Willie: Seo Not Guaranteed 2006 Rotation Spot

[Guest Rotblatt]

So if outpitching Pedro over 11 games isn't enough to guarantee Seo a rotation spot next year, what is?

]Not Seo fast on 2006 call BY DARREN EVERSON DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER When Willie Randolph mentioned recently that Jae Seo hasn't secured a spot in next year's rotation, he said reporters looked at him like he was "a little nuts." It doesn't sound so crazy now, though. It's not that Seo has done anything wrong - although he did have a shaky start yesterday, allowing 10 hits and four runs in five innings. It's also what Aaron Heilman has done. Heilman could be a candidate for the Mets' 2006 rotation, Randolph said before yesterday's 6-5, 10-inning loss to the Nationals. The manager added that Heilman may go to winter ball this offseason and pitch as a starter. Yesterday, Heilman continued his exceptional pitching of late, tossing two scoreless, hitless innings. The former first-rounder has allowed two earned runs since the end of July. Randolph again clarified that, by stating Seo isn't a sure starter next season, he merely was saying that he needs to see how he looks next spring.

Great, let's try and start Heilman, but we HAVE to find a way to put Seo in the rotation. He's been our best pitcher in his limited duty.

How can Willie not see that?

[Elster88]

]The former first-rounder has allowed two earned runs since the end of July.

Most impressive.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 154) Tommy Davis

[Elster88]

]Great, let's try and start Heilman, but we HAVE to find a way to put Seo in the rotation. He's been our best pitcher in his limited duty. How can Willie not see that?

Willie's decision makes complete sense to me. No one can earn a rotation spot for 2006 in the year 2005, including Petey. You wait until next year to make these decisions.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 154) Tommy Davis

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Let's try not to overanalyze what officials say about 2006 in 2005, especially one as full of non-answers as WWSB, and particularly when expressed by beatwriters intent on alarming fans as much as informing them.

It's almost as if the clip above was written completely upside down. Of course, had it begun by saying: Randolph again clarified that, by stating Seo isn't a sure starter next season, he merely was saying that he needs to see how he looks next spring. there wouldn't be enough juice to make the preceding sentences necessary.

[Elster88]

Besides, can you imagine the outrage if something happened in the interim if Willie did say Seo had a spot? If he was traded or had a crappy spring and didn't end up making the team, it would end up being a huge controversy. I can think of one former Met fan who would go absolutely ape-shit, and would use it for the next five years as an example of how Met management lies and dupes its fans. Personally, I'm grateful to Willie if he can spare me that by simply telling moronic sportswriters that a position for next year isn't going to be solidified seven months beforehand.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 154) Tommy Davis

[Guest Edgy DC]

His lead could also have been, "Willie Looking to Heliman to Start in '06.".

[Guest Edgy DC]

]When told that Willie Randolph said he hadn't yet earned a spot for 2006, Jae Weong Seo was philosophical. "That's OK," Seo said through an interpreter. "Neither has Randolph."

--- Imaginary Edgy Times

[Guest KC]

Willie sets 2006 rotation

Seo's Thursday speed bump sends him to pen

Willie: I just can't trust a Korean in the rotation

Seo banished, can Pedro be next?

(this winter is gonna suck ass)

[Elster88]

To be a little more fair to the author, he did write: "Randolph again clarified that, by stating Seo isn't a sure starter next season, he merely was saying that he needs to see how he looks next spring."
_____________________________
This post had the designation 154) Tommy Davis

[smg58]

So Seo can again pitch well when it counts but find himself in Norfolk in April. Great.

Minaya needs to deal his excess of pitchers this offseason so that he has a solid lineup and, at most, two starters competing for spot #5. And I don't see why, at this point, Seo has to be one of the two competing.

[Elster88]

smg58 wrote: So Seo can again pitch well when it counts but find himself in Norfolk in April. Great. Minaya needs to deal his excess of pitchers this offseason so that he has a solid lineup and, at most, two starters competing for spot #5. And I don't see why, at this point, Seo has to be one of the two competing.

Hey, this is how it works. There's a reason they have spring training. If Seo has a shitty spring, it's his own fault if it puts his 2006 rotation spot in jeopardy. You should have better stats in spring training than in the regular season, not the other way around. I'm sure management will take his 2005 performance into account when evaluating him for '06 out of spring training.

Seo's problem to me was a lack of concentration when he got pissed off, which to me is evidenced by a better major league record than AAA record, and bad spring training performances.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

[Elster88]

This article has done exactly what the boneheaded writer wanted to do, it gets some fans is a frenzy, even while stating the obvious: Willie says he wants to see how a guy looks in 2006 before making decisions about that year. How does this not make sense? For God's sake Seo might not even be on the team next year.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

[seawolf17]

I like Seo. I like what he's done this year. But, like Heilman, this is the first time he's shown any extended run of success. So I'd say he's no sure thing for '06. I agree that he'll have a leg up, but he's not a definite. The only definites right now are probably Pedro and Benson (and Trax if he's still here, which he probably will be).

[Elster88]

Probably Glavine too, when you take his contract size into account.

Which tells us that 3-4 of the spots are locked up, which means what Willie said make even MORE sense. If four of the spots are locked up, it's a battle between Seo and Heilman.

I am getting way too worked up over this article, too. I should dose myself with my own recommendations.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

[Guest Edgy DC]

You own this thread.

[Elster88]

Yeah, I need to pipe down.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

[Guest Edgy DC]

I need to pipe the fuck down.

[Elster88]

That's what I like about this forum. People tell themselves to pipe down instead of others.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

[Guest SI Metman]

It's simple. Seo took his status in 2004 for granted after pitching pretty good in 2003. Willie is just send the message that he actually has to work next season.

[Elster88]

Maybe he'll take it as incentive to get in better shape this offseason.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

[Frayed Knot]

Elster88 wrote: That's what I like about this forum. People tell themselves to pipe down instead of others.

Oh pipe down!

[MFS62]

About Jae.
My busy travel schedule hasn't allowed me to see as many games this year as in the past. So I rely on radio accounts and our IGTs (thank you to all who contribute to those threads).

IIRC when Seo was a prospect in the minors, his fastball was in the 92-94 MPH range. Then he had arm surgery. There have been reports that after certain types of arm surgery, some pitchers have been known to add 1-3 MPH to their fastball. But that usually happens up to two years after that surgery.

What has Seo's fastball been measured at this year?

Later

[seawolf17]

Elster88 wrote: Maybe he'll take it as incentive to get in better shape this offseason.

Maybe he and his wife will stop having kids -- or schedule them for offseason deliveries -- so he can pitch better.

[Frayed Knot]

He hasn't picked up any velocity - and I suspect that the stories of pitchers who do following surgery are more rare than is supposed.

What's happened w/Seo is that he's added a few wrinkles into things - like sliders & sinkers - and now has more than just fastball/changeup to offer. Might be a bit less stubborn than before as well.

[nymr83]

]Hey, this is how it works. There's a reason they have spring training. If Seo has a shitty spring, it's his own fault if it puts his 2006 rotation spot in jeopardy. You should have better stats in spring training than in the regular season, not the other way around. I'm sure management will take his 2005 performance into account when evaluating him for '06 out of spring training.

i HATE this kind of reasoning and it is one of the huge problems with baseball today. 20 innings of spring training should not be allowed to dispprove a sample size 5-10x greater from the previous season! this same bullshit cost Seo a rightly deserved spot before.

[Elster88]

Nymr83 wrote: ]Hey, this is how it works. There's a reason they have spring training. If Seo has a shitty spring, it's his own fault if it puts his 2006 rotation spot in jeopardy. You should have better stats in spring training than in the regular season, not the other way around. I'm sure management will take his 2005 performance into account when evaluating him for '06 out of spring training. i HATE this kind of reasoning and it is one of the huge problems with baseball today. 20 innings of spring training should not be allowed to dispprove a sample size 5-10x greater from the previous season! this same bullshit cost Seo a rightly deserved spot before.

Actually, the two situations aren't even remotely the same.

Have you actually looked at Seo's 2004 numbers? Let me enlighten you. 5-10, 4.90 ERA, 117 IP, 133 H, 50 BB, 54 K. Obiously, 05 spring training was not the only thing that relegated him to Norfolk in April. So what you call bullshit (which is actually sound, logical reasoning) is NOT what cost Seo a spot in April. Neither is his '05 spring training numbers.

If you'll read the entire post which you quoted, you'll notice that I mentioned that of course his 2005 performance should and will be taken into account.

And if Seo gets lit up all of next spring, Heilman is pitching lights out, and the other four pitchers have the spots locked up, I'm sure you'll be clamoring for Heilman to get Seo's "rightly deserved spot." Which, oddly enough, is exactly what I'm advocating, (Willie, too): Don't secure any positions on the 2006 roster in 2005.

[Guest Rotblatt]

Here's my problem with this: by singling out Seo & Heilman for "having to prove themselves" in the Spring, he removes guys with worse seasons than them, as in everyone not named Petey or Hernandez.

If Seo, who has so far pitched better than Pedro on a per start basis, has to compete for a spot, then so should everyone else in our rotation, incuding Glavine & Benson.

The way I see it, we have Petey then the following competing for the four remaining slots:

Benson
Seo
Heilman
Trachsel
Glavine,
Zambrano

Except Willie's indicating (as I read it) that he's going lock in whatever "tried and true" guys he has left after the off-season and let Seo & Heilman compete for the remaining slots.

If we're lucky, we'll move Trachsel & Zambrano in the offseason and not have to worry about it, but I'd much rather have Willie answer questions like "Is Seo guaranteed a spot in the rotation" with a blanket, "No one's guaranteed a spot in the rotation" or, if he doesn't want to take any flack, "No comment."

You're right, Elster, the media's stirring the pot here, but Willie's letting them, which is annoying. And I have a sinking feeling that Willie's going to make stupid roster moves in Spring.

Which sucks, because as we've all seen, once Willie makes a roster decision, he sticks with it for a long, long, long time, even after it's become a clear liability.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, maybe you'd rather hear that, but you're still drawing an inference you don't have to draw.

Yeah, spring's a small sample size compared to 12 starts the previous year, but 12 starts the previous year is a small sample size compared to Glavine's 18 years (which is in no way an endorsement from me of a return to rotation for Glavine).

We can tear ourselves apart over next spring, but I hope Randolph is giving more thought to getting his team out of this tailspin.

[Guest Rotblatt]

="Edgy DC"]Yeah, maybe you'd rather hear that, but you're still drawing an inference you don't have to draw. Yeah, spring's a small sample size compared to 12 starts the previous year, but 12 starts the previous year is a small sample size compared to Glavine's 18 years (which is in no way an endorsement from me of a return to rotation for Glavine). We can tear ourselves apart over next spring, but I hope Randolph is giving more thought to getting his team out of this tailspin.

And how!

As for your point about Glavine, I'd say that the only relevant part of his past 18 years are the last three, with the last one being weighted the heaviest.

And sure, you've got to weigh Seo's dominant 2005 with his mediocre 2004--but also his good 2003.

I'd like management to ask questions like: Who's been better over the past three years? Are we seeing a trend in terms of performance? Who can we reasonably expect to improve in 2006? What are their upsides? take into account how they look in the Spring, and go from there.

[Guest Edgy DC]

No doubt, all pertinent questions.

Shallow cheat sheet answers:

Who can be reasonably expected to improve:

Guys under 30.
Guys coming off a year well below their previous norms.
Guys in their second year after surgery.
Guys who played the previous year uncharacteristically hurt

Who can be reasonably expected to decline:

Guys overer 30.
Guys coming off a year well above their previous norms.
Guys in their first year after surgery.
Guys who played the previous year uncharacteristically healthy.