Verlander’s decline

[dzorange]

20 minutes ago, interloper said:

The thing I think about most is his 2nd year. Because there's a good chance that's going to be a lost year, just statistically speaking at his age. So - what is the value of that year? It almost certainly won't be worth the $40 or whatever million. And on top of that the extra year is probably increasing the prospect cost as well. It's the rare deal where I sort of wish we didn't have the extra year of control. 

Perhaps unconventional for a hopefully winning team next year to sell, but even if Verlander declines there should be salvage value for the Orioles if they want - they can trade him at next year's deadline.

[interloper]

3 minutes ago, deward said:

He hasn't looked great since he came back from the IL.

True, but if he's healthy I'm not too concerned given his track record. He needs to get out of Detroit, for one, and play for a contender. And maybe it brings the price down a bit. A lefty SP would really help us. 

[btdart20]

Scherzer was traded for an Acuna with some plus upside and significant payroll offsets.  I don't see us trading that same level of prospect AND getting payroll help for Verlander.

Could Elias see Verlander as the SP investment for 2024 making the deal (in addition to the 2023 playoffs)?  Basically the #3/Lyles --> #2-3/Gibson --> #2+/TOR type progression.  But that's quite the jump from a $10m investment to a $40+m investment (Gibson, Frazier, Givens coming off the books too - maybe Santander).

Only IF (with the biggest capital font size possible)

- we're willing to eat the payroll,

- and NYM is interested in a salary dump return (both of which are dubious at best),

- and Verlander's NTC/etc. works in our favor,

then the prospect investment could make it worthwhile.

[OriolesMagic83]

Schererville cost a top 100 prospect after Mets paid down his contract.  Mets are probably looking for 2 top 100 prospects for Verlander.  No thanks.  I hope Elias is working on a trade with Seattle for much younger pitching with more control.

[eddie83]

Elias is somewhat of a tough spot. He knows his owner is limited financially. The Mets would gladly IMO be Wilkie to take on a ton of money for better prospects.  I didn’t know Verlander if he throws 140 innings next year has a vesting option for 25.  
 

In theory you could get a “cheap” pitcher for 2.5 years who is a solid #2 starter. Question is with his age what is that worth prospect wise? 

[Sports Guy]

Right now, you have 4 starters in next years rotation. Do you want a gtd spot for Verlander?

[e16bball]

The recent run of success for Verlander is impressive, but it has been compiled largely against very weak offenses (WAS, CHW, MIL, SFG, NYY x2).

Even since the start of June, when he’s faced stronger offenses (TOR, ATL, SDP, LAD, HOU), the performance has still been pretty pedestrian. 4.67 ERA and 4.49 FIP in those games, and the xFIP is absolutely dreadful because he was giving up fly balls like they were going out of style against those teams (52 FBs in 27 IP). 

Every pitcher struggles more against the best offenses in the league, but you’d be trading for Verlander with the specific intention of running him out there against those kinds of teams — the Rays and Astros and Rangers and maybe one day the Braves. Being able to guile his way through weaker lineups may not be as valuable when the weak lineups have gone home for the winter.

[Just Regular]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Right now, you have 4 starters in next years rotation. Do you want a gtd spot for Verlander?

An acquisition of Verlander (or any controllable SP) would open the question what role does Tyler Wells first 2024 appearance occur in.

Unless there's a surprise and John Means is a trade chip today.

[interloper]

7 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

An acquisition of Verlander (or any controllable SP) would open the question what role does Tyler Wells first 2024 appearance occur in.

Unless there's a surprise and John Means is a trade chip today.

That decision is so far away that it doesn't matter. Any number of things could occur between now and April 2024, with injuries being far and away the most likely. You typically need at least 7 or 8 SP options going into a season. Right now, Wells figures to be in the rotation mix seeing as he has been one of the team's best SPs prior to his 3-game funk. Doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. 

[Alasdaire]

You have to peg whatever package is offered for Verlander to the Scherzer deal and ramp up the intensity a few notches. Verlander is the better player at this point and, unlike Scherzer who was a free agent, Verlander is under control so the Mets could keep him and tell themselves they're going to reload going into next season.

If Scherzer got them Acuna, who is a top-50 prospect even though the Rangers ate some of the contract, how much would it cost for a better pitcher with more team control the whole contract paid for? The Rangers almost assuredly were sniffing around Verlander and yet ended up with Scherzer, which probably tells you that the Mets were asking for the world. Houston had reported interest, but their system is so bad that the Mets might have said you can't afford him.

Hard pass on that cost for a guy who is 40. Like Scherzer, at 40 years old, he's more of a guy who stabilizes the rotation. At that age, you're not going to ride a guy deep into games and/or fast-forward the rotation to get to his start; that's just begging for an injury on a guy who you are also wed to next year.

[MarCakes21]

6 minutes ago, Alasdaire said:

You have to peg whatever package is offered for Verlander to the Scherzer deal and ramp up the intensity a few notches. Verlander is the better player at this point and, unlike Scherzer who was a free agent, Verlander is under control so the Mets could keep him and tell themselves they're going to reload going into next season.

If Scherzer got them Acuna, who is a top-50 prospect even though the Rangers ate some of the contract, how much would it cost for a better pitcher with more team control the whole contract paid for? The Rangers almost assuredly were sniffing around Verlander and yet ended up with Scherzer, which probably tells you that the Mets were asking for the world. Houston had reported interest, but their system is so bad that the Mets might have said you can't afford him.

Hard pass on that cost for a guy who is 40. Like Scherzer, at 40 years old, he's more of a guy who stabilizes the rotation. At that age, you're not going to ride a guy deep into games and/or fast-forward the rotation to get to his start; that's just begging for an injury on a guy who you are also wed to next year.

I dont get this.  Other than the money part, which is obviously big, why would Verlander cost more?  You know you have to keep him for 2 years at whatever cost, he's likely a number 2 starter at best, and he was putting up fairly similar numbers as Scherzer.

So assume the Mets eat the same amount of cost, but over 2.5 years rather than 1.5, and buy Verlander to $22mil per, would it really cost more than a ~50ish prospect (FYI, Acuna was likely climbing too).

[oriole]

Count me out on the Verlander notion. He’s old, expensive, and they want prospects in return. When he’s done there is no upside or hope for return. One day he will come in and it will be very clear that he is over 40 and there’s no turning back…an impressive achievement considering it’s a rare feat for any player to make it to such an advanced age and still be any good at all. But he’s a ticking time bomb is all I’m saying…no thanks unless they’re giving him away.

[Alasdaire]

Just now, MarCakes21 said:

I dont get this.  Other than the money part, which is obviously big, why would Verlander cost more?  You know you have to keep him for 2 years at whatever cost, he's likely a number 2 starter at best, and he was putting up fairly similar numbers as Scherzer.

So assume the Mets eat the same amount of cost, but over 2.5 years rather than 1.5, and buy Verlander to $22mil per, would it really cost more than a ~50ish prospect (FYI, Acuna was likely climbing too).

My understanding is that Verlander is under contract for next year with a player option the year after whereas Scherzer is under contract for this year with a player option next year (that he already exercised)? Control is a huge factor regardless, but it's especially relevant when you're talking about the Mets, who aren't typical sellers and could plausibly convince themselves they'll spend enough money and get Diaz back to contend next year. Many sellers are motivated because they would rather get something rather than nothing as they enter the dark years, but the Mets aren't necessarily like that.

Verlander is also just plain better this year. If a 40 year old like Scherzer is experiencing decline, it's difficult to think he has it in him to turn it around. They are what their performance says they are at this stage.

[Hallas]

I think his price is going to be somewhat less than Scherzer unless the Mets pay us off in a big way.  If that happens then all bets are obviously off.

 

I'm definitely concerned about his aging and decline, but I think in 2023 he's shown he can pitch with his current skill set.

 

I'd rather give a bigger haul to a cost controlled guy like someone from the Mariners, or someone like Cease, than any haul for Verlander.  But I'd feel decently good about our rotation of we did pick him up for 2023.

[Alasdaire]

2 minutes ago, Hallas said:

I think his price is going to be somewhat less than Scherzer unless the Mets pay us off in a big way.  If that happens then all bets are obviously off.

I feel like that's what motivated the Mets to sell in the first place though. They're kind of like the Yankees now in the sense that they probably never concede that they need to tear it down and rebuild. People inside their building probably think they'll sign a few guys this offseason and be contenders next year. But they realized that they could get outsized returns this deadline by leveraging their unlimited well of cash, and they have pitchers in a market that demands pitchers, so it presented a unique opportunity. If they're just going to get market value for a guy who they could retain for next season when they hope to be relevant, why trade him?