Organizational Ranking: Current Talent – Mets

The Mets doled out roughly $150 million in player salaries during the 2009 season and managed to win only 70 games. Suffice to say, that was a poor season. Due in large part to injuries, are the Mets ready to move on and compete in this year’s NL East? It is worth noting that according to current estimates, the Mets are dropping their payroll quite a bit for the 2010 season. Cot’s estimates that the Mets are presently set to outlay a little over $120 million, about an 18% drop from last year’s figure. What have the Mets assembled for that cost?

You the loyal readers and forecasters have pegged the Mets for a modest eight-win improvement in 2010, up to 78 wins and a repeat of their fourth-place finish inside the division. If true, at least they would be much closer than last year finishing 11 games back of the Braves rather than 23 games back of the Phillies. CHONE agrees on the division-leading Braves at 89 wins but it is slightly more optimistic on the Mets picking them for 80 wins and a third-place finish.

The infield is loaded with questions for the Mets, starting behind the plate with some sort of conglomeration of Rod Barajas, Henry Blano and Omir Santos. Barajas, of course, is coming off a season in which he posted a .258 OBP over 460 plate appearances. Santos isn’t much better and Blanco is like 90 years old, not that either Barajas (34) or Santos (soon to be 29) are young guns.

Daniel Murphy at first base is an interesting choice and by interesting, I mean punt-worthy. If the Mets get a league average performance out of him it will be amazing but that’s okay because they have Fernando Tatis backing him up.

Luis Castillo returns at second base. He even managed to hit at an above league average clip last year for the first time in five seasons, but he managed to make up for that with some really poor UZR numbers. Alex Cora is the likely backup both here and at short stop. Luckily the Mets are paying him $2 million to offer replacement level services up the middle.

The Mets are likely to need Cora because Jose Reyes has a thyroid condition of all ailments and might miss time in 2010 on the heels of playing in only 36 games last season. For the Mets to have any realistic shot at the playoffs, they need Reyes to be back on the field and his old five-win self because a full season with Castillo and Cora up the middle would make the rest of the questions moot pretty fast.

Speaking of those questions, is David Wright going to rebound and start hitting for power again? His .447 slugging percentage was a career worst by almost 100 points. Citi Field is not entirely to blame as Wright struggled both at home and on the road to hit long balls.

Carlos Beltran and Jeff Francouer return in the outfield joined by new addition Jason Bay and backed up by Anaheim castoff Gary Matthews Jr. Moving from Fenway Park to Citi Field is going to be a story to watch for Jason Bay.

In the rotation, the Mets are planning to not give Livan Hernandez so many starts which is good, but a certain number of those starts are going to go to Oliver Perez so who knows if that’s actually an improvement or not.

The bullpen was decent overall last season, though that might just be because the Mets were so bad that they didn’t give them a chance to blow a late season division lead. Even though they were close to average overall, the bullpen was nowhere near the revamped unit that the acquisitions of Francisco Rodriguez and J.J. Putz were supposed to provide and 2010 doesn’t look to be much different.

The Mets suffered beyond their fair share of injury bad luck last season but looking over the roster up and down, I agree with the projection systems; the realistic ceiling for this team is around .500 and I’m not sure 2011 looks any rosier.




Print This Post



Matthew Carruth is a software engineer who has been fascinated with baseball statistics since age five. When not dissecting baseball, he is watching hockey or playing soccer.


85 Responses to “Organizational Ranking: Current Talent – Mets”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. Dan says:

    I believe Pagan is really the backup for Beltran, and he’s actually pretty good. The article doesn’t mention that Beltran will likely miss the first month or so of the season, which is pretty important.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • CaseyB says:

      This is correct. Pagan backs up Beltran … and if they trade GMJ which is the current rumor, then F-Mart is the emergency backup for Pagan.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. CaseyB says:

    “It is worth noting that according to current estimates, the Mets are dropping their payroll quite a bit for the 2010 season. Cot’s estimates that the Mets are presently set to outlay a little over $120 million, about an 18% drop from last year’s figure.”‘

    This is incorrect. The Tigers paid almost $14 million of Sheffield’s salary last year. The Mets’ payroll in 2009 was actually closer to $135 million. Current season expenditures are also not finalized at this point. I predict by the middle of the season, the Mets current payroll will at least be roughly equal to last year’s.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. CaseyB says:

    As for 2009 projections? If they can stay healthy, I expect about 92 wins from this year’s Mets. The supposed experts will be proven wrong.

    -8 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • snapper says:

      But they’re already not healthy.

      I don’t see 92 as very likely with that rotation. They’d need big seasons (180+IP and <4.00 ERA) from both Pelfrey and Maine.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        They ARE healthy now. They already have Reyes back. Beltran will be back by around May. They currently have no where near the injury issues they had last year. Not even close.

        BTW, all teams have injury issues. The Mets last year had injury armageddon.

        -8 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • snapper says:

        No, they’re not. Reyes has just resumed baseball activities, and Beltran will definitely miss time. When back, neither will be 100% immediately.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        Yes, they are. Relatively speaking. Reyes is nearly 100% now. He worked out this morning with the team and beat everyone in the drills. He only needs to work on building his stamina.

        Granted, Beltran is a bit of an unknown, but word is that he’s coming along very well and that the mets are shopping GMJ because of how well Beltran is doing.

        With only 1 regular out, that’s why I say they ARE healthy. Because almost all teams have at least 1 regular out at some point in the season.

        -5 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • KG says:

        CaseyB, yes, most teams have at least one regular out at some point, but few teams have as little depth as the Mets; sustaining an injury to one of their star 3 of Wright, Beltran, and Reyes is devastating. Given Beltran’s and Reyes’s injury histories, it’s not unreasonable to expect setbacks and further injuries. Furthermore, the Mets would be better off playing a man down than playing GMJ in the outfield; their shopping of him speaks more to their hopeful realization that he is not a viable major leaguer.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        KG, I disagree about lack of depth. What team do you root for? Now tell me who would be the replacements if they lost their starting position players at CF, 3B, and SS? No team in baseball could have withstood all the injuries the Mets had last year and been successful.

        As for Reyes, he played full seasons in 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005. Four straight years without a DL visit.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Omar says:

        You guys neglect to mention that out of eight position players three of the regulars have a decent shot at being replacement level. Yeah, the Nationals are health too, that doesn’t make them good. A team with Jeff Francouer, Luis Castillo, and Rod Barajas getting regular playing time over the course of a full season likely isn’t a good thing.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        Every team has regulars with a good shot at being replacement level. What kind of point is that? LOL.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Felonius_Monk says:

        Casey, the Braves and the Phillies have a good shot at average production or better from every spot, and both have far, far superior rotations to yours.

        The Mets looks likely to be below average at first base and near replacement level at catcher, RF and 2B. That’s a lot of wins to make up.

        92 wins is a pipe dream. And feel free to come back and say “I told you so” if it happens, because it won’t.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        Monk, are you using WAR to define below and above average? If so, Murphy (at first base) and Castillo were above average last year. So were Barajas and Blanco.

        The Mets also have the chance to have every position player at average production or above this year.

        As for the rotation, I think the Braves do have a much better one, but I think the Phillies’ rotation is only slightly better than the Mets. They got Halladay but lost Lee, Hamels went backwards last year, and Moyer at his age is a huge risk. Moreover, who knows what they can get from Lidge who hasn’t even pitched yet this spring. Big question mark there.

        If the Mets don’t win 92 games, here is one thing I will bet on — they will come much closer to that win total than what I think you think they will win.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Will says:

        Casey, you might want to read up on the difference between replacement level and league average.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        That’s why I asked how Monk was using and defining “average.”

        My reply was based on the assumption Monk was equating “average” with a 0 WAR.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • acerimusdux says:

        Casey, the average WAR, by definition, is +2.0.

        I think a projection for an 81 win (.500) ceiling is a bit low, but your 92 win expectation seems a bit high.

        By my judgment, assuming Beltran returns before too long, this is the best lineup the Mets have had since 2006. They could get back to scoring around 800 runs like they did from 2006-2008. But it’s hard to imaging this pitching staff and defense allowing less than 750 runs, which would put them at maybe 86 wins as an optimistic goal.

        I think Niese and Maine could both be decent #3 SP, and Pelfrey should at least be a #4, but Perez isn’t more than a #5. Moreover, with Niese in the rotation, there’s not really any rotation insurance left at AAA. Maybe Tobi Stoner would be OK. So they are really depending on Maine finally staying healthy for a season just for a chance at the rotation being average.

        The bullpen has some potential, with Feliciano and H. Takahashi making one of the better pairs of bullpen lefties around, and Calero, Igarashi, and Nieve could all be decent, but I’m not seeing a real certain setup man there (will they really try to use Mejia there?).

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        “Casey, the average WAR, by definition, is +2.0.”

        Acer, thanks for defining it. Do you by chance have a link for that? Many are bandying about the term “average” without taking the time to define what they mean. The question I have for you is wouldn’t average WAR vary by position?

        So using 2.0 WAR as “average” to assess Monk’s statement —

        “Casey, the Braves and the Phillies have a good shot at average production or better from every spot,”

        … I would say he is close but not accurate. Cabrera has never had a WAR above 2.0 and Schafer is projected to have a 0.3 WAR this year, while CHONE projects Heyward at 1.1 WAR. As for the Phillies, Ruiz has been below average WAR for 3 of his 4 ML seasons.

        Monk also said: “The Mets looks likely to be below average at first base and near replacement level at catcher, RF and 2B. That’s a lot of wins to make up.”

        In 2008, Mets position players put up a 28.7 WAR. That is more than what the Phillies and Braves produced last year — 28 and 18.6 respectively. This year, Bay and Murphy are essentially replacing the 2008 Delgado and Tatis and Bay and Murphy’s 2009 WAR is equal to what Delgado and Tatis produced in 2008. So, I see no problem here and not “a lot of wins to make up.”

        Acer, as far as insurance for the Mets rotation, it’s going to be Misch, Nieve, Figueroa or Takahashi. The first 3 put up very decent numbers last year as fill-in starters. As for the bullpen setup man, I think Calero or Feliciano will nab that spot, or possibly even Takahashi. The bullpen will be much better than last year’s. They should leave Mejia in the minors for now and let him develop some more.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Omar says:

        Casey most teams don’t have as many regulars as the Mets do that are good bets to be replacement level.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        That is not true. Most teams have as many or even more players with a good chance to be replacement.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Reuben says:

      This depth issue has been covered so many times. But yes, the Mets have bad depth. No most teams couldn’t still make the playoffs if they suffered the # of injuries the Mets did last year. These are not mutually exclusive facts.

      Their replacement players are below replacement level. Their farm system isn’t particularly strong. They don’t have a good enough rotation to begin with, so if one of their top arms gets injured their new 5th starter is even worse than your average team’s. They are stacked at the top and by not spreading the wealth in terms of their production, they make themselves more susceptible to injury. It’s nice have four 5+ WAR players but not when that’s all you can afford.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        “Their replacement players are below replacement level. ”

        That is not true. Murphy at first, Tatis at third, and Pagan in CF were all above replacement level last year. And this year, many of the players tabbed to be replacements have no track record but are promising.

        No team in the majors has a player above replacement level to back up every position on the field. That is fantasy baseball.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Reuben says:

        “No team in the majors has a player above replacement level to back up every position on the field.”

        That is not the definition of depth and compared to the average team, the Mets have less. And compared to the teams with their payroll, they have much less.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jim says:

        “Their farm system isn’t particularly strong.”

        Er, no. Go read the Future Talent article for the Mets before you make comments like this, or even Dave’s article on the organizational ranking.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        Well Reuben, then back that statement up. Prove that the Mets’ backups are worse than those on an average team. Or even worse than those on a good team.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Reuben says:

        I’m not going to go through every organization and list back ups at every position. I haven’t seen anything that lists their farm system in the top half of baseball.

        I read the future talent article, thanks.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        Well then Reuben, don’t go through every organization. But at least give me two examples (2 teams) and don’t make it the Yankees who with a $200+ million payroll can afford to put pricey baubles on the bench. Anyone can say anything they want. Give at least SOME support for your statement. Otherwise I say you are absolutely incorrect.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • acerimusdux says:

        Actually, Keith Law, Baseball Prospectus, and Diamond Futures all recently ranked the Mets farm system at #15. While that’s technically “top half” (barely), a more fair description might be average. And Baseball America only had them at #22.

        Still, it is helpful that in Martinez, Davis, and Thole, the Mets have three guys who could help shore up the three weakest spots in the 2010 opening day lineup before too long, which might help 2011 to look a bit brighter.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Reuben says:

        The Rockies have 2 pretty decent OFs, not including prospects once you get past Seth Smith, CarGo, and Hawpe. If Barmes or Stewart gets injured, you can put Eric Young Jr. in. They have a backup for Helton in Giambi. Olivo and Iannetta make a pretty promising catcher duo. Their 5th starter is Jeff Francis who has produced 3+ WAR on average in his full seasons. And beyond that they have some pitchers who are ready for the majors now if anyone is injured/sucky. Their bullpen is top notch with Street at the top and plenty of decent arms to fill out the other spots (including any of the young arms or current starters who fail).

        The Braves will be starting Heyward, McLouth, and a platoon of Melky and Diaz, leaving Schafer and Hinske as back ups. Prado is a great utility knife filling in at any necessary position. Infante too. David Ross actually had a higher wOBA than McCann in an incredibly small sample size last year. And they’ve got Freeman if Glaus gets injured.

        The same thing can be said of their pitching as the Rockies. They’ve got a lot of useful arms that could be used as a fifth starter or as a relief. Betting on the health of Wagner and Hudson is never super smart, but I expect Lowe to have a season a little closer to his average than last year. Medlen and Hanson should both be better this year as well.

        Hope that satisfies then.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Reuben says:

        Average, not top half, and not particularly strong are all very similar descriptors imo.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        Reuben, I’m surprised you’ve come up with the Rockies and Braves since their backups are BELOW AVERAGE* in terms of 2009 WAR …

        Young (-0.3), Olivo (2.1), Giambi (0.0), Smith (3.0), Spilborghs (0.5) = 1.1 average WAR

        Infante (1.1), Schafer (-0.4), Diaz (2.7), Hinske (1.0), Ross (1.5) = .98 average WAR

        *I’m assuming acer is correct that 2.0 is the average WAR for ML players in which case the backups for the Rockies and Braves are below average.

        “Their 5th starter is Jeff Francis who has produced 3+ WAR on average in his full seasons”

        Francis? You’re joking, right? He’s been injury plagued for two seasons and hasn’t’ pitched in the majors since 2008 when he put up an ERA of 5.01 … Heck, the Mets had 4 backup fill-in starters who all pitched better last year than Francis did the last time he was in the majors.

        And Giambi? Please … he is at replacement level and historically a calamity with the glove, last year included. His only value is as a pinch hitter and anything else he’s a detriment.

        As for Street, he is not “depth” but rather the Rockies’ frontline closer.

        And the Braves’ Freeman for 1B backup? Wow. He’s never played above AA and the Mets have not one but two 1B prospects currently rated higher than Freeman by Baseball America.

        Reuben, there may be a few teams with much better backup depth than the Mets had last year or have this year. But the Rockies and Braves are certainly not one of them. You have failed to prove your case. And It’s simply not true that “compared to the average team the Mets have less” depth.

        No team could have succeeded last year with all the injuries the Mets suffered. Not even the Yankees who can afford to buy almost any player they want.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Reuben says:

        “No team could have succeeded last year with all the injuries the Mets suffered. Not even the Yankees who can afford to buy almost any player they want.” – You

        “This depth issue has been covered so many times. But yes, the Mets have bad depth. No most teams couldn’t still make the playoffs if they suffered the # of injuries the Mets did last year. These are not mutually exclusive facts.” – Me

        THESE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE FACTS.

        I already said that no team could have made the playoffs last year with the Mets injuries. I said that. You keep saying that doesn’t mean that they don’t have depth. That’s not what I’m saying. I never said that. You said that. Hopefully, this will make it clear that you said that. I didn’t say that. Have I said it enough times to get through to you that you said that and not me? Do I need to use the words “you,” “said,” and “I” more to make it more clear?

        Ok, so Olivo is average. I don’t know about his defense (WAR doesn’t measure catcher defense), so he may tilt one way or the other. Smith is not the back-up, Fowler and Spilborghs are. WAR is a counting stat, not a rate stat. It’s like HR, so you can’t just throw it around for backups (i.e. 10 HR might not seem like that much until you tell me it was done in 100 plate appearances).

        Spilborghs is projected to be an above average hitter by all the systems (106-117 wRC+). His fielding puts him slightly above average over his career, making him an above average OF even with positional adjustment if given a full season. Fowler is 24 with less than 550 major league PA’s to his name, so using WAR is sketchy there too. Again, looking at his projections, he’s got a wRC+ of over 100 by all but one system and most have him at 110+. 100, btw, is an average bat in this metric. His defense wasn’t good last year, but it was a small sample size and his first year in the majors. Most established scouts and prospect ranking people are high on this kid.

        Last season was the first non-injured season where Giambi wasn’t worth 2+ WAR.

        Let me reinterate that WAR is a counting stat like RBI or HRs. Playing time affects how much WAR one accumulates over a season. It’s not a rate stat like BB% or OBP.

        Infante got about a half season’s worth of PA last year. If he was a starter on a team, he would have 2x his war or 2.2 WAR, average. Schafer was young and injured. Diaz was above average. Hinske got less than a 1/2 season of PA’s, average. Most fielding stats say that he’s decent in the field too. David Ross is slightly below average.

        Francis is better than Perez. Or at least he has been. And he probably will be again. That’s their fifth pitcher. And they have, as I stated before, some of the best thought of pitching prospects (after the Rays) in MLB.

        “Their bullpen is top notch with Street at the top and plenty of decent arms to fill out the other spots (including any of the young arms or current starters who fail).”

        I said that Street was at the top. Not depth. Reading comprehension, please. Morales and Betancourt are much better than what the Mets have if K Rod gets injured or continues to move in the wrong direction with his K and BB rate.

        Hinske and Freeman both double as backup 1Bs. On the baseball america site that I am looking at (http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=7539), they have Ike Davis as 62 and no other 1B prospects for the Mets? Freeman is 32, but that’s close enough to be a toss up surely. Although I think Glaus is a better starting 1B than Murphy when healthy.

        The Mets should be starting Beltran, Pagan, and Bay when Beltran returns imo, leaving F-Mart, Francoeur and Gary Matthews Jr as their back-ups. Matthews Jr is terrible. Francoeur has never met a pitch he didn’t like. F-Mart has a real chance to be a great ball player. Alex Cora is the MI back-up. He is worse than Prado and Infante. Eric Young Jr. has been pretty successful in the minor leagues and has a chance to be a more useful player than Cora (though unproven), Cora has no such chance. He has a long track record of replacement level play or worse. Fernando Tatis is fine. Probably a little worse than a healthy Giambi or Hinske. But not significantly.

