The idea of including Mike Pelfrey in a trade for Roy Halladay has been being mentioned in various forums lately. Losing Big Pelf might hurt, but it should not in any way slow Omar down in his pursuit of a second true ace for the 2010 rotation.

This space has made clear its preference for Halladay over any other currently available player. Were Josh Johnson to become truly obtainable, he would instantly occupy spot 1-A on the desirability list.

The Mets should be willing to make anyone in the organization available to the Jays, other than Johan, KRod, Wright, Reyes, and Beltran.

Omar should offer the Jays Pelf, who, while being a major disappointment in 2009, remains a big, strong, healthy, young starter who throws in the mid-90s, and will be cheap and controllable for another couple of years. All of this could make him very desirable to Toronto. Yes, he needs another pitch, but despite the concern of some fans, it is indeed a fact that many pitchers have, in the right circumstances, learned to master new pitches at various stages of their careers.

We would miss Pelf, and if the Verducci Effect has meaning, he might very well bounce back in 2010 to continue the upward arc of progress he showed through 2008.

Omar should offer the Jays Pelf as a decent enough, reliable starter to step right into the rotation, and in addition he should basically offer them a choice of three of our top minor league prospects, while trying very hard to keep either Davis or FMart, probably the two with the most potential. If they insisted on adding Overbay and Murph to the deal I would still do it, but taking on Wells’ obscene contract would be a deal-breaker.

I like and support Pelfrey, and think he will ultimately be a very solid pitcher, at least a 3, if not eventually a 2, but he should not for one second hinder Met efforts to obtain Roy Halladay.

The readers of TRDMB have heard enough of the mantra of what a great 1-2 starting rotation punch can do; history tells the story well by itself.

Looking at Halladay versus John Lackey, the number one FA starter, only hammers home Halladay’s value harder. Halladay is just 17 months older than Lackey, and will not be 33 until next May. We are not talking about a 38-year-old pitcher here. And in each of the last two years Lackey has missed significant time; Halladay has not. Halladay throws more innings per start, and has more CG the last two years than Lackey has in his entire career-this makes the bullpen better at every level; imagine what adding 9 complete games would do for our pen. Most importantly, in 2008 and 2009, Halladay’s ERA was a full run lower; for a team that missed the postseason by one game in two consecutive years, the number two starter giving up one less run every time out for 32 starts can be the difference between missing the playoffs by a game or two, or making them by several.

With a simple return to health of our regulars and obtaining a decent new bat for LF or 1B (Cameron? Cantu?), we will have enough power and plenty of offense. Roy Halladay’s excellence combined with Johan’s gives this team the very best chance to return to contention in 2010. Unwillingness to part with Big Pelf should absolutely not stop this deal from happening.

——————————————————————–

The Legend of Gritty McHudson. No, it is not a lesser-known John Wayne movie. Nor it is the title of an ancient fable about a heroic Irishman. It is, however, perhaps the funniest term I have seen on here, coined by one of TRDMB’s very best and wisest commenters, Stickguy, to describe the uncanny mythology subscribed to by a very annoying minority of Met fans regarding the skills of one Orlando Hudson.

Gritty McH is clearly a good baseball player. He is a very good fielder, and a good hitter for a second baseman. However, for some completely inexplicable reason, to a small contingent of less knowledgeable Met fans, he is viewed as some sort of savior-like clubhouse presence and gritty winner. Or, as one of our friend Matt Cerrone’s sillier commenters says, “A true leader.”

Hudson spent several years in Toronto and Arizona, playing for some decent teams, and never played in one postseason game prior to 2009. When his contract was up at the end of 2008, he was pretty much universally unwanted. He signed with the one team which offered a deal, and for one year at a salary just over half of what he had earned in 2008.

He got off to a fantastic start in 2009, and his second half was impressively anemic, returning his overall offensive numbers to their career norms. To judge his worth, let’s compare him to, say, Luis Castillo. Sure, Hudson had lots more 2B and HR, and this is very valuable indeed. Slappy had 51 fewer PA than Gritty McH, and scored more runs, had only 9 fewer hits, outstole him 20-8, walked 7 more times, and struck out a whopping 41 fewer times. Slappy’s BA was 19 points higher, and his OBP was a full 30 points higher. Who is the better offensive player? Gritty has more power and thus drives in more runs, but Slappy is a better hitter for average, gets on base more, and steals more. Hudson has the clear advantage defensively.

During the stretch run of 2009, Gritty McH was benched for Ronnie Belliard; Belliard is a good player, but he is no Joe Morgan, and not someone many folks call a “great leader.” Hudson also sat on the bench for the entire 2009 postseason, gathering 4 PA in 8 games, and the Dodgers have made it pretty clear that they have no desire to bring him back.

Is this the career path of a “true leader?” Where does this ridiculous nonsense come from?

Why do any Met fans clamor to be rid of Castillo and to add Hudson? We desperately need at least one more starter, and we very much need another bullpen arm for the late innings. We also need to upgrade LF so that Angel Pagan can fulfill his destiny as a great 4th outfielder for a winning Met team. Upgrades to catcher and/or first base should be considered. Upgrading 2B by taking Gritty over Slappy to save a few million dollars is not remotely close to being a priority. Were we to take on the utter headcase and universally disliked Milton Bradley, or the less productive yet equally unwanted Jose Guillen in order to move Slappy, we would very possibly be very sorry.

Can anyone cite someone in baseball—NOT bloviating blowhards of exaggeration and fabrication like Heyman and Olney, and not bloggers or commenters on bloggers, but someone actually IN baseball—who has ever referred to Hudson in this manner, and if so, what was their reason in doing so?

I am putting out an urgent APB for someone to come forth and explain the origins of one of the great baseball myths of recent years, one largely perpetuated by Met fans with rather small baseball IQs.

——————————————————————–

The Wilpons’ decision to listen to their fan base and make significant changes to the stadium to better reflect Met history is a wonderful and most welcome decision.

Some on here and elsewhere denigrate or trivialize this, and I could not disagree more. When I went to Shea as a kid in the 1970s, it was a pretty dark and drab place, but going there with my Dad made for many childhood highlights. I remember well eating pregame at the Grill Room, the lesser restaurant near the fancier Diamond Club. Coming off the elevator, one was greeted with the 1969 WS trophy (later joined by its 1986 brother), as well as busts honoring past Met luminaries. The walls had giant pictures of Met heroes from various eras, and this area stayed this way until the end of Shea’s life.

The concourses and walkways also had randomly hung portraits of past Met greats and memorable moments, and a little-trafficked hallway leading to some elevators had a wall display of every Met yearbook. All of this served as a primer in Met history for the young Kingman in the 1970s.

It not only helped bring me and my Dad together, as I would invariably ask him question after question about who these guys were, but it helped create the sense of history and perspective so often missing among Americans today in so many areas of life.

In addition, becoming familiar with and respectful of Met history most definitely helps cement one’s allegiance to the team. Learning about the heroes of 1969 and 1973 made me long for a group of my own, just as I would hope the 1986 and 2000 teams do for today’s kids.

The Wilpons quite clearly do not love the Mets as much as many of us do, or this would have been a priority from day one of planning the team’s new home. However, they are to be commended for correcting their disappointing omissions and making amends for their surprising and unfortunate disrespect for Met history.

The Brooklyn team was ripped from the borough and carted 3000 miles away over 50 years ago by a greedy owner who had less than zero respect for a fan base which loved and supported its team for decades. The Wilpons’ change of heart will lead to countless more parent-child moments like the ones I experienced in the 1970s, it will help young fans quickly become attached to their team’s past heroes and history, it will make the youngsters even more eager to see more heroes added to the pantheon, and, most importantly to ownership, it will surely help sell more jerseys and memorabilia, and help make today’s child Met fans tomorrow’s long-term ticket buyers.

A tree may indeed grow in Brooklyn, but Met history has now been growing roots in Queens for almost half a century. Kudos to the Wilpons for correcting their error and making Citi Field what it should be—a living and breathing monument, memorial, and museum honoring the ever-changing and constantly evolving history of the New York Mets.