First things first. I have not seen this as a rumor and am just pulling it out of the air.
Neither the Mets nor the Braves can be happy with their big free agent signings this past offseason.
The Mets gave Michael Cuddyer a two year deal for a total of $21 million and in true Wilponian kick-the-can-down-the-street fashion they split the contract with $8.5 million being paid in 2015 and $12.5 million in 2016. And just to remind us some more of the misery the team forfeited its first round draft in order to bring David Wright’s good buddy aboard.
But the Mets had company in the bad free agent signing department. The Atlanta Braves in what otherwise was considered a rebuilding program gave former Oriole Nick Markakis $46 million for four years. The breakdown was $13 million for this year and $11 million for each of the next three seasons.
Let’s look at their offensive stats through this past Monday and indeed we can call them offensive to our senses.
The first thing I notice at midseason is that both players have just 19 extra base hits. Cuddyer has six HR’s and Markakis nary a one. Markakis is way ahead in batting average and OBP while they have about the same slugging percentage.
A longstanding debate exists as to whether Markakis is a Gold Glove caliber fielder, an average one or a below average one. I think he is a bit better than average in RF and has an accurate powerful enough arm. There is no debate about Cuddyer’s defense. It is quite poor and while he has a better arm than Curtis Granderson that is not saying very much especially since the team insists on playing Granderson in RF.
The key to this challenge trade is really the money. The Mets can rationalize that after 2016 they are done with Cuddyer and can go out and misspend on someone else. The Braves might find that attractive as they never bargained for Markakis to be unable to reach the stands even once in half of his first season with them.
The Mets could put Markakis in RF and bat him leadoff. This improves two things. It puts Granderson in LF where he belongs and allows the team to drop Granderson to about fourth or fifth in the lineup so that his occasional homeruns have a better chance of coming with men on base.
While I have totally made this trade up I do think it is in keeping with the Mets’ tendency to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. The promotion of Kirk Nieuwenheis and demotion of Darrel Ceciliani is a typical Sandy Alderson move that hopes to catch lightning in a bottle at the far end of the bench.
It is quite clear that the team refuses to actually upgrade the offense by moving a starting pitcher. A Cuddyer for Markakis swap might do so without either team touching their respective pitching staffs.
I don’t do this trade part of the reason you sign cuddy to a 2 year deal as opposed to signing someone ells to a longer term deal is because you don’t want to block Conforto who may be ready now but will definitely be up next year at some point getting Markakis just makes it worse so no thanks.
Strictly from the Mets point of view (because the Braves wouldn’t do it), it would be an upgrade. While Markakis has no home runs, they will come. However, just a batting average that is 56 points higher and the better defense will suffice. The extra years may be a burden, but Atlanta didn’t lose their first round pick getting him either. Markakis is young enough to have value down the road anyway.
No thanks. I don’t want more years of 10+ M$ to an aging has been, Granny serves that role enough. And clearly, it seems Wright will too.
A bit off-topic. Bench help from Vegas.
Since Muno was called up instead of Castellanos, the LV squad has played 3 games, with a DH on Thursday.
Here’s what Castellanos did:
1st Game. 3-3 with 2 doubles, giving him a PCL leading 31 for the season.
2nd Game. 2-3 with his 32nd double.
3rd Game. 3-4 with his 16 HR and 4 RBIs (56 for season).
So, 3 games. 8 for 10.
He’s hot. He’s not the savior. PCL stats are inflated. I get all that. But Cuddyer is hurting. Lagares is hurting. Grandy plays every game. Why not bring him up for a few games? Yes, he’s had a couple of cups of coffee in the MLB, but so have the other scrubs.
Also, I didnt realize this before, but he’s played all over the place. All OF positions, 3B, 1B and even 111 games at 2B.
I suppose that there are some roster rules that made Muno a better option, but this is really hard to understand. Is there any rational explanation?
+1… my thoughts exactly as I posted earlier in gut reaction.
just did a quick check of the 40 man roster over at mets.com Castellanos is not on it so someone would have to come off of it to make room for him on it if his cotract got purchused. You can make that spot by ither moving someone to the 60 day DL or passing someone through waivers. I don’t see anyone I’d be comfortable passing through waivers especially if you only view that bench spot as open until they call up a 6th SP after the break.
I guess you could move D wright to the 60 day DL but i don’t think the team is ready to make that move.
Thanks for the explanation. This at least makes some sense. I need to educate myself on roster rules.
From my perspective, I think I’d be very willing to take my chances with some of these guys if they were not protected. Teams have already passed on Kirk. Do we think they’d pilfer Campbell? Muno? Ceclilliani? And if they did, would that be such a big loss?
All that said, I need to read up on the roster rules as I would guess some of my comments here havent made much sense.
Aging Bull, you’ve totally made sense. The organization has to manage the 40-man roster better, that’s all.
the team started the season with plenty of roster flexibility but the sheer number of injuries has necessitated the adding of guys to the 40 man
Thor
Matz
Ciciliani
Robles
Parnell (activated from the 60 day DL)
Meije (Reinstated from the reserve suspended list)
Veretta (added to the roster after returned as a rule 5 selection)
Have all been adds to the 40 man roster since the start of the season there is only so much flexibility available to manage. Especially when you consider we added 2 reliever late in spring training while only trading one guy off our 40 man roster
Muno and Cecilliani are young and have options both would get taken because any team could take them stash them on their 40 man and send them to the minores. Soup may or may not be taken but like Kirck to DFA him and pass him through wavers would necessitate a 2nd opening on your active roster and call up.
If i were to go this route I’d DFA Kirk Call up Ceccilliani and Castellanos but I only do that if I think this is a long term bench restructure. If I’m looking for a guy to hang out on the end of my bench for 4-6 games then go back to Vegas when I call up a starter why risk losing anyone?
You are correct. It’s weird that they haven’t done it.
On one hand it is tempting to be excited about a guy putting an OPS up in the range of 1000. OTOH that crazy PCL and LasVegas itself distorts stats so badly that it is anybody’s guess as to what he could contribute in the majors.
I do think the Mets consistently take the safe route when a calculated gamble is called for. Do we really care if schlubs like Campbell, Muno, Ceciliani, or Nieuwenheis get claimed on waivers in an attempt to move someone more worthy onto the 40 man roster? These are replacement level players by definition and are literally a dime a dozen.
The front office should make moves these days to improve the likelihood of making the playoffs. Sure, we don’t want to trade one of the big 4 or 5 pitchers for the next Victor Zambrano. But way short of that we shouldn’t be bringing up the Danny Muno’s of the world just because going with Castellanos (or Matt Reynolds when he was healthy) might lose a AAAA guy to another organization.
To answer the question only: yes the Mets would win in a trade straight up. Markakis is a better RF defensively than Granderson and would upgrade the defense. He is younger than Cuddyer and is hitting better and fielding better than him. I am a firm believer in having four outfielders that can start and have the intitial plan to split the starts equally at 122 games each. In the course of a season players get hurt and the amount of starts will adjust themselves. Four outfielders insures a viable bat off the bench, a designated hitter and more in game flexibility. This is why Markakis’ four year contract doesn’t phase me and I would try to trade for Parra also. Next summer Conforto should be ready and can ease into the lineup. Nimmo with his mid 700 OPS may need more developement time so there is more time before the Mets need to open a spot for him. Anyway, those are the problems you like to have.
While having a subpar year for power, Markakis is having a very respectable year as a lead off hitter. So far he is hitting nearly 300 with 97 hits and close to 30 walks. Pair this with one error in the field and 4 assists, I think the Braves won’t regret their deal for him over four years if these numbers persist. I followed his entire career in Baltimore and he was a superb fielder/thrower, at least in Cambden Yard. As a bonus he is a smart and highly professional player whom other players look up to and model.
His stats would have you figure him as a leadoff batter and indeed my article suggests that role for him. Oddly though he has spent a large part of the year batting cleanup for the Braves!
Of course the Mets can’t laugh at anyone’s cleanup batter given all the time Cuddyer and Wilmer Flores have spent in the role. Neither of those guys have even a 700 OPS.
I like this trade. I like Aging Bulls suggestion. I like everyone’s educated responses. I like Metsense’s idea about using four OFs. I like everything.
Ha.
What kind of Mets fan do you think you are?
A true Mets fans hates everything.
The only thing we would like is to have the Wilpons run out of town on a rail.
🙂
Editor’s Note – Please do not capitalize words in your post, as that is a violation of our Comment Policy.
Why would the Braves do this?
Let’s say the Braves have buyer’s remorse. They have contracted to pay $46 million to have a player for four years who has apparently lost all his home run power. To save $25 million they trade him for a guy with a shorter contract who can at least hit the 10 to 20 home runs they were looking for. Teams have done this in the past just to save some money.
Great idea Larry! Never really considered this type of trade, but it is interesting. However, I like Conforto’s upside, as he has power and hopefully a good approach that will lead to a high OBP. Markakis reminds me of Granderson, except a better average but less power.
I dont think the Braves or Meta would do this, but interesting to think about. Hundred percent on board with Metsense on the importance of a 4th outfielder. I’ve been ranting about this since they signed Mayberry.
Brian Joura wrote an excellant article on the importance and need for a fourth outfielder on a team. It changed my thinking on roster construction. Unfortunately I can’t find the link Help !
If the Mets had four solid outfielders then the fifth outfielder could be more fringe like. Like Mayberry who only hits lefties or maybe EYJr, who would be used only as a late inning pinch runner to steal a run. Bobby Valentine would use that type of advantage. TC didn’t.
And thanks for the kind words!