Read: about the Gary Matthews Trade
According to Buster Olney of ESPN, an executive from another team thought the Mets efforts to acquire Matthews was “baffling”.
In addition, Olney says the reports on Matthews are as follows:
“Matthews is a player to be avoided. Slow bat. Declining range. And above all else, a player who wants to be a regular and will be an unhappy distraction in your clubhouse when he’s not in the lineup every day.”
…like i said below, if his skills are in such decline, and his durability is in question, and on top of that, he can be a clubhouse cancer if he isn’t happy with his role, why would the Mets want to pursue such a player…i mean, i’m no fan of this team acquiring a guy like Randy Winn, but if the Mets had to make a decision, as it appears they did, why wouldn’t they take a guy like Winn who is more versatile both offensively and defensively…he would have cost about the same as Matthews will cost the Mets, and it would have protected an arm out in the bullpen, and i think they would have a better player, hence the right deal…very puzzling…
Original Post, 9:22 am:
Ken Davidoff, in a post to his blog for Newsday, feels the trade that sent Brian Stokes to the Angels for Gary Matthews Jr. was a “very bad trade.”
Davidoff points out Stokes has an rWAR of .1 since the beginning of 2007, while Matthews has an rWAR of -.6 and proclaims Matthews has been “worse than your standard, Quadruple-A player.”
…first off, i think this has nothing to do any of these intricate and complicated statistics and more to do with what the player is on the surface…i don’t think it’s a very bad trade and in the end, i don’t think it’s any different than the Mets adding your run of the mill bench player, but i think the trade is magnified because the player is not what we, as fans, are looking for the Mets to acquire at this time…
…that’s not to say the transaction isn’t puzzling…i’m never for dealing a pitcher, no matter what the role, straight up for a bat, and while i understand the need to build outfield depth, especially with the injury questions surrounding Carlos Beltran and Angel Pagan, as Matt alluded to yesterday, why bring a player into the mix, who has age, durability, and range problems of his own, into a ballpark that requires a tremendous amount of athleticism to master…in the right role, Matthews will do nothing to harm this team, but if he is to get a lot of playing time, i feel he will be an all-around liability, most notably from a defensive standpoint…now, the options may have been thin outside of Matthews, and the financial commitment from the Mets perspective is relatively low, but that doesn’t mean it was the RIGHT deal…
For more on Davidoff’s take on the Matthews trade, check out his blog here.
