Jesus Christ. I'd rather have Jose Lima back. At least that would be free.

As a Latin American, I suspect that Lohse's last name is about to be lengthened to Lohsedriguez, so he can play on Minaya's Mets.

TANK THE RACE OMAR

Mets in "Lead" for Lohse?

Fixed.

Jesus Christ. I'd rather have Jose Lima back. At least that would be free.

Why? So the Wilpons could make more money?

The free agent market sucks. It sucks for teams that have holes in their rosters. But the market is the market. Your team can either stay out of the market and gold-plate the owner's toothbrushes, or they can spend "stupidly" and make the team better in the process.

Why? So the Wilpons could make more money?

The free agent market sucks. It sucks for teams that have holes in their rosters. But the market is the market. Your team can either stay out of the market and gold-plate the owner's toothbrushes, or they can spend "stupidly" and make the team better in the process

I don't care if they have more money. I'd rather have a free guy because when he sucks, he will be cut, instead of sticking around for four years.

The free agent market sucks. It sucks for teams that have holes in their rosters. But the market is the market. Your team can either stay out of the market and gold-plate the owner's toothbrushes, or they can spend "stupidly" and make the team better in the process.

Reread that (especially the last bit of the third sentence) and please confirm you're equating "spending money on players of any stripe" with "improving a team" so I don't have to buy myself a Reading Comprehension For Dummies book.

Kyle Lohse has a 95 OPS+ for his career. That makes him an averagish 4th best starter on a major league staff, no? If you are signing him as your 5th best starter, isn't that a marginally good thing? I don't get the Lohse hate. The $ are hard to swallow but that's the market.

If the Mets fanboys want to see your 10 or 20 sure-fire HOF pitching prospects :) in the starting rotation this year, I guess I can understand where you don't want Lohse.

Maybe Minaya wants to keep him from the Phils, where he could be a bit of help -- keeps Eaton out of the top 5 starters.

JJ, can we quote you on Jose Lima is he pitches for your team some time this season? :) If Jose Lima pays you, he is still NOT a better choice than a legitimate Major Leaguer.

The back of the Mets rotation is very, very bad.

Pedro Martinez, John Maine, Oliver Perez, junk

Kyle Lohse is good for 180-200 IP and a 95 ERA+, which is just about exactly league average quality for a starting pitcher. The Mets desperately need someone they can count on next year to fill innings without killing the club. Kyle Lohse is perfect for that role.

That makes him an averagish 4th best starter on a major league staff, no?

The quality plus the innings makes him a 2/3 starter on an average staff. On a playoff staff, 3rd/4th, probably.

Lohse did decently for a flyball pitcher in Cin and Phl. He should benefit more than most from pitching in a bigger park.

Kyle Lohse has a 95 OPS+ for his career. That makes him an averagish 4th best starter on a major league staff, no? If you are signing him as your 5th best starter, isn't that a marginally good thing? I don't get the Lohse hate. The $ are hard to swallow but that's the market.

If the Mets fanboys want to see your 10 or 20 sure-fire HOF pitching prospects :) in the starting rotation this year, I guess I can understand where you don't want Lohse.

Maybe Minaya wants to keep him from the Phils, where he could be a bit of help -- keeps Eaton out of the top 5 starters.

JJ, can we quote you on Jose Lima is he pitches for your team some time this season? :) If Jose Lima pays you, he is still NOT a better choice than a legitimate Major Leaguer.

Yes, you can quote me. I don't think the problem is Lohse next season. He'll probably be above average for a fifth starter. He's also better than anyone else the Mets can get since they blew they're big trading chit to acquire a good fielding catcher, so he'll probably contribute positive value. My problem is a philosophical problem with signing mediocrities to longterm deals. No one would really be surprised if Lohse tanks next season and is out of the game by 2009. He hasn't managed to put it together yet and guys right on the cusp of being valuable, become albatrosses if they lose 1% of their value.

Lohse did decently for a flyball pitcher in Cin and Phl. He should benefit more than most from pitching in a bigger park.

And will be hurt more by Alou and Green.

If you are signing him as your 5th best starter, isn't that a marginally good thing? I don't get the Lohse hate.

Who's the Mets' fourth best starter?

And will be hurt more by Alou and Green.

I may be a Mets fan who thinks everything will end in tears, but even I can't imagine the disaster scenario in which he comes back next year.

No one would really be surprised if Lohse tanks next season and is out of the game by 2009. He hasn't managed to put it together yet and guys right on the cusp of being valuable, become albatrosses if they lose 1% of their value.

Even taking your worst case scenerio (and I highly doubt Lohse is out of baseball by 2009) for a team like the Mets 4/40 should in no way be an albatross. The Mets have money, money everywhere even for players who stink.

"And will be hurt more by Alou and Green."

Green isn't on the team anymore, dumbass. Ryan Church is the right fielder and by all accounts is very good out there.

"Who's the Mets' fourth best starter?"

Duque, for 120 innings or so.

Even taking your worst case scenerio (and I highly doubt Lohse is out of baseball by 2009) for a team like the Mets 4/40 should in no way be an albatross. The Mets have money, money everywhere even for players who stink.

I don't think he'll be out of baseball either if he has a four year deal.

I'd like to see a list of BP or ZIPs comps for Lohse, but his baseball reference comps are ugly and they're mostly guys from this era. Names like Redman, Moehler, Fogg, Eaton are on there and Jose Lima shows up on his age 28 list. I'll do up something statistical later about 4th starters/ERA+ 95 guys holding value into their 30s and see if my instinct is wrong.

I may be a Mets fan who thinks everything will end in tears, but even I can't imagine the disaster scenario in which he comes back next year.

No no, Scarborough Green.

