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.
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?
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.
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 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.