batmagadanleadoff

Edgy MD wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=114439 time=1670628675 user_id=68] =roger_that post_id=114436 time=1670625191 user_id=128] If anyone has an intelligent answer to my question, I'd be interested in hearing it. Ask a stupid, attention craving question ....

=roger_that post_id=114436 time=1670625191 user_id=128] If anyone has an intelligent answer to my question, I'd be interested in hearing it.

If anyone has an intelligent answer to my question, I'd be interested in hearing it. Ask a stupid, attention craving question .... If you're Buck, do you strategize with him on getting his walks total back to where it was? Or leave him be? In other words, is Nimmo's decline in walks a problem or a one-year blip? I'm not sure why you use the phrase "In other words". Your two dumb questions aren't synonymous. Which means you've asked two distinct dumb questions. Also, I'd have to be Buck to answer your first question, but not necessarily Buck to answer your second one. And again, "problem" and "one year blip" aren't mutually exclusive because it could be a one-year problem. Which theoretically, could be synoynmous with one-year blip. I guess your query for the 19th centerfielder on the Mets depth chart didn't draw enough interest to satisfy you. Are we trying too hard to impress?

Nimmo himself would be the one to know whether he's changed his approach to pitch selection and recognition, and if so, whether that change will continue into 2023. Or .maybe his pitch recognition skills are suddenly in decline. Or if it's health related, and then, how permanent that is. Unless it's just randomness. Or maybe the pitches are in the strike zone more and more often. Me, I wouldnt have a clue, but thanks for asking. But me and Nimmo are going to the FIFA World Cup final next week so I'll be sure to ask him on your behalf when we're in Qatar. Great question, though. Keep 'em coming. You're on a roll. Unless anybody else here already knows this answer. Also, I'd like to know why Brandon didn't hit a homer on May 8, 2021. And finally, problem and one year blip aren't mutually exclusive.But keep the questions coming. Do you think that Buck should also work on having Nimmo hit 50 or 60 HR's next season? 50 or 60 is so much better than mid-teens.

Did anybody catch deGrom's introductory Texas Rangers press conference yet? What a bunch of disingenuous horseshit. If he took the truth serum, he'd be honest and say that he signed with Texas because he didn't want to play for the Mets anymore no matter what. Instead, he wanted to play in the slavery belt and the Rangers gave him the best offer of any of the slavery state confederate flag waving baseball teams, which is where he wanted to be all along. He sez that the Rangers want to win a World Series and have a long term vision. That's why he signed with Texas. What a load. The Rangers want to win year in and year out. It would've been neat if any of those reporters asked deGrom if he thinks that the Mets don't want to win year in and year out but it was all softballs and then lame, barely believable answers from deGrom. Oh, and he sounded nervous, too. Nervous and evasive. The irony is that if deGrom stays healthy and pitches like he's been pitching as of late, the Rangers will have the best chance of winning it all and it will be mainly thanks to deGrom, himself. [media=youtube]PUDX84YlAfc[/media]

I dunno how much that matters anymore. A team merely has to make the playoffs. And almost half of all teams will. Once you're in, you don't have to be a beast. Because, I'm fairly certain, baseball playoffs are one big fat luckfest. But it'd help a team's playoff run immensely if it has superstar pitching.

[FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52552013368_9e92782001_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Catch The Lady Vanishes tomorrow morning at 7:30AM on TCM. It's a British Hitchcock double feature with The 39 Steps preceeding TLV. https://www.tcm.com/schedule/https://www.tcm.com/schedule/

Plus, Alonso (it's his 28th birthday today, BTW) is from the scumbag state of Florida. So who the fuck knows what the fuck he thinks of these Northern Rules us Yankees got us up here north.

[FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52548716810_cff78557ac_h.jpg[/FIMG] [media=youtube]TaWaQBxc0aI[/media] [media=youtube]TiQUnxNEDqk[/media] [media=youtube]CFUOnT0ZnUc[/media] [media=youtube]SmFxvP9i2Fk[/media] [media=youtube]qaKEG-BRklQ[/media]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=113828 time=1670132757 user_id=68] And on another note, with deGrom now gone, if the Mets don't sign free agents Seth Lugo or Dom Smith, Tomas Nido will be the longest tenured active Met.

[FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52547238856_1d1fd3cc8c_h.jpg[/FIMG] [media=youtube]rj9m98GmTnY[/media] [media=youtube]EO7cD6qmydo[/media] [media=youtube]vWwgrjjIMXA[/media]

Pitcher or hitter? It depends. This discussion reminds me of the comment "Good pitching will always stop good hitting" Intuitively, I'd say that that comment's true. I know that watching the prime of Tom Seaver, I felt that the Mets could beat any team on the days that Seaver started. And they usually did. I know that the odds-makers recognize this notion that good pitching beats good hitting because baseball is the only sport that I can think of where the worst team in the league can be favored to beat the best team in the league, depending on the pitching match-ups. The 1988 Mets were the best team in baseball but came up short in their quest for the NL pennant because they couldn't get past an Orel Hershiser who was historically great in 1988. And if the Astros could've won just one playoff game that wasn't started by Mike Scott, there very likely wouldn't have been a Mets-Red Sox WS because at the end of the '86 season, Scott was unhittable. The Mets prevailed over the Astros probably because Scott pitched only two playoff games. The Mets were the better team but Scott was Koufaxian. And I thought of another great thesis while I wrote that post above: my thesis is to trade all of my crappy players for superstars. Isn't that brilliant? James Mccann for Mike Trout! Yoan Lopez for Mookie Betts! I'm gonna have a moratorium to polish up my thesis, now. Then, I'll see if I could sell my thesis idea to Steve Cohen. Don't nobody here try and steal my thesis idea. Youse know I thought of it first. Will Sammon writing for The Athletic on the Mets' Verlander signing: For as much as baseball has changed and will continue to evolve, this much has remained the same: There is no player in the sport who controls the tempo, tenor and outcome of a game as thoroughly as an elite starting pitcher.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=114083 time=1670348888 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=114081 time=1670348650 user_id=68] Salary cap? Sure. Why not? Right after Congress limits the number of ice cream flavors Haagen Dqzs would be allowed to sell.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=114081 time=1670348650 user_id=68] Salary cap? Sure. Why not? Right after Congress limits the number of ice cream flavors Haagen Dqzs would be allowed to sell.

Salary cap? Sure. Why not? Right after Congress limits the number of ice cream flavors Haagen Dqzs would be allowed to sell.

What's not to get? It works just like you said it would work. So long as a player's not signed to a contract, he's a free agent, free to sign with anyone. That goes for amateurs and pros. No draft. No reserve clause. That's how it works in the real world for plumbers, ditch diggers, accountants and supermarket baggers. You want capitalism and free markets? Good. Then make it available for everybody, not just the billionaires.

Edgy MD wrote: It's funny how these lamentations suggest most of us have such a card of varying degrees of effectiveness, but Muffy gets no play in this thread, despite (1) leaving under the designation of He's a Met. He just is. (as Lunchie put it at the time), and (2) turning into a no-doubt All Star and MVP candidate for a few years after initially leaving. Lamentations are stronger for the guy who left and declined than for the guy who left and improved. I'm not sure what that means, except perhaps that I Don't Care cards are powerful talismans that require further study. Not to sound like I'm a member of QAnon, but a part of me thinks that stuff like Gary being on the negative side on Murphy's abilities, and especially him being interviewed following Billy Bean's clubhouse discussion that spring was part of a concerted effort to grease the skids, and make his impending departure less of a kick in the groin than others have been. It was the scumbag Wilpons so any despicable thing was possible, especially with the idiot tyrant failson calling the shots more and more. And put me down for lamenting Murphy's departure. I loved the Murph. But never mind all of that. In my next thesis, I trade Randy Tate the day after his near no-hitter! Talk about trading someone at the peak of his career! And who do I get in return? None other than George Foster. Because I'm way smarter and way ahead of Frank Cashen. The trick is to get Foster just before he enters his prime, not just as he enters his decline. See how my thesis works? Pre-peak. And post-peak. Sell em when they're high and get 'em when they're low. I'm a freakin' genius. I'm smarter than Frank Cashen and smarter than Bob Howsam. Tate for Foster. I really nailed that one!

How? Because I would've hypnotized both the Pirates and the Phils to such a degree with my magic charming thesis powers that they would've been willing to time-share Matlack just to have him because even to have Matlack for half a season and on a shared basis, they woulda coughed up Parker and Schmidt, respectively.

If it was up to me and I had a say, I would've traded Jon Matlack in October of 1974 for Mike Schmidt and Dave Parker.

Oh my god. This thread's never gonna end. Here's my next great idea of a thesis: Whenever I make a baseball trade, I'm gonna get a better player in return. Because the opposing GM's have no idea about my plan and what it is I'm trying to accomplish. Aren't I a genius?

