The blog for Mets fans
who like to read
ABOUT US
Faith and Fear in Flushing made its debut on Feb. 16, 2005, the brainchild of two longtime friends and lifelong Met fans.
Greg Prince discovered the Mets when he was 6, during the magical summer of 1969. He is a Long Island-based writer, editor and communications consultant. Contact him here.
Jason Fry is a Brooklyn writer whose first memories include his mom leaping up and down cheering for Rusty Staub. Check out his other writing here.
Got something to say? Leave a comment, or email us at faithandfear@gmail.com. (Sorry, but we have no interest in ads, sponsored content or guest posts.)
Need our RSS feed? It's here.
Visit our Facebook page, or drop by the personal pages for Greg and Jason.
Or follow us on Twitter: Here's Greg, and here's Jason.
|
by Jason Fry on 20 November 2007 2:18 am
I'm not devastated, but I am disappointed. Devastated is a word used for greater things in life than a game. I was disappointed in the way I pitched. I got some ground balls, but I can't control where they go. A couple got through. Another was too slow to turn a double play.
— Tom Glavine, Sept. 30, 2007
Yes, he's gone south, less than two months after he played his part in helping our season do the same. As a parting gift to go with the 300 golf balls and the $50+ million, I'd like to send him off with whatever bile I can spare, and to fervently wish that he never return. I don't care if that means sacrificing the chance to boo him, or to watch some gang of 2008 Mets beat him around on a day when the ump isn't giving him the wide strike. I have thought and written far too much about him over the last five years, and I'd love for this to be the last time I do so. Though I know that won't be true.
Glavine's final failing — that endless, awful seven earned runs in a third of an inning — wasn't what did it, though it certainly didn't help. Nor is it that he returned to the Braves, though that makes for some nicely loathsome symmetry. It was what he said after that horrific final start that tore things irrevocably.
Remember (I promise it'll only be for a bit) what the afternoon of Sept. 30 felt like, what it was like watching nearly a year of hopes and dreams gurgle down the toilet? OK. Now, re-read those words at the top of this post again.
That quote — that astonishing, awful quote to end a month of astonishing, awful quotes— perfectly sums up all the reasons I only fitfully warmed to Tom Glavine, and why I'd like to never, ever think about him again. It's all there. His sneaky alibi-ing, the way he always sounded like he was being diplomatic or philosophical while he was actually blaming his teammates or casting himself as an innocent bystander in the schemes of Dame Fortune. (Here's a sampler of Glavine-speak from this blog's early days.) Never mind the ball he threw clean over David Wright's head in that endless third of an inning, clearing the bases, or the pitch — his final one as a Met, as it turned out — that hit Dontrelle Willis with the bases loaded. Got some ground balls, can't control where they go. Oh well.
And then there's his aloofness, never expressed more noxiously than here, with Glavine waxing philosophical while fans cried in the stands. Devastated is a word used for greater things in life than a game. Look, I bow to no one as a Met fan. (OK, I bow slightly to my co-blogger.) Even at my most livid that day, I was perfectly aware that, as the old saying goes, it wasn't my wife and it wasn't my life. I didn't need lessons from Spouting Thomas to put the disaster he'd completed in perspective.
By the way, Glavine wasn't the only one discussing disappointment and devastation that day. Those terms were heard elsewhere in the Met clubhouse — but in a somewhat different context.
To say disappointed would be the understatement of the year.
— Shawn Green, Sept. 30, 2007
We're devastated, also.
— Willie Randolph, Sept. 30, 2007
I don't know if Shawn Green was really in a state beyond disappointment, or if he was just saying the right thing. I have no reason not to think it's the former, but even if it's the latter, as a fan I'm grateful. I'm inclined to believe Willie Randolph — if you read Wayne Coffey's long, characteristically great piece this weekend, you probably are too. (More on that another day.) As for me, when the Mets' collapse was complete, I wrote how I was OK. Which I was. But that was a post addressing how I'd turned my back on the 2007 edition of the Mets some time before. The year? That's different.
I will think about the wreckage of 2007 off and on for my entire life. Years after the events, I'll suddenly realize I've been spending 10 minutes fuming about Gary Carter packing his gear as Orel Hershiser smothered us, or Armando Benitez and [insert one of several players here], or Jay Payton getting thrown out at third, or Kenny Rogers throwing ball four, or Carlos Beltran straightening up at the plate. 2007 was about falling out of love with a team, about learning to doubt players I'd come to trust, about enduring what I normally cherished. And sometimes, in the middle of the night, I fear it'll be about more than that — about how a plan for returning a ballclub to glory started to go horribly wrong. 2007 was devastating, and I'm not the least bit ashamed to feel that way. I'm a fan. Of course that's how I feel.
That Tom Glavine didn't feel our final defeat as deeply as we did is one thing — we rarely if ever discuss this, because it's the third rail that separates fans and athletes, but deep down we know few of our heroes care the way we do. That having failed so utterly, he chose to lecture those of us who cared more, even if it's just a game and therefore one of the lesser things in life? That's another thing entirely. That's when he touched that third rail. That's when he became unforgiveable.
by Greg Prince on 19 November 2007 4:45 am
AP reports Tom Glavine, last seen walking off the Shea Stadium mound after surrendering five of eventually seven runs after hitting Dontrelle Willis with the bases loaded in the first inning of the final game of the year with the National League Eastern Division title on the line, is going back to Atlanta for good. He will officially be a Brave in 2008 after wearing a New York Mets uniform for five seasons.
I am neither devastated nor disappointed.
See you in Met Hell.
by Greg Prince on 18 November 2007 1:36 am
This weekend, in honor of November 17 being Tom Seaver’s 63rd birthday, we offer you the following eleven pitchers…
Kevin Brown (not to be confused with the Kevin Brown who hit the wall for the Yankees in 2004 or the Kevin Brown who pitched two innings for the Mets in 1990), Ron Darling, Sid Fernandez, Wes Gardner, Dwight Gooden, Tim Leary, Jesse Orosco, Doug Sisk, Craig Swan, Walt Terrell, Floyd Youmans
..two catchers…
John Gibbons, Junior Ortiz
…seven infielders…
Hubie Brooks, Dave Cochrane, Ron Gardenhire, Keith Hernandez, Kevin Mitchell, Jose Oquendo, Eddie Williams
…and six outfielders…
Terry Blocker, Lenny Dykstra, Stanley Jefferson, Darryl Strawberry, Herm Winningham, Mookie Wilson.
We give you those 26 players because that’s what the Basic Agreement in effect on January 20, 1984 said we could do what we want with them. Every other Met was up for grabs.
In case you’ve forgotten or were never quite sure, the Mets and every Major League team were annually required to offer just about everybody in their organization to a monstrosity known as the free agent compensation pool. That’s what the 50-day strike of 1981 boiled down to: free agent compensation. Owners wanted direct compensation from the team that signed a free agent, but players objected because they feared it would limit their employment possibilities. The pool was the settlement. The owners wanted to protect somewhere between 15 and 18 players. The players wanted to protect 40. It wound up being 26 for a Type A free agent, 24 for a Type B.
And that is how we lost Tom Seaver the second time. Pitcher Dennis Lamp (Type A) left the Chicago White Sox as a free agent and signed with the Toronto Blue Jays on January 10, 1984. Ten days later, the White Sox were permitted to choose any player whose club did deem him unpoachable. They didn’t have to choose a Blue Jay. They could choose from any franchise.
The Mets franchise did not protect the Mets’ Franchise. The White Sox noticed and picked Tom Seaver to replace Dennis Lamp.
We get so worked up recalling M. Donald Grant, Dick Young and June 15, 1977 that we tend to gloss over January 20, 1984. Of course the seasons that succeeded the latter black date in New York Mets history were a vast improvement over what had come directly before, so it was easy to sort of look past the second Seaver debacle while we were contending again. The Mets won 90 games in 1984, so no harm done, right?
But it wasn’t any less of a spiritual debacle than the first time the Mets let Seaver go. The PR was bad and the competitive aspect wasn’t all that helpful either. It was shameful and disgraceful and incompetent. If Grant’s trade of Seaver in ’77 was unforgivably malevolent, Frank Cashen’s decision to gamble on Seaver not being chosen by another team in ’84 was criminally negligent. It had taken more than five years to bring Seaver back where he belonged. It took one quick year to watch him walk away again. Where once we got Henderson, Flynn, Norman and Zachry, now we got nothing but grief.
The worst part? Worse than no longer having Tom Seaver be a New York Met a second time? It’s looking at the list of players who were deemed more worthy of protection by the Mets than Seaver.
Mind you, Tom had turned 39 the previous November 17, so he wasn’t quite in Cy Young trim any longer. Still, he had given the Mets a pretty good show in 1983, beginning with his triumphant walk in from the bullpen at Shea on Opening Day. The W-L was tepid (9-14 on a 68-94 club) but the ERA was respectable (3.55) and the 231 innings were hefty — led the team, in fact. Plus he was Tom Seaver, a Hall of Fame head attached to a capable arm linked to a stature second to none among New York Mets.
“As soon as I got their list, I looked to see which kids they protected,” White Sox GM Roland Hemond said in Jack Lang’s The New York Mets: Twenty-Five Years of Baseball Magic. “But when I saw the list and saw that Seaver was not protected, I almost jumped out of my seat. Seaver, in my mind, was still a quality pitcher who could win ten or fifteen games. Where are you going to get someone who can guarantee you that? That’s the reason we picked Seaver.”
Still, if you had to choose between protecting 39-year-old Tom Seaver and 19-year-old Dwight Gooden (who turned 43 on Friday, though I contend he’ll always be 24-4), there was no question you’d go with Doctor K. You’d have to see some kind of doctor if you didn’t. Gooden, Ron Darling, Sid Fernandez…these pitchers were clearly the future of the team. Of course you wouldn’t risk exposing them in a draft, even one that was cockamamie.
But didja see some of the other names, names of Mets players who were protected instead of Tom Seaver? I do believe the acronym “WTF?” was invented for just this scenario.
As we are almost 24 years beyond Debacle II, we know a few things. We know it was right to hold Doc and Ronnie and El Sid in abeyance. We know you wouldn’t have dangled Keith Hernandez or Darryl Strawberry if your life depended on it. We know Jesse Orosco had just come off a legitimate All-Star season and was, save for Bruce Sutter, the best closer in the N.L. at the time. In January 1984, these six Mets were unquestionably untouchable and history bears out that designation.
That leaves twenty Mets considered less expendable than Tom Seaver. Two of them, Hubie Brooks and Mookie Wilson, had established themselves as regulars, though neither was quite untouchable at this juncture. Brooks was an adequate third baseman with not a lot of power. Centerfielder Wilson didn’t get on base enough for a leadoff man (new manager Davey Johnson would drop him in the order). But they were regulars and in the spirit of Hobie Landrith, you were going to have a lot of balls get by third and through center if you lost your starters at those positions. Hubie and Mookie had plenty of good baseball left in them, so we can’t argue with reserving their spots.
That brings us to 18 Mets, several of whom had shown promise in 1983. Doug Sisk — don’t laugh — was a sharp setup man in his first full Met year. Somebody had to get the ball to Orosco in 1984, and Sisk would indeed be very good at that for a while. Junior Ortiz was considered something of a coup when he was acquired the previous June, an outstanding defensive catcher who was penciled in to get most of the work behind the plate in the coming year. Jose Oquendo was just a baby, having turned 20 in ’83 and had longtime starting shortstop written all over him. Walt Terrell, while not in the sensation class of Gooden, Darling and Fernandez, showed flashes of dependability in his midseason callup (and, as everybody who was a sentient Mets fan then probably remembers, he hit three homers as a rookie).
Let’s give Cashen those four players in the context of January 1984, which leaves us 14 Mets to consider instead of Seaver. Really 13, because before you can say “Craig Swan was clearly washed up by 1984,” he had a no-trade clause, which made him poolproof. So you couldn’t replace Seaver with Swannie on the unprotected list even if you wanted to.
Some guys clearly look like very bad choices in hindsight, but let’s try to think in January 1984 terms. Five of the remaining 13 protected players had been top picks in a fairly recent June amateur draft. Just as you wouldn’t take a chance on giving up Strawberry (1980) or Gooden (1982), it was reasonable for the Mets to keep their hands on Eddie Williams (their No. 1 and fourth in the nation in 1983) and Terry Blocker (same status, 1981). You could argue they were not genius picks in the first place, but that’s another story. You can’t risk them while they’re still practically in utero. Likewise, Stanley Jefferson (’83) and John Gibbons (’80) had been first-round picks in years when the Mets had a surfeit of first-round choices. Those two still had a real shot at big league success.
The other top June pick was Tim Leary, the Mets’ first selection in 1979, a hard-throwing righty who had gone through all kinds of arm-rehab hell to get back in the Mets’ plans by 1984. In fact, he was supposed to become Tom Seaver once and, as he was only 25, perhaps again.
So let’s give the benefit of the doubt to not making available these five youngsters thought to have high ceilings entering ’84. That brings the total down to eight players the Mets protected instead of Tom Seaver. Since I don’t think we have to think too hard about Lenny Dykstra and Kevin Mitchell given what they would contribute in short order and become in the long term, we’re really down to six Mets. Let’s examine them individually.
Floyd Youmans was a second-round amateur pick the same year Gooden was selected in the first round. In fact, he was Gooden’s pal. He hadn’t put up hellacious numbers in the minors like Doc, but he was the same age as Dwight. You can’t be risking Floyd Youmans in January 1984.
Herm Winningham was the Mets’ first pick in the old January amateur draft in 1981. He swiped 50 bags at Lynchburg in ’82. That’s a lot of stolen bases in an era when speed was highly valued. You can’t be risking Herm Winningham in January 1984.
Kevin Brown, one of twelve different Kevin Browns who have been drafted by Major League clubs since 1981 if not nearly the most famous of them, was a first-round January pick in 1983. In his first professional season, at Columbia, he struck out 221 batters in 170.2 innings. Though he would never rise above Double-A, you can’t be risking this particular Kevin Brown in January 1984.
Frank Cashen is pardoned for those three. In fact, he’s pardoned for everybody mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, which encompasses 23 of the 26 Mets who were protected instead of Seaver. Some contributed big-time to the Mets of ’84, ’85 and especially ’86. Three — Brooks, Youmans and Winningham — helped bring Gary Carter to the Mets, not a bad historical consolation prize if we’re talking Mets Hall of Famers. Some did nothing but sure looked like they’d do something. You can’t fault Cashen for not having the clearest crystal ball on the block.
But the remaining three? The three who had to be kept at arm’s length from the White Sox instead of Tom Seaver? Ensuring their continued Metliness in lieu of Seaver’s was worse, worser and worst. In terms of risking Tom Seaver, they were January 20, 1984’s Worst Decisions in the World.
1) The Mets took precautions to reserve Dave Cochrane instead of Tom Seaver. Who the hell was Dave Cochrane?
Dave Cochrane was a third base prospect chosen in the fourth round by the Mets in 1981. He wasn’t quite 21 on the day Tom Seaver was plucked by the White Sox. Would have Dave Cochrane been chosen instead? Cochrane did show pop in the low minors: 22 homers in 70 games at Little Falls in ’82, then 25 in 120 at Lynchburg. Of course he struck out more than 100 times in both seasons. The Mets had Hubie for third base, though as mentioned, Hubie wasn’t much for homers. Hmmm…you know, the White Sox would eventually accept Dave Cochrane in a trade for Tom Paciorek in 1985 (the Jeff Conine of his day, as our friend CharlieH put it to me this past September), but that seemed more an out-of-it team dealing a veteran for whomever they could get swap than Dave Cochrane as holy White Sock grail. Cochrane’s Met stock dropped like a rock after Howard Johnson came aboard. It kept dropping as Dave journeyed through five American League seasons, accumulating about 500 at-bats with the Sox and Mariners and homering only eight times. Couldn’t have known that in ’84, but scouting’s got to be worth something.
The Mets were never satisfied with Hubie Brooks or third basemen in general, yet here we have to go with hindsight. It was a bad call to protect Cochrane over Seaver.
2) The Mets took precautions to reserve Wes Gardner instead of Tom Seaver. Who the hell was Wes Gardner?
Wes Gardner is the first Met prospect I can recall being groomed (or at least hyped) as a potential closer. Drafted in the 22nd round of the June 1982, draft, the righty struck out around a batter an inning at Little Falls and Lynchburg, saving 15 while used exclusively in relief in 1983. He would be 23 in 1984, when he eventually made it to the big club off a big year at Tidewater (20 saves, 1.61 ERA). It was almost foresightful of the Mets to think in terms of cultivating a reliever instead of just converting a failed starter. I almost can’t blame the Mets for being certain they would hold onto him. I can definitely understand the attraction. And Lamp, the guy who started all the trouble, led the White Sox in saves in ’83 with 15. Chicago needed to replace him.
But freaking Wes Gardner proved to be freaking Wes Gardner when he actually got a chance in New York, and if you can remember freaking Wes Gardner when he got his chance, you know he was totally freaking Wes Gardner. After 37.1 mostly dispiriting innings in ’84 and ’85, Wes was shipped north to Boston as part of the deal that brought us Bobby Ojeda. As the Red Sox had tired of Ojeda after ’85, I have to believe Gardner wasn’t the make-or-break element of that key trade. It was a bad call to protect Gardner over Seaver.
3) The Mets took precautions to reserve Ron Gardenhire instead of Tom Seaver. We knew who the hell Ron Gardenhire was.
And you have to be totally kidding me that Ron Gardenhire was protected from the compensation pool instead of Tom Seaver.
For that matter, Ron Gardenhire was protected instead of Calvin Schiraldi, Mike Fitzgerald, Brent Gaff, Tom Gorman, Wally Backman, Brian Giles, Ed Lynch, Mike Torrez, Rusty Staub, Danny Heep, Ron Hodges, John Christensen, John Stearns and George Foster to name a whole bunch of 1984 Mets who, whatever their perceived liabilities that January or in retrospect, I would have protected over Ron Gardenhire. The Mets protected Ron Gardenhire over Dave Kingman, who was still rotting on the roster in wait of his inevitable release, and I would have kept Kingman — no matter that he was completely obsolete as a Met after the acquisition of Keith Hernandez — over Gardenhire.
Ron Gardenhire hit .062 for the Mets in 1983. He drove in one run. He stole no bases. He lost his shortstop job early to Oquendo. What was clever on his part that year was by getting demoted to the Tides, he wound up catching the eye of Davey Johnson, who totally dug his spit and vinegar. Ron Gardenhire remastered Triple-A in 1983 after having done the same in 1981. Gardy became a Davey special in ’84, like Backman, like Kelvin Chapman, like Jerry Martin. He hit .246, ceded short to Rafael Santana after an injury (before Santana got hurt and gave way to Brooks who had given way to Ray Knight at third down the stretch) and wasn’t a regular or semi-regular again. Where the unforeseen revival of the Mets in 1984 is regarded, Gardenhire wasn’t on the same map as Wally Backman, was less of a help than the shockingly resuscitated Kelvin Chapman and not that much more of a factor than the legendarily useless Jerry Martin, no matter how much spit and vinegar he displayed at Tidewater a year earlier.
He would eventually become a heckuva manager for the Twins, but protecting Ron Gardenhire over Tom Seaver was a hellaciously bad call by the Mets general manager. Cochrane and Gardner at least had promise attached to them. Gardenhire had peaked in the minors and hadn’t proven anything in the majors.
And who the hell, given the chance to peruse 25 organizations’ depth charts, was going to skip over everybody else available in all of baseball to grab a 26-year-old middle infielder of limited range in the field and no particular accomplishment at bat? Admittedly, the White Sox were no great shakes at short (though the combination of Scott Fletcher and Jerry Dybzinski had just helped them to a division title in ’83), but they did have Ozzie Guillen developing in the minors. In other words, there was no legitimate chance in this or any life that Chicago would have chosen Ron Gardenhire instead of Tom Seaver…or any of the couple of thousand players left unprotected by every other club. None.
And even if they had, so what?
But the Mets protected Ron Gardenhire and left Tom Seaver hanging on the vine. And as Seaver himself would learn in his future endeavors, you always pick the most enticing grape you see. The White Sox thrived on starting pitching in 1983, and adding Tom Seaver figured to make them that much stronger. It didn’t, but it wasn’t Seaver’s fault. Seaver went to a new league and won 15 games in 1984 and 16 more (including his 300th) in 1985. Even at ages 39 and 40, he clearly had Amoco Unleaded left in the tank.
The Mets, on the other hand, had to improvise those two years among a series of fourth and fifth starters, none of whom — Lynch, Leary, Torrez, Bruce Berenyi, Rick Aguilera chief among them — was a better bet than Tom Seaver at that stage of their careers. Aguilera was the best of them, winning 10 games in ’85, yet when it fell on his young shoulders to keep the Mets alive in the final week against the Cardinals…well, imagine you could throw Tom Seaver in a pennant race instead of a visibly nervous rookie.
There was a mid-’80s narrative that suggested the absence of Seaver accelerated the arrival of Gooden, but it’s hard to imagine the presence of Seaver would have impeded the arrival of Gooden for very long. The kid was too much of a phenom to be kept down on the farm. Imagine that phenom and that Hall of Famer on the same pitching staff in ’84 and ’85 and maybe ’86 and ’87.
In the aftermath of Debacle II, Don Fehr of the Players Association told Murray Chass in The Sporting News that Seaver’s involuntary transfer “indicates that everybody would have been better off if they had left everything alone” where free agent compensation was concerned. “The system forced the Mets to make choices they didn’t want to make. The system put the Mets in a position to make choices and run risks. It’s needless and it’s silly.”
Soon enough, everyone basically agreed the Basic Agreement could do without the compensation pool. It died in the next negotiation…but not before any chance that Tom Seaver would finish his brilliant career as a Met, win his 300th game as a Met, pitch in another World Series (or two) as a Met and enjoy an uncomplicated retirement as a Met died as well.
Dennis Lamp was a good pickup by the Blue Jays. He went 11-0 for Toronto’s division winners in ’85. And I curse his name every time I see it.
by Greg Prince on 18 November 2007 1:30 am

There was about a five-second window when all was right with the New York Mets, when Tom Seaver and Dwight Gooden wore Met uniforms together. This was June 6, 1987, the day after Gooden returned from drug rehab to beat the Pirates and the day Seaver began his final attempt at pitching after injury and collusion had kept him sidelined since September of ’86. Other than simulated games and an exhibition start against the Tides, Tom never pitched for the Mets after October 1, 1983 and, sadly, was never actually on the same staff as Doc.
Happy 63rd birthday to Tom Seaver (born November 17, 1944) and happy 43rd birthday to Dwight Gooden (born November 16, 1964). You’ll both always be at the top of my rotation.
by Greg Prince on 18 November 2007 1:25 am

After his wildly wonderful 1983 homecoming, it was a kick in the gut (and probably lower) to watch Tom Seaver say goodbye a second time after a rightfully downcast Frank Cashen left him unprotected in the monstrosity known as the free agent compensation pool in January of ’84. The Chicago White Sox chose Tom Terrific to make up for losing Dennis Lamp to the Toronto Blue Jays, which shows how effed up baseball can get.
Not that I followed Tom Seaver around in the winter enough to know if this was normal headwear for him, but I was always struck by the vaguely European driving cap he sported in this, his adios again press conference. I’ve always wondered if that was his angry hat or something. Didn’t even take it off indoors, y’know?
by Greg Prince on 18 November 2007 1:22 am

It was so great to have Tom Seaver come home again on April 5, 1983, almost six seasons beyond the wretched trade that turned him into an ex-Met.
by Greg Prince on 17 November 2007 10:17 pm
Forget what I said about not writing off Yorvit Torrealba before we have a chance to fall in at least like with him. We will not have that chance, so write him (like Lo Duca) off all you want. Newsday is reporting our once future but neither once nor future platoon catcher has opted out of his Mets contract without ever opting in.
He didn't sign, he isn't signing, he isn't gonna sign. No agreement, no negotiations, no Torrealba, no Castroalba.
DiFastro, anyone?
by Greg Prince on 16 November 2007 9:42 am
One blogger wrote this, about the catcher who came to a new team in 2006 and helped spark them to the playoffs:
You have Lo Duca, a guy who enjoys being a Met, and has repeatedly said (begged?) that he wants to remain a Met, and that he loves being a Met and he loves the fans.
Another blogger wrote this, about the catcher who came to a new team in 2006 and helped spark them to the playoffs:
Sometimes it’s nice to know that the guys we root for care just as much about winning as we do.
Two very nice tributes to Paul Lo Duca, don't you think? Except the second one was written by Dan Lucero of Up in the Rockies (link courtesy of Metsblog). He's sorry to be losing the fellow we're gaining, catcher Yorvit Torrealba.
Torrealba? You mean the guy almost no Mets fan is excited about signing as a free agent? The guy who isn't really known for hitting, fielding, throwing or anything outside of Denver? The first blogger above, the indefatigable Metstradamus, expressed his and probably all our doubts about the best/only damn Yorvit who ever played in the bigs and concluded why we're winding up with him:
[T]he only formula that the Mets are looking at is TH + E…otherwise known as the Distraction Factor. Yorvit's Distraction Factor is near zero, if not exactly zero. Lo Duca's Distraction Factor? It's about 105. TH + E, if you must know, is Tabloid Headlines + Ejections. Too high a distraction factor does not jibe with the Wilpons, who want to have a team of “oh golly gee” guys who aren't going to rock the boat…it's the Distraction Factor that is keeping Lo Duca from returning. Because heaven forbid the Mets have any players that show some emotion and actually care about baseball a little bit more than your average run o' the mill robot.
Now back to Dan in Colorado:
I’m sad to see Yorvit Torrealba go. I’ll miss the emotion and the passion he brought to every game behind the plate. It really felt like Yorvit was the representative of the die-hard Rox fan on the field. When we exulted, so did he. Some players seem almost robotic as they go about the 162-game grind. Not Yorvit, especially not during this year’s stretch drive.
Wait a second…isn't Torrealba the robot and Paulie the passionate one? Lo Duca's the heart & soul guy, right? Yorvit's just another rented stranger in a long line of rented Met strangers, right? Metstradamus says so characteristically brilliantly:
It's really no wonder that other franchises regularly have players who come out and say that in their heart they'll always be a member of that team, while the Mets regularly have players like Tony Tarasco, who teach young pitchers how to smuggle hooch in peanut butter jars.
Hold up — this is the same problem that has perpetually plagued the Rockies, according to Dan:
In past offseasons, Rockies players would come and go. They’d stop in for a year or two, put up nice numbers (if they were a hitter) or ugly numbers (if they were a pitcher), and then they’d move on. There was no time to make a connection to those players as a fan, and no real significant memories that those players left us with.
And you know how, whatever our feelings about Lo Duca's skill sets, we really don't want the intensely nondescript Torrealba? Guess what — our Rockies blogger is ambivalent about Torrealba's long-term prospects but doesn't particularly desire “one of the Barrett/Lo Duca/Kendall Triumvirate of Veteran Backstop Mediocrities”.
Geez, it's like looking in a mirror.
Part of all this quoting of these two fine bloggers is to say let's not write off Yorvit Torrealba before we have a chance to fall in at least like with him. After all, who the hell was Paul Lo Duca before he became a New York Met in December 2005? He had a little longer résumé than Torrealba does now, with a couple of All-Star selections to his credit, but otherwise, the man was no Mike Piazza. Now there was an irreplaceable catcher!
Within eight months, however, your resident bloggers here were telling you that with all due respect to Piazza, Paul was now totally The Man when it came to Mets catchers. If we weren't exactly Mike Who?, we had definitely moved on.
And we will again. We will discover endearing qualities about Yorvit Torrealba the person and the catcher. We will perk up when we hear his music, we will groan when he takes a foul tip off the finger, we will roar when he disagrees with an ump. With any luck, we will be stuffing the ballot box on his behalf come June. When his reported three-year contract expires or his welcome is worn out, we'll look back on the Yorvit Torrealba Era and wonder where it went, why it ended as soon as it did and, of course, how come we can't get anybody as good if not better to replace him.
Both Metstradamus and Dan were in independent agreement on one item about ballplayers: we don't want robots. Yet we do tend to treat them as assembly-line models — and who doesn't love a good factory-tested Fiery Catcher? Out west, they enjoyed driving their second-hand Torrealba to the World Series; in Queens, we fell hard for our used Lo Duca. It got great mileage its first year, less so in the second. And boy did ours act up at the strangest times. But it gave us a good, fun ride there for a while, didn't it?
I'm not saddened by losing a 35-year-old catcher who did generate one too many off-field headlines, did throw one too many on-field tantrums and did not rub the right people right way long enough to remain a New York icon. I'm not saddened to lose the games Lo Duca missed last year from injury (though all catchers lose games to injury) nor will I miss how his OPS plunged nearly 100 points — 39 doubles one year, 18 the next — from his first Met season to his second.
But I do miss the idea of Paul Lo Duca. I do miss “Volaré” and “Stayin' Alive” and even his name as ready-made chant. I miss that he wore 16 better than anyone since Dwight Gooden, that he wore a chest protector over his number as well as anyone could have after Mike Piazza and that a national magazine told us he was Captain Red Ass in the best way possible.
As recent as it was and as incomplete as it may have been, I miss 2006. I miss the Intrepid Mets celebrated by Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci, embodied as they were by the catcher in the middle of the cover shoot and everything else:
For his part, Lo Duca seems ever in search of an argument, whether getting in the grill of his pitchers when they lose focus, spiking the baseball in a fit of anger at the feet of umpire Angel Hernandez or barking at Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez for styling too much after hitting a home run. “That's just me,” says Lo Duca, whom Wagner refers to as Captain Red Ass. “Must be the Italian blood.”
In 2007, Lo Duca spiked and barked and bled all over the place, too, but it felt old and ineffective; it felt like 2007. The sophomore version of Paul-Luh-DOO-Kuh! sounded misplaced no matter how sincere the serenade. I couldn't quite put my finger on it while I sat and chanted along gamely, but it no longer felt of the moment. I now understand why.
It's because you can't have 2006 every year.
Paul's not the first 2006 Met to be kicked out of the nest, but to my mind he's the first Met I readily identify as an integral 2006 Met to be leaving us. And that's who and what I'm gonna miss. I'm gonna miss everything from that nontag of Alfonso Soriano he sold on Opening Day to those two tags he laid in rapid succession on Jeff Kent and J.D. Drew to start the NLDS to that ninth-inning walk he coaxed from Adam Wainwright to earn the Mets' final base of the year. That beautiful Met season was Paulie's Met season. It was a team effort, but I could swear the division title and whiff of a pennant was brought to us by Paul Lo Duca just about as much as by anybody.
I assume every ballplayer prefers to win. Lo Duca, you could tell, wanted to win. There shouldn't be a difference. But there is.
2007 was not 2006, and 2008 will have to be something else altogether. Seasons do not come off an assembly line. They are handcrafted. Whether unscrewing a Lo Duca and replacing it with a Torrealba represents nifty construction or faulty workmanship is something we will learn pretty soon. I'm willing to give the new catcher a shot. I'm willing to give the roster an extreme home makeover, actually. 2007 was so far removed from 2006 that if I could, I'd dump just about everybody associated with its defining denouement. Lo Duca's certainly not exempt from my lingering and probably permanent disgust. In 2006, he was the unforgettable fire; in 2007, we could choke with or without him.
I don't know if jettisoning Paul Lo Duca makes baseball sense or if it's politically motivated or if those particular clubhouse and front office politics are justified. I do find myself relieved that both 2006 and 2007 recede a little further into the past with his departure — 2007 for obvious reasons, 2006 because I sincerely believe it cast too long a shadow over 2007. Except for Godfather II and Rocky III, the sequel hardly ever lives up to the original. It's time for a new script.
2006 now really becomes New York Mets history and Paul Lo Duca a wonderful and crucial historical figure for us. I'd rather him be that than just a cranky, creaky catcher who grounds into too many double plays.
by Jason Fry on 15 November 2007 3:15 am
Hmm. What's on the various flavors of HBO?
FLIP FLIP FLIP FLIP FLIP
Jeez, maybe I should use the guide.
DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN
“48 Hours,” hmm.
Waitaminute, there's an ESPN on channel 173? What's that it's saying? Is that BASEBALL?
SELECT
IT IS BASEBALL! IT IS! LOOK! IT'S “ZUL” VS. “CAR!” “ZUL” IS UP 4-0! IT'S BASEBALL!
YAAAAAAY!!!!!
Man, these Venezuelan League uniforms look ridiculous. Is that guy's name Coca-Cola? Of course not — it's an ad where the names usually go. Is it a conflict that the umpire has Pepsi logos all over him?
STILL! IT'S BASEBALL!!!! YAAAAAY!!!!!
I wonder if I'll know any of these players. Not this guy. Or that guy. Or those guys. Wait just a second … who's that on deck?
Roger Cedeno?
ROGER CEDENO!
FUCK THAT! I AM NOT DESPERATE ENOUGH TO WATCH FUCKING ROGER CEDENO! NOT YET! NOT IN NOVEMBER!
FLIP
[lots of gunshots]
Man, Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy are going to totally get Ganz and that big Indian guy.
[more gunshots]
Roger Cedeno. As if.
by Greg Prince on 14 November 2007 9:24 am
How far have your juggernaut, dynasty-in-the-making New York Mets fallen? So far that we can't even be patronized properly.
Last March, I shared with you a delightful piece of junk mail from the Danbury Mint, one that sucked us to up the way we should be sucked up to. It went like this:
When the greatest sports franchises are counted, the New York Mets are always at the top of the list.
Obviously, it would have to have been one of us doing the counting, but I liked the tone and the implication. The Mets were great, we were great, everything was great…buy an end table.
One historic collapse later, the newest pitch from Danbury indicates we are not great anymore. We are something else, according to the current come-on for the exact same pricey Sheacentric tchotchke:
The New York Mets are one of the most beloved franchises in all of sports.
We are beloved — not great, but beloved. We've also been downgraded from “one of the most successful teams in all of sports” to “one of the most storied teams in Major League Baseball history”…of course to properly express the most recent chapter of that story, you would be advised to place your hands over your children's ears.
As much as I love the New York Mets in the institutional sense, I don't want anybody to call us beloved. I want us to be feared, loathed, resented, envied. Call us Bad Guys if you must, as long as the Bad Guys Win again in my lifetime.
But no. We're beloved. We're chums. Or, to speak in homonym, we were chum to the Marlins. And chumps for the Phillies. And churned by the Nationals. We choked that lead of a quantity so familiar in a time frame so ingrained to memory that it's no longer necessary to specify either the quantity or the time frame. So if we want to be sold that end table that we still do not need (yet is still pretty sharp), we will not be romanced with word of how handsome and powerful we are; we are instead informed that we are the fans whose team other teams rub the heads of for luck.
The Mets are beloved? That strikes me as code for “the Mets are lovable losers,” which expired as an operative phrase around here by 1965 at the latest. Losing rarely makes you lovable, not when it is done frequently, not when it is committed at a crucial juncture, not as you were stashing your playoff tickets in your wallet.
The smoldering wreckage of September 2007 is still visible in my rearview mirror. There is nothing in particular to look forward to, save perhaps for engaging the services of Yorvit Torrealba. Thus, I have to ask the Danbury Mint:
What's to belove?
|
|