The Future of the Mets' Starting Rotation

by englishgrey on Dec 15, 2009 12:49 PM EST

While it seems every other major market team is making big moves this offseason (Yanks, Red Sox, Phillies, Mariners, Rangers), the Mets have done pretty much nothing but sign backup catchers. This has led to some moaning among Mets fans, but as James pointed out earlier today, the Mets can still significantly upgrade their roster by signing and/or acquiring some of the remaining free agents and trade candidates on the market. Combine a Sheets signing, a Holliday signing, and an acquisition of Harang to a healthy Mets roster, and all of a sudden the Mets look like contenders.

Unfortunately, I have little faith that Omar will sign and/or acquire two solid starting pitchers during the offseason. The Mets currently have four pitchers on their roster penciled into the starting rotation: Santana, Pelfrey, Maine, and Perez. That leaves room for one more pitcher. Thus, the Mets have two options:

1) Sign an injury-prone pitcher like Bedard, Sheets, or Duchscherer to a major-league contract. To hedge the risk of signing one of these pitchers, also offer minor-league deals to formerly successful starting pitchers looking to make a comeback.

2) SIgn or acquire a reliable starting pitcher to take the last empty spot in the rotation.

In Scenario 1, the Mets would sign one of the three high-reward, high-risk free agents, and probably pair that signing with additional signings of low-cost starting pitchers that can be placed in Triple-A. Potential candidates include Chien-Ming Wang, Noah Lowry, Daniel Cabrera, Rich Hill, or any other pitcher that would be willing to sign a non-guaranteed, one-year deal and pitch in Triple-A. Niese and Figueroa would provide additional insurance in Buffalo.

In Scenario 2, the Mets would sign or trade for a starting pitcher who has consistently thrown 200+ innings while performing at or above league average. Potential candidates include Joel Pineiro, Aaron Harang, Doug Davis, John Garland, Jason Marquis, etc.

Why can't the Mets follow both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2? Because that would require the Mets' front office to be creative, and the Mets' front office is not creative. Signing both an injury-prone pitcher and a more reliable starting pitcher to a major league deal would require the Mets to place more than five starters with major-league contracts on their 25-man roster, which means one of those pitchers would have to move to the bullpen. Unfortunately, I don't think the Mets are willing to place any of their current starting pitchers in the bullpen. Perez would be a nightmare as a reliever used in high-leverage situations, and the Mets are not likely to send him to the bullpen to collect $12 million dollars for mop-up duty. Maine has the potential to be a good reliever, as he has an ability to induce swinging strikes when his fastball is working. But if healthy, he would certainly be more valuable as a starter. Plus, Maine is one of "their guys," a starter on the team since 2006. And let's not forget how Minaya refused to allow Heilman to even step foot in the rotation after establishing himself as a decent reliever. Moving a player from the bullpen to the rotation, or vice-versa, is not something Minaya is prone to do.

Thus, despite the potential for the Mets to place the likes of Harang and Sheets in their rotation, I am not optimistic that such a significant upgrade to the rotation will occur. My prediction: the Mets sign Pineiro, Garland, or Marquis, and Niese eventually replaces either Maine or Perez in the rotation (whichever one gets injured first).

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 67 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It...depends.

The worse the Mets bungle this offseason the more they need TWO high risk high upside guys for the rotation.

Whereas, if they add Holliday and improve first base then there’s significantly less need to gamble with the rotation.

With no starters in AAA who are favorites to crack the rotation in 2010, and with no real shot at making the postseason, in most scenarios its pointless for the Mets to gamble on the rotation this year—UNLESS—that gamble is on an incentive laden contract for someone like Sheets that also gives the Mets a club option for 2011. That’s what we’re really playing for now. For Minaya, who cannot turn this club around, to get fired, and for a new GM to right the ship in 2011. So much the better if that GM has a $10m option on a guy like Sheets.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 15, 2009 6:31 PM EST reply actions

I don't know

I’m much more concerned about the rotation than the offense. The Mets look like they’ll add at least one decent bat, and full, healthy seasons from Reyes, Wright, and Beltran will help.

The rotation, on the other hand, is full of question marks after Santana. I’m not confident Omar is creative enough to fix that problem this season. Still, I believe the rotation can perform well enough in 2010 to make it possible for the Mets to contend. If Maine, Perez, and Pelf improve on down years, yhe rotation should be decent.

by englishgrey on Dec 15, 2009 9:02 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

That is, they need two high risk high upside guys

IF they plan to compete in 2010.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 15, 2009 6:32 PM EST reply actions

I disagree

I think they can “compete”, at least for a play-off spot with the team they have now IF Johan bounces back and Reyes and Beltran come back healthy.

by Gina on Dec 15, 2009 7:02 PM EST up reply actions

that is 3 big IFs

you know what I'm sayin' ?

by fxcarden on Dec 15, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions

Not enough, I don't believe, even conceeding your point.

RF, 1b, and 2b are likely to be well below average for the position. Our 3bman suffered a serious brain injury and his worst year in five. Our SS barely played, his game is built around speed, around quickness, and he had a serious injury to his legs. We have no real catcher, yet, and when you factor in baserunning, defense, and preditable age related decline the likeliest pickup has a WAR around zero. Even if Beltran, Wright, and Reyes come back at about 90%, those four holes I noted cancel out the big three on offesnse. Did I mention our current LFer has put in one above average season in his career?

After Santana the rotation is nothing but “ifs”. (Did I mention Santana is also an “if”?)

This is a teams whose offensive upside is league average, and whose pitching staff is a shambles. With good health this is an 80 win team as currently constructed.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 15, 2009 11:46 PM EST up reply actions

RF 1b and 2b

have been well below average for a few years. A team full of just average players will win upwards of 80 games. A team full of replacement players would win like 50 I think. So when you have players as far above average as Beltran, Reyes, wright and Santana, you can probably win 80 games with just replacement players around them, and since most of even our awful players will likely be closer to average than replacement it’s entirely possible to win 90 games, though that may be on the high side and 85 games may be much more likely.

by Gina on Dec 15, 2009 11:50 PM EST up reply actions

You left out pitching, though. It's a thoroughgoing mess.

As for RF, 1b, and 2b, Castillo was good in 2007, Delgado was a 3 WAR player in 2008. Tatis in LF and Church in RF were acceptable (and surely not well below average) in 2008. Francouer (!) put up a 120 OPS+ in 308 PAs in 2009. That’s actually good.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 16, 2009 12:01 AM EST up reply actions

As for you other comments, without predisposition,

a team solely of replacement level players will win 48.6 games (30% of 162).
To win 90 games

let’s say of your big 4, in WAR

Wright 5.0
Reyes 4.5
Beltran 5.5
Santana 3.5

That’s a total of 18.5 WAR. Those four stars surrounded by replacement players will win 18.5 + 48.6 = 67 games. I honestly think it’s a lot harder to get to 80 wins when your stars are surrounded by dreck than you think it is.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 16, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions

omit "To win 90 games" please.

That was another post.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 16, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions

For the Mets to get to 90 wins

and therefore have a shot at the postseason they need to add 23 wins to their core of four.

We’d have to make up 23 games through the remaining 21 players. 4 of those are starting pitchers, 5 of those are starting position players, 7 are relievers, and 5 more are bench guys. If your bench gets you two wins, your relievers get you two wins, and your starters get you one win each (not great but certainly not replacement level), your five position players need to bring in another 15 wins. 3 WAR players are very good players. Jason Bay is a 3 WAR player. We may not like him for the Mets, but the Red Sox thought he was worth 4/60.

It will be very, very tough imo for these Mets to build a 90 win team with what is left of the offseason.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 16, 2009 12:11 AM EST up reply actions

Well I think our stars will be worth more than what you have

And I shouldn’t have said with just replacement players, I meant more below average not 0 exactly.

Also our rotation was pretty much a mess in 08 too.

by Gina on Dec 16, 2009 12:09 AM EST up reply actions

That Santana WAR seems awfully conservative, yeah.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 16, 2009 12:11 AM EST up reply actions

It seems it

But I can completely understand it. I think(hope) Santana was affected by an injury last year but his peripheals have been trending down, even before last year.

by Gina on Dec 16, 2009 12:14 AM EST up reply actions

So go ahead and add one WAR to each player.

4.5 for Santana puts him back almost where he was in 2007 and 2008. Add another WAR for each of your other three stars. You’re still looking at the postseason with a telescope.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 16, 2009 12:14 AM EST up reply actions

So lets just say between those four we get 22.5 wins

you don’t think throughout the other 21 players we can get 17.5 WAR? It’s not a sure thing but the steam should still be competitive and win around 85 games.

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

by Evan_S on Dec 16, 2009 2:45 AM EST up reply actions

That wasn't the condition set out in this thread.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 16, 2009 3:44 AM EST up reply actions

But I strongly suspect you could, or Gina could, or I could add 18 WAR,

but Omar? That’s pushing it.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 16, 2009 4:44 AM EST up reply actions

How would everyone feel

if we went into 2010 with Perez and Maine locked into two rotation spots?

by Gina on Dec 15, 2009 8:01 PM EST reply actions

I'm okay with both to start the season

Maine can still be a valuable pitcher. And Perez…he probably can’t pitch much worse than last year.

If both are on the team, they’ll be starting. Perhaps the solution is including Maine or Pelfrey in a trade for a starting pitcher and then signing someone like Sheets.

by englishgrey on Dec 15, 2009 8:47 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

To me a guy with as much injury risk as Maine at this point

would have to have upside like Bedard or Harden for me to be okay with him being plan A for a spot in the rotation. As far as Ollie well, i guess we’re stuck with him.

by Gina on Dec 15, 2009 8:50 PM EST up reply actions

I'm thinking Maine has some trade value

if paired with a decent prospect or two. Especially if a team is trying to dump a pitcher with a high salary. Harang and Meche come to mind…

by englishgrey on Dec 15, 2009 9:07 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

Maine as trade bait is interesting

But I don’t think I’d be willing to part with a decent prospect for either of those guys. Meche because he comes with way too many injury risks to go along with his salary, and Harang because his salary is so high and the Reds pretty much have to trade him.

by Gina on Dec 15, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions

what about Maine and like a B-level prospect for Harangatang

someone like Nieuenheis (sp?) or Gee or someone of that level? I think I’d make that trade – and I love Maine

"[The Giants] beat us down. We were beat by a grown-man team, a team we want to be like one day. They came in here and took it to us. Out-manned us, out-gunned us. ... It wasn't even close." - Raheem Morris, 9/27/09

by cjmulrain on Dec 17, 2009 2:04 AM EST up reply actions

I would do Maine and Gee in a second

But I really expect Nieuwenhuis to break out next season.

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

by Evan_S on Dec 17, 2009 2:32 AM EST up reply actions

I'd prefer to hold onto Nieuwenhuis as well

also we need a shorter nickname for that guy, his name is too difficult to spell

by KeithsMoustache on Dec 17, 2009 11:17 AM EST up reply actions

I suggest we call him "Shatner"

You know . . . “Kirk” . . . etc.

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Dec 17, 2009 11:26 AM EST up reply actions

Depends on how he develops. His ceiling is Admiral Kirk and he could end up as a Red Shirt.

by Michkin on Dec 17, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions

haha, lets hope he's not a redshirt

by KeithsMoustache on Dec 17, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions

I've always called him Captain Kirk

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

by squid92 on Dec 17, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions

Nieuwnie

pronounced Noonie.

douchion = -(grission)

by HoJoHeff on Dec 17, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions

nanu nanu

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

by squid92 on Dec 17, 2009 4:34 PM EST up reply actions

blargh

One at the most. Maybe two if and only if we had some more backup than just Niese/Figueroa.

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

by squid92 on Dec 15, 2009 10:23 PM EST up reply actions

That's punting the season.

Both have to rebuild arm strength. Both have had disastrous seasons. There’s no reason to believe they’ll come back. No playoff contender locks injured pitchers who were bad or gone last year into rotation spots.

Don’t do it Gina!!! :)

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 15, 2009 11:48 PM EST up reply actions

Oh I agree

but at this point I fear it’s possible.

by Gina on Dec 15, 2009 11:51 PM EST up reply actions

A little dramatic.

Most teams have to deal with players coming back from injury or underperforming relative to their contract.

And Maine isn’t even such a bad player to have. He’s cheap and his performance will probably be worth more than his salary if he’s even somewhat healthy.

Perez is an albratross, but there’s nothing to do put throw him into the rotation and hope for the best.

by englishgrey on Dec 16, 2009 12:37 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

Yeah but not being a bad player to have

doesn’t mean he should be counted on to basically be our number 3 pitcher.

by Gina on Dec 16, 2009 12:50 AM EST up reply actions

Sure there is (something you can do). Sign two good starters. What are we, the Royals?

If you think it’s “a little dramatic” to think we’re punting the season by going into it with a rotation that averaged 105 innings per starter I’d hate to think what you’d consider a crisis.

Where, of all 30 MLB teams, do you think the Mets stand in terms of total innings by a team’s five best starters?

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 16, 2009 3:47 AM EST up reply actions

I guess I just don't agree with your analysis

First, I don’t think Perez will be nearly as bad as he was last season. His walk and HR rates really exploded in 2009. It’s not unreasonable to expect Perez to perform somewhere between his 2007 and 2008 seasons, which in about a 1.5 WAR performance. Is that ideal? No. But they’re paying him $12 million dollars, so he’s going to be given an opportunity to pitch in the rotation.

Maine, as well, is capable of producing a 1.5 – 2 WAR season if he stays healthy. If the Mets could sign two more reliable, better performing pitchers to decent contracts, then I’d be fine with Maine losing his rotation spot and going to the bullpen. But as I wrote in my post, I don’t think that’s an option.

In terms of innings pitched, last year was flukey. Four of the Mets’ five pitchers suffered serious injuries. That’s not going to happen again this year.

by englishgrey on Dec 16, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions

The problem is Maine's ability to say healthy is a major question

Peterson apparently had him on a special schedule because his motion makes him susceptible to injuries, so the fact that he’s gotten injured 2 years in a row really wasn’t just chance.

And are we sure Ollie was injured and they weren’t just making up an excuse to send him down cause he was so bad?

by Gina on Dec 16, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions

I agree about Maine

His health is a major question mark. Does that mean you pencil him out of the rotation? I think there are arguments on both sides. But knowing that the Mets have to sign an LF, a catcher, and at least one starting pitcher, it seems unlikely that the Mets can afford to sign someone to replace Maine in the rotation.

I don’t think Ollie was truly injured last year, at least not initially. I’m not that concerned about his health. The bigger question is whether he remembers how to pitch like a league average pitcher. That’s all we really need from him.

by englishgrey on Dec 16, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions

I think if you want to contend

you can’t have someone with the injury risks of maine, who doesn’t at least have higher upside than a healthy maine, pencilled in as a plan A. Not when it’s entirely possible your 5th, or at best 6th starter, is going to be a rookie coming off a season ending injury. To me if they want to contend than at worse Ollie and Maine should be pencilled in as the 4th and 5th starter, and they should at least have someone competing with Maine for that 5th spot, someone other than Niese.

by Gina on Dec 16, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions

"Why can't the Mets follow both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2?"

I don’t remember who said it, but someone said that Omar basically concentrates real hard at one thing at a time, neglecting other stuff. There you go.

The 2010 starting rotation doesn’t look very good. The only real guy you can count on is Santana. Pelfrey? Reyes being at short will help defensively, but he has plenty of stuff to figure out. Maine? When he’s healthy, he can be effective, but he needs to stay healthy. Perez? He’s Oliver Perez, enough said. And our fifth starter? We don’t have one right this second. So…

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 15, 2009 10:21 PM EST reply actions

Yeah it doesn't make any sense

While we’re so focused on Bay, and apparently Molina, all the smart pitching deals happened, and now we’re left with poo, and a gm who is apparently perplexed by the pitching market.

by Gina on Dec 15, 2009 10:26 PM EST up reply actions

I agree

that Omar has not been aggressive enough on the pitchers’s market, but I’m glad that the Mets missed out on Lackey if a five-year deal was necessary to land him.

by englishgrey on Dec 15, 2009 11:17 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

oh yeah I don't mind missing out on lackey

i mean more harden, wolf, penny possibly trading for millwood.

by Gina on Dec 15, 2009 11:23 PM EST up reply actions

Interesting, though, that it was a smart club like the Red Sox that signed him.

Did his negotiations include a fresh MRI? I’d think it would have to given the money involved—is there anyone who posts here who is familiar with the medical side of contracts?

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 15, 2009 11:50 PM EST up reply actions

Well the Red Sox can afford to overpay

they have way more payroll flexibility than us with all the young players they have. They’re payroll was only 120 last season and they can support well more. So getting saddled with Lackey in the late years of his contract likely won’t hurt them as much as it would hurt us since they’re fairly consistently producing cheap players.

by Gina on Dec 15, 2009 11:52 PM EST up reply actions

Interesting decision by them. They're a good enough club that you'd think

they’d go for solid players at this point in order to take out insurance on winning the wild card spot rather than signing expensive, older pitchers to long contracts.

Aren’t they now up in luxury tax territory? They really haven’t dumped any salary, they’ve added Cameron and Lackey at around 25m, are looking to add Beltre for something like 4/40, and their young players are due for raises.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 16, 2009 3:51 AM EST up reply actions

They're no where near lt territory

They’re payroll was only 120 last year, they’re in the process of dumping Lowell, but even if they don’t dump lowel with the lt moving up to 172, I believe it might be higher they’re sill some 20 million under it.

by Gina on Dec 16, 2009 11:25 AM EST up reply actions

actually

This post at Circling the Bases suggests the Red Sox are really close to passing the luxury tax threshold. Apparently signing Lackey, Cameron, and Scutaro and the average annual salaries of Lester, Youk, and Pedroia (which are higher than their current salaries) have pushed their payroll for luxury tax purposes to $168 million, about $2 million shy of the threshold.

by englishgrey on Dec 16, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions

I totally forgot about Scutaro

But if they can get the Lowell trade completed that will shed about 12 million. Plus going a little over the tax isn’t a huge deal since you’re taxed based on how much you go over, rather than just being fixed tax for going over.

by Gina on Dec 16, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions

I heard the RSox would be paying about 3/4 or Lowell's salary.

Does that mean that amount still counts towards the luxury tax even though he’s off the team. I think it does but I’m no expert on this.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 17, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions

That's a really good question

I have absolutely no idea.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 17, 2009 9:25 PM EST up reply actions

Yep

I know what you mean about Omar. Just the other day, I read on Metsblog that Omar had interest in Lackey, but was concentrating at the moment on Bay.

Theo Epstein signed Lackey AND Cameron on the same day. That must have blown Omar’s mind.

by englishgrey on Dec 15, 2009 11:12 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

But... but... but... they're two different players!!!

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 15, 2009 11:51 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe he thinks it's against the rules or something?

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 16, 2009 12:03 AM EST up reply actions

I generally agree with you,

but I’ve noticed a lot of people simply assume Santana is going to revert to his 2007-2008 form. This is the second surgery he’s had on that elbow. That’s not good.

We also owe him almost one hundred million dollars over the next four years. That’s also not good.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 16, 2009 12:16 AM EST up reply actions

Shh

lets not talk about it. there’s enough things for us to be depressed about.

by Gina on Dec 16, 2009 12:18 AM EST up reply actions

Sigh

okay. It’s just… like… oh, the pain.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 16, 2009 2:27 AM EST up reply actions

Oh what about Chapman?

I haven’t seen him mentioned in any of these recent pitcher threads. Too expensive for the mets tastes? He is latin though, but he’s also not in his mid 30s, so who knows.

by Gina on Dec 16, 2009 1:44 AM EST reply actions

I'd take a gamble on him. I wouldn't throw ungodly sums of money at him, though.

He’s a moderate-risk (the money), high-reward type of guy, seemingly.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 16, 2009 9:59 AM EST up reply actions

Don't see it happening

Omar’s still trying to figure out what hell is going on this offseason. He can’t decide between Bay or Holliday. I doubt he has the mental dexterity to even consider spending $15-20 million on a pitcher who may not even contribute to the team in 2011.

by englishgrey on Dec 16, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions