Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are you for or against keeping Austin Jackson?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are you for or against keeping Austin Jackson?

    I vote for keeping Austin Jackson. He's been pretty good for the Mets so far. And I believe that Rangers are responsible for Jackson's $3M 2019 contract salary (minus league minimum), as they released Jackson on July 14, 2018.

  • #2
    Too soon to tell, but Ty Kelly and Den Dekker are not the answer
    The 2018 Mets - making the Titanic look buoyant.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Green Must Go View Post
      Too soon to tell, but Ty Kelly and Den Dekker are not the answer
      Possibly 'too soon to tell'...but in the meantime, Jackson's overall 2018 batting average (Giants + Mets combined: over 200 plate appearances) is now up to .276 on the season. If he can hit over .280 for the season, I think he should be a keeper.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by metsheart View Post
        I vote for keeping Austin Jackson. He's been pretty good for the Mets so far. And I believe that Rangers are responsible for Jackson's $3M 2019 contract salary (minus league minimum), as they released Jackson on July 14, 2018.
        He'll be a free agent at the end of the year so he'll probably want to go to whoever offers the most $$ / chance to play

        I'm not against bringing him back, but there's a lot of garbage floating around the Mets OF - Bruce, Nimmo, Conforto are likely the starters. You've still got Lagares who will make a cool 9 mil to play 50 games and get hurt again. At some point Cess would be back. That's 5 guys. Granted the likelyhood of all 5 being healthy at once are slim, but you're still talking about a 5th OFer.... Can they dump some of the trash and keep him for the min? I'd be fine...but I think they'd be hard pressed to find takers for Bruce/Lagares/Cess and if he reaches the numbers you're talking about he'll probably get another decent deal from someone

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MrHat View Post

          He'll be a free agent at the end of the year so the money owed to him thru previous contracts are kind of meaningless no?

          I'm not against bringing him back, but there's a lot of garbage floating around the Mets OF - Bruce, Nimmo, Conforto are likely the starters. You've still got Lagares who will make a cool 9 mil to play 50 games and get hurt again. At some point Cess would be back. That's 5 guys. Granted the likelyhood of all 5 being healthy at once are slim, but you're still talking about a 5th OFer.... Can they dump some of the trash and keep him for the min? I'd be fine...but I think they'd be hard pressed to find takers for Bruce/Lagares/Cess

          from MLB Trade Rumors July 14, 2018:

          https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/...n-jackson.html

          "As for Jackson, his release comes three days after the Rangers designated him for assignment and ends a very short tenure with the organization for the native Texan. In a trade with San Francisco last weekend, the Rangers agreed to take on Jackson (and his $3MM annual salary through next season) to help clear payroll for the Giants and acquire pitching prospect Jason Bahr.

          The Rangers never had any intention of using [Austin] Jackson, who hit just .242/.309/.295 in 165 plate appearances as a Giant, and weren’t able to flip him elsewhere."


          Jackson's contract runs through 2019, so I believe that means that Jackson's $3M 2019 contract salary is still the responsibility of the Texas Rangers (the last team to have taken over his contract before releasing him). If a team could just release a player who is owed more money in future years, then virtually every team would do that to divest themselves of bad contracts...so I don't believe that that's how it works.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MrHat View Post

            He'll be a free agent at the end of the year so he'll probably want to go to whoever offers the most $$ / chance to play

            I'm not against bringing him back, but there's a lot of garbage floating around the Mets OF - Bruce, Nimmo, Conforto are likely the starters. You've still got Lagares who will make a cool 9 mil to play 50 games and get hurt again. At some point Cess would be back. That's 5 guys. Granted the likelyhood of all 5 being healthy at once are slim, but you're still talking about a 5th OFer.... Can they dump some of the trash and keep him for the min? I'd be fine...but I think they'd be hard pressed to find takers for Bruce/Lagares/Cess and if he reaches the numbers you're talking about he'll probably get another decent deal from someone
            all three are trash!!!
            COME BY THE SCHOOL a year from now you"ll wish you started today

            "they all think they’re geniuses who just happen to agree with each other. This creates a near total blindness to facts, data, and opinions that don’t line up with their worldview"

            Originally posted by mule
            "LOL there's nothing that makes you look more like an ass than when you try to front for the whole gang"

            DEFENDING LIBERALISM ONE POST AT A TIME

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MrHat View Post

              Bruce, Nimmo, Conforto are likely the starters. You've still got Lagares who will make a cool 9 mil to play 50 games and get hurt again. At some point Cess would be back. That's 5 guys. Granted the likelyhood of all 5 being healthy at once are slim, but you're still talking about a 5th OFer.... Can they dump some of the trash and keep him for the min? I'd be fine...but I think they'd be hard pressed to find takers for Bruce/Lagares/Cess and if he reaches the numbers you're talking about he'll probably get another decent deal from someone
              I wouldn't count too heavily on Cespedes for 2019. Supposedly, it takes about 10 months recovery time for the surgeries he had to both heels. So if all goes according to plan, that puts it at about June. However, if there are any setbacks along the way, then we're talking about sometime after the All-Star break...if at all.

              As for trading Cespedes -- he has a full no-trade clause...which he has no reason to waive.

              Mets might be able to trade Bruce, if they pay a chunk of his future salary + if he produces reasonably well after he returns from the DL.

              I also wouldn't count too heavily on Lagares actually playing the majority of the season. And if healthy, Lagares might be able to be traded in Spring Training (if he performs well + Mets pick up some of his salary).

              I believe that Nimmo still has minor league options left, so he could theoretically be sent down if all other scenarios fail to free up a roster spot for Jackson.

              Comment


              • #8
                Still 5 guys all getting paid there. Just saying would Jackson even want to be back knowing he's 5th on the south depth....6th if Cess did come back.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MrHat View Post
                  Still 5 guys all getting paid there. Just saying would Jackson even want to be back knowing he's 5th on the south depth....6th if Cess did come back.
                  IMO Mets should trade Bruce & pick up a chunk of his remaining salary, and look at it as paying that money to have Jackson on the roster instead -- who I think is a better fit for the team.

                  And as I said earlier -- Nimmo still has minor league options...and hasn't yet earned the right to expect to just be handed a starting position in the Majors.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by metsheart View Post

                    IMO Mets should trade Bruce & pick up a chunk of his remaining salary, and look at it as paying that money to have Jackson on the roster instead -- who I think is a better fit for the team.

                    And as I said earlier -- Nimmo still has minor league options...and hasn't yet earned the right to expect to just be handed a starting position in the Majors.
                    How many times did the Mets pay money in a last two years to trade someone?

                    A healthy productive Bruce garnered almost nothing in return last time. Had minimal interest in the FA market.

                    I'd LOVE for it to happen but I'd be very surprised. A serious change in thinking would have to take place..and well....Jeff Wilpon will still be here

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MrHat View Post

                      How many times did the Mets pay money in a last two years to trade someone?

                      A healthy productive Bruce garnered almost nothing in return last time. Had minimal interest in the FA market.
                      And how successful were the Mets in the last 2 years with that philosophy of not paying down a player's salary to trade him?

                      Originally posted by MrHat View Post

                      I'd LOVE for it to happen but I'd be very surprised. A serious change in thinking would have to take place..and well....Jeff Wilpon will still be here
                      Yeah -- a 'serious change in thinking' is what has to occur to dramatically change the direction of the team for the better. Hopefully, the next GM can get through to the Wilpons, that the only constant over the last 3 decades is ownership...and what they've been doing for the last 30 years hasn't been terribly successful for the overwhelming majority of that time. So if they want to have a perennially successful team, they have to radically change the way they operate.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MrHat View Post

                        A healthy productive Bruce garnered almost nothing in return last time.
                        As I said, Mets will have to adjust their thinking to view paying down some of Bruce's remaining salary as money they would be paying anyway, if he was still on the team -- but by trading Bruce, they can put a player on the roster who is a better fit for the team (Jackson)...for that same money.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by metsheart View Post


                          from MLB Trade Rumors July 14, 2018:

                          https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/...n-jackson.html

                          "As for Jackson, his release comes three days after the Rangers designated him for assignment and ends a very short tenure with the organization for the native Texan. In a trade with San Francisco last weekend, the Rangers agreed to take on Jackson (and his $3MM annual salary through next season) to help clear payroll for the Giants and acquire pitching prospect Jason Bahr.

                          The Rangers never had any intention of using [Austin] Jackson, who hit just .242/.309/.295 in 165 plate appearances as a Giant, and weren’t able to flip him elsewhere."


                          Jackson's contract runs through 2019, so I believe that means that Jackson's $3M 2019 contract salary is still the responsibility of the Texas Rangers (the last team to have taken over his contract before releasing him). If a team could just release a player who is owed more money in future years, then virtually every team would do that to divest themselves of bad contracts...so I don't believe that that's how it works.
                          Sportstrac says fa.

                          https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/new-york...-jackson-7383/

                          he he was released so he had no contract when the Mets signed him.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by dak11 View Post

                            Sportstrac says fa.

                            https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/new-york...-jackson-7383/

                            he he was released so he had no contract when the Mets signed him.
                            A team can't just release a player & not be responsible for remaining salary for future years on his existing contract. If that was the case then every team with a player they no longer wanted who had a big contract with future years still remaining, would just release him. But that doesn't happen. When a player signs a guaranteed contract, they get their guaranteed money from the team that was the last to assume that contract obligation...even if they release him.

                            Example: Jose Reyes was released by the Rockies on June 23, 2016, with the remainder of his 2016 contractually guaranteed $22M salary paid by the Rockies (except the pro-rated Major League minimum), after Reyes signed with the Mets as a 'free agent.' And according to Baseball Reference salary information, after Reyes re-signed with the Mets for 2017 as a 'free agent,' the Rockies paid $21.46M to Reyes of his 2017 contractually guaranteed $22M salary (i.e. Mets paid Reyes the minimum in 2017). And Rockies also had to pay the $4M buyout for 2018, before being completely released from contract obligations.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by metsheart View Post

                              A team can't just release a player & not be responsible for remaining salary for future years on his existing contract. If that was the case then every team with a player they no longer wanted who had a big contract with future years still remaining, would just release him. But that doesn't happen. When a player signs a guaranteed contract, they get their guaranteed money from the team that was the last to assume that contract obligation...even if they release him.

                              Example: Jose Reyes was released by the Rockies on June 23, 2016, with the remainder of his 2016 contractually guaranteed $22M salary paid by the Rockies (except the pro-rated Major League minimum), after Reyes signed with the Mets as a 'free agent.' And according to Baseball Reference salary information, after Reyes re-signed with the Mets for 2017 as a 'free agent,' the Rockies paid $21.46M to Reyes of his 2017 contractually guaranteed $22M salary (i.e. Mets paid Reyes the minimum in 2017). And Rockies also had to pay the $4M buyout for 2018, before being completely released from contract obligations.
                              True. Released players get their money. I never said they didn't so I'm lost on what exactly your point is. When the new team signs them to a deal that ‘new’ money offsets what the other team owes. The Mets only signed Jackson to a 1 year deal. So unless they sign him to an extended deal prior to FA Jackson is a FA. Any deal he signs in 2019 will offset what the other team still owes him for 2019.

                              When a player is released and not claimed the new team signing him does not take on the contract. The old team is still on the hook for that money but the player is a FA. Only time the contract is taken on is when they are released and a team claims the player, along with the contract.

                              Reyes as an example isn't the same since I believe the Mets signed him to a TWO year deal (1 year deal with an option both at the league minimum) at the time since they knew the Rockies were paying the rest. That's NOT what they did with Jackson.

                              Right off the spotrac page I posted. If you took a minute to look at it you would have seen:

                              NOV 3 2016New York (NYM) exercised a club option for 2017 (MLB minimum salary)
                              JUN 25 2016Signed a contract with New York (NYM)
                              Last edited by dak11; 08-11-2018, 12:03 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X