G-Fafif

All teams' fans want their players named to the All-Star team and all teams' fans, I would guess, would prefer, on some level, they skip the whole thing. Maybe they should mail out certificates and call everybody back to the playground Thursday.

REDS: Taveras, cf Bruce, rf Votto, 1b Phillips, 2b Hernandez, c Encarnacion, 3b Gomes, lf Hairston, ss Cueto, rhp Thunderstorms coming to the area. Could conceivably affect first pitch so as not to waste Johan.

Didn't CPF promote the idea of a virtual Banner Day a couple of years ago? NYT has just thought of it. ]JULY 10, 2009, 6:00 PM The Bedsheet Blog: Send the Mets a Message By JAY SCHREIBER The Mets lack a lot of things these days. Home runs. Victories. Intelligent base-running. The ability to catch pop flies. In 1978, the annual Banner Day let Mets fans have their say at Shea. Post a comment or submit your design for a banner you would display at Citi Field. We�ll publish readers� submissions on Friday. But what�s also missing is Banner Day, the annual on-field parade that allowed fans to comment, with humor, on the Mets� often miserable state of affairs. Back in 1993, for example, Banner Day was a nice antidote for an incomprehensible season in which the Mets finished 44 games under .500, threw firecrackers at fans and sprayed bleach at reporters. �Still Experiencing Technical Difficulties. Stand By,�� read one banner that day. �We Bought Season Seats. Why Are You Here?�� read another. The Mets discontinued Banner Day and have no plans to revive it. But The New York Times has decided to step in and provide an online, virtual version of the actual event. Have a thought, maybe humorous, that sums up the 2009 Mets? Post it here. Better yet, design your own banner and send us an image (JPG files only). We�ll publish the best suggestions in the comments section below and publish the best five user submitted images on Friday, July 17. There are no ground rules for this Bedsheet Blog, except good taste. The Times�s own Elena Gustines suggests, �Don�t Count Your Pop-Ups Until They�re Catched.�� But in a season that�s been both clumsy and comical, there�s plenty of other material to work with.

Right field's hazy past (and Church's imminent demise) explored here[/url:1hx1n9ay] in February.

Bob Klapisch should skip writing columns about baseball. It's only a reminder of his disastrous columns about baseball.

Midway through, Gary noted it was the first time in 30 years that the Mets had gone without either a homer or a steal for six straight games.

One sweet day, early last September at Milwaukee. I reproduce the thought process here: ]Top of the first. After Reyes pops out, Murphy's on first, Wright's up. Howie says Wright has lashed one down the right field line. ALL RIGHT! GO MURPH! SCORE! Murph winds up on third, Wright's on first. WHY DIDN'T MURPHY SCORE? WHY IS WRIGHT ONLY ON FIRST? HOWIE MADE IT SOUND LIKE A DOUBLE! Delgado up. TOTAL DOUBLE PLAY COMING UP. I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAD FIRST AND THIRD, ONE OUT AND WE WON'T SCORE. Delgado singles, scoring Murphy, Wright going to third. Beltran up. BELTRAN'S BEEN ON FIRE...WHICH MEANS I'M EXPECTING TOO MUCH FROM HIM HERE. HE'LL STRIKE OUT. AND I'LL BET DELGADO LOAFED TO FIRST. Beltran walks to load the bases for Church. CAN WE STOP WITH THE CHURCH REHAB PROGRAM? HE'S SUCKED SINCE HE CAME BACK. WHERE'S TATIS? GEEZ JERRY! Church launches a grand slam. YEAH! YEAH! ALL RIGHT RYAN! YEAH! NOW OF COURSE HE'S GOING TO GO BACK TO SLUMPING BECAUSE A HOME RUN DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING FOR THE LONG TERM, IT'S JUST A LUCKY SWING. Good luck Ryan. Keep your head on straight, so to speak.

="MFS62":2j01mofu]I'm thinkin' Ron Swoboda redux.[/quote:2j01mofu] I'd be willing to test that theory in the fourth game of a World Series. Otherwise, I agree with trade for trade's sake. Not a great formula for building a winner, but a decent distraction after a 12-23 stretch. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 05:16 PM ="G-Fafif":1vbv4344]="MFS62":1vbv4344]I'm thinkin' Ron Swoboda redux.[/quote:1vbv4344] I'd be willing to test that theory in the fourth game of a World Series. .[/quote:1vbv4344] As would I, however I think it's more likely that Church is the one playing in that game now. That's the second better player Manuel has (presumably) chased out of here. metirish Jul 10 2009 05:18 PM Do I remember correctly that Randolph didn't like Church , now apparently Manuel didn't either, what gives? Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 05:43 PM Re: why? ="Ceetar":2iip6thy]This is a mind boggling trade. Ryan Church is simply a better baseball player than Francoeur, who has too many consecutive vowels in his name. However, 1. Jerry Manuel obviously didn't like him, and this is the second player he's managed to get rid of that he didn't like. 2. Pressure's on Howard Johnson, to impart some knowledge to a guy with some talent. And some patience. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/07/jeff-francoeur-for-ryan-church-why/[/quote:2iip6thy] Mind boggling? Wright for Wes Helms is mind boggling. This is a trade for a guy with a fair amount of upside, giving up a guy who, at 30, has never proven himself as an everyday player, here or in Washington, and has never been able to get 500 ABs in a season. Clearly your mind is easily boggled. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 10 2009 05:44 PM I guess Francoeur has more upside than Church IF potential can translate to perrformance. If not, it seems to have been done to say Omar did something while Flushing was burning. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 05:45 PM Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 05:48 PM Really we have to see what more moves they make if any and if this is a 2009 trade or edging towards re-building in some way. This really isn't one of those trades that should solicit pissedoffedness from Mets' fans ... but I'd be disappointed if it doesn't 'cause I like to chuckle at them. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 05:49 PM ="bmfc1":109oa161]Omar says that Francoeur is a gold glover: http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/mets/archives/2009/07/church_traded_f.html[/quote:109oa161] So did the Gold Glove voters in 2007. Not to say that they're always dead on, but Francoeur has one more Gold Glove on his mantle than you, me or Ryan Church. By the way, Baseball Reference shows the following sim scores for the past three years: Francoeur: 22: Duke Snider, 23: Greg Luzinski, 24: Harold Baines. Church: 27: Brian Jordan, 28: Chet Laabs, 29: Chet Laabs. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:10 PM Say what you want. If there's got to be trades, challenge trades are fun to track. This also extends the trackablity of the Milledge trade. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:55 PM Oh my god John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:56 PM Jusdt finding out about it here now. What? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 05:58 PM the fuck? Methead Jul 10 2009 06:02 PM Can't believe I have to root for Francoueuer now. We're going from a player management didn't like to a player fans won't want to like. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:03 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 06:11 PM *moved* John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 10 2009 06:04 PM I got nothing against Frenchie, I just... well... I don't know why the Mets would go get a dude with such glaring deficiencies... I mean... it's not like Church was going to write Beethoven's 9th symphony but ... wow. Centerfield Jul 10 2009 06:13 PM Franceour sucks. We shouldn't trade for guys who suck. Benjamin Grimm Jul 10 2009 06:16 PM I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:17 PM ="Ceetar":7neo982y]Look at the numbers for Church in 2007, Francoeur's career year. Church had a better year. They both in my opinion have the same amount of upside, and they also have roughly the same amount of major league service, so given that Church is, and has been, better, I don't see how Francoeur has more upside just because he's younger.[/quote:7neo982y] Of course he has more upside because he is younger. Bill James proved that players tend strongly to peak at age 27. Recent studies have pushed that up to 29-30. In any case, that's Francoeur's future and Church's past. And this stuff about Church being better? The guy has managed 320 ABs ONCE in his career. When he was Francoeur's age he was just breaking into the majors. Washington thought so little of him they traded him for half of Lastings Milledge. You say nobody gave him a chance. He's been in the majors for six years, and nobody lasts six years without getting a chance. After six years you don't play because you don't deserve to play. For one game, tomorrow, against a righthander, I'd still take Church. And, I don't have exceptionally strong feelings one way or another about the deal, really. But to call this 'mind boggling' shows that, as you are, as you nearly always are, driven by agenda rather than fact. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:24 PM Ceetar has an agenda after 72 posts? I gotta pay more attention. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 06:26 PM Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat. Kong76 Jul 10 2009 06:28 PM Ah, one of those :-) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Swan Swan H":7ohkrgxl]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:7ohkrgxl] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now. Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 06:42 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":wesessgo]I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point.[/quote:wesessgo] Definitely dangerous, just not consistently so. bmfc1 Jul 10 2009 06:53 PM August 29, 2005 Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:00 PM ="Ceetar":321wp213]="Swan Swan H":321wp213]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:321wp213] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now.[/quote:321wp213] Where to start... Tatis, the disaster, has an OPS 29 points higher than Murphy, which would make Murphy what, a catastrophe? A debacle? I don't have my thesaurus handy, so that's the best I can do right now. I wish Murphy was playing better, but an everyday first baseman with a .671 OPS is the real disaster. I agree that Murphy has more potential than Tatis for the future, but but get a grip. You sling around hyperbole that has no basis in fact. You blame Manuel for mismanaging, then talk about how bad the players are. Did Jerry build this roster? I disagree with a lot of his moves as well, but when he looks at the bench and sees what he sees, what can he do? I understand that Omar couldn't have planned for these injuries, but John McGraw couldn't goad this bunch into first place. Why are you putting 'bandwagon' in single quotes? Did I mention anything about a bandwagon? Do you not think the folks on this board know the term? metsguyinmichigan Jul 10 2009 07:01 PM Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:03 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1seevtwr]Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm.[/quote:1seevtwr] Hell, at this point I'd take him. DocTee Jul 10 2009 07:12 PM ]Walks less than a paraplegic. Slugs less than Church. This is the funniest comment I have read in ages. And it almost distracts me from the fact that I hat this transaction. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:15 PM ="Ceetar":34bzg42g]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:34bzg42g] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:21 PM ="Edgy DC":f7pn2b10]="Ceetar":f7pn2b10]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:f7pn2b10] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:f7pn2b10] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it? seawolf17 Jul 10 2009 07:24 PM I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:28 PM Let's get to the important stuff - what number will he wear? The conversation is already underway at MBTN. I'm guessing 4. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:29 PM ="Spacemans Bong":2y0d9r5p]="Edgy DC":2y0d9r5p]="Ceetar":2y0d9r5p]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it?[/quote:2y0d9r5p] I guess not. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:33 PM ="seawolf17":52topbyk]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:52topbyk] Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:38 PM ="Ceetar"]="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Not the TEAM, the TERM, the term bandwagon. Read, for Chrissakes. Oh, and this: ]Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. May be the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. Besides, Tatis' OBP is higher than Murphy's which has nothing to do with doubles or swinging hard or whatever that is supposed to mean. And I still don't see how Church's 2007 was better than Francoeur's anyway. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:39 PM ="seawolf17":14kh53td]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:14kh53td] Where are his two good years? metsmarathon Jul 10 2009 07:40 PM i'm not a fan of this trade. its not that i don't like jeff francoeur - i mean, i'm never gonna spell that correctly with any consistency whatsoever, but that's really besides the point - and if we had traded lastings milledge for jeff francoeur straight up, i'd be pretty ok with that trade. its just that i liked churchie, and felt like he didnt get enough of a chance to show how good of a player he really was, be it because of a pesky concussion or two, or a pesky relationship with a manager. i liked his defense - he had good range and a good arm, and can play centerfield in a pinch. can francoeur? jeff has power (which the team needs but shouldn't imo be the most important quality we look for in any player) and a big arm (which is important in this field), but i liked church's skill set just fine. i suppose i may come to like it, and it gives us a few things to track, but i don't like it right now, and would rather we had traded something like a pedro feliciano for him instead, tho that likely would not have gotten the deal done. on a scale of 1-5, i'm no higher than a 2. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:50 PM go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 07:58 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:07 PM ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Here's the thing, though-- Francoeur really didn't have two very good years. He had a good Murphy-like dip platooning/mostly swinging from the heels with men on in 2005. He then proceeded to swing even harder at a lot more pitches, and had an SI cover because he looked like a Georgian Mickey Mantle and had hit a bunch of home runs in that first good half-season. His "good years" in 2006 and 2007? He slugged less than .450, had OPS+ ratings of 86 and 103, and was less valuable offensively than Church in both years, and a shit-ton other folk whose names you wouldn't immediately associate with not-shitting-themselves offensively. He had a walk rate of 6.1 percent in his putrid 2008 and it was a career high. Even worse, his strengths aren't strong, either-- he has an isolated power rate (SLG-AVG, so as to isolate XBH) of .158... Church, in more at bats, has a rate of .171. His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. I'm a little annoyed because I think Church could have been interesting trade bait for something else other than this. Omar just traded a decent if underwhelming outfielder for someone who's been perhaps the worst regular offensive player in the majors during the last two years-- Tony Womack-in-2001 bad, but more durable. He's young-ish yet; in 5 years, he may be better. I would feel confident wagering the life a beloved family pet that he won't be. (Plus, those vowels is gonna kills my spellings. "French" it'll have to be.) sharpie Jul 10 2009 08:02 PM It's not a question of Murphy vs. Tatis -- it's that both Murphy and Tatis don't equal a major league first baseman. Get Delgado back, then relegate them both to pinch hitting duties. And swapping Church for Francouer? Fine. Maybe it'll work 'cause what we got now aint' working. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:03 PM ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 08:13 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 09:11 PM The point is not that the positions of Down with Jerry and Omar and Up with Murphy are invalid. The point is that seeing everything through that prism and everything as further evidence in that direction is irrational in a complex and random world and just just blinds one to the difficult nuances of the game and actually weakens the argument. (No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 08:17 PM ="Swan Swan H"]] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:18 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:22 PM ="Edgy DC"](No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) "I beg to differ... and I would trade you Ziggy Palffy for a hamburger today." "I would add $30 million on top of that. Also, would you like to accompany me to a friend's truck party?" Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 08:20 PM FWIW, Francouer and the Braves have been going with 1-year (non-arb determined) contracts all along and he's currently playing for $3.375mil As mentioned before, he'll be under Met control for the remainder of this season plus two more. Methead Jul 10 2009 08:21 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"] His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. That line - that single line - just gave me an ulcer. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:35 PM ="bmfc1"] August 29, 2005 The editorial staff at SI occasionally makes errors in judgement. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:56 PM ="Ceetar"]="Swan Swan H"]] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) Tatis has hit into six more DPs (11-5). Murphy has made six more errors (7-1), and can't play 2B or SS. What else ya got? Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 09:15 PM ]I was using one game. Yeah, we got that. The point is you don't do that when more data is available, unless you're so fixated on your point that you're willing to distort the facts to support it at all costs. Frankly, I like sticking with Murphy. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 09:30 PM Murph versus Tatis, distorted perception, how much boggling can one trade engender... this thread got out of hand in a hurry. (I think Swanny killed a guy with a trident.) OlerudOwned Jul 10 2009 10:21 PM Jeff Francoeur has had 4 seasons, including this one, with 300 or more plate appearances. He OBP'd .300 or higher in one of them. He's an abhorrent hitter and he's made no strides at improving. The worst part is that I've had so much fun at his expense already. Now I'm sort of guilty. (Not my work.) Nymr83 Jul 10 2009 11:45 PM i dont have much to add, i'll just go on record as not liking it. metirish Jul 11 2009 07:10 AM blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Francouer[/url:1x30hppv] not surprisingly the fans their that responded to the blog think Francouer is the better player gerrard00 Jul 11 2009 08:41 AM How long before the first nasty tabloid back page making fun of Frenchy's willingness to swing at anything? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 11 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish"]blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Yep, it does. ]He�s not a bad guy � on the contrary, he�s a fine fellow � but neither is he easy to coach. He�d been a success in every sport at every level but couldn�t master the adjustments every successful big-league hitter must make. It�s not that he didn�t try to change. He changed his swing several times. Trouble was, he couldn�t change himself. Francoeur is a baseball player with a football mentality, and that doesn�t cut it over the long haul. A baseball player must be measured in his approach. The same aggressiveness that made Francoeur one of the greatest high school football players this blessed state has ever seen... ultimately rendered him a substandard big-league hitter. Oh, and 85% of the paper's readers appear to be behind the trade. themetfairy Jul 11 2009 10:44 AM I think I initially posted this in the wrong thread, but The Dugout[/url:oq70zs26] had some fun with this trade. dgwphotography Jul 11 2009 12:16 PM ="Swan Swan H":2elfj25m]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:2elfj25m] I can get behind that sort of agenda (at least until Murphy shows he can't play everyday) Willets Point Jul 11 2009 06:48 PM Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur Kong76 Jul 11 2009 06:56 PM That will help me remember how to spell his name when Schaefer voting. Franco e u r LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 12 2009 10:12 AM ="Willets Point":qi4r3fkj]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:qi4r3fkj] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no? Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 10:58 AM Murphy will not be a Mets starter next year..Frenchie will Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 11:05 AM Ryan Church was a part-time stiff..pleez...now Dump Muffy anf Fartman for Dunn and 1B is set for this year and next Nymr83 Jul 12 2009 11:49 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3ajyn4wm]="Willets Point":3ajyn4wm]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no?[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Terry Francona is the only one i can think of, but he counts, sorry mets DocTee Jul 12 2009 11:53 AM Tito Francona, too.

July 10, 1999... Now Rivera brings the hands together... Runners take a lead at all three bases. One-two to Franco... LINE DRIVE base hit into right field! Henderson scores! Here comes Alfonzo... Here comes O'Neill's throw to the plate... Alfonzo slides... He's safe, the Mets win it! THE METS WIN IT! MATT FRANCO WITH A LINE DRIVE SINGLE TO RIGHT AND HE'S BEING MOBBED BY HIS TEAMMATES! Matt Franco, a two-run single off Mariano Rivera in the bottom of the ninth inning, and the Mets win it, nine to eight! Best MF game in Mets history was played to glorious conclusion ten years ago today.

I was going to say great KTE, but without the Joey Votto gay lover innuendo, boy I don't know.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]="G-Fafif"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]I am becoming a softie in my old age but I don't hate Waldman anymore either. I mean, I probably would if she was a Met announcer. Ah, but she was a Mets announcer, for one series in Houston when Murph had begun to not make some road trips and the Mets decided to try and make some history by having a woman in the booth. I'm fairly certain it was 1993, maybe even the series when Darryl Kile threw his no-hitter. The concept outpaced the delivery. ETA: It was June 1993, three months before the series with the no-hitter. She did color, no PBP, alongside Gary Cohen. Also did an inning with GC in 2005 when, for fun, Mets and MFY casters joined each other during a Subway Series game. It was Gary and Suzyn, Howie and Sterling. I remember the radio switcheroo, but never knew she filled in in 93. I was more or less out of the loop that year. If you missed 1993 the first time around, congratulations on getting a taste of its competitive contours since June 1.

="Gwreck"]="G-Fafif"]Also did an inning with GC in 2005 when, for fun, Mets and MFY casters joined each other during a Subway Series game. It was Gary and Suzyn, Howie and Sterling. I remember that but thought it was '06, and in the David Wright-Mariano Rivera game to boot. Is my memory failing me It was '05; in '06 Howie and Gary were not sharing the 'FAN booth. It was the Mr. Koo game (a Fox presentation, which meant I had the TV sound off). ETA: One supposes they could have repeated the gimmick in '06, but it would have been with Tom McCarthy, who presumably is still calling a play that was completed three years ago.

PiggiesTomatoes wrote: Wonderful to hear about the great chemistry in the dugout. Now win some fucking games, damnit. Amen, PT. I know there are hours of blowout to fill, but what an odd digression. "Better chemistry than Mets teams with better records." One infers that not only is team chemistry overrated, it's something you don't want.

Turned radio on in bottom of first. "I couldn't have missed much," I thought. First thing I hear is, "The Mets have been forced to play several players out of position this year, and Nick Evans isn't a leftfielder." Oh.

In pregame interview with Wayne Hagin, Murph was asked about having conversations with baserunners at first. He explained that he won't say much beyond "nice at-bat" or "nice swing" and then it's up the baserunner to "conversate". Ladies and gentlemen, a verb is born. Or perhaps bornated.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]I am becoming a softie in my old age but I don't hate Waldman anymore either. I mean, I probably would if she was a Met announcer. Ah, but she was a Mets announcer, for one series in Houston when Murph had begun to not make some road trips and the Mets decided to try and make some history by having a woman in the booth. I'm fairly certain it was 1993, maybe even the series when Darryl Kile threw his no-hitter. The concept outpaced the delivery. ETA: It was June 1993, three months before the series with the no-hitter. She did color, no PBP, alongside Gary Cohen. Also did an inning with GC in 2005 when, for fun, Mets and MFY casters joined each other during a Subway Series game. It was Gary and Suzyn, Howie and Sterling.

At this week's meeting of NY Giants fetishists, some of whom remain loyal to the San Franciscans, one nice fellow brought his daughters who were dressed in black and orange and wielding VOTE FOR PABLO signs. Cute, if a little...I dunno.

Vamoosed SW-Mets point to SW thread.

I take it back. There was no Kooz in the original News photo.

You can read Michael Bamberger's cover story here, but I'd recommend picking up the current SI for the full effect of its tribute to the '69 Mets. Handsome cover, too, though I'm guessing Kooz was cropped out. Bamberger goes 2-for-2 with this online piece regarding the hero and villain of July 9, 1969. ]Forty years ago, little-known Qualls spoiled Seaver's bid at perfection If you happened to be thumbing through the Newsday sports section on Thursday, you may have noticed an unusual box score: Mets 4, Cubs 0, in New York. Time of game: 2 hours, 2 minutes. Then you read the not-so-fine print: the game -- a Tom Seaver one-hitter -- was played 40 years ago, when the Mets were becoming the Miracle Mets, winners of the '69 World Series. Newsday is paying tribute to the team. That game was more than a one-hitter. Shea Stadium was packed and the Cubs were in first place, but the Mets were coming on strong. I was a nine-year-old kid that summer, listening to the game on a transistor radio in a backyard tent at my parents' house in Patchogue, L.I., in the heart of Mets country. Seaver retired the side -- and you need all this to understand the rising tide of tension -- in the first inning, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the seventh and the eighth. He retired the first batter in the ninth. Seaver was two outs away from perfection. In sports, as in life, there's not much that's perfect. The 300-game in bowling, hard to improve on that. The '72 Miami Dolphins, who won 14 games and never lost, people call that "The Perfect Season," although it wasn't like every game was shutout. There's Nadia Comaneci and all those 10s she piled up at the '76 Olympics. I happen to be sympathetic to the argument about whether human beings (the judges) can put the stamp of perfection on what another person does, but if you want to call that performance perfection, enjoy. That's all a long time ago now. As you get older, you stop holding up perfection as some sort of ideal, or I have, anyway. The legendary golfer Ben Hogan once had a dream, or a nightmare, in which he recorded 17 consecutive holes-in-one then lipped out on the last. Maybe he did himself a favor. What are you going to do for an encore after shooting 18? But at age nine, I had one and only one dreamy notion of perfection: a pitcher recording 27 consecutive outs. I grew up on the World Book encyclopedia, and right in it, under Baseball, was a picture from Don Larsen's perfect game in the '56 World Series, Yogi Berra leaping in his arms, when it was over. That picture has legs. And here was Seaver on a summer night in '69, one out in the ninth, the Mets leading, 4-zip. And up comes Jimmy Qualls. You know Ron Santo, Ernie Banks, Billy Williams. Jimmy Qualls? Jimmy Qualls. He lines a clean one-out single to the left-center. Jimmy Qualls. I probably hated the guy. Forty years later, I was on the phone with the man. He couldn't have been easier to talk to. "Most people think it's the only hit I got that year," he said. It wasn't. Qualls was 22, a bench player who had 30 hits that year, for a .250 batting average. Now lives in rural Illinois, in Sutter, 350 miles from Chicago and 240 miles from Kansas City. He works for a veterinary supplies company. His major-league career was parts of three seasons. "I'm tickled I got that hit," Qualls said, "but it wasn't my best hit of the year. We lost the game." His manager, Leo Durocher, never said a word to him about breaking up Seaver's bid at perfection. Then again, Qualls notes, Durocher didn't say anything to Qualls when he knocked in a game-winner later in the season, either. But it's the ninth-inning hit -- on July 9, 1969, in front of nearly 60,000 people at Shea Stadium -- that people remember. At the time, Qualls, he got a lot of "hate mail, like, 'When you come back to New York, watch your step,' but I didn't take none of it serious -- it was just kids," he said. Today, the letters, one or two or three a week, are much more gentle. "I'll sign anything for anybody, as long as it's for the right reason," Qualls said. In the past 40 years, the only time he's seen Seaver is when the Hall of Fame pitcher is on TV. The only thing Qualls resents is when people call it a bloop single. "It wasn't no blooper," Qualls said. "It was clean. Seaver said at the time it was a good solid hit." If you see a clip of Seaver recording the last out in that game, it's difficult to read his body language. His hands go on his hips and he sags a little as he stares off into the outfield for a moment. He seems more disappointed than anything else. Then his catcher, Jerry Grote, comes out and puts an arm around him, and elation seems to come over him. Seaver today lives in the Napa Valley, in the heart of the California wine country, where he is the owner of GTS Vineyards. I spoke with him on the phone after I spoke to Qualls, and before we even got to his 40-year-old one-hitter, Seaver was explaining to me how he follows the game today not on TV, but by reading box scores every morning in USA Today, the San Francisco Chronicle and the New York Times. No Internet for Tom Terrific. (No Web site for his vineyard, either, but you can get information about it by mail: GTS Vineyards, Box 888, Calistoga, CA, 94515.) "I love seeing how who's hot, how many innings the pitchers go, how long the games are," Seaver said. I told Seaver how Newsday was running box scores every day from the Mets '69 season, and that I had taken a sneak peak at the Jimmy Qualls game. Seaver asked, "How long was it?" He said he couldn't remember exactly what he was feeling right after the game. "The very first thing might have been something like, 'What could have been,'" he said. His guess is that he went from disappointment to elation in the time it took Grote to reach the mound. His wife, Nancy, went through something similar. She was allowed on the field after the game, Seaver said, and her first words were, "You lost your perfect game." Her husband reminded her that the Mets had actually won the game, 4-0, on a one-hitter, over the Cubs, whom the Mets were chasing in the National League East. I asked Seaver which mean more to him, his one-hitter in '69, or his no-hitter in '78, when he was pitching for the Reds. "The one-hitter," Seaver said. "I had better stuff that night, and we were making a move on the Cubs." He talked some about the kind of control he had that night. "This is bringing me the chills," Seaver said. When he lived in Greenwich, Conn., he'd see Mets fans daily and was asked about the one-hitter regularly. Since 2001 he's been in Calistoga and his life there is chiefly about growing grapes and making wine. He moved to there, with Nancy, after their daughters were through college, and took up his newest challenge. He's still working in confined spaces. His vineyard is just under four acres. "Sandy Koufax came by a while back," Seaver said. "He seemed to enjoy our wines." It was Koufax who came up with the name for one of Seaver's wines, "Nancy's Fancy." Seaver talks about the journey to Cooperstown as the real thrill, not just getting inducted. With his wine, it's the same thing. He loves the step-by-step, season-by-season, year-by-year process. Seaver knows there's no perfect bottle of wine: not Nancy's Fancy, not the '82 Lafite Rothschild, not some bottle of rose in an old Billy Joel song. What can be perfect in life? Not much. You can play baseball and record 27 consecutive outs. Forty years ago, Seaver came close, and a million Met fans were right there with him. He didn't quite get there. A man with 31 career hits got in his way. And all these years later, Qualls remains tickled that he got the hit. Why shouldn't he be? He did his job that night. He reached, on a clean single -- not a bloop job -- to left-center. But it's not the thing he's most proud of in life. Not in baseball (the game-winner later in the season ranks much higher.) Not out of baseball, either. For that, he looks much closer to home. "I have three children," Qualls said. "They're all growned up now and they turned out half-decent." Turns out, the man did a lot in his life.

July 8's a good day to get to work on a miracle. Now if only we could get Joe Torre to start Don Young in center.

It is weird, when one steps back, to consider the concept of trading individuals to new jobs and work environments. But everybody signs off on the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Donald Fehr and crew were on such a hot streak there for a while I imagine they could have negotiated trades largely out of existence had they been so inclined.

Did a little research, presented in full here[/url:1tyh812d], that tells us plausibly contending Mets teams (those you can reason still have a shot) that compile losing first-half records (hence their shot doesn't strike you as all that great) don't generally surge in the second half. Not that you couldn't have guessed that, I suppose. The baseline for any chance of a playoff berth is 35 wins in the first 81 games, as derived from the 1973 Mets' record of 35-46. Their success, you also could have guessed, is incredibly anomalous in Mets history. Fifteen teams have completed the statistical first half with a losing record that was no more than net six games from a winning record -- anywhere from 35-46 to 40-41. The 2009 Mets are the 15th such team in that position. Only the 1973 Mets have converted such a start to a fantastic finish (and, as we know, they had lots of help from a squishy division). Beyond them, only the 2008 and 2001 Mets became and remained a viable contender deep into their respective seasons before falling short. What blows my mind is the '73 Mets' record after 81 games was the same as decided noncontenders from 1966 and 2003 -- and worse than 1968's team (which was only game off our current pace). A winning record at the halfway mark isn't a guarantee of anything. Six Mets playoff teams had won at least 45 of their first 81 games, but a record of at least 41-40 (going as high as 48-33 in 1990) wasn't good enough for 15 other Mets teams to take to the house, though some came enjoyably, perhaps unnervingly close to making the postseason. Only two Mets teams with winning records after 81 games didn't finish with more wins than losses: 1991 and 2004. The only Mets team to finish with more wins than losses after a halfway mark below .500? 2008, 2005, 2001 and 1973. 2009, you've been warned.

="Fman99":2i7913lv]="MFS62":2i7913lv]="Frayed Knot":2i7913lv] Today is ALS day throughout MLB Not sure exactly what's going to take place in each game - [/quote:2i7913lv] Supposedly, parts (or all) of Gehrig's speech were read in each major league ballpark after the top of the seventh inning . Since I wasn't at every (or any, for that matter) major league ballpark yesterday, I can't confirm that this was done. Later[/quote:2i7913lv] I was at MFY Stadium II a few years back for this, saw James Gandolfini reading the speech (that year it was all actors). I didn't find it particularly moving, to be honest. IIRC it was read prior to the start of the game that year. This would've been 2001 or 2002 perhaps.[/quote:2i7913lv] 'Twas 2002. Matt Dillon, Mets fan, read it before the Mets-Marlins game in Miami.

After getting shelled at Pac Bell in May 2000, Mike Hampton roamed the streets of San Francisco.