Skip to content

Mets maintaining interest in reliever Jose Valverde

Feb 17, 2013, 10:28 AM EDT

jose valverde getty Getty Images

Ken Davidoff of the New York Post has the goods:

The door remains “slightly ajar” for free agent Jose Valverde to join the Mets as their closer, an industry source told The Post.

As with the Mets’ pursuit of Michael Bourn, you bet against this actually happening. But this is considerably less complicated than the Bourn endeavor.

Less complicated because signing Valverde does not mean forfeiting a draft pick, and because the 34-year-old right-hander should come pretty cheap (on a one-year contract) after failing to attract any legitimate offers on the open market this winter.

Valverde registered a decent 3.78 ERA, 1.25 WHIP and 35 saves across 69 innings last season for the American League-champion Tigers. He could serve as the Mets’ ninth-inning man while Frank Francisco recovers from lingering elbow problems. Which would mean Bobby Parnell remaining in a setup role.

**********************

UPDATE, 3:44 PM: According to Andy Martino of the New York Daily News, the Mets expect Valverde to sign a contract elsewhere but will “maybe consider him later” if he doesn’t wind up getting an offer.

  1. chill1184 - Feb 17, 2013 at 10:37 AM

    Please no

    • fanofevilempire - Feb 17, 2013 at 11:57 AM

      Don’t worry, The Mets are just window shopping, they haven’t bought anything since
      B.Madoff got locked up.

  2. arrooo - Feb 17, 2013 at 10:49 AM

    Another PR move to make it look like the mets are willing to spend money. In the end, they won’t sign him or anyone of significance

  3. historiophiliac - Feb 17, 2013 at 11:15 AM

    I get up this morning and have a cup of coffee while I’m reading HBT — and I see this. Am I hung over? No, I didn’t even drink last night. This is a real story. Well, Good Morning! C’mon, Mets! Give him a home. You have it within your power to mend Jim Leyland’s broken heart. You know you want to…

  4. paperlions - Feb 17, 2013 at 11:31 AM

    I think José should re-sign with the Tigers.

    A friend of mine had a dog names “José Tigre” when she was a kid. I always thought that was a fantastic name for a dog and in his (José Tigre’s) honor, I am in favor of the Tigers having at least one José on the roster at all times. Currently, they are José-less.

    • historiophiliac - Feb 17, 2013 at 11:44 AM

      Well, except for pitcher Jose Ortega…but I’m going to boo you anyway.

      Boooo!!!!

      /throws mini muffins

      • paperlions - Feb 17, 2013 at 11:46 AM

        Man, you boo everything….are you originally from Philly?

      • historiophiliac - Feb 17, 2013 at 11:48 AM

        I’m going to suppress the urge to ask if I threw batteries there.

        I will say, there’s surprisingly less booing on this site than I would have predicted when I first came here. It makes me wonder how quiet this crowd is at actual games.

      • paperlions - Feb 17, 2013 at 11:53 AM

        I’m a Cardinal fan, remember. We cheer a lot, but booing isn’t particularly common (exceptions made for players that rip fans or players who clearly are not giving 100% effort). Hell, we even cheered Clemens when he beat us in StL for his 300th career win.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 17, 2013 at 11:56 AM

        National Leaguers.

        Isn’t booing Clemens a mortal sin? You’ll be glad to know, I’m buying the MLB package this year so I don’t get stuck watching Cards games all the time. Freaking TV markets!

      • cur68 - Feb 17, 2013 at 12:55 PM

        ‘philliac: you should check that package before you buy. I had MLB.TV and discovered that it blacked out my home team for home games. I was not amused.

        If you go the MLB.TV route, keep in mind you should get it via computer and not via Xbox or somesuch. This way you can travel and never miss games that you want to watch and you get to track players on other teams. It’ll still blacked out the home team for home games (and you will not be amused), but, with some careful google searching, you can re-set your IP to work your way around that.

        Good luck.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 17, 2013 at 1:03 PM

        The good thing about not living anywhere near my team’s home base is that I will rarely be subject to the blackout (per the fine print). FYI, all of Canada is blacked out for Jays games, it says. I think that’s per the Patriot Act. Revenge for the War of 1812 and all that. MLB.tv is essentially the only way I can get Tigers games. (You can watch games archived too.)

      • cur68 - Feb 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM

        Yes, I found out about that Patriot Act Clause the hard way. Then I discovered that with some fancy footwork with the IP address I could snooker the program into believing I was watching from Ipanema Beach. Take that forces of corporate greed! ¡Olé!

      • historiophiliac - Feb 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM

        Räts! Now I must turn you in, like a good little patriot. I must do it for George Washington, Betsy Ross, and Woody Guthrie.

