Andy Martino
@martinonyc
·
18m
Sources: Mets have offered Scherzer more than $40 million per year. Length unknown. Doesn’t mean he’ll sign there; that’s still unclear.
projects Scherzer as the #7 SP in baseball in 2022.
Rodon at 10. Wheeler at 4. Still burns my ass. Diaz I could see the logic to, though I didn't like it. Letting Wheeler go (and to a division rival), and then trading two pitching prospects for Stroman, and paying him similarly is something I will never understand.
is wherever Scherzer signs, the contract will include opt-outs, potentially as early as year 1.
seems like they agreed on parameters and now it's just figuring out structure of the deal. good news. whatever the structure is great for mets even an opt out at year 1. in a worst case scenario if the team tanks and it's obvious he's gonna opt out they can trade him at deadline (though I assume he will also get some kind of NTC so he has control on destination).
was sent down to Syracuse. Maybe I'm not understanding your question? He pitched in AAA for Syracuse and then was removed from the 40 man/DFA'ed to make room, then the Padres claimed him.
I wasn't sure which transactions triggered waivers. I assumed he had to hit waivers when he wasn't on the 26 man but it sounds like it was only when he was removed from the 40 man (and wasn't subject to waivers when he was initially sent to AAA, only when they removed from the 40).
He signed a major league deal, didn't make the team and pitched for Syracuse. Again, major league deal only refers to 40 man spot and how you're paid (guaranteed, even in the minors). If anything he'd be even LESS appealing if the rules dictated he had to be on the 26 man roster all season vs. a standard minor league FA on a minor league deal. He has 3 options left and that's the value.
is wherever Scherzer signs, the contract will include opt-outs, potentially as early as year 1.
seems like they agreed on parameters and now it's just figuring out structure of the deal. good news. whatever the structure is great for mets even an opt out at year 1. in a worst case scenario if the team tanks and it's obvious he's gonna opt out they can trade him at deadline (though I assume he will also get some kind of NTC so he has control on destination).
Guarantee he's getting a no-trade. He was vehement about his previous destination and ring chasing.
projects Scherzer as the #7 SP in baseball in 2022.
Rodon at 10. Wheeler at 4. Still burns my ass. Diaz I could see the logic to, though I didn't like it. Letting Wheeler go (and to a division rival), and then trading two pitching prospects for Stroman, and paying him similarly is something I will never understand.
penny wise pound foolish.
though I say this as someone who 100% would have resigned Wheeler, there is a little historical revisionism because at the time he was viewed as risky. I remember Yankee fans 100% preferring to trade for Stroman at the 2019 deadline because they felt Wheeler was overrated. The Cardinals supposedly turned down trading Bader for him.
the mets mistake was not extending him in the 2 spring trainings when he said he was open to extending. they likely could have gotten him below what he ended up signing for, which exceeded the pre-market projections.
FG projected 3x15m for Rodon. MLBTR projected 1x25m.
So far MLBTR has been pretty dead on but for the Mets I would think the 3 year would be preferable. that's the type of risk they can afford to take and if it doesn't work out it doesn't work out.
In Mets twitter world - I would love to see Max in Orange and Blue but it seems like Boras is the one leaking the news and there has not been a decision from Scherzer.
Uneducated guess is Scott is floating the numbers so it would look foolish if Max takes less and goes elsewhere.
so, your theory is Boras is purposely setting the Mets up to get jilted.
Just the opposite - Theory is/was Boras wants the big payday and Max needs a push
man isn't it awesome to be able to spend away mistakes?
last year they blew a little over 1m in draft bonus pool money bc of the kumar fiasco.
this year they are almost certain to be penalized 10 slots in the draft with the way they are spending on FA (which will cost them another $1m).
but by losing Conforto/Syndergaard they are going to gain about those same amounts in pool $ associated with the comp picks.
and by spending big $ on free agents not tied to QO they are backfilling (and possibly upgrading) on the field at the same time.
that is the LAD model in action. Leverage cash as a resource > amateur talent resources.
FG projected 3x15m for Rodon. MLBTR projected 1x25m.
So far MLBTR has been pretty dead on but for the Mets I would think the 3 year would be preferable. that's the type of risk they can afford to take and if it doesn't work out it doesn't work out.
I really like the idea of giving Rodon more guaranteed money but lower AAV. Both sides assuming the risk. 3 years 45ish seems like a good move for both sides. Maybe a opt out after 2.
If you want to be super duper greedy... Scherzer/Rodon/Kikuchi would be nice. deGrom/Scherzer/Rodon/Walker/Kikuchi/Carrasco 6 man rotation. Megill/Peterson as depth
I really like the idea of giving Rodon more guaranteed money but lower AAV. Both sides assuming the risk. 3 years 45ish seems like a good move for both sides. Maybe a opt out after 2.
100% agree. Just like Walker last year it was in the Mets favor to get multiple years at a favorable rate vs. 1 year prove it.
In Mets twitter world - I would love to see Max in Orange and Blue but it seems like Boras is the one leaking the news and there has not been a decision from Scherzer.
Uneducated guess is Scott is floating the numbers so it would look foolish if Max takes less and goes elsewhere.
so, your theory is Boras is purposely setting the Mets up to get jilted.
Just the opposite - Theory is/was Boras wants the big payday and Max needs a push
I see. Makes more sense, but again Scherzer has earned around a quarter of a billion dollars, taking less to go to a place he is more comfortable with wouldn't look foolish IMO, it would look like he's principled (depending on his reasons for where he selects).
In many eyes I think taking less for a better fit (or preferred spot) would make him look better not worse as opposed to simply taking the most money.
Has made 32, 9 (2020) and 29 starts. He stunk as a "rookie" but 4.31 FIP over his last 38 starts, 5.4 innings per start, 9.3 K/9. Steamer projects 4.08 FIP. Give me 30 starts, 4.08 FIP from a 30/31 year old lefty (who COULD still have a next level with a new PC)...that's valuable.
and wanting it tied to any trade Scherzer approved (he was 10/5). He's a leader in the PA so the chance to set a new record for AAV is a big deal.
The #1 reason anyone hires Boras is that he maximizes value and the clues have been there that Scherzer is aligned with that - along with the fact that he wants to go somewhere he can win.
I have no idea what the genesis of the veto rumors were last year but 1 possible explanation could be that the Nats just didn't want to deal him within the division and he was ok with that given the LAD/SFG were better positioned for WS? I vaguely recall what leaked out at the time was the NYM inquired and were just told it's not happening. The geography aspect seems to have been more assumed than specifically reported.
RE: PJ last year in June Boras made public comments re: extension
and wanting it tied to any trade Scherzer approved (he was 10/5). He's a leader in the PA so the chance to set a new record for AAV is a big deal.
The #1 reason anyone hires Boras is that he maximizes value and the clues have been there that Scherzer is aligned with that - along with the fact that he wants to go somewhere he can win.
I have no idea what the genesis of the veto rumors were last year but 1 possible explanation could be that the Nats just didn't want to deal him within the division and he was ok with that given the LAD/SFG were better positioned for WS? I vaguely recall what leaked out at the time was the NYM inquired and were just told it's not happening. The geography aspect seems to have been more assumed than specifically reported.
Eric,
He also said no to going to the Yankees so it wasn't just interdivisional. It's being reported the Dodgers have yet to exceed 2 years. He's 38 in July. 2 years 80ish vs. 3 years 120ish (with him reportedly looking for 4) is a massive, massive difference. This isn't a 27 year old who is likely to make it back. When this contract is finished he's LIKELY done, and at the very least VERY unlikely to make back the money "left" on the deal.
RE: PJ last year in June Boras made public comments re: extension
and wanting it tied to any trade Scherzer approved (he was 10/5). He's a leader in the PA so the chance to set a new record for AAV is a big deal.
The #1 reason anyone hires Boras is that he maximizes value and the clues have been there that Scherzer is aligned with that - along with the fact that he wants to go somewhere he can win.
I have no idea what the genesis of the veto rumors were last year but 1 possible explanation could be that the Nats just didn't want to deal him within the division and he was ok with that given the LAD/SFG were better positioned for WS? I vaguely recall what leaked out at the time was the NYM inquired and were just told it's not happening. The geography aspect seems to have been more assumed than specifically reported.
my only comment was Scherzer is a guy (based on earnings) who if he doesn't take the highest offer you at least understand why.
Once you have multi-generational money (like he does), I imagine you make decisions based first on other factors.
So, that was all I meant. Boras' job is to get him the Mets offer, and Boras has done his job IMO.
and wanting it tied to any trade Scherzer approved (he was 10/5). He's a leader in the PA so the chance to set a new record for AAV is a big deal.
The #1 reason anyone hires Boras is that he maximizes value and the clues have been there that Scherzer is aligned with that - along with the fact that he wants to go somewhere he can win.
I have no idea what the genesis of the veto rumors were last year but 1 possible explanation could be that the Nats just didn't want to deal him within the division and he was ok with that given the LAD/SFG were better positioned for WS? I vaguely recall what leaked out at the time was the NYM inquired and were just told it's not happening. The geography aspect seems to have been more assumed than specifically reported.
my only comment was Scherzer is a guy (based on earnings) who if he doesn't take the highest offer you at least understand why.
Once you have multi-generational money (like he does), I imagine you make decisions based first on other factors.
So, that was all I meant. Boras' job is to get him the Mets offer, and Boras has done his job IMO.
Scherzer is a big-time outspoken union guy so the AAV is likely a big deal (we don't know what the Dodgers are offering) so it's possible they aren't even offering 2 for 86 (which would be the 43 million the Mets reportedly are). Overall money is obviously "important" to anyone but the AAV is something both Boras/Scherzer likely feel is a key component here.
Andy Martino @martinonyc
4m
Source: Mets are close to a deal for Max Scherzer.
192Reply
246Retweet
1kLike
More options
martinonyc's avatar
Andy Martino
@martinonyc
Mets were waiting overnight, talks resumed a little more than an hour ago, now an agreement is near.
I personally don't disagree just pointing out he hasn't ever signaled
my only comment was Scherzer is a guy (based on earnings) who if he doesn't take the highest offer you at least understand why.
Once you have multi-generational money (like he does), I imagine you make decisions based first on other factors.
So, that was all I meant. Boras' job is to get him the Mets offer, and Boras has done his job IMO.
to be making the decision that way. Kershaw as a counter example I'm sure has been quoted numerous times saying he wants to be an LAD for life. Bauer was known to prefer going back to LA and his bizarre agent went to UCLA with him.
Scherzer has always seemed a little less sentimental (like most big Boras clients). Conforto was kind of the same way - im sure if we looked at whatever the Mets offered him in extension talks it would look more than fair and he said numerous times he wanted to stay here. But you don't hire Boras to settle for fair you hire him if you want to get top of market.
Jon Heyman
@JonHeyman
·
17s
Max Scherzer and the Mets are finalizing $130M, 3-year deal. Minor details to go only.
Great news! My 9 year-old daughter got me some Mets socks for my recent birthday. I wore them today and told her if they signed the pitcher they were after, they would be my lucky Mets socks
Mark Feinsand
@Feinsand
·
38s
The Mets and Max Scherzer are "working on details" for a three-year, $130 million deal, though it's not quite done yet, per source. @JonHeyman
was on it.
