Kyle Seager’s name has appeared in recent offseason New York Mets rumors. Is he worth pursuing?
The New York Mets shocked the baseball world when they finalized a deal to bring superstar Francisco Lindo to Flushing. The move, which was a clear win for New York, is one of the biggest transactions in the franchise’s recent history.
However, the Steve Cohen led Mets do not seem to be finished revamping their roster. The team is still considered to be serious contenders for both Trevor Bauer and George Springer. Additionally, there is also a reported rumor that New York has shown interest in Seattle Mariners’ third baseman Kyle Seager.
Does the veteran infielder make sense for the Mets? Here are the pros and cons of a potential union.
Seager has now been a major league veteran for over a decade. He has also played the entirety of his career at third base. During that time, he has developed a reputation as a reliable defender with Gold Glove honors (2014).
Offensively, the lifetime Mariner has compiled a career average of .256 with season averages of 25 home runs, 87 RBI per campaign. He was also an All-Star selection during the 2014 season.
Seager is a consummate professional who would complement Lindor and Jeff McNeil quite well on defense. After years of shifting between players like JD Davis, McNeil, and Andres Giminez, he would finally give the team their first stable player at the hot corner since David Wright.
Seager’s above-average level of production would certainly be appealing. However, the bulk of his consistency comes not only through his ability but through his availability.
Despite playing for such a long time, Seager is something of an MLB ironman. With the exception of his rookie season, the third baseman has recorded over 100 games in each of his years in MLB. In seven seasons, he played at least 154 of the 162 games on the schedule. This, of course, neglects the COVID-shortened 2020 season, where Seager appeared in all 60 contests.
This trait gives Seager value no matter what uniform he suits up in.
While there is a lot to like about Seager, it must be noted at he is currently 33 years old. While this is by no means over-the-hill by baseball standards, it is fair to question whether a drop in play is on the horizon.
Thankfully, Seager is in the final stages of a seven-year, $100 million contract, which is set to expire after the 2022 season. While this does mean the Mets would avoid purgatory-like they find themselves stuck in with an aged Robinson Cano, one must wonder whether a 33-year-old option is the best solution. This is a critical question considering…
The Lindor trade, which sent Giminez and Amed Rosario to Cleveland has left the Mets a bit short on infield depth. However, the team does still have their Incumbent 3B starter in Davis. While McNeil now seems certain to take over the everyday duties at 2B, he is also capable of shifting to the hot corner.
While Seager would provide an upgrade for New York through his defense and leadership, he does profile as a very similar player to Davis. For the record, Davis is also six years younger.
If the Mets believe that Davis’ future projections resemble his breakout 2019 campaign more than his lackluster 2020 season, there may be no need for a player like Seager. The Mets could simply look for a less expensive infielder to add needed depth.
At the end of the day, a trade for Seager (or any other trades), ultimately come down to the cost. If the Mariners are eager to make a transition at 3B and are willing to sell him at a reasonable cost, the Mets should listen with open ears.
While it is not 100% essential that New York adds a player like Seager, the addition of an established veteran with a skilled glove would be a tremendous benefit. He, coupled with Lindor, would take the Mets from a below-average defensive unit to one of the most skilled in the league.
Want your voice heard? Join the Rising Apple team!
I for one, would be thrilled to see New York continue their quest for postseason contention by executing a trade for Kyle Seager. If of course, the price is right.