Ew, I'll pass. Beware of falling K rates!

You're a fat pig, you know that?

But people in the loop say Omar Minaya is wary of investing a huge contract in free agent Francisco Rodriguez and is intrigued by the idea of trading young talent to Chicago for Jenks

Is Omar also intrigued by the thought of lighting his testicles on fire just to watch them burn? Because that seems like an idea equally wise as trading young talent for Jenks instead of just signing one of the two perfectly good closers on the FA market.

In any case, the NY Post has an article today that says the Mets have almost no interest in giving up significant talent for Jenks.

Beware of falling K rates!

Jenks keeps the ball in the ballpark, doesn't walk all that many people, and his decreased K rate hasn't seemed to increase the rate at which he gives up hits. Since the big strikeout year he's put up an ERA+ in the 170s two years straight. Sure, sample size, etc., but from watching him he doesn't seem to be struggling physically. Two years ago he was this big dude who chucked it hard over the plate. That's not necessarily a recipe for a long career, so of course he'd set about altering things. Everything fits with the "new approach" idea. He's a good pitcher.

That said, I can see Kenny trading Jenks, but then I can see Kenny trading almost anyone. Trying to predict Kenny Williams' trades is a fool's errand.

Guys, come on. The Mets will go out and pick up some Jeremy Accardo-like arm for the bullpen, annointing him as the savor, and he'll crash and burn by mid-May, yet this will not be enough to get Minaya fired.

It's been a long childhood growing up a Mets fan.

Jose Valverde would be cheaper to acquire in a trade than Jenks.
Of course he'd only be one year rental unless Omar locks him up.
He's also likely to make Mets fans wish they still had Benitez...

It is interesting that Davidoff has Omar "intrigued" by a Jenks trade, while the Post has the Mets with almost no interest at all. My take on that? Someone in the FO is all hot for a Jenks deal (perhaps, but not necessarily, because that might then position them to move into the Sabathia bidding) in lieu of a FA closer, and is trying to use the media to push Minaya in that direction. But it probably is not Minaya's current thinking. Alternatively, the person "in the loop" is Kenny Williams; Omar told him he's "intrigued" by the possibility of a Jenks deal, but he'll get back to him after he's explored the FA market, and isn't really serious about it.

The Mets will go out and pick up some Jeremy Accardo-like arm for the bullpen, annointing him as the savor, and he'll crash and burn by mid-May,

You do realize, of course, that there are those around here who fully support a strategy pretty much exactly like this? They think that paying big money for a bullpen is just burning cash because relievers are notoriously unpredictable, and you are just as likely to get effective performance on the cheap as you are from paying big bucks. That's why many BTF Mets' fans oppose signing either K-Rod or Fuentes, and instead want to acquire starters or more offense. Essentially, instead of improving the pen, they want to make the rest of the team so good it's bullpen-proof.

Don't worry. The chances the Mets will go status quo on us, or bring in just cheap bullpen help, approach zero. Omar will bring in a big-name closer, either by free agency or trade. There are too many options out there, and too few teams with dollars chasing them, and the need is to great, for it not to happen.

I doubt the person "in the loop" is KW, his trades almost always seem to come out of the blue, so I doubt his thinking is present in any trade gossip.

You do realize, of course, that there are those around here who fully support a strategy pretty much exactly like this? They think that paying big money for a bullpen is just burning cash because relievers are notoriously unpredictable, and you are just as likely to get effective performance on the cheap as you are from paying big bucks. That's why many BTF Mets' fans oppose signing either K-Rod or Fuentes, and instead want to acquire starters or more offense. Essentially, instead of improving the pen, they want to make the rest of the team so good it's bullpen-proof.

There are two different "don't pay a lot for the bullpen" camps so far (as I can see):

1. Don't burn cash because relievers are notoriously unpredictable, and you are just as likely to get effective performance on the cheap as you are from paying big bucks.

2. Instead of improving the pen, they want to make the rest of the team so good it's bullpen-proof.

I'm of the second camp. I don't support signing K-Rod or Fuentes at this time, not because I think that it's possible for Omar to improve the team to the degree that it'll be bullpen-proof, but rather - that if Omar did sign Sabathia, the core of the Mets will be so strong that it will be able to survive the significant number of games that the weak bullpen will blow. Heck, without CC, the Mets nearly made it to the finish line last year.

Sam - this is Sabathia, one of the best pitchers of this generation. He's the best free agent pitcher to make it to the market in 5 years. The fit is there, so the Mets should deal with the bullpen after securing him.

As for Jenks - not at this time, unless KW is looking to dump him (ala Gregg).

