Tony Bernazard, Profanity-Laced Tirader

[ashie62]

The only time I have taken my shirt off at work, dress shirt or otherwise would be while taking a 10 minute crap on a warm day in a poorly ventilated office bathroom

[Piggiestomatoes]

From today's Post...

]"Bernazard also had a confrontation with closer Francisco Rodriguez last week in Atlanta, something Rodriguez confirmed to The Post. "

If Omar doesn't go too, he's teflon.

[Guest Edgy DC]

And so the drums beat.

Why?

[nymr83]

Wait, is this seperate from Bernazard's argument with Rodriguez that we already heard about?

I know its hard to know what goes on behind closed doors, maybe this is par for the course in a major league organization and it just doesnt get out in most places, but I feel like I've heard enough "Bad Boy Bernazard" stories to wonder why the heck he is still here.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Sure, but you also know articles are not without agenda. The Mets had nothing a few days ago that was moving papers. Every fifth day is the tragedy of Johan. Tired stuff.

But now... this is an electric story, and the tabloids have devoted absurd space to it. You'd think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was back in town. Don't you think they'd inflate and rehash anything they had on him right now? Demons sell, and the press has one.

Maybe he does deserve to go, but I hope the Mets don't make that decision based on the number of inches of negative ink. Him staying or going is unlikely to save their season.

[nymr83]

I already think the season isn't saveable, I just think that if everything we've heard is true that he's not a guy the organization needs around.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, I agree, I guess, but that's something I consider meaningfully different from "I feel like I've heard enough 'Bad Boy Bernazard' stories to wonder why the heck he is still here." That suggests that the negative stories themselves, and not the Mets determination on their level of veracity, should be enough to trigger his firing.

[G-Fafif]

Do you think there's any chance the Mets might investigate the matter? Or if there'll be an investigation? Maybe an investigation would be in order. Somebody should definitely investigate.

I, for one, would like to hear from Omar Minaya regarding a potential investigation...or perhaps a plan in which investigating would take place.

Then, once an investigation is conducted, Omar can say the matter has been investigated. I'd feel a lot better if Omar would simply address the issue of a possible investigation.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think you're taking the piss with me, G.

What I'd like to hear is that the Mets have gone back in time and retroactively signed Adam Dunn.

[seawolf17]

="Edgy DC":33yv314c]What I'd like to hear is that the Mets have gone back in time and retroactively signed Adam Dunn.[/quote:33yv314c] I'd like to investigate that possibility as well.

G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 08:49 AM

Five bucks to the first deputy to tell a visibly impatient Tony Bernazard, "Keep your shirt on."

Valadius Jul 24 2009 10:36 AM

I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.

Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 10:54 AM

="Valadius":1uyyir7g]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:1uyyir7g] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure". Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 10:55 AM they also took 4 guys from the system to get Santana, so those guys had to be highly regarded enough to do that. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 11:39 AM ="Frayed Knot":2mcveioa] ="Valadius":2mcveioa]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:2mcveioa] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure".[/quote:2mcveioa] Abject, I-pooped-in-my-hand-type failure? No. Comparative failure? Possibly. After all, what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Plus, those guys have played, but how well? However you might feel about Evans and Murphy, numbers-wise, they've performed at sub-replacement level on the field for their positions so far. Parnell's got a nice fastball, but with his iffy command/lack of any real secondary pitch, he may-- just may-- have already seen his peak. Simply ennumerating successes (and qualified ones, at that) is a bit like saying, "Well, our hitting coach isn't failing; after all, we got two hits just last night." (Without doing an in-depth examination, it seems that we've gotten less substantive input from internal products than a good number of the teams in our income bracket-- Sox, Yanks, Angels, etc.) Additionally, there's the issue of (over?)aggressive promotions... Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 11:51 AM Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 12:04 PM ="Edgy DC":rxv5qb1y]But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis.[/quote:rxv5qb1y] I don't know if he's done his job or not. I think he needs to be fired for challenging minor leaguers to a fight in the clubhouse (the other incidents aren't as serious but show that it wasn't a one time lapse in judgment, like a car thief with a history of shoplifting) Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 12:06 PM ]what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Pelfrey = 2005 Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 12:38 PM I think I'm just caught in this cycle. - Fire him because of the incident. - Can we establish that? - Fire him becasue of failure. - Can we establish that? - Fire him because of the incident. Just plug in "Can we establish that first?" for my next ten posts, unless someone establishes that. Meantime: Products from the 2005 draft --- Pelfrey (1), Jonathan Niese (7), Bobby Parnell (9). Products from the 2006 draft --- Joseph Smith (2), Daniel Murphy (16). Products from the 2007 draft --- Eddie Kunz (1). Farmer Ted Jul 24 2009 12:51 PM Does Tony have input on the draft or just the development of the player after the draft? It is typically the responsibility of the minor league and roving coaching staffs to develop that talent thus simply making Tony (VP of Player Development) a mechanism of reporting back to the NY office. I could do that fucking job and I've never exposed my man boobs in a fit of rage. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 03:12 PM ="Edgy DC"]Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Pelfrey's was a Boras client that dropped a bit because of expected contract demands; it's also the one year during the Omar era where the team (A) had a first round pick and ( aimed at the highest-ceiling guy on the board, regardless of projected signing cost. The others? They've all seen major-league time, granted. They've also produced either produced little or exeeded meager expectations at that level (Kunz hasn't even met those expectations). Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- of needing any warm body you can when your lineup includes as many Alous and Castillos, and your bench as many Easleys and Andersons, as the Mets have over the last two years-- rather than their forcing the issue with performance. More telling, as Ted points out, his job-- presumably-- is player development, not drafting. How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Pelfrey, sort of... but he's a high-resource-commitment first-rounder; it would be more of a story if he hadn't done anything. Bannister was already out of the oven, more or less, before Bernazard took his current position. Unless I'm forgetting someone... there isn't much else. (There are a few Heath Bells, Henry Owens, and Jason Vargases, though, currently thriving in other organizations these days.) Anyway... I'm not really arguing that he's failed-- I'm more arguing that he hasn't out-and-out succeeded. If half of the stories about his work style are true, then he would have to be exceedingly good, results-wise, to justify keeping around. (I mean, there's no established track record of success for the guy at prior gigs... because he doesn't have a player eval/development/analysis track record.) (NOTE: the reason I pulled out the Yanks, Sox and Angels is both because those guys approximate what we bring to the table, International-signing-money-wise, and because I figured including small-marketeers who concentrated primarily on stockpiling prospects-- Royals, Rays, Marlins, etc.-- might make the Met system look unfairly shitty. I do agree that, if you're evaluating his merits, you'd have to do a more comprehensive study of MLB team's development systems to have a control.) G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 04:33 PM So...is there gonna be an investigation or what? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:10 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues--[/quote:25chb1ol] Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success?[/quote:25chb1ol] Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:23 PM The Baseball Cube has a crude system of scoring draft success. They rank the team's Bernazard era drafts thusly: 2005: Fifth 2006: 17th 2007: 16th 2008: Not yet available. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 05:54 PM I don't think we had this, from Adam Rubin last night: ]The scout dragged into the headlines when Mets VP for player development Tony Bernazard unleashed a verbal assault on another team official essentially confirmed the Daily News' exclusive report of the incident. Diamondbacks scout Carlos Gomez said Thursday that he didn't want to "pile onto Tony," but that he could not dispute The News' account. Gomez said his lone interest in speaking about the incident is to make it clear that he had no involvement in the confrontation. "Tony did not get into it with me at all," Gomez said. "He didn't address me. He didn't curse me out. We didn't have a spat. In no way did I feel Tony singled me out or treated me incorrectly." So he wasn't yelling at the scout, only the deputy, according to this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled shirt opera. Valadius Jul 24 2009 06:45 PM Then he's an abusive boss as well. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:24 PM As well as what? That's what the actual issue is. The rush to judgment here is getting absurd. Doesn't anybody wonder if Bernazard goes down as a scapegoat that it might actually perpertuate the orgazational issues and tenures you actually want to see confronted? Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 08:31 PM Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 09:21 PM ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. Pelfrey was the big project, and has sort of worked out. Smith and Parnell showed a little something in ST and limited trials-- enough to contribute on the squad. But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? If he's running player development, he's not just responsible for the progress of the guys drafted while he had the job. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 09:37 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. What in the world makes you think I'm telling you that? I'm not really telling telling you anything. I'm asking for a framework of what we're talking about. Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. SteveJRogers Jul 24 2009 10:12 PM ="Frayed Knot":121a00be]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs.[/quote:121a00be] When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:39 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 06:34 AM Yeah, I don't recall a witch hunt to purify the organization of Tim Teufel, Ron Darling, Rick Aguilera and Bob Ojeda when they got in a fight with a handful of police. This, of course, wasn't the first time that year a Met had manhandled a cop, as Dwight Gooden pleaded no contest to having assaulted not one, but two cops. And from my perspective, it's Met fans doing the piling on, not "non-Met fans." LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:47 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 10:51 PM ="Edgy DC"] Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. I think I was a bit unclear in that first post, and my meaning was missed. I wasn't stating that the Mets received no contribution from their recent draftees; rather, I was arguing that having a handful of players make the majors isn't indicative of a minor-league system's fertility... and that the performance of these guys, if anything, may point to the opposite. (May.) But, yeah, there's a whole bunch of rush-to-judgement here. What I'm advocating is a rush to scrutiny-- an actual investigation by the team-- and by fans-- of the system over the last 3 years. ="SteveJRogers"]And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW With all due respect, I disagree entirely. The amount and intensity of the pile-on is almost entirely a function of how little there is to talk about in terms of on-field positives; most of the stories-- and fan-talk, really-- seem to make the point, implicitly and explicitly, that the off-field disorder mirrors the on-field decrepitude. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:49 PM I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:52 PM ="Edgy DC"]I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. Girl? It's a little bit girly, is why I ask. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 05:53 AM ="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 04:44 PM ="Frayed Knot"] ="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. And you also have to give the fact that in 1986 ESPN was yet to explode in terms of daily barrages of information to the mass audiences, WFAN was a year away from being born and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. In other words, it is hard to really say "well, would this have happened when the Mets were winning? I think not." Because certain avenues for fan venting and mass information consumption either hadn't open yet, or were some time from being prevalent. And things were being said back in 99-00 about how the Mets handled certain situations and the actions of one Bobby Valentine. Sure Met fans were probably going "LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU, how far back are we from the Braves today?" But the non fans were making comments about Valentine's nutty behavior, the Mets refusal to retaliate, especially against the Yankees, and other issues of note. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 05:24 PM BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series. dgwphotography Jul 25 2009 05:57 PM ="SteveJRogers":z2ocfwgg]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:z2ocfwgg] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born... SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:03 PM ="dgwphotography":2ddliwek] ="SteveJRogers":2ddliwek]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:2ddliwek] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:2ddliwek] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident. Kong76 Jul 25 2009 06:08 PM dgw: This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born <<< Plus, they probably pick on him (like some of us) because he's a closet Yankee fan in Mets' clothing. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 06:30 PM ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:58 PM ="Nymr83"] ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, but that is part of the point, what has been going on with this franchise has been just another opportunity after another for the organization to be considered an absolute utter disgrace. Hell, the Yankees did make it back to the postseason the following year, and three more years after that, and probably will make it again this year. That's more to the point where the Mets are seen as a joke in the eyes of many. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 07:30 PM ]The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, i don't agree. the Yanks had a better year (because they made a postseaon and won the frst round), but their collapse was still worse being that it took place in the postseason Kong76 Jul 25 2009 07:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 07:48 PM *post removed, for duh-ness* SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 07:47 PM No, its worse because it continues to perpetuate the notion that the Mets are losers and a pathetic organization. Especially in light of what happened last year, and this current campaign. Again, the Yankees were back in the postseason in 2005-2007 and most likely will be in it again this season. Historically the Yankees losing the 2004 ALCS is a bump in the road, the 7 up with 17 to play 2007 Mets is yet another reason to say how the Met organization is a disgrace to professional sports. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 07:53 PM ][Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. It wouldn't matter because I don't wrap my self-esteem up in the current status of a baseball team to the point where I react to taunting from those who do by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem. Besides, it wasn't a Yanqui fan that brought up the "disgrace" line it was y ... oh wait, nevermind. [walked into that one] Fman99 Jul 25 2009 08:23 PM ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q] ="dgwphotography":1scxpm4q] ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:1scxpm4q] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:1scxpm4q] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:1scxpm4q] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 08:49 PM ] by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem i want him fired for trying to fight ballplayers, nothing else. is he "part of the [alleged] problem" in talent development? i don't know or care as long he's challenging our players to fights. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 08:57 PM ="Fman99":fvuk1kki] ="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki] ="dgwphotography":fvuk1kki] ="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:fvuk1kki] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:fvuk1kki] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:fvuk1kki] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people.[/quote:fvuk1kki] Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. Because clearly if Met fans shouldn't give a flying fuck about how the Mets are perceived by others, then why should we give a flying fuck about how the "Yankee Way" is a crock of shit? Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 09:43 PM Don't tell us what its ok to comment on. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 09:59 PM ="Nymr83":20535dbm]Don't tell us what its ok to comment on.[/quote:20535dbm] It relates to how the Mets are perceived as an organization by others. But if you are fine rooting for an franchise that is subject to slings and arrows on a seemingly endless basis and counter all those comments with "who gives a fucking rat's ass what the fuck you fuckers think" it really is tough to go the other way on subjects that have to do with other organizations. In other words, why should THEY, or anyone give a fucking rat's ass what the fuck any fucker says? SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 10:05 PM Look, this was a black eye for the organization that has way too much of them in recent years, that is the point I'm trying to make. Yes more is made because the team has been playing horribly, but the point I'm trying to make is that shit like this shouldn't be passed over by Met fans as "if we were winning, no one in the media, internet, sports radio, etc. would give a shit." Its because it is a black eye for the organization, and fodder for more shit from everyone from bloggers to late night comedians that make it a big deal and one that should be addressed and not swept away. Again, even if the Mets were leading the division by 20 games at this point. Frayed Knot Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM ]Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. No, we can comment on it all we want. The mistake, from the Yanqui viewpoint, would be for them to change how they do things solely based on our reaction. For the same reason, the Mets should decide what to do with Bernazard based on his performance and conduct rather than out of some silly notion that it's going to make MFY fans stop saying 'bad things 'bout the Mets'. And those Met fans who want to make Bernazard the fall-guy whether he deserves it or not are simply playing into the trap of doing things for pr reasons rather than solving the problem itself. Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 06:56 AM ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2ae45851] ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2ae45851] Pick a side, my son. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 11:49 AM ="Edgy DC":2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2etn8uzp] Pick a side, my son.[/quote:2etn8uzp] The hell is your point Edge? You have to be a Yanqui fan to consider the Met collapse in 2007 worse than the Yankees blowing the 2004 ALCS? Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 11:58 AM The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 12:11 PM ="Edgy DC":2xyqenpp]The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later.[/quote:2xyqenpp] Not really, I showed it as a recent example compared to dgw suggesting that they were not students of history (by saying Tony B's minors incident was worse than Steinbrenner's elevator fight) Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 12:53 PM My head hurts. metsguyinmichigan Jul 27 2009 12:56 PM Mets shame: -- Idiot front office type takes off shirt to yell at 20-something minor leaguers. -- Bad patch on sleeve -- Occasional lapses in fielding. Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? Valadius Jul 27 2009 03:42 PM Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 27 2009 08:15 PM ="Valadius":1xy2oval]Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling.[/quote:1xy2oval] ...and Georgie girl. I wouldn't take money to listen or her and Sterling. MFS62 Jul 27 2009 10:00 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":39c9vxup] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace?[/quote:39c9vxup] You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 10:05 PM ="MFS62"] ="metsguyinmichigan"] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later Ahem. (I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 27 2009 10:10 PM Double post. G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM ](I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) He said "next to last," but Phillies and Tigers came after MFYs, then Red Sox. Old news, I'd have to say. Plenty to bash MFYs on in this century. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 11:08 PM Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension. Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:11 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3npdogpk]Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension.[/quote:3npdogpk] Or Bernazards emotions Edgy DC Aug 02 2009 01:55 PM Daily News (but not Adam Rubin) digging up a lot more PLT stories about Bernazard. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_tony_bern_out.html?page=0 Rockin' Doc Aug 02 2009 03:11 PM Hard to feel much sympathy for Bernazard the more stories you read of his vitriolic behavior toward players and staff of the Mets system. The more I read of his tirades, the more negatively Bernazard's tenure reflects upon Minaya and the Wilpons for allowing such an embarrassment to remain in their employ for as long as they did. Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2009 07:04 AM Huh! Edgy DC Aug 04 2009 07:08 AM Oh, you missed some shee-it. Ashie62 Aug 04 2009 12:58 PM A little league first fight in Princeton, NJ? Darling the Eli must love that one

[G-Fafif]

Five bucks to the first deputy to tell a visibly impatient Tony Bernazard, "Keep your shirt on."

[Valadius]

I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.

[Frayed Knot]

="Valadius":1uyyir7g]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:1uyyir7g] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure".

Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 10:55 AM

they also took 4 guys from the system to get Santana, so those guys had to be highly regarded enough to do that.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 11:39 AM

="Frayed Knot":2mcveioa] ="Valadius":2mcveioa]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:2mcveioa] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure".[/quote:2mcveioa] Abject, I-pooped-in-my-hand-type failure? No. Comparative failure? Possibly. After all, what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Plus, those guys have played, but how well? However you might feel about Evans and Murphy, numbers-wise, they've performed at sub-replacement level on the field for their positions so far. Parnell's got a nice fastball, but with his iffy command/lack of any real secondary pitch, he may-- just may-- have already seen his peak. Simply ennumerating successes (and qualified ones, at that) is a bit like saying, "Well, our hitting coach isn't failing; after all, we got two hits just last night." (Without doing an in-depth examination, it seems that we've gotten less substantive input from internal products than a good number of the teams in our income bracket-- Sox, Yanks, Angels, etc.) Additionally, there's the issue of (over?)aggressive promotions... Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 11:51 AM Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 12:04 PM ="Edgy DC":rxv5qb1y]But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis.[/quote:rxv5qb1y] I don't know if he's done his job or not. I think he needs to be fired for challenging minor leaguers to a fight in the clubhouse (the other incidents aren't as serious but show that it wasn't a one time lapse in judgment, like a car thief with a history of shoplifting) Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 12:06 PM ]what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Pelfrey = 2005 Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 12:38 PM I think I'm just caught in this cycle. - Fire him because of the incident. - Can we establish that? - Fire him becasue of failure. - Can we establish that? - Fire him because of the incident. Just plug in "Can we establish that first?" for my next ten posts, unless someone establishes that. Meantime: Products from the 2005 draft --- Pelfrey (1), Jonathan Niese (7), Bobby Parnell (9). Products from the 2006 draft --- Joseph Smith (2), Daniel Murphy (16). Products from the 2007 draft --- Eddie Kunz (1). Farmer Ted Jul 24 2009 12:51 PM Does Tony have input on the draft or just the development of the player after the draft? It is typically the responsibility of the minor league and roving coaching staffs to develop that talent thus simply making Tony (VP of Player Development) a mechanism of reporting back to the NY office. I could do that fucking job and I've never exposed my man boobs in a fit of rage. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 03:12 PM ="Edgy DC"]Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Pelfrey's was a Boras client that dropped a bit because of expected contract demands; it's also the one year during the Omar era where the team (A) had a first round pick and ( aimed at the highest-ceiling guy on the board, regardless of projected signing cost. The others? They've all seen major-league time, granted. They've also produced either produced little or exeeded meager expectations at that level (Kunz hasn't even met those expectations). Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- of needing any warm body you can when your lineup includes as many Alous and Castillos, and your bench as many Easleys and Andersons, as the Mets have over the last two years-- rather than their forcing the issue with performance. More telling, as Ted points out, his job-- presumably-- is player development, not drafting. How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Pelfrey, sort of... but he's a high-resource-commitment first-rounder; it would be more of a story if he hadn't done anything. Bannister was already out of the oven, more or less, before Bernazard took his current position. Unless I'm forgetting someone... there isn't much else. (There are a few Heath Bells, Henry Owens, and Jason Vargases, though, currently thriving in other organizations these days.) Anyway... I'm not really arguing that he's failed-- I'm more arguing that he hasn't out-and-out succeeded. If half of the stories about his work style are true, then he would have to be exceedingly good, results-wise, to justify keeping around. (I mean, there's no established track record of success for the guy at prior gigs... because he doesn't have a player eval/development/analysis track record.) (NOTE: the reason I pulled out the Yanks, Sox and Angels is both because those guys approximate what we bring to the table, International-signing-money-wise, and because I figured including small-marketeers who concentrated primarily on stockpiling prospects-- Royals, Rays, Marlins, etc.-- might make the Met system look unfairly shitty. I do agree that, if you're evaluating his merits, you'd have to do a more comprehensive study of MLB team's development systems to have a control.) G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 04:33 PM So...is there gonna be an investigation or what? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:10 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues--[/quote:25chb1ol] Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success?[/quote:25chb1ol] Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:23 PM The Baseball Cube has a crude system of scoring draft success. They rank the team's Bernazard era drafts thusly: 2005: Fifth 2006: 17th 2007: 16th 2008: Not yet available. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 05:54 PM I don't think we had this, from Adam Rubin last night: ]The scout dragged into the headlines when Mets VP for player development Tony Bernazard unleashed a verbal assault on another team official essentially confirmed the Daily News' exclusive report of the incident. Diamondbacks scout Carlos Gomez said Thursday that he didn't want to "pile onto Tony," but that he could not dispute The News' account. Gomez said his lone interest in speaking about the incident is to make it clear that he had no involvement in the confrontation. "Tony did not get into it with me at all," Gomez said. "He didn't address me. He didn't curse me out. We didn't have a spat. In no way did I feel Tony singled me out or treated me incorrectly." So he wasn't yelling at the scout, only the deputy, according to this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled shirt opera. Valadius Jul 24 2009 06:45 PM Then he's an abusive boss as well. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:24 PM As well as what? That's what the actual issue is. The rush to judgment here is getting absurd. Doesn't anybody wonder if Bernazard goes down as a scapegoat that it might actually perpertuate the orgazational issues and tenures you actually want to see confronted? Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 08:31 PM Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 09:21 PM ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. Pelfrey was the big project, and has sort of worked out. Smith and Parnell showed a little something in ST and limited trials-- enough to contribute on the squad. But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? If he's running player development, he's not just responsible for the progress of the guys drafted while he had the job. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 09:37 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. What in the world makes you think I'm telling you that? I'm not really telling telling you anything. I'm asking for a framework of what we're talking about. Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. SteveJRogers Jul 24 2009 10:12 PM ="Frayed Knot":121a00be]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs.[/quote:121a00be] When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:39 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 06:34 AM Yeah, I don't recall a witch hunt to purify the organization of Tim Teufel, Ron Darling, Rick Aguilera and Bob Ojeda when they got in a fight with a handful of police. This, of course, wasn't the first time that year a Met had manhandled a cop, as Dwight Gooden pleaded no contest to having assaulted not one, but two cops. And from my perspective, it's Met fans doing the piling on, not "non-Met fans." LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:47 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 10:51 PM ="Edgy DC"] Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. I think I was a bit unclear in that first post, and my meaning was missed. I wasn't stating that the Mets received no contribution from their recent draftees; rather, I was arguing that having a handful of players make the majors isn't indicative of a minor-league system's fertility... and that the performance of these guys, if anything, may point to the opposite. (May.) But, yeah, there's a whole bunch of rush-to-judgement here. What I'm advocating is a rush to scrutiny-- an actual investigation by the team-- and by fans-- of the system over the last 3 years. ="SteveJRogers"]And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW With all due respect, I disagree entirely. The amount and intensity of the pile-on is almost entirely a function of how little there is to talk about in terms of on-field positives; most of the stories-- and fan-talk, really-- seem to make the point, implicitly and explicitly, that the off-field disorder mirrors the on-field decrepitude. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:49 PM I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:52 PM ="Edgy DC"]I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. Girl? It's a little bit girly, is why I ask. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 05:53 AM ="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 04:44 PM ="Frayed Knot"] ="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. And you also have to give the fact that in 1986 ESPN was yet to explode in terms of daily barrages of information to the mass audiences, WFAN was a year away from being born and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. In other words, it is hard to really say "well, would this have happened when the Mets were winning? I think not." Because certain avenues for fan venting and mass information consumption either hadn't open yet, or were some time from being prevalent. And things were being said back in 99-00 about how the Mets handled certain situations and the actions of one Bobby Valentine. Sure Met fans were probably going "LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU, how far back are we from the Braves today?" But the non fans were making comments about Valentine's nutty behavior, the Mets refusal to retaliate, especially against the Yankees, and other issues of note. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 05:24 PM BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series. dgwphotography Jul 25 2009 05:57 PM ="SteveJRogers":z2ocfwgg]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:z2ocfwgg] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born... SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:03 PM ="dgwphotography":2ddliwek] ="SteveJRogers":2ddliwek]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:2ddliwek] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:2ddliwek] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident. Kong76 Jul 25 2009 06:08 PM dgw: This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born <<< Plus, they probably pick on him (like some of us) because he's a closet Yankee fan in Mets' clothing. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 06:30 PM ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:58 PM ="Nymr83"] ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, but that is part of the point, what has been going on with this franchise has been just another opportunity after another for the organization to be considered an absolute utter disgrace. Hell, the Yankees did make it back to the postseason the following year, and three more years after that, and probably will make it again this year. That's more to the point where the Mets are seen as a joke in the eyes of many. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 07:30 PM ]The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, i don't agree. the Yanks had a better year (because they made a postseaon and won the frst round), but their collapse was still worse being that it took place in the postseason Kong76 Jul 25 2009 07:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 07:48 PM *post removed, for duh-ness* SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 07:47 PM No, its worse because it continues to perpetuate the notion that the Mets are losers and a pathetic organization. Especially in light of what happened last year, and this current campaign. Again, the Yankees were back in the postseason in 2005-2007 and most likely will be in it again this season. Historically the Yankees losing the 2004 ALCS is a bump in the road, the 7 up with 17 to play 2007 Mets is yet another reason to say how the Met organization is a disgrace to professional sports. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 07:53 PM ][Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. It wouldn't matter because I don't wrap my self-esteem up in the current status of a baseball team to the point where I react to taunting from those who do by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem. Besides, it wasn't a Yanqui fan that brought up the "disgrace" line it was y ... oh wait, nevermind. [walked into that one] Fman99 Jul 25 2009 08:23 PM ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q] ="dgwphotography":1scxpm4q] ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:1scxpm4q] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:1scxpm4q] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:1scxpm4q] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 08:49 PM ] by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem i want him fired for trying to fight ballplayers, nothing else. is he "part of the [alleged] problem" in talent development? i don't know or care as long he's challenging our players to fights. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 08:57 PM ="Fman99":fvuk1kki] ="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki] ="dgwphotography":fvuk1kki] ="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:fvuk1kki] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:fvuk1kki] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:fvuk1kki] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people.[/quote:fvuk1kki] Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. Because clearly if Met fans shouldn't give a flying fuck about how the Mets are perceived by others, then why should we give a flying fuck about how the "Yankee Way" is a crock of shit? Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 09:43 PM Don't tell us what its ok to comment on. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 09:59 PM ="Nymr83":20535dbm]Don't tell us what its ok to comment on.[/quote:20535dbm] It relates to how the Mets are perceived as an organization by others. But if you are fine rooting for an franchise that is subject to slings and arrows on a seemingly endless basis and counter all those comments with "who gives a fucking rat's ass what the fuck you fuckers think" it really is tough to go the other way on subjects that have to do with other organizations. In other words, why should THEY, or anyone give a fucking rat's ass what the fuck any fucker says? SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 10:05 PM Look, this was a black eye for the organization that has way too much of them in recent years, that is the point I'm trying to make. Yes more is made because the team has been playing horribly, but the point I'm trying to make is that shit like this shouldn't be passed over by Met fans as "if we were winning, no one in the media, internet, sports radio, etc. would give a shit." Its because it is a black eye for the organization, and fodder for more shit from everyone from bloggers to late night comedians that make it a big deal and one that should be addressed and not swept away. Again, even if the Mets were leading the division by 20 games at this point. Frayed Knot Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM ]Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. No, we can comment on it all we want. The mistake, from the Yanqui viewpoint, would be for them to change how they do things solely based on our reaction. For the same reason, the Mets should decide what to do with Bernazard based on his performance and conduct rather than out of some silly notion that it's going to make MFY fans stop saying 'bad things 'bout the Mets'. And those Met fans who want to make Bernazard the fall-guy whether he deserves it or not are simply playing into the trap of doing things for pr reasons rather than solving the problem itself. Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 06:56 AM ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2ae45851] ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2ae45851] Pick a side, my son. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 11:49 AM ="Edgy DC":2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2etn8uzp] Pick a side, my son.[/quote:2etn8uzp] The hell is your point Edge? You have to be a Yanqui fan to consider the Met collapse in 2007 worse than the Yankees blowing the 2004 ALCS? Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 11:58 AM The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 12:11 PM ="Edgy DC":2xyqenpp]The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later.[/quote:2xyqenpp] Not really, I showed it as a recent example compared to dgw suggesting that they were not students of history (by saying Tony B's minors incident was worse than Steinbrenner's elevator fight) Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 12:53 PM My head hurts. metsguyinmichigan Jul 27 2009 12:56 PM Mets shame: -- Idiot front office type takes off shirt to yell at 20-something minor leaguers. -- Bad patch on sleeve -- Occasional lapses in fielding. Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? Valadius Jul 27 2009 03:42 PM Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 27 2009 08:15 PM ="Valadius":1xy2oval]Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling.[/quote:1xy2oval] ...and Georgie girl. I wouldn't take money to listen or her and Sterling. MFS62 Jul 27 2009 10:00 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":39c9vxup] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace?[/quote:39c9vxup] You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 10:05 PM ="MFS62"] ="metsguyinmichigan"] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later Ahem. (I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 27 2009 10:10 PM Double post. G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM ](I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) He said "next to last," but Phillies and Tigers came after MFYs, then Red Sox. Old news, I'd have to say. Plenty to bash MFYs on in this century. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 11:08 PM Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension. Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:11 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3npdogpk]Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension.[/quote:3npdogpk] Or Bernazards emotions Edgy DC Aug 02 2009 01:55 PM Daily News (but not Adam Rubin) digging up a lot more PLT stories about Bernazard. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_tony_bern_out.html?page=0 Rockin' Doc Aug 02 2009 03:11 PM Hard to feel much sympathy for Bernazard the more stories you read of his vitriolic behavior toward players and staff of the Mets system. The more I read of his tirades, the more negatively Bernazard's tenure reflects upon Minaya and the Wilpons for allowing such an embarrassment to remain in their employ for as long as they did. Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2009 07:04 AM Huh! Edgy DC Aug 04 2009 07:08 AM Oh, you missed some shee-it. Ashie62 Aug 04 2009 12:58 PM A little league first fight in Princeton, NJ? Darling the Eli must love that one

[nymr83]

they also took 4 guys from the system to get Santana, so those guys had to be highly regarded enough to do that.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

="Frayed Knot":2mcveioa] ="Valadius":2mcveioa]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:2mcveioa] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure".[/quote:2mcveioa] Abject, I-pooped-in-my-hand-type failure? No. Comparative failure? Possibly. After all, what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Plus, those guys have played, but how well? However you might feel about Evans and Murphy, numbers-wise, they've performed at sub-replacement level on the field for their positions so far. Parnell's got a nice fastball, but with his iffy command/lack of any real secondary pitch, he may-- just may-- have already seen his peak. Simply ennumerating successes (and qualified ones, at that) is a bit like saying, "Well, our hitting coach isn't failing; after all, we got two hits just last night." (Without doing an in-depth examination, it seems that we've gotten less substantive input from internal products than a good number of the teams in our income bracket-- Sox, Yanks, Angels, etc.) Additionally, there's the issue of (over?)aggressive promotions... Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 11:51 AM Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 12:04 PM ="Edgy DC":rxv5qb1y]But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis.[/quote:rxv5qb1y] I don't know if he's done his job or not. I think he needs to be fired for challenging minor leaguers to a fight in the clubhouse (the other incidents aren't as serious but show that it wasn't a one time lapse in judgment, like a car thief with a history of shoplifting) Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 12:06 PM ]what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Pelfrey = 2005 Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 12:38 PM I think I'm just caught in this cycle. - Fire him because of the incident. - Can we establish that? - Fire him becasue of failure. - Can we establish that? - Fire him because of the incident. Just plug in "Can we establish that first?" for my next ten posts, unless someone establishes that. Meantime: Products from the 2005 draft --- Pelfrey (1), Jonathan Niese (7), Bobby Parnell (9). Products from the 2006 draft --- Joseph Smith (2), Daniel Murphy (16). Products from the 2007 draft --- Eddie Kunz (1). Farmer Ted Jul 24 2009 12:51 PM Does Tony have input on the draft or just the development of the player after the draft? It is typically the responsibility of the minor league and roving coaching staffs to develop that talent thus simply making Tony (VP of Player Development) a mechanism of reporting back to the NY office. I could do that fucking job and I've never exposed my man boobs in a fit of rage. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 03:12 PM ="Edgy DC"]Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Pelfrey's was a Boras client that dropped a bit because of expected contract demands; it's also the one year during the Omar era where the team (A) had a first round pick and ( aimed at the highest-ceiling guy on the board, regardless of projected signing cost. The others? They've all seen major-league time, granted. They've also produced either produced little or exeeded meager expectations at that level (Kunz hasn't even met those expectations). Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- of needing any warm body you can when your lineup includes as many Alous and Castillos, and your bench as many Easleys and Andersons, as the Mets have over the last two years-- rather than their forcing the issue with performance. More telling, as Ted points out, his job-- presumably-- is player development, not drafting. How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Pelfrey, sort of... but he's a high-resource-commitment first-rounder; it would be more of a story if he hadn't done anything. Bannister was already out of the oven, more or less, before Bernazard took his current position. Unless I'm forgetting someone... there isn't much else. (There are a few Heath Bells, Henry Owens, and Jason Vargases, though, currently thriving in other organizations these days.) Anyway... I'm not really arguing that he's failed-- I'm more arguing that he hasn't out-and-out succeeded. If half of the stories about his work style are true, then he would have to be exceedingly good, results-wise, to justify keeping around. (I mean, there's no established track record of success for the guy at prior gigs... because he doesn't have a player eval/development/analysis track record.) (NOTE: the reason I pulled out the Yanks, Sox and Angels is both because those guys approximate what we bring to the table, International-signing-money-wise, and because I figured including small-marketeers who concentrated primarily on stockpiling prospects-- Royals, Rays, Marlins, etc.-- might make the Met system look unfairly shitty. I do agree that, if you're evaluating his merits, you'd have to do a more comprehensive study of MLB team's development systems to have a control.) G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 04:33 PM So...is there gonna be an investigation or what? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:10 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues--[/quote:25chb1ol] Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success?[/quote:25chb1ol] Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:23 PM The Baseball Cube has a crude system of scoring draft success. They rank the team's Bernazard era drafts thusly: 2005: Fifth 2006: 17th 2007: 16th 2008: Not yet available. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 05:54 PM I don't think we had this, from Adam Rubin last night: ]The scout dragged into the headlines when Mets VP for player development Tony Bernazard unleashed a verbal assault on another team official essentially confirmed the Daily News' exclusive report of the incident. Diamondbacks scout Carlos Gomez said Thursday that he didn't want to "pile onto Tony," but that he could not dispute The News' account. Gomez said his lone interest in speaking about the incident is to make it clear that he had no involvement in the confrontation. "Tony did not get into it with me at all," Gomez said. "He didn't address me. He didn't curse me out. We didn't have a spat. In no way did I feel Tony singled me out or treated me incorrectly." So he wasn't yelling at the scout, only the deputy, according to this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled shirt opera. Valadius Jul 24 2009 06:45 PM Then he's an abusive boss as well. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:24 PM As well as what? That's what the actual issue is. The rush to judgment here is getting absurd. Doesn't anybody wonder if Bernazard goes down as a scapegoat that it might actually perpertuate the orgazational issues and tenures you actually want to see confronted? Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 08:31 PM Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 09:21 PM ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. Pelfrey was the big project, and has sort of worked out. Smith and Parnell showed a little something in ST and limited trials-- enough to contribute on the squad. But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? If he's running player development, he's not just responsible for the progress of the guys drafted while he had the job. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 09:37 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. What in the world makes you think I'm telling you that? I'm not really telling telling you anything. I'm asking for a framework of what we're talking about. Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. SteveJRogers Jul 24 2009 10:12 PM ="Frayed Knot":121a00be]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs.[/quote:121a00be] When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:39 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 06:34 AM Yeah, I don't recall a witch hunt to purify the organization of Tim Teufel, Ron Darling, Rick Aguilera and Bob Ojeda when they got in a fight with a handful of police. This, of course, wasn't the first time that year a Met had manhandled a cop, as Dwight Gooden pleaded no contest to having assaulted not one, but two cops. And from my perspective, it's Met fans doing the piling on, not "non-Met fans." LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:47 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 10:51 PM ="Edgy DC"] Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. I think I was a bit unclear in that first post, and my meaning was missed. I wasn't stating that the Mets received no contribution from their recent draftees; rather, I was arguing that having a handful of players make the majors isn't indicative of a minor-league system's fertility... and that the performance of these guys, if anything, may point to the opposite. (May.) But, yeah, there's a whole bunch of rush-to-judgement here. What I'm advocating is a rush to scrutiny-- an actual investigation by the team-- and by fans-- of the system over the last 3 years. ="SteveJRogers"]And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW With all due respect, I disagree entirely. The amount and intensity of the pile-on is almost entirely a function of how little there is to talk about in terms of on-field positives; most of the stories-- and fan-talk, really-- seem to make the point, implicitly and explicitly, that the off-field disorder mirrors the on-field decrepitude. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:49 PM I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:52 PM ="Edgy DC"]I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. Girl? It's a little bit girly, is why I ask. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 05:53 AM ="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 04:44 PM ="Frayed Knot"] ="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. And you also have to give the fact that in 1986 ESPN was yet to explode in terms of daily barrages of information to the mass audiences, WFAN was a year away from being born and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. In other words, it is hard to really say "well, would this have happened when the Mets were winning? I think not." Because certain avenues for fan venting and mass information consumption either hadn't open yet, or were some time from being prevalent. And things were being said back in 99-00 about how the Mets handled certain situations and the actions of one Bobby Valentine. Sure Met fans were probably going "LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU, how far back are we from the Braves today?" But the non fans were making comments about Valentine's nutty behavior, the Mets refusal to retaliate, especially against the Yankees, and other issues of note. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 05:24 PM BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series. dgwphotography Jul 25 2009 05:57 PM ="SteveJRogers":z2ocfwgg]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:z2ocfwgg] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born... SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:03 PM ="dgwphotography":2ddliwek] ="SteveJRogers":2ddliwek]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:2ddliwek] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:2ddliwek] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident. Kong76 Jul 25 2009 06:08 PM dgw: This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born <<< Plus, they probably pick on him (like some of us) because he's a closet Yankee fan in Mets' clothing. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 06:30 PM ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:58 PM ="Nymr83"] ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, but that is part of the point, what has been going on with this franchise has been just another opportunity after another for the organization to be considered an absolute utter disgrace. Hell, the Yankees did make it back to the postseason the following year, and three more years after that, and probably will make it again this year. That's more to the point where the Mets are seen as a joke in the eyes of many. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 07:30 PM ]The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, i don't agree. the Yanks had a better year (because they made a postseaon and won the frst round), but their collapse was still worse being that it took place in the postseason Kong76 Jul 25 2009 07:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 07:48 PM *post removed, for duh-ness* SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 07:47 PM No, its worse because it continues to perpetuate the notion that the Mets are losers and a pathetic organization. Especially in light of what happened last year, and this current campaign. Again, the Yankees were back in the postseason in 2005-2007 and most likely will be in it again this season. Historically the Yankees losing the 2004 ALCS is a bump in the road, the 7 up with 17 to play 2007 Mets is yet another reason to say how the Met organization is a disgrace to professional sports. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 07:53 PM ][Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. It wouldn't matter because I don't wrap my self-esteem up in the current status of a baseball team to the point where I react to taunting from those who do by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem. Besides, it wasn't a Yanqui fan that brought up the "disgrace" line it was y ... oh wait, nevermind. [walked into that one] Fman99 Jul 25 2009 08:23 PM ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q] ="dgwphotography":1scxpm4q] ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:1scxpm4q] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:1scxpm4q] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:1scxpm4q] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 08:49 PM ] by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem i want him fired for trying to fight ballplayers, nothing else. is he "part of the [alleged] problem" in talent development? i don't know or care as long he's challenging our players to fights. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 08:57 PM ="Fman99":fvuk1kki] ="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki] ="dgwphotography":fvuk1kki] ="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:fvuk1kki] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:fvuk1kki] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:fvuk1kki] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people.[/quote:fvuk1kki] Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. Because clearly if Met fans shouldn't give a flying fuck about how the Mets are perceived by others, then why should we give a flying fuck about how the "Yankee Way" is a crock of shit? Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 09:43 PM Don't tell us what its ok to comment on. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 09:59 PM ="Nymr83":20535dbm]Don't tell us what its ok to comment on.[/quote:20535dbm] It relates to how the Mets are perceived as an organization by others. But if you are fine rooting for an franchise that is subject to slings and arrows on a seemingly endless basis and counter all those comments with "who gives a fucking rat's ass what the fuck you fuckers think" it really is tough to go the other way on subjects that have to do with other organizations. In other words, why should THEY, or anyone give a fucking rat's ass what the fuck any fucker says? SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 10:05 PM Look, this was a black eye for the organization that has way too much of them in recent years, that is the point I'm trying to make. Yes more is made because the team has been playing horribly, but the point I'm trying to make is that shit like this shouldn't be passed over by Met fans as "if we were winning, no one in the media, internet, sports radio, etc. would give a shit." Its because it is a black eye for the organization, and fodder for more shit from everyone from bloggers to late night comedians that make it a big deal and one that should be addressed and not swept away. Again, even if the Mets were leading the division by 20 games at this point. Frayed Knot Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM ]Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. No, we can comment on it all we want. The mistake, from the Yanqui viewpoint, would be for them to change how they do things solely based on our reaction. For the same reason, the Mets should decide what to do with Bernazard based on his performance and conduct rather than out of some silly notion that it's going to make MFY fans stop saying 'bad things 'bout the Mets'. And those Met fans who want to make Bernazard the fall-guy whether he deserves it or not are simply playing into the trap of doing things for pr reasons rather than solving the problem itself. Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 06:56 AM ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2ae45851] ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2ae45851] Pick a side, my son. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 11:49 AM ="Edgy DC":2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2etn8uzp] Pick a side, my son.[/quote:2etn8uzp] The hell is your point Edge? You have to be a Yanqui fan to consider the Met collapse in 2007 worse than the Yankees blowing the 2004 ALCS? Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 11:58 AM The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 12:11 PM ="Edgy DC":2xyqenpp]The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later.[/quote:2xyqenpp] Not really, I showed it as a recent example compared to dgw suggesting that they were not students of history (by saying Tony B's minors incident was worse than Steinbrenner's elevator fight) Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 12:53 PM My head hurts. metsguyinmichigan Jul 27 2009 12:56 PM Mets shame: -- Idiot front office type takes off shirt to yell at 20-something minor leaguers. -- Bad patch on sleeve -- Occasional lapses in fielding. Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? Valadius Jul 27 2009 03:42 PM Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 27 2009 08:15 PM ="Valadius":1xy2oval]Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling.[/quote:1xy2oval] ...and Georgie girl. I wouldn't take money to listen or her and Sterling. MFS62 Jul 27 2009 10:00 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":39c9vxup] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace?[/quote:39c9vxup] You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 10:05 PM ="MFS62"] ="metsguyinmichigan"] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later Ahem. (I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 27 2009 10:10 PM Double post. G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM ](I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) He said "next to last," but Phillies and Tigers came after MFYs, then Red Sox. Old news, I'd have to say. Plenty to bash MFYs on in this century. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 11:08 PM Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension. Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:11 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3npdogpk]Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension.[/quote:3npdogpk] Or Bernazards emotions Edgy DC Aug 02 2009 01:55 PM Daily News (but not Adam Rubin) digging up a lot more PLT stories about Bernazard. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_tony_bern_out.html?page=0 Rockin' Doc Aug 02 2009 03:11 PM Hard to feel much sympathy for Bernazard the more stories you read of his vitriolic behavior toward players and staff of the Mets system. The more I read of his tirades, the more negatively Bernazard's tenure reflects upon Minaya and the Wilpons for allowing such an embarrassment to remain in their employ for as long as they did. Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2009 07:04 AM Huh! Edgy DC Aug 04 2009 07:08 AM Oh, you missed some shee-it. Ashie62 Aug 04 2009 12:58 PM A little league first fight in Princeton, NJ? Darling the Eli must love that one

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time.

As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development.

If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams.

But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis.

[nymr83]

="Edgy DC":rxv5qb1y]But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis.[/quote:rxv5qb1y] I don't know if he's done his job or not. I think he needs to be fired for challenging minor leaguers to a fight in the clubhouse (the other incidents aren't as serious but show that it wasn't a one time lapse in judgment, like a car thief with a history of shoplifting)

Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 12:06 PM

]what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Pelfrey = 2005

Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 12:38 PM

I think I'm just caught in this cycle. - Fire him because of the incident. - Can we establish that? - Fire him becasue of failure. - Can we establish that? - Fire him because of the incident. Just plug in "Can we establish that first?" for my next ten posts, unless someone establishes that. Meantime: Products from the 2005 draft --- Pelfrey (1), Jonathan Niese (7), Bobby Parnell (9). Products from the 2006 draft --- Joseph Smith (2), Daniel Murphy (16). Products from the 2007 draft --- Eddie Kunz (1).

Farmer Ted Jul 24 2009 12:51 PM

Does Tony have input on the draft or just the development of the player after the draft? It is typically the responsibility of the minor league and roving coaching staffs to develop that talent thus simply making Tony (VP of Player Development) a mechanism of reporting back to the NY office. I could do that fucking job and I've never exposed my man boobs in a fit of rage.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 03:12 PM

="Edgy DC"]Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Pelfrey's was a Boras client that dropped a bit because of expected contract demands; it's also the one year during the Omar era where the team (A) had a first round pick and ( aimed at the highest-ceiling guy on the board, regardless of projected signing cost. The others? They've all seen major-league time, granted. They've also produced either produced little or exeeded meager expectations at that level (Kunz hasn't even met those expectations). Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- of needing any warm body you can when your lineup includes as many Alous and Castillos, and your bench as many Easleys and Andersons, as the Mets have over the last two years-- rather than their forcing the issue with performance. More telling, as Ted points out, his job-- presumably-- is player development, not drafting. How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Pelfrey, sort of... but he's a high-resource-commitment first-rounder; it would be more of a story if he hadn't done anything. Bannister was already out of the oven, more or less, before Bernazard took his current position. Unless I'm forgetting someone... there isn't much else. (There are a few Heath Bells, Henry Owens, and Jason Vargases, though, currently thriving in other organizations these days.) Anyway... I'm not really arguing that he's failed-- I'm more arguing that he hasn't out-and-out succeeded. If half of the stories about his work style are true, then he would have to be exceedingly good, results-wise, to justify keeping around. (I mean, there's no established track record of success for the guy at prior gigs... because he doesn't have a player eval/development/analysis track record.) (NOTE: the reason I pulled out the Yanks, Sox and Angels is both because those guys approximate what we bring to the table, International-signing-money-wise, and because I figured including small-marketeers who concentrated primarily on stockpiling prospects-- Royals, Rays, Marlins, etc.-- might make the Met system look unfairly shitty. I do agree that, if you're evaluating his merits, you'd have to do a more comprehensive study of MLB team's development systems to have a control.)

G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 04:33 PM

So...is there gonna be an investigation or what?

Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:10 PM

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues--[/quote:25chb1ol] Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success?[/quote:25chb1ol] Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:23 PM The Baseball Cube has a crude system of scoring draft success. They rank the team's Bernazard era drafts thusly: 2005: Fifth 2006: 17th 2007: 16th 2008: Not yet available. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 05:54 PM I don't think we had this, from Adam Rubin last night: ]The scout dragged into the headlines when Mets VP for player development Tony Bernazard unleashed a verbal assault on another team official essentially confirmed the Daily News' exclusive report of the incident. Diamondbacks scout Carlos Gomez said Thursday that he didn't want to "pile onto Tony," but that he could not dispute The News' account. Gomez said his lone interest in speaking about the incident is to make it clear that he had no involvement in the confrontation. "Tony did not get into it with me at all," Gomez said. "He didn't address me. He didn't curse me out. We didn't have a spat. In no way did I feel Tony singled me out or treated me incorrectly." So he wasn't yelling at the scout, only the deputy, according to this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled shirt opera. Valadius Jul 24 2009 06:45 PM Then he's an abusive boss as well. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:24 PM As well as what? That's what the actual issue is. The rush to judgment here is getting absurd. Doesn't anybody wonder if Bernazard goes down as a scapegoat that it might actually perpertuate the orgazational issues and tenures you actually want to see confronted? Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 08:31 PM Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 09:21 PM ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. Pelfrey was the big project, and has sort of worked out. Smith and Parnell showed a little something in ST and limited trials-- enough to contribute on the squad. But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? If he's running player development, he's not just responsible for the progress of the guys drafted while he had the job. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 09:37 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. What in the world makes you think I'm telling you that? I'm not really telling telling you anything. I'm asking for a framework of what we're talking about. Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. SteveJRogers Jul 24 2009 10:12 PM ="Frayed Knot":121a00be]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs.[/quote:121a00be] When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:39 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 06:34 AM Yeah, I don't recall a witch hunt to purify the organization of Tim Teufel, Ron Darling, Rick Aguilera and Bob Ojeda when they got in a fight with a handful of police. This, of course, wasn't the first time that year a Met had manhandled a cop, as Dwight Gooden pleaded no contest to having assaulted not one, but two cops. And from my perspective, it's Met fans doing the piling on, not "non-Met fans." LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:47 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 10:51 PM ="Edgy DC"] Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. I think I was a bit unclear in that first post, and my meaning was missed. I wasn't stating that the Mets received no contribution from their recent draftees; rather, I was arguing that having a handful of players make the majors isn't indicative of a minor-league system's fertility... and that the performance of these guys, if anything, may point to the opposite. (May.) But, yeah, there's a whole bunch of rush-to-judgement here. What I'm advocating is a rush to scrutiny-- an actual investigation by the team-- and by fans-- of the system over the last 3 years. ="SteveJRogers"]And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW With all due respect, I disagree entirely. The amount and intensity of the pile-on is almost entirely a function of how little there is to talk about in terms of on-field positives; most of the stories-- and fan-talk, really-- seem to make the point, implicitly and explicitly, that the off-field disorder mirrors the on-field decrepitude. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:49 PM I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:52 PM ="Edgy DC"]I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. Girl? It's a little bit girly, is why I ask. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 05:53 AM ="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 04:44 PM ="Frayed Knot"] ="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. And you also have to give the fact that in 1986 ESPN was yet to explode in terms of daily barrages of information to the mass audiences, WFAN was a year away from being born and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. In other words, it is hard to really say "well, would this have happened when the Mets were winning? I think not." Because certain avenues for fan venting and mass information consumption either hadn't open yet, or were some time from being prevalent. And things were being said back in 99-00 about how the Mets handled certain situations and the actions of one Bobby Valentine. Sure Met fans were probably going "LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU, how far back are we from the Braves today?" But the non fans were making comments about Valentine's nutty behavior, the Mets refusal to retaliate, especially against the Yankees, and other issues of note. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 05:24 PM BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series. dgwphotography Jul 25 2009 05:57 PM ="SteveJRogers":z2ocfwgg]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:z2ocfwgg] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born... SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:03 PM ="dgwphotography":2ddliwek] ="SteveJRogers":2ddliwek]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:2ddliwek] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:2ddliwek] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident. Kong76 Jul 25 2009 06:08 PM dgw: This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born <<< Plus, they probably pick on him (like some of us) because he's a closet Yankee fan in Mets' clothing. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 06:30 PM ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:58 PM ="Nymr83"] ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, but that is part of the point, what has been going on with this franchise has been just another opportunity after another for the organization to be considered an absolute utter disgrace. Hell, the Yankees did make it back to the postseason the following year, and three more years after that, and probably will make it again this year. That's more to the point where the Mets are seen as a joke in the eyes of many. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 07:30 PM ]The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, i don't agree. the Yanks had a better year (because they made a postseaon and won the frst round), but their collapse was still worse being that it took place in the postseason Kong76 Jul 25 2009 07:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 07:48 PM *post removed, for duh-ness* SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 07:47 PM No, its worse because it continues to perpetuate the notion that the Mets are losers and a pathetic organization. Especially in light of what happened last year, and this current campaign. Again, the Yankees were back in the postseason in 2005-2007 and most likely will be in it again this season. Historically the Yankees losing the 2004 ALCS is a bump in the road, the 7 up with 17 to play 2007 Mets is yet another reason to say how the Met organization is a disgrace to professional sports. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 07:53 PM ][Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. It wouldn't matter because I don't wrap my self-esteem up in the current status of a baseball team to the point where I react to taunting from those who do by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem. Besides, it wasn't a Yanqui fan that brought up the "disgrace" line it was y ... oh wait, nevermind. [walked into that one] Fman99 Jul 25 2009 08:23 PM ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q] ="dgwphotography":1scxpm4q] ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:1scxpm4q] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:1scxpm4q] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:1scxpm4q] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 08:49 PM ] by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem i want him fired for trying to fight ballplayers, nothing else. is he "part of the [alleged] problem" in talent development? i don't know or care as long he's challenging our players to fights. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 08:57 PM ="Fman99":fvuk1kki] ="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki] ="dgwphotography":fvuk1kki] ="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:fvuk1kki] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:fvuk1kki] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:fvuk1kki] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people.[/quote:fvuk1kki] Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. Because clearly if Met fans shouldn't give a flying fuck about how the Mets are perceived by others, then why should we give a flying fuck about how the "Yankee Way" is a crock of shit? Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 09:43 PM Don't tell us what its ok to comment on. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 09:59 PM ="Nymr83":20535dbm]Don't tell us what its ok to comment on.[/quote:20535dbm] It relates to how the Mets are perceived as an organization by others. But if you are fine rooting for an franchise that is subject to slings and arrows on a seemingly endless basis and counter all those comments with "who gives a fucking rat's ass what the fuck you fuckers think" it really is tough to go the other way on subjects that have to do with other organizations. In other words, why should THEY, or anyone give a fucking rat's ass what the fuck any fucker says? SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 10:05 PM Look, this was a black eye for the organization that has way too much of them in recent years, that is the point I'm trying to make. Yes more is made because the team has been playing horribly, but the point I'm trying to make is that shit like this shouldn't be passed over by Met fans as "if we were winning, no one in the media, internet, sports radio, etc. would give a shit." Its because it is a black eye for the organization, and fodder for more shit from everyone from bloggers to late night comedians that make it a big deal and one that should be addressed and not swept away. Again, even if the Mets were leading the division by 20 games at this point. Frayed Knot Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM ]Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. No, we can comment on it all we want. The mistake, from the Yanqui viewpoint, would be for them to change how they do things solely based on our reaction. For the same reason, the Mets should decide what to do with Bernazard based on his performance and conduct rather than out of some silly notion that it's going to make MFY fans stop saying 'bad things 'bout the Mets'. And those Met fans who want to make Bernazard the fall-guy whether he deserves it or not are simply playing into the trap of doing things for pr reasons rather than solving the problem itself. Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 06:56 AM ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2ae45851] ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2ae45851] Pick a side, my son. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 11:49 AM ="Edgy DC":2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2etn8uzp] Pick a side, my son.[/quote:2etn8uzp] The hell is your point Edge? You have to be a Yanqui fan to consider the Met collapse in 2007 worse than the Yankees blowing the 2004 ALCS? Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 11:58 AM The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 12:11 PM ="Edgy DC":2xyqenpp]The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later.[/quote:2xyqenpp] Not really, I showed it as a recent example compared to dgw suggesting that they were not students of history (by saying Tony B's minors incident was worse than Steinbrenner's elevator fight) Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 12:53 PM My head hurts. metsguyinmichigan Jul 27 2009 12:56 PM Mets shame: -- Idiot front office type takes off shirt to yell at 20-something minor leaguers. -- Bad patch on sleeve -- Occasional lapses in fielding. Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? Valadius Jul 27 2009 03:42 PM Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 27 2009 08:15 PM ="Valadius":1xy2oval]Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling.[/quote:1xy2oval] ...and Georgie girl. I wouldn't take money to listen or her and Sterling. MFS62 Jul 27 2009 10:00 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":39c9vxup] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace?[/quote:39c9vxup] You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 10:05 PM ="MFS62"] ="metsguyinmichigan"] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later Ahem. (I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 27 2009 10:10 PM Double post. G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM ](I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) He said "next to last," but Phillies and Tigers came after MFYs, then Red Sox. Old news, I'd have to say. Plenty to bash MFYs on in this century. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 11:08 PM Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension. Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:11 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3npdogpk]Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension.[/quote:3npdogpk] Or Bernazards emotions Edgy DC Aug 02 2009 01:55 PM Daily News (but not Adam Rubin) digging up a lot more PLT stories about Bernazard. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_tony_bern_out.html?page=0 Rockin' Doc Aug 02 2009 03:11 PM Hard to feel much sympathy for Bernazard the more stories you read of his vitriolic behavior toward players and staff of the Mets system. The more I read of his tirades, the more negatively Bernazard's tenure reflects upon Minaya and the Wilpons for allowing such an embarrassment to remain in their employ for as long as they did. Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2009 07:04 AM Huh! Edgy DC Aug 04 2009 07:08 AM Oh, you missed some shee-it. Ashie62 Aug 04 2009 12:58 PM A little league first fight in Princeton, NJ? Darling the Eli must love that one

[Frayed Knot]

]what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees?

Pelfrey = 2005

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think I'm just caught in this cycle.

- Fire him because of the incident.

- Can we establish that?

- Fire him becasue of failure.

- Can we establish that?

- Fire him because of the incident.

Just plug in "Can we establish that first?" for my next ten posts, unless someone establishes that.

Meantime: Products from the 2005 draft --- Pelfrey (1), Jonathan Niese (7), Bobby Parnell (9).

Products from the 2006 draft --- Joseph Smith (2), Daniel Murphy (16).

Products from the 2007 draft --- Eddie Kunz (1).

[Farmer Ted]

Does Tony have input on the draft or just the development of the player after the draft?

It is typically the responsibility of the minor league and roving coaching staffs to develop that talent thus simply making Tony (VP of Player Development) a mechanism of reporting back to the NY office.

I could do that fucking job and I've never exposed my man boobs in a fit of rage.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

="Edgy DC"]Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis.

Pelfrey's was a Boras client that dropped a bit because of expected contract demands; it's also the one year during the Omar era where the team (A) had a first round pick and ( aimed at the highest-ceiling guy on the board, regardless of projected signing cost.

The others? They've all seen major-league time, granted. They've also produced either produced little or exeeded meager expectations at that level (Kunz hasn't even met those expectations). Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- of needing any warm body you can when your lineup includes as many Alous and Castillos, and your bench as many Easleys and Andersons, as the Mets have over the last two years-- rather than their forcing the issue with performance.

More telling, as Ted points out, his job-- presumably-- is player development, not drafting. How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Pelfrey, sort of... but he's a high-resource-commitment first-rounder; it would be more of a story if he hadn't done anything. Bannister was already out of the oven, more or less, before Bernazard took his current position. Unless I'm forgetting someone... there isn't much else. (There are a few Heath Bells, Henry Owens, and Jason Vargases, though, currently thriving in other organizations these days.)

Anyway... I'm not really arguing that he's failed-- I'm more arguing that he hasn't out-and-out succeeded. If half of the stories about his work style are true, then he would have to be exceedingly good, results-wise, to justify keeping around. (I mean, there's no established track record of success for the guy at prior gigs... because he doesn't have a player eval/development/analysis track record.)


(NOTE: the reason I pulled out the Yanks, Sox and Angels is both because those guys approximate what we bring to the table, International-signing-money-wise, and because I figured including small-marketeers who concentrated primarily on stockpiling prospects-- Royals, Rays, Marlins, etc.-- might make the Met system look unfairly shitty. I do agree that, if you're evaluating his merits, you'd have to do a more comprehensive study of MLB team's development systems to have a control.)

[G-Fafif]

So...is there gonna be an investigation or what?

[Guest Edgy DC]

