|
|
|
At his blog for ESPN.com, Buster Olney notes other baseball executives fully expect the Mets will make a push to sign RHP Livan Hernandez.
Hernandez was 11-11 with a 4.93 ERA in 204.1 innings pitched for the Diamondbacks last season.
 |
 |
 |
Follow me on
MetsBlog.com is owned and operated by Matthew Cerrone.
MetsBlog.com publishes both rumor and opinion, as well as accurately reported information from other sources. Information on MetsBlog.com may contain errors or inaccuracies - links to content and the quotation of material from other news sources are not the responsibility of
MetsBlog.com.
MetsBlog.com and Matthew Cerrone are not responsible for what is written by non-MetsBlog.com writers within the site's comment's section.
Can’t we just give Seaver another try?
If we are lucky, maybe we can pick up Bob Wickman too.
Just let the young guys pitch. If they stink, so be it. I’m not crazy about holding place with guys you know have a low ceiling.
But by the same token, Pelfrey probably won’t be able to go the 200 innings that Livan definitely will, and Humber definitely won’t. Also, bringing in Livan allows Willie to use Duque in the pen, which will also lighten the load on the middle/late inning guys.
I think this is the key. We have to have pitchers go deeper than 5 or 6 innings a game once in a while. I’m all about letting kids develop (though I must admit, I don’t see anything about Pelfrey that’s worth developing as a starter) but we cannot use the pen — any pen — the way we did last year.
It fits with Omar’s long range plan….It doesn’t make the Mets any younger or any better.
He’s not doing very well, is he?
You’re looking at it the wrong way. We can probably expect from Livan what we got from Glavine last year. He pitches deep into games usually and can help give the bullpen a rest, which was the biggest issue last year. This still leaves plenty of room for Pelfrey or Humber to take a spot in the rotation, especially with the general rule of giving Pedro and extra day here and there.
Despite Glavine’s fade at the end, he was better than Livan. His ERA was lower and he had 23 quality starts to Livan’s 19. Livan’s WHIP was awful — 1.60. vs.1.41 for Glavine. Livan’s had pretty bad numbers for 2 years straight.
I think Pelfrey or Humber have a good chance next year of matching or exceeding Livan’s recent performances.
This is exactly the type of move that will keep the Mets mired in mediocrity. It is not a prescription if you want to have a WS-caliber pitching staff.
If you’re going to settle for mediocrity , then give the kids a chance. At least they have upside. Livan will probably only get worse in the near future. Like 2008 onward.
Can we be certain of his age too?
I would be vehemently opposed to signing Livan
Further, Livan was a HR machine this year. He gave up 34 dingers. And it wasn’t park-related. He gave up more HRs on the road than at home.
I absolutely see your points here, VCarver. But if I were you, I’d get used to the idea. It makes too much sense on too many levels: he’s one of Omar’s guys from his days in Montreal, he’s related to El Duque, he’s durable (200 IP in each of the last 8 years), and he’ll come cheaper in both $ and years than Silva and other options.
This is not to say that I’d prefer Livian over the youngsters. But relying on the youngsters could result in problems we saw last year, including:
- Fatigue, especially from a significantly higher workload than this year. I wouldn’t expect Pelfrey, Humber, or Mulvey to be able to log 200 IP.
- Injury/demotion issues. When Pelfrey couldn’t put it together, he went back to NOLA. Who ended up getting starts in his place? Sosa, Lawrence, Vargas, Williams, and Park.
Assuming Livian stays healthy, you settle for consistent production from a league-average back of the rotation starter, rather than risk giving a significant amount of starts to a Brian Lawrence type, who’s likely to fill in for emergency starts if an when a younger pitcher gets tired, injured, or demoted.
In an ideal situation, I’d like to see the Mets commit to using one of the younger pitchers right out of Spring Training, and to make that commitment last throughout the season. But recent trends have suggested that they won’t do that – the young guy will be on notice for the entire season and will likely be yanked at the first sign of problems. If this is the policy, I’d be more comfortable with Livian, if only because I want to avoid the Brian Lawrences, Chan Ho Parks, and Jose Limas of the world.
he’s one of Omar’s guys from his days in Montreal, he’s related to El Duque,
That makes sense :?:
That’s nonsense to me and if that’s Omar’s criteria for putting together a team then he should be fired. Period.
He’s durable? Sure, pitching for bad teams that could afford to leave him in the rotation or in games. I don’t care about durability if the quality isn’t there.
Silva is at least much younger and a better pitcher than Livan. If you’re going to overpay, then at least overpay for the younger, better pitcher.
