Master Index of Archived Threads


No 'han, literally

G-Fafif Mar 28 2013 05:15 PM

Johan going in for more surgery, out for season, done as a Met, presumably.

MFS62 Mar 28 2013 05:19 PM Re: No 'han, literally

The human being in me wishes him well. The fan in me wonders if there is an insurance policy that will pay (at least part of) his salary. Later

batmagadanleadoff Mar 28 2013 05:19 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Here's one I nailed: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know about no 3.60 ERA but I'm expecting more of the 8.27 Santana ERA. Ordinarily, I'd add that I hope I'm dead wrong, me being a Met fan and all, but this year, I think that I could care less about Santana. In my eyes, I've written him off. I think he's done. Fork done. I actually think it's comical the way many fans were hoping that he could pitch Opening Day. Hope I'm dead wrong, though, what with me being a Met fan and all. The guy's had more surgeries than body parts ferchrissakes.

Centerfield Mar 28 2013 05:21 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Awful. Like Pedro before him I loved Johan more than he deserved given the injuries. Great determination on the mound. One of my favorite Mets of recent times. Guess we don't have to worry about that option.

metirish Mar 28 2013 05:23 PM Re: No 'han, literally

With the $5 million buyout he is owed $30 + million , per SNY just now.....

G-Fafif Mar 28 2013 05:29 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Here's one I nailed: I don't know about no 3.60 ERA but I'm expecting more of the 8.27 Santana ERA. Ordinarily, I'd add that I hope I'm dead wrong, me being a Met fan and all, but this year, I think that I could care less about Santana. In my eyes, I've written him off. I think he's done. Fork done. I actually think it's comical the way many fans were hoping that he could pitch Opening Day. Hope I'm dead wrong, though, what with me being a Met fan and all. The guy's had more surgeries than body parts ferchrissakes. Joe Namath never threw again in Flushing after looking in December 1976 how Johan did in August 2012. Can't claim precise prescience, but I had a feeling, I guess, that we might have seen the last of a great arm.

metirish Mar 28 2013 05:34 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Centerfield wrote: Awful. Like Pedro before him I loved Johan more than he deserved given the injuries. Great determination on the mound. One of my favorite Mets of recent times. Guess we don't have to worry about that option. yeah, good comparison with Pedro......some great, great nights.....2008 Johan was great, sucks.

Ceetar Mar 28 2013 06:01 PM Re: No 'han, literally

I'd do it all again.

TransMonk Mar 28 2013 06:02 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Boo!!! (At the situation, not Jonan.) Well, at least I wasn't counting on him for much this season. Makes me want to see in the big leagues Wheeler NOW!

metirish Mar 28 2013 06:08 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Listening to Burkhardt on SNY and he made some pointed comments on Wheeler after Carlin set him up by mentioning Alserson saying Wheeler would not be coming up.. to paraphrase KB " we all know he is ready, there is not a scout or person I talk to that says differently, but for various reasons like money, eligibility and impact on free agency the Mets will not bring him up, he'll probably be up by the end of May".

MFS62 Mar 28 2013 06:14 PM Re: No 'han, literally

MFS62 wrote: The fan in me wonders if there is an insurance policy that will pay (at least part of) his salary. Found the answer. The contract is NOT insured. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-o ... er-capsule Later

Ceetar Mar 28 2013 06:40 PM Re: No 'han, literally

metirish wrote: Listening to Burkhardt on SNY and he made some pointed comments on Wheeler after Carlin set him up by mentioning Alserson saying Wheeler would not be coming up.. to paraphrase KB " we all know he is ready, there is not a scout or person I talk to that says differently, but for various reasons like money, eligibility and impact on free agency the Mets will not bring him up, he'll probably be up by the end of May". I don't think the _Mets_ are 100% convinced Wheeler is ready. He got almost no AAA time, and they want to stick to HIS plan regardless of the situation of the other guys. It's funny though, how crystal clear the Mets have been with Wheeler not starting with the Mets. he didn't get a September call up. He didn't get invited to major league camp. They've always said he's not going to start the season with them. And yet it's still brought up like people expect the Mets to go back on a plan.

Lefty Specialist Mar 28 2013 06:46 PM Re: No 'han, literally

There's no point to bringing up Wheeler now. He's not going to be the crucial difference in a pennant-winning season or anything. Keep him down, let him dominate AAA and bring him up when the deadline for controlling him for an extra year passes. Not a difficult call.

The Second Spitter Mar 28 2013 06:48 PM Re: No 'han, literally

on a more positive note there will be a new blog entry on mets by the numbers soon.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 28 2013 07:38 PM Re: No 'han, literally

This news made me... shrug. While I was hoping that Johan would pitch well enough in the early part of the season to be tradeable, much like Beltran was, I thought that wasn't all that likely. I'm glad he was a Met; I don't regret losing the players that the Mets sent to Minnesota for Santana but overall he certainly wasn't worth the money that he was paid. As for Wheeler, he has to stay in the minors for the first 20 days of the season in order for his free agency to be delayed by a year. I think it's worth waiting that long. He'd have to stay down a bit longer for arbitration to be delayed, but I think the delay of free agency is more important. I think we'll see Zack as a Met by early May.

Fman99 Mar 28 2013 07:41 PM Re: No 'han, literally

It makes me sad to think I won't ever see another performance by him in a Mets jersey.

A Boy Named Seo Mar 28 2013 08:51 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Sucks. Wondering if he ripped it when he got on the mound to prove to the Mets he's not a lazy ass. Whatever he decides, he should change his facial hair. It's time.

Edgy MD Mar 28 2013 09:15 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Wheeler indeed got invited to Major League camp.

Ceetar Mar 28 2013 09:23 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Edgy MD wrote: Wheeler indeed got invited to Major League camp. oops. yeah, I meant that he was with the first cuts and they were always clear that he wasn't competing for a spot.

Frayed Knot Mar 28 2013 09:29 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Well, this news shouldn't change any immediate plans for Wheeler since Johan was already out for April at least with no Wheeler in sight. That this latest tidbit could move things up a bit is certainly a possibility since, as Grimm points out, delaying Wheeler's potential FA sked by a year is a lot more important than merely putting off arbitration by the same amount so we may see him as early as early May if things are going well rather than mid-June or later. Wheeler's main obstacle right now is his occasional lack of control. As such it certainly would hurt to give him a month or more in Lost Wages to deal with it rather than trying to doing the same vs ML hitters in lousy weather in April.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 28 2013 09:33 PM Re: No 'han, literally

This is not Wheeler-related news. This is Laffey-related (and possibly Chris Young-related?) news. Johan will be the last Met (chronologically) whose jersey I ever purchase for myself.

Edgy MD Mar 28 2013 09:33 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Calling Chris Young! Are you there, Chris Young?!

Frayed Knot Mar 28 2013 09:39 PM Re: No 'han, literally

The problem with Young is that he's going to want some assurance of a ML starting job right off the bat -- since if he was willing to bide his time in the minors he could have stayed with Washington -- and do we really think he's a decent step up from Marcum or Hefner? Maybe yes, maybe no - but it's certainly not a slam dunk one way or the other.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 28 2013 09:56 PM Re: No 'han, literally

From Marcum? Not if he's good for 25 starts-plus, post-cortisone. From Hefner? Almost certainly.

Edgy MD Mar 28 2013 10:01 PM Re: No 'han, literally

I don't think Marcum is part of the issue. He's the Mets' number two starter as of this cold March evening. But with a rotation of... 1. J. Niese 2. S. Marcum 3. M. Harvey 4. D. Gee 5. J. Hefner ... with Laffey as an extra, I wouldn't hold out too much hope for a much better situation to open up. If you show anything in your first two or three starts in the minors, you're up. You show anything once you're up, you're probably the number four guy right quick. Plus it's a familiar environment, the coaches know you, you know where to find good pizza. Yadda, yadda. Plus, he's one of the few pitchers that have had Johan's surgery. If they sign Young, they can make him strip to down and demonstrate why it's holding.

Ceetar Mar 28 2013 10:20 PM Re: No 'han, literally

McHugh. I don't know why people (Mets included from the rumors) seem to be skipping the 'on the 40 man' guy. And I don't want Young. rather Hefner for sure.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 28 2013 11:40 PM Re: No 'han, literally

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Johan will be the last Met (chronologically) whose jersey I ever purchase for myself. Why?

The Second Spitter Mar 29 2013 02:13 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Johnny Damon is still available and can pitch: Here's one I nailed: I don't know about no 3.60 ERA but I'm expecting more of the 8.27 Santana ERA. Ordinarily, I'd add that I hope I'm dead wrong, me being a Met fan and all, but this year, I think that I could care less about Santana. In my eyes, I've written him off. I think he's done. Fork done. I actually think it's comical the way many fans were hoping that he could pitch Opening Day. Hope I'm dead wrong, though, what with me being a Met fan and all. The guy's had more surgeries than body parts ferchrissakes. I tried to retrieve a post I made in February 2008, less than 10 posts into my Crane Pool career (the gist of it being that some scouts believed the Mets didn't do proper due diligence on Johan's health) but the archives only cover in-season months.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 29 2013 04:36 AM Re: No 'han, literally

The Second Spitter wrote: ...but the archives only cover in-season months. That's not true.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 29 2013 06:46 AM Re: No 'han, literally

batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Johan will be the last Met (chronologically) whose jersey I ever purchase for myself. Why? An age thing, mostly. (Both mine and his, relative to mine.)

metsmarathon Mar 29 2013 08:19 AM Re: No 'han, literally

as much as i would love to see wheeler open the season with the mets, i would much more happily trade 20 days of him this year for 162 days of him in 6 years. it's kindof a no-brainer for a team that doesn't particularly look like it's going to be a contender this season. if the mets were in more of a win-now mode, then sure, maybe you start the season with him if you think he'd contribute more than hefner. but we're building for the future. lets keep him around for more of it.

Edgy MD Mar 29 2013 08:20 AM Re: No 'han, literally

It seems strange that teams should have to make that choice. Two painful questions: [list:3ibre9uo][*:3ibre9uo]Any notion that Terry's nightmare is true? That Johan re-injured himself because Terry let him go the distance for the no-hitter. (If Terry's culpable, than I and many other fans certainly are.) The timeline certainly supports that scenario, statistically. [/*:m:3ibre9uo] [*:3ibre9uo]Any notion that the culprit is Johan's chip-on-his-surgically-reparied-shoulder premature trip to the mound earlier in spring, to show the beat writers and Mets he's more a man than they were whispering? Maybe he was already in trouble but that was the straw that broke the camel's shoulder socket, so to speak.[/*:m:3ibre9uo][/list:u:3ibre9uo]

Benjamin Grimm Mar 29 2013 08:25 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Edgy MD wrote: Any notion that Terry's nightmare is true? That Johan re-injured himself because Terry let him go the distance for the no-hitter. (If Terry's culpable, than I and many other fans certainly are.) The timeline certainly supports that scenario, statistically. I don't think so, but we'll never know for sure. Edgy MD wrote: Any notion that the culprit is Johan's chip-on-his-surgically-reparied-shoulder premature trip to the mound earlier in spring, to show the beat writers and Mets he's more a man than they were whispering? Maybe he was already in trouble but that was the straw that broke the camel's shoulder socket, so to speak. This may be more likely. I think Sandy was asked about it at the press conference; it seems someone asked if the Mets were going to try to void the final year of the contract because Santana's throwing session that day was unauthorized and, perhaps, ill-advised. Sandy's response was that they weren't thinking along those lines.

Ceetar Mar 29 2013 08:28 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Edgy MD wrote: It seems strange that teams should have to make that choice. Two painful questions: [list][*]Any notion that Terry's nightmare is true? That Johan re-injured himself because Terry let him go the distance for the no-hitter. (If Terry's culpable, than I and many other fans certainly are.) The timeline certainly supports that scenario, statistically. [/*:m] [*]Any notion that the culprit is Johan's chip-on-his-surgically-reparied-shoulder premature trip to the mound earlier in spring, to show the beat writers and Mets he's more a man than they were whispering? Maybe he was already in trouble but that was the straw that broke the camel's shoulder socket, so to speak.[/*:m][/list:u] I don't think so. (Did he get an MRI when they shut him down last year? I thought I remember hearing "No damage in his shoulder" but maybe they didn't check.) Can you tear a capsule, a repaired one even, doing normal things like say reaching for the flour on the top shelf at home? I don't think it was his random mound visit this Spring either. He was having trouble building arm strength even before that. It seems like more of a "discomfort/can't get loose" than a "my shoulder hurts!" Although when he originally tore it he wasn't unable to pitch either and was reporting the pain in his 'chest area' if I recall. If it's even torn that is. Both doctors confirmed the 'probable' status according to Alderson. I don't know what the difference is.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 29 2013 08:39 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Santana the Guinea Pig? Johan Santana's Mets Career Is Over Johan Santana is done. He has another capsule tear, the same shoulder injury that sidelined him for all of 2011. He'll make the final decision this weekend whether to undergo surgery, the same surgery he had in Sept. of 2010, but this isn't the sort of thing that gets better with rest. He'll go under the knife, and won't play another game in a Mets uniform, and maybe not anywhere else either. Humans weren't meant to be pitchers, especially not ones as great for as long as Santana was. GM Sandy Alderson confirmed the MRI diagnosis last night, as the Mets were preparing to break camp. Santana has re-torn the anterior capsule in his left shoulder, his throwing shoulder. "I think in all likelihood Johan will be lost to the Mets for the season,” Alderson said. Santana signed a six-year, $137 million deal after being traded to the Mets before the 2008 season. He would only play parts of four seasons in New York, and for much of those he was great. Not as great as in Minnesota, where he was the best pitcher in the world for three years or so mid-decade and seemed destined for the Hall of Fame, but still dominant, with an out pitch—the circle change—that's supposed to put less stress on a player's arm. After missing all of 2011, Santana seemed to return to form last year. He looked like the Santana of old for the first half of the season, culminating in the first no-hitter in Mets franchise history. He stayed in that one for 134 pitches, a career high, and was never the same again. The Mets say they have no idea how Santana re-injured his shoulder, but there's going to be debate about leaving him in that magical night in June, a decision manager Terry Collins agonized over and Santa endorsed unconditionally. Here's a shocking fact: medical science is nearly helpless when it comes to Santana's specific injury. It seems odd, in a sporting landscape where a frayed ligament can be replaced by a tendon from the leg or from a dead person and we expect that player to come back stronger, but the shoulder capsule is a strange beast. The capsule is a mass of tissue that nearly completely surrounds the ball-and-socket joint of the shoulder. Rather than containing defined ligaments, there are thickenings of the tissue that serve the same purpose. When these tear, the ball can slip out of the socket on each pitch, causing pain and weakness. The human body was truly not designed to throw a baseball overhand. We don't know how to fix these tears permanently, at least not with anything close to confidence. The first capsule tear repair was performed just 17 years ago on Bret Saberhagen, and of the very few pitchers who have undergone the procedure, it's exceedingly rare to come back as anything close to 100 percent. The sparse list of pitchers now also includes Chris Young, Mark Prior, Chien-Ming Wang, Rich Harden and Dallas Braden. Because anterior capsule surgery has been performed so infrequently on pitchers, how Santana's recovery unfolds will contribute to determining the procedure's effectiveness in extending careers, Altchek had added. Santana is 34 now, a perfectly respectable age for a player to decline a painful and arduous yearlong rehab from an unproven procedure. (It's also the same age at which Roy Halladay, another "best of his generation"-type, started to go downhill last year.) He couldn't be blamed for not attempting a comeback, especially when available evidence says he'll won't be meaningfully effective again. His value now, though, is as a guinea pig. Maybe lessons learned in this second surgery will become common medical practice in coming decades. Maybe Santana's rehab will teach doctors something that one day saves a young phenom's arm. Maybe, years from now, one of the best pitchers the Twins and Mets have ever known will be more remembered for lending his name to the career-saving Johan Santana surgery. http://deadspin.com/johan-santanas-mets ... -462697591

metsmarathon Mar 29 2013 08:45 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Edgy MD wrote: [*]Any notion that Terry's nightmare is true? That Johan re-injured himself because Terry let him go the distance for the no-hitter. (If Terry's culpable, than I and many other fans certainly are.) The timeline certainly supports that scenario, statistically. only it doens't really. sure, after the no hitter, he got beat up badly by the yankees for 6 runs in five innings, and again the next time out by the rays 4 runs in 6 innings. and that might be expected if he got hurt or if he just got hisself tired from the 134 pitches. after the rays game, his era was at 3.23. but look what he did in his next three starts. 6 innings no runs 6 innings 2 runs 8 innings no runs his era was down to 2.76. and then, against the cubs on july 6th, he was 4 inning in, and had given up 2 runs while striking out 6. he collides with reed johnson, hurts his ankle, and falls on his side. he throws 0.2 more IP giving up 5 more runs. the rest of his season is as follows: 5 innings 6 runs 3 innings 6 runs 1.1 innings 8 runs 5 innings 6 runs shut down. if he injured himself last season, then the evidence points to the cubs game, and the johnson collision. maybe the 134 pitches contributed some lingering faitgue that contributed to the injury on that date, or maybe it didn't. it sure didn;'t seem to have affected him terribly much the prior three starts.

Ceetar Mar 29 2013 10:17 AM Re: No 'han, literally

metsmarathon wrote: if he injured himself last season, then the evidence points to the cubs game, and the johnson collision. maybe the 134 pitches contributed some lingering faitgue that contributed to the injury on that date, or maybe it didn't. it sure didn;'t seem to have affected him terribly much the prior three starts. He also indicated that he couldn't put weight on his ankle and was throwing more with his arms/upper body. i.e. bad mechanics.

Ashie62 Mar 29 2013 10:50 AM Re: No 'han, literally

No surprise...good luck Johan with your post baseball life..

smg58 Mar 29 2013 12:36 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Did Johan get an MRI when he was shut down last year? Is there a reason why it it isn't done more often? Price shouldn't be an issue given the investment.

Ashie62 Mar 29 2013 12:40 PM Re: No 'han, literally

I have to believe the latest tear was caused by the cumulative effects of a long hard throwing career in the MLB. Arms go when they go...You really can't blame the Mets or Collins, or Santana...Blame the human body.

Zvon Mar 29 2013 02:15 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Ceetar wrote: I'd do it all again. Ditto. Fman99 wrote: It makes me sad to think I won't ever see another performance by him in a Mets jersey. Ditto. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Johan will be the last Met (chronologically) whose jersey I ever purchase for myself. Why? An age thing, mostly. (Both mine and his, relative to mine.) I'm more upset about this. You feel you are getting too old to be buying Met jerseys? Ridiculous! Seriously, I didn't expect much from Johan this season (I did hope for the best). I also didn't expect this current scenario, which sucks moose. THANKS FOR THE GREAT MEMORY, JOHAN!

Edgy MD Mar 29 2013 04:00 PM Re: No 'han, literally

metsmarathon wrote: if he injured himself last season, then the evidence points to the cubs game, and the johnson collision. maybe the 134 pitches contributed some lingering faitgue that contributed to the injury on that date, or maybe it didn't. it sure didn;'t seem to have affected him terribly much the prior three starts. Yeah, that's more reasonable to speculate on. Thanks. I get the impression that any injury that occurs after a manager stretched a pitcher's pitch count limits will be directly blamed on the manager stretching the limit. And the way the story is being framed seems designed to insinuate that. A closer look like yours punches a few holes in that, but I the popular narrative does not, and I suspect, given another chance, Terry will pull his man.

Edgy MD Mar 29 2013 04:05 PM Re: No 'han, literally

And, on that note, Justin Verlander signs for seven years and $180 mills.

Edgy MD Mar 29 2013 08:09 PM Re: No 'han, literally

ESPN, and "analyst" Doug Glanville, are going with the no-hitter-caused-the-injury angle. It's too good a story not to run with, apparently.

The Second Spitter Mar 31 2013 05:47 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Benjamin Grimm wrote: ...but the archives only cover in-season months. That's not true. What I am doing wrong? edit: nevermind figured it out.

seawolf17 Mar 31 2013 08:57 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Echo Zvon's thoughts (echoing Ceetar and Fman).

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 31 2013 09:13 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Easy come easy go. What I recall about the Santana acquisition was that it happened just days following a conversation with Marty noble in which he opined the Mets were at the verge of a long stretch of hard road. I was worried that he would sound foolish saying as much given the potential of the deal but he was dead right and i was dead wrong. Even if very little was Santana's fault his Mets career coincides with a dreadful period in their history. Yeah another one.

Edgy MD Mar 31 2013 09:29 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Joel Sherman has his own theory of the moment Johan achieved his own personal pear shape.

Edgy MD Mar 31 2013 09:39 PM Re: No 'han, literally

It's funny that the failure of this deal had virtually nothing to do with the talent the Mets gave up. Deolis Guerra, Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, and Kevin Mulvey had 10.5 WAR among them (mostly Go-Go's). It had everything to do with the subsequent deal he signed, and the injuries sustained. Dumping a lot of minor league talent for a major league star is usually predicated on signing the guy to an extension. The Mets might have done better just trading for Johan, letting him walk after 2008, and collecting the two picks. It worked with Hampton. Heck, maybe with a contract to win, 2008 Johan finds a little more inside of himself and the Mets make the playoffs in 2008 and close Shea in style.

Gwreck Mar 31 2013 11:38 PM Re: No 'han, literally

Edgy MD wrote: Heck, maybe with a contract to win, 2008 Johan finds a little more inside of himself and the Mets make the playoffs in 2008 and close Shea in style. Dude didn't have a loss in the months of July, August or September and put up a 7.1 WAR. Yeah, I guess when you miss the playoffs by one game, any one player could've made the difference with just-a-little-bit-more, but still, that's a pretty outrageous suggestion.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 01 2013 12:08 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Edgy MD wrote: It's funny that the failure of this deal had virtually nothing to do with the talent the Mets gave up. Deolis Guerra, Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, and Kevin Mulvey had 10.5 WAR among them (mostly Go-Go's). It had everything to do with the subsequent deal he signed, and the injuries sustained. Dumping a lot of minor league talent for a major league star is usually predicated on signing the guy to an extension. The Mets might have done better just trading for Johan, letting him walk after 2008, and collecting the two picks. It worked with Hampton. Heck, maybe with a contract to win, 2008 Johan finds a little more inside of himself and the Mets make the playoffs in 2008 and close Shea in style. As per all reports at the time, Johan was unwilling to waive his no-trade without negotiation of a multiyear extension; the choice was Johan on the fat contract or no Johan at all.

Edgy MD Apr 01 2013 06:00 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Oh, sure, just talking philosophically. I don't mean to pose it as a real option the Mets had.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 01 2013 06:05 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Will Johan be lining up with the team during today's introductions? If he does, I hope he gets a nice hand.

Frayed Knot Apr 01 2013 06:08 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Last I heard his surgery is scheduled for tomorrow - so his attendance today may depend on where that procedure be.

metirish Apr 01 2013 06:56 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Yeah, he is having the surgery tomorrow, performed by Dr. David Altchek, he works out of Hospital for Special Surgery, so perhaps Johan will be at the game today.

Edgy MD Apr 01 2013 08:15 AM Re: No 'han, literally

A trip to the park and a warm reception would be cool. Maybe too cool to hope for.

Vic Sage Apr 01 2013 08:33 AM Re: No 'han, literally

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Will Johan be lining up with the team during today's introductions? If he does, I hope he gets a nice hand. he should get the sound of one hand clapping... it'll be like a zen tribute and metaphor all in one.

TransMonk Apr 01 2013 08:52 AM Re: No 'han, literally

No-han on Opening Day

Edgy MD Apr 01 2013 09:03 AM Re: No 'han, literally

ESPN block'd at work.

TransMonk Apr 01 2013 09:06 AM Re: No 'han, literally

No-han on Opening Day April, 1, 2013 By Adam Rubin | ESPNNewYork.com Johan Santana is not expected to be present for Opening Day introductions or to visit with his teammates, a Mets official said. Santana, 34, is due to undergo a second surgery Tuesday to repair a torn anterior capsule in his left shoulder. Team doctor David Altchek will perform the procedure.