I doubt it is wise to have 50 million a year for 5 years locked up in two pitchers. What if they both go boom in a year? Then the Mets for all purposes would be a mid-market team until 2014 or so.

What if they both go boom in a year?

It's the risk any major sports organization has to take to compete. Luck plays a larger role in success than foresight anyway.

I don't think the risk of Sabathia is any higher than that of Lowe + Fuentes.

Sam - this is Sabathia, one of the best pitchers of this generation. He's the best free agent pitcher to make it to the market in 5 years. The fit is there, so the Mets should deal with the bullpen after securing him.

But you can't "deal with the bullpen after securing him" unless you subscribe to the first notion -- that you "are just as likely to get effective performance on the cheap as you are from paying big bucks." Because there will be no more bucks left to deal with the bullpen if you blow the whole off-season budget on C.C.

And it won't be C.C. plus the 2008 Mets, so you can't just say that since they "nearly made it to the finish line last year" adding him should be enough. It'll be C.C. minus Billy Wagner's innings, so the bullpen will be even worse (and don't give me regression back to Aaron Heilman's mean; I refuse to count on even the slightest bit of effectiveness from Aaron F'ing Heilman). And more important, it'll be C.C. minus Ollie Perez in the rotation.

The need in the bullpen is profound. It cannot be made secondary even to a pitcher like Sabathia. I'm sorry, but improving the bullpen makes Sanatna, Maine, Pelfrey and whomever they acquire as a starter ALL more valuable. Adding value to their performance is more important than the difference between Sabathia and Lowe/Perez.

Don't underestimate, too, the core belief among the players that they WILL lose without a massively upgraded bullpen. They have now had two full seasons of effort go down the drain to the exact same fatal flaw. Yet another failure by the FO to address it would leave the team in a position of believing that history will repeat itself yet again, and in a position of trying to answer the same questions over and over and over again from the tabs and the radio nutjobs, without having a decent answer to give. Saving Wright and Beltran and Delgado and the rest from that routine, and the sense of dread and deja vu, is more important than some people are giving it credit for.

I don't think the risk of Sabathia is any higher than that of Lowe + Fuentes.

Financially it is much smaller. On Sabathia you risk up to 200 million dollars, Fuentes and Lowe is 30-40 million a piece. Megacontracts are a real burden when they turn bad, limiting the amount you tie up 4+ years into the future is not a dumb idea.

I don't think the risk of Sabathia is any higher than that of Lowe + Fuentes.

Sure it is. Either of those guys is on a three-year deal, for sane bucks. Even if they BOTH blow up, you've got half the dollars locked up in them, combined, that you've got tied up in Sabathia. And three-year deals for them would be insurable. Unlike a 17-year deal for C.C. . . . which is about what it would ultimately take to outbid the Yankees.

But all that said, it's not the riskiness that leads me to oppose C.C. in favor of a lesser (but still good) starter. It's because we MUST deal with the bullpen, period. NO, we must deal with the bullpen . . . !!!

I doubt the person "in the loop" is KW, his trades almost always seem to come out of the blue, so I doubt his thinking is present in any trade gossip.

I agree. Plus, his office is like 30 blocks south of the Loop.

It's been a long childhood growing up a Mets fan.

Oh my God, this better have been said ironically. If you're old enough to remember Tim Teufel as a Met, you're at least 18 (and that's if you remember him from the womb.) Pardon me if I don't get all misty-eyed thinking about the pain you've gone through, what with that World Series appearance 8 years ago. When *I* turned 18, my team was making the playoffs for the first time in their existence. And they got trounced. And then two years later, trounced. And then again, trounced. Followed by 4 straight last place finishes, and only one 2nd place in the 8 years since your team made the Series. Talk to a Pirates fan, or a Royals fan; let's don't go playing the martyr just because the Mets blew it in the last week two years in a row.

Either of those guys is on a three-year deal, for sane bucks.

Why are their contracts going to be more "sane"? Our baseline assumption should be that all three will receive contracts commensurate with their projected performance. CC Sabathia is much better than Derek Lowe or Brian Fuentes, and will receive more compensation as a result, but that doesn't speak to the sanity of the contract.

If your argument is that generally it's safer to sign less good players to less large contracts, I definitely disagree. As Bill James said back in the day, if you sign Dave Winfield and he underperforms his contract, he still helps you make the playoffs. If you sign Andy Hawkins and he underperforms, he doesn't help you make the playoffs. I'd basically always rather spend the money on the best player available.

EDIT: This is separate from questions of whether the Mets in particular might need to go after relievers because their replacement level in the bullpen is so low. That seems a reasonable case, though I'm not sure I agree. That, and that MLB teams may be slowly reaching the conclusion they can't outbid the Yankees for Sabathia and want to focus their limited work-hours elsewhere.

Talk to a Pirates fan, or a Royals fan; let's don't go playing the martyr just because the Mets blew it in the last week two years in a row.

Look, the Mets and their fans certainly haven't suffered like some of the awful teams of recent years have. We've had our low years, too, though, and I'm old enough to have remembered 1978-1983, believe me. But hey, on the comparative agony scale, the Mets are only in the middle of the pack . . . thank God.

That said, it's not like the 2007 edition just "blew it in the last week." That was devastatingly historic. And 2008, while more the garden-variety collapse, did come right after 2007, which didn't exactly help matters. Look at it this way:

Total Wins, 2007-08 (Playoff Appearances)

Los Angeles Angels 194 (2)
Boston Red Sox 191 (2)
New York Yankees 183 (1)
Chicago Cubs 182 (2)
Philadelphia Phillies 181 (2)
Cleveland Indians 177 (1)
New York Mets 177 (0)
Milwaukee Brewers 173 (1)
Arizona Diamondbacks 172 (1)
Toronto Blue Jays 169 (0)
Minnesota Twins 167 (0)
Los Angeles Dodgers 166 (1)
Colorado Rockies 164 (1)
St. Louis Cardinals 164 (0)
Tampa Bay Rays 163 (1)
Detroit Tigers 162 (0)
Chicago White Sox 161 (1)
Houston Astros 159 (0)
Atlanta Braves 156 (0)
Florida Marlins 155 (0)
Texas Rangers 154 (0)
San Diego Padres 152 (0)
Oakland A's 151 (0)
Seattle Mariners 149 (0)
Cincinnati Reds 146 (0)
Kansas City Royals 144 (0)
San Francisco Giants 143 (0)
Baltimore Orioles 137 (0)
Pittsburgh Pirates 135 (0)
Washington Nationals 132 (0)

The Mets have, by a significant margin, the most wins of any team NOT to make the post-season the last two years. And six teams -- SIX -- with fewer totals wins have made the post-season once. That's painful, believe me. In a different way than the teams that just suck from day one, but still awfully painful. Good teams, with nothing to show for the success.

And it just underscores why any Mets' fan who doesn't want a massive upgrade to the pen has taken leave of his senses. Or is a masochist. Or both.

Why are their contracts going to be more "sane"?

For the Mets to sign Sabathia, they would have to outbid the Yankees, who are clearly fixated on getting him at virtually any cost. Maybe they're bluffing, but I doubt it seriously. My strong assumption is that the Yankees might get him for sane dollars, if the Mets stay out of it, but that the Mets cannot get him for anything but insane dollars.

If your argument is that generally it's safer to sign less good players to less large contracts, I definitely disagree. As Bill James said back in the day, if you sign Dave Winfield and he underperforms his contract, he still helps you make the playoffs. If you sign Andy Hawkins and he underperforms, he doesn't help you make the playoffs. I'd basically always rather spend the money on the best player available.

I subscribe to this philosophy as well. But it must be filtered to some degree -- to SOME degree -- by the shape of your existing talent base, and the constraints on your (a) budget, and (b) realistic ability to reshape the available talent on hand to meet your roster needs. If Omar Minaya could sign Sabathia and either (a) have money left over or (b) have the flexibility to trade from a starting pitching surplus, to (c) meet the bullpen needs, I'd say fine. But I don't believe either (a) or (b) is at all likely to be true, and so I prefer (d): the direct approach. Just get the bullpen help that is obviously out there, and is apt to be available at a pretty reasonable price given the available pitchers and the dearth of teams with dollars out there to spend on them.

And it just underscores why any Mets' fan who doesn't want a massive upgrade to the pen has taken leave of his senses. Or is a masochist. Or both.

Sam,

I'm not a Met fan (I'm a Yankees fan), so I don't have the scars of the last two seasons, but, I tend to agree with the school of thought that spending tons on relievers guarantees nothing.

Do you see no merit in the idea that it is smarter to spend smaller amounts on a few good arms with upside, and use your financial resources on more predictable assets?

If Mariano Rivera had a career ending shoulder injury discovered tomorrow, I would NOT want the Yankees to go after KRod and Lowe instead of CC. I'd say get CC, and patch together a bullpen.

Now, I hope the Mets share your opinion, so it keeps the bidding on CC more sane, but I don't see how spending $13M+ on a closer gives the Mets a better pen than spreading that money around to two or three bullpen arms.

just underscores why any Mets' fan who doesn't want a massive upgrade to the pen has taken leave of his senses. Or is a masochist. Or

Come on. snapper is correct. Did you predict Heilman's implosion? If Heilman posts an ERA like the previous 3 years, or even a little worse rather than 60 points worse, then the Mets win the division. So, who is going to implode in 70 innings next year? Do you know? Is it going to be Brad Lidge? Could it be Brad Lidge? Okay, we need somebody to close games other than Ayala, but this idea that the bullpen can be massively upgraded is folly.

We need to fix LF massively. We threw last season away by ignoring the giant holes in LF and 2B. And not stopping Heilman sooner. LF could have been fixed for free. And You wanted it that way, so quit yer #######'.

Do you see no merit in the idea that it is smarter to spend smaller amounts on a few good arms with upside, and use your financial resources on more predictable assets?

None. I think the very fact that most relievers are so inconsistent is actually the best argument for targeting the rare ones who have demonstrated a proven track record of consistent, high-level performance. Give yourself that competitive advantage over the teams that are flailing around with the unpredictable ones and hoping for the best, either because they can't afford to insulate themselves from that risk or they choose not to do so.

We've tried to "patch together a bullpen." For our troubles, we are wasting the prime of one of the best cores in all of baseball, and the massive salaries being paid to Johan and Beltran. Enough of that ####. GET ME A ####### BULLLPEN.

I am on Sam's side here.

"Relievers are unpredictable" is not a reason to downplay the team's single largest and most easily addressed weakness.

I think the very fact that most relievers are so inconsistent is actually the best argument for targeting the rare ones who have demonstrated a proven track record of consistent, high-level performance.

I'd say that would only be the case when you need one guy, or maybe two at the very most. Otherwise, the premium you pay for these "consistent relievers" eats up a huge chunk of payroll, which is kind of their point. You can get cost certainty for performance in the bullpen, but it's at a very high rate. Too high a rate to rebuild a bullpen around. If you're one guy away from a complete pen, maybe you pay Chad Bradford (to randomly pick a name) $5 million per year. You do the equivalent of that for 4 guys, and all of a sudden your bullpen costs $38 million ($13 for the consistently excellent closer, $8 for the bang-on setup guy, $6 for one guy and $5 for another, $6 million for the other bullpen slots.) Why spend that? You can replicate 90% of the performance for a quarter that.

“Cy Young and Woody Hayes - I get them confused.”

Depends who and how much ... but 4 good bullpen guys would be about 250 IP of 130-140 ERA+ ball ... which you'd have to pay Sabathia money for to get in a starter. And the relievers are likely to be doing it in higher-leverage innings.

It's not so much about the value (in wins or $) of good bullpen performance, it's about the unpredictability of relievers -- not only in terms of the uncertainty we have around their "true talent" projections because of few IP but also about the uncertainty of how performance translates into results in small samples.

"Relievers are unpredictable" is not a reason to downplay the team's single largest and most easily addressed weakness.

Who do you sign? Who do you replace? Any pitcher can be mis-managed. Lidge didn't blow any saves, but he didn't have an ERA of 0 either.

We're aren't downplaying the problem, we're downplaying your (or anyone else's) ability to name the player who won't have a significantly worse 2009 than 2008. Who had "Aaron Heilman" for the 2008 implosion? None of you? Can I find posts where some think Heilman, Feliciano, a properly used SS, Sanchez and Wagner make up a perfectly good bullpen???

Is K-Rod overworked? Will he perform as expected? What about Jenks? Is Brian Fuentes going to struggle?

WHo is a triple-####-lock to perform the same or well in 2009? Name names. Make a short list of pitcher that are accessible and will outperform Heilamn next year (or SS or Feliciano).

Here are the top 20 RP FAs, and their ERA+ over the last two seasons:
Old old guys and players with two uneven seasons.

5 Brian Shouse 151 142 2007 2008 38-39

Not quite on topic, but what a career arc!

He pitched a litte, was awful, disappeared. Came back, pitched a little, was awful, vanished. Came back, pitched a little more, was still pretty awful. The next year, his age 34 year, he was damned good, and the year after that he was brilliant. Then lousy, good, very good, and very good. Sounds like a pretty interesting story.

edit: and he was a Met, once upon a time.

I don't buy the argument that getting CC is unimportant because the bullpen is the most important area to address. Let's say Johan is worth 5 wins -- so by signing him, we went from 84 to 89 last year. The marginal value of each of those wins is approximately zero, since we didn't make the playoffs... we were just closer in our failure.

If Sabathia is worth 5 wins over our other theoretical fifth starter, he would (theoretically) take us from 89 to 94 wins -- that is five wins which are way more important wins than the first five. I do not for the life of me understand the idea of putting a random payroll number to each team and talking about how to maximize each dollar.

If the Mets number is $120 but with a guaranteed October at home, I don't care which way you slice it -- its a failure. You might as well have a payroll of $50 and fail as well. If going from $120 to $130 million would give you another five wins, you SHOULD DO IT (obviously... you have to play the games but we're just talking planning here).

The Marlins have it exactly right. Go boom and bust and you'll win a couple. Tethering yourself to poor management and a high but not too high payroll will give the Mets exactly what they've bargained for.

Sign Sabathia and Fuentes and bring in a couple of those other guys too-- maybe Hawkins and Herges-- and you've got yourself a team that can win and can return some serious dividends.

Who do you sign? Who do you replace? Any pitcher can be mis-managed. Lidge didn't blow any saves, but he didn't have an ERA of 0 either.

Just to pick 2 names from Chris's list, there doesn't seem to be a dime's worth of difference between Brian Fuentes and Damaso Marte over their careers. Similar ERA+, WHIP, K,BB,HR and H rates. The only difference is Fuentes has a bunch of saves.

Yet, Marte will be pitching for $4M per the next three years, while Fuentes will probably get $12M+.

Do you really think Fuentes is likely to outperform Marte by that much?

I'd say that would only be the case when you need one guy, or maybe two at the very most.

Which is what I want the Mets to do: target two relievers. One whom they pay a high price, even though that's not the CW, because he is someone you can count on to perform. Of course, there are no absolute guarantees. But IMHO, paying a premium to acquire a K-Rod or a Fuentes is most certainly worth it to the Mets because they must stop losing games that their otherwise impressive talent has made eminently winnable. Fortunately, the market appears to be unfolding in such a way (because of the teams seeking a closer and the glut of "proven closers" on the market) that they probably won't have to pay quite the premium it looked like they would have to at one point. But a premium for consistent quality they'll have to pay, and a premium they should pay.

That, Chris, is who I sign. For the second guy, I give Omar a lot more leeway to use his judgment. It may depend on who the first guy is (you'd probably target a RHP if Fuentes is the closer; a LHP if K-Rod is), and it may depend on who else gets traded. But it should be someone, insofar as it is possible to acquire him, who has a reliable, solid track record.

What that does is it gives the Mets the chance not to have to count on the returning guys returning to form -- at least not too many of them. There is a good chance that out of Heilman, Sanchez, and Feliciano, there will be some bounceback. But not from all of 'em. So the Mets should go to spring training, and into the season, not needing it, and being in a position to see which of them recovers his stuff, and then riding that guy, or guys, alongside the new acquisitions. Then use Smith and SS as the OOGYs.

I'm not saying the Mets should bring in five new relievers, and certainly not five high-priced ones. But the pen needs a jolt of new talent, to stand front and center. The holdovers can be the supporting cast.

Do you really think Fuentes is likely to outperform Marte by that much?

If he were available, Marte would be a fine supplement to K-Rod, now that you mention it.

But as for someone to acquire instead of Fuentes, let's see. In the last six seasons, he's had two years of 180+ ERA+, and three years of 120 or below. That is precisely NOT the sort of consistent high-level performance that I want the Mets to acquire. It is solid work, but it is hardly dominant for a guy throwing one inning at a time.

Brian Fuentes has been over 140 each of the last four seasons (and five of the last six), and over 150 three of the last four. The consistency at a high level is simply better. And it gives more assurance to the Mets they will get what they need, and what they are paying for.

Sam is absolutely correct about the psychological impact of losing games late. Even after a 20 win August when Yost gave away a game on Sept. 1st to the Mets the team seized knowing the NO MATTER WHAT the manager/bullpen could still give away the season.

But it is also true that CC helped overcome all of that as he ate innings otherwise serviced by the relief corps.

So, you just want K-Rod? Despite the indications of overuse?

But it is also true that CC helped overcome all of that as he ate innings otherwise serviced by the relief corps.

Indeed. Sabathia pitched 7.68 I/G while with the Brewers, a phenomenal number in this era. In a 35 start season, that would be 269 innings. No one has thrown that many in the NL since Randy Johnson tossed 271 in 1999. Sabathia's a horse, but I strongly doubt even he's going to average 7 2/3 innings per start for the next few years. And even if he did, the Mets would still need to give their bullpen a major upgrade for the sake of all those other games that C.C. didn't pitch and give the relievers the night off.

So, you just want K-Rod? Despite the indications of overuse?

No, my first choice is Fuentes, because he's almost certain to come at a better price and is a good bet to be just as good or better. If not him, then K-Rod if the price is right. And then I want a supplemental set-up guy. Two pitchers with reliable, consistent track records. That's the upgrade we need.

I'm not exactly in Sam's camp on this one but I'll agree that if I was going to spend "big" money on a reliever, I'd go with Fuentes.

If I was a member of the cult of the closer -- or was worried about the stress my manager and players would feel the first time my non-closer blew a save -- I'd also kick the tires on Kerry Wood and I'd explore the Jenks trade (with the obvious caveats) and see what else was on the trade market. (Nothing against K-Rod I'm just assuming he's gonna be hugely expensive.)

If I was only worried about the stress factor, I'd give a thought to Hoffman or, if he's cheap, Cordero or some other "proven" closer who I really don't think is all that good but figure he'll get the job done 80% of the time just like all the other closers. Hopefully my manager will figure out how to avoid those Borowski moments.

But if I were to spend money and build the bullpen I want, I'd probably start with Juan Cruz then add one of the lefties (Reyes looks pretty good) and one of the old farts (Springer or Weathers preferably). That's off the top of my head without looking at things too closely.

Anyway, if I had to bet on any of those guys, I think Cruz is the best bet to return good value per dollar.

But I am, mostly, a bullpen on the cheap kinda guy -- and, no, I don't pretend to know which cheap guys to get. The old ruthless Braves model seemed to work pretty well though -- pile up a bunch of kids and castoffs, start with the 6 you think will do best, give them all about 10 IP, drop them if they stink and keep trawling the waiver wires. I know -- small sample sizes but it seemed to work pretty well for several years for them. (Note, this isn't meant to say they necessarily made their decisions based on the stats after 10 IP, it could well be that they kept them until Mazzone/Cox/whoever said to dump them.)

Another issue with Sam's argument is that *both* the rotation and the bullpen has let down the Mets the past two years. Maine's injury this past year was as critical as Wagner's injury.

This is a rotation that had to use Brian Lawrence and Phil Humber in September in 2007. We had to use Jonathan Niese down the stretch in 2008. Sabathia can bolster the rotation to the best in the NL, making the chances of us seeing Dillon Gee make a key September 2009 start remote, which is just as important as any bullpen acquisition.

You're way overestimating what Fuentes can do for the bullpen, Sam. If Heilman/Sanchez/Smith/Feliciano suck again in 2009, it doesn't matter what Fuentes does. And Fuentes doesn't do anything near what Sabathia can bring.

Taking leave of the senses? Nah, that would be Jose Guillen coming within a 20 mile radius of a Met uniform ;-).

Another issue with Sam's argument is that *both* the rotation and the bullpen has let down the Mets the past two years.

Oh? In 2008, Mets' starters had an ERA of 3.98, and their relievers (who SHOULD be better given their role) had an ERA of 4.27. Once Wagner went down, of course, that was even worse.

By contrast, the Phillies starters had a 4.23 ERA, while their relievers posted a 3.22.

The rotation, as a whole, did not let the Mets down in 2008, nor did it cost them the division. Do they need a starter? Yes. In fact, the rotation needs almost exactly the same thing the bullpen does: an outstanding, reliable, consistent performer. In the bullpen, being able to do that makes you a star, worth paying Fuentes money. In the rotation, that makes you Derek Lowe. If they could afford both the reliever they MUST have, and Sabathia, I'd be all for it. But they can't. And since by your own argument all they need in the rotation is a guy who can make sure we don't have to resort to Dillon Gee, Lowe fits the bill just fine.

It's not about your wish list. It's about being smart and pragmatic with the available dollars.

You're way overestimating what Fuentes can do for the bullpen, Sam.

That's why I want two guys, not just one. One major FA, and one brought in via trade or relatively minor FA signing. That makes returns to form by the Lost Boys much less critical -- we only need some of them to come back, and then only in supplemental roles.

Oh? In 2008, Mets' starters had an ERA of 3.98, and their relievers (who SHOULD be better given their role) had an ERA of 4.27. Once Wagner went down, of course, that was even worse.

oof.

But that's mostly crap. Your bullpen generally consists of a handful 5 or 6 pitchers. The main relievers, Wagner, SS, Heilman, Smith, FFeliciano and Sanchez - who we all expect to be "the bullpen" had a group ERA of 3.91. And most of that suckitude was Heilman. Take him out and the other 5 have an ERA of 3.55.

Okay, Wags is gone, but Heilman's three previous seasons averaged a 130 ERA+, so WTF expected an 80? We do need someone to close. But don't exaggerate the bullpen as some collosal collapse. It was 83% fine. ONE player ruined the season. If he manages and ERA+ of 100, we probably win teh division.

