Side Bar is not a dick

Also a dick.

This post was originally going to be a comment in response to Side Bar's assholery. But the comment just kept growing, and it soon became obvious that I would have to let go and see what form it took. I was hoping it would take the form of Voltron. That, or a cheerleader in one of those, you know, cheerleader outfits, but... (sigh) ...it's just a post.

(Which reminds me, why hasn't one of us posted something about that conversation we had about how ridiculous Voltron was?)

[For some context, you should read Side Bar's recent post and check out the comments. I made one and for whatever reason, Side Bar decided to tear me a new one in response. Why? Because he's a dick. Here, I reply.]

Here we go again.

Last time you "grammatically bitch slap"ped me (again, be sure to read the comments), you had simply misinterpreted a joking response as some sort of attack on you as a person (and, more specifically, your aptitude with the English language). I thought I had cleared that up but, alas, you're overly defensive nature has reared its ugly face once more. That, and you're a dick.

So you chose to go with the second definition of "schizophrenic" both times. That made me wonder something: What did the first definition have to say? After all, when someone says something, he's generally going for the first-definition meaning; otherwise, it's incumbent upon the speaker to clarify, agreed? I mean, if I were to, I dunno, call you a "dick", I would clearly be referring to the first definition (using your references):

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dick

1. A detective.

NOT:

2. Vulgar. Penis.

See? Why in the world would I have referred to you as a "dick" if I had meant the second meaning? Clearly, if I call you a “dick”, I mean that I think that you investigate murders like Jerry Orbach. If, for whatever reason, I thought you were a “penis”, it would be my responsibility to make that clear.

As for your second reference, the esteemed “freedictionary.com”, here's what they have to say:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dick

1. Chiefly British: A fellow; a guy.
2. Vulgar. A penis.

Again, my point is made. Although in this case, when I call you a “dick”, I do it in a British accent, and I mean that you're a fellow, a guy, a dude, a bro, a brah, a homey, my boy, etc... But if I meant the latter, it's on me to make that clear. Otherwise, how are you, the listener, supposed to figure out what the hell I mean? If you look a little further, the third definition says:

3. Vulgar. A person, especially a man, regarded as mean or contemptible.

Now, I certainly would never mean that, would I?

Side Bar, you wrote a very nice piece on the Mets' current situation. I particularly liked this part:

"The only thing they can do consistently is play inconsistent baseball."

Wow. That's effing brilliant. I've never seen anyone play “consistent” off “inconsistent” like that before. (Google it.) In fact, I'll bet that if you look up “inconsistent” and “consistent” in, like, an online dictionary or something, you'll find that they mean the opposite thing. Nice, dude. Antithesis. James Joyce, your Irish brethren, would be proud.

So apparently, the Mets are playing "inconsistent" baseball – meaning you never know how well they're gonna play. Good sometimes, and bad sometimes, right? And if they "consistently" do that – meaning that you know they're going to do that – uh, does that mean that they're...wait, I'm lost. If you never know if they're gonna be good or bad, but you always know that they're either going to be good or bad, does that make them inconsistent or consistent? You could say that they're inconsistent – good and bad, randomly. And you could say that they're totally consistent – good and bad, randomly. So...you never know if they're going to be good or bad ("inconsistent"), but you do know that they'll be either good or bad ("consistent").

I'm not sure what that all means. I'll leave it to Chuck to parse my logic. But I can say this for a fact: What you, Side Bar, said was cliched as fuck with a cherry of meaninglessness on top. I'm sure you're gonna get all lawyerly on me and pick this apart, but hey, after all, you're a dick.

I consistently expect that from you.

P.S. Just to pile on, you also wrote this:

“[T]he Mets do not have a single relief pitcher who can consistently be called upon to get outs in a tough spot.”

You use “consistent” like Joe fucking Morgan?

Heads or Tails

On June 16, the Mets were in fourth place in the NL East, six and a half games behind the first place Phillies, and appeared one more losing streak away from folding for the rest of the season. Then everything clicked. The team reeled off a ten-game win streak, Carlos Delgado caught fire, and the team's pitching was magnificent across the board. On July 25, the Mets were in sole possession of first place, two games ahead of the rival Phillies. But in just ten more days, the Mets gave back more than half of those gains, falling to third place, three games behind Philadelphia (where they stood before the start of play yesterday). The baseball season is notoriously long, and even the best teams have high points and low points through the six-month campaign (or seven-month, depending upon those first six). But over the first four months of the season, the Mets have been almost schizophrenic in their performance. The only thing they can do consistently is play inconsistent baseball.

So what to make of this team? Are they finished, as I lamented in an e-mail to a few people Monday morning, doomed to play uneven ball and hover around .500 while the Phillies gradually put the division away? Or are they just another ten-game winning streak from first place, ready to close the gap and more? I have no idea, but there are good arguments to support both predictions.

First, the good news:

Starting Pitching. Despite the rocky week the team has had, the Mets' starting pitching still looks like the best in the division. In July, only the Dodgers and the Cubs had better ERAs than the Mets' pitchers. Johan Santana is, as advertised, more and more dominant as the season progresses (but for the bullpen, he would have closer to 15 wins than the nine he has now). And as one of my co-contributors has already observed, the development of Mike Pelfrey into a front of the rotation starter has come at exactly the right time. Throw in an improving (if still uneven) Oliver Perez and a serviceable (and hopefully healthy) John Maine, and the Mets field a potential winner every single game. And Pedro is . . . well, Pedro. No other team can lay similar claim to that much depth in the rotation.

Carlos Beltran. Carlos Beltran has had a somewhat disappointing season. His offensive production is not too far off of what is fair to expect, and he continues to dazzle in centerfield. But Beltran has earned a reputation for catching fire two or three times a season, and going on a 10-15 day tear when he bats over .400, drives in a ton of runs, and hits a bunch of home runs. He has not had anything close to that kind of streak this year, and he is due. What better time for him to carry the team than in August, when, for his career, he is a .299 hitter with a .390 on-base percentage and a .537 slugging percentage (his best of any month in all three categories)? If Beltran gets hot, especially now that he is hitting in the number two spot in the batting order, this offense could easily put up six or seven runs a night.

Schedule. The Mets have, by far and away, the easiest remaining schedule of the three team competing for the NL East division title. As ESPN observes:

The clear edge goes to the Mets -- at least on paper. They only play seven road games after Sept. 3, and all seven are against non-contenders -- unless the Braves somehow play themselves back into the bidding. What's more, the Mets' only meetings with their division competitors -- the Phillies and Marlins -- are both at home. The Mets close out the final week at home; then again, that didn't seem to help them last September, did it? The Phils play 16 of their final 29 on the road, though they do have the luxury of playing their final six at home. Of the last three series with the Marlins and Mets, two are on the road, and the Phils still have a challenging seven-game West Coast roadie left, to say nothing of a four-game visit to Chicago to close out August. Florida's September schedule is split pretty evenly (12 home, 13 away). But with paltry attendance, can the Marlins count on much of a home-field advantage?

Phillies and Marlins. The Mets' chief rivals for the division title - Philadelphia and Florida - are good teams with a lot of strengths, but neither has shown any ability to put the Mets (or each other) away. They have questionable starting pitching, holes in their offense, and (as noted above) have tough schedules for the rest of the year. If the Mets can manage 87 or 88 wins (an achievable 30-21 between now and the end of the year), that might be enough to win the division.

But then again . . .

Bullpen. The Mets' bullpen is utterly unreliable. Of course, relief pitchers are typically not as good as starters (that's why they are in the bullpen and not the starting rotation), but the Mets do not have a single relief pitcher who can consistently be called upon to get outs in a tough spot. Even All-Star closer Billy Wagner has seven blown saves (I cannot help but think where the team would be if he had only blow, say, three of those, but whatever). I respect the team's decision to balk at the trading deadline when the asking price for bullpen help got too steep, but I wonder if they will regret trying to go it alone.

Carlos Delgado. What a month. Delgado (.357, 9 HR, 24 RBI) narrowly lost out to Ryan Braun (.366, 9, 23) for NL player of the month for July. But is there any way he can continue at his current pace? Answer: of course not. It seems reasonable to expect Delgado to come back down to earth in the next few weeks, and with that, the team's offensive production could falter a bit. I think the same argument can be made, to a lesser extent, about Fernando Tatis. If the Beltran hot streak isn't coming (see above), and if Delgado cools off considerably, the offense begins to look very mediocre.

Injuries. Injuries have been a problem for this team all year, and it's starting to get worse. There is still no indication when injured right fielder Ryan Church will be back. John Maine is on the disabled list. Billy Wagner is on the disabled list. Ramon Castro had to be helped off the field after a Saturday collision. And Pedro is . . . well, Pedro. The rookies and the veterans are filling in nicely, but this team is not going far with Dan Murphy and Fernando Tatis as its corner outfielders. And while I criticize Billy Wagner as much as anyone, he is the only guy I can see closing for this team in meaningful games in late September and beyond.

This team is not the best team in baseball, but neither were the 2006 Cardinals. This team does have a few of the best players in baseball, and if everything clicks at the right time, watch out.

Finally

Tonight, Carlos Beltran is batting second. Jerry Manuel says he intends to keep him there for a while.

This is great news. I think (especially with Carlos Delgado hitting like circa-1999-Carlos-Delgado) this is an excellent move. It's something I've wanted for a long time.

I predict great things.

Don't Worry Fans, 86 Years From Now We'll Be Great

Apparently the Boston Red Sox hate winning. How desparate could they possibly be to trade Manny Ramirez, plus two prospects, for Jason Bay? What could he possibly have done? They might have felt like they weren't going to win with him, but they're definitely not going to win without him. And he only had two months left on the contract after 8 years. It just don't make no goddamned sense.

I was all ready to write a post that was titled something like, "Dear Mets, Remember1986? Well, Fuck You Too," when they were going to trade him to the Marlins, but that fell through. So the Red Sox managed to do favors to both the Yankees and Mets yesterday.

The Mets didn't really do anything at the deadline, but neither the did Marlins or Phillies, so we'll see what happens. I won't hold my breath.

The Yankees filled holes in the outfield (Nady), bullpen (Marte), and catcher (Rodriguez). The Red Sox got worse, and the (Devil) Rays did nothing. I think the Yankees are going to make the playoffs again based on yesterday.

Someone explain this to me. Unless Manny was murdering people in the clubhouse, I really don't understand this move at all.

Friday Classic Video: The [insert negative superlative] Dark Knight analysis ever?

First of all, if you haven't seen The Dark Knight, you already know that you suck because you've had nothing to talk about with other people this week. But please continue reading, no spoilers here. (Maybe.)

Second, the guys at Fire Joe Morgan, which, again, is the best Web site on the series of tubes, have already posted this video and made their comments. Those comments will be better than mine. That's because -- as Sabermetrics makes clear-- funnier people write funnier things than those who are not as funny. That's us! Anyway, go read their shit.

Third, if you asked me who the two ESPN commentators I hate most are, I would say: 1) Skip Bayless, whose children I hope fall into a well; and 2) Stephen A. Smith, who apparently some people must like, seeing as he's still around. Who are you people? Seriously, I'm curious. Here, let's have some solidarity: I like the movie National Treasure. Everyone else seems to hate it because it's a terrible movie. (Even though, yes, it did recently have a sequel which made a shitload of money, so okay fine, maybe everybody doesn't hate it. But anyone of reasonable intelligence does, right?) So is that like you Stephen A. Smith likers? I don't think this whole line of argument makes much sense, does it? So let's move on.

Fourth, speaking of ESPN people I can't stand, I don't like that John Kruk and Steve Philips are the "experts" on Baseball Tonight. John Kruk and Steve Philips -- though they may be perfectly nice in real life -- are horrible at talking about baseball. The FJM guys have a litany of examples, but John Kruk once said this:

"I think it's easier to score runs when you have a pitcher on your side who's pitching for you. That is a great pitcher, because you know you don't have to score that many. And what it does is, you know if you go up with a runner on third with less than two outs and you don't bring the run in, you think to yourself, 'All right, well, so what? They're not going to score either. We'll have more opportunities.'"

Yes, that's right. It's easier for your team to score runs when your team's starting pitcher is good. The reason, apparently, is because you don't care. Nothing to do with how good your hitters are, how bad the other team's starting pitcher is, or -- to Kruk's credit -- leprechauns.

Then there's Steve Philips who, as any Mets fan knows, was a terrible, awful, atrocious General Manager. I think this SAT analogy is appropriate: Steve Philips : General Manager :: George W. Bush : President. Too obvious? How about Steve Philips : General Manager :: Someone : Something that person is really, really, really, extraordinarily bad at doing.

Where was I?

Oh yeah. So you saw The Dark Knight. Now imagine for one second what it would be like if Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless (who like to give wedgies to orphans when no one's looking) gave their opinions on The Dark Knight.

If you're like me, you would assume that: 1) Skip Bayless will say it's a bad movie, because Skip Bayless hates fun and sunshine and children and anything that you like; and 2) Stephen A. Smith wishes it had more black people.

Believe it or not, ESPN put this little fantasy in motion. And, since it's ESPN, some dumbass producer had to make it seem like a regular part of the show, so it's a discussion of whether The Dark Knight is overrated or underrated.

(Seriously, how in the world could this movie -- whatever you thought of it -- be underrated? It received rapturous reviews and broke every box office record. It seems to be very well liked. But anyway, just watch.)

Mets Petition Major League Baseball To Terminate Regular Season and Commence Playoffs Immediately

NEW YORK --- In a surprising legal maneuver, the New York Mets, citing a little-known provision of Major League Baseball's anti-trust exemption, have formally requested that Major League Baseball terminate the regular season effective immediately, and begin the playoffs.

On Thursday afternoon, the Mets defeated the Philadelphia Phillies by a score of 3-1, moving into sole possession of first place in the National League East for the first time since September 26, 2007. Perhaps desperate to avoid a repeat of last year's infamous late-season collapse, the Mets have asked Commissioner Bud Selig to declare the 2008 season over, and begin the playoffs as soon as possible. The Mets would host the Milwaukee Brewers in the Divisional Championship round, which, though not scheduled to begin until early October, the Mets plan to play this weekend. This is despite three previously-planned games with the St. Louis Cardinals at Shea on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

"We've informed the St. Louis Cardinals of our decision," Mets General Manager Omar Minaya said at a press conference here this afternoon, "and they were very, very supportive. I think the St. Louis organization recognizes that the season has gone long enough; they wished us well in our series against the Brewers."

St. Louis General Manager John Mozeliak, whose team is only two games behind the Brewers for the NL Wild Card, and three games behind the Chicago Cubs for the NL Central Division lead, characterized the conversation with Minaya a bit differently. "Has Minaya lost his fucking mind? They are in first place for one day and suddenly the season is over? I know that the collapse last year really messed him up, but this is a new low, even for the Mets."

Despite the criticism from other teams in the division that are not currently in first place, several Mets players endorsed their management's decision: "How can we be expected to remain in first place for more than a few days?" A bewildered Aaron Heilaman asked rhetorically. "I got Jayson Werth to pop out with the bases loaded in the eighth inning. I put us in first place! Aren't the fans happy yet? We have to do this for another two months? No way, no way. Enough is enough."

Heilman's teammate Jose Reyes elaborated on the relief pitcher's sentiments. "We good. Playoffs good. I like baseball."

Asked whether the win against Philadelphia contributed to the timing of their request, Minaya was dismissive: "Not at all, not at all. I've said for many years that the regular season should be 102 games, and should end about a week and half after the all-star game. Of course I am thrilled that we have won our second division title in three years, and the guys deserve a lot of credit, but this has nothing to do with the standings."

Mets interim manager Jerry Manuel was quick to agree. "I think Omar was planning to make this request of Commissioner Selig at the end of the Philly series win, lose or draw. These seasons drag on for way too long, and it makes a lot of sense to start the playoffs in the summer when everyone can enjoy them."

The Commissioner's office promised to take the matter under advisement, and hinted that an emergency session of Congress may be convened over the weekend to consider the Mets' request.


Jose Reyes is not expected to testify at the hearing.

Mets to Fans: "Fuck You, Fans!"

Shame on you, Mets fans.

What were you thinking? Have you forgotten last September? I hope a little 10-game winning streak didn’t scramble your brain so badly that you actually entertained the thought that—despite a 3-run lead in the 9th—the Metsies might overtake the Phils for first place.

Oh, you were thinking that?

Again, shame on you.

The Mets did their best to make it quite clear to anyone paying attention that they had absolutely zero intention of winning last night. You certainly should have noticed during the 8th. It started with Endy Chavez inexplicably stopping at second base, seeming to say, “A triple? Nah, man, I’m good here. A 3-run lead is plenty, friend.”

The next batter, David Wright, proceeded to dunk a little liner into right field, just over the outstretched glove of Chase Utley. Right-fielder Jayson Werth is right on it, so what does third-base coach Luis Aguayo do in this scenario where holding Endy would create a 1st-and-3rd with nobody out for our cleanup hitter?

He fucking sends him.

Endy, of course, is out by a friggin’ mile. So clearly the both of them conspired to prevent the Mets from padding the lead. (Also, why not nail the catcher? I know Endy’s not the biggest guy out there, but if the ball is gonna beat you and the catcher is blocking the plate, why the hell would you slide directly into his foot? He came a lot closer to a broken ankle than touching the plate.)

This, incidentally, was the second time Aguayo waved Endy home directly into being tagged out. And to think, not getting thrown out at home was, until recently, something the Mets were actually good at.

Then, in the 9th, well, all hell broke loose, typified by Jose Reyes’s inane bases-loaded, nobody-out-yet non-out-get. (I’m still to flustered by his hesitation to come up with a better name for it than that.)

I’m tempted to say last night’s loss was “devastating” or “heartbreaking” or something of the like. “Season-killing” I suppose would be more accurate. That is, if I had harbored some fool’s hope that the Mets might come through this year. And if you, poor reader, were one of those who did, then yes,

SHAME ON YOU.

And then there was one . . .

ChuckJerry is 30 today. Happy birthday, old man. That leaves only one of our number still in their 20s.

Open Bar -- you better make it count, man.

Shock-ing!

The New York Giants have traded Jeremy Shockey to the New Orleans Saints for a second- and a fifth-round pick in the 2009 draft. The deal is pending league approval and a physical exam.

I am pretty conflicted on this deal, but ultimately I am on board. First, the reasons why it makes sense:

1. Shockey was going to become a major distraction once training camp got fully underway. Shockey wanted out, he bullied Eli, and he was not going to be ok with Kevin Boss getting more and more playing time. This is probably reason enough to have traded him. From what I can tell, Shockey is the kind of guy who can be a major distraction in the locker room, and could easily undermine Eli's (now deserved) leadership position. And while the Giants certainly don't need to protect Eli from every loudmouth jerk on the team -- there will always be a few -- Shockey's discontent had grown beyond the garden variety.

2. Shockey is a little overrated. Calm down, calm down. Shockey was a very good tight end, and he is going to improve the Saints immediately (they were already a candidate for most improved NFL team this year, and this trade helps them immensely). But his flair for the dramatic (both on the field and off), and his insistence at running directly at the opposing team when they try to tackle him (not to mention a mild case of Jason Sehorn syndrome from the press and the fans) earned him a reputation as one of the premier tight ends in the league that may not have been deserved. Shockey drops way too many passes, refuses to block, and gets way too many stupid taunting and personal fouls. He is also prone to injury; he never once played in all 16 regular season games in his six-year career with the Giants.

3. The Giants draft well. Giants GM Jerry Reese only has two drafts under his belt, but both have been very, very solid (in the first, Reese took five players who would make meaningful contributions in the Superbowl as rookies. That is extraordinary). With seven picks in the first five rounds of the 2009 draft (I am assuming - but don't know for sure - that they have all of their other picks), the Giants could be in a position to build a very solid team around Eli for many years to come.

4. Boss arguably fits the Giants offensive scheme better than Shockey. Boss is unproven (see below), yes, but has shown signs that he will fit in with Eli perfectly in the 2008 campaign. The Giants are a running team with several strong options for the pass (Burress, Toomer, the emerging Steve Smith, etc.). They don't really need a tight end who is going to catch 8-10 passes a game. Instead, they need a guy who can block for both the pass and the run, but who has good enough hands that the quarterback can rely on him as a mid- to deep threat when the need arises. Consider this: in the Giants final three games last year, Boss caught one pass in each game, each for more than 10 yards (the last, a 45-yd strike in the Superbowl, was the most memorable).

So are you convinced? Me too, except when I consider the following:

1. The Giants traded a Pro Bowl TE for two guys who cannot join the team for more than a year. This is risky business. I understand that the team didn't have a whole lot of choice here, but they sure did not get any proven players in return for a proven player. I know Jason Taylor wasn't a great fit for us, but with him going to the Redskins yesterday, I am a little surprised the Giants didn't find a way to cut a three-way deal with Miami and New Orleans (which is apparently what the Saints were trying to do), if for no other reason than to keep Washington from getting him. I guess the problem is that the Saints knew Shockey wanted out, and didn't have to offer the farm to get him. I just wonder whether, had the Giants balked at this deal, and then won their first two or three games of the season with meaningful contributions from Shockey, we wouldn't all be breathing collective sigh of relief for holding back. We'll see.

2. Boss is unproven. The Kevin Boss thing was very exciting last year. But the Kevin Maas thing was exciting a few years before that. I am not suggesting he can't be a serviceable tight end, but I think we need to resist the temptation to suggest that the Giants haven't lost anything here. This guy has played in 13 regular season games in his career, and was only thrown to in five of them. He has yet to catch his tenth career pass, or score his third career touchdown. I am excited about seeing what he can do every day, but it is risky to send a pro bowler to another team in favor of a somewhat unproven rookie.

To me the bottom line is that the Giants were low on options here. They had a star player who wanted out; they got what the could for him, and will roll the dice with a second-year player who could be a perfect fit, but could just as easily leave the team wishing they had put up with Shockey's antics for another year.

The Sound and the Fury and Open Bar

Critics? Argh, who needs them?

Well, actually we all do, especially when they give glowing reviews of our work.

Way to go, big guy; we're all very proud. Just don't forget the little people when you go all big time on us.