Page 2 of 4

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:53 am
by LBJackal
8-o

$38M for 3 years, are you kidding?!?!?!?!

I thought he was offered $27M for 3 before....... seems like a huge jump if you ask me. I don't think Pedro is worth near that much, but hey if he returns to pre-2004 form it could be worth it. It just smells like the Mets buying a washed up superstar for way more than he's worth.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:35 am
by Bukoski77
38 million for three years!!!!

Ouch.

With the exception of Piazza isnt Shea where former superstars past their prime go to die now?

Sorry Met fans, I just had to throw that out there.
Pre - 2004 is unlikely but I dont think Pedro is done putting up top 10 SP numbers.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:42 am
by wrveres
Bukoski77 wrote:38 million for three years!!!!

Ouch.

With the exception of Piazza isnt Shea where former superstars past their prime go to die now?

Sorry Met fans, I just had to throw that out there.
Pre - 2004 is unlikely but I dont think Pedro is done putting up top 10 SP numbers.


LMAO .. :-D

Can I predict a Mets fans response ....

"We have a new GM now, things are going to be different." ;-7

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:18 am
by Ballwreckers
I dont hate the Mets but I hope they dont sign any good players. I would hate that division to get any stronger then my Braves might not have a fighting chance


I don't think you have to wory about that. The Braves are the cockroach of baseball. They just won't go away ;-7

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:10 pm
by Amazinz
Red Sox offered $37.5 million over three years, part of the contract is vesting (non-guaranteed).

The Mets offered $38 million for three years guaranteed plus a vesting option for a fourth.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:23 pm
by Pogotheostrich
Amazinz wrote:Red Sox offered $37.5 million over three years, part of the contract is vesting (non-guaranteed).

The Mets offered $38 million for three years guaranteed plus a vesting option for a fourth.
8-o I just don't get it. The Mets don't seem like they are close to competing to me. Why do they continue to throw money after declining players in hopes of a quick fix?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:28 pm
by Amazinz
Pogotheostrich wrote:
Amazinz wrote:Red Sox offered $37.5 million over three years, part of the contract is vesting (non-guaranteed).

The Mets offered $38 million for three years guaranteed plus a vesting option for a fourth.
8-o I just don't get it. The Mets don't seem like they are close to competing to me. Why do they continue to throw money after declining players in hopes of a quick fix?

Well first off let me preface this by saying that I believe Pedro will inevitably end up back with Boston. It may start off a bidding war with the Yankees but that's about it.

The simplest answer to your question is because they can and why not. The Mets are not that far away from being a contender as you're suggesting.

Martinez - Glavine - Benson - Zambrano - Trax

How many teams would have a starting rotation that deep? None? A couple?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:41 pm
by Pogotheostrich
Amazinz wrote:
Pogotheostrich wrote:
Amazinz wrote:Red Sox offered $37.5 million over three years, part of the contract is vesting (non-guaranteed).

The Mets offered $38 million for three years guaranteed plus a vesting option for a fourth.
8-o I just don't get it. The Mets don't seem like they are close to competing to me. Why do they continue to throw money after declining players in hopes of a quick fix?

Well first off let me preface this by saying that I believe Pedro will inevitably end up back with Boston. It may start off a bidding war with the Yankees but that's about it.

The simplest answer to your question is because they can and why not. The Mets are not that far away from being a contender as you're suggesting.

Martinez - Glavine - Benson - Zambrano - Trax

How many teams would have a starting rotation that deep? None? A couple?


21 games away from being a contender last year. I repeat - there is no quick fix. Pittsburgh had a better record last year. And that rotation isn't that great.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:45 pm
by SaintsOfTheDiamond
Pogotheostrich wrote:21 games away from being a contender last year. I repeat - there is no quick fix. Pittsburgh had a better record last year. And that rotation isn't that great.


Glad I'm not the only one who was thinking that. :-o

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:47 pm
by Amazinz
I don't think Martinez would be a quick fix to the Mets problems. But with Leiter leaving the Mets need a 5th starter; you could do worse than Pedro. How would you suggest they fix it?

You're right that rotation isn't that great. But I think it could be good enough to make a playoff run especially playing half thier games in Shea.

There were a couple of teams who made it into the post season last year with a worse rotation.