Over the season, I was heartbroken as I was watching Jose Reyes knock the cover off the ball knowing that it could very well be next season when he will no longer be wearing a Mets uniform. As the weeks and months passed, I managed to convince myself Reyes was going nowhere, and he and the Mets will find someway to keep him in a Mets uniform. As the season ended, reality kicked in, Reyes isn't going to stay because the Mets can't afford it. In the days since the World Series ended, I realized it's better that way. 

Reason #1 Don't fall behind: Hypothetically speaking, let's say the Mets sign Reyes to a five year, $85 million contract. That adds $17 million to the annual payroll for the next five years. 17 million less to spend on potential free agents, 17 million less to spend on the farm system, 17 million less to spend on organization growth, 17 million less to spend scouts, 17 million more to fall behind the other four teams in their division, 15 in their league, and 29 in baseball – per year – for the next five years.  

Reason #2 Legs don't last forever: Reyes's game is based around his legs. Run out an infield single, make a double into a triple, steal bases. Reyes is 28 years old. For now on the good side of 30. For now. In three years he will be on the bad side of 30. Let's return to that five year contract, in years three, four, and five, Reyes won't be the same player he is in years one and two. As years go on stolen bases will lower. Reyes won't be the same player he is, he will no longer be worth that $17 million. In football, teams are skeptical to give a running back a big contract when he is in his upper 20's, should not the same apply to Reyes?

Reason #3 Injury history: I need not go through Reyes's extensive injury history, we all know it too well, some more than others. Reyes has gotten injured many times throughout his career, and is a gamble. His hamstrings, his quads, his oblique. Going back to our original contract, would you be willing to take a $17 million gamble for every year for the next five years? 

I know Reyes livens the fanbase, excites the fans and the team, but is a $17 million underachiever, injured player worth it?

In baseball there are many different plays that occur in any given game. There’s one play that is discussed more than any other, the sacrifice bunt. There are those that love it, those that hate it, those that are indifferent. Those that say the numbers show it’s bad; those that say numbers don’t play baseball.  Where do I stand in this conversation? I hate it, and I’ll explain why.

Earl Weaver long time manager for the Orioles, in his book “Weaver on Strategy” discusses his 10 laws for managing throughout the book.  Weaver’s Fourth Law is, “Your most precious possession on offense are your twenty-seven outs.” Dan Agonistes in his blog explains this rule the following: “Weaver was ahead of his time in understanding the importance of not giving away outs. He says it makes no sense to bunt early in the game since you're giving away an out in a situation where a single run is not crucial. The opportunity cost of giving away outs early always exceeds the benefit.”(Emphasis added) Agonistes goes on to discuss Weaver’s fifth law, if you play one run, that’s all you get: “A corollary to the fourth law.” In addition, by only getting one run, you’re taking away wiggle room for your pitcher.  Agonistes discusses Weaver’s sixth law; don’t play for one run unless you know that run will win a ballgame: “The reason for the fifth law.” Translation:  Unless that one run will lead to a walk-off win don’t play for one run.

Monday night in the Mets Padres game, it was the top of the ninth in a 4-4 tie game. Angel Pagan led off the ninth with a single. Justin Turner is sent to bunt. First pitch, nearly takes off his fingers on a bunt attempt that goes foul, high strike. Second pitch, middle in, above the knees, bunted foul. Third pitch sinker, called strike three on the inside corner. 

Turner was sent up to bunt and was put in an 0-2 hole because of it, where he had to protect the plate and was fooled by a sinker for strike three. He had a very hittable second pitch, which could have very well not only moved the runner but put another runner on base as well. This is another reason why the sacrifice bunt is a bad idea. It often hurts more than it helps.  As you can see above, the only pitch that Turner was able to do anything with was bunted foul, a pitch that he very well could have gotten a hit on. In addition, if the batter is unsuccessful getting a bunt down, he is put in a two strike hole, where he must protect the plate, and if gets an unexpected pitch strikes out without moving the runner.

