Frayed Knot

Reds deal for Pitt's Ke'Bryan Hayes The son of ex-ML'er Charlie brings a great glove with him but just has never hit the way folks hoped: a career OPS+ of 86 (and 56! this year) despite being top-10 in the pre-2021 season prospect lists MLB's Mark Feinsand opines that the Phils, Mariners, Cubs, and Tigers are considered the primary suitors for Eugenio Suarez

Aah, I didn't read the fine print over at BB-Ref. OK so we might be buying his theoretical prime years. [$20M x 2 or $2M buyouts for each '26 & '27] The downside is that his cost is escalating just as his production is declining. Makes one wonder what justifies the optimism is going forward considering recent trends. 2024 & '25 combined: 187 games played (out of 271); .216/.286/.366 // 651; OPS+ = 83

On the plus side, in this so far miserable week, the Phils lost two of three to the friggin' White Sox! ... so still in 1st place despite it all. Elsewhere, the Cubs salvaged the finale vs the Brewers today. So a one game lead for MIL atop the central.

Yeah, I don't get a high level of interest in Robert BA last five seasons: .338, .284, .264, .224, .206 ... I think that's what they tend to call a 'negative trend' He's also always hurt -- 2023 was his only season in six with with 100+ games played. He should pass it this season even though he's missed 20% to date (87/108) And, yeah, he's still just 27 y/o, but he's also a FA at the end of the year so it's not like we'd be 'buying' his prime years.

Just a pathetic display of offense (and not much better defense or pitching) over the last 2-1/2 games. The Padres scored five runs today after two were out and no one on. Yesterday the Mets scored once (barely) starting with bases loaded no one out and 3-4-5 due up. That, plus a solo HR, were the only runs scored after the Vientos 5th inning GS on Monday.

57% (4/7) of the NYM runs in this series came on one swing. The Vientos GS gave them a 4-run lead in the 5th inning of game #1. They've been out-scored 17-2 in the [CROSSOUT]20[/CROSSOUT] 21 innings since.

Coming into today's game Darvish retired 49 of the 80 batters he faced this season (4 games). Today: 18 of 20

The Padres have 6 hits, 2 BB, 2 HBP, 1 SB, and have reached on one error ... all after two were out! Do the Mets have that many two-out baserunners this month? Just wondering.

Holmes has retired six of the first 13 batters faced. Darvish, who has a .309/.405/.515 (BAA/OBA/SLGA) against this season, has allowed the Mets one single so far.

Clay Holmes vs Yu Darvish; 4:10 first pitch (or thereabouts) Darvish, who turns 39 in a few weeks!!, pitched only 16 games for the Swinging Friars last season and just four so far this year ... with pretty rocky results. 16.2 IP combined in those four games resulting in a 9.18 ERA. The big flub was his last start vs StL: 8 ER, 8 H, 2 BB in just 3/1 IP, but the others weren't pretty either. It would be nice if NYM bats can hit someone seeing as how they've had a grand total of 10 hits thru the first two games. Lineups to follow (probably)

Look, the Mets should be willing to consider trading any of their young players, those already in the majors and those not yet there. There are a mere handful of Bobby Witt Jr-type of young players upon whom you slap an 'Untouchable' sign, the rest are fair game. The key is to decide which ones to keep and which to move on from, and just as important is the timing of those decisions. The stupid way to deal with it is to cling to a dichotomy where young players/prospects are either future stars or forever busts, especially when most are far from being either. And the part about describing them as they suck now and are only going to get worse so we should trade them for someone really good or else I'll whine about it like I do each time Stearns fails to grab stud relievers off the waiver wire is really stupid. Do I want to trade Vientos? No. But the fact that he (at least theoretically) has the higher ceiling and a great (mostly full) season under his belt means that other teams are going to consider that too and maybe he is the only one who nets you what the team really needs, especially seeing as how there are several already in the system who can step into his role and position. Keeping him and dealing someone else is fine too but the return is likely to be lower. I don't think you understand trades. The goal is to get the better of the other team. -- I do understand them and no it's not.

