Blogging Mets

Well, I don’t have to worry about spelling Jeff Francoeur’s name anymore — he’s headed to Texas. The Mets have dealt the slick-fielding right fielder who never swung at a pitch he didn’t like to the Rangers for some guy named Joaquin Arias.

Arias is a utility infielder whose claim to fame is that he was the player-to-be-named-later sent to the Rangers along with Alfonso Soriano in the deal that landed the Yankees Alex Rodriguez.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Arias to do anything special – the Rangers designated him for assignment last week, so it’s not like he was a major part of that team. Just like Francoeur, he doesn’t walk and strikes out a lot — two walks and 17 strikeouts in limited duty this year, translating into a robust .290 on-base percentage. Francoeur’s is a similar .293.

While Francoeur’s bat will not be missed, the Mets defense will suffer. He had a way of picking up a ball and firing it back to the infield in one motion — I had never seen anybody do that before.

It’s kind of a shame that it didn’t work out with Francoeur. He seemed like a good guy — always with a smile on his face, or maybe that’s just because he has some extra teeth.  The fans seemed to be pulling for him, but he just couldn’t seem to find the necessary discipline at the plate. He also was apparently a good presence in the clubhouse, although that didn’t translate into wins on the field.

Francoeur told reporters, “It’s exciting, because I get the opportunity to go a team well on the way to the playoffs… It’s kind of bittersweet.  Going in to this year, I didn’t envision the year going the way it did, for me personally or for the team.  But, at the same time, I feel I came out to play hard every day.  Sometimes, yeah, I wasn’t the best, and you got frustrated.  But, you know, this is going to be a good opportunity to go play against some lefties and go to the playoffs.”

So the purge has begun.

I didn’t realize how much I missed Oliver Perez. Perez got the call in the seventh inning of Monday night’s loss to the Braves — his first appearance since August 1st. Could it have really been nearly a month since Perez took the mound for the Mets? It seemed like yesterday he was getting shelled for four runs in two innings in a 14-1 blowout against the Diamondbacks. But no, it was a month ago.

Perez didn’t disappoint in this latest appearance, serving up a massive home run to the first batter he faced, Brian McCann. Perez also walked two, but was able to get out of the inning allowing just the one run.

But then came the big disappointment — when the bottom of the eighth rolled around, Ryota Iragashi was standing on the mound. I wanted to see more of Perez. I wanted to see how just how bad he could be. Since the Mets were going to lose anyway, why not lose huge with the entertaining Perez on the mound?

Maybe Jerry Manuel thought leaving Perez in and finishing with a 15-3 loss rather than 9-3 would cost him his job. But his job is lost already. I think he is going to be fired sometime this week. It has nothing to do with Jeff Wilpon accompanying the team to Atlanta. Rather, firing Manuel will give fans the perception that the Mets are actually doing something to improve the team, and then perhaps fans will show up at Citi Field for meaningless games in September.

Maybe getting rid of Manuel this late in the season will fire-up the Mets and spark a huge run. It worked for the Brewers in 2008, costing the Mets the wild card after they collapsed. Ah, who are we kidding? Things like that only happen to the Mets, not for them.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about “blowing up” the Mets — just cleaning house and starting from scratch. The Mets do need changes, but unfortunately they are virtually unblowupable (if that’s even a word, which spellcheck tells me it’s not) because of the salaries of players they would like to unload. Some are talking about extreme measures  — trading David Wright and Jose Reyes. I am against this, but let’s take a look at the arguments.

The main argument is ”the Mets haven’t won anything with them, so what’s the difference?” It’s hard to argue with that logical fact, but I don’t think they have failed to win because of Wright and Reyes (perhaps it was because of this kind of gay pose!). I think they are part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Wright has been excoriated for his failure to hit in the clutch — Bill Price of the Daily Newscalls him “Captain Unclutch.” Yes, Wright does not always come through with the game on the line, like Mike Piazza did so often for the Mets, and like the elite players do for their teams all the time. All this proves is that Wright is not one of those “elite” players. But really, how many elite players are there in MLB at any given time? A dozen? It would be nice if Wright were one of them, but the fact that he’s not doesn’t mean he is worthless. Wright may not be at their level, but he is still an excellent ballplayer, just one step below elite. He’s good for a minimum of 25 home runs, 100 RBIs, 40 doubles, and a .300 average every year. That’s still pretty good production. Whom are they going to get to replace that? Wright remains an important piece of the Mets puzzle. Maybe he’s not the corner piece, but the puzzle can’t be completed without him.

Much has been made of Reyes’ “failure to stay healthy.” That’s a bit inaccurate. Yes, his first two years were limited by injury, but then he played four full seasons before last year’s problems. He’s had injuries this year as well, but he’ll still end up playing 130 games. There are all sorts of stats about how important Reyes is to the Mets, how when he scores the Mets win, etc. Just like with Wright, is there really anyone out there who can take Reyes’ place?

I understand the loud calls for change, and I agree with them. But Wright and Reyes are the guys the Mets should be building around. That’s been the plan all along — the Mets just picked the wrong players with whom to surround them. That’s why they need a new GM with a new vision on what players should take the field alongside Wright and Reyes.

My last apartment was on the ground floor and people walking in the courtyard could see right into my place (hell, I’ve got nothing to hide!). My friend from down the hall rang my bell one day last year just to compliment me on being a “true Mets fan.” It seems he saw through the window that I was watching a meaningless, late September Mets game against the Nationals. “Who would watch that except for a true fan?” he asked. By the way, he’s a Phillies fan. But still a good guy.

Which brings me to this season. My new apartment is on the 4th floor facing the “Hollywood” sign, so no one can see in without the help of binoculars. But if they could, they would see me watching meaningless, late September games yet again. I’m sure I won’t be the only one.

Why do we torture ourselves? Thursday night’s game can only be described as torture — 11 unanswered runs is simply unacceptable, yet somehow we accept it and watch more.

I really can’t answer for anyone else, but I think I keep watching because I just love baseball. But what’s more, I love the Mets. I get the MLB Extra Innings package — I can watch any game I want, maybe even a game that features two good teams instead of the Mets and Marlins. But I really have no interest in any other teams but the Mets. I’ve invested the entire season with this team, not to mention my entire baseball life. I’m not about to turn away now, regardless of how poorly they are playing.

How about you? Will you keep watching, or will you turn off the TV and go out and enjoy your life?

How about that?! The Mets finally win a game they trailed after seven innings (I think that’s what Gary Cohen said), and it’s Luis Castillo, of all people, to lead them into that promised land. Everybody’s least favorite Met came through with a soft liner to right to score Ike Davis with the winning run in the bottom of the ninth.

The hit bailed out R.A. Dickey, who pitched well yet again, except for allowing a three-run home run to Gaby Sanchez in the seventh to put the Marlins ahead 5-4. It was sort of a repeat of his game in Houston, where he let up a game-tying homer in the ninth inning, a game the Mets went on to win in the 14th.

Dickey’s seven innings Tuesday got him over the amount of innings pitched needed to qualify for the ERA crown. His 2.64 puts him seventh in the National League. Roy Halladay leads the way at 2.16. Johan Santana, by the way, is tenth at 2.94.

Speaking of stats, Angel Pagan went four-for-five, including a hustle-double to set up the tying run in the eighth, raising his average on the season to .301. That’s good enough for tenth in the NL. Pagan also stole a base — his 31 steals are tied for second in the league behind Michael Bourn’s 42. What’s more, Pagan’s seven triples leaves him one behind the leaders.

Oh, and David Wright is sixth in RBIs with 81.

So as we watch the Mets play out the string, at least there are some statistical battles some Mets can wage.

In addition to being a great time-waster, YouTube is also a treasure-trove of old Mets videos. I will be featuring the most interesting ones from time to time.

This first one has the late Bob Murphy hawking a new offering from former Mets sponsor Reingold beer — seven ounce beers. Even the great Murphy couldn’t make this ill-conceived product work.

Enjoy: 

One of the first things I did when I moved to Los Angeles was to look into the MLB Extra Innings package, to make sure I could watch my Mets games. The first two seasons, DIRECTV only offered one feed of each game, so sometimes I would get the Mets broadcasts, sometimes the out of town team. Then for two seasons I got both feeds, so I always got to watch Gary, Keith and Ron.

I moved in the middle of this season from my luxury, celebrity-laden (for example, Chris Rock, Tracy Morgan, Erin Andrews, the super-hot and super-nice Rebecca Mader, who played Charlotte on “LOST,” and the only celebrity with whom I was actually on speaking terms) apartment complex to a more modest (read: cheaper) building. I an now a Time Warner customer, and it only offers one feed of each game. So half the time I don’t get the Mets broadcasts. I had forgotten just how bad some of those broadcasts are.

Now, I’ll admit, I am a bit of a New York media snob. I am of the opinion that the best TV talent goes to New York, leaving smaller markets with inferior broadcasters. You’d be surprised by the steep drop-off in talent between local news anchors and reporters in New York and Los Angeles, which is still the number two market in the country. You’d think the talent level here would be high. Trust me, it is not.

I didn’t think it would be the same way with baseball. Think about it — there are 30 teams, and with three or four broadcasters per team, there are, what, like 100 of these highly-coveted jobs in the country? You’d think everybody would be of the highest quality, regardless of whether they are are in New York or Cleveland. Alas, I was wrong.

Some of these broadcasters are just horrible. Even now, I am watching the Pirates broadcast — two of the most boring men you’d ever want to listen to. Many of them are just dull as dishwater. Others are just plain bad. Mark Grace, who does color for the Diamondbacks, comes off as just a jerk, which was a bit of a surprise. Steve Lyons, who does some of the road games for the Dodgers, is among the worst. But THE worst is Rob Dibble of the Nationals. He’s just a class-A a-hole.

Aside from the talent level, I was shocked by the homerism of these broadcasts. Growing up in New York, we are used to broadcasters who are objective. They might have a slight bias for the home team — that is to be expected. But they don’t openly root for the team. That is not the case outside of New York. They take no steps to hide their feelings. I’ve heard things like:

– “Cardinals 2, bad guys 1″
– “We’ll be right back — let’s get some runs!”
– “Get out of here!! Go!! Go!!” when their guy hits a long drive.

There is also the constant use of “we” and “us. I guess this is the norm outside of New York, but it is a little jarring when you’re not used to it.

Which is not to say every broadcast team is horrible. It was a pleasure watching the Baltimore feed of the Mets-Orioles interleague series. Gary Thorne, who was excellent when he worked for the Mets and for my money is the best play-by-play guy in the business, was paired with Jim Palmer, who is just as good doing color. But other than that, no one else really stands out in my mind.

Which brings us to ancient Vin Scully, who on Sunday announced he is coming back for his 272nd season behind the mike for the Dodgers. He is a legend here in Los Angeles, the same way New Yorkers revere Ralph Kiner, Marv Albert, and the late Bob Murphy and Phil Rizzuto. But in my opinion, Scully is horrible.

Perhaps I’ve never forgiven him for his work during the 1988 NLCS, when calling the games for NBC, he was openly hostile towards the Mets and clearly biased for his Dodgers. If the Mets had won that series like they were supposed to, maybe I wouldn’t be so bitter. But they didn’t, so I am.

But I find Scully unlistenable. He works alone, which means he has to keep talking. He’s got “diarrhea of the mouth” syndrome, in which he just spews whatever comes to mind. Much of this is babbling nonsense, stories that Angelenos find charming for some reason. He does have a pretty good sense of humor, though. When he said a player was out with what he thought was a rightgroin pull, he said, “Well, if I’m wrong, I’m only off by one.” Aside from the occasional humorous comment or anecdote, Scully is way, way overrated. GQjust named him the best baseball broadcaster in an article that had Gary, Keith and Ron number two. I’m sure I’m in the minority when I say this, but don’t believe the Scully hype, folks.

Since word broke of Roger Clemens’ indictment on perjury charges, we’ve been hearing how he brought this on himself — not by lying, but by insisting on testifying before Congress. We hear how Clemens was offered the chance not to appear, but he demanded it in an attempt to clear his name. This in not entirely accurate, and I don’t think it is being reported clearly in the media.

Clemens went on the offensive days after the Mitchell report named him as a steroid user. He went on “60 Minutes,” held a news conference, and posted a YouTube video proclaiming his innocence. That was certainly his right if he felt he was wrongly accused.

But then Congress jumped into action. “The Mitchell report has been called into question,” said former Rep. Tom Davis, who was the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and a former Clemens supporter. “We were invested in the Mitchell report, and it was important historically to show that the Mitchell report was correct.”

Why would Congress be” invested” in a report by a private individual (Mitchell), representing a private enterprise (MLB)? That is an excellent question. It probably has something to do with the government’s role in this private matter. As Forbes magazine writes in an article titled “The Roger Clemens Witch Hunt”:

Mitchell got to interview some individuals due to the coercive powers of federal prosecutors. In other words, federal prosecutors used their immense and special power to get witnesses to talk to Mitchell and tell him things. Mitchell says at one point in his report that these interviews were arranged through the “assistance of federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents.”

Was this appropriate? I don’t know, but the end result is that government had a stake in the report, hence Davis’ comment that Congress was “invested” in the report.

In any case, the Committee called for a hearing, and deposed, among other people, Clemens, his main accuser and former trainer Brian McNamee, and Andy Pettitte. After the depositions were taken, Davis said the Committee decided it had enough information, and decided the hearing was unnecessary, telling Clemens he wouldn’t have to testify at an open hearing. “We’ll give you a chance to clear your name, but you don’t have to do this,” Davis said he told Clemens and his legal team.

But Davis said Clemens insisted, and the hearing went on. Pettitte was also given a choice, and he decided not to testify.

Clemens’ lawyer, Rusty Hardin, has a very different view on the events. ESPN writes:

“Let me tell you what a hypocrite he is,” Hardin told ESPN.com’s Mike Fish, referring to Davis. “The week before the public hearings we give a deposition. So when they say Roger demanded a hearing — he didn’t demand a hearing. Everybody finished their depositions. Waxman [Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat and committee chairman] is getting a lot of pressure at that stage from the Democrats. We’re going around to all their offices. Nobody wanted a hearing.

“On Friday afternoon [four days before the hearing], Waxman gets the affidavit from Andy [Pettitte] that has Andy more definite than he was in his deposition. And in return for that he tells Andy he doesn’t have to testify.

“Then they announce to us at 3 o’clock that Friday, ‘Roger can decline to testify if he wants to and we won’t have the hearing. We’ll just issue a majority [Democratic] report. And the minority, the minority [Republican] is saying to us staff, ‘Here is what [Waxman] is going to do. What they’re going to do is hammer [Clemens]. They’re going to refer him to Justice.’ So nobody would have heard Roger [if he didn't appear at the hearing].

“So Tom Davis, who I saw on TV last night, comes down to us, calls us aside and urges us to have Roger testify. And now that son of a bitch is on TV saying that Roger insisted upon it.”

Davis is sticking to his story, telling The New York Times that the committee probably would not have asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Clemens had lied if he had not chosen to appear at the televised hearing. “If he let it go at the deposition level, I don’t think we would have referred it,” Davis said. “But when it’s high profile like that, you can’t let it go. And we didn’t.”

That’s a bit hypocritical if you ask me. Why is lying in a deposition better than lying in a televised hearing?  Lying in a deposition is just as illegal — Martha Stewart and Bill Clinton will attest to that.  The fact of the matter is that Clemens had already given the deposition prior to his infamous public testimony, so he had nothing to lose by testifying at the hearing. It’s easy for Davis to say now that they wouldn’t have referred the case to the Justice Department based solely on the deposition, but he probably would have been pressured to do so by his grandstanding Committee colleagues.

Obviously, Clemens could have avoided all of this all by telling the truth — and who’s to say he didn’t? The evidence against him looks strong, but it’ll be up to a jury to decide if he’s lying or not.

But to say that Clemens brought this on himself by “insisting” on testifying in nonsense. Yes, it might have been his option to have the hearing, but it was Congress who deposed him and forced him to tell his story, which could have resulted in the same charges. If Congress would have kept its nose out of what is essentially a private affair, Clemens would never have had to testify under oath, and he and McNamee could have battled it out in the media or in a civil court.

This should not be read as a defense of Clemens. As a Mets fan, I am obviously not a Clemens booster. But I don’t think the way this is being reported is fair to him. This was yet another example of publicity-seeking members of Congress getting involved in matters that they shouldn’t, and Clemens got caught up in it, unfortunately for him, as it turns out.

Let’s face it — 2010 is over for the New York Mets. It’s time to start looking towards 2011, and what the Mets can do to make this a better club. By all accounts, with attendance down and the potential Madoff loses still a mystery, the Wilpons do not want to expand the payroll over this year’s $126 million.  If that is indeed the case, the Mets are in bad shape.  They owe nearly $120 million to just ten players next season. That includes the likely pick-up of Jose Reyes’ $11 million option, and a $10 million raise in Jason Bay’s contract. Thanks to the good folks at Cot’s Contracts, these are the Mets obligations for 2011:

Johan Santana: $22.5 million
Carlos Beltran: $20.071 million
Jason Bay: $18.125 million
David Wright: $14.25 million
Francisco Rodriguez: $12.167 million    
Oliver Perez: $12 million
Jose Reyes: $ 11 million
Luis Castillo: $6.25 million
Ryota Igarashi: $1.750 million
(Gary Matthews, Jr. $1 million)
TOTAL  $119.263 million

Here’s what it looks like if they round out the team with their current players:

Unsigned with estimated 2011 salaries:
Pedro Feliciano: $3 million
Angel Pagan: $3 million
Hisanori Takahashi: $2 million
R.A. Dickey: $2 million
Mike Pelfrey: $2 million
Jon Niese: $1 million
Henry Blanco: $1 million
Elmer Dessens: $1 million
Mike Hessman: $500,000
Daniel Murphy: $500,000
Chris Carter: $500,000
Ike Davis: $500,000
Pat Misch: $500,000
Bobby Parnell: $500,000
Ruben Tejada: $500,000
Josh Thole: $500,000
TOTAL: $19 million

That’s $138.263 million — let’s call it $138 million to make life easier. That’s $12 million more than this year. If the Mets can get rid of Perez’s and Castillo’s contracts, all of their problems will be solved. But for the sake of this exercise (as well as reality), let’s assume that will be impossible. The Mets’ dream of dumping K-Rod’s contract will also not be considered here.

So, do the Mets have any way of improving this club and chopping the payroll? I say, uh, maybe. It has to begin with Carlos Beltran. Beltran’s $20 million is a luxury the limited-budget Mets can no longer afford. It’s a luxury most teams can’t afford — except for the Red Sox, who need a centerfielder. I propose they swap Beltran for Daisuke Matsuzaka. The Red Sox are rich with starting pitching, and have cheaper alternatives that Dice-K. He is a back-of-the-rotation guy for the Sox — he would be the number two guy in Flushing. Matsuzaka makes $10 million each of the next two seasons, so the money is a wash. But it gives the Mets $10 million of flexibility in 2011.

