Centerfield

Do we still click exclamation points? I nominate both of the prior posts.

I agree with the last three comments.

Depends on if that pitcher is a foxhole sort of guy.

Smoltz? That's like Ben Sheets without the upside.

MFS62 wrote: Speaking of F, Fernando Martinez had hit 5 hits in 6 AB yesterday (homer, 2B and 3 hits) Also with 6 RBI's...he has HR in two consecutive games in the final series of the DWL between Escogido and the Giants of Cibao. his line is .345/.333/.621 in 9 playoff games...an XBH machine right now.... * Hmmmmm. Later * = The numbers are from a subscription site. I know the guy doesn't walk a whole lot, but he must be really bad to hit .345 and still have an OBP of only .333.

Delgado to the BJ's according to a report on mlb.com. (per Metsblog)

A new assistant general manager named Akira Ishikawa seemed intent on making Valentine's life as miserable as possible. This is just a shame. I loved his samarai movies.

Yeah, except that Omar meant to offer Molina 3 years guaranteed, but Bengie couldn't make out what the fuck he was saying. Kidding. I agree, well-played Omar.

G-Fafif wrote: 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. We are going to have to agree to disagree here. I think there is a huge distinction to be made between declining to vote for someone because you don't think they are Hall-worthy (acceptable) and declining to vote for someone despite the fact that you acknowledge that they are Hall-worthy. All of this "he's not a first-ballot guy but I'll vote for him next year because he belongs" crap, whether based on accomplishments or character, is completely arbitrary. It is outside the instructions given by the Hall, and it is for that reason that I think people who complain about Noble's logic are justified. To illustrate this, think of a scenario where I, a baseball writer, instead of instituting Noble's criteria, decided I am not going to vote for players whose names start with "A" their first time around. Be it Alomar or Aaron, no "A" people get my vote that first year. Imagine further that I explained, when challenged, that I fully acknowledge that Alomar should get in the Hall, but his name starts with A, so he'll have to wait until next year. It would be maddening to Alomar supporters to hear such randomness. My logic would be no more justifiable than Noble's. Both Marty and I weighed the criteria set forth by the Hall (character, record, etc.) and determined Alomar was worthy. Both Marty and I declined to vote for him, despite this worthiness, based on criteria not delineated by the Hall (Letter A, not as classy as DiMaggio). Both Marty and I intend to vote for him next year, so we ask, "What's the harm?" Plenty I say. As to FK's point, I do think it's dumb to overreact and blow up the process. I'm with Marty on that. But I would like for him to realize that random criteria, like his, are one of the best arguments that can be given to support that argument.

I'm going to need to see some pictures Sir.

Do you mean Super Bowl XXI? I don't think instant replay was in effect at the time. But otherwise, I completely agree with your point. In fact, I can see YES firing the camera guy and the producer who turned over an incriminating replay. Hell, even fire the peanut salesman who failed to step in front of the offending camera.

On what point is Marty right? I have no idea what the critics were complaining about, or how that discussion went, but if they were upset that Noble didn't vote for Alomar, they should be. Noble, himself, admits that Alomar is worthy of Hall induction. If that is the case, he should have voted for him. When Noble fails to vote for a candidate he feels is worthy, he has strayed from the Hall's instruction to the player's detriment. Alomar, or his fans, have a right to be angry. It's not as if he didn't feel Alomar didn't belong. I mean, if Marty really felt that Alomar felt short, that's his opinion. Neither Roberto nor Blyleven are in that "no-brainer" category. I think you can make a justifiable argument that he isn't good enough. But that isn't the case here. He voted no based on his own made-up criteria. As Edgy said, it's certainly understandable why he votes that way. But if he's challenged, I really wish he'd take a look at himself and realize what he was doing.

Absolutely. And I understand the degree of difficulty in asking people to change how things that are done, especially in a "that's the way it's always been" arena like baseball. But it's a shame that intelligent writers out there like Noble fall into these traps.

Marty should also be brought to task for creating sub-levels in the Hall of Fame that do not exist. I have no problem with him excluding Alomar from the Hall for spitting at an umpire. As Marty points out, the ballot instructs the voter to consider integrity and character. If he feels that the spitting incident, and his occasional lack of motivation, is enough to keep him out of the Hall, so be it. That is why they vote. It's a subjective determination. My problem is the following: I will vote for him next year, not because I've been persuaded by the harsh outcry of those without voting privileges (and some with), but because that has been my intention since I received the last ballot. Marty fails to see that he cannot have it both ways. Either he is a Hall of Famer or he isn't. There is no "not a first-ballot" criteria, even if it's based on character, instead of accomplishments. If the spitting is not enough to keep him out of the Hall, the vote should be yes. Noble is quick to point out the instructions on the ballot, but fails to explain this arbitrary line of thinking. So what terrible wrong has been perpetrated on him by the band of fools who chose not to ignore his transgressions? He has to wait a whole year? Joe DiMaggio waited, and all he did was kick the dirt near second base when Al Gionfriddo denied him an extra base hit in the '47 World Series. There is no terrible wrong. But the DiMaggio argument demonstrates that Noble is not following instructions. And we would hope that voters for the Hall could follow simple instructions. (Instructions that Noble is aware exist) Why should Alomar be treated as Joe Morgan, Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, and Ryan Sandberg were, as Derek Jeter will be, when he has fallen short of the standards they have established/maintained? Or should we create a special corridor within the Hall for players without rap sheets? If he feels he has fallen short, he should vote no, and stick to it. But Noble says in this article that Alomar is worthy of the Hall. So he is contradicting himself. It's funny that he asks his critics if a special corridor should be built, because that is exactly what Noble is attempting to do. The Hall does not ask whether a candidate is as good as every member in the Hall, simply whether they have reached a minimum level of excellence warranting induction. Which is not to say that you can never change your mind. I have no problem with people changing their minds from year to year. I think one of the great aspects of Hall voting is that it allows candidates to stay on the ballot, which allows for a review of the player as their place in history starts to form. Player A may not seem like a Hall of Famer 5 years after retirement, but looking back 15 years later, with a new perspective, it may be that he looks much better. But that is not what Noble is doing here. He is deliberately voting against a candidate that he admits is Hall-worthy based upon arbitrary, self-created criteria. Forty years around the game, you would hope he understood the criteria on which players are to be judged, and respected his privilege enough that he would follow instructions.

It's gotten to the point where Omar Minaya and parodies of Omar Minaya are indistinguishable from one another.

They're not being ripped because they lost lots of games. They're being ripped because they called out their star centerfielder for insubordination, when in fact, it was their own internal communication that broke down. They're being mocked because they failed to recognize this before going public with their accusations...accusations that do little good, even if true. They may be an easy target, but that doesn't mean they should get a pass for their idiocy. I know full well the odds of winning a World Series. Failing to win a World Series is not my beef with them. I would like them to stop acting like a bunch of dumb fucks.

Jack Clark (the guy is talkative of late!) chimes in an calls McGwire a "creep". Article: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4828816 After a rough tally, I think I hate everyone mentioned in that article.

I love threads like these.

This just in. Ed Price of AOL Fanhouse reports that due to an unfortunate typo in an inter-office memo, the Mets have just signed 57 year old Jerry Hairston Sr. to a two-year deal. Physical scheduled for Monday.

You guys take things well. I am outright annoyed and frustrated. And quite frankly, embarrassed to be a Mets fan. Part of my frustration, of course, is due to the injuries, and the shitty season we had in 2009...some of that being beyond the Mets' control. Adding to that the frustrating ends in 2007 and 2008, I'm willing to concede I'm pretty irritable to begin with. That being said, I am most annoyed with the following things that are 100% within the control of the front office and management. 1. Off-Season Strategy: Time and again, I feel like this management team only applies band-aids to the most glaring of problems. They exhibit no creativity, and as such, miss ways to improve the team, as opposed to simply patching the biggest problems. I've talked about Texiera and Adrian Gonzalez. I look at a team like Boston that has Youkilis and Lowell, yet they made a run at both of these players. And yes, they did not land them, but at least they tried. They would never say "We have Delgado, so let's not make a play at Texiera." They know that having an incumbent in place is no reason not to try to make a move to improve the team. I look at rightfield for the Mets. They have made no attempt to upgrade that position despite having a guy who's career OPS is in the low 700's. This is inane to me. I am sick of having a C student run the team. Get me someone smart. 2. Medical: There have been more than a few reports now (add Beltran to the list) where surgery has been recommended for players by the Medical staff, only to have management tell them to delay and rest. This is insanely dumb. If the doctors feel the player needs surgery, let them have the surgery. Especially if this problem arose in November. It is simply idiotic to wait as the recovery time eats into more of the season. 3. PR: Unlike the other two, PR probably means little to the overall wins and losses of the team, but it's worth mentioning because it is the arena in which they look the most incompetent. Let me reiterate that, they are incompetent. As lacking as they are in the other two points I mention, nothing compares to how amazingly they fuck up PR. It is inconceivable that they would go public with their gripes about Beltran without checking: (a) Did we send the paperwork ok-ing the surgery? ( Did he talk to our GM who said he could go ahead with the surgery? © Did our own doctor agree with the assessment? And if they did check these things, and they did know that paperwork was sent, Minaya ok'ed it, and Altcheck agreed with the diagnosis, then they are dumber than dumb. All of this simply makes them look like idiots. The Rubin fiasco, this pointing of fingers. Everyone makes fun of NBC....they may make stupid decisions but at least everyone is on the same page. If the Mets, instead of being a ballclub, were a company that offered some sort of trade, would you hire them? Would you trust them to paint your house? They'd wait until an hour before the deadline to start, use the wrong color paint, then point fingers at each other as to who fucked it up.

If I were the Mets, I'd talk to Steadman. If he tells me that Beltran's knee has been scoped, he is not a candidate for micro-fracture surgery, and that he should be at full-speed in May (or at the latest June), then I make do with what we have. If there is a chance he can be out longer, I look to upgrade. We have Pagan who does fine in CF. So I think they should be more focused on finding a middle of the order hitter than they are at finding a centerfielder. I thought the Mets should be looking to upgrade RF regardless of Beltran's knee.

Fuck the legal. Will he have a clean bill of health in 12 weeks?

I think the biggest story here is not that Beltran will be out 8-12 weeks, but whether he will then be ok afterwards, or if this is all just a senseless waste of time before he will ultimately need microfracture surgery.