Friday, December 1, 2006By 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.
In any event, these days I'm a writer. In order to watch the Mets I buy the Cable on-demand package that gets me about 80 % of the games.
I also do a radio show with a law professor called "Swimming With Sharks: law and policy by lawyers for humans." It's podcast, available at masstort.org, and broadcast on the net at www.valleyfreeradio.org. I guess that's what's they call BSP- blatant self promotion- but it's community minded, educational, and most of all, fun- so I think it's alright.
Subscribe to Site Feed
Comments (7)
He is a reliever who pitchs roughly 60 innings a year.
He has had 1 good year (for us), 1 ok year (for oak), and 1 not so good year (for the bosox)
The redsox just dropped him last year (which allowed us to pick him up)
Yes he is good, but not three years good... plus (as i mentioned in a previous reply) he has wanted to play for balt since he was 8 years old.
Let it go! we have a ton of guys that can step up and pitch his .1 inning per game
Posted by gbaked | December 1, 2006 6:37 AM
Sadly I must agree wi GBaked-3 years for a reliever who has not been real consistent(I dont know what his BABIP is) and strikes out few guys is not smart-Just because Balt is signing lots of releif pitchers does not mean they are signing the RIGHT ones(although wi Mazzone they will probably be fine)-My biggest concern is the age of the Mets
Posted by Luis Venitucci | December 1, 2006 6:55 AM
I 2nd both comments. I have no problem with the age or yrs. But Bradford had not earned that level of contract. Now Scott williamson's(1yr/.9M) sound decent. On that note, Baez's contract was also nuts.
Of the Met relivers who are deserving, I think Heilman and Feliciano based on two solid years in relief earn that consideration. But then the Mets control them anyway. Hey. We get a sandwich pick and that guy could be a Craig Hansen (who was the last pick /1st rnd-2yrs ago).
Posted by Ed | December 1, 2006 11:17 AM
Thanks, I suppose I'm not thinking about Bradford's earlier years, but I'm not convinced he's baked. As for the Red Sox dumping him, how can I not mention the Babe.
Posted by Alan Vogel | December 1, 2006 3:14 PM
Hi, Luis- good point, but he did have a good year last year and I think the Mets needed to take a chance. Time will tell
Posted by Alan Vogel | December 1, 2006 3:16 PM
Ed- I apologize to the three of you who commented in that my replies are somewhat homogenized. I agree with Luiz that age is a worry. As to level of contract- I think that depends on the need- time will tell if the Mets were correct in their assessment.
Posted by Alan Vogel | December 1, 2006 3:20 PM
You're right about it being a painful loss. Fortunately, we have a parade of arms ready to take over for him. Dotel and Pelfrey (for less than a full season probably, but still) will probably match his effectiveness at a fraction of the price and a shorter commitment. Pelfrey, I think, would benefit Curt Schilling-style from beginning in the pen and then going to the starting rotation.
Posted by Matt | December 1, 2006 4:55 PM