Master Index of Archived Threads


Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Benjamin Grimm Sep 06 2013 12:06 PM

I've seen in a couple of places, including one article quoted somewhere in this forum, that free agent pitcher Tim Lincecum might be a Mets target this offseason. Now, as I've said before, I no longer pay much attention at all to players who aren't on the Mets. But of course I've heard of Tim Lincecum, and recall him as a perpetual Cy Young candidate. But when someone here said something like "run in the other direction" I figured that Lincecum must have contracted leprosy or something. So I looked up his stats. A quick look tells me that he was very good to very-very good from 2008 through 2011. In each of those seasons he pitched more than 200 innings, with ERAs of 2.62, 2.48, 3.43, and 2.74. In those four seasons, his strikeout totals were 265, 261, 231, and 220, and his WHIP was 1.172, 1.047, 1.272, and 1.207. In 2012, his ERA jumped to 5.18. He still made 33 starts, pitched 186 innings, struck out 190, and his WHIP was 1.468. In 2013, his ERA has come down a bit. He's pitched 170 innings so far. 4.50 ERA, 172 strikeouts, 1.341 WHIP. His salary in 2010 was $9 million. It went to $14 million in 2011, $18 million in 2012, and this year it's $22 million. He definitely doesn't seem to be the pitcher he once was. But what kind of a 2014 New York Met would he be? If he pitches in 2014 the way he has in 2013, I think he'd be an asset to the team, if only as an innings-eating fifth starter. Remember, the Mets will potentially be going into next season with several starters who will be facing innings limits. Niese and Gee will be okay, but Wheeler, and potentially Syndergaard and/or Montero, will be having their innings monitored. So a 200-inning guy is something the Mets are going to need. The big question is, how much money is he going to command? If he's looking to stay in the $22 million-per-year range, then yes, the Mets should definitely run in the other direction. But I'd be surprised if he got close to that amount, given that he's two full years removed from superstar status, and he'll turn 30 around the middle of next season. So I suppose the question is: How much money might Lincecum reasonably get, and is he, at his current level, worth that amount? (And there's always the potential that he'll bounce back to what he was three or four years ago.) I wouldn't advocate paying him for his past, but I'm not sure there's not a potential fit here. Let's talk about Tim Lincecum.

themetfairy Sep 06 2013 12:30 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

My gut says to stay away. Even at a discount we'd overpay for past performance, and he's not the pitcher that he was.

Edgy MD Sep 06 2013 12:32 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

The main need is offense. The only reason to secure Tim Lincecum would be if you were dealing from the pitching they already had in house, like if they were packaging Zack Wheeler and Carlos Torres for Giancarlo Stanton or something.

Lefty Specialist Sep 06 2013 12:39 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Very leery about someone who pitches well for a long period, then his stats nosedive. He won't be looking for fifth-starter money, that's for sure. There will be plenty of other pitchers who'll be able to fill that slot for a fraction of Lincecum's price. And yes, the need is for offense.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 06 2013 12:44 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

I think they do need to bring in a pitcher who's old enough not to be innings limited. I'm not saying that Lincecum is that guy. If Harvey is out, then we have only Niese and Gee who can go from April to September. And what if there's an October? (I'm not yet forming an opinion as to whether that's likely or not, but it is possible.) Yes, offense is more important. Definitely. But starting pitching can't be neglected either. And Sandy did say that he was going to look to bring someone in.

Edgy MD Sep 06 2013 12:56 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Maybe we shouldn't be looking to pick Reyes off of the Rays corpse, but rather Dickey instead. I mean, if you're looking for an innings eater, and suspect they're looking to divest. No, I don't think they'll do it either.

Frayed Knot Sep 06 2013 01:16 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Lefty Specialist wrote: [Lincecum] won't be looking for fifth-starter money, that's for sure. There will be plenty of other pitchers who'll be able to fill that slot for a fraction of Lincecum's price. I think that's the biggest point, that the Mets will (especially if Harvey gets the surgery) quite likely be looking for a veteran 4th-5th starter type probably on a one-year deal. The most recent example of this is the Nats who employed Edwin Jackson in 2012 and then replaced him with Dan Haren this season. Neither came cheap and the results have been decidedly mixed. Jackson 2012 - 28 y/o - 1 year/$11 million -- 10-11; 4.03; 1.22 WHiP -- My recollection was that he was more than acceptable during most of that season then started to wear down towards the end which helped drag down the overall numbers. Jackson then parlayed that season into a 3x$13 deal with the Cubs Haren 2013 - 32 y/o - 1 year/$14 million -- 8-12; 5.02; 1.28 -- Kind of the opposite of Jackson: started slow then got (somewhat) better. Haren had a better career to date than did Jackson but also more miles on him and some down years since his really good ones. So will Lincecum, who turned down long-term money w/the Giants 2-3 years ago and made the big bucks with one-year deals instead, be satisfied with another one-year 'make good' kind of deal with hopes of hitting the FA market next year in better shape? I tend to doubt it but I suppose it's not out of the question. And even if the price tag will no longer be $20, it'll likely be 70 or more percent of that. I know Sandy mentioned looking to a vet to fill in a potential Harvey hole but he also hinted that such money could take away from whatever else they're trying to do so I think a lesser light than Lincecum will be a likely target if NYM plans come to that.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 06 2013 01:20 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

I think offense is the big need, because our starters must know that once they give up a second run, the best they can hope for is a no-decision. I think I read somewhere that Lincecum might be looking for a short deal to show what he can do, then get a bigger deal once he proves he is still a stud. If, we in fact lose Harvey for a year, then a short deal might not be horrible -- but I'd rather see them throw money at some sluggers.

seawolf17 Sep 06 2013 02:01 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

I'd absolutely do Lincecum on a one-year superMarcum deal.

dinosaur jesus Sep 06 2013 02:18 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Lincecum now, saying "Money, money"? I say No (No) No (No) No (No) No (No) No (No) With someone like that, you're paying for what he used to be and getting what he is now. That's a proven method for throwing your money away. You might get lucky, but I hope the Mets' future isn't based on hoping to get lucky.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 06 2013 02:28 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Hopefully, the Mets would only sign him at the "now" price, rather than the "used to be" price.

Ceetar Sep 06 2013 02:48 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Guy struck out in over half of his plate appearances. That won't get it done.

Ashie62 Sep 06 2013 04:04 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Lincecum= Matsuzaka

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 06 2013 05:43 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

seawolf17 wrote: I'd absolutely do Lincecum on a one-year superMarcum deal. This. After the last two years, there's no WAY his price is over $10M. And offensive need aside, Sandy DID say he'd look to bring in reliable vet pitching in the event of a Harvey surgery.

Zvon Sep 06 2013 05:56 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

If Harvey takes the knife Id enjoy Lincecum for a season at a reasonable price. Maybe even more so if he doesn't when I think about it.

Ashie62 Sep 06 2013 06:23 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Zvon wrote: If Harvey takes the knife Id enjoy Lincecum for a season at a reasonable price. Maybe even more so if he doesn't when I think about it. Problem is I don't believe Timmy will go for a reasonable price.. Timmy goes 3 for 24 Million???

TheOldMole Sep 07 2013 08:42 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

I worry less about money than most here. The idea that a player may be overpaid doesn't terrify me much. If the Mets don't sign a powerhitting outfielder it'll be because they couldn't make the right deal with the right one, not because they also signed a pitcher.

smg58 Sep 07 2013 10:11 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Whichever pitcher is willing to take a one-year deal is who I'm looking at. I'm guessing Lincecum's reputation is sufficient to get him more than that, even if his recent performance doesn't justify it.

smg58 Sep 08 2013 04:51 AM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Actually, the forgotten man in this discussion is Jennry Mejia, who should be fine for ST. I've got no problem with Niese, Wheeler, Gee, Mejia, and Montero to start the year. (Montero is pitching quite a bit better at Vegas over more innings than Wheeler did, so I see no reason to keep him there.) Barring another injury (and really, we're overdue for some good luck in that regard), I'm not looking for more than organizational depth. Hell, we can always use Torres in a pinch again.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 08 2013 04:59 AM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

My only problem with that rotation is that by September, three of those five guys will be approaching innings limits. If the Mets then manage to make the postseason, they'll have to build a new rotation, much like they're doing this year with Torres, Matsuzaka, and Harang.

smg58 Sep 08 2013 05:29 AM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

Screw the innings limits if we're contending in September.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 08 2013 06:30 AM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

There is no such thing as "barring injury" anymore... especially when 3/5 of the rotation has a recent-- and frequently dotted-- injury history. Depth isn't a nice thing to have-- it's requisite.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 08 2013 08:01 AM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

smg58 wrote: Screw the innings limits if we're contending in September. I'm pretty sure they won't do that.

Edgy MD Sep 08 2013 08:24 PM Re: Let's talk about Tim Lincecum

If they are capping players' innings limits, they probably won't be doing it so hard if they're in a divisional race. But it all depends on who is coming off of what surgery and whatnot. That's all filed under nice-problems-to have. I would imagine if they want an innings gobbler, Lincebum isn't their guy. It's within reason to argue that an abundance of innings is what has led to the depression in his performance as it is.