Catching up with the Mets and Yankees

Your updated playoff seedings:

AL: Yankees (1) vs. Texas (3), Minnesota (2) vs. Tampa Bay (4)

NL: Philadelphia (1) vs. San Diego (3), Cincinnati (2) vs. Atlanta (4)

Thoughts: I'm bound to come off as a party-pooper, this time of the baseball season, but I don't understand how media outlets could talk about the Padres and Giants being "tied" or even "virtually tied," for the NL West lead. They're not tied. They're each 18 games over .500 - that's where the notion of a "tie" comes from - but the Giants have played two more games than San Diego and therefore trail the Padres by one in the loss column.

I believe the hockey folks would say that San Diego has "two games in hand." A little help? Richie G.? Islander505? If the Padres were presented, say, this morning, with those two extra games and told, "Play them now," and they won both, then they'd be a full game ahead of the Giants.

I'm just sayin'. In any case, we now look like we could have four teams - Atlanta, San Diego, San Francisco and Colorado - fighting for two playoff spots. Throw the Phillies in there, too, and make it five teams for three spots, with the Cardinals still possessing a crazy, outside chance at the NL Central or wild-card (in which case, really, you'd include the Reds and say that all four playoff spots are still open, with seven teams fighting for them).

--So I honestly didn't read much during the last few days, and it wasn't until I spoke with David Lennon yesterday that I fully comprehended the Walter Reed mess. And what a mess it was.

First of all, so we're all on the same page: The Mets did not proactively leak that Carlos Beltran, Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez skipped the team's visit to Walter Reed. That would've been downright sinister. What actually went down exemplified both the Mets' clumsy public relations and their failure to see the big picture.

The media on site figured out the story because the Nationals Park visitors' clubhouse opened at 3:30 - it's always three and a half hours before first pitch, at all major-league parks - and only that night's starter Dillon Gee (excused from the event) was there. Then Beltran, Castillo and Perez arrived, and then the entire Walter Reed group.

So when the group of beat reporters put two and two together (See? We sportswriters aren't that dumb) and started poking around, they quickly learned that Mets uppermanagement was indeed unhappy that Beltran, Castillo and Perez chose not to come, and didn't mind whatsoever if coverage of the visit shifted toward this negative direction.

Here's what upper management should've done, IMO:

1) First of all (hence the "1" before this item), you know, not gotten worked into a frenzy over the three absentees, and instead taken absolute, understandable pride in the fact that 29 Mets players - 29! That's phenomenal, peer/employer pressure or not! - visited the wounded soldiers.

This is easier said than done, I grant you. When the team COO Jeff Wilpon comes down to Washington expressly for this trip, you probably feel like there should be perfect attendance. But as Scott Boras told Lennon, if it was that important, the players should've received more than about 24 hours official notice.

2) But even if the team officials couldn't get over the three absences, they should've anticipated the media questions and swiftly squashed the notion that anyone was upset, and instead accentuated the positive of how many players did appear.

Because if no one fuels the fire - if you don't have the "Ownership is unhappy..." storyline - then the storyline is fully in the media's hands. Then it's up to each individual reporter to wonder, "Gosh, do I go to town with this 'Three absences' angle if no one is professing anger over it?" Maybe some would have, but it would've been much harder to execute, as it would've put the reporter fully in the "moral judgment" seat.

And as Jerry Manuel, of all people, put it, going to Walter Reed "is a man's choice." 

Do I wish that Beltran, Castillo and Perez would've gone? Sure, I do. But I also can understand why all three are in no hurries to do the Mets any favors.

Let's just make clear the deal with Beltran: He and the Mets are unhappy with each other because he feels like he was pushed to play through a serious knee injury last year, and then, this past winter, when the Mets similarly urged him to opt for rest over surgery, he went with the surgery. Given the Mets' medical woes over the last few years, they're really in no position to take that argument to the streeets, not that it stopped them from trying.

