State of the Mets pitching staff
With opening day around the corner, most teams have trimmed rosters signficantly, if not set it outright, and my Mets are no exception. In an attempt to stem the tide of incessant Red Sox/Yankee posts, I thought I would represent the “other” team in NY; Al “Money” Reba can certainly do a better job than myself, but he’s far too busy, so I will do my best….
The good news - Omar and Willie are giving the kids a shot in the rotation; Maine, Perez and Pelfrey are penciled in as #3,4 and 5 in the rotation. Meaning, of course, Aaron Sele and Chan Ho Park are thankfully nowhere to be found in the rotation. However, that leads to the bad news…..
Sele and Park are nowhere near the rotation becuase not one but BOTH are in the ‘pen. Some of this is due to the fact Sanchez is hurt again, but it appears that Omar and Willie had this in mind before the injury, and Joe Smith made the team due to Sanchez being out.
Now according to the conventional logic that starters are more valuable, they should do less harm in the ‘pen then they would pitching every 5th day. However, it appears they might ask Park to be the 7th inning guy. Sele appears to be the long man, though, so he can’t really do too much damage in that role.
I’m not really a fan of these moves, though - they are asking TWO guys to peform a role they are not really used to, with Park apparently going to get a fair amount of responsibility. And with so many kids in the rotation, the ‘pen figures to play a big role for the Mets, in an attempt to keep them from throwing 180-200 innings, something that Maine and Pelfrey have never done, and Perez hasn’t done in 4 years.
All that said, it’s almost April, where optimism reigns supreme; the Mets offense figures to be even better than last year, so here’s to hoping they score bunches of runs early and hold on until they can get the ball to Heilman and Wagner in the 8th and 9th….
March 28th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
These “Mets” you speak of - you say they play here in New York?
March 28th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
This issue could have been avoided completely had the Mets decided not to sign pitching fodder like Park and Sele in the first place. A huge reason the Mets were successful last year was the strength of the bullpen. That advantage is gone now. Roberto Hernandez and his resurgance is gone to Cleveland. Bradford was very reliable last year, and is gone. Feliciano had a career year last year. Good luck seeing that kind of performance again. Sanchez (arguably their top reliever the first half of last year) is having a screw put into his shoulder. They say he is back in August, I say he is done. Heilman pitched 185 innings the last couple years. I will be shocked if he makes it through the season. Wagner is a stud closer. I have a feeling that we will be seeing a lot of Sele and Park this year…. MUHAHAHA
March 28th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Interesting - Felciano is dismissed as having a career year, yet Bradford isnt? As for Hernandez - he can take himself and his 42 year old arm to CLE - he’s not Roger Clemens; I wouln’t be surprised to see him begin that inevitable slide down toward mediocrity this year.
I’m not that concerned about Heilman - he was a starter in college and most of the minors, so the innings don’t bother me all that much. Smith is supposed to be a stud, and ironically is a Bradford clone with that sidearm delivery (though apparently throws MUCH harder than Bradford - however, I’ve never seen him throw)
However, I agree about Sanchez - IMO seeing Sanchez and/or Pedro this year (or ever again, for that matter is nothing more than a pipe-dream) and the bullpen is signficantly weaker than last year….Like I said, I hope the bats can make up for it, then hope for Maine/Perez/Glavine to match their performance from last year’s playoffs and Heilman/Wagner to pitch a bit better than THEY did in the playoffs….
March 28th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Maybe I should have elaborated what a “career” year means. IMHO, it is when a player performs significantly better than he has in the past, and better than he is likely to pitch in the future. 2006 was a very good year for Bradford, but wasn’t much different than any other year he has had in his career. He pitched equally well in 2001, 2002, and 2003. He was a little better than in 2004 or 2005, but not significantly better. There is no reason to expect Bradford to turn in another year very different than 2006. Feliciano, OTOH, has never had a year as good as 2006. As I said several times last year, Bradford is a solid pitcher and has been throughout his career.
My original point, most likely made pre-OGS was that it was a mistake to sign CHP and Sele in the first place, and I stand by that comment. The Mets will win fewer games because of those signings.
March 28th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Interesting - ‘01-’03 and ‘06 were his better years, and ‘04 and ‘05 were a bit worse; coincidentally, those “better” years occured with Peterson as the pitching coach (in OAK then NY), and the “worse” years were without Peterson. OTOH - in Feliciano’s “career” year, Peterson was his pitching coach.
Maybe a coincidence - but I’m just sayin’….
Again, though - I agree that Mets ‘pen is worse off for having both Sele and Park in it, and might very well win less games. I can see keeping one of those guys (for the long man role), but both?
Hopefully one of them goes away forever when Mota returns in 50 games, thus limiting the damage caused by then….
March 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
But Mota will theoretically return sans steroids - and although ESPN doesn’t (yet) have “pre-steroids” and “post-steroids” splits on its player pages, I think we can guesstimate the timing ourselves. Given that, I’m not so sure that pre-steroids Mota will be an improvement… much less that he’ll last more than a couple weeks before landing on the DL.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
A steriod-less Mota is still going to be significantly better than Park or Sele. Period.
As an aside - I just read in another article that the Mets were 74-4 after 6 innings last year. I know teams usually have insane records when leading after 8 innings, or even 7 innings - but 74 wins after 6? Wow.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:09 pm
So… seeing as how the “best case scenario” occurred, does that justify the Park signing in the first place? Way back when they signed him, I mentioned that the best thing that could come out of the deal is that they cut him prior to opening day. While Park is still in the organization, that hasn’t happened, but sending him down to the minors is a good start.
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Actually, the signing played out exactly as I had hoped.
He was brought in as insurance in case the kids completely fell on their faces. That didn’t happen, so he goes to AAA, and if the rotation suffers injuries like they did last year, he’ll be a better option than Lima, Soler and Gonzalez were last year.
I wouldn’t have gone out and gotten Park, but they could have done worse….