Or if we had had a competent LF. For free.

But don't exaggerate the bullpen as some collosal collapse. It was 83% fine. ONE player ruined the season. If he manages and ERA+ of 100, we probably win teh division.

Harrumph. Feliciano lost the ability to get RH hitters out; that represented an important semi-collapse that severely limited Randolph/Manuel's tactical options. Heilman we've already covered, and agree on. Sanchez had a 4.32 ERA and a 97 ERA+, never returning to even close to the form that made him so valuable in 2006. And then Wagner went down. After that, there was not a SINGLE reliable guy who could get both righties and lefties out. Ayala was brought in, and wasn't any good.

I'd call that a collossal collapse. Look, I don't disagree that the LF problem was an issue, but it was the debacle of a bullpen that killed us, and it is the debacle of a bullpen that must be fixed. Period. Ultimately, it sounds like we both want a damn closer. I guess you just want one on the cheap, and then you don't want the second guy I think we need. Get ready to be disappointed, because it's pretty clear that Omar sees it my way.

Springer or Weathers preferably

The Mets could sign Looper too and move him back to the pen.

I know everybody likes to play CPA during the offseason, but a team in New York moving into a new stadium shouldn't be in either/or mode.

This is a rotation that had to use Brian Lawrence

I fondly remember when Gammons used to lay on some wood about how he had the finest changeup in the league. *Sigh*.

It's late and I'm tired, but doesn't this distill pretty straightforwardly?

While as a Mets fan I'm sympathetic to the balm two good relievers can bring to a bleeding soul half-devoured by two consecutive seasons destroyed at the finish line, I remain unpersuaded by Sam's argument, probably because it contains more passion than it does sound numbers.

In the standings a game lost by a poor starter is equal to a game lost by a poor reliever, and I'm not at all certain that games lost in the ninth inning have a more negative impact on a team than games lost in the second. Tougher for the bystander, maybe, but how often have we heard the canard that a team late in the year will be destroyed by a grotesquely blown save only to see that same team come back strong in the game following?

I'll make a few assumptions for the sake of argument:

Option A:
CC can be had for 6/155M.

Option B:
Fuentes for 4/48.
Lowe for 4/56.

The Mets rotation with Option A is
Johan, CC, Maine, Pelfrey, Niese

with Option B it's
Johan, Lowe, Maine, Pelfrey, Niese

With Option A CC is pitching Lowe's innings and, based on their last 3 seasons, will take about 20 IP (unadjusted for age) away from one of the Mets lesser bullpen arms in 2009. That's the benefit. The drawback is that the Mets Random Closer is pitching the 65 high leverage innings that would have gone to Fuentes.

So, is Sabathia + Random Closer - 20 Weak Innings >= Lowe + Fuentes?
Sabathia figures to be about 25 runs better than Lowe, which leaves us with

is a pitcher who's 25 runs better - 20 Weak Innings > The margin by which Fuentes is better than our Random Closer

The answer has to be yes, doesn't it? How can Fuentes be better than a Random Closer by 25 runs, and on top of that we get rid of 20 weak innings?

I'm all for avoiding agony. But if the agony of living through a few extra blown saves means getting more wins by having CC in the rotation instead of Lowe, and more wins by keeping one of my lesser bullpen arms from pitching more innings, I'm willing to suffer.

So, is Sabathia + Random Closer - 20 Weak Innings >= Lowe + Fuentes?

Well, you also have 2 years and $51 M less commitment on the RHS of that equation.

There's never enough long-range thinking in BP's offseason FA spending. :-)

Note, I'm not at all sure that the extra 2 years of risk you'd be taking with CC are a big deal, but they're definitely some part of the cost of signing him vs. Lowe/Fuentes.

I'm agnostic on the CC question until I see just how much he ends up getting vs. what others get. And it depends a lot on who "random closer" is. For the same annual money, I'm pretty sure I'd take Lowe/Fuentes over CC/replacement-level reliever ... but it won't be a replacement-level reliever. But CC/average reliever is probably gonna cost you more than CC. I think I can safely say that unless Cruz costs a lot more than I think he will, I'd rather have CC/Cruz than Lowe/Fuentes even if the former is a good $5-6 M a year more.

OK, I guess what I'm balking at is whether Fuentes is really worth $12 M, or $6 M more than Cruz? Lowe, Cruz, Reyes (or whoever you want in that slot) will probably cost less than Lowe/Fuentes or Sabathia.

Ahh hell, just save us all the bother and make Howard happy and just sign Ollie. Then make Chris happy by signing a LF. Then make Sam happy by signing Fuentes. That way you make 3 BP Mets fans happy while only pissing off 2 I think.

OK, I guess what I'm balking at is whether Fuentes is really worth $12 M, or $6 M more than Cruz?

I think that's the crux of the argument. An identical pitcher to Fuentes, who didn't have a bunch of saves, would go for about $5-6M. Fuentes is double that. It seems really dumb to pay for a pitcher's past usage pattern rather than his talent.\

It seems like the closer-overpay is the most glaring remaining inefficiency in baseball.

Ultimately, it sounds like we both want a damn closer. I guess you just want one on the cheap, and then you don't want the second guy I think we need. Get ready to be disappointed, because it's pretty clear that Omar sees it my way.

Well, no, I think we agree on both counts. I just think that while this is something to improve, I don't agree it is first priority. I don't agree that this slot being filled is more important than CC (about whose signing I would love, but don't consider it critical), and far far far less important than getting a LF. WE COULD HAVE HAD MATT HOLLIDAY.

If we go in to 2009 with our present bullpen, we should still win. Feliciano not getting out RHBs is what I am talking about. Why did he "forget"? Is it just a function of 100 PAs? Will he be okay next year? Who knows? Whan you operate in these sample sizes, it doesn't take much to go from TEH AWESOME!! to TEH SUCK!!!

That isn't true with a SP or a LF. So spend money where it is less likely to be boned by luck. If Heilman gets it going next year (and I don't know what happened), then the pen is fine as is.

I would sign the best RHP I can find with a good mark against LHBs- low HRs and High GB rate. I don't care if he is pitching in the California Penal League. Hell, it might be Greg Maddux. I would give him a shot before some of these guys.

Oh, and get a 2B that can move laterally.

WE COULD HAVE HAD MATT HOLLIDAY

Not without trading Fernando Martinez and Jon Niese, and even then it might not have been possible, given that the Rockies got some bullpen help, also. The Mets made it very clear at the trade deadline last year that they were not going to trade either one of those players, and I don't see that anything has changed in the last six months that would make a trade of either any more likely.

-- MWE

An identical pitcher to Fuentes, who didn't have a bunch of saves, would go for about $5-6M.

There ARE differences between pitchers who close and pitchers who don't. Pitchers who close are normally better at hit prevention than pitchers who don't, on the order of 8-10 points of in-play BA.

-- MWE

What are the indications of overuse for K-Rod? He has been right around 70 innings for each of the last 4 seasons. The two years before that he was at 84 and 86 IP; maybe if he constantly did that he would be overused, but I don't see 70 innings a year as a sign of overuse. Is there something else that isn't shown in the stat line; or is it more a concern of his motion, which is considered to be pretty violent?

Edit: I just checked his fastball velocities; it was at 91.9 last year; the three prior years before that it was over 93.3 every year; so maybe that's a sign of overuse. That't not exactly a good sign.

Pitchers who close are normally better at hit prevention than pitchers who don't, on the order of 8-10 points of in-play BA.

Shouldn't closers also have less pronounced platoon splits? I'm not referring to Cruz or Fuentes here as I have looked their splits up (will do so in a minute), I just mean in general as a closer pitches the 9th inning no matter what side of the damn plate the hitters are on.

edit: Fuentes, over his career, doesn't have much of a platoon split. He's effective against everyone. Cruz has had some issues against lefty hitters though, weirdly, last season he had a pronounced reverse platoon split. Make of it what you will.

So, is Sabathia + Random Closer - 20 Weak Innings >= Lowe + Fuentes?

Well, you also have 2 years and $51 M less commitment on the RHS of that equation.

There's never enough long-range thinking in BP's offseason FA spending. :-)

Note, I'm not at all sure that the extra 2 years of risk you'd be taking with CC are a big deal, but they're definitely some part of the cost of signing him vs. Lowe/Fuentes.

Yup--I wasn't sure how to figure that in, but in some sense (oversimplying again), the extra cost is effectively a commitment to sign CC now for the 2013 and 2014 seasons for around $26m per. Not the sort of opportunity I would jump at in 2008.

I'm agnostic on the CC question until I see just how much he ends up getting vs. what others get. And it depends a lot on who "random closer" is. For the same annual money, I'm pretty sure I'd take Lowe/Fuentes over CC/replacement-level reliever ... but it won't be a replacement-level reliever. But CC/average reliever is probably gonna cost you more than CC. I think I can safely say that unless Cruz costs a lot more than I think he will, I'd rather have CC/Cruz than Lowe/Fuentes even if the former is a good $5-6 M a year more.

I think that's closer to reality--the Mets aren't going to send just anyone out there (Luis Ayala to the contrary notwithstanding!).