Corner Outfielders

[Guest AG/DC]

Not that it gets Willie off the hook --- in fact it indicts Omar Minaya to some extent for not being adequately prepared, and the medical training staff as well --- but the plague among our corner outfielders has been cruel and unkind. I'm happy for Tatis to be a contributor, but I am unhappy to have an unretired retread third baseman as our starting leftfielder. These are positions where you look to get offense.

#1 Corner Outfieder: Alou --- with two extended stays on the DL, he has played in 12 of 62 games as a corner outfielder. Twelve.

#2 Corner Outfieder: Church --- A guy who lost his job in Washington for taking too much for granted, took nothing for granted in New York, but ended up Lenny-Dykstra-ing himself into a pemament mental fog. Take away his pinch-hitting appearances and he's managed 45 games as a corner outfielder, less than 75% of Mets starts.

#3 Corner Outfieder: Pagan --- Showing more hustle than muscle, he had a hot start, but 28 corner outfield games into his season he injured himself and hasn't been back. In Metrofoolery that has been too typical, he hurt himslef on Wednesday 5/8, but pinch-hit on Sunday 5/11 and didn't DL him until Tuesday 5/13.

#4 Corner Outfielder: Chavez --- The Mets healthiest outfielder has been perhaps their least-effective outfielder. At least offensively. All praise to Endy's D.

#5 Corner Outfielder: Clark --- Played in four games, got sent down, and when we soon needed him back, he had gotten himself knocked out for the season.

#6 Corner Outfielder: Anderson --- A pretender out there in the best of times, Anderson never found his stroke this season, and has been out since 5/24 with a torn hammy. He's neither expected back soon nor expected to contribute much when he returns.

With fakirs like Easley and Tatis, Chavez hitting twice a week, and desperate calls for overwhelmed fill-ins like Nick Evans, we need corner outfield bats like we need oxygen.

No, I'm not "in love" with Pascucci, I reach for him simply to confront the reality of my surroundings.

Wilie aside, I'm having trouble convincing myself Valentine could get an offense out of this situation.

[Benjamin Grimm]

All very true.

Tatis has been overused in left field. He's probably best suited to be a Rusty Staub (circa 1984) at this point, a pinch hitter spending as little time in the field as possible. There was one game (I don't remember which one) where the Mets were protecting a late-inning lead and Tatis was still in left, with Endy on the bench. If ever there was a time for a defensive substitution, it was then, but Willie kept Tatis out there. (I don't recall if Willie got burned by doing that. Probably not; if he had I'd be remembering more of the details.)

After his hot September, I was on board with bringing back Alou, but we're seeing how unwise a move that was. It's true that he's a .340 hitter, and it's great to have him in the lineup when he's healthy, but their lack of depth in the outfield is killing the Mets. The "we'll take what we can get from him when he's healthy" approach really doesn't work very well with a position player. (I think it's probably a lot less disruptive with a starting pitcher, like Pedro or Orlando Hernandez. The fact is, everyone fully expected Alou to miss some time this year, and the Mets plan was to have Pagan and/or Endy fill in for him during the time he was hurt.

That worked well in April, when Pagan played really well, but for this kind of approach to really work over the course of a season, you need to have that fourth outfielder who's legitimately good enough to be a full-time corner outfielder on a contending major league team. And if they did have that guy, then you don't really need a Moises Alou.

[Guest AG/DC]

It's not the soundness of bringing back Alou that I'm chagrinned with (we knew we rolling the dice), but the soundness of beta-plans like Brady Clark.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, I think Plan B was Pagan and Chavez. Plan C was probably Marlon Anderson and Brady Clark.

Plan D was Tatis and Evans. And now we're struggling to find out what Plan E is.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Tatis as the "everyday" left fielder on this trip tells you what you need to know.

And I think Alou's frequent injuries and false proclaimations of his impending return to the lineup causes way more trouble than its worth -- and more attention than its gotten. You could just see shoulders of the entire offense slump once Alou announced he wouldn't return... and you can feel them pressing because they know how inferior a club they are without him.

You really can't separate healthy Alou from injured-and-close-to-returning Alou: He's the same guy. That signing has been a complete disaster. I'd prefer he just announce his retirement than fuck over the team by getting injured and perhaps returning at some point again.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

AG/DC wrote: It's not the soundness of bringing back Alou that I'm chagrinned with (we knew we rolling the dice), but the soundness of beta-plans like Brady Clark.

See, I am saying brining Alou back was unsound, precisely because, as we've seen, faking it as an everyday CO is harder than it looks.

I think it would be just as easy to bring in an everyday LF who isn't an injury risk than to find a reserve capable of assuming the awesome burden of relicating Alou's presence.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Or they can trade Oliver Perez for the best left-fielder they can manage to get, and tell Alou that he's a pinch-hitter, fill-in outfielder for the remainder of the season.

Alou, too, may have trade value once he returns. Would a young contending team (like Tampa Bay, perhaps) have use for a veteran DH/pinch-hitter with a solid bat? It may be a stretch (I have no idea what the Rays may or may not need) but veteran players do get dealt to contenders often enough.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'd trade Alou in a hot second.

Scram.

Unreliability is the scourge of this team.

Pedro, Castro, Alou ... fuck 'em. Out.

[Theoldmole]

It was pretty much the same last year. It's like the jock student's summation of history in The History Boys: History is just one fucking thing after another.

The Mets' outfield history is just one fucking injury after another. They should never trade another outfielder, because no matter how low on the depth chart he is, they'll need him at some point.

[Guest AG/DC]

]fuck 'em. Out.

OK, cleon. We'll clean house. Until then... it's just that Cincinnati always managed to have four-to-five big, bad outfielders ready for regular duty. Whenever Ken Griffey came off the DL, it was always a cryfest over who was going to sit.

Why can't rich bitches like New York have that sort of soap opera?

[Willets Point]

AG/DC wrote: ]fuck 'em. Out. OK, cleon.

Why are you calling Lunchbucket, cleon. He's much smarter than that.

[Gwreck]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Would a young contending team (like Tampa Bay, perhaps) have use for a veteran DH/pinch-hitter with a solid bat?

They already have Alou's Mets predecessor in that role.

[Guest AG/DC]

Willets Point wrote: Why are you calling Lunchbucket, cleon. He's much smarter than that.

Well, ballbusting is a sport too.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

="AG/DC"] ]fuck 'em. Out. OK, cleon. We'll clean house. Until then... it's just that Cincinnati always managed to have four-to-five big, bad outfielders ready for regular duty. Whenever Ken Griffey came off the DL, it was always a cryfest over who was going to sit. Why can't rich bitches like New York have that sort of soap opera?

Don't put me in a position to defend the bench. Nobody was less supportive than me of its makeup.

But I think the problem is much more than a failure to support Alou, it's a matter of having Alou to support in the first place, and worse, the collateral damage that having to patch up the lineup for weeks at a time does to the season.

[Vic Sage]

i'm with Mr. Lunchbucket.

I'm not even sure what the hell he's talkin about... but i'm with bucketman.

[Guest AG/DC]

Well, he's through with the fruits of TiTTS, that's for sure.

[Guest sharpie]

I don't think re-signing Alou was necessarily the problem. It was that we had no credible full-time fourth outfielder in place a la Cincinnati. Were we so concerned that, say, Kenny Lofton would pout because he wasn't a full-timer that we opted to have the likes of Marlon Anderson as an outfield backup? Maybe that is what getting Angel Pagan was supposed to be about, but at the time it looked like he was headed to AAA since we had to keep Anderson and Chavez on the big team.

[metirish]

I remember the last time Alou was coming back to the team I posted how much Alou felt the team missed him and how him being back would be a calming influence on the team ,something like that anyhow, well it's the same again I think, yesterday Burckhardt was talking about Alou and how he thinks Mosis is a great litmus test as to how the team is doing and that Alou feels like he needs to get back before it becomes to late and they get buried in the standings.

Alou also said that there is no point rushing back just to get injured again, seems like the club puts way to much into Alou being on the team, he's on the DL all the time for fecks sake.

[Vic Sage]

to which sour TiTT fruits are you referring -- the trade of young talent for Santana? the trade of young talent for Church & Schneider? I don't think either of those is the problem so far.

The Delgado trade? Even this least successful TiTTsian deal helped the Mets. Unless your still holding out hope for Petit (since traded to Az) and Grant Psalmas (?), Delgado (even as a diminished player) has been more productive than Mike Jacobs (albeit at a much higher $$ cost) during the first 2 years after the deal. This third year, Jacobs has been hurt, but is finally outproducing Delgado, as Carlos fades into the sunset. But the trade did what it was originally supposed to do... push us into the post-season in 06.

If by TiTTS fruit you referring to the signing of old, broken down ballplayers in general, that's not really representative of the TiTTS philosophy... but you knew that already.

[Guest AG/DC]

Well, yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Or he's referring to.

But you knew that already.

[Frayed Knot]

Alou claiming he'll "definitely" be back Tuesday.

Marlon maybe within a week.

I have no idea what's up with Pagan. Wasn't his a "bruised shoulder"?

[Gwreck]

AG/DC wrote: Well, he's through with the fruits of TiTTS, that's for sure.

Could someone spell out this acronym for me?

[Guest AG/DC]

The Trade in Tomorrow for Today Society.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

AG/DC wrote: Well, yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Or he's referring to. But you knew that already.

I'm referring to the fruit of TiTTs not being representative of TiTTs?

I think maybe I should speak for myself.

[Willets Point]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think maybe I should speak for myself.

A capital idea.

[Guest AG/DC]

You referred, specifically, to Pedro, Castro and Alou.

Not to Church and Schneider, as Vic switched the subject to.

It's a little late in the game for Vic or most of us to claim to have supported that trade under any banner.

I don't think there's any real disagreement here.

[Guest AG/DC]

As grumpy Met fans, I think we're manufacturing one. I withdraw Titty refernces.

[Guest AG/DC]

Chris Aguila recently hit six homers in four days, and has 16 total.

Pasucci hasn't homered over the last ten games, but is 12-34 over that stretch.

Alou is due back tomorry.

[Vic Sage]

AG/DC wrote: You referred, specifically, to Pedro, Castro and Alou. Not to Church and Schneider, as Vic switched the subject to. It's a little late in the game for Vic or most of us to claim to have supported that trade under any banner. I don't think there's any real disagreement here.

now wait a second.

I didn't bring up TiTTS. YOU did. I didn't switch the subject, which was Lunchbucket's objections (as i understand it) to filling the roster with broken down players. I was commenting on the inappropriateness of YOU switching the subject, which you did by obliquely referring to the objects of Johnny's scorn (you just specified Pedro, Castro and Alou) as TiTTS-type players. And they are not.

You were taking an opportunity to slam TiTTS, in a situation that was not relevant to the discussion. So I attempted to point that out. But I'M the one accused of changing the subject? I was just correcting a misimpression that you put out there.

None of the players Johnny was talking about were TiTTS-type players, and i gave current examples of TiTTS type acquisitions so as to distinguish them. While I was certainly not happy about the Church/Milledge deal,and have said so publicly and repeatedly, it was CLEARLY an example of a TiTTS-type move, and so far it seems to be working out. Between that and the Santana deal, it seems hard to make the case that a TiTTS philosophy is to blame for our current situation.

[Guest AG/DC]

I withdrew the comment so as not to spiral in this direction.