1. With Willie Randolph's job in grave danger, the Mets will take two of three games in Colorado. But Randolph will continue to feel that the world is out to get him, insisting that, in addition to SNY, the anti-Willie conspiracy includes Major League Baseball, the NRA, the Clintons, The Simpsons and the people who came up with Bubble Wrap.
2. The Yankees will drop two of three to Seattle. Meanwhile, John McCain, trying to decide on a running mate, will dismiss Mitt Romney from consideration. "I'm sorry," McCain will say, "but I just can't respect someone who thinks Joba should stay in the bullpen."
3. Umpire Mike Reilly, enjoying a weekend off, will be a contestant on "Jeopardy!" and know the question to the Final Jeopardy answer, "This former Secretary of State occasionally sits in George Steinbrenner's box at Yankee Stadium." But fellow ump Bob Davidson will overrule Reilly, and the re-submitted question "Who is Ronan Tynan?" will wind up embarrassing all umpires.
4. On Saturday, Joe Girardi will throw his hat to the ground twice, then kick some dirt, until he finally gets his way: Pizza for dinner, it is.
5. Mike Piazza, now retired, will cackle with glee when it occurs to him that he and Roger Clemens will likely be on the 2013 Hall of Fame ballot together, and that Clemens won't get in. Piazza won't stop laughing until it's time for his induction speech on July 28, 2013 _ at which point he'll speak for 28 minutes, and then resume laughing.
Comments (31)
Amazing. #5 is simply amazing.
Ken, you think Mets were jealous seeing Joe Girardi go nuts in the Yankees game last night? They propbably think why can't Willie do that. I would think Girardi will get suspended for his antics. Which leads me to a question. Why can't managers appeal a suspension? I know players have a union and managers don't, but why can't manager appeal an suspension?
Roger will show up at the Cooperstown induction ceremony in July 2013 to apologize for unspecified "misunderstandings" perpetrated by the media and fans and to officially reverse his stance that he doesn't care about being inducted.
I like Girardi showing some spark. It might be just what the doctor ordered.
Dennis: Because players have a union and managers don't.
Re: Girardi, Willie and fire, I think Willie has bigger problems than not being "fiery." I think he's just not communicative. But yeah, I give credit to Girardi last night for energizing the players.
I think that when Girardi's tenure with the Yankees is over, he should try auditioning for a role on "General Hospital." That little tantrum of his, besides being a cheap Lou Piniella imitation, couldn't have been more staged.
That's one of the things that bugs me most about Girardi -- it always seems like he's looking for attention or to flash a big neon sign proclaiming, "LOOK AT ME! I'M NOT JOE TORRE! LOOK HOW DIFFERENT I AM!"
Giardi kind of has to be like that -- Torre's shoes are hard to fill, of course. And if the season progresses and the Yankees continue to struggle, then expect the media to hit the Torre-never-missed-the-playoff-card hard. I agree with you, though: while really entertaining, his tantrum was nothing but an acting job, a clear attempt to fire up the troops. I don't think it made Cano get that hit, but it was funny, silly, and it got the crowd back into the game. It was a smart move by Girardi and he got rewarded by a walk-off hit.
Kennedy and Farnsworth, with the world watching, both pitched well. That's a great sign.
And simply a brutal loss by the Mets last night. A question to enrage Mets fans: Is Santana an ace right now? His numbers are great, and he's the least of their problems, but outside of one start in Philly (which if I remember right he had to be bailed out of), has he been the dominant ace you expected? I don't think so. And last night, with his team and his manager desperate for a victory, he laid an egg. Twelve hits and only one K? That's just not good enough.
I'd still make the deal they did in a nanosecond, because none of those prospects they gave up are any good (especially Humber and Mulvey), but I think Santana has been a minor disappointment, and his performance to date, if he doesn't go nuts in the second half, doesn't bode well for the future.
Last night Santana had a 2-1 lead in the 7th inning with a runner on 3rd and 1 out and he spit the bit. He gave up 4 straight hits and 3 runs. If your an ace pitcher like Santana making over $20 million dollars with the Mets struggling like they are, you can't give up 4 straight hits and 3 runs and lose. Santana' s job was to strand that runner at 3rd and get out of the inning up 2-1. Instead, when the inning was over the Braves went on to win 4-2. Bad job by Santana.
Ken is it time to take Florida seriously? I look at them and I compare them to a team like KC and I think I'd rather have KC and they aren't any good. How long can this team live off Hanley Ramirez and HRs and does a guy like Luis Gonzalez really mean that much to a team (as a quality teammate I mean)?
It was good to see Girardi so animated, especially after the Torre years where it looked like he was sleeping on the bench. True, that type of thing doesn't result in a player getting a hit, but it does contribute to the overall atmosphere around a club and reinforces that the manager is into every pitch and play and wants to win very badly. I have no complaints about Girardi at all. Sure, he made two or three decisions that can a reasonable person could question. That's meaningless in a sport where decisions are made throughout a game, every single day for seven months.
If the Mets lose 2 of 3 in Colorado, Willie is toast sometime on Monday.
Santana is historically a second half pitcher. And by the way, has anyone noticed the year that Carlos Gomez is having with Minnesota? He's lighting it up.
In the second half of 2007 Santana went 5-7 with a 4.04 ERA and had "diminished velocity." I am sure the Mets hope to get more out of their $137.5 million man.
Check his whole career, not just last year.
Gary, I understand that but you buy a used car for what it is going to do, not what it did in the past. Yes, 2007 might have been an aberration. Then again, it might not have been. Giving up 12 hits last night raised a few eyebrows. But, you are probably right.
Santana isn't God, even though you and others may think he is because of the big contract. He will have some bad games every now and then. And you would LOVE to have him on the Yankees. That being said, I hated giving up Gomez. And the Mets have more holes to fill than just starting pitching, that is for sure.
"has anyone noticed the year that Carlos Gomez is having with Minnesota? He's lighting it up.
---
A .318 OBP is hardly lighting it up. He's doing better than most expected, I'll give you that. But he's not getting on base enough for a guy whose best asset is his speed. The 16 stolen bases are nice. And he is, after all, only 22. He's looking at a lot better now than he did at the end of last year. But he was a small price to pay for Santana.
For the record, I was against trading for Santana if it meant surrendering Cano, Cabrera, Hughes and Kennedy or any mix of them. I was also against giving him the huge contract the Mets did. I'd love to have him on the Yankees if they could have signed him as a free agent to a five year $100 million contract, but that is fantasy. I don't want the guy to fail. I only wanted to point out that while he has had many nice second half performances in the past, last year he had a losing record. Enough said.
Sandy: I don't think it's time to take Florida seriously. They deserve plenty respect, for the way they continually rebuild themselves, but I don't see them keeping it up.
I agree with all of the Santana-questioning. Cashman has to look at a night like last night and congratulate himself.
Ken, baseball should consider changing the way starting pitchers are being suspended. I say starters should be suspended base on starts not by games like a reliver get suspended. For example, a starting pitcher gets suspended 3 starts. This way a team get hamper, and the pitcher would know that if he does something stupid, he would miss more than 1 start.
Ken, what is your personal opinion on how pitchers are being disciplined these days for "throwing" at a batter? Bob Gibson must be heavily sedated to prevent him from going off on a tirade about this. I read a great article in Newsday several years ago by Marty Noble titled, "Gibson's Cardinal Sin." (Ken, you have a Yankee Notes column - "Series Jewelry Rings Hollow" and another item about it being time for O'Neil to retire on the next page.) Gibson hated all offense. Period.
The mound was lowered, the strike zone shrunk, the ability of pitchers to move players off the plate disappeared. Has it gone too far? If a guy drills someone in the head, we all agree he should be severely disciplined. But, some of this other stuff, including throwing behind the guy is being overreacted to. What do you think?
Dennis: The whole idea is that a starting pitcher competes in one-fifth of the games as a position player. That's why he'll get five games, with the understanding that it's really just one start. If you do "three starts," first of all, how would you legally define that? What if a manager said, "Well, I was planning on starting Clemens the next three games, so after that, his suspension will be over." Second of all, if you made it 15 games instead of 5, then it would be too harsh a penalty.
Jim: I agree that the tide has turned too much toward protecting the hitter. But I don't see it changing.
Ken, startering pitchers should be puish more for what they do. What I mean by 3 starts is a starter will miss 3 turns in the rotation. The team can't replace the suspended player. That's my point.
And my point, Dennis, is that that would be too severe a penalty. Starting pitchers play in 32 games a year, as opposed to a position player's 160. So missing one game for a starting pitcher is the equivalent of five games for a position player.
Ken: Agreed that the tide against pitchers isn't about to shift any time soon. Too bad. Is Bob Watson just following orders or does he have a hand in the policy?
Also agreed that it would be terrible for pitchers to be banned a specific number of starts. How in the world would it be determined how many games that would encompass? With 4, 5 and 6 man rotations, rainouts, days off, etc., it would be a nightmare and very unfair.
Some of these suspensions are ludicrous. Being thrown out of the game is sufficient.
Watson is following guidelines, Jim, although I think that he believes strongly in what he's doing. After all, he was a hitter! ;)
When Bob Gibson (and others such as the late Don Drysdale) are complaining about the inside pitch being taken away, do they look at attendance figures? Baseball attendance declined over a 20 year period from the end of WWII to the early 1970s. Part of it was rundown ballparks in decaying neighborhoods but part of it was offense.But part was the declining offenses of the period. Fans like offense. They like to see things happen. M&MD argue Mantle vs Mays. They don't argue Reynolds vs Maglie. It's not as if pitchers are not getting big money for their efforts.
Ken, let Cashman congratulate himself for now, but at the end of the year, when Santana has his 18 or so wins and the Yankees are begging for a good starting pitcher, we'll see who is congratulating who. And last time I looked, the Yankees were having a putrid season.
Yankees are two games under .500 let's see what the Mets are............oh snap!! the Mets are two games under .500!! Pot meet kettle Gary
Ken, you have the greatest job in the world, but sometimes I feel sorry for you. I don't know how many times you have to explain that it is going to take time (years) to fully evaluate the Santana trade (and the Yankees lack of trading young players for him). The Yankees made a decision to keep the young players and try to build a longterm winner.
I don't buy the argument that offense is the reason why attendance is higher than ever. Yes, fans like offense. Fans also like to see well pitched games, no-hitters, one hitters, two hitters, complete game shutouts, 15 Ks, two hour games, etc. I don't think the boom in offense has hurt attendance - it has helped. But, it isn't the reason the Yankees have been drawing 4 million fans.
If you look through the Bill James Historical Abstract he has an essay pointing out attendance surges in periods of high attendance and fades when offenses go down. What year had the highest attendance before World War II 9all day games)? 1930. The year the National League averaged .300, Bill Terry hit .401 and Hack Wilson drove in 191 runs (when is someone going to break, or even get close, to that record?). Certainly there were years when it would be unrealistic to expect the record to be set: the 1930s had unemployment averaging 17%.
I think baseball has done a better job of promoting itself than it has in the past to draw fans. Perhaps the Yankees would be drawing well if offenses were 1960s level. But it was quite rare for a team to draw 2 million in the 1960s and 4 million was unthinkable. The Yankees also didn't start to draw 4 million a year until they added Alex Rodriguez. No, I am not Scott Boras.
The dedicated baseball fan enjoys well pitched games just like the dedicated NFL fans likes 7-6 games. But there is also a large pool of casual fans who find sitting thru a large number of strike outs, pop outs (or three and outs) not worthy of spending much time or money on. Organized sports is primarily a business, at least to the people who run it.
Mets need to get rid of Willie now!
They better bring back Art Howe. Howe was building something special here but impatient Mets fans and dumb media didn't see it coming or not smart enough to wait. If the Mets won the WS in 2006, Howe would've been the unsung hero. Anyway, I think Howe's cool demeanor is what's needed because I think Willie's fire and passion is too much for the team.
If not Howe, then the Mariners manager if/when he goes.
I agree with Joey! That was one of the greatest posts ever!