Okay, so this hasn't been mentioned yet - why Rickey? Not exactly the first guy I would think of as a coach. Am I the only one who could see him and Willie clashing?

Also, as great a job as Omar did last year, I think it's safe to say he did very poorly this year, highlighted by the Schoenweis signing. I see no reason why they couldn't have given Bradford that money instead.

Well, looks like the Mets went with a low risk, low reward guy with their first pick at 42: Eddie Kunz, a big righty closer out of Oregon State. I guess with the success of Joe Smith, Omar likes the idea of getting some immediate bullpen help, as opposed to a long shot. I don't know if that's so wise - they can pick up a decent reliever for a few million dollars a year, but if they didn't like any of the big talents (Matt Harvey?), this pick sort of makes sense. Here's what was said on the Prospectus chat:

Kevin Goldstein: He's built kinda like Lee Smith, and throws as hard, but needs secondary stuff -- almost a reach here, really.

BSmith: He probably doesn't fit [in the rotation], but his big-time fastball will fit in the Mets bullpen by next season. Solid, unspectacular pick.

In other news, the Yankees went in the opposite direction, taking a high risk, high reward guy in Andrew Brackman, a 6-10 righty who ranked as a top 5 pick just a month ago, but fell due to injury/inactivity/Boras concerns.

I know this is a baseball blog and that I don't know shit about basketball, but I had to call attention to this absurd column in today's Times. William Rhoden suggests that in an effort to make the Knicks more competitive, David Stern should allow the Knicks to dump four bad contracts and move under the salary cap. His argument is that the success of a big-market team like the Knicks is too important to the NBA to have them continue to be burdened by their own bad decisions. I don't think he's going far enough. Why should any of the league rules get in the way of a Knicks championship? Why should Portland have the first pick in the draft? Give it to New York. Heck, why should the NBA's biggest star be stuck in small market Cleveland? Put him on the Knicks! Stern should just mandate that the Cavs trade LeBron for, um, Steve Francis.

In the Northeast and Midwest, a four-day difference in Autumn can indeed mean a major difference in the weather. One of these years, the World Series will be played in Boston, New York, Cleveland, Chicago, Minnesota (after their new open-air stadium opens) and be struck by a freak snowstorm or heavy rains causing massive delays like what happened in Cleveland this year in early April.

Obviously, poor weather occurs in late October as well, but pushing the Fall Classic into November only increases the possibility of poor weather delaying the Classic's finish and ensures that even without snow or rain, fans who attened will be uncomfortable, particularly those with children.

Now, there is always a dither and dather that these kinds of moves are made for the ratings. Well, football gets big ratings for a lot of reasons other than the start times of its games, however, it is worth noting that the AFC Championship, NFC Championship and Super Bowl are all played in the early or late afternoon and garner monster ratings. In fact the one area where the NFL has been hurt in recent years, ratings wise, is Monday Night Football, which is the football telecast that starts the latest 9:15 EST.

And slightly off-topic, the NBA Finals generally out-drew the World Series, tv ratings-wise, during the Jordan era, the NBA fell behind, but not by very much, in the early 2000's during the Lakers run, beginning with the lowest-rated NBA Finals since the 70's, Spurs-Nets in 2003, the NBA Finals fell far behind the World Series, save for a brief bump with a Lakers appearance in the 04 Finals.

And finally, if ratings for the World Series continue to stay flat or trend downward (which they are), why not try a Sunday World Series start at 6 instead of 8:30, particularly if West Coast teams aren't involved?

That might be the most bizarro Mets lineup I've seen in a long time. Newhan at 2B? Franco at 3B? What's next, LoDuca in CF?

The World Series is starting on a Wednesday and finishing in November.
This doesn't sound like such big news, but I think there could be a bigger story lurking in the background. All the media coverage seems to be focusing on the Wednesday start (good for baseball - ratings will increase), the November finish (bad, but is four days really that big a difference?) and to a lesser extent, the extra days rest in the earlier rounds.

The extra rest is a little troubling to me, but maybe it won't be permanent. Pushing the World Series back four days gives MLB enough room to expand the first round of the playoffs to 7 games. My hunch is that after a test run this offseason, MLB will talk to the union about expanding to 7 games next season. The schedule would work perfectly. All series would be 2-3-2 with days off after games 2 & 5. The two leagues could stagger their starts and still wind up with at least two games off before the World Series.

I think a switch to 7 games makes all the sense in the world. Obviously, God didn't divine that 7 is the perfect amount of games to deterine which team is superior, but it's clear that more games = less random. And I don't see any reason to make the first round outcome more random than the later rounds.

In honor of the Mets big weekend series against the Brew Crew, I present:

Pee Your Pants For The Brewers.com

Excellent article by Jeff Passan (who's an excellent writer) about Mike Marshall and his wacky pitching techniques. I understand why the baseball establishment is so skeptical about Marshall, but every time I read about him, I can't help but think that some team could gain by giving Marshall a few minor leaguers to work with. I can see why a team wouldn't trust him with their top prospects, but what would a team have to lose by sending a few C type prospects to work with? Just a few C type prospects.

Rickey going for his. Take THAT, little kid:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2865084

Frickin Giuliani!
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0719,barrett,76566,2.html/1

He has his own 1996 World Series ring!

And the old Mets are falling apart....

El Duque on the shelf for bursitis, and Valentin for a partially torn ACL.

Now they called up Park and Gotay, but why not Sosa and Anderson Hernandez? Seems odd to me.

I read the same exact thing today, and I noticed that they include $25 (!) for parking, and something like $75 for food (4 hot dogs, 4 sodas, cotton candy, popcorn, candy).

Every year, some organization called the Team Marketing Report publishes something
called the Fan Cost Index, which supposedly estimates the cost for a family of four
to attend a major league baseball game. Then, various media outlets will report that
it's way too expensive to attend a baseball game. I've always thought the Index was
ridiculous (it includes the cost of two programs and two caps), but I'd never
actually attended a game with two children in tow, so my factual evidence was
limited. Well, this past weekend, I finally attended a game with two children and
another adult, which meets the FCI definition of "family." According to the FCI, it
should have cost us $219.04 to attend the game. What did we actually spend? Upper
Deck seats (section 28, row A) were $9 each. That's $36. We took the subway to the
game, costing us $10 for 3 (one of the kids was young enough to ride for free)
roundtrip swipes of the Metrocard. $46. We brought lunch to the game, so our stadium
purchases were limited to cotton candy ($4) and a Sierra Mist ($3.50). $52.50. I'm
not sure exactly how much the food we brought cost. Bread + cold cuts + pringles +
carrot sticks + water bottles = $15? That puts us at a total of $67.50. In case I'm
underestimating the food, I'll call it $70. That's a far cry from $219. Sure, some
families probably do spend $219 to attend a Mets game, but I can finally say from
personal experience that you don't have to. $70 for a family of four to enjoy a
beautiful day at the ballpark sounds like a bargain to me.

Why is Mike Pelfrey in the majors?

After today's debacle, Mike Pelfrey has a career 6.43 ERA with 19 walks and 19 strikeouts in 35 innings. He has a bad ERA, a bad strikeout rate, and a bad walk rate. I know it's a small sample size, but there's nothing in his line to indicate that he's ready to pitch against major league hitters. Heck, his spring training stats were almost as bad: 5.48 ERA with 3 walks and 5 Ks in 23 innings. I think the Mets gave him a starting spot because of the low ERA he had after his first few spring starts, but they ignored the amazingly low strikeout rate, which was a clear sign that Pelfrey just isn't able to get his stuff past major league hitters yet.
Pelfrey has about 100 career minor league innings. It's pretty clear that he needs a little more seasoning before he's ready. I think Pelfrey would be better served by getting that seasoning in New Orleans, and I think the Mets would be better served by not giving away every fifth game. Jorge Sosa has been lighting up AAA so far and has a career 4.54 ERA in 74 major league starts. Pelfrey's still the long-term solution, but Sosa (or Vargas or Park) will give the Mets a better chance to win right now.

Umm, is Charlie Manuel just trying to get fired now? Moving Brett Myers to the bullpen? Are you kidding? And now Howard may be hurt too. All signs point to them being screwed.

Words from Ichiro

On his showdown with Dice-K: " "I hope he arouses the fire that's dormant in the innermost recesses of my soul."

On what helped break him out of his slump: "Yesterday, I ate two ice creams, usually I only eat one."

Fantasy draft season got me thinking about how unpredictable prospects can be, which got me to thinking about the most out-of-nowhere prospect in recent history: Albert Pujols. Pujols seemingly came out of nowhere in 2001, eventually finishing 4th in the MVP voting. I don't remember thinking about him at all before the season started. He went undrafted in my 7 team NL fantasy league, which means that 210 NL players were deemed better options than Albert Pujols.

My friends and I weren't the only ones who slept on Pujols. The Cardinals drafted him in the 13th round in 1999. He made his pro debut in 2000, enjoying an excellent year in A ball with a line of .324/.389/.585. Still, none of the experts ranked him as an elite prospect. Baseball America is the leading source on baseball prospects. Three of their experts wrote separate prospect lists in BA's 2001 book. The highest ranking for Pujols was #39. Baseball Prospectus ranked him 29th (right behind Hee Seop Choi, just ahead of Adrian Gonzalez), but part of the reason he was even that high was his excellent defensive performance according to their metrics (I'm pretty skeptical about their minor league defensive figures). John Sickels was the most impressed, giving him an A- and rating him as the Number 18 prospect in baseball (right behind Marcus Giles).
I realize that ranking prospects is a difficult task, but it's still hard to believe that none of the experts realized how good he was about to be.

It's official - Our 2007 Mets:

Tom Glavine
Orlando Hernandez
John Maine
Oliver Perez
Billy Wagner
Aaron Heilman
Scott Schoeneweis
Pedro Feliciano
Aaron Sele
Joe Smith
Ambiorix Burgos

Paul Lo Duca
Ramon Castro

Carlos Delgado
Jose Valentin
Jose Reyes
David Wright
Julio Franco
Damion Easley
David Newhan

Carlos Beltran
Moises Alou
Shawn Green
Endy Chavez
Lastings Milledge

Rey Ordonez back in the majors!

Well-written piece by Joe Sheehan taking to task all the people complaining that the Veterans Committee didn't elect anyone to the Hall. I think we're better off having a Veterans Committee that lets in too few people than too many (which used to be a problem), and Sheehan's right that if a player from the modern era has already been rejected 15 times by the writers, then there's limited utility in giving them more chances. So, kudos to the Veterans Committee for keeping the standards high, but maybe it's time to disband altogether.