Mets Bullpen Taking Shape, Parnell and Batista In, Carrasco and Beato Out?

23 Comments + Add Comment

• Joey D. March 11, 2012 at 11:08 am

  Go figure… Carrasco was the guy Sandy got instead of re-signing Pedro Feliciano. I doubt Sandy was apprised that Feliciano was subject to a season ending injury two months later – after all, this is the Mets medical staff we’re talking about. More likely he saw the saving of approximately $800K per season over two years for pitchers with similar performance levels.

  Though in hindsight nobody knew that Carrasco was to be a bust and Feliciano wasn’t even going to pitch at all, in terms of putting together a good pitching staff for 2011, there was no way to justify the release of one and the signing of the other for two years – the best move would have been to retain both along with Takahashi.

  Along with KRod and the young Parnell, those five had the potential of giving the Mets one of the more formidable bullpens in the league. That’s how one can build a team for the now without sacrificing the future. And though other than Takahashi it wouldn’t have worked out, that would have been no fault of Sandy’s.

  “The Mets believe some teams will be impressed with his strong two innings of work this spring.” – guess that also means the Mets, on the other hand, are not. Again, a rejuvenated Carrasco along with the other acquisitions coming through as Sandy hopes (Rauch is a big gamble) and an improving Parnell, the Mets once more have the potential of having one of the more formidable bullpens in the league.

  If D.J. continues to have an impressive spring, keep him – of course, unless that means the Wilpons are in desperate need of that $1.2 million for other purposes. I doubt the Mets would get a player of any potential quality in hopes for a trade instead.
• Kave Man March 11, 2012 at 1:25 pm

  Krod is available and only costs money as the brewers would love to dump the 8 million dollar setup man

  problem: mets are a small market team playin moneyball without money!!!
• Metsie March 11, 2012 at 1:34 pm

  So glad we shored up that Bullpen with guys like Rauch!

  1 run walked in 3 runs scored Yep thats going to help!

  Yes it’s only ST but I do remember a conversatiion yesterday that said Harvey should be sent down becaue any success he was having is because Pitchers are always ahead of Batters in ST!
• t agee March 11, 2012 at 1:47 pm

  Joey D How are you?

  I wouldn’t connect Feliciano to Carrasco. Those two decisions stood on their own.

  I’m quite sure the wear and tear on Feliciano did have something to do with the decision I mean how long could he be expected to continue? First and foremost that decision though was about the “value chain.” The value chain is a vital concept for sports franchise’s remaining competitive. You simply must turn performing assets into other performing assets rather than attempting to squeeze every last drop of use out of every single player and then having yet another “hole to fill” somewhere else down the line.

  We’ve all the heard the stories of Art Rooney being too loyal for too long with his mid 70′s Steelers and they suffered with down years afterward. There was also a GM in NY (I believe with the Knicks) who talked about the need to trade a guy a year too soon as opposed to a year too late. Pedro Feliciano was in essence a trade. He was traded for Michael Fulmer who we selected at #44 of the 2011 MLB draft.

  Looking at the broad picture even if Fulmer never makes it he still wouldn’t give us THAT much less than Pedro could be expected to, after all, Pedro was 34 and had led the NL in appearances the last 3 years and while he was brilliant in his role the reality is IF Michael Fulmer makes it, he could make it huge. Be a star for here for 8-10 years or just a good serviceable swingman in the Rick Aguilera mold. On a cost/benefit scale the loss of a dependable LOOGY with an uncertain number of innings left in him is a small loss but the potential gain of what could be obtained with the 44th draft pick in the deepest draft in 10-20 years made this move a complete no brainer.

  Carrasco obviously was a guy Alderson etal believed would be a decent solid dependable reliever worthy of using up a roster spot on even with so many of Minaya’s prospects needing to be put on the 40 in between the 2011 and 2012 seasons. Certainly seems to be a major misjudgement at this point, and yet another one in not ditching him, eating the 1.2 M and saving that roster pick for elsewhere.

