Was on a radio show after the game and the host asked if I was surprised about Oliver Perez’s start.
Nope.
I told him what I saw today I’ll see a lot this summer. Nothing this guy does surprises me.
In fact, I’m thinking of doing a poll before each Perez start.
84 Comments
Just one point to demonstrate that you are not perfect. Milledge started the season with the Mets, and was sent down when Pelfrey was recalled when the Mets needed a 5th starter. So JK, you are not perfect…..
sloppy, no one’s perfect, especially you. Because you make silly assumptions. I know that Milledge had to be sent down to make room for a fifth starter. The point was, if you are whining about him not playing everyday in ‘07 right out of ST, the only option I see was to release Green and eat his contract. And that was a bad option. How else were you thinking they would make room for Milledge? You think you have all the answers. So how would you have fit Milledge onto the roster so he could play everyday?
You think you have “true knowledge” yet you want to supplant a $10 million veteran based on the hot spring of a player who had a career .241 BA in only 166 ABs up to that point. Yeah, right. If that’s “true” knowledge I’m so glad Omar likes the lies and falsehoods as they’re a helluva lot more realistic and smarter.
“Also, his performance last spring absolutely justified him getting the 5th spot at the beginning of last season. Fans were advocating it on all the forums. If you look back, I don’t think you’ll find anyone was advocating he not be given the fifth spot.”
This is not dispositive of anything. Chase Headley and Colby Rasmus probably could be in the majors right now, but their orgs have decided to preach patience with these guys.
JK, you also prove my ultimate point, that the Mets do a terrible job with young players, unless they’re studs. Wright and Reyes pretty much produced from the get go. As for the other players, they didn’t, and they got sent up and down and screwed with, until they were either waived or traded for crap.
The Red Sox gave Pedroia the 2B job and let him be. They brought up Youk and put him in a position to thrive. Delcarmen, Lester, and Bucholz were all put in positions where they were likely to succeed. I believe as a whole, the Mets do not do this with their young players who aren’t stars.
Further, you could argue they screwed with Heilman’s development too. This guy was a first round pick, and they changed his windup. This caused a meandering route to the bigs, and probably cost him a career as a starting pitcher. If he hadn’t switched back to his old windup he probably would be pitching elsewhere right now.
Keith, there was a hole in the rotation last spring too. So that’s why Pelfrey got the spot. It wasn’t just that he earned it. But there was a need.
And I’m not sure how I prove your point. You say that Wright and Reyes pretty much produced from the get go. But that’s not true. As I already mentioned before, Reyes struggled big time with OBP and getting walks early on—so much so that many were saying he should be sent back down to the minors and Einsteins such as Neyer were calling him the worst player in the majors. My, we have short memories, don’t we? Well, the Mets had patience, didn’t panic, and didn’t send him down. And I’m glad they didn’t.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare the talent of Reyes with that of Bell. There was a good reason Bell went up and down.
And don’t bring up Youkilis as a shining example of patience. He went up and down for a few years and didn’t play everyday when he was up prior to him finally sticking. Delcarmen has also been up and down for three years including last year. Buchholz just had a few starts last year and probably won’t even make the ML roster out of ST even though they need starters. And Lester shouldn’t be used as an example for anything due to his unique circumstances.
I will agree with you about Heilman. But I think he had the misfortune of being caught in the quagmire of multiple regime changes. But as for most of the others that fans are whining about, sorry, I just don’t see it. And to say that the Mets ruin all their prospects or even most of them through bad development decisions is just false. What’s ironic is that some of you whine about rushing Milledge and some of you whine about him not being given enough opportunity. And one minute you’re whining about Pelfrey being rushed and the next about the Mets not having patience when young players come up and don’t succeed at first. So which is it?
Sometimes a player doesn’t succeed because he’s not as good as some of you think he is or has some critical flaws in terms of makeup. And it’s more of a scouting and drafting issue than one of development.
Reyes’ rate states his first year: .307/.334/.434. Not a short memory, my friend, an accurate one.
Anyway, JK, I appreciate the soliloquy, and while the Mets have not mishandled ALL of their prospects, they have not done a good job cultivating league average young talent.
The Red Sox, although sending guys up and down, were smart enough to hang onto these guys and show patience over the long haul.
You can’t bring guys up a few times and then decide it’s time to get rid of them. Youkilis is a prime example of patience. They saw something in him and held onto him until he fulfilled his potential and a position opened up for him instead of just throwing him away.
Keith: If you think Reyes didn’t struggled when he first came up (and I don’t mean just the first month or year) then you weren’t paying attention. Obviously you weren’t participating in any fan forums at the time or reading Neyer. Because at the start of his ‘04 season, before the all-star break, he hit .214 and his OBP was .242, and that’s when many fans gave up on him and called for him to be sent to the minors and Neyer called him the worst player in the majors. If the Mets didn’t have patience then, they would have sent him down.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree, Keith, because your broad generalizations just can’t be supported. When you talk of the Mets penchant for sending guys up and down and then getting rid of them, you’re basically just talking about Bell. Who deserved to be gotten rid of.
And Youkilis stuck because every year he at least hit at league average or above and wasn’t perceived to have maturity issues. Can you name one Met with similar credentials who the Mets ever gave up on?
That would be dumb to send down a guy who hit over .300 when he first came up to the bigs. 2004 is not when Reyes first came up. He showed great ability in 2003, so the Mets just chalked it up to a slow start. The same way they didn’t sent down David Wright after a bad April last season.
Lastings Milledge? Scott Kazmir? Brian Bannister? I’m sticking with Heath Bell. They gave up on him way too quickly.
Also, the God of Walks was fulfilling the hype. His OBP his first few years: .367, .400, .381
There was no reason to give up on him. The surprise is that he didn’t nail down a full time job earlier. He was 27 and in his third year in the majors before he did that.
JK, you’re relying solely on stats in your argument, which is fine and I respect that. But my argument for guys like Bell and Ring are from a more observational viewpoint.
Keith—I don’t mean literally “first came up” regarding Reyes. The issue here is how young players are treated in their early years. After less than half a season his first year, Reyes struggled big time in early 2004. That’s the point when many organizations might send down a young kid. But the Mets didn’t.
To characterize Milledge and Bannister as having been yanked up and down too much is to have no perspective. They weren’t treated any differently in that respect than players like Delcarmen or Youkilis.
Kazmir wasn’t given up on and wasn’t ever yanked up and down by the organization. They just made a bonehead decision that Zambrano represented a better option at that time.
So again, the only one who can be characterized as having been yanked up and down often and then given up on is Heath Bell. Hardly a pattern within the organization. And hardly a crime of the FO.
Is that why you tried to use BABIP—one of the most speculative stats—to defend Bell the other day?
My opinions are based on my observational viewpoints as well. I saw guys like Bell and Ring get lit up in key spots with regularity. It was a horror show.
I was just showing an example of a reason to believe Bell would improve, not to mention his stellar minor league record.
I also saw Bell myself, and saw him come into games and go after hitters and battle. I’ll never understand why the Mets would resign Mota after he tested positive for PEDs and give Schoenweiss a ludicrous 3 year deal instead of giving Bell and Ring s chance to win a spot in the bullpen.
“That’s the point when many organizations might send down a young kid. But the Mets didn’t.”
There was no reason for them to send him down. It’s also a matter of context. The Mets weren’t that good in ‘04, and again, he showed in ‘03 both natural ability and the ability to hit in the bigs.
The issue isn’t just how players are treated early in their careers. You’re trying to make a very specific, pigeon holed argument. The issue is the Mets ability to evaluate and cultivate young talent, specifically within their own organization.
As I have said, they recently have done a better job in this regard, however, guys like Milledge, Lindstrom, Owens, Ring, Bell, Bannister, Kazmir, etc.
Mota and Schoeneweiss are different issues. Those two mistakes don’t mean keeping Bell and Ring would have been the right thing.
Bell had two real lousy years in a row. I don’t think the Red Sox would have kept Delcarmen much longer had he done that. The fact that Bell didn’t get along with Peterson only exacerbated his lousy performance. It was clear he wasn’t going to thrive under Peterson. So trading him made sense. Why would you keep him around if he doesn’t get along with the one person who is supposed to be his biggest mentor and coach?
I’ve heard complaints about what they got back for Bell. But a player coming off of two bad seasons in the majors isn’t going to get much back. AS for Ring, apparently the Padres didn’t find much value in him or they would have kept him.
You guys are still arguing about Heath Bell!!!??
Maybe you should have shown him how to throw a slider and then he would still be here.
Agreed on all points. But the fact is many organizations do send guys down after they struggle the way Jose did in early ‘04. Whether or not the team is good or no matter how much talent the player may have shown previously. And the fact is the Mets were in the pennant race in late July which is why they got Benson and Kazmir. So they weren’t totally bad eiter, especially at the time Jose was struggling.
I’m talking about it only because it’s fans like you who have been whining about how Pelfrey and Bell and Milledge were treated early in their careers. Being “rushed” or being “yanked up and down.”
I know the issue is broader. That’s why I said in part it’s an issue of talent evaluation, drafting and scouting as well. It’s also an issue where the Mets have lost draft picks by signing a lot of free agents. So they haven’t had as many opportunities in recent years to draft premium talent the way the Red Sox or Yankee have who have kept picks by offering arbitration to players who left.
IOW, it’s a broad complex issue. And I don’t think the main problem is how they develop kids, but rather other things.
“And the fact is the Mets were in the pennant race in late July which is why they got Benson and Kazmir. So they weren’t totally bad eiter, especially at the time Jose was struggling.”
I still remember what I told my dad at the time: “I really hope they don’t think they’re in this and do something stupid… they’re not that good, and the division is weak this year.” That was no pennant race my friend.
And I still think Pelfrey was rushed. There was no need for him to be in the bigs in ‘06 since the Mets were a lock for the postseason. Sure, you could argue this was a reason to bring him up for a look, but he should have spent last season in AAA, especially since they changed his repertoire.
And signing Mota and Schoenweiss DOES have to do with Bell and Ring. Why give big contracts to a middle reliever? It’s generally not a good idea. I’d rather see them give these young guys a shot who at least have some upside and who they could just release on a whim if they stink, instead of being locked into regressing crap.
Keith, a week before the Mets made those trades, they were as close as 3 games out of the division lead. I don’t care how bad a team is, they should never give up trying when they’re that close in late July. And the NL East wasn’t exactly a powerhouse that year as the WC and NLCS teams all came out of the NL Central. Does that mean you make bonehead moves like Kazmir-Zambrano? Of course not. But you still try to do everything short of stupid moves to win. So my point remains—the team wasn’t so terrible at the time Jose was struggling big time. That’s when Neyer essentially called him a dog, and some Mets fans were crying for him to be sent to the minors. I think many teams would have done just that.
As for middle relief last year, the answer wasn’t to sign Mota or Schoeneweiss or give Bell yet another try. But one thing they should have done was bring back Bradford. I would have given him the 2-3 years he wanted.
Bell was given chances the previous 2 years. How many did he deserve? And, as I asked you before, why would you keep Bell around if he doesn’t get along with the one person who is supposed to be his biggest mentor and teacher?
Peterson isn’t perfect. There are some who for various reasons he can’t help. Maybe Bell is one of them. And maybe their strained relationship is at the root of it.
We will never agree on Pelfrey or Bell. So I think it’s best to just agree to disagree. However, I’d still like to know your answer to the question about Bell’s relationship with Peterson.
Keith you are exactly right about the pen. You never dump relievers, you stockpile as many as you can for as long as you can, because you never can plan on when and if they’ll be any good. Dumping Bell, Ring, Owens, and Lindstrom and not re-signing Bradford were all dumb things done by Minaya. Especially Bell, since this GM has a love affair with hard throwing guys whose fast balls don’t move; Julio, Mota, Roberto Hernandez, Burgos, I probably forgot a couple…. There’s only one thing dumber than using a reliever’s stats to determine how he’ll do in the future, and that is to use anyone’s Spring Training stats as a measurement.
RE: Peterson… because they’re professionals. I may not like a professor at school, or I may not have liked a colleague at my previous job, but I sucked it up and made it work. And I believe with guys like Bell, who have good stuff and a track record of success in the minor leagues, you should stick with them a little longer until you’re positive they’re no good. With an arm like Bell’s it is best to err on the side of caution… not trade him for a failed prospect like Ben Johnson or a crappy middle reliever like Jon Adkins.
And JK, I disagree about 2004. They were trying to turn the ship around, and they were succeeding. The team didn’t stink, but they weren’t good. The only reason they were so close was because the Braves and the Phillies were playing like crap. I think the best course of action would be to stay the course and stick with the plan, not trade away the best pitching prospect in baseball for garbage. You shouldn’t always go for it. Part of being a good GM is knowing when you have a legitimate shot at the playoffs/WS and acting accordingly. If your team isn’t that good, like in 04, then don’t go trading prospects for league average vets. It would have been better for the team in the long run to hold onto Kazmir, and even Wigginton, Huber, and Peterson, because they all had some upside, as opposed to someone like Benson, who was what we thought he was.
And why would you give Bradford 2-3 years when Joe Smith was just as, if not more, effective?
I would have signed Bradford because he was unique and successful in NYC and because Smith was a kid who played a couple months in the lowest of lows in baseball, half season ball, in the old days we called that a D league. And he showed he wasn’t ready for adversity. Hopefully he learned faster than Pelfrey did. Now everyone will dump on Bradford’s stats in Baltimore how he was worse than in 2006, but they will omit the fact that Baltimore is a bandbox not much bigger than Philly, and they will omit the fact that more guys in the AL are hitters. You kSantana will be so much better in the NL. If the Mets resigned Bradford, no mota or no Schoeneweis, and the Mets have a flag last year.
I’m just not a big fan of giving more than 2 years to middle relievers.
Keith, but that’s you. Maybe Bell didn’t have that attitude. And Peterson grew frustrated with him. Maybe it just wasn’t a harmonious mix. And after two years of failure, I wouldn’t have kept running Heath out there only to constantly get his bell rung. You say minor league stats don’t count. But they count for Bell?
As for 2004, what exactly are you disagreeing with me about. I said I wouldn’t have done dumb trades like Kazmir-Zambrano. Are you disagreeing with me about that? I said I would have done anything short of dumb moves like that. They weren’t good that year. But they weren’t terrible either. And no matter how good or bad your team is, you never stop trying to win the division if you’re 3 games out in late July. So I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with me about unless it’s semantics – ie, me saying they weren’t “terrible.â€
I don’t get it. On the one hand you argue that prospects who don’t have a full professional year in the minors aren’t ready, and now you think Smith should have been slated for the 2007 pen when he had had only 23 innings in his entire professional career? Pelfrey was rushed but Smith wouldn’t have been if after the 2006 season they tabbed him for the big leagues?
Not only that, but just 3 of Smith’s innings in the minors in 2006 were above high A ball, and he got smoked. His ERA was 21.60 and his WHIP was 3.30. And he should have been slated for the major leagues off of that, but Niese even if he pitches well for a few months at AA this year, wouldn’t be ready for the majors?
I can’t see any way they should have counted on Smith for a bullpen spot coming out of the 2006 season. NONE.
I just can’t see how you can call someone whose highest professional experience was 3 innings at AA where he got smoked “more effective†than Bradford.
And this is why I give Bradford 3 years …
1) He has shown to be a very consistent quality reliever throughout his entire career. One of the few who has shown consistency.
2) The market for relievers like that was 3 years. That’s what Schoeneweis got and he’s not nearly as good as Bradford is.
3) The money Bradford was asking for is peanuts compared with what relievers like Farnsworth are making. Therefore, if you needed to trade Bradford after years 1 or 2, it wouldn’t be hard to either unload him or eat his contract.
4) He pitched exceptionally well for the Mets in August-Sept of 2006, as well as in the playoffs. He gets along with Peterson (it appears so) and he didn’t shrivel under the pressures of NY. So he’s playoff- and NY-tested. No small considerations.
My rant on 2004 was more of a general statement than anything. They should not have been trading prospects for veterans at that point. I, like everyone on the plant except Jim Duquette, was against the Kazmir trade, but I also was not a fan of the Benson trade either. The team was not a serious contender and would have been better served developing their young talent instead of trading it away.
And I didn’t say Smith should have been relied upon, but that it shows how different starting and relieving are. They’re totally different animals. You can take an unrefined or even flawed pitcher, stick him in the pen, and if utilized properly, he can be effective. This is why you don’t sign middle relievers to long term deals, because they can be replaced. Just look at this spring training. Everyone thought our bullpen was a “weakness” but now we have more arms than we know what to do with. And as for Pelfrey he was not, and is still not, ready for the bigs because his slider stinks, and it was the Mets who changed his breaking ball. Yes, he did have some success in ‘06, but he was also throwing a curveball back then, a pitch he used throughout college. He’s barely been throwing the slider for a full season. I think his change has improved, but he doesn’t throw it enough. He needs more time in the minors to work on his slider without worrying it will get hit into Citi Field.
Smith, on the other hand, is a different situation. His makeup and repertoire showed and proved that he could be very effective in short stints, particularly against RH pitching. No one gets the ball in the air against this kid. However, you could argue he was rushed too, because he could never finish anyone off, as batters would routinely foul off pitch after pitch until finally grounding out to SS/2B.
Lastly, you’re such an absolutist that it is becoming tiresome debating with you. Not every prospect is the same and the role you will be filling upon reaching the majors also plays a factor. There is a reason why Gagne stunk as a starter only to become a dominant closer. It is much easier to come in for an inning and let it all hang out, than to play chess with 9 hitters for 6-7 innings.
So there is it. Pushing/Rushing Reyes/Wright… not a mistake. Pushing/Rushing Pelfrey… mistake. Ultimately, I don’t think them pushing Milledge was a huge mistake, but they definitely should have shown more patience with him, considering they did push him.
Oh yeah, and I think the NY tested stuff is a bit overblown. If you’re good then you’re good.
Keith: Bushing Reyes/Wright was far different than pushing guys the last few years. When Reyes/Wright came up they came up on a team with no expectations and were sold as guys who the team was gonna be built around in the future, not that day. If they stunk or starred, they were allowed to play every day… It ain’t the case on this team now and the Mets obviously don’t know how to do it right with this regime since they’ve screwed everyone they tried it with so far. You’re right every kid is different but it is apparent that Minaya and company don’t have a clue how to analyze the kids and figure out how to deal with them individually.
Because they couldn’t rely on Smith, that’s precisely why they should have brought back Bradford. That’s the point.
As for the experience of relievers and starters being different, when it comes to being hit hard by major league hitters, there is no difference. The shell-shock and failure is the same.
Yeah, we saw how easily Bradford was replaced last year. By a rookie who sputtered badly before half the season was over. And by Mota and Schoeneweiss? The Mets did a lousy job replacing Bradford last year.
It was last year. IMO, it was the biggest contributor to the collapse in September. This year is a different year. You don’t build your bullpen one year based on what you may have the next. You put as much quality in it every year as you can. And if you have more arms than you can use the following year, you trade some of it.
We’ve gone over Pelfrey, Milledge before and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. No use rehashing it.
And as for NY, we’ll have to agree to disagree there too. Not all players can play well under the expectations and pressures of playing in NY. Or the postseason. It varies from player to player, but when you find someone who thrives under both scenarios (NY & playoffs) then you should put a high value on that.
The Mets did do a poor job replacing Bradford, by trading Bell, Lindstrom, Ring, and Owens.
If you have enough arms in camp and in the minors during the season, you’ll be set in the pen.
The main problem with the Mets pen last year was being locked into guys like Show and Mota, who they could not release when they stunk up the joint.
“As for the experience of relievers and starters being different, when it comes to being hit hard by major league hitters, there is no difference. The shell-shock and failure is the same.”
I agree with you, but this statement doesn’t prove anything. My point was that relieving is “easier” than starting.
There were roster issues. You just can’t keep all those advanced minor leaguers around without losing some to free agency or the Rule 5 draft. So, IMO, trading Bell and Ring made sense for the reasons previously given. But I would have protected both Owens and Lindstrom.
Still, none of them would have been a substitute at that point in time for a proven middle reliever like Bradford. I still wish we had him.
We agree that Mota and Show were mistakes. As was Sele. So if none of those three had been signed, there would have been room to fit in Bradford plus 1 or 2 of the prospects.
And while I agree that relieving is generally easier than starting … it still comes down to the individual. A starting pitcher “pushed” could be more ready to handle ML hitters than a reliever who spends 3-5 years in the minors. There is no set rule.
Keith, Of course relieving is easier. You throw hard as hell for a few batters, you don’t need 4 pitches, you don’t have adjustments the third time around the order, Anyone who knows the game knows that. But of course the guy who contradicts you, thinks centerfield is so physically challenging…........ why bother….. is that sloppy guy right jk, are you a reject from SNL??? good line…. get over it…...
“And while I agree that relieving is generally easier than starting … it still comes down to the individual. A starting pitcher “pushed†could be more ready to handle ML hitters than a reliever who spends 3-5 years in the minors. There is no set rule.”
Hmmm, where have I seen this before? Oh I remember, it sounds similar to when I said, “Not every prospect is the same and the role you will be filling upon reaching the majors also plays a factor.” Thank you for basically summing up my points.
I still can’t get on board with giving Bradford a 3 year deal. Just can’t.
Ahem … see my post of March 24, 12:03 pm, earlier in this section above, where I said essentially the same exact thing:
I’m glad you’re finally agreeing with what I said more than two days ago.
As for Bradford, we will never see eye to eye on him, as I continue to think it was a big mistake not giving him what he was asking for. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree on him too.
“Ahem … see my post of March 24, 12:03 pm, earlier in this section above, where I said essentially the same exact thing”
Touche…although I never attempted to submit any magic formula.
AHEM?????
good luck little metsies, I wish your team all the fortune this year that nonmetsies like jk deserve NONE> ahem,, what a way to post… ahem,,, to his own fans, oh they’re not his fans their metfans, not nonmetsies…..
to the real metsies, good luck for real, you won’t win the division, but good luck anyway,
you know what your downfall will be… you have no depth anywhere, you can’t afford one injury and you already have 2 big ones, Alouless offensewill suck big time, using your bullpen in the 3rd inning every 5th day will destroy it as well.. down the tube go the 2008 Metsies. Willie fall guy, but true culprit is Minaya, the worst GM in the world!!!!!! AHEMMMMMM love the way you guys beat on each other…. what a fandom you have NOT/////