Now the Mets need a centerfielder. I don’t think Angel Pagan is the answer. He has been excellent this season — perhaps the team’s MVP — but I think he is overachieving, and will come down to earth next season. Let’s hope the Dodgers think I’m wrong, because I propose trading Pagan and a top prospect for Matt Kemp. Kemp appears to be falling out of favor in Los Angeles, and his agent has suggested a trade. Kemp, whom I think is a superstar in the making,  is signed for $7 million for 2011. I estimate Pagan will end up with about $3 million, giving the divorcing McCourts a much needed $4 million in savings. However, it’s $4 million more for the Mets.

For right field, I say sign Carl Crawford or Adam Dunn, praying the Mets can get one of them for $10 million per season. That figure could be a pipe dream, but let’s go with that number for now.

So what started as a $138 million payroll has jumped to $142 with my moves — the wrong direction. Now I have $16 million to cut. Getting rid of Pedro Feliciano, who is an overrated, situational luxury the Mets cannot afford, would save $3 million. Having Omir Santos as a backup instead of Henry Blanco saves around a million. That leaves $12 million to go, with not much easily trimmable fat.

Remember when I said I wouldn’t consider the possibility of getting rid of Perez, Castillo or Rodriguez? Well, I’m considering it now. Perhaps the Mets can find a team that just absolutely loves one of their prospects, and they can force them to take Perez or Castillo as part of the deal. Or maybe the Mets win their grievance with K-Rod. That’s actually a more realistic possibility. If none of these things happens, Dunn or Crawford in right will not happen either, and the Mets will go with Fernando Martinez or another low-cost option. It shows just how damaging the Perez and Castillo deals are.

Whatever happens, it’s going to be a long off season for the Mets. They will need to be very creative in order to build a winning team. Being creative is not Omar Minaya’s forte, which is why I think it is imperative that he be removed as GM. If not, 2011 will be yet another lost season.

It appears we’ve seen the last of Francisco Rodriguez in a Mets uniform. Following surgery Tuesday to repair the right thumb he injured while pummeling his girlfriend’s father (allegedly, cough cough), the Mets put him on the disqualified list rather than the disabled list. This move means the Mets won’t have to pay the rest of his $3 million salary this season.

But more importantly, the Mets are attempting to make the rest of his contract non-guaranteed. This would allow the Mets to cut K-Rod in spring training, owing him just severance pay of 30 or 45 days and saving most of his $11.5 million salary.

Omar Minaya says the Mets want K-Rod back next season, but I don’t think it will be his call to make, if he’s even around next season. The Mets owe nearly $120 million to just ten players for 2011, assuming they pick up Jose Reyes’ $11 million option. By all accounts, the Mets don’t want to go over this year’s payroll of around $130 million, so there is not much room to rebuild this flawed team. Eliminating Rodriguez’s salary will give the Mets a little more wiggle room to improve the team. Of course, they’ll still need a closer, but perhaps they can get one cheaper.

The Mets shouldn’t count their savings so soon — the Players Association says it will file a grievance against all of this. Players usually win these kinds of  grievances, but I’m not so sure this time. K-Rod reportedly admitted to team trainers that he hurt his thumb during the (alleged) fight, which means it happened during a non-baseball event. Remember, the Yankees were able to void Aaron Boone’s contract after he hurt himself playing basketball, clearing a spot for Alex Rodriguez on the team.

I predict the Mets will win this battle. Whether they decide to cut him in spring training will depend on what they are able to do in the off season. But I think K-Rod is a goner.

*****

Oh good, that report I saw that the Mets would recall Sean Green to replace Rodriguez did not turn out to be true. Ryota Igarashi will take his place instead. Bullet dodged, for the moment, anyway.

*****

Can anyone explain Jerry Manuel’s recent handling of Ike Davis? Manuel has benched him for one game in each of the past four series against left handers. Leaving out for the moment that Davis actually has a higher batting average (but less power) against lefties than righties, Davis is a big part of this team’s future. He’s got to learn to hit lefties, if he indeed has a problem with them. This season is over. The Mets need to look ahead to next year. Let Davis make his mistakes this year and learn from them, then start fresh and smart next year. This is just another example of Manuel’s poor decision-making. Fortunately, he won’t be around next season to make more of them.