Reese Kaplan -- Mets Make a Disappointing Roster Change for Diaz

Sometimes fans forget that baseball is a business and not just a vehicle for sports entertainment.  During Wednesday’s New York Mets game the announcers were voicing the opinions that either Dedniel Nunez or Danny Young were going to be optioned to Syracuse because they were the only relievers on the roster with options available for the demotion.  No one else in the pen who was slated from day one to be a reliever had options, so parting ways with someone like Sean Reid-Foley would mean losing him from the Mets organization altogether. 

Given the awesome job Nunez has done and continued to do during the Mets victory over the Marlins they were all guessing that he would be the one to go.  He finished with a long stint in the game and would be unavailable likely for a day or two as a result of needing some rest and recovery time.  They uniformly agreed that it was unfair but that’s the way things are these days with options weighing more heavily than performance.

It came as something of a surprise, therefore, to hear that the lefty challenged bullpen was going to go with just Jake Diekman moving immediately forward with fellow reliever Danny Young being shepherded back to AAA.  All Young has done during his 9 IP in the majors was pitch to a 3.00 ERA with 12 strikeouts and 4 walks.  Can you show me another reliever being that effective?  Bueller?  Anyone???

When chatting with friends about the Diaz situation I volunteered a more radical but eminently fairer proposition for a change.  There are two veterans struggling with their performance for more than just a day or two.  They would be Jose Quintana whose ERA since an early season strong start has been 7.14 and the other is since degraded starter Adrian Houser who went from the rotation to the pen.  Making a PTBNL trade of one of these guys or simply exercising a DFA would open up the roster slot and preserve the good work both Young and Nunez have done in relief.  If it is Quintana who goes, Houser could temporarily return to the rotation for one slot until Christian Scott becomes eligible to return to the Mets.  If it is Houser, then it is cleaner.  Both are gone at year end anyway.

Now the previous Mets regime would never do either of these moves.  Quintana makes too much money to swallow the loss.  Houser is not nearly as well compensated but is younger. 

Under David Stearns it is a bit different.  He did not make Quintana a part of the organization so there is no loyalty factor there.  He did have a stronger tie to Houser having him as part of the Brewers organization and making the trade to bring both he and Tyrone Taylor to the Mets.  For Stearns, Quintana is the cleaner and easier roster change to make.

Right now Quintana’s record is not going to net much in the open market as the July trade deadline approaches.  If a team faces a major injury and needs a veteran arm then perhaps there might be some minor interest.  He’s currently sitting at 1-5 with a 5.29 ERA.  He is giving opponent hitters a .276 BAA and his WHIP is a rough 1.432.  He’s striking out a hair under twice as many as he’s walking but averaging just 6 Ks per 9 IP is not going to blow anyone away.  The value he has in trade is practically nil.  No one is going to want to pay the balance of the $13 million he’s owed.

Houser, by contrast, has an inferior overall track record, but at age is 4 years younger and he’s exhibited the ability to perform both as a starter and reliever.  Unfortunately his numbers are even worse than what the Mets have gotten from Quintana.  He is 1-4 with a 6.29 ERA and a BAA of .259.  From there it gets even worse.  The WHIP approaches 1.600.  He’s walked more than he has struck out.  He currently earns a hair over $5 million so the balance due is negligible but the performance metrics likely negate that advantage he has over Quintana.

Raise your hand if you expect both Quintana and Houser to be key parts of the Mets pitching spectrum after the July trade deadline? 

So if the consensus is they are merely taking money and occupying roster spots but contributing to game losses, what is to be gained by keeping them around?  Is it money?  Is it past performance?  Is it the delusion they will attract trade partners in July?  It would seem to me that just as they cut ties with other players who did not get things done, it is puzzling to see why they would farm out someone who has been highly effective in a role they most definitely need while keeping these two lost causes a part of the major league roster.

Good luck to you, Danny Young.  We hope to see you back at worst by August 1st.