Mets Need To Isolate Baby, Bathwater

I took the last couple of days off from writing for a couple of reasons. Primarily it was to just take a mental breather from the madness of the Mets' season. Writing about the Mets day in and day out can be suffocating in a lot of ways, especially to my psychological well being. Though you didn't necessarily plan on doing so, you guys filled in for me with a couple of posts I promoted to the front page as well as a number of other FanPosts and FanShots. One of the greatest assets of a community such as this one is that I could literally disappear for a day or two and you'd hardly notice because you're all capable of generating brilliant, original content of your own on a seemingly daily basis. So, keep on rockin' it because I'll keep promoting it.
Anyway, since we last spoke we've seen a lot of shoddy journalistic efforts (not here) that purport to fix the Mets by breaking up their core of incredible, young talent because of some perceived lack of "heart" or "guts" or whatever meaningless baseball platitude they thought might make good copy. I can find some merit in almost any makeover plan, even if I don't necessarily agree with all of the tactics of reconstruction. Whatever the Mets' shortcomings this past season, whatever areas are in need of overhaul to varying degrees, the following players had better be on the team when the team takes to Citi Field next spring:
- David Wright
- Jose Reyes
- Johan Santana
- Carlos Beltran
- Mike Pelfrey
Whatever reasons you can concoct for why the Mets didn't make the playoffs this season -- injuries, porous bullpen, lack of positional depth, age-related regression -- these five players are part of the solution, not part of the problem. Even if Bob Klapisch doesn't understand this, I do believe that Omar Minaya does. Whatever his failings as a general manager, he understands the value of superstars -- especially young-ish ones -- and the Mets have four of them and a burgeoning star in Pelfrey. If you want to find the problems with this roster, look elsewhere. There's nothing to see here.
I don't want to hear that these players aren't clutch or that they don't know how to win, that the current core can't get it done or that they've somehow established a culture of losing in Queens. Those words don't mean anything to me. If you think he sucks, tell me why he sucks. Don't speak subjectively about character-based intangibles which, even if they did exist and had perceptible value, a sportswriter (or any writer) would have no business understanding anyway. Explain in what tangible areas these players are lacking and the realistic scenarios in which the Mets might dispense with them and actually receive reasonable value in return. The obvious explanation is that such scenarios don't actually exist, which is exactly why sportswriters fall back on the aforementioned tired baseball platitudes to support their irrational ideas in the first place.
I'll spend the coming days talking more about the 2008 season and where I think the Mets should focus their efforts this offseason. Spoiler alert: Bullpen, rotation, bench. For now, don't forget to check out SB Nation sites Halos Heaven (Angels), South Side Sox (White Sox), DRays Bay (Rays), Over The Monster (Red Sox), True Blue LA (Dodgers), Bleed Cubbie Blue (Cubs), Brew Crew Ball (Brewers), and The Good Phight (Phillies) for the best playoff coverage on the nets.
Comments
That's got to be the core
If I could ask for anything more from the three batters you listed it would be fewer errors. Not Beltran (3 in 2008.) Wright (16) and Reyes (17) could stand to make fewer mistakes. But that’s about it.
Between the three of them they scored something like 340 runs, and drove in nearly 300. If Chruch and Delgado (or whoever is playing 1B) can have solid years (i’m not asking for MVP numbers, just reliability) those raw numbers could be much higher.
"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."
by IanB in MD on
Oct 1, 2008 8:10 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
maine and church next most likely to be there for citi's opening
i wouldnt call them untouchable but theyre in the next tier. young, pretty good, under contract.
also can we just get it over with and start calling it shiti field? i feel like if we as fans start calling it that first, then dumb ass yankee fans et al wont be so inclined to use and think theyre being hilarious. its only a matter of time. plus we can say in the voice of the south park ‘city wok’ guy.
by kendynamo on
Oct 1, 2008 9:45 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Is Pelfrey a "burgeoning star"?
I agree he made great strides from, say, June on, and I would not hesitate to ink (not pencil) him into the ‘09 rotation, but I’m not yet convinced he’s a star.
