Master Index of Archived Threads


Pen Help?

Frayed Knot Jul 29 2008 08:30 AM

Relievers carrying gasoline to the mound last night naturally prompts calls of bringing in help from the outside, including several comments in the IGT saying; 'to hell with an outfielder, get me a reliever' ButIdon'tknow. Trading for relievers always scares me from a risk/reward point of view and it's a strategy that seems to backfire as often as it succeeds. Last year's big pickups at the deadline: Eric Gagne (Boston) and Scott Linebrink (Brewers) cost 3 prospects each and did almost nothing (Linebrink) or less than nothing (Gagne) to advance their new teams. And as far as who's out there that's a significant step up what we have, Huston Street (Oak) & Brian Fuentes (Col) are the names being bandied about. Both also come with the 'Closer' title attached to their names, something which automatically makes them more expensive even though neither would fill that role here, this year or next. Fuentes is a FA at the end of the year. Street would be under control for another year or two. Street boasts a good WHiP (1.11) but a pedestrian ERA (4.00) and save rate (18 of 23). Fuentes - whose leftiness is probably more valuable to any other team but ours - checks in at 1.12; 3.07; 17 of 21. He was also the guy who lost his closing job for a time last year. There are probably other guys out there to be had but are any of them really a significant step up from the Heilman/Sanchez/Smith/Feliciano crowd, or even taking a chance on the likes of Collazo, Kunz, etc.? Personally, I'd rather be spending my allowance on an OFer if the right one is available.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 29 2008 08:36 AM Re: Pen Help?

Frayed Knot wrote: Personally, I'd rather be spending my allowance on an OFer if the right one is available. Me too. I think Fuentes is someone the Mets should talk to over the winter, but my guess is with Wagner here he won't be too interested.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 29 2008 08:36 AM

If Omar had the cajones, he could potentially pay and collect in the reliever market by trading for Fuentes (who I'd really like) and then trading Feliciano to whomever our Fuentes offer beats. Feliciano's numbers and success vs. LHB should be tempting. I mean, if I saw Feliciano's numbers alone I'd say he's a guy we would need. And we do sorta need him. But, we could do better.

AG/DC Jul 29 2008 08:42 AM

A big key is staying away from guys backsliding out of a history of closing. You're right that a closer label artifically adds to their price tags, and then we end up with a kick in the dick like Jason Isringhausen for Billy Taylor. Omar getting Guillermo Mota for nothing = good. Omar signing Guillermo Mota = awful.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 29 2008 09:25 AM

Relievers performances are usually the most volatile from season to season, thus making relief pitching the most difficult role to assess in all of baseball. This is because (and here comes a tie-in to the recent 1990 AL Cy Young Award thread) of the limited number of innings relievers pitch. It's the old small sample size bugaboo. A reliever's entire season might qualify as a small sample size.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 29 2008 09:36 AM

If you can get a middle reliever for spare parts, great. I wouldn't pay what it would take for a big name closer. The bullpen blew up last night, but they've also had to cover a lot of innings over the past three days. I wouldn't panic too much. The Mets' bullpen is about league average. If the rotation continues to be anywhere near as good as they've been over the last month, the Mets' pitching will be fine. If they can get some offensive help they should be able to take the division barring injuries or something crazy happening. I also don't think Colorado will be sellers, so much for Fuentes; and you'll always be able to land an A's closer if you pay a steep enough price.

AG/DC Jul 29 2008 09:36 AM

You're stretching your point. I think you should take positions about regarding that thread in that thread.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 29 2008 09:46 AM

AG/DC wrote: You're stretching your point. I think you should take positions about regarding that thread in that thread. I disagree. Why would general observations about a reliever's volatility in performance from season to season belong in the 1990 thread? I wouldn't base my 1990 Cy Young vote on what Eck did in seasons prior to 1990 or on what I might project Eck to do after 1990. You're stretching your argument.

AG/DC Jul 29 2008 09:49 AM

Great, thanks.

duan Jul 29 2008 11:30 AM

Each of our relievers has had bouts of effectiveness, but where we've really had trouble is in stranding inherited runners. I had thought that at least part of it is was getting a manager to play matchups and/or go with the hot hand, but looking at the stats, all our main relievers Wagner, Sanchez, Heillman, Smith, Feliciano and the show (sp much easier!!) had negative Inherited Run Prevented scores. That's pretty bad. But I do reckon that relief pitching is a bit of a crap shoot, a bunch of the guys who've performed best this year are either retreads or cast offs. Say hello to Grant Balfour for example and of course Dan Wheeler & Heath Bell would look pretty good in our uniforms right now (well I don't think heath bell could actually look good in any uniform but y'know what I mean).

Frayed Knot Jul 29 2008 08:11 PM

Discussed in the booth at some point during the game was the feeling among NYM brass that if they couldn't find a reliever who'd be "a difference maker" then they'd stick with what they have and/or replace from within. I agree. I think we've seen enough Jason Bay for Jason Middlebrook disasters over the years.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 29 2008 09:45 PM

Not for nothing but many of us (including Omar) felt the Mets wouldn't/shouldn't/needn't go get relief help at last deadline either. Some reports suggested the Mets were dangling The Show in potential outfielder deals; as I said above I wouldn't object strongly to a plan that shifts on the fly there.

AG/DC Jul 29 2008 10:02 PM

Your point is important of course. Crossed my mind also. Then I forgot. Maybe --- and I'm being humble here because I just dunno --- the failure last year was waiting until the last week before even giving the likes of Collazo, Muñiz, and Humber a look-see, and maybe resting some over-taxed guys while working them into the mix a bit, and not giving Ryan Cullen, Tim McNab, or Steve Schmoll a look at all. Kevin Mulvey, even. One advantage over last year is that we've seen how bad our penners can be --- from last September and this June --- as we go into the break. The disadvantage is we don't know why.

smg58 Jul 30 2008 05:56 AM

AG/DC wrote: One advantage over last year is that we've seen how bad our penners can be --- from last September and this June --- as we go into the break. The disadvantage is we don't know why. Almost all relievers go through rough stretches, so that's part of it. But the whole pen got worked a lot last year, and some of them pitched a few innings too many. This year, the workhorses (Heilman and Sosa) struggled out of the gate, Sosa to the point of pitching himself off the team, so a big strain was placed on guys like Feliciano and Schoeneweis. Plus we don't know yet how much workload Joe Smith can handle, and Sanchez has had some serious ups and downs. The good news (at least until the Maine injury) is that we've been getting more innings out of the rotation. Dealing for relievers is tricky at this time of year. Any bullpen can always be made better, but I don't want to pay a closer's price for a set-up guy.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 30 2008 06:24 AM

Re-live the thrilling pursuit of Luis Castillo and the non-deal for big-name relievers: [url]http://archives.cranepoolforum.net/6900/f1_t6912.shtml[/url]

AG/DC Jul 30 2008 06:33 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 30 2008 07:15 AM

smg58 wrote: Any bullpen can always be made better, but I don't want to pay a closer's price for a set-up guy. Or for a lump of coal.

Frayed Knot Jul 30 2008 07:00 AM

]Not for nothing but many of us (including Omar) felt the Mets wouldn't/shouldn't/needn't go get relief help at last deadline either. It's not that I don't want to improve the pen, it's just that I'm dubious about finding the one guy who's going to have enough of an impact to nudge the needle on the Pen-o-Meter scale away from the 'Shakey" end and far enough towards "Lockdown" to make it worth the gamble and the asking price. A Jayson Stark quote from last year's thread: the Mets are now telling clubs Milledge is on a list of six young players they won't change under any circumstances. The others: outfielders Carlos Gomez and Fernando Martinez, and pitchers Mike Pelfrey, Kevin Mulvey and Deolis Guerra ... four of whom were later dealt. Not at the deadline, of course, but just a few months later. Just a reminder that the word "Untouchable" is frequently nothing more than a challenge to the trading partner to up their offer.

AG/DC Jul 30 2008 07:32 AM

Johnny Dickshot Jul 31 2007 02:40 PM wrote: I have to say I'm a little surprised we didn't get a relief pitcher, or some schmuck RHPH like Conine.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 30 2008 07:51 AM

[url=http://blogs.trb.com/sports/baseball/blog/2008/07/trade_deadline_manny_ramirez_u.html]Davidoff [/url]says the Mets are looking at George Sherrill, exactly the kind of player we don't want them looking at. How about checking out someone like [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riversa01.shtml]Saul Rivera[/url], who would probably be a lot cheaper?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 30 2008 08:03 AM

Well if he were there to watch George Sherrill last night chances are a deal doesn't get done. I'm going to Fantasyland and pretending the Mets scout was in attendence to see Brian Roberts.

duan Jul 30 2008 08:45 AM

="Frayed Knot"] ]Not for nothing but many of us (including Omar) felt the Mets wouldn't/shouldn't/needn't go get relief help at last deadline either. It's not that I don't want to improve the pen, it's just that I'm dubious about finding the one guy who's going to have enough of an impact to nudge the needle on the Pen-o-Meter scale away from the 'Shakey" end and far enough towards "Lockdown" to make it worth the gamble and the asking price. A Jayson Stark quote from last year's thread: the Mets are now telling clubs Milledge is on a list of six young players they won't change under any circumstances. The others: outfielders Carlos Gomez and Fernando Martinez, and pitchers Mike Pelfrey, Kevin Mulvey and Deolis Guerra ... four of whom were later dealt. Not at the deadline, of course, but just a few months later. Just a reminder that the word "Untouchable" is frequently nothing more than a challenge to the trading partner to up their offer. I think there's a HUGE difference between tradable for bit parts or 2 month rental at the deadline and tradeable for y'know one of the best pitchers in baseball with a window for negotiating an extension. That wasn't happening at the deadline at all. I think that's a reasonably consistent position.

Frayed Knot Jul 30 2008 09:48 AM

Sure, but not all deadline deals are made for strictly rentals and the quote was "under any circumstances", implying that those are the guys you're going to hang onto and build with. Plus, it's not like I'm bothered by being told certain guys are off-limits only to have them dealt later on. I assume most GMs are shading the truth (to put it nicely) when making public statements. I just get a kick out of seeing that year-old statement in print coming in a week where Omar is declaring hands-off on Martinez, Kunz, Niese, Murphy, Carp and maybe a couple others. P.S. Only three of those 4 went in the Santana deal. The untouchable Milledge went for Schneider & Church.

duan Jul 30 2008 10:35 AM

sure and i wasn't necessarily arguing but for the pieces that we were trying to acquire at the last trading deadline, there was very little reason to trade key chips.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 30 2008 07:38 PM

bump. We could use some offensive help too.