If they have faith in their assessment that he's little more than a bench player at this point, then playing him beyond that level: (1) puts him in a position to (in their judgment) hurt the team, demoralize his teammates and the fan base; and (2) markets to potential suitors his shortcomings. I could further add that : (3) it could rob him of any confidence that with a couple of adjustments, he could be so much more, but he has to work on that, and demonstrate that he's made some adjustments before gaining their confidence for further playing time; and (4) cut into playing time that some other would-be comer could be getting. It's all speculative, and number (4) is not how it would play out up front. Initially, he'd be taking playing time away from Ankiel. In saying all that crap, that's not how I lean. I think if he's on the roster, he'd do well to get some PT --- and I mean at short and second also, even though I know he's been a disaster as an infielder. But I think there's a value in not giving a player a job, but challenging him to take it --- saying, "That's Ankiel and his best days are behind him and he's not getting better; prove to me you're the better choice." And I think there's a value in supporting young players not just in playing them through their fuckups, but also in supporting the likes of Harvey and Wheeler by putting the best lineup you can muster that day behind them. Again, I want him playing more, but I think the case for spot-starting him until his play forces the issue is there. It's not the first time around the track for any of the Mets' braintrust. They may be wrong, but I'm sure they've considered these issues and are aware of the case for starting him. Nymr advocating up top for den Dekker. Let's get real.