213 Miles From Shea

Word on street is the Mets have signed Chris Young to a one year deal, pending a physical. If the physical pans out, then the rest of this article is relevant. If the physical doesn't pan out, then please disregard the rest of this article. Anyway, with Young the Rotation probably looks something like this:

1. Pelfrey

2. Niese

3. R.A. Dickey

4. Capuano

5. Young

With:

6. Gee

7. Perez (Yeah, right)

Also With:

DL: Johan Santana.

If Spring Training goes the way it should on paper, then the first five will go up north with the team and then the weak link will be phased out when Santana returns from the Disabled List. Below are the numbers for the Top 5 pitchers with their most recent numbers, followed by their career numbers:

Pelfrey: 15-9, 3.66 ERA, 204.0 IP, 1.66 K/BB, 43-41, 4.31 ERA, 1.56 K/BB

Niese: 9-10, 4.20 ERA, 173.2 IP, 2.39 K/BB, 11-12, 4.39 ERA, 2.24 K/BB

Dickey: 11-9, 2.84 ERA, 174.1 IP, 2.48 K/BB, 33-39, 4.70 ERA, 1.71 K/BB

Capuano: 4-4, 3.95 ERA, 66.0 IP, 2.57 K/BB, 46-52, 4.35 ERA, 2.45 K/BB

Young: 2-0, 0.90 ERA, 20.0 IP, 1.36 K/BB (2010), 4-6, 5.21 ERA, 76.0 IP, 1.25 K/BB, 48-34, 3.80 ERA, 2.21 ERA

There are some numbers that immediately pop up when looking at the above stats:

1. Pelfrey, Niese and Dickey all logged in a lot of innings last year, and Dickey would have had more if he was with the team from the start. If the Mets are going to competitive this upcoming season, these three will all need to have similar seasons to last year. Dickey will need to be as good as last year, Niese will have to step up and Pelfrey will need to stay consistent all year. What is promising is all three of them had better numbers than any of their previous systems (but take that with a grain of salt).

2. Looking at the career numbers, three of the five pitchers strike out two batters for every one they walk.

3. Disregarding Young's ERA from last year (it was only 20 innings) and understanding that Capuano's was only in 66 innings of work, those are some nice ERA's

4. Young and Capuano could really be nice surprises. If not, one will be replaced by Santana.

5. This rotation should be a good example as to what Alderson can do.

I am so ready for baseball season.

Yesterday a collection of sources, including Metsblog, reported that the Mets signed relief pitcher Tankersley to a minor league contract and at 213 we couldn't be happier about it. Here's a crash course on Tankersley. He was 27 last season as he was rebounding from elbow injury (catching a theme so far this winter?) anyway, last season he struggled with a 7.50 ERA over 27 appearances and 12 innings of work, which sounds fairly terrible. However in his first two seasons, 2006 and 2007, he made 116 appearances over 88.1 innings and had a 3.46 ERA while walking 55 and striking out 95 (Thats a K/9 of 9.7)

If he can return to that K/9 from a few seasons ago, he will be really valuable. Also, this is indicative of a good move. Here's a bargain bin pitcher, who doesn't have to be on our 40 man, that we are seeing if he can make a come back. Very low risk, very high reward.

All of these compliments and stats aside, that is not why we are so happy to welcome him. Check out this photo of him from last year, first posted at Ted Quarters:

Yeah, check out that facial hair. When Facial Hair Friday returns during baseball season, here's hoping he is still sporting that classy stache.

Kris made his retirement official yesterday, ending his 9 season career that saw him travel to 5 different cities. Benson's career had two sides: normal and crazy. On the normal side of his career, he came up to the majors with considerable talent and was an effective pitcher for his career (4.42 ERA, I'll take that!) but was also bogged down with injuries. Before the 2005 season, he signed a 3 year deal worth about 22.5 million dollars, with the New York Mets. He was then later traded to the Orioles before the 2007 season for Jorge Julio and Jon Maine in one of my favorite, at the time, series of trades by Minaya. Essentially Minaya took Benson and flipped him for two starting pitchers as he would trade Jorge Julio for El Duque. Anyway, Benson struggled with the Orioles due to injuries and living in Baltimore at the time, i can say that fans like him. Specifically the injury that brought him down was a tear of his rotator cuff in 2007. He wouldn't make another major league start until 2009. Normal career right?

