Zack Wheeler (Heather Ainsworth )
AN AMAZIN’ BIT OF LEVERAGE: When the Mets dealt Carlos Beltran for Zack Wheeler (inset) in 2011, Beltran was a trade deadline rental, lowering his trade value. If the franchise trades R.A. Dickey, the team that acquires him would have the NL Cy Young winner for the entire 2013 season. (Paul J. Bereswill; Heather Ainsworth (inset))
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The Mets have told R.A. Dickey what they are willing to do in a contract extension.
They have told teams interested in acquiring Dickey the types of players — notice the plural — necessary to obtain him.
Neither the Dickey camp nor another club has yet to go to the level established by the Mets. First one that does wins. If no one blinks, the Mets have what one of their top officials described as “a safety net” — Dickey on a bargain $5 million contract in 2013 from which they can revisit extending him or dealing him at any time.
“Most of these types of decisions you lose sleep over,” another Mets executive said. “This is one of those where you don’t. We have only good options.”
Obviously, the Mets would prefer to have resolution sooner than later because it affects how they proceed in other areas. For example, if they trade Dickey, the Mets would want to add rotation depth and, to that end, they have done some groundwork by meeting with Long Beach native John Lannan’s reps.
But the Mets also don’t seem to mind that their willingness to deal Dickey is so public. I suspect that is because they sense Dickey prefers to stay a Met, and if the threat of being dealt moves him to lower his asking price, all the better.
Sandy Alderson would not provide a date by which he would have to set aside both extension and trade talks and move forward as if Dickey will play for the $5 million so Alderson can assemble the rest of the roster. One team official hinted it would be between next week and Christmas.
For now, multiple Mets officials have described to me essentially a 55-45 percent likelihood that Dickey stays. Yes, high-end starting pitching is in great need and the trade market is heating up because free-agent prices are chilling so many organizations. However, to deal the popular, reigning Cy Young winner the Mets would require a package that teams just might not be willing to offer even in this atmosphere.
As of yesterday, the Mets were not being definitive about the exact prospects they want for Dickey, but rather were telling those interested the quantity and quality, and determining the willingness of each suitor. One outside executive aware of those requests said, “The price is through the roof. He’s good, but he’s a 38-year-old knuckleballer. What is his shelf life? This is not like trading for Gio Gonzalez or Mat Latos where you have control for years at an affordable rate and a legitimate chance to extend them to keep them around seven or eight years. Any team would take Dickey. But this is not Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee being traded. I would take him, but for top prospects, no.”
This is not even Carlos Beltran. In July 2011, the Mets were willing to take one high-end prospect (Zack Wheeler) for Beltran. But San Francisco had Beltran for just two months in a season in which he was making $18.5 million. The Giants were forbidden contractually from offering Beltran arbitration and his agent was Scott Boras, which all but assured he would reach free agency.
An acquiring team would get Dickey for a full season at a bargain salary. He is not repped by Boras and is willing to sign an extension and, failing that, he could be tendered a contract after the 2013 campaign and, if he rejects, the team would recoup a draft pick.
Thus, the Mets expected multiple good prospects for Dickey. Will they get them? Will he re-sign? Will he play for $5 million in 2013? The saga continues.