The Jose Reyes Chronicles needs to be published on a daily basis.
Let’s take a look.
Nice hatchet job. And by “nice” I mean ridiculous.
Harvey Araton wrote this piece in today’s NY Times about Jose Reyes.
It’s a none-too-subtle rip job disguised as journalism.
Are these writers so dense that they haven’t gotten the message that when Alex Rodriguez says something like Reyes is the “greatest player in the world” that it smacks of a lesson he learned during his apprenticeship under Madonna? That he’s keeping his name in the public consciousness by any means necessary?
It’s not a shot at Derek Jeter; it’s something he said to garner a reaction.
He’s getting it and you’re enabling him.
Did Araton read the New Yorker piece? Is he banking on people innocently opening their Times sports section this morning and taking everything he says as gospel and contextually accurate? Or is he twisting the spirit of what was said to convenience his conclusions?
Here’s Araton’s quote from the column:
Six weeks ago, a healthy majority of respondents happened to agree with the owner Wilpon’s assessment, as quoted in a magazine article, that Reyes would not be worth “Carl Crawford money” ($142 million over seven years) because he is too often injured.
Here’s the quote from the New Yorker piece:
“He thinks he’s going to get Carl Crawford money,” Wilpon said, referring to the Red Sox’ signing of the former Tampa Bay player to a seven-year, $142-million contract. “He’s had everything wrong with him,” Wilpon said of Reyes. “He won’t get it.”
Far be it from me to explain the concept of reading comprehension an underlying meaning to a columnist from the New York Times, but that’s not quite an equitable analysis of what Wilpon said.
Is Rafael Soriano worth the $35 million he got?
Is Jayson Werth worth the $126 million he got?
And on the other side of things has Bartolo Colon been worth the $900,000 the Yankees are paying him for the masterful comeback season he’s put together?
It’s not a difficult concept to grasp unless you perhaps have…an agenda!
But why would anyone read that column and think Araton sat at his keyboard with an intention to savage the Mets and lavish love upon the Yankees?
These are the Mets.
All the talk of the Mets “run scoring” machine—achieved with the absence of home runs, assisted by all the walks, the Reyes baserunning/hit show, and unsung heroes—is silly. They had a few big games in the Texas bandbox and against some bad pitching in Detroit.
The key word is “looked”.
This is not a contender; it’s not a good team; and a vast number of the prominent names currently in the lineup won’t be with the club when the Mets turn the corner back into contention under Sandy Alderson.
These are facts.
Reyes may be there and he may not. And not be for the “Carl Crawford” money that so many have suggested he’s going to want.
The sudden strain.
For everyone who went on and on about Reyes’s historic durability—which is generally factual—there’s always been and will be this issue where his hamstrings are vulnerable. It’s a career-long worry and could preclude him from getting the money that—according to Araton—Wilpon “said” he’s not going to get.
Combine the hamstring problems with an important factor that’s missed by those who say Reyes is heading for that Crawford contract: the Yankees and Red Sox are not going after him and nor are the Phillies.
Where’s he going to get this money?
The Angels and the Nationals can do it. But will they? The Angels wanted Crawford and were blown out of the water by the Red Sox.
The Nationals ownership is loaded and ready to spend and Reyes is a target.
Right now, he’s as likely to stay with the Mets as he is to go elsewhere because of the scarcity of teams that can and will pay him and that the old hamstring problem has crept up again.
Few will admit this, but it’s not a bad thing for the Mets that Reyes felt that tightness and needs an MRI; nor is it a bad thing that they’ve come down to earth against a blazing hot Yankees team.
It’s a means to an end that could result in them keeping Reyes for a reasonable sum and not what Wilpon “said” in the inaccurate world of Harvey Araton.