By Alan Vogel
Bradford is gone but the Mets may still sign Mota. What's wrong with this picture? The Mets should have walked away from Mota, who has yet to begin his 50 day substance abuse holiday, then signed Bradford. I understand that the Mets have no leverage with Glavine, but they did with Chad: Money- as far as I know, that's all it was about. What's the problem with a third year for a 32 year old effective proven reliever. Reliever, as in "the guys who win championships in the post season." I think this last sentence is worth a second reading.
A three year contract, given the intense competition for pitching, would have made sense. Now Heilman will unhappily spend another year in the bullpen, lose his value as trade bait (as in Milledge and Heilman for Dontrelle,) while fans wait and see if Duaner Sanchez can return in the form he was when he went down.
Think about this: A 4th or 5th starter this year seems to be getting about $8,000,000. per year minimum. Bradford- a reliever that, as we already know, is the guy who wins championships in the post season, signed with Baltimore for 3 years $10.5 million.
I'm stymied. So let's make this interactive. If anyone out there can show me where I'm missing the boat, please do so. I really want to be wrong about this deal. Help.