Willie Randolph
by GuyinNY on Jun 17, 2008 9:09 AM EDT
48 comments
The Mets fired Willie Randolph last night.
Without getting into the way the franchise let Willie twist in the wind, the enormously embarrassing "Willie Watch", and incredibly uncouth way they actually fired Randolph, what strikes me most is this :
Mets players learned of Randolph's firing via text message with beat writers.
http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/?p=13539
Nevermind that the team was coming off a win, or that it seems like Omar really didn't want to fire Willie.
The Mets didn't even tell the players.
Stay classy, Mr.Met.
0 recs |
48 comments
Email
Print
Comments
One thing..
I haven’t posted in a while I’ve been super busy… BUT..
I think Omar fired Willie in LA so that they would have six days to let things simmer before coming back to New York. People have been calling Omar classless, but I would argue he did this to keep his players and Willie out of the New York media immediately after it happened. I think it was the right move to do and the right place to do it.
Good luck in the future Willie.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Jun 17, 2008 10:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree
The wining about the timing is sour grapes from the press who are upset that it was too late for them to make the deadline to get their insulting an obnoxious headlines in the next mornings paper, and they were too far away to be able to mob, harass, and demean Willie in person as soon as the news broke.
The Mets handled it fine, it’s the NY press that is filled with selfish low-class sleaze.
by acerimusdux on Jun 18, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep..
This is the same media that Willie basically called racist just a few weeks ago too…
by MetfanBren on Jun 18, 2008 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Timing
The 3am time probably wasn’t the best but the general consensus is that Omar fought for Willie as long as he could and was pressured to make the firing due to a) media pressure due to all the leaks and b) Fred Wilpon.
by Lunkwill Fook on Jun 17, 2008 10:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
3am is 12:00 midnight on the west coast.
Most likely Omar had a long talk with Willie after the game that ended around 10 and then released the press release afterwards. Cant blame Omar if the East coast media didnt stay up for what is happening on the West coast.
by laxtonto on Jun 17, 2008 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Timing
The move was announced as late as it was so it wouldn’t be able to make the papers the next morning. It’ll still be big news tomorrow, but having many people learn about it over the radio or on ESPN is going to limit the shock value a bit.
by DrunkIrish on Jun 17, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now...
when will Minaya get the axe? He is the one who overpaid for a bunch of aging and overhyped players. I feel the team’s lack of production is more his fault than Randolph’s.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Jun 17, 2008 1:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I think the Mets should hire Steve Phillips.. then drag him through the mud and fire him as well. Then they can do the same to Jim Duquette for the Kazmir deal.
All joking aside, the Mets lack depth. This isn’t a video game or fantasy baseball. Its really baseball and defense and depth actually count for something.
Relying on Mosis Alou, Luis Castillo, and Carlos Delgado were the fatal flaws of this team. Signing Luis Castillo to a four year deal was a huge mistake. And not going above slot is another huge mistake(though that could be on the Wilpons)
The problem with this team is three fold. Well actually three players, Carlos Beltran, David Wright and Jose Reyes. Because you have three super stars the Mets are forced into a win now mode. In the New York media market they couldn’t have a fire sale and rebuild the team. Especially after the collapse.
That sets the stage for the Santana deal. A huge win now move by Omar which was a steal by all accounts. The problem is the mets have 6 above average players who can be relied on going into the season. Wright, Reyes, Beltran, Santana, Maine, and Wagner (maybe Heilman). Otherwise you have a poor 25 man roster. Castillo, Church, Schneider, Delgado, Alou, Perez, Pedro(squared), Pelfrey, Sanchez, and others are either oft injured or previous unproductive.
The Mets are in purgatory. They are between a team that is on the verge of something special(the way they appearing in 2006) and on the brink of a team needing to be rebuild(the collapse till now).
The future is in serious jeopardy and I don’t see any relief in sight.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Jun 17, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shooot...
...man, I feel your pain, but try being a Mariner fan for a while. Not saying that because you are whining about things, that I understand, but this mets team is good enough to turn it around THIS YEAR. Outsatnding young players at 3b and SS…Church was phenomenal (and I said he would be a better player than Milledge will be when the deal was made)...still have Beltran in CF even in an off-year he’s better than most CF’s… Alou may actually play someday…got Santana, got Maine, Pedro is healthy right?...Wagner closes, Heilman is good set-up guy…Delgado has kinda sucked but he’s still OK enough.
There have been tons of injuries and bad luck, but Randolph just couldn’t get it done so he’s gone. You may be right about the future…though I think EVERY team in the league would like to have a young nucleus of Reyes, Wright, Santana, Beltran, Church. Thats a LOT to buid around ecvn if your farm system ain’t great. You got F-Mart coming up to so… cheer up!! Bring back Bobby Valentine and this team could still make the playoffs.
by casejud on Jun 17, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying.
I was complaining as much as I was attempting to paint the picture that this team really was never as stacked as people made them out to be. In all, they are only 5 games back in the loss column(not too bad).
Church has been fantastic and I really loved that trade from the start. But Heilman has been dreadful. I’m excited about the progress Pelfrey has made (prior to last night, but he did seem to have bad luck as well).
Baseball, like prospects, is analyzed over time. One year doesn’t make an organization good or great or grand. In the scheme of being a fan we are all always looking into the future and holding onto the past. Looking into the future I see many holes and because of the core it’ll be tough to rebuild outside of free agency.
I love the mets, I like the team, I don’t like the future of the organization.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Jun 17, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a couple of those statements were made with the benefit of hindsight
How can you put Church as part of a “poor” 25 man roster? He’s not “oft-injured”. The concussions were a total fluke. IMO, he was one of the best trades Omar has made and they just got unlucky. Sanchez isn’t “injury prone” either unless you think he’s prone to getting into taxi cab accidents. Castillo is certainly NOT the Mets probably this year. His batting average is down but the rest of him is as good as advertised. You may have a point with the length of contract but he’s putting up a well above average OBP so far this season. Pelfrey has pitched well enough to win out the 5th spot which is disappointing considering his draft spot but definitely not a factor in the “poor roster”. Oliver Perez may be having a bad season but he’s still a talented pitcher with a winning record so far this season.
So, basically, it boils down to a couple players:
1) Alou. Yes, he’s injury prone. But he’s never been THIS injury prone and it doesn’t help that his main backup, Pagan, is also injured (and, no, Pagan is NOT injury prone).
2) Delgado. He’s aging but NO ONE predicted he would age this badly. Delgado fell off the damned cliff.
3) Schneider. He was supposed to bat in the 8 hole. The other injuries are what’s causing him to bat higher. If he’s in the 8th spot like he’s supposed to be, no one would care.
by Lunkwill Fook on Jun 18, 2008 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hindsight
All the comments I made where COMING INTO THE SEASON. Although once you realize that it makes the rest of your points moot, I’ll continue none the less.
Coming into the season you could of been happy to obtain Church, as I was, but he was an unknown and definitely not as good as he has been playing. And now that he is out the lack of depth is killing the Mets.
Sanchez didn’t pitch since 2006. When he came back he could have been a completely different pitcher. Who knows? But now that he is back he hasn’t been spectacular. Well he is if you compare him to Heilman i guess.
Castillo is 32 with horrible knees and will only continue to deteriorate. Way to cherry pick some stats. His OPS+ is 93 and his defense is limited due to mobility.
Again, looking at the team prior to this year you have to be worried with Orlando Hernandez. That causes you to rely on Pelfrey and be more worried. He has been ok I’m excited about the progress but he hasn’t been all that impressive.
And your final 3 points.
1. Alou has played 98, 87, and 15(2008) games over the past three years respectively. He is 41 and once again relying on him to play 150 games is a mistake. Heck, relying on him to play 120 games was a mistake.
2. Delgado… Are you serious dude? His OPS+ dropped to 103 last year the worst since he became a full timer. That is with a decent second half. Everyone who watches baseball saw this coming.
3. Schneider is ok for the 8th hole. But the 72 OPS+ tells me that he isn’t a great offensive catcher. He fills a need, he however is a minus on the roster.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Jun 18, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on....
I’m really sick of pessimism and I didn’t expect it from you, Metty.
Church has been a good player who has never been given a chance and the numbers support it. He had good numbers in cavernous RFK last season and there was every reason to believe he could be a productive 6-7 spot hitter.
Castillo still has a well above average OBP and as many sabremetricians would agree, OBP is more important than SLG. Regardless, a 93 OPS+ at a premium defensive position is NOT bad. I have not noticed anything particularly bad about his defense but, if you have numbers to support it, I’ll be happy to see it. Let’s face it, 2B is sort of a crap position in the majors right now. Not a whole lot of talent floating around.
And you contradict yourself talking about Pelfrey as well. You say he’s part of a poor roster and then turn around and say that your excited about his progress. HE’S A FIFTH STARTER at this point, what do you want?
And NO ONE expected El Duque to make a lot of starts. The over-under was 20. That being said, no one also expected him to essentially miss the entire season which is likely what’s going to happen. That’s why the Mets have Pelfrey. And Vargas. And Figueroa. And Armas.
And my final three points:
1. So, going from close to 100 games a season and then dropping to what looks like maybe 50 games ISN’T unexpected? No one relied on him to play 120 games. They expected the regular 100 games he seems to be able to play with players like Pagan backing him up. Guess what, plans failed. Alou has been injured even more than usual and his backup got injured too. That’s just BAD LUCK.
2. Delgado was a good player in the second half of the season (good enough to hold the 5-7 slots anyway) and was largely considered to continue that pace assuming that was a sign he was over the wrist surgery he had the previous off season. Have you even looked at the statistical predictions that Delgado was supposed to hit this season? Or are you just pooping on Delgado now for the fun of it?
3. So you agree with me on Schneider? Because you made it sound like you disagreed.
by Lunkwill Fook on Jun 19, 2008 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate the NO ONE predicted argument....
Most of the time I hear this argument used, it’s in regard to something rather obvious that plenty of people predicted. In the case of Delgado, I think plenty of people thought he’d age this badly. The cliff he fell off isn’t that much different than the typical aging curve. Plenty of people opposed trading for him for that reason 3 years earlier, or opposed signing him to a 4 year deal when he was a free agent for the same reason.
On the other hand, I pretty much agree with you on Church. His OBP and SLG are almost exactly the same as they were in 2006. He wasn’t quite as good in 2007, but he was certainly close. Church when healthy, is a proven above average starting player. He was a solid part of the core when the season started.
But for most of the rest I agree with Metty’s assessment of the roster. The bench coming into the season was putrid. Pagan was the only one you would be comfortable with in the lineup as an injury replacement beyond a day or two. 1B, 2B, and LF were problems in 2007 and weren’t upgraded in the offseason. I like Schneider behind the plate, but his bat makes him only an average player/role player. The real problem was the overall lack of depth in the even of injury. Many people noted this with the rotation as well, as any SP depth they had was traded for Santana.
I disagree with some of the names he mentioned; Perez, Pelfrey, and both Pedros are all solid pieces. But, just looking at the current 25 man roster, they could release Easley, Tatis, Delgado, Castillo, Anderson, Chavez, Cancel, Castro, and Nixon all tomorrow and I wouldn’t miss one of them. That’s 9 of the 13 position players on the roster. Young starts are nice, but this team could use 4-5 young role players as well if they want to take the next step.
by acerimusdux on Jun 18, 2008 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Release?
I don’t see how you can say you would release those guys. Easley can still hit lefties and he can back up 5 positions. Tatis can be replaced easily, you’re right about him. Delgado has actually been better recently, but I see what you’re saying. Castillo’s OBP is still above .370. Anderson’s been bad. Chavez is one of the best defensive OF in baseball, and he has been starting to hit lately. Cancel is just a 3rd catcher that’s in the majors so Castro can pinch hit, and Castro can still hit. Nixon is what he is, a decent back-up OF.
by supermets on Jun 18, 2008 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mis-read him...
