Blogging Mets

What could have been a season-long controversy and distraction ended quietly in Port St. Lucie on Monday — Carlos Beltran ceded control of center field to his protege, Angel Pagan.

After two weeks of trying, it became clear to Beltran that he just couldn’t make it in center, and that his surgically-repaired knees would be better off in right. He approached Terry Collins in the morning and to make it official.

“In my heart, I still feel like I can play center field, but based on the situation with my knee, it’s better that Pagan be the center fielder,” said Beltran.

For his part, Pagan had mixed feelings about taking his fellow Puerto Rican’s spot.

“He’s a big mentor for me, and I wanted him to be 100 percent and be able to play center field,” Pagan said. “But now that he has given me that opportunity, I’m really grateful to be next to him. I feel really fortunate to be passed this torch to the player I have always looked up to.”

This does not mean all is well with Beltran. He’s still working on strengthening his knees, and isn’t scheduled to play in an exhibition game until next week at the earliest.

*****

This could be the best news Mets fans have heard in a while — Bobby Valentine could end up in the Mets owners box.

ESPNNewYork.com is reporting that Valentine has spoken with financial backers and is considering a bid for the stake of the team the Wilpons are offering.

Valentine kind-of sort-of confirmed the report.

“I’ve talked to a number of people interested in purchasing part of the New York Mets, but I’m not formally with any group that is actively pursuing this venture,” Valentine said.

Even though he would be a minority partner and would not have final say, having Valentine’s voice in the front office can only help the Mets. He is one of the top evaluators of baseball talent you’ll ever find. Let’s hope this comes to pass.

He was only a Met for a year, but Duke Snider, who died Sunday at age 84, was a towering figure in  New York baseball. Often overlooked as the third best of the “Willie, Mickey and the Duke” triumvirate, Snider could hold his own with those other two greats.

Snider hit 40 home runs in five consecutive years — neither Willie nor the Mick did that. In fact, the only other players to do it in more consecutive years were Babe Ruth (seven), and Sammy Sosa and Alex Rodriguez (six), the latter two with a little alleged help from PEDs.

In his prime (roughly 1949-1959), Snider was an All-Star for seven consecutive years, and although he never won an MVP, he finished in the top 10 six times.

The Dodgers sold Snider to the Mets in 1963 when he was 36 years old. He batted just .243 with 14 home runs and 45 RBIs. But he made the All Star team that year — the best of a bad bunch of Mets.

He played one more season with the Giants, finishing with 407 home runs, which was good enough to be in the top 10 all time when he retired. Inexplicably, it took him eleven years to be elected to the Hall of Fame.

Snider will of course be remembered as a Dodger — arguably the best hitter in the team’s history — but his one year in a Mets uniform should not be forgotten.

One of the biggest question marks for the Mets entering the 2011 season is the rotation. It looks pretty weak now, but if everything goes right it could end up to be a major strength.

Mike Pelfrey, Jonathon Niese and R.A. Dickey are the three stalwarts of the rotation. Chris Young will be the fourth starter, and Dillon Gee and Chris Capuano will battle it out for the fifth spot. I would like to see Gee get the chance. He could be an important part of the Mets future, while Capuano is clearly just a rental. Why waste time with him?

So let’s say the starting five pitches reasonably well in the first half of the season. And let’s say Johan Santana comes back healthy and Jenrry Mejia is tearing up Triple-A (Terry Collins said on Wednesday he could envision Mejia joining the team sometime during the summer).

Suddenly the Mets could have seven solid starters

Of course, this is assuming a lot. It is assuming Dickey was not a one-year phenomenon, Niese can continue his progression, the “good” Pelfrey shows up, Young can stay healthy and Gee can pitch at the big league level. And that Santana can come back and that Mejia can tear-up Triple-A.

“The Mets” and “a strong rotation” — when was the last time those two phrases went together?

The 1986 Mets theme song “Let’s Go Mets Go,” featuring a blurry Howard Stern at the end:

The Wilpons’ insistence that they didn’t know Bernie Madoff was running a Ponzie scheme is getting support from the man himself. In a prison interview with The New York Times, Madoff said his old friends Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz had no idea Madoff’s dealings were a scam.

“They knew nothing,” Madoff told the newspaper. “They knew nothing.”

Sure, Madoff is a lying, thieving scumbag, but this statement could only help the Wilpons in their battle with trustee Irving Picard.

*****

The Times was busy with Mets ownership-related news on Tuesday. It also reports that Wilpon called Donald Trump to set up a meeting to discuss the possibility of Trump buying a minority share of the Mets. Trump said he’s not interested in being a minority owner. However, he would be interested in buying a majority share.

“The Wilpons are friends of mine, and I really hope it works out great for them,” Trump said. “But if anything doesn’t work out for them, I’d be interested in the team.”

Then the Queens native spoke in the third person, indicating he’s gearing up for an entrance to the world of sports where everyone talks in the third person.

