Swapping Jason Bay For Michael Young

64 Comments + Add Comment

• Tomterif February 9, 2011 at 5:58 pm

  I like it!
• Tomterif February 9, 2011 at 5:59 pm

  By the way, Craig, good job beating MetsBlog to this post.
  • Craig Lerner February 9, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Thanks!
• t agee February 9, 2011 at 6:08 pm

  I wouldn’t count on him being able to play defense in the infield much longer and forget about him playing SS. The only way he could play on the Mets through his contract would be to take over LF from Bay. I’m sure he could do it but why bother? You already have a guy who is competent out there and younger too.

  The only way you make the move is if you think Young’s offense is going to be superior to Bay’s or if you want an expensive jack of all trades which is too rich for our blood.
  • Craig Lerner February 9, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    I know most MMO readers are opposed to advanced statistics, but even in 2010 only 3 Mets had a higher WAR than Michael Young last season, Wright, Pagan and Ike Davis. That was in a down year for Young, and if you looked at the last three seasons, Young stands alone.

    The team could use a change on offense. You realize we are bringing back essentially the same team that we ended the season with on offense except for second base?

    For a team that really needed a shakeup and didn’t get one, this move might do it. Plus as a career 300 hitter with great doubles and gap power, he may be better suited to our park than the long flyball hitting Bay whose big flies stayed in the park mostly before he got hurt.

    Young’s contract ends in 2013, while Bay’s vesting option for 2014 is another thing that makes this a good swap for the Mets.
    • Mr North Jersey February 9, 2011 at 6:43 pm

      Personally I am no fan of WAR so the fact that in 2010 only 3 Mets had a higher WAR than Michael Young means very little to me. I respect you find value in it but I just don’t share the same appreciation.

      Regarding the statement that we are bringing back essentially the same team that we ended the season with on offense. I agree to a certain extent but you also understand that Thole will be getting a chance at being the starting catcher and while he didnt show much power the hope is he can spray the ball around the field and who knows maybe hit enough to be part of the future behind the plate.

      Also another year of Ike Davis especially if he can improve on last season is good. A healthy Reyes at SS is more than many teams can boast at that position offensively. Wright at 3rd pencil him in for another 25hr 100rbi year.

      A healthy Bay you have to believe that last year was a fluke and not the norm based on his career. Beltran is a question mark only because of his health as he continues to wear a brace. Pagan has impressed and you have to hope barring injury that he can continue to help the Mets win games. Second base is definitely the biggest question mark since we just have no idea who will win that spot.

      In closing the potential for this lineup to be more improved than last year is a reasonable one in my opinion.
      • Craig Lerner February 9, 2011 at 6:52 pm

        You used the word “if” in all of your instances that the offense will be different this season. Young wouldnt be an “if” it would be a certain change and an upgrade at the same time.

        As for WAR I respect your opinion but consider what it is measuring and how again. It’s hard to understand at first, but sometimes a second look can make all the difference.
        • Mr North Jersey February 9, 2011 at 6:56 pm

          Fair enough.
      • Metsie February 10, 2011 at 10:11 am

        My problem with WAR is “who is this REPLACEMENT?” that is being used to judge him?

        Well it is basically compared to the league average which really says more about who everyone else had than it does about the player your rating.

        If the league average happens to be low that year then a guy’s war goes up despite the fact he didn’t really do anything special, just gained because everyone else did worse!

        Not a good way to determine success if you ask me.

        That said MNJ made a very good point.

        We maybe coming back with the same ROSTER as last year but not the same TEAM!
        We did not have guys like Bay and Beltran the entire season. Didn’t have Reyes either. Both Ike and Thole were mid season call ups. So the current roster never once played together as a team not even in the last month!

        Look at the lineups last year there was not ONE game where our starting lineup all appeared together in a single game.

        Early reyes and beltran was out.
        Reyes came back and then left shortly before the all star break.
        Beltran came back after the all star break but Reyes was still out.
        Before Reyes could get back Bay ran through a wall ending his season!

        Not once did the team we planned to play ever play together in the same game in 2010!

        and THAT is the difference between last year and this year.
        Unless something happens in spring training we should have our entire front line starters in the lineup. No francouer or Barajas which should help, granted no Santana either but that loss can be overcome if one of the throwing wounded manages to pitch effectively.

        While the roster may appear to be unchanged you need to look beyond the names on the list and look at the health status!

        That is what will be the major difference in our roster this year!
        • any February 10, 2011 at 10:26 am

          I am not any kind of expert, but I believe the R in WAR is not intended to be league average, but more like a guy you pull out of AAA. So toward the bottom of the heap.

          and yeah, depending on what the replacement is considered to be, an individuals WAR could go up or down. But, everyone else’s would do the same thing. So if I understand the purpose of it, it is to compare players at a point in time, not be a target number of some kind. IOW, a ranking tool.

          “normal” stats have the same bias. an ERA of 3.5 might be considered very good in 2004, but would have been way off the pace in 1968! so, the advent of relative equalization stats.
          • Metsie February 10, 2011 at 10:54 am

            But that is kind of like rating apple pies based on how much better they taste than a turd pie! LOL

            And it really depnds on WHO you are replacing doesn’t it?

            A guy could have a much better war but be worse in other areas such as power, HRs or RBI. If thats the guy your replacing not only will you lose his numbers but you lose protection of the guy in front of that batter!

            I respect the idea of finding a common denominator to judge players I just don’t know that some arbitrary number is the way to do it.

            better to judge each player based on PA ratios such as PA:RS PA:RBI PA:OB (which is what OBP is). Find out what each player’s potential is per PA and then determine which one gives you more per PA than the other!

            And even after doing that you have to look deeper into who was batting around that guy when he generated those numbers before you believe them because HOW you get them is as significant as getting them!

            A guy can have an OBP of .600 but if all he does is walk he is not going to contribute as much as a guy with a .500 OBP but a .300+ BA!
            Because your not going to get him to drive in MORE runs that hitting will and walking won’t!
            • Metsie February 10, 2011 at 11:01 am

              And let me add that stats don’t have a bias, PEOPLE do…

              This is why I say some metrics are biased. OBP is biased in it presumes a walk is as good as a hit. But a walk rarely can drive in a run unless the bases are loaded. A Walk is not something the batter accomplishes but something where the pitcher fails!

              So by using OBP instead of BA you are in essence biasing your selections towards walks which are not as effective as hits.

              But when used in combination you remove all that bias. Because you are also taking into account the better action of the HIT!

              So no Metrics are not USUALLY biased by themselves. How they are used is where the bias enters into the equation!
              • Donal February 10, 2011 at 11:36 am

                Batting average assumes a single is as good as a home run.

                You’re kind of arguing on a false premise, one I see a lot around here. You assume that OBP is being held up as a be all and end all. It is a better stat than BA, RBI or RS (as two of those are dependent on the people around the hitter in question), but no one says that it tells the whole story on any hitter. And no one says a walk is as good as a hit. A walk is maybe worth 65% of a single. It is still better than an out.

                Of course it doesn’t tell you how the player reached base, much in the same way batting average doesn’t tell you what kind of hit was made.

                WAR is an attempt to take it all into account. OBP, power, fielding, position etc etc. It’s not perfect. I don’t really agree with how they determine a “replacement level” player. And there is still controversy on how to weigh each stat. It is, however, pretty good.
              • Metsie February 10, 2011 at 12:04 pm

                Guy hits a HR, he gets an RBI and an RS!

                Who around him did he depend on?

                This is the problem with the OBP centric way of measuring. it is WAY more dependent on others around them doing the work than either BA or RBI because OBP by itself can’t tell you if anyone scored nor forces a run to score by itself.

                OBP requires something happen from someone else in order for the theory to work.
                RBI does not!
                Sure others helping can contribute but it is not required to have help from anyone to get an RBI!
              • Donal February 10, 2011 at 12:18 pm

                “Guy hits a HR, he gets an RBI and an RS!”

                Yes, a HR=RBI+RS. We don’t need RBI and RS.

                “Who around him did he depend on?”

                No one, this is why the HR is the single best thing a hitter can do.

                “This is the problem with the OBP centric way of measuring.”

                What is OBP centric thinking?

                “it is WAY more dependent on others around them doing the work than either BA or RBI because OBP by itself can’t tell you if anyone scored nor forces a run to score by itself.”

                Neither do RBI or BA by themselves. You’re being completely unfair. The reason OBP gets the attention it does is simply because it was an undervalued attribute that the A’s focused on in the late 90s early 2000s. ITs not the beall and end all of talent evaluation and it never was nor did any knowledgable person claim it was.

                “OBP requires something happen from someone else in order for the theory to work.
                RBI does not!
                Sure others helping can contribute but it is not required to have help from anyone to get an RBI!”

                Hey, great idea! Just have 9 guys in your lineup that will hit 70 HRs a year. Why didn’t anyone think of that before?
              • Metsie February 10, 2011 at 12:43 pm

                And how many WS titles do the Athletics have since they started using it as their basis for team building?
              • Donal February 10, 2011 at 1:04 pm

                1) They never used it as a basis for team building. I never said that they did. I said it was an undervalued attribute they used.

                2) The A’s were an experiment.

                3) They were consitent play off contenders. Thats nothign sneeze at, considering how we root for a top 5 salaried failure. Look at what a team like Boston did with advanced metrics and a payroll. Look at what TB has been able to do.

                4)Stop moving the goal posts.
              • Metsie February 10, 2011 at 4:59 pm

                I didn’t move the goal posts, you did when you turned making the playoffs into a successful act as opposed to where the goal posts always stood which was win a WS!
              • Donal February 10, 2011 at 5:06 pm

                So, every year has 31 failures?
        • Da Madd Genius February 10, 2011 at 6:25 pm

          I don’t necessarily disagree with this whole post, but I need to point out if everyone got worse, and our player didn’t then our player would be doing well. If I have half a glass of water in the desert I’m still the man!
    • Chris February 9, 2011 at 6:52 pm

      ‘You realize we are bringing back essentially the same team that we ended the season with on offense except for second base?’

      how many games were Reyes, Beltran, and Bay in the lineup together last year? come on man this offense is tops in the league if they’re all in there together. Not many teams have a better lineup. Prob not even Philly. Ibanez is finished, right field is a question mark, and Rollins sucks now.
      • happy little mets fans February 9, 2011 at 7:00 pm

        Hi happy little metsie chris…. I have a question for you. What drugs are you on?
    • t agee February 9, 2011 at 9:49 pm

      It has some merit I can’t deny it.
    • Metsie February 10, 2011 at 10:25 am

      No Craig we are not against advanced statistics we are against those who use them where they don’t apply to the argument or who use them without knowing what that statistic is made up of (leading to misunderstanding of what the number means) or those who give too much importance to a stat because they read in a book somewhere that it is the most important stat and all others can be ignored.

      Then there are those who think deep statistical analysis = Sabers!

      Not really true, Deep analysis can be done using traditional stats just as easily! Sabers uses those traditional numbers to create their metrics. Unfortunatly Sabers don’t go very DEEP into the analysis. OBP is not very deep it just is a quivck and dirty math to find out what percentage the guy makes an out without ever taking into consideration what those out may have produced in the case of Sac Fly and moving the runners over.

      The problem I usually have with the newer metrics is many posters seem to know where to find the number but have no clue how to MAKE the number!

      Well lots of people know how to start and drive a car but not all of them know how a car works and what it needs to do to get you where you want to go.

      And it is those cases where you see people here arguing against the metrics being used.

      metrics are a tool and tools are never wrong, how they are being used though often can be!

      A screwdriver can be used to hammer in a nail but it isn’t the right tool for the job!

      My arguments have mostly been about the OBP RS correlation which in my opinion is the wrong tool for that RS stat!

      That doesn’t mean I think OBP isn’t useful just means it is not useful in the way many are using it!
      There are better stats that ACTUALLY relate to RS.

      So your assertion that we don’t like new metrics is very wrong. We just want ANY metric to be used properly and weighted based on how good other stats tell the story you want to tell!

      Such as RBI vs OBP in regards to RS
  • vinnie papandrea February 10, 2011 at 10:52 am

    As much as I like Young there is no way this deal works, why would we want to get older in the middle of the infield . It makes no sense.
• Mr North Jersey February 9, 2011 at 6:16 pm

  Does not Young have veto rights as far as being traded to the Mets?
• Matt February 9, 2011 at 6:19 pm

  Young for Bay is a pretty lousy deal for both sides. Young has not played 2B since 2003 and has not played SS since 2008 where he made 84 errors in 5 seasons (in case the thinking is he could replace Reyes). And judging by the decrease in his number of steals and triples over the past few seasons, his range is probably decreasing as well. One of the reasons Texas wants to trade him is to cut salary, therefore, replacing him with a player who makes the same salary makes no sense. Also, there is no way the Mets would eat some of Bay’s salary, because if they eat $6 million, than that basically means Young will cost the Mets $22 million this season…not happening. Also, Jason Bay is, most likely, not going to be pleased as an everyday DH and part-time OFer. Not to mention, Bay is 2 years younger than Young is, and considering his career, its safe to say last season was an aberration, much like David Wright in 2009, therefore, Bay has much more upside than does Young. This deal makes little sense for both sides…and the Mets are not on Young’s list of teams which he would accept a trade to, making this deal even less likely.
  • Craig Lerner February 9, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Young – 788 games at SS 81 errors
    Reyes – 875 games at SS 95 errors

    Not that big of a difference, though Reyes has better range.

    I dont think eiter player has upside. I reserve that word for much younger players. It’s simply an opportunity to infuse some new blood.

    By the way, they did not want to trade Young because of salary. Young demanded to be traded becaue of a falling out and what he perceived as being disrespected. He also said he would waive his no trade to get a deal done. He wants out and the Rangers have some, but little leverage.
    • any February 9, 2011 at 9:43 pm

      Keep in mind that a guy with no range like Young won’t even get to a ton of balls that Reyes will, so less chance for errors.
      • Metsie February 10, 2011 at 10:36 am

        exactly, whenever a comparison of errors is used you must also include the CHANCES the player had!

        Young 95 PO 265 Asst 26 DP 950 FPCT
        Reyes 179 362 Asst 77 DP 973 FPCT

        So look at the percentage of errors (which you used career numbers I used last season) and compare it to all the other plays Reyes is making and you clearly see NO COMPARISON!

        Reyes is a way better fielder than Young.
        • Metsie February 10, 2011 at 10:38 am

          Sorry fogot to list the TC which was my intention in the first place…

          Reyes TC 556
          Young TC 379

          THATS why Reyes has more errors!
• L.J. Phipps February 9, 2011 at 6:54 pm

  Would be nice if it could be done, maybe expand it to Cruz & Young for Bay, Rodriguez, & 2 minor league pitchers …. ?????
  • Hitman February 9, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    That would be the only way I’d work out a potential trade involving Michael Young: if it also involved someone else. Involving “Boomstick” to the deal would not only replace Bay’s production, but would give legit production and at the same time, it would give Ike Davis protection in the middle of the batting order.
• baby al February 9, 2011 at 7:12 pm

  i see this season is going to be an exercise in ways to save the wilpon mob monies.PATHETIC JUST PATHETIC!what a sorry group of wilpon lovers this site has developed.heres a novelty lets act like we demand winning……..like yankee fans!heaven forbid!people are drinking the alderson kool aid!
  • will February 10, 2011 at 10:43 am

    love it baby al
• Brandon Butler February 9, 2011 at 7:56 pm

  Thats a great idea in my opinion. If this were to happy, i would be estatic. The only thing about the trade that could be an issue would be the matter of Jason Bay’s contract. Would the Mets pay some of the money left on the deal, or just give him to the Texas Rangers, and they deal with it.
• Met Maniac February 9, 2011 at 9:04 pm

  The Phillies who already have Utley at 2B, Rollins at SS and Polanco at 3B called the Rangers to inquire about Young. What do the Phillies know, what have they won lately?? Great job Sandy!
  • Donal February 9, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    And where would they put Young? They aren’t moving Utley, he’s the #1 2B in the NL. Besides, Young hasn’t played 2B since 2003.

    Polanco and Rollins aren’t that good, but Young might be worse as a fielder. The only place to put him in the outfield, where he would be a disaster, even if he agreed to change positions.
    • Met Maniac February 9, 2011 at 9:19 pm

      They should have named you executive of the year.
  • Mr North Jersey February 9, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    What is it with people wanting Michael Young on the Mets?

    You want to trade for a 34 year old that will be 35 come this October that is under contract for the next 3 years at $16M per year and by most accounts has slowed defensively at 3b and hasn’t played SS since 2008. Who has veto power to being traded to the Mets as well?

    Why would the Mets want to spend $16M a year for the next 3 years on a player that cant field 2b or ss well anymore to play at CitiFields where his hr’s at the Ballpark in Arlington are flyball outs at Citi?

    Just because the Phillies placed a call now the Mets have to as well? So now every time a team calls about a player the Mets have to as well?

    How about worrying what is best for us rather than worrying why we are not doing what other teams are doing.
    • francis February 9, 2011 at 10:54 pm

      these same d-holes will be whining about why we always sign over the hill veterans and just add young to their list.

      at least chris young is only 34 ( and doesn’t beat his GF )
      • francis February 9, 2011 at 10:54 pm

        … 31
    • Met Maniac February 9, 2011 at 11:11 pm

      Yeay Jersey what is it wirh people? Michael Young sucks. I cant believe people would like a guy like that. He’s soooo old and washed up. Trading an athlethic 34 year old for a 32 year old Bay is so outlandish. After all Young is in decline, but Bay isnt, his sucky year was just a mirage. Paying 16 million a year for 6 hr from a leftfielder is far better than paying 16 million for 15-20 hr as a middle infielder. By the way wasnt it you who posted the link that Phillies called? But then mentioning it upsets you? You are so fake man. Whats best for us is upgrading somewhere, ANYWHERE! Not sitting on your hands! Go buy yourself a clue.
      • Mr North Jersey February 9, 2011 at 11:26 pm

        How does me posting a link that the Phillies inquired about Young mean that I want the Mets to trade for him?

        You mentioning that the Phillies called for him in your comment is not what i replied to but your comment saying “Great job Sandy!” suggesting that Alderson should have inquired as well.

        My reply was toward why do people want the Mets to trade for him. If you “read” you will see at no point did i say that people should not mention that the Phillies inquired about Young.

        R.I.F. – Reading Is Fundamental

        Now if you disagree which by your reply i guess you do then that’s what this blog is about. Expressing opinions some that may differ and talking about why we feel the way we do.

        You think Young would be good and I don’t. You explained why he is good and i explained why i don’t think he would be good.

        I call that a successful exchange of different opinions.

        Next Topic.
    • baby al February 9, 2011 at 11:15 pm

      well said.
      • Mr North Jersey February 9, 2011 at 11:42 pm

        Thank you.
• 86mets February 9, 2011 at 9:42 pm

  I don’t like the idea even though I love Michael Young as a player. 1st, Young is already 34 and his defensive skills will soon be in decline, even at 2B. 2nd, Young doesn’t replace Bay’s power potential in the lineup. Yes, I know Bay struggled to hit home runs for the Mets in 2010, but I think that’s an anomaly. Meanwhile, Young is a 18-20 HR guy who plays in a very friendly hitters park in Texas. Expect him to be more of a 12-15 HR guy if he comes to the Mets & CitiField. The new front office values slugging along with obp so to trade away 30 HR potential for 10-15 potential would seem to run contrary to the new philosophy wouldn’t it?

  And the premise of a Bay for Young trade seems to imply that the Mets question Bay’s character or whether he can play in NY. I’ve heard nothing from anyone connected to the Mets (players, coaches, management, even media) that would suggest Bay is anything less than a high character individual. At the very least, the idea implies that the Mets new front office wants to divulge itself of Bay’s contract. Again, I’ve not gotten that impression at all. Trading Bay would be for salary relief purposes only and getting Young with the identical salary over 3 years is not salary relief. This proposal really makes no sense for the Mets at all, either from a payroll or baseball standpoint. The only way it makes sense is if Texas throws in a quality prospect or two, and that is highly unlikely.
• any February 9, 2011 at 9:50 pm

  interesting idea at least.

  I don’t think Young will work defensively, certainly not for 3 years, at 2B. Even less at SS. So they really have no use for him, and he isn’t likely to replace Bay’s offense. Plus they get older.

  there is,however, a big plus. It frees up LF. and since the mets have a few guys in the minors with strong bats that supposedly profile as LFers, it gives them so flexibility.

  right now, I don’t see the team being any worse if they platoon Duda and Hairston or evans in LF. Should put up the numbers Bay will (certainly more than he did last season!)

  so, if they made this deal and then rerouted Young elsewhere for prospects, I got no problem with it. Otherwise, it makes no real sense.
• francis February 9, 2011 at 10:00 pm

  are you high ???

  there is a reason texas didn’t / doesn’t want young. it’s because he is aging fast.
• francis February 9, 2011 at 10:34 pm

  PS – the cash strapped mets of 2011 would trade bay for a pile of bricks if the other side would take his contract, and if the bricks were orange.
  • PM February 9, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    The bricks must be Dodger blue.
• PM February 9, 2011 at 10:40 pm

  NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Know why?

  “The Mets would have to eat $6 million dollars”

  (Coincidentally $6 million is the same amount that Luis Castillo makes annually)
  • Met Maniac February 9, 2011 at 11:16 pm

    Did Alderson say he would have to eat 6 million or just you or another blogger? Are you connected to Daniels some way. I do agree that it will never happen, Alderson would never spend more than 1.5 mil on a player. Plus Young hasnt had Tommy John, shoulder or knee surgery, and that’s a big turnoff for the Moneyballers.
    • PM February 9, 2011 at 11:26 pm

      Just me and another blogger and the only Daniels I am connected to is Jack.
      • Mr North Jersey February 9, 2011 at 11:36 pm

        You know Jack too?

        
  • Jerry M February 9, 2011 at 11:53 pm

    They would have to eat 6 Million from Bay and another 6 Million to get rid of Castillo.Thats a lot of money for a cash starved Mets.
    • any February 10, 2011 at 12:26 am

      Don’t see any reason in this scenario the mets would have to kick in money too. Young isn’t overall 1/3 better than Bay is.

      one on one, if the Mets planned to keep him, it would be a classic need for need trade (with the added wrinkle of Young being the one that is disgruntled, so should come at a discount).

      not that I want Young on the team. Have seen enough of aging, no range MIs lately.
• Pete February 10, 2011 at 9:29 am

  The best thing about this idea is it gives big Dude a, a chance to play everyday at Citi. He could be another Adam Dunn.
• Metstheory22 February 10, 2011 at 9:48 am

  This is actually one of Shermans ideas that might actually make some sense. Bay might be better off in Texas. Castillo most likely will NOT be on the team. Duda as a lefty in Citifield might be better than Bay as a righthanded hitter. In a month he almost hit as many HR as Bay did the whole year. Bay did hustle for us while he played.
• Metsie February 10, 2011 at 10:45 am

  I personally would prefer them to find a young prospect to take the 2B position and I tell you why….

  First it would make our entire infield homegrown and the new core.

  Wright, Reyes, Davis and 2B would be a good solid core to build around because the most often found top sluggers in FA are always more likely to play OF because there are three on every team and it is a position that traditionally is filled by good hitters!

  If the infield which is the part of the fielding most TEAM and familiar related. it will be easy to go after big bat OF and Pitching. Spending that could be sustained long term.

  So in an ideal world they would get Tejada to start hitting or trade for a young 2B that could step up next year. Then we could avoid the long rebuild, resign Reyes and then just worry about replacing Beltran’s bat and getting an ace or two for the rotation.
  • any February 10, 2011 at 10:49 am

    they already have havens, the top prospect waiting to step up (pending not pulling any muscles this year, and staying on the field!) If he had not gone down again in June, most likely he would have been getting the 2B PT that Tejada got last year.
    • Metsie February 10, 2011 at 11:10 am

      I know about all the talk of Havens but until I see him against ML pitching he is a non option. FMart was a highly prized prospect too and I don’t expect to see him anytime soon either!

      Tejada can handle the fielding and if he hits he fits the same options young is being proposed to fill (gone reyes or 2B) and he doesn’t cost 10 mil nor will retire in 5 or 6 years…

      I will be happy to give Havens his shot but until he is ready to come up and stay healthy he is a potential, not an option. I think Tejada can be coached to hit better. But considering we have two young guys who can play those positions we should not be wasting time and money on older less effective fielders just to get a little more bat.

      We need to think about what is best for 2012 and beyond. Not what is best for 2011. Young is not going to change anything if Beltran Wright reyes and Davis don’t hit.

      And if that happens 2B is going to be the least of our worries.

      I say let it ride and see if we can grow one of the two to be our 2B core option and then we can wheel and deal for our OF and rotation.
      • Pete February 11, 2011 at 8:42 am

        That’s bull, if you can possibly trade Bay now, for someone useful, then do it!
  • t agee February 10, 2011 at 10:57 am

    That would make the most sense Metsie.