Archive for Met Mysteries

Take a Number

January 11, 2012 Met Mysteries One comment

12With the addition of new reserve shortstop Ronny Cedeno and returning pinch-hitter Scott Hairston — and the subtraction of bungled phenom Fernando Martinez, who will try again with the Astros — the Mets say their 40-man roster is whole again and, they say, unlilkely to undergo any further changes before it all begins again.

It’s not just the weather making it as though like winter never came. The additions to the team were underwhelming enough and the finances bad enough that nobody bothered having a press event beyond conference calls or a caravan which is all well and good but denied us the introduction of new uni numbers until, I suppose, pitchers and catchers report. Following are guys on the 40 who are awaiting a number assignment:

PITCHERS: Robert Carson, Juerys Familia, Frank Francisco, Jeremy Heffner, Ramon Ramirez, Jon Rauch

INFIELDERS: Ronny Cedeno, Wilmer Flores, Reese Havens

OUTFIELDERS: Juan Lagares, Kirk Nieuwenhuis, Cesar Puello, Andres Torres

Including the four non-roster invitees who already have number assignments (Miguel Batista, Daniel Hererra, Valentino Pascucci, Mike Baxter) the following numbers (up to 50) are available to issue: 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 31, 33, 38, 45, 48, 50.

That’s 13 guys and 20 numbers if I counted right. If I include additional non-roster invitees (likely to be issued numbers in the 60s or above anyway) it’s 21 guys and 20 numbers. Who will wind up in which?

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Help Identify the Mystery Met

May 31, 2011 Met Mysteries No comments

OK Holmes (Sherlock, that is), time for another Met Mystery, courtesy of the following exerpted note from MBTN reader David:

At a baseball card show last month, a man approached me with an interesting photo that appears to be from a legends game. He asked if I knew anything about it. I was able to identify some of the participants (Earl Weaver, Don Zimmer, Lou Brock, etc) but really want to place the location and date. Since I didn’t have a scanner I took several pictures on my phone. You can see the (larger) picture here.

Crazy as it sounds I think one of the keys to unlocking this mystery is the Met in the lower left.Close up is here. He doesn’t seem tough to identify – older, wearing glasses. His number is partially obstructed but it appears that it would have to be #7. However, no #7 that I find lines up with this man. It isn’t Ed Kranepool and many of the others are easily eliminated based on skin color, hair color, and so on. I simply cannot find a match for this man. I thought maybe it could be a seventy number, like 74 or something, but that number appears too far to the man’s left for there to be another number after it.

Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. I know that #11 is Wayne Garrett thanks to your great site.

* * *

As I told David privately, the photo is a little too blurry to identify anything for sure, but with young and old players in home and road uniforms, what looks like a minor-league setting (maybe Florida, note the ads on the fence) some kind of Old-Timers exhibition seems likely. The Mystery Met in the corner bears some resemblance to Mike Cubbage, no, but given the weird jersey sleeve-stripes, it could be anybody. There is one (Stearns?!?) or maybe two more Mets in that shot as well, not to mention some guys dressed in what look to be softball jerseys. Weird pic at any rate. Can you help identify the time, place and players in this shot? Let us know in the comments below, and thanks!

* * *

Ike Davis, who looked like a veteran the day he stepped on the field for the Mets — barely a year ago — is looking like a veteran off the field too, exhibiting all the bushy-tailed bounceback of a 44-year-old, not the 24-year-old he is. News today is that its another three weeks in a boot and plenty of Geritol for Old Ike before we see him again.

The team we have out there today is barely hanging on: It’s a real credit to Terry Collins that they’ve managed to not get killed out there most nights, much less put a few wins together. But it’s not the kind of thing that’s likely to last, and when the team’s only living power hitter misses a couple of months with a bruise, that’s bad.

With Jose Reyes out, Bobby Parnell returned but didn’t pitch well. We just lost to the Pirates.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Behold: Numbers That Don’t Count

July 29, 2009 Met Mysteries, The Uniform One comment

MBTN reader Matt today sent along a scan of a 1983 Daily News article showing the accompanying photograph of Davey Johnson posing with jersey No. 31. As we all know, by the time Johnson managed his first game with the Mets in April of 1984, the 31 jersey was long gone and Johnson would wear No. 5. Although the article this story accompanied (click the photo to see it) appeared in a December of 1983 and concerned Johnson’s eligibility for the Hall of Fame,  the photo itself was taken that October, on the day the Mets introduced Johnson as their next manager.

