The Qualifying Offer this year will be $18.9 million and the Mets will have to decide whether or not to extend that to Marcus Stroman. In a normal year, this would probably be an easy decision. This year, maybe not so much. And on top of that, one has to decide if there’s any lingering grudge towards Stroman for waiting until he had amassed enough service time before opting out. He seemed genuinely spooked about the prospect of playing in Miami and it’s impossible to ridicule that decision, as Tomas Nido and a coach came down with Covid during the trip to south Florida. Still, it felt a tiny bit wrong.

Stroman would be an asset and the price seems ok. My feeling is that the Mets should reach out to their coaching staff and a few players to see how they would feel if Stroman was on the team in 2021. If they sign off that it would be no problem, my inclination would be to give Stroman the QO.

11 comments on “Saturday catch-all thread (10/10/20)

  • John From Albany

    I would give him the Qualifying offer as well. If he takes it – you have him for another year. If not, you get a draft pick if he signs elsewhere. I would not try to lock him up long term until he pitched again for me next year.

    • Mike W

      I agree with you 100%. Give him the qualifying offer. We need a number two and if he takes it, great. He needs to prove himself next year to get a better deal in 22.

  • TJ

    Given their lack of starting pitching and Daddy Warbucks I’d say a QO is the smart play. If the teammates aren’t endorsing maybe the could swing a sign and trade to an upcoming playoff team, like say Toronto, perhaps for a MLB ready bullpen arm and a lower minors guy with some upside.

  • Bob P

    I would give him the QO and I also think there’s a good chance he will end up accepting it. His market will probably not be what he wants it to be after missing the year and if he has a QO attached I think that will hurt his market even more. He may need to pitch on a one year deal to increase his value if he wants to land a big contract. Right now he’d be the best starter we have whose last name begins with a capital letter and $18.9 for one year is not a huge risk.

    • Remember1969

      Bob, I agree with your statement(s) 100%

  • Metsense

    Stroman had a 3.9 fWAR in 2019 and was ranked 25th as a starting pitcher in MLB in fWAR that year. According to Spotrac.com the salary of the 25th paid starting pitching in MLB is $17,000 AAV.
    The Mets need starting pitching and Stroham is a #2 pitcher on most staffs. He should get a QO and if he refuses then the Mets would get a draft pick. Good quality starting pitching is too hard came by.
    The Mets should offer Stroham a 4 yr /$68 – 76M to stabilize the rotation.

  • TexasGusCC

    I’m would pass. I don’t want him on the team but he would be nuts to turn down $18.9MM in a depressed market. It’s one of those cases where having a QO attached will definitely drive down his suitors but I don’t want to be stuck paying $19MM for a $13MM pitcher. Ironically, yesterday MLBTR had a poll of who you’d rather sign, Stroman or Gausman; there’s your comparison. Stroman got 65% of the vote. Also, Stroman hadn’t been as good as he was in 2019 in a while and he felt that he couldn’t gain and only lose by pitching this past season. He had his chance to be a Met and didn’t want it. What else you need to know?

  • Eraff

    Is this idea that other players dislike Strohman Invented Here, or is there some actual Fact to it?

    I don’t believe players of any stature would take judgement against a guy for covering his interests, financilly…not to mention his safety concerns dealing with Covid.

    They badly need to QO him, or offer him a Deal.

    • Brian Joura

      I think you miss the point.

      It’s not an assumption that other players “dislike” Stroman – it’s that you never know how competitive people will react when someone chooses not to compete. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if everyone involved said they respected Stroman’s decision and that they would welcome him back, no questions asked.

      I’d rather ask the question than risk alienating the clubhouse by making an assumption.

  • TexasGusCC

    Wait a second, he hasn’t pitched since his injury. Didn’t the Mets already make that mistake with Betances? That also will be taken into consideration by MLB teams. He says he’s fine, but all players say that.

  • Name

    Wish someone would have written article on the postseason but i guess this open thread will do. Here’s some random thoughts i had.

    The Central managed to squeeze in the most postseason teams with 7 and not one series had them squaring off against each other, yet none of the 7 teams managed to make it out of the wild card round! Unlucky or does it give credence to the widely held belief that the Central was the weakest division? And yet it’s expected that 3 of the 4 major awards this year are probably going to come out of that region where the caliber of play is probably subpar to the other regions… Could be easily rectified if they just scrapped the league awards and gave out regional awards this year.

    A second thought i had for the postseason was that it needed some playing time requirement after seeing teams having players with no MLB experience making the postseason roster. It doesn’t seem right to me that a player who barely appeared in the regular season should be allowed to play in the postseason. In recent years the August deadline has been filled with losing teams just shipping off their expiring players basically for free and the contenders picking up random hired hands left and right. Or how about rookie who makes 10-15 starts in September and is suddenly the starter in the postseason after not contributing in the regular season. How is any of that fair?

    So my proposal would be 120 PA for hitters, 20 IP min for relievers, 50 IP min for starters/bulk relievers(would have be defined so teams can’t manipulate) OR be on the 25 man roster/ DL for 75% of the team’s games. These terms would still allow players traded in July to make the postseason team, but they would obviously have to be used almost everyday in order to qualify, but the late August players traded would less likely have a chance to be eligible and it would encourage teams to trade earlier and limit the number of late season pickups which i dislike. Similar thinking would also apply to the prospects – if you want them to be postseason eligible you can’t wait until September to debut them.

    These playing time requirements would overall reward the GMs who plan for depth or act quickly earlier in the season rather than hoping that your buddy GM does you a favor and trades you an impending FA cheaply or picks up a player late in the year who catches lighting in a bottle and overproduces.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: