Master Index of Archived Threads


Zambrano: What's Wrong & What Happens Next

Rotblatt May 06 2006 11:34 PM

[url=http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060506&content_id=1440797&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb]Not sounding good[/url] for Zambrano. ]"He was crying when he came in," coach Sandy Alomar said. "The pain had to be extensive." Others saw Zambrano holding his right arm straight down and rigid. "Like something was broken," a teammate said. "I hope it was bone," Cliff Floyd said. "That'll heal quicker than something else in there." He and others acknowledged that the name "Tommy John" had run through the clubhouse and their minds. "You see a pitcher holding his elbow, and you think Tommy John [elbow reconstruction] surgery," a player said. "But we don't know. No one said anything to us." There was no indication whether the pain Zambrano experienced was in the same area as or related to the strained flexor muscle he suffered shortly after he joined the Mets in 2004. He made only two appearances following his July 30 acquistion. As for their apparent plan: ]Jose Lima will replace Maine on Sunday and, because of the off-day Monday, he will be on schedule to replace Zambrano on Friday against the Brewers as well. It could be better. It could be a lot worse. Sometimes bad things happen on good days. Because the Mets are off the next two Mondays, a four-man rotation can suffice until May 21 -- except for one day. And Bannister and Maine could be available by then. Darren Oliver, summoned to relieve Zambrano on Saturday, probably won't be used as a starter. So Petey, Glavine, Trachsel, Lima. Rinse. Repeat. I don't like it. I'd rather give Pedro as much rest as we can give him early on. Lima's got good peripherals in AAA but he's given up a whole lot of home runs and his ERA stinks (5.10 ERA, 1.07 WHIP, 28 K, 3 BB, 5 HR). Still, he'll do in a pinch. I'd rather use Gonazalez, though (35.7 IP, 3.03 ERA, 1.12 WHIP, 30 K, 9 BB, 1 HR). Like most of us, I think Heilman should move to the rotation and Bell should be called up to take his place. We can use Lima as a #5 pitcher, I suppose, but he's NOT a guy I want starting every 4 games. Heilman, on the other hand . . . With Heilman in the rotation, our pen would be: Wagner (17 IP, 2.12 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 10.05 K/9, 4.23 BB/9, 1.60 HR/9) Sanchez (21 IP, 0.00 ERA, 0.71 WHIP, 7.29 K/9, 3.00 BB/9, 0 HR) Bell (AAA: 13.3 IP, 1.35 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 13.5 K/9, 2.03 BB/9, 0 HR) Julio (16.1 IP, 6.07 ERA, 1.60 WHIP, 16 K/9, 3.87 BB/9, 2.20 HR/9) Bradford (10.3 IP, 3.48 ERA, 1.45 WHIP, 10.49 K/9, 1.75 BB/9, 0 HR) Oliver (16.3 IP, 3.87 ERA, 1.04 WHIP, 9.39 K/9, 1.7 BB/9, 2.76 HR/9) Feliciano (7.1 IP, 1.23 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, 5 K, 2 BB, 0 HR) That's plenty good. Julio would replace Heilman's high-leverage innings & Bell would replace Julio's low-leverage innings. We'd keep using Bradford as a ROOGY, Oliver in long relief & Feliciano as a low-leverage LOOGY. I'd be most happy with that solution, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen in the short term. Maybe they'll consider it when we find out for how long Zambrano will be out. P.S. Prove me wrong tomorrow, Lima--please, for the love of God.

Johnny Dickshot May 07 2006 12:02 AM

Not that I'm aiming low here, but it's easier to replace Zambrano's role (~6 unpredictable innings every 5 days) than Heilman's (~6 impressive do-or-die innings innings every 5 days). IOW, you'll be asking a lot more of Julio in a bigger role than Jose F. Lima in a smaller one. If they wanna use Zambrano's injury as an invitation to upograde the rotatioon they should do it. But they won't, and probably shouldn't, rob Peter to pay Paul here. I think they'll probably try and get by a few turns with what they got. if/when or before that collapses, they'll call Heath Bell -- and tell him he's been traded for starter.

Edgy DC May 07 2006 12:13 AM

They have a lot of options here, with first Soler and then Pelfrey growing towards ripeness as the season progresses. If it's longterm for Zambrano, the sad part is for Zambrano. And perhaps his legacy as a parallel to Bruce Berenyi will be pure even until the end.

metirish May 07 2006 12:14 AM

Damn I had forgot about Soler, where is he anyway?

OlerudOwned May 07 2006 12:34 AM

metirish wrote: Damn I had forgot about Soler, where is he anyway? Probably sleeping after a nice debut with [url=http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=2808]Your Binghamton Mets[/url].

Nymr83 May 07 2006 01:21 AM

]"I hope it was bone," Cliff Floyd said. Me too. As far as the Mets go... I'd like to use Lima tommorow and Friday, I don't want to move Heilman out of his role just to make a few spot starts. If a permanent spot in the rotation just opened up THEN i'd put Heilman in unless Soler/Pelfrey is deemed ready. I wouldn't want to see Lima in the long term.

martin May 07 2006 05:47 AM

Nymr83 wrote: If a permanent spot in the rotation just opened up it looks like it has. it will be pretty interesting to see how things will turn out. i would guess lima would placehold until pelfrey or soler arrives. i guess the other option is heilman takes over and bell comes up and takes his bullpen spot. of course there are really two spots in question, the temporarily open bannister/maine slot and the new permanant opening, the zambrano slot. bannister really needs to hurry back. although i do like hearing his POV in the sny studio. i hope the long term good from this is the quick rise of pelfrey, and by the end of the season we would have pedro, glavine, trax, pelfrey, bannister/soler/maine.

Yancy Street Gang May 07 2006 06:58 AM

Zambrano is done for 2006 From Newsday: ]Victory's gained, but Victor's lost Zambrano apparently out for season after tearing elbow tendon BY DAVID LENNON Newsday Staff Writer May 7, 2006 The Mets stubbornly refused to remove Victor Zambrano from the rotation despite his struggles during the past two seasons, but now they will be forced to replace him. Zambrano abruptly left yesterday's 6-5 victory over the Braves after striking out Andruw Jones to start the second inning - suddenly sprinting to the dugout - and an MRI later revealed that he suffered a torn flexor tendon in his right elbow, effectively ending his season, according to his agent, Peter Greenberg. "Obviously, Victor's very down," Greenberg said last night. "He was pitching with discomfort and he knew there was something wrong, but he was trying to tough it out. It's the end of the line for this year." Team officials declined to elaborate on Zambrano's condition and planned to announce the diagnosis this morning along with roster moves. Greenberg said Zambrano will speak with the doctor tomorrow to schedule the surgery and might decide then on a second opinion, though that seems unnecessary. "If it's torn, it's torn," Greenberg said. "It's nobody's fault. It's just one of those things. He just has a high threshold for pain." Ramon Castro noticed something different about Zambrano when he warmed up in the bullpen for yesterday's start. He wondered to himself why Zambrano wasn't throwing any sliders - only fastballs and changeups. By the second inning, the Mets understood why, and by then it was too late. Cliff Floyd was under the impression that Zambrano lost track of the outs when the pitcher sprinted from the mound, but the Mets in the dugout realized there was a serious problem. Two pitches earlier, manager Willie Randolph had visited the mound with trainer Ray Ramirez after seeing Zambrano shaking his right arm in a vain attempt to loosen his elbow. They needed to know if he was OK. "I wanted to make sure," Randolph said. "I looked him in the eye three times and told him I didn't want him to take a chance. He told me he was all right." That was the last conversation anyone had with Zambrano before he suddenly disappeared into the dugout. And with a member of their rotation lying in an MRI tube in Manhattan, the Mets didn't feel much like celebrating after yesterday's win, even though it gave them a nine-game lead over the Braves in the NL East standings. The circumstances surrounding the injury did not sit well with Pedro Martinez, who is one of Zambrano's closest friends on the team. Martinez took an angry stance with reporters, even blaming the media's negative coverage for pushing Zambrano to the breaking point. Martinez said Zambrano's right elbow has been hurting since the start of the season, though Zambrano apparently told no one else and forced himself to pitch because he was worried about his reputation. "It was because of the damn pressure you guys put on him," said Martinez, who spoke to the devastated Zambrano before he left for the MRI. "He was crying because his elbow blew up like that. You could see it from far away." Martinez said some even warned Zambrano not to pitch yesterday. When he leaped off the mound, their worst fears had been realized.

MFS62 May 07 2006 07:24 AM

I had a Steve Dalkowski flashback. I saw him just walk off the mound after throwing a pitch in the ST game in which he blew out his arm. All that wasted talent.... sigh Later

Bret Sabermetric May 07 2006 07:48 AM

]Martinez took an angry stance with reporters, even blaming the media's negative coverage for pushing Zambrano to the breaking point. Martinez said Zambrano's right elbow has been hurting since the start of the season, though Zambrano apparently told no one else and forced himself to pitch because he was worried about his reputation. "It was because of the damn pressure you guys put on him," said Martinez, who spoke to the devastated Zambrano before he left for the MRI. "He was crying because his elbow blew up like that. You could see it from far away." Martinez said some even warned Zambrano not to pitch yesterday. When he leaped off the mound, their worst fears had been realized. What horseshit. Blaming the media because the Mets insisted on playing him even after he performed miserably. This is the weakest, most deflective, glaring failure of the team to take ANY responsibility for its own fuckups that I can imagine. Does Pedro give all the credit for his own success to that same media for putting pressure on him to be a heathy leader on this pitching staff? Would Pedro have spoken up at Victor's Cy Young award celebration dinner this fall if Victor In-Name-Only had won his first C.Y., and say that if the media hadn't pushed him so hard, he would have never pitched so much or so well? This is just typical of this team's weakness of character and failure to accept responsibility for things that are clearly 100% their own doing. Who made Victor pitch when his arm hurt? Victor, and Peterson, and Randolph and Minaya. That's who. Let them come in for Pedro's tongue-lashing.

Bret Sabermetric May 07 2006 08:32 AM

The Kaz-Victor contest now has a victor, and it ain't Victor. Fix this in ten minutes, Peterson, expert handler of pitcher's arms and careers. Kaz now has 4 times as many victories as Victor In-Name-Only in 2006 and twice as many IP, figures that of course can only get higher as the season goes on. Kaz is now 10th in the AL in ERA, while Victor is probably somewhere in the NL's bottom 5 with a season's ERA of 6.75. The big difference of course is that Victor's arm is now totally screwed up, and Kaz's is healthy, and that was most of the rationale behind swapping them--they feared that Kaz's arm wouldn't hold up. Good one, assholes. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7292 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6752 And once again, Providence has made a decision that the Mets were too inept to make themselves. Now they actually have a decent chance to win the division, thanks to Victor In-Name-Only blowing out his useless arm. I'm reminded of course of their similar obstinate stupidity in keeping Ordonez in the starting lineup, which was fixed only by his injuring himself, allowing them to win the 2000 pennant. Or insisting on keeping Franco as the closer, which decision was made only by Franco's injury that made a closer out of Benitez. People who can't make screaimingly obvious moves, and who rely on Providence to make their lineup changes for them don't reallly deserve to win, in my view, and the Mets are the World's Champions in their history of failing to make the hard yet colossally obvious decisions. You have no idea how good this will be for the Mets. Are you telling me that anyone is AAA couldn't come up and pitch better than 6.75? Of course it's a gigantic plus, that will strengthen their pitching staff during the last five months of the year (You don't think Pedro and Glavine are going to keep up this level of pitching all season, do you?) Of course, it would be so much better if the Mets had Kaz in the rotation--but then they said they expected to keep him in the minors through the first part of this year anyway. This may outrank Ryan-Fregosi in the Mets' distinguished history of trading.

KC May 07 2006 09:17 AM

KInda weird and ballsey for Pedro to even atempt blame the media. That could come back and bite him in the ass for sure. BS: >>>Providence has made a decision that the Mets were too inept to make themselves.<<< Gotta love that Providence when it works your way. I can't believe the Mess didn't see this coming. Boo Omar and Willie. Boo everyone blue and orange.

smg58 May 07 2006 09:23 AM

Pelfrey and Soler are in AA. Let's be realistic. I don't think the fifth starter is less important than the third reliever. I think Heilman is your only short-term option to take Zambrano's spot. If you don't want Heilman in the rotation, your only other option is a deal.

Bret Sabermetric May 07 2006 09:38 AM

KC wrote: Gotta love that Providence when it works your way. . Forgot about all of Matsui's injuries that helped to delay them signing him to an 8-mil extension for 2007. Do you think that when they said that Kaz was one of the most durable, injury-proof, gutty players we just misunderstood which Kaz they meant? Go, Providence!

Rotblatt May 07 2006 09:38 AM

]Not that I'm aiming low here, but it's easier to replace Zambrano's role (~6 unpredictable innings every 5 days) than Heilman's (~6 impressive do-or-die innings innings every 5 days). IOW, you'll be asking a lot more of Julio in a bigger role than Jose F. Lima in a smaller one. If they wanna use Zambrano's injury as an invitation to upograde the rotatioon they should do it. But they won't, and probably shouldn't, rob Peter to pay Paul here. The reason Heilman's been in so many tough situations is because we've gotten an average of ~5 innings from our #4 & 5 pitchers. If we had more effective pitchers, we wouldn't need our three-headed monster quite so much--a two-headed monster would be just fine. And, you know, Julio would be a little baby monster with Big Monster upside doing his teething in the middle innings. And I think you ARE aiming low. I mean, do you REALLY think we'll continue to win at a .700 pace--or even a .500 pace--with a 6.75 ERA guy (not that far off from what I expect from Lima over the rest of the season) pitching every fifth day? Bannister's upside is probably that of a league average pitcher, and who knows if he'll reach that potential this year? He might be no better than replacement level. 40% of our starts will go to big, fat question marks. That's an unacceptable measure of risk, IMO. Heilman (#3 potential, IMO) is an infintely safer bet than any of Bannister, Maine, Lima or Gonzalez, and will probably be more consistent than Soler or Pelfry. And don't forget, one of those guys will have to round out our rotation. We've got 5 guys in our bullpen (including Heilman) who have been highly effective, 1 guy who's been inconsistently dominant, and 1 guy who's been solid in Bradford. We have a good pen and can afford to let our third-best piece of it go.

Rotblatt May 07 2006 09:46 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: What horseshit. Blaming the media because the Mets insisted on playing him even after he performed miserably. This is the weakest, most deflective, glaring failure of the team to take ANY responsibility for its own fuckups that I can imagine. I agree it's a stupid thing to say, but I don't think it's fair to blame the team for Pedro's comments. What DID Mets management have to say about this, anyway? Did they take any responsibility? In retrospect, it makes sense that Zambrano had been pitching injured--it definitely explains why he became more hittable. ]Who made Victor pitch when his arm hurt? Victor, and Peterson, and Randolph and Minaya. That's who. Let them come in for Pedro's tongue-lashing. Yeah, I agree with that. I wonder if this is Petey's backhanded way of dissing management. I mean, since he can't come right out and SAY it, he'll blame "the media." Or am I giving Petey too much credit because I happen to think he's a genius? And what does it mean that Petey and Oliver both knew that Zambrano had elbow problems but his coaches didn't?

Bret Sabermetric May 07 2006 09:55 AM

Rotblatt wrote: Or am I giving Petey too much credit because I happen to think he's a genius? And what does it mean that Petey and Oliver both knew that Zambrano had elbow problems but his coaches didn't? KC likes to pretend that every fuckup occurs out of any context whatsoever, Rotblatt, and that by providing a context of fuckups in which this one (whichever one we're discussing) occurred, I'm expanding every thread into a stupid indiscrimnating excuse for an anti-Mets rant, but in truth you need to look at the bg picture to understand how this fuckup (which as I argue isn't actually harmful to the Mets) typifies a policy by which the Mets succeed (on the rare occasions of their success over the last half-decade) only when Providence interferes with their ability to carry out their plans. They were prepared to ride out Victor's 2006 with him pitching 180+ innings, which would have bitten their ass sooner or later. Now, not so much. But put it in the context of "Would you rather have Kaz or Victor In-Name-Only now" and you clearly see the puddle of failure-piss at the Mets' feet. If you have eyes, that is. And are willing to open them. And think about the meaning of what you see.

KC May 07 2006 10:07 AM

I'm not pretending anything. I thought your citing of Providential Intervention was amusing. Don't make everything so personal, please.

Bret Sabermetric May 07 2006 10:40 AM

KC wrote: I'm not pretending anything. I thought your citing of Providential Intervention was amusing. Don't make everything so personal, please. Not personal at all. I'm just providing a context--a gigantic landscape, really--of screwups and failed CYA attempts to view this in, and you keep on implying that all I'm doing is ranting about my irrelevant and irrational hatred for the Mets. Stop writing stupid overgeneralized shit like "Boo Omar and Willie. Boo everyone blue and orange" and I won't need to defend it. As always, it's your call. But please don't kick me in the nuts and then say, "Bret hurt my foot with those nasty testicles of his."

Elster88 May 07 2006 10:58 AM

The Julio-Benson trade now looks even worse....no matter what you think of Julio....just because another arm in the rotation would be helpful. And the Mets were pretty stupid this offseason if they figured every starter would stay healthy all year. We haven't even gotten to Pedro's annual three week injury. What happens when we hit that? Glavine-Trachsel-Bannister-Maine-Lima

Elster88 May 07 2006 11:02 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: The Kaz-Victor contest now has a victor, and it ain't Victor. Fix this in ten minutes, Peterson, expert handler of pitcher's arms and careers. Kaz now has 4 times as many victories as Victor In-Name-Only in 2006 and twice as many IP, figures that of course can only get higher as the season goes on. Kaz is now 10th in the AL in ERA, while Victor is probably somewhere in the NL's bottom 5 with a season's ERA of 6.75. The big difference of course is that Victor's arm is now totally screwed up, and Kaz's is healthy, and that was most of the rationale behind swapping them--they feared that Kaz's arm wouldn't hold up. Good one, assholes. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7292 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6752 I wanted to post my own "I told you so" message (aimed at Mets' management of course, I don't remember anyone here saying Kazmir/Zambrano was a good trade), but I think Bret's will do just nicely.

Elster88 May 07 2006 11:06 AM

]KInda weird and ballsey for Pedro to even atempt blame the media. That could come back and bite him in the ass for sure. I was thinking the same thing, but I wonder if it will bite him. He won't care what the media prints, and I doubt any fans will turn on him. If anything, many will probably swallow the message whole and believe it themselves. One of our own, while not believing Pedro's story, is leaning toward it thinking it is just a way of Pedro taking a veiled shot at management.

Bret Sabermetric May 07 2006 11:07 AM

Elster88 wrote: Mets were pretty stupid Radical notion, Elster. I'll need to mull that one over. Have you got any evidence? SAT scores? IQ results? You can't just make a flat statement like that, on the flimsy basis of having pathetically inept pitchers cast into a starting role in the rotation. I happen to know that Willie got a 78 average in 8th grade--he's a super-genius. And Omar once made it to "honorable mention" in a public speaking course. How dare you?

Elster88 May 07 2006 11:08 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Do you think that when they said that Kaz was one of the most durable, injury-proof, gutty players we just misunderstood which Kaz they meant? To be fair to the Mets, every scout who ever saw him said the exact same thing.

Elster88 May 07 2006 11:09 AM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on May 07 2006 11:21 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Elster88"]Mets were pretty stupid Radical notion, Elster. I'll need to mull that one over. Have you got any evidence? SAT scores? IQ results? You can't just make a flat statement like that, on the flimsy basis of having pathetically inept pitchers cast into a starting role in the rotation. I happen to know that Willie got a 78 average in 8th grade--he's a super-genius. And Omar once made it to "honorable mention" in a public speaking course. How dare you? Is there a point to this post?

Bret Sabermetric May 07 2006 11:12 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 07 2006 11:13 AM

Elster88 wrote: ="Bret Sabermetric"]Do you think that when they said that Kaz was one of the most durable, injury-proof, gutty players we just misunderstood which Kaz they meant? To be fair to the Mets, every scout who ever saw him said the exact same thing. I'll need a notorized statement from "every scout who ever saw him" before we can admit this into evidence. (Is there ever a point to any of my posts? They're all just stupid B.S.) OE: Having dual Maz/Elster avatars is dangerously gay.

KC May 07 2006 11:13 AM

E: >>>Is there a point to this post?<<< Yes, the point is Bret can over-generalize - I can't. Rinse, repeat.

Elster88 May 07 2006 11:13 AM

It's good to have you back, Bret.

Elster88 May 07 2006 11:30 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Ramon Castro noticed something different about Zambrano when he warmed up in the bullpen for yesterday's start. He wondered to himself why Zambrano wasn't throwing any sliders - only fastballs and changeups. By the second inning, the Mets understood why, and by then it was too late. ...... "I wanted to make sure," Randolph said. "I looked him in the eye three times and told him I didn't want him to take a chance. He told me he was all right." ....... The circumstances surrounding the injury did not sit well with Pedro Martinez, who is one of Zambrano's closest friends on the team. Martinez took an angry stance with reporters, even blaming the media's negative coverage for pushing Zambrano to the breaking point. Martinez said Zambrano's right elbow has been hurting since the start of the season, though Zambrano apparently told no one else and forced himself to pitch because he was worried about his reputation. "It was because of the damn pressure you guys put on him," said Martinez, who spoke to the devastated Zambrano before he left for the MRI. "He was crying because his elbow blew up like that. You could see it from far away." I think we can mark Victor telling Willie that he was fine as a lie. The pain was enough that he wouldn't throw a slider, yet after Willie asked him he said he was fine. Sounds like Victor was lying. Of course, it's the media's fault when a player refuses to mention pain to the manager. OE: Not just refusing to mention pain, but lying about it! ------ Unrelated note: What on earth does "I looked him in the eye three times" mean? Did Willie ask Victor if he was okay three times? Does Willie normally not make eye contact on the mound, so looking at Victor's eyes three time was supposed to hold extra significance? Or does Zambrano usually look down like a small child (Here I'm picturing Willie crouching three times to make eye contact as Zambrano tries looks away.) I didn't see any crouching at the game yesterday so I doubt the last, at least, but I'm still confused here.

DocTee May 07 2006 12:11 PM

]And perhaps his legacy as a parallel to Bruce Berenyi will be pure even until the end. I was thinking more Tim Leary than Bruce Berenyi-- unless VZ is gay.

Nymr83 May 07 2006 12:13 PM

DocTee is Aaron Heilman! This injury is a blessing for the Mets.

SteveJRogers May 07 2006 02:09 PM

Elster88 wrote: ="Bret Sabermetric"]The Kaz-Victor contest now has a victor, and it ain't Victor. Fix this in ten minutes, Peterson, expert handler of pitcher's arms and careers. Kaz now has 4 times as many victories as Victor In-Name-Only in 2006 and twice as many IP, figures that of course can only get higher as the season goes on. Kaz is now 10th in the AL in ERA, while Victor is probably somewhere in the NL's bottom 5 with a season's ERA of 6.75. The big difference of course is that Victor's arm is now totally screwed up, and Kaz's is healthy, and that was most of the rationale behind swapping them--they feared that Kaz's arm wouldn't hold up. Good one, assholes. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7292 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6752 I wanted to post my own "I told you so" message (aimed at Mets' management of course, I don't remember anyone here saying Kazmir/Zambrano was a good trade), but I think Bret's will do just nicely. The only media guy I know of who actually was for the trade when it happened was Wally Matthews, then on 1050 ESPN Radio. Essentially saying that he didn't know anything about Kazmir and knew that Zambrano was a Major League caliber starting pitcher and that it was a sign that the Mets were going for the pennant RIGHT NOW! Funny thing is, and probably why I remember it, he did a complete 180 after the Mets lost that first weekend series after the deals, saying it and the Benson trade were horrid deals, and that the Mets should start trading off all the veterans (specifically Leiter and Glavine) and stock pile youngsters his next show I think he pulled a hammy backpeddling!

OlerudOwned May 07 2006 02:11 PM

Centerfield May 07 2006 02:21 PM

Did they say anything about this in the pre-game? As to what the Mets might do?

Gwreck May 07 2006 02:55 PM

Zambrano out for the year with a torn flexor tendon.

Nymr83 May 07 2006 02:57 PM

he's already on the 60 day DL to make room on the 40-man roster for Lima (and to keep Fortunado in the bullpen)

OlerudOwned May 07 2006 02:58 PM

Nymr83 wrote: he's already on the 60 day DL to make room on the 40-man roster for Lima (and to keep Fortunado in the bullpen) The way Bartolome is pitching right now, I hope they never let him out of the bullpen.

Nymr83 May 07 2006 03:03 PM

well he's here strictly as an inning-eater right now. with the day off tommorow the bullpen should be ok going forward so we shouldn't see him again unless the score is lopsided. if we decide to go to a 4-man rotation for awhile (which we can get away with) i'd like to see Bell up here in Fortunato's place incase we have meaningful innings to pitch.

Johnny Dickshot May 07 2006 04:38 PM

="Rotblatt"] The reason Heilman's been in so many tough situations is because we've gotten an average of ~5 innings from our #4 & 5 pitchers. That's not entirely accurate. The main reason we've used him is because we've had a lot of leads to protect and just an adequate offense. Of course more innings from the starters would matter some, the 4 and 5 guys have as many complerte games as the 1 2 and 3 guys so far. ]If we had more effective pitchers, we wouldn't need our three-headed monster quite so much--a two-headed monster would be just fine. Agree with the first part, obviously, but don't necessarily buy the second. ]And, you know, Julio would be a little baby monster with Big Monster upside doing his teething in the middle innings. I'm happy for Julio's success but would hate to put him in the same white-knuckle situatiuons that Heilman's been in thus far. While I'm not saying he or Bell couldn't be effective there, nor that Heilman couldn't be more effective than most all of the current 5 options, I don't think the Mets are willing right now to tear down what looks like the best pen in the league in order to fix the lack of a league-average starter in the back of the rotation. I think they will fix that, but by using some other means. ]And I think you ARE aiming low. I mean, do you REALLY think we'll continue to win at a .700 pace--or even a .500 pace--with a 6.75 ERA guy (not that far off from what I expect from Lima over the rest of the season) pitching every fifth day? Why is it every time we have a disagreement I need to address your putting words in my mouth and talking down to me? As said above -- was this not clear? -- they'll try and get by a few turns with what they got. if/when or before that collapses... they'll make a trade The rest of your argument seems to bloom from this misconception so I'll stop here.

Zvon May 07 2006 04:52 PM

I guess no one saw baseball Tonight last night. They are media hype/spinning the Milledge/Zito deal. They say the mets have to do this to hang. No official word from the Mets brass. They did a phone chat with Cliff Floyd who said NO, dont trade away Milledge. He belongs up here someday with Reyes and Wright as homegrown products. He mentioned bringing up Pelfry. Endorsed promoting from within first, for a quck fix (this was before it was official Zamby was out for good) He also said that if the Mets can get Zito w/o Milledge being lost to them, they should do it.

OlerudOwned May 07 2006 05:23 PM

I just don't see any way the Mets can make a blockbuster move for a pitcher. With Martinez and Glavine, it isn't like a top of the rotation guy is needed. It's Victor Zambrano that needs to be replaced, not Pedro. I'm going to quote myself talking on another board. ] Not that I have anything to base this off of, but I could see them going after one of the Twins guys, Loshe, Silva, or Radke. Minnesota doesnt look like they have much of a chance with the WSox and Indians in the division, and they want to clear a spot in the rotation for Liriano. Radke is probably the guy they'd part with because he's 33 and is making $9 mil. All 3 of them are struggling big time (Radke: 3-3, 7.29 ERA, Silva: 1-5, 8.59 ERA, Loshe: 1-3, 9.71 ERA) however, but they've all been effective in the past. I'm assuming Minnesota could use a guy like Diaz because thier offense is downright anemic (most of their production is coming from Hunter, who sports a .241 AVG/.292 OPB). Again, this is just me playing GM, but it seems like a reasonable way to add a back of the rotation guy. So, yeah. Diaz pretty much has no place on this team with Nady in right and Milledge waiting. He's a good trade chip to an offense-starved team like Minnesota.

Centerfield May 07 2006 05:34 PM

I was thinking that since the Mets brass isn't willing (or at least, shouldn't be willing) to deal Pelfrey or Milledge, the most likely option would probably be a guy who makes a lot of money on a bad team. You mention Radke. Jared Washburn is the guy that came to mind.

OlerudOwned May 07 2006 05:50 PM

I'd love to get Washburn. Lefthanded, he's been reliable since 2000, and has very good K/BB and WHIP this year. ERA is under 4, and three of his four losses are due to lousy run support. However, because he's in the first year of a contract with Seattle and is pitching so well I don't know if he'd even hit the market.

smg58 May 07 2006 06:13 PM

Zito's not pitching well enough to justify dealing Milledge for him. And it may be hard to find somebody willing to deal this early on. I'm willing to cut Pedro some slack from being upset. But Zambrano has to tell the team if he's not all right and continuing to pitch will make it worse. Of course the team has an obligation to determine these things as well, and not simply take the pitcher's word for it.

metsmarathon May 07 2006 10:56 PM

i'm willing to accept on face value that vz was trying to tough out the pain of a fraying tendon to try to quiet media and fan criticism, and maybe make better of his reputation, and thereby justify the trade that gothim here. people play through pain for all kinds of stupid reasons, self- and team-detrimental as they often can be. doctors, in that case, can only sit back and watch. that the mets would have been wise to cut bait already is beside this particular point.

Johnny Dickshot May 07 2006 11:07 PM

If they're gunshy about rushing Pelfrey at this point, might be an opportunity to see what this Soler guy is all about. 41 K's, 8 BBs, 3 ERs in 34.2 innings at A and AA so far.

TheOldMole May 08 2006 07:24 AM

If the A's want to deal Zito's contract, they'll take less than Milledge for him.

Rotblatt May 08 2006 07:53 AM

="Johnny Dickshot"]Why is it every time we have a disagreement I need to address your putting words in my mouth and talking down to me? As said above -- was this not clear? -- they'll try and get by a few turns with what they got. if/when or before that collapses... they'll make a trade What words am I putting in your mouth? I quoted you, then addressed the quote. At any rate, my opinion is that Heilman is our best internal option by far and will be far more valuable in our newly weakened rotation than he he will be in what I consider a strong pen. I also think that a combination of Maine, Lima & Bannister isn't enough to cover our #4 & 5 slots through the rest of the season, and I'd rather not trade, because I think Heilman would be better than anyone we could get. We apparently disagree with the state of our bullpen--I just don't think Heilman is so vital that we couldn't stand to lose him.

Johnny Dickshot May 08 2006 08:12 AM

I'm referring to your interpreting what I said as I "think we'll continue to win at a .700 pace--or even a .500 pace--with a 6.75 ERA guy (not that far off from what I expect from Lima over the rest of the season) pitching every fifth day?," which clearly is not what was said, nor meant. My point was that Heilman has provided a far more valuable service to the Mets than the fifth starter so far, and that by swapping that piece out you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. I think they'll leave him there, and try to get by until another solution arises, whether that's a trade, some luck, or through a promotion of a Soler or Pelfrey. They could get to a point where thery'll have to consider Heilman, but I don't think they're there yet.

metsmarathon May 08 2006 09:23 AM

i think we may have an easier time filling in heilman's bullpen slot than we will filling in zambrano's rotation slot. also, and i know these things shouldn't really enter into the equation, but since they are all humans out there, it would be awfully unfair to heilman to have a season-long spot open up in the rotation and bring up some minor leaguer to fill it, instead of handing it to heilman, who i would think should have some reason to expect to have earned the opportunity. i think the best bet would be to bring up heath bell to fill in the bullpen while heilman gets the promotion to zambrano's spot in the rotation. an other option might be to bring soler into the pen to see what he can do against major leaguers.

Rotblatt May 08 2006 10:10 AM

="Johnny Dickshot"]I'm referring to your interpreting what I said as I "think we'll continue to win at a .700 pace--or even a .500 pace--with a 6.75 ERA guy (not that far off from what I expect from Lima over the rest of the season) pitching every fifth day?," which clearly is not what was said, nor meant. Well, okay, but I submit that your meaning wasn't that clear--at least not to me--especially given your lead of: ]Not that I'm aiming low here, but it's easier to replace Zambrano's role (~6 unpredictable innings every 5 days) than Heilman's (~6 impressive do-or-die innings innings every 5 days). That's the point I was disputing. And yes, you did end with: ]I think they'll leave him there, and try to get by until another solution arises, whether that's a trade, some luck, or through a promotion of a Soler or Pelfrey. They could get to a point where thery'll have to consider Heilman, but I don't think they're there yet. but what does your prediction have to do with your first point, that it's easier to replace Zambrano's production than Heilman's? If we can get by with replacement level pitchers in the short term, why can't we also get by with them in the long term? Am I just being dense here? [SC=0] I mean, maybe you're right and that's what the Mets will do, but I think it's a terrible move. We've got one of the toughest 3-week spans of the year here, with 6 games against the resurgenet Phillies, and 3 games each against: a good Brewers team, the Cardinals & the Yankees. Our #'s 4 & 5 are probably going to start 6 of those games. Frankly, I think any of Lima, Maine & probably Bannister is going to have a hard time making it through 4 innings in any of those start (except possibly the Brewers). I'd MUCH rather see Heilman in there giving us a chance to win in 3 of those games, even if it means having to use Julio instead of Heilman in three or four close games during that span. I suspect that our entire bullpen will be in much better shape at the end of that stretch with Heilman in the rotation than if we'd used two of the other three. Now, you probably still disagree with me, but I really don't think Julio's such a bad option. Since April 15: 12.7 IP, 2.13 ERA, 0.95 WHIP, 5 BB, 23 K Heilman over the entire year: 17.7 IP, 2.04 ERA, 1.08 WHIP, 5 BB, 17 K Maybe Julio will turn into a pumpkin when faced with more responsibility, but I don't think it's a bad bet to take, especially with our other parts doing so well. Soler or Pelfry are decent options, but I'd rather give them more time in AA before bringing one of them up to the majors.

smg58 May 08 2006 10:11 AM

I just don't see a better short-term solution than bringing up Bell and starting Heilman. I'm not saying I like it, but the only alternatives within the organization appear to be guys who haven't even seen Norfolk yet. When do Bannister and Maine get off the DL?

Johnny Dickshot May 08 2006 10:13 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 08 2006 10:21 AM

I don't think this Mets administration trusts Bell for whatever reason, though one could be the poor job he did last year (despite good K figures) when they gave him opportunities. There was an article some time ago by Marty Noble where Bell acknowledged as much, thinking he'd be traded sooner than getting another opportunity. So for the time being I sort of imagine Bell tucked into a wallet along with Victor Diaz, a fallen star like Phillip Humber, and maybe some low-level, high-tool guys like Carlos Gomez, to be used in Omar's next shopping spree.

Elster88 May 08 2006 10:13 AM

Haven't Pelfrey and Soler had a total of 3 combined AA starts? I'd rather they play a little more in the minors than that BEFORE we use them in the majors.

Johnny Dickshot May 08 2006 10:20 AM

Soler is different from Pelfrey in that he's had a lot of pro experience, and was down in the low minors mainly as a means of getting his arm strength up. IIRC, they pegged him to debut in AA way back when they signed him in 2004, and would have been on the clock to be in the big leagues by now (though the thinking may certainly have changed).

metirish May 08 2006 10:27 AM

Omar should call the Marlins and ask about Willis, why wait till the summer, just do it Omar.

duan May 08 2006 10:46 AM

the issue is we now need a 4th & 5th starter. Bannister isn't locked in to the rotation by any means and I think it'd be really foolish for us to think he's going to be a major league quality starter for definite. I go back to the point I made in the IGT; we're at the stage where we're looking at our "EIGHTH BEST" starting pitcher (Maine being six, Lima seven), he's going to be pretty lousy (otherwise he would've been up before now!). The way I'd balance it is that Heath Bell has a much better chance of adding value to the club then whomever they could drag up (Gonzalez being the obvious candidate) for next Saturday. If Bell & Heillman work out, then at least when Bannister comes back we've got a replacement for Lima Time (should he implode) or cover for the next bleedin' injury. And if they really don't think Bell can contribute, it's time to stop keeping him on the 40 man roster.

Frayed Knot May 08 2006 10:51 AM

The off-days over the next 3 Mondays will help out a bit ... but we'll still need a 4th & a 5th approx once per week depending on how they sort things. - Bannister's eligible to come off the DL by Friday but Howie Rose kept saying 'another two weeks' (meaning this week & next) before he's ready to pitch -- although it wasn't clear whether that was just his opinion or an informed estimate from someone in the know. - Maine is, of course, shot until at least 2 weeks from yesterday (Sunday the 21st vs MFY) - If you figure that Bannister won't be around until say Thurs 18th - the 2nd time it looks like we'll need a #4 guy - then they need to find guys for this Fri & Sat. I'm sure Lima will be one of those; no idea about the other - Oliver? By the next time the back-end guys are needed we should have Bannister and then only one from the Lima/pitcher X duo. - What I suspect they DON'T want to do is bounce Heilman back & forth between the rotation & the pen so they'll look to others for the time being.

Elster88 May 08 2006 10:54 AM

]- Maine is, of course, shot until at least 2 weeks from yesterday (Sunday the 21st vs MFY) Can't they retro-DL him back to his start? That's only buying a couple of days, but it could help.

Yancy Street Gang May 08 2006 10:55 AM

Even assuming that the Mets don't want Bell in the picture, I think they can withstand the loss to the bullpen if Heilman returns to the rotation for a few starts. They can probably give some more innings to Oliver, Julio, and Feliciano. Not ideal, but their rotation is really week until Bannister and Maine return. (And probably still pretty weak afterwards. I'm hoping that Maine will look a lot better when his fingers allow him to throw curveballs, but we'll have to wait and see if that's the case.)

Centerfield May 08 2006 11:03 AM

It probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference what the Mets do in the short term, whether it be Gonzalez or Oliver or whoever...they're not going to find any long-term solution there. This team needs to trade for a starter...a #3 if possible. And they'll have to do it eventually if they are going to make a run this year. It doesn't have to be this week, this month, or even before the All-Star break, but they're going to need one. In fact, they probably needed one even before Zambrano went down.

Johnny Dickshot May 08 2006 11:09 AM

]If we can get by with replacement level pitchers in the short term, why can't we also get by with them in the long term? Am I just being dense here? No, not dense. They can get by anything in the short term, but they'll get nicked up no matter what they do. I think the longterm solution comes from somewhere else. Just in the short term, it's not as if we could expect Heilman to get up to speed as a starter right away either. So as he rests up in anticipation of a start there will be innings you're not getting from him as a bullpenner with Abreu & Howard to retire on the road -- plus innings you'll need from lesser relievers as Heilman himself winds down after 5 IP in his first few starts back. And knowing the Mets they'll eventually they'll make a trade for a starter anyway then need to shove Heilman back into the bullpen. Again, I'm not saying one solution is necessarily superior to another but that I think the team will do all they can, and may be wise, to try and avoid having the disruption in the rotation to lead to disruption in the bullpen.

Rotblatt May 08 2006 11:30 AM

="Johnny Dickshot"]They can get by anything in the short term, but they'll get nicked up no matter what they do. I think the longterm solution comes from somewhere else. Thanks for the clarification! I agree that they'll get nicked up in the short term, no matter what (unless we make a trade in the next 3 days, of course), since, as you say, Heilman will have to get stretched out if we do go to him. As far as the long-term solution, I'm not convinced we'll find a better bet than Heilman--at least, not without giving up a top prospect (something I'd hate to see us do, barring a truely lopsided trade). ]And knowing the Mets they'll eventually they'll make a trade for a starter anyway then need to shove Heilman back into the bullpen. True that. If we move Heilman to the rotation, I want us to keep him there unless something disastorous happens to Wagner. Hopefully Mets Management feels the same, but I kind of doubt it. ]Again, I'm not saying one solution is necessarily superior to another but that I think the team will do all they can, and may be wise, to try and avoid having the disruption in the rotation to lead to disruption in the bullpen. I see your points, and I think I agree with you, but only if we can scrounge up someone who is a good bet to be superior to Heilman in the rotation. I have little faith that we'll be able to do that, and think that the longer we wait to make a good trade, the more we shoot ourselves in the foot by not getting Heilman stretched out.

abogdan May 08 2006 11:43 AM

What about Dontrelle Willis? I've heard he's available. Maybe Florida will be willing to toss in Miguel Cabrera as well.

Edgy DC May 08 2006 11:46 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 08 2006 11:57 AM

Is it crazy to think that replacing Heilman in the bullpen with a closer-to-ready-for-primetime Jorge Julio, plus a "dammit, I'm going to stick this time" Heath Bell, plus marginally increased responsibilities for Pedro Feliciano and Darren Oliver will cost the Mets more wins than the apparent difference between Lima and Heilman in the rotation? I'm cool with giving Lima one more start to make a show of himself, but I consider him not the replacement for Zambrano, but the replacement for Maine who is the replacement for Bannister. In other words, he's just keeping a seat warm, and may well not have a place on this roster even if he pitches briliantly his next start. I'd dislike seeing the Mets move to get a starter without giving Heilman at least three turns to prove the answer is in-house. We see what that changeup of Heilman's can do to 10-15 batters every five days; aren't we curious to see what it can do to 25-35?

Bret Sabermetric May 08 2006 11:49 AM

Edgy DC wrote: aren't we curious to see what it can do to 25-35? WWSB answered this one loud and clear in Spring Training.

Johnny Dickshot May 08 2006 11:53 AM

I never thought I'd argue that a relief pitcher is more "important" than a starter but here I am.

Yancy Street Gang May 08 2006 11:53 AM

Unlike Johnny, I'm not ready to make that leap.

Centerfield May 08 2006 11:56 AM

The one thing that puts me on Johnny's side is Aaron Heilman is far from a proven commodity as a starter. This is not Dennis Eckersley we're talking about here, this is a guy who's record is spotted.

Edgy DC May 08 2006 12:10 PM

Sure, but the same logic can applied to saying his record as a pitcher is spotted. But, as a starter and as a reliever and as a pitcher, he's trended upwards. Sharply. I mean, he had a 4.71 ERA as a starter last year (seven starts)*, and that's no good, but part of that is the one game getting raked by Florida after shutting them down a week before and saying, "Now I have to go out and find a way to beat them next week. I suspect there was a cahnfidence thing going on there and he was convinced he caught them by surprise and could only succeed by continuing to stay ahead of the opposition and re-inventing himself. I think he's subsequently gotten into his head that his stuff is good enough to work game after game with only minor adjustments. I sure want to see how far he can take that. Yeah, things are going good in the bullpen. But I want to rock that boat, shake that tree, wake that dog. I want another starting pitcher out of there NOW!!!! *Lima had a 6.99 ERA in 32 starts.

ABG May 08 2006 12:25 PM

So I was an advocate for keeping Heilman in the bullpen in ST, but I think the right move now is to give him a shot in the rotation. What's changed? Duaner Sanchez has changed. Well, not that he's changed but he's changed my perception of the bullpen. Heading into the season, I figured he and Heilman were a nice combination of guys, maybe one of which would really get the job done in the 7th/8th inning. But since we didn't know exactly what we had in Sanchez, the Heilman insurance policy was necessary. Now? We're looking at a top tier setup guy, one who doesn't need an insurance policy. So while I certainly recognize that the late inning, high pressure situations that we give Heilman aren't going away--and that they'd now be taken on by a lesser pitcher--having Sanchez as I know him now makes me more comfortable with the pen as a whole.

TheOldMole May 08 2006 12:25 PM

Some thoughts from Adam Rubin: ]Kris Benson: Perhaps Minaya could swing a deal where Mr. Benson comes back to Mets but Mrs. Benson stays in Baltimore. Scott Kazmir: We're sure Rick Peterson would only need about seven minutes to fix the Tampa Bay hurler. Who knows? Maybe the D-Rays would be willing to take Lastings Milledge and David Wright off the Mets' hands. Tom Seaver: You know "The Franchise," who no longer calls Met games on TV is dying to get back into the spotlight. Besides, he's gotta be better than Zambrano. Mr. Met: Have you seen him throw those T-shirts into the crowd? What an arm. Besides, he's gotta be better than Zambrano. Roger Clemens: Mike Piazza's gone and you know if the Mets offer him 10 cents more than the Astros do, The Rocket will be pitching at Shea. Anthony Velazquez: High school hurler has more perfect games (2) this spring than Mets have had in 45 years. Al Leiter: Mabye Carlos Delgado could convince the Yankee analyst how great it is to play in New York.

Bret Sabermetric May 08 2006 12:31 PM

TheOldMole wrote: Some thoughts from Adam Rubin: ]Kris Benson: Perhaps Minaya could swing a deal where Mr. Benson comes back to Mets but Mrs. Benson stays in Baltimore. Scott Kazmir: We're sure Rick Peterson would only need about seven minutes to fix the Tampa Bay hurler. Who knows? Maybe the D-Rays would be willing to take Lastings Milledge and David Wright off the Mets' hands. Tom Seaver: You know "The Franchise," who no longer calls Met games on TV is dying to get back into the spotlight. Besides, he's gotta be better than Zambrano. Mr. Met: Have you seen him throw those T-shirts into the crowd? What an arm. Besides, he's gotta be better than Zambrano. Roger Clemens: Mike Piazza's gone and you know if the Mets offer him 10 cents more than the Astros do, The Rocket will be pitching at Shea. Anthony Velazquez: High school hurler has more perfect games (2) this spring than Mets have had in 45 years. Al Leiter: Mabye Carlos Delgado could convince the Yankee analyst how great it is to play in New York. That "seven minutes" shit stopped being funny about--No, wait, it's stll funny. It';ll stop being funny seven years after Peterson is dead. No, it will always be funny. It's comedy gold, Jerry, comedy gold.

Johnny Dickshot May 08 2006 12:37 PM

A more lucid take from Rubin's Blog: ]By the way, Peterson has long felt betrayed by the "10 minutes" comment being leaked. But I have it on good authority that he also felt it was purposely misrepresented to shift the blame to him after the ill-fated trade. The pitching coach was asked if he could correct a specific mechanical issue with Zambrano's delivery, and he answered on an internal conference call with that comment.

Elster88 May 08 2006 12:41 PM

Comedy gold was the picture used in the TEN!!!! thread.

Elster88 May 08 2006 12:42 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: A more lucid take from Rubin's Blog: ]By the way, Peterson has long felt betrayed by the "10 minutes" comment being leaked. But I have it on good authority that he also felt it was purposely misrepresented to shift the blame to him after the ill-fated trade. The pitching coach was asked if he could correct a specific mechanical issue with Zambrano's delivery, and he answered on an internal conference call with that comment. Just a CYA paragraph written for Peterson by a blue-and-orange-Piazza-footie-jammies-wearing-Met-fan sycophant. That fucking bum should never have said anything in jest because every word you ever speak should be taken completely literally and referenced every day for the rest of your life. (SC = very high)

old original jb May 08 2006 01:14 PM

I think that the Mets should leave the bullpen alone, Heilman's desire to start notwithstanding. I agree with those who feel that pulling Heilman out of the pen will be robbing Peter to Pay Paul, and in this case Peter is the best thing we have going. To me, it seems that the presence of not one but three excellent setup men (Sanchez, Heilman, and Julio) is having a huge impact on games. These guys have been so good that I think it's even cost Wagner save oppportunities by preventing close games. Maybe it's a luxury, but because of it, I get a much different feeling watching Mets games. When the Mets are behind in the early going, I no longer feel as discouraged, because I know that their 6th, 7th, and 8th inning bullpen is going to be better than what the other team has, providing a real chance to catch up. I don't worry about Pedro or Glavine having to leave early, and if the backside of the rotation just keeps the Mets in the game, I feel like the mets will probably win in the mid/late innings. If there are reasonable alternatives not named Lima who do not require trading a marquee prospect (Milledge), they should go for it. I'd rather have two average starters in the 4/5 spots and keep the bullpen as is than disrupt the bullpen to see if Heilman can be a better than average starter for a sustained period. I'm willing to take a chance that by later in the season, Soler or Pelfrey will be ready to step up and give the kind of depth to the rotation that is needed for the post season.

Edgy DC May 08 2006 01:24 PM

I guet a good feeling watching Met games when an effective or better starter is going out there every day. ON the 1986 Mets, Doug Sisk was the number-three reliever, and Randy Niemann was number four --- a personnel alignment that would have some passionate folks self-immolating but for the quality of the starting rotation making it a non-issue. Whitey Herzog, managing the primary rival, was proud to have built the staff backwards, having a ton of depth in the pen, but John Tudor and a bunch of interchangeable role players in the rotation. There's an argument for that, but, if it's an option, I say get your best guys the most number of innings. You'll need effective fewer guys at the end of games.

old original jb May 08 2006 01:32 PM

Edgy DC wrote: There's an argument for that, but, if it's an option, I say get your best guys the most number of innings. You'll need effective fewer guys at the end of games. If you can have effective starters consistently go deep into games, of course that's great. But its not clear the mets will be in a position to do that, making the pen all the more important. The Mets best starters have reasons not to go as deep into games, and I'm not convinced that Heilman switching mid season to a starter role will be such a huge improvement over what they had or could have at the bottom of the rotation that it makes sense to dismantle such a great pen.

sharpie May 08 2006 01:40 PM

Sporting News floats a rumor about Odalis Perez coming to New York. He's out on bereavement leave now and has been dreadful so far but has put up decent numbers in the past. He is signed to major money for a couple more years, though.

Elster88 May 08 2006 01:45 PM

old original jb wrote: To me, it seems that the presence of not one but three excellent setup men (Sanchez, Heilman, and Julio) is having a huge impact on games. A little early to call Julio excellent. He's been better of late, but that doesn't mean the first few appearances never happened.

old original jb May 08 2006 01:47 PM

Elster88 wrote: ="old original jb"]To me, it seems that the presence of not one but three excellent setup men (Sanchez, Heilman, and Julio) is having a huge impact on games. A little early to call Julio excellent. He's been better of late, but that doesn't mean the first few appearances never happened. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but he's been good in the past as well. Although your point underscores my point that it is not a good idea to weaken the bullpen.

Yancy Street Gang May 08 2006 01:51 PM

He's also been horrible in the past. While we can't assume he'll always be bad, we can't exactly call him excellent. I am willing to rely on Julio a bit more, though. As I said earlier, between him, Oliver, and Feliciano, the Mets can bear the loss of Heilman in the bullpen.

Elster88 May 08 2006 01:52 PM

old original jb wrote: ="Elster88"] old original jb wrote: To me, it seems that the presence of not one but three excellent setup men (Sanchez, Heilman, and Julio) is having a huge impact on games. A little early to call Julio excellent. He's been better of late, but that doesn't mean the first few appearances never happened. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but he's been good in the past as well. Although your point underscores my point that it is not a good idea to weaken the bullpen. I hope he's better too, but his good year that you refer to was in 2001, so I'm not holding my breath. But you're right, to put it in context of the original discussion, it does underscore your point that maybe we shouldn't pull out Heilman while the pen is doing so well....and while we're not sure what Julio is going to give us. But, as someone else noted, we're at the point where we're looking at using our eighth-best organizational starter, not even counting Heilman. And personally, I'd rather Pelfrey and Soler get some more work in the minors. It's a tough call and there are arguments both ways. I'd lean toward leaving the bullpen alone for now, myself.

Rotblatt May 08 2006 02:29 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 08 2006 02:31 PM

sharpie wrote: Sporting News floats a rumor about Odalis Perez coming to New York. He's out on bereavement leave now and has been dreadful so far but has put up decent numbers in the past. He is signed to major money for a couple more years, though. Perez (who turns 29 in June) is making $7.25 in 2006 and is owed $7.75M next year, plus a $9M club option for 2008 with a $1.5M buyout. We'd definitely be overpaying him were we to sign him, based on pretty inconsistent results: 1999 (Braves): 93 IP, 72 ERA+ 2001 (Braves): 95.3 IP, 90 ERA+ 2002 (Dodgers): 222.3 IP, 126 ERA+, 1.54 BB/9, 6.28 K/9, 0.992 WHIP, 0.85 HR/9 2003 (Dodgers): 185.3 IP, 89 ERA+, 2.23 BB/9, 6.85 K/9, 1.28 WHIP, 1.36 HR/9 2004 (Dodgers): 196.3 IP, 127 ERA+, 2.02 BB/9, 5.87 K/9, 1.14 WHIP, 1.19 HR/9 2005 (Dodgers): 108.7 IP, 89 ERA+, 2.32 BB/9, 6.13 K/9, 1.26 WHIP, 1.08 HR/9 2006: 30 IP, 6.90 ERA, 3.0 BB/9, 5.1 K/9, 1.70 WHIP, 1.2 HR/9 Good control & average K numbers across the board. It looks like the big difference in his results is BABIP and HR/9, so there's probably some luck involved there. The Dodger's defense has been consistently good in terms of DER, so that doesn't explain the differences. Predictibly, he does much better at home--3.47 ERA, 1.15 WHIP v. 4.86, 1.36 WHIP since 2001. PECOTA thinks he'll be a'ight but nothing to write home about: 2006: 148 IP, 3.93 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, 2.10 BB/9, 5.2 K/9, 1.0 HR/9. 2007: 139.7 IP, 3.88 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, 2.1 BB/9, 5.0 K/9, 1.0 HR/9 I'm not wild about him, but I think he'd do better than Victor would have and would look okay as our #4 guy. Heilman would still be my top choice, but we could do worse than Perez. The problems, as I see them are: 1. Is he healthy? 2. What will it take to get him?

Elster88 May 08 2006 02:30 PM

It can't take that much to get him if he's owed all that much. I'd rather wait and see what else pops up as the trade deadline draws near.

sharpie May 08 2006 02:31 PM

Don't think the Mets would need to give up much, talentwise, to get Perez. The money would be the sticking point, I would think.

Yancy Street Gang May 08 2006 02:31 PM

I also wonder about your second question. Since he's high-salaried, the cost to get him (in players) will be related to how much salary the Mets take on. If they decide to get Odalis, I'd prefer them to take on more salary and give up less talent.

Johnny Dickshot May 08 2006 02:42 PM

Inconsistent and didn't get along with Jim Tracy last year.

sharpie May 08 2006 02:45 PM

Thing is the Dodgers would want to move him quickly. They brought up Aaron Sele over the weekend and he pitched well and they'd like to slot him in instead of Perez (don't know how long this bereavement leave lasts). I'm not advocating for him, necessarily, he just seems like a better option than Lima, etc. I'd give him a pass on not getting along with Tracey. The inconsistency does bother me.

Centerfield May 08 2006 02:47 PM

At that salary, he could probably be had for Bartolome Fortunado.

Rotblatt May 08 2006 03:01 PM

sharpie wrote: Thing is the Dodgers would want to move him quickly. They brought up Aaron Sele over the weekend and he pitched well and they'd like to slot him in instead of Perez (don't know how long this bereavement leave lasts). I'm not advocating for him, necessarily, he just seems like a better option than Lima, etc. I'd give him a pass on not getting along with Tracey. The inconsistency does bother me. Me too, although the fact that his non-BAA peripherals are pretty stable seems a little odd--and potentially promising--to me. 2002: 7.4 H/9 2003: 8.5 H/9 2004: 7.8 H/9 2005: 8.9 H/9 2006: 11.2 H/9 Makes me wonder if it's just random. I agree he'd be a better option than Lima, and if we can get him for some scrub, I'd be okay with it. He is hella expensive, though.

Yancy Street Gang May 08 2006 03:39 PM

I found this on Newsday's Mets page. I'm among those who voted for the Heilman or Oliver option. ]How should the Mets repair the back end of their rotation? 20.9% Piece it together until Brian Bannister gets healthy (388 responses) 26.0% Use Aaron Heilman or Darren Oliver as a starter (483 responses) 22.7% Call up Mike Pelfrey (422 responses) 30.3% Make a big trade (562 responses) 1855 total responses

Rotblatt May 08 2006 03:52 PM

Ah, the old "Make a big trade" option. I'd have voted for that too if the only criteria for the trade is that it be "big." I mean, trading Matsui to the Twins for Castillo and Liriano is "big," right?

Yancy Street Gang May 08 2006 03:59 PM

More from Newsday: ]Dontrelle is the answer Ken Davidoff May 8, 2006 The Victor Zambrano news doesn't really strike a blow to the Mets. It simply creates a void, and a silver lining: It underscores what they must do to carry out their impressive beginning. Just as they thought last winter, the Mets will need another frontline starting pitcher to win their first world championship in 20 years. The most sensible maneuver is a deal for Florida's Dontrelle Willis, even if it costs Lastings Milledge. "No chance," one person in the Mets' loop said yesterday before Jose Lima and the bullpen's dregs suffered a 13-3 loss to the not-dead-yet Braves at Shea Stadium. Certainly, there's no reason to panic. However, as Cliff Floyd said when asked if the Mets' starting rotation is good enough to win a World Series: "The way things are going, 31 games in, damn right. But when you start having injuries, it's a tough question. You're asking guys to do a lot. "Hopefully, whoever we call up, whatever they do, they're just going to give us an opportunity to win." Lima kinda sorta did that yesterday, and later this week, Jeremi Gonzalez will likely get his shot, taking Zambrano's rotation turn. So even when Brian Bannister comes back, perhaps this month, you're talking about still keeping either Lima or Gonzalez around. It's not as if Bannister is an established commodity, either - and that goes double for John Maine. Working your way from the bottom, you come to Steve Trachsel, who is ordinary, and Pedro Martinez and Tom Glavine, who are not. But they are human, and they will hit slumps, and they will require assistance from their fellow starters. Aaron Heilman? No argument here to keep him in the bullpen. Why mess with a good thing? Mike Pelfrey? General manager Omar Minaya tells friends that the youngster can help the Mets this year, and maybe he can. Given the stakes, though, it would hardly be ideal to lean so heavily on a guy just out of college. Especially when there's Willis. The baseball landscape has changed. Teams on the bubble, mindful of the 2004 and 2005 Astros' late-season runs, are more reluctant to give away veteran talent. And clubs all over, even our Mets and Yankees, don't want to dispose of young, cheap talent. The Athletics will be open-minded about Barry Zito, but there will be strong incentive for contending Oakland to keep the lefthander. Zito, furthermore, would cost talent; then, as an impending free agent, he would have to be signed to an extension for, let's call it, five years and $75 million. What incentive will the Marlins have to retain Willis a month or two from now? You need be only an amateur psychologist to look at Willis' numbers (1-3, 5.15 ERA) and wonder if all of the losing in South Florida is getting to him. We already know the Marlins offered Willis to the Mets for David Wright, and that the Marlins don't mind conducting business within their division. Willis, earning $4.35 million, won't be eligible for free agency until after the 2009 season, and though you can never predict one's New York adjustment, the lefthander's outgoing demeanor bodes well for that issue. Now, the other part of the equation: trading Milledge and other, lesser youngsters. The Mets, largely because of the deal that sent Scott Kazmir to Tampa Bay for Zambrano, are gun-shy about repeating that mistake. The greatest sin of the Kazmir trade, though, wasn't shipping out Kazmir. It was dealing him for Zambrano, which - what with this weekend's development - now officially becomes the second-worst trade in Mets history. At the time, nearly everyone thought the Mets received poor value in return for a commodity as strong as Kazmir. But Willis is no Zambrano. Sure, Milledge could be a star. He might not be. Trading him for Willis would bring no shame to anyone. It could be the capper for the aggressive Minaya, who has brought in so much already. "I'm confident, budget-wise, that we have the ability to [take on money]," Minaya said yesterday, and he said the same about his available talent. There's time to get this done. But it should get done. One thing that Davidoff says that does make sense: trading Milledge for three and a half years of Willis is better than trading him for three and a half months of Zito. But I think there's some of that Peter/Paul thing going on here too. If Floyd doesn't get his act together (and he may not) then we'll be glad to have a Lastings Milledge to promote later this season. I kinda doubt that the Mets can get Dontrelle while retaining both Pelfrey and Milledge, but if there's any way to do it, I'd love to see it get done.

Johnny Dickshot May 08 2006 04:01 PM

I'm so dead-set against trading Milledge it ain't even funny. Not for Willis, not for nobody.

Gwreck May 08 2006 04:19 PM

Way, way too early for Davidoff to call this deal the second-worst in Mets history.

Yancy Street Gang May 08 2006 04:27 PM

Exactly. Scott Kazmir has a long way to go before he's Nolan Ryan. It's not too early to call it a bad trade, but second worst is stretching things quite a bit.

Rotblatt May 08 2006 04:33 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I'm so dead-set against trading Milledge it ain't even funny. Not for Willis, not for nobody. Me too. Well, there are a few people I'd trade him for, but Willis doesn't quite fit the bill for me. It's not entirely logical, as Milledge has still got a long way to go before he's anywhere nearly as valuable to us as Willis would be, but I'm pretty excited about the kid. Especially as he seems to be making some important strides this season (although he's currently embroiled in his first slump of the season). On the other hand, I'd trade Pelfry to Florida for Willis in a heartbeat. Go figure.

Frayed Knot May 08 2006 04:53 PM

1) Void gets created 2) Media gets behind MAJOR SPLASHY MOVE as a MUST DO!!!! 3) Rinse/repeat

Edgy DC May 08 2006 04:54 PM

Media trashes Mets for lack of foresight if/when MUST DO bites them in the ass. Mets particlularly attacked for kowtowing to media by going for backpage-grabbing MUST DO deals.

Johnny Dickshot May 08 2006 04:57 PM

I was disappointed to discover during lunchtime that Mike and the Mad Dog are united with me in their opposition to dismantling the bullpen (at least for now). OTOH they still think Milledge for Zito is a good deal, so I haven't become a complete maniac.

Elster88 May 08 2006 05:00 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: OTOH they still think Milledge for Zito is a good deal, so I haven't become a complete maniac. Mad Dog, at least didn't think this was a good deal. He said he wouldn't even trade Milledge for Willis because "I don't like trading an everyday player for a pitcher." Among the reasons he didn't like trading an everyday player for a pitcher when the players are so close in relative skill level, age, and upside is because a pitcher's arm can sponataneously combust at any time.

Johnny Dickshot May 08 2006 05:07 PM

Maybe I misinterpreted. Maybe I'm tunring into the Mad Dog. maybe I AM the Maddog.

MadDog May 08 2006 05:12 PM

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, COME ON, JD! You CAN'T be the Mad Dog because I AM The Mad Dog! You can't give up on a guy like Lastedge Millings! Unless you're trading him for Barry Bonds. You gotta make that deal.

Willets Point May 08 2006 05:24 PM

Is that really what Mad Dog looks like? I always imagined him bald, neckless, old and having a face for radio.

KC May 08 2006 05:28 PM

Yeah, that's him - although that picture might be a few years old.

seawolf17 May 08 2006 05:31 PM

He's much scarier animated; that picture must be old. I had never seen him until he was on Today a few years back promoting his book, and I was startled by his appearance.

Elster88 May 08 2006 06:37 PM

MadDog wrote: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, COME ON, JD! You CAN'T be the Mad Dog because I AM The Mad Dog! You can't give up on a guy like Lastedge Millings! Unless you're trading him for Barry Bonds. You gotta make that deal. Mad Dog, don't you know that you start your shows with the word "And" drawn out? AAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND

Frayed Knot May 08 2006 11:22 PM

FWIW, Francesa said he talked to Omar today (off the air, prior to their show): - Want to keep their pen working as is (at least for now) - Will 'work the phones' to see what's out there and in the meantime fill-in with internal folks (at least for now) - Dontrelle Willis isn't available and was never offered despite a newspaper report a few weeks back saying that he was at some unspecified time.

Zvon May 08 2006 11:33 PM

="Frayed Knot"] - Dontrelle Willis isn't available and was never offered despite a newspaper report a few weeks back saying that he was at some unspecified time. Willis has me worried. I have him on both my fantasy teams and Ive had a close eye on him. You can blame the state of the Marlins only so much for his current record. He has not hit his stride yet this season, and I can only hope he does. A change might be perfect for him, but I agree with the sentiment that you dont give up a hitting prospect for him. A pitching prospect, maybe. A bunch of small parts, certainly. Willis is still young and would make a great Met pitcher, the guys a workhorse-----but not for Milledge. Same with Zito. Not worth Milledge at this time.

Bret Sabermetric May 09 2006 06:54 AM

="Frayed Knot"]FWIW, Francesa said he talked to Omar today (off the air, prior to their show): - Want to keep their pen working as is (at least for now) - Will 'work the phones' to see what's out there and in the meantime fill-in with internal folks (at least for now) - Dontrelle Willis isn't available and was never offered despite a newspaper report a few weeks back saying that he was at some unspecified time. Never ceases to amaze me how people who demand mulitple sourcing from newspaper columnists will not even think that they are being played by Mets' front office people. Do you KNOW that Omar wasn't in bed with the Marlins' GM, Frayed Knot? HOW do you know? Rumor-mongerer. FWIW, my ass. Gossip-spreader. Disseminator of untruths.

seawolf17 May 09 2006 08:24 AM

I don't think anyone's taking that as gospel; FK was just reporting what was said on the radio, in case anyone was interested. He even started with a "for what it's worth," fwiw.

Yancy Street Gang May 09 2006 09:22 AM

There was a line in the Daily News this morning quoting a Mets front office source as saying that the Mets are not interested in trading their prospects. I like reading that. I do take it with a grain of salt. I don't assume that it means that Lastings is really untouchable. But it's nice that they're saying it. They could instead have said, "We're planning on winning this year, and we'll do whatever it takes to do so. Nobody in the farm system is untouchable." The fact that they're saying what they're saying is an indication that it may really be true. You may think there's no value in such statements, but I think that there is some. Maybe not a whole lot, but some.

Bret Sabermetric May 09 2006 09:52 AM

Completely don't get why you would ascribe an iota of credibility more to the Mets organization than you would to a newspaper columnist. For Chrissake, CPFers often gloat how good a job the Mets org. has done in spinning BS and PR the way they want, or how marvelous a job they did of denying with skillful indignance the deals they were working on (Todd Hundley/ Mike Piazza, anyone?), yet you claim to believe for a nanosecond what they supposedly have revealed now. Are you terminally gullible? Have you willfully detached your brain-stem connection? Do you think it's fun to assert that you believe a source you've already identified as unreliable? Please, we need to know.

Frayed Knot May 09 2006 09:55 AM

Various Adam Rubin musings as they pertain to starters for the near future: - (what Yancy refers to) -- Mets insiders insisted yesterday that the team's core prospects, including Lastings Milledge, won't be dealt under any circumstances - not even to obtain Barry Zito or Dontrelle Willis if they were made available. "We're going to be fine," a team source said. "Nobody's panicking. None of the top prospects are going to be dealt." - Jose Lima and Jeremi Gonzalez are penciled in for the weekend Brewers series. - Brian Bannister (strained right hamstring) will throw his first bullpen session today and is scheduled to return May 19 for the series opener against the Yankees.

Bret Sabermetric May 09 2006 10:00 AM

And if tomorrow's back pages read "Zi-TO METS. Milledge, Pelfrey, Bannister, Humber Go to A's in Trade. Mets also agree to pay their salaries for length of their careers, plus 20 Mil Bonus" you won't feel in least played or lied to or misled, correct?

Yancy Street Gang May 09 2006 10:13 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Completely don't get why you would ascribe an iota of credibility more to the Mets organization than you would to a newspaper columnist. For Chrissake, CPFers often gloat how good a job the Mets org. has done in spinning BS and PR the way they want, or how marvelous a job they did of denying with skillful indignance the deals they were working on (Todd Hundley/ Mike Piazza, anyone?), yet you claim to believe for a nanosecond what they supposedly have revealed now. Are you terminally gullible? Have you willfully detached your brain-stem connection? Do you think it's fun to assert that you believe a source you've already identified as unreliable? Please, we need to know. My brain stem must be disconnected, because I don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say I believed them? I said that I was taking it with a grain of salt. I acknowledge (although not explicitly) that it may be spin. But the fact that they're spinning one way and not another may have a sliver of meaning. As I've said before, I don't care if they spin. I don't care if they lie. If denying an impending deal makes it, or a different deal, more likely to happen, then more power to them. The Mets don't owe me anything at all. There are hundreds of organizations and companies that get more of my money than the Mets do. Paying attention to the Mets is an entertainment. A diversion. I'm not going to get outraged about what they say, who they trade, or who they put at any one position. I'm not 12 years old anymore.

Bret Sabermetric May 09 2006 10:16 AM

]But the fact that they're spinning one way and not another may have a sliver of meaning. Really? Why?

Yancy Street Gang May 09 2006 10:17 AM

Because if you care to do it, you can analyze their motive for spinning one way or another.

Bret Sabermetric May 09 2006 10:20 AM

If it's spin. It may also be the truth, which would be opposite of the spin. You know exactly the same amount of the Mets' thinking before hearing their spin as you do after. I don't get why you even factor it in. It's completely without value.

seawolf17 May 09 2006 10:23 AM

Then why even talk about it? Let's just close up shop, shut down the Pool, and go be monks.

Johnny Dickshot May 09 2006 10:24 AM

]It's completely without value. It seems to make a pretty good prop for your broadsides.

Yancy Street Gang May 09 2006 10:32 AM

I guess we have a different perspective. I think it has a limited amout of value. Take two potential "leaks" from the Mets front office: "Milledge is our future. No way we're trading him." "Milledge is a talented young player, but we're looking to win it all this year. If we can trade him for a quality major leaguer, we're going to do it." If they make the second statement, I'm going to think that he's likely gone. I guess I could put it this way: I see it less as a lie or spin as an indication of their current thinking, which is subject to change. If it does change, you would say that they were lying all along. I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. I like that they seem to be thinking this way.

Nymr83 May 09 2006 10:35 AM

]Completely don't get why you would ascribe an iota of credibility more to the Mets organization than you would to a newspaper columnist. which of these two needs to fill up a quota of bullshit everyday and which need not say anything at all? right. i have no reason to believe the mets were liars, and even if they were it would serve a purpose- if yopu anounce to the world that you are going after Willis then the price for Willis just skyrocketed, but hey thats probably what Bret wants because then he can complain that the Mets overpaid for Willis as evidenced by his ridiculous Zito-trade above.

Bret Sabermetric May 09 2006 10:35 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ]It's completely without value. It seems to make a pretty good prop for your broadsides. Well, I resent the hell out of their wasting my time and I resent their pious attitude of scrupulous honesty in purveyng the bullshit with straight faces and I resent the way they reel you guys in. Against my better judgment I sometimes feel obliged to remind you of their track record in telling the truth in public, and I resent that additional waste of my energy as well. They do occasionally tell the truth, by accident. That is, sometimes the bullshit they're spinning will work out the way they're spinning it, which may give them the ability to claim not to be 100% full of bullshit. The whole Peterson/Zambrano "ten minutes" episode is an example of this spinmeistering. He said it, he didn't deny it, then after 10 minutes had passd, word got out that he never said it, and then after 10 weeks had passed, people started saying "It's an old joke, stop saying it already" and now after 10 months have passed, the meme is "Did he even say it?" But you can bet your bottom hemorrhoid that if he HAD straightened Zambrano out (I think he would have needed Dr. Freud and nine years in Vienna) in ten minutes, the banner would have been hung on the fence in Shea: "410--Peterson fixed Zambrano in 10 Minutes!"

Elster88 May 09 2006 10:40 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: As I've said before, I don't care if they spin. I don't care if they lie. If denying an impending deal makes it, or a different deal, more likely to happen, then more power to them. The Mets don't owe me anything at all. There are hundreds of organizations and companies that get more of my money than the Mets do. Paying attention to the Mets is an entertainment. A diversion. I'm not going to get outraged about what they say, who they trade, or who they put at any one position. I'm not 12 years old anymore. Well said.

Bret Sabermetric May 09 2006 10:42 AM

Nymr83 wrote: ]Completely don't get why you would ascribe an iota of credibility more to the Mets organization than you would to a newspaper columnist. which of these two needs to fill up a quota of bullshit everyday and which need not say anything at all? right. i have no reason to believe the mets were liars, and even if they were it would serve a purpose- if yopu anounce to the world that you are going after Willis then the price for Willis just skyrocketed, but hey thats probably what Bret wants because then he can complain that the Mets overpaid for Willis as evidenced by his ridiculous Zito-trade above. Which of the two needs to have a specific line of bullshit being spun, and which just needs to write down copy that, if true, gives him much needed credibility? Do you really thnk a columnist can write erroneous speculation as fact day after day and still retain the minimal redibiltiy he needs to do his job? That's a very naive way of looking at journalists. You and Yancy need to have a serious discussion, because your "if they were it would serve a purpose" argument is the crux of what I'm telling him (and you). They lie because they want to plant stories in peoples' minds for very specific goals. There isn't enough salt in the Pacific for me to take their self-serving bullshit with.

Johnny Dickshot May 09 2006 10:42 AM

]Well, I resent the hell out of their wasting my time and I resent their pious attitude of scrupulous honesty in purveyng the bullshit with straight faces and I resent the way they reel you guys in. Thanks for your concern but honestly, it's not necessary. I'm not as naive as you want to think, and if you're not either, what's the sense of being angry about it? Some of the more loathsome Mofoites way back last century used to use this tactic. They intentionally suspend disbelief so as to have an "Gotcha!" in their pocket to use as future argument-makers.

Elster88 May 09 2006 10:43 AM

]Do you really thnk a columnist can write erroneous speculation as fact day after day and still retain the minimal redibiltiy he needs to do his job? Yes. We discussed this with Healey.

Bret Sabermetric May 09 2006 10:58 AM

And how'd that work out?

Willets Point May 09 2006 11:11 AM

seawolf17 wrote: Then why even talk about it? Let's just close up shop, shut down the Pool, and go be monks. Would we have to root for the Padres then?

Rotblatt May 09 2006 11:11 AM

I think fundamentally how we respond to Mets PR comes down to whether or not we think they share our desire for a team that's competitve for the next couple of years. I believe that they do want to build a highly competitive team, so even if I disagree with their strategy or their implementation of said strategy, I assume that their statements to the press are directed toward that end. I might get pissed off at a statement or a move, but it'd have to be pretty dramatic to change my fundamental belief that their top concern is building a championship team. Bret, on the other hand, doesn't think the Mets are interested in anything more than making a buck, and so views their PR efforts as being solely directed at getting Mets fans to believe that management is mainly interested in building a championship team. I suspect the only thing that would convince Bret otherwise would be for the Mets organization to be run well on a baseball level for at least a year or two--which, let's be honest, it hasn't been, at least not until recently. And for us, I think it would take a deal on the magnitude of the one Bret laid out for us to go all "auctioning off our fandom" on the Mets. In other words, arguing about this seems like a lose-lose for everyone.

Elster88 May 09 2006 11:27 AM

Rotblatt wrote: In other words, arguing about this seems like a lose-lose for everyone. Which is why it's rarely brought up by the majority of posters.

metirish May 09 2006 01:24 PM

Edgy DC May 09 2006 01:26 PM

Get some up-to-date photos. Can those ugly-assed spring-training togs.

Yancy Street Gang May 09 2006 01:27 PM

Wow. Somebody at Newsday is a believer.

Frayed Knot May 09 2006 02:14 PM

The Newsday story is no different from the Daily News one that we excerpted above; they're quoting NYM sources as saying that the recent pitching injuries aren't going to send them into a 'lets-panic-and-deal-the-kids' mode. That they made a back-page spread over it reflects that it's a off-day (for both teams) more than a sign that they are accepting it as stone-cold truth - nor, as far as I can tell, is anyone here despite claims of posters all over the CPF being "reeled in".

soupcan May 09 2006 02:24 PM

I saw that Jeff Fassero was designated for assignment by the Giants. There's a fill-in for ya.

Nymr83 May 09 2006 06:19 PM

trading the kids to replace scrubs is a bad idea in general...when a pedro/delgado/wright goes down and you still think you can win it this year thats when a blue chip prospect should be traded for help, trading one because "oh my god we lost zambrano" is a bad way to go. sal, i'm NOT having the whole media discussion again, we beat it to death earlier this year. but i will talk about the Mets "lying." do you really think a team SHOULD say they are interested in player x (nevermind the tampering rules)? i think that just raises player x's price.

abogdan May 09 2006 06:30 PM

Willie on the pregame w/Eddie C. says Jeremi Gonzalez is starting Friday, Lima Time on Saturday.

Bret Sabermetric May 09 2006 09:48 PM

Nymr83 wrote: trading the kids to replace scrubs is a bad idea in general...when a pedro/delgado/wright goes down and you still think you can win it this year thats when a blue chip prospect should be traded for help, trading one because "oh my god we lost zambrano" is a bad way to go. sal, i'm NOT having the whole media discussion again, we beat it to death earlier this year. but i will talk about the Mets "lying." do you really think a team SHOULD say they are interested in player x (nevermind the tampering rules)? i think that just raises player x's price. No, I just think it's a waste of our time paying any heed whatsoever to what teams or players say, except on the rare occasions when we think they may have blurted out some truth, which we can usually tell because it works against their own PR instincts. Like Pedro ragging on the media because Victor INO blew out his arm--that's stupid, and it makesPedro look like a douchebag, so maybe those were his genuine feelings. But if he'd given some Crash-Davis school of answering reporters' questions-type answer, that tells us nothing.

Elster88 May 10 2006 10:08 AM

Billy Beane said today (or maybe yesterday), for the 1,085,454,356th time by my count, that there is no way Zito gets traded.

Bret Sabermetric May 10 2006 10:10 AM

Unless he does. In which case, nevermind.

KC May 10 2006 10:19 AM

BS: >>>I just think it's a waste of our time paying any heed whatsoever to what teams or players say, except on the rare occasions when we think they may have blurted out some truth<<< Just an observation, and someone can RLF this if they deem approriate ... Do you do embed this stuff in your posts on purpose? I mean, change a few words around you're describing your behavior on this forum. We just think it's a waste of time paying any heed whatsover to what Bret types here, except on the rare occasions that he may be blurting out facts. Weird, huh?

metsmarathon May 10 2006 10:44 AM

if its a waste of time, then why do we care wether we think they're telling the truth, lying, spinning, or later changing their minds?

KC May 10 2006 10:44 AM

Are there any professional sports franchise teams that tell the press exactly what they're thinking, planning, planned, suceeded at, failed to do? I'm sure someone has mentioned this here, I've stopped reading, but I need to ask? Why would a manager, GM, bat boy, HVAC guy at Shea tell the god damn Daily Snooze, "yeah, we all knew after getting him that Zammo was a mistake and now we're here in a penant race and need a good starter and here's our hand so come ring the phones off our hooks and plant a bat up our ass for one? Take our whole farm - come and get it - because we've given full disclosure to please the whining former fans of our organization."

Frayed Knot May 10 2006 11:15 AM

The thing about Beane is that he's virtually never traded a guy in mid-season who's coming up on FA-gency. People keep talking as if he needs to deal Zito or risk getting nothing for him ('cept draft picks) but that's not been his M.O.; not with Giambi, not Damon, not Isringhausen, not Tejada. I guess you have to go back to Kenny Rogers (nice pitcher but hardly Zito) in '99 to find a "major" player dealt at the deadline. Now all that may change if/when Oakland drops out of things in the ALWest but that doesn't look like it's on the horizon anytime soon. Angels are stumbling, Seattle is bad, and does anyone think Texas will run away and hide? He did deal both Hudson & Mulder but that was prior to the start of the season.

Willets Point May 10 2006 11:32 AM

To follow up on FK, I think Beane likes getting the compensation draft picks so he can draft a bunch of sabermetrically-pleasing ballplayers out of college. That's the impression I got from Moneyball at least.

Edgy DC May 10 2006 11:46 AM

What was the compensation he got for Art Howe again?

Bret Sabermetric May 10 2006 11:54 AM

metsmarathon wrote: if its a waste of time, then why do we care wether we think they're telling the truth, lying, spinning, or later changing their minds? Excellent question. But if the answer is, "I guess we don't or shouldn't anyway" then we're reduced to analyzing what happens on the field, and why we think it happens, and stuff like that. That reduces us to sabremetric- type dweebs, and that's like a fate worse than death, innit?

ScarletKnight41 May 10 2006 11:54 AM

Edgy DC wrote: What was the compensation he got for Art Howe again? Nothing from us. Beane was free to sign Macha as manager for much less than Howe would have gotten.

TheOldMole May 10 2006 12:00 PM

It's the job of a sports franchise to work at the best strategies for winning, not to disclose all their strategies to the media.

Bret Sabermetric May 10 2006 12:09 PM

Hell of a job the Mets have been doing the last five years, Mole, just a hell of a. So why do we pay attention to the stuff they're not even trying to do? "Hello, we're talking to Omar Minaya, who's under no obligiation to share his genuine thoughts wth us today--in fact, it probably suits Omar's goals better to deceive us and to tell us stuff that will mislead or confuse us, in hopes of getting disinformation out in public, and you listeners are intended to be used as conduits of Omar's disinformation. Omar, hi. Are you intending to take Helmlan out of the bullpen and make a starter of him?"

Elster88 May 10 2006 12:12 PM

You can't see it, but I'm shaking my head in astonishment.

KC May 10 2006 12:31 PM

BS: Are you intending to take Helmlan out of the bullpen and make a starter of him?" O: We'll have to see how that all pans out. or O: Frankly Gammo, we're panic struck right now and don't know what to do. The in-fighting over whether Zambie should ever have been acquired, everyone wanting Miledge or Wright in a deal, the internet constantly second guessing the manager -- I'm getting hives, but I feel I need full discloure. I went through a tube of Preparation H last week and one of my children has ADS too. Oh, and Jeff drinks like a fish.

Centerfield May 10 2006 12:59 PM

="Bret Sabermetric"] So why do we pay attention to the stuff they're not even trying to do? "Hello, we're talking to Omar Minaya, who's under no obligiation to share his genuine thoughts wth us today--in fact, it probably suits Omar's goals better to deceive us and to tell us stuff that will mislead or confuse us, in hopes of getting disinformation out in public, and you listeners are intended to be used as conduits of Omar's disinformation. Omar, hi. Are you intending to take Helmlan out of the bullpen and make a starter of him?" I realize Bret's quote here is tongue in cheek, but how far is it from the truth? In situations such as trades or free agency, it is in the best interest of the organization to talk as if they have other options, to appear to be leaning in another direction, anything to improve their leverage, or at least, their perceived leverage. So then, why do we bother listening? If I had to guess, I would say we listen because we all think we can read between the lines. We all listen with the hopes that we can judge from Omar's tone "what he is really thinking". You know, because fans like us know Omar so well we can read his inflections or body language. The great part about this is that no matter what our position, anything Omar says always corroborates our ideas. Omar: "No way in hell we are trading Milledge." Apologists: "Hooray! Did you hear that? Lastings is safe!" Cynics: "That's what they said about Kazmir. Milledge is as good as gone."

Elster88 May 10 2006 01:03 PM

]The great part about this is that no matter what our position, anything Omar says always corroborates our ideas. Which is why arguing over a quote is so stupid.

KC May 10 2006 01:06 PM

Cf:>>>Omar: "No way in hell we are trading Milledge."<<< heyman: They're shopping Wright for a starter.

Elster88 May 10 2006 01:07 PM

LOLOL

Bret Sabermetric May 10 2006 01:16 PM

My quarrell (at 1:16 P.M. today, through about 1:20) is with those who persist in using quotes to support the Mets' thinking. "Omar said it, therefore it's so: the Mets are/aren't looking for another reliever, trading Wright for the entire Marlins franchise, bringing Milledge up anytime this decade, etc."

Yancy Street Gang May 10 2006 01:18 PM

I'm not going to reread every post ever made, but I don't think there's a lot of that happening. We do have a lot of "Omar said it" but not a lot of "therefore it's so."

Bret Sabermetric May 10 2006 01:42 PM

OK, I'm done. Yancy says no one puts any credence in what Omar says, ever, that's good enough for me. Next?

TheOldMole May 10 2006 01:44 PM

Is there possibly a point in between "therefore it's so" and "no credence"?

TheOldMole May 10 2006 01:45 PM

It's like that country and western song -- there's got to be something between lust and watching TV.

Yancy Street Gang May 10 2006 01:45 PM

I said "not a lot of." I said nothing about "never." There's simply no end to your distortions, is there?

TheOldMole May 10 2006 01:46 PM

In case anyone's wondering, here's the lyric -- by Cal Smith: The life that I’m seeking is not in this bar where I’m sitting But it’s sure ain’t at home where the one that I’m married to’s knitting Happiness may not be here drinking beer, feeling it go to my head But it ain’t back at home where she’s putting in curlers and rollers and dressing for bed What I’m looking for ain’t the blonde in the corner who’s winking But it sure ain’t my wife who devoted her life to dumb thinking Happiness surely still lives in this world and somewhere it’s waiting for me And I’m know that it must be somewhere between lust and sitting home watching TV Somewhere between Playboy magazine and next Tuesday night’s PTA Somewhere between a honky-tonk queen and what all the dog did today If a wife and a lover could be one of the same what a beautiful world this would be And there would be us somewhere between lust and sitting home watching TV My wife’s a good cook but a man can’t exist on just bread And what I’m hungry for is the one thing I ain’t being fed I haven’t been shopping but there’s lot of bargains walking through town tempting me And a body could rust on a diet of lust and sitting home watching TV Somewhere between Playboy magazine and next Tuesday night’s PTA Somewhere between a honky-tonk queen and what all the dog did today If a wife and a lover could be one of the same what a beautiful world this would be And there would be us somewhere between lust and sitting home watching TV

Bret Sabermetric May 10 2006 02:05 PM

My point was, either you have some or you have none. If you have some, and I think you're granting that you do, then that's too much, if he could always be dissembling, and you can't tell when he is and when he isn't. You want to allow, ,maybe, that's he always lying, but sometimes you think it's worthwhile to parse the signals emerging from his mouth anyway? Why just at those times, then?

Yancy Street Gang May 10 2006 02:10 PM

Well, I can only push this point so far. I'll say that I never say, "If Omar said it it's true." It's possible that others here have said that. And if you find anyone who did, I'll leave it to that person, whoever it is, to defend that point.

Elster88 May 10 2006 02:13 PM

I don't know that there are many times where someone has said "If Omar said it, it must be true" or something along those lines. It's a lot easier to call people "kool-aid drinkers" without using actual words that they posted.

TheOldMole May 10 2006 02:29 PM

]My point was, either you have some or you have none. If you have some, and I think you're granting that you do, then that's too much, if he could always be dissembling, and you can't tell when he is and when he isn't. You want to allow, ,maybe, that's he always lying, but sometimes you think it's worthwhile to parse the signals emerging from his mouth anyway? Why just at those times, then? Who is this not true of? Do any of us know some people who always tell the truth, and some who always lie? I mean, besides ones who are guarding two doors, one of which leads to certain death? You listen to Omar, or read accounts of his statements to the press, because he's the general manager of the Mets, and you like to read about the Mets. You hope, that when Omar says "We're not talking to anyone just now," that he actually has something up his sleeve, and you hope that you'll like it. You'd probably not have much respect for him as a GM if he kept saying things like "We don't want other GMs to know this, because it would give them too much leverage, but we've detected a serious flaw in Pelfrey's delivery, and we're planning to unload him to the first team that's sap enough to give us a couple of retreads and a lower minor leaguer for him."

Bret Sabermetric May 10 2006 02:43 PM

I'm saying, Mole, that people select moments to believe Omar (or any GM) based more on what they WANT to believe than on any more objective standard of logic or credibility. Turning your True/False switch on and off based on what you like to hear seems pretty unreliable to me. He could announce this afternoon, "I'm working out a deal that will bring seven All-Stars to the Mets in exchange for 2016 draft picks" and some Mets fans will get all excited: "Maybe it's true? Goody. That would be great. I wonder who Omar's planning to get..."

TheOldMole May 10 2006 02:55 PM

Yeah, but this is not startingly different from how we react to any other public figure. That's why Republicans tend to believe Bush more than Democrats do.

Willets Point May 10 2006 03:16 PM

Since we were reminiscing about Avi in another thread, I thought I'd point out that at least four pages ago Avi would have said "Whatever, dude."

Elster88 May 10 2006 03:20 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: I'm saying, Mole, that people select moments to believe Omar (or any GM) based more on what they WANT to believe than on any more objective standard of logic or credibility. This is true of both apologists and cynics.

metsmarathon May 10 2006 03:24 PM

and so, sal, what do you resolve that we as met fans should do? completly ignore anything that ever comes from omar's mouth? treat it all as gospel? or treat it all as the exact opposite of the truth? i mean, surely, it must be one of these options, no? and if we simply ignore everything the organization says, then don't we just become dweebs? if we treat it all as gospel, aren't we just kidding ourselves? and is we treat it all as the opposite of gospel, aren't we doing teh exact same thing? or do we just go on, continue to act like humans do, and accept certain things as more likely to be true, and other things to be more likely to be false, based on our own predispositions and experiences?

Yancy Street Gang May 10 2006 03:26 PM

Hmmm. Shades of grey. Interesting concept.

Bret Sabermetric May 11 2006 06:57 AM

metsmarathon wrote: and so, sal, what do you resolve that we as met fans should do? I would "accept certain things as more likely to be true, and other things to be more likely to be false, " but I would drectly question why those beliefs applyb, and not just base them "on our own predispositions and experiences," otherwise known as biases and prejudices.

Johnny Dickshot May 11 2006 07:54 AM

I think I know what you're saying, but have to add there ought be absolutely zero shame in getting a fan to "admit" they, for example, interpret something about the team they support from the perspective that they want them to be right, or hope it's accurate, or whatever. That's pretty much the definition of a fan. That doesn't mean they can't disagree, or be cynical, or think Omar's blowing smoke, or are unwitting swallowers of whatever information comes down the pike. For example, I admit I wear blue-and-orange jammies with the worst of them, but still thought the team bungled the whole value equation with Mike Cameron. But I sure hope Omar turns out to be right, and you bet yer ass I'll cheer for the success of that deal. That's what a fan does. There's no shame in that. None at all.

metsmarathon May 11 2006 08:42 AM

="Bret Sabermetric"] ="metsmarathon"]and so, sal, what do you resolve that we as met fans should do? I would "accept certain things as more likely to be true, and other things to be more likely to be false, " but I would drectly question why those beliefs applyb, and not just base them "on our own predispositions and experiences," otherwise known as biases and prejudices. just so long as we're all aware that we all have biases and prejudices.

soupcan May 11 2006 09:31 AM

Here's a nugget - The gal who cuts my kids hair is supposedly the girlfriend of one of the Mets trainers. According to my wife who saw this gal yesterday, she said her boyfriend said (I know, I know) that the Mets are more than just a little pissed off at Zambrano for not letting them know about his 'discomfort' and that his career as a Met is pretty much done.

Elster88 May 11 2006 09:32 AM

Is that a joke to make fun of reporters? I think that's one of Healey's sources.

soupcan May 11 2006 09:36 AM

Not intended to be a joke, just passing along info. Take it for what its worth. I believe the gal's boyfriend is one f the trainers. Wife is going to get his name today to be certain. Will report back.

Yancy Street Gang May 11 2006 09:38 AM

Well, the source may not be rock solid, but the report is plausible anyway. I would expect that the Mets are pissed at him. As for him being done as a Met, I'm less sure about that. But I suspect that the proverbial "change of scenery" would be best for both Victor and the Mets.

cooby May 11 2006 09:38 AM

Haircuts two days in a row?

Elster88 May 11 2006 09:38 AM

I hope you don't get the chick in trouble. I can totally see the trainer's girlfriend's client's mother's husband's message board being used as an "unnamed source close to the Mets" by certain folks.

soupcan May 11 2006 09:39 AM

How much would a trainer actually know about that part of the issue anyway? Stupid hair cutter gal. She's pretty hot though if that matters.

soupcan May 11 2006 09:40 AM

cooby wrote: Haircuts two days in a row? Dontcha love how cooby's mind works? 2 different kids.

Elster88 May 11 2006 09:40 AM

It matters.

cooby May 11 2006 09:47 AM

Does your wife have her own parking spot at this clip joint yet? She should

Yancy Street Gang May 11 2006 09:48 AM

How often does she pee?

Rotblatt May 11 2006 09:49 AM

BP's [url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/cheap/2005/cheap0826.html]Christina Kahrl[/url] weighs in on Zambrano. I completely agree with her, although I think her knock on Oliver is a bit unfair, and she labels Sanchez as merely "fine." ]Zambrano's done for the year, which is pretty amusing when you consider that he was acquired for Scott Kazmir on the Mets' faith that Kazmir would break down irretrievably and soon. Now that it's Lima Tima ("kaboom sound included"), at least Mets fans can take solace in the knowledge that there is now somebody definitively worse than Darren Oliver on the roster, although Oliver does seem to be enjoying one of his rare good seasons in the early going. But as I noted in the NY Sun, the real answer to this team's rotation issues is in their bullpen, and the sooner they just accept that Aaron Heilman is the third starter this rotation otherwise lacks, the better for their prospects now and into the postseason. Futzing around with the Olivers, Limas, and Jeremi Gonzalezes of the world is not going to fix the rotation, and finding good pen help is much more easily done. If Willie Randolph and Rick Peterson are dismissing the suggestion out of hand, it's worth bringing up the folly of relying on their own experience too heavily. Instead, a little bit of recognition of a capacity for error needs to be acknowledged, particularly concerning Peterson's part in getting Zambrano for Kazmir. The bullpen might seem shallow, but that's not really the case. Beyond closer Billy Wagner, Duaner Sanchez has been fine, Chad Bradford and Pedro Feliciano have their situational uses. The problem has been turning around Jorge Julio, because while he's doing a much better job of throwing strikes, he's also still doing a great job of catching too much of the plate in a way that only creates instant happiness (and souvenirs) amongst bleacher creatures. Enter Bell, who you might hope could help shore up the pen after notching 20 Ks in 13.1 IP at Norfolk. As we noted in this year's edition of the annual, Bell was among the most unlucky pitchers in baseball last season when it came to BABIP, but if he's finally harnessed his fastball/split combo, he could wind up being the second quality setup man the pen would seem to require to reassure Randolph's anxieties over moving Heilman to the rotation. We can certainly hope so, even if you aren't tired of seeing the Braves win--I'd much rather see the Mets take their best shot than allow their season to be poisoned by the contributions of Jose Lima and his ilk.

Edgy DC May 11 2006 09:54 AM

I agree that Heilman is a good place to look, but she doesn't seem to be payinng much attention to the team thus far, and seems to have a lot of opinions formed based on a pre-season perspective. Scary that she threw in a Kaboom.

soupcan May 11 2006 09:55 AM

]Now that it's Lima Tima ("kaboom sound included"), Lurker. ]...and finding good pen help is much more easily done. Really? Tell that to the Yankees. ] If Willie Randolph and Rick Peterson are dismissing the suggestion out of hand, it's worth bringing up the folly of relying on their own experience too heavily. Instead, a little bit of recognition of a capacity for error needs to be acknowledged, particularly concerning Peterson's part in getting Zambrano for Kazmir. 20/20 hindsight. ]The bullpen might seem shallow, but that's not really the case. Beyond closer Billy Wagner, Duaner Sanchez has been fine, Chad Bradford and Pedro Feliciano have their situational uses. The problem has been turning around Jorge Julio, because while he's doing a much better job of throwing strikes, he's also still doing a great job of catching too much of the plate in a way that only creates instant happiness (and souvenirs) amongst bleacher creatures. Captain Obvious. ]Enter Bell, who you might hope could help shore up the pen after notching 20 Ks in 13.1 IP at Norfolk. As we noted in this year's edition of the annual, Bell was among the most unlucky pitchers in baseball last season when it came to BABIP, but if he's finally harnessed his fastball/split combo, he could wind up being the second quality setup man the pen would seem to require to reassure Randolph's anxieties over moving Heilman to the rotation. We can certainly hope so, even if you aren't tired of seeing the Braves win--I'd much rather see the Mets take their best shot than allow their season to be poisoned by the contributions of Jose Lima and his ilk. Am I the only person who has a freakin' calendar? It's MAY.

Elster88 May 11 2006 09:55 AM

]at least Mets fans can take solace in the knowledge that there is now somebody definitively worse than Darren Oliver on the roster, although Oliver does seem to be enjoying one of his rare good seasons in the early going. How do you take a shot at someone while admitting it's undeserved? It takes a special breed of....er, writer....to do that.

Yancy Street Gang May 11 2006 10:00 AM

I agree that it would be best if we saw as little of Lima as possible. Hopefully Bannister will be back soon, although that only solves half the problem. Maybe Maine will be a better pitcher with a healthy finger, but I'm still not thrilled with getting 24 starts each out of Bannister and Maine over the rest of the season. It doesn't sound like a recipe for the postseason. For the shorter term, I wonder what will happen if there's a rainout tonight in Philadelphia. (There's heavy rain in some of the forecasts.) Pedro is scheduled to start against the Brewers on Sunday. I'd like to think that he'd still get that start, and that either Lima or Gonzalez would get bumped. Unfortunately I'm not all that sure that that's what would happen. We might end up seeing Trachsel, Lima, Gonzalez against Milwaukee, which would be a terrible decision.

smg58 May 11 2006 10:01 AM

It's a fair assessment. I think you'd need to commit to a long-term look at Heilman -- moving him into the rotation for one or two starts until Bannister and/or Maine gets healthy would be counterproductive. I can see why the Mets would be reluctant to do that right now, but that option absolutely has to be taken seriously over the long haul.

Yancy Street Gang May 11 2006 10:02 AM

Elster88 wrote: How do you take a shot at someone while admitting it's undeserved? It takes a special breed of....er, writer....to do that. Oh, that's no so terrible. She's saying he sucks, although he's been decent for the first month of the season. I don't see where she said it's undeserved.

Elster88 May 11 2006 10:03 AM

How about making Heilman a starter and making Maine the last guy out of the bullpen?

Willets Point May 11 2006 10:03 AM

Move Heilman to the rotatation and sign Clemens. Heilman and Rocket, hey don't knock it!

Rotblatt May 11 2006 10:06 AM

soupcan wrote: 20/20 hindsight. 20/20 foresight too. Most of us noted that he had had elbow problems prior to making the trade.

Edgy DC May 11 2006 10:15 AM

Indeed. But Peterson's role in the trade is still highly speculative.

MFS62 May 11 2006 11:11 AM

They could get some short term help from Mother Nature. They're predicting as much as 3 inches of rain in Philly tonight. If the game gets washed out, Traschell starts Friday, with Gonzales or Lima on Saturday and Pedro on Sunday. Then, by the next weekend, Bannister could be ready to pitch on Saturday. Later

Yancy Street Gang May 11 2006 11:15 AM

Is that official, 62? Or speculation? That's what I'd speculate, too, but I don't have that much confidence in Randolph and Peterson's wisdom. Yancy Street Gang wrote: For the shorter term, I wonder what will happen if there's a rainout tonight in Philadelphia. (There's heavy rain in some of the forecasts.) Pedro is scheduled to start against the Brewers on Sunday. I'd like to think that he'd still get that start, and that either Lima or Gonzalez would get bumped. Unfortunately I'm not all that sure that that's what would happen. We might end up seeing Trachsel, Lima, Gonzalez against Milwaukee, which would be a terrible decision.

Rotblatt May 11 2006 11:17 AM

MFS62 wrote: They could get some short term help from Mother Nature. They're predicting as much as 3 inches of rain in Philly tonight. If the game gets washed out, Traschell starts Friday, with Gonzales or Lima on Saturday and Pedro on Sunday. Then, by the next weekend, Bannister could be ready to pitch on Saturday. Later Pedro and Glav, then rained out phans.

soupcan May 11 2006 11:31 AM

That doesn't even rhyme. Boo!

MFS62 May 11 2006 11:32 AM

Yancy, it was mentioned in today's Daily News suburban edition. Don't know if it was speculation or fact. That's why I said "could". Later

sharpie May 11 2006 11:49 AM

If the Mets are rained out tonight and elect to use only one of the suspect pitchers, they should probably go with Lima - then there would be no need to even bring up Gonzalez, thereby having to do some 40-man shenanigans.

Rotblatt May 11 2006 11:50 AM

Yancy wrote: Unfortunately I'm not all that sure that that's what would happen. We might end up seeing Trachsel, Lima, Gonzalez against Milwaukee, which would be a terrible decision. I'd be awfully suprised if he did that. Pedro will get an extra day's rest anyway with the off-day on Monday--I can't see us giving him 6 full days off this early in the season.

Elster88 May 11 2006 12:24 PM

I also doubt Willie would do that. He already left people (or at least Glavine) on regular rest once instead of pushing everyone back to account for the rainout.

Bret Sabermetric May 11 2006 02:37 PM

="metsmarathon"]just so long as we're all aware that we all have biases and prejudices. Well, I'm aware that people in general do. The real issue here is "Do you nurture your prejudices or try to identify them and eliminate them?" As JD says, he's got nothing to be ashamed about for rooting for the Mets, and trying to find ways to justify even their dumbest moves. But IRL, when you do that openly (say, in political matters) you're deemed a party hack, a partisan, and your opinion is less valued in general., When you hang out with other party hacks, you're treated pretty well. When you hang out with people who have no special party affiliation, not so much. Since I stopped rooting for the Mets, I find I'm better able to see where they've clearly screwed the pooch, and to say so with fewer qualifications than I could when I was a Mets fan. I think fighting off my biases has helped me to evaluate baseball, and to enjoy the game. Rooting interest is very much over-rated--it makes for a certain visceral excitment, I admit, but generally it's far better to be able to think clearly and assess correctly. This isn't the place to say so, of course, and I don't expect much agreement wth my current view, but here it is: Bias is pretty destructive to thought.

Yancy Street Gang May 11 2006 02:47 PM

That wouldn't work for me. If I had no rooting interest in the outcome of a game, I wouldn't watch. It wouldn't interest me. I agree that bias is destructive to thought, but rooting for the Mets isn't an intellectual exercise. It's a part of my childhood that I haven't let go of. If I were to give it too much thought, I'd end up walking away from baseball, and I'd lose something I enjoy. I did something similar with religion: I thought about it, analyzed it, found that it didn't ring true, and I walked away. The thing is, I never really enjoyed being religious, so it was no loss.

soupcan May 11 2006 02:54 PM

Really? You don't think you could just like baseball for baseball? Don't you just appreciate 'the game'? The strategies? The fact that you know this game probably better than 85% of the people who watch it? I can certainly understand why having no specific team to root for would take away from the enjoyment, you really think if the Mets were contracted for example that you could really just walk away? I don't think I would. Or could.

Bret Sabermetric May 11 2006 02:57 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 11 2006 03:26 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: That wouldn't work for me. If I had no rooting interest in the outcome of a game, I wouldn't watch. It wouldn't interest me. I agree that bias is destructive to thought, but rooting for the Mets isn't an intellectual exercise. It's a part of my childhood that I haven't let go of. If I were to give it too much thought, I'd end up walking away from baseball, and I'd lose something I enjoy. I did something similar with religion: I thought about it, analyzed it, found that it didn't ring true, and I walked away. The thing is, I never really enjoyed being religious, so it was no loss. I was going to use religion as another example of reinforced bias (here called "dogma"), designed to prevent you from using your brain fully. This is why I think my comments about "drinking the kool-aid" aren't particularly abusive.When you're a fan, you agree to drink the swill, to a greater or lesser degree. (Thanks, JD, for using "blue-and-orange PJs" in the neutral, non-offensive sense that I usually intend it.) Maybe it's having a less highly evolved braiin than you people, but I couldn't handle the work involved in turning off a portion of my brain where the Mets were concerned, as you all can (and as I could for decades). I would be asking "Wait---would this be true if I were talking about anything other than the Mets?" all the time, and it got to be less fun facing the fact that I was deliberately not exploring certain possiblities because they felt unpleasant to me, even if I knew what that would do to my personal popularity and credibility around these parts. It's a trade-off.. You don't make friends as easily being a baseball fan in general. I walk around sometime in a Red Sox cap and a Mets t-shirt, and people on the subway just look at me funny. "Mommy, why is that man dressed that way?" "Shhh, angel. He's just sick."

Yancy Street Gang May 11 2006 03:25 PM

Whatever works for you. Caring if a team of strangers wins or not is not at all rational. If it ever becomes an effort to root for the Mets, or, in other words, if it ever ceases to be fun or entertaining, I'll stop. And soupcan, if the Mets ever disappeared, I'd walk away from baseball. I do appreciate the game, and I'd probably check the standings every once in a while, and might watch a handful of World Series or playoff games, but I'm too old to pick a new team, and I'd have too many other demands on my time to watch a game where I didn't care about the outcome. Maybe I'd feel different if my kids were grown and I was retired, but probably not. I'm not the kind of fan I used to be, say about 25 years ago. I used to watch every post season game that I could, and I knew the players on every team. I read the weekly accounts in the Sporting News for all 26 teams. But my focus is much more narrow now, and I devote a lot less time to baseball. (Don't let the UMDB fool you; it only requires minutes a day on my part.) Now I'm a Mets fan, and not a generic baseball fan. And I don't know where I'll be 25 years from now.

Elster88 May 11 2006 03:35 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 11 2006 03:57 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I think I know what you're saying, but have to add there ought be absolutely zero shame in getting a fan to "admit" they, for example, interpret something about the team they support from the perspective that they want them to be right, or hope it's accurate, or whatever. That's pretty much the definition of a fan. That doesn't mean they can't disagree, or be cynical, or think Omar's blowing smoke, or are unwitting swallowers of whatever information comes down the pike. For example, I admit I wear blue-and-orange jammies with the worst of them, but still thought the team bungled the whole value equation with Mike Cameron. But I sure hope Omar turns out to be right, and you bet yer ass I'll cheer for the success of that deal. That's what a fan does. There's no shame in that. None at all. does not equal this: ="Bret Sabermetric"] As JD says, he's got nothing to be ashamed about for rooting for the Mets, and trying to find ways to justify even their dumbest moves.

Elster88 May 11 2006 03:35 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 11 2006 03:44 PM

Nah.

KC May 11 2006 03:37 PM

I like being biased and stupid, Let's Go Mets.

soupcan May 11 2006 03:54 PM

I literally do wear Mets pajamas. Picked up a pair of lightweight blue drawstring pants with the orange interlocking 'NY' all over them at Modell's a coupla weeks ago.. They are my sleepwear. I don't have Mets Kool-Aid though. Yet.

metirish May 11 2006 03:55 PM

I can only sleep nude.......

Yancy Street Gang May 11 2006 03:57 PM

That's too bad. There are other things that can be done naked as well.

metsmarathon May 11 2006 05:28 PM

teh day they start making blue-and-orange kool aid that doesn't just turn brown when you mix it will be the happiest day of my life. (as i type this i must admit that it is possible to make blue and orange kool aid. one must only take blue kool aid, and orange kool aid, maintain them at distinctly different temperatures, and very slowly and carefully introduce one to the other, with a minimum of agitation. the less dense, therefore hotter kool aid mixture would stay at the top of your glass while the colder kool aid would stay at the bottom. its a fun science class trick. i'm not sure if the kool aid would make this easier or harder to do, but surely would make it worth while. i am such a nerd.)

KC May 11 2006 05:38 PM

Orange kool-aid, blue ice cubes, drink fast.