New York Mets: Will They End Up Keeping R.A. Dickey Long Term?
According to Spencer Fordin of MLB.com, both management and Dickey are on the same page as far as signing a longer-term deal.
I can personally say that I didn't see it coming, but something about going 16-4 with a 2.76 ERA has something to do with that. On top of that, he has a National League-leading 183 strikeouts in 182.1 innings.
When you put up those type of numbers during a contract year, your value rises dramatically and long-term deals become much more likely.
R.A. Dickey would normally have been treated a little bit differently because he is already 37 years old. Very few older players would be talking about a long-term deal, as most teams don't want to commit long term to players who will probably decline.
Of course, there should be considerable interest in Dickey this winter, so his mind could change about staying in New York if his contract details don't work out. However, this is what he is saying right now, according to the aforementioned Fordin article:
I love it here and I've always voiced that. A part of me enjoys being loyal to an organization that's given me a shot. I connect well with the fan base, (the media) has always been good and I'm comfortable here. That says a lot for me and where I am in my career.
I do want to win, too, because I am at the place I am in my career. And I want to be part of that solution here, whatever that's going to be. I'd like to know what direction they're going -- I think that's fair -- and make the decisions accordingly. But I'm open to talking about whatever they'd like.
Obviously, Dickey is interested in staying in New York. Although his breakout year came a little bit later than it does for most players, hopefully he will be able to continue this amazing season and then see what happens this winter.
Whether you think I know everything or nothing about Major League Baseball, you should follow me on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook and keep in touch. I love hearing what you all have to say!
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?