Counterpost: A Risk Worth Taking

Hey everyone, A Friend of Mr. Glass' here. So it's decision time, is it? Heilman-Bannister. The day has finally arrived.

First things first, we can all agree that this is a good problem to have. Unlike the days when has-beens Scott Erickson, James Baldwin, David Cone and (the admittedly unforeseeably) never-was Tyler Yates battled it out for spots in the rotation, Aaron Heilman and Brian Bannister appear to be two honest-to-goodness prospects who could have roles on the Mets for years to come.

You can't fit two into one, however, and with the Mets' all but completely unaccountable decision that Victor Zambrano will be the team's fourth starter, you're looking at one of these guys getting the nod over the other for the fifth spot in the rotation they both covet.

So who's it gonna be? Without having read Sip's piece, I'll assume his argument goes something like this: as good as Heilman has been this spring as a starter, he's more valuable in a bullpen that desperately needs a third reliable arm.

Let's examine that bullpen, shall we? In spite of his injured finger, Billy Wagner is Billy Wagner. He's one of the best closers in the game until proven otherwise, and we're all confident in his ability to close it out in the ninth. Based on his solid (if not awe-inspiring) track record, his WBC performance, and his awesome goggles, confidence is also high in Duaner Sanchez.

But one guy no one is confident in is Jorge Julio. Depending on who you talk to, this guy is either a latter day Armando Benitez or the second coming of Mel Rojas. In spite of the former's regular season success, this is not confidence-inspiring company for any Mets fan.

Combine the uncertainty over Julio with the Mets' lack of a proven left-handed specialist and the age and somewhat questionable talents of our starting pitchers, and many a fan is left wondering whether we've got the horses to get us through innings 7, 8, and 9 with a bullpen consisting of Wagner, Sanchez, Armando Rojas Julio, and a bunch of other misfits.

With all that in mind, these fans conclude that it makes more sense to have Heilman in the bullpen. As has been written on this site and others many times before, Heilman was brilliant out of the pen last year, particularly in the second half of the season.

So why mess with a good thing? Why not plug Bannister into the fifth starter spot and leave Heilman in the role in which he excelled?

In all fairness to Bannister, who certainly deserves the good long look he's received this spring based on his performance last year and the numbers he's put up in Spring Training thus far, I'm not sold on him starting the year in the rotation as the best option.

Yes, he's done extremely well in Spring Training, but it goes without saying that the competition in Spring Training is not the same as the regular season, especially this year when many lineups were without their biggest hitters courtesy of the World Baseball Classic.

The reason I support Heilman in the rotation is that I think he's got more upside than Bannister and becuase I have more confidence in the bullpen than other people do. I hate to ape another blogger, but Mike Oliver made a great point over at MetsGeek today: "As much as I like Bannister," Oliver wrote, "I do not envision him outperforming Heilman in the rotation. The Mets need a starter at this point more than a reliever."

Ask yourself this question: do I expect Brian Bannister to be better over 30 starts than Aaron Heilman? If the answer is no, why not see if Heilman can turn his dominating bullpen stuff into dominating starter stuff? Nobody ever saw a fantastic reliever and said, Man, if I could choose between having that stuff for 1 inning a game or 7 innings a game, I'd choose 1 inning game.

And yet this is the decision the Bannister boosters are making with Heilman. They probably point to his track record as a starter and say he's never had success. First off, that's not entirely true. He's shown flashes. His 1-hitter against Florida last year comes to mind. Second, anybody who's watched Heilman over the years saw that he was a better, more confident pitcher in 2005 than he ever was before (at least in his time as a Met).

So I say, give the guy who limited opposing batters to a .223 average and a Mr. Glass-like .299 on-base percentage a chane to do his thing as a starter.

You don't want to make it open-ended, find. Give him a 6-start test run. If he falters, you've given Bannister a chance to further prove himself at Triple A, and Heilman won't feel like he's getting gypped out of a spot he deserved.

Besides, our bullpen really isn't as shaky as people seem to believe. Sanchez and Wagner get us through 8 and 9 pretty comfortably. If a big lefty comes in with a couple runners on and Sanchez on the mound, just hand Wagner the ball and let him record a 4- or 5-out save if necessary.

Besides those two, you've got a pretty capable corps between Julio, Chad Bradford, and potentially Royce Ring to get you through the 7th. Is it the best bullpen in the league? No. Does its success hinge on Heilman? No. It's better with Heilman, but the rotation is better with Heilman if he can translate his bullpen success into starting success, and the rotation is more important.

Heilman's earned the chance to take the position. If he's anywhere near as good as he was in the pen last year you're looking at at least a No. 3 starter, and possible a No. 2. If he can't hold it up, the worst thing that happens is you move him to the bullpen and call up Bannister.

It may not be pretty in April and May if Heilman doesn't deliver on his promise, but at the end of the day it's a risk worth taking.

- A.F.O.M.G.