batmagadanleadoff

https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/the-mets-traded-for-mike-piazza-20-years-ago-today/277814128

Keith Hernandez on his Cardinals career, the modern game and a Mets trade that never was As someone who has co-authored a recent baseball memoir, I can tell you that for a book of this kind to resonate with the audience, the author needs to accomplish four things: — Provide enough pre-fame moments for the reader to identify with the subject; — Provide enough nostalgia so the reader enjoys the ride; — Drop in a “Holy Cow” moment once every few chapters; — Admit to on-the-field faults, mistakes, errors in their life. Bonus points for owning up to off-the-field issues. Does “I’m Keith Hernandez” meet these criteria? It sure does. The former All-Star first baseman, who starred on World Series-winning teams for both the Cardinals and Mets, paints a portrait of a 1960s kid under the extreme direction of what may be the first sports helicopter parent on record. Hernandez endured much pain, strife and pressure from his father, a former minor league player, who shared the outfield with Stan Musial on a Navy team during World War II. Many of us have dealt with parents who pushed us to succeed, sometimes to exhaustion. Turned out that John Hernandez’s assessments of his son’s ability were well-founded. The ballplayer went through many growing pains in his early life, issues with unfair coaches, experimentations of youth, dalliances with women along the way, scared-straight moments occurring in strange towns on the road, all fueled by a strong affection for Rock & Roll. It’s an easily relatable story. Hernandez chooses to focus on his upbringing, his minor league seasons and his initial years with the Cardinals. There’s no talk about his reluctance to come to the Mets in 1983, hardly much mention of his time in a Mets uniform at all for that matter, no mention of the drug trials which interrupted his 1985 season for a short time. What does exist is a behind-the-scenes look at Hernandez’s day-to-day in the Mets’ broadcast booth as a starting point to express his current views on the game. Cardinals fans seeking nostalgia will also find a lot here, with ample stories and anecdotes on players like Bob Gibson, Reggie Smith, Ted Simmons and manager Ken Boyer, whose influence on Hernandez’s career cannot be measured. Hernandez talked with Sporting News about the book, his Cardinals career, and thoughts regarding baseball today, both on the major league diamond as well as 2018’s version of the “prep” game. Sporting News: I did a little research while reading the book and found some fascinating nuggets. The Oct. 14, 1974, St. Louis Post-Dispatch story on the Joe Torre trade had a great opening line: “Okay, Keith Hernandez. First base is yours.” Did you have a sense that Torre, who won the NL Most Valuable Player award as well as the batting title for the Cards three years earlier, was going to be traded during the 1974 off-season? Keith Hernandez: I was pretty certain that he would be, yes. I hit .351 that year at AAA Tulsa. They called me up and gave me a long look in September. SN: Would you say going into 1975 spring training that the first base position was yours to lose? KH: Even after the Torre trade I didn’t feel it was mine to lose so much as it was mine to hold onto. I really wasn’t ready emotionally at 20, I was still a little kid, you know, over-awed by playing in the big leagues, facing guys like (Tom) Seaver. SN: Was that because of Ron Fairly’s presence? The former bonus baby’s final statistics for ’75 came out very similar to the type of numbers you would normally produce during your career (.301 batting average/.421 on-base percentage.) When the Cardinals acquired Fairly from the Expos in December of 1974, did you think he was going to eat into your playing time? KH: I felt that, yeah, they got him as an insurance policy, but also a veteran bat off the bench. But at that age, I didn’t have the brain to consider how St. Louis was molding the club. I learned a lot from Ron. He showed me how to break in my first basemen’s mitt, even better than I knew how to break in a glove. He also taught me how to cheat around first base on defense. But at the same time, he was a no-nonsense guy, kind of a Marine, a rough and gruff guy. Look, he wanted the job too, and I sensed his hunger to still want to play regularly — and why not? So when I started struggling, I felt his presence. It didn’t help, but that’s the name of the game — the game’s full of competition. SN: Let’s skip a few years forward and talk about one of the great managers you ever played for, Whitey Herzog. Do you think his experience managing a “turf team” played into the decision to hire him in St. Louis? Was it proximity to the Royals, the