The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Election The polls are suggesting that the election can go either way. The popular vote is even in most polls, though Newsweek gives Bush the edge. A number of battleground states are too close to call. Most who are still undecided likely won't vote, or will vote against the incumbent. The trend in Florida has been negative for Bush; if he loses there, unless he can "steal" Pennsylvania or Michigan, he will be defeated. On the other hand, voter turnout and organization are essential, and Jeb Bush should give his brother the edge in Florida in that regard. My gut feeling is that Kerry is going to win. Liberals are more motivated than in the 2000 election, and Nader will be less of a factor than four years ago. Arafat's Fate Some have suggested that Israel is better off if Arafat survives his illness, as Israel would likely be faced with U.S. pressure to make concessions to a new PA leader. I disagree with this thinking. It's not as though Israel hasn't been pressured by the U.S. to make concessions over the last couple of years, even after Arafat was shunned by the Bush Administration. Since refusing to deal with Arafat, Bush pushed the road map on Israel, has insisted on a virtually complete ban on construction in Judea and Samaria, and pushed for the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and part of Samaria. Israel will be in a better strategic position when Arafat dies. While other PA leaders with involvement in terrorism might be given too much deference - especially in a climate that would likely be sympathetic to Palestinians following the death of their leader - with Arafat gone there would at least be a chance of an eventual end to terrorism. A new PA leader with control over security forces couldn't use the excuse that Arafat isn't letting him take action against terror. Most importantly, with Arafat, Yassin and Rantisi dead, the psychological stench of defeat would hover over Palestinians. Thursday, October 28, 2004
Letter to the Times Though the New York Times almost never publish my letters, I have e-mailed them the following letter to the editor: Dear Editor, The editorial concerning the approval by Israel's Parliament of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza (“Pulling Out Of Gaza,” October 28), refers to the Jews living there as “7,500 militant Jewish residents.” In fact, the Jews living in Gaza are anything but militant. Most work in agriculture, or as teachers in nearby Israeli cities like Ashkelon. In contrast to the West Bank - where a minority of Jewish residents is extreme - there have been no reported incidents of Jews in Gaza attacking or harassing their Arab neighbors, even as many Jews in Gaza have been murdered or maimed by Palestinian terrorists. The threats against Sharon have not emanated from Jews in Gaza, who are recognized as moderates and have repeatedly emphasized that their opposition to the dismantling of their communities will be conducted solely through legal means. Bill Buckner When I started following baseball as a little boy in the late '70's and early '80's, there weren't too many players on the Mets to root for, so my favorite player was Bill Buckner, who played for the Cubs, a division rival of the Mets. Buckner might have been a Hall of Famer if he had stayed healthy late in his career and reached 3000 hits; he finished his career with 2715. The blame placed on Buckner for the Red Sox loss in 1986 has always been absurd. Somehow there is a myth that if Buckner had cleanly fielded Mookie Wilson's grounder, the Sox would have been champions. In fact, Buckner's error broke a 5-5 tie in the bottom of the tenth of Game 6. But Calvin Schiraldi, who blew a 5-3 lead in Game 6 and then lost Game 7 too, was far more responsible. Last night some Red Sox fans had a large sign saying that they "forgive" Buckner. Buckner's response reminds me why he was my favorite player: "This whole thing about being forgiven and clearing my name, you know, I mean ... cleared from what? What did I do wrong? It's almost like being in prison for 30 years and then they come up with a DNA test to prove that you weren't guilty. "I've gone through a lot of, what I feel, undeserved bad situations for myself and my family over a long period of time, and for someone to come up to me and say, 'Hey, you're forgiven.' I mean, it just kind of brings a really bad taste in my mouth." Buckner is absolutely right. He had a great career and played hurt throughout the '86 season. For some reason, Johnny Pesky was never maligned by Boston fans like Buckner was. In Game 7 of the World Series - ironically against the St. Louis Cardinals - Pesky was said to have held the ball while Enos Slaughter scored from first. Whether Pesky actually hesitated and held the ball is now a matter of controversy - and it is more likely than not that if he did hold the ball it was for only about a second - but for decades he was blamed for the Red Sox loss. Despite this, following his retirement, Pesky managed the Red Sox and served as a broadcaster for the team. Never was he subjected to the abuse that Buckner has incurred. Times On Gaza Today's New York Times has an editorial expressing "mixed emotions" about Knesset approval of withdrawal from Gaza. The Times laments that Israel is not unilaterally pulling out of Judea and Samaria too. The Times libels Jews living in Gaza, who are referred to as "7,500 militant Jewish residents." In reality, Gaza's Jewish residents are, with a few exceptions, quite moderate. John Franco and the Mob John Franco was once a pretty good, if inconsistent, closer, but for about the last five years Mets fans have been wondering why the Wilpons have kept Franco around, overpaying a largely ineffective middle reliever. Today's New York Sun may have the answer, reporting that Franco has had ties to Mafia leaders. According to the Sun, Franco may be called to testify in the racketeering and murder trial of a mob gangster. Perhaps the Wilpons were afraid of the consequences of cutting Johnny loose. In other Mets news, the team interviewed Jim Riggleman for its vacant managerial position yesterday. Over eight season with the Padres and Cubs, Riggleman compiled an unimpressive 486-598 record. Of course, prior to joining the Yankees, Joe Torre lost more than 1000 games managing the Mets, Braves and Cardinals, and Torre's 1996 hiring to replace Buck Showalter was ridiculed in the print media and on WFAN. Still, the Mets are all over the place in their search for a manager, and appear to have no idea what they are seeking. Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Tehilim for Arafat Haaretz reports that according to Palestinian sources, "Yasser Arafat's health has deteriorated and he has lost consciousness." Let us all pray for Arafat's imminent death, and a more peaceful future for Israel. Boston Red Sox We are about to experience a monumental event in baseball history. 18 years to the night that the Mets defeated the Red Sox in Game 7 of the 1986 World Series, the Red Sox have another chance to finally win the World Series. Probably only a few dozen lucid Red Sox fans remember the team's last victory 86 years ago. After this, there will be no more chants of "1918." The Red Sox and their fans will no longer be "long suffering." It's a shame that Nomar Garciaparra is no longer on the team for this. Unfortunately, Boston's domination may come at the expense of a friend of mine. Lured by free tickets behind the Cardinals' dugout, he booked a flight from LA to St. Louis for tomorrow, in time for Game 5. Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Bush vs. Kerry: Who's Better For Israel I've never bought into the idea that George W. Bush is great for Israel and John Kerry would be terrible and find it frustrating when Jewish conservatives act as though Bush's record on Israel and its interests has been perfect, even while attacking Kerry for taking positions on the security fence or a final status agreement that are not really different from Bush's. I also don't understand why Kerry's support for broad abortion rights is constantly mentioned by Orthodox Republicans as a reason to vote Bush, while Bush's rejection of gun control and funding for stem cell research are supposedly in the interests of Jews. Why any Orthodox Jew in New York would view gun control as adverse to his or her interests is beyond me. Getting back to Israel, Bush pushed the road map on Israel, demanded a Palestinian state and forced Ariel Sharon to accept one, accepts no settlement growth, strongly criticized the security fence, and his vision of a final status agreement is one in which Israel will keep only a tiny portion (5 percent or less) of Judea and Samaria. Early in his administration Bush sent Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni and others to meet with Arafat and criticized Israeli military actions. Over the last two years, however, Bush has largely supported Israel's war on terror. He has also vetoed a number of outrageously anti-Israel UN Resolutions, and prevented Israel from being internationally isolated. In a second term, Bush would likely put more pressure on Israel. Based on that, I felt that while Kerry's positions are far from ideal, in a first term, Kerry's positions on Israel would likely not differ much from Bush's. There's really no way to know for sure, but Richard Holbrooke has changed my mind. During the Clinton Administration, Holbrooke was US ambassador to the United Nations and Assistant Secretary of State. He was considered to be relatively friendly to Israel. Holbrooke is a senior foreign policy adviser to Kerry and a candidate to be Secretary of State in a Kerry Administration. In a recent New York Times Magazine feature about Kerry, Holbrooke is quoted saying: "We're not in a war on terror, in the literal sense. The war on terror is like saying 'the war on poverty.' It's just a metaphor. What we're really talking about is winning the ideological struggle so that people stop turning themselves into suicide bombers." Just a metaphor? Ideological struggle? Sounds like someone who would respond to a Hamas bombing by calling everyone together for a summit, something Clinton repeatedly did, and Bush at first emulated, before giving Israel some latitude to defend itself. Worse, Friday night on The O'Reilly Factor, Holbrooke explained how Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East: Kerry, Holbrooke said, will "reach out to the moderate Arab states. He'd put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia above all." I'm not naive. Bush has at times pressured Israel too and as stated above, in a second term he will apply at least as much pressure. But for Holbrooke to feature pressure on Israel as the way Kerry will improve the situation in the Middle East is quite disturbing. To Holbrooke and other senior members of the Clinton Administration, pressuring Israel "above all" is the knee jerk reaction and policy approach whenever things are messy in the Middle East. Whether or not Holbrooke is Secretary of State, this thinking must be rejected. Holbrooke's inclusion of Israel with Syria and Saudi Arabia is also outrageous. Why is Israel being grouped with two dictatorships, one of which supports Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups, and the other which for years supported al Qaeda Wahabi extremists? Bush, of course, is for from perfect on this ground, insisting on treating Saudi Arabia as a close friend and ally, but at least he has ended the love affair between the White House and the Assad family. I'm quite concerned about Bush in a second term, and find some of his positions to be far from ideal, but have concluded that based on the information available to the public, a Kerry Administration would more likely than not be worse for Israel. Sunday, October 24, 2004
Questions about Unilateral Withdrawal Tomorrow the Knesset will debate Ariel Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and part of Samaria. The Knesset vote is scheduled for Tuesday; Sharon will win that vote due to the support of Arab and leftist parties. While I'm not sure it's appropriate for those of us outside Israel to take a strong position on either side of the issue, I think it is proper and worthwhile to ask questions challenging Sharon. Here are five such questions: 1. The settlement project was a major policy decision of all Israeli prime ministers from Eshkol through Barak. Admittedly the Labor prime ministers had more limited ambitions than the Likud leaders, but all were supporters of settlement in at least parts of the territories captured in 1967. Was this policy a mistake? 2. If the answer to the above question is (whether wholly or partially) yes, then Ariel Sharon has quite a bit of explaining to do. After all, as defense minister, housing minister and foreign minister, Sharon was the leading advocate of settlements, including, and even especially, those in Gaza. Sharon has hinted that things look different from the perspective of prime minister. But he has never elaborated. What does he now know that he didn't know while in previous senior cabinet positions? He hasn't said, but after three decades of stridently calling for settlement throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza, doesn't he have a duty to explain his shift, to Israelis generally and to Yesha residents in particular? 3. In April, Sharon called a Likud referendum on just a couple of weeks notice. He insisted that the results be binding, with withdrawal opponents accepting the outcome if a majority voted in favor of his plan, and promised to do the same if a majority rejected the plan. Should Sharon's defeat in the Likud referendum and his refusal to accept the results be accepted as part of the political process, or should he be held to his promise to Likud members? 4. There are pros and cons to staying in Gaza and northern Samaria. The pros are mainly that the IDF will no longer have to defend the settlements and that Israel can relieve the demographic burden by disengaging from areas that are very densely populated with Arabs. On the con side, the missiles that now land in Gush Katif and Sderot will land in Ashkelon post-withdrawal, the IDF will have less freedom of action and fewer intelligence sources once it withdraws, unilateral withdrawal will embolden Palestinian terror groups, and thousands of Jews will be evicted from their homes even without a peace (or even a ceasefire) agreement. Sharon has failed to emphasize either the pros or cons. Indeed, he has ignored substantive discussion of his plan. He announced his plans to withdraw in an interview with Yoel Marcus, a left-wing Haaretz columnist. Why have the substantive arguments been ignored by Sharon? Why hasn't he explained the basis for his plan to the people? 