I’ll be calling in to talk about the hot-stove season with Matt Pignataro and the gang at Seven Train to Shea tonight at 7 p.m ET.
To listen live, click here.
SPOILER ALERT: If they ask me if I think the Mets should trade all their prospects for Roy Halladay, I’ll say no.
Tedquarters 
Jon Garland and Daniel Murphy…Ted, say it ain’t so…
Believe me, I really don’t like Jon Garland. But he’s basically the same guy as Marquis and he’s almost certainly going to come cheaper.
If I thought they were sure to compete in 2010, Murphy would have to go. But I’m also not willing to write a 24-year-old off after a season and a half of 103 OPS+, so why not see if he improves while he’s keeping the spot warm for Ike Davis?
Why would we want either Marquis are Garland? Either’s performance can be replicated by several pitchers making virtually nothing in AAA.
And I’m not very sanguine about Murphy’s chances of becoming good suddenly. Young, yes, but the way he started hitting like Francoeur in the second half, I think he’s as likely to breakout as….Francoeur.
The first point is almost certainly true, but probably moot, since the Mets are going to acquire a starter of some sort regardless. And at least Garland will eat up some innings.
I also do not think Murphy will become good suddenly, and I was also concerned by the way he entirely stopped walking in the second half last year. But I’m willing to give him a chance. Francoeur has hit like Francoeur for 2700 at-bats, Murphy did it for 1/10th that.
Outside of trading for Gonzalez, he’s one of the very few first basemen they can field in 2010 that might actually help them down the road.
When did what we thought the Mets would do become a basis for anything? Compromise is defeat.
1/10 of Francoeur’s career is 1/3 of Murphy’s, and his most recent.
Not a Nick Johnson fan?