Jon Morosi
@jonmorosi
·
12s
Max Scherzer is nearing a 3-year, $130 million deal with the #Mets that will be, on an annual basis, the largest in @MLB
history, source confirms. @MLBNetwork
with Scherzer the projected CBT payroll is now above $270m
like to see them add enough SP to use a 6 man rotation. deGrom/Walker have durability concerns and Scherzer is 38 (not even mentioning Carrasco having both concerns).
gotta think the momentum following those deals wasn't totally coincidental. They changed the whole Mets narrative and put them front and center as a team adding respected players and looking to compete. Without those moves im not so sure all the conversations that happened between Scherzer and Cohen this weekend take place.
Jon Morosi
@jonmorosi
·
4m
Max Scherzer is nearing a 3-year, $130 million deal with the #Mets that will be, on an annual basis, the largest in @MLB
history, source confirms. @MLBNetwork
I think the meds are done except for a lefty reliever. They already have a lot of guys for the rotation
Highly doubt they are "done" and completely disagree on the rotation even Eppler said they needed multiple SP.
deGrom/Scherzer/Walker/Carrasco/Megill/Peterson is the entirety of the SP depth. They essentially replaced Stroman with Scherzer (obviously a major move) but far from enough.
projects 3 Mets SP to be league average or better by fWAR. deGrom/Scherzer/Carrasco. They will need more SP (and I assume they will add them, maybe via trade). Would love to package Dom for Mahle.
like to see them add enough SP to use a 6 man rotation. deGrom/Walker have durability concerns and Scherzer is 38 (not even mentioning Carrasco having both concerns).
Agreed. Rich Hill makes sense as a 6th guy / swing arm to the BP to compete with Peterson / Megill / Williams if any of the 3 pitches well enough to earn a regular slot.
That would leave 1 more spot available in the top 5 and start them 9 deep in total. Would give them a ton of flexibility to skip guys on occasion.
Hopefully 1 positive from last year is that they function as the most conservative organization in the sport in terms of rehab timelines. Very little downside to erroring on the side of more rest and smaller pitch counts until Aug/Sept/Oct.
I think the meds are done except for a lefty reliever. They already have a lot of guys for the rotation
Highly doubt they are "done" and completely disagree on the rotation even Eppler said they needed multiple SP.
deGrom/Scherzer/Walker/Carrasco/Megill/Peterson is the entirety of the SP depth. They essentially replaced Stroman with Scherzer (obviously a major move) but far from enough.
Rodon at 10. Wheeler at 4. Still burns my ass. Diaz I could see the logic to, though I didn't like it. Letting Wheeler go (and to a division rival), and then trading two pitching prospects for Stroman, and paying him similarly is something I will never understand.
seems like they agreed on parameters and now it's just figuring out structure of the deal. good news. whatever the structure is great for mets even an opt out at year 1. in a worst case scenario if the team tanks and it's obvious he's gonna opt out they can trade him at deadline (though I assume he will also get some kind of NTC so he has control on destination).
Quote:
was sent down to Syracuse. Maybe I'm not understanding your question? He pitched in AAA for Syracuse and then was removed from the 40 man/DFA'ed to make room, then the Padres claimed him.
I wasn't sure which transactions triggered waivers. I assumed he had to hit waivers when he wasn't on the 26 man but it sounds like it was only when he was removed from the 40 man (and wasn't subject to waivers when he was initially sent to AAA, only when they removed from the 40).
He signed a major league deal, didn't make the team and pitched for Syracuse. Again, major league deal only refers to 40 man spot and how you're paid (guaranteed, even in the minors). If anything he'd be even LESS appealing if the rules dictated he had to be on the 26 man roster all season vs. a standard minor league FA on a minor league deal. He has 3 options left and that's the value.
Quote:
is wherever Scherzer signs, the contract will include opt-outs, potentially as early as year 1.
seems like they agreed on parameters and now it's just figuring out structure of the deal. good news. whatever the structure is great for mets even an opt out at year 1. in a worst case scenario if the team tanks and it's obvious he's gonna opt out they can trade him at deadline (though I assume he will also get some kind of NTC so he has control on destination).
Guarantee he's getting a no-trade. He was vehement about his previous destination and ring chasing.
Quote:
projects Scherzer as the #7 SP in baseball in 2022.
Rodon at 10. Wheeler at 4. Still burns my ass. Diaz I could see the logic to, though I didn't like it. Letting Wheeler go (and to a division rival), and then trading two pitching prospects for Stroman, and paying him similarly is something I will never understand.
penny wise pound foolish.
though I say this as someone who 100% would have resigned Wheeler, there is a little historical revisionism because at the time he was viewed as risky. I remember Yankee fans 100% preferring to trade for Stroman at the 2019 deadline because they felt Wheeler was overrated. The Cardinals supposedly turned down trading Bader for him.
the mets mistake was not extending him in the 2 spring trainings when he said he was open to extending. they likely could have gotten him below what he ended up signing for, which exceeded the pre-market projections.
Really like that Lorenzen deal for LAA.
Really like that Lorenzen deal for LAA.
if they nabbed both that would be insane.
FG projected 3x15m for Rodon. MLBTR projected 1x25m.
So far MLBTR has been pretty dead on but for the Mets I would think the 3 year would be preferable. that's the type of risk they can afford to take and if it doesn't work out it doesn't work out.
Quote:
In Mets twitter world - I would love to see Max in Orange and Blue but it seems like Boras is the one leaking the news and there has not been a decision from Scherzer.
Uneducated guess is Scott is floating the numbers so it would look foolish if Max takes less and goes elsewhere.
so, your theory is Boras is purposely setting the Mets up to get jilted.
Just the opposite - Theory is/was Boras wants the big payday and Max needs a push
this year they are almost certain to be penalized 10 slots in the draft with the way they are spending on FA (which will cost them another $1m).
but by losing Conforto/Syndergaard they are going to gain about those same amounts in pool $ associated with the comp picks.
and by spending big $ on free agents not tied to QO they are backfilling (and possibly upgrading) on the field at the same time.
that is the LAD model in action. Leverage cash as a resource > amateur talent resources.
Quote:
and Rodon please (both on 3 year deals)/
Really like that Lorenzen deal for LAA.
if they nabbed both that would be insane.
FG projected 3x15m for Rodon. MLBTR projected 1x25m.
So far MLBTR has been pretty dead on but for the Mets I would think the 3 year would be preferable. that's the type of risk they can afford to take and if it doesn't work out it doesn't work out.
I really like the idea of giving Rodon more guaranteed money but lower AAV. Both sides assuming the risk. 3 years 45ish seems like a good move for both sides. Maybe a opt out after 2.
I really like the idea of giving Rodon more guaranteed money but lower AAV. Both sides assuming the risk. 3 years 45ish seems like a good move for both sides. Maybe a opt out after 2.
100% agree. Just like Walker last year it was in the Mets favor to get multiple years at a favorable rate vs. 1 year prove it.
Quote:
In comment 15471784 Gmanfandan said:
Quote:
In Mets twitter world - I would love to see Max in Orange and Blue but it seems like Boras is the one leaking the news and there has not been a decision from Scherzer.
Uneducated guess is Scott is floating the numbers so it would look foolish if Max takes less and goes elsewhere.
so, your theory is Boras is purposely setting the Mets up to get jilted.
Just the opposite - Theory is/was Boras wants the big payday and Max needs a push
I see. Makes more sense, but again Scherzer has earned around a quarter of a billion dollars, taking less to go to a place he is more comfortable with wouldn't look foolish IMO, it would look like he's principled (depending on his reasons for where he selects).
In many eyes I think taking less for a better fit (or preferred spot) would make him look better not worse as opposed to simply taking the most money.
The #1 reason anyone hires Boras is that he maximizes value and the clues have been there that Scherzer is aligned with that - along with the fact that he wants to go somewhere he can win.
I have no idea what the genesis of the veto rumors were last year but 1 possible explanation could be that the Nats just didn't want to deal him within the division and he was ok with that given the LAD/SFG were better positioned for WS? I vaguely recall what leaked out at the time was the NYM inquired and were just told it's not happening. The geography aspect seems to have been more assumed than specifically reported.
The #1 reason anyone hires Boras is that he maximizes value and the clues have been there that Scherzer is aligned with that - along with the fact that he wants to go somewhere he can win.
I have no idea what the genesis of the veto rumors were last year but 1 possible explanation could be that the Nats just didn't want to deal him within the division and he was ok with that given the LAD/SFG were better positioned for WS? I vaguely recall what leaked out at the time was the NYM inquired and were just told it's not happening. The geography aspect seems to have been more assumed than specifically reported.
Eric,
He also said no to going to the Yankees so it wasn't just interdivisional. It's being reported the Dodgers have yet to exceed 2 years. He's 38 in July. 2 years 80ish vs. 3 years 120ish (with him reportedly looking for 4) is a massive, massive difference. This isn't a 27 year old who is likely to make it back. When this contract is finished he's LIKELY done, and at the very least VERY unlikely to make back the money "left" on the deal.
The #1 reason anyone hires Boras is that he maximizes value and the clues have been there that Scherzer is aligned with that - along with the fact that he wants to go somewhere he can win.
I have no idea what the genesis of the veto rumors were last year but 1 possible explanation could be that the Nats just didn't want to deal him within the division and he was ok with that given the LAD/SFG were better positioned for WS? I vaguely recall what leaked out at the time was the NYM inquired and were just told it's not happening. The geography aspect seems to have been more assumed than specifically reported.
my only comment was Scherzer is a guy (based on earnings) who if he doesn't take the highest offer you at least understand why.
Once you have multi-generational money (like he does), I imagine you make decisions based first on other factors.
So, that was all I meant. Boras' job is to get him the Mets offer, and Boras has done his job IMO.
@jaysonst
These are the 8 teams known to be in on Max Scherzer, via multiple sources:
Dodgers
Giants
Padres
Red Sox
Rays
Blue Jays
Astros
Mets
Also heard Yankees checked in & were told he was unlikely to OK a trade there. Mets could be a long shot for the same reason.
Quote:
and wanting it tied to any trade Scherzer approved (he was 10/5). He's a leader in the PA so the chance to set a new record for AAV is a big deal.
The #1 reason anyone hires Boras is that he maximizes value and the clues have been there that Scherzer is aligned with that - along with the fact that he wants to go somewhere he can win.
I have no idea what the genesis of the veto rumors were last year but 1 possible explanation could be that the Nats just didn't want to deal him within the division and he was ok with that given the LAD/SFG were better positioned for WS? I vaguely recall what leaked out at the time was the NYM inquired and were just told it's not happening. The geography aspect seems to have been more assumed than specifically reported.
my only comment was Scherzer is a guy (based on earnings) who if he doesn't take the highest offer you at least understand why.
Once you have multi-generational money (like he does), I imagine you make decisions based first on other factors.
So, that was all I meant. Boras' job is to get him the Mets offer, and Boras has done his job IMO.
Scherzer is a big-time outspoken union guy so the AAV is likely a big deal (we don't know what the Dodgers are offering) so it's possible they aren't even offering 2 for 86 (which would be the 43 million the Mets reportedly are). Overall money is obviously "important" to anyone but the AAV is something both Boras/Scherzer likely feel is a key component here.
Andy Martino @martinonyc
4m
Source: Mets are close to a deal for Max Scherzer.
192Reply
246Retweet
1kLike
More options
martinonyc's avatar
Andy Martino
@martinonyc
Mets were waiting overnight, talks resumed a little more than an hour ago, now an agreement is near.
my only comment was Scherzer is a guy (based on earnings) who if he doesn't take the highest offer you at least understand why.
Once you have multi-generational money (like he does), I imagine you make decisions based first on other factors.
So, that was all I meant. Boras' job is to get him the Mets offer, and Boras has done his job IMO.
to be making the decision that way. Kershaw as a counter example I'm sure has been quoted numerous times saying he wants to be an LAD for life. Bauer was known to prefer going back to LA and his bizarre agent went to UCLA with him.
Scherzer has always seemed a little less sentimental (like most big Boras clients). Conforto was kind of the same way - im sure if we looked at whatever the Mets offered him in extension talks it would look more than fair and he said numerous times he wanted to stay here. But you don't hire Boras to settle for fair you hire him if you want to get top of market.
@JonHeyman
·
17s
Max Scherzer and the Mets are finalizing $130M, 3-year deal. Minor details to go only.
@JonHeyman
·
17s
Max Scherzer and the Mets are finalizing $130M, 3-year deal. Minor details to go only.
man thank god Bauer troll'd us last year. this is so much better than that would have been even without factoring in his off the field issues.
Holy shit!
Holy shit!
@JonHeyman
·
17s
Max Scherzer and the Mets are finalizing $130M, 3-year deal. Minor details to go only.
Great news! My 9 year-old daughter got me some Mets socks for my recent birthday. I wore them today and told her if they signed the pitcher they were after, they would be my lucky Mets socks
Scherzer prediction was 3/120m (3/130 actual)
Marte prediction was 4/80m (4/78 actual)
Canha prediction was 2/24m (2/26.5 actual)
Escobar prediction was 2/20m (exactly correct)
Total amount predicted = $244m
Total amount spent by mets = 254.5m
I'm going to be my typical optimist self here and forget all the risks and just say this out loud guys
Degrom/Scherzer
@Feinsand
·
38s
The Mets and Max Scherzer are "working on details" for a three-year, $130 million deal, though it's not quite done yet, per source. @JonHeyman
was on it.
@jonmorosi
·
12s
Max Scherzer is nearing a 3-year, $130 million deal with the #Mets that will be, on an annual basis, the largest in @MLB
history, source confirms. @MLBNetwork
Last year the LAD had the top lux tax payroll at $258m and were the only team to exceed the luxury tax by more than a few million.
Two minutes ago.
12:10 p.m. tweet
...
...
...
...
He is not
Jon Morosi
@jonmorosi
·
4m
Max Scherzer is nearing a 3-year, $130 million deal with the #Mets that will be, on an annual basis, the largest in @MLB
history, source confirms. @MLBNetwork
@mikemayer22
· 6m
I’m told that Max Scherzer to the Mets is a done deal.
Haters are going to be out in full force!
Highly doubt they are "done" and completely disagree on the rotation even Eppler said they needed multiple SP.
deGrom/Scherzer/Walker/Carrasco/Megill/Peterson is the entirety of the SP depth. They essentially replaced Stroman with Scherzer (obviously a major move) but far from enough.
Agreed. Rich Hill makes sense as a 6th guy / swing arm to the BP to compete with Peterson / Megill / Williams if any of the 3 pitches well enough to earn a regular slot.
That would leave 1 more spot available in the top 5 and start them 9 deep in total. Would give them a ton of flexibility to skip guys on occasion.
Hopefully 1 positive from last year is that they function as the most conservative organization in the sport in terms of rehab timelines. Very little downside to erroring on the side of more rest and smaller pitch counts until Aug/Sept/Oct.
Quote:
I think the meds are done except for a lefty reliever. They already have a lot of guys for the rotation
Highly doubt they are "done" and completely disagree on the rotation even Eppler said they needed multiple SP.
deGrom/Scherzer/Walker/Carrasco/Megill/Peterson is the entirety of the SP depth. They essentially replaced Stroman with Scherzer (obviously a major move) but far from enough.
I agree.