I understand the coverage about the purported miscommunication among the Mets and Jose Reyes, concerning Reyes' injury. The Mets have earned such distrust because of their actions the last couple of years.

But I think we should at least distinguish the dynamics between this episode and its predecessors. It's all the difference in the world.

Reyes told ESPN that he didn't have a thyroid problem, after the Mets announced that Reyes had an overactive thyroid. So, in essence, the Mets - the party that's supposed to act as the adult in this relationship - said that Reyes has a problem, and Reyes countered wtih, "No, I don't."

Which is pretty much standard operating procedure, isn't it? The team protects its commodity. The athlete says he's fine and ready to go. Just dig up Derek Jeter's comments any time he suffers any sort of injury.

It's 180 degrees divergent from - and better than - the Mets' old MO, when the athlete says he's injured and the Mets say he isn't. That is highly troublesome, and got the Mets to the disrespected place they are today.

Our Mets beat writer David Lennon worked the phones and spoke with two of Reyes' representatives, Peter Greenberg and Chris Leible, both of whom confirmed the Mets' diagnosis. Greenberg is optimistic that Reyes will be all right, and Reyes' words to ESPN simply reflected that optimism. You can't expect Reyes to get every detail right. He's a ballplayer, not a doctor.

If not for the Mets' reputation, in other words, this "He said, they said" deal would be a non-story. Alas, if not for my advancing age and complete lack of athleticism, I'd be leading the NBA in scoring.

--Tom Verducci reports that Bud Selig's special committee has discussed "floating" realignment. It's an interesting concept, but as Verducci notes, we're a far way away from actually seeing such a radical change enacted.

Selig's special committee has zero power to implement any significant change, for any such change must require approval of the players' union (not to mention approval of the umpires' union, in some cases). Perhaps I'd have more respect for the special committee if Selig had selected a player or two over, say, Geore Will.

In any case, I don't see how this idea would actually be executed. How much lead time would a team need to choose its division for the next season? What if a team continually opted to bury itself in the American League East, ensuring a sub-.500 finish but also nine home games each with the high-drawing Yankees and Red Sox?

advertisement | advertise on newsday

I have three far more modest proposals in order to help bring about more competitive balance:

1) Tweak the luxury-tax formulas again, in the collective bargaining agreement, to make the Yankees (and whoever else occasionally surpasses the threshold) pay an even higher premium for fielding such a high payroll.

2) Cut interleague play down to one week - two series - and schedule interleague opponents based on the previous season's results. For instance, since the American League East is matched with the National League West this year, the Yankees (having finished in first place in the AL East) should play the Dodgers and Rockies, the top two teams in the NL West. 

And with the NL East matched against the AL Central, the Mets (having finished fourth in the NL East) should play the White Sox and the Indians, who finished third and fourth in the AL Central. Yes, the Indians and Royals finished with the same record last year, but for argument's sake, I'm putting Cleveland fourth and Kansas City last based on the Indians' superior record in 2008.

This would stop the currently ludicrious, random scheduling in interleague play, and at least mildly help the bottom-feeding teams.


3) Add a playoff team. This would diminish, somewhat, the impact the Yankees and Red Sox have on the AL. There wouldn't be the sense among the AL Central and AL West teams that, "If we don't win the division, we're done," and would provide more hope for Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Toronto in the AL East.

Last year, Texas and San Francisco would've won the "second wild-card." There would've been no shame in that; we would've gotten to see Tim Lincecum in the playoffs.

Putting 10 of 30 teams in the postseason, 33 percent, would still make MLB more discriminating than the NFL (12 of 32 teams, or 37.5 percent, qualify), and far more so than the NBA and NHL (16 of 30, 53.3 percent, qualify from each).

--NaOH tipped me off to this cool projection table for Alex Rodriguez and Jeter. The two men can of course exceed these projections, but it does point out statiscal reasoning why it's dangerous to keep paying players outrageously high salaries into their late 30s and early 40s.

If Jeter tallies a .344 OBP and .387 SLG as a 39-turning-40-year-old, adequate shortstop in 2014, then that's acceptable, especially since the Yankees can afford (somewhat) to pay extra for Jeter's image and past performance. However, if Jeter puts up those numbers as a first baseman, or corner outfielder, or DH? That's a big, fat yeesh.

advertisement | advertise on newsday

--Good piece by Joe Posnanski about Ron Gardenhire. I wasn't aware there was such a cottage industry of Gardenhire Haters, and we're sure as hell not gonna find them now here, behind the pay wall. I think Gardenhire does a nice job getting the most out of what historically has been a low-payroll team. Not so much this year on the low budget, and Gardenhire's clear challenge, now, is to find a replacement for the injured Joe Nathan.

You're never gonna guess how I found this column.

Yes, it's from Twitter. How did you know?