With Castillo and Perez, it's more simple: Both received too much money from the Mets, and both - not surprisingly - have failed to live up to the dollars the Mets committed to them. Perez obviously should've been released a long time ago. Castillo? I understand the Mets wanted a safety net for Ruben Tejada. But you can't expect Castillo to be thrilled with his situation.

As for Castillo's quote about not wanting to "see that," referring to the soldiers that lost body parts and whatnot, can we please remember that English is Castillo's second language? Perhaps he would've worded it more gracefully in his native tongue? And again - it doesn't sound impressive at all on the surface, but I don't know what Castillo has seen and lived through. Judging him in this arena is simply not a comfortable position.

Perez and Castillo have to be gone after this year. Beltran? It would be foolish for the Mets to release him, or pay a heavy amount of the $18.5 million owed him next year to ship him out for little in return. It makes more sense, if a good deal can't be found, to at least bring him into spring training. There's reason to think that, with a full winter of physical preparation on the surgically repaired knee, he can play more like his old self next year. Even in his diminished state this season, he entered last night's game with a 1.4 WAR in just 50 games. 

At this point, though, for the Mets to actually consider bringing back Beltran, there's going to need to be a sitdown among Beltran, ownership, the new general manager and the new manager. There is so much bad blood now, they should call in Dr. Anthony Galea to spin the blood and make it better.

--Meanwhile, because it's the Mets, that's not all. Johan Santana needs surgery, again, and it's not clear at all whether he'll be ready to start next season. At this point, based on what Santana himself and Jorge Posada (who had a similar procedure) are saying, you'd have to bet against it. 

Furthermore, any time a pitcher's shoulder is being surgically repaired, rather than his elbow, you shudder.

The Mets are unlikely to pick up an ace-caliber pitcher this winter - there's only one such pitcher available on the free-agent market, and whatever team (probably either the Yankees or Texas) signs Cliff Lee is going to face the same "Are we buying him on the downside?" question that the Mets are now facing with Santana - so 2011 suddenly isn't looking too hot for the Mets. 

But if they did anything right last winter, it turns out, it was deciding against paying premium prices for non-premium pitchers. If you look at the pitching WAR leaders (here's the AL, and here's the NL), you'll see that here are our rankings for last year's free-agent class:

1. Brett Myers, 4.7. The only reason he got as money as he did ($5.1 million) was because of Houston GM Ed Wade's fascination with the Phillies, the team he used to run.

2. Carl Pavano, 4.4. Chose to accept arbitration from Minnesota - he wound up settling for $7 million - because his name was still mud from his Yankees years.

3. Livan Hernandez, 3.2. His old pals in Washington guaranteed him $900,000.

4. R.A. Dickey, 2.8. For $600,000 guaranteed.

Note that none of the multi-year guys (John Lackey, Randy Wolf, Joel Pineiro, Jason Marquis) made the list. Neither did "innings-eater" Jon Garland, or high-upside master Ben Sheets.

Pitching is tough to predict. Really, the best deals are likely to be made with your own starting pitchers, because you know the most about them both physically and personally. So yes, the Mets' starting rotation looks a lot worse today, but no, that doesn't mean they should overspend this winter on questionable commodities.

--The Yankees? I don't have much on the Yankees. Do you? I haven't seen these last few games. 

Andy Pettitte reportedly looked good Thursday and will throw another minor-league game Tuesday, so that's good news for Yankees fans.

And I saw that Alfredo Aceves and Damaso Marte are both out for the year. That's a blow to the team's pitching depth, but the Yankees obviously have gotten by without those guys for much of the season.

In the case of Marte, the Yankees will have paid him $7.75 million by the end of this season for two virtually worthless regular seasons and one excellent postseason. Is that good enough, in Yankees math? It seems to me that even the Yankees should aim higher.

--And finally, can you believe nine years have passed since that most horrible day? I'm sure for many, it still feels like yesterday. Warmest thoughts to everyone today, and particularly to those who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

As I always do on this day, I'll remember those I knew who died: Kevin Cohen, Kevin Dennis, Jim Gartenberg, Andrew Gilbert and Scott Schertzer. We will never forget.

Have a good day.