clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Should The Giants Trade For Jose Reyes?

She will promise you more/than the Garden of Eden/Then she'll carelessly cut you/and laugh while you're bleedin'. That's as emo as Reyes will get.
She will promise you more/than the Garden of Eden/Then she'll carelessly cut you/and laugh while you're bleedin'. That's as emo as Reyes will get.


Well, maybe. But probably no.

Told you a storm was a-brewin'. It took a Mychael Urban piece to ignite the kindling, and soon there were posts on ESPN New York, tweets from all corners of the baseball world, and MLB Trade Rumors lit a beacon in the sky in the shape of a transaction. It's such a perfect match. The Mets want to shed salary. They have a pending free agent. The Giants have a void at shortstop, and an idea that they're going to contend.

I like Reyes. He has the reputation of being injury-prone because of 2009 and about 30 games last year, but he seems healthy now. As much as I want Brandon Crawford and Ehire Adrianza to succeed, I'd give about a 15% chance that either one is ever as good as Jack Wilson's typical season. So if there were ever a free agent for the Giants to go nuts for, it'd be Reyes. He fills a current need where there just aren't a lot of internal or external options.

But he's going to test the free-agent market. He'd be a fool not to. He's the only shortstop of note, with the consolation prize being a creaky Jimmy Rollins. When the Giants were able to re-sign Freddy Sanchez, a lot of that had to do with a) he had an above-market option that the Giants weren't going to pick up, and b) him being Freddy Sanchez, who wasn't exactly going to have teams lining up at his door as if he were perspiring funky cold medina.

Reyes is a rental. Maybe he comes to San Francisco, hits 32 triples, falls in love with Aquarius Records, and decides to stick around. But the Giants have to assume he won't. Consider him a rental unless the Giants are able to work out an extension with him before a trade, which they won't.

So here's the thing: I'm kind of done with rentals for a while. There was a point when I was all about them. Trade the future for a guy, cross your fingers, and hope he goes nuts in the playoffs. Or, in the case of Cody Ross, don't trade anything for the guy, and watch him do the same thing. But for a while, my philosophy was that San Francisco needed a trophy and a parade, and I'd trade anyone who wasn't Lincecum, Cain, or Posey to get it. 

Now? Nah. I'm not feeling the urgency. That isn't to say that the Giants should coast for a while, satisfied with 2010 for a decade or six, but the risk/reward ledger is different. The risk is damage to long-term success for a possible reward of short-term success. I'm more interested in a dynasty, or the closest store-brand equivalent. The throw-prospects-away-for-Ryan-Garko-to-hope-for-a-fluke-postseason-run philosophy? It worked, just with different names. Let's move on to someone else.

This is all assuming that the Mets are going to want a ton of value for Reyes, which they should, and that he's even available, which he might not be. If the Mets are willing to dump him for a couple of prospects in the middle of the top ten, well, sure. That'd balance that risk/reward ledger right out. That's not going to happen.

No Zack Wheeler for a rental. People even thinking about Belt should be tied down with belts and beaten with belts until they beg for the torture and quasi-irony to end. I like Reyes, but things just aren't going to work out. It's not's us.