Comments on: Things That Make You Go Hmm… Lannan or Pelfrey?

By: Fonzie13

Fonzie13 — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 04:29:29 +0000

Yes, Niewenhuis has the ever popular oblique strain.

By: srt

srt — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:46:46 +0000

Isn’t Kirk down with an injury right now?
Thought he was but with the numbers growing almost daily, I’m kind of losing track.

I agree about an almost even swap there. If we’re giving up prospects, it should be for an improvement.

By: trs86

trs86 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:28:45 +0000

Also Pelfrey was at 15 QS last year in a down year, so your expectations aren’t very high.

By: trs86

trs86 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:27:42 +0000

But again is Kirk going to slot into their OF this year? It appears that is what they are going for. Looking for a CF that can play this year.

By: Fonzie13

Fonzie13 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:54:17 +0000

Not th I think Niewenhuis is anything special but we have a shortage of MLB ready CFers. We really can’t afford to move a Niewenhuis unless it’s a Don Corleone type offer.

By: Donal

Donal — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:36:52 +0000

Corner outfilders are easy to come by in the Mets system. It is center fielders we don’t have on hand. Puello, Ceciliani, Lagares, Nimmo etc etc are at least 2 years out, assuming they stick at CF.

By: Joe D

Joe D — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:29:38 +0000

Even so, I wouldn’t hesitate moving Nieuwenhuis for a starting pitcher if that’s what it would have taken. Outfield prospects are not in short supply these days, but a pitcher who can give you 30-35 MLB starts, ovwer 50% of them quality starts, are worth a premium. But usually teams that trade MLB rotation starters almost always get a pitching prospect back in the deal most of the time whether its a top prospect or a secondary piece to the return.

By: stick

stick — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:26:45 +0000

Just saying what most likely the Nats would require from the Mets for him. Even Kirk + a pitching prospect is still a lot to give up (with all the Mets other needs) for a relatively lateral move.

By: trs86

trs86 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:22:02 +0000

They don’t really have a need for either of those guys though.

They have a strength in #5 guys but a hole in CF. Wouldn’t that mean the only true reason for trading him would be to fill a hole? They are not exactly concerned with cash flow at the moment.

By: Joe D

Joe D — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:19:49 +0000

I disagree that someone like a Pelfrey or Lannan would command a package including a high level prospect like Matt Harvey plus Kirk Nieuwenhuis.

If we could get that, we would have traded Pelfrey long ago.

I’m thinking a guy like Gee tops plus a b level prospect to keep it interesting.

So I would have offered Dillon Gee and one of Robert Carson, Chris Schwinden or Pedro Beato.

Remember, they want to avoid paying him the $5 mil to be a number six starter.

By: trs86

trs86 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:09:01 +0000

Realistically what would they be looking for that the Mets could even provide? Perhaps a future 1B? Maybe a future 2B? If Havens were healthy he might be on their list. Maybe Jordanny?
Most importantly they are looking for a CF for THIS season and any trade of Lannan is most likely going to be in that direction. Maybe we can propose a trade of Torres? LOL. If Kirk is not ready for us then why would the Nats deal Lannan for him if they are looking to compete this year?

By: Des

Des — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:05:47 +0000

stick — Harvey and Kirk in the deal? No way, no how — unless they throw Harper and Strasburg into the deal!!! lol

By: trs86

trs86 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:05:28 +0000

Time to play the game:
Lannan: 4.12 ERA last 2 seasons, 1.506 WHIP with a 18-21 record.
Pelfrey: 4.19 ERA last 2 seasons, 1.42 WHIP with a 22-22 record.

Now exactly why would we want to trade a decent prospect, release Pelfrey and still pay Pelfrey
#2 about the same amount.

Are you serious in your comment about him being a top of the rotation guy?

By: stick

stick — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:45:43 +0000

it’s the prospect cost that makes it a non-starter.

If he was a FA and you could get him for less $, a no brainer. But given they (career wise) are not that far apart (And Lannan is far from a top of the rotation pitcher), and cost close to the same salary, is it really worth switching the 2 guys if you have to throw say harvey and Kirk into the deal?

By: Kranepool7

Kranepool7 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:32:52 +0000

I’m not so sure the Nationals would deal Lannan within the division. Their GM Rizzo is very old school type. But yeah, they should have tried. Pelfrey isn’t cut out for the glare of NY and has always seemed like an odd fit.

By: Things That Make You Go Hmm… Lannan or Pelfrey? | All New York Mets

Things That Make You Go Hmm… Lannan or Pelfrey? | All New York Mets — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:45:03 +0000

[...] Things That Make You Go Hmm… Lannan or Pelfrey? March 14th, 2012 admin An article by Joe D No Comments [...]

By: Tyler M.

Tyler M. — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:33:51 +0000

Although we won’t get him, I wouldn’t mind seeing Lannan as a New York Met. It is quite likely we wouldn’t be so upset about just about every pitcher on this team. As you said Joe, it really is quite unfortunate that he is too rich for the Mets to get, because he would have been a nice addition.