Bud Selig spoke about a lot of stuff during his news conference yesterday. Here’s one that seemed to fall through the cracks, but which is being reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
“I was talking once with Robin Yount and George Brett and said they were getting to be the exceptions (players who stayed in one place). But they were such big parts of their communities. Their communities were better off that they stayed. And the players said they were better off, too. So, yes, baseball would be better with Albert in St. Louis.”
I don’t know that I disagree, but it is rather strange to hear the Commissioner opine on such things.
This, by the way, is why baseball needs more heel-turns. If I was Tom Ricketts, I’d hold a press conference tomorrow talking about how I was going to ruin baseball next winter. I’d keep it vague so as not to be seen as tampering with another team’s players, but I’d definitely own the evil.
Kristie Ackert of the New York Daily News reports that the Mets have discussed a trade involving starter Matt Harvey with at least two teams. Apparently, the Mets were even willing to move Harvey for a reliever.
The Mets tendered Harvey a contract on December 1. He’s entering his third and final year of arbitration eligibility and will likely see a slight bump from last season’s salary of $5.125 million. As a result, there was some thought going into late November that the Mets would non-tender Harvey.
Harvey, 28, made 18 starts and one relief appearance last year and had horrendous results. He put up a 6.70 ERA with a 67/47 K/BB ratio in 92 2/3 innings. Between his performance, his impending free agency, and his injury history, the Mets aren’t likely to get much back in return for Harvey. Even expecting a reliever in return may be too lofty.
Along with bullpen help, the Mets also need help at second base, first base, and the outfield. They don’t have many resources with which to address those needs. Ackert described the Mets’ resources as “a very limited stash of prospects” and “limited payroll space.”