Frayed Knot

fwiw, the Mets have said that they felt that McLean needed work on facing LHBs and wanted to see progress there before bringing him up. Just because he's had two fine games in August doesn't mean that also would have been the case if brought up in May or June. Wright had less than one season's worth of ABs (just over 400) in AA & AAA combined prior to his ML debut. Reyes had just under 500 at those same levels, all of them as a teenager, when he was called up. Neither situation suggests that their ML debuts were unreasonably delayed.

from mlb.com: Zack Wheeler was diagnosed with venous thoracic outlet syndrome and the recommendation is to undergo thoracic outlet decompression surgery in the coming weeks. Details of the surgery are forthcoming. The timeline of recovery from the surgery is generally 6-8 months. None of that sounds like fun. Six months puts him to early March at best. Eight and you're into May. * didn't see this at the tail end of another thread

The main league that went with names (mostly founders and other long time execs) as division/conference titles was the NHL but they eventually abandoned that. They also got away from the small division model and went with four eight-team divisions so Manfred has a model to copy from if he can see beyond the 8x4 model. The NHL's Eastern Conference is divided into the 'Atlantic' and 'Metropolitan' divisions, the West consists of the 'MidWest' and 'Pacific'.

Signed by the Yanx

So I'm doing a little numerical doodling here on what a schedule might look like with a 32 team league and either a 4x8 or 8x4 set up. 4x8 (4 divisions of 8 teams each) - 15 'league' opponents @ 3 series each (each season would have to be one home/two away or vice versa) totaling 138 games. Since 15 x 9 (the normal size of three series) = 135 then three of those series would need to be four games on a random basis. - then a three games series vs only half of the 16 teams in the other 'league' = 24. You'd play a series vs the other half of that league the next year. Plusses: 85% of the games are in-league games/15% out, compared to about 70/30 in the current format Minuses: a visit from teams in the opposite league to your town only once in a four year period 8x4 (8 divisions of 4 teams) - 3 division opponents x 22 games* = 66 - 12 league but not division opponents x 6 games = 96 That, right there, is your 162 so no IL play in this scenario. You could cut down to one series per non-division opponent (alternate year home/away) if you want to add IL play but that's 48 games vs them also or the same one series each and if you're playing them as much as your in-league/non-div opponents then there's no difference between in-league or out- Minuses: - barely 40% of games in-division which is actually slightly more than now (~56/162 = 35%) yet still a very high proportion of your sked devoted to just three teams (nearly 1/7th of your entire sked to each of the three). So it's like 22/per is both too low and too high at the same time (there's familiarity and then there's overkill). - Then there's ~60% of the sked devoted to out of division and/or league. Is that really want we want? And the only way to reduce that is to increase the already huge number of in-division games. Plusses: I'll let you know when I come up with one * 22 games/yr vs each opponent was actually the number that reigned for more than a half-century [22 x 7 = 154] until the 1961/62 expansion bumped up the number of teams to 10 per/lg, but you saw everyone that amount. This would be swinging between 'these guys again?' vs 'who are these dudes?'

Well, presumably there'll still be two leagues [conferences? halves?] just maybe not with the teams in each that we're used to. But Interleague play ("A gift to the fans" -- Bud Selig) and the universal DH effectively eliminated any remaining difference between the leagues, differences that had slowly disappearing for decades even before all that. So if/when expansion happens it's going to mean a reshuffling of the deck, the only question is how it's going to get done. Manfred [read: the owners] certainly hinted that he/they want realignment more along geographic lines: western teams mostly in one 'league' and eastern teams in another (whatever those leagues wind up being called) in order to create less travel during the season and more regional matchups/better TV times in the early playoff rounds. My point was that if these realignment plans are only going to sort of change things by only moving two or four (or six or eight) teams, then what are we really holding on to here?

I don't even care if they keep the names. But if you're going to 'only' shuffle around 8 or10 teams -- as the FOX plan Irish linked does even as they boast about how few teams they displaced to come up with their scenario -- then you're not really preserving much and so, in my mind, it becomes little different than realigning with zero regard to what leagues/divisions teams are or were once connected to.

Mid-Atlantic? When do we play Bermuda?

The FOX grid differs from the NY Post one only in a few cases -- and not always in a good way as they split up the Dodgers & Giants -- and all these 'fixes' are great at telling you what they improve while ignoring what they make worse. This one makes a big point of telling you how Colorado never belonged in a 'West' division as they weren't even in the Pacific time zone while failing to note that, in their plan, Cincy is the lone EDT team in the entire western half of the bracket. Or, as they call it, the National League. Also, like everyone else, they go straight to four team divisions without even a discussion of any other format. At some point these are all just exercises in who can draw the prettiest circles. Finally, if the Mets, Phillies, Braves, Pirates, Nationals, Marlins are moved to the American League, while the White Sox, Royals, Angels, Mariners and A's are now National League clubs, is the traditional league set-up really being 'preserved', or is keeping the names just a way of pretending that it hasn't been chucked entirely?

So at least three weeks. Lesson: Stop sliding head first.

