Could The Mets Sign Lowe AND Perez?

by Eric Simon on Dec 28, 2008 10:44 AM EST Comment 52 comments

After they patched a couple of gaping holes in their bullpen, the Mets turned their attention to the starting rotation and smart money had them targeting either Derek Lowe or incumbent Oliver Perez. At the time, both players were likely to sign deals in the $13-$17 million annual range, and factions had formed touting the merits of one versus the other. Lowe is the consistent groundball machine, and Perez the shaky kid with great stuff. Lowe has age and experience, Perez has youth and potential.

With the pool of potential suitors drying up and no team aside from the Yankees willing to commit big to anyone, the Mets may actually be in a position to sign Lowe and Perez. Perez and Pedro Martinez cost a combined $18 million in 2008, so why not go to $25 or $28 million to bring Perez back and replace Pedro with Lowe? Give Lowe three years and $45 million, Perez three (or even four) years and $39 million (or $52 million), and call it a day with the following rotation:

Johan Santana
Derek Lowe
Mike Pelfrey
Oliver Perez
John Maine

That group would be among the best in baseball, evenly balanced from left to right as well as groundball to flyball. It would be a young rotation with the exception of Lowe, and given health would stay intact for the next three years. In addition to the obvious on-field benefits of this pitching coup, signing both Lowe and Perez would do two other things.

While not quite going toe-to-toe with the Yankees, the Mets would show a willingness to spend when necessary as they move into their pricey new stadium and look to finally overcome the Phillies for NL East supremacy.
Perhaps as importantly, Fred Wilpon would quiet his critics who say that the $300 million his family lost in Madoff's Ponzi scheme must have some impact on the Mets' financial flexibility. Wilpon has claimed that they are entirely distinct entities, but money speaks louder than words and even a modest over-indulgence in the free agent market would go a long way towards quieting the collective fears over the Mets' fiscal viability.

The market has turned in the Mets' favor, and Omar Minaya should pounce on this.

0 recs | Comment 52 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'M SALIVATING

Do you know what scares me?

If it got out (and it would) that the Mets were attempting this kind of marvelous coup, I’m afraid that another NL team would try to make a bid for Lowe just to increase his price. But as I think about this, I’d have to argue against myself by asking: Who in the NL would be interested? And who in the NL needs starting pitching and hasn’t already tried to grab Lowe and Perez? The Dodgers have been awfully silent.

I’m looking forward to the intelligent discourse that is about to play out on this thread. (Rubbing hands together)

" Washington focuses its bailouts on people who take showers before going to work rather than on those people who need a shower after they work. "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Dec 28, 2008 11:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I find a

Oliver Perez 2008 Home Pitching vs Phillies 8×10 Photo

It is cool.

by deartyme on Dec 29, 2008 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was afraid I was gonna get Rick Astleyed.

Eighty three damn dollars! Not bloody likely!

" Washington focuses its bailouts on people who take showers before going to work rather than on those people who need a shower after they work. "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Dec 29, 2008 11:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Meh I'd rather let Perez walk and keep the draft picks

I really don’t think he’s that much of an upgrade over guys like Jon Garland or Randy Wolf or Marquis or Redding or a bunch of other guys out there. Plus his extreme fly ball tendencies would scare the crap out of me considering we don’t really know how citi is going to play.

by Gina on Dec 28, 2008 11:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

i really disagree

i’ve been shocked how much i’ve heard this sentiment from mets fans regarding perez. and IMO it reeks of “what have you done for me lately” mentality.

of course the guy isn’t without his warts and he definitely took a step back last season but has everyone forgotten the 3.5era just last season? and the strong performance down the stretch in ’06 including the huge showing in game 7?

and i know people are rejecting the “big game pitcher” sentiment but how about this: in his time with the mets his eras vs. our 3 main competitors are 3.38 (PHI), 3.39 (ATL) & 3.65 (FLA).

i won’t say hes perfect but of the remaining starters, who is? everyone hates perez’s inconsistency and point to lowe for his steadiness but has anyone realized that he only got consistently good once he arrived in the offensively-challenged NL west? pitching in big parks like chavez, ATT & petco? and there hasn’t been more than 1 team in the NL west in the last 3 years with an above average offense. its quite a coincidence that lowe is suddenly mr consistency huh? nobody remember how he was boston’s very own up and down oliver perez his entire time there. also remember how he was a headcase up there, he often showed signs of cracking under the pressure. and that reappeared this october in LA’s elimination game when he left the game after only 74 pitches and only 2 ER because he was mentally spent. then add the fact that hes 35 and you’re crazy to think hes without his faults too.

guys like garland, wolf, redding, marquis are all league average arms at best, each of them significantly older than perez. its inaccurate to compare them to perez, who has the ability to put up a sub-3 era. meanwhile that rabble is satisfed hanging around 4.00 but often end up above 5. but i guess if you like consistency you love them because they’re all consistently average or bad. at least perez offers the opportunity for more, much much more. yes you can probably get them for shorter deals because they all suck but then we have this same issue next year or the year after, when there isn’t much more on the market.

by robcast23 on Dec 28, 2008 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he had a 3.5 era in 07

and a 4.35 FIP. It’s not that I have a what have you done for me lately attitude, it’s that I don’t think he’s anywhere as good as some of his surface stats, and even last year his surface stats showed that to an extent.

Not to mention people always bring in Lowe playing against the offensively challenged NL West but have you seen Perez’s numbers against them? Perez had an ERA over 8 outside of the division, and and he was even terrible against the nats.

also I don’t understand why people seem to think Perez is so much better than some of these other guys talent wise.

by Gina on Dec 28, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well

there is the matter of sample size. yes perez was ripped by the padres but it was only over 8ip. he also crushed the dbacks over 13ip, so i don’t think that tells us much.

as far as lowe, theres no denying that his numbers level out substantially after arriving in LA.

and while you’re probably right, perez isn’t quite as good as his stats will indicate there is absolutely no stat that will convince me hes on the same level as randy wolf or jon garland. if such a stat exists its more a proof that the stat is inaccurate. all you need to do to see that perez is better is use your eyes. i know oliver perez isn’t the sub 3era guy that everyone thinks might show up one day but jason marquis can barely stay on a major league roster.

by robcast23 on Dec 28, 2008 9:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just to clarify

i’m not saying perez is better than lowe

i’m saying that 1. perez IS better than redding, wolf, garland & marquis. and 2. that lowe has his faults just like perez and the rest of the guys that are available.

by robcast23 on Dec 28, 2008 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This may be true

But he is not SO much better than these guys that it justifies paying him $12-13 million a season while Redding can be had for $3-4 million a season.

by JamesK on Dec 29, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, yes he is.

Tim Redding sucks. I do not want him on the Mets. If we can get Lowe and Perez we should do it.

by SQUAD on Dec 29, 2008 2:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Care to back that up with any stats??

Cause I can back my assertion up with them. In 2008, here are the IP and FIP’s and I of the guys you mentioned:

Redding: 182 IP, 4.93 FIP
Garland: 196.2 IP, 4.76 FIP
Perez: 194 IP, 4.68 FIP
Marquis: 167 IP, 4.61 FIP

There are other factors at play here, but Ollie is simply not that much better than these other guys.

by JamesK on Dec 29, 2008 9:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Ollie Conundrum

Of course, we’re supposed to be paying for Ollie’s potential, not his past performance, right? I mean, Redding/Marquis/etc. are back-end guys with little to no upside, whereas Ollie is supposed to someday finally turn into the ace people have been waiting for. Isn’t that why the Mets (or any other team) is supposed to feel privileged to pay him $12 or $13 million/year for the next 3-4-5 years?

I mostly agree with both of you (and scott from peekskill’s comment below). I want to stay away from never-will-be guys who are simply warm bodies (might as well go with an internal solution in that case) but Ollie’s theoretical price tag is, at the moment, much too high. Alas, the market and such . . .

Would it help any if we just thought of Ollie as a high upside first-round draft pick? No one seems to care as much when those guys get bundles of cash in return for future potential.

'Oh yes, I know all about that duty-of-a-citizen stuff. It doesn't go. There are exceptions to every rule, and this was one of them. When a man risks his liberty to come and root at a ball-game, you've got to hand it to him. He isn't a crook. He's a fan.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Dec 29, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My issues is I'm not sure I believe in Ollie's upside

For the last two years, according to pitch f/x, he’s basically thrown too pitchers, the fastball and the slider, with okay velocity, nothing spectactular, and movement, awesome movement against lefties but the slider at least moves way out of the strike zone against righties, if you look at his k/9 and bb/9 splits there’s a pretty drastic difference. There hasn’t really much of any improvement in his control. And extreme flyball numbers, which to me makes me think his games where he’s shown “flashes” have been more of a mix of luck, and heavy lefty line-ups.

by Gina on Dec 29, 2008 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I should probably have written it like this:

“potential.” The quotation marks seem appropriate when we’re talking about Ollie’s “potential.” I’m not sure I believe in it, but it is why he’s looking at a possible eight-figure salary each year for the next four or five years.

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Dec 29, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm writing a post about this

sort of

King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president

by Sam Page on Dec 29, 2008 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I look forward to it

sort of. But, really, I’m interested in other people’s takes on paying for brilliance not yet attained and so forth.

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Dec 29, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

tim redding blows

i have no stats and so maybe he doesnt but i watched a lot of nationals game last year and he stunk in every single one of them.

not a contructive post i admit. i need a lto of stats to make me think redding does do anything but suck like a vacuum.

by kendynamo on Dec 29, 2008 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Looking at the stats,

I would say that yes, Tim Redding does indeed blow. To put it kindly, he aspires to mediocrity. He’s never had a season where he allowed fewer than 1 hit per inning, he has a 1.66 K/BB ratio, and he issues over 3.6 walks per nine innings.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Dec 29, 2008 10:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, funny thing about stats...

It’s quite easy to cherry pick. How about what Redding did in every season before 2008? Anyone who has seen him pitch knows he sucks.

I think Marquis could be ok as a 5th starter. He has decent stuff, but he is stubborn as hell.

Garland is poised for a big fall. He never had great stuff and if you look at his career stats you know his K rates have been steadily declining. No thanks on Garland.

I don’t mean to be a jerk, but anyone who thinks Redding is anywhere near as good as Perez needs to have their head examined. I can at least understand the argument for Garland, and while I totally disagree about Marquis, again, I can see where an argument can be made. But Redding? Really?

by SQUAD on Dec 30, 2008 3:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

I saw a similar argument to this on a site Eric linked with respect to Johan and Hiroki Kuroda. MetsTailgate isn’t necessarily saying “Redding is as good as Perez”, I don’t think; what he’s saying by citing 2008 FIP is “Redding was almost as good as Perez in 2008”.

Now, I personally didn’t see Redding pitch enough last year to say whether he might’ve been the victim of bad fielding; if he has been, his high hit total might be partially attributable to that. On the other hand, given Perez’s fly ball tendencies and our pretty good defensive outfield, it’s certainly possible that his hit count was helped by his defense. And we know that Ollie’s higher strikeout total comes with more walks; Redding had a better K:BB than Perez in 2008. I don’t think it’s completely ridiculous to say that Perez wasn’t a whole lot better than Redding in 2008.

Now, what that looks like going forward is a separate issue, of course, and one that’s significantly influenced by the fact that Redding is four years older. For what it’s worth, if you like FIP, Perez was a lot better than redding in 2007 (4.35 vs. 5.17); Bill James projects both at 4.85 next year, interestingly, while Marcel puts Perez at 4.52 and Redding at 4.77.

by JoshNY on Dec 30, 2008 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Late reply here but

I’d much rather have Ollie than Redding in a vacuum. Redding is no great shakes, but my main point is that I’m not too high on Ollie. Especially considering his price tag.

I fear a scenario where the Mets give up on Lowe then give Ollie like 3 years, $36 million.

by JamesK on Jan 4, 2009 9:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not "what have you done for me lately?"

King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president

by Sam Page on Dec 28, 2008 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

(woops double post)

It’s what have you done?

King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president

by Sam Page on Dec 28, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be fine with this

if Perez cost less than $13 million a year. That’s a bit much for my liking.

I’d rather have: Lowe, Redding, Burrell/Dunn (conservative estimated 2009 salary, $30-31 million)

Than: Lowe and Perez (conservative estimated 2009 salary, $29-30 million)

by JamesK on Dec 28, 2008 12:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ollie vs. Sheets

Also, if Ollie does indeed cost $13 million how much will Sheets cost? $14 mil? $15 mil? I say give the $$ to Sheets instead (assuming Sheets would sign in NY).

by JamesK on Dec 28, 2008 12:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

150 innings of Sheets+50innings of Niese

is better than 200 of Oliver.

King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president

by Sam Page on Dec 28, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with this also

by Gina on Dec 28, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sounds good to me

sign em both and lets roll. i’d also say sign another corner outfielder since there seems to be a glut in the market and unlike omar, i am NOT fine with a tatis/murphy platoon.

im not worried about the madoff scandel tho. even if sterling equities went belly up and the wilpon’s personal wealth was reduced, it really shouldnt have any affects on the mets operations. if sterling equities was taking other peoples money and investing it, theres no way any of that could be used to pay player salaries or be used to the run the mets. thats seriously illegal. it is possible but i dont see that being the case, not at all.

by kendynamo on Dec 28, 2008 1:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather have Sheets and Lowe

Even if Sheets is right-handed, he is much more likely to deliver a quality performance for 2009-2010 than Ollie. Who cares if he isn’t left-handed. There are lots of quality bats to face besides Howard, Utley and Ibanez.

"I got my pregnant wife (the Yankee fan) with me. Hoping my kid learns to kick her everytime the Mets score." -Schifftis-

by future on Dec 28, 2008 2:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Quality

Is 150 innings really a “quality performance”?

by Eric Simon on Dec 28, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

i understand the idea of 150ip of sheets + 50ip of niese is still good but thats not the point.

the point is that an injury prone pitcher on the wrong side of 30 is very likely to pitch a lot less innings than just 150. in fact, in the last 4 years hes only hit 150 twice. giving sheets 3+yrs would be pedro 2.0. just ask the dodgers how nearly the same exact situation worked out with jason schmidt.

by robcast23 on Dec 28, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair

Schmidt was a few years older and had actually been pretty healthy in the four years leading up to the deal with the Dodgers.

by Eric Simon on Dec 28, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oliver Perez the last four years

103.0 IP
112.7 IP
177.0 IP
194.0 IP

King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president

by Sam Page on Dec 28, 2008 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2006

Perez actually threw 163.7 if you count his time in the minors.

by supermets on Dec 28, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

Game starts, past four seasons (including minors):

Perez: 23, 32, 30, 34
Sheets: 22, 22, 24, 31

If we’re comparing relative health, Perez has been on the field far more often than Sheets has; 20 more starts over the past four seasons.

by Eric Simon on Dec 28, 2008 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But if we're talking about a 5th starter

I think 150 “ace-like” innings from Sheets would be more valuable than 170-190 innings of who knows what from Ollie?

by Gina on Dec 29, 2008 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and

if sheets pitches just 100 innings? or 50ip? injury prone guys don’t get LESS injury prone as they age…

by robcast23 on Dec 29, 2008 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I got it

we should sign Sheets and then hook him up with a bunch of steroids

by JoshNY on Dec 30, 2008 11:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sheets

How do we know he isn’t already on steroids, and that without them he’d be even more hobbled by injuries?

by Eric Simon on Dec 30, 2008 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Duh

We ask him.

by JoshNY on Dec 30, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh...

