Updating the 'Diamonds in the Rough'
by Rob Castellano on Feb 6, 2010 10:31 AM EST
Email
PrintYou may remember the Diamonds in the Rough piece last fall where we looked at potential 'under the radar steals of typically cheap, young pitchers that for whatever reason become available.' Just wanted to update a couple of interesting turns with a few of them:
Francisco Liriano (MIN) - His career looked doomed to be synonymous w/ the phrase "what could have been". But 49 IP, a 0.80 ERA, an 11+ K/9 & only 5 BB's later and scouts have taken notice of his work in the DWL; and it isn't just the results but the re-emergence of that electric stuff. Unfortunately, it sounds like the Twins are excited to see him this spring but hey, it couldn't hurt to see if they'd like to cash out now that Liriano's value is back out of the cellar, in case they feel this is all a Winter League-induced mirage especially with arbitration years about to kick in.
Dana Eveland (OAK) - On a much more realistic note, Eveland was recently DFA'd by the A's. Apparently they were frustrated w/ his poor results in '09, but that .335 BABIP certainly didn't help him. Command is a real concern with him and conditioning has always been an issue but who are we to turn down a lefty former top prospect w/ decent stuff, a track record of success in Triple-A and a decent season in the majors (4.09 FIP in 168 IP in 2008) under his belt, all for peanuts?
Sean Marshall (CHC) - Where exactly does he fit in with the Cubs? The recent acquisitions of Tom Gorzelanny and Carlos Silva into an already crowded rotation likely drop him out of the starting picture. In the pen, he's effectively a LOOGY (.800+ OPS v. righties in '09) yet in that same Gorzelanny trade, the Cubs acquired John Grabow to take hold of the LOOGY role; meanwhile lefty relief prospect John Gaub dominated lefties at Triple-A in '09 and looks ready. To further complicate matters, Marshall recently avoided arbitration by agreeing to about a $1M salary for 2010 which seems a hefty sum for a 2nd-3rd string LOOGY. Also, he's out of options. Seems like trading conditions are ripe for a guy whose previous numbers indicate he can likely provide decent results at the back-end of a rotation.
Joe Martinez (SF) - Martinez sounds eerily similar to our very own Nelson Figueroa: RHP out of the tri-state area, low draft pick, solid results in the minors, low velocity but very good curve and excellent command, made his major league debut at age 26, regularly passed over within own org. by prospects, FA's, etc. Also like Figgy, Martinez looks like he'll be familiar with the shuttle between Triple-A and the show, as injury depth. Problem is, as the 7th-8th SP option in an organization known for it's young pitching depth, there isn't much margin for error. So his recent AFL performance (where he posted a 6.08 ERA facing hitters 5-7 yrs his junior) has some thinking Martinez's days in the Bay Area may be numbered. But with a league min. salary and a couple option years left, the guy has value.
And last but certainly not least, Glen Perkins caught this fish.
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.
76 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Fausto Carmona would fit right in here, and I could see him being very available.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 6, 2010 10:57 AM EST reply actions
yeah i thought of him originally
cause the tribe would DEFINITELY deal him but he makes quite a bit more compared to everyone on this list ($6.1M in 2011 w/ the potential to build up to $12M by 2014, though that’s based on club options) so i decided not to include him as he would represent more of a salary dump than an underrated/overlooked starter.
in fact, now that i’ve searched to see if we had a potential salary dumps list this winter, not only have i found one, it’s by you!
by Rob Castellano on Feb 6, 2010 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
That one actually turned out pretty close.
I still can’t believe Blanton got a 3 year deal from the Phillies though.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 6, 2010 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
What's Carmona's appeal?
Carmona’s still just 26, I guess, but the guy has a negative K/BB ratio over the last two years with the Indians, with FIPs around 5. Last year, he was as bad as any starter not named Oliver Perez and his fastball, which he threw 72 percent of the time, was maybe the least useful pitch any starter threw last year (Fangraphs has it at -35.6 runs below average). Also, to avoid the false hustle stigma, I should say I also saw him pitch a couple times last year (it was for work, not pleasure) and he looked totally lost. I’m asking this honestly, not to be a jerk, but am I missing something here, besides the vaguest promise of upside?
Here's some interesting reading...
Here. Using the pitch f/x tool found here, you can see that his pitches still have all of the movement that they had during his breakout seson. What seems to be the issue now is that batters are laying off of his pitches outside of the strikezone, and Carmona has struggled to adjust and look to hrow strikes and have the ball put in play. His stuff seems to be good enough that he could be a very effective pitcher if he just went after hitters more aggresively and trusted that his groundball tendencies would allow him to work in the strikezone.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 6, 2010 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
As to his appeal, I'd guess the Mets could get him for basically nothing at this point beyond taking his contract.
He’s certainly a higher upside option than Looper or Wellenmeyer.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 6, 2010 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
the upside may be there
but how great is it? how long will it take to realize? and how many major league innings should the guy be allowed to throw while he figures it all out?
by inventor frank on Feb 6, 2010 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
And how much money is he owed overall?
And what are the odds our coaches could fix anyone? Plus if we can’t fix him is taking on the money he owed going to prevent us from bringing in any other pitchers? Since they don’t seem to be very eager to eat contracts.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
I haven't advocated trading for him.
I just said he could be a possible diamond in the rough type that could fit into this list.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 6, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
He made just under $3 million last year
By comparison, Eveland made $410,000. I don’t know what either of them is due for this year, but that’s a huge difference for similar potential.
The stuff is quite a bit different though.
Eveland has pretty decent stuff, but Carmona’s combination of movement and velocity is about as good as it gets. At 4.9 and 6.1 he could still easily be a buy low type of guy, even though he costs more than Eveland. Eveland is probably off the market anyway, as he got traded about an hour ago.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 6, 2010 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
the issue w/ carmona
his stuff is actually too good. except for a nice second half, he’s never shown the ability to command that exceptional movement. he’s one of those guys like carlos marmol where he just can’t consistently control the movement or throw it for strikes. and when hitters realized you could just stop swinging, carmona was screwed. even his one good season in 2007 was quite lucky (3.08 ERA : 3.94 FIP). while his ceiling is far higher than anyone on this list, his floor is lower and the chances he’ll ever be average are probably lower.
by Rob Castellano on Feb 6, 2010 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
but there's a moderately high risk
involved with Carmona cause of his contract and as we know the Mets are clearly steering away from financial obligations for risky players.
However, we do know that they will take a risk on a low investment guy like Wellemeyer who frankly to me may have as high a ceiling as Carmona. I’ll give you another low risk – high reward pitcher very much available now – Joaquin Benoit. Why aren’t the Mets all over him????
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 6, 2010 11:46 PM EST up reply actions
Do you really think Wellenmeyer has as high a ceiling as
Carmona? I don’t think Wellenmeyer has much of a chance to even be better than Niese/Figgy.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
is every pitcher in StL
a Duncan creation? Eventually a pitcher will succeed outside StL and people will conclude that that particular guy can actually pitch. Maybe in Wellemeyer’s case, his elbow issues held him back in ’09…. idk, just maybe…
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 7, 2010 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know anything about him being a Duncan creation or not
I just know his peripherals have been consistently bad for like the last 4 years.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
not true
Wellemeyer’s peripherals in StL in 07 and 08 were pretty solid for a mid to back end guy and also had pretty decent minor league numbers. I think he’s young enough not to write off especially since we’re talking about a very low investment.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 7, 2010 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
His 4.54 BB/9 in 2007 was pretty solid?
Or was it his 40% GB rate? He was pretty awful in 2007 as his 5.16 FIP would indicate. If anything his BB/9 of 2.91 in 2008 indicates that it was a fluke, as it’s the only year in his career he was under 4.19. His K/9 have been in decline steadily since 2004, and now sit at below average.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 7, 2010 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
whether you're right or not,
what’s the risk here?
and again, why not roll the dice on Benoit??
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 7, 2010 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
The risk is
the mets bring him in, he’s mediocre, but they keep sending him out there over Niese/Figgy because they’re the mets and they do things that don’t make sense.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
hey, I'm a believer in Figgy, so I'm not talking about
Wellemeyer to be handed anything. I’m talking about adding depth cause right now the depth the team is counting on has thrown very few ML innings.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 7, 2010 6:12 PM EST up reply actions
I'm all for depth, but Wellenmeyer is the type of guy that shouldn't get more than a minor league deal.
If Omar wants to bring a bunch of pitchers like that to spring training, great. Just don’t guarantee any money to Wellenmeyer when there are plenty of other bad pitchers out there willing to take minor league deals.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 7, 2010 7:12 PM EST up reply actions
are you denying that the guy was good in '08?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 7, 2010 7:19 PM EST up reply actions
He wasn't good in 2008.
He had a 4.51 FIP, a 4.49 xFIP, and was worth 1.6 WAR. Over the 6 other seasons in his major league career he’s been worth a combined -0.5 WAR. 2008 looked good compared to that colection of suck, but it was less valuable than Livan was to the Mets in 2/3 of a season last year (1.7 WAR). He wasn’t good in 2008, he just didn’t suck as bad as he did for the rest of his career.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 7, 2010 7:29 PM EST up reply actions
There's no real reason to sign Wellemeyer, though.
Looking at his stats, I don’t see anything that makes me think he might get better. His BB rate in the majors has always been bad, except for 2008. Maybe he’s just a guy who can’t make the adjustment from the minors to the majors.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Feb 7, 2010 6:17 PM EST up reply actions
and btw I specifically referred to his StL stint in 2007...
in which his era was 3.11 in 63 IP with just 52 hits allowed and 51/29 K/BB ratio. Maybe he’s a Duncan phenomenon but maybe Duncan simply made him a better pitcher than he showed in the majors prior to that. the fact is that his minor league peripherals weren’t bad…
I feel that as 4th or 5th starter insurance he’s worth the risk to hand a minor league deal to.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 7, 2010 6:10 PM EST up reply actions
His minor league peripherals were just as bad.
He always had pretty terrible walk rates, and his strikeout rates were right in line with his early major league numbers (which have dropped off considerably as he’s aged). He’s got a career Whip of over 1.4 in the minors. I really don’t see what upside he could possibly have…I think Figgy and Niese are clearly better pitchers than him at this point.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 7, 2010 7:18 PM EST up reply actions
it's entirely possible that his 08 was a fluke, but
what’s the harm in seeing if that’s the case or not if his elbow is now sound?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 7, 2010 7:21 PM EST up reply actions
Nobody is saying they'd be upset about signing him to a minor league deal.
This Wellemeyer discussion started because you suggested he’s got as much upside as Fausto Carmona, which there really is no evidence to support.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 7, 2010 7:33 PM EST up reply actions
how does Carmona have such upside?
the dude had a good year 3 years ago but has been trash since. He’s about as reliable as Ollie Perez and how many OP’s does a team need? The bigger point is that there’s no way this Met team (much less any team at all) is going to pick up his contract after the past 2 seasons he’s had. Moreover, projections for him are just a shade better than the ones I’ve seen for Wellemeyer who will cost peanuts to sign.
If the Tribe were to release Carmona that would be a different story perhaps. So I don’t even know why we’re discussing FC…
Again, Benoit?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 8, 2010 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
Just check out his Pitch F/X data to see his upside.
All Carmona realley needs to learn to do is throw strike one and let his 61.7% career ground ball rate do the work for him. That’s a higher percentage than Piniero had last year. That’s upside, and that’s why he still posts positive WAR values despite walking everybody.
The reason Carmona got brought up is because this is a post about possible diamonds in the rough, and Carmona’s pitch movement and GB% certainly make him worth discussing.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 8, 2010 8:50 AM EST up reply actions
the Diamond in the rough concept is difficult to grasp but I'm trying...
but even if you can make a case for Carmona, his contract makes him undesirable… not sure why you aren’t acknowledging that.
But wrt the comparison, while Wellemeyer is far more of a FB pitcher we already have a pretty good idea that FB pitchers can succeed at Citi. Moreover, Wellemeyer misses more bats than Carmona does and like you said regarding Carmona that “all he needs to do is throw strike 1…”, well assuming he’s healthy, all Wellemeyer needs to do is cut down on his BBs…
Again, this conversation has to have context…. and the context is that there are prob no “difference makers” available at the moment, so we’re left looking at potential arms that could provide depth and be possible “values” based on their respective costs…
and that’s why I brought up Wellemeyer and Benoit. and also that’s it’s become very clear that the Mets aren’t going to be spending anywhere near Carmona money to bring in another big risk.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 8, 2010 10:15 AM EST up reply actions
His contract (which really isn't that large) should make him very easily attainable, which is why I'd likely include him in the post.
All Omar would likely have to do to get him is take on the 11 million owed to him over the next two season. When he’s limited his walks, he’s had a season where he was worth over 4 wins, so we know the potential to be very good is there.
Wellemeyer doesn’t have that upside. The one season where he has managed to limit his walks he was still a below average starter. Nothing he has ever shown indicates he could be even an average ML starter (incluing 2008). Benoit may be a decent bet, but this post seems to be focusing on starters (as does our discussion), so I can understand leaving him out.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 8, 2010 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
$11M may have
been a nut the pre-2010 Mets may have considered taking on, but what gives you the idea they’d even entertain a passing thought on this one especially since Ollie Perez has been good more recently than Carmona has?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 8, 2010 10:53 AM EST up reply actions
Once again, this isn't a post about guys that fit into the budget of the Mets or who Omar may have interest in pursuing.
It is a post about young high upside pitchers who may be easily attainable. I really don’t understand how that concept is so difficult to grasp.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 8, 2010 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
Your post just above...
“His contract (which really isn’t that large) should make him very easily attainable, which is why I’d likely include him in the post.
All Omar would likely have to do to get him is take on the 11 million owed to him over the next two season."
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 8, 2010 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
Do you even read what you're quoting? The last 10 words summed it up.
“which is why I’d like to see him included in the post” doesn’t say anything implying that Omar should or would consider him. It actually seems to be saying that I feel he might be a possible diamond in the rough.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 8, 2010 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
Hey Schmidtzie
the very 1st post (yours) suggests Carmona could be very available and would fit right in here.
if this doesn’t strongly imply that the Mets should consider him, then I guess I’ll need to take some English re-fresher courses…
how utterly foolish of me to respond to the suggestion with some reality based logic.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 8, 2010 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
Better sign up for those courses.
“Fausto Carmona would fit right in here” was referring to this post as I’ve stated over and over to you. “I can see him being very much available” is implying that he’d fit the criteria of a guy who could be had, not just for the Mets but for any team (thus filling the criteria for a diamond in the rough type). “I wasn’t advocating trading for him” and “I just said he’s a possible diamond in the rough type that could fit into this list” should have cleared up any confusion about the argument I was trying to make. You’re trying to create the impression that I’m arguing for something that I’m clearly not (and have repeatedly stated as such). It’s one thing if you’re confused, but stop pretending I’ve been saying something I haven’t.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 8, 2010 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
your words below. Did I put those in your mouth?
“All Omar would likely have to do to get him is take on the 11 million owed to him over the next two season.”
Geez, remind me never to question anything you say.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 8, 2010 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Did you read the sentence immidiatly proceeding that?
Even if you didn’t all you had to do was read the comment I was responding to.
even if you can make a case for Carmona, his contract makes him undesirable
That was pointing out that his undesireable contract is actually the reason he would fit into this list, as it makes him very easily attainable.
You’re intentionally taking things out of context to try to put words in my mouth, and it’s kind of pathetic. Even if the wording was confusing you at first, I’ve repeatedly said that I’m not arguing for the Mets to trade for him. I don’t know how much more clearly I can put it than that, and if you honestly can’t understand that you really should be taking those reading classes you mentioned.
Every single thing I’ve written has been implying Carmona could be a very easy to attain option for the Mets that has tremendous upside (which is why I think he’s a fit in this post). Never once did I say they should consider him, or imply that I would as GM of the Mets. Now feel free to pick whatever random line you want out of here and make up some random meaning for it.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 8, 2010 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
so what i get from this is
“…I say they should consider him” and “…I would as GM of the Mets”
Sounds like you’re all for signing him!
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 8, 2010 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
"You’re intentionally taking things out of context to try to put words in my mouth..."
oh really?!? now you know what I’m thinking?? that’s a pretty nifty trick.
Ok, you’re saying “could” not “should” evidently… okayyyy….
your post above certainly clears your point up… not…. since you’ve repeatedly posted that the Mets would just have to pick up his contract which isn’t really that big. If that’s what you mean by “Never once did I say they should consider him, or imply that I would as GM of the Mets.” then you’ve really been all over the road in this thread.
and furthermore I’d really suggest that if you don’t want to be perceived as advocating player X for the Mets that you use a word other than “here” if you are referring “to this list” rather than the Mets (opening post).
Listen, I will cop to advocating for Wellemeyer in a place where perhaps that conversation didn’t really belong. But your repeated mention of Carmona being easily attainable gives a strong implication that you mean “attainable for the Mets” whether you think so or not cause I don’t think anyone here cares if Carmona is attainable for the Cubs.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 8, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
I'll say this as clearly as I can...
The fact that he is so easily attainable combined with his upside is why I think he would fit into the category of players listed, and might be worthy of mention in this article. This article is not about guys the Mets should get, but guys who may be able to be had on the cheap that are young and could be valuable parts. Unlike you I’ve actually provided links and statistics to back up what I’m advocating, regardless of whether or not you may agree with it.
The only thing you’ve added to this thread is an other-worldly ability to take single sentences out of context and use them to show your lack of ability to comprehend the english language. Even if you took some of these things to mean something other than I intended originally, you should be able at this point to re-read tham and see how I originally inteded them to be read.
If you don’t think Carmona belongs on this list, why not start by actually providing some facts or reasoning to back up your point of view. You can’t seem to do that though, so you keep trying to find a way to convince yourself that I was actually arguing something else, even though it means selectively reading this thread.
I can do the same type of thing by pulling random sentences out of your comments. When you said “I’ll need to take some English re-fresher courses” you were clearly saying you can’t follow this conversation. That single piece of a sentence clearly indicates that’s exactly what you were implying, regardless of the context in which it was used.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 8, 2010 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
I'm certainly not
going to continue any kind of inane pissing match w/you on an internet message board.
but really… lose the arrogance. it’s unsuitable for a venue like this. we’re just talking baseball.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 8, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
I don't see how my tone is arrogant.
If anything it has been very defensive, which is to be expected when you are taking sentence fragments out of context and telling me I was arguing something I was not. I understand if you didn’t take them to mean what I was intending at first, but when I first clarified what I was saying for you it really was a good point to stop trying to tell me I was trying to argue something I wasn’t. If anything here has been arrogant, it’s your continued use of sentence fragments taken out of context to basically tell me I’m lying about how I meant them to be taken.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 8, 2010 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
but you just refuse to acknowledge that
you wrote in such a way as to give the strong implication that you are advocating Carmona for the Mets (intentional or not)… to which I simply have responded that I don’t think it’s realistic to think the Mets would consider him due to his contract… whether they should or not… which btw could be the crux of the conflict here…
I would urge you to re-read the entire thread for context. this is one of your early posts in this thread:
"As to his appeal, I’d guess the Mets could get him for basically nothing at this point beyond taking his contract.
He’s certainly a higher upside option than Looper or Wellenmeyer."
by Schmidtxc on Feb 6, 2010 11:07 AM PST
I simply picked up on the Wellemeyer thing by saying that he’b be a very low risk investment at this point to provide some back end depth considering just about everyone we’ll be considering for that depth as of now has little or no ML experience.
That’s it.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 8, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
Once again you're taking things completely out of context.
The appeal comment was a direct response to your question, “What’s Carmona’s appeal?” I hadn’t argued (and still haven’t) that we should trade for him. I was simply trying to answer a question you asked. You seemed to take that as me advocating for him, and I tried to clarify that in my very next comment, where I said "I haven’t advocated trading for him, I’m just saying he’s a possible diamond in the rough that could fit into this list. Once again, if you took this to mean something else I’m sorry it wasn’t clear. Since this is the 13th time I’ve had to tell you I’m not advocating trading for him, I’d hope maybe you’d stop telling me I am. Even if you didn’t understand this at first you should be able to grasp that by now. Please stop taking things I’ve said out of the context of the conversation and trying to provoke an argument with them. It’s very trollish behavior.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 8, 2010 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
Touche'
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 8, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
au contraire
I would be glad for you to continue this discussion for as long as possible. This completely unsolicited parade of gawping discomprehension of simple English is by far the most hilarious thing I have read on the internets today.
obviously you haven't read thru the
whole thread here… b/c if you did you would see how clear it is that you are the one instigating an argument with me. You will see how you jumped in to debate me when it’s clear that I am talking about low cost rotation depth for the Mets whether or not that was the original topic or off.
Much as you need me to exonerate you, I don’t really care if you advocated Carmona for the Mets or not at this point.
Tho I’m sure at this juncture in order to satisfy your need to have the last word you will surely sling some other derogatory remark at me.
I’ve tried to graciously remove myself from this silliness several times now but maybe you just have a problem with the word Wellemeyer, idk… ?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 8, 2010 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
just trying to
make the topic relevant….
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Feb 8, 2010 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
I don't see what the confusion is...
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 8, 2010 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
Liriano
If we signed liriano I think that it could create a serious threat to out rotation especially if he is able to play half the way that he was able to play before his injury.
by LostOnRevisIsland24 on Feb 6, 2010 12:23 PM EST reply actions
He's not a guy we'd be able to sign though.
I doubt Minnesota would even consider trading him at this point, as they have a new stadium and have built a pretty solid team for this year. I’d guess it would take a ridiculous package to get Minnesota to consider it at this point.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 6, 2010 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
Well Eveland certainly was a good call.
Toronto just nabbed him for a PTBNL or cash.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
the scary thing is i doubt it was ever on his radar
do you think omar has ever heard of eveland?
by Bieser's Balk on Feb 6, 2010 10:15 PM EST up reply actions
Liriano and Carmona are the only two that interest me from this list.
As for the rest, they all seem to me to be maybe as good as Tim Redding or Nelson Figueroa. So, I’ll pass on them.
I don’t see the Twins trading Liriano now that he seems to have re-captured his “stuff.” If he’s really back from the dead, then the Twins will certainly compete for the Division crown and maybe for the ALC. What a great organization they run there. The Twins lost Santana and Garza and are still competing every year. Wilpons, wake the f up!!!!
As for Carmona, I think some other poster said it right, “don’t we already have our left-handed version of him in Ollie?” And can Dan Warthan fix him in 10 minutes?
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
They didn't really lose Garza
they basically traded him a crappy poor attitude player they didn’t really even need.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Why did they trade him?
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
At the time they did though.
Span was looking like he could be a bust or a AAAA player, and they really needed production from the outfield corners at that point. A lot of their young starters looked quite a bit better at that point too.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 6, 2010 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah but was young really looking any better than Span?
Plus they had traded for Gomez hadn’t they, or did the Santana deal happen after I can’t remember.
Actually the Twins should probably just refuse to deal with the Rays from now on, didn’t the Rays get Bartlett from them too?
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Delmon Young was the top prospect in baseball for a while
and was coming off a decent season in the majors at 21 years old. There was every reason to thing that he could have developed into a star.
"Three home teams advance, and the fuckin' Jets" - Rex Ryan
Yeah but Garza was also a top 10/20 prospect too
and Young’s attitude problems/lack of work ethic had been pretty well talked about in the media, and he was coming off a pretty disappointing sophomore campaign while Garza was coming off two monster AAA campaigns.
Plus there’s the fact when you’re a small market team it really doesn’t make sense to trade pitching for hitting when you can’t afford pitchers in FA and developing pitching prospects is so much more hit and miss than hitting prospects. Although you’re right I didn’t realize how bad Span was in 06/07.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
They had solid pitching at that point though.
Liriano, Baker, Slowey, and Bonser were all looked at pretty favorably in the major league rotation, and they had 5 other top 100 prosepects that were starting pitchers (Guerra, Blackburn, Mulvey, Robertson, and Swarzak). They also had Livan there as a vet, so their pitching wasn’t that bad. Cuddeyer looked ok, but they really had nothing else returning to either of the other outfield spots (Kubel was really looked at as a DH). Pitching was supposedly the big strength of the Twins entering the 2008 season.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 6, 2010 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
BA had him as the #1 prospect in baseball in 2006.
He also finished 2nd in the 2007 rookie of the year voting behind Dustin Pedroia, so he was looking quite a bit better than Span.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Feb 6, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions
I bet the Brewers wouldn't mind.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 7, 2010 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
They might have actually had the opportunity
When shopping Hardy, he was asking for a SP or a CF. Another buy low guy on the Twins is Glen Perkins.
Would Paul Byrd count?
At this point, I’d sign him (if he wants to) just because of his delivery.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Feb 7, 2010 12:22 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
