MIke Piazza
There are all sorts of pitching prospects. There are pitchers who were uber prospects like Matt Harvey. The question with these prospects is where they’ll slot in the rotation. Then there are prospects like Jeremy Hefner.
The prospects like Hefner aren’t no doubters. You’re not a no doubter when you’re a 5th round draft pick who was twice placed on waivers before pitching one big league inning. Hefner referred to himself as “an average prospect.” Average prospects need to make the best of not only their stuff, but also their chances. Somehow, it’s more satisfying when these guys make it. You want the Hefners of the world to succeed because you want to believe in a player that really is doing everything he can do. It’s what you tell yourself you would do if you had enough talent to get that chance.
Well, Hefner made the most of his chances. He showed the Mets enough in 2012 for him to be in the 2013 rotation (even though he might’ve been a placeholder for Zack Wheeler). As the calendar turned to June, he seemed to figure something out. He went on a stretch of eight straight starts allowing two earned or less. Now what happened next is up for debate. Initially, it was thought he regressed to the mean. The truth may just be he was injured. In August 2013, Hefner had Tommy John surgery.
It’s a crushing blow to a player who just arrived on the scene. It was also crushing to him, but also to the Mets. They lost not only Hefner, but also Harvey to a torn UCL. The two rehabbed together. Seeing Hefner’s promise, the Mets kept him around rather than release him. Then something horrible happened. Hefner was not progressing in his rehab. He needed a second surgery. It definitively ended his Mets career. It put his baseball career into question.
Anytime a player like Hefner suffers a setback like this it’s deflating. Part of what makes sports fun is the out of nowhere stories. Everyone knows Tom Brady’s and Mike Piazza‘s stories. They’re reminders that what you need to succeed in sports, and in life, is hard work and determination. Hefner had those qualities. His mind was willing, but his flesh seemed weak.
Fortunately, that’s not the end of the story. Hefner again worked his tail off. We shouldn’t expect anything else. He started pitching in the Winter Leagues. He pitched well enough to sign a minor league deal with the Cardinals. Normally, I hate the Cardinals and their players. However, I’m making an exception here. The world is a lot better when the Hefners of the world are given a chance to succeed. It’s even better when they do.
I thought the Mets should’ve brought him back. I thought he could’ve filled a need as a spot starter or a bullpen arm. Instead, Hefner is a Cardinal, and I couldn’t be happier for him. I’ll be rooting for him.
Good luck next year Jeremy Hefner.
Supposedly, this documentary was directed at Mets fans. As such, I really wanted to like it. With that said, wow that completely missed the mark.
Yes, completely. I know it’s an hour show. However, it missed so many HUGE storylines. First, there was no real mention of Matt Harvey. Seriously? He was coming back from Tommy John surgery. It was the reason for the flip-flopping on the six man rotation all season. There was the Yankee game. There was the innings limit drama. There was the whole keeping him in too long in Game 5. Harvey was a huge, important, and at times, divisive figure. He barely received a blurb.
Speaking of pitching. This could’ve been the year Jacob deGrom became the staff ace. He was utterly dominant in the first half. He was the story of the All Star Game. He opened the postseason with a 13 strikeout performance. He somehow gutted out Game 5 of the NLDS, which is known as The Murphy Game.
Both pitchers got less coverage than Steven Matz‘s debut and his grandfather. It was a big moment in the season, but also lost there was the Mets mismanaging his injury in a season of the Mets mismanaging injuries. Heck, Matz got more coverage than any pitcher. That includes Noah Syndergaard, who was probably standing 60′ 6′ away. It also includes Jeurys Familia, who got thrust into the closer’s role due to two Jenrry Mejia PED suspensions. Familia was arguably the team MVP, but you wouldn’t know if from any of this.
Speaking of MVPs, if he wasn’t interviewed, I wouldn’t have known Curtis Granderson was even on the team. Granderson may have been the sole professional bat on an injury ridden deplorable offense. We heard about David Wright‘s back, but we didn’t hear about any of the other injuries (even in passing) that led to John Mayberry, Jr. and Eric Campbell hitting in the middle of the lineup. How do you miss this? Ask any Mets fan, and they will tell you that was a seminal moment in the season.
It was part of the whole Mets mockery of the fans with Panic City. It lead to an important Mike Vaccaro column about the Mets malpractice. This column really touched upon what it meant to be a Mets fan since the Madoff scandal. We were angry. Very angry. There was a campaign to buy a billboard did the Wilpons to sell the team. That side of the story wasn’t voiced, not even with Joe & Evan.
Instead, we got The 7 Line Army story. I mean no disrespect to Darren Meenan and what he’s created, but why was The 7 Lime Army featured more than anything else? The 7 Line Army got more coverage than Yoenis Cespedes being the hottest hitter anyone has ever seen. Seriously, when Cespedes hit the NLDS homer, we saw The 7 Line Army celebrating instead of an epic bat flip. Interview Darren Meenan? Absolutely. He’s a fan, and he’s made a successful business out of his fandom. However, I’m sorry. The 7 Line Army was not the defining story of the 2015 season. Yet, it got a lot of coverage. Maybe the most coverage.
With that, a lot was missed. Think about it. There were many key games this past season. If you take longer than a nanosecond to pinpoint the Padres game as the nadir, you’re a casual fan. If you don’t know the game to which I’m referring, you’re not a Mets fan. That game set the stage for the exhilaration fans felt after the Cespedes’ trade. No matter your feelings about the trade, you were excited to se degree that the Mets were remade and going for it.
That trade flipped the script on the season for the fans . . . perhaps for the team as well. The Mets went from an under-.500 team falling apart at the seams to real contenders. They went from a laughingstock with the Carlos Gomez trade debacle to a force to be reckoned. The documentary took the incredible, real-life drama that unfolded and omitted it. You could do a mini-series on July 30th and July 31st. Instead, we get a snarky Tom Verducci comment about Mets fans not being happy. I would say the quote was taken out of context, but really, how could it be? Until that trade, the Mets had cheap owners and an under-.500 ball club. Any fan had a right to be angry.
That’s the thing overall. You simply cannot discuss the fans without capturing their anger. It’s an example of how passionate Mets fans are. We’re not the hapless bunch we were presented as to the world. We are fans that have lived through nightmares. There was the worst team ever assembled. The Midnight Massacre. There were the misses in the 80’s. The Worst Team Money Can Buy. Kenny Rogers walked in the series winning run. Mike Piazza‘s ball died on the warning track. Carlos Beltran struck out looking followed by two collapses. All hope was then seemingly lost with the Madoff scandal.
However, Mets fans have seen enough magic to believe in anything. The Miracle Mets. Ya Gotta Believe! A little roller up the first base line. The Grand Slam Single. Overall, Mets fans don’t expect the worst. We’re not Cubs fans or pre-2004 Red Sox fans. No, we believe anything can and will happen. It’s a feeling that was awoken with Harvey’s right arm. It’s a feeling that’s not going away.
So no, Tears of Joy didn’t tell the world about Mets fans. It missed the mark despite excellent work by Anthony DiComo, Jared Diamond, and Jim Breuer.
Also, it didn’t tell me about the team or the season. From my understanding of Tears of Joy, Daniel Murphy had a hot streak before losing the World Series with an error. All 27 homerun Lucas Duda did was make a poor throw home. I could go on and on ad nauseum, but you get it. You watched the season. You know just as well as I do that Tears of Joy didn’t do a good job describing the ups and [mostly] downs of the season.
No, overall it mostly failed to capture the season or the fans. It’s disappointing really, just as the end of the 2015 season was. I guess there it at least hit the right tone.
In looking to fill out their bench, the Mets have shown some interest in Ryan Raburn. As a right handed bat, you could do worse.
Last year was the best year of Raburn’s career. He set career highs in batting average, on base percentage, and slugging. It’s odd, but it’s not unusual for a player to have a career year at 34. It’s definitely strange that someone coming off a .301/.393/.543 season didn’t have his $3 million option picked up. It’s strange even if the team was a mid-market team like the Indians. It really makes you question what is happening there.
What’s happening was Raburn was limited to just 82 games. No, he wasn’t injured. It’s just that the Indians really limited him to playing against lefties. He had 176 plate appearances against lefties and only 25 against righties. It was a decision that makes sense. In his career, Raburn has hit .250/.297/.326 against righties and .264/.339/.487.
Looking at Raburn, two other players immediately come to mind. The first was Scott Hairston, who had some success in a similar role with the Mets. Where Hairston got into trouble was when a Mets team lacking depth had to play him more frequently than they would’ve liked. The other player was John Mayberry, Jr., who hit .164/.227/.318 in 59 games with the Mets. He was released in July.
Why was Hairston successful where Mayberry wasn’t? Who knows? They’re bench players. Bench players typically can’t be relied upon for yearly consistency. The main reason is you’re always relying on a small sample size.
Looking at his career numbers, we see Raburn hits lefties well, but nowhere near as well as he hit them last year. We see a player who is a poor pinch hitter with a triple slash line of .184/.309/.368 in 136 plate appearances (small sample size). We also see a player who is predominantly a corner OF. Here’s his games played by position over his 10 year career:
- 1B – 9 games
- 2B – 143 games
- 3B – 27 games
- LF – 261 games
- CF – 28 games
- RF – 171 games
- DH – 93 games
Last year, he only played left, right, and DH. He was predominantly a DH. It’s surprising because he’s been an average fielder. You know what he isn’t? A first baseman. You’re not a first baseman if you play 9 games there in 10 years. It doesn’t mean he can’t play there. It means we don’t know. If you remember with Mike a Piazza playing first is easier said than done.
Raburn would be an improvement over a player like Eric Campbell with his hitting against lefties. Campbell has hit .220/.318/.339 in 149 plate appearances. It should be noted, even if for argument’s sake, Campbell is a slightly better defender, a better bet at first base, and a much better pinch hitter. Campbell is a career .293/.426/.390 pinch hitter in 54 plate appearances.
So who would I rather have? Raburn. He’s the better player. However, if signing Raburn stands in the way of the Mets making a significant addition, then I’m alright with the Mets proceeding with Campbell on the bench. Overall, while Raburn is an improvement, he’s not so much of an improvement that he’s worth losing out on another player.
I’m not so much interested in Raburn as much as I’m interested as in what a Raburn signing would mean for the Mets.
In my opinion, there are three, and only three, acceptable ways to address the PED era:
- Not vote for anyone;
- Vote for everyone eligible regardless of PED usage; or
- Only penalize those people who have been confirmed to use PEDs.
I’m in part three of the camp, but I can accept anyone’s reasonable thought process on the issue. What is not reasonable is playing the steroids guessing game. When you do that, you’re bound to make mistakes. When you do that, you’re bound to be inconsistent and look foolish. Of course, I’m specifically addressing Rick Plumlee’s vote.
https://twitter.com/rickplumlee/status/676894578625105922
Here is his ballot blown-up:
Now, I typically don’t take issue with public ballots. I don’t take issue because there are presumably reasonable and justifiable reasons for not voting for a player. I think Mike Piazza is a sure Hall of Famer, but there could be legitimate arguments why you don’t vote for him.
There could be valid reasons why you would vote for Jeff Bagwell and not Piazza. This is not one of them:
@rickplumlee I see you deleted the Tweet where you reference the "credible case" against Piazza. I was correct. You are a coward.
— Joe Perota (@joeperota) December 15, 2015
https://twitter.com/rickplumlee/status/676904982768189440
Note, I had to include this exchange because Mr. Plumlee deleted his Tweet where he stated there was a “credible case” Piazza used steroids. After deleting his Tweet, he used a Mets Today piece about Piazza admitting he used Andro. That’s his basis. It didn’t matter to him Andro was legal back then:
https://twitter.com/rickplumlee/status/676907078145937408
I could accept not voting for anyone that took anything. He drew a line in the sand, and he used it as a basis to vote for Bagwell but not Piazza. There’s one problem with that . . .
Bagwell made the same admission. You know how I found this Bagwell article? I used what your older relatives refer to as “The Google.” Of course, Mr. Plumlee has not answered any questions why the line of demarcation or why he’s comfortable for voting for a steroid user in Bagwell.
Again, this is why you don’t play the steroids guessing game. Eventually, you vote for a guy who used steroids. You vote for that guy even if the information was readily available.
There’s a moment that will forever live in Mets infamy:
(Seriously, how is there no video of this moment available?)
After all the garbage with Roger Clemens and Mike Piazza, the Mets finally had a chance to get revenge. Clemens came to Shea and finally had to stand in the batter’s box to answer for all his sins. Then Shawn Estes, who wasn’t a Met when everything happened, just missed. Missed!
There were discussions on whether it was fair to put Estes in that spot. I always disregarded them. Estes was Piazza’s teammate. You stand up for your teammates. The Mets will have that opportunity again with that coward re-signing with the Dodgers. After the World Series, the hope is it’s Noah Syndergaard standing 60’6″ away from Chase Utley.
After Utley’s dirty slide, the Mets have an opportunity to exact revenge. It will be all the more important if Ruben Tejada remains on the team. Assuming the rotation is the same set-up as in the World Series, the Mets re-set the rotation after the first two games of the season, and the Mets having a full five man rotation from that point forward the job will fall to Steven Matz. If the Mets don’t reset the rotation, the job will fall to Jacob deGrom.
In some ways, the task will be easier for whoever the pitcher is because they were on the team when it happened. On the other hand, the situation is more difficult because the pitcher will have to do it in Los Angeles.
Whomever it is, they need to actually plunk Utley. For the psyche of the team and the fan base, that pitcher can’t miss.
To me Hall of Fame voting gets frustrating because seemingly everyone has a different standard. Worse yet, they believe everyone should adopt that standard.
The first group are the “I know a Hall of Famer when I see him.” I simply don’t get this one because what you see isn’t what everyone else sees. Seriously, we live in a world where Aaron Sele received a vote for the Hall of Fame. When someone tells me Aaron Sele is a Hall of Famer due to the eye test I’m out.
The next is to compare players to the lowest common denominator. For example, there is a Hall of Fame catcher by the name of Rick Ferrell, who as far as I can tell, basically made the Hall of Fane because he caught a lot of games. Long story short, if he and his 29.8 career WAR is your standard, we’re not debating if Mike Piazza belongs in the Hall of Fame. Instead, we’re debating if Tim McCarver belongs in the Hall of Fame.
My favorite is the person who tries to compare players at different positions. Personally, I call this the Don Mattingly defense because that’s where I’ve heard it most often. I’ll hear something like Mattingly had 222 homers while Kirby Puckett only had 207. If Puckett gets in, why can’t Mattingly? The answer is simple having a Gold Glove CF who averages 19 homers is a lot more valuable than a Gold Glove first baseman that averages 20.
Personally, I have no hard set rule. I will say that when analyzing a player’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame, I like to look towards what does the average Hall of Famer look like at that position. It’s not the end all and be all, but it’s a nice place to start. If after looking at that you’re short of that average threshold, there are other things I like to consider.
First is postseason success. If you’ve had real success in the postseason, you should get a bump. Every year, the goal is to win a World Series. If you consistently did something to help your team’s chances, you deserve credit for that.
The next is whether there was something truly great about you. Ozzie Smith wasn’t a great hitter, but he was amazing with the glove. On the flip side, Ryne Sandberg wasn’t a great fielder, but he hit the most ever homeruns by a second baseman when he retired. Being truly great at something and/or being the best ever at something should improve your Hall of Fame chances.
Lastly, I do look at stuff like steroids. I won’t play a guessing game on who did and who didn’t. However, if there’s concrete, actual evidence, I’m not voting for that person. No, I don’t mean a Murray Chase accusation, I’m talking about something that could be substantiated.
Overall, I get to cast my first IBWAA ballot this year, and I’m looking forward to it. I’m sure over time I will learn some things and adapt. I will do a small write-up on whoever is on my ballot.
The much older version of me hates the new Diamondbacks uniforms. They’re terrible in every way, shape, and form. Then I realized something. I actually owned this Mets cap:
I was a teenager, and I thought they were cool when they were first released. There’s a picture in my parent’s living room of my brother, father, and I at a Mets game. I’m wearing this cap. Yes, I purchased it before seeing how awful they matched up with the jerseys.
Then the following year, I purchased my first ever Mets jersey:
Yes, I purchased the black jersey. The older version of me wouldn’t. The younger version of me loved it. I also liked the black hats too even if I still preferred the traditional blue caps. That’s the thing. The jerseys are not designed for older fans who wants something more traditional.
They’re designed for younger fans who are more inclined to get the jerseys. So while I love the current Mets uniforms, I know the minute sales stall, the Mets will have a change. Based upon the black jerseys, the Mets may just go the Diamondbacks route if they actually sell well. They’ll do it because kids drive jersey sales, not old men even if they are the ones actually purchasing the jerseys.
And I’ll shake my head as I purchase my son a Mets jersey and hat I think are ugly.
There has been a recent push by the BBWAA to expand the amount of players that can be voted for in any particular ballot.
On the surface, the request is extremely reasonable. They want to eliminate limits or increase the limit on the number of players you can vote for in any ballot. It’s a great argument. If there are 15 players who are truly Hall of Fame worthy, you should be able to vote for 15 players. However, there is a subtext to the request:
Keeping 10-vote limit isn't about tradition. I think it's about suppressing votes for "undesirables" w/out saying it https://t.co/jjBtc1eY0I
— Jayson Stark (@jaysonst) November 18, 2015
The voters really voicing this opinion want the PED guys to go into the Hall of Fame. That’s their prerogative. They have a vote and can do with it as they please. Other voters who disagree can do the same. Looking over last year’s voting, the highest percent of the vote amongst confirmed steroids users went to Roger Clemens with 37.5% of the vote. It seems the overall electorate has spoken on how the PED guys should be treated.
So the 37.5% are really left with a choice. Do you continue to vote for players like Clemens, or do you vote for someone else. Admittedly, it’s not an easy decision. You’re stuck between voting for someone you seem worthy or voting for someone who you deem deserving but may not be as good. For example, do you vote for Clemens or Curt Schilling? Schilling had 39.2% of the vote last year.
The question is how each voter views their job. Is it their job to vote for the 10 best players (assuming there are 10 worthy candidates), or is it their job to elect worthy players into the Hall of Fame? This is probably the first time this has been an either/or proposition. In their history, members of the BBWAA have voted both ways.
There are voters who write-in the name of Pete Rose each year. Why? There is no way Rose can be elected. Even if Rose received a write-in vote on 75% of the ballots, he’d still be ineligible. This is nothing more than taking a stand on principle.
On the flip side, we see voters who vote for players they once deemed not Hall of Fame worthy. Jim Rice went from 29.8% of the vote in his first year to 76.4% in his last year of eligibility. Unlike Bert Blyleven, Rice didn’t have a new statistical approach to the sport to support him. No, it was a separation from his poor relationship with voters as well as superlatives thrown his way like his being a feared hitter.
The person who finished third the year Rice was elected was Andre Dawson with 67.0% of the vote. The next year he was elected with 77.9% in his ninth year of eligibility. The top vote getter not elected was the aforementioned Blyleven with 74.2% of the vote. Behind him was Roberto Alomar with 73.7% of the vote. They would both be elected the next year. It was Blyleven’s 14th year on the ballot and Alomar’s second.
You see the pattern. In fact, anyone who has received over 64.8% of the vote on any year has eventually been elected to the Hall of Fame. Eventually, the voters tend to coalesce around a candidate to get them elected regardless of their prior thought process.
Going back to Clemens and Schilling, for whom should a voter cast their vote? If the idea is to elect candidates who are worthy and can actually be elected, you vote for Schilling. If you follow the Hall of Fame voting patterns, you vote for Schilling. Regardless of how you feel about PED users, is it worth it to block Schilling’s path to the Hall of Fame so you can enter a vote for Clemens?
If you think both are worthy, what purpose does it serve to not vote for Schilling? If you’re complaining there isn’t enough spots, you need to vote for the most electable candidates. If you aren’t, you are effectively acting as a voter who makes a distinction between first ballot Hall of Famers and non-First Ballot Hall of Famers. Effectively, you are saying Schilling belongs in, but only after Clemens makes the Hall of Fame.
If you think someone belongs in the Hall of Fame and they have not been linked to PEDs, you must vote for them. This isn’t limited to Schilling. It incorporates anyone who is on the ballot whether it be Mike Mussina or Mike Piazza. Really, it incorporates anyone you deem Hall of Fane worthy. If there are any spots left, then vote for the Clemenses of the world.
Not voting for Schilling means you subscribe to a tier system in the Hall of Fame; a tier system that does not exist. It has to stop.
No, no he didn’t. There’s absolutely zero proof in my or anyone else’s possession that Hall of Famer Rickey Henderson used steroids. To make such a claim would require pure speculation of specious or non-existent evidence. That’s the point. I can use the same arguments used against other players to construct a narrative that Henderson used steroids.
In 1980, Henderson has his first full season in the big leagues. From day one, he had the look of a Hall of Famer. He was an All Star and finished in the Top 10 in MVP voting. Keep in mind, as a young player in the early 80’s , Henderson looked like this:
Look at how slender he was. Of course he was. He was a leadoff hitter who started his career with single digit homers and tremendous stolen base numbers. He had a 130 stolen bases in 1982 while hitting just 10 homeruns. At that point, both were career highs.
Henderson would go to the Yankees and eventually return to the Athletics again. This time, however, he would be teammates with two of the most notorious steroid users in major league history: Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. He had a manager in Tony La Russa who actively looked the other way. It’s no wonder that in 1990, at the age of 31, he had a career high in homers at 28. He went from a 10 homerun guy to a 28 homerun guy. Because we didn’t know then what we know now, he won the MVP award that year.
Henderson would continue to be an effective everyday player until he was 40 years old. In his age 40 season, he played in 121 games hitting .315/.423/.466 with 12 homeruns and 37 stolen bases. Keep in mind, we know 40 year olds can never, ever be effective baseball players. Of course that season, Henderson looked like this:
Look at the increased muscle definition. He went from a guy who hit 9 homers to a guy who hit 28 homers. He is a guy that was an everyday player until he was 42. He played until he was 44. There is no other possible explanation for this other than he used steroids.
Why didn’t that prevent the voters from keeping him out of the Hall of Fame? Probably because this isn’t evidence. It’s pure speculation. Unfair speculation at that. Personally, I don’t think Henderson used steroids. I have no proof that he did. Any “proof” I have here is satire instead of evidence. The reason is because none of this prevented voters from electing him to the Hall of Fame.
However, this is what voters have been using to keep Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza out of the Hall of Fame. Both were contemporaries of Henderson with muscle definition, and yet they reserved the judgment for Piazza and Bagwell. It’s as inconsistent as it is unfair.
I’m in the school of keeping steroid players out of the Hall of Fame. However, I require proof that someone cheated. I’m not going to play a guessing game because if I did, I just as easily have used the same criteria to keep Rickey Henderson out of the Hall of Fame. Keep mind Henderson received 94.8% of the vote. That’s a very large percentage of people applying different standards.
For Hall of Fame voting, all I ask is you have a standard and apply it universally. There may be reasons to keep Bagwell and Piazza out of the Hall of Fame, but perceived steroids use isn’t one of them. It wasn’t sufficient to keep Henderson out of the Hall of Fame.
Today was supposed to be the day I was able to put baseball aside for a little bit. Game 7 was supposed to be last night. However, I was reminded of the Mets blowing the World Series because:
Today is the day. Wake up and get your free A.M. Crunchwrap between 7-11 a.m. Rules: https://t.co/yyutdNEGEA pic.twitter.com/iNv9pDuaxY
— Taco Bell (@tacobell) November 5, 2015
The reason for the free AM crunch wraps? It’s because the Royals were able to steal a base during the World Series. The steal that got us free breakfast was Lorenzo Cain stealing second in the sixth inning of Game 1 of the World Series. He would score to bring the game to 3-2.
Overall, the Royals were 6/6 stealing bases off of Travis d’Arnaud in the World Series. This includes a whopping 4/4 in the deciding Game 5. It caused me to sarcastically text my Dad and brother during the game that when we say we wanted d’Arnaud to be like Mike Piazza this isn’t what we meant. Look, I know there are many elements to what causes stolen bases, but a catcher loses the benefit of the doubt when he can’t reach second base.
In any event, it’s hard to say the Mets lost the World Series because of d’Arnaud. There were so many different elements that it’s hard to point a finger at d’Arnaud. I also don’t think it’s a reason to move him out from behind the plate because he does everything else well.
He’s a terrific pitch framer, who makes sure his pitchers get that borderline strike call. As the stats suggest, his work behind the plate gets his pitcher not just the corner but a little off of it. Also, he’s a good hitter. His triple slash line this year was .268/.340/.485. To put that in perspective, another great Mets catcher, the late great Hall of Famer, Gary Carter, hit .262/.335/.439 for his career.
Is d’Arnaud as good as Piazza or Carter? No, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be a good catcher for the Mets. All he needs is a little health and to work on his throwing mechanics a bit. (Note: I’m not comparing him to Mackey Sasser. Not going to happen).
In any event, I had my AM crunch wrap courtesy of a stolen base in the World Series. A World Series the Mets should’ve won. Hopefully, I’ll have one next year because of a Juan Lagares‘ stolen base.