I Stayed Out in the Cold for This? Yankees Lose to Twins

I went to the game last night, and saw the first Yankee failure of Rafael Soriano. Hmmmm, did Michael Kay jinx him by coming up with the JoSoMo name, or did I jinx him by talking about it? Yikes!

At least I had a great time seeing my childhood friend Kelly at the game, which cushioned the stomach punch of the loss a little better! Of course, I come home to see that Squawker Jon is gloating about his Mets, and giving me the what-for!

A few thoughts on the evening:

* I was just saying to my friend that after Russell Martin hit a homer in his second Yankee game, John Sterling had a nickname ready to go. So when Andruw Jones came up for the first time as a Yankee, I was wondering what Sterling would come up with. Just a few seconds later, Jones hit a homer in his first at-bat as a Yankee. I called Squawker Jon to ask if he could find out what the Sterling call was. I get a text and a voice mail with the goods a few minutes later: "Andruw Jones makes his bones!" Jon sez that Twitter folks think it's a new low for Sterling!

* It was bitterly cold. Just very uncomfortable, even for me, who is pretty warm-blooded. The Stadium paid attendance of 40K last night did not reflect the actual number of people in the seats (I think it was more like 25-30K).

* I saw all sorts of talk about the onion rings guy when I got home -- the dude whose food went flying onto Andruw Jones when he tried to catch a foul ball. I saw the clip on big screen, and thought it was a hot dog that went flying (Kelly was in the concourse at the time, and heard Suzyn Waldman say it was onion rings.) A few points: Aside from the waste of food involved, you cannot expect to catch a foul ball with an onion rings basket. And, more importantly, why do you try to catch a foul ball at all when a Yankee player is trying to get it. Isn't him getting an out for your team more than you getting a souvenir? Yankee fans pride themselves on how knowledgeable they are, but I see ignorant nonsense like this all the time. Do people still not know after Steve Bartman not to go after foul balls your team is trying to catch?

* The media is in a tizzy over Soriano showering and going home before talking to them. I get that, but at the same time, they're taking it too far, reading all sorts of aspersions into Soriano as a person and as a teammate because he didn't stick around to talk to the press. Two examples this morning: Wally Matthews sez "Soriano is no Mariano Rivera. And likely never will be. Nor does it seem like he will ever be a true fit in this clubhouse." And not to be outdone in hysteria, Joel Sherman writes:  

..."this game was lost in the eighth. Was it because of the cold that Soriano faltered? Pitching the day before? Unfamiliarity with the role? Or anger at being asked to take the ball at 4-0 in the eighth? Soriano played to the worst of his reputation and was not around to answer.

He took a bribe to come here for a role he did not really want. Maybe money really can't buy happiness."

Glad to see that, in addition to writing, these two have side careers in mind-reading to fall back on!

* We stayed around until the end, and I actually was hopeful the Yankees would come back and win. After all, it was two years ago against the Twins that the Yankees had a walkoff win, and their first pie-throwing! Alas, it was not to be, not even against Joe Nathan, who usually folds against the Yanks. Bummer.

What do you think? Tell us about it.

Shocker! Joel Sherman Says Criticism of A-Rod Is "Unfair"

Will wonders never cease? I almost spilled my morning coffee on myself when I read that the New York Post's Joel Sherman wrote a column today entitled, "Continual digs at Alex unfair."  Joel Sherman, who has taken as many cheap shots at A-Rod as any sports columnist in this town, has had enough? I can't believe it.

Sherman writes that while Rodriguez has often been his own worst enemy, he notes:

...at some point legitimate critique of Rodriguez has been usurped by something close to piling on. He is the fish in the barrel and shooting at him has become a hard-to-break habit. It feels like the fun, easy game that anyone can play.

It's 2011, and Sherman just realized this? (I thought the criticism went over the top in 2006, when his paper blamed A-Rod sunbathing in Central Park for the Yankees losing a game to the Red Sox.) But better late than never, I guess. Of course, Sherman doesn't admit the obvious truth when it comes to the media -- that writing about A-Rod sells papers and generates page views. There's a reason sportswriters are addicted to yakking about him!
 
Sherman also criticizes Hank Aaron for taking potshots at A-Rod in the Post a few weeks ago (I wrote about the unfair criticism at the time.) Aaron said, among other things, that "Rodriguez has got too many irons in the fire, right now. I think his head's not level enough to the point where he can have the kind of year that it takes in order to go by all of the records in the book."

Joel responds:

Again, Rodriguez is an easy target on many things, but focus on baseball is not one of them. His harshest detractors would concede Rodriguez obsesses on preparation; that he has the mentality of a baseball gym rat. If you think Cameron Diaz, for example, is keeping him from being ready for the 2011 season, you are wrong.

I agree with Sherman, but I wonder why it took three weeks for somebody else in the media to acknowledge that Aaron's criticism was unfair.

Sherman also criticizes "Player X "in the upcoming ESPN the Magazine for disparaging Rodriguez when saying that Albert Pujols deserved to make more than him. Of course Pujols does -- he's been the most underpaid guy in baseball for years now. (An aside --Sherman has another piece on Player X firing at Scott Boras -- and Boras firing back.)

I think Sherman's column today is a good and fair one. But I wish he, and some of his brethren in the media, would take their share of responsibility for making Rodriguez a baseball punching bag. Sure, A-Rod did bring some of it on himself by saying and doing dopey things (there's an article in the Wall Street Journal about the Yankees' media training for players, where he wryly acknowledges that he "wouldn't be the ideal guy to ask" about how to handle the media.)

But the press also has a lot to do with it. There are a lot of fans who form their opinions on players based on what they read in the papers. And players know that they can pretty much say whatever they want on A-Rod, and get lauded for it in the press, no matter how unfair. Dallas Braden, I'm looking at you! The media should be more responsible with the power they hold, because the perceptions they make on players are hard to change.

Another example of the power of the press -- after the way the media has lionized Derek Jeter in this town, why should anybody be surprised that he topped a poll as New York's all-time greatest athlete and beat out Babe Ruth? The press has written about Jeter for years as if he deserved that spot. Heck, Mike Lupica didn't bat an eye when Jeter's agent Casey Close compared Jeter to Babe Ruth in an interview! Sure, blame the fans for being short-sighted in that poll. But the press deserves their share of blame for miseducating them, too.


What do you think? Tell us about it!

Famous Last Words: Hal Steinbrenner has "no problem" with Brian Cashman

The New York Post's Joel Sherman has an exclusive interview with Hal Steinbrenner today, with Hal saying that he has "no problem" with what Brian Cashman is doing:

 "[Cashman] and I have a great working relationship," Steinbrenner said by phone, "There is no problem, right now. I think we have had a bunch of drummed-up drama."

....When asked if he imagined wanting to keep Cashman beyond 2011, Steinbrenner said: "Yes, absolutely. I think Brian does a great job. We need to sit and talk, but now is not the time for that."

Sherman writes that Steinbrenner "blessed Cashman's behavior at the [Rafael Soriano] press conference":

"I keep reading about dissension and discord. We are a well-functioning company. The bosses have a decision to make. Sometimes people don't agree with those decisions. So I told him, 'You are always honest with the media, be honest now. Tell them what you have to tell them.' I was already onto the next decision. I told him, 'You and I are fine. Answer in any way you want.' We are not always going to be on the same page. It is my job to think what is best for the family, partners and company."

But here's the thing Sherman didn't ask Hal Steinbrenner: If the Yankees were so fine with Cashman speaking out at the Soriano presser, then why didn't they air the press conference live on the YES Network? What, the network the Yankees own couldn't interrupt the gazillionth showing of the Luis Castillo Yankees Classic game in favor of showing their only big free agent signing of the offseason? Come on now.

I have watched a lot of Yankee free agent press conferences on TV over the years, and ever since the YES Network launched, every single one of them have been aired on the network. Except for the Soriano one. Why is that?

