While reading Tyler’s post this morning on what if anything the Mets should do with Mike Pelfrey moving forward, I couldn’t resist the temptation of comparing him to the National’s John Lannan who is apparently available according to Danny Knobler of CBS Sports, yet too rich for the Mets taste which is rather unfortunate.
Red Sox, Tigers, Astros among teams watching Lannan, who will likely be dealt. Mets and Pads had interest, but $5 mill is too much for them.
— DKnobler (@DKnobler) March 13, 2012
Lets put aside the facts that Lannan is a year younger than Mike Pelfrey, or that he will earn nearly a million dollars less than Pelfrey in 2012, or that he’s a southpaw which I always put an extra premium on. Instead let’s simply consider these two from a performance stand point first.
Lannan went 10-13 last season with a 3.70 ERA in 33 starts for the Nationals, while Pelfrey clocked in with a 7-13 record and a 4.74 ERA in 33 starts as well for the Mets. Of course, Pelfrey’s numbers may have been even worse if not for the shelter Citi Field provided him and all pitchers. His ERA at home was 3.94 while on the road he pitched to an unsightly 5.49 ERA.
Both Lannan and Pelfrey have very similar metrics beyond the old stand-bys, particularly with their K/9, SO/BB and WHIP, but what is surprising to me is that our sinker-baller has a worse HR Rate than Lannan. How is that even possible?
Lannan’s availability has been well known and documented from the moment the Nationals completed the deal to acquire Gio Gonzalez from the A’s (a great move by the Nats by the way). What I don’t understand is why didn’t the Mets make a move to acquire Lannan instead of avoiding arbitration with Pelfrey to the tune of $5.7 million dollars?
It’s kind of troubling to see a team like the Nationals so stacked with pitchers that they would have no room for a promising young left-hander like John Lannan, who would easily slot in as a top of the rotation pitcher for the Mets.
Meanwhile Mets fans wrestle daily with the pros and cons of Mike Pelfrey, who was richly rewarded for what was one of the worst performances by a Mets starting pitcher making 30 or more starts in the last 40+ years.
If this new philosophy we keep hearing about is about getting the most for what you pay for, Pelfrey presents quite the oxymoron, doesn’t he?
Unless of course, suckitude is the new market inefficiency.