This was an interesting find though. I’ve got copies of Newsday, the Times and the Post from that day, all of which used the same closeup of Johnson’s face to illustrate their stories. But it’s not unprecendented. Back in 2004, on the November day the Mets introduced another new manager, Willie Randolph, they presented him with jersey No. 1 and not the 12 he’d show up in once it was time to play. Similar photo-op phollies struck Mets-in-waiting like Roger Cedeno (11 in the press conference, 19 on the field); Xavier Nady (10; 22), Duaner Sanchez (40; 50); and Chad Bradford (35; 53).

Which brings me to an interesting discovery I made while fleeing a rain delay earlier this season at the new park. Ducking into a Promenade-level memorabilia shop to avoid the downpour I came across (not literally) a selection of “game-used” jerseys from scrubs of the not-so-distant past, selling at the relative bargain price of $100 each. Among the KNIGHT 28s (Brandon, not Ray) and SOSA 29s I spied this curiousity: An alleged “game-worn” No. 17 belonging to Willie Collazo, whose short Met career already included one interesting moment in uni history.

Collazo, who was up briefly in 2007 and 2008 (but did not play in the latter appearance) was issued No. 36 in both stays, so the 17 was out of place. I didn’t think to check whether there were any clues as to what year the jersey was from, but my records show that during Collazo’s entire tenure with the Mets, the 17 jersey would have been available only in the month of April 2008, after David Newhan was gone but before Fernando Tatis had arrived (and even then, Tatis had 17 assigned to him).

Any theories as to how this happened? And what other cases can you recall where a Met was issued a number but never appeared in it?

P.S. The SHaMs are finally off to that run I warned you about… All it took was another embarrassing front-office explosion and a good smackdown by the Nationals, but it’s happening…

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Francoeur Dujour

July 10, 2009 Met Mysteries One comment

The debate over what number Jeff Francoeur ought to wear started in the post below long before I even knew we’d traded Ryan Church for him in a deal begging to be debated long after the Mets and Braves realize it hadn’t helped them. Francoeur of course wore No. 7 with the Braves and won’t with the Mets as long as Jose Reyes (remember him?) is employed. Let’s look at the candidates:

No. 4: I like this one: Single-digit, tossed around amongst a bunch of bums ever since Robin Ventura left town eight years ago.

No. 6: Nick Evans was just demoted — Angel Pagan returned from the DL — and the addition of Francoeur does Evans’ future no favors. But I like 6 as a scrubeenie signifier and would hate to see it wasted on a guy we’ll come to remember — good or bad — as much as Francoeur. Didya know he’s under team control for one more than Chuch? Oh yes. He’s our right fielder through 2011 if we want him, and maybe if we don’t Gulp.

No. 8: Still sitting there.

No. 12: Still unissued since Willie Randolph‘s departure but more of an infielder’s number.

19No. 19: If there’s something to admire about this deal off-the-bat is how brazen a challenge trade it really is: Both right fielders, both considered disappointments, both teams in the same division, both more or less fighting for the same goal. Why not make it a true Del Unser Deal and change up the jerseys as well?

No. 27: Available even though we’ll probably need Nelson Figueroa again. This, 47, and 77 are the easiest to imagine emerging from the 7 family if Francoeur prefer to stay with it.

Nos. 30, 32, 35 and 40 are open as well.

As for the trade, I fear it: It seems that if Church only played a little better he’d not have been traded to begin with but it takes more ignorance of on-base percentage than I’ll ever have to think we haven’t just made a bad offense even worse. That said, Francoeur is right-handed and young and may still become something; while Church, for whatever reason, has fallen out of favor with two clubs already.

Let the challenge begin.

In other troubling news they brought back Argenis Reyes when overmatched youngsterFernando Martinez went on the disabled list. And before I ever had a chance to enjoy his demotion.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Huckleberry Found

April 30, 2009 Met Mysteries 2 comments

Hopefully this doesn’t make the World’s Worst Person, but I’m compelled to point out Keith Olbermann’s recent whack at obscure Mets history on his new blog isn’t entirely accurate. The entry concerns Wilbur Huckle, a Met farmhand of the 1960s perhaps best remembered for having been Tom Seaver‘s first roommate in the minor leagues. Olbermann reports that Huckle in September of 1963 was called up to the Mets but didn’t get into a game, relegating him to a rare group of obscure major leaguers he calls the Bill Sharman Society, comprising (by his count) 51 ballplayers who appeared on major league rosters but never in a major league game.

The MBTN Research Team, to whom this news was a surprise, swiftly leapt into action and today can reveal the actual truth: Although Wilbur Huckle indeed spent time with the team in September of 1963 he was not officially added to the roster and as a result could not have appeared in a Major League game.

As illustrated in the transaction record on the left, direct from the Hall of Fame and the outstanding collection of Met Roster Maven “Jason from New Jersey,” Huckle, who was signed as a free agent in May of 1963 and assigned to Class A Raleigh, would not be added to the 40-man roster until October 15 of that year. (Looking further into his career, you’ll see Huckle was recalled the following September  from Williamsport but did not report to the Mets — a situation similar to that which we examined about Met farmhand Steve Simpson recently. Finally in December of 1964, Huckle is outrighted to Buffalo and off the 40-man roster forever).

So what was Huckle doing with the Mets then? It appears they simply invited him to New York that month to work out with the team, a practice we still see sometimes when minor league coaches like Luis Natera are brought up, issued uniforms and populate the bench. The below article also provides some explanation, though its obvious that the neither the writer, nor Wilbur Huckle’s father, understand that a guy’s contract must be purchased before he can play with the big club.

So Huckle, by MBTN rules, was never an official occupier of a big-league number on the Mets (though I’d be interested just the same in seeing the roster Keith Olbermann’s friend says he appears on). I would also think Huckle would not qualify as a citizen of the Sharman Society although that’s Keith’s Dumb Obsession, not mine. That group should include two Mets: reserve catcher Billy Cotton (1972) and minor-league slugger Terrel Hansen (1992).

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Watching the Ships Roll In

January 11, 2009 Met Mysteries One comment

17So, Tim Redding? Wore No. 17 in Washington last season, but as the kind of guy destined to surrender the No. 5 starter duties at some point, I’m not sure he has the juice to dictate his own digit. I suppoose its possible now that Fernando Tatis does, if for some reason he’d prefer something other than 17, but that’s speculation we’re going to have to wait until spring training to test.

Welcome Abordick, Tim.

Once again, the Mystery Men:

Cherry

Green

Kunz/Knight (they both most recently wore No. 44)

O’Day

Putz/H. Johnson (Putz posed in 40, but as yet isn;t listed as such on the official roster

Redding

Robertson

Reed

Niemann

Shines

* * *

The Mets have to be smarting still from the beating Paul Lukas administered on Page 2 the other day. The subject? The butt-ugly sleeve patch correctly identified as the worst in baseball history,headed to their uniforms this year.

It’s not too late, Mets. Please.

* * *

Ken Davidoff of Newsday notes that David Wright will wear No. 4, not No. 5, as part of the World Baseball Classic team this year. That’s because skipper Davey Johnson wears 5. Well, of course he does.

* * *

Congratualtions, Rickey.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Where is that Bloody Oasis

January 7, 2009 Met Mysteries One comment

New year and still no sign of what digits our newly arriving Mets will alight in.

A few years back you could at least count on the annual Mets Caravan providing revealing if ultimately inaccurate glimpses of the team wearing their unis for the first time. Perhaps the crumbling economy will again make this a necessary rite of winter but we could be looking at Spring Training before we know what we’ll be getting. The “official” Mets roster at mlb.com doesn’t even list an assignment for JJ Putz.

Of course, it’s also January already and a lack of clearly identifying players goes well beyond the jersey stage for the Mets. As I’ve said before, I’d sure prefer they’d make a deal with Oliver Perez over Derek Lowe. Not that the latter is so bad and the former so great, but that devil-you-know thing. I also wonder what it says about Lowe that neither Los Angeles nor Boston are in on this bidding. At any rate the Mets do seem to be reassuringly cognizant of their penchant to give away too many years per contract, so I guess we gotta be patient.

Also allegedly coming in February: MBTN.net’s 10th Anniversary Spectacular. In the meantime, do your duty as an American and vote for my friend and neighbor, MetsGrrrl, in this contest.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon
  Recent Entries »