      • paperlions - Feb 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM

        Yeah, I’ve been an MLB.TV subscriber since its inception (and subscribed to MLB radio before that to listen to Cardinal games, before that, they were broad cast free by the parent radio station) so that I can watch Cardinal games….there are pluses and minuses. The greatest advantage is that you can choose which broad cast to listen to, which is nice since the Cardinals Fox broad cast team is 12 kinds of horrific. The minuses are the blackouts because of geography (because I am in eastern CT, I am in the territory of both NY teams and the Red Sox….so all of those games are blacked out for me) and the “national” broadcast times on the weekend. Still, it is a pretty good deal.

      • paperlions - Feb 17, 2013 at 1:35 PM

        Another benefit is that after your team’s game is over, you can switch to the Dodger game to listen to Vin or Angel games to shake your head at the awesomeness that is Trout.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 17, 2013 at 1:42 PM

        Now you’re just trying to make me cuss at you.

        Finally! There’s a benefit to living in the Frying Pan! I watched the playoffs last year on MLB.tv. It beats having the game trax up while I’m doing other stuff — which is how I used to have to follow our games. It is painful to live in an MLB-free state.

      • paperlions - Feb 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM

        CT is an MLB-free state, too. I did go to Boston to see a Red Sox game last year….and they actually played (and beat) the Tigers in that game. It took about 3 hours of driving, taking a train, and taking the subway just to get there. It would probably take about that long to get to a game in NY as well. Only other games I have seen in person recently are Connecticut Tigers games, which is the low A (short-season ball) team for the Tigers.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

        Last year, I drove 5 hours to see the Tigers beat the Rangers at home for my birthday!!!!! I’ll see them there again this year (unfortunately not for my birthday this time) — and am planning an additional trip to KC in September to see the Tigs there too. Otherwise, I watch MiLB games in-state for the Astros or Rockies. Wheeeee!

      • paperlions - Feb 17, 2013 at 2:02 PM

        There is some decent Big XII baseball in your area, no? When I was at Texas Tech they were actually pretty good for a while (top 10 team for a few years) and those games were entertaining, especially vs A&M and UT.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM

        Yes we have good college ball here (I won’t ask if you’re enjoying Holliday & Kozma.). OSU usually has a very solid team, but they fizzle out when they get to the CWS. OU does better there even though they generally have weaker teams. They often outlast UT there too sometimes — again even though they have the weaker team. For a football state, we do put out some decent baseballers.

  5. pisano - Feb 17, 2013 at 11:36 AM

    Boy I wouldn’t go there, this guy is on the downside of his career, he’s almost to the point where if you bring him in you might be putting gasoline on the fire. I know the Mets are trying to improve, but I feel this would not be a good move.

  6. mustbechris - Feb 17, 2013 at 11:41 AM

    phillies fans everywhere are hoping this falls apart so bobby parnell can close.

  7. Old Gator - Feb 17, 2013 at 11:41 AM

    Having the Mutts interested in you is like attracting the attention of a black fly at the outset of a hike in the woods in Maine in May, and having it follow you for miles, just annoying enough to kill the afternoon but always held away from biting by the Skin So Soft you slathered on your hair and neck just after you got out of your car.

    • historiophiliac - Feb 17, 2013 at 12:10 PM

      How dare you suggest Valverde is a common backwoods fly, Sir!

  8. gbar22 - Feb 17, 2013 at 12:19 PM

    Agree with a previous poster it’s a PR move so Sandy in a few weeks when he’s on Mike Francesa can say hey we were in on some players and it just didnt happen

    • chill1184 - Feb 18, 2013 at 12:11 AM

      Im pretty sure Alderson could care less if Fatcesa approves of his moves or not.

  9. jwbiii - Feb 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM

    Or not.

    • historiophiliac - Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 PM

      Booooo!!!!

  10. Minoring In Baseball - Feb 17, 2013 at 10:01 PM

    I don’t want him back in Detroit, but I don’t see why he’d be a huge risk for another team. He was amazing in 2011, and it’s possible (however unlikely) he could find his old form. I don’t think that Tiger fans were as upset with Valverde, as they were with Leyland keeping him in the game when it was obvious he was having a bad night and getting hammered.
    http://minoringinbaseball.com/

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Springer (3941)
  2. I. Davis (3018)
  3. C. Kimbrel (2870)
  4. B. Harper (2793)
  5. M. Machado (2737)
  1. M. Cuddyer (2734)
  2. C. Granderson (2524)
  3. J. Chavez (2435)
  4. J. Reyes (2359)
  5. K. Calhoun (2266)