 |
| Courtesy of nextimpulsesports.com |
The Mets likely had known this far longer than the general public has. Because of the knowledge they had of Murphy's intentions, why wouldn't they try and shop Murphy to other clubs (even if it was casually) to gauge his value. Perhaps they already tried and felt like they weren't being offered market value for him. However, it is quite difficult for me to believe a good amount of teams wouldn't be interested in Murphy seeing how a middle infielder with a solid bat at the top of the order would help out many clubs. Plus, it helps to mention that Murphy is recognized as a gutsy player, and would instill a winning culture to a clubhouse. I get that the Mets would want to keep Murphy for those reasons (and that they see him as a stopgap for Dilson Herrera).
The problem I have with this is that Murphy is far too valuable to the club to just treat him as a stopgap for a guy who just made his MLB debut as a September call-up. On the other hand, there are analysts who have boatloads of credibility that have said the Cubs need Kris Bryant (a player who hasn't played in the Major Leagues yet) as their starting third baseman to contend. If the Rays were able to get a top prospect for Ben Zobrist, why couldn't the Mets have tried to see if the same could happen with Murphy?
Because of his ability to get on base at a good clip and versatility in the field, Zobrist is a player with a lot of value. Here's the thing, is Zobrist THAT much more valuable than Daniel Murphy? Like Murphy, Zobrist's contract expires after this season and he is probably going to test free agency. Now it is established that Zobrist is very versatile and can get on base. We also know that Daniel Murphy is a player who's strengths also don't always show up on the scorecard. It is also apparent that Zobrist is better, but he is also four years older than Murphy (Murphy turns 30 in April and Zobrist turns 34 in May). Because of this, it is safe to say that Zobrist's best days may be behind him, while Murphy could have two to three more good years left. Now what does this mean? What it means it that the A's traded a solid trade package for what is a one year rental. Murphy on the other hand, could reasonably be signed to a 4 year extension worth around $40-44 Million, similar to the Nick Markakis deal. This would sign what I said before could be three productive years of Murphy. Murphy will also be incredibly affordable due to the reasonable $8 million that will be owed to him. Essentially, Zobrist may be the better player, but Murphy would more than likely give his team far more value for what they give up. Because of these factors, it wouldn't be hard to believe when I say Murphy's trade value would likely be around what Ben Zobrist's was.
 |
| Courtesy of bleacher report |
As much as Murphy could very well have netted the Mets a good package like the Rays got in Daniel Robertson, Boog Powell and John Jaso, it is too late in the offseason for the Mets to try it now. It's a shame too, since there were solid free agent options like Jed Lowrie and Stephen Drew that could have also served as stopgap options for Dilson Herrera. Perhaps the Mets brass may have felt like Murphy was a fan favorite and did not want to receive any backlash from the fanbase. Thing is, the Cardinals let Pujols walk in free agency, the A's traded away Josh Donaldson and the Rays knew David Price would sign elsewhere, so they dealt him. These were unpopular moves too, but at the end of the day, those General Managers knew these moves were the ones that were necessary to keep their respective ballclubs moving in a good long-term direction. I realize this article will likely not move any waves since this is more of a hindsight kind of article, and lord knows one of the easiest things to do is to look at things in hindsight. However, it is important I talked about this because I believe we could see how we can learn from how the Mets missed the boat with capitalizing on Daniel Murphy's value.
No comments:
Post a Comment