Last year, Dominic Smith proved to be a valuable reserve, finally delivering on the promise that at one time had him ranked as the top first base prospect in the minors. Of course with the season Pete Alonso turned in, it looks like Smith’s future on the Mets is limited to being a reserve And that’s okay. Also last year, Smith showed himself to be a top step of the dugout type of guy, always cheering on his teammates, even when he was sidelined with an injury.

If possible, it seems like Smith has only upped his likability quotient during Grapefruit League play and here while the season is suspended. He allowed himself to be mic’ed up during Spring Training and provided some real laughs, unlike most people. Now, while no games are being played, he’s playing beer pong with Marcus Stroman and doing combo interviews with J.D. Davis. Unless he came to your house and volunteered to clean the gutters, it’s hard to imagine him doing anything more.

So, how much should the Mets value his contributions in the dugout and off the field? If anyone has intangibles – it would seem to be Smith. If a solid deal comes along — do you fail to pull the trigger because of a concern about how the team would handle Smith’s absence?

14 comments on “Wednesday catch-all thread (4/8/20)

  • Chris F

    I think it would be insane to hold on to a cheerleader in exchange for a player. X factor types are great to have around, but not at the expense of an every day player.

    Hard reality dictates two things:

    1. Every year he’s gonna get more and more expensive to sit on the pine. Is the money cost going to be worth it when he’s making 1M$?

    2. It is in Smith’s best interest to have a person who seems to be building a resume for a chance to play daily sit on the bench, and thus, squandering his talent and potential in exchange to be a ra-ra guy only getting pinch hit PAs.

    If he’s as good as people think he is based on limited play, then it would be criminal stunt his earning potential.

  • TexasGusCC

    On Smith, see Chris F.

    On the MLB rumor that they want to play all their games in Arizona, I can see it happen for two reasons:
    1. Players want to get their money; some of it, any of it. No games means no money, means problems back in the crib. Yes, most should have a few rainy day funds tucked away, but not all manage their money well.
    2. Although players will hate it, they will feel the obligation to the country to go out there and perform; to be the distraction for the country that it needs.

    • Chris F

      so we know that people not showing symptoms can transmit covidvirus. Baseball is a contact sport. everyone will need to be tested now, put in quarantine, tested in 14 days, and then hope no one gets it? furthermore it sends a terrible message to the public, like its fine to go back out right when were being told its the most important time to stay in.

      entertainment is not more important than a global health crisis.

      • TexasGusCC

        I didn’t say that I agree with the principle, but I do agree with the reason. In fact, the distraction is a good thought and definitely necessary, but I wouldn’t mind a scaled down version. Like two weeks on, two weeks off, go home. That gives the players time with family while also doing the “patriotic thing”. This season is lost anyway. Play 100 games, have a playoff, and that would be a great success.

        We can have American League playing for two weeks, National League for the next two weeks. Double headers every three days. The country has tests, plenty of them and can make more if necessary. Not everyone needs to be tested, as only >2% have contracted it. Usually you show symptoms with three days of getting the virus and these public service messages can be on every commercial break, like I’ve seen from other counties that include well known public figures as spokespersons.

        I will quote a junior high school friend, Octavio Campanella, that I ran into years later: “Sports is the opium of the masses.” I agree. With everyone depressed and staying home, the distraction of sports – while reminding people every ten minutes to quarantine – wouldn’t be a bad thing.

  • Eraff

    I make a Nice Income, but I am avoiding Commerce now—too risky!

    I can’t believe that established players have any interest in rushing back to play— sequestered without Nitelife or their families….packed together in Hotels, Lockers, Dugouts…… I’d probably pull a Hamstring or Intercostal Muscle—Maybe a Sports Hernia, or Stress Fracture.

  • Brian Joura

    For a decade at this site, I’ve been hounded by people who claimed that I didn’t pay any attention to intangibles and how it was a game played by people and that not everything can be quantified.

    Now, maybe I’ve just run all of those people off. But I’m just flabbergasted that we have a player who, if intangibles are a real thing, is the clearest example yet of someone who potentially brings value beyond his statistics. And no one is coming to his defense.

    Personally, I think this is the way it should be. But it doesn’t mean I can’t be shocked by how it’s playing out.

  • Mike W

    A .230 batting average will make intangibles go away very quickly. Intangibles to me would be things that a veteran player may provide to help young players improve their play with advice, etc….Clapping and standing at the top of the dugout to me are not intangibles. That’s being a good teammate.

    I like Dom, but I would rather have a more versatile utility player.

    • Brian Joura

      But the guy who hits .230 is exactly the ones who the intangibles crowd love to support. They’re the ones who you can’t value by their numbers. Like Super Joe McEwing.

      • Name

        I don’t believe he has earned the reputation of intangibles.

        It was only 2 years ago when he came into camp fat and out of shape, was not playing hard with bonehead errors, and had an aura that he didn’t care.

        Much like his bat, his attitude change, could very just be a 1 year fluke.

      • Mike W

        Yes, like Dave Kingman when he hit .204.

      • Chris F

        Being a cheerleader isnt X factor to me. I’d rather see Juan Uribe or Kelly Johnson or Marlon Byrd as that person, or David Ross, or (ok I get it) carlos Beltran. These are guys that have seen it all, understand how to be calm and resolve 2nd and 3rd with one out and make the right move. I can see Cano as an X factor. Dom Smith is not X factor.

  • David Klein

    You never fail to move a player with a limited role because of “chemistry” how silly

  • Bob P

    I think any decision to hold on to Dom would not be based on intangibles but on the fear of what we could be giving up if he reaches his potential. In the time he played last year he hit well and showed more power than I think many expected of him. The question really becomes are we giving up a starting caliber player with a chance to have a pretty high ceiling? It becomes tough to gage his value because he hasn’t had a chance to play regularly. Having seen what he was able to do in a small sample size makes it tougher to let him go for minimal value and most tend to value their own assets higher than an outsider would. To get strong value for him another team that has a need for a first baseman would need to see his value at the same level the Mets do.

  • Metsense

    Smith is a good teammate and he was a good bench player in 2019. He is also inexpensive and controlled. He is primarily a first baseman which devalues his market value. After all, any team could have signed Matt Adams. If there comes a chance to deal Smith for similar value they should (but that is unlikely). The Mets should be patient and reap the benefits of Smith’s reduced role. As for his teammates, they would be happy for Smith if he is traded because they would wish well that he would get an opportunity to play more and further his career .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *