G-Fafif

One of my favorite blog headlines of 2009, from my partner, after a pretty good start: Let's Get Home Early, Tim Redding's Pitching

And here I was thinking the worst Mets card ever had to be any that portrayed the 2009 Mets.

Tonight, 7:30, sez the program guide on my television, Mets Yearbook: 1976. I wonder how much praise will be heaped on the speedy Pepe Mangual.

ESPlanatioN from a network executive in Neil Best's column: "The secret is the opponents. In the first two months, the Mets play the Yankees, Phillies, Cardinals and Braves on Sunday night. They are in the No. 1 market, so it's simple calculus to figure how we chose the Mets four times." Your 2010 New York Mets: Incidental opposition surrounded by ample population.

Tim Redding, now officially gone. He left what, exactly, to carry on? First and foremost, his posing in the new Mets clubhouse and trying on 44 for the cameras at Citi Field. We had seen K-Rod, and I thought OK, he's a star. Then Putz, and I thought OK, he's been sort of a star. Then we're trotting out Tim Redding as Hot Stove beefcake. And I had a hunch about 2009 from there.

Springtime in the Rockies with Tim Redding, provided he makes the big club after signing a minor league contract.

Edgy DC wrote: "The signing of Jason Bay has been virtually negated by the GM�s inertia." Show me the math there, Klap. "Bay swings, deep fly to left...but the failure to sign Ben Sheets causes it to fall harmlessly into Raul Ibanez's glove."

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: My understanding is that he's a douchebag Just once I'd like to hear a press spokesperson begin a sentence that way.

So is Parnell assumed a reliever again?

If Mets Suber isn't a Mets-loving big shot, then he might have self esteem issues. Saw his name in the credits for Sunday night's episode of Big Love on HBO but haven't been able to determine whom he played or find an image. But I'd like to think he considers the Mets either super or superb.

For about ten minutes there in first ten or so days of September 2008, I was amazed we were riding the Stokes-Ayala combination through the eighth and ninth innings. Imagine such an unlikely setup/closer pair clearing the way to a division crown! Imagining, alas, was all we were left to do. Stokes was another of those guys I was always forgetting when trying to remember who was on the roster at any given moment. Every year there's a couple. In 2009 there must have been a dozen.

Yastrzemski.

Thirty-four Mets became Recidivist Mets -- former Mets who went on to play for another big league club before returning to play for the Mets again -- through 2009. Only Lenny Harris and Mike Jorgensen strike me as undeniably more productive the second time around. You could make a case for Jeromy Burnitz based on his getting more playing time and your having nothing better to do than making a case for Jeromy Burnitz. Rusty Staub and Lee Mazzilli acquitted themselves in more limited roles in Mets II. Dave Kingman had his moments before a severe downturn both times. Tom Seaver simply had to show up again. Anderson Hernandez seemed less impressive defensively last year, less hopeless offensively. Jeff McKnight was steadily Jeff McKnight in all his stints. Gary Matthews has a Brady Clark type bar to clear. Alas, Brady Clark couldn't clear it.

If Matthews doesn't work out, we can always bring in McKay Christensen two days later.

Fred's thirtieth anniversary (1/24/1980) observed here, begging the question, what do you want from your club owner? That's any theoretical, prospective or actual owner, not just the Wilpons (in which case the snappy comeback would be "to sell the team").

Clever airbrushing job, Topps, but that's a former Cardinal right there.

Instrumental in the evanescent revival of the SHaMs, particularly in the first game of July 30's day-nighter (2 for 4 with the triple) when the Mets pulled to within two games of .500 after 100 games. Their losing their next 41 of 59 wasn't particularly Cory's fault. The night before, a satisfying 4-0 win over [crossout:d21htzy6]future Met[/crossout:d21htzy6] Jason Marquis, Sullivan batted sixth, Schneider seventh, Cora eighth and Pelfrey ninth. My friend and I agreed Marquis would have rightly hit ahead of all of them in the Met lineup.

Erasing a few 6-4-3's from the scorebook as we speak.

This is outstanding. Perfect quartet.

Marchman, Boras & Integrity...doesn't quite have the same ring as Willie, Mickey & The Duke.

Marty is right that he gets a vote and he can use it as he sees fit. He considered the names on the ballot, he chose the names he thought were worthy in this election, he opted to forego the others. The reasoning for his votes may have sprung from contradictory beliefs -- Alomar was a great second baseman; Alomar's behavior was an affront to the game -- but he made a decision to which he's entitled and he shared his reasoning, no matter how sound or how addled it may have come off. Noble isn't doing himself (or the Hall) any favors by dismissing different ways to measure a baseball player's effectiveness. Those who promote different ways to measure a baseball player's effectiveness aren't doing themselves (or the Hall) any favors by dismissing the perspective of someone who doesn't automatically go along with their thinking or conclusions. All criteria beyond "played ten years, retired five years" and whatever else it says when they send out the ballots is made up. It's up to each of the voters to decide why someone's a Hall of Famer in a given election. Marty Noble saw a Hall of Famer in Barry Larkin. Somebody else who voted for Larkin may have done it for different reasons from Noble. Somebody who didn't vote for him may have applied the same standard as Noble but decided Larkin didn't meet it.