TW writes: Again, I ask since you ole'd right around it during your attack, should we non-tender (Jeff Francouer) and worry about 4 positions instead of 3 next year, when, we all know the Wilpon's are going to reign (sic) in the dollars spent?
The only reason I do not think the Mets should non-tender Jeff Francouer is that I don't think there is another better alternative, given the precarious financial situation. You correctly point out that the Mets already have to improve in an least three positions (although I'm willing to give Daniel Murphy another shot at first base next season) and that the Wilpons are extremely unlikely to spend $140 million again in 2010.
Francouer has done better than I expected in New York - although five walks in 153 plate apearances is simply disgraceful. He's no special leader, either, or did he suddenly the discover the Fountain of Leadership when boarding the Delta Shuttle from Atlanta to New York? The Mets aren't going to be a good team next season anyway, so having Francouer in the lineup won't keep them out of the playoffs. They can bat him sixth, watch him put up another .270/.300/.400 campaign and hopefully non-tender him after next season.
TW writes: By the way, this is twice you used my material for your purposes, a third time will require payment.
Good luck collecting on that!
Saturday, August 22, 2009
FOX And MLB Have A Negative Effect On My Quality Of Life
I didn't get to actually watch the Dodgers-Cubs game, of course. Nationally televised games on FOX are completely blacked out if the network chooses to show another game in your market.
So instead of having my choice between Dodgers-Cubs on FOX and Yankees-Red Sox on YES, I only got the local match-up on network TV because YES wasn't allowed to show the Yankees. It's a ridiculous way of doing business - not at all surprising, considering that the decision is being made by executives at FOX and MLB.
One can't reasonably expect a national television network to act in anything other than its own interests when putting together its programming schedule. FOX, of course, has only two gods - ratings and advertising dollars. The network's exclusivity deal steals games from the local cable affiliates and forces fans in baseball markets to watch teams they can watch every other day of the week - but that's not FOX's problem.
That's why, here in New York, I get eight Yankee games and eight Met games on Saturday afternoons in the summer. New York fans with cable TV already get to watch every single game that the Yankees and the Mets play. Believe me, it's no extra treat to get 16 of those games called by FOX's national broadcast teams.
There's a simple solution to all this. FOX can simply take the two or three games a week it broadcasts in its exclusive window and televise a game in every market involving teams they wouldn't usually have a chance to see. That means that, in markets that have one of the teams playing in those games, FOX offers the local game back to the local cable outlet (usually a FOX affliliate anyway) and televises one of the other games.
That way, the New York fan could've had a choice between two games today. FOX's ratings in New York would've been lower, but the baseball fan would've benefitted. Take a wild guess what is more important to Major League Baseball.
It is MLB that's more at fault here. In their quest to get every last dollar from the network television deal, the league office put profits ahead of fans and promoting the sport. Again, this is no surprise - MLB is the only professional sports league that still clings to blackout restrictions that govern which games can be broadcast in certain markets.
One of the best things about the new MLB Network has been the ability to watch out-of-market games without paying for the MLB Extra Innings package (which is only the biggest sports rip-off this side of Personal Seat Licenses.) It's a rare sensible move from the league office, one that you wish would eventually extend to how it does business with network partners.
So instead of having my choice between Dodgers-Cubs on FOX and Yankees-Red Sox on YES, I only got the local match-up on network TV because YES wasn't allowed to show the Yankees. It's a ridiculous way of doing business - not at all surprising, considering that the decision is being made by executives at FOX and MLB.
One can't reasonably expect a national television network to act in anything other than its own interests when putting together its programming schedule. FOX, of course, has only two gods - ratings and advertising dollars. The network's exclusivity deal steals games from the local cable affiliates and forces fans in baseball markets to watch teams they can watch every other day of the week - but that's not FOX's problem.
That's why, here in New York, I get eight Yankee games and eight Met games on Saturday afternoons in the summer. New York fans with cable TV already get to watch every single game that the Yankees and the Mets play. Believe me, it's no extra treat to get 16 of those games called by FOX's national broadcast teams.
There's a simple solution to all this. FOX can simply take the two or three games a week it broadcasts in its exclusive window and televise a game in every market involving teams they wouldn't usually have a chance to see. That means that, in markets that have one of the teams playing in those games, FOX offers the local game back to the local cable outlet (usually a FOX affliliate anyway) and televises one of the other games.
That way, the New York fan could've had a choice between two games today. FOX's ratings in New York would've been lower, but the baseball fan would've benefitted. Take a wild guess what is more important to Major League Baseball.
It is MLB that's more at fault here. In their quest to get every last dollar from the network television deal, the league office put profits ahead of fans and promoting the sport. Again, this is no surprise - MLB is the only professional sports league that still clings to blackout restrictions that govern which games can be broadcast in certain markets.
