Aug 17

Matt Harvey Gives Us Something

I’ll admit, there are two things I want to see from the 2012 Mets. The first is to finish over.500, which, while demonstrating a strong positive step, is becoming more remote. The second is for R.A. Dickey to win 20 games.

While watching Dickey get hammered earlier this week I started to wonder if 20 wins was a long shot and whether there was anything interesting and compelling to concern myself with this team.

Matt Harvey answered that question last night in a scintillating performance against the Reds, perhaps the NL’s best team.

Harvey ended a personal three-game losing streak with 7.2 strong innings iced by hitting a two-run double as the Mets salvaged the series. In this recent stretch of their second half freefall, the Mets have lost eight of their last 12 games.

Yes, it is one start, but for the most part he has been solid in each of this first four starts. Last night was easily his best. Since 2006, when the Mets last saw a meaningful October, the Mets received similar strong glimpses from guys such as Mike Pelfrey, John Maine, Oliver Perez, Jon Niese and Dillon Gee, but there’s something different about Harvey, a first-round pick from North Carolina.

He just seems polished beyond his experience.

Unlike some of the previous flashes mentioned, Harvey leaves the impression of working with a plan. Maybe there was a chemistry click with Kelly Shoppach, and Terry Collins needs to pair those two again. It is fun watching Harvey work quickly and pound the corners for strikes. He’s not afraid to go inside on a hitter, works efficiently and with poise.

Maybe Harvey won’t be electric like Doc Gooden, but he doesn’t figure to be an enigma such as Pelfrey, either.

 

Aug 16

Umpires Go After Dickey

The issue isn’t R.A. Dickey’s bracelet, but the umpires chose to make it one. Umpiring is as bad as ever these days, and last night’s decision indicates how clueless these guys are.

It also underscores the primary complaint about umpires, and that is inconsistency. You see it every game with each umpires’ “interpretation” of the strikezone. It is flat out WRONG that each umpire has his own strikezone. The one in the rule book is official and that’s the one that should be used.

Back to Dickey.

First, if the Reds did not complain about Dickey, then the umpires acted on their own. Since when are umpires to unilaterally made decisions – without input from either team – that impact the outcome of a game?

For example, umpires aren’t supposed to alert a runner if he failed to touch the plate. Nor, is he allowed to alert the defensive team. Here, the umps acted on their own.

If Dickey’s bracelet was permissible all season, what’s the big deal now? If last night’s crew was correct in ordering the bracelet removed, that would mean every other crew was wrong for allowing it.

That is, if the rules stipulate no jewelry – or is it no distracting jewelry? Again, reportedly the complaint did not come from the Reds.

If there’s a rule stipulating no attachments to the uniform, then what’s with all the chains, earrings and bracelets you see all the time in an ML game/ Why isn’t that enforced? Please don’t say “because the umpires have so much to do.”

If Dickey’s bracelet is to go, then so should everybody’s bling.

An umpire’s job is actually a simple one: Follow the rule book. Fair or foul; ball or strike; out or safe? It’s either one or the other. If there’s no jewelry of any kind, enforce it equally.

Dickey’s bracelet is a gray area, If Dickey pitched with it all season, then why the issue now? Either last night’s crew or every one before in a Dickey start is wrong. Which is it?

Which is it? That’s the essence of today’s umpiring. Nobody seems to know.

Aug 16

Dickey Seeing Red After Losing Bracelet In 6-1 Mets Loss

R.A. Dickey‘s quest for a Cy Young hit a speed bump Wednesday night in a bizarre 6-1 loss to the Cincinnati Reds.

But Dickey will have to wait at least five more days to bolster his credentials. The knuckleballer served up a season-high three home runs to the Reds on Wednesday, dropping the Mets to a 6-1 loss.

Dickey may have been thrown off his game when the umpires forced him to cut off a bracelet that his daughter had given him when he made his climb up Mt. Kilimanjaro. Dickey was visibly pissed, and had worn that bracelet all season long without any previous gripes by the umpires. Terry Collins confirmed it was the umpires who ordered Dickey’s bracelet cut and that it was not requested by Reds.

The Reds tagged Dickey five earned runs on ten hits including three home tuns in six innings of work. The home runs were definitely not cheapies especially Todd Frazier‘s which was estimated at 475 feet. Scott Rolen and Jay Bruce walloped the other two. He did strike out ten, so there’s that…

The Mets only had four hits in the games, two each by Mike Baxter and Ruben Tejada who batted first and second in the order.

The Mets are 9-22 since the all-star break and now seven games under .500 for the season.

Bobby Ojeda says the Mets now have a growing reputation in the league that they are passive offense and that teams are pounding the middle of the zone because they know the Mets batters are not going to swing.

The Mets will try to avoid the sweep in tomorrow’s finale as rookie Matt Harvey (1-3, 3.63 ERA) faces Cincinnati right-hander Homer Bailey (10-7, 4.08).

Aug 15

Thanking Joe DeCaro

Greetings folks. I’d like to thank Joe DeCaro of Metsmerizedonline.com for posting for me when I was hospitalized. It was greatly appreciated.

Thursday afternoon I went to my doctor’s office because of shooting pains in my stomach and groin area. It turns out I had an infection and everything that happened in the May surgery had to be removed.

Well, Sunday become Monday night, and yesterday I was so doped up on pain killers I slept most of the day. This is the first time I’ve been up and had a chance to reach out to you guys.

Your thoughts and Joe’s help are greatly appreciated.

I read Joe’s post about Scott Hairston and become annoyed with the Mets. Even when they were losing 11 of 12 games, the Mets did nothing. Sandy Alderson said there was still a lot of baseball to be played.

It they’re going to deal Hairston, it should have been done in July when they had a chance to get something — maybe. Now, what will they get?

Personally, with the Mets’ outfield as thin as it is, and the team needing to bolster its bench for 2013, they would be looking for guys like Hairston. Why not keep him and make one less move this winter?

That it, of course, it the Mets are going to make any moves for the future. No, Kelly Shoppach doesn’t cut it.

Again thanks. I am looking forward to recovering as fast as possible and talking with you guys again.

 

Aug 13

Mets May Trade Scott Hairston Before September 1st

Ken Davidoff of the New York Post writes:

The Mets have yet to place Scott Hairston on waivers this month, according to an industry source, which makes sense. It figures that the Mets want to reap the benefits of Hairston for a while longer before putting him through the waivers process, at which time they’ll have a decision to make.

That time will come by Aug. 31, and really, the Mets’ decision should be simple. If they want to send the correct message to their fans, they’ll trade the righty-hitting outfielder.

The Mets must cease worrying about small goals such as finishing at .500 or better, or keeping their fans mildly interested through the regular season. Given where they are in their development — in need of myriad key pieces — they need to think about a bigger picture.

And Hairston is the one player whose value could be maximized at this juncture of the season.

Of course we should trade him, but as far as getting max value for him, that ship sailed when Alderson told teams he wanted one of their top three organizational prospects for him.

Because of his unrealistic and preposterous stance he blew a golden opportunity to help the team fill anyone of a dozen different sore spots.

The areas this team needs help in have doubled under his tenure and even something as basic as one everyday outfielder is nowhere on the horizon.

Now, he’ll end up trading Hairston to the lowest bidder instead of the highest bidder because that’s how waivers works. It’s just another blunder in a season full of them for this front office.

But what really irks me is the comment Alderson made alluding to the fact that Hairston had priced himself out of the Mets plans for 2013. You say that, and know that, and yet you STILL hung onto him because you feared the team needed him more than the return we could have gotten for him? Smart, real smart….

Go ahead and trade him now for the next Chris Carter…

Unreal…