Brian Cashman may be the Yankees GM in 2012, or he may not be. But there is no way, even in Yankeeland, that the Steinbrenners are going to publicly express anything but confidence in their GM right now. Do you really think Hal or even Hank is about to say, "What the bleep is going on with Cash? He's having a midlife crisis right before our eyes!" Of course not.

Tennessee Titans owner Bud Adams seemed to be all BFF with head coach Jeff Fisher, too, even saying just a few weeks ago that he would be back next year, until the two parted ways yesterday. So you never know what can happen.

If the Yankees win the World Series this year, I would guess Cashman would be back. But even then, he could always walk away after winning. You never know what could happen.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Joel Sherman and his latest wacky contract proposal for Derek Jeter

What's the deal with Joel Sherman? The New York Post columnist has been over the place on the Derek Jeter contract issue from reasonable to raving, and his latest column, suggesting that the Yankees give Jeter a contract to age 42 (!), makes no sense, especially given what he's written before.

Let's review what Sherman has said so far:

* On November 5, he suggested the Yankees offer the shortstop a 3-year, $45 million deal, which turns out to be what the Yanks actually offered. But then he added on a 25-year, $75 million personal service contract, where the Yanks would essentially pay Jeter to be Jeter. This deal would set a horrible precedent for the team, and makes zero financial sense.

* On November 12, he supported signing Jeter, but said pleasing the captain couldn't take the place of the Yankees' winning, writing: "This is a baseball team, not a fan club or an alumni association. Realistic discussions of Jeter are too often scuttled with his intangibles or his class or his history. That is all nice. But what do they have to do with winning games from 2011 forward? If you are honoring those elements with unquestioned playing time or a spot atop the order, you have lost what Jeter himself claims he is all about, which is team and winning."

* On November 23, Sherman wrote very harshly about the shortstop's demands, saying, "Derek Jeter’s position when it comes to his contract negotiations appears to be this: I am Derek Jeter, pay me."

* And today, the New York Post columnist thinks he's come up with a way to solve the negotiations. But not only is it inconsistent with what he's written in the past, it's even inconsistent with what he writes earlier in the column!

Early in the column, Sherman sez:

"Frankly, I think the Yankees are fine here. Their three-year, $45 million offer is probably way more than any other team would bid. Therefore, every additional penny proposed represents bidding against themselves."

But then he suggests they do just that, bid against themselves.  One of the reasons Sherman exhorts the Yanks to do this deal is that if they don't give Jeter more money, "we might, for example, see the passive-aggressive Jeter emotionally detach himself from some of the day-to-day elements that he has taken on previously as Yankees captain and icon." Yeah, before you know it, he'll stand by idly and refuse to step in when one of his teammates is getting vociferously booed or something.

Sherman then suggests:

"So how can both sides move toward each other? Here is the Thanksgiving gift: The Yankees give Jeter a six-year, $75 million contract that breaks down as $20 million a year from 2011-13 and $5 million a year from 2014-16. The twist is that each $5 million year becomes a $20 million season if Jeter reaches 500 plate appearances in the previous campaign. Thus, for example, if Jeter remains a full-timer in 2013 and totals at least 500 plate appearances, then he would make $20 million in 2014 rather than $5 million."

How does this deal make any sense for the Yankees? Sherman suggests that the average annual value would be less, so it would save the Yanks a little on luxury taxes. Big deal. They still have to pay Jeter for six years, not three. How does that help?

And Sherman misses some really obvious problems with his proposal. It's not so much the $20 million in the first three years (although that's still overpaying Jeter for lower production). It's giving him three more years. It's keeping in on the payroll until he's 42, when he's already showing signs of aging at age 36.

And to top it off, making 500 plate appearances be the magic number to guarantee Jeter an extra $15 million a year will hamstring the Yankees in several ways.

First off, it gives Jeter even less of an incentive to never take a day off, when any potential day off could mean a 75% pay cut. And forget about pulling him before the end of the game, either. He'll be playing as much as possible to make that money. Who wouldn't?

It will also put immense pressure on whoever the Yankee manager is to play him every game, no matter what, or risk alienating Jeter and his rabid supporters.

Then there's the place in the lineup, which is currently at the top. How are the Yanks going to move him further down in the lineup, even when his stats merit it, if it could cost him plate appearances?

Sherman may think this compromise (which is a completely one-sided one, where the Yanks gain nothing, and Jeter everything) is a good one, but it makes zero sense financially. And having to get at-bats everyday for a player in his 40s, or risk him making less money than A-Rod (shudder!) will be an ongoing nightmare for the Yankee manager. How does this help the team win, or do anything other than make Jeter even richer?

Sherman ought to remember what he himself said earlier this month: "If you are honoring those elements with unquestioned playing time or a spot atop the order, you have lost what Jeter himself claims he is all about, which is team and winning." The writer sometimes comes up with great ideas, but this "Thanksgiving gift" of a new contract idea is a real turkey.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Brian Cashman speaks out about Derek Jeter controversy

It's so on. If Casey Close thought the Yankees were too harsh on his client Derek Jeter before this week, I wonder what he's thinking after reading today's New York Post, where GM Brian Cashman speaks out against Close's "baffling" remark.

Cash told George King (emphasis added):

“There is nothing baffling about our position,” Cashman said. “We have been very honest and direct with them, not through the press. We feel our offer is appropriate and fair. We appreciate the contributions Derek has made to our organization and we have made it clear to them. Our primary focus is his on-the-field performance the last couple of years in conjunction with his age, and we have some concerns in that area that need to be addressed in a multi-year deal going forward.


“I re-state Derek Jeter is the best shortstop for this franchise as we move forward. The difficulty is finding out what is fair between both sides.”

Cashman also told King that the Yankees would not offer Jeter arbitration, a fact that the New York Daily News' Mark Feinsand was apparently unaware of; he has a whole story suggesting the opposite.

I think Derek Jeter and the people around him have really miscalculated his value here, and mishandled these negotiations. For one thing, you know what is missing from the spin from his agent, his trainer, and an insider in the Jeter camp? There was no talk about how Jeter wants to get the Yankee another ring, and no talk about how re-signing him will get the team to that goal. Instead, they're acting like it's a marketing deal or something, with Close comparing Jeter to Babe Ruth (!) as a Yankee icon, and citing his intangibles.

Frankly, the Jeter camp reminds me of that old adage about lawyers: "If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table." There is a lot of table-pounding going on right now.

Look, Jeter has the right to ask for whatever he wants, although in an age of double-digit unemployment, him griping about only making $15 million a year might not go over so well among fans. But the thing is, as I've said before, his image is based on him being somebody who cares more about being a Yankee than about money. He's supposed to be the guy who is all about team and all about winning. I've always thought that the mystique was a bit much -- I've watched the media build up so many athletes as saints, only to see years later that they had feet of clay. And the next time Jeter gives the Yankees a hometown discount will be the first time.

But Jeter and his agent can't have it both ways. If they're going to treat this like a business, they can't be surprised when the Yankees do the same thing in return. And, as I keep on saying, the longer this negotiation goes on, the worse this looks for Jeter.

For one thing, he can't count on all the media uncritically stating his case, as they've done in the past. Look at how Joel Sherman of the Post has done quite the turnaround here. Just a few weeks ago, he was suggesting the Yankees pay Jeter $75 million in a 25-year personal services contract. Today, he writes a pretty tough column about the negotiations:

Derek Jeter’s position when it comes to his contract negotiations appears to be this: I am Derek Jeter, pay me.


It doesn’t matter he has almost no leverage or he is coming off his worst season or the production of shortstops 37 and older in major league history is dismal.


Logic and facts are not supposed to matter. All that is supposed to matter is this: I am Derek Jeter, pay me....


When Jeter had the leverage a decade ago, he translated it into a 10-year, $189 million contract. Now the Yankees are not supposed to use their leverage. Why? Because I am Derek Jeter, pay me.


The Jeter camp described the negotiations as baffling. Really? It is baffling that the Yankees want to pay Jeter for what he is and what he projects to be in his declining seasons rather than for what he was?


