Mets Today: Should Mets Sign Jimmy Rollins?

Rollins is only 32?  He seems so much older.

This is not the worst idea.  I think a guy with an MVP and a ring is what this team needs.

He’s a player you love to hate, but I suspect we’d all warm up to him by May 1st.  A little crazy but hey…

Sure, Rollins is 32 years old — but that’s why he can be had for, say, a 3-year contract. He’s no longer capable of batting titles or MVP performances, so his annual salary would be at best $15M. Three years at $40-$45M is half of what the Mets supposedly were willing to give Reyes — right? So, if they had the wherewithal to give Reyes 5 years / $90M, they MUST have the capability of giving Rollins 3/$40M, correct?

What Rollins gives the Mets is the following: more potential homerun power than Reyes; similar defense; stronger leadership and intangibles; lower batting average and OBP — but still better than most NL shortstops; similar basestealing output and proficiency; similar if not better durability. In short, Rollins is a “notch below” Reyes, or “Reyes Lite” — and that’s why he’ll cost less than half of what Reyes costs.

via Should Mets Sign Jimmy Rollins?.

2 Replies to “Mets Today: Should Mets Sign Jimmy Rollins?”

  1. By the time we warm to him by May 1st, we will also be out of the running! Lets stop hiring old has beens and stop gaps and let the young kids play!

  2. If the Mets have the money to bring in Jimmy Rollins, they should have re-signed Jose Reyes. I’ll grudgingly accept that ownership can only afford a $100 million payroll, but I’m not going to listen to nonsense about “payroll flexibility” for 2015-17 being the reason I’ll have to look at Reyes in a Marlins jersey for at least the next couple of years.

Comments are closed.