Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
December 5, 2006
BASEBALL: Worth Waiting For

Ryan McConnell tears apart a supremely silly column by NY Daily News writer Bill Price complaining about the Mets' patience in waiting out Tom Glavine's decision to re-sign. Price somehow manages this screed without once explaining how the Mets suffered from waiting for Glavine or how he is not worth the $10.5 million price tag compared to the alternatives in the market, and his overwrought comparisons to Tom Seaver and Sandy Koufax just sound stupid, given that Glavine is a certain Hall of Famer who will almost certainly pass 300 wins next season.

It really is amazing how stupid and consumed by petty envy so many sportswriters are.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:37 PM | Baseball 2006 | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Just remember the Daily News, in the person of Dick Young, drove Tom Seaver out of town.

Interesting how people have to put nefarious motives on everything. Maybe, just maybe, the Wilpon's actually like Glavine, and treated him with respect. And he returned the favor. I think we need more of that, not less. Of course, niceness does't sell many papers.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at December 5, 2006 8:57 PM

I'll take Omar's handling of Glavine over Steve Phillips' handling of A-Rod any day.

Posted by: The Crank at December 5, 2006 9:07 PM

When I read that column, it stood out to me for its stubborn refusal to even vaguely consider whether the Mets got a good deal. Instead, all that mattered was the athelete's refusal to grovel before the will of the self-righteous media. If Glavine strung the Mets out to squeeze the last dollar out of them, or strung them out beyond reasonable limits and then left, I could see the indignation. But he did neither.

Posted by: Jerry at December 5, 2006 10:29 PM

I am not a big Glavine fan because of his union support, but I thought making a decision on the Mets contract offer before the Winter Meetings stared was fair to both the Mets and Glavine. No harm, no foul.

Posted by: maddirishman at December 5, 2006 11:02 PM

Hey Crank and others, give me a scouting report on Brian Bannister. Depending on who shows up, you might like Burgos. He throws 98 and was outstanding in setup two years ago. Last year he was called on to close and it was a disaster. If you can get his head straight he will be good.

Posted by: maddirishman at December 6, 2006 9:30 AM

Interesting deal, I'm a bit behind the 8-ball this morning - basically, Bannister wasn't as good as his ERA last year (look at his K/BB ratio) but his trial wasn't long enough to see whether he could improve his underlying numbers before the ERA went blooey. I guess with the Mets having a logjam of non-bankable starters they felt it more useful to get another good bullpen arm. Pending the return of Pedro and Zambrano from injury and a Zito signing that leaves the Mets starting corps as Glavine, Maine, El Duque, Perez, Pelfrey, Humber, Soler and Dave Williams, unless I'm missing someone or Williams has gone elsewhere. I like the depth but the lack of reliability scares me.

Posted by: The Crank at December 6, 2006 9:55 AM

I seem to remember watching Bannister pitch last year. I wasn't blown away, but thought he pitched well for a rookie in one of his first ML starts.

Posted by: maddirishman at December 6, 2006 10:14 AM

I like the deal. Burgos is 22, and has 137 Ks in 136 IP in his brief career.

Change the AL to the NL, a hitters' park to a pitchers', add the Mets' excellent outfield defense (at least in CF and whereever Endy plays), plus the extra year of age and experience, and I'm seeing something in the 10 Ks per 9 IP range, with a lot fewer hits allowed than he had in Kaufmann Stadium.

Bannister walked more than he Kd last year, and little in his minor league numbers blew me away.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2006 12:43 PM

I like the deal, too, if only because Bannister isn't worth much and Peterson has a great history turning around careers. But let's not fool ourselves -- Burgos was atrocious last year, homer-happy (16 home runs in 73.1 innings) and very wild (37 BBs, 6 HPB, 11 wild pitches). He's a project with a capital P.

Posted by: RyanMcC at December 6, 2006 1:47 PM

Defense wasn't Burgos problem last year. Over all the Royals defense was pretty good and Kauffman is not usually classified as a hitter park. Burgos could not throw strikes, especially in pressure situations. Leads were rarely safe with him. A couple of walks and a wild pitch followed by a line drive in the gap. I think he has a world of potential, but it didn't show last year. His ball has good movement on it and he has a good splitter, the problem is he falls in love with the splitter and it may be his third best pitch. He will be a lot of work for Peterson.

Posted by: maddirishman at December 6, 2006 2:21 PM

He's a project with a capital P.

Maybe Ollie Perez and Burgos can be our Bobby Witt & Mitch Williams, circa 1986. Or Nuke LaLoosh (He struck out 18. He walked 18)

The Ollie & Ambiorix Show! 16 Ks, 7 BBs, 3 HBPs, 2 WPs, and 2 hits allowed, both home runs.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2006 2:22 PM

Maddirish-

I'll obviously defer to someone from Missouri on the Royal's D and Burgos' mound composure. But according to Baseball-reference.com, Kauffman has been an extreme hitters' park every year except '04 & '05 since the late-90s at least. This, too, matches what I've heard/read elsewhere.

Last year it increased scoring by 6 or 7%.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2006 2:26 PM

That may be more an evidance of the Royals pitching than the actual park rating. It hasn't been pretty the last couple of years...even though they moved the fences back about '04.

As for Burgos, two years ago he was money, last year he was a walking gas can.

Posted by: maddirishman at December 6, 2006 3:31 PM

With what the Mets management has done recently we owe them the right to trust their decisions. They took a franchise that was in shambles and always losing, to the clear cream-of-the-crop in the NL.

Posted by: David Stef at December 6, 2006 7:49 PM

That may be more an evidance of the Royals pitching than the actual park rating.

Park ratings factor in home & road teams. So quality of pitching doesn't matter.

Posted by: Mike at December 7, 2006 6:22 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg