batmagadanleadoff

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Crazy thing is, this is all going on while Reyes, Wright and Beltran are more or less hitting at the same time. The Mets have allowed more runs (78) than every other team. On the offensive side of the balance sheet, they've scored a more than respectable amount of runs (63).

If you wanted to gauge Los Mets, the 2006-08 Mets that simultaneously delighted and disheartened Mets fans, then look no farther than Carlos Delgado. Forget all that mumbo jumbo about when Reyes did this or that, the Mets did this or that. As Delgado went, so went the Mets. Carlos was The Man. When he was on, he could carry the team all by himself. Other than Piazza, I can't think of any Met more powerful than Delgado. (Bonus points for openly dissing Wee Willie Small Balls.)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'm now morbidly curious about Bye Bye Braverman. Here's the most thorough review I could find on the web. The cast includes Jessica Walter, whom I know you know as the matriarch of the Family Bluth. Auto accident at the corner of Eastern Parkway and Bedford Avenue Big Daddy's Restaurant, Coney Island Avenue

Vic Sage wrote: � Bye Bye Braverman (1968) � NYC black comedy about a funeral. It�s hard enough for Woody Allen to make a good �Woody Allen film�� for Lumet, it�s impossible. Sydney was to comedy as dancing is to architecture. � The Anderson Tapes (1971) � Surprisingly effective caper film shot on the streets of NY, with Connery at the height of his powers, and young Chris Walken just starting out. Nice job, Vic. I watch the mostly unwatchable Bye Bye Braverman at least every two years. It's an awful movie -- tedious -- a humorless comedy. Imagine your least favorite Woody Allen movie, but three times as bad. But I'm mesmerized by the late 60's on location NYC scenery. I'd guess that more than half the movie is filmed outdoors -- as the main characters set out on a wild goose chase trying to locate the precise funeral home that's hosting the services for their late friend, Braverman (the premise of this movie). I'm gonna make it a point to watch The Anderson Tapes, a first for me, thanks to your synopsis.

Edgy DC wrote: If they put a premium on sticking it to the Mets, that's even more overpaying they'll do. Except that, perhaps, they really don't overpay. Because, (and I'm speculating here), what if the Yankees' revenue model is such that paying an extra, I dunno, two or three or whatever million over what the market sez Reyes is worth, generates more revenue for the MFY's than for another team. In other words, what if the MFY business model can justify paying what other teams consider too much for Reyes (or any other player's) services?

Edgy DC wrote: Don was the swing-man on my 1986 Strat-o-Matic team Carman was drafted in my NL only 1985 SOM leagues. He had to be pretty good in 1985 (he was) to get drafted because I played, at most, four team leagues.

Encouraging: hitting the ball hard pretty consistently. Doing a good job in the first inning. Not encouraging: One walk in hiis first 50 plate appearances. Not running in big spots late in the game. (This last one may be Tjerry Collins giving him the red light with the bunt on.) If I had a say, Thole'd bat leadoff - at least against righties.

Frayed Knot wrote: The two triples he hit the other day ... would count for two HRs each if hit in YSIII. That's why Jose's gonna be an MFY next year. He'll hit 20 HR's in that park. Jeter's SS days are numbered. And the MFY's, who need a shortstop, will outbid every other team for Jose. Because they can. And to stick it to the Mets.

DATEMETS GAMES PLAYEDGAMES K-ROD FINISHEDON PACE TO FINISH...4/1/111004/3/113004/6/115132*4/8/117123 Gwreck wrote: 1. I wasn't addressing hypothetical situations. Don't you think you should be? If you're going to create a rule, you ought to be applying that rule to hypothetical situations, facts that are analagous, and slightly nuanced from the real facts in order to see how your rule would fully play out. You can't create a rule without considering how it would hold up to slightly dissimilar situations. Otherwise your rule might lead to unanticipated and undesirable consequences. I've been doing just that throughout these K-Rod option discussions and I feel as if I'm running into opposition -- not on the merits of my ideas, but for supposedly changing the nature of the topic without reason ... as if I'm playing a game of three card monte with the relevant facts.

Gwreck wrote: I would like to think that relief pitcher usage would be based on the game situation and on the abilities of the available pitchers. And if those variables or factors are alike, then K-Rod shouldn't have any extra entitlement to finish a game over any other pitcher just because his option is based on games he finishes. I might like to think that too, but there's clearly more to the issue than baseball strategy. The presence of the clause in the contract clearly implies that Rodriguez will have an opportunity to finish games. No other pitcher has that clearly implied opportunity in their contract. Hence, Rodriguez does have a certain extra entitlement to finish games over other Mets pitchers. The extent of that entitlement is the risk/reward calculus I referenced. I think sound strategy should justify anything the Mets do here. Here's a hypothetical to test your theory: What if the Mets acquired Mariano Rivera tomorrow? Would the Mets then be obligated to choose K-Rod over Rivera whenever a Save opportunity materializes? If your answer is no, then you're conceding that pitcher ability is a legitimate factor that the Mets may consider when allotting playing time. Otherwise, you'd be saying that the Mets cannot, or should not, seek out in the market, a reliever that is clearly better than K-Rod because the team wouldn't be able to use that pitcher as they see fit. Your contract interpretation would mean that the Mets cannot improve the high end of their bullpen because they are legally obligated to facilitate the vesting of K-Rod's option. And that makes no sense to me.

Gwreck wrote: No other pitcher has that clearly implied opportunity in their contract. Hence, Rodriguez does have a certain extra entitlement to finish games over other Mets pitchers. I think that's irrelevant.

So what if four Met relievers had a bonus in their contract that vested when they finished 55 games? Then what? The contract does not, cannot, entitle K-Rod to preferential treatment in getting finish opportunities. Whether K-Rod might have a grievance if the Mets compromised competitiveness to thwart K-Rod's option from vesting is one issue, but the Mets, without doubt, are not required to go out of their way to give him finish opportunities when to let another pitcher finish a game, (i.e., Beato last night) would've been just as sound tactically. Any other interpretation is crazy. The Mets should be able to allot playing time as they see fit so long as they are not intentionally compromising their ability to compete. What if the Mets fall 30 games behind the division leader by mid August? Are you saying that the Mets can't then give Parnell most of the late inning work in hopes of developing him for the future, a future that certainly won't include K-Rod?

I would like to think that relief pitcher usage would be based on the game situation and on the abilities of the available pitchers. And if those variables or factors are alike, then K-Rod shouldn't have any extra entitlement to finish a game over any other pitcher just because his option is based on games he finishes. The contract, by itself, shouldn't dictate usage. Otherwise the Mets would be bound to give K-Rod preferential treatment in finishing games even if other pitchers emerge as more qualified or if K-Rod's abilities suddenly diminish. I don't see why the contract should prevent other relievers from finishing a game. And of course, this all assumes (unfortunately) that the Mets will use their best reliever to finish games primarily, instead of in high-leverage situations, inning number be damned.

What was the strategic advantage to having K-Rod pitch the 8th? That K-Rod's option is based on the number of games he finishes doesn't, by itself, entitle him to finish games.

Gwreck wrote: The only possible situation I could envision would have been to use Rodriguez in the spot where Beato or perhaps Boyer had pitched. Is that what you would have preferred? That's precisely what I was thinking of as it was happening. If it's a given that Beato and K-Rod are going to be the last two pitchers barring extra innings, why shouldn't K-Rod precede Beato, considering everything? And you know what I mean by everything.

DATEMETS GAMES PLAYEDGAMES K-ROD FINISHEDON PACE TO FINISH...4/1/111004/3/113004/6/115132* 4/6/11 The Mets squander K-Rod's blown save/finish of a few days ago by giving him back a gimme (8th inning appearance, 3 runs down on the road. Sigh.) *Remainders are always lopped off and never rounded up to the nearest whole number.

metsmarathon wrote: the average met pitcher is 6'3", not counting young in the mix. that makes him a "whopping" 8% taller than average. is that 8% really worth all that extra press? If the average Met was 5'9" tall, then being 8% taller than that average wouldn't be noteworthy. I'm guessing that one of about 60,000 adult males are 6'10" tall. Plus, he can pitch at the major league level.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah I'm interested too. Why do they interest you? Because who's not interested in an underdog? Because with a reasonable amount of good luck (and the Pirates are sure due for some of that) they might be a dominant team in another year or two, and since they're no longer in the NL East, I'm fine with that. Plus, historically tasteful uniforms, at least during my lifetime of watching baseball. Because when I was a little kid, Willie Stargell used to scare the shit out of me like no other opponent -- in a good I feared him out of respect sort of way. The best ballpark in baseball. (I've never been there but everybody that I know that's been there thinks so.) And I harbor this odd curiosity for Primanti's -- is it quality or overly-popular schlock food? I don't know, but I'm hankering to find out first-hand.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Does anybody here still think of Jason Bay as the pre-Mets Jason Bay? The Jason Bay we imagined we were getting when we last signed him? Because if Bay still is, the Mets would have one heck of an offense. I apparently don't. But there is the hope that he'll have a bounceback year, which could be a very good thing for the Mets. I'm just not terribly optimistic that it will play out that way. I don't know what to think. I'm just going to watch things unfold before my eyes and resist making a bet on either the over or under.

For every team? I dunno. But on a personal level, in the now of MLB, the Pirates interest me more than any other team in baseball (other than the Mets, of course). I've been following the organization since the end of last season.

Assuming a full 162 game slate, he has to finish one third of all games, plus one more. So yeah, we probably are still swimming upsteam: this 0 for four streak hasn't put a real dent in K-Rod's chances. Blowouts, high leverage situational appearances (i.e., more non 9th inning apps) and the Mets falling out of contention will.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm having a hard time being too disturbed about Jason Bay missing a few weeks. I know he's probably better than whoever they'll put out there, but is he significantly better? I have my doubts. Does anybody here still think of Jason Bay as the pre-Mets Jason Bay? The Jason Bay we imagined we were getting when we last signed him? Because if Bay still is, the Mets would have one heck of an offense.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: If this bears out-- and it seems to fit-- then all [Chris Young] has to do is incorporate a little bit of up-and-down movement at the edges of the zone.... Even I could win a Cy Young award doing that.

A Mess of Mets.

A Pack of Cards.