A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

[batmagadanleadoff]

History in the Making for Marlon Byrd
03 May 2013 by Howard Megdal in Today's Mets headlines

What outfield? I�ll tell you what outfield. It�s May 3, and Marlon Byrd is already close to setting a team record. Marlon Byrd, thanks to his strikeout on Wednesday, has now struck out in 12 straight appearances. This has mostly come in starts, but he�s also come off the bench for clutch strikeouts in a pair of games during the streak. No, he isn�t atop the team leaderboard just yet. In fact, if we include pitchers, he has a good distance to cover to match Gary Gentry�s 21 straight games with a strikeout, from May through September, 1969. The Mets won the World Series that year, you know. Coincidence? But let�s limit things to hitters. Where does Byrd�s streak rate? Just ahead of him, with 13 straight, are Ed Charles, 1967, Tommie Agee, 1970, Dave Kingman 1976, David Wright, in 2010 during his 161-strikeout year, and Lucas Duda, in the last 12 games he played in 2012 before getting sent down to Triple-A. Of that group, only Kingman walked less than Byrd over a similar span, and Kingman hit four home runs. If Byrd can strike out Friday, Jeff Kent�s 1995 streak of 14 is in reach on Saturday. Should he reach that, he�ll be trying to strike out Sunday to tie David Wright�s 15 straight in May 2010 (what an odd 2010 Wright had!), along with the 15 straight strikeout games for Kirk Nieuwenhuis had from April 24 through May 9, 2012, as major league pitchers began to find the holes in his swing. If he can strike out through the weekend, tying the team record for non-pitchers will be a single K away. It is held by: Todd Hundley, during his difficult 1998 comeback while simultaneously learning left field, Ryan Thompson in 1995, Dave Kingman from September 1975 through April 1976 (32 strikeouts in 16 games! Kingman always went big), and Donn Clendenon in September 1969. A month later, Clendenon was the MVP of the World Series. Will the same be true for Byrd? Hard to imagine, since the World Series isn�t played in June. But no one thought the 1969 Mets would win it all, either. What outfield!

http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/05/03/history-in-the-making-for-marlon-byrd/

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Bite me, Megdal, sez Byrd (and me)

[Edgy MD]

No strikeouts, either.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Byrd with the improbable homer today after Megdal's critical Byrd piece is posted here. And The Captain with his 2nd HR in as many days after we note a power outage in his game. Someone should alert Ike Davis to the Hot Seat Ike thread. Maybe we should start a Harvey Sucks thread, too.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Byrd Shit Redux.

You�re Going To Miss Marlon Byrd When He�s Gone
28 June 2013, 10:42 am by Howard Megdal

Seriously, what were the odds I was going to need that headline. 15-1? 150-1? Marlon Byrd entered 2013 as a 35-year-old outfielder who posted an OPS+ of 32 in 2012, then got busted for using performance enhancing drugs. In other words: that 32 OPS+ was artificially inflated. But after last night�s heroics, the go-ahead two-run homer in the eighth, the perfect throw to cut down the would-be tying run in the ninth, Marlon Byrd is hitting .260/.312/.495, good for a 122 OPS+. That�s good for seventh-best among major league right fielders. And even the defense, per ultimate zone rating, grades out as slightly above average. Here were Byrd�s inspired words after Thursday night�s win: �We didn�t come here to [have] a 100-loss season. We didn�t come here to just play for 4th place, 3rd place. We came here to win.� Which, you know, good for him. Center field may be a wasteland. Lucas Duda proved he can�t play the outfield sufficiently well to carry his bat, again. But Byrd in right field has worked out nicely. The question is whether the Mets learned from their odd decision not to trade Scott Hairston last summer. Hairston had an awfully similar 2012 to Byrd, with a slugging-heavy 118 OPS+. For some reason, Sandy Alderson refused to deal Hairston unless receiving a team�s �top-three prospect� in return, which, no. But the Mets are hardly overstocked with so much talent, particularly at the upper levels of the farm system, that more couldn�t have helped. Hairston�s contributions in August/September 2012 weren�t sufficient to justify not flipping him for anything, including a lottery pick like an A-ball pitcher, etc. The same is true of Byrd, of course, who is only signed through this year, whose power totals are inflated by an unsustainable 18.3% home run rate on fly balls, and whose previous 1,864 plate appearances of 97 OPS+ hitting from 2010-2012 are likely more predictive than the .881 OPS he�s put up in 156 plate appearances since May 1. Other teams know this, too, but could hope to catch lightning in a bottle and add some hitting down the stretch. Whatever is the best deal to be had for Byrd, the Mets ought to make it. And then, the offensive downgrade will be pretty steep in August and September. But doing things like giving regular at-bats to Kirk Nieuwenhuis, for instance, makes more sense when planning for 2014 anyway. Still: you�re going to miss Marlon Byrd when he�s gone. And who thought that was even possible back in March?

http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/06/28/youre-going-to-miss-marlon-byrd-when-hes-gone/

[Edgy MD]

Still: you�re going to miss Marlon Byrd when he�s gone. And who thought that was even possible back in March?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree that trading Byrd is probably the wisest move, but I'm not convinced that he can't be a contributor to a 2014 contending Mets team, if such a thing should come to pass. He's certainly not a long-term answer in any way, but he could, maybe, be something like what Ray Knight was in 1986.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Whatever is the best deal to be had for Byrd, the Mets ought to make it.

No matter what it is. A warm bucket of piss, a deflated tetherball, the dusty bones of Carl Furillo, whatever is the best offer for Byrd, give him up. I'm not saying don't trade him, but even a modifier like 'reasonable' is too much for Megdal to manage.

97 OPS+ hitting from 2010-2012 are likely more predictive than the .881 OPS he�s put up in 156 plate appearances since May 1.

Way to compare apples to pears. Now I have to do math.

Still: you�re going to miss Marlon Byrd when he�s gone. And who thought that was even possible back in March?

Or even way back on May 3, when you crucified the guy.

Swan Swan H wrote: Bite me, Megdal, sez Byrd (and me)

Again. Still. Always.

[Ceetar]

Byrd, much like Hairston, is a free agent. Maybe the Mets feel 2014 is a more worthwhile year to invest a little extra in a good 4th outfield masher.

Sandy wasn't thrilled with the offerings for Scott at the trade deadline though, and while Byrd is probably a bit better (And defensively too) I'm not sure anything useful is going to available this year either.

I'm fine with him not dumping him for the sake of dumping him, but I know others would rather have anything at all that might possibly be of any value at any time ever. This is one of those minor things that I'm good with whatever Sandy decides.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I can't imagine he'd bring back a whole lot in a trade even now when he's doing OK. That said, Downtown Brown could probably also do what he does for a half-season and if there's something there, then sure.

The relentless angle-hammering really is getting tiresome.

[Lefty Specialist]

Megdal seems to forget that other people have The Google too.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Megdal seems to forget that other people have The Google too.

Yeah. Maybe I'll make up a superterrific extra-clever nickname for him, like Batmags made up eff Wilpon for the team's owner. How about Hacky Megdull?

[ashie62]

If you can get a decent prospect who is as far along as trying to master AA sell....Otherwise keep Byrd here and hope his head doesn't go 8 miles high.

[Zvon]

Ceetar wrote: Byrd, much like Hairston, is a free agent. Maybe the Mets feel 2014 is a more worthwhile year to invest a little extra in a good 4th outfield masher. Sandy wasn't thrilled with the offerings for Scott at the trade deadline though, and while Byrd is probably a bit better (And defensively too) I'm not sure anything useful is going to available this year either. I'm fine with him not dumping him for the sake of dumping him, but I know others would rather have anything at all that might possibly be of any value at any time ever. This is one of those minor things that I'm good with whatever Sandy decides.

I'm with Ceetar. Except that until we have a better right fielder I consider it more than minor. Not major issue though.

[Guest sharpie]

Not signing Hairston has turned out to be a good move. He's batting .160 with 6 home runs and only plays against lefties for a last place team.

[dinosaur jesus]

If Byrd were doing this for the Yankees, it would just be further proof what a genius Cashman is. But in fact he's been better than any of those guys Cashman picked up. A lot better. That's fun to see. And I apologize to Marlon for thinking he was useless.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

sharpie wrote: Not signing Hairston has turned out to be a good move. He's batting .160 with 6 home runs and only plays against lefties for a last place team.

The issue at hand, I believe, isn't whether the team should have SIGNED Hairy-- it's whether they should have tried harder to MOVE him last year (and, similarly, whether Byrd should be moved, even if you're selling for 5-6 jiao on the yuan).

My answers? Yes, "we" should've, and yes, "we" should.

[Edgy MD]

And it's a tired issue, and any guy who sees Byrd almost singlehandedly turn a loss into a win with his offense and his defense, and decides to use it as a reason to re-animated the we-shoulda-traded-Hairy beast has his persepective seriously askew.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Marlon Byrd Trade Primer
08 July 2013, 11:58 am by Howard Megdal

Briefly, what you need to know: Marlon Byrd is 35 years old, makes $700,000 this season, and has an OPS+ of 121. Scott Hairston, just traded by the Cubs for a live A-ball arm, is 33 and has an OPS+ of 76. Here is the value Marlon Byrd provides the Mets beyond 2013: NOTHING. He will be a free agent, and 36 next year. Re-signing him makes little sense. Every at-bat he takes is one not taken by one of the other current Mets who might help in 2014. Now, the Mets elected not to deal Hairston for anything that wasn�t another team�s Top-3 prospect. I have no idea why: this system is in need of many things. Here�s a short list of things, off the top of my head, well short of a top-3 prospect that the Mets don�t have for 2014 in sufficient supply: 1. A center fielder likely to provide an OPS better than .600. 2. A few bullpen arms. 3. A corner outfielder likely to provide an OPS better than .700. If Cesar Puello isn�t that guy, two corner outfielders likely to provide an OPS better than .700. 4. A backup catcher to Travis d�Arnaud capable of respectable MLB production. If d�Arnaud�s injuries don�t allow him to catch regularly next season, two such catchers. 5. A first baseman, with apologies to Josh Satin, likely to provide even league average offense at the position, either as a fallback for Ike Davis, or to replace Ike Davis. (Note: Lucas Duda technically can fill role 3. if you ignore defense, otherwise role 5. But not both.) 6. A backup shortstop to Ruben Tejada, or if Tejada cannot arrest his decline, a starting shortstop of any kind. And so on. Incidentally, Sandy Alderson, when explaining why he elected not to deal Hairston last summer, said what he�d been offered was only duplicating what he already had in his system. The thing is, even duplicating what you already have is a better idea than ending up with nothing. And there�s no draft pick to be had here by letting Byrd sign elsewhere, nor was there with Hairston. The options are: whatever you can get for Byrd. Or nothing. Pretty obvious, right?

http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/07/08/marlon-byrd-trade-primer/

[Guest Swan Swan H]

I don't need to know any of that.

[Ceetar]

Duda will return to LF. Do we have two other outfielders we really want to see regularly? I'd like to see Nieuwenhuis play regularly the rest of the season, and even though I don't have a ton of faith in them amounting to a ton, I'd like to see Lagares and Baxter too. I don't think ending up keeping Byrd is negatively inhibiting anything in regards to figuring out the outfield for 2013 at least.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm not 100 per cent convinced that Byrd can't be a contributor to a contending Mets team in 2014, should they actually be a contending team.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Keeping Byrd negatively inhibits Hacky Megdull's agenda.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Swan Swan H wrote: I don't need to know any of that.

Howie Megdal sez: "Yes you do. Nuf ced."

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not 100 per cent convinced that Byrd can't be a contributor to a contending Mets team in 2014, should they actually be a contending team.

That's true. I wouldn't start him, but he'd be a great 4th guy getting some starts, power off the bench, good defense.

These are the types of guys that you find making contributions to winning teams. Sure, extend Byrd now!

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not 100 per cent convinced that Byrd can't be a contributor to a contending Mets team in 2014, should they actually be a contending team.

If he plays like he's been playing over the last month, month and a half. But I think that's a big if. Your idea has chicken-egg all over it.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Yes, but Byrd DOESN'T offer us anything beyond this season, and he CAN be brought back on a Hairston-like contract almost as easily after a trade as after none, should the Mets want to do so.

If the Mets get red-hot between now and, say, July 25, maybe it's another story*. But otherwise, In terms of overall value, even 2-3 years of an okay, cost-controlled reliever from, say, 2015-2018 is worth more to the franchise than a bump from, say, 70 wins to 74 wins now (and that's assuming Byrd's performance bump is a lasting one).

*Or maybe it's a month-long mirage. Dare to dream.

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: cost-controlled reliever from, say, 2015-2018 is worth more to the franchise than a bump

Sure, get us a live arm and we'll talk. This is probably the make or break point for me.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Ceetar wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: cost-controlled reliever from, say, 2015-2018 is worth more to the franchise than a bump Sure, get us a live arm and we'll talk. This is probably the make or break point for me.

Maybe we can call the Dodgers and see if that Puig guy is available? If they trade him they'll need a right fielder, won't they?

I think I said the last time Batmags graced us with a Megdull piece, but trading Byrd is not in and of itself a good or bad idea. It's what you get that makes it good or bad, and the attitude of 'take whatever you can get' is not 'pretty obvious,' it is preposterous.

[Edgy MD]

It's preposterous but it's supported it's own cottage industry for a year with regard to Hairston.