Debate 8

Should Jed Lowrie get No. 8?

Let the debate begin. The Mets surprised the market by adding the veteran infielder on a two-year contract. In addition to figuring out where he’ll fit on an infield with Amed Rosario, Todd Frazier, Robinson Cano, Jeff McNeil, JD Davis, Peter Alonso, Dominic Smith, Luis Guillorme, Gavin Cecchini and TJ Rivera, they need to give him a jersey.

Lowrie’s been around the league a little, most often wearing No. 8, but also appearing in No. 12 and 4. The Mets quietly removed 8 from the rotation in 2003, when Gary Carter was elected to the Hall of Fame. Though it’s never been officially expressed this way, I think the idea at that time was to hold out and see whether the Kid would “go into the Hall” as a Met. When he (rightly) was enshrined as an Expo, his health issues made the prospect of reissuing 8 distasteful and so in mothballs it has remained ever since.

I think it’s more likely we see another Met 8 than see the club retire the number, and if it’s what Lowrie wants I suppose I have no problem with it. As I’ve expressed here before, I’d prefer it were the Mets to judiciously reissue, give No. 8 to the next good young catcher, but simply to uphold a limbo ban seems like a dumb idea so if Jed wouldn’t prefer to retake No. 4, I say let him have it.

I mentioned JD Davis above but haven’t got to his signing yet here. He’s a right-handed hitting corner infielder who tore it up as an Astros prospect and seems as though he could at the least challenge TJ Rivera to a roster spot, or perhaps replace Todd Frazier. Or maybe even pitch mop-up relief as he’s said to have a big-league arm.

At any rate, it’s a curious deal given the Mets coughed up three decent but young prospects for Davis. Is Brodie Van Wagenen addressing the criticism the Mets’ system is too “bottom heavy” by rebalancing the system with “ready” prspects? Maybe. Is he ridding the system of the Alderson Regime’s prize project? Perhaps. Is he really going to do something different here and reel in Bryce Harper? Probably not.

Davis wore 28 in a brief run in Houston but 26 is his twitter handle and minor-league assignment. That number became available when the Mets dumped Kevin Plawecki on the Indians in exchange for a fringe starting pitcher prospect, Walker Lockett, and a minor league infielder called Sam Haggerty. Lockett never pitched in Cleveland but instead passed through on paper from San Diego, which traded him with the idea they were to lose him in the Rule 5 draft anyhow. Lockett appeared in four games with the Padres last summer wearing No. 62: He’s the Mets’ problem now.

So long to Plawecki a 1st round Alderson draft choice who like his mate Travis D’Arnaud, simply seemed too nice to make it as a real starting catcher in the league; a forced promotion due to injuries probably got his career off to the wrong start anyway, so good luck on the reset in Cleveland.

And bye-bye, David Wright! The Mets gussied it up with a fake promotion to a fake front office job they but released him just the same.


  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon


  1. Richard says:

    If they were going to hand out #8, wouldn’t Michael Conforto get that number? He wore #8 in college and his current twitter handle has #8 in it. Shouldn’t a top Mets prospect carry that number instead of a 35 year old who will be with the Mets two years max?

    For the record, #8 needs to be back in circulation. Enough already.

    • 9th string catcher says:

      Ship may have sailed for Conforto, but I agree – easier to give to a real Met than a 2 year guy. However, this might be the easier year to do it since you’ve already given out 24. Maybe give 17 to someone while we’re at it?

    • Jon Springer says:

      Richard I forgot Conforto was an “8” guy, he’d be the kind of guy I’d feel good giving it away to, and it would avoid needing to think too deeply on guys like Lowrie. I suspect he winds up in No. 4 or maybe even 12 as I suspect Lagares might not make it to opening day.

  2. Jim A says:

    Jon you make it sound like releasing David Wright was an insult of some sort. Far from it. By releasing him (and of course he cleared waivers, that was never in question), the Mets are obliged to pay his remaining two years salary, 100 cents on the dollar. Granted the insurance policy will pick up part of that, but not all of it. Whereas if the Mets had just waited Wright out, eventually he’d have retired and they wouldn’t owe him anything. So Kudos to the Mets for handling this as they did.

    • Jon Springer says:

      Didn’t mean to make seem like an insult but just pointing out that if you get behind the renegotiation and the new gig, a dispassionate Transactions column would still report it this way:
      NEW YORK (N) Released David Wright, inf.

  3. Howie R says:

    Press conference today at 2pm introducing Jed.

  4. Howie R says:

    Press conference today at 2pm to introduce Jed

  5. Howie R says:

    Jed will wear #4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *