Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Mets - Acquired Santana

New York Mets - Acquired P Johan Santana from the Minnesota Twins for OF Carlos Gomez, P Phil Humber, P Deolis Guerra, and P Kevin Mulvey.

A lot of people are saying what a weak package of players this is for Santana.  I have to disagree - some of the packages that were thrown around for the Santana trade didn’t happen simply because they were unrealistic.  A player’s salary is a big function of their value and while Santana is one of the best pitchers around, the Mets don’t get a super tremendous awesomely outrageous deal when they sign Santana’s paychecks as the Twins did while paying Santana $28 million for over $100 million worth of performance.  There was no mythical Lowrie/Masterson/Lester/Ellsbury/Anderson/Doerr/Plantier/Pesky/Fenway/50% of Shell Oil/Jesus package out there in exchange for a single year of Santana and the rights to negotiate a market contract with Santana.

Individually, I like Adam Jones better than each player in this trade, but every player in this trade is a real prospect.  Gomez is probably overrated as a prospect, but he’s got a ton of potential.  Guerra’s years off, but has a lot of upside, as does Humber, and Mulvey, while not a high ceiling guy with a blazing fastball, throws enough strikes and keeps the ball down and should be a good #4 starter immediately.  Now, I think the Mets are putting too much emphasis on acquiring arms here, one thing they’ve developed well in recent years, but I’m not sure Fernando Martinez was really get-table unless they drastically reduced the number of players coming back and I don’t think Bill Smith wanted to put all his eggs in one basket this early in his GM career.

For the Mets, the benefits of this package are obvious.  It returns them to probably being the best team in the NL and while Mulvey could have stepped in and helped them almost immediately, Santana does that a whole lot better.  The Mets, even in 2005, haven’t really received a true injury-free PEDRO YEAR from Pedro.  As such, the NL is owed a whupping, which Santana will helpfully provide.

No optimistic/pessimistic yet - I’m not at that computer.

2008 ZiPS Projections
————————————————————————————————-
Player     W   L   G GS   IP   H   ER HR BB SO   ERA ERA+
————————————————————————————————-
Humber     6 10 24 22 122 143   76 25 34 71 5.61   76
Mulvey     9   9 23 23 137 156   68 11 36 61 4.47 102
Santana   18   8 34 34 234 192   79 28 46 244 3.04 140
————————————————————————————————-

 

2007 ZiPS Projections
——————————————————————————————————————
Player     AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB   BA   OBP   SLG OPS+
——————————————————————————————————————
Gomez     324 33   78 15 2   5 29 19 73 22 .241 .299 .346   69
——————————————————————————————————————


Dan Szymborski Posted: January 30, 2008 at 02:01 PM | 123 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. CraigK Posted: January 30, 2008 at 03:23 PM (#2679721)
Over on the Santana ZiPs; don't know why, but I can very easily see him putting up a ~2.60 ERA.
   2. thetalkingmoose Posted: January 30, 2008 at 03:26 PM (#2679725)
As a Phillies fan, all I can really say is *#^@!
   3. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 30, 2008 at 03:28 PM (#2679726)
I think you're right in that some of the trade rumors were wildly fantastic, but I still think this is a poor haul for the Twins.
   4. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: January 30, 2008 at 03:34 PM (#2679733)
ZiPS is bullish on Mulvey.

I'll take the under on those 28 home runs allowed by Santana. I don't think he does that poorly with longballs playing half his games in Shea.
   5. Repoz Posted: January 30, 2008 at 03:39 PM (#2679740)
I'll take the under on those 28 home runs allowed by Santana. I don't think he does that poorly with longballs playing half his games in Shea.

But will that make up for his starts in Philly...:)
   6. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 30, 2008 at 03:41 PM (#2679742)
As a Phillies fan, all I can really say is *#^@!

Did the Phillies have the prospects to get in on this?
   7. Oriole Tragic is totally awesome in the postseason Posted: January 30, 2008 at 03:50 PM (#2679746)
2008 Santana (Minnesota Twins):
GS W-L IP H BB SO HR ERA
Dan: 34 18-8 230.0 200 47 236 29 3.21
Nate: uh, little help?

2008 Santana (/\/\37z!!1!oneone!):
GS W-L IP H BB SO HR ERA
Dan: 34 18-8 234 192 46 244 28 3.04
Nate: 33 15-9 227.0 197 62 230 25 3.32

No ZiPS pessimism here.
   8. Oriole Tragic is totally awesome in the postseason Posted: January 30, 2008 at 03:51 PM (#2679747)
eeech, sorry about the formatting.
   9. Oriole Tragic is totally awesome in the postseason Posted: January 30, 2008 at 03:54 PM (#2679751)
Oh, Nate actually has the Twins numbers for Santana...let me try again:

2008 Santana (Minnesota Twins):

34 18-8 230.0 200 47 236 29 3.21 Dan
33 15-9 227.0 197 62 230 25 3.32 Nate

2008 Santana (/\/\37z!!1!oneone!):

34 18-8 234 192 46 244 28 3.04 Dan
33 15-9 227 197 62 230 25 3.32 Nate

Question for ZiPS FAQ: "Why is Nate so pessimistic?"
   10. Oriole Tragic is totally awesome in the postseason Posted: January 30, 2008 at 03:57 PM (#2679758)
Of course I blew that...

2008 Santana (/\/\37z!!1!oneone!):

34 18-8 234 192 46 244 28 3.04 Dan
32 16-8 225 184 60 239 25 2.94 Nate

Question for ZiPS FAQ: "When can we have editing in the TO comments?"

Interesting that ZiPS doesn't love Shea as much as PECOTA.
   11. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: January 30, 2008 at 04:04 PM (#2679763)
Some of that may be due to the uncertain defensive alignment. Perhaps Silver is using a fictitious defensive replacement level CF?
   12. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: January 30, 2008 at 04:05 PM (#2679764)
Some of that may be due to the uncertain defensive alignment. Perhaps Silver is using a fictitious defensive replacement level CF?

For Minnesota... but that doesn't make any sense in light of his Shea adjustment being smaller than Dan's.

