Master Index of Archived Threads


All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

batmagadanleadoff May 31 2013 10:50 AM

The Roadmap to Contention Is Perilous, But Not Impossible 31 May 2013 by Howard Megdal It’s funny: how I evaluate a season has changed dramatically over the last five of them for the New York Mets. John Buck, Bobby ParnellEvery game, for 2005-2008, happened within the context of not just that result, but looking at the standings. This was true, certainly, late in the season. But even in April/May, how the Mets did mattered not just itself, but in relation to the other teams. I don’t know about you, but that isn’t how I’ve thought about it in a long time. Not even when the Mets got off to strong starts in 2011 and 2012. There were just too many holes. But after that sweep of the Yankees, with the next nine including six against the 13-41 Marlins and three against the struggling Nationals, I couldn’t help but wonder. Not because this looks like a contending team, or because I think the starting pitchers are capable of a 43/0 K/BB ratio every time through the rotation. But just because how it usually works is, those small victories are supposed to fuel optimism about the potential for larger ones. It’s the emotional rubric of how a fan relates to a baseball season, connecting April to potential October. So here goes. As it stands today, the Mets are 22-29. That puts them nine games behind the Atlanta Braves in the National League East. And the wild card, thanks to three very good teams in the N.L. Central, is harder to reach right now. At the moment, the 34-20 Pirates are 10.5 up on the Mets for the first wild card, the 33-21 Reds are 9.5 up on the Mets for the second wild card. And five other teams are ahead of the Mets as well: the Giants, the Rockies, the Nationals, the Phillies and the Padres. But let’s go a little crazy, shall we? The Marlins are historically bad. 13-41 puts them three full games behind the 1962 Mets at this point. Let’s say the Mets take all six, and two of three from the Nationals. That would give them a 30-30 record through 60 games. If the Reds tread water, a 4-5 mark over their next nine, that puts the Mets within 5.5 of the Reds by mid-June. A similar stretch by the Braves puts the Mets within five of first in their division, with the Nationals and Phillies both playing like teams that aren’t able to take advantage. I suspect the Nationals won’t continue to do so, but again, we’re only projecting what could be, not on talent level right now. Following that nine-game stretch, the Mets have six against the Cardinals and Cubs, followed by a rain-inspired five game series in Atlanta, June 17-20. The Mets probably need to win five of six against the Cardinals and Cubs; but if they do, they could well be within striking distance of the Braves for that series. And if you can’t imagine it, that’s fine. But if you want to rule it out, you must be one of those people who somehow knew the Mets were about to go sweep the Yankees this week. That’s where the math is. How the Mets get there is another story. If you harbor any fantasies about October, this is the context right now for how the Mets get there. http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/05/31/t ... mpossible/

Ceetar May 31 2013 11:04 AM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Does this mean I have to take a pessimistic approach? Projecting, even hoping for, 8/9 is madness even if this were the '86 team playing the '62 team. There is too much randomness in baseball. (and the '62 Mets once won 9/12. remember that.) Not just in this post, but in general, I feel like there's this expectation that the Mets should sweep the Marlins 6 games or failing that, at least 5 of the six. That's setting the expectations awfully high off of a 5 game win streak that didn't exactly have them smashing the ball. But yes, the Mets are sneaking back into things, and a continued trend of good play could really help them in that regard, and with the idea that d'Arnaud and Wheeler should be upgrades at some point, things ARE looking up. but we knew that. we always knew that. it doesn't change things. We need another hitter. Maybe that's Ike. maybe it's Tejada in two weeks. Maybe they make some strides and Sandy makes a trade. but damn, you're gonna get whiplash from the about face if every 5 game win streak (And losing streak, they will lose again) is going to drastically change your outlook.

TransMonk May 31 2013 11:06 AM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Dreamland. This is still a heavily flawed team with many more question marks than answers. The last five games have been great, but it doesn't change the 46 that came before them. It's going to take more than a sweep against an over-achieving team from the other league before I start doing ANY "math".

Ashie62 May 31 2013 11:40 AM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

After the Yankee sweep its all gravy..

Edgy MD May 31 2013 11:41 AM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

It can change the 46 that follow, however. I'm just hoping for them winning one of the next one.

Lefty Specialist May 31 2013 01:02 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Oh, puhlllleeeeeeze. 5 games didn't change the fact that this is a woefully inconsistent team with essentially two hitters, Murphy and Wright. One good turn through the rotation, except that Niese is already going to miss his next start. I don't trust Hefner and Gee as far as I can throw them, this week notwithstanding. The bullpen is a shambles except for Parnell and EveryMinute Rice. Everything came together this week, which is nice, but over the long haul this can't be sustained unless some Clark Kents become Supermen and stay that way.

Edgy MD May 31 2013 01:47 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Hey, man, sorry. I didn't say that it did change anything. I said that it can.

Benjamin Grimm May 31 2013 01:49 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

It was a nice week. And maybe next week will be nice too. I do think that there's a chance that the second and third trimesters of this season will be better than the first. Hopefully a good chance. I doubt that this improvement, whatever it may be, will be enough to make the 2013 Mets contenders. (I've been hoping that this year will be another 1983. It started out like a 2003. Will it end up like a 1973? That would be fabulous, but I'm not counting on it.) So what can go right the rest of the way? * Harvey continues to be Harvey. * Wright and Murphy and Parnell keep it going. * Dillon Gee gets his shit together. * Ike Davis gets his shit together. * Ruben Tejada gets his shit together. * Lucas Duda cranks it up another notch. * Jon Niese is healthy. * Wheeler and d'Arnaud get their feet wet and indicate that they can contribute next year. * The Mets discover an everyday outfielder or two for 2014. Valdespin? Lagares? Ankiel? A mid-season acquisition? Will all of the above happen? Almost certainly not. But if we're able to check off enough of these items, then the preparation for 2014 won't look as daunting as it has been looking.

Nymr83 May 31 2013 08:42 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Ankiel isn't an answer, he's a 35 year old drain on the limited number of at bats that the Mets could he using on someone younger who at least might be better than we thought. even if 200 more Ankiel at bats wins us one extra game, isn't giving them to Lagares or den dekker better for the team's future.

Zvon May 31 2013 10:26 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist. Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 01 2013 05:25 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It was a nice week. And maybe next week will be nice too. I do think that there's a chance that the second and third trimesters of this season will be better than the first. Hopefully a good chance. I doubt that this improvement, whatever it may be, will be enough to make the 2013 Mets contenders. (I've been hoping that this year will be another 1983. It started out like a 2003. Will it end up like a 1973? That would be fabulous, but I'm not counting on it.) So what can go right the rest of the way? * Harvey continues to be Harvey. * Wright and Murphy and Parnell keep it going. * Dillon Gee gets his shit together. * Ike Davis gets his shit together. * Ruben Tejada gets his shit together. * Lucas Duda cranks it up another notch. * Jon Niese is healthy. * Wheeler and d'Arnaud get their feet wet and indicate that they can contribute next year. * The Mets discover an everyday outfielder or two for 2014. Valdespin? Lagares? Ankiel? A mid-season acquisition? Will all of the above happen? Almost certainly not. But if we're able to check off enough of these items, then the preparation for 2014 won't look as daunting as it has been looking. I say we have to look at Valde in the OF. If not as a regular than certainly make him to the outfield what Turner is to the infield. But I'd like to see what he could do as a regular or platooned outfielder for an extended period. He's got the raw talent. We know he don't mind the spotlight. I hate to see him get away and go somewhere and be somethin else.

Lefty Specialist Jun 01 2013 05:27 AM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

I've always thought that this year would be the reverse of the last two- a bad first half followed by a better second half. But waiting for certain people to get their shit together might not be the best plan. Even if Ike turns it on like he did last year, do you really trust him for 2014 and beyond? I don't. Tejada was a case of good defense and you'll take what offense you can from him. But he's shown a disturbing tendency toward Pagan-like brain farts, and he's been Rey Ordonez with the bat without being anywhere near Rey Ordonez on the field. I don't think you can plan on them being part of the mix going forward. I second what others say about Ankiel. He was a panic pick-up because CF was becoming a black hole. He's stabilized things at a mediocre level, but he's the kind of player rebuilding teams (like the Astros) get rid of, not pick up. I'm of two minds about Valdespin. It seems the more playing time he gets, the worse he is. He needs to be kept on the raw edge of fear to be effective. When he's comfortable, he seems to lose focus. Hard to see a player like that being an everyday contributor. Duda needs to go to the American League. I'm convinced he'll hit 40 homers, it just won't be with the Mets. The second half will be better with Wheeler and d'Arnaud coming aboard. But every Mets season seems to start with a bunch of 'ifs'. Most of those 'ifs' never pan out ('If only Johan can show enough so we can trade him at the deadline'). I want more certainty and fewer 'ifs'. They're a long way from that.

Ashie62 Jun 01 2013 05:00 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

The second half will not be better..worse..much worse..

Zvon Jun 01 2013 05:52 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Lefty Specialist wrote: I'm of two minds about Valdespin. It seems the more playing time he gets, the worse he is. He needs to be kept on the raw edge of fear to be effective. When he's comfortable, he seems to lose focus. Hard to see a player like that being an everyday contributor. You're probably right but I feel we have to take a look see and the tail end of this season wouldn't be a bad time to do it, if only for upping his possible value. He'd need some time to adjust (he was rusty out there today-in right field and vs. curves) . Will it hurt his value if he sucks? I don't care. We should take a real good look at what he could give us before giving him to anyone else anyway. Whatever reasons Collins has had for kinda keeping him on a shelf can't be enough to negate such an experiment at some point. I don't think fear has anything to do with Valdes game. I'd replace the word fear with excitement or "the spotlight".

Edgy MD Jun 02 2013 01:49 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

I don't think the idea is to "give" him to anyone. And the Mets have certainly had a better look at him than anybody else. They've had a front-row seat and a backstage pass for five-plus years.

Zvon Jun 02 2013 02:18 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think the idea is to "give" him to anyone. And the Mets have certainly had a better look at him than anybody else. They've had a front-row seat and a backstage pass for five-plus years. I want to see exclusively what he can do at this level given consistent time. Like more than a few games. At least a few weeks. If they don't want to mess with Ankiel and Byrd I wouldn't be against Valde getting his grooming at a lesser level. But if we are 15-20 games out at the break why not. He might just be a bench player but let US find out. Not some other team. Maybe the Mets have decided they know exactly what they have in Jordany. Maybe you have too. I can't say that I have yet.

Ashie62 Jun 02 2013 04:56 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Play Valdy over Ankiel everyday...

Edgy MD Jun 03 2013 12:38 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Zvon wrote: If they don't want to mess with Ankiel and Byrd I wouldn't be against Valde getting his grooming at a lesser level. I would imagine messing with Ankiel and Byrd isn't a concern. Zvon wrote: But if we are 15-20 games out at the break why not. He might just be a bench player but let US find out. Not some other team. Or, if he is just a bench player, there's a double value to not making a public display of him failing to be more. Zvon wrote: Maybe the Mets have decided they know exactly what they have in Jordany. Maybe you have too. I can't say that I have yet. I certainly can't say I know.

Zvon Jun 03 2013 03:23 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

If they don't want to mess with Ankiel and Byrd I wouldn't be against Valde getting his grooming at a lesser level. I would imagine messing with Ankiel and Byrd isn't a concern. But if we are 15-20 games out at the break why not. He might just be a bench player but let US find out. Not some other team. Or, if he is just a bench player, there's a double value to not making a public display of him failing to be more. Maybe the Mets have decided they know exactly what they have in Jordany. Maybe you have too. I can't say that I have yet. I certainly can't say I know. Edgy breakin it down. :) Or, if he is just a bench player, there's a double value to not making a public display of him failing to be more. Expand on this.

Edgy MD Jun 03 2013 03:40 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

If they have faith in their assessment that he's little more than a bench player at this point, then playing him beyond that level: (1) puts him in a position to (in their judgment) hurt the team, demoralize his teammates and the fan base; and (2) markets to potential suitors his shortcomings. I could further add that : (3) it could rob him of any confidence that with a couple of adjustments, he could be so much more, but he has to work on that, and demonstrate that he's made some adjustments before gaining their confidence for further playing time; and (4) cut into playing time that some other would-be comer could be getting. It's all speculative, and number (4) is not how it would play out up front. Initially, he'd be taking playing time away from Ankiel. In saying all that crap, that's not how I lean. I think if he's on the roster, he'd do well to get some PT --- and I mean at short and second also, even though I know he's been a disaster as an infielder. But I think there's a value in not giving a player a job, but challenging him to take it --- saying, "That's Ankiel and his best days are behind him and he's not getting better; prove to me you're the better choice." And I think there's a value in supporting young players not just in playing them through their fuckups, but also in supporting the likes of Harvey and Wheeler by putting the best lineup you can muster that day behind them. Again, I want him playing more, but I think the case for spot-starting him until his play forces the issue is there. It's not the first time around the track for any of the Mets' braintrust. They may be wrong, but I'm sure they've considered these issues and are aware of the case for starting him. Nymr advocating up top for den Dekker. Let's get real.

