By Grabthar's Hammer, that is some petty shit.

And as for that assertion of his clubhouse popularity…yes, it comes from anonymous sources. Such is the way of the world. Dickey knows this very well. My credibility, both within the industry and among readers, derives from not making up stuff. From acting responsibly with information gathered from anonymous sources.

Well, if your sources don't give you any quotes or any information about concrete incidents to include in your article maybe you should press them harder or simply don't write up the crap you have. Because the case against Dickey was laughably weak.

Sorry, Davidoff, your credibility is shot with me. Every time you use an anonymous source I will think "Jeff Wilpon".

Dickey borrow Chico's soap, no give back.

If you use anonymous sources how would people know if you are making stuff up?

Sorry, Davidoff, your credibility is shot with me. Every time you use an anonymous source I will think "Jeff Wilpon".

Except that Tim Marchman (sportswriter for the WSJ) confirmed, in the other thread, that Davidoff wasn't making it up. He'd heard the same griping from Mets players about Dickey.

Listen: just because a sportswriter is saying something that you personally do not want to hear -- in this case, that a guy who all of us here like is regarded as a bit of an image-conscious primadonna by his teammates -- does make it proper for you to shoot the mssenger. If you click through to the link, you will also see that, indeed, this is not the first time that Davidoff has referenced this matter; he'd been dropping hints about it since the All-Star break at least.

Ken Davidoff is not Murray Chass, and it seems unconstructive to act as if he is. He didn't impugn the morality of Christ, for crying out loud.

By Grabthar's Hammer, that is some petty ####.

Points!

Well, if your sources don't give you any quotes or any information about concrete incidents to include in your article maybe you should press them harder or simply don't write up the crap you have. Because the case against Dickey was laughably weak.

Sorry, Davidoff, your credibility is shot with me. Every time you use an anonymous source I will think "Jeff Wilpon".

Davidoff should have quit while he was behind. This is sad stuff.

Such is the way of the world.

That writers over time risk becoming hacks who carry management's water because that's where they keep the gold? That seems to be the way of the world, too.

that is some petty ####.

My thoughts exactly. I'll take Mr Davidoff's at his word, although without exact quotes and context it's hard to know the intent of some of these passages. But "the Mets pushed for a hit to be changed to Wright's error, and Dickey supported it"? Weak.

Except that Tim Marchman (sportswriter for the WSJ) confirmed, in the other thread, that Davidoff wasn't making it up. He'd heard the same griping from Mets players about Dickey.

Fine. It was still a petty, shitty article.

This is some kind of pathetic display.


Except that Tim Marchman (sportswriter for the WSJ) confirmed, in the other thread, that Davidoff wasn't making it up. He'd heard the same griping from Mets players about Dickey.

Let's see -

81. Tim Marchman Posted: December 16, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4326015)

This isn't something being pulled out of thin air. I think the most neutral way to put it might be that Dickey is perceived to be very aware of his brand. Since that brand is based on openness and authenticity, there's a little bit of dissonance, and that's going to mildly irritate some people. That's mostly irrelevant gossip. (And it doesn't mean that Dickey isn't a legitimately great guy. Every public person is playing a role and managing their brand to some extent.)

The relevant part is that Dickey is (rightly!) seen as being very good at manipulating the press, so if you've decided to trade rather than extend him, you probably want to get it done sooner rather than later, since if the issue lingers he'll be around making himself look good and you look bad. (Not that there's anything wrong with him doing that!)

That sounds about as weak a confirmation of a gripe I've ever heard. In fact, what gripe did he actually confirm? It sounds like he's doing his best to make Davidoff look like less of an ass. And he doesn't use any word like "heard" at all, it sounds more like he's grasping to verbalize a mood, again, in defense of Davidoff.

More the odd thing is that anyone upset at Dickey is somehow seen here - and by you - as some kind of baseball-playing angel child of innocent virtue. It seems just as, and MORE likely that two petulant pricks were bitching and moaning one day because no one wanted to talk to them.

Hey, maybe someone else will come out and confirm that Dickey was a jerk, but at the moment, it looks just pathetic.

5/Esoteric nails it. If this article were about Arod, posters would be far more inclined to believe this sort of thing.

Except that Tim Marchman (sportswriter for the WSJ) confirmed, in the other thread, that Davidoff wasn't making it up. He'd heard the same griping from Mets players about Dickey.

