Vic Sage

this is what happens when you trade Kris Benson... all you've got left are canines.

is he a HOFer? Borderline-No, to me. He was more Joe Gordon than Ryne Sandberg. Other than those few great seasons hitting behind Bonds (and who wouldnt have great numbers hitting behind Ole Big Head?), he was a very-good-(not great) hitting, less-than-good fielding 2bman. But unlike Gordon, i don't think he'll have many friends on the Veterans committee to vote him in.

I'd root for the NL team that inevitably moved into the NYC market. Until then, i'd continue to be a Cyclones fan.

I'm lefty throwing, and i might as well hit righty for all the success i've ever had hitting left-handed.

wasnt Livesley the scout that recommended the Kazmir trade?

I know Bucket has been shilling for Hairston since day 1, but the truth is he'd be an unreliable bench player. For the same reason Castro is a "bad backup catcher" because he is so often unavailable, so, too, would Hairston be a much riskier signing than Cora. You know what your going to get. A good glove, versatility, not much stick, but enough for a utility infielder. Yes, Hairston is a better offensive player when healthy, but he rarely is. Look, they had to sign somebody to be the 25th man. He's it. No big deal, but at least he'll be there if you need him.

="Edgy DC":2wrtve2y]A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber.[/quote:2wrtve2y] As long as you keep equating the voting RIGHTS of citizens in a democracy, with the voting PRIVILEGE of a small number of selectors for the HOF (or any other private selection process based on specified criteria), then no, it's not different. It's a constituency (whether citizens in a republic or members of the HOF administraton) monitoring and evaluating the performance of their chosen representatives. the BBWWA don't have a right to be enfranchised in this process. They'e been granted a privilege. The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes. If you don't agree that such a selection committee should have oversight, then we will need to agree to disagree on that point. If you DO think there should be oversight, then the discussion can shift to what form it should take, without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber". Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM Of course, it's different. Legislators are not electors, they are representatives of a constuency, empowered and disempowered by electors. The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. If a vote for Jay Bell is an indiscretion that will lead to your investigation and possible disenfranchisement, then his name should not be on the ballot. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 11:54 AM ="Edgy DC":scjwko15] The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. [/quote:scjwko15] Don't think that's exactly true. I believe it is granted to members of the BBWAA who have been covering baseball for at least ten years. Later Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:01 PM True enough. (Or sort of true enough. It's BBWAA membership plus 10 years as an active baseball writer that qualifies one.) Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:09 PM ="Edgy DC":gnqufv19]The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes.[/quote:gnqufv19] More importantly, I don't believe hauling people before a review committe for being in the extreme minority ensures the best possible outcomes, but undermines that. Democratic systems are designed to absorb such votes, and this one does it quite well. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:57 PM ="Vic Sage":2ifvditq]...without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber".[/quote:2ifvditq] If that comes out as uncivil, then please allow me to withdraw it with apologies.

Last year, i think we got about as much as we can reasonably expect this year from 1b, ss, 3b and CF. We got nothing from 2b and C, and RF was a mixed bag. But Murphy/Tatis in LF certainly outperformed all expectations and i do not believe for a minute we'll get similar production from that combo again this year. So, we either upgrade at 2b, c, and/or Rf to compensate, or replace the LF combo before it blows up in our faces. Or we go into the season with 1/2 the lineup very well likely to suck, to one degree or another, even as Omar whistles past the graveyard.

i'd sure take Nady back, to split time with Church, Murphy and Delgado. But no way the Yanx trade him cross town.

excellent line, Charlie Bucket. funny and poignant.

]Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? that sounds like me. I'm surprised Barfield has not developed, but Shoppach sure showed some punch last year.

1B - we have relatively lower dollars tied up in all the other "trouble" positions, and if in-season moves are necessary, we won't be paralyzed by budgetary constraints to fix any of them, unlike our $12m 1bman. Also, none of the other positions are being counted on for middle-of-the-order production. So, if Delgado's 1st half becomes the first 2/3 of the 2009 season, it'll be hard for the Mets to come back. If his 1st half is replicated for the entire 2009 season, we're cooked.

i'm rooting for him to succeed in Seattle. so long, Aaron ...and thanks for all the fish.

I'm sure he'll want to, to prove he can and set the stage for a new contract ... from somebody. However, if the mets actually need him to pitch in September, that may be a bad sign as to how the new pen had done.

i could see Gil walking out to RF and pulling Straw off the field. And i could see Davey pushing Wright over to SS.

They need to replace Anderson and Reyes. I read they are looking at Alex Cora and Nick Punto as backup IF options.

="Gwreck":gb33zp1i]Final tally: We are giving up: Heilman Smith Chavez Jason Vargas Mike Carp Ezequiel Carera Maikel Cleto Getting: Putz Reed Green[/quote:gb33zp1i] - Chavez and Smith for Reed and Green is a wash, more or less. - Putz for Heilman is a major upgrade, at a cost of 4 non-key prospects that were not going to have any role on the major league level for a few years (if ever). The TiTTS say "yea, verily, yea" Gwreck Dec 11 2008 09:20 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":2d1mi4lq]The Mets made a trade where they picked up three guys, none of whom are Hispanic. Omar's critics who think he's racist won't take note of this, of course.[/quote:2d1mi4lq] I didn't think we had any of those "critics" here. Vince Coleman Firecracker Dec 11 2008 09:23 AM I like this move more the more I think about it. Now, if they'd only use Putz as a relief ace instead of the 8th inning guy... John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 11 2008 09:54 AM I'd love it if they'd be more fluid, if not as a McDowell-Orosco kinda swappy closer thing than maybe Putz gets actual "fireman" status -- use him whenever the game is on the line -- with Rodriguez getting the more glamourous but easier assignment as the "closer" to protect leads. But I'm pretty sure the Mets will use them 8th, 9th like that. DocTee Dec 11 2008 09:56 AM With the Mets nabbing the two most attractive closers on the market, asking prices for Fuentes, Valverde, Lyon and others just exploded. Benjamin Grimm Dec 11 2008 10:04 AM Putz is likely a one-year Met. Apparently his contract contains an option for 2010 at over $9 million. The Mets probably won't want to pay that much for a setup guy. Perhaps they'll trade him to someone who'll let him close, but more likely he'll be a free agent after the 2009 season. TransMonk Dec 11 2008 10:11 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":3rsmur6s]Putz is likely a one-year Met.[/quote:3rsmur6s] Agreed, although factoring the money going to Wagner in 2009, the 8th and 9th innings will still be cheaper for them in 2010 if they kept Putz. Wagner + KRod + Putz = $24 million in 2009. Prolly more than the Marlins payroll will be. Gwreck Dec 11 2008 11:05 AM ="Benjamin Grimm"]Apparently his contract contains an option for 2010 at over $9 million. $8.6 Million club option. The buyout is $1 Million. ]The Mets probably won't want to pay that much for a setup guy. Probably not, but I think they wait and see how 2009 goes first. Centerfield Dec 11 2008 11:08 AM ="TransMonk":1ajjkucg]="Benjamin Grimm":1ajjkucg]Putz is likely a one-year Met.[/quote:1ajjkucg] Agreed, although factoring the money going to Wagner in 2009, the 8th and 9th innings will still be cheaper for them in 2010 if they kept Putz. Wagner + KRod + Putz = $24 million in 2009. Prolly more than the Marlins payroll will be.[/quote:1ajjkucg] The Wagner money really gets under my skin. I really wonder if they had to go four years to get him in the first place. I wish they could find some use for him in 2009 and save money somewhere else. Can he make copies? File papers? Maybe he could work a ticket booth or something. Edgy DC Dec 11 2008 11:17 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 11 2008 11:51 AM ="Centerfield":7x6t2mcj]The Wagner money really gets under my skin. I really wonder if they had to go four years to get him in the first place.[/quote:7x6t2mcj] It's a little late to get too animated about that, but the Wagner deal came shortly after the O's gobbled up B.J. Ryan for five years and $47 million. It's not a cheap game to play. Just be happy that the money dropped on him in this fourth year didn't prevent the Mets from reloading with Rodriguez and Putz. Benjamin Grimm Dec 11 2008 11:19 AM Well, obviously they'll see how 2009 goes first. As for Wagner, there was a report out the other day that his recovery is going well and he may actually be able to pitch in September of 2009. Vic Sage Dec 11 2008 11:42 AM I'm sure he'll want to, to prove he can and set the stage for a new contract ... from somebody. However, if the mets actually need him to pitch in September, that may be a bad sign as to how the new pen had done. Gwreck Dec 11 2008 11:48 AM ="Vic Sage":3roqbbwa]However, if the mets actually need him to pitch in September, that may be a bad sign as to how the new pen had done.[/quote:3roqbbwa] You wouldn't want Wagner as your situational lefty pitcher instead of Feliciano or Schoeneweis? 