Preferred Starting Pitcher

[Benjamin Grimm]

Of the three guys most rumored to be signed for the Met rotation in the coming weeks, which one would you prefer?

[smg58]

I went with Lowe because he's the best pitcher of the three, but I still wouldn't go four years with him.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Me too.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Perez Wolf Lowe.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I'm hoping that as the market collapses out from under the remaining free agents that the Mets will be able to sign Perez and Wolf for little more than what Lowe and his agent originally were expecting to take in per annum. Not likely, but that would be a perfect scenarion in my view.

Still, I voted Lowe in this poll because I feel he is the surest, most consistent performer of the group.

[Fman99]

A or B, but not C. I'd rather see them give young arms a shot at sticking in that 5th spot and/or sign cheaper (than Wolf) free agent "talent" to fill out the rotation.

[metirish]

I voted Perez , he's young and has the potential to be very good. I like Lowe but not for three years.

[Frayed Knot]

Depends on the deal obviously.
If available for reasonable terms (the definition of which varies between the three pitchers) I'd go Perez - Lowe - Wolf in that order.

[soupcan]

Perez.

Going with 'the devil you know' theory.

[Zvon]

I'd like another lefty in the rotation, and I'm partial to Perez, but in a simple poll like this I'd go with the ground ball inducing Lowe.

There's no doubt he's the best of the three in many categories.

[nymr83]

I voted for Lowe but thats only based on who I'd rather have for 2009. If we're talking about a longterm deal (which it will likely take to get any of these guys) I'd rather have the younger Perez.

[Guest Edgy DC]

By the way, Louie Perez, Peter Wolf, and Nick Lowe would make a great start to a rock band lineup.

[Guest sharpie]

Who voted Wolf?

[Centerfield]

Randy's mom must be a lurker here.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Remember that Lunchbucket is an honorary member of the Wolfpack.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yes, but I voted Ollie. I do think Wolf is an underrated guy; when healthy he's been solid, and in retrospect we're world champeens if Omar had only went and got him last summer, instead of crossing his fingers and watching Pedro get his ass kicked a dozen times.

So, I'm in favor of signing Ollie AND Wofie

[Guest attgig]

just reading up olney's blog, and he lists out a couple of possible flyers to consider. one being Mark Mulder.

I would think after signing one of these 3 as our #4, Mulder would be a great #5 option to compete with Niese. incentive deal, perhaps looking like Penny's deal, but lower starting salary, and higher bonuses?

link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3797401&name=olney_buster

(he also suggest Millar as a bench guy + possible platoon with delgado)

[A Boy Named Seo]

I think I'm now off the Lowe bandwagon altogether. He is probably the better choice than Ollie for 2009, but if one of these guys is getting a 4-year deal, I want it to be the one turning 27 this year, not the one turning 36.

Question, Rodriguez was a type A free agent, right? Assuming he was, and our first round pick now goes to the Angels, what happens if we signed another type A guy like Lowe? Supplemental?

Ollie for 4 and Ben Sheets for a hefty 1 year would be my deal.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I am so down with you that I hope nobody takes a photo.

[A Boy Named Seo]

="Edgy DC":9yzuwet4]I am so down with you that I hope nobody takes a photo.[/quote:9yzuwet4] Oh, baby. Noble covers a lot of ground[/url:9yzuwet4]today: -Mets still like Lowe a bit more than Ollie. Wolf still in the mix. -Lowe is a type A FA and would cost us a supplemental because our #1 already goes to the Angels for Rodriguez. -Mets like Alex Cora. -Omar's not freaking out about the need for another lefty, but thinks he can get one on the cheap if he has to.

metirish Dec 29 2008 11:54 AM

" Look , the question I axe myself is , do I think we need another starter.Yes we do because as things stand on this day we have four starters so that means I need to get another one or maybe two because we don't know what this young guys will bring , now do I go and fill that via free agency or a trade? I will tell you this , I do prefer to go via free agency " Omar being cryptic as usual.

Edgy DC Dec 29 2008 11:57 AM

Thing is that Ollie costs us a pick also, because by signing him the Mets sacrifice the pick that would be coming back to them as compensation. We're not generally talking first rounders here, because the Mets already sacrificed theirs at the alter of K-Rod. Question is: if the Mets sign Lowe, do they give up their second rounder to the Dodgers, even if the team grabbing Ollie gives them a first rounder? Or do the Dodgers get that pick instead of the Mets sloppy seconds?

soupcan Dec 29 2008 12:03 PM

Did someone say 'sloppy seconds?'

A Boy Named Seo Dec 29 2008 12:04 PM

Hummina, hummina, hummina. Edgy had a good question, but I don't remember what it was now.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 29 2008 12:22 PM

You'd best be careful what you say about Jack Bauer's daughter.

Frayed Knot Dec 29 2008 12:42 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 29 2008 12:48 PM

="Edgy DC"]Thing is that Ollie costs us a pick also, because by signing him the Mets sacrifice the pick that would be coming back to them as compensation. That's one way of looking at it. Two picks actually: the one they'd get from a signing team plus the supp. ]Question is: if the Mets sign Lowe, do they give up their second rounder to the Dodgers, even if the team grabbing Ollie gives them a first rounder? Or do the Dodgers get that pick instead of the Mets sloppy seconds? Signing Lowe means that the team with the better rated FA between Rodriguez & Lowe (I'm assuming it's KRod) would get the Met 1st round pick while the other gets our 2nd rounder. See also the discussion in the Teixeira thread. Whatever picks a team gains from losing a FA are untouchable by other teams. ="Seo"]Lowe is a type A FA and would cost us a supplemental because our #1 already goes to the Angels for Rodriguez. Not quite - see above or re-read Noble. Supplemental picks are just that, extra picks gained for losing a FA or not signing a draft pick from the last draft, and they're not subject to being lost. The Mets would lose their 2nd rounder for inking Lowe in addition to their 1st for Rodriguez. On the other hand they'd gain [Team X's] 1st or 2nd round pick (subject to several conditions) plus a supplemental if Ollie walks so it would come out pretty much even. Hypothetical: - Mets lose 1st round pick (~#25) to Angels for KRod - Mets lose 2nd round pick (~#70?) to Dodgers for Lowe - Mets gain 1st or 2nd from Team X (as low as #16, maybe as high as #80) for losing Ollie plus a supplemental (#35-ish) Keeping Ollie and making no other compensation-required FA signings means only the 1st round loss to LAA

Frayed Knot Dec 29 2008 12:45 PM

So is that the hockey gf that was subject to the 'sloppy seconds' talk of a few weeks back? Cuthbert, or whatever?

A Boy Named Seo Dec 29 2008 12:50 PM

FK, thank you for straightening me out on that. Also, how in the F do you know all that shit?

soupcan Dec 29 2008 12:50 PM

Elisha Cuthbert - yup that's her.

Ashie62 Dec 29 2008 06:04 PM

Derek Lowe has 2 years 144K each 201 IP 197 IP 55W 49W Olilie can't match that comp

Ashie62 Dec 29 2008 06:07 PM

="Edgy DC":3qs4das5]Thing is that Ollie costs us a pick also, because by signing him the Mets sacrifice the pick that would be coming back to them as compensation. We're not generally talking first rounders here, because the Mets already sacrificed theirs at the alter of K-Rod. Question is: if the Mets sign Lowe, do they give up their second rounder to the Dodgers, even if the team grabbing Ollie gives them a first rounder? Or do the Dodgers get that pick instead of the Mets sloppy seconds?[/quote:3qs4das5] How many picks lead to anything..very overrated to me A Boy Named Seo Dec 29 2008 06:15 PM ="Ashie62":1nnnza57] ="Edgy DC":1nnnza57]Thing is that Ollie costs us a pick also, because by signing him the Mets sacrifice the pick that would be coming back to them as compensation. We're not generally talking first rounders here, because the Mets already sacrificed theirs at the alter of K-Rod. Question is: if the Mets sign Lowe, do they give up their second rounder to the Dodgers, even if the team grabbing Ollie gives them a first rounder? Or do the Dodgers get that pick instead of the Mets sloppy seconds?[/quote:1nnnza57] How many picks lead to anything..very overrated to me[/quote:1nnnza57] That David Wright's OK.

[metirish]

" Look , the question I axe myself is , do I think we need another starter.Yes we do because as things stand on this day we have four starters so that means I need to get another one or maybe two because we don't know what this young guys will bring , now do I go and fill that via free agency or a trade? I will tell you this , I do prefer to go via free agency "


Omar being cryptic as usual.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Thing is that Ollie costs us a pick also, because by signing him the Mets sacrifice the pick that would be coming back to them as compensation.

We're not generally talking first rounders here, because the Mets already sacrificed theirs at the alter of K-Rod.

Question is: if the Mets sign Lowe, do they give up their second rounder to the Dodgers, even if the team grabbing Ollie gives them a first rounder? Or do the Dodgers get that pick instead of the Mets sloppy seconds?

[soupcan]

Did someone say 'sloppy seconds?'

[A Boy Named Seo]

Hummina, hummina, hummina.

Edgy had a good question, but I don't remember what it was now.

[Benjamin Grimm]

You'd best be careful what you say about Jack Bauer's daughter.

[Frayed Knot]

="Edgy DC"]Thing is that Ollie costs us a pick also, because by signing him the Mets sacrifice the pick that would be coming back to them as compensation.

That's one way of looking at it. Two picks actually: the one they'd get from a signing team plus the supp.

]Question is: if the Mets sign Lowe, do they give up their second rounder to the Dodgers, even if the team grabbing Ollie gives them a first rounder? Or do the Dodgers get that pick instead of the Mets sloppy seconds?

Signing Lowe means that the team with the better rated FA between Rodriguez & Lowe (I'm assuming it's KRod) would get the Met 1st round pick while the other gets our 2nd rounder. See also the discussion in the Teixeira thread.
Whatever picks a team gains from losing a FA are untouchable by other teams.

="Seo"]Lowe is a type A FA and would cost us a supplemental because our #1 already goes to the Angels for Rodriguez.

Not quite - see above or re-read Noble.
Supplemental picks are just that, extra picks gained for losing a FA or not signing a draft pick from the last draft, and they're not subject to being lost.
The Mets would lose their 2nd rounder for inking Lowe in addition to their 1st for Rodriguez.
On the other hand they'd gain [Team X's] 1st or 2nd round pick (subject to several conditions) plus a supplemental if Ollie walks so it would come out pretty much even.

Hypothetical:
- Mets lose 1st round pick (~#25) to Angels for KRod
- Mets lose 2nd round pick (~#70?) to Dodgers for Lowe
- Mets gain 1st or 2nd from Team X (as low as #16, maybe as high as #80) for losing Ollie plus a supplemental (#35-ish)

Keeping Ollie and making no other compensation-required FA signings means only the 1st round loss to LAA

Edited December 29, 2008 by Guest

[Frayed Knot]

So is that the hockey gf that was subject to the 'sloppy seconds' talk of a few weeks back?

Cuthbert, or whatever?

[A Boy Named Seo]

FK, thank you for straightening me out on that. Also, how in the F do you know all that shit?

[soupcan]

Elisha Cuthbert - yup that's her.

[ashie62]

Derek Lowe has 2 years 144K each 201 IP 197 IP 55W 49W

Olilie can't match that comp