He didn’t say that he would release them, or even that they should be released. He was just saying that if they were released hypothetically, he would not miss them.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Jun 18, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tatis might be the best of them
Not that I would release them all without replacements, and I’m sure every team has 3-4 guys like that who could possibly clear waivers, but 9 of them? On a team with a $140M payroll?
Easley is 38 years old and last season was the first one in 7 where he hit for anything. It was a fluke. He has had a bit of pop off the bench for those years, but at his age I expect that is gone as well.
Castillo’s OBP is 20 points higher than his slugging, and he isn’t that good defensively anymore either. I could live with him as a bench player, but he’s a marginal starter who is grossly overpaid. And he has been tremendously unclutch. His WPA is -1.18.
Chavez has been putrid this year, but was good over the last 2, and usually plays good defense, so yeah I’ll give him a bit of a pass. But he really hasn’t been himself most of the season.
Castro can hit some as long as he doesn’t have to play more than 3 days in a row, in which case his back acts up. And he’s seldom available when you really need him.
Beyond the issue of talent, a few of these guys are in the group of players who I don’t think have been giving their best effort out there for much of this season either. Maybe that will change with the new manager, but if it doesn’t it might be time to actually release a few.
by acerimusdux on Jun 18, 2008 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolph I can understand
The method on the other hand I cannot
Also what did Tom Nieto and Rick Peterson do to get fired? The Mets currently have the 4th best ERA in the National League. On the other hand the Mets OPS is 11th in the National League and they have been horrible with RISP all season yet Howard Johnson still has a job. Also, why the heck is Sandy Alomar Sr. still a Mets coach after all of his disasters at third base?
by mtk52983 on Jun 17, 2008 1:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hojo can't be fired
He is DWRIGHT’s mentor. it won’t happen.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Jun 17, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nieto and Peterson
Were they close to Randolph? From a management standpoint, it is sometimes better to fire the lieutenants, too, if they are going to have a hard time swallowing what you did to the general. Fair or not, it can be the best thing for an organization.
by siddfynch on Jun 17, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes and No
Nieto was very close to Randolph, going back to his Yankee days.
Peterson was a holdover from the pre-Minaya days. Apparantly he was one of the members of the Mets who strongly encouraged trading Kazmir in the Zambrano deal.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jun 17, 2008 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He said he could fix Zambrano
in 5 minutes. Unfortunately for Mets fans and Rick Peterson, Zambrano’s shoulder was shot at the time of the trade. Zambrano had great stuff before his arm stopped working, he just couldn’t throw strikes.
Tools Whore
Sign Bonds!
by Tyler on Jun 17, 2008 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the reports I have been hearing
Fred Wilpon should fire Assistant GM Tony Bernazard. Last year he was spotted hanging out in the dugout with his buddy Manny Acta when the Mets played the Nationals. This year it is being widely reported that because he was angry that Randolph got the job over Manny Acta he has been stirring up the discontent with Willie among the Latino players in the clubhouse and at every turn tried to undermine Randolph. Supposedly yesterday while Randolph was throwing BP, Bernazard was carrying on in the dugout, for everyone to see, a nice long chat with Jerry Manuel. A Mets writer asked Bernazard during the game if Willie was being fired tonight [Monday night] and Bernazard said “no.” After Willie was fired the same reporter asked Bernazard what happened and Tony was like “Willie was not fired last night, he was fired today [Tuesday]”
by mtk52983 on Jun 17, 2008 4:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This shouldn't have been so hard
This isn’t like the Mariners, who badly overestimated their core. Wright, Reyes, Beltran, Santana, and Maine is a great core. If Minaya had built any depth or bench at all, this season would be going much better. If he hadn’t traded Heath Bell and Matt Lindstrom for nothing at all, things would be much better.
Anyway, the Mets could still make the playoffs and it won’t mean that Jerry Manuel is a genius. Minaya’s failures and some bad luck shouldn’t all fall on Randolph.
by aap212 on Jun 17, 2008 4:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Bell and Lindstrom
Lindstrom has been terrible this year, and he wasn’t traded for nothing, we got Adam Bostick who was doing well in AAA before he got hurt.
Bell was traded for nothing, but he was out of options and he never earned a roster spot while with the Mets. If they did not trade him, he would have been DFAed.
by supermets on Jun 17, 2008 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bell
Bell earned a roster spot while with the Mets, they were just too dense to give it to him.
by aap212 on Jun 17, 2008 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bell
Bell was never any good with the Mets. When they made that trade my first reaction was: There is no way this ends up being a bad trade because Bell and Ring have never been any good and they have no future at all with the Mets. That first opinion has not changed.
by supermets on Jun 17, 2008 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bell
Aside from his flukish HR rates in ‘04 and ‘06, his peripherals were outstanding with the Mets. Look at those K/9 and K/BB ratios. He deserved more of a chance. He only even got 40 IP with the Mets once.
by aap212 on Jun 17, 2008 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bell
How can something be “flukish” if it occurs twice in three years?
While K/9 and K/BB tells only part of the story, his H/9 and WHIP numbers indicated that he was giving up a lot of base-runners. While hits can change from year to year, his H/9 in 2007 for San Diego was his lowest EVER in his professional career. His GB% went from just below 50% to over 60% not to mention San Diego is probably the most pitcher-friendly stadium in the majors. Bell was getting strikeouts, but he was not getting a lot of pop-ups and swing and misses when he was in New York
by mtk52983 on Jun 17, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bell
Flukish, because in those same years, he was giving up far fewer home runs in Triple A. It’s flukish when a guy’s other rate stats maintain but home run rate gets worse in the major in a pitchers’ park. The guy was great in the high minors for the Mets and they never gave him a full chance. They only give full chances to guys who are more famous, expensive, and proven to be mediocre, like Matt Wise.
by aap212 on Jun 17, 2008 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wise?
Are you kidding me? First of all, Wise wasn’t with the Mets until 2008, and he is the exact opposite of what you said. Famous? That would be like signing Linebrink to a big contract.
Anyway back to the real topic, he gave up homeruns in the majors because he was not good. He was a AAAA player. He beat AAA hitters, but not ML hitters.
by supermets on Jun 17, 2008 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bell
Bell’s main problem with the Mets was that he wasn’t receptive to coaching, and his fastball got very straight when he was in the majors. I think the majority of his problems were mental, but it was pretty clear that it just wasn’t working out with the Mets. That having been said, we got Ben Johnson for him. I’d imagine Omar could have done a little bit better somewhere else.
by GuyinNY on Jun 17, 2008 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bell
Okay, so a guy did great in the high minors, had some growing pains, and then starred as soon as he got to a team that gave him a full chance. That makes him a AAAA pitcher? He beats MLB hitters now and he struck them out from day one.
And maybe Wise isn’t a household name, but he’s established, mediocre, and making seven figures. That’s the sort of guy the Mets sign instead of giving potentially better pitchers a chance. Forgive me if I didn’t feel like spelling Schoeneweis instead of Wise.
by aap212 on Jun 18, 2008 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kirk Cameron
These were hardly growing pains. Bell was not able to get along with Peterson, nor could he get his fastball to move. Yes, he threw 95, but it was straight. Perhaps he was overthrowing, but these weren’t growing pains as much as they back to back crappy seasons in the majors. He was a 29 year old who couldn’t succeed in the majors, save for his first go around in the league. Bell had a great K/BB, but that was partly because his straight, hard fastball staying in the zone. If you could catch it, you could hammer it. When Bell got to San Diego, he was willing to make adjustments and he figured something out. If the Mets had given him plenty more time, maybe he would have done it in Flushing. It didn’t seem likely, though.
Btw, Matt Wise had a fantastic run in Milwaukee and was a bargain sign. Scott Schoenweiss was a very successful loogy who Willie misused. These things happen. David Ortiz was a different guy when he got to Boston and redid his swing. Heath Bell’s been successful in San Diego, and that’s great for him. In the meantime, the Mets did the right thing.
by GuyinNY on Jun 18, 2008 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bell wasn't bad for the Mets
Bell was really pretty good for the Mets for the year before he was traded. He had a few blowups, where he was left out there for multiple innings to give up a bunch of runs, usually in a mop up role. But much of the time he was as lights out as he has been in San Diego. Take a look at the game logs.
