Mets fans thoughts on potential trade

[Letsgomets55]

Also, comparing Niese to Samardzija is laughable.

 

How so? Niese is two years younger and their numbers are not that far off.

 

2014:

 

Shark: 2.3 bWAR, 3.02 FIP, 141 ERA+

Niese: 1.7 bWAR, 3.62 FIP, 118 ERA+

 

Right, everyone knows Samardzija is having a career year. I can use the same logic to say Niese is better than Strasburg

 

2014:

 

Niese: 1.7 bWAR, 3.62 FIP, 118 ERA+

Strasburg: 0.7 bWAR, 3.28 FRO, 107 ERA+

 

Samardzija is 2 years older and just had the best three months of his career. You can't just look at 2014.

 

I like a lot of the Mets pitchers, so don't take me as a hater. But Niese has had 47 good starts in his life.

 

:? He's currently on a streak of 21 consecutive game pitched without giving up more than 3 ER. Guy is very underrated.

 

I never even said he is better than Samardzija or as good. I said he is more comparable to him than Hammel, as the other guy suggested.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm exaggerating a bit, though, because the Mets actually do have some nice position players and the basis of a decent team. I like their management team, although it seems like that means less and less because the number of bad front offices is pretty close to zero anymore.

 

But I sure as heck wouldn't trade places with them because of their pitching. Especially when Harvey's on TJS and Syndergaard is already having elbow owies.

[sneakypower]

tell me more about Strasburg's FRO

[davell]

Letsgomets, please read this. This is an extremely good account as to why hitting is safer than pitching and why a top 10 hitting prospect is inherently worth more than a top 10 pitching prospect.

 

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

 

It's like a stock. If I'm getting rid of something that's very likely to pay off for something that's much less of a sure thing, I need much more to entice me into the second option. And I'm fairly certain based on our FO's actions, they feel the same way.

 

I'm one of the guys on here too that still truly wants to add some elite pitching. But the numbers speak for themselves and it'd just flat out require more than what I'd guess any team is actually willing to give up to get true appropriate value.

 

I've resigned myself to drafting tons of upside in rounds 2-10, getting undervalued guys in FA, and hoping Bosio can work magic on reclamation types. And I think it's the right course of action, since trading isn't likely. We can fit our guys into spots or trade for a Stanton, if we prefer.

[Guest]

To be fair, Niese isn't nearly as good as Hammel, either.

[SouthSideRyan]

To be fair, Niese isn't nearly as good as Hammel, either.

 

Well, that's silly

[Letsgomets55]

Letsgomets, please read this. This is an extremely good account as to why hitting is safer than pitching and why a top 10 hitting prospect is inherently worth more than a top 10 pitching prospect.

 

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

 

It's like a stock. If I'm getting rid of something that's very likely to pay off for something that's much less of a sure thing, I need much more to entice me into the second option. And I'm fairly certain based on our FO's actions, they feel the same way.

 

I'm one of the guys on here too that still truly wants to add some elite pitching. But the numbers speak for themselves and it'd just flat out require more than what I'd guess any team is actually willing to give up to get true appropriate value.

 

I've resigned myself to drafting tons of upside in rounds 2-10, getting undervalued guys in FA, and hoping Bosio can work magic on reclamation types. And I think it's the right course of action, since trading isn't likely. We can fit our guys into spots or trade for a Stanton, if we prefer.

 

Oh yea, I agree with you. I would rather have a top 10 hitting prospect over a top 10 pitching prospect all day. If for no other reason than the success rate of hitting prospects is much better than pitching prospects. BUT that also doesn't mean pitching isn't valuable. Kyle when he was on MR and a lot of you here seem to think good pitchers grow on trees and the Cubs will just pluck 2 or three and magically become good with their hitters. The Cubs are in tremendous shape right now with all of their young hitters, but you can't possibly think they don't need pitching. Same with the Mets, we are in great shape with pitching, but we have absolutely no shot unless we get at least 2 legit hitters.

 

To be fair, Niese isn't nearly as good as Hammel, either.

 

And on that note, I am out.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Nah, you guys read what you want to read. I made it very explicit that it's not easy and it may very well fail, just that it was a better bet to focus your elite resources on hitting and take your chances with a broad-based approach to acquiring pitching, and I pointed to some key examples of times it has worked for both the Cubs and other teams.

 

"ZOMG, he said pitching was easy to acquire!" was just dumb fandom talking.

[Guest]

To be fair, Niese isn't nearly as good as Hammel, either.

 

Well, that's silly

Niese strikeout rates by year:

 

2011: 7.89

2012: 7.33

2013: 6.61

2014: 6.45

 

He's been injured multiple times during that stretch and has seen his fastball velocity drop from 90.5 to 88.9. Projecting him as anything more than below average in coming years is foolish. Below average to average pitchers being on one year deals instead of multi-year deals is an advantage, not the other way around.

[Guest]

So, it's 2014 (or 2015), who would you rather have start a game for you?

 

Pitcher A: 6.45 k/9 2.44 bb/9 0.70 hr/9 (home park depresses HR)

Pitcher B: 8.47 k/9 2.06 bb/9 0.87 hr/9 (home park neutral to inflates HR)

 

 

 

 

Yeah, Hammel > Niese.

[Letsgomets55]

Is Tim always this dumb? Jesus christ.

[SouthSideRyan]

Uh, why are we only looking at 2014 numbers?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Is Tim always this dumb? Jesus christ.

 

If you're going to say "I'm out," please mean it.

 

And if you're going to call someone dumb (which I highly encourage), please back it up with, you know, an argument of some kind.

[SouthSideRyan]

Who would you rather have start a game?

 

Pitcher A: 9.17 K/9, 2.39 BB/9, 0.67 HR/9

Pitcher B: 10.06 K/9, 2.42 BB/9, 0.25 HR/9

[Letsgomets55]

Is Tim always this dumb? Jesus christ.

 

And if you're going to call someone dumb (which I highly encourage), please back it up with, you know, an argument of some kind.

 

Kind of obvious isn't it? That's twice he's used a 3 month sample to compare two pitchers.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Is Tim always this dumb? Jesus christ.

 

And if you're going to call someone dumb (which I highly encourage), please back it up with, you know, an argument of some kind.

 

Kind of obvious isn't it? That's twice he's used a 3 month sample to compare two pitchers.

 

That's *almost* the beginnings of an argument. Maybe, sorta. It's an improvement.

 

Niese has a longer track record of consistency. Hammel has been better two of the last three seasons when he's pitching, which hasn't been as often as Niese has. I'll leave it up to you to parse which one is "better," and feel free to package a pair of Niese's for a Russell-caliber return if you can.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Guest]

Is Tim always this dumb? Jesus christ.

Perhaps I'm biased, but I don't think you're winning this argument.

 

Explain to me how Niese, with his injury history, declining peripherals and declining velocity is more valuable on a contract you are stuck paying even when he falls off a cliff (health or perfomance) is a valuable asset going forward.

 

When you're done with that, explain how being tied into paying a pitcher who is clearly in a decline is better than the freedom to pick up the next in the line of Maholm, Feldman and Hammel.

 

When you're done with that, please say anything to convince me he's a better pitcher at this point in time than Hammel.

 

Do that in convincing fashion and I may agree with you.

[Guest]

Uh, why are we only looking at 2014 numbers?

Fine, use 2012.

 

eta ---

 

because Niese is clearly declining and Hammel clearly isn't.

[davell]

We capitalized on the best 3 month stretch of Hammel's career. Niese doesn't look like he's trending up at all. I don't want either if them moving forward.

[SouthSideRyan]

Uh, why are we only looking at 2014 numbers?

Fine, use 2012.

 

lol

[Guest]

Who would you rather have start a game?

 

Pitcher A: 9.17 K/9, 2.39 BB/9, 0.67 HR/9

Pitcher B: 10.06 K/9, 2.42 BB/9, 0.25 HR/9

Pitcher B, but that's not the argument here.

[Guest]

Is Tim always this dumb? Jesus christ.

 

And if you're going to call someone dumb (which I highly encourage), please back it up with, you know, an argument of some kind.

 

Kind of obvious isn't it? That's twice he's used a 3 month sample to compare two pitchers.

You're also completely ignoring every other aspect of the arguments presented.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You're also completely ignoring every other aspect of the arguments presented.

 

MR standard. Without regard to who is right or who is wrong, they are *terrible* at presenting coherent arguments of any kind.

[SouthSideRyan]

Who would you rather have start a game?

 

Pitcher A: 9.17 K/9, 2.39 BB/9, 0.67 HR/9

Pitcher B: 10.06 K/9, 2.42 BB/9, 0.25 HR/9

Pitcher B, but that's not the argument here.

 

That's exactly the argument, that hey, this guy has better numbers over 3 months, so he's not just a better pitcher, but the other guy isn't NEARLY as good as him.

 

Madison Bumgarner vs. Jake Arrieta btw.

[Guest]

Uh, why are we only looking at 2014 numbers?

Fine, use 2012.

 

lol

Also, you'll note in my original statement...

 

To be fair, Niese isn't nearly as good as Hammel, either.

 

I used the present tense. If you're picking between the two for a playoff start, you're picking Niese?