        The Mets pitching is weak. Much weaker than either the Rockies or the Braves. And they both have more young arms on the way. Other people have argued that better than I have. Their OF depth is worse than both teams. Their MI depth is worse than the Braves, probably a toss up with the Rockies. Rockies have better pitching than the Braves who have better pitching than the Mets.

        I am looking over the all the teams, and I think now that I would probably put the Mets in the area of 11-15 in terms of depth. Which isn’t as bad as I thought it was (some teams have really bad depth). But I still think they’ve spent their $$ in the wrong way. Plenty of teams with less money have spent in a way in which injuries wouldn’t have been quite as devastating. And I don’t mean the rash of injuries that they had last year.

        Whether or not I convince you of “my case,” the numbers bear out that the Rockies and Braves do have better depth. And considering that they don’t have the top talent that the Mets do; it would appear that the writers of Fangraphs (some of the smarter people in the business) agree with me.

        Here, you can think about the good times when the Mets were #5: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/organizational-rankings-1

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        “I already said that no team could have made the playoffs last year with the Mets injuries. I said that.”

        No Reuben, you didn’t. You actually said – “ … MOST teams couldn’t still make the playoffs…” You didn’t say “NO team” and there is quite a difference between “NO team” and “MOST teams.” I hope I don’t need to give you an explanation but let me know if you need one and I will. It was because you left the door open that I repeated and rephrased the statement to make my position clear.

        I have a feeling there is some disconnect here and we keep talking past each other. So to clarify, this is your statement which I am taking issue with here:

        “…compared to the average team the Mets have less depth”

        I asked you to back that up. You said you couldn’t do all teams. So I asked for two. You gave me the Rockies and Braves … BUT … you gave no stats to prove that the players you were talking about were in some way better than comparable players on the Mets. In that void, I put in the WAR to show how weak the players you listed are. I probably should have instead just told you to come back with some statistical support of your own which you still have failed to do adequately. It’s mostly just a lot of general statements and opinion. But let me address a few things from your latest comment:

        “Smith is not the back-up, Fowler and Spilborghs are.”

        Smith is listed as the backup on their depth charts. Fowler is listed as their starting CF and last year he got most of the starts in center. Regardless, Pagan is also projected to be above average in terms of offense, he had a higher wOBA than Spilborghs last year, and has a higher career UZR/150 than both Fowler and Spilborghs.

        “Last season was the first non-injured season where Giambi wasn’t worth 2+ WAR.”

        You lose a lot of credibility by bringing him up. Please, he’ll be 39 this year. His suckitude is only likely to increase at this point. And anyone who is as crappy a fielder as him is not a real backup in the NL. He’s just a pinch hitter or DH. And, no, he is not better than Tatis at this point in their respective careers.

        As for Infante and Schafer… they both have below average career wOBA numbers and are both projected to be below average this year too. Schafer’s UZR numbers are also below average.

        “Francis is better than Perez. Or at least he has been. And he probably will be again. That’s their fifth pitcher. And they have, as I stated before, some of the best thought of pitching prospects (after the Rays) in MLB.”

        No Francis is not their fifth starter. He’s opening the season as their #2. And Francis had serious shoulder injuries the last two years. Like Perez he’s had an up and down career but he’s a bigger question mark because his recent health issues were much more serious and he missed more time. Which ML-ready pitching prospects are you talking about? Name names, which is something you’ve been reluctant to do.

        “I said that Street was at the top. Not depth. Reading comprehension, please.”

        And the issue is “depth” so stay on topic, please.

        “Morales and Betancourt are much better than what the Mets have”
        No, they are not. Feliciano and Calero together are better than those two. Feliciano is roughly equal to Betancourt but Calero is much better than Morales.

        “…they have Ike Davis as 62 and no other 1B prospects for the Mets? Freeman is 32, but that’s close enough to be a toss up surely.”

        Sorry, my mistake. I didn’t know Freeman was rated that highly. I’m surprised since he only had a .650 OPS at AA last year which is the highest level he’s ever played at. Which is why I’d still give the Mets the edge at first as they also have Carter in addition to Davis as backups.

        “Plenty of teams with less money have spent in a way in which injuries wouldn’t have been quite as devastating. And I don’t mean the rash of injuries that they had last year.”

        Huh? That doesn’t make sense. If you’re not talking about the level of injuries the Mets had last year, well then the Mets would not have been so devastated either in that case.

        “the numbers bear out that the Rockies and Braves do have better depth.”

        LOL, what numbers? That was the problem with your first reply when you named the Rockies and Braves without giving any numbers … and that was why I threw in WAR in my reply. And even now in your latest comment, you just give an occasional mish-mash of projections and other numbers when it seems to suit your case. You don’t even name names in some instances.
        I also showed with other numbers and facts how Mets backups were equal or superior to some of the players you did name.

        In the case of the Rockies and Braves, I will concede they have better rotations, but the Mets have a better pen and better depth in the outfield, especially with Martinez at AAA and ready to step in. The Mets also have better depth at first base and third than the Braves do. And they are at least equal with the Braves and Rockies in terms of infield depth with Reuben Tejada ready to step in.

        So not only have you failed to show with consistent stats that the Braves/Rockies have better depth than the Mets, but you have failed to prove your original statement which I took issue with that “compared to the average team, the Mets have less depth.” That statement is just ludicrous.

        It does appear now that you are admitting that statement was wrong by saying: “I think now that I would probably put the Mets in the area of 11-15 in terms of depth” … but even there, I would disagree.

        “And considering that they don’t have the top talent that the Mets do; it would appear that the writers of Fangraphs (some of the smarter people in the business) agree with me.”

        And you would be wrong there too. No one knows for sure what the criteria for these rankings are. There is no clear, consistent benchmarking or scoring system they use and a lot of it seems arbitrary. You’ll see different areas of criticism and praise for each team.

        “Here, you can think about the good times when the Mets were #5:”

        Thanks, but I didn’t bother. I wasn’t impressed with the quality of this year’s Mets write-ups so I didn’t see any reason to look at last year’s. I had no clue they placed the Mets #5 last year, and that begs the question of why they dropped them 10 places in one year and how they go about ranking teams, because the talent level on the 2010 Mets is the same as last year – maybe even better – and the farm system is definitely better than last year. It’s not as if the Mets lost key players in trades or free agency, or traded away the farm this winter. So the 10-place drop makes little sense.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Reuben says:

        I’m not interested in continuing this conversation here, as the way reply is working is making things confusing for me to keep up with and the delay between comments only aggravates that confusion.

        If you’d like to continue this conversation, I’m going to give you this e-mail address: popeslinky [at] yahoo [dot] com. If you shoot me an e-mail, I’ll give you an AIM or Gchat name, and we can sort this out a lot quicker and a lot less messily in that format if that’s cool with you.

        Sidebar, “begs the question” does not mean how you used it above. Here is a definition: “Begging the question (or petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”) is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Begging the question is related to circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin for “circle in proving”) or circular reasoning but they are considered absolutely different by Aristotle.”

        Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

        Reuben

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        While not ideal, the format here is posing no major problems for me. I much prefer it over e-mails or IM. However, if it bothers you so much, name any public or Mets web forum and we can sign up and re-start and continue the discussion there. I googled “baseball forum” and the first hit was baseballforum.com. Seems like a decent place. Just let me know.

        As for “begging the question” it was used to mean “raise the question,” and it matters little or not whether it was used correctly. The meaning is clear in the context of the comment. And the question still remains how the Mets dropped 10 places when, compared to a year ago at this time, their talent level is equal or better on the ML level and much better down on the farm. I don’t think there is any question their farm talent is considerably stronger than a year ago as many of their current top prospects had breakthrough seasons or otherwise made big strides last summer.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Reuben says:

        The use of words properly is important. I understood your meaning, but people misusing “begging the question” eventually would lead to us not having that phrase with that meaning anymore, which would suck.

        I didn’t write the list. I would have had the Mets lower last year. I think at the very least you have to say there are more doubts today than there were a year ago about their ML talent (has Wright lost his power, what will Beltran come back like, will Reyes still have elite speed, why is Johan throwing less strikes?). And those questions are worth a couple spots.

        I’d like to continue this on AIM or some chat device simply because it would be faster and easier. If you don’t want to, feel free to declare yourself the winner. You were going to anyway; it didn’t really matter what I or anyone else said.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        Sure the use of words is important, but in this case, my usage of “begging the question” here is a common one and most would understand it in the context of the entire comment. It appears to me you are frustrated at your failure to prove your case and so are picking and obsessing on the tangential and inconsequential as a result. If that’s your bag, fine. But it’s something I would never do and it’s a monumental waste of time.

        As for my last comment regarding ranking, it’s not necessarily addressed to you and is not central to our discussion regarding depth. It’s just something that arose after you said they were placed 10 spots higher last year. But since you commented on it let me reply …

        A player usually doesn’t lose power suddenly unless he goes off steroids, grows older, or is injured in a way that impacts power. None of these things happened to Wright. It was part the new park, part the weak lineup he was hitting in, and part the change in hitting philosophy directed by the club. It is a documented fact that Wright lost 12 HRs in Citi Field last year on balls that would have gone out at Shea. It doesn’t matter whether or not he hit HRs on the road – the fact is if they had played at Shea last year, he would have had at least roughly 22 HRs. His ability to hit HRs was further impacted by the very weak lineup he hit in virtually all year long, and not getting good pitches to hit as a result. Further, the whole team was directed by the manager and coaches in spring training to hit the other way. This has been well documented. They have abandoned that strategy this year.

        As for Reyes, he was back to running at elite speed early in spring training well before these write-ups came out. Had the authors merely contacted the beat writers for this team, they would have known that. That is something they should do for all teams before publishing the team write-ups.

        As for Santana, he was pitching injured last year (with bone chips in his elbow). That is a pretty good reason for a falloff in peripherals. But anyone with a cursory knowledge of baseball injuries would know that bone chips are a minor issue and that Santana had the same surgery right before the 2004 season when he won the Cy Young.

        The only legitimate question is Beltran. But I would think that would be entirely mitigated by the big strides the farm system took last year.
        So I still don’t see the reason for the 10-place drop. It’s very puzzling. And again, that is not directed at you. I am just wondering out loud.

        Sorry but I don’t do much IM and it would not be easy for me to conduct an ongoing discussion by either IM or email. I would be open to doing it on any public forum related to general baseball or the Mets so just pick the place if you don’t like the one I already suggested and I’ll sign up. I think a traditional forum format is by far the easiest way to have these types of discussions. I don’t see why you would resist as you already post here so there is not too much difference going over to a traditional forum. If you don’t want to I can only conclude you know your case is lost.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Reuben says:

        The scrolling is confusing. The small width of the boxes makes it harder to read. Carrying long involved conversations over days at a time is tiresome. I’ve made a number of points that you ignored or glossed over either due to format or your own personal biases. But you’re not really interested in a discussion. You’re interested in being right. And that makes you super tiresome to talk to. I think that I already did prove my point, but you side stepped it time and time again.

        The fact that you took the point about “begging the question” personally pretty much sums up this whole argument. I said “sidebar” and then apologized for harping on a pet peeve of mine, the misuse of a phrase that I appreciate. You responded, “It appears to me you are frustrated at your failure to prove your case and so are picking and obsessing on the tangential and inconsequential as a result. If that’s your bag, fine. But it’s something I would never do and it’s a monumental waste of time.” I mentioned it because it’s a pet peeve. I didn’t use it against you or claim that it worsened your case. Nor did I “obsess” about it. I mentioned it b/c I prefer people stop using that phrase improperly regardless of whether or not I agree with them about the Mets’ depth. You could have just accepted that you used it incorrectly, but you attempted to prove that using it incorrectly shouldn’t have bothered me. That’s weird. That puts you much more in line with what you say above. You are the one who has driven us to discuss whether or not using words incorrectly should be important. I just pointed out an error that’s a pet peeve of mine and moved on. You’re the one who tries to continually move the argument in different directions, who snarkily drops asides about me, who concludes things that I haven’t said. Picking on it would imply that I continually point out misuse or grammatical mistakes in order to undermine you or your arguments. I think the continued presence of Luis Castillo, Alex Cora, and Jeff Francoeur undermine your arguments. Your continuing in the tradition of misusing one of my favorite phrases is inconsequential. I never linked the two.

        You glossed over my point about WAR being a counting stat. Why? Wait, don’t answer. I am so tired of this conversation.

        I fail to see how the Mets OF depth is better than either team I listed. Pagan’s good, but he’s better than Francoeur. So I don’t get how he’s depth in that instance. Francoeur and Matthews Jr. are the depth, and they’ve both proven to be hugely sucky. I’ve not seen any numbers to show me the goodness of Mets. Simply misusing numbers to show me the badness of Rockies or Braves.

        The Rockies can call whoever they want their #2, but Francis is a back of the rotation pitcher on their team after Jimenez, De La Rosa, Hammel, and Cook. He and Cook are probably a toss up, but I think the other three outpace him pretty well. Regardless of how you rank them, they look better than the Mets by a lot. And they have 2-3 more young arms who are supposed to be on the team at some point this year as well. When I used statistics to show that Francis has been a decent pitcher, you’re the one who harped on my calling him their #5 instead of accepting that he has a better track record than many of the Mets starters.

        The Rockies can call whoever they want their #2, but Francis is a back of the rotation pitcher on their team after Jimenez, De La Rosa, Hammel, and Cook. He and Cook are probably a toss up, but I think the other three outpace him pretty well. Regardless of how you rank them, they look better than the Mets by a lot. And they have 2-3 more young arms who are supposed to be on the team at some point this year as well. When I used statistics to show that Francis has been a decent pitcher, you’re the one who harped on my calling him their #5 instead of accepting that he has a better track record than many of the Mets starters.

        The most common component in getting injured is having been injured before. I know it sounds circular, but once someone gets injured, it makes their body more susceptible to injury in the future. And with every key player on the Mets going down with injury, those questions are more in the forefront. The other thing with their ranking is that I feel that last year exposed them and Omar Minaya, suddenly everything that didn’t work was there for the world to see. I think his moves this offseason again are questionable further pushing the Mets down on the ranking.

        You can declare the argument over or won all you like. I don’t care. The Mets back-ups as a whole don’t look as good to me as the Rockies or Braves. Or Red Sox or Yankees or Rays. Or Indians, in a weird way. Or Rangers. Maybe the Diamondbacks and Dodgers too? They’re iffy, along with the A’s. Definitely think the Rays are #1 though. Have a nice life. I guess we’ll see what happens this season. I don’t think the Mets are touching 92 wins with a ten foot pole.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        If I’ve glossed over many of your comments it was because I felt they were not germane to the discussion. You tend to ramble on and have trouble staying on point so I can’t address everything. The discussion is long enough as it is. And I did address your WAR point, telling you why I used it (because you had conveniently left out any relevant statistical support for your position, except one instance when you brought up WAR yourself for the questionable Francis).

        It’s you who are apparently not interested in a real discussion as you continue to harp on the usage of “begs the question” like you did just now once again. Incredulously, you’ve just taken another whole long paragraph to give a dissertation on your motives for doing it the first time around. Who cares? One way or another, It has zero bearing on the central question at hand which has always been – Is the Mets depth worse than the average team? But instead of trying to make way on this topic, you insist on droning on about “begging the question” and other irrelevancies. Amazing. It’s nothing but a diversionary tactic which says to me you know how ineffective your attempt to prove your point has been.

        “I fail to see how the Mets OF depth is better than either team I listed. Pagan’s good, but he’s better than Francoeur. So I don’t get how he’s depth in that instance.”

        You also failed to show why the Rockies had better OF depth. Just saying it doesn’t make it so. But that seems to be your modus operandi. Like saying the Rockies have a lot of good arms coming up but neglecting to mention a single name, let alone give supporting stats.

        As for Pagan, I can’t imagine how a backup who is better in some ways than a regular would negate the depth on that team. There doesn’t seem to be any logic in that notion. In fact that would tend to reinforce a team’s depth. Behind the 3 starters, the Mets not only have Pagan, but Tatis, who can play the corners, as well as Martinez. Those 3, together with their 3 starters are better than what the Braves and Rockies have.

        “I’ve not seen any numbers to show me the goodness of Mets. Simply misusing numbers to show me the badness of Rockies or Braves.’

        Well then surely you have a serious reading issue or avoidance of the truth. I told you that “Pagan is also projected to be above average in terms of offense, he had a higher wOBA than Spilborghs last year, and has a higher career UZR/150 than both Fowler and Spilborghs.” I can’t make you see things you don’t want to see. You’re like the horse that is led to water but doesn’t want to drink.

        “When I used statistics to show that Francis has been a decent pitcher, you’re the one who harped on my calling him their #5 instead of accepting that he has a better track record than many of the Mets starters.”

        And I told you his track record is pretty much irrelevant since he hadn’t pitched in the majors since 2008 and had major shoulder issues and surgery. He’s a huge question mark. So, it doesn’t matter what his track record is. The health issues override everything for now until he can prove he can pitch once again successfully in the majors. And I brought up the #5 because you have been harping on about a dozen other inconsequential things like who is the real backup and who is the starter in the Rockies OF. You tend to do that and it’s annoying so I decided to give it back.

        “The most common component in getting injured is having been injured before. I know it sounds circular, but once someone gets injured, it makes their body more susceptible to injury in the future.”

        Not true. It’s highly dependent on the type of injury. You just can’t make a blanket statement like that. One needs to look at each case individually. Especially since you certainly are no doctor.

        “The other thing with their ranking is that I feel that last year exposed them and Omar Minaya,”

        Having most of your regulars go down along with some of the backups — and even backups to the backups which is what happened to the Mets — will expose ANY team. Had the Yankees had a similar number of injuries, not only would they not have made the postseason, but their weaknesses would have been similarly exposed, magnified, and dissected in a million ways.

        “You can declare the argument over or won all you like. I don’t care.”

        Good. I don’t know if it’s over but you have so far failed miserably to prove your original statement. No real consistent stats. Mostly a load of broad unsubstantiated statements and opinions.

        “I don’t think the Mets are touching 92 wins with a ten foot pole.”

        Even if they don’t win 92, they will come a whole lot closer to that number than the one you have in mind. Feel free to give a number if you’re brave enough.

        “The scrolling is confusing. The small width of the boxes makes it harder to read.”

