Ceetar

="Frayed Knot":3486d8jw]No one's saying that his job title gives him license to be a dick in the Bingo clubhouse (if that's what happened) only that there's nothing unusual about him being there or with being concerned with what's going on in player development. on edit: and, yes, by 'your decision' I meant front office types. They are the ones who can't only draft, sign, promote, cut, evaluate players from afar. Can you imagine if a high draft pick (like maybe next year's the way things are going) flames out soon afterward and the story from Omar & Tony (or whoever is in charge then) is that they never actually saw him play but the reports from the regional scout were great - in effect blaming a wasted few mil on some 3-levels-down evaluator? We'd drag the guy over the coals for an answer like that and rightfully so.[/quote:3486d8jw] That's what I get for doing a thousand things at once. But yeah, but there is also the idea that there is too much of that to do for one person. Maybe I'm just think he's not deserved of the title. It seems like there should be one guy that less of a visit guy and more of a "trust the guys you hire to evaluate players". But maybe that's supposed to be Omar. But then isn't Tony just a glorified scout? Obviously the closer you get to big money the more people you want to look at him, but at one point you wonder if feedback is getting lost on the way up. If a scout likes the way one guy's curve looks, but Tony doesn't like it, does Omar even know a scout liked the curve? I originally meant more what was he doing barging into a team meeting like he's the captain than what was he doing in binghamton (or wherever they were). Frayed Knot Jul 23 2009 12:14 PM Well, again, the question that remains to be answered here is what did he say and how did he say it. Of course if you're of the opinion that he shouldn't be in the job in the first place then that's a whole 'nother angle. As far as scouting/evaluating goes, usually that's the kind of thing that goes up the chain of command. A local scout might like a guy and recommend him to the regional scout, who'll then write a report to his boss and so on. With enough good evaluations it'll eventually get back to the home office where, if the reports are glowing enough or there's significant money to be spent, you bet the big boys are going to want to take a look themselves. Trusting your people is one thing, but any corporation that takes that too far and lets their middle/lower mgmt types set their agenda for them is asking for trouble. No different here. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 12:27 PM ="Frayed Knot"]Well, again, the question that remains to be answered here is what did he say and how did he say it. Of course if you're of the opinion that he shouldn't be in the job in the first place then that's a whole 'nother angle. Bernazard had, like no relevant experience in terms of baseball front-office-ery, right? No scouting experience, either, if memory serves... just the work on the WBC. metirish Jul 23 2009 12:40 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]="Frayed Knot"]Well, again, the question that remains to be answered here is what did he say and how did he say it. Of course if you're of the opinion that he shouldn't be in the job in the first place then that's a whole 'nother angle. Bernazard had, like no relevant experience in terms of baseball front-office-ery, right? No scouting experience, either, if memory serves... just the work on the WBC. Tony was a community organizer . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 12:56 PM ="metirish":3iikmra1] Tony was a community organizer .[/quote:3iikmra1] Ha. Matt Artus of Always Amazin' does a pretty good job of synthesizing a bunch of takes on the Bernazard trail (think of him as your case briefing, sleuths)--- going back to 2005-- over here.[/url:3iikmra1] Valadius Jul 23 2009 03:30 PM Also, let's not forget the "Street Spanish" incident. G-Fafif Jul 23 2009 04:14 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Well, I think it's true that Madden's hard-on for all things late 70s Yankees influenced much of the over-the-top shame and outrage with which the Snooze covered the Willie firing last year. I also don't for a second doubt that Willie was the source of many of the anonymous whacks at Bernazard up until he was gone. PS, over at BTF apparently the D-Backs' scout allegedly yelled at by Bernazard is denying Bernazard ever yelled at him. I mean, if that is really him. ]Tony did not ( I repeat ), did NOT treat me that way (at all) and I'd hope that Mr. Madden fixes his story. Don't think Tony deserves that.... The story was Tony bawled out his deputy, not the scout. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 05:51 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 11:46 AM Bernazard's CV according to the 2009 media guide Joined the Mets on December 1, 2004 as Special Assistant to the General Manager. Nowe serves as Vice President of Player development. Played in the major leagues from 1979 to 1991 with various clubs, including the Montreal Expos, Chicago White Sox, Seattle Mariners, Cleveland Indians, Oakland A's, and Detroit Tiegers.... In addition, played three years in the Japanese Professonal League. From 1992 until he jointe the mets, Tony worked with the Major League Baseball Players Association as a Special Assistant to the Executive Director.... In this capacity, Tony played a key role in labor negotiations, salary arbitration, and the globalization of baseball. Was the General Manager for six (1992, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004) Major League All-Star teams that competed against Japanese All-Star teams.... Teh MLB All-Star teams won all six series. In international competititions, served as the MLBPA's representative and liaison with the International Baseball Federation. Also served on the seteering committee and was the MLBPA representative for the 2000 Olympic Gold Medal USA baseball team. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 06:41 PM ="G-Fafif"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Well, I think it's true that Madden's hard-on for all things late 70s Yankees influenced much of the over-the-top shame and outrage with which the Snooze covered the Willie firing last year. I also don't for a second doubt that Willie was the source of many of the anonymous whacks at Bernazard up until he was gone. PS, over at BTF apparently the D-Backs' scout allegedly yelled at by Bernazard is denying Bernazard ever yelled at him. I mean, if that is really him. ]Tony did not ( I repeat ), did NOT treat me that way (at all) and I'd hope that Mr. Madden fixes his story. Don't think Tony deserves that.... The story was Tony bawled out his deputy, not the scout. Actually Madden's story (I know, a sloppy regurgitation of that which his colleague reported) specifically says: ]In the confrontation with Gomez, Bernazard screamed at the scout for sitting in his seat and angrily demanded him to move. Then when one of his own baseball operations men attempted to intercede, suggesting that they wait until the end of the inning for everyone in the scouts section to shift seats, Bernazard went ballistic and began cursing at his own man in front of all the other scouts. But that's what this figure (actually him? I have no idea) says didn't happen. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/07/23/2009-07-23_omar_minaya_fire_tony_bernazard.html John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 06:41 PM ="G-Fafif"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Well, I think it's true that Madden's hard-on for all things late 70s Yankees influenced much of the over-the-top shame and outrage with which the Snooze covered the Willie firing last year. I also don't for a second doubt that Willie was the source of many of the anonymous whacks at Bernazard up until he was gone. PS, over at BTF apparently the D-Backs' scout allegedly yelled at by Bernazard is denying Bernazard ever yelled at him. I mean, if that is really him. ]Tony did not ( I repeat ), did NOT treat me that way (at all) and I'd hope that Mr. Madden fixes his story. Don't think Tony deserves that.... The story was Tony bawled out his deputy, not the scout. Actually Madden's story (I know, a sloppy regurgitation of that which his colleague reported) specifically says: ]In the confrontation with Gomez, Bernazard screamed at the scout for sitting in his seat and angrily demanded him to move. Then when one of his own baseball operations men attempted to intercede, suggesting that they wait until the end of the inning for everyone in the scouts section to shift seats, Bernazard went ballistic and began cursing at his own man in front of all the other scouts. But that's what this figure (actually him? I have no idea) says didn't happen. G-Fafif Jul 23 2009 06:51 PM I'm guessing many have been yelled at and called out by Tony Bernazard. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 08:09 PM Tony Bernazard, co-owner of the longest hitless streak by a non-pitcher in big-league history, has probably been yelled at once or twice himself. Rockin' Doc Jul 23 2009 08:23 PM ="Edgy DC":za1eefy5]Tony Bernazard, co-owner of the longest hitless streak by a non-pitcher in big-league history, has probably been yelled at once or twice himself.[/quote:za1eefy5] I guess one of the players should have accepted Bernazard's challenge, since had he tried to hit anyone, he likely would have missed. Ashie62 Jul 23 2009 08:46 PM The only time I have taken my shirt off at work, dress shirt or otherwise would be while taking a 10 minute crap on a warm day in a poorly ventilated office bathroom PiggiesTomatoes Jul 24 2009 06:21 AM From today's Post... ]"Bernazard also had a confrontation with closer Francisco Rodriguez last week in Atlanta, something Rodriguez confirmed to The Post. " If Omar doesn't go too, he's teflon. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 07:07 AM And so the drums beat. Why? Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 07:51 AM Wait, is this seperate from Bernazard's argument with Rodriguez that we already heard about? I know its hard to know what goes on behind closed doors, maybe this is par for the course in a major league organization and it just doesnt get out in most places, but I feel like I've heard enough "Bad Boy Bernazard" stories to wonder why the heck he is still here. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 07:58 AM Sure, but you also know articles are not without agenda. The Mets had nothing a few days ago that was moving papers. Every fifth day is the tragedy of Johan. Tired stuff. But now... this is an electric story, and the tabloids have devoted absurd space to it. You'd think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was back in town. Don't you think they'd inflate and rehash anything they had on him right now? Demons sell, and the press has one. Maybe he does deserve to go, but I hope the Mets don't make that decision based on the number of inches of negative ink. Him staying or going is unlikely to save their season. Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 08:21 AM I already think the season isn't saveable, I just think that if everything we've heard is true that he's not a guy the organization needs around. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:27 AM Well, I agree, I guess, but that's something I consider meaningfully different from "I feel like I've heard enough 'Bad Boy Bernazard' stories to wonder why the heck he is still here." That suggests that the negative stories themselves, and not the Mets determination on their level of veracity, should be enough to trigger his firing. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 08:39 AM Do you think there's any chance the Mets might investigate the matter? Or if there'll be an investigation? Maybe an investigation would be in order. Somebody should definitely investigate. I, for one, would like to hear from Omar Minaya regarding a potential investigation...or perhaps a plan in which investigating would take place. Then, once an investigation is conducted, Omar can say the matter has been investigated. I'd feel a lot better if Omar would simply address the issue of a possible investigation. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:43 AM I think you're taking the piss with me, G. What I'd like to hear is that the Mets have gone back in time and retroactively signed Adam Dunn. seawolf17 Jul 24 2009 08:47 AM ="Edgy DC":33yv314c]What I'd like to hear is that the Mets have gone back in time and retroactively signed Adam Dunn.[/quote:33yv314c] I'd like to investigate that possibility as well. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 08:49 AM Five bucks to the first deputy to tell a visibly impatient Tony Bernazard, "Keep your shirt on." Valadius Jul 24 2009 10:36 AM I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers. Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 10:54 AM ="Valadius":1uyyir7g]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:1uyyir7g] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure". Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 10:55 AM they also took 4 guys from the system to get Santana, so those guys had to be highly regarded enough to do that. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 11:39 AM ="Frayed Knot":2mcveioa]="Valadius":2mcveioa]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:2mcveioa] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure".[/quote:2mcveioa] Abject, I-pooped-in-my-hand-type failure? No. Comparative failure? Possibly. After all, what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Plus, those guys have played, but how well? However you might feel about Evans and Murphy, numbers-wise, they've performed at sub-replacement level on the field for their positions so far. Parnell's got a nice fastball, but with his iffy command/lack of any real secondary pitch, he may-- just may-- have already seen his peak. Simply ennumerating successes (and qualified ones, at that) is a bit like saying, "Well, our hitting coach isn't failing; after all, we got two hits just last night." (Without doing an in-depth examination, it seems that we've gotten less substantive input from internal products than a good number of the teams in our income bracket-- Sox, Yanks, Angels, etc.) Additionally, there's the issue of (over?)aggressive promotions... Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 11:51 AM Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 12:04 PM ="Edgy DC":rxv5qb1y]But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis.[/quote:rxv5qb1y] I don't know if he's done his job or not. I think he needs to be fired for challenging minor leaguers to a fight in the clubhouse (the other incidents aren't as serious but show that it wasn't a one time lapse in judgment, like a car thief with a history of shoplifting) Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 12:06 PM ]what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Pelfrey = 2005 Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 12:38 PM I think I'm just caught in this cycle. - Fire him because of the incident. - Can we establish that? - Fire him becasue of failure. - Can we establish that? - Fire him because of the incident.Just plug in "Can we establish that first?" for my next ten posts, unless someone establishes that. Meantime: Products from the 2005 draft --- Pelfrey (1), Jonathan Niese (7), Bobby Parnell (9). Products from the 2006 draft --- Joseph Smith (2), Daniel Murphy (16). Products from the 2007 draft --- Eddie Kunz (1). Farmer Ted Jul 24 2009 12:51 PM Does Tony have input on the draft or just the development of the player after the draft? It is typically the responsibility of the minor league and roving coaching staffs to develop that talent thus simply making Tony (VP of Player Development) a mechanism of reporting back to the NY office. I could do that fucking job and I've never exposed my man boobs in a fit of rage. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 03:12 PM ="Edgy DC"]Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Pelfrey's was a Boras client that dropped a bit because of expected contract demands; it's also the one year during the Omar era where the team (A) had a first round pick and ( aimed at the highest-ceiling guy on the board, regardless of projected signing cost. The others? They've all seen major-league time, granted. They've also produced either produced little or exeeded meager expectations at that level (Kunz hasn't even met those expectations). Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- of needing any warm body you can when your lineup includes as many Alous and Castillos, and your bench as many Easleys and Andersons, as the Mets have over the last two years-- rather than their forcing the issue with performance. More telling, as Ted points out, his job-- presumably-- is player development, not drafting. How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Pelfrey, sort of... but he's a high-resource-commitment first-rounder; it would be more of a story if he hadn't done anything. Bannister was already out of the oven, more or less, before Bernazard took his current position. Unless I'm forgetting someone... there isn't much else. (There are a few Heath Bells, Henry Owens, and Jason Vargases, though, currently thriving in other organizations these days.) Anyway... I'm not really arguing that he's failed-- I'm more arguing that he hasn't out-and-out succeeded. If half of the stories about his work style are true, then he would have to be exceedingly good, results-wise, to justify keeping around. (I mean, there's no established track record of success for the guy at prior gigs... because he doesn't have a player eval/development/analysis track record.) (NOTE: the reason I pulled out the Yanks, Sox and Angels is both because those guys approximate what we bring to the table, International-signing-money-wise, and because I figured including small-marketeers who concentrated primarily on stockpiling prospects-- Royals, Rays, Marlins, etc.-- might make the Met system look unfairly shitty. I do agree that, if you're evaluating his merits, you'd have to do a more comprehensive study of MLB team's development systems to have a control.) G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 04:33 PM So...is there gonna be an investigation or what? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:10 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues--[/quote:25chb1ol] Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success?[/quote:25chb1ol] Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:23 PM The Baseball Cube has a crude system of scoring draft success. They rank the team's Bernazard era drafts thusly: 2005: Fifth 2006: 17th 2007: 16th 2008: Not yet available. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 05:54 PM I don't think we had this, from Adam Rubin last night: ]The scout dragged into the headlines when Mets VP for player development Tony Bernazard unleashed a verbal assault on another team official essentially confirmed the Daily News' exclusive report of the incident. Diamondbacks scout Carlos Gomez said Thursday that he didn't want to "pile onto Tony," but that he could not dispute The News' account. Gomez said his lone interest in speaking about the incident is to make it clear that he had no involvement in the confrontation. "Tony did not get into it with me at all," Gomez said. "He didn't address me. He didn't curse me out. We didn't have a spat. In no way did I feel Tony singled me out or treated me incorrectly." So he wasn't yelling at the scout, only the deputy, according to this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled shirt opera. Valadius Jul 24 2009 06:45 PM Then he's an abusive boss as well. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:24 PM As well as what? That's what the actual issue is. The rush to judgment here is getting absurd. Doesn't anybody wonder if Bernazard goes down as a scapegoat that it might actually perpertuate the orgazational issues and tenures you actually want to see confronted? Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 08:31 PM Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 09:21 PM ="Edgy DC"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. Pelfrey was the big project, and has sort of worked out. Smith and Parnell showed a little something in ST and limited trials-- enough to contribute on the squad. But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. ="Edgy DC"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? If he's running player development, he's not just responsible for the progress of the guys drafted while he had the job. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 09:37 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. What in the world makes you think I'm telling you that? I'm not really telling telling you anything. I'm asking for a framework of what we're talking about. Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. SteveJRogers Jul 24 2009 10:12 PM ="Frayed Knot":121a00be]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs.[/quote:121a00be] When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:39 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 06:34 AM Yeah, I don't recall a witch hunt to purify the organization of Tim Teufel, Ron Darling, Rick Aguilera and Bob Ojeda when they got in a fight with a handful of police. This, of course, wasn't the first time that year a Met had manhandled a cop, as Dwight Gooden pleaded no contest to having assaulted not one, but two cops. And from my perspective, it's Met fans doing the piling on, not "non-Met fans." LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:47 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 10:51 PM ="Edgy DC"] Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. I think I was a bit unclear in that first post, and my meaning was missed. I wasn't stating that the Mets received no contribution from their recent draftees; rather, I was arguing that having a handful of players make the majors isn't indicative of a minor-league system's fertility... and that the performance of these guys, if anything, may point to the opposite. (May.) But, yeah, there's a whole bunch of rush-to-judgement here. What I'm advocating is a rush to scrutiny-- an actual investigation by the team-- and by fans-- of the system over the last 3 years. ="SteveJRogers"]And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW With all due respect, I disagree entirely. The amount and intensity of the pile-on is almost entirely a function of how little there is to talk about in terms of on-field positives; most of the stories-- and fan-talk, really-- seem to make the point, implicitly and explicitly, that the off-field disorder mirrors the on-field decrepitude. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:49 PM I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:52 PM ="Edgy DC"]I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. Girl? It's a little bit girly, is why I ask. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 05:53 AM ="SteveJRogers"]="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 04:44 PM ="Frayed Knot"]="SteveJRogers"]="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. And you also have to give the fact that in 1986 ESPN was yet to explode in terms of daily barrages of information to the mass audiences, WFAN was a year away from being born and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. In other words, it is hard to really say "well, would this have happened when the Mets were winning? I think not." Because certain avenues for fan venting and mass information consumption either hadn't open yet, or were some time from being prevalent. And things were being said back in 99-00 about how the Mets handled certain situations and the actions of one Bobby Valentine. Sure Met fans were probably going "LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU, how far back are we from the Braves today?" But the non fans were making comments about Valentine's nutty behavior, the Mets refusal to retaliate, especially against the Yankees, and other issues of note. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 05:24 PM BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series. dgwphotography Jul 25 2009 05:57 PM ="SteveJRogers":z2ocfwgg]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:z2ocfwgg] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born... SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:03 PM ="dgwphotography":2ddliwek]="SteveJRogers":2ddliwek]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:2ddliwek] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:2ddliwek] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident. Kong76 Jul 25 2009 06:08 PM dgw: This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born <<< Plus, they probably pick on him (like some of us) because he's a closet Yankee fan in Mets' clothing. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 06:30 PM ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:58 PM ="Nymr83"]]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, but that is part of the point, what has been going on with this franchise has been just another opportunity after another for the organization to be considered an absolute utter disgrace. Hell, the Yankees did make it back to the postseason the following year, and three more years after that, and probably will make it again this year. That's more to the point where the Mets are seen as a joke in the eyes of many. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 07:30 PM ]The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, i don't agree. the Yanks had a better year (because they made a postseaon and won the frst round), but their collapse was still worse being that it took place in the postseason Kong76 Jul 25 2009 07:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 07:48 PM *post removed, for duh-ness* SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 07:47 PM No, its worse because it continues to perpetuate the notion that the Mets are losers and a pathetic organization. Especially in light of what happened last year, and this current campaign. Again, the Yankees were back in the postseason in 2005-2007 and most likely will be in it again this season. Historically the Yankees losing the 2004 ALCS is a bump in the road, the 7 up with 17 to play 2007 Mets is yet another reason to say how the Met organization is a disgrace to professional sports. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 07:53 PM ][Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. It wouldn't matter because I don't wrap my self-esteem up in the current status of a baseball team to the point where I react to taunting from those who do by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem. Besides, it wasn't a Yanqui fan that brought up the "disgrace" line it was y ... oh wait, nevermind. [walked into that one] Fman99 Jul 25 2009 08:23 PM ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]="dgwphotography":1scxpm4q]="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:1scxpm4q] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:1scxpm4q] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:1scxpm4q] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 08:49 PM ] by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem i want him fired for trying to fight ballplayers, nothing else. is he "part of the [alleged] problem" in talent development? i don't know or care as long he's challenging our players to fights. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 08:57 PM ="Fman99":fvuk1kki]="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]="dgwphotography":fvuk1kki]="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:fvuk1kki] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:fvuk1kki] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:fvuk1kki] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people.[/quote:fvuk1kki] Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. Because clearly if Met fans shouldn't give a flying fuck about how the Mets are perceived by others, then why should we give a flying fuck about how the "Yankee Way" is a crock of shit? Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 09:43 PM Don't tell us what its ok to comment on. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 09:59 PM ="Nymr83":20535dbm]Don't tell us what its ok to comment on.[/quote:20535dbm] It relates to how the Mets are perceived as an organization by others. But if you are fine rooting for an franchise that is subject to slings and arrows on a seemingly endless basis and counter all those comments with "who gives a fucking rat's ass what the fuck you fuckers think" it really is tough to go the other way on subjects that have to do with other organizations. In other words, why should THEY, or anyone give a fucking rat's ass what the fuck any fucker says? SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 10:05 PM Look, this was a black eye for the organization that has way too much of them in recent years, that is the point I'm trying to make. Yes more is made because the team has been playing horribly, but the point I'm trying to make is that shit like this shouldn't be passed over by Met fans as "if we were winning, no one in the media, internet, sports radio, etc. would give a shit." Its because it is a black eye for the organization, and fodder for more shit from everyone from bloggers to late night comedians that make it a big deal and one that should be addressed and not swept away. Again, even if the Mets were leading the division by 20 games at this point. Frayed Knot Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM ]Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. No, we can comment on it all we want. The mistake, from the Yanqui viewpoint, would be for them to change how they do things solely based on our reaction. For the same reason, the Mets should decide what to do with Bernazard based on his performance and conduct rather than out of some silly notion that it's going to make MFY fans stop saying 'bad things 'bout the Mets'. And those Met fans who want to make Bernazard the fall-guy whether he deserves it or not are simply playing into the trap of doing things for pr reasons rather than solving the problem itself. Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 06:56 AM ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2ae45851] ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2ae45851] Pick a side, my son. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 11:49 AM ="Edgy DC":2etn8uzp]="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2etn8uzp] Pick a side, my son.[/quote:2etn8uzp] The hell is your point Edge? You have to be a Yanqui fan to consider the Met collapse in 2007 worse than the Yankees blowing the 2004 ALCS? Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 11:58 AM The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 12:11 PM ="Edgy DC":2xyqenpp]The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later.[/quote:2xyqenpp] Not really, I showed it as a recent example compared to dgw suggesting that they were not students of history (by saying Tony B's minors incident was worse than Steinbrenner's elevator fight) Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 12:53 PM My head hurts. metsguyinmichigan Jul 27 2009 12:56 PM Mets shame: -- Idiot front office type takes off shirt to yell at 20-something minor leaguers. -- Bad patch on sleeve -- Occasional lapses in fielding. Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? Valadius Jul 27 2009 03:42 PM Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 27 2009 08:15 PM ="Valadius":1xy2oval]Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling.[/quote:1xy2oval] ...and Georgie girl. I wouldn't take money to listen or her and Sterling. MFS62 Jul 27 2009 10:00 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":39c9vxup] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace?[/quote:39c9vxup] You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 10:05 PM ="MFS62"]="metsguyinmichigan"] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later Ahem. (I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 27 2009 10:10 PM Double post. G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM ](I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) He said "next to last," but Phillies and Tigers came after MFYs, then Red Sox. Old news, I'd have to say. Plenty to bash MFYs on in this century. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 11:08 PM Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension. Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:11 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3npdogpk]Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension.[/quote:3npdogpk] Or Bernazards emotions Edgy DC Aug 02 2009 01:55 PM Daily News (but not Adam Rubin) digging up a lot more PLT stories about Bernazard. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_tony_bern_out.html?page=0 Rockin' Doc Aug 02 2009 03:11 PM Hard to feel much sympathy for Bernazard the more stories you read of his vitriolic behavior toward players and staff of the Mets system. The more I read of his tirades, the more negatively Bernazard's tenure reflects upon Minaya and the Wilpons for allowing such an embarrassment to remain in their employ for as long as they did. Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2009 07:04 AM Huh! Edgy DC Aug 04 2009 07:08 AM Oh, you missed some shee-it. Ashie62 Aug 04 2009 12:58 PM A little league first fight in Princeton, NJ? Darling the Eli must love that one

And what else am I supposed to make my decision on? It doesn't matter though, his job still doesn't entitle him to be taking his shirt off in the clubhouse. It's unprofessional at best. It's not his job to fire up the team or discuss strategy. the game's over, there is nothing left to evaluate. It's not his job to antagonize guys, or to fire them up, or to really do much of anything directly with them.

="SteveJRogers":3o7wzut1]="bmfc1":3o7wzut1]Heyman said yesterday that it was someone connect with Willie Randolph: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/07/23/2009-07-23_for_mets_tony_bernazards_shirt_incident_provides_indecent_exposure.html[/quote:3o7wzut1] There is speculation though that Tony B is Heyman's "source" within the Met organization[/quote:3o7wzut1] You know, when he made his "Some papers don't like one guy, other papers like other guys" comment on the radio yesterday i was thinking just that. He thinks it's blown out of proportion because of self interest. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 10:29 AM Well, I think it's true that Madden's hard-on for all things late 70s Yankees influenced much of the over-the-top shame and outrage with which the Snooze covered the Willie firing last year. I also don't for a second doubt that Willie was the source of many of the anonymous whacks at Bernazard up until he was gone. PS, over at BTF apparently the D-Backs' scout allegedly yelled at by Bernazard is denying Bernazard ever yelled at him. I mean, if that is really him. ]Tony did not ( I repeat ), did NOT treat me that way (at all) and I'd hope that Mr. Madden fixes his story. Don't think Tony deserves that.... metirish Jul 23 2009 10:34 AM Good find JCL..... This is turning into a real who done it Mets style. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 10:54 AM ="Edgy DC"]I don't think the Wilpons "pride themselves on a lack of structure." Isn't that a little broad a conclusion to draw out of this sorry mess? I think it's more true that structure breaks down in a time of crisis, and alpha-types rush to fill the void. Out of this particular mess, in and of itself? Judging from what actual facts are out/confirmed (sussing those from the mere whispers, though the whispers are deafening), yep, it seems a bit sweeping. Stepping back and taking a broader look, though... Let's put it this way-- it would explain a LOT of the recurrent organizational problems of the last 15-20 years (from the bridge-burning of late Cashen/Harazin to Phillips/Valentine clashes to "Superscouts"/Duquette to last year's tumult). Free-flowing, open-doors work environments work fantastically well... if you have the exact mix of self-motivated/highly-organized personalities-- and good actors-- such a system requires. Just one or two bad actors in key spots, or lack of trust between two parties that can't be resolved, and you've got a bigger problem than you could ever have in a straight defined-duties/chain-of-command situation... largely because of accountability issues. (The foot-dragging on virtually every dismissal within the organization in the last 25 years would fit this explanation neatly.) Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 11:04 AM That's fair, I guess. It's certialnly a better organized argument. I still wouldn't conclude that but I guess it's defensible. But why couldn't an aggressive go-getter like Valentine have workded around Steve Phillips then? Seemed like he tried to defer to command structure even though he didn't respect his superior. Plillips fired Valentine. Minaya fired Randolph, on the road. So neither appeared to be answering or reporting directly to ownership in those situations. That doesn't disprove anything. I'm just throwing stuff out there. It seems to me that back door conniving makes for good press because it makes for good drama, but the evidence often isn't really there when you look for it. Frayed Knot Jul 23 2009 11:39 AM ="Ceetar":q7gffp31]Is it a traveling job? That doesn't strike me as very VPish..doesn't he have underlings, scouts, etc? He's certainly not VP in charge of discipline. He's just got a big ego. Why not just a phone call to Binghamton, "What's the deal up there? This stuff true? Reign in your team."[/quote:q7gffp31] Of course it's a traveling job. All GMs, much less assts, travel to minor league games and clubhouses and even amateur games for updates, scouting, look-sees, etc. Not constantly of course but often. Can't make all your decisions based on reading reports and hear-say. Ceetar Jul 23 2009 11:43 AM And what else am I supposed to make my decision on? It doesn't matter though, his job still doesn't entitle him to be taking his shirt off in the clubhouse. It's unprofessional at best. It's not his job to fire up the team or discuss strategy. the game's over, there is nothing left to evaluate. It's not his job to antagonize guys, or to fire them up, or to really do much of anything directly with them. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 11:46 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 23 2009 11:54 AM ="Ceetar"]And what else am I supposed to make my decision on? By "You," I'm certain LF meant "One" as in "A baseball executive such as Tony Bernazard" --- not "You" as in "Ceetar." ]It doesn't matter though... But you asked. Frayed Knot Jul 23 2009 11:47 AM No one's saying that his job title gives him license to be a dick in the Bingo clubhouse (if that's what happened) only that there's nothing unusual about him being there or with being concerned with what's going on in player development. on edit: and, yes, by 'your decision' I meant front office types. They are the ones who can't only draft, sign, promote, cut, evaluate players from afar. Can you imagine if a high draft pick (like maybe next year's the way things are going) flames out soon afterward and the story from Omar & Tony (or whoever is in charge then) is that they never actually saw him play but the reports from the regional scout were great - in effect blaming a wasted few mil on some 3-levels-down evaluator? We'd drag the guy over the coals for an answer like that and rightfully so. Ceetar Jul 23 2009 12:03 PM ="Frayed Knot":3486d8jw]No one's saying that his job title gives him license to be a dick in the Bingo clubhouse (if that's what happened) only that there's nothing unusual about him being there or with being concerned with what's going on in player development. on edit: and, yes, by 'your decision' I meant front office types. They are the ones who can't only draft, sign, promote, cut, evaluate players from afar. Can you imagine if a high draft pick (like maybe next year's the way things are going) flames out soon afterward and the story from Omar & Tony (or whoever is in charge then) is that they never actually saw him play but the reports from the regional scout were great - in effect blaming a wasted few mil on some 3-levels-down evaluator? We'd drag the guy over the coals for an answer like that and rightfully so.[/quote:3486d8jw] That's what I get for doing a thousand things at once. But yeah, but there is also the idea that there is too much of that to do for one person. Maybe I'm just think he's not deserved of the title. It seems like there should be one guy that less of a visit guy and more of a "trust the guys you hire to evaluate players". But maybe that's supposed to be Omar. But then isn't Tony just a glorified scout? Obviously the closer you get to big money the more people you want to look at him, but at one point you wonder if feedback is getting lost on the way up. If a scout likes the way one guy's curve looks, but Tony doesn't like it, does Omar even know a scout liked the curve? I originally meant more what was he doing barging into a team meeting like he's the captain than what was he doing in binghamton (or wherever they were). Frayed Knot Jul 23 2009 12:14 PM Well, again, the question that remains to be answered here is what did he say and how did he say it. Of course if you're of the opinion that he shouldn't be in the job in the first place then that's a whole 'nother angle. As far as scouting/evaluating goes, usually that's the kind of thing that goes up the chain of command. A local scout might like a guy and recommend him to the regional scout, who'll then write a report to his boss and so on. With enough good evaluations it'll eventually get back to the home office where, if the reports are glowing enough or there's significant money to be spent, you bet the big boys are going to want to take a look themselves. Trusting your people is one thing, but any corporation that takes that too far and lets their middle/lower mgmt types set their agenda for them is asking for trouble. No different here. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 12:27 PM ="Frayed Knot"]Well, again, the question that remains to be answered here is what did he say and how did he say it. Of course if you're of the opinion that he shouldn't be in the job in the first place then that's a whole 'nother angle. Bernazard had, like no relevant experience in terms of baseball front-office-ery, right? No scouting experience, either, if memory serves... just the work on the WBC. metirish Jul 23 2009 12:40 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]="Frayed Knot"]Well, again, the question that remains to be answered here is what did he say and how did he say it. Of course if you're of the opinion that he shouldn't be in the job in the first place then that's a whole 'nother angle. Bernazard had, like no relevant experience in terms of baseball front-office-ery, right? No scouting experience, either, if memory serves... just the work on the WBC. Tony was a community organizer . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 12:56 PM ="metirish":3iikmra1] Tony was a community organizer .[/quote:3iikmra1] Ha. Matt Artus of Always Amazin' does a pretty good job of synthesizing a bunch of takes on the Bernazard trail (think of him as your case briefing, sleuths)--- going back to 2005-- over here.[/url:3iikmra1] Valadius Jul 23 2009 03:30 PM Also, let's not forget the "Street Spanish" incident. G-Fafif Jul 23 2009 04:14 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Well, I think it's true that Madden's hard-on for all things late 70s Yankees influenced much of the over-the-top shame and outrage with which the Snooze covered the Willie firing last year. I also don't for a second doubt that Willie was the source of many of the anonymous whacks at Bernazard up until he was gone. PS, over at BTF apparently the D-Backs' scout allegedly yelled at by Bernazard is denying Bernazard ever yelled at him. I mean, if that is really him. ]Tony did not ( I repeat ), did NOT treat me that way (at all) and I'd hope that Mr. Madden fixes his story. Don't think Tony deserves that.... The story was Tony bawled out his deputy, not the scout. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 05:51 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 11:46 AM Bernazard's CV according to the 2009 media guide Joined the Mets on December 1, 2004 as Special Assistant to the General Manager. Nowe serves as Vice President of Player development. Played in the major leagues from 1979 to 1991 with various clubs, including the Montreal Expos, Chicago White Sox, Seattle Mariners, Cleveland Indians, Oakland A's, and Detroit Tiegers.... In addition, played three years in the Japanese Professonal League. From 1992 until he jointe the mets, Tony worked with the Major League Baseball Players Association as a Special Assistant to the Executive Director.... In this capacity, Tony played a key role in labor negotiations, salary arbitration, and the globalization of baseball. Was the General Manager for six (1992, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004) Major League All-Star teams that competed against Japanese All-Star teams.... Teh MLB All-Star teams won all six series. In international competititions, served as the MLBPA's representative and liaison with the International Baseball Federation. Also served on the seteering committee and was the MLBPA representative for the 2000 Olympic Gold Medal USA baseball team. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 06:41 PM ="G-Fafif"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Well, I think it's true that Madden's hard-on for all things late 70s Yankees influenced much of the over-the-top shame and outrage with which the Snooze covered the Willie firing last year. I also don't for a second doubt that Willie was the source of many of the anonymous whacks at Bernazard up until he was gone. PS, over at BTF apparently the D-Backs' scout allegedly yelled at by Bernazard is denying Bernazard ever yelled at him. I mean, if that is really him. ]Tony did not ( I repeat ), did NOT treat me that way (at all) and I'd hope that Mr. Madden fixes his story. Don't think Tony deserves that.... The story was Tony bawled out his deputy, not the scout. Actually Madden's story (I know, a sloppy regurgitation of that which his colleague reported) specifically says: ]In the confrontation with Gomez, Bernazard screamed at the scout for sitting in his seat and angrily demanded him to move. Then when one of his own baseball operations men attempted to intercede, suggesting that they wait until the end of the inning for everyone in the scouts section to shift seats, Bernazard went ballistic and began cursing at his own man in front of all the other scouts. But that's what this figure (actually him? I have no idea) says didn't happen. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/07/23/2009-07-23_omar_minaya_fire_tony_bernazard.html John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 06:41 PM ="G-Fafif"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Well, I think it's true that Madden's hard-on for all things late 70s Yankees influenced much of the over-the-top shame and outrage with which the Snooze covered the Willie firing last year. I also don't for a second doubt that Willie was the source of many of the anonymous whacks at Bernazard up until he was gone. PS, over at BTF apparently the D-Backs' scout allegedly yelled at by Bernazard is denying Bernazard ever yelled at him. I mean, if that is really him. ]Tony did not ( I repeat ), did NOT treat me that way (at all) and I'd hope that Mr. Madden fixes his story. Don't think Tony deserves that.... The story was Tony bawled out his deputy, not the scout. Actually Madden's story (I know, a sloppy regurgitation of that which his colleague reported) specifically says: ]In the confrontation with Gomez, Bernazard screamed at the scout for sitting in his seat and angrily demanded him to move. Then when one of his own baseball operations men attempted to intercede, suggesting that they wait until the end of the inning for everyone in the scouts section to shift seats, Bernazard went ballistic and began cursing at his own man in front of all the other scouts. But that's what this figure (actually him? I have no idea) says didn't happen. G-Fafif Jul 23 2009 06:51 PM I'm guessing many have been yelled at and called out by Tony Bernazard. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 08:09 PM Tony Bernazard, co-owner of the longest hitless streak by a non-pitcher in big-league history, has probably been yelled at once or twice himself. Rockin' Doc Jul 23 2009 08:23 PM ="Edgy DC":za1eefy5]Tony Bernazard, co-owner of the longest hitless streak by a non-pitcher in big-league history, has probably been yelled at once or twice himself.[/quote:za1eefy5] I guess one of the players should have accepted Bernazard's challenge, since had he tried to hit anyone, he likely would have missed. Ashie62 Jul 23 2009 08:46 PM The only time I have taken my shirt off at work, dress shirt or otherwise would be while taking a 10 minute crap on a warm day in a poorly ventilated office bathroom PiggiesTomatoes Jul 24 2009 06:21 AM From today's Post... ]"Bernazard also had a confrontation with closer Francisco Rodriguez last week in Atlanta, something Rodriguez confirmed to The Post. " If Omar doesn't go too, he's teflon. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 07:07 AM And so the drums beat. Why? Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 07:51 AM Wait, is this seperate from Bernazard's argument with Rodriguez that we already heard about? I know its hard to know what goes on behind closed doors, maybe this is par for the course in a major league organization and it just doesnt get out in most places, but I feel like I've heard enough "Bad Boy Bernazard" stories to wonder why the heck he is still here. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 07:58 AM Sure, but you also know articles are not without agenda. The Mets had nothing a few days ago that was moving papers. Every fifth day is the tragedy of Johan. Tired stuff. But now... this is an electric story, and the tabloids have devoted absurd space to it. You'd think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was back in town. Don't you think they'd inflate and rehash anything they had on him right now? Demons sell, and the press has one. Maybe he does deserve to go, but I hope the Mets don't make that decision based on the number of inches of negative ink. Him staying or going is unlikely to save their season. Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 08:21 AM I already think the season isn't saveable, I just think that if everything we've heard is true that he's not a guy the organization needs around. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:27 AM Well, I agree, I guess, but that's something I consider meaningfully different from "I feel like I've heard enough 'Bad Boy Bernazard' stories to wonder why the heck he is still here." That suggests that the negative stories themselves, and not the Mets determination on their level of veracity, should be enough to trigger his firing. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 08:39 AM Do you think there's any chance the Mets might investigate the matter? Or if there'll be an investigation? Maybe an investigation would be in order. Somebody should definitely investigate. I, for one, would like to hear from Omar Minaya regarding a potential investigation...or perhaps a plan in which investigating would take place. Then, once an investigation is conducted, Omar can say the matter has been investigated. I'd feel a lot better if Omar would simply address the issue of a possible investigation. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:43 AM I think you're taking the piss with me, G. What I'd like to hear is that the Mets have gone back in time and retroactively signed Adam Dunn. seawolf17 Jul 24 2009 08:47 AM ="Edgy DC":33yv314c]What I'd like to hear is that the Mets have gone back in time and retroactively signed Adam Dunn.[/quote:33yv314c] I'd like to investigate that possibility as well. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 08:49 AM Five bucks to the first deputy to tell a visibly impatient Tony Bernazard, "Keep your shirt on." Valadius Jul 24 2009 10:36 AM I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers. Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 10:54 AM ="Valadius":1uyyir7g]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:1uyyir7g] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure". Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 10:55 AM they also took 4 guys from the system to get Santana, so those guys had to be highly regarded enough to do that. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 11:39 AM ="Frayed Knot":2mcveioa]="Valadius":2mcveioa]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:2mcveioa] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure".[/quote:2mcveioa] Abject, I-pooped-in-my-hand-type failure? No. Comparative failure? Possibly. After all, what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Plus, those guys have played, but how well? However you might feel about Evans and Murphy, numbers-wise, they've performed at sub-replacement level on the field for their positions so far. Parnell's got a nice fastball, but with his iffy command/lack of any real secondary pitch, he may-- just may-- have already seen his peak. Simply ennumerating successes (and qualified ones, at that) is a bit like saying, "Well, our hitting coach isn't failing; after all, we got two hits just last night." (Without doing an in-depth examination, it seems that we've gotten less substantive input from internal products than a good number of the teams in our income bracket-- Sox, Yanks, Angels, etc.) Additionally, there's the issue of (over?)aggressive promotions... Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 11:51 AM Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 12:04 PM ="Edgy DC":rxv5qb1y]But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis.[/quote:rxv5qb1y] I don't know if he's done his job or not. I think he needs to be fired for challenging minor leaguers to a fight in the clubhouse (the other incidents aren't as serious but show that it wasn't a one time lapse in judgment, like a car thief with a history of shoplifting) Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 12:06 PM ]what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Pelfrey = 2005 Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 12:38 PM I think I'm just caught in this cycle. - Fire him because of the incident. - Can we establish that? - Fire him becasue of failure. - Can we establish that? - Fire him because of the incident.Just plug in "Can we establish that first?" for my next ten posts, unless someone establishes that. Meantime: Products from the 2005 draft --- Pelfrey (1), Jonathan Niese (7), Bobby Parnell (9). Products from the 2006 draft --- Joseph Smith (2), Daniel Murphy (16). Products from the 2007 draft --- Eddie Kunz (1). Farmer Ted Jul 24 2009 12:51 PM Does Tony have input on the draft or just the development of the player after the draft? It is typically the responsibility of the minor league and roving coaching staffs to develop that talent thus simply making Tony (VP of Player Development) a mechanism of reporting back to the NY office. I could do that fucking job and I've never exposed my man boobs in a fit of rage. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 03:12 PM ="Edgy DC"]Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Pelfrey's was a Boras client that dropped a bit because of expected contract demands; it's also the one year during the Omar era where the team (A) had a first round pick and ( aimed at the highest-ceiling guy on the board, regardless of projected signing cost. The others? They've all seen major-league time, granted. They've also produced either produced little or exeeded meager expectations at that level (Kunz hasn't even met those expectations). Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- of needing any warm body you can when your lineup includes as many Alous and Castillos, and your bench as many Easleys and Andersons, as the Mets have over the last two years-- rather than their forcing the issue with performance. More telling, as Ted points out, his job-- presumably-- is player development, not drafting. How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Pelfrey, sort of... but he's a high-resource-commitment first-rounder; it would be more of a story if he hadn't done anything. Bannister was already out of the oven, more or less, before Bernazard took his current position. Unless I'm forgetting someone... there isn't much else. (There are a few Heath Bells, Henry Owens, and Jason Vargases, though, currently thriving in other organizations these days.) Anyway... I'm not really arguing that he's failed-- I'm more arguing that he hasn't out-and-out succeeded. If half of the stories about his work style are true, then he would have to be exceedingly good, results-wise, to justify keeping around. (I mean, there's no established track record of success for the guy at prior gigs... because he doesn't have a player eval/development/analysis track record.) (NOTE: the reason I pulled out the Yanks, Sox and Angels is both because those guys approximate what we bring to the table, International-signing-money-wise, and because I figured including small-marketeers who concentrated primarily on stockpiling prospects-- Royals, Rays, Marlins, etc.-- might make the Met system look unfairly shitty. I do agree that, if you're evaluating his merits, you'd have to do a more comprehensive study of MLB team's development systems to have a control.) G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 04:33 PM So...is there gonna be an investigation or what? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:10 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues--[/quote:25chb1ol] Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success?[/quote:25chb1ol] Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:23 PM The Baseball Cube has a crude system of scoring draft success. They rank the team's Bernazard era drafts thusly: 2005: Fifth 2006: 17th 2007: 16th 2008: Not yet available. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 05:54 PM I don't think we had this, from Adam Rubin last night: ]The scout dragged into the headlines when Mets VP for player development Tony Bernazard unleashed a verbal assault on another team official essentially confirmed the Daily News' exclusive report of the incident. Diamondbacks scout Carlos Gomez said Thursday that he didn't want to "pile onto Tony," but that he could not dispute The News' account. Gomez said his lone interest in speaking about the incident is to make it clear that he had no involvement in the confrontation. "Tony did not get into it with me at all," Gomez said. "He didn't address me. He didn't curse me out. We didn't have a spat. In no way did I feel Tony singled me out or treated me incorrectly." So he wasn't yelling at the scout, only the deputy, according to this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled shirt opera. Valadius Jul 24 2009 06:45 PM Then he's an abusive boss as well. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:24 PM As well as what? That's what the actual issue is. The rush to judgment here is getting absurd. Doesn't anybody wonder if Bernazard goes down as a scapegoat that it might actually perpertuate the orgazational issues and tenures you actually want to see confronted? Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 08:31 PM Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 09:21 PM ="Edgy DC"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. Pelfrey was the big project, and has sort of worked out. Smith and Parnell showed a little something in ST and limited trials-- enough to contribute on the squad. But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. ="Edgy DC"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? If he's running player development, he's not just responsible for the progress of the guys drafted while he had the job. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 09:37 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. What in the world makes you think I'm telling you that? I'm not really telling telling you anything. I'm asking for a framework of what we're talking about. Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. SteveJRogers Jul 24 2009 10:12 PM ="Frayed Knot":121a00be]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs.[/quote:121a00be] When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:39 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 06:34 AM Yeah, I don't recall a witch hunt to purify the organization of Tim Teufel, Ron Darling, Rick Aguilera and Bob Ojeda when they got in a fight with a handful of police. This, of course, wasn't the first time that year a Met had manhandled a cop, as Dwight Gooden pleaded no contest to having assaulted not one, but two cops. And from my perspective, it's Met fans doing the piling on, not "non-Met fans." LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:47 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 10:51 PM ="Edgy DC"] Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. I think I was a bit unclear in that first post, and my meaning was missed. I wasn't stating that the Mets received no contribution from their recent draftees; rather, I was arguing that having a handful of players make the majors isn't indicative of a minor-league system's fertility... and that the performance of these guys, if anything, may point to the opposite. (May.) But, yeah, there's a whole bunch of rush-to-judgement here. What I'm advocating is a rush to scrutiny-- an actual investigation by the team-- and by fans-- of the system over the last 3 years. ="SteveJRogers"]And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW With all due respect, I disagree entirely. The amount and intensity of the pile-on is almost entirely a function of how little there is to talk about in terms of on-field positives; most of the stories-- and fan-talk, really-- seem to make the point, implicitly and explicitly, that the off-field disorder mirrors the on-field decrepitude. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:49 PM I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:52 PM ="Edgy DC"]I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. Girl? It's a little bit girly, is why I ask. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 05:53 AM ="SteveJRogers"]="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 04:44 PM ="Frayed Knot"]="SteveJRogers"]="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. And you also have to give the fact that in 1986 ESPN was yet to explode in terms of daily barrages of information to the mass audiences, WFAN was a year away from being born and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. In other words, it is hard to really say "well, would this have happened when the Mets were winning? I think not." Because certain avenues for fan venting and mass information consumption either hadn't open yet, or were some time from being prevalent. And things were being said back in 99-00 about how the Mets handled certain situations and the actions of one Bobby Valentine. Sure Met fans were probably going "LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU, how far back are we from the Braves today?" But the non fans were making comments about Valentine's nutty behavior, the Mets refusal to retaliate, especially against the Yankees, and other issues of note. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 05:24 PM BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series. dgwphotography Jul 25 2009 05:57 PM ="SteveJRogers":z2ocfwgg]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:z2ocfwgg] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born... SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:03 PM ="dgwphotography":2ddliwek]="SteveJRogers":2ddliwek]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:2ddliwek] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:2ddliwek] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident. Kong76 Jul 25 2009 06:08 PM dgw: This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born <<< Plus, they probably pick on him (like some of us) because he's a closet Yankee fan in Mets' clothing. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 06:30 PM ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:58 PM ="Nymr83"]]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, but that is part of the point, what has been going on with this franchise has been just another opportunity after another for the organization to be considered an absolute utter disgrace. Hell, the Yankees did make it back to the postseason the following year, and three more years after that, and probably will make it again this year. That's more to the point where the Mets are seen as a joke in the eyes of many. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 07:30 PM ]The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, i don't agree. the Yanks had a better year (because they made a postseaon and won the frst round), but their collapse was still worse being that it took place in the postseason Kong76 Jul 25 2009 07:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 07:48 PM *post removed, for duh-ness* SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 07:47 PM No, its worse because it continues to perpetuate the notion that the Mets are losers and a pathetic organization. Especially in light of what happened last year, and this current campaign. Again, the Yankees were back in the postseason in 2005-2007 and most likely will be in it again this season. Historically the Yankees losing the 2004 ALCS is a bump in the road, the 7 up with 17 to play 2007 Mets is yet another reason to say how the Met organization is a disgrace to professional sports. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 07:53 PM ][Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. It wouldn't matter because I don't wrap my self-esteem up in the current status of a baseball team to the point where I react to taunting from those who do by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem. Besides, it wasn't a Yanqui fan that brought up the "disgrace" line it was y ... oh wait, nevermind. [walked into that one] Fman99 Jul 25 2009 08:23 PM ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]="dgwphotography":1scxpm4q]="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:1scxpm4q] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:1scxpm4q] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:1scxpm4q] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 08:49 PM ] by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem i want him fired for trying to fight ballplayers, nothing else. is he "part of the [alleged] problem" in talent development? i don't know or care as long he's challenging our players to fights. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 08:57 PM ="Fman99":fvuk1kki]="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]="dgwphotography":fvuk1kki]="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:fvuk1kki] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:fvuk1kki] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:fvuk1kki] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people.[/quote:fvuk1kki] Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. Because clearly if Met fans shouldn't give a flying fuck about how the Mets are perceived by others, then why should we give a flying fuck about how the "Yankee Way" is a crock of shit? Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 09:43 PM Don't tell us what its ok to comment on. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 09:59 PM ="Nymr83":20535dbm]Don't tell us what its ok to comment on.[/quote:20535dbm] It relates to how the Mets are perceived as an organization by others. But if you are fine rooting for an franchise that is subject to slings and arrows on a seemingly endless basis and counter all those comments with "who gives a fucking rat's ass what the fuck you fuckers think" it really is tough to go the other way on subjects that have to do with other organizations. In other words, why should THEY, or anyone give a fucking rat's ass what the fuck any fucker says? SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 10:05 PM Look, this was a black eye for the organization that has way too much of them in recent years, that is the point I'm trying to make. Yes more is made because the team has been playing horribly, but the point I'm trying to make is that shit like this shouldn't be passed over by Met fans as "if we were winning, no one in the media, internet, sports radio, etc. would give a shit." Its because it is a black eye for the organization, and fodder for more shit from everyone from bloggers to late night comedians that make it a big deal and one that should be addressed and not swept away. Again, even if the Mets were leading the division by 20 games at this point. Frayed Knot Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM ]Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. No, we can comment on it all we want. The mistake, from the Yanqui viewpoint, would be for them to change how they do things solely based on our reaction. For the same reason, the Mets should decide what to do with Bernazard based on his performance and conduct rather than out of some silly notion that it's going to make MFY fans stop saying 'bad things 'bout the Mets'. And those Met fans who want to make Bernazard the fall-guy whether he deserves it or not are simply playing into the trap of doing things for pr reasons rather than solving the problem itself. Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 06:56 AM ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2ae45851] ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2ae45851] Pick a side, my son. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 11:49 AM ="Edgy DC":2etn8uzp]="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2etn8uzp] Pick a side, my son.[/quote:2etn8uzp] The hell is your point Edge? You have to be a Yanqui fan to consider the Met collapse in 2007 worse than the Yankees blowing the 2004 ALCS? Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 11:58 AM The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 12:11 PM ="Edgy DC":2xyqenpp]The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later.[/quote:2xyqenpp] Not really, I showed it as a recent example compared to dgw suggesting that they were not students of history (by saying Tony B's minors incident was worse than Steinbrenner's elevator fight) Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 12:53 PM My head hurts. metsguyinmichigan Jul 27 2009 12:56 PM Mets shame: -- Idiot front office type takes off shirt to yell at 20-something minor leaguers. -- Bad patch on sleeve -- Occasional lapses in fielding. Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? Valadius Jul 27 2009 03:42 PM Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 27 2009 08:15 PM ="Valadius":1xy2oval]Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling.[/quote:1xy2oval] ...and Georgie girl. I wouldn't take money to listen or her and Sterling. MFS62 Jul 27 2009 10:00 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":39c9vxup] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace?[/quote:39c9vxup] You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 10:05 PM ="MFS62"]="metsguyinmichigan"] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later Ahem. (I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 27 2009 10:10 PM Double post. G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM ](I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) He said "next to last," but Phillies and Tigers came after MFYs, then Red Sox. Old news, I'd have to say. Plenty to bash MFYs on in this century. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 11:08 PM Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension. Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:11 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3npdogpk]Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension.[/quote:3npdogpk] Or Bernazards emotions Edgy DC Aug 02 2009 01:55 PM Daily News (but not Adam Rubin) digging up a lot more PLT stories about Bernazard. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_tony_bern_out.html?page=0 Rockin' Doc Aug 02 2009 03:11 PM Hard to feel much sympathy for Bernazard the more stories you read of his vitriolic behavior toward players and staff of the Mets system. The more I read of his tirades, the more negatively Bernazard's tenure reflects upon Minaya and the Wilpons for allowing such an embarrassment to remain in their employ for as long as they did. Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2009 07:04 AM Huh! Edgy DC Aug 04 2009 07:08 AM Oh, you missed some shee-it. Ashie62 Aug 04 2009 12:58 PM A little league first fight in Princeton, NJ? Darling the Eli must love that one

="Edgy DC"]="Ashie62"]="Edgy DC"]I have to say that I'm not sure what people are looking for from Omar Minaya. People seem want action --- and maybe more immediate relief and not over-prizing prospects. But by remaining deliberate in the face of the current crisis, he's working against the interests of his own job security and in favor of the longer-term interests of the club. Which doesn't make me a big fan of the guy. But anybody who doesn't like a GM should probably want him to be conservative. I respect your opinion but being conservative now borders on being ineffectual. The horse is out of the barn for this year. I would be sorely dissapointed to see the current GM and Manager back in 2008 Is Omar working in the interests of the long term at the expense of himself..Could be.. time will tell...Personally, I believe he is inept, ya know what I mean? Yeah, I'm not arguing that he's good or that I want to keep him. I'm just saying I'm glad he's not going nuts to save himself by desperately trying to save the season. Personally I think he's a decent GM, and I wonder how much outside influence (inside influence?) he gets for certain deals. But I agree, a lot of what Minaya's criticized for, at least by some, is that he traded away some big prospects in Montreal. If anything, he's been a lot more conservative in that regard here.

="metirish":3bw4ltgj]The bit I cut and pasted above has the AA manager and Josh Thole defending Bernazard , if that's worth anything. I happen to think it is. Apparently Tony B did take his shirt off but had a tee on underneath...[/quote:3bw4ltgj] Is it a traveling job? That doesn't strike me as very VPish..doesn't he have underlings, scouts, etc? He's certainly not VP in charge of discipline. He's just got a big ego. Why not just a phone call to Binghamton, "What's the deal up there? This stuff true? Reign in your team." Still doesn't mean he needed be in the clubhouse calling guys pussies. Was Coranado even one of the guys that was "in trouble"? And of course these guys are going to back down and deny it. For many of the same reasons they didn't actually pummel him into a locker. They know he's powerful and in some control of whether or not they move up within the organization. As bad as things are, they don't want to be traded to the Pirates. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 09:16 AM ="metirish"]The bit I cut and pasted above has the AA manager and Josh Thole defending Bernazard , if that's worth anything. I happen to think it is. Apparently Tony B did take his shirt off but had a tee on underneath... Didn't see that, thanks (snoozeday's new look --ugh). Here is a pretty strong denial from the B-Mets themslves. Now you gotta wonder who Rubin's source was and their motivation... ]July 23, 2009 B-Mets: Report on Bernazard overblown N.Y. official allegedly tried to pick fight during tirade By Brian Moritz bmoritz@gannett.com BINGHAMTON - On Wednesday, the Binghamton Mets found themselves thrust into the middle of the latest controversy involving the New York Mets front office. The Double-A squad spent the day trying to downplay a story in the New York Daily News that said Tony Bernazard, the Mets' vice president for player development, ripped his shirt off and challenged the players to a fight during a post-game tirade in the team's NYSEG Stadium clubhouse July 1. "I think it's been blown out of proportion," B-Mets manager Mako Oliveras said after his team's 9-3 loss to the Connecticut Defenders. "Tony was trying to pump the players up. He took his shirt off but he had a T-shirt on underneath. To me, he never threatened anybody or asked anybody to fight. Before he started the meeting, he took his shirt off. That's it. I'm telling you, it's been blown out of proportion." The story, written by Adam Rubin and citing unidentified sources, also reported that Bernazard singled out B-Mets shortstop Jose Coronado and insulted the player. "No, he didn't call me a name or ask me to fight," Coronado said. The New York Mets issued a one-sentence statement saying: "We take these reports very seriously and are investigating the matter." Mets general manager Omar Minaya addressed the incident with reporters in Washington before Wednesday's loss to the Nationals. "Put it this way: You never like to have these things; you never like to have these reports out there," Minaya told The New York Times. "When you have a big department, these things happen. What you need to do once reports are out is that you look at them. I think what we're going to do is investigate it. We're going to do all those things and go from there." Minaya didn't say how long the Mets' investigation would take or what punishment Bernazard could face. Bernazard, who lives in Princeton, N.J., could not be reached for comment. The reported incident happened after the B-Mets' 5-3 loss to the New Hampshire Fisher Cats at NYSEG Stadium. After the game, the B-Mets' clubhouse remained closed for 25 minutes for a meeting- the team's third closed-door post-game meeting of the season. Bernazard walked out of the clubhouse after 10 minutes and quickly left the stadium. There was no indication in the clubhouse that anything out of the ordinary had happened. According to the Daily News, Bernazard went on a post-game "tirade," at one point ripping off his shirt and challenging the players to a fight. "Tony doesn't deserve what he's going through," Oliveras said. "I'm not saying that because he brought me here. I've seen managers, I've seen owners, I've seen GMs try to get the best out of players. I've seen it a hundred times." The story also reported that Bernazard was partially motivated by underage drinking on the team. There are two players under 21 on the roster- shortstop Ruben Tejada and injured pitcher Jenrry Mejia. Oliveras said that earlier that week, the team bus driver told him that he had found a beer bottle on the team's bus after a road trip to Akron - a violation of a Mets organization rule. Oliveras said Tejada was with a group of players that included one or two who had a beer but that the shortstop was not the one drinking. Oliveras didn't say who was drinking, but said he handled the matter in-house. At the time, the B-Mets had lost 22 of their previous 30 games. Bernazard was the top story in the Daily News, with a picture of Bernazard taking up the entire back page of the tabloid with the headline "Fight Club." "This has been taken way too far," B-Mets catcher Josh Thole said. "It's uncalled for as far as you guys (the media) blowing this out of proportion, so I don't think anything more should be said about it." Bernazard, 52, has been with the Mets since 2004 and oversees the Mets farm system. He played in the big leagues for 10 seasons, with Montreal, Chicago, Seattle, Cleveland, Oakland and Detroit. Before joining the Mets, he worked for more than a decade with the Major League Baseball Players Association. Bernazard has come under fire recently for the Mets' minor-league struggles as well as a series of off-field incidents. Earlier this week, the Daily News reported that Bernazard cursed out one of his deputies in front of several scouts and fans at Citi Field. On Wednesday, the New York Post reported on its Web site that Bernazard and Mets reliever Francisco Rodriguez got into a shouting match on the team bus. SteveJRogers Jul 23 2009 09:56 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2raamsdn] Didn't see that, thanks (snoozeday's new look --ugh). Here is a pretty strong denial from the B-Mets themslves. Now you gotta wonder who Rubin's source was and their motivation... [/quote:2raamsdn] Someone who is looking for a complete overhaul of the Met front office? Fman99 Jul 23 2009 10:00 AM ="SteveJRogers":xkgg2vhf]="John Cougar Lunchbucket":xkgg2vhf] Didn't see that, thanks (snoozeday's new look --ugh). Here is a pretty strong denial from the B-Mets themslves. Now you gotta wonder who Rubin's source was and their motivation... [/quote:xkgg2vhf] Someone who is looking for a complete overhaul of the Met front office?[/quote:xkgg2vhf] That doesn't rule out ANYBODY. duan Jul 23 2009 10:01 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2zq1piak] Didn't see that, thanks (snoozeday's new look --ugh). Here is a pretty strong denial from the B-Mets themslves. Now you gotta wonder who Rubin's source was and their motivation... [/quote:2zq1piak] Jerry Manuel metirish Jul 23 2009 10:02 AM There are times now and in the past when I have wondered if Rubin has an axe to grind with Bernazard . I may be wrong here but IIRC most of the reporting on Bernazard has come from Rubin. I must submit a question about that in his next chat. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 10:18 AM ="duan":1iw4w0qg]="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1iw4w0qg] Didn't see that, thanks (snoozeday's new look --ugh). Here is a pretty strong denial from the B-Mets themslves. Now you gotta wonder who Rubin's source was and their motivation... [/quote:1iw4w0qg] Jerry Manuel[/quote:1iw4w0qg] Whoever it is seems to want to put both Tony and Omar out of a job, since Tony looks bad for having this stigma on him and Omar looks bad for so badly policing everything. My thought (pure wild speculation) is Omar's assistant, John Ricco. It seems his duties may be the kind that get stepped on by Bernazard, and I wouldn't doubt that a tighter ship could be run. bmfc1 Jul 23 2009 10:20 AM Heyman said yesterday that it was someone connect with Willie Randolph: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/07/23/2009-07-23_for_mets_tony_bernazards_shirt_incident_provides_indecent_exposure.html SteveJRogers Jul 23 2009 10:20 AM ="Ceetar":1002y1w0] And of course these guys are going to back down and deny it. For many of the same reasons they didn't actually pummel him into a locker. They know he's powerful and in some control of whether or not they move up within the organization. As bad as things are, they don't want to be traded to the Pirates.[/quote:1002y1w0] That is an excellent point. Since Tony B is still in the organization, for now, it would be very wise of them to clam up and act like it wasn't a big deal. Otherwise THEY'D be the ones on the chopping block, or they'd get treated as if they were a bunch of rats by the rest of the organization if Tony B eventually does get fired. Its better for their job security as a AA manager and AA players to treat the incident as a "no big deal" than acting like rats coming out of the woodwork. SteveJRogers Jul 23 2009 10:23 AM ="bmfc1":14rwg35m]Heyman said yesterday that it was someone connect with Willie Randolph: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/07/23/2009-07-23_for_mets_tony_bernazards_shirt_incident_provides_indecent_exposure.html[/quote:14rwg35m] There is speculation though that Tony B is Heyman's "source" within the Met organization Ceetar Jul 23 2009 10:25 AM ="SteveJRogers":3o7wzut1]="bmfc1":3o7wzut1]Heyman said yesterday that it was someone connect with Willie Randolph: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/07/23/2009-07-23_for_mets_tony_bernazards_shirt_incident_provides_indecent_exposure.html[/quote:3o7wzut1] There is speculation though that Tony B is Heyman's "source" within the Met organization[/quote:3o7wzut1] You know, when he made his "Some papers don't like one guy, other papers like other guys" comment on the radio yesterday i was thinking just that. He thinks it's blown out of proportion because of self interest. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 10:29 AM Well, I think it's true that Madden's hard-on for all things late 70s Yankees influenced much of the over-the-top shame and outrage with which the Snooze covered the Willie firing last year. I also don't for a second doubt that Willie was the source of many of the anonymous whacks at Bernazard up until he was gone. PS, over at BTF apparently the D-Backs' scout allegedly yelled at by Bernazard is denying Bernazard ever yelled at him. I mean, if that is really him. ]Tony did not ( I repeat ), did NOT treat me that way (at all) and I'd hope that Mr. Madden fixes his story. Don't think Tony deserves that.... metirish Jul 23 2009 10:34 AM Good find JCL..... This is turning into a real who done it Mets style. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 10:54 AM ="Edgy DC"]I don't think the Wilpons "pride themselves on a lack of structure." Isn't that a little broad a conclusion to draw out of this sorry mess? I think it's more true that structure breaks down in a time of crisis, and alpha-types rush to fill the void. Out of this particular mess, in and of itself? Judging from what actual facts are out/confirmed (sussing those from the mere whispers, though the whispers are deafening), yep, it seems a bit sweeping. Stepping back and taking a broader look, though... Let's put it this way-- it would explain a LOT of the recurrent organizational problems of the last 15-20 years (from the bridge-burning of late Cashen/Harazin to Phillips/Valentine clashes to "Superscouts"/Duquette to last year's tumult). Free-flowing, open-doors work environments work fantastically well... if you have the exact mix of self-motivated/highly-organized personalities-- and good actors-- such a system requires. Just one or two bad actors in key spots, or lack of trust between two parties that can't be resolved, and you've got a bigger problem than you could ever have in a straight defined-duties/chain-of-command situation... largely because of accountability issues. (The foot-dragging on virtually every dismissal within the organization in the last 25 years would fit this explanation neatly.) Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 11:04 AM That's fair, I guess. It's certialnly a better organized argument. I still wouldn't conclude that but I guess it's defensible. But why couldn't an aggressive go-getter like Valentine have workded around Steve Phillips then? Seemed like he tried to defer to command structure even though he didn't respect his superior. Plillips fired Valentine. Minaya fired Randolph, on the road. So neither appeared to be answering or reporting directly to ownership in those situations. That doesn't disprove anything. I'm just throwing stuff out there. It seems to me that back door conniving makes for good press because it makes for good drama, but the evidence often isn't really there when you look for it. Frayed Knot Jul 23 2009 11:39 AM ="Ceetar":q7gffp31]Is it a traveling job? That doesn't strike me as very VPish..doesn't he have underlings, scouts, etc? He's certainly not VP in charge of discipline. He's just got a big ego. Why not just a phone call to Binghamton, "What's the deal up there? This stuff true? Reign in your team."[/quote:q7gffp31] Of course it's a traveling job. All GMs, much less assts, travel to minor league games and clubhouses and even amateur games for updates, scouting, look-sees, etc. Not constantly of course but often. Can't make all your decisions based on reading reports and hear-say. Ceetar Jul 23 2009 11:43 AM And what else am I supposed to make my decision on? It doesn't matter though, his job still doesn't entitle him to be taking his shirt off in the clubhouse. It's unprofessional at best. It's not his job to fire up the team or discuss strategy. the game's over, there is nothing left to evaluate. It's not his job to antagonize guys, or to fire them up, or to really do much of anything directly with them. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 11:46 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 23 2009 11:54 AM ="Ceetar"]And what else am I supposed to make my decision on? By "You," I'm certain LF meant "One" as in "A baseball executive such as Tony Bernazard" --- not "You" as in "Ceetar." ]It doesn't matter though... But you asked. Frayed Knot Jul 23 2009 11:47 AM No one's saying that his job title gives him license to be a dick in the Bingo clubhouse (if that's what happened) only that there's nothing unusual about him being there or with being concerned with what's going on in player development. on edit: and, yes, by 'your decision' I meant front office types. They are the ones who can't only draft, sign, promote, cut, evaluate players from afar. Can you imagine if a high draft pick (like maybe next year's the way things are going) flames out soon afterward and the story from Omar & Tony (or whoever is in charge then) is that they never actually saw him play but the reports from the regional scout were great - in effect blaming a wasted few mil on some 3-levels-down evaluator? We'd drag the guy over the coals for an answer like that and rightfully so. Ceetar Jul 23 2009 12:03 PM ="Frayed Knot":3486d8jw]No one's saying that his job title gives him license to be a dick in the Bingo clubhouse (if that's what happened) only that there's nothing unusual about him being there or with being concerned with what's going on in player development. on edit: and, yes, by 'your decision' I meant front office types. They are the ones who can't only draft, sign, promote, cut, evaluate players from afar. Can you imagine if a high draft pick (like maybe next year's the way things are going) flames out soon afterward and the story from Omar & Tony (or whoever is in charge then) is that they never actually saw him play but the reports from the regional scout were great - in effect blaming a wasted few mil on some 3-levels-down evaluator? We'd drag the guy over the coals for an answer like that and rightfully so.[/quote:3486d8jw] That's what I get for doing a thousand things at once. But yeah, but there is also the idea that there is too much of that to do for one person. Maybe I'm just think he's not deserved of the title. It seems like there should be one guy that less of a visit guy and more of a "trust the guys you hire to evaluate players". But maybe that's supposed to be Omar. But then isn't Tony just a glorified scout? Obviously the closer you get to big money the more people you want to look at him, but at one point you wonder if feedback is getting lost on the way up. If a scout likes the way one guy's curve looks, but Tony doesn't like it, does Omar even know a scout liked the curve? I originally meant more what was he doing barging into a team meeting like he's the captain than what was he doing in binghamton (or wherever they were). Frayed Knot Jul 23 2009 12:14 PM Well, again, the question that remains to be answered here is what did he say and how did he say it. Of course if you're of the opinion that he shouldn't be in the job in the first place then that's a whole 'nother angle. As far as scouting/evaluating goes, usually that's the kind of thing that goes up the chain of command. A local scout might like a guy and recommend him to the regional scout, who'll then write a report to his boss and so on. With enough good evaluations it'll eventually get back to the home office where, if the reports are glowing enough or there's significant money to be spent, you bet the big boys are going to want to take a look themselves. Trusting your people is one thing, but any corporation that takes that too far and lets their middle/lower mgmt types set their agenda for them is asking for trouble. No different here. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 12:27 PM ="Frayed Knot"]Well, again, the question that remains to be answered here is what did he say and how did he say it. Of course if you're of the opinion that he shouldn't be in the job in the first place then that's a whole 'nother angle. Bernazard had, like no relevant experience in terms of baseball front-office-ery, right? No scouting experience, either, if memory serves... just the work on the WBC. metirish Jul 23 2009 12:40 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]="Frayed Knot"]Well, again, the question that remains to be answered here is what did he say and how did he say it. Of course if you're of the opinion that he shouldn't be in the job in the first place then that's a whole 'nother angle. Bernazard had, like no relevant experience in terms of baseball front-office-ery, right? No scouting experience, either, if memory serves... just the work on the WBC. Tony was a community organizer . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 12:56 PM ="metirish":3iikmra1] Tony was a community organizer .[/quote:3iikmra1] Ha. Matt Artus of Always Amazin' does a pretty good job of synthesizing a bunch of takes on the Bernazard trail (think of him as your case briefing, sleuths)--- going back to 2005-- over here.[/url:3iikmra1] Valadius Jul 23 2009 03:30 PM Also, let's not forget the "Street Spanish" incident. G-Fafif Jul 23 2009 04:14 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Well, I think it's true that Madden's hard-on for all things late 70s Yankees influenced much of the over-the-top shame and outrage with which the Snooze covered the Willie firing last year. I also don't for a second doubt that Willie was the source of many of the anonymous whacks at Bernazard up until he was gone. PS, over at BTF apparently the D-Backs' scout allegedly yelled at by Bernazard is denying Bernazard ever yelled at him. I mean, if that is really him. ]Tony did not ( I repeat ), did NOT treat me that way (at all) and I'd hope that Mr. Madden fixes his story. Don't think Tony deserves that.... The story was Tony bawled out his deputy, not the scout. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 05:51 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 11:46 AM Bernazard's CV according to the 2009 media guide Joined the Mets on December 1, 2004 as Special Assistant to the General Manager. Nowe serves as Vice President of Player development. Played in the major leagues from 1979 to 1991 with various clubs, including the Montreal Expos, Chicago White Sox, Seattle Mariners, Cleveland Indians, Oakland A's, and Detroit Tiegers.... In addition, played three years in the Japanese Professonal League. From 1992 until he jointe the mets, Tony worked with the Major League Baseball Players Association as a Special Assistant to the Executive Director.... In this capacity, Tony played a key role in labor negotiations, salary arbitration, and the globalization of baseball. Was the General Manager for six (1992, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004) Major League All-Star teams that competed against Japanese All-Star teams.... Teh MLB All-Star teams won all six series. In international competititions, served as the MLBPA's representative and liaison with the International Baseball Federation. Also served on the seteering committee and was the MLBPA representative for the 2000 Olympic Gold Medal USA baseball team. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 06:41 PM ="G-Fafif"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Well, I think it's true that Madden's hard-on for all things late 70s Yankees influenced much of the over-the-top shame and outrage with which the Snooze covered the Willie firing last year. I also don't for a second doubt that Willie was the source of many of the anonymous whacks at Bernazard up until he was gone. PS, over at BTF apparently the D-Backs' scout allegedly yelled at by Bernazard is denying Bernazard ever yelled at him. I mean, if that is really him. ]Tony did not ( I repeat ), did NOT treat me that way (at all) and I'd hope that Mr. Madden fixes his story. Don't think Tony deserves that.... The story was Tony bawled out his deputy, not the scout. Actually Madden's story (I know, a sloppy regurgitation of that which his colleague reported) specifically says: ]In the confrontation with Gomez, Bernazard screamed at the scout for sitting in his seat and angrily demanded him to move. Then when one of his own baseball operations men attempted to intercede, suggesting that they wait until the end of the inning for everyone in the scouts section to shift seats, Bernazard went ballistic and began cursing at his own man in front of all the other scouts. But that's what this figure (actually him? I have no idea) says didn't happen. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/07/23/2009-07-23_omar_minaya_fire_tony_bernazard.html John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 06:41 PM ="G-Fafif"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Well, I think it's true that Madden's hard-on for all things late 70s Yankees influenced much of the over-the-top shame and outrage with which the Snooze covered the Willie firing last year. I also don't for a second doubt that Willie was the source of many of the anonymous whacks at Bernazard up until he was gone. PS, over at BTF apparently the D-Backs' scout allegedly yelled at by Bernazard is denying Bernazard ever yelled at him. I mean, if that is really him. ]Tony did not ( I repeat ), did NOT treat me that way (at all) and I'd hope that Mr. Madden fixes his story. Don't think Tony deserves that.... The story was Tony bawled out his deputy, not the scout. Actually Madden's story (I know, a sloppy regurgitation of that which his colleague reported) specifically says: ]In the confrontation with Gomez, Bernazard screamed at the scout for sitting in his seat and angrily demanded him to move. Then when one of his own baseball operations men attempted to intercede, suggesting that they wait until the end of the inning for everyone in the scouts section to shift seats, Bernazard went ballistic and began cursing at his own man in front of all the other scouts. But that's what this figure (actually him? I have no idea) says didn't happen. G-Fafif Jul 23 2009 06:51 PM I'm guessing many have been yelled at and called out by Tony Bernazard. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 08:09 PM Tony Bernazard, co-owner of the longest hitless streak by a non-pitcher in big-league history, has probably been yelled at once or twice himself. Rockin' Doc Jul 23 2009 08:23 PM ="Edgy DC":za1eefy5]Tony Bernazard, co-owner of the longest hitless streak by a non-pitcher in big-league history, has probably been yelled at once or twice himself.[/quote:za1eefy5] I guess one of the players should have accepted Bernazard's challenge, since had he tried to hit anyone, he likely would have missed. Ashie62 Jul 23 2009 08:46 PM The only time I have taken my shirt off at work, dress shirt or otherwise would be while taking a 10 minute crap on a warm day in a poorly ventilated office bathroom PiggiesTomatoes Jul 24 2009 06:21 AM From today's Post... ]"Bernazard also had a confrontation with closer Francisco Rodriguez last week in Atlanta, something Rodriguez confirmed to The Post. " If Omar doesn't go too, he's teflon. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 07:07 AM And so the drums beat. Why? Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 07:51 AM Wait, is this seperate from Bernazard's argument with Rodriguez that we already heard about? I know its hard to know what goes on behind closed doors, maybe this is par for the course in a major league organization and it just doesnt get out in most places, but I feel like I've heard enough "Bad Boy Bernazard" stories to wonder why the heck he is still here. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 07:58 AM Sure, but you also know articles are not without agenda. The Mets had nothing a few days ago that was moving papers. Every fifth day is the tragedy of Johan. Tired stuff. But now... this is an electric story, and the tabloids have devoted absurd space to it. You'd think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was back in town. Don't you think they'd inflate and rehash anything they had on him right now? Demons sell, and the press has one. Maybe he does deserve to go, but I hope the Mets don't make that decision based on the number of inches of negative ink. Him staying or going is unlikely to save their season. Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 08:21 AM I already think the season isn't saveable, I just think that if everything we've heard is true that he's not a guy the organization needs around. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:27 AM Well, I agree, I guess, but that's something I consider meaningfully different from "I feel like I've heard enough 'Bad Boy Bernazard' stories to wonder why the heck he is still here." That suggests that the negative stories themselves, and not the Mets determination on their level of veracity, should be enough to trigger his firing. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 08:39 AM Do you think there's any chance the Mets might investigate the matter? Or if there'll be an investigation? Maybe an investigation would be in order. Somebody should definitely investigate. I, for one, would like to hear from Omar Minaya regarding a potential investigation...or perhaps a plan in which investigating would take place. Then, once an investigation is conducted, Omar can say the matter has been investigated. I'd feel a lot better if Omar would simply address the issue of a possible investigation. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:43 AM I think you're taking the piss with me, G. What I'd like to hear is that the Mets have gone back in time and retroactively signed Adam Dunn. seawolf17 Jul 24 2009 08:47 AM ="Edgy DC":33yv314c]What I'd like to hear is that the Mets have gone back in time and retroactively signed Adam Dunn.[/quote:33yv314c] I'd like to investigate that possibility as well. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 08:49 AM Five bucks to the first deputy to tell a visibly impatient Tony Bernazard, "Keep your shirt on." Valadius Jul 24 2009 10:36 AM I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers. Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 10:54 AM ="Valadius":1uyyir7g]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:1uyyir7g] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure". Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 10:55 AM they also took 4 guys from the system to get Santana, so those guys had to be highly regarded enough to do that. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 11:39 AM ="Frayed Knot":2mcveioa]="Valadius":2mcveioa]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:2mcveioa] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure".[/quote:2mcveioa] Abject, I-pooped-in-my-hand-type failure? No. Comparative failure? Possibly. After all, what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Plus, those guys have played, but how well? However you might feel about Evans and Murphy, numbers-wise, they've performed at sub-replacement level on the field for their positions so far. Parnell's got a nice fastball, but with his iffy command/lack of any real secondary pitch, he may-- just may-- have already seen his peak. Simply ennumerating successes (and qualified ones, at that) is a bit like saying, "Well, our hitting coach isn't failing; after all, we got two hits just last night." (Without doing an in-depth examination, it seems that we've gotten less substantive input from internal products than a good number of the teams in our income bracket-- Sox, Yanks, Angels, etc.) Additionally, there's the issue of (over?)aggressive promotions... Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 11:51 AM Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 12:04 PM ="Edgy DC":rxv5qb1y]But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis.[/quote:rxv5qb1y] I don't know if he's done his job or not. I think he needs to be fired for challenging minor leaguers to a fight in the clubhouse (the other incidents aren't as serious but show that it wasn't a one time lapse in judgment, like a car thief with a history of shoplifting) Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 12:06 PM ]what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Pelfrey = 2005 Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 12:38 PM I think I'm just caught in this cycle. - Fire him because of the incident. - Can we establish that? - Fire him becasue of failure. - Can we establish that? - Fire him because of the incident.Just plug in "Can we establish that first?" for my next ten posts, unless someone establishes that. Meantime: Products from the 2005 draft --- Pelfrey (1), Jonathan Niese (7), Bobby Parnell (9). Products from the 2006 draft --- Joseph Smith (2), Daniel Murphy (16). Products from the 2007 draft --- Eddie Kunz (1). Farmer Ted Jul 24 2009 12:51 PM Does Tony have input on the draft or just the development of the player after the draft? It is typically the responsibility of the minor league and roving coaching staffs to develop that talent thus simply making Tony (VP of Player Development) a mechanism of reporting back to the NY office. I could do that fucking job and I've never exposed my man boobs in a fit of rage. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 03:12 PM ="Edgy DC"]Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Pelfrey's was a Boras client that dropped a bit because of expected contract demands; it's also the one year during the Omar era where the team (A) had a first round pick and ( aimed at the highest-ceiling guy on the board, regardless of projected signing cost. The others? They've all seen major-league time, granted. They've also produced either produced little or exeeded meager expectations at that level (Kunz hasn't even met those expectations). Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- of needing any warm body you can when your lineup includes as many Alous and Castillos, and your bench as many Easleys and Andersons, as the Mets have over the last two years-- rather than their forcing the issue with performance. More telling, as Ted points out, his job-- presumably-- is player development, not drafting. How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Pelfrey, sort of... but he's a high-resource-commitment first-rounder; it would be more of a story if he hadn't done anything. Bannister was already out of the oven, more or less, before Bernazard took his current position. Unless I'm forgetting someone... there isn't much else. (There are a few Heath Bells, Henry Owens, and Jason Vargases, though, currently thriving in other organizations these days.) Anyway... I'm not really arguing that he's failed-- I'm more arguing that he hasn't out-and-out succeeded. If half of the stories about his work style are true, then he would have to be exceedingly good, results-wise, to justify keeping around. (I mean, there's no established track record of success for the guy at prior gigs... because he doesn't have a player eval/development/analysis track record.) (NOTE: the reason I pulled out the Yanks, Sox and Angels is both because those guys approximate what we bring to the table, International-signing-money-wise, and because I figured including small-marketeers who concentrated primarily on stockpiling prospects-- Royals, Rays, Marlins, etc.-- might make the Met system look unfairly shitty. I do agree that, if you're evaluating his merits, you'd have to do a more comprehensive study of MLB team's development systems to have a control.) G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 04:33 PM So...is there gonna be an investigation or what? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:10 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues--[/quote:25chb1ol] Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success?[/quote:25chb1ol] Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:23 PM The Baseball Cube has a crude system of scoring draft success. They rank the team's Bernazard era drafts thusly: 2005: Fifth 2006: 17th 2007: 16th 2008: Not yet available. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 05:54 PM I don't think we had this, from Adam Rubin last night: ]The scout dragged into the headlines when Mets VP for player development Tony Bernazard unleashed a verbal assault on another team official essentially confirmed the Daily News' exclusive report of the incident. Diamondbacks scout Carlos Gomez said Thursday that he didn't want to "pile onto Tony," but that he could not dispute The News' account. Gomez said his lone interest in speaking about the incident is to make it clear that he had no involvement in the confrontation. "Tony did not get into it with me at all," Gomez said. "He didn't address me. He didn't curse me out. We didn't have a spat. In no way did I feel Tony singled me out or treated me incorrectly." So he wasn't yelling at the scout, only the deputy, according to this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled shirt opera. Valadius Jul 24 2009 06:45 PM Then he's an abusive boss as well. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:24 PM As well as what? That's what the actual issue is. The rush to judgment here is getting absurd. Doesn't anybody wonder if Bernazard goes down as a scapegoat that it might actually perpertuate the orgazational issues and tenures you actually want to see confronted? Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 08:31 PM Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 09:21 PM ="Edgy DC"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. Pelfrey was the big project, and has sort of worked out. Smith and Parnell showed a little something in ST and limited trials-- enough to contribute on the squad. But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. ="Edgy DC"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? If he's running player development, he's not just responsible for the progress of the guys drafted while he had the job. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 09:37 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. What in the world makes you think I'm telling you that? I'm not really telling telling you anything. I'm asking for a framework of what we're talking about. Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. SteveJRogers Jul 24 2009 10:12 PM ="Frayed Knot":121a00be]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs.[/quote:121a00be] When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:39 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 06:34 AM Yeah, I don't recall a witch hunt to purify the organization of Tim Teufel, Ron Darling, Rick Aguilera and Bob Ojeda when they got in a fight with a handful of police. This, of course, wasn't the first time that year a Met had manhandled a cop, as Dwight Gooden pleaded no contest to having assaulted not one, but two cops. And from my perspective, it's Met fans doing the piling on, not "non-Met fans." LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:47 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 10:51 PM ="Edgy DC"] Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. I think I was a bit unclear in that first post, and my meaning was missed. I wasn't stating that the Mets received no contribution from their recent draftees; rather, I was arguing that having a handful of players make the majors isn't indicative of a minor-league system's fertility... and that the performance of these guys, if anything, may point to the opposite. (May.) But, yeah, there's a whole bunch of rush-to-judgement here. What I'm advocating is a rush to scrutiny-- an actual investigation by the team-- and by fans-- of the system over the last 3 years. ="SteveJRogers"]And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW With all due respect, I disagree entirely. The amount and intensity of the pile-on is almost entirely a function of how little there is to talk about in terms of on-field positives; most of the stories-- and fan-talk, really-- seem to make the point, implicitly and explicitly, that the off-field disorder mirrors the on-field decrepitude. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:49 PM I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:52 PM ="Edgy DC"]I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. Girl? It's a little bit girly, is why I ask. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 05:53 AM ="SteveJRogers"]="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 04:44 PM ="Frayed Knot"]="SteveJRogers"]="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. And you also have to give the fact that in 1986 ESPN was yet to explode in terms of daily barrages of information to the mass audiences, WFAN was a year away from being born and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. In other words, it is hard to really say "well, would this have happened when the Mets were winning? I think not." Because certain avenues for fan venting and mass information consumption either hadn't open yet, or were some time from being prevalent. And things were being said back in 99-00 about how the Mets handled certain situations and the actions of one Bobby Valentine. Sure Met fans were probably going "LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU, how far back are we from the Braves today?" But the non fans were making comments about Valentine's nutty behavior, the Mets refusal to retaliate, especially against the Yankees, and other issues of note. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 05:24 PM BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series. dgwphotography Jul 25 2009 05:57 PM ="SteveJRogers":z2ocfwgg]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:z2ocfwgg] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born... SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:03 PM ="dgwphotography":2ddliwek]="SteveJRogers":2ddliwek]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:2ddliwek] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:2ddliwek] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident. Kong76 Jul 25 2009 06:08 PM dgw: This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born <<< Plus, they probably pick on him (like some of us) because he's a closet Yankee fan in Mets' clothing. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 06:30 PM ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:58 PM ="Nymr83"]]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, but that is part of the point, what has been going on with this franchise has been just another opportunity after another for the organization to be considered an absolute utter disgrace. Hell, the Yankees did make it back to the postseason the following year, and three more years after that, and probably will make it again this year. That's more to the point where the Mets are seen as a joke in the eyes of many. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 07:30 PM ]The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, i don't agree. the Yanks had a better year (because they made a postseaon and won the frst round), but their collapse was still worse being that it took place in the postseason Kong76 Jul 25 2009 07:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 07:48 PM *post removed, for duh-ness* SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 07:47 PM No, its worse because it continues to perpetuate the notion that the Mets are losers and a pathetic organization. Especially in light of what happened last year, and this current campaign. Again, the Yankees were back in the postseason in 2005-2007 and most likely will be in it again this season. Historically the Yankees losing the 2004 ALCS is a bump in the road, the 7 up with 17 to play 2007 Mets is yet another reason to say how the Met organization is a disgrace to professional sports. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 07:53 PM ][Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. It wouldn't matter because I don't wrap my self-esteem up in the current status of a baseball team to the point where I react to taunting from those who do by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem. Besides, it wasn't a Yanqui fan that brought up the "disgrace" line it was y ... oh wait, nevermind. [walked into that one] Fman99 Jul 25 2009 08:23 PM ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]="dgwphotography":1scxpm4q]="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:1scxpm4q] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:1scxpm4q] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:1scxpm4q] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 08:49 PM ] by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem i want him fired for trying to fight ballplayers, nothing else. is he "part of the [alleged] problem" in talent development? i don't know or care as long he's challenging our players to fights. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 08:57 PM ="Fman99":fvuk1kki]="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]="dgwphotography":fvuk1kki]="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:fvuk1kki] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:fvuk1kki] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:fvuk1kki] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people.[/quote:fvuk1kki] Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. Because clearly if Met fans shouldn't give a flying fuck about how the Mets are perceived by others, then why should we give a flying fuck about how the "Yankee Way" is a crock of shit? Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 09:43 PM Don't tell us what its ok to comment on. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 09:59 PM ="Nymr83":20535dbm]Don't tell us what its ok to comment on.[/quote:20535dbm] It relates to how the Mets are perceived as an organization by others. But if you are fine rooting for an franchise that is subject to slings and arrows on a seemingly endless basis and counter all those comments with "who gives a fucking rat's ass what the fuck you fuckers think" it really is tough to go the other way on subjects that have to do with other organizations. In other words, why should THEY, or anyone give a fucking rat's ass what the fuck any fucker says? SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 10:05 PM Look, this was a black eye for the organization that has way too much of them in recent years, that is the point I'm trying to make. Yes more is made because the team has been playing horribly, but the point I'm trying to make is that shit like this shouldn't be passed over by Met fans as "if we were winning, no one in the media, internet, sports radio, etc. would give a shit." Its because it is a black eye for the organization, and fodder for more shit from everyone from bloggers to late night comedians that make it a big deal and one that should be addressed and not swept away. Again, even if the Mets were leading the division by 20 games at this point. Frayed Knot Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM ]Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. No, we can comment on it all we want. The mistake, from the Yanqui viewpoint, would be for them to change how they do things solely based on our reaction. For the same reason, the Mets should decide what to do with Bernazard based on his performance and conduct rather than out of some silly notion that it's going to make MFY fans stop saying 'bad things 'bout the Mets'. And those Met fans who want to make Bernazard the fall-guy whether he deserves it or not are simply playing into the trap of doing things for pr reasons rather than solving the problem itself. Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 06:56 AM ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2ae45851] ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2ae45851] Pick a side, my son. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 11:49 AM ="Edgy DC":2etn8uzp]="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2etn8uzp] Pick a side, my son.[/quote:2etn8uzp] The hell is your point Edge? You have to be a Yanqui fan to consider the Met collapse in 2007 worse than the Yankees blowing the 2004 ALCS? Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 11:58 AM The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 12:11 PM ="Edgy DC":2xyqenpp]The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later.[/quote:2xyqenpp] Not really, I showed it as a recent example compared to dgw suggesting that they were not students of history (by saying Tony B's minors incident was worse than Steinbrenner's elevator fight) Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 12:53 PM My head hurts. metsguyinmichigan Jul 27 2009 12:56 PM Mets shame: -- Idiot front office type takes off shirt to yell at 20-something minor leaguers. -- Bad patch on sleeve -- Occasional lapses in fielding. Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? Valadius Jul 27 2009 03:42 PM Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 27 2009 08:15 PM ="Valadius":1xy2oval]Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling.[/quote:1xy2oval] ...and Georgie girl. I wouldn't take money to listen or her and Sterling. MFS62 Jul 27 2009 10:00 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":39c9vxup] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace?[/quote:39c9vxup] You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 10:05 PM ="MFS62"]="metsguyinmichigan"] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later Ahem. (I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 27 2009 10:10 PM Double post. G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM ](I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) He said "next to last," but Phillies and Tigers came after MFYs, then Red Sox. Old news, I'd have to say. Plenty to bash MFYs on in this century. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 11:08 PM Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension. Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:11 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3npdogpk]Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension.[/quote:3npdogpk] Or Bernazards emotions Edgy DC Aug 02 2009 01:55 PM Daily News (but not Adam Rubin) digging up a lot more PLT stories about Bernazard. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_tony_bern_out.html?page=0 Rockin' Doc Aug 02 2009 03:11 PM Hard to feel much sympathy for Bernazard the more stories you read of his vitriolic behavior toward players and staff of the Mets system. The more I read of his tirades, the more negatively Bernazard's tenure reflects upon Minaya and the Wilpons for allowing such an embarrassment to remain in their employ for as long as they did. Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2009 07:04 AM Huh! Edgy DC Aug 04 2009 07:08 AM Oh, you missed some shee-it. Ashie62 Aug 04 2009 12:58 PM A little league first fight in Princeton, NJ? Darling the Eli must love that one

VP was my point. I know what his title is. That's like seeing a Supreme Court Justice at a random federal court in Utah.

Did I miss why Bernazard was in binghamton anyway? Nevermind in the clubhouse. I'm hoping the only reason they haven't fired him yet is they're decided who will take over the day to day jobs he has, assuming he has one.. Hopefully that'll fix up the whole Front Office not being on the same page, including the manager, but I doubt it.

I really have no way to evaluate the job he's done professionally, but there are enough rumors of him undermining things and causing problems that I find it hard to believe he can't be replaced, and easily. It's been pretty apparent for years that this "Full autonomy" that Omar wanted isn't actually there (Which may be why he got the contract, and is safe. Maybe much of what are considered his worst mistakes were actually things he was overruled on?) and that there is a big disconnect between the team, manager, and front office. If this Bernazard character has any role in it, he should be... pumped up in the media and traded to the Phillies.

="metirish":3g9mkrl3]President Obama will throw out the first pitch.......expect Jeter to be front and center.[/quote:3g9mkrl3] Obama's gonna bean Jeter? sweeeeet. G-Fafif Jul 14 2009 03:36 PM Casual, but might upgrade to avid if the National League can come tantalizingly close to winning before inevitably blowing it. Gwreck Jul 14 2009 03:40 PM ="metirish":q1zhme26]President Obama will throw out the first pitch.......expect Jeter to be front and center.[/quote:q1zhme26] I think they announced that Pujols will catch the pitch. metirish Jul 14 2009 06:02 PM Oh for fucks sake stop it Joe Buck ......opening into.....little kid playing theball.....Buck's voice over tells us that this is America's game and " nowhere is this more true that in St Louis"....... another 4 hours of this Fman99 Jul 14 2009 07:56 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":23s6dfhb]Why, I heard tell once of a St. Louis fanatic who was cuffed about by a scoundrel outside the stadium. At the trial, the crank testified against the mugger, who stood and applauded his effort. Appreciating this, the rapscallion-- also a Cardinals booster-- gave to hooting and hollering for the chap, for being a stand-up stand-upper. The entire gallery, supporters of both the Blood-Redbirds AND a good round of applause, clapped the pair's rhythmic clapping, for it was a hearty clapping, indeed! Those St. Loo bugs-- they sure are a bunch of swell ol' darbs, they are![/quote:23s6dfhb] I love when LWFS goes all 1914 on us. Classic! Willets Point Jul 14 2009 09:17 PM I didn't watch, mainly because MLB.com tv assumes that even though I pay to watch on the internet because I don't have a tv, I will suddenly get a tv whenever a game is on FOX or ESPN.

="Vic Sage":15u8q4g1]So you'd back out of this WATP Youklis deal if they insisted on Cora? Good to know...[/quote:15u8q4g1] they better give us Jed Lowrie or someone that can handle SS! Valdez? no thanks.. Swan Swan H Jul 14 2009 03:15 PM For Youkilis I'd turn into the old Male Shop in Brooklyn - all those players, a sport jacket, a topcoat, three ties, two pairs of socks, six handkerchiefs and a transistor radio. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 14 2009 03:20 PM ="Swan Swan H":2fosnt3v]For Youkilis I'd turn into the old Male Shop in Brooklyn - all those players, a sport jacket, a topcoat, three ties, two pairs of socks, six handkerchiefs and a transistor radio.[/quote:2fosnt3v] Especially since he'd give Davey Boy a nice break at third every couple of weeks.

="Swan Swan H":rntq3101]="Ceetar":rntq3101]="G-Fafif":rntq3101]Perhaps to reverse the curse, you should hang it on a tree outdoors before Christmas, when it's not cold enough for snow. Then Johan could stand there and let the weather wash over him like a soft rain. I hear that does wonders for a pitcher.[/quote:rntq3101] I think the reverse curse is to sign a jewish ballplayer.[/quote:rntq3101] That just might work. Let's see if Boston is ready to give up Youkilis.[/quote:rntq3101] Works for me. They can have every player that's played 1B for the Mets this year. Delgado, Evans, Tatis, Murphy, actually, I'd give them Reed but I'm not sure I want to give them Cora. I missing anybody? Vic Sage Jul 14 2009 03:03 PM So you'd back out of this WATP Youklis deal if they insisted on Cora? Good to know... Swan Swan H Jul 14 2009 03:04 PM I think that's the whole lot. I had no idea Cora played first - good memory. While we're at it we could probably use Ryan Braun and Ian Kinsler as well. Ceetar Jul 14 2009 03:07 PM ="Vic Sage":15u8q4g1]So you'd back out of this WATP Youklis deal if they insisted on Cora? Good to know...[/quote:15u8q4g1] they better give us Jed Lowrie or someone that can handle SS! Valdez? no thanks.. Swan Swan H Jul 14 2009 03:15 PM For Youkilis I'd turn into the old Male Shop in Brooklyn - all those players, a sport jacket, a topcoat, three ties, two pairs of socks, six handkerchiefs and a transistor radio. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 14 2009 03:20 PM ="Swan Swan H":2fosnt3v]For Youkilis I'd turn into the old Male Shop in Brooklyn - all those players, a sport jacket, a topcoat, three ties, two pairs of socks, six handkerchiefs and a transistor radio.[/quote:2fosnt3v] Especially since he'd give Davey Boy a nice break at third every couple of weeks.

="G-Fafif":2keqqg76]Perhaps to reverse the curse, you should hang it on a tree outdoors before Christmas, when it's not cold enough for snow. Then Johan could stand there and let the weather wash over him like a soft rain. I hear that does wonders for a pitcher.[/quote:2keqqg76] I think the reverse curse is to sign a jewish ballplayer. Swan Swan H Jul 14 2009 02:55 PM ="Ceetar":dv9rk456]="G-Fafif":dv9rk456]Perhaps to reverse the curse, you should hang it on a tree outdoors before Christmas, when it's not cold enough for snow. Then Johan could stand there and let the weather wash over him like a soft rain. I hear that does wonders for a pitcher.[/quote:dv9rk456] I think the reverse curse is to sign a jewish ballplayer.[/quote:dv9rk456] That just might work. Let's see if Boston is ready to give up Youkilis. Ceetar Jul 14 2009 02:57 PM ="Swan Swan H":rntq3101]="Ceetar":rntq3101]="G-Fafif":rntq3101]Perhaps to reverse the curse, you should hang it on a tree outdoors before Christmas, when it's not cold enough for snow. Then Johan could stand there and let the weather wash over him like a soft rain. I hear that does wonders for a pitcher.[/quote:rntq3101] I think the reverse curse is to sign a jewish ballplayer.[/quote:rntq3101] That just might work. Let's see if Boston is ready to give up Youkilis.[/quote:rntq3101] Works for me. They can have every player that's played 1B for the Mets this year. Delgado, Evans, Tatis, Murphy, actually, I'd give them Reed but I'm not sure I want to give them Cora. I missing anybody? Vic Sage Jul 14 2009 03:03 PM So you'd back out of this WATP Youklis deal if they insisted on Cora? Good to know... Swan Swan H Jul 14 2009 03:04 PM I think that's the whole lot. I had no idea Cora played first - good memory. While we're at it we could probably use Ryan Braun and Ian Kinsler as well. Ceetar Jul 14 2009 03:07 PM ="Vic Sage":15u8q4g1]So you'd back out of this WATP Youklis deal if they insisted on Cora? Good to know...[/quote:15u8q4g1] they better give us Jed Lowrie or someone that can handle SS! Valdez? no thanks.. Swan Swan H Jul 14 2009 03:15 PM For Youkilis I'd turn into the old Male Shop in Brooklyn - all those players, a sport jacket, a topcoat, three ties, two pairs of socks, six handkerchiefs and a transistor radio. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 14 2009 03:20 PM ="Swan Swan H":2fosnt3v]For Youkilis I'd turn into the old Male Shop in Brooklyn - all those players, a sport jacket, a topcoat, three ties, two pairs of socks, six handkerchiefs and a transistor radio.[/quote:2fosnt3v] Especially since he'd give Davey Boy a nice break at third every couple of weeks.

="Swan Swan H"]] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though)

go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value.

="seawolf17":52topbyk]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:52topbyk] Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:38 PM ="Ceetar"]="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Not the TEAM, the TERM, the term bandwagon. Read, for Chrissakes. Oh, and this: ]Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. May be the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. Besides, Tatis' OBP is higher than Murphy's which has nothing to do with doubles or swinging hard or whatever that is supposed to mean. And I still don't see how Church's 2007 was better than Francoeur's anyway. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:39 PM ="seawolf17":14kh53td]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:14kh53td] Where are his two good years? metsmarathon Jul 10 2009 07:40 PM i'm not a fan of this trade. its not that i don't like jeff francoeur - i mean, i'm never gonna spell that correctly with any consistency whatsoever, but that's really besides the point - and if we had traded lastings milledge for jeff francoeur straight up, i'd be pretty ok with that trade. its just that i liked churchie, and felt like he didnt get enough of a chance to show how good of a player he really was, be it because of a pesky concussion or two, or a pesky relationship with a manager. i liked his defense - he had good range and a good arm, and can play centerfield in a pinch. can francoeur? jeff has power (which the team needs but shouldn't imo be the most important quality we look for in any player) and a big arm (which is important in this field), but i liked church's skill set just fine. i suppose i may come to like it, and it gives us a few things to track, but i don't like it right now, and would rather we had traded something like a pedro feliciano for him instead, tho that likely would not have gotten the deal done. on a scale of 1-5, i'm no higher than a 2. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:50 PM go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 07:58 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:07 PM ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Here's the thing, though-- Francoeur really didn't have two very good years. He had a good Murphy-like dip platooning/mostly swinging from the heels with men on in 2005. He then proceeded to swing even harder at a lot more pitches, and had an SI cover because he looked like a Georgian Mickey Mantle and had hit a bunch of home runs in that first good half-season. His "good years" in 2006 and 2007? He slugged less than .450, had OPS+ ratings of 86 and 103, and was less valuable offensively than Church in both years, and a shit-ton other folk whose names you wouldn't immediately associate with not-shitting-themselves offensively. He had a walk rate of 6.1 percent in his putrid 2008 and it was a career high. Even worse, his strengths aren't strong, either-- he has an isolated power rate (SLG-AVG, so as to isolate XBH) of .158... Church, in more at bats, has a rate of .171. His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. I'm a little annoyed because I think Church could have been interesting trade bait for something else other than this. Omar just traded a decent if underwhelming outfielder for someone who's been perhaps the worst regular offensive player in the majors during the last two years-- Tony Womack-in-2001 bad, but more durable. He's young-ish yet; in 5 years, he may be better. I would feel confident wagering the life a beloved family pet that he won't be. (Plus, those vowels is gonna kills my spellings. "French" it'll have to be.) sharpie Jul 10 2009 08:02 PM It's not a question of Murphy vs. Tatis -- it's that both Murphy and Tatis don't equal a major league first baseman. Get Delgado back, then relegate them both to pinch hitting duties. And swapping Church for Francouer? Fine. Maybe it'll work 'cause what we got now aint' working. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:03 PM ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 08:13 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 09:11 PM The point is not that the positions of Down with Jerry and Omar and Up with Murphy are invalid. The point is that seeing everything through that prism and everything as further evidence in that direction is irrational in a complex and random world and just just blinds one to the difficult nuances of the game and actually weakens the argument. (No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 08:17 PM ="Swan Swan H"]] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:18 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:22 PM ="Edgy DC"](No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) "I beg to differ... and I would trade you Ziggy Palffy for a hamburger today." "I would add $30 million on top of that. Also, would you like to accompany me to a friend's truck party?" Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 08:20 PM FWIW, Francouer and the Braves have been going with 1-year (non-arb determined) contracts all along and he's currently playing for $3.375mil As mentioned before, he'll be under Met control for the remainder of this season plus two more. Methead Jul 10 2009 08:21 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"] His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. That line - that single line - just gave me an ulcer. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:35 PM ="bmfc1"] August 29, 2005 The editorial staff at SI occasionally makes errors in judgement. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:56 PM ="Ceetar"]="Swan Swan H"]] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) Tatis has hit into six more DPs (11-5). Murphy has made six more errors (7-1), and can't play 2B or SS. What else ya got? Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 09:15 PM ]I was using one game. Yeah, we got that. The point is you don't do that when more data is available, unless you're so fixated on your point that you're willing to distort the facts to support it at all costs. Frankly, I like sticking with Murphy. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 09:30 PM Murph versus Tatis, distorted perception, how much boggling can one trade engender... this thread got out of hand in a hurry. (I think Swanny killed a guy with a trident.) OlerudOwned Jul 10 2009 10:21 PM Jeff Francoeur has had 4 seasons, including this one, with 300 or more plate appearances. He OBP'd .300 or higher in one of them. He's an abhorrent hitter and he's made no strides at improving. The worst part is that I've had so much fun at his expense already. Now I'm sort of guilty. (Not my work.) Nymr83 Jul 10 2009 11:45 PM i dont have much to add, i'll just go on record as not liking it. metirish Jul 11 2009 07:10 AM blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Francouer[/url:1x30hppv] not surprisingly the fans their that responded to the blog think Francouer is the better player gerrard00 Jul 11 2009 08:41 AM How long before the first nasty tabloid back page making fun of Frenchy's willingness to swing at anything? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 11 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish"]blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Yep, it does. ]He�s not a bad guy � on the contrary, he�s a fine fellow � but neither is he easy to coach. He�d been a success in every sport at every level but couldn�t master the adjustments every successful big-league hitter must make. It�s not that he didn�t try to change. He changed his swing several times. Trouble was, he couldn�t change himself. Francoeur is a baseball player with a football mentality, and that doesn�t cut it over the long haul. A baseball player must be measured in his approach. The same aggressiveness that made Francoeur one of the greatest high school football players this blessed state has ever seen... ultimately rendered him a substandard big-league hitter. Oh, and 85% of the paper's readers appear to be behind the trade. themetfairy Jul 11 2009 10:44 AM I think I initially posted this in the wrong thread, but The Dugout[/url:oq70zs26] had some fun with this trade. dgwphotography Jul 11 2009 12:16 PM ="Swan Swan H":2elfj25m]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:2elfj25m] I can get behind that sort of agenda (at least until Murphy shows he can't play everyday) Willets Point Jul 11 2009 06:48 PM Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur Kong76 Jul 11 2009 06:56 PM That will help me remember how to spell his name when Schaefer voting. Franco e u r LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 12 2009 10:12 AM ="Willets Point":qi4r3fkj]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:qi4r3fkj] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no? Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 10:58 AM Murphy will not be a Mets starter next year..Frenchie will Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 11:05 AM Ryan Church was a part-time stiff..pleez...now Dump Muffy anf Fartman for Dunn and 1B is set for this year and next Nymr83 Jul 12 2009 11:49 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3ajyn4wm]="Willets Point":3ajyn4wm]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no?[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Terry Francona is the only one i can think of, but he counts, sorry mets DocTee Jul 12 2009 11:53 AM Tito Francona, too.

="Swan Swan H":7ohkrgxl]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:7ohkrgxl] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now. Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":wesessgo]I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point.[/quote:wesessgo] Definitely dangerous, just not consistently so. bmfc1 Jul 10 2009 06:53 PM August 29, 2005 Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:00 PM ="Ceetar":321wp213]="Swan Swan H":321wp213]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:321wp213] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now.[/quote:321wp213] Where to start... Tatis, the disaster, has an OPS 29 points higher than Murphy, which would make Murphy what, a catastrophe? A debacle? I don't have my thesaurus handy, so that's the best I can do right now. I wish Murphy was playing better, but an everyday first baseman with a .671 OPS is the real disaster. I agree that Murphy has more potential than Tatis for the future, but but get a grip. You sling around hyperbole that has no basis in fact. You blame Manuel for mismanaging, then talk about how bad the players are. Did Jerry build this roster? I disagree with a lot of his moves as well, but when he looks at the bench and sees what he sees, what can he do? I understand that Omar couldn't have planned for these injuries, but John McGraw couldn't goad this bunch into first place. Why are you putting 'bandwagon' in single quotes? Did I mention anything about a bandwagon? Do you not think the folks on this board know the term? metsguyinmichigan Jul 10 2009 07:01 PM Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:03 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1seevtwr]Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm.[/quote:1seevtwr] Hell, at this point I'd take him. DocTee Jul 10 2009 07:12 PM ]Walks less than a paraplegic. Slugs less than Church. This is the funniest comment I have read in ages. And it almost distracts me from the fact that I hat this transaction. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:15 PM ="Ceetar":34bzg42g]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:34bzg42g] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:21 PM ="Edgy DC":f7pn2b10]="Ceetar":f7pn2b10]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:f7pn2b10] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:f7pn2b10] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it? seawolf17 Jul 10 2009 07:24 PM I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:28 PM Let's get to the important stuff - what number will he wear? The conversation is already underway at MBTN. I'm guessing 4. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:29 PM ="Spacemans Bong":2y0d9r5p]="Edgy DC":2y0d9r5p]="Ceetar":2y0d9r5p]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it?[/quote:2y0d9r5p] I guess not. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:33 PM ="seawolf17":52topbyk]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:52topbyk] Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:38 PM ="Ceetar"]="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Not the TEAM, the TERM, the term bandwagon. Read, for Chrissakes. Oh, and this: ]Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. May be the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. Besides, Tatis' OBP is higher than Murphy's which has nothing to do with doubles or swinging hard or whatever that is supposed to mean. And I still don't see how Church's 2007 was better than Francoeur's anyway. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:39 PM ="seawolf17":14kh53td]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:14kh53td] Where are his two good years? metsmarathon Jul 10 2009 07:40 PM i'm not a fan of this trade. its not that i don't like jeff francoeur - i mean, i'm never gonna spell that correctly with any consistency whatsoever, but that's really besides the point - and if we had traded lastings milledge for jeff francoeur straight up, i'd be pretty ok with that trade. its just that i liked churchie, and felt like he didnt get enough of a chance to show how good of a player he really was, be it because of a pesky concussion or two, or a pesky relationship with a manager. i liked his defense - he had good range and a good arm, and can play centerfield in a pinch. can francoeur? jeff has power (which the team needs but shouldn't imo be the most important quality we look for in any player) and a big arm (which is important in this field), but i liked church's skill set just fine. i suppose i may come to like it, and it gives us a few things to track, but i don't like it right now, and would rather we had traded something like a pedro feliciano for him instead, tho that likely would not have gotten the deal done. on a scale of 1-5, i'm no higher than a 2. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:50 PM go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 07:58 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:07 PM ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Here's the thing, though-- Francoeur really didn't have two very good years. He had a good Murphy-like dip platooning/mostly swinging from the heels with men on in 2005. He then proceeded to swing even harder at a lot more pitches, and had an SI cover because he looked like a Georgian Mickey Mantle and had hit a bunch of home runs in that first good half-season. His "good years" in 2006 and 2007? He slugged less than .450, had OPS+ ratings of 86 and 103, and was less valuable offensively than Church in both years, and a shit-ton other folk whose names you wouldn't immediately associate with not-shitting-themselves offensively. He had a walk rate of 6.1 percent in his putrid 2008 and it was a career high. Even worse, his strengths aren't strong, either-- he has an isolated power rate (SLG-AVG, so as to isolate XBH) of .158... Church, in more at bats, has a rate of .171. His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. I'm a little annoyed because I think Church could have been interesting trade bait for something else other than this. Omar just traded a decent if underwhelming outfielder for someone who's been perhaps the worst regular offensive player in the majors during the last two years-- Tony Womack-in-2001 bad, but more durable. He's young-ish yet; in 5 years, he may be better. I would feel confident wagering the life a beloved family pet that he won't be. (Plus, those vowels is gonna kills my spellings. "French" it'll have to be.) sharpie Jul 10 2009 08:02 PM It's not a question of Murphy vs. Tatis -- it's that both Murphy and Tatis don't equal a major league first baseman. Get Delgado back, then relegate them both to pinch hitting duties. And swapping Church for Francouer? Fine. Maybe it'll work 'cause what we got now aint' working. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:03 PM ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 08:13 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 09:11 PM The point is not that the positions of Down with Jerry and Omar and Up with Murphy are invalid. The point is that seeing everything through that prism and everything as further evidence in that direction is irrational in a complex and random world and just just blinds one to the difficult nuances of the game and actually weakens the argument. (No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 08:17 PM ="Swan Swan H"]] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:18 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:22 PM ="Edgy DC"](No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) "I beg to differ... and I would trade you Ziggy Palffy for a hamburger today." "I would add $30 million on top of that. Also, would you like to accompany me to a friend's truck party?" Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 08:20 PM FWIW, Francouer and the Braves have been going with 1-year (non-arb determined) contracts all along and he's currently playing for $3.375mil As mentioned before, he'll be under Met control for the remainder of this season plus two more. Methead Jul 10 2009 08:21 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"] His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. That line - that single line - just gave me an ulcer. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:35 PM ="bmfc1"] August 29, 2005 The editorial staff at SI occasionally makes errors in judgement. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:56 PM ="Ceetar"]="Swan Swan H"]] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) Tatis has hit into six more DPs (11-5). Murphy has made six more errors (7-1), and can't play 2B or SS. What else ya got? Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 09:15 PM ]I was using one game. Yeah, we got that. The point is you don't do that when more data is available, unless you're so fixated on your point that you're willing to distort the facts to support it at all costs. Frankly, I like sticking with Murphy. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 09:30 PM Murph versus Tatis, distorted perception, how much boggling can one trade engender... this thread got out of hand in a hurry. (I think Swanny killed a guy with a trident.) OlerudOwned Jul 10 2009 10:21 PM Jeff Francoeur has had 4 seasons, including this one, with 300 or more plate appearances. He OBP'd .300 or higher in one of them. He's an abhorrent hitter and he's made no strides at improving. The worst part is that I've had so much fun at his expense already. Now I'm sort of guilty. (Not my work.) Nymr83 Jul 10 2009 11:45 PM i dont have much to add, i'll just go on record as not liking it. metirish Jul 11 2009 07:10 AM blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Francouer[/url:1x30hppv] not surprisingly the fans their that responded to the blog think Francouer is the better player gerrard00 Jul 11 2009 08:41 AM How long before the first nasty tabloid back page making fun of Frenchy's willingness to swing at anything? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 11 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish"]blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Yep, it does. ]He�s not a bad guy � on the contrary, he�s a fine fellow � but neither is he easy to coach. He�d been a success in every sport at every level but couldn�t master the adjustments every successful big-league hitter must make. It�s not that he didn�t try to change. He changed his swing several times. Trouble was, he couldn�t change himself. Francoeur is a baseball player with a football mentality, and that doesn�t cut it over the long haul. A baseball player must be measured in his approach. The same aggressiveness that made Francoeur one of the greatest high school football players this blessed state has ever seen... ultimately rendered him a substandard big-league hitter. Oh, and 85% of the paper's readers appear to be behind the trade. themetfairy Jul 11 2009 10:44 AM I think I initially posted this in the wrong thread, but The Dugout[/url:oq70zs26] had some fun with this trade. dgwphotography Jul 11 2009 12:16 PM ="Swan Swan H":2elfj25m]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:2elfj25m] I can get behind that sort of agenda (at least until Murphy shows he can't play everyday) Willets Point Jul 11 2009 06:48 PM Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur Kong76 Jul 11 2009 06:56 PM That will help me remember how to spell his name when Schaefer voting. Franco e u r LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 12 2009 10:12 AM ="Willets Point":qi4r3fkj]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:qi4r3fkj] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no? Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 10:58 AM Murphy will not be a Mets starter next year..Frenchie will Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 11:05 AM Ryan Church was a part-time stiff..pleez...now Dump Muffy anf Fartman for Dunn and 1B is set for this year and next Nymr83 Jul 12 2009 11:49 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3ajyn4wm]="Willets Point":3ajyn4wm]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no?[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Terry Francona is the only one i can think of, but he counts, sorry mets DocTee Jul 12 2009 11:53 AM Tito Francona, too.

Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger.

="G-Fafif":1vbv4344]="MFS62":1vbv4344]I'm thinkin' Ron Swoboda redux.[/quote:1vbv4344] I'd be willing to test that theory in the fourth game of a World Series. .[/quote:1vbv4344] As would I, however I think it's more likely that Church is the one playing in that game now. That's the second better player Manuel has (presumably) chased out of here. metirish Jul 10 2009 05:18 PM Do I remember correctly that Randolph didn't like Church , now apparently Manuel didn't either, what gives? Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 05:43 PM Re: why? ="Ceetar":2iip6thy]This is a mind boggling trade. Ryan Church is simply a better baseball player than Francoeur, who has too many consecutive vowels in his name. However, 1. Jerry Manuel obviously didn't like him, and this is the second player he's managed to get rid of that he didn't like. 2. Pressure's on Howard Johnson, to impart some knowledge to a guy with some talent. And some patience. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/07/jeff-francoeur-for-ryan-church-why/[/quote:2iip6thy] Mind boggling? Wright for Wes Helms is mind boggling. This is a trade for a guy with a fair amount of upside, giving up a guy who, at 30, has never proven himself as an everyday player, here or in Washington, and has never been able to get 500 ABs in a season. Clearly your mind is easily boggled. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 10 2009 05:44 PM I guess Francoeur has more upside than Church IF potential can translate to perrformance. If not, it seems to have been done to say Omar did something while Flushing was burning. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 05:45 PM Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 05:48 PM Really we have to see what more moves they make if any and if this is a 2009 trade or edging towards re-building in some way. This really isn't one of those trades that should solicit pissedoffedness from Mets' fans ... but I'd be disappointed if it doesn't 'cause I like to chuckle at them. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 05:49 PM ="bmfc1":109oa161]Omar says that Francoeur is a gold glover: http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/mets/archives/2009/07/church_traded_f.html[/quote:109oa161] So did the Gold Glove voters in 2007. Not to say that they're always dead on, but Francoeur has one more Gold Glove on his mantle than you, me or Ryan Church. By the way, Baseball Reference shows the following sim scores for the past three years: Francoeur: 22: Duke Snider, 23: Greg Luzinski, 24: Harold Baines. Church: 27: Brian Jordan, 28: Chet Laabs, 29: Chet Laabs. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:10 PM Say what you want. If there's got to be trades, challenge trades are fun to track. This also extends the trackablity of the Milledge trade. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:55 PM Oh my god John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:56 PM Jusdt finding out about it here now. What? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:58 PM the fuck? Methead Jul 10 2009 06:02 PM Can't believe I have to root for Francoueuer now. We're going from a player management didn't like to a player fans won't want to like. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:03 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:11 PM *moved* John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 06:04 PM I got nothing against Frenchie, I just... well... I don't know why the Mets would go get a dude with such glaring deficiencies... I mean... it's not like Church was going to write Beethoven's 9th symphony but ... wow. Centerfield Jul 10 2009 06:13 PM Franceour sucks. We shouldn't trade for guys who suck. Benjamin Grimm Jul 10 2009 06:16 PM I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:17 PM ="Ceetar":7neo982y]Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger.[/quote:7neo982y] Of course he has more upside because he is younger. Bill James proved that players tend strongly to peak at age 27. Recent studies have pushed that up to 29-30. In any case, that's Francoeur's future and Church's past. And this stuff about Church being better? The guy has managed 320 ABs ONCE in his career. When he was Francoeur's age he was just breaking into the majors. Washington thought so little of him they traded him for half of Lastings Milledge. You say nobody gave him a chance. He's been in the majors for six years, and nobody lasts six years without getting a chance. After six years you don't play because you don't deserve to play. For one game, tomorrow, against a righthander, I'd still take Church. And, I don't have exceptionally strong feelings one way or another about the deal, really. But to call this 'mind boggling' shows that, as you are, as you nearly always are, driven by agenda rather than fact. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:24 PM Ceetar has an agenda after 72 posts? I gotta pay more attention. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:26 PM Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:28 PM Ah, one of those :-) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Swan Swan H":7ohkrgxl]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:7ohkrgxl] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now. Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":wesessgo]I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point.[/quote:wesessgo] Definitely dangerous, just not consistently so. bmfc1 Jul 10 2009 06:53 PM August 29, 2005 Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:00 PM ="Ceetar":321wp213]="Swan Swan H":321wp213]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:321wp213] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now.[/quote:321wp213] Where to start... Tatis, the disaster, has an OPS 29 points higher than Murphy, which would make Murphy what, a catastrophe? A debacle? I don't have my thesaurus handy, so that's the best I can do right now. I wish Murphy was playing better, but an everyday first baseman with a .671 OPS is the real disaster. I agree that Murphy has more potential than Tatis for the future, but but get a grip. You sling around hyperbole that has no basis in fact. You blame Manuel for mismanaging, then talk about how bad the players are. Did Jerry build this roster? I disagree with a lot of his moves as well, but when he looks at the bench and sees what he sees, what can he do? I understand that Omar couldn't have planned for these injuries, but John McGraw couldn't goad this bunch into first place. Why are you putting 'bandwagon' in single quotes? Did I mention anything about a bandwagon? Do you not think the folks on this board know the term? metsguyinmichigan Jul 10 2009 07:01 PM Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:03 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1seevtwr]Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm.[/quote:1seevtwr] Hell, at this point I'd take him. DocTee Jul 10 2009 07:12 PM ]Walks less than a paraplegic. Slugs less than Church. This is the funniest comment I have read in ages. And it almost distracts me from the fact that I hat this transaction. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:15 PM ="Ceetar":34bzg42g]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:34bzg42g] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:21 PM ="Edgy DC":f7pn2b10]="Ceetar":f7pn2b10]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:f7pn2b10] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:f7pn2b10] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it? seawolf17 Jul 10 2009 07:24 PM I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:28 PM Let's get to the important stuff - what number will he wear? The conversation is already underway at MBTN. I'm guessing 4. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:29 PM ="Spacemans Bong":2y0d9r5p]="Edgy DC":2y0d9r5p]="Ceetar":2y0d9r5p]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it?[/quote:2y0d9r5p] I guess not. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:33 PM ="seawolf17":52topbyk]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:52topbyk] Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:38 PM ="Ceetar"]="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Not the TEAM, the TERM, the term bandwagon. Read, for Chrissakes. Oh, and this: ]Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. May be the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. Besides, Tatis' OBP is higher than Murphy's which has nothing to do with doubles or swinging hard or whatever that is supposed to mean. And I still don't see how Church's 2007 was better than Francoeur's anyway. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:39 PM ="seawolf17":14kh53td]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:14kh53td] Where are his two good years? metsmarathon Jul 10 2009 07:40 PM i'm not a fan of this trade. its not that i don't like jeff francoeur - i mean, i'm never gonna spell that correctly with any consistency whatsoever, but that's really besides the point - and if we had traded lastings milledge for jeff francoeur straight up, i'd be pretty ok with that trade. its just that i liked churchie, and felt like he didnt get enough of a chance to show how good of a player he really was, be it because of a pesky concussion or two, or a pesky relationship with a manager. i liked his defense - he had good range and a good arm, and can play centerfield in a pinch. can francoeur? jeff has power (which the team needs but shouldn't imo be the most important quality we look for in any player) and a big arm (which is important in this field), but i liked church's skill set just fine. i suppose i may come to like it, and it gives us a few things to track, but i don't like it right now, and would rather we had traded something like a pedro feliciano for him instead, tho that likely would not have gotten the deal done. on a scale of 1-5, i'm no higher than a 2. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:50 PM go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 07:58 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:07 PM ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Here's the thing, though-- Francoeur really didn't have two very good years. He had a good Murphy-like dip platooning/mostly swinging from the heels with men on in 2005. He then proceeded to swing even harder at a lot more pitches, and had an SI cover because he looked like a Georgian Mickey Mantle and had hit a bunch of home runs in that first good half-season. His "good years" in 2006 and 2007? He slugged less than .450, had OPS+ ratings of 86 and 103, and was less valuable offensively than Church in both years, and a shit-ton other folk whose names you wouldn't immediately associate with not-shitting-themselves offensively. He had a walk rate of 6.1 percent in his putrid 2008 and it was a career high. Even worse, his strengths aren't strong, either-- he has an isolated power rate (SLG-AVG, so as to isolate XBH) of .158... Church, in more at bats, has a rate of .171. His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. I'm a little annoyed because I think Church could have been interesting trade bait for something else other than this. Omar just traded a decent if underwhelming outfielder for someone who's been perhaps the worst regular offensive player in the majors during the last two years-- Tony Womack-in-2001 bad, but more durable. He's young-ish yet; in 5 years, he may be better. I would feel confident wagering the life a beloved family pet that he won't be. (Plus, those vowels is gonna kills my spellings. "French" it'll have to be.) sharpie Jul 10 2009 08:02 PM It's not a question of Murphy vs. Tatis -- it's that both Murphy and Tatis don't equal a major league first baseman. Get Delgado back, then relegate them both to pinch hitting duties. And swapping Church for Francouer? Fine. Maybe it'll work 'cause what we got now aint' working. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:03 PM ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 08:13 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 09:11 PM The point is not that the positions of Down with Jerry and Omar and Up with Murphy are invalid. The point is that seeing everything through that prism and everything as further evidence in that direction is irrational in a complex and random world and just just blinds one to the difficult nuances of the game and actually weakens the argument. (No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 08:17 PM ="Swan Swan H"]] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:18 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:22 PM ="Edgy DC"](No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) "I beg to differ... and I would trade you Ziggy Palffy for a hamburger today." "I would add $30 million on top of that. Also, would you like to accompany me to a friend's truck party?" Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 08:20 PM FWIW, Francouer and the Braves have been going with 1-year (non-arb determined) contracts all along and he's currently playing for $3.375mil As mentioned before, he'll be under Met control for the remainder of this season plus two more. Methead Jul 10 2009 08:21 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"] His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. That line - that single line - just gave me an ulcer. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:35 PM ="bmfc1"] August 29, 2005 The editorial staff at SI occasionally makes errors in judgement. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:56 PM ="Ceetar"]="Swan Swan H"]] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) Tatis has hit into six more DPs (11-5). Murphy has made six more errors (7-1), and can't play 2B or SS. What else ya got? Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 09:15 PM ]I was using one game. Yeah, we got that. The point is you don't do that when more data is available, unless you're so fixated on your point that you're willing to distort the facts to support it at all costs. Frankly, I like sticking with Murphy. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 09:30 PM Murph versus Tatis, distorted perception, how much boggling can one trade engender... this thread got out of hand in a hurry. (I think Swanny killed a guy with a trident.) OlerudOwned Jul 10 2009 10:21 PM Jeff Francoeur has had 4 seasons, including this one, with 300 or more plate appearances. He OBP'd .300 or higher in one of them. He's an abhorrent hitter and he's made no strides at improving. The worst part is that I've had so much fun at his expense already. Now I'm sort of guilty. (Not my work.) Nymr83 Jul 10 2009 11:45 PM i dont have much to add, i'll just go on record as not liking it. metirish Jul 11 2009 07:10 AM blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Francouer[/url:1x30hppv] not surprisingly the fans their that responded to the blog think Francouer is the better player gerrard00 Jul 11 2009 08:41 AM How long before the first nasty tabloid back page making fun of Frenchy's willingness to swing at anything? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 11 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish"]blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Yep, it does. ]He�s not a bad guy � on the contrary, he�s a fine fellow � but neither is he easy to coach. He�d been a success in every sport at every level but couldn�t master the adjustments every successful big-league hitter must make. It�s not that he didn�t try to change. He changed his swing several times. Trouble was, he couldn�t change himself. Francoeur is a baseball player with a football mentality, and that doesn�t cut it over the long haul. A baseball player must be measured in his approach. The same aggressiveness that made Francoeur one of the greatest high school football players this blessed state has ever seen... ultimately rendered him a substandard big-league hitter. Oh, and 85% of the paper's readers appear to be behind the trade. themetfairy Jul 11 2009 10:44 AM I think I initially posted this in the wrong thread, but The Dugout[/url:oq70zs26] had some fun with this trade. dgwphotography Jul 11 2009 12:16 PM ="Swan Swan H":2elfj25m]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:2elfj25m] I can get behind that sort of agenda (at least until Murphy shows he can't play everyday) Willets Point Jul 11 2009 06:48 PM Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur Kong76 Jul 11 2009 06:56 PM That will help me remember how to spell his name when Schaefer voting. Franco e u r LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 12 2009 10:12 AM ="Willets Point":qi4r3fkj]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:qi4r3fkj] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no? Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 10:58 AM Murphy will not be a Mets starter next year..Frenchie will Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 11:05 AM Ryan Church was a part-time stiff..pleez...now Dump Muffy anf Fartman for Dunn and 1B is set for this year and next Nymr83 Jul 12 2009 11:49 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3ajyn4wm]="Willets Point":3ajyn4wm]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no?[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Terry Francona is the only one i can think of, but he counts, sorry mets DocTee Jul 12 2009 11:53 AM Tito Francona, too.

This is a mind boggling trade. Ryan Church is simply a better baseball player than Francoeur, who has too many consecutive vowels in his name. However, 1. Jerry Manuel obviously didn't like him, and this is the second player he's managed to get rid of that he didn't like. 2. Pressure's on Howard Johnson, to impart some knowledge to a guy with some talent. And some patience. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/07/jeff-francoeur-for-ryan-church-why/

Frayed Knot wrote: The pitcher we're facing - Rodrigo Lopez - is call-up making not only his Phils debut but also his first ML appearance since 2007 w/the Rox. He's replacing Anthony Bastardo who's on the shelf w/an injury after he was called up to replace the injured (and stupid) Brett Myers). Lopez spent 2008 pitching only a handful of innings (injured I guess) in the lower levels of the Braves system, and 2009 to date at AAA for the Phils with decent results. He seems to keep the ball in the park and not walk too many (4 HR & 13 BBs in 13 starts/71 IP) which helps him get away with a hits>IP trend (83/71) and still keep the ERA low-ish at 3.91 He pitched 5IP with the Braves last year. They picked him up last year, but he had Tommy John at the end of 2007. The Phillies signed him in March, where as you note, he's pitched okay. Pitcher's back from Tommy John seem to pitch differently, so I'm not sure how his career factors in, but he's generally given up about a home run a game (and this is CBP, so inflate that) and has never been better than average. I like this lineup, excepting Tatis for Castillo (think Tatis yesterday was the exception unfortunately, and Castillo gets on base. Not to mention defense) Things swing on Livan. The Phillies haven't been hitting, so let's avoid waking the bats up and we should be able to sweep them. I think only Ruiz, Utley, and Victorino are hitting about .260 Let's try to keep the walks down, keep the home runs to solos, and win this. Pittsburgh's starter yesterday, Maholm, has a better ERA than either of the Phillies starters this weekend (better than Hamels too, who again finds a way around pitching to the Mets) They've hit Moyer, and Blanton is hittable as well.

="Edgy DC":33aizwby]He can't be sent down without clearing waivers. A DFA takes ten days. They can also shift himto the back of the pen and send down one of the guys with options. I think he's certainly on the outs until/unless situations change. But situations do change.[/quote:33aizwby] That's kinda my point. Either way he's gotta be out of the rotation, with Perez the likely candidate. I guess if you're putting Redding in the bullpen, you don't gain anything but swapping relievers, but they did all pitch yesterday, so if you're going to make that switch for Perez anyway, you could get a fresh guy up here too. Also, do we really want Redding in the bullpen? Would you trust him at all? metirish Jul 03 2009 12:40 PM If redding does go to the bullpen I would think it's for mop up duty to start with.... Edgy DC Jul 03 2009 12:46 PM I don't fully trust anybody. It's a relative thing. As the last guy out of the pen, and the first to look to for an emergency start, I trust him more than some, less than others. But maybe Niese is ready to step into that role --- not that the Mets are particular about staffing that role. Gwreck Jul 03 2009 02:25 PM Redding has a guaranteed contract paying a couple of million dollars. Dessens doesn't. Benjamin Grimm Jul 03 2009 02:26 PM Which is an argument against releasing him, but not an argument against stashing him in Buffalo. Gwreck Jul 03 2009 02:30 PM I may not necessarily disagree but my prediction is the contracts are an accurate indicator of what the Mets will do (ie. keep Redding in the majors). Ashie62 Jul 04 2009 04:45 PM ="metirish":3j2x5v0a]I don't think he's done with the Mets , I say he goes to the bullpen for a while. There is no guarantee that Perez will be any better. I am curious why Keith likes him so much , every start I have watched that Keith has done he raves about Redding...." always loved his stuff"...he says it all the time....[/quote:3j2x5v0a] Seaver always spoke similarly about Seo..go figure

I've got Andy Green (10)'s signature on a baseball from Spring Training. It's next to Jerry Manuel's and Jeremy Reed's. That almost counts. :-D

Is Redding done with the Mets now? Oliver Perez is on target to slot into his spot on Wednesday. It'd make sense, especially after all the pitchers used yesterday, to send Redding down now, bring up a reliever until Wednesday. Will the Mets do this? Or are they waiting to see how Ollie pitches in Buffalo today? Either way, can you let Redding start again? Even if you plan to put him in the bullpen, shouldn't we drop Dessens or someone today for another reliever?

="Nymr83":viqzp86x]a little leaguer has a higher ceiling than argenis reyes.[/quote:viqzp86x] Think he'll get an AB today? Nymr83 Jun 30 2009 04:38 PM i wish he'd get 3 of them today...for brooklyn! MFS62 Jun 30 2009 05:33 PM ="metirish":gytjn2ua]Do you seriously follow minor league baseball that closely?[/quote:gytjn2ua] Yes. Not a fanatic about it, but I do follow it. Later Ashie62 Jun 30 2009 08:22 PM Although 20, Fartman should be further along. he looks green, scared and it doesn't appear any part of the game comes to him naturally. In other words he has few skills Edgy DC Jun 30 2009 08:31 PM I'll disagree. Completely. Rockin' Doc Jun 30 2009 08:41 PM I think Martinez has goodphysical skills, but he is just too inexperienced to perform well at the major league level at this point in his development. He needs to develop better plate discipline before he can be succesful hitting at the major league level. Nymr83 Jun 30 2009 08:41 PM ="Ashie62":1k307avk]Although 20, Fartman should be further along. he looks green, scared and it doesn't appear any part of the game comes to him naturally. In other words he has few skills[/quote:1k307avk] he's further along than most twenty year olds who are probably playing A-ball or AA. tonight was the first time he didnt look good in the field and he friggin slipped, so did mike cameron the GG quality centerfielder, he just happened to have a softly hit ball and t hus time to recover. martinez has proven to my satisfaction that his bat isnt ready for the majors, but i dont think hes behind the curve for prospects his age by any stretch of the imagination. Ashie62 Jun 30 2009 08:46 PM ="Nymr83":3skti24a]="Ashie62":3skti24a]Although 20, Fartman should be further along. he looks green, scared and it doesn't appear any part of the game comes to him naturally. In other words he has few skills[/quote:3skti24a] he's further along than most twenty year olds who are probably playing A-ball or AA. tonight was the first time he didnt look good in the field and he friggin slipped, so did mike cameron the GG quality centerfielder, he just happened to have a softly hit ball and t hus time to recover. martinez has proven to my satisfaction that his bat isnt ready for the majors, but i dont think hes behind the curve for prospects his age by any stretch of the imagination.[/quote:3skti24a] You could be right..Lets just say he's not a natural John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 30 2009 08:47 PM STFU Ashie. Edgy DC Jun 30 2009 08:47 PM Eat it. Ashie62 Jun 30 2009 08:49 PM ="Edgy DC":2q29u44k]Eat it.[/quote:2q29u44k] What is your problem? Ashie62 Jun 30 2009 08:50 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qti4rya]STFU Ashie.[/quote:3qti4rya] STFU JCL metirish Jun 30 2009 08:51 PM handbags in the 'pool....settle now boys Edgy DC Jun 30 2009 08:53 PM ="Ashie62":3gt2hkpu]="Edgy DC":3gt2hkpu]Eat it.[/quote:3gt2hkpu] What is your problem?[/quote:3gt2hkpu] You get to ask me that when you aplogize for bitching me out under your other three identities, quitting the forum, and then crawling back here under different disuguises as if a three-year-old couldn't see through you. As for now, it's not me saying "Eat it," it's Martinez. Ashie62 Jun 30 2009 09:03 PM ="Edgy DC":30q2invs]="Ashie62":30q2invs]="Edgy DC":30q2invs]Eat it.[/quote:30q2invs] What is your problem?[/quote:30q2invs] You get to ask me that when you aplogize for bitching me out under your other three identities, quitting the forum, and then crawling back here under different disuguises as if a three-year-old couldn't see through you. As for now, it's not me saying "Eat it," it's Martinez.[/quote:30q2invs] Apology posted

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]="Ceetar"]="Benjamin Grimm"]I'm sure it's at least a few years after your 20th birthday. I think Fernando may turn out to be a fine player, but I never got the sense that his ceiling is as high as many fans would like it to be. I remember posting in this forum that my feeling was that he'd be a Matt Lawton type, which would make him a fine, productive player, but somewhat less than a superstar. His ceiling is still well higher, even this year probably, than Tatis and Argenis Reyes. So put him in the lineup over those guys. Well, you're not putting him in the lineup-- unless it's in a roundabout, Church-moves-to-center way-- over either of those guys, since neither of them plays CF. And of course he has a higher ceiling... but at this point, the ballclub is not playing folk based on ceilings; it's playing them based on what they can do right now. If the club believes the season to be something of a lost cause, then and only then does player development becomes the primary priority, right? Well, normally. But with injuries, player development may actually play a key role this year. And I am talking about Martinez's ceiling for this year. Still probably higher than Tatis. who does sometimes play the outfield. Put reed in CF ocassionally, he's even hit okay this year.