Benson felt that his wife's comments and actions were part of the reason for his trade. While we will never know for sure (Minaya denies it, he made a good trade, but Anna could have had impact on Kris's departure) we do know that Anna Benson was a distraction. There were the comments about sex on the Howard Stern show, her inappropriate attire for the Mets holiday party (which is really an outreach event for children) and her comments about Carlos Delgado. If you recall, Delgado did not stand in 2006 for God Bless America as protest for the War In Iraq, which is completely fine. That is not a baseball issue, its a political issue, and Delgado has the full right to display his opinion as he wishes. This upset Anna who made public comments on the issue.

It is murky about if the comments played a role in Kris's trade to the Orioles. To be honest, I like evidence before buying into a claim, so I'm going to take the trade as a baseball move, which was a good one at the time. The actions of Anna Benson though are entangled in Kris Benson's career, so it feels fitting to remember her as well in a Kris Benson retirement article.

What feels like a bad internet meme joke (if you don't get the reference, you should feel better about yourself), the Washington Nationals who at the start of the off-season looked to be exploding their payroll, might actually go in the opposite direction. Even with over paying for Werth, by losing out on other free agents caused their payroll to decrease.

The proof is apparent in this article.

The article projects the Nationals payroll to be about 61.5 million, or as they also point out, about 5 million less than last season. Another way to think of this is if they were able to sign Lee, Lee would have cost them about 33% of their current payroll.

Overall, I have no idea what to make of this, which is why I decided to share it. Does it show that the Nationals were smart in overpaying for Werth? Probably not. Does it show that they failed at the concept at overpaying for players they want? Not entirely, and I am not even sure if you can fail at that. This concept of the Nationals having a decrease in payroll just doesn't sit well with me.

Well, just wanted to share that with you all.

Today officially marked the end of the Chris Carter chapter of Mets history (barring some later return in his career, but I guess that would start another chapter) and its a chapter that really explains a lot about the Mets front office and the Mets fan base while showing the human element of baseball.

The way we acquired Carter says a lot about the front office regime at that time. The Mets traded Billy Wagner to the Red Sox for a player to be named later, who happened to be Carter. At the time, Wagner just came back from recovering and was actually pitching well, but the Mets were essentially out of contention at that point. The Mets could have offered him arbitration at the end of the year, something most people outside of the team whether in hindsight or not, actively agreed with, but the team didn't go that route. Instead Wagner ended up being a type A free agent (I believe, or at least a type B, I'll check on this later) and signed with the Braves sending 2 (or 1 depending on the earlier statement) to Boston.

The Mets instead got Carter. On that evidence alone, Carter was a waste. We got a little over 100 AB's vs first round draft picks.

However there is an odd, human side of baseball that is so woven into the Chris Carter story. I was having a conversation with a history teacher that taught me in High School, that I respect very much (and I will probably exploit this anecdote to a full blown article later) about statistics vs liking players and were talking about we as humans, we have this non-rational pull to players just because we like them, and we will ignore all other statics to do this (like WARP). This is fine for us as fans to have this, but devastating when a front office has this, which one could claim was a problem in the latter half of the Minaya era and why I am personally thankful for Alderson.

As fans, there was no strong statistical reason to like Carter over a slew of other worthy WARP players other than his amazing Spring Training. Lets face it, we fell, or at least I will admit I did, in love with the idea of Carter (for me it was Dan Murphy all over again). Here was a guy who worked really hard, and was constantly being over looked (Mike Jacobs over Carter? Come On!), his homers seemed more frequent than they actually were because of this enchanting American story around him. He had an endearing nickname, “The Animal”, which game us more of illogical reason to like him. He was this entity for us as fans to cling to for hope, although in the “goal” of a baseball season, he meant nothing.

This is why its hard to say good bye to him. It is the right thing for the organization to part ways (no sacred cows) but for the stories and the memories, we want to keep him.

Sometimes I come across something that is so ridiculous, so incredible, that I feel compelled to drop what I'm doing (generally goofing off) and share it hear. I just got back for a week long vacation, and I was catching up on some of my favorite websites, when I came across a link for this.

The above link takes you to the web page for the St. Paul Saint's Professional Baseball team, which is an Independent Professional Team. One of their early promotions is the following:

That is a woopie cushion of the Metrodome. This upcoming year will be the 30th anniversary of its inflation, and of course you probably know about the deflation of the roof with the tear due to snow earlier this month.

Fantastic promotion.

Edit: It is hard to see from the above image, but there are grid lines on the woopie cushion so it looks like the metrodome roof.

According to MLB Trade Rumors, the Royals have released Philip Humber in order to make room for Jeff Francoeur on their 40 man roster.

Is your head swimming from that statement? It should because of all of the Mets connections.

I guess we can first track Francoeur here, because his history is easy. At one point in time he was seen as the career Brave, where he was going to write history and always rock the “A” on his cap. He was then traded to the Mets were he was quickly loved and hated simultaneously by Mets fans. After that he got to go to the World Series with the Rangers and has recently signed with the Royals.

On the other side there is Humber. Humber was a much hyped prospect in the Mets farm system around the same time as Pelfrey and Milledge. He was then packaged off to go to Minnesota for Santana, where he didn't really work out, and then eventually ended up with the Royals. As a Royal last year, statistically he wasn't too bad but he saw an extremely limited amount of innings as he recorded barely over 21 innings with a 4.05 ERA.

Now that he's free, and our team needs pitching, you have to wonder that maybe the system will go with what it knows and try to see if they can get Humber for cheap in the minors? It is possible, you know (whether its correct or not is another question).

I went through a range of emotions last night when I heard Cliff Lee signed with the Phillies.

Well actually thats a lie. It was right after the Ravens won their game, so I was pretty happy, and I was outside in the snow waiting for the bus, which was pretty peaceful, so I actually wasn't upset at all.

When I woke up this morning and turned on Sports Center, I then fully realized what had transpired, but I still wasn't that upset. In the long run, this may not be too terrible for the Mets, but more on that later. What this signing shows is the Phillies know they really are in a “win now” situation and they also know how precious, and irreplaceable championships are. The evidence for this claim is their money is now wrapped in up two long deals for pitchers nearing their mid-30's (although they are aces) and wrapped up in a few position players. For them to make any free agent moves in the future they will have to blow up their budget (become the Yankees of the East) and their farm system has been devastated. They know that the only way to make this worth is they need to maximize their possibility of another championship this year and next year, and they probably did that with the Cliff Lee signing. They have a very good shot to win the World Series next year, a decent shot the following year and after that, things start to fall apart. It's ok though, because they understand once you win, no one can ever take it away from you.

Essentially, what we see here is the cost and benefits analysis of a team “guaranteeing” one World Championship for the ability to have a good shot at the postseason each year for the next decade. Once this team starts to age (2 seasons) there will be little they can do about it financially, so they have to make it worth it now.

Of course the other side of the coin, the more patient, misunderstood, mature side, is to set up a team that can make moves every season and compete every season. This is what the Red Sox did, up until this year (think 2003-2008 or 9) and this is what the Mets hope to do.

The Phillies will now have great expectations and a target on their back next season. While with that rotation they will probably blow the division away, they will need to live up to the hype in order to make it all worth it. They will probably live up to the hype, as we seen in the last few seasons.

In the long run, this is good for the Mets. As long as the Mets play the next several seasons smart with evaluating talent, making trades and talent, this sets the Mets up (and sadly the Braves as well) to swap with the Phillies in 3 years. But to truly get an idea of what that would take, I would have to make some strong predictions about what the Mets will do, and I honestly cannot do that at this time.

What I'm about to write doesn't mean anything, to anyone. So if you are one of those people who will read this article, and give the basic response, of “this doesn't matter on the baseball field”, well I agree with you. This means nothing. I, personally, find the psychology of sports and construction of meaning from subjective opinions of objective events really interesting, and just thought I would share with you what I was thinking about this morning, instead of studying for my Physics final.

