Mets Sign Ronny Cedeno and the Michael Kay Scale of Idiocy Shatters

How many teams have a backup infielder that could be considered “good”?

I’m not talking about a super-utility type who plays semi-regularly and could play every day in one particular spot if needed.

Mark DeRosa of a few years ago fits into that category; Tony Phillips of years ago (under Sandy Alderson with the Athletics) was one; Mike Aviles of the Red Sox qualifies now.

But the Mets sign Ronny Cedeno as a backup middle infielder and the universe is being sucked into a black hole of Madoff-like proportions.

This Mets bashing is self-indulgent, random and is mistakenly equating the financial issues to player moves. They’re separate entities.

Is Cedeno a “good” player?

No.

He’s a backup middle-infielder and defensive replacement for Daniel Murphy at second base.

The Yankees and their fans are openly pining for the return of Eric Chavez to be the backup third baseman, yet Chavez wasn’t much more productive at the plate than Cedeno was in 2011.

Is it because one is a former All Star and recognizable name? Is it because he’s considered handsome?

Chavez played in 58 games; he batted .263 with a .320 on base percentage and .363 slugging percentage. In 175 plate appearances, he had 10 extra base hits and 2 homers. The Yankees paid $1.5 million for that and his scheduled trip to the disabled list.

The fans want him back.

Why?

He did nothing for them in 2011. Nothing.

Teams that are considered “powerhouses” for 2012 have the following backup middle infielders:

Phillies: Wilson Valdez

Yankees: Eduardo Nunez

Red Sox: Aviles

Rangers: Michael Young

Angels: Maicer Izturis

Brewers: Cesar Izturis

Young is DHing and playing some first base and is an All Star caliber player. Maicer Izturis can play every day if necessary as well. The others are players you can find cheaply and on someone’s Triple A roster; or in Mexico; or the Independent Leagues.

The Braves don’t even know who their starting shortstop is and have done absolutely nothing this winter. (Nor have the Yankees, come to think of it.)

But is the Mets decision to sign Cedeno worthy of the laughter and linking to finances as if they’re scanning the crowds for someone who’ll look good in a uniform and can stand at shortstop so they’re not fielding eight players?

Of course the financial woes are contributing to the lack of spending, but to say that because the team is in financial disarray that it’s going to extend to the field with the players they already have is an attempt to find reasons to castigate the franchise. Because the signing of Cedeno and the decision to hire a perceived “bankruptcy specialist” CRG Partners were so closely aligned in time, there’s an “obvious” connection between the two.

Except it’s only obvious if it’s made obvious.

It’s a logical fallacy.

Does Michael Kay really believe that the Mets are going to lose 110 games?

Even on the Michael Kay Scale of Idiocy, it’s stretching it. But not far enough to say it’s impossible that he does believe it.

Statistically and practically, it’s almost impossible for a team to lose that many games no matter which players they’re putting on the field; and with the Mets, they have talent on the roster. If they were in the Central Divisions of both the American and National Leagues, they could hang around contention.

They’re not.

They’re in the National League East.

But 110 losses? The Astros of 2011 were one of the worst teams I’ve ever seen and they won 56 games. The 2012 Mets are worse than the 2011 Astros?

If the Mets have a terrible year or a better-than-expected year, it won’t have anything to do with Ronny Cedeno; his signing has nothing to do with finances either. So why, other than an agenda, is it being treated as such?

—

I’m going to be adding a Fantasy Baseball page this season. If you can write and know Fantasy, contact me at the top of the page. I’m still looking to accumulate candidates. It’s unpaid, but people will read your stuff.

Share|

//

Of Course Bankruptcy is on the Table for the Mets

The Mets have hired CRG Partners, a consulting firm that assisted the Texas Rangers in their bankruptcy and sale. Naturally, it’s being assumed that this is in preparation for an eventual bankruptcy and sale of the financially hemorrhaging Mets.

So what would happen if the Mets’ situation reached avalanche proportions so they had to start selling the light fixtures and they were entirely unprepared for the legal and practical ramifications for such a move?

What would be said then?

It’s at the point where everything the Mets organization does or doesn’t do is dissected to find some underlying “truth” that they’re not disclosing.

But what if what they’re saying is the truth? What if the apparent spin doctoring to keep the wolves at bay is what’s really going on?

Are the Mets preparing for a bankruptcy or did they hire CRG to, as the club statement says, “provide services in connection with financial reporting and budgeting processes”?

Does it really matter?

If the Mets hired a “turnaround specialist” to help with their morass of debt and legal entanglements, isn’t that the wise thing to do? Aren’t they performing their due diligence based on current circumstances?

This story doesn’t automatically imply a bankruptcy filing is on the horizon; obviously that’s on the table, but regardless of public perception and until the Madoff trial begins, the Wilpons are within their rights to do everything they can to keep the team.

As absurd as it sounds, has anyone ever truly considered the possibility that they were victimized by Madoff as so many others were? There’s a presumption of guilt surrounding the Wilpons, in part, because the club has been run so haphazardly on the field and the front office has been adept at telling half-truths and misleading the media and public with semantics. Because of that, they don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt for anything they say, but logically what they’ve done is what they should do to prepare for every eventuality.

The entire episode has turned into a spitting contest over the breaking of the story, what the hiring means and the fans newest attempts to get the Wilpons to sell the team immediately.

This new culture of being the “first to report” has degenerated reporting into stories coming out based on anonymous sources whether they’re accurate and reliable or not. It appears that this story has been reported accurately, but it’s on the short list in that achievement.

I’d rather be right than first.

What Mets fans have to understand is that the Madoff trial and the Mets ownership issues are not going to be resolved in the near future; no matter how much complaining, threats and ridicule are doled out, nothing is going to change that. Fans are of the opinion that they have this power over ownership by their self-indulgent ranting about the way the franchise has unraveled and that their demands will be met immediately.

Mark Cuban is not buying the Mets tomorrow no matter how many times you demand it.

Is it more enjoyable for fans to be talking about the pursuit and signing of big name free agents like Prince Fielder, Albert Pujols and keeping Jose Reyes? Absolutely.

Does the endless public vitriol directed at the franchise affect the Wilpons when they have bigger things to worry about? No.

The Mets are under no obligation to even respond to these allegations—the club is not a public enterprise; they’re owned by a private entity—so they replied with a statement that’s exacerbated the factions of will they or won’t they file for bankruptcy.

But does it matter?

Really?

In the grand scheme, I don’t think it does.

It’s a story because it’s a story—an end unto itself with no legitimate endgame until the trial and its results are known. Until then, what’s the difference?

Share|

//