Johan Santana: 7 IP, 5 H, 2 R, 2 BB, 6 K (Win)
J.J. Putz: 1 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 1 K (Hold)
Francisco Rodriguez: 1 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 2 K (Save)
Mets 5, Opponent 2
There once was a time when I decried the ridiculous payroll moves of the New York Yankees. Offering crazy multi-year contracts to players like Jason Giambi, Carl Pavano, Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield and the like spoke to the absurdity of both their own payroll and the growing need for Major League Baseball to do its best to negotiate a salary cap (which never would have happened anyway). But revenue sharing and World Series appearances by mid-market teams like the Colorado Rockies and Tampa Bay Rays have shed light on the new baseball environment, where truckloads of money buy you a lesser share of a championship than it once did.
This offseason, however, the Yankees and their crosstown rivals in Queens have nonetheless put their money where their mouths are. With more holes to fill than the Knicks, the Yankees (starting rotation, first base) and Mets (bullpen, second base, starting rotation) are stuck with a lack of depth in their minor league systems, and thus have been forced to raise their payrolls. Trades to reload continually gut the farm system, while free agent signings deprive the team of high-level draft picks; the result is a perpetuating cycle of ever-rising payrolls and minor league worthlessness. Where I once hated the Yankees for spending so much, rising ticket prices as Shea Stadium (and now, Citi Field) have necessitated the belief that the Mets have essentially become the National League equivalent of the Bronx Bombers, albeit with less visibility and far less prestige.
Obviously, aside from the news that the Yankees signed C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett (who's next, R.L. Stine?), the Mets acquired two of the Majors' best closers, Francisco Rodriguez and J.J. Putz. What strikes me funny is that even though the Mets were able to purchase Rodriguez at a perceived deep discount from his asking price (five years, $75 million versus three years, $37 million), there are even more critics of the deal than there were before.
Any video will show you that he has a high-stress pitching motion that leaves him susceptible to injury. Indeed, his fastball has lost a few miles per hour over the years. Sure, he has a personality that might rub some people the wrong way ("You mean I got another save?!"). But there are just as many reasons to like the deal. He saved a Major League-record 62 games for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim last year. He will be just 28 years old on Opening Day. He is still a very dominant pitcher. And let's not forget, he was taken off his high horse of five years and $75 million dollars! Really, aside from Phillies fans, Yankees fans and Red Sox fans, who have Lidge, Mariano and Papelbon, no one can argue that their team's closer is better than K-Rod. And those even those three exceptions have tough questions to answer.
His fastball has obviously lost some of its bite. But for a man who saved a record number of games last year, is he any less effective? I think not.
His personality is brash. Clearly, the Mets have enough of those, even though one Pedro Martinez is not expected to be with the team next year. If harnessed correctly, big personalities can yield tremendous results (see 2006 Mets, one Aaron Heilman changeup away from the World Series; see 2004 Boston Red Sox, "a bunch of idiots"). The Phillies may have had chemistry, but until I get affirmation that Jose Reyes and David Wright are actually squabbling, all I hear about that will remain unsubstantiated rumors. And about the talk that our play irks our opponents? Be real. This is New York. When did we actually care what those guys in the other dugout think (Nelson Figueroa comments notwithstanding)? Spoken like a true New Yorker.
And about his violent delivery? Well, the Mets addressed that in a big way, too, by trading for Seattle closer J.J. Putz.
Putz gets injured every so often, but as referenced by his 2007 season (6-1, 40 Sv, 1.38 ERA), he can be just as dominant as Rodriguez, if not more. Unfortunately for the Mets and their fans, Putz and his agent have both expressed his interest in the closer's role, and with an opt-out clause after the 2009 season, this could be a short-term move if the Mets don't experience immediate success with this setup.
But with the way things are in place, there is no reason why the Mets can't have success, provided that both of these bullpen cogs stay healthy. The duo can be as formidable as the Mariano Rivera-John Wetteland combination that helped win the Yankees the 1996 World Series. With these two healthy, these two effectively shorten the game to seven innings. Which is important, because had the Mets ended their games after the sixth inning, they would have won the division by 20.0 games in 2008. With a seven-inning game, you have only 21 outs to outscore the Mets with 27 outs. If Johan Santana starts, you've basically already lost.
Equally as important as acquiring these two relievers was the dispensal of the ineffective player(s) that led to the Mets' demise in 2008: Aaron Heilman, and to a lesser extent, Scott Schoeneweis.
As someone said, Aaron Heilman joined the ranks of Mets maligned by the fans to the point of no return. In 2008, Heilman joined Kaz Matsui, Armando Benitez, Braden Looper, and to a lesser degree, Tom Glavine. It's hard to say that Heilman was not a bad pitcher. Time and time again in the middle of the 2008 season, he was put in situations where success would help him reconcile his differences with the fans, and rekindle some of that luster that his 2005 complete-game one-hitter did. But it appears that his fatal pitch to Yadier Molina in Game 7 of the National League Championship Series ultimately led to his demise.
When it comes to Scott Schoeneweis, I don't agree with his trade to the Diamondbacks. Yes, it was his pitch that led to the home run that lost the last game of the season to the Cubs (and with a subsequent Brewers win, cemented the second-worst comeback in team history). Schoeneweis' problem was that he, like many other Mets relievers, were thrust in roles in which too much was expected of them. When he signed his three-year, $18 million contract two seasons ago, he wasn't expected to close games. He wasn't expected to pitch to both righties and lefties. His primary goal -- which he succeeded at quite well -- was to pitch to lefties and to get them out. Holding them to a average in the .100's, he did an adequate job. Perhaps not worth the $18 million, but still a very valuable left-handed specialist. His vilification, I feel, was unwarranted, and now with only one left-hander remaining in the bullpen (the equally mortal Pedro Feliciano), his loss will certainly be felt unless the Mets can somehow upgrade that position. I would take Scott Schoeneweis against Ryan Howard over Duaner Sanchez against Ryan Howard any day.
As an aside, it goes without saying that fan-favorites like Joe Smith and Endy Chavez will be sorely missed.
Now that the Mets have made these moves, the 660 WFAN faithful have their heads in the clouds and think General Manager Omar Minaya has all the momentum in the world and can now make any move he pleases. So they want to move a 36-year-old Carlos Delgado and replace him with another super-sized contract in Mark Teixeira. They want both Derek Lowe and Oliver Perez to cure all of the Mets' starting pitching woes. They want Manny Ramirez, who plays defense only when he feels like it and whose personality could cause the rest of the Mets' personalities to become MLB's version of the Dallas Cowboys. The ridiculousness of all of these proposals prove just how difficult Minaya's job really is. Lest we forget, the world is in a recession.
The Mets have only closed one hole, and while they have filled it nicely (at the neglect of their middle relief), many weaknesses still remain. The Mets have not addressed their aching issue at No. 4 starter and their desire for an upgrade at the second base position. With the departures of Damion Easley (free agent) and Endy Chavez (trade), the bench is also weaker than it was last year. With free agency still only a month old, there are still plenty of bargains to be had and, conversely, holes to be filled. Even if the front-line starters all sign elsewhere (Sabathia and Burnett with the Yankees, Lowe and Perez still in limbo), a second-tier starter such as Jon Garland or Randy Wolf will still suffice. The Mets are clearly seeking a No. 4 starter behind Santana, Maine and Pelfrey, and ahead of Jonathon Niese -- not a No. 2 starter. There also remains the distinct possibility that someone will yield surprising results in Spring Training.
The moral of the story is to not get too carried away with your feelings, positive or negative. Every player has holes. Even C.C. Sabathia and Johan Santana do. But saying "I didn't want him anyway" and giving a laundry list of reasons just because your team didn't get Francisco Rodriguez won't make it easier on yourself. But at the same time, the Mets aren't going to trade Carlos Delgado for Dan Uggla and a bag of chips and then turn around and sign Mark Teixeira. There just isn't enough money in the tank for that. Reasonableness will drive the Mets' decision making in the coming months, and shrewdness will allow all these pieces to come together.
Tonight, I was in the market for a ticket to the OneRepublic / Augustana / The Spill Canvas / The Hush Sound show at New York City's Hammerstein Ballroom later this month. They're also playing at the Starland Ballroom in New Jersey, a venue which, while closer to my house, provides a far less satisfying concert experience. Obviously, there is a price premium between Sayreville, N.J. and New York, N.Y., which I understand and accept. But what I do not accept are the fees which Ticketmaster chose to place on my order and the orders of all fans who are attending these shows:
Hammerstein Ballroom:
Ticket: $34.50
Convenience Charge: $9.30
Delivery by Standard Mail: No Charge
Order Processing Charge: $5.15
Starland Ballroom:
Ticket: $29.00
Convenience Charge: $8.35
Facility Charge: $0.50
Delivery by Standard Mail: No Charge
Order Processing Charge: $5.10
If you do the math, the fees add almost 50 percent more to the face value of the ticket. Who wouldn't think that's ridiculous? And what happens much of the time is that these venues do not have box offices, which often leaves you no choice but to succumb to these unfair pricing strategies if you want guaranteed entry. The Hammerstein Ballroom does not have one, and the Starland Ballroom is located in such an abominable wasteland in the middle of New Jersey that it is a practical impossibility to drive there without spending the money you would have saved on gas.
Our only hope for the equity and restraining of ticket prices may lie in another large corporation who recently decided to start their own ticket distribution branch: Live Nation. While in theory, a major competitor would resume the issues of competitiveness that help to drive down ticket prices, what often is the case is that concert venues either are or are not Live Nation venues. Those that are may provide lower prices to fans. Those that are not are still subject to the flawed policies of Ticketmaster.Artists like the Dave Matthews Band try to keep their ticket prices low in an effort to bring as many fans to shows as they can, fans that would be priced out of the market for a ticket if they raised prices to a level commensurate of their actual worth (or their ego). The problem lies not in their good intentions, but in the intentions of a company like Ticketmaster, marauding about in search of the consumer's every last dime. I highly doubt that the paper and ink that it costs to print my physical ticket, as well as the electricity to power the servers that sustain the TM Web site, are worth more than five dollars, yet that is what they are charging me to "process my order." The only thing convenient about the "Convenience Charge" is the convenience that comes with the joy in knowing that they lined their own pockets with nearly $10 more money than they had to charge me.
As it pertains to this particular concert, well, I'm going to take my chances and hope to buy my ticket at the door. It's a good two weeks away and it's possible that the show may sell out, but I would rather put the $14.45 that I would have spent in additional fees if I'd ordered a ticket online toward buying some merch by one of these great bands. It would be a much better end result than helping to pay the salary of a corrupt bigwig in an office in a tree-lined corporate park at Ticketmaster headquarters. That much is for sure.
- Music:Augustana: "More Than a Love Song"
She is a walking argument waiting to happen. She lives her life with reckless abandon, though much of the time she doesn't have much control over that. She is brilliant. She is tragic. She is Kym, played by a dazzling Anne Hathaway in the limited release film "Rachel Getting Married."
Kym is a straight-out-of-rehab sparkplug dropped into one of the most tumultuous times of family life: a wedding. At the time of her release, the wedding is just days away, and the preparations at her home, where it is to be held, are nothing short of organized chaos. There is no time to play nice and not a moment to spare. But for Kym, someone who constantly craves attention and often demands it for her own personal satisfaction, there isn't a worse time to emerge from the depths. And so the next 90 minutes become an exercise in pain tolerance for her family and those who love her most.
Kym's behavior epitomizes the word unpredictable. The only predictable thing about her is her attention-craving ways. One only needs to recall the banquet scene, just days prior to the wedding, in which she ungracefully steals the spotlight from her sister and her fiance. This get-together for the two families began a civil and celebratory event; all the attention, stories, toasts and bad jokes fell in front of the engaged couple. But Kym steals this scene; beginning her monologue with the eerie, facetious introduction, "I am Shiva the Destroyer and your harbinger of doom for this evening," she breaks into a clumsy narrative in which she attempts to make amends with her sister Rachel for past misdeeds, something she had refused to do before and obviously, something that, coming at a most inopportune time, takes the entire party aback. She somehow manages to save face and not make a complete fool of herself, though considering the way she acts throughout the film, we don't know if she actually cares about such things.
This is just a sample of the haunting performance that Anne Hathaway delivers. Far from previous dolled-up roles in "The Princess Diaries" series and "The Devil Wears Prada", she proves just how versatile and mature she has become. And despite her character's faults, we find that she does indeed possess a good soul. Her first encounter with Rachel after returning home, awkward as it may be, forges a reminscence of a fond, humorous memory from the simpler days of grade school (though things de-escalate from there). She also acts startingly normal at the wedding, allowing all the attention to shower on her sister on the most important day of her adult life. As distraught as Kym tends to be, living with a dysfunctional family that clearly did not give her the requisite amount of attention she deserved growing up, she shows signs of brilliance and an effort to rise above.
The movie does not come without its faults, though. At times the camera work can be dizzying. Frenetic cut scenes abound as Kym and other family members race through their modest home, which lends itself to poor sequencing and emitted the feel of a documentary rather than a feature film. Such was the case in scenes like the wedding reception, where, with music blaring, the film would cut from one dancing character to another, mercilessly and for far too long. For a movie that felt too lengthy at times, several minutes could have hit the cutting room floor from this and other scenes that seemed to drag on without furthering the plot.
However, these complaints only fall upon the periphery, and don't take away from the content of the film. I give much credit to the writers who did not fall for the cliche of allowing Kym to fall back into her drug habits when times got tough -- and boy, do they get tough. Much like Angelina Jolie's character in "Girl, Interrupted", Kym is a misguided soul attempting to find where she belongs, resorting to subversive behavior to accomplish an empty sense of satisfaction. But unlike many comparable processed Hollywood productions that are shoved down audiences' throats, we learn so much about Kym and come to sympathize with her, despite the self-destructive behavior that sabotages the relationships with those closest to her. The end does not bring much of a resolution, but what it proves is that the issues in our lives aren't reliably solved at one minute to midnight. Instead, it proves that we control our own paths, to rise or to fall, and that nothing can bring you together or pull you apart quite like family.
- Location:In a pitch black room.
- Music:Gavin DeGraw: "Cheated on Me"
Dear Diary,
On Sunday, Sept. 7, my daughter, Jenn, my son-in-law, Tim, and I were biking the 75-mile route in the Transportation Alternatives Century Ride. At Astoria Park, our last rest stop, I needed to sit for a while, as it was a very hot day.
In front of us in the shade was a woman sitting in the middle of a bench. Like me, she was a senior citizen.
We asked if we could share the bench.
She said yes, but that she was expecting her lover.
I said we would move as soon as he came.
She replied that we might have to wait a lifetime.
We finished the ride easily, but I do knot know if she is still waiting.
-- Dr. Simeon David
On a day-long New York City excursion on Thursday, I took an early train into the city. I arrived at Penn Station only a few minutes past 6am, and as I usually do at home or at school, I stopped into a newsstand to pick up my newspaper of choice, The New York Times. It just so happened that they didn't have any in stock, so I settled for my second preference, The Wall Street Journal. Between the time I recognized that the Times was not there and the time I picked up the Journal, a suit approximately age 40 came rolling in, agitated and as in a hurry as I have ever seen someone at that hour. What could have possibly unnerved him at 6:09am is beyond me. The train arrived two minutes early, so it couldn't have been that. Maybe because the Dow was down 733 points on Wednesday? Maybe because John McCain addressed Joe the Plumber instead of Mike the Investment Banker in the previous night's debate? Whatever his reason, he was like me: he was looking (and not seeing) a copy of the Times. Thus came the following utterances that drifted their way into my auditory canal:
"Can you please direct me to where I can find a copy of the Times?"
and later:
"How can you not have The New York Times?"
...and other such phrases, directed at the poor Hudson News attendant scanning items out and taking payments in. Without the context of tone, the statements were unappealing to the ear, and probably took the saleslady aback. With tone included, it seemed to be a condescending outburst that only a veteran of minimum wage jobs would be able to take in stride.
You see, these workers struggle to get by on their measly pittance. I can't speak for exactly what they get paid, but I have a hard time believing it meets the level of a living wage. And yet, so often they are the ones most disrespected by those whom they serve. My first job was at Dunkin' Donuts; I spent nearly three years there, serving hot and cold beverages to both regular and irregular customers alike. I clearly recognized who the regulars were; apart from seeing a face each day, matching a face to an order, and getting to know them on a first-name basis, they were also among the most courteous and congenial personalities I served in my years there. But the occasional stop-in customer was always the wild card. I never knew what kind of attitude I was going to get, and while it was hardly very often, I would receive that one customer who was either nitpicky about his coffee's color or sweetness or just saw me as a middle man -- a means to their caffeine-injected end.
While there is no love lost between myself and my first employer, my days in this industry have sensitized me to the poor souls (figuratively and usually literally) who work these jobs. At the very least, I try to keep my pleases and thank yous in order, and when I can, I offer them with some slight eye contact, a warm smile, and some vocal projection... because sometimes a thank you is just a formality and a courtesy; sometimes you actually mean it. I try to fall into the latter category.
I recognize that everyone has their bad days, but your day has to have been terrible if you're making a fuss about your daily newspaper. At 6am, no less! I don't know when deliveries are made. When I walked in and saw their stock empty, I thought it was peculiar, but I got over it in a New York second. Either way, it certainly was not the cashier's fault that the newspaper wasn't in its rack yet. I recognized that, and so I didn't unleash a vocal WMD on the store clerk. My counterpart chose to.
We have the "dignity" (or so they call it) as college-educated people to not partake in some of these jobs -- or perhaps we feel we have earned the right to let others do them for us -- and so we treat them like rag dolls most of the time. While I can't say that I have been perfect in my pursuit of courteousness, I can say that I have made a conscious effort to be respectful. The suit I wear, the job I have, the car I drive, or the title I've earned should not be the determinant of how I treat others who earn hourly wages instead of salaries. It should not be yours, either.
- Music:Low vs. Diamond: "Heart Attack"
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
onesmallvictory- onesmallvictory
Syndicate
