Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads

Farewell to Trachsel?

Sep 29 2005 02:17 PM

From Newsday:

]Trachsel allowed 10 hits and seven runs in 4 1/3 innings in what might have been his last start as a Met. "This could have been it," said Trachsel, who is headed to free agency. When asked if he wants to return, he replied, "I think everyone knows that but a lot of things were said to me during the season that didn't go the way they were said, so I really don't know what to expect at this point."

I would think we'd pretty much HAVE to pick up his option, since it's only $2.5M guaranteed, and the buyout is $1M, right?

There's no way we're letting Trachs go in order to save $1.5M . . . Right? Or am I missing something?

The other piece of this is that Trachs is unhappy, but we all knew that already.

Sep 29 2005 02:24 PM

Next season we might not have any ties to the 2000 WS team, you would think the Mets would pick up his option especially with the money posted above, thing is I imagine Trax will get a better offer elsewhere.

Sep 29 2005 02:33 PM

Trax was on the 2000 team? I misremember this.

Sep 29 2005 02:34 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 29 2005 02:37 PM

No, I am wrong, why did I think that?

Yancy Street Gang
Sep 29 2005 02:35 PM

Trachsel joined the Mets in 2001.

I think they have to pick up his option. That doesn't mean he has to return. At $2.5 million, he should be a pretty good trade chip.

Sep 29 2005 02:53 PM

I think the downside is that he will become a 10-5 guy, meaning we could be stuck with him. I doubt this will be a problem since he seems to want to leave, and, as our lumpy orange friend pointed out, a pretty good $2.5 million starter is not bad as trade bait. I'm guessing Trachsel hopes they don't pick up his option because he would probably get more on the free agent market. Didn't he sign his current contract at the depth (as opposed to the peak) of his value?
This post had the designation 143) Tracy Stallard

Frayed Knot
Sep 29 2005 03:05 PM

Keep in mind that the $2.5mil also comes w/a bunch of incentives that could drive it much higher (not sure of the details, very complicated I'm sure). In other words, he may turn out to be good, or he may turn out to be cheap ... but it's [u:173735f534]unlikely that he'll be both[/u:173735f534].

And yeah, that 10/5 stuff makes the idea of re-upping and then trading a bit more complicated.

Sep 29 2005 04:24 PM

Good point, Frayed. I think he could get up to $7M if he meets all his incentives (which are probably based on IP).

I would hope we wouldn't let the 5/10 rights scare us off. Even if he doesn't consent to being moved, we can keep him and trade one of our other pitchers. A year of Trachs would essentially cost us between $1.5 & $6M (since the other option--releasing him--would cost us $1M), which is damn fine value, given that Burnett, for example, is likely to cost $12M next year.

I'd be very surprised if Burnett is 2 to 9 times more effective than Trachs next year.

Sep 29 2005 04:30 PM

trachsel would make for a pretty decent hedge. if hte youngsters really impress in spring training, surely he'd be cheap enough to flip to a contender in need of depth, and willing to take the risk of a 2.5 mil innings eater becoming a 7 mil good pitcher.

also, i've little problem going into the next season with 6 starters who all should be in teh rotation, as i expect to have at least one of them fall to the injury bug during the year, and if we are in as "win now" mode as i think we will be next year, we'd do well to have somebody already waiting in the wings, or the pen.

Sep 29 2005 06:31 PM

We don't need any more guys in the way of Heilman, Petit and the rest of our young pitchers. He's done a great job here, but we honestly don't need him.

Frayed Knot
Sep 29 2005 11:14 PM

I'm not neccesarily sold on keeping Trax, BUT ...

- don't just name 5 other starters and think that we're set. Teams never get by with 5 and rarely need as few as 6 or 7 for a season. You can ask my good friend Brian Cashman about that one.

- and especially don't start counting on guys who haven't even smelled the major leagues yet. Petit (or Bannister or whoever) might be ready for next season or he/they might be turn out to be just about as ready as Heilman was for 2 seasons ago. Minor league prospects - and especially pitchers!!! - don't work on any schedule that can be reliably counted upon.

Sep 29 2005 11:51 PM

Valadius wrote:
We don't need any more guys in the way of Heilman, Petit and the rest of our young pitchers. He's done a great job here, but we honestly don't need him.

There is a logjam at starting pitcher without factoring Bannister and Petit into the picture. I don't see the point of keeping an excess at one position when there are other areas that need improvement. Plus, the Mets have plenty of guys who adequately fill the 3, 4, and 5 holes in the rotation, but right now I don't see a #2 starter. Trachsel doesn't have to be dealt, but at least one guy, and possibly two or even three, have to go.

I'm guessing that Trachsel's incentives would be easily met if he stays healthy all year, but that might be a big if. Since he would be 10 and 5, I'd make sure I know which teams would want him, and which teams he'd accept a trade to, before I picked up the option.

Sep 30 2005 12:02 AM

Let's see how many starters we have right now on the roster:


If we want to bring up our prospects, which we should begin to do by mid-2006, we need to sort through that mess first.

Edgy DC
Sep 30 2005 08:41 AM

I wouldn't call it a mess.

Who are you saying has to come up by mid-2006? Bannister's got a good chance to be ready. Petit less so, but certainly possible.