Master Index of Archived Threads


Putz

Centerfield Feb 01 2010 09:02 AM

Some disturbing stuff said by JJ in this article: http://www.csnchicago.com/01/22/10/Sox- ... feedID=665 If the stuff he is saying is true, it sheds some light on the way 2009 unfolded, and that maybe the injuries weren't just a rash of bad luck, but some major fucking incomptenence on the part of the Mets. Specifically: “When the trade went down last year, I never really had a physical with the Mets,” said Putz. “I had the bone spur (in the right elbow). It was discovered the previous year in Seattle, and it never got checked out by any other doctors until I got to spring training, and the spring training physical is kind of a formality. It was bugging me all through April, and in May I got an injection. It just got to the point where I couldn’t pitch. I couldn’t throw strikes, my velocity was way down.” Disturbing. Especially when the Mets told Putz not to talk about being hurt with the media. “I knew that I wasn’t right. I wasn’t healthy. The toughest part was having to face the media and tell them that you feel fine, even though you know there’s something wrong and they don’t want you telling them that you’re banged up.” By June, Putz was concerned that the pain in his elbow would start affecting his shoulder, so he had surgery to remove the bone spur, and was supposed to miss 10-to-12 weeks. However, when he tried to come back in August, he felt some tightness in his right forearm. Very disturbing. I can't imagine that the Mets would be this incompetent. But the Beltran situation has me wondering.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 01 2010 09:10 AM Re: Putz

For someone who was asked not to talk about injuries to the media Putz did an awful lot of talking to the media about being injured. He's also on record complaining about his cortisone shots early last year. Not to say the Mets screwed up this acquisition from the start, being interested primarily in creating the illusion that they'd gone and solved all their problems without necessarily solving them.

Edgy DC Feb 01 2010 09:14 AM Re: Putz

My greater concern with how the Mets treated Putz was the frequency with which Manuel used him.

metirish Feb 01 2010 09:17 AM Re: Putz

Putz was just never happy with the trade, being the 8th inning guy wasn't for him , didn't get his juices going .If what he says is true then it just made a bat fit worse form the get go.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2010 09:19 AM Re: Putz

[quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket":5te4bpa3] Not to say the Mets screwed up this acquisition from the start, being interested primarily in creating the illusion that they'd gone and solved all their problems without necessarily solving them.[/quote:5te4bpa3] If you think that the Mets did a crappy job of solving all of their 2008 problems, what are you thinking about the current Mets off-season?

Edgy DC Feb 01 2010 09:22 AM Re: Putz

Folks also have every motivation when starting a new job to explain the failures of the previous job as being all somebody else's fault and not something that remains attached to them. And, in fact, the injustice of it all has them even more motivated, if that's possible. Remember how Paul LoDuca was so happy to catch on with the Nats because he was going to make the Mets pay 18 times a year?

Ceetar Feb 01 2010 09:24 AM Re: Putz

[quote="metirish":30ww20zl]Putz was just never happy with the trade, being the 8th inning guy wasn't for him , didn't get his juices going .If what he says is true then it just made a bat fit worse form the get go.[/quote:30ww20zl] This sounds like Putz trying to justify a bad performance. Not there aren't disturbing aspects of it. Specifically the "Don't talk about it" aspect, even if it was just them trying to keep the press positive on the trade news. Did he have a physical or not? He says he "didn't really" have a physical, and calls the one he had in Spring Training a 'formality'. Well? Did he have a physical? What was done? Why, since this was known about, did Seattle clear him to pitch in 2008? and the Mets in the Spring? and the WBC? He seems to say the Mets were too aggressive shutting him down when he returned from the injury last season, but then says they were too soft/slow in getting the 'injury' fixed when he first reported pain in April/May. Well? Which is it? Could he just be pissed that he had to take a 66% paycut next year? Trying to justify his poor performance?

metirish Feb 01 2010 09:30 AM Re: Putz

Here is how espn reported the trade, look for Omar's comments LAS VEGAS -- The New York Mets overhauled their much-maligned bullpen with two big moves Wednesday, obtaining J.J. Putz from Seattle as part of a three-team, 12-player trade that gives them a set-up man for new closer Francisco Rodriguez. Hours after completing a $37 million, three-year contract with Rodriguez, New York dealt seven players -- six to the Mariners and one to Cleveland -- to get three back in a huge swap at the winter meetings. "All I kept on hearing in the streets of New York when you go get bagels in the morning was, 'Omar, please address the bullpen,'" Mets general manager Omar Minaya said. "Well, to all you Mets fans, we've addressed the bullpen." New York shipped reliever Aaron Heilman, outfielder Endy Chavez, lefty Jason Vargas and three minor leaguers to the Mariners for Putz, center fielder Jeremy Reed and reliever Sean Green in the first trade by new Seattle general manager Jack Zduriencik. Promising outfielder Franklin Gutierrez was sent from the Indians to Seattle. Cleveland got reliever Joe Smith from the Mets and 23-year-old second baseman Luis Valbuena from the Mariners. "It helps all of us," Zduriencik said. An All-Star in 2007 when he saved 40 games, Putz was 6-5 with a 3.88 ERA and 15 saves in 23 chances last season when he missed long stretches with rib cage and elbow injuries. But Minaya wasn't concerned about the pitcher's health, saying New York had a scout at his final game of the season and Putz maintained a 98-99 mph velocity. "It's about winning championships," Minaya said. "I've always said it's about the team and putting teams first and going for that ring. To win, you've got to sacrifice yourself." Before the trade was announced, Putz's agent, Craig Landis, said the right-hander wanted to remain a closer. But Minaya said he spoke with Putz, who was excited about his new team and role. "It's a new challenge and I'm excited about it," Putz said, according to the Seattle Times. "I'm going to a new team that's going to be very competitive. Frankie's a great closer and with Sean Green going as well, we should have a great bullpen." The Indians had been interested in acquiring Putz before nearing a two-year contract with free-agent closer Kerry Wood, who needed to take a physical before that deal could be finalized. Once the Indians closed in on Wood, the three-team trade came together quickly. "We dealt from an area of depth," Cleveland GM Mark Shapiro said, referring to his club's young outfielders. The key to the deal for Seattle was Gutierrez, who batted .248 with eight homers and 41 RBIs. A skilled defender, he played right field in Cleveland because the Indians have All-Star Grady Sizemore in center. "That's one of the things that we wanted to do is make our defense stronger," Zduriencik said. "I think it's helped us shore up our prospect status." Zduriencik said it was uncertain who would close for Seattle and too early to determine what role Heilman would have. Heilman was inconsistent in his set-up role with the Mets and would prefer to be a starter. He was 3-8 with a 5.21 ERA last season and was among the bullpen culprits as New York folded in September for the second straight season. When Billy Wagner got hurt, the rest of the relievers struggled as they tried to adjust to different roles. "We've proven that sometimes, unfortunately, one closer is not enough," Minaya said. Smith, a submarine-style right-hander who gets plenty of grounders, was 6-3 with a 3.55 ERA. "Joe Smith clearly goes right in the major league bullpen as a guy we've had long-term interest in," Shapiro said. "A different look, complements our 'pen well. We think he can be an important part of the back end of a 'pen." The three minor leaguers New York sent to Seattle were first baseman Mike Carp, right-hander Maikel Cleto and outfielder Ezequiel Carrera. Putz will earn $5.3 million next season, and the Mets inherit an $8.9 million option for 2010 with a $1 million buyout. New York had 29 blown saves in 72 chances this year, and its 4.25 bullpen ERA ranked 13th in the NL. "To get one closer like Frankie would have been a good winter. I think to get two guys like this is a great winter," Minaya said.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 01 2010 09:40 AM Re: Putz

"Minaya wasn't concerned about the pitcher's health, saying New York had a scout at his final game of the season and Putz maintained a 98-99 mph velocity" : PRE-TRADE PHYSICAL :: "An insider in the front office said that the Mets think Jason Bay is a better defender than Matt Holliday, based on Bay's having played center field earlier in his career" : DEFENSIVE EVALUATION?

smg58 Feb 01 2010 09:54 AM Re: Putz

Putz has reasons to embellish the story, but it's still damning. It's not clear what never really having a physical when the trade went down means, but the alternatives I can think of are embarrassing. It seems that the Mets had the opportunity to check out the bone spur, and either failed to do that or chose to gloss over the findings while parting ways with seven players. And then Manuel had Putz on a 100-inning pace in the middle of May. There's no way to spin this that makes the Mets not look incompetent. As for not wanting Putz to address it in the media -- you don't want a player making excuses for himself, but if he's hurt he's hurt. It's easy to take shots at the Mets right now, but the people running the team have put themselves in this position, and what Putz said is consistent with the general impression people currently have of the Wilpons, Minaya, and Manuel. And the impression might be accurate.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 01 2010 09:55 AM Re: Putz

[quote="batmagadanleadoff":1uigheu6][quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1uigheu6] Not to say the Mets screwed up this acquisition from the start, being interested primarily in creating the illusion that they'd gone and solved all their problems without necessarily solving them.[/quote:1uigheu6] If you think that the Mets did a crappy job of solving all of their 2008 problems, what are you thinking about the current Mets off-season?[/quote:1uigheu6] I'm secretly enjoying this offseason and its complete lack of sex appeal. The Mets I think need a break from making big, showy moves that prove how attentively they're listening to the John Harpers out there. If you're going to hope a team adds 20+ victories from one year to the next you may as well try it with the same group of guys.

Ceetar Feb 01 2010 10:02 AM Re: Putz

[quote="smg58":241xtcyx]As for not wanting Putz to address it in the media -- you don't want a player making excuses for himself, but if he's hurt he's hurt. It's easy to take shots at the Mets right now, but the people running the team have put themselves in this position, and what Putz said is consistent with the general impression people currently have of the Wilpons, Minaya, and Manuel. And the impression might be accurate.[/quote:241xtcyx] Well yeah, if he's hurt he's hurt. But he wouldn't have had a 'last game of the season' in Seattle, or pitched in the WBC if he was hurt. That was probably them trying to control the spin on the trade. I mean, we'd have killed the Mets if they'd have let Putz say he had an injury. The "never go the extra mile" perception seems to fit here. They trusted Putz's medical reports, they trusted Bay's CF ability in the past, they trusted GMJ's ability based on a contract from years ago..Manuel plays Tatis because he's "a guy that in the past when he's going good he can hit one out" Some if it's probably them just finding something to say that justifies the overall process they used to make that decision, but some of it might well be they didn't do more than find one thing to support the trade/move/decision. It's not any of these things that are wrong, this Putz thing doesn't really seem like much on it's own, but it's the overall body of work. I mean, they didn't give Mo Vaughn a proper physical/evaulation either did they? I tend to think it's the lack of one clear 'full autonomy' type person that can make a decision. Like a game of telephone by the time the move gets to the guy that signs off on it, it's been distorted.

MFS62 Feb 01 2010 10:09 AM Re: Putz

Don't teams at the very least get medical files from a player's prior team? Really, not trying to be sarcastic. I don't know the answer to this. Anyone know? Is it mandatory? Later

metirish Feb 01 2010 10:15 AM Re: Putz

[quote="MFS62":v5ye8eav]Don't teams at the very least get medical files from a player's prior team? Really, not trying to be sarcastic. I don't know the answer to this. Anyone know? Is it mandatory? Later[/quote:v5ye8eav] I don't know how that works but there would need to be a certain amount of good faith going on. IIRC some of the fallout from the Kazmir for Zambrano trade was the rays not sending Zambrano's current x-rays for the Mets to view...or it may have been the Mets taken Tampa's word that he was fine when in fact the x-rays showed he wasn't.... Something like that

Frayed Knot Feb 01 2010 10:20 AM Re: Putz

Don't teams at the very least get medical files from a player's prior team? Yes they do. And that Putz had bone chips wasn't a secret. It's just one of those conditions that pitchers can pitch with right up until that point where they can't pitch with it. I suspect what the Mets did was basically hope that his final half-season in 2008 showed that he could last a season like he was. Like a lot of things recently, it turned out to be a rather expensive gamble that didn't work.

Ceetar Feb 01 2010 10:23 AM Re: Putz

[quote="Frayed Knot"] Don't teams at the very least get medical files from a player's prior team? Yes they do. And that Putz had bone chips wasn't a secret. It's just one of those conditions that pitchers can pitch with right up until that point where they can't pitch with it. I suspect what the Mets did was basically hope that his final half-season in 2008 showed that he could last a season like he was. Like a lot of things recently, it turned out to be a rather expensive gamble that didn't work.

Indeed, the Mets being run badly or not, Luck definitely hasn't been working in our favor a lot lately.

I was doing a quick google search to see what was said about physicals and what "didn't really" was supposed to mean, when they acquired Putz and i did read somewhere that they did get/read the medical reports on him. Presumably the Mariners had him checked out in October in preparation for the offseason to see if he should have surgery or not and thats what the Mets looked at.

Edgy DC Feb 01 2010 10:32 AM Re: Putz

It's hard to imagine that the Mets coming out and saying (or even proving) that they did indeed give him a physical would make them look better. The guy got hurt. Whatever diligence they display can be shown to have eventually failed. What's clearly true is that (1) the team and the fans knew he was nursing pain, (2) they went ahead anyway, and (3) whether he was asked to talk about his pain or not, he talked about it, as did the Mets.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2010 11:06 AM Re: Putz

The issues here are whether or not the Mets adequately examined Putz; whether they failed to diagnose a discoverable injury, and if so, whether or not they asked Putz to cover for the Mets. That Putz might have talked about his injury does not mitigate any screwups the Mets might have commited.

Edgy DC Feb 01 2010 11:12 AM Re: Putz

Putz made an issue of talking about it and that's why I and others responded to his contention. Is that OK?

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2010 11:19 AM Re: Putz

[quote="Edgy DC":1u79ztzu]Putz made an issue of talking about it and that's why I and others responded to his contention. Is that OK?[/quote:1u79ztzu] I think our posts can co-exist side by side in total harmony. Of course it's OK to talk about what Putz talked about. Putz's first-hand comments might be the most relevant statements on the matter, and so they matter. But Putz's criticism of the Mets way of handling him shouldn't by itself, acquit the Mets of anything. I'm merely saying that you -but not you, specifically. I mean that generic you guy- can't blame the Putz guy for talking.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 01 2010 11:44 AM Re: Putz

Question. If Putz knew/suspected he was hurt, why did he pitch in the WBC?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 01 2010 11:47 AM Re: Putz

And if the Mets didn't know he was hurt (how could they if they hadn't run a physical), why would they ask him not to discuss his injuries? I wonder if Putz will address the fact that he was fat last year.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2010 12:25 PM Re: Putz

[quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3bser9c9]And if the Mets didn't know he was hurt (how could they if they hadn't run a physical), why would they ask him not to discuss his injuries? I wonder if Putz will address the fact that he was fat last year.[/quote:3bser9c9] Good question. Maybe the Mets discovered an injury to Putz long after they reasonably should have. What's fat? Like Mo Vaughn fat?

Benjamin Grimm Feb 01 2010 12:29 PM Re: Putz

Seven-thousand-calories-a-day fat.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2010 12:33 PM Re: Putz

I would eat 7,000 calories a day if only I could.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 01 2010 03:50 PM Re: Putz

Don't care so much about the fat. Me, I'm just curious as to whether the Philly-Special douchebeard was real or fake. And oh yeah-- the Mets confirmed that Putz speaks the truth: [quote="Mets PR Flack"]“In our review of the player’s medical records in the acquisition of J.J. Putz, we were aware that he had a bone spur before the trade. He had the same condition in 2008 and was able to pitch with it. J.J. underwent an exam during Spring Training and an additional exam and MRI before he was cleared to play in last year’s World Baseball Classic. Unfortunately the spur did flare up again in May, and he missed the rest of the season. We are happy to hear he is feeling well, and wish him success with the White Sox.”

To review: taking on $9M in salary* for we-know-he's-injured Putz (plus two marginal assets in Reed and Green) for Heilman, Endy and a heapin' helpin' of controllables. This one doesn't look so great in the rearview... but if we'd all known what the Met FO did, it would've been exactly as ugly from the frontside.

*Spending about the same on a definitive 2nd-base improvement, by the by-- 3-4M on Hudson/Lopez, eating 5-6M by pushing Castillo benchward-- was deemed NOT okay by the same FO.

metirish Feb 02 2010 07:10 AM Re: Putz

harper of course is on this today....only thing of note is this Putz, in fact, was furious with the Mets, believing that the front office chose not to act on a recommendation by team physician Dr. David Altcheck to have surgery, convincing the reliever instead to get a cortisone shot that would allow him to continue pitching. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... z0eO5waFIt Not sure if we knew that, it's hard to keep up with this stuff.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2010 07:30 AM Re: Putz

The pattern that seems to be emerging is that the Mets doctors prefer to take a wait-and-see attitude, hoping that things will get better through rest, rather than opting for surgery which might offer a more lasting solution but would also lead to more lost time. While you certainly don't want to rush everybody into surgery for every injury, the Mets may have leaned too heavily on the wait-and-see side. It certainly appears that Beltran thought so.

Centerfield Feb 02 2010 07:31 AM Re: Putz

I don't see how even the biggest apologist can argue against the incompetence of the Mets front office. I guess it's possible that Delgado, Beltran and Putz are all lying. It's possible that the Reyes confusion was all due to the LA doctors. And that Adam Rubin was pissed that he never got a call-back from the Mets. But it is far more likely that there is some truth to all of this. And even if one of these are true, it's incredibly damning. More than ever, I feel like the Wilpons need to take a back seat in the management of this team and hire a smart guy who can run the show. That guy is not Omar.

Centerfield Feb 02 2010 07:33 AM Re: Putz

[quote="Benjamin Grimm":1haock3g]The pattern that seems to be emerging is that the Mets doctors prefer to take a wait-and-see attitude, hoping that things will get better through rest, rather than opting for surgery which might offer a more lasting solution but would also lead to more lost time. While you certainly don't want to rush everybody into surgery for every injury, the Mets may have leaned too heavily on the wait-and-see side. It certainly appears that Beltran thought so.[/quote:1haock3g] Actually, the pattern that seems to be emerging is that the Mets doctors recommend surgery, but that the Mets officials prefer to take a wait-and-see attitude notwithstanding the recommendation of the medical staff. That is why this is so troubling.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2010 07:34 AM Re: Putz

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the front office's mistake wasn't how they handled Putz' injury, necessarily, but that they made that trade in the first place. Putz by the way is welcome to bite my ass.

Edgy DC Feb 02 2010 08:01 AM Re: Putz

Hi, I'm taking a break from my great apologetic thesis to say, if you want to hang 'em for miscommunication with Beltran, then hang 'em high, but I'm filing this under "Disgruntled Former Employee Sucking up to His New Employers."

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 02 2010 08:49 AM Re: Putz

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that Putz had been lying* to make nice with the new boss/get back at an old boss that he felt embarrassed him. A vast range of people-- including some very reasonable, not terribly reactionary people-- found this "lie" plausible on its face, despite the fact that it hinted at a decision-making process that seemed to run counter to basic business protocol-- due dilligence-- never mind baseball trades in which your organization is taking on large amounts of salary obligations (the Mets took on about $9 million in such obligations, include Putz's buyout). If you think the biggest contributors to that impression have been biased members of the local New York media or overzealous fans or vengeful ex-employees, then you're nuckin' futs. *He did not do so; the Mets put out a press release confirming the basic facts that Putz asserted.

Edgy DC Feb 02 2010 09:22 AM Re: Putz

I'm not sure what I'm being accused of, but I'm not fucking nuts. I realize we're in what Bill Simmons calls "The Tyson Zone" --- that anything stated, suggested, implied, or insinuated about the Mets is plausible, but that which is plausible isn't necessarily true, so I search on. *No they didn't. They confirmed some of his assertions, not all. And I'm not saying the fact that the Mets didn't confirm them makes them untrue, so I'm not nuts in this regard either.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 02 2010 09:32 AM Re: Putz

I realize we're in what Bill Simmons calls "The Tyson Zone" --- that anything stated, suggested, implied, or insinuated about the Mets is plausible, but that which is plausible isn't necessarily true, so I search on. Not exactly a first for owners, I suppose... but if the 'Pons aren't there yet, they're edging perilously close for such apparently boring dudes (as compared to, say, Steinbrenner, Schott or Head Clipper/Awful Human Being Don Sterling). THAT would be a fun Hall of Fame.

Centerfield Feb 02 2010 10:15 AM Re: Putz

That was kind of the point of my post. It's plausible that JJ is lying and that it's just sour grapes. And I'd be much more inclined to think so if it were the only incident. But throw in that it mirrors what Beltran is saying, and what Delgado said last year. Tony B, the Reyes doctors, it's all a big giant mess. You'd have to think that there was some truth to it based on how much shit is floating around (and how consistent the message is behind the shit). And to the point that they admitted they did not do a physical before going forward with the trade...why not? So what if you have medical records, or that he pitched with it that year. Does it hurt to go take a look at it yourself? Maybe it got worse. Maybe the records are unclear. It's mind-boggling that you pick up a guy with a bone spur in his elbow and think "No need to look at it. I'm sure it's fine."

themetfairy Feb 02 2010 12:07 PM Re: Putz

It goes back to the acquisition of Victor Zambrano without an independent medical evaluation. Granted, it was a different GM at the time, but not a different owner. Trusting the other teams' medical evaluations of potential players seems foolhardy.

Valadius Feb 02 2010 01:44 PM Re: Putz

In my mind, Jeff Wilpon = Jim Dolan. That's all I need to say.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2010 01:53 PM Re: Putz

Allen Barra is neither a Met hater nor a hack. From the Village Voice: Jockbeat Mets Doctors Doing a Heckuva Job, Apparently By Allen Barra, Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 2:10PM ?As if we didn't know by now, something is wrong -- drastically wrong -- with the Mets front office and the way they're handling their players. All the fuss over Carlos Beltrán's surgery and management's indignation over not being informed might have been written off as a failure to communicate. But the current travesty involving reliever J.J. Putz can't be swept under the tarp. According to John Harper in today's Daily News, Putz says, "It was a mess from the beginning ... I never really had a physical with the Mets, I had the bone spur [elbow], and it never got checked out by any other doctors until I got to spring training, and the spring training physical is kind of a formality...It [the bone spur] was bugging me through April, and in May I got an injection. It just got to the point where I couldn't pitch.'" Here's the capper: Putz now regrets allowing the Mets brass to talk him into pitching with a bone spur, which eventually required surgery anyway. "[I learned] that it's my career, and when you know something doesn't feel right, and they want to take little sidesteps to do something and just wait and wait and wait, you've got to get it taken care of instead of trying to prolong the inevitable." Putz learned what Carlos Beltran already knew and what every professional athlete should know: it's always "my career" and it's always the athlete's responsibility to consult a personal physician and not allow the team to influence that decision. Awareness of this fact dates at least as far back as 1995 when Red Sox player Marty Barrett won a $1.7 million malpractice suit against Red Sox team physician (and part owner) Arthur Pappas. Pappas misdiagnosed Barrett's knee injury and gave him the wrong surgery which, Barrett successfully contended, brought his career to a premature end. Pappas's dual roles as team physician and owner, Barrett's lawyers argued, constituted a conflict of interest. In point of fact, though, Pappas's role as part owner of the franchise had nothing to do with it: What Barrett should have understood (and his agent should have told him) from the outset is that in any and all situations a team physician is likely to make a medical decision that is most beneficial to the team -- and that usually means getting the player back in the lineup as quickly as possible rather than looking at the long-term picture. And in the era of free agency, the player might not be around long enough to make it worth the team's while to consider the long-term picture. Note to the Players Association: Until the Beltran and Putz situations came up, it's been years since the question of conflict-of-interest surgery has been an issue. Maybe the players need to be reeducated on what constitutes their own best interests. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... 2/mets.php

Edgy DC Feb 02 2010 08:37 PM Re: Putz

Fucking Putz pops off again. He loves the professionalism of his new team, rips the chronic and pervasive dysfunction of his old team, and says their reasons for losing go way beyond injuries. Blah, blah, blah. Enough with this guy.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2010 08:43 PM Re: Putz

[quote="Edgy DC"]Fucking Putz pops off again. He loves the professionalism of his new team, rips the chronic and pervasive dysfunction of his old team, and says their reasons for losing go way beyond injuries. Blah, blah, blah. Enough with this guy.

I see what you did there.

metirish Feb 03 2010 07:05 AM Re: Putz

[quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket"][quote="Edgy DC"]Fucking Putz pops off again. He loves the professionalism of his new team, rips the chronic and pervasive dysfunction of his old team, and says their reasons for losing go way beyond injuries. Blah, blah, blah. Enough with this guy.

I see what you did there.


Ha!

Edgy DC Feb 03 2010 07:19 AM Re: Putz

I haven't been following links because I have work to do and I don't want to go down any rabbit holes and get lost, but I watched the interview last night and I was surprised at how little was there. A bunch of leading question and awkward phrasings between Putz and Chet Jockwarmer, where they were seeming to say the opposite of what they meant to say.

Edgy DC Feb 03 2010 07:45 AM Re: Putz

Plenty of open questions remain. [list][*]Is not doing a physical as a matter of policy after a trade typical for most teams or just the Mets?[/*:m] [*]Were the examinations the Mets cite as perfunctory as Putz seems to claim?[/*:m] [*]Does it matter? (The Mets knew he had bone spurs, we knew it, and he knew it.)[/*:m] [*]What's he talking about with the "blown out" elbow? --- some sort of allusion to a misdiagnosis he claims he got when they did examine his elbow, but he's not clear at all on the timeline. The reports don't mention this and I think this should be the bigger angle, but I think his story is just too hard to extract from the interview and somebody needs to call him for confirmation.[/*:m][/list:u] I think their real failure is that they traded for damaged goods, knew it, and didn't treat him that way. That last appearance they scouted for Seattle came after two days off and was only his eighth appearance in September.

Edgy DC Mar 08 2010 04:17 PM Re: Putz

J.J. plus a little perspective. J.J. Putz: ‘No Hard Feelings’ for The Mets By TYLER KEPNER GLENDALE, Ariz. – There was a sight here on Monday that Mets fans had hoped to see often last season: J.J. Putz pitching a scoreless inning. He did it for his new team, the Chicago White Sox, who signed him for $3 million in December. Putz was one of many injury casualties for the 2009 Mets, undergoing elbow surgery to remove bone spurs on June 9 and missing the rest of the season. He finished 1-4 with a 5.22 earned run average in 29 games, a bitterly disappointing line for the Mets, who traded seven players to acquire him in a three-team deal with Cleveland and Seattle. “I have no hard feelings with the Mets,” Putz said Monday. “If anything, it was just frustrating, and I felt disappointed I wasn’t able to contribute the way I wanted to.” Putz said it was “like a bomb went off” with the Mets last season, and used words like “weird” and “bizarre” to describe the team’s constant stream of injuries. He talked about the experience in a January interview with Comcast SportsNet, noting that the Mets did not give him a physical before the trade. A physical is not standard procedure for making trades, but Putz said that when he talked to Comcast, he did not know that. He had just heard that a former teammate, Brandon Morrow, had undergone a physical before his trade to Toronto. Since Putz had never been traded before going to the Mets, he thought a pre-trade physical was routine. In any case, Putz seems happy now. He lives in Peoria, Ariz., just up the road from Glendale, and is part of a set-up relief tandem with Matt Thornton, his former Seattle teammate and a fellow Michigan native. Thornton and Putz worked out with the trainer Brett Fischer all winter, eating a strict diet of prepared meals that has helped Putz lose 25 pounds. He said he gained weight at the end of last season, when he was not pitching, and he now weighs between 248 and 251 pounds. He said he weighed 260 when he pitched for the Mariners.

Ashie62 Mar 08 2010 05:22 PM Re: Putz

Indian burial ground Oh hell..he was hurt when the Mets gottem history

Valadius Mar 08 2010 05:38 PM Re: Putz

Why do all of Ashie's posts read like some kind of haiku?

Ashie62 Mar 08 2010 06:16 PM Re: Putz

[quote="Valadius":11j3c2tv]Why do all of Ashie's posts read like some kind of haiku?[/quote:11j3c2tv] Valaduis, I am slow witted middle aged man...Being a diehard Kinks fan probably doesn't help