The Mets would love to sign John Lackey, the No. 1 starter on the free-agent market. But if they...

The Mets would love to sign John Lackey, the No. 1 starter on the free-agent market. But if they don't, they want to add from a group that includes Joel Pineiro, Randy Wolf, Ben Sheets and Jason Marquis, according to two sources with knowledge of their plans.
-snip-
The Mets aren't pursuing free agent Rich Harden, one of the sources said.

The Mets and I are opposites.

about 2 years ago Sam Page 41 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

fajklasdfjsadf;hasdfjklsadfkl;afsdjasdfas;d;

strike one.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Nov 22, 2009 10:54 PM EST reply actions

I am not a fan of Rich Harden at all

5.42 IP per start, 4.28 BB/9

That’s John Maine-esque

And yes, I do know about his almost 11 K/9….

by Syler on Nov 22, 2009 11:02 PM EST reply actions

I'm not a fan due to the injuries

But if the cost is equal I’d probably rather have him than the others.

by Gina on Nov 22, 2009 11:09 PM EST up reply actions

Career ~3.50 FIP...

by vivaelpujols on Nov 23, 2009 12:46 AM EST up reply actions

You take one fom column A and one fom column B

If you could take two out of the four (Sheets, Wolf, Marquis and Piniero), who would you take?

I say … Piniero and Marquis. But I’m tempted to replace one of them with Sheets, and take a gamble.

"Never throw a slider to The Glider."

- Ed Charles, No. 5

by The Glider on Nov 22, 2009 11:14 PM EST reply actions

I'd take Pineiro and

either Sheets or Harden. I don’t like Marquis much. I think Pineiro would be good, and Sheets/Harden could be potentially great.

by deadspy3 on Nov 22, 2009 11:25 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah that would be my choice

one of marquis/wolf/pineiro, preferably not marquis, and one of harden/sheets/bedard, i’d prefer harden. That way you get upside with one and minimal risk with the other.

by Gina on Nov 22, 2009 11:37 PM EST up reply actions

gah, Marquis? Really?

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Nov 22, 2009 11:32 PM EST up reply actions

pinero, sheets

by KeithsMoustache on Nov 23, 2009 4:54 PM EST up reply actions

i really think we need a guy who could be a solid big time pitcher behind santana. i know it’s a risk, but we definitely need someone like sheets or harden. i dont think marquis or piniero will make a huge difference for the mets in the long run

by Rey-O on Nov 22, 2009 11:51 PM EST reply actions

Which is why I advocate for Lackey

Yes he’s definitely a risk, but is it really that much more of a risk than say pinning your hopes on a guy who didn’t pitch in 2009 or a guy who hasn’t pitched over 141 innings since 2004?

I do disagree with one of your assessments though; if Piniero can continue his 2009 peripherals, he’d be a solld #2 behind Johan. That’s a gigantic if though

by Syler on Nov 22, 2009 11:56 PM EST up reply actions

The difference is those other guys would only be a risk for one year

If they suck it’s minimal loss. Lackey would be a nearly 100 million dollar risk. If he declines/gets hit with injuries we’ll be SOL for a long time. Not to mention saddled with two awful pitching contracts.

by Gina on Nov 23, 2009 12:03 AM EST up reply actions

yup

by Sam Page on Nov 23, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions

I would sign Wolf and Sheets

by Brittannia on Nov 22, 2009 11:58 PM EST reply actions

Agreed

Wolf is Mr.Consistency, yes he is slightly above average but we need someone we can count on to win 12-14 games behind Santana, stay healthy and eat some innings.

After Wolf why not throw out a 1 year deal to Sheets and see how he pitches, low cost high potential.

Pelfrey will be back on track with better D behind him and Maine might…might be back healthy.

by scott from peekskill on Nov 23, 2009 12:38 AM EST reply actions

Maine looked pretty decent in those game at the end of the season

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 23, 2009 9:12 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, but he's right that injuries are now becoming a concern for him.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Nov 23, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions

Pelfrey

We haven’t seen any indication yet that Omar actually recognizes the need for better D behind Pelfrey and knows how to improve it.

by JoshNY on Nov 23, 2009 9:14 AM EST up reply actions

Castillo

He has been trying to get rid of Castillo this whole off-season. I think he evaluates defense pretty well. He stayed away from Dunn because of his defense(and K’s) and he is favoring Holliday over Bay because of the defense.

by Coolpapabell on Nov 23, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions

The best way to get rid of Castillo?

Not sign him to 4 year, $24 million deals.

by Bieser's Balk on Nov 23, 2009 10:19 AM EST up reply actions

Hop in to the DeLorean

Are you proposing Time Travel? If so, then I would like to make a few stops in time before he go to the 2007 off-season.

by Coolpapabell on Nov 23, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions

*before we go

by Coolpapabell on Nov 23, 2009 10:37 AM EST up reply actions

Meet me in the lobby

But seriously, it’s not like this is a hindsight call. That was a terrible contract at the time and everyone knew it.

And people have hashed, rehashed and re-rehashed this, but it’s perfectly indicative of Omar’s lack of forward thinking and understanding of how to smartly build a team.

by Bieser's Balk on Nov 23, 2009 11:03 AM EST up reply actions

The entire bench disagrees with your assesment about how he evaluates defense.

by Sam Page on Nov 23, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah he also brought in Jeremy Reed because of defense

And Corey Sullivan.

by Gina on Nov 23, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

What do they have in common

Wilson Valdez
Angel Pagan
Fernando Tatis
JeremyReed

Well, they give me acid reflux with too much playing time, they were brought in for bench roles and they had positive UZRs last year.

Alex Cora’s defensive number were actually decent two years ago. The last year he posted positive numbers he also played in 200 innings at SS. The following year he played 386 innings at short and posted a -1.7 UZR. He should have not have played that many innings at that demanding position with his age. One would figure that with fresh legs he could improve his range to 2007 levels. Unfortunately, he had 386 innings at ss for the mets. His legs were far from fresh and so was his defense,UZR at -2.7. It must also be noted that he was supposed to spell Luis Castillo at second. There is not much to suggest that as a back-up, his age aside, that Cora would not have given above average defense at second.

Jeremy Reed’s UZR had him as a tab above average, but his bat brought him down to below replacement level. Seeing how he seemed like a throw in for the Putz trade I can’t kill him for that. You can blame Jerry of giving him so much playing time, but then again, with all the injuries, he would have seen time one way or another.

Corey Sullivan- Can’t argue with this one.

by Coolpapabell on Nov 23, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions

Reed and Valdez are also sub-replacement level hitters.

I’ve seen little to suggest he knows more about defense than a give player’s reputation…that’s not to say he’s brought in some good defensive players, he just is at a disadvantage evaluation defense, and a I think that’s been borne out in his trade history.

by Sam Page on Nov 23, 2009 3:28 PM EST up reply actions

You have a point

I guess I am still hung up on the John Rico’s Defensive Analysis presentation. I would assume that Omar goes to Rico to double check his scouting eye with the Rico’s defensive analysis. By the way……I have been searching around for that presentation, but have had a hard time finding it on the web. Could any of you hook me it with it?

by Coolpapabell on Nov 23, 2009 4:36 PM EST up reply actions

man I need an edit button……..In case you were wondering, it should read “John Rico’s defensive analysis” sans the extra the’s throw in.

by Coolpapabell on Nov 23, 2009 4:40 PM EST up reply actions

Yes, edit buttons would be great.

I know I’ve made more than my fair share of stumblings and bumblings.

"Never throw a slider to The Glider."

- Ed Charles, No. 5

by The Glider on Nov 23, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but

Brad Penny can provide an about 4.00 FIP/ERA. He is at least equal to and probably better than Marquis and very close and aguably better or worse than Wolf. Pinero has definitely changed his approach, but it would be hard for him to keep up the same level and a ridiculously low BB/9. I also think the market for Penny is much less. Depending on the market, I would take Penny and Harden, and possibly Sheets and Pinero. Marquis has a career 4.82 FIP, Wolf a 4.28, and Penny a 4.00.

by EtSuKe on Nov 23, 2009 12:40 AM EST reply actions

Don't understand this

Presumably they’re not interested in Harden because of his injuries, right? That seems on par with the narrow-minded approach Omar would take. But then why have Sheets on the radar?

At the end of the day, I’m with the majority here that they need to stay away from Lackey. Then I could live with taking one each from the average pile (Wolf, Piniero, Marquis) and the risk/reward pile (Sheets, Harden, Bedard). For the average group, whoever will accept the shortest deal would be the preference.

by Bieser's Balk on Nov 23, 2009 10:13 AM EST reply actions

i cant get on them too much for this

i mean… harden is a major question mark… I assume they reviewed his injuries and felt he was too big a risk. I like him, but I have not really reviewed his medical record.

The other names on there are ok. I like Wolf, Sheets and Pineiro… not a huge fan of Marquis, but I feel that if its a short or cheep contract then it could be ok (a hometown discount?) as a last option.

I would also love to have Lackey, just not at the money/length of contract he is going to demand.

by gbaked on Nov 23, 2009 10:59 AM EST reply actions

I just don't get how Harden is more of an injury risk than Sheets

and to an extent Wolf.

by Gina on Nov 23, 2009 11:29 AM EST up reply actions

me neither

but i guess they saw something.

its not a far stretch for “Harden is more of an injury risk than Sheets” to be a true statement. Sheets is coming off of a surgery to fix something big, and has had lots of rehab for it.

Harden seems to be more of a lingering small injury type.

but I am mostly talking out of my ass.

by gbaked on Nov 23, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions

totally agree

and i would like Harden just to see the NY Post headlines

by Bieser's Balk on Nov 23, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not sure given the information available to us

We can say one is riskier than the other, but I do think that for people with access to Sheets’ medical records, the picture is probably a bit clearer. The problem with Harden is the apparently inherent uncertainty that comes along with him. There’s not an explainable condition that leads to his fragility, and so coaches seem to always handle him as conservatively as possible. On the other hand, with Sheets, if it looks like his surgery was fairly successful, and if his stuff looks anything like it did before the operation, it may be easier to eventually get him back into place where a manager feels less need to be conservative. If Sheets is right, he could be a horse, maybe not a guy who you can expect to make 30 starts every season, but a guy who will pitch deep into games when he’s healthy and effective. It seems much less likely Harden will be that kind of guy, instead he’ll throw 5-6 innings every start he makes, frequently get pulled after 90 or so pitches, things like that. He’ll frequently put his manager in a situation where the short term tactics say that Harden’s more effective than any reliever available in the middle innings, but in terms of planning for the long term, pulling him might be wiser. Sheets might not face these kinds of restrictions, again, assuming his health.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 23, 2009 8:28 PM EST up reply actions

Could you perhaps

see Harden as a future setup man or closer?

by deadspy3 on Nov 24, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions

I saw on Driveline Mechanics they actually liked his mechanics

There wasn’t any flaw in his motion or anything.

by EtSuKe on Nov 23, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions

Wolf and Marquis--guess I'm a minority of one

in that I don’t think we need to go towards big risk-big uspide, but rather towards durability and slightly above averageness. I’m probably also in the minority in believing we need TWO reliable starters before taking flyers on someone like Sheets.

Sheets and Harden et al are Moises Alou all over again. Sure, he might give you one more season of 900 OPS, but there’s a better chance he’ s going to fall apart, and waste on more year of Beltran, Wright et al.

I look at it this way: Santana and Pelfrey are the only remotely sure bets to pitch around 200 innings, and both of them have very recent question marks. Ollie is very probably not going to be a decent, durable pitcher. Maine is probably not going to be a durable pitcher, and his fastball post-surgery wasn’t what it was when he was good. We have literally no idea how much and how well Niese and Nieve are going to pitch, and as much as I like Figgy’s story, it would be miraculous if he could throw 150 innings of 4.5 ERA ball.

In other words, we have two real starters, ONE OF WHOM DECLINED LAST YEAR, AND ONE OF WHOM’S SEASON WAS SHORTENED BY AN INJURY TO HIS PITCHING ELBOW. The rotation is already incredibly thin. And most of you want to add even more risks on top of the significant, serious risks we already have?

Yer nut, I tell ya. Nuts!

by SeanSchirmer on Nov 23, 2009 12:57 PM EST reply actions

I'm with you on this one

I think its easy to get lost in pitcher rate stats like tRA and FIP. I know pitcher WAR is still sketchy at best, but its more complete to talk about a counting stat with pitchers than batters, since pitchers actually do get a bonus for extending their amount of time spent on the field over an average “full season” worth of PAs. Moundsmen who regularly pitch deep into games have bonus impact, and can go a long way towards helping keep a bullpen unit in the green rather than the nominally average or below realm. Even though Harden’s ridiculously good when healthy, and even if he stays healthy, you have to handle him delicately. He’s not going to be making frequent 7+ IP starts, neither are Maine, Perez, or Niese, and the only way Pelfrey can do so is if the defense is substantially improved. I’m definitely tempted by Harden’s upside, but I think I’d stay away from him in this case, and even though the risk level is similar, I’d rather look at a guy like Sheets, who if healthy, can be exposed to the later innings of ballgames a bit more liberally.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Nov 23, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions