Mets Suddenly have Flexibility

With the reported signing Friday of Curtis Granderson, the Mets suddenly have plenty of flexibility to make further deals to improve the club.

If seems like the outfield is now set with Granderson, Juan Lagares and Chris Young.

Or…

If Sandy Alderson decides he wants to find a bigger bat than Lagares can offer, he can go out and get a corner outfielder and move Young or Granderson to center.

Second base belongs to Daniel Murphy.

Or…

Murphy can be included in a trade to get that bigger outfield or first base bat, or a starting pitcher, and Eric Young can start at second.

Some combination of Ike Davis/Lucas Duda/Josh Satin will start at first base.

Or…

Since that is a lesser of three evils situation, they can all be traded for a starting pitcher, shortstop or outfielder and Murphy can slide over to first, with Eric Young taking over at second.

While the Mets have roster flexibility, any of these scenarios would be more feasible if the Mets had more payroll flexibility. Between Granderson and Chris Young, $22.25 million of the Mets $25 million-$30 million budget (read, $25 million) is virtually spent. Dealing Murphy and Davis would free up around $9 million in expected 2014 salaries, enough to get one more quality bat or a couple of decent pitchers.

Whatever happens, Alderson will be plenty busy at next week’s Winter Meetings. Perhaps he can surprise all of us and find redemption this off-season after doing virtually nothing the past three years.

4 thoughts on “Mets Suddenly have Flexibility

  • December 7, 2013 at 1:38 pm
    Permalink

    Had to do it. I like the move. A shortstop would be nice. There will be another move or two coming. I think Murph will be dealt in a package – a shortstop or pitcher.

  • December 9, 2013 at 6:14 am
    Permalink

    “Between Granderson and Eric Young, $22.25 million of the Mets $25 million-$30 million budget”…

    I think you meant CHRIS Young.

  • December 9, 2013 at 7:58 am
    Permalink

    I think trading Murphy would be a mistake, the type of mistake the Mets have been making since trading Ron Hunt and Jim Hickman for a guy with two bad knees and a nobody.

  • December 9, 2013 at 4:39 pm
    Permalink

    Thanks, fixed it.

    If trading Murphy means making the team better, I would do it. But if he remains with the team, I would not have a problem with it. One commenter on a Mets board said it best — Murphy is not the problem, but he is not the solution, either.

Leave a Reply

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

Why ask?