After last season, you would want to believe that the Mets wouldn’t underestimate their own pitching prospects and expose them to the Rule 5 draft.
The Mets got very, very lucky with Logan Verrett. Everyone underestimated him. Perhaps it was a result of a low 90’s fastball. Perhaps it was because he relies on control, changing your eye level and working both sides of the plate rather than blowing a 100 MPH fastball by you like Noah Syndergaard.
In any event, the Orioles decided he was worthy of a Rule 5 pick, but not worthy of making their Opening Day roster. The Rangers scooped him up and decided after six games he couldn’t help them. He was returned to the Mets. He pitched well out of the bullpen and in spot starts. This year he’s made two spot starts and hasn’t allowed a run in 12 innings. The Mets needed him more than they ever knew. Fortunately for the Mets, the Orioles and Rangers never realized what they had in Verrett. The Mets got very lucky.
This year the Mets may not be so lucky with Matt Bowman.
Bowman was taken by the Cardinals in the Rule 5 draft. Partially due to Jordan Walden opening the year on the DL, Bowman made the Opening Day roster. So far this year, Bowman has appeared on five games pitching 6.2 innings. He has a 1.35 ERA and a 0.900 WHIP. He’s predominantly throwing a 93 MPH sinker. He mixes in the occasional slider (88 MPH) and split change (82 MPH). It’s a short sample size, but Bowman looks good out of the bullpen. There’s no reason to believe the Cardinals will let him go.
The head scratching part was there was no excuse for why the Mets let Bowman become a Cardinal. The Mets had roster space. They could’ve protected Bowman. To make matters worse, they lost what appears to be a good bullpen piece. How did this happen?
In answering, this question it is important to note teams typically keep a roster spot open so they can make a pick in the Rule 5 draft in the event there’s a player out there who can help them. It’s how the Mets acquired Sean Gilmartin last year, and he became a valuable part of the bullpen last year. So in reality, the question was who should the Mets have left off the roster in place of Bowman.
The Mets did subsequently lose Kirk Nieuwenhuis on waivers. The Mets traded Darrell Ceciliani for cash. Carlos Torres and Ruben Tejada were initially offered contracts only to subsequently be released. The Mets also could’ve realized what they had and did the unconventional and just put Bowman on the roster barring them from making a Rule 5 draft pick. The Mets didn’t. Instead, they exposed Bowman in the draft in the oft chance they could’ve found someone of his caliber in the Rule 5 draft. How did this happen?
Simply put, like Verrett, Bowman didn’t have lights-out stuff. He is a four pitch pitcher that was projected to be, at best, a back of the rotation starter or bullpen arm. He really regressed his first full year in AAA. In 2014, he was 3-2 with a 3.47 ERA and a 1.294 WHIP in six starts and one relief appearance. In 2015, he made 26 starts and two relief appearances. Bowman would finish the year 7-16 with a 5.53 ERA and a 1.679 WHIP. Entering the 2015 season, he was seen as a back of the rotation starter or a bullpen arm. His 2015 season reasonably cast doubt on those projections. At age 25, it appeared like the former 13th round draft pick’s development had stalled.
It didn’t, and it shouldn’t be surprising as Bowman has always looked for ways to improve. He has tried to emulate Tim Lincecum‘s delivery. While in college, he studied Sabermetrics, and he has sought to use it to find ways to improve. Basically, there’s no rock this former 13th round pick will leave unturned to he better. As a result, he’s built himself into a major league pitcher.
However, Bowman is pitching for the Cardinals, and the Mets have nothing to show for it. Worse yet, the Mets could’ve used him. With Jacob deGrom‘s lat injury (and problems with his son), Verrett was thrust into the starting rotation. Rafael Montero was recalled to help in the bullpen, but Collins has been loathe to use him.
Perhaps Collins would’ve trusted Bowman and allowed him to pitch. Unfortunately, we will never know. The Mets will not get lucky with a Rule 5 pick returning to the organization. Bowman is a Cardinal, likely never to return.
A few things:
Verrett played with the Rangers for a full month, only offering him to be returned after acquiring Josh Hamilton and needing the roster flexibility.
He also made the initial 25 man roster that headed north in Baltimore, but when Duquette was unable to deal Matusz for anything the O’s tried to slip him in the minors only for the Rangers to select him.
As for the Mets that were later released, its easy to look in the rear view and say they should have let Tejada go, but at the time Cabrera was not a Met. De Aza and Cespedes were hopes and pipe dreams at the end of November. Same could be said of Bastardo
Fact is the Mets carried an inordinate amount of pitchers into the offseason, at one point 4 of which could be counted as RH long men or spot starters (including Montero, Verrett, Ynoa, and Lugo).
Much of what OOPMF just said. I don’t see paying mind above to who Bowman would replace on the 25 right now. If Montero came up and was more effective this conversation would not take place at all. You can also say it is a net neutral since they actually took and kept someone in the Rule V (Gilmartin) whom had worked out. Players move around and sometimes you have to make tough personnel decisions and it is inevitable that every single team will so-to-speak have some players that “got away”. This time last year you could write an almost identical article about Collin McHugh- whom I still maintain is no big deal- as the AL is starting to catch up with him… and there wasn’t anything that would suggest he would be reasonably effective… most notably his stint in Colorado. No team only keeps the good players and discards the less thans. The best you can do and work towards is hedging that you acquire better talent than you will inevitably lose. Personally I keep tabs on all former Met farmhands- last year provided alot of future homework- Fulmer, Gant, Meisner, Mazzoni, Cessa, Weil, Whalen. Nice article- good spirit.
If Verrett pitches behind Thor in the rotation, does that make him harder to hit? He so reminds me of Dillon Gee that if we don’t over expose him he might be that spot starter for us. That said can he pitch regularly for us? That is where the question exists.
My point was more about how the Mets still had roster room, and even if they didn’t, there were players they clearly didn’t value. The Mets were more than willing to lose Bowman for nothing.
Would you rather have exposed Bowman or Walters?
Such a good article. There was no reason for Bowman to be left off the 40 instead of Morris or Walters, 2 guys that never would have been taken in the Rule 5.
I think they protected Walters because he showed some flashes of his old self in the final month, although I agree I would have rather protected Bowman. Morris on the other hand would have been taken in a heartbeat.
Personally, I typically prefer the starter. With that said, I didn’t take much issue of Walters over Bowman mostly because you’re more likely to lose a reliever in the Rule 5 draft than a starter.
I would have left both off personally, and protected (incorrectly) Rivera and/or Becerra
But you are comparing apples to oranges. The Mets had limited LH OF and MI at the time, and surplus RHP.
If anyone is somewhat comparable it would have been Walters. Who is just as likely to have been selected
That is valid, losing Becerra scared the heck out of me and would have protected him over Walters for sure.
1. The Mets still had Reynolds at the time so to suggest there was no MI bench depth is not entirely correct.
2. The Mets were toying with the idea of non-tendering Tejada before they agreed to a deal. He was subsequently released.
3. When you trade a prospect like Ceciliani for nothing but money, it means you don’t value him.
4. The Mets never intended to go into the 2015 season with Nieuwenhuis on the Opening Day roster. As it turns out, they’re no longer with the organization.
5. There was still an open roster spot.
On Nov 20 I was very much in the same camp. By Dec 5, I talked myself back from there.
I am not a fan of going to 40 in Nov. Just because you have to waive someone to sign anyone, and the give the opportunity for a player who may have been claimed without roster restrictions.
3 MI on the 40 isn’t exactly much depth, when they didn’t have a 2B. And as for Kirk and Cecilliani. They were most likely to be gone, but without them you have then given leverage to available players. And if they hadnt signed De Aza your looking at signing Stubbs in February to a contract at a higher rate than either of the ones you had control of in November without improving the team.
All of this is could be mute point with an injury an OF and Walden returning. It is difficult to compete and keep a 25 man spot all season.
this happened because Sandy ALderson is the most overrated GM I have ever seen.
About 99% of the time, I don’t max out the 40 man early in the offseason, but I thought it was appropriate here.
As for the leverage, the only leveraged you have is money. Mets got everyone they got, except Colon (if rumors were true), because they offered the most money.
So in third week of Nov who would you have kept and protected?
That title belongs to some guy in Oakland
Well I certainly don’t think that is the case.
Likewise, at first I was all about protecting Becerra but there didn’t seem to be a ton of buzz on him potentially getting picked. Which the Mets obviously paid attention too.
I either do the full 40, or I remove Ceciliani from the 40 man.
In the long run it is a much better position to be in for his development. Having 3 option years remaining going into next season will allow his play to dictate his timeline
Definitely, we don’t want him to end up the Puello situation (options/40-man roster wise).
good for you
So in Nov you add Nimmo, Gsellman, Lugo, Walters, and Bowman and DFA Cecilliani leaving you at 39.
That is 22 pitchers on the 40 plus Mejia (9 RHS, 3 LHS, 7RHR, 3 LHR). With 6 viable options for the swing man role.
I can understand the plan, but don’t see Bowman being anything other than a starter in Vegas on the 40.
Even if he goes a year to a level, you at least have 1 option year his rookie season.
You really think he overrated? Why?
It was a mistake leaving Bowman unprotected if for any other reason that there is very little upper end pitching depth in the system. IMO, Bowman could have been added to the 40 man and 9 lives Campbell could have been left off (not sure of his options left, but who cares). It is what it is, and it balances out in the end, as we stole Gilmartin last year and we had Bowman stolen this year, so be it.
Nimmo. At best, a 5th or 6th OF’er down the line.
Eh I don’t know. Gilmartin, Verrett, Lugo, Montero, Ynoa, Gsellman. Does Bowman have more upside than any of them? How much more backend pitching depth do we need?
How many starts above AA do those guys have combined? Not man I believe. Its not a big deal losing him, but I would have rather have kept him is all.
Bowman got crushed in Vegas last year. Its not like had success there. They are all similar in terms of “ready”. We could throw a Lugo in our pen right now too and he would probably have success there. Bowman was dime a dozen here… You can’t keep everyone.
Clown comment bro
im not your bro and thanks for your incredible contribution to the thread.
I don’t do free consulting.
In 2014 Verrett was the best pitcher in Vegas. in 2015 Bowman lead the PCL in losses and you want him on the 40 man?