Perhaps El Duque would benefit from being put on a Clemens-style schedule. Seems like his issue is wearing down in the second half, in either performance, IP totals, or both.

2005
1st Half: 4.88 ERA, 62.2 IP
2nd Half: 5.35 ERA, 65.2 IP

2006
1st Half: 5.12 ERA, 91.1 IP
2nd Half: 4.06 ERA, 71 IP

2007:
1st Half: 3.22 ERA, 78.1 IP
2nd Half: 4.28 ERA, 69.1 IP

I think Duque's 2007 splits are somewhat misleading. In his first 9 starts in the second half, he went 5-0 with a 2.87 ERA. He made two more starts after that in which he allowed 13 ER in 6 IP. His foot was certainly bothering him in those starts. I don't think Duque wears down so much as the more he pitchs, the more likely he is to have an injury that prevents him from pitching well, if that makes sense.

In 2006, his performance really didn't get that much "better" in the second half; he simply moved from a context that was about as bad for him as could be imagined (pitching for the Diamondbacks, in a HR park and a bad OF defense) to one that was about as good as could be hoped (pitching for the Mets, in a spacious park with an excellent OF defense). OK, he got somewhat better, but it was mostly a function of being totally ill-suited to pitch where and for whom he was trying to pitch.

But anyway, there is absolutely no question in my mind that the Mets can reasonably expect around 150 or so quality innings out of El Duque. If they want to get them from April to August, so be it. They will once again not have him available to pitch when they need him the most -- either in the late season, or in the post-season (if they make it that far), or both. You can book it.

Me, I think that would be pretty dumb, or at least show an unfortunate lack of imagination and unwillingness to think outside the box. They should find some way to limit his workload early on, either by pitching him out of the bullpen in the first half, or giving him a start every six days (or even once a week) and working the rotation around him. The rotation could look something like:

Pedro
Maine
Perez
Humber or Pelfrey (whomever shows he's most ready)
El Duque (plus someone acquired for the job of being his caddy for 10-12 starts, or the loser of the Pelfrey/Humber derby)

That would be a rotation that could win the NL East, if a few other things get done right.

Like the Phillies going back to their place.

Like the Phillies going back to their place.

There was a one-game difference between the teams. If Omar makes the right moves, especially fixing the back of the pen, and they simply get the season I believe they will get out of Milledge improving their OF production, it's a two-team race right down to the wire again.

The Phillies aren't likely to regress. They're legit, IMHO.

Long time gone since the last Mets thread.

The Phillies aren't likely to regress. They're legit, IMHO.

I'd expect less performance in CF and SS next year, although if Utley stays healthy that could cover some of the loss. I thought their pitching would regress (mainly Kendrick) but I had no idea Garcia and Eaton were so horrible.

They desperately need to improve 3B. I think a Phillies fanhere suggested Pedro Feliz, and actually that may work for them. At least they'd get great defense and some pop to go along with no OBP.

Me, I think that would be pretty dumb, or at least show an unfortunate lack of imagination and unwillingness to think outside the box. They should find some way to limit his workload early on, either by pitching him out of the bullpen in the first half, or giving him a start every six days (or even once a week) and working the rotation around him.

Sam, can you really work the rotation around Duque when you have Pedro in the rotation? I don't think they can. I also can't believe you think the Mets can go into next season without finding a replacement for Glavine, (I like Carlos Silva if you can get him for less than 30 million, which might not happen).

Like the Phillies going back to their place.

The Phillies could be even better next year than they were this year. They can expect more from Meyers and I personally see them signing Schilling. A rotation of Hamels, Meyers, Schilling, Moyer, and Kendrick isn't bad at all. The bullpen is likely to suck but the offense and rotation make them strong contenders.

Also, Atlanta might be better than Philly. Smoltz and Hudson are an awesome 1-2. If they can sign Glavine or a similar starter, that's a very good rotation. And that lineup might be the best in baseball.

If the Mets don't acquire a starter, the only way that rotation is good enough if Pedro gives them a Cy Young calibre season. That's a lot to ask from him at this point in his career.

They'll get even less pitching next year, with Kendrick a fluke, Garcia and Eaton who they are, no Lieber even for half the season, Moyer even older, Lohse gone, etc. Obviously that depends who they acquire, but it sure doesn't look pretty right now.

Garcia is a free agent, Vaux.