86-Dreamer Dec 11 2008 03:19 PM I like the trade. But I am a bit scared by the fact that Putz actually had worse WHIP in 2008 (1.597) than the man he is replacing (1.592). But then I look at his 2006 & 2007 seasons and get excited again. Lets hope he is healthy. metsmarathon Dec 11 2008 04:10 PM of course, how was heilman's '06 and '07? i'm just sayin... but overall i like the trade. and i'm surprised we don't yet have a poll asking me that question. metirish Dec 11 2008 06:27 PM ] "It's a new challenge and I'm excited about it," Putz told the Seattle Times. "I'm going to a new team that's going to be very competitive. Frankie's a great closer and with Sean Green going as well, we should have a great bullpen." Willets Point Dec 11 2008 06:58 PM Putz is perhaps the first Mets relief pitcher to come with a built-in derogatory nickname for when he blows a save. Edgy DC Dec 11 2008 08:17 PM Ah, but you're too young to recall Alain LeDouche. Those were ze days, mon ami. metirish Dec 14 2008 11:25 AM ] Mets now have terrific twosome in 'pen By Jayson Stark ESPN.com LAS VEGAS -- The New York Mets of 2008 didn't just have a closer problem. They had a bullpen problem. The Mets of 2008 didn't just have a ninth-inning problem. They had a how-the-heck-do-we-get-to-the-ninth-inning problem. Well, not anymore. Now, after a stunning 12-player, three-team, winter meetings megadeal Wednesday night, the Mets have transformed their bullpen and transformed themselves. J.J. Putz and Francisco Rodriguez aren't merely an upgrade on Luis Ayala and Duaner Sanchez/Aaron Heilman/Scott Schoeneweis/insert your favorite other Mets setup villain here. J.J. Putz and K-Rod are an upgrade on everybody's eighth-and-ninth-inning bullpen-assassin combo. Who beats that tag team? "Nobody," said one longtime talent evaluator Wednesday night. "To me, they're the best. And they're not just a great duo. They're a strikeout duo, too. There won't be many balls in play when those two guys are out there. As big as strikeouts are in the ninth inning, sometimes they're even bigger in the eighth." True facts: K-Rod averaged 10.14 strikeouts per nine innings this season. Putz, even in a down year, averaged 10.88 whiffs per nine innings. And that was in the American League, where the lineups run nine deep. Only two National League teams had a closer-setup combo in which each pitcher racked up that high a punch-out rate in 2008 -- the Cubs (Kerry Wood/Carlos Marmol) and the Dodgers (Takashi Saito/Jonathan Broxton/Hong-Chih Kuo). Not coincidentally, those staffs ranked third and first, respectively, in the league in bullpen ERA. But now Wood is gone in Chicago. Saito is hurt in L.A. And it's the Mets who have assumed the throne. We asked around Wednesday night in a lobby packed with baseball people. Nobody could come up with an eighth-inning/ninth-inning combo as formidable as the Mets' new twosome. The reason is simple. As long as these two are healthy, there isn't a better tandem. "They can play a 21-out game now," the same evaluator said of the Mets. "I give them a lot of credit. They just made a $13 million investment [in K-Rod], and now they've bolstered it with a character guy whose character is so good, he'll be willing to pitch the eighth inning." Putz, of course, will have to be healthier than he was in 2008, when his 3.88 ERA was nearly triple his 1.38 mark in '07. But if he is, he changes the Mets' whole persona. Just consider the bullpen disaster that did in this team this season: The Mets were 13th in the league in ERA from the seventh inning on and 13th in bullpen ERA overall. They blew 29 saves -- second most in the National League, behind St. Louis. They gave up 61 home runs from the seventh inning on, tied with the Giants for the most in the league. And those aren't even the most devastating numbers that defined the Mets' season. Consider these numbers: If all games had ended after six innings this season, the Mets would have finished the year 11 games ahead of the Phillies (aka, the team that won the World Series). If all games had ended after seven innings, the Mets would have finished six games ahead of the Phillies. And if all games had even been just eight innings long instead of nine, the Mets would have finished five games ahead of the Phillies. But the rules are the rules. And the rules say they had to play all nine. And it was those final innings that crushed the Mets. The Phillies lost no games they led after eight innings. The Mets lost seven of them -- and lost 13 games they led after seven innings. That's how seasons slip away. That's how one fatal flaw can undermine everyone and everything. That was the story of the 2008 Mets. So one miraculous trade later, this doesn't just look like a whole new bullpen. It looks like a whole new team. Rockin' Doc Dec 14 2008 11:38 AM "If all games had ended after six innings this season, the Mets would have finished the year 11 games ahead of the Phillies (aka, the team that won the World Series). If all games had ended after seven innings, the Mets would have finished six games ahead of the Phillies. And if all games had even been just eight innings long instead of nine, the Mets would have finished five games ahead of the Phillies." Wow, those are pretty telling stats. I knew the bullpen was costly last season, but those facts really point out just how costly the bullpen actually was. Valadius Dec 14 2008 02:28 PM I warned about the bullpen all last offseason. I figured it would happen again. Frayed Knot Dec 14 2008 02:37 PM ="Rockin' Doc":2m19qgyh]"If all games had ended after six innings this season, the Mets would have finished the year 11 games ahead of the Phillies (aka, the team that won the World Series). If all games had ended after seven innings, the Mets would have finished six games ahead of the Phillies. And if all games had even been just eight innings long instead of nine, the Mets would have finished five games ahead of the Phillies."[/quote:2m19qgyh] The pen was obviously the biggest culprit in those above scenarios although the offense's habit of scoring more early than late contributed as well. The net effect was to make the pen look even worse than it really was by removing any margin of error and turning every run given up into a disaster. metirish Dec 14 2008 02:51 PM Yet Miniya thinks the offense was fine last season From the Hot Stove December 11th ] Minaya on getting more offense. Quote: "Before I start moving my dollars to offense, I have to move my dollars to pitching," the GM said."Last year was very simple guys. We had 20 blown saves. We scored the runs." Edgy DC Dec 14 2008 05:13 PM In general, it was fine. It was just disproportionately better in the front end of games, contributing to some of those numbers. Ashie62 Dec 14 2008 06:27 PM I remeber several years ago the Mets were dumoing on the Rockies Mike DeJean and McCarver said "well this inning is in De Jean" TransMonk Dec 18 2008 12:40 PM I have to say, the more I hear from J.J., the more I like him. And, I was pretty impressed to begin with. Frayed Knot Dec 19 2008 12:16 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 19 2008 12:30 PM How do you solve a problem like Putz? John Branch (never heard of him) at the NYTimes looks into the origin, Hungarian; proper pronunciation, 'Puts'; and the potential pitfalls for headline writers concerning the new set-up man. The Mets solved the problem of his introduction by boldly printing on the scoreboard: 'Mets Welcome J.J.' metirish Dec 19 2008 12:24 PM Putz said yesterday that he might ask Hojo for #20. metirish Dec 19 2008 12:59 PM ="Frayed Knot"]How do you solve a problem like Putz? John Branch (never heard of him) at the NYTimes looks into the origin, Hungarian; proper pronunciation, 'Puts'; and the potential pitfalls for headline writers concerning the new set-up man. The Mets solved the problem of his introduction by boldly printing on the scoreboard: 'Mets Welcome J.J.' Interesting that Bill Sweeney the headline writer over at the Snooze is not looking at Putz as a headline opportunity. metsguyinmichigan Dec 19 2008 01:17 PM They're probably not going to sell too many t-shirts with "Putz" on the back. And I don't like the wide soul patch. But I have to tell you, dude is saying all the right things. This might up being Omar's best move of the off-season. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 01:31 PM What's encouraging is to hear some good things about Sean Green who came along with Putzy in the deal. Putz in the Snooze today called Green "a machine" and sincerely sounded like a strong endorsement, and Keith Law of ESPN called him the 4th most important acquisition of the winter in all of bb (behind CC, K-Rod and JJ, saying he'd be to the Mets as valuable as Bradford in 06. Benjamin Grimm Dec 19 2008 02:06 PM That would be good if Sean Green ends up being a solid bullpenner. I am glad the Mets got Putz, but I do regret losing Joe Smith for one year of Putz. So I do hope Green can contribute in 2010 and beyond. A Boy Named Seo Dec 19 2008 02:38 PM That 70/30 talk seemed kind of unecessary. Like a bone that didn't need to be thrown Putz's way. But now it's out there and expectations are kind of attached to it. Hope it doesn't bite Jerry's arse down the road. smg58 Dec 19 2008 03:02 PM If the Mets get 100 save opportunities, a 70/30 split will work out to everybody's satisfaction. Green was terrific for the first four months last year, but 58 innings in four months was more than he could handle and he imploded in August and September. If his arm has recovered and they pace him for 65 or so innings, he could have a really good year. A Boy Named Seo Dec 19 2008 03:33 PM If we get 100 save opps, we're winning like 115 games anyway, so none of this will matter.

what Firecracker said? ditto.

PLAY ME OR TRADE ME, DAMMIT!

he lost 2 of his prime years to WWII, preventing him from accumulating more impressive numbers. But what was there was "cherce."

my friend can't buy tix till the 12th. shoot.

]I'm not all that CAHNfident in a Murphy/Tatis platoon. I mean, I am, but I don't like it in combination with questionable production outta Church in RF. and questionable production out of Castillo at 2b and Schneider at C. And i don't know if Delgado, at 37, will repeat his 2nd half performance or his 1st half.

="Nymr83":1lrgong9]="Vic Sage":1lrgong9]i'm a definite [u:1lrgong9]yes [/u:1lrgong9]on Henderson and Blyleven, and i could go either way on Rice, Raines and Trammell. No others need apply.[/quote:1lrgong9] It was my (jewish) New Year's resolution to agree with Vic just once this year.[/quote:1lrgong9] even a broken clock is right twice a day. Nymr83 Dec 03 2008 01:44 PM They anounced the Veteran's Committee ballot today, i fear they will place the undeserving (like Ron Santo) in the hall while ignoring the best hitter not in the hall (Dick Allen.) metsmarathon Dec 03 2008 02:00 PM Player Career 5-yr peak 7-yr Peak 10-yr Plateau 1-yr Max santo 3rd TOP TOP 2nd TOP allen bottom 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd using my methodology, ron santo is probably the best player not in the hall. Nymr83 Dec 03 2008 02:07 PM Allen has a 156 OPS+ over 15 years, that should be automatic inclusion. Valadius Dec 03 2008 04:29 PM Santo and Allen both deserve it. seawolf17 Dec 03 2008 07:34 PM ="Nymr83":1g5y35ta]Allen has a 156 OPS+ over 15 years, that should be automatic inclusion.[/quote:1g5y35ta] Hey! We agree! Edgy DC Dec 03 2008 08:12 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 06 2008 07:39 AM I don't think there's such a thing as an automatic anything. Bill James pretty much says he jerked his way out of the Hall of Fame and seems to agree, or at least acknowledge where the writers were coming from. You don't have to agree, but I think declaring anything to be a no-brainer is intellectually lazy. The time for thinkers has come. Frayed Knot Dec 06 2008 07:20 AM More Raines love A rather lengthy treatise on why Tim Raines belongs, comparing him as a leadoff hitter to other leadoffs already in or likely headed for the HoF and reaching concluions like; Take a big part of Rickey Henderson and Pete Rose, add a good size part of Lou Brock, Paul Molitor, and Craig Biggio, and stir in some Ichiro Suzuki, Wade Boggs, Joe Morgan, Derek Jeter, and Barry Bonds, and you get a composite that is a shade inferior to Tim Raines. ... and then doing the same with Raines as #3 hitter, and then again as an overall career. I'm convinced. Edgy DC Dec 06 2008 07:44 AM We tend to say we're offended by the use of magic number thresholds reached in compiling career totals, but isn't the failure to reach 3,000 hits the main case against Raines? And couldn't he have pulled it of pretty easily if he (1) walked a little less, or (2) spent his disease-diminished twilight hitting full-time at league average for a lesser team rather than hitting part-time above league average for contenders? Valadius Dec 06 2008 09:21 PM You can't blame a guy for wanting to win championships. Frayed Knot Jan 05 2009 09:16 AM Results revealed a week from today. Meanwhile, Newsday's Ken Davidoff[/url:fmb4ds8p] reveals not only his ballot but his reasoning behind each vote while showing a willingness to change his mind and adapt to changing thinking. Plus I think I agree with him on all his choices (and non-choices). Nymr83 Jan 05 2009 09:39 AM ="Frayed Knot":3l2ojh0o]Results revealed a week from today. Meanwhile, Newsday's Ken Davidoff[/url:3l2ojh0o] reveals not only his ballot but his reasoning behind each vote while showing a willingness to change his mind and adapt to changing thinking. Plus I think I agree with him on all his choices (and non-choices).[/quote:3l2ojh0o] "The statistics stand the test of time. Our memories are not as reliable." That should be rule #1 of HOF voting. metirish Jan 05 2009 09:45 AM That's some good stuff there form Davidoff . I like his honesty and that he can change from year to year.

i enjoyed BRIDE, but TAP created a comedic sub-genre. So, for me, when its a close call, i go with the film that had a more significant impact on the culture.

oh, Ben, don't be a girly man. You want the Yancy Street boys to get you?