Blogging Mets

Fernando Martinez is now Houston’s problem. ESPNNewYork.com reports that the Astros have claimed the one-time can’t-miss-this-time-we’re-sure prospect off of waivers.

The man who was supposed to roam right field for the Mets for the next decade finishes up his time in Flushing with a sterling .183 batting average, with two home runs and 12 RBIs to go along with 26 strikeouts in 131 at bats. But he did make it onto the disabled list a record 74 times.

I really hope Martinez can get healthy and have a productive career. Think about how sure the Mets are that that will never happen — they chose to release him from the 40-man roster instead of getting rid of D.J. Carrasco. D.J. Carrasco! Enough said.

So Martinez joins the growing list of highly-touted Mets prospects who never were. At least the Mets were able to get something for Alex Escobar (even if it was Roberto Alomar) and Lastings Milledge (two starters in Ryan Church and Brian Schneider, although had they traded him a year earlier when he was still hot they could have gotten much more). For Martinez, the Mets get nothing except medical bills.

On another note, Omar Minaya’s favorite writer, ESPN’s Adam Rubin, tweets that Daniel Herrera cleared waivers and will remain with the Mets as a non-roster player. I thought he looked good late last season and had a shot to make the bullpen in 2012. I still think that is a possibility — more of a possibility than D.J. Carrasco making the team. D.J. Carrasco!

It looks like the Fernando Martinez era is over before it ever got started. ESPNNewYork.com reports that the Mets have placed Martinez and Daniel Herrera on waivers to make room for the blockbuster acquisitions of Scott Hairston and Ronny Cedeno.

Martinez was once such a hot prospect that he was the centerpiece of  a proposed trade for Roy Halladay in 2009 (along with Jonanthon Niese, Bobby Parnell and Ruben Tejada — the Mets were the ones who turned it down). But Martinez has been unable to stay healthy and at the young age of 23, he already has arthritis in his knees.

The Herrera move is actually a bit more surprising. He came over from the Brewers in the Francisco Rodriguez deal, and he looked pretty good when he joined the Mets late in the season — he appeared in 16 games, pitching to a 1.13 ERA in eight innings. I thought the lefty had a good chance of making the bullpen in 2012, but Adam Rubin writes that “the organization concern is his effectiveness will fade as National League East opponents become more acclimated to his screwball.”

Both players could still be back with the Mets if they clear waivers. But it is likely that someone will take a shot at Martinez to see if he has anything left, and Herrera has the option of declaring free agency instead of reporting to the minors.

Barry Larkin was the lone player voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, it was announced on Monday. Larkin received 86.4% of the vote in his third year of eligibility.

I correctly predicted this, but I was wrong in my thought that Jeff Bagwell would get in, too. His omission in his second year on the ballot continues to baffle me, although his vote total increased from 41.7% last year to 56% this time around. He certainly has the numbers, but there are “whispers” of his involvement with steroids. He has never tested positive, was not in the Mitchell Report and there has never been even circumstantial evidence connecting him to PEDs, yet he continues to be punished. This is just not fair.

I wonder if Mike Piazza, victim of similar “whispers,” will have the same problem next year. Guys like Bagwell and Piazza should not be lumped in with Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa, who are also eligible next year. These are guys with clear evidence that points strongly to PED use. I understand leaving known cheats out of the Hall; omitting someone because of innuendo is not a good enough reason, in my opinion.

As far as the rest of the ballot, Jack Morris got 66.7% in his 13th appearance and Lee Smith got 50.6%. Mark McGwire got his usual 19.5% and his fellow steroids-in-arms (or butts, wherever they are injected) Rafael Palmeiro got 12.6%, while Juan Gonzalez didn’t even get enough to remain on the ballot.

Here is the complete vote:

Barry Larkin 495 (86.4%)
Jack Morris 382 (66.7%)
Jeff Bagwell 321 (56.0%)
Lee Smith 290 (50.6%)
Tim Raines 279 (48.7%)
Edgar Martinez 209 (36.5%)
Alan Trammell 211 (36.8%)
Fred McGriff 137 (23.9%)
Larry Walker 131 (22.9%)
Mark McGwire 112 (19.5%)
Don Mattingly 102 (17.8%)
Dale Murphy 83 (14.5%)
Rafael Palmeiro 72 (12.6%)
Bernie Williams 55 (9.6%)

Below 5% — left off future ballots

Juan Gonzalez 23 (4.0%)
Vinny Castilla 6 (1.0%)
Tim Salmon 5 (0.9%)
Bill Mueller 4 (0.7%)
Brad Radke 2 (0.3%)
Javy Lopez 1 (0.2%)
Eric Young 1 (0.2%)
Jeromy Burnitz 0
Brian Jordan 0
Terry Mulholland 0
Phil Nevin 0
Ruben Sierra 0
Tony Womack 0

Well, the final piece of the 2012 Mets puzzle is in place. Don’t make any plans for October; we will be watching Mets playoff baseball because the team has reportedly signed slugging backup infielder Ronny Cedeno.

I’ll give you a moment to catch your breath.

Yes, Ronny Cedeno, owner of a .246 career batting average, who has walked 115 times in his career and struck out 457 times, making his on base percentage a hefty .286. But don’t worry, those poor numbers come with incredible power — a stunning 33 home runs in seven major league seasons.

Following a strikeout, probably

Cedeno spent the past two and a half seasons in Pittsburgh before being cut loose after last season. Let’s make this clear — this guy was not good enough to play anymore for the Pirates. The Pirates!

Did I mention the Mets are reportedly paying him $1.2 million, plus incentives? Those incentives likely include hitting his weight (190).

Another gangbuster signing by savior GM Sandy Alderson to go along with his brilliant, forward-thinking $1.1 million deal for all-world backup outfielder Scott Hairston. I understand you have to fill out the bench, but how about going with younger, hungrier and cheaper players instead of these relatively expensive retreads? Alderson is making Mets fans long for the days of Omar Minaya. Who would have thought that could possibly happen?

Sandy Alderson’s moves this off-season continue to baffle me. First he lets Jose Reyes walk without so much as an offer. Then he spends most of his remaining budget on the bullpen without addressing the troubled starting rotation. Now he reportedly will resign Scott Hairston and pay him $1.1 million to sit on the bench.

Hairston was perfectly adequate in 2011 — he hit .235 with seven home runs and 24 RBIs, mostly as a pinch hitter. He played all three outfield positions and even one game at second base. I can’t imagine his production will be any better in 2012. You’d think the Mets would have gone out and gotten someone who has the potential to be something more than Hairston.

Then there is the money issue — a cash-strapped team paying $1.1 million for a bench warmer? For half that money I would have rather had Jason Pridie or Nick Evans, both since released, as reserves. At least they have a higher ceiling than Hairston. I know teams like to have that “veteran bat coming off the bench.” But I think that is overrated — a mediocre veteran is still mediocre.

I’m starting to wonder about this Sandy Alderson — hailed as a genius in some circles, or at least a very competent baseball man. He has yet to show it in his time with the Mets.

In the post below I speculate whether the Mets should sell Packers-style shares to the public, so I ask, would you buy a $200 share of the Mets?

The Green Bay Packers just took in $62 million by selling shares of the team to the public. The team is a publicly-owned corporation, so issuing new stock is a common practice for such companies. I’m wondering if the Mets, desperate for cash, should go this route as well.

I’ll start off by saying I have no idea if the Mets can even do this, either by law or MLB rules. But for this exercise, let’s just say that they can.

The Mets are currently seeking upwards of 10 investors investors to pay $20 million each for a share of the team. The Mets are valued at around $800 million, so each $20 million share would get someone 2.5% of the team. I think the Mets should set aside 5% for the public.

The team could issue shares for $200 each, selling 200,000 shares for a total of $40 million. Just like the Packers shares, they are virtually worthless — they cannot be sold, they will not accrue in value and owners have no say in the operation of the team. But it is a way for the public to have a vested interest in the team.

Unlike the Packers, the Mets could perhaps offer their shareholders something. Maybe one free pair of tickets each season or something like that, so ownership would have its benefits.

I don’t think the Mets would have any problem selling these shares. Even though they are worthless, it would be pretty cool to say, “I’m a part owner of the Mets,” with a handsome stock certificate hanging on the wall to prove it. I know I would definitely buy a share.

The only problem I could see is that the money would help bail out the Wilpons, and most fans don’t want to bail them out — they want them to sell the team.

What do you think  – would you buy a $200 share of the Mets?

Roy Oswalt was almost a Met at the trade deadline in 2006. The Mets were thisclose to getting Oswalt in a three team deal with the Astros and Orioles. Houston would have ended up with Miguel Tejada, and the Mets would have “sacrificed” to Baltimore — get ready for it — Lastings Milledge. Yes, Roy Oswalt for Lastings Milledge. It would have been the greatest deal general manager Jim Duquette ever made to help the Mets — and he was the Orioles VP of baseball operations at the time! However at the last minute Baltimore owner Peter Angelos, the king of poor decisions, actually made a good one and scuttled the deal.

Fast forward five and a half years and the free agent Oswalt has let it be known that he would sign a one-year contract. That contract should come from the Mets. It won’t, but there are several reasons why he should be finally pitching in Flushing in 2012.

– There is no guarantee that Johan Santana will be effective next season, if he can even pitch at all. The great “Mike Pelfrey is Our Ace” experiment failed miserably. Every team needs an ace — Oswalt would fit that bill just fine.

– If the Mets could get Oswalt for $10 million-$12 million (which is looking more and more possible), that would still put the payroll at around that magical $100 million mark. I’m sure the Wilpons would prefer it to be closer to $90 million, but a $100 million payroll still saves them $40 million over last season. It also shows what a dumb idea it was to tender Mike Pelfrey, who will likely command around $6 million. Wouldn’t you rather have Oswalt for an additional $4 million to $6 million rather than Pelfrey?

– If everything goes as planned, the Mets could theoretically be a starter away from contention (I stress the word “theoretically”). The bullpen is revamped. The offense should be better with the more reasonable Citi Field dimensions and players coming back from injury. The rotation remains a weak spot, and Oswalt can strengthen it.

– Perhaps most importantly, an Oswalt signing would send a message to the fans that the front office has not given up on 2012. Except for making the bullpen better, Sandy Alderson has given no indication that he thinks this team will be in contention in 2012. Signing Oswalt would remedy that. He could say, “See, I strengthened the bullpen, we have faith in the lineup, we made the ballpark smaller. And now we have a solid rotation. We will contend.” And if they don’t contend and Oswalt is effective, Alderson can trade him for a prospect, a la Carlos Beltran.

Of course, none of this will happen. The Wilpons will just not spend the money and give the team the chance to succeed. It is very sad, indeed.