        Well, yes. I’ve already agreed with you that the format here is not ideal. Which is why I suggested a public forum with a traditional format such as baseballforum.com. There are no scrolling problems or narrow widths there. It’s unfortunate you do not want to continue this in such a PUBLIC forum as it is generally the most conducive and friendly format for these types of discussions. After seeing your constant evasiveness and apparent preference for personal insults and complaining, I can understand why.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. CaseyB says:

    “n the rotation, the Mets are planning to not give Livan Hernandez so many starts which is good, but a certain number of those starts are going to go to Oliver Perez so who knows if that’s actually an improvement or not. ”

    Was this said tongue-in-cheek? Livan Hernandez isn’t even on the Mets this year. And, actually, his starts will be going to Niese this year (or someone else like Takahashi or Figueroa). Did Carruth do his homework?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • i-frank says:

      i think he’s simply making a comparison to last year, and saying the mets will be better off without livan. but, and this is off the top of my head, i think he was actually third in WAR among mets pitchers last year with 1.7, go figure.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        I might agree if not for the many other errors/oversights. He says, for instance, that Perez will be getting those starts that LIvan had, but Niese (or Figueroa or maybe Nieve) will actually be getting those starts.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • don says:

        Perez started 14 games last year. Are you expecting them to swallow his salary and release him or something? Provided he’s healthy, he’ll essentially be taking some of Hernandez’s starts.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        Perez was on the DL last year that’s why the limited starts in 2009. He is not a replacement for Livan which is what Carruth’s article implies. If Perez had stayed healthy, he would have pitched a full season in 2009 and had more starts than Livan.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • don says:

        He was on the DL with ‘inflamed ERA’ but that’s not really the point. It is likely that he will pitch more than 14 games this year and a certainty that Livan has moved on, so essentially his return to health will absorb some of Livan’s lost starts. You’re getting bent out of shape about semantics.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        He underwent surgery. Are you saying the doctors agreed to cut him open and put him under risky general anesthesia just to sooth his a”inflamed ERA?” Wow.

        It’s not semantics. Carruth actually implies Perez is the replacement for Livan which he is not. It is Niese/Figueroa/Nieve/Takahashi.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • MetsKnicksRutgers says:

      Wow man… you ARE getting bent out of shape over semantics. The starts vacated by Livan along with Parnell, Mitsch etc. WILL be taken by the likes of Perez, Figgy, Nieve, Niese etc. It isn’t like a #5 starter was branded on Livan last year and only another with this #5 brand can take his starts. What are you freaking out about?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Smeck says:

    I could be quibling with a minor statement, but I’m not sure I agree with your assertion that the ceiling for this team is .500. If CHONE projects them as an 80 win team there is a pretty large range around that single point estimate. I would think that all things being equal their is an outside chance this team outplays that projection by 5 or 6 wins, pushing their ceiling (and their floor). Further, I may be more bullish on their farm system than others, but they have some interesting trade chips if they want to go out and get an upgrade at Starting Pitching at midseason.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. CaseyB says:

    With all due respect to the author, it doesn’t appear he did any research on the Mets before writing his summary. He has the following wrong or outdated:

    –Overstated Mets’ 2009 payroll
    –Did not know who backed up Beltran
    –Did not seem to know LIvan Hernandez is not on the team anymore
    –Did not know Reyes is already back and cleared to play
    –Did not acknowledge the promising group of prospects they have now who should make the Mets 2011 outlook pretty rosy.

    I’m disappointed in this writeup because it doesn’t appear to have much research behind it.

    -17 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Reuben says:

      only the first two are legitimate complaints.

      livan thing is obviously a joke. reyes was back and cleared to play at least twice last year–will believe it when i see it. and he’s still a speed property having problems with his legs. prospects will be covered in FUTURE not current talent, see column title.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        The thyroid condition is different from leg problems. Reyes is fully over it now, doesn’t even need any medication, and the doctors said it shouldn’t come back. It is a non-issue for this season and the foreseeable future.

        As for his legs and any lingering condition from last year, he showed in spring training that there were no issues. He hit a triple in his first spring training at bat.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Reuben says:

        I think it’s worrisome that he was diagnosed with something that would cause him to miss 8 weeks of baseball even if the doctors then cleared Reyes to play. I can’t speak for the writer, but most conditions don’t work that way unless there was a misdiagnosis.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        Reuben, that doesn’t make sense. He missed only 2-3 weeks. Not 8. And it’s quite common with viral infections — which was the cause of Reye’s condition — and other medical conditions to have indeterminate timetables for recovery. Are you a doctor? If not, how can you make such a statement like that?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • adohaj says:

      He didn’t mention prospects because this is the current talent article and not the future talent article.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        2011 isn’t the future?

        Davis, Thole, F-Mart, Tejada, and Mejia should all be ready to play for the Mets by 2011, if not this year.

        -8 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • TheUnrepentantGunner says:

      Casey, if you are so strong in your convictions, and really felt the mets were 90 wins plus, you could make yourself a small fortune with a minimal investment.

      Just don’t come to us in September if/when you end up broke.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        I don’t bet but give me the details. I may just take it up this year. Where do I go?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Ivdown says:

        Bodog.com could be a place you might want to check out. It may not be the soundest of investments, though.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        Ivdown, thanks for the link. I only saw WS odds, which is not what my opinion was about … it was about wins-losses and competitiveness. Any other links?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Travis L says:

      I fail to see how Reyes is “back”. Has he been playing in spring training? Is as healthy as a guy like Wright? No.

      Let’s not forget Johan’s elbow surgery last offseason. That has to be a concern.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • CaseyB says:

      Travis, because as of today, Reyes is 100% healthy and not too far off from being 100% in game shape. He sat for two weeks. Not two months.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. Dan Lewis says:

    As a Mets fan, this was a bit too snarky for my tastes, and low on analysis or even a theme (beyond snark). I think everyone, perhaps except Mets beat writers, sees the Mets as a .500 team next year, but there’s definitely an upside situation. Would have loved — for a change! — to read a “what could go right” report.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • SchmidtXC says:

      Agreed on the snarkiness aspect. I think some of the Fangraphs writers go a little overboard with the Mets and Royals due to “the contest”, and that bit of humor wore off quite a while ago. I have to say I’ve been unimpressed with this series in general (Dave’s analysis not included), as there have been an amazing number of factual errors that have gone unnoticed before publishing.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Omar says:

        Not a slight against Dave, but I feel his analysis and slottings have been the worst so far (not that that’s a bad thing), so far the prospect write up and current talent write ups have been pretty good IMO. That being said, the Mets blow asshole galore. Lets see…they gave Jason Bay too much money, Reyes had thyroid conditions (those aren’t anything to fuck with either), Wright lost his power last year, Santana didn’t amass 200 IP after being worked like a rented mule in 2008, and their rotation is Santana coming off an elbow injury the rotation goes: pitchers who will surely suck, followed by pitchers who will in all likely hood suck.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        LOL, blow asshole galore? … what are you, a grade schooler? That’s something I would expect a 10-year-old to say. Your laundry list of issues with the Mets is also incredibly weak. Every team has issues. What team do you root for, Omar? I can come up with a laundry list of issues for them too.

