One New York Life

Thursday

W/W – Indianapolis Colts +2.5 at Jacksonville Jaguars: This must have been an opening spread before word came out that Peyton wanted to play and go for the undefeated season, essentially overruling the coach, ex-coach, GM, and owner. The spread as of this typing is Colts -3. Here’s the thing… Manning’s the best quarterback of this decade and he probably really hates that Tom Brady and the Patriots will end up getting most of the nods for best team. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Manning’s sudden decision to stop sitting back and going for the Super Bowl is coming in 2009. If the Colts run the table and do what the Patriots couldn’t… and come up with a 19-0 undefeated season to close the decade… is there a solid argument against them? Not really. This is the game that will decide it. If they can take down the Jaguars, playing for a playoff slot, in their first sellout of the season, then it’s down to either the Jets or the Bills to get it done. I… I can’t pick against them until they lose. Colts outright

Saturday

Dallas Cowboys +7 at New Orleans Saints: The slight “gotcha” in this game is that Tony Romo has decided that he’s a good quarterback. Unfortunately, he can’t keep up with a terrible defense that, and I’m repeating myself here, hasn’t showed up for a big game since the Parcells era. Every fiber of my being is telling me that Dallas is going to pull this off… but I think that’s the same part of me who watched Dallas pull out bizarre wins to crush my little kid soul. I have to think that if the Cowboy defense didn’t show up in the Meadowlands… why in the world are they showing up to the Superdome? Cowboys +7

Sunday

Miami Dolphins +3 at Tennessee Titans: I’m thrilled that I’m upstate this weekend because the Falcons being on the road in New York won’t black out the AFC channel. This means I have a shot at the AFC game being this one — which is great considering this is essentially the first playoff game of the season. Must win game for both teams to have any shot at getting to the post-season. A loss for either one pretty much ends their seasons. Huge game. Of course, I’ll probably get stuck watching Pats/Bills. And… could we possibly now admit that the Titans might have gotten a touch overrated in their run over bad teams? Maybe? Dolphins outright

Arizona Cardinals -11 at Detroit Lions: The oddsmakers properly threw out last week’s game. Lions are still getting rolled. Cardinals cover

Atlanta Falcons +4.5 at New York Jets: The only way you could not pick the Jets here is if you believe they are going to crush their fans souls by throwing in a turd in a game, at home, that they should absolutely win. While this is a serious consideration — the Jets will wait until the last week of the season, at home, against the Bengals to do this. Jets cover

Houston Texans -11 at St. Louis Rams: I’ve punched out of Texans games for the year. Not wasting my time anymore. Texans cover

Chicago Bears +10 at Baltimore Ravens: Too many points for a bad weather weekend. Bears +10

New England Patriots -7 at Buffalo Bills: This is that time of the year where the Bills usually pull out an unexpected win against a good team to keep their fans hooked. Again, too many points on a bad weather weekend in Buffalo — especially considering how well Buffalo torched their defense way back in Week 1. I know that seems like 100 years ago now, but I think it still applies. Bills +7

Cleveland Browns +2.5 at Kansas City Chiefs: My rule when picking draft-pick position games is usually to take the home team… but after seeing how bad the KC receivers are and the fact their line might lead to Cassel’s early murder I just can’t pick them to win anything… ever. Browns outright

San Francisco 49ers +7.5 at Philadelphia Eagles: Presuming Dallas loses on Saturday, the Eagles grab the division with a flourish. And a poorly executed hip-leap. Eagles cover

Oakland Raiders +11 at Denver Broncos: Did I already make the “what can you do when you’re forced to play your starter instead of your backup” joke? I did? Dammit. Raiders +11

Cincinnati Bengals +6.5 at San Diego Chargers: Hey, have you heard that Philip Rivers is undefeated in December? January not so much. Chargers cover

Tampa Bay Bucs +7 at Seattle Seahawks: I can’t take the Bucs on the road. Even with 7 points. Seahawks cover

Green Bay Packers +1.5 at Pittsburgh Steelers: The Steelers are sliding toward oblivion. Their defense has become pretty bad and the Green Bay offense is kind of figuring life out. The Steelers are favored here because of “respect”… nothing else. Packers outright

Minnesota Vikings -7 at Carolina Panthers: Tough game to pick. The Vikings will know by kickoff whether or not they are still playing for anything or if they’re locked in to the 2-seed. I’m relatively certain that they’re going to be locked in 2-seed, which means Favre plays a quarter (or a drive) to keep his streak intact. Then, the Panthers play a tight game with their new, relatively good quarterback and Tavaris Jackson fails to hold serve. Panthers outright

Monday

New York Giants -3 at Washington Redskins: Remember what DeSean Jackson did to the Giants last week? Expect Santana Moss to do that this week. The only saving grace is I don’t think that Jason Campbell will get the passes there as regularly. I’m pretty sure the Giants can still take down bad teams and, wins aside, the Redskins are still pretty bad. I expect the Giants to grab a win here, tie Dallas, and send Jerry Jones in to full meltdown mode. Giants cover

Spreads

1) JETS -6 over Falcons
2) Giants -3 over REDSKINS
3) Bears +10.5 over RAVENS

1) The Mets Weren’t Getting Roy Halliday: If you put a gun to their heads, or probably just asked them straight up, the Mets brass is probably thrilled at the developments over the last few days. “But Tom, their division rival got Roy Halladay… how could they be thrilled?” Because due to newspaper columnists, radio show hosts, and insane fans — people we’re honestly arguing that trading a 26-year-old, MVP-caliber shortstop in his prime and depth they don’t have for a 32-year-old pitcher + $100M who’s pitched 220+ innings the last four seasons was a good idea. It wasn’t. Especially when one considers the list of 2011 free agents include Cliff Lee, Ted Lilly, Josh Beckett, and potentially Matt Cain. None of whom costs you one of the best five shortstops in the league, prospects you don’t have, and a lot of money. The Mets can now say “we had no one the caliber of Cliff Lee to trade for Roy Halliday, and that’s what the Blue Jays were looking for.” No one can contest this other than people who were demanding the Mets make moves last season when they were completely out of it.

2) The Red Sox Got Fleeced By John Lackey: There’s a big difference between the prettiest girl at the dance and the prettiest available girl at the dance. Lackey is the latter. He got the Red Sox to give him AJ Burnett’s contract off a season in which he pitched to a 3.83 ERA. He also hasn’t pitched a full season since 2007. You can’t complain about Omar Minaya’s tendency to sign injury prone players and then complain about him not sinking $15M/year in to a player showing signs of a 30+ break down. Also, the Mets just don’t give long-term contracts for pitchers unless you’re one of the five best pitchers in baseball. This is a good policy. And they really don’t do it to guys over 30. See if this is a good policy in the fourth year of Derek Lowe’s contract. I bet it will be.

3) Jason Bay Is Better For Citi Field Then Matt Holliday: I can’t say this enough. Matt Holliday is an over-rated baseball player. He hit .330 in Coors Field and .270 on the road. He’s a .270 baseball player. .270 baseball players are not worth $20M/year. If you believe the Mets, they charted both Jason Bay’s and Matt Holliday’s 2009 fly balls and compared them. They discovered that most of Holliday’s fly balls would die in the acres of left field at Citi. I believe them. Do you know why? Because all baseball teams should do things like this when they’re examining what players fit their park. I can look at Holliday’s numbers, his attitude, and the way he fields and realize the team that signs him to a Vernon Wells contract is going to be as happy with him as the Blue Jays are with Vernon Wells. This is not confirmation bias because there is no argument that disputes it. Despite what the Sports’ Guy would suggest — when you have the opportunity to sign a Coors Field Creation who played well for six weeks in a contract year you don’t, in fact, have to do it. They’re pursuing the right guy. Insert Canadian exchange rate joke here.

4) Omar Minaya Is Not A Bad General Manager: You can not name that many bad deals Omar has made for the Mets. He’s been solid, doesn’t offer too much money for bad players, and is not going out and signing the world and thus screwing over the team for the future in an offseason where he, by all rights, should be doing so. A bad GM trying to save his job (Steve Phillips… remember him?) would be mortgaging the team’s entire future to throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks. Minaya is staying the course, making smart signings, not jumping on bad trades, and realizing what everyone else should be: THE METS WEREN’T BAD LAST YEAR. And, lest we forget the good that he’s done, he got Johan Santana for nothing and traded the recently non-tendered by the Braves and out-of-baseball Ryan Church for a good right fielder with a laser-rocket arm. This is not a bad general manager, people. It’s a good general manager who is getting the best of what’s available. John Lackey is not the best of what’s available, especially when there’s a fairly decent chance he’ll be able to trade for some players from teams trying to dump salary.

Like I said on Twitter yesterday… could we maybe give the Mets’ an entire offseason before declaring them dead? They weren’t getting Roy Halladay… it was a pie-in-the-sky wish that would have cost them Jose Reyes and Mike Pelfrey at a minimum.

Estrella Damm Inedit

Brewed by: Damm
Brewed in: Barcelona, Spain
ABV: 4.8% (via The Site That Shall Not Be Named)
Type: Witbier (ditto)

What They Say: Inedit is the first beer specifically created to accompany food. It is born from the conviction that a beer that could be paired with the utmost respect to the best cuisine was necessary. That is its aim and its virtue, and that is what makes Inedit different, special and unique. Inedit is a unique coupage of barley malt and wheat with hop, coriander, orange peel, liquorice, yeast and water.

Website: After selecting “English” from their front page, I couldn’t find the beer in ten seconds. Design fail. Note to Estrella Damm: don’t have your commercial totally overtake the front page so thoroughly that your user can’t even see there’s something underneath it. I needed to use Google to find the Inedit page. As much as I hate the company page, I love this part reserved for the beer. It’s clean and has all the info that I need. It’s all advertising fluff but at least it’s clean advertising fluff.

Why I Picked It: I was shopping in Whole Foods with PLR and this random, wine-looking bottle with no labeling (save for a star) and a packet tied around the neck was sitting amongst the other 750 ml bottles. I looked at it, put it down, then went back to get it. Nothing fancy, I just got caught up in their packaging.

—

Presentation: Simple black bottle with just a gold star on the front. It’s tremendously understated design and, normally, I’d mark off for that. But the understated design amongst the crazy designs of Flying Dog and Southern Tier 750s is what made me choose it. So that has to count for something. 4

Originality: The idea of this beer is, apparently, to be wine. Everything about it — the shape of the bottle, the labeling, the understated design — screams wine. Besides that, it’s designed (by their indication) to be consumed with food. While other beers may suggest pairings or recipes their beer could improve, I don’t think any other beer has been marketed specifically to pair with food. 5

Body: I used their serving suggestion — a white wine glass — but I did not take their suggestion to pair with food because, well, I didn’t know what it tasted like. It pours a heifweizeny cloudy amber with a thick head. Heavy lacing. It’s body tends more toward stout than a standard wheat beer with carbonation content leaning toward a Belgian. It’s a sort of a combination of different mouthfeels that, surprisingly, play well together. 7

Taste: This beer is one of the most confusing things I’ve ever consumed. It pours like a wit, looks like a hef, and tastes like a Belgian (style). The yeasty depth, lack of hops, and dry finish screams Belgian. But the refreshing flavor is very wit. With so much going on, though, it fails to be great at anything. It’s a little crispness away from being a real good wit but, at the same time, a little not dry enough to be a good Belgian(style) and not yeasty enough to be a good hef. I… I really don’t know. It’s a pretty good lot of things, but not a great anything. It’s the Bert Blyleven of beers. 5

Efficiency: This is the first time my efficiency formula has been turned on its ear. This beer is hardly efficient as they, admittedly, spent more time making a flavorful beer to pair with food then a strong beer. Really, the flavors here are so intense that the 4.8% ABV is just a sad aftereffect so they could market it as a beer. It’s almost as though I’d have to reverse the score I’d give it since low efficiency is what they wanted as to not dull the tastebuds with alcohol. But, within my own rules, there are plenty of stronger, more unique options available if you want a 750 for the evening. For the same $7.99 I got this 22 oz bottle for, I could have gotten a far more efficient Rogue offering. 4

Versatility: I agree that this would be a tasty beer to pair with food. But really nothing else. The sad part is we’re not yet at the point where we can buy a bottle of beer to replace a white wine for pairing purposes. While I think this would be great with seafood, it’d be great for ME to drink with seafood. It’d be an uphill, and correct, battle to convince someone (women) to pair this with their lemon chicken or their seafood paella. That said, they’re up front in saying it’s not a kickin-around beer — it’s a food pairing beer. They’re right. 4

The Snob Sez: Not great, not terrible. I would give this another chance some night with fish or chicken, but not something for which I’d go out of my way.

Final Score: 29 (of 50) — OK Beer

The season blissfully ended last weekend and I happily get to put this season to bed with watching some non-depressing baseball games. I can happily stop hearing insane Mets calls on WFAN. I can happily stop reading the commenters on Metsblog. I can happily ignore Twitters from Mets’ bloggers. I used to think it would be fun maintaining a Mets Blog. It’s not. Because, as I’ve mentioned earlier this year, when the Mets are going badly, the fans (and writers) are as bad as the Jets. It’s so insanely different then the Giants. The Giants don’t make changes based on media pressure. The Mets and Jets do. That’s why you got Favre last season. That’s why Mangini is gone. That’s why the Jets have been terrible. The Mets have a terrible tendency to listen too much. And they can’t.

The number of bloggers (and, to be fair, newspaper reporters and beat writers) who have talked up the need to blow up this team and start from scratch is mind-boggling. The people who follow this franchise really, honestly believe that we should start from scratch when the opening day line-up, if nothing changed from right now, would have Carlos Beltran, David Wright, Jose Reyes, Jeff Francoeur, and Luis Castillo (off a .302/.387/.346 year). Their ace pitcher would be Johan Santana and their closer would be K-Rod. If they execute his option, their set-up man is still JJ Putz. These people would argue that the team should trade off five All-Stars (for fifty cents on the dollar off bad years, mind you) for what? Prospects? Half of equal value? If this team needs to be blown up, what should we do to the Pirates? Nuke them from orbit?

Besides that, the number of columns written saying the Wilpons are terrible owners and that Jeff embarrassed himself by appearing live, in-studio, with Omar Minaya on the Mike Francesa Show is equally mind-boggling. Francesa, regardless of if you like him or hate him, is a tough interviewer. He asked everything the fans should be wondering (will the Mets’ share Wilpon’s Madoff-related suffering? Will the stadium concerns be addressed? Will Murphy be the every day first basemen? Will the Mets at least spend up to this year’s payroll?) and he answered them honestly as possible. Yes, the Mets will probably have the highest payroll in the National League next year. No, it won’t be as high as the Yankees. Yes, we’re going to be aggressive in filling our shortcomings. No wonder other team fanbases hate us so much. Can you imagine being stuck under the thumb of Robert Nutting or Jeff Loria and listening to a group of spoiled people complaining about their owner spending $150M/year?

And, on top of all that, I can’t even imagine the abject idiocy of people demanding firings off this season. Off of a season in which, before the injuries started, the Mets were in first place by 4 games. A season which featured over 1500 days and $40 million on the DL. How, with a straight face, can you demand a manager and a general manager be fired off that? No one can present a cogent argument for why Omar Minaya should be fired. “He should have made mid-season moves.” No, he shouldn’t have. There was nothing that was going to fix this season. Sending prospects to the Nationals for Adam Dunn meant we would have had Adam Dunn on a 70-win team. “He should have had a better bench.” We had a great bench. We had Gary Sheffield to play twice a week in the outfield, Alex Cora to handle middle infield, and Fernando Tatis to handle corner outfield. By the end of the season, they were on a fourth string middle infielder and a third string corner outfielder. You get 25 guys on a major league roster, people… not 50. He made a great trade this season in getting an every day right fielder for a bench right fielder. His trade record with the Mets is 75%. “He should have signed Derek Lowe instead of Oliver Perez.” You don’t know that. Let’s wait until Lowe is serving up batting practice in 2013, shall we? “He was wrong about Daniel Murphy.” Yes, he was. He misread a prospect. It happens.

Other than the yearly reworking that goes in to every bullpen, the Mets need to replace three — THREE — positions. First base, left field, and a 2nd starting pitcher. The Mets’ farm system isn’t deep, but they certainly have enough in the system to put together a package for a Johan Santana-like sign-and-trade deal. If I’m taking the Wilpons at their word and they’re going to at least spend up to the current salary number and maybe a little more, they have around $50M to spend after dealing with Wright’s and Reyes’s escalators.

Plan 1 (The stars align and everything happens like I want it): Resign Carlos Delgado to a one-year, incentive deal which he’ll likely take to try and score a DH job in 2011… remind him it’s either this or the A’s. Delgado fills the role of everyday 1B and interleague DH. Let Daniel Murphy develop as a bench player/caddy for Delgado so he can get some at-bats without the entirety of the Mets’ Media Douches wanting to lay a season at his feat because he’s learning two new positions at the major league level. Offer a sign-and-trade package to Toronto for the available Roy Halladay. Pick up JJ Putz’s option and trade him and cash to the Rays for Carl Crawford and his option. Angel Pagan becomes the bench outfielder. Sign Rafael Soriano from the Braves. The Mets have a rotation of Johan Santana, Roy Halliday, Mike Pelfrey, Oliver Perez, and John Maine. An All-Star closer, an All-Star set-up man. And a line-up of Jose Reyes, Carl Crawford, Carlos Beltran, Carlos Delgado, David Wright, Jeff Francoeur, Luis Castillo, and a catcher. $24M for Halliday, $10M for Crawford, $8M for Soriano, $5M for Delgado. Pencil in 65 wins for your starters and go to work.

Pros: Unbelievably awesome. Selling season tickets is not a problem.
Cons: Probably won’t happen because too many things have to break right.

Plan 2: Sign-and-trade for Prince Fielder or Adrian Gonzales, either of whom will probably be made available in the last years of their deals. Sign Jason Bay. Take a flier on Erik Bedard.

Pros: Lineup is still an awesome Reyes, Castillo, Beltran, Wright, Fielder, Francoeur, Bay, Catcher.
Cons: Island of Manhattan may not be big enough for both Prince and CC. Brewers are close enough to contention that they’re going to want major league ready players. No Roy Halladay. Signing a guy prone to DL stints.

Plan 3: Offer the Nationals whatever prospects they want for Adam Dunn since they’re not contending until at least 2011. Sign John Lackey. Execute Putz’s option. Still sign Rafael Soriano. Roll the dice with Angel Pagan and his adventurous base-running in left-field.

Pros: Lockdown bullpen, less wins in the rotation.
Cons: Angel Pagan is a bench player. He shouldn’t be starting.

Plan 4 (worst case scenario so what will happen): Lavish type A free agent money on Matt Holliday and enjoy him hitting .220 in Citi Field. Sign 32-year-old Aubrey Huff to a 5-year deal and wonder why he’s declining every season. Sign John Lackey. Don’t have a draft pick until 2012.

Pros: Spending lots of money.
Cons: Terrible.

The Mets are going to have to spend money to fill in their gaps — but the idea they need to start from scratch is absurd.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Mark makes his final argument.

Mark
Stop. Just stop. One of Glavine’s Cy Young awards “doesn’t count?” His World Series ring “doesn’t count?” It’s “not Mussina’s fault” that he doesn’t have a WS ring? Seriously? When did you turn into Jay Marriotti? And I hate to break this to you, but having to face the guy batting .230 at the bottom of the AL order is not harder than having to actually get out on the field and take an at bat 3 times a game. The “harder league” of slow pitch softball is a myth.

You’ve done nothing, absolutely nothing to lay out a case that Mussina is a Hall of Famer. At this point you’re trying to strengthen his candidacy by tearing down the candidacy of someone who is actually deserving. Induction into the Hall of Fame isn’t a right that comes with having played in the bigs. The argument is not why a guy should be excluded. It is why he should be included. And it’s just not there for Mussina. And 5 years from now, no one is going to make a big stink when he doesn’t get in, because he just wasn’t a strong HoF candidate in the first place.

Rob
We’ve done nothing to make a case for it, but you haven’t exactly made a good case against, which means he doesn’t get in, nobody would be upset. If he does, nobody should be upset either.

Can we now end the debate? For somebody that doesn’t deserve the hall, he sparked quite a debate.

Mark
Rob, my main point from the beginning is that there doesn’t need to be a strong case against. There needs to be a strong case for.

That will be my last word. I yield the floor and the balance of my time.

Tom
@Mark: One of Glavine’s Cy Young awards “doesn’t count?”

So, sure, we’ll pick this back up in 8 years or so when I can gloat.

—-

That was the end. I took the last word. And I took being right.

One final thought: there is no realistic argument that keeps Mike Mussina out of the Hall of Fame. Somewhere in the last five or ten years, 300 Wins evolved from “automatic ticket to Cooperstown” to “required for a ticket to Cooperstown”. That’s insane. If anything, this series of posts should have shown people that it’s possible for a person to be a moderately worse pitcher (Glavine) yet be more deserving of a Hall of Fame honor then a better pitcher who had less wins.

In fact, to further outline how stupid this is, let’s look at Glavine again for just a minute. Glavine finished his career at 305-203 with 3.54 ERA. Guaranteed Hall of Fame, right?

If we remove Glavine’s four WORST seasons, his career line goes to 285-164 with 3.38 ERA. Now it’s suddenly not so clear. By removing Glavine’s worst seasons from the equation, we somehow made his Hall of Fame candidacy shakier. This is the argument people are going to make over the next couple of seasons as to why Mussina’s numbers don’t merit a Hall of Fame induction. It was more valuable to stick around and get beat up as an old man then to retire off a 20 win season with a very solid record intact. Not only doesn’t not make sense — it borders on lunacy.

Mussina is a (likely) clean guy who had the unfortunate distinction of pitching in the same league at the same time as, not one, not two, but THREE (and the same division as two) of the most dominant pitchers of the 90s and 00s in Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, and Roger Clemens. People will argue that his lack of this subjective award is a black mark, but that actually having one of these awards, itself, doesn’t matter. People will argue that his lack of a World Series win is a black mark, while ignoring that fact that, if Mariano Rivera does his job in the 2001 World Series, the Yankees beat the Diamondbacks, Mussina has his ring, and the terrorists don’t win by belittling 9/11.