In 2006, 19 of the 25 runs he gave up were in only 3 appearances. For the other 19 appearances he had a 1.76 ERA (and he had a 2.79 ERA that year as late as 9/8).
Even in 2005, he had a 3.57 ERA at the end of May after his first 20 appearances, and faded in the second half. His ERA jumped from 4.24 to 5.59 when he struggled in his last 4 outings of the year. So it was more a case of a young pitcher with talent showing some inconsistency.
by acerimusdux on Jun 18, 2008 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but you could do that with anybody.
“Take out their really bad outings and he’s a good pitcher”
Well, no, he isn’t, because you can’t just subtract something that did happen.
by adropofvenom on Jun 18, 2008 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not 3 out of 21
I’m not saying his true talent was a pitcher with an ERA under 2.00, just that it was obvious he was a solid reliever. When a young pitcher makes it all the way to September with excellent numbers, it’s not cherry picking to think he can probably make it a full season in the future.
One point is that ERA is a lousy way to measure the value of a relief pitcher in small samples. Look at Win Probability added and you see he was about average in 2006 overall. His FIP for the three seasons with the Mets were 4.24, 2.91, and 4.25, and that was with unusually high rates of HR/FB. Plus his numbers in the minors were dominating, and he was throwing mid 90’s heat with a good breaking pitch.
I’m not saying anyone would have predicted he’d be as good as he has become, but it was obvious that he was a young pitcher who was at least likely to soon be posting ERAs under 4. If you went just by peripherals you would have expected him at the time to be about as good as Heilman going forward.
Not really disagreeing with too much that Guy said, there were disagreements with the coach, etc. But I do think the Mets undervalued him. There was certainly room for him in their pen, he really wasn’t hurting the team that year, and there were pretty good odds he would improve some as well.
by acerimusdux on Jun 19, 2008 3:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Minaya...
...fought for Randolph, and God knows why. Willie supposedly made a backhanded comment about the Wilpon’s not being around the clubhouse enough yesterday. Put that on top of his accusations that they were leading a PR campaign against him via SNY, and that he was being judged unfairly because he was black and you have a great recipe for getting fired. They should have done it a month ago, and I think the Wilpon’s overruled Omar, or at least put enough pressure on him to the point where he finally did it…
That being said, Manuel doesn’t represent much of a change. He’s another guy who’s tied directly to Omar, and probably not the best of choices when you’re looking for someone to save your own job. Oberkfell should at least have gotten the interim tag. He would represent a true change from the old administration, and he’s done nothing but win in the minors with very little to work with. Firing Peterson was pretty stupid too, and I have no doubts that he’ll find work real soon…
by MetfanBren on Jun 17, 2008 5:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What happens to Oliver Perez's performance with Peterson gone?
Wasn’t it widely believed last year that Peterson had lobbied for the acquisition of Perez, thinking that he knew how to “fox” him….and then, lo and behold, Perez has a comeback season in 2007?
As always, this topic boils down to “how will it affect my fantasy team?”
by siddfynch on Jun 17, 2008 6:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
* "fix" him. And not the way you "fix" a pet. Or a fox.
by siddfynch on Jun 17, 2008 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ohhhhhhhhh
See, I thought you meant castrate
by OldProspects on Jun 17, 2008 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoa whoa whoa
Foxes aren’t meant to be fixed. They are to be left in the hen house. Didn’t you ever watch David the Gnome? You have to love Swift.
by GuyinNY on Jun 17, 2008 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
better question is Maine who was wasn't much before Peterson
by Bravesin07 on Jun 17, 2008 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
perspective
Randolph should get a job soon…the man is a good player’s manager, but he had a team that needed a fire lit under it….honestly, you trade new york managers, and i think you’d have two first place teams….not that girardi is doing bad, but there are rumblings of veterans being sick of his rah-rah….the mets need that fire….the yanks were much more used to a torre laid-back approach….jerry manual will not give them fire….i’d say you are looking at next year before this gets figured out….
by biggentleben on Jun 18, 2008 12:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