  This is in no way an attempt to absolve Alderson of a mistake and is purely a supposition on my part that there MAY have been an understanding/agreement on Carrasco’s part to allow the Mets flexibility in sending him down to AAA and not having him opt to become a free agent thereby providing either decent work in the pen or AAA depth depending on performance and in return for that, got a two year deal. The reason I mention that as a possibility is because the Mets did have that sort of understanding with Boyer however he went and opted not to go to AAA, something that surprised the Met FO so perhaps they did have that understanding with DJ as well. Remember pre 2011was really all about depth and contingencies so as to buy time to evaluate what was percolating in the minors.

  Takahashi took 2/6 M almost as soon as he became free to negotiate with everyone. Would he have done the same with us? I think that’s fair to say but the possibility still exists that he wanted more and to be fair again that would have been a very reasonable deal and would absolutely have helped provide some contingencies in that he could start, be a LOOGY or even a crossover but he would still cost a roster spot this offseason that could have cost a prospect in the rule 5 as Familia, Mejia, Kirk, Armando, Flores, Havens, Puello, Lagares, Fern, Carson Lutz, and Valdespin all had to be protected or we’d run the risk of losing a potential long term solution.

  With just 15 spots on the 40 allocated for the minors and half of them assigned for AAA depth (Battista, Misch types) and none of those names mentioned above reasonably expected to provide AAA depth in 2011 and really only one or two of them in 2012, roster spots are at a huge premium and one year ago it couldn’t have been considered an impossibility that Holt, Cohoon, Pena, Ratliff, Campbell, or anyone else couldn’t have forced the Mets to want to protect them from rule 5 poachers as well and a two year deal costs you a spot unless you cut the guy.

  Not trying to absolve Alderson of a mistake which Carrasco certainly appears to have been, just trying to add some of the other considerations that could have (or did) go into those decisions.
• Joey D. March 11, 2012 at 2:45 pm

  Hi Number 20,

  Good point about the 40 man roster and something I did not consider, however, I don’t know if that was the case regarding Feliciano and Takahashi since that would infer that the Mets deemed Boyer and Buccholtz more valuable than those two.

  It is hard to determine when a veteran reliever has that one more good year left and should be traded since we’ve seen many at 34 and 35 still surprise us at 36 and 37. In the case of Pedro versus D.J., logic shows which arm was the healthier since Feliciano was throwing fine as the season wound down and there were no visable signs in velocity, break or placement while Carassco is just a year younger than Feliciano and only pitched 18 innings the season before. being out most all the year. So did it really come down to baseball logic dictating such a change? I don’t think so, It was the money. Carassco, Boyer and Bulcholz came much cheaper than Feliciano and Takahashi

  Now, we don’t know if either would have stayed with the parent club but to release them without even an attempt to re-sign them, well to me that’s no different than giving Jose his walking papers without any negotiation by the Mets during the first year after Omar. The contracts for Feliciano, Takahashi and Carassco combined – and let’s say for two years as well – would not break the bank of most major league franchises. Nor does it say something to see both who were released signed by contenders while Carrasco was able to be signed by the Mets on the cheap because other clubs were not interested.

  As said, before the injury to Feliciano, a bullpen with him, a comeback by Carrasco, along with Takahashi, Parnell, Byrdak and KRod would have given the Mets a formidable bullpen. And even with the injuries and Carrasco’s horrendous season, just having Takahashi alone would have made the pen better than it was. The Mets let go of capable arms and replaced them with players on the cheap just to fill roster spots. Winning in 2011, as it is for 2012, is secondary and certainly could have been attempted while keeping our minor league hopefuls at bay (no, not Jason). I have to believe that based on all the players the Mets signed and those the Mets had let go.

  It was not baseball. It was not even money ball. The only consideration was spending less money, how minimal that amount was in the scheme of things. Note I haven’t referred to Sandy in any of this, I spoke about the Mets – for whom he works for.

  Joe
• t agee March 11, 2012 at 6:05 pm

  Noted Joey.

  Signing Feliciano though would have prevented us from getting a supplemental round pick and cost us a spot on the roster while we were trying to add guys.

  Signing Taka would have cost a spot too and prevented us from protecting promising prospects from the rule 5 draft in two different years.

  Feliciano was a clear no brainer regardless of the money simply for the fact that he couldn’t be counted on forever and with the chance to add a high ceiling prospect the choice was clear. That’s what successful franchises do. The look to the present and the future, our thoughts have only been to the present for 2 decades now. Regardless of how good he was in his role he’s still just a LOOGY. Important but not worth costing the price of a top prospect. Pure baseball move here.

  Letting a LOOGY go for the 44th best prospect in a very deep draft is in no way similar to non tendering Jose Reyes back before the 2006 season.

  Taka the same. We lost a prospect in the rule 5 as it was last off season and another this one. We just aren’t in a position to lose potential long term solutions or we’ll forever be patching one leak just to see another one spring up.

  Taka a case can be made for but the 44th best prospect in the draft for a 34 year old LOOGY with all those appearances on him over the last 3 years? Got to do it.

  Tell you the truth the Mets should have had some guys to pick from in the minors instead of having to import so many guys for the pen and AAA depth.

  As it turns out Byrdek/Taka would have been the way to go so he got one right and one wrong and perhaps we retained Robert Carson instead of losing him in the rule 5. Maybe no big deal or maybe a big deal. Managing the roster is a very difficult part of the job or you wind up screwing yourself later like we did by losing Flores who would be our first string catcher right now.

  It can’t always be 100% about this year all the time or we’ll never get anywhere.
• sliver99 March 11, 2012 at 6:22 pm

  I might be wrong, but I recall that Takahashi wanted to start and the Mets were pretty clear that he was not going to be part of the rotation. If so, then maybe the choice not to sign with the Mets was his, and money was not the issue.
  • t agee March 11, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    I remember that being an issue too Silver but I don’t believe he started any games in LA with the Angels so I woldn’t think it was too much of a hangup as long as the years were more than one but who’s to say.

    Maybe he just wanted to get a multi year deal like Igarashi got.
    • Fonzie13 March 11, 2012 at 11:27 pm

      Takahashi had asked for 15 million over 3 years from the Mets, he wound up signing for 8 mil for 2 years with Anaheim. I think the asking price and the years scared the Mets away. We definitely could’ve used him last year.
  • Hodges14 March 11, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    That was a key issue and the main reason he didn’t come to any agreement with the Mets.
• Joey D. March 11, 2012 at 10:39 pm

  Hi 20 and 14,

  Yes, Takahashi wound up relieving for the Angeles – and I just saw our old friend Joe Smith yesterday coming off a great year with Cleveland. So isn’t it funny that the guy we traded for and the guy we traded away are both doing the job we hoped for in the junior circuit, which is tougher to pitch in? Come to think of it, it’s not funny at all….. it’s so typical Met luck!

  But giving up veteran established players with a proven track record having yet to show signs of slowing down, on the premise that he might soon be, for a draft pick is really not good baseball unless the team itself is going nowhere which I don’t think was the case after 2010. Remember the article I posted yesterday about the overemphasis of draft picks:

  http://martelli.mlblogs.com/2011/06/08/the-mlb-draft-what-does-it-mean-and-does-anyone-care/

  There are just too many prospects out there and most of them, regardless if they were drafted high or low, go on to have prominent careers in the majors.
  And as far as the spots on the 40 man roster, I again point out that at the time (before Feliciano’s injury) Pedro and Takahashi would have been better than Bullholtz and Boyer.

  One final observation we can have our friendly debate over – if the Mets need to keep slots on the 40 man roster open to protect themselves against the rule 5 draft, then why replace veterans that they had for those who of lesser quality? John Rauch at this point is just one year younger than Pedro was when the Mets released him. Carrasco was only one year younger than Feliciano and coming off a bonifide arm injury (not a conjectured one).

  Again, I’m talking about after finishing up the 2010 season. If the moves were made the matter of age, a youth movement or filling roster spots till the youngsters come around, I don’t get it based on those who were released and those who were picked up. If the moves were made because they saved the Wilpons an extra few millions, then I completely understand.

  If the Mets felt they needed to dismantle the team after the 2010 and start over again with rebuilding, then the roster spots would have been better served by going after some young talent that still had promise but had been disappointments up to that time – like our old friend Joe Smith.

  BTW – Anybody here play stratomatic when they were kids?
  • Joey D. March 11, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    There are just too many prospects out there and most of them, regardless if they were drafted high or low, go on to have prominent careers in the majors.”

    Obviously, I meant to say “There are just too many prospects out there and most of them, regardless if they were drafted high or low, DON’T go on to have prominent careers in the majors.” If I didn’t catch that, you guys probably would have been wondering what was I disagreeing with you about!
  • Fonzie13 March 12, 2012 at 12:16 am

    Not resigning Takahashi and Feliciano was without question because of dollars and years. Both wanted multi year deals and for more money than they were willing to spend at the time. I didn’t mind letting Pedro go because he left behind a 1st round pick. As good a Met as he was during his time here, he was on the mound for 5 of the Mets 12 walkoff losses in 2010 and showed some signs of decline. Takahashi though, I wish they would’ve tried and negotiated a little and resigned him. He could relieve, spot start and even close in a pinch. Once he asked for 3 years they didn’t even try and negotiate with him. He wound up signing for 2 years and 8 million. That’s a fair dollar amount for his versatility.
• Joey D. March 11, 2012 at 11:42 pm

  Guys,

  Remember these types of predictions for the bullpen going into 2011? This particular one used the advanced stat FIP to justify it’s optimism. I also think it was reflective of the high hopes of a new front office based a lot on the disappointments of the old one – which isn’t really fair to the incoming general manager. Also don’t think many took seriously enough the financial implications surrounding the Wilpons and questioning how much of these moves were due to baseball insight in lieu of being financially tanked-out.

  http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-mets-bullpen-as-a-strength/
• Joey D. March 12, 2012 at 12:30 am

  Hi Fonzie,

  Did we make a counter-offer similar to the Angeles – two years at $4 million – or was Takahashi going to be let go for a less expensive replacement in any event?

  So much tinkering with our pitching staff after 2010 dropped it from 6th (with an Ollie Perez) to 13th in ERA. Can you imagine what 2011 would have been like had there been less tinkering in the bullpen, considering our run production did completely the opposite – rising from 13th to 6th – without any tinkering (except for eating up Louie’s contract), without Ike Davis, without our best hitter for the last third of the season and with an injured David Wright having the worst season of his career.

  The more one thinks of it, the much more better 2011 could have been and the promise for 2012 had most of those changes had not been made, let alone making better signings if there were some dimes and nickels left to play with.

  OK, the Madoff scandal has affected all of us. Bernie made off with our team too.
  • Fonzie13 March 12, 2012 at 2:07 am

    Hi Joe, I don’t think they made any offer for Takahashi, not that I’m aware of. They offered arbitration to Felciano. I had no problem not giving Takahashi 3 years but the fact that he signed for 2 years shows he was willing to negotiate.
    • Joey D. March 12, 2012 at 10:27 am

      HI Fonzie,

      I don’t even have a problem if Takahashi and Feliciano walked for greener pastures as long as the team made a decent attempt to keep them and an agreement could not be reached.

      Why general managers break up successful bullpens I never know. With a successful one in 2006, Omar did and after a quick look at the 2007 collapse I found 8 of the last 19 games with either blown leads or close games becoming whipeouts due the bullpen that Omar had dismantled.
      • Donal March 12, 2012 at 10:34 am

        “Why general managers break up successful bullpens I never know”

        Generally, relief pitchers have a very small window of effectiveness. Most are pretty replaceable. Guys like Mariano Rivera are exception, not the rule.

        Once they gain notoriety and are about to become expensive free agents, if you did your job, you should have a young cheap guy who is just as good in most cases.
        • Joey D. March 12, 2012 at 12:19 pm

          ‘Generally, relief pitchers have a very small window of effectiveness. Most are pretty replaceable.”

          Hi Donal,

          Again, 8 of our last 18 games in were badly blown by the bullpen – and with that I don’t mean close games when they held the opponents mostly in check and gave up just a single run in the late innings. Omar dismantled the heart of our middle relief with just that type of thinking.

          Darren Oliver pitched to a 1.259 whip in 2007. Royce Ring who did well after a return from the minors sported a 2.70 ERA that following season. Heath Bell pitched to a 2.02 ERA (though he stunk for us so Omar gets a pass on that). Roberto Hernadez did tank out and Mota did it on drugs.

          Without Oliver and Ring to lead us to Wagner I’m sure cost us the post-season as much as their replacements, Scott Schoenweiss, Aaron Sele and the one he retained – Guillermo Mota did. Only Aaron Heilman and Pedro Feliciano held down the middle innings wll, with rooke Joe Smith pitching to an ERA well over four upon giving up nothng his first 17 pitching appearances.
      • t agee March 12, 2012 at 11:05 am

        Joey D,

        A GM’s job is to build this years team as well as prepare for the future. Lately people have been talking about how we can do both at the same time but where was this sentiment the last 15 years?

        Every single move we’ve made in the last decade and a half has been with just one thought in mind, this year. The Feliciano move is a perfect example of the part of the GM’s job that has been strangely absent from Phillips, Duquette and Minaya’s thought process and the lack of such forward thinking type decisions is the reason we always have so many “holes to fill.”

        Realistically Wagner should have been kept 2 more months and Castillo and Perez should have been let go as well for supplemental picks. That’s 3 supp picks and a first rounder right there that could begin addressing our numerous weak spots right now or providing us with something we have in surplus in which to upgrade a talent shortage.

        When was the last time you can actually say we made a forward thinking decision? I’d say it was back in 1994 with Bonilla for Ochoa and Buford. That’s a long time.

        We just couldn’t have asked for more than we got out of Pedro Feliciano. Led the League in relief appearances 3 straight years and was brilliant when used exclusively as a LOOGY but the idea that he was going to continue to be brilliant or ever bring back comparable value to the 44th pick in a fantastic draft is next to nil.

        A big part of a GM’s horse trading is selling high and that’s essentially what Alderson did here and is something that hasn’t been done around here in years and years and is in fact a huge part of the reason we’re squeezing round pegs into square holes all the time.
        • trs86 March 12, 2012 at 11:24 am

          Wouldn’t you say Beltran for Wheeler would apply to a first since Bonilla?
        • Joey D. March 12, 2012 at 11:41 am

          HI 20,

          “We just couldn’t have asked for more than we got out of Pedro Feliciano. Led the League in relief appearances 3 straight years and was brilliant when used exclusively as a LOOGY but the idea that he was going to continue to be brilliant or ever bring back comparable value to the 44th pick in a fantastic draft is next to nil”.

          Why not? In Pedro’s case it was all guess work. And if that was the logic, why replace him with Carrasco for two years – who was all of only one year his younger? Because innings were saved due to arm injury the year before?

          “Every single move we’ve made in the last decade and a half has been with just one thought in mind, this year. The Feliciano move is a perfect example of the part of the GM’s job that has been strangely absent from Phillips, Duquette and Minaya’s thought process and the lack of such forward thinking type decisions is the reason we always have so many “holes to fill.”

          If Sandy replaced Pedro with a younger free agent, a rule five draft pick or a rookie, I would agree. But for Carrasco? That certainly was not forward thinking or selling high and buying low – if Gordon Geiko was in charge, he would have called D.J. “a dog with flees”. (sorry for the language D.J, it was used for purposes of metophor only). That was to save money, nothing more.

          Neither were his other signings forward thinking.

          So can we agree that with the 2010 releases and signings that the Mets weren’t thinking in terms of this year but neither were they thinking in terms years down the road, either? None of his signings were forward thinking more than they were just money savers. For all we signed were damaged goods, players past their prime or those hardly sought after by most other clubs. In essence, continuing the Met tradition except for the price tag.

          Ciao,
          Joe
• Joey D. March 12, 2012 at 2:46 pm

  TIm Byrdak, as all no doubt know is out for at least six weeks.

  Let’s not forgot that Byrdak, at 38, is older than Pedro by two years. Doesn’t that make the argument that Pedro was not signed on the basis of being unable to be expected to continue pitching effectivelly due to his age irrelevant? As we saw, he was replaced by youngsters Byrdak, Carrasco and Issinghaussen.

  - Byrdak at 37 was released by the 76-86 Astros (who are also rebuilding) after 2010
  - Carrasco was injured and pitched all of 18 innings in 2010
  - Issinghaussen at 37 didn’t even pitch an inning in 2010

  Though I agree with the points as stated by T, Donal and Fonzie in general, I think these moves in specific cancel out any argument that the decision to release Feliciano after 2010 had anything to do with baseball insight as it was penny pinching fiscal planning. Our pen got older, not younger.

  Ciao,
  Joe