The Mets’ oft-discussed offer of three years for $36 million reportedly left Lowe cold.

I can understand why Lowe might think he deserves more but until someone beats that offer, there really isn't any reason for the Mets to improve the offer. Minaya needs to understand that it is definitely a buyer's market.

If Lowe doesn't like the $36M/yr for 3 years, then he should counter with a one-year proposal and hope that its a better FA market next year. If I'm New York (or any other interested team), I'd be willing to go up to $16M for a one-year deal. If he's lights out, then offer him arbitration next winter and either have him for another year or collect a few draft picks.

If Lowe doesn't like the $36M/yr for 3 years, then he should counter with a one-year proposal and hope that its a better FA market next year.

What. Lowe isn't Andy Pettitte. And somebody will give Lowe more than 3 years/36 million. It just might be the Mets.

I can understand why Lowe might think he deserves more but until someone beats that offer, there really isn't any reason for the Mets to improve the offer.

If they could reel him in right now for 3/45 they should do it. But I can't see Boras giving in on the years so easily.

Just give him 3/45 and get this over with.

Edit: I guess I owe you a coke, Chef.

And somebody will give Lowe more than 3 years/36 million. It just might be the Mets.

Perhaps, but it will be a hell of a lot closer to 3/$36M than 5/$90M, or whatever the heck Boras was talking about Lowe getting. The fact is nothing real has materialized for Lowe -- nothing. The slight interest of the Braves, Phillies, and Red Sox has turned out to be just that: slight. And the Mets have correctly realized they have all the leverage here, and are playing it brilliantly. Because even if Boras has a landing spot other than the Mets for Lowe -- a huge "if" -- he sure as hell doesn't have two such spots, one for Lowe and one for Ollie Perez. So if the Mets do go to someone entirely different, like Redding or Wolf, at least one of his clients is absolutely, positively hosed. And maybe (probably) both of them are, because I don't see anyone else coming out of the woodwork at this point. That's why the Mets are sitting pretty here, and that's why (for all the talk about Lowe being unhappy) Boras is coming crawling back to them.

Yes, the Mets will come up with something more to allow Boras to save face. Someday, the shoe will be on the other foot, the market will favor one of his players, and Boras has a memory. But I predict the deal is going to be awfully close to 3/$36M. Shockingly closer than anyone would have thought just a few short weeks ago.

Who thought that Burrell would sign for $8M/yr for two years? Not very many teams seem willing to commit multiyear deals to players this offseason until they see what impact the economic downturn has their media contract renewals. And the Mets are one of the few teams that could absorb a $16M addition to next year's payroll.

It's a buyers' market. Lowe's not going to get the 5 year, $85M or whatever that he was dreaming about just a month ago. Now that the Yankees have finished their FA shopping and the Cubs blew their load early on Dempster, there's not much of a market for a high-price pitcher. Lowe's SOL.

[6] Good points on all. As a fan of the Dodgers, and who seen Lowe sign what was considered to be an overrated contract in 2004 suddenly become an underrated contract at the end of 2008, I'm somewhat ambivalent at what happens to Lowe. If I had to guess though, I'd say a team would rather give Lowe an extra year with a lower AVV, than throw more money per year in a shorter deal. Its not as if short deals can't screw you over, with Jason Schmidt, and Rafael Furcal as prime examples. Lowe for 4 years/$50 million wouldn't be a bargin, but you could live with it. ...Maybe. The Cubs must be kicking themselves on signing Dempster to a 4 year/$52 million deal though.

If I had to guess though, I'd say a team would rather give Lowe an extra year with a lower AVV, than throw more money per year in a shorter deal. Its not as if short deals can't screw you over, with Jason Schmidt, and Rafael Furcal as prime examples. Lowe for 4 years/$50 million wouldn't be a bargin, but you could live with it. ...Maybe.

I don't disagree with that, Tripon. The issue is that I just don't see, at least from the media reports and from the behavior of the parties, that any team is coming forward with that four-year offer, even if it would make sense for one of 'em to do it. Just like nobody came forward with anything decent (by past standards, anyway) for Burrell.

The reports are that the teams you would expect to think your way about Lowe . . . well, they aren't. OK, media reports can be off-the-mark, and miss what's going on behind the scenes. But look at what everyone is actually doing. The Mets are just sitting back, not raising their offer, making offers to other (lesser) pitchers like Redding to turn up the heat on Boras. And how does Boras react? Not by sitting down with other teams, or even one other team, to negotiate a competing offer, and thus give himself some leverage. Nope. He comes back to the meet with the Mets. That has to mean he just has no cards to play here.

Game, set, and match . . . Mets.

Hey, Lowe, take your insulted self outta here. I'll take Redding and Ollie. If the last TWO teams that had the guy aren't interested, Omar, take the hint. It's not that Boston or LA lack money. They just wanted him gone. We don't want a 2009 version of Vince Coleman.

Lowe hurt his position early on by saying that he was only interested in the East Coast. When the Yankees went in a different direction and the Red Sox passed, the only team that Boras had targeted was the Mets.

Boras only chance at salvaging the situation is to somehow get Philadelphia back into the mix and getting a bidding war going with the Mets. But Amaro withdrew once he saw that Boras was just using him to rattle better offers from the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets back in late November.

I'll take Redding and Ollie.

Redding? He of the career 88 ERA+? And in enough innings to say he's not kidding around about it?

No thanks.

We don't want a 2009 version of Vince Coleman.

You mean signing a god-awful and overrated player to try and replace one of the best players the franchise ever developed? Because I hardly think bringing in Derek Lowe to take Ollie's place in the rotation is anything like that.

And as for why the Dodgers aren't interested, they aren't paying the freight for anybody. Not Manny. Not Lowe. They re-signed Furcal, but for a pay cut. I'm sensing a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with Lowe's personality.

And the Mets have correctly realized they have all the leverage here, and are playing it brilliantly. Because even if Boras has a landing spot other than the Mets for Lowe -- a huge "if" -- he sure as hell doesn't have two such spots, one for Lowe and one for Ollie Perez.

Lowe is better, but the Mets should really turn the screws on him by putting in a 3 yr/$27 mil offer on Ollie (which may even be high). Ollie doesn't have a landing spot right now and I'm not sure that he could turn down a deal like that at this point. Plus, you make Boras hopelessly conflicted, which is kind of fun. In any case, the Mets would be better served by spending their remaining cash on Perez and Abreu/Dunn than Lowe and Wolf/Redding.

And as for why the Dodgers aren't interested, they aren't paying the freight for anybody. Not Manny. Not Lowe. They re-signed Furcal, but for a pay cut. I'm sensing a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with Lowe's personality.

That, and the Dodgers feel they got incredible value from Lowe over the last four years. No point of extending that, and ruin the good memories... Okay, actually, Dodgers don't want to pay Lowe more than they did in their previous contract for similar production. Even though re-signing Lowe would make sense for the Dodgers, team wise.

OK, scorn me. But remember who told you Alomar would flop as a Met. Lowe will suck major big time, and we'll all see why Boston would rather have Wakefield and Penny. My last post on the subject is this. Derek Lowe is the exact kind of FA Steve Phillips or Jim Duquette would have brought in.

Boras only chance at salvaging the situation is to somehow get Philadelphia back into the mix and getting a bidding war going with the Mets.

There's no way the Phillies get in on it. Their payroll is just about at the max considering they still have a bunch of arbitration-eligible players to deal with. Unless Amaro can shed a hefty amount of Geoff Jenkins' and Adam Eaton's contracts, the Phillies simply have no room for Lowe on the payroll. I'd love it, being a Phillies fan, if they did, but it's not realistic.

Derek Lowe is the exact kind of FA Steve Phillips or Jim Duquette would have brought in.

Tim Redding as the big rotation signing sounds more like their style.

Derek Lowe is the exact kind of FA Steve Phillips or Jim Duquette would have brought in.

Derek Lowe was the exact kind of FA Paul Depodesta would have brought in.

Does anyone think it would be possible to get Perez and Hudson for what it would cost to get Lowe?

I wouldn't put it past Boras to imply that the Phillies (or Braves) are in the bidding for Lowe's services, just to get the Mets to up the offer. Boras doesn't exactly command the high ground when in comes to integrity and honesty.

Sure, Boras has been trying to drum up Lowe-to-Phillies rumors and it hasn't worked. He's also trying to stoke the Ramirez-to-Giants rumors to get the Dodgers to up their offer. No joy there, either.

His misinformation campaigns have gotten increasingly less effective over the years as GMs have slowly wised up to them.

OK, scorn me. But remember who told you Alomar would flop as a Met. Lowe will suck major big time, and we'll all see why Boston would rather have Wakefield and Penny. My last post on the subject is this. Derek Lowe is the exact kind of FA Steve Phillips or Jim Duquette would have brought in.

It wasn't meant as scorn Benji. Sorry. But as abrasive as Vince Coleman was, nobody would have said boo about his charming self if he'd been what he was actually signed to be: Darryl's replacement. It was the fact that he sucked that was the far larger part of the problem, not that he was a clubhouse problem. I'm not saying the latter was irrelevant, because the toxic atmosphere in the early '90s Mets' clubhouse was surely an issue. But in the way that is most important, Lowe is not Vince Coleman: he's an actual upgrade over the guy he would be replacing. Every performance indicator screams it. I know you disagree, and if the Mets do sign him I guess we'll all find out together about the performance side of it.

Lowe is better, but the Mets should really turn the screws on him by putting in a 3 yr/$27 mil offer on Ollie (which may even be high).

Except Boras might just say, "Done." And the Mets -- righly or wrongly -- clearly prefer Lowe to Ollie, and I think they don't want to risk starting negotiations on Perez in a way that gets them started down that track and thus ending up with the "wrong" pitcher.

Except Boras might just say, "Done." And the Mets -- righly or wrongly -- clearly prefer Lowe to Ollie, and I think they don't want to risk starting negotiations on Perez in a way that gets them started down that track and thus ending up with the "wrong" pitcher.

Would it be so awful for the Mets to get both? If 3/27 gets Ollie, wouldn't you do that in a heartbeat?

Would it be so awful for the Mets to get both? If 3/27 gets Ollie, wouldn't you do that in a heartbeat?

They aren't going to get both. Every indication is that the dollars are there to sign one, and only one, remaining FA. And if that is the Mets just blowing smoke, and the Mets have $9M to throw around in addition to signing Lowe, I can think of better ways to spend it than on Ollie Perez. Give me Lowe and Hudson, for example.

Or -- call me crazy -- I'd rather take that the first year of that proposed contract -- $9M -- and redirect it to their budget for signing prospects. That could get them . . . oh, I don't know -- three additional absolutely top-shelf international prospects, plus at least two more above-slot signings from the middle rounds of guys with first-round talent but who slipped because of signability concerns. (Of course, you only use that slush fund, or part of it, if the right players are there to use it on, but it'd sure be nice to have that money available, above and beyond your normal signing budget, if the players are there in a given year.)

They aren't going to get both. Every indication is that the dollars are there to sign one, and only one, remaining FA.

Why only one? Taking a quick look at Cot's, it seems that right now the Mets are on the hook for about 115 to 120 million for 2009. Why couln't they add another 20 to 25 to that? I don't expect they can keep up with the Yankees, but they aren't the Kansas City Royals. The Mets are second most valuable property in baseball.

Why only one? Taking a quick look at Cot's, it seems that right now the Mets are on the hook for about 115 to 120 million for 2009. Why couln't they add another 20 to 25 to that?

I think you're a bit low, but not by much. Their payroll was around $140M last year, and with the addition of a FA pitcher, it would be right around there again. Minaya has said that they aren't going to increase payroll, and so that is the figure he is working with. If they are in the mid-$120s right now, you add Lowe to that and you are at $140M, and they are done, or very close to it. Of course, a GM always has some wiggle room to add a player mid-season if needed, but it won't be $9M worth of wiggle room. Lowe + Perez is just more than the Wilpons are willing to spend, like it or not.

but it won't be $9M worth of wiggle room. Lowe + Perez is just more than the Wilpons are willing to spend, like it or not.

Makes no difference to me. It's fun to torture my boss about the Wilpon's in comparison to the Steinies, though.

Does anyone think it would be possible to get Perez and Hudson for what it would cost to get Lowe?

Is it possible to get both Perez and Hudson for the $ that Lowe wanted to get? Certainly.
Is it possible to get both Perez AND Hudson for the same $ that Lowe will actually get????
Not so sure about that

Or -- call me crazy -- I'd rather take that the first year of that proposed contract -- $9M -- and redirect it to their budget for signing prospects.

That makes far too much sense.

Or -- call me crazy -- I'd rather take that the first year of that proposed contract -- $9M -- and redirect it to their budget for signing prospects.

You listenin', Jeffy?

Or -- call me crazy -- I'd rather take that the first year of that proposed contract -- $9M -- and redirect it to their budget for signing prospects.

I'll call you crazy. Realistically speaking, there's only so much money that can be spent on prospects any given year and the Mets already spend quite a bit. I support and understand the point but no team is going to spend around 15 million on draft picks in a season simply because there's no need to.

Or -- call me crazy -- I'd rather take that the first year of that proposed contract -- $9M -- and redirect it to their budget for signing prospects.

I'll call you crazy. Realistically speaking, there's only so much money that can be spent on prospects any given year and the Mets already spend quite a bit. I support and understand the point but no team is going to spend around 15 million on draft picks in a season simply because there's no need to.

Seconded. If there's a year when you want to put another 9 mil into a big league club, 2009 is that year, and the Mets are that club. The future is NOW, baby!

Realistically speaking, there's only so much money that can be spent on prospects any given year and the Mets already spend quite a bit. I support and understand the point but no team is going to spend around 15 million on draft picks in a season simply because there's no need to.

Well, $15M is a bit much. But since the Mets haven't gone over slot in years, they certainly can spend more if they would choose to, selectively to get premium players who've slipped. And they could decide to just be absolutely dominant in international signings, whereas now they are simply strong. Put aside $9M one time, and you create a fund for selective usage that could last 3-4 years when the right prospects are available to go over the normal budget that is available on a year-to-year basis.

Their payroll was around $140M last year, and with the addition of a FA pitcher, it would be right around there again. Minaya has said that they aren't going to increase payroll, and so that is the figure he is working with.

This, I don’t get. Why aren’t they increasing payroll? I’m not asking for Yankee levels, but they should at least approach the lux-tax limit, which the Wilpons have always treated as their soft cap. They’re increasing ticket prices to obscene levels, they’re getting blood money out of Citi and they can’t afford a 5th starter or a real left fielder?

3/27 for Perez would be absolutely amazing. Think of that, especially compared to 5/82 for Burnett.

But of course, I think for the same money, I'd want Perez over Lowe, especially at 3 years or more.

But of course, I think for the same money, I'd want Perez over Lowe, especially at 3 years or more.

SANDY KOUFAX

But of course, I think for the same money, I'd want Perez over Lowe, especially at 3 years or more.

Derek Lowe, 2005-2008

IP & ERA+

2005: 222.0 114
2006: 218.0 124
2007: 199.3 118
2008: 211.0 131

Oliver Perez, 2005-2008

2005: 103.0 72
2006: 112.6 67
2007: 177.0 120
2008: 194.0 100

I am truly at a loss to understand why anyone would want Perez over Lowe, at the same money or even at a fairly substantial discount. But maybe that's just me.

I am truly at a loss to understand why anyone who want Perez over Lowe, at the same money or even at a fairly substantial discount. But maybe that's just me.

Lowe is a lot older and I don't think people are properly accounting for that. I have seen a lot of people note that Lowe has not yet shown any signs of decline. The key word though is yet. At 36 - 38, we're at the point with Lowe where decline could come at any minute and the cliff could be steep. For 2009, I am fairly confident that Lowe will be better than Perez. For 2009 and beyond, I really have no idea. There's only so much of a premium the Mets should be willing to pay for that.

At 36 - 38, we're at the point with Lowe where decline could come at any minute and the cliff could be steep. For 2009, I am fairly confident that Lowe will be better than Perez. For 2009 and beyond, I really have no idea. There's only so much of a premium the Mets should be willing to pay for that.

