Centerfield

Do we get Murphy back in this scenario? If so I'm all for that. And while we are looking into old flames, probably wouldn't hurt to check in on Dillon Gee.

My suggestions: *All Star Break does back to being 3 days. Monday HR Derby. Tuesday All-Star Game. Wednesday Futures Game. Thursday everyone goes back to work. *Alternate AL/NL ballparks. Home team is the home team. Can't believe I even have to type this. *Ditch the home field advantage thing. Let's acknowledge that it's an exhibition by the fact that we can't pick the best players anyway because of the "every team gets an all-star" rule. The team with the better record gets HF advantage in the World Series. *Ditch the "every team gets an all-star" rule.

Yikes. I don't know guys. You know my stance on Wifey Watch to begin with. I'm just going to put out there that High School Girlfriend watch is like, way over the line.

Yup. Way to go Murph. I don't know. Maybe it's fan goggles I'm wearing, but I feel like if you asked Murph right now to ditch his contract with Washington and come back, he'd do it in a heartbeat. Kinda like the reverse Tom Glavine. It also strikes me that Murph is very lucky. Not to take away anything from his relationship with Sandy, which must be great, but if Murph is writing in his name, he is incredibly blessed not to have someone in his inner circle of friends and family affected by cancer. I remember a few years ago, I saw a shot of Ron Darling holding that sign, and on it it simply stated "my catcher". Heartbreaking.

I get that you're trying to win. And that should be the case. But if I were managing I would think I would consider: 1. Get someone from every team into the game. 2. Get first-timers into the game. 3. Get last-timers into the game 4. Try to injure all Nationals

Lefty Specialist wrote: Didn't watch a second. Glad I didn't miss anything. Me too. Had I been watching, I imagine I would have been pissed the Mets didn't get in. But my aim every all-star break is to avoid injuries, so mission accomplished I guess.

Super excited about Amed Rosario. Gotta hand it to these scouts. He hit like crap for his first three years, but everyone predicted great things for him anyway. It seems to all be coming together in 2016. Hope he continues onward and upward.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: You never have anything bad to say about Granderson! I'm tough on him because I only want the best for him. One day when he's older he'll understand.

Hey how about an Honorable Mention to Granderson for getting his OPS up around .800. Not bad.

Hi. I'm Tom Verducci. I exist solely because some of you claimed no one could be more annoying than Joe Buck. And because our gods, old and new, are assholes.

Well for starters you're so tied up in your declaration of De Aza as the problem I think you're well aware that I've never declared that De Aza was the problem. In fact, I think I've said exactly the opposite. I am fully aware of the futility of the offense. That's why I'm saying take every advantage you can get. And I'm not taking the blame off of everyone else. They all sucked too. My point was that management was not doing their part by putting the best team on the field. But I can see how you might have missed my point though, seeing as I only made it: One The Mets are Fucking Dumb Two Forget the injuries and everything else, the boneheaded moves by Alderson and this front office are fucking inexcusable. Three Wasn't meaning to second guess the offseason moves. I was speaking more to the intra-organization moves this season. Four Countless times this season the Mets front office has inexplicably failed to field the best team possible. How this can be done during a series as important as this one is mind-boggling to me. Five Whether or not they are the better team, a team in a pennant race should be taking every advantage they can get. If the Mets fall short, so be it. But man, don't leave bullets in the chamber just to save on airfare. Six Times. Sandy could have just picked up the phone and instantly upgraded the offense these past two games. Not doing so was foolish. You know, come to think of it. Six times is kind of a lot. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were distorting my point and trying to couch it as something else. Trying to make it seem like knee-jerk scapegoating so as to make its validity more easily assailable. You know, if I didn't know better. and about mgmt compounding that problem by not jumping through hoops to make player movements See, that's the thing. Management making player movements involves very little hoop-jumping at all. Almost none actually. Some would go as far as to say player movement is part of management's job. to make sure he not infect the lineup in either game Back to De Aza I see. Maybe I should have said it seven times. regardless of whatever downside it might cause now or after the break, I think I've been explicit that I am totally down with the downside. Specifically, I think I said: We lose Logan Verrett for 15 days? I can deal with that. Even more so if the loss is Seth Lugo. Recall Gilmartin. Or Ynoa. What was that acronym Edgy created for interchangeable pitchers? I'm down with that. I'd be willing to bet good money that there will be no instance during the next 15 days where I'm saying "Man, if only we had Seth Lugo." that the fact that he turned out to not be the problem (getting on base 4 times in 8 PA - more than any other player on the team) seems to have totally flown over your head. The fact that he reached base four times over those games is, unfortunately, irrelevant to my point. If I put my grandmother on the roster for the last two games, this would be a bad move, even if she somehow slugged the game-winning hit. Management's role is to give the team the best chance to win. Individual moves might work out or not in the short run, but an organization that makes a habit of making foolish moves will ultimately play themselves into a disadvantage in the end. I want a team that maximizes my chances. This management team has not done that. Besides, it's impossible to know what Conforto might have done. He might have gone 8 for 8 with 4 HR's. We'll never know. What we do know is that Conforto (even at his worst) gives you a better chance to win than De Aza. Edgy MD wrote: One thing about a manager who works to find an edge, it sets a standard for players who work to find an edge. This. Management should set the example. Use every angle you possibly can to your advantage. Maybe the players will learn something. "Wow. Management is fucking smart. Maybe I should play smart. Like maybe even hitting the ball to that side of the field over there where no one is standing. Hmmm."

Frayed Knot wrote: See, it's this thought that, despite already being without Harvey, willingly giving up as many as three starts from Syndergaard and/or Verrett to start the 2nd half and go two turns through the rotation without half of our top 6 starters will all be worth it if it saves us the indignity of eight ABs from Alejandro De Aza (in which he delivered two hits) is where I think the over-reaction and misplaced blame are going here. If you want to save Verrett, then demote Lugo. You didn't need him last weekend and you don't need him going forward. You were much more likely to need Michael Conforto. I don't understand why advocating for a move that would have helped the team win the last two games qualifies as "over-reaction" or "misplaced blame". Conforto is and was a better bet to help us during those games than De Aza. I don't see how anyone can reasonably dispute this. He is clearly the better hitter. He was better last year, and he has been better this year, even taking into account his slump. He has certainly been better than the De Aza the last 13 games. And I get that Conforto sucked in May and June (.591 and .419 OPS). Just terrible. The worst he's ever done in his career. But you know who he was still better than? ALEJANDRO FUCKING DE AZA. (.417 and .345 OPS). So why would I want Conforto over De Aza? Because at his absolute shittiest, Conforto is still better than De Aza. This is not over-reaction. This is just reaction. And I'm not taking the blame off of everyone else. They all sucked too. But I can't just push a button and make them better. Sandy could have just picked up the phone and instantly upgraded the offense these past two games. Not doing so was foolish.

Without a doubt Cespedes. I doubt we'd even be in the discussion without him. We'd probably be wondering why Lagares, Syndergaard and Matz haven't had surgeries and are risking long-term damage on a team headed nowhere.

TransMonk wrote: Yeah, I think this goes beyond a roster move or three. If it would have come down to a play here or there, then maybe, but to my eyes, the Nats are clearly a better team than the Metsies this season. Other than the two of three the Mets took in DC back in May, the Mets have not been able to muster much against Washington. Period. I don't get this. So because Washington is much better than the Mets, we don't even try to make up the difference? Whether or not they are the better team, a team in a pennant race should be taking every advantage they can get. If the Mets fall short, so be it. But man, don't leave bullets in the chamber just to save on airfare. Would Conforto have gone 3 for 5 against Washington? Maybe not. But maybe he would have. I don't see why you wouldn't try. If the fate of the world rested on the outcome of the last two games, no sane person would have let Seth Lugo take a roster spot over Michael Conforto.

Frayed Knot wrote: They'll DL Syndergaard if they have to, but they've already decided to sort him to the back of the order, in effect missing one start already. DL'ing him unnecessarily (or at least prior to it being known to be necessary) would have him miss an additional start. Sending down Verrett, who is a permanent member of the rotation until further notice and is currently slated to start one of the first four games after the break, would make him ineligible to return for 15 days except as an injury replacement which would cause them to dig even deeper into the 7th-9th starter territory for at least two of his starts, all during this span where we're already short Harvey and are weeks away at best from subbing in Wheeler. Either or both of these moves all so we can have Ty Kelly or an extra back of the line reliever on board for a weekend strikes me as a really bad bargain. Our mileage clearly varies. Conforto is hitting .340 since he's been sent down. On Saturday he went 3 for 5 with a HR and 3 RBI. I would have loved to have gotten him AB's this weekend over De Aza. We lose Logan Verrett for 15 days? I can deal with that. Even more so if the loss is Seth Lugo. Recall Gilmartin. Or Ynoa. What was that acronym Edgy created for interchangeable pitchers? I'm down with that. Frayed Knot wrote: Instead, try looking to the fact that they totaled 13 hits in three games -- one of which was started by a guy who hadn't gotten anyone out recently -- and basically scored on nothing but solo HRs. I know De Aza is the scapegoat du jour these days and would quite likely be gone already if the rest of the OF could stay healthy at the same time and the anointed #3 hitter hadn't hit so shitty over two months that he lost not just his position in the order but his job as well, but, as JCL points out, making this all about having to play ADA for two days (esp. when he had two of the hits) is missing the larger point. I am fully aware of the futility of the offense. That's why I'm saying take every advantage you can get. Does it increase our odds of winning those games by .001%? Then yes. Do it. Is the downside not having Logan Verrett/Lugo for 15 days? Yeah. I'm ok with that.

Edgy MD wrote: Well, the Mets didn't lose the game in the pen. Teams have sometimes sent down players with options just before the All Star break to be certain they kept getting their work in. There isn't a lot of precedent for teams sending down pitchers with options in order to get a few more bats for the last game or two, and assuming their off-day starters can pick up the slack. Not that it isn't a good idea. You may not want to interrupt Conforto's season, but there's also Kelly, Reynolds, Herrera, and Campbell as options. Plawecki too. A better move than sending down Lugo (or DL'ing Syndergaard), would have been to send down Verrett, who wasn't going to pitch under any circumstances. Right. Sending down Verrett would have been the right play. No idea why this wouldn't have been done. Yesterday's game might have gone 25 innings. Taking up a roster spot would have been a useless Logan Verrett wrapped in ice.

Frayed Knot wrote: Well the reason we were stuck with De Aza was because Cespedes isn't available and Conforto crashed and burned to the point where he had to be sent down. De Aza might be just 9 for his last 54 but Conforto was an even worse 7 for his final 59 prior to his demotion. Look, there's no getting around the fact that he's failed miserably as a signing and I'm sure if we could ever actually get Lagares, Cespedes, Nimmo, Granderson & Conforto on the roster and available at the same time that ADA will be outta here in a minute. But between the various injuries (large and small) and sucking that hasn't been the case and so, until such time as it is, he's a guy on the roster ready to play while the others aren't. P.S. He had two hits on got on base three times Saturday night which was as many as the rest of the lineup combined. I understand that Cespedes was not available, but that did not mean in any way, shape or form that we had to be stuck with De Aza. Conforto has been red hot and has hit 3 HR's since he returned to LV. If it were left to me, I would have started him over De Aza. And if you don't feel Conforto is ready, there are a host of other bats that could have been called up. With only two games left before the All-Star break, it's a no-brainer that you send down Seth Lugo (or DL Noah) and get a productive bat up for the last 2 games. Countless times this season the Mets front office has inexplicably failed to field the best team possible. How this can be done during a series as important as this one is mind-boggling to me.

This thread took a left turn. Wasn't meaning to second guess the offseason moves. I was speaking more to the intra-organization moves this season. This series is huge and we end up having to start De Aza. Michael Conforto would have been a much bigger asset these last two games than Seth Lugo.

This shit is all Brandon Phillips' fault. Let's beat the shit out of him.

There is absolutely no reason to play short-handed these last 2 games. Seth Lugo could have been demoted, or Syndergaard could have been DL'ed. Conforto should absolutely positively be here for these 2 games before the break. Instead, we get De Aza. Forget the injuries and everything else, the boneheaded moves by Alderson and this front office are fucking inexcusable.

Ok. TV is getting turned off. I can't listed to Verducci any longer and I can't watch Verrett walk any more batters. Will check in on the score but I'm not sure why I'm expected to care about this game if the Mets front office doesn't.

Put him on the DL. Get rest. Call up Conforto. Need a bat these next two games.

Let's do this. The rule states: A "bona fide slide" for purposes of Rule 6.01 occurs when the runner: (1) begins his slide (i.e., makes contact with the ground) before reaching the base; (2) is able and attempts to reach the base with his hand or foot; (3) is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home plate) after completion of the slide; and (4) slides within reach of the base without changing his pathway for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder. In order to be a legal slide, all four of these things must happen. As to number (4), I read this as "The runner must be within reach of the base and he cannot change his pathway for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder." Agree or disagree?

Ceetar wrote: Why the interpretation changed to allow it at second and home is absurd anyway. Why not barrel into the first baseman then? Good chance he drops it on a close play that you hit him just as he catches it, barreling past the bag (but that's fine, it's first base, you're still safe) It really is silly isn't it? If someone slid feet first three feet inside the first base bag, taking out the first baseman, there would be no question that it was interference. No one would care whether that runner reached out with his hand to touch first base as he was barreling past it into the fielder.

Nobody is saying Werth has to go out of his way to avoid Walker. He just can't go out of his way to hit him. And that's exactly what he did. I feel like this image shows it clearly. When you slide feet first, you point your feet at your target. The reason is simple. Your feet arrive first. It maximizes the chance that you will be safe. No one who is trying to beat out a force play will intentionally slide several feet to the left of the bag, then touch the base with their hand as they pass by. This is a foolish way to reach a base. The only reason to slide in this asinine manner contact with the fielder. (That's why you don't see this slide anywhere else.) And that is what Werth was trying to do. His feet are pointed at Walker, and not second base. It's interference. If he legitimately was intending to slide into second base, his feet would have touched the front of second base and he would have stopped somewhere around the bag. Certainly within arm's length of it. Walker, who was behind the bag and to the left, would not be a factor in his slide.