THE CRANE POOL FORUM thecranepool.net (.com)


Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Willie: Seo Not Guaranteed 2006 Rotation Spot

Rotblatt
Sep 16 2005 05:21 AM

So if outpitching Pedro over 11 games isn't enough to guarantee Seo a rotation spot next year, what is?

]Not Seo fast
on 2006 call

BY DARREN EVERSON
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER

When Willie Randolph mentioned recently that Jae Seo hasn't secured a spot in next year's rotation, he said reporters looked at him like he was "a little nuts."
It doesn't sound so crazy now, though.

It's not that Seo has done anything wrong - although he did have a shaky start yesterday, allowing 10 hits and four runs in five innings. It's also what Aaron Heilman has done.

Heilman could be a candidate for the Mets' 2006 rotation, Randolph said before yesterday's 6-5, 10-inning loss to the Nationals. The manager added that Heilman may go to winter ball this offseason and pitch as a starter.

Yesterday, Heilman continued his exceptional pitching of late, tossing two scoreless, hitless innings. The former first-rounder has allowed two earned runs since the end of July.

Randolph again clarified that, by stating Seo isn't a sure starter next season, he merely was saying that he needs to see how he looks next spring.


Great, let's try and start Heilman, but we HAVE to find a way to put Seo in the rotation. He's been our best pitcher in his limited duty.

How can Willie not see that?

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 07:17 AM

]The former first-rounder has allowed two earned runs since the end of July.

Most impressive.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 154) Tommy Davis

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 07:18 AM

]Great, let's try and start Heilman, but we HAVE to find a way to put Seo in the rotation. He's been our best pitcher in his limited duty.

How can Willie not see that?


Willie's decision makes complete sense to me. No one can earn a rotation spot for 2006 in the year 2005, including Petey. You wait until next year to make these decisions.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 154) Tommy Davis

Johnny Dickshot
Sep 16 2005 07:37 AM

Let's try not to overanalyze what officials say about 2006 in 2005, especially one as full of non-answers as WWSB, and particularly when expressed by beatwriters intent on alarming fans as much as informing them.

It's almost as if the clip above was written completely upside down. Of course, had it begun by saying: Randolph again clarified that, by stating Seo isn't a sure starter next season, he merely was saying that he needs to see how he looks next spring. there wouldn't be enough juice to make the preceding sentences necessary.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 07:43 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 16 2005 07:44 AM

Besides, can you imagine the outrage if something happened in the interim if Willie did say Seo had a spot? If he was traded or had a crappy spring and didn't end up making the team, it would end up being a huge controversy. I can think of one former Met fan who would go absolutely ape-shit, and would use it for the next five years as an example of how Met management lies and dupes its fans. Personally, I'm grateful to Willie if he can spare me that by simply telling moronic sportswriters that a position for next year isn't going to be solidified seven months beforehand.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 154) Tommy Davis

Edgy DC
Sep 16 2005 07:43 AM

His lead could also have been, "Willie Looking to Heliman to Start in '06.".

Edgy DC
Sep 16 2005 07:47 AM

]When told that Willie Randolph said he hadn't yet earned a spot for 2006, Jae Weong Seo was philosophical. "That's OK," Seo said through an interpreter. "Neither has Randolph."

--- Imaginary Edgy Times

KC
Sep 16 2005 07:48 AM

Willie sets 2006 rotation

Seo's Thursday speed bump sends him to pen

Willie: I just can't trust a Korean in the rotation

Seo banished, can Pedro be next?

(this winter is gonna suck ass)

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 08:02 AM

To be a little more fair to the author, he did write: "Randolph again clarified that, by stating Seo isn't a sure starter next season, he merely was saying that he needs to see how he looks next spring."
_____________________________
This post had the designation 154) Tommy Davis

smg58
Sep 16 2005 08:19 AM

So Seo can again pitch well when it counts but find himself in Norfolk in April. Great.

Minaya needs to deal his excess of pitchers this offseason so that he has a solid lineup and, at most, two starters competing for spot #5. And I don't see why, at this point, Seo has to be one of the two competing.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 08:23 AM

smg58 wrote:
So Seo can again pitch well when it counts but find himself in Norfolk in April. Great.

Minaya needs to deal his excess of pitchers this offseason so that he has a solid lineup and, at most, two starters competing for spot #5. And I don't see why, at this point, Seo has to be one of the two competing.


Hey, this is how it works. There's a reason they have spring training. If Seo has a shitty spring, it's his own fault if it puts his 2006 rotation spot in jeopardy. You should have better stats in spring training than in the regular season, not the other way around. I'm sure management will take his 2005 performance into account when evaluating him for '06 out of spring training.

Seo's problem to me was a lack of concentration when he got pissed off, which to me is evidenced by a better major league record than AAA record, and bad spring training performances.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 08:25 AM

This article has done exactly what the boneheaded writer wanted to do, it gets some fans is a frenzy, even while stating the obvious: Willie says he wants to see how a guy looks in 2006 before making decisions about that year. How does this not make sense? For God's sake Seo might not even be on the team next year.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

seawolf17
Sep 16 2005 08:26 AM

I like Seo. I like what he's done this year. But, like Heilman, this is the first time he's shown any extended run of success. So I'd say he's no sure thing for '06. I agree that he'll have a leg up, but he's not a definite. The only definites right now are probably Pedro and Benson (and Trax if he's still here, which he probably will be).

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 08:33 AM

Probably Glavine too, when you take his contract size into account.

Which tells us that 3-4 of the spots are locked up, which means what Willie said make even MORE sense. If four of the spots are locked up, it's a battle between Seo and Heilman.

I am getting way too worked up over this article, too. I should dose myself with my own recommendations.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

Edgy DC
Sep 16 2005 08:34 AM

You own this thread.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 08:37 AM

Yeah, I need to pipe down.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

Edgy DC
Sep 16 2005 08:39 AM

I need to pipe the fuck down.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 08:40 AM

That's what I like about this forum. People tell themselves to pipe down instead of others.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

SI Metman
Sep 16 2005 08:51 AM

It's simple. Seo took his status in 2004 for granted after pitching pretty good in 2003. Willie is just send the message that he actually has to work next season.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 08:52 AM

Maybe he'll take it as incentive to get in better shape this offseason.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

Frayed Knot
Sep 16 2005 09:14 AM

Elster88 wrote:
That's what I like about this forum. People tell themselves to pipe down instead of others.


Oh pipe down!

MFS62
Sep 16 2005 09:36 AM

About Jae.
My busy travel schedule hasn't allowed me to see as many games this year as in the past. So I rely on radio accounts and our IGTs (thank you to all who contribute to those threads).

IIRC when Seo was a prospect in the minors, his fastball was in the 92-94 MPH range. Then he had arm surgery. There have been reports that after certain types of arm surgery, some pitchers have been known to add 1-3 MPH to their fastball. But that usually happens up to two years after that surgery.

What has Seo's fastball been measured at this year?

Later

seawolf17
Sep 16 2005 09:47 AM

Elster88 wrote:
Maybe he'll take it as incentive to get in better shape this offseason.

Maybe he and his wife will stop having kids -- or schedule them for offseason deliveries -- so he can pitch better.

Frayed Knot
Sep 16 2005 09:49 AM

He hasn't picked up any velocity - and I suspect that the stories of pitchers who do following surgery are more rare than is supposed.

What's happened w/Seo is that he's added a few wrinkles into things - like sliders & sinkers - and now has more than just fastball/changeup to offer. Might be a bit less stubborn than before as well.

Nymr83
Sep 16 2005 12:14 PM

]Hey, this is how it works. There's a reason they have spring training. If Seo has a shitty spring, it's his own fault if it puts his 2006 rotation spot in jeopardy. You should have better stats in spring training than in the regular season, not the other way around. I'm sure management will take his 2005 performance into account when evaluating him for '06 out of spring training.


i HATE this kind of reasoning and it is one of the huge problems with baseball today. 20 innings of spring training should not be allowed to dispprove a sample size 5-10x greater from the previous season! this same bullshit cost Seo a rightly deserved spot before.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 12:21 PM

Nymr83 wrote:
]Hey, this is how it works. There's a reason they have spring training. If Seo has a shitty spring, it's his own fault if it puts his 2006 rotation spot in jeopardy. You should have better stats in spring training than in the regular season, not the other way around. I'm sure management will take his 2005 performance into account when evaluating him for '06 out of spring training.


i HATE this kind of reasoning and it is one of the huge problems with baseball today. 20 innings of spring training should not be allowed to dispprove a sample size 5-10x greater from the previous season! this same bullshit cost Seo a rightly deserved spot before.


Actually, the two situations aren't even remotely the same.

Have you actually looked at Seo's 2004 numbers? Let me enlighten you. 5-10, 4.90 ERA, 117 IP, 133 H, 50 BB, 54 K. Obiously, 05 spring training was not the only thing that relegated him to Norfolk in April. So what you call bullshit (which is actually sound, logical reasoning) is NOT what cost Seo a spot in April. Neither is his '05 spring training numbers.

If you'll read the entire post which you quoted, you'll notice that I mentioned that of course his 2005 performance should and will be taken into account.

And if Seo gets lit up all of next spring, Heilman is pitching lights out, and the other four pitchers have the spots locked up, I'm sure you'll be clamoring for Heilman to get Seo's "rightly deserved spot." Which, oddly enough, is exactly what I'm advocating, (Willie, too): Don't secure any positions on the 2006 roster in 2005.

Rotblatt
Sep 16 2005 02:07 PM

Here's my problem with this: by singling out Seo & Heilman for "having to prove themselves" in the Spring, he removes guys with worse seasons than them, as in everyone not named Petey or Hernandez.

If Seo, who has so far pitched better than Pedro on a per start basis, has to compete for a spot, then so should everyone else in our rotation, incuding Glavine & Benson.

The way I see it, we have Petey then the following competing for the four remaining slots:

Benson
Seo
Heilman
Trachsel
Glavine,
Zambrano

Except Willie's indicating (as I read it) that he's going lock in whatever "tried and true" guys he has left after the off-season and let Seo & Heilman compete for the remaining slots.

If we're lucky, we'll move Trachsel & Zambrano in the offseason and not have to worry about it, but I'd much rather have Willie answer questions like "Is Seo guaranteed a spot in the rotation" with a blanket, "No one's guaranteed a spot in the rotation" or, if he doesn't want to take any flack, "No comment."

You're right, Elster, the media's stirring the pot here, but Willie's letting them, which is annoying. And I have a sinking feeling that Willie's going to make stupid roster moves in Spring.

Which sucks, because as we've all seen, once Willie makes a roster decision, he sticks with it for a long, long, long time, even after it's become a clear liability.

Edgy DC
Sep 16 2005 02:14 PM

Yeah, maybe you'd rather hear that, but you're still drawing an inference you don't have to draw.

Yeah, spring's a small sample size compared to 12 starts the previous year, but 12 starts the previous year is a small sample size compared to Glavine's 18 years (which is in no way an endorsement from me of a return to rotation for Glavine).

We can tear ourselves apart over next spring, but I hope Randolph is giving more thought to getting his team out of this tailspin.

Rotblatt
Sep 16 2005 02:39 PM

="Edgy DC"]Yeah, maybe you'd rather hear that, but you're still drawing an inference you don't have to draw.

Yeah, spring's a small sample size compared to 12 starts the previous year, but 12 starts the previous year is a small sample size compared to Glavine's 18 years (which is in no way an endorsement from me of a return to rotation for Glavine).

We can tear ourselves apart over next spring, but I hope Randolph is giving more thought to getting his team out of this tailspin.


And how!

As for your point about Glavine, I'd say that the only relevant part of his past 18 years are the last three, with the last one being weighted the heaviest.

And sure, you've got to weigh Seo's dominant 2005 with his mediocre 2004--but also his good 2003.

I'd like management to ask questions like: Who's been better over the past three years? Are we seeing a trend in terms of performance? Who can we reasonably expect to improve in 2006? What are their upsides? take into account how they look in the Spring, and go from there.

Edgy DC
Sep 16 2005 03:02 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 16 2005 07:43 PM

No doubt, all pertinent questions.

Shallow cheat sheet answers:

Who can be reasonably expected to improve:

Guys under 30.
Guys coming off a year well below their previous norms.
Guys in their second year after surgery.
Guys who played the previous year uncharacteristically hurt

Who can be reasonably expected to decline:

Guys overer 30.
Guys coming off a year well above their previous norms.
Guys in their first year after surgery.
Guys who played the previous year uncharacteristically healthy.

Nymr83
Sep 16 2005 04:16 PM

]Actually, the two situations aren't even remotely the same.

Have you actually looked at Seo's 2004 numbers?


i was not referring to THIS year. i was reffering to his good 2003 not earning him a spot in 2004 because of spring training '04. stupid decision.

] And if Seo gets lit up all of next spring, Heilman is pitching lights out, and the other four pitchers have the spots locked up, I'm sure you'll be clamoring for Heilman to get Seo's "rightly deserved spot." Which, oddly enough, is exactly what I'm advocating,


No, i'll be asking for Seo to get the spot he earned by being our best pitcher in the time he was here this year. But if if heilman is lights out i'll probably be be asking for him over Zambrano who stunk this year.





-editted "stupid" to "stupid decision" to make it clear i was bashing the mets decision making and not calling the poster i quoted stupid.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 07:26 PM

He got 21 starts last year. I'd say he had ample chance to prove himself despite not getting the start out of spring training.

And considering the stats I posted, it seems like putting him in AAA to start 2004 was the right decision since, regardless of this year's performance, he apparently didn't have it last year.
____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 07:28 PM

]Guys who played the previous year uncharacteristically healthy.


Sadly, this probably includes Floyd. I'd advocate a trade. (Diaz in left, Cameron in right.)

Hopefully this doesn't include Reyes.
____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

Nymr83
Sep 16 2005 07:42 PM

]And considering the stats I posted, it seems like putting him in AAA to start 2004 was the right decision since, regardless of this year's performance, he apparently didn't have it last year.


i said it before and i'll repeat myself...i was reffering to his '03 stats not earning him a spot in '04, not his '04 stats not earning him a place in '05.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 07:44 PM

I realize. Now, I'll repeat MYself.

It's hard to argue that he DIDN'T belong in AAA in 2004, seeing as how he pitched to a 4.90 ERA over 21 starts, this year's performance nonwithstanding.

Whatever he has this year, he didn't have last year.
____________________________
This post had the designation 153) Matt Franco

Edgy DC
Sep 16 2005 07:47 PM

Yes, and he's saying that the decision to not put him in the rotation in at the start of 2004 appears at least partly vindicated by his performance when he did get into the rotation very shortly after. (Elster beat me on the trigger here.)

I don't argue for a trade of Floyd, but merely not entering the season (or the off-season) with expectations penciled in of a repeat performance from Floyd.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 07:53 PM

Edgy DC wrote:
I don't argue for a trade of Floyd, but merely not entering the season (or the off-season) with expectations penciled in of a repeat performance from Floyd.


Me too. I actually expect a good deal less from him, considering that a large portion of his stats came from a disproportiantely smaller part of the season.
____________________________
This post had the designation 152) Anthony Young

Rotblatt
Sep 16 2005 08:16 PM

Sure, Elster, but by that criteria, Zambrano should have started this season in the minors. He had a crappy season last year--very similar peripherals to Seo (1.59 WHIP, 1.14 K/BB, etc.) although his ERA was better at 4.43 (which, given his peripherals, I would argue is a result of luck), and he was terrible this Spring (7.41 ERA, 2.24 WHIP, 0.94 K/BB).

Given that Seo's season in 2003 (111 ERA+, 1.27 WHIP, 2.39 K/BB) was better than anything Zambrano had ever done as a starter, even if you combine the best aspects of his career (108 ERA+ in 2003, 1.44 WHIP in 2002, 1.26 K/BB in 2003), you'd think Seo would have gotten the edge in a world where performance was king.

Zambrano had one additional year of experience as a starter than Seo, during which he posted a 5.53 ERA & a 1.65 WHIP, so if anything, that year should be a negative in the debate.

Nonetheless, we entrusted Zambrano with a spot in the rotation--not to mention Ishii, for the love of jeebus--instead of Seo.

At the time, I didn't question it--I mean, we all knew Zambrano was getting a shot regardless of what he did--but that doesn't make it right, or a smart move.

It just means that I was as blind as Willie & co.

Ishii, by the way, is another case of a guy who sucked and had bad peripherals. His best year was 2003, where he posted a 104 ERA+, a 1.56 WHIP & a 1.39 K/9. Again, Seo's best year was better and his worst year (2004) no worse than Ishii's (a tie between 2002--89 ERA+--and 2004--88 ERA+).

Without even considering Seo's performance this season, Sal was right--we should have given the nod to Seo as soon as Trachs went down.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 08:23 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 16 2005 08:26 PM

I see everything you are saying, Rotblatt. But basically, all you are saying is that Seo, Zambrano, and Ishii were all about equally bad based on statistics going into 2005. And, Seo was basically a two-pitch pitcher in ST. I'm also assuming the experts (Peterson and the coaching staff, and Minaya in making the Ishii deal) saw something they didn't like. So the choice to start him in spring training was not all that bad based on the evidence everyone had, regardless that it looks foolish now with 20/20 hindsight And I imagine most people, if arguing against Ishii or Zambrano being a starter out of ST, would have chosen Heilman over Seo.

In any event, as I've said before, leaving Ishii in the rotation as long as they did is what to yell at management for, not starting him in the rotation out of the gate.

Again, we are far afield from my original point which was simply this: There is no need to pencil Seo's name into the 2006 rotation just yet.
____________________________
This post had the designation 152) Anthony Young

Nymr83
Sep 16 2005 08:25 PM

]I'm assuming the experts (Peterson and the coaching staff, and Minaya in making the Ishii deal) saw something they didn't like


they saw who they traded kazmir for and who they traded phillips for and gave those 2 guys spots.

Rotblatt
Sep 16 2005 08:27 PM

I should add that behind Ishii's ERA+ those two years were typically awful peripherals.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 08:28 PM
Edited 5 time(s), most recently on Sep 16 2005 08:32 PM

]
]Quote:
I'm assuming the experts (Peterson and the coaching staff, and Minaya in making the Ishii deal) saw something they didn't like .




they saw who they traded kazmir for and who they traded phillips for and gave those 2 guys spots.

Well here we go again. Since they traded Kazmir and traded a backup catcher for a starter (when our backup catcher has obviously performed adequately in his absence) then every time they make a decision it should automatically be assumed incorrect, regardless of the actual evidence at hand.

How did Peterson's pitching staff do again this year? DID OMAR OR WILLIE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE KAZMIR DEAL?


Goddammit I'm banging my head against the wall here.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 08:29 PM

Rotblatt wrote:
I should add that behind Ishii's ERA+ those two years were typically awful peripherals.


Rotblatt I agree with everything you said. I'm just pointing out that starting Seo in the rotation was not nearly as clear cut in ST as it is now.
____________________________
This post had the designation 152) Anthony Young

Rotblatt
Sep 16 2005 08:37 PM

Elster88 wrote:
But basically, all you are saying is that Seo, Zambrano, and Ishii were all about equally bad based on statistics going into 2005.


Well, yeah, but I would have given a definite edge to Seo for having had the best season out of the three of them.

]And, Seo was basically a two-pitch pitcher in ST. I'm also assuming the experts (Peterson and the coaching staff, and Minaya in making the Ishii deal) saw something they didn't like.


Okay, but sometime in between Norfolk starting (the second week of April, IIRC?) and his first MLB start on April 23, Seo figured it out (6 IP, 6 H, 1 ER, 4 K). He was brilliant in his next two starts, then demoted in favor of Ishii & Zambrano, DESPITE all that I laid out before, which is clearly a bad call, even without the benefit of hindsight..

]In any event, as I've said before, leaving Ishii in the rotation as long as they did is what to yell at management for, not starting him in the rotation out of the gate.


No, what I'm yelling at management for was the decision to trade for Ishii in the first place when we had Seo, who--even with his crappy 2004 & poor ST--was pretty clearly just as good (or bad, if you like).

]Again, we are far afield from my original point which was simply this: There is no need to pencil Seo's name into the 2006 rotation just yet.


I agree with that, so long as no one's name (except Petey's) is penciled in either.

Nymr83
Sep 16 2005 09:06 PM

]How did Peterson's pitching staff do again this year? DID OMAR OR WILLIE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE KAZMIR DEAL?


i assume you mean the starters, overall they did good...they'd have done great if they had either a) never traded for ishii, who was not necessary or b) cut bait with him when he once again proved he sucked.

omar and willie work for WILPON and WILPON made the kazmir deal. fred's son has all the power around here.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 09:47 PM

Nymr83 wrote:
omar and willie work for WILPON and WILPON made the kazmir deal. fred's son has all the power around here.


Ah, the voice of reason. Blame it on the owner's son, because we know for sure the Wilpons made that move, not the GM, etc.

Elster88
Sep 16 2005 09:51 PM

Rotblatt wrote:
]And, Seo was basically a two-pitch pitcher in ST. I'm also assuming the experts (Peterson and the coaching staff, and Minaya in making the Ishii deal) saw something they didn't like.


Okay, but sometime in between Norfolk starting (the second week of April, IIRC?) and his first MLB start on April 23, Seo figured it out (6 IP, 6 H, 1 ER, 4 K). He was brilliant in his next two starts, then demoted in favor of Ishii & Zambrano, DESPITE all that I laid out before, which is clearly a bad call, even without the benefit of hindsight..

I'll agree with that. This is what I was saying, yell at them for keeping Ishii and Zambrano in the rotation in favor of Seo for too long. Though IIRC he had one great start and one mediocre start in that first short stint.


Rotblatt wrote:
]In any event, as I've said before, leaving Ishii in the rotation as long as they did is what to yell at management for, not starting him in the rotation out of the gate.


No, what I'm yelling at management for was the decision to trade for Ishii in the first place when we had Seo, who--even with his crappy 2004 & poor ST--was pretty clearly just as good (or bad, if you like).


Well, if you knew that, you knew more than me. I thought Ishii could be good. He has shown flashes of brilliance before, I always thought his career started going downhill after he took that line drive off the noggin in his first year with LA.

Rotblatt wrote:
]Again, we are far afield from my original point which was simply this: There is no need to pencil Seo's name into the 2006 rotation just yet.


I agree with that, so long as no one's name (except Petey's) is penciled in either.
Me too.

Nymr83
Sep 16 2005 10:07 PM

saying "nobody's spot is safe" and "seo's spot isn't safe" are two completely different things. if willie the fool had said "nobody's spot is safe we wouldn't have a 3 page thread right now, but hed idn't. he said "my 2nd best pitcher's spot isn't safe"

Edgy DC
Sep 16 2005 10:28 PM

No, he didn't.

Zvon
Sep 17 2005 12:45 AM

Willie said, and Ill quote:
"I dont even know if he'll be here next year."

Great response (sarcastic smiley here<)


I do think with the Mets surplus of starting arms there will be some interesting movement over the winter, but theyd be wise to give Seo a full chance, unless they can get something major for him or they know something that I dont.

KC
Sep 17 2005 06:53 AM

>>>-no sig quote for now, someone say something i can put down here for awhile!<<<

How 'bout, "Fred's son has all the power around here"?

Edgy DC
Sep 17 2005 07:40 AM

They used to say the same thing about Sanford and Son. Turns out that it wasn't true.

Edgy DC
Sep 20 2005 01:26 PM

This article suggests that Willie is in Seo's corner. It also does a good job outlining the reasons behind Seo's successes and failures.

Elster88
Sep 20 2005 01:49 PM

]Seo, who played high school baseball with the Rockies' Byung-Hyun Kim and the Dodgers' Hee Seop Choi, can win big games. He once pitched the South Korean national team to victory with enormous stakes. How big? Lose and the entire squad had to fulfill its military service obligation.


WOW
_____________________________
This post had the designation 149) Willie Mays

Elster88
Sep 20 2005 01:50 PM

Looks like the title of this thread can be junked. Go Willie Go!
_____________________________
This post had the designation 149) Willie Mays

Elster88
Sep 20 2005 01:53 PM

]Ruhle once screamed at Seo after the first inning of a game in Montreal, imploring him to challenge hitters. He had become too cutesy...
]

Imagine if he had coached Ronnie Darling?
_____________________________
This post had the designation 149) Willie Mays

Rotblatt
Sep 21 2005 05:13 AM

Well, we apparently will have Seo, Trachsel, Zambrano & Heilman competing for two spots in the rotation next year:

]Before the game, manager Willie Randolph said that Pedro Martinez, Tom Glavine and Benson were the team's only three starting pitchers basically assured of being in the rotation next year.

-NY Post, 9/21/05

Willie loves his veterans.

Needless go say, I think this is a Bad Idea.

sharpie
Sep 21 2005 07:15 AM

Not necessarily. Who knows if Trachsel or Zambrano will even be here. There is also the possibility of Heilman staying in the pen.

Elster88
Sep 21 2005 07:24 AM

WATP that intrigued me: Floyd, Zambrano/Traxxxx and Milledge for Manny.

Takes into account that Floyd will probably miss significant time next year due to injury.

We don't need to spend a lot of $$$$ on pitching next year, our rotation looks to be in good shape. What we need is a thumper. Resign Mikey or someone to a small catching contract and insert Jacobs at first base. This way we get to take a look at Jacobs and we still get our middle of the order thumper.

Manny + rejuvenated Beltran + Wright.

Since it's not my money let's sign Konerko, too and stick Jacobs in AAA.

Reyes
Beltran
Wright
Ramirez
Konerko

I know, I know, too early to be talking stupid offseason stuff like a WFAN caller on crack.

_____________________________
This post had the designation 149) Willie Mays

Rotblatt
Sep 21 2005 07:37 AM

sharpie wrote:
Not necessarily. Who knows if Trachsel or Zambrano will even be here. There is also the possibility of Heilman staying in the pen.


Sure, and I hope Trachs & Zambrano get traded for some kick-ass prospects so that there's no chance of Willie fucking the rotation up (again) but the point is that Willie's system isn't, IMO, smart. Seo has had a better season than Benson, even given how few starts he's had, and on a per-start basis, Seo kicks Glavine up and down the block--for that matter, on a per-start basis, Seo beats out even Pedro.

But Seo doesn't even warrant a "basic assurance" that he'll be in the starting rotation next year.

That's bullshit. It's also unsurprising, given Willie's previous comments and his baffling attachment to "proven" veterans like Cairo, Ishii, DeJean, Graves, etc.

You'd think he'd have learned his lesson by now, but as I note in the Graves thread, Willie doesn't seem to have learned much.

Elster88
Sep 21 2005 07:37 AM

Geez, you're still on this kick?

]for that matter, on a per-start basis, Seo beats out even Pedro

Which is why you should take the per-start basis with a grain of salt and recognize (as you did) that it's a small sample size.
]Seo kicks Glavine up and down the block--for that matter, on a per-start basis,

I bet over the last two combined years the numbers are a lot closer.

There are plenty of things to bash Willie over. His 2006 rotation is not one of them. At least, not yet.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 149) Willie Mays

Rotblatt
Sep 21 2005 07:42 AM

Elster88 wrote:
WATP that intrigued me: Floyd, Zambrano/Traxxxx and Milledge for Manny.


I hate that idea. We'd be giving up WAAAAY too much for Manny, IMO. His contract is so damn expensive--and the Sox pitching in such poor shape--that Floyd & Zambrano/Trax alone should be good enough to net Manny AND some money to offset the salary difference. Hell, I'd probably insist that we get Shoppach as well.

Milledge should be untouchable unless we get blown away by an offer for a YOUNG, relatively inexpensive star. Adam Dunn, I'm looking at you.

Elster88
Sep 21 2005 07:45 AM

It definitely is a TITTS trade. I don't see where Milledge is going to play. We have this guy playing center for another six years (gulp). Besides, if you can get a guy who knocks in 140 a year, you should be willing to give up the jewels in your system. I know Manny's getting older, but it'd be nice to have a slugger on the team.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 148) George Stone

smg58
Sep 21 2005 08:00 AM

Elster88 wrote:
It definitely is a TITTS trade. I don't see where Milledge is going to play. We have this guy playing center for another six years (gulp).


This is a big reason why the Manny for Beltran talk got started in the first place.

Edgy DC
Sep 21 2005 08:02 AM

]That's bullshit. It's also unsurprising, given Willie's previous comments and his baffling attachment to "proven" veterans like Cairo, Ishii, DeJean, Graves, etc.


Isn't this highly distorted?

Rotblatt
Sep 21 2005 08:14 AM

="Elster88"]Geez, you're still on this kick?

]for that matter, on a per-start basis, Seo beats out even Pedro

Which is why you should take the per-start basis with a grain of salt and recognize (as you did) that it's a small sample size.


Small sample size or not, Seo is ranked 64th among all pitchers (starting or otherwise) in Value Over Replacement Player (which is a net statistic). That's more valuable than Tom Gordon, Billy Wagner, Mike Mussina & Kris Benson.

Let me reiterate that: Seo has been more valuable to our team than Kris Benson despite starting less than half the games Benson has.

]Seo kicks Glavine up and down the block--for that matter, on a per-start basis,

]I bet over the last two combined years the numbers are a lot closer.


Past Three Years

Glavine has averaged 1.03 VORP/S (0.69 in 2003, 1.27 in 2004, 1.14 in 2005)
Seo has averaged .96 VORP/S (0.81 in 2003, 0.40 in 2004, 2.42 in 2005)

The 3-year average is pretty close, but Glavine HAS been better over that span. It's worth noting, though, that Seo's bested him in VORP/Start in two out of the last three year. Still, given that Seo's only 28, BUT that Glavine has been dominant this second half, I'd probably call my expectations for 2006 a push. Okay, well I wouldn't--I think Seo will be better if given the chance--but I could see how a reasonable person could.

Let's look at Benson now:
Benson has averaged 0.58 VORP/S over the past three years (-.03 in 2003, 0.72 in 2004, 0.82 in 2005)

So why, exactly, is Benson getting the nod over Seo?

]There are plenty of things to bash Willie over. His 2006 rotation is not one of them. At least, not yet.


Sure, but he's given us every reason to worry about the choices that he'll make next year.

Rotblatt
Sep 21 2005 08:25 AM

Edgy DC wrote:
]That's bullshit. It's also unsurprising, given Willie's previous comments and his baffling attachment to "proven" veterans like Cairo, Ishii, DeJean, Graves, etc.


Isn't this highly distorted?


I think it's pretty clear that Cairo, Ishii & DeJean received a whole hell of a lot more rope than they should have, based on their performance. ESPECIALLY given the presense of superior options. Even ignoring Matsui & our minor league system, Woody is a former 2B and put up much better numbers than Cairo. Ditto with Anderson. So why did Cairo keep starting?

I think we all agree that Seo should have been pitching instead of Ishii much sooner, even if we disagree on the timeline. I seem to be the only one who still cares about DeJean, but IIRC, Willie's stubborness in giving him high-leverage relief appearances even after he proved himself ineffective cost us a few games.

Graves was only used in blowouts, but he should not be on a major league roster given just how bad he's been this year, both in the majors & in AAA.

So how is what I said a distortion?

Frayed Knot
Sep 21 2005 08:40 AM

DeJean pitched all of 25 innings this year - fewer than he pitched last year when he was very good - and was gone by June. Graves has thrown even fewer.
I don't see either one of these as examples of slavish devotion to vets.

sharpie
Sep 21 2005 09:06 AM

]Woody is a former 2B and put up much better numbers than Cairo


He played 6 games there in 2002, that makes him a former 2B?

Cairo had a decent year for the Yankees last season, and Willie saw him play all of those games, plus he got off to a good start this season. Yes he should have cut bait earlier than he did but giving him some rope was justified. What Frayed Knot said regarding DeJean and Graves -- they had very little impact on this season.

(on edit): Look at Woodward's pre-2005 numbers. Lifetime .300 obp, coming off a miserable year. How are his numbers "much better" than Cairo's prior to '05?

Edgy DC
Sep 21 2005 09:16 AM

Ishii is understood, but his continuance, which has ceased, can well beter represent an organizational overcommitment than Willie's.

Arguing for Woodward or Anderson over Cairo, without getting into their graces and flaws (as Sharpie does above), is not arguing for demonstrating that Randolph had a "baffling attachment to 'proven' veterans," but, rather, that he didn't pick the proven veterans you wanted.

DeJean has long been released and is a demonstration (though clearly not a definitive one) of the organization's willingness to cut a veteran and move on.

Rotblatt
Sep 21 2005 09:23 AM

Frayed, DeJean's 25 innings pretty much all came in higher-leverage situations and he compiled a 6.31 ERA & a 2.10 WHIP in those innings. Willie--or Omar--finally got it right by releasing him, but as you'll recall, DeJean & Robo were the setup guys at the beginning of the season, and Willie stuck with DeJean in that role far too long. Not to mention Aybar, who also got around 25 innings.

As for Graves, as I said, he shouldn't even be in the majors at this point.

Besides, you're missing the forest for the trees. Cairo had 290 AB (tied for 7th most on the team) while posting a .605 OPS. Woody had 166 (43% fewer) while posting a .744. Ishii started 16 games for us while posting a 5.04 ERA & a 1.49 WHIP. Seo has only started 11. After being our second-best reliever most of the season, Heilman is JUST NOW starting to split time in higher-leverage situations with Takatsu.

Maybe it's unfair to characterize Willie's misuse of players as pandering to veterans (since he has given Padilla & Jacobs shots), but it's been pretty clear that Willie HAS been misusing players. And pretty badly, too.

Edgy DC
Sep 21 2005 09:33 AM

Well, that's certainly a fairer point.

I would've tried some of Woodie at second, I imagine.

Try and remember that DeJean got his high-leverage situations not by the length of his teeth, but by excelling last year for the Mets. He lost them, and his job, by failing this year.

Frayed Knot
Sep 21 2005 09:41 AM

And DeJean pitched well last year as a set-up guy, does that not buy him some slack when he got off to a rotten start ... or do prior stats only count with guys where we can see after the fact were able to turn things around?

That's the problem with a lot of this analysis is it's looking at things after they happened and saying that it was obvious all along. DeJean pitched poorly and was dropped before mid-season. Graves was signed on a hope he could find past success (as was Robo - only Graves is much younger) and was pulled from anything other than mop-up almost immediately. Mathews was dropped, as was Aybar (who had a real good spring IIRC).

sharpie
Sep 21 2005 09:50 AM

I do remember much gnashing of teeth about Roberto making the roster. Just think what we'd be reading now if he tanked.

Rotblatt
Sep 21 2005 09:50 AM

Cairo's career numbers are even worse than Woody's--.692 compared to .698--and given that Woody was much more successful THIS SEASON, why not try him out? Although you're right. Woody started off as a SS, not a 2B--my bad there. Still, he'd played 2B before and when Cairo was sucking in July & August, I'd have seen what he could do. Actually, I'd have seen what Lambin or Hernandez could do, but since I said I'd ignore our minor league system, I'll stick with Woody.

]What Frayed Knot said regarding DeJean and Graves -- they had very little impact on this season.


I'll try this one more time. High-leverage situations. Close games instead of blow-outs. DeJean (1.00 LEV) pitched in them. Heilman (0.77 LEV), by and large, did not. DeJean's 25 innings came in significantly more important situations than Heilman's 58.

My guess is decisions like this contributed to our shitty record in one-run games.


In the future I'll avoid assigning motives, but my larger point is that Willie (or "the organization," if you'd like, Edgy), has made some stupid fucking moves throughout the course of the season that have pretty clearly cost us games.

metirish
Sep 21 2005 10:00 AM

As regards Cairo it's all very simple, he was one of Willie's guys, how many times did we hear that over the season, I highly doubt numbers even came into it until recently.

sharpie
Sep 21 2005 10:03 AM

.692 to .698 is hardly significant. In '04 Cairo's OPS was .763 vs. Woodward's .630.

I've been in Woody's corner all year and I've never been a fan of Cairo's. That being said, Cairo, having actually played the position more than 6 times, and having started out the year halfway decently, merited the first shot at the job after Matsui went down/south. It wasn't really until late July that it was evident that he couldn't really handle it.

Woodward was given 3 starts this year at 2b. Maybe Willie, a former 2b himself, doesn't like the way he plays the position - I dunno. Yes, I would've given Woody some more starts there but I don't think he's the answer. What I really don't get is ever playing Cairo at 1b. There's no excuse for that.

Rotblatt
Sep 21 2005 10:04 AM

Frayed Knot wrote:
And DeJean pitched well last year as a set-up guy, does that not buy him some slack when he got off to a rotten start ... or do prior stats only count with guys where we can see after the fact were able to turn things around?


Sure, he pitched well in 21 innings for us last year--after getting lit up in 40 innings with Baltimore (6.13 ERA, 1.94 WHIP). For the season, he was at 4.57 ERA, 1.69 WHIP, which is actually an improvement on his career numbers.

And he absolutely sucked in spring training, amassing a 9.95 ERA and a 1.74 WHIP.

So I would say that, yes, prior stats DO count. Or should, anyway.

]That's the problem with a lot of this analysis is it's looking at things after they happened and saying that it was obvious all along. DeJean pitched poorly and was dropped before mid-season. Graves was signed on a hope he could find past success (as was Robo - only Graves is much younger) and was pulled from anything other than mop-up almost immediately. Mathews was dropped, as was Aybar (who had a real good spring IIRC).


Actually, I said DeJean & Ishii should be gone well before it happened. I think DeJean was my choice to DFA in favor of sending Bell down out of Spring Training, as a matter of fact, and after his first 3 starts in the bigs, I wanted Seo to stay.

I wanted to give Aybar a shot, based on his strong Spring, and we did, but he pretty quickly shot himself in the foot there.

Listen, no one going to be right all the time, but when it's clear you're wrong, you have to do something about it, and quickly. Willie/the organization has acted extraordinarily slowly to make corrections and it hurt our chances.

Elster88
Sep 21 2005 10:09 AM

In general, I think management has to more slowly than fans would like. This is how you find the Berts in the middle of the DeJean's and Graves'. I think they were moved down as quickly as possible, no matter what the high-impact innings statistic says.

Ishii is where you have a much stronger argument.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 148) George Stone

Edgy DC
Sep 21 2005 10:26 AM

If management moved as fast as fans would like, there'd be no more bullets or bodybags left.

DeJean's leverage rating is partly due to him going from a feature role to a realease, rather than getting downgraded to a lesser role beforehand.

I don't know why he's even at issue anymore. He blew a game by walking in a run, and got cut within a day or two. I don't know how much more decisiive a team could be expected to be. At the time of his release, Heilman was still being held in reserve as an extra starter, a role which typically gets only mopup appearances to keep one's arm fresh. As the season progressed, it became clear he was more needed as a more featured reliever than as a sixth starter.

Now, you might say (1) he should have been the fifth starter, not the sixth, and (2) he should have been even more featured as a reilever sooner. I'd tend to agree.

But neither of those points has anything to do with Mike DeJean.

duan
Sep 21 2005 11:34 AM

I for one said "no way to Roberto Hernandez"

I was way wrong.

Rockin' Doc
Sep 21 2005 06:31 PM

You weren't alone, Duan. Much of the membership of the CPF was opposed to Roberto's presence on the opening day roster. Many of us, myself included, were wrong about Roberto and many other personnel decisions.

TheOldMole
Sep 21 2005 06:50 PM

In the picture of Seo on the Mets homepage right now, his facial expression looks like Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon.