We're going to complain about the Mets trading Brian Bannister?

In any event, there's an easy way to replace Pedro: put Bonds in left and score more runs.

put Bonds in left and score more runs.

Sure ... and Satan at first and Richard Nixon in the rotation and Charles Manson in the set-up role and Richard Simmons as strength and conditioning coach.

Crazy talk.

Sure ... and Satan at first and Richard Nixon in the rotation and Charles Manson in the set-up role and Richard Simmons as strength and conditioning coach.

I was with you until you added Richard Simmons. That should be relagated to a really evil fan base, Marlins or the Angels.

Pedro's the cherry on the top when it comes to the rotation. A big three of Santana, Maine and Perez is quite good. That's why getting Santana was such a big deal.

Maine and Perez could be legtimate number two starters this year especially Maine.

I never thought Bannister would cut in the AL. Good for him as it looks like he'll not only survive, but thrive.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Church > Milledge with the bat in 2008, probably not after that though.

An over-reliance on Martinez

It's only an over-reliance if you don't go out and get guys able, to a respectable degree, to supplement Pedro's lack of durability. The Mets have done a poor job of this.

We're going to complain about the Mets trading Brian Bannister?

Why not? Omar and Peterson missed the boat on Bannister's 2007 in a big way, and it cost the Mets the division. We praise Omar for getting Maine and Ollie. He doesn't get a grant of immunity for his mistakes.

Brian Bannister and Heath Bell could really help the Mets right now.

The Met bullpen has a 0.79 ERA in the first three games of the season. They aren't missing Bell yet this season.

The bullpen will be very good if Sanchez can be solid or they find someone else.

I don't like Wise as a pitcher.

Jose Velvarde could really help the Diamondbacks right now.

Jose Velvarde could really help the Diamondbacks right now.

He actually coughed up the lead in the 8th, and was in line for the loss till Hoffman outsucked everybody tonight. (With 2 outs...too). But Valverde pitched a scoreless 9th to pick up the win,.

The DBacks don't need Valverde, they just need Pena closing.

FWIW, Minaya reportedly told Mike Francesa that he was unable to find a GM that would surrender a quality pitcher in return for Milledge.

Jose Velvarde could really help the Diamondbacks right now.

Jose Valverde could help a lot of teams. The Dbacks did get Qualls for him, plus Burke and Juan Guttierez, so no complaints here.
Lyon is just doing his best Billy Wagner "I can't pitch with a big lead" impersonation

Minaya reportedly told Mike Francesa that he was unable to find a GM that would surrender a quality pitcher in return for Milledge.

Omar being Omar.

Why not? Omar and Peterson missed the boat on Bannister's 2007 in a big way, and it cost the Mets the division. We praise Omar for getting Maine and Ollie. He doesn't get a grant of immunity for his mistakes.

But what makes you think Bannister's 2007 was at all predictable, and what makes you think he can sustain an ERA 20% better than the league average when he strikes out 4 batters per 9?

FWIW, Minaya reportedly told Mike Francesa that he was unable to find a GM that would surrender a quality pitcher in return for Milledge.

If the Mets couldn't get a good return on Milledge, it was because they were dumping on him. I'm not saying that they could have gotten a superstar pitcher for him straight up - but they could have gotten better value for him, at least.

It just goes to show - if a team disparages their best trade chit over months, they end up not getting as much for him as they should.

But what makes you think Bannister's 2007 was at all predictable, and what makes you think he can sustain an ERA 20% better than the league average when he strikes out 4 batters per 9?

Bannister had a very nice season in AAA in 2005 with lots of strikeouts and good k/bb ratios. I don't know how he is succeeding in the AL as he looked afraid to throw strikes in the NL. I have my doubts about him as his stuff is nothing to write home about but I can't deny he has been pretty siccessul so far.

I'm not saying that they could have gotten a superstar pitcher for him straight up - but they could have gotten better value for him, at least.

I'd rather have Milledge than Church and Schneider but I think I'd rather have those two than a number three starter.

Church is a pretty good player. He can hit and he plays good defense in right. He reminds me a little of a prime Trot Nixon.

But what makes you think Bannister's 2007 was at all predictable, and what makes you think he can sustain an ERA 20% better than the league average when he strikes out 4 batters per 9?

As Russlan noted, Bannister has had success before. He's also a smart guy, interested in stats, and how stats help him get guys out. That's exactly the mentality you want in a guy lacking overpowering stuff. Omar and Peterson are in the business of identifying cheap, young guys who can do precisely what Bannister did in 2007. I'm not saying they absolutely should have seen it coming, but it's not like failing to do so means we should praise them. Missing it is definitely a strike. Did BB overacheive? Very possibly, but we could knock 25 points off his ERA+ and he still would have been exactly what the Mets needed (a need that was, or should have been, obvious to anyone) in 2007--a solid starter.

60 starts in 4 seasons? That's an awfully negative way to look at it. Seems more like 59 starts in 3 seasons, which, while not great, is a hell of a lot better than 60 in 4.

Rosie got his Vargases confuzzled. I'm also amused by the implication that instead of relying on an injury-prone starter, the Mets should have gone after Rich Harden.

But what makes you think Bannister's 2007 was at all predictable, and what makes you think he can sustain an ERA 20% better than the league average when he strikes out 4 batters per 9?

It may not have been predictable that he would pitch THIS well, but I objected to the trade based on having seen him pitch in high A ball. It was obvious even then that he was a very smart pitcher. Not dominating stuff, but even at that level, he was a pitcher, not a thrower.

I was with you until you added Richard Simmons. That should be relagated to a really evil fan base, Marlins or the Angels.

Obviously you haven't seen the Manatees.

EDIT: Actually, the Manatees could use Richard Simmons.

EDIT 2: As a light snack.

The Mets need to pay the price to get Matt Morris.

It probably is not more than 2 cents.

How do you think Omar feels about Kyle Snyder? Hopefully he'll be coming through waivers any time now...

60 starts in 4 seasons? That's an awfully negative way to look at it. Seems more like 59 starts in 3 seasons, which, while not great, is a hell of a lot better than 60 in 4.

Yeah and it uses one week of this year as a "season". I mean, workhorses who make 35 starts a year right now would have only 106 starts in 4 years, which, while very solid, shorts them about 10 on their average. It's a little early to include 2008 in multi-year spans at this point.

With that said, I do think the Sox were right. I also think the Mets were right. It's worked out fine for all involved.

It may not have been predictable that he would pitch THIS well, but I objected to the trade based on having seen him pitch in high A ball. It was obvious even then that he was a very smart pitcher. Not dominating stuff, but even at that level, he was a pitcher, not a thrower.

I haven't studied this as well as a lot of folks at BTF so I'd appreciate a smack down if I'm wrong, but it seems like a lot of coaches and scouts (even ones we'd call "smart") underestimate guys who "pitch" in the minors and overestimate guys who "throw". If a guy is a bit wild and doesn't perform well but has wicked stuff, he'll get a break on his performance whereas a guy who gets the same results but does it by "pitching" smart tends to get graded a bit down. Is that a fair assessment of minor league evaluation?

It's a little early to include 2008 in multi-year spans at this point.

But if you don't weight 2008 equally with the last three seasons when calculating rate stats, AJ Pierzynski is no longer hitting .360 over the last four seasons.

Damn, the Mets are in trouble. It's too bad they're not in the National League or anything. Hell, even without Martinez they'd still have one of the better pitching staffs in the National League. I don't think they can keep up with the Red Sox and Tigers without him, though...

The Mets wanted Burgos to fill Duaner's spot as under-rated fireballing middle reliever. Who needs Brian Bannister when you're trying to win the lottery two seasons in a row with the exact same formula? (Jae Sao wa sthe Sp is the Sanchez formula)

I'd rather have Milledge than Church and Schneider but I think I'd rather have those two than a number three starter.

The more I see of Church, the more I like him. The guy has a really good arm and he's a smart defensive player. Getting Hanley at 2B was a great play even though Hanley's pause to admire his assumed HR was a major factor. Church not only made a very quick play on the ball, but noticed that Hanley wasn't running full speed out of the box, and threw a line drive right to the base from pretty much the warning track.

Certainly I don't expect Church to hit .385 all year, but it's probably smart money that he outperforms Milledge at the plate in 2008 without adjusting for position (and Milledge would be a RF with the Mets). It's early in the season, but at least right now, Church looks like the better defensive player as a RF as well.

With that said, I do think the Sox were right. I also think the Mets were right. It's worked out fine for all involved.

The signing of Pedro Martinez paved the way for the Mets to become top contenders in the FA market. I do not think Beltran is a Met if Pedro isn't there. The Sox absolutely had different needs than the Mets. The Sox were coming off a WS victory; the Mets desperately needed legitimacy as a franchise.

If Pedro doesn't pitch another inning for the Mets, it was still a good signing, even if it is poor in terms of "on the field" performance.

Church has the same problem a lot of Mets do: He can't stay healthy. I agree with the general opinion in these parts that Church is a darn valuable player, when he's able to stay in the lineup.

I haven't studied this as well as a lot of folks at BTF so I'd appreciate a smack down if I'm wrong, but it seems like a lot of coaches and scouts (even ones we'd call "smart") underestimate guys who "pitch" in the minors and overestimate guys who "throw". If a guy is a bit wild and doesn't perform well but has wicked stuff, he'll get a break on his performance whereas a guy who gets the same results but does it by "pitching" smart tends to get graded a bit down. Is that a fair assessment of minor league evaluation?

I remember posters expressing that sentiment, also. I believe the conventional logic was that a smart pitcher has already maximized his skills (he cannot get a lot smarter at pitching and will not develop physically) while a stuff pitcher has a great deal of unrealized potential if he can learn to pitch. It also may have something to do with the development of hitters up the minor league ladder, but I think that works against either type of pitcher

Manatees are herbivores.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Church > Milledge with the bat in 2008,

Not if he gets full-time play and faces enough LHP, he won't. We shall see; I certainly hope you're right.

As for over-reliance on Pedro and not having a Plan B, the fact is they cashed in Plan B for Johan Santana. Plan B would have been Philip Humber, and/or using a tiny fraction of the Santana cash on Lohse. Once they spent all that dough on the best starter they possibly could have acquired, does anyone really blame them for saying the vault was pretty much closed? And are they that much worse off now if they sign Vargas as a stopgap instead of Lohse? I doubt it. Would they be better off if they still had Humber to fill in for Pedro . . . but did NOT have Santana?

I'm not going to sweat this too much. For now, at least, all it means is Pedro misses time when we can't know one way or the other whether it's going to hurt them or not. If it is a precurser to more injuries to follow for him, and eventually a pretty much lost season, time enough to bemoan that when he keeps going on and off the DL. If the Mets end up with an endless parade of disasters starting games, we'll know they didn't act -- but right now, there are options available and I think if things start to go bad, they will act on those options. Best case scenario is the back of the rotation will be at least passable, and Pedro will come back OK and this will serve only to hold his innings down later in the year. We shall see.

The Mets could invent a time machine and use it to construct a starting rotation of Cy Young, Warren Spahn, Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton and Dwight Gooden in their primes and somebody would write a column criticizing the Mets for being over-reliant on time travel and that the Mets need more starting pitching just to be safe. Ever since 1987, along with death and taxes, the other certainty in life is that the media thinks the Mets need more starting pitching.

Assuming that Pedro really could only give the Mets 150 innings this season anyway, didn't a lot of us wish that the Mets could find a way to give Pedro a couple months off to start the season and have him show up in June so he would be fresh for the playoffs? Well, the Mets have just been shown the way. Granted, Pedro still has to actually pitch when he gets back, but I don't think this injury is the negative for the Mets that many are treating it as. Santana, Maine and Perez is nearly as good of a top 3 as any other in the league. Duque and Pelfrey should do a respectable job at the back end. The Mets are fine.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Church > Milledge with the bat in 2008,

Not if he gets full-time play and faces enough LHP, he won't. We shall see; I certainly hope you're right.

I still don't think this is a lock. Church had about 74% of his PA against righties last year. Is that a ridiculous total? Alou had about 71%. Wright played every day, he was at about 72%. Church played 144 games last year, it wasn't like he was constantly being sat against lefties. (Milledge, for the record, only faced righties 66% of the time.) Going through his game logs, looks like he started missing playing time(being benched, pinch hitting.) I am guessing he was hurt, since he pinch hit 8 times and in 6 of those games a right handed pitcher started.

Church was pretty much a full time player last year, and had a 114 OPS+. If he hits in that range this year, I certainly wouldn't be shocked if he is better at the plate the Milledge. And he is probably better in the field as well. (though I know that wasn't addressed.)

Ever since 1987, along with death and taxes, the other certainty in life is that the media thinks the Mets need more starting pitching.

I wonder why.

Church was pretty much a full time player last year, and had a 114 OPS+. If he hits in that range this year, I certainly wouldn't be shocked if he is better at the plate the Milledge. And he is probably better in the field as well. (though I know that wasn't addressed.)

First, if he has a 114 OPS+, he won't be better than Milledge. Second, if he really plays full-time, it'll mean that percentage of PAs v. RHP comes down somewhat. Teams are going to attack the Mets with left-handed pitchers (especially until Alou returns), because of Delgado/Church/Schneider. Pagan is also much worse against LHP, even though he's a switch-hitter. Third, Milledge is playing CF, so position-adjusted, Milledge will be more valuable even if they have comparable offensive numbers . . . assuming he can play CF at least passably, which may be an open question but I think he'll answer.

I do agree that Church certainly looks better in RF -- Milledge never looked smooth or played in a way that inspired confidence. He did end up making most of the plays, though, even if he scared the beejeezus out of you along the way (and apparently continues to do so in Washington). Unless Milledge makes progress defensively, which I expect he will, then I'd agree Church has the advantage there.

A Santana, Maine, Perez Big Three is excellent, but getting replacement-level performance from the back two spots in the rotation wears on a team's bullpen and psyche. If you don't believe me, ask the 2007 Braves.

I'm not saying Pedro and Duque will be out of action all year, but the Mets need another reliable starting pitching option. The pen will be torched by June if they have to waive the white flag for two rotation spots.

First, if he has a 114 OPS+, he won't be better than Milledge.

I am far from sold on that. Milledge had a 105 last year, and he was a little protected against righties. Down the line sure, but I am not convinced Milledge will do better than that this year.

Second, if he really plays full-time, it'll mean that percentage of PAs v. RHP comes down somewhat. Teams are going to attack the Mets with left-handed pitchers (especially until Alou returns), because of Delgado/Church/Schneider.

But how much, really? Church was at 74% last year, Wright was 72%. Thats basically no difference. (I pick Wright because he played every day and wasn't going to be spotted based on the opposing pitcher; so if you see Church every day thats a fair approximation. Based on last year, of course.) How much are teams going to juggle their rotations to get lefties facing the Mets? I don't think it will be that much of an effect.

Funny thing about the current Met lineup; the bottom of the order is obviously going to be a problem vs lefties because of the 3 you mention, but the top 4 (without Alou) is very dangerous vs lefties. Reyes gains 40 points of OPS vs lefties, Castillo just over 100, Wright 65, and Beltran is basically even, 10 points better as a righty. And of course Alou hammers them. So especially when Alou comes back, you won't see a lot of juggling to get lefties in there, and even without him, I dont think it will have a huge impact.

Obviously you haven't seen the Manatees.

I wish they had stuck with the original name, the Marlin Brandos.

How much are teams going to juggle their rotations to get lefties facing the Mets? I don't think it will be that much of an effect.

Maybe not, but from the 7th inning on, Church is probably going to see exclusively lefties (unless the opposing team has a very good righthanded closer). I don't know how that will effect the numbers, but I bet he sees more than Wright did last year.

Edit-

I had this really long post made out detailing the % of lefties and righties Church has faced over the years and how it would impact his OPS, but after reading it through I am not even sure what the point was.

I think Church will face more lefties this year, probably closer to 30%, 32%. But he isn't a complete joke against them, and I don't think its going to kill his stats. I still think he will outhit Milledge this year, mainly because I think Milledge needs a year to play every day and adjust.

To be fair to Church, he's never had a regular opportunity to face lefties until last year. He's got only 241 career PA against left-handed pitching, and more than half of them came in 2007.

I don't believe we've seen enough of Lastings Milledge to conclude that he'll struggle against righties for his whole career, and he's seen more of them than Church has seen lefties. I also think it's very possible that Church makes up on defense for any positional advantage Milledge has in CF even if they should be offensively similar in 2008.

In case anyone was hopeful that Pedro would be back closer to the 4 of the "4 to 6 weeks" than the 6, this doesn't sound promising, even with respect to the 6: Stephania Bell on Pedro's Injury.

Manatees are herbivores.

That means they snack on vegetables AND fruits.