other Missouri-based ballclub? KH: Whitey had success in Kansas City and when you read Whitey’s book, he says it quite blatantly. He wanted full power. And to do that, he had to befriend and become close with Auggie Busch. Whitey didn’t want a general manager over his head — he just took over. He was general manager and the manager. I could just imagine Whitey with Auggie Busch, cigars, whiskey, playing poker and tossing the bull around. Whitey brought great years to St. Louis. He was a great manager, best I ever played for. SN: Did you have any expectations as to what he his managerial style would be like? KH: No. I never followed the American League at all back then. Whitey set the tone when he joined the team (in the middle of the 1980 season); things were in flux at the time. He managed for like three weeks and then had Red Schoendienst handle the team in the dugout for the last 35-40 games. He went into the front office for the rest of 1980 to observe from above and make his evaluations of the ballclub. When it came to first base, Whitey had to make one choice: Leon Durham was coming up, and he was wildly talented, or keep me. I was gonna be 27, just about to enter my prime. I had a big contract at the time, and Whitey chose to stay with me and I think it was the right choice. Wound up trading Bull Durham to Chicago and getting Bruce Sutter. Here’s where the conversation got interesting. One of the most prominent moments in Cardinals history was the 1980 offseason, when Herzog traded away nearly 40 percent of the big-league roster (nine players total, including six starters and Rollie Fingers, who was a Cardinal for less than a week.) Rumors were published every day. One article, buried deep in the Daily News archives, was revealing. SN: Did you know that Whitey offered you to the Mets and asked for Tim Leary, Doug Flynn and Neil Allen? KH: I didn’t know that. Who did he ask for? History and sabermetrics haven’t been kind to Flynn, the Mets’ 1980 starting second baseman and only the most diehard Mets fans of the day remember what great hopes the franchise held for Leary. Neil Allen was a valuable trade chip but not crucial to the team’s success, with rookie Jeff Reardon who could’ve easily slid into the fireman role in the Mets’ bullpen (Reardon would go on to pitch 16 seasons and is currently 10th on the all-time saves list.) SN: Neil Allen, Tim Leary, and Doug Flynn. KH: He offered to trade me in 1980? Wow. If he wanted that deal, Whitey was out of his mind. Interesting. What makes this a truly compelling “what-If” scenario is that three days after the Winter Meetings ended, the Mets signed Rusty Staub to play first base. The ironic aspect is that, considering Hernandez’s well-known friendship with Staub, had the trade been completed, “Le Grand Orange” probably does not return to Flushing and his former team. At least, not for the 1981 season. SN: Not only that, but according to an AP article from a week earlier, Herzog had this to say about the state of the Cardinals in December 1980 in relation to his trading plans. KH: Oh my God. Are you serious? Do you think he was BSing? Most baseball fans can understand this reaction — not to mention Cardinals fans of the past 38 years. The following season, Herzog traded Templeton to the Padres in exchange for Ozzie Smith, who would become a beloved Hall of Fame player in St. Louis. KH: Garry was a great player, but Whitey liked to toss the BS around sometimes. I can’t imagine when he was getting Sutter and Rollie Fingers that he was pursuing Neil Allen, too. SN: He must have been mightily impressed, as Herzog pursued Allen in 1980, 1982 and then finally sending you to the Mets in June 1983 for the reliever and pitching prospect Rick Ownbey. KH: Neil Allen had good stuff and some good years, but … wow. SN: Here’s another question: The 1982 Cardinals led the National League in on-base percentage and stolen bases, were fifth in runs scored and last in home runs. Only Porter and Hendrick hit more than 10 dingers. Can you even build that team today? KH: The teams don’t want to. I’d like to go up against them. The artificial turf aspect is irrelevant. Today’s grass is just like turf. We’d run circles around them. They don’t know how to hold runners on anymore. It’s not their fault. SN: Funny you bring up holding runners on. I remember you often positioned yourself in front of the runner at first. I recall John Olerud playing the same way. I don’t understand why infield coaches in 2018 don’t emulate the fielding strategies of arguably two of the top three statistically finest first basemen who ever played the game. KH: I only did that with slow runners. I never did it with someone like Vince Coleman, guys like that. Only slow runners that I knew weren’t gonna steal. It gets tiring coming on and off the bag and covering the hole. It was taking away a step. SN: Do you see players doing this much in today’s game? KH: Ken Boyer always told me that you’re gonna get hurt more in the hole than down the line, so get out and cover as much as you can. Take away the hole. That requires extra effort, and I see a lot of first basemen today — and I keep my mouth shut — but they don’t even move and it’s just lazy. SN: You talk a lot about your father’s efforts to relentlessly push you in sports after witnessing your native ability at age 11. You must have some thoughts on the travel baseball craze happening in this country right now. You reference how teams are fed all this data about high pitch counts ruining arms. I’ve always thought it was the year-round throwing of high school pitchers in their teens at max effort that’s the problem. KH: I don’t believe in playing just one sport. I believe it results in burnout and each sport trains your body in a different way. I played football in the fall when I was in high school. Then basketball, a different conditioning — you’re running up and down the courts. Then you come into baseball, you’re doing a sprint to hit a triple. We had enough kids to have town leagues back then — the baby boomers — it was very competitive. I think now with these travel leagues, it’s greed. People are making money and they’ve got their little niche in there now. The great thing about Little League was that anyone could play it. With travel, it literally costs a fortune, the parents are paying for it, and for kids and families without those resources, they’re getting shafted. I don’t like it, I don’t like it one bit. SN: According to my own research, wild pitches are at an all-time high and have been for the past three years. What do you think is the explanation there? KH: I only have a theory, but I talk to scouts and they have these “combines” like the NFL and all they’re looking for is the kid who can hit the ball the farthest and the kid who could throw the ball the hardest. There are no pitchers anymore, just throwers. I see so many 0-2 counts turn into 3-2 counts and it just drives me crazy — they don’t know how to put a hitter away and they miss badly. Whitey will confirm this, we had a long conversation over the winter about the amount of pitches. It’s outrageous, but with all the 3-2 counts, the way the game is today, you’re not going to be able to go seven innings. There’s not the guy out there today who’s not a hard thrower who knows how to pitch. It’s all raw power now. It just is what it is. SN: I loved how in the book you discussed the Ron Darling/Davey Johnson AAA story about how he left Ronny out there to “take care of his own mess.” I specifically remember Tim McCarver referencing this during a game in Philly in 1984 where Ron stayed out there and took a beating — gave up six runs in five innings. Do you see managers allowing their starters to “learn through pain” anymore? KH: No, they’re babied and it’s wrong. I absolutely despise when the pitcher gets to his prescribed pitch count, and not someone coming off injury, but someone over the course of another start. Whatever the limit is, even if he’s throwing well, he’ll have runners on base with two outs and they’ll pull him. Let him get out of the inning. Then they’ll say, “We want him to feel good about himself.” He’ll feel better about himself if he gets out of the jam. Drives me nuts. It’s such a paradox. “I wasn’t gonna give into the hitter 2-0,” so he throws a breaking ball or a secondary pitch. In our day, that was giving into a hitter. When he fell behind 2-0, he threw the fastball, he went after him. It’s completely upside down, a whole new philosophy. SN: Let’s end on this note. You retired from the game in 1990 and basically took a complete break from baseball for many years. Once you returned in 2002-2003 and entered the broadcast booth, what had changed in your mind from when you walked away? KH: Coming back to the game, it was the height of the steroid era. The difference was that Tony La Russa and Bobby Cox brought in the one-inning pitchers era. I didn’t like that, and because they were successful, which says something, people started doing the same thing and all of a sudden the middle reliever was becoming lost. It’s starting to come back a bit. The Mets have two guys that can pitch three or four innings. Over the course of a season you’re gonna need that. But I miss the complete game. I don’t think pitchers should throw 300 innings anymore, but from 200 to 250 should be fine. But those days are gone. It’s all about protecting the investments. It’s a different game. http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/keith-hernandez-book-stats-cardinals-mets-trade-broadcast-interview/ktn2tv1tar4k1swk28fzlccsd

