Mets Out On Lilly and Myers

According to Joel Sherman of the New York Post, count the Mets out as far as Ted Lilly and Brett Myers go.

A Mets official told me that obtaining Lilly is “very doubtful.” The Mets have talked regularly with the Cubs, but feel that there is not a match because the Mets are not willing to take on most to all of the $4 million-plus Lilly is still owed for this year and give up prospects.

As for Myers, the Mets had interest, but they found the Astros almost completely unwilling to engage in serious discussions. Myers and the Astros have a mutual option for $8 million next year, and the Mets official said, “I think Houston wants to bring him back next year.

The Mets seem to want the teams of all their targeted players, to eat a significant portion of the players salary. It points to continued financial concerns in my opinion, which goes against their denials that they are willing to spend money to make improvements at the deadline.

In addition to having teams eat a great portion of a players salary, they refuse to part with nearly a dozen different prospects and are hoping to basically give no real talent in return. It’s kind of hard to find a trading partner with that kinf iof an approach.

Also, according to Jerry Crasnick of ESPN via Twitter, the Mets still believe that they can trade Jeff Francoeur in August if they fail to move him at the deadline.

Francoeur will surely pass through waivers, but considering he will most likely be non-tendered after the season and become a free agent, I don’t know that the Mets will get mush in return for him. The reported interest from the Royals has since been debunked by their GM.

I don’t really understand the Mets philosophy this season with regards to player transactions.

A week ago they said they wouldn’t move Francoeur unless they were overwhelmed with an offer. They want to be overwhelmed for a below average rightfielder like Frenchy, but they refuse to pay face value for elite players like Cliff Lee, Dan Haren and Roy Oswalt.

Something is definitely wrong with that picture.