|
I think I'm safe starting up a new thread for this one. Marchman's no hack - he has a professional command of the language even though you might not agree with his views. And where else are you gonna stick this article? Don't answer that last one. The question was rhetorical. I know where I'd like to stick this.
__________________________
[url=http://www.nysun.com/sports/randolphs-mets-perilously-close-to-rock-bottom/77386/]Randolph's Mets Perilously Close to Rock Bottom[/url]
By TIM MARCHMAN
May 23, 2008
An honest question for readers of The New York Sun: What was the precise moment when this Mets team, by which I don't mean the 2008 edition but the Omar Minaya/Willie Randolph team more generally, ceased to be the hot new thing and became a flaming catastrophe? There had to be some exact transition; it's just difficult to narrow time down to a single, before-and-after point.
Perhaps it was yesterday, when ESPN Radio reported that owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon refused to return a Wednesday phone call from Randolph, using Minaya as a go-between. Perhaps it was the day before, when Randolph had to apologize for accusing SportsNet New York — which not incidentally is likely worth more than the Mets, and in which the Wilpons hold a majority stake — of racism. Perhaps it was two days before that, when the Bergen Record ran the Ian O'Connor column in which Randolph compared himself to Isiah Thomas and instructed critics to judge him by his track record.
Perhaps it was when Tom Glavine threw a ball into left field in the first inning of the last game of 2007. Perhaps it was last Memorial Day, since which the team has lost more than it's won. (This is presumably not the part of Randolph's track record by which he should be judged.) Perhaps it was when Carlos Beltran went down swinging for the last out of 2006, or minutes before then, when Aaron Heilman surrendered what would prove a season-ending home run to flyweight hitter Yadier Molina.
However it breaks down, the shark has been jumped and the Mets are no longer your new bicycle. There was a brief time in which it seemed as if the Mets, with several of the best young players in baseball, a new television network, Citi Field on the rise, and shrewd, even-keeled management, could not possibly botch things up. There was also a brief time in which it seemed that Gregg Jefferies would join Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden in leading the Mets on a thousand-year reign of terror. In one case as the other, the natural order asserted itself, and the franchise continued its long history of agonizing farce.
The worst thing about all this, of course, is that the team isn't even entertainingly dreadful, as the Jeff Torborg/Dallas Green Mets were, but rather relentlessly dreary, along the lines of Art Howe's clubs. If the Mets are doomed to follow a cyclical pattern of tantalizing success followed by miserable under-performance, as they have as long as I've been alive, the least they can do in the down years is be truly wretched. Luis Castillo and musings on SNY's camerawork are a long, long way from Anthony Young and threats to show reporters the Bronx. This team isn't even any good at being bad.
At least in this last failing, though, there is an upside: The team isn't done for the year, even following on being dealt their traditional humiliating thrashing by the Atlanta Braves. They may look like they're swirling down the drain, but they still could win the division, the pennant, and the World Series. They might do so with Randolph managing the team. (At least this seems possible as of press time; events could dictate otherwise.) It is awfully hard to be very bad with David Wright, Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, and Johan Santana on your roster, any team that isn't very bad has a chance to win the pennant in this league, and any team that does that is an even shot to win it all.
Baseball is complicated and mysterious, and almost no one really understands it. A World Series trophy is still at least possible, and it would certainly make talk of flaming catastrophes seem silly. Here, though, is a second honest question: Does anyone really believe that this team is going to do as much as win 90 games? That would require a .580 pace for the rest of the year, consistent with a 94-win pace over a full season, which is about what most observers thought they'd do coming into the year. It's a relatively modest goal for the best-paid and most talented team in the league, and yet seems completely out of reach. That says it all about the depths, though not yet perilous, to which the team has sunk.
If a year ago some visitor from 2008 had described this state of affairs, I wouldn't have believed him or her at all. Given the team's age and Mets history, though, that would have been pretty foolish of me. One last question that everyone from the fan listening to the games on the radio this holiday weekend to the owners in their box should be asking is whether, just maybe, this team wasn't as good as everyone thought after all. You can blame a man for managing a 95-win team to a .500 record, and you can, and probably even should, fire him for it. What happens, though, if it was just a .500 team all along?
|