This came up in the Silva thread, but I'd rather have Towers, especially pitching in Shea and Miami. I try to make sure he misses his starts in Philly, but Towers would be perfect in the NL East. This wouldn't be the worst signing, but if you're depending on Lohse for 4 years, your farm system isn't doing its job...

No no, Scarborough Green.

Scarborough was a multiple time league MVP on my FPS Baseball Pro 98 team so long ago. I had completely forgotten that he existed until now.

League MVP? Was this some sort of Eastern League video game?

Back in one of the threads about what names we wished we could have heard Harry Caray try to say backwards, "Hguorobracs Neerg" was my favorite nominee.

League MVP? Was this some sort of Eastern League video game?

There was a glitch in the game so you could steal a base whenever you wanted, so whenever someone got on, I'd steal 3 bases. He was my leadoff man, for some reason, so he had the most plate appearances and most times on without guys in front of him. I would get numbers like 400 steals and over 200 runs.

The Mets have money, money everywhere even for players who stink.

fantastic, would have been even better if this could have been worked in for the silva thread.

Lohse has the second-most effective changeup in the NL last year when measured by BA+SP against it. (Yes, I will write about 8 articles citing the Bill James Handbook come February and March.) My theory is that the starters with the outstanding changeups measured this way can be much better than advertised in the right environment and thus great trade and free agent values.

When Omar does something like this that I consider really smart in a stat-sense, I first question whether he's a lot smarter than I think and then immediately wonder if I'm actually applying stats in a really dumb way. But I believed his moves for El Duque and Perez were great sabermetric values and those worked out very well. There's way more upside than downside here relative to cost, IMO. And, again, upside is 200 league-average innings. But given those change-up numbers, the park and Peterson, I think there's a 30 or 40 percent chance he pitches like a decent No. 3 starter.

Your team can either stay out of the market and gold-plate the owner's toothbrushes, or they can spend "stupidly" and make the team better in the process.

There's a risk/reward factor here. There is a "reward" for signing Kyle Lohse - you can guarantee him $8 million a year for four years and he will pitch like the fifth starter that he is for all four years.

The risks clearly outweigh the reward, however. The money being spent on him can't be spent on anyone else who can appreciably help this club improve - not just in 2008, but in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Anyone who thinks the Mets have an unlimited budget is fooling themselves - siphoning 8 to 10 million away for a fifth starter is going to be a bad business practice, especially since Lohse offers little hope for actual improvement on his career path.

If the Mets fanboys want to see your 10 or 20 sure-fire HOF pitching prospects :) in the starting rotation this year, I guess I can understand where you don't want Lohse.

Cute, but signing Lohse would be indicative of a larger organizational issue that should strike at the heart of "fanboys" everywhere. Here's the thing with prospects - either you play them to find out what you have, or you trade them before everyone else figures out that they might not be as good as advertised. The Mets, of course, take the opposite approach - they won't give a prospect a chance when a retread veteran will do, but they wait until they've made prospect languish for a few years so all the luster has worn off when they're traded for 50 cents on the dollar. (See Milledge, L.)

At this point, the Mets have already completely deflated the value of Humber and are in the process of doing so to Pelfrey for one simple reason - they are never given a chance to pitch on the major league level. Signing Kyle Lohse to a long-term deal at stupid money to guarantee mediocre to sub-mediocre performance only continues this trend. Maybe Humber and Pelfrey will never amount to anything, but I'd rather find out by giving them a chance at a fraction of the cost of someone like Lohse, who resembles a competent major league pitcher in the sense that someone keeps handing him the ball every fifth day.

I don't think the problem is Lohse next season. He'll probably be above average for a fifth starter. He's also better than anyone else the Mets can get since they blew they're big trading chit to acquire a good fielding catcher, so he'll probably contribute positive value. My problem is a philosophical problem with signing mediocrities to longterm deals.

I could tolerate Kyle Lohse on a one-year deal, although it's telling that you can't realisitically expect him to be anything more than a good fifth starter. Four years of Kyle Lohse at guaranteed money is a waste of a roster spot and available funds, especially at a position ideal for breaking in young players or giving a chance to retreads looking to catch lightning in a bottle.

And will be hurt more by Alou and Green.

Not much different than Dunn and Griffey.

The back of the Mets rotation is very, very bad.

Pedro Martinez, John Maine, Oliver Perez, junk

El Duque isn't reliable, but he isn't junk. I think he can give the Mets 120 IP of above average pitching. That being said, I don't have problem with Lohse, but I have less faith in Pelfrey than most around here. The Mets need reliability and Lohse gives them that.

Edit: In the future I will refresh the page if it's been an hour between the time I load the page and the time I post.

Lohse has the second-most effective changeup in the NL last year when measured by BA+SP against it. (Yes, I will write about 8 articles citing the Bill James Handbook come February and March.) My theory is that the starters with the outstanding changeups measured this way can be much better than advertised in the right environment and thus great trade and free agent values.

Can you speak a little more about your theory (without completely giving away a column in the process, of course)? Is there something about that particular pitch that makes it more suitable for certain ballparks, weather conditions, etc.?

My theory is that when a guy who has the second-most effective changeup in the NL still gets beaten like a drum for most of his career, it's because the rest of his aresenal must be useless! If the Mets do indeed sign Lohse, I will be rooting for your theory to be the correct one.

"the Mets have already completely deflated the value of Humber"

How so? Wasn't it a broken elbow ligament that did that? The Mets had him at AAA this year, his first back from TJ surgery, where he put up decent, but not great numbers. Would you be happier if he had spent the year with the big club getting pasted?

There's way more upside than downside here relative to cost, IMO.

And, again, upside is 200 league-average innings.

But given those change-up numbers, the park and Peterson, I think there's a 30 or 40 percent chance he pitches like a decent No. 3 starter.


You don't see the first statement nullified by the other two? Especially if this is a Silva-like deal?

The biggest reason that I like Minaya is that he seems to understand that the Mets should be paying absolute top dollar for elite talent and shoud not be filling up the payroll with the Zeiles and Appiers, decent but badly overpaid veterans. That's the point that I would yell about to friends during the Phillips years and thus the reason I was happy to embrace Minaya quickly. (I think it's difficult to evaluate his scouting ability.) Last year's Schoeneweis contract was a shock because it seemed like a direct contradiction of this strategy. If he signs Lohse I'll be wondering if he ever actually understood that strategy at all.

My theory is that when a guy who has the second-most effective changeup in the NL still gets beaten like a drum for most of his career, it's because the rest of his aresenal must be useless!

Kyle Lohse's ERA+ since his first full season: 105, 98, 89, 108, 78, 100

I see one season that qualifies as getting beaten like a drum. I see four above average seasons and one below average season. He threw under 150 IP only once in those six years.

How so? Wasn't it a broken elbow ligament that did that? The Mets had him at AAA this year, his first back from TJ surgery, where he put up decent, but not great numbers. Would you be happier if he had spent the year with the big club getting pasted?

1) Humber made 14 starts across three levels in 2006 and was generally very effective. Yes, 2007 was his first full year back from surgery, but that doesn't mean he was on 4-inning or 50-pitch watches for the first few months. He easily could've made some starts for the Mets last year, especially in situations where Pelfrey was run out there instead. Instead, Pelfrey got 13 starts and proved to be completely over-matched in nearly all of them. Humber couldn't even get a sniff of the big leagues until Spetember, despite being the more polished and major-league ready pitcher, and was then immediately buried in the back of the bullpen by Randolph.

2) There's no attempt by the organization to sell Humber as a finished product whose AAA season was in fact indicative of someone ready to make the next step into the big leagues. Instead, he's behind Pelfrey and now Mulvey on the depth chart, which makes him appear to be a "failure" considering his high draft status. Humber is a pet project of mine, so I'm perched dangerously close to fanboy optimism, but he was one of the best pitchers in all of AAA last season. He's got nothing left to prove in the minors - another season in AAA will only further deflate his value.

Uh, yay?

Matt: what are you using as "average"? Obviously, 100 makes it 3 above, 3 below. I've seen the number for starters lower, 96- that makes it 4 and 2.
Does it seem, based on age, performance to date, etc. that Lohse is around 60% likely to produce a league average or better season? That seems accurate to me. Is this worth 10 million a season and a 4-year commitment?
I much preferred a Silva, who has been better than 100 ERA+ for 3 of 4 years, with a low of 180 IP in that time, who'd be moving to the NL.
If the Mets pay a similar contract to Lohse, I think they are making the inferior bet- especially because the primary reason to sign either is degree of certainty.

Can you speak a little more about your theory (without completely giving away a column in the process, of course)? Is there something about that particular pitch that makes it more suitable for certain ballparks, weather conditions, etc.?

I get more columns here than I can ever give up. Obviously, you want guys with excellent pitches. You have to pay a lot for guys with great fastballs (unless they're sneaky great like Maine was in 2006). I do think the fastball is the most important pitch. But, for me, the changeup is second most important because it sets up an even average fastball and there's no limit to how often you can throw it (like, say, a slider). I've spoken to numerous scouts who agree (which doesn't make it right, of course).

I don't think there's a SABR paper here. It's just the desire to get a guy who does something that you can reasonably describe as very good or even great (Lohse's change) cheap.

Even more obviously, Lohse has a career 2-1 K:BB ratio. I've always felt that you collect guys with ratios like that or better no matter what their other stats say. When you combine that with his change-up numbers from 2007, you have a guy with more upside, IMO, than, say, Carlos Silva, who just got $10 million a year. That's the going rate for No. 4 or No. 5 starters, it seems. I think No. 5 starter is Lohse's floor, No. 3 starter his ceiling and, in the Mets environment, I think he has a reasonable chance to hit that ceiling.

At this point, the Mets have already completely deflated the value of Humber

Humber's year by year stats in the minors:

2005: 74.1IP 20 BBs, 67 Ks, 6 HRs, 5.09 ERA mostly at A+ aged 22
2006: 76IP 20 BBs 79 Ks, 8 HRs, 2.84 ERA mostly at A+ and AA, aged 23 just off UCL surgery
2007: 139IP 44 BBs 120 Ks, 21 HRs, 4.27 ERA at AAA, aged 24.

How else would you have managed Humber's career?

Howard:

Yes, the money that Silva and Lohse are getting seems crazy. But I'm guessing I have to adjust my thinking in this new era where revenues have soared. I bet the average payroll almost doubles by the time the Lohse, Silva deals expire. MLB.com is making an insane amount of money for every team.

Humber is a pet project of mine, so I'm perched dangerously close to fanboy optimism, but he was one of the best pitchers in all of AAA last season. He's got nothing left to prove in the minors - another season in AAA will only further deflate his value.

I hope Humber gets every chance at the fifth spot in spring training. I like his 2008 potential more than Pelfrey, who I'd rather see as long man.

Lohse would render this moot, of course.

Even more obviously, Lohse has a career 2-1 K:BB ratio.

Lohse: 734-365. Silva: 395-171.

Silva's is clearly better- if Lohse's amazing technicolor changeup hasn't translated into better results by now, why do you think it will as he turns 29?

Basically, I'm past the point where I'm looking at the money. I'm just looking at the player until I figure out the market and what market value even is.

Yes, the money that Silva and Lohse are getting seems insane. But I'm guessing I have to adjust my thinking in this new era where revenues have soared.

So can I add you to the Santana bandwagon?

My feeling is that between Humber, Pelfrey and Mulvey, the Mets have a 30-40% chance of finding a league average starter next year. To raise that to 60%, pay 10 million a season for the privilege, block their young pitchers, and commit to Lohse for four years- well, I'm against it.

So can I add you to the Santana bandwagon?

No. I'll give up market-value money or players, but not both in the same deal.

Kyle Lohse has a 95 OPS+ for his career. That makes him an averagish 4th best starter on a major league staff, no?

When looking at his BBREF page I was surprised at how mediocre Lohse was, I thought he sucked rocks, and he did in 2006- but that seems to have been a random BABIP spike.

His peripherals are ok, nothing special, but not awful,

He's the type of guy who could probably look half decent on a team with decent Dee and poor HR characteristics... IOW he could easily replicate Glavine's 2007 numbers for those worried about losing Glavine.

WRT Pelfrey IMHO if he has a future as a good MLB pitcher it's out of the Pen
WRT Humber, haven't seen enough of him, but the few times I have I thought his stuff was weaker than advertised. His peripherals in the minors were decent, but he gives up too many homers
WRT Mulvey- his minor league line looks like Humber's- with the HRs removed.
So far 5 homers allowed in 172 IP- is that sustainable? Does any pitcher have that kind of rate?

Well - Homers per 162 ip 2007:
Brad Penny 7
Tim Hudson 7.2
Chien-Ming Wang 7.3
Brandon Webb 8.2
Kelvim Escobar 9.1
Chris Young 9.4
Jake Peavy 9.4
Sergio Mitre 9.8
Adam Wainwright 10.4
Roy Oswalt 10.7
Roy Halladay 10.8
Joe Blanton 11.3
Matt Cain 11.3
Greg Maddux 11.5
Yovani Gallardo 11.7
Andy Pettitte 12
Fausto Carmona 12.1
Noah Lowry 12.5
John Lackey 13
Tim Lincecum 13.3

Giving up 5 in AA equates to what? 7-10 in the majors? It's doable at the extreme end- does Mulvey really have that level of HR prevention ability? Time will tell.

Kyle Lohse's ERA+ since his first full season: 105, 98, 89, 108, 78, 100

I see one season that qualifies as getting beaten like a drum. I see four above average seasons and one below average season. He threw under 150 IP only once in those six years.

You and I have different standards for an "above average" season. I see four "above replacement level" seasons, but that's not what I would want to commit 4 years at 8 to 10 million per to. The fact that he consistently pitched 175 to 200 IP per year is not necessarily indicative of good performance. It is an indication that people continued to take chances on Lohse - at prices much lower than the Mets would be paying, I might add. I've yet to see that faith repaid.

We can both find statistics to make our point for us:

Kyle Lohse's WHIP since his first full season: 1.389, 1.274, 1.629, 1.427, 1.532, 1.370
Kyle Lohse's K/9 since his first full season: 6.2, 5.8, 5.1, 4.3, 6.9, 5.7
Kyle Lohse's K/BB since his first full season: 1.8, 2.9, 1.5, 2.0, 2.2, 2.1
Kyle Lohse's IP/GS since his first full season: 5.8, 6.1, 5.7, 5.9, 5.3, 5.9

No. I'll give up market-value money or players, but not both in the same deal.

Fine. You sign Lohse and I'll trade for Santana.

Lohse: 734-365. Silva: 395-171.

Yes, but Silva is below the bare-minimum threshold I have in my head for missing bats. Lohse is comfortably above it. Lohse is also more athletic, without the weight and knee problems.

I see four "above replacement level" seasons,

Which is all well in good until you actually have to, you know, replace them.

Fine. You sign Lohse and I'll trade for Santana.

And he'll have a farm system left, and you'll have a vast wasteland, bereft of talent and hope as far as the eye can see. Arrakis, without the spice.

Obviously, you want guys with excellent pitches ... I do think the fastball is the most important pitch. But, for me, the changeup is second most important because it sets up an even average fastball and there's no limit to how often you can throw it (like, say, a slider). I've spoken to numerous scouts who agree (which doesn't make it right, of course). It's just the desire to get a guy who does something that you can reasonably describe as very good or even great (Lohse's change) cheap.

These are interesting points. Getting a guy who does one thing very well does make sense, especially if he can be taught to improve the rest of his arsenal enough so that it's average.

What would you consider cheap, though? Lohse made 4.2 million last year. Has his performance justified a doubling of that salary? Do you think there's enough potential there to double that salary?

But, for me, the changeup is second most important because it sets up an even average fastball and there's no limit to how often you can throw it (like, say, a slider). I've spoken to numerous scouts who agree (which doesn't make it right, of course).

I hope Edwar gets a mention in this article.

Well, what are the benchmarks for those for an average starting pitcher. The ERA+ benchmark is certainly not 100.

Giving up 5 in AA equates to what? 7-10 in the majors?

Could be 15 for all you know. I wouldn't be quick to assume that Mulvey is just as good or better at preventing homeruns as some of the majors' most renowned sinker and heavy-fastball guys (Penny, Wang, Carmona, Webb...). Mulvey was throwing against 22 year olds. He has never faced a hitter like Ryan Howard or Chipper Jones or even probably Dmitri Young in his life.

How else would you have managed Humber's career?

I would've given him a chance to spot start at the major league level last year and, unless he was beaten up in Pelfrey-esque fashion, announced him as the pitcher to beat for the fifth starter job in 2008. You have to take park and league factors into context when looking at Humber's 2007.

What would you consider cheap, though? Lohse made 4.2 million last year. Has his performance justified a doubling of that salary? Do you think there's enough potential there to double that salary?

No, his performance hasn't justified doubling his salary. But what if revenues have doubled for many teams (or at least profits, thinks to MLB.com)? Then doubling his salary as a free agent is just adjusting to the new business model.

Even more obviously, Lohse has a career 2-1 K:BB ratio. I've always felt that you collect guys with ratios like that or better no matter what their other stats say.

This seems logical, but most guys with a good ratio also have good other stats. If they don't, then they probably just aren't good pitchers. Adam Eaton has a better than 2:1 ratio even after his disastrous 2007. Rodrigo Lopez has always had a greater ratio. Joel Pineiro had a better ratio right up until he started to suck. Josh Towers, Odalis Perez, Brian Lawrence. True, these guys are all worse than Lohse, but a good K/BB without good run prevention skills doesn't mean much.

And he'll have a farm system left, and you'll have a vast wasteland, bereft of talent and hope as far as the eye can see. Arrakis, without the spice.

Sam, I know you oppose a Santana deal (which, if it means giving up both Gomez and Martinez, I can see, but not if it means Gomez or Martinez plus 3-4 pitchers). But do you favor a Lohse deal that means blocking Humber/Pelfrey/Mulvey?

I see four "above replacement level" seasons,

Which is all well in good until you actually have to, you know, replace them.

Fair point. Can anyone else in baseball provide 3 to 4 "above replacement level" seasons over the next four years, that would cost the Mets less than 8 to 10 million a year? I would be more interested in them then in Lohse.

Joel Pineiro had a better ratio right up until he started to suck.

Pineiro was 4-1 for the Cardinals. He had an electric arm once. I think that's going to turn out to be a smart signing for the Cards, who accurately read the market for back-end starters and got a bargain (relatively speaking).

You and I have different standards for an "above average" season.

This is true, but only in the "opinions differ on shape of earth" sense.

I believe that an above average season is one where a player performs above the average performance level of players at his position.

Can anyone else in baseball provide 3 to 4 "above replacement level" seasons over the next four years

Sure, but how many pitchers are you going to have to cycle through to find them? How many games is it going to cost you as you embark on this quest? What kind of security are you going to have that the guy pitching league average will continue to (relative to the confidence you'd have if Lohse was pitching league average)? There are dollar signs attached to all of these questions.

I would've given him a chance to spot start at the major league level last year and, unless he was beaten up in Pelfrey-esque fashion, announced him as the pitcher to beat for the fifth starter job in 2008.

Wow. I'm all about giving young guys a chance, but IMHO, there's just no basis for that. 2007 was Humber's first full season back -- the ONLY responsible course with that kid's arm was to let him build up strength in the minors, starting on a regular basis in rotation at New Orleans. Spot starting? That is not a recipe for getting him back to where you want him to be in the long-term. Humber needed regular innings, not to sit in the Mets' bullpen wasting away.

And even if your attitude is to put his development second and the Mets' needs first, I seriously doubt -- given the stuff he was showing in New Orleans -- that he was going to help the Mets much if at all. I'm all for giving him a chance, but unless he recovers more of the fastball he had pre-surgery, Humber is not going to be more than (at best) a serviceable back of the rotation guy, and he wouldn't likely have been that last year.

No, his performance hasn't justified doubling his salary. But what if revenues have doubled for many teams (or at least profits, thinks to MLB.com)? Then doubling his salary as a free agent is just adjusting to the new business model.

Or, a team could go out and try to find the same production at a lower price, and then put the money saved toward paying the salary of an elite player who would have a greater impact. This would seem to be the optimal business model.

I do understand your overall point. Lohse at 10 million seems completely unreasonable on the surface, unless the amount of money baseball teams are now awash in has actually made it an intelligent buy, considering future profit rises. Of course, I do not think the Mets organization is intelligent enough to subscribe to that theory.

Pineiro was 4-1 for the Cardinals. He had an electric arm once. I think that's going to turn out to be a smart signing for the Cards, who accurately read the market for back-end starters and got a bargain (relatively speaking).

As a question, what do you think about Mark Hendrickson for next year? He put up a 3:1 last year and is probably available for pittance.

You have to take park and league factors into context when looking at Humber's 2007

New Orleans is a pitcher's park in the hitter's league that is the PCL.

As a question, what do you think about Mark Hendrickson for next year? He put up a 3:1 last year and is probably available for pittance.

I can think of worse things to do, but he's 34 and never was even 2:1 any other year. Obviously, being a lefty always helps. He can be Darren Oliver, 2006, for sure.

New Orleans is a pitcher's park in the hitter's league that is the PCL.

Plus they play very few games in the other division that has all the hitter's parks.

I believe that an above average season is one where a player performs above the average performance level of players at his position.

You're using one metric to make the determination that these are above average seasons. I would disagree - unless I missed the memo that ERA+ is now the only standard that should be used in judging pitching performance. If that's the case, I humbly apologize and I am now ready to declare Kyle Lohse an above average pitcher. However, I also believe that performing above the average performance level (at least, according to one computation) is not worth a contract guaranteeing 4 years and $30 to 40 million.

Sam, I know you oppose a Santana deal (which, if it means giving up both Gomez and Martinez, I can see, but not if it means Gomez or Martinez plus 3-4 pitchers). But do you favor a Lohse deal that means blocking Humber/Pelfrey/Mulvey?

In all seriousness, I would actually favor some Santana deals -- it totally depends on the configuration. As you suggest, Gomez and Martinez together is a non-starter for me.

Anyway, as for Lohse, I'm not all that sure that deal does block the kids to the degree your question implies. If you believe El Duque is only good for 120 innings, then that opens the door for around 100 innings or so for one of them. Pedro is also a question mark, of course. Who knows how many innings he can provide? You can make a pretty darned good case that the Mets will need at least six, and arguably seven, starters to cover the innings. So far from blocking a young pitcher, Lohse actually fills a need.

But more critically, as you know I never look at just "next season." I think about whether a pick-up fills a need beyond that, and the notion that Lohse would be blocking Pelfrey/Humber/Mulvey from 2009 onward really loses force at that point. With El Duque almost certainly gone after 2008, and at least some chance Pedro might be gone, too, if one or more of those kids forces his way into the team's plans by dint of his performance, there will be room for him -- Lohse or no Lohse. This move won't block them; only their own limitations will. So I wouldn't let their fate stand in the way, IF I felt this was the right move for the team otherwise.

Holy ####, I had no idea Hendrickson was that old, I thought he was just unfortunate looking. If I had had to guess, I would have said younger than Lohse.

Sure, but how many pitchers are you going to have to cycle through to find them? How many games is it going to cost you as you embark on this quest? What kind of security are you going to have that the guy pitching league average will continue to (relative to the confidence you'd have if Lohse was pitching league average)? There are dollar signs attached to all of these questions.

Again, it's a fair point. But there's always a risk/reward factor involved. I'd like to think the one of the reasons that Omar Minaya is the GM of the Mets instead of me is that Omar is better at understanding this and making the right choices. Shoot, anyone could overpay for guaranteed medicority - it doesn't mean it's an optimal strategy.

2007 was Humber's first full season back -- the ONLY responsible course with that kid's arm was to let him build up strength in the minors, starting on a regular basis in rotation at New Orleans. Spot starting?

I'm sorry, I should've been clearer. I only meant that he should've been inserted into the rotation instead of Pelfrey. Spot starting would not have been a smart use of Humber, I totally agree.

I'm all for giving him a chance, but unless he recovers more of the fastball he had pre-surgery, Humber is not going to be more than (at best) a serviceable back of the rotation guy, and he wouldn't likely have been that last year.

I don't think Kyle Lohse is much more than a serviceable back of the rotation guy either. I'd rather give Humber a chance to fill that role.

New Orleans is a pitcher's park in the hitter's league that is the PCL.

Plus they play very few games in the other division that has all the hitter's parks.

Then compare him to the rest of the starters in his division. He was still one of the best pitchers there. New Orleans is not exactly Norfolk either. It may qualify as a pitcher's park relative to the entire PCL, but that doesn't mean it was artifically helping his numbers look pretty.

I have to go get some lunch!

I've decided any guy who gets more than 70 replies in his free agent rumor thread is worth $10 million a year.

With El Duque almost certainly gone after 2008, and at least some chance Pedro might be gone, too, if one or more of those kids forces his way into the team's plans by dint of his performance, there will be room for him -- Lohse or no Lohse. This move won't block them; only their own limitations will. So I wouldn't let their fate stand in the way, IF I felt this was the right move for the team otherwise.

That's an excellent point, Sam. But let's say best case scenario, only one of the three gets the chance to pitch in any extended innings, as long man out of the pen- and we have very little reason to suspect that the Mets will let one of their young pitchers do that.

Now, we believe there is a good chance El Duque will leave some innings on the table, right? so one of the three pitchers who have little to prove in the minors (Pelfrey/Humber/Mulvey) will likely get that chance.

Because there are almost certain to be openings in the rotation after 2008, El Duque for sure, possibly Pedro, wouldn't you like to see the three of the cost-controlled, already in the system Mets get more than say 100 total innings between them to evaluate who can help in 2009?

To be thrown into the analysis of signing Lohse vs. trading for a starter: Buster Olney today states in his blog that he's heard that the Mets can obtain Blanton for Gomez, Heilman and Mulvey.

Olney's blog

You and I have different standards for an "above average" season.

This is true, but only in the "opinions differ on shape of earth" sense.

I believe that an above average season is one where a player performs above the average performance level of players at his position.

The average [mean] Sp last year had an ERA of 4.64- or an ERA+ of 96
Lohse has beaten that 4 times

The average [median] Sp* had an ERA of 4.35/4.37- or an ERA+ of 102- Lohse has beaten that twice.

The average [mean]
#1 sp: 133
#2: 115
#3 102
#4 90
#5 76

#3 starters range from 90 to 108.
Lohse is and has been for all but one year, a solid #3


*Assuming 5sp per team, 150 SPs with the most IP, rank by ERA+ 75th/76th is the median.

I've decided any guy who gets more than 70 replies in his free agent rumor thread is worth $10 million a year.

No wonder Clemens got so much green last year!

That would be a neat little trade for the A's - BB would probably let Heilman sink or swim in the starting rotation, Gomez would be another high-ceiling OF hopeful, and Mulvey can remind people of their favorite Seinfeld lines.

I only meant that he should've been inserted into the rotation instead of Pelfrey.

Hmmmmmm . . . Pelfrey had an outstanding spring, which Humber didn't have. Humber had, to that point, never pitched above AA, and hadn't thrown even 200 minor league innings (and not even 100 innings after his return from surgery). He hadn't shown he had the arm strength to go six innings in the minor leagues (76 IP in 14 starts, split between A and AA, in 2006), much less in the majors. Honestly, given what was known at the time, and the developmental needs of the players, there was little to no basis for just handing Philip Humber a spot in the Mets' rotation coming out of spring training. Pelfrey had earned it, and Humber needed the minor league innings -- desperately.

Now, you can make a much better case that Humber should have gotten a shot once Pelfrey blew up like a pinata -- instead of the parade of horribles the Mets kept trotting out there. But for whatever reason, the Mets were determined to give Humber a full season in AAA. Whether that showed a lack of belief in him, or rare and commendable patience and sticking to the plan for his sake, is another question.

Pass on the Blanton deal. Gomez is very highly regarded by many teams. He should get better than Blanton, who is basically the same guy as Lohse just three years younger and benefitting from a team that played better defense in a more pitcher-friendly park.

so one of the three pitchers who have little to prove in the minors (Pelfrey/Humber/Mulvey) will likely get that chance.

Who says Mulvey has "little to prove in the minors"? He has, for all intents and purposes, never pitched at the AAA level (one start). He had mixed peripherals at Binghamton -- yes, nobody hit HRs off him, but he didn't exactly miss all that many bats, either (110 Ks in 151.2 IP). I'm more optimistic about him than I was before, but if he spent a year at AAA it wouldn't bother me a bit.

I do think the Mets could and should be a lot more creative in making room on the staff for their young pitchers, to get them the major league innings they need to learn and develop. That clearly isn't their preference, but Pelfrey and Humber are now at that stage where New Orleans just isn't going to help them, and the Mets have a rotation (full of five-six inning guys) where innings-eating middle relievers would be a real asset in reducing the load on the short end of the bullpen. It is, IOW, a team well-suited for using these young pitchers in a way that would help them as well . . . a good fit. But the team seems reluctant to do it . . . which is a problem.

EDIT: New Orleans MIGHT help Pelfrey, if he went down there with instructions to just keep working on his slider until he's got it right, results be damned. I think he's making progress with it, and when it's there, he's going to be fine.

So my answer would be to let them show what they can do, and demonstrate whether they are getting better, in that role, and move them into the rotation as they are needed (when El Duque stresses his medicularstratofibroticulor muscle, or whatever always happens to him). Whomever succeeds, becomes your rotation starter in 2009. Let the competition begin.

It may qualify as a pitcher's park relative to the entire PCL, but that doesn't mean it was artifically helping his numbers look pretty.

At New Orleans: 244-301-402 703 OPS against, 2.30 BB / 9, 8.19 K / 9, 1.28 HR / 9
On the road: 242-323-425, 747 OPS against, 3.69 BB / 9, 7.96 K / 9, 1.56 / 9

I see no reason that he should be given extra credit for his home park. I see no reason why taking his home park into account makes his 2007 look better.

But for whatever reason, the Mets were determined to give Humber a full season in AAA. Whether that showed a lack of belief in him, or rare and commendable patience and sticking to the plan for his sake, is another question.

Given the way the Mets handle prospects they believe in, keeping him in AAA while inserting a "parade of horribles" into the rotation is a pretty clear sign of a lack of belief.

EDIT: New Orleans MIGHT help Pelfrey, if he went down there with instructions to just keep working on his slider until he's got it right, results be damned. I think he's making progress with it, and when it's there, he's going to be fine.

I've read a few comments that the Mets should just admit they screwed up by having him ditch his college curveball and learn the slider - have him re-learn his old college curve...

Hey something like that worked for Heilman

Given the way the Mets handle prospects they believe in, keeping him in AAA while inserting a "parade of horribles" into the rotation is a pretty clear sign of a lack of belief.

I'm not entirely sure that is true. The Mets certainly promote prospects quickly up the minor league ladder and I think that is Minaya's philosophy. Once you are talking promoting players to the majors, then Randolph has a say and he seems to prefer vets, even if they are a "parade of horribles," to unproven players. So I don't think keeping Humber in AAA means the Mets as an organization don't like him, I think it means that Willie prefers veteran pitchers, no matter how much they suck.

I do think the Mets could and should be a lot more creative in making room on the staff for their young pitchers, to get them the major league innings they need to learn and develop. That clearly isn't their preference, but Pelfrey and Humber are now at that stage where New Orleans just isn't going to help them, and the Mets have a rotation (full of five-six inning guys) where innings-eating middle relievers would be a real asset in reducing the load on the short end of the bullpen. It is, IOW, a team well-suited for using these young pitchers in a way that would help them as well . . . a good fit. But the team seems reluctant to do it . . . which is a problem.

Agreed.

So my answer would be to let them show what they can do, and demonstrate whether they are getting better, in that role, and move them into the rotation as they are needed (when El Duque stresses his medicularstratofibroticulor muscle, or whatever always happens to him). Whomever succeeds, becomes your rotation starter in 2009. Let the competition begin.

But if the only area they get to show what they can do is a combined 100 innings for El Duque, or AAA, then the Mets are making 2009 decisions on a pretty small amount of MLB data.

Re: Mulvey- yes, he'll need to master AAA, I suppose, but AA is my pre-MLB benchmark. That's a personal bias, however.

To be thrown into the analysis of signing Lohse vs. trading for a starter: Buster Olney today states in his blog that he's heard that the Mets can obtain Blanton for Gomez, Heilman and Mulvey.

How gracious of the A's. This is why the Mets have to sign Lohse. To prevent them from doing something really stupid.

So I don't think keeping Humber in AAA means the Mets as an organization don't like him, I think it means that Willie prefers veteran pitchers, no matter how much they suck.

To add two points to Dan's comment:

1) I think that Pelfrey's struggles have reinforced Randolph's position. Never mind how many lousy veterans have also stinked, stanked, stunk in that role -- I suspect Randolph fixates on the one guy who is still there (Pelfrey) and says, "Don't give me the other "phenom," either" -- meaning Humber. He doesn't recall the Limas and the Parks -- they're long gone.

2) Humber in 2007 may have been a special case, because of the fact he was coming back from surgery. I do think there was an organizational game-plan with him which included "full year at AAA to regain arm strength and fastball," and they were pretty determined to stick to it. Had Mulvey been at AAA, doing the exact same things Humber was doing, at the same time the Mets were reaching for starters, I suspect he'd have gotten a shot (overcoming Randolph's aversion to young players) even while Humber didn't. But Mulvey was too young, and Humber was on a plan.

I am really ambivalent about a Lohse signing. He's 28 and pretty durable and that's valuable for a team that has Duque and Pedro in the 2008 rotation. The only pitcher the Mets have signed for 2009 that has had a credible season in the big leagues as of yet is John Maine. More importantly, Lohse has the talent to be more than a 95 ERA+ pitcher. I am of the thinking that Pelfrey would benefit from more time in AAA. He won't cost the Mets a pick either.

That said, when a guy has been mediocre for most of his career you can't him to be much better than that. The money doesn't matter except for the fact that he'll have a spot even if he's really bad. And I want to see what Humber can do.

All in all, I don't feel strongly either way.

The criticism of the Mets' use of Humber really smacks of very lazy hindsight, looking at his decent numbers in AAA and Pelfrey's bad numbers in the majors without any thought given to how they looked before they created those numbers, and ignoring the actual facts of his situation (coming back from injury) and the Mets' rotation needs throughout the season.

Humber was not going to start with the Mets early in the season because of his arm. The only pitcher that Humber arguably should have started over late in the season was Brian Lawrence. Lawrence was pitching better than Humber in New Orleans when he was called up and did fine his first two starts. He got four more and got rocked in all of them. I could see arguing that Willie should have cut bait on Lawrence sooner than he did, but even if he did, you're only talking about one or two additional starts for Humber.

the Mets should just admit they screwed up by having him ditch his college curveball and learn the slider - have him re-learn his old college curve...

A scout told me once that when you are working on another breaking pitch it means you don't have one.

The only pitcher that Humber arguably should have started over late in the season was Brian Lawrence. Lawrence was pitching better than Humber in New Orleans and did fine his first two starts. He got four more and got rocked in all of them. I could see arguing that Willie should have cut bait on Lawrence sooner than he did, but even if he did, you're only talking about one or two additional starts for Humber.

But the Mets only missed post-season (or post-162) play by one game. The team went 1-5 in Lawrence's starts, and not only that, but Humber was completely rusty by the time he actually was needed and was making the first major league start of his career in an impossible situation. Letting Lawrence pitch over Humber at all was a bad decision.

Letting Lawrence pitch over Humber at all was a bad decision.

Why? Lawrence was pitching better than Humber in AAA. The only argument I can see is that you give the rookie (your future) the benefit of the doubt, to get him experience. I can buy that. But putting Humber out there doesn't make the Mets more likely to make the playoffs.

And Humber's rustiness for his debut is irrelevant - any pitcher would have been rusty because they were using him as a 6th starter to give Pedro an extra day of rest.

the Mets should just admit they screwed up by having him ditch his college curveball and learn the slider - have him re-learn his old college curve...

A scout told me once that when you are working on another breaking pitch it means you don't have one.

IMHO, it's just a matter of patience. The Mets should NOT "admit they screwed up." To me, there was a vast difference between the slider Pelfrey was showing late in the year, and what he was throwing early. He'd made great progress commanding it and getting sharper break. Not enough to make it truly reliable, so he was still getting hurt and he still didn't have enough confidence in it to throw it in key situations. That meant he had to resort to the sinker too predictably, and he got hurt. As long as he keeps making progress with it, they should remain patient, live with the growing pains, and a solid rotation starter will emerge. Once they conclude he's topped out, though . . . at that point, if it's not a good enough secondary pitch, to the bullpen he should go. He could be an effective short guy with the stuff he has, just throwing gas for 30 pitches.

And Humber's rustiness for his debut is irrelevant - any pitcher would have been rusty because they were using him as a 6th starter to give Pedro an extra day of rest.

No way. Humber wasn't just "extra days of rest" rusty. By the time they finally gave him a shot (Sept. 26), he had thrown exactly one inning (Sept. 11) since Sept. 5 (when he'd thrown two innings). That was utterly ridiculous -- to expect the guy to come in and give a team in a pennant race a decent start coming off of almost a month of virtual inactivity. He was set up to fail, and should never have been put in that position.

And the comparison to Lawrence is really off, too. Lawrence was doing well in AAA by virtue of being a guy with a ton of major-league experience living off that to get by in the minors. That is useless as a predictor of any major league success -- as what happened in the majors quickly showed. He was throwing low 80s crap, and he got pounded. Continuing to give him starts was criminal malfeasance by Randolph and whomever else made the decision. Say what you want about Humber's pure stuff -- it is FAR superior to Brian Lawrence's, and they should have given him a start WAY before they did, in place of Lawrence, and before his time off made it almost impossible for him to succeed. That was an easy call, and virtually every BTF Mets' fan was calling for it (loudly, and correctly) long before it happened. But by the time it did, we all could see Humber was going to need a miracle to get through it.

Why? Lawrence was pitching better than Humber in AAA. The only argument I can see is that you give the rookie (your future) the benefit of the doubt, to get him experience. I can buy that. But putting Humber out there doesn't make the Mets more likely to make the playoffs.

And Humber's rustiness for his debut is irrelevant - any pitcher would have been rusty because they were using him as a 6th starter to give Pedro an extra day of rest.

Because Brian Lawrence is a bad pitcher. He has no potential whatsoever and watching him try and pitch made it apparent that he's lost even the poor stuff that he used to get by on. The man was throwing 80 MPH fastballs.

And the Mets were already in a six man rotation by that point. Lawrence took the first start in it while Humber sat on the bench. He was the 7th starter.

Arrakis, without the spice.

But starring Kirk Radomski as Duncan Idaho. Oh, I'm such a geek.

BTW, I'd partake in the Lohse sucks/Lohse is mediocre debate, but it's bad enough that I occasionally have to contemplate Kyle's existence in-season.

That was an easy call, and virtually every BTF Mets' fan was calling for it (loudly, and correctly) long before it happened.

And I was among them. But you are talking about less than a handful of extra starts for Humber. Two, or three at the most. This conversation began when someone asserted that Humber had been unjustly buried in the minors for the entire season.