I would like to second the need for an Edit feature...
   13. rfloh Posted: January 30, 2008 at 04:09 PM (#2679766)
#10

ZIPS is projecting a better K / BB rate than PECOTA, and only 0.1 a run worse.
   14. rfloh Posted: January 30, 2008 at 04:12 PM (#2679769)
The K / BB rate projections don't seem have changed much, for either ZIPSs or PECOTA, Shea or not.
   15. HowardMegdal Posted: January 30, 2008 at 04:17 PM (#2679772)
When do the Diamond Mind rosters come out? You know, in case some of us are feeling somewhat eager to simulate the Mets with Santana...
   16. Padraic Posted: January 30, 2008 at 05:28 PM (#2679837)
Great work Dan, though any chance of a Feliz projection to possibly perk up Phillies fans.
I'm trying to argue with some friends that Feliz can make up the offensive differential with Helms/Dobbs with his glove.
   17. 1k5v3L Posted: January 30, 2008 at 05:57 PM (#2679877)
I think the Mets are putting too much emphasis on acquiring arms here, one thing they've developed well in recent years

You mean the Twins, right? The Mets are getting two arms back, afaik
   18. 1k5v3L Posted: January 30, 2008 at 06:00 PM (#2679880)
You know, in case some of us are feeling somewhat eager to simulate the Mets with Santana...
Mike Piazza wants to return to Shea! Oh, simulate...
   19. Kyle S Posted: January 30, 2008 at 06:01 PM (#2679882)
You mean the Twins, right? The Mets are getting two arms back, afaik

Although if my operatives are successful, there won't be a torso attached to either of them.
   20. 1k5v3L Posted: January 30, 2008 at 06:03 PM (#2679886)
Although if my operatives are successful, there won't be a torso attached to either of them.
Now, to fix THAT, Rick Peterson will need an entire evening...
   21. Newtype Posted: January 30, 2008 at 06:22 PM (#2679905)
So, according to ZIPS, the best pitcher in baseball just got traded for: a league-average pitcher, a replacement level pitcher, a replacement level hitter, and a promising low minors pitcher (and you know its just IMPOSSIBLE for low minors pitchers to fail to make the bigs one day).

No wonder the Mets fans are so happy today, enjoy the pennant.
   22. Honkie Kong Posted: January 30, 2008 at 06:37 PM (#2679918)
Nate Silver was worried abt Santana's uptick in HR rate in 2007. Also he has the Metrodome as a pitcher's park on the level of Shea ( air conditioning turned inwards! ). hence his projections look that way
   23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 30, 2008 at 06:41 PM (#2679922)
No wonder the Mets fans are so happy today, enjoy the pennant.

I wish the Yankees had a pennant for every pennant they were guaranteed to win before open day the last 6 years.
   24. AROM Posted: January 30, 2008 at 06:48 PM (#2679929)
Time to speculate on Santana's upcoming contract.

I thought I'd compare him to a pretty good pitcher involves in a superstar for prospect deal a decade ago, who happens to be his new teammate.

From The Book Blog, we are looking at about 5 million dollars per win over replacement as the going rate. If I back a decade of 8% inflation out, that would mean in 1998 a win cost 2.13 million. The median team payroll in 1998 was about 40 million, last year it was about 84 and 90 might be a good estimate for 2008, so the numbers seem reasonable.

The Red Sox signed Pedro to a 7 year, 90 million deal. Assuming 8% yearly inflation and aging of -0.5 wins per year (none for the 1st 2 years, because he's only 26) that means he was valued at 5.9 wins over replacement.

Put a 26 year old Pedro as a free agent today, the formula says he'd be worth 215 million over 7 years. If you assume he's already signed for the first year at 13 million, then its 198/7 for the total deal.

These numbers are staggering, but not out of line. Who would you rather have, Pedro 98-04 or A-Rod from 2008 to past the end of the Mayan calendar?

Santana will be 29, so for his contract I knock off the 0.5 for aging every year. He's also not quite as good. Nate Silver puts him around 5.6 wins over replacement at a 2.94 ERA. ZIPs has his ERA at 3.04. I'm sure CHONE will be in the same ballpark.

At 5.6 WOR and these assumptions, Santana is worth 165 million over 7 years, including 13m for 2008. Send him 10 years back in time, the same year Pedro gets his deal Johan would sign for 7 years, 76 million. Can't wait to see what he actually gets.
   25. Run Joe Run Posted: January 30, 2008 at 06:56 PM (#2679934)
My issue with the deal isn't the prospects but trading Santana in the first place. If the Twins weren't going to take a shot at the AL Central this year, when do they think they can win? I would have gone for broke this year. Try to add salary this year with the promise to cut it in 2009.

Bad move
   26. Honkie Kong Posted: January 30, 2008 at 06:58 PM (#2679938)
Esp when the Twins are opening a new PUBLIC sponsored ballpark. But they did offer Santana a decent extension. So you hope this is a baseball-related deal.

Guess at Santana contract : 6/125 with a 7th year option
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 30, 2008 at 07:07 PM (#2679950)
If the Twins weren't going to take a shot at the AL Central this year, when do they think they can win? I would have gone for broke this year.

When Detroit's key hitters are 2-years older, they have revenue from the new park, and Cleveland has hopefully lost CC to FA.
   28. Bad Doctor Posted: January 30, 2008 at 07:14 PM (#2679962)
Did the Phillies have the prospects to get in on this?

You know how the one caveat Mets fans have is how barren this trade leaves their farm system? Well, come Groundhog Day 2008 (after this deal gets consummated), the Mets' system still probably will rank ahead of the Phillies'.

Though I guess we can't rule out the fact that the Twins' brass would be obsessed with Greg Golson.
   29. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 30, 2008 at 07:18 PM (#2679968)
You know how the one caveat Mets fans have is how barren this trade leaves their farm system? Well, come Groundhog Day 2008 (after this deal gets consummated), the Mets' system still probably will rank ahead of the Phillies'.

Ouch!
   30. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 30, 2008 at 07:30 PM (#2679985)
Atlanta could have easily matched the package sent, but couldn't pay $150 million per year for payroll. I'm still not sure this makes NY the favorite for the division/NL rather than simply putting them back in the hunt.
   31. xeifrank Posted: January 30, 2008 at 10:10 PM (#2680186)
Keep in mind that a look at 2007 Park Factors show that Shea Stadium actually causes left handed pitchers to give up more home runs while the Metrodome causes left handed pitchers to give up less home runs. The opposite is the case for right handed pitchers, and a majority of pitchers are right handed, that's why on the "overall" park factors it looks like a good move (park wise) for Johan, but in reality it will hurt his home run numbers a little bit.

<a href="http://firstinning.com/pf/?type=lhp&lg=NL&seas>Park Factors link</a>


vr, Xei
   32. James Darnell's #1 Fan Posted: January 30, 2008 at 10:38 PM (#2680242)
Wow...

Damn...
   33. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 30, 2008 at 11:01 PM (#2680271)
Atlanta could have easily matched the package sent, but couldn't pay $150 million per year for payroll. I'm still not sure this makes NY the favorite for the division/NL rather than simply putting them back in the hunt.


Come on. The Mets weren't ever out of the hunt. I thought the Braves were the slight favorites in the NL East before this trade (40% percent chance of winning) with the Phils and Mets at 30% but the Mets are clear favorites now IMO. Heck, if Pedro can make 25 starts, I think the Mets have a good shot at winning 100 games.
   34. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 30, 2008 at 11:10 PM (#2680282)
Heck, if Pedro can make 25 starts, I think the Mets have a good shot at winning 100 games.

What do you mean by a good shot? 20%?
   35. 1k5v3L Posted: January 30, 2008 at 11:12 PM (#2680284)
100 games? Well, the Mets will play 38 games against two pretty pathetic teams (Nats and Marlins) so they've got that advantage. When your division has 2 patsies, it's easy to be optimistic.
   36. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 30, 2008 at 11:22 PM (#2680295)
What do you mean by a good shot? 20%?

Around there. Remember, this is a team that has averaged 92.5 wins the last two seasons without an ace pitcher. Santana is that pitcher and it is possible that Pedro can be one as well. For example, ZIPS has Pedro posting a 3.24 ERA next season. Perez/Maine/Duque is a quality backend and the bullpen should be better with Sanchez coming back and Santana lightening the load.
   37. BTF's left-wing cheering section (formerly_dp) Posted: January 31, 2008 at 12:03 AM (#2680318)
I think the Nats will be decent this year. Sure they still can't pitch, and their fielding might suck badly, but with an OF mix of Kearns, Milledge, Dukes and Pena, then Young and Zimmerman at the corners, they should be able to score some runs. You add Estrada and LoDuca as an upgrade over Schneider, and they could be in some nice slugfests. Of course, when Washington comes to town Reyes will rack up the steals now, but maybe that was part of Omar's plan all along, at Rickey's urging...
   38. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 31, 2008 at 12:15 AM (#2680326)
Come on. The Mets weren't ever out of the hunt. I thought the Braves were the slight favorites in the NL East before this trade (40% percent chance of winning) with the Phils and Mets at 30% but the Mets are clear favorites now IMO.

I don't see it. Johan/Pedro isn't a lock to be better than Smoltz/Hudson, I don't see a massive gulf between Perez/Maine/Hernandez and Glavine/James/Jurrjens. I don't see a huge gap in the bullpens, and Atlanta still has a better offense.
   39. Cowboy Popup Posted: January 31, 2008 at 12:20 AM (#2680329)
If Church is the starting RFer and Endy is the 4th OFer, who is the Mets fifth OFer? I only ask because that fellow will probably get some not insignificant playing time.
   40. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: January 31, 2008 at 12:23 AM (#2680332)
Angel Pagan
   41. Ennder Posted: January 31, 2008 at 12:24 AM (#2680333)
Santana's peripherals are showing a few cracks so I like the projection for him. I don't think he'll be a ton better than last year even with the move.
   42. Sam M. Posted: January 31, 2008 at 12:41 AM (#2680340)
I don't see a massive gulf between Perez/Maine/Hernandez and Glavine/James/Jurrjens.

You don't, huh? Every one of those Mets' pitchers was better than every one of those Braves' pitchers in 2007. There's certainly no reason to think that Tom Glavine is going to get any better now that he's turned 83 (ok, ok -- 42). Now that Perez/Maine/El Duque have been pushed back to 3/4/5 in the Mets' rotation, they have a big advantage over the Braves.

That said, I don't think the Mets are such "clear favorites" as some of the others around here do. I think the top end of the Braves' rotation is outstanding, and their line-up is pretty darned good (black hole in CF notwithstanding -- but hey, the Mets have one of those at C, too). I think the Mets slide to the top of the charts, but it's by no means a big advantage. Alou is still a half-season on the DL waiting to happen, Delgado is more likely to continue his decline than arrest it, and while Castillo is fine, he's not exactly going to match up with Mr. Utley, either. I see a dogfight, not a runaway.
   43. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 31, 2008 at 12:48 AM (#2680342)
I don't see a massive gulf between Perez/Maine/Hernandez and Glavine/James/Jurrjens. I don't see a huge gap in the bullpens, and Atlanta still has a better offense.

I beg to differ.

James gave up 32 HR in 161.1 IP and has a slight tear in his rotator cuff. He gave up 17 homers in his last 57.2 IP. That's incredibly bad. He also taxes a pen with his 5 IP starts.

Jurrjens is a nice prospect with good but not overwhelming minor league numbers. Expecting much from him in his first season is unrealistic.

Glavine is a question mark to me. He was horrid done the stretch and might be done. His k/9 really dropped last season. He could bounce back because he is smart and a HOFer. But even if he does, I think 100 ERA+ is his upside at this point.

I like Maine, Perez, and Duque significantly more than I do any Brave starter other than Smoltz or Hudson.
   44. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2008 at 01:38 AM (#2680371)
What do you mean by a good shot? 20%?

Around there. Remember, this is a team that has averaged 92.5 wins the last two seasons without an ace pitcher.


That's a very optimistic way of presenting things. They were a 91 Pythag win team in 2006 that won 97, and a 86 Pythag win team that won 88 in 2007.

They're are probably about a true-talent 90-92 win team with Johan. 1 SD is what, 6-7 wins? I'd say they're more like a 10% change of winning 100. Maybe less given the durability issues w/Pedro and El Duque.

That said, I think they're clearly the best team in the NL, and I'd say they are 2:1 favorites over both Atlanta and Philly to win the division (50%:25%:25%) and about 80% to make the playoffs.
   45. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 31, 2008 at 01:47 AM (#2680380)
They were a 91 Pythag win team in 2006 that won 97, and a 86 Pythag win team that won 88 in 2007.

In 2006, the Mets spent much of September giving starts to an injured Pedro and a mixed-up Perez. Those guys pitched pretty badly in a couple games and that really hurt their pythag.
   46. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2008 at 01:58 AM (#2680388)
In 2006, the Mets spent much of September giving starts to an injured Pedro and a mixed-up Perez. Those guys pitched pretty badly in a couple games and that really hurt their pythag.

In any case, they are building off a 86 pythag team. I don't think they've added enough talent to expect more than low-to-mid 90's wins. Still, the clear NL favorite.
   47. The Answer to the TWolves (GMoney) Posted: January 31, 2008 at 02:04 AM (#2680391)
How about the Twins get in on Bedard now and offer some of the Mets prospects plus a couple of their own and see if the Oriole's won't bite. Not sure what kind of deal Bedard would be looking for but he's 2 seasons out from free agency so he could be signed long term to a deal less than what Johan wants I'd guess.
   48. Wes Parkers Mood (Mike Green) Posted: January 31, 2008 at 02:06 AM (#2680392)
I'll take the under on Santana's hit rate, and the ERA. Shea does squelch singles. Santana has a pretty good left side of the infield, and he has moved to the weaker league.

Santana did fade last year, which is an unusual pattern for him. As my grandmother used to say, if you have your health you can do anything...
   49. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 31, 2008 at 02:08 AM (#2680394)
In any case, they are building off a 86 pythag team. I don't think they've added enough talent to expect more than low-to-mid 90's wins. Still, the clear NL favorite.

Why should you discount 2006 entirely when projecting 2008? Most projection systems don't do that with players. Why should team performance be any different?
   50. Darren Posted: January 31, 2008 at 02:12 AM (#2680396)
A lot of people are saying what a weak package of players this is for Santana. I have to disagree - some of the packages that were thrown around for the Santana trade didn't happen simply because they were unrealistic. A player's salary is a big function of their value and while Santana is one of the best pitchers around, the Mets don't get a super tremendous awesomely outrageous deal when they sign Santana's paychecks as the Twins did while paying Santana $28 million for over $100 million worth of performance. There was no mythical Lowrie/Masterson/Lester/Ellsbury/Anderson/Doerr/Plantier/Pesky/Fenway/50% of Shell Oil/Jesus package out there in exchange for a single year of Santana and the rights to negotiate a market contract with Santana.


Dan, I think this criticism misses the mark. You seem to be implying that critics of the Twins are not taking into account the other offers out there for Santana, when in fact the other offers are the reason the deal is being criticized. Four B range prospects is a reasonable return but it doesn't compare well to the deals headlined by Ellsbury and Hughes.
   51. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2008 at 02:15 AM (#2680400)
Why should you discount 2006 entirely when projecting 2008? Most projection systems don't do that with players. Why should team performance be any different?

b/c it's a very different roster.
   52. Runscreated Posted: January 31, 2008 at 02:55 AM (#2680431)
Santana did fade last year, which is an unusual pattern for him. As my grandmother used to say, if you have your health you can do anything..
.

Is there any truth to Santana suffering from some shoulder tendonitis?
   53. Banta Posted: January 31, 2008 at 02:58 AM (#2680432)
Keep in mind that a look at 2007 Park Factors show that Shea Stadium actually causes left handed pitchers to give up more home runs while the Metrodome causes left handed pitchers to give up less home runs.

That could be partially a function of the pitchers on the staff. Ollie gives up a lot of homers, Glavine gave up his share, the Show was a disaster at home, I bet he gave up a few.

Santana will beat that projection.
   54. Banta Posted: January 31, 2008 at 03:00 AM (#2680433)
And additionally, if Pedro returns to form, I'd have to think the Mets wouldn't only be the best team in the NL but additionally, with a top two of Santana and Pedro, the WS favorite.
   55. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 31, 2008 at 03:12 AM (#2680436)
And additionally, if Pedro returns to form, I'd have to think the Mets wouldn't only be the best team in the NL but

...the best team of all time!
   56. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2008 at 03:16 AM (#2680438)
And additionally, if Pedro returns to form, I'd have to think the Mets wouldn't only be the best team in the NL but additionally, with a top two of Santana and Pedro, the WS favorite.

No way they are favored over the Red Sox. If they actually reached the WS, they would likely to be underdogs to any of the AL big 5, not huge, but underdogs.

However, they do have an easier path to the WS than any of the AL teams.
   57. Darren Posted: January 31, 2008 at 03:16 AM (#2680439)
Yeah, "returns to form" is a bit vague for Pedro. If you mean go back to how good he was in 03 and earlier, then they'd be sick. If he can put up somewhere around 200 IP with an 04-05 level, they'll be damn good.
   58. spycake Posted: January 31, 2008 at 03:27 AM (#2680447)
How about the Twins get in on Bedard now

I second this! C'mon Angelos, make it happen!
   59. xeifrank Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:06 AM (#2680465)
53. But it takes into consideration both home and road starts for Mets and opposing pitchers.
vr, Xei
   60. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 31, 2008 at 02:48 PM (#2680643)
You don't, huh? Every one of those Mets' pitchers was better than every one of those Braves' pitchers in 2007. There's certainly no reason to think that Tom Glavine is going to get any better now that he's turned 83 (ok, ok -- 42). Now that Perez/Maine/El Duque have been pushed back to 3/4/5 in the Mets' rotation, they have a big advantage over the Braves.

I didn't say there was an advantage. I said there wasn't a huge gulf, and I don't think it's more significant than the Braves' advantages offensively, which I think are being forgotten in the "OMGZ WE GOTS JOHANNE SANTNANA WERE THE BEST TEAM EVAHHH!@@@!" hype. There's only two slots on the diamond where I'd give NY the offensive advantage (SS and CF). The Braves clearly win 1B, 2B, C and LF unless Alou magically fails to get hurt this year. 3B, despite the silliness of last year's post season awards, is basically a push. If there's any advantage there, it's actually in the Braves' favor. Smoltz/Hudson nicely balances Santana/Martinez unless you foolishly think Pedro is going to return to his pre-2003 performance and the bullpens are basically even stevens. Yes, I think the Mets' back end is a little tighter than the Braves going in but Ollie Perez isn't exactly known for his season-to-season continunity and I'm not sure John Maine is better than Jair Jurrjens all told. In 2008, maybe. Which leaves the dueling grandpas of Glavine and Hernandez, and honestly, I don't see a major advantage for either team there.

So, IMHO the Mets are now pretty much dead even with the Braves and Phils (though I haven't really looked hard at the Phils pitching recently.) Santana improves them a lot, but they needed a lot of improvement.
   61. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 31, 2008 at 11:01 PM (#2681160)
Sam H, I'd take you opinion more seriously if I didn;t you remember you saying last April that Mark Redman was going to pitch as well for the Braves as Oliver Perez would for the Mets. This came aftter Perez had dominated the Braves in two starts and Redman's ERA was around 10.
   62. JPWF13 Posted: January 31, 2008 at 11:32 PM (#2681211)
Hutcheson quotes from April 2007:

The Braves' rotation is better than the Mets' rotation.


2007 Atl ERA+ 104
Mets: 100

Sam wins, but not by much...

I wouldn't take Maine or Perez over Chuck James and I'd be hard pressed to exchange James for Pelfrey even with his upside.


Ooh, Sam's right imho on Pelfrey, but 1/3 is a loss.

What COTC said, Sam. There are two lists below. The first is Oliver Perez' ERA+ since 2002. The second is Mark Redman's ERA+ over the same time period. Are you _sure_ you want to continue down this path?


I guess that's an argument that Redmna => Perez, and if so- wrong

Agreed. Suffice it to say, when he returns from the DL Lance Cormier will out pitch him.


oops

If Hampton hadn't popped a ligament in his elbow as he rehabbed his pulled oblique he would have easily bested Perez, Maine or Pelfrey. He would have bettered Hernandez too. That he popped a ligament while rehabbing doesn't change that.

Hampton's ERA+ last two full seasons: 112, 101, ERA in 69ip before surgery: 121

Perez 2007: 120 (easily best? no)
Maine: 109 (I guess so)
Dookie: 115 (easily? no)
Pelfrey? and we have a winner!!!


I guess Sam's predictions are like everyone else's
1/3 right
1/3 wrong
1/3 too close to call
   63. BeanoCook Posted: January 31, 2008 at 11:48 PM (#2681233)
My issue with the deal isn't the prospects but trading Santana in the first place. If the Twins weren't going to take a shot at the AL Central this year, when do they think they can win? I would have gone for broke this year. Try to add salary this year with the promise to cut it in 2009.


I agree with this. With the return of Lirano, the Twins would have featured a team with the best front line talent in nearly all of baseball. At the very least, play until June, then work a deal.

People pretend there was some magical deadline to deal Santana again. BS. Everything changes, everything can change.
   64. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 01, 2008 at 12:04 AM (#2681254)
I agree with this. With the return of Lirano, the Twins would have featured a team with the best front line talent in nearly all of baseball. At the very least, play until June, then work a deal.

Santana said he wasn't going to allow a trade during the season. In a contract year, some guys don't want the headache of being in trade rumors.
   65. BeanoCook Posted: February 01, 2008 at 12:09 AM (#2681258)
Santana said he wasn't going to allow a trade during the season. In a contract year, some guys don't want the headache of being in trade rumors.


Yea, I am aware of that.

My point was, so what. He only said that.
   66. BeanoCook Posted: February 01, 2008 at 12:10 AM (#2681260)
Santana's motivation for this "deadline" was so he could sing on a dotted line before blowing out his arm. Not so he could play the season "in peace".

He would have taken what was given to him, had he been traded in June. Trust me.
   67. BeanoCook Posted: February 01, 2008 at 12:11 AM (#2681261)
"Sign"

Why are we not allowed to edit on "Transaction Oracle"?
   68. Sam M. Posted: February 01, 2008 at 12:17 AM (#2681265)
He would have taken what was given to him, had he been traded in June. Trust me.

Three things. First, the reports I saw said Gardenhire felt the Hunter situation last year was a major distraction and he didn't want a similar situation hovering around his clubhouse with Santana all year -- a major player on his way out the door. He wanted it done. Second, why should the Twins take the chance that Santana might not have meant what he said, and they'd be left holding the bag? They know the guy a lot better than any of us do, after all. And third, they may have had a different evaluation of their likelihood of being competitive than you do. If they think it was a longshot at best, they might have decided to save $13M and invest it in those extensions for Morneau and Cuddyer.
   69. The Answer to the TWolves (GMoney) Posted: February 01, 2008 at 04:36 AM (#2681392)
Santana's motivation for this "deadline" was so he could sing on a dotted line before blowing out his arm. Not so he could play the season "in peace".

He would have taken what was given to him, had he been traded in June. Trust me.


Maybe this is the motvaion for getting the deal done now for the Twins too. If Bill Smith called Johan on it and said we don't have an acceptable deal an lets play til June or July and see where we are at. So if Johan comes down with a sore arm sometime before than the Twins would probably have gotten very little for him (guess the fallback was always 2 draft picks). Or if Santanna gets hurt the Twins would likely not offer him arbitration and he would sign with the highest bidder with no draft pick compensation.

Smith shouldn't be criticized for making the deal the only question is whether he got the optimum return giving the circumstances and I'd guess the only people who know that are Bill Smith, Theo Epstein, Brian Cashman and Omar Minaya.
   70. Scott Fischthal Posted: February 01, 2008 at 05:32 AM (#2681410)
One comment -- I think everyone's selling Maine awfully short. His peripherals last year were great; everybody's remembering that bad second half (5.53 ERA), but the peripherals were solid (87 K in 81 IP with a decent walk rate). Really, the big differences between his first half (2.71 ERA in 109 IP) and second half were:

1. Home run rate went up (10 HR in 109 IP to 13 in 81)
2. BABIP went from .255 to .321. The Mets defense isn't that bad and, with his peripherals being what they were, I think he was just unlucky. Or maybe Randolph worked him a bit too hard; here's a guy who's been pitching 150 innings a year for the last five years, and suddenly he throws 109 in 3 months.

He'll almost certainly be better than anyone the Braves have other than Smoltz and Hudson, and there's a decent chance he'll be better than at least one of Smoltz and Hudson, too. After all, in the first half last year he was better than both of them.
   71. Mike A Posted: February 01, 2008 at 06:25 AM (#2681423)
Perhaps the .255 BABIP was the reason Maine was 'better than' Smoltz and Hudson in the 1st half. Maine was lucky in the 1st half, unlucky in the 2nd.

Smoltz posted a 3.10 FIP, Hudson 3.38, Maine 4.16 in 2007. Maine is younger and more likely to improve, but I'd be a bit surprised if he passed Smoltz and Hudson (assuming health).

Should be a fun race this year.
   72. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: February 01, 2008 at 07:23 AM (#2681431)
Santana will be 29, so for his contract I knock off the 0.5 for aging every year. He's also not quite as good. Nate Silver puts him around 5.6 wins over replacement at a 2.94 ERA. ZIPs has his ERA at 3.04. I'm sure CHONE will be in the same ballpark.

At 5.6 WOR and these assumptions, Santana is worth 165 million over 7 years, including 13m for 2008. Send him 10 years back in time, the same year Pedro gets his deal Johan would sign for 7 years, 76 million. Can't wait to see what he actually gets.


Solid post, AROM. Two questions, if I may:

1. Is that 0.5 decline per year based on similar ptichers, or is it a guesstimate? (It feels about right, btw...)

2. The chance of real collapse, or a lost season over a seven year contract followed by reduced performance is significant--any ideas on how likely that would be, or how to factor that in? Or is that part of your slow decline scenario...?
   73. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 01, 2008 at 07:27 AM (#2681432)
He'll almost certainly be better than anyone the Braves have other than Smoltz and Hudson, and there's a decent chance he'll be better than at least one of Smoltz and Hudson, too. After all, in the first half last year he was better than both of them.

I don't agree with that. Smoltz is just an amazing pitcher. It's amazing how good his stuff still is. If he's healthy, he'll be excellent.

I could Hudson slipping a little bit though. He gave up a flukishly low number of homers last year.
   74. ValueArb Posted: February 01, 2008 at 07:29 AM (#2681433)
Sam H, I'd take you opinion more seriously if I didn;t you remember you saying last April that Mark Redman was going to pitch as well for the Braves as Oliver Perez would for the Mets. This came aftter Perez had dominated the Braves in two starts and Redman's ERA was around 10.


I guess Sam isn't good enough to predict Perez would have a career low BABIP in 2007, before he reverts to a craptacular disaster of a fifth starter in 2008...
   75. billyshears Posted: February 01, 2008 at 07:55 AM (#2681437)
I guess Sam isn't good enough to predict Perez would have a career low BABIP in 2007, before he reverts to a craptacular disaster of a fifth starter in 2008...


Maybe he just isn't good enough to know how bad Mark Redman is.
   76. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 01, 2008 at 08:16 AM (#2681443)
Since we are on the topic of Ollie, what is his future with the Mets? Let's assume that he a 2008 season that is similar to his 2007 season. Should the Mets try to re-sign him? Boras is going to want 15+ million a year for 5 or 6 seasons and he'll get it if Ollie's coming off 2 good years. Teams are going to gamble on his upside and the fact that he's still young. Do the Mets really want to tie up 35-40 million dollars on two pitchers, assuming Santana is signed to an extension? That's a lot of money. I am not so sure the Mets wouldn't be better off just collecting draft picks and spending that money elsewhere. (Perez would likely be a Type A free agent with a good 2008 season).
   77. rfloh Posted: February 01, 2008 at 08:30 AM (#2681444)
I guess Sam isn't good enough to predict Perez would have a career low BABIP in 2007, before he reverts to a craptacular disaster of a fifth starter in 2008.


From Fangraphs,

Ollie's MLB BABIP year by year from 2003: 266, 331, 282, 290, 336, 287.

Career 299.

So, which of those years are the outliers, 2004, 2005 and 2007, or 2004 and 2006?
   78. rfloh Posted: February 01, 2008 at 08:32 AM (#2681445)
Ollie's MLB BABIP year by year from 2003: 266, 331, 282, 290, 336, 287.

Career 299.

So, which of those years are the outliers, 2004, 2005 and 2007, or 2004 and 2006?


UGH.

That's from 2002.

So, which of those years are the outliers, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 or 2003 and 2006?
   79. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: February 01, 2008 at 03:07 PM (#2681499)
Since we are on the topic of Ollie, what is his future with the Mets? Let's assume that he a 2008 season that is similar to his 2007 season. Should the Mets try to re-sign him? Boras is going to want 15+ million a year for 5 or 6 seasons and he'll get it if Ollie's coming off 2 good years. Teams are going to gamble on his upside and the fact that he's still young. Do the Mets really want to tie up 35-40 million dollars on two pitchers, assuming Santana is signed to an extension? That's a lot of money. I am not so sure the Mets wouldn't be better off just collecting draft picks and spending that money elsewhere. (Perez would likely be a Type A free agent with a good 2008 season).


Good question, and damned if I know how to evaluate Ollie. His career has been so up and down that he's exactly the kind of player I'd want to see pitch through 2008 before offering him any kind of guaranteed, long term deal.
   80. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 01, 2008 at 07:47 PM (#2681735)
I am just bumping this up to see what you guys think.
   81. Oriole Tragic is totally awesome in the postseason Posted: February 01, 2008 at 07:49 PM (#2681737)
I miss the Milledge career projection.
   82. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 01, 2008 at 07:51 PM (#2681738)
Maybe he just isn't good enough to know how bad Mark Redman is.

No, I just didn't expect Perez to do that well. An no, I didn't expect Redman to suck as bad as he did in Atlanta. I think both of those were perfectly reasonable assumptions at the time. I _still_ don't expect Perez to repeat his 2007. John Maine is a much safer bet this year than he was last year.

I don't expect Santana to outpitch John Smoltz by any great margin. I don't expect Pedro to significantly better Tim Hudson. I don't expect Orlando Hernandez to beat Tom Glavine by much of a margin. I do expect Maine to be better than James or Jurrjens barring something unusual. I don't know what to expect from Perez but I don't expect much more than James at this point.

The pens are pretty much even. Atlanta has a better offense.
   83. Oriole Tragic is totally awesome in the postseason Posted: February 01, 2008 at 07:52 PM (#2681739)
EDIT: The Milledge career guarantee. He's totally gonna hit those numbers. No matter what and stuff.

[I forgot those numbers were generated "in-house," so to speak.]
   84. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 01, 2008 at 08:31 PM (#2681767)
If I were a Braves fan, I'd be worried about James. He gave up 17 homers in his last 60 innings and has a slight tear in rotator cuff.
   85. Conor Posted: February 01, 2008 at 08:43 PM (#2681780)
I don't expect Santana to outpitch John Smoltz by any great margin.



I don't know what defines a great margin, but in his 3 years back as a starter Smoltz has ERA+ of 137,127,138. Very consistent, and most impressively, very durable (over 200 IP all 3 years, and well over in 05 and 06.) Santana became a full time starter in 04, he has had ERA+ of 182, 155,161, and 130. Considering their ages, I would think Santana has a pretty decent shot of beating Smoltz to the tune of about 20-25 points of ERA+.

Of course, I don't know if thats a great margin. In 06, Santana had a 161 ERA+ in 233 IP. He allowed 72 earned runs, 79 overall. Take the 137 ERA+ Smoltz had last year, he would allow about 80 earned runs or so over the 233.7 IP. So yeah, thats about a difference of 10 runs, which I would guess most people would agree isn't a great margin.

So Sam, based on your statements, I take it you think the Mets have a better rotation than the Braves. I'm not 100% convinced the Braves have a better offense (The Mets did finish with an EQA 6 points better than the Braves last year.

What is the makeup of the Braves pen? Is Gonzalez expected to be 100% back for 08? He, Soriano, and Moylan is a good top of the pen, of course the Mets have a good front as well. Both teams will be counting on a guy returning from injury; I think if Sanchez is able to come back strong from the injury the Mets would have the edge in the pen, though I admit I don't have a deep knowledge of the back end guys the Braves are going to run out there so I could be wrong.

At the risk of making this post a little long, one thing I wanted to point out about the offenses. The Braves hit very well with RISP last year; they hit 339/435 as a team, with RISP they hit 379/468, with RISP and 2 outs they hit 368/447. The Mets hit 342/432 as a team (so they had the same OPS) with RISP they hit 362/438 and with RISP and 2 outs they hit 358/376. So the teams had the same overall OPS, but with RISP the Braves had an OPS 47 points higher, and RISP and 2 outs it was 81 points higher. Thats why I am not convinced the Braves have a better offense this year.
   86. JPWF13 Posted: February 01, 2008 at 08:57 PM (#2681790)
So, which of those years are the outliers, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 or 2003 and 2006?


Ollie Perez is himself a living breathing walking outlier

No 2008 ERA from 2.00 to 6.50 would surprise me much
BABIP? .250-.350
Walks? 3/9 to 9/9...

Being a Met fanboy I'm gonna say that whatever physical/injury/mechanical issues he had with the Pirates in 2005/06 are behind him, he'll get a little less inconsistent, but still sprinkle in a distater start every now and then, and comes up with a season between 2004 and 2007.


It's odd, Ollie has 800+ mlb ip under his belt, I had him in my NL only roto league back in 2004, and yet I still regard him almost like a prospect- plus he'll be 26 at the start of the season.

The guy I was reminded of when I first saw Ollie pitch was Ron Guidry - Guidry did not get his act together until his age 26 season. Unfortunately I don't think he's ever going to put up a Ron Guidry 1978 type season.
   87. David Wrightwing obstructionist Posted: February 02, 2008 at 06:01 PM (#2682268)
Wow, you guys are right on queue, Feb, pitchers and catchers soon to report and we are already debating who the favorite is with no real mention of the defending East <strike>chumps</strike> champs Phils.

Well this trade has already accomplished for me what I'm sure the Mets FO had in mind, I'm suddenly re-energized, let the season begin!
   88. Dan Broderick Posted: February 02, 2008 at 06:32 PM (#2682276)
Let's assume that he a 2008 season that is similar to his 2007 season. Should the Mets try to re-sign him?

I would say most definitely. JPWF13 makes the point that he is only 26 years old and that is important to remember, he's still learning how to pitch. Ollie strikes me as someone who will only get better as he learns how to pitch. I'm not saying he will turn into Randy Johnson, but he could be the type of pitcher that has his best seasons in his thirties. The Mets have plenty of cash to spend, no reason to let him walk for a pick.
   89. Honkie Kong Posted: February 02, 2008 at 07:23 PM (#2682298)
In response to Conor,

Rotation

Santana is going to outperform Smoltz.
Pedro might have better stats than Hudson, but the safe bet is that Hudson is going to pitch more innings than Pedro, which will equalize their value over the season
Maine/Perez should outperform Glavine/James, but not significantly.
Pelfrey/Sosa/Duque should be about even or slightly with Jurrjens/Bennett/Hampton/Reyes.
The key here is that while the Mets have a stronger rotation, they don't have much depth to cover for injuries. And only one of their rotation member is a workhorse. The Braves have strong top 2 and then lot of mediocrity. Which will hold them in good stead when injuries strike, and the depth helps close the difference created by Met's Santana addition

Bullpen
The Mets have Wagner/Heilman, who should be fine as long as Wagner can fight his age. Sanchez is a lottery ticket. Smith/Feliciano should be good as middle relief, and Sosa doubles up as long relief.
The Braves have Soriano/Moylan as 1-2, with Gonzalez coming back in June as the lottery ticket. Acosta/Ohman/Boyer/Yates should be fine in middle relief. Bennett or Boyer will be the long man.
Where the Braves gain a slight advantage is depth again. The Mets pen depth is a bit suspicious, while the Braves have a very good backup core at every position but closer ( till Gonzalez gets back ). Schreiber/Stockman/Ring/Boyer/Medlen/Resop/Smith will be available as backups and looking at the stats, look capable. Both teams are going to have to go to their bullpens a fair bit, so I am guessing depth is going to play a big part in deciding which bullpen wins.

Offence
Neither team has too much depth here. Braves have Lillibridge in the wings, who provides cover at SS and 2B. And toa certain extent in CF.
The Mets have Easley/Gotay to pick up the slack, and Endy in the OF.
Going by ZiPS, the Braves have a slight advantage in offence.


On the whole, it looks like a crapshoot to me. The Phillies will be in it too. Its going to be fairly exciting again in the NL East
   90. Conor Posted: February 02, 2008 at 08:30 PM (#2682327)
Gentleman Bastard-

Thanks for the info on the Braves. With football season about over I should probably really get into baseball again.

On the Mets pen, you forgot Schoenweiss, which is not a huge deal, but he's a good Loogy.

What do Braves fans think about Chipper for 08? He had his best OPS+ since like 99, and he played his most games in the last 4 years or so. I would guess a fair projection for him would be in the 150 OPS+ range or so, but if he plays 110 games or so instead of 135 like last year that will hurt them.

I think the Mets have a decent advantage, but I'm a Mets fan, so what do I know?

SG ran some projections on Diamond Mind after the trade (Replacementlevel.com) which has the Mets around 94 wins, Philly 84, and Atl 83. I dont think the difference is that large, but I think the Mets are probably 6 or so wins better right now.
   91. CrosbyBird Posted: February 02, 2008 at 11:31 PM (#2682399)
Pedro might have better stats than Hudson, but the safe bet is that Hudson is going to pitch more innings than Pedro, which will equalize their value over the season

The innings difference is grossly overstated. Pedro got hurt in late 2006 and didn't return until 2007. His arm is healthier now (corrected surgically) and better rested that it has been in years, and in his last two full seasons, he pitched 217 innings.

I think it's a safe bet that Hudson will pitch more innings than Pedro, but not a safe bet that Hudson will pitch a dramatically greater number of innings. There is practically no difference between 224 innings and 217 in a full season.

Compare Pedro 2004 to Hudson 2007. Those are practically identical in value as seasons. Pedro doesn't need his 2002-2003 levels to be better than Hudson; 2005 would be perfectly fine (and would put Pedro ahead of not only Hudson, but Smoltz as well). I think there's a fair chance that Pedro, with a fresh arm and a corrected underlying condition, outperforms 2005. If that happens and Santana has merely an average (for him) season, the Mets not only have an advantage, but an enormous advantage at the front of the rotation.

The key, of course, is injuries. If the Mets stay healthy, they are clearly better. But the Mets are less likely to stay healthy, and have larger dropoffs to the guys that would replace them.

3B, despite the silliness of last year's post season awards, is basically a push. If there's any advantage there, it's actually in the Braves' favor.

If you count playing time, defense, and baserunning at all, Wright was significantly better than Chipper in 2007.

I think you're pinning a lot on a shrinking offensive difference. Even with some regression, at this point in their careers, Wright is still the better defensive player. Wright is a much better baserunner. Also, Wright is a healthy 25 year old and Chipper is a fragile 36 year old.
   92. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 02, 2008 at 11:55 PM (#2682406)
I think there's a fair chance that Pedro, with a fresh arm and a corrected underlying condition, outperforms 2005. If that happens and Santana has merely an average (for him) season, the Mets not only have an advantage, but an enormous advantage at the front of the rotation.

Define fair chance. A repeat of 2005 from Pedro makes him a Cy Young favorite.

We really don't know what to expect from Pedro because we don't know how much his shoulder affected him in 2005-2006 and how "fixed" his shoulder is in 2008. It is possible that Pedro pitched as well as he did in 2005 with a balky shoulder that got progressively worse in 2006. Even if Pedro's shoulder is fixed, he is 3 years older than he was in 2005. That has to have an effect.


With all due respect to the projection systems out there, I don't think anyone can have a good idea about how Pedro will pitch in 2008. There are just too many factors. How will he pitch on normal rest? Will he pick up some velocity as more time passes from the time of his surgery? How much will age have an effect? Will he wear down?

The only thing that would surpise me is a season in which he makes a lot of starts and he pitchs badly because Pedro has never really been healthy and bad.
   93. Kyle S Posted: February 03, 2008 at 12:27 AM (#2682422)
Zips says 150 innings for Pedro. That sounds reasonable to me - he hasn't thrown more than that since 2005 and has really effed up his shoulder in the intervening two years. if i'm a mets fan, i take his ZiPS projection and don't think twice about it.
   94. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 03, 2008 at 12:45 AM (#2682440)
Zips says 150 innings for Pedro. That sounds reasonable to me - he hasn't thrown more than that since 2005 and has really effed up his shoulder in the intervening two years. if i'm a mets fan, i take his ZiPS projection and don't think twice about it.

I am not saying I disagree with you but let me play Devil's advocate. One could argue that the injuries that have limited Pedro's durability the last few seasons are due to his shoulder problems and that these problems have been corrected by surgery. Considering Pedro has not really had major health issues in his career other than his shoulder, he should be able to exceed that inning total.

Personally, I have no clue what to expect other than above average pitching when he's on the mound. How much above average, I don't know. Nor do I know how often.
   95. Ravecc Posted: February 03, 2008 at 01:23 AM (#2682460)
2008 Pecotas are out. Acoording to VORP, the Mets have a huge edge in pitching, and a slight edge in offense on the Braves. Santana leads all pitchers, Wright is second only to Pujols in offense.

The Mets bullpen actually project to have good variety and depth. They have Wagner, Heilman, Pedro2 on top, Smith and Schoe as oogies, Sosa in long relief. They signed/claimed Wise, Stokes, Lugo and have Sanchez, Padilla and Burgos coming back from injury.

Their weakness is in SP depth, especially since Willie does not like using his long guy to start. Pecota actually likes Pelfrey, but there’s no one else after him – the rest of the Zephyrs rotation consists of Bostick, Vargas, Devaney and Parnell – the ick squad. Oh, and Pecota comes up with a surprise name: Dylan Owen who pitched for the ‘clones in 07, projects just slightly better than Pelfrey. Hmm.
   96. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 03, 2008 at 01:34 AM (#2682470)
   97. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: February 03, 2008 at 03:32 AM (#2682541)
120 games from Chipper, with a line of .405/.550, projects to .378/.511 over 162 games, providing the missing 42 come from guys who hit .300/.400.

Jones is still a hell of a hitter.

Link to Owen's baseball cube page


Thanks for the link, Russlan. That's zero homers allow in 72 IP for Owen. None. Anyone know anything about this guy?
   98. Kyle S Posted: February 03, 2008 at 04:31 AM (#2682564)
That's the NY Penn League. He's still a ways away.
   99. Elvis Posted: February 03, 2008 at 04:44 AM (#2682572)
"The right-hander wrapped up his junior year as staff ace for the Francis Marion University Patriots with a 10-1 record, one save and a 1.14 ERA over 102 1/3 innings. His 121 strikeouts gave him a career total of 334, a Peach Belt Conference record.

The New York Mets saw enough of the 2007 NCAA Division II National Pitcher of the Year to select him in the 20th round of this year's draft. "

More on Dylan Owen
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071010&content_id=309820&vkey=news_milb&fext;=.jsp
   100. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: February 03, 2008 at 05:05 AM (#2682580)
Owen looks to be a keeper. I think he'll be as good as Brandon Webb
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1153 seconds
47 querie(s) executed