But the story is still short on specifics, with reports saying only an "injured thumb". No mention is made of ligaments, tendons, bones, termites, or anything else, nor is any time frame mentioned. https://nypost.com/2025/08/19/sports/francisco-alvarez-going-on-il-in-brutal-mets-injury-blow/

More accurately, what I was getting at* was the idea that both can be true, that realignment (depending on how it's structured of course) can be good for the players AND the owners. Yes, the owners want reduced travel costs and the potential of increased post-season revenue for their bottom line. But they also have to sell this whole idea to the players and reduced travel time is a carrot that they'll dangle out there as incentive for MLBPA to sign up. * perhaps not too eloquently: "Is geographic alignment for the benefit of owners with reduced travel expenses or for the players with less travel time?" Yes

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that Manfred works for the owners so any changes coming down the pike aren't being driven strictly from Park Avenue on down. If the teams and their TV partners/potential partners weren't behind at least some form of these proposed changes then there wouldn't even be a discussion on these topics.

Yes, but I'm saying that 4 groups of 8 is MUCH > 8 groups of 4. And yet every floated proposal always goes the other way as if the nirvana of set-ups is to get to the smallest division sizes possible. Among other things (some previously noted) would be that 8x4 would lessen the 'stacked' division issue. Combine the NYM, NYY, BOS, PHI quartet with the [WAS, BAL, PIT, CLE] group then you avoid creating a semi-permanent 'Group of Death' situation that World Cup fans seem to carp about every time. Presumably the post-season format (assuming they don't decide to totally wreck this by going to 20 teams) would be each of the (four) division winners plus four WC from each. Div winners get 1st round byes, the other eight play down to four leaving eight, then four, then two, then one ... all of which ends just in time for Thanksgiving.

Is geographic alignment for the benefit of owners with reduced travel expenses or for the players with less travel time? Answer: Yes The NY Post floats this idea -- using the 8 x 4 teams like everyone assumes will be the case even though none like to point out drawbacks when they do so. And, as always, one of the big issues with splitting the country east/west is that the teams aren't cleanly divided into east and west. In the Post's example the team getting screwed here most is Cincinnati as they'll be the lone Eastern Time Zone team in the 'west' playing a lot of games in the Central, Mountain, and Pacific zones. Also Milwaukee not being grouped with their TWO closest teams the Cubs & ChiSox. And while the long running argument in favor of realignment has been that in-state teams should be matched up, this one still separates the two Pennsylvania clubs (split apart 30+ years ago killing a near 100-yr rivalry in Bud Selig's first realignment "fix") and still keeps the two Ohio clubs and the two Missouri clubs apart. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? Now some of those issues could be fixed by group 4x8 instead of 8x4 but not all of them. One of those five divisions either on or east of the Mississippi has to be grouped in the west and all logical options still have drawbacks. [FIMG=600]https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/08/19s.MLB_.RealignmentGFX_web.jpg?resize=1024,607&quality=75&strip=all[/FIMG]

Particularly not when Senga, Manaea, Montas, Blackburn, and Megill have all missed time to injury this season and then you've got Holmes doing an on-the-fly transition from a reliever. I think it's clear there's an overall philosophy in the org to Not push beyond certain limits even if they frustratingly cling to that 'policy' seemingly without any degree of flexibility.

Those starts in Phoenix in 1999 were 11 PM starts -- 8:09 local time first pitch to be precise for both Game 1 & 2 TV wanted to keep the two NYC teams from conflicting with each other and the Tex @ NYY games 1 & 2 in that same round started at 8:10 EDT so even a 10:00 start time wasn't going to cut it*. And that's what Manfred hinted at last night, that a more regional approach to the early playoff rounds would keep east coasters from having to endure late starts and west coasters from potentially having a first pitch in road games come during the middle of their work day. Both cases are going to contribute to a ceiling for TV rating$ - and of course the TV networks are going to have a voice in these decisions. * Naturally the first two TEX/NYY games totaled over 7 hours (because of course they did) so there were still some conflicts anyway.

This sounds like one of those deals -- like the universal DH, like the Ghost runner -- that has already been decided long before MLB's eventual announcement. Only the reveal of which new cities and the details of realignment remain. Manfred all but said that this is being done to save travel expenses and have playoff matchups between teams in the same time zones as much as possible (y'know, at least for the opening five rounds). So the idea that the east coast NL teams and west coast NL teams are to remain in the same league/conference/play-group (whatever they're going to call it) sounds unlikely to say the least. - what I expect to see is the Mets 'grouped' with eastern and near-eastern team while teams in the western half of the country in effect become the 'other' league who we'll see one series/yr. iow: basketball I say this every time the topic of expansion/realignment comes up, but divisions made up of just four teams is a HORRIBLE idea (and one which I fully expect to be the end result) - it greatly reduces the chances of a good and meaningful race for 1st place which, in turn, gives birth to the idea of MORE wild cards are needed to make up for divisions effectively being clinched in August - it also greatly increases the odds of a division being won by a sub-.500 team - so if you're going to 32 teams (again, a fait accomplishment IMO) 4x8 is > 8x4 despite what your math teacher told you all those years ago

Speaking of scripted, it was recently brought to my attention that the Bronx Giraffe has yet to win a single race. I haven't thought about this 'race' essentially since it was announced, but I find this kind of funny even if obvious and something I should have seen coming.

I was just doing some reading about how Dylan almost broke the movie before it could get made. He was just about to release Renaldo and Clara, a movie he starred in as well as co-wrote that eventually pre-dated the release of LW by a few months, and he was reluctant to appear in something which might conflict with it. Scorsese and the Band knew that a Dylan-less Waltz would blow a major hole in the financial outlook of their film so frantic negotiations went on leading practically right up to performance night. In the end crisis was averted