0 comments Why are Baseball Sportswriters So Terrified of MLB Teams Thinking Outside the Box?

Terence Moore had an issue with the idea of a six-man rotation a few years ago. He did not like the idea that the Atlanta Braves may use a six-man rotation for a limited period of time. Now it's Joel Sherman who is furious and confused as to why in the hell the Mets would dare use a six-man rotation until late August. Why does it matter? The Mets are thinking outside the realm of conventional thinking because they choose to do so. What's the issue with this? I can't figure out why the idea of a six-man rotation is so offensive to Joel Sherman that he believes the mere suggestion should not be proposed. The Mets want to give their pitchers extra rest. I can't figure out what is so wrong with a different type of thinking about how many starting pitchers the Mets will choose to use. In baseball, any new idea is immediately met with resistance from sportswriters and I can't figure out why. So many sportswriters cling so tightly to how things were always done.

The Mets insist the six-man rotation is about more than protecting Matt Harvey.

Why does it matter what the reasoning is? The Mets have six pitchers they think are starter-worthy and want to use all of them for the time being. Why is it a huge deal to use a six-man rotation in order to give a pitcher an extra day of rest? It's just a strategy the Mets are employing, not the idea which will end baseball forever. I'm always miffed at why new ideas or an idea that is old, but different, seems to always meet resistance.

They also want to throttle back on 42-year-old Bartolo Colon, recognize that neither Jacob deGrom nor Noah Syndergaard has ever pitched a full major league season, and even prep for having Steve Matz step into a forum in which his innings can be better regulated.

HOW DARE THEY! HOW DARE THE METS HAVE A LONG-TERM PLAN FOR THEIR PITCHERS AND TAKE MEASURES TO EXECUTE THIS PLAN AS THEY SEE FIT! THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO DO SOMETHING AND THAT IS THE WAY JOEL SHERMAN WANTS IT DONE!

I get it. Still, this is mostly about Harvey.

Which is why I don’t completely get it.

You don't have to get it. The Mets want to rest their young arms and not overextend Bartolo Colon's arm. Whether you think this is babying the pitchers or not, it's their plan. It's not the end of the world and if it doesn't work then they will change the plan. It's not the Mets plan for Harvey that Sherman has an issue with though, it's that the plan is a six-man rotation. The Mets are daring to try something different and that is not all right. It goes against what Joel Sherman thinks a team should do in order to keep young pitchers healthy. Also, this six-man rotation isn't simply being used for the benefit of Matt Harvey. It's for the benefit of all the Mets young starting pitchers.

Harvey is a client of Scott Boras, who is renowned for taking his best clients to free agency to seek peak market value. Remember, the Tigers offered Max Scherzer $144 million before last season, the Boras client rejected it and got $210 million from the Nationals. Harvey is due to be a free agent after the 2018 season. The Mets have a financially conservative general manager and ownership. The chances Harvey is pitching for the Mets in 2019 is what? Five percent?

The chances are actually 6.7%.

So the Mets should be building their rotational plans around the fact they believe they will lose Matt Harvey to free agency after the 2018 season, as opposed to building their rotational plans around helping the team win games between now and then? This doesn't make sense to me.

That being the case, shouldn’t the Mets be maximizing Harvey now?

Notice “maximizing,” not “abusing.”

Except the Mets are consciously keeping Harvey under 100 pitches as much as possible. Harvey is coming off major elbow surgery too. So when Harvey throws 110 pitches in three straight starts and blows his elbow out again, take a guess at who will be the one writing a column about how the Mets are "abusing" Matt Harvey and he thought the purpose of the six-man staff was to protect Harvey and not injure him? Joel Sherman, that's who. He'll be the one writing this column.

No one is suggesting Harvey throw 125 pitches regularly or be pushed extra innings within games. But I would want more starts, not fewer from Harvey for the next 3 ¹/₂ years.

I'm sure the Mets want more starts too. Here's the thing though...the idea of a six-man staff usually works itself out. One pitcher starts performing terribly or another pitcher gets injured. So it's not bad to aim for a six-man rotation, while knowing eventually the rotation will go back to a traditional five-man rotation out of necessity. If the Mets did use a six-man staff until August then that's not that many fewer starts for Harvey on the season. They have not indicated they plan on using a six-man staff for the next 3.5 years, just until late August. Let's simmer down a bit and gain some perspective. Maybe the Mets will go past that August date they want to "at least" go to with a six-man rotation, but again, starting pitchers are hard to find and usually a rotation goes back to five men due to injuries or ineffectiveness.

Both Terry Collins and Mets assistant GM John Ricco made the case this is a way of making sure you get those starts between now and the end of the 2018 campaign, by limiting Harvey’s innings and giving him five days’ rest regularly.

I am not wearing a hat, but I will eat my hat if the Mets regularly use a six-man rotation from now until the end of the 2018 season. I am betting the vast majority of the time, if he stays healthy, Harvey will make 30+ starts during a season from now until 2018. It's hard enough to find five quality starters, which is why it's no big deal that the Mets want to use six quality starters. It's a nice goal to aim for, but not reasonable to expect over a three year period.

Nevertheless, the baseball industry is still not at peace if workload is the be-all and end-all in causing arm injuries

And of course when writing "the baseball industry" Joel Sherman is referring to himself as not being at peace if workload is the end-all in causing arm injuries. He clearly feels this way and is just passing it off as the entire industry agreeing with him to make himself feel like he's in much better company than he possibly really is.

The Mets did not seem to be abusing Harvey before he needed Tommy John surgery, the same for Zack Wheeler. The reality is most pitchers — particularly power pitchers — will break.

Okay, so knowing this would it make sense for the Mets to aim for a six-man rotation, where they have six guys capable of starting a baseball game, while fully knowing they won't be able to use this six-man rotation over a full season? The Mets would have six guys ready and used to starting games, as opposed to having a guy coming out of the bullpen who gets long relief work only, then has to step in as a starter.

There is no magic formula to keep that from occurring

Other than robots replacing humans on each MLB team to where the game of baseball is played by computers instead of real, live players. At that point, only a hard drive crash or other technological issue would stop power pitchers from breaking. This is obviously what Sabermetericians like Andrew Friedman are hoping for in the future.

Stars such as Harvey are assets and do you begin to devalue your asset by going from a five-man rotation to six? Why not a seven-man rotation? You can’t put the pitchers in Bubble Wrap.

At least Joel Sherman isn't reacting so negatively to the idea of a six-man rotation that he is suggesting absurd ideas like a seven-man rotation. You can actually put the pitchers in Bubble Wrap. They just can't pitch on the mound that way or else Fredi Gonzalez will tell on them for using a foreign substance, since obviously the popping of the bubbles would cause so much glee for the batter that he couldn't focus on hitting the baseball.

You use them, you do it with the best practices for keeping them healthy and you hope for the best.

But see, that's what the Mets are doing. They are trying to keep their pitchers healthy by aiming to have a six-man rotation. The problem is that Joel Sherman, who is not a doctor or specialist of any kind in the medical field, thinks that using a six-man rotation is not the best way to keep young pitchers healthy. He may be right, he may be wrong. But his suggestion that a team use "best practices" to keep a pitcher healthy, as if this isn't what the Mets believe they are doing, is incorrect. 

“There is a big picture in this and that is even if we don’t have him [after free agency,] we want to make sure we have him the next three years,” Collins said. “And right now we think the best thing for Matt is to have the extra day.”

But again, reality will eventually probably creep in. The Mets won't trot a shitty starter out there every sixth day for the sake of a six-man rotation. I really doubt they would do that. So Harvey will most likely pitch for the majority of his Mets career as part of a five-man rotation. It's so hard to find five quality starters, much less six quality starters, I can't imagine the six-man rotation lasting for 3.5 years like Joel Sherman seems to believe it will.

Collins recently referred to Harvey enduring “a dead arm” phase and the stats show that after 100 pitches, Harvey morphs from Cy Young to Curt Young. 

So maybe keeping Harvey under 100 pitches in a game is a good thing? OF COURSE NOT! Joel Sherman thinks this is another example of the Mets babying their pitchers. Fuck stats. What do they mean anyway? 

But it also should be noted that in his 45-start career, Harvey has faced just 58 batters after 100 pitches. Translation: The Mets already have been babying him.

Babying him = Seeing his effectiveness greatly wanes after 100 pitches and removing him from the game so the Mets have a better chance of winning said game. 

Pitching coach Dan Warthen said he envisioned staying with a six-man rotation until at least mid-August. The Mets believe they will be in contention and that the conservative approach now will keep their starters strong for a six-week dash to the finish line — and perhaps into October.

It's funny how Sherman writes "at least" mid-August when Dan Warthen indicated in other articles that mid-August was when the six-man rotation would most likely stop. A little bit of semantics here, but to prove his point Sherman seems to have added "at least" when other news outlets report the six-man rotation would be "through" mid-August, "until" mid-August, and "until" the middle of August. Other news outlets have a sense of finality in August regarding the six-man rotation, while presumably in order to help prove the point he wants to prove, Joel Sherman uses a term with less finality when describing how long the six-man rotation would last. 

Warthen conceded none of the starters was enthused about this process and Collins told Harvey he is on an innings limit this year and the alternative to accepting the six-man rotation was to sit out September, go on the DL a time or two or be pulled constantly after five innings.

I'm guessing that Collins dressed it up better than this when talking to Matt Harvey. 

But, again, are we positive 180 innings is going to keep Harvey healthier than 200 or 210? It is well-intentioned guesswork, but guesswork nevertheless.

Yes, it is guesswork, but what isn't guesswork is that Matt Harvey is coming off elbow surgery and he becomes less effective after 100 pitches, thereby giving the Mets two reasons not to see if he stays healthier at 180 innings than 200 or 210 innings. I don't believe in babying pitchers, but I also don't pretend to know the best way to prevent Tommy John surgery. 

The same as in limiting Syndergaard, whose effort Wednesday made you want to see more — not less — of him. He was facing the woeful Phillies in a matinee after a night game.

Still, his 7¹/₃ shutout innings were impressive against any opponent, any time. He cranked two-seam fastballs he only refined last week that were scary — topping out at 100.7 mph (according to Brooks on Baseball data) and averaging 97.7.

Well of course Mets fans want to see more of Syndergaard. I wanted to see Craig Kimbrel throw every single night, but that doesn't mean his having 110 appearances in a season was a smart move. 

The Mets want to keep Syndergaard, Harvey, deGrom, eventually Matz and Wheeler healthy for the short and long term. I get it.

You say you get it, but then you claim to know the best way to keep these young pitchers healthy for the short and long term. It just so happens that way (in Joel Sherman's opinion) isn't to use a six-man rotation, which is an idea that is new and obviously won't work simply because new things are scary. Because a five-man rotation helped to keep Wheeler and Harvey so healthy and all.

And I respect their forward thinking in trying the six-man rotation.

The Braves tried a six-man rotation a few years ago (much to Terence Moore's chagrin) and it lasted two times through before an injury caused them to go to a five-man rotation again. I can completely see this happening again, which is why the Mets trying a six-man rotation isn't a reason for gnashing of teeth and questioning the sanity of the Mets' front office. 

But at full health, Gee should be used as a safety net, not an equal to the Mets’ best starters.

A safety net? Like a long reliever or a guy who can step into the rotation if an injury should occur? I don't get how it matters. If a pitcher gets injured, then the idea of the six-man rotation is kaput anyway. If anything, this six-man rotation negatively affects the bullpen and bench depth the Mets have as much as it affects their starting rotation. But I don't get why Sherman's next beef is with Gee being considered equal to the Mets' best starters. Gee projects as a pretty good fifth starter. Why can't he be a good fifth or sixth starter rather than relegated to the bullpen?

That is why this doesn’t make sixth sense to me.

What a horrible way to end the column. The point is that Dillon Gee should be treated as an equal to the Mets' best starters because the Mets' best starters haven't proven they can pitch 180 innings in a season on a consistent basis, partially due to their young age. This six-man rotation is going to be a short-term thing. Something always goes wrong with a starter that moves the six-man rotation back to a five-man rotation. Don't be afraid of new ideas and hide behind the illusion there is a certain way to prevent arm injuries to young pitchers. 

6 comments Mike Lupica Encourages Matt Harvey to Come Sit on His Lap, For There Is a Lecture He Must Hear

The picture accompanying this article by Mike Lupica has a Photoshopped picture of Matt Harvey with a pacifier in his mouth. That about sums up the journalistic integrity of this column. I can see Lupica being irate at the fact there was no Photoshopped picture of Matt Harvey accompanying his article, so he runs around the newsroom---I'm just kidding, Mike Lupica believes himself to be above his co-workers so he would never lower himself to the level of being present in the newsroom---I can imagine Lupica writing an angry email about how his article is about to be posted in 20 MINUTES and there is NO PICTURE OF MATT HARVEY WITH THE ARTICLE? THIS ISN'T HOW JOURNALISM SHOULD BE DONE ON A DEADLINE! So Lupica gets his picture and writes about how Matt Harvey should trust the doctors and stop trying to work his way back to play for the Mets this year. Even though Derek Jeter would be canonized for doing the same thing, it's bad when someone the New York media doesn't like tries to work his way back from injury sooner than he should.

This isn't the first time the New York media has picked nits with Matt Harvey. Bob Klapisch interviewed Ron Darling about how Matt Harvey should not tempt the ladies with his sexiness. Of course Ron Darling was on the cover of a magazine showing off his sexiness when he played for the Mets, but that's not at all hypocrisy.

Anthony Rieber was angry that Matt Harvey flipped off the camera with his middle finger prior to his Tommy John surgery.

It's like the New York media takes non-stories around Matt Harvey and desperately tries to turn them into stories. Never one to miss out, Mike Lupica has joined the chorus of New York media members who nit-pick Matt Harvey. I imagine Lupica is sitting on the edge of his seat while he writes this column, disappointed he has no one to interrupt in order to help get his point across.

I know you are saying, Ben, what on Earth could Matt Harvey have done? Well, he is trying to use aggressive rehab to come back and pitch for the Mets this season. Quite frankly, that's unacceptable. Matt Harvey should not be risking his future to help the Mets this season, even though there seems to be nothing wrong with trying to come back and help the team.

One of these days, Matt Harvey needs to remember — and that probably means before he hurts his arm again — that his job is to be a star young baseball pitcher, not some sort of needy celebrity who acts as if he gets the bends when he is out of the spotlight for very long.

And this is coming from a sportswriter who has spent most of his career trying to be a celebrity who writes instead of a sportswriter, until he has slowly turned himself into a talentless shrill little man who prefers to lecture others on what they do wrong as he sits on the edge of his seat, imposing his viewpoint and will on anyone and everyone who will listen. It's funny to me that Mike Lupica would lecture someone about getting the bends if he is out of the spotlight for very long. Lupica craves the spotlight and you don't have to search hard to find examples of fellow sportswriters who simply don't like him and think he's an asshole. So if Mike Lupica were an athlete, he would probably be one of those athletes that Mike Lupica the sportswriter would lecture about growing up and being a team player in one of his columns. 

Understand something: The Mets need Harvey a lot more than he needs them, as long as he comes all the way back from Tommy John surgery and pitches for them the way Stephen Strasburg is now pitching for the Washington Nationals, a team in the NL East that treats the Mets like they’re a farm team.

Great, I understand that. Mike Lupica should understand something: If Matt Harvey took too long (as perceived by Mike Lupica of course...Lupica tells Matt Harvey to trust the doctors, but if Mike Lupica doesn't like the slow rehab progress Harvey is making then I'm sure Mike would question Harvey's motivation and the doctor(s) who suggested this slow rehab), then you know Mike Lupica would criticize Harvey for taking too long in his recovery. There is an appropriate time to come back from Tommy John surgery that only Mike Lupica is privy to. Coming back to help a team whose season is lost is not acceptable. Coming back slowly and not feeling 100% in late February is unacceptable. Matt Harvey MUST be 100% in November and feel great for Spring Training. There is no moving up or back this timetable that Dr. Mike Lupica has set for Matt Harvey. 

It is why the Mets, and that means ownership and general manager Sandy Alderson and Terry Collins, still have to be as careful handling Harvey right now as Harvey should be with a right arm that still could make him a couple of hundred million dollars before he is through.

Thank God that Mike Lupica is looking out for Matt Harvey. Every athlete needs a sportswriter telling him what to and not to do with his career and life. Of course, when it comes to telling others what they should or should not be doing, Mike Lupica is eager to take on this role. 

But he really needs to stop acting like a spoiled child, even if he believes — because he absolutely has that right — to think he knows more about his arm than anybody else except his doctors; and that it is his arm, not theirs.

Let's go through some Lupica logic here: 

-Matt Harvey needs to be careful with his arm, because it will help him earn millions of dollars in the future. 

-Matt Harvey should stop acting like a spoiled child for believing he knows more about his arm than anyone else except his doctors. 

-Matt Harvey has the right to believe he knows more about his arm than anyone else except his doctors. 

-It is Matt Harvey's arm, so he has the right to do what he wants with it. 

-Matt Harvey should make a decision based on what anybody else except he and his doctors think is the right decision for his arm. 

-Matt Harvey is a spoiled child for following an aggressive rehab schedule his doctors don't seem to be against and instead should be following what anybody else thinks is the right decision for his arm. 

So Matt Harvey has the right to do what he wants with his arm, except he doesn't have the right in Mike Lupica's opinion, and Lupica believes he is acting like a spoiled child for exercising that right that Mike Lupica believes he has. 

maybe the kid thinks he knows more than the doctors, too.

HE PROBABLY DOES, MIKE! FOLLOW THAT NARRATIVE! IT WILL HELP YOU PUMP OUT ANOTHER CONDESCENDING ARTICLE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME!

But one of these days he really does need to get it through his head that his job, even rehabbing from surgery, is baseball pitcher, and not celebrity.

I don't understand this "celebrity" thing. I feel like Lupica has latched on to the idea Harvey wants to be a celebrity and he refuses to give up on this idea, even when it isn't relevant. Harvey is trying to come back and pitch one inning during the 2014 season. This goal has seemingly nothing to do with being a celebrity.

Maybe some of this is our fault, because it seems in a very short period of time, we’ve convinced Harvey that we are hanging on his every word, and his next move, even when he isn’t pitching for the Mets.

This is sort of like how Mike Lupica has become convinced the world is hanging on every word he says and writes? Or is it different in that Lupica has such a huge ego, the fact he became successful in his career path only served to further prove to Lupica the truth of his own greatness? 

I understand that there are Mets fans that will feel better about everything, about Matt Harvey and his future and the future of the Mets and next season, if he does get back on the mound this season.

I realize Lupica is so far up his own butt that he didn't think about this, but maybe Matt Harvey will feel better getting back on the mound this year? Could this not be about celebrity, but about Harvey making himself feel better about his rehab?

There is just no point to this. If you are a Mets fan, do you really need to hear that Harvey is throwing the ball 90 miles per hour these days, and putting it where he wants to, which means he is throwing for real?

Yes, as a Mets fan I would absolutely need to hear this. Hearing Harvey is throwing the ball well and where he wants to would allow me to know as a Mets fan that the franchise pitcher seems to be making a complete comeback from major elbow surgery. The fact Mike Lupica can't understand why Mets fans are interested in knowing how Matt Harvey is throwing the baseball only serves to show just how out of touch he is with the very same fans who read his columns and Lupica claims to understand. 

Maybe if he could come riding over the hill like the First Army in a real division race, and a real wild-card race, and be the hero of September, you could start to wrap your mind around him moving up the timetable of his return.

So it is only worth coming back and pitching if there is something to pitch for? I can understand this point of view, but the issue is that Harvey isn't wanting to pitch 100 innings, he wants to pitch a few innings and prove to himself that he can pitch. The Mets are within their right to not allow this, but it doesn't make Harvey a spoiled child for requesting it. 

The Mets aren’t going to get a wild-card, either. So we are talking about 2015 already. Maybe the conversation has really been about 2015 since Harvey got hurt last summer.

The conversation was about 2015 even if Harvey was healthy all season. He would not have made such a massive difference in the Mets' record that they would have made the playoffs with him being healthy. 

Give him all benefits of the doubt here. Harvey, in so many ways, feels like Mets fans, the ones who still care and the ones who still come to Citi Field:

Wait, so Mike Lupica writes a column calling Matt Harvey a "spoiled child," features a Photoshopped picture of Harvey with a pacifier in his mouth, and states Harvey should grow up, but then he writes that Harvey should be given "all benefits of the doubt here." This makes not of sense. You can't bash the guy, say Harvey has a right to do what he wants, bash Harvey for exercising this right, and then say Harvey should get the benefit of the doubt. If anyone isn't giving Harvey the benefit of the doubt, it is Mike Lupica. Of course Lupica is the lecturer, not the lecturee. That's not how his ego works. 

There is a baseball season going on and he doesn’t want to sit the whole thing out. That is why he pretty much does everything besides hire a skywriter to tell the world he is fired up and ready to go.

Right, and you have called him a "spoiled child" for not wanting to sit the baseball season out. Find a mirror, look in it and see the person looking back at you. THAT is the person criticizing Matt Harvey for wanting to come back this season. Yell at him. 

But Terry Collins, who may or may not get to manage Harvey next season, is absolutely right to tell Harvey to back off. It is a polite way of telling the kid to shut up and pitch. Next season.

The Mets are within their right to say this to Harvey. 

And to get over himself while this season plays out.

Yes, Harvey should get over himself by exercising his right to know what's best for his arm and for attempting to come back and pitch this season. Harvey shouldn't try to be a celebrity by moving up the timetable for his rehab and trying to pitch this season. Mike Lupica hates people who try to compete with him for celebrity in the New York sports world. 

From this same article: 

Next Thursday night on Randall’s Island, I will be the chair umpire for a doubles match between the team of John McEnroe and Henrik Lundqvist and Novak Djokovic and actor Edward Norton to benefit the Johnny Mac Tennis Project.

Matt Harvey, THAT is how you become a celebrity. Name-drop athletes and actors in a rambling column where you call out a 25 year old from the safety of a computer for being a spoiled child and wanna-be celebrity by trying an aggressive rehab approach in order to re-join his team as soon as possible.

2 comments Bob Klapisch Doesn't See a Need for Matt Harvey to Tempt the Ladies with His Sexuality

Some baseball writers enjoy tackling hard-hitting important issues surrounding baseball and then other baseball writers like to make a story out of nothing. Bob Klapisch seems to be (at least today) in the latter group. He thinks Matt Harvey posing nude in ESPN's Body Issue, which I will not be providing links for these pictures, wasn't a good decision. After all, what Hall of Fame pitcher would ever dare to pose in his underwear? Simply put, great pitchers just don't do that. Klapisch even asks Ron Darling who agrees that posing nude or paying attention to celebrity outside of baseball is something that should be avoided at all costs. Of course in Darling's GQ article there were comments critical of Davey Johnson, and Matt Harvey simply took pictures without bashing his manager, but Ron Darling warns others about trying to gain the type of celebrity he chased. It can affect your pitching and being naked is wrong!

My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude.

And because we know the best way to find out what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude is to look at pictures of Harvey posing nude. He's so expressive!

I tried to use this reasoning for why I was looking at a Playboy when I was 11 years old, but for some reason my friend's mom didn't buy my reasoning.

"No, I'm not trying to look at naked women Mrs. Thompson! I just want to find out what attracted her to posing nude in the magazine and figured the best way to figure this out would be to stare at her naked body."

Oh, the layouts were creative and tastefully done: no argument about the graphics.

Well, thank God. I know I was concerned the graphics wouldn't be tasteful.
 
Harvey? He was photographed in his windup —his arm forming a perfect “L.” In the second shot, Harvey is holding a room-service tray over his privates as he peers out of an expensive-looking hotel room. Clever enough.

These naked pictures of Matt Harvey have Bob Klapisch's approval. Combined this with the very tasteful graphics and I think Bob is starting to see what attracted Harvey to posing for these pictures. 

Still, I’m told the Mets were aghast to learn of Harvey’s participation in this project; they had nothing to do with it.

The Mets didn't encourage Harvey to pose naked in a magazine and he made an adult decision by himself? You don't say? 

It was the pitcher’s marketing people and agent Scott Boras who convinced Harvey that modeling –modeling his body, that is –would somehow help his career.

And look, an article is being written about Harvey modeling in ESPN's Body Issue. Harvey gets noticed like he wants. I can't believe Scott Boras is encouraging young men to get naked and pose for pictures. He's worse than a Hollywood producer sleeping with the women talent in order to convince them they will get a role in his next film. One more reason Scott Boras is evil. He convinces his clients to model and take pictures in their underwear for his perverse pleasure. He convinces a vulnerable A-Rod to pose kissing himself in the mirror, now he has Matt Harvey posing naked for ESPN, and who can forget that time Boras convinced Derek Lowe and Barry Zito doing a video of "2 Guys, 1 Cup" would be good for their career? Clearly, Scott Boras is a pervert.  

He’s also been blessed with a keen self-awareness, which means he knew exactly what he was getting into with ESPN, not to mention a follow-up photo fashion shoot with the New York Post. 

Turns out Harvey’s talent and brains are matched by his ego and vanity.

Yeah, I know. It's so vain to be on the cover of magazines and newspapers. Don't you like how Matt Harvey is only a rookie and the New York media is already finding ways to tear him down? 

Let’s be honest, it takes a good deal of narcissism to step out of your clothes and stand in front of a camera. Your message becomes clear: Look at me.

This is possibly true. Bob Klapisch is around 56 years old and he just now realized that athletes have an ego and can be narcissistic? Harvey is a rookie and whether he posed naked one time or not has nothing to do with how well he pitches. Posing in ESPN's Body Issue does give the media something to criticize Harvey for, which is probably his biggest issue, as opposed to his modeling affecting his ability to pitch. 

