SaberMets.com

I like getting Pedro. It puts a face on the pitching staff, and to be quite honest, the question that needs to be answered is are we better today (or tomorrow as the case may be) with Pedro, or yesterday without him.

Now, here is what else needs to happen. Make the trade for Manny and Dougie (can't spell Mientk...). This makes PERFECT sense for the Mets; and anyone who does not think so is not looking at the big picture. Again, it gives our offense a face again. I gives us credibility (like the day we traded for Piazza). It also gives us a legitimate clean up hitter which we have not had in 2 or 3 years.

Once this is complete, sign JD Drew. There is something about him that reminds me and several of my "Yankee" friends of Paul O'Neil. At 29, he could play right field for me for the next 5 years (or more).

Suck up the money for now. We all know they will make it back in other ways. Also, please remember, we lose Mike's $16 mil off the books after 2005. And depending on his innings, we will lose Glavine's after either '05 or '06. Slowly but surely this gives us time to retool the farm and start BUILDING a team. But you have to start somewhere!

i think the mets made a great pick up. pedro is by far the best pitcher out there. hopefully more moves to follow.

We aren't going to get Pedro, Manny, Dougie, and Drew. That'd be awesome though. We're gonna get Alou and Olerud now, I just know it. :(

I have no use for players who require an entourage so they can feel better about themselves. I have no use for players who refuse to take an MRI before signing a free agent contract.

I am not even remotely excited about Pedro in a Mets uniform. The Red Sox, the people who know him best, refused to go out 4 years for him. Why should we?

Why should we? Here is why. The BOSOX are coming off a world title win. We aren'e even in that zip code. We need to start somewhere. Kind of like when the Yankees went against common logic and signed Jimmy Key for 4 years. They needed to change people's perception of them at that time; and lose that loser's perception. Stick Michaels said if he got 3 real good years out of it, then it was worth it. So now I say the same. If we get 3 years out of him, its worth it.

Bonilla, Murray, Viola, Alomar, Vaughn, Glavine ... all over again. Is Minaya trying to prove something? Did any other team even think of offering this cancer 4 years? It seems like this team looks for ways to avoid winning sometimes.

4 out of the 5 guys were not that great or either on the serious decline before we signed them. Alomar was just a mystery. But although Pedro wasn't like his old self last year, he was still one of the best in baseball. You can argue whether it was a good signing or not, but you can't compare it to the Vaughn move at all.

Fair enough Salz, but I would argue that Pedro is also on the serious decline - especially when looking over a four year period. And like Vaughn, I'm not convinced Martinez is completely healthy either.

You're delusional.

I'd rather pay him $40 mil over 2 than $50 mil over 4. They will suck for
the next two years with or without Pedro. When their young players start to
reach the beginning of their peak years in 2007 you are going to want to
sign/trade for players to build around those guys. Instead, you're going to
be stuck with a 36 year old with a torn labrum eating $14 million of your
payroll in 2007 and 2008. That extra guaranteed year makes a world of
difference to the 2008 team. It's $14 mil that should be going to someone
else.

They should stop building a team to win the wild card. They've been doing
it for as long as the wild card has been around. They've got (had) the
prospects to make the core of a perennial division winner, and they continue
to waste it away.

I'd much rather watch a team composed of young players who will be future
stars win 75 -85 games than a bunch of old guys who aren't Mets win 80 - 90.

I'm hopeful, it is nice to see Minaya being aggressive, but I have concerns. Here's my thoughts on Pedro.

1. Two words: torn labrum. Need more data.

2. I think the one thing to measure this on is that we are basically swapping Pedro for Leiter. Will that make us markedly better?

Compare their numbers in 2003, (must consider Pedro facing DHs in AL and playing in hitters park).

Pedro in 2003:
3.90 ERA.
BAA OBP SLG OPS
.238 .299 .399 .698

Leiter in 2003
3.21 ERA
BAA OBP SLG OPS
.218 .328 .354 .682

The biggest knock against Leiter was pitches/innings per start. He had 108.3 in 2004, roughly the same as he had in 2003.

Leiter made 30 starts, and went an average of 5.77 innings per start.

Pedro made 33 starts, pitched an average of 105.8 pitches per start, less than Leiter. But he averaged 6.57 innings per start, more than Leiter.

3. Is Pedro in decline?

On the face of it, moving from a hitter friendly AL park to a pitcher friendly NL park should bode well for Pedro. But is he in decline?

ERA last 5 years: 1.74; 2.39; 2.26; 2.22, **3.90**

HRs surrendered last 5 years: 9;17;5;13;7;**26**

Runs surrendered: 44; 33; 62; 52;**99**

On the whole, I'd rather have given this package to 28 year old Carl Pavano, re-signed Leiter for one year, and traded Trachsel for relief pitching.

I think Pedro will be boom or bust here. Let's hope it is boom.

Actually, the knock against Leiter was not the number of pitches he threw but the efficiency with which he threw them. His pitches/inning rate (18.7) was the worst in the Majors by far.

You're right that, if the deal goes through, it will be all or nothing. If he stays healthy, I think he will be a very good pitcher for the Mets through the life of the contract. If he does not, he will not. Of course, this is news to nobody.

It should also be noted in comparing Pedro to Leiter that Senator Al was incredibly lucky last year, while Pedro was not.

To wit, Pedro's FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) last year was 3.82, while Al's was 4.78. Given that the AL average FIP was .31 higher than the NL average, the gap is even larger. And, as you mentioned, Pedro's moving from a hitter's park to a pitcher's park.

In other words, all things being equal, Pedro was probably about 1.5 runs per 9 innings better than Leiter last year.

Moreover, while the goal is to prevent runs, ERA is not as good a predictor of future success as things like k/9 and BB/9, measures which show Pedro striking out 50% more hitters than Al last year, and walking 60% fewer batters.

Finally, one can look at H/9, which is similar to batting average against. As you note, Al was better than Pedro last year in this regard. But this can amount to a lot of luck. Consider that Al gave up 8.6, 8.5 and 8.8 hits per 9 innings the last 3 years, and then suddenly gave up just 7.2 hits per 9 this year. He's bested that mark only twice in his career, in 1996 and 1998. It's unlikely to say the least that Al will put up such an impressive H/9 next year.

One can dislike the Pedro signing, Al doesn't even belong in the same conversation as Mr. Martinez at this stage of their respective careers. Leiter's league average at best, Pedro's the 15th best starter in the league at worst.

One more thing about Pedro and his ERA. 3.90 is the highest he's every had. You've got to go back to 1996, when he was 24 years old, to find a season even approaching that, when he hit the 3.70 mark. In fact, that 1996 season is the last time Pedro's ERA was even above 3.00.

So is he on a downward trend? Perhaps, but his ERA the last 3 years give no indication: 2.39 in 01, 2.26 in 02, 2.22 in 03, steady as she goes.

Pedro's not going to be as good as he was at age 28, when his ERA+ was 285, the best of any pitcher since 1880, but he's likely to give us a couple of seasons like 01, 02 and 03, when his ERA+ was 189, 196 and 212.

Nice, james. I was watching MSG SportsDesk last night and they featured an interview snippet with Al Leiter commenting on the Pedro acquisition. He said that comparing himself with Pedro would be like apples to oranges, and thought that it was a great acquisition, humbly admitting that Pedro was a superior pitcher. Classy as always, you've gotta love Al the guy.

I'm not all for or or against this deal, and I don't think the euphoria or the angst that have greeted it around the internet is rational.

It is, however, risky. It is a big salary bet on a declining power pitcher. Maybe Pedro will be Nolan Ryan or Roger Clemens and continue to dominate into his mid 30s and beyond. But maybe he'll be like the vast majority of power pitchers who decline rapidly after age 32 or 33.

It is interesting, however, to note that our new ace would have led the 2004 Mets staff in HRs surrendered and earned runs surrendered. Let's hope that is a stadium based issue.

I still hold that I would have been much happier if we had taken these same resources and given 28 year old Carl Pavano a package and re-signed Leiter. Then we could have gone to camp with 6 starters, or perhaps have moved Trachsel for help elsewhere. glavin/Leiter/Pavano/Benson/Zambrano/Trachsel. Wow.

But, oddly, Omar didn't run this one by me :-)

I'm not wholly "for" the deal either. There's definitely part of me that longs for a younger pitcher like Clement or Perez or Pavano, and worries about the risk you cite of an aging pitching.

But that part of me must acknowledge that there is risk with Pavano, Perez and Clement too.

Pavano's pitched two full seasons. In 2003, he was below average. In 2004, he was very, very good, though only slightly better than Pedro in his worst year. And his peripheral numbers were the same in 2003 and 2004, indicating that he may simply have gotten lucky last year.

Matt Clement has a longer record, and better peripherals, but last year, in his age 30 season, he still wasn't as good as Pedro was in 04, and that was Clement's best year, by far.

Odalis Perez is younger, and so his inconsistency is more understandable, but his peripheral numbers aren't so dominant either.

Pedro's a risk because he'll be 33 next season, but not one other pitcher has ever had a single season clearly better than Pedro's worst season. It's a risk that they simply won't ever be as good as even a slightly down Pedro.

For that reason, if salary and contract length were equal, I'd take Pedro over any of them, and feel pretty confident. Spending an extra $3-4 million a year makes it a harder call for me, but I still think it's like Pedro will be better, even 4 years from now. And what the hell, it's not my money.