PDA

View Full Version : Old rumor that just won't die crops up again



klw
03-24-2010, 10:46 AM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/03/mets-shopping-gary-matthews-jr.html


The Mets are shopping outfielder Gary Matthews Jr., reports Joel Sherman of the New York Post. Sherman suggests the Mets might not have much of a role for Matthews, and the Reds are a trade possibility.

This is probably either wishful thinking by the Mets or news that the Mets are shopping and bringing up an old rumor to fill out the piece. There seem to be better in house options but with the Mets shortage of relievers would a Lincoln for GM jr be explored.

REDREAD
03-24-2010, 11:44 AM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/03/mets-shopping-gary-matthews-jr.html



This is probably either wishful thinking by the Mets or news that the Mets are shopping and bringing up an old rumor to fill out the piece. There seem to be better in house options but with the Mets shortage of relievers would a Lincoln for GM jr be explored.

I'd rather have Lincoln than Gary Matthews Jr, even if it does save us a little bit of cash.

I know Lincoln was really bad last year, but he was hurt. If he's healthy (big IF), he might actually be able to contribute. I haven't heard an update on Lincoln for awhile, other than they might try him as the 5th starter, so I presume that means he's healthier than he was last year.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2010, 11:46 AM
I'd rather have Lincoln than Gary Matthews Jr, even if it does save us a little bit of cash.

I know Lincoln was really bad last year, but he was hurt. If he's healthy (big IF), he might actually be able to contribute. I haven't heard an update on Lincoln for awhile, other than they might try him as the 5th starter, so I presume that means he's healthier than he was last year.

When, like the Reds, you are counting on three starters age 25 and younger, it never hurts to have a guy in your pen who can throw 94 and go a couple of innings.

membengal
03-24-2010, 11:48 AM
Whatever I have to do in order to finally kill this rumor, please advise, and I will see to it.

klw
03-24-2010, 11:52 AM
I wouldn't like to do Matthews for Lincoln but I could see the Mets exploring it given their pen issues.

membengal
03-24-2010, 12:11 PM
I am all for dealing Lincoln. But not for Matthews Jr. Some low A prospect would be fine.

Spring~Fields
03-24-2010, 12:13 PM
Whatever I have to do in order to finally kill this rumor, please advise, and I will see to it.

I guess we would have to work on putting to rest the Reds interest in underachieving experienced veterans on the downside of their careers first.

Rumors like these and beyond, the actual signing of those types, doesn’t coincide with a confidence in their younger players. The square peg and the round hole of speaking youth and young prospects while acquiring, other than, somehow just isn’t matching up. Probably just some blind spot in my own eyes though or the medias reporting.

Are they playing to win now, or are they building for the future, or both? When do the young players get their major league experience, take their lumps along with what they do right, and move forward?

I don’t think that they will sign or acquire a Matthews anyway, but then, I never thought that they would pick up a Rolen, Cabrera, Hernandez, Miles, Burke, Anderson, Nix, Gomes, Tevaras etc. Has Mr. Jocketty or Mr. Baker ever won with youth? Someone on the Reds side likes experience, even if that experience is on the downside of their careers, somehow it all reminds me of yard sale or garage sale shoppers.

RBA
03-24-2010, 12:14 PM
Wishful thinking by Mets fans/writers. They see the Reds have a glut of pitching and they think the Reds should be easy pickings.

OnBaseMachine
03-24-2010, 12:16 PM
I've said it a 100 times this offseason - please stay away from Gary Matthews Jr.

osuceltic
03-24-2010, 12:28 PM
There's something to be said for insurance. I think this front office -- and it's no different than any other in this regard -- wants to hedge its bets on guys like Stubbs and Dickerson (and even Bruce). Right now they are "hope" guys. The Reds hope one of them can be the full-time answer in CF. But neither has done it at the major league level for any extended period of time. Matthews certainly is on the downside, but he has the "done it before" credibility the young guys don't.

Assuming for a second there's any truth to this rumor (and I'm not assuming that, just using it for the argument), in the Reds' minds, I think they see a chance to get a veteran with a history of playing good CF and some offensive success at little or no cost. That way, if Stubbs is hitting .190 in mid-May and Dickerson is on the DL (neither scneario altogether far-fetched), they have a serviceable veteran who can step in and prevent an out-and-out disaster in CF.

You might argue that if those scenarios happen, they just call up Chris Heisey. He's even more unproven than the other guys and he's coming off a spring when he had to underwhelm everyone with his performance at the plate. I don't think they want to be in the position of needing to count on Chris Heisey -- they want to see what they have with him on their timetable.

I've said this over and over, but the big-league team is about one thing -- winning. You don't get bonus points for doing it with a young guy or a guy you drafted or anything else. Development is for the minors. Jocketty and Baker understand this. Fans say things like "I'd rather take my lumps with the young guy," but Jocketty and Baker rightly don't want to take any lumps. Let the young guy take his lumps in Louisville. That's the great thing about baseball. Unlike the NFL and NBA, there's a legitimate development system in place -- there's no reason to take your lumps with a guy in the big leagues. If he isn't ready, send him down to get ready. Find someone who is.

Now ... all of this again assumes that Matthews could be even passable in that emergency starter's role. I don't know enough about him or the reasons for his struggles last season to say for sure. But I do know that Jocketty does his homework and will understand all of that before pulling the trigger.

membengal
03-24-2010, 12:32 PM
If the Reds team is about winning, it does NOT need to be in the Gary Matthews Jr. business in 2010.

Kc61
03-24-2010, 12:37 PM
I could see the Reds trading for a reliever. I could see them trading for a good utility infielder. I could see them trading for more prospects.

I don't know why they would trade for an outfielder like Matthews. If the starting three are Bruce, Gomes, Stubbs, then they have Dickerson, Nix, Balentien, Francisco, Frazier, Heisey all available.

Outfield depth seems ok as is.

Spring~Fields
03-24-2010, 12:45 PM
I've said it a 100 times this offseason - please stay away from Gary Matthews Jr.

Ah com'n, you know how much you really like these aged veterans and their experience with declining skills. :D

Looks like Matthews would fit right in. :)
35 years old, declining skills, low on base percentage, and an OPS that is falling like rocks from the sky.

He bats both handed, worse against right handed pitching, (the Reds are fond of those kind). :bang:

I wonder if the Reds would be willing to trade either Stubbs or Dickerson and a pitching prospect for him and then sign him for two to three years? You know what Mr. Baker said, "Dickerson with his injuries", Stubbs, "doing better at the majors vs what he did in the minors", Mr. Baker does have a point. :eek:

Matthews seems to have hit well once upon a time, four seasons ago in that Texas stadium, maybe he could get some “respect” with his experience, and help the younger players by taking up their playing time at the GABP. :evil:


Gary Matthews Jr. Age 35 CF
AVG OBP SLG OPS
2006 Tex .313 .371 .495 .866
2007 LAA .252 .323 .419 .742
2008 LAA .242 .319 .357 .676
2009 LAA .250 .336 .361 .697

Spring~Fields
03-24-2010, 01:00 PM
There's something to be said for insurance. I think this front office -- and it's no different than any other in this regard -- wants to hedge its bets on guys like Stubbs and Dickerson (and even Bruce). Right now they are "hope" guys. The Reds hope one of them can be the full-time answer in CF. But neither has done it at the major league level for any extended period of time. Matthews certainly is on the downside, but he has the "done it before" credibility the young guys don't.

Assuming for a second there's any truth to this rumor (and I'm not assuming that, just using it for the argument), in the Reds' minds, I think they see a chance to get a veteran with a history of playing good CF and some offensive success at little or no cost. That way, if Stubbs is hitting .190 in mid-May and Dickerson is on the DL (neither scneario altogether far-fetched), they have a serviceable veteran who can step in and prevent an out-and-out disaster in CF.



Oh I whole heartedly agree with every letter of what you have written here, as suggested or implied to their thinking or perceptions. Clearly that is their rationale, and those would be the generalizations that they would use to support their decisions. The results? Might be and probably would be a different issue.

Though if that player were to be acquired, he would be the starter, not the backup in the event of, would be my only digression or variation from what you have, very well written.

flyer85
03-24-2010, 01:11 PM
worst thing you could do is give Dusty a crappy veteran and one who has a father who played in the same era as Dusty.

Scrap Irony
03-24-2010, 01:21 PM
I read the article. It mentions the Reds only in passing. (A typical NY Post article in that fact.) There are no smoking guns, no unnamed NL executives, no anonymous sources. Not one piece of evidence connects the Reds to Matthews or the Mets.

None.

Roy Tucker
03-24-2010, 02:13 PM
Don't have access to Twitter from work but supposedly http://twitter.com/johnfayman/status/10002376891 says the Reds have zero interest.

jmcclain19
03-24-2010, 03:25 PM
Typical NY beat writers looking around at the smaller teams and assuming they would happily lap up the Mets/Yankees trash in trade for usable parts.

It wouldn't be so prevalently mentioned in articles if it didn't come true so often.

Sea Ray
03-24-2010, 03:37 PM
If the Reds team is about winning, it does need to be in the Gary Matthews Jr. business in 2010.

Wouldn't you like to re-phrase that?

membengal
03-24-2010, 03:47 PM
NOT

That should say

NOT

Sea Ray
03-24-2010, 03:49 PM
NOT

That should say

NOT

:thumbup: I'm with ya Pal!