Master Index of Archived Threads


Bobby Parnell

Ceetar Aug 19 2010 07:54 AM

Edgy DC wrote: It also meant the world to me that Jerry used his "closer" first, and so our pitchers would be used more or less in the order of their expected effectiveness. This nearly proves, sadly, that keeping a closer in the pen in extra-innings on the road isn't a strategy that's about winning games for Jerry, but about pumping stats up for the overindulged big name. Takahashi may be the nominal closer, but he doesn't have the juice for that sort of treatment. I agree with this. Parnell seems the prototypical 'closer' in a way, and there is a post on Metsblog today about wanting to see him get the saves. I happen to like Parnell, I think he's got a good makeup and enough talent to be successful. So could he be the guy that would be just as good as Rodriguez that we were debating for next year? Leaving aside the idea that the Mets very well might not be able to void a contract, or the idea that we could get a manager and team next year that wouldn't be married to the closer idea. How should we use Bobby for the remainder of this year? I'd like to see him get some shots at closing games, but I don't think he should be pigeonholed into a "save situation" guy either. Maybe this is a way to go into next year with a guy we trust to close games, but is also new enough that there is no reason to 'only' use him in said situations. No ego to massage or stats to collect. Just our 'best' pitcher that we trust to use at the 'best' times?

metirish Aug 19 2010 07:59 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

Are we to believe the fun on Houston that had him throwing heat at 103 last night?

Edgy DC Aug 19 2010 08:00 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

If you agree, then you understand why I think it's terribly counterproductive for somebody to advocate for who should "get the saves." I'm certain he'll geta save opportunity or two. I don't really care except that I don't want to see any one pitcher completely monopolize them. I think Parnell and Takahashi could make a wonderful late inning McRosco-type tandem.

Edgy DC Aug 19 2010 08:01 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

metirish wrote: Are we to believe the fun on Houston that had him throwing heat at 103 last night? It's 103, now? Who had him at 103?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 19 2010 08:01 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

If you've been reading the debate here (and IMO, paying attention to the Mets results for the last several years) it should be plainly obvious (also IMO) that making decisions based on "closing" games is a fool's errand and only contributes to the propensity to make a poor decision before there's ever a save to be had. That said what I read this morning in the Snooze suggests the Mets would consider Parnell and (cover your ears) Mejia for the closer role, depending on much including how they do for the rest of the season, whether Rodriguez ever returns, who will manage, what trades get made etc etc etc. Parnell's always had a great arm but they say his effective repetoire is limited (he lacks a good offspeed offering). I think he could be about as good getting outs as the rest of his teammates in the pen and I'd consider him to be part of my "winning games" squad.

Ceetar Aug 19 2010 08:11 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

I do understand, but I also believe that even once we remove a bunch of these coaches and managers, the Mets will try to assign bullpen roles next year. I think the last pitch he threw was supposedly 103.

Frayed Knot Aug 19 2010 08:11 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

Leaving aside the idea that the Mets ... could get a manager and team next year that wouldn't be married to the closer idea. Tough to go looking for a critter that probably doesn't exist. I mean we can blame Jerry all we want (and there certainly are things to blame him for) but, when it comes to closers, every manager in the majors uses one in virtually the same way. As far as how Parnell is used for the remainder of the season ... I don't care. He's still got work to do as no one lives off heat alone and until he can refine that slider and throw it for strikes every once in a while he's going to get smacked around on occasion - especially by LHBs (.316 BAA this season). I'm of the opinion that any reliever who can pitch effectively can be used to close (as opposed to the "but the ninth inning is different!!!!" crowd) so as long as he's used sensibly I'd prefer he not be locked into some role that tries to define him. Maybe the best thing about last night wasn't the lit-up radar gun but that he went two solid innings which could help ease the doubts he brought from Buffalo about him falling apart after one.

MFS62 Aug 19 2010 08:13 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

The gun in Buffalo had him throwing 98-99 MPH earlier this year, so an occasional pitch of 102 isn't that far out of question. Were those readings consistent throughout his stay on the mound? And that puzzles me. Earlier in his career, the minor league reports about Parnell as a starter were that his fastball velocity increased toward the end of games. Those reports indicated that he took time to get himself going, and becoming a short man would be out of the question. But after last night, I may be thinking he can become an effective reliever. Later

Ceetar Aug 19 2010 08:15 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

Ceetar wrote: I do understand, but I also believe that even once we remove a bunch of these coaches and managers, the Mets will try to assign bullpen roles next year. I think the last pitch he threw was supposedly 103. The last pitch of the 11th is listed on gameday as 103. 3" break, 11" pfx. was on the outside edge of the plate, swinging K. Yeah, he was pretty consistent. the first batter of each Inning was a little slower. He through 6 pitches to the final batter, Castro, all at least 100.

Edgy DC Aug 19 2010 08:21 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

Frayed Knot wrote: Maybe the best thing about last night wasn't the lit-up radar gun but that he went two solid innings which could help ease the doubts he brought from Buffalo about him falling apart after one. Which were terribly unreasonable, and led to the head-scratching Jerryiness of "protecting" a guy from having to go more than one inning, but being unafeared of throwing him several times a week.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 19 2010 08:39 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

I wouldn't expect a manager (or even athletes these days) would do well without roles to fill, and so of course the Mets will have some kind of closer. I liked the way Valentine managed things: He basically aligned his guys by effectiveness then used his better arms in games they were winning, and others as needed in losing and/or tied games. This meant the more effective guys (Turk/Cook/Franco) were used more often (ideally) than the others but not too often: It also gave the so-called 2nd team releivers (the Rick Whites, McMichaels etc etc) motivation to get more meaningful turns. It also related at some level to the game situation, asking the O to pick up when needed and rewarding it with its best defense when it had. What drives me crazy about Jerry is actually a lack of regimentation beyond a devotion to a closer and a desire (but not the patience to develop) a "second closer" to work the 8th. Beyond that uses his guys without almost any regard for the score or game situation, burning holes in guys like Feliciano and Nieve and creating a kind of confusion near the end of games where an alternative strategy endeavored to provide some certainty and consistency.

attgig Aug 19 2010 08:52 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

Contrary to the popular forum opinion, I'm for the fact of one person monopolizing all the save opportunities through the rest of the season. If we have a hodgepodge of folks being the closer, come spring, krod is again, our de-facto closer. nobody to challenge him. If we have someone who becomes our shut down closer for the rest of the season, we have someone who may steal a good amount of saves away from him in 2011. I'm all for anything that will keep him away from that 17mil option.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2010 09:05 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

attgig wrote: Contrary to the popular forum opinion, I'm for the fact of one person monopolizing all the save opportunities through the rest of the season. If we have a hodgepodge of folks being the closer, come spring, krod is again, our de-facto closer. nobody to challenge him. If we have someone who becomes our shut down closer for the rest of the season, we have someone who may steal a good amount of saves away from him in 2011. I'm all for anything that will keep him away from that 17mil option. Hmm. HMM. If you ask me, I like the Parnell/Takahashi combo for a few reasons-- entirely different pitching styles/handedness/velocity ranges being chief among them. But... well... they're likely not asking me anytime soon for my opinion. I mean, unless the guys replacing Jerry and/or Omar next year are radical-for-baseball-guys in terms of bullpen usage... it's GOING to be K-Rod (or-- shudder-- the next K-Rod) next year anyway, right? Unless... you "establish" one guy this year. Then, maybe?

attgig Aug 19 2010 09:48 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: If you ask me, I like the Parnell/Takahashi combo for a few reasons-- entirely different pitching styles/handedness/velocity ranges being chief among them. But... well... they're likely not asking me anytime soon for my opinion. I mean, unless the guys replacing Jerry and/or Omar next year are radical-for-baseball-guys in terms of bullpen usage... it's GOING to be K-Rod (or-- shudder-- the next K-Rod) next year anyway, right? Unless... you "establish" one guy this year. Then, maybe? sure, make parnell 8th and tak 9th, or vice versa. but keep one as the closer make a case that next year, krod is not guaranteed the closer job. if the contract becomes unguaranteed, maybe we can even just straight out cut him. more likely though, he's still on our roster, but doesn't get to close out 54 games over the season because over august and september, tak or parnell gave us 15+ saves, had a sub 2 era, high k:bb ratio, and didn't give the fans, teamates and managers indigestion every time they came out. of course that's dependent on the performance of whoever they deem is our closer the rest of the season...but still. And with that I also favor takahashi because they have the added excuse that he's a lefty and he can have some matchup advantages in some situations next year over krod. that said, I always thought feliciano would be given a shot at the closer role after being such a workhorse for so long for the mets....

Edgy DC Aug 19 2010 10:04 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

As I mentioned in the other thread, that $17.5 million option has a $3.5 million buyout clause. It seems to me that playing at a disadvantage in inning 10 to save your best releiver for a save that may or may not be available in inning 12 is somewhat analogous to playing in 2010 to control an option that may or may not be an issue in 2012. It seems the Mets are doing what they can to make it go away, and if that means buying it out, I imagine they will.

Ceetar Aug 19 2010 10:06 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

Now now, in 2012 the Mets will be coming off a World Series championship. They'll be doing some tinkering for sure, but they may ultimately decide that they don't need to buy him out and can add the pieces without doing so to repeat as champions.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2010 10:19 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

Edgy DC wrote: As I mentioned in the other thread, that $17.5 million option has a $3.5 million buyout clause. The buyout voids if 2012 vests.

attgig Aug 19 2010 10:27 AM Re: Bobby Parnell Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Aug 19 2010 10:29 AM

As I mentioned in the other thread, that $17.5 million option has a $3.5 million buyout clause. The buyout voids if 2012 vests. mis-read this the first time around. i think i'm reading this right now... he needs to do ALL THREE - 55games in 2011 AND 100 games in both 2010&2011, AND doc needs to ok him. http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/1 ... -mets.html 3 years/$37M (2009-11), plus 2012 option signed by NY Mets as a free agent 12/9/08 $2M signing bonus 09:$8.5M, 10:$11.5M, 11:$11.5M, 12:$17.5M option ($3.5M buyout) 2012 option becomes guaranteed with: 55 games finished in 2011, and 100 games finished in 2010-11, and doctors declare Rodriguez healthy after 2011 Rodriguez receives $3.5M termination buyout if 2012 option does not become guaranteed annual performance bonuses, 2009-11: $0.15M each for 50, 55 GF; $0.2M for 60 GF 2012 performance bonuses: $0.3M each for 50, 55 GF; $0.4M for 60 GF limited no-trade clause allowing Rodriguez to block deals to 10 clubs award bonuses: $50,000 for LCS MVP; $0.1M each for All Star, WS MVP; $0.1M for Cy Young ($75,000 for 2nd in vote, $50,000 for 3rd, $25,000 for 4th or 5th); $0.1M for MVP ($75,000 for 2nd in vote, $50,000 for 3rd, $25,000 for 4th or 5th); $0.1M for 1st-time Rolaids ($75,000 for 2nd in vote, $50,000 for 3rd, $25,000 for 4th or 5th); $0.2M for 2nd-time Rolaids; $0.4M for 3rd-time Rolaids; $0.8M for 4th-time Rolaids

Edgy DC Aug 19 2010 10:27 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

Well, that's a $14 million misunderstanding by me.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 19 2010 10:30 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

Oh, that's too bad. They may have to goad him into punching somebody else then. The possibility of the $17.5 million becoming guaranteed makes him a lot less tradeable.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2010 10:34 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

K-Rod's contract is relatively cheap once you adjust for inflation and the 35% a year in interest the Mets had written in stone from their investments with Madoff.

attgig Aug 19 2010 10:40 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Oh, that's too bad. They may have to goad him into punching somebody else then. I predict next year's cranepool forum at the game will reserve the section right next to the mets bullpen. all CF members rail on frankie hard about being a geezer beater and krod attacks fans in the stands, getting himself suspended...

Frayed Knot Aug 19 2010 11:44 AM Re: Bobby Parnell

2012 option becomes guaranteed with: 55 games finished in 2011, and 100 games finished in 2010-11, and doctors declare Rodriguez healthy after 2011 He finished 46 games this season so the injury/fight and his truncated year didn't do anything (pending legal wrangling of course) to make the option less reachable. 55 games finished in 2011 would make it 101 over the two years and if a NYM doctor declares him 'unhealthy' after that this current union grievance will seem like small potatoes compared to the one they'll bring down then.

seawolf17 Aug 19 2010 12:15 PM Re: Bobby Parnell

Ceetar wrote: Now now, in 2012 the Mets will be coming off a World Series championship. They'll be doing some tinkering for sure, but they may ultimately decide that they don't need to buy him out and can add the pieces without doing so to repeat as champions. Yeah, like they're going to get rid of the guy who struck out Miguel Cabrera with the tying run on third to win the World Series. No effin' way.