Heilman Still Wants to Start

Posted on November 21, 2008 by Joe Janish

For the fourth straight offseason, Aaron Heilman has expressed his desire to be a starting pitcher.

This annual proclamation gives every Heilman hater out there another reason to despise Aaron — citing his “selfishness” and suggesting that “he should just be happy to be in the big leagues”, yadda yadda yadda. Whatever … there’s no point in arguing with the emotional lunatics. It would be easier to turn a Barack-blinded liberal into a George Bush supporter.

We won’t again go into the many, many, many reasons it makes sense to move Aaron into the rotation — just refer to this post and this page for the arguments. Notice I stated “move Aaron” rather than “give Aaron a chance”. This isn’t ONLY about Heilman wanting to be a starter — it’s about addressing the Mets’ current needs and using their available talent pool to fill spots. Speaking of, let’s focus on the latest thought-provoking explanation given by Omar Minaya to keep Aaron Heilman in the bullpen:

“We talked and he expressed himself,” Minaya said. “He told me that he’d like the opportunity to start. But my job is to make sure I do what’s in the best interest of the team, and we still see him in the bullpen.”

Huh. So, the fact that Jerry Manuel did everything in his power NOT to use Heilman in the final weeks of the season suggests that Aaron will be a key component of next year’s bullpen? How? Why? If Heilman continues to be such a valuable bullpen arm, why in the world are the Mets going after K-Rod and Brian Fuentes? Why not just name Heilman the closer and be done with it?

The Mets’ most dire needs right now, in this order, are: 1. starting pitcher; 2. closer; 3. starting pitcher; 4. starting pitcher. Those are four huge holes to fill, and the Mets are already behind the eight-ball regarding starters by not getting into the C.C. Sabathia bidding. Before they blink they’ll see not only C.C. but also Derek Lowe and A.J. Burnett off the market. “The best interest of the team” is filling those four holes. If all the closer eggs are going into the K-Rod basket, then doesn’t it make sense to move Heilman into one of the open starter roles?

Even more laughable is the scoop from Jon Heyman, who reported on SNY’s Mets Hot Stove that the Mets are “protecting” Heilman by keeping him in the bullpen. I’m not going to blame Heyman for that nonsense, as he’s simply the messenger reiterating what “insiders” have told him. Heyman tells us that the Mets are concerned about Heilman’s delivery, in particular the “high back elbow” motion that is similar to Mark Prior’s, and points to that specifically as a reason not to allow Aaron to pitch more than 100 innings in a season.

There is so much wrong with this “report”, I don’t know where to begin! Let’s start by reminding everyone that these “insiders” of the Mets organization are the same geniuses who recommended they trade Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano because Kazmir was going to blow his elbow out (huh … funny how things work out).

I will admit, as a pitching coach, that Heilman’s mechanics are complicated and have flaws — and the “high elbow” is something to be concerned about. But, it’s not nearly as big a problem as Heyman suggests. Don’t take it from me, though, use your own judgment. The argument is based on the fact that Heilman throws like Prior, and Prior had a major arm injury. Well, based on that logic, one would have to also believe that Greg Maddux will one day blow out his arm, because he throws with a low back elbow in the same manner as Pedro Martinez, and Pedro blew out his arm. Of course, that makes no sense. For every guy throwing like Prior who eventually injured his shoulder, there are two dozen guys who throw “correctly” and eventually injured himself.

In other words, everyone is different. Yes, Mark Prior suffered arm injuries, and it can be ascertained that at least part of the problem was due to his “high back elbow”, or what some term “inverted W”. But there have been many pitchers with this same arm action who DID NOT suffer a serious arm injury, the most obvious example being Don Drysdale. Yes, Drysdale’s career was over at age 32, but he managed to average somewhere in the neighborhood of 250+ innings per season through a dozen years before breaking down. Maybe Heilman will blow out his arm just like Drysdale did, and maybe it won’t happen until after he throws 3300 innings. No one can know for sure (again, everyone is different).

As a side note, I would like to point out that Mark Prior’s mechanics were once touted as “perfect” by Tom House, who is widely acknowledged as one of the best pitching coaches in baseball history when it comes to mechanics. In fact, Prior’s motion was gushed over and cited as an example of ideal mechanics in Will Carroll’s “Saving the Pitcher”. I point this out not because I agree with House (I don’t) or believe he’s as smart as everyone says (he’s not), but rather to illustrate just how subjective pitching mechanics can be. There are a ton of theories out there suggesting what’s “right”, but no one really knows for sure — no matter how many hours of video are studied, and no matter how many pitches are counted. What was believed to be “correct” today may be proved “incorrect” tomorrow, and vice-versa.

However, Heilman’s arm action is definitely not something I would teach, mainly because it is wasted motion and I like efficiency. It’s true that whipping the elbow up high before bringing it around could possibly lead to a dangerous load on the shoulder. But, there are a LOT of things in a pitching motion that can put undue stress on the shoulder — the most common one being over-rotating and opening up the front side too early. John Maine and Oliver Perez are two of the most blatant offenders of over-rotation — the ironic thing is, there are Major League coaches who TEACH this technique!

But the point is this: Maine and Perez have flawed, potentially damaging mechanics. But neither left the rotation … why are the Mets “protecting” Heilman and not Maine or Perez? If the Mets are going to allow Maine to continue to pitch with his flawed mechanics, will they also move him to the bullpen, as “protection”?

What’s much more concerning is that the Mets think there is a point in terms of accumulated innings that will cause Heilman’s arm to fall off. If they really believe this, I’m extremely curious how they arrived at this “magic number”. Did they pick it out of a hat? Do they simply like to apply the number 100 to all limits for pitchers? Certainly there is no scientific basis, because there haven’t been any studies done specifically on pitchers who throw like Aaron Heilman. If Drysdale is an indicator, then Heilman should be able to handle 300 innings a season for quite a while before hurting himself. John Smoltz does the “inverted W” thing and he had many 200+ inning seasons. Interestingly, Smoltz had four surgeries on his elbow before this most recent one on his shoulder — so it can be suggested that his motion didn’t do anything to his shoulder until he got into his 40s. Oh, and strangely enough, Jeremy Bonderman also went down due to and ELBOW injury — not shoulder — despite the fact that he, also, has a “high back elbow” motion similar to Aaron Heilman’s. Bonderman threw 175+ innings four years in a row.

What I find most hilarious about the idea of the Mets “protecting” Heilman by keeping him in the bullpen is that, in reality, they’re doing the exact opposite — they’re destroying him! There is not, and has not been, any indication in the past five years (at least) that the Mets follow any kind of system or protocol when it comes to the bullpen — not in as far as frequency of use, pitch counts, or “ups and readies” (i.e., warming up in the bullpen). Under each manager going back to Art Howe, the relievers were used recklessly, with no care or thought given to the preservation of individual arms. Instead, every game was managed like it was the seventh game of the World Series, with no thought given to tomorrow, or next week, or next month, or two months from now. Pitching on back-to-back days was a rule rather than an exception, particularly if a pitcher was “hot”.

It boggles the mind, some of the blasphemies that come out of the Mets organization. How in the world can pitching sporadically and without limits as a reliever be “safer” than the regimented structure a starting pitcher follows? Particularly when you rarely allow your starters to throw more than 100 pitches in an outing?

What this comes down to is the Mets showing Aaron who is boss. One of the many chefs in the kitchen doesn’t like the idea of Heilman telling them he wants to start, and as a result, the Mets will never fill one of their gaping holes in the rotation with the former #1 draft pick from Notre Dame. That’s the only explanation that makes sense — the rest of these excuses are exactly that, excuses.

Posted in Latest Post | Tagged | 3 Comments

What About Kerry Wood?

Posted on November 19, 2008 by Joe Janish

Here’s a fine idea for the Mets’ 2009 closer: Kerry Wood.

After trading for Kevin Gregg for the purpose of pushing Carlos Marmol into the closer role, the Cubs more or less have decided that Kerry Wood does not fit into their 2009 plans. Per Cubs GM Jim Hendry:

“Because of our relationship, you never close the door for life with somebody like Kerry Wood. But honestly, we feel for his own good and for the good of him and his family, there’s going to be a longer and more lucrative deal somewhere else than there would be here now, and it would be unfair to keep it dangling for another month or so. …

“We don’t have to get into how [highly] I think of him. Everyone knows that. But I don’t think we can do for him right now what he deserves and what I think he’ll get going elsewhere.”

коли под наем

After saving 34 games, and striking out 84 in 53 innings, Wood would appear to be high on the Mets’ wish list. And though many pundits have surmised that would be the case, all we keep hearing from Flushing is that the Mets are ready to offer multiyear, lucrative deals to Francisco Rodriguez and Brian Fuentes.

What’s going on here?

K-Rod is a top target for obvious reasons, so I get that. I’m concerned about his sharp drop in velocity, and don’t feel he should get a five-year contract, but still, it makes sense to put him at the top of the list. Why in the world Brian Fuentes would be more desirable than Kerry Wood, however, defies logic.

First of all, Fuentes is 33 years old and looking for a four-year deal at Billy Wagner money. We can all agree he’s nowhere near Wagner’s talent — even at his best — and therefore not worth that kind of commitment. Furthermore, his low arm slot and sling-like delivery suggests an elbow injury is on the way. But most importantly, he is just one year removed from being demoted from the closer role during the heat of a pennant race. If Fuentes can’t cut it in Colorado, how the heck is he to handle New York? Especially if he signs a huge contract and is expected to fill Wagner’s shoes as an ace reliever?

On the other hand, Kerry Wood is two years younger and likely would accept a two-year deal for less money. His shoulder problems are a concern, for sure, but he seems finally to have found a role in which he can remain healthy, and showed no issues last year. Either Wood or Fuentes is a risk, and I’d rather take a two-year risk than a four-year risk. In fact, because of his shoulder woes, Wood could be signed at a bargain price, with incentives built in to protect the Mets from disaster.

And although Chicago is the “second city”, it still is a much bigger stage than Denver. Chicago is one of the top three baseball cities in terms of rabid fans and media scrutiny, and Wood has coped well ever since storming onto the scene as a 21-year-old rookie. That history would suggest he’ll be well-equipped to handle the pressures of playing a big role in New York City. In addition, if by chance he did sign for a less-expensive deal, the pressure would be less burdensome than someone else coming in on a monster deal.

If history is any indicator, the silence from the Mets regarding Kerry Wood may be a good thing. In offseasons past, the Mets have made some “out of nowhere” signings (i.e., Scott Schoeneweis, Yorvit Torrealba) so perhaps Wood is indeed on the radar — but they’re keeping that fact close to their vest. He may not be the best reliever available, but he could be best bargain.

Posted in Latest Post | 4 Comments

Buzz Around Burnett

Posted on November 19, 2008 by Joe Janish

The Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Phillies, Orioles, and Blue Jays are all in pursuit of A.J. Burnett, according to various sources.

Supposedly, the Yankees are going after Burnett fairly hard, and would like to sign both him and C.C. Sabathia this winter — and may also extend an offer to Derek Lowe. I for one wouldn’t put it past the Bronx Bombers from signing all three of the top starting pitchers available on the free agent market. They can certainly afford it.

Buster Olney believes a guaranteed fifth year will seal the deal for Burnett. Ken Rosenthal thinks the Red Sox are interested, perhaps to keep him from pitching against them.

I’m not sure any team will give Burnett five years, based on his injury history. As for Boston’s interest, that may have waned since this morning’s trade of Coco Crisp for Ramiro Ramirez. Obtaining Ramirez means they can move Justin Masterson to the rotation. The Bosox already have four strong starters returning in Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Jon Lester, and Tim Wakefield, in addition to youngster Clay Buchholz. Of course, a team can never have enough pitching, so perhaps they will be after a free agent starter such as Burnett or Derek Lowe, who reportedly would like very much to return to Boston. Further, one of those returning arms could be used as trade bait — such as in a deal to the Rangers for Jarrod Saltalamacchia.

The Cubs’ retention of Ryan Dempster suggests that they will be less active in their pursuit of a big-name starter — and increases the demand for Burnett and the other starters still available.

Where do the Mets fit in on all this?

So far, no buzz has suggested interest in Burnett by the Mets, probably due to his injuries and possibly also the fact that until 2008, he was a .500 pitcher. Fishy, isn’t it, A.J.’s best season came in a walk year?

Posted in Buzz | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Buzz Around Burnett

Coco Crisp Traded to Royals

Posted on November 19, 2008 by Joe Janish

The Red Sox have dealt centerfielder Coco Crisp to the Royals for reliever Ramon Ramirez.

Who knew the Royals had such a surplus of quality bullpen arms?

The trade is the second made by Kansas City this offseason. A few weeks ago they traded reliever Leo Nunez for first baseman Mike Jacobs.

A few things to glean from this transaction, the first being, wow, the cost of a decent, young, middle reliever is a starting centerfielder. I realize Coco Crisp isn’t exactly an All-Star, but centerfielders who can play strong defense and provide some offense are in strong demand right now. Crisp would probably start for at least half the teams in MLB. That said, if the Mets want to trade for a good, young reliever — i.e., Huston Street — they might have to part with someone like Ryan Church.

Second, how many more arms do the Royals have out there in the cornfields? Do they have one to spare for the Mets? It seems strange that a team that won only 75 games last year could have so much quality pitching depth.

By the way, this deal was probably done a few days ago, but the Red Sox wanted to wait until after the AL MVP was announced, so that the attention given to Dustin Pedroia would not be diluted. Further, Peter Gammons hinted at the Red Sox trading Crisp for a middle reliever on Monday, suggesting that Boston wants to move Justin Masterson into the starting rotation.

Posted in Latest Mets News | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Ryan Dempster Re-Signs with Cubs

Posted on November 19, 2008 by Joe Janish

Ryan Dempster has re-signed with the Chicago Cubs, accepting a 4-year, $52M contract.

The righthanded starter-turned-closer-turned-starter enjoyed the best season of his career (huh, in a walk year, no less), going 17-6 with a 2.96 ERA in helping the Cubs get to the postseason. Despite those excellent numbers, Dempster’s availability didn’t draw nearly the excitement of other big names such as A.J. Burnett, Derek Lowe, and C.C. Sabathia. Which is strange, when you think about it. Besides his strong year, Dempster has also been remarkably durable. He made all 33 of his starts in 2008, the fourth time in his career that he took the ball at least 33 times as a starting pitcher in a season.

Although there was some buzz that the Mets and other teams were interested, it appears that Dempster was fairly set on staying in Chicago.

“Was there more money on the open market? I’m sure there probably was. Who knows? Maybe there was five years. You never know,” Dempster said.

“That’s a question that I’ll never be able to answer, but truthfully I don’t really even care to know because I’m happy with what I have. It’s more money than I could ever dream of getting when I was a kid growing up playing baseball.”

Refreshing words, wouldn’t you agree?

Posted in Latest Mets News | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Pedro to Pitch in 2009

Posted on November 18, 2008 by Joe Janish

Word is that Pedro Martinez plans to pitch in 2009. He may as well, since he’s finally healthy.

Now the question: should the Mets bring him back? I think they’d be crazy not to — on a one year contract with heavy incentives.

Currently the Mets have exactly two healthy starters returning to their rotation — Johan Santana and Mike Pelfrey. John Maine is SUPPOSED to be healthy by the beginning of spring training. But remember this information comes from the same organization that told us Orlando Hernandez, Moises Alou, and Luis Castillo would be healthy in 2008, and the same people who allowed Ryan Church, Angel Pagan, and various others to return too soon. And yes, the same club that held the belief that a top-notch bullpen arm wouldn’t need to be acquired last offseason because Duaner Sanchez was going to be “ready by the time spring training opens”. Based on all that, I’m not counting on Maine from day one. I’ll pencil him in, with my eraser ready.

With Maine questionable, and two more rotation spots to be filled, it makes sense to bring back Pedro and give him a shot to take the #5 spot. At worst he’ll be, well, a #5 starter. At best he might just have enough left to be a decent #3 — at a bargain price. If the Mets can send a #3-level starter out in their fifth rotation spot, they’ll be doing OK.

Further, I like the idea of others — both veterans and youngsters — being around a competitor and champion such as Pedro Martinez. Not to mention the knowledge he imparts as an unofficial pitching coach.

The question, however, is will Pedro accept an incentive-laden deal. My guess is no — that he’ll find a franchise desperate for his name recognition and get a two-year, guaranteed contract.

Or worse — he’ll get a solid offer from the Yankees to shore up the back end of their rotation.

Posted in Buzz | Tagged | 1 Comment

Most Valuable What?

Posted on November 18, 2008 by Joe Janish

One of the latest headlines was the news that St. Louis Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols was the recipient of the National League Most Valuable Player Award, as voted by the Baseball Writers Association. Was Pujols really the “most valuable”, however? Is it even arguable that he was the “best player” in the NL during the 2008 season?

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

valuable
Pronunciation:
\val-yu-bel\
Function:
adjective
Date:
circa 1576

1 a: having monetary value b: worth a good price2 a: having desirable or esteemed characteristics or qualities b: of great use or service

Based on the above, it can absolutely be argued that Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols is valuable. He does have monetary value, after all, and is worth a good price. He definitely has desirable AND esteemed characteristics and qualities. And, yes, he is of great use or service. But is he MOST valuable?

It has always been my belief that a baseball MVP should be the player who is “most valuable” to their particular team. Further, that he should be as close to indispensable as possible. In other words, it should be assumed that his team would not have been able to manage its success without him. Lastly, it is my opinion that an MVP should almost always come from a team that participates in the postseason, or at the very least a team that surprisingly finished in second. And that player should be so valuable, that had he been removed from his team, his team probably would not have been able to finish as successfully as they did.

Again, this is my hard-boiled opinion on what the MVP should be. Many argue that it simply should be the player who had “the best year”, regardless of where his team finishes.

In either case, it’s hard to understand the choice of Albert Pujols as the NL 2008 MVP.

Let’s get this out of the way: I hate Albert Pujols, while simultaneously respecting the fact that he is the second-most talented all-around ballplayer on the planet, next to A-Rod. He may even transcend A-Rod at this point in each player’s career. But, talent alone does not make him “most valuable”, and doesn’t make him “best” in a particular year. His performance in 2008 was very good — it was borderline outstanding. But it wasn’t the “best” of 2008, and it certainly wasn’t “most valuable”.

First of all, his basic, non-SABR numbers: .357 AVG., 37 HRs, 116 RBI, 100 Runs. I focus on the non-SABR numbers because these have been the ultimate, final distillation of the value of a player, in every era going back a hundred years. You want to know who is most valuable based on VORP, Runs Created, etc., go to Hardball Times or Baseball Prospectus (both fine resources) — we don’t do that here, and I’m openly willing to admit the atrocity of my old-school, hard-headed ignorance.

But I digress … back to the Pujols story.

Pujols’ .357 batting average is indeed outstanding. But it wasn’t the best. His 37 homers were also a strong output, but it was far from the best. The 116 RBI are good, but again, not the best. To score 100 runs is a great and unusual feat, but, not the best. What Pujols did better than anyone else in the NL was collect total bases, which led to his leading the league in slugging, and when combined with his high walk rate allowed him to lead the NL in OPS. So from the single-minded perspective of the Billy Beane worshipping sabermetrician, Pujols’ NL-leading 1.114 On-Base-Plus-Slugging percentage was enough to deem him the “best” player, or perhaps “player of the year”. But if that OPS is also evidence that he is the “most valuable”, I have a bone to pick.

The main reason for my argument is this: in spite of this monstrous OPS, the St. Louis Cardinals finished in fourth place. FOURTH PLACE. Say all you want about the value of getting on base — bottom line is, Pujols’ individual performance meant zilch to the Cardinals’ final win total. I don’t care that he also led the league in “batting wins” — those didn’t help the Cardinals smell the wild card. I may be going out on a limb here, but I believe sincerely that St. Louis would have finished in fourth place even if they didn’t have Albert Pujols. Crazy, I know, but I just don’t see either the Pirates or the Reds being much of a threat last year.

On the other hand, there is Ryan Howard, who led the NL in homeruns and in RBI. For those unaware, RBI stands for “runs batted in”. When a player bats in a run, that means his team scores. When his team scores more than the other team, it results in a “win”. The more “wins” a team has, the closer it gets to being the “world champion”.

In addition to batting in 146 runs (30 more than Pujols), Howard also scored 105 (5 more than Pujols). So it can be argued that Howard was 35 runs better than Pujols.

The knock against Howard was his low batting average — only .251. Well, nobody’s perfect. The point is, when Howard DID hit safely, he usually either drove in a run, or eventually scored one.

Those 146 RBI and 105 runs scored helped his team finish in first place, and win the World Series. Anyone who witnessed Howard’s barrage on NL pitching in September, when he mashed at .352 clip and drove in 32 runs in 25 games, can account for his “value” in propelling the Phillies over the Mets in the final weeks of the season. Yes, Pujols also had an outstanding finish, but all he did was help his team get a little closer to third place. I’m sorry but the drama leaves something to be desired.

And when it comes right down to it, Pujols wasn’t even the second-most valuable player in the NL. I’d give that to Manny Ramirez, hands-down. Anyone who thinks the Dodgers would have made their way to the postseason without Manny, either wasn’t paying attention or doesn’t understand baseball. No Manny = no playoffs for the Dodgers. That in itself makes Ramirez more valuable than Pujols — he singlehandedly carried a .500 team to the NLCS.

Finally, there’s enough argument to suggest that Ryan Braun, Prince Fielder, David Wright, Carlos Delgado, and C.C. Sabathia were more valuable to their teams than Albert Pujols.

But in the end, it appears that this year’s vote had very little to do with a player’s value to his team, and more about the player with the most INDIVIDUAL value. Hooray to the number-crunching SABR crowd — you’ve won this round. Maybe that’s why I’m getting more and more disgusted with MLB with each passing year. At every turn, it’s trying to be the NBA, focused on promoting individual players and the stats and awards they can accumulate, rather than the concept of team. Which is too bad, because it’s with a cohesive team that the best things get done in both sport and society.

Posted in Latest Post | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

Affeldt Signed by Giants

Posted on November 17, 2008 by Joe Janish

The San Francisco Giants have signed Jeremy Affeldt to a two-year, $8M contract. The lefthanded reliever is the first free agent to sign on the open market this winter.

From the Giants’ perspective, the signing is eerily similar to one made by the Mets during the 2006-2007 offseason. First, it’s a LOOGY coming off an unusually successful season with the Cincinnati Reds. Secondly, there are these quotes from the AP report:

Affeldt’s role is yet to be determined, though San Francisco’s brass likes that he can pitch multiple innings. … it doesn’t hurt that he lives in Spokane, Wash., so he’ll be much closer to home

Yeah, that sounds vaguely familiar, doesn’t it? Didn’t the Mets sign a lefthanded starter-turned-reliever, who supposedly could “pitch multiple innings” / fill various roles, and grew up nearby? Oh, and then there is that startlingly expensive contract that draws comparison.

Now, I know there are people who disagree with my parallels of Affeldt to Scott Schoeneweis. Many people think Affeldt would have been a wonderful addition to the Mets’ bullpen, based on his last two seasons. These same people probably think Joe Beimel is a good idea as well.

But what must be considered is that Affeldt’s strong 2007 was only the second time he ever posted an ERA below 4.64 in his career. In fact, his ERA the previous two seasons was 6.20 and 5.26. One could argue that his newfound success was due to some change in his approach, or possibly maturation. More likely, it had to do with the fact he became a strict LOOGY — in 75 games, he spun just 59 innings. In 2008, his workload grew to just over one inning per outing — 74 games, 78 innings. This was due to spinning two innings in a game 13 times during the season. And to his credit, he did for the most part pitch to more than “one guy” in the majority of his appearances. But can he keep it up, and be a legitimate setup guy as some Mets followers have suggested? Maybe, but is that maybe worth two years at $8M? Remember back to that fateful winter, when Scho seemed like such a great signing because he had posted a 3.32 ERA as a LOOGY in 2005, and then was nearly perfect as a closer for the Reds over 16 games in 2006.

Of course, Schoeneweis came to New York as damaged goods, and Affeldt is presumably healthy. Good for him to get that deal, but I for one am glad the Mets didn’t pony up such an arresting commitment.

Posted in Latest Mets News | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments