needs him to be in Buffalo more: Fernando, or the Mets, but it's close, and they both need it quickly. The sooner they can get some reinforcements so that he can get back to AAA and resume his learning outside the major leagues, the better.

The notion that they should just trade away every prospect they have for immediate help is beyond moronic, and not worth commenting on.

Can Thole actually hit or is he another Arom Baldiris?

Wow - the mention of Aarom Baldiris brings back memories. In fairness to Thole, (a) Baldiris never put together a season as good as Thole has so far at a high level, (b) there was a fair bit of hope that Baldiris could learn 2b, because nobody thought his bat would really play at a non-premium position, whereas Thole already plays a premium position and (c) Baldiris really just fell apart aft high-A ball.

In fairness to Thole, (a) Baldiris never put together a season as good as Thole has so far at a high level,

Is it too much to wish Thole could turn a few of those 24 XBH he has so far at Binghamton into home runs, instead of 24/2/1? If his glove doesn't become passable, I just don't see a .346/.414/.455 at Binghamtom translating into enough offense to carry an outright BAD glove There's a lot to like, no doubt, but there's also some development that still has to happen between what he is and what he needs to become if "quality major league starting catcher" is your goal. Add some pop, Josh.

Can Thole actually hit or is he another Arom Baldiris?

Hah. Baldiris . . . or remember The Blade? Ian Bladergroen, who had a nice season in 2004 in the SAL . . . and then was traded to the BoSox for . . . wait for it . . . Doug Mientkiewicz, when the Mets were desperate for something resembling a first baseman for 2005! And then never rose above A ball in his whole frigging career.

Ah, prospects.

Ian Bladergroen, who had a nice season in 2004 in the SAL . . . and then was traded to the BoSox for . . . wait for it . . . Doug Mientkiewicz, when the Mets were desperate for something resembling a first baseman for 2005!

I remember being happy that the Red Sox got anything remotely resembling a prospect for Mientkiewicz.

Hey, some of us were ticked when Omar traded the Blade.

Ian Bladergroen suffered a wrist injury after the trade. He never recovered.

Baldiris had nothing in common with Thole, but yeah, let's just compare them anyway.

BTW, I love how most people have already decided that Thole is a poor defensive catcher.
Nichols' Law of Catcher Defense strikes again.

If I remember correctly, Bladergroen broke his wrist before the trade. I wonder if the Mets would have made the 2005 playoffs if Delgado had decided to sign with the Mets instead of the Marlins that offseason.

You're right, it was before the trade. Nevertheless, Blade never matched that power again after breaking his wrist.

One wonders whether baseball teams end up like bureaucracies or their financials are just reported on as if they were.

But lest we forget, money is worth something,

Money is only worth something if it's yours. To a fan, money 'saved' by not spending it only has marginal value if it is spent elsewhere where it returns more value *and* if the money spent elsewhere was only available because it was not spent on the lesser thing. Here's where I wonder about the bureaucracy.

Let's assume for the sake of it that the Mets consider getting Rios to be a positive thing in and of itself, as in he provides more value than the contract he is under. If no players change hands, this is somewhat arbitrage (it's not, I know this, but it's instructive to think of it so.) If that's the case, then only one thing should be able to prevent doing it, the lack of resources. As an unneeded exemplar, I may know of an arbitrage opportunity, but if it requires 50MM in capital to execute, it doesn't matter that it's arbitrage, I can't participate. So in the 'this is a positive move on face' scenario, the Mets would have to be unable to spend the money to not do it.

Teams are often reported on as being exactly in this situation. Often those reports are inaccurate or downright false, but still. What I wonder, and it will obviously be somewhat different for each case, is who is to blame for this lack of flexibility. Are ownerships allowing payrolls that are at the absolute maximum of their ability to allocate, thus meaning there's zero room to add payroll even in the arbitrage case? Or are they setting a number and then refusing to consider adding payroll, even with available funds, even in the arbitrage case? If it's the former, what sort of executive spends every dime he could possibly have without setting some aside for eventualities? Even $10MM is what, 7-8% of player payroll? You think a divisional VP at Kimberly Clark irrevocably allocates 95% of his budget before the fiscal year starts, so that if some kickass promotional opportunity (or on the other end, a product recall) arises he can't adjust on the fly?

The only justification for allocating the 100% is the bureaucratic "If we don't spend it this year, they'll just drop our budget for next year" mentality that unfortunately is pervasive towards the ends of FYs. Is that why we see this behavior? I would hope not; I would hope everyone involved is capable of macro thinking and saving a dollar from this budget to increase the next one by the same dollar is an option. Perhaps not.

A more flattering and accurate comparison for Thole is Justin Huber. Unfortunately, he never panned out either.

Jeff, GMs have to think about other factors. Owner may say "I will increase the budget by $10M and I want fans to see it". Also, will $5M at the deadline buy twice as much wins as $5M at the beginning of the season (deadline deals give you player for only half a season). Will the team even be in the position to need someone at the deadline if $5M player isn't bought at the beginning of the season?
The best flexibility of payroll is this: spend as much as you need up to the limit before the season and then, if in the hunt, explain to the owners that playoffs bring significant money and fan interest, and even playoff hunt increases fan interest for that and following season. So, any additional investment which improves the team and shows to the fans that the team is making an effort will bring in additional revenue and will be profitable.

The only justification for allocating the 100% is the bureaucratic "If we don't spend it this year, they'll just drop our budget for next year" mentality that unfortunately is pervasive towards the ends of FYs.

Well, most seasons, teams (the high revenue ones at least) usually do have enough payroll flexibility to make a "big" deadline move.

But this offseason, the economy was tanking, teams were clearly tightening belts (the Cubs had to go through maneuvers to 'afford' Bradley, for example ... also all the low-ball offers for many FAs) and were worried about revenues this season and have (generally) seen a drop in attendance. Now that may not be true of the Mets given the new stadium -- but they did have to put in some money right and they might still be paying that off.

Also, in the case of Rios, it's not just a marginal few million this year but a commitment to several years of several million which creates opportunity costs for future acquisitions.

The best flexibility of payroll is this: spend as much as you need up to the limit before the season and then, if in the hunt, explain to the owners that playoffs bring significant money and fan interest, and even playoff hunt increases fan interest for that and following season. So, any additional investment which improves the team and shows to the fans that the team is making an effort will bring in additional revenue and will be profitable.

1) I don't disagree in the slightest, but my point was that quite often the media reports indicate (by the direction and/or tone of coverage) that this is even an option. So, is the bureaucratic budget stranglehold alive, or does the media just report as if it is? That was the thrust of my question.

2) Even in your description, you assume a bureaucracy/unnecessary red tape. Should an owner need that explained to them? Again, my interest is in the coverage/perception of the thing, so whether they do or not is immaterial, what is relevant is that even you right there assume some Peter Principle-esque machinations.

But this offseason,

Of course I recognize this, but this isn't new coverage or a slant to it. That's again my point, that we've seen this for years, it's basically entrenched. Sure, *now*, this season, I can see ownership saying "Well, we had told you could spend X, and you spent 80% of that leaving you some flex, but we can only afford Y now, which means you have no flexibility anymore." But notice it's not being reported as some new phenomenon.

Also, in the case of Rios, it's not just a marginal few million this year but a commitment to several years of several million which creates opportunity costs for future acquisitions.

I had the construct of arbitrage up to avoid this particular part of the argument, but sure. Though it's still less than 10% of payroll.

Also, will $5M at the deadline buy twice as much wins as $5M at the beginning of the season (deadline deals give you player for only half a season).

Sometimes, yes, but definately not always important. For many teams, those second half of the year wins have more marginal value than wins at the beginning of the season. That is why there are buyers and sellers; why "prospects" have inflated value; and why you can deadline deals. For instance, a potential win in 2010 is worth more to the Nats than a potential win in August.

In the middle of a season, you can often buy short term potential wins cheaper than you can buy long term potential wins. The currency is just usually high risk long term volatile potential wins.

As to Jeff K's question, I think there are three different types of organizations:

(1) Those with very rigid budget systems. These are usually the teams that are owned by larger conglomerates that have financial acumen. They set their budget and the return of a championship is usually not worth the payroll risk to them. Any surplus funds would only be used if it provided some type of long term guaranteed return. IMHO, this is how Time Warner was running the Braves earlier this decade.

(2) Teams that have risk averse GMs. The GM never asks for the money because the GM lives a very risk adverse existence. They know they have built in excuses for not winning (payrolls of other teams), and they had much rather have a respectable record year-to-year within budget than they would like to take a chance out of budget for a shot. There is a certain AL East team that would fit this description.

(3) Teams that not only have a reserve fund, but build in deadline money. This seems to be many teams, especially those that have active ownership groups.

Kevin Goldstein quoted a scout today on Thole:

"Great approach, great makeup, I could see him lasting in the big leagues for a long time... almost a Darrin Fletcher, part two."

Teams that have risk averse GMs. The GM never asks for the money because the GM lives a very risk adverse existence. They know they have built in excuses for not winning (payrolls of other teams), and they had much rather have a respectable record year-to-year within budget than they would like to take a chance out of budget for a shot. There is a certain AL East team that would fit this description.

Not to mention at least one NL Central team...

-- MWE