Jan 24 2007 09:41 AM
I had an old thread about this months ago but I can't find it..must say I agree with Wally and Klapisch on this,maybe not the way they express themselves but the main point is valid.
| ] What's the deal? Mets spend on everyone but Willie January 24, 2007 Perhaps if Willie Randolph were still a player, and not the manager who led them to within a victory of the World Series, the Mets would show him a little more respect and a lot more money. Over the past month, the Mets have managed to scrape together $10.8 million for three years of Scott Schoeneweis, rustled up another $1.25 million for Jorge Sosa, more than doubled the yearly salary of Endy Chavez, from $800,000 to $1.725 million. And bought a plane ticket to Port St. Lucie for 41-year-old Ruben Sierra. In the month previous, they rewarded Guillermo Mota for his drug suspension with a two-year, $5-million deal, even though he won't start earning his pay until Memorial Day; threw $10 million at Tom Glavine without another serious bidder in the hunt, and found $7.5 million for 40-year-old Moises Alou. And yet they haven't been able to find the time or the money to make a deal with Randolph. At his age, 52, it seems as if Randolph is better suited to play for these Mets than to manage them. As of last night, the two sides were still apart on money and length of contract. How far, neither side will say - both Randolph's agent, Ron Shapiro, and Mets general manager Omar Minaya declined to return calls yesterday - but it is easy to figure out what it would take to make a deal. Clearly, Randolph is not expecting Joe Torre's paycheck or Lou Piniella's or Tony La Russa's. Neither should he be expected to work for less money than the likes of Ned Yost or Clint Hurdle or Eric Wedge. Randolph's $700,000 a year is good money if you are a cop, a fireman, a teacher or a newspaperman, but in baseball it doesn't even buy you a backup shortstop. After being rejected by 12 teams in his quest for a manager's job, the Mets got him on the cheap. Now, they are treating him as if he should just be thankful to have a job. In truth, it is they who should be thankful. Randolph won his division last year, in his second season, and with a little help from the front office, might have taken the Mets at least one step further and maybe all the way. It is easy to quibble, and I have, with individual in-game decisions made by Randolph, such as sending gimpy Cliff Floyd up to try to hit a series-winning three-run homer in the ninth inning of Game 7 of the NLCS rather than have someone else bunt the runners over. But it is impossible to argue the fact that having been forced to work the entire postseason with an injury-ravaged starting rotation, caused by a lack of foresight in the front office, Randolph actually did a remarkable job to get his team as far as he did. And yet, incredible as it may seem, it appears as if the Mets are holding Randolph responsible for the NLCS failure against the Cardinals, as if he could have breathed new life into Glavine's 40-year-old arm, or kept Billy Wagner from blowing the key save in Game 2, or forced Carlos Beltran to lift the bat off his shoulder in Game 7. There can be no other explanation for why this is not getting done. Clearly, Minaya has no problem asking his owners for money to spend on players, no matter how old, and just as clearly, the Wilpons have no problem saying yes. So there must be something else at work here, some lingering doubt about Randolph's capabilities or some festering resentment about the way the season ended and who was to blame. And no matter how it turns out, it is the Mets who are looking bad. Throwing money at aging players while hanging the manager out to dry is the stuff of bullies, the kind of thing the Yankees do, the kind of thing the Mets were supposed to be better than. When they hired Randolph two years ago, it was a popular move for all the right reasons. Randolph is a local guy, a winner, a role model from an area better known for producing rap sheets, and a man of color in a position that is still far too lily-white. Now, they run the risk of sending a good manager and good man into the season as a lame duck, a situation he may not recover from if the Mets should get off to a slow start. Randolph, who has changed the culture of the Mets' clubhouse every bit as much as Mike Piazza did with his arrival nine years ago, deserves better. Now maybe if he offered to play second base ... |
| ] Mets' skipper deserves better Sunday, January 14, 2007 By BOB KLAPISCH RECORD COLUMNIST This was early December, after the gloomy haze of the Mets' playoff loss to the Cardinals had evaporated. The organization was compiling its 2007 to-do list, which included signing Willie Randolph to a multiyear contract extension. One senior executive predicted a new deal would be finalized "very soon" as both parties agreed on a basic premise: Randolph, going into the final year of a three-season, $1.8 million pact, had earned a raise and greater job security after leading the Mets to a National League-best 97 wins. More than a month later, however, no deal is in place and none seems likely anytime soon. Despite the goodwill between Randolph and the Wilpon family, there's been a significant philosophical difference over – what else – money and how to quantify the difficulty of managing in New York. Although everyone is still friendly (and talking to each other), it's possible Randolph will go into the regular season without a safety net. If so, the Mets would be exposing Randolph to a needless summer of questions about his return or, as unlikely as it seems, his departure. Crazy, isn't it, that a team that's been willing to annually overspend for Pedro Martinez, Carlos Beltran and Billy Wagner is now fighting its manager down to the last dollar. Among the market barometers ownership has used is the $1.75 million Buck Showalter earned last season, despite his 11 years of experience. That's the Mets' way of telling Randolph: Don't expect to be paid like Joe Torre. Randolph, who would only say, "This is a private issue" when reached by telephone Saturday, has a much stronger counterargument. He's working in baseball's toughest market, and while he's obviously not looking for Torre's $6 million per, the Mets have been getting off cheap paying Randolph just $600,000 a year. Put it this way: Randolph inherited the lethargy and indifference Art Howe left behind – or to be more precise, he had to clean up after Fred Wilpon's mistake. Thanks to Howe, the self-loathing Mets had turned into the NL's most expensive joke by 2004 and were desperate not just for better talent, but for leadership as well. Despite his rookie status, Randolph pulled off a small miracle in his clubhouse: He induced major-leaguers, including some of the game's biggest stars, to raise their level of play simply because the manager demanded it. Today, no one in the Mets' clubhouse harpoons Randolph, on or off the record. While the players often mocked Howe behind his back, Randolph has their respect, and it showed in how far they went in October, coming within one pitch of the World Series. Of course, Randolph's Game 7 decisions will forever be dissected. Should he have bunted with runners on first and second in the ninth inning, down, 3-1, instead of sending Cliff Floyd to the plate as a pinch-hitter? Randolph isn't a perfect tactician (Floyd struck out, dooming the rally), but his in-game strategy isn't what's holding up the talks. The Mets simply don't believe Randolph deserves to triple his salary after just two years on the job – even if, as Randolph's representatives correctly point out, he successfully turned around the Mets in those two summers. In any case, it's a profit-less exercise for the Wilpons. If they expect Randolph to keep control of the clubhouse, it's counterintuitive to beat him down over a new deal. It's ownership's money, of course, but it's anyone's guess what lesson the Mets are trying to teach Randolph after he turned them into an NL power broker. |
