Now what

[metirish]

I'm not sure that Willie has shown that he will give a spot to anyone because that player makes big money,maybe Omar thinks about that stuff but I don't think Willie does.

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: Who are these big-earning roadblocks? The Mets have certainly committed more money to Pelfrey and Humber than to Maine, Perez, Sosa, or Williams.

But they've already paid the money to Pelfrey and Humber. It's cheaper to send them to the minors this year, and pay more for say Maine and Perez (assuming Maine and Perez look awful in ST and Pelfrey and Humber look fabulous) because theyve committed more money to Maine and Perez in the short term. No way are Maine and Perez getting cut (not that I think it's a good idea to cut them off a bad ST). The GP is that you dont want to look at salaries when makng baseball decisions, yet the Mets look at money first, talent second.

Actually, it's more like they're looking at talent poorly, historically, and overpaying for it, and making bad decisions to prop up their previous bad decisions.

I will never forgive them for sticking with Matsui as long as they did, and getting nothing for him in the end anyway.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Never?

[metirish]

I would like to think that the Mets stuck with Kaz because when healthy he was pretty good,he just never really got that good run.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I think Vargas might have a better than 'cascade of need' opportunity. Not like we didn't choose him. Good body of minor league work. Good hitter even.

Yeah, I just wanted to keep them in divisions of five.

Schoeneweis belongs on that list also, maybe ahead of Heilman.

[nymr83]

Heilman > Schoenweisas a starter imo, the results for Heilman were much better when he did it in the past.

[metirish]

One of my new year resolutions for 07 is to stop thinking of Heilman as a starter....

[Guest Edgy DC]

Nymr83 wrote: Heilman > Schoenweisas a starter imo, the results for Heilman were much better when he did it in the past.

Perhaps , but the past has also shown that Heilman's bullpen slot is a boat they don't want to rock as along as a workable alternative is there.

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: Never?

"Never" is a long time, isn't it?

All you need to do to imagine my feelings about the whole Matsui debacle is to suppose that they'd signed him to a minimal rookie contract as a walk-on in ST of '04, and ask yourself at what point they would have sent him down to the minors, cut him etc.

If your answer is between three months and a year, we're on the same page. But there are people ON THIS WEBSITE NOW who wish the Mets had kept him because they think they never gave him enough of a look, which I have real issues with. He was an inept major league player, and many middle-schoolers could see that from the beginning.

I think they kept him about two seasons after they should have let him go. IMO, when it became clear that he couldn't play short, about halfway through the '04 season, anyone not signed to his contract would have been gone.

[nymr83]

Edgy DC wrote: ="Nymr83"]Heilman > Schoenweisas a starter imo, the results for Heilman were much better when he did it in the past. Perhaps , but the past has also shown that Heilman's bullpen slot is a boat they don't want to rock as along as a workable alternative is there.

Schoenweis' numbers as a starter suggest he is not a workable alternative.

[Frayed Knot]

][Mets] tend to 1) owe big money to more players than most teams

Well, they also have a higher payroll than most teams so there's more of a chance that they'll owe big money to some player who's fading. But more than the other teams in their gereral payroll level? ... not so sure about that.
The Yanx haven't cut Pavono loose; Boston carried Foulke for 3 years following him 1 good season; etc. Stuff like that goes on all the time, fans just tend to internalize it more when it happens on their own team.

]2) show unusually poor judgment on scouting players to owe big money to (Zambrano, Matsui, Ordonez, Leiter, Looper notable among them)

* Zambrano was never owed "big" money, pitched regularly (and fairly well for a stretch) in only one season, and then lost his starting job after that stretch of ineffectiveness stopped. Blame the scouting which got him here in the first place but at no point was he holding down a spot he didn't deserve nor was any decision about his pitching made due to money
* Ordonez was indeed cut (actually traded for a low-priced nobody while eating virtually all the money which is effectively the same thing) while still owed big bucks (as they did with Cedeno & Bonilla)
* I missed the part where they mis-judged Leiter's talent. Were there better pitchers on the staff he was holding back?
* Looper was actually cheap by closer standards and was here for a short term with one pretty good season followed by one lousy one, then wasn't retained after that.
* Your only real argument is with Matsui who at least had himself a history of playing at a star level coming in meaning it's only logical to give him more rope to prove himself than you would a min-wage rookie with no such track record. And they still wound up cutting him (a la Rey) while owing him money. The only real argument with him concerns the timing and an argument can at least be made that the injuries were a factor in keeping him from reching his potential.

[Guest iramets]

Frayed Knot wrote: ][Mets] tend to 1) owe big money to more players than most teams Well, they also have a higher payroll than most teams so there's more of a chance that they'll owe big money to some player who's fading. But more than the other teams in their gereral payroll level? ... not so sure about that. The Yanx haven't cut Pavono loose; Boston carried Foulke for 3 years following him 1 good season; etc. Stuff like that goes on all the time, fans just tend to internalize it more when it happens on their own team. ]2) show unusually poor judgment on scouting players to owe big money to (Zambrano, Matsui, Ordonez, Leiter, Looper notable among them) * Zambrano was never owed "big" money, pitched regularly (and fairly well for a stretch) in only one season, and then lost his starting job after that stretch of ineffectiveness stopped. Blame the scouting which got him here in the first place but at no point was he holding down a spot he didn't deserve nor was any decision about his pitching made due to money * Ordonez was indeed cut (actually traded for a low-priced nobody while eating virtually all the money which is effectively the same thing) while still owed big bucks (as they did with Cedeno & Bonilla) * I missed the part where they mis-judged Leiter's talent. Were there better pitchers on the staff he was holding back? * Looper was actually cheap by closer standards and was here for a short term with one pretty good season followed by one lousy one, then wasn't retained after that. * Your only real argument is with Matsui who at least had himself a history of playing at a star level coming in meaning it's only logical to give him more rope to prove himself than you would a min-wage rookie with no such track record. And they still wound up cutting him (a la Rey) while owing him money. The only real argument with him concerns the timing and an argument can at least be made that the injuries were a factor in keeping him from reching his potential.

The Yankees haven't pitched Pavano much more than he deserves, and are very down on him, trying to move him, etc. He hasn't for example made the '07 squad by any means (whereas Zambrano was clearly in the roatation when he was pitching lousy, mainly because of the investment of Met pride in their wonderful scouting of his talent and $$$$). Boston demoted Foulke from closer (and gave the job to Timlin and then Papelbon--Looper stayed the closer the whole time he was with the Mets); as you would say etc.


With Ordonez and Matsui both, they kept in the lineup well after they demonstrated to me that they were not starting quality ballplayers--if they couldn't get anything at all for them after two years of sucking, it stands to reason that they should have been trying to trade them before that conclusion became evident to every GM in the biz. That's what good scouting means--that you have a sense of talent that's sharper than your opponents. The Mets were the last team in the world to see that both of them were overpaid hacks. If Matsui was worth Eli Marrero in the middle of last season, it stands to reason that he was worth at least that a year earlier, and maybe two seasons earlier. Instead they stuck with him, and some people on this website are still pining for his worthless ass. Pretty much the same deal with Ordonez. If a guy can't play, he can't play, and putting him in your starting lineup hurts no one but yourself. You should be able to tell if someone can't play, and treat him accordingly whether or not you've stupidly invested big money in him.

As to Leiter, they were paying him 10 mil per year when he was barely geting through 5 IP per start, and refused to unload him for young talent. Even still, they preferred to keep him in the rotation to giving good young pitchers (do de name "Scott Kazmir" ring a bell?) a shot.

[nymr83]

whatever complaints you have with Mets scouting, I don't think the team has in any any sense generally stuck with players who are ineffective because of their salaries, though there are surely one or two examples, I'd guess you could find as many or more examples on a any team (except those that dont spend in the first place.)

[Guest sharpie]

]Looper stayed the closer the whole time he was with the Mets

I believe he was demoted during the last 5-6 weeks of the '05 season with Hernandez and Heilman getting the saves.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm not sure when Zambrano was held in the rotation while his pitching said he should be removed. Kaz Ishii would be a better example.

Zambrano got off to a crappy start in 2006, but his elbow intervened in any decision the Mets had to make.

If Scott Kazmir deserved a slot in 2004, it wouldn't have come at Al Leiter's expense.

[nymr83]

Neither Zambrano nor Ishii were making "big money." If they were kept in the lineup too long it was because of who the Mets gave up to get them, and that wasn't Ira's charge.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, Ishii was making $3.5 mill and pitching poorly. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think Jason Phillips kept Kaz Ishii in the rotation, however.

[nymr83]

believe me I was the one screaming loudest for his removal, but I never attributed his presense to salary. Maybe the 3.5 million AND Phillips combined to make the Mets hope he was better than their senses were telling them.
I definetaly think Kazmir kept Zambrano pitching too long.

[Guest iramets]

sharpie wrote: ]Looper stayed the closer the whole time he was with the Mets I believe he was demoted during the last 5-6 weeks of the '05 season with Hernandez and Heilman getting the saves.

You do, do you? Neat trick, considering that he saved five games the last week of August '05, and blew a save on September 7th of that year.

Hernandez and Heilman first picked up September save s on Sept. 24, (a double header?)_ so maybe the Mets dropped Looper from that role when he had a week to go on his contract

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's Jason Phillips.

[Guest Edgy DC]

See, I don't see how the team could have possibly cleared the way more for their young starters to sieze spots in ther rotation. They didn't re-sign Trachsel, less than moved by the case his 15 wins make. They didn't Zambrano, despte their supposed instituional need to redeem the Kazmir trade. They didn't re-sign Lima, despite cleonjones11's position that he would be the first ever Mets starter at Citi Field. Among internal options, the only player getting more than a year was their top returning starter, who got two, at what turned out by January to be acceptable numbers. More than acceptable probably.

They stayed away from overlong or overlarge commitments to aging mediocrities, and pulled out of the bidding for the top US free agent at a price where most everybody congratulated them for their prudence.

The pitchers that they re-signed or brought in were for a single year at money that shouldn't make them blush too hard if a series of bad starts suggests the team should try to squeeze them through the waiver wire or release them. Among them, the only recipient of decent money is Perez, who will only be 25 next year and has as much or more in common with the young prospects than the aging mediocrities.

If Pelfrey and Humber perform, they'll get a chance.

[nymr83]

Edgy, like i said, i don't believe there is any institutional problem, just some isolated instances like Ishii and Zambrano.

[Guest cleonjones11]

I still think Trachsel pissed somebody off beyond his trip him at the end. Probaby told the Mets he was sick of pitching for peanuts in slightly more colorful language

Is Mo Vaughn scheduled back for Citifield...Bonilla too for that matter. They are still collecting on their annuities.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Frayed Knot wrote: * Looper was actually cheap by closer standards and was here for a short term with one pretty good season followed by one lousy one, then wasn't retained after that.

I would argue that his second season wasn't so much a lousy one all season. He smashed up opening day, gradually recovered, was cruising through the middle third, and collapsed down the stretch. By the time it was clear that he wasn't coming out of his tailspin, it's not like there were a whole lot of moves to make. Yeah, Randolph could have replaced him a few weeks earlier, but there's no longterm institutional signifigance in him not. It would've been nice to see Bell or somebody get a ninth inning. They probably already were aiming at Wagner.

Looper's 2005 by the month: http://www.leaptoad.com/mets/profile.php?PlayerCode=0721&tabno=9&vMonth=ALL&vYear=2005 .

Looper's 2005 by the game.

[Frayed Knot]

Well it certainly wasn't a good season.
Closers with seasons of near 1.5 WHiP, ~4.00 ERA, and 20+% blown saves don't gain too many fans.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Which isn't what I said.

What I'm saying is that he didn't pitch so as to argue for his removal from his job until he approached the end of his two-year tenure.

Through July 23, he had a 3.05 ERA. His strikeout totals were alarmingly low, however.

The only candidate making a case for himself to replace Looper was Roberto Hernandez.

[Guest patona314]

Edgy DC wrote: Which isn't what I said. What I'm saying is that he didn't pitch so as to argue for his removal from his job until he approached the end of his two-year tenure. Through July 23, he had a 3.05 ERA. His strikeout totals were alarmingly low, however. The only candidate making a case for himself to replace Looper was Roberto Hernandez.

uh... past history dudes. pitchers and catchers report soon. We're winners now, and get used to it (at least for a while). And if you don't stop talking about past losing players and seasons, I will talk incessantly about how Bobby Jones might be the greatest Met pitcher of all time.

[Guest patona314]

Looks like Dave Williams is out until June. Just read it on Metsblog.com

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Williams out until June?

I guess that's why we can't pile on Omar for stockpiling Aaron Sele types.

[metirish]

His neck is banjaxed so he's to have surgery...