Humber in the Dumper

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Bad news from Bingo...


Mets concerned about Humber's Double-A pitching debut
BY SCOTT LAUBER
Press & Sun-Bulletin

BINGHAMTON -- Jack Lind hadn't seen Philip Humber pitch since spring training, but judging by his velocity in his Double-A debut Monday night, something was definitely wrong.


"He was throwing 87 to 91 (mph)," said Lind, the Binghamton Mets' manager, "so that's a sign."

Humber, the New York Mets' first-round pick and the third overall selection in 2004, complained of right elbow soreness and was removed from the game in Norwich, Conn., before his at-bat in the fifth inning.

Now, there's some question about when he'll pitch again.

Humber, 22, was examined Wednesday by Mets physicians David Altchek and Answorth Allen at the Hospital For Special Surgery in Manhattan, and he returned Thursday to the team's facility in Port St. Lucie, Fla. Humber was slated to start Sunday in NYSEG Stadium against the Reading Phillies, but his spot will be taken by right-hander Orlando Roman.

"We're waiting on the results from the doctors," Mets minor league director Kevin Morgan said. "I don't have an update at this point."

Clearly, the Mets are holding their breath, especially after shelling out a franchise-record $3 million signing bonus for Humber in January.

Humber allowed three runs on four hits in four innings, struck out two and walked two in his first Double-A start. He was 2-6 with a 4.99 ERA in 14 starts for Single-A St. Lucie, where he missed three starts in April with a strained abdominal muscle.

INSIDE PITCHES

The Mets assigned third-string catcher Zac Clements to St. Lucie. ... Brian Bannister, Binghamton's ace pitcher during the season's first half, cleaned out his locker Thursday and went to Syracuse where he joined Triple-A Norfolk for a four-game series, but not before relating his favorite moment from Wednesday night's Eastern League All-Star Game. "I got to meet former President Bush," he said. "I got to talk to him for a little bit. He's the first president I've met, so that was really cool."

[smg58]

That's no good, but it's not clear that he's been right all year. Some time off might turn out to be a blessing in disguise. The Mets should be patient with this and certainly not rush him back.

[Frayed Knot]

TJ surgery is one of several options being considerd for Humber.
Less evasive cutting and just plain rest are others.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/ny-sphumber0717,0,1731315.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

The 'Closest to the Majors' curse strikes again.

See ya in middle relief in 2007, you damn unreialble young multimillionaire, you.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Humber's still exploring his options.

Hijacking this thread and turning it into the All-Purpose Mets in Limbo Thread, we have:

• Philip Humber is "exploring his options" (right, the Mets will have no say)and is expected to visit orthopedist James Andrews in Birmingham, Ala. (Andrews is the current leader in providing Tommy John surgery, but to my notice, hasn't been overly-quick to recommend it.)



• Kaz Matsui is rehabbing at the Mets complex in Port St. Lucie. He has been limited to taking batting practice (but only from the left side), light running and fielding ground balls directly at him, preventing the strain of side-to-side movement.



• Steve Trachsel reported no problems Saturday after throwing 40 pitches in a two-inning simulated game in Port St. Lucie. Trachsel is expected back within two weeks. I'm dubious.



• Alay Soler's case has been turned over by the Mets to an outside legal team.

[Frayed Knot]

As reported on the WFAN pre-game show, Humber had his TJ surgery today.

[metirish]

I hadn't heard that Frayed Knot, thanks for the info, best of luck to Humber in his recovery and rehap.

[smg58]

So Humber is set back a year. We do have enough minor league pitching to absorb the loss, but you always hate to see a guy who looks set for the majors get stopped like this.

On the other hand, he hasn't really pitched well all year, so I don't know if this is necessarily a shock. As anybody who remember Gregg Jefferies and Generation K can tell you, there's no such thing as a "can't-miss" prospect. Plus, the emergence of Gaby Hernandez definitely softens the blow.

[smg58]

Oh, and thanks for the Trachsel update. I was wondering if he had any sort of timetable.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Daily News says Traxx will pitch 3 innings for St. Lucie this morning (morning?)

Kazuo is "getting ready" to begin a rehab stint.

Yates has resumed throwing but shant see game action this year.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

This "can't-miss prospect" shit is a false dichotomy.

Of course there's no "can't-miss"--that's why they play the games.

But the implication that prospects are susceptible to "can't miss" b.s. and veterans are safe is an error--see Matsui. See Vaughan. See Alomar. See Piazza. C.C. Rider.

Of course veterans are somewhat safer than kids because they have a more significant sample of MLB experience to go on, but they also carry a multitude of salary for that degree of safety, so you can expect to take twenty prospects in balance for one veteran contract and (in terms of salary) bear the same amount of risk.

As a handy example, look at the Braves, who are doing two things I strongly recommend the Mets consider (ha!)--they're playing 10 rookies and they're playing very well. When I suggested that the Mets go with the Keppingers and Garcias and Seos and Heilmans and Wiggintons, I was derided for advocating a "give up in 2005" policy, which wasn't accurate for two reasons--rookies aren't necessarily a give-up position, and even if they work out less immediately than veterans, the payoff is often worth it (see 1969 and 1986 for results of going with kids.)

The folks who tell me that Reyes and Wright needed all the minor league seasoning they got, and maybe would have benefitted from a little more--you;'d think they hadn't followed the example of this franchise, which has had its biggest (and most enjoyable) successes going with untested rookies like Tom Seaver, like Doc Gooden, like Ron Swoboda, like this website's namesake, all of whom (and many more) were huge contributors to the Mets' only two world's championship teams and who were called up to the majors with very little minor league experience, sometimes at very tender ages. You'd think Mets' fans would be the last people to tell you it shouldn't be done, or that it's very rarely successful. or that it doesn't feel spectacular when it works out.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I was joking about the curse above if that's what you're responding to. Just noting the irony that one of Humber's strongest recommendations -- as well as Heilman's -- was that they'd be able to contribute in the Majors sooner than most of the draftees of the same year. The injury obviously sets Humber back a year+ and Heilman developed more slowly than most would have guessed.

Anyway, it's kind of tough to build a case for aggressively promoting all young players based upon the success of 2 the organization's greatest pitchers ever, though I won't argue thay both turned out to be great successes.

I think it's possible we'll look back at Wright's debut as a similar birth of a great but don't forget he was younger than Seaver was when he arrived here. Odd, but I don't hear you bitching that the Mets held Seaver back in Jacksonville for all of 1966.

And for someone who sees every move as oily attempt by a half-assed management to pull the wool over their fans eyes, I'm surprised you can't see the Reyes promotion for what it was -- an attempt to goose the fans with a new player not because the player was necessarily ready to succeed but because he was new.Younger than Seaver, too.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

I got your "curse" remark's tone, and that's not what I was responding to.

I don't have Seaver's minor league record handy, but he was signed in April of '66 and debuted in April of '67. I know you're not deliberately trying to make my every post seem silly and misguided, and I know I have never said that I want the Mets to promote every rookie out of the minors before he completes a single season at any level, so I'm not sure what you're reacting to here.

As I recall, in his single season at Jacksonsville, Seaver went a rather bleh 12-12, or 13-13 or something. Obviously, they saw something they liked, especially relative to his MLB colleagues, and said "What the hell." He wasn't promoted to the rotation because of his extensive minor league experience, he wasn't promoted because he was out of options, he wasn't promoted because the rotation was wracked with injuries, he wasn't promoted because his minor league W-L record gave them no other choice, he wasn't promoted because he was getting old--he was promoted because someone saw that he looked like a pretty good pitcher.

Your current Mets don't do that, or (if they're trying to do that) they don;'t do that very well. They have a program where rookies must do x and y and z, and then have some catastrophe on the MLB roster before they promote someone. My point was that the Braves are plainly demonstrating the necessity of knowing who your good minor league players are, and then promoting them whenever they are ready, not when they fulfill some ass-covering formula. My complaint about Reyes and Wright (and Diaz and some others) is that the kids stay down in the minors until the Mets suffer some injury that leaves them horribly exposed, so if they bring the kid up and he fails, their asses are covered: "Hey, we had no real choice, and it was just for a short time, and we were going to send him back to the minors in a week or two anyway, so what's the big deal?" If he makes it, as these three have, on the ML level, they leave him up.

Other than CYA, this makes no sense to me.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

If Seaver were a current 22-year old Mets' prospect, he would be

1) started at AA ball at best,

2) kept at AA for a year or two, and then AAA for a year or two,

3) promoted to the majors at 25 or so, and promptly

4) traded to the Giants for Moises Alou at the July 30 deadline, with the club in last place, for a desperate pennant push.

[Frayed Knot]

]If Seaver were a current 22-year old Mets' prospect, he would be: 1) started at AA ball at best, 2) kept at AA for a year or two, and then AAA for a year or two

Except that your main ammo/complaint for this seems to be Reyes & Wright who were brought up - not at age 25 or after 2 years at each level - but after barely a half-year of AA & AAA combined and prior to their 20th and 22nd birthdays. IOW, at a schedule at least as agressive as Atlanta's using with their guys.

About Atlanta: The main difference with them is simply that they've got better prospects than almost anyone else. They buck the trend and draft almost exclusively 'toolsy' High-School types and get them into their system at a young age. That method is out of favor in many circles for the high-risk/high-reward chance it takes but - lucky or not, and I suspect "not" - they're "guessing" correctly a lot more often than most.
It's nice that Francoeur, Marte, Davies (and Andruw, Furcal previously) were brought up and were able to contribute at an early age (though Furball was not as young as we thought at the time) but let's not pretend that they were typical for 21 y/o's and that other teams would get the same results if only they weren't so chickenshit. It should also be noted that the Braves did sign Raul Mondesi & Brian Jordan this past winter and only brought the kiddie corps when injuries and/or suckitude of the old guard made it neccesary. In the meantime, those young'uns got an extra 2-4 months of seasoning (sound like Sanchez -- Reyes?) and are still subject to being sent back down for regular work (Marte & Davies) when/if those temp opportunities no longer exist. These recent '10 rookies' promotions have had as much to do with neccessity as it has with some sort of organizational philosophy.

Have the Mets been too cautious? Yeah I think so at times; although more with the small potatoes moves than the big ones. Exmpls: losing Scutaro by protecting McEwing, and Cerda for Franco weren't moves that were likely to make a lot of difference in the long run but did show a risk-adverse preference for sticking w/the old, comfy chairs instead of trying something that could have turned into something in the long run.
Reyes & Wright however were the reverse of that flaw, not examples of it.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Yup.

[Guest Edgy DC]

METS LOSE TO DODGERS 4-3

The road weary St. Lucie Mets returned to Tradition Field for the first time in ten days and were on the short end of a 4-3 game, falling to the Vero Beach Dodgers.

Tied for first in the Eastern Division, the St. Lucie Mets were only able to string together seven hits off Dodger pitching, lead by a ninth inning solo homerun by Kevin Rios who went 2-for-4. Andy Wilson also went 2-for-4 with one RBI and one run. Wilson Batista, Jonathan Slack and Zack Clements accumulated one hit each for the Mets.

New York Mets pitcher Steve Trachsel recorded the loss as he made his first rehab start for St. Lucie throwing two and two-third innings. He allowed two runs, only one earned, on two hits while striking out two. Miguel Pinango threw five relief innings and gave up only one run on four hits while striking out one and not giving up a walk.

The Mets look to jump back on top tomorrow as the take on the Dodgers at Tradition Field at 7 p.m. Tickets are just $2 and there will be $1 hotdogs, $1 Pepsi and $1 Bud and Bud Light.

[Guest Spacemans Bong]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: If Seaver were a current 22-year old Mets' prospect, he would be 1) started at AA ball at best, 2) kept at AA for a year or two, and then AAA for a year or two, 3) promoted to the majors at 25 or so, and promptly 4) traded to the Giants for Moises Alou at the July 30 deadline, with the club in last place, for a desperate pennant push.

You'd make a wonderful Red Sox fan.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Give it up. He's also a frontrunner.

[Guest Spacemans Bong]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Give it up. He's also a frontrunner.

So you're saying he'd make a great Shaughnessy?

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Nah. Just nutcracking.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Frayed Knot wrote: Except that your main ammo/complaint for this seems to be Reyes & Wright who were brought up - not at age 25 or after 2 years at each level - but after barely a half-year of AA & AAA combined and prior to their 20th and 22nd birthdays.

No, my main complaint is that the Mets can't judge talent very well. They seem more interested in making moves they can "sell" (to the fans, to the media, to their bosses) than making sound judgments. If Reyes could play ss in early June, don't you think he could have been able to play it in April? I do. But to start a 19 y.o. rookie in April would have been PERCEIVED as a give-up move, so they didn't do it. Likewise Wright. Likewise Diaz.

They waited for injuries and only then promoted these deserving young players, knowing that the injuries would allow them to CYA. But history (and particularly METS history) shows that promoting kids out of Spring Training, who look very good, and hustle their asses off, sometimes works out with spectacular results. When was the last time a rookie you never heard of WON A JOB in Spring Training around here?

"What, displace a veteran? B-b-b-but we're paying Lazy Veteran 8 bazillion dollars! And we just signed him to a three-millenium extension! And maybe this kid isn't really so good--my lying eyes fool me all the time. And maybe Lazy Veteran will suddenly remember how to play ball again without his head stuck up his ass....If we bench him it makes us look awful foolish. What, we ARE foolish for signing him when we had a talented young kid in triple -AAA? Shhh, don;t say that so loud, someone might hear you. Besides, they might think we KNEW we ddn't have a very good team if we did that, and you know what that would have done to ticket sales."

Whereas the Braves and other successful teams seem to operate a little more on the merit system. I am glad we agree that the Mets' philosophy is overly cautious: you're on the money with Cerda/Franco and Scutaro/Mcewing. Don't forget burying and/or dumping Garcia and Keppinger and Wigginton in preference for Matsui/Cairo, or Seo and Heilman for the current shleps in the rotation. Or Diaz and Valent instead of Mientkiewicz at 1B. I'm not saying that all these moves would have worked out, mind you--just that they're reasonable gambles, would have let them save a little money at worst (even if the young guys didn;'t quite pan out) which they could then spend on young FAs, or on development. It's just that these moves would be seen as give-up moves, and the Mets are scared of that perception, in my view, so scared they wind up fielding a team year after year that finishes in last place but which can pretend to be a contender for the first few months of each losing season.

OE: fixed typo

[duan]

seriously sal, by your constant exaggeration you undermine any point you're trying to make.

For example, putting forward Garcia - last seen getting release from the Buffalo Bisons and Wigginton who's a poor fielding low obp utility infielder AT BEST (as evidenced by the fact that he was sent by the minors by the Pirates) as any kind of 'that coulda been a 2nd base solution' is completely fucking stupid.

Actually you should credit the mets in NOT getting caught up in Wigginton's hot streak round about this time last year and Garcia's streaky september and realising that they were very expendable commodities.

Keppinger's slightly different in that he's shown this year that YES he does have potential (with an 800+ OPS at AAA this year).

However, did you know that he only started playing with wooden bats in 2002? Did you know that he was in A ball in 2003, AA in 2004? Did you know that in 3 years in the minors up to 2004 he's hit a total of 14 home runs?

They were 100% RIGHT to start keppinger at AAA this year, to allow him to continue his development; if he hadn't been injured when Matsui & Cairo were hurt I'm sure he would have come up and been given a decent whirl.

However, all you do is try to see what gross incompetency and malevolency.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

duan wrote: seriously sal, by your constant exaggeration you undermine any point you're trying to make. For example, putting forward Garcia - last seen getting release from the Buffalo Bisons and Wigginton who's a poor fielding low obp utility infielder AT BEST (as evidenced by the fact that he was sent by the minors by the Pirates) as any kind of 'that coulda been a 2nd base solution' is completely fucking stupid. .

I realize my strong statements (which have the singular effect of unambiguity, making it hard for me to waffle, which is practically a state religion around here) make me look silly to some people, but I'll pay that price, Duan. It's not as if by wording my views more temperately, I'll persuade many others: I've concluded sadly that it's the critical content, and not the phrasing, that determines the reaction of my gentle (and sometimes savage) readers. But thanks for the tip.

As I noted, maybe Wiggy and Garcia would have wound up on the slagheap (and maybe not--there's some indication that the Pirates made a foolish move sending Wiggy down, and he's done very well there--I wouldn't look to Pittsburgh for a model of competent management, either). But the philosophy (of sending young players down so as to go with so-called proven, veteran talent, whose upside you know very well to be limited and whose downside could come any day at ruinous expense) is what I'm complaining about. I'm not saying all kids always work out perfectly. But it's the refusal to take chances, to be able to tell the wheat from the chaff and then to go with your knowledge, for which I so bitterly denounce this organization. It's the preference for style over substance, for reputations over abilities, for covering their asses rather than using the brains God gave a peanut.

duan wrote: Actually you should credit the mets in NOT getting caught up in Wigginton's hot streak round about this time last year and Garcia's streaky september and realising that they were very expendable commodities. .

Actually, I'm just pissed off that they preferred going with Matsui/Cairo (at great expense) rather than Wiggy/Garcia/Keppinger. Even if the latter combo would have been worse offensively and defensivley (hard to see how), they wouldn't have been that much worse, and maybe they could have spent some of that money on a first baseman who could hit a little bit, or another starting pitcher (FA, so they wouldn't have had to trade Kazmir or Jason Phillips).

duan wrote: Keppinger's slightly different in that he's shown this year that YES he does have potential (with an 800+ OPS at AAA this year). However, did you know that he only started playing with wooden bats in 2002? Did you know that he was in A ball in 2003, AA in 2004? Did you know that in 3 years in the minors up to 2004 he's hit a total of 14 home runs? They were 100% RIGHT to start keppinger at AAA this year, to allow him to continue his development; if he hadn't been injured when Matsui & Cairo were hurt I'm sure he would have come up and been given a decent whirl. .

Did you know that many, many major league stars, including some on this franchise, have played good MLB with only three years of minor league play behind them, at Keppinger's age? Do you know that there are HOFers with low slugging percentages? Focus on what Keppinger could do rather than what he can't do (so far) and you might be surprised.

duan wrote: However, all you do is try to see what gross incompetency and malevolency.

That's true. Of course the W-L record for the last few seasons helps me in that regard.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

It's hard to complain simultaneously about not using Wigginton and Keppinger when one was acquired for the other.

I think it's pretty safe to say Kepp would be getting a chance now were it not for his injury. It's also difficult to argue having used Keppinger over Matsui, who had a better year last year and came to the organization when Keppinger wasn't an option.

As to Wigginton, he was made expendable by a younger, cheaper and better player, (Wright) and netted a younger, cheaper and (arguably) better player in the trade.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: It's hard to complain simultaneously about not using Wigginton and Keppinger when one was acquired for the other. I think it's pretty safe to say Kepp would be getting a chance now were it not for his injury. It's also difficult to argue having used Keppinger over Matsui, who had a better year last year and came to the organization when Keppinger wasn't an option. As to Wigginton, he was made expendable by a younger, cheaper and better player, (Wright) and netted a younger, cheaper and (arguably) better player in the trade.

True dat.

Of course the argument could be that they keep churning young guys until they come up with the precisely correct washed up expensive veteran who's sold to the right demographic. How's that Matsui-will-bring-Japanese-megabucks scam working out? It might have worked a little bit if he was actually a good player, which he isn't. It's just taking a while for Met fans to wake up and smell the green tea.

And Keppeleh would have gotten a shot by now? Yeah, because the indestructible Matsui imploded--if he'd stayed healthy (and lousy), they would have kept a young Rogers Hornsby down on the farm rather than bench Matsui. Sometimes I wonder if the Mets are somehow a Japanese organization, what with the priority on saving face above all other principles. "We fucked up in our assessment of Matsui? We have no choice but to maintain with a straight face that we think he's improving. To suggest otherwise would be dishonorable."

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Matsui hasn't worked out, which is a shame. And it was dumb to have installed him at SS over Reyes. And we seemed to have underestimated how difficult it was to communicate effectively with him.

That said, acquiring him in the first place wasn't a horrible gamble, IMO. It's obvious he has ability, even if it hadn't been fully realized due to what has to be more serious injuries than anyone would have guessed. You might recall he was the object of several teams' bids, and the organization as then constructed was in need of a middle infielder (minds had evidently been made up as to the ceiling of Garcia, correctly) and pickings were slim.

[Frayed Knot]

]No, my main complaint is that the Mets can't judge talent very well. They seem more interested in making moves they can "sell" (to the fans, to the media, to their bosses) than making sound judgments. If Reyes could play ss in early June, don't you think he could have been able to play it in April? I do.

Why wait until April, why not the previous August? Or maybe June? And if June was Okay why not start that season with him?
Is it because starting an 18 y/o rookie in April was perceived as a give-up move? Or maybe it's because you're the only one who considers the HS prom --> single A --> MLB to be the normal state of affairs and anything else a foot-dragging and borderline fraudulent pace.

And if it's not, please give me the orgs who are accelerating their top guys any faster; the example(s) you're using so far aren't holding up.
- Atlanta's Wilson Betemit was everyone's hot-stuff SS prospect before Reyes (he's 3 years older) but is just now popping his head into MLB this year, and even that was largely because he was in an out-of-options/use-or-lose situation
- Andy Marte was a year behind Wright and was brought up ... a year later - and even then only for injury and has since been sent back for not hitting (they have no patience over there)
- Jeff Francouer is 13 months younger than Wright and was brought up a whopping 11 months later. No telling how much the 6 weeks Wright wasted in AAA that Francoeur didn't will mean to their careers - but then again the Mets were obviously too tied to the veteren Wigginton at the time.
- Anaheim's Casey Kotchman? - Wright's age, at least as heralded, called-up later, since been sent back
- Florida's Cabrera? - prolly the best young hitter in the game today ... was brought up when 2 months older than Reyes

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

The Red Sox keep doing things right though and should serve as an example to the Mets. Yesterday they traded 2 prospects for a veteran middle infielder (Graffanino), and demoted a young infielder (Youkilis) to activate him.

[Guest Rotblatt]

I keep writing this, and you keep not paying any attention, Sal: if you look at the stats, Reyes and Wright are terrible, terrible examples of the Mets dragging their heels promoting prospects.

Reyes was not tearing the minors apart before he came to the bigs and he was god-awful in ST in 2003. He showed no indication whatsoever that he'd be able to handle the adjustment to the bigs either in 2002 or during Spring Training.

Reyes' AA stats in 2002: .287 AVG/.331 OBP/.356 SLG/.689 OPS
Reyes' Spring Training stats in 2003: .143 AVG/.280 OBP/.143 SLG/.423 OPS.
Reyes' AAA stats in 2003 before promotion: .269/.333/.356/.689

Mets management took a leap of faith by promoting Reyes despite his struggles in the minors in 2003. I don't see how you can view it any other way.

David Wright's promotion wasn't nearly as much of a leap, but it was hardly heel-dragging. After a decent A in 2003 (.828 OPS), he began ripping the ball in 2004, starting with Spring Training (.862 OPS). Now, you could argue we should have used him out of ST instead of your main man Wiggy, but Wiggy actually outperformed Wright (who still hadn't played above A ball yet) by posting a .926 OPS in Spring Training.

So we sent Wright to AA, who then went nuts (1.086 OPS), got promoted after 223 AB to AAA, stayed nuts (.967 OPS) for 114 AB, then made it to the bigs, where he completed his nusto year (.857 OPS in 263 AB).

Do you REALLY begrudge the Mets testing him out for those 337 AB so much?

I don't get how you can keep beating this drum using Wright and Reyes.