From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: 1992 Mets
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:23:43 GMT

In article <17DEC199216125109@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
>In article <881@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes...
>>Thus spake niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent):
>>>Actually, while I agree with the sentiment, I think you chose a bad
>>>example.  I think the Mets are the perfect example of a team which a
>>>good manager *could* help win.
>> 
>>Really?  I think the Mets have too many holes.  Now the *Orioles*, on the
>>other hand, are just one real manager away from contention.
>
>	When Jeff Torborg arrived from Chicago late one night in 1991, 
>the popular sentiment was that the Mets were going to run away with
>the whole thing.  Gooden, Cone, Fernandez, Saberhagen in the starting
>staff, John Franco in the pen, Bobby Bonilla and Eddie Murray added to
>the lineup, with Bill Pecota and Willie Randolph to provide some sort
>of up-the-middle stability.

Whose popular sentiment?  The r.s.bb popular sentiment was that the
Expos had the best team in the NL East, then the Pirates, and the Mets
had no hope of contending because they were fielding the 1985 All-Stars.

I mean, Gooden hasn't been a good pitcher since 1989, and he hasn't
been a *great* pitcher since 1986.  He had precisely the 1992 that
one could expect from him.  Maybe even a little better.

Pecota was a mediocre 32-yo journeyman, Randolph was coming off a great
year in Milwaukee, but was going to be 38, and it was easy enough to guess
that he wasn't going to repeat it, Howard Johnson was expected to decline,
Murray was 36 and a below-average first-baseman who had two bad years out
of the last three.  The only real surprise was (1) how dramatic HoJo's
decline was, and (2) Bonilla was a bit worse than expected, though still
much better than people in NY thought. 

But all in all, I don't see many surprises on the 1992 Mets.  The ones
they did have didn't cost them more than three or four games.

>	And, as he did with the White Sox, it was hoped that Torborg
>would come along, take a struggling team, and win with them.  

People in Chicago knew better.  He jumped the Sox to the Mets over a 
phone call that wasn't returned -- no way was he going to stay stable
under the NY microscope.

>	Guaranteed, the Mets *do* have holes in 1993:

The same holes that they had in 1992, except they don't have Cone anymore.
And all their old players are a year older.

>2B:  Kent - unproven

Kent's actually one of the few bright spots on the team -- he's the
only one in the starting lineup, except for maybe Bonilla, who has a
shot at still being around by the time the Mets are ready to contend.
Which won't be for awhile as long as they refuse to want to rebuild,
and strategize like Steinbrenner's Yankees. 

>	This is not a great team, but not a last-place team.  

Well, there's always the Marlins to stop that.

>	Torborg and Buddy can't win with this team.  Someone who can handle 
>players might, though.  

It's the Expos in a walk, this year.  The Mets don't have it.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA