Appreciating Kevin McReynolds (sp. from App. for Johan Santana)

[stevejrogers]

A LOT of Beltran’s criticisms were leveled against Kevn McReynolds as well. Who replaced an Afro-San Diego-ian whom many of the “Wilponzis have been bad owners since the 1980s” brigade has judged that if he was still a Met instead of McReynolds, things would have been different.

Beltran being the face of the Los Mets “transformation” that was making headline news, and SI covers, probably is an added element, but its not the overwhelming element that you seem to think it is.

[Frayed Knot]

McReynolds definitely had the lack of outward passion charge leveled against him. That and bad timing -- getting there, as he did, one year after the big one -- were his biggest problems.
He didn't help himself with a couple of comments, but mostly those just gave extra ammo to folks already predisposed to dislike him and those comments would have been ignored if from another source.

[dgwphotography]

Frayed Knot wrote: McReynolds definitely had the lack of outward passion charge leveled against him. That and bad timing -- getting there, as he did, one year after the big one -- were his biggest problems. He didn't help himself with a couple of comments, but mostly those just gave extra ammo to folks already predisposed to dislike him and those comments would have been ignored if from another source.

McReynolds I was much better than McReynolds II. When I think of McReynolds, I remember him taking out Scioscia to score in the NLCS.

[Frayed Knot]

"McReynolds I was much better than McReynolds II. " -- Certainly


"When I think of McReynolds, I remember him taking out Scioscia to score in the NLCS." -- That's the thing about McR, I remember him winning games with catches, with throws, and once when he not only broke up a bases-loaded GiDP but did so by depositing the SS about ten paces into left field while the winning run scored.
Problem was, he'd then walk off the field with an expression as if the play won the game but had also killed his favorite dog in the process and he'd wind up winning no fans and quite possibly even losing a few.

[Edgy MD]

May 6, 1990, the Mets sweep a doubleheader at home from Houston, with game-winning homers from Kevin McReynolds in both halves (a 13th-inning walkoff in Game One, and an eighth-inning go-ahead in Game Two).

When the scintillating production value of Kiner's Korner has the added bonus of the electrifying personality of Kevin McReynolds, it's more excitement than should be had on free TV.

Wk23spHFVlc

[Guest cooby]

Lol Edgy. At least he's in his underpants

After watching the whole thing, I'm pretty sure I was probably mad that Mackey Sasser hadn't been on

[Edgy MD]

I guess they weren't supposed to pull back from the headshot.

#ProductionValue

[Guest 41Forever]

I used to love Kiner's Korner, but I don't recall that nice set! I only remember the tan backdrop with all the team names.

[ashie62]

Lest us not forget Bob Murphy's "Bowling for Dollars." Used to watch it before "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" came on.

[Centerfield]

I had no idea then that the people didn’t like him. I lived upstate during that time and if people there felt that way, I don’t remember noticing it. Plus I didn’t have the CPF back then.

I would guess that it didn’t help that the guy we traded to get him was:

1. A world champion
2. Fiery and well liked
3. An eventual MVP who hit 50 HRs

[seawolf17]

Centerfield wrote: I had no idea then that the people didn’t like him. I lived upstate during that time and if people there felt that way, I don’t remember noticing it. Plus I didn’t have the CPF back then.

Kevin McReynolds was (is?) my favorite Met of all time. Hell, I even owned a "22" Zubaz hat that I bought at Shea. I don't ever remember anything negative except the "rather be duck hunting" quote, which IIRC got taken out of context.

Centerfield wrote: I would guess that it didn’t help that the guy we traded to get him was: 1. A world champion 2. Fiery and well liked 3. An eventual MVP who hit 50 HRs

I think a lot of that is revisionist history - I don't remember Mitch being all that particularly loved. I do wonder, though, what the internet would have done in 1989 when Mitch went bananas at the plate and McReynolds was just, well, McReynolds.

[Guest cooby]

Mitchell killed his girlfriends cat

[Edgy MD]

seawolf17 wrote: I don't ever remember anything negative except the "rather be duck hunting" quote, which IIRC got taken out of context.

Way out of context.

[stevejrogers]

seawolf17 wrote: I had no idea then that the people didn’t like him. I lived upstate during that time and if people there felt that way, I don’t remember noticing it. Plus I didn’t have the CPF back then. Kevin McReynolds was (is?) my favorite Met of all time. Hell, I even owned a "22" Zubaz hat that I bought at Shea. I don't ever remember anything negative except the "rather be duck hunting" quote, which IIRC got taken out of context. I would guess that it didn’t help that the guy we traded to get him was: 1. A world champion 2. Fiery and well liked 3. An eventual MVP who hit 50 HRs I think a lot of that is revisionist history - I don't remember Mitch being all that particularly loved. I do wonder, though, what the internet would have done in 1989 when Mitch went bananas at the plate and McReynolds was just, well, McReynolds.

A lot of it was there from the start though. The idea that the Met owners were trying to make the Mets more bland and mechanical has always been a knock against the move.

Not to mention the assertion that he was a bad influence on Doc & Darryl which clearly was a wrong assertion.

[Benjamin Grimm]

SteveJRogers wrote: Not to mention the assertion that he was a bad influence on Doc & Darryl which clearly was a wrong assertion.

Is it all that clear? I mean, we know that Gooden and Strawberry had their own issues, but I don't see how we can be sure that Mitchell wasn't making things worse.

I do remember that a lot of fans were frustrated by McReynolds' lack of emotion on the field. Fans loved the energy that Ray Knight showed in 1986, and the following year Knight was gone and McReynolds' approach was a sharp contrast. It never bothered me. Emotion is fun to watch, but production is more important, and McReynolds provided that.

[Edgy MD]

SteveJRogers wrote: A lot of it was there from the start though. The idea that the Met owners were trying to make the Mets more bland and mechanical has always been a knock against the move. Not to mention the assertion that he was a bad influence on Doc & Darryl which clearly was a wrong assertion.

It's always been a silly assertion.

And it wasn't there from the start, but retroactively — and in some cases, bizarrely — re-writing history.

Kevin Mitchell was never the Mets' leftfielder, not as a full-timer. They had a three-way platoon between left and center for the second half of 1986, and he was squeezed in all around the diamond, earning him the nickname "World."

It was an explicit part of Frank Cashen's philosophy to make one major lineup change each offseason, to keep things chuning and players from getting too comfortable. Being set at most positions, they saw the ad-libbed outfield alignment as a spot to target, and spent the 1986-1987 offseason looking to set on a fulltime leftfielder and maybe a shortstop, and seriously considered a major trade moving all of their top prospects in a huge deal for Harold Baines and Ozzie Guillen.

They instead went for McReynolds. The wisdom of that may well be argued (they made a lot of questionable consolidation trades in this period) but imagining a business meeting where the minority owner of the defending champs barks at the GM that they need blander players (and the GM seriously acts on this) just stretches all credulity.

But folks have been imagining it for 30 years, and lacking evidence, they take speculation as fact, or just make evidence up.

[Centerfield]

It hurts now when you look back, but Mitchell for McReynolds is a trade you have to make. Mitchell was a nice looking young hitter, but he was undersized and hadn't proven anything yet.

McReynolds was already an established good to great hitter.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I liked McReynolds for the most part. Thinking about him kinda makes me
grin because he was my Mom's second favorite Kevin when a Met.

Kinda surprised I didn't post in this blast from the past.

[dgwphotography]

Centerfield wrote: It hurts now when you look back, but Mitchell for McReynolds is a trade you have to make. Mitchell was a nice looking young hitter, but he was undersized and hadn't proven anything yet. McReynolds was already an established good to great hitter.

It doesn’t hurt at all. With the exception of one season, McReynolds was the overall better player.

[A Boy Named Seo]

I wasn't quite Seawolf about him, but I really McReynolds at the time. I think his weight gain didn't help with the impression that he could give any shits whether he was playing ball or not.

[Vic Sage]

i had, and continue to have, an irrational hatred of that man.

[Guest d'Kong76]

It's kinda funny, you're the second person I think of when his name comes up.

[Vic Sage]

...and when his name comes up, i hear banjos and think of the backwoodsman who rapes Ned Beatty in DELIVERANCE. And then i think about K-Mac hanging out on the 7 train with John Rocker, spitting tobacco juice at immigrants.

But that's just me.

[G-Fafif]

Centerfield wrote: I would guess that it didn’t help that the guy we traded to get him was: 1. A world champion 2. Fiery and well liked 3. An eventual MVP who hit 50 HRs

Mitch topped out at 47 HRs, in 1989. Still an impressive total.

[dgwphotography]

Vic Sage wrote: ...and when his name comes up, i hear banjos and think of the backwoodsman who rapes Ned Beatty in DELIVERANCE. And then i think about K-Mac hanging out on the 7 train with John Rocker, spitting tobacco juice at immigrants. But that's just me.

Since he's from Arkansas, and likes hunting, he just has to be a racist like Rocker, amiright?

This speaks more to your bias than any perceived bias of his.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: A lot of it was there from the start though. The idea that the Met owners were trying to make the Mets more bland and mechanical has always been a knock against the move. Not to mention the assertion that he was a bad influence on Doc & Darryl which clearly was a wrong assertion. It's always been a silly assertion. And it wasn't there from the start, but retroactively — and in some cases, bizarrely — re-writing history. Kevin Mitchell was never the Mets' leftfielder, not as a full-timer. They had a three-way platoon between left and center for the second half of 1986, and he was squeezed in all around the diamond, earning him the nickname "World." It was an explicit part of Frank Cashen's philosophy to make one major lineup change each offseason, to keep things chuning and players from getting too comfortable. Being set at most positions, they saw the ad-libbed outfield alignment as a spot to target, and spent the 1986-1987 offseason looking to set on a fulltime leftfielder and maybe a shortstop, and seriously considered a major trade moving all of their top prospects in a huge deal for Harold Baines and Ozzie Guillen. They instead went for McReynolds. The wisdom of that may well be argued (they made a lot of questionable consolidation trades in this period) but imagining a business meeting where the minority owner of the defending champs barks at the GM that they need blander players (and the GM seriously acts on this) just stretches all credulity. But folks have been imagining it for 30 years, and lacking evidence, they take speculation as fact, or just make evidence up.

The champion of McReynolds wasn't the Wilpons nor was his acquisition out of any desire to make the Mets "blander". That's absurd revisionist history.
Look instead to Joe McIlvane who said at the time and since that KMcR at U-Arkansas was THE best amateur player he ever scouted.

McIlvane became the Mets scouting director in 1981 but it must have been after the draft (or he was overruled) because that was the year the Mets took Terry Blocker with the 4th overall selection, two picks before the Padres grabbed McReynolds. By '87 McIlvane was asst GM and determined not to miss out on him a second time and obviously was successful in pushing for the trade. Remember that McReynolds was essentially replacing George Foster as far as succeeding him as opening day LF'er; Mitchell, as mentioned, was not exactly the entrenched incumbent. When adding to a team coming off a dominant season and a WS win, opting for McReynolds over the half-season rookie was a no-brainer purely on baseball merits.

What fans of that era could do was point their fingers instead towards good ol' fiery Wally and his 70 point tumble in OBA between '86 & '87 [113 OPS+ to 63 !!] as one factor for the next season not going as well as the previous. But of course that doesn't fit in well with the pre-determined narrative and fans were still calling for Wally's return into the next decade despite him having only one post-NYM season ('90 w/Pittsburgh) where he even resembled the player he had briefly been in '86

Edited January 29, 2018 by Guest

[dgwphotography]

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: A lot of it was there from the start though. The idea that the Met owners were trying to make the Mets more bland and mechanical has always been a knock against the move. Not to mention the assertion that he was a bad influence on Doc & Darryl which clearly was a wrong assertion. It's always been a silly assertion. And it wasn't there from the start, but retroactively — and in some cases, bizarrely — re-writing history. Kevin Mitchell was never the Mets' leftfielder, not as a full-timer. They had a three-way platoon between left and center for the second half of 1986, and he was squeezed in all around the diamond, earning him the nickname "World." It was an explicit part of Frank Cashen's philosophy to make one major lineup change each offseason, to keep things chuning and players from getting too comfortable. Being set at most positions, they saw the ad-libbed outfield alignment as a spot to target, and spent the 1986-1987 offseason looking to set on a fulltime leftfielder and maybe a shortstop, and seriously considered a major trade moving all of their top prospects in a huge deal for Harold Baines and Ozzie Guillen. They instead went for McReynolds. The wisdom of that may well be argued (they made a lot of questionable consolidation trades in this period) but imagining a business meeting where the minority owner of the defending champs barks at the GM that they need blander players (and the GM seriously acts on this) just stretches all credulity. But folks have been imagining it for 30 years, and lacking evidence, they take speculation as fact, or just make evidence up. The champion of McReynolds wasn't the Wilpons or any desire to make the Mets "blander" (that's absurd revisionist history). Look instead to Joe McIlvane who said at the time and since that KMcR at U-Arkansas was THE best amateur player he ever scouted. McIlvane became the Mets scouting director in 1981 but it must have been after the draft (or he was overruled) because that was the year the Mets took Terry Blocker two picks before the Padres grabbed McReynolds. By '87 McIlvane was asst GM and didn't want to miss out on him a second time and obviously was successful in pushing for the trade. Remember that McReynolds was essentially replacing George Foster as far as succeeding him as opening day LF'er. When adding to a team coming off a dominant season and a WS win, opting for him rather than a half-season rookie was a no-brainer. Fans of that era could possibly pint fingers towards good ol' fiery Wally and his 70 point tumble in OBA between '86 & '87 as one possible factor for the next season not going as well as the previous, but of course that doesn't fit in well with the pre-determined narrative and fans were still calling for Wally's return into the next decade.

That, and the entire pitching staff spending time on the DL, not to mention the season starting with Doc in rehab

[Frayed Knot]

dgwphotography wrote: That, and the entire pitching staff spending time on the DL, not to mention the season starting with Doc in rehab

Sure. I was just looking to point out the contrast between the guy who was never accepted by fans vs the one towards whom a sizable portion of fans mentally hung onto years after his sell-by date.
Backman had BY FAR the lowest OPS on that '87 team [below Raffy Santana, below the decaying carcass of Gary Carter] yet never gets a whiff of blame - except from my friend at the time, Bruce, who maintained a hatred of Backman every bit as irrational as the love was for others, but Bruce always had a tendency to zig when others zagged.

[Edgy MD]

Backman's lousy 1987 was largely obscured by a career year from Tim Teufel.

Also never placed on the hook is Howard Johnson, who went 1-18 in the NLCS while McReynolds actually hit better in that series (against that second-only-to-the-Mets Dodger pitching staff) than he did in his MVP-third-place regular season.

[dgwphotography]

Frayed Knot wrote: dgwphotography wrote: That, and the entire pitching staff spending time on the DL, not to mention the season starting with Doc in rehab Sure. I was just looking to point out the contrast between the guy who was never accepted by fans vs the one towards whom a sizable portion of fans mentally hung onto years after his sell-by date. Backman had BY FAR the lowest OPS on that '87 team [below Raffy Santana, below the decaying carcass of Gary Carter] yet never gets a whiff of blame - except from my friend at the time, Bruce, who maintained a hatred of Backman every bit as irrational as the love was for others, but Bruce always had a tendency to zig when others zagged.

Sounds like my continued hatred of Dykstra from day 1