A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

[Guest Swan Swan H]

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

Not a cottage, a village, and Megdal is the... nah.

[Ceetar]

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

I'm sure it goes back longer than that. Trade Reyes for anything you can get.

[Guest Bitemegdalslegoff]

Previously I Said Marlon Byrd Sucks, But Now He Doesn't And He Should Be Traded
by Hacky Megdull

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, because no one ever had a good year at age 36. Ever. Don't check, because I'm just guessing here, but 36 is really old, right? Every at-bat he takes is one not taken by one of the other current Mets who might help in 2014, or by a guy who will not be part of the team and is just taking up space. Just like the ABs that would have gone to others in 2012. Vinny Rottino, anyone? 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. Towels. All of the 2013 towels have the All-Star logo on them. They will be useless in 2014. 2. Sunflower seeds. New flavors are introduced all the time, and it would be just like the cheap-ass Wilpons to stick the Mets with plain seeds when teams like the Yankees and Phillies are giving their players buffalo-ranch and dill pickle . 3. Striped socks. I like striped socks. The Cardinals have striped socks. 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. How about four catchers? They could line up like an I-formation, and I bet they'd never have a passed ball. I am so much smarter than Sandy Alderson. 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. But not Ike Davis, because, well, I'm not really sure. I know I'm ragging Satin here, but I did it to Byrd in May and look at him now. Oh, and Satin is way above league average, so let's trade him. (Note: Lucas Duda technically can fill role 1, because he uses his own bathrobe, which he bought for $85 at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta. Cheap-ass Wilpons made him buy his own robe.) 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, because you don't have rosters in the minors. Anyone can play. My ex-college roommate once walked on the field at a minor league game and they let him play third base for an inning. Well, that's what he said. He was pretty high at the time. And there�s no draft pick to be had here by letting Byrd sign elsewhere, nor was there with Hairston. Draft picks are important, as I was saying when I advocated giving up a pick to sign Michael Bourn, who has an OPS 22 points lower than Marlon Byrd. Is that helping or hurting my point? I forget now. The options are: whatever you can get for Byrd. Or nothing. Because winning games, pleasing your fans and providing the best support for your young pitchers never matters. Pretty obvious, right?

http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/05/03/h ... rlon-byrd/

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

haha

[Vic Sage]

You can shoot the messenger all you want, but the issue is not about Megdal. It's about maximizing assets so you can build a franchise that doesn't just win a few more games in a down year, but has a sustainable process in place to build winning teams over an extended period.

We SHOULD have traded Hairston last year, since he was having the kind of "sell high" year that Byrd is currently having. Evidence for that is the fact the Cubs just got a live A-ball arm for him when he is hitting like shit, at a higher salary. And we should sell high on Byrd as well (in what one could easily consider a career year for him, when you compare CitiField with the launch pad of Arlington), before he turns back into a pumpkin. In this business, you maximize value and collect as many chips as you can when you can, thereby increase your odds of cashing them in down the road.

Keeping the fans happy? Fans are going to be happy because we end up 5 games under .500 instead of 10 games under? I don't think so (even if Byrd ends up being worth 5 wins, which i doubt), but certainly not THIS fan, so you can speak for yourself on that point. I'd be happier knowing that the management had a consistent and sensible approach to team building (like, for instance, the Cardinals seems to), rather than clinging to a guy who was out of baseball last year, having a last hurrah on his way out the door, because he'll make Zach Wheeler feel better knowing how well the franchise is supporting him.

Oh, and as for OFers I'd rather see getting the ABs currently going to Byrd, so the Mets could make some informed assessments going forward: Nieuhenheis, Valdespin, Lagares, Brown, DenDekkker, Duda (when he comes back), Satin (to see if he can play out there), and (eventually) Puello. Will any of these surpass Byrd's Herculean sub-.800 OPS in RF? NO, probably not, but at least one of them might surpass that fair-middling level of production next year and over the next few years, when the Mets have a shot at contention and Marlon is playing with his grandkids on the porch.

So if we can turn him into a lively A-Ball arm at the deadline, we should do it. Whether that "duplicates" what we already have is entirely irrelevant, since redundancy is essential when the likelihood of players making it up through the system is so unpredictable (especially with pitchers), and top prospects crash and unheralded ones make the grade. You collect as many chips as you can and let the gods of chance sort it out.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: You can shoot the messenger all you want, but the issue is not about Megdal.

He's awful. He's getting worse. And the continued reposting of his articles here diminishes us all.

[metirish]

Edgy MD wrote: Vic Sage wrote: You can shoot the messenger all you want, but the issue is not about Megdal. He's awful. He's getting worse. And the continued reposting of his articles here diminishes us all.

This reposting of articles is a trend I have noticed among the several baseball writers I follow on Twitter....it's kind of annoying.

[batmagadanleadoff]

�The most important things are the hardest to say, because words diminish them�
Stephen King


A blister, not an ESPN photo shoot, explains Matt Harvey's performance

By Howard Megdal
9:51 am Jul. 9, 2013

It's a testament to Matt Harvey that his competent outing on Monday night against the Giants alarmed Mets fans, and prompted Harvey to try to explain himself afterward. He pitched seven innings, gave three earned runs and had one walk and six strikeouts. This would be considered a good line for most pitchers halfway into their first full season in the major leagues. For Harvey, though, it was uncharacteristically poor. He missed spots with pitches that hadn't missed all year. A fastball in on Buster Posey wasn't in enough, and Posey homered in the first. Harvey labored through an eight-pitch at-bat against poor-hitting pitcher Tim Lincecum, before inducing a lineout to end it. The encounter reminded me of his ten-pitch struggle against Ross Detwiler, the Nationals' pitcher, two starts ago. Both were notable because Harvey, who has been overpowering everybody this year, couldn't find the pitch to end either at-bat. Harvey found a rhythm in the later innings, but even then, his next at-bat against Lincecum also went eight pitches (before Harvey found that elusive put-away fastball). And when manager Terry Collins, after Harvey had thrown 107 labor-intensive pitches (the laboring produces more stress on the arm than the pitch-count alone) through six innings, sent him in for the seventh, it was clear Harvey shouldn't have returned, missing with most of his pitches and escaping after giving up a run. This followed an outing against the Diamondbacks that started well, but ended up with Harvey allowing five runs, the most he's given up in his career. The Mets won the game in 16 innings, but the questions remained: Had the best Mets pitcher in 30 years lost his mojo? Had fame gone to his head? Was he enjoying the spotlight too much, posing in ESPN's Body Issue and a New York Post fashion photo shoot? Of course it's too soon for that sort of panic, which makes even less sense once Harvey revealed, following the game, that he's been suffering from a blister over the last three starts. That makes perfect sense. His velocity has been consistent, but his pinpoint location has been off. "It's no excuse for my poor pitching," Harvey said after the game, almost apologizing for a three-game span with 26 strikeouts and four walks over 20 innings. "I feel fine with it, so I've just got to figure some things out and get back out there." Collins had reassuring things to say about workload. After letting the guy with the blister throw 121 pitches, he explained that this weekend, "We're probably going to back him off or not have him pitch, one or the other." Here's hoping the Mets choose the latter. Let Harvey's blister heal. This team isn't contending in 2013. No one has seen a phenomenon quite like Matt Harvey. And the idea that Harvey would make adjustments to deal with an easily remedied, short-term problem like a blister is horrifying. No one should make adjustments when pitching like Matt Harvey. Realistically, taking extra precautions with Harvey would have meant not having him pitch with a blister, and letting it heal. But the Mets don't seem to go in for the preventative thing. Maybe seeing Matt Harvey look like a human pitcher for consecutive starts will be enough to change the team's mind.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2013/07/8531699/blister-not-espn-photo-shoot-explains-matt-harveys-performance

[metirish]

Realistically, taking extra precautions with Harvey would have meant not having him pitch with a blister, and letting it heal. But the Mets don't seem to go in for the preventative thing. Maybe seeing Matt Harvey look like a human pitcher for consecutive starts will be enough to change the team's mind.

lol, Megdal is consistent......

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Yet the legend of Nolan Ryan pitching through his blister issues on testosterone and pickle juice lives on.

OE: And what does this have to do with Marlon Byrd?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Swan Swan H wrote: And what does this have to do with Marlon Byrd?

metirish wrote: Realistically, taking extra precautions with Harvey would have meant not having him pitch with a blister, and letting it heal. But the Mets don't seem to go in for the preventative thing. Maybe seeing Matt Harvey look like a human pitcher for consecutive starts will be enough to change the team's mind. lol, Megdal is consistent......

Megdal's flexible, though. I coulda put this piece in the "Everything' Harvey" thread, or in the "Megdal goes all Megdal on the Mets & Mets Docs" thread. Instead, I put it in the "Byrd Shit" Thread, which has morphed into the "Someone Here Better Stop Posting Megdal's Articles In This Here Forum. I Urge You" thread.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

If you're gonna wallpaper the board with Megdal shit, at least use some good tools. Grainger is a first-rate supply house.

[ashie62]

Byrd leads the team in HR and RBI'S ...WOW

[Centerfield]

Vic Sage wrote: You can shoot the messenger all you want, but the issue is not about Megdal. It's about maximizing assets so you can build a franchise that doesn't just win a few more games in a down year, but has a sustainable process in place to build winning teams over an extended period. We SHOULD have traded Hairston last year, since he was having the kind of "sell high" year that Byrd is currently having. Evidence for that is the fact the Cubs just got a live A-ball arm for him when he is hitting like shit, at a higher salary. And we should sell high on Byrd as well (in what one could easily consider a career year for him, when you compare CitiField with the launch pad of Arlington), before he turns back into a pumpkin. In this business, you maximize value and collect as many chips as you can when you can, thereby increase your odds of cashing them in down the road. Keeping the fans happy? Fans are going to be happy because we end up 5 games under .500 instead of 10 games under? I don't think so (even if Byrd ends up being worth 5 wins, which i doubt), but certainly not THIS fan, so you can speak for yourself on that point. I'd be happier knowing that the management had a consistent and sensible approach to team building (like, for instance, the Cardinals seems to), rather than clinging to a guy who was out of baseball last year, having a last hurrah on his way out the door, because he'll make Zach Wheeler feel better knowing how well the franchise is supporting him. Oh, and as for OFers I'd rather see getting the ABs currently going to Byrd, so the Mets could make some informed assessments going forward: Nieuhenheis, Valdespin, Lagares, Brown, DenDekkker, Duda (when he comes back), Satin (to see if he can play out there), and (eventually) Puello. Will any of these surpass Byrd's Herculean sub-.800 OPS in RF? NO, probably not, but at least one of them might surpass that fair-middling level of production next year and over the next few years, when the Mets have a shot at contention and Marlon is playing with his grandkids on the porch. So if we can turn him into a lively A-Ball arm at the deadline, we should do it. Whether that "duplicates" what we already have is entirely irrelevant, since redundancy is essential when the likelihood of players making it up through the system is so unpredictable (especially with pitchers), and top prospects crash and unheralded ones make the grade. You collect as many chips as you can and let the gods of chance sort it out.

Vic is, as almost always, the notable exception being his love of Jon Snow's redhead girlfriend, correct.

[Lefty Specialist]

Trading Beltran didn't change their fortunes in 2011. But we're all glad they did it now.

Byrd's at just about peak value. If he can be turned into anything remotely useful down the road, pull the trigger. I'm hoping Sandy's burning up the phone lines setting up a bidding war.

[metirish]

Byrd is "great in the clubhouse" too, that's gotta be worth something.....

[Vic Sage]

Vic is, as almost always, the notable exception being his love of Jon Snow's redhead girlfriend, correct.

A man must seek warmth; winter is coming.
I make no apologies.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Among NL right-fielders, only Gerardo Parra has a higher WAR than Byrd. Byrd's on pace to finish the season with 28 HR's. I can't figure how Byrd's WAR is higher than Beltran, being that WAR is a counting stat and Byrd trails Beltran by about 50 PA's and has worse across the board slash lines.

[Chad ochoseis]

Among NL right-fielders, only Gerardo Parra has a higher WAR than Byrd. Byrd's on pace to finish the season with 28 HR's. I can't figure how Byrd's WAR is higher than Beltran, being that WAR is a counting stat and Byrd trails Beltran by about 50 PA's and has worse across the board slash lines.

This is why I don't take black box statistics like WAR too seriously.

For what it's worth, BBRef has Beltran's dWAR at -0.8 and Byrd's at +0.6, which would explain the difference. Byrd a better defensive outfielder than Beltran. Who would've thunk?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Among NL right-fielders, only Gerardo Parra has a higher WAR than Byrd. Byrd's on pace to finish the season with 28 HR's. I can't figure how Byrd's WAR is higher than Beltran, being that WAR is a counting stat and Byrd trails Beltran by about 50 PA's and has worse across the board slash lines. This is why I don't take black box statistics like WAR too seriously. For what it's worth, BBRef has Beltran's dWAR at -0.8 and Byrd's at +0.6, which would explain the difference. Byrd a better defensive outfielder than Beltran. Who would've thunk?

Yeah ... I considered this but didn't bother to look it up, figuring that there's no way Byrd makes up the apparent offensive deficit with his glove.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Chad Ochoseis wrote: Among NL right-fielders, only Gerardo Parra has a higher WAR than Byrd. Byrd's on pace to finish the season with 28 HR's. I can't figure how Byrd's WAR is higher than Beltran, being that WAR is a counting stat and Byrd trails Beltran by about 50 PA's and has worse across the board slash lines. This is why I don't take black box statistics like WAR too seriously. For what it's worth, BBRef has Beltran's dWAR at -0.8 and Byrd's at +0.6, which would explain the difference. Byrd a better defensive outfielder than Beltran. Who would've thunk? Yeah ... I considered this but didn't bother to look it up, figuring that there's no way Byrd makes up the apparent offensive deficit with his glove.

Yeah, the +.6 is really helping Byrd, and while that feels about right, I don't think it feels right that he's more valuable than Beltran. I also doubt it will end that way, which is only lending more fuel to the 'trade him' fire. Beltran, and Hairston, were both a little more consistent and reliable overall, and you knew what you were giving up. With Byrd I think it's definitely possible to convince other teams you're selling more than you really are.

[Edgy MD]

Maybe Byrd is carrying around fewer defensive skills than Beltran, but has outperformed him nonetheless.

We know for a fact that inferior batsmen frequently have better hitting seasons than inferior ones. For some reason, we're prone the belief that ability and performance align nicely on defense, even though we know better. Lord knows, the men who hand out the Gold Gloves have been historically so prone.

[smg58]

It's not like we've had a close look at Beltran to see how his legs are holding up. Beltran was an elite centerfielder once, but Byrd was not so bad there himself and has not had the same injury record.

[ashie62]

Byrd is career wise Beltran-lite..very light..

I love Marlon, but I don't think he would command much at the deadline..

[metirish]

FWIW, likely nothing, but Martino on SNY right now does not think Byrd gets traded......offered no reason. He mentioned that several teams are calling about Parnell.

[ashie62]

metirish wrote: FWIW, likely nothing, but Martino on SNY right now does not think Byrd gets traded......offered no reason. He mentioned that several teams are calling about Parnell.

SELL!![/bigpurple]

[metirish]

Thoughts on trading Parnell?

what to expect in return?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I think I said this in some other thread but the only way I trade Parnell is in a deal where the other guy totally overpays, like totally. No other reason to move him now.

[Edgy MD]

If we don't get Lyle Overbay for him, I'd totally be pissed.

[Vic Sage]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think I said this in some other thread but the only way I trade Parnell is in a deal where the other guy totally overpays, like totally. No other reason to move him now.

This. Parnell is part of the solution, not the problem. He's young, talented, relatively inexpensive, and still under team control. Why on Earth should they trade him unless they're getting more back than he's worth?