Have been looking at some of the posts the past few days and can’t understand all the rips on Carlos Beltran.
The guy played with a broken face a few years ago. He’s playing on sore knees now. No way is he soft. Quiet, yes. Soft, no.
Have been looking at some of the posts the past few days and can’t understand all the rips on Carlos Beltran.
The guy played with a broken face a few years ago. He’s playing on sore knees now. No way is he soft. Quiet, yes. Soft, no.
27 Comments
Yes, Thank you for this subject!
Also he played much of last year hurt and did not complain. Again like Maine and Glavine he does not wear his heart on his sleeve which many here prefer. I guess that means he has no heart, no passion.
JD, if Beltran threw temper tantrums like LoDuca and Paul O’Neill did, he would be seen as “exhibiting a NY ‘tude,” and would therefore be considered a tough guy. The fans would love him. Unfortunately in modern society Beltran’s approach somehow got twisted into “soft” rather than quiet and workman like.
He always has aches and bruises, he never feels 100%, and you can pencil him in for 30 HR, 100 RBI, and some very good, if not always premier defense. He can play on my team any day.
Unfortunately, everyone remembers Beltran with his bat attached to his shoulder looking at strike three. Truth is he’s a great defensive player and a pretty good hitter. I’m happy he’s our center fielder and hope he gets up to full strength soon enough. Beltran is an important piece to the our championship.
John – I don’t think he is soft, I just think he is apprehensive. After his collision with Mike Cameron in the outfield at San Diego in August of 2005, where he sustained a concussion and a fractured cheekbone it would be natural to think of those injuries when he takes the field. Maybe some guys could just shrug it off, but I think Carlos can’t. No fault of his, it’s just his persona.
After living through 40 years of disappointing imports (Fregosi, Foy, Foster, Alomar, McReynolds,etc). Beltran looks pretty good..which he is. But let’s face it..everytime I hear his name I immediately think of “bat on shoulder strike three game over. NLCS over”. It is not fair but the guy did choose to sign here. But John is right about surviving the collision and playing in pain wiyhout complaint. Beltran is one of our strong points.
Dan you make it sound like every import was a disaster. I remember Agee, Clendenon, Hernandez, Carter, Darling, HoJo, Knight, Piazza, Leiter, Franco, Beltran, Pedro. The fans were on Beltran’s butt long before the 06 playoffs.
I don’t think he’s soft. He just plays a very tough position and it’s taken its toll on him as it does on most CFers by the time they get to be his age. Sure, some CFers are sturdier, but most are just as injury prone as he is.
Damon is just a few years older and he can’t even play CF anymore.
The Mets can’t afford to lose Beltran’s bat for long periods of time, especially now that they can’t rely on Delgado anymore. So they better find a way to optimize the remainder of Beltran’s contract going forward. And that may mean a position change.
JK, dude, you honestly need to drop this whole CF thing. It’s starting to become wearisome. You really have a lot of great things to say, but they get lost in this agenda you bring to all your posts.
PS: Yes, that was the kettle speaking, so take it for what it’s worth. I’ve tried to reign myself in over the past week. No need to keep having the same arguments over and over again.
Beltran is an excellent player – the fact is he’s not a great player and that’s what fans expect. The fan expectation is too high.. fans just appreciated Beltran’s talents for what they are – good bat, power, some speed and very good glove. He’s probably the best centerfielder the team’s ever had (aside from Willie Mays and Duke Snider, in names only, of course)
Keith, dude, it’s not an agenda. It’s reality as I see it. If you want to disagree with me, fine. We will agree to disagree. But that’s not going to change the way I see things. And as I see it, Beltran cannot play 140+ games/year in CF for the remainder of his contract, If you think he can then you aren’t paying attention. Either to him or to the trends for many other Cfers in baseball.
The options as I see it are:
1) Keep him in CF and watch his playing time be reduced to about 100-130 games/year max going forward. Which means a loss of his vital bat for about 30-60+ games a year.
2) Move him, with his consent, to another less physically demanding position. This way you can possibly get at least 20-40 more games out of him a year than would be possible if he stayed in CF..
Keeping his bat in the lineup as much as possible should be priority #1. Of course, if he’s adamantly opposed to a switch, then you don’t do it. But at least bring it up after the season is over so that even if he balks at it at first, he may eventually come around to thinking it’s in his best interests as well.
Hey, I hope I’m wrong and he’s dong cartwheels and jumping jacks on his balky knees in no time and plays 145+ games this year. But I just can’t see it.
Beltran’s numbers in 2006 were flat-out awesome. He was down a bit last year, but he drove in 112 runs. How about 23-for 25 in steals? He’s not only a good basestealer, he’s also an excellent baserunner all around. He deserves his Gold Glove; he’s a superior defensive CF. I think he’s better than good; at his best he’s great, in an off-year he’s still an All-Star in my book.
Beltran played 162 games in 2002, and had other years with the Royals in which he played 156 and 155 games. So it’s not like he’s never done it.
Beltran tends to be honest about his physical condition. If he’s not physically capable of playing, he says so (if he’s asked) and doesn’t apologize for it. Some people interpret that as making excuses or being soft.
The one thing I’d say about Beltran is that sometimes he’s a little passive as a player. That showed up in the called third strike to end the 2006 season, and sometimes when he lays down a bunt instead of going up there to hack. His personality is gentle and sometimes his manner on the field can be that way is well.
It irritates me that some people think he’s not willing to play through pain.
to Annie Savoy, saying Beltran plays apprehensively is ridiculous. Do you remember last year at all? The guy ran into walls in the outfield for us, he made that incredible catch on the hill in houston, risking injury doing that, putting it all out there to make the catch. The guy plays hard. He’s one of those players that looks effortless when he’s doing it, and that might be one of the things that rubs people the wrong way. It’s like he’s gliding out there, people interpret that as not going hard, when in fact he is, he just doesn’t need to pump his fist, or make faces, or look all out of control. He’s in control, thats the point, he’s such a good athlete, it looks effortless. It’s an embaressment that Mets fans don’t appreciate him more. ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE LEAGUE, besides probably Cleveland and maybe Seattle, would take Beltran to play CF for them.
He’s definitely willing to play through pain… that isn’t the question.
The question is, does he adjust well to playing through pain?
The answer is… not always. Often when he is admirably playing through pain, he’s either trying to do things he could only do when healthy or looking apprehensive about doing even what he’s still capable of…
It’s not that he’s soft but I do doubt how… hm… I doubt if he gets everything out of his talent when he IS playing hurt.
I have no idea how you remedy that but there must be some coaches out there for that kind of thing.
Oh, by the by, the apprehensiveness? Never in the field. Dude is clearly a proud man on the topic of his defense, probably too proud a man, really.
On the bases and at the plate? When he’s playing dinged up, yeah.
Well, I still don’t get it. The guy’s performance speaks for itself. He’s one of, it not the, best CFers in the game.
The bottom line…is that Beltran is going to have a great year!
Let’s stay positive….we need him to do that!
Sloppy: You make an excellent point about the Mets have made some good trades over the years. But twice in the teams history after World Series wins the team has been in excellent position to follow it with several years of continued success and they did not due to poor front office moves. Our all-time hit leader remains Ed Kranepool (although Wright and Reyes will soon fix that). Ed Kranepool. Two championships in 40 years is better than many teams have. But they easier could have been like the Yankees or Devils of the last decade or the Islanders in the early 1980s. I think this team can win the NL East and go to the world series but the fact remains they had one of the worst regular season chokes ever six months ago.
He is a great player there is no doubt about it. But we know the reality in New York. You have to win the World Series to gain ultimate respect. Met fans want there stars out there every day producing. No excuses. Jeter plays hurt and he produces big time..and wins..no excuses. That’s what we need out of Beltran.
http://www.recreateyourlifenow.com
Dan: I totally agree with you about this franchise’s history. The team went downhill after 1969 because of a few horrible trades. No doubt. The 73 pennant was a fluke, the fuirst divisional inbalance of geat magnitude, and the ability of a few great pitchers to shut down a big time offense for a few days. The 86-88 team I vblame on a combination of not recognizing soon enough that Carter and Hernandez were toast and the self destruction of the star kiddies.
As for the collapse. I think this club will face a pressure that they aren’t ready for and we’ll see for sure when they hit their first slump or lose their first series to the Phils. Phils sweep them fiorst or second time they meet, look out…. Think guys from losing orgs like the Nats are ready foir the assault of the NY press when they smell blood. No way…..
We’ll see how this team responds to its collapse. The Dodgers responded well in 1952 and 1963. It’s early but the Rangers are responding after blowing that 5-0 in Montreal. But the Phillies in 1965 and Angels in 1996 didn’t.
Losing one hockey game is not comparable to the great collapse of 06….I guess you’re a hockey fan. Can you explain to me why some hockey games are more important than others in the standings? Why does a team get ounihed because two other teams went past regulation? Would you like it if the losign team got a boost in the standings for losing a baseball game in 13 innngs?
What about the 79 Sox. They won 91 games but finished 11.5 games back, but were ahead of the Yanks.
Don’t forget the 69 Cubs that we love so well for their dive. They began their slow but steady return to mediocrity in 70.
I mentioned the hockey game because it was recent and an historic collapse. The Montreal Canadiens had never come from a 5 goal deficit in their illustrious 99 year history.
I don’t bet but I think the Mets will win the NL East this year. By law one team has to.
How could I forget the 1969 Cubs and that disciple of the soft-spoken word Leo Durocher? Especially in 1970 when it took only 89 wins for the Pirates.
Dan, You are the hockey man…. I’m glad the Rangers won in the 90s but when they made some games worth 3 points and some games worth 2, I gave up on the game…. I don’t know if there is another sport that rewards losing like hockey does.