Should Mussina’s name never come up on any lists, he’s unquestionably a Hall of Fame pitcher. The only question is how many years the voters make him wait — as his stats will clearly be more deserving seven years after retirement instead of five.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Rob
@Chuck: THESE ARE THE YANKEES ANNOUNCERS!!!!

Mussina will be in the Hall of Fame. Book it.

This next e-mail includes two things we’ve all been waiting for. First, the last gasp of the soundly defeated: sarcasm! And second, the first appearance of the “Hall of Very Good”.

Mark
Steve Coogan and Mike Hulse have convinced me. When he retires, Mike Mussina should be a 3rd ballot inductee into the “Mike Mussina Memorial Guys Who Aren’t Quite As Good As Hall Of Famers But We Feel Like They’re Good Enough Hall Of Pretty Good.”

Which I, of course, had to mention. I also had to mention, again, the single knock anyone’s been able to come up with.

Tom
I’d like to congratulate Mark for finally breaking out the “Hall of Very Good” line.

And you’re still wrong. He is as good, if not better, than guys currently in the Hall and has been 120 games over .500 in the steroid era. The knock you’ve come up with is “he hasn’t been as good as some of the greatest pitchers who’ve ever played.”

Mark
I’m not wrong. In fact, your last assertion is wrong. I keep saying that no one has presented an argument as to why he shouldn’t be in. The only real argument laid out as to why he should be in was Hulse’s “He’s not quite as good as Marichal, but he’s similar enough” argument. And by the way:

We are talking about the Hall of Fame here, which is supposed to enshrine the greatest players ever to play the game. So if he hasn’t been as good as the greatest pitchers ever to play, no, he shouldn’t be in the Hall.

Chad
@Mark: So if he hasn’t been as good as the greatest pitchers ever to play, no, he shouldnt be in the Hall.

By that rule, wouldn’t there only be one player from each position?

In my next response, I present what I feel is the best argument for Mussina’s candidacy. It should defeat any person who wants to argue that Mussina should be out. It will get fleshed out as we continue.

Tom
Yes, in Mark’s Hall of Fame there would be like 12 guys… and every new guy would supplant one of the older guys.

So why do they put in any center fielder not named Willie Mays? Because it’s not for only the best guy at every position to ever play. Here is a much better test: Tom Glavine. Mussina is a much better pitcher than Glavine in nearly every measurable way. Glavine also fell short in the postseason quite often for reasons that had nothing to do with him.

Mark
So let me see if I have a few things straight:

That sound about right? Should we even get into the fact that Glavine, unlike Mussina, was actually responsible for picking up a bat 3 times a game and having to play real baseball for 22 years? Or maybe we should make the argument that Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz in the 90’s weren’t the decade’s most dominant rotation. While we’re at it, using what I’ve learned here, maybe I’ll make the argument that when he retires we should induct Augie Ojeda into the Hall.

Tom
@Mark: A Mets fan is bashing Tom Glavine. Perhaps we can also get Coogan to bash Aaron Boone, or maybe Charlie to bash Dan Marino.

NL vs. AL: Thanks for helping my argument as Mussina did all this in the harder league for pitchers. The absolute only difference between these two guys is an imaginary number (300) that makes a pitcher “elite”. Mussina walked less guys per 9 IP, struck out more guys per 9 IP, had a better adjusted ERA in the harder league, had a better WHIP in the harder league, gave up less hits per 9 IP, had a better winning percentage, had more strikeouts in less seasons, and HALF the walks. Apparently Tom Glavine’s ability sacrifice bunt like a champ is more important than Mussina’s ability to field his position.

In the seventh and final part: Mark and I will make our last ditch argument, Rob will call for peace, and a final thought or two.

In lieu of the normal 10 Thoughts On August, I decided to let my friend and fellow Mike Mussina supporter Mike Hulse take the August Mets’ slot with a response column to Jayson Stark’s dire predictions of the Mets future. I think I’d like to get at Stark’s column in a point-by-point response some day but with football season and Germany looming — it may fall to the wayside. Below is Mike’s view on how to fix the Mets in $30M.

—-

Apparently Mr. Stark feels my beloved Mets are basically effed in the a. He claims the end is nigh.

I disagree.

So, I’m gonna fix it, right here, right now. And I’m gonna do it without one sided trades that you may hear listening to WFAN along the lines of ‘The mets should deal Daniel Murphy and Bobby Parnell for Roy Halladay’.

The holes are as follows;

- LF
- 2 rotation spots
- 1B
- C
- Lefty relief pitcher
- Set Up Man
- Possible change in management

I’m going to take the last one first. People who feel the whole thing should be blown up have a right to that opinion, but who, pray tell, will be coming in? On the executive front, who’s the big move to make? Prying Billy Beane from Oakland? You want someone off the Moneyball tree a la JP Ricciardi? He’s done great in Toronto. If you want Omar fired, awesome, but find a replacement. And before anyone says it… Bobby V isn’t coming back, and if he does, it guarantees nothing. I love Bobby V, but if he came back to lead the Mets to a championship, it would be the first time he did that, ever. Next year will be a make or break year for both Omar and Manuel. To be honest, watching the Mets backups playing out a worthless season with some fight in them speaks highly of Jerry. I’m voting stand pat, not because i think they’re infallible, but because there’s not a better alternative.

As far as the field goes, here’s the deal. The Mets save about $30 mil in expiring deals. It’s possible they won’t reinvest that money but assuming they do and don’t ADD payroll, it makes things tight. It also doesn’t help that the farm is thin so trading is out unless it’s for a mediocre player. They can make one ‘big’ deal and will have to piece it together from there. Here’s what I’m thinking, hole by hole:

1) LF – Jason Bay: This is your big move. The Mets have a massive hole in left. More an axe wound. It’s awful out there. I figure it’ll cost something like $12-15 mil per year, but he’s an excellent 2-way player and the Mets sorely need something like this. The deal also frees them up to trade Fernando Martinez who is about all the real value they have in the farm. Leaves the spending budget at $18 mil.

