Comments on: Reading Into The Matthews Jr. Deal

By: Riccardino

Riccardino — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:22:01 +0000

Parnell and Stokes are basically the same pitcher. Gary had nice clutch numbers last year…I hope that trend continues.

By: riccardino

riccardino — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:16:21 +0000

Castillo is the least of our problems. I must be the only Met’s fan that doesn’t have a problem with him at second. My main concern is who is going to get us into the 7th inning into games besides Santana and Pelf?

By: I’m Reading: about Matthews, Tatis vs. Garko, Comments, Overviews — NYFSBlogs

I’m Reading: about Matthews, Tatis vs. Garko, Comments, Overviews — NYFSBlogs — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:14:58 +0000

[...] Cooper, in a video post for On the Black, is taking a “wait and see” approach to the Gary Matthews Jr. [...]

By: kerelcooper

kerelcooper — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:21:27 +0000

I guess from the Mets standpoint, Matthews Jr has shown in the past that he can have a big year, which means he has the potential to do it again. Highly unlikely but it's possible. I could be wrong but I think defensively he's better than Reed or Johnson as well. Let's not forget that's important, especially in Citi Field. So giving up Stokes and only having to pay about $2million over the next two seasons isn't bad at all. With guys like Escobar (if he pans out), Parnell and Feliciano I'm not going to miss Stokes all that much.

By: kerelcooper

kerelcooper — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:14:11 +0000

I understand your desire to move Castillo and go after Hudson but let's remember that trades have to make sense for both teams. Why would the Angels want Castillo? They certainly don't need him. From their standpoint, moving Matthews Jr. was strictly a move to get rid of an unhappy/under achieving player who they don't have room for anymore. It would not make sense for them to take on an aging Castillo who's best days are behind him. I would be very surprised if the Mets find a taker for Castillo. It's a bad contract that they may just have to live with.

By: kerelcooper

kerelcooper — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:07:42 +0000

I also think that if he plays well he could provide some nice flexibility as he can play the corner OF spots and give the starters a day off here and there as well (when Beltran is back)

By: Guest

Guest — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:26:42 +0000

Very well said.. I personally would have rather kept Stokes and signed Jeremy Reed or Reed Johnson. I don't think Matthews Jr. will be significantly than either to warrant giving up a pitcher – albeit only an average reliever. I know Stokes has no options left, but he has shown he can be effective. Plus, you can never have enough arms to compete for spots come spring training. Like you said, we just have to wait and see how this one pans out.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:21:54 +0000

No one wants Castillo, it's that simple. Jeez

By: mo reese

mo reese — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:16:44 +0000

The Part of this Trade I don’t Understand is why Didn’t Omar tell the Angels that they Had to Take Castillo in the Deal Since the Angels are Paying 21.5 Million of the 23.5 Owed to Matthews Jr.,Then What Would have been the Big Deal! That would Have opened Up the Door For the Mets to finally Sign Orlando Hudson,But Of Course They Missed the Boat Again! Terrible Job By Omar,who Once Again Showed A lack Of Foresight and A Stunning Lack Of Creativity.

By: @dave_doyle

@dave_doyle — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:09:58 +0000

I like the trade because the Mets aren’t paying Matthews much. And I agree with you that this is an insurance move in case Beltran is out for longer than they’re expecting. Plus F-Mart just didn’t look ready for the big league last season. He was good in the outfield but totally overmatched at the plate.