NL East Notes: Mets, Harris, Coffey

The Mets officially signed Scott Hairston to a Major League deal today, but it could be a while before the team signs someone else to a big league contract. Here's the latest on the NL East, starting in New York…

  • The Mets appear to have finished adding players to their 40-man roster, Anthony DiComo of MLB.com tweets. They may add a player or two on a minor league deal before Spring Training, but no major moves seem likely.
  • The Nationals are looking for bench help and Willie Harris could re-join the team, MLB.com’s Bill Ladson tweets. We heard the Nationals were interested back in December and it has since become apparent that the Mets aren’t likely to bring the 33-year-old back. Harris spent the 2011 campaign with the Mets after a three-year stint in Washington. He can play all three outfield positions plus second and third and owns a .330 on-base percentage in 11 seasons.
  • There’s less than a 50% chance that right-hander Todd Coffey will re-sign with the Nationals, Ladson tweets. The Brewers, Angels and Mets have also been linked to Coffey, who averaged 72 appearances and a 3.68 ERA from 2009-11.


Leave a Reply

11 Comments on "NL East Notes: Mets, Harris, Coffey"


3 years 7 months ago

I want the Mariners to sign Coffey just so I can watch him run in person

3 years 7 months ago

I wouldn’t be that excited to relieve games for the M’s.

3 years 7 months ago

In what way does that relate to my comment?

lefty177
3 years 7 months ago

I think he’s trying to say that if the Mariners sign Coffey that he won’t sprint in to the game because there’s no reason to (they’ll lose anyway)

3 years 7 months ago

COFFEY TIME!

cubsfan97
3 years 7 months ago

You know, everytime I feel down about the Cubs, I just think…well I could be a Mets fan!  HA!

3 years 7 months ago

ok Bartman

Lastings
3 years 7 months ago

Yeah right? I mean the Cubs haven’t seen a World Series since 1945, and have won two titles in their 109 year existence. On the other hand, the Amazin’s haven’t seen a World Series since 2000 and have won two titles in their 50 year existence.

cubsfan97
3 years 7 months ago

I guess I should have clarified for the short term.  Looking at the last 2 years for both teams, and the next 3 or 4 years for both teams, the Cubs are headed in a much better direction.  The Mets dont seem to be doing anything productive for their future right now.  History-wise, almost every team has an advantage over the Cubs, but Ive only witnessed a handful of those years.

3 years 7 months ago

Both are pretty dismal…

Joveoak
3 years 7 months ago

But if you had to choose between the Mets and the Cubs, you’ll probably want to choose the Mets.  After all, the Mets and the Cards are in good terms lately (well, ever since we hated your fans back in the 1980’s anyways).  Also, by your screen name, why would a Cards fan choose Cubs?

Also, the Mets have 2 World Series and have been in existence since 1962.  The Cubs are one of the two oldest franchises in history and have the same amount of World Series titles.

(Btw, the Braves are the other oldest franchise in ML history.)