Omar Minaya is in a truly tough spot. The Mets face a legion of key players returning from major injuries. We have a great number one starter returning from surgery, and a rotation filled with question marks otherwise. We have a first baseman who many people question, and we have no one to play left field. And we clearly need at least one more bullpen arm. And possibly a catcher.
Despite the incessant anti-Omar whining from some quarters, he has, the anomalous injury-plagued disaster of 2009 notwithstanding, made the Mets an annually competitive team, and has added many big-name players. The anti-Omarites do have a point when it comes to finishing the offseason job after the big-game hunt is over. This is where Omar needs to distinguish himself this year. Get that one big name to pitch after Johan, and then show us an Omar who can focus with equal zeal on the secondary players this team badly needs.
The temptation to want Lackey and Halladay and Holliday and more is strong, but unrealistic and unreasonable. Lackey is the most likely one we will wind up with, and all things considered, probably the wisest player to target. Halladay is better, but is a year and a half older and would cost much of our farm; his contract extension likely would surpass what Lackey could be had for. And we do not need to dramatically overpay for Matt Holliday, whose career numbers are tremendously inflated by his years in Denver. A good half season in St. Louis does not merit the insane numbers he will ask for. Jason Bay is a very good player, who had an excellent year in a hitters’ park that favors righty batters. Is he worth this kind of long-term mammoth deal? Not likely. Holliday and Bay are not Mark Teixeira, and both will benefit from there not being a Tex available this year.
This team’s top needs are a real, reliable number two starter, and players with some power to complement our already excellent core.
Some argue that the 2006 team owed a lot more to LoDuca, Floyd, and Valentin than we realized at the time. The events of the last three years have most certainly intensified this thought’s merit: the core just needs more around it. All three of these guys were seemingly gamers with grit, who wanted to win at all costs, and who drove the 2006 team as Keith drove the 1986 team. With all three of those guys gone in 2007 and never adequately replaced, the team was left with little to support the core.
In this light, reconsidering the team-wide failures and combined efforts that missing the postseason in 2007 and 2008 entailed is indeed illuminating. Perhaps the core just needs more support, as it clearly had in 2006.
—————————————————————–
Were he willing to play left, bringing in Mike Cameron for a year or even two would be a good start. Surely he would be relatively cheap, especially when considering what Dunn and Abreu went for last year, and other than hitting for average, he really does some of everything. He would happily hit 6th or 7th and produce 30+ 2B and 20+ HR, he would play very good defense, he knows NY and was liked here, and he is a hustling guy. His overall skills, and his offense being placed in a spot in the batting order where his numbers would be excellent, when combined with his attitude, make him a seriously affordable and appealing option for the Mets. He might be the right type of respected, hard-nosed veteran this roster needs. And what a defensive OF we would have.
Cameron is by all accounts a wonderful person, hugely charitable, great with fans, and would help this team on and off the field. This move improves the bench by placing the potentially outstanding 4th OF Angel Pagan there. Jeremy Reed as 5th OF/defensive replacement/PH finishes a very good, diverse OF. Power, speed, defense, depth.
Sign him, have lots more to spend elsewhere, and when there is a better option available in a year or two, move on it then, rather than grossly overpaying for Matt Holliday or Jason Bay (or overpaying for an out-of-position Chone Figgins for LF) now, and being hamstrung by another giant, long-term deal for a less than deserving player.
—————————————————————–
If Jorge Cantu is really available as Florida rumors say, why not try and obtain him? A productive player who could possibly be had for prospects. And a product of two organizations which have produced and spotted some talent the last few years. Cantu cut his Ks significantly last year, and had a career high OBP. Adrian Gonzalez is a fine player, but would cost much, much more in a trade-as he is so good and so affordable, why would SD trade him unless overwhelmed? In addition, despite his excellent overall numbers, his home/road splits are surprising, and do not suggest that he would be ideal for Citi Field. Cantu could clearly be had for much less, and it is indeed time that we allow some prospects of ours the time to succeed in a Met uniform.
Cameron and Cantu would be affordable, reduce the power issues, and save money so that a big 2010 mid-season move can be made, as well as allow for more retooling/improvement for 2011. And it leaves more than enough in the budget for Lackey, a bullpen arm, and a possible catcher, in 2010 and beyond.
A lot of potential Ks, yes, but a huge increase in power as well. And with the pressure being slightly taken off of Wright to be responsible for as many HR, the top of the order can concentrate on getting on base to score on all of the extra base hits the 4-5-6-7 spots will produce.
Of course this all continues to evolve instantly if we become able to move Slappy and/or if serious effort is indeed made to upgrading behind the plate. Brandon Phillips or Dan Uggla would be welcomed at second base quite warmly.
With or without our next generation Keith Hernandez, this team needs a lot more than one 90-million-dollar pitcher or outfielder to become a consistent success. Bringing back largely the same crew with Lackey or Holliday may be competitive in 2010, but unless more effort and thought is put into players to complement the core, bullpen depth, the bench, and financial flexibility for possible midseason improvements in 2010 and beyond, it seems to me that more frustration could be the result. We have already bagged enough big names; we have the core. Let’s fill in the remaining missing pieces.
—————————————————————–
The 2007 and 2008 teams showed that, despite some great individual years, the Mets did not have quite enough overall to win, good as the core may be. In 2010, in addition to trying build on 2006-2008, the team will have the almost unfair task of also having so many key players returning after major injury. Most almost certainly will return to form, but we cannot be sure about everyone.
Combine these considerations with the hardest to find ingredient—patience—and we might have something going. Wright, Reyes, Beltran, Johan and KRod have more than a year left. Regardless of what happens in 2010, the future onward can indeed be bright if the Mets do not outdrive the headlights and overspend on one or two players. The starpower and core is there. The secondary pieces and depth must be built with the same care and effort with which Johan and KRod were acquired. Start to do it now. Players like Werth and Victorino are huge cogs in the Phils’ success, and Cameron and Cantu (or Phillips) could possibly be precisely the type of complementary players our excellent core needs.
As Confucius almost surely would have said, a several-year journey towards building a successful organization starts with a single step—and that step is NOT overspending on radically overpriced free agents.
Sign Lackey and Cameron, trade for Cantu and/or Phillips, and then take a long look at available catchers and bullpen arms for the 7th and 8th. Re-signing JJ, were he willing to come back for a small deal with huge incentives, would be a great start. We’ll take a longer look at pitching moves next week.
38 comments
CaseStreet
11/15/2009-11:48am at 11:48 am (UTC -4)
Nice work buddy. I’m with you all the way until you said Uggla. Your general theme is right on the money. We already have 5 Stars on the team. We should be surrounding them with quality supporting staff, not more Big Names. Though the rotation does need one more top pitcher.
Kingman 26
11/15/2009-1:19pm at 1:19 pm (UTC -4)
Thx Case.
trs86
11/15/2009-12:06pm at 12:06 pm (UTC -4)
I like Cameron and your plan. My question is isn’t Holliday to Cameron the same as Lackey to Wolf? Your point on Holliday not being Tex seems the same as Lackey not being CC. Both Holliday and Lackey are going to take advantage of a weak fa market and in my opinion NEITHER are worth the numbers being floated. Iam sure we will get a big name but your plan can work with any of the three big names as long as Omar as you said finishes it out.
Kingman 26
11/15/2009-12:57pm at 12:57 pm (UTC -4)
To me, our need for starting pitching vastly outweighs our need for more offense, so while I agree that Lackey will be overpaid, I think for this team’s needs, overpaying him is far better than overpaying the LF candidates.
GravediggerHebner
11/15/2009-1:08pm at 1:08 pm (UTC -4)
I agree with Case that I love the plan except for the specific mention of Uggla, and I agree with you that the need for a high quality, expensive pitcher outweighs the need for a high quality, expensive hitter. The hitting downgrade from stud to Cameron is more workable vis a vis on field production than the pitching downgrade from stud to Wolf IMO. And the way you’ve flexibly formulated the balance of the plan makes potentially overspending on Lackey less of a handicap to financing the balance of the roster. Kudos.
Kingman 26
11/15/2009-1:13pm at 1:13 pm (UTC -4)
LOL! Thanks guys, and I really did just mention Uggla once briefly!
I guess for me, while he is far from ideal, all of those BB, HR, and 2B really add a lot of offensive production.
GravediggerHebner
11/15/2009-1:22pm at 1:22 pm (UTC -4)
No doubt he’s a vastly different offensive player than Castillo. Unfortunately he’s an incredibly similar defensive player to Castillo. Luis and Dan were the two worst defensive 2B in MLB based on UZR and UZR/150, Castillo ranking at 20th and Uggla 19th out of 20 qualifiers.
Brandon Phillips, Felipe Lopez and Placido Polanco all ranked in the top half of the list and would help the pitching staff much more than Luis or Dan.
And I’m not sure what position you’re considering Cantu for, but I’ll hope it’s not 2B. He’s only started 1 game there since 2006 and he was bad when he did play there.
Kingman 26
11/15/2009-1:29pm at 1:29 pm (UTC -4)
No no, Cantu for 1B. I DO like Murph, but if we could get Cantu’s affordable bat for prospects not named Ike or FMart or Niese, he might really add a lot to the offense. And maybe we could use Murph in a trade to a team like FL or CIN or even SD, who might want his tiny contract.
I am looking for ways to add relatively reliable and inexpensive power while still having enough Freddybucks left for Lackey, LF, a bullpen arm, and, perhaps most importantly, a major midseason pickup in 2010.
trs86
11/15/2009-2:36pm at 2:36 pm (UTC -4)
I slightly agree but disagree. Yes we need a great pitcher more than a great hitter but in my mind neither of those two are “great”. I would not overpay for either one if I had my choice. If Omar picks Holliday and Wolf instead of Lackey and Cameron I would still have the same complaints if he overpays. I would offer both market value and walk away if you have to overpay. Lets see what either one of them gets if they know the Mets will not overpay.
GravediggerHebner
11/15/2009-5:51pm at 5:51 pm (UTC -4)
Well perhaps that’s why both Kingman and I were careful to not refer to any of the people in question as “great.”
I understand the concept “I would not overpay for either one if I had my choice.” I agree with that. But we may not have our choice. And I feel the need for a “high quality” starting pitcher is so “great” that I am willing to make the choice TO overpay if it comes down to it, in this instance. Are you?
Kingman 26
11/15/2009-6:05pm at 6:05 pm (UTC -4)
Completely my thoughts.
Lackey is not CC or Halladay or Johan, and will benefit greatly from being the only major FA starter.
However, he is 1.5 yrs younger than Halladay, will cost zero minor leaguers, and will be (perhaps significantly) cheaper overall dollar-wise than Halladay.
Yes, I would prefer Halladay all things being equal, but they are not in this case.
We can have Lackey, keep all the top prospects, and have many millions left over for someone else.
And I very firmly believe that without a really good number two, this team will not be in the postseason race next year.
The Phils are the Phils, the Marlins are rising, and the Braves rotation will be Hudson, Hanson, Lowe, Jurrjens and Vazquez—that is scary.
trs86
11/15/2009-7:31pm at 7:31 pm (UTC -4)
And see I think there are 101 different ways that the Mets can be competitive next year including not having to overpay for Lackey or Holliday.
prismo
11/15/2009-7:49pm at 7:49 pm (UTC -4)
Agreed, but I’m not sure I trust Omar to find one of those 101 ways!
trs86
11/15/2009-7:30pm at 7:30 pm (UTC -4)
Nope.
GravediggerHebner
11/15/2009-7:55pm at 7:55 pm (UTC -4)
I appreciate the succinct answer, but I notice above you use the phrase “101 different ways to ‘be competitive’” and I wonder what you are defining as “be competitive.”
The reason I ask is because, with your prodding, I honed my “two aces” theory which showed in 2009, 5 of the 7 teams which employed two aces made the playoffs which is a 71% success rate. By extension this means that 3 of 23 teams which did not employ two aces made the playoffs, a 13% success rate.
That is obviously only 1 season. I am going to undertake the research to find the same information for 2002 (the 1st year such rankings were made) through 2008. I will leave that below once I get it.
trs86
11/15/2009-8:54pm at 8:54 pm (UTC -4)
Competitive to me means what we were in 2006-2008.
I agree with the idea that we need a #2 pitcher but that can come in many ways. That could even come in the form of a Pelfrey, Maine or Ollie rebound. Not likely but neither was having injuries to our entire team.
I just think a team with so many holes has to be very careful with the resources it has from prospects to cash. If Lackey can be had at a decent value and so can Holliday then sign them both and back fill with cheap guys. If Lackey is going to get in a bidding war and Holliday goes for market value get Holliday and 2 pitchers from the B list.
To me there are certain players you overpay for, Beltran for example. In my opinion you do not overpay for Lackey or Holliday types.
stickguy
11/15/2009-9:50pm at 9:50 pm (UTC -4)
yup
trs86
11/15/2009-8:57pm at 8:57 pm (UTC -4)
What if Holliday were market value and we work a deal for Zambrano, Oswalt or Halladay?
GravediggerHebner
11/15/2009-9:14pm at 9:14 pm (UTC -4)
Dare I say I slightly agree but disagree?
Ultimately I want desperately for the team to acquire a second ace.
But I also feel strongly that the team needs to hold onto as many of it’s viable prospects as possible because the payroll is (and will be) high, and they need cheap controllable talent to keep that budget you are concerned with busting under control.
By signing Lackey, the team has it’s two aces, and over the coming years has better likelihood of having cheap controllable players as teammates for said aces. If they trade a bunch of them for one of your suggested aces, the payroll still has two aces on it but the organization has fewer cheap controllable players.
trs86
11/16/2009-7:52am at 7:52 am (UTC -4)
Like I said, I am not willing to overpay for someone who is not an elite player. Signing Lackey to a big contract could handicap us just as much as trading Fmart, Holt, Murphy, etc.
GravediggerHebner
11/15/2009-2:18pm at 2:18 pm (UTC -4)
Did you guys see the tweet from the Astros beat writer about Lance Berkman “having a dream that he was traded to the Mets?”
At least he used the word “dream,” not “nightmare.”
http://twitter.com/brianmctaggart/status/5714082360
CaseStreet
11/15/2009-2:35pm at 2:35 pm (UTC -4)
that’s weird.
wannybackstra
11/15/2009-4:01pm at 4:01 pm (UTC -4)
Reyes SS
Castillo 2B
Wright 3B
Beltran CF
Cantu 1B
Francouer RF
Cameron LF
Santos/Thole/Zaun C
is pretty heavy from the right side but is doable if Pagan is sprinkled in RF v. tough righties (francouer has a pretty stark split) and there’s a good lefthanded bat on the bench. (i’m assuming murphy would be in AAA if Cantu was playing first base most days)
Santana, Lackey, Pelfrey, Maine, Perez, Niese, Nieve, Misch, etc.
stickguy
11/15/2009-4:34pm at 4:34 pm (UTC -4)
a good plan. Cantu I can live with, although I bet they still go with Murphy instead. I would put Carlos Pena in the same catagory, in case TB decides to try and move im in the off season.
I am now high on the sign cameron, ignore holliday and bay bandwagon. at least it helps the D, and frees up a lot of money (potentially) for other holes.
Cameron, barajas, and sheets as FA signees (no draft picks lost, right?)
My prayer answered, and someone takes Castillo.
trade for Arroyo of Harang (s/b a true salary dump). Ideally with Philips coming along. if no philips, then sign Lopez. Palanco only on a 1 year deal, since he doesn’t bring any offense, and is old.
reyes
philips/lopez
wright
cantu/pena/murphy
beltran
cameron
frenchy
barajas
stickguy
11/15/2009-5:45pm at 5:45 pm (UTC -4)
A positive note about Murphy.
If the off seaosn options are underwhelming (say cantu and Pena are kept for now, and you don’t want delgado), and they do spend the money elsewhere, then Murphy buys you some very cost-effective time.
You can roll with murphy (hopefully partnered with a RH OF/1B type that hits lefties well, even if it is just Evans) to begin the year.
If he ends up exceeding expectations and really starts mashing (and catching) the ball, yo uhit the jackpot.
If not, at mid-season, you look to upgrade. Either Davis hits his way onto the team (and keeps it up, a 2nd jackpot opportunity!), or you can go out and troll the trade deadline/salary dump aisle at the local small market team emporium.
Might just end up with Pena of Cantu anyway, if those teams are out of it and looking to dump the 3-5 million left on the contract for a live body.
So, while I am fine with getting one of them now (or whatever approriate upgrade you can), I also am fine with Murph man to start, if it menas they added talent elsewhere (LF, 2B, SP and C).
I also think Murphy will have a nice little uptick year, where he adjusts enough to add to his OBP, while still keeping his new-found slugging. I don’t think and .800+ OPS (.350/.450) is an unrealistic expectation, and a lot of practice in the winter should make him more natural in the field.
prismo
11/15/2009-7:48pm at 7:48 pm (UTC -4)
Did you steal your 2009 Murph projections from Bill James (fangraphs)?
just kidding!
He has .345/.454 for Murphy – an OPS of .799
BUT it’s in only 98 games, so maybe James thinks that the Mets will use Murphy in a platoon?
stickguy
11/15/2009-9:55pm at 9:55 pm (UTC -4)
nope. i never have been to fangraphs (and the only thing I know from it is what you guys post here!)
maybe I missed my calling…
Interesting that he projected that few games though. must be a platoon, or he expects Davis to arrive by the ASB!
GravediggerHebner
11/15/2009-9:31pm at 9:31 pm (UTC -4)
OK here is what I found about “two ace” teams since 2002 inclusive.
For this discussion “ace” is defined as any starting pitcher who, per fangraphs.com WAR and Dollar Value rankings, has a season worthy of being ranked in the top 30. 30 teams, 5 man rotations, 150 total starting pitchers, the 30 best being the top 20%, or top 1/5, therefore “aces.”
Again, 2002 was chosen because that is the first year that fangraphs.com establishes player values for. That 2002 was Lackey’s rookie season is a remarkable coincidence.
Another remarkable coincidence is that starting with 2002 inclusive the Angels have made the playoffs 6 of 8 seasons. 5 of 8 seasons since 2002 the Angels have had two aces, and in those 5 Angel two ace seasons, they made the playoffs 4 times.
But on to the “two ace” study breakdown:
2002 – 7 teams had two aces, 5 made the playoffs. 3 of 23 w/o made it.
2003 – 9 teams had two aces, 5 made the playoffs. 3 of 21 w/o made it.
2004 – 9 teams had two aces, 5 made the playoffs. 3 of 21 w/o made it.
2005 – 7 teams had two aces, 4 made the playoffs. 4 of 23 w/o made it.
2006 – 8 teams had two aces, 2 made the playoffs. 6 of 22 w/o made it.
2007 – 8 teams had two aces, 4 made the playoffs. 4 of 22 w/o made it.
2008 – 6 teams had two aces, 4 made the playoffs. 4 of 24 w/o made it.
2009 – 7 teams had two aces, 5 made the playoffs. 3 of 23 w/o made it.
So is it a guarantee of making the playoffs? No. But it is one simple step to take of giving your team better odds of doing so. It is one that is reasonably available to the Mets simply by writing a check, something even Omar Minaya’s greatest detractors give him credit for being able to do.
So it doesn’t require an old GM to learn new tricks. All Omar has to do to increase the chances of the Mets making the playoffs is field a team with two aces. Yes, they have to stay healthy. Even if they do, it doesn’t mean they definitely make the playoffs.
There may very well be 101 different ways to be competitive for the post season. But this one is simple, straightforward, and rather successful.
CaseStreet
11/15/2009-9:40pm at 9:40 pm (UTC -4)
Excellent job Grave and your point about not trading our prospects is very important. Having the potential to replace players whose contracts expire with inexpensive but talented prospects is very key to being able to have so many star players on the team. Guys like Niese, Thole, F-Mart, Davis and Tejada even if not great players are an important aspect of maintaining the salary under budget.
wannybackstra
11/15/2009-9:46pm at 9:46 pm (UTC -4)
I’m on board for the 2 ace theory and for going the free agent route to trim the acquisition cost.
However, the fangraphs info seems to provide that a little more than 50% of the two ace teams made the postseason. Just guessing that those same teams were larger market teams that also had “2 ace quality” lineups and bullpens too.
I’m not really sure one way or the other whether there is a direct correlation but in the legal system it would seem that Grave’s position has been proven to be more likely than not assuming the reader is satisfied with the size of the data.
GravediggerHebner
11/15/2009-10:02pm at 10:02 pm (UTC -4)
Below find all the “two ace” teams. It seems that yes, having “two ace” lineups and bullpens helps too, but I still prefer to be in the 34 out of 61 or 56% post season possible group as opposed to the 30 out of 179 or 17% possible one. And a few of the little guys snuck in there as you’ll see.
2009
Cardinals, Red Sox, Angels, Rockies and Phillies made it.
Marlins and Braves did not.
2008
Red Sox, White Sox, Brewers and Dodgers made it.
DBacks and Blue Jays did not.
2007
Red Sox, Yankees, Indians and Angels made it.
A’s, Blue Jays, Braves and Rays did not.
2006
Yankees and Padres made it.
Angels, Indians, Reds, Rangers, White Sox and Rockies did not.
2005
Red Sox, White Sox, Angels and Astros made it.
Marlins, Nationals and Indians did not.
2004
Red Sox, Twins, Angels, Braves and Astros made it.
White Sox, Brewers, A’s and Rangers did not.
2003
Yankees, Red Sox, A’s, Cubs and Giants made it.
Blue Jays, White Sox, Expos and DBacks did not.
2002
Yankees, A’s, Braves, Cards and DBacks made it.
Expos and Red Sox did not.
wannybackstra
11/15/2009-9:43pm at 9:43 pm (UTC -4)
2 kudos:
1. To Kingman for another well written, thoughtful piece.
2. To Grave for another in a continuing series of informative research based posts.
stickguy
11/15/2009-10:08pm at 10:08 pm (UTC -4)
interesting analysis. Still not sure how to interpret it though.
just as many teams without “2 aces” make the playoffs as do. But, what does that mean anyway?
also, I’m not sure that the top 30 cut-off is where you find the aces, but I would love to see the list year to year!
the other variable is that the aces aren’t enough, since you still need enough D and O to get there, and by default, playoff teams almost always have a good blend of all 3. So, just getting lackey but notsuring upsignificantly elsewhere ain’t gonna gut it.
Maybe my quibble is really with the term “ace”,when the top 30 cutoff really means “a guy that qualifies as a #2). And I wont go off ona tangentabout the slotting system!
Not sure how many aces there are, but I doubt there are close to 30 that deserve the title.
GravediggerHebner
11/15/2009-10:22pm at 10:22 pm (UTC -4)
Feel free to call them whatever you like. The term “ace” is strictly for purposes of succinctness.
What I’m attempting to demonstrate is a team can significantly increase it’s possibility of appearing in the post season by having two starting pitchers perform in the top 20% of the league.
Yes there are other factors, but when you DO have two pitchers in the top 20% you have a 34/61 or 56% chance of making the post season. When you don’t, you have a 30/179 or 17% chance.
stickguy
11/15/2009-10:37pm at 10:37 pm (UTC -4)
I guess you can simplify it even more by saying teams with good pitching have a better chance of making the playoffs!
And I wouldn’t bet that a solid rotation 1-5 won’t outperforma a 2 “ace” with 3 lousy guy team.
also, maybe we need a mathmatician to settle this, but I think your match (the %s) is wrong.
you can’t compare unless they are the same pool. 30 it is 34/240 vs. 30/240, so IOW, as born out by your figures, you have about a 50/50 chance of making the playoffs with 2 aces.
GravediggerHebner
11/15/2009-11:21pm at 11:21 pm (UTC -4)
I’m no mathematician either.
Therefore I’m willing to settle for teams with good pitching have a better chance of making the playoffs. Even if it turns out that the difference 14% as opposed to 12.5%.
Someone who deals with odds would have to fill me in on how that is best expressed, and whether it is a worthwhile difference or not.
It just seems to me that somehow it must be meaningful to be in a subset of a group that succeeds 56% of the time as opposed to another subset that succeeds 17% of the time.
prismo
11/15/2009-10:32pm at 10:32 pm (UTC -4)
You’re the man Grave! Great info all over this thread!
metsfan4decades
11/16/2009-12:56am at 12:56 am (UTC -4)
Great post and even better debate. I learn something new from you guys everyday.
Thanks for making it easy, Grave, on those of us who might be too busy – or sometimes just too lazy, to do all the researching….
I’m in the camp of wanting to sign Lacky. Anyone who reads this blog enough know I’m all about pitching, pitching, pitching. Lackey, while not in Johan’s league, was considered the ace of the Angels staff and would be a very solid #2 behind Johan. All he’ll cost is money – and yes, I know, we probably will have to overpay but IMO it’s worth it.
Halladay is too expensive both in prospects and $$ with the contract extension it will probably take.
Do we really want to take another big chance this year on Ollie, Pelf and Maine all having a rebound year? Or adding two of a less expensive and thereby less caliber and/or injury risk (i.e. Sheets) type pitchers? I very much want to see Ollie/Pelf/Maine rebound but with Lackey on board, it instantly makes the rotation 100% better.
I’m not saying Lackey is the answer to all the problems but to me, it’s a very good start.
Next would be LF and Cameron might very well be the best idea yet.
Keep Pagan because I’m leery of Frency continuing all season where he left off – might need a platoon there. And for the record, why give him a contract extension this year? If he has a good year, you can always do it end of 2010. He’s not going anywhere.
Need one more backup outfielder. I can think of several who have good defense but defense and a decent bat? Chris Carter maybe?
Short of trading for AGonz, which isn’t very likely, I’m not opposed to taking a chance on Delgado for a one year, inexpensive contract.
Worst case scenario if that doesn’t work out – and we saved some money and/or prospects to start the season, maybe we can see what’s available mid season.
It would be great to move Castillo and his contract but not sure that’s going to happen.
I’d still like to see Felipe Lopez on this team…
We need someone who can play SS, 3rd and 2nd. Other than a combo of Cora and Tatis, what else is available for backup for the infield? Tatis, at least, can play the corner OFs as well. And yes, I know, he didn’t have such a great year at the plate, but then again, I don’t think Tatis projects to be great offensively as a starter. He’s much better coming off the bench.
And I really have no idea about a catcher. Probably b/c I really don’t like any options I’ve been reading about.
That probably leaves one BP arm. That’s a tough one b/c depending on who we get for the starting rotation (one? more than one?), we might have several competing for the 5th starter job. I’d still see what’s available on the market though and add one more arm, preferably a lefty specialist.
It’s a start. After last year though, and still some ?? with the health of Reyes, Johan, Beltran, Perez, Maine, Niese, Nieve (did I leave anyone else out that needs to rebound from a lost year and/or surgery?) – I just hope it’s enough to stay competitive for at least the first half……