"If you try the best you can
The best you can is good enough"

I know everyone wants to act like Carlos Beltran is dead right now, but he’s likely (said Minaya yesterday) to be back with a fixed knee by about May 4.

Given the history of knee and leg problems that he has, and given the nature of the recent surgery, it's probably more reasonable to refer to Beltran's knee as "less broken," rather than "fixed."

I'd say there's probably a 60-percent chance that either John Maine or Oliver Perez has a Randy Wolf 2009-type of season (ERA+ of 122, where 100 is league average). And it's not crazy that they both could do it.

I would be surprised if either one of them got to 122, and the idea that both of them could kind of sounds a bit crazy to me.

I would be surprised if either one of them got to 122, and the idea that both of them could kind of sounds a bit crazy to me.

I have to agree. The only in the last five seasons that either has approached that figure is in 2007 when Perez posted a 120 ERA+ and that was marred by more earned runs that average.

I think Maine will be effective for whatever number of innings he pitches. Everyone knows that Perez is inconsistent. I think a more realistic number for both guys is 105.

Pelfrey is the one guy other than Johan I would bet on to post a 120 ERA+.

For some reason, they took out the next sentence after "no crazy," which was: (let’s put the chance at about those Mets NL pennant odds -- 1-in-12)

Is Minaya too optimistic?

Yes.

This ends another episode of simple questions, simple answers.

Seriously, if -- and that's a big if -- Minaya seriously believes the team he's ended up with right now has more than a wing-and-a-prayer chance of contending, then he's delusional, not just too optimistic. His interview with Burkhardt was remarkable in his concession that they have a ton of "ifs" going into spring training, but remarkably dishonest in trying to claim that it isn't that many more than other teams that are realistic contenders.

I don't think Minaya believes it, though. I think he knows that this team is too fragile, too thin, too dependent on players who lack a track record or are returning from injuries. I cannot understand why he didn't build some additional depth in a rational way, by adding a much-needed starting pitcher. His explanation to Burkhardt that only Lackey was a "difference maker" and that the others who were available aren't that much better than the guys they already have is nonsense, since even he had to add the qualifier "if they are healthy," and that is kind of the whole point: the Mets needed to add reliability to the rotation to give themselves a more realistic chance to contend.

So if he doesn't believe he's got the horses, and he didn't add them in the off-season, WTF is going on? He's hamstrung by the way the Mets FO is structured, and he can't get things done. It may be budgetary, it may be operational. But no rational GM, especially one who HAS to know his job security depends on at least a somewhat successful season, would have looked at:

Santana -- coming off elbow surgery
Maine -- coming off shoulder surgery
Pelfrey -- coming off disappointing performance which regressed from promising 2008
Perez -- coming off debacle of a mind-######, out-of-shape season after he signed for big dollars
Niese or Nieve or some other guy who nobody in their right mind would count on

as a rotation to risk your job on, and NOT think a Marquis, Piniero, Garland, or Wolf would be an upgrade, at least in stability. It just can't be that he's too optimistic. It's that he has to pretend he is because that's the hand he has to play.

Perhaps I have too extreme a definition of "crazy." Actually the odds are 1/11 if you assume that Maine and Perez each have a 30 percent chance of ~ 120-plus.

Sam, I expect you to bet the under then very heavily when it comes in for the Mets at 82.5, which I can almost guarantee you that it will. A team with an expected win total of 82.5 is NOT a wing and a prayer team.

And nobody in their right mind would count on any No. 5 starter. You need to get an ERA-plus of about 90 out of that spot, if you're very lucky. This is the case for every team (except the Yankees and Red Sox).

Actually the odds are 1/11 if you assume that Maine and Perez each have a 30 percent chance of ~ 120-plus.

I think it's the 30% chance of ~ 120-plus that people take issue with, I certainly do. And it isn't just the 120+. Maine and Perez are 29 and 28 respectively, and have a grand total of zero 120+, 200 IP seasons between them. Maine doesn't even have a 120+, 100 IP season.

For that matter, neither has a Major League 200 IP season. I don't think you can put it at more than 20% for each of them, which makes it 1/25 they both do it, and even that seem optimistic to me.

The problem isn't the #5 slot, it's that among the 2-7 slots, you don't have a single pitcher who last year didn't either suck or have a significant injury or both.

...and the offense is full of black holes, and the defense was never that great to begin with.

Sam, I expect you to bet the under then very heavily when it comes in for the Mets at 82.5, which I can almost guarantee you that it will. A team with an expected win total of 82.5 is NOT a wing and a prayer team.

You assume I'm willing to bet my pessimism, Mike. I'm a lot more risk averse than that, especially with a team whose realistic possible outcomes is as wide as the Mets. IF all (or substantially all) of the things on which Minaya is betting the season (and possibly his job) go right, then the Mets could and should bust through 83 wins with some decent room to spare, likely getting into the high 80s. That would include both Reyes and Beltran coming back healthy and returning to all-star form (in Beltran's case, by the early-May target date); both Maine and Perez being in shape and returning to something pretty close to their best form; Santana being Johan after elbow surgery; the right side of the infield somehow not being a complete and total drag on the efforts of the team. The reason Omar needed to do more was because of how unlikely it is that ALL of that is going to happen -- each additional piece he added would have left them somewhat less dependent on that chain of events.

But any number of those things COULD happen -- some of them are even likely (I'd say Santana coming back strong is probably the likeliest). The more that do, the more likely the Mets are to approach and then exceed 83 wins. But the Mets are as volatile a team in terms of expected outcome as you can imagine, so who in their right mind would bet it? And why would Omar Minaya have proceeded this off-season to leave their prospects so uncertain? That, in a nutshell, is precisely what he did wrong, IMHO.

RB, you make a reasonable argument. I'm not looking at their history as much as the ability they've showed at times to dominate hitters. And I screwed up the math -- the odds assuming 30 percent would be 10-to-1 against.

The Mets need two of three guys to be in the 100-to-120 ERA-plus range -- Pelfrey, Maine and Perez. It's not nuts to think that could happen.

The Mets need two of three guys to be in the 100-to-120 ERA-plus range -- Pelfrey, Maine and Perez. It's not nuts to think that could happen.

It's nuts to bet your whole season and your team's chance of contending on it, when you (a) have the dollars in your budget so that you don't have to, and (b) there are reasonable options available to you to make that gamble unnecessary. To have the sort of reliable, quality starting pitching depth that a contending team needs, in the division in which the Mets play, the Mets need more than a strategy which it is "not nuts to think ... could happen." They need one that it is realistic to believe will unfold. Whether it was his fault or not, or the fault of an ownership that tied his hands, we don't know, but Minaya didn't produce that strategy.

I did think Omar made a good point that when he said that other than Lackey, who's a significantly better bet to do better than Maine or Perez? I don't think you should change your valuation of players more than 10 percent in either direction from year to year barring significant injury factors -- maybe a case for Maine, but not for Perez, IMO. Pineiro? Come on.

I did think Omar made a good point that when he said that other than Lackey, who's a significantly better bet to do better than Maine or Perez?

If by better, you're factoring in likely quality AND quantity of innings, Sam gave you four names above: Marquis, Piniero, Garland and Wolf.

I did think Omar made a good point that when he said that other than Lackey, who's a significantly better bet to do better than Maine or Perez?

Marquis and Garland for sure. Both of them have been far more consistent, reliable, and durable than Maine and Perez.

Marquis: Since 2004, he has given his teams at least 190 innings every year but one, and a 100 ERA+ every year but one. Other than Santana, the Mets don't have anyone who offers that kind of steady, predictable, solid performance. ANYONE.

Garland: Since 2002, he has given his teams at least 190 innings every single year, and an ERA+ of 97 or above every year but one (with a low of 91, a high of 128).

Piniero and Wolf to a lesser extent. They haven't been as consistent as innings-eaters, nor in delivering solid quality as Marquis and Garland, but they've been more reliable than Maine and Perez, and they'd have been relatively cheap options to add expected innings to a rotation that needs it badly.

I would not say that Pineiro has been more reliable than either Perez or Maine although I agree with the other aspects of your argument. 2009 was the first time that Pineiro has outpitched Perez since 2003.

I would have liked the Mets to sign Pineiro but he's hardly been as reliable as you are making him out to be.

####-eyed

what, you can't say ####?

EDIT: starts with a c, ends with an ock. The nanny is strict!

Let's see:

Half-cocked
Cockeyed optimist
####-a-doodle-doo
Mr. Glasscock
Cockles and mussels
Joe Cocker

Interesting ....

It sounds like they lost out on Sheets and Garland. So it wasn't for lack of (belated) effort.

I would have liked the Mets to sign Pineiro but he's hardly been as reliable as you are making him out to be.

Hey, Piniero wasn't my first choice either, believe me. But once the others dropped off because Omar was too busy pulling his Samuel Beckett routine ("Waiting for Molina"), I would have taken him as a last resort. By then, I was pretty much resigned to at least adding another unreliable arm as the best we were going to do -- pile up as many "he's got a shot of being good candidates" as you can, and you have a better chance of four of them being decent or better, and another being not totally horrible. At least in Piniero's case, you've got the hope that Dave Duncan's Jedi mind tricks won't have completely worn off until 2011, so you get a good year out of him.

If they sign John Smoltz, though, I will just frigging scream. Unreliable, but with some realistic hope of being good is one thing. Paying for a guy's retirement party is another thing entirely.

Would you feel any better about Bedard or Pedro, Sam? Cuz those appear to be the choices at this point.

If by better, you're factoring in likely quality AND quantity of innings, Sam gave you four names above: Marquis, Piniero, Garland and Wolf.

You are joking with Wolf, right?

Pineiro for $8 million per is a travmockersham (Woody: "A travesty of two mockeries of a sham.")

Mike, pick your two favorites from that group of four. Are you telling me you'd rather go into 2010 with Maine and Perez than those two?

No, I am not saying that, Jerry. But that wasn't the Mets option, was it? They would have had to go ~$15 million just this year for those two guys and then lost opportunity with Maine or Perez. And I don't think there's much difference. You get a higher floor with the guys they didn't get and a higher ceiling with the guys they kept. The Mets should be thinking high ceiling now, IMO.

They would have had to go ~$15 million just this year for those two guys and then lost opportunity with Maine or Perez.

How do you figure the lost opportunity part?

Santana/Pelfrey/Marquis/Maine/Perez

If the Mets do that, they are not as dependent on hitting the inside straight of Maine and Perez both doing well, or (as you frame it) two of three out of Pelfrey, Maine & Perez doing well. Had they brought in another, more reliable arm, he doesn't push Maine and Perez out of the rotation; he gives them a cushion in case (as is likely) they (or at least some of them) aren't as good as we hope they might be. And given how inconsistent they've been, building in that cushion was the only prudent course of action. That is what is crazy about the off-season the Mets have had -- they are building this season around a long-shot hope instead of a more realistic, solid expectation of potential success.

Well, okay Mike, but this started with your agreeing with Omar's statement that only Lackey was a clear improvement on Maine and Perez, and I don't think that's true. The Mets certainly claim to have had the wherewithal to sign at least one of Marquis/Pineiro/Garland, and doing so would make their prospects look a lot healthier (literally) at this point. Either they don't really have the money to spend or Minaya screwed the pooch. Since they were willing to throw $5 million at Bengie when just a little more would have landed one of those starters, I lean towards the latter.

EDIT: Or what Sam said (as always).

Besides Duncan's Jedi mind tricks or magic pixie dust or whatever it is, Pineiro needs an excellent infield behind him. the Mets don't have that, so he would not have been a good fit. Sam M. has made fine cases for Marquis and Garland who would have been good fits. As for the recovering from injury group, given recent experience, I would avoid them. The Mets already have enough of that sort of risk on their roster.

Marquis, Pineiro, Garland -- would you think for a minute about bidding more than $1 for any of them? If someone does, go ahead. You will not beat me because of it nine out of 10 times and half the time I will beat you because you have these guys. The fantasy market is pretty efficient in valuing a player's stat potential and the pitching stats are pretty easily translatable to reality. Bottom line: those guys are scrubs. Maine and Perez are scrubs now, too, I admit. But how much do you want the Mets to invest in their pool of scrub pitchers who have a scrub's chance of being better than a four/five guy? I swear to you I will have KILLED Omar if he had spent $8 million per on Pineiro and $10 million for '10 on Sheets, who I like, but whose A's contract is reckless.

BTW, is anyone else a tad interested in seeing how Daniel Murphy will do this year? He very quietly slugged .502 during the last two months of the season although his OBP was a very weak .308 during that time. I would have prefered they signed someone with a little more power but with some luck I think Murphy could put up a .800ish OPS. That wouldn't be awful if he can be a solid defensive first baseman.

I will say right now that I think there's a greater than 50 percent chance that Niese will out-earn one out of Marquis, Pineiro, Garland quite easily and absolutely relative to cost. Let's say within 10 points in ERA-plus. As for the opportunity cost with Perez, you can't pay $12 million per for a No. 5 starter when that guy is going to be skipped.

I said in the piece that a chunk of the $15 million, if it really exists, can be used for Pena or Dunn come July (should Murphy prove inadequate at the plate).

I will say right now that I think there's a greater than 50 percent chance that Niese will out-earn one out of Marquis, Pineiro, Garland quite easily and absolutely relative to cost. Let's say within 10 points in ERA-plus. As for the opportunity cost with Perez, you can't pay $12 million per for a No. 5 starter when that guy is going to be skipped.

As for the first point, I think there's better than a 75% chance that if the Mets had signed either Marquis or Garland, Niese would still have gotten more than 20 starts, and thus the chance to provide them the good solid pitching you think (and I tend to agree) he's capable of. Perhaps better than at least one of the three you mention. The reason a good team (see, e.g., the Red Sox) stockpiles arms is because a good team is likely to need more than five starters in the course of a 162 game season. The reason the Mets, in particular, should have done it is because three of their returning starters are coming back from injury-plagued campaigns and they are thus especially likely to need more starters. The Mets are going to need Johan, Maine, Pelfrey, Perez, Niese, AND the guy Omar negligently failed to sign.

That's the fundamental difference here, I guess: you look at the five starters you line up as the likely rotation and say you'd rather have them then any of the guys Omar might have signed, at least for the price. I look at the five the Mets have, and say I'd rather have them PLUS at least one of the guys Omar should have signed. We just aren't going to get the innings we need out of the guys currently on hand.

"
That's the fundamental difference here, I guess: you look at the five starters you line up as the likely rotation and say you'd rather have them then any of the guys Omar might have signed, at least for the price. I look at the five the Mets have, and say I'd rather have them PLUS at least one of the guys Omar should have signed. We just aren't going to get the innings we need out of the guys currently on hand.

Agree with Sam. That's why I don't understand the argument of Minaya that he isn't sure any of the guys available were better than a healthy Maine/Ollie. Is that really the issue? Right now the 5th starter is Niese, and I see no reason to think the Mets are going to go through the season with those 5 guys making 162 starts.

They're going to need more starting pitchers (in large part because of the track record of Maine and Perez) so why not spend some money on a reliable mediocrity? They're going to end up running guys out there who we know aren't any good.

I see no reason to think the Mets are going to go through the season with those 5 guys making 162 starts.

One team in HISTORY has done that
can anyone guess?

No team uses 5 or even 6 starters in a season. Signing someone wouldn't take starts from Niese or even Nieve, it will take starts from Nelson Figueroa or Livan Hernandez or Brian Lawrence. Combined that with a decent chance that Maine only throws 25 innings or Perez puts up a 7.00 ERA and I think they should have signed two guys.

One team in HISTORY has done that
can anyone guess?

I know it was recently and I thought it was St. Louis. The 2005 Cards came close, with single starts by Eldred and Reyes the only "blemish".

I did think Omar made a good point that when he said that other than Lackey, who's a significantly better bet to do better than Maine or Perez?

Point granted, and I think pretty much all Met fans here agreed on that point going into the offseason. Which is why pretty much all of us said get Lackey (and to be fair, I'm not sure any of us had a terrific Plan B mapped out either ;-) Therefore... prioritize Lackey... and, y'know, sign... not Bay... but Lackey.

Was that possible? We'll never know, because Lackey signed quickly and the Mets' front office has the proportionate speed and agility of a walrus.

So, maybe try fixing that issue, huh?

Or, of course, there are ways to acquire players besides free agency. Trade for Arroyo... Harang... some other overpaid but decent guy... or even someone who is actually good. The farm system does have surprising depth, given that we allegedly cleaned it out for Johan.

I know it was recently

Yep it was

No team uses 5 or even 6 starters in a season. Signing someone wouldn't take starts from Niese or even Nieve, it will take starts from Nelson Figueroa or Livan Hernandez or Brian Lawrence. Combined that with a decent chance that Maine only throws 25 innings or Perez puts up a 7.00 ERA and I think they should have signed two guys

I would have liked to sign one reliable guy (Garland, Marquis) and one lottery ticket (Harden, Bedard, Sheets).

one lottery ticket (Harden, Bedard, Sheets).

$10 million is a pretty expensive lottery ticket. What's the payoff?

one lottery ticket (Harden, Bedard, Sheets).

$10 million is a pretty expensive lottery ticket. What's the payoff?

I should have said "ideally". At that price I didn't have much interest in Sheets.

I will say right now that I think there's a greater than 50 percent chance that Niese will out-earn one out of Marquis, Pineiro, Garland quite easily and absolutely relative to cost.

No disrespect intended, but do you know how many guys there are who have Niese's minor league track record who never amount to anything you imbecile?

No disrespect intended, but do you know how many guys there are who have Niese's minor league track record who never amount to anything you imbecile?

I wonder what you would have called him if you had meant to disrespect him!

Even if this year doesn't go well, I am going to be excited to follow the minor league teams. For the first time in seemingly forever, the Mets are going to have interesting teams to follow in the minors.

Thole, Davis, Tejada, and F-Mart in AAA (and a personal fave of mine, Dillon Gee)
Havens, Meija, Nuienwenheis and Holt in AA.

A good year in the minors would make a tough 2010 a lot easier to swallow.

Russlan, that makes my annual Cyclones game something to look forward to anyway.

I hate to write this, but I suspect that the "strategy" with the starting pitching is that Citi Field will depress ERA's enough that a couple of league average starters will look really good and a couple of pieces of #### will look average.

[33]

BTW, is anyone else a tad interested in seeing how Daniel Murphy will do this year? He very quietly slugged .502 during the last two months of the season although his OBP was a very weak .308 during that time. I would have prefered they signed someone with a little more power but with some luck I think Murphy could put up a .800ish OPS. That wouldn't be awful if he can be a solid defensive first baseman.

It's possible that the last two months of the season were basically garbage time ABs for Murphy, and not a true predictor of his SLG ability.

From BB-REF, I counted 30 XBH in August/September/October for Murphy. Here's the list of the pitchers who surrendered these XBH.

21 2B: Ricky Nolasco (2), Pedro Martinez (2), and 1 each by Cliff Lee, J.A. Happ, Cole Hamels, Jair Jurrjens, Josh Johnson, Jason Marquis, Jon Garland, Joel Pineiro, Derek Lowe, Boone Logan, Tommy Hanson, Yorman Bazardo, Justin Miller, Garrett Mock, Cristhian Martin, Anibal Sanchez, Jamie Moyer

3 3B: Jair Jurrjens, Kevin Gregg, Garrett Mock

6 HR: Danny Haren, Derek Lowe, Joe Beimel, Randy Wells, Eric OFlaherty, Doug Brocail

The quality of opposing pitcher actually seems pretty good to me. That's not to say the sample means a lot.

No disrespect intended, but do you know how many guys there are who have Niese's minor league track record who never amount to anything you imbecile?

None taken, Jackass. Not amounting to anything is what Garland and Pineiro do most years. Niese, barring injury, will definitely pitch in the majors -- how well is anyone's guess. How well Marquis, Garland and Pineiro will pitch is anyone's guess, too. So, you can get take a flyer on a likely scrub for the league minimum or $5-to-$8 million. Which is better?

There is a huge amount of value in being a league average starting pitcher, and all 3 of those guys project around there. They're anything but scrubs.

Pineiro has been league average two times in the last six years. Garland and Marquis are better bets to be average, but decent bets to have the innings eat them more than they eat the innings. The differences between them and Fernando Nieve and Nelson Figueroa are not great and not worth the veteran premium. Why not try to finesse the innings at the bottom of the rotation? We know there are a bunch of position players toiling in the minors who can put up league-average numbers; the same goes for pitchers. But the smart guys think it's so smart to throw $5 million at Garland. Maybe Rob Neyer is right and I'm wrong. He probably is right. But I'd rather use my money elsewhere. And if the Mets don't use it they weren't going to spend it on those bottom-of-the-rotation pitching type anyway -- and then we're not arguing player assessment and asset allocation but rather big-market viability.

A largest-market team such as the Mets with a rotation as brittle theirs should have picked up two durable, decent starters this offseason. If two of Perez, Maine, and Niese pitch well and their arms stay attached to their shoulders for 20 starts each, that's good luck. It also means that if, on top of that--you're fortunate enough to get 30 starts each from Santana and Pelfrey, you still have 62 starts to parcel out. If you don't want to automatically give them to Figueroa, Nieve, Misch, and Gee, you sign two starters during the offseason. Two starters who are bound to be better than Figueroa, Nieve, Misch, and Gee. The Mets have a much better chance to contend if the rotation is a strength rather than the seething wound it currently is. One very good pitcher, one who has a chance to be above average, and three mediocre to good pitchers with plenty of filler in case of serious health issues is exactly what this club needs.

After all, WWTD? He'd get plenty of depth.

The quality of opposing pitcher actually seems pretty good to me. That's not to say the sample means a lot.

It does seem like a strong list. It may not tell us a lot, but at the least it's encouraging. I've thought that of the holes on the roster the last one I'd fill would be at 1B. I'm fairly confident that a platoon of Murphy/LHPmasher will be around league average, and put up something like 270/350/450 with slightly above average defense. That's not a problem.

There is a huge amount of value in being a league average starting pitcher, and all 3 of those guys project around there. They're anything but scrubs.

I think Marquis is getting far too much credit. I figure the baseline is 95ish ERA+ over 185ish IP for a "league average" season. Marquis did that twice in the past 4 years (in 2006 he had a 74 ERA+, in 2008 he only pitched 167 innings). I don't really see him as a significantly better bet than Niese, and certainly not at $15M/2.

Piniero is a crapshoot unless you know some reason why last year represents a fundamental change in who he is as a pitcher as opposed to a random spike. We're talking about a pitcher with poor seasons in 2005, 2006, and 2008. $16M/2 is a really ballsy contract.

Garland is exactly the sort of pitcher the Mets could have used, and a 1 year, $5.3M deal is very favorable. He's pitched over 190 innings in each of the past 8 years, with a single below-average season in ERA+ (91).

These three pitchers aren't a set of interchangeable signings. Garland is the best, most reliable of the three, and he's signed to the only reasonable deal.

I think it's the 30% chance of ~ 120-plus that people take issue with, I certainly do. And it isn't just the 120+. Maine and Perez are 29 and 28 respectively, and have a grand total of zero 120+, 200 IP seasons between them. Maine doesn't even have a 120+, 100 IP season.

I have Maine with a 20% chance of a 120 ERA+ and Pelfrey with a 2% chance. CHONE likes Maine less and Pelfrey more.

I have Maine with a 20% chance of a 120 ERA+ and Pelfrey with a 2% chance. CHONE likes Maine less and Pelfrey more.

So you have Salfino's 30% chance of both as being off by only 29.6%?

So you have Salfino's 30% chance of both as being off by only 29.6%?

I never said anything about Pelfrey being 120 ERA-plus, smart guy. And Dan's just guessing like me and everyone else. James's Handbook has Maine at a 3.86 ERA for 168 innings. Perez is 4.73 but with 100 walks in 173 innings. If he walks about 4.5/9 instead of 5.2/9, I'm confident his ERA will be 3.70-to-4.20. He's a 28-year-old lefty who seems to have recommitted himself to his profession by at least getting in shape. This kind of BB/9 improvement given his continued ability to dominate hitters when he does find the stirkezone is, at most, as arbitrary as whether the three veterans in question here get good or bad luck/support in DER given the complete inability of those three pitchers to miss bats.

And Dan's just guessing like me and everyone else.

ZiPS:Guess::Calculus:Geometry

I think Marquis is getting far too much credit. I figure the baseline is 95ish ERA+ over 185ish IP for a "league average" season. Marquis did that twice in the past 4 years (in 2006 he had a 74 ERA+, in 2008 he only pitched 167 innings). I don't really see him as a significantly better bet than Niese, and certainly not at $15M/2.

Well it was only twice in the last 4 years, but he did it the two years prior, so it was really 4 times out of 6. In 08 he threw 167 IP of 102 ERA+; if he did that in 2010 for the Mets he might be their #2 starter.

I think Marquis is a much better bet than Niese if for no other reason than I'm not sure how many innings Niese can give the Mets at the major league level.

I also don't see why we should be comparing these guys to Niese; the Mets are going to need more than 5 SP.

These three pitchers aren't a set of interchangeable signings. Garland is the best, most reliable of the three, and he's signed to the only reasonable deal.

Agrred they aren't interchangeable, but I think Marquis is pretty close to Garland in terms of the reliability factor. Pineiro is a different story.

Garland and Marquis are better bets to be average, but decent bets to have the innings eat them more than they eat the innings. The differences between them and Fernando Nieve and Nelson Figueroa are not great and not worth the veteran premium.

You really think Nieve or Figueroa could throw 190 IP at close to league average ball? I'd love to take that bet.

If he walks about 4.5/9 instead of 5.2/9, I'm confident his ERA will be 3.70-to-4.20. He's a 28-year-old lefty who seems to have recommitted himself to his profession by at least getting in shape.

Yeah, but I don't think the odds of that are all that good. He's had a walk rate of 4.5 per 9 or less twice in his career; 2004 and 2007. The guy walked 8 batters per 9 last year. Sure he was hurt, but it's just as likely he walks 5.5 batters per 9 than it is he walks 4.5. In 08 he gave the Mets 194 IP at a 100 ERA+ and still walked 4.9 per 9.

You really think Nieve or Figueroa could throw 190 IP at close to league average ball? I'd love to take that bet.

I think Figgy can. I still think he's never been given a full shot.

Yeah, but I don't think the odds of that are all that good. He's had a walk rate of 4.5 per 9 or less twice in his career; 2004 and 2007.

It seems to me you're saying there's a 33 percent chance. Right about where I had it.

Figueroa won't get the chance to throw 190 innings because he's Figueroa. Give him the exact same game logs as Garland, for example, and he will be jettisoned when he gives up eight runs in 2.2 innings where Garland lives to pitch another day. I'm with Raskolnikov if life was fair, but it is not. Still, theoretically, it is within the Mets power to make it fair. But having Garland pitch 190 innings with a 4.90 ERA is not going to subject decision makers to the vituperative criticism that having Figueroa do it will, especially with all the ugly twists and turns that are sure to be there in either case.

It seems to me you're saying there's a 33 percent chance. Right about where I had it.

Ollie has pitched 8 seasons in the major leagues. His walk rate has been 4.5 or better twice; that's more like 25%, and I'm still not sure that's the best way to do it. And if you're talking about a Randy Wolf type season, doesn't that include the 214 or so IP, which Ollie has never done, making the odds of that happening 0 percent?

But I'd bet on his walk rate going over 4.5 per 9 this year.

Garland's ERAs the last five years: 3.50, 4.51, 4.23, 4.90, 4.01

The year he had a 4.90 ERA he also had a BABIP 25 points above his career average. He was also pitching in the AL with a DH.

Lifetime Figueroa has a 4.96 ERA as a starter (272.1 IP) and a 3.44 ERA as a reliever. So, if Garland turns in his worst season, he's the equivalent of what we should expect from Figueroa. And that's not taking into account Garland pitching in the AL and Figueroa exclusively in the NL.

When Garland turns in a good year, everyone will credit Petco. That's okay - I still say after Lackey was gone he was the Mets' best option.

Marquis, Pineiro, Garland -- would you think for a minute about bidding more than $1 for any of them?

Do you really think fantasy evaluations are equivalent to actual evaluations, even though the market is different? There's a simple reason why Garland may not be worth more than $1 in fantasy but is worth more in reality. There are more teams in reality. Do you really not see that? Sure, if there were only 10 teams in MLB, Garland would be a scrub. In reality, his averagishness is valuable.

Edit:

Also, how of often do 5th starters really get skipped? It only happens a few times a season AFAIK. It would be silly to pay $12M for a 5th starter, but that just a weak strawman. A 5th starter, if they were decent, would get about as many starts as any other pitcher generally gets.

Was Dillon Gee hurt last year? He pitched 48 innings. Like the walk rates though.

Mike, are you seriously saying Figueroa and Jon Garland are perfect substitutes for each other? I'd love for that to be case but come on.

Was Dillon Gee hurt last year? He pitched 48 innings. Like the walk rates though.

Yeah, shoulder surgery. He only had averagish stuff before the surgery so it is very likely he is done.

Mike, are you seriously saying Figueroa and Jon Garland are perfect substitutes for each other?

No, I'm not saying that. I don't even know if it's going to be Figueroa. But you have to give yourself the opportunity to get 4.50-to-5.00 innings cheap. That $5-to-$8 million annually it would have cost is better spent on better quality guys, if not now than as the season goes along and better talent becomes available. For example, Wang is better. Maybe Bedard is healthy by Memorial Day. I can imagine a scenario where I could feel good about those two starting a big September or October game. Same for Perez (there's only one thing that has to go right for Perez in any start -- control) and Maine (about as unhittable a fastball as there is when he's healthy). I cannot imagine any scenario where I would feel good about Garland starting a must-win game. The guy has had an ERA above 4.50 in five of the last seven seasons. Never pay a premium for mediocrity.

Do you really think fantasy evaluations are equivalent to actual evaluations, even though the market is different?

Not equivalent, but a decent approximation. If you're paying significant money (let's call that $5 million-plus) for an asset that the broad national fantasy market deems to be fungible, you're probably being stupid. And, yes, the Mets are paying $12 million for such an asset, but the smart guys know that there is a path to dominance for Perez (decreased walk rate) where there is none for Garland, Pineiro, Marquis.

The guy has had an ERA above 4.50 in five of the last seven seasons. Never pay a premium for mediocrity.

It's 4 times in the last 7 seasons, and two of those were 4.51. Your statement is partially misleading and partially wrong, and those parts don't overlap.

And for what it's worth, Fangraphs has Garland's last 5 seasons all worth more than $8 million dollars, which given salary inflation makes it worth even more today. I think you underestimate the value of a player that's solidly above average but not a star.

Cots has the 2010 payroll at $120 million, which is a big drop. In a world where I try to think of good things this might mean, it might mean that we see Carl Crawford and Brandon Webb in the orange and blue. Even in that world, I don't dream of Joe Mauer. Maybe Victor Martinez.

"Solidly above average" you're standing by that with Garland?

Tiger Wang is better? He had the worst season in history last year.

"Solidly above average" you're standing by that with Garland?

Using Wins Above Replacement (2 wins is about average) we can measure Garland's last 6 years:

2004: 2.1
2005: 3.7
2006: 3.9
2007: 3.6
2008: 1.9
2009: 2.4
Average: 2.9

A win above average would rate as solidly above average.

And I will acknowledge that the contract that Garland signed is good in a vacuum, but not because of the annual salary as much as for the term (one year). Garland's fastball is already below average (velocity and effectiveness) and if he loses just another tick, it's Murder She Wrote. I can see a scenario where if the Mets did spend on Garland, Mets fans would really have regretted they didn't wait and sign, say, Wang.

Mike, you make an interesting point about not wanting to start a big game with Garland and to a certain extent, I think you are right as even Torre decided to use Padilla rather than Garland in the playoffs. That said, Garland helps you get to the point where the games matter.

Another way to judge Garland as solidly above average would be ERA+. Starting from 2009
111
91
111
105
128

That said, Garland helps you get to the point where the games matter.

Exactly. And I don't exactly think it's that big a deal to start Garland in a big game anyway; if you start Perez the game might be over in the first 2 innings.

And I don't exactly think it's worth all that much, but Garland was great in the 05 playoffs.

You guys are all burying the lede. Defining the Mets offseason failure by not getting John Freakin' Garland? Come on! No one has ever felt secure in the fact that "this is a John Garland pitching day." You should instead be talking about all the little money the Mets have spent foolishly just this offseason -- Cora ($2 million), Igarashi ($1.2 million), Matthews ($1 million). They could have gone minor league veteran for those roles and saved at least $3 million plus the $15 million they say they have and then spent the $18 million on Lackey. (Not thrilled with $2.9 million for Pedro Feliciano, but it's at least a scarce commodity.) That would have been the play. After that, it was game-over on pitching free agency (sans the ones who are still rehabbing).

Defining the Mets offseason failure by not getting John Freakin' Garland? Come on!

It's a digression from the main point, not anyone's main point. The fact is that there isn't enough money for Minaya to fix what's wrong with the Mets because there are too many holes. The Mets are projected to win 82-83 games, but there's a lot of variation. They could win 90 and they could win 65.

Defining the Mets offseason failure by not getting John Freakin' Garland? Come on! No one has ever felt secure in the fact that "this is a John Garland pitching day."

The failure is starting a season with a $130M payroll and 0.75 reliable SPs.

This team desparately needed two reliable averagish SPs (175 IP+, 95 ERA+ or better) to take the pressure off the young/injured guys.

Garland himself is just the best example of that type of pitcher who was available cheaply ~1/5.

Feliciano is a good buy at $2.9 million. At some point you have to pay for quality.

Mets signed Catalanto to a minor league deal. Too bad he can't play 2B anymore.

Mets signed Catalanto to a minor league deal. Too bad he can't play 2B anymore.

He can split time with Tatis

He can split time with Tatis

pwned

Pineiro has been league average two times in the last six years. Garland and Marquis are better bets to be average, but decent bets to have the innings eat them more than they eat the innings. The differences between them and Fernando Nieve and Nelson Figueroa are not great and not worth the veteran premium. Why not try to finesse the innings at the bottom of the rotation?

Why not, indeed? The answer is pretty simple: because they are already trying to finesse the innings throughout the entire middle of the rotation, from the # 2 slot down. And worse still, they don't have any reliability at all in the rotation if you deem Santana a question mark because of his elbow surgery. Now, I'm willing to posit that if Santana doesn't come back strong, the whole season is a lost cause anyway, so you may as well assume that he's going to be ace quality in all of this. But beyond him, every single slot is a huge question mark. It is precisely for that reason that the Mets, more than any other team in baseball should have prioritized a good, solid starting pitcher. If that was going to be Lackey, it would have cost them more than it cost the Red Sox -- probably substantially more -- because other things being equal, he's going to require a premium to (a) switch leagues, and (b) move to a team that finished 57.5 games out of first last year rather than a team that's been in the post-season consistently over the last half-dozen years, including two WS titles. If it wasn't going to be Lackey, it should have either been Garland or Marquis.

There is already enough cost-control in the rotation, with Niese and Pelfrey, and to a lesser extent Maine. The notion that Garland or Marquis would have been an "overpay" at what they signed for is, with all due respect, preposterous. Their value in terms of wins above replacement has been pretty amply demonstrated in this thread, and they have been shown to be solid values for the contracts they signed. When you are citing guys like Wang -- oy -- as pitchers you would prefer, I just have to wonder if you are looking at the Mets and their specific needs, or just making a generic point about your preferences for low-cost, "flyer" type acquisitions to finish off pitching staffs. Because that general philosophy (whatever its merits in the "typical" case) simply does not address the particular needs of the Mets given the make-up of the pitchers on hand, and the weaknesses they bring to the table.

The point is not (exactly) that the failure to sign Jon Garland "defines" the failure of the Mets' off-season. The failure to sign a reliable starting pitcher to fill the obvious reliability gap in the rotation is emblematic of the failure to properly identify and prioritize the needs, and then address them. The real issue, to me, is whether this is a failure of diagnosis, or a failure of execution. If it's the former, it's all on Omar. If it's the latter, it might be on him, but it also might be a manifestation of some of the same old organizational nightmares that have been plaguing the organization since Cashen.

Sam: You state your case well, but you're simply putting pitching on a pedestal. I bet you were against signing Molina. Why? To be consistent, you should have been in favor of that because, relative to catchers, Molina is Garland/Marquis and what they currently have or can get at catcher is also essentially equal to their current pitching situation in terms of risk. Assuming I'm correct in guessing your view of the Molina aquistion, what evidence do you have that finding 100-ish ERA-plus type of fifth starters is any more difficult than finding 90-to-100-ish OPS-type of catchers? (I'm not being inconsistent because I was against Molina for the same reason I'm against the ho-hum pitchers. You win this game with talent, not mediocrity. So that's where you need to spend.)

There's a very reasonable case that Molina hasn't been an averagish catcher for a awhile when you factor in his defense and baserunning and that at his age he certainly doesn't project to be anymore. Zips had him at 86 and 84 OPS+ for the next two years, I think. That said, I think I would have taken him myself for a one year commitment, but that speaks more to the Mets dreadful options at catcher than Molina's value.

inding 100-ish ERA-plus type of fifth starters

That's not a fifth starter. That is like a third/fourth starter. The main point of your argument which differs from others in this thread is that you seem to think that 100 ERA+ starters are a near replacement level commodity. They aren't.

I bet you were against signing Molina. Why? To be consistent, you should have been in favor of that because, relative to catchers, Molina is Garland/Marquis and what they currently have or can get at catcher is also essentially equal to their current pitching situation in terms of risk.

The difference here is that a lack of Molina doesn't make the other hitters perform worse. The Met starting staff as it is currently composed will result in the pen being tapped pretty often by the 6th inning, if not before. The Mets need an innings-eater for precisely this reason. The contracts given out to these guys weren't ridiculous overpays or long-term commitments. Especially after losing out on Molina, the Mets should have bit on someone.

An untested 1B and a below-average 2B isn't the best situation for Wang to walk into, though I'd be pretty happy if the Mets snagged him cheap.

For no particular reason, I have a good feeling about what Escobar is gonna do out of the pen this year.

That's not a fifth starter. That is like a third/fourth starter. The main point of your argument which differs from others in this thread is that you seem to think that 100 ERA+ starters are a near replacement level commodity. They aren't.

Exactly. 175 IP of 100 ERA+ is a solid mid-rotation SP. The Mets have no one after Santana who's a odds on bet to give them that.

As someone who was pro-Garland and anti-Molina, I don't think they were comparable at all. Given his age and production, Garland was worthy of a multi-year deal. Mostly due to his age and to a lesser extent due to his overall production, including baserunning and defense, Molina was worthy of an NRI. That the Mets offered him a guaranteed deal with a vesting option was insane, especially given the team's apparent M.O. of doing one thing at a time. Any time spent chasing Molina was valuable time lost on getting the SP that they needed so much more.

I bet you were against signing Molina. Why?

I scared him?

Is there any chance they use Escobar as a starter?

James's Handbook has Maine at a 3.86 ERA for 168 innings.

This is hilarious. I'll take the under. Anyone care to bet a BBRef sponsorship?

That's not a fifth starter. That is like a third/fourth starter. The main point of your argument which differs from others in this thread is that you seem to think that 100 ERA+ starters are a near replacement level commodity. They aren't.

Exactly. 175 IP of 100 ERA+ is a solid mid-rotation SP. The Mets have no one after Santana who's a odds on bet to give them that.

This is it in a nutshell. The Mets needed two decent starters. They signed none. They'll be lucky if they give only 60 starts to their 6th and worse starters.

Any time spent chasing Molina was valuable time lost on getting the SP that they needed so much more.

True, though of course it shouldn't have been. I think it's clear now the Mets never had any intention of signing a starter this offseason.

James's Handbook has Maine at a 3.86 ERA for 168 innings.

This is hilarious. I'll take the under.


Now there's the optimism I like to see!

Oh wait.

I'll take your bet anyhow. ;-) $20 max cost? Less is fine, too.

Apologies for the third consecutive post but to be clear, in 96, I meant that Maine will do worse than James's projection.

So what's the under on? Just innings? Over on ERA? My accepting your bet was simply based on IP. Did you mean something else?