This would be nice, but “why not go to $25 or $28 million”? Because a $7-10 million increase is no chump change, and unlike the team across town, we have a budget.

by Joamiq on Dec 28, 2008 11:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Easy there

The market is at our feet! No one is going to bid $10mm per for Perez, why should we? Perez did not accept arbitration so he could play the market and now the market is not there for him. Put out a 4 year $40mm contract and say “take it or piss off.” Lowe should also cost less than the $15mm people have been touting. Try a 3 year $36mm deal with a 4th year club option and performance bonuses.

Same goes for a LFer. The market is saturated with few buyers. Guys like Abreu, Baldelli, Dunn and Burrell face the prospect of sub-$10mm per season contracts. Taking a 1 year deal makes no sense since the market could be even worse if the economy doesnt turn around.

Lowe, Perez and Abreu/Dunn could be bargains.

by scott from peekskill on Dec 29, 2008 3:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

true

but for one, whether we like it or not the mets LF situation is set. and i don’t mind. the production/defense we’ll get out of murphy/tatis isn’t far below most of those guys. in fact IMO they outproduce baldelli & abreu. burrell and dunn both put up better #‘s but not so much better that i’m willing to sign them up for a few years. the only guy i keep an eye out for is manny for 2yrs.

as far as perez, i think the issue is that the mets don’t want to go over 3 years. so i see a 3yr/40mil offer. thats very fair for both sides, perez gets a high $/yr value and the mets stick to the 3yr limit.

same goes for lowe, maybe more so because of his age but with more suitors i can’t see anyone signing him up for less than $14mil/yr. his market sounds quiet now but there are too many teams like the brewers and cardinals that need a pitcher, not to mention the red sox.

by robcast23 on Dec 29, 2008 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But...

Did you not read the post? It says the Brewers and Cards are staying out of it.

by squid92 on Dec 30, 2008 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes, did you?

actually in this entire post i don’t see a word about the brewers or cardinals, unless i’m missing something here.

whats been said is that the market is “at our feet” and other similarly NY-centric things but to assume that nobody else is out there is just ignorant. why wouldn’t the brewers be in it, they budgeted all that cash for CC then he left add the hole left by sheets and they need a starter and have some cash to burn.

what about the dodgers who may skip manny and get a cheaper OF option in dunn or abreu and still have a rotation of kershaw, kuroda & billingsley. you don’t think they might want to get another starter?

toronto is losing burnett and marcum is out for the year and mcgowan is still questionable, would it be shocking if they signed someone?

all i’m saying is that if you just assume theres nobody out there but the mets you’re probably gonna get burned.

by robcast23 on Dec 30, 2008 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"burrell and dunn both put up better #‘s but not so much better that i’m willing to sign them up for a few years."

Really?

Our LFs last year, composite: .273/.334/.396/.730, 10 HR
Burrell last year: .250/.367/.507/.874, 33 HR
Dunn last year: 236/.386/.513/.899, 40 HR

Those are both a lot better, if you ask me.

(Yes, obviously Manny is better still, but are you getting the .396/.489/.743/1.232 Manny of his 53 games with the Dodgers, or the .297/.392/.508/.900 Manny of 2007 and his 100 games with the Red Sox in 2008?)

by JoshNY on Dec 30, 2008 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

true

i understated the difference between murphy/tatis and either burrell or dunn. both would be upgrades for this team but i’m not crazy about either of them.

by robcast23 on Dec 30, 2008 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Murphy+Tatis

would do a lot better than the .273/.334/.396/.730 line that we got from LF last year. Burrell or Dunn would be a huge upgrade over what we had last year, but they wouldn’t be a huge upgrade over Murphy/Tatis.

by supermets on Dec 30, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tatis

I have very little confidence in his ability to replicate his 2008 production in 2009. Remember the massive drop-off Jose Valentin had from 2006 to 2007? There’s a reason castoffs and retreads become castoffs and retreads.

Murphy, I think, can reasonably be expected to be a useful hitter in 2009, but my preference is for him to do so as a 2B.

by JoshNY on Dec 30, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs