Most Hated Shortstop in Met History

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Behold now as Johnny Dickshot creates poetry using only capitalized words from Ms. Met's posts:

MUCH
DEFENSIVELY
STILL
PRIMARILY
DEFENSIVE

MUST
NEED
OUTFIELD!

PRIMARILY
MUST
SO IS SOLID OFFENSE

NOT
ALWAYS
DEFENSE
DEFENSIVE
TOP
GLOVEWORK

REST
ONE
EIGHT
MUCH
OFFENSE
DEFENSE

ALL
GLOVES
USE
AND
NEVER
WAY
OR
BALANCE

[Vic Sage]

Tony Fernandez

[Centerfield]

I've never hated a Mets shortstop, but I can't imagine anyone getting more abuse than Rey.

His contract didn't help matters.

[Vic Sage]

i miss the days of clubbing Ms. Met like a baby seal...

I still have one of the Bard's poems in the archives, in which he commented on the latest YGB / Ms.Met contretemps:

YGB was his tag
and posting his bag
as he jousted with Metfans illogical

He fought with Ms. Met
Her goat he did get
She found his attitude rude, pedagogical

They swashed and they buckled
as the Forum all chuckled
at their badinage, crude and rhetorical

Ms. Met called for peace
hoped the fighting would cease
trumpeting truce that was truly historical

And so all waited reply
YGB's taunting to fly
would it be something mean, allegorical?

Or would he just be
a "gentlemen", he
Creating peace that was not metaphorical

alas, peace never came to that MoFo of yore, and Ms. Met was driven out from amongst us.

she was such an easy target. I do miss her.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Amazin. That was almost 6 years ago!

[Guest KC]

>>>And, far from KC's memory, I freely conceded that Rey was a fabulous defender.<<<

How's it far from my memory when that's what I said a post or two above this?

We should get cooby to hack into Sal's desktop.

[Theoldmole]

I liked Rey. He gave us some amazing defense, and I'm not too upset by someone saying something dumb in a moment of anger.

I guess I felt really let down by Bordick.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Besides, the Met fans are stupid comment came in response to a question about fans booing Mike Piazza.

Met fans ARE stupid!

[Elster88]

]i miss the days of clubbing Ms. Met like a baby seal...

WTF? Who clubs baby seals?!? Do you stomp on kittens for a change of pace?

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

KC wrote: Rey had his own Mets video day - he was at one time a special Mets defensive gem - shit, I even got Sallie Q to admit that at least once or twice.

Getting me to admit something that I freely conceded any time anyone asked isn't such a trick.

The real underlying problem (that I argue persists to this day) is that for his last couple of seasons, Rey's playing time was dictated by his contract and the Mets' refusal to concede that they made a mistake in signing him to it. Before contracts got so pricey, it wasn't uncommon (especially under such managers as Stengel, Weaver, Herzog and the like) simply to bench your $40,000 shortstop to play a $15,000 rookie if the $40,000 guy wasn't giving what you needed at bat. It still required a complete set of testicles to do so, and some judgment as to the rookie's ability, but if a guy wasn't performing adequately, he sat, sometimes for a while, sometimes for a career. I was disappointed that Bobby V. lacked the stones to play Rey in proportion to his actual skills. That, and the same problem with his closer (in an earlier day, when a star closer had a few bad games, you'd pitch him in middle relief for a few weeks until the fans were yelling "Hey, give Mando a shot again--he couldn';t be worse than THESE clowns") but he wouldn't buck the prevailing values of the 21st Century, and for that I felt sadly he had to go. That what I felt let down by, Mole.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I remember thinking the same thing about George Foster way back when. He stayed in the lineup longer than he would have if his salary was lower.

[Guest KC]

I'm convinced there is a web-site for just about everything ...

http://www.newgrounds.com/seals/

[Elster88]

LOL. Beautiful.

[Guest KC]

>>>Getting me to admit something that I freely conceded any time anyone asked isn't such a trick.<<<

Whatever.

I have a whole list of things for you to concede, but that would require a
trick and three quarters.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

KC wrote: >>>Getting me to admit something that I freely conceded any time anyone asked isn't such a trick.<<< Whatever. I have a whole list of things for you to concede, but that would require a trick and three quarters.

You're not truly insolent unless you call me "dude" with that "Whatever." Doesn't have the same bracing sting.

Ask me to concede part of your list. You may be surprised by how easily certain concessions will be granted.

One reason I like reviewing these old Rey and Mando issues is that, perhaps foolishly, I think that after the furor and the defensive arguments die down a bit, we can actually examine the mistakes the Mets made way back when. At the time, as now, people had a very hard time granting that the Mets made any grievous errors in judgment, but now that that concession isn't so hard to wring out of people, I believe maybe we can judge things like maximum contract length for a mediocre player, tolerable and intolerable performances from your closer, etc. This would be a great time for such a discussion, now that Wagner has yet to blow his first game for the Mets. If a blown save in every ten save situations is acceptable to you, then say so, and stay out of Wagner's face as long as his BS/S ratio is under 10%. Hysterical over-reactions in the heat of the moment start more pointless discussions than anything else.

[Vic Sage]

Hey, BS (I love calling you that!), doesn't this remind you of all those pointless debates where we were actually on the same side of the argument?

memories,
in the corners of my mind,
hazy, water-colored memories
of the waaaaay we were.......

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

]One reason I like reviewing these old Rey and Mando issues is that, perhaps foolishly, I think that after the furor and the defensive arguments die down a bit, we can actually examine the mistakes the Mets made way back when.

Fine with me, so long as we use the same perspective on the solutions and other options available at the time.

For example, you profess wonder that Valentine went with Ordonez for so long -- yet do so without addressing the fact that his available alternatives for the most part sucked bhmc too. I don't mean to step on your point that Rey-o's salary, post the re-sign, and the expectations related to it were a reason he got the opportunities he did. Bigger picture, the Mets in his era were often guilty of a thin farm system and inadequate bench, which made continuing to play disappointing players often the only alternative in spite of their struggles.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Sure. But if something's not working, it's not working. If I sell you a big bag of shit and assure you "It's really delicious" and you get get home and unwrap it and discover it's not as delectible as you'd believed, do you decide to eat it anyway because you paid a lot of money for it? Do you throw it away and go without lunch because you spent your lunch money already?

I keep repeating, as with Piazza, that the Mets, having spent money, and having discovered at some point that they're no longer receiving the value they'd hoped for, would rather persuade themselves that they've got something valuable than assess realistically and go out and do whatever they need to do at that point.

Can't trade Rey without eating some contract? Then eat the fuckijng contract, if your judgment tells you he's not a qualilty shortstop. Or sign an FA ss and tell Rey he's now your utility infielder. Or rebuild with your hot prospect who's only a year or two away, and find a stopgap solution until Reyes is ready (you ain't winning with Rey anyway, so it's not much of a risk.).

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Ahem.

]the Mets in his era were often guilty of a thin farm system and inadequate bench, which made continuing to play disappointing players often the only alternative in spite of their struggles.

[RealityChuck]

Jose Oquendo

[Benjamin Grimm]

Also, they were winning with Rey. Almost a wild card in 1998, NLCS in 1999.

I can see them continuing to put him out there as long as he was the best they had. What the Mets could've and should've done was import another shortstop who was better. They didn't even try to do that until Rey was injured during the 2000 season. Maybe they would have gone further in 1998 and 1999 if they had benched Ordonez (despite his salary) and brought in someone better.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

You know, I'll bet if you could get Bobby into a private conversation at this point, he'd express regrets that he didn't bench Rey and get Phillips and Doublepon angry. If he'd have started Desi Relaford or Marco Scutaro for a few weeks, and told Phillips and the press, "Rey's not hitting, time to try something new," and stuck to it, I can't see the Mets' w-l record having been much worse than it was, and maybe they would have gotten him a better shortstop. Because he DIDN'T act confrontationally, the status quo prevailed.

And Bobby got fired anyway.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I see your point, though in the same private conversation, BV would also admit that both Relaford and Scutaro would be inadequate shortstops for a pennant contender, and that losing Relaford's versatility while placing a bad hitter who only plays one position on the bench would also not serve the goal of contending.

Getting back to an earlier point: How misguided do you suppose was the idea that Ordonez given the chance to prove himself could develop into a better hitter? IOW, at what point do you give up on a guy likee him?

[Guest KC]

What about the .8756 runs per game that Rey Rey saved vs. Scutaro's
projected .3767 runs per game?

Huh?

Huh?

I thought so.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: How misguided do you suppose was the idea that Ordonez given the chance to prove himself could develop into a better hitter? IOW, at what point do you give up on a guy likee him?

Good question. But Phillips just flatly predicted that Rey would develop batting skills, and rode that horse into the ground. I'm not sure that there is a timetable, as much as I am sure that you decide what the timetable is in this case and stick to it, instead of just deciding that you'll stick with Rey indefinitely.

[MFS62]

Maybe they wanted to see how long his one home run per year streak would last?

Later

[Willets Point]

Dear God, the Great Rey Debates rear their ugly head again.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

NY Post 5/19/2000

But three weeks of extra batting practice and back-to-back games of putting good wood on the ball have Ordonez convinced he's coming around at the plate.


Call it wishful thinking, but the Mets say they believe him.
"He's hit the ball hard five times in a row," said Bobby Valentine before last night's game with the Rockies was rained out.

"The last at-bat [Tuesday] he hit the ball hard and I thought he had a perfect approach. If Rey has the right approach, he can hit. That's my belief and I'm sticking to it."

GM Steve Phillips agreed, saying the only thing standing between Ordonez and being a solid hitter is himself.

"Rey should be able to hit, will hit," Phillips said. "He has great eye-hand coordination, which he shows in the field. At times it's part of his problem at the plate, because he has great coordination but he lacks discipline at the plate with his pitch selection.

"He swings at bad pitches, but he rarely misses them. He puts them in play. I think with his coordination, as his plate decisions get better, he'll wind up getting better pitches to swing at; and because he makes good contact he'll become a good hitter."

He has far to go. Granted, last year he set a big league-record by going his last 100 games without an error, and hit a career-high .258. The Mets rewarded him with a four-year, $19 million deal in the winter, but so far this year he's hit just .183 with eight RBIs and no home runs.

[Elster88]

Better to debate Rey than to argue over who is the most hated whatever.

[Guest KC]

Bret, do you have the thread that broke the news that Rey was re-signed
to that big fat contract? That would make for some entertaining reading.
I kinda recall gloating that he had prevailed and The Great Debate would
then live on, but I may be mistaken.