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues--[/quote:25chb1ol] Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success?[/quote:25chb1ol] Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:23 PM The Baseball Cube has a crude system of scoring draft success. They rank the team's Bernazard era drafts thusly: 2005: Fifth 2006: 17th 2007: 16th 2008: Not yet available. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 05:54 PM I don't think we had this, from Adam Rubin last night: ]The scout dragged into the headlines when Mets VP for player development Tony Bernazard unleashed a verbal assault on another team official essentially confirmed the Daily News' exclusive report of the incident. Diamondbacks scout Carlos Gomez said Thursday that he didn't want to "pile onto Tony," but that he could not dispute The News' account. Gomez said his lone interest in speaking about the incident is to make it clear that he had no involvement in the confrontation. "Tony did not get into it with me at all," Gomez said. "He didn't address me. He didn't curse me out. We didn't have a spat. In no way did I feel Tony singled me out or treated me incorrectly." So he wasn't yelling at the scout, only the deputy, according to this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled shirt opera. Valadius Jul 24 2009 06:45 PM Then he's an abusive boss as well. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:24 PM As well as what? That's what the actual issue is. The rush to judgment here is getting absurd. Doesn't anybody wonder if Bernazard goes down as a scapegoat that it might actually perpertuate the orgazational issues and tenures you actually want to see confronted? Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 08:31 PM Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 09:21 PM ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. Pelfrey was the big project, and has sort of worked out. Smith and Parnell showed a little something in ST and limited trials-- enough to contribute on the squad. But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? If he's running player development, he's not just responsible for the progress of the guys drafted while he had the job. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 09:37 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. What in the world makes you think I'm telling you that? I'm not really telling telling you anything. I'm asking for a framework of what we're talking about. Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. SteveJRogers Jul 24 2009 10:12 PM ="Frayed Knot":121a00be]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs.[/quote:121a00be] When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:39 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 06:34 AM Yeah, I don't recall a witch hunt to purify the organization of Tim Teufel, Ron Darling, Rick Aguilera and Bob Ojeda when they got in a fight with a handful of police. This, of course, wasn't the first time that year a Met had manhandled a cop, as Dwight Gooden pleaded no contest to having assaulted not one, but two cops. And from my perspective, it's Met fans doing the piling on, not "non-Met fans." LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:47 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 10:51 PM ="Edgy DC"] Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. I think I was a bit unclear in that first post, and my meaning was missed. I wasn't stating that the Mets received no contribution from their recent draftees; rather, I was arguing that having a handful of players make the majors isn't indicative of a minor-league system's fertility... and that the performance of these guys, if anything, may point to the opposite. (May.) But, yeah, there's a whole bunch of rush-to-judgement here. What I'm advocating is a rush to scrutiny-- an actual investigation by the team-- and by fans-- of the system over the last 3 years. ="SteveJRogers"]And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW With all due respect, I disagree entirely. The amount and intensity of the pile-on is almost entirely a function of how little there is to talk about in terms of on-field positives; most of the stories-- and fan-talk, really-- seem to make the point, implicitly and explicitly, that the off-field disorder mirrors the on-field decrepitude. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:49 PM I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:52 PM ="Edgy DC"]I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. Girl? It's a little bit girly, is why I ask. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 05:53 AM ="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 04:44 PM ="Frayed Knot"] ="SteveJRogers"] ="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. And you also have to give the fact that in 1986 ESPN was yet to explode in terms of daily barrages of information to the mass audiences, WFAN was a year away from being born and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. In other words, it is hard to really say "well, would this have happened when the Mets were winning? I think not." Because certain avenues for fan venting and mass information consumption either hadn't open yet, or were some time from being prevalent. And things were being said back in 99-00 about how the Mets handled certain situations and the actions of one Bobby Valentine. Sure Met fans were probably going "LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU, how far back are we from the Braves today?" But the non fans were making comments about Valentine's nutty behavior, the Mets refusal to retaliate, especially against the Yankees, and other issues of note. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 05:24 PM BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series. dgwphotography Jul 25 2009 05:57 PM ="SteveJRogers":z2ocfwgg]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:z2ocfwgg] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born... SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:03 PM ="dgwphotography":2ddliwek] ="SteveJRogers":2ddliwek]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:2ddliwek] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:2ddliwek] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident. Kong76 Jul 25 2009 06:08 PM dgw: This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born <<< Plus, they probably pick on him (like some of us) because he's a closet Yankee fan in Mets' clothing. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 06:30 PM ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:58 PM ="Nymr83"] ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, but that is part of the point, what has been going on with this franchise has been just another opportunity after another for the organization to be considered an absolute utter disgrace. Hell, the Yankees did make it back to the postseason the following year, and three more years after that, and probably will make it again this year. That's more to the point where the Mets are seen as a joke in the eyes of many. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 07:30 PM ]The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, i don't agree. the Yanks had a better year (because they made a postseaon and won the frst round), but their collapse was still worse being that it took place in the postseason Kong76 Jul 25 2009 07:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 07:48 PM *post removed, for duh-ness* SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 07:47 PM No, its worse because it continues to perpetuate the notion that the Mets are losers and a pathetic organization. Especially in light of what happened last year, and this current campaign. Again, the Yankees were back in the postseason in 2005-2007 and most likely will be in it again this season. Historically the Yankees losing the 2004 ALCS is a bump in the road, the 7 up with 17 to play 2007 Mets is yet another reason to say how the Met organization is a disgrace to professional sports. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 07:53 PM ][Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. It wouldn't matter because I don't wrap my self-esteem up in the current status of a baseball team to the point where I react to taunting from those who do by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem. Besides, it wasn't a Yanqui fan that brought up the "disgrace" line it was y ... oh wait, nevermind. [walked into that one] Fman99 Jul 25 2009 08:23 PM ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q] ="dgwphotography":1scxpm4q] ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:1scxpm4q] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:1scxpm4q] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:1scxpm4q] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 08:49 PM ] by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem i want him fired for trying to fight ballplayers, nothing else. is he "part of the [alleged] problem" in talent development? i don't know or care as long he's challenging our players to fights. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 08:57 PM ="Fman99":fvuk1kki] ="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki] ="dgwphotography":fvuk1kki] ="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:fvuk1kki] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:fvuk1kki] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:fvuk1kki] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people.[/quote:fvuk1kki] Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. Because clearly if Met fans shouldn't give a flying fuck about how the Mets are perceived by others, then why should we give a flying fuck about how the "Yankee Way" is a crock of shit? Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 09:43 PM Don't tell us what its ok to comment on. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 09:59 PM ="Nymr83":20535dbm]Don't tell us what its ok to comment on.[/quote:20535dbm] It relates to how the Mets are perceived as an organization by others. But if you are fine rooting for an franchise that is subject to slings and arrows on a seemingly endless basis and counter all those comments with "who gives a fucking rat's ass what the fuck you fuckers think" it really is tough to go the other way on subjects that have to do with other organizations. In other words, why should THEY, or anyone give a fucking rat's ass what the fuck any fucker says? SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 10:05 PM Look, this was a black eye for the organization that has way too much of them in recent years, that is the point I'm trying to make. Yes more is made because the team has been playing horribly, but the point I'm trying to make is that shit like this shouldn't be passed over by Met fans as "if we were winning, no one in the media, internet, sports radio, etc. would give a shit." Its because it is a black eye for the organization, and fodder for more shit from everyone from bloggers to late night comedians that make it a big deal and one that should be addressed and not swept away. Again, even if the Mets were leading the division by 20 games at this point. Frayed Knot Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM ]Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. No, we can comment on it all we want. The mistake, from the Yanqui viewpoint, would be for them to change how they do things solely based on our reaction. For the same reason, the Mets should decide what to do with Bernazard based on his performance and conduct rather than out of some silly notion that it's going to make MFY fans stop saying 'bad things 'bout the Mets'. And those Met fans who want to make Bernazard the fall-guy whether he deserves it or not are simply playing into the trap of doing things for pr reasons rather than solving the problem itself. Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 06:56 AM ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2ae45851] ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2ae45851] Pick a side, my son. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 11:49 AM ="Edgy DC":2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2etn8uzp] Pick a side, my son.[/quote:2etn8uzp] The hell is your point Edge? You have to be a Yanqui fan to consider the Met collapse in 2007 worse than the Yankees blowing the 2004 ALCS? Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 11:58 AM The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 12:11 PM ="Edgy DC":2xyqenpp]The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later.[/quote:2xyqenpp] Not really, I showed it as a recent example compared to dgw suggesting that they were not students of history (by saying Tony B's minors incident was worse than Steinbrenner's elevator fight) Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 12:53 PM My head hurts. metsguyinmichigan Jul 27 2009 12:56 PM Mets shame: -- Idiot front office type takes off shirt to yell at 20-something minor leaguers. -- Bad patch on sleeve -- Occasional lapses in fielding. Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? Valadius Jul 27 2009 03:42 PM Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 27 2009 08:15 PM ="Valadius":1xy2oval]Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling.[/quote:1xy2oval] ...and Georgie girl. I wouldn't take money to listen or her and Sterling. MFS62 Jul 27 2009 10:00 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":39c9vxup] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace?[/quote:39c9vxup] You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 10:05 PM ="MFS62"] ="metsguyinmichigan"] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later Ahem. (I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 27 2009 10:10 PM Double post. G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM ](I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) He said "next to last," but Phillies and Tigers came after MFYs, then Red Sox. Old news, I'd have to say. Plenty to bash MFYs on in this century. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 11:08 PM Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension. Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:11 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3npdogpk]Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension.[/quote:3npdogpk] Or Bernazards emotions Edgy DC Aug 02 2009 01:55 PM Daily News (but not Adam Rubin) digging up a lot more PLT stories about Bernazard. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_tony_bern_out.html?page=0 Rockin' Doc Aug 02 2009 03:11 PM Hard to feel much sympathy for Bernazard the more stories you read of his vitriolic behavior toward players and staff of the Mets system. The more I read of his tirades, the more negatively Bernazard's tenure reflects upon Minaya and the Wilpons for allowing such an embarrassment to remain in their employ for as long as they did. Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2009 07:04 AM Huh! Edgy DC Aug 04 2009 07:08 AM Oh, you missed some shee-it. Ashie62 Aug 04 2009 12:58 PM A little league first fight in Princeton, NJ? Darling the Eli must love that one

[Guest Edgy DC]

The Baseball Cube has a crude system of scoring draft success. They rank the team's Bernazard era drafts thusly:

2005: Fifth
2006: 17th
2007: 16th
2008: Not yet available.

[G-Fafif]

I don't think we had this, from Adam Rubin last night:

]The scout dragged into the headlines when Mets VP for player development Tony Bernazard unleashed a verbal assault on another team official essentially confirmed the Daily News' exclusive report of the incident. Diamondbacks scout Carlos Gomez said Thursday that he didn't want to "pile onto Tony," but that he could not dispute The News' account. Gomez said his lone interest in speaking about the incident is to make it clear that he had no involvement in the confrontation. "Tony did not get into it with me at all," Gomez said. "He didn't address me. He didn't curse me out. We didn't have a spat. In no way did I feel Tony singled me out or treated me incorrectly."

So he wasn't yelling at the scout, only the deputy, according to this.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled shirt opera.

[Valadius]

Then he's an abusive boss as well.

[Guest Edgy DC]

As well as what? That's what the actual issue is.

The rush to judgment here is getting absurd. Doesn't anybody wonder if Bernazard goes down as a scapegoat that it might actually perpertuate the orgazational issues and tenures you actually want to see confronted?

[Frayed Knot]

Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates.

Pelfrey was the big project, and has sort of worked out. Smith and Parnell showed a little something in ST and limited trials-- enough to contribute on the squad.

But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism.

="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard?

If he's running player development, he's not just responsible for the progress of the guys drafted while he had the job.

[Guest Edgy DC]

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism.

What in the world makes you think I'm telling you that? I'm not really telling telling you anything. I'm asking for a framework of what we're talking about.

Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad.

It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion.