My plan for the morning was to come in early, sit down and write how awesome it was to have one of my favorite Mets, Jason Isringhausen back in Flushing. This current Mets team is in all likelihood already done challenging for first place. In a place like New York, that is not a good thing. Mets fans need something to help keep our spirits up. Enter Izzy, the one-time Mets phenom to help with a stroll down memory lane.
I intended to talk about how great it is that he is back and then I remembered something: I am the same guy who killed the M's for bringing back Ken Griffey Jr. To be clear, I thought bringing him back in 2009 was perfectly fine. The M's weren't good and Griffey would sell tickets. It would also help mend some wounds over how he left the city ten years earlier. When he got carried off the field in his last game, that should have been it. Yet the M's decided to re-sign him for another year rather than giving that spot to the M's. They had they Griffey retirement tour once- they need to cut bait and give the spot to someone younger who could have helped them in the future.
We all know how it ended - Griffey caught in controversy about sleeping in the dugout and openly feuding with manager Don Wakamtsu he retired without warning in June. It was definitely a sad ending, but one that was needed.
So how then is this situation any different? What is Izzy bringing to this team that Griffey didn't? My initial reaction: Not much. I truly believe that both players came back to their original teams because they wanted another shot at playing baseball. While Griffey had played in 140+ games the year before signing with the M's, he clearly was not the same player he once was. It was highly unlikely that any other team would have given him a shot. Izzy on the other hand had been out of baseball since arm surgery in 2009. It was also unlikely that any other team would have given him a shot.
Ok, so if they both bring the same thing to the table, what makes these situations different? It's a good question. Ultimately I think it comes down to this: while neither team is going anywhere, Izzy has the chance to actually help the Mets win some games. If Izzy pitches 2/3 inning every three days then he is having a larger impact on the team than Griffey did pinch-hitting every other day. The fact is that a washed up veteran can have some impact in the bullpen. Whereas Griffey might get 1 punch hit every 5 at bats, which in real life may equate to one hit every week. Meanwhile, Izzy will be pitching 3 times a week, most often in close ball games.
Izzy probably can't go longer than an inning at a time. He is old and totally injury prone. I doubt he will last the entire season. But he is experienced and not only can help win a game here and there with his arm, but he can hopefully help the likes of Bobby Parnell, a hard-throwing reliever who could definitely use some mentoring.
So there you go. I just defended how this situation is different than Griffey's. I am impressed because it was a quick turnaround.
Fact is, Izzy has always meant a lot to me. I'm a Mets fan. I bleed blue and orange. I normally don't follow one time Mets after they leave the team. I mean, if you're not with us, you're against us. Yet Izzy was always one guy I openly rooted (Piazza the other) for when he was in Oakland and St Louis. Maybe it was because I was 15 at the time, but his 9-2 record and 2.81 ERA in 1995 was the start of something amazing. Combined with Bill Pulsipher and Paul Wilson, Generation K (who appeared the front of all NY newspapers and magazines), was bound to lead the Mets revival. It never happened in large part to Izzy's arm injury in 1997 and the general suckiness of Wilson and Pulsipher, but I still feel the same way about him today as I did back then. I simply love the guy. In a year that is bound to be full of lowlights, I personally am glad to have him back in Flushing.
No comments:
Post a Comment