Latest on Mets Pursuit of Jonathan Lucroy

Depending on which tweet you believe, the Mets are either close to acquiring Brewers All-Star catcher Jonathan Lucroy or they are not.

Fox Sports midget Ken Rosenthal claims his sources tell him:

“Mets made three-player offer to Brewers for Lucroy, headed by d’Arnaud. Second piece believed to be Nimmo or comparable player.”

However, regular size (presumably) Jerry Crasnick of ESPN writes:

“Mets made no headway in Lucroy talks with Brewers today. There’s an increasing sense he won’t be going to NY.”

So whom to believe? Who knows? One thing is for sure — a deal for Jonathan Lucroy is likely imminent because he was not in the starting lineup for the Brewers on Saturday.

If Rosenthal is correct (which history has shown is unlikely), I would do that trade in a second. Lucroy is far superior to d’Arnaud, who has shown some promise but seems destined to be one of those players who is always hurt. Nimmo looked pretty good in his cameo this season, but as we all know, prospects do not always pan out (I’m looking at you Alex Escobar, Lastings Milledge and Fernando Martinez). And besides, there really is no room for Nimmo in the Mets outfield for the foreseeable future, assuming Yoenis Cespedes stays.

The Mets have been struggling of late, which might make Sandy Alderson hesitant to make a big deal. Or maybe it will spur him to make a big deal. Who knows?

UPDATE: 7/31, 12:35am

Shock of shocks, Rosenthal was wrong — reports say the Brewers have a deal in place to send Lucroy to the Indians.

UPDATE: 7/31, 11:15am

Lucroy has reportedly vetoed the trade to Cleveland (it was one of the teams on his no-trade list), so the Mets are still alive.

One thought on “Latest on Mets Pursuit of Jonathan Lucroy

  • August 1, 2016 at 11:43 am

    When one is that short sometimes it is difficult to see what the monitor on the desk says without a phonebook, and as we are now expected to use for a small fee, phonebooks have becomea thing of the past.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Why ask?