Mets shortstop Ruben Tejada began playing in rehab games this week with the Mets’ Gulf Coast League team, nearly a month after being placed on the disabled list with a right quadriceps strain at the end of May. It’s been a somewhat slow rehab, but the Mets may be taking it slow with Tejada for a reason. Since it’s similar to the injury that caused him to miss time last season, they may be being extra cautious. They may also be taking it slow with Tejada because it’s a lost season and would rather he be one hundred percent healthy than rush him. However, Terry Collins revealed another reason why the Mets may be taking their time with the rehabbing Tejada: he may have lost his starting job to Omar Quintanilla.
It’s no secret that Tejada was not performing well before his injury. In fact, he seemed to have regressed in all aspects of the game. Concern about his performance started in Spring Training, carried over into the season, and bubbled up to the point where there was talk of demoting him with Ike Davis. His performance certainly merited it, as he was sporting a slash line of just .209/.267/.262 with an OPS+ of 52 at the time of his injury. He played rather poorly on the defensive side of the ball as well.
Of course his injury conveniently allowed the Mets to avoid making such a decision, but the concerns about Tejada were real and serious. Perhaps the most damning evidence of that was earlier this month when, in an interview with WFAN’s Mike Francesa, Mets GM Sandy Alderson stated that Tejada was not part of the team’s core.
Are they trying to send a message to Tejada here? There was buzz in Spring Training that the team felt he was not in top shape, and Collins confirmed as much when he made statements about Tejada needing to “get himself into good, really top shape.” Maybe Tejada is one of the players that are occasionally hinted at as just being content with playing in the majors with no real drive to be the best?
Taking all of that into account, it still doesn’t make sense why Collins would start 31-year-old Quintanilla over 23-year-old Tejada. Although the team may feel that Tejada isn’t their future at shortstop, Quintanilla certainly isn’t either. Maybe Tejada really isn’t the future at shortstop, but you play him until you are sure of that. You play him until you do have your future shortstop. Right now, be it Gavin Cecchini or anyone else, that player doesn’t appear to be anywhere close.
If Collins’ goal here is to teach Tejada a lesson about effort, professionalism, and giving it everything you have, then more power to him. If his goal is to win a few extra games in a season in which the Mets are currently 11 games under .500, he needs to reevaluate what’s best for the franchise moving forward.
I confess to be growing more and more curious whether Q could be part of a couple year solution for the team.
I was a big Tejada backer. I was disapointed in his 2012 season only because I thought he should have improved to a slightly better than average NL SS and instead he was slightly below average, but he was still progressing in an upward trend. In 2013 he came in ill prepared for the season which is totally unacceptable for me. If he has a great rehab with great numbers then bring him up to wrestle his job from Q, otherwise keep him in AAA with his buddy Davis until his (their) numbers force him back on the ML roster.
The Mets keep playing players for their “potential” and not their results. It is more enjoyable to watch the players that are putting up results without the fanfare of potential. If you want a job in the major leagues you should have to earn it and then sustain your production. There is (was?) too much entitlement on this team.
Well, some would argue (in this time of rebuilding) that they’d rather watch the kids sink or swim in order to gauge what the team has moving forward than watch an older player who had never been able hold a starting job. I think Q is good for what he is, but he shouldn’t be playing over anybody the Mets think could be part of the future. If Tejada is not part of that future, then maybe we have more problems than we though.
Duda, Davis and Tejada broke in in 2010. This is their 4th year in the majors. Duda is playing out of position BUT if the Mets insist on playing him in LF then I’ll include him in unfulfilled potential. The offense stinks and there are major league players, like Byrd, that can help. Sure it is great to have young players but when they are not doing the job then the GM needs to bring in 1-2 year vets until the next “rookie” class is ready. The Mets can’t keep “rebuilding” and “waiting” while Harvey, Niese, Gee and Wheeler are already on the clock.
Fair point, but I would argue that Tejada is still quite younger than Duda and Davis. That’s not to say he will suddenly get much better, but it means his potential may not be tapped out just yet.
If Q is playing reasonably well, shoving him aside to play Tejada would send the wrong message. Neither one might be part of the team’s future, but others will. They should learn that playing time is the result of merit. The same holds true for Satin, Young, etc. If they are productive they should remain in the line-up. How well did the team play with Tejada, Davis and Duda as starters?
Where do you draw the line at “merit”, though? And is merit gained by numbers or effort? If a young player with potential is struggling but working towards improvement, do you still sit him because a journeyman player is on a hot streak? If your team is in the playoff hunt, that answer is easy. In the Mets case, it’s a bit more complicated because you are trying to see what you have (or they should be). It could be that they’ve just decided that Tejada won’t help the team moving forward, but then there’s yet another hole to fill.
The issue I see is that a full-effort Tejada was just good enough not to be considered a problem. But what we saw in 2013 was not full-effort. I see no reason to give Tejada any kind of preferential treatment. If he’s in the minors hitting line drives to all fields and fielding all the balls he gets to – that’s great, give him another shot. But until that point, I’m more than okay in giving Quintanilla the shot he’s never really had.
Of course, a platoon might be the ideal solution.
Agreed. Tejada hasn’t done enough of anything to merit preferential treatment, especially if he was not giving his full effort. I just think we haven’t hit the point where he can be ruled out as a member of the “core.” Hopefully he’s learned a valuable lesson through all of this, and maybe giving his job to the better performing Q is part of that lesson.
+1 with Norm here. Meritocracy all the way.
With that said, what is good for the team in terms of the message needs to get tempered with realistic expectations of the future. 28 year old, rookie 1B without power simply don’t have very good odds of long term success – and you need to remember that the 25 year old guy at LV has already hit more HR than Josh Satin ever will in the ML. And I hate Ike Davis.
It’s going to be a tough second half of the season. Several guys have a larger role than they should (like Wheeler) and others should have larger ones (Brown, Torres). And with every blow up by a bullpen arm (Parnell, Lyon to Nats) I think we’re less likely to be able to offer a team anything for new parts.
The team needs clear direction. I don’t think Sandy and Terry communicate capably enough with each other, and the media, nearly well enough to indicate that they give the locker room a rudder. Of course, I don’t have access to team so I don’t know.
and a just by the way sort of thing toward meritocracy … the Nats started a 2B who this season played extensively in the EL with our own Cesar Puello.
Rendon’s slash: .319/.461/.603 1.064
Puello’s slash: .333/.399/.600 1.000
I’m not saying that players like Puello, Leathersich and Jayce Boyd *should* be at Citifield. But its getting hard not to notice meritocracy in other organizations and how its not honored here.
Rendon: top polished college hitter taken #6 overall. Rated a top #30 prospect by both BA and MLB.com the last 2 years. Great minor league numbers over the last 2 years.
Puello: unknown guy outside of the Mets realm. Unranked prospect over the last 2 years. Subpar minor league numbers the last 5 years. Rumored cheat.
Yeah, that last part is the elephant in the room.
I just don’t see the Mets calling him up to the majors until the Biogenesis thing is straightened out.
which, pretty much, is why I said, “I’m not saying players like Puello … should be at Citifield”.
Rendon. Gattis. Fernandez. Plenty of players make that move. Unrelated, but sort of …How do you play Kirk in CF, when Young can play CF at least as well and not play Brown in LF … on a team starved for offense? W
Honor minor league statistics as revealing on some level of a guys ability to dominate against his competition. That’s all I’m saying. If you look at what they did in LV, Brown HAS to be able to hit a level or two above Kirk. And strangely enough, it’s translating at the major league level.
Meritocracy.
Result is important because that is one of the few objective tools we can use to judge people, but that only paints part of the picture.
Here’s a real-life analogy:
Two kids take a final exam that determines whether they should move up or repeat the same class. Both score 100. Seems like they are the same level, right?
What if i told you kid A studied 20 hours for the test, and kid B studied 1 hour for the test. Do you still think the same of them? So even though meritocracy is nice, it should not be the sole basis for making decisions.
Some people are saying that if MLB doesnt do anyhting about biogenesis before the ASG, then its likely to be a post season thing given that it could place a number of teams in the lurch for the playoff run. This means Puello could be hanging for some time IF he is involved. I cant envision any way he comes up until its solved.