Zvon Jun 03 2013 04:31 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

If they have faith in their assessment that he's little more than a bench player at this point, then playing him beyond that level: Do they? On a MLB level would that assessment be fair? They might have an idea of what he is on paper and/or in the minors but at this level they've been using him like a secret weapon that misfires a lot. Does this not display shortcomings? (1) puts him in a position to (in their judgment) hurt the team, demoralize his teammates and the fan base; Team sucks. Teammates are demoralizing themselves nicely without any help from him. I wish they gave a shit about us fans. and (2) markets to potential suitors his shortcomings. Aside from a few real nice clutch pinch hits, that's all we've been doing with him. I could further add that : (3) it could rob him of any confidence that with a couple of adjustments, he could be so much more, but he has to work on that, and demonstrate that he's made some adjustments before gaining their confidence for further playing time; and I agree about adjustments, work ethic, others faith (or confidence) in him. I seriously think it's impossible to undermine the confidence he has in himself. (4) cut into playing time that some other would-be comer could be getting. Who? Get him up. Lets look at all possible outfielders. This is what we need most (aside from pitching). It's all speculative, and number (4) is not how it would play out up front. Initially, he'd be taking playing time away from Ankiel. Course its speculative and that makes for good off day chats. Ankiels a placeholder. Lets explore all possible and find out who he is saving a place for. In saying all that crap, that's not how I lean. I think if he's on the roster, he'd do well to get some PT --- and I mean at short and second also, even though I know he's been a disaster as an infielder. But I think there's a value in not giving a player a job, but challenging him to take it --- saying, "That's Ankiel and his best days are behind him and he's not getting better; prove to me you're the better choice." You have a point in that he can be a regular infielder. Maybe. But pick one, infield or outfield, and work him in that direction. And I think there's a value in supporting young players not just in playing them through their fuckups, but also in supporting the likes of Harvey and Wheeler by putting the best lineup you can muster that day behind them. Tell you what Ed, if the Mets don't immediately build this team up around Harvey and his time with us is wasted in the way I feel we wasted the Reyes/Wright years they are cruisin for a bruisin. Again, I want him playing more, but I think the case for spot-starting him until his play forces the issue is there. It's not the first time around the track for any of the Mets' braintrust. They may be wrong, but I'm sure they've considered these issues and are aware of the case for starting him. I feel it must be awful hard to get rolling in any one direction without some consistent time given to one of those directions. Warren pulls off a reverse breakdown! YESSSS!

Edgy MD Jun 03 2013 05:31 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

I'm a big believer in playing young and athletic guys all over the diamond. Treat them like their first job is to hit major league hitting. If that works out, they can work on the refinements to cement them at one position. It also underscores that they haven't replaced anybody and keeps them striving while still getting them work.

Ceetar Jun 03 2013 05:36 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Zvon wrote: Edgy MD wrote: (1) puts him in a position to (in their judgment) hurt the team, demoralize his teammates and the fan base; Team sucks. Teammates are demoralizing themselves nicely without any help from him. I wish they gave a shit about us fans. What do fans have to do about it? Plenty of fans, like me, are perfectly happy to never see Jordany get another PA, but ultimately the only thing fans care about is winning. Oh, they'll talk a good game, but all that other stuff is a drop in the bucket compared to the attention and attendance of winning. Anyway, OFers I'd like to see in order. Duda/Nieuwenhuis/Baxter/Lagares/Valdespin/Brown/Cowgill/Hoffman/Byrd/Ankiel

Edgy MD Jun 03 2013 05:48 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Demoralizing the team and the fan base depresses attendance and TV ratings, which diminishes revenues which ultimately is a factor in winning. Sometimes, you want to win a little, because it helps you win a little more. The other direction is a strategy too --- bailing completely on the season and minimizing expenses as you develop. But so is trying to grind out a few more wins in the meantime.

Zvon Jun 03 2013 07:00 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm a big believer in playing young and athletic guys all over the diamond. Treat them like their first job is to hit major league hitting. If that works out, they can work on the refinements to cement them at one position. It also underscores that they haven't replaced anybody and keeps them striving while still getting them work. I respect you and what you're sayin. I feel they should do that kind of thing in the minors unless the guy is being groomed to be just a utility man. They have pretty much been doing that, grooming him in that direction. Then continue. Pick a direction. Stick with it. Its harder at the MLB level for a young inexperienced player when they play shuffleboard with you all over the field. All over the infield, sure. All over the outfield, sure. Both? I'm not a fan of putting a player in that position. Gotta say tho, if the player is successful he's gotta be good. Seeing Newys name above I also would like to see him get a shot, more than Valde. Both even. Maybe we will end up putting together a decent outfield just like the Mets want to anyway. On the cheap.

Edgy MD Jun 04 2013 07:53 AM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

Zvon wrote: I respect you and what you're sayin. I feel they should do that kind of thing in the minors unless the guy is being groomed to be just a utility man. If the idea is to get PT while learning to hit major league pitching, then doing it in the minors is something beside the point. There are plenty of examples of guys playing around the diamond initially as major leaguers --- Andy Van Slyke, Kevin Mitchell, Albert Pujols, Honus F. Wagner. Lot of MVP votes there. Don Mattingly came up as an outfielder/infielder. Gary Carter came up as an outfielder/catcher. Why bench some poor shlub if he's not going to hit? Why let a defensive assignment undercut his development as a hitter if it turns out to be a mismatch? Look at this way: If you give him a job in right, and he sucks defensively, he ends up losing the job and his career returning to limbo no matter how he's hitting. But if you give him a super utility job, and he sucks at one position, you play him a little less there, and a little more elsewhere and tell him to just keep hitting. This essentially is how we failed with Murphy. They assigned him to left fulltime, and he failed defensively and lost almost all his opportunities offensively. Not only did he lose confidence in himself, but Jerry stupidly did also --- explicitly, declaring that he didn't want to play Murphy in the infield, because that put him "closer to the ball," as if nobody who couldn't play outfield could play infield. It was only in a domino crisis that Jerry allowed Murphy to play first. And even that was after he first tried Jeremy Reed --- a no-bat outfielder who had no firstbasing experience and was on the roster as a ballhawk. Jerry chose to deliberately ignore all Murphy's minor league experience as an infielder. Had Murphy simply been allowed to roam the diamond as a firstbaseman/secondbaseman/thirdbaseman/leftfielder/maybe rightfielder too, his difficulties at one position would never have turned into the existential crisis for his career that it became, and his settling in eventually at first would have come far more quickly and comfortably than it did. His eventual transfer to second as well. I think Gregg Jefferies would have been helped by an "unspecified duties" assignment on defense as well. Just hit, baby.

Zvon Jun 04 2013 02:11 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

I respect you and what you're sayin. I feel they should do that kind of thing in the minors unless the guy is being groomed to be just a utility man. If the idea is to get PT while learning to hit major league pitching, then doing it in the minors is something beside the point. There are plenty of examples of guys playing around the diamond initially as major leaguers --- Andy Van Slyke, Kevin Mitchell, Albert Pujols, Honus F. Wagner. Lot of MVP votes there. Don Mattingly came up as an outfielder/infielder. Gary Carter came up as an outfielder/catcher. Why bench some poor shlub if he's not going to hit? Why let a defensive assignment undercut his development as a hitter if it turns out to be a mismatch? Look at this way: If you give him a job in right, and he sucks defensively, he ends up losing the job and his career returning to limbo no matter how he's hitting. But if you give him a super utility job, and he sucks at one position, you play him a little less there, and a little more elsewhere and tell him to just keep hitting. This essentially is how we failed with Murphy. They assigned him to left fulltime, and he failed defensively and lost almost all his opportunities offensively. Not only did he lose confidence in himself, but Jerry stupidly did also --- explicitly, declaring that he didn't want to play Murphy in the infield, because that put him "closer to the ball," as if nobody who couldn't play outfield could play infield. It was only in a domino crisis that Jerry allowed Murphy to play first. And even that was after he first tried Jeremy Reed --- a no-bat outfielder who had no firstbasing experience and was on the roster as a ballhawk. Jerry chose to deliberately ignore all Murphy's minor league experience as an infielder. Had Murphy simply been allowed to roam the diamond as a firstbaseman/secondbaseman/thirdbaseman/leftfielder/maybe rightfielder too, his difficulties at one position would never have turned into the existential crisis for his career that it became, and his settling in eventually at first would have come far more quickly and comfortably than it did. His eventual transfer to second as well. I think Gregg Jefferies would have been helped by an "unspecified duties" assignment on defense as well. Just hit, baby. @ italics: Is Valde as good as any of those guys? Right now who knows. @ bold: Almost sold. That's a form of direction with an underlying hope. If they want to spread him thin and water him down and he rises above that, great. My view is that we should address the outfield problem ASAP and he is a possible answer.

Edgy MD Jun 04 2013 02:19 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

@ italics: Is Valde as good as any of those guys? Right now who knows. Certainly as good as Wagner. The rest, I'm not sure.

seawolf17 Jun 04 2013 02:22 PM Re: All of a sudden, everyone's an optimist.

By the way, TOTALLY not an optimist any more. Just sayin'.