In one of the legendary exchanges of 1969, Leo Durocher dismissed the challengers nipping at the heels of his frontrunning club after his team salvaged the final game of what must have been, from the standpoint of the visitors’ clubhouse at Shea Stadium, a very demoralizing series.
“Were those the real Cubs today?” a reporter asked following Chicago’s 6-2 win on July 10.
“No,” Durocher answered with his usual grace. “Those were the real Mets.”
Of course Leo Durocher was completely off the mark. If anything, after blowing a ninth-inning two-run lead two days earlier and succumbing to Tom Seaver’s almost perfect one-hitter the night before, the Lip should have known he was facing the surreal Mets. In that dream of a season, New York losing and slipping 4½ behind Chicago ultimately proved a temporary condition. The real Mets were the Mets of the Don Young Game and the Jimmy Qualls Game, not the Durocher postgame snipe.
Fast-forward forty years and we probably didn’t see the real Mets at Wrigley Field Sunday, though you could take that two ways. The real Mets as we thought they’d be in 2009 are long dissolved (UFO-type sightings of their MIA troops notwithstanding). No, the lineups Jerry Manuel conjures to get us through another day, another series, another month and the rest of this season are not the real Mets. But then you get a decent win and a standout performance and you can’t help but wonder if there’s something worth filing way for future reference.
Nelson Figueroa struck out more batters in a major league game than he ever has before. Admittedly the 35-year-old kid from Brooklyn doesn’t have that many efforts to which to compare this outing, but ten Cubs K’d are still ten Cubs K’d. Wouldn’t it be rich (to say nothing of queer) if Nelson Figueroa has gained his timing this late in his career? This late in this sadly clownish Mets season? Can we take what Figueroa and Misch and Redding have done in the past few games and allow ourselves to think, “Well, maybe next year…”?
No, probably not. No offense to the Unwanted Trio, all of whom should keep pitching as well as they can for as long as they can because the rest of us truly never know, but nothing about a team out of contention beating teams who aren’t much more than on the cusp of contention can be taken as real — particularly the journeymen who take the ball at this stage of the year and choose now not to implode. The Mets pounded eleven hits off the formerly formidable Carlos Zambrano in fewer than four innings. Was that real? Is Zambrano now genuinely that hittable? Or is he just trying to get it together for 2010? And is Pagan’s 3-for-5, on the heels of some other fine performances since he became a contingency everyday Met, a real indicator of what he can do or just another mirage one witnesses in the company of teams that are long done?
These have been the real Mets for a while now because there are no other Mets available to fill the field. Even these real Mets are occasionally capable of beating somebody — the real Cubs, for example.
Meanwhile, in news of no real import but I can’t help myself from noticing: Paul Byrd made his 2009 big league debut Sunday, shutting out the Blue Jays for six innings. There’s no reason to take Byrd, 38, any more seriously in the long term than Figueroa, but he’s worth mentioning here because with Jason Isringhausen on the Rays’ 60-day DL since mid-June (with a torn elbow ligament that will keep him out ’til next summer or, possibly, for good), Byrd of the Red Sox becomes the LAMSA: Longest Ago Met Still Active.
Paul made his Met debut on July 28, 1995, eleven days after Izzy. With both of them in limbo much of this summer — Byrd had let it be known his comeback plans wouldn’t kick in ’til the second half, which is when Boston signed him to a minor league deal — there had only been two Mets from the 1990s still playing for the last two months: the Orioles’ Melvin Mora and the White Sox’ Octavio Dotel. Mora (May 30) and Dotel (June 26) made their debuts in direct succession in 1999 the way Isringhausen and Byrd did in ’95. A third ’99er, Glendon Rusch (the last man to become a Met in the ’90s, bowing in blue and orange on September 17, 1999), was waived by the Rockies in May after eleven appearances.
There are a few formerly Amazin’s from back in the day still hanging on to major league hopes by a minor league thread, but otherwise there have been only five Mets from the decade before this one still playing ball at the highest level on the eve of the decade that approaches after this one.
Ten years is a legitimately long time for players to come, go and be gone, so maybe it’s no more than the kind of minutiae that continues to fascinate me (and a few others like me) out of all proportion to their actual significance — but, honestly, that figure borders on real depressing. Then again, maybe that stems from this being the kind of season in which a Mets pitcher strikes out ten Cubs, the Mets win and I can’t find much encouraging from it.
Faith and Fear in Flushing: An Intense Personal History of the New York Mets is available from Amazon, Barnes & Noble or a bookstore near you. Keep in touch and join the discussion on Facebook.
When Manuel made that comment a week or two ago about “building equity” for the future, I wasn't too clear on what he meant. I'm sure it's a useful exercise to learn to play through difficult times, but a good chunk of the guys who are ostensibly learning these lessons probably won't be on the team next year.
But, at the very least, I think Parnell, Figueroa and Misch are aware that the fifth starter position for 2010 is there for the taking. Even Redding's got a shot at redemption at this point. Yesterday's game, by itself, didn't win Figueroa the job, but I do think it's encouraging. Even if the next month is just an extended tryout for that one spot, and all three of them end up as relievers next year, regardless, they'll all be better players for it.
Same thing with guys like Murphy and Pagan–they've got a chance to prove they're part of the solution for next year.
I dunno, man. It's been such a horrible season. I've been watching games, but it's got to be extra tough on you and Jason, because you're both watching the losses and the injuries pile up and then dwelling on it and writing about it. Lengthy stories daily! It must be awful.
At least you're not piling on and taking sucker punches like Tim Marchman, but it's a real bummer to see both of you guys already so bummed about 2010. We've got, like, $90 million in talent coming off the DL this offseason, which is just moonbat crazy. And the guys who hold this September together with a bunch of duct tape–whether they make the cut next year or make the bench or get sent back to the minors–will at the very least help return a little bit of depth to the organization. It's horrible to be in a position where you're thinking “we'll get them next year” before August is even over, and unfortunately, every fan and every player is living with that right now. But it's even worse to have already given up hope for next season.
I think Marchman is spot on, as usual. His article is scathing and no less than what the Mets deserve. Pithy observations like “The number three and four spots in the lineup were taken by Daniel Murphy and Jeff Francoeur — pinch-hitters who can't hit. The five spot was taken by Jeremy Reed, a defensive specialist who isn't an especially good fielder, and Cory Sullivan, a bad defensive outfielder who hits like Castillo without the on-base skills,” are what separates him from other “stat-geek” type writers and a huge part of what makes him so good. I'm glad to see he's found a larger audience at SI. Thanks for posting the link.
I'm a fan of Marchman's too, but that column was just unnecessarily brutal. He points out that the Mets' “four best hitters, their three best starting pitchers, their top reliever, and their top hitting and pitching prospects are all injured” but then he just takes sarcastic pot shots at everyone who's left on the team.
I mean, the Mets are a wreck. Thanks for whacking me in the head with a shovel to remind me Marchman. I needed that.
If I may be a weasel about it, you're both right. We shouldn't give up on next year and we need not overdo the despair on this year any more than absolutely necessary…and we're doomed.
Marchman's article would have been better had it been about some other organization.
Quick Question – If the mets are in financial trouble….should they trade David Wright and Jose Reyes now?….sometimes smells fishy about the article on SNY/Metsblog.com today….knowing how the mets operate, I think a case is being made to trade Jose…if so…I would send him to Boston for Ellsbury, then move Beltran over to the AL for mlb ready pitching and prospects…our infield can be…Murphy…Castillo…Tejada….wright…santos/thole….our OF can be Pagan…Ellsbury…Francour….The Mets will have to basically decide between Wright/Beltran/Reyes as to who to give a large extension to…and my money is on Wright…Reyes has been hurt all year…Wright has under-performed…and for some reason Matt Cerrone thought it was necessary to question Reyes's value…( who when healthy, is better than, 90% of the league's SS )
Next year will be Reyes's walk year….what do you do if you're Minaya ( or Jeff Wilpon )
Next year will be huge in so many, many ways..As for this season and whatever nice performances we get? Forget them move on to your off season interests…
Perhaps these injury s are a blessing in disguise. A cleansing process as much as a healing one has begun.
rich p
Well, now you've done it…
Every time somebody says, “It's imperative (or important or essential or optimal, take your pick) that the Mets do X,” thy invariably do Y, with the predicted results from not doing X.
I'm less than sanguine about 2010.