For example, is first base really an open competition? Both Ike Davis and Chris Carter are hitting the snot out of the ball, but we all know that — barring injury — Dan Murphy is the Opening Day first baseman. Why? Because Murphy proved satisfactory to the upper levels of Mets management based on his 2009 performance — if he wasn’t, we would be watching Adam LaRoche in a Mets uniform right now. (Note I stated “satisfactory” according to Mets management, rather than my or the popular opinion.)

Similarly, Angel Pagan would have to seriously falter — and Gary Matthews, Jr. put on a Roy Hobbs demonstration — to lose his grip on centerfield. Yes, Pagan’s mental issues were frustrating, but after what he did in the batter’s box from July through September, you can’t not put him in centerfield come April.

But another individual who seemed to “earn” a spot on the roster based 2009 was Nelson Figueroa. He wasn’t so “lights out” to deserve being named the #5 starter, but he did well enough in September to be given the status of “his job to lose” — and then if he lost that rotation spot, would be moved into the long man / swing man role. After all, Figgy averaged a little over 6 IP per start and posted a 3.76 ERA and 1.33 WHIP in that final month. His full MLB numbers as a starter for the season were similar, and his AAA stats were outstanding. In short, there wasn’t much more Figgy could do to earn some kind of consideration for 2010.

Yet, the message we’re getting from various sources is that the Mets want Jon Niese to “win” the #5 spot. Not because Niese did anything of consequence at the MLB level last year, and not because he was especially dominating in AAA (he was OK to good, but not dominating, for Buffalo). Rather, the Mets want him to be the #5 starter because they’ve been getting heat about the suckiness of their farm system for several years, and they want to prove to all the “experts” that the negative evaluations are off base (hmm … smells similar to the forcing of square peg Dan Murphy into the round hole that is first base).

This “open competition” for the #5 spot in the rotaton is reminiscent of 2007, when Aaron Heilman was told he’d have a “fair shot” to be a starter. Heilman pitched very well as a starter in winter ball, then was the best starter in spring training, yet Brian Bannister was given the nod. Why? Because despite all the hot air, the Mets never intended on giving Heilman a rotation spot — their minds were made up long before pitchers and catchers reported. It would’ve taken several injuries to others plus 25 no-hit innings by Heilman for him to crack the rotation. Similarly, Figueroa will have to pitch like a young Dwight Gooden to have a chance to beat out Niese this spring. Is that right or wrong?

The kid-loving Mets fan has a fair argument — that the Mets should go with Niese because he’s young, and he’s the future. Over the long run, it makes more sense to have Niese go 8-10 but get a full season of MLB experience under his belt, than let the 35-year-old Figueroa put up similar numbers. I get it; but, we’re assuming that Figueroa and Niese will be similar pitchers in 2010. Personally, I’m not so sure, and if indeed the Mets are serious about the postseason, I would lean toward Figueroa, because to me, he has proven he can be at least an average #5 starter. Niese, on the other hand, has proven nothing to me yet. He might be good enough to win 8-10 games but he might as easily lose 10-15 games — I’m not sure. Two years from now, I expect Niese to develop and be much better, but right now, I have nothing substantial to go on.

At the same time, based on what I’ve seen of Niese’s raw stuff and of Figueroa’s competitiveness, I believe there could be room for both pitchers in the rotation. Put more simply: given the choice, who would you give the ball to 32 times from the selection of Oliver Perez, John Maine, and Nelson Figueroa? Of course, there is no way in hell that Perez isn’t given a spot, due to the $24M left on his contract — yet if I had to take one or the other for a 162-game season my choice, today, would be Figgy. Maine has a lesser salary but it is still in the seven digits ($3.3M to be exact) so he also will be handed a spot, regardless of his ST performance. But again, who is more likely to make 32 starts — Maine or Figueroa? And assuming both started 32 games, would you expect Maine to be appreciably better than Figgy? If so, based on what? His 15-win season in 2007, which occurred before his debilitating shoulder injury? I’m not convinced that Maine will ever return to the promise that had us drooling from April through July 2007. He has regressed ever since — physically, mentally, and emotionally. To me, Maine and Perez are very much the same, in that both are wildly, maddeningly inconsistent, and ticking time bombs. It’s OK to have one such pitcher in the rotation to gamble on, but two? That’s really rolling the dice.

But back to Figueroa; does he deserve to be the #5 starter, if he continues to have a strong spring training? You would think so, but it seems more and more like a remote possibility — despite Niese’s unsightly ERA thus far. At the very least, he should be penciled in as the long man out of the bullpen — but even that appears to be less than a sure thing. The main problem for Figgy is that he’s not a “stuff” guy; in other words, he won’t impress anyone on the sheer strength of his ability. But he’s proven to be a competitor, and a survivor — someone who will take the ball every fifth day and find a way to give his team a chance to win most of the time. He’ll have one bad outing out of every five, and one great outing out of every 10, and everything else will be pretty much the same: 6 innings of unremarkable pitching that otherwise keeps his team in the game. What more is expected of a fifth starter?

Should you choose to watch the videos in chronological order, you will see the mysterious sinking level of suds in the bottom left corner of the screen. Not sure how that happened … must have been the ghost of McFadden’s.

1. Grading the Offseason

2. Catchers, Castillo, and Murphy

3. Jose Reyes & David Wright

4. Outfield

5. Pitching

6. Prospects

7. 2010 Predictions

Does anyone else see “April 1st” as a fitting day to make such a decision?

Yes, from the beginning the Escobar signing was seen as a “risk-reward” situation. But you have to wonder if any other team was willing to risk $1.5M guaranteed on a pitcher with extensive, chronic shoulder problems, had been shut down after tossing only five innings in 2009, and would not have passed a physical.

We are going to assume that the Mets gave Escobar a “Putz Physical”, because if his arm was “weak” in February, then how could it possibly have been healthy, or “strong”, in mid-December?

The Mets’ pattern of throwing good money after bad continues, and nothing is learned by mistakes. I understand the idea of “low risk, high reward”, and often support it. But you have to examine exactly what “low risk” really means.

$1.5M doesn’t seem like a “high risk” for big-market team like the Mets — and it shouldn’t be. But when you gamble $1.5M on damaged goods, and you pencil in those goods as your setup man, how can it be defined as “low risk” ?

What makes the “low-risk” gampble more risky is inserting another “low-risk, high-reward” proposition as Plan B — a Japanese import.

We’ve beaten this horse before, but it bears repeating: the Mets overspend as a rule, and yes, it IS an issue even when it’s “only” one or two million dollars. The Mets bid against themselves in spending $3.5M on Escobar and Cora — a sum total that would have netted, say, Bobby Crosby and Bobby Howry … or, say, Felipe Lopez, Clay Condrey, and LOOGY Javier Lopez. We could play this game all day — fill in the players of your choice. Bottom line is the Mets continue to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, gamble on multiple high (not low) risks, then wonder how the second-highest payroll in MLB can result in second-to-last place finish.

One thing’s for sure: I know exactly how I’m betting if I see Omar Minaya rolling the dice at a craps table in Atlantic City.

For those unaware, Reyes can not do ANYTHING while he is resting — he is to participate in NO physical activity beyond a casual walk. No jogging, no running, no throwing, no swinging a bat. He may not even be allowed to walk up stairs.

So, if indeed he is to rest for more than a week or two, it’s assumed the Mets will need someone to play shortstop for a month at minimum. Generally speaking, it takes only 2-3 weeks to get out of shape, and it can take as long as 3-6 weeks to get back into shape. Of course every individual is different, and we can assume that the fact Reyes was in top condition prior to this rest, he’ll get back into shape fairly quickly. But with his leg injury history, we’d prefer he take the cautious route, right?

So a temporary everyday shortstop must be found from within the organization — be it one person or a platoon of some sort. That’s the preference, anyway, since the merry-go-round of Wilson Valdez, Alex Cora, Anderson Hernandez, Angel Berroa, Ramon Martinez, Argenis Reyes and Fernando Tatis was ineffective and disruptive. The shortstop position is the second-most important on the field, and running auditions out there is not conducive to winning. In fact, it’s probably better to have one mediocre performer there every day over a length of time than five inadequate players rotating at the position. Too many other positions are dependent on the shortstop, and sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don’t. How? Because even if you have, say, a shortstop with limited range to one side, the rest of the team can eventually adjust and adapt to that issue — assuming the limitation is consistent / dealt with every day. In contrast, if you have someone different playing shortstop every week, a team can’t figure out how to make up for the inefficiencies.

And unfortunately, because the Mets didn’t sign a backup infielder who could be a potential everyday shortstop like Bobby Crosby, Felipe Lopez, or Juan Uribe, they will instead have to find a solution among Alex Cora, Ruben Tejada, AHern, and Russ Adams.

We know what we get with Cora: great attitude, many years experience, good fundamentals, zero range, so-so arm, limited offense. He played through two major thumb problems but his thumbs had little or nothing to do with his limitations. With AHern we get good range and an average arm coupled with lapses in concentration and occasional mental errors; his offense has been inconsistent and at best he’s around an overaggressive .260 singles hitter with an OBP directly tied to his batting average. I liked the signing of Russ Adams back in January, and liking it even more now. Like Cora and AHern, his arm is a bit weaker than what you need from a legit MLB shortstop, but he’s otherwise a solid defender with good fundamentals and a hustler. In fact I would look at him as a younger version of Cora, who might produce just a little more with the bat.

The final candidate is Tejada, and the buzz is that Jerry Manuel will give him a long look. But don’t let his homegrown status cloud your feelings about Tejada — he is NOT a potential star. Defensively, he’s solid but unspectacular; he’s no Ozzie Smith, nor Jose Oquendo, for that matter, but he’s probably on par with AHern as far as raw skillset, though with a stronger arm. Offensively, he is really, really raw, with inconsistent, flawed hitting mechanics. I’m not saying this to be down on the kid, but rather to say he needs more reps and experience, and it shouldn’t be happening on the biggest stage in the world. If the Mets truly believe Tejada can be an MLBer some day, let him develop — physically, mentally, and emotionally — down on the farm. Should he be the Mets starting shortstop in April, he is just as likely to hit .150 as he .450. The latter would be wonderful, but the former could have a detrimental, long-term effect on his development — the kid is only 20 years old, after all. Why rush him when he’s not necessarily head and shoulders above Cora or Adams?

Bottom line is this: let’s hope Jose Reyes isn’t out too long, because none of the in-house replacements are acceptable over the long-term. If it turns out that Reyes will miss a significant portion of the season, the team will have to look outside the organization.

The issue with his thyroid is not one to be taken lightly, and you have to credit the Mets’ medical staff for spotting the problem — they may have saved his life. Additionally, you have to credit the Mets’ management for taking the cautious route and immediately shutting down Reyes. We don’t want to see Reyes out when Opening Day rolls around, but we DO want to see him happy and healthy over the next several years — the long-term risk is not worth the gamble of one or two months activity.

Yes, the issue could have been handled much better from a PR standpoint. But over the past two years, it has become crystal clear that the Mets have a major flaw in their communications. Over and over again, we receive multiple, incongruous messages from various official sources — in other words, no one is “on the same page”. A few days ago, Omar Minaya stated to the US press that Jose Reyes had an overactive thyroid, while Reyes simultaneously denied he had any issue with his thyroid to ESPN Deportes. This is the latest in a long line of conflicting quotes from the Mets, and perpetuates the image of the organization as a “Mickey Mouse operation”.

You have to wonder how much this public ineptitude affects the thoughts of opposing ballplayers — in particular, those who will be part of next winter’s bumper crop of free agents. The Mets’ reputation has gone backward over the past few years, and as a result the team will have to continue to overpay players to convince them to come to Flushing (see: Jason Bay, Bengie Molina).

It would be easy to blame Jay Horwitz for the problems, but based on what we’ve seen from the Mets as a whole, I’m not so quick to identify a scapegoat. Everything filters from the top, and my gut feeling is that Horwitz has little control over the outgoing communications — despite his title of “VP, Media Relations”. He can’t muzzle players (or the GM) without someone “from the top” giving him the power to do so. As a result, you have an organization that resembles the Wild West, littered with gunslinging cowboys in sheriffless towns who shoot their guns — or in this case, mouths — off in every direction.

One need only look to the other side of town for an example of how external communications should be handled. In the Bronx, there are only one or two sources from where the official, high-level messages flow. Very few Yankees fans can name the teams’ PR person, the VP of Player Development, the Assistant to the GM, or the team doctor. In fact, I’d bet that few casual Yankees fans know the name of the team’s trainer, the pitching coach, or the batting coach — these people as a rule do not speak to the media, and when you do hear from them, it is with information that is barely newsworthy, rarely controversial, and never in conflict with whatever the team’s “main” message. There is consistency across the board, from every Yankees quote — whether it is someone’s sprained finger, Joba’s pitch count, or a PEDs accusation.

But I digress … next post we’ll discuss the possible replacements for Jose Reyes.

In the meantime, to sate your reading appetite, I highly suggest — no, demand — that you head on over to AmazinAvenueAnnual.com and download the 2010 edition. I have been grossly remiss in not pointing you toward the Annual before today — but in all honesty, I did not have the time to give it a look-see until now.

It is salaciously scandalous; refreshingly negative in tone, yet delivered with tongue planted firmly in cheek effusing biting humor that often spurs legitimate, doubled-over, laughing out loud (not to be confused with the ubiquitous “LOL” littered irresponsibly in billions of texts every minute of the day). But it’s also incredibly informative, chock full of stats and analyses that will impress the stathead … yet there are also numbers that are digestible by the old school crowd. And that’s a major point I’d like to communicate: contrary to what you may know of AmazinAvenue and the former “MetsGeek” staff, this is NOT a book expressly for Beaneheads. More correctly, it is a book for everyone.

Where else can you find a great Mets drinking game based on quips by Gary, Keith and Ron? Where else can you read an homage to Lindsay Nelson written by a kid who was born five years after Nelson’s last broadcast? Where else can you read in-depth about “CHONE” and it have nothing to do with a certain Mr. Figgins? Where else can you find a journalist like Eric Simon using words like “rejoinder”, “mordant”, “trenchant”, and “intransigent” — all in one paragraph? If nothing else, Simon’s diatribes are an entertaining alternative to the Reader’s Digest “It Pays To Enrich Your Word Power” exercises.

The bottom line is this: you should download this book (it’s FREE) and read it. Read it from front to back, backward, sideways, or just pick out some of the articles from the contents that tickle your fancy. I have absolute confidence that you will find SOMETHING worth reading in this tome — more likely, many things.

And to be clear, this review is completely, 100% sincere. I am receiving no kickbacks nor special favors from the AA team, and in fact none of them even asked me to write a review. The Amazin’ Annual is better — hands-down — than any other Mets-centric publication that you would have to pay for.

The only beef I have is that nowhere in the 340 pages of content, is MetsToday mentioned nor am I quoted. This wouldn’t be a big deal if Ted Berg hadn’t been quoted (and twice, no less!). I don’t care that Berg is one of the contributors of the book, and I don’t care that he is on the SNY staff — the guy’s website isn’t even a dot-com, it’s a “dot-net” for goodness sakes! How do you quote a dot-net wannabe blogging from his parents’ basement and not include a solitary quip from a legitimate website that happens to be one of the most abrasive and straightforward in the Mets blogosphere?

I’m kidding of course … but not kidding about the Amazin’ Annual. Go get it before they realize what they have there and start charging for it. Enjoy.

In related news, the eagle-eyed Dave Singer of NYSportsReport took notice of the citrus wedge in what he assumed was my beer.

First of all, if said citrus wedge was indeed in what is alleged to be “my” beer, perhaps I have a completely logical explanation. For example, perhaps it was a certified organic orange shipped directly from a grove in Port St. Lucie, and therefore a small but genuine declaration of support for that wonderful little city housing the Mets’ spring training facilities.

Or, it could be that the orange was a symbol of the Mets enjoying a “fruitful” spring … or that their goal to make the postseason in 2010 would come to “fruition”.

Or maybe the citrus fruit is not an orange, or a lemon, but rather a GRAPEFRUIT, in appropriate honor of the “Grapefruit League”.

Or, maybe the beer containing the offensive orange was not mine at all, but rather that of the cameraman, or some random person sitting at the table next to or across from me (and out of the range of the camera’s wide-angle lens).

Or, maybe the placement of the fruit was a coy attempt to enter Omar Minaya’s subconscious, with the intention of placing the thought that he should immediately replace Jerry Manuel with former Indians manager Eric WEDGE.

Better still, the citrus wedge in question may have been inadvertently attached to the brim of my glass by the bartender as a force of habit, rather than by request, not realizing that a man of mucho machismo would be imbibing the otherwise glorious blend of Belgian hops, wheat, malt, and barley.

On the other hand, maybe I actually like an orange wedge in my beer, because it brings out wonderfully delicious nuances of coriander and spice — is that a crime? (Before you answer, consider the fact that I’m probably bigger than you.)

Perhaps the key point in regard to the glass is this: does the subject matter get perceptibly better or worse in relation to the sinking level of the suds?

You be the judge.

Check out OnTheBlack.com all this week and next to develop your case. I plead “no contest”.

Note to the kiddies: I do not condone the consumption of alcoholic beverages — with or without citrus wedges — by anyone under the age of 21. Furthermore, I do not condone blogging under the influence of alcohol (BUI), nor blogging while intoxicated (BWI), regardless of age, race, or sexual orientation.

Let’s not read too much into the win nor the Mets’ 5-2 record; it’s spring training.

But, I would like to share my thoughts on some of what we saw on channel 11 on Sunday.

Oliver Perez
His stat line was awful — 7 hits, a walk, a HR, and 5 ER in 3 IP. But, evaluating his pitching mechanics, there were good signs. What I saw was Ollie doing a decent job of staying in a straight, efficient line to the plate from the stretch (which he was throwing from for most of his outing). From the stretch, he was displaying a good, straight-up leg lift, fairly straight stride, and a balanced follow-through that left him in position to field the ball on comebacker. From the windup, however, he is still struggling, and I feel it stems from where he starts his feet. He is standing on the third-base side of the rubber, which allows him to easily start his right foot back and toward third base on a 45-degree angle. This in turn causes his body to go slightly sideways and “off line”, which then causes a slight over-rotation / close of the front hip, and then results in an over-rotation / premature opening of the front hip. That rotation then causes his follow-through to be off-balance and toward third base — you’ll see him facing third base after the release. That over-rotation is inefficient and is the reason for inconsistency in his release point. There have been periods in the past when both Rick Peterson and Dan Warthen had him beginning his windup by stepping straight back — which resulted in him staying more on that efficient, straight-lined path toward home plate — and I’m not sure why Warthen has allowed Perez to deviate from that habit.

Daniel Murphy’s New Stance
Murphy’s batting stance is now more upright. I’m not sure I understand the reasoning behind the change, but Howard Johnson knows a thousand times more about hitting than me. I guess what confuses me is the fact that once the pitcher starts his motion, Murphy hunches right back into the same crouch he started from last year. So maybe it’s a timing thing? The one potential negative is with this new stance, Murphy’s eyes start at one level, then move to a lower level as the ball is coming in — which seemingly would make the ball more difficult to see and track.

Hisanori Takahashi
I like Takahashi’s fluid, stress-free motion and balanced mechanics. It looks as though he can throw low strikes in his sleep. He reminds me a bit of Jamie Moyer, in that he pitches “backward” (setting up the fastball with off-speed pitches), stays around the plate, and can occasionally sneak a fastball by a hitter. He topped out at a surprising 89 MPH on the fastball, which was mixed with a 81 MPH changeup and a 78 MPH breaking ball. Already I’m convinced he’ll be more effective than Ken Takahashi. Whether he’ll be able to keep MLB hitters off-balance the second time around the league will remain to be seen, but I like his chances.

Ike Davis
There has been a lot of buzz around Davis, and he’s been scorching the ball in spring training. But if I hear one more person compare him to John Olerud, I’m going to scream. He doesn’t remind me at all of Olerud, other than the fact he stands in the left batter’s box. At some point, Davis is going to be in the big leagues — no question. This year? Hard to say. There are two glaring issues about his swing that concern me — first, the fact he “steps in the bucket” and commits his front hip before starting his swing; and second, the loopy length of his swing. It’s a long, long swing — one that will and does generate power. That’s why I’m not getting the Olerud comparisons — Olerud in contrast had a short, compact stroke. In fact, Davis looks to me like a hitter who can turn into an Adam Dunn-type, rather than an Olerud — someone with prodigious power, good strike zone judgment, but perhaps not a .300 average. If he comes close to evolving into either Olerud or Dunn, we will certainly be happy.

The Nationals
This team scares me a bit. They have a ton of exciting, talented, young ballplayers on their roster. I don’t see the Nats making the playoffs in 2010, but with a little luck they could surprise people. They will be a team to reckon with in 2011 and beyond.

Calero signed a one-year, minor league contract that will pay him $850,000 plus incentives if he makes the Major League roster.

According to the The New York Times:

Calero was so eager to join the Mets that he was seen walking through the clubhouse before the team had a chance to announce the signing.

As you read a few days ago, I supported an MLB contract for Calero — so for me this is outstanding news and a very smart, low-risk gamble. It is surprising that Calero has been available for this long after a fine comeback season in ‘09 — kudos to Minaya for waiting him out.

Next on the docket is Joe Beimel, who would fit right in as a second LOOGY to Pedro Feliciano. It appears that Minaya is sticking to the same strategy of waiting — and several sources report that Beimel is indeed on the Mets’ radar. Hopefully it works out as well — and it might, because every day that goes by is another day lost for a guy like Beimel to make a team. The only risk is that there are at least a handful of teams who could use an extra veteran LOOGY — and one of them could be the Phillies.

Steve Popper was the first to report that news on Twitter early yesterday, and further blood work evaluated last night confirms it.

