batmagadanleadoff

Ike Davis finishes in tie with Miami's Giancarlo Stanton for most NL road HR's (21), second in majors only to Adam Dunn (23).

Kershaw on the long side of a 2-1 Dodger lead after six and a half; 7 IP, 3 H, 6 K http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=321003119 [u:38a6acbc]K's[/u:38a6acbc] Dickey 230 Kershaw 227 [u:38a6acbc]ERA[/u:38a6acbc] Kershaw 2.54 Dickey 2.73

Double perfectos at Dodger Stadium. Voglesong is also perfect through three, with five K's. http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=321003119 [u:39fmjlfm]K's[/u:39fmjlfm] Dickey 230 Kershaw 223

Kershaw is perfect through three innings, with two K's. Nine Giants up. Nine Giants down. http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=321003119

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Adam Greenberg will get his own Topps 2013 base set baseball card I presumed it would be him flailing wildly at a knuckler. oh well.

Topps 2013 set unveiled -- (not new news) http://www.beckett.com/news/2012/08/first-look-2013-topps-baseball-cards/ 2013 Topps Heritage ('64 style) preview

Topps 2013 set unveiled -- (not new news) http://www.beckett.com/news/2012/08/first-look-2013-topps-baseball-cards/

Adam Greenberg will get his own Topps 2013 base set baseball card

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Dodgers eliminated, Kershaw pitching anyway. Let's hope there are a lot of earned runs and few strikeouts. I suppose that the Dodgers will monitor Kershaw's ERA (2.58) to ensure that it doesn't rise higher than Dickey's 2.73. This is slightly easier than it sounds. If Kershaw, for example, gives up a grand slam HR in the first inning before recording an out, and all the runs are earned, his ERA will rise to 2.75. Would the Dodgers pull him in the first inning if the first three batters reach base? Holy Jose Jose Jose!

The latest Rubin: � Relievers Jon Rauch and Ramon Ramirez and outfielder Andres Torres are expected to depart. � No one on the roster is safe, with trades a major route to rebuilding the Mets after a fourth straight losing season. � R.A. Dickey's future with the organization is not entirely secure, a team source acknowledged. excerpt: Despite knuckleballers often successfully pitching into their 40s, Mets officials appear wary of making a sizable commitment. That could lead Dickey to being traded this offseason if the right deal presented itself, since the Mets would have some starting-pitching depth to absorb his departure. Trading a 20-game winner (and perhaps the reigning Cy Young winner) would not be a popular move among the fan base and could further erode attendance in 2013. Read the rest at http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/8453007/new-york-mets-want-david-wright-become-next-face-franchise-source-says

Frayed Knot wrote: Agreed that it's a great 'worst year'. That doesn't mean we should base this year's MVP vote on the idea that the totality of his career makes him "more feared" than his younger teammate and therefore treat it as a mark against Trout. It's not as bad as those who argued for Jeter winning the MVP a few years back (2009 I think) as some sort of cumulative achievement award* even while admitting that he wasn't the best that season, but it's still not sound logic. * Let's save those for dying actors, OK? I haven't been following this story. Do some writers believe that Pujols should win the 2012 MVP based on achievements from prior seasons? Not that it would surprise me.

2012 is Pujols' worst year ever, in a career spanning 12 full seasons. Some worst season.

One more thing: Dickey received almost a full run per game more than Kershaw in offensive run support this season.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: My guess is [Kershaw] the incumbent will win it. (Wait, this isn't the politics thread?) I would agree with you if you're stating who should win the award. Kershaw leads the league in WHIP, ERA, is tops in K/9 among the big four candidates and is second in Opp. OPS, only to Gonzalez. (He's tops among the big four in a slew of other categories, too). You can't ask a pitcher to do more than to keep opposing batters off base, and to minimize the potential for damage when those batters do reach safely. And Kershaw was the best at that in the NL this season. Can't blame Kershaw if his team can't hold leads, or score enough to get him wins. But I don't think Kershaw wins it. What I think will happen though, barring a major shakeup in the stats over this last week is that Kershaw won't get serious consideration for the top spot because of his low wins total. Neither will Cueto. Cueto's edge, as I see it, lies primarily in SABR stats that adjust for park factors, particularly esoteric ones that lack transparency. I don't see the voters relying primarily on those stats. That leaves Dickey and Gonzalez, and as between those two, Dickey wins convincingly. Unless Gonzalez receives strong extra credit because his teammates were better than Dickey's. I forgot that King Felix won his CYA with a 13-12 record. I thought he had about 16 or so wins. So now less reason to think that Kershaw can't win it with a 13-9 record. Of course, this year's NL race is much tighter, than AL.2010 and spread out among more candidates. I still say it'll be RA.

I've seen Lucas Duda. He's no outfielder.

I'd dump the team before the coaches. Do you think a different staff would've coaxed 90 wins from this year's team? Because 90 wins is what it's gonna take to make the playoffs.

Two notes here: Jon Heyman speculates that the Red Sox might be interested in Ike Davis after Sox scouts are noticed at last night's Mets-Marlins game. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/20432516/mets-ike-davis-could-be-a-trade-target-for-red-sox-who-need-a-first-baseman excerpt: MIAMI -- Could Ike Davis be a Red Sox trade target? The Red Sox will be looking for a first baseman this winter after sending Adrian Gonzalez to the Dodgers in late August and seeing placeholder James Loney continue to struggle offensively. The Mets haven't ruled out a trade for Davis, who will be arbitration elgible for the first time. Curiously, two Red Sox scouts -- maybe the only two scouts in attendance -- were at the Mets-Marlins game Monday night, and it's known the Red Sox seek help in the outfield, the rotation and at first base. The Mets don't have any outfielders to trade, not [sic] do they have an abundance of starting pitchers. Davis could be an obvious potential fit. _______________________ G-Fafif wrote: Rubin reports the Mets may be mulling a choice, and it could be the unpopular one per the poll results here and, one would guess, sentiment everywhere. The Mets will consider trading Ike Davis this offseason as a way to upgrade other areas of the team and open a spot for Lucas Duda at his natural position, a baseball source told ESPNNewYork.com. While that does not guarantee Davis will be moved, it at least is a very plausible option. Davis should be marketable despite a slow start because he is a 30-homer threat with the potential for above-average fielding at first base. The Mets are disappointed with Davis' unwillingness to make changes based on coaching advice. Although he is personable and by no means a troublemaker, they also worry about his impact on other young players in social settings away from the ballpark. The danger in trading Davis would be that there are few doubts about his ability to perform as a starter at the major league level. There is no guarantee Duda would perform at that level. And certainly he could not perform at the same level in the field. So being comfortable trading Davis would mean trusting the evaluation skills of the front office that Duda would thrive at his natural position. The Mets recently have been using Duda at first base against left-handers over Davis. Personally, trade 'em all. I may be giving the Mets too much credit here, but I wonder whether the Ike Davis smear of two weeks ago might be a disinformation campaign. Perhaps there's some interest in Duda and the Mets want to make it appear as if they'd rather keep Duda over Davis in order to extract more value from the interested team. Who knows?

Megdal weighs in on Rubin's interview with Wright. David Wright on the death of optimism By Howard Megdal 10:58 am Oct. 1, 2012 David Wright, the face of the Mets franchise, now feels at liberty to utter truths that are left unsaid, or denied, by the Mets organization itself. Wright has no idea if he will be a Met in 2013, let alone beyond that. He is unwilling to discuss an extension in-season next year, during the final year of his contract. So if the Mets cannot convince him to stay long-term, or cannot pay him, trading him this winter makes more sense than losing him for nothing next winter. "Just like players do a lot of times what's best for them, organizations sometimes have to do what's best for them also," Wright said, in an interview with Adam Rubin. "The ideal is you want to get a winning team on the field as quickly as possible. That's the front office's job to make those tough decisions. It would be tough for me personally. But, at the end of the day, I would understand." Speaking of a player the Mets let go for nothing, Wright was apparently as shocked as much of the fan base was by the departure of Jose Reyes, and it appears the loss of the franchise's best shortstop ever changed his thinking about the Mets' direction. "I always thought Jose would be back, that it was just a lot to do about nothing," Wright said. "We've known each other since 2001. You're talking about playing around or with each other for 11 years. Yeah, of course it opens your eyes. It makes you realize in a lot of ways there is an ugly business side to this�whether it's from the player's perspective or the team's perspective." Wright believes that building a team without the ability to add salary via free agency or trade is a problem. This is obvious to everyone, of course, but still isn't acknowledged by the Mets' organization, with plans in place to keep payroll at 2012 levels, leaving no room to add significant salary via trade or free agency for 2013. It appears that Wright, whose career and hopes of winning a championship rests on the direction of the Mets, has noticed. "I think we've demonstrated we have some talent in our minor leagues," Wright said. "Some of the young arms that have come up have been really impressive. But, at the same time, of course it's important that we can make a trade or sign a free agent and be able to spend some money. This is my philosophy on it. And that's why I'm going to sit down with these guys at some point and discuss it. Yeah, I'd like to know if it's going to be 'what you see is what you get' and we're going to base it solely on the minor leagues." Equally obvious has been the reason why: the sad state of ownership's finances, even after the Madoff settlement (which, remember, came due to ownership's lack of money). Wright acknowledged that, too. "Obviously some of the financial things that ownership has gone through have affected the ability to spend," Wright continued, referring to Mets ownership. "I don't think there's any question. I don't know that for a fact, but from what I understand and read it somewhat affected it." The interview itself, besides making for compelling reading, could serve as an attempt by Wright to publicly raise the stakes for the Mets to re-sign him. That seems unlikely, though: no one really needs to make the case that David Wright is important to the Mets, nor that losing Reyes and Wright in rapid succession will devastate the fan base while taking two of the best everyday players the Mets have ever developed from the team while both are still in their primes. More likely, David Wright saw how the Mets managed to disparage the reputation of Reyes, who Wright once described as his "baseball brother." Wright looks like he's trying to protect himself, in case the Mets, rather than ponying up the money and building Wright a winning team, smear Wright as some mercenary out for money as they usher him out the door, unable to keep him. It wouldn't be out of character for the organization, something Wright has almost certainly noticed, too. The very media savviness that has made Wright's stay in New York such a positive one, even when the owner took to the pages of The New Yorker to disparage him, was on display. And it sent the unmistakable message that if Wright isn't certain he's gone, he sure doesn't think it's certain he'll be back. Or as Wright put it, in response to the idea of joining, of all teams, the Yankees: "I don't know. I've never thought about putting on a different uniform. Hopefully that never happens. But you never know what the future holds. I don't know what's going to happen to me." http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2012/10/6537663/david-wright-death-optimism?sports-bucket-headline

"Sign the extension and me and dad promise that we'll trade for Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg a month from now".

Ashie62 wrote: I feel like if he is not wrapped up by opening day he has played his last game as a Met. I think this is very likely. If the Mets thought there was a strong chance that Wright will play out his option and sign somewhere else, they''ll probably trade him as soon as they are able to. I'm guessing the Mets are loath to spend $16M on Wright's 2013 option if they're only gonna have his services for that one season.

September 30, 2012, 8:08 p.m. ET Maybe It's Time to Trade Wright By TIM MARCHMAN David Wright talks Mets career Updated: September 30, 2012, 6:16 PM ET By Adam Rubin | ESPNNewYork.com In an exclusive interview with ESPNNewYork.com, Wright indicated he is unsure who will be his employer in 2014, much less at the end of his career. "No idea," he said. [...] Wright has resolved to test free agency during the 2013-14 offseason if no extension can be consummated this winter. He does not want in-season dialogue. [...] "I think we've demonstrated we have some talent in our minor leagues," Wright said. "Some of the young arms that have come up have been really impressive. But, at the same time, of course it's important that we can make a trade or sign a free agent and be able to spend some money. This is my philosophy on it. And that's why I'm going to sit down with these guys at some point and discuss it. Yeah, I'd like to know if it's going to be 'what you see is what you get' and we're going to base it solely on the minor leagues." What if the current payroll constraints will be in place for a while? "That would be something I'd have to think about, obviously," Wright said. With Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon in an interview room at Citi Field three weeks ago waiting to present Jones with a gift recognizing his final visit to Queens, Jones noted to reporters the Braves never let him get to spring training of a free-agency year without having locked him up. Asked if that is how an organization should approach things, Wright made a distinction between himself and Jones -- and Jeter for that manner. "I think it makes it a lot easier when obviously Chipper is in that situation and they win the division each year and have a chance to play for a World Series each year," Wright said. "Obviously we haven't experienced what they have." Read the rest of Adam Rubin's piece at http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/8445498/david-wright-no-idea-career-new-york-mets-continue

September 30, 2012, 8:08 p.m. ET Maybe It's Time to Trade Wright By TIM MARCHMAN For nine years now, earnest, reliable David Wright has been the public face of the Mets. His career has spanned four managers, three distinct periods of awful, depressing baseball, two catastrophic late-season collapses and one postseason, and not once has he expressed a frustration or regret anything like what the team's fans feel. All he's done is play very well�better, even, than he sometimes gets credit for. Wright will end this year as the Mets' career leader in hits, runs, runs batted in, walks, doubles, total bases and sacrifice flies, and with about 40 wins above replacement. That's basically what Derek Jeter did through the same age, and the only players who did meaningfully better in New York in their 20s aren't just Hall of Famers, but icons: Mantle, Mathewson, Ott, Gehrig, Seaver, Ruth, Snider and DiMaggio. And for all that, if Wednesday is Wright's last game as a Met, it probably will be for the best. This isn't because of anything Wright has done or left undone�there's nothing bad to say about him�or even because of the Mets' finances, which, bad as they are, still will allow them to pay Wright as much as or more than any other team. Rather it's because of the radical changes in baseball over the past few years, which somewhat perversely give the Mets every incentive to move Wright while they can. The first, which dates back to the mid-1990s, is the trend of teams locking up their own best players to long-term contracts, which is making it increasingly rare for a franchise talent to hit the open market. (Josh Hamilton and Robinson Cano are the only players who could reach free agency over the next two winters who are of Wright's caliber.) Add this to the recent enormous increases in television rights fees and you get vast sums of money floating around with no obvious place to go. This is how you end up with the small-market Reds locking up Joey Votto, a one-dimensional first baseman, through age 41. Potentially the most significant change, though, is the introduction of the second wild card, which will dramatically increase the value of a win to rich teams like the Yankees and Angels, who now have to plan to be good enough not just to make the playoffs, but to avoid getting shunted into a one-game play-in. It's hard to say how big this effect will be, but in theory the best teams should be willing to pay a huge premium for the players who can help them avoid the coin-flip game. All of this makes Wright, a great player still in his prime who projects to be worth about twice the $16 million he'll make next year, hugely valuable on the trade market. How valuable? The Dodgers gave the Red Sox good prospects and took on over $100 million in essentially dead money just for the right to pay Adrian Gonzalez, an older and lesser player than Wright, a market-level contract, and it wasn't viewed within baseball as an obviously insane thing to do. Past all of this, a going-nowhere team like the Mets has every reason to move a valuable player like Wright for young talent. Under the new collective bargaining agreement, it no longer will be possible for one team to seriously outbid others for amateur draft picks or international prospects. Recent successes like Matt Harvey aside, the Mets don't have a great record of scouting or developing players, so if they want good, cheap young ones around whom to build a winner, some of them are probably going to have to come from outside the organization. There are really only two reasons not to trade Wright. One is that it would damage the team's hopes of contending during what's left of his prime, but they don't have any. The other is that it would outrage fans and leave Citi Field quieter than a toaster, but as the Journal has reported, it already is. The only way to win back the public will be to win, and even if the Wilpon family announces tomorrow that the team has been sold to a mad Russian oil tycoon, that's going to take a couple of years, by which time Wright likely won't be what he was. All of this is cold, but so is baseball: Mathewson, Ruth and Seaver all moved on from New York, and sooner or later, so will Wright. If the Mets trade him now, it won't undo any of what he's already done, which is enough to establish him as the sort of player who ought to have a statue made of him when he finally ends his career, and it certainly won't harm him a bit. The man turns 30 in December, and unless he turns out to be a Jeter-like freak, he probably has only two or three years of real stardom left in him. It might be nice to see him spend them in a place where fans turn up to the ballgames, and cheer when they do. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444004704578028774273540996.html

You missed one. Wright has 41 doubles this season.

Ceetar wrote: My guess is [Kershaw] the incumbent will win it. (Wait, this isn't the politics thread?) I would agree with you if you're stating who should win the award. Kershaw leads the league in WHIP, ERA, is tops in K/9 among the big four candidates and is second in Opp. OPS, only to Gonzalez. (He's tops among the big four in a slew of other categories, too). You can't ask a pitcher to do more than to keep opposing batters off base, and to minimize the potential for damage when those batters do reach safely. And Kershaw was the best at that in the NL this season. Can't blame Kershaw if his team can't hold leads, or score enough to get him wins. But I don't think Kershaw wins it. What I think will happen though, barring a major shakeup in the stats over this last week is that Kershaw won't get serious consideration for the top spot because of his low wins total. Neither will Cueto. Cueto's edge, as I see it, lies primarily in SABR stats that adjust for park factors, particularly esoteric ones that lack transparency. I don't see the voters relying primarily on those stats. That leaves Dickey and Gonzalez, and as between those two, Dickey wins convincingly. Unless Gonzalez receives strong extra credit because his teammates were better than Dickey's.