Jan 23, 2014, 3:15 PM EST
Ken Rosenthal hears this:
— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) January 23, 2014
The first impulse is to say “haha, Balfour wanted to play for a winner and the Mets don’t win and hahaha” and all of that. But this is not all that interesting for those purposes. I mean, if the money is at least close, a closer is going to want to to a winning team because that leads to more saves. And all ballplayers want to play for a winner.
No, it’s more interesting inasmuch as it suggests that the Mets aren’t anywhere near as confident in Bobby Parnell as their closer as they have suggested. Or, alternatively, that the Mets are getting into the “flip-a-closer” business that the A’s used to do from time to time. Letting a guy rack up some saves and then trading him to teams which are desperate for relief help in midseason. Which, frankly, could be kind of smart.
But smart or not, it’s not the sort of thing Balfour wanted, obviously. And unless the money was substantially different, I assume most of us would make the same choice too.
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 60
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 22
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” 85
- Trea Turner’s agent is unhappy his client is in limbo after trade to Nationals 48
- Nexen Heroes accept Jung-Ho Kang posting fee from unidentified MLB team 37
- Giants acquire Casey McGehee from the Marlins 16
- Bud Selig will get a $6 million a year pension. Which is obscene. (145)
- The United States will seek to normalize relations with Cuba (144)
- Rays, Padres, Nationals agree to 11-player trade (97)
- St. Petersburg City Council votes down deal to allow Rays to look for new stadium site (90)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)