Jan 11
Jor-el Pineiro
Via his twitter account, Ed Price of AOL Fanhouse reports that the Mets are talking to Joel Pineiro. “Something around 2 years, $15 million.”
A tip of the TRDMB cap to MLBTR for alerting us to this news.
Price also notes that “#Mets have seen Delgado twice in P.R. & will look once more. He is not moving well. #BlueJays saw him, might be more likely landing spot.”
MLBTradeRumors
Last Night on the Farm - 5/23/13 { Ike, yes, him crumbling is... } – May 24, 12:50 PMLast Night on the Farm - 5/23/13 { Greg, i would trade any... } – May 24, 12:48 PM
Link: Should It Be Called Moneyball Or... { Sweet. We'll be good in... } – May 24, 12:47 PMLast Night on the Farm - 5/23/13 { I don't see Cam Maron... } – May 24, 12:46 PMLast Night on the Farm - 5/23/13 { Even if you somehow knew... } – May 24, 12:40 PM
24 comments
stickguy
1/11/2010-10:35pm at 10:35 pm (UTC -4)
I hope Delgado continues to not move well. Nothing personal, but I really don’t think the Mets should be signing him, and they probably need some blatent evidence not to!
Pinero? Whatever. Probably as good a choice as the other FA floaters left. As long as it is no more than 2 years (1+1 obviously better), at that price, it won’t cripple them.
Also not too worried about the DUncan factor. As long as the improvement is due to mechanical changes (motion, new pitch), Pinero has been around long enough to remember whatever new stuff he learned.
If it was all a result of having his “shrink” on the bench next to him, then we could be in trouble. Maybe the Mets could get a deal on a team sports psychologist, since it seems that 4/5 of the rotation could use one?
GravediggerHebner
1/11/2010-10:39pm at 10:39 pm (UTC -4)
Regarding the Mets and Pineiro, just because the contract is good doesn’t make him a good pitcher. I wish I had some idea whether the Mets would be getting the Pineiro of 2004-2008, which is the one that sucked, or the Pineiro of pre-2004 and post-2008, the one that was good. And I think either Pineiro would be better off without Luis Castillo at 2B and Carlos Delgado at 1B. As the saying goes, “good luck with that.”
trs86
1/11/2010-11:04pm at 11:04 pm (UTC -4)
UZR
Shumaker: -7.7
Pujols: 1.3
Castillo: -10.4
Delgado: -0.2
Rate2: (Like OPS+ with 100 being average)
Schumaker: 88
Pujols: 116
Castillo: 94
Delgado: 92
So while yes he would be better off having Hudson and LaRoche he did not exactly have stellar defense last year either.
wannybackstra
1/12/2010-10:23am at 10:23 am (UTC -4)
I’ll never understand when UZR is useful in your opinion or when it is not.
trs86
1/12/2010-10:31am at 10:31 am (UTC -4)
I just think it’s a tool. I happen to think it still has a lot of flaws and even the creators are working on flaws as we speak. I have consistently said it’s one of the better defensive tools we have but I want more.
wannybackstra
1/12/2010-11:10am at 11:10 am (UTC -4)
I’ll have to disagree about what you’ve “consistently said” but in any event, this rate (which we are still apparently relying uopn without any idea of what it is) suggests that Pujols was quite good, and significantly better than Delgado while Castillo was only marginally better than Castillo.
If this stat is accurate it would seem to support Grave’s contention.
trs86
1/12/2010-11:20am at 11:20 am (UTC -4)
So when have I said that UZR was garbage and not useful at all?
trs86
1/12/2010-11:22am at 11:22 am (UTC -4)
Seems as though Rate2 and UZR agree for the most part except on Castillo last season.
wannybackstra
1/12/2010-11:41am at 11:41 am (UTC -4)
If rate is the same as I suggested last week, UZR rate (while we are commonly referring to UZR runs) then it should be consistent with UZR runs because it is part of the UZR runs equation.
Anyway, the Rate2 and UZR numbers you cite for Castillo are not inconsistent. Both suggest a below average fielder.
trs86
1/12/2010-11:45am at 11:45 am (UTC -4)
Right, however, based on my eyes one has Castillo as slightly below average and the other has him as the worst.
wannybackstra
1/12/2010-11:56am at 11:56 am (UTC -4)
That’s because rate only considers range.
Castillo’s range was bad, as reflected by his -7.9 range runs below average.
But his -2.7 runs DP turning ability also hurt his UZR runs score additionally.
Shumaker had a -9 range runs score below average — consistent with his lower rate2.
But Shumaker made up ground in total UZR runs because he was a positive (+1) in turning double plays and was slightly better in errors (.3 v. .2) than Castillo.
Judging solely range (rate, rnage runs abover average), Castillo is slightly better than Shumaker (last year anyway). Judging the rest of the package (UZR runs including errors and double play ability), shumaker came out slightly ahead.
GravediggerHebner
1/12/2010-10:59am at 10:59 am (UTC -4)
Understood he didn’t have stellar defense but it is fair to say he had “better?”
Also none of that point deals with my previous sentences about which Pineiro are we going to get, the one that sucked for 5 years, or the one that was good last year and prior to that, 6 years ago.
wannybackstra
1/12/2010-11:06am at 11:06 am (UTC -4)
We also have no stats on how to evaluate how Delgado’s range will be affected by his hip surgery. It’s hard to imagien that it won’t, especially considering how Lowell and A-Rod have both experienced problems in that regard.
Anyway, I think any pitcher would deal with Pujols’s range if it meant having his bat in the lineup.
metsfan4decades
1/11/2010-11:29pm at 11:29 pm (UTC -4)
Hard to get worked up over this potential signing. Pineiro wasn’t even on my radar when the off season started. Goes without saying that he’s not that #2 starter I wanted to see behind Johan….
We need more SP though, if for no other reason than for depth. I feel we cannot go into the season with Johan/Pelf/Maine/Perez/Niese and the depth being Figgy, Nieve, Misch, maybe Parnell. Just too scary.
Mr North Jersey
1/12/2010-12:08am at 12:08 am (UTC -4)
Unless Minaya can bring in a starter that actually pitches well he had better hope that whatever the rotation is come Opening Day behind Santana gets off to a good start because if not his job will be hanging on by a hair way thinner then the one from the Sword of Damocles and you can be sure I’ll be waiting to cut that hair.
trs86
1/12/2010-8:41am at 8:41 am (UTC -4)
True, almost not fair to some extent. It is his fault because he has failed to develop a pitcher but it is also the fact that the Mets were not willing to give Lackey that much money and years (or that he never wanted to be here), which we may not know until 2 years from now, if ever, if that was a wise move. The Mets decided that they had to have offense and Bay was their target. They got him. Now he is left with C, C, C, C in a FA market that had one B+ and a bunch of C’s to start with.
Mr North Jersey
1/12/2010-12:11pm at 12:11 pm (UTC -4)
Free Agency or Trade or Home Grown Talent or staying the course with last seasons starters take your pick doesn’t really matter how he gets it done but his job will last as long as the rotation takes him.
wannybackstra
1/12/2010-10:27am at 10:27 am (UTC -4)
I’m torn on this. One one hand, the team really needs a bonafide front of the rotation guy, which Jo-L is not.
On the other hand, it seems unlikely at this point that such pitcher can be acquired. So the best strategy might then be to put as many eggs in the basket as possible in order to fill out the 4 spots in the rotation behind Johan as possible.
In the latter regard, this signing for this money would be fine. Pineiro is just as likely as any of the others (Pelfrey, Perez, Maine, Niese, etc.) to be solid and can conceivably be anywhere from 2-5 in the rotation. Since he’d only be getting paid under the suggested terms as a #4 it’s worth the risk.
If somehow all of these guys pitch to their capabilities, a very unlikely scenario, the rotation would be quite strong. More likely, it will be mediocre with some pitching well and others not. But mediocre is better than poor and I’ll take any improvement I can get.
Pineiro gives them a better chance to be better than if they signed no one.
GravediggerHebner
1/12/2010-11:01am at 11:01 am (UTC -4)
Fair points but how much of an endorsement is “he’s better than no one?”
wannybackstra
1/12/2010-11:08am at 11:08 am (UTC -4)
Not much. But it might be the realistic alternative.
GravediggerHebner
1/12/2010-11:16am at 11:16 am (UTC -4)
I’d rather Garland but if it’s true that he really wants to stay on the West Coast I can’t move NY for him.
I guess if the Mets get Pineiro for 2/$15 I’ll just have to have a laser-like focus on how much of a better contract that is than lots of other mediocre pitchers.
I liked Pineiro a lot when he came up to the majors, I read a lot of good things and on the rare occasions when I saw him pitch I liked what I saw. But the 5 year fall off after the initial honeymoon is hard to ignore.
wannybackstra
1/12/2010-11:38am at 11:38 am (UTC -4)
I’m no fan of Pineiro. But he can be just as good as Perez’s average season for little more than half of the price.
So to me, Pineiro at this price is a good value.
Mr North Jersey
1/12/2010-12:14pm at 12:14 pm (UTC -4)
Striving to be mediocre that is what we the NY Mets fan are reduced to?
Piniero, “can be just as good as Perez’s average season”?
-Sigh
wannybackstra
1/12/2010-1:37pm at 1:37 pm (UTC -4)
The premise for my acceptance of Pineiro is that I don’t see a reasonable opportunity to obtain a legit front of the rotation guy.
In that sense, throwing mud at the wall and hoping something sticks is better than status quo.