Wow.  Lost in all the injuries, has been the woeful mis-management in the Mets dugout taking place the last few weeks and months.  But this takes the cake:

Jerry Manuel, in his infinite wisdom, decided…ON THE NEXT TO LAST DAY OF THE SEASON…David Wright needs a day off.  Are you kidding?

“I just want to give him a little break,” Manuel said. “I like what he’s doing. It seems like he’s overcoming some of the phobias that he had before and I’d just like to keep that going.”

And Fernando Tatis lives to play another game.  Remarkable.

So, let’s see if we get this straight.  David Wright is going to play Sunday.  Then he — and all the others — will have nearly FOUR MONTHS off before they pick up a baseball again.  Did Wright really need a day off?  Oh, Jerry, do tell…what were you thinking way back when Wright was batting .111 for a few weeks in August?

We know it has been mentioned on other blogs, but must be repeated: Why in the world is Fernando Tatis still wearing a Mets uniform?     Is Tatis playing for a role on the 2010 squad?  Does Jerry owe him money?

Has anyone seen the image of Nick Evans on a milk carton yet?  How about Bobby Parnell?  Why aren’t these guys playing?

Do not misunderstand what we are about to say.  One big reason why the Braves were so exceptional through the through the 1990’s was because of Glavine and Smoltz.

But hang on.

Look at the results those two pitchers posted in 1988 (when they were coming up as kids from the minors): Glavine lost 17 games…SEVENTEEN!  And Smoltz had an ERA of 5.48 and struck out 37 in 64 innings (he started 12 games) in 1988.

Now Parnell, Niese…even Mike Pelfrey…will likely never add up to what Glavine and Smoltz accomplished.  But we will never know, will we? You should have let them play, Jerry.  Let the kids play.  Why the heck was Jerry Manuel penciling in Fernando Tatis…at all?  Murphy should have started every single game, once Delgado was declared done for the year.

The Mets have wasted a golden opportunity these past eight weeks.

We have been wondering the past eight weeks what Jerry Manuel has been doing…as the Mets fell further and further out of the race, Manuel continued to micro-manage each game, as if each game were Game 7.  Did we need all the double switches?  Did we need five pitchers per game?   What about airing out some of these young arms to see what they’ve got besides fastballs?  What about guts and guile…and learning how to GET THEMSELVES out of jams?  Did Pedro Feliciano need to face one or two batters in EIGHTY SEVEN GAMES?  Are you kidding?  You have likely destroyed him for next year.

Great job Jerry.  Now just get out. Before someone gives you a contract extension.

Somebody get Wally’s phone number.

Matt Cerrone’s Metsblog has an excellent piece today.

The title of the post is “Opinion: reality, and the road ahead” and is very well written and worth your time.  Unfortunately, Matt’s blog allows comments from some posters, and not from all.  Before Matt changed the comment structure, Metsblog was a literary free-for-all, often with 200 or more comments PER post!  However, every time we have tried to post a comment lately, nothing happens.  Still a great read.

Matt raises an excellent point that really begs further discussion.  As a franchise, the Mets are at the proverbial “fork in the road.”  Honestly, they are “just a player or two away” from becoming the New York Knicks.  What we mean is, one or two more poor free-agent signings — or long-term contracts (or extensions) — and the Mets will become the laughingstock of Major league baseball.

Which is why we wrote recently “it feels like 1978” all over again.

And most sports franchises periodically reach the fork in the road.  They must decide to “stay the course” (usually not working) or move in a completely new direction (rebuild).  Think back to the early 1970-Yankees, late 1970’s-NY Giants, the current Knick team, the late 1970’s Mets.  The Islanders, Rangers, Nets, Jets, you name it, have all reached the same fork in the road.  It happens.

The hosts of their morning show on their flagship radio station, WFAN, say publicly that they don’t even tune in anymore to watch, and surmised that many other people (fans) are also not tuning in.  And bringing the family to the new ballpark is an expensive outing for most people — with or without a tough economic landscape.  It’s just becoming too darn expensive for most people to go to (more then) a few games a year.

Incidentally, Matt also reported the Mets will not raise ticket prices for 2010.  They do not need an MBA in Flushing to figure that one out.

A poor product on the field leads to declining viewership, which leads to declining attendance, which usually leads to declining advertisers.  This all ends up on the financial reports as declining revenue.  And as we have noted in two previous columns, we can no longer expect ownership to open up a bottomless checkbook.

This is a very negative downward spiral, and this franchise sits right on the edge.

In our opinion, the most important move the Mets can make right now is this:

Be honest, forthright and open with your fans.

Before we even begin hootin’ and hollerin’ for the team, remember: we subscribe to your cable channel, we do business with your advertisers, we buy their products (even SpongeTech), we go to your ballpark and buy overpriced hot dogs and foam fingers.

We are your customer.  Be on the level with us.

Please, no more “half-answers” or “vague responses” to our questions… whether they be about the status of our shortstop, or the short, medium and long-range plans for the franchise.  At the present time, there does not seem to be a medium or long range plan at all in place.

This is where the Knicks failed.  They refuse to acknowledge mistakes that were made in the past and then buried their head in the sand collectively regarding how to go about fixing it.  And that franchise has been a disaster for a long time.  Let’s learn from that mistake.

In our opinion, signing a free agent or two seems like a short-term patch.  A return to the 1978 game plan.  All they need to do is turn the pages of the history book ahead just a few chapters from 1978 forward to 1982.  There was some pain in 1982, but not quite the level of pain we felt in 1980 and 1981.  But quite a bit happened beneath the surface.  1983 showed us great promise and hope, and 1984 through 1989 were happy times for Mets fans.

It can happen again.  The short term pain will be worth it.  Take the hit NOW. It would be far better to take our lumps in 2010 with Parnell, Niese, Pelfrey, Murphy, Evans and FMart along with Reyes (health permitting), Wright and Beltran — if that is to be the new “core.”

Commit to the youth, don’t spend any more money.  After all, the Wilpon family is tapped out. Now it is our money you’re spending.  Build for the future.

That’s our opinion.  What is yours?

In our post a few days ago — where it was outlined that half of Bernard Madoff’s clients technically made money — we rationalized the Mets franchise will have to be “self-sufficient.”  Meaning, given the present circumstances, it may be extremely unlikely the owners might be willing to chip in more money toward payroll.

Since the Mets are a privately held organization, no details are available.   The Mets did very well in attendance in 2009.  However going forward, the next few years attendance will rise, fall or stay the same — based on the performance of the team on the field.  Combined with meeting obligations raised in constructing Citi Field, the organization might be hard-pressed to spend additional money on players.

In fact, we surmise payroll may be reduced — even after some players with expiring contracts leave.

This would be a terrific time to have players who are “down on the farm” ready to step in.
At least, at the time of this writing, that doesn’t appear to be possible.

Part two of this post comes after watching “60 Minutes” last night on CBS.  The show had a feature on Bernard Madoff.  While the Mets were not mentioned, nor were the Wilpon’s, it’s easy to see that not only will the Wilpon’s not get any of their money back — they may even be asked to return money.

This would only further tighten the purse strings in Flushing.

The feature on “60 Minutes” discussed something known as a “clawback.”  A claw back is what happens when a bankruptcy, liquidation, or some other financial transaction — including a Ponzi Scheme becomes undone.  The argument that Irving Picard the trustee in charge of the liquidation, is setting forth goes something like this: if you invested $1 million and received back more than $1 million, then everything above your original investment can be subject to a claw back.

Follow Picard’s method of thinking: After all, this was not a typical investment, this was a Ponzi Scheme.  And if you happen to be involved in a Ponzi Scheme, all you would ever be entitled to see back is your original investment.  Right?  And anything over and above your original investment would then be considered money that belonged to others involved in the scam.

This may explain why the Wilpon family is reluctant and unwilling (or, possibly, unable) to discuss how much money was actually lost.  Early reports stated a number approximately $300 million.  But later, reports surfaced they may have lost as much as $700 million.

Taken from that perspective, there appears to be absolutely no chance the Mets will ever see any of that money back.  It also opens up the potential that the ownership of this team may need to return additional money toward the other “victims.”  Under this kind of scenario, it would be very difficult to imagine the Mets being able to spend anything remotely close to what was committed to player salaries in 2009.  The current numbers floating around on the internet state the Mets current payroll in 2009 is approximately $140 million.  After certain contracts expire at the end of this season, without any additional changes, the payroll for 2010 would be $110 million.

It’s very possible the Mets may seek to maintain this payroll number for 2010, or possibly cut this number.

This would make roster changes very hard to complete.

The Mets may be forced to take a more youthful approach in 2010.  The jury is out on whether some of these prospects in double-A and Triple-A are indeed ready for major league play.  Some players have shown flashes of brilliance, others unspectacular performance.  But some low-cost, younger players from the minor leagues would be a welcome relief for Mets front-office management going into 2010.

As mentioned in a previous post comment, Wilpon and Doubleday paid nearly $21 million to purchase the Mets in 1980.  After buying out Doubleday a few years later, the Wilpon family can *still* sell their ownership in the Mets for many times more their original investment.

So the management, and direction of this team are at a crossroads.  As we enter the off-season, they may not only be thinking about “who will play first base?”  But also “is it time to sell the Mets?”

What’s your opinion?

Why the Mets may (financially) be dead

Federal prosecutors have drawn a most amazing conclusion: roughly half of Bernard Madoff’s clients did not lose money.

Shouldn’t this information belong on a financial website, not a baseball website?
Not quite.

"It's all just one big lie," Madoff said.

Stories and sources have differed regarding the amount of money the Mets owners have lost due to the Madoff swindle.  Early reports estimated the loss at $300 million.  Later, Larry King along with some author who wrote a book about the Madoff scheme speculated the Wilpon family may have lost as much a $700 million in the scam.

Why the disparity in numbers?  Here may be a reason why:

You have to love forensic accounting.  Forensic accounting basically maps every dollar in against every dollar out.  And the forensic accountants who were studying the Madoff scam arrived at the following conclusion: nearly half of the clients involved in the scheme did not lose money.  They reasoned that if someone invested $1 million with Madoff, and over time, then withdrew $1 million or more, they did not lose money.

Okay.  Technically, they are correct.  The problem is twofold: first, these clients were sent account statements periodically that showed a much greater value than was really available.  Secondly, when you invest $1 million and withdraw $50,000, you still think (for the most part) about $1 million is still there — and you’re not draining the till.

To wrap this up and put a fancy bow on the money side of the story: I would expect that clients of Bernard Madoff who are determined “not to have lost money” will likely get nothing.  They ought to be entitled to write off their entire investment as a loss from theft (which is actually a pretty valuable write off against taxable income), but I’m not their accountant.

So, what about the Mets?

In the big picture, it doesn’t really matter how much the Wilpon family and the Mets lost in the Madoff scam.  The money is gone and will not be coming back.  This story basically eliminate any hope of restitution.  From a Met fan perspective, what does this mean?  No one except the Wilpon’s know for sure.  But, in my mind, it means that the Mets — as a stand-alone franchise — have to be self-financed.

This means that the Mets can only afford to spend what they bring in — and nothing more.  In my opinion, it’s a pretty safe bet the Mets will not have a payroll anywhere near $140 million in the near future.  It means that we may have to come to accept that payroll — even after contracts expire — may go down as we head into 2010, and 2011.  While the new ballpark is expected to post solid revenue numbers — despite the teams on the field performance — management may be hard-pressed to expect the same kind of attendance and revenue figures next year and even in 2011.

It could really be the beginning of a death spiral.

M Donald Grant (AP Photo)

And it could be one that we’ve actually seen before: in the late 1970s.  At Shea Stadium. For those too young to remember, get to the library (or Amazon) and find a book titled “Amazin’: The Miraculous History of New York’s Most Beloved Baseball Team” by Peter Golenbock.  To get tuned in to the late 70s, start around chapter 30.  It’ll be hard to put the book down — primarily because it foreshadows what could very possibly be happening soon in Flushing.

Sorry to ruin your weekend.

Word on the street is that the Mets are interested in offering right fielder Jeff Francoeur a three year contract after the season is up. Now I think it would be smart to lay down the pro’s and con’s of signing Francoeur to a long term deal like that.

The pro’s of the situation would of course be Jeff has hit .310 with 34 RBI’s since joining the Mets this season. He has been a lone bright spot for the team in many games, and I personally just like the attitude and agressiveness he brings to the team. During the 2006 and 2007 seasons, Francoeur never missed a game with Atlanta. This proves that signing this guy will give us somebody who can play right field every day. Not like some of guys we had on the team this year, huh? I don’t know about you but I think signing injury prone players will always be a red flag from now on in the back of my mind after a season like this. So somebody who is proven to be a work horse, like Francoeur, is definitely somebody I want on my team.

However, let’s take a quick look at what Frenchy has done in the past that we should think twice about before signing him. Last season Jeff Francoeur hit just .239 with the Braves, and wasn’t off to a much better start this year batting just .250 before joining the Mets. Frenchy was slumping hard before he came to us, and what’s to say that can’t happen again?

So Jeff Francoeur, is he worth a three year contract or not? Do you want to see him in right field at Citi Field in 2010 or should we see what other options we can come up with? Let’s hear it.

Verizon Guy goes Six, Mets win

The New York Mets won on Sunday with a gem pitched by the Verizon FiOS guy.  After spending much of the summer on the disabled list, the Verizon FiOs guy was able to come back and pitch six strong innings to lead the Mets past the Washington Nationals.

How did John Maine spend his summer?

The Verizon FiOs guy needed only 75 pitches to get through six innings on Sunday.  Perhaps the best part of his performance was the fact that he only gave up one walk, but signed up five customers in between innings to switch from cable to Verizon.

“It’s been a long summer.  The weather wasn’t really that good, my shoulder hurt like hell, and every month I had a higher quota of new customers that I had to sign up.  I’m just not that good a salesman.  Despite what we say in the commercials, cable really does offer a valid option.  If I didn’t work for Verizon, I could possibly be a cable customer too!”

“I still don’t feel like I have — I guess — 100% strength back there, pitching wise.  But it doesn’t hurt.  And since I worked today, I get tomorrow off.  Then I’m back in the truck for two more days.  Even though it’s near the end of the season, we have a full slate.  I’ve got 33 installations to do between Tuesday and Wednesday.  That’s really hard to do when you are coming back from shoulder surgery.”

When asked about the game, he continued: “Talk about performances… I had to replace that little six year old kid in the Verizon commercials a few years ago.  Now THAT was a tall order.  That kid was a commensurate professional — he was always on cue, he was never hiding out in his trailer, and he worked for scale.  It’s hard replacing a legend like that.”

“You know, spending three months on the disabled list was really a blessing in disguise.  I was the leading rep in my division for those three months.  I wasn’t getting hammered by little school kids asking for my autograph, and it’s a heck of a lot easier carrying a clipboard and pulling a few wires than throwing a couple of fastballs by Chipper Jones.  I even won the District sales contest in July.  That was almost as good as getting selected to the All-Star game.”

Asked if he had any other additional comments, the Verizon FiOs guy added: “Elmer Dessens signed a contract before the game began.  It’s a good thing I had all the paperwork with me… otherwise, I’d have to go back to the truck.  And after doing installations for David Wright and Daniel Murphy… all I am going to say is this: those two guys should hire maids!”

Carlos Delgado, and his 469 career home runs, expressed his interest in returning to the Mets in 2010. The slugging first baseman has, of course, been on the disabled list since mid-May. We all expected to see Carlos back on the field by now, even if it wouldn’t really be making a gigantic difference in the season’s outcome.

Carlos has been asked a lot about his return and has told many reporters that he has been doing his best to be ready before the end of the 2009 season. However, after not feeling so great after some running exercises earlier this week, things are not looking too promising. The problem is still his hip, which he had surgery to repair. It is still causing pain for Carlos, but the hip itself is fixed. I guess only time will tell how things will go.

Delgado has been saying that he does like New York, and would like to return for next season. Reporters have asked Carlos whether or not he believes he will be able to perform on the same level he always has, and his response has been that he thinks he does. Now this response is not suprising because I’m sure Carlos wants to play next year and would like a nice contract as well.

My opinion on the matter is that while Carlos might be able to play next season, it should not be with the Mets. Delgado would be much better suited heading over to an American League team where he could be a designated hitter. Thinking that Carlos could play every day for the Mets next season would just be wishful thinking, and I would even say the odds of it working out would have to be doubtful.

While I love Carlos Delgado, I simply think the American League is where he belongs next season if he wants to play baseball. What are your thoughts on Delgado’s future with the Mets? Do you think he could last a full season batting and playing first base every day or should he head to the American League? Or maybe hang it up altogether?

Overheard outside the Confessional Box: “These are Not My Mets”

Bless me Father, I am a Met fan.

I’ve been a Met fan since I was seven years old in 1969.  I was there through the third-place finishes in the early 70s, I was there through September 1973 — when everyone came back healthy and my Mets stole the division — with 82 wins.

I was there when Tom Terrific and Sky King were tossed away.  I wondered why anyone would name their daughter Lorinda.  I always thought it was odd that his name was M. Donald Grant, until I also realized, Seaver’s first name was George.

What was wrong with George Stone’s shoulder?  How do you explain what Cleon Jones was doing in the back of a van?  Why couldn’t the Met doctors figure out what was wrong with Tug McGraw’s shoulder — but the doctors in Philadelphia could?

Why didn’t anyone come out to watch Lee Mazzilli and Frank Tavares in 1980?  That year, the Mets had two picks in the first round of the draft: Strawberry was the first pick overall.  With the seond pick (23rd overall) in round one: some guy named Billy Beane.

The seemingly one long season that was 1984, 1985 and 1986.  Yeah, I was there.  And, the seasons that “should have been”… 1987, 1988.  And Mike Scioscia.

The “blur” that was 1990s.  Then John Olerud, Fonzie, Benny Agbayani.  The season opener in Japan.  And the grand slam single.  I lived through all of that.

And here we are today… but these are not my Mets.

The general consensus I have heard is the 2009 Mets payroll is approximately $140 million.  I read — at one point this summer — there was $80 million of payroll on the disabled list.

Do you mean to say the players on the field therefore then represented $60 million?  That’s terrible.  And this is what really bothers me… today.

These Mets are at the proverbial fork in the road.  The Mets front office will need to decide: they either must continue spending massive amounts of money, trying to be second fiddle to the Yankees — or commit to a thorough rebuilding of the organization, the team on the field and the entire farm system.

It’s my hope if the Mets choose to rebuild, that they are honest with their fan base.  Hopefully they’ll “come clean” and tell their fans that they intend to rebuild.  It won’t take long.  Perhaps two years — 2 full seasons.  We are not stupid.  And I’d hate to see this franchise become the New York Knicks.  And they are close to becoming that stench-filled abyss.  I believe the front office would cause more harm to the fan base if they try and patch the 2009 roster with another player or two in the “promise” that all the players will be healthy next year.

We’re not that gullible.

It’s hard to feel sorry, have sympathy, empathy or any other kinds of feelings for organizations that suffer hardship like this.  They handed out big contracts unnecessarily, and seemingly without thought or competition from others.  Many of their players were “free to go” to the world baseball classic.  This meant playing competitive games in (essentially), the first or second week of camp.

There also has to be some kind of “discussion” about the Mets coaching staff and how prepared the players were for the start of the season.  It just seems a funny coincidence that “the gangsta’s playas” all got hurt.  Don’t blame it all on bad luck.  The GM, the manager, the coaches and the trainers have done a sloppy job.  But that’s just my two cents.

What do you think… should the Mets fill in some gaps, or is it time to rebuild?  And if the decision is to rebuild, and we stick with the same management team — in the front office and the dugout — or start with a completely clean slate?  Let’s hear it!

Mets right hander Bobby Parnell, may be heading back to the bullpen before this season is even over. After a disappointing outing versus Florida earlier this week, in which he gave up five earned runs and seven hits in just five innings, everybody has been talking about Parnell and if he is capable of starting on the Major League level.

Now just being concerned with Parnell would be a huge mistake. We must remember the bullpen came in after five innings that same game and gave up another seven runs, which is anything but spectacular.

Jerry Manuel has talked about Parnell and has been quoted as saying, “I do think that a return to the bullpen in the setup role is where he should be.”

If this is how Manuel is feeling than it is, in my opinion, nearly inevitable that Parnell will most likely be back in the bullpen before the season is over.

Personally I would like to see Parnell stick out the season starting for the Mets. At this point, what is it going to hurt to give the kid a chance? Sure, he has been struggling a lot, but the Mets as a team have been struggling a lot as well. Any feedback on Bobby Parnell, and whether you think he should be stuck in the pen or given his chance to keep starting is welcome. We would love to hear from you guys!

I wonder if Jerry Koosman will be pitching for the softball team?

Growing up, Tom Seaver was the Man.  When I was in Little League, I modeled my wind up and delivery just like Tom Terrific. You just knew we were watching something special.

And Jerry Koosman would take the ball the next day, and we would all take him for granted.

I’m sure I’m not the only young man growing up in the 60s and 70s who idolized Seaver. But I spent more and more time reading the newspapers and watched the drama with M. Donald Grant unfold.

At the time, all I could think was “why can’t Seaver be a team player?”
And then he was gone. And we had to get used to names like Zachary, Flynn and Henderson.

And Jerry Koosman.

And as the years went by, and each team was seemingly struggling worse than the previous year, there was Jerry Koosman taking the ball every fifth day. Koos pitched 3800 innings and had over 2500 strikeouts, with an ERA 3.36. More than anything else, I always admired Jerry Koosman’s workmanlike attitude and his non-flashy way of getting things done.

I recall a conversation that Ralph Kiner and Bob Murphy had on TV during the lean years, in the 70s. They were talking about “how you had to be a good pitcher” to lose 20 games — like Koosman did in 1977.   For the record, he won 21 games in 1976. And when he lost 20 games, his ERA was 3.49 and he had 192 strikeouts in 226 innings, not bad. For the record, no current starting pitcher comes close to these stats Koosman compiled.

It really wasn’t until he was traded to Minnesota, and the pitching got worse and worse did you realize how good of a pitcher Jerry Koosman truly was. But he toiled in the shadows of Tom Seaver.

When he left, in 1978 one of the players the Mets received back in the deal was Jesse Orosco. Koosman was on the mound when the Mets won the 1969 World Series, Orosco was on the mound when the Mets won the 1986 World Series.

And now, he’s off to jail for six months for failure to pay taxes.

“You’ve gotta believe” Jerry Koosman got some really bad advice.