Mets 2012

The Myth of the Franchise Player

New York Mets, , , , , , View all 4 comments

Synonymous with Mets is Tom Seaver.  “Tom Terrific” is known as “The Franchise,” the player who was singularly responsible for making the Mets relevant.  Adding him to the pitching staff with the likes of Jerry Koosman, Gary Gentry and Nolan Ryan, and coupling him with players like Cleon Jones and Tommie Agee, caused the Mets to win their first championship in 1969.

Legend has it that the Mets were never quite the same after Dr. Evil himself, M. Donald Grant, traded away the Franchise, literally and figuratively, for some spare parts. It was true, in a way, but then again, so was the dynamic changing in baseball. Indirectly relating to the trade of Tom Seaver was the underlying notion that he wanted to be paid up, suckas.  Grant didn’t think Seaver was above the Mets name, and subsequently got rid of him by planting some unfavorable quotes in the NYC sports “tabloids,” if you will.

But the dynamic was also changing because of the era of free agency.  And to that, I ask, is the “franchise player” still relevant?

You know who that is: the guy who is known for playing for one team; who made his mark with one team; who may have played for another team, but was never quite the player he was with that synonymous team.  I think the closest we might have today is Albert Pujols. That, however, may change this offseason due to his contentious situation with being the best player in baseball (well, maybe Alex Rodriguez takes umbrage with that) and being a free agent.  I think his brand with the Cardinals is significant, but as my friend Bill Ivie has said, the Cardinals were a great franchise before Pujols, they’ll still be a great franchise without him.  Time will tell.

But then look at Carlos Beltran.  Perhaps one of the most divisive Mets in recent memory, his injuries may prevent him from ever making the Hall of Fame.  Yet, I had a Twitversation the other day with some other Mets fans about him playing a few more years, uninjured. I think if it walks and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck, and Beltran cannot stay healthy.  I said, the harsh reality is he could be another Moises Alou, a great player whose injury-marred seasons keep him from getting his call to the Hall.  However, someone said, if he DID come around with great numbers and played into his 40s without as many injuries, it would be hard pressed to have him go in as a Met, even though he did play seven years with them.

I guess I am raising these questions because of the Mets’ own “Franchise Players” and “Faces of the Franchise,” David Wright and Jose Reyes.

The Mets and those of us who live, breathe and eat any information surrounding the team have a contentious situation on their hands, especially regarding Reyes’ status as a free agent after the 2011 season.  Couple that with David Wright, which is another contentious situation in and of itself.  While not a free agent, he has an option that he can decline if he gets traded (which makes him a less attractive trading candidate), but then he’s had a noticeable drop off, but on the flip side he’s had one of his first injury-plagued seasons in recent memory (he’s been relatively healthy, considering all the injuries this stupid team has had in the last three years).

It gives me pause because they are still young and productive, yet I wonder if perhaps we all need a change of scenery.  Meaning we, as fans, with the same “cornerstone” players, and the players themselves.  M. Donald Grant may have been a Douchecanoe Deluxe, but perhaps he was prophetic in trying to set with us, that a player isn’t above the Franchise.  Well, he was wrong in the case of Seaver, but the dynamic of the game has changed since then.

Look at the Dodgers.  Their two franchise players, Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier, are essentially the equivalent of our Reyes and Wright.  They even have an A+ starter in Clayton Kershaw.  And they STILL can’t fucking win or make money!

Look, the Mets situation is precarious, and perhaps I am too close to it.  I was discussing on Twitter (and if you aren’t following me you SHOULD!! @Coopz22) the other with my friends over at the Daily Stache about the Reyes situation.  Basically, I feel like the issue is now that the Mets are mailing it in (something that Terry Collins is NOT happy about), we are going on our third straight losing season, our legs and asses are cramped up from wanting to jump for joy but we can’t because there is nothing making us do that, and now the prospect of losing guys we feel should be in Mets uniforms forever is something we are nonchalant about.  “Whatever,” has been my philosophy at this point.

I know things will change once the postseason is over, and who knows, maybe the Mets and Reyes will come to an agreement and we’ll be happy.  But I think what will make us happier is WINNING.  Reyes and Wright certainly has not been enough.  The onus is on the personnel to seriously evaluate the team and not attend to what the fans want.  Yes, I know Reyes makes us a lot of us happy.  And his injuries are a cause for concern, especially since they basically have said his running game (what makes Jose Jose) has been halted because of his hamstring issues this year.

I know I would hold onto Reyes simply for emotional reasons because I love him and want him to be a Met forever.  The other more rational side of me says that the time is not now. This team is a few years away from winning, and would it make a huge difference to lose with him or without him.

If At “First” You Don’t Succeed…Get Depth

New York Mets, , , , , View all 2 comments

There’s an old saying related to baseball that, “If at first you don’t succeed, try the outfield.” But if the Mets march to the beat of their own drummer, they changed that philosophy from the “outfield” to “first base.” John Olerud leaves as a free agent, no problem! Throw Todd Zeile there. Mo Vaughn hasn’t played in a few years and was an American League DH at his most feared. Hey, I have an idea: why not put him at first? He’s played there a bit! Doug Mientkiewicz? Yeah, he was a first baseman. But he was pretty bad at baseball.

What’s funny about the team this year is that seemingly, EVERYONE gets thrown at first base. After Ike Davis took a freak-accident-spill on a routine infield pop-up earlier this season, like many Mets injuries, it didn’t seem like much…but he hasn’t played since. Evidenced as such, the Mets have thrown four guys at first base not named Davis. In fact, Daniel Murphy holds the lead with 46 games started at 1B, and 37 games for Lucas Duda. Ike Davis played 36 games at first base, and Nick Evans has started 27 game at 1B (as of Tuesday). If Evans finishes out the season at 1B, four guys could theoretically finish playing less than 50 games each at 1B. The Mets have not had a ton of turnover at first base in its history, so this is significant.

You know what I find interesting? That when Ike Davis is anticipated to return next season, the Mets find themselves in a position of strength: a lot of guys who can play first base. Bonus: all of them have proven they can hit and play the position well enough to be every day players or at the very least, in a platoon situation.

Clearly, the position is Ike Davis’ to lose come next year in Spring Training. At least, this is how I am looking at things. Lucas Duda has been pretty much hand-selected by Terry Collins to be his starting right fielder in 2012, and obviously for the remainder of the season. Leaving us with Daniel Murphy and Nick Evans as the odd men out. All of a sudden, the Mets and their Front Office have a position of value and strength to use as trade bait.

Who is the odd man out, singular, though? In that respect, odd “men” and that would be Nick Evans and Daniel Murphy.

It’s funny with these two. I’ve made no secret about my appreciation of Daniel Murphy, as I feel his defensive woes are much ado about nothing, plus he’s shown he’s at a position of strength as a first baseman. If he had a more consistent position, whether first, second or third base…anything in the infield, really…he’d certainly be a big asset to any team. Nick Evans is a bit limited to where he can play, as his biggest strength has been showcased at first base, but he also has experience at left field. However, we all know left field is locked up by Jason Bay till 2013. Unless he is traded. But that’s not the hypothetical here.

Anyway, defensively and offensively, Daniel Murphy might have a slight leg up on Nick Evans on the Mets. Yet, his value could be used to get more parts in return in a trade.

See where I am going with this? Is Nick Evans more valuable as an off-the-bench guy in 2012 for the team? Or is Daniel Murphy going to be counted on for the team in a bigger way?

Another thing to consider is the Jose Reyes situation. If Reyes is not figuring into the long-term vision of the team, where Ruben Tejada plays in 2012 will impact how the Mets will look at the future of the aforementioned players. Clearly, the easiest scenario is that Reyes will re-sign, Tejada will play second base and all is right in the world. But if Reyes flies the coop, Tejada will easily be penciled in at shortstop next year. Right now, while Daniel Murphy rests his legs, he’s also the only one of the previously mentioned with any regular second base experience. Another item that would weigh in his favor of staying with the team than Nick Evans.

Overall, Evans took several years to prove himself, but with regular-ish playing time, he’s shown that he can keep up with the big boys. Murphy though was able to smack the hell out of the ball from day one pretty much. We’ll also need to consider that Evans is out of options. Like, negative amount of options at this point with how many times he’s been put on waivers (Cot’s and MLB Contracts has no information on his current status unfortunately). Daniel Murphy isn’t arb eligible until 2013 due to his injuries in the last few years. This could go either way: he’s so cheap it makes sense to keep him around, or trade him while his value is high and let him become another team’s “problem.” (But he’s a good problem to have)

There is a surplus at first base for the Mets for 2012. I guess on one hand, it’s good that the Mets have so many serviceable players to fill in when their every day players go down at this point. On the other hand, the odd men out look to be Daniel Murphy and Nick Evans. Either way, their value is at its highest and it would make sense at this point to see about the future without either of those players in the organization.

The Bobby (Parnell) Situation

New York Mets, , View all 2 comments

Any time I can make a reference to one of my favorite movies, Pulp Fiction, in a post about the Mets, clearly I am going to take it.

This time I am not contemplating any “IFs,” but rather looking for a Winston Wolfe-type of person to come in and clean up the mess of Bobby Parnell. This situation I am terming “The Bobby (Parnell) Situation.”

Some folks, like my friend Richie S from Random Mets Thoughts suggest that the Bobby-Parnell-as-closer experiment be shut down yesterday (and hopefully prior to the meltdown on Saturday to get a “do-over.”). I can understand. After all, Robert Allen Parnell (not to be confused with a seemingly effective Robert Allen…”RA” Dickey) has been with the team in some capacity since 2008. He’s one of those quintessential pitchers with “good stuff” (loose translation means: “he throws really really hard”). However, he hasn’t quite figured out how to harness it.

However, I won’t go so far as to say that the experiment should be closed and we need to move on. Yes, I do know that he’s blown three saves in ONE damn week. Yes, I know it’s incredibly aggravating to see him come in during the 9th, especially when we’ve been a little almost to a degree (ahem) “fortunate” with some good closers in the last few years with Billy Wagner and Francisco Rodriguez. Yes, I remember how much those two made my ulcer heat up. For the most part, we were lucky. Okay LUCKIER THAN MOST. I digress. Anyway, some might feel the Bobby Parnell Experiment situation is over. But I see it is just beginning.

See, we had the pleasure on the Kult of Mets Personalities to have former Mets pitching coach Rick Peterson as a guest, and the Krew asked him about his feelings on Bobby Parnell. The theory (which is flawed) is that if a pitcher can hit 97, 98, 99, even 100 MPH on the gun, that the strike outs should come easily. Not so, and we’ve seen this issue with Parnell on many occasions. Peterson even said that hitters can swing over 100 MPH. The problem is Parnell doesn’t have an out pitch nor is his pitching cadence consistent. Peterson points out that many pitchers with hittable “stuff” (think: Burnett, AJ) has to do with the fact that their foot positioning is inconsistent. Their arm position may not only be tipping their pitches beforehand, but also that their arms are throwing while their foot has not come down.

Considering this guy managed to help Oliver Perez win 15 games in 2007, I’m willing to take his position seriously and not just with a grain of salt. These mechanical flaws can not only tip the hitters off, but cause the pitcher to keep making the same mistakes over and over.

Likewise, I’ve mentioned before that I think Dan Warthen is pretty worthless. Fact is, we have not seen much marked improvement on the pitching staff which can go many ways. Mike Pelfrey I think is too stubborn to listen to advice, and that he and Peterson did not click when he was there. However, look at pitchers who pretty much developed under Warthen’s watch: Jonathon Niese, Dillon Gee, even Parnell. The former two are serviceable pitchers but have not taken the next level of their careers. This could be a problem and cause the Mets to do something drastic, like trade them when they have not only good stuff, but they “get it.”

Here’s my thing with Parnell: I actually have advocated he be the closer for the Mets. I think out of all the Mets’ home grown pitchers, he has the most potential for the bullpen and that can be very valuable. He also “gets it.” See, what kind of annoys me but at the same time gives me hope is that he ALWAYS knows when he messes up. Yet, he can’t seem to learn what he is doing wrong in those moments. He also has a mentality I think to not only be taught the changes, but that he gets the idea of being a closer. It takes a special type of pitcher to balance that.

I think he can do it, he needs to be taught. I think he could be receptive.

He’s not Billy Wagner, he’s not Frankie Rodriguez, he’s certainly not Trevor Hoffman or anyone of that ilk…YET. He could be, and this is why I think Bobby Parnell could be taught the mechanics of being a good closer of the future for the Mets. Especially if he feels he can do it. To me, that’s half the battle.

In closing, I respectfully disagree with my friend Richie S, but I hope that doesn’t hinder the next beer he plans to buy…