If Harvey wants to prove he’s enlightened and open-minded, there are a million other ways to express that without putting a bull’s-eye on his back.

Does Colin Kaepernick have a bull's-eye on his back now? Do any of the other athletes in ESPN's Body Issue have bull's-eyes on their back now? I would bet you Bob Klapisch can't name three male athletes who posed in the 2011 and 2012 ESPN Body Issue. The only bull's-eye on Harvey's back is the one Bob Klapisch is trying to put there.  

No one knows this better than Ron Darling, who calls games from the SNY booth, but remembers what it was like to be the Yale-educated pretty boy of the ’80s-era teams. 

Darling appeared on the cover of GQ in August 1986, and although he was fully clothed, he still made history as the magazine’s first prominently featured Asian.

So because Ron Darling was on the cover of GQ and regrets it, every other professional athlete who appears on the cover of a magazine or does any modeling (even in a sports magazine) is going to eventually regret it? Everyone is the same and every athlete has the same experiences and what happened in 1986 is completely relevant to what may happen in 2013? 

Looking back, Darling regrets the “lust” he had for GQ’s celebrity, because, “Inside, the article [that accompanied the cover shot] was critical of Davey [Johnson]. You end up selling yourself to the devil,” Darling said. “I was embarrassed.”

Matt Harvey had no quotes in the article that was critical of anyone. There were two pictures of Harvey in the ESPN magazine. Ron Darling should not project his experiences on others. Simply because Darling had a lust for celebrity and was critical of Davey Johnson in a GQ article doesn't mean this will be an experience Matt Harvey will share. Harvey took two naked pictures in a sports magazine along with other athletes in various sports and his photos in the New York Post were just douche-like, not anything that involves him selling his soul to the devil.

When Darling says, “You have to keep your mind on the prize,” it’s a gentle warning that outsiders will be looking at Harvey differently from now on,

I am an outsider and didn't even know Harvey took the pictures in the Post nor had I seen the pictures in ESPN's Body Issue. All I know is he played college baseball at UNC-Chapel Hill, so he must be a douchebag at heart. 

“The toughest part is the clubhouse, the simple minds you have to wade through,” Darling said. “There’s going to be criticism that comes out of nowhere, [from] teammates that are small-minded and don’t get it.”

Matt Harvey is an adult and he will handle the criticism or comments from his teammates. It's also very important to note that Harvey's modeling hasn't affected his pitching as of yet ("OR HAS IT?" says Bob Klapisch) and plenty of other athletes have posed half-clothed including The Jeter. 

Yet, Harvey was less than dominant in a 121-pitch performance against the Giants on Monday because, as it turns out, he has a blister on his right index finger. It’s more of a nuisance than a problem, but the Mets might skip Harvey’s start Saturday and keep him out of the All-Star Game.

It didn't happen. Harvey pitched in the All-Star Game and the blister caused by modeling didn't affect his pitching. Miraculously Harvey wasn't so distracted by his burgeoning modeling career that he completely forgot to show up for the All-Star Game. He showed up and started the game, all while managing to keep his massive ego and narcissism in check. It's almost like Bob Klapisch is creating stories where there isn't one (adds the tag to this post). 

That’s smart thinking, but had it not been for the blister, the whispering campaign might’ve already begun. That’s the surcharge for Harvey’s desire for the spotlight –the second-guessers who’ll be asking hard questions about his priorities.

Bob Klapisch is writing a column asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. In this column Klapisch is writing he states that there will be second-guessers who'll be asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. See how this works? In the column on Harvey's priorities Klapisch is warning second-guessers will write exactly what he is writing in the column. It's all circular. It's like if I wrote an article on how Jake Locker might be a closeted homosexual because he drives a Dodge Neon and then in the article I state that some people are going to accuse Locker of being a homosexual for driving a Dodge Neon. I would be the person I am warning Locker about. 

Remember how A-Rod allowed himself to be photographed shirtless by the New York Post in Central Park? Kissing himself in the mirror for Details magazine? Bad decisions, all.

It's all about A-Rod. It always is and it always will be. "Don't be A-Rod." That's the lesson. Remember that time Derek Jeter posed shirtless with other MLB shortstops?  Whatever happened to that Jeter guy? It ruined his career didn't it?

(My favorite pose is that of Rey Ordonez. He's trying to give his best "sexy eyes" to the camera and it looks like he has to take a huge shit and would appreciate it if the cameraman would stop taking pictures so he can run to the bathroom)

There’s plenty of room for expressionism, but at age 24, Harvey probably could use some help picking his spots.

I'd love to know from Bob Klapisch which "spot" is best for Matt Harvey to do some modeling in. My guess would be "never and at no time." 

“If I was playing today, I would be aware of Instagram and Twitter. I would make sure I had someone in charge of things that are in the public eye,” Darling said.

Oh sure, of course you would Ron. Darling was taken and "lusted" for fame and celebrity in 1986, but in an era where it is much easier to get your picture and thoughts out into the world Ron would have been MORE careful about what he put in the public. I completely don't believe this at all. Logic would indicate if Ron Darling wanted celebrity in 1986 at the age of 26 he would still want celebrity in 2013 if he was 26 years old. Let's not take part in some revisionist history here. Darling would most likely have acted the same way if he played baseball in 2013, except he would have had an Instagram and Twitter account and probably would not have minded appearing in the ESPN Body Issue.

Sure, knowing what he knows now Darling may have wanted to do things differently, but I'm betting if Darling were a 26 year old playing for the Mets he wouldn't have been as "in charge of things" as he wants us to believe he would be. It's nice to pretend otherwise though.  

Drill down another level and the question becomes one of legacy. Who does Harvey want to be —a star pitcher or a celebrity?

He can actually be both. He can be a star pitcher who has appeared in the ESPN Body Issue and New York Post doing some modeling, and unlike Ron Darling, he managed not to criticize his manager. 

Does he want the back page or Page Six? Is he a great guy or just a guy with a great body?

Does it really matter if it doesn't impact how he pitches? I'm not sure one appearance modeling in a sports magazine means Matt Harvey's priorities aren't where they should be.

My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf

My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf

My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf

3 comments Tim Smith Thinks Ruben Tejada > Jose Reyes

I'm all about optimistic thinking. When a great player leaves one of my favorite teams I am always optimistic another player can come in and do a good job. I'm not insane though. When the Braves traded Mark Teixeira to the Angels, I knew Casey Kotchman was not going to replace Tex's production. Even in a small sample size I knew it was probably an illusion if Kotchman played better for the rest of the 2009 season than Tex. No matter how much I wanted it to be true, Kotchman didn't replace Tex. On a similar note, Tim Smith thinks the Mets are better off with Ruben Tejada over Jose Reyes. Financially maybe, because Reyes was expensive to re-sign. As far as performance on the field goes? No. Jose Reyes is a better baserunner, is a true leadoff hitter and has more power than Tejada. They are just different players. I'm not saying Tejada can't become a good player in the future, but the Mets would be better off with Reyes in the lineup over Tejada right now.

If Tejada is excited, nervous or anxious about Reyes coming to town, he did not show it before the Mets played a doubleheader against San Francisco on Monday.

I'm not sure why Tim Smith thinks Tejada would be nervous. He played shortstop a good amount last year, says in this very article he thinks of shortstop as his natural position, and it isn't like he is being individually matched up with Reyes. I think Tim Smith is projecting the idea Tejada should be nervous onto Tejada, when this really isn't the case.

One non-article related point...the caption for this article shows Tejada throwing his bat down after striking out. The caption reads:

Mets shortstop Ruben Tejada shows passion for game as he tosses bat after striking out to end the fifth inning of the second baseball game of a doubleheader.

I enjoy how tossing the bat takes on a different meaning depending on which player is throwing the bat and how that player is performing. If this caption were written about Jose Reyes I can see it reading something like:

Mets shortstop Jose Reyes shows his frustration at his slow start to the season as he angrily tosses the bat after another inning-ending strikeout.

When a player is playing well and tosses the bat, it shows his passion for the game. Otherwise, if the player is poorly he isn't passionate about the game, but instead is just frustrated he is so terrible at baseball.

Of all the reasons why the Mets should have kept Reyes at Citi Field, Tejada has eliminated the biggest ones. He can field the position and he is productive with the bat.

Letting Reyes go to Miami was a good move for the Mets. I like Ruben Tejada. He can field his position and is productive with the bat, but he isn't Jose Reyes. Jose Reyes has had a tough start to this season, but he is also a true leadoff hitter who gets on-base, is a threat to steal bases, and still has power. I know you may be tired of me calling him a "true" leadoff hitter, but it is true. He has speed and gets on-base. Those guys are hard to find. Tejada is much cheaper and he has been off to a good start to the season, but he isn't Jose Reyes.

In his career-worst season, which was 2005, Reyes put up a .273/.300/.386 line. He had 60 stolen bases and 17 triples. His speed causes problems for the other team's defense and pitching staff. I respect what Tejada has done in his time as the Mets shortstop, but he is a completely different player from Reyes. Tejada gets on-base, but he isn't a true leadoff hitter and he doesn't have much speed. Tejada is replacing Reyes at shortstop, but that's the only way he is really replacing Reyes.

If the early results are any indication of what the future holds, the Mets aren’t going to miss Reyes at all.

I don't think the early results are any indication. Reyes has started off slow and even Tejada's numbers aren't exactly lighting the world on fire. As Tim Smith wrote this article Tejada was hitting .246/.324/.361. That's better than how Reyes was hitting (.215/.278/.354), but he also doesn't bring speed to the table like Reyes does and Reyes is going to improve on those numbers. Tejada's numbers are fairly well in line with his minor league statistics.

They’re better off without him.

No, the Mets are not better without Jose Reyes. They are better off not having to pay his contract, but they aren't better off without Reyes in the lineup.

The Mets can live without him. Tejada has softened that blow.

Of course the Mets can live without him. But the title for this article, "NY Mets are better off with Ruben Tejada instead of Jose Reyes, who fled for Miami Marlins" simply isn't true. When directly comparing the two players, the Mets would trade Tejada for Reyes in a heartbeat, all things being equal...which of course they aren't once we include salary into the equation.

Reyes has started the year far off his career numbers, while Tejada has started this year off at around the same pace as his career numbers suggest. Granted, Tejada is only 22 years old (so he could improve) but the last two seasons at AAA he hit .280/.329/.344 and .246/.314/.353. I realize Tejada is young and it is tough to compare him to Reyes, but his 2012 line of .246/.324/.361 is in line with his career minor league averages. Sure, he could improve, but Jose Reyes is a good bet to improve on his cold 2012 start as well, and once he improves his 2012 numbers should be much better than Reyes' 2012 numbers.

This issue will heat up this week. And it will be debated for the entire season. It will come up when Tejada slumps or when Reyes gets injured.

"When Tejada slumps?" He was hitting .246/.324/.361 as of the day Tim Smith wrote this article. If that isn't slumping, what will his numbers look like when he does start slumping?

And while the team has lost some of its “wow factor” that he provided out of the leadoff position and on the basepaths,

I like how Tim Smith dismisses stolen bases and speed on the basepaths as a "wow" factor and not something tangible that puts pressure on the opposing team's pitching staff. It's like he believes stolen bases and other results from the pitcher focusing on Reyes when he is on-base isn't really tangible in any fashion and can't result in runs being scored for Reyes' team.

I mean sure, Justin Verlander has that "wow factor" of striking a bunch of hitters out and not giving up hits, but I think Jaime Garcia is a comparable pitcher.

the Mets — the twinbill aside — don’t play a horrible brand of baseball.

This is all because of Ruben Tejada of course and has nothing to do with the fact any other Mets hitters who are hitting the ball really well. Sure, David Wright, Josh Thole, Daniel Murphy, and Kirk Nieuwenuis are tearing the cover off the ball at the plate, but that Ruben Tejada, boy his .246 average is carrying this Mets team right now!

Tejada said there isn’t a noticeable difference in the clubhouse now that Reyes is gone.

What? So you mean the person who is responsible for replacing Jose Reyes and will inevitably be compared to Reyes is downplaying the effect of not having Reyes in the clubhouse? This is shocking to me! There's no way Tejada could be lying since he has a vested interest in making it seem like there is no difference in the Mets clubhouse with him at shortstop instead of Reyes.

While both Tejada and Reyes have been playing under heightened expectations, Tejada seems to be faring better.

And of course, 17 games is the perfect sample size to determine how the rest of the season and the next three to four years will play out.

Though Tejada and Terry Collins started on a sour note when Tejada didn’t show up early for training camp, the manager has nothing but praise for the way Tejada has taken over the shortstop position.

Listen to this "praise..." Collins isn't exactly overflowing with praise for Tejada more than saying Tejada is pretty much what he expected him to be.

“I think the thing that’s been best is that he hasn’t tried to do more than he’s able to do. He hasn’t tried to live up to being Jose Reyes.

Translation: "Tejada is talented, but he is no Jose Reyes. We understand he is more limited in his skill set than Reyes was. Fortunately, Tejada hasn't tried to be as good as Reyes."

Offensively he’s the same guy we saw last fall,” Collins said.

Translation: "He doesn't steal bases, he hits for a decent average and gets on-base at an acceptable clip. We don't expect him to do more than that, and that's fine."

Tejada has tried to be more patience at the plate, which has shown in his on-base percentage.

What? Tejada's OBP is significantly lower than it was during the 2011 season. I don't think his patience has necessarily shown through in a higher OBP. Tim Smith is essentially making this up.

Giants center fielder Angel Pagan, who played with the Mets last season, said he had no doubt that Tejada could handle taking over for Reyes.

“I knew what he could do. He put on a few pounds and now he’s hitting homers.

Ruben Tejada has not hit a homerun in the majors since September 5, 2010. Angel Pagan probably isn't the best person to talk about how well Tejada is progressing since he doesn't seem to know Tejada has not hit any homers over the last two seasons. Maybe Pagan saw Tejada hit some homers in batting practice one day and this caused him to become confused.

It’s just a matter of the Mets giving him the chance to go out there and play every day.”

Which, thank God now that Jose Reyes is gone, Tejada can finally do. The Mets are better off with Tejada over Reyes anyway, right Tim Smith?

Tejada said he will embrace Reyes’ return as he expects most of the Mets fans will.

They booed him.

And then he will continue trying to play well enough to beat the Marlins and put some distance between himself and the Reyes comparisons.

There already is distance between Tejada and Reyes. They aren't the same player. The Mets would be better off with Reyes on the roster. Still, Tejada isn't a bad player, but there isn't any comparison between the two. They both play shortstop and Tejada doesn't bring as diverse of physical tools to the table as compared to Reyes. Tejada is only 22 years old, but right now Jose Reyes is still a better baseball player than Ruben Tejada. The Mets would be better off with Reyes, even if he is slumping right now.

0 comments More Crazy Bleacher Report Trade Ideas

I think I have fallen in love with a sports site. That site is Bleacher Report. I never really considered it a sports site until I realized it gets a ton of traffic and there is just some really comical stuff on that site. It is probably my temporary love, so I am going to keep rolling with it for the time being. My favorite part about the site is the hypothetical trades some of the authors throw out. We all remember the epic Andre Ethier hypothetical trade article that was posted. It doesn't end there. It is as if the writers at Bleacher Report assume the General Manager of MLB teams are as stupid and reactionary as they are as fans of these teams.

So there was another funny trade proposal article from Bleacher Report. The title is "Buster Posey Broken Leg: Will This Spark Giants to Trade for Jose Reyes?" Reyes has been linked to the Giants, at least by the media, but the Giants should probably worry first about getting a catcher to replace Posey, then worry about upgrading the shortstop position. Otherwise, the Giants will trade one position of weakness for another. Reyes has been linked to the Giants, so the idea isn't crazy necessarily, but there is more information beyond just the title and that's the problem. There is also a trade proposal.

I guess the best news about this article is that, contrary to what we usually see on Bleacher Report, it is not a slideshow.

With the Giants looking to repeat their World Series Championship performance from last season, they will need to make some sort of move to replace Posey.

This normally would be the part where I would rub Murray Chass' nose in it that Posey is lost for the season, so this injury is a good reason why teams keep players in the minors to get full service time out of them. Because shit happens...and yes, it does suck for the player. I would also talk about how the Giants "lack of integrity" helped them out because Giants fans are able to see Posey for one more year because the Giants waited a few months in 2010 to call Posey up to the majors. I would also discuss how this is the second player, along with Stephen Strasburg, who was kept in the minors a little longer from the 2010 season and then that player suffered a major injury which would keep him out an extended period of time. Finally, then I would say injuries can't be predicted, but now the Giants and Nationals have extra time with important players before they hit free agency or arbitration because both teams waited two months to call these players up.

But I won't say any of that.

This is not something that will be easy to do, as Posey was a big threat in the middle of the Giants' lineup. There is one player who will almost definitely be available on the trade market that the Giants could try to trade for.

This person is Jose Reyes. So Reyes, a shorstop and a guy best used as a lead off hitter, will be the big threat in the middle of the lineup to replace Buster Posey, who is a catcher? Reyes isn't quite known as being the power hitter that Posey is and he certainly isn't a catcher. So the Giants may trade for Reyes, but not specifically to replace Posey, because Reyes can't replace his power nor play Posey's position.

While he does not have the power that Posey does, Reyes is a dynamic threat that would greatly improve the Giants' offense.

Yes, he would greatly improve the Giants offense. Posey's power, ability to play catcher and his work with the pitching staff can not be replaced though. I just don't exactly see now that Posey is injured why this means a trade for Reyes should occur. Reyes doesn't really fix too many things the Giants will miss by not having Posey, because he is a completely different player from Posey.

The need for a shortstop on the Giants roster is still a separate need for a catcher, even now that Posey is injured. The Giants probably need an upgrade at both positions.

The Giants already had a need for a shortstop, and Reyes is a big improvement over current Giants shortstops Mike Fontenot and Miguel Tejada.

There are shortstops currently retired or in the Giants minor league system that could be upgrades over Fontenot or Tejada. This isn't a tough level to reach.

He would provide a spark at the top of the Giants lineup and would help offset the Giants' loss of Posey.

You know, except for the fact the Giants still wouldn't have a quality catcher. Maybe the umpire will throw the ball back to the pitcher for the Giants and they can just play without a catcher. If the Giants should make a move at all, it needs to be for a catcher, and then a move for a shortstop. I think they are two completely separate needs. As good as Reyes is, I don't see him offsetting the loss of Buster Posey directly.

The Mets have a chance to take advantage of this injury.

Here comes the crazy trade proposal. Now please know the guy writing this column, Robert Knapel, appears to be a diehard Mets fan. So you know the trade proposal forthcoming is completely biased and unrealistic. He just assumes Brian Sabean is stupid enough to panic and make an idiotic trade because that's what he wants to believe, since it would benefit his favorite team.

The Giants will be in a bit of a short-term panic, and they might be willing to overpay for Reyes.

I love unrealistic rosterbation!

I know it sounds great to think the Giants will panic, but if you sit down and think about Brian Sabean then you know he doesn't panic. He signed Miguel Tejada to play shortstop this offseason . I would have been in a panic immediately after paying Miguel Tejada to play for my team. The Giants, and Sabean, won the World Series last year by building an offense with a veteran lineup that didn't seem to be able to hit well enough on paper to succeed in the playoffs. Sabean didn't panic and it worked out for him. A lesser GM would have seen he had traded or signed 21 outfielders near the trade deadline (just a guess...I know he traded for or signed Cody Ross, Pat Burrell and Jose Guillen) all of whom didn't seem initially to be a huge answer to the Giants offensive problems and gone into a panic he had not done enough to upgrade the offense. I know I probably would. Not Brian Sabean. So I don't think he will panic this year either with the injury to Posey.

Brandon Belt, who may have been off-limits beforehand, could be dealt to the Mets for Reyes.

This is a crazy trade proposal for two reasons:

1. The Giants are probably not terribly eager to trade their best prospect and a MLB-ready player in order to get Jose Reyes as a one year rental, after which he will become a free agent. Thinking the Giants would trade a young, team-controlled, left-handed hitter for a one-year rental is just not realistic.

2. Far be it for me to bring this up, but Brandon Belt is a first baseman. He has played some outfield in the minors, but he is probably best served at first base. Don't the Mets already have a young, left-handed first baseman? Ike Davis, maybe? So why the fuck why they trade for ANOTHER first baseman? To put him out of his natural position in the outfield?

Zach Wheeler and Madison Bumgarner are two other players that could also be moved.

Any player COULD be moved. In reality, it won't happen. I can see Knapel did the typical "look at another team's farm system and then pick one of the top prospects" method of designing a trade and that's how he came up with Zach Wheeler's name. Wheeler is the Giants top pitching prospect and top prospect overall after Brandon Belt. Given the success the Giants have had with developing pitching, what on Earth could make someone think the Giants would trade their top pitching prospect for a player that may end up being a one-year rental?

I've said it before, it is not acceptable to just pick the top prospect in another team's system and just assume a team will trade that player. For this to be realistic you have to look at the team's history and see if it makes sense based on their needs. It doesn't make sense when you look at the Giants recent history.

The same thing goes for Madison Bumgarner. There's no chance, even as poorly as some of his numbers look like this year, that the Giants would trade a 21 year old left-handed pitcher who has proven he can pitch at the major league level for a shortstop that is going to probably be a one-year rental. Reyes wants to his the free agent market and he is going to have bidders. I am not sure the Giants could or would match another team's offer. So the odds of Reyes staying in San Francisco or signing with them before the season is over is not good. Knowing how the Giants do their business, this just isn't a realistic trade.

As we have seen with Kendrys Morales, a broken bone could cause Posey to miss more than just this season. On top of the broken leg, Posey also has severely sprained ligaments in his ankle. This could lead to a very long recovery process.

Which is why trading for a player who has one year left on his contract makes sense? Which is why trading a good young hitter (Belt) who has shown he can come close to Posey's production (at least in the minors) is a good idea? Is there not going to be a 2012 baseball season and no one has told me yet?

I like Jose Reyes and I think he will be a valuable addition to a team that trades for him. He's young and is the type of hitter that is hard to find in baseball. I don't see too many teams trading upper-tier MLB-ready players or their top prospect for him. This doesn't seem like it would happen.

Jose Reyes is a free agent this off-season, but if the Giants acquire him, they could lock him up to a long-term deal.

They could lock him up to a long-term deal. Or they could not lock him up to a long-term deal. It's a risk that is factored into the trade.

The Giants could also sign Jose Reyes to a long-term deal when he becomes a free agent after this season, which is something they would have to do anyway to justify trading Bumgarner, Belt or Wheeler for Reyes.

This would certainly serve as insurance if Posey has to miss part or all of next season.

Because nothing says "insurance" like spending $14-$16 million on a player. The last time the Giants spent that much money on a player, they spent it on Barry Zito. Think they mostly regret that decision? Not that the Zito contract would cause the Giants to not sign another player for a ton of money, but you don't sign a guy to a long-term, expensive deal as insurance in case another player doesn't come back soon enough from injury. Well, some teams may, but I don't think the Giants would.

If Posey is healthy, the Giants' lineup becomes much more intimidating to opposing pitchers with Reyes hitting in front of Posey.

That would be intimidating. So rather than trading for Jose Reyes, should the Giants just try to sign him after this season? It seems to make more sense since Reyes probably would not be able to hit in front of Buster Posey this year due to Posey's injury.

I think I just got confused. So is the point to trade for Reyes so he can "replace" Posey's production? Or is the point to trade for Reyes so he can be re-signed to hit in front of Posey? Or is it both? If it is both, then why don't the Giants just keep their best prospects and sign Reyes, as they would have to do anyway, after this season? He would replace Posey's production until Posey is 100% and they get to keep their prospects. Does that make too much sense?

6 comments Failure Ball: The Art of Not Learning A Player Isn't Very Good

I have set up a Yahoo Fantasy Football League and those of you who have already expressed interest can feel free to join. Anyone else who wants to join can feel free to do so as well. I am planning on having a 12 team league and we currently have 8 teams. The ID is 269298 and the password is "eckstein."

I also set up a College Football Pick 'Em League for Yahoo. Personally, this is my second favorite fantasy league because it keeps my interest in college football games I wouldn't normally care about on Saturdays. I have set it up against the spread and the games we will be choosing are Top 25 games and games the Yahoo editors choose as "worthy" of being chosen. The ID is 1704 and the password is "asu." Feel free to join and it doesn't take long each week to pick the games, plus it is fun to go against the spread.

There are certain players many members of the mainstream sports media love to talk about in fond terms. These are guys who have "heart" and "intangibles," which is secret code for "they always look like they are trying harder than other players even though this isn't true" and "we can't say anything positive about them in regard to baseball skill so we will assume the player has some unseen skill that makes him successful." Some of the favorites for the mainstream sports media to write about in regard to this are David Eckstein, Juan Pierre, Darin Erstad, Eric Byrnes and any other white (the media must think Pierre is white) utility infielder or hustling outfielder who always seems to try hard.

Often times the media's love of these players and a GM's blindness to these player's true skill causes these players to sign outrageous contracts. This explains Eric Byrnes' 3 year $30 million deal with the Diamondbacks when they had plenty of outfielders in their system who could potentially do what Byrnes did and Juan Pierre's 5 year $44 million deal with the Dodgers. It's not the fault of these players really. Byrnes wasn't terrible for a period of time and Juan Pierre can steal bases and is a valuable 4th outfielder. The important part is that these players don't seem to buy the media's love for them and were/are willing to (gritty cliche alert) do whatever it took to help the team win.

There's one exception to this rule. Jeff Francoeur is that exception. He is a guy who the media loves because he has a pretty smile and he always seems so sincere. Francoeur has many, many media members fooled into thinking he is a worthwhile player. What makes Francoeur different is that he thinks he is a great player as well. His agent and he will tell anyone who will listen the same thing, and even though it isn't true, somehow he still has some magical hold on the sports media that they write articles about how he needs or deserves more playing time. He's delusional and so are those same people who called him "The Natural" on the cover of Sports Illustrated very prematurely in 2005.

Really, Francoeur is a selfish guy. I can think of three different times (off the top of my head) when he has put himself above the team. First, he did so after Brian McCann got his arbitration years bought out by the Braves and they didn't do the same for Francoeur. Privately, Francoeur grumbled about how he wanted and deserved to have his arbitration years bought out. It did not cause a distraction to the team, but it was all about him not getting the recognition that McCann got. That would have ended up being a nightmare for the Braves if they had signed him to a long-term deal. Then in the summer of 2008 when he was in the process of being terrible (again), the Braves demoted him to AAA to work on his swing and Francoeur kicked and moaned about how he didn't deserve nor did he want to go to the minors. The Braves called him back up to the big leagues a couple of days later just to shut him up.

Now, Francoeur wants a trade from the Mets to become a starting right fielder. He and his agent are willing to go to the New York media to announce this and the media falls for it. I am amazed how Francoeur now has the New York media fooled into believing he could be a great player. It's ridiculous really. He fooled, not one, but two writers in the New York area to write about him and his newest demands without the writer(s) inserting one sentence strongly questioning the sanity of starting Francoeur..

Is Bob Costas going to bring his gravitas to Citi Field? Will the MLB Network preempt its regular programming to cover this chase?

If this article started off as a parody and ended with the writer mocking Jeff Francoeur, then I would be 100% behind this article. If this article was bringing to light the selfishness and entitled attitude Francoeur has come to show then I would think it was a great article. Unfortunately, Mike Sielski buys in and then doubles down on some pity for poor Jeff Francoeur.

It was only last week that Alex Rodriguez hit his 600th home run, and already another New York ballplayer is pursuing a milestone.

Carlos Beltran is trying to play in 40 games this season?

Funny thing, though: Few people have noticed that Jeff Francoeur, the Mets rightfielder, needs just one more home run to reach 100.

Few people have also noticed that Angel Pagan is working on the best season of his career. No one has probably noticed this because they are too busy worrying about a mediocre 4th outfielder reaching a milestone that has very little historical significance.

Instead of giving him every opportunity to reach the mark (and only 4.35% of all Major League Baseball players have, according to Stats Inc.) the Mets are trying to shove the guy out of their starting lineup.

Matt Stairs has 261 career home runs. Why isn't anyone giving him a starting position? Why must have be relegated to the bench? He's a home run threat, put him in the game everyday.

Why didn't anyone notice Mike Jacobs has 100 career home runs? How dare the Mets treat him so poorly as to leave him on the bench over Ike Davis? What's Ike Davis done in the majors? Mike Jacobs has 100 career home runs and only 4.35% of all MLB players have ever done that. Bench Ike Davis for Mike Jacobs!

The Mets have lost three of their past five games. During that period, center fielder Carlos Beltran has gone 2-for-22. Third baseman David Wright has gone 2-for-23. Shortstop Jose Reyes has made three errors that led to two losses.

I can just feel the joy Sielski feels with this circle jerk of small sample size numbers. Screw an entire career's worth of numbers, what about those five games where no other players for the Mets played well, but Jeff Francoeur did? Which of these players should sit the bench in favor of Francoeur?

Yet Mr. Francoeur, who has batted .357 and hit two game-winning home runs over that span, will be relegated to a quasi-platoon in the outfield, manager Jerry Manuel said, now that the team has recalled prospect Fernando Martinez.

A normal player would say, "I've had a chance with two MLB teams to prove I am an everyday right fielder. I've been given more chances than most players ever get and I have a career line of .267/.309/.426 with 587 strikeouts to 161 walks. In fact that line I have for my career has been actually declining based on my performance since 2008. I get paid WAY more money than I should get paid for my performance. It's best to just platoon and when the Mets DFA me after this year try to get on with another team and work on my weaknesses."

Not Jeff Francoeur. He hasn't been given enough time dammit! He just wants a fair shake...perhaps 3,000 more at-bats to prove what any MLB team with a scouting department already knows. Francoeur is a great 4th outfielder or a platoon hitter against LH pitchers.

This is to suggest that if the Mets are doing all they can to stay in contention—"We're still trying to win as many games as we can," Mr. Manuel said Sunday—it might behoove them to play their hottest hitter as much as possible.

I've said this before, but at what point during the season does Francoeur go from the hottest hitter to just the below average hitter he has become? What signifies that he will be going from "hot" to "crappy" again? Is it a game where he goes 0-3? What if he goes 2-4 the next day? Is he still "hot?"

Jason Bay is in left field, Carlos Beltran is struggling but he will play a good amount, there is no reason to keep Fernando Martinez off the field, and Angel Pagan is simply the best outfield option regardless exactly of where in the outfield he plays.

So Pagan/Martinez would fit in right field and Bay in left field, and Beltran/Martinez/Pagan in centerfield. It's great to keep a hot hitter in the lineup, but not when that hot hitter (over five total games is the sample size being used here) is the 4th/5th best outfield option overall.

When Mr. Beltran returned to the active roster last month, Angel Pagan moved from center field to right field to accommodate him, relegating Mr. Francoeur to a part-time role. Mr. Francoeur wasn't pleased that he was no longer a starting player, but it was difficult for him to argue.

Yet, I bet he did still argue. He argued and threw a hissy-fit when the Braves put him in the minors in 2008 despite the fact he was dragging the entire lineup down. There's very little chance the Mets offer arbitration this next offseason and there is a good chance he will be gone from the team completely. That's the thing about Francoeur, he doesn't understand his limitations. He's a 4th outfielder. So unlike the other "gritty" players the sports media loves, Francoeur only loves himself and thinks he is perpetually underrated, though 3,000 MLB at-bats tell a much different story.

Francoeur has been told so much his entire life about how great he is that he actually believed it himself and has never felt the need to adjust his swing or approach how he bats differently in any manner. It's always worked for him, so why don't teams see that?

Pagan leads the Mets with a .311 batting average. Mr. Francoeur is still hitting just .241 with a less-than-stellar .294 on-base percentage. "That's the frustrating thing," Mr. Francoeur said Sunday. "Last time, I understood. I don't understand this one."

Here's the hypocrisy of Jeff Francoeur. In 2005, he didn't worry about stealing the RF job from a washed-up Raul Mondesi, who wasn't hitting too much worse than Francoeur's current .239/.291/.381 line. Mondesi hit .211/.271/.359 in 2005 and the decision to replace him was a no-brainer. Francoeur didn't care that he it was frustrating for another player to be replaced by because he understood at the time that is how baseball works. Now, he doesn't understand this at all.

Francoeur didn't mind jumping up to the big leagues and being the new young guy who helped save the team, but when the time comes where HE is the veteran being replaced by a 21 year old highly touted prospect, he pitches a fit and demands a trade.

Mr. Francoeur doesn't hide his desire to be an everyday right fielder.

I don't hide my desire to be a multi-millionaire, but I am not stupid enough to realize no matter how hard I work at achieving this goal it may not be realistic.

His agent, Molly Fletcher, has contacted Mets general manager Omar Minaya and asked about the possibility of moving Mr. Francoeur to another team where he might play more, Mr. Minaya confirmed.

Moving him? Like trading him? Like a team gives something in return for Francoeur? How the hell do the Mets manage to do this? This is how delusional Francoeur is. He thinks he has some market value. The sad part is that some GM will take a look at Francoeur's smiling face (but only smiling when he is the starting RF and getting everything he wants) and then trade some low level prospect for him...then hand him the starting RF job and watch him struggle.

Mr. Francoeur is making $5 million and is arbitration-eligible at season's end, and the Mets are unlikely to tender him.

He's making $5 million this year. When we hear about players crying about having to go to arbitration instead of get a long-term deal or read about Murray Chass whining that teams are holding players back to keep them longer, just think of Jeff Francoeur and how the arbitration system helps him steal money from the Mets.

"They haven't directly said that to me, but that's the message being sent," Ms. Fletcher said.

Personally, I think the clearest message is in Francoeur's Baseball-Reference page. He is 26 years old and his production seems to actually be declining because he refuses to try and adjust to how pitchers pitch to him. I think he holds the MLB unofficial record for most slow dribblers back to the pitcher.

Mr. Francoeur is well-liked among his teammates. Mr. Manuel said Sunday that he wanted to keep playing Mr. Francoeur "as much as possible, bringing those intangibles."

Those intangibles are more easily defined as "We are paying him $5 million per year and can't trade him right now, so we have to settle with him being the 4th outfielder on the team or a platoon against LH pitchers."

It doesn't matter how well-liked by his teammates Francoeur currently is. It really doesn't. What shocks me is that a mediocre-baseball player demands a trade and the New York media doesn't rip him a new asshole, but seems to understand his demand. What kind of spell does he have them under?

There is still time for Mr. Francouer to blossom in his late 20s, of course.

There's still more time for Fernando Martinez to blossom and Angel Pagan is currently blossoming. There's time for anything to happen, but nothing about Jeff Francoeur indicates he will blossom in the future. Injuries haven't held him back, he hasn't been platooned, neither team he played for as yanked him in and out of the lineup, and his swing is still as awful as it ever was.

"I have to remind myself sometimes that I'm only 26," he said. "I hope to keep going and get to 200 home runs."

Home runs really don't matter. Mike Jacobs has 100 home runs and he is sitting the bench for the Mets, which is somewhat ironic because that's exactly where Jeff Francoeur should be three or four out of every five games.

I don't know why the media insists on helping Francoeur create the illusion that he is a useful baseball player. It's just not true. The thing about Francoeur is that he is wrapped up in his own beliefs about what makes him successful as a baseball player. When asked about his OBP while with the Braves, he commented "if OBP is so important then why isn't it on the scoreboard"...which it actually was at Turner Field.

Now he thinks he should be judged by how many home runs he hits, like he is Adam Dunn or another player who strikes out a lot but hits home runs and gets on-base. He's deluded because that isn't true. He's Rob Deer without the power, which makes him a guy who strikes out a lot, doesn't get on-base, and doesn't hit enough home runs to bat higher in the order. Basically, he's a drag on the lineup.

Here is another example of Francoeur somehow getting some sympathy from a sports writer that follows the Mets. How come these guys haven't turned on him at this point? I wish this article was tongue-in-cheek and then I would enjoy it much more.

Benched to make room for a 21-year-old rookie, marginalized as a platoon player,

How is it possible to marginalize a player who is a platoon player at-best? You can't marginalize someone by using them in the exact role they are good enough to play. If the Mets kept Angel Pagan on the bench, then they would be marginalizing someone.

Jeff Francoeur has been potential and false promises since the year 2007. In 2007 he was going to start being more selective at the plate. That didn't happen really. In 2008, he got bigger so he could hit more home runs instead of doubles. That didn't happen. In 2009, he lost some weight so he could be the player he was in 2007 and that didn't happen because he regressed. In 2010, he had a change of scenery and was ready to show the world what he could do. That's not happening. At what point do the excuses and "changes" end and the actual production begins?

The answer is that the production is already here. Francoeur is what he is. A platoon outfielder or a 4th outfielder. The only one who hasn't realized this yet is him.

Mets outfielder Jeff Francoeur has told the club through his representatives that he is interested in being traded to a team that would play him more,

My softball team has an open spot in left field. I know Francoeur is a Hall of Fame right fielder in his mind, so that may not work for him.

“We want to play every day,” Francoeur’s agent Molly Fletcher said yesterday. “We prefer to play in New York. But if we’re not going to play every day in New York, we absolutely welcome the opportunity to play every day somewhere else.”

Perhaps Japan? Would that work for Francoeur? It might need to because at this point that could be his only option.

The Mets are aware of Francoeur’s position, a team official indicated.

That position is "the 4th outfielder on the Mets team."

Eligible for arbitration, Francoeur is a candidate to be non-tendered by the team and cut loose at season’s end.

What team wouldn't want a struggling outfielder who is not as good as he believes himself to be and is looking for a raise on his current $5 million salary. Of course we all know Francoeur is going to have a great year before he becomes a free agent and then look terrible again after he gets paid. This is a guarantee to happen and please try to remember I said it would happen.

In a telephone interview, Fletcher indicated she would monitor Francoeur’s playing time over the next week, interested in whether or not manager Jerry Manuel follows through on his amended plan to let Francoeur face right-handed pitchers, a group he historically struggles against and is hitting just .217 against this season.

For his career he is hitting .255 against right-handed pitchers. I really, really hope the Mets don't let a mediocre outfielder hold the team hostage over his playing time. Francoeur should be in to face left-handed pitchers and that is it.

“Talk to me is just that: It’s talk,” Fletcher said. “What matters is what happens and is he in right field every day. And that’s what we’re watching.”

Hey shithead (I can call Francoeur's agent, who is a woman, a shithead right?), Francoeur sucks. The only thing you should monitor is why his batting average and on-base percentage are so damn low for a guy who somehow believes he is actually good at the game of baseball. If Francoeur is in right field everyday the Mets should sell the franchise, fire Jerry Manuel, and boycott any further Mets home games until it has been proven over an entire year Francoeur deserves to start in right field for a MLB team.

But with two left-handers scheduled to pitch in these next two series, Manuel explained two days later, Francoeur would remain on the bench against righties. So Martinez started yesterday against Colorado right-hander Ubaldo Jimenez while Francoeur sat.

Martinez went 1-2 with a walk and a strikeout and saw 21 pitches in #2 spot, which was the most on the team. The next night against Jeff Francis who is left handed, which is Francoeur's "specialty," he went 0-3 with a strikeout and saw 11 pitches, the least amount on the team. How do you see 11 pitches in three plate appearances AND strike out? Shouldn't the strikeout take at least 5 pitches?

This is the second time this season Francoeur has lost his starting position in right field.

The first came after the All-Star break, when center fielder Carlos Beltran returned and Angel Pagan, the team’s leading hitter, shifted to right. Francoeur started mostly against left-handers, against whom he is hitting .319 this year.

That is an impressive average against LH pitchers and is pretty close to his career average against LH pitchers. No one is questioning Francoeur is a good platoon player, but we are questioning is need to start in right field every single game. He's delusional and pretty selfish to be not willing to accept the obvious conclusion he isn't an everyday player. He is willing to demand a trade and hurt the team rather than accept this truth. He is a selfish player who cares more about making sure he gets to play everyday at the expense of the Mets, who are in the middle of a pennant race.

When left fielder Jason Bay sustained a concussion in late July, Francoeur moved back into the lineup. He did not show consistent improvement.

This is the story of his career. Then he whined privately about it and made it clear publicly he didn't like being benched. He did the same thing in 2008 when he got sent down to the minors by the Braves. He's a baby like that.

This second benching was tougher to swallow. Francoeur avoided lashing out, but his distaste was apparent.

“I show up and if my name’s in the lineup, I’m playing,” Francoeur said Saturday night. “That’s pretty much all I have to say.”

Has the New York media turned on him and I am missing it? How can a player as terrible as Jeff Francoeur actually whine about his playing time? He's a drag on a team. Joe Posnanski named him one of the ten worst everyday players in MLB. It's true, he is. Does he really think he can continue to perform at a low level and still be a starting outfielder in the majors? Somebody in his past must have really told him how good he is and Francoeur must have really believed it.

This year has been difficult: His .679 OPS is the second-lowest of his career. But he felt heartened by a trio of home runs that aided the club the past three weeks.

That's right, he felt good about three home runs he had hit over the last three weeks. This is from a corner outfielder and this is that corner outfielder's "hot" stretch. This is when he felt he was really contributing to the team, when he hit three home runs over a three week stretch and had five good games strung together.

That’s all he can do, his agent said.

No literally. That's ALL he can do. He can hit a few home runs and then will go cold again for a few weeks.

“I want him to continue to make it very difficult for them to not play him every day,” Fletcher said. “And the only way to do that, like in anything in sports, is execute when you’re at the plate and in the field.”

Which is something he has failed to do while batting through nearly his entire career and he is actually regressing at the plate.

As much as I mock guys like Juan Pierre, David Eckstein and Darin Erstad, they are guys who don't publicly try to demand a trade in the middle of their team's pennant race and undermine the purpose of their team for their own personal game. The sports media loves them because they are scrappy players and allow the sports media to use all their pent-up comparisons to "gritty" in print. Jeff Francoeur appears to be a media darling in some ways too, except there are differences.

The differences are that Francoeur doesn't care his team isn't winning, he cares that he isn't playing everyday because he believes his needs are greater than the needs of the team. He's a guy who deserves more at-bats because he is Jeff Francoeur, he's a guy should be playing everyday because he thinks that's where he should be, and he is a guy who still has some supporters who are as deluded as he is that he can be an everyday right fielder in the major leagues.

Sure, maybe his teammates love him and that's all a part of his charm, but he has spent a few years now dragging down teams and complaining when he gets accused of doing so. His reality and the true reality just don't match up and they probably never will.