2) SP (2) – Erik Bedard, Brett Myers: The Mets need to roll the dice a little at this point unless they want to just blow it all up and rebuild everything. Both of these guys carry varying degrees of risk but with that comes the necessary discount. Erik Bedard has been plagued with injuries in his Seattle tenure, however, he only made $7.75 million last year and hasn’t done a thing to merit a raise. If he can be signed to something with incentives you may be able to get him for only like 5-7 mil guaranteed. That kind of money either gets your a risk or it gets you Livan Hernandez. Myers is wildly inconsistent but he’ll likely command a deal in the 4 years for $32 mil range. Best case: both starters cost you $13 mil next season, leaving $5 million in the budget.

3) 1B – Daniel Murphy: No, I don’t think Daniel Murphy is a long term solution at first. However, there is not a good 1B on the market and the Mets don’t have the prospects to deal for a guy like Adrian Gonzalez. Nick Johnson is the best free agent out there. I like Nick Johnson, but if I’m on a budget, I have more pressing needs with my money. I’d rather take a shot at Murphy developing into a .300 hitter with a little power than spend all I have left and then some on an injury prone .300 hitter with a little power.

4) C – Omir Santos: Santos has had a fine rookie year for a catcher, seems to be well liked for those who buy into ‘clubhouse guys’, got more than a few big hits for this team in a down year. He’s not a marquee guy who will win you anything, but he’s not losing you any games. Plus, he’s going to get better, not worse.

5) LHRP/Set up man – Mike Gonzalez: Assuming nobody blows him away with a $10 mil per year deal to close, he’s perfect. You have 5 million left which is what elite set up guys get. He’s a very good 8th inning guy to compliment Parnell and is left handed so Feliciano isn’t brought in for every game against Philly for the rest of his life. It’s cheaper than exercising JJ Putz’s 8 million dollar option, and Gonzo didn’t have elbow surgery this season.

So, $30 million bucks can solve major issues but not all of them. If the Mets can get creative, they can vault back into contention. Long term they do need to build the farm, but that takes time unless they decide to sell off everything. In the end, there can go a lot of different ways, however, the end is not nigh.

It’s been a while but I want to get these last few parts of this out before I forgot… or before I went to Germany at which point I’d start writing about Germany.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

When we last left, Mark pointed out that Hulse and I had been spending so much time making the case that there was no good reason to keep Mussina out that no one had actually been making the case on why he should actually be in. To wit:

Hulse, thanks for making my final point, which was that we’re arguing why he shouldn’t be in instead of why he should be in. What’s the argument for Mussina to be in? Anything? Anything at all? You spent 4 paragraphs talking yourself into why he’s a better pitcher than David Wells or Chien Ming Wang. I’m sorry, but for a Hall of Famer, that argument doesn’t even need to be made.

He made a good point. So Hulse and I responded.

Tom
@Mark: If you’re going to compare one player to another in support of Hall candidacy, make the case why the other guy is comparable to an HOFer (or why he should be an HOFer) and then talk about why player 2 is equivalent or better.

People have been conditioned to 300 or bust in the last decade. It’s stupid.

Mike
I’ve spent this whole time refuting claims against Moose because the claims being made are either insane or not really looked up, just kind of ambled out there based on anecdotal thoughts like ‘he never pitched big in big games’ which are untrue. I brought up Pettitte and Wang, et al, because you did first with this grand claim that in order to go to the Hall of Fame you have to be the best pitcher in your own rotation every year no matter what.

The Case FOR Moose is that from 1992-2001, he was easily one of the 10 best pitchers in baseball every single year without a doubt. He has 270 career wins in an era where bullpens have poached wins from starters, making 300 wins way harder than it was. For more in depth comparison, I turn to Joe Posnanski from SI.com.

Joe Posnanski from SI.com
Pitcher A: 243-142, .631 winning percentage, 3,507 innings, 3,153 hits, 2,303 Ks, 709 walks, 263 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.
Pitcher B: 270-153, .638 winning percentage, 3,562 innings, 3,450 hits, 2,813 Ks, 785 walks, 270 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.

Read more…

There’s much more, and many more numbers, in Posnanski’s two-page column. I recommend reading it in its entirety. Spoiler Alert: Pitcher A is Marichal. Pitcher B is Mussina.

Coogan
I’m not even sure comparing him to other HOFers entirely solves any argument either. He has more wins than Koufax, but that’s because Koufax retired when he was 24. Of course, Mussina has more wins …

I’m not really passionate about it either way but I never thought I was looking at a HOFer when I saw him the same way as when I look at Pedro, Johnson, Maddux or to a lesser degree, Schilling. If he gets in, good for him. I won’t boycott the HOF or baseball or anything …

Tom
To me, a compiler is a guy who stays playing after he’s useful to the detriment of the team that signs him. I don’t think you can say that about a guy who won 20 games his last season.

Like, Jamie Moyer is still useful to the Phillies. I don’t think he’s a compiler.

But, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, Chuck returns with one more point for the insane Yankee portion of our program.

Chuck
Okay I have the point that ends this argument in my favor. On the Friday Yanks telecast Al Leiter and Ken Singleton started talking about about Moose as a Hall of Famer because he was at Old Timer’s Day.

THESE ARE THE YANKEES ANNOUNCERS!!!! Moose is not even close, plus Jesse Barfield almost took him out in the Old Timers game.

We’re coming down to the end here. Either one long or two short parts remaining. Still to come — the “against” crowd resorts to sarcasm, my anti-Glavine opinion is reduced down to “he’s a Brave and you’re a Met fan,” and more!

To borrow the term from that 60-year removed Brooklyn team.

