batmagadanleadoff

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]See ya in August, Mo. Who gets the call? Barry!

Some Moises Alou quotes: New York Times The Mets also watched Moises Alou come off the field in the bottom of the third. With one out, Alou took himself out of the game with a strain in his left calf. Marlon Anderson replaced Alou, who said he was not sure when he would play again. �I could barely move,� Alou said. �I am not very optimistic about it.� Newsday How about Moises Alou suddenly walking off the field in the third inning because of what was later diagnosed as a strained left calf? Don't expect to see Alou anytime soon, either. Shortly after the Braves hammered the Mets again, 11-4, Randolph announced that Alou was headed back to New York today to be further examined - and likely put on the disabled list. "To tell you the truth, being realistic, I've had this before and I'm not optimistic about it," Alou said. "Hopefully it's a miracle and it's a couple day thing. But it doesn't feel good right now." Hartford Courant Mets outfielder Moises Alou left with one out in the third because of a cramp in his left calf. "It's been bothering me three or four days," Alou said.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think one can acknowledge ... the necessity of handling him with kid gloves. That's always been the real drag on Pedro - the Met version. Even when healthy and brilliant, the Mets need three relief pitchers to finish out his games.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Oops. I misplaced an L. I didn't catch that missing "l". I wish I did because Willets' "paying" response was better than mine.

="Benjamin Grimm"]Don't rule out the possibility of the Mets getting four months of service from Pedro this year. There's still a chance that he'll be the difference between paying in October and not playing in October. He's been injured so often as a Met, that I wonder if people are forgetting how brilliant he pitched --even as a Met-- when he was healthy.

I would like to vote in November.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I doubt that Clemens will be a first-ballot guy, given his recent misadventures.... but I doubt that Piazza will be sharing his day with Clemens. I have a feeling that Piazza and Clemens will be juxtaposed against each other throughout the whole HOF process no matter how Clemens fares.

Julio Franco. And Alberto Castillo.

It might be Piazza v. Clemens all over again five years from now. If Clemens never pitches again, they'll both make their HOF ballot debuts together on the same ballot for the Summer of 2013 induction ceremony. Interesting stuff.

I don't know if this counts, but Wright hit a shot in that opening series in Miami that would've been a Home Run anywhere else, even in the Astrodome and Death Valley in the old Yankee Stadium. Wright's line drive hit near the top of the portion of that high outfield wall that is closest to Center Field.

Gwreck wrote: I think in our minds we all knew better but damn if that August run wasn't extremely exciting. Wasn't that when Mike Jacobs hit like a HR every other game for a few weeks and the Mets annihilated the D-Backs in Arizona?

AG/DC wrote: That's not how I remember it. I recall them being within two games of .500 for about three months before finally putting together a small streak the last week to close at .512 and seven games out. Double checking, they only looked like contenders in late July when the made a run from ten games out to 3.5, but they were otherwise over five games out the entire second half. They were Wild Card contenders for most of the season.

AG/DC wrote: I think the organization had established Reyes as the leadoff hitter before Willie came and he saw more merit in working with Reyes where he was than in demoting him and starting over. .... But you disagree with Willie about that, which is what this thread is for. Actually, I agree with you. I believe that this is a significant reason for Reyes batting leadoff. He was being groomed. That decision was probably as much organizational as Randolph's.

Gwreck wrote: I don't disagree about Reyes being a subpar leadoff hitter. But if Randolph had little options, that's more of a Minaya beef than a Randolph beef. You're right, but Randolph still has to make the best of what he has to work with. Opening with Reyes and then Cairo/Matsui makes winning more difficult than it otherwise ought to be. (Tangent) Plus I'm sure that during those 2005 miracles when Reyes didn't make an out leading off, Randolph probably ordered the next batter to make an out on purpose.

Reyes was so bad that almost anybody would've been better. After Cameron's season-ending injury, why not Victor Diaz? Unorthodox, but somewhat more effective. Of course, once the Mets fell out of the race, this stuff mattered less. But I still don't see why it should've been Reyes.

Gwreck wrote: I'm still not clear though on who on the 2005 Mets would have been a better leadoff hitter. Cameron, when healthy? Maybe the better is question is "Why should Reyes (v.2005) lead off?" To me, it makes no sense to give the most at bats to the batter who is just about the most likeliest to make an out. I'd say that Cameron would've been a better choice.

AG/DC wrote: Yeah, I've got little problem with his lineups, outside of the much rehashed Cairo-second assignments of 2005. But his 2005 lineups seemed to be as much about the developing a team to win as winning the day, and I can roll with that. Except that they were contending for most of 2005.

Gwreck wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]Or giving Reyes 700 plate appearances from the leadoff spot when it's painfully obvious that he's not deserving, not by a longshot. If Reyes isn't leading off, who is? (And if Reyes isn't leading off, where is he batting in the order?) I will also note that in 2007, Reyes' .354 OBP was 3rd best among team regulars (behind Wright and Alou). Granted that it was higher in April-August and much lower in September. I was talking about 2005. I should have made that clearer. In 2005, Reyes had no command of the strike zone, and was one of the worst everyday players in all of baseball. And his numbers didn't tell the full story. You had to see him play (and I assume you did) to appreciate how bad of a hitter, how overmatched he was at that point in his career. There's no reason why Reyes couldn't work out his difficulties from the bottom of the order.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Doesn't suffer fools kindly. I admire his iconoclasm in refusing to give the media and fans what they want with regards to ejections and overturned buffet tables. I like this part of Willie a lot, also.

It's so much. It's indiscriminate bunting. It's too much bunting. It's bunting without rhyme or reason. When do Randolph's Mets play for the big inning? When they're down by four with two innings left to play? Is Randolph's ideal inning supposed to be where Reyes gets pushed around the bases on outs so that Beltran could sac fly him in? Is this why the Mets lavished Beltran with so much money? It's moronic lineups, and I'm not just nit-picking about batting the cleanup hitter third or the seventh place hitter sixth. It's about sticking an eighth place hitter in the #2 spot. Or giving Reyes 700 plate appearances from the leadoff spot when it's painfully obvious that he's not deserving, not by a longshot. It's about batting Piazza cleanup for most of the season even though he stopped hitting like a Hall of Famer years before. Or burying maybe your best hitter (Wright '05) at the bottom of the lineup. Overusing the bullpen? Already mentioned. One of the characteristics of Randolph's Mets that isn't mentioned enough is that they just might be the worst base-running team in all of baseball. Last year, for instance, some SABR site ran a comprehensive study on team base-running, accounting for as much data as possible --- stolen bases and caught stealings obviously, but also getting picked off, the ability or inability of runners to take an extra base on a single, to score from first on a double, getting thrown out on the base paths, punishing teams severely for getting thrown out at home or third, etc. Only one team fared worse than the Mets. And this shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone who watches this team regularly. The Mets seemingly can't go more than two or three games without making some egregiously bad baserunning play. This stuff adds up.

KC wrote: Isn't Wee from last year? Mags has only been around 5-6 weeks. Hmmmm. I picked it up about a week ago from reading one of Vic's posts. Funny stuff.

="Centerfield":vn0o7l3v]I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't hate Willie because he's black. I hate Willie because I think he's dumb and doing a bad job.[/quote:vn0o7l3v] ="Benjamin Grimm":vn0o7l3v]And I have no doubt that Willie cares. His demeanor isn't the problem. (His approach, demeanor-wise, is rather similar to that of Gil Hodges.) I have more of a problem with his in-game decisions than I do with what he does in the clubhouse. (Although, of course, I'm much less aware of what goes on in the clubhouse.)[/quote:vn0o7l3v] Me too. Vic Sage May 19 2008 04:17 PM managers get too much credit when they win, and too much blame when they lose. As the person who coined the term "wee willie small balls", i've been on record as having little regard for Willie's managerial philosophy and game management. That being said, i happen to like Willie as a person (to the extent anyone can actually know him thru the media), and i wish him all good things. I think his presence or absence as Mets manager will make little difference, by the end of the season. Minaya has had, and will continue to have, much greater impact on this team's success or lack thereof. In my mind, the team is too reliant on Delgado, Castillo, Alou and Martinez for this year's success, and those were problems that concerned many of us before the season started. That the elder players are aging fast, and the younger ones are not yet having the same MVP type years as they did last season, places us squarely behind the 8-ball. So far, we're being held aloft by Church & Schneider hitting out of their minds, and Santana, Maine and Wagner holding up their ends. No amount of managerial temperment is going to get Beltran, Ollie Perez, Pelfrey, Reyes and Wright more consistent, or turn back the clock for the other guys. As much as i don't like Willie as a manager, it's getting to the point now that I'd just as soon keep him as a "fuck you" to all those calling for his head. Frankly, I'd just as soon have them fire Minaya first. Centerfield May 19 2008 04:37 PM I don't see why you would be so indifferent to a managerial change. If you think he lacks game management skills, such can have an effect on the outcome of a season. I agree that it may not be a 15 game swing, but after falling 1 game short last year, isn't it important to take every advantage you can? I realize that making the post-season is like gambling, where the odds are against you. I just wish we didn't have a manager who insisted on doubling down on hard 12's. Kong76 May 19 2008 05:28 PM I'm pretty indifferent to it too. Nymr83 May 19 2008 05:43 PM vic: i know minaya may not have produced the goods yet but i just like the guy, if you think he deserves to be fired thats alright and you may be rigght. i think the GM has an advantage over the manager in the "who do the fans want fired" sweepstakes because the GM made his moves in the offseason and even years earlier in building the team, while the manager is the one making decisions for all to criticize during the season. after the mets lose a game more people are going to call in and say "fire the manager, i can't believe he brought Joe Scrub in to face Pujols there," they aren't going to say "fire the GM, i can't believe Joe Scrub was thebest guy we had in the bullpen there" joe torre won enough world series to be immune to the wrath of the fans, but when criticized he often fell victim to this logic, the principle yankee weakness in the regular season from 2001-2007 was probably the bullpen, and torre always got yelled at by wfan callers and newspaper writers for not bringing Rivera or (whoever the 2nd most reliable guy was that year) into a certain spot, ignoring the fact that if he did as they asked every time Rivera would have had 200 innings on his arm per year. you dont hear much "fire cashman, the bum has a 200 million dollar team and couldnt find a decent setup guy" AG/DC May 19 2008 06:46 PM The only blood I'm looking for is the other team's. GYC May 19 2008 08:44 PM GYC May 19 2008 08:45 PM Oh, and he defended Herm Edwards. Fuck both of them. Nymr83 May 19 2008 09:17 PM ="AG/DC"]The only blood I'm looking for is the other team's. And you'd like to have the manager best equipped to draw it, right? ="GYC"]Oh, and he defended Herm Edwards. Fuck both of them who defended edwards? willie? one more thing, and this isn't willie's fault but o'connors dumb editorializing: ]Randolph knew this second game with the Yanks was too important to watch on a clubhouse TV. what makes it so important? are they in your division? do you trail them in the wild card standings? i wish the writers would stop treating the "subway series" like it is anything more than the least important regular season games the mets will play. SteveJRogers May 19 2008 09:34 PM ="Nymr83"] one more thing, and this isn't willie's fault but o'connors dumb editorializing: ]Randolph knew this second game with the Yanks was too important to watch on a clubhouse TV. what makes it so important? are they in your division? do you trail them in the wild card standings? i wish the writers would stop treating the "subway series" like it is anything more than the least important regular season games the mets will play. ITA, especially considering sometimes the same writers who write stuff like that will at the same time will state that there is no juice in the SS. You can't have it both ways, you can't say "Oh, there is no juice in the SS" and then go on about how important the games are as opposed to last weekend's series against Cincy. Perfect example last year, Wally Matthews often will discuss how meaningless the Subway Series games are to everyone who isn't a fan, but then called a Carlos Beltran at bat against Mariano Rivera during the first series Beltran's biggest since ending the '06 NLCS. Like Beltran's early season ABs against the Phillies and Braves didn't mean a thing. AG/DC May 19 2008 09:45 PM ="Nymr83":1xzwp4sf]="AG/DC":1xzwp4sf]The only blood I'm looking for is the other team's.[/quote:1xzwp4sf] And you'd like to have the manager best equipped to draw it, right?[/quote:1xzwp4sf] And you know who that is? I don't. I'd like the best team. MFS62 May 20 2008 07:13 AM Congrats to all of you. After the initial few posts, the discussion in this thread has centered on Willie's abilities as a manager. And that's the point. None of the discussion has been based on his race. And that seems to support the view that Willie was wrong in saying what he did. Later seawolf17 May 20 2008 07:17 AM You're only saying that because you're black. Benjamin Grimm May 20 2008 07:26 AM ="AG/DC"]="Nymr83"]="AG/DC"]The only blood I'm looking for is the other team's. And you'd like to have the manager best equipped to draw it, right? And you know who that is? I don't. I'd like the best team. I don't know who it is either. But I really don't think it's Willie Randolph. There's little point in replacing Willie with a different manager unless it's also a better manager. It's easy enough to find one who's more fiery. My criteria is someone who's smarter, and that's harder to identify, at least from where I sit. AG/DC May 20 2008 07:36 AM That's where I sit, and if I'm going to change horses, I'd like to have a plan. I've seen moments of seeming brilliance from Willie --- where his critics were dead wrong --- but far too many moments of seeming oversight (starting with him blowing a double switch his first time out), retrograde choices, and intellectual stubborn-ness. I'm not at the point where the organizational trauma of a mid-season switch is worth it, when I'm not sure what I'm getting (thought I was much closer to that point three days ago). Maybe we all need to watch more Zephyrball. Benjamin Grimm May 20 2008 07:49 AM I found a rather difficult to navigate Zephyrs forum. Maybe there's a better one out there. I was looking for a good forum we could visit or blogger who we could invite here to discuss the pros and cons of Ken Oberkfell. I didn't spend a whole lot of time searching, so maybe there's something out there, but I came up pretty empty. MFS62 May 20 2008 08:26 AM The only race we care about is the pennant race. Later Benjamin Grimm May 20 2008 10:34 AM Willie's on SNY RIGHT NOW saying his comments were "tongue in cheek." AG/DC May 20 2008 10:41 AM Cool. metirish May 20 2008 10:44 AM That's certainly not how Ian O 'Connor's article read , interesting. G-Fafif May 20 2008 11:20 AM And Wagner wasn't talking about Delgado the other day either. metirish May 20 2008 11:33 AM What Willie said , today that is. ] "Well, you know, this really just boils back down to wins and losses. It really does. I think when you�re an environment like this where expectations are high and we don�t play up to our capabilities at any point in time, there�s going to be a lot of talk, a lot of fodder, opinions on how we played. Yeah, it does seem like after a while it gets to be pounded on a little bit. "But I understand that. I think I mentioned to [O'Connor] about feeling almost racial or whatever, but that was pretty much kind of a tongue in cheek kind of reaction to what I�ve been feeling. Not that anybody is racist, or this is racist or racial. I�ve known Ian a long time. We were just kind of chit-chatting and talking or whatever. "But the Wilpons hired me because � not because I�m black � because they can feel like I can do a good job for them. They trusted this team to me and they hired me because they feel like I can do the job not the color of my skin. "Again, it�s been a lot of negative stuff going around here and I�ve been feeling some of that. Again, I was just expressing how I felt at the time, but it wasn�t anything to do with race and I wasn�t trying to bring race into it. I was just talking to an old friend and obviously I probably should have thought more about what I was getting ready to say. I don�t think it�s about race. It�s about winning ballgames, it�s about getting to the way we�re capable of playing and winning." Nymr83 May 20 2008 12:25 PM ="Benjamin Grimm"] I don't know who it is either. But I really don't think it's Willie Randolph. There's little point in replacing Willie with a different manager unless it's also a better manager. It's easy enough to find one who's more fiery. My criteria is someone who's smarter, and that's harder to identify, at least from where I sit. certainly we can look at other guy's with experience and see if they do the right things... don't bunt like crazy for no reason, dont bring in 5 relievers in 3 innings, etc. Benjamin Grimm May 20 2008 12:28 PM Oh, I agree that it's possible to determine if a guy uses smart strategy. What I was saying was that I don't know who the smart guys are. (And I'm not going to conduct an extensive investigation, either, unless I'm appointed as head of the Manager Search Committee.) AG/DC May 20 2008 12:28 PM Certainly. You start. Vic Sage May 20 2008 03:09 PM ="Centerfield":ru456v70]I don't see why you would be so indifferent to a managerial change. If you think he lacks game management skills, such can have an effect on the outcome of a season. I agree that it may not be a 15 game swing, but after falling 1 game short last year, isn't it important to take every advantage you can? I realize that making the post-season is like gambling, where the odds are against you. I just wish we didn't have a manager who insisted on doubling down on hard 12's.[/quote:ru456v70] I think managers have markedly less impact than they are given credit (or blame) for. And while i don't often agree with Willie, and criticized his hiring from the outset, i just don't think it would make much of a difference. If Wright and Reyes were repeating their MVP seasons, and Ollie Perez was repeating his success from last year, We'd be a few games up instead of a few games back, and few would be calling for Willie's head on a pike. Joe Torre was the same manager with the Mets in the late 1970s as he was with the Braves, the Cards and the Yanks, and now with L.A. His sucesses and failures were driven by his rosters, not the otherway around. I just think a mid-season managerial firing is the hallmark of a troubled franchise making a panicky move, and i don't want us to do that. If the Mets fail to make the post-season again, the Wilpons should fire Minaya AND Willie, then conduct an exhaustive search for the best up-and-coming GM in the business (hopefully one that worked for Billy Beane, or at least one that doesn't need SABRmetrics explained to him), and let him hire who he wants to hire. soupcan May 21 2008 08:46 AM I sit at my desk all day, fielding phone calls, making phone calls, doing paperworkand tooling around a bit on the 'net during and in between. I always have the radio on, tuned to WFAN. Its just to have some background buzz but of course I hear what they're saying. This entire Willie Randolph thing has just gotten completely out of hand. This initial comment: ]"Is it racial?" Randolph asked. "Huh? It smells a little bit." Asked directly if he believes black managers are held to different standards than their white counterparts, Randolph said: "I don't know how to put my finger on it, but I think there's something there. Herman Edwards did pretty well here and he won a couple of playoff [games], and they were pretty hard on Herm. Isiah [Thomas] didn't do a great job, but they beat up Isiah pretty good. ... I don't know if people are used to a certain figurehead. There's something weird about it. Has become 'Willie's invoking the race card!'. Every one who calls in wants to talk about it. The program hosts are constantly bringing it up and coming down on one side or the other. Mostly they 'don't agree'. I realize that they need to stir up controversy, that's their job but this is bordering on, if it isn't already and completely irresponsible journalism. Where in that paragraph does Randolph say he is being discriminated against in any fashion whatsoever? And let's say that Willie did say something like that. How do caucasian radio hosts have the audacity to 'disagree' with him?! How could they possibly have any idea what a black man in a high profile position experiences in terms of racism? 'Well, I don't think Met fans are racist. I've never seen it." Amazing. Truly. And then, when asked to clarify his comments, Willie basically says, "hey, that's not really what I meant or was trying to say." These guys don't back off. They don't accept it. Because, well they know better. They know what Willie meant. He's playing the race card to deflect criticsm of his poor record. I was hoping that Randolph was trying to invoke an old Torre tactic of trying to deflect criticism of the team towards him when he gave that interview to O'Connor and maybe he was. Even so though, Willie does not in any way deserve the the skewering his getting on the radio these days. Its embarassing. AG/DC May 21 2008 08:51 AM They don't back off because scavengers don't back off an injured animal. They won't back off anymore than boobirds will back off when it becomes possible that they are actually damaging a player's work environment. They prey on the weak, and Willie appeared to have shown a weakness, whether he actually has or not. Grote15 May 21 2008 11:55 AM Media feeds on fear and the consumption of it. They prey on the weak and don't stop until that days' or weeks lunch is done. Willie Randolph is todays lunch. As manager I would prefer someone else..Today... As an employee, human being and man..Leave Randolph alone whether he be white,black,latino or purple...It's his job..If his boss feels his services are no longer required he will be fired. I feel the season can be summed up by Hernandez sitting in the bleachers. One big fucking joke. And if I were the owner I would politely dismiss Willie Randolph and hire the best available candidate. Its' late May and the season has denigrated into a bullshitfest..Good Lord.. Ted G. metirish May 21 2008 08:43 PM I dunno but I think the end is near. ] Randolph apologizes to Mets management, SNY BY DAVID LENNON | david.lennon@newsday.com - Three days after making inflammatory comments to the Bergen Record, Willie Randolph issued an apology before Wednesday night's game against the Braves. When reporters entered the visiting manager's office here at Turner Field for his daily briefing, Randolph was sitting at his desk, an 8x11 sheet of white loose-leaf paper in front of him. The page was filled with notes carefully written in black ink. When the first question was asked about the health of Ryan Church, who was hospitalized Tuesday with a mild concussion, Randolph politely steered the conversation in another direction. "Before I start guys, I need to say a few things real quick," Randolph said. "First of all I want to apologize to Met ownership, SNY and my team for the unnecessary distraction that I created the last couple of days. I shouldn't have said what I said. It was a mistake -- simple as that. It was a mistake. There's no excuses for that. I'm owning up to it. "The fact of life is that we haven't been playing very well as a team. We've been very inconsistent. When that happens, you're going to be criticized for that. I understand that. It's been a tough couple of months. I expect a lot from my team, from myself, and I understand that goes along with it. I've been in this town for a long time. "I take full responsibility for what I said in my frustration and I hope that we can put a close to this matter and focus on winning a lot of baseball games. That's what we're here to do -- win a championship. I just wanted to publicly apologize and I take full responsibility for what happened a couple of days ago." Randolph later said during his weekly appearance on WFAN that his comments were meant to be off the record, a claim the Record's Ian O'Connor vehemently denies. But apparently it took him almost 72 hours to fully realize how much of a mess he had made. Randolph suggested that racial bias may be part of the reason for the media criticism. He also angered SNY officials by saying the network's coverage was slanted against him. That also did not go over well with the upper management of the Mets, who also own the majority stake in SNY, and apparently Randolph's handling of the fallout on Tuesday did not suffice. The Mets manager said he already had reached out to the Wilpons to apologize directly, but was not instructed by team ownership to issue the statement. COO Jeff Wilpon did not return a telephone call seeking comment. Randolph also told WFAN that he was so troubled by the controversy that he talked with his pastor and family about how to make amends. "I just felt like it was something I wanted to do," Ran.dolph said. "I feel bad about how this has come about because I don't want to be a distraction or for anyone to think this is really how I feel. When you're in the heat of battle sometimes, when you're frustrated, sometimes you open up a little bit or elaborate a little too much, and that's probably what I did." More articles Nymr83 May 21 2008 08:56 PM ]Its' late May and the season has denigrated into a bullshitfest..Good Lord.. The Mets are 22-22, 3.5 out of a Marlin team that likely won't be there in september and 2 behind the phillies and braves, i'm not happy with how the mets are playing but its hardly as bad as you make it out to be. DocTee May 21 2008 09:16 PM Considering that several of last year's playoff teams (DET, COL, MFY) and one with championship hopes (CLE) are playing worse than the Mets, you'd think we are better than some suggest. metirish May 22 2008 06:59 AM I tuned into the radio for a few innings last night , Howie and Wayne were talking about the Randolph controversy , Howie maintained that it was causing a distraction to the team and has created " tension" among the team he didn't elaborate . Edgy DC Dec 29 2008 07:18 PM Before Willie was a victim of cruel mistreatment by stupid assholes, he was a stupid asshole playing the race card. All it took for his public rehabilitation was his termination. This incident turned out, according to Willie, to be his one regret (or main regret) upon leaving the Mets. And I offer this thread as a second nominee for the Craney --- even though I have too much to say in it. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 29 2008 08:43 PM I think given some perspective this was all about Willie's paranoia careening further and further off course. That said I still think everyone reacted way too harshly, and a public apology must have been murder on Willie's dignity. Again, the Mets being the "bad guy" in his firing a month later did him a big favor.

I didn't know that aluminum bats were designated as safety bats and non-safety bats, like scissors are.

="AG/DC"]]The knocks on Valentine are as silly as they are well-chronicled. Valentine is very up-front and very smart and isn't at all equipped to be a push-button Moneyball manager. What does that mean? I should read the SI article before jumping in. But maybe it means that if Valentine is the Manager, Valentine intends to manage. In Oakland, it appeared that Billy Beane was not only the General Manager, but also the de facto Manager, assuming many of Art Howe's duties and making many of the Field Manager's decisions. (The Here Comes Trouble Alert!) Maybe Valentine doesn't want a Steve Phillips type to force him to play a crappy shortstop like Rey Ordonez every single day anymore! Maybe Valentine doesn't want some declining relief pitcher who's delusional about amassing all-time Saves to influence the Steve Phillips type into playing Ordonez because the relief pitcher who thought he was better than Armando Benitez cared more about one half inning of defense whenever he pitched. Maybe Valentine doesn't want to be forced to waste a roster spot on some washed up or washing up relief pitcher who thinks that the primary function of the Mets franchise should be to enable this relief pitcher to accumulate Saves. Maybe Valentine doesn't wanna manage some relief pitcher who whines and pouts because he's asked to pitch the 8th inning instead of the 9th and then ends up causing trouble and grief for Valentine because the organization is dysfunctional in that way. Maybe Valentine wants to manage relief pitchers who should be grateful that they get to pitch any innings at all, especially when they're at the point in their hypothetical careers where they are marginal and thus, very replaceable. Maybe Valentine doesn't wanna manage where he might have less clout then some relief pitcher or even a starting pitcher. Or any player, really.

I'll double down on no for Milledge. Let it ride!