Mike Francesa will have a “major, major update” on the Mets today. Joe Janish takes some stabs at what that could mean.
MGL continues his exhaustive study of aging in baseball. It’s long, and mostly confirms what you probably would have guessed, but definitely worth a read.
Howard Medgal likes the Kelvim Escobar signing.
You’re damn right dinosaurs shot venom. Now I just want to find out about the eyeball lasers, then I’ll be able to confirm once and for all how awesome dinosaurs were.
I saw an ad for the Beefy 5 Layer Burrito during last night’s Jets’ game, so I went out to the Worst Taco Bell in the World in nearby Elmsford, N.Y., today to try it out.
The Beefy 5 Layer Burrito is a burrito filled with refried beans (you know, like in pintos and cheese), taco beef (the standard stuff), nacho cheese (plain old nacho cheese, the stuff that comes with nachos), sour cream (ie Supreme) and shredded cheese (which you may recognize from every Taco Bell product ever).
Wait, hold on. Burrito, beans, ground beef, nacho cheese, sour cream, shredded cheese? What is this, 1992? Honestly, when was the last time Taco Bell introduced a new menu item that didn’t involve a Chalupa shell or Gordita flatbread or crispy red strips or Zesty Pepper Jack sauce? Everything in the Beefy 5 Layer Burrito has been on the Taco Bell menu in some capacity since the dawn of time.
In fact, I’m damn near shocked Taco Bell hasn’t rolled out the Beefy 5 Layer Burrito before. It’s basically just all the soft things from Taco Bell’s classic selection of items, so if you’re ever mandated by a dentist to shy away from crunchy or crispy foods, I heartily recommend it.
Other than that, though, it gets a resounding meh. It’s from Taco Bell and it’s loaded up with staples of Taco Bell cuisine, so it is, of course, delicious, but it lacks any sort of distinguishing feature. It’s certainly a lot of good food for 89 cents, and that’s cool. But it’s just a giant heaping mishmash of Taco Bell stuff, and just tastes exactly like anything else you’d get at Taco Bell, only without any crunchiness whatsoever.
Which is awesome, don’t get me wrong. It’s Taco Bell, like I said. But I’ve come to expect more at this point. Like Lava Sauce. Throw some Lava Sauce on that baby and you’d have a seriously awesome burrito for .89 cents. As it is now, it’s merely a tasty but somewhat bland reminder of how far Taco Bell has come since my childhood.
Apparently Hall of Fame ballots are due soon, so Hall of Fame voters are posting their ballots on Twitter and Hall of Fame voter naysayers are all up in arms over who the Hall of Fame voters voted for.
As area wiseass @samtpage put it: “@famoussportswriter your hall of fame ballot is wrong!”
Here’s my thing about the Hall of Fame: There’s a big group of guys who obviously deserve to be in, the Babe Ruths and Tom Seavers. There’s a bigger group of guys who obviously don’t deserve to be in, the Roger Cedenos and Andy Stankiewiczes. Then there’s another group of guys who might deserve to be in, and for every one you can pick out a better player who isn’t in or a worse player who is, and that’s where the debate lies.
I always kind of liked it that Jim Rice wasn’t a Hall of Famer because he always struck me as a perfect benchmark for offensive production not meriting Hall of Fame entry. If you’re a significantly better hitter than Jim Rice, you make the Hall of Fame. If you’re not, you don’t.
But I failed to consider the fear, of course.
Anyway, the most important thing is that it’s not really important at all, and the Hall of Fame is just a fun thing to talk about and a nice place to visit and not at all a good justification for any heated rhetoric. Normally it’s a debate I find fun and interesting, but this year, for whatever reason, it has grown tiresome. I suspect Twitter is partly responsible. It seems like Twitter makes everyone angry, or at least exposes everyone’s anger. Or maybe 140 characters just force everyone to seem rude.
Whatever it is, I’m finding it difficult to care too much about the Hall of Fame balloting. I’m more concerned with the general direction of the Hall, anyway. The way I see it, there’s about a 50/50 chance that in five years, the Hall of Fame is completely meaningless.
If Barry Bonds and his ilk are shunned from the Hall for a crime they were clearly allowed to commit, the Hall of Fame will be rendered a silly, whitewashed pageant. It will have no more value than the Gold Glove, something that might look nice on a plaque but will mean nothing to anyone who knows anything about baseball.
Look: I have no problem with athletes who celebrate their accomplishments on the field. In fact, if they’re athletes who deserve to be celebrating, I support them wholeheartedly. This is why I think Jose Reyes is so cool.
Kerry Rhodes is not one such athlete. Kerry Rhodes can not tackle. When an opposing running back is bearing down on Kerry Rhodes, he turns his back and falls down. It’s terrible looking, and embarrassing. Then, in the rare event that Kerry Rhodes knocks a pass down or does something vaguely good, he gets up and carries on like he’s God’s gift to football.
It’s particularly awful because Kerry Rhodes plays in the same defensive backfield as Darrelle Revis, who might actually be God’s gift to football. And Darrelle Revis almost never carries on. He just trots back to the huddle and prepares to do something else unspeakably awesome on the next play, while Kerry Rhodes is dancing around trying to take credit for something Revis just did. It’s infuriating.
There was actually a kid like this on my high school team. I hated the kid. He never made any tackles, but after every play, he used to run over to the spot where the tackle had been made and flex in the general vicinity of the tackle. Often the statistician would assume he made the play and give him credit, but he never actually did. He just had the gall to flex like he had made the play even though he was 15 yards away, getting knocked around by some weak-ass opposing blocker.
That’s Kerry Rhodes. So in honor of Kerry Rhodes, I’ve made this graph. It’s a bar graph, charting the rate of posturing per defensive contribution. Check it out:
Today’s the last day of my too-brief holiday vacation, but I’ll try to post a few things just to keep you entertained if you’re unfortunate enough to be stuck in the office. I’ll be in the same spot tomorrow.
The Jets won by forfeit yesterday when the Colts brought in some Brit-rocker looking dude named Curtis Painter who promptly made Kellen Clemens look like Johnny Unitas. Now they’ll make the playoffs if they beat the Bengals next Sunday.
The Daily News provides Top 10 best and Top 10 worst New York athletes of the decade lists. I’m sorry, but up until this year, the Daily News definitely would have had A-Rod on the Top 10 worst list. Also, Kei Igawa’s inclusion seems kind of random and mean.
Oliver Perez surfaced to talk about his knee and his outlook for 2010.
Omar Minaya said some stuff.
Brian Bassett from TheJetsBlog.com gets on the phone with some handsome guy to preview the Jets and Colts:
Courtesy of the fellas at Baseball Think Factory, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a photo gallery of Jeff Francoeur’s golfing trip to Scotland. And as you can see, his surgically repaired thumb looks just fine:
UPDATE: I should have read the captions more closely. Apparently Frenchy’s golfing trip to Scotland came before the thumb surgery, so clearly he was just showing off his ability to stretch out those ligaments before putting ’em away for the winter. Anyway, doesn’t make the photo any less hilarious.
This blogging thing is tough sometimes. I’m sitting here, surrounded by the detritus of Christmas, overwhelmed by the idea of cleaning it up, and realizing I should probably be weighing in on the Mets’ acquisition of Kelvim Escobar.
Kelvim Escobar is pretty damn good when he’s healthy. Kelvim Escobar hasn’t been healthy since 2007. I don’t know the details of the contract yet, so it’s impossible to say whether it’s a good deal for the Mets. If it’s guaranteed multiple millions of dollars for a guy with major arm issues, it’s not. But it probably isn’t, in which case, it’s a good low risk pickup for a guy who could pay huge dividends.
So that’s nice. Beyond that, there’s talk that Joel Pineiro is now the Mets’ top pitching target and they could finally be moving on from Jason Bay and probably 30 other rumors that may or may not come to pass.
To be honest, I’m finding it hard to focus. I’ve got new shoes to break in, and a whole book of previously unpublished Kurt Vonnegut material I can’t wait to read, and a blown-up photo of the Empire State Building lit blue and orange that I’ve got to hang someplace, and all this damn wrapping paper to throw away.
Anyway, in the spirit of Boxing Day (Canada), a big thanks to everyone who has come to TedQuarters in the couple of months since launch. I’ve had a lot of fun writing it, and I’ve been pleasantly surprised by all the feedback. So gracias, and I look forward to continuing to sort through all the New York sports nonsense while occasionally breaking to wax poetically about Taco Bell in 2010.
Matt Cerrone and Eric Simon are running down their all-decade lists for the Mets, and for lack of anything more interesting to write about, I figured I’d weigh in with my anti-all-decade team. Because I’m just that snarky and just that bored.
To qualify, players had to play in at least 50 games at their position for the Mets. And they had to have failed miserably, at least based on my own completely subjective standards.
Catcher: Omir Santos, 2009. This might be the most controversial choice on the list, because ol’ Extra-Base Omir is responsible for at least as many good memories (the Omiracle) as bad ones, and he shouldn’t really be faulted for earning Jerry Manuel’s favor early in the 2009 season. But Santos makes the squad as a representative of the Mets’ frightful disdain for adequate sample sizes, evidenced both by the team’s willingness to trade Ramon Castro after Santos’ hot start and the baffling, unforgettable decision to pinch-hit Santos for Castro with the game on the line, after Castro was already 2-for-4, and while Santos was in the bullpen, not even anywhere near the action.
Other candidates were either way too good (Mike Piazza), way too likable (Jason Phillips), completely serviceable (Vance Wilson), or had at least one decent season before outing themselves as crappy (Paul Lo Duca).
First base: Mo Vaughn, 2002-2003. Vaughn actually hit 26 home runs for the Mets in 2002, and again, it’s not really his fault Steve Phillips thought he was worth bringing in after an impressive batting cage session. But Vaughn stands today as one of the Mets’ most massive failures, both literally and figuratively, for his inability to stay healthy or play even a semblance of defense. Too bad, too, because by most accounts he’s a really good guy.
My lasting memory of Vaughn’s time on the Mets will always be the sight of him hurling one into center field while attempting to throw the ball around the infield during David Cone’s first comeback start in 2003 on an absolutely miserable April day at Shea.
Second base: Miguel Cairo, 2005. This was a tough, tough choice, but Miguel Cairo earns the nod over various luminaries the Mets have trotted out to the second sack in the aughts. Signed as a free-agent after his only decent Major League season, Cairo proceeded to post an alarming 64 OPS+ for the Mets while starting 74 games filling in for the injured Kaz Matsui (also a strong candidate).
Cairo also lost points because the Mets actually started him at first base six times, which was mind-boggling. He was the poor man’s Alex Cora way before Alex Cora, and the first in a long line of Willie Randolph’s “guys” to accumulate far too much playing time.
Third base: Joe McEwing, 2000-2004. Inserting Super Joe into the third-base slot is sort of a stretch — he only played 57 games at the position in his tenure with the Amazins and many of them were as a late-game defensive replacement. But, frankly, he had to make the squad somewhere, and despite the Mets’ historical troubles finding an everyday third baseman, the position has mostly been filled admirably during this decade.
McEwing combined obnoxious grit with a complete inability to hit, tallying a 69 OPS+ in five seasons with the Mets. I felt a little bit guilty when I booed him mercilessly from a good seat in his new home in Kaufman Stadium in 2005, but not guilty enough to leave him off this squad. He was versatile, sure, and likable to many, but it can’t be that hard to find someone simply willing to play every position if he can’t hit at all.
Shortstop: Kaz Matsui, 2004-2005. Why does Matsui get the nod over Cora? Because people were actually convinced Matsui would be good. I wasn’t, for what it’s worth, but lots and lots of people were. So convinced, in fact, that the Mets were willing to move young Jose Reyes to second base to accommodate Matsui. That did not go well.
Before I had any sort of forum on which to spew my opinions about the Mets, I remember arguing with friends over Matsui’s merits before the 2004 season. I would point out that his career on-base percentage in the NPB was about 50 points lower than those of Hideki Matsui and Ichiro Suzuki, and they would always — always — counter that he was on the cover of ESPN the Magazine and thus must be good. He makes the team because of that argument alone.
Left field: Roger Cedeno, 2002-2003. Cedeno’s first stint with the Mets — in 1999, under the tutelage of Rickey Henderson — probably would have been enough to keep him off this list if it happened in this decade. But it didn’t, so here it is.
Cedeno manned mostly corner outfield positions in his second go-round with the club despite showing no appreciable and not getting on base enough to make his speed worthwhile. Plus, to paraphrase Keith Hernandez’s greatest quote, he played the outfield “as if being chased by bees.”
Center field: Carlos Beltran, 2005-current. This overpaid and oft-injured whining clubhouse cancer signed a mega-contract with the Mets before the 2005 season despite obviously hating baseball. Then he struck out with the bases loaded to end their 2006 season. HE DIDN’T EVEN SWING! HE SUCKS! TRADE HIM!
