if I felt he was better suited to it than Gee. I wouldn't have a long leash with Gee, but ideally he pitches solidly as a starter and builds up some trade value while Montero helps the BP until Parnell's return (also saving some innings on Montero's arm).
if I felt he was better suited to it than Gee. I wouldn't have a long leash with Gee, but ideally he pitches solidly as a starter and builds up some trade value while Montero helps the BP until Parnell's return (also saving some innings on Montero's arm).
Meh, a limit that high (175 or so) I don't think is worth changing a guys role. They have Torres for multiple innings and they have Thor and Matz at AAA. I don't think innings management is such a big deal. I'm not looking to stir this up again but I'm not counting on Parnell for much. Not saying he won't help but I wouldn't rely on it.
Parnell said he was throwing 2 seamers, not sinkers.
So who won the bet?
I'm too tired to rile up ZGiants again but Shecky would win this one.
""I went into this outing trying not to overthrow," Parnell said. "I knew the gun wasn't going to be anything outstanding. So I backed off. I wanted to work on my two-seamer because it wasn't there last game, and make sure I stayed back on the rubber and stuff like that. It was more of a 'go out there and knock the rust off' type of thing, rather than overthrow.""
if I felt he was better suited to it than Gee. I wouldn't have a long leash with Gee, but ideally he pitches solidly as a starter and builds up some trade value while Montero helps the BP until Parnell's return (also saving some innings on Montero's arm).
Meh, a limit that high (175 or so) I don't think is worth changing a guys role. They have Torres for multiple innings and they have Thor and Matz at AAA. I don't think innings management is such a big deal. I'm not looking to stir this up again but I'm not counting on Parnell for much. Not saying he won't help but I wouldn't rely on it.
I agree about Parnell Dan - that's part of the reason why I think Montero can impact the team more in the BP than the starting rotation. When I watch him pitch he looks a like K-Rod to me, and maybe it's too superficial but he has the stature of a reliever more than a traditional innings eater.
Believe me, I have no major allegiance to Gee deserving the nod over him necessarily. Just don't think Gee will be a boost to the BP and think that's a much bigger ? right now than the 5th starter.
all honesty if I'm Terry Collins I probably go with Gee in the rotation as well. Montero probably has a bit more juice out of the pen and a more resilient arm. I just prefer going with the upside play and I'm worried about Montero being "stuck" in the pen if he gets there and does pretty well.
I wonder how much size and strength should really matter for a SP now Â
The prototypical innings eater is pretty much dead. If a smaller guy can pitch, let him pitch. Just about every pitcher except the top aces get the hook at 100 pitches anyway. You don't need a roger clemens body for that.
RE: I wonder how much size and strength should really matter for a SP now Â
The prototypical innings eater is pretty much dead. If a smaller guy can pitch, let him pitch. Just about every pitcher except the top aces get the hook at 100 pitches anyway. You don't need a roger clemens body for that.
The Reds have done unusually well with shorter SP's. Cueto, Volquez, Leake, now trying this Cuban kid.
all honesty if I'm Terry Collins I probably go with Gee in the rotation as well. Montero probably has a bit more juice out of the pen and a more resilient arm. I just prefer going with the upside play and I'm worried about Montero being "stuck" in the pen if he gets there and does pretty well.
That's completely fair. Only counter argument is that there's even more upside not too far down the road with both Matz & Sydnergaard. Maybe they decide to give Montero the 5th spot and there's a trade possibility out there to deal Gee for someone in the BP? What's up with Rex Brothers?
not one of those who is obsessed with "having a lefty" (though we have Matz anyway) but to me I'd love to see Montero, Thor and Matz all make significant starts this year in place of Gee, Niese and Colon. Probably not realistic just would be nice.
is owed 4 million, hard to see the Mets needing money from the Orioles for Matusz at 3.2 but doing that. Dodgers (as Rubin noted), have 2 guys with options left. Brothers would be a nice gamble but they previously turned down Gee for Brothers so he wouldn't be cheap. Logan is FAR too expensive. If I'm being honest I've never even heard of Adam Liberatore but he had a BEAST season last year at AAA and having a nice spring.
with a Bowman type practically ready. But hopefully Gee can reclaim some value if he does indeed start at the 5 and we can trade him sooner than later.
RE: I never saw anything that said Gee for Brothers was a deal they turned Â
down, but if so maybe they reconsider? I haven't seen how he's done in spring training, but I think I'd do that deal.
Howell & Matusz would also be good pickups...where did you see that they needed $ back on Matusz?
According to Thomas Harding the Rockies beat guy from mlb.com said the Rockies had "no interest" in Gee for Brothers and that their reported interest in Gee was highly overstated. He even responded to this topic when I asked him via twitter but I don't know how to find out tweets.
“They haven’t won for 100 years, and they should start trying to win today,” Boras said. “Cubs fans are paying the third-highest ticket prices. They are paying for the team to win today. They don’t pay to see the club do business.”
down, but if so maybe they reconsider? I haven't seen how he's done in spring training, but I think I'd do that deal.
Howell & Matusz would also be good pickups...where did you see that they needed $ back on Matusz?
According to Thomas Harding the Rockies beat guy from mlb.com said the Rockies had "no interest" in Gee for Brothers and that their reported interest in Gee was highly overstated. He even responded to this topic when I asked him via twitter but I don't know how to find out tweets.
nm I misunderstood your post and thought you meant the Mets turned it down. The Rockies not having interest is the last thing I'd remembered on the subject.
maybe things have changed but the reports were while the Rockies did discuss Gee they weren't interested enough to give up Brothers but would give up Logan. Gee for Logan would suck balls.
saying the exact same thing whenever asked. Really the only rumor we'd ever heard was just that the Mets liked Brothers (not that it was actively discussed or close to happening).
As far as Matusz/Howell go, I'd take either and assuming it was an inconsequential C-level prospect I can't imagine our budget is so tight that we'd need either team to eat $. I mean, neither one of those guys is getting paid a fortune and it seems highly likely we'll save money eventually when a whichever veteran pitcher gets dealt eventually to open up a spot in the rotation.
RE: Yeah I followed Harding most of the winter and remembered him Â
saying the exact same thing whenever asked. Really the only rumor we'd ever heard was just that the Mets liked Brothers (not that it was actively discussed or close to happening).
As far as Matusz/Howell go, I'd take either and assuming it was an inconsequential C-level prospect I can't imagine our budget is so tight that we'd need either team to eat $. I mean, neither one of those guys is getting paid a fortune and it seems highly likely we'll save money eventually when a whichever veteran pitcher gets dealt eventually to open up a spot in the rotation.
I feel like those 2 are the more realistic/better gambles. Logan would be one of the highest paid players on the Mets... would you really want him sucking up that much salary hoping for a bounce back? Brothers seemingly would cost a decent amount (Rodriguez as well). Matusz or Howell seem like the most "realistic" or this other kid I've never heard of.
Parnell said he was throwing 2 seamers, not sinkers.
Wish I saw that before I drafted him in fantasy baseball last night.
Meh, a limit that high (175 or so) I don't think is worth changing a guys role. They have Torres for multiple innings and they have Thor and Matz at AAA. I don't think innings management is such a big deal. I'm not looking to stir this up again but I'm not counting on Parnell for much. Not saying he won't help but I wouldn't rely on it.
Parnell said he was throwing 2 seamers, not sinkers.
So who won the bet?
Quote:
to clarify yesterdays sinker/2 seamer stuff
Parnell said he was throwing 2 seamers, not sinkers.
So who won the bet?
I'm too tired to rile up ZGiants again but Shecky would win this one.
""I went into this outing trying not to overthrow," Parnell said. "I knew the gun wasn't going to be anything outstanding. So I backed off. I wanted to work on my two-seamer because it wasn't there last game, and make sure I stayed back on the rubber and stuff like that. It was more of a 'go out there and knock the rust off' type of thing, rather than overthrow.""
Us Mets fans love to argue. If we were all younger playing in the sandlot there would be lots of fights, but a lot of fun too.
And just as an FYI..a lot of people (pitchers even) use two-seamer and sinker interchangeably
Quote:
if I felt he was better suited to it than Gee. I wouldn't have a long leash with Gee, but ideally he pitches solidly as a starter and builds up some trade value while Montero helps the BP until Parnell's return (also saving some innings on Montero's arm).
Meh, a limit that high (175 or so) I don't think is worth changing a guys role. They have Torres for multiple innings and they have Thor and Matz at AAA. I don't think innings management is such a big deal. I'm not looking to stir this up again but I'm not counting on Parnell for much. Not saying he won't help but I wouldn't rely on it.
I agree about Parnell Dan - that's part of the reason why I think Montero can impact the team more in the BP than the starting rotation. When I watch him pitch he looks a like K-Rod to me, and maybe it's too superficial but he has the stature of a reliever more than a traditional innings eater.
Believe me, I have no major allegiance to Gee deserving the nod over him necessarily. Just don't think Gee will be a boost to the BP and think that's a much bigger ? right now than the 5th starter.
Us Mets fans love to argue. If we were all younger playing in the sandlot there would be lots of fights, but a lot of fun too.
And just as an FYI..a lot of people (pitchers even) use two-seamer and sinker interchangeably
Which is why even by BBI spring training baseball "arguments" it was silly.
The Reds have done unusually well with shorter SP's. Cueto, Volquez, Leake, now trying this Cuban kid.
That's completely fair. Only counter argument is that there's even more upside not too far down the road with both Matz & Sydnergaard. Maybe they decide to give Montero the 5th spot and there's a trade possibility out there to deal Gee for someone in the BP? What's up with Rex Brothers?
Robert Brender @robertbrender · 22m 22 minutes ago
Black told me, "today was a big spirit lift." He's planning to throw a bullpen in two days. #Mets
Mike Vorkunov 5m
Collins says there are still multiple job openings on the bench even if Murphy is ready for Opening Day
Mike Vorkunov 5m
Collins says there are still multiple job openings on the bench even if Murphy is ready for Opening Day
He's got a spot reserved for Flores on his first GIDP.
Mets "news" - ( New Window )
50 Cent Night Fight - ( New Window )
Mets Scouting Dodgers, Rockies lefties - ( New Window )
Howell & Matusz would also be good pickups...where did you see that they needed $ back on Matusz?
Howell & Matusz would also be good pickups...where did you see that they needed $ back on Matusz?
According to Thomas Harding the Rockies beat guy from mlb.com said the Rockies had "no interest" in Gee for Brothers and that their reported interest in Gee was highly overstated. He even responded to this topic when I asked him via twitter but I don't know how to find out tweets.
Hell hath no fury like someone keeping Boras away from $$$$ - ( New Window )
Howell & Matusz would also be good pickups...where did you see that they needed $ back on Matusz?
Money back meaning salary picked up.
Quote:
down, but if so maybe they reconsider? I haven't seen how he's done in spring training, but I think I'd do that deal.
Howell & Matusz would also be good pickups...where did you see that they needed $ back on Matusz?
According to Thomas Harding the Rockies beat guy from mlb.com said the Rockies had "no interest" in Gee for Brothers and that their reported interest in Gee was highly overstated. He even responded to this topic when I asked him via twitter but I don't know how to find out tweets.
nm I misunderstood your post and thought you meant the Mets turned it down. The Rockies not having interest is the last thing I'd remembered on the subject.
As far as Matusz/Howell go, I'd take either and assuming it was an inconsequential C-level prospect I can't imagine our budget is so tight that we'd need either team to eat $. I mean, neither one of those guys is getting paid a fortune and it seems highly likely we'll save money eventually when a whichever veteran pitcher gets dealt eventually to open up a spot in the rotation.
As far as Matusz/Howell go, I'd take either and assuming it was an inconsequential C-level prospect I can't imagine our budget is so tight that we'd need either team to eat $. I mean, neither one of those guys is getting paid a fortune and it seems highly likely we'll save money eventually when a whichever veteran pitcher gets dealt eventually to open up a spot in the rotation.
I feel like those 2 are the more realistic/better gambles. Logan would be one of the highest paid players on the Mets... would you really want him sucking up that much salary hoping for a bounce back? Brothers seemingly would cost a decent amount (Rodriguez as well). Matusz or Howell seem like the most "realistic" or this other kid I've never heard of.