The Mets will promote top prospect Steven Matz, who will be utilized as part of a six-man rotation, Adam Rubin of ESPN.com reports on Twitter. Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports (Twitter links) first reported that the move was likely in the works.
The 24-year-old Matz entered the season ranked 33rd on the Top 100 lists of Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus. He placed 65th on Fangraphs’ Top 200 and 66th on MLB.com’s Top 100.
Thus far in 2015, he has worked to a stellar 2.19 ERA with 94 strikeouts against 31 walks in 90 1/3 innings. Those numbers are all the more impressive when considering that Matz’s home park in Las Vegas is among the most hitter-friendly environments in all of minor league baseball.
Matz is said to throw 91 to 95 mph with his fastball and feature a sometimes-plus changeup and an above-average curveball. He’s the latest to emerge from an exceptionally talented crop of young Mets pitchers. The organization undoubtedly hopes that Matz will team with Matt Harvey, Jacob deGrom, Zack Wheeler and Noah Syndergaard to form an excellent rotation for the next few years.
Rumors of a Matz promotion began circulating earlier this month, with most indicators signaling that he’d be with the club by July. The team recently whittled its rotation from six members to five by designating Dillon Gee for assignment and eventually outrighting him to Las Vegas. For now, at least, it appears that Matz will work alongside Harvey, deGrom, Syndergaard, Jon Niese, and Bartolo Colon to form a six-man unit.
The preliminary reports led to some confusion, as Rubin tweeted that the Mets were being so tight-lipped that a trade seemed possible. The New York Post’s Joel Sherman, though, tweeted that no trade was brewing. And Mike Puma of the New York Post added ton Twitter that he was told the Mets have “absolutely nothing going on in trade talks at the moment.” Indeed, that seems to be the case.
Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.
a trade will occur
Yeah somethings gotta happen.
Theyre not gonna promote him for a bullpen arm. Neise ia clearly the odd man out in the rotation.
Dumping Colon seems more likely to me. They’ll trade him for whatever salary relief they can get.
No one is the odd man out. They’ll go with their six man rotation.
If there was an odd man out, it’d be Colon. He just pitched last night and he’s been dreadful over his last 5-7 starts. However, Niese is more likely to be traded. I’d be surprised if any of Harvey, deGrom, or Syndergaard got moved.
Haha you should have seen some comments when the Cubs pulled Bryant from the game today with Matz supposedly getting called up. “MATZ FOR BRYANT IS HAPPENING!!!!”
I just don’t see the Cubs taking chances on other teams pitching prospects…not when they can do that in house, as well as be major players in free agency. Bryant just isn’t going anywhere. Matz is great…but there’s so much risk. It’s not the risk they have in their own prospect, because they’d have to give up a cornerstone to get him. It’s logical if they wait until the offseason they can go after David Price. It seems like Price is some kind of natural progression.
‘Nice problem to have.’
– 29 other MLB teams
As a Mets fan I would have ZERO problem trading Matz for Bryant.
Clearly is gonna happen..right? Right??
Cueto, Phillips, Chapman, and Bruce for Matz, Granderson, Herrera. Is that fair?
Toss in Votto in you gotta deal!
I meant odd man out in the sense of a trade…In my opinion Neise is more of an attractive option to a team than Colon is….although I guess no trade is happening…at least not now
God I’d love to see these Mets fans on this site explode if Matz got traded for a rental straight up…
Well, they’d be totally justified. The Mets are not WS contenders, so trading for a rental wouldn’t make any sense. A’s fans didn’t really like the Samardzija deal, and Matz isn’t Russell, the A’s got a year more than a rental.
That first paragraph is brutal.
That entire post is brutal. I’m not one to nitpick quick hitting updates like that, but that’s about as bad as I’ve seen on here.
I’m not so sure what’s quick hitting about a 6 paragraph post. I kind of view writing as I do umpiring…if you know they’re there…it’s not usually a good thing.
I was very critical during this sites formative years, and I’ve seen vast improvements made, but there’s been a slight shift toward mixing commentary into news information… It’s jarring and at worst makes a reader question whether they are reading an actual fact or an opinion. It’s something that is a faux pas in journalism 101. I did see today though… That one of the writers had moved their commentary down to a bullet point…and I though that was very nicely handled. The fact is…we’re in the comment section discussing the writing and NOT the story…I’m not trying to be too harsh…its just a fact.
Isn’t every post commentary about news information?
Where is journalism 101 practiced? Not at ESPN or Fox or CBS.
No…every post of information is not subject to commentary. Print media is also different than visual media. Print media such as newspaper typically has a clearly labeled commentary section. I realize that’s not possible given the structure of this site…and I rarely say much, while also trying to make clear that I’m not trashing this site or the staff….I appreciate what it brings to my life..it’s a lot of fun.
Oh…Hal…if you want to talk about the degradation of journalism as a whole and bring Fox and ESPN into it
….better pack a lunch…that’s a long discussion.
I see the first paragraph has been rewritten…and that’s very nice. I want to see this site do well…because I do believe it has ambitions of solid journalism… Original content etc..
This post came about in a funny manner because of the multiple, somewhat unclear reports.
As for the notion of mixing in commentary … I’m open to receiving criticism, though I’m not entirely sure I follow the point.
Are you referring to something like the characterization of the Mets’ young arms as “exceptionally talented,” and things of that nature? I guess I don’t see it as terribly problematic to advance a supportable and broadly accepted proposition like that without showing your work on it every time.
Adding context to a news item is obviously part of what we try to do, and I think that’s a good thing. We are very aware of the need to make clear when we’re inserting an opinion or speculating on a matter, and at least try to do so.
But, please, point me to some specific issues so that I can better understand and/or address your concern.
Jeff, I appreciate your response. I see the first paragraph has been fixed. It needed to be.
I think it’s a matter of print vs. visual media. Some things come off better said than read. I studied journalism in college and worked for a mid sized sports dept. It was a major breach of etiquette for a writer to inset themselves in a news story. I realize that that forum allows for separate comment column space…and most of the time here it’s not too bad…but every once in awhile I see news followed by…”well my two cents”. That’s grating to read…and I’m not the only one that feels that way. I do think opinions can be expressed…. But they should be professional ones if at all possible. Why not seek a second source for input. I know that’s done around here in follow-ups…in the “trade reaction” type follow-ups.
I’m saying that this sort of thing is journalistically unprofessional. It’s one of the things that hard print professionals trash the bloggers for. I don’t agree with them in every sense….because I want to see this site do well and be known for as much professionalism as any print media.
Someone today used a bullet point asterick after the news item to insert their thoughts… That was a great idea. I do think sports writing is an art form…and its hard to judge when that writer in story breach occurs…but I know it when I read it.
Thank you for clarifying that. On the matter of the poor writing …
I took over the post for Steve and re-structured it so that it would be a coherent “Matz promotion” post. (Hence, all the updates and trade chatter were bumped to the bottom and consolidated.)
In doing so, I obviously left it with an awkward first sentence, which I think is what you’re referring to primarily. Obviously, that was my error for not re-reading the whole thing before posting it. And I fixed it as soon as I noticed it. I’m not proud of it, but it does happen sometimes when writing (and doing all the other aspects of publishing) in real time.
As regards the insertions of opinion or analysis, that’s ultimately not my decision in terms of policy. But to respond from my own perspective, while I understand your point, I’m not sure that our function is or should be perfectly aligned with that of traditional journalists in all respects.
On the occasions that we do purely original reporting, I doubt you’ve seen any such insertion of opinion. But when we are compiling information, putting it into context, explaining its relevance to our unique niche, etc., I am not sure why some standard from another venue should necessarily apply.
Sometimes, I think, it makes good sense for additional observation to be added (so long as it’s clear that’s what it is). In many cases, you’ll notice, we do it to offset the opinion of the original reporter (or in response/addition to an analytical point we are referencing).
Frankly, and not to be rude, I’m not swayed by an appeal to the authority of some “professional” rule system. (This coming from a lawyer, who is all too familiar with professional norms and formal standards in the transfer of information.)
I absolutely believe in being “professional” in the broader sense, and I think we are extremely careful to make accurate representations. But why can’t I make an observation that occurs to me, and hasn’t (so far as I know, for purposes of having a source to cite) occurred to anyone else? I think we are very responsible in avoiding baseless speculation and in making clear whether we’re reporting something or suggesting it ourselves.
That being said, I’m more than open to hearing arguments against that approach, or against the manner of presentation that I (or other writers here) have chosen. Email through the contact form if you’d like to discuss further.
I can’t seem to reply below. Sure, you make good and reasonable points, but I do feel that a reminder to aim for solid integrity is always warranted. I’ll also say its a good sign when it comes reasonably from a regular reader/commenter. I believe we’re both stating the overall aim here.
I’ll be very honest and say that, currently, I only am taken aback and halted in a single contributors writing. I’m not even stumbled by typos.
I did have issue 6-7 years ago with one contributor who’s aim seemed to be to use his space as ego exercise. He treated his writing as if it were a platform to be “found” by major media. It reminded me quite a bit of the jostling that was done around Baseball Prospectus when MLB teams started hiring their writers. It became a joke as to who could become the biggest personality.
Tim and I discussed this back then. Since then I’ve seen a quantum growth…growing pains in style and substance… It’s all good.
Oh…you’re absolutely right about your niche here. I’m interested to see what occurs as mlbtr gains more access. I honestly feel that more access will enable great writing. But on the flip side, more access, more page views, will also lead to greater income generation and maybe the hiring of journalism professionals. I’m not sure how much I’d care for that. There’s a freshness and independence to mlbtr, and there’s potential for it to do things that much larger news agencies would never do.
Jeff, I really wasn’t trying to come down on anyone. I’m a fan of this site as much as a good portion of the actual content.
I have tried very hard to put myself in various shoes. I certainly don’t and probably shouldn’t hold a contributer on this site as accountable as a writer from a major news agency who also has almost immediate access to anyone within the game.
An idea…..what if mlbtr did a feature in a day in the life of a commentator. Probably 95% of those that frequent this site no little about the contributors, or how they go about the process. I assume most are working straight jobs and also covering shifts here. It’d be very informative, as well as giving people some insight…and they also might cut some slack as well. It’d allow for the contributors personalities to become human.
I’m not offended. I prefer to hear peoples’ opinions, and appreciate yours.
Steve and I work full time for the site. The other writers are part-time for MLBTR, but all have other jobs involving baseball writing/analysis/reporting.
I’m glad to be held accountable on par with anyone. But I feel more comfortable and honest with our “in my view” and “this is just hypothetical” than I often do with the “league sources” and “rival executives” who are sharing their own opinions and analysis (whether or not suggested by the writer; whether or not impacted by bias or self-interest).
We do talk to people around the game to inform opinions (in addition to reading a ton of publicly available analysis). But which is more accountable, ultimately: stating an analytical point as your own, and subjecting yourself to direct criticism if it is ill-informed, or passing on the (otherwise non-public) opinions of (anonymous) others?
(Oh, and I’m not sure whether a “day in the life” would be very interesting. Guessing not, haha. The real trick: “real reporters” have an editorial process that is both conducive to quality writing and necessarily restrictive. Our info and data and analysis goes up in real time, while we’re looking out for more information and doing all the publication steps ourselves.)
Thanks for the insight. One of my curiosities was how you compiled news. Your point about the differences between here and the editorial process of a newspaper is well taken. The entire process keys off what the expectations are. But I will say, as far as giving a personal opinions within a post….some contributors are better than others at making them. It probably helps that you have a law degree.
I will say that it can be jarring when the post goes from news to personal comment and back to news