I really wonder how Pedro will do next season. I don't think Pedro has ever really had serious health problems aside from his shoulder and he's now gotten that "fixed". Does this mean he's going to be able to give the Mets 200 innings next season? Does he get more velocity as he gets further and further away from surgery? Will he be able to avoid wearing down as he tries to pitch the whole season?

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he won the Cy Young next season but he could also not make it through the season.

Well, that makes their pitching better than it would be otherwise.

What I've heard is that they're leaving Meyers in the bullpen.

I think the Mets counting on Pedro, Maine and Perez to be the top three starters could be asking for trouble.

Pedro
Maine
Perez
legitimate top 3 starter not currently on the roster
El Duque (plus Pelfrey or Humber as his caddy)
Pelfrey or Humber waiting in the wings

Seems safer.

I don't see an issue with the offense. Especially if Milledge becomes what Sam thinks he will become. I am not as sure about Milledge as Sam, but I think it is definitely time to give him the opportunity to prove Sam right.

Plus of course the back end of the bullpen will need to be fixed. Quite honestly that is probably going to be more about luck than Omar making some sort of brilliant move.

legitimate top 3 starter not currently on the roster

Livan.

Livan.

He'd obviously by the 5th starter after El Duque.

Sam's rotation gives me a profound anxiety attack--I much, much, much, prefer haven's approach in post #12. Pedro and El Duque add up, imo, to one solid starter. Perez had his first good year since 2004, and Maine, who had his first good season period, wore down at the end of 2007. There HAS to be another good, reliable (i. e. top 3) pitcher in the mix, or you're going to have the likes of Brian Lawrence starting 30 games. Pelfrey and Humber have proven exactly nothing, and while I'm happy to start Milledge in 2008, he's not remotely a sure thing. The track record isn't there and at the ML level he has yet to become an average corner OFer, let alone more.

2007 proved what happens when this ballclub goes into the season with iffy pitching. With the Mets payroll, there's no need to go through this again next year.

EDIT: ugly typo

Sam's rotation gives me a profound anxiety attack--I much, much, much, prefer haven's approach in post #12.

Yeah, well, Haven's approach conveniently doesn't identify this magic pony "legitimate top 3 starter not currently on the roster." That guy is NOT available in free agency, IMHO, and the price to acquire him in trade (given the current market for quality starting pitching) would be extraordinarily high. Personally, I would not mortgage the thin talent base available for the future for the sake of acquiring one starting pitcher with my eye on 2008. That means we either get lucky (a la the John Maine and Ollie Perez deals) with a GM like Littlefield or Duquette giving Omar a pitcher on the cheap, or we count on someone already in the system to take a big step forward (i.e., Humber or Pelfrey).

2007 proved what happens when this ballclub goes into the season with iffy pitching. With the Mets payroll, there's no need to go through this again next year.

2007 certainly proved that the Mets need either starters capable of more often taking the game into (and sometimes completing) the seventh inning, or a bullpen with at least one, and preferably two, more quality arms -- or some combination of both of those things. Subtracting Tom Glavine and adding Pedro, if Pedro stays healthy, is apt to get us somewhat longer starts on average out of that slot, although the difference will be marginal. I also think that with a year of experience as a top rotation starter, John Maine could reasonably be expected to take at least a small step forward on his control issues that pushed up his pitch count so annoyingly, and go modestly longer into games as a result. Perez I expect to always be a high-pitch count guy, and so he's going to be a bullpen-punisher no matter what.

As I see it, the return of Duaner Sanchez to solid performance, and the acquisition of one more reasonably good reliever, would go a long way towards making that rotation I sketched tolerable, especially with good defense and a strong line-up supporting it. Put it this way: that rotation is better than the one that started 2007, and starting pitching really wasn't the problem in 2007.

I'm not counting on Duaner for anything.

I'm not really concerned with the lack of innings the starters threw in 2007. The only playoff team in the NL that got more innings per start out of their starters was Arizona. Sure, I'd like to see the Mets get more out of their starters but that's just how the game is played now. You can't expect much more than 6 from anyone these days. Even Webb averaged less than 7 IP this year.

2007 proved what happens when this ballclub goes into the season with iffy pitching. With the Mets payroll, there's no need to go through this again next year.