        It appears you are upset the Mets didn’t place 30.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Chico says:

    “….and I’m not sure 2011 looks any rosier.”

    lol this couldn’t be more wrong, but whatever.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Wow says:

    Wowwww…..were you born this much of a jerk or did you have to work on it?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. Adam says:

    Wow Mets fans are whiny.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. M.C. Teufel says:

    As much as I love the analysis that we tend to find on FanGraphs I find it odd how some authors here feel they can disregard meaningful stats and in-depth analysis when they critique Minaya’s work for lacking understanding of meaningful stats.

    Just compare this analysis with the work of Cameron’s writing on the Mets and with the Current Talent written for other teams and you’ll see that there is clearly a lack of any editorial standards on FanGraphs when it comes to writing on the Mets.

    Sure Omar makes some moves that makes you scratch your head (e.g. $12m for Perez, $2m for Cora, etc.) but he also has made some great moves (e.g. the Santana heist) and has done a great job in filling up a barren system while turning this organization around in a short time.

    I’m not asking that FanGraphs journalists to be Mets homers. I’m just asking that they approach their craft with the same diligence that that demand of those they criticize. How can anyone have respect for this kind of column about the current talent of a team that features 6 All-Stars under the age of 33. Sure the Mets are weak at C, 1B, 2B, RF with holes in their starters but to go through every position and only find bad to say is irresponsible writing, and the glaring omission of Santana only confirms the blatant bias of this article. Even the Royals, Astros, Pirates, and other teams that are worse run received more fair treatment.

    Let’s be honest here and stick to some standards of journalistic integrity and not throw out sound reasoning just because we don’t like Omar’s work. The current talent is not overwhelming but it’s not awful. The 15 ranking is about right and this article should reflect that.

    +5 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Zack says:

      “How can anyone have respect for this kind of column about the current talent of a team that features 6 All-Stars under the age of 33″

      Because:
      1 is a CF who’s on the DL from a knee injury
      1 is a SS who was on the DL almost all of last year, and has 0 ST ABs, yet he’s suppose to be ready in a week
      1 is a SP who’s coming off elbow surgery
      1 is a LF who had a career year last year with the bat,
      1 is a closer
      The last one is Luis Castillo right? Yeah, he’s not his former AS self

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CaseyB says:

        Reyes actually does have spring training ABs. He’s proven he’s over last year’s leg injury throughout the spring and in the game he did play in. It is not an issue any longer. With almost 2 weeks to go before OD, I don’t see any problem whatsoever with him being 100% game ready the first week of the season.

        Johan had the same elbow surgery prior to one of his previous Cy Young years. It wasn’t TJ surgery. It was minor — bone chips removed.

        Bay had better years with the bat in 2005/2006 (according to OPS and Fangraph’s stats). So, no, 2009 was NOT a career year.

        What do you mean 1 is a closer? Do you not think a closer is valuable?

        Castillo had a 1.6 WAR last year.

        The only point you made which is valid is Beltran. Unlike Reyes, he has not returned yet to full baseball activities nor proven otherwise that he is mostly recovered from last year’s injuries.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • M.C. Teufel says:

        The sixth was F-Rod. No one would consider Castillo to still be an All-Star. I meant those who have been multiple-time All-Stars and can still play at or near All-Star levels.

        The fact is that FanGraphs is supposed to represent reasoned analysis yet up to date this is the only organizational overview that was written in such an unprofessional manner. Other organizations also have question marks but they have all be written showing both strengths and weaknesses that each club has. Again I’m not questioning the fact that the Mets have plenty of issues, but at the same time they have plenty of strengths.

        For example, it’s been well-documented that Wright changed his batting approach last year to be more of a gap-hitter, overcompensating for CitiField’s dimension. He’s gone back to his old approach and has been hitting the ball with more authority this Spring. Instead of mentioning both negative and positives to what to expect of Wright in 2010 we are meant to believe that the issue is mystery with no clear answer.

        We can mention how just about everything went bad with injuries in 2009 and it would unheard of for an organization to go through 2 years of that so that some bounce back is expected. It would stand to reason to mention that if Reyes plays even 60 games this year it will be a big improvement over last year.

        Criticizing the catchers, who although are far from a group of All-Stars, are about average when compared to the catchers from 70% of the other teams put out there. As a unit they should put up about 2 WAR or so. Not great but there were only 7 catchers with a WAR greater than 3. But instead we are told of a 90-year old catcher (I wonder why other teams who have near 40-year old catchers are not written of in this way).

        Besides the glaring omission of Santana whose impact on the “current talent” of the Mets is tertiary to Perez and apparently Livan, we also have glaring omission of what to expect of the starters who are actually expected to pitch more than 10 games. An analysis of Pelfrey and the huge jump in ERA despite a far smaller jump in FIP would have been more suitable.

        You have to be completely blind to not notice the unprofessional, snarky manner in which this article was written. FanGraphs readers deserve better than this. This is the type of article we would expect from a beat writer with an axe to grind. The only way this article can be read as being an somewhat fair appraisal would be if you replace all the players names with those of the 1962 Mets team, although I can only wonder if the 1962 Mets would have been written in a more positive tone than this “analysis.”

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Cooper S says:

    I think we might have a winner for most sensitive fans. Yikes. All the Mets fans I know are self deprecating realists not manic like everyone here.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. Zack says:

    I think we also have to keep an eye on Wright’s K% and BABIP to see what happens this year. His K% went up to ~25% and his BABIP was .394- that’s unsustainable BABIP.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. i-frank says:

    its a shame caseyb’s ranting in the comments here can’t be ignored because it really does take attention away from what a half-baked effort this article, entirely bereft of analysis, is.

    matthew carruth, this article is: flippant, lazy, uninformed, uninformative, and worst of all, unfunny. i’d be interested to know more about your research methods and how you went about forming your opinions on the team (and, if you feel bold, how long you spent researching and opinion-forming).

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. Well gee says:

    Jose Reyes is on the DL already

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. Reuben says:

    Well Gee beat me to it.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>