WHAT A GUY

As anyone who has read my blog knows, I always tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially, for some reason, if they play a professional sport. I don't know why that has been the case - maybe because for my whole life, I've put these people up on a pedestal.

Recently, that has changed. It started probably not with the players, but with the dishonesty of the coaches, that started opening my eyes to the fact that no one in professional sports deserved the benefit of the doubt. That's why I trust the Mitchell Report's allegations more than I trust the denials of the players involved, vehement though they may be. And when individual players admit to their transgressions, it just makes me believe the Report as a whole even more.

Everyone involved in professional sports has been taken down a peg in my book. And Major League Baseball players seem to be a little worse than the rest. To see a player defend cheaters, it makes me angry. And when cheaters rank higher in a player's book than replacement players, I get even more angry. Here are the words of Brad Ausmus, as reported by Nick Cafardo in the Boston Globe this past Sunday. Ausmus is talking about whether it will be troublesome for players named in the Mitchell Report to be accepted in the clubhouse.:

"I think in the case of the replacement players way back, they had a lot tougher time blending back into the clubhouse. This is totally different. I certainly am not going to demonize a player who was on the Mitchell Report. I feel badly for all of those guys. At the very worst, if all the allegations in that report are true, we're not talking about murder here. They aren't bad people. Throughout time, and in different sports, you've always had people trying to beat the system. They didn't do it to hurt anybody else, they did it because they wanted to get stronger and better."

The part that bothers me most (besides the fact that he's giving cheaters a free pass) is the shot at the replacement players. I know I can be making enemies with this statement, and that the baseball players' union can hunt me down and kill me for writing it, but I don't blame the replacement players. These are guys trying to earn a living doing what they love. I can't say that if I was a little (OK, a lot) more talented, I wouldn't have crossed the picket line to play a couple of weeks for the Mets, and make a dream come true. And then maybe if I was good enough, I could catch on, and make a career out of it, a la Rick Reed, or Kevin Millar. But those were guys that were demonized, and ostracized in clubhouses, when they were regular guys, non-cheaters (maybe), trying to earn a living. (And I don't buy for a minute that they were 'stealing bread from major leaguers' plates' - was there ever an instance where anyone thought the replacement players posed a threat to anything the million-dollar baseball players stood for?)

I feel like in an indirect way, while Ausmus is saying people named in the Mitchell Report aren't bad guys, he is saying the replacement players were, and that bothers me.

I also realize that Ausmus was probably close with Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, and will be playing next year with Miguel Tejada, all named in the Mitchell Report, and maybe he didn't want to rock any boats. But if that's the case, a simple 'no comment' would have worked wonders here.

E-MAIL: It appears I may have won some sort of Swiss e-mail lottery now.....

MITCHELL REPORT REACTION IV

The Mets - Part II

Here are the other former Mets/people connected to the Mets named in the Mitchell Report (Part I here), and my evaluation of how surprising it was to see their names, or how disappointed I was that they were implicated.

MO VAUGHN
Surprise: 8
Disappointment: 9
Just another disappointment in the saga of Mo Vaughn as a Met. Vaughn's connection with Radomski allegedly happened in 2001...and in December of 2001 Vaughn was traded to the Mets. Does that mean the Mets had information that Vaughn would somehow speedily recover from his horrible ankle injury? Again, it makes you wonder. The Vaughn write-up did provide one of the few laughs of the Mitchell Report - "Radomski said that he did not sell Vaughn steroids because Vaughn was 'afraid of the big needles'".
DAVID SEGUI
Surprise: 0
Disappointment: 7
This is no surprise, because Segui came out and admitted use before the Report was released. It's still disappointing, because they all are, but mostly because Segui sounds so entitled when he talks about taking steroids. His comments about Radomski in the Report make it sound like the guy's some sort of hero to cheaters. On the one hand, Segui's comments add some legitimacy to Radomski's comments throughout the report, but on the other hand, it is coming from David Segui, who sounds more and more like an idiot when you read his comments.
CHRIS DONNELS
Surprise: ?
Disappointment: 9
I haven't really thought much about Chris Donnels for the past 15 years or so, so I don't know about the surprise factor. It was interesting, though, that he played such a big role in the steroids case in baseball. Donnels is named in the report as being one of the people Ken Caminiti talked candidly to about steroids before he took them for the first time. The allegations regarding Donnels and steroids don't come up during Donnels' time wih the Mets, but I always think of him as a Met when I hear his name (again, not often in the past 15 years). At least he didn't impede the investigation, and spoke to Mitchell....though he did say he wouldn't tell the names of people he knew were using steroids, anyway. Ain't ballplayers great, stand-up guys?
FERNANDO VINA
Surprise: 0
Disappointment: 9
I realize there's not much fluctuation in the 'disappointment' category here - I get frustrated when this is the topic. I'm absolutely not surprised by Vina's involvement. I don't remember Vina being huge when he was with the Mets...and now that I look it up, I would have bet money that Vina was with the Mets for a while...but it was just 1994, which I guess was an era which seemed interminable. But the way Vina ballooned later in his career makes this one seem kind of obvious. The disappointment climbs the scale by Vina's admission to only using HGH to help recover from injuries after the report was released. I don't believe it.
MARK CARREON
Surprise: ?
Disappointment: ?
I don't really know what to say about Mark Carreon. He's pretty irrelevant, except for the fact that he is quoted as having told Radomski that 'the ball was jumping off his bat' in the report after he started using a performance enhancer while with the Giants (after his time with the Mets). His numbers reflect an improvement while he was in San Francisco. His case raises doubt for anyone with significant statistical increases during this time period.
SCOTT SCHOENEWEIS
Surprise: 5
Disappointment: 2
Really, could this guy be any more disappointing? I had high expectations when he joined the Mets, and those expectations were met with a 5.03 ERA, 28 walks in 59 innings pitched out of the bullpen, and allegations connecting him with the use of performance enhancing drugs. A successful run, I'd say.

TIM LAKER
Surprise: 7-8
Disappointment: 9
At long last, your Gary Carter connection. When Carter retired in 1992, he hit a double in his last major league at-bat for the Montreal Expos. He was standing at second base, and was lifted for a pinch runner to a standing ovation. That pinch runner was a young rookie catcher named Tim Laker. As a current employee of baseball (Laker manages in the Indians' farm system), Laker had to be interviewed by Mitchell, and he was up front about his steroid use. It's also interesting that the steroids never really helped him - he was hardly effective in the major leagues. But I bet Gary Carter was disappointed to see his name connected....and that's good enough for me.

(By the way - how is Tim Laker good enough to have a high level minor league managing job, while Hall of Famer Gary Carter is stuck in the Golden Baseball League?!)

STILL UNSURE

I just don't know who to believe.

I'm back into the swing of school today, and I kind of lose touch with the sports world during most of the school day. I left at 5:20, and the car radio was on ESPN Radio. I thought the station was getting poor reception, because it seemed like I was picking up someone's phone call. Then a voice sounded like Roger Clemens...and I realized what I was listening to. But I don't know what to make of it.

I'll say this - Roger Clemens is fighting a battle he's not going to win - because he's still being evasive. How can we believe that Clemens is the one to believe when he's refusing to answer certain questions?

I almost turned around on him and believed him after I heard the tape of the phone call, and his vehement denials one more time. Then someone asked him about the B12 and the Lydocaine for the umpteenth time. And he said, "I never supplied anyone with anything I've ever been injected with." And the question was rephrased, and he answered the same way.

Almost as though he is setting us up for a situation where later, if it turns out there were steroids in his system (if his tendons do turn to dust, as he says, or he does get a third ear out of his forehead), he can say, "Well, I never provided that stuff. I had no idea what they were injecting into me. I thought it was B12." And we'll be expected to believe him then.

Then someone asked him if he thought people who used performance enhancers were cheaters, and drove that point home. Clemens dodged the question like batters dodged the pitches he used to throw at their heads.

And again, he was asked about Andy Pettitte. And that's flat-out unbelievable that he had no idea about this guy, with whom he did everything, doing something like injecting himself with HGH. And he said again, their situations are separate. No, they're actually quite related.

Just still sounds like Clemens is hiding something. And that he feels if he tough guys it enough, and denies loud and angrily enough, people will just say, OK, and back off. But it's not going to happen. Oh, by the way, bad idea taking it out on the media, Roger. Long after you storm out of the 20-minute media session, and long after your 5-7 minutes are up on '60 Minutes', and long after your appearance before Congress, they'll still be writing about you. And you're not giving them much that's positive to say.

I don't like writing about this stuff. I hate it. Justin from NYC is right when he writes about the fact that there are many bigger problems in the world than whether or not Roger Clemens took steroids. Tomorrow I'll post my 'Mets connections - Part II', and then hopefully we can leave this subject alone for a while.

MITCHELL REPORT REACTION III

THE METS - PART I

I've said all along I would comment on the Mets (or people connected to the Mets) involved in the Mitchell Report, and though we're long past the release of the document, I think it's still relevant (see: Roger Clemens on '60 Minutes' Sunday night). I think the fairest way to do this is in little chunks, so this might carry us through a bit more of the off-season, and I think I'll label each of these on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being 'most', and 1 being 'least', in terms of 'surprise', and 'disappointment'.

LENNY DYKSTRA
Surprise: 0 (8)
Disappointment: 5

There's not much surprise involved with Dykstra - if anyone saw him playing for the Phillies, he looked a lot different than the skinny kid who came up with the Mets. The real surprise is that he started taking steroids with the Mets - I don't remember him looking bigger in 1989, as the Report suggests. Perhaps that's why the Mets dealt him and Roger McDowell - because 18 years later, I'm still looking for the reason. The disappointment is at 5 because even though Dykstra admitted to Major League Baseball that he used steroids, he refused to aid the Mitchell investigation, helping to make it a mostly disappointing document.
JOSIAS MANZANILLO
Surprise: 9
Disappointment: 7
Part of me feels that anyone on the Mets during the Radomski employment (1987-1994) should be a 0 on the surprise scale. But the Mets were so bad during the Josias Manzanillo years (1993-1995) that it is surprising that anyone was taking performance enhancers. Manzanillo rates unusually high on the disappointment scale for a player of his caliber because I always really liked him, and looked forward to games in which he played (as a reliever). He was an animated type.
TODD HUNDLEY
Surprise: 7
Disappointment: 10
I think this was the biggest surprise on the list for me, but after thinking about it, it becomes more obvious, and goes down a few pegs on the surprise scale. The disappointment is partly in Hundley, partly in me for not seeing it sooner. This is a guy who went from never hitting more than 16 homers in a season (as it says in the report itself) to a team-record 41 the year he allegedly started juicing. As a former catcher, I always find myself partial to the Mets catchers in my rooting life...so Hundley was always one of my favorites, making this a bigger blow.
MATT FRANCO
Surprise: 10
Disappointment: 10
Matt Franco goes down as one of the bigger surprises/disappointments on the list. First of all, he was quoted in the report as denying knowing Radomski or taking anything. So there's that, for what it's worth. But if it's true, it stinks. Franco was an everyman, just an average-seeming guy, which made him easy to root for. When he did poorly, he got away with it, because he was never very good. But when he succeeded, it made it all the more exciting. To think that a player like this may have cheated - it's one of those instances where someone else may have been cheated out of a job. And throw this in there - Franco was always one of Bobby Valentine's favorites...even to the extent of playing for him in Japan (maybe even still). If Valentine even had a hint of this going on, it makes you wonder what else he knew about/who else he knew about. (Also, the timing of this is surprising - because this was alleged to have happened in 2000 - well after Radomski's employment with the Mets was up.)
TODD PRATT
Surprise: 9
Disappointment: 9
Pratt was always a hanger-on type. I saw him speak a couple of times, and he was working at baseball camps and such in between tryouts for major league teams. So, again, it's a shame if the report is correct, and maybe he had an edge. (He refused to speak to Mitchell.) It also makes you think - he won the 1999 Division Series for the Mets with a walk-off homer against Arizona....what happens if he was on steroids? That ball just barely cleared the center fielder's glove and the center field wall...maybe it would have been a routine out. Maybe the Mets don't get to the 1999 NLCS that year. Maybe I still like Kenny Rogers as a result, because he never walks in the winning run. All kidding aside, this is where steroids could be having an effect on the game of baseball, where you question everything.
PAUL LO DUCA
Surprise: 7-8
Disappointment: 5-6
The more you think about it, the less you're really surprised by this one. There's the explosive rage and his quotes from Sports Illustrated quoted in the report. But it still makes the Mets look bad. To make it worse, Hundley appears again as the person who allegedly hooked Lo Duca up with Radomski.

That's a wrap for Part I - I think I'll conclude my thoughts on the Mitchell Report with Part II sometime next week...then put this behind us. There's only about 7-8 other players with connections to the Mets that I want to mention.

FANTASY SPORTS: So last year, as a way to bridge the gap between the Super Bowl and March Madness, I got into Fantasy NASCAR, which I wrote about on the site. I'll be doing that again for sure in about a month, I think. But one thing I heard about which had always intrigued me was fantasy golf, which I was able to slide under the wire in creating a team when I realized Thursday morning that Thursday evening was the beginning of this year's PGA Tour season. So I'm excited about that. I'll keep you posted on how that goes.

MITCHELL REPORT REACTION II

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?


I hate that I've become so cynical - but part of that (or a lot of it, to be honest), is that I've become more honest with myself. I don't believe everything anyone connected with sports says anymore - and it's almost to the point where I don't believe anything anyone connected with sports says anymore.


So it's hard for me to know who to believe in the Mitchell Report. But I'm leaning towards the trainers, and less towards the players.


The trainers really had nothing to lose - well, I guess they had everything to lose - and that's why I believe they were honest. The ballplayers have a lot to lose (hard to say they have everything to lose) - and I think that's why they're not being honest.

Sure, I want to believe Andy Pettitte used HGH for only two days, and his conscience bothered him so much he stopped. Sure, I want to believe Brian Roberts took steroids ONCE, four years ago, and never since. I don't want to believe Roger Clemens never took steroids...but that's fine, because I don't believe any of them.

I am no longer surprised when a (usually football) coach walks out of a contract to take the next best attractive offer that comes along. (Thanks for that, Herman Edwards.) And I am no longer surprised when a player's name is linked to steroids. If Roger Clemens thinks I'm going to believe him any more than a guy named Brian McNamee, he's in the wrong profession. Athletes are no more believable than politicians. They say as little as possible, then hide behind the union. I don't blame them for it - but it damages their credibility. And the Mitchell Report is an instance when the players would have benefitted from having a little credibility left in their corner.

As it is, I'll take the Mitchell Report at its word, and I'll continue to be skeptical about whatever else I hear - especially when the source is a professional athlete.

I'll continue to throw my thoughts about the Mitchell Report out when time allows - I'm on winter vacation now, so there might be some time these next couple of weeks...although I do have some report cards to write. I do intend to write about all of the Mets connections to the report.


CONGRATS TO MY BROTHER: I'm very proud to say that Friday morning, my brother appeared on 'Imus in the Morning', playing with his company band. My brother plays lead guitar and sings, and was the star of the show - Imus raved about him all morning. My brother was also in the New York Daily News on Thursday in a profile of the founder of the band, the manager of a couple of New York City radio stations. After four years of johnnymets.blogspot.com, I think I'm no longer the most famous person in my family.

MITCHELL REPORT REACTION I

I think I'll break down my opinions on the Mitchell Report into a bunch of different postings. I don't know that this was the earth-shattering document a lot of people were expecting. I think it was about what I thought we'd see...but it left me with a lot more questions than answers. I'm pretty sure there have been Mets since the mid-90's who have used steroids other than Mo Vaughn and Matt Franco (surprise there - never would have expected that). But I'll get into that more another time.

What I want to spend my time on in Part I is Roger Clemens. First of all, it seems like a lot of people are shocked he was on this list. Really? I might be shocked that he started as early as when he was in Toronto...but not shocked at all that he was there. (P.S. - Why haven't I heard anyone yet using the words, "Maybe Dan Duquette was right.....?")

I am glad Roger Clemens was named in the report mainly for one reason (though there are a lot of other reasons right behind this one)....a white player needed to be prominently featured in this report. And there were a couple. But Roger Clemens compares favorably to Barry Bonds, talent-wise.

I get so tired of hearing about the race aspect of Barry Bonds and steroids. People were saying, "If Bonds was white, he wouldn't be treated this way...." Part of the problem is that Mark McGwire fell off the face of the earth, while Bonds was still playing and was a live target - so there was no white target. (Jose Canseco goes into a separate category, because he was the whistleblower.) Well, this should now take the race issue out of it, because Clemens is getting hit from all angles. His Hall of Fame candidacy is being questioned now, and that should ease the criticism that Bonds is being singled out because he is black. And if it doesn't, or if Clemens is given a pass...then this country still has a serious problem with race, and this will become prime example number one.

A NOTE ABOUT STEROIDS: Early in the day on Thursday, an e-mail made the rounds naming a bunch of high-profile major leaguers as being mentioned in the report. A couple of the names turned out to be accurate, but most were false - because if you name enough players, you're going to hit a couple. I hate that. You could name players all day and come up with a few that are guilty....and a couple who are still guilty who weren't named in the report. While I still feel that most of the players I mentioned on the blog last week probably took steroids, I have deleted that part of the entry, because I don't like the fact that anyone can throw names around and bring down people's reputations unsubstantiated. I know I don't have a ridiculous number of readers, but I felt like taking that down was the right thing to do. I wrote that in an emotional moment, when I was ticked off about this whole steroid thing. I will continue to write about steroids, and the report, but I will keep my thoughts about who else could have/probably did take steroids to myself, and stay with what has been published.

DO NOT DISTURB

I'm busy reading....

COVER BOY

Another Met will grace the cover of a video game. This time, Jose Reyes will do the honors. Unlike the last time, I will not be rushing out to buy this game. (The enthusiasm for that game lasted about a week...it has collected dust ever since. Chalk one up to The Baby.)

I'll take advantage of this news, though, to comment on the Winter Meetings....

Anyway, the Mets were quiet during the Winter Meetings, other than to have Omar Minaya raise false hope at times (giving Mets fans reason to believe the Mets still had an outside chance at Johan Santana), or telling us that the Mets are set the way they are right now (doubtful).

I do believe the Mets have a chance at Santana. I don't think he's going anywhere now until the trade deadline. Unlike Mark Buehrle, I don't think Santana will work out an 11th hour deal with the Twins. He will be traded, but it will come later. And I think the Mets have a real shot, and....full circle here....I think the MLB 2K8 cover boy still could be wearing a different uniform by the end of the season.

Sorry I didn't update during the meetings like I thought I would. My mind is focused on the two weeks left until winter vacation. We're getting there...

FOOTBALL NOTES: I'm not a betting man, but for entertainment purposes only, I'd take the Steelers plus the points this week. I think they might beat the Patriots. If not them, I think the Patriots might finish the regular season undefeated. And if they do, I have a feeling they're going to lose in the playoffs. Just my two cents on that.

ANOTHER BLOG: Joining the Southern Bureau (see the 'Orange Couch' link to the right), and Dave in Brighton (naturalbl0g), Justin From NYC finally has his blog. I say finally because of the four of us, he's the one who should have had one from the beginning. It's about politics, and it's through 1010 WINS in New York. See the link at the right - Talking Politics. Should be lots of fun.

SHOULD IT REALLY BE THIS DIFFICULT?

Mets 6, Nationals 2, 12 innings (NYM: 14-8, WAS: 8-16)

It took 12 innings, but the Mets managed to pull out a win against the Nationals on Saturday night. They need to get these wins against Washington, but they're getting tougher and tougher to come by. The Mets still trail the Atlanta Braves by a half-game in the division, and while it's too early to worry about that too much, it is important to note that the Braves are beating the opponents they should be beating - the Mets are not having the easiest time with teams like the Nationls.

The Mets were without a hit for the first five or so innings of this one - and their lack of offense ended up costing Tom Glavine a decision, leaving him at 7 wins shy of 300 in his career. (Jerome Williams gave the Nationals six innings of one-hit ball.) However, the Mets avoided being pinned with a loss with a run in the top of the ninth inning against the Nationals' shaky closer, Chad Cordero. Trailing 2-1, with runners on first and second, pinch-hitter Julio Franco lined a single to right field to tie the game at 2. The Mets might have won the game in the 9th, too, as Jose Reyes ripped one right after that, but Robert Fick made a nice play at first base to end the inning.

The mini-rally came a half-inning after Aaron Heilman stood to lose the game, giving up an RBI double, really, the only big blemish in his one-and-two thirds innings of work.

Glavine kind of got cheated out of this win, by the way. The Nationals' first run came after a bad call at first base - the Mets turned a double play, the runner at first was clearly out by a step, but the umpire called him safe. The first base ump, Tony Randazzo, had a horrible game. This call resulted in an argument that saw Willie Randolph ejected from the game. The runner came around to score on a double, so Glavine really should never have given up that run.

The Mets finally broke through with 4 in the twelfth, and it was nice to see. The first two runs came on a double by Carlos Beltran, who has been quiet lately, but came through in the clutch here. That was followed by an intentionaly walk to Carlos Delgado, and then David Wright, with the bases loaded, hit a 2-run single through the left side - a nice, solid hit. Remember all those times when teams would walk Cliff Floyd to get to Wright, and I always wrote how I think he takes that as an insult? I think it's a good thing they walked Delgado to get to him Saturday night - maybe that woke up whatever has been sleeping inside Wright.

The rally in the twelfth made a winner out of Aaron Sele, who pitched one-and-a-third scoreless innings. I forgot to write this earlier in the week, but Sele got beat up pretty good in the Wednesday afternoon game against Colorado, so it's nice to see him come back and have a good outing.

The Mets wrap up the series with Washington Sunday afternoon - John Maine against Jason Bergmann.


Coca-Cola johnnymets.blogspot.com Player of the Game: I realize this flies in the face of my logic of last week, that in order for the Mets to have won their previous extra innings game, they needed to get to extra innings first, therefore the player should be Julio Franco. But it's my decision, and I'm giving it to Carlos Beltran, who got the go-ahead runs home in the twelfth, and I'm comfortable with this decision. Beltran was 2-for-5 on the night, with the two RBI and a run scored.

TURNING TWO...HUNDRED: No double plays on Saturday, so it remains at 28 through 22 games.

MORE STEROIDS TALK: Apparently there is an article in (or coming out soon in) ESPN The Magazine in which Brian McRae says that steroids and amphetamines were rampant in the clubhouse of the 1999 Mets. The news that comes out of these investigations is going to be very, very disappointing to me, I just know it. McRae and Turk Wendell pointed the finger at pitchers in addition to hitters, without naming names. But consider this - Orel Hershiser was a pitcher on that team - so I wonder what he has to say about this too (I'm not insinuating he used anything...I actually doubt that he did. I'm just curious about his two cents, since he's an ESPN guy now, I'm sure they'll ask him about it.).

BEAT THE STREAK: Watch out, world. Freddy Sanchez got me a hit, so I'm at 5 games. I'm going with A-Rod on Sunday.

ONE BAD INNING

Nationals 4, Mets 3 (NYM: 13-8, WAS: 8-15)

All in all, Oliver Perez had another good outing on Friday night in Washington. Unfortunately, he had a rough start, and a very bad first inning, and the Nationals made that stand up to beat the Mets, 4-3.

Perez gave up 3 runs in the first, on a 3-run homer by Austin Kearns. He then settled in to go 7 innings, giving up 4 runs after the Nationals tacked on another in the sixth, and striking out 9, while walking none (the best part of his line). Perez threw 120 pitches, 81 of which were strikes. It's just too bad the Mets couldn't get anything going on offense.

The Mets bats were pretty quiet against Matt Chico. Jose Reyes manufactured the Mets' first run, blooping a shot into right field, over the second baseman's head, then legging that into a double. He stole third, and scored on a not-so-deep sacrifice fly by Paul Lo Duca. The Mets are never out of a game because of what Reyes does on the basepaths. In the fourth, the Mets had a chance to do some damage, with the bases loaded and one out, and Jose Valentin grounded one up the middle that could have been a double play, but the pitcher deflected it, slowing it down, and the Mets got a run out of that.

Encouraging news came in David Wright's last at-bat in the 8th inning. Facing another hitless night, and with the Mets needing baserunners to rally, Wright lined one to right field for an opposite-field double, his fourth double of the season. Maybe that will get him going - he went opposite field, it was a solid shot...he also tagged the ball early on, but was robbed by Ryan Zimmerman at third. Wright came around to score, but the Mets didn't have enough to rally in the eighth. They also did nothing in the ninth against Washington closer Chad Cordero, who usually walks a tightrope, but got the Mets 1-2-3.

Saturday night the Mets send Tom Glavine against Jerome Williams - no way they can lose another game in this series to the Nationals.

Southwest Airlines johnnymets.blogspot.com Player of the Game: Austin Kearns delivered the big blow, with his 3-run homer in the first inning. It was his only hit on a 1-for-4 night, but those 3 RBI were huge.


TURNING TWO...HUNDRED: No double plays for the Mets on Friday night, so the count remains 28 double plays (through 21 games).

STEROIDS: Not sure about many of the details with this Mets clubhouse worker who pleaded guilty to running steroids. But only bad things can come out of this. The guy worked for the Mets from 1985-1995. Lots of names are going to come out of this...and I'm not going to like what I hear.

BEAT THE STREAK: No hits yet for Andruw Jones on Friday night. I'll be looking for that first thing in the morning. I'm not sure how Freddy Sanchez has been doing so far this year, but he's 5-for-10 in his career against Saturday's Reds starter Matt Belisle, so I'm going with Sanchez.

SWEEP AVOIDED

Mets 9, Orioles 4 (NYM: 43-25, BAL: 32-39)

The Mets beat the Orioles on Sunday, 9-4, to avoid a three-game sweep. There's a positive view to the weekend series, and a negative view. Let me give you both:

The negative: The Mets lost all of their momentum from their 9-1 road trip, stumbling against a poor team in their own park. Pedro Martinez* had another bad start, and the Mets bats have gone cold again.

The positive: It's 2 games. The Mets lost 2 games. They're still 9-and-a-half games up on their nearest competition.

There's actually a lot of positives still to focus on - only the most negative of Mets fans can dwell on the bad parts of this weekend. The Orioles actually played really well on Friday and Saturday, and the Mets didn't. That's the bottom line. The Mets were making the mistakes that their opponents had been making, and that the Mets had been taking advantage of. In this case, the Orioles took advantage of them. Also, a couple of ex-Mets took advantage of their first games against their former team, and hit the Mets hard. Melvin Mora had a 3-RBI night on Friday, including a big homer, and Kris Benson shut down the Mets on Saturday (setting down his final 15 straight), and hit a homer off of Pedro*.

But Sunday came, and all is right with the Mets' world again. Tom Glavine pitched well (not great - but definitely better than he had been lately), becoming the first major league pitcher to get to 10 wins. Future Hall of Famer David Wright hit a grand slam (number 15 on the year, 56 career), and drove in five runs, and the Mets got contributions from their role players, as some of the regulars were rested. And they avoided the sweep, which could have really ratcheted up the negativity.

Here's the big picture - at the end of May I mentioned that the Mets had won 16 games in each of their first two months. I said if they won 16 a month, they'd finish with 112 wins, and they'd be in great shape (understatement). It's a torrid pace to keep up, I know, but the Mets are capable of it. Right now they have 11 wins this month (thanks mostly to the huge road trip). That means the Mets could go 5-6 (which wouldn't look that great in the little picture) the rest of the month, and still finish June with 16 wins. And chances are, the Mets are going to do better than 5-6 the rest of the month.

There are some tough games ahead. The Mets will get their first look at Cincinnati, for four games at Shea (taking a break from interleague play - tough schedule for the Mets - the other teams get Tampa Bay, the Mets get the extra National League series against Cincy). Then it's at Toronto for three, and they're playing well. Then at Boston, and at the Yankees. The Mets have proved they are capable of rising to challenges in the schedule like this...but that's a tough road. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mets were 5-6 the rest of the way - but I also wouldn't be surprised to see an 11-0, or a 10-1, or a 9-2. That's how good they are.

Orlando Hernandez gets it all started against Bronson Arroyo Monday night.

DL MOVE: The Mets put Cliff Floyd on the DL Saturday, retroactive to June 7th. He still hasn't recovered from that ankle injury he suffered in LA. He's eligible to come off the DL on Thursday, but that doesn't seem likely - he might have to go to Florida to rehab it. He's very frustrated. The Mets activated Xavier Nady (sidelined since early June with appendicitis) on Sunday to take Floyd's roster spot. Look for Lastings Milledge to man left field now, in place of Floyd, with Nady taking over right again.

COMMENT RESPONSE: This from Dave in Brighton, responding to my comments about umpire warnings, ejections, etc.:

"Re: Pitcher ejections.

1. Are you calling Manny Ramirez (450 HR) a young player?

B. I disagree that umpires are right to issue warnings after the first hit batter or aggressive action. This means the other team doesn't get a chance to respond and even things up. The umpire takes away players' ability to police themselves, and then you get long-simmering feuds, like the Sox and D-Rays.

Soapbox rant over."

I like how Dave couldn't choose between the 1,2 or A, B listing option, so he mixed them together. As for Manny....he was one example. Mentally, he's young.

Dave, my point is that the umpires HAVE to do the warnings, before there's a retaliation, because otherwise it gets out of hand. I don't think the players have the ability anymore to police themselves. I agree with you, though, that the result is long-simmering fueds, like Tampa-Boston, and even like the Mets and the Nationals earlier this year (which we might see again later in the year when they play again). That's the problem - I don't think there is a good solution to this whole thing. There's going to be problems either way, and I think Major League Baseball is doing the best thing they could possibly do right now given their situation.

The other problem, which I failed to mention, is when the umpires handle this responsibility incompetently. Then warnings are issued when they needn't be issued, and the inside part of the plate is taken away from both pitchers, and the game turns into a mockery. That's another problem with it....but I'll save that for another day.

HGH FALLOUT: David Segui spoke out Sunday morning on ESPN, saying he was mentioned in the Jason Grimsley affadavit, and that he took HGH legally, with a doctor's prescription. Segui is a former Met, and that's why I'm mentioning it here. I think most of this stuff, though, happened when Segui was in Baltimore (although I don't doubt it could have happened in New York as well). To me, it sounded like Segui was trying to take a pre-emptive strike, speaking out before he could be accused. I don't think it worked too much, though - because cynics like me look at him as someone who's trying to dig himself out of a hole before he's fully in the hole....if that makes sense. I still think he was wrong - no matter if he admits to taking something or not. Many other names are still to come.

I'm not in the business of witch-hunting, so I'm not going to just throw names out on this site. But if you want to contact me, I'll talk about who I think were the biggest users - I watch all of these baseball games now, and there are certain players who just look so physically different that it's hard not to suspect them.

THE KID'S KIDS: The St. Lucie Mets get back at it on Monday against Brevard County, following the All-Star break. The Mets have a one-game lead on Palm Beach, and a 2-game lead on Brevard County.

FANTASY UPDATE: The What If Mets are starting to realize, I think, that time is getting short. They took two out of three against the Astros, and are still 7 back of the wild card. This is the time to make up ground - the Cardinals and Cubs are the next opponents, and they aren't good. It's now or never.

BEAT THE STREAK: I had a 2-gamer going, and Carlos Beltran* ended it on Sunday. So stubbornly I'm sticking with Beltran* again on Monday against the Reds.

IN DEFENSE OF MY PICKS (see bracket below)

A very quiet day in Mets camp, so it's a perfect day to tell you why I picked the teams to finish the way I did.

I'm not going to talk about the Mets, because their season preview is still to come. But I do believe they will win the NL East, finally surpassing the Braves, and advance to (and win) the World Series. Because that's the type of year I want.

The Braves aren't going to totally fall out of it, though. They're going to get the Wild Card - and I really don't think there will be much drama in the Wild Card chase. I'm not buying many teams out West, and in the Central, I don't see Houston doing as well as last year, and no one else will be very close to the Braves. And...say it with me now....the Phillies don't scare me. Another disappointing year in Philadelphia.

I like the Cardinals to come out of the Central, mostly because every year I kind of overlook them, but they're always solid. Also, they have a beautiful new ballpark this year, and that'll work to their advantage, so they'll win the division.

I'm big on the Dodgers this year. First of all, that division is awful. They will beat up on the rest of the teams in the West. I think Nomar Garciaparra is Comeback Player of the Year. I think Derek Lowe pitches a lot better this year (his head wasn't in the game last year, he admits - and he is the biggest headcase in the league). And I am a big believer that Grady Little got screwed in Boston, and now with another chance to manage, does very well. I think the Dodgers might just quietly finish with the best record in the National League.

In the AL, I'll start out West. I had a hard time picking between the A's and Angels, because the A's are close to having built another young, winning team. I went with the Angels because they are a veteran team who have been there before. Next year for Oakland.

It's this year for Cleveland. After coming so close last year, they pick up this year's Wild Card, finishing second to the Chicago White Sox. The Sox came out of nowhere (in my mind) last year, and won everything - they haven't changed much. If anything, they've improved their clubhouse demeanor without Frank Thomas, and have a chance to get to the World Series again this year.

With the Indians taking the wild card, it's down to the Red Sox and Yankees in the East. I don't think the Blue Jays are there quite yet, fighting for the division title, but I think they'll do enough damage to cost one of the big teams a shot at the playoffs - and this year, I think that will be the Yankees. I like Shawn Chacon, and I think Randy Johnson will have a good year, but I think there will be injuries on the Yankees this year, and I expect the Red Sox to be good this year - good enough to make the playoffs, anyway. They'll bow out in the first round, as will the Angels.

It'll be the Dodgers and Mets advancing in the NL, and the Mets will beat the White Sox in 5 games in the World Series. Oh, how I hope this comes true.

NATS ARE DOOMED: I didn't mention the Washington Nationals above - that's because they're not worth mentioning. On Wednesday, Alfonso Soriano played the outfield, after refusing to do so the day before. I think with that kind of attitude, and with the likes of Jose Guillen and Livan Hernandez in the clubhouse, the Nationals are going to have a summer full of disharmony.

*BOOF*: There's someone in the Twins' minor league system we're going to have to keep an eye on. I was looking through the transactions the other day, and saw the Twins had reassigned pitcher Boof Bonser. What a name. We'll watch him and keep you posted - and definitely let you know if he gets called up.

THE OTHER SHOE: Some of the steroids fallout is starting to happen. More releases from "Game of Shadows", the book that "outed" Barry Bonds, now point the finger at Gary Sheffield as having knowingly obtained steroids from Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson. I'm not going to like some of the other names that I feel are going to be coming out....

TOE-RIFFIC

OK, maybe terrific is a little too much to describe Pedro Martinez*'s day, but it makes for a good pun. And I wanted to be the first to use it.

Pedro* threw 61 pitches on Wednesday, and everything went well. He faced batters, and is on target to start throwing in a game soon. The Mets haven't ruled out Opening Day yet, but it's less likely Pedro* will miss more than a day or two at the beginning of the year.

METS 8, NATIONALS 5: The Mets won their spring training game on Wednesday over the Nationals. Aaron Heilman pitched four scoreless innings, giving up just three hits. I am excited about Heilman in the starting rotation. I liked him out of the bullpen last year, but I'm really starting to think Heilman has a chance to be one of the most valuable Mets this year. And he's pitching really well this spring, for what that's worth.

BONDS: I don't know how I feel about this whole Bonds thing. I do NOT like Barry Bonds - that's first of all. Never have - even when he was a Pirate. I do not feel bad for him that all of this stuff is coming out. I do question the motivation here, though. These writers are writing a book about steroid use in baseball, basically. It just so happens their target is someone who probably has shunned them multiple times through his career in San Francisco. I wonder if baseball players were all nice, accomodating guys who all cheated, would all this stuff still come out?

When it comes down to it, I'm glad the book was written. I want to be able to return to the days when a 50-homer season was legit, and special. I want suspicion to be cast on Bonds everytime he steps on a baseball field. I want suspicion cast on other players who suddenly bulked up the past 10+ years....even though I know I'm not going to like hearing who some of those players are. I just wonder what the true motivation was for this book, "Game of Shadows", in which the stories about Bonds all came out. What's good for baseball, or revenge by a couple of sportswriters?

NCAA: I'm so psyched for Thursday's start to the NCAA tournament. I wasn't happy with the way my bracket turned out, but who knows - it's not like I do well every other year, when I'm happy with my bracket. So maybe this is the year. I have Duke, Villanova, North Carolina, and Gonzaga as my final four - we'll see. Big upsets the first couple of days include San Diego State over Indiana. Just so I'm on the record. UNC-Wilmington should also beat George Washington. And I took Northern Iowa over Georgetown - I don't know why.

SNY LAUNCH: Forgot to mention that while I was in New York last weekend, I walked past the new SNY studios with Justin from NYC. It seems like it'll be a nice setup, with an open studio wrapping around the corner facing the street. (I wish I knew I was going to be there, I would have dropped off my letter of intent to be the official blogging partner of SNY.) Thursday, March 16th, is the launch of SNY. Still no word on whether or not DirecTV will air SNY - it doesn't look like it will happen by the time of the launch...unfortunately. So I won't be able to watch it's first minutes on the air....but you know I'll be watching the minute DirecTV picks it up.

Good news. The Mets picked up a half-game on Atlanta, shut down by Zach Duke and the Pittsburgh Pirates Monday afternoon. The Mets, of course, didn't play.

The Mets, I was surprised to read in the New York papers Monday, are happy that Mike Cameron wasn't traded. I guess he's a really good guy in the clubhouse. Cliff Floyd especially was thrilled that his friend was staying. I don't think the players realize that Cameron is KILLING the rest of the team. Oh well. Maybe this all being behind them will lead to a big run in August.

I'm going to the game Sunday night. According to my calculations, I will not be seeing Pedro Martinez* pitch. I'll know better later in the week, but I think Randolph is giving him the extra day of rest, so Pedro will probably be going Wednesday-Tuesday.

When I do go to the Mets-Cubs game, you may hear me yelling on ESPN. I will be the only one screaming for a double when David Wright comes to the plate.

This is an off-day, but since there is some e-mail to get to, I'll forego a trip down memory lane, and put aside the old scorebooks. Maybe I'll do that next week.

Dave checks in with this e-mail:

"Dear Johnnymets,

Off day commercial fodder.

I saw the Southwest commercial you wrote about a few weeks back, where the guy and girl have an awkward moment on the couch then he runs over to his computer. I figured out why it's so awkward: the woman in the commercial was just recently married -- in a State Farm auto insurance commercial, in which she makes her husband throw out a bunch of his
stuff, but they keep his insurance company because "she had the Gecko." And she's cheating on him already. No wonder there was a strained moment on the couch in the Southwest ad.

Along this same vein, David Spade's trainee/coworker from the Capital
One ads is making extra money working at a grocery store, where he
offers Pringles to shoppers.

Dave in Brighton"

Dave, of course, is referring to my article over the All-Star break on some of the best commercials that air during all of the baseball games I watch. Dave, it turns out, likes to create stories about the lives of the people who appear in numerous commercials that air at the same time. I have yet to notice that the woman in the Southwest commercial is the same as the woman in the State Farm one. But I'll take Dave's word for it - the woman sounds like a tramp.

As for the David Spade trainee, he's appearing in a bunch of commercials these days. And I have to say, I am very happy with Dave's repeated use of the word "commercial". I have a strong feeling that ads on TV should be called "commercials". My wife calls them "ads". I think "ads" are the ads in newspapers and magazines. It's tearing us apart.

Here's another e-mail, shifting the focus back to baseball:

"Johnny...

I love the Wright Watch....such a captivating part of the column....I'm surprised the NY Post hasn't stolen the idea yet.

Anyways - do you feel like the Mets did an injustice to their fans by even getting in the Manny Ramirez talks?? They get the whole city hyped up about getting Manny - then they don't get him - and end up with nothing. It seems like they're just putting their fans through a roller coaster of emotions.

kevin
JMDBSDC Southern Bureau"

Kevin - thanks for the kind words on the Wright Watch. Johnnymets.blogspot.com loves its Southern Bureau. Remember - 16 doubles in 57 games. Quite do-able.

I do think the Mets were sort of used by the Red Sox. As I mentioned on Sunday, it's my theory that the Red Sox floated out this trade proposal to make Red Sox fans realize that they didn't really want Manny to go. So in essence, they used the Mets, because they were never going to trade him....now, anyway. The off-season is a different story. But I don't think that ended up putting Mets fans through a roller coaster of emotions, because people in New York tell me there was a bit of an uproar over the Mets getting Manny. I don't think people wanted him...which is hard for me to believe.

However, I do think the Manny thing took some of the Mets' focus away from the Alfonso Soriano trade talks, and I think Mets fans would have been very happy with a deal for Soriano. So the fact that they didn't end up with Soriano might have made some Mets fans mad (myself included - I forgot to mention that the other day) - and that can be blamed indirectly on Manny.

I should probably weigh in on this whole Rafael Palmeiro mess. How can you unknowingly take steroids? That's what I want to know. I feel like the past 15 years need to be wiped from the books. Everyone's a liar, everyone's been cheating. It's very disheartening, disappointing. Palmeiro's credibility is shot. He lied to Congress....who's to say anyone has been telling the truth. It's just bad. I don't know who to believe - I can't believe these guys have the gall to be doing this now, anyway, faced with this drug plan. I think it lends a ton of credence to my dad's theory that Jason Giambi has been having a great month because he's back on the juice. I wish stuff like this wasn't happening...but maybe the fact that a big name is outed now, in Palmeiro, it will either scare others straight, or lead to other big names and other suspensions.

ELTRAN*'S AND WRIGHT WATCH will return on Tuesday.

THE KID'S KIDS: There's either a night game happening (a rare thing in the Gulf Coast League), or there's been another rain out. The Mets are 22-10, six-and-a-half games up.