The Mes have always had this stigma of being the “lovable losers”, which is the underlaying cultural definition of why we have became the laughing stock of the league. If I had to pinpoint though an event that started to turn the lovable part off, and then just turn us into those losers, it would be when we started to spend money. Spending money to win, while there is nothing wrong with it, comes with a certain connotation. There is something that feels dirty about spending money because it seems like an easy thing to do. Essentially, think of the view that Yankees got in the 90's, with the difference of course that they actually could spend and win.

This also brought another “set” of Mets fans. The win now fans, who came on in 2005 and 2006, and then became increasingly negative in 07, 08 and so on. The fans who didn't quite understand the Mets pedigree of losing.

Well now the Mets are starting to shed this cloak. With Sandy, the Mets are trying to spend smarter than spend more, and bring back that idea of a balance team, one that doesn't need to rely on reshaping its entire roster based on the most prized free agents every off-season.

As the Mets do this, the Nationals enter the opposite side, and there's nothing wrong with that. They overspent for Werth, and they will probably overspend for Pavano if they don't get Lee. It feels like they are trying that same type of strategy the Mets were using in 2005 and 2006 (if you feel like replacing players on their roster like Zimmerman and Strasburgh for our then and now homegrown darlings Wright and Reyes).

I guess what I am curious about is this. Up until this point in the Nationals history, they have been the lovable losers, just like the early Mets. Now that they have entered the spending ring, if they don't succeed next season, or don't significantly improve, what will the public perception be?

Take the Cubs for example. They are always the lovable losers, except of late. Remember back in the day, even as recent as the turn of the millennium, there was some compassion/sympathy/empathy in a conversation when talking about the Cubs? That feeling is practically gone now. I would argue it's because they over spent for a group of players, that didn't work out, and now they are not desirable.

In conclusion, in the great scheme of things, especially on the baseball field, this means nothing. It's just something to think about instead of worrying why a capacitor moving a constant velocity has decaying magnetic field, thus a decaying displacement electric field when it suddenly stops moving and why this emits as a plane wave and can be explained within its Maxwell Equations.

Jon Paul Morosi posted his Winter Meetings Winners and Losers, and I must disagree with where he put the Mets. Now its easy to write off me, as a Mets fan and blogger, being upset about being categorized as a “loser” in the Winter Meetings, as me just being upset because of the label.

The reason I disagree and am upset with Jon, and any other reporter that ranks the Mets as a loser in the Winter Meetings is the reasoning that he used:

” Even with a new general manager, there isn't much buzz about this team. Sandy Alderson has been asked to be frugal with the Wilpon checkbook. And so D.J. Carrasco and Ronny Paulino were the Mets' most significant signings this week. None of this is Alderson's fault. But it's shocking whenever a New York team is one of the least-talked-about teams in the winter meeting lobby.”

Essentially from the above, the Mets were ranked as losers because we were one of the least talked about teams in the lobby. We are the only team on this list because of this. What about all the other teams that did nothing?

The reason this is upsetting is it gives a voice for Mets fans that are insatiable and impatient. The idea of making moves to make moves and to make a splash is stupid and destructive. These types of actions are generally under the guise of we are a playing to compete and are playing to win. That is why we have Castillo, Oliver Perez, Jason Bay, K-rod, and all of our other bad contracts. These were moves to “win now” without thinking about the Mets assets and ability to compete in the long haul.

The decisions that were made by Sandy Alderson this past week were just what the Mets needed. They didn't add a headache, they didn't hurt the bottom line, and they didn't impeded on our abilities to spend in the 2011 and 2012 winter meetings, when all of current contracts end. This was the necessary “reset” button the Mets needed to have. Jon Paul Morosi was correct in not listing the Mets as a winner of the Winter Meetings, but we didn't shoot ourselves in the foot, make winning next year anymore difficult at the end of the week than in the beginning, and we weren't detrmental so we shouldn't be a loser either.