Any self-respecting Mets fan was watching that ESPN Sunday Night Baseball matchup between the New York Mets and the San Francisco Giants. It was an entirely frustrating game, especially when bringing to a close a very uplifting Mets-Giants series. Mike Pelfrey balked three times, two of which led to the only Giants’ runs, and the Mets offense could not take advantage of a Matt Cain who had little control and was above 110 pitches in the sixth inning. The ESPN commentary only added to the frustration.

Hot Foot’s Dave Rosado hit the two main topics of discussion between Joe Morgan and Steve Phillips in those early, carefree innings. Morgan stupidly said the Mets were playing poorly even though they were winning during their 11-2 stretch. I wonder if Morgan was thinking about gaffes that happened in the Braves-Mets series, a series in which the Mets lost two out of three. If the Mets’ big blunders came in the two losses over that stretch, then where’s the proof that the Mets were playing poorly in their wins? He then contradicted himself, saying the most important part of baseball was winning, implying that you’d rather win and play poorly than lose and play great. The Mets weren’t playing poorly over that stretch, but even if they were, yes, winning is the object of games, and yes, winning would be better. If we determine champions and divisions by who wins the most, then how do we determine “playing well” and “playing poorly”? One might guess that Morgan expects perfection out of teams, or maybe Morgan in his national baseball perspective of the game only sees so much of each team and makes broad assumptions about the soundbytes and big game-defining plays he sees on Sportscenter.

Phillips certainly seems to be taking this approach. Matt Cerrone over at Metsblog brought up the point that ESPN already had a pre-packaged Carlos Beltran gaffe collection video, as Phillips reached the podium and became the prosecutor of the Mets centerfielder and his 7-year contract. Yes, it’s certainly ironic considering who is the man making the argument. He didn’t always make the wisest decisions on how to spend money, did he? Anyway, he made a blustery argument that a Mets fan has heard a million times (usually from national television voices or Phillies fans) about how there is no LEADERSHIP on the Mets. Essentially, he is saying that it’d be better to have a man who does not play as well as Beltran but has GRIT and DETERMINATION. When Phillips said he’d consider trading Beltran after the year if the Mets failed yet again, thus breaking up the core, even Morgan was upset by this. Phillips’ definition of “inconsistent” play is based off a few highlights. He discounts an outfielder so graceful that he makes hard plays look easy with his range, speed and accurate route running.

Phillips also trotted out this notion of a “perfect” player as if every team has about two or three on hand except the Mets. Completely ignoring statistics, he said Beltran was unclutch and inconsistent. Read Ted Berg’s excellent column for SNY.tv, taking Phillips to task. Regular readers of Berg’s column will note that he’s a huge fan of Beltran, but he backs up his points, which is more than I can say for Phillips. He was too wrapped up into reading into Beltran’s behavior, wondering if his quietness translated into carelessness and his lack of firey speeches and in-your-face actions translated to laziness. Phillips should probably not make wild assumptions like that.

As my father and I watched the game, my father showed disgust over the commentary, and he’s not even a Mets fan. Perhaps he sympathize with me. “These three-man teams do not work,” he said. Thinking of Gary Cohen, Keith Hernandez and Ron Darling, I replied, “They do work. It just depends on who it is.” Perhaps even a team of Joe Buck, Tim McCarver and Fran Healy (don’t worry, this is a hypothetical team) would be better. In other words, ESPN Sunday Night Baseball just got a little worse with the addition of Phillips. Thanks ESPN.

This was mentioned during the Braves’ telecast of Tuesday’s Mets/Braves game. Jerry Crasnick of ESPN.com wrote a “Starting 9″ column about the nine worst-hitting pitchers in the majors. John Maine and Mike Pelfrey check in at No. 8 and No. 9 respectively.

Crasnick admits that part of the reason why Pelfrey was included was because of his good-natured “rivalry” with Maine on each other’s hitting. Though it seems, on the batting side of things, Pelfrey only rivals Maine in hitting ineptitude. According to the article, in his career, Pelfrey is batting .083 (8-for-96) to Maine’s .087 (12-for-138). Maine actually stands out from the rest of the pack in the list by having hit a homer in his career.

Crasnick did a different list in 2008 for ESPN.com which highlighted the nine best hitting pitchers, and current Mets starter Livan Hernandez (then with the Minnesota Twins) placed No. 3, while Johan Santana got an honorable mention.

Hernandez seems like Babe Ruth compared to the rest of the Mets’ staff, hitting .231 for his career with 9 home runs and 75 RBI. (I don’t see anybody else on the Mets staff reaching that RBI total without drastic improvement.) However, Hernandez is just 1-for-9 with one strikeout in 2009.

Santana is 19-for-120 in his career (.158) with 0 HR and 4 RBI, though that is not necessarily fair to Santana, who only entered the National League in 2008. He has 89 of his 120 at-bats as a Met. He’s 0-for-11 with one walk and one strikeout in 2009.

Oliver Perez has an identical career batting average as Santana (.158) but with nearly triple the at-bats (317). He has 0 HR and 14 RBI in his career, and he’s 3-for-7 with one walk and three strikeouts in 2009. It’s ironic, because, judging by Perez’ stance and lackadaisical approach, one would think he’d be the worst hitter of the bunch.

I’ve had this complaint before, but it never ceases to amaze me how many times teams lose extra inning games with their closer still sitting in the bullpen, waiting to be used in some imaginary inning in the distant future.

After J.J. Putz finished up two electric innings of relief in the eighth and ninth, the FOX cameras turned to the Mets bullpen in the top half of the 10th. Sean Green had joined Francisco Rodriguez in the bullpen warming up, and I immediately knew who would be coming in if the Mets did not take the lead. They didn’t, and Green came in for a tumultuous 10th that capped off an exciting game with the dull whimper of a walk-off walk.

I was hoping against hope that Mets manager Jerry Manuel would just turn to K-Rod at that point. Ask him to post one (or two if necessary) quick innings like Putz did to keep the Mets in the game.

And this is where my philosophy about extra inning games hits the fork in the road with most managers, especially road managers. Road managers seem to think that since the game doesn’t end when they take the lead, they have some “advantage.” They can decide when to use their closer (i.e. whenever their team takes the lead if they ever do), while the home team has to “waste” their closer (e.g. Brad Lidge) because he doesn’t have that option.

Frankly, there should be no difference in how road and away teams look at extra inning games. They are just that — extra. They are a bonus, and who knows when it will run out? When your team goes on defense, managers, your main objective is to try to keep your team in the game at all costs. Your main objective is to get it to the next frame so that your team has another chance at winning. It’s not to hold off on your closer until your team takes a lead. How does that make any sense? If, in the 10th inning, K-Rod gives you a better chance of staying in the game than Green, then why use Green? The first nine innings is different. You know you will see a ninth inning there, barring a rainout. As the road team in an extra inning game, a game could end at any moment.

On a lesser note, Saturday was Green’s second loss of the week for the Mets. Is it too early to reevaluate his position in the heirarchy of the Mets bullpen?

I’ve talked way too much about MLB.TV on this Web site, but indulge me for a bit longer. Back in the heyday of the service (say, 2005), one would either see the team’s actual television station’s commercials or just a live backstop camera of the game between innings and the musings of the announcers between innings. For obvious reasons, this didn’t last long, and I think it was the 2006 season when MLB.TV instituted its own commercial breaks with annoying in-house commercials repeated ad nauseum. This year the service has just featured a constant, silent (thankfully) advertisement for the MLB.TV Premium service between innings.

All that sets up this delightful tidbit. Even the guys at MLB.TV can’t be quick on the trigger all the time to cut to the in-house ads. Thus, sometimes one might hear a word or two that was not intended for viewers’ ears. During the Thursday SNY telecast of Mets-Cardinals, viewers got a short exchange between Gary Cohen and Ron Darling.

As Livan Hernandez left the game in the fifth and Brian Stokes was entering, the two shared words after the commercial break:

Gary: What happened to Sean Green? He doesn’t pitch for this team anymore?

Ron: I don’t know.

Gary: Why is Stokes in there three days in a row?

Ron: I don’t understand.

I really wish it was just uncensored commentary between innings and somehow there was no repruccusions for this. How entertaining would Cohen be? Highly, I would think. Oh and during Yankees games, you could hear Michael Kay talking about the women in the stands.

—

Also, this is a bit old but worth mentioning for those who didn’t hear it. While we did relay that Darren O’Day was claimed off waivers by the Texas Rangers and that his first appearance was a loss as a member of the Rangers on Wednesday night against the Blue Jays in extra innings, we neglected the funniest part. As he was pitching the Rangers to a loss, he was wearing a Kason Gabbard jersey because they didn’t have a jersey for him ready yet. That’s how fast he was spurred into action for Texas. I had to rub my eyes and then ask a buddy if Gabbard was also a submariner and looked like O’Day’s twin. Gabbard’s in Triple-A, so, uh, no confusion there, right? Hilarious.

Not to be condescending, but sometimes managers seem to do things just to look smart or logical. It makes me feel like Billy Beane in the book “Moneyball,” stewing about managers always playing the lefty vs lefty, righty vs righty matchups.

I felt the same way when Jerry Manuel chose to start both the right-handed hitting Gary Sheffield and the right-handed hitting Fernando Tatis in Friday’s game, the much-publicized first lefty matchup against the Mets. One wonders, will this be the general approach against lefties? It’s just one game, yes, but Tatis could not buy at-bats (outside of that strange start at 2B). What made Manuel choose to go with both Sheffield and Tatis in the outfield for the first time this season? It was Nationals left-handed pitcher Scott Olsen. Therefore, it seems like it won’t be the last time.

Of course, Friday’s game wasn’t an isolated incident. Batting .143 on the season, Sheffield has stolen plenty of at-bats from Daniel Murphy (batting .321) and Ryan Church (batting .347) this season. Of course, it’s not exactly a fair comparison. Counting at-bats and walks, Murphy has 61 plate appearances, Church has 56 and Sheffield has 26.

So Sheffield isn’t exactly splitting equal time either. But isn’t it enough that he has roughly half the at-bats as Murphy and Church? Is that not a bigger percentage than Mets fans expected when he was described at the beginning of the season as a power bat off the bench? Is that not a bigger percentage than expected when it was explained that Sheffield would have to earn his play? How exactly did Sheffield do that? Yes, he’s walked five times, but that’s two more than his hit total in 26 plate appearances. It’s a small sample size, but so far, Sheffield doesn’t look like the power bat off the bench. Again, he’s batting .143.

Going back to the original point, do managers pat themselves on the back too much when they get more players on the roster involved? Roster flexibility is fantastic, but how important is it to have your bench see regular action in the grand scheme of things? After declaring Church and Murphy as regular, everyday players, they have essentially platooned both with Sheffield without him meriting the attention. It’s sad too because, with the acquisition of Sheffield, Tatis was decidedly relegated to fifth outfielder. To date, he’s barely amassed nine at-bats and two starts (only one of which in the outfield, Friday’s game). Yet, one could argue that Tatis might be better at this stage of their careers. He certainly had a better 2008 campaign overall, and his 2-for-3 night on Friday raised his average to .250. His average means little with just nine at-bats but still.

In a recent post to Metsblog, Matthew Cerrone argued that Sheffield is making the roster more “confusing,” saying the hitter Murphy needs the everyday play to get better on defense and Church’s outfield defense could bolster the team. I agree completely. This is how players get acclimated to their roles on the team — with regular everyday play. Players like Murphy do not need the added pressure of outfielders looming to take their jobs to mess with their heads in my mind. Just relax and play the game is a good learning environment.

And yes, the Mets could simply be looking to see what they have in Sheffield, an early season test in which, if he fails, he could not be with the team for long. But it’s foolhardy to sacrifice the play of two talented outfielders to see how apt a $400,000 signing was. What is the ceiling for this elder Sheffield’s play? What is the ceiling for the organization’s expectations of him? Did they expect an everyday player with rejuvenated power, or did they truly expect the power bat off the bench they said he would be? It’s easy to see what Sheffield has as a bench player with regular pinchhit assignments. Two to three starts a week is unnecessarily going above and beyond.

As Sheffield steps up to the plate and begins wagging his bat in his trademark style, looking to crank one into the Pepsi Porch, Mets third base coach Razor Shines steps back a few paces. He does so presumably both in fear of getting hit and in anticipation of Sheffield hitting the ball hard, showing his much-lauded power of old. How much does the Mets organization mimic Shines every time he comes to the plate?

In Rob Harding’s earlier post to Hot Foot in which he gave his comments and reactions to attending the Thursday game at Citi Field, he said “I hate Heath Bell” a few times. It makes sense. He probably said it as a joke and as a stab at Bell for standing in the way of a Mets comeback on Thursday. But some have more seriously critiqued Bell recently.

As Bell warmed up for the ninth inning of that Thursday game, Kevin Burkhardt talked about how Bell felt about his time with the Mets. Bell said what you’d expect. Here’s Burkhardt’s account of Bell’s words:

They wanted me as a mop-up guy, yet when I was in the minors, I’d close. I actually asked to pitch three innings in the minors. They said ‘no,’ yet I would pitch multiple innings when I got to the big leagues. It made absolutely no sense to me. Heath Bell, not afraid to spew venom at his former team, and he’s got a chance to close ‘em out for the second time this series.

Check out Burkhardt’s commentary at the end of that quote. “Not afraid to spew venom at his former team”? Isn’t that a little strong? Why does every frank comment about baseball have to be about a vendetta? (Bell’s right, by the way. It doesn’t make sense, but that’s just how Triple-A shakes out sometimes. Your Triple-A closer could be somebody you don’t really project to do anything special in the home club. But he’s the best of people the organization does not really have high hopes for. For example, I don’t think the Mets really take/took Carlos Muniz or Willie Collazo seriously, and they shared the duties shortly after Bell left.)

Anyway, after Burkhardt’s relay of Bell’s comments, Gary Cohen chimed in that Bell should probably just be quiet. Ron Darling and Keith Hernandez agreed, though Darling said he may use it as motivation.

Personally I find Bell refreshing and interesting. So many baseball interviews are boring and by the book, whereas Bell is a great conversation, willing to share his thoughts and not be so uptight. Now, I should say that I detested when Billy Wagner would runoff at the mouth, but it was different. It may factor in that Bell is not on my team anymore, but Wagner was too defensive about his own team (and at other times, throwing them under the bus. You all remember what I’m talking about.) Maybe it plays a part that Bell isn’t on the Mets, and I don’t have to worry about Bell breaking down team comraderie with his sayings, but I don’t think Bell and Wagner (or an equally talkative closer) is a completely fair comparison.

Bell’s conversation with SNY’s Daily News Live was a lot  more interesting than most conversations, for example. And even when the repetitive New York reporters would ask him predictable questions to get soundbytes out of him, he wouldn’t really fall into the same traps. For example, one interviewer asked him during the segment if the lack of team comraderie he witnessed in his time with the Mets contributed to their late-season collapses. He said he didn’t know. He wasn’t there. He even said while he enjoyed the Mets not making the playoffs in 2007, still stinging from the trade, he wished they made it in 2008 because of his friends on the team. That may seem hypocritical, but when you think about how the organization didn’t care for Bell, a guy who’d been there since 1998, he said, it makes sense.

Perhaps most tellingly, the first question of the interview was to ask him if he was bitter. He said, “A little bit,” and basically confirmed that he was. I don’t think Bell is spewing hatred or on a tirade. Does he want to stick it to the Mets for letting him go? Yes. Was the debut of Citi Field a good opportunity to do this? Yes. How many players in the history of baseball have wanted to stick it to their former team? Countless.

Metsblog linked a post from Seven Train to Shea about blogger Steve Sidoti’s conversation with Bell at the Citi Field opener. If the post is to be believed, firstly, Bell’s a great guy for actually having a conversation with a fan. Secondly, while it seems like Bell maybe threw somebody under the bus (Chase Headley), he did say positive things, and maybe he was just having a joke. But most importantly, the fact that he openly blamed his Mets tenure on Willie Randolph was hilarious.

Bell’s a good guy. He’s an excellent fantasy closer as well, pitching in spacious PETCO Park. Cut him a break.

As has been reported elsewhere, such as say, in The Associated Press, the first third of Saturday’s game will not be on television. Metsblog alerted fans to the fact earlier in the week.

The Mets-Marlins game will begin at 6:25 p.m., which falls directly in the crosshairs of FOX’s national blackout restriction window of 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. The reasoning behind the early start is a Flo Rida concert.

For some reason, this game cannot just start at 7 p.m. with the concert beginning at roughly 10 p.m. No, it just has to be slated to begin at 9:25 p.m. Let’s forget the fact that this is baseball, and extra innings can happen either way, causing the concert to be delayed by an hour or more. Even a long game (like the Wednesday Mets-Reds game which went four hours without extra innings) could seriously delay this concert. So what is the point of beginning the game 45 minutes earlier? What’s 45 minutes? This is silly.

Also silly is FOX’s national blackout restrictions. They’ve been silly since their inception. If we can blackout local games on services like MLB.TV, then why do we need a universal national blackout on FOX Saturdays? How is it not possible yet to simply find out which FOX game each city gets and then black out just that game in that city. It makes no sense to get blacked out from other FOX games, let alone a game that begins at 6:25 p.m. and isn’t even on FOX. Let’s punish the entire nation because somebody on the West Coast might rather watch the first inning of Mets-Marlins than the conclusion of their FOX game. This is ridiculous.

And how about Major League Baseball letting this happen? Why do the New York Mets have no say in this, considering the unnecessary decision the Marlins made adversely affects them greatly?

End FOX national blackout restrictions. But while they are here, major league clubs, have the good sense to not schedule a Saturday game before the clock strikes 7:00 p.m.

For out-of-market fans who are serious about baseball, either MLB Extra Innings (the premium television package) or MLB.TV (the online equivalent) is a downright necessity.

However the latter has started an annoying trend. It’s just good business to update your service each year, especially an online service that’s only limited by technological advancement. MLB.TV has attempted to update in some way with the turning of each spring. MLB.TV Mosaic came out, allowing viewers to watch up to six games at a time. Feed quality was updated again and again. The MLB.TV Premium service now boasts home and away feeds for each game, as well as picture-in-picture and DVR capabilities. Sounds pretty cool, right?

Well, at the end of the day, what is the point of MLB.TV? People want to watch the games. The two most obvious audiences for this service are out-of-market fans who want to see their hometown team, and fans who often work during live games and want to watch replays. There’s probably a group of fans who live in their hometown area and watch them live on television all the time who get the service, but I would guess they pale in comparison to the groups just mentioned.

This is what makes MLB.TV annoying, at least at the start of the season. While these new innovations are all well and good, the MLB.TV player has been changed constantly. The new one is bulkier and takes longer to load, powered by Adobe Flash. It’s also a bigger window, making it harder to surf the Web while watching games without a little finagling.

But what is infuriating is that, in the early stages of the season, the people behind MLB.TV have had a hard time keeping to the promises of the service. I’m an out-of-market fan who lives in Tennessee and loves the Mets for whatever reason. With my current job and schoolwork, I cannot watch a day game live unless it’s on Friday and Saturday. Thus I planned on watching the Mets vs Reds games on Monday and Thursday when I got home in the evening.

So it was Opening Day, and I had not watched any baseball yet. I opened a browser at 11 p.m. with intentions of watching Opening Day. When I opened the page to choose the game to watch, I was stunned with the word “soon.” In fact, it was everywhere on the MLB.TV multimedia page. Instead of links to archived games from earlier in the day, there were a bunch of weak promises in the form of “soon.” I scrolled down the page, and the fine print said an archived game would be available 45 minutes after the game ended, similar to previous years. Yet nothing was available, and the game had ended about seven hours ago.

I called MLB customer service. Five minutes into the conversation, I refreshed and the link was there. I sighed with relief and clicked on it. But that was just a tease. “Blackout restriction,” it said. While it was true that I was in both the Braves and Reds blackout restriction area, the fine print on the page also said archived games were without blackout restrictions. That only makes sense because once the game is over, there’s no way to watch it on television. Therefore, there’s no reason to blackout. Yet I was blacked out of watching a game that ended seven hours ago.

The man on the phone had no answers for me, saying they’d had problems today with the service on Opening Day, both putting up archived games and the blackout restriction blocks. He gave me a tracking number and said somebody would call me in 24-48 hours. Nobody did.

I checked again the next day, and it was there. I ended up watching Monday’s game archived and Wednesday’s game live on television back-to-back. Two Mets wins. Nice. The only bad part of the evening was having to endure the bitter commentary of the Reds’ announcing team on television: Thom Brenneman and Jeff Brantley. Regarding Pelfrey and K-Rod when they were having problems, both of them quipped that they would be surprised if each could throw three strikes before throwing four balls. I’ve said it before. I like Thom, but he is so depressing to listen to on Reds games, while also being a homer strangely.

Then came Thursday. The game started at 12:35 p.m., which happened to be five minutes before the first of my three classes of the day began. So no watching this game live. I opened the page at 10 p.m. to watch the archive. Guess what? The link was there (one of the very few up late in the night, hours after many games were over), but it told me there was a “blackout restriction” when I tried to watch it. I called MLB customer service. He tried to fix things before finally giving up (just like the first call) and giving me a tracking number. I checked back the next day and watched the game at 3 p.m. today.

Long story short, so far in this early season, this new MLB.TV player has given me nothing but grief, making me bend my schedule even more to watch Mets games archived. For those who have the regular MLB.TV service and not the premium, myself among them, many of these new features aren’t even available. Basically the only thing that is is this new player, which is making archived games not appear until hours later or even the next day. (If they appear at all. The MLB.TV forums were filled with countless messages complaining about the archived games. One poster, a Cardinals fan, wondered where the Opening Day game was and when the archived game would be up. An administration told him it wouldn’t with no explanation as to why. It was finally put up, though.)

The most important thing about this service is the ability to schedule baseball watching and be able to watch any game when you have the chance. At the very least, MLB.TV could live up to the guidelines it stipulates. If archived games are not up 45 minutes after the game ends promptly and if blackout restrictions do not go away after live games end by next week, there is a big problem here. Patience is already wearing thin.

Side note: It seems like MLB.TV has also eliminated the ability to open up multiple browsers and stream multiple games at the same time. Well that sucks.

Side note #2: I shouldn’t say all the changes this year are bad. One can click on the archived streams of MLB.TV Premium without having the premium service. It’s nice to be able to watch SNY on some away games without even having the premium service, but still, this stuff needs to shape up fast.

Monday was certainly a topsy-turvy day for Fernando Tatis. From the much-scrutinized words of Mets manager Jerry Manuel, he went from being in a platoon with Daniel Murphy in left field to being in a platoon with Ryan Church in right field to being the right-handed bat on the bench to maybe being all of those things or none of those things depending on who hits. Whew.

In the Baseball Mogul, fantasy baseball, baseball prospectus mind of many Mets fans (and certainly Mets fans who are online writers), the preferable situation would be Murphy in left, Church in right and Tatis on the bench. Murphy is a young, up-and-coming player that Mets fans practically only hear good things about. Matthew Cerrone from Metsblog tells us that he’s putting in extra time in the cage … again. That question-and-answer he did with the New York Post’s Steve Serby back in August, as well as various other interviews and appearances, paint him as a strong, yet unselfish player who loves to hit. We hear about his patience. We hear about his desire. We see promises of talent and leadership. From a mental makeup standpoint, he’s almost perfect, a condition that only a full season and continual postgame interviews can tarnish.

Then there’s Church, a man who was electric into May last season until that dreaded doubleheader with the Atlanta Braves. Due to injuries and Mets mismanagement, his season was over there, more or less. With Church, that April and May was a promise of his true potential, and Mets fans want to see it again. Due to his injuries, he’s almost as much of a variable in 2009 as the rookie starting for the first time.

And then there’s the variable of Tatis repeating what he did a season ago. The profile of Tatis was constructed of a man who fought his way back into baseball, playing whenever he could. After laboring in Triple-A New Orleans, he finally got his shot, and he earned his way into staying on. His surprising resurgence of power kept him at Shea, but perhaps that .297 batting average with 11 home runs was the product of little pressure. Would a platoon situation be too much expectation, something too concrete? Did the Mets simply catch lightning in a bottle, and there’s no way that Tatis could repeat what he did?

All three outfield candidates come with their potentials and their uncertainities. But one wonders — in the end, will it really matter who the official starters were on Opening Day? Like Manuel has said, whoever hits will play. One does not have to be a sabermetrician to figure that one out. If Murphy starts for a week and hits .100, the Murphy experiment may be over as quickly as that, especially in a market like New York. Even without the rookie status, the same could be said for Tatis or Church. At the end of the day, all three candidates will get their chances. One could argue that, out of the three, Murphy is probably the one who should get the first crack at an everyday role. If he loses it, you can settle back into the familiarity of a platoon, but if he wins it, you potentially have another cornerstone of the franchise on your hands for years to come. Certainly Tatis’ power could be the difference in a few games for the Mets this year, but the Mets also need that right-handed bat on the bench, a role which Tatis could fill easily.

Of course, the Mets aren’t at a position right now where they can concretely say who will fill what outfield roles for the future, like they can at say, third base and shortstop, but one would hope it falls with Murphy and Church starting and Tatis on the bench. Not only does it make logical sense for the future of the franchise to give the two younger players the first opportunity, but it fills a team need on the bench as well.

It’s fair to say that most Mets fans were more concerned this offseason with who would be throwing the ball from the mound, not who would be catching it.

Plus it seemed like catchers Brian Schneider and Ramon Castro would return for another season, and there weren’t really viable options out there, outside of the occasional, silly, uncorroborated Ivan Rodriguez rumor.

Well, the Mets catchers from a year ago have returned, but rumblings from various sources in the past few weeks have suggested the Mets are looking to move Castro and his $2.5 million price tag to free up space for a righty bat on the bench or a lefty reliever.

While it’s easy to be seduced by Castro’s power, 2008 did not exactly prove Castro’s intrinsic worth to the Mets. While the team attempted to give Castro more playing time, his 2008 was marred with injury, and he ended up with almost the same playing totals as he did in 2007 when serving as Paul Lo Duca’s backup. But in 2007, he batted .285 with 11 home runs over 144 at-bats  in 52 games. In 2008, he batted just .245 with seven home runs over 143 at-bats in 52 games.

While much of Schneider’s offensive production fell in line with his career stats, he did slug more homers (nine) than in 2006 and 2007 and in less at-bats (335) than he had in those years. His Herculean total of nine was aided by an August stretch of 10 days where he added four home runs to his total, playing against the Washington Nationals, Pittsburgh Pirates and Houston Astros.

MetsBlog linked a post concerning Schneider at MetsMerized Online that brings up a good point as well. Schneider is the No. 8 hitter in the Mets lineup, and he managed a .257 average with a few homers. What exactly do fans expect? Not the best numbers in the world, but it is the No. 8 hitter in the lineup. The author of the post, Christian, also said Schneider compares favorably with other No. 8 hitters in the National League.

But more important are the statistics that he cites in the post to establish Schneider as an above-average defensive catcher. Too many times, statistics place too much responsibility on the catcher, which is odd considering how soon they are forgotten in the face of great pitching feats. All the time, people bring out the “___ percent of the time the Mets win when ___ is catching,” though this can also pertain to any player. That’s just too dependent on other factors to take seriously. Then there’s the idea that if certain pitchers perform badly with one catcher, there’s a problem. Perhaps a rapport needed to be established with Schneider, while it didn’t with the catcher who had already been on the team, Castro. Perhaps Castro’s playing time (roughly half the games Schneider played) makes his relationships with some starters skewed because he had half the starts with them. Perhaps a million different factors contribute to such figures.

But ultimately, one comes back to this question. Is Castro worth keeping on the Mets? Even in an injury plagued year, he managed to slug more homers than Schneider did, in about 200 less at-bats. Castro is clearly superior offensively than Schneider, but Schneider is superior defensively. Generally Omar Minaya seems to favor defensive prowess, and what position is defense more greatly valued at than at the catcher position? It does not necessarily mean it’s the right choice, but when you factor in the importance of an able defensive catcher, known for his good relationships with starters, coupled with the recent injury problems of Castro, Schneider seems to win the head-to-head battle, at least in Mets’ management mind. This is why the rumor that the Mets were trying to trade “either Schneider or Castro” quickly became just “trying to trade Castro.”

What might be more clear-cut is that this team does not need both. One or the other, the Mets could use, but not both. When this team had both in 2008, it wanted to employ three catchers, which was a mistake and a waste of a roster spot. But Castro’s bat is wasted on the bench, as he has to be preserved in case of emergency. The three catchers idea might have made limited sense if Castro was even used as the pinch hitter, but it quizzically was Robinson Cancel and others who received those chances more often than not. This team basically cannot be trusted with both players anymore.

And now Newsday reports that Schneider wants to play everyday. Well, who doesn’t? But some of these quotes make it seem like he’s almost resentful of his teammate, Castro, basically implying that he got his chance last year in the platoon and he blew it. While Schneider may fit the mold of the defensive catcher and the No. 8 hitter, I’m not ready to consider him a major asset to this team. He’s simply tolerable for now. This kind of talk suggests he may think a bit highly of himself. He needs to check that at the door.

Perhaps this is reading too much into these quotes, but if you are going to speak with the team in mind, just do it. Just say “That’s up to Jerry Manuel,” and leave it at that. Do not say, “Well, I want to do this and it would suck if this didn’t happen, but hey, it’s up to Jerry Manuel.” It just seems like the player is passive-aggressively sending a message through the press. It’s not as malicious as Manny Ramirez smack talk, sure, but the intent is clear.

There really must be something in the medical records of free-agent RHP Ben Sheets that is absolutely frightening — something that looks like a sure thing like having to pass on golfing if there’s an 100-percent chance of rain. Otherwise, why isn’t Sheets on a team by now? Better question: why isn’t he on the Mets already?

Let me preface this by saying that, so far, I am relatively pleased with this Mets offseason. Acquiring closer Francisco Rodriguez and setup man J.J. Putz puts a symbolic Band-Aid on the Mets’ bullpen woes. That’s good enough for the Mets fan’s psyche, even if reliever Joe Smith is sorely missed. At the same time, Minaya rid himself of past bullpen cancers like Aaron Heilman and Scott Schoeneweis. (Yes, both these guys are better than their reputations, but it’s just easier to start over fresh with some of this bullpen. This ‘pen was mostly the same from 2006 to 2008, and people are ready for a change after last year.)

It also seems like Omar Minaya has finally learned from his past. Moises Alou, Pedro Martinez, Orlando Hernandez, and even Oliver Perez are not Mets, as of Feb. 1. It’s possible that Perez could re-join the club, and it wouldn’t kill me because I like him. I just do not think he’s worth even a four-year deal in my ideal world, especially with seemingly no other suitors. Regardless, it’s highly doubtful that Perez would sign for less than four years and a relatively high annual salary.

It wouldn’t be the end of the world if Perez re-joined the Mets’ rotation. Perez is young, he’s a lefty, he’s got talent and he would give the Mets a good rotation, provided the top four starters stay healthy. If everybody exceeds expectations and Jon Neise breaks out, relegating Tim Redding to unimportant innings, then it could be a great rotation. Matthew Cerrone has mentioned at Metsblog numerous times that Perez could be traded in the future. But what if he became extremely ineffective and erratic? Hey, he doesn’t have a reputation for that, does he? At the very least, if that happened and it would not be all that surprising, then the Mets would lose heavily in a trade.

Now where is this all going? Well, while Derek Lowe, AJ Burnett, and Jon Garland were all signing deals, while Oliver Perez, Randy Wolf, and Pedro Martinez get interest from the league, where is Sheets?

Now I completely understand Lowe and Garland being signed before Sheets. Despite Lowe being five years older and way more expensive, he also has started at least 32 games in the last seven seasons. He’s finished the season with a sub-4.00 ERA in five of those seasons. That’s the kind of consistency the Mets could have used. They must have been reluctant with Lowe’s age and him depreciating under the contract. (After all, the Mets have a history of being where careers go to die and signing pitchers who are getting their last big money, multi-year deals. One could argue Martinez and Tom Glavine are recent examples. Wait, how much did Steve Trachsel get?)

Lowe was also on the 2004 Boston Red Sox and won each series-clinching game, but I think that is weighted a bit too much in terms of the discussion about it. It’s a big accomplishment, yes, but it was five years ago and it’s such a small sample compared to the rest of his career. I guess because of that month in 2004 you can call him an “established winner” or something but it doesn’t really add anything to the discussion.

Meanwhile, Garland has started at least 32 times per season for the last eight years. Even though he’ll give innings, Garland is highly overrated considering he’s only posted a sub-4.00 ERA twice in a nine-year career and a sub-1.20 WHIP only once. Most of the time, Garland posts years just at tick under a 5.00 ERA and around a 1.50 WHIP. Not great seasons, in my opinion. As a fifth starter, hey, he’s a better option than Redding, but anything more is asking too much to me. The fifth starter role is generally your role for someone who gives you innings which are not necessarily quality. There’s no more slots for that in a rotation.

Burnett has had some quality seasons, but not of the quality that warrants the five-year, $82.5 million deal the Yankees gave him. But even if he did, he’s about as injury-plagued as Sheets. And this is where the argument against Sheets becomes illogical. Between 2003-2007 (a period spanning five seasons), he only posted 32 starts once and at least 25 starts twice. Though Burnett started 34 games in 2008 and won 18 games, he had a 4.07 ERA and a 1.34 WHIP, not exactly sparking statistics.

Anyway, those guys have already signed, so it’s moot to argue them down anyway. What about these other jokers?

Whether due to quality or injury, Wolf has not had too many full seasons starting in the majors. 2008 marked the first year since 2003 that he’s pitched a full season’s slate of games. And 21 of his 33 starts last year came with the San Diego Padres, a terrible team that probably did not have a better option. The other 12 came from a general manager who loves him for some reason. Wolf also has not posted a sub-4.00 ERA or a sub-1.20 WHIP since 2002. Add on top of that, Wolf is probably just using the Mets as leverage to get back to the west coast and the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Mets may be doing the same, but the mere threat of signing Randy Wolf (when you already have Redding) is an insult. Also Wolf is a little older than Sheets.

The sheer absurdity that the Mets could potentially sign Pedro and not Sheets is hard to fathom. Martinez has the same high risk for injury but without the high reward of ace-like stuff that Sheets has. Even when healthy, Martinez is just average these days. An argument for a Martinez signing is purely a nostalgic one. Adding Martinez back to the rotation is also another return to the dreaded status quo. By the way, Martinez in 2008: 20 starts, 5-6, 5.61 ERA, 1.57 WHIP.

Redding is basically a guy who has made a career out of one full season. In 32 starts with the Astros in 2003, he went 10-14 with a 3.86 ERA and 1.39 WHIP. Ever since, he’s basically been either bad or out, though in 2007, he put up 15 starts and had a 3.64 ERA (coupled with a high 1.45 WHIP). Redding was signed based on this 2008 season: 33 starts, 10-11, 4.95 ERA, 1.43 WHIP. Those are ugly numbers. Redding’s ERA steadily climbed since the middle of May last year. Yet Redding is the primary choice for 5th starter. There had to have been somebody of a comparable price who was a better option. And even if there wasn’t, not spending on so much (bad) depth would have saved money to spend more on the 5th starter.

The Mets still technically need two starters, because Redding is certainly not a lock at the fifth spot, and even when competing with Neise, I don’t think anyone is comfortable with that spot. Obviously, before that, the Mets desperately need a higher starter. If it’s Perez, it’s No. 3 or No. 4. If it’s many of the others still available, it’s definitely No. 4 and hell, maybe No. 5 by the end of the year that we’ll be getting. If it’s Sheets the Mets sign, it could be a starter who is as good as No. 2.

Take a chance on Sheets. Like Burnett, Sheets had a rebound year in 2008: 31 starts, 13-9, 3.09 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, 158 K, 47 BB. In fact, he had a better year than Burnett. Even in 2005 and 2007 when he missed parts of the season, he still managed to start at least 22 games each year AND post sub-4.00 ERAs. The only year in his eight-year career where he’s started less than 22 games is 2006, when he started only 17.

Sheets is supposed to be looking for a two-year deal? What’s the hold up? Are you really reluctant about a two-year deal? Orlando Hernandez got one! The Mets signed Moises Alou to play left field for this team in consecutive offseasons! The Mets locked up Luis Castillo for four years! How is he so mind-numbingly conservative about Sheets after these foolhardy moves? Give him two years. Heck, give him three. Make him a starter on this team, and then try to go after Perez. Act like you do not necessarily need him now but would like to have him, and see if he lowers his price a little.

Gah, how in the world do the Mets keep expressing interest in Wolf publicly and yet keep throwing smokescreens about Sheets talk? I pray to God that this is just really good Mets intel.

I’ve heard it in numerous different hypothetical Mets 2009 rotations. Some of them have the Mets not resigning Pedro Martinez and Oliver Perez and replacing them with just one starter — CC Sabathia or Derek Lowe or AJ Burnett or whoever.

Ultimately, all the theories have one starter replacing two starters, which puts the name Jonathan Neise in the No. 5 slot.

I would love to think baseball is like MLB 2k8 or Baseball Mogul where I could just plug in Neise and simulate a season to see how he turns out. But it just isn’t like that, and I worry that Neise is not ready. After all, he had very limited time at Triple-A. He had three starts in the big leagues this year — two bad and one good but also the second game of a doubleheader against the Atlanta Braves.

It would not surprise me in the least if Neise is not with the Mets to start 2009. I would suspect it would take an electric spring training in addition to a wide-open vacancy in the starting rotation to put Neise with the team. I think they are inclined to both give him more seasoning and filling the vacancies through the offseason.

In the unlikelihood that the Mets actually go with Neise already in the No. 5 slot in 2009, I would fear a scenario like what Mike Pelfrey endured in 2007, where he is just met with struggling and it takes a long time for him to get over it. It’s hard for a young starter to just “learn” in the big leagues, especially with a fanbase as obsessed as the 2009 Mets fanbase will be.

When it comes to playoff rooting, there’s always two schools of thought: either you root for a team within your division (or league) or you root against said teams because of the bitter rivalries from the season.

I am in the latter group. This might sound sacreligious, but I would never describe myself as a “National League fan” or an “NL East fan.” Sure I love National League baseball. I think it’s more interesting and requires more strategy. And uh, I’m a fan of the New York Mets in the NL East. But I’m not blindly a fan of all the teams in the division and/or league.

In fact, when I think about it, I usually find myself completely against those teams. When the playoffs started, I identified the Tampa Bay Rays as the team I’d root for. I also decided I wouldn’t really care if the Boston Red Sox or the Los Angeles Angels won either. Those three teams are AL teams.

When glancing over the NL teams, I really didn’t care for any of them. I decided to hope the Los Angeles Dodgers won the league because they were the lesser of the four evils. And it would stick it to the New York Yankees, which is funny.

But out of all eight teams, I despise the Philadelphia Phillies and prayed they would be quickly eliminated, hopefully in a three-game sweep at the hands of the Milwaukee Brewers. Yes, the Brewers took the last playoff spot. They celebrated on the last day of the season at the expense of the Mets. But to be honest, the Phillies and Marlins left more of a bad taste in my mouth on the last weekend than the Brewers. The Brewers were inconsequential. They contributed friendly fire and accidentally shot us down on the way to glory. I don’t really hold anything against them. So I was fervently rooting for Bud Selig’s boys against the Phillies.

Of course, they failed, which honestly makes me more bitter about the Mets not making it. I felt the same way in 2007. When the team that claimed your playoff spot just dies in the first round, it’s like they wasted it. (I realize these are contradictory ideas, but it being the Phillies dying in 2007 made me feel better. The Brewers just makes me resentful of them.)

So now I root for the Los Angeles Dodgers, and right now it looks like they are going to fail as well. I don’t know if I can take a Philadelphia Phillies World Series, especially coming off a Super Bowl that was absolutely hellish for a Jets fan (New England Patriots vs New York Giants. There’s not a worse possible matchup for a Jets fan to endure.)

So please, Dodgers. Please Red Sox. Please Rays. I cannot take the Phillies really being “the team to beat,” not just for the NL East but for all of Major League Baseball.

Compared to a lot of the other reactionary talk surrounding the team immediately after the season, I feel like the conservative Mets fan.

Firstly, as others have pointed out, Jose Reyes, David Wright, and Carlos Beltran should stay for obvious reasons. They are a part of the illustrious Mets “core” and should go nowhere. Why? Because they are good players.

Secondly, I am for picking up the option for Carlos Delgado. Like virtually everyone else, I did not think I would take this stance months ago, but not only has Delgado won over the hearts and minds of Mets fans (at least for one more year) with his clubbing power, but there really is no one else. Mark Teixeira is just not worth the money, either, especially when there is pitching to be had.

Rather than going after Orlando Hudson or bringing back the aging tandem of Luis Castillo and Damion Easley, I think the Mets should turn to Daniel Murphy at second base next year. This reasoning is also rather predictable. Like many other Mets fans, I like Murphy’s potential, especially since he’s such a patient hitter at such a young age. And he’s got INTANGIBLES~! since he always seems like a guy who is hard-nosed in interviews. Murphy’s most value would be at second base, but encouraging reports from the Arizona Fall League would make Mets fans feel better about Murphy’s defense there (or anywhere).

Like many other Mets fans, I am in favor of letting go of many of the team’s free agents (Moises Alou, Pedro Martinez, Orlando Hernandez, even Oliver Perez unless he would settle for like a two-year deal or something.) Even more disappointing about this season is I feel like half of it was convincing Omar Minaya he had made mistakes he needed to correct in the future, such as signing El Duque, Alou and Castillo. And while it was always talked of as a possibility to bring back Pedro, his 2008 made sure (at least, I hope) that he never pitches in Citi Field.

As for Minaya and Jerry Manuel, I feel ambivalent to their returns. While neither particularly excites me, potentially because they’ve been with the team for a while now, I can’t really think of any exciting replacements. And chances are, a regime change might slow down the progress of the team, and I don’t think the fanbase is even close to being ready for a poor season after the last two heartbreakers.

So yeah, I have a lot of predictable opinions about the Mets, which makes me the ultimate conservative fan. The only shed of excitement I could offer for the Mets’ offseason plans would be to stock up all the saved money from letting go of free agents to go after a highly-touted pitcher — CC Sabathia or Francisco Rodriguez. It may make more sense to go after multiple, lower-tiered pitchers to fill up more of the Mets’ holes, but the hot stove has not revved up, and I’m not thinking straight yet.

It was easier this time.

Not because the Mets “collapsed” in 2008. SNY’s Ted Berg gives a good case for why the Mets did not collapse, and after reading it, it really started to bug me when ESPN could not talk about the Mets missing the playoffs without using the word “collapse.”

Grant it, they were just as brutal on the Chicago Cubs on Saturday. (I think it’s hilarious that the Cubs were swept. Like Andrew Beaton, I don’t buy the “lovable loser” moniker either, and somewhere along the way, I grew to want to see the Cubs lose. Maybe it’s all the media attention. Regardless, the best team in the National League was swept in three games. Hilarious.)

It’s not because I didn’t think the Mets would get out of the first round. While I was pessimistic, for sure, I could see the Mets pulling what the Dodgers pulled this week. Everything changes in October. We’ve seen it before.

It’s not even because I thought the 2008 Mets couldn’t get the job done on the final weekend. I honestly thought maybe they could.

It was simply because it had happened before.

For some reason, 2007 feels so much worse than 2008, and I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because, throughout 2007, we as Mets fans deluded ourselves into thinking this was the same team as the 2006 Mets when, at least after April, they really weren’t. In 2008, after the calamity of being under .500 in June and the firing of Willie Randolph, there were no more delusions, only harsh reality.

But it’s weird because, at the same time, I don’t really buy the argument that the Mets overachieved either. No self-respecting Mets fan thought in March, with the acquisition of Johan Santana, that the Mets would be good to simply add one more win to their total and not make the playoffs again on the last weekend. Just because the Mets were terrible in June does not make those expectations go away.

Personally, I always look back on full seasons, and I think of 2008 as yet another lost opportunity. I just hope the door is not shutting, and none of us are noticing yet.

There is something really depressing about the end of this season. After the 2007 season, I felt heartbreak beacuse the NL East division crown felt entitled to the Mets after such a large lead in mid-September. This year, a playoff berth did not seem a given at all, and as a result, when the Mets did not achieve a spot, I just feel empty. I feel like another improvement year from David Wright was wasted. So were all those outings by Johan Santana. So was Jose Reyes‘ 2006-like season and Carlos Delgado’s potential last-hurrah power surge.

It feels like this team had so many extraordinary independent accomplishments but too many lineup holes and bullpen woes to get them to October.

While Mike Pelfrey showed a marked improvement around the beginning of the 2nd half, Carlos Delgado clearly has had the biggest turnaround. And it’s not like nobody is talking about this because everybody is. The constant MVP debate around the Mets has been sparked by Delgado’s resurgence.

But it cannot be overstated just how Delgado’s comeback came out of nowhere. This is a man who fans and commentators thought could be cut midseason. People were talking about the Mets making grabbing Richie Sexson to play a little first base in a platoon. He was playing that poorly. In the Willie Randolph clubhouse, the media isolated him as the de-facto leader of the “anti-Randolph” camp, if such a camp even truly existed.

But now he’s belting homers left and right. And like it’s been said, these aren’t “Citizens’ Bank Park homers,” such as the one Jimmy Rollins hit today against the Brewers, these are no doubt shots. He’s clobbering home runs in key situations.

NL MVP? I’m not so sure. I’m not even sure about Mets’ MVP, to be honest. But if there is some Most Improved Player award we can hand out, let’s symbolically give the nod to Delgado, a man who has not always felt the love around Shea. Maybe even a Delgado Appreciation Day on his birthday? Eh, that’s probably going too far.

It’s amazing how quick Jose Reyes has established himself in the Mets’ recordbooks. Reyes obliterated the single-season Mets steals record with his 78 in 2007. And in just his fourth full season, Reyes has already captured the club record for steals, eclipsing the mark of Mookie Wilson. He managed to do it in nearly 400 less games than Wilson.

If David Wright keeps it up, he could easily break the Mets’ all-time home run record, as well.

It is actually a sad testament to how few players have had long tenures with the Mets. Gary Cohen and Ron Darling discussed the issue shortly after Reyes broke the record earlier this week. Cohen said only somebody like Ed Kranepool, who spent his entire 18-season career with the Mets, has the kind of long tenure you’d expect from club recordholders. Team icons like Tom Seaver (roughly 10 and a half seasons) and Mike Piazza (7 seasons) had a number of years (and a few major accomplishments) without the Mets. The same can be said for team leaders from that 1986 championship team like Keith Hernandez (6 and a half seasons), Darryl Strawberry (8 seasons), and Dwight Gooden (11 seasons).

When thinking of some of these iconic Mets, it makes one wonder whether fans jump the gun in assuming Reyes and Wright will be with the Mets for their entire careers. For sure, they will play through the rest of their current contracts, which are pretty sizable ones. But how can we say what the state of the Mets will be after the 2011 season? And especially after the 2013 season? Who knows just what the productivity of those two players are at that time or the state of the Mets’ payroll?

For what it’s worth, though, the Mets have established their identity as Reyes and Wright ever since the beginning of the 2005 season and perhaps, even before then. It is what made not resigning Mike Piazza and Cliff Floyd, marginal past team leaders, all the easier. And Reyes and Wright have matured and filled those roles admirably, especially Wright who has remained a leader in the clubhouse when others (Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado) have occasionally faltered in that capacity.

Hopefully, if the two keep it up through their prime, the Mets can continue to identify Reyes and Wright, along with Beltran, Johan Santana, Mike Pelfrey, and others as the team’s core for years to come.

Throw me in to the crowd who is puzzled over why Billy Wagner is already writing off his Mets career. As has been said, if he begins the recovery now, wouldn’t he have a shot at relieving in 2009? And even if the Mets decided not to pick up his option for 2010, how is there no possibility that the Mets won’t take a flyer on Wagner’s future?

I can understand that Wagner is severely depressed over the news of his season ending, but hopefully, when his head cools, he’ll start to open up to these possibilities. Because they exist, or at least, they should exist.

Also, I don’t agree with Linda Cohn about Wagner’s departure, either. Because it doesn’t make much sense to me.

I have subscribed to the MLB.TV service since the beginning of the 2005 season, allowing me to watch about 95% of the Mets games over that span. I’ve also been able to watch historic moments (such as Clay Buchholz’s no-hitter, which aired on a Saturday night, thus not even ESPN broke to it) and interesting match-ups (like Barry Zito’s first game against the Athletics). I’m a big fan of the service since all you need to subscribe is an internet connection, instead of a bulky, unnecessary digital cable package. And the actual cost of MLB.TV is less than that of MLB Extra Innings.

But enough shilling for MLB.TV. When I first got the service, it arbitrarily chose some networks over others. For example, Yankees games were virtually all shown on YES, and Red Sox games were virtually all shown on NESN. For the most part, the Mets’ home announcers were chosen more often than not, if memory serves.

But then, MLB.TV took a more fair approach, deciding to carry only the home team’s broadcasts. As a result, I’ve had to suffer through hearing the Braves, Nationals, Marlins, and Phillies announcers more than I’d like. (For instance, that horrid four-game Mets-Phillies series was in Philadelphia last year, so the sounds were of jubiliant Phillies announcers, not downtrodden Mets ones.) Only games that were blacked out by the home team were carried by the road team’s announcers.

But now, MLB.TV’s premium service has added the feature that I think all subscribers really wanted — the ability to choose between home and road feeds. And with that, MLB.TV has risen in value tenfold. I still have the regular MLB.TV service, since I normally don’t have the time to watch six games at once, but now I’ll have to seriously think about getting the premium service. And I’ll probably just splurge for it because choice of feeds is such an awesome feature.

So yeah, MLB.TV rocks. And now it offers SNY for 162 games.