Whew! That would have been a major issue for the Mets, who already are without Carlos Beltran for the first few months of the season.

Though, I imagine Jose would have been able to stay on the field for the first trimester … but almost certainly would have been out of uniform by June. Even if he felt great, you’d have to think that his belly would have gotten in the way of reaching down for ground balls — not to mention the weight gain putting a strain on his already suspect legs.

In other good news for Mets fans, Hisanori Takahashi has cleared up his visa problem and can now take the mound in exhibition games. No word on whether he’ll be wearing Ken Takahashi’s old jersey.

Additionally, the Mets signed Kiko Calero — full post coming soon.

But there’s still more to cheer about — Ike Davis hit a grand slam and David Wright hit a homerun in his first at-bat as the Mets pounded the Cardinals 17-11.

Finally, things are looking up for the New York Mets!

RED FLAG ALERT!

Take a look at the above photo, taken in Port St. Lucie from yesterday’s intrasquad game by Matt Cerrone of MetsBlog. It’s Josh Thole in his “runners on” catching stance.

Notice the flat back, weight forward on the balls of the feet (and off the heels), arms extended out in front. It’s classic, 1970s positioning, made famous by the likes of Johnny Bench.

And it’s wrong.

That’s right — Johnny Bench, the greatest catcher who ever lived — used an improper, inefficient catching stance.

If you didn’t think I was off my rocker when criticizing Sandy Koufax last week, then surely you believe I’ve gone bonkers on this one.

But it’s true. Yes, Bench was the best. Ever. (Though, all around, Thurman Munson was a close second.) However, he succeeded IN SPITE OF his catching stance. As it turns out, Bench was such an incredible athlete, he was able to field his position starting from a stance that his body naturally fought against.

Don’t believe it? Try this at home: get into the stance you see above. Tell me what direction your body is going (there’s only one possibility). I’ll wait …

OK, so, where did your body go? If you said “it fell forward”, then you understand what I’m talking about. If you said “ouch! I just slipped a disc!” then please go see a chiropractor, and mention “L5″.

Besides eventually herniating a disc (or multiple, in my case), that old-school catching stance is absolutely unathletic, inefficient, and ineffective for 99% of the movements a catcher has to make. Yet, this stance has been taught for the last 30+ years by “expert baseball people”. The fact a stance or movement is illogical has no effect on whether it is handed down from generation to generation — baseball is very slow to learn, and “baseball men” are too quick to accept (or too lazy to question) what is taught to them by the men they respect.

And unfortunately, it appears that Josh Thole is being taught the “old school” way. In my opinion, the only way to succeed from that position is to be incredibly athletically gifted (like Bench). For mere mortals, such a position will only cause the body to fight itself, and make every action unnatural, inefficient, and most likely ineffective.

The RIGHT catching stance is more balanced, with the back perpendicular (rather than parallel) to the ground. The head, back, and hips should all be more or less aligned — or “stacked”, as former MLB catcher Brent Mayne preaches. I met Brent Mayne’s dad way back in 1993, when he was first discovering and teaching the best catching mechanics. More than 15 years later, we’re just now starting to see a few catchers in MLB utilizing this more efficient (and less stressful on the back) stance. With the head and weight over the hips, the catcher is in an ideal position to move laterally very easily — to do things like move toward moving balls, both in flight and in the dirt. It’s also a better position from which to begin efficient footwork for making throws to bases on steal attempts. The “old school”, forward-leaning stance forces a catcher to either step forward to start a throw (usually with a jab step), or to shift his weight back and “load” on the back foot (Bench did this). In both cases, precious tenths of a second are lost, and the movements can throw off timing and/or balance.

Using the “modern” and more athletic stance, the throwing mechanics begin with a very quick, short, slide of the right foot toward the middle of the body and underneath the butt — just enough to align the left / front hip toward second base. It’s a much quicker, simpler, and more efficient action — and much easier to repeat with consistency — than one that requires a jab step or significant weight shift.

Additionally, by staying “stacked”, the catcher is already in a good position to block pitches, because he can very easily move laterally by starting with his hands and letting the body follow. Whereas in the “old school” stance, again, the catcher either must shift the weight back before moving toward the ball, or attack the ball in a forward movement. Both of those cases require more reaction time and promote “stabbing” at or “attacking” the ball — which in turn causes the ball to bounce further away from the catcher’s body (and thus allowing runners to take an extra base).

There’s more to it than that, but it’s hard to explain without showing you — so I’ll point you to a pro. Check out the video below to get an idea of the theory and fundamentals behind the “modern” stance, as told by none other than Brent Mayne himself:

I’m not 100% in agreement with everything that Mayne says, but what he teaches is light years ahead of the old school. And yes, I do teach the proper, more logical and effective catching fundamentals — but I’m expensive. Email me if you are interested.

Hmm … PREVENTION … AND …. RECOVERY !!!!!

Doesn’t quite roll off the tongue. Not much “ring” to it. Certainly not something you’d expect to hear booming from the rafters of Citi Field during a tense moment near the end of a playoff game (if Citi Field had rafters, or if the Mets were in a playoff game).

Rather, it sounds like someone who has been spooked by injuries. While most teams are concerned with playing the game, the Mets are focused on staying healthy. Like most of what this organization has done for the past decade or so, it’s reactive — the Mets had a ton of injuries last year, so this year they’ll try to prevent them.

We touched on this early in the offseason, when we discussed The Big Fix and the General Consensus. In that post, we surmised that the Mets believed they were only “one piece away” from a championship. But it’s clear there’s more to it than that — they believe they can get where they want to be by merely fixing what went wrong last time.

