Jenks and Dye for F-Mart
by rutgersjpm on Dec 3, 2008 3:35 PM EST
Email
Printhttp://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/12/perrottos-lates.html
Just curious to read what everyone else thinks. A) Is it legit, and B) What's your take on the deal? In my opinion it sounds like a good deal for both sides. I would hope that the White Sox get more than just F-Mart in return, but this could be the answer to all of the Mets problems. You wouldn't have to go after any class A FA's, Dye is a better option than Dunn or Abreu and Jenks' is arbitration eligible through 2011. And imagine F-Mart, Ramirez, Beckham and Flowers up the middle in 3 or 4 years. That's a heck of a lot of potential right there.
Your thoughts?
171 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
From what I recall he started as a CF in the farm system, but was converted to corner due to hamstring problems. Hopefully he can square those away and move back. Positive thinking on my part. Sorry, I’m a Sox fan.
well
hes played the corners but hes still mainly a CF. as he adds bulk people think he’ll have to shift to a corner but he hasn’t shown any inalbility in center yet. in fact he actually played a very solid in center this year due to his solid speed so i wouldn’t be surprised if that move doesn’t occur until a few years into his major league career. of course thats with another organization, with the mets hes slotted for LF from day one thanks to beltran.
by Rob Castellano on Dec 4, 2008 7:42 PM EST up reply actions
No, you're not wrong from what I have read
His D is horrible in CF. He’s a corner OF at best.
Got some links/quotes? Most of what I’ve heard projects him in a corner, but that it has as much to do with Carlos Beltran as Fernando Martinez. My understanding is that his D in CF isn’t stellar, but its better than adequate.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
Where are you reading that?
He’s got a good arm and played good defense in center this past season
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/prospects/y2009/profile.jsp?t=p_top&pid=494686
My understanding is that he probably will slow down a bit as he ages and end up below average in CF, above average in a corner, but he’s a good defender who is about average defensively in CF right now.
There's a lot more to it than that
There’s no way the white sox would trade Dye AND Jenks just for F-Mart. I heard something about Jon Niese possibly being in the deal (and if I remember right Kenny Williams was reportedly scouting Niese and liked him), along with 2-4 other mets players.
It should be interesting to see what K-Will does next.
Williams is doing some serious housecleaning, huh?
Niese would make a lot of sense for the White Sox, but I’m not sure who else they would ask for. The Mets don’t have a lot of MLB-ready talent… maybe Kunz? Carp? Honestly, who wins such a deal will come down to who the other players are.
Why not as a PTBNL?
I thought the rule was that you couldn’t trade them within a year, but after that it was fair game. So teams (ex. the As with Bonderman) got around that by using PTBNL.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
The PTBNL has to be named within six months
So it would still be within a year of Holt being drafted.
-1
Mets are not going to trade Holt under any circumstances, even if he were eligible.
has to be
there has to be more names involved for the sake of the Whitesox…
I’m sure the Mets would trade martinez straight up for Jenks if given the opportunity, that alone Dye and Jenks….
I wouldn't
trade Fernando for Dye and Jenks…
I’d rather sign K-rod and let Murphy play LF while keeping my top prospect.
Which is why you're not a GM
Just kidding. My gut is that the White Sox would be getting ripped off in this deal, and K-Rod is going to get ridiculously overpaid on the FA market. Despite getting a ton of saves last year, he wasn’t even one of the 5 best closers in the majors, yet his contract is probably going to set the market for closers for years to come.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
FA Market
K-rod’s not going to be overpaid. The Mets are the only team that’s really interested in him. I would offer him 4/44 and I think he’d accept it.
If the Mets traded for Jenks or signed Fuentes/Wood, I doubt K-rod would even get 4 years from anyone else. He might not even get 4 years from the Mets.
Am I to infer
That you think $11M per year for a guy who throws 65+ IPs is not overpaying?
People screamed bloody murder when Toronto signed BJ Ryan for $47M/5.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
Perspective
Yes it is overpaying, but for a team like the Mets who need a closer, I’d rather pay $11M per year than trade my top prospect for a cheaper closer.
fmart is NOT the top prospect
flores and holt are better in my opinion, fmart has just been in the top 5 for so long and might hang out there, but he is not that great and the mets have to know that by now
by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 3, 2008 9:54 PM EST up reply actions
What?
Most people think Fernando is the Mets top prospect.
You’re just spewing out random things that you made up if you think “he is not that great and the mets have to know that by now”
Pretty much everyone who follows the system closely
I post a couple of places where there are some Mets prospect mavens, and its near unanimous amongst the rankings I see from people who pay a lot of attention to the Mets minor leagues.
Well
Ultimately, it’s not our money, so who cares? However, throwing so much money at a guy like K-Rod seems like a mistake to me.
Then again, I said the same thing about the gigantic Pedro contract, and that’s worked out so well. Oh, wait… ;-)
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
You say that, but it kind of is
The Mets blow money on something huge, jack their prices, and my dad has to give a bigger chunk of his paycheck for his weekend ticket plan.
BJ
the uproar about bj was less the money for a top notch lefty closer arm and more for the fact that he had closed for all of about one full season when he got the deal….not exactly established
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Come on
Do you really think a $44M/4 deal for a guy who throws 60+ IPs isn’t overpaying? Even the guy who I was responding to acknowledged that it was.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
Kinda isn't
Really I think all ballplayers are hightly overpaid, but if Gil Meche can get $11mil a year and Carlos Silva can get $12mil, then heck yeah 60+ good innings in closing situations is worth $11 million. He’s not the best closer out there, but he’s still pretty damned good, and young and reliable.
Won't happen
There are way too many moving parts for this to happen. Too many big names. I don’t buy it. It would be more interesting to be wrong, though.
+1
Although I think Dye has limited value because he is only a one year player. Didn’t the CWS want Fernando + for Jenks, let alone to add dye as well. Seems off.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
I wouldn't do it if I was the Mets.
Their farm system already sucks, so why kill it completely? F-Mart will be ready in two years, and Reyes and Wright will only be 27. Beltran will be at the end of his prime but still good. I would love a Beltran, F-Mart, and Evans OF. Maybe another OF instead of Evans, but with Wright, Reyes, Murphy, and a good-great 1B via trade/FA, they will be the best team in baseball.
by schmosterballs92 on Dec 3, 2008 5:05 PM EST reply actions
I'm still not sold
but the Mets may leave this off-season with 2 extra draft picks, and there are also some potential top prospects in the system like Flores, Marte, Holt, Davis, Havens and Mejia. I guess the Mets plan is to totally revamp the farm with draft picks. Frankly it’s not a horrible strategy, but I’m not convinced that it’s really in the Mets’ best interest.
How
Reyes, Wright, Murphey and the assumption of getting a great 1st baseman makes them the best team in baseball?
reyes
wright
murphy
great 1b (alex gonzalez type?)
beltran
evans/church/etc
martinez
thole/FA catcher
johan
maine
pelfrey
heilman (maybe, i still like him)
niese
in 2 years that looks like a great team(assuming niese becomes atleast reliable, and murphy/evans become average-above average players)..they’ll figure out their bullpen troubles and their bench is always good.
by schmosterballs92 on Dec 3, 2008 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
Did you just say Thole?
The dude’s probably going to be a run-of-the-mill backup. Offensively and defensively.
by METSMETSMETS on Dec 3, 2008 10:50 PM EST up reply actions
I can't believe you didn't mock him for Heilman
That’s the name that stands out in my book. The Mets will never let him start. They’d rather let him walk and take his “B” draft picks.
if "alex" gonzalez is your 1b
then you may have some problems
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
A toughie
I’ll do it pros and cons style:
Pros
- The Mets receive 2 needs in one trade: A 2 year OF and a closer
- Jenks is 28 and doesn’t cost a lot of money at all
- Jermaine Dye provides right handed pop for the 6 hole
- No need to sign anyone
- Dye will likely leave a Type B FA
- Jenks is redealable
- No giving up 2 picks for K-rod.
Cons
- You lose F-Mart and other prospects, which can be avoided by signing K-rod
- Immediate offense isn’t a pressing need
- Jenks will re-negotiate his contract possibly by as soon as nexy year, rendering it less cost-efficient
- In addition to the prospects, Dye will cost a bit of money.
- The trade would probably leave the Mets with little resources to trade for a middle of the rotation starter
A deal like this could potentially great, but also screw the Mets over. After Dye is gone in 2 years and no OF pans out, then they have to once again become victims to the market.
If there is a trade, this is what I think it’s going to look like:
Fernando Martinez
Eddie Kunz
Nick Evans
Mike Carp
Michael Olmsted
for
Jermaine Dye
Bobby Jenks
I bet the Mets give up even less
I just have a feeling theyre going to rip off the ChiSox.
No one’s seeing it but this is a White Sox firesale. They are slashing payroll.
This would be a great deal for the Mets – Jenks is an affordable alternative at closer and a great fit. Dye is a also a great fit in the lineup and field.
Its a steal. Outside of a prospect watching website, I would have to think Mets fans would be ecstatic about this. Of course, Ive always though FMart sucks. Hell, his ceiling is Jermaine Dye – and he’s given us little reason to think he’ll hit it. The Mets can certainly afford to give up 5/6 years of FMart for a couple years of Dye at a position of need in GFIN mode.
Its a great move for the Mets – who will be the favorites if they do this.
I see it
Ozzie just says that he wants a more athletic team. Kenny Williams realizes that he can’t win with what he’s got.
Disagree
Your take on F-Mart sounds very similar to what everyone was saying about Pelfrey a year ago. Fact is, the kid spent two years as the youngest player in AA, and although he never dominated and needs to stay healthier, he improved his production quite steadily as he went along. That’s as good an indicator of future success as actually putting up big numbers, especially for a teenager playing against 22-23 year olds.
Dye one the other hand is a one-dimensional rental of a player, whose signed at just about market value. He has an injury history, he’s not young, and he doesn’t do much for me other than swing a solid stick. He might give you a little bit more pop than a Murphy/Tatis platoon, but the difference would be marginal, and for a #6 hitter (assuming 3,4,5 is still some combo of Wright, Delgado, Beltran), its almost negligible. Even if Martinez’s ceiling IS lower than Dye (which I don’t agree with, but for arguments sake), six years of Martinez at an average salary well below market value is MUCH more appealing than one year of Dye at the going market rate.
As for Jenks, sure, I like him, probably a bit more than any of the FA’s considering salary issues, but I don’t like him so much that I think he makes this deal for the Mets. His K’s have dropped each of the last two years and his rate verged on dangerously low in 2008.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
I still dont think Pelfrey is all that great either. He is due for a strong regression. allowed 9.74 H/9 and only struck out 4.93 per 9 while walking 64 guys in 200 IP. Yeah, Pelfrey really isnt all that good.
FMart – He’s a corner OFer who has never shown an ability to hit for power. His only argument is ARL and that only takes you so far with me. He doesnt walk a ton, either. When he actually produces once, at some level, any level – then yes, I will be on the bandwagon. Until then, Im not sure he’s not just another early peak, Dominican teenager who everyone expects to break out but never does. I could easily see him hitting .280/.330/.425 all the way – always being young for his league – and then BAM one day he’s 25 and still a .280/.300/.425 hitter and we’re wondering how we didnt see it coming. I dont care for FMart, and at the very least he’s an overhyped prospect they can sell high on. Again, corner player who has shown nothing resembling a corner bat.
six years of Martinez at an average salary well below market value is MUCH more appealing than one year of Dye at the going market rate.
That’s what I was saying was the real value lost here – Im just of the opinion the Mets can afford this in order to solve their closer problem with Jenks.
Pelfrey
Seriously look at the components:
200 IP
209 H
12 HR
64 BB
110 K
40something% ground ball rate
If you didnt tell me who that was I would guess like Kevin Millwood, 08 Joe Blanton or 08 Jon Garland…
Pelfrey is getting way too much hype. Its like how I had to explain why John Maine wasnt an “Ace” at this time last year. I think Pelfrey could be an around average league starter, though.
where do you get 40%
I see 325 groundballs to 201 flyballs. for whatever that’s worth…
by Patrick Clark on Dec 3, 2008 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
49.6%
is what fangraphs has him at.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5203&position=P
His minor league numbers seem to be 40-50% as well (looking at baseball cube). Fangraphs has it at 322 GB to 192 FB fwiw. 135 LDs.
49.6% ≠ 40something%
It’s nearly 50, and there is a difference between that and, say, 43%. You’re also ignoring the obvious growth Pelfrey displayed over the 2008 season. Pelfrey is a 25 year old starter with a great arm who completely blossomed once let loose from Jacket’s tyrannical approach. Please disregard his minor league numbers to a certain extent, as they were a product of Big Pelf being forced to pitch in a manner unbecoming his true nature. Barring injury, Pelfrey seems to be well on his way to establishing himself near the head of the class of today’s sinkerballers, such as Webb, Lowe, and Wang.
you are ignoring his ceiling
he isn’t going to get better if he can’t…he performed what they hope he could one day, but he can’t K people so he can’t get much better
by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 3, 2008 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
Ks
Why can’t he improve? He K’d people in the minors
Are we having the Pelfrey argument again?
This always comes down to the same thing. People who never/rarely watch him say his numbers look crappy. People who consistently watch him feel that his numbers reflect the approach he takes (throwing certain pitches with runners on base, ahead in counts, etc.). People who never watch him think he will regress. People who always watch him think he took a huge step forward last year.
And for the record, people who always watch him doesn’t equal Mets fans. This includes people who are paid to analyze.
Sounds like
how Brian Bannister was supposed to be more than the sum of his parts… they said the same thing about him – “throwing certain pitches with runners on base, ahead in counts, etc.”
99% of the time that sort of stuff is horses***…
It illustrates
how explaining away Pelfrey’s problems by saying he is regularly "throwing certain pitches with runners on base, ahead in counts, etc." is a bunch of crap.
This last year we had to hear a lot about how Bannister did the same sort of thing – how he pitches to contact and studies hitters… blah blah blah. Yet, in the end he ended up regressing heavily (much as I expect Pelfrey will) because he doesnt K anyone, doesnt have great stuff (or in Pelfrey’s case has only one pitch he can throw for strikes) and didnt have quite the superb control he needed.
After 2007 everyone was talking about how good Bannister was and I bet you could find huge homer Royals fans who thought he had front of the rotation upside, too.
Of course theyre not perfect comps
Bannister pitches in a tougher league and tougher park.
Plus Bannister strikes out more guys than Pelfrey.
Its an absurd comp. Bannister also tops out at 89 mph and doesn’t throw a heavy sinker. This is actually a great example of what I was saying to you somewhere else in this thread. If Bannister added another average pitch, the improvement to his overall performance would be marginal. He already throws the basic fastball, changeup, breaking ball. If he were to add say, a splitter, or a harder slider, it would just be a variation on something that he already has. If Pelfrey added an average changeup though, it would be a completely new element, it wouldn’t just be a slight variation on something he already does.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 4, 2008 2:01 AM EST up reply actions
Pelfrey has 2 plus pitches in his 4-seam fastball, and his Sinker.
Bannister has zero.
Really, apples and oranges man.
by adropofvenom on Dec 4, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
BTW
I know that wasn’t the point, but I thought I’d throw it out there.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
16th of 86 SP on fangraphs...
Yeah that rate was the 16th highest qualifying SP there.
Overall, his ratios are still closer to a guy like Jon Garland than a future ace; but he obviously has more upside than Garland. I think the truth is likely in between; he still has a decent chance to be a future #2 type, or at worst a workhorse #3. But I think it’s premature to expect better than a solid #3/#4 for next year. I’d be happy with a 4.10 ERA next year. Eventually I think he might be in the 3.60-3.75 range. Above average, but not “ace” level.
That's of batted balls
That’s a pretty high rate. Look at the GB/FB rate, it’s 1.69. That’s 15th in baseball of qualified SP there:
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=y&type=2&season=2008&month=0
I agree with his current ratios, that’s more #3/#4 than #1/#2, but his secondary stuff still has a good amount of upside potential. I certainly wouldn’t bank on him as a #2 next year though. A 4.00 ERA would be fine for next year. He also always had a very low HR rate. I think improvement will come as much from falling walk rates as increasing SO. I’d guess he’ll be able to get the SO rate up to around 6.0, but the walk rate coming down would make the bigger difference.
Well put
+1, agree 100%, although I’m not sure how it will work next year. He made a very large innings jump last year, and as Will Carroll put it in one of his chat’s, Pelfrey will be the “poster boy” for the Verducci effect in 2008
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 10:48 PM EST up reply actions
That honestly really doesn’t concern me, Pelfrey is pretty much in the ideal pitchers body, has clean mechanics, and throws 75% fastballs between his 4 seamer and his Sinker. I honestly think he could have thrown 230 innings without any ill effects.
by adropofvenom on Dec 4, 2008 11:45 PM EST up reply actions
But I do agree that if and when he continues to trend upwards (if not in 2009, probably 2010 since another large innings jump is highly unlikely) it will have as much to do with declining walk rate as improved k rate, and that it still depends on how his secondary pitches develop. If he can ever figure out how to change speeds well, it would give him a whole new dimension, but even if he just maintains some sort of marginally reliable power breaking ball it will be his command that keeps him looking strong.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 10:50 PM EST up reply actions
First half vs. Second half
Pelfrey in the first half(15 GS):
83.2 IP
92 H
4 HR
41 BB
48 K
(Not sure of GO/AO, but Pelf is a notorious GB pitcher)
4.65 ERA
Pelfrey in the Second half(17 GS):
114 IP
107 H
8 HR
23 BB
62 K
(Judging by HR, his GO/AO lowered)
3.16 ERA
Next year, I think Pelf will prove to be a very valuable #2. He’ll probably post around a 3.40 ERA, depending on how many times he plays the Marlins.
How would that come about?
After a 24 yo pitcher shows great command and durability as well as a very good K/BB, HR/IP, and WHIP in the second half, he suddenly has a random lapse?
I don’t buy it.
Especially when said pitcher
has a fastball that can hit the upper 90s and three pitches all of which have the potential to be lethal.
That's not a "lapse"
Thats an ERA more in line with his components rather than the lucky ERA he posted this year.
So far the only basis you've had with your "lucky ERA"
is low K numbers.
The League Average ERA was 4.32 last year, and yet Pelfrey’s 2nd half WHIP is closer to Johan Santana’s than any pitcher with the league average ERA, and his 2nd half BB and HR rate are superior to Santana’s, Is Santana’s ERA lucky? Is every pitcher who doesn’t strike out the world lucky?
To clarify
my point is, there is no reasonable evidence besides a lapse in command and WHIP that Pelfrey should put up an ERA close to 4, and that the only semi-reasonable argument you’ve shown that Pelfrey won’t be a “#2” is that he doesn’t strike out a whole lot of batters. While K’s do help a pitcher significantly, they really aren’t a very important statistic. It’s like saying Adam Dunn isn’t good because he strikes out too much.
K's aren't a very important statistic?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 8:47 PM EST up reply actions
Ks
Are important, but not an end-all be-all. The reason they can be important is when pitcher’s have poor command, good K rates can help them strand all the baserunners they allow. But at the same time, when a pitcher has good command and doesn’t give up a lot of homers, Ks become less important even if the guy’s a little hittable, since hitters aren’t getting free passes and you’re not getting two and three run homers all the time.
Suppressing HR and throwing strikes is a very strong combo for a pitcher, and in a lot of ways more valuable than a mediocre command/high K pitcher. Guys with mediocre command and high K/9 do okay at run prevention, but managing pitch counts can become a serious problem for them. John Maine was a classic example in 2008 (I think his command is actually better than exhibited, but it clearly was not a strength for Maine in 2008).
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 9:44 PM EST up reply actions
name one great pitcher who can't K people
and maddux used to
by IHateMitchMustain on Dec 3, 2008 10:01 PM EST up reply actions
nope
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
Chien-Ming Wang
isn’t great but he is a good pitcher and he strikes out fewer guys than Pelfrey.
Pelfrey won’t be an ace if he doesn’t improve his K-rate(which I think he will) but he can still be a 2 or 3 if he doesn’t.
Did I say he had to be a great pitcher? Since when does every good or even adequate pitcher need to be great? There have been a few great pitchers who haven’t Ked a ton (Tom Glavine didn’t even throw hard). All I said was you could make a case that a guy who supresses HR and has good command is better than a guy with a great K rate but mediocre command. IMO, neither of those are the model of a “great” pitcher but both are models for what you might call a “very good pitcher”
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
BECAUSE
the f***ing claim here was he had “ACE” upside. That’s the whole point.
The counter argument is not that “Pelfrey sucks” – All Im saying is he doesnt K many people so he has no “Ace upside.”
The idea is laughable
Yeesh, sorry, I wasn’t even responding to your comment, I was respond to:
K’s aren’t a very important statistic?
It’s not the results, it’s how you look going about those results — Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think we disagree, we just see Pelfrey on different sides of average. Most likely career path off the top of my head: he becomes a reliable 190-210 IP, 4.15 ERA, 50% GB, 2.50-3.50 K/BB, 1.25 WHIP guy during his best years.
Still Its not completely impossible he becomes a solid #2 starters. The innings are a good start, but it would take a serious refinement of his secondary pitches. He’s still only 24 though, and has only been in professional baseball for three years. Becoming a steady #2 is hardly impossible, but its not particularly likely either. If he comes out this year or next year and has really tightened up his curve and learned to change speeds a bit better, it would add a whole new dimension to his game and in theory would help him miss more bats. Could he be a 10.00 K/9 guy? Almost certainly not. He pitches to contact too much for that. But if he got it up to say, 7.00 while maintaining his command, he’d probably be a solid #2. Any higher and he could start to look like an ace.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 11:15 PM EST up reply actions
I think your "most likely career path"
is near my best case. But I dont think we’re really that far off. My point was never that “Mike Pelfrey is not a good pitcher,” despite the many responses that seem to be arguing against that strawman.
I said I thought he was being overrated and I got a number of responses claiming he has “Ace upside.” I strongly reject that notion. In fact this entire thing is nearly word for word the John Maine argument that occured on this site last year.
I think its highly unlikely he gets his K/9 up above 7, fwiw. Without overpowering “Ace” stuff, without striking out a lot of guys and with the control he has shown he just doesnt have “Ace upside.” Could he improve? Sure. BUT he’s a LONG way from being a front end starter despite the Wins and ERa this season. When we look at the way they abused him (the innings jump) I find it exceedingly unlikely he’s going to take a big leap forward next year. And oh yeah – he’s already 25.
Arguing he has Ace upside – I mean, if he has Ace upside then there are still about 50 other pitchers with more “Ace upside”
I officially call this thread....
Off on a tangent.
by METSMETSMETS on Dec 3, 2008 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
I figured
Exactly, we’re on different ends of average. That’s how I see the average season of his looking from now through maybe age 30.
But I do think you’re underrating his potential. I know K/9 is a good indicator of future performance, but its not completely rigid. There are reasons to think Pelfrey has greater potential, even if the odds are more favorable towards simply being above average. But like I said, he’s still operating almost exclusively off his fastball, and he’s only been in professional baseball for three seasons. Maybe he never develops anything better, but even a subtle improvement to his secondary repertoire would give him a whole new dimension and increase his potential exponentially.
As for the innings jump., it wasn’t absurd, but it was large, and I expect a 2009 backlash. But this wasn’t abusive Dusty Baker style, or even what the Giants did with Tim Lincecum throwing 130 pitches in a meaningless game that wasn’t even that close. Pelf’s pitch counts were typically very manageable, and on all but maybe one or two occasions he was pulled before it got too high. He was able to rack up the innings by pitching efficiently, putting batters away early in counts and throwing strikes. The Mets carefully extended him as the season wore on, weighing their chances of a pennant against his durability.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 4, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions
Sure
but if we’re saying “all he needs to do is improve his strikeout rate, secondary stuff and control”
Well, every pitcher in baseball has the same issues and every pitcher in baseball would take a huge leap forward if they could do that.
Pelfrey is 25 years old. I dont see a lot of reason to think he’s going to get much better. The odds are against it. You say “he’s still operating almost exclusively off his fastball” – I say “he doesnt have great secondary stuff and cant throw it for strikes.”
Because of his age and lack of pro experience he is the exact sort of pitcher who cant afford to lose development time because his team let him throw too many innings…
On the secondary
On the secondary stuff, my point was that if Pelfrey developed a solid second offering, it would be more significant than if, say, Cole Hamels developed a fourth pitch. For Hamels, any fourth pitch would just be a slight variation on one of his other pitches. The reward for Hamels developing another pitch is negligible, and the risk of trying is high, since the three he’s got are already so good. For Pelfrey, the reward of developing another pitch his high, and since he’s pretty much working off just the one pitch as is, the risk is comparably lower.
Look, I’m not saying “this is all he needs to do,” but there’s more room for growth here than you’re indicating. Watching a guy refine a second pitch after his 25th birthday isn’t that unreasonable. I’m not saying it should be EXPECTED, but it is possible.
Pelfrey’s a big strong kid. We can break down what effect the innings jump will have, and again, it was significant, but not absurd. This isn’t Kerry Wood or Mark Prior, its not even Tim Lincecum. It was a calculated risk, not reckless abandon. I can definitely see a slight regression as a result in 2009, but I don’t think its the beginning of the end of his career.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 4, 2008 1:36 AM EST up reply actions
Derek Lowe
Jon Lester, Jon Saunders
some other good ones:
Matt Garza, Gavin Floyd, Hiroki Kuroda, Jamie Moyer, Paul Maholm
Also keep in mind that Pelfrey was only 24 in his first 4 years.
by METSMETSMETS on Dec 3, 2008 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
Whoa Whoa Whoa
I said they’re good.
I said Pelfrey could be a #2 with a 3.40 ERA, and if he really hones his skills he may be an ace, because he already has good command, GO/AO, pure stuff, etc.
by METSMETSMETS on Dec 3, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
Pelfrey
really does have ace potential.
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/12/3/678936/jenks-and-dye-for-f-mart#
Its like five posts down
I know
I said he has ace potential. I’m just saying that to attain it he has to hone his skills, strike out more guys like you said.
My argument is that the skillset he showed in the second half convinces me that he can already be a #2, and if he does get more Ks he can be an ace.
by METSMETSMETS on Dec 3, 2008 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
Wrong
K’s are important because they allow a pitcher to reduce his batting average against. BABIP is very much outside the control of the pitcher; it’s nearly impossible to be effective at limiting hits without striking hitters out at a reasonable rate. Some pitchers who give up a lot of hits can still be effective if they don’t walk people and don’t give up too many HR, but it’s very difficult.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Good point
but also Pelfrey has a good habit to counter that, and that’s command.
Keep in mind that Pelf has 1 full season under his belt, and he’s going on 25.
by METSMETSMETS on Dec 3, 2008 11:31 PM EST up reply actions
Referring to
second half, once again, after Peterson left. 1.85 BB/9, 2.7 K/BB
by METSMETSMETS on Dec 3, 2008 11:37 PM EST up reply actions
He has an even better weapon to counter that, and that’s the ability to induce a double play with ease, thanks to the heavy sinker.
Again, he induced more double plays last year then extreme groundballers like Webb and Lowe, and the exact same number as Aaron Cook.
He just not overly reliant on it so he doesn’t have the gaudy GB/FB ratio, he’s more then content challanging hitters with his 4 seamer when there’s nobody on base.
by adropofvenom on Dec 4, 2008 11:52 PM EST up reply actions
I'm pretty sure
The first line of my post was “Ks are important”. I went on to say: But, they are not the end all be all. I’m very aware that BABIP is in large part, outside a pitcher’s control. In a lot of ways its at least as variable on the team defense as it is on the pitcher. But if you can limit baserunners and flyballs, you can still be an effective pitcher, especially on a good defensive team. I’ll repeat a stat I quote earlier, Pelfrey was rated 17th in MLB in BP’s SNLVAR (5.8). Support Neutral (as in the strength of his team’s defense is accounted for) Lineup-Adjusted (as in the strength of lineups he faced is accounted for) Value Over Replacement: SNVLAR. Its an excellent Pitching metric that accounts for much more than just K rates, command, WHIP and ERA. Pelf’s 5.8 is just behind Chad Billingsly (16th, 6.0) and ahead of Edinson Volquez, Ervin Santana, Roy Oswalt (tied at 5.7), Mike Mussina (5.6), James Shields (5.4) Matt Cain and Ervin Santana (5.3 each).
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 4, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
Oops that last one was supposed to be Matt Cain and Felix Hernandez (5.3). Dunno how that slipped lol.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 4, 2008 12:51 AM EST up reply actions
Ok
BUT Mike Pelfrey doesnt pitch like an Ace outside of Ks. His control wasnt great. He doesnt have an Ace’s repertoire. He did keep the ball on the ground and in the park well but was too hittable overall.
K’s arent the only thing and K’s arent Pelfrey’s only weakness – K’s are just the most glaring weakness that is going to hold him back.
Again, I think you’re confusing me with someone else, I didn’t by any means suggest Pelfrey was an ace, or has #1 potential. I don’t think a #2 type is even likely, but its not unfathomable.
And again, if you want to talk metrics, how about the SNLVAR. That’s a much better evaluation tool than WHIP or K/9 or K/BB. And you’re not accounting for the dramatic improvement that Pelfrey made, and it was dramatic and very apparent in stats like WHIP, K/9 and K/BB
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 4, 2008 1:41 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly
Pelfrey showed huge improvements starting around June. He didn’t strike out that many guys but he showed why he was a first round pick. He still has ace potential and I expect him to be a #2/#3 guy next year.
Ace Potential???
No way.
Lets just take the “good” second half splits above: 114 IP with 62 K. What “Ace” pitches like that?
What’s the potential here? Is he going to start striking out 40 more guys per 100 IP?
This was exactly what I was talking about. Exactly…
Pelfrey
really does have ace potential. Not Johan Santana ace potential, but closer to maybe Jon Lackey in that he could possibly have a few seasons with a 3.10 ERA. That ain’t bad.
I think the problem is
that people who are saying “no ace potential” are looking at his numbers, while people who are saying “ace potential” are looking at his repertoire. Basically, he has a downright nasty fastball. If he can develop a second or third plus pitch that complements it, he will be an ace. Is that likely? No, but there is a potential for it to happen. Crazier things have happened. Example: modern western philosophy on human rights can be attributed to sunspots in the mid-17th century. That is weird. Thinking a guy who can hang around might develop some other nice pitches is unlikely, but within the realm of possibility.
It distracts people from reality
which helps when you’re trying to argue something silly like Mike Pelfrey having ace potential.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
The point is
That saying that someone has “potential” isn’t indicative of their likelihood of reaching that point, merely that it is a possibility based upon their current path. I don’t think Mike Pelfrey will become an ace. But i’d give him at least a 1/30 chance of doing it, which means that he has the potential to become one.
The point of the sunspot comment was to say that historically really weird stuff has happened so you can’t discount the potential for something that you consider unlikely just because you think it sounds weird. It was an absurd example meant to prove a point. This is in contrast to your Bannister comment, which was an absurd example meant to draw a bad analogy.
Please
But i’d give him at least a 1/30 chance of doing it, which means that he has the potential to become one.
So how many pitchers in MLB would then have the potential to become an Ace?
Im thinking that rationally there would be a a whole lot of guys in front of Pelfrey – with better potential for Acedom. So saying Pelfrey has the potential to become an Ace isnt saying much at all. Its like picking a random weak hitting shortstop and saying “well, he has the potential to hit 30 HRs. All he needs is to fix his swing and develop more power. Id give it a 1-30 chance.”
My point was
“Guys who are supposedly better than their number/stuff are usually not.”
Your point was
“The absurd can happen, so youre wrong.”
thats asinine
your only point is that he doesn’t strike guys out. well the explanation for that is because he gets more groundballs than anybody in baseball minus like 3 guys. add in the low walk rate and yes he absolutely has ace potential.
this was his first full season. if you don’t think hes that good you either weren’t watching him pitch or don’t like the mets. either way you’re wrong.
by Rob Castellano on Dec 4, 2008 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
Sigh
Try 14, not 3. 15th of 88 pitchers.
This info takes like fucking 2 seconds to look up.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Dude
It’s not that big a deal. The point is he gets a buttload o’ grounders.
Have you seen the guys who get more GBs than him?
Its not like just the elite sinkerballers.
Webb(64.2% – Now THAT is an Ace type sinkerball GB rate!), Lowe(60.3),Aaron Cook, Jiminez, Lannan, Halladay, Maholm, Felix Hernandez, Jurrjens, Pettitte, Kuroda, Oswalt, Garland, Billingsley, Buerhle(tied).
Wow, what a group of “Aces” all of them, eh?
Do you know else those guys all do above? Strike out an not-insignificant amount of guys more than Mike Pelfrey. Except for Garland. I think Garland is a near perfect comp for Pelfrey fwiw. Remember, Im not arguing Pelfrey is bad – just that he’s not going to be an Ace.
What "low walk rate?"
Why do I keep hearing about a “low walk rate?”
Mike Pelfrey does NOT have a low walk rate. 3.51 BB/9. NOT LOW.
Minor league career? 3.17 BB/9.
That is nothing like an Ace. Nothing. So other than secondary stuff, control, and Ks – yes – other than those things I guess he has Ace potential.
Ace
I’m not saying he has the potential to be an ace next season, but he was drafted as a future ace. He is finally showing that potential and I don’t see why he doesn’t still have ace potential. I don’t see why his K-rate can’t go up dramatically.
?
He has one plus plus pitch right now(his sinker) and another plus pitch(his four-seamer). If he can add an average third or fourth pitch that could lead to a huge increase in his K-rate.
Oh yeah
imagine if he could, like, throw 20 mph faster suddenly – that would boost his K Rate even more! Or if he grew wings! That would be awesome!
Not too many guys add average breaking balls after age 25. Sinker and Fastball are both the same speed. He has nothing off speed that’s a) decent; and b) he can throw for strikes… or hell, even get guys to chase.
