batmagadanleadoff

Charlie Hudson? Mike Maddux?

It helps when the team knows how to get the best rather than the worst from its players. One team limits Francoeur, for the most part, to starts against lefty pitchers and late inning defense while another team (that we're all familiar with) plays him as if he were Willie Mays.

I predict that he goes elsewhere in 2011. Unless Tak's stock rose because he's being projected as one of the Mets' secret weapons to reduce the number of games K-Rod might finish.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: http://badaltitude.baseballtoaster.com/archives/1203093.html There aren't many teams in the majors that witlessly prioritize smallball more than Clint Hurdle and the Rockies ... Smallball is, indeed, witless. Smallball in Denver is reprehensible. If I ran Denver baseballl, my sharpshooters, perched atop the stadium light towers, would shoot to kill any sac-bunters.

Fman99 wrote: I'm erect with optimism. Anyone who can tell Jeffie Wilpon to slag off and have it stick gets my vote. Me too. The clincher for me was learning that Sandy wasn't Jeff's choice. My guess is that Fred's the lesser of two Wilpon evils.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Any way we could encourage the Phillies to sign Francoeur to a long-term contract? Like the Phillies would be dumb enough to let Francoeur accumulate enough PA's to qualify for the batting title two times over.

The reigning SI Sportsman of the Year is quite the scrub away from the new and friendly confines of MFY Stadium: .246/.317/.317 (3 HR's in 341 AB). He's not going anywhere. Besides, would his new team be willing to pipe in the voice of dead Bob Sheppard to introduce the Captain's AB's? Even Jeter doesn't have that much clout.

My head hurts. Who's got the Cliff Notes to this thread?

One possible glitch is that Takahashi prefers to start rather thatn relieve. Takahashi, who turns 36 on April 2, would seem to be an asset to any pitching staff, but that depends on the price and the length of his contract. In his rookie year, Takahashi proved to be one of the most versatile pitchers the Mets have had in recent years, virtually an entire pitching staff rolled into one man. He went 10-6 with a 3.61 earned run average as a starter, a long reliever, a left-handed specialist, an eighth-inning setup man and ultimately the closer.... Takahashi has said he wants to be a starting pitcher, but Newsday recently reported that he would be willing to accept a role as a reliever. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/sports/baseball/24mets.html

Frayed Knot wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: If I was the arbitrator hearing your arguments, I'd throw your case out the window and out of my courtroom. Because you really don't believe in the legitimacy of the argument or because it doesn't fit your hoped-for outcome? Don't bother, I think we both know the answer to that already. And look, it's not like I'm rooting for the option to kick in or anything. I just don't share the optimism some of you share in thinking that it's going to be simple to side-step. Well �. first of all, if I�m the arbitrator, I get to rule on the grievance and make the final decision. Therefore, I don�t need to �hope for any outcome�. I don�t agree with your position because your arguments require that I (as the hypothetical arbitrator) question the Mets strategy and usage of K-Rod. I don�t believe that an arbitrator should second guess team tactics other than, perhaps, in the most egregious and outrageous instances of bad faith. Your post implies that K-Rod is entitled to close (or finish) Mets games. But isn�t this discretionary? Shouldn�t the team have the unrestricted freedom to decide for itself how best to use K-Rod without fear of being second-guessed by an arbitrator? Should a baseball arbitrator pass judgment on these matters? Is this good for baseball? I would never consider questioning the fact that K-Rod�s 8th inning appearances increased, or that he was no longer being used to get the easy three-run-lead saves, or that he was pitching the 9th inning on a shorter leash and suddenly more prone than in the past to being yanked for, say, walking the first two batters he faced � even though all of these patterns of use would no doubt decrease his chances of finishing games. I don�t think that it�s the province of an arbitrator to pry into these matters and I would hope that a real arbitrator would exercise great restraint should this issue or a similar one come before him. All of the above patterns of usage are plausible baseball strategies, and can be justified even if the team�s real underlying motive is to diminish the number of games K-rod finishes.. To allow an arbitrator to question these patterns would essentially be empowering an arbitrator to determine the strategy that a team ought to be using -- under threat of financial penalties. This, to me, is overly intrusive. For me to find bad faith in this hypothetical, I would insist on what would amount to an admission of wrongdoing from the team or a smoking gun. I said that I might question team tactics in the most egregious or outrageous instances. To me, this would mean something like K-Rod rotting on the bench Ollie-style even though he�s in good health and otherwise able. I think that a player who contracts for this type of incentive clause should know and otherwise assume the risk that his playing time is a function of his team�s discretion and that a baseball arbitrator will not question or second-guess his team�s decisions so long as those decisions are the teentsy-weentsiest bit plausible. You also wrote that it wouldn�t be so easy for a team to �side-step� this matter and I tend to agree with you. Even though, as an arbitrator, I would create a standard that would make it virtually impossible for a grieving player to meet, the team still has to create the appearance that it is trying to win ballgames --- not necessarily to succeed in my courtroom, but to avoid turmoil in its own clubhouse and with its fan base. So while I wouldn�t question that K-Rod�s 8th inning appearances increased significantly, his teammates might question this tactic. Management surely wouldn�t want its own team to think the Mets were sacrificing competitiveness in order to avoid a large contract.

Frayed Knot wrote: Where is it written that a reliever, even an effective reliever, must finish the game? In my opinion, the team would have to walk into the hearing and admit that they acted in bad faith in order to lose this hypothetical grievance that we're discussing. Either that, or the Union would need to get a hold of some internal memo documenting the Mets bad intent vis-a-vis K-Rod. Nowhere. But I also think that a sudden departure from an established 8-year pattern (3 with this particular team) that has no other apparent cause except for coinciding with the nearing of the threshold would give the union a helluvalotta ammo to the point where they'd likely be pretty confident of their case even absent incriminating memos or outright admissions. If I'm the union I'm arguing that the signing of the player, from his track record leading up to the contract, to the reason & timing they did so (Wagner injury), to the money they paid (clearly not set-up cash) was with the idea that he'd be the closer and that the inclusion of that option and the clauses that triggered them (health & frequency) were to insure the team against him no longer being effective or sound enough four years out. I'd then say that the non-inclusion of such an option would have been a deal-breaker at the time and to simply yank it away from him via whim or buyer's regret would show that bad faith on the club's half for including in the first place. If I was the arbitrator hearing your arguments, I'd throw your case out the window and out of my courtroom. Besides, you don't even know what Wayne Hagin looks like.

In every contract, it's implied that the parties will act in good faith, even if it's not specifically written into the contract. Still, teams ought to be accorded a great amount of deference in deciding how its players are used -- practically to the point where the team's practices are beyond question. The David Wright example is tougher, but in K-Rod's case, it should be easier for the Mets to purposely and by design, prevent him from reaching his vesting numbers. I say this because K-Rod is a relief pitcher. Where is it written that a reliever, even an effective reliever, must finish the game? In my opinion, the team would have to walk into the hearing and admit that they acted in bad faith in order to lose this hypothetical grievance that we're discussing. Either that, or the Union would need to get a hold of some internal memo documenting the Mets bad intent vis-a-vis K-Rod. And in that event, the Mets would be total jackasses for putting such a thing in writing.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I agree. But you have to be very careful to do it in a way that won't raise the hackles of the Players Association. I think I'd do it by giving the closer's job to somebody else as soon as it's feasible. Especially if 2011 turns out, as seems pretty likely, to be a non-contending season. Yes. I wouldn't want to do anything that would compromise the Mets ability to contend for a playoff spot. I suppose that the Union would complain or even file a grievance after next season if they felt that the Mets used K-Rod in bad faith in order to avoid the 2012 $17.5M hit. I think that that case would (or should, actually)be tough for the Union to win; player usage is a discretionary team function and it shouldn't be up to an arbitrator to determine how a team utilizes its players. So long as the team can demonstrate any colorable or remotely plausible (emphasis should be on "remotely") explanation to justify player usage, the complaining player shouldn't have a strong case. But there's a slippery slope. The Mets would have to be total jackasses to lose a grievance for using K-rod in bad faith. (doubles as a straight man setup line here)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The Second Spitter wrote: Does anybody else feel the return of Valentine will be less likely if Alderson is appointed GM? Very much so, yes. Howkum?

1971 - Cecil Upshaw 1990 - Graham Parker

If it's not Pena, then it's got to be Berenguer - 1991.

Pena 1991

Wohlers 1995 WS Champs

Smoltz 2003-4

Rocker 2000

Rocker 1999

There's no way I'd let K-Rod finish enough games for his 2012 $17.5M contract to vest. Wouldn't happen on my watch.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Star Wars never did anything for me. Don't know why. Same here.

Edgy DC wrote: A niggling issue, but he didn't pitch the day after the fight. He spent the day after the fight in the pokey at Shea during a day game, before being arraigned. He then served a two-game suspension, and appeared again on August 14. But I don't know what the issue is. Had he not pitched, the outcome would have been the same as it actually now is? Beats me. Your guess is as good as mine. I can come up with some hypothetical scenarios, though.