Mets Re-sign Mike Nickeas To Minor League Deal

8 Comments + Add Comment

• TruthsaboutMurphy November 9, 2012 at 5:50 pm

  YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  ………..just kidding.
• Superhero November 9, 2012 at 7:28 pm

  People will mock this transaction, as they always do whenever these types of deals happen because they think it’s so hilarious (hint: it’s not; it’s actually insanely predictable). But I’m happy about this; not because I ever want him to play for the Mets again (I don’t), but he apparently had a very good relationship with a lot of the young pitchers in the organization. He could be very valuable as the Triple A catcher, helping guys like Wheeler learn what it will take to make it in the big leagues.

  Just something to think about before you say “LOL this is Alderson’s big move?”
  • Alex68 November 10, 2012 at 7:32 am

    Problem is, during SA tenure here, most of his minor league deals that we assume are for the minors end up playing for the big league team.. so you must look at it from that POV as well. While i agree with what you said there’s a really good possibility mike will end up playing for the mets at some point and that’s the problem everyone have with SA’s signing.. He’s a small market GM who is always looking to save $ in all his transactions.
• Ky mets November 10, 2012 at 12:18 am

  Yes it nothing like a light hitting low avg catcher to back up a light hitting low avg catcher
• MetsWatchman November 10, 2012 at 7:31 am

  Yessssss……this is the final piece that could put us over the top!!!!
• Alex68 November 10, 2012 at 8:59 am

  Please read this and share what most of us have been saying:

  http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/lean_on_the_gm_Ec1ksOaF0Fk6dhtgYW3ahJ
  • MetsWatchman November 10, 2012 at 9:29 am

    Great article Alex, right on point. Except I totally disagree with this line,

    “and also hold onto the faint hope they could retain Reyes”.

    My gut always told me that the FO never had any intentions whatsoever to re-sign Reyes at the end of the year, and I think their actions (or inactions) proved that. And this is the very crux of the issue that makes them look like assholes for NOT trading him. Oh well
  • srt November 10, 2012 at 10:51 am

    O.K., I’ll bite….what have most of us been saying?
    Are you referring to this?

    ‘Now, maybe an old approach, one tied too much into the instant gratification of fan reaction, will die gracefully. Mets officials insist they have full organizational support in their efforts to explore every option with Dickey — that if they find a trade that makes sense, ownership will authorize it, no matter if it alienates some fans in the short term.’
    An extension for face of the franchise David Wright, considered far more likely than a Dickey extension, also could help on this front. It would let fans know the team is investing significantly in its future, and that a Dickey trade would be more about capitalizing on a surplus asset than bailing on a long-term commitment.

    So we’ll see. Alderson, a godfather of the emotion-free “Moneyball” philosophy, surely wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep if he traded Dickey for an attractive package.

    It might be a tougher call for his bosses. Yet it very well might be the right call.
    ******************************************************************

    If yes, I get it. I think this is the difference most have been reporting regarding this FO vs. the last one. Far less ‘emotional fan base type’ decisions and more about the business of baseball.

    If they do wind up trading both Wright and Dickey though, it’s going to take far longer to build up any kind of ‘Met brand’ to sell to the fan base. There won’t be much left that identifies the team.