Reese Kaplan -- Payroll Flexibility at 2nd Base

One phrase we’ve heard seemingly ad nauseum from the front office is “payroll flexibility”.  To achieve this state of financial fungibility, it requires either getting players at the tail ends of their careers such as when they signed Bartolo Colon, or finding players willing to take one-year pillow contracts to reestablish value.  There are fringe players who don’t have much negotiating leverage who’ll accept one-year deals as well, but as John Mayberry, Jr. and Alejandro de Aza demonstrated, there’s a reason they’ll take that kind of deal.

One other way to achieve this dream of no long-term commitments is to identify players about to end their current contracts or in the final year before hitting free agency.  You get a rental for a year, reserve the right to negotiate an extension or simply walk away if things don’t go as planned.  In 2017 the Mets were on the selling end of this strategy, moving out Lucas Duda, Jay Bruce, Curtis Granderson, Neil Walker and Addison Reed.  However, by waiting until the season was more than half done it diminished the value received in return.

Now with all that payroll off the books, many are clamoring for the Mets to spend it on free agents or by acquiring other teams’ costly contracts.  Countless articles have been written about the pros and cons of Dee Gordon.  It’s been reported that Derek Jeter and company want to slash payroll, consequently the higher priced talent on the roster may be up for grabs. 

The problem with Gordon (aside from his better living through chemistry past) is that he’s signed through 2020 with an option for 2021.  He would cost $10.8 million for 2018, $13.3 million in 2019, $13.8 million in 2020 and either $14 million or a $1 million buyout in 2021.  Assuming they buy him out as he will be turning 33 that year and his game is dependent on his legs, they’d still be on the hook for $38.9 million.  It’s not an unfair price as he was a 3.3 WAR player and if each WAR is worth $8 million, you’re actually getting a relative bargain.  However, it comes at the cost of that coveted payroll flexibility.

I would advocate the smarter play for the Mets this year is the Minnesota Twins second baseman Brian Dozier.  He’s in the final year of his deal with the club and will earn just $9 million in 2018.  Last year was a bit of a drop off from his 42 HR campaign of 2016, but even in a “down” year he hit 34 HRs, drove in 93 and hit .271.  His season was worth 4.4 WAR.  Given Alderson’s predilection for payroll flexibility this prospective trade target would seem to be more appealing. 

Minnesota is even more notorious than the Mets for not spending money and they’re still living through their mistake of the Joe Mauer deal which is costing them $23 million per year for single digit HR production.  Consequently I think they would want to fortify their roster with prospects who they can cost control for the next six years in a deal for Dozier. 

What do the Mets have to offer in that regard?  Well, for starters Luis Guillorme would help fill their void at 2B.  Perhaps Corey Oswalt (selling high) would help and one of the multitude of hard throwing relievers would seal the deal.  The Twins sell a year too soon on Dozier but get three building blocks for the future.  Would this be enough to land Dozier?

Another way to go would be to get a little salary relief as well by offering them someone less expensive than Dozier who could help them.  The name that jumps out in that regard is Matt Harvey who is also in a one-year situation but coming off a horrific year in terms of both health and production.  Would he alone get it done?  The Mets need pitching for sure, but they may have soured on Harvey and don’t want to lose him for nothing as a FA. 

If you were going to make a second base trade, which one is more appealing?  Or do you have another option in mind?