Omar Minaya: Offense Was Not The Team's Problem Last Year
I figure I'd share my opinion on Minaya's comments at today's press conference.
According to Metsblog, Matt Cerrone says that when questioned about any additional moves to address the offense, Minaya responded by stating that last year the offense was not the problem.
I have a lot of problems with this statement. Firstly, prior to the All-Star game, offense WAS the problem with this team. They came out as flat as they left 2008. I guess Minaya doesn't remember firing a guy named Willie Randolph because the team couldnt hit the ball or score any runs.
Secondly, why does Omar Minaya insist on assuming the team will produce as well as it did in the second half of 2008? Is he serious when he believes that Delgado will continue to hit the ball the way he did, or that Tatis will continue his magical comeback (and that's not considering the damage done to his shoulder from his injury)?
Does he really believe that Luis Castillo will hit .300 again? Does he really believe that Ryan Church will be the same player he was before all those concussions?
I can't say that he will be wrong about all of these players; I actually think Church will have a nice year. But as for the rest of them, banking on these types of guys will only lead to trouble. I could understand if there was no one on the market to make a play for, but I can think of three names when it comes to offense, and two of them start with Manny, and another with Orlando.
Omar needs to stop treating the fans like idiots. We know that these hopes you have for the team are bogus. To expect the same production as last year is pure silliness. None of us believe this team is any better than last year; just ask anyone on this website, or any one of the members of the Million Manny March. This team needs a new bat.
And there is plenty out there.
Just ask yourself one question: is this team, as a result of the acquisitions this year, better than the Phillies?
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?