I’m kidding, obviously. The actual starter is Jeff Duncan, who posted a downright amazing 35 OPS+ in 69 games in 2003 and 2004. I actually liked Duncan because he walked 10 times in his first 46 plate appearances. Then, I guess, Major League pitchers figured out he wasn’t a free-swinger and just started putting pitches over the plate, where he couldn’t actually hit them.
Right field: Karim Garcia, 2004. Karim Garcia started 68 games in the outfield for the 2004 Mets. Somehow, and thankfully, I have managed to block all of them. He posted a .272 on-base percentage in the stretch and was so bad that I couldn’t go with my first instinct to ignore him and insert Marlon Anderson in the lineup, even though Anderson didn’t accumulate 50 games in right. I was going to argue that Anderson’s ample time in left made him a capable corner outfielder on the failsquad, but Garcia’s existence made it a moot point.
Starting pitcher: Jose Lima, 2006. Did Jose Lima hit the 50-game threshold? No, he stopped at four. But 50 games is a lot for a starting pitcher, and I really liked Jae Seo, and Lima’s four games of awfulness were so memorably bad that he makes the team just on principle. What was worse, he punctuated them with ridiculous posturing, the type of thing that’s exciting and fun when it comes from a great player like Reyes but completely intolerable when it’s pouring forth from one of the very worst starting pitchers of all time.
Relief pitcher: Jorge Sosa, 2007-2008. Sosa actually wasn’t terrible in 2007, and the Mets have had a lot of bad relievers over the past 10 years, but I couldn’t in good conscience pick someone who wasn’t on the 2008 team and Sosa was so bad in 20 appearances that I deemed him “The White Flag,” the human embodiment of forfeit. Plus it wasn’t like he was good enough in 2007 to make up for it, as Aaron Heilman was, or good enough at a specialty role, like Scott Schoeneweis.
Who’d I miss? Comment away and fill me in.
The inimitable John Harper on the Javier Vazquez deal, in this morning’s Daily News:
Isn’t this the type of creative dealing the Mets should be doing?
Or is it simply that they are in denial about their need to upgrade their pitching to have any real chance at contending next season?
It could be that, yes.
It could also be something better for Mets fans, and a sign of a more progressive organizational philosophy being either espoused by or forced upon Omar Minaya.
On paper, the Yankees made a major upgrade to their rotation by dealing Melky Cabrera, a young but thus-far unspectacular outfielder likely to continue being decent and inexpensive for the next several seasons. Melky’s a fan favorite, but since the Yankees just acquired Curtis Granderson and still have Brett Gardner in the fold, he’s easily worth trading for 200 guaranteed decent innings from Vazquez.
But also dispatched in the deal, and not even mentioned in Harper’s column, was 19-year-old pitcher Arodys Vizcaino. Vizcaino was recently ranked the Yanks’ third-best prospect by Baseball America and second best by Kevin Goldstein at Baseball Prospectus.
He’s 19 and hasn’t pitched in full season ball yet, so it makes sense for the Yanks to include him in a deal for a pitcher of Vazquez’s caliber, even if Vazquez will be a free agent after this season. Scouts apparently love Vizcaino’s upside, but he’s far from a sure thing, and the Yanks are a lock to contend for their division title in 2010.
For the Mets, though, would it really make sense to deal Jenrry Mejia, probably the closest comp in their system, for one year of solid starting pitching?
I doubt it. The Mets should be looking to improve for 2010, of course, but with as much uncertainty as they have thanks to players coming off injury and down seasons, they absolutely must not do it at the cost of their farm system.
All trades are, to some extent, gambles. The Yankees, in making the deal, are gambling that Vazquez provides enough to their title run in 2010 to make up for whatever they give up down the road in Vizcaino. The Mets, not nearly as likely to make a title run in 2010, should not be making that sort of gamble.
Plus, for all we know, the Mets were in no position to even make that sort of deal. Calling the lefty relievers involved more or less a wash, it would probably take Angel Pagan and Mejia just to equal the Yanks’ offer. And would the Braves trade Vazquez in division for an equal offer?
I don’t know. I like Vazquez a lot, but I’m happy it didn’t happen because the Mets can not mortgage their future for a playoff run in 2010.
Tedquarters 