Two related reasons: he did not pitch all that well in September, and he threw a lot of innings this year. The latter may be the cause of the former, and gives some pause regarding next year. Who was it that posited that young pitchers who exceed previous innings totals by 30+ innings are prime candidates for arm trouble and/or dropoff in effectiveness? I would have to cite Maine as an example. Now, maybe Pelfrey being the physical horse that he is with pretty sound mechanics makes him less of an injury/dropoff risk, but it’s definitely something to keep an eye on.
by madisonmetsfan on
Oct 1, 2008 11:34 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
'Burgeoning' has many shades of gray
Pelfrey was 17th in MLB in ERA from June 1st through the end of the year, which includes his rough September. Even with a so-so September (there was likely some fatigue due to the innings increase you pointed out) Pelfrey was one of the best 20 starters in baseball at preventing earned runs. If you change the bar to “runs allowed”, Pelfrey improves to 15th in MLB over that same span.
I don’t think it’s an overreach to call him a burgeoning star. Not a guaranteed star, but definitely a could-be star.
by Eric Simon on
Oct 1, 2008 12:02 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Brandon Webb
Because of their similar power-sinker styles and resulting propensity for inducing a lot of groundouts, Pelf occasionally gets compared to Brandon Webb. (Not counting bunts, 64.6% of balls put in play against Webb over the course of his career have been ground balls; for Pelfrey it’s 49.5%.)
Pelfrey just completed his age-24 season (he turns 25 in January), in which he made 32 starts (along with 17 in the previous two years for a career total of 49.) He averaged 6.27 innings per start, struck out 110 hitters, walked 64 (K/9 4.93; K/BB 1.72), had a season ERA of 3.72, and (arguably most importantly) induced ground balls on 49.7% of non-bunt balls put in play, roughly the same as what he did in 2006 and 2007.
Webb did not pitch in the majors before his age-24 season of 2003. He made 28 starts (along with one relief appearance.) He averaged 6.42 innings per start, struck out 172 hitters, walked 68 (K/9 8.57; K/BB 2.53), had a season ERA of 2.84, and induced ground balls on 64.9% of non-bunt balls put in play, again roughly the same as his career average. (It’s worth noting that Webb regressed and walked a ton of guys in 2004.)
It seems like Big Pelf is pretty far behind where Webb was at the same age. I don’t have the split that Eric was looking at handy but maybe that’s more favorable to him.
by JoshNY on
Oct 1, 2008 1:21 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Pelfrey < Webb
Webb has consistently struck out many more batters than Pelfrey. Webb is a superstar, though. Pelfrey doesn’t necessarily have to approach Webb’s level of performance to eventually be considered a good/great big league pitcher.
by Eric Simon on
Oct 1, 2008 3:00 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
well, yeah
Because of the similar styles I just found it to be an interesting comparison. I don’t expect Pelfrey to be as good as WEbb but if he could bump his K/9 from 5 to, say, 6.5, it’d go a long way for him.
by JoshNY on
Oct 1, 2008 3:40 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh, agreed
We’re on the same page here.
by Eric Simon on
Oct 1, 2008 3:50 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Derek Lowe
I think this a pretty good comparison to Pelfrey. More comparable K/9 and BB/9 rates. They both have the power sinker and propensity to induce ground balls. (Though Lowe does it at a much higher rate) Plus they have similar physical characteristics.
Lowe has been a solid pitcher for a long time and if you told me Pelf would produce the kind of results Lowe has over the next 4-5 years I would sign for that.
It’s also why I would also like to see the Mets try to land Lowe if they can get him for 2 years. He might be able to help Pelf’s development. Of course the infield D would have to improve for this to work.
by Reg Dunlop on
Oct 1, 2008 5:56 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But...September is still a problem
But isn’t it true that “the current core can’t get it done” if by “it” you mean winning the world series or going to the playoffs? By definition, they have not got it done, and I can’t see how they could have had better individual seasons numberwise.
None of the core sucks. Individually they had great seasons. Yet the team did not have success. Baseball is a team sport so presenting “tangible areas these players are lacking " won’t really answer fully the question in front of us: what do the mets need to do to get into the playoffs/get to the world series?” For three seasons, these three guys have put up great numbers. Will they get it done next season without any help? I am not optimistic.
To rule out of bounds that the problem is with the core before even discussing is to rule some arguments irrational by fiat. What kind of arguments?
Well, my first argument would be in fact they need another core offensive contributor, to take the pressure off of the big three guys. The moment that is burnt into my synapses when David flailed at ball four with the Irish Hammer on third, and our season was thrown into what turned out to be a death spiral. He was under pressure and pressing. I think he has said so in the press. Is pressure “intangible”? Maybe.
I am loathe to suggest entering free agent sweepstakes and I am embarrassed to bring up Manny or Teixeira as examples since they are so obvious, but I think its come to that. The Mets need another big bat—perhaps a younger one than these two—to take the pressure off the “big three.” I would think pursuing Manny would be very popular among statheads. Sure he is older and expensive, but I don’t see why he can’t be maneuvered into a “reasonable” contract, seeing as the Yanks and other big spenders might be distracted with Krod and Sabathia. Without Yankee interest, there is only one way to NY for him. He always produces and his antics (muted at the beginning but likely increasingly distracting) would certainly take the pressure off Wright, Reyes, and Beltran. And we have the best CF in baseball so I am not overly concerned with what we lose in left. Plus we just played a season with NO competent left fielder.
Of course I’d prefer a younger less established big righty bat, but those do not come cheap in terms of prospects and treasure. Maybe you guys could come up with some better names. Either way, landing a free agent plays to Omar’s strengths as a general manager.
Of course there are other, maybe better, arguments, but short of TRADING the core which REALLY isn’t an option, I think all and any ideas should be thrown against the wall.
I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya
by itsmetsforme on
Oct 1, 2008 1:21 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
to pay for Manny...
the Mets could add 10,000 seats to Citi!!
I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya
by itsmetsforme on
Oct 1, 2008 1:45 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think we're saying different things
The core = awesome.
The rest = debatable.
There’s a big difference between “knowing how to win” and “being unable to win”. The Mets haven’t won the World Series (or even made the playoffs these past two seasons) because they weren’t good enough, not because they lacked some fundamental understanding of how one wins. I know *how* to lift a truck over my head, I just lack the muscular aptitude to do so.
My point is that if you want to improve the Mets for next year, look at the tangible areas in which they failed: Relief pitching, starting pitching, second base, catcher, corner outfield to some extent. It requires far fewer assumptions to believe that these areas of under-performance were the cause of the Mets’ failure this season than to believe that their early exit was the result of something intangible like moxy or grit or intestinal fortitude.
None of this is to say that intangible things don’t exist, just that measuring something for which we clearly lack the necessary tools of measurement is an exercise in futility (unless of course you consider speculation and conjecture adequate tools). We *do* have tools to measure the tangible ways in which the Mets failed, and I choose to focus my energy on evaluating and improving those areas.
by Eric Simon on
Oct 1, 2008 2:59 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"I know *how* to lift a truck over my head, I just lack the muscular aptitude to do so."
Do you? I bet the problem is you were lifting with your back instead of with your legs.
by JoshNY on
Oct 1, 2008 3:20 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i'm sorry to hear you can't lift a truck over your head...
whenever the mets disappoint, i find being able to hurl a few trucks into traffic quite cathartic.
I have no major disagreements, just a question of emphasis; i guess I’m looking for a way to parse intangibles that doesn’t fall for “moxy or grit or intestinal fortitude.” I feel that there are some teamwide failures under pressure. Like a contagion.
I’m not pining for the drastic days of Steve Phillips, rotisserie GM. But damned if I don’t feel a need to shake these guys up a bit, since the front office is content to pretend they “overachieved” and reward the management with new contracts. It may be the case that its just a question of waiting till the cookie crumbles our way after 3 surprising exits with the same core. Somehow taking pressure off the big 3 is one way to imagine getting a more successful result. And I feel more than a little stress at the thought that Omar is penciling Delgado in at first and in the lineup for another year.
I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya
by itsmetsforme on
Oct 1, 2008 3:17 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
i am kind of waiting with baited breath
to hear the good people of Amazin avenue consider the Manny option. Sure, the Mets don’t have a DH position open, but I wonder if there is any merit to signing the dude for 3 years if he’d do that.
Put it this way: our seasons can’t get any more maddening but they could be more entertaining!
I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya
by itsmetsforme on
Oct 1, 2008 3:26 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
here's one Con:
from his comments about Dirty and Rincon’s tardiness, apparently Ryan Church probably couldn’t handle a little Man-love.
Pro: who gives a whit what Church thinks?
I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya
by itsmetsforme on
Oct 1, 2008 3:29 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm on board for Manny
2-3 years sounds fine.
by Eric Simon on
Oct 1, 2008 3:51 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yup
I agree with Eric about Manny, I’m not not wasting too much thought on it because I expect the Yankees to give him 4 years and 80 or 90 million dollars and I wouldn’t want the Mets to match that.
by JoshNY on
Oct 1, 2008 4:47 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
ya think they'd try to land CC Sabathia, Mark Tex AND
Manny?
Cashman is still running things and he seems to have soured on going all out for top dollar a bit. No?
I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya
by itsmetsforme on
Oct 1, 2008 5:16 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'd be surprised if they didn't at least try it
Hankenstein MAD! Divisional play-off format BAD! Yankees WIN! Thuh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh Yankees. WIN!
'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on
Oct 1, 2008 5:48 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i think you can only sign two type A's
by gogomets on
Oct 1, 2008 6:57 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not necessarily
• If fewer than 14 Type A or B players elect free agency, no club may sign more than one such player.
• If 15-38 Type A or B players elect free agency, no club may sign more than two such players.
• If 39-62 Type A or B players elect free agency, no club may sign more than three such players.
• If 63 or more Type A or B players elect free agency, “the Club quotas shall be increased accordingly,” according to the basic agreement.
However, each team may sign as many Type A or B free agents as it loses in any particular winter, even if those signings would put it over the quota for that winter.
Per Keith Law.
I also believe you can resign your own A/B free agents without penalty. Given all of this, if Damaso Marte winds up being a Type A free agent and he leaves, the Yankees could sign Teixeira, Sabathia and Ramirez.
by Eric Simon on
Oct 1, 2008 7:18 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah read that on MLBTR
i think the general consensus there is that this winter it’ll be (in general) 2 type A’s per team. and of course, as you said, if marte leaves that will allow them to sign more than 2/
by gogomets on
Oct 2, 2008 3:29 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Manny
I know that his departure from Boston was not a lovely one at all, but is he really willing to sacrifice his lore in Boston for that money?
Who's world is it? It's yours.
by BlackOps on
Oct 1, 2008 7:56 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
while he was in Boston
he was notorious for fraternizing with NY players and even making public his interest in playing in NY. Of course, I think he meant the yankees.
I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself in to trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya
by itsmetsforme on
Oct 1, 2008 9:24 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that's the word
NY Post: “Manny’s Revenge: Eyes Bx”
by JoshNY on
Oct 1, 2008 10:19 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I love the hyperbole in that piece
“Of course, every free agent says he wants to play for the Yankees.”
'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on
Oct 1, 2008 10:31 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Omar's understanding of young-ish superstars
I’m not sure. I don’t expect any moves involving any of the aforementioned players or moves involving other guys under 25, but there is that Milledge deal. I mean, I’m not trying to bring this up before he becomes a better hitter than Church, let alone the fact that Church/Milledge is probably a wash as late as two years from now, but Schneider did not start in our final game. I think that alone makes this deal already a bad one.
Meh, I will vent about that one for years. Just get used to it.
Who's world is it? It's yours.
by BlackOps on
Oct 1, 2008 7:55 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
No sale.
You can make a good case that Omar didn’t get enough back for Milledge (I don’t agree, but it’s no slam dunk either way), but I’m not convinced Milledge will ever be more than average. He can’t play center field, and he doesn’t have enough power to be a premier corner OF. In between freak injuries, Church was better than Milledge this year, and I suspect that over a full year, a platoon of Murphy/Evans would outperform him, too. If Milledge were still here, by May ‘09 we’d be griping that he and his mediocre numbers were blocking F-Mart from the big club.
by madisonmetsfan on
Oct 1, 2008 9:24 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Still
The way Milledge was hyped you have to get more back in return. Or least you have to get guys with a higher up side than Schneider and Church.
by Reg Dunlop on
Oct 2, 2008 7:15 AM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Check out Milledge numbers
the last 2 months of the season. If he’s that player they’ll be a position for him, plus his metrics in CF are pretty good despite the misplays.
by DoctorK16 on
Oct 2, 2008 3:16 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs











