Archive for Wild Speculation

Fake News? Ty Ballgame, updated

March 27, 2017 Wild Speculation 5 comments

New-arriving information indicates the news I passed along yesterday regarding Ty Kelly may not be entirely accurate, and by “entirely” I mean, entirely. Can anyone clear this up? I’ve asked Ty himself to check in.

Thanks to alert reader Chris who passed along a tip: Ty Kelly is back in uni No. 55, after having arrived at camp assigned 56.

I haven’t confirmed this independently and should have asked the reader for the dope.

Kelly as you may remember was issued 55 a year ago when he made his Met debut but lost his number, along with a big-league job, when the Mets re-acquired Kelly Johnson last June and gave the 55 jersey he’d worn for a glorious half-season in 2015. When Ty Kelly reappeared later in the year he was wearing 56, which also happened to be the uni on Kelly’s back during the recent World Baseball Classic, when he represented Isreal.

Whether Kelly resurfaces with the Mets remains in question as he lost his 40-man roster spot in February and resigned a minor league contract and so would need a 40-man space to open up before he returns. That said with Juan Lagares expected to miss time with an injury and a mostly right-handed bench the switch-hitting, multi-position playing Kelly could be in demand.

I’m also wondering if Kelly is really changing numbers why he wouldn’t pounce on the still-available 11, which matches his Twitter handle and the double Ls in his last name.

It’s been a long Spring Training, a long off-season, in fact, with little to speculate on but the butt-end of the Met bench and bullpen, what Tim Tebow is up to and, perhaps, who gets Juerys Familia’s spot for the length of time he’s suspended. It’s been so boring, in fact, my friend Jason is wondering whether there will be any new Mets at all when the curtain rises a week from today.

That brings us to the possibility that Paul Sewald comes north. Like Kelly he’s a recent ex-resident of the 40-man but he’s had a good spring. Would he stay in 79? Stay tuned.

Sewald was optioned just after I wrote this. Sorry, Paul!

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

Spitters, swappers, sluggers and doubleheaders

February 23, 2017 Met Mysteries, Wild Speculation 2 comments

Big thanks to longtime reader Pete Mahoney who pointed out the the below audio recording of the May 22, 1966 Mets-Giants game at Candlestick Park (game one of a twinbill, doncha know) that also provides a missing artifact in Mets uniform history.

As relayed by Bob Murphy at the 20-minute mark, lefty Gerry Arrigo makes his Mets debut in this game, having been recently purchased from Cincinnati, and is wearing No. 26. Until now, the nearest proof I’d collected of Arrigo’s number that season — the below scorecard in early July — indicates Arrigo is in 34, and Bob Shaw is wearing 26.

The latter bit of info on Shaw was never in question but it raises the issue of when Arrigo switched out of 26. The answer would appear be, as soon as Shaw arrived.

The Mets acquired Shaw from San Francisco on June 10. Shaw in fact pitched for the Giants in the second game of the doubleheader referenced above. One of the reasons the Mets made the purchase was a broken finger sustained by Arrigo the day before. In fact the Mets made room for Shaw on the roster by placing Arrigo on the disabled list. Did I happen to mention all this happened on the day I was born? Well, it did.

Shaw, an accomplished if well-traveled vet, had worn 26 in two of his previous stops — Kansas City and Milwaukee — so its possible he’d requested the number, but at any rate when Arrigo returned to the club June 25, he took 34.

Shaw by the way wasted little time establishing himself as an effective No. 26, reeling off victories in his first four starts as a Met including three complete games. He also provided some hints as to why he had so many different employers until then: He was a chronic contract holder-outter who didn’t mind making his opinions known. He once slugged his own catcher, Jerry Grote, who’d gotten between the home plate umpire and an irate Shaw after a call hadn’t gone his way. And as represented in the below photos, Shaw had a reputation for putting something “extra” on his pitches from time to time, though only admitted to enjoying the fact that opponents believed that of him:

Click to embiggen

 

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

Sixth Sense

January 27, 2017 Met Mysteries, Wild Speculation 4 comments

Today a friend of MBTN pointed out the following tweet:

Could it be Robert Gsellman dumps his 65… for 6? Well, anything’s possible, and despite this being a training jersey worn in an offseason workout with kids in a minor league park, it was taken last week, and the combo of Name-On-Back and number make it look suggestive of something.

However, a little investigation on my own reveals this wasn’t the first time Gsellman appeared in a No. 6 training jersey, as weird as that may seem. He appears to be wearing the same outfit pictured in this mugshot (date unknown but he looks about 19 and a half), which some outlets trotted out upon Gsellman’s promotion to the Majors for the first time last summer, when he of course was issued 65. So I don’t think this particular change is actually a thing. He probably just had that one hanging around.

That said, I think there’s a good argument for Gsellman to change into some other number before we see him pitch next. Just goofing off here, but it would be interesting if the Mets could right the numerical wrongs of the past seasons an execute a multiplayer uni swap whereby Gsellman and Jacob deGrom switch to 35 and 36, respectively. That would give the club an unprecedented starting rotation in consecutive numbers (Matz 32, Harvey 33, Syndergaard 34, Gsellman 35 and deGrom 36). deGrom and Gsellman are interchangeable in this scenario but I kept deGrom in the even number. That move requires Sean Gilmartin to take on a new number, perhaps the vacant 46 or deGrom’s 48, as the relievers gather in 40s the same way their starting brethren do in the 30s. I’d move Seth Lugo and Gabriel Ynoa to this neighborhood as well, with 40 and 48 also available in this scenario. This also leaves Zack Wheeler alone at 45 but I’m imagining he’s bullpen bound for now.

No. 6 by the way still belongs to coach Pat Roessler, as far as I can tell.

 

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

When there’s nothing to speculate about, speculate

December 10, 2016 Wild Speculation 2 comments

Around here, this time of year often inspires lots of speculation about inbound freight and what to outfit them in, but it was pointed out to me yesterday that other than the 40-man additions noted below, and the re-signing of three of our own free agents (Neil Walker, Rene Rivera, Yoenis Cespedes), there has been a grand total of zero new names on the sacred scrolls since September.

53Well, one new guy if you count incoming third-base/catching coach Glenn Sherlock, who will replace Tim Teufel in an act of mercy. Sherlock by the way wore No. 53 in a similar role with the Diamondbacks, so he feels more like a real coach and less of guy whose main qualification for the role was a job with the Mets in 1986.

Players? There’s been none. No journeyman catchers with spring training invites, no Rule 5 picks, no lefthanded relief pitchers, no veteran bats on make-good comeback contracts, and of course, no Winter-Meeting-Three-Team-Twelve-Player Blockbusters (WMTT12PBs), which on a chilly December morning like this would warm old the hot stove. In the meantime we’ve seen a few Mets go away: Bartolo Colon, Logan Verrett (we’ll never forget how few craps he gave taking No. 35 still warm from Dillon Gee), and Johnny Monell.

Obviously this will change if and when the Mets get around to addressing the Jay Bruce Question; for now I’m pleased that the team hasn’t given him away for nothing and I’m dubious in general that any relief pitcher ought to be fair value for a flawed but legitimate power bat like Bruce.

19And just maybe, they’re holding out on a secret WMTT12PB. Perhaps Bruce can find a home again — in Cincinnati. Trade him, Lucas Duda and Steven Matz for Joey Votto and a reliever? Votto’s the kind of Olerud/Hernandez type bat this club could really use, David Wright can’t be counted on being anymore, and guys like Conforto and Nimmo might not get the chance to be.

Otherwise, we’re a adequately situated and familiar club that will require a lot to go right again in 2017.

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