The upcoming off-season is when many Mets fans expect to see action with regard to shaping this roster for a competitive season. We’ve been through the trades that needed to be made, we’ve been through the free agents that couldn’t be signed, and we’ve been through the contracts that had to come off the books.
The farm looks healthy-ish, and now it’s time to prove that the Mets (like many other teams) can maintain a farm system while also competing during the regular season.
With that said, I am sure many of you stumbled upon Mike Puma’s piece regarding Bronson Arroyo and his potential interest in the New York Mets, right?
Let me preface my opinion by informing you that in June of 2012, I said this about Arroyo:
Arroyo is a guy I was always hoping the Mets would get after the 07 collapse. He’s an absolute workhorse. Along with that, he pitches very well against the Mets.
I meant it. To this day I feel like the Mets would have been in good shape had they gone after Arroyo heading into 2008 when many believed he could be acquired from the Reds.
Arroyo will turn 37 just prior to spring training, and while there are examples of pitchers throwing fairly well at that age (Colon, Pettitte, Kuroda, Hudson), there are many more examples to prove that a 37 year old starting pitcher, workhorse or not – is likely not going to be his former self.
That said, when MetsBlog’s Matthew Cerrone tweeted that a 3-year, $36 million deal would get this done, it was at that point that I spilled my coffee.
When R.A. Dickey was coming off a Cy Young season, one of the concerns and reasons for NOT extending him for three more seasons was due to his age and a potential decline. Valid argument if you ask me, and I’m glad they made the move they did.
So if they would trade a Cy Young pitcher who was 37 while he pitched his way to a Cy Young, why in the world would they offer a lesser pitcher of the same age a 3-year deal worth $12 million a year?
Tell you what, we’ll come back to that in a second.
If you want to look at Bronson Arroyo and think “what will he become?” the answer is Derek Lowe.
From 2002-2010 when Lowe was 37 years old, he had 300 starts – let’s compare that to Bronson Arroyo from 2005-today which he has 296 starts.
| NAME | G | IP | HA | ERA | BB | K | WHIP |
| LOWE | 302 | 1,844 | 1,874 | 3.90 | 529 | 1,152 | 1.30 |
| ARROYO | 299 | 1,891 | 1,915 | 4.08 | 486 | 1,210 | 1.27 |
These two were both workhorses leading up to their 37th birthday, they had similar control and strikeout stuff as well.
Following Lowe’s 37th birthday, he’d be a starter in the Braves and Indians rotation and sport a 5.00+ ERA before becoming obsolete.
Bronson Arroyo is not Andy Pettitte, Hiroki Kuroda or Bartolo Colon. He’s had a nice long and healthy career, but to offer him anything more than a 1 year deal to me is absolutely ridiculous.
So to answer my question above, regarding the trade of Dickey just to sign Arroyo…my answer is they wouldn’t. My answer is if they were to sign Arroyo for 3 years, I’d have serious doubts about what this organization is trying to do.
My answer is, the Mets do not need Bronson Arroyo and the supposed $36million they could potentially offer him should be used to find somebody who can actually hit the ball.
Regardless of what happens with Matt Harvey, the Mets rotation still will not be as bad as their lineup heading into the 2014 off-season. I am really not sure why the need to even discuss an average 37 year old pitcher for 3 years is even being tossed around as a legitimate idea for this franchise.
Bronson Arroyo will be the 2010-2012 version of Derek Lowe, and while I was in favor of getting him back in 2008, we’re 7 years removed from that.
If the Mets could click their heels and suddenly get the 2008-2013 version of Bronson Arroyo I am sure they’d do that.
But since they can’t, they shouldn’t, and since they shouldn’t…they hopefully won’t.