That’s no way to build a championship team, and it’s not the attitude of a winner. Winners don’t concern themselves with what went wrong last time, they don’t become fixated on what held them back from their goals. Rather, winners focus on the here and now, and think about what they need to do to get where they want to go — not where they’ve been.

Yes, it’s true that the Mets suffered a rash of injuries last year. Some believe — incorrectly — that injuries were the sole cause for their disappointing season. Even if that were true, focusing on staying healthy should not be what is on the players’ minds — what they need to do to win should be on their minds. Injuries are going to occur, no matter what, and the great teams rise above them.

It’s also true that the Mets have been deluged with questions from the media on how they plan to stay healthy, so there was a need to address the issue from that standpoint. But again, it should not be “top of mind”, or an internal mantra. Combining “Prevention and Recovery” with “We Believe in Comebacks” is living in the past. Why re-hash the misery of 2009? The Mets should have done everything they could to erase the negative images of last year, and move the mindset to a completely new and different place.

Don’t dwell on the past, don’t tell me you’re sorry, don’t tell me what went wrong. If something needs fixing then go ahead and fix it — and then MOVE ON. Forge AHEAD. Move FORWARD, toward your goal.

That’s a better mantra, don’t you think? “Fix it and move on.” Has a ring to it, at least.

Without question, Beimel is the best lefthanded specialist available on the free agent market. The Mets have been seeking such a LOOGY to pair with Pedro Feliciano ever since Scott Schoeneweis crapped the bed. Two million dollars is not a huge commitment for someone with Beimel’s skill set and experience — compare it to the 3-year, $10.8M insanity-driven deal handed to the aforementioned Schoeneweis. Considering that Beimel would likely appear in 70-85 games, the Mets will get more value on the dollar for him than for the $2M given to utilityman Alex Cora. So the question is, if the Mets need Beimel, and Beimel is interested at a fair price, what’s the delay?

As for Calero, I can understand the trepidation — sort of. When Calero is healthy, he can be “lights-out”, but staying healthy has been a problem in the past few years for the 35-year-old. With the Mets already dealing with injury issues this spring, they’d ideally sign a more durable pitcher.

At the same time, Calero was outstanding in 2009, appearing in 67 games and setting career bests in innings (60) strikeouts (69), and ERA (1.95), while posting a stingy 1.10 WHIP and allowing only one homerun. There’s no guarantee he’ll repeat those numbers, and he did spend 15 days on the DL in June with a shoulder inflammation. But you tell me what makes more sense: giving $1.25M guaranteed to Kelvim Escobar — who threw 5 innings last year — or Calero?

What’s hurting the Mets in these negotations, of course, is Escobar’s status (and the fact that Brian Stokes was dealt to the Angels). Both Calero and Beimel deserve MLB deals regardless, but have the upper hand as long as the Mets have neither a legitimate setup man nor a reliable second lefty.

It is at this point that I would like to hear from all the people who, back in November, didn’t think it was a “big deal” that the Mets wasted $2M on the aforementioned Cora. Additionally, I want to hear from those who supported the Stokes – Gary Matthews trade, which cost the Mets another $1M – $1.5M net. The argument was that a measly $1M or $2M shouldn’t make or break the Mets’ season. Yet here we are in a situation where the Mets are desperate to plug holes in the bullpen, there are two worthwhile, fair-priced solutions available, but the Mets don’t seem to have the financial flexibility to get the deals done.

Put it this way: if Matthews and Cora get on the field often enough to truly earn their pay in 2010, then something (once again) went horribly, horribly wrong for the New York Mets. In contrast, if Beimel and Calero are signed and earn their salaries, two roles in the Mets’ bullpen were filled quite efficiently and effectively. You tell me which is more likely to have a significant impact on a successful season — overused bench players or effective relievers?

It is stunning news, considering that Escobar proved he was completely capable of picking up, gripping, and softly tossing a baseball only a week ago. But he felt some “weakness” and has been shut down from throwing activities.

Per The New York Times:

Escobar, who is experiencing weakness and discomfort in his right shoulder, is not even playing catch on flat ground. The plan is to start again on Monday and then see what happens. That means he will almost certainly not be ready for opening day.

Hmm … if he’s “not even playing catch on flat ground” does that mean he’s playing catch …. underground?

In all seriousness, this is really bad news for Omar Minaya, who rolled the dice on Escobar. Truth is, it wasn’t a bad idea to gamble on Escobar for only $1.25M. The bad idea, was to COUNT on Escobar to fill a significant role in the bullpen.

From John Harper’s column in the Daily News:

According to one baseball executive who spoke with GM Omar Minaya about it, the Mets were immediately penciling Escobar in as a key to their bullpen, and only a couple of weeks ago Johan Santana was praising him as an important addition to the club, saying that his toughness would help set the right tone for a comeback season.

Santana’s statement was partially right — Escobar has set the tone for the season.

Harper also noted that Japanese import Ryota Igarashi — the next reliever in line for the setup role — “was less than impressive, unable to control his splitter, his signature pitch” in a bullpen session on Saturday. Certainly not good news, but it’s still early; sometimes people have bad days. Though, I am mildly concerned that Igarashi will have trouble adjusting to the size of the baseball.

With Carlos Beltran and Kelvim Escobar missing Opening Day, Francisco Rodriguez suffering from pink eye, and Jose Reyes being questioned by the FBI, the spring has not exactly gone off to the best start. However, there must be a light at the end of the tunnel — things can only get better from here, right?

I say “purportedly” because the person with the camera isn’t exactly an expert on baseball, nor even a Mets fan. But he was the best cameraman we could hire on the meager MetsToday budget … and, well, you get what you pay for.

The quality isn’t great, so it’s hard to tell who is getting the back rub, but the videographer claims it’s “one of the Mets catchers” (a good bet, considering that half the players in camp don the tools of ignorance).

My money is on Rod Barajas or Henry Blanco … though, for all I know this is re-used video of Ramon Castro from last spring.

If you can positively identify exactly who this is, please let us know in the comments.

OK, watch it again.

One more time, please.

Is it me, or is “Gimme Three Steps” by Lynyrd Skynyrd running through Igarashi’s head when he comes to the set from the stretch position?

All that footwork ain’t gonna fly come game time. He’s balking, and umpires will call it. I vaguely remember other Japanese imports having similar hitches and hesitations in their motion, which caused problems in their MLB rookie seasons. Apparently the rules are a little different in NPB.

I don’t bring this up to be negative, but in the hopes that someone (Dan Warthen) takes note and adjusts his routine accordingly now rather than later. Left uncorrected all spring, it could turn out to be a major issue.

By the way, big kudos to Matt Cerrone for his massive, multi-channel, multimedia coverage of spring training. He’s like James Brown — the hardest-working man in the Mets blogosphere.

However, now that pitchers and catchers have reported, hope springs eternal, and all of my worries have subsided. After all, we keep hearing wonderful, reassuring quotes from everyone in Port St. Lucie.

For example …

Kelvim Escobar’s arm does not worry me, because he CAN in fact “grip a baseball”, and is only experiencing “weakness”, rather than pain. Further, he says that he is going to be fine. Whew!

I’m not worried about Jose Reyes, because he says he’s happy to be here!

I’m not worried that Carlos Beltran expressed displeasure with the way the Mets handled his injury and surgery, because he also said that he is no longer upset.

I’m also not worried because …

Jose Reyes says he’s happy to be a Met!

Sandy Koufax said that Oliver Perez has talent. What else would I need to hear?

Jason Bay says that the Mets’ roster is filled with talent.

Angel Pagan said that the Mets have a great team on paper.

Angel Pagan also says he has learned from his baserunning mistakes.

Everyone and his brother says that the Mets should be good as long as everyone stays healthy.

Jose Reyes says take a look at his new custom-made cleats!

Rod Barajas said that the Mets were always his first choice.

Luis Castillo says he lost a few pounds in the offseason and is looking to get back to Gold Glove caliber defense.

Keith Hernandez said that Daniel Murphy has the tools to be OK at first base.

Mike Pelfrey says he’s unhappy about his 2009 performance, and he’s going to establish a secondary pitch.

John Maine has assured us he’s healthy and ready to go.

Jose Reyes says he’s happy to be playing baseball again!

Jason Bay says he has no worries about Citi Field affecting his game.

Jerry Manuel said the Mets will work on their fundamentals.

Jerry Manuel has also said the goal is to improve their “interior defense”.

Jerry Manuel additionally said the Mets hitters will focus on home runs.

Johan Santana says that he is the best pitcher in the NL East.

David Wright whispered said that the Mets’ goal is to win the World Series.

He won’t say it, but Jose Reyes is a modern-day E.F. Hutton.

Considering all of the above — particularly, what everyone has been saying — I am feeling very confident in the Mets chances in 2010. Bottom line is this: as long as I keep hearing good quotes, I have nothing to worry about.

Ya know what I’m sayin’ ?

Because today, we take the words of the great Sandy Koufax to task.

In a quote from the NY Post, Koufax had this to say in regard to Oliver Perez:

“People pay too much attention to delivery,” Koufax said. “Pitching is precision throwing. Sometimes delivery is overrated. You don’t want to change what you do. Delivery shouldn’t interfere with your ability to throw. You make it a simple situation so you can retain it. You don’t want it to be something different every time you throw. If I can help somebody I’m happy to. I don’t have all the answers. Nothing works for everybody. It’s a question of trying it. Every pitcher should try everything to find out what works for him.”

I’ll agree with the last sentence. I’ll also agree with the part about pitching being “precision throwing”. And I’ll agree with the idea of keeping things simple, and repeating mechanics.

But, I cannot, under any circumstance, agree with the notion that “delivery is overrated”. In reality, delivery is EVERYTHING. If a pitcher’s delivery is just an inch off, it can drastically affect his command.

Oh, and I also am not blown away by Sandy Koufax in the role of teacher / coach.

Therein is the blasphemy, in case you missed it.

That’s right — Koufax, to me, isn’t going to make much of a difference with the Mets’ pitchers this year because, to be frank, he’s not a coach. He WAS, however, an outstanding pitcher in his day — maybe, the best pitcher ever. But that alone doesn’t make him a miracle worker as a teacher.

Consider this: how many homerun hitters are the product of training under Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, or Willie Mays? How many catchers will tell you that everything they learned, they learned from Johnny Bench? Is there one Gold Glove shortstop who learned the position under Ozzie Smith? And how did Jose Reyes do as a leadoff hitter / basestealer under the tutelage of Rickey Henderson? Yeah.

I think you get the point: superstardom does not necessarily equate to skill as a teacher. There is something to the old saying, “those who can, do; those who can’t, teach”.

I bring this up not to throw mud in Sandy Koufax’s face — he is, after all, a legendary pitcher, a beloved Dodger, and great friend of Fred Wilpon. Rather, I want to make clear that Ollie Perez, John Maine, Mike Pelfrey, etc., will not suddenly “get it” or put together a Cy Young performance in 2010 after speaking to Koufax. Yeah, I’m raining on the parade, I’m being negative, I’m squashing the hope that springs eternal this year — and, I’m blaspheming the immortal Sandy Koufax.

But, someone has to even the scales. The “big story” yesterday in every Mets media outlet, and by every beat writer, was the tired, old, and annual Sandy Koufax advice article. We read the same nonsense every spring, with only the names of Mets pitchers changning.

I have no pride, and am fine with smacking the rose-colored glasses off the faces of potential season-ticket buyers. Rip me below in the comments.

I don’t even want to go into the stupidity of Reyes in the 3-hole, nor the illogical thinking that went into the cause-and-effect relationship of Beltran’s unavailability compared to Reyes’ spot in the order. After all, unless he’s on a rare unconscious streak (such as he had at the beginning of 2009), Beltran’s ideal spot is either 4th or 5th. Further, if Reyes (or Beltran) is batting third, where does one pencil in David Wright?

Logic would dictate that Wright gets a guaranteed plate appearance in the first inning, since he has been, and remains, the Mets’ best hitter and on-base guy. That said, if Wright isn’t slated to bat third, then the next most logical spot in the order would be … first — a.k.a., “leadoff”.

Sound crazy? Not nearly as crazy as plotting Reyes in the three-hole.

Consider that Wright has led the Mets in OBP in four of the last five seasons (the one year he didn’t, he was second by .007 points behind the leader). Nearly every intelligent baseball enthusiast — both old-school lunkheads and modern Beaneheads — agree that the ideal leadoff hitter has a superior on-base percentage, so Wright’s career .389 OBP is ideal for the spot.

Further, there is the notion that someone “speedy” — or at least, a base-stealing threat — should bat in the top position of the order. Again, Wright fits the description — he led the Mets in stolen bases last year with 27, and he averages 20+ steals a year. Further, he routinely scores 100+ runs per year — again, the sign of an ideal leadoff hitter.

Naturally, you wouldn’t want to “waste” a slugger at the top of the lineup (unless his name is Rickey Henderson or Bobby Bonds). Generally speaking, you’d prefer to insert someone who is more of a singles hitter with gap power. And guess what? David Wright transformed into exactly that in 2009! His power outage (10 HR) suggest that he would be more valuable higher in the lineup, in a spot where he can get on base for the sluggers (such as Reyes) to drive him in.

Speaking of, if Wright bats leadoff, then what does the lineup look like?

1. David Wright
2. Luis Castillo
3. Jose Reyes
4. Jason Bay
5. Jeff Francoeur
6. Daniel Murphy
7. Angel Pagan
8. Rod Barajas
9. pitcher

I know, I know — Pagan was stellar in the leadoff spot in 2009. But really, do you truly expect him to continue to hit over .300 with a .350 OBP and .837 OPS in 2010? If so, then there was no point in signing Bay, and you may want to consider trading Beltran once he proves to be healthy. Additionally, those big numbers still aren’t close to being more fit for leadoff than Wright, whose OBP was 40 points higher last year.

The only other possible argument is Castillo, who has been hinted to be the “new” leadoff batter if Reyes moves to #3. But again, Wright is superior as an on-base guy, and he HAS TO get a plate appearance in the first frame — considering that, would you prefer he bat #2? Of course not! Castillo’s patience and ability to bunt are much more valuable in the two-spot than anywhere else. I don’t think Wright even knows how to spell the word “bunt”, and I wouldn’t want him worrying about advancing Castillo from station to station.

Finally, there is the cockamamie idea that Murphy should bat second. This nonsense is based on Murphy’s first 100 ABs in the bigs, when he was unconscious and posting Wade Boggs-like numbers. But as well all know, Cinderella’s carriage turned into a pumpkin, Kevin Maas turned into a human, and Murphy posted a .313 OBP over a full season. The #6 spot is a much better position than a guaranteed first-inning at-bat.

By the way, I’m feeling “stubborn” about Wright as the leadoff guy. I don’t care who you throw in the #2 spot, it don’t matter.

What are your thoughts?

“Torture,” Wilpon said. “Very, very difficult.”

I’m so glad that a Dodgers fan had similar feelings to mine during these past few months, even if were for different reasons. The Dodgers, of course, suffered a heartbreaking exit from the postseason last October. To get so close to the Fall Classic, only to fall just a hair short, can certainly weigh on a fan’s mind for months on end.

As a Mets fan, though, we’ve felt “torture” for a different reason. Well, make that, reasons.

Here’s my personal list of the Ten Top Reasons Mets Fans Feel Tortured:

1. Memories of the 2009 season was torture
2. Watching the Mets try to trade Luis Castillo rather than find quality pitching was torture
3. Thinking all winter about how bad the Mets will be in 2010 was torture
4. Listening to the inane comments of Jerry Manuel is torture
5. Envisioning Rod Barajas / Henry Blanco behind the plate and getting 600+ ABs is torture
6. Banking on Ollie Perez and John Maine as the #2 and #3 starters is torture
7. Wondering who #4 and #5 in the rotation will be is torture
8. Relying on Sean Green and/or some Japanese guy in the 8th inning is torture
9. Handing leads to K-rod in the 9th is torture
10. Seeing Daniel Murphy tripping over himself at first base is torture
11. Listening to people gush over Mets “prospects” is torture
12. Waiting to see J.J. Putz do well in Chicago is torture
13. Fearing that the Washington Nationals will finish ahead of the Mets is torture

I stopped at 13 only because compiling this list was torture in itself. It easily could have grown to 25 or more.

Feel free to add your own torturous thoughts in the comments.