5. What will happen when, after withdrawal, Hamas and other terror groups attack Israel from Gaza? Will Israel reoccupy Gaza just like it reoccupied Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jenin, Nablus and Hebron in 2002? Or will it refrain from major military action, as has been the case in southern Lebanon since the 2000 withdrawal? Willie Randolph Reports that the Mets plan to hire Willie Randolph to be the new manager are disturbing. Apparently all he needs to do is not completely botch his interview tomorrow. The main problem with this is that Randolph has not even interviewed for the job yet. How can the Mets decide that he will get the job before even speaking with him? Originally I wanted Randolph, John Stearns or Bobby Valentine to be the manager. Last week I posted that Randolph appeared to be losing momentum; that post was immediately followed by all the rumors that Randolph was the clear frontrunner. Now that the Mets front office wants to hire him before even speaking to him, I have a bad feeling about Randolph. He reminds me of Buddy Harrelson, who was a beloved Mets hero before succeeding Davey Johnson as manager. Harrelson was also a nice guy with no managerial experience. Hiring a Yankees favorite to be Mets manager is sort of like the Rangers hiring of Bryan Trottier as coach, something that failed miserably. That said, if Randolph blows Mets GM Omar Minaya away in his interview tomorrow, then by all means he should be hired. The interview process is designed to give a number of candidates a shot to articulate how they would turn the Mets around. That process should have included Stearns and Valentine, but apparently won't, even though mediocre outcasts are being brought in for reasons nobody can figure out. Giving Randolph the job just because the Mets think it would be a good PR move is eerily reminiscent of all of the Mets mistakes and calls into question the notion that Minaya really has "full autonomy." Friday, October 22, 2004
Jewish Clients on Shabbos Today, a Jewish client in Israel has been calling me about a situation that must be taken care of immediately. In part, it involves an elderly relative in New York who passed away and had no children; her burial needs to be arranged. It is already shabbos in Israel and while I'd prefer not to speak with someone when it is shabbos for him, I have a duty to assist the client and also to do what I can to respect the deceased relative. My approach will probably be to take my client's calls but not to call him. I don't think there is any issue of lefnei iver in taking another person's calls. Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Roger Clemens Lost in the excitement over the Yankees/Red Sox series is that if the Astros win today, Roger Clemens will start Game 1 of the World Series on Saturday night. Whether the game is at Fenway Park or Yankee Stadium, it would be quite memorable. Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Bobby Valentine The murmurs about a potential return to the Mets by Bobby Valentine persist. Here's my take: Bobby V really wants to come back. He could put a stop to all the rumors by saying he's happy managing in Japan, but he hasn't. GM Omar Minaya is interested in interviewing Valentine. Technically, he has authority from owner Fred Wilpon and son Jeff to hire anybody he wants. However, the Wilpons are doing everything they can to obstruct hiring Valentine by insisting that the new manager be paid a relatively low salary. Valentine, however, may call their bluff. In other words, he may be willing to come back for a much lower salary than he was making in 2002, and for less than the $2.2 million he is being paid in Japan or the $2.3 million that Art Howe will be making in 2005 and 2006 for doing nothing (and he made in 2002 and 2003 for doing almost nothing). Minaya, however, is not yet sure whether he wants to hire Valentine or Texas Rangers hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo (my gut feeling is that Willie Randolph's chances have diminished). And while he supposedly has full autonomy, he probably won't hire Valentine if the Wilpons express discomfort or opposition. If Minaya decides on Valentine, he can then tell Valentine that money is an issue and let Bobby V decide then and there - on short notice - whether to take a pay cut or stay in Japan. Minaya knows that if it's leaked that he wants to hire Valentine but the Wilpons will only offer a low salary, the fans will demand that Valentine be compensated at a rate consistent with his experience and record. That's why a formal interview with Valentine will only happen at the end of the process, with last week's meeting between Valentine and Minaya spun as just a dinner among old buddies. Anti-Semitic Fans On Sunday, I was sitting in section 329 at the Jets game, not my usual seat. To my right were two 49ers fans, one male and one female. They drank about 4 or 5 beers each. Early in the second quarter, a frum man and his son, about 9 years old, arrived in the row in front me, right in front of the two 49ers fans. Father and son both wore large black velvet yarmulkas. There are not a lot of observant Jews at Jets games. Indeed, there are not a lot of blacks, Asians or Hispanics either. This is much different than a baseball, basketball or even hockey game in the New York area. When the frum father and son arrived, the female 49er fan to my right derisively gestured about them to her boyfriend. They both laughed. "Do you see them," she whispered to him, "let's spill beer on them." He responded, "maybe later." I was wearing a Jets cap and jersey and had a three day stubble, so I did not look like an Orthodox Jew who grew up in Boro Park. At halftime I briefly thought about warning the frum man about these two, but decided against it. Why get them stressed and take away their enjoyment of the game. I moved to a lower section in the fourth quarter. No beer was spilled up to that point. The Jets came back to win, so the 49ers fans left unhappy. Mariano Rivera I'm getting tired of hearing about how Yankees closer Mariano Rivera blew saves in two consecutive games. Anybody who actually watched the game knows that Rivera is not to blame for last night's Yankees loss. Yes, technically, Rivera blew the save last night. But he came on with a 4-3 lead and runners on first and third and nobody out. He did well to get out of the inning with only the tying run scoring. Clearly Tom Gordon, who has had a terrible series, is responsible for the Yankees blowing their 4-2 lead. Yet Gordon gets a "hold" because he left the game before the Red Sox tied it up. Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Praise to eBay I'm a Mets fan, but you don't have to be a baseball fan, a sports fan, or even a speaker of the English language to look forward to the Yankees vs. Red Sox series. I'd been hoping to go to tomorrow night's game, in which Pedro Martinez will pitch for Boston, and checked several times on eBay and Craigslist, to no avail. People scoffed at my offers of $150 per upper deck ticket and routinely demanded $250 or more per bad seat. Then this afternoon a listing appeared on eBay for two tickets in the upper tier box right by third base, on the aisle. The seats have a face value of $96 apiece. The asking price? A bargain at $230 total, including Fed Ex. I was initially skeptical, but the seller has perfect feedback - 249 for 249 - and indeed in the past I've bought Nets tickets from him. I immediately bought the seats. I'll regret it Thursday morning - I'll have to take the train home from the Bronx to Manhattan to Queens - but can't wait for the game. Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Yechi A couple of days ago, Simcha of Hirhurim wrote: I make sure to only go to the concerts in Flatbush or Boro Park, and not in Crown Heights, after an experience a few years ago in which the whole audience was shouting out "Yehi adoneinu, moreinu ve-rabeinu, melekh ha-moshiah le-olam va-ed." Flying home from Israel on Sunday, there were several Lubavitch passengers doing kiruv on their fellow passengers. One person went around the plane with a lulav and esrog and asked people to make a bracha. Nothing wrong with that. However, after giving the words of the bracha to those who agreed to use the lulav and esrog and before telling them to shake the lulav, the Lubavitcher had the passengers say "Yechi adoneinu, moreinu v'rabeinu, melech hamoshiach l'olam vaed." (English translation: May our Master, Teacher and Rebbe, the King Moshiach, live forever.) It's one thing for Lubavitch chasidim to believe in the rebbe as moshiach and shout out "yechi," but I found telling naive secular Israelis to say it as part of the blessing of the lulav to be quite offensive. Shul On Simchas Torah Paul Shaviv laments that "Simchat Torah has become a poor imitation of Purim in too many places. It seems to have too little real religious 'Simchah', and not a deal of meaningful 'Torah'. It is wild, and it is, I am sad to say, in many places, tied in with alcohol." Another trend I find disturbing - in some areas and shuls only - is that the davening on simchas torah is turned into a farce. Simchas torah in the Upper West Side is very enjoyable, even if one isn't interested in the singles scene. The streets are filled with observant Jews and everyone stays late for the hakafos and to socialize. Unfortunately, however, services can be even less serious than on Purim. On Purim, people in shul take the readings of Megilas Esther seriously, even if they get completely drunk the rest of the time. On Simchas Torah in Ohev Zedek, the chazan for mussaf has, while saying shmona esrei, had buckets of water spilled on him, been picked up and moved away from the bimah, and been interrupted by loud singing. Two years ago on simchas torah evening in OZ, Congressman Jerry Nadler came with Carl McCall, who was then Comptroller of the State of New York and a candidate for New York State Governor (he lost, of course, to George Pataki). The atmosphere then actually wasn't so wild, but McCall appeared to be in shock by the relative lack of seriousness. Americans in the Moslem Quarter Not only is Jerusalem packed this succos, visitors from America appear more comfortable hanging out in the downtown area. On Saturday night, the Ben Yehuda/Zion Square area was packed with visitors. During succos last year the hotels were more full than the streets. On Friday night thousands came to the Kotel. Walking home through the shuk in the Moslem Quarter, an Arab man kept yelling out "good shabbos" and "zei gezunt." He probably was hoping to elicit a friendly response, though almost all passers-by ignored him and continued to head out of the Moslem Quarter toward Jaffa Gate and the western part of Jerusalem. One Orthodox guy - I think American but possibly European - responded to the Arab by telling him to "drop dead." I'm not sure the Arab guy heard him, but this is a good example of the stupidity of some American Orthodox Jews who think such behavior is impressive or macho. What good could come from expressing unnecessary hostility to an Arab right in middle of the Muslim Quarter? I'm sure that Israelis (except for the fanatical ones) would not have acted in a similar manner. I witnessed something similar on Shavuos in 1995, when thousands of people walked to the Kotel through the shuk at around 4:30 A.M. A couple of young Americans made a point of singing loudly to wake up the Arabs in the area. Speaking of the Kotel, last Tuesday night I went to daven maariv and say some tehilim. At the Kotel, thousands were present at the induction of new 18 year old Givati Bridge soldiers. It was a bittersweet ceremony. A number of people, including Rabbi Yisrael Weiss, Chief Military Chaplain of the IDF, spoke, and Hatikvah was sung. Families and friends hugged the new soldiers at the conclusion. It's humbling to realize that these youngsters are now devoting the next three years (two years in the case of the girls) of their lives to Israel's security and sad to think that, G-d forbid, not all of them will come home. In addition to the soldiers and their families and friends, many who were davening at the Kotel watched the ceremony, including charedi youths. It was clear that they have great respect for the new soldiers. The trend toward integration of charedim into Israeli society is definitely underway, even if the process will be a slow one. Mets Moves On August 1, just after the awful trades of almost all of the Mets' top prospects, I wrote: "The Mets won't win with [Jim] Duquette or Art Howe. They should replace both at season's end with Omar Minaya and (former Mets player and coach and current Triple A manager) John Stearns. Should but won't." More recently, on the day Art Howe was fired, I wrote, "Ideally, Bobby Valentine would be rehired... Bobby V would restore credibility to the Mets. If, as is much more likely, the Mets decide to go with a cheaper alternative, Willie Randolph and John Stearns would be two of my top choices for the job." I was in Israel when Minaya was hired and have no idea what public or media reaction has been, but I certainly am pleased. The Wilpons had little respect for Jim Duquette and didn't let him do his job. For his part, Duquette came across as far too much of a yes man, unlike Brian Cashman of the Yankees, who has stood his ground against George Steinbrenner. Still, Duquette did get a raw deal being fired as GM and essentially being demoted back to his old job as assistant GM after only a season and a half, after the Mets for years refused to allow him to interview for GM positions with other teams even as they let Minaya and Gerry Hunsicker leave their assistant GM positions to become the GM of the Expos and Astros, respectively. Will the Wilpons really let Minaya have "full autonomy"? I doubt it. Almost nothing the Wilpons promise remains in place a year later. But they will likely give him more autonomy than they gave Duquette to work out a long-term plan to make the Mets competitive again. Minaya's trades as Expos GM haven't all been good ones, but with a 5 year deal he'll be more secure to position the Mets for long-term success than Duquette or Steve Phillips ever were. I still don't think the Mets will bring back Valentine, though I'm sure he'd come back if offered a 3 year deal. The move would be a gamble; Valentine wasn't effective in 2002, but I think he'd get something out of young guys like Victor Diaz, Eric Valent, Jeff Keppinger and Craig Brazell as well as a couple of young pitchers. Howe was obsessed with ensuring that Todd Zeile reached 2000 career hits, and in the process let Zeile bat 348 times for a .233 average, while Valent, whose performance was far superior, inexcusably got much less playing time. The Mets need as many young (and cheap) players on the roster so that they can sign one or two free agent stars, rather than four or five mediocre veterans like Kris Benson and Richard Hidalgo. The four aforementioned players, plus David Wright and Jose Reyes would provide the Mets with six players making a total of about $2 million. | "
