Wednesday, November 30, 2011

The mets willing to spend on a closer...

The Mets spent 12M on their closer last year, in which he pitched in 42 games (34 GF), compiling 23 saves and an ERA of 3.16 before being traded.  Despite all the moneyball references Alderson has placed a premium on the closers role and after watching the pen blow numerous games last year he has made the back-end of the bullpen a priority.

While I thought Broxton was too risky, when reports surfaced that the Mets were aggressive pursuers and came up short on the reliever I grew a bit concerned.  In 2010 Broxton had similar numbers to K-Rod's 2011 with us; 22 saves, 42 game finishes and ERA 4.04.  Now, the ERA is almost a point higher but some of that can be contributed to being injured and returning from those injuries. So basically your paying a 1/4 the money for the same amount of saves but will give up more runs per outing, your getting a younger pitcher but a much higher injury risk.

This isn't a post about the one who got away, as I've said before I thought Broxton was too risky to be your closer and in KC, unless they trade or move Soria to the rotation he'll be a set-up man.  This is more about what exactly do the Mets have to spend, if they were pursuing Broxton and lost out over a 4M contract that truly is a troubling revelation.  However; if their interest simple had limits and KC exceeded those limits then it was a smart move.  Andy Martino both last night and in today's Daily News reports that Broxton, in the Mets opinion was too high a risk at 4M and that for the right closer they could go even higher then that amount...

The Mets are willing to spend more than $4 million on a reliever, but not one carrying Broxton’s injury baggage, according to team insiders. source Daily News