Tuesday, February 13, 2007

SELE AND PARK AND A SEASON GONE DARK?

It's still too early for me to get into a full-fledged post about the Mets, but as pitchers & catchers show up, my mind does turn inevitably to those sub-tropical climes where said P's & C's start getting loose.

And here's what's on my mind: soon-to-be 41 year-old Tom Glavine; soon-to-be 141 year-old El Duque, John Maine, Oliver Perez, Mike Pelfrey, Aaron Sele, and Chan Ho Park.

(The last two, by the way, haven't been any good at all since 2001.)

Anyone else worried?

29 Comments:

Anonymous Applesaucer said...

"Anyone else worried?"

I am! The Mets seem to have adopted the "throw spaghetti at the wall" approach.

My guess is that they figure they can make trades intra-season when they see what they've got and other teams throw in the towel.

Applesaucer

9:32 AM  
Anonymous Mike said...

I agree. I also worry that they're hoping, if not banking on, the following:

1. Glavine pitches like the true #2 he was last October. Yikes!

2. Duque comes back from injury. This one's not too far-fetched. I can see 150 innings of sub-4.50 from him.

3. Oliver Perez performs as he did in the post-season. This is the most dangerous assumption, as far as I see.

4. John Maine continues to develop. I'm cool with this one. 175-200 IP of ~3.75-4.25 ERA seems possible.

5. Aaron Sele turns it around. They're crazy.

6. Pelfrey develops and performs like a major leaguer. Unlikely, but possible.

7. Chan Ho Park is a makor league starter. I think in Shea he can hurl 150 sub-5.00 innings. That's as good as Trachsel was, so no big worries.

8. Pedro comes back. I hope so.

But the history of baseball shows us that teams that enter the season hoping the loose ends come together often end up in bad shape.

The Mets bats, bullpen & leather should throw wins on the board, but this starting staff could be a nightmare.

9:42 AM  
Blogger Ed in Westchester said...

You know, there were questions with the rotation last year too. Didn't turn out too bad. And questions all year long. Came within a hit of the WS. Not too shabby.

I'm not saying I'm not worried, but methinks Omar does a pretty good job unearthing talent. Sele usually starts out strong, so say he can give us April and May. By then, Pelfrey should be ready to come up.

I'm thinking Park is crap as well. But we all thought the same of Valentin last year. And many felt the same about Endy. Now we love Endy.

Have some of the kool-aid Mike. It's yummy. Omar has a new batch in the mail to you as I type.

9:59 AM  
Anonymous Mike said...

Even last year's questionable rotation had a guy named Pedro at the top. And I don't like Kool-aid. Greasy kid's stuff.

And I have a verrrrrrry bad feeling this whole "Don't Question Omar" thing that I've heard like a mantra since last year won't be heard nearly so often this year. Omar got very lucky last year, but he deserves credit for what happened, not what 'should" have happened.

But it's a new year. I'm judging him on 2007. Here's hoping.

10:06 AM  
Blogger Shane Rollins said...

I would feel sorry for you folks, but living in DC I have to support the Nats as my NL team. You think you have it bad, try having a team fielded by a bunch of double a ballplayers

11:03 AM  
Anonymous Mike said...

Yeah, Shane. That's a whole different thing. My Mets "concerns" translate into worries of an 88-90 win season rather than the 95+ I'm hoping for.

11:10 AM  
Blogger Ed in Westchester said...

The Nationals have 37 pitchers coming to camp.
You read that right, 37.


Mike, look at the watch, repeat after me
"In Omar I trust"
"In Omar I Trust"

j/k

Dissent is good.

11:13 AM  
Anonymous Mike said...

look at the watch

Is Omar now Father Time in addition to everything else?

11:24 AM  
Blogger George said...

Mike, remember that Pedro wasn't really Pedro past June, and wasn't even pitching at the end of last year. It's a club made to pummel its opponents, and it should. Better to have this situation than to trade Milledge for crap (I keep looking at his Baseball Prospectus projections and try to ignore his mediocre year last year).

I'd much rather see Pelfrey and Humber and Perez and Maine get a shot than to have signed a Marquis-in-name-only type player.

12:25 PM  
Anonymous Mike said...

George -

I'd much rather see Pelfrey and Humber and Perez and Maine get a shot than to have signed a Marquis-in-name-only type player.

Agreed. But the cost for Park is minimal, so no harm rolling the dice. He's not as bad as Lima Time! was last year.

As to the offense, I agree in theory. Last year was a juggernaut. But I'm not sure this year's O has quite the same juice, with Valentin & LoDuca coming off uncharacteristically good years, and Beltran having a career year.

But they still should score a lot of runs. That said, a not-quite-as-good pitching staff and an almost-but-not-quite-as-good offense, PLUS the fact they're unlikely to be as lucky as last season . . .

. . . I can't see much more than 90 wins without further moves.

Which may make the playoffs, but good luck in October with the starting staff as constructed. I hope the don;t rush Pedro, and let Glavine skip starts here & there.

12:37 PM  
Blogger George said...

Sure, Valentin and LoDuca probably over-produced, but Wright slumped in the second half and is still a young'un, in theory Reyes should get better, too, I figure Milledge is going to stick for either Alou or Green (whoever gets more seriously ow-ied first)--the offense should remain about steady.

And remember it was really the offense that didn't do it in the Cards series (that and the bullpen in game 2). I mean, being shutdown by Jeff Suppan? While it's great to bring on the big ace for the playoffs, that person can often be a Jeff Weaver-sized surprise, too.

1:23 PM  
Anonymous Mike said...

it was really the offense that didn't do it in the Cards series

Solid point, George. Though I think we could've done without Trachs' first inning meltdown, no matter how well Darren Oliver pitched in relief.

Fucking Trachsel.

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Toast said...

I'm not worried at all. In fact, I'm so not worried, I bet my buddy Paul dinner for four (winner's choice) that my Yanks would have a better regular-season record than his Mets.

2:19 PM  
Anonymous Mike said...

Jeez. Trolls, I mean Yankee fans, coming into OUR HOUSE and dissing OUR TEAM.

This can't go unchallenged.

Honestly, Toast, I haven't looked at the Yanks that carefully, but I'd be willing to place a friendly wager once I examine things. As we know, the two NY teams had the best records last year, and I remember thinking they each got a little lucky in that regard. The Mets more than the Yanks, I'd guess, based on the 29-14 record in one-run games (or thereabouts).

If it looks to me that the Yanks did as little as the Mets this off-season, I may have to suggest some stakes.

2:54 PM  
Blogger Ed in Westchester said...

"look at the watch" - hypnotism.

Yankee fans in the neighborhood? I thought there were rules about that? j/k

Alou > Floyd
PLD will probably slump a tad
Delgado is healthy (bad elbow repaired)
Wright will get rest (I will talk to Willie, once the restraining order is lifted), allowing him to have a better year.
Anything Valentin gives is a plus. They still have a great 1-6 lineup, even with Green and Stache.

Anyways, plenty of time to prep the old previews.
Spring training in 2 days baby!

3:12 PM  
Blogger The Clown said...

Look, it's all LoDuca's fault. It's obvious that no pitchers want to pitch to him.

3:28 PM  
Anonymous Mike said...

And . . . a fella name a Milledge. And as much as I'm excited about Wright, it was Reyes who took the huge jump last year.

I'll be fine if he "falls" to 275/325/450. But nor will I be surprised if he makes the leap to 325/375/525.

If I had to predict, I'd say 290/345/485, which with 50 SBs and excellent defense at SS . . . well, what can you say about that?

3:29 PM  
Anonymous Mike said...

it's all LoDuca's fault. It's obvious that no pitchers want to pitch to him.

Thanks, Clown. I thought your real name was John Royal, not John Thompson. ;-)

3:30 PM  
Blogger George said...

As for the Yanks, half the time they'll be starting Doug SpellCheck-wicz at firstbase. Mets fans know he was a bad idea in 2005.

4:28 PM  
Anonymous Applesaucer said...

Did you know that the Mets' Pythagorean W-L was 91-71 last year?

Since there's no way to argue that the Mets are better constructed right now than they were, on average, last year, that Pythagorean number represents an upside to the Mets' 2007, as currently constructed.

If they get as unlucky this year as they got lucky last year -- and considering the fact that they're a little worse than last year -- they could go .500 in '07.

And I wouldn't count on the NL being as piss poor this year as it was last.

Applesaucer

7:42 PM  
Anonymous Mike said...

George -

starting Doug SpellCheck-wicz at firstbase. Mets fans know he was a bad idea in 2005

They still know it was a bad idea in 2007. Slick fielding, no hit first basemen are a dubious commodity in the modern game.

Apple -

Did you know that the Mets' Pythagorean W-L was 91-71 last year?

Yes. That's where I get my "they got lucky" line from. And the one run game record.

If they get as unlucky this year as they got lucky last year -- and considering the fact that they're a little worse than last year -- they could go .500 in '07.

The best thing is that they got SO lucky last year, they're unlikely to be that lucky again . . . or equivalently unlucky.

The bad news though: they weren't only Pythagoreanly lucky last year, but their Runs Scored numbers were higher than the componant parts would suggest.

I haven't thought about it seriously, so I reserve the right to change this 329 times before April 1, but 90 wins looks about right. Maybe 89, even 88.

What'd we say last year? 93? We guessed the same number, right?

8:22 PM  
Anonymous Applesaucer said...

"What'd we say last year? 93? We guessed the same number, right?"

Yep.

I've got the staff working on this year's prediction as we speak.

10:47 PM  
Anonymous Mike said...

My staff is working to screw up your staff's servers.

When they come to you tomorrow with a prediction of 14 wins, you'll know who's responsible.

10:52 PM  
Anonymous Toast said...

If it looks to me that the Yanks did as little as the Mets this off-season, I may have to suggest some stakes.

The Yankees actually had a stealthily good off-season. They avoided taking on any huge long-term contracts, off-loaded a pair of old, creaky guys (Unit and Sheffield) they were paying huge sums to, and resigned Pettite, all while holding onto all their key prospects and stocking up on a ton of young, high-upside arms.

If Pavano really is healthy (stop it, settle down now), our rotation goes Wang, Pettite, Mussina, Pavano, and 5th guy (hopefully Hughes by mid-season). Oh, and if they win the Clemons sweeps, forget it.

The lineup was quite potent last year, at least until they arrived in Detroit in the post-season. No glaring weaknesses on offense besides first base.

So yeah, I'd be up for a small wager. Let me know what you'd be interested in doing.

8:25 AM  
Anonymous Mike said...

Wang, Pettite, Mussina, Pavano, and 5th guy

Wow. The Mets rotation may end up being neither the oldest nor the shakiest in town.

No glaring weaknesses on offense besides first base

Once you end up seeing how bad a hitter Mwxctedzingflodczwicz actually is, you'll be more concerned. No way George stands for this all season. He'll put Mattingly back at first before he allows Menky to finish the year.

The Yanks have solid hitters, but they're an aging bunch. Also, lot of balls falling in with that defense & those non-strikeout pitchers.

Eyeballing it, the Yanks look to have 3 or 4 additional wins over the Mets, but luck can balance out so few games.

I'll be up for something, but I'll need to look a bit closer to determine exactly what I'm willing to risk! I'm not usually much of a gambling guy; it's more about the "challenge" or the "pride" for me.

8:56 AM  
Blogger Shane Rollins said...

Of course we have 37 pitchers coming to Spring Training, at least four of them have to be...average?

10:44 AM  
Blogger Rickey Henderson said...

For the record, Doug's last name is spelled "Manischewitz." Just to clarify.

10:49 AM  
Anonymous Mike said...

at least four of them have to be...average

Ahhhh, hope does indeed spring eternal!

10:49 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

Doug's last name is spelled "Manischewitz." Just to clarify.

The wine is certainly could be more clarified. But otherwsie, a lame-hitting first baseman & sicky-sweet wine. Sound similar.

10:51 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home