One the surface, making Parnell more or less untouchable seems a bit silly, but I'm pretty okay with it.  Parnell is cheap, young, controllable, and by far the best reliever we have.  The best teams in our division have bullpens that are headlined by relatively cheap, young relievers.  We'd be in much better shape if we had more of them.

I'm a firm believer you don't pay big bucks for relievers, but I do think there's plenty of value in building a bullpen around pitchers who are relatively cheap, young, and controllable.  Parnell has a ton of value in that regard, at least as far as relievers are concerned.

I don't see why you would move Parnell....it's not often that teams are bowled over by a trade offer for a reliever, especially one who hasn't grabbed the "closer" label yet.

I can't imagine he'd have significantly more value to another team than he has to us.

acesfull86 wrote: I don't see why you would move Parnell....it's not often that teams are bowled over by a trade offer for a reliever, especially one who hasn't grabbed the "closer" label yet.

I can't imagine he'd have significantly more value to another team than he has to us.

Agreed....seems like the type of guy we'd be looking for?

Kooos wrote:

acesfull86 wrote: I don't see why you would move Parnell....it's not often that teams are bowled over by a trade offer for a reliever, especially one who hasn't grabbed the "closer" label yet.

I can't imagine he'd have significantly more value to another team than he has to us.

Agreed....seems like the type of guy we'd be looking for?

Yeah, I mean I would move him, but he's one of those guys who is basically rendered untouchable because the type of offer you'd have to get would be unrealistic to ever expect (especially at a position where there always seems to be a lot of options for teams -- I doubt there is a team that truly covets Bobby Parnell).

It makes little sense to trade him unless overwhelmed.
It´s a somewhat similar situation with Jon Niese.
Why trade a team-controlled semi young above average pitcher at a modest salary who took a step forward in 2012 ?

Unlike possibly trading RA Dickey, a year away from free agency and possibly a massive contract, Parnell & Niese are two fine pitchers to build around.

Of course, if Parnell is this generations "Neil Allen" (i.e. the best reliever in a dark time), maybe he can eventually be traded for the next "Keith Hernandez"...

Don't think he should be considered untouchable as if someone out there is really bullish given his velocity, the you certainly listen. Otherwise I'm happy to keep him on as a quality, and affordable, low-leverage arm, and certainly acceptable as such.

now is it teh Mets or the other MLB teams that have called him untouchable? Another year of Parnell messes on the way.

considering Parnell untouchable is absurd.

DuffyDyer wrote: considering Parnell untouchable is absurd.

Agreed.

I would agree that he likely isn't worth trading given the small return he would likely net in relation to his potential value with the team... but to say "untouchable"? C'mon

BelieveInMetsMagic wrote:

DuffyDyer wrote: considering Parnell untouchable is absurd.

Agreed.

I would agree that he likely isn't worth trading given the small return he would likely net in relation to his potential value with the team... but to say "untouchable"? C'mon

$

The actual wording in the Rubin article is that Parnell "appears virtually untouchable" according to a "major league source."

Who the heck knows what that really means. Some team could have inquired and came away thinking that the price was too high to motivate the Mets to make a deal (which it should be).

IMO, there's no point getting too hung up on a label.

just keep him out of the 8th/9th innings and he will be tolerable

BelieveInMetsMagic wrote:

DuffyDyer wrote: considering Parnell untouchable is absurd.

Agreed.

I would agree that he likely isn't worth trading given the small return he would likely net in relation to his potential value with the team... but to say "untouchable"? C'mon

Aren't we talking semantics here?  Does anyone actually believe the Mets would turn down a more valuable player for Parnell?  Saying a player is "untouchable" is a way of saying, we aren't looking to move him because he's more valuable to us than he is to you.  

It's not like teams even listen to these statements.  No GM hears that and says, "well, ****, I'd be willing to give up a top prospect for Parnell, but Sandy said he's untouchable so we might as well not even try."  That would be absurd.

DocK16 wrote:

BelieveInMetsMagic wrote:

DuffyDyer wrote: considering Parnell untouchable is absurd.

Agreed.

I would agree that he likely isn't worth trading given the small return he would likely net in relation to his potential value with the team... but to say "untouchable"? C'mon

Aren't we talking semantics here?  Does anyone actually believe the Mets would turn down a more valuable player for Parnell?  Saying a player is "untouchable" is a way of saying, we aren't looking to move him because he's more valuable to us than he is to you.  

It's not like teams even listen to these statements.  No GM hears that and says, "well, ****, I'd be willing to give up a top prospect for Parnell, but Sandy said he's untouchable so we might as well not even try."  That would be absurd.

No that isn't semantics. 

Not looking to trade and untouchable are 2 completely different things. 

Untouchable means untouchable. 

With that said...sounds like the Mets never actually SAID he is untouchable, it was likely just an expression someone made to display how steep the Mets asking price was (ie. "the dude is basically untouchable")

Every Met on the team is tradable. Wheeler is the only one who might be considered un-touchable, but not Parnell. Parnell failed as a starting pitcher and got bombed as our Closer.

Go Mets...Cyborg

"Wheeler is the only one who might be considered un-touchable"

Wheeler for Mike Trout. Is he still unavailable?