Image by Keith Allison via Flickr
A couple of writers that I’ve never heard of at the NY Times are touting the idea of the Mets trading for Roy Halladay and Vernon Wells. I hope that Elena Gustines and Jay Schreiber are only temporarily filling in for Ben Shipgel on the Bats blog there. We need the voice of reason back.
The writers touch on the idea of multiple needs on the Mets (and forgot to mention the Mets need a first baseman that can hit). They also only touch on the fact that trading for Halladay and Wells adds $36 million to the Mets payroll next year, which is the total amount that the Mets are likely to add based on the salaries that are coming off the books.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind the idea of bringing in Halladay and Wells. The problem that Gustines and Schreiber don’t address is how complicated it’s going to be to reconfigure the roster to address the existing shortcomings at catcher and first base within the $140 million payroll.
Let’s face it. We all know that this is Omar Minaya and Jerry Manuel’s last season with the Mets if they don’t win in 2010. Do you think they’re dumb enough to entrust their careers to Daniel Murphy at first base and Omir Santos at catcher for the entire season? I don’t. And that would be the scenario if they trade for Halladay and Wells, barring a massive reconfiguration of the roster.
To pull off this move, the Mets would need to unload Luis Castillo for starters which hasn’t proved to be easy. They would probably need to get rid of another player(s) in the $10 million/year range to cover the salary of bringing in a second baseman and catcher. It starts to get very complicated, more so than is likely to be realistic in one offseason.
It’s a nice headline for Gustines and Schreiber to advocate a trade with the Blue Jays for Halladay, even if it means taking Wells’ salary back. But it doesn’t look like they’ve thought this through. They must be taking their queues from Mike Francesa at WFAN without giving proper consideration to the roster as a whole.