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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

It would take a package that I don’t think the Mets possess to get Kazmir in a trade.

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…..