Marquis or Pineiro

Just wondering who people preferred?

Its looking more and more likely that one of these guys will be pitching for us. i don't think much of either one. But who is better?

3 months ago scott from peekskill 37 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Piniero

players who develop extreme GB skills usually maintain them. Marquis sucks.

by Sam Page on Dec 10, 2009 1:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

while pineiro sported the top GB% in baseball, marquis was #3 overall so he’s a pretty extreme GB pitcher himself. marquis has even got the better career mark, though pineiro is definitely a different pitcher after last season.

either way, i pass on both. marquis does suck. pineiro sucks less so i guess in a vacuum i take him and hope his career season in a contract year was suddenly the rule rather than the exception (but when is that ever true, especially for the mets?). if they both want 3-4 years deals i’d honestly rather bring back livan.

why didn’t we make a play for kevin millwood again?

by robcast23 on Dec 10, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If the market for one of them collapses I would take one (or hey, why not both)...

The Mets won’t have much more money to spend after they sign Holliday.

However, I don’t know if I would want a ground ball pitcher, given the Mets infield woes last season. It wouldn’ t be as bad as last season, as Wright won’t be as bad and Reyes will be an improvement over Cora/Hernandez.

by boom_roasted on Dec 10, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That shouldnt be true about not having much more money to spend

Right now they have around 100 million in contract obligations, I believe, and with the luxury tax raising to 170 million, and there insistence that the ONLY reason they don’t spend more is to avoid going over the tax, even if Holliday signed for 20 million per, which doesn’t seem to be any chance of that happening, they could still spend another 20 million and be WELL under the tax.

by Gina on Dec 10, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That 100 million from Cot's ignores those that are arbitration eligible...

There is no contract information for Francoeur, Feliciano, Maine, Pagan, et al. Should be around $15 mil more when everyone receives contracts. Plus, I really do not think that they plan on raising payroll that much compared to last season.

by boom_roasted on Dec 10, 2009 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah that's the problem

There’s no reason for them not to raise the payroll with the money they bring in and considering they just built a new stadium funded by the city. When the payroll doesn’t increase much because they want to stay under the lt threshold it makes sense. But with guys like Lackey and Holliday out there, as well as trade possibilities like Harang, and the number of holes we have there’s no reason for being some 20 million under the luxury tax other than just plain cheapness, since we know it’s not because they’re exploiting market inefficiencies or because they don’t think this team can contend anyway. And yes I know they have 150 million dollar payroll but with the money the mets bring it’s hard to conceive that they couldn’t easily support a larger one. Plus as far as I know payroll wasn’t raised much last season anyway.

by Gina on Dec 10, 2009 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also even if you add 15 million to that

And add another 20 million, which it seems unlikely Holliday will get, you’re still about 20 million under last years payroll aren’t you? Nevermind that some of those guys, i’m looking at you sullivan and reed, should just plain be non-tendered.

by Gina on Dec 10, 2009 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure...

The Mets’ page on Cot’s says $149 mil, but the spreadsheet for 2009 says $139 mil. Strange.

"For $11.4 million you can actually get a good player. But of course this is one of the things foolish organizations do: They complain that they can't afford good players after spending millions of dollars on not-good players." --Rob Neyer

by boom_roasted on Dec 10, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I thought we were at 139

But everyone always says we had a 150 million dollar payroll so I wasn’t sure. Does the spreadsheet have Wagner? Also I imagine some players added during the season/incentives met in some contracts might have made up some of the difference, just not 10 million dollars worth.

by Gina on Dec 10, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The 139 includes Wagner's full salary...

So it’s actually about 136, I think.

The 150 may refer to the Mets’ luxury tax obligation. For luxury tax purposes, the MLB uses average salary per year, not what is actually paid that year.

by boom_roasted on Dec 10, 2009 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See I thought with the lt obligation

we were right at the border for the tax, wasn’t the threshold like 160 last year? I remember a lot of people claiming that’s why we weren’t going to spend more because we were right against the threshold.

by Gina on Dec 10, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The 150 include's Sheffield's $14 million salary

but the Tigers picked that up

"I see the job in bigger terms. Paperwork, that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?"

by Evan_S on Dec 11, 2009 2:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well then my question is

If they were more than 10 million away from the luxury threshold why were they claiming they couldn’t meet Abreu’s whopping demand of 3 million.

by Gina on Dec 11, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Death is not an option?

Piniero. There’s a better chance of him repeating or even coming close to repeating his 2009.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Dec 10, 2009 1:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Neither

Both suck. I honestly would not even waste my time with these two jabronis. I guess I would rather have Piniero because of the 2 seamer he developed in STL, but I wouldn’t give him a multi year deal and I wouldn’t give him more than 4 mil probably. So obviously I wouldn’t be in on him. He’s decent back of the rotation guy but relying on him to be a stopper or an anchor is a disaster waiting to happen. Trade for Aaron Harang or maybe Bronson Arroyo and sign Ben Sheets and Erik Bedard/Justin Duchscherer to incentive laden deals.

by CTzFinest on Dec 10, 2009 1:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I don't really want either

Piniero would be okay I guess, as long as the defense gets a major facelift. I don’t care how great your GB% is, if that many balls get put in play with a crappy defense, the results won’t be pretty. No thanks on Marquis. Where’s Aroldis Chapman. He’s supposed to be the market’s wild card, but news has been slow. If his price tag falls enough, I want. Maybe he’s the best high risk type guy to pair with a lower risk/lower quality guy as was discussed in the Harden thread. Especially since he’ll have options, so you can stash him in the minors if he’s not immediately successful and you can hold onto Maine and have a depth chart like: Santana, Pelfrey, Piniero, Maine, Perez, Chapman Niese. There’s some risk there, but Chapman and Niese give you depth with upside.

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

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 10, 2009 2:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Piniero

More upside.

by Brittannia on Dec 10, 2009 3:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Marquis, and it's not close.

He’ll be significantly cheaper, and we won’t have to watch Dave Duncan’s magic pitching pixie dust fail to make the trip east as Piniero’s ERA rockets past 5 again.

Marquis has the better track record. The Mutts don’t need upside with the lesser of their 2 SP acquisitions, they need 190+ innings of league average or better pitching.

Though I guess if we’re adding Bengie Molina and (name of godawful overpriced vet here) then Piniero does make a certain kind of sense, since he has a 1 in a hundred shot of winning 20 while Marquis doesn’t. It’s like being in an elevator in free fall. You might as well guess when it’s going to crash, then time your jump for the microsecond before that. What do you have to lose?

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 10, 2009 5:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

jumping doesn't help

you hit the ground exactly as hard as you would have if you just stood there because any kinetic energy that went into your jump will be returned to you free of charge when you get to the top of that jump and start falling again. Cursed laws of physics!

by KeithsMoustache on Dec 10, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well, that was kinda my point, in that it really won't help

though it might make someone feel a little better (for a split second or so).

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 10, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

technically its a few more seconds living with the knowledge you're going to splatter

the question becomes are those seconds really much of a bonus.

by KeithsMoustache on Dec 10, 2009 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Marquis is terrible

Pineiro at least may have become decent. So I say come hither Joel.

by deadspy3 on Dec 10, 2009 9:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pinero

at least his sudden success is linked to a traceable root, his modification of his pitch repertoire to induce more groundballs. Marquis just had a freak good season amongst a career of mediocre seasons and we’re supposed to be impressed. I feel like Pinero has more hope to sustain decent numbers than Marquis does. Both are terrible choices with Castillo at 2b however since they both

by KeithsMoustache on Dec 10, 2009 10:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

since they both are groundballers*

by KeithsMoustache on Dec 10, 2009 10:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not impressed w Marquis,

I just think he’s one of the things the Mets need. At the right price he’s a useful supporting part on a championship club.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 10, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sure ignoring other available talent marquis wouldnt be a bad guy to have

if he weren’t likely to leverage his outlier numbers from this season to get a better contract than he deserves. But i’d rather have the pitcher who showed marked improvement because of a real change than the mediocre guy i’m gonna have to pay the same amount of money even though his odds of repeating his good season are very low.

by KeithsMoustache on Dec 10, 2009 11:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs