With the Mets having question marks at first base, there is a clamoring for Peter Alonso to be the Opening Day first baseman next year. Certainly, it is enticing to see that type of power at the first base position. Looking at the Mets history, they have rarely had the type of power many anticipate Alonso would have at the MLB level.
Can you name the Mets first baseman who have the most homers in team history? Good luck!
Dave Kingman Lucas Duda Ed Kranepool Carlos Delgado John Milner
Now that the Mets are on 880 AM, Mets players and front office personnel are once again free to appear on WFAN. This is the first time since the end of the 2013 this is permissible. Apparently, this was something bothering Mike Francesca because he seemingly took five years of frustration out on new Mets General Manager Brodie Van Wagenen:
https://twitter.com/backaftathis/status/1057428195270688768?s=21
Listening to the interview and over again, it was blatantly clear Francesca was not listening to Van Wagnenen, and he had the intent to mock and belittle the new GM.
Overall, Brodie Van Wagenen’s key statement was, “I think it’s a good everyday lineup that I want to build off of.”
Every reaction and question which ensued was proof Francesca did not listen to that statement even when Van Wagenen kept reiterating it.
Not getting the answers he wanted. Francesca insulted Van Wagenen, outright ignored his answers, and went so far as to remind Van Wagenen he was taking over the Mets and not the Yankees. Francesca’s indigence and invocation of the Yankees is certainly peculiar when you not only consider how he staunchly defends the Wilpons, but he also went so far as to falsely claim the Mets had the seventh highest payroll in the majors.
Francesca continued the bizarre behavior (albeit not for him) by asking Van Wagenen who his cleanup hitter was.
Now, Van Wagenen could not have been more clear during this interview the Mets were going to add to this lineup.
That said, who cares who is the Mets cleanup hitter as of today? Van Wagenen was hired to figure out who it will be not just on Opening Day, but hopefully, Game 1 of the World Series.
Remember Yoenis Cespedes was the Mets cleanup hitter during the 2015 postseason, and he was not obtained until minutes before the trade deadline.
This is to say a GM’s work is never done. If you’re “Numbah 1,” you know that and don’t make ridiculous statements like, “When the team is full, can you call and let us know?”
But Francesca doesn’t care about potentially sounding ridiculous. Instead, he went in with an agenda, and that agenda was to be dismissive of all things Van Wagenen and the Mets. That is why Francesca sounded even more pompous and dismissive than he usually does.
The best way to shut him up and make him eat his words will be to build a winner, which is the job Van Wagenen was hired to do anyway. Francesca won’t, but everyone should give Van Wagenen an opportunity prove himself.
With the contracts Brodie Van Wagenen had been able to procure for his clients, it is fairly clear he has been a staunch advocate who is able to get the best deals possible. Part of that has been his being quite forceful to inflammatory in his statements. This includes, but is not limited to his alleging collusion during this past offseason when things moved slowly.
Van Wagenen’s occasional confrontational and inflammatory statements include his demanding an extension or trade for Jacob deGrom. Specifically Van Wagenen would say:
He and I have been transparent with them about his willingness to consider a long-term commitment. But if there’s not a commitment, then obviously the player would be prepared for a trade.
If there’s not a desire to have the player, then you’d like to go to somebody that did have the desire to be committed. It’s if not A, then everybody has to be aware of B. The third alternative of just staying status quo, I don’t think benefits anyone.
The very end of the statement is the key statement. Taking what he said at face value, Van Wagenen honestly believes the Mets have to either extend or trade deGrom. Now, the Mets could let deGrom play out the next two seasons and make a decision then, but as Van Wagenen said himself, that would not benefit anyone.
Understandably, with Sandy Alderson having to step aside, this decision was better left to a new General Manager. Whoever the Mets hired had to make a number of important decisions. With Zack Wheeler a year from free agency, the Mets need to make a decision to extend, trade, or wait until the trade deadline to make a decision on the future of Wheeler.
With Van Wagenen’s comments and his being hired, a decision on deGrom is now front and center.
The team either needs to have a plan for an extension in place, or they need to be prepared to trade him. Even if those plans are not immediately disclosed, those plans need to be in place right now. If not, this will serve as a distraction all season long. The beginnings of that will begin with today’s press conference. In fact, reporters are lined up to ask the question:
First question for Van Wagenen: “Brodie, last July you said the Mets should either trade deGrom or give him a contract. So what are you going to do?”
— Mike Puma (@NYPost_Mets) October 29, 2018
If it is this pressing today, it will be all the more so during the GM Meetings, Winter Meetings, Spring Training, and during any losing streak during the 2019 season.
After that decision is made, the decision is then turned to another one of his clients in Noah Syndergaard. Should deGrom get that extension, how much is left over for his other client? The dominoes keep falling after that.
Yes, there are other decisions which technically need to be made first including who should be designated for assignment. The Mets will need to cut three people by Friday to do that. That said, deGrom is the first order of business because how the Mets handle that decision will inform everything which happens from now. That includes how the rest of the Mets team handles a deGrom trade or extension.
With Brodie Van Wagenen being announced as the new Mets General Manager tomorrow, his work begins immediately. Right now, Jose Reyes, Devin Mesoraco, Jerry Blevins, Austin Jackson, and Jose Lobaton are free agents. With eight more players listed on the 60 day disabled list (Eric Hanhold, Rafael Montero, Bobby Wahl, Travis d’Arnaud, Phillip Evans, T.J. Rivera, Yoenis Cespedes, and Juan Lagares), the team needs to cut at least three players by Friday.
More than that, Van Wagenen will be entasked in improving the roster into a 2019 World Series contender. Here is Van Wagenen’s starting point:
C – Kevin Plawecki
1B – Jay Bruce
2B – Jeff McNeil
3B – Todd Frazier
SS – Amed Rosario
LF – Michael Conforto
CF – Juan Lagares
RF – Brandon Nimmo
Certainly, the Mets are set in the middle infield and the corner outfield spots. Obviously, Yasmani Grandal would be a significant addition to both the lineup and in the pitch framing department. Even if not Grandal, the catching position seems to be a real target to upgrade either on the free agent market, where real upgrades are limited, or on the trade front, where there are a number of rebuilding teams who could move a catcher (Buster Posey?).
As for the other positions, the Mets are going to have to move a player/contract. If the Mets really want to significantly upgrade this roster, the team is going to have to find a way to move Bruce, Frazier, or both. That not only opens room for a significant addition, but it also means the team will have some extra money on the budget to improve the roster.
In the end, there is real talent here, but talent which needs to be surrounded by the right players. Ideally, that is at least one right-handed power bat to balance out a lineup which already balances out Conforto, Nimmo, and McNeil. When doing that, Van Wagenen will need to buttress this group by building a strong bench, which is something which has not been done since the trade deadline maneuvers in the 2015 season.
Brodie Van Wagenen is the agent for Jacob deGrom, Yoenis Cespedes, Robert Gsellman, Todd Frazier, Tim Tebow, and others. Through his representation of his clients, Forbes pegged his 2018 commissions at $25 million. Now, instead of collecting commissions from these players and pushing management to either pay or play these players, he could be the one making the decisions for the Mets.
The mere idea Van Wagenen would take the Mets General Manager job is fascinating.
First and foremost, Van Wagenen would presumably need to take a paycut to join the Mets front office. He would be doing that to go from one high stress job to the next, and he would presumably need to work the same hours. His job will now come with public scrutiny and much less job stability. Considering all that’s involved, it just begs the question why Van Wagenen is even considering this.
If he gets the job, you then have to consider how his relationship with the Mets players will impact how he runs the team.
This past season, Van Wagenen said the Mets needed to either trade or extend deGrom. Does he do that now, or does he keep deGrom on his current contract and spend the money elsewhere? If the extension talks were ever to occur, how would he handle them? Clearly, he knows what deGrom wants. Does he give it to him in full? If he doesn’t, does the deGrom situation become a problem?
Can he trade Frazier to clear room for another player? Is he willing to keep Tebow in the minors all year, or if the situation presents itself, could he actually cut Tebow?
Go back to Cespedes. The Mets organization rushed him back to DH in the Subway Series. Does Van Wagenen rush Cespedes back from his double heel injury this year, or does he break ranks with how the Mets have handled injuries the past few years? Could his opinion on these matters be swayed by those players he used to represent and those who didn’t?
On that front, do the Mets players see Van Wagenen’s treatment of his former clients as favoritism? What impact would this have on the Mets clubhouse?
Speaking of the clubhouse, what impact would Van Wagenen have on Mickey Callaway‘s authority? Assume for a second Gsellman has an issue, and that issue was not handled by Callaway or Dave Eiland to his satisfaction. Gsellman has a prior relationship with Van Wagenen. Should he ever go behind the coaching staff’s back, how would it be received? Does Van Wagenen take his manager’s side, his player’s side, or does he effectively mediate?
Looking further, what impact does Van Wagenen’s relationship CAA have? Like the Mets have done the past few years, does he go towards them for the free agents, or is he willing to branch out and speak with Scott Boras about Manny Machado? Would Boras or other agents be cautious in their dealings with the Mets? Is there preexisting bad blood which would hamper or even infringe upon negotiations?
But it’s more how he handles the Major League team. He is now responsible for an entire organization. To that end, we know he is capable of running an organization. We don’t know if he can handle running a baseball operation, especially one where the Wilpons are rumored to meddle in even the smallest of decisions.
There are people already in place, and presumably Van Wagenen has a relationship with those people. Obviously, the dynamics of that relationship are about to change. There are many reasons why, including but not limited to the fact, Van Wagenen has people outside the organization he trusts. He will seek out their opinions and may even hire them over existing staff. That is certain to have ripple effects.
Overall, there are many minefields and issues which accompany Van Wagenen. There are the conflict of interests with this players, and the conflicts his relationships could have in the clubhouse and throughout the organization. It is interesting to see how the Mets and Van Wagenen himself handles the whole situation . . . should he get the job.
With David Price getting the win in Game 2, the Red Sox took a 2-0 series lead, and they are one step closer to winning the World Series. If the Red Sox do win, Price will become the 12th player first overall draft pick to win a World Series. Can you name the other 11? Good luck!
Rick Monday Tim Foli Darryl Strawberry Mike Moore Tim Belcher Chipper Jones Alex Rodriguez Darin Erstad Pat Burrell Luke Hochevar Carlos Correa
Doug Melvin.
That’s it.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is lying to you or themselves.
In Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, Jack Morris and John Smoltz had a pitching match-up for the ages. For 7.1 innings, Smoltz would shut out the Twins. Somehow, Morris was even better than that pitching 10 shutout innings in an epic 1-0 Twins Game 7 victory. It was a fitting end to one of the best World Series ever played.
Whenever you see big time pitching match-ups in the World Series, this is what we expect to see. In this century, as evidenced by last night’s game, these match-ups typically fall well short of expectations.
Yes, Clayton Kershaw is no longer the young dominating ace we remember. Sure, Chris Sale has been dealing with injury issues for the second half of the season. Still, you were hoping they’d each pitch at least five innings. But it’s not just them or their injuries, it’s seemingly every World Series.
2016
In Game 1, Corey Kluber held up his end of the bargain shutting out the Cubs over six innings. Jon Lester wasn’t bad allowing three earned over 5.2 innings, but it certainly wasn’t two aces trading haymakers.
2015
It may be a bit of a stretch to call him such, but in 2014, Johnny Cueto finished second in the Cy Young voting. Moreoever, he had been great with the Reds before being traded to the Royals. He was great in Game 2 limiting the Mets to just one run in his complete game victory. Despite being dominant all postseason long, Jacob deGrom hit a bump in this game allowing four earned in five innings.
2013
Adam Wainwright has been one of the better postseason pitchers of his era, but in Game 1, he allowed three earned over five while Jon Lester shut out the Cardinals over 7.2 innings. The Game 5 match-up was much better with both pitchers going seven plus innings. This had all the makings of a classic, especially with Wainwright striking out 10, but with two runs scored against him in the seventh, it was a 3-1 game.
2010
Game 1 was the match-up of all match-ups. In 2008 and 2009, Tim Lincecum had won the Cy Young Award. Cliff Lee had won the 2008 Cy Young in the American League, and he had established himself as a big-time postseason pitcher. Lee would get shelled for six earned in 4.2 innings. Lincecum was not much better allowing four earned in 5.2 innings, but he was at least good enough to get the win.
Much like the 2013 World Series, the sequel was better. For the first six innings of Game 5, Lincecum and Lee would trade zeros. That was until Edgar Renteria hit a two run over which effectively clinched the Giants first World Series since moving to San Francisco. Ultimately, Lee would allow three earned over seven while Lincecum would allow one over eight.
2009
Former Indians teammates and former Cy Young winners, Lee and CC Sabathia would face-off in Game 1. This was the rare pitching match-up which didn’t disappoint. Lee pitched a complete game allowing just one earned while striking out 10. Sabathia was also terrific allowing just two earned over seven. Of course, the final score did not have the same feel as the Yankees bullpen blew up in what would be a 6-1 Phillies victory.
There was another big match-up in Game 4. Andy Pettitte made a reputation as a big game pitcher, but he wasn’t quite that allowing four over six innings. Opposite him as 2008 NLCS and World Series MVP Cole Hamels, who allowed five runs over 4.1 innings.
Pettitte was about the same in Game 6 allowing three runs over 5.2 innings, but Pedro Martinez, in what would be his final game, allowed four earned over four innings before departing.
2001
Now, this had a Game 7 befitting the 1991 Game 7. The first five-and-a-half innings were scoreless until the Diamondbacks finally broke through with a Danny Bautista RBI double off Roger Clemens. The Yankees responded with a a run off Curt Schilling in the seventh, and they took the lead with an Alfonso Soriano homer off Schilling in the eighth. To heighten the great pitching all the more, Randy Johnson would pitch 1.1 scoreless to allow the Diamondbacks miracle comeback against Mariano Rivera to win the series.
As great as that was, the rest of the series did not have the same great starting pitching matchups. Schilling was great in Game 1 while Mike Mussina allowed five runs over three innings. In Game 2, Johnson had a complete game shutout while Pettitte allowed four over seven innings. In Game 6, Johnson allowed just two earned over seven while Pettitte was hit hard from the get-go allowing six runs over two innings.
Now, there have been great pitching match-ups here and there. There are typically memorable games. Also, unlike movies, we have seen the sequel in starting pitcher match-ups prove to be much better than the first match-up. If that trend continues, we should be in for a treat when Sale and Kershaw face-off in Game 5 in Dodger Stadium.