Jason Bay saves the day - with his glove

The Mets jumped out to a 3-0 lead in the second inning, but the Phillies stormed back to take the lead in the bottom of the second. What do you expect with a rattled rookie on the mound and a lousy defense behind him. Especially that left fielder who's better suited to be a DH.

Oh, wait, that's the 2009 Mets.

This year's team made three strong outfield plays in the second to limit the Phillies to one run on three hits, giving Jon Niese a chance to settle down and retire 14 Phillies in a row. Jeff Francoeur made a great throw to hold Jayson Werth to a single, then slammed into the wall to take an extra-base hit away from Raul Ibanez.

With two out and two on, Shane Victorino hit a deep fly to left, but Jason Bay raced back and made a leaping catch against the wall to end the inning.

Jason Bay? Isn't he the guy who can't play the outfield and has that awful UZR (Ultimate Zone Rating), proving that he is a bad defender?

A few days ago, UZR was updated, primarily to take into account quirky ballparks.

Such as Fenway Park, Bay's home last year.

Most players were barely affected. But Bay's number was recalculated from -13.8 to +1.9, meaning that UZR no longer sees Bay as a bad outfielder, but an average one.

And tonight, Bay made a play that was well above average.

One year ago tomorrow, on May 2, 2009, the Mets' left fielder was Daniel Murphy and their right fielder was Gary Sheffield. Murphy and Sheffield would not have made the plays that Bay and Francoeur made. Niese would have given up at least three runs in the second, maybe more. Instead of leading, 3-1, Niese and the Mets might have been behind at the end of that inning. It would have been a very different game.

*

The Mets were ripped in many quarters for signing Bay. One month is too soon to judge a multiyear deal. Bay is hitting better, but still has just one homer and strikes out a great deal.

But Bay has surprised on the basepaths with his speed, legging out three triples so far, matching his total for all of last year.

And in the outfield, Bay has helped turn the Mets' defense from a nightmare to a strength.

The most important thing to come out of this game was Jon Niese's great performance - 7 IP, one run, four hits, one walk and seven strikeouts. Four homers by the Met batters was pretty impressive as well.

But Niese would not have put up such good numbers if he did not have such a strong outfield defense behind him.

Part of the Red Sox' decision to let Bay go was their strategy to concentrate on defense this offseason. One of the defensive stars the Red Sox brought in was third baseman Adrian Beltre.

Tonight, Beltre made his fifth error of the young season, resulting in an unearned run. If that run had not scored and everything else in the game stayed the same, the Red Sox would have won. Instead, the game went into extra innings and the Red Sox lost.

Meanwhile, Jason Bay, who wasn't a good enough outfielder for the Red Sox's tastes, helped the Mets win a game with his fielding.

Did Omar Minaya outsmart Theo Epstein by landing Jason Bay?

Theo Epstein has two rings, while Omar Minaya's job is on the line this year. So if Theo is willing to let Jason Bay go, it must be because Theo knows what he's doing and Omar is throwing money away, right?

Five years ago, the Red Sox allowed another over-30, potentially injury-prone star, Pedro Martinez, to leave Boston for the Mets. Pedro only gave the Mets 1 1/2 good seasons out of a four-year contract. Theo turned out to be justified for refusing to offer a similar long-term deal.

But I would argue that Omar was also justified in signing Pedro. The move revitalized the franchise and made the Mets an attractive destination for players such as Carlos Beltran. Pedro made the All-Star team in each of his first two seasons with the Mets. With his help, a team that had won 71 games in 2004 won 83 in 2005 and 97 in 2006.

Still, in terms of evaluating Pedro's long-term value, Theo was a lot more accurate than Omar.

We will not know for a few years which GM has more accurately valued Jason Bay. But despite their track records, Omar might come out ahead this time. After all, Theo has underestimated a departing star before. Johnny Damon was still going strong at the conclusion of his four-year Yankee deal, helping the Bombers win the title.

Letting Damon go worked out for the Red Sox, who were able to get younger and cheaper with Jacoby Ellsbury and won another title.

But as of now, the Red Sox look a lot weaker without Bay in their lineup.

After the 2003 season, Vladimir Guerrero was a free agent. But the Mets failed to sign him, even though he was available at a comparative discount, Instead, the Mets went for a much cheaper alternative - Mike Cameron.

This time, it's the Red Sox who have turned to Cameron as the cheaper alternative. And the Mets have the run producer they needed.

Mets 2010: Y2Bay?

On New Year's Eve ten years ago, many people worried that Y2K would bring down the world's computers. This year, some writers feel that the signing of Jason Bay will bring down the Mets.

Yahoo's Jeff Passan writes:

Here the New York Mets go again, throwing money at a big-name free agent who they misguidedly convince themselves will solve their troubles.

But only a week ago, Passan argued that the current market for Bay and Matt Holliday made them "incredible bargains":

Boston understands value. Its proprietary formulas say something like what all of the publicly available metrics affirm: Holliday is one of the most valuable everyday players in the game, and Bay’s bat is a mighty force. And when assigning a dollar amount to their valuations, the Red Sox are saying: Right now, Holliday and Bay are incredible bargains.

Even if Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran and David Wright are all back at full strength in 2010, the Mets still need a big slugger in the middle of their lineup to replace Carlos Delgado. There were only two top hitters on the market and the Mets landed one of them. That is great news for the Mets.

Will Bay's bat be the same "mighty force" in Citi Field? Probably not. But that does not mean the Mets were better off with Angel Pagan. The Mets needed a big upgrade in left field or at first base and now they have it.

But what if Bay turns out to be the next George Foster, as Sports Illustrated's Jeff Pearlman believes? Pearlman and Passan both believe the Mets would have been better off spending the money on John Lackey, and I completely agree. But there is no assurance that Lackey wanted to play in New York, or that they would have been able to outbid the Red Sox for his services.

Even if the Mets had managed to land Lackey, they would have ended up giving a five-year deal to an over-30 pitcher who has been on the disabled list at some point the last two seasons. So how is signing Lackey less of a risk than signing Bay?

Both Passan and Pearlman buy into the notion that the Mets have a dreadful record when it comes to giving players big contracts through trade or free agency. But the Mets were in contention from 2006-2008 because of the big contracts they were willing to give out. Some moves obviously worked a lot better than others, but where would the Mets be without Carlos Beltran, Johan Santana and Francisco Rodriguez?

But if the Mets are going to maintain a winning organization, they need to drastically upgrade their farm system. Passan writes:

Since 1985, the Mets have signed and developed five players who later wore their uniforms in an All-Star game. Five. Wright, Reyes, Todd Hundley, Edgardo Alfonzo and Bobby Jones. Even Kansas City can say it has passed eight homegrown All-Stars through its system. . . .

New York spent $3.1 million on the amateur draft in 2009. It was the lowest figure in the game. Ramping up their spending in Latin America – which has netted them their three top prospects, Fernando Martinez, Jenrry Mejia and Wilmer Flores – doesn’t excuse going skinflint stateside.

All very true, but as the Red Sox and Phillies have shown, it is possible to have a payroll around the size of the Mets' payroll and still build a great farm system.

But until that day comes, at least the Mets signed Jason Bay.

Happy New Year. Here's to a much better 2010 for the Mets.

The 'Annie Hall' view of the Mets

The way people view the Mets this offseason reminds me of the joke in "Annie Hall" in which the old ladies at the Catskills resort complain that the food is terrible - and such small portions. The Mets are criticized for not spending enough - and for throwing away money on the wrong players.

The Post's Mike Vaccaro warns that Jason Bay could be the next Bobby Bonilla. The Record's Bob Klapisch thinks the Mets should trade Johan Santana. (Thanks to Andrew Vazzano of The 'Ropolitans for posting the Klapisch link.)

I agree with much of what Vaccaro has to say:

How many times do you have to sign Kevin Appier and Bobby Bonilla before you recognize the difference between attracting the cream of a good free-agent class (see Sabathia, CC, and Teixeira, Mark) and the prettiest homecoming queens of Homely High?. . .

It is one thing for a team with resources, such as the Mets, to muscle up for Mike Piazza or Carlos Beltran or Frankie Rodriguez, seminal players whose coveted gifts demand top dollar; it is another to throw money at players who would be second-tier free agents in other winters.

The best news so far this offseason is that it wasn't the Mets who gave Randy Wolf $30M for three years. Joel Pineiro hopes to get an even more ludicrous contract. These over-30 pitchers have each come off one good season (not a great season, a good one) after years of injury and mediocrity.

The numbers currently being discussed for Bay are a lot more reasonable than Scott Boras comparing Matt Holliday to Teixeira.

Vaccaro thinks the Mets should avoid spending on Bay to save money for the great free-agent class of 2011. But there are no guarantees that any of those potential free agents are available, and if they are, that the Mets would be able to get them. Joe Mauer, Carl Crawford and Josh Beckett would be of interest to every team willing to spend on free agents, starting with the Yankees.

Why shouldn't the Mets try to win now? Has everyone forgotten that this team won 89 games only a year ago? If everyone comes back healthy, the Mets still need a cleanup hitter to replace Carlos Delgado. And signing Bay helps the Mets not just now, but for the next few years, unlike Omar Minaya's signing of Moises Alou.

Just because the Phillies are clearly better on paper does not mean that the Mets should go into rebuilding mode, as Klapisch wants them to do. Does Klapisch want the Mets to become the Indians? How has trading CC Sabathia and Cliff Lee worked out for them? While it is too early to judge the prospects acquired in those deals, it is not too early to say that the Indians stink now and are likely to continue to stink for the next few seasons.

Klapisch, though, believes that every Met high-profile signing has been a failure:

Still, the Mets have to make peace with the idea that the Santana experiment has failed, just as the Carlos Beltran, Pedro Martinez and Billy Wagner gambles all turned to vapor. Yet, they continue to chase The Next Great Star as if this was 2006 and they were one player away from greatness.

In 2008, Santana nearly pitched the Mets into the postseason. Beltran has been one of the best players in baseball for most of his Met contract. Pedro and Wagner were both All-Stars until they got hurt. Of all these contracts, the only one that could be considered a failure was the one for Pedro, who was only able to give the Mets 1 1/2 out of four years. Wagner was a top closer for more than 2 1/2 years out of his four-year deal. For a free-agent pitcher, that is a good percentage.

Klapisch should realize that the big-money signings are what propelled and kept the Mets in contention. Santana was not an "experiment," but a great move for a team that a the time was one player away.

The problem is not pursuing high-profile free agents. It is having a lousy farm system, mediocre coaching that does not teach fundamentals and a questionable training and medical staff.

In "Annie Hall," Allen says that a relationship is like a shark - it must keep moving forward or it dies. Klapisch thinks it is time to kill the shark:

It's true, dealing the franchise's best pitcher would be tantamount to surrender. But it would be at least be an honest admission to fans, who've grown weary of the all the disappointment.

Yep, that's the way to please the fans. Just like in 1977, when the Mets traded Tom Seaver. What a relief to not have to worry about whether or not I would land postseason tickets.

The Mets need to make like a shark and keep moving forward to return to contention in 2010.

What the Mets offseason so far has in common with 1969

After the Mets won 73 games in 1968, their biggest offseason move was acquiring Wayne Garrett in the Rule 5 draft. Then again, 1969 was a miracle.

It's going to take a lot more than Henry Blanco to turn the 70-win 2009 Mets into contenders next year. But it is too early to call this offseason a failure. If the Mets end up with Jason Bay, Bengie Molina, a half-decent, not-too-pricey starter and the return to health of all the injured stars, 2010 will look a lot better than it does now.

That is, of course, a lot of ifs.

I really wanted John Lackey on the Mets, but I can understand balking at a five-year deal for a pitcher who is over 30 and has been injured at the start of the last two seasons.

ESPN's Buster Olney has a chart of the 16 starters since 1990 who signed free agent contracts of at least five years. The list has a lot more busts (Mike Hampton, Barry Zito, Chan Ho Park, Kei Igawa, Darren Dreifort, Denny Neagle) than big successes (Greg Maddux, Mike Mussina and maybe Kevin Brown).

Olney adds that it is too early to judge CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Daisuke Matsuzaka's contracts.

The list does not include non-free agents who signed contract extensions, such as Johan Santana.

Even after reading the list, I still wish Lackey were a Met, but if the Mets end up with Jason Bay instead, at least it will be easier to justify giving a position player a five year deal if it comes down to that.

The most difficult thing to justify would be giving Molina, who turns 36 next season, a third year.

I also have a bad feeling about giving Joel Pineiro a big contract, just as I'm glad it was not the Mets who gave Randy Wolf almost $30M for three years.

But I don't think the Phillies' getting Roy Halladay drastically improves them, not when they had to give up Cliff Lee. Of course, the Phillies were already a good deal better than the Mets.

But with the Dodgers in disarray because of the ownership issue and the Cardinals possibly losing Matt Holliday, it is not clear how many other NL teams are a good deal better than the Mets.

There is still reason to be hopeful for 2010.

Are the Boston Red Sox building a bridge to nowhere?

Gather round, Boston fans. I have some questions about what you think about the state of your team these days.

I wrote something for The Faster Times about Jason Bay's rejection of the Sox's offer, and the pending Mike Lowell trade. It seems to me that the concept of loyalty is very one-sided in Soxland. Lowell took the hometown discount to stay in Boston, and he gets traded (pending that thumb issue, of course). Same thing happened with Bronson Arroyo - he got traded two months after leaving four million on the table. Nice!

Then there's the way that we inevitably hear negative things about the player when they're on their way out the door. Last year, Jason Bay was considered better than Manny Ramirez. Now, he's supposedly an injury risk. Right. The same way that Mike Lowell, considered one of the classiest guys to ever put on a Boston uniform, is supposedly now a clubhouse complainer. (See my article for more details, and go to Baseball Think Factory to read others commenting on my piece.)

The way the Sox front office trashes its players is so unseemly, yet it happens pretty much every single time a Boston player goes elsewhere. Tacky.

Anyhow, Theo Epstein had some talk the other day about how 2010 will be the bridge period. Sounds like it's the cheap period to me, with another year of John Smoltz/Brad Penny type supposed "low risk/high reward" signings. Like this year, with the Sox signing the immortal Boof Bonser, after all!

Of course, ticket prices are still going up during this transition time. Shocker!

Are the Sox already conceding the 2010 AL East division title to the Yankees? I think they are. As does Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy. He sharply criticized the Sox in a recent column, saying fans should "not buy the bill of goods the Red Sox are selling." He continued:

I’m not buying. The Sox have the dough to sign Matt Holliday or Jason Bay. Just like they had the money to bag Mark Teixeira last winter. But they keep getting beaten by the Yankees and then they cry about it.

Stop. It’s hideous of the Sox and their fans to complain about the Yankees buying championships. Sure, the Yanks can afford Teixeira, CC Sabathia, and A.J. Burnett, just like the Sox were able to afford Matsuzaka and Drew. The Sox got Curt Schilling and Victor Martinez the same way the Yankees got Curtis Granderson this week. The Sox are not the Pirates. They are not the Brewers or the A’s. The Sox are Haves, not Have-Nots. Like the Yankees, the Sox are happy to raid the rosters of teams that can’t afford high-priced talent.

Absolutely. I thought about that Schilling deal the other day, and how Sox fans I knew then tried to claim that Boston gave up a lot in that trade in Casey Fossum and Brandon Lyon. Please.

Shaughnessy also writes:

It’s nice that Theo has a passion for player development, but asking fans to take a year off is outrageous. Henry is a billionaire and the Sox are making bundles of money. If you don’t believe that, call their partners at Ace Ticket and try to score a few tickets.

Agreed. John Henry is worth a lot more money than George Steinbrenner is. Why are they holding the purse strings tight with one hand, and raising ticket prices with the other?

One other thing I also read at the Boston Globe this week was about how Theo opposed the Josh Beckett/Mike Lowell for Hanley Ramirez trade, made in his brief absence from the team in 2005.  That makes no sense to me. Yes, the Sox gave up a future superstar in Ramirez. But they also won the 2007 World Series thanks to Beckett and Lowell. That seems like a pretty fair tradeoff.

Let's take a quick look at some of the 2010 Red Sox payroll obligations. Right now, they've committed to pay Texas nine million to take Mike Lowell off their hands, assuming the trade goes through. They're also paying nine million for Julio Lugo not to play for them. They'll be paying $14 million for J.D. Drew - a heck of a bigger injury risk than Jason Bay - to play right field; that is, when he isn't taking his weekly day off.  They're paying $12.5 million to David Ortiz - which looked like a great deal at the time - to be their DH. Dice-K (or is that Dice-BB, as my friend William calls him?) may actually show up to spring training in shape this time around to earn his $8 million this year. And don't forget that captain Jason Varitek will be getting $5 million as a lifetime achievement award for 2010.

Yes, yes, I know the Yankees have ridiculous contracts as well. (Kei Igawa, anyone?) My point is that Theo Epstein, for all his brilliance, has made a bunch of bad deals that have cost his team. And that not many other teams could afford to essentially pay other teams to take on their players, the way Theo did with Manny Ramirez, Julio Lugo, and is trying to do with Mike Lowell. So sorry, I'm not going to feel too bad for the Red Sox's payroll obligations. If they're having to pinch pennies now, it's because of bad decisions by Epstein, not because of the Yankees' dominance.

Of course, now that I've written this article, watch the Sox sign John Lackey, Matt Holliday, Adrian Beltre, and some other high-priced free agents this afternoon, just to prove this all irrelevant!

But what do our Sox fan readers think? Tell us about it!