Perhaps more a spin-off than a sequel, but Brad Pitt's character from ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, Cliff Booth, will be the subject of a forthcoming movie, apparently to be called THE ADVENTURES OF CLIFF BOOTH. Annnnd Brad Pitt will reprise his Oscar winning (Best Supporting) role so there will be a degree of continuity. Leonardo DiCaprio and his Rick Dalton character are said to not be part of the movie. Quentin Tarantino, the writer and director of Once Upon ... is writing the script.

Not precisely. But "they're all duds" (or so I've heard) so do we keep and play them anyway even though we already know this apparently irreversible fact? I suppose we could trade them all but wouldn't we just be getting different duds in return? Or is this one of those make believe scenarios where we get really good players in return because only WE know they're duds ... so don't tell anyone ? Or there's acknowledging their collective dud-ness and releasing them en masse so as to not fall into the trap of chasing sunk costs?

It's certainly disturbing to hear that the owners (Manfred is just their mouthpiece whether he agrees with this notion or not, he probably does) have not only NOT given up on the idea of a salary cap but may be more determined to get one despite the fact that they've never come close to even coming close to getting one while also showing that they'll fail to stay cohesive long before the union does. I'm sure Manfred's message here, as he bunny-hops from clubhouse to clubhouse, is to try and make the case that their (yet-to-be) propsed cap will also come with a floor and therefore the net result will NOT be total lower payrolls overall but merely the same amount (or more!!) distributed differently and more uniformly. But this is a similar type of theoretical scheme that politicians sometimes offer where they think that they're really, really good at manipulating the economy and that they know what prices and wages should be much better than that pesky free market does. And how well has MLB's pseudo-salary-cap, the luxury tax plus revenue sharing system that's been in place in one form or another for years now, resulted in more equitable payrolls? This attempted next step sounds like: 'OK, our attempts to 'correct' the inequalities have so far failed miserably, so what we need to do now is to take the same concept and expand it further!!!'

That may be the first time I've seen a pitcher successfully pull off a scoop-throw to home. Those are usually more likely to wind up rolling to the backstop than in the catcher's glove.

Pete now 4/39 since the AS break. I knew he shouldn't have done that fuckin' HR Derby!!

So you'd just release them all now?

1) anyone who treats every player who ever had a 'prospect' label attached to him as some kind of promise of future greatness deserves all the disappointment he/she gets 2) betting against EVERY prospect in every system is going to make one right a lot more often than wrong so stop acting as if you're being lied to against your will 3) didn't know that the book was closed on all these guys. When was it decided that this (partial) season is the truth on Vientos and last season (the larger sample size) the mirage ... other than, y'know, for purposes of cherry-picking evidence so as to confirm a predetermined conclusion?

Edgy MD wrote: I was trying to recall why Zeile was referred to as "Z(ei)le" back on the MOFo, but then realized I don't know now and didn't know then. I think that was connected to when METSC dubbed him 'Un' because he thought Zeile played with a lack of zeal (y'know, that 'Old, slow and white' label that got thrown around often in those days*) so Zeile really represented a player with un-Ze(i)al ... or something along those lines. * at least until the hiring of GM Omar Minaya where he pronounced at his intro press conference that he wanted the team to get "more athletic". Well that statement quickly got slammed by the 'old/slow/white crowd as code for anti-white racism and when that was 'confirmed' by the subsequent signings of Delgado, Beltran, etc. I guess it meant they suddenly thought the team wasn't old, slow, or white enough).

Were there to be a lefty on the mound for SD tonight (there's not) I would have no problem sitting Mauricio.

Edgy MD wrote: Also, Todd Zeile had as engaging an evening behind the mic as any I can recall. He shifted nicely between prepared narratives and emerging ones, and offered perspectives that referenced "back when I played" accounts mixed in with "what I have observed since then." I was trying to recall why Zeile was referred to as "Z(ei)le" back on the MOFo, but then realized I don't know now and didn't know then.

This one seems appropriate right about now. [YOUTUBE]7xBxZGQ1dJk[/YOUTUBE]

Suarez was hit on the hand by a pitch in the 9th inning of today's game in Detroit - thus causing at least half the teams in MLB to hold their breath and/or change their plans. But X-rays were negative, so 'Day to Day'

Ryne Sandberg - 65 He had dealt with cancer off and on in recent years.

THAT call was just fucking ridiculous!