As for fatigue/replacement issues — there is enough depth in the minors to handle that with Pelfrey, Humber and Mulvey. Instead of signing dregs like Lawrence or Park, bring up another kid. Can they be any worse?
And I’m sorry, but settling for mediocrity at the start of the year is a loser mentality. There’s no way a Livan in his current state can help a team get to and win a World Series.
You only need to turn to the Brian Lawrences when you trade your Brian Bannisters away and are somehow reluctant to give the Humbers chances. There’s no need at all to fallback on the Lawrences or Parks. That’s really a fallacy.
You never settle for mediocrity if you have WS aspirations, especially when it will be costly and entail a multi-year contract. That’s not good, consistent performance. That’s poor, consistent performance.
You’re argument is that not giving the kids a chance is their policy so it’s acceptable to get Livan. Huh? That’s circular reasoning. That makes no sense. Or, it’s saying whatever they say is good is good. You’re just rubber stamping whatever the FO wants to do.
Not exactly, but I’m suggesting that – given the way that the FO works (and you have to admit that this is how the decision making has gone over the past two years) – the Lawrences, Parks, and Limas are getting called up before the Humbers and Pelfreys. I agree with you that it’s a problem with organizational philosophy. I’d honestly prefer to let the young guys battle it out, and potentially bail one another out, over either 1) signing a mediocre starter like Livian or Silva or 2) letting retread veterans like Lawrence, Park, Williams, and Lima get a significant portion of the starts.
But, given everything I’ve seen over the past two years – that’s not going to happen. No way, no how. I’m trying to address the situation from within a realistic framework, suggested by the decision-making history of the FO. And I don’t really think that they are trying to decide between 1) commitment to youngsters, or 2) commitment to mediocre FA starters. I think their approach – at least as regards someone like Livian – is more complex and involves 1) commitment to (ideally) durable back of the rotation starter, or 2) wary commitment to young starter with a host of veteran backup plans brought in on minor league contracts.
So, if the choice is between giving someone like Livian 32 starts in the season and splitting 32 starts 60/40 between a Pelfrey/Humber/Mulvey and a Lawrence/Park/Lima-type, I’ve got to go with Livian, if only because in the aggregate the results will be more predicable and better (and that may be only because the latter group will perform so horribly and not because the former will be worse than Livian).
I don’t think we disagree as much as you’re making out. I’m trying to think about these issues inside the realm of what is actually reasonable, given the recent history of decision making in the front office. Unless we change those folks, I’m not sure the approach is going to change all that much. So, when I say that it “makes sense,” I’m not saying that it makes sense in a fantasy world where young talent is trusted and groomed and the calls for overpaying players or trading away young stars for a quick fix are ignored. Instead, I’m saying that it makes sense in light of how the FO operates, what Omar’s MO has been over the past couple of years, and the current roster needs. Is it ideal? Absolutely not. Is it highly probable, given the way that the FO works? Definitely. Would I do things differently, were I in the driver’s seat? Almost assuredly, but I’m not.
And the point on Bannister is taken, but remember that Bannister himself was one of the youngsters who got “bailed out” in 2006 by folks like Lima because of Bannister’s difficulty with control. Do you really feel that the FO would have trusted Bannister in these situations (not should they have, but would they have?).
im not crazy about livan either but you know what if hes the #5 then its a great upgrade, if he does exactly what he did last year he’ll be better than our 5 spot last yr (lawrence, park, williams etc).
7TL, this is the problem I’ve having with your post — You’re justifying a potential FO move that on its face looks poor because it fits within an organizational philosophy that you yourself agree is flawed.
I just can’t think like that, and I don’t think most fans here do either. Obviously the ones who call for the Mets both signing A-Rod and going after elite pitching like Santana or Peavy think in terms of “their” vision of an optimal team. Not what’s practical within a flawed organizational strategy. (On A-Rod, I actually agree with an organizational strategy of staying within luxury tax thresholds, so no contradiction from me here.)
I can’t accept a flawed solution just because it fits within an organizational philosophy that the organization is not forced to hold. Sometimes a team has no choice to adopt less than ideal strategies. Because maybe they can’t afford to do otherwise. But the Mets are not forced to go with what is actually a more expensive option. They are choosing to do so freely.
What’s interesting is that the Yankees have been going in a totally opposite direction the last 2 years. They realize that the only long-term solution to pitching involves giving the kids in the minors chances instead of using bad veteran starters as emergency patches over and over again.
Does Boston sign and use the Brian Lawrences? Chan Ho Parks? Limas and Wiliamses? No. They don’t do it either despite the fact they have higher payrolls than the Mets too.
Why are the Mets doing it?
And I’d rather picket the stadium and start a petition to have the FO fired than just agree with flawed moves.
So, when I say that it “makes sense,” I’m not saying that it makes sense in a fantasy world where young talent is trusted and groomed and the calls for overpaying players or trading away young stars for a quick fix are ignored.
Only that world you describe is not fantasy. The Yankees and Boston are living in it now. (In regards to pitching.)
I’m saying that it makes sense in light of how the FO operates, what Omar’s MO has been over the past couple of years, and the current roster needs. Is it ideal? Absolutely not. Is it highly probable, given the way that the FO works? Definitely.
Yes, I now fully understand where you are coming from. And to take that stance — defending a move because it fits within the organizational philosophy as opposed to judging a move on its own merits — is what I can’t accept. I know that’s how you feel but I can’t understand why.
If it were a negligible part of the FO’s philosophy it’s not a big deal. But this philosophy of theirs impact their entire pitching staff into the future. It’s partly why they currently have zero home grown starters on their staff.
It’s also a more costly strategy.
but remember that Bannister himself was one of the youngsters who got “bailed out” in 2006 by folks like Lima because of Bannister’s difficulty with control.
Ok, up to that point I was taking you seriously. Thinking maybe you were just being pragmatic. But your inability to remember things how they really happened seems to display some sort of bias for the FO on your part. As if you had blinders on.
Bannister was not bailed out by Lima in 2006. He suffered a severe leg injury that put him out of commission for most of the rest of his season. Is your memory really that selective?
Vcarv, we’ve been polar opposites about Arod, but everything you say here I say AMEN to…..One thing to think about is getting young young guys who are already proven ie lincecum and kazmir…..yes im in love with them…..
The mere mention of Kazmir’s name makes me want to cry. If they had him this year I think they make the playoffs and would have had at least a good chance to advance.
It would take a package that I don’t think the Mets possess to get Kazmir in a trade.
The idea isn’t to replace Glavine with another old, mediocre pitcher.
The idea is to actually get younger and better.
This doesn’t do it.
And I don’t want Pelfrey or Humber anywhere near the rotation. The bullpen maybe, but neither one of them is fit to be a starting pitcher.
There’s a reason nobody wants Pelfrey or Humber in any trade buzz. Why do so many of us value these two so highly?
Pelfrey and Humber at least have upside. You can’t tell with any certainty that neither will become at least a sold #3-4 in the near future. I think one of them does. I actually have more faith in Humber than Pelfrey.
I think Met fans have to come to grips with the fact that Pelfrey and Humber just aren’t that good. If the Mets really want to fix their organization, they should start by firing the entire scouting development department. It’s their fault that the Mets have no chips to trade for a front line starter like Santana.
2008 is going to be a very long year.
Pelfrey and Humber may never pan out. I have no problem accepting that.
What I can’t accept is not giving them the opportunity to see if they can succeed, specifically Humber. And instead using dregs like Lawrence, Park, Williams, and possibly Livan.
Oh Boy, The Brothers Hernandez?
Yes, but can they draw? (sorry for the obscure reference)
Look Livan is not perfect but his ability to eat innings and cost us nothing to get him other than money should not be overlooked. Acquiring him provides the flexibility to do other trades for bigger guys actually. Not that Livan is better or as good as OPerez or JMaine, but we could consider dealing one of them in a package if we got Livan in the fold already.
Only if that package is for Johan. Otherwise what’s the point?
That is what I was talking about. Dealing say a Maine and Milledge for Santana or Peavey type. Its actually trading up Maine for them and adding a more respectable back end of the rotation innings eating guy like Livan allows it to happen.
Agreed, if it means that Humber and/or Pelfrey is/are dealt for a legit #1 it makes sense….
#1 ???
#2 Pedro
#3 Maine
#4 Perez
#5 Livan
Livans brother can work long relief out of the pen….
Wow, we’re going to pay a #5 starter at least about $4-5 million (what Livan will probably get) … have El Duque in the pen as a long man for $6 million, have enough money to get a #1 starter this year or next, and still go after A-Rod?
You’re paying your #5 starter and long man roughly $11 million a year.
That’s Evil Empire II all the way. Ugly. Especially if they want to eventually dump and/or cover up their mistakes (Livan, Mota) like Cashman always does.
V-Carver,
Who cares about being termed “Evil Empire II”. Just frigging win.
For all the complaining the Red Sox do about the Yankees, they are certainly doing a fine job of modeling their operations after them – Their payroll has skyrocketed, and Theo gets bailed out from his bonehead moves……Varitek will continue to deteriorate, JD Drew will kill them despite him waking up in the playoffs, Gagne worked out real well………
I care. But that really isn’t the main point of my posts where I use that term.
The point is I seriously doubt the Wilpons will go down that road. So if that’s the case, then some of the moves suggested make no sense (like signing Livan for a #5 at $4-5 mill while putting El Duque at $6 mill into the pen as your long man).
As for the Red Sox, do you know the Mets’ Luxury Tax payroll is almost the same or not too much less than the Red Sox this year? So if you’re prepared to call the Red Sox the Evil Empire, then the Mets already fit that bill as well.
And no one is saying Theo hasn’t made mistakes. All GM’s make mistakes. The question is, which GMs make moves smart enough to mitigate their mistakes and help them win a WS title? Certainly not Omar this year. But I think you can say that is what happened with Theo. And you know why? They concentrated on pitching. They don’t just give lip service to this concept, they follow through on it.
Fair enough….I just thought you were getting caught up on the Evil Empire thing…..I don’t mind that as much…because teams that have money should spend it. The Sox are pretty much the team they couldn’t stand a few years back….and do you think they care now??? Nope…they’re winning.
The Sox spent about $80 million less than the Yankees this year. So how does that make them just like the Yankees?
I don’t get it.
Also, do you know that much like the Mets, the Red Sox rarely exceed the luxury tax threshold? Or if they do so it’s by just a tiny amount? They act more like the Mets than the Yankees. The only think they have in common with the Yankees of late is multiple WS titles.
They have nothing to be concerned about. If some want to view them as the new Yankees, they can’t control it. But fact is, so far, they haven’t spent like them.
Speaking of Oli’, do you guys expect to see the Mets lock him up soon>?
I hope so.
I agree — I don’t mind going after Livan if there are other upgrades planned.
They def. have to replace the 200 innings from glavine with someone.
I don’t like Livan, really, but if a guy like him could eat innings as a 4th or 5th guy, it would help the pen out a ton.
Plus, all it costs is cash, not players.
Really Omar, Livan Hernandez. Throw us a bone here.
Isn’t Silva better (and younger) than Livan? Why not go for him instead?
WHAT IS THE POINT OF EATING INNINGS WHEN YOU HAVE AN E.R.A. THAT IS CLOSE TO 5????
Thank you! 100% agree!
Livan Hernandez? Are you effin’ kidding me?! Someone better check to see if Omar has lost his damn mind.
If Omar signs Livan then he should be fired for incompetence. . Livan has been an awful pitcher the last 2 years and his trend is downward. At least start some of the kids who have upside. Livan has none and he may be older than his stated age.
And I can just see it. Livan continues to be a real sucky starter next year and somehow someone will blame it on Willie.
In Omar’s defense, Kenny Rogers is a similar pitcher who was able to revive his career after some down years. Sometimes you just have to roll the dice and hope it works out.
Haven’t the Mets rolled the dice often enough already with older players?
To be honest I have less qualms signing older pitchers than older position players — but that’s only if the pitchers don’t have a history of health issues and don’t have poor recent records.
Livan has pitched horribly the last 2 years. There’s nothing to suggest he can be one of the few that is able to adjust his pitching style and enjoy success into his late-thirties.
Besides, we know Rogers cheated with a foreign substance. If he cheated that way once, what else was he up to in the recent past?
I agree VCarver, if you’re going to “roll the dice” … roll the dice with the kids you have … not by signing a pitcher like Livan Hernandez.
Orlando Hernandez has been working out pretty well for them and he couldn’t even hold onto a starting job in AZ. Maybe they know something about how AZ handles veteran pitchers?
Anyway, I’m not implying that Livan is the answer, just that we need to give Omar some credit when it comes to reclamation projects.
There might be something to your theory if not for the fact Livan was horrible in ‘06 for the Nats at RFK stadium, a pitcher’s park, where his ERA was over 5.00.
If not for Lima, Park, Mota, Lawrence, Vargas, and Julio, I would trust Omar’s instincts when it comes to reclamation projects. I don’t think his track record there is so great.
LOL I LOVE IT!!!
NO Alex Rodriguez but lets sign Livan Hernandez WHO IS GARBAGE!!!!
Other reports out there today say the complete opposite about the Mets interest in Livan. Again, as with a lot of the rumors coming out right now, I think we need to see it to believe it.
With that said, his park adjusted ERA was virtually the same as Glavine’s and he’ll at least be guarnateed to give you 200 innings where, as we learned with Perez and Maine last year, the younger pitchers we have, not so much. Livan would not be my first choice as a rotation filler, but he’s certainly not the worst choice on a short-term deal.
Exactly. Wasn’t there a post in here just recently about how Omar is playing his cards close to his vest? Nobody knows anything and all the hystrionic posters should just step back from the ledge until there is an article/newsreport stating that Omar has definitively signed someone. Otherwise you’re just raising your blood pressure for nothing.
Crikey!
I think some keyboards are stuck on “caps lock.”
Everyone says Pelfrey and Humber’s stock is low. Well there is no other way to raise that stock then to let them play! Same thing with Milledge. These young guys will be studs in the future, and if not studs they will at least be pretty darn good! I personally enjoy watching homegrown talent, makes the game more enjoyable to me. Give our guys a shot and if it still doesnt pan out, well then its time to move on. I’m not a fan of Livan, Silva ok, but Livan….seriously?????
There’s some truth to this. By sending Pelfrey down to work on new pitches, his numbers are hurt, and his value goes down, but the Mets hope he can develop and ultimately be better in the long run. If they just let Pelfrey use his best stuff in the minors, he’d have a lot more value presumably.
The same thing happened with Heilman a few years ago when they tried to mess with his arm angle.
Livan = Glavine
I dont mind this as long as it is not a 4 yr deal. Ill give him a two yr deal max – plus he and duque will benefit from each other
2 yrs 16 mil is fine with me… wait for santana in July
This is a great move. Nothing makes next season more promising and exciting than Livan Hernandez. He’s going to wipe away our memories of the 2007 season for sure.
i’d prefer a 1 or 2 year contract for livan over a 4 year deal for silva.
post-season: 7-3 3.97era (1 WS MVP, 1 NLCS MVP)
Actually, I would be more willing to give the “Ted Lilly/Jeff Suppan” contract to Silva, Jennings or Loshe. All 3 are young enough and have good enough stuff to be this year’s Gil Meche.
I always would be willing to take a flier on Cliff Lee for the right price….
there are too many top-level pitcher available in free agency the next two year to tie up decent starters to 4 years deal, imo
If you have a guy pitching like a #2 or #3 out of your 5th slot for 5 years that’s a good deal no? You figure Pedro is a FA next year and who knows if he’s coming back or if we’ll want him back. Looking ahead to next year’s FA crop could burn us in the end. I heard this last year when we passed on guys like Lilly or Meche so we could sign Carlos Zambrano.
if silva is the mets #2 starter this team will be in a lot of trouble. i was actually in favor of lilly/meche last year. i think both have very good stuff. silva’s stuff is not as impressive. i do like that he has excellent control and that he pitches to contact though the twins defense tends to be slightly better than the mets. 4 years for him concerns me this year b/c it’s a must win year for the mets.
the pitching definately needs to be addressed. if they can’t make a trade then there is no choice, but to sign silva or livan. i’d prefer a short deal for the latter, but i’ll take the former over no changes.
i realize that you meant “like” a #2/3
Why would Silva ever be our 2? Maine was a great pitcher last year, Pedro????, Perez is solid. Silva would be the 4.
If Maine’s our #2, then we’re finishing 3rd place at best. Don’t let the Florida game at season’s end let you forget about his struggling 2nd half.
My take is that Omar probably loves Livan and the most predictable move of the winter would be Omar trying to sign him. I don’t know if Omar wants to sign Livan more to replace Glavine or if it’s more of a backup plan. If we had a solid rotation and he was the only alternative and was willing to sign a cheap one-year contract, I wouldn’t be opposed. But that is not the case.
bolstering the fix the bullpen idea, Rubin noted that the Mets actaully pitched about 5% MORE innings by the starters in 2007 vs. 2006 (IIRC, ~950 – 910).
He did say they were 7th in the league, so mid pack.
The killer was the stretch later in the year when the starters were dropping in the 4th inning every day that killed the pen.
Actually, that must mean that the starters were ptiching pretty deep earlier in the year, when the Pen was good.
Which caused the starters to wear out, and the pen to get more work, weraing them out!
It’s also how the Pen was used. Rolling the same guys out there every day, instead of being more economical and spreading it around. Mota was a big issue. When you go 5-6 games and he doesn’t see the light of day because they don’t trust him, means that everyone else in the pen has to step up. When you have a number of guys like that the problem becomes even worse. They need more depth. Plain and simple.
exactly, you cant have sele schoenweis and mota all in the doghouse at the same time. sele would go weeks without pitching, and willie clearly lost confidence in scho in the middle of the year. not every bullpen is stacked from top to bottom you usually have that one weak link you dont want to expose too much but i mean we essentially had 3 for most of the year until scho started improving in the 2nd half.
Man do many of you guys miss the point. It’s not like Livan is the answer to all problems but he is the answer to one. We need innings. You can’t just say let the young guys start. That kills the BP if they are not ready. You say you expect Pelfrey to have the same ERA as Livan, that’s debatable but he will have it for only 150 innings where Livan will have it for over 200. Those other 50 innings go onto the BP.
I could not imagine there would be any GM out there that would rather go with Pelfrey and Humber as the 4 and 5 as oppose to Silva and Livan.
Again, it’s also a moot point if Pelfrey and Humber are used to acquire a legit front-end starter. If that be the case, having a guy like Livan anchor the back-end of your rotation for two-years is not the horror-show some people are making it out to be.
Agreed, if nothing else it gives us at least a guaranteed average. We can not go into the season with Pedro (we all know the reasons there) Maine, Perez, Elduque (we know what we have there too) and Pelfrey (who I am not even sure will be decent at the 5 much less we know he won’t pitch anywhere near 200 innings.) We can not go in with 3 questions in our starting rotation.
If you sign Silva and Livan you do not have questions you have at least average for your 4 and 5, that’s much better than the rest of the teams.
VCarver, for some reason my long response to your long response won’t post above, so here it is:
VCarver, I admire your idealism here. At the same time, I’m trying to remain a realist in the Hot Stove Season (something that is hazardous to my heath – and possibly my memory, as you point out).
I guess I think in terms of incremental, but foundational shifts in thinking. I just can’t imagine the Mets’ FO waking up one morning and saying – “we’ve done it all wrong!” Particularly not after two consecutive competitive seasons after such a terrible half-decade before them. Boston and the Yankees have done a pretty solid job re-evaluating their thinking – but they were forced to for different reasons. Both were getting top-heavy in terms of talent (which the Mets are currently approaching). I also think they’ve succeeded in this shift because they actually have better young players in their farm system than we do. I’m not sure anyone in our system is as good as Ellsbury, Bucholz, Hughes and Chamberlain (and, certainly, no one is as close to making a serious impact as those guys were last year). And, though we traded away some important young players, I’m not sure we gave up anyone that good either (though I’d be willing to budge on Bell and maybe Bannister – though I’m skeptical that Bannister will repeat his 2007 performance in 2008).
Let’s say there are two extreme poles here. The first would say: sign Silva for 4-5 years and whatever he wants because he’s the best FA pitcher available – we’re the Mets and we deserve the best. The second would say, as you do, give Pelfrey, Humber, and Mulvey a chance to prove themselves. Certainly they can produce at a level near Silva’s. I think we’d both agree that the FO thinking is far closer to option 1 than to option 2.
Now, what I’m suggesting is that there won’t be a sudden shift to option 2. Rather, this can only reasonably happen incrementally. How? Possibly by signing a consistent, durable veteran to less money and a shorter contract and finding ways for the FO to begin to trust our young pitching. Livian may not be the only option here. I mentioned earlier in the week that I’d find signing a non-tendered Prior far more interesting – short commitment and potentially low risk/high reward type signing. If Prior fails, then one of the youngsters steps in. Otherwise, we’re not on the hook for a long time, our relatively green youngsters get more time to season at AAA, and we might catch lightening in a bottle with a completely recovered Prior.
Another point on which we may disagree is the long-term feasibility of our pitching prospects. While I’d like to think that Pelfrey, Humber, and Mulvey all have bright futures, I’m a little skeptical. At most, I’d say one turns out to be a middle of the rotation starter, another becomes a journeyman/back of the rotation type, and a third becomes a set-up guy. My totally unscientific guess is that this would be, respectively, Mulvey, Humber, and Pelfrey. I’m no scout, but having read the reports, looked at the numbers, and seen them (with the exception of Mulvey) pitch a bit, this is my impression. Of course, we’ll never know if we don’t give them the chance. And there are times when young guys get plenty of chances (like Heath Bell) and don’t impress until we’ve given up on them.
My bad on the Bannister thing – thanks for the correction. But, at some level, the point still stands because, when Bannister did get injured, who were the guys who took his place? Jose Lima and Dave Williams. Certainly not Humber and Pelfrey, though many on this blog (myself included, IIRC) wanted to see the young guys step in. This is in line with the concerns about what happens when workload and/or injury impact a young pitcher’s ability to log innings.
To me, one of the biggest dangers in the big picture of the rotation has to do with the running out of steam that our staff experienced this year. The young guys (Maine, Perez, etc.) were all getting tired at around 140-150 IP, which is really when they needed to turn it on to fight off the Phillies. If we add another young guy to the mix, and all our young arms are blown out by early September, we’re in deep trouble because then our only option would be the retreads – and those retreads might be pitching in some of the most important games of the season, as Lawrence did when he pitched against Washington on Sept 17.
Finally, I would like to make one last point on Livian. You’ve used terms like “mediocrity” and “loser mentality” to describe him and advocates for the Mets’ acquiring him. I think it’s worth noting that Livian made 33 starts as a #5 starter for a team that won 90 games (2 more than the Mets) and scored over half a run less per game. They also made the playoffs. I don’t dispute that Livian is, at best, an average workhorse. But I’d take issue with your statement that “There’s no way a Livan in his current state can help a team get to and win a World Series.” In 2007, he did help a team – and a much weaker offensive team, at that – get to the playoffs. He even put in a pretty impressive start in the NLDS, though he got roughed up by the hottest team on the planet in the NLCS. It certainly helped to have Brandon Wood leading that staff, but the rest of the rotation was pretty average. I think that speaks to the need not just to have “winners” or “exceptional players” in every roster spot, but to have balance on the team, to understand the roles that need to be filled, and to anticipate problems (such as starter workload, etc.) that might cause your team to fail down the stretch.
Great post! Are you the same 7 train local that’s been coming here for a few years? Is so, where’ve ya been? Haven’t seen too much of you until lately. And good to have you back.
If you’re a new “7″ (or realtively new) that’s great too. We need all the intelligent thinkers we can get around here.
7TL, I’m still not sure if you’re being pragmatic or simply supporting what the FO does.
Maybe it’s part both?
At any rate, I just can’t blindly support the policies of a front office when they don’t look very smart. Some of Omar’s moves looked illogical last winter to me and they don’t look one iota better a year later. Mota and not signing Bradford, for example.
Why can’t the FO change course quickly? Seems to me Boston and the Yankees did. Boston did so right after the 2004 WS, and Cashman did so right after he was given more authority 2 years ago after he signed a new contract. Moving glacially slow can be a big flaw in itself.
Measuring today’s success in relation to the past failures is not very useful, IMO. I don’t look at the Mets and say despite the fact they spend the most money in the NL, they failed to make the playoffs but that’s OK because the previous front offices were worse. That’s a poor way to do business.
And yes, the Yankees and Red Sox have better young players than the Mets overall but that doesn’t mean the Mets young players wouldn’t have been better off for the team than some of the old or ineffective players that they did have the last 2 years. Don’t you think Humber this year would have been better than Park or Lawrence, especially viewed in terms of development opportunity?
I’m not going to complain about Bell, because he failed in opportunities with the big club. But Bannister didn’t. Nor did Lindstrom. Why didn’t either of these players get more of a chance with the big club?
continued …
Now, what I’m suggesting is that there won’t be a sudden shift to option 2. Rather, this can only reasonably happen incrementally.
See this is where I completely disagree. I think they should have done this in 2007 and they had the talent to do so. But they traded some of it away for riskier players or just didn’t want to use some of the talent they did have (Humber, for example).
I would also disagree with your continued characterization of Livan as “consistent, durable.” No, he is not consistent. He is terribly inconsistent. And getting older. If you keep signing these poor stopgaps until you think the kids are ready, then you’ll never give the kids the chance to develop … then you’re never going to realize that goal. It’s a vicious cycle.
You keep painting some of our pitchers as relatively green … but fact is some are not and have lots of minor league pitching under their belts. And some when they are traded away are immediately used on the big league level by other clubs. They’re only green sometimes if you insist on looking at them this way.
Another point on which we may disagree is the long-term feasibility of our pitching prospects.
I don’t think we have a big disagreement about this at all. My point is that I think they would have been better than the Limas, Parks, and Lawrences. They needn’t be impact players right away. Just better than the rejects. And who knows? One could turn out to be very valuable. But when you don’t give them a chance, you’re not going to find out.
And I still believe that out of these 3, at least 1 would be equal to or better than Livan in 2008.
continued …
Of course, we’ll never know if we don’t give them the chance. And there are times when young guys get plenty of chances (like Heath Bell) and don’t impress until we’ve given up on them.
Yup, that’s one of my points. And I have no quibble with Heath Bell. The right thing was absolutely to trade him as he had failed with the big club after many chances and didn’t get along with Peterson. But Bell is actually just one of only a few youngsters they gave a real chance to in recent years. Too bad they’ve been shy with so many others.
But, at some level, the point still stands because, when Bannister did get injured, who were the guys who took his place?
Sure, the Lawrences and Limas are OK when others get injured and there are no other options. You can always pick them up later in the year. The problem is when you sign them early on with the intent of giving them key spots on the big club … when you trade away your younger talent to begin with (Bannister, Lindstrom) … or when you have someone like Humber who is ready to be given a shot but you sign and use the Parks and Lawrences anyway. That’s the real problem. Not Banister getting hurt. Players are always going to get hurt and need replacements.
About your final remarks on Livan … I think you’re mistaken on quite a few points. For one thing, he was paid $7 million this year. I hardly think AZ brought him in and paid him that money to be a #5 starter. And I would say they won despite of him. He had the worst WHIP and ERA on the staff among the regulars. He was just a .500 pitcher and his team went 16-17 in his games. That’s below .500
But I’d take issue with your statement that “There’s no way a Livan in his current state can help a team get to and win a World Series.”
Why would you take issue with it? He didn’t help them get there. They were eliminated. That’s what happens when your pitching overall is good but not good enough. Getting to the playoffs is different from getting to the WS and winning there.
I think that speaks to the need not just to have “winners” or “exceptional players” in every roster spot, but to have balance on the team,
I don’t get this. You’re saying a team is better off getting known “mediocrity” (my term) for its pitching staff instead of shooting for something better?
I agree that you should anticipate problems. That’s why you don’t trade the Bannisters and Lindstroms in the first place without seeing how they can help your club first. Or sign a middle reliever whose only recent success came when he was on steroids. Or sign another middle reliever with a career of bad numbers instead of one who succeeded for your club the year before.
If the FO makes flawed moves to implement a flawed strategy, there is no way I can condone it. I just won’t.
7TL, I had to break up my reply to you in 3 parts since the longer single one didn’t go through.
I don’t think we’ll ever agree about the FO. You just have more faith in them than I do, and I think that’s where we have this fundamental difference.
At any rate, enjoyed the discussion.
I would do anything in our power to get young proven starters….Let everyone else go nuts for the best pitcher in th game, b/c frankly, we dont have the chips to move him….there are plenty of great young pitchers , but youd have to work hard to trade them…..An though they’ll cost you a Milledge and a Pelfrey, they wont cost you five other guys in addition….Look if we could send Delgado to be the DH in Minn, plus milledge, pelfrey, and heilman, for johan santana, id do it…..Is that enough? Is it too much? I have no idea, but Id sure love to have other trades on my mind….Spend free agency on hitters (Arod) and trade for pitching………We need to improve, not stay the same ie with a glavine replacement…..
Another interesting thing is how we all view our players by their last performance…..Glavine is a horrible pitcher….Maine is a god….Yet throughout the year they were both (on average) mediocre…..
Absolutley agree with you “Edwindruwes”. You are in the frame of mind all of us Met Fans, AND the Met Front Office people should be in. Enough with the back and forth about over the hill, garbage retreads. It makes me sick to debate Livan Hernandez or Carlos Silva. Livan Hernandez!!!!! Are we for real???? Do what it takes to get Santana AND ARod! We have the money and the talent to get it done. It is all a matter of having the balls Mr. Wilpon. Please put us in the company of elite teams like the Yankees and Red Sox who dont cry about money and when they see a player or players they want to help win championships they go for it. Stop being second best. Grow up and start acting like the big market team we are with the TV network, new stadium, and the fact that we are in New York freaking City! Come on people lets start demanding a product that resembles what we pay for in ticket prices. LETS GO METS!
Again, I give little credence to Olney’s report, especially when other reports say the opposite about Omar’s interest in Livan, but at the end of the day, if Pelfrey or Humber are used to acquire a Blanton or Garland type (or better), you can do a lot worse than Livan Hernandez as a 5th starter. Those losing their minds over this right now are really just looking like a lynch mob. Yes, if Omar goes out next week and offers Livan 4/$50M and loses draft picks automatically, that’s a silly stupid move. But if other moves are made to strengthen the front end of the rotation with our potential back-end pieces, and Livan can be signed to a reasonable deal in the ballpark of 2-3 years, then it’s at least something to be considered.
I agree its something to consider, but we all saw Pelfrey get better at the end of the year. Whats to say he wont continue that this year? If not in the starters role, then at least out of the penn?
I say go for Silva or Livan since its only going to cost us cash, but id like to see what pelfrey can do this year, at least in a limited role. however if we can use pelfrey or humber to get blanton, then sure…
I just think people need to give the off-season a bit of time to develop before they make definitive statements like “no to Livan.” It depends on the circumstances, and the other moves that precede or follow it. Numerous reports have said Omar is looking to strengthen the front of the rotation via trade. If he’s going to do that, I’m certain Pelfrey or Humber (and others) will be part of that deal. If that happens, and the price is right on Livan, who would you rather have as your fifth starter, Livan Hernandez or Chan Ho Park/Brian Lawrence/Dave Williams/Jason Vargas/Retread to be named later?
And since when did Buster Olney because the big authority on Omar Minaya’s intentions? It’s not like this is coming from Gammons or Rosenthal. And again, “baseball executives” are saying this …. who are baseball executives and why would Omar be going around the GM meetings announcing who he’s going to sign?