“If you look at Trump’s record, he is only interested in things he can control,” Trump said.

Trump was involved in sports before — he owned the New Jersey Generals in the short-lived USFL in the mid-1980s.

Never let it be said that Oliver Perez doesn’t dream big. Not content with sitting in the bullpen collecting dust and his $12 million, Perez has asked to be given the chance to crack the Mets rotation. And the Mets said yeah, sure, why not.

Perez Met with manager Terry Collins and GM Sandy Alderson in Port St. Lucie on Monday to talk about the plan for Perez during spring training.

“We talked about where did he feel he could help us most,” Collins said. “He’s raring to go. He said he feels great and is determined to put the last couple of years away. He said, ‘I want a chance to make this club as a starting pitcher.’ I said, ‘You’ll get that opportunity. If it’s not working we’ll talk about it as we get into camp and we can always make the switch.’”

Collin said he told Perez (left, in a familiar scene — being taken out of a game) that “maybe you need a fresh start.”

“I mean, I have all the numbers. I’ve heard all the stories. Now I’m going to make my own evaluation,” Collins said. “No disrespect to anyone else and what I’ve heard about him. I believe that they’re all good baseball people. But, you know what? People do change sometimes. Ollie, he pitched winter ball when he didn’t have to. This guy has got 11, 12 years in the big leagues (actually, it’s nine) and pitched winter ball. He didn’t have to do that. He wants to find it. He wants to regain what he was. And I salute that.”

The Mets really have nothing to lose here. They have to pay him anyway, so why not give him a shot? Maybe Perez will shock us all. It is his contract year, after all. If he ever wants to sign another one, he’ll have to have a good season. Players sometimes perform above their ability in their walk year (see Beltre, Adrian). Perhaps the Mets can finally recoup some of their $36 million investment.

If not, they can just cut him loose. Either way, Mets fans win.

One of the themes we will invariably hear about during spring training is that Jose Reyes must prove he is healthy and can remain healthy. That is a lot of hogwash — Jose Reyes is just fine.

All of this goes back to Reyes’s first two years with the Mets. His first season ended a month early with an injury suffered while sliding into second base. His second season was marred with injuries because the Mets messed with his mechanics. Because he was injured when he was so young (20-21), the “fragile” label was hung around his neck.

People seem to forget that the following four seasons were injury free, missing just 15 games over that span. 2009 was of course a lost year. Last season he missed the first week with that thyroid problem, but then he was relatively healthy the rest of the year, missing some time with various injuries that are not uncommon to a baseball player over the course of a grueling season. He ended up playing 133 games — fewer than everyone would have liked, yes, but certainly enough that it should have to dispelled the feeling that he is constantly on the mend.

Yet it was not. That “fragile” label continues to hang around his neck, and it really isn’t fair. Reyes is not like Moises Alou and Cliff Floyd, for example, who were fragile and were always injured.  Just for the record, Alou played as many as 133 games in only seven of his 17 seasons;  as for Floyd, he did it a shocking low four times. Reyes has already done it five times in his eight seasons.

However, I understand that randomly picking two players and using an arbitrary statistic does not predict health and success for Reyes. I am just using them as an example to show that Reyes does not fit the profile of a “fragile” player, and that stories about his “health problems” are greatly exaggerated.

Jews have a certain obsession with finding out if other people are Jewish. I once read a good explanation as to why this is so: unlike other minority groups (like blacks or Asians, for example), you can’t tell if someone is Jewish just by looking at them. Hence asking the question: I wonder if he or she is Jewish? As a baseball fan and a Jew, I was no doubt thrilled when I received as a Christmas gift (oh, the irony) the book “The Baseball Talmud,” with the tagline ” The Definitive Position-by-Position Ranking of Baseball’s Chosen Players” by Howard Megdal.

Of course, when it comes to baseball, the answer to that question is virtually always “no.” The  book points out that as of July 25, 2008, of the 16,696 who have played in the major leagues, “fewer than 160 of them were Jewish.” Why Megdal gave us the exactly number of MLB players but couldn’t tell us the exact number of Jews is baffling.

It wasn’t the only thing baffling in this book, which ultimately left me disappointed. For one thing, Megdal relies on sabermetrics, which regular readers of this site know I hate.

As his tagline indicates, Megdal organized the book by position. I have no problem with that. But he listed everyplayer at every position, giving each a short statistical biography. Do I care that some guy named Bill Starr who played in the 1930s was the 15th best Jewish catcher? By the way, he ranked just ahead of Bob Berman, the only fellow with that excellent surname to play in the majors.

What I think he should have done was give a more in-depth biography of just the top five at each position, giving us an idea of who that player was instead of just giving us his numbers. It would have been nice to know how it felt to be a Jew in the big leagues, whether they faced discrimination or the taunts of intolerant players and fans. Then he could have just listed the rest with their stats.

The other problem, which was not Megdal’s fault, is that Jews have not really made much of an impact on the game. At the beginning of the book, Megdal ranked the Top 10 Jewish players of all time. The list slides precipitously downhill after you get past the top two (Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax). I mean, former Met Shawn Green is number four, and he was an average ballplayer at best.

Maybe there just wasn’t a book here at all. Given the limited material, I think strong, emotional biographies of the players were needed to make the book interesting. Unfortunately, Megdal did not choose that route.

Back on December 13th, I wrote a column on the speculation that the Rangers might sign Adrian Beltre and might look to trade Michael Young. I said if that happens, the Mets should try to get him and plant him at second base. Well, it has happened, and I am here to say again that the Mets should get him.

I proposed sending Carlos Beltran and Luis Castillo to the Rangers for Young, who is due $48 million over the next three years. With those two players owed $24.5 million in the last years of their deals, the trade would save the Rangers (and cost the Mets) $23.5 million. I stick by that deal.

The New York Post’s Joel Sherman, who usually writes good, insightful stuff, on Wednesday proposed what I think is a ludicrous trade — send Jason Bay to the Rangers for Young. Then he writes that the Mets shouldn’t even keep Young — rather, he should be flipped for prospects.

There are so many problems with Sherman’s idea. First off, what makes Sherman thinks it would be so easy to flip Young, especially when it appears the Rangers are having problems dealing him?

But more importantly, why is Sherman giving up on Bay? The Mets will need him over the next three years to be the power in the middle of the lineup if they have any hopes of contending. Unless the Mets think six home runs is the new normal for Bay, it would be crazy to trade him. And I don’t think anybody believes that.

It is interesting that Sherman rationalizes the trade by saying the Rangers are still looking for a DH-type, yet never mentions the possibility of Beltran, whose knees could benefit from a few days out of the outfield. He would also be cheaper in the long run. Maybe Sherman just hates Bay!

This could all be moot because Young has a limited no-trade clause under which he can name eight teams to which he would accept a trade. The Mets are not on that list. The Yankees are, which means while he is not adverse to playing in New York, he is against playing in Queens.

As far as changing his list, Young told ESPN, “As of right now, no. But I think those things are handled on a case-by-case basis. Those are things my family and I would talk about and see what’s ultimately the best fit for us.”

*****

Always a welcome sign — Mr. Met carrying bags of baseball equipment out of the Mets clubhouse the dead of winter. It can only mean one thing — spring training is near. Indeed it is.

It should be an interesting camp. Some questions:

– How will the rotation shake out?
– Who’s on second? (no, who’s on first, what’s on second!)
– Who will comprise the bullpen?
– Beltran or Pagan in center?
– Will Oliver Perez and/or Luis Castillo show anything to warrant them returning North with the team?

Not to mention the whole Madoff nonsense. The team may not always win, but it is never boring being a Mets fan.

Am I the only one starting to feel sorry for the Wilpons? I have not been a big booster of the Wilpons and their management of the Mets. In fact, just a week ago, I applauded their decision to seek “strategic partners,” writing that even a minority owner could breathe new life into the franchise. But now I feel they are being treated unfairly.

Trustee Irving Picard said Jeff Wilpon, Saul Katz and Fred Wilpon (left) made some $300 million in “fictitious profits” from the Bernie Madoff scandal. The lawsuit unsealed on Friday doesn’t say how much money he wants them to repay, but a report in The New York Times on Saturday puts the figure at $1 billion! He claims they “knew or should have known” that Madoff’s business was a scam. The Wilpons counter that they had no idea, and that if the SEC, which investigated Madoff several times couldn’t figure it out, how were they supposed to know? Excellent point.

Picard gets his profit number from money he says the Wilpons pulled out of Madoff’s business. But the Wilpons point out that they had some 200 accounts with Madoff — that figure just comes from the accounts that they took money from, not from all of them. Shouldn’t the net losers be included with the net winners? Another excellent point.

Picard claims the Wilpons withdrew $47.8 million more than they invested. To me, it seems fair, and fairly obvious, that that is the amount of money they should have to repay. $1 billion is just insane. Remember, the Wilpons thought they had a $500 million balance with Madoff, and now they don’t. Despite that, Picard says the Wilpons are not victims. I wonder what his definition of the word is.

It seems like Picard is picking on the Wilpons. To penalize them for what he thinks they “should have known” is ridiculous. I’m sure over the years the Wilpons had conversations in which they marveled at Madoff’s ability to continue to make so much money for them and his investors, and wondered how he was able to do it. But let’s face it, if someone was making money for you — especially someone who was a lifelong trusted friend with no history of wrongdoing — would you ask questions? No one suspected Madoff was a criminal — not his friends, not his family (allegedly), and not government officials who had oversight on him. Those government investigators were the ones who ”should have known” what Madoff was up to, not the Wilpons.