Chances a 25 year old coming off a huge innings jump develops an average breaking ball… does not equal ace potential.
What?
It’s not very uncommon for a 25 year old to add an average breaking ball, especially since he had one in college.
In college he had a good curveball but Peterson made him get rid of it. Recently Warthen said that he doesn’t see why Pelfrey shouldn’t pick it back up. No reason it can’t be an average pitch.
Alaskor
Doesn’t care. He thinks any prediction of advances in Pelfrey’s pitching are wildly optimistic while all regression is definite (and as he predicted). I am not gung ho pelfrey, but it’s embarrassing how far to the other end of the spectrum he is. He’s at the borderline of denying reality. I’m pretty sure if we get him worked up enough he’ll deny that Pelfrey has a great FB.
On a side note, I’d be happy if Pelfrey performed as a #3 this year, and I’m hoping that his easy action made the increase in his innings less of a strain on his arm.
Quite clearly not in a bunch
if anything, I was so drunk that I am surprised that I was able to see my keyboard, let alone type with any lucidity.
DiPS Theory
Alskor, you need to stop clinging so mightily to DiPS theory. It is not wholly applicable to pitchers with strong groundball tendencies. That type of pitcher actively pitches to contact in order to get through an order quickly, relying on his defense to do the work for him. My greatest fear for Pelfrey is overuse and/or a poor defensive right side of the infield for the Mets. Having observed almost all of his major league work, I do not question his progress across the 2008 season, or his potential to develop into a true front end starter.
It is possible, even without a great K rate, to be an ace. The catch is having the ability to get a strikeout when necessary, and I think Pelfrey at least has the capacity to further hone this ability, which he has already shown at the major league level.
Exactly
The name of the game is run prevention. Generally speaking, guys who miss bats have great potential for run prevention, but there are other ways to do it. Its hard to be a #1, “a great pitcher”, an ace, a stud, whatever you want to call it with a fringey K/9, but in a lot of ways its easier to become a “good” pitcher, a #2/#3 pitcher, a horse, an innings eater, whatever else you want to call it with good command and the ability to keep the ball on the ground.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 10:35 PM EST up reply actions
Front end starter
maybe. I seriously doubt it the way they abused him this year.
“Ace?”
No way.
I completely disagree with you. Ace pitchers always have better K rates than Pelfrey. Always. Even the guys we dont think of as strikeout pitchers (like Webb) strike out way WAY more guys than people think.
ask kenny williams
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
My point was
Floyd – Top 5 pick in the draft, Ace stuff, better secondary stuff than Pelfrey by far, also exploded this year with good traditional pitching numbers, also got pretty lucky to get those numbers – which exceeded his components.
I in no way think Gavin Floyd has “Ace potential” but Im quite sure he has more “Ace potential” than Mike Pelfrey. Any claim you want to make about Pelfrey – Floyd did it better this year, in a harder league, with better stuff and has the same pedigree. YET no one is claiming he has Ace potential.
Floyd
Floyd’s fastball is way behind Pelfrey’s. Pelfrey throws a lot harder(mid 90s four seamer, 91-93 sinker) and both pitches have more movement. A fastball like that gives a guy ace potential.
just forget it
alskor is clearly anti-mets and hes getting illogical in his arguments because of it. just forget him.
by Rob Castellano on Dec 4, 2008 7:50 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry I wont be an enabler
and tell you Mike Pelfrey is going to be an Ace.
I cant do it because there is ZERO chance of it happening, and frankly, everyone outside of queens is aware of it. Other than draft slot, Mike Pelfrey has in three seasons of pro ball given no one any reason to think he is going to be an Ace or that he has the potential to be an Ace. The statistical likelihood of it happening is so low its not worth discussing.
Again, many of these are the same friggin argument Mets fans brought to the board last year with John Maine. Im not actually anti-mets, but Im getting there the more I have to defend the position that these guys arent and will never be Aces. Go ask someone else who isnt a Mets fan if youre not going to listen to me.
In fact, tell you what. Next BP or Keith Law chat somebody here please ask if Mike Pelfrey has “Ace potential.” What do you think they will say? Hell, go ask Omar Minaya.
i was making a funny
trust me, i’ve liked everything you’ve said in this thread thus far
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
Also on your comps
Maybe if Pelfrey got smacked around for hits and home runs more than he’d be Blanton. Same goes for Garland. I don’t know how the Millwood comp has any substance.
What you don’t realize is that Pelfrey pitches situaitonally, when there are runners on base and less then 2 outs he is nothing short of excellent at inducing a double play with his nasty Sinker. He actually induced more double plays then extreme groundballers like Derek Lowe and Brandon Webb last year.
However, with bases empty, or with 2 outs, he’s more then content challanging hitters with a 4 seamer and letting them pop up to Beltran, so he doesn’t have that flashy GB/FB ratio.
by adropofvenom on Dec 4, 2008 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
Well, I’m sorry, but I consider that a short-sighted view on player projection. Its not all about track record, in fact the younger the player, the less track record data there is, the less significant it is in analysis. F-Mart’s improvements have been steady on all counts except staying healthy, and age is very relevant. Most current MLB players would have struggled much more than F-Mart if they were put in AA as an 18 year old, and despite the popular sentiment around here, the only team he’s been moved to LF on is his DWL team. He’s not some big hulking fullback type, he’s quick and athletic and if his route running improves at a rate consistent with a developing teenage player, I don’t see why he couldn’t be a compotent CF. I haven’t heard a single expert say that he would be moved off the position due to natural inability, most just assume it will happen anyway because Carlos Beltran will still have a year or two left on his contract by the time F-Mart comes up.
As for Pelfrey, I didn’t say he was a stud, but going into the year lots of people were ready to call him a failed prospect, and he came out and showed tremendous improvement as the year went on, and easily became the second most consistent pitcher on the Mets staff. BP has him with the 17th best SNLVAR rating in MLB (That’s Support Neutral Lineup Adjusted Value Above Replacement) in 2008. Its a pitching metric that measure’s a pitcher’s value objective of defense and in consideration of the quality of the lineups he faced. 17th just behind Chad Billingsly and ahead of Edinson Volquez, Roy Oswalt, Ervin Santana, Mike Mussina, James Shields and Matt Cain.
As for Jenks, I reiterate my point, why give up the #1 prospect in your system for commodity in a market where that commodity’s supply is large and the demand is relatively small? Its bad economics. If we were talking about a Mariano Rivera type closer, that’d be one thing, but Bobby Jenks, like most of the other available closers, just doesn’t blow me away.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 9:30 PM EST up reply actions
Regression
I will say this though: I do expect a regression next year, but that has more to do with IP than any huge red flags in his component stats. If he ever does want to get his K/9 up, he’ll need to find a second plus pitch, but he’s got a good enough fastball where, if he commands it well enough, gets his groundballs with his two-seamer and manages to throw the four-seamer inside on lefties, he’ll be a solid pitcher, especially considering the Mets above average defense. No, the big red flag isn’t his K/9, its his innings jump and HR/FB. I could see an ERA spike next year, especially if he feels the Verducci Effect on his command. But that’s not a real long-term issue, and his sinker is a viable weapon for keeping the ball in the park. Thus, if he maintains his command and stays healthy, I see no reason why he can’t have a career full of seasons equal to or better than his 2008 campaign.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 9:37 PM EST up reply actions
-1 on Jenks
The fact that Jenks’ K’s have dropped the last two years is exactly why I think he’s elite. I think it clicked in 2007 when he had that 40-inning hitless streak that he doesn’t need to work so hard on striking out everybody, but just being a pitcher and getting the outs. I’d like to see maybe a few more strikeouts, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that as his K’s have gone down the last two years, his whip, era and converted saves are far better the last two years than the previous two years. Looks like maturity to me.
"The face that Jenks' K's have dropped the last two years is exactly why I think he's elite."
That may be the one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever read.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
PROVE IT!!!1!
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Offense isn't a pressing need?
The Mets had Nick Evans batting 5th in the must-win last game of the year.
Yes
but overall their offense produced. And frankly if we just got Brian Giles and put Murphy at 2B that’s already a huge improvement over Pagan/Chavez/Murphy/Evans/Alou in left and Easley/Castillo at 2B isn’t it?
Just got Giles and put Murphy at 2B?
There’s no guarantee Murphy can play second and no chance of getting Giles.
Sorry
I thought Giles was sent to the FA.
Anyways, the Mets have a few options out there for a cheap LF like Floyd and others.
Really?
1. With Scott Olson starting, I have no problem with a guy who had been hitting 319 / .380 / .514 vs. LHP.
2. The only reason Nick Evans batted 5th was because Jerry was messing with the lineup. Beltran batted in the 2 hole for what really may have been the first time since he became a Met. Nick Evans was not the #5 hitter for the Mets.
3. How does Dye really boost the offense that much? Dye vs. Church/Murphy/Tatis in the #6 hole? Seems like a marginal upgrade at best to me. The Mets tied with Phili for second in the NL in runs scored. It wasn’t their offense that needed help. It was their pitching, specifically relief pitching. Could they upgrade on 799 Runs scored in a season? Sure, but it wouldn’t help as much as building a legit bullpen and adding another dependable starter.
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 3, 2008 10:58 PM EST up reply actions
Therefore
should the Mets trade Fernando Martinez and other prospects to the Sox for Bobby Jenks and Jermaine Dye?
by METSMETSMETS on Dec 3, 2008 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
Honestly, I think it's a bad deal for both sides
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
I thought Dye had the Mets on his no-trade list
I can believe they are discussing Jenks. It’s been widely reported the Mets were interested there, it’s an obvious need, and the White Sox have been reported to be talking to the Mets and scouting some of their prospects in Arizona.
So I think there might be something there, I’m just not sure it involves Dye, who supposedly had the Mets on his list of teams he can’t be traded to. If Dye is involved, I don’t think he’s worth too much, because he’s 35 years old and making market rate. But they will likely want something for him. What would the Mets want if they were dealing Delgado? Jon Niese seems about right there.
And Jenks is good enough you might be talking about Fernando Martinez there. Really, he’s the same age as K-Rod, and almost the same class of talent. How much would he be getting if he were a FA? If there is something to this, it is a decent fit overall; closer is obviously the Mets greatest need.
And, keep in mind, the Mets would save a couple of picks vs. going for a FA, and probably gain a pick as well next year if Dye ended up being a 1 year rental. So including one or two B prospects to finish off the package isn’t out of the question either.
In general, I would prefer to see the Mets hang onto the young talent; I’d sooner want to see the Mets dealing Delgado for Poreda as Niese for Dye, but if the Mets are in “win-now” mode I guess it would be understandable.
Another thought from the Mets perspective; consider that you could also turn around and deal Delgado somewhere, for either a decent young pitcher to replace Niese, or another good arm to shore up the bullpen behind Jenks. Suddenly, you have addressed the biggest offseason need, haven’t hurt the offense, and you haven’t added any net cost to the payroll. Suddenly, you can maybe find the money in the budget to consider one of the big names for your final offseason move, such as CC for the rotation, or perhaps even Teixeira for 1B.
He does
I almost forgot
I knew I was forgetting something.
by METSMETSMETS on Dec 3, 2008 10:56 PM EST up reply actions
Don't look this up before you answer
Pitcher One:
124 K
70 BB
10 HR
1.53 K/BB
1.68 GB/FB
Pitcher 2
110 K
64 BB
12 HR
1.72 K/BB
1.68 GB/FB
Which of these pitchers is Mike Pelfrey, and which one is Dana Eveland?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
