Would anybody doubt Heilman’s ability to post a 4.40 ERA and 1.30 WHIP if allowed to throw 150+ innings? I certainly wouldn’t

You and what army?

For a guy who thinks Heilman gets talked about far too much, you sure don't miss an oppurtunity to throw your 2 cents into the discussion, Levski.

I wish something the Mets would do something already. What a boring offseason so far.

I wish something the Mets would do something already. What a boring offseason so far.

Amen, though I am having fun torturing my bosses who are Met fans. Omar's not gonna do nuthin, nuthin. Nuthin I tells ya!

Would anybody doubt Heilman’s ability to post a 4.40 ERA and 1.30 WHIP if allowed to throw 150+ innings?

I sure as hell would. And for exactly the reason stated in the very next sentence:

I certainly wouldn’t since both statistics are below both his career averages and current 2009 projections, albeit as a reliever expected to throw between seventy and eighty innings.

It's a lot easier to achieve those norms as a reliever, in that number of innings, than you can when you are expected to sustain your stuff over six+ innings each time out. It's particularly easier when you are a two-pitch pitcher like Heilman (I remain wholly unconvinced by his spiffy new slider).

Say what you want about whether Heilman is, or is not, likely to bounce back from the debacle that was 2008. I think it's a decent bet, but I'm not willing to risk the Mets' 2009 season on it. But the idea that he would pitch to his career norms as a starter is, I think, pure and unjustified speculation.

What a boring offseason so far.

Boring is smart, since in this case it very likely represents biding his time while the closer market comes to them, thus saving $$$ for other priorities. If it represents FO paralysis, then that would be bad. But I'll settle for being bored while Omar gets Fuentes or K-Rod for tens of millions of dollars less, and sets them up to also get another bat, another pitcher, or leaves room for a key mid-season addition. Would you rather be excited now and live to regret it, or bored and admire the handiwork when all is said and done? Calm youselves.

Would anybody doubt Heilman’s ability to post a 4.40 ERA and 1.30 WHIP if allowed to throw 150+ innings?

I would.

As a starter at Norfolk in AAA in 2004, he posted a 4.32 ERA and a 1.46 WHIP in a league that favors pitchers, and that certainly wouldn't project to a 4.40 ERA and 1.30 WHIP in the majors. As a starter in the majors, he's posted a 5.93 ERA and a 1.571 WHIP. He's four years removed from his last major league start, and he'd have to re-adjust to the rotation. There are some questions about his ability to command three pitches on a regular basis, as Dave Cameron pointed out.

I think it's reasonable to give him a shot. I don't think it's reasonable to rely on him.

-- MWE

Oh, for ####'s sake. Heilman as a starter is about as relevant to the Mets 2009 season as is the color of Levski's tears. If you want to let Heilman try to build endurance in the offseason and in spring training in a way that doesn't risk the likelihood that he'll be at least a somewhat useful reliever during the season, that's fine. If he turns into a pleasant surprise as a fifth starter, giving us an ERA under 5, that's fine too. If Heilman as an effective fifth starter is the difference between winning the division by five games instead of three, that's a fine and happy outcome. But if the Mets FO thinks of this little experiment as anything other than eighth on their list of things to do that might provide an extra win or two during the season, they're idiots.

But if the Mets FO thinks of this little experiment as anything other than eighth on their list of things to do that might provide an extra win or two during the season, they're idiots.

I strongly suspect the Mets FO thinks of Aaron Heilman as about fourth on their list of things to do . . . but it has nothing to do with making him a starter. It has everything to do with making him an ex-Met.

1) Get a closer.
2) Get a starter.
3) Get another reliever.
4) Get rid of Heilman.

Yup, about 4th. And if it helps with # 2 or # 3, so much the better.

Russlan, my whole point is that the guy who wrote this article very likely has an army of one.
I doubt my point is worth even a penny, not to mention two, but that's more than the writer's.

as is the color of Levski's tears.

:)
Like Sam said, wisely, the Mets plan for Heilman is "get rid of him asap".
They've been whoring him around more than I have proffered Eric #### Byrnes.
They'll be as successful at getting rid of him as I have been so far

I am not sure how relevant his minor league numbers as a starter are because so much time has passed and because he changed his motion. That said, he had been a good although hardly dominant reliever in 2006-2007 before falling apart in 2008. IMHO, he's an adequate 4th or 5th starter and the Mets should be shooting for better than that. This isn't November 2005 when Heilman was decent in his stint as a starter and dominant as a reliever. There's little reason to think he'd be a good starter.

I strongly suspect the Mets FO thinks of Aaron Heilman as about fourth on their list of things to do . . . but it has nothing to do with making him a starter. It has everything to do with making him an ex-Met.

What's the scoop on that? I've been swamped with work lately and didn't realize AH was on his way out. I won't be able to reply until tomorrow, so thanks for any info.

What's the scoop on that? I've been swamped with work lately and didn't realize AH was on his way out. I won't be able to reply until tomorrow, so thanks for any info.

I base it on three things. First, he and his agent talking smack about how he wants to be traded rather than stay in the bullpen. That sort of public crap doesn't go over big with the Wilpons, and while it wouldn't get them to give Omar an edict that he MUST exile Heilman, Omar would know they don't like it and that it would make him a good guy to send packing. Indeed, I believe that is precisely why his agent went to the tabloids with that stuff -- he knew exactly how it would play in the front office, and that it would help Heilman get his wish.

Second, Heilman has been in too many rumors about potential trades for his name NOT to have been coming up. Just because the first rumor didn't pan out (yet) doesn't mean he won't be sent somewhere, perhaps in another iteration of the Colorado trade.

And third, I think Omar believes from a number of comments that there is a psychological dimension to the need to restructure things as much as a pure numbers aspect. The Mets' players need to feel that there is a different bullpen out there -- it can't just be a one-man difference; it has to feel like a fairly substantial house-cleaning. We can differ on where that tipping point is, and Omar has smartly downplayed the idea that it means moving everyone out because that's just not doable in one off-season. But when the smoke clears, I think it will be substantial. That might not mean Heilman, but he is about the most visible symbol of it, and he is probably the most marketable as well.

So it just makes sense that he'd be gone: the Mets don't like malcontents, he's been rumored in deals, and he's a marketable commodity from a bullpen they are determined to be able to say and show has been reformed substantially. If Heilman isn't gone, I'll be quite surprised. Omar's being patient about it, but it's gonna happen.

For those of you who wanted some action . . . I give you . . . The Latest Heyman:

Mets general manager Omar Minaya is meeting Sunday night here with star free-agent closer Francisco Rodriguez, and he is expected to make Rodriguez an offer.

The exact proposal isn't known but they've been internally discussing a three-year contract, and might include a fourth-year vesting option. . . . .

[A]s one person familiar with the Mets' thinking said, "If Rodriguez takes the first offer, then that's it, he's the guy.''

You wanted some kinda something to happen? There you go.

I think Olney reported that the Mets are going to give offers to K-Rod, Fuentes, and Wood and the first one to accept it will be the Met closer.

I don't want the Mets to sign Wood. He's far too fragile and this team can't afford to lose their closer again.

For those of you who wanted some action . . . I give you . . . The Latest Heyman

I try not to say "That's what she said" too often, but this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

So the logic is that Heilman might not be a good starter and it's likely to be a close pennant race, therefore, let's not try it? Well, that's one thing if the rotation is Santana, Maine, Pelfrey, Sabathia and Lowe. In that case, yeah, let's not experiment with Aaron Heilman in the rotation.

Unfortunately, it's far more likely that the Mets will only sign one big SP. That means that the 5th starter, no matter which among the available options you choose, is going to be someone who is far from a sure thing. It could be Heilman; it could be Niese; or it could be a guy like Paul Byrd or Bartolo Colon (the Brian Lawrence/Chan Ho Park memorial role.)

Niese most likely can use some AAA grooming anyway. When he has nothing else to learn down there, it'll be clear from his performance, and he can be called up at that time. And I would prefer Heilman to the "cheap veteran" option. Heilman has an excellent injury history, and relief or not, he's been very good in three of the last four seasons. Most of the Byrd/Colon types get hurt constantly and aren't consistently effective even when they're healthy.

I wouldn't object to trading Heilman, either. But if he is still here, and if the Mets don't sign two major SP, then he should be in the rotation.

I do object to labeling Heilman a "malcontent." He has been in his non-preferred role for four years, but has barely said boo. He's the furthest thing from a malcontent. He's been remarkably professional.

And this was all in the mighty mighty American League, too. You wouldn't trust this guy as your fifth starter? This guy is hurt constantly?

Not exactly Brian Lawrence or the 2007 Chan Ho Park, who was making one last try at starting before becoming a reliever. Not even close.

Somebody has to clear something up for me: Heilman sucked last season, and now people are clamoring to give him a promotion to a more important and more difficult role? Ummmmm . . . . . pass.

And having seen Braden Looper pitch, I still don't believe he is a competent starting pitcher.

I do object to labeling Heilman a "malcontent." He has been in his non-preferred role for four years, but has barely said boo. He's the furthest thing from a malcontent. He's been remarkably professional.

To clarify: I was speaking from what I suspect was the POV of the Mets' FO. The timing of the comments from Heilman's camp about wanting to be made a starter or traded would be seen by them as ill-timed, and disloyal after the horrible season he had. Whether I think that makes him a malcontent or not is besides the point. The Mets historically have never liked players who mouth off, and Heilman mouthed off. And I don't think Heilman was unaware of that -- if he does want to be traded, making headlines in the tabs as he did is a pretty good way to get the Mets to oblige.

As for me, I happen to think Heilman should STFU. If you pitch as badly as he did last year, you really ought to turn it around before making "start me or trade me" demands. Malcontent? Nah. Piss-poor timing? Yup.

As a side note, it's amusing how often Chan Ho Park's tenure with the Mets is cited and recalled by Mets fans. He pitched in one (1) game with the Mets. Must have been a memorable one!

I base it on three things. First,...

Thoughtful and credible, Sam. Thanks for the detail. That jibes with my sense of the FO, and while you may be giving them too much credit in imputing to the FO a sense of realizing the psychological value of restructuring the pen, let's hope they arrive at that result by any means necessary.

I think Olney reported that the Mets are going to give offers to K-Rod, Fuentes, and Wood and the first one to accept it will be the Met closer.

I don't want the Mets to sign Wood. He's far too fragile and this team can't afford to lose their closer again.

I don't want the Mets to sign Wood as the closer either, and for the reason you mention. I also don't want my team making decisions in this manner. Surely these pitchers are not equal, and therefore you can't not give a damn which one you wind up with, with only price being the difference. It's a bloody ludicrous way to build a team.

Must have been a memorable one!

My brain is still bleeding. I remember when the Mets inked Park. It was an odd thread. A lot of posters were defending the move, and to my eternal credit (blind squirrel, nut) I kept saying "...but, have you looked at his stats?", to which someone would reply with something like, "but in 2004 he wasn't stupefyinglty awful!"

BBRef doesn't list it, but wasn't that something like a four million dollar adventure?

Park didn't cost the Mets 4 million, it was only 600K if I am remembering correctly and it was non-guaranteed. I thought he was a good gamble because he was throwing a little harder with San Diego than he had been with Rangers (around 91-92) before he got some kind of stomach virus. Park was actually very good for the Dodgers this year and not just only as a reliever. He put up a 2.16 ERA in 5 starts. According to fangraphs, his average fastball was 92.6 MPH in 2008 which is about 3-4 miles harder than it has been in recent years.

Park is a good pitcher if he has a good fastball because he can still get swings and misses with his breaking stuff.

Surely these pitchers are not equal, and therefore you can't not give a damn which one you wind up with, with only price being the difference. It's a bloody ludicrous way to build a team.

Agreed in principle, but I'm not sure you couldn't make a case that there is a rough equivalence at some level in this particular case. For those who think it is wrong to spend big bucks, especially long-term, on a relief pitcher, there is a good argument to be made that Kerry Wood on a one-year deal is just as sensible an investment (and about as reliable a bet) as K-Rod or Fuentes or a three-year contract. A team weighing the options might truly see about the upsides to Wood on a one-year deal (not investing $35-40M in a closer, getting perhaps the best pure stuff of the three guys, don't worry about the out-year risks of performance decline or injury, chance to see if Parnell or somebody emerges as a cheap option) as about equal to the downsides (have to revisit the problem next off-season, Wood is a high injury risk and could bring the '08 season down with him). So you'd be indifferent whether you got him for one year, or K-Rod/Fuentes for the longer term.

I could run through a similar equivalence argument for K-Rod and Fuentes, but we did that (in effect) in an earlier thread, where I argued my preference for Fuentes (LHP, cheaper) and others fought for K-Rod (younger, probably overall better), and it seemed to end in about a draw. So if you price each offer correctly, and make it for the right amount of years so that it reflects the true value of the player, shouldn't the team actually not care that much which guy says "yes" first?

But if he is still here, and if the Mets don't sign two major SP, then he should be in the rotation.

He should be allowed to "compete" for a rotation slot. That's as far as I'd take it.

Heilman, excepting 2008, has been a competent reliever in the majors. He hasn't been a competent starter in the majors, and from the reports I've seen his slider isn't yet consistent enough to be the reliable third pitch he needs to be a competent starter. I think it's far more likely that he can go back to being a competent reliever than it is that he can become a competent starter, after four years away from starting.

-- MWE

Well, whatever. I just don't think it means much unless one proffers an alternative. Assuming the team only signs one of the Sabathia/Lowe/Burnett/Sheets/Ollie group, who is a better choice? Heilman's already on the roster, has a good chance to be at least be decent, none of the other available alternatives at that point would be particularly any more likely to be any more decent, and you don't have the "we need him in the bullpen" thing anymore. Crispix seems to have committed to Byrd, although, isn't he a Phillies fan? ;-) I personally would not be enthusiastic about that, but, at least he's got a guy.

There are plenty of guys I'd prefer to Heilman that shouldn't cost much. For example, Odalis Perez, Jon Lieber, and Randy Wolf are all guys I'd rather have than Heilman in the rotation and these are all guys that are freely available. The Mets could even gamble on Pedro rebounding a little bit as well and I'd be happier with that than having Heilman in the rotation.

Assuming the team only signs one of the Sabathia/Lowe/Burnett/Sheets/Ollie group, who is a better choice?

I'd be inclined to give the ball to Niese first. I think he's more likely to be good than Heilman, although there is much more volatility around his likely performance.

you don't have the "we need him in the bullpen" thing anymore.

The Mets may very well need Heilman in the bullpen, even if they sign KRod; one thing that they should have learned from last year is that they have no sure things out there.

-- MWE

I seriously doubt that the Mets think just adding a closer will be enough to fix their bullpen. The Mets are in the market for at least one setup man.

Heilman's already on the roster, has a good chance to be at least be decent, none of the other available alternatives at that point would be particularly any more likely to be any more decent, and you don't have the "we need him in the bullpen" thing anymore. Crispix seems to have committed to Byrd, although, isn't he a Phillies fan? ;-) I personally would not be enthusiastic about that, but, at least he's got a guy.

I'm doing you guys a favor. I said the Phillies should sign Pedro Feliz, and look what happened to them when they did. Paul Byrd will lead the Mets to their first World Series since 19 dickety six, if given the opportunity.

The Chan Ho memories that few were looking to re-live:

Game log of Mets v. Marlins, April 30, 2007

Game Chatter

Its Mets the following morning

That last link rekindles unwelcome memories, but of kevin, not Chan Ho.

DIE DIE DIE AARON HEILMAN!

Dump him in the back of the bullpen and blow out his arm by making him throw hundreds of pitches in blowouts!