One of the best things about the new MLB Network has been the ability to watch out-of-market games without paying for the MLB Extra Innings package (which is only the biggest sports rip-off this side of Personal Seat Licenses.) It's a rare sensible move from the league office, one that you wish would eventually extend to how it does business with network partners.
Haeger-mania!
Is Charlie Haeger the heir apparent to Tim Wakefield? I certainly hope so, because Major League Baseball is a better place when a knuckleballer is part of it.
Wakefield, now 43 years old, was the only pitcher in the league still featuring the knuckler before the Los Angeles Dodgers recalled Haeger earlier this month. Today was his second career start, a nationally televised game against the Chicago Cubs, and Haeger was magnificent.
The rookie scattered three hits over seven-plus innings and kept the Cubs off the scoreboard in what ended a 2-0 Dodgers victory. Haeger finished with 110 pitches - and as a true knuckleballer, you can bet at least 100 of them were his bread-and-butter pitch.
I was particularly impressed that Dodgers manager Joe Torre even let Haeger start the eighth inning, despite holding only a two-run lead and having already thrown 104 pitches. Knuckleballers, since they primarily throw one pitch and do not put signficant strain on their arm while doing so, should be able to pitch deeper into games than starters with a traditional repetoire.
I'm not sure if Torre realizes this, or if he merely lacks confidence in his middle relievers right now, but I choose to believe that the Dodgers manager is aware that he can leave Haeger in longer when his knuckleball is fluttering. Haeger, of course, repaid Torre's faith by promptly walking Sam Fuld to start the eighth and the manager immediately went to Jonathan Broxton to end the threat.
(And when did Broxton become a set-up man? Torre used George Sherrill to close out the game today. Very interesting ...)
Anyway, Haeger has shown more than enough in his last two starts to remain in the Dodgers' rotation for now. I am considering buying the MLB.TV package for the final month of the season just for the chance to watch him pitch.
Sadly, knuckleballers are a dying breed. Wakefield has relied on his knuckler for 17 years, and since he broke into the league no one else has had sustained success with the pitch. The knuckler is thrown by scrunching the second and third fingers higher up on the seams of the ball and pushing the ball toward home plate. Ideally, it is thrown with little or no spin, which makes the ball dip and dive unpredictably.
That unpredictability is exactly why so few pitchers throw knuckleballs today. Sometimes, the pitch simply does not dip or dive and insteads floats right down the middle at about 70 miles an hour. Those pitches usually end up about 420 feet from home plate. It's a risk to throw a knuckleball, and in this increasingly risk-averse society the pitch may not have much of a future.
Charlie Haeger may be the knuckleball's last hope. That alone is enough of a reason to root for his success.
Wakefield, now 43 years old, was the only pitcher in the league still featuring the knuckler before the Los Angeles Dodgers recalled Haeger earlier this month. Today was his second career start, a nationally televised game against the Chicago Cubs, and Haeger was magnificent.
The rookie scattered three hits over seven-plus innings and kept the Cubs off the scoreboard in what ended a 2-0 Dodgers victory. Haeger finished with 110 pitches - and as a true knuckleballer, you can bet at least 100 of them were his bread-and-butter pitch.
I was particularly impressed that Dodgers manager Joe Torre even let Haeger start the eighth inning, despite holding only a two-run lead and having already thrown 104 pitches. Knuckleballers, since they primarily throw one pitch and do not put signficant strain on their arm while doing so, should be able to pitch deeper into games than starters with a traditional repetoire.
I'm not sure if Torre realizes this, or if he merely lacks confidence in his middle relievers right now, but I choose to believe that the Dodgers manager is aware that he can leave Haeger in longer when his knuckleball is fluttering. Haeger, of course, repaid Torre's faith by promptly walking Sam Fuld to start the eighth and the manager immediately went to Jonathan Broxton to end the threat.
(And when did Broxton become a set-up man? Torre used George Sherrill to close out the game today. Very interesting ...)
Anyway, Haeger has shown more than enough in his last two starts to remain in the Dodgers' rotation for now. I am considering buying the MLB.TV package for the final month of the season just for the chance to watch him pitch.
Sadly, knuckleballers are a dying breed. Wakefield has relied on his knuckler for 17 years, and since he broke into the league no one else has had sustained success with the pitch. The knuckler is thrown by scrunching the second and third fingers higher up on the seams of the ball and pushing the ball toward home plate. Ideally, it is thrown with little or no spin, which makes the ball dip and dive unpredictably.
That unpredictability is exactly why so few pitchers throw knuckleballs today. Sometimes, the pitch simply does not dip or dive and insteads floats right down the middle at about 70 miles an hour. Those pitches usually end up about 420 feet from home plate. It's a risk to throw a knuckleball, and in this increasingly risk-averse society the pitch may not have much of a future.
Charlie Haeger may be the knuckleball's last hope. That alone is enough of a reason to root for his success.
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Readers Strike Back
TW writes: The way a team gets people interested in watching them in times like these is to play your kids, ready or not. I know that starts arbitration clocks and what not but this is a franchise that shouldn't worry about spending money, considering most of the guys they bring up will be traded before their arbitration comes up.
As far as Francouer, he has reverted to career totals, more RBI, more strikeouts. His leadership and defensive skills are apparent and batting in seventh in a healthy order he will be fine for us. Or would you rather have to sign a pitcher, a left fielder a first baseman AND a right fielder? Even if times were good, financially, that would be a tall order. Lackey, a top tier left fielder and hope Murphy matures into a .280avg/.450 slu hitter by march or Ike Davis kills it in spring and totally blows projections aside. Let's not rid ourselves of another piece because you don't believe in intangibles.
You know who believes in intangibles? Tim McCarver.
Intangibles, by their very definition, do not exist. An intangible is something that cannot be quantified. That's like saying I bring intangibles to the basketball court when we play instead of talent or hustle. In the end, it's better to have talent and hustle.
EVERYBODY has intangibles, when you get right down to it. But people put so much stock in their own perception of intangibles that they are shocked when someone sees things differently. You talk of Francouer's "leadership skills" being "apparent." Based on what? Has this team suddenly risen from the depths of its misery and made a headlong charge at the Phillies? Are they running faster and jumping higher? Do they appear to be any more of a professional baseball team then they did the day Frenchy graced us with his presence?
No, Francouer is being hailed as a leader because he's a white guy who smiles when he talks to the media. Every single "leader" in baseball has those two attributes except for Derek Jeter - and he's still half-white. Seriously, name me all the black and Latino "leaders" in baseball. You can probably count them on one hand - because influential baseball writers are almost invariably middle-aged white guys who tend to see leadership reflecting in a person that looks more like themselves.
The part that I didn't get to, but which you brought up for me, is the idea of "playing the kids" instead of Sheffield. I wanted to write about that as well, because in most situations it does make more sense to play the kids instead. The problem is, the Mets don't have any kids to play. Buffalo and Binghamton are the two worst minor league teams in baseball, so they're not exactly teeming with young talent. Here are the active outfielders on those two rosters today:
Chip Ambres
Jason Dubois
Nick Evans
Jesus Feliciano
Josh Petersen
Emanuel Garcia
Caleb Stewart
DJ Wabick
Which of those guys is going to attract more interest than Gary Sheffield?
As far as Francouer, he has reverted to career totals, more RBI, more strikeouts. His leadership and defensive skills are apparent and batting in seventh in a healthy order he will be fine for us. Or would you rather have to sign a pitcher, a left fielder a first baseman AND a right fielder? Even if times were good, financially, that would be a tall order. Lackey, a top tier left fielder and hope Murphy matures into a .280avg/.450 slu hitter by march or Ike Davis kills it in spring and totally blows projections aside. Let's not rid ourselves of another piece because you don't believe in intangibles.
You know who believes in intangibles? Tim McCarver.
Intangibles, by their very definition, do not exist. An intangible is something that cannot be quantified. That's like saying I bring intangibles to the basketball court when we play instead of talent or hustle. In the end, it's better to have talent and hustle.
EVERYBODY has intangibles, when you get right down to it. But people put so much stock in their own perception of intangibles that they are shocked when someone sees things differently. You talk of Francouer's "leadership skills" being "apparent." Based on what? Has this team suddenly risen from the depths of its misery and made a headlong charge at the Phillies? Are they running faster and jumping higher? Do they appear to be any more of a professional baseball team then they did the day Frenchy graced us with his presence?
No, Francouer is being hailed as a leader because he's a white guy who smiles when he talks to the media. Every single "leader" in baseball has those two attributes except for Derek Jeter - and he's still half-white. Seriously, name me all the black and Latino "leaders" in baseball. You can probably count them on one hand - because influential baseball writers are almost invariably middle-aged white guys who tend to see leadership reflecting in a person that looks more like themselves.
The part that I didn't get to, but which you brought up for me, is the idea of "playing the kids" instead of Sheffield. I wanted to write about that as well, because in most situations it does make more sense to play the kids instead. The problem is, the Mets don't have any kids to play. Buffalo and Binghamton are the two worst minor league teams in baseball, so they're not exactly teeming with young talent. Here are the active outfielders on those two rosters today:
Chip Ambres
Jason Dubois
Nick Evans
Jesus Feliciano
Josh Petersen
Emanuel Garcia
Caleb Stewart
DJ Wabick
Which of those guys is going to attract more interest than Gary Sheffield?
Why Bother Trading Sheffield?
You can count me in the minority on the Gary Sheffield saga that has been brewing over the last 24 hours. I see no reason for Omar Minaya to trade Sheffield unless the Mets are going to get a decent prospect in return.
This seems counter-intuitive, but then the Mets are in a unique situation with Sheffield. They are only paying him the major-league minimum of $400,000 this season, so he certainly isn't too expensive to keep for another six weeks. With David Wright, Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes and Carlos Delgado all on the disabled list, Sheffield is the best hitter left in the Mets' lineup.
Gary Sheffield has the most name recognition, the cheapest contract and is arguably the most productive offensive player on the Mets right now. The 2009 season may be over in terms of a playoff chase, but the franchise still needs to sell tickets and attract viewers until October 4.
Who is more likely to do that - Gary Sheffield or a C-level prospect that will probably never make it beyond the Double-A level?
Because that's all the Mets can reasonably expect from a waiver deal involving Sheffield. They can only trade with the team that selected Sheffield on waivers (Jon Heyman is saying that it was the Giants), so it's not like they can shop offers and take the best one. San Francisco GM Brian Sabean was setting the market for Sheffield, and all Minaya could do was hope that Sabean wanted his man badly enough that he would trade something of value for him.
This apparently did not come to pass - although no names on the Giants' side have been bandied about, so we still do not know for sure. There was no reason to let Sheffield go for nothing at that point; even if he's not going to be part of the future, there is still six weeks left of baseball to play in 2009. Sheffield's participation in those games is worth more than a non-prospect at St. Lucie or Binghamton.
All of this, of course, is based on the presumption that Jerry Manuel will stop pulling starting outfielders out of a hat and settle on a semi-regular rotation for the rest of the season. It shouldn't be so difficult - Sheffield should be getting the majority of starts in left field, Jeff Francouer should play every game until the end of the season in right field* and the job of playing center field and backing up Sheffield once or twice a week in left field should fall to Angel Pagan, Jeremy Reed and Cory Sullivan.
* This is not because I believe that Jeff Francouer is a good baseball player and should be the starting right fielder for the Mets in 2010. Nothing I've seen from Francouer since the Mets acquired him has changed my initial opinion of him, and I can only hope that he will simply revert to career norms before the end of the season so that Minaya does not offer him a three-year guaranteed deal to buy out his arbitration years.
This seems counter-intuitive, but then the Mets are in a unique situation with Sheffield. They are only paying him the major-league minimum of $400,000 this season, so he certainly isn't too expensive to keep for another six weeks. With David Wright, Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes and Carlos Delgado all on the disabled list, Sheffield is the best hitter left in the Mets' lineup.
Gary Sheffield has the most name recognition, the cheapest contract and is arguably the most productive offensive player on the Mets right now. The 2009 season may be over in terms of a playoff chase, but the franchise still needs to sell tickets and attract viewers until October 4.
Who is more likely to do that - Gary Sheffield or a C-level prospect that will probably never make it beyond the Double-A level?
Because that's all the Mets can reasonably expect from a waiver deal involving Sheffield. They can only trade with the team that selected Sheffield on waivers (Jon Heyman is saying that it was the Giants), so it's not like they can shop offers and take the best one. San Francisco GM Brian Sabean was setting the market for Sheffield, and all Minaya could do was hope that Sabean wanted his man badly enough that he would trade something of value for him.
This apparently did not come to pass - although no names on the Giants' side have been bandied about, so we still do not know for sure. There was no reason to let Sheffield go for nothing at that point; even if he's not going to be part of the future, there is still six weeks left of baseball to play in 2009. Sheffield's participation in those games is worth more than a non-prospect at St. Lucie or Binghamton.
All of this, of course, is based on the presumption that Jerry Manuel will stop pulling starting outfielders out of a hat and settle on a semi-regular rotation for the rest of the season. It shouldn't be so difficult - Sheffield should be getting the majority of starts in left field, Jeff Francouer should play every game until the end of the season in right field* and the job of playing center field and backing up Sheffield once or twice a week in left field should fall to Angel Pagan, Jeremy Reed and Cory Sullivan.
* This is not because I believe that Jeff Francouer is a good baseball player and should be the starting right fielder for the Mets in 2010. Nothing I've seen from Francouer since the Mets acquired him has changed my initial opinion of him, and I can only hope that he will simply revert to career norms before the end of the season so that Minaya does not offer him a three-year guaranteed deal to buy out his arbitration years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)