This obsession with "legitimate top 3 starter" is infuriating coming from Mets fans. With the Mets payroll, you don't pay legit number 3's, you over-pay for an ace. Johan Satana might be undervalued in the market that pays mediocrities like Suppan 10 million per and abject failures like Piniero 7 per. Valuing proven mediocrity was the trait of the Phillips/Duquett regime that would rather pay Floyd, Cameron and Matsui than Vlad.

Every team goes into the season with iffy pitching nowadays regardless of payroll since poor teams can extend their legit starters. The Mets are better off signing a dozen Jorge Sosas to pitch in Shea to save money and talent on the really great pitchers.

I'm not really concerned with the lack of innings the starters threw in 2007.

I'm not concerned about the lack of innings for it's own sake, but for the impact it had on the pen and the way it exposed the weakness in the quality and versatility of some of the relievers. So if you're not concerned with the lack of starter innings, then you better find a way to get better work out of the bullpen. It's got to be one or the other: more work out of the starters to make the lack of quality middle relief less critical, or better middle relief.

You better find a manager and/or pitching coach who can utilize the relievers more ably.

Or you better find another good reliever or two (perhaps including Sanchez, if he comes back healthy) who can make it possible to have one-use relievers like Schoeneweis and Sosa on hand (I'm assuming/praying Mr. Slimeball is gone).

Meanwhile, you better pray that the Save Dwarf has one remaining decent season in him, because his margin for error between effective and hittable gets slimmer every year, as that fastball loses a little bit and he has to rely more on the slider and he wears down. But that's a whole different issue . . . .

Valuing proven mediocrity was the trait of the Phillips/Duquett regime that would rather pay Floyd, Cameron and Matsui than Vlad.

Signing players like Cliff Floyd and Mike Cameron was NOT the problem of the Phillips/Duquette regimes. That is so deeply unfair to them . . . . Those happened to have been solid deals for productive players. Good teams with excellent GMs sign players like Floyd and Cameron all the time. You're casting the blame for the problems of those years on the wrong moves.

This obsession with "legitimate top 3 starter" is infuriating coming from Mets fans. With the Mets payroll, you don't pay legit number 3's, you over-pay for an ace.

Again: where is this magic pony? Haven wants a "legitimate top three starter." You want an ace, mentioning Santana in particular. You want to give up Jose Reyes for him, and THEN also pay him $185M for eight years? That's certainly what I'd call "overpaying" for an ace. Good luck with that, as we all hold our breath and pray he is healthy for maybe six of those years and keeps pitching like Johan Santana for five of those.

You want to go after Santana if he hits free agency? I'm right with you, partner. But we were talking about the 2008 rotation, and Johan Santana is not walking through that door in 2008. Or if he is, it wouldn't be unless some extremely valuable commodities are walking OUT that door, and I'm not playing the revolving door game.

Where did I say I want to give up Jose Reyes and his 24m contract for one year of Santana? Give me some credit, Sam. (I wouldn't give up Jose and his contract for one year of Santana and A-Rod).

Solid veterans at solid prices are necessary. But in regards to the 2008 rotation, there are no solid young veterans to be had in free agency, especially not at reasonable prices. We don't substantially disagree. I think essentially Omar only has the same two cards he's been playing for the last two years for pitching; Short deals with good players in the last several years of their careers or cheap reclaimation projects. Maybe Mets fans have been spoiled because we got Maine, Duque and Ollie for Nady and the Bensons. But that's still much more palatable than a parade of mediocritis at 10m per or worse.

you over-pay for an ace.

You mean they should sign Carlos Zambrano? Or do you prefer Mark Buehrle? Maybe Omar has pictures of Beane that he can show to Beane's wife which can convince Beane to trade Danny Haren in return for Milledge?

Would you give up Reyes and Milledge and Pelfrey for Haren?

Would people complain that Omar is overpaying old Latin players if Omar gives Carlos Silve $40-$50M?

I do like the Silva idea. His strike throwing and tater-allowing weakness is just the thing in front of our defense and overextended bullpen. In fairness, Silva's skill level (notwithstanding that his particular skill set is unusual) is probably what a #3 starter is these days.

Ditto that, Orinoco. Omar should hold his fire and wait for someone really worth it instead of committing medium-sized dollars and several years of a rotation slot to someone who isn't that much better than what is already on hand. But he also shouldn't jump the gun on that guy (Santana, just as a for instance) out of panic because of the way 2007 ended and give up the moon for him in trade and then the rest of the universe in a contract.

Which leaves us hoping he can pull a rabbit out of his hat. But that doesn't trouble me, really, nearly as much as it does others, because I think out of Humber and Pelfrey a decent, major-league quality starting pitcher will emerge next year. There's just too much raw talent there, and whatever you think of Peterson's issues with the bullpen last year, his record of having young starters succeed in both Oakland and with the Mets (Maine, Perez) is solid. I don't think we're going to be that unlucky that both of them will fail to develop. But obviously, anyone who thinks it is foolish to expect major-league average starting pitching out of one of them will be a lot more unhappy about the state of the rotation right now than I am. I understand that.

Would you give up Reyes and Milledge and Pelfrey for Haren?

Valuable as pitching is nowadays, and outstanding as Haren is, I guarantee you that his market value isn't anything like Reyes, Milledge, and Pelfrey. Have you looked at Jose Reyes's contract? Omar couldn't stop laughing long enough to hang up on Beane if he made that proposal.

I'm not sure what to think of Humber, Sam. His numbers in AAA were solid but unspectacular. He's got an excellent curveball and good control of his fastball. But at the end of 2006, Humber's fastball was in the 92-94 MPH range. Last season, he was at 89-91. His change isn't anything to write home about. Now, Humber might have worn down as the season progressed because he didn't pitch much in 2005 or 2006. That said, he needs more stuff to be a front of the rotation starter than what he displayed late last season.

Omar would be stupid to trade Reyes for Haren, much less all three.

#26

I'm not saying that is Haren's value.

However, have you looked at Haren's contract? Basically, about $16M over the next 3 years.

That said, he needs more stuff to be a front of the rotation starter than what he displayed late last season.

True, but not relevant to our current discussion or the Mets' needs. All he needs to be for 2008 is a # 4-5 guy -- i.e., league average, 4.50 ERA type. That I believe he does have the stuff for, right now . . . if he can harness it and take it out to the mound consistently. That would be particularly within his reach if the issue is building up his strength after so little pitching, and you make him El Duque's partner, pitching relatively few starts as they essentially split a rotation spot and he pitches otherwise down in New Orleans on a moderate schedule there (towards an overall target of, say, 160 innings for the year, with 80-100 in New York).

have you looked at Haren's contract? Basically, about $16M over the next 3 years.

It's gold, no doubt.

Jose Reyes is signed to a deal worth $23.25M from 2007-2010 -- basically, being paid the same amount as Haren for 2008-10. And then the Mets have a club option for 2011 ($11M). That contract is platinum, my friend. The Mets bought out Reyes's first FA year for $11M.

There is no GM in the world who would trade a 24 year old SS with Reyes's record, with that contract, for Haren, and certainly no GM who would think he'd need to throw in an elite prospect like Milledge and a solid prospect like Pelfrey (who, despite his struggles in 2007, was still ranked # 12 in the PCL by BA this year).

#30

I know what Reyes' contract is. But, you're arguing that Reyes's contract > Haren's contract? Even with the cost of pitching? With Haren you are getting a CY contender while paying what some other teams, St Louis with Pinieiro, are paying for a barely better than replacement level pitcher.

No GM who would trade Reyes for Haren straight up? Not even with given the Reyes for Santana rumours? Yes, they're rumours, and yes Santana > Haren, but Santana has only 1 year left on his contact.

Where did the Reyes for Santana rumor come from? mlbtraderumors? It was so implausible because of its mindnumbing stupidity.

Unless you sign A-Rod, trade Reyes and the Mets are staring at Anderson Hernandez, everyday starter. A-Rod and the Santana extention would amount to how much?

No GM who would trade Reyes for Haren straight up? Not even with given the Reyes for Santana rumours? Yes, they're rumours, and yes Santana > Haren, but Santana has only 1 year left on his contact.

I don't think a good GM would. If you add Reyes' VORP and the runs he saves on defense, he's been about as good as Santana has been the last two seasons. It's hardly a lock that Santana adds more wins to the Mets in 2008 than Reyes and if he does, it is likely to be only a marginal upgrade.

But, you're arguing that Reyes's contract > Haren's contract?

Yes, that's precisely what I'm arguing. Having the extra year makes Reyes's contract better. The longer you have a young, high-quality player under the team's control, the better. The reason why both Haren and Reyes are more valuable than Santana right now is that the Twins control only one year of Santana; that's really all they can offer teams in trade. The Mets would be offering teams four years of Jose Reyes, extremely cheap, compared to three years the A's would be offering of Dan Haren, extremely cheap.

Advantage, Reyes.

Plus, a great shortstop is more valuable than a great starting pitcher.

And, as Orinoco pointed out, don't be fooled by the fact that some New York tabolid numbskulls threw out the idea of trading Reyes for Santana as somehow making that plausible. It wasn't -- ever. Certainly, it would be true that IF the Mets would have been dumb enough to consider that, then sure -- they should jump at the chance to acquire many more years of Dan Haren for the same price. Fortunately, Omar Minaya wouldn't ever pull the trigger on Reyes for Johann. And he wouldn't on Reyes for Haren, either.

Fair enough, I'm been too biased by Reyes' recent struggles; I just took a look at his numbers, and even with his struggles this year, he has basically matched Haren's production this year, in Haren's best year.

#33: "If you add Reyes' VORP and the runs he saves on defense, he's been about as good as Santana has been the last two seasons. It's hardly a lock that Santana adds more wins to the Mets in 2008 than Reyes and if he does, it is likely to be only a marginal upgrade."

I'm not sure I agree here. For one thing, the value of Santana would be increased by a move to the NL.

Moreover, the value of Reyes/Santana compared to a replacement player may not be a good measure in this context. I think the more important question is how they compare to the types of players the Mets would actually replace them with, not how they compare to theoretical "replacement players". In other words, the market matters here. I'll grant the free-agent market for shortstops is lousy, but in the current market for pitchers is ridiculous; I think that increases the value of Santana in practical terms.

Finally, the value of having an ace is increased in the playoffs, particularly in the first round. I think Santana would be more than a marginal upgrade when the playoffs are considered.

Not that I think Reyes-for-Santana is likely anyway, but I think it would be an upgrade for 2008.

Also, #23 ("Maybe Omar has pictures of Beane that he can show to Beane's wife which can convince Beane to trade Danny Haren in return for Milledge?") that was indavertent, I hope (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2003_June_24/ai_105367741).

I'm not sure I agree here. For one thing, the value of Santana would be increased by a move to the NL.

Even if you think there is a ten-win difference in league quality, which I think is crazy, that measures to half a win difference (4 or 5 runs). Santana might be an upgrade, it might even be likely, but it is hardly a lock when you consider the fact that Santana may be showing some cracks in his armor.

"Also, #23 ("Maybe Omar has pictures of Beane that he can show to Beane's wife which can convince Beane to trade Danny Haren in return for Milledge?") that was indavertent, I hope (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2003_June_24/ai_105367741)."


There's Gay Billy Bean and Straight Billy Beane. 2 different guys.

Also, #23 ("Maybe Omar has pictures of Beane that he can show to Beane's wife which can convince Beane to trade Danny Haren in return for Milledge?") that was indavertent, I hope (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2003_June_24/ai_105367741).

Yes, it was inadvertent; I was unaware of Billy Bean.

the value of Reyes/Santana compared to a replacement player may not be a good measure in this context. I think the more important question is how they compare to the types of players the Mets would actually replace them with, not how they compare to theoretical "replacement players".

BPro had Reyes at 16 batting runs above average. I believe this is position adjusted. Defensively, AROM's averaged Zone Ratings had Reyes at 12 runs above average.

BPro had Santana 25 runs above average this year, 38 in 2006, 36 in 2005, 47 in 2004.

Reyes was also better last year.

Santana might be an upgrade, it might even be likely, but it is hardly a lock when you consider the fact that Santana may be showing some cracks in his armor.

Mets' fans above all else should know that Santana's real value in moving to the NL would be that he has finally hit his stride offensively. 184 OPS+ last year. Come on!

Ditto that, Orinoco. Omar should hold his fire and wait for someone really worth it instead of committing medium-sized dollars and several years of a rotation slot to someone who isn't that much better than what is already on hand. But he also shouldn't jump the gun on that guy (Santana, just as a for instance) out of panic because of the way 2007 ended and give up the moon for him in trade and then the rest of the universe in a contract.

Which leaves us hoping he can pull a rabbit out of his hat.

Sam, even if Pelfrey/Humber develop, they'd be in position to take over for Pedro. I'll take the best pitcher in baseball, under 30, on my staff without giving up pieces of the core (ie. Gomez/Milledge rather than Reyes) and let somebody else pull a rabbit out of his hat.

Incidentally, I'm with you on evaluation of both, to boot. I think Humber could provide a 4.8 ERA next season, Pelfrey a 4.4.

I'll take the best pitcher in baseball, under 30, on my staff without giving up pieces of the core (ie. Gomez/Milledge rather than Reyes) and let somebody else pull a rabbit out of his hat.

I seriously doubt that if the Twins decide to conduct a Santana auction the Mets would be able to acquire him "without giving up pieces of the core." Someone else will outbid them, with better prospect packages to offer. But hey, no harm in asking.

Someone else will outbid them, with better prospect packages to offer. But hey, no harm in asking.

Will the Yankees really top Gomez/Milledge/Pelfrey/Humber with Wang/Cabrera/Kennedy?

You'd give up all four of those guys??? For one year of Santana? You are seriously crazed. I'm sorry, you don't empty an already thin farm system for a rental. That would leave the Mets with one -- count him, one -- Grade A prospect, Fernando Martinez.

Sorry, but I value the future of the franchise slightly more than that as I try to balance winning in 2008 against also trying to win down the road. If that's the price, I'll take my chances Santana becomes a FA and we can win the bidding for him in 2009, and then have him . . . AND Milledge and Gomez and Pelfrey and Humber.

Pass.

You'd give up all four of those guys??? For one year of Santana? You are seriously crazed. I'm sorry, you don't empty an already thin farm system for a rental. That would leave the Mets with one -- count him, one -- Grade A prospect, Fernando Martinez.

We've been over this, but I give them up assuming a 72-hour window allowing them to sign Santana. There' Martinez, and Mulvey, and Guerra, etc. It does give them a short-term hit at the farm, but they have plenty of young players at the big league level- you're not looking at any players they are counting on in 2008 with the exception of Milledge, but it is easier to find solid RF (which is what they need there, not a star) than it is to find he tbest starting pitcher in baseball. You get a shot at a pitcher this good once a decade- and if the Mets don't, someone else will pony up. He will not hit the FA market unless Minnesota decides to take a shot with him in 2008 and they are in first place at the trading deadline.

I am all about not trading prospects for veterans. This is trading them for an in-prime star number one pitcher. I doubt Red Sox fans are missing Hanley Ramirez much tonight. Or Carl Pavano and Tony Armas back in 1997-2004.

I doubt I'd make that deal even for a signed Santana. Yes, the Sox and Beckett are in the Series. But the Sox had depth in the farm that allowed them to give up Hanley and the rest of that package and STILL have Papelbon and Ellsbury and Pedroia and Youkilis and Lester and on and on and on. The Mets are not dealing from anything like that kind of depth of talent in the farm (come on, now -- Mulvey???), and while there is young talent at the major league level there is also a need to do a lot of replacing on the horizon and not a lot of obvious (or even dark-horse) candidates to fill those holes.

Sorry, but I just don't believe in 4-for-1 deals, not when the four are ALL quality prospects and especially not when the one is a pitcher with all the fragility and risk that represents. If that means we miss out on Santana, I am prepared to shrug and say fine. If the price comes down to something tolerable, then that is a different story. If I were a GM, I honestly cannot imagine any circumstances -- ANY -- in which I would make a deal like that. But if there were any, they would not include those of a team with the farm system the Mets currently possess, that's for sure.

It is a completely reasonable position. I just disagree. The team that won 97 and 88 games can add the best pitcher in baseball to that long-term core without subtracting from it. I think you have to make such a deal. Pelfrey/Humber are possible replacements to the starting staff- but Santana takes up one of their slots. Milledge/Gomez would help down the line in OF- I think both have great potential, Milledge will be a 115-120 OPS+ guy in right next year. But compared to Santana's 220-230 IP of great pitching, a 4-some of Santana, Pedro, Perez and Maine, and Santana/Perez/Maine as your big three for the next few years-you really don't take advantage of that? Build a core of Wright/Reyes/Beltran/Santana/Perez/Maine and work around it? This isn't about Mulvey. It's about adding the ace to this already-talented Mets team-that is where they are in the success cycle.

It isn't a question of what is equal value. It is a question of what the Mets can do to greatly increase their chances of winning the World Series for years to come.