So What Now?
Our needs are obvious. We need younger and more durable starting pitching, we need more bench strength, and we need a decent hitter playing either in left field or at second base.
So do we pull out all the stops and all the cash to sign Barry Zito? Do we put together an irresistible package of prospects to get Dontrelle Willis? Do we try to get Alfonso Soriano?
Yeah, maybe. Whatever.
Some people are going to be angry at me for saying this.
If we put Lastings Milledge in left and had a starting pitching staff consisting of five of the following: El Duque, Heilman, Maine, Perez, Bannister, Pelfrey, and Humber, I wouldn’t mind. I wouldn’t mind at all.
Huh? What? Is this complacency? No. I’m not sure that this team would win the division. I like the uncertainty.
Is this a lack of desire to win? Am I a wuss? Damn straight, I’m a wuss. Wanna make something of it? Gate B. Opening Day. Two hours before the game. I’ll be there.
Of course I want to win. But I really don’t want to do the Yankee thing. That is no fun. I like the feel of the team as it is. I like the talent. I would rather find the surprises in a group of prospects than sign or trade for known quantities. Seaver and Koosman were fun. Gooden and Darling were fun. Wright and Reyes are fun. Zito, Willis, Soriano, or Moises Alou wouldn’t be as much fun. We know their stories. We don’t know Milledge’s.
I know what you’re thinking. We were all happy to sign Beltran or Martinez, when the Mets were trying to establish their credibility. Point taken. But I don’t want to overdo the free agent thing. I don’t want to upset the competitive balance too much. I don’t want to be focused on how the team will perform in the postseason. I don’t want a dynasty, and I am glad that dynasties aren’t really possible. Anything can happen in the postseason, thank God. Anything can even happen during the regular season.
All I want from the near future is a team that is fun to root for, and stays in contention. That’s all I want. I never want my hopes and desires to be replaced by expectations. I want winning to mean something. And I want losing to make me sad, not angry or embarrassed or frustrated.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:59 am
I think you make valid points. Free agency should be kept to a minimum, and used to supplement the team. I have a lot of faith in Omar Minaya, and I think he knows what is right for the team. I like the blend of vets and young players, and Maine and Perez are keepers. I agree with your last paragraph. It is what baseball and all sports should be about.
October 24th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Hi Dana
If we wanted to have a dynasty we would be Yankee fans. And we are not, so your blog makes sense. I still remember the day I found out that Robbie Alomar was going to be a Met. I was so psyched and we all know how that turned out. So going after the superstars can pan out or it might not. We don’t know. There will be some changes and I have complete faith that Omar knows what they should be. Part of the fun is the not knowing. I personally like being the underdog. I really didn’t like being the “overwhelming favorite” in the NLCS.
I want to win too. Believe me I was at game 7, had my heart broken and want to go all the way next year. But not at the expense of our integrity. I do believe the saying “that which does not kill us truly makes us stronger”. I believe that the Mets and their fans are stronger because of this experience. They will stick together because they are truly a team. And we fans will stick together and make that team stronger.
I will see you next year opening day but not because I disagree with what you said. I will see you next year because it is opening day and I want to see our team play and have fun together just like they did this year.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
What you say makes sense. I’d like to see the Mets put a lot of attention into their scouting and organization so that there will be great prospects to develop. But if we can get Zito, I wouldn’t complain. You have a great blog, by the way. In terms of the quality of the writing, and the ability to state precisely and beautifully what Mets fans are thinking, this is the best blog there is.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
I don’t know if Endy can be as productive as he was last year, but I love the idea of having him, Beltran, and Milledge in the outfield…it’s almost like having 4 outfielders, they all cover so much ground. Green would get most of the playing time in right, of course, unless Milledge really starts to tear it up.
I’d love to see Bannister back, and I’m sure El Duque has another decent season in him, at least. The others you mention cause me no heartburn.
Yes, I love the feel of this team, in a way I haven’t for a long, long time. The 86 team had a few jerks, no question, and 99. oh, yes. 2000 less so, but there were a few players who irritated me. None on this team. I’d be very unhappy if we went after Soriano, who seems to get great when a contract is about to be dangled before him. The Nats did him a big favor by forcing him to play left–he’s now an all-starstarter in 2 positions, quite a rarity. But that it almost came down to Opening Day for him to finally say okay to that speaks volumes.
Actually, Dana, in answer to your question, so what now?, I’m still nursing a sore heart!
October 24th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I must tell you, I do not understand the “not wanting a dynasty” comment at all. I do understand not wanting the Mets to be a duplicate of the current iteration of the Yankees, with a fantasy league team out there.
BUT, it seems to me that…..
The Brooklyn Dodgers were a dynasty
The Atlanta Braves were a dynasty
The Orioles were somewhat of a dynasty in the 1970s, as were the
Oakland As (esp, when they were in Philly at the beginning of the season)
The Mets of the late 1980s could have been a dynasty.
The St Louis Cardinals are somewhat dynastic.
You also have other sports where $ isn’t an issue. New England Patriots. Montral Canadiens. New York Islanders.
Are you defining dynasty by World Series rings? To me, that doesn’t seem the right touchstone. Its all about getting there. In a short series anything is possible. The Yankees are dynastic because they get to the post-season, not because they win it. The fact they have 26 rings is one thing, but when you also consider how many times they’ve been in the post-season period (I think its an incalculable number like Pi) is astonishing.
I agree with you that I don’t want the Mets to go the Yankees route, but its not because I think having a dynasty is a bad thing. If the Mets can look more like the Brooklyn Dodgers and less like the flash-in-the-pan teams of the world, I’m all for it. A team that is perenially competitive and has a legitmate shot at a title repeatedly. They may not always win it, but they should leverage their ability to have a chance. The Yankees route is NOT a good way to achieve victory - as the last 2 seasons suggest. You need a mix of prime FAs, role players, and kids.
The team you propose fielding smells too much like Tampa Bay, the Pirates, or the old Expos. A great AAA team for other teams to pick off.
The reason NYC was nicknamed THE CAPITAL OF BASEBALL in the WS was simple. The road to the WS ran through NYC, whether it was the Giants, Yankees, or Dodgers. If the Mets can position themselves to play the role that the Dodgers/Giants did in that era, that is a compliment. Doing an impression of Tampa Bay or the Bad News Bears (”if we wish on a star we might win the Wild Card”) would not impress me. It would insult the fans.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
JD, I would be happy to take the kind of dynasty that you define in the following sentences:
“If the Mets can look more like the Brooklyn Dodgers and less like the flash-in-the-pan teams of the world, I’m all for it. A team that is perenially competitive and has a legitmate shot at a title repeatedly.”
What I’m responding to is the kind of attitude you can hear from radio callers and some posters on mets.com: the idea that getting to the postseason should be taken for granted and that the only legitimate triumph is winning the World Series. This is the current Yankee attitude and it looks boring as hell to me. In my post, I’m not actually saying that Minaya shouldn’t try to make some moves to make the team better (he will need to make some moves to keep the team as good as it is). I’m just saying that if he doesn’t succeed, I’m not going to be crushed. I am very curious about Milledge and these young pitchers and I would really enjoy seeing how they develop. I guess I’m just trying to be provocative here. The idea that a World Series victory is the only acceptable outcome of a baseball season sounds like a poisonous idea to me and I suppose I am reacting to it.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:25 am
OK, well I can agree with this. I’m not sure that I think believing the concept of only a World Series victory as acceptable is “poisinous” - - probably more accurate to say, given the uncertanties of the game, that its masochistic. BUT, I think every team is obligated to say that the goal of that season is to win a World Championship, and not settle for less than that internally. Even if its a team of no-names; Exhibit A - the 2006 Florida Marlins under Girardi. He got that team to perform by motivating them that because you never know what will happen in baseball, the goal is to “kill the enemy” and win. And unlike the Royals or Pirates who whoever, the Marlins stayed in the hunt late in the season (to the thrill of the eleven fans that actually attend games there.) And, to put an even finer point (and I’m far from a Yankee fan), I’m pretty certain that Girardi’s years of experience as a coach and player for the Yankees, where October success is what it ultimately valued, was a very significant factor in that team overachieving for much of the season. Winning isn’t everything, but losing, on the other hand, isn’t anything.
In the case of the Mets, one of the things that’s killed them (and caused them for too long to lurk in the Yankees’ shadows, sad given that NY is fundamentally an NL town [fans here are too smart to enjoy the DH rule and its ruining the joy of strategy) is complacency. After losing in 2000, I did not sense (until much later in the season) a real fire in the belly to get back and avenge the loss to the Yankees. Yes, the signed Alomar and some other players who appeared to present some offensive pop, but I felt that the org was “just happy to get to the playoffs” whereas the Yankees, had they lost to the Mets, would have been apoplectic and enraged about the loss and sought crushing revenge. Which is fine in pro sports (as opposed to international conflicts.)
That is why I am very pleased that when interviewed by Francessa post NLCS, Minaya said that while he was proud of the team, the goal was to win it all, they did not, hence he did not consider the season a full-fledged success. To some extent that’s hype, but it also suggests that fire and hunger that has been missing from the Mets in years past (and appeared to be missing from at least some of the Yankees this season.) That is pleasing to my ears, and I hope he spends $, but spends it wisely. (Forget about the Yankees…..the LA Dodgers most years are a prime example of how to effectively flush money down the john.)
As for Milledge, while he has potential (and I discount media hype that he’s a clubhouse cancer), I won’t cry if he develops elsewhere. The Mets need quality, MLB ready starting pitching. And a big-market team like the Mets (which they are) has prospects like Milledge BECAUSE they can afford to trade him for a prime candidate if the fit is right.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
There is a difference between winning being everything and winning being the preferred mode of thought. Of course we want to win. What would be the point if we didn’t? I think Dana is against the mindset of “win or else” which seems to be the Yankee way. Omar Minaya wants to win. Like you said, he came right out and said the season wasn’t a true success because they didn’t make it to the world series. But all of this is just words. Actions speak louder than words. To me Steinbrenner’s actions show win or else, Omar’s show that he will win because that is just the way he thinks. It isn’t win or else. It is just win. And if for some reason they don’t, he will find a way the following year. It is a difference in personalities and why we are fans of the Mets and not the Yankees.
The bottom line is that you don’t know what you got until you try it. How do we know what Milledge or anyone else for that matter is going to give us if we don’t give it a shot. How do we know that free agent out there is actually going to mesh with the clubhouse atmosphere? We all know that how an athlete played for one club does not necessarily translate down to his new club. A true winner is going to find a way to win no matter what. And if they don’t, a true winner also knows how to lose. It is not the preferred method but it is reality. I, for one, have complete faith in Omar. I believe we will win. Next year will be our year. But if it isn’t, hope always springs eternal.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Shelley:
The great American Buddhist writer Charlotte Joko Beck once freaked her students out when she advised them that “to do this practice we have to give up hope.” She explained that what she meant was not that one should give up effort, but instead meant that rather than keep dreaming and manuevering in order to have a perfect life, you have to accept that “life is the way it is.”
One can debate her philosophical underpinnings, but I think her comments have a great deal of applicability in the business (and I emphasize that word) of baseball, especially with respect to the New York Mets. Life is the way it is.
The Mets are a big market team.
Let me amend that; they are a HUGE market team.
Thanks to Curt Flood and Marvin Miller’s noble efforts we live in an era of free agency. And, for a variety of reasons, good and bad, baseball does not have a salary cap.
Accordingly, given the economic structure in place, combined with the fact that taking a family of 4 to a baseball game probably costs on average pver $100 bucks (tix, snacks, and parking) it behooves ownership to make every effort to put a team on the field that is legitimately and realistically capable of winning the World Series.
No one can insure that will happen - - in a short series its possible that the Royals will sweep the Yankees - - its simply a function of maximizing the probability.
(I’d also say that in the case of the Mets and the Yankees, it doubly behooves them. Sentimentality aside, neither Stadium offers a great deal of distractions independent from what’s going on the field. Apart from history, mystique, or Shea’s fanfest pre-weekend games, both Stadiums offer all of the charm and intimacy of the Port Authority Bus Terminal [and the latter has much better food choices.] This also explains (for me) why NYC baseball fans are probably the smartest and most incisive in the game: they’ve had to focus on what’s going on in the diamond.
One great joke that has some truth about the Cubs is that if you want them to win the World Series, tear down Wrigley and replace it with Three Rivers Stadium and they’ll be forced to win, because no one will show up there for the ambiance.)
Lets also turn to your “win or else” criticism of Steinbrenner.
Notwithstanding what goes on with the press or how they characterize it (and George S. has alienated enough reporters that some have a knife in their hand for him), its far more likely that the dynamic is more complex. George and his advisors have been in this game long enough to know that insisting on nothing less that a WS ring is bound to end in misery (Even the Yankees haven’t won a majority of all WS played.)
I think what they mean is that the expectation is that the players will play at 110%, not find losing acceptable, and press themselves to the max.
And the problem is (at least for the 2006 Yankees) not all of their players do that. As Tom Verducci noted in his brilliant analysis of the Yankee clubhouse this season, A-Rod (as excellent a player as ever existed) seems to take at least comfort in individual statistical measures when he struggles (and Giambi got in his face about that.)
BUT, keep in mind that the Yankees did finish with the best record in baseball this season, and (objectively) faced significantly fiercer competition (by any statistical measure you look at) than the Mets did.
That success is very much a result of the fact that the “fantasy league All Star team” actually played pretty unselfishly. Whereas many of the players on the team in other situtations would be swinging for the fences and not taking walks, etc., over there, for the most part, they DID function as a cohesive team. They would not have swept the Red Sox or finished with the record that they did had they not.
If that was a result of a “win or else” attitude from both the Front Office and the players, there are worse sins in life than finishing the season 97-75.
Meanwhile, seems to me that we Mets fans feed into this. Rather than say “wow, that was a hell of a record the Yanks accumulated” and concede that they faced tougher competition than we did, the tenor of comments I seem to hear is that the team is dysfunctional (and the Mets in contrast are virtuous), and that the Yankees are choke-artists because they failed in October.
Psychologically, that suggests a number of things: envy (in the sense that people believe its a given that the Yankees will be in the post-season, and therefore should not revel in winning the division the way the Mets do), a double-standard, or misapprehension of the facts. In many ways the Mets success is BECAUSE of the Yankees.
Why? One, because Minaya looked at what was going on cross town, realized the Mets were doing a great job making themselves irrelevant (much like the LA Clippers before last season). He is savvy enough to realize that the way the Yankees composed their team does not maximize the chances for winning the whole thing, but as far as “win or else” is concerned, I believe he is no less demanding that his players give 120% and have single-minded focus on winning the WS than Steinbrenner or Cashman does. Omar spent enoughy years in Expos loserville. He wants to win, and he wants to win NOW!
Second, Willie Randolph clearly imported the best of what worked in the Bronx. If anything, he’s probably more of a harder taskmaster than Torre, who is less gruff and more fatherly. Randolph is not about coddling his players, or permitting them to think that losing is acceptable. He wasn’t that way as a player, ain’t that way as a manager. Any statements to the contrary to the press are pure PR. He’s a great guy, but definitely comes from the “run wind sprints until you puke on your shoes” school of human relations. He gets in his players’ face, and challenges them to perform at their absolute utmost. If that isn’t “win or else” I don’t know what is.
Finally, a last observation, which I hope is humorously cynical. When the Yankees won their WS rings between 1996-2000 their attendance maxed out at 3,055,435. (and was below 3 million from 1996-1998)
2001: 3,264,907
2002: 3,465,807
2003: 3,465,600
2004: 3,775,292
2005: 4,090,696
2006: 4,248,067
If anything, ever since the thrilling Game 7 in 2001, losing in the manner that they have has been fantastic for Yankee ticket sales. They’ve probably learned from the Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, etc. that nothing bonds fans and builds interest like epic collapses. Hence, don’t know that “win or else” is really the marching orders; what’s going on there in the Bronx may be more Machiavellian!
P.S. - In case anyone’s interested, you can find the Mets attendance records (and every other teams’) at:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYM/attend.shtml
October 25th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
JD
Let me say that I totally get what this American Buddhist writer is saying. The easiest way to solve a problem is to give into it. That is how you come up with the best answers.
If in the end, it is all about the money and that is what I am gathering you are getting at here, I find it interesting that it was the Yankees losing (if that is what you want to call it) that sparked the fans interest. Which does go to show that it is not all about winning. It is about the competitiveness of it all. If all you ever do is win it gets boring after a while. Of course as a Met fan, I am ready to win. I’m not bored so bring it on.
By the way, I am still laughing about your comment “both Stadiums offer all of the charm and intimacy of the Port Authority Bus Terminal [and the latter has much better food choices.] The Port Authority does have some good food choices.
Are you a writer? You do have a way with words.
October 25th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Shelley:
My professional life does entail a lot of writing, albeit mostly the dry, dessicated type innundated with latin phraseology, excssive and superfluous footnotes, and reference to arcane regulations and interpretive letters. So opportunities to comment on topic like this are refreshing (for me, not neccessarily for others who endure reading through them.)
I don’t think its neccessarily all about the money, but it is all about smart business, figuring out where value is, creating the right balance, and knowing how to properly motivate the team (like any organization.) More or less what I’m plaguerizing from Moneyball or other books on the subject. In the case of Milledge, there is (or, more accurately, was) a good deal of value to be gained in trading for him. I for one would have done cartwheels had Roy Oswalt been on the Mets starting rotation - - but also cannot blame Angelos - - doofus that he usually is - - for nixing the deal. Milledge didn’t do much that was hugely impressive his first call up, but that’s not really a big deal. Mantle also struggled when he wore No. 6. It was Milledge’s mediocre numbers when he returned to AAA that made me desire to trade him, and I fear absent him rocketing up the charts his value has plummeted.
As for winning getting boring, I guess I’d like to see the Mets take 5 or 6 World Series in a row to decide if its boring. A college b-ball team I rooted for took their conference year after year; that wasn’t boring. It was fun seeing if anyone could knock us off the perch. You wanted the competition to be serious and competitive, but weren’t interested in passing the trophy along to some other contender. Like I said, in sports “the goal is to kill the enemy.”
The Port Authority has improved dining-wise. Its come a long way from the days when your options were Nedicks or the Sabrett stand, and I don’t see as many people washing their feet in the toilet or sink as I used to.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
JD
I too could handle being bored for a few years. Especially if those few years are as fun as last year was. We’ll check back after the Mets have won a few and see where we stand.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
I’m a bit late to the party, but simply put, its the journey more than the destination. Of course we’d rather wind up in Tibet than Hoboken, but wherever we find ourselves in October, I hope that the journey is as fun and interesting as this year has been.
I’m not a sports fan. It sounds weird considering we’re all spending some time on a blog site about a sports team. But its true. I would be hard pressed to name 5 current athletes in any other sport, yet I am hopelessly drawn in to the 7 month saga of a Met season. Suspension of disbelief is not just for movies anymore. It is the thing that allows us to create relationships with a collection of total strangers, and it is those relationships and those we create with other fans that cause us to care and hope about the outcome of the games. That’s why it is so much better to have a team of David Wrights and Jose Reyes’ and the Carli’ to root for and hope for than a collection of one dimensional mercenaries. (I’m certainly not referring to one specific team that might reside in another borough mind you - well OK maybe I am a little.)
It is why I have no ties to Shawn Green, but why I am hoping to see Cliff Floyd back next year. There’s no story to Shawn, but Cliff will come with lots of history and background and tons to cheer for. After all he has been through in his few years here, it would be the most fulfilling thing I can think of to see Cliff celebrate in October again. Just remember back to how hard you were pulling for Cliff in his at bat in game 7. I couldn’t possibly blame him for swinging out of his socks on that first pitch. My butt was barely able to stay connected with the couch during that whole at bat. Fresh off his surgery, Cliff can make some great theater next season and although there are countless statistical reasons why Soriano would be an upgrade in left field over Cliff, a not so small part of my Metfandom will mourn that day if I have to read that headline.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Chris
Actually, I think you hit the nail right on the head when you said: “It is the thing that allows us to create relationships with a collection of total strangers, and it is those relationships and those we create with other fans that cause us to care and hope about the outcome of the games.”
It is those relationships, and the ones we have with the players that don’t even know us, that make this so much fun. And I for one can’t wait for next year.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Chris,
1) I agree with you completely about Cliff Floyd. I have long given up the hope that he would be on the 2007 team, but I love the guy. I was so happy for him in 2005 and I wanted so much to see him be the hero of the seventh game. And I’m completely on the same page as you are about this issue of wanting to have great stories on the team. I like a mix of guys you can count on and guys who would be stories. This is why I dream of a team with a lot of rookie arms even if it is, to be honest, not a very practical thing to desire.
2) I still want Green on the team. Why? Not a good reason. I’m a little embarrassed to admit it. I share an ethnic heritage with him. It’s an ethnic group that produces a lot of baseball fans, but not a lot of good ballplayers. Part of me is still the little kid who couldn’t hide his pride in the accomplishments of Sandy Koufax, even when he was pitching against my Mets.
3) I’m not a sports fan either, I have to admit. I’m not entirely proud of that because a lot of sports probably deserve my attention. Friends of mine who are basketball fans and hockey fans have shown me that these are in fact wonderful sports. I believe it. I still can’t do it. Football I don’t get the point of.
4) Don’t knock Hoboken on my site (joking). I lived there for six years and I love the place. I’ve never been to Tibet, so I can’t compare them.
– Dana (can’t figure out how to post in the comments section as Dana instead of the formidable Administrator)
October 28th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
I like the Shawn Green story too not only because his presence on the team makes my Jewish mother happy, but also because of the Carlos Delgado connection. I think it’s cool that two ballplayers who seem so different in background are such good friends. I think it’s cool that they are such good friends that Carlos had to glue a yarmulke to his head to be in Shawn’s wedding. I think it’s a laugh in the face to the people who criticize Omar for creating a “hispanic” team. These guys show that their ethnicity is really that of “baseball player.” While, yes, it may help relax a Carlos Beltran (love that “Carli’” moniker JD) to have Delgado on the team, the closest are not those who grew up on the same island in the Caribbean, but those who grew up together riding the bus in the minor leagues. That’s a great story to me.
oh, and I would LOVE to see Cliff back next year. Anyone with enough of a sense of humor to have them play the “Sanford and Son” theme as he hobbles to the plate is definitely on my fantasy team!