Brennan: reign in the post-clinching booze-blasts

55 Comments

We see a lot of beer and champagne celebrations after teams clinch, well, everything. When I’m feeling particularly grumpy and humorless I tend to think that maybe teams should save such celebrations until they win the pennant at the very least because, really, these things are getting a bit rote and scripted and isn’t one celebration enough?

When I’m not feeling grumpy, however — and that’s most of the time — I realize that these are grown men who can and should be able to do whatever the hell they want. And in no instance is my objection to them going to be some sort of puritanical “this is all too much alcohol and debauchery” thing. Unlike Buzz Killington here:

The stunning excess exhibited in these celebrations is perhaps the biggest problem of all. This isn’t a matter of just popping a cork or two or 10; this is an all-out, binged-up, beer and champagne blast. It would be one thing if it were being done in private, but it’s not. It’s there for all of us to see, and it will repeat itself over and over again in the coming weeks.

That was actually Christine Brennan of USA Today, who could not be reached for comment because she was off thinking of the children someplace. Mostly Bryce Harper, who she mentions a lot in this story even though it seemed like the Nationals and Harper took great pains to not have the underage kid drink. Fair enough, though. You don’t want scenes of teenagers boozing it up.

Beyond that, however, I’d personally rather see these team-sanctioned booze blasts than to have them curtailed, which encourages the players to go out on the town to party.  Because if it’s official, you have to imagine that the team is making sure the players all have sober rides home. And as far as I can recall, we’ve never had a DUI incident after one of these clinching blow-outs.  Do it off-site and you’re inviting chaos.

Report: Mets have discussed a Matt Harvey trade with at least two teams

Al Bello/Getty Images
3 Comments

Kristie Ackert of the New York Daily News reports that the Mets have discussed a trade involving starter Matt Harvey with at least two teams. Apparently, the Mets were even willing to move Harvey for a reliever.

The Mets tendered Harvey a contract on December 1. He’s entering his third and final year of arbitration eligibility and will likely see a slight bump from last season’s salary of $5.125 million. As a result, there was some thought going into late November that the Mets would non-tender Harvey.

Harvey, 28, made 18 starts and one relief appearance last year and had horrendous results. He put up a 6.70 ERA with a 67/47 K/BB ratio in 92 2/3 innings. Between his performance, his impending free agency, and his injury history, the Mets aren’t likely to get much back in return for Harvey. Even expecting a reliever in return may be too lofty.

Along with bullpen help, the Mets also need help at second base, first base, and the outfield. They don’t have many resources with which to address those needs. Ackert described the Mets’ resources as “a very limited stash of prospects” and “limited payroll space.”