The difference is that Tim Marchman didn't spend an entire column on it. You might as hear some griping, but really, that doesn't mean you have to give column space to it.

5/Esoteric nails it. If this article were about Arod, posters would be far more inclined to believe this sort of thing.

Yes, because A-Rod actually has centaur pics of himself.

5/Esoteric nails it. If this article were about Arod, posters would be far more inclined to believe this sort of thing.

This is an odd way to defend a perceived hatchet job.

When Mike Pelfrey pitched, he was not very good. Is this horrible? No. But it is an example of him violating his teammates; it makes Pelfrey look bad. It's why Pelfrey wasn't a particularly popular teammate.

Reasons to trade a player: he might talk about his contract status during the season.

But Dickey's yearning for long-term security, as he expressed in that unfortunate setting, made that an increasingly less palatable option for the Mets.If he couldn't control himself there, how would he not restrain himelf from addressing his situation throughout the entire 2013 season?

5/Esoteric nails it. If this article were about Arod, posters would be far more inclined to believe this sort of thing.

Actually we generally "defend" ARod against the sillier stuff around here. Not universally but the general tenor around here (esp among the old hands) is that ARod isn't a playoff choker, we don't care who he's dating, we weren't deeply offended when he ran across the pitcher's mound, we're not even that upset if he's flirting with women in the stands while he's sitting on the bench (or did things go crazy after I left that silly thread). Sure, the centaur, the transvestite and the glove slap ... but those are classics!

C'mon, it's 25 guys plus all the guys who cycle through plus a half-dozen coaches plus trainers plus ... Every player must have at least 10 people they have to hang out with every day that they find "mildly irritating." If the trivial #### Davidoff mentions creates a clubhouse problem -- and a clubhouse problem to the degree that you trade a CYA winner -- then there's not a single player in baseball that's not a problem in the clubhouse.

Were there really no Orioles who grumbled that maybe Cal needed a day off? Are there no Yankees who think maybe Jeter gets a little too much attention? Are there not Angels who are not exactly thrilled to have Vernon Wells sucking up 10% of the payroll? Just wait until Darwin Barney is strutting around the clubhouse with his gold glove and blasting Taylor Swift on his boombox!

And it's weird yeah? Dickey with a 2/$20 extension is not a clubhouse problem but with a 2/$26 extension he is. Does anybody here really think Dickey's personality had anything to do with this trade? Don't be silly.

And let's recall the headline of Davidoff's piece. I know, he doesn't have control over that but it was that the Mets wouldn't "knuckle under" Dickey's "laughable threats". Where the hell does that come from unless Davidoff is choosing sides? He describes this trade as "calling Dickey's bluff" to leave after 2013. That sentence doesn't even make sense. Then the next sentence:

Forget about Dickey, who is not expected to sign an extension with Toronto

Good call on Davidoff's part there.

This is hilarious:

This transaction marks a brave new path for the Mets, one in which sound baseball operations trumps sentiment.

Ummm ... the whole point of your article is that the Mets and their players have _negative_ sentiment towards Dickey. And, yeah, when have the Mets ever followed the "brave path" of getting rid of a popular player?

If he couldn't control himself there, how would he not restrain himself from addressing his situation throughout the entire 2013 season?

The first rule of Spite Club is you do not talk about Spite Club.

But Dickey's yearning for long-term security, as he expressed in that unfortunate setting, made that an increasingly less palatable option for the Mets.If he couldn't control himself there, how would he not restrain himelf from addressing his situation throughout the entire 2013 season?

This is one fabulously stupid paragraph. Thought of another way, if this is how far Davidoff and Wilpons have to go to stick it to Dickey, how likely is it that's he actually any kind of problem at all?

And what Walt said in #16.

Dickey was such a bad team-mate he didn't jump up to defend the highest paid player on the team, from the ignoble fate of having a bad defensive play termed an "error".

What struck me is the double standard, where it was okay for the Reporters to ask Dickey about his contract status, but it was wrong for Dickey to tell the truth about how he felt.

Typical "sports journalist" no win situation. If you tell the truth, you are ruining the occasion. If you blow them off, you are failing to properly respect "the reporters' jobs to act as fans' advocates". How self-important can you get?

They are not acting as anyone's advocate. They are trying to corral eyeballs so the paper can sell more advertising space and they can keep their jobs.

Everybody's entitled to earn an honest, or even a semi-honest living. But please don't act like an asshole and then claim you are doing it on my behalf.

When Davidoff jumped from from the NYDaily News to the Post, did his colleagues at the Daily claim Davidoff's move was 'laughable'? Or was Davidoff a bad teammate?

Walt nails it as usual. The guy was the only reason to watch the Mets all year and they treated him like $hit. Maybe he is a prima donna. Big whoopee. Like NY clubhouses never deal with that. I see zero evidence to suggest that a failure to extend Dickey would have caused a problem or that he would be unable to "reign it in" during the year. The Mets traded him for baseball reasons which is fine, but they didn't have to abet trashing his character on the way out. Nor did Davidoff, who IMHO just made things worse for himself by writing this latest piece of trash. Dickey makes them all look bad by signing the extension with Toronto. He's 38 and it's his one chance to make some real coin. Cut him some slack.

Incredibly petty. Both my the Mets and Davidoff.

"When Davidoff jumped from from the NYDaily News to the Post"

well, Newsday to the Post.

MLB clubhouses have lots of players who fart and then giggle at how gross they are. Picture R.A. Dickey in that setting. I guess saying it's a "combustible mix" paints an unfortunate word picture.

He should be ashamed to even have his name on that article.

Save this article for mid-2016 when they decide Harvey and D'Arnaud are too expensive for them. They suck the fun out of being a Met fan. The two things the Wilpons are known for: incompetence and sliming their players.

from the TFA:

8) "You're just carrying the Mets' water. This is like when Dick Young ran Tom Seaver out of town."

Ouch. Well, I've never portrayed Dickey as greedy, because he has been the opposite of greedy. I just think he's high-maintenance, that's all. And I think this trade from a baseball standpoint is very defendable for the Mets. It's a very good return for the Mets. So if I come off as a shill for Mets ownership, that's an unfortunate coincidence.

A corollary to that: I am very much a geek when it comes to analyzing baseball. I think there's nothing more important than statistical analysis. But personalities do matter. They're part of the equation. Mets GM Sandy Alderson may be a godfather of "Moneyball," but he wants a harmonious clubhouse as much as anyone else.

The best way to get a harmonious clubhouse? To win. Doesn't always work (see early 70's A's for a classic example) but winning does make even the biggest pains endurable.

From what I can tell the Mets pushed hard to make Dickey a negative in the local press so he could be traded. After all, he was a hero to fans in 2012 and the Mets knew that this was the best time to trade him to a contender. They got top quality back but had to kill the negative press as best they could and this was how.

And I think this trade from a baseball standpoint is very defendable for the Mets.

Are there any English majors awake? Does "defendable" look awkward in that sentence? Shouldn't Ken have written "defensible" instead?

Are there any English majors awake? Does "defendable" look awkward in that sentence? Shouldn't Ken have written "defensible" instead?

It's a sly way to admit that the trade is not defensible!

The trade could only be "defendable" if the Wilpons and Travis d'Arnaud are forced to hunker down against an onslaught of angry, pitchfork-wielding Mets fans. Which is a very possible turn of events at this point, actually.

From this article in the Daily News, here's Dickey's reaction to the no-hitter appeal:

“Part of me would love a no-hitter; regardless of how you get it, it’s still a no-hitter,” Dickey said.

“I don’t know if it would be quite as satisfying,” he added. “I think the asterisk beside the no-hitter would get more attention than the no-hitter, you know? Plus, you’re not pitching the eighth, ninth inning with the pressure of a no-hitter going, you know? It would be a little bit cheap. But, for the integrity of the game, I think it’s worthy of a review, just to make sure.”

Here's Wright's reaction from the same article after failing to make two plays that cost Dickey not just a no-hitter, but a perfect game (the only other baserunner reached on Wright's throwing error in the ninth):

“I guess that’s not an ideal situation,” Wright said sheepishly. “That’s their decision. It’s a little awkward when the team wants an error on its own player.”

And from this Reuters article:

"I tried to make a play. I didn't make it. It's simple as that," Wright said of Upton's ball. "If they want to go back and give me an error, they can do that."

That article also claims without a quote, however, that Wright would "gladly take the error."

Suggesting that Dickey is an unpopular teammate because he didn't push to keep Wright from being charged with an error, rather than that Wright is a bad teammate because he didn't push for Dickey to receive credit for the no-hitter is a bit hard to comprehend, especially when Dickey would have (potentially) had a perfect game had Wright made his plays. I'm sure other things went on behind the scenes, and clubhouse popularity often seems arbitrary, but it's hard to criticize Dickey for what happened based on the public statements.

And I think this trade from a baseball standpoint is very defendable for the Mets.

You could say the same thing about the Seaver trade. It may turn out the Mets got more:

Pat Zachry: he won the RoY the year before the trade ... with 200 IP and a 128 ERA+. He wasn't going to be great (peripherals not so nice) but he was above-average. His problem was he got hurt. This is a bit like the Yankees getting Pineda last year.

Steve Henderson: 24-year-old ML-ready OF. Put up a 120 OPS+ in 2000 PA before being traded to the Cubs for Kingman.

Dan Norman was just filler and Doug Flynn was an embarrassment to the human race.

Skipping the half-season after the trade (Seaver was a stud!), in his 5 full seasons in Cincy, Seaver only put up 12 WAR. Henderson gave them 6 in 3 years and Zachry gave them 6.

That the Mets got perfectly reasonable baseball value* out of that trade (at less cost) yet this remains almost certainly the most reviled trade in history by Mets fans shows why you don't trade a franchise icon when he's still productive. (Not that Dickey is an icon)

*Well, in the alternate universe where the Mets have some baseball sense and don't play Doug Flynn.

My general observation has been that Mets fans have acted predictably silly about Dickey, swallowing whole the myth that Dickey is just a naive country bumpkin Forrest Gump type who doesn't care about money.

Not that it's bad to care about money, certainly - but let's not pretend Dickey was willing to work for the league minimum like Barry Bonds was.

just a naive country bumpkin Forrest Gump type

I don't think anyone who has followed Dickey at all would ever use those words to describe Dickey. He is unusual among baseball players because of his intellect. I don't think that part of your statement could be more wrong.

I don't think most Met fans thought that Dickey was unconcerned about the money. Rather, we think that he was willing to take a relative discount before free agency to ensure that he'd cash in considering he had made relatively little for a 38 year old MLB player.

He went to war over $6 million when he had very little leverage, signed for another year before free agency at age 38 and for just $5 million and thus without any real ability to completely leverage his Cy Young season.

I expect Dickey to be out of the league in three years.

He went to war over $6 million when he had very little leverage, signed for another year before free agency at age 38 and for just $5 million and thus without any real ability to completely leverage his Cy Young season.

And how does this make you think that Met fans thought he was "just a naive country bumpkin Forrest Gump type"? If anything, that makes him sound like the opposite of that. Maybe I'm dense but I don't really follow your argument. It sounds like you think that strategy was foolhardy. Whether it was a good move by Toronto or not, if cashing in was Dickey's goal overall, he was definitely successful in doing so.

I expect Dickey to be out of the league in three years.

Absolutely possible. Three years is a long time. Three years ago, Tim Lincecum was coming off two straight Cy Youngs and Ryan Vogelsong was an afterthought, if that. I don't know how that furthers your argument that Met fans thought Dickey was a country bumpkin.

Whether it was a good move by Toronto or not, if cashing in was Dickey's goal overall, he was definitely successful in doing so.

Umm, that's my point.

Makes me shake my head. I only wish that baseball would allow the fans to cast a vote of no confidence.

The Mets traded him for baseball reasons which is fine,...

Well, let's keep this clear: the Mets did not trade Dickey just for baseball reasons.

You could say the same thing about the Seaver trade. It may turn out the Mets got more:....

I've long been aware of this, but it's the first time I've seen it written up. Reminds me of the situation a decade ago when Reggie Jackson was upheld as the paragon of postseason hitting, the giant who never failed.

Maybe I'm dense but I don't really follow your argument.

It's not you. Ray wears out his welcome and gets called on his bs on the political thread, so he has to come here and make random straw man arguments to keep himself entertained.

He went to war over $6 million...

He didn't go 'to war'. What complete nonsense.

That the Mets got perfectly reasonable baseball value* out of that trade (at less cost) yet this remains almost certainly the most reviled trade in history by Mets fans shows why you don't trade a franchise icon when he's still productive. (Not that Dickey is an icon)

If not, he was getting there. All the more pity, as the Mets have been short of beloved players with respectable tenures on the club since the 1986 Mets.

He went to war over $6 million when he had very little leverage, signed for another year before free agency at age 38 and for just $5 million and thus without any real ability to completely leverage his Cy Young season

LOL, he had no leverage yet got almost exactly what he asked for.

The Mets offered him $16m, and despite having all the leverage, bumped it to $20M, and despite Dickey's lack of options, he was somehow able to refuse them. Then Toronto gave him only $1M less than what he wanted, except more money up front so it was nearly as valuable as the deal he asked for.

The Mets were the ones without leverage. They had to either sign or trade him now, or risk losing him with only a sandwich pick to show for it a year from now (and forced to risk $14M in a qualifying offer, almost what they offered him for 2 years, just to claim that pick).

The Mets did very well in this trade, but not because they had leverage, and not because they were smart.

O's fans (and management) loved Jim Palmer, who was much more of a prima Donna than this. Is it possible some Mets teammates felt threatened by Dickey's smarts?

LOL, he had no leverage yet got almost exactly what he asked for.

Funny how that worked out, eh?

Wonder where Ray got to?

@41--yup. Or, to put it another way, have you ever seen an extremely successful guy in a situation where the organization and many of its members weren't doing so well, where no one grumbled about the guy?
Has that ever happened, anywhere?

I'm not buying Davidoff or Marchman's tepid endorsement. If we're quoting journalists and sources, Andy Martino of the Daily News, who is the beat writer for the Mets, quoted a player saying that the only Mets who didn't like Dickey were the d-bags.

Anyway, Dickey comes up smelling of roses here. He gets his extension, he gets to play for a contending team instead of a laughingstock and he is going to be a media darling in Toronto, telling his story to a new audience who will like him a lot (judging by their hockey players the modest, friendly, personable guys do very well in Canada).

Is it possible some Mets teammates felt threatened by Dickey's smarts?

Definitely. A smart person, if they like to talk at all, has to be extremely self-conscious in a room full of dumb jocks. Uttering any word with more that three syllables can get you into trouble.

My general observation has been that Mets fans have acted predictably silly about Dickey, swallowing whole the myth that Dickey is just a naive country bumpkin Forrest Gump type who doesn't care about money.

I can't believe I even just read this. WTF are you talking about? Bumpkin? Jesus.

Andy Martino of the Daily News, who is the beat writer for the Mets, quoted a player saying that the only Mets who didn't like Dickey were the d-bags.

Considering it is the Mets organization, the higher d-quotient is probably learned in the minors and covers a majority of the people in the clubhouse.

When you play on a team all year, natural factions develop which are hidden by winning and exposed by losing. It is not logical, but it is a natural reaction to being worn down by losses each and every day. You end up with 5 players that like the manager (or player), 5 players that hate that person and 15 who don't care at all. When you lose, the 15 in the middle start to drift towards being negative and the team suffers.

In the minors and on my major league teams, players with bonuses or the high salaried players with media attention were often ####### about behind their backs when things were not going well.

The Mets never should have initiated this idea, but Dickey, who needed Wright as a teammate, could have and should have put a stop to it.

Seriously? That's absolutely ridiculous. "After granting that the team are the buffoons in this, I'm going to claim that the employee should have somehow saved the employer from their own buffoonery."

Stop digging. The hole just gets deeper.

from the TFA:

I'm so sick of people like you, R.A. Dickey, and Albert Belle putting a "the" before "TFA."

'You could say the same thing about the Seaver trade. It may turn out the Mets got more'

Wow, I have never heard of anyone trying to say that the Seaver trade was a wash before! If it takes the entire group of players to equal Seaver, doesn't that mean that the 4 or 5 open roster spots that would have been there if Seaver was still on the team had some expected value? I have read lots of article and responses on this site over the past 8 or 9 years, started reading here around 2003 and I really can't (don't want to) believe this comment! As a Mets fan during that time, with Seaver (and Buddy Harrelson) my favorite players from my youth, this trade actually made me a Reds fan until I graduated college and came back home and back to the Mets. Never forgiving and never forgetting but moving on.

He went to war over $6 million when he had very little leverage, signed for another year before free agency at age 38 and for just $5 million and thus without any real ability to completely leverage his Cy Young season.

I expect Dickey to be out of the league in three years.

Why do his negotiating tactics lead you to believe that his career is nearing the end? (or am I reading that wrong?)