Army of Jeters!

As a member of the N.Y. media I’m contractually obligated to say something about Derek Jeter today, so I’ll start with this amazing Photoshop montage from the Daily News:


That’s partnered in the print edition with Mike Lupica’s column about, well, something. I guess it’s about how the Yankees don’t want to give Derek Jeter the money Derek Jeter wants but maybe Derek Jeter wants too much money, only stretched out to like 900 words and with a bunch of quotes from rival executives incredulous that the Yankees won’t overpay for a 36-year-old shortstop who can’t field anymore.

The Yankees are doing exactly what they should be doing.

Apparently, since Brian Cashman reportedly told Jeter and his agent to look around for a better deal and come back to him, Mike Francesa suggested the Mets need to sign Jeter to make a splash, or something silly like that. It’s almost too ridiculous to even merit a response, but here’s one anyway:

Signing Derek Jeter to make a splash is the opposite of what the Mets need to do. If Jeter has a three-year, $45 million deal on the table to play for the Yankees, it will require more than that to pry him away. The Mets, by all accounts, don’t have that type of money, and even if they did they shouldn’t spend it on Jeter.

Jeter, despite his defensive issues, is undoubtedly still a very good player. But according to just about everyone he’s not interested in switching positions anytime soon, and the Mets already have a very good player at shortstop. If the Mets had more than $15 million available with which to upgrade their team in 2011, they likely sign Orlando Hudson and an innings-eating starting pitcher, a pair that would likely combine to add more wins than Jeter.

And a multi-year deal would mean the Mets had Jeter on their hands for at least his age 38 and 39 seasons as well. For a lot of money.

It makes no sense.

Enjoying the Kool-Aid

It was difficult to leave today’s Terry Collins press conference not feeling confident about the direction of the Mets. So I didn’t.

These days, with some Mets fans so upset over the past few seasons, whenever you agree with a decision the team makes or something someone from the front office says, someone will pop up and accuse you of “drinking the Kool-Aid.”

But here’s the thing: What if you like the way the Kool-Aid tastes?

Today, Sandy Alderson several times stressed Terry Collins’ experience in player development and familiarity with the young players in the Mets’ system as factors in his hiring. Alderson even used the term “sustainability,” a favorite of term of mine to describe the benefits of building a winner from within.

Collins, for his part, called the Mets’ current crop of young players “the finest group of young men” he has met in baseball. He emphasized that he wants players to continue getting better even at the Major League level and to establish better lines of communication with all 25 players on his roster, the front office and the Minor League managers.

When pressed about the rough end to his tenure in Anaheim, he said, “It was a huge learning experience…. I did a bad job managing the clubhouse. I will guarantee you it will not happen here.”

Collins even mentioned speaking to Carlos Beltran about how badly Beltran wants to win, and said he had no problem with Jose Reyes’ celebrations as long as they didn’t get him drilled.

And look: Words are only words, and Collins spewed a ton of them, so maybe I was just hearing what I wanted to hear. But what I picked up, and kept picking up, were the right words, over and over again. Sure, maybe Collins and Alderson are just saying they want to create a sustainable winner and compete in 2011 and beyond, providing the press good copy to buy them time while they conspire to keep the Mets’ mired in the basement of the National League East.

But I doubt it. It is yet to be determined if they’ll have any success, but it certainly sounds like they have a better idea of what success demands than their predecessors. There was nothing like, “I’m in the starting pitcher market,” or “hey, f@#$ everything, let’s make our best prospect a mop-up guy.”

Maybe I’m being too optimistic. Maybe I’m drinking the Kool-Aid, though whatever this is seems a whole lot more nutritious. It’s like green tea sweetened with just a touch of lemonade, my favorite beverage (order it by name — the Ted Berg) and the same stuff I’ve been enjoying and serving for years now.

And though it’s too soon to really know, it sure seems like the drink is more likely spiked with winning baseball than cyanide.

Job titles I would like to have: Chief Futurist

Spotted this interview on Boing Boing today, an interesting talk with Intel Chief Futurist Brian David Johnson about using science fiction to help imagine future technology.

But the big story here: “Cheif Futurist” is an actual job title. I want that. I mean, “Senior Editorial Producer” is great and all, and I recognize that in this day and age I’m lucky to even be employed. But Chief Futurist sounds so badass.

Perhaps this is not news to you, because apparently Futurology is enough of a thing to have its own Wikipedia page. I always thought “futurist” just referred to the people who made stuff look futuristic in movies like Blade Runner. But there’s even a list of notable futurists. From the Wikipedia, it really sounds like some futurists are smart people dedicated to researching historical patterns and trends to try to predict the future, and others are complete B.S. artists.

I want to fall in with that second group. No disrespect to the folks doing all the trend analysis and probability stuff, but that seems like a lot of work. I’m looking for someone to pay me to just sit around and make up stuff about what might happen in the future, based on nothing all that coherent except my general understanding of how people behave.

Watch, I’m about to break off a little futurism for you: In 42 years we will have live-in robot maids, talking dogs, flying cars, and a bustling space-sprocket industry. We’ll live in giant, disk-shaped apartment complexes in the sky with treadmills for walking our talking dogs and mechanisms that perform all our mundane tasks at the push of a button. And a dreamy rock star will record a hit song called “Eep Opp Ork Ah-Ah.”

And that’s just amateur futurism! Imagine what I could do if you hired me professionally and I really had time to think about it. Just let me know where to send my resume.

Return of the Mook?

The rest of the staff remains in flux, although a source said Mookie Wilson might return at first base. Bench coach Dave Jauss might be asked to fill the minor league field coordinator position that Collins vacated, and Ken Oberkfell will either remain as manager of Triple-A Buffalo or become bench coach. Hitting coach Howard Johnson is unlikely to remain in that role, but will be employed by the organization in some capacity.

Andy Martino, N.Y. Daily News.

Cool. Mookie has been employed by the club in some role or another for years now — team ambassador, organizational baserunning coordinator, Cyclones manager, first-base coach. Obviously I think the Mets should have a first-base coach that they think will do a good job of it, that understands and preaches the organizational first-base coach philosophy and that they’re certain will consistently yell, “Back!” on pickoff moves and remind runners how many outs there are. But if they think Mookie can handle that, then, you know, awesome.

The only reason I mention him here, really, is to brag: One time Mookie Wilson called me. I was working on a freelance piece about the 1988 Mets, so I contacted the team to see if they could put me in touch with some former players. They obliged, and told me Mookie would be calling me soon.

If you’ve heard Mookie Wilson speak, you know he has a pretty distinct voice, so I had no doubt whom I was speaking with when I heard him say, “Hello, is this Ted?”

But even so, I played dumb. “Ahh, yes. Who is this?”

“This is Mookie Wilson.”

It was awesome. I know I’m pathetic.

On relevance

Alderson doesn’t have to be told that all of this has caused the Mets to have become irrelevant. To change that, the manager is going to be a most important part of the process. The Mets’ hierarchy all decided that Collins, twice fired, with no postseason games on his managerial resume, is the right man to make them relevant again. There is nothing to suggest he isn’t just another retread manager and not the kind of difference-maker the organization so desperately needs.

Bill Madden, N.Y. Daily News.

What does Madden mean by “relevant” here?

I feel like the term is thrown about by sportswriters and talk-radio hosts pretty frequently, and I’m never sure exactly what it means. I mean, I know what the word “relevant” means, I just don’t know when it pertains to sports teams. Is it just a stand-in for “worth writing about”?

Does Sandy Alderson really know that the Mets are irrelevant, and should he be charged with restoring their relevance? Seems like he should work on making them better, to hell with everything else.

Does “relevant” just mean good, though? Because if Madden’s saying, “Sandy Alderson knows the Mets have not been that good the last few years and he should try to make them good,” then I agree wholeheartedly. I don’t think the manager really is a most important part of that process, but I’m willing to agree to disagree on that point.

I’m pretty sure when the Jets hired Rex Ryan, people said he made them relevant again. Is that because he filled up columns with his bravado and made sportswriters all over the Metro area forget the snoozefest press conferences of the Eric Mangini Era? Or is that because he helped make the Jets good?

I should mention that none of these questions is rhetorical. I really want to know what everyone means when they say a team is relevant or irrelevant, how it’s different from good or bad, and why it matters.

Because if we’re to define relevant as “having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand,” as Merriam-Webster does, and the matter at hand is New York sports or the consciousness of the New York sports fan, then the Mets and Jets are perpetually relevant as far as I’m concerned. Since I root for those teams and follow them closely regardless of whether they win or lose, they always have significant and demonstrable bearing on me — at least in as much as any sports team can.

I am Jack’s apathy

Word leaked out yesterday that the Mets will hire Terry Collins to be their next manager, and now a good subsection of the fanbase is furious.

If I had to guess, I’d say all the angry fans fall somewhere on a Venn diagram with three intersecting circles.

In the first circle are the straight-up haters. These are the particularly bizarre fans that will lash out at just about any decision the team makes, no matter how large or small. They are the frustrating — and frustrated — fatalists, certain that the Mets are irreparably broken and no new front-office or roster overhaul will ever make any difference. I suspect some of them may be masochists and take odd pleasure in watching their team struggle.

The second circle is for the irascible Backman lobby. These fans, wooed by the media, by nostalgia or by Wally Backman himself, are certain that Backman — and no one but Backman — should be the Mets’ manager for now and forever, warts and inexperience be damned.

The third and perhaps largest circle belongs to a more reasonable set: The fans who doubt Collins’ ability to helm a Major League team based on his past failures with the Astros and Angels, most notably the miserable turn in 1999 when Mo Vaughn and his teammates in Anaheim petitioned upper management to have Collins relieved of duty.

Sometimes I get fired up over what I think are bad decisions, or the perpetuation of what I believe are fallacies or just dumb ideas. In this particular case, though — even after reading the reactions of the Mets fans who seem so incredibly mad — I find it difficult to muster up any emotion at all. Perhaps some entertained bewilderment about how people could get so angry over what will likely be an innocuous but informed decision made by reasonable men to fill an overrated position.

It’s not that I don’t harbor any doubts about Collins, either. It’s just that the almost unbelievable gusto with which some fans are decrying the decision, for whatever reason, leaves me feeling numb.

But if I could gather those angry fans and somehow prevent them from rioting long enough to talk to them, I’d probably ask this: Do you believe that people can change?

And that’s not a rhetorical question. I’m actually curious. Tons of people seem willing to argue otherwise based on old maxims — “A leopard can’t change his stripes” — as if just because something has been stated a billion times it must be true.

The fatalists, by definition, likely believe people cannot change, so they think Jeff Wilpon will never improve in his role as Mets’ COO, Sandy Alderson will still look for juiced-up players capable of smashing 50+ homers and Terry Collins will inevitably alienate the clubhouse with his alpha-male attitude. I don’t think I’ll be able to convince those people otherwise, so if by some chance you’ve found you’re way here and you’re one of them, please click away. I appreciate the traffic, but there’s nothing for you here. Try to enjoy your weird life.

The Backmanites and the reasonable doubters, though, must at least be open to the idea. After all, one of the main tenets of the Backman Lobby stated that Backman not only has changed from the man whose legal and financial troubles lost him a managerial position in Arizona, but would be willing to change again to fall in line with Alderson’s presumed organizational philosophy.

And if your doubts are only the reasonable ones, and you consider yourself to be a reasonable person, I follow up: Do you try to change? Do you work out to get in better shape, or read to learn more about the world, or consider your mistakes to avoid repeating them?

I sure do. Maybe I’m just self-conscious, and maybe my efforts to better myself are in vain and pathetic. But to me it seems downright arrogant, stubborn and small-minded to think, “well, this is how I am and the way I came out of the womb. If people don’t like it, so be it.”

Maybe Terry Collins thinks that way. I don’t know. I had one ten-minute conversation with the man and he really didn’t seem like it, but one ten-minute conversation is probably not the best way to judge a man’s character. Maybe he’ll take command of the Mets and repeat all the mistakes of his past. Maybe he learned nothing from his stints in Houston and Anaheim and his DUI arrest in 2002.

I’m not arguing, of course, that someone’s history should be entirely ignored when considering him for a job. That’d be crazy, like penciling in Jeff Francoeur for right field in 2011 and thinking, “hey, maybe he’s different now; maybe he learned to lay off bad pitches.” You, me, Terry Collins, Jeff Francoeur, we face uphill battles when we try to change our most deeply ingrained ways.

But I think, with an open mind and dedication, we can. And I would hope that if Sandy Alderson, Paul DePodesta, J.P. Ricciardi and John Ricco sat down with Collins for multiple hour-long interviews, they asked him if he learned from his prior stints and left satisfied that he did.

John Steinbeck:

‘Thou mayest!’ Why, that makes a man great, that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win. … It is easy out of laziness, out of weakness, to throw oneself into the lap of deity, saying, ‘I couldn’t help it; the way was set.’ But think of the glory of the choice!

Sandwich of the Week

This week’s sandwich — which, as I already confessed, I ate last week — came to me on a tip from a reader like you.

Well, he’s not exactly like you, since we’re all unique and everything. But he is also a reader, and presumably if you’re here, you are as well. The particular reader in question, Mark, writes an excellent (albeit infrequently updated) Giants blog called Bluenatic that you should probably check out.

Mark discovered this sandwich near his workplace and tipped me off via email. You can and should do the same, either by sending a note to tberg@sny.tv or by using the contact form in the tab to the above right. Especially — especially — if you know of a sandwich as good as this one that is reasonably accessible from Midtown Manhattan or Westchester. This region has no shortage of great sandwiches and so, in theory, it shouldn’t be too hard to find a new sandwich to write up every week. But I am limited in scope by my own web-browsing and traveling habits, so I invite you to shake up my whole sandwich paradigm.

The sandwich: Grilled Pork Banh Mi from the Chicken House on 36th street between 7th and 8th in Manhattan.

The construction: A hot, crusty baguette with pork, mayo, sriracha sauce and a bevy of vegetables and herbs that I was too hungry to entirely sort through. Carrots and lettuce were visible, and I’m sure I tasted cilantro and basil.

Important background information: Chicken House isn’t much to look at. It’s a narrow takeout fried-chicken joint with a half-counter and maybe four or five bar stools for the eat-in set. In the 10 minutes I spent waiting on the banh mi, no one else that came in ordered a sandwich. On this particular day, at least, nearly all Chicken House’s business was in fried chicken and fish.

But I could tell from the care that the man at the counter put into my sandwich that it was going to be good. I couldn’t even see all of what he was doing back there, but the concentration on his face and deliberateness with which he piled on the ingredients boded well for the product.

Maybe my own deli experience gave me a radar for fellow great sandwich creators, or maybe we, the sandwich heroes, have some sort of unspoken cosmic connection and he could see in my eyes how badly I wanted a carefully constructed and delicious sandwich. Either way, this was a sandwich made with love — the love of sandwiches. I shouldn’t stereotype, but that type of passion wasn’t entirely what I expected from a quick-serve takeout fried-chicken place in Midtown (not that there’s anything wrong with takeout fried-chicken).

What it looks like (inside wax paper and a plastic bag):


How it tastes: If you read this site with any regularity, you know me well enough to know I don’t liberally throw around the term “party in my mouth.” Actually, I searched this site for “party in my mouth” and found that I’ve only used it once before in all my sandwich-reviewing — in a remarkably similar construction, and also referring to a Vietnamese sandwich.

Truth is, there is some flavor — a combination of flavors, I think — unique to Southeast Asian cuisine that I can’t entirely put my finger on except to say that it’s amazing. I’m pretty sure it has something to do with the basil combined with chili, but there’s something else in there too. I’ve noticed it in Thai, Vietnamese and Cambodian foods now. Has anyone ever had Laotian cuisine? Is it also awesome?

Anyway, this sandwich had that flavor, and it’s still good. Sorry I can’t be more specific. Also, the array of vegetables added some crunch, and bread was excellent. Warm, tasty, crusty, plentiful. Real good foundation for a sandwich.

My only quibble with this pork banh mi, though — and the only thing keeping it out of the Sandwich Hall of Fame — was that there wasn’t quite enough meat. The pork that was on there was moist and delicious — it definitely tasted char-grilled (though I have no idea what the mechanics of that would be in such a small indoor space). But I like a lot of meat, and this sandwich was mostly bread and vegetables. Delicious bread and vegetables, mind you, but I need protein to power my inactive lifestyle.

What it’s worth: That’s the other thing! This sandwich — which was huge, even without a lot of meat — cost only $6. That’s a great deal for anywhere, but for Midtown it’s damn-near insane. Granted, it also cost me one subway trip on my Metrocard, but that’s only because I was too hungry to walk there.

The rating: 89 out of 100. As close to the Hall of Fame as you can be without getting in. And I’m tempted to try it again in case the short amount of meat was a one-time hiccup.

Derek Jeter vaguely delusional

Neither Jeter nor his agent, Casey Close, has disclosed what numbers they are seeking, but it is believed Jeter wants a five- to six-year deal somewhere in the range of $20 million a year. If you do the math, that’s a difference of at least $50 million from the Yanks’ offer.

Most baseball analysts agree that, on the open market, the 36-year-old Jeter would attract no more than a two-year deal for a total of $15 million to $20 million.

Anthony McCarron and Bill Madden, N.Y. Daily News.

OK, it’s important — as always — to take the contract details with several grains of salt, since neither Jeter nor his agent is on record with his contract demands. And I know that essentially every single human in the N.Y. sports media has provided his or her opinion on the negotiations, so there’s probably nothing new here.

But it strikes me that Jeter stands to lose a lot more than the Yankees if the two part ways. For one thing, there’s the straight-up cash part of it: No other Major League team would offer Jeter even the three-year, $50 million offer that’s rumored to be the Yankees’ starting bid.

Second, if Jeter cares at all about loyalty and legacy and all that jazz — and presumably he does, since those are like the most Derek Jeter-y things about Jeter at this point — then it behooves him to stay in the Bronx. He must know as well as anyone how offputting it would be to his fans to see him playing in another team’s uniform.

The Yankees stand to take a pretty sizy marketing hit if they let Jeter walk, but it seems unlikely that their fans will stop showing up en masse and watching games on YES as long as the team continues winning. And, straight up, it’s unclear that signing Derek Jeter to a big, expensive contract extension is the best way to keep winning.

If the Yankees’ payroll is finite — which has never been entirely clear — and a $20 mil-a-year pledge to Jeter could feasibly keep them out of the bidding for some future free agent stud (also unlikely), then they’d be better off putting some of their considerable resources toward finding a younger, less expensive shortstop. Jeter is still a good player in spite of his shaky defense and diminishing production. But J.J. Hardy, Rafael Furcal and Jose Reyes — all years younger than Jeter and all currently slated for free agency next offseason — posted similar or better WARs in 2010. Jeter is hardly irreplaceable.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, Jeter will still be rich, handsome, bound for the Hall of Fame and dating Minka Kelly regardless of where he signs this offseason, so it’s hard to say he’ll lose all that much by leaving the Yankees. But he’ll stand to lose money — both contractually and likely due to fewer endorsements — and he’ll forever forgo some of that mystical “True Lifelong Yankee” legacy he has developed in the Bronx.

So it strikes me that the Yanks could easily call his bluff. Leave the three-year, $50 million on the table and tell him to come back to them if he finds anything better. He won’t.

Islanders pull blogger’s credentials

The NHL has left it up to the teams to determine their own policies on bloggers, and the Islanders are using that wide breadth of a policy to make a determination on Botta. The other problem for Botta, or any writer in the Nassau press box that runs afoul of team management, is that the Islanders’ press credentials clearly indicate the team has the right to pull them at its discretion.

And Botta is a journalist, in the estimation of the PHWA, which has gone to bat for him in this dispute. Sure, there may have been complaints about Botta by the Islanders that go beyond content and speak to behavior or some violation of decorum. (We’ve heard Botta’s speaking to players outside of designated interview areas was an issue raised, which is by no means a credential-losing sin.)

Those problems are minor, and could be hashed out without a “nuclear option.” So this is essentially an issue of censorship, of undermining an important voice in the Islanders media and fan communities.

Greg Wyshynski, Puck Daddy.

I don’t want to delve too deeply into this since it’s far from settled, Chris Botta is a member of the SNY.tv family, and I don’t want to ruffle any more feathers than have already been ruffled. But a couple of people have asked me why the press hasn’t shown more outrage over this, and I’m not sure that it’s even necessary.

No coverage of the dispute portrays the Islanders in a favorable light, because it’s difficult to see how they’re not shooting themselves in the foot by shutting him out. Botta provides better coverage of the Islanders than anybody. Denying him access to the club only further alienates an already-withering fanbase.

The actual job part of my job includes a decent amount of advocating to get professional bloggers credentialed. I have had no role in Botta’s issue with the Islanders, but I’ve spent plenty of time trying to convince media-relations departments to allow our bloggers to cover their teams from the inside. To me, as long as the content is professional, there should be no distinction between a “blogger” and a “columnist,” since those are just words.

Some teams are way cooler about it than others. The Knicks, for example, have been extremely obliging.