In a 2004 ESPN.com article, ESPN’s Buster Olney discussed Productive Out Percentage (POP). POP is productive outs divided by the total number of outs. For example, if three of a players ten outs are productive his POP is .300. “A productive out occurs when…. A baserunner advances with the first out of an inning. A pitcher sacrifices with one out. A baserunner is driven home with the second out of an inning.” Olney discusses how these productive outs lead to wins.  Larry Mahnken of the Hardball Times responds to Olney in his own article called “The Truth About Productive Outs”.  “POP has a .463 correlation to winning percentage, OBP in those situations has a .750 correlation, while the rate of productive outs has a mere .283 correlation…..POP doesn't work for one-run games, either. Teams that win one-run games have a .348 POP compared to the .303 of their opponents, a .045 difference. But again, the OBP difference dwarfs it: .373 to .277. And perhaps most shocking of all, the rate of productive outs per opportunity for teams that win one-run games is .218, the rate for teams that lose is .219. That's right — the team that makes a higher rate of productive outs is slightly more likely to lose.”

In a post to Athletics Nation from the beginning of 2010, “baseballgirl” discusses why she hates the Sacrifice Bunt. “I hate giving away outs. I don't care what the official playbook says the batter should do; there are only 27 outs in a baseball game, and I hate when one is handed to the other team on a silver platter.“ I couldn’t agree more, most of the people who are in the major leagues aren’t in the major leagues because of their glove alone, and they should be swinging the bat, not giving up an out. The biggest proof to this is that a manager will never ask a middle of the order batter to sacrifice bunt, because the risk is greater than the reward. I would argue the same would apply to most hitters as well, this is the major leagues! Even if a batter is hitting .250 that still means there’s a one out of four chance he would get a hit, why make him give up that chance, and give the other team an out?

In a 2005 article for the Washington Post, Dave Sheinin quotes an article from James Click of Baseball Prospectus about which hitters should and should not but: “His conclusion: With a runner on first base and no outs, any hitter with an on-base percentage (OBP) of at least .206 and/or a slugging percentage (SLG) of at least .182 — numbers that would encompass practically every hitter in the majors, including many pitchers — should swing away. "For most pitchers, it's probably a wash as to whether [a bunt] is a good idea," Click said in a telephone interview. "And with good-hitting pitchers, it's not a good idea. Any [hitter] who is good enough to have a major league job shouldn't be bunting in that situation." The Nationals, he said, "are playing in a park [RFK Stadium] that's a pretty extreme pitchers' park. So I can understand, in a way, why they play that way with that lineup. You'd be hard-pressed to get big innings going in that park. But at the same time, if offense is so hard to come by, it's foolish to give away outs "Basically, my philosophy is, if it's the ninth inning and we have the winning run on base, I have no problem sacrificing," Blue Jays General Manager [Currently Mets Special Assistant to the GM] J.P. Ricciardi, a onetime protege of Athletics GM (and "Moneyball" protagonist) Billy Beane. "But I'll tell you this: It hasn't worked too well.”  

After Sunday's game when two of the Mets best hitters, Jose Reyes and Daniel Murphy went down to injury, many Mets fans were asking what is there to watch for the rest of the season? With Ike Davis, Johan Santana injured, Carlos Beltran traded away, and now Reyes and Murphy injured now too, why watch the Mets? 

Firstly, this Mets team is exciting. The resiliency and the fight they have shown this season is incredible. The comebacks on Monday and Tuesday night as proof, coming back from down two runs in the eighth and ninth inning respectively, is no easy task. At the beginning of the season the experts were pick the Mets to be around .500, about where they are now. That prediction was on the basis that Ike Davis, David Wright, and Jose Reyes were healthy, and Johan Santana was coming back at the All Star break. We all know the reality of the situation is that those things didn't happen, and somehow the Mets are .500 with a handful of no names.

Secondly, there are some players who would the fan should be on the lookout for next season. Whether they be veterans, or young players, who are getting the chance to play with all the injuries, and may have a shot of making the roster on Opening Day 2012.  

• David Wright- Wright missed over two months with a Stress Fracture in his back and returned on July 22nd. Since returning Wright has looked like the old David Wright that Mets fans have gotten to know and love. Since returning Wright has hit 3 home runs with 18 runs batted in, and is hitting.355/.390/.553. (Stats through Wednesday night)
• Jason Bay- Lately Bay looks like he might have finally found his groove. Bay had an 11 game hitting streak which came to an end on Wednesday night, but went right back to hitting on Thursday. Over those 11 games, Bay had 3 home runs with 9 RBIs, while batting .439/.511/.756, by far his best stretch as a Met.
• Lucas Duda- Duda is just 25 years old, and has been thrown around the field for the Mets. He has played a little left field, a little right field, and some first base. For next season the only position of those listed above is right field. If Duda wants to be on the 25 man roster next year, there's no bigger statement he can make than making the most of the opportunity he currently has. Duda since the All-Star break is hitting .348 with 3 home runs and 12 RBIs, including a walk-off single Monday night. 
• Ruben Tejada- With the unknown of whether Jose Reyes will return to the Mets next season, young Ruben Tejada is getting an opportunity to show management what he's got while Reyes remains on the disabled list. One thing is clear, Tejada has a great glove, and is a great defensive player. The one question is his offense. However, since returning to the Mets this week Tejada is 4-12, has hit the ball with more force than in the past, and has shown tremendous patience in the eight hole. 
• Josh Thole- Coming into the season, I was confident Thole would hit for a good average and would be slightly above average behind the plate. However, that has not been the case at all. Thole has disappointed with his bat, glove, and arm alike. This season, potential stolen base stealers are 46 of 59, which is a 78% success rate, which translates to a 22% caught stealing rate for Thole. In the words of Mark Simon from ESPN NY "If [the catcher] isn't at least 25%, [the catcher] is doing poorly." Thole, last season and the beginning of this season would always catch R.A. Dickey because of his success with him, has had trouble catching the knuckleball, and other pitchers conventional pitches as well. Thole is currently hitting just .269 but as of late has hit the ball with a little more authority. Thole is supposed to be the catcher of the Mets for many years to come.
• Starting Pitching- "You're only as hot as the next days starting pitcher." Of the Mets current starting rotation, I would say only Jon Niese and Dillon Gee are guaranteed spots next season. Chris Capuano's contract is up at the end of the season, Mike Pelfrey has been disappointing (to put in light terms), R.A. Dickey has another year on his contract but looks like a one year wonder and I wouldn't be surprised if the Mets try to trade him. If healthy, of course Johan Santana would be in the rotation. Any pitcher who starts for the Mets from now until the end of the season, is auditioning for the 2012 Mets starting rotation.

There still is indeed a lot to watch in the last two months of the season.

With the trade deadline two weeks away, trade rumors are swirling around the MLB and the Mets. The main discussion around the Mets is what will happen with Carlos Beltran. However, it seems a foregone conclusion that one way or another this will be Beltran's last season on the Mets. Either he will get traded or will walk in free agency. I can't understand why.

There's no denying Beltran's talent. He has had a fantastic season so far. In the Post Game Tuesday night, SNY showed a graphic which showed just how valuable Beltran has been this season to the Mets. Beltran has 23 percent of the Mets home runs, 17 percent of their doubles, 17 percent of their extra base hits, and 15 percent of their RBIs. For a team that has had many injuries, and many different players contributing those numbers loom bigger than may seem on the surface. As evidenced for parts of this season, and mostly in the 2005 playoffs Beltran has the ability to carry a team with his bat alone. While one may say that was six years ago and many injuries ago, we see from Beltran's performance so far this season that he still can carry a team with his bat. In addition, although it took him a little while to adjust Beltran is still a good defender in right field, after playing all those years in center.  Furthermore, Beltran's intangibles this season has been prevalent in the clubhouse. Beltran is showing leadership, and a player that the young players can turn to when they need advice. Beltran is informing his teammates when they did something wrong and he's not afraid to do so. 

It's not like the Mets have an star prospect waiting to come up and shine. Prospect Kirk Nieuwenhuis is not yet ready, and neither is Fernando Martinez (if he can ever stay healty), so why not sign Beltran for another two years while the farm system develops for about eight million a season? Beltran has stated his desire to end his career as a Met, and might be willing to take a discount. Still not convinced? Coming into the season Beltran was projected by Bill James to play in 116 games, have 26 doubles (which he has already surpassed), 20 home runs, 74 RBIs, and a .274 average. As of Tuesday night, according to ESPN.com Beltran is projected to play in 154 games, hit 51 doubles, 24 homers, 100 RBIs, with .293/.389/.523. Coming into this season I'm sure all Mets fans would've been blown out of water if you told them after 96 games Beltran would be on such a pace. 

Would you approve resigning Beltran for two years $16 million?

So now we're .500, and once again we're praising the team. Talk is beginning to swirl around about how we need to be buyers — buy buy buy. Since when was .500 competitive? We're 9.5 games out of first place in the NL East and 5 games out of the Wild Card. 

We're really not that competitive of a team, because we need to establish a path in the future. Fortunately, Carlos Beltran and Francisco Rodriguez are not part of our future, and it's time for Mets fans to get that through their heads. I understand we've suffered injuries, and we'll have Wright and Santana back near the All Star Break, but that doesn't mean we should suddenly be buyers. In fact, this is the same type of mentality we have held for the last 5 years, and it is exactly what has put us in this position. If the player is not in our future plans, then pack his bags and bring in somebody who will be a part of the future — it's that simple. 

Payroll is expected to be lowered to a maximum of $120M next year, from what Sandy Alderson has told us. So obviously, K-Rod and Beltran will not be a part of the roster, and it's time to get something back. Beltran has been solid this year, and I think a team like the Rangers or Angels could use a rental player for the last two months of the season. The Angels have lacked power to sustain their outstanding aces Dan Haren and Jered Weaver. Both of those teams have the financial flexibility to acquire Beltran and give up a solid prospect, so Beltran would fit into their situations perfectly, giving them a boost and playoff experience as well. He can DH, and still play well in RF. 

We've talked a lot about moneyball and when it will be implemented — but the thing is, I think it already has. Alderson used small money in a big market to acquire the likes of Chris Capuano, DJ Carrasco, and Justin Turner. His young players have stepped up — Dillon Gee, Jon Niese, Daniel Murphy, and Jason Pridie. This is exactly what we've wanted to see out of the Mets for a long time — small players with small contracts making a big impact. Kids from our farm system getting the call-up and proving something. Kids like Turner and Gee have that fire and tenacity that we haven't seen in the Mets since 2006. They have something to fight for, not to be paid for. Why try to buy, and add to payroll, when we can walk into next March with more young talent from our minor leagues auditioning for a chance to do the same — to prove they can create a spark, light up the fire and create a little magic? Should we worry about putting people in the seats, or winning games? If big name players like Prince Fielder are what it takes then I don't want to see them win — I'd rather see them struggle to put fans in the seats with a team of no-names who improve each and every year, building chemistry and all fighting for the same thing regardless of their payroll. Those fans that stick around will be the true die-hard fans, not the bandwagoners who suddenly love us because we paid $18M on one free agent. One month we talk about rebuilding, the next we talk about adding to what we have. We talk about what will make the roster better in the future, although that in no way includes Beltran and Rodriguez. They are not a part of our future. So let's stop flip flopping between Buy and Sell each year, and settle on sell. Let's have a clearance sale, and build for the future. The small man has helped us this year — please, don't turn your backs on them.