The free-agent shopping list is long, but who is the best fit for the Mets? With Yoenis Cespedes destined to land elsewhere – he could wait to opt out – I’m thinking Toronto’s Edwin Encarnacion.
Here’s why Encarnacion makes the most sense and would work out better than bringing back Cespedes:
ENCARNACION: Best bet to replace Cespedes. (FOX)
COST: Encarnacion made $10 million in each of the last two seasons and $51.7 over his career, so he’s looking for his biggest payday, but at 33, he probably could get had for three years and an option.
I’m thinking $17 million a season, but even if you make it $20 million, that’s still far less than Cespedes, who reportedly is seeking a five-year package north of $100 million.
The money saved by not keeping Cespedes could be used on Encarnacion; spent on their young pitching; keeping Neil Walker; shopping for a closer to replace Jeurys Familia; or on a myriad of other things.
In the end, Encarnacion would cost the Mets’ money, while a trade to fill the right-handed hitting void created by Cespedes will cost money and prospects.
VERSATILITY: Encarnacion can play both first and third base. When platooned with Lucas Duda, the Mets can rest David Wright – if he’s able to play – or Jose Reyes at third.
This would enable Reyes to play more shortstop, which would preserve Asdrubal Cabrera, who showed breakdown signs at the end of last season.
Conversely, Cespedes was initially brought back to play center, but that didn’t work as planned. However, Cespedes balked at center, and his refusal to play there complicated the Mets’ already over-stocked outfield. Not having Cespedes enables the Mets to play Michael Conforto.
RIGHT-HANDED POWER: Cespedes hit 30 homers in each of the last two seasons, but Encarnacion has 310 career homers, hitting 42, 39, 34, 36 and 42 over the past five years. In that span he drove in over 100 runs in four years, and 98 in the fifth year.
Encarnacion is 33 and has played at least 142 games in four of the past five years and 128 in the other. Meanwhile, Cespedes at 31 had trouble staying healthy, playing in 132 games while Encarnacion played in 160.
INTANGIBLES: Encarnacion does not have a reputation as being high-maintenance like Cespedes. … As a veteran with playoff experience, he would be a steady presence for some of the Mets’ younger players. … It’s possible I might have undervalued Encarnacion’s value, especially if Boston becomes a player to replace David Ortiz. However, I haven’t underestimated the cost of Cespedes. He’ll cost plenty, and the Mets have other areas of need.
Please follow me on Twitter
