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/////

Touche…although I never attempted to submit any magic formula.

• … That’s not to say some players wouldn’t benefit by a little more time in the minors, but there’s no set rule, no magic formula, and who would benefit and who would just stagnate and fail to be sufficiently challenged when demoted is not an exact science.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

• ... This is why you don’t sign middle relievers to long term deals, because they can be replaced.

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.

• ... Everyone thought our bullpen was a “weakness”

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.

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.

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.”

• … And why would you give Bradford 2-3 years when Joe Smith was just as, if not more, effective?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

• ... 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.

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.

Maybe you should have shown him how to throw a slider and then he would still be here.