Everyone Wants an Uncle Steve

Image courtesy ESPN

Not a single pitch has been thrown in the 2023 baseball season, but that's not to say people aren't already keeping score. As impressive as the New York Mets have already been this off-season -- adding free agents Justin Verlander, Jose Quintana, Kodai Senga and David Robertson, plus re-signing Brandon Nimmo -- deep-pocketed owner Steve Cohen wasn't quite finished. The baseball world awoke this morning to the shocking news that Carlos Correa would add another $315 million to the Mets' league-leading payroll. The San Francisco Giants had hesitated too long, and Uncle Steve swooped in.

For as long as anyone can remember, or at least as long as George Steinbrenner had been throwing money around in the Bronx, fans have complained about the Yankees buying the pennant. (In recent years, though, no amount of Yankees' largesse has brought home a title.) It's ironic, then, that the Mets' fan base is so loudly cheering their own good fortune in the form of the fortunes of Steve Cohen. And the Mets are not making any apologies about spending whatever it takes to win.

While no roster is perfect, I can't recall a team in recent memory with such an abundance of top-level performers throughout:

• A starting rotation that features Max Scherzer, Verlander, Quintana, Senga and Carlos Carrasco
• A lineup of Correa, All-Stars Pete Alonso, Jeff McNeil, Starling Marte, plus SS Francisco Lindor
• A bullpen with Reliever of the Year Edwin Diaz and newly-signed set-up man Robertson

As the cliché goes, the games aren't played on paper. The Mets, for all the star power they have amassed, haven't won anything yet. Even regular season success will not define the 2023 Mets, as this team is built to win the World Series, right now. (Just ask the Dodgers how they feel about winning 111 games in the regular season, only to fall in the NLDS.)

But since it's only December, the most "winning" team in baseball thus far makes its home in Flushing, Queens. Uncle Steve has made this a Christmas season to remember for Mets' fans everywhere.

Will the Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up?

Compared to all other sports, the baseball season is long. So long, in fact, that over 162 games, the season takes into account all the highs and lows, the streaks, and the slumps. The Yankees won 13 games in a row not long ago, then somehow pivoted into a 2-11 free-fall. Those 26 games taken as a whole work out to 15-11. A record of 15-11 doesn't sound all that special. But over an entire season, if a team won 15 of every 26 games they played, they'd finish with 93 wins. Cream rises, while the flukes usually sink.

The 2021 Yankees aren't a 93-win team. Of course, they're not really a 2-11 terrible team, either. The truth of the Yankees lies somewhere in between. Their record is akin to how they play: all-or-nothing, swing-and-miss but sometimes connect. Pitch well for a while, but maybe blow the lead, the save, or the game. I like to say they are “consistently inconsistent”.

In the end, they are the hallmark of the Brian Cashman era:

• Play well enough to appear competitive

• Win just enough to keep the stadium coffers full

• Do just enough to make it look like you know what you're doing

• Fail against better competition in the playoffs

• Repeat for 20 years

It remains to be seen what the Yankees will do over the final 21 games of the season. As of this morning, they would qualify for the 2nd Wildcard and a date with Boston at Fenway Park. But with another loss to the Mets and a Blue Jays win today, the Yanks would be out of a playoff spot.

Either scenario seems equally plausible. Less plausible is the idea that these Yankees will make a deep October push. The Sox, Jays and ultimately the Rays could be standing in their way. If that happens, if the Yankees make another early post-season exit, or fail to make it at all, will that be the final straw? Will Hal Steinbrenner channel his father in the name of winning? Will the Real Slim Shady please stand up?

Catch as Catch Can

Once you get past the names Machado and Harper, it seems like the player getting the most ink this Hot Stove season is J.T. Realmuto, who, as of today, is still the catcher for the Marlins.  An All-Star last season, Realmuto is thought by many to be the one of the best catchers in baseball.  For argument's sake, let's say he's the best.  It still doesn't make sense to me why he is more sought out than the Sankara stones.

Why?  Realmuto is a catcher.  Catchers, by dint of the position they play, are everyday* players with an asterisk.  Even the heartiest among them can't play in every game.  (Willson Contreras led the majors last season with only 123 starts behind the plate.). Compare that to Manny Machado, though much-maligned for his supposed lack of hustle, he still managed to play in 162 games for two different teams last season.  That enabled Machado to tally 632 at-bats, compared to only 477 AB's that Realmuto collected in 125 games (112 at catcher) last year.

The way teams are talking about Realmuto -- especially the Mets -- make you think he is a game-changer along the same lines as superstars that can play every day (injuries aside).  But a player who is only going to appear in 6 out of every 7 games just can't have the same impact.  That's why the notion of offering up Noah Syndergaard -- one of baseball's best starting pitchers -- makes me scratch my head.

No one is saying that Realmuto isn't a good player, or that adding him to the roster won't make a team better.  However, based on the position he plays, the return on investment needs to be taken into account before any trades are consummated.

Questions, Anyone?

The New York Mets, in a heart-breaking 4-1 defeat in the World Series, had two of their major off-season questions answered.  Unfortunately, those answers just lead to more questions ahead.

Throughout the month of August and into September, as Yoenis Cespedes tore through the National League and the NL East standings, sports-talk radio was consumed with talk of 2016.  Callers seemed evenly divided between "There's no way the cheapskate Mets are going to bring back Cespedes" and "Let's pay whatever it takes to bring back Cespedes".  Fair points, both, and hotly debated all around.

Cespedes' titanic run carried the Mets to the playoffs.  But his almost equally astounding playoff slump left a big hole in the Mets' offense.  Cespedes may very well be in line for a big payday as long as teams consider his huge production during the pennant race.  But for the Mets, the question of whether to make a long-term, big-dollar investment was all but answered during Cespedes' postseason swoon.

On the flip side, no player looked better during the first two rounds of the playoffs than Daniel Murphy.  A long-time Mets' second-baseman, perhaps no one improved his off-season stock more than the suddenly powerful Murphy.  But he, too, went mostly quietly during the World Series, reverting to the Daniel Murphy -- nice hit, no glove -- that had performed steadily throughout his career.  And much like with Cespedes, the chatter on talk radio went from "How can we live without Murphy?" to "How much will it cost to bring him back?"

The Mets took the first obvious step, handing Murphy a qualifying offer.  Murphy, in turn, did the next obvious thing: he turned it down.  As a player traded in mid-season, no such offer could be made to the unrestricted free agent Cespedes.  And with that, a Mets organization that had experienced a remarkable late-season and post-season run, begins what could be their most important off-season.

With a staff of aces that any team would envy, the Mets are poised to contend for years to come.  However, it's important to note that in spite of their spectacular pitching, for much of the season the Mets were victims of their anemic offense.  It was only when fortified by bench players Juan Uribe and Kelly Johnson, and ultimately, Cespedes, that the Mets went from squeaking out the 1-0 win to bludgeoning teams from both the mound and at the plate.

Should the Mets opt not to bring back either Murphy or Cespedes, and there are solid arguments to make those cases, they need to be sure that the holes in the offense are addressed.  Whether that comes from a full season of the improving Michael Conforto or the promotion of Dilson Herrera, or an additional free-agent bat or two, it's paramount that someone does.  Sandy Alderson pulled all the right levers in late July.  He'll need an equally good December and January if the Mets expect to capitalize on their 2015 success.

Whither Rachel Phelps?

I know it's not nice to make fun of others less fortunate. And if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing. But has anyone seen the Mets lately? Seriously.

It's not just that they're a bad baseball team. They are. It's the way they're losing. In bunches. Under awful circumstances. The near-comic events surrounding not only their play on the field but the off-field circus is reminiscent of another sad-sack team: those Cleveland Indians.

It's gotten so bad, in fact, that Mets' manager Terry Collins is starting to sound an awful lot like Lou Brown:

"I can tell you, we’re going to break out, and when we do we’re going to win a lot of baseball games."

Whatever you say, Terry. Maybe he even believes it. But maybe the Mets just need a naked cardboard cut-out of Bernie Madoff in the locker room.

Normally I don't pay much attention to the Mets. Okay, pretty much none, except to get a laugh here and there. But I happened to stumble across a little tidbit regarding the... ahem... "Amazin's" that struck me as remarkable. Tucked away in a "Mets Insider" column was the following revelation. Apparently, Jose Reyes doesn't always pay attention on defense:

It's hard to get ready for every pitch because how many pitches does the pitcher throw to home plate? A hundred and something? It's hard to get ready on every pitch.

Now maybe I'm naive. But can you imagine -- ever imagine -- those words coming out of the mouth of Derek Jeter? Check that -- can you imagine those words coming out of the mouth of one of Jeter's teammates? It would be the last day they were teammates. Perhaps I am spoiled, but I cannot picture a member of the Yankees saying something like that. Ever.

Oh, but Reyes wasn't finished, either:

Maybe you are going to get lazy with two or three because it's tough to get ready all the time.

Wow. Because when you're nine games out of first, perhaps every pitch isn't that important. Maybe that's just why Reyes is on the Mets. Or maybe, just maybe, that's why the Mets are the Mets. Either way, it's just Reason #184 why it's great to be a Yankees fan.

They don't call me "Crank" for nothin'

I’m not sure why, but I always seem to seek out the negative aspects of a trade or signing. Case in point: the Mets’ three-year, $37 million deal for Francisco Rodriguez. Yes, you could argue K-Rod was the best closer in baseball. His major league record 62 saves certainly lends credence to that assertion. (Though we all know save totals are largely a function of team performance. And he still managed to blow seven saves on top of that.)

A further look into the numbers also raises a few eyebrows, if not quite red flags. Generally speaking, the lifespan of a closer is limited (Mariano, the decided exception, notwithstanding). Rodriguez is coming off a career-high 76 appearances – that's more like a middle reliever than a closer – though his innings pitched were about his career average. That said, his strikeout rate dipped alarmingly: from three-straight years of 90+ to only 77; a K/9 IP rate of 10.1, down from 12 over those previous three seasons. Probably not coincidentally, his WHIP was a career-high 1.29.

Of course, only a fool would say that a pitcher with a 10 K/9 IP ratio, a 1.29 WHIP, and the league record in saves isn’t a great pitcher. But those are some downward trends. And while I’m reluctant to even broach the “Gagne” word, you can’t pretend it didn’t happen. Gagne saved 55 games in 2003 and converted 84 consecutive save chances. Then he blew out his elbow and hasn't been the same since.

Even with all that, though, the Mets probably made a good deal. After all, even if K-Rod continues to slip he only has a 3-year deal. Barring a major injury, he’ll still be a productive closer by the time the deal is up. And even if he’s not super-human, he sure improves the Mets’ bullpen and will be more consistent than Wagner or his predecessors ever were.

Just don’t get me started on the Sabathia deal…

An Ugly, Horrible, Deflating Loss

The Mets have done a lot of good work lately in the area of collapses, but much of it was of the long-term variety. But for sheer, quick-hit terror, little compares to the Mets-Phillies game last night. What the hell happened? I’m only surprised Willie wasn’t lurking in the building somewhere.

I flip over to the game late, Mets on top and Johan Santana is grooving. Big spot in the 8th, Santana gets Howard to fly out, pumps the fist and walks off. Bottom of the inning, Santana is lifted for the pinch hitter and his night is over. Granted, hindsight is always 20/20, but here’s the big question: if Jerry Manuel KNEW that Billy Wagner was not available, might this not be a good time to let Santana go all the way?

Sure it sounds great after the fact, but it was a serious option at the time. In fact, the Mets announcers themselves were going on and on about how a nine-inning performance by Santana, against the Phillies no less, would be exactly what the Mets and Santana needed (Santana especially). He’d only thrown 105 pitches and would have been facing the 5-6-7 spots in the 9th. It was right there for the taking.

Some will say that Santana is no Roy Halladay -- true, Halladay has more complete games this season (7) than Santana has in his entire career (6). But Santana is no stranger to high pitch counts, either. He's thrown over 110 pitches six times this season and went at least 100 pitches in 13 of his 20 starts. Workhorses are meant to be ridden.

That said, if Sanchez does his job – or even a pale impersonation of his job – it’s probably not an issue today. But he didn’t, and it is. So instead of a season-defining win by their ace, a statement game against the NL's best, the Mets are suffering flashbacks to disasters past. In baseball, you’re only as good (or as bad) as your last game but the Mets haven’t exactly shown a lot of resiliency in this area recently. Assuming they get the game in tonight (the forecast calls for rain all day) I truly wonder how the Mets react.

Things that go "bump" in the night

The worst-kept secret in baseball is finally out: Willie Randolph has been fired as manager of the New York Mets. And before we all get up-in-arms about the utterly classless fashion in which the news was delivered, can we all just leave the "Willie as a martyr" stuff alone? Bottom line: he's just not that good a manager, even by baseball standards. Actually, by baseball standards -- turn in your lineup cards, let the players play and don't make yourself the story -- Randolph was actually pretty lousy.

But that's not to say Willie didn't deserve better than having the world learn of his termination via a 3 AM news release. (The Wilpons must have studied at the Irsay School of Management.) No one deserves that. (Okay, Willie really does deserve it, but that's a story for another time.) But regardless of the tactics, firing Randolph was the right move. My question is, "What took you so long?" After all, some of us saw it coming quite some time ago, like, say, back in October:

Look, if you think Willie is a good manager who's only getting better, keep him. If, on the other hand, you're among the many who could go either way, who think that 2008 will tell the Willie Randolph story -- redemption or recrimination -- then why not cut bait now? Willie had arguably the National League's most talented roster and managed to grind them into the dirt. That's potential? When we're back here in October '08 reading all the post-mortems on Willie's managerial career, remember where you heard it first.

So that was me, just eight months ago, predicting Randolph's eventual demise. To be fair, even I didn't foresee this rapid a descent. But that underlies my point: Willie Randolph didn't show anything over his brief managerial career that would lead one to believe that he's any better than he'd shown over the past season-plus. If I might quote myself again:

I’ve heard time and again about all the experience Willie gained from his time as a Yankees coach. Let me tell you: sitting next to the guy driving the bus is not the same thing as driving the bus... Can the Mets really afford a manager who's learning on the job?

Question asked, question answered. But the nagging question that should be on the minds of all Mets' fans today is that if Willie could be so easily dismissed by the owners after a slow start, why couldn't this whole mess could have been avoided by letting Willie go last October? In the end, the Wilpons didn't save any money and they certainly didn't buy themselves any good will in the process.

So now that Step 1 of "Resuscitating a Sagging Franchise" is complete, we await Step 2. There are two ways this can go: the first, happy scenario sees Jerry Manuel energizing his team, leading them to the post-season and getting that "interim" tag removed. The second, decidedly less happy but probably more likely scenario goes like this: it becomes clear that Willie was not the cause for the Mets' decline, but rather the collection of "talent" on the field. With that, Omar Minaya becomes the next casualty. Check back in October to see how that one plays out.

Break up the Orioles!

The 2008 baseball season is not even two weeks old and some teams' starts are raising eyebrows, especially the bad ones. The Mets, after an Opening Day loss at Shea to the Phillies, are now 2-4. At that pace, the Mets stand to lose 108 games this season! What? Six games isn't much of a sample? Forgive my over-eager extrapolation. I suppose they've got a chance to turn things around over the next 156 games.

But there's another contender off to an ever worse start and the next 150 games may not hold so much promise. The Detroit Tigers, picked by many as World Series hopefuls, are shockingly 0-7 to start the season. Sure, it's a long season, but 0-7 is still a legitimate hole.

Let's say the Tigers shake off the slump and start playing .700 ball, a pretty impressive clip. (Over a full season, a team that played .700 would win 113 games.) So at that rate, over the next two weeks, say 14 games, the Tigers would be 10-11. Ugh. But what if they could keep that torrid pace for over a month? The Tigers might make it to 21-16. Okay, that's certainly better, and .568 baseball leaves you with about 92 wins. But winning 21 out of 30 games after you've lost your first seven sounds like a tall order.

Now look, no one is going to confuse this Detroit team with the 1988 Orioles, a team that lost a record-setting 21 straight to open the season. But so far, the Tigers have earned those losses and the numbers aren't pretty:

• a .234 team batting average (24th in MLB)
  
• a .332 team slugging percentage (29th)
• a staff ERA of 5.20 (27th)

Bad hitting + bad pitching = bad baseball. So far in 2008, that equation fits no team better than the Tigers.

Why NOT Fire Willie?

So Willie is coming back to the Mets in '08, thus ending the rampant speculation he would take the rap for the Mets' epic collapse. According to his GM, Omar Minaya, Willie's done a heckuva job:

“I think that what Willie Randolph has done the last three years speaks for itself. I think, on the other hand, my relationship with Willie is very good, but I do believe that the way we lost, I have to sit down with ownership and tell them how I think.”

Ahh… So if we understand Omar correctly, he thinks Willie is keen, but if those Wilpons want him outta there, well, far be it from Omar to tell the boss what to do. All it really means, of course, is that if Willie’s Mets don’t get an invite to the post-season party in 2008 then Willie can pick up his check at the front desk on his way out.

But that leads to the inevitable question: why not just fire Willie now? What, exactly, has he done over these “last three years” that makes him so special? The Mets have the third-highest payroll in baseball so winning is sort of expected, no? It’s not like he led the Pirates into the playoffs... once.

As for the rest of his résumé, this is a guy who was placed at the helm of a franchise in the country’s biggest market without a single day of managerial experience. Not in Kansas City, not in AAA, not even in A-ball. I’ve heard time and again about all the experience Willie gained from his time as a Yankees coach. Let me tell you: sitting next to the guy driving the bus is not the same thing as driving the bus. I’m sure any Mets fan would have no trouble rattling off a dozen or so questionable moves Willie has made, especially during this slide of all slides. Can the Mets really afford a manager who's learning on the job?

Look, if you think Willie is a good manager who's only getting better, keep him. If, on the other hand, you're among the many who could go either way, who think that 2008 will tell the Willie Randolph story -- redemption or recrimination -- then why not cut bait now? As Joe Torre proved, a manager is generally only as good as his players (See his early-90's Cardinals vs. his late-90's Yanks). Willie had arguably the National League's most talented roster and managed to grind them into the dirt. That's potential? When we're back here in October '08 reading all the post-mortems on Willie's managerial career, remember where you heard it first.