In the last week, JJ Putz has been shut down, Billy Wagner was shipped up to Boston (to find his wooden leg), Johan Santana and Ollie Perez have undergone minor surgeries to get ready for next season, and Omar Minaya and Jerry Manuel have gotten the golden “Vote of Confidence” from ownership. All of this seemed part and parcel of the team raising the white flag about a week after I did.

At the moment, I’m trying to convince myself that the state of the team isn’t THAT bad. It’s difficult. It seems like the franchise is in terrible shape. The owners lost money in the Madoff scheme. The stadium was horribly overpriced and will now deal with falling attendance. There’s a rumor Minaya won’t be allowed to spend up to this season’s payroll. The farm is in terrible shape because the vice-president of minor league development was too busy challenging his players to fights to notice they, mostly, sucked. I’ve read columns talking about “calling up the kids and seeing what they got.” People, if there were kids to call up do you think we would have begged for Anderson Hernandez back from the Nationals or be playing Cory Sullivan in the outfield? We took a look at what the jewel prospect had. It wasn’t much.

The thing that settles me down a little — and what should settle insane Mets fan down — is that the team Omar assembled was in first place in May. Then Carlos Delgado started the flood of injuries and here we are. Omar’s team was in first place with a third of the season down. Omar’s Plan B team was in striking distance with half the season remaining. Omar’s Plan F team is in last. Anyone who thinks that should earn a firing is crazy.

My favorite west coaster recently penned a column talking about baseball’s dwindling African-American fanbase. When I was on the fourth paragraph of my own comment, I realized I had started a column. This isn’t meant to be taken as a response to Cam’s column… more of an expansion.

Cam’s marketing thought was this: Major League Baseball’s inability, for example, to market the early ’90s version of Ken Griffey Jr. is one of the most egregiously inept promotional failures in business history. Since lessened by the 1994 strike, steroids and Junior’s own star-crossed career, there simply hasn’t been a player more universally loved whose appeal stretched across to any ethnicity like The Kid. Baseball, however, was content to let Nintendo and Nike to their dirty work.

This is the first of two excellent points. But the above represents just a portion of baseball’s marketing issue. Really, baseball as a whole has never never quite figured out how to market themselves nationally. People just don’t watch national broadcasts unless it’s their own team. It’s an issue unique to baseball. The NFL only has national broadcasts. The NBA on TNT routinely doubles up baseball’s national broadcasts. It takes baseball’s two largest markets meeting in August to get to a 3.5 — roughly equivalent to an episode of WWE’s Monday Night Raw — and that was ESPN’s most watched baseball game since the same two largest markets met in September of 2007. Why the malaise?

Baseball is the only game played every day for six months. As a National League fan I spend, on average, 2:40 per day with the Mets. American League fans spend a little more. I watch baseball on my own team’s channel with my own team’s announcers. I’m as spoiled with Gary Cohen, one of the best radio guys ever, as Dodgers fans are with Vin Scully. When I, as a viewer, get comfortable with SNY’s terrific, slick production and excellent booth — it annoys me to watch another channel’s broadcast. To watch a national broadcast, baseball wants me to spend another 3+ hours with two different teams listening to a play-by-play guy who can’t sniff Cohen’s microphone? What would motivate a fan to spend six hours of any day watching anything? Even worse, the length of national broadcasts are absurd.

In days of yore, guys who walked instead of hitting were considered bad offensive players. Guys swung at bad pitches. In the modern day, we put as much stock in “pitches per plate appearance” as batting average. Like football, every rule change in the last thirty years has encouraged offense. The pitching mounds have been lowered to help the batters. The strike zone has been narrowed to help the batters. In the American League, an extra batter was added to the line-up. A ball that might be scuffed is removed from play. Non-Latino players are taught from a very young age to swing at only the pitch they want and to get on base by any means necessary; the apex of this being last week’s Yankee/Red Sox game in which Nick Swisher — with a 1-0 count, men on 2nd and 3rd, and 2-out — tried to talk his way in to an HBP and leave the stress for the next guy. After all these rule changes, all to benefit the offense, baseball finally took a step back and realized what they’d done. Baseball doesn’t have a clock. By empowering offense, baseball made it harder to get outs and added 45-minutes to the average length of a baseball game. According to a 2003 column in USA Today:

Games lasted 2:52 in 2002. As recently as 1983, the Elias Sports Bureau reported games averaged 2:36, while games 60 years ago took an incredible 1:58 to complete, according to The Sporting News.

Some of the additional time is obviously induced by television breaks, but instead of addressing the problem with real rule changes, they tried to quicken the game with inane, unenforceable rules like the 12-second pitch clock. With this extending of the modern game, a good fan will spend 15-20 hours per week watching their team. A really good fan will watch their team’s half-hour pregame, the game itself, and their team’s hour long post-game. Baseball wants its fans to watch that and, in addition, another three hours watching Joe Morgan dissect a Dodgers/Giants game that, at best, means almost nothing to me as a National League East fan or, at worst, means absolutely nothing to an American League fan? There is nothing to draw me to watch a meaningless baseball game. This ties directly to another one of Cam’s points:

It’s been my experience that African-American sports fans – including myself – gravitate towards larger-than-life personalities. Baseball, on the other hand, insists on checking personalities at the door. This wasn’t always the case as talents like Reggie Jackson – and even non-talents like Ken Harrelson – roamed America’s ballparks with impunity. [...] I’m not suggesting that baseball become pro basketball, but when Eric Byrnes’ superfluous hustle and Nick Swisher’s kamikaze redneck schtick pass for personality across rosters eager to emulate Kevin McReynolds’ mood…well, yeah. — Strikethrough mine.

In addition to the checking of personalities — the number of must-watch players in baseball is infinitesimal. None of them are position players. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, watches a national broadcast for a position player’s five plate appearances. There were only two games I went out of my way to watch this year: a Tim Lincecum start on Fox Saturday and Pedro Martinez’s first Phillies start. In neither case was it about their personality but instead the chance that they’d do something memorable. Maybe a dozen pitchers at any given time are on this highly mutable must-watch list. Dontrelle Willis in 2006. Edison Volquez last year. Zack Greinke earlier this season. Roy Halladay, Randy Johnson, and Johan Santana always. Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens until their recent retirements. This is what baseball totally misses. They spend so much time worrying about offense and promoting their hitters that they forget there are only two guys on the field involved in every play. Shouldn’t these guys be the focus of promotional campaigns? Shouldn’t these be the guys Fox or ESPN grabs for the national broadcasts? On Saturday May 9th, 2009, a 6-0 Zack Greinke went up against Joe Saunders — right smack in the middle of Greinkemania. The week before, he was on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Instead of choosing to showcase Greinke on THEIR OWN NETWORK, baseball instead decided to show a Reds/Cardinals game featuring Kyle Lohse and Aaron Harang. This is where baseball marketing fails. Fans missed out on an 8-inning, 5K, 1-0 loss for Greinke. Instead, they got a generic Reds/Cardinals game in which Albert Pujols went 0-4 with 1K. Fans who watched the MLB Network broadcast got 5 minutes of Pujols when they could have gotten 8 innings of Greinke and 9 innings of Saunders.

Unfortunately, baseball is the most resistant to change. The absolutely easiest way to speed games up is to eliminate the DH, reinstate the letter high strike, and not allow batters to step out in between pitches. But, if anything, the National League will likely adopt the DH in the coming years. It’s this romantic feeling of baseball’s unchanging, constant nature that makes it so resistant. It’s the only sport that caters to crusty old men. Indeed, it’s the only sport where “crusty” is badge of honor. It’s the third and final thing that hurts baseball marketing and something they, by and large, can’t acknowledge — their fans are becoming smarter than the guys paid to write about the sport. A 12-year-old fan with a concept of division and a Internet connection can get a dump of his team’s statistics for the last century. If he happens on the right website, he can discover why a sacrifice bunt is a stupid play unless a pitcher is batting. But baseball, because of its crustiness and desire to get people off its lawn has a dogged insistence at holding on to its fallacies. Besides that, writers have a dogged insistence of repeating platitudes over and over. In August 10th issue of Sports Illustrated alone:

• Joe Posnanski writes an article about David Ortiz, talking about how no one can believe he did steroids — except everyone can absolutely believe that he did steroids.
• “Who’s Not, Who’s Not” asks if the “Home Run Derby Curse” has struck Brandon Inge since he’s hit .180 since going 0-10 in the Derby. It seems far more likely to anyone with a hint of sense that Inge, who’d been hitting .268 with a .515 SLG before the break, just recalled he’s actually Brandon Inge — a career .238/.307/.398 hitter regressing to, well, a .238 hitter — and had no business slugging .515. Do you know what the odds of one out of ten players slumping after the Home Run Derby? Pretty good.
• Joe Sheehan implored his readers not to be fooled by the Phillies addition of Cliff Lee — that the Dodgers are still the class of the National League based, I guess, the 4 extra wins on their record at the time, their 4-3 advantage in the head-to-head series, and their 3 extra wins against the AL. Never mind Clayton Kershaw’s innings/start average and Joe Torre’s penchant for destroying his best relievers.
• Lee Jenkins penned a three-page article about Pablo Sandoval and longing for the days of the bad-ball hitter. Never mind the fact that both Nomar and Vlad have shown us exactly how well bad-ball hitters age. He also gives us the following gem: Across the Bay Bridge from Oakland, the Giants have countered Moneyball with Sandoball. They rank last in the majors in walks and on-base percentage but were tied with the Rockies for the National League wild-card race, thanks largely, of course, to a pitching staff anchored by Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain. “We don’t have a lot of what I call ‘professional hitters,’” says Giants hitting coach Carney Lansford. Not mentioned is the fact that the Giants are the 2nd worst team in the league at scoring runs. The only team worse is the Padres who, and I can’t confirm this, fill out their lineup card based on a raffle held during batting practice.
• Gary Smith writes six pages on a kid from South Africa who grew up on a ballfield and, when he arrived in the Pirates’ system, was actually not an over-entitled ass.

Combine all of this together — the lack of any effective national marketing, the active decision to market to old men, dismissing any idea of marketing to children, the refusal to acknowledge that old platitudes are wrong, the active lengthening of game, athletes who are increasingly difficult to root for, writers who willfully ignored the steroid era deciding to now crush the league for not preventing it, and just refusing to come to grips with the modern day — and baseball is leaving a mess for the next commissioner to inherit. He’s going to be left with a system in which some of his teams can’t afford to field a major league roster because Tom Hicks’s A-Rod contract broke baseball. Mostly, he’s going to inherit a league that’s been marketed to the wrong people for far too long. He’s going to find himself in charge of a league with a dearth of fans under 40 because the previous commissioner thought it more important to cater to ancient newspaper writers then young fans. He’ll be in charge of a league that has blindly refused to address new technologies — in which baseball-reference.com and Cot’s Baseball Contracts are more viable sources of information then the league’s own homepage. And, quite possibly, he’ll find himself in charge of one of the last, most visible Good Old Boy networks in the country.

I don’t know, exactly, how to fix it… but I know the entire sport feels like it’s on the waning stages of a bubble and that’s not a good place. During the steroid era nobody asked any questions because nobody asks questions when everyone’s making money (see also: Banks). Right now, they’re still not asking questions.

When they’re forced to ask them, it might be too late.