Skip to content

The Mets will not shop Bobby Parnell at the deadline

Jun 17, 2013, 10:31 AM EST

Bobby Parnell Getty Images

The Mets aren’t contending and Bobby Parnell has been outstanding, posting a 2.83 ERA with nine saves in 23 games. That’s usually a recipe for a trade, with a contender striking a deal for a closer who has very few wins to close.

Not this year, though, reports Andy Martino of the Daily News:

According to a person with direct knowledge of the Mets’ thinking, GM Sandy Alderson considers Parnell a valuable piece for next year, rather than an opportunity to capitalize on a contender’s need.

Why? Go read Martino’s piece to see how GM Sandy Alderson’s approach has changed this season and where his focus is.

Without giving it away, I’ll say that while holding onto Parnell may or may not make sense, the larger team-building idea Martino ascribes to Alderson — one in which he may seek to buy certain types of players at the deadline rather than sell them — makes a lot of sense to me. We’re past the point where one can simply go out and buy a big free agent that may help a team for several years, at least on any kind of contract that makes sense.

  1. neoshweaty - Jun 17, 2013 at 10:48 AM

    I don’t get it. I understand trying to build a contender but with which parts? Outside of a few players in the minors, it doesn’t seem like the mets have the talent to pull of a trade that would make a significant payoff next year. The FA market is shrinking to those players over 30 who are really risky signings (thinking of Pujols and Hamilton) and who the hell would we trade on the major league club? Wright isn’t going anywhere. Neither are Harvey and Wheeler (and probably not Niese) and the rest is just scrap.

    I understand that at a certain point things need to change and this comes as a diehard fan, but who exactly are they targeting? I would love for us to get a young, good outfielder but the rest of the league knows that those are the kind of targets you don’t give away.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jun 17, 2013 at 12:08 PM

      it doesn’t seem like the mets have the talent to pull of a trade that would make a significant payoff next year

      This is a giant IF, but considering most prospect gurus thought Wheeler > Harvey, imagine having two of those guys at the top of the rotation. They could keep both or dangle one to a contender. You could easily get an organization’s top 3 prospects + a cost controlled MLB player for Harvey.

      • neoshweaty - Jun 17, 2013 at 1:43 PM

        YOU SHUT YOUR DIRTY MOUTH!

        Seriously though, that does make sense, but that sounds more like a team that wouldn’t be able to afford to keep both Wheeler and Harvey. In an ideal world, the mets could spend freely considering their market and the size of their fanbase. However, the Wilpons seem forever in some kind of money problems so who knows?

      • mtr75 - Jun 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM

        The Mets won’t trade either Harvey or Wheeler, if for no other reason than they are both under club control at very low cost for years after this one. Plus that would be the end of the Met fan base.

        And to neoshweaty, the Wilpon’s money troubles are just beginning.

      • American of African Descent - Jun 17, 2013 at 7:08 PM

        It makes zero sense to trade a stud pitcher who can go 7+ innings at 98+ mph, who can handle the pressure of NYC, who’s under team control for several years, and who enjoys facing the best (he beat Strasburg).

        I don’t want an organization’s top three prospects. Maybe one of those three prospects hits. (Or does no one else remember Issranghausen, Wilson, and Pulsipher?) I want the guy with a (albeit short) track record of success in the majors.

  2. sdelmonte - Jun 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM

    Makes sense to me. Even though relievers come cheap if you do your job as a GM right, having a young, cheap reliever who is finding his way under your control sounds good.

    • thebadguyswon - Jun 17, 2013 at 12:12 PM

      I agree. I really can’t see the benefit of trading Parnell.

  3. mtr75 - Jun 17, 2013 at 11:21 AM

    I love how they keep saying they’ll be spending after this year because the Bay and Santana contracts will be off the books. Hogwash. Both of those contracts contain significant deferred money, and the Wilpoons owe over $300,000,000 in a lump sum payment next June against loans taken out against the team, and over $600,000,000 a year later for loans taken out against SNY. Anybody who thinks the Mets will be spending any money in the next 5 years – if ever – is dreaming. Our only hope is that the Wilpons can’t come up with the cash and are forced to sell.

    • thebadguyswon - Jun 17, 2013 at 12:14 PM

      I would counter that anyone that thinks a team in NYC is going to roll with a 60M payroll in 2014, after five miserable seasons, is nuts. I would have to think they’d want to keep their fan base.

      • neoshweaty - Jun 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

        I hope you’re right. I want to see some semblance of a contender in Queens.

      • mtr75 - Jun 17, 2013 at 2:39 PM

        First of all, anyone who thinks the Wilpoons give a crap about the fan base is obviously not Mets fan. Secondly, it’s not a matter of whether they want to “roll with a 60M payroll” or not, it’s a question of do they have any choice? The Wilpoons and Saul Katz are broke. B-r-o-k-e broke. They don’t have any money. You wanna know why Scott Hairston is not in Queens this year? Because they couldn’t afford him. Plain and simple. The reason Irving Picard dropped the Madoff lawsuit against the Wilpoons is that there was nothing to recover – they’re broke. You can’t get blood from a stone.

        They have to come up with over $300,000,000 – in cash – for a lump sum payment next June. The Bay and Santana contracts are the least of the Wilpoon’s problems. The Bay and Santana contracts which are already for the most part off the books this year. And do you see them spending any more money? Negative. Because they don’t have any.

  4. gammagammahey - Jun 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM

    Andy Martino’s stories of “sources” and “people with direct knowledge of the Mets’ thinking” are getting tiresome.

  5. American of African Descent - Jun 17, 2013 at 7:13 PM

    If there’s a way to get a major-league-ready-bat for Parnell, I’d do the deal in a heartbeat. A closer is the last thing you get when you’re ready to compete, and the Mets need some production at first, right, and left before they can start to think about their closer situation.

  6. mets79 - Jun 18, 2013 at 7:19 AM

    Stating that you are not “shopping” a player is just smart negotiating. Based on all of the Alderson interviews I have heard he would trade just about every player at the right price (Harvey is the #1 exception to that rule and probably Wright after him). As for the Wilpon’s “not caring about the Mets fans”, they absolutely care if they don’t come to Citi Field because the horrendous attendance is a death spiral for the already dire finances. As for the 300,000,000, I’m sure they are going to refinance that debt over a longer period of time. As for Parnell, I wouldn’t “shop” him either but I certainly would listen to offers. If I am going to get a Major League ready OF, SS, or 1B I would jump at that. I’m not sure a closer is worth that much, but contending teams can make short term decisions to fill a need.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Cabrera (4279)
  2. W. Myers (3430)
  3. M. Kemp (3203)
  4. M. Morse (2484)
  5. W. Miley (2484)
  1. C. Headley (2418)
  2. J. Lester (2374)
  3. M. Scherzer (2079)
  4. J. Upton (2020)
  5. C. Hamels (1972)