They already have paid $205 million for his prime, a little fact the Jeter camp does not acknowledge much publicly. After all, it is hard to evoke sympathy with the fans/media about disrespect when the disrespecting party is offering a deal that would make Jeter a lifetime quarter-of-a-billion dollar player.....Yes, now we will hear about intangibles. But how did those intangibles translate last year when Jeter led the majors in making outs?

All the "I'm Derek Jeter, pay me" lines seem to echo the "bleep you, pay me" scene in "GoodFellas," where the mafiosos want to get paid by the businesses who owe them money, no matter what financial issues they may be having.  I wonder if that is intentional on Sherman's part.

Sherman also writes, "Jeter can’t argue the age or production concerns well, so he will try emotion, tied to throwing out ceremonial first pitches in 2021 or some other nonsense. It all comes down to this argument, though: I am Derek Jeter, pay me."

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Joel Sherman proposes a $75 million (!) post-career Yankee contract for Derek Jeter

I'm still digesting today's Joel Sherman column in the New York Post, because it's partly reasonable, partly outrageous. In the article, Sherman suggests that the Yankees offer Jeter a three-year, $45 million deal, even though Sherman writes that Jeter "probably is not one of their 10 most important players anymore" (harsh!)
But when it comes down to it, I don't have a problem with Sherman's contract suggestion, although I think he's a little too tough on how important a player Jeter still is on the team.

What I do take issue is his idea for a post-career contract with the Yankees for the captain. Sherman proposes "a $75 million, 25-year post-career deal" for Jeter from the team, and compares it to the way George Brett and Cal Ripken Jr. got deals from their own teams after retiring. There are several problems with this idea:

* Exactly what are the Yankees going to get for three million a year for somebody who won't be playing? To put Sherman's figure in perspective, Joe Girardi makes $3 million a year in his new contract. Hitting coach Kevin Long just got a new deal, which makes him the second-highest paid hitting coach in baseball at a little over $600K a year. Most of the team's coaches make in the low hundreds for a full-time job. And Sherman wants the Yankees to pay Jeter $3 million a year, for 25 years, for what exactly? To be a mascot? He never really explains what Jeter will be doing for the money.

*For tthe Royals and Orioles, they have very few icons, so keeping Brett and Ripken in the fold made sense, because they were really the the big names of their generation. (Notably, Sherman didn't mention the 10-yea rpersonal services contract the Astros signed Roger Clemens to, for $200K a year, and now how Houston has essentially told Clemens to stay away from the team!) But the Yankees have a whole slew of superstars. If Jeter gets this sort of deal, then what about Mariano Rivera? Or Paul O'Neill? Or Bernie Williams? Or Jorge Posada? Or David Cone? Or Andy Pettitte? Where does it end? Is there going to be a $200 million payroll for ex-players, too?

* And how would the older Yankee roster of living legends handle this? For example, Yogi Berra and Whitey Ford each made less than $500K in their entire careers with the Yankees. They still do events with the team, and have attended spring training, which they're apparently compensated for to some extent. But how will they, or other retired Yankees, handle if Jeter gets such a huge deal, even though he's already made $205+ million as a Bomber? Reggie Jackson draws a salary from the Yankees as a special assistant, but it's not even near  the money in Sherman's offer.

* And it's not like this would guarantee Jeter's undying loyalty to the pinstripes. Sherman writes that in his deal idea, "Jeter would receive an opt-out provision any time if he truly wants to pursue an ownership stake with another team." Sherman wants the Yankees to spend $75 million on somebody who won't be playing, then let him go and have to watch him compete against him elsewhere one day? How does that even make any sense?

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Joe Girardi leaves A.J. Burnett out to dry

A.J. Burnett is getting a lot of grief from Yankee fans these days, including some calling for his head last night. But really, he did much better than expected, giving up only two runs in the first five innings. Heck, he was the first Yankee starter to get through the first inning without giving up a run in this series. Until Joe Girardi left him in too long in the sixth, that is.

Longtime readers know that I'm no Girardi basher, but he has done such a poor job with decision-making this series that Squawker Jon and I were musing last night what were the chances that be fired if the Yankees lose the ALCS. And what Joe did in the sixth was just ridiculous.

Guess Girardi never heard of that "leaving on a high note" adage. He should have pulled Burnett after Vladimir Guerrero's hit. At that point, A.J. was at 90 or so pitches. Burnett could have left the cheers from the crowd, with a well-pitched game, and something to build on for the future. Instead, Girardi got a little too cute, deciding to leave him in, and then intentionally walking David Murphy to pitch to Bengie Molina. This, even though he had Joba Chamberlain warmed up in the bullpen. I thought Girardi would keep Burnett on a short leash, but instead, the leash was long enough for A.J. to get caught in.

Incidentally, did you see that Burnett nearly threw the ball away in one of the intentional walk pitches? That should have been yet another clue to Girardi that Burnett was about to turn into a pumpkin.

I didn't watch the postgame last night because he was too angry after the loss. But Jon did, and he thought Girardi was awfully defensive. New York Post columnist Joel Sherman wrote about what the manager said, and I pretty much agree with Sherman's take on what happened last night (emphasis added).

Girardi had Mariano Rivera for as much as two innings, a remnant of the manager’s iffy choice not to use the closer to keep the Yankees within 2-0 in the ninth inning of Game 3. So Girardi would have had to fill just two set-up innings here.

But he got greedy or caught up in the moment....

“If you take A.J. out there and you give up a couple of runs, people say, ‘Why did you take A.J. out?’“ Girardi said.

No, that would not have been the conversation. New York is now well versed on Burnett. No one could think it was a good idea to have him on the mound at that moment: tying run in scoring position, go-ahead run on first, season on the brink. Burnett has spent a career breaking hearts, throwing the pitch he absolutely could not at the wrong time.

And he did here....

Girardi had given a baseball arsonist matches and the Yankees season went up in flames.

I agree with Sherman, something I don't say very often!

One last note -- Squawker Jon sez Molina's homer is bad karma on me for trash-talking Jon for four years about Yadier Molina's homer against the Mets. By the way, last night was the fourth anniversary of that event.

What do you think? Tell us about it.

My thoughts on Yankees-Twins, Game 1

I was pretty grumpy for the first half of last night's game, between CC Sabathia looking shaky, and Jorge Posada's passed ball contributing to a run. (I wondered on Twitter whether Jorge would blame CC for it!) And the fact that the Yanks looked flummoxed against Francisco Liriano for the first five innings ticked  me off.

But then the sixth inning came, Jorge Posada redeemed himself, and Curtis Granderson proved to be something sort of Grandish (I wonder how John Sterling called his big hit -- I hope it was better than the TBS announcers, who muffed it!)

I really thought that after the Yankees scored  four runs in the sixth inning, that Joe Girardi should have had a reliever ready to go, especially since CC may be needed to pitch on short rest in the series. Sabathia looked D-O-E-N  DONE, as Jerome from Manhattan would spell it! As great as Sabathia has been for the team this season (they wouldn't be in the playoffs without him), he labored yesterday, throwing 27 pitches in the sixth, 111 overall. He walked three batters his last inning, including the tying run. Yet he ended up with the win, thanks to Mark Teixeira's homer (another call the TBS broadcasters messed up on.)

I thought CC should have been pulled earlier -- getting the Yankees the win, not CC the win, should have been the priority. Others disagreed with me on Facebook.  Fortunately it all worked out, though.

But how about the messed-up call on Greg Golson's catch last night? The Yanks had to get 28 outs, thanks to that. Joel Sherman wrote this in support of instant replay in his blog today:


... "this is strictly about the blown call. There is a way to get a high percentage of them corrected, so why would we not want to do that. One argument I hear is that it would eliminate the human element. Stop. The human element is that Jorge Posada has trouble catching the ball, not umpires messing up.

After years of cheerleading for Jorge, Sherman's really down on him, isn't he?

Anyhow, had a late night watching  the game, so I'm way off schedule. Coming later today -- more thoughts on Carl (Iron Man) Pavano!

Joel Sherman has Mets' marketing critique backwards

The Post's Joel Sherman lays out the Mets' likely offseason strategy to sell 2011 tickets as follows:

1) Hire a new general manager and manager...

2) Systematically leak how great Johan Santana, Jason Bay, Carlos Beltran and Jose Reyes are doing physically over the winter...

3) Oversell the one positive from the 2010 season: the rookie class/breakout components...

Sherman's piece mostly focuses on a critique of the third item, arguing that popular new players such as Ike Davis should not be untouchable for marketing purposes if trading them will help the team. But if the Mets really want to avoid alienating their fans for a change, they should change their thinking regarding item #2 - and stop encouraging unrealistic expectations when it comes to injuries.

In January, Met fans were surprised and disappointed to learn that Carlos Beltran was undergoing knee surgery. Even worse, he might not be ready for the start of the season. Throughout the preseason and the first part of the regular season, reports kept changing as to when Beltran would return - late April, mid-May, maybe even the All-Star break.

As time went on, the story evolved to when Beltran would be able to resume "baseball activities." Media and fans became frustrated with Beltran's lack of progress. Those fans who believe that Beltran is less likely to play through injuries had new ammunition.

When Beltran finally returned after the All-Star break, manager Jerry Manuel raised expectations by putting Beltran back in centerfield and batting him cleanup despite the fact that Beltran was clearly not ready for either.

The Mets were 48-40 when Beltran returned to the lineup. Since then, they have gone 22-33. The Mets' collapse is far from all Beltran's fault. But it would have been better for both the team and Beltran if the Mets had said from the start that he probably wouldn't be back before the All-Star break, and once he returned, he was not going to be 100%.

Met fans have been burned so many times waiting for players to return from injury that the biggest marketing mistake the Mets can make is to try to burn them again by touting a quick return of Johan Santana.

Already we are hearing conflicting reports about when Santana will start "throwing" and when he will start "pitching" and when he will finally return. The truth is that nobody knows, and the main thing that nobody knows is how effective Santana will be when he returns.

The Mets' position should be that they hope to have Santana back by the All-Star break. From what has been reported, that is probably optimistic, especially having Santana back at full strength. But such a position tells fans and media right up front that the Mets are planning to play a significant portion of 2011 without Santana.

Rather than raise the fans expectations only to disappoint them yet again, the Mets will be obliged to come up with a plan B - competing without their ace.

No one is more of a competitor on the Mets than Santana, but if the Mets start fudging his return date, they run the risk of making Santana look like yet another Met who can't quite make it back on the field.

Of course, the new GM will have to do a better job than Omar Minaya of coming up with a plan B. Minaya's initial replacement for Beltran in the outfield rotation was Gary Matthews Jr. When Daniel Murphy, then the starting first baseman, got hurt in spring training, Minaya and Jerry Manuel's initial plan B was Mike Jacobs.

As for trading the young players, I agree with Sherman that nobody should be untouchable. But it's one thing for the Mets to realize that Davis is no Jason Heyward - there's still no point in trading him unless the other team still buys into the hype. Otherwise, you end up with a deal along the lines of once-hyped Lastings Milledge for Ryan Church and Brian Schneider.

Says Sherman about Davis:

What do you think will be his best year, something like .275 with 30 homers? That is good. But it probably never makes him one of the 10 best first basemen in the game.

Yes, but .275 and 30 homers would make him the cleanup hitter on the Mets. And most of the players that Sherman suggests as stopgap alternatives for Davis have no shot at 30 homers. Lyle Overbay has hit more than 20 homers just once - and his career high is 22. Adam LaRoche hit more than 30 homers once, back in 2006. And both Overbay and LaRoche have generally played in ballparks far more homer-friendly than Citi Field.

Hubie Brooks was once a popular young player, but it made sense to trade him when the Mets had a chance to get Gary Carter before the 1985 season. But unless the Mets get an offer they really can't refuse, I would hold on to the young players. Better to oversell the young players than the seriously injured veterans.