After a mad spending spree that increased the Mets’ payroll, including tax penalties, to around $420 million, questions for this mailbag installment included the consequences of trading someone like Carlos Carrasco, why New York didn’t land Carlos Correa and who could be the next additions to the bullpen. If your question wasn’t addressed this time, it will likely be tackled in a future feature.
Advertisement
Shouldn’t the Mets seriously consider keeping Carlos Carrasco? — Anonymous
Carrasco attended a charity event at a Target in Queens on Tuesday. Wearing multi-colored holiday lights around his neck like a chain, he explained that trade rumors are nothing new for him.
He’s a 13-year veteran in the majors and over the course of his 19 years playing professionally, including his time in the minors, he’s been dealt twice. The calm, pragmatic response was not surprising.
“I’ve been in baseball for a long time,” Carrasco said. “The only thing that I can say is I continue to prepare myself to get ready for spring training.”
The @Mets Holiday Shopping Spree presented by @Delta gives underserved families a memorable holiday experience. We invited 20 children from @WINNYC_ORG to shop at @Target for themselves & their families with Mets GM Billy Eppler, RHP @Cookie_Carrasco & DH Daniel Vogelbach! 🎁 pic.twitter.com/ONPed1jNlO
— Amazin' Mets Foundation (@AmazinMetsFdn) December 14, 2022
So, Tuesday was business as usual for Carrasco, a past winner of the Roberto Clemente Award for community service and playing excellence. He was participating in an event with the team’s philanthropic arm, the Amazin’ Mets Foundation. Carrasco and designated hitter Daniel Vogelbach accompanied several children from Women in Need, also known as Win, which says it is the largest provider of shelter and supportive housing for New York City’s homeless families, especially women and children, on a holiday shopping spree funded by the Mets.
There’s plenty of reason to hold onto Carrasco. There’s also reason to explore trading him. Joel Sherman of the New York Post recently reported that the Mets were listening to offers on the veteran starting pitcher. Even before the Mets picked up his $14 million option last month, industry sources told me around that time that they believed that Carrasco was available.
Advertisement
Several teams would likely be interested in Carrasco, who in March will turn 36. It’s hard to find experienced, capable starting pitchers on one-year contracts, and that’s essentially the situation for Carrasco, who will be a free agent after next season. His $14 million price tag — perhaps the Mets would absorb some of it if they moved him — is also enticing when considering a few starting pitchers have signed larger-than-expected contracts this winter. For comparison, Kyle Gibson, 35, inked a one-year, $10 million pact with the Orioles despite a 5.05 ERA/4.28 FIP last season with the Phillies. Coming off a season in which he posted a 4.33 ERA/4.97 FIP, Mike Clevinger also signed a one-year deal, one worth $12 million, with the White Sox.
One issue, though, is despite Carrasco being useful, he might not fetch a whole lot in return because of his age and contract situation. Yes, it almost acts like a double-edged sword because teams prefer younger players with club control. Perhaps a team needing stability in its rotation would be willing to part with a decent minor-league pitcher on the cusp of being able to help in the majors. But while a younger pitcher like that could have value for the Mets, a team that doesn’t have a bunch of internal starting pitching options for the next two seasons, an argument can be made that keeping Carrasco would make at least as much sense.
After an injury-plagued first season with New York, Carrasco bounced back with a mostly solid season (3.97 ERA/3.53 FIP) despite some harsher numbers against teams with winning percentages over .500. There’s some injury risk — the 152 innings Carrasco threw last season marked the first time he topped 100 innings since 2018 — but the same could be said for nearly all of the Mets’ other starters.
As constructed, Carrasco would be the Mets’ fourth or fifth starter in a rotation that also includes Max Scherzer, Justin Verlander, Kodai Senga and José Quintana. The average age of the rotation is 35 1/2 years old. That’s concerning, even though the group looks immensely talented. Behind the group are a few unproven, inexperienced or less accomplished options: David Peterson, Tylor Megill and Joey Lucchesi, among others. Last season, the Mets had 11 pitchers make at least one start. Teams typically target 8-10 options that they want to at least feel comfortable with starting games. A lot of times, as soon as teams trade starting pitching depth, they end up needing it. For the Mets, Carrasco’s $14 million AAV, in reality, is more because of the tax they are facing from being so far over the final luxury tax threshold. But for a team with so much riding on this season, isn’t the cost worth the peace of mind?
Will the Mets use a six-man rotation? — Sandra C.
The Mets should consider the idea of a six-man rotation — and, to be clear, manager Buck Showalter considers just about everything — but my early impression is I’m not sure how likely that is. A lot probably depends on what Scherzer and Verlander prefer, and the guess here, just judging from their respective competitiveness, is that they are each going to want to take the ball every fifth day. It’s hard to mess with routine, and that’s especially true when it comes to two likely future Hall of Famers. That said, before they signed Senga, Showalter made the comment that the star pitcher from Japan was kind of like a Friday night pitcher in college baseball because he pitched just once a week. With the Mets, there’s also the age concern about their rotation. So, in theory, there’s some sense in using a six-man rotation. But they don’t have to; they can always skip starts, give extra days of rest, piggyback starts, etc., if Senga needs time to adjust to the increased workload or if someone ends up dealing with something.
Advertisement
Are Peterson and Megill better off in the bullpen in the majors or starters in the minors? — Darren L.
If the Mets construct a good enough bullpen, they shouldn’t need Peterson (a lefty) or Megill (a right-hander) to be part of it. Because they have options remaining and depth is so necessary, it’s probably best they remain stretched out as starters, even if that means spending more time in the minors. It’s harder to stretch someone out during the season than it is to convert someone to the bullpen. Last year down the stretch, both appeared in the Mets’ bullpen, but the unit wasn’t the deepest and included just one lefty, Joely Rodriguez, who is now with the Red Sox. The Mets now have lefty Brooks Raley and right-hander David Robertson, whose stuff plays against either side, plus they could continue to add. It’s possible that Megill or Peterson operates as a long reliever, and that could work, especially if the Mets find themselves needing to give extra rest to starters or wanting to do other creative things. Elieser Hernández is another option for a swingman role.
Why didn’t the Mets get Carlos Correa? — Alex M.
Correa was a worthwhile pursuit for the Mets. He would’ve played third base and would’ve been quite the upgrade for the lineup. Over the last two years, Correa has a 136 wRC+ — the third basemen in that time period with a better wRC+ are Austin Riley (139), José Ramírez (138), Rafael Devers (137) and Manny Machado (137). Alas, soon after The Athletic reported the Mets’ interest in him, Correa signed with the Giants to be their star shortstop for a 13-year deal worth $350 million. The deal surpassed Francisco Lindor’s as the biggest for a shortstop.
Were the Mets willing to pay a similar price? On one hand, while Cohen has spent a fortune this winter, the Mets by design have avoided long-term contracts. Brandon Nimmo’s eight-year deal was the exception, and that was largely done because of the hole he would leave in center field and the drop-off in value alternatives would’ve had. The Mets’ plan has included shorter contracts with higher AAVs — like Verlander and Scherzer before him — to bridge the gap to sustainability as player development, in theory, improves. Correa wouldn’t have exactly been consistent with that trend, but I don’t think it would’ve been bad to deviate in his case, either.
Earlier this winter, deals like Trea Turner’s 11-year pact with the Phillies worth $300 million ($27.2 million AAV) and Xander Bogaerts’ 11-year, $280 million deal ($25.4 million AAV) with the Padres were likely made with the idea of stretching the length out for luxury tax purposes, meaning a lower AAV. The Mets, with Correa, could’ve done something similar — his AAV with the Giants is $26.9 million. If you’re going to pay that rate — and, shoot, seven years from now it likely won’t look as high — there’s logic in making it Correa, who is 28. The Mets actually should have some flexibility despite the long-term agreements with Nimmo and Lindor. Aside from those two, Senga, Starling Marte and Edwin Díaz are the only large guaranteed contracts the Mets are committed to beyond 2024. Still, it’s asking a lot to take on three long deals in Nimmo, Lindor and Correa, and then ask them to at least be serviceable players six years from now. Also, not signing Correa now makes it all the more sensible to pursue Shohei Ohtani later.
The Mets need more power. But if they decide to stay with Daniel Vogelbach at DH, could we expect better numbers from him because of the new shift rules? — Mark H.
It’s conceivable that the Mets upgrade at DH, and we’ve outlined why they should. But as of now, Vogelbach is at least the in-house option as the strong side of a DH platoon. Things improved at DH for the club when the Mets traded for Vogelbach. In the second half, they had a 101 wRC+ at DH (for the season, it was just 89), with 10 teams posting a better figure. Whether he serves as a regular DH or is a lefty bat off the bench, I don’t think the shift rules will change his production much. He isn’t exactly a pull hitter and is actually pretty adept at going the other way. He pulled the ball 40 percent of the time and the most aggressive pull hitters are usually above 45 percent.
Teams shifted against Vogelbach about 76 percent of the time; some guys see shifts in 90 percent or more of their plate appearances. Vogelbach had a .143 batting average on pulled ground balls into the shift; a low figure, but, again, some guys like Corey Seager (.051) and Anthony Rizzo (.066) were below .100, which indicates that they were probably hurt more.
“We’ll see what happens, but I feel like it will all even out,” Vogelbach said Tuesday at the same event at Target that Carrasco attended. “Just when you think they’re over there at a place they weren’t you’re probably gonna hit a few balls there and you’re gonna get out. So I mean hopefully it does. Hopefully, it raises my average … the name of the game is: get on base and score runs. But I think it just comes down to keep hitting the ball hard. Whatever happens, you can’t control it after that.”
Advertisement
Why didn’t the Mets make a qualifying offer to Taijuan Walker? Seemed obvious he would get a multi-year contract. —Eyal W.
I’m with you. I would’ve thought Walker, who had to settle for one-year deals in his prior forays in free agency, would’ve been eyeing some stability regardless of getting the qualifying offer or not. The Mets had holes in their rotation and it wasn’t a given that they would fix them as well as they did. But, clearly, they had a plan for how they wanted to attack the situation. And they probably thought that even the chance of Walker accepting a QO would compromise some of their options. You just don’t know for sure, and if there’s any hesitation, it’s probably just not worth it. If Walker accepted the offer (worth $19.6 million), he would’ve been paid higher than his market rate. And maybe this isn’t a totally fair comparison because the context of the total rotations from 2022 and 2023 matter, but Quintana with a $13 million AAV for the next two years seems like a superior option.
What does an extension for Jeff McNeil look like, as well as the chances of this happening this off-season? — Kenny S.
There’s nothing brewing on a McNeil extension. Don’t read anything into that, though. It would be unusual at this time of year for one to be executed — teams are focused on free agency, trades, etc. McNeil won’t be a free agent until after the 2024 season and is projected (courtesy MLB Trade Rumors) to make $6.2 million through arbitration this year. The exchange date is Jan. 13. So this is probably a better discussion for January. DJ LeMahieu, who signed a six-year, $90 million contract with the Yankees in January 2021 could be a decent comp for McNeil, 30. LeMahieu was coming off his age-31 season and in his last full season before the deal had a 5.8 fWAR. Last season, McNeil, the NL batting champion (.326 average) posted a 5.9 fWAR.
Where do Francisco Álvarez , Brett Baty and Mark Vientos start the year? — Trish B.
This was a popular question, but it’s also one that’s difficult to answer because a lot may depend on what else the Mets do this offseason.
It’s possible one or more could make the team out of spring training, especially if they don’t add someone who would take DH at-bats. They’ve explored different position players, so it’s hard to say which direction things will go.
It could be wise to give Álvarez, in particular, some runway as a DH/backup catcher to get his right-handed power bat in the lineup — especially at times as a foil to Vogelbach’s left-handed bat — and ease him in defensively. Álvarez and Baty, however, did not spend much time in Triple A. In a vacuum, that should hardly be the reason they don’t make the club out of spring training, but it’s worth pointing out that the Mets may opt to give them more seasoning. In Álvarez’s case, the Mets also have Tomas Nido and James McCann at catcher though the latter is a trade candidate. In Baty’s case, unless a trade is made, Eduardo Escobar and Luis Guillorme would be ahead of him at third base. Baty played just six games in Triple A (he was 8 for 22) before injuries to both Escobar and Guillorme influenced his promotion.
Vientos, too, could be a DH candidate from the right side. Aside from maybe some work defensively, there isn’t a whole lot else for Vientos to prove at the Triple-A level. Still, the club doesn’t appear ready to just hand Vientos the job. For all three — and especially Álvarez and Vientos — a lot will depend on the rest of the Mets’ personnel decisions for the rest of the winter and how things go in the spring. It’s just too early to call.
Which free-agent relievers should be added at this point? —Steven S.
The Mets could use one more high-leverage option for their bullpen. Among the names that would make sense are Adam Ottavino, Taylor Rogers, Andrew Chafin and Michael Fulmer.
Will the Mets find a new way to disappoint us in 2023? — Mike G.
Mike, if they disappoint with this payroll, it will most definitely qualify as a new way.
(Photo of Carrasco: Brad Penner / USA Today )