Great. After Bautista, maybe the Mets'll sign Keith Hernandez to play first base.

Edgy MD wrote: Backup catchers tend to play in day games after night games. This is the last team in baseball that can afford to bench a guy that's hitting a homer every other game. And he's crushing those homers, to boot.

Where the hell is Mesoraco?

If they're gonna get den Dekker, then they gotta get Nieuwenhuis, too, so we can argue all damn season long over which one's better. Also, I guess we'll never see that big black dildo anymore with Harvey and Plawecki gone.

Good. Now the big boys from New York City can go and buy Giancarlo Stanton, like any normal franchise from the world's greatest city would do.

Ceetar wrote: they're 7 over, we're not going to get them to .500 He's talking about the Mets. It's the only logical reading. And most likely outcome.

Zach's the John Pacella of this generation.

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The case against Steinbrenner is certainly not limited to the fact that he impulsively not that he fired his managers. But if you like him, you like him. Agree. I was being customarily and stylistically snarky. But Madoff. Likely knowingly. Top that. If only Steinbrenner had cared enough about winning to do whatever it took to make a few extra bucks for years. It's impossible to know because these are all private finances, but maybe Mike Piazza doesn't happen without Madoff. If you can justify investing with Madoff knowing it was a scam all along because it yielded Piazza, then where do you get off panning anything Steinbrenner ever did?

G-Fafif wrote: 1,053. Buddy Baumann That settles the ghost issue.

seawolf17 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Uh oh, the baseball cards are coming out next half inning... I'll never be able to prove this but I truly believe that the Mets booth's recent baseball card routine is based on the baseball card threads I used to post here with one time Mets in the unis of the Mets opponents. I remain convinced that someone on the broadcast team lurks here. It's not GKR, but it's someone. I wrote what I wrote because during a set against the Indians, the booth, and especially Keith, were making comments about the Indians and their uniform history and one time Mets that played for the Indians that I was positive were based on having viewed my baseball card thread.

d'Kong76 wrote: Uh oh, the baseball cards are coming out next half inning... I'll never be able to prove this but I truly believe that the Mets booth's recent baseball card routine is based on the baseball card threads I used to post here with one time Mets in the unis of the Mets opponents.

Steinbrenner was an asshole whose teams made the playoffs. Wilpon's a douchebag whose teams usually never make the playoffs. The douchebaggy character flaws cancel each other out and whaddya got left? Reggie and Catfish and Winfield against Michael Cuddyer and Jason Vargas.

Edgy MD wrote: The case against Steinbrenner is certainly not limited to the fact that he impulsively not that he fired his managers. But if you like him, you like him. Agree. I was being customarily and stylistically snarky. But Madoff. Likely knowingly. Top that.

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: He had a tiny ONE percent stake in the Mets Five percent, I believe. It took several decades for my goodwill toward Mets owners for simply not being deRoulet (or Steinbrenner) to completely wear away, so I understand the impulse toward vestigial gratitude. It may not be operative at this stage of the franchise's development, but I get it in a vacuum. I thought so. But I googled a few pieces to write that post and they said one percent. Actually, I thought it was closer to 10%.

Oh! So now eff Wilpon is getting the undeserved credit of saving the Mets from the de Roulets and M. Donald Grant? He had a tiny ONE percent stake in the Mets as a courtesy favor from Nelson Doubleday when the Doubleday Group bought the Mets in 1980 ferchrissakes. You think Doubleday was so strapped for cash that he needed eff's 1% to complete the sale? It was eff Wilpon who didn't have the money for a larger stake in 1980 and in fact, probably never had the money when he took over the team years later, cutthroatting his way to full ownership and screwing Doubleday, the man that gave Wilpon access, relying instead on bogus exaggerated financial statements based on non existent Madoff gains-- the investment vehicle that Wilpon absolutely knew or had to know was a scam. He knowingly invested in humanity's biggest scam and Steinbrenner's worse because he fired his fucking managers? (Firing his fucking managers all the way to the World Series every fucking year while the Mets played Funiculi Funicula with Tom Hausman). Steinbrenner got Reggie Fucking Jackson and we got Tom Hausman.

I always thought that the Wright re-signing was mostly to avoid the inevitable tabloid PR shitstorm that would follow otherwise. My own theory is that Sandy, left to his own devices, would have flipped Wright for younger talent but for the Wilpons meddling.

It wasn't necessary to foresee Wright's terrible injuries to come. The Mets were dreadful when Wright was re-signed. So bad that if Wright had a Ruthian MVP season in 2013, the Mets wouldve still lost more than half their games. Of course you could justify the signing on Wright's outstanding citizenship, but after letting the batting champ and then the Cy Young award winner walk away, the Mets had no balls to trade Wright --- and that's the difference between an ordinary organization and a thoughtful cutting-edge franchise.

41Forever wrote: I think they were in step three in 2015, with the stud pitchers coming of age and adding Cespedes late in the season. I think we could say the same about 2016.... Oh, give me a break already with 2016. In a 15 team league, the Mets had a better record than just 10 of those teams. That's not bad, but don't make it out like it's some historical finish that's supposed to be one of the proudest and most memorable seasons in Mets history. They played in the one game elimination game in a watered down playoff system. Once in a blue moon, the Wilpons spend like a big market team, and then they lord that season over us to justify all those other years when they spend like the Mets play in Kalamazoo. And that's what you do with 2016.

Nymr83 wrote: Bashing the Wright deal makes no fucking sense. He was a healthy all star caliber player, this was EXACTLY the type of contract the Wilpon Haters would bash the Mets for NOT handing out. You cant (credibly) just bash the result that was unforeseeable. Where the Mets erred, and where you can more justifiably criticize them, is in the length of time it took to stop holding out hope on a Wright return and sign Frazier or someone like him. The Dodgers or Yankees would have treated it as a completely sunk cost much sooner. They were four or five years away from contending in 2012, 2015 notwithstanding. The team was putrid, even with the NL's Cy Young pitcher (who wouldn't be returning). Degrom was an infielder. And Wright was in his 30s, past his prime and already with an injury history. This was a dumb signing. A chickenshit signing by a chickenshit ownership group.

Centerfield wrote: The teardown method is risky, and yes, it's unlikely but I feel like it's really the only way for a small market club to compete. Houston and KC pulled it off successfully. Other than them, the last 10 World Series winners followed the big market, spend money model. (Cubs, Giants, Red Sox, Yankees, Phils, Cardinals). The last time low payroll team won without a complete rebuild was the White Sox in 2005. (13th in payroll, no blow up rebuild). There's a good reason for this. Several reliable recent studies were conducted, including by MLB itself. They all show that the more money a team in today's game spends, the more it wins and the more it draws in revenues. Even when their spending exceeds the luxury tax. That a team could also win by spending less is beside the point and as Alfred Hitchcock would say, a big MacGuffin.

seawolf17 wrote: The Wright signing set this team back immeasurably. First there was the stud prospect Sandy could've presumably flipped Wright for. Then the way Wright held 3B in limbo these last years as the Mets hoped for Wright's return to all star form -- and this is 3B, on the soft end of the defensive spectrum, where in today's game, a big market team should be getting all star if not MVP offense from. This is (partially) wrong. There's no way they would have flipped Wright for prospects. None whatsoever. He was coming off a season where he finished sixth in the MVP voting, and he *was* the franchise at that point. Only once had he played in less than 144 games in a season. Any team would offer that deal 99 times out of 100. What are you saying: that the Mets should've gotten better than prospect(s) or that they were right to keep Wright?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm dubious of the tear down and I think fans badly underestimate their patience for such a thing, and I also think they more or less did a stealth one between 09-2015 and its results illustrate the trickiness of pulling it off. I sorta wish they were more creative is all. Lotsa folks think the teardown method is a no-brainer but the Cubs and 'Stros, given their remarkable and unlikely success with it, probably set a terrible example --- because everything has to pan out which means you need skill and off the charts luck. Especially in the draft. High draft position. Available phenoms. And the phenom picks gotta pan out even though more often than not, they don't pan out. And I don't wanna sound like a broken record on this point, but given that the Mets signed Wright in 2012, they're never gonna teardown. The Wright signing set this team back immeasurably. First there was the stud prospect Sandy could've presumably flipped Wright for. Then the way Wright held 3B in limbo these last years as the Mets hoped for Wright's return to all star form -- and this is 3B, on the soft end of the defensive spectrum, where in today's game, a big market team should be getting all star if not MVP offense from.

Centerfield wrote: I am too young to know Grant. I’ve read terrible things. If I had to choose between the Wilpons and Steinbrenners I’d choose Steinbrenners any day. George was disgraceful sure. But at the least he never wavered in his commitment to win. That’s the number one trait an owner should have. Grant was awful, but pales in awfulness next to eff Wilpon, which is the worst thing to happen to the Mets in their entire history, not even close. And Grant's reign was limited to a handful of years until Doubleday bought the Mets. And you nailed Steinbrenner-- above all, he wanted to win and to be the top NY dog. His plan wasn't to assemble an 83 win team and hope for lotsa luck. And Madoff. (see my post above yours).