I'm not that heart broken over Daniel Murphy's injury. Mike Jacobs definetly has more pop than Murphy, even though he strikes out more I like him better as a hitter. But the main reason I'm not concerned is that this could pave the way for Ike Davis. I really believe this kid is the real deal. The Mets haven't had a position player prospect like this since David Wright. If he starts tearing it up in the minors and Murphy doesn't come back anytime soon the Mets will have to bring him up. This might be the end of Murphy's Met career. I like Ike.

Mike Jacobs had a .297 on base percentage, a .228 average, 19 homers and 61 RBI last year. Daniel Murphy had a .313 on base percentage, a .266 average, 12 homers and 63 RBI last year. So even though Mike Jacobs has more power he doesn't produce any better than Daniel Murphy. I think the tiebreaker is strikeouts. Murphy had 69 last year. Jacobs? He struck out 132 times in 2009. That's bad for a guy who didn't hit 20 homers. If Mike Jacobs could produce 35+ homers and 100+ RBI then that level of strikeouts would be acceptable to me. As a result I think that having Mike Jacobs replacing Daniel Murphy in the lineup is a negative for the team.

I would also rather have Murphy starting than Jacobs, but not by a big margin. Mike Jacobs put up those numbers last year while platooning 1B/DH with Billy Butler! he only played in 128 games and 434 at bats. murphy, on the other hand, was one of the few mets to stay healthy for all of last year, so he played in 155 games and got 556 plate appearances. So jacobs performed at an equal level despite far less opportunity to perform! to be fair his OBP is terrible because he never walks, and his feilding blows, so i'd rather have murphy. but the RBI and HR opportunities are greater with jacbos, and with beltran out i won't mind a bit more meat in the heart of our order. the injury is bad news, but not devastating news, as it allows us to keep cattalanotto on the roster and get some playing time to a guy who may pleasantly suprise us.