I just had a series of brilliant thoughts! Kyle Tucker is going to be signed by a baseball team this winter to a long-term contract. Whatever team signs him will be greatly improving their team (look at his stats and his consistency, please). The team that signs him does not have any more financial resources than the Mets do and will have decided the price is worth it. The team that signs him has maybe one hole in the outfield while the Mets have two. Conclusion: there is not a single good reason for the Mets not to sign Tucker. And Mr. Stearns: signing Tucker has nothing to do with making a "flashy" signing to please the fans and pundits. He is--no question--the best ballplayer available and you need him.
I’ve just about swung all the way around on my Tucker take, hilariously. With all the spending caveats and reminders that “the budget isn’t limitless,” I was hesitant to let myself really believe he was an option in Queens alongside all of Diaz and Alonso and an arm or two. Now that the roster blow up mission is clear, they may as well lean all the way in. Stearn said there will be “splashy” moves that fit for the team, and it does seem like this would be one of them. And even going back to my own point from the other day about the positional fit and versatility…if Soto’s defense doesn’t shape up this year or next, having Tucker would give the Mets the flexibility to slide a Gold Glover back into right field so Soto can DH and more young talent (Eli Serrano??) can slot in to fill the new LF gap. It really does work in multiple ways.
I just had a series of brilliant thoughts! Kyle Tucker is going to be signed by a baseball team this winter to a long-term contract. Whatever team signs him will be greatly improving their team (look at his stats and his consistency, please). The team that signs him does not have any more financial resources than the Mets do and will have decided the price is worth it. The team that signs him has maybe one hole in the outfield while the Mets have two. Conclusion: there is not a single good reason for the Mets not to sign Tucker. And Mr. Stearns: signing Tucker has nothing to do with making a "flashy" signing to please the fans and pundits. He is--no question--the best ballplayer available and you need him.
I’ve just about swung all the way around on my Tucker take, hilariously. With all the spending caveats and reminders that “the budget isn’t limitless,” I was hesitant to let myself really believe he was an option in Queens alongside all of Diaz and Alonso and an arm or two. Now that the roster blow up mission is clear, they may as well lean all the way in. Stearn said there will be “splashy” moves that fit for the team, and it does seem like this would be one of them. And even going back to my own point from the other day about the positional fit and versatility…if Soto’s defense doesn’t shape up this year or next, having Tucker would give the Mets the flexibility to slide a Gold Glover back into right field so Soto can DH and more young talent (Eli Serrano??) can slot in to fill the new LF gap. It really does work in multiple ways.