Oh, for God's sake. Trading ANY player that's peaking is a sound strategy. Isnt this just another way of saying that it's better to trade a player on the way down rather than on the way up? And that's just a pretentious way of saying that its preferable to trade away a player for some other player that's even better and has more value and more gas in his tank. Jesus Christ. Shouldn't you be out looking for the 16th center fielder on the Mets depth chart? I mean, what are youse pontificating about? That you're gonna fleece all the other GM's out there by trading lesser players for better players? Here's what you do: Go out and buy yourself a baseball team and then go and trade all your players at the precise moment when their carrying costs exceed their value, which you'll always calculate accurately in real time. Then come back here in 25 years and tell us how you made out. Or better yet, tell us now when you would've optimally traded away Matz and deGrom and Seaver and Matlack and Roy Lee Jackson and then brag to us about all of the Hall of Fame swag you wouldve gotten in return for all of those trades you pretended to make. I have to go now. My latest invention is the string theory of baseball. I'll tell you all about it later.

He can't even figure out when was the best time to trade Steven Matz almost eight years after Matz debuted and almost three seasons after Matz left the Mets. But he's gonna know in real time and without the benefit of this extraordinary hindsight that he can't even leverage -- when to trade all of his pitchers. What a lunatic. And what a rule. I especially like the Edgy exception to not deprive Edgy of the Mets 2015 WS run. I guess that one's to keep Edgy on his good side just in case he needs somebody to arbitrarily red-light one of my posts for no reason at all other than that I disagreed with him. I suppose it's worth keeping Matt Harvey around and having Edgy on his side even if Matt Harvey's very promising future was almost gone by the time he took the all-star mound at Citi Field. So when would he have traded Seaver? Right after he won the rookie of the year award? Or right after he led the Mets to the top of the baseball world in 1969? Anyways, I'm still honing my latest postulation. It's all about trading all players, not just pitchers, just as they're about to decline. I figure that no other team would figure on those players declining. Think Bernard Gilkey right after the '96 season. Or Jason Bay like five minutes after we signed him to a lucrative free agent contract. I postulate that I could load up my team with three or four Babe Ruths with that postulation. Of course, as soon as those new Babe Ruths have so much as one Ruthian season, I'm gonna have to trade them, too. Because this postulation requires me trade all of my players as soon as they're really good and then hope I get really really lucky and get some other really good players in return. Of course, if I ever traded a Nolan Ryan for a Jim Fregosi, I wouldn't have to trade Fregosi soon after because of how sucky he turned out to be and there wouldn't be a GM out there that I could trick into giving me another Babe Ruth, this time for a washed up Fregosi. Maybe that's a good thing. Because all of this trading could get so tiring, especially when I'm trading away the really good players. After that, I'm gonna get in my time machine and buy up some mid 60s Warren Buffet stock. That'll be my next postulation. But for now, I'm gonna get me a moratorium.

[FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52543208892_2a971d6b37_h.jpg[/FIMG] [media=youtube]2H5uWRjFsGc[/media] [media=youtube]vrSyrOaoAug[/media] [media=youtube]T6QKqFPRZSA[/media]

Pitcher or hitter? It depends. This discussion reminds me of the comment "Good pitching will always stop good hitting" Intuitively, I'd say that that comment's true. I know that watching the prime of Tom Seaver, I felt that the Mets could beat any team on the days that Seaver started. And they usually did. I know that the odds-makers recognize this notion that good pitching beats good hitting because baseball is the only sport that I can think of where the worst team in the league can be favored to beat the best team in the league, depending on the pitching match-ups. The 1988 Mets were the best team in baseball but came up short in their quest for the NL pennant because they couldn't get past an Orel Hershiser who was historically great in 1988. And if the Astros could've won just one playoff game that wasn't started by Mike Scott, there very likely wouldn't have been a Mets-Red Sox WS because at the end of the '86 season, Scott was unhittable. The Mets prevailed over the Astros probably because Scott pitched only two playoff games. The Mets were the better team but Scott was Koufaxian. And I thought of another great thesis while I wrote that post above: my thesis is to trade all of my crappy players for superstars. Isn't that brilliant? James Mccann for Mike Trout! Yoan Lopez for Mookie Betts! I'm gonna have a moratorium to polish up my thesis, now. Then, I'll see if I could sell my thesis idea to Steve Cohen. Don't nobody here try and steal my thesis idea. Youse know I thought of it first.