Frayed Knot

If all you're getting is some low-level minor leaguer with little promise I'd pull him back too. Those guys are findable under every rock. If you let him go you're looking at making this year's team even worse than it already is with little hope that you're doing anything for the future.

Well, Santana can't get out a lefty and the Mets can't get a hit w/RiSP. Other than that things are going just fuckin' swell.

="seawolf17":28lwwmgr]They may not be able to waive him, but they can certainly cut him if they don't feel like he's part of the picture for 2010. He's costing them virtually nothing.[/quote:28lwwmgr] Sure, but it's costing them virtually nothing to keep him too and cutting him would just shove one more minor league bat into the lineup. So unless he's going to pout to the point of becoming a major distraction (and what exactly is he going to be distracting us from?) keep him and tell him if he wants to play here next year we'll talk about it over the winter. And if he doesn't like that give him the choice of playing for the next 6 weeks with the intent of impressing either the Mets or someone who could use him in 2010 or polishing the bench with his ass for the same length of time. Nymr83 Aug 20 2009 07:06 PM ]give him the choice of playing for the next 6 weeks with the intent of impressing either the Mets or someone who could use him in 2010 or polishing the bench with his ass for the same length of time. exactly. Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 07:12 PM I guess I could stand to see more of Evans. Why not? Ashie62 Aug 20 2009 07:41 PM If Sheffield was claimed and pulled, and not traded, I'd probably be pissed also Ashie62 Aug 20 2009 07:45 PM Well...we got a nice round of guessing 1960's TV voiceovers from the booth A Seaver sighting A Wagner sighting An audible lets go MFY chant and a Citified Travelouge for a few innings No casualties in this 1 of 81 at home Ashie62 Aug 20 2009 07:47 PM ="metirish":awuus1x2]Everyone wants a fucking extension .....[/quote:awuus1x2] Thats why "Enhanze" sells so well bmfc1 Aug 20 2009 07:51 PM Jon Heyman tweets that the Giants claimed Sheff but the Mets "pulled him back." Wouldn't any minor leaguer be better than the nothing they're going to get when his contract expires at the end of the season? Kong76 Aug 20 2009 07:56 PM bmfc: Jon Heyman tweets (sorry Kong) <<< I thought it was Joel Sherman? bmfc1 Aug 20 2009 07:57 PM ="Kong76"]bmfc: Jon Heyman tweets (sorry Kong) <<< I thought it was Joel Sherman? Accuracy is my motto! Sherman was re-tweeting Heyman: nyp_joelshermanstill don't understand y Mets didn't take Grade-C prospect back RT @SI_JonHeyman giants were team that claimed sheff b4 mets pulled back. Kong76 Aug 20 2009 08:05 PM Just wanna say the original, "sorry Kong" made me lol. I feel like a dinosaur sometimes. Frayed Knot Aug 20 2009 08:26 PM If all you're getting is some low-level minor leaguer with little promise I'd pull him back too. Those guys are findable under every rock. If you let him go you're looking at making this year's team even worse than it already is with little hope that you're doing anything for the future. Gwreck Aug 20 2009 09:05 PM The way I understand it, when a team claims the player, you either have to work out a deal within a set time period (48? 72? hours), or if you can't they get the player for the waiver fee ($20,000, I think), or you have to pull him back. Waiver claims can be risky because if the player is claimed, the team who waived him can refuse to work out a trade and just stick his contract on the claiming team (ie. Rios). But here the Giants have most of the leverage, given that Sheffield's contract costs nothing. dgwphotography Aug 21 2009 05:58 AM It was reported last night that it was the Marlins who claimed him, and that Sheffield would have been happy to go back, but the Mets couldn't agree on a deal. http://njmg.typepad.com/metsblog/2009/08/the-sheffield-saga.html Now Tim smith chimes in on the Mets holding Sheffield "hostage" - WTF? http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/08/21/2009-08-21_gary_sheffields_.html Frayed Knot Aug 21 2009 06:36 AM ]Now Tim smith chimes in on the Mets holding Sheffield "hostage" - WTF? Idiotic Smith: Since the Mets blocked him from moving to another team, Sheffield logically deduced that he was a part of the team's future plans. Logically? To make sure, he went in and asked the Mets Thursday to extend his contract. They refused, a clear indication that he's not part of the picture for 2010. And the hostage crisis began. Right, refusing to extend a contract in mid-season to a 40 y/o still is akin to being held hostage. I could parse this thing some more but it's not worth it. Suffice to say he uses the word "hostage" about six more times. Kong76 Aug 21 2009 06:43 AM Jeffie tweeted the ransom note about 5am for those who don't follow. Frayed Knot Aug 21 2009 07:04 AM Joel Sherman, on the other hand, seems to get it. "The Mets rejected his bizarre request for a contract extension. So Sheffield, according to sources, initially became verbally abusive, then demanded he be released or traded to the Marlins, then threatened to return home to Florida, and finally just pulled himself from the starting lineup. He struck out as a pinch-hitter in the eighth inning and then ignored reporters' interview attempts after the game." Not quite the innocent "victim" Smith portrays him to be. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 21 2009 09:20 AM If the Mets had only signed LaWanda Page at the break, we'd all be sitting in butter. Anyway, I know Smith had to file and all, but he should probably check out his colleague's blog: ]Let me weigh in with the obvious on Gary Sheffield: If you sign up to play for a team, and that team decides to keep you for the entire season, how exactly can you have any legitimate gripe? metirish Aug 21 2009 09:48 AM Is it a sign of the bad times with the downturn in the economy(how I hate that term) that the likes of Smith is covering baseball . From what I know of him he is a boxing guy. duan Aug 21 2009 10:05 AM if sheffield wants to have an extension at a modest raise to what the mets are paying him this year, I'd be all on for that. I wouldn't just double what we're paying him I'd treble it. And if he isn't happy with his 1.2 million well then maybe i'd go as high as 1.6. But I AIN'T paying him 10 million next year to be Moises Alou renewed contract part 2. Benjamin Grimm Aug 21 2009 10:09 AM And I'd bring him back with a role matching the expectations that were had for him in 2009; a pinch-hitter, fourth/fifth outfielder. Not as a starting regular left fielder. Nymr83 Aug 21 2009 10:53 AM ]Is it a sign of the bad times with the downturn in the economy(how I hate that term) that the likes of Smith is covering baseball . From what I know of him he is a boxing guy. Tim Smith is already figuring out how to look like a NYC baseball writer though, he already knows to blame the Mets for everything even when its somebody else (Sheffield) being the douchebag. All he needs to do now is add a paragraph about how "this would never happen with the Yankees" Frayed Knot Aug 21 2009 12:54 PM Very little is worse than non-baseball writers (talking heads, "opinion makers", etc.) opining about baseball. They either seem to hate the sport and rail against whatever attention it gets (and takes away from football) or simply don't know it very well but feel obligated to sound off anyway. I recently stumbled across some televised round-table chat-fest not long after Randy Johnson's 300th win. When the topic turned to whether there'd ever be another one of the heads started squawking about how it would never happen because there's too much money in the game now and so today's players all retire early because they're too rich to care. That opinion is obviously so stupid and so wrong that it's not even worth debating, but boy whoever this guy was he was very loud and very sure about what he was saying. Valadius Aug 21 2009 03:34 PM If he wants to go, let him freaking go. It's not like this team is actually going anywhere this year anyway. metsmarathon Aug 21 2009 08:28 PM if we offer him arbitration, the lower limit on that is based on the contract he's signed with the mets, right, and not what he's still making from teh tiggers? Frayed Knot Aug 21 2009 09:03 PM ="metsmarathon":23bdu89e]if we offer him arbitration, the lower limit on that is based on the contract he's signed with the mets, right, and not what he's still making from teh tiggers?[/quote:23bdu89e] No, he'd have to be offered 80% of his current per/year amount, not just the NYM portion of it. There's no reason to offer Sheffield arbitration. If you want to keep him next year you simply need to negotiate a deal. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 21 2009 09:47 PM ="Frayed Knot"]="metsmarathon"]if we offer him arbitration, the lower limit on that is based on the contract he's signed with the mets, right, and not what he's still making from teh tiggers? No, he'd have to be offered 80% of his current per/year amount, not just the NYM portion of it. There's no reason to offer Sheffield arbitration. If you want to keep him next year you simply need to negotiate a deal. He wouldn't have to be offered 80% of his current per annum, since he's a free agent. The salary floor only applies to those under team control. It's another reason the arb offer for Country Time makes sense. Frayed Knot Aug 21 2009 09:52 PM But offering him arb (and him accepting it) would prevent him from ever getting to the FA stage and that's what you want to avoid here! Once he declares for FA he's not under your control anymore so arb doesn't enter into it. I have no problem negotiating a separate deal w/Sheff if he's willing to be reasonable but it can't be at anywhere near what he was making in the final year of the Detroit contract. PiggiesTomatoes Aug 21 2009 10:03 PM Wouldn't touch him with a pole. Like Tatis last year, I appreciate his contribution during this mess of a season but I wouldn't bring him back. metsmarathon Aug 22 2009 06:48 AM ="Frayed Knot":2g03z1lv]="metsmarathon":2g03z1lv]if we offer him arbitration, the lower limit on that is based on the contract he's signed with the mets, right, and not what he's still making from teh tiggers?[/quote:2g03z1lv] No, he'd have to be offered 80% of his current per/year amount, not just the NYM portion of it. There's no reason to offer Sheffield arbitration. If you want to keep him next year you simply need to negotiate a deal.[/quote:2g03z1lv] well, if that's the case, then surely i wouldn't think of offering him arbitration. if the 80% rule was based off his current contract (what he signed with NYM after being released from DET), then i would consider offering him arbitration. i guess then there's the risk of what he could actually make if it ever reached arbitration, but i would figure he'd surely refuse it. really im just trying to make sense of why the mets would want to keep him around this season. if they don't bring him back next year or offer him arbitration, tehn they lose him for nothing. which is the same thing as if they lose him through waivers. so maybe they're planning on keeping him around for the Class B draft pick compensation LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 22 2009 03:35 PM Considering that he's in the group with the gaudiest stat pool (1B/OF/DH), I'm pretty sure that Sheff won't anywhere near Type B (20-40 percentile) on the Elias ratings. I think it's as simple as (A) their not loving the claimant's prospect offer/the claimant not really making a serious offer and ( their wanting to remain "respectable" for the remainder of the season. (Yeah, I don't really get it, either.) EDIT: Just checked the MLBTR-linked Elias projections[/url:114fboc1] (painstakingly calculated/assembled by a guy from Detroit Tigers Thoughts after he reverse-engineered last year's rankings), and they've got Sheffield as a borderline type-B among NL 1B/OF. My surprise... and my bad. Ashie62 Aug 22 2009 06:41 PM I don't see Sheff has any future with the Mets beyond this year. Wouldn't it be easiest to trade him or let him go?? might lose a draft pick, but Sheff did well..cut the old man a break, and loose Edgy DC Aug 22 2009 07:51 PM Do we know that the claiming team (reportedly the Giants) made any offer at all? If not, they may well have claimed him just to block another team from getting him. Ashie62 Aug 22 2009 08:25 PM ="Edgy DC":30mcayco]Do we know that the claiming team (reportedly the Giants) made any offer at all? If not, they may well have claimed him just to block another team from getting him.[/quote:30mcayco] Could very well be the case. It seems kind of petty to hold him up smg58 Aug 22 2009 10:29 PM Why didn't we just trade Sheffield at the deadline? If the commish OKed the Peavy deal, he'd have approved a deal involving somebody who was coming off the DL on August 1.

]I thought, if he gets claimed and the waiver is withdrawn, it means he can be traded, but not to any team ahead of the claiming team in the standings. No, either he is; - awarded to the first team in the pecking order claiming him (Rios to ChiSox) - a deal is worked out with the team claiming him - he clears all teams and can be dealt to anyone - or he's pulled back in which case he not be traded at all within this same waiver period.

Not really. It costs nothing to keep Sheffield so if the claiming team didn't want to work out a deal where we'd actually get something for him there's no reason not to pull him back.

Well, we're going find out about life after Livan -- he was released today to make room for Billy Wags.

It's not just the not acknowledging the role the massive injuries have played that makes this stupid, it's the idea that the Wilpons and Omar are not merely incompetent but evil as well to the point where they're either [u:3cff8dtd]not going to realize[/u:3cff8dtd] that the team is having a bad year as long as attendance is good, or that [u:3cff8dtd]they don't care[/u:3cff8dtd] that the team is bad as long as attendance is good. I realize that the 'we care but they don't so don't give them any ammo' attitude will score him big populist points among his angrier readers, but is this something he really believes?

Dodgers pick up Vicente Padilla (late of the stRangers) to help soothe their current pitching woes. Kuroda finally went on the DL yesterday 4 days after taking a liner off his noggin, and while their phenom Calyton Kershaw didn't lose yesterday he was yanked in the 4th inning already having throw 97 pitches (and walking 4) Bill Hall gets traded to Seattle although I'm not sure why. I hope for their sake Milwaukee is paying them a bunch of money.

Well, hell, [u:6o0vg4rs]I've[/u:6o0vg4rs] done more for that club than his predecessor simply by staying away from the franchise during my life-span.

Wednesday, August 20 - Shea Stadium: Mets 6 - Giants 0 -- Jim McAndrew vs Gaylord Perry An actual cruise-control game following a series of low-scoring nail-biters as Jim McAndrew tosses a complete game 2-hitter against a lineup with 3 future H-o-F-ers. OK Gaylord Perry isn�t a hitter, but McAndrew did out-pitch him while silencing the bats of Mays & McCovey (and also Bobby Bonds). Perry is gone with only one out in the 5th inning mostly due to Art Shamsky. Art had both a 1st inning RBI double and then tacked on a 3R-HR in the 5th to make it 5-0 Mets. Before the inning was out Harrelson would triple in a run off reliever (and future Met) Ray Sadecki for their 6th run. Some 2nd baseman named Don Mason (no memory at all) got both hits off McAndrew, a double and a triple. He�d finish his 8-year career with a grand total of 22 XBHs Game Time = 2:18 68 - 51; 2nd place; 7.0 games out of 1st, 1.5 games up on 3rd place StL (Cubs lost to Atlanta 6-2; Cards beat Reds 2-1) Mays & McCovey are a combined 0-for11 with 2 BBs so far in this series Once or future Mets on the �69 Giants include Ron Hunt & Willie Mays; Dave Marshall & Ray Sadecki (came in the same post-1969 trade for Jim Gosger & Bob Heise); plus, still 3 weeks short of making his ML debut, a 20 y/o OF named George Foster

Jerry DiPoto NOT getting the Washington GM job as it turns out. Nationals brass must have liked the way interim GM Mike Rizzo handled the Strasburg negotiations because they've just removed the interim tag and made him permanent just days after rumors started that they had decided not to.

] ... the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong. The main reason the draft is subject to collective bargaining is that the FA compensation system incorporates the movement of some of those draft picks as part of the "price" of a player's FAgency. IOW, as long as it affects the players their union has a right to a say in how it's conducted. That's why there's at least some sentiment among owners to do away with draft pick compensation and thereby de-link the draft from the CBA. There actually was an agreement to do just that (I think it was two CBAs ago) but when it came down to finalizing it the two sides realized they couldn't agree on exactly what they thought they had agreed to and so the issue was left status quo.

The other notion that's off in this whole insta-analysis thing is the one where the picks who were paid extra money are somehow automatically assumed to be better players. It's kind of like the Donald Trump philosophy of saying; 'this thing I just bought must be of the highest quality, look how much I paid for it'. I mean it's nice that the Yanquis paid top dollar for their 44th round draft pick - although I have no idea if he's worth it or why, if he's so good, 30 teams decided to pass on him 43 times each. Three drafts back the Yanx spent a 30th round pick on Andrew Brackman - a 6' 10" Tar Heel hoops player/pitcher. He had pitched very little in college since he was committed to playing basketball and he also pre-needed TJ surgery before he could even start a pro career, but they still had to pay him some huge amount to buy him out of any hard-court dreams and turn him towards a baseball diamond. Now it's two+ years later and he's just starting out in low-A ball even though he's nearing birthday # 24. And, oh yeah, he's getting bombed regularly! I mean we're talking a 1-12 record; a near-7 ERA; 1.7 WHiP, and I recently read a report saying scouts can find nothing good to say about him now that they've finally got to see him throw. Now I suppose there's still hope and maybe his promise and his build and athleticism will take over at some point when the surgery is far enough in the rear-view mirror, but is that something you would bet on or consider a good risk for a ton of cash? The funny part is, for the better part of a decade, it was the Yanx who were considered to be ultra-conservative in the draft at the same time they were dumping tons of money on every high-ceiling kid they could find in the Carribbean. They ultimately found that to be a very expensive and very inefficient way of doing business.

You can tell it's throw in the towel time ... they're taking calls in the booth.

Or not, whatever.

Don't yank Parnell. Let him work his way out of this. The Braves haven't hit a ball hard all inning.

="PiggiesTomatoes"]Gary mentioned it during last night's broadcast but the Mets are now 4 for 48 with bases loaded and two outs. And practically in the same sentence he mentioned how the Mets have been at or near the top in hitting with RiSP all year -- showing how stats like that are more a measure of randomness than anything concrete. ][Charles Barkley] That's terrible. [/Charles Barkley] You mis-spelled Turrible.

Not bad for a guy who hit ZERO HRs over like 200 ABs last year in Brooklyn. Lots of folks busting on this pick over the off-season. Patience people.

"Steve Matz realized he could have a professional baseball career only in the past year, when a growth spurt turned his 5-foot-7, 140-pound frame as a freshman into its current 6-4 and approaching 200 pounds." Well that's actually growth scattered over four years, not just one, although it's still kind of a lot. Notice in the Burkhardt interview the other night Matz was still ducking the question as to whether he was a Mets fan: 'well, I kinda liked all teams and just watched a lot of baseball whenever I could ,,, but my mom and grandma were' This guy's got a pair of #2 pinstriped PJs in his drawer, I'm sure of it. Or maybe Pettitte since he's a LHP.

Perez - 1.9 Dessens - 1.0 Felieciano - 0.4 Stokes - 0.4 Sheffield - 2.0 Castillo - 1.5 Francoeur - 2.0 Santos - 0.3 Tatis - 0.3 Pagan - 0.2

Pedro Feliciano has faced, on average, batters with a line of .269/.350/.449, the highest opponents OPS of anyone with 45+ innings, yet he has allowed a line of just .220/.265/.370. Talk about your heavy lifting.

You like pitching? ... We got your pitching right here! Tuesday, August 19 - Shea Stadium: Mets 1 - Giants 0 (14 Innings) -- Gary Gentry vs Juan Marichal Gentry throws 10 innings of shutout ball - allowing only singles in the 2nd, 5th, 7th & 10th innings along with 4 walks. Marichal walks just 1 over that same span and allows 3rd, 4th & 10th inning singles. McGraw takes over in the 11th and pitches 1-hit/1-walk ball for 4 innings. In the Met 12th (with Marichal still hurling) Jones knocks a 1-out single, then McGraw hits for himself and gets what is described as; a single to Pitcher + E1 wtih Jones thrown out at home and McGraw advancing to 3rd ... well that certainly sounds like fun! Garrett then flied out to end the inning. The next (and last) hit in the game was Agee�s 1-out game-winning HR in the 14th ... off Marichal. It was the only extra-base hit of the game. Game Time = 3:44 67 - 51; 2nd place; 8.0 games out of 1st, 1.5 games up on 3rd place StL (Cubs beat Atlanta 3-0; Cards lost to Reds 8-4) Although the Mets had already broken the �curse� Marichal had on them - he had won his first 19 decisions before Jack Fisher beat him on Independence Day in 1967 - he was still 21-2 against them overall at this point. He�d wind up his vs-NYM career at 26-8 meaning that we actually "got to him" in the later years, going 8-7 after that initial 19-0

From what I read the pct of picks overall from the first 10 rounds who signed this year was virtually identical to last year's pct. Also, Selig's 10% reduction in slotting targets from last year resulted in less than a 1% reduction in actual bonuses.