This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
No. The only concern other teams should have is where they are now and over the duration of his contract which caps out at $15M in 2020.
Simmons is so good defensively that he can lose a bit of range and still be an excellent defender. Ozzie, Vizquel and Belanger were still Gold Glove SS into their mid-30s. Some of that was due to reputation but the limited metrics that exist are still positive. Belanger retained value in spite of smoking like a chimney.
If I were the Mets I'd trade Harvey for Simmons in a heartbeat. Harvey's a huge injury risk, he's entering arbitration (will cost more than Simmons after this season if he stays healthy) and is under team control for two fewer years than Simmons. Plus he's a Boras client so he's unlikely to do a pre-FA extension.Limp Ditka said:Unless, of course, the price is DeGrom or Harvey
According to Joel Sherman of the New York Post, the Mets checked in on the availability of Andrelton Simmons on Thursday morning and were told that it would take Matt Harvey or Jacob deGrom.
Agree with this. Its the same reason the Phils are said to be shopping Ken Giles. If you have someone who is most valuable in the next 2-3 years and you dont plan to be competitive for 4-5 years, it makes sense to try to sell high and try to get some younger players in return now while you can.RnR said:
If I were the Mets I'd trade Harvey for Simmons in a heartbeat. Harvey's a huge injury risk, he's entering arbitration (will cost more than Simmons after this season if he stays healthy) and is under team control for two fewer years than Simmons. Plus he's a Boras client so he's unlikely to do a pre-FA extension.Limp Ditka said:Unless, of course, the price is DeGrom or Harvey
According to Joel Sherman of the New York Post, the Mets checked in on the availability of Andrelton Simmons on Thursday morning and were told that it would take Matt Harvey or Jacob deGrom.
We're all getting older and increasing our risk of injury.Eephus said:
He's significantly less of an injury risk IMO. He's four years removed from the surgery and stayed healthy since. He also had two full seasons to build arm strength before the long season inc playoffs this year.If I were the Mets I'd trade Harvey for Simmons in a heartbeat. Harvey's a huge injury risk, he's entering arbitration (will cost more than Simmons after this season if he stays healthy) and is under team control for two fewer years than Simmons. Plus he's a Boras client so he's unlikely to do a pre-FA extension.Limp Ditka said:Unless, of course, the price is DeGrom or Harvey
According to Joel Sherman of the New York Post, the Mets checked in on the availability of Andrelton Simmons on Thursday morning and were told that it would take Matt Harvey or Jacob deGrom.
DeGrom's had TJ too. Is he someone less of an injury risk?
It's why Oakland shops their players every year.
I don't think that's true. Beane's never done a multi-year tear-down job, I think he realizes the fact that he needs to allocate Oakland's payroll as efficiently as possible to have a chance. Which means that Oakland's mostly barred from the luxury of having $15-20mm per year players. Tampa's in that same boat. There may be a bigger stadium and more money somewhere in the future, but I don't think anyone's counting on that now.
But why not at least knock on some relievers' doors before you trade for one? Benoit has been pretty dependable, but he's not exactly a purple unicorn. $7.5mm AND two players seems like a lot for Benoit.
Jesse SanchezVerified account@JesseSanchezMLB
well you've been proven to be an idiot many times beforeIf I were the Mets I'd trade Harvey for Simmons in a heartbeat. Harvey's a huge injury risk, he's entering arbitration (will cost more than Simmons after this season if he stays healthy) and is under team control for two fewer years than Simmons. Plus he's a Boras client so he's unlikely to do a pre-FA extension.Limp Ditka said:Unless, of course, the price is DeGrom or Harvey
According to Joel Sherman of the New York Post, the Mets checked in on the availability of Andrelton Simmons on Thursday morning and were told that it would take Matt Harvey or Jacob deGrom.
This has gotta be hard to swallow if you're a Braves fan. I guess it makes sense in the context of what they're doing, it's just that what they're doing sucks.
I find it annoying that a Nationals fan went to Turner Field and found this "VERY ANNOYING!" while videoing it for YouTube.
No way. Someone like Bogaerts, or Russell, yes, but Simmons really can't hit, and his contract will stop being a bargain soon. I'm also not seeing Harvey as an injury risk.If I were the Mets I'd trade Harvey for Simmons in a heartbeat. Harvey's a huge injury risk, he's entering arbitration (will cost more than Simmons after this season if he stays healthy) and is under team control for two fewer years than Simmons. Plus he's a Boras client so he's unlikely to do a pre-FA extension.Limp Ditka said:Unless, of course, the price is DeGrom or Harvey
According to Joel Sherman of the New York Post, the Mets checked in on the availability of Andrelton Simmons on Thursday morning and were told that it would take Matt Harvey or Jacob deGrom.
well you've been proven to be an idiot many times beforeIf I were the Mets I'd trade Harvey for Simmons in a heartbeat. Harvey's a huge injury risk, he's entering arbitration (will cost more than Simmons after this season if he stays healthy) and is under team control for two fewer years than Simmons. Plus he's a Boras client so he's unlikely to do a pre-FA extension.Limp Ditka said:Unless, of course, the price is DeGrom or Harvey
According to Joel Sherman of the New York Post, the Mets checked in on the availability of Andrelton Simmons on Thursday morning and were told that it would take Matt Harvey or Jacob deGrom.
gold coming from you Mr shady
Good call, trading away a very reasonably-priced cornerstone of the franchise who's still going to be under contract and probably pretty good when the new park opens is exactly how you want to attack this thing.
It certainly makes sense from a baseball perspective, but it might not make sense from a business perspective. Really gutting the team and putting out awful teams can seriously diminish your fanbase.Limp Ditka said:
I think fans are more resilient these days, especially now that the template is out there. A couple years of 100 L seasons for a team that's had so much success for so long will just build anticipation for when the pieces start coming together. People will complain. The baseball will be ugly. But it's better than trying to plug holes in a sinking ship.dparker713 said:
I would get that thinking if Simmons had 1-2 years left, but the Braves had him on a great deal through the end of the decade. Maybe 6 years of control of Newcomb is better than two years of control of Simmons, but it certainly isn't better than 5.
I've been doing some research today and discovered that Don is actually Sean's Great Uncle. So at least he has the pedigreeLimp Ditka said:
Is there a definitive study on stockpiling pitching prospects vs. trading them and which ultimately yields more MLB value? The original TINSTAAP stuff makes me think the proper thing to do is trade them all, but I'll admit I have some bias as a Jays fan.
Billy Beane offering qualifying offers to guys that don't qualify for qualifying offers. #onestepahead
