MLB Trade Rumors: Mets Reportedly Considering Re-Acquiring Francisco Rodriguez
According to Ken Davidoff of the New York Post, the Mets are zeroing in on finding some bullpen help for the second half of the season, and Rodriguez would fit into their plans.
Notes Davidoff: "The Mets want to upgrade their bullpen, and the Brewers’ Francisco Rodriguez is on their list of targets, a person familiar with the club’s thinking said yesterday."
The Mets have a glaring hole in their bullpen. Collectively, it boasts the worst ERA in baseball (4.93). Its struggles have put more pressure on the starting rotation to go deeper into games than it might otherwise, though the performance of R.A. Dickey and Johan Santana has also helped.
What Would Be The Better Move?
Rodriguez was thought to be on the move after last season was over, but when he got the sense the offers wouldn't be coming in, he accepted salary arbitration to stay with the Milwaukee Brewers.
The move has not worked out well for either side.
The Brewers are currently fourth in the National League Central with a 37-42 record. Rodriguez is having the worst season of his career, boasting an ERA of 4.00 and a WHIP of 1.47 after Monday's game.
Brewers general manager Doug Melvin is going to have a lot of big decisions to make over the next few weeks as the trade deadline approaches. Rodriguez would seem to be an easy one, especially if the Mets make a serious push for him.
A deal would be a win-win for both sides.
The Brewers would be able to plug someone else into a late-inning situation who would be more cost effective, though they might end up having to pay some of Rodriguez's remaining salary to make it work.
The Mets need all the arms they can get for the bullpen right now, and Citi Field is a much better park for pitchers than Miller Park, so Rodriguez could potentially re-establish some value heading into free agency this winter.
And they wouldn't have to give up a prospect of note to make it happen.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?