The Chone Figgins/Mets Rumor

Figgins’ contract was a “good contract.” Even if he performed at his projections, it was never a great contract. It was a fair price for a good player in his later years. This good player has slumped, but even if he performed at expectations, it wasn’t a steal. It was just a contract, like any other contract. Losing him even if he is “better than this” isn’t that much of a loss. It’s not like he was a cost controlled player or someone that was worth way more than his contract (see Lee, Cliff). He’s just a player that they paid roughly market value for.

Not to mention that with 2011 looking to be a difficult year, Figgins’ 2012 and 2013 seasons are expect via age projections to be at or below market value, and that’s if he gets back to his normal numbers. Trading him can easily be a huge benefit to the team going forward, even if we don’t get much back

All I’m saying is that trading Chone is a smart move in a lot of ways, even if he performs back at expectations. The fact that the names that have been thrown out there are some of the best/youngest prospects in their systems should be getting people really excited about the possibility. This thread was so much more tepid than I expected.

They have to clear waivers to be traded, and spoiler alert, they aren’t going to clear waivers.

I don’t think it even matters. When Chone Figgins was signed, the idea was that Figgins, if he played at his projected level, would have win values of something like:

2010: 4 wins
2011: 3.5 wins
2012: 3 wins
2013: 2.5 wins

Based on aging, etc. That’s 12 wins at 36 million, or about 3 million per win. Wins last year were about 4 million, and long term contracts get discounts, so we essentially paid him average for free agents. Nothing special, but not bad.

2010 is gone. 2011 is looking like a long shot. So really, the question is whether or not 9 million per year in 2012 and 2013 is worth it if he plays at his project level, and I don’t think it is. We’d be paying 18 million for 5 wins, and that’s ONLY if this year is a fluke, with a genuine possibility that he has gotten worse. If 2011 was looking like our year, I’d say keep him around, but 2012 and 2013 are a long way off, he’s not expected to be as good during those years since he’s older, and all of this is under the assumption that he’s going to play back to his career norms, which is in no way a guarantee. Trading him is simply not that bad a move. We can always pay the same contract for someone on the free agent market in 2010 or 2011 or 2011 anyway, since his contract was never a steal.

Even if you’re trading him when his value is low, there is still a pretty obvious benefit to getting his contract off the books and using that money elsewhere. If 2011 looked to be a great year for us, maybe not, but since 2011 is already an uphill battle, it doesn’t make nearly as much sense to keep him around.