Marlins Offseason>Mets Offseason
by Sam Page on Jan 15, 2009 8:00 AM EST
75 comments
Last year the Florida Marlins finished just 5 games behind the Mets, despite spending over 125 million dollars less on payroll. With stronger up-the-middle defense from youngsters Hanley Ramirez and Dan Uggla and a surprisingly good pitching staff, the Fish finished a respectable third and stayed in contention longer than any ESPN analyst was comfortable admitting. Despite their impressive success last season, however, Michael Hill & Co. must continue to assemble the best team possible on what is far and away the smallest payroll in baseball.
Not unsurprisingly then, the Marlins have had a pretty uneventful winter. Through two trades, they've picked up uninspiring reliever Leo Nunez and a package of Nats, including 2B Emilio Bonifacio, RHP P.J. Dean, and SS Jake Smolinski. Although most Mets fans would be hard pressed to identify any one of them, these players have facilitated subtle but critical improvement for the Marlins. In fact, the Marlins may be the most improved team in the National League East this off-season and have actually cut payroll getting there.
First let's see how the financially advantaged Mets have fared. To date, Minaya's biggest move is the K-Rod signing, in which he got a "deal", overpaying him at 6 million per win. This contract can be justified, given the market collapse and the Mets' payroll room, but it's not the crowning achievement of a great offseason. Neither is the J.J. Putz trade. Despite the potential good it does for the bullpen, the difference between Putz and Heilman (1-1.5 wins) may be the difference between Endy Chavez and Jeremy Reed's fielding. Coupled with the Cora and Redding signings, Minaya has added nearly 23 million in 2009 payroll for about 4 WAR. That's not efficient, and considering Minaya's intention to sign Oliver Perez for way more than he's worth, this offseason could be considered one big misallocation of resources.
The Marlins don't have that same 23 million to spend on free agents. They don't even have that same 23 million to spend on their whole team. The Marlins' three trades, Gregg for Ceda, Hermida and Olsen for Nats, and Jacobs for Nunez were all intended to cut payroll by avoiding arbitration. Logically, this strategy would make a team worse, but the Marlins have seemingly improved.
By cutting ties with Willingham and Jacobs, the Marlins can take a page from the Ray's playbook and realign their defense. Assuming they shift their infield to 1B Cantu-2B Uggla-SS Amazega-3B Ramirez, they can improve by nearly 2 wins. Jacobs is a terrible firstbaseman, the difference between him and Cantu being approximately 10 runs in the field. Amezega makes a much better shortstop than Hanley and Hanley figures to field third better than Cantu. These shifts could equal more than a 20 run improvement in total, the only functional tradeoff being between Jacobs and Amezaga's bat.
Willingham is a similar case in the outfield. Although fielding metrics differ on Willingham, the alignment of LF Hermida-CF Maybin-RF Ross is almost certainly better, certainly with more upside. Scott Olsen was no big loss either. Although he's young and seemingly improving, Olsen has steadily declined in skill and could be easily replaced with Rick VandenHurk, or the like.
In total the Marlins have improved by about 3 wins, nearly as much as the Mets, while saving money. In the best buyer's market in recent history, a cash-loaded Mets organization has been upstaged by a team, which collectively doesn't make as much as our best pitcher. Omar, you're losing to a guy who doesn't have his picture on the internet.
0 recs |
75 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Improvement
While I agree that the Marlins may have improved by three games, the assumption that the Mets may have improved by the same is not as exceptable. I don’t have actual numbers but the Mets lost a lot of games after the 7th, the fact that we’ve improved our 8th and 9th might get us at least 10 of the 28 games where we blew save opportunities. That alone would have given us the Division last year. I’m not impressed with the rest of what Omar has done in the offseason, but bringing in Putz and K-Rod got us more than three wins. The fact that we are spending more means little to fans who has digested what Mets fans have had to the last two seasons.
by NCbillzfan55 on Jan 15, 2009 8:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
assuming relatively decent health
there should be a ripple effect in the bullpen, as frank and pootz push all the garbage arms further and further out of the bullpen. so i could see there being a slightly larger aggregate net positive. ditto in the rotation, but i dont see it being too significant either way.
one other thing to consider regarding Omar’s offseason is his restraint in pursuing Dunn and ManRam could be related to their horrible defense. it could also be Omar suxzorzing like usual but according t fangraphs (which owns, by the way), both outfielders are pricing themselves far to high when defense is considered.
by kendynamo on Jan 15, 2009 9:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Defense
But the current outfielders we have slotted into left field aren’t exactly all world defenders themselves. And neither was Ibanez.
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 9:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that's an important point
which I think a lot of people are ignoring. It’s not like the choice is Endy Chavez defense or Manny defense. The choice is two third-basemen playing left while probably at best giving us slightly above league average production offensively, vs. a (poor) leftfielder playing left, while giving us far above league average production offensively. I wasn’t on the Manny bandwagon earlier in the offseason, but I feel like his price and/or years asked for has to have come down, and at this point I think he might be worth it to pursue.
by cjmulrain on Jan 15, 2009 9:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it's the perception
that what we have is good enough. I don’t Omar is considering OF defense at all.
I think it’s that to Omar, we don’t need Manny or Dunn, who are both thought to be bad-character guys (in Dunn’s case, he purportedly is super-aloof and hates baseball or whatever), because we have two decent gritty-gamers in Tatis and Murphy who can hit okay and catch some fly balls. Ibanez, though he’d have been a bad signing, in my opinion, is still at least better than Tatis and Murphy, and has a reputation as a high-character guy, so I can understand the infatuation. I don’t agree with it, but that’s how I see it from Omar’s perspective.
by jasondg on Jan 15, 2009 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do we keep bringing up Ibanez?
I did a very quick Google search and all I found was that the Mets were “courting Ibanez.” No articles about a contract being offered. I also find it interesting that he signed rather quickly with the Phillies. Could it have been that the Mets were driving up the price on Philly?
by SQUAD on Jan 15, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
will there be a ripple effect?
I think that is the key question and i can’t assume there will be. And I would still worry about Duaner Sanchez and his arm.
by Endys Game on Jan 15, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Marlins>Mets
I totally disagree with this post – not simply the suspect metrics-driven analysis (which folks like Paul Podesta woould love – where is he now? – itmightbedangerous.blogspot.com) but also to compare Minaya, operating in baseball’s biggest market ,with Hill, working – creatively – with baseball’s cheapest owner. Sure, you can “squeeze” the metrics and say the Fish are “getting better” – but all they are doing is playing with house (actually MLB) money. If Hill was such a genius, and actually seeking to win, he would have swung the Manny deal – not just pick up spare parts and plug them in. As it was, seems like the Marlins’ whole season came down to knocking off the Mets at the end – sure THAT trophy will be cherished for years to come.
Also, why not make the comparison with the Rays/Yanks payroll/standings – I mean, how valid are these types of analysis anyway?! At least the Rays are taking chances and trying to win. The Marlins – can you say they are preparing to be one of the most competitive teams in the division?!!!
I do agree with the risk of 2 third basemen in left; Omar IS taking a gamble. But, what do you suggest – blowing out the budget for Manny (and saying good by to Ollie/Wolf) or being realistic and finding a way to have a solid rotation that doesn’t burn out the bullpen (and while I agree there were some bad arms, the abuse they took in Sept_08 didn’t help).
Frankly, I think the difference in these teams will come down to how Manuel rests his key guys (again, when you’ve got little to play for in Sept, you can rest a defensive-challenged Uggla or Ramirez. If Jerry had sat down Reyes/Wright/Beltran/Delgado in Sept, the media and bloggers would be calling in/posting metrics, etc.).
However, thanks for putting this post up…
by Mike from Brooklyn on Jan 15, 2009 10:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
DePo
which folks like Paul Podesta woould love – where is he now? – itmightbedangerous.blogspot.com
He works in the Padres’ front office. What a stiff!
by Eric Simon on Jan 15, 2009 10:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DePo
I know what an asshole, sigining Derek Lowe to a $36 over 4 year deal after he had ERA over 5 just cause his “suspect metrics-driven analysis” told him he would be good, boy that blew up in his face. Signing JD Drew, that guy will never be on a championship team, he just doesn’t want, while trading Paul LoDuca and Mota, who’s a winner, for fatass Brad Penny, yeah I know he started the allstar game in Dodgers blue and was ace for them but look at this year, injured, DePo you idoit. You need a real GM like Ned Colletti, who doesn’t use suspect metrics-driven analysis, you want a winner you go with your gut. Juan Pierre, Andruw Jones, Jason Schmidt, Nomar, real winners and it only cost 50 million just last season, hell yeah!
by Sokojoe on Jan 15, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But Juan Pierre
practices bunting during BP to get a sense of how the grass is playing on that particular day. I mean, you can’t put a price on those intangibles.
by jasondg on Jan 15, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
he also bounces a ball against the walls during away games to see how they bounce. No one in baseball has ever done this before exclaimation point
by Sokojoe on Jan 15, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Marlins
As it was, seems like the Marlins’ whole season came down to knocking off the Mets at the end – sure THAT trophy will be cherished for years to come.
The Marlins won exactly the same amount as the Mets did last year, which is to say, nothing.
I see Sam’s point though. The Marlins have cut costs and gotten a little bit better; the Mets have spent a bunch of money and gotten a little bit better.
by JoshNY on Jan 15, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, the marlins have been more efficient
but omar doesn’t need to be efficient, because his team actually has money to spend.
considering that most of that additional payroll has gone towards improving the bullpen, which was a definite weakness, i think it’s reasonable to say omar has done an okay job so far this offseason. yes, he missed out on lowe and hasn’t addressed the outfield, but there are still plenty of free agents to fill those needs. whether or not omar will actually go out and fill those holes by signing someone like sheets, dunn or ramirez is another question.
by englishgrey on Jan 15, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We don't need to be efficient?
If they’re not willing to offer a pitcher like Lowe more than 12 million per then I would say we probably do need to be more efficient since we must not have enough money to spend. Big Market teams can be efficient and spend big, for example the Red Sox who have added Smoltz, Saito, Penny and Baldelli, and supposedly are now going after Dunn, for peanuts.
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, we should be efficient
but i wouldn’t fault omar for spending a lot more money than the marlins and only improving his team by the same amount. omar has the luxury of getting less for his dollar, so if he feels like that’s the best approach for the team, then that’s fine.
if he spends another $30 million on sheets, dunn, and wolf/garland/pedro and improves the team by another 3 wins (or whatever), then it will probably be an efficient offseason, even if he’s getting less per dollar out of his free agent signings than the marlins.
so i’m just saying we should wait until spring training to decide whether the offseason has been a failure
by englishgrey on Jan 15, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If I thought he was going to do those things
Then I would probably agree. But I don’t. I think we’ll likely see Ollie back or add someone like Wolf or Garland and probably won’t see any other big additions.
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
K-Rod, Putz, Cora, and Garland
would be a massive failure of an offseason. I’m not hopeful that Omar will pleasantly surprise us with Sheets. Put me down for a crappy 15-game pack if he shocks the world and signs Dunn.
by jasondg on Jan 15, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really? Massive failure?
I really didn’t think this team needed a lot of big moves. IMO, the bullpen was the big issue. Would I have liked an upgrade to the rotation? Sure, but the rotation was solid enough last year. In fact, I think the addition of Redding is an upgrade to the rotation (assuming we re-sign Ollie) that should also have a ripple effect on the bullpen.
I’m also excited to see what Murphy can do with LF. I think they’re breaking him in the right way, as part of a platoon, and if he runs with the job, he might just become the everyday LF. With the production we get from Beltran in CF, we don’t really need a masher in LF. I really like his approach at the plate, and at Citifield, he could be a doubles machine.
There really isn’t much that could be done at C, we’re stuck with Schneider. I am willing to give Castillo another chance (he was never healthy last year), partly because we have no choice and partly because he was actually pretty good down the stretch in 2007. I was very bullish on Church before ’08, but concussions are tricky injuries. This is another case where we kind of have to play out our hand. Ditto for Delgado, who I think is a proud man and will have a solid year in what is either his last year before retirement or his walk year.
I’m satisfied with the bullpen upgrades because I am assuming the young guys like Parnell and Kunz will get a shot out there. I think Cora is a nice upgrade to the bench because Easley was really bad in the field when he had to play the field. I like Cora’s versatility and the fact that he will be adequate at 2B if Castillo stinks again.
by SQUAD on Jan 15, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Murphy
should be given a shot at 2B, at least when Santana and Ollie (if we sign him) are pitching. His bat doesn’t play particularly well in LF, and he’s a butcher in the field. The idea that we don’t need a masher in LF doesn’t hold water, especially in light of Murphy’s defensive woes in that position. And you’re also ignoring RF, where the concussion-addled Church resides. Corner OF is and will be an issue for this team.
And while Redding may be a slight upgrade to the rotation versus the cast of characters we threw out there last year — at least from a stability perspective — my “massive failure” appraisal also included a Garland signing.
All that said, I’m okay with waiting until the offseason is over to make a real evaluation.
by jasondg on Jan 15, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's also the fact
That signing someone like Dunn, or another bat like Burrel, before was signed or even Manny, would basically be replacing Delgado’s bat in 2010, and providing important insurance should he struggle this year, it’s not all about just this season it’s about fill long-term and short-term needs.
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One more point on Murphy (and Evans for that matter)
We’re commenting on an article where the Marlins are having praise heaped on them for their shrewd maneuvering to come up with cost efficient options that help them win. I also see a lot of bellyaching about how the Mets don’t let young players develop. Isn’t it possible they view Murphy and Evans as long term replacements?
by SQUAD on Jan 15, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is
Unless Murphy’s power improves, or we supplement that offense somewhere else which they haven’t shown any inclination of doing, Murphy’s bat isn’t going to play long-term in left field. And as for Evans, eh he’s just not very good. Murphy’s bat in left field is fine if you’re not already carrying below average players at 2nd and catcher, and players who will likely be right at average or just above it in rf and possibly 1st depending on how Delgado performs.
And really I would say not allowing Murphy to go to AA and try to work on his defense at 2nd field is not letting him develop. We’re sticking him into a spot where it’s easier to find replacements for rather than allowing him to increase his value to the team.
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Building the perfect team.
Isn’t really an easy thing to do. I understand we like to make our decisions based on in depth quantitative analysis, but maybe the Mets scouting department believes Murphy develops more power. And I agree with Englishgrey; I don’t think Murphy’s defense was as horrible as people are making it out to be.
As for Evans, he was 22 and clearly rushed to the majors. Are you really going to say “eh, he’s not that good” already? He OPS’d .926 in his first season in AA.
by SQUAD on Jan 15, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing to do with his major league numbers
It’s that he has a pretty poor approach and his minor league numbers look somewhat fluky. He had poor contact rates and an insanely high BABIP and a pretty low ld %. I’m actually kind of iffy on him so I shouldn’t say he’s not that good, but I’m just not convinced the bat is real.
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's fair.
But he’s still only 22 and I actually like his “go to RF” approach. It’s a lot easier to learn to pull the ball than to learn to go the other way.
With that said, I’m obviously not as high on him as I am on Murphy.
And it’s not like these guys need to be All Stars. I would be happy if they became productive members of the team.
by SQUAD on Jan 15, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Murphy and Evans
As I’ve pointed out before, Evans is a year younger than Murphy and outperformed Murphy concurrently at every level through the minors. I’m not engraving a Hall of Fame plaque for him or anything, but I’m not giving up on him yet either.
by JoshNY on Jan 15, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Daniel Murphy
Why doesn’t that idea hold water? We have a guy in CF who is prodigious offensively when compared to most CF’s. Wouldn’t that balance out Murphy not being your classic power hitting LF? And just because Murphy likely won’t belt out 30 homers doesn’t mean he won’t be a productive hitter. As for his defense, the guy was an infielder up until last season. He can’t improve his defense in LF?
by SQUAD on Jan 15, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Productive hitter
means two different things. His bat plays much better at 2B. And I don’t see Beltran “balancing out” Murphy’s shortcomings as an LF bat as the correct reasoning here. More like it’s harder to justify carrying his bat in LF when we’re stuck with Schneider, Castillo, and to a lesser extent, Church.
BTW, Posnanski ran the numbers and a team of Adam Dunns scores 1,080 runs/season.
by jasondg on Jan 15, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
Obviously his bat would play much better at 2B. However, he should still be an improvement over what we had in LF last season. “Balance out” was probably a stretch. I should have gone with “mitigates the need for…”
And of course I would love to add Dunn, he’s one of my favorite players to watch hit. It’s not like an acquisition that would send Murphy to the bench/minors would cause me to tear my Mets shirt.
by SQUAD on Jan 15, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
murphy as LF
i don’t remember murphy being particularly bad in LF last year…he’s not going to impress with his defense, but i think he can hold his own over the course of a season. playing him at second base seems like a bad idea, since there’s no evidence that he can play second base at all at the major league level.
by englishgrey on Jan 15, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No evidence
he can play a quality LF at the major league level, either. The point is, you can hide him better at 2B when extreme flyball pitchers are on the mound. I wouldn’t advocate using him there with Big Pelf throwing.
by jasondg on Jan 15, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent point.
You bring up a great point about the tendencies of our pitching staff. And if Jeff Kent was able to stay at 2B all these years, you would think Murph could handle it.
by SQUAD on Jan 15, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Murphy at 2B
There’s no evidence that he CAN’T play 2B at the major league level at this point either
by JoshNY on Jan 15, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i don't see omar make any big signings either
but maybe he’ll surprise us
by englishgrey on Jan 15, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I imagine Podesta
Is laughing while Coletti does his best to waste what Depo built.
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you see Colletti's Guillermo Mota signing?
$2.35 million plus incentives… mind-bogglingly awful
by James Kannengieser on Jan 15, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also signing Dunn, or one of the other left field options before they were signed,
wouldn’t have blown out the budget. I’m pretty sure as of right now we’re nearly 20 million below last years payroll. Unless they plan on spending more than the money they wouldn’t offer Lowe on the pitching choices left there’s not really a reason to think they wouldn’t be able to afford Dunn or Abreu, or wouldn’t have been able to afford Burrel.
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comparing Apples and Oranges
The entire analysis in this article is askew. The Mets and Marlins play in completely different markets that impose different methods of retooling each respective organization.
I am a Met fan that really likes the Marlins because they build from within. I wish the Met Brass had more patience because debacles such as the Kazmir, Bannister, Lindstrom and Bell trades would not occur. One need to look no further than the 1984 Mets to understand the value of a groundswell of talent emerging from the minor leagues, which enabled the 1985-1989 run to occur. They added Carter and Henandez to the core.
The Marlins have the benefit of retooling in that way because they must. Further, the Marlins organizaiton is subsidized by the luxury tax imposed on large-market teams.
That being said, to assess Putz and K-Rod’s value by their victory totals completely ignores the value normally ascribed to relief pitchers, saves and holds. The Mets blew 29 leads from the 7th inning on last year. One would think that the combination of K-Rod and Putz would halve that number, at the very least, not only by virtue of their direct contributions but also in restoring other relievers to their normal slots. The collateral benefit to the offense cannot be underestimated because it will know that the leads the players establish early in the game will likely hold up.
Hanley Ramirez is a great ballplayer on both sides, but Dan Uggla has two left hands and the range of a centipede.
by Tommy2cat on Jan 15, 2009 10:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Bannister
Can we please stop? Burgos didn’t work out, needless to say, but Bannister’s no prize, either. Trading a fringey soft-tossing AAAA guy for Burgos’s stuff wasn’t the worst idea in the world.
by jasondg on Jan 15, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes
bannister proved this past season that he’s not much more than a mediocre pitcher. he’s no kazmir.
by englishgrey on Jan 15, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Saves and holds
are as poor a way to assess a pitcher’s performance as wins are
by JoshNY on Jan 15, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're missing the point
The Marlins do employ a different overall strategy because they lack resources. That doesn’t mean they are forced into “retooling” and the Mets aren’t. Smart teams are constantly rebuilding the farms systems. Do you really believe that the Marlins are at an advantage because they have no money?
Also when I said “Wins” I didn’t mean W-L record I meant Wins Above a Replacement reliever, i.e. how many wins each reliever actually adds to his team.
And you’re last statement is totally wrong. Hanley Ramirez is not a good defensive player, he’s an improving one. Dan Uggla actually has above-average range and plays second way better than any player on the Mets.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 15, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Despite Uggla's embarrassing foibles in the field
wasn’t Dewan’s system quite favorable to Uggla in ‘07? Can’t remember off the top of my head, but I think it was.
by jasondg on Jan 15, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not quite
06: 0 (average)
07: -18 (had severe trouble getting to ground balls on his left, a usual strong suit, aberration? injury?)
08: +4
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 15, 2009 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but once year sample sizes aren't really reliable.
Though fwiw I’m pretty sure Hanley rated very well also.
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is
I would think if Heilman and/or Sanchez were to bounce back from their injuries/poor seasons, which is basically the same thing we’re expecting/asking for from Putz, we would have had the same bullpen improvement we’ll get from Putz with out having to give up resources.
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I assumed Heilman would have a 4.30 FIP
for the purposes of this article
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 15, 2009 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes it is just time to move on.
With Heilman, I think it was just time to move on. I know it’s not something you can support through quantitative analysis, but I think it was just time. I know Omar shouldn’t make moves based on the fans, but when you have 40,000 idiots booing you every time you leave the bullpen, it’s not good for the player’s morale or the team’s.
As for Sanchez, I think you need to factor in the type of injury. Sanchez suffered major trauma to his shoulder and was out for nearly two years. Putz, if memory serves, only suffered a strain to his elbow that he kept aggravating. With pitchers, it seems that elbow injuries are easier to come back from and there is a better chance of Putz maintaining/regaining his velocity than Duaner. In short, I don’t know if Duaner will ever be “Duaner” ever again, while I think Putz can be “Putz” or something pretty close to that.
Plus, with health being equal, I think Putz is better than Heilman anyway.
by SQUAD on Jan 15, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting read samt
I presume that you’re NOT arguing that Omar should have made the same moves that Florida made. So the question becomes what moves should Omar have made/be making?
I am assuming that Omar came into this off-season with the following objectives in some order of importance:
1. Reconstruct the back end of the bullpen (Result: signed K-Rod, acquired Putz)
2. Acquire a front-of-the-rotation starting pitcher (Result: pending)
3. Add a LF (if an attractive option presents itself) (Result: pending)
4. Upgrade 2B/Trade Castillo (if an attractive option presents itself)
5. Acquire a middle-INF backup/spot starter (Result: signed Cora?)
What I’m curious about is the extent to which you agree with these goals, and if so what you’d have done differently to respond to them.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 15, 2009 11:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Priorities
1. Getting a #2 starter— My choice would have been Vasquez or Lowe.
2. Bullpen— Several lottery tickets seem more advisable than a second closer.
3. Left Field— Wait for Manny to settle for a one-year deal.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 15, 2009 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1. Getting a #2 starter— My choice would have been Vasquez or Lowe.
2. Bullpen— Several lottery tickets seem more advisable than a second closer.
3. Left Field— Wait for Manny to settle for a one-year deal.
1. #2 starter – do you think Omar should have paid what the Braves did? I don’t think so, but if this was all a ploy just to re-sign Opie, who apparently doesn’t project to be as good as Lowe is right now, I’d be pissed and disappointed in Omar.
2. 2 closers – I’m not sure I understand your objection here. Are you saying that their performance is a gamble? If I understand you correctly, my impression was that measures like FIPs take a lot of the guesswork out of finding relievers. Is that wrong?
3. Manny – I’ve always gotten the impression that Omar would love to bring Manny to NY but has been told “NO!” in no uncertain terms by his bosses. They don’t want perceived malcontents. Speculation? Certainly, though the trade of Milledge gives that line of thinking some traction.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 15, 2009 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good write up Sam
I’m really surprised about some of the comments to this article, frankly it worries me a bit.
Anyways, I just wanted to point out that it is much easier to improve your team when your team has a glaring hole that can be improved on the cheap. Right now defense is undervalued (by most team) and the Marlins had the personal on hand, just like the Rays last year, as you mentioned. So of course they were able to improve on the cheap.
The Mets on the other hand do not have a glaring weakness (say what you want about the bullpen) rather their main problem is an average bullpen, average LF/RF, perhaps an average 2nd bagger, to cost of going from average to above average in terms money per win is much higher than going from poor to average. Thus, while your conclusion is correct and the point is an interesting/noteworthy, I think your claim that the Marlins are having a better offseason than the Mets strictly by looking WAR/$ is problematic without taking into account other varibles.
by Sokojoe on Jan 15, 2009 1:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Thus, while your conclusion is correct and the point is an interesting/noteworthy, I think your claim that the Marlins are having a better offseason than the Mets strictly by looking WAR/$ is problematic without taking into account other varibles.
well said. i was trying to make this point earlier, but i was not able to explain it as clearly as you have.
by englishgrey on Jan 15, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thus, while your conclusion is correct and the point is an interesting/noteworthy, I think your claim that the Marlins are having a better offseason than the Mets strictly by looking WAR/$ is problematic without taking into account other varibles.
Doubly true in the case of the Marlins, since they’re relying so heavily on younger players who are going into their primes.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Jan 15, 2009 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And we aren't?
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 15, 2009 8:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll have to check on the average ages,
but outside of Maine, Reyes, Wright, Pelfrey, and Murphy, the roster is comprised pretty heavily of veterans over 30. My point was not that we don’t have young players at our core, but the Marlins’ roster (and starting lineup) is comprised almost entirely of young players who have yet to peak.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Jan 16, 2009 1:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I concur.
And one more quick comment on allocation of resources. I believe one of the reasons the Red Sox have been so successful is because they have gotten production from young, cheap players (like Youkilis, Pedroia, Lowrie, Lester, Bucholz, Papelbon, etc.) which allowed them to spend big money elsewhere (notably, their rotation.)
I really don’t have a problem giving Murphy a shot in LF. I thought he did a fine job last year in the few games he played and he’s still only 23. He could certainly develop some more power.
by SQUAD on Jan 15, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But they're young players haven't stopped them from spending money on sure things
Like Drew, and Manny, and then acquiring Bay, or going after Tex, and supposedly now Dunn. If you’re a big market team and you can afford it why not give yourself as many options as possible?
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So where did you want the Mets to upgrade and flex their wallets?
3B, CF, SS, and 1B are all fine, IMO. RF, 2B, and C are all locked up unless they were able to trade the incumbent at the position. Therefore, the only “open” spot on offense was LF.
With that said, I think the bullpen was priority #1 for Minaya, and I think he has done a good job addressing this problem. Priority #2 was the rotation, and while he failed to acquire Lowe (just as the Red Sox failed to acquire Tex), I have come around on the Redding acquisition, which should give us something we haven’t had since ’06, a 5th starter who will give us 180-200 competent innings. Should we end up just re-signing Ollie I would say we tread water on the rotation, which is fine, because the rotation was pretty good last year.
And it’s not like the Mets haven’t spent money. They’ve acquired Beltran, Delgado, Wagner, KRod, Putz, LoDuca (who was good for one year).
Look, it’s not like I wouldn’t love to have Dunn, Burrell, or Manny in LF and hitting in the heart of the order. But, I also don’t mind rolling with Murphy in LF and seeing what he can do. If corner OFers are so easy to come by, we should be able to acquire one in a trade should Murphy crap the bed.
by SQUAD on Jan 15, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Redding
Just to be clear, prior to 2008, the last, and only, time he threw anything close to 180 innings was 2003. So let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that Tim Redding is some kind of innings-eating guarantee.
by jasondg on Jan 15, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Check out his innings totals between majors AND minors
He’s at 180+ each of the last 3 seasons I believe.
by James Kannengieser on Jan 15, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK fine here are his innings between majors and minors
2008: 182
2007: 173.2
2006: 187.2
Predicted response: “yeah but he was in the minors meaning he suckssssss”
by James Kannengieser on Jan 15, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Trading for a player
requires a resource we have very little of and can’t really afford to part with even if we could come up with a package that would get us a quality left fielder. As far as where I would like them to flex their wallet, for one thing eating Castillo’s contract would fall under than for me and I wanted them to sign someone like Felipe Lopez or Mark Loretta, Going after a left fielder obviously as well signing Lowe, along with bringing in some pitching depth, a player like Brad Penny for example, or possibly Randy Wolf or Odalis Perez. Improving the bench possibly with utility players like Ty Wigginton or Gabe Kabler or Eric Hinske with actual useful skills, unlike Marlon Anderson. Obviously not all these moves but some sort of combination.
Also not that it’s a big difference but I’m pretty sure the Putz trade was payroll neutral
by Gina on Jan 15, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The title's definitely an oversimplification
the reality of these two teams is more nuanced. But you get the point.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 15, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I get the point
and it’s a good one.
by Sokojoe on Jan 16, 2009 9:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait a minute!
Isn’t that a picture of Omar after he fired Willie Randolph after the win against the first place Angels last year? SamT, where you trying to insert a static subliminal message in this thread pointing out Omar’s strange strategy? If so, kudos dear boy, kudos.
" Where I'm from, throwing up in your mouth is affectionately known as a mustard burp. "
by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 15, 2009 10:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Florida > Mets?
I really don’t buy this. This article makes a bunch of assumptions (Hanley at 3rd? Not going to happen. Also Amezaga would be a nightmare as a regular as he can’t hit). Your assuming they have replacements for Jacobs and Willingham who will perform with their bats. There is no guarantee of that. There’s no guarantee Cantu will hit as well as he did last year (and statistics suggest he WILL decline). For that matter, Hanley and All-Star boy had essentially AVERAGE fielding seasons and a more likely to decline a little (looking at their relative track records and the idea of regression).
I mean, think of what you’re boiling it down to. Mets add essentially two all-star calibre closers to the bullpen. Marlins get rid of one good (Willingham) and one mediocre (Jacobs) hitter and replace them on the roster with three prospects that everyone agrees are poor prospects. I don’t buy it. Defense is important but hitting is more so.
This just seems like more offseason panic from Mets fans that I refuse to fall prey to.
by Lunkwill Fook on Jan 17, 2009 12:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Amazin' Avenue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