Granted, the decline "could" come along soon, and it "could" be steep. And since I've been as loud as anyone about not wanting old players, I get the impulse. But I also don't want to be absolute about it. The mistakes the Mets have made in recent years have been in cases where the signs of the player's decline were pretty much obvious, and there for anyone to see. They were gambling very much against the odds and hoping to get impossibly lucky with one last good campaign out of Moises Alou, or an extra year beyond what was prudent for Pedro (in his case because they had to to get him signed).

But as you point out, there are no signs of decline with Lowe. He has remained durable, his performance consistent, his peripherals just what they've been. Five years for a pitcher past 35, the way Boras was talking earlier? No way -- I'd rather go with Perez, no matter how steady Lowe looks now. But three years? To me, looking at the individual and not his age group, I think that's an easy call. He is a better bet to hold his value and return a good yield than Mr. Mercurial himself.

For kicks:

Pitchers 1980-2008, ages 33-35, at least 500 IP, ERA+ of 110 or better. 24 pitchers.

By ERA+, Lowe is tied for 7th on this list at 126 ... with Blyleven conveniently enough. Running down some of the others and how they did ages 36-38:

Clemens -- excellent (but "off" years for him)
Johnson -- amazing
Brown -- only 400 IP but excellent results
Maddux -- one great, two solid seasons
Schilling -- 480 IP of Kevin Brown
Candiotti -- WTF? He had a 133 ERA+ over 3 years? Anyway, 500 IP of 100 ERA+ for ages 36-38.

All those guys were well ahead of Lowe in their age 32-35 seasons (and most even further ahead in their earlier careers). Three of those guys saw substantial drop-offs in quality (Clemens though he "rebounded" later, Maddux and Candiotti) and two came up in the 2-2.5 seasons range but still excellent performance. Not great but still based on those you're looking at a downside of either 2 seasons of classic Derek Lowe or 3 seasons of solid starting.

Continuing on for a bit:

Blyleven -- one excellent, one very good, one very bad season
Moyer -- two very good, one crap
Pettitte -- too soon to tell, but not promising
Fassero -- not so good and moved to the pen
C Finley -- two good seasons, half a bad season, one awful marriage
Glavine -- one excellent, one very good, one mediocre
D Martinez -- two great, one very good
Leiter -- one excellent, one very good, one solid
Whitson -- no, really, not just to annoy Yankee fans

I'll stop but as you move your way down the list you don't really find many disasters. Fassero, Whitson, Leibrandt, Rhoden, and Reuss are the only real disasters with Whitson, Leibrandt and Rhoden being the only ones who were complete wipeouts from the health perspective. Pick any list of 23 pitchers and look at their following three years and you'll probably find at least that many disasters. Other than that, these guys put in 2-3 seasons at about the same level or, at worst, put up 3 seasons of decent pitching.

Beyond usual issues of comp lists (and particularly one like this where I'm not bothering with K-rates and such), most of these guys have much longer track records as excellent starters than Lowe through age 35 and so he might not fit (Fassero might be the one with the most similar career). But just pointing to his age and saying "he's a big risk" doesn't really hold water. Effective pitchers over the 33-35 age range do pretty well in ages 36-38 and the more effective they've been, the brighter that future. Like I said, maybe lots of specific reasons to think Lowe won't fit that mold but just pointing to his age is not a convincing argument.

I stumbled across this when I put together one of my Burnett comp lists -- i.e. pitchers who'd done about as well as Burnett over a 3 or 4-year period in recent times. It covered a more recent period I think but it was interesting (and probably mostly coincidental) that all the guys 35 and older did great over their next 3-4 years while all the guys around 32 were pretty much disasters (Hampton, Colon, etc.).

I am truly at a loss to understand why anyone would want Perez over Lowe, at the same money or even at a fairly substantial discount. But maybe that's just me.

billyshears really says it for me. But I agree- I think it is reasonable at three years to go with Lowe over Perez. I think it is close, and Perez's upside is why I prefer him. If I were signing them now for what they just did, sure, Perez's 2005-2008 is no comparison to Lowe's. But it's their 2009-2011, or 2012.


Beyond usual issues of comp lists (and particularly one like this where I'm not bothering with K-rates and such),

But this is a huge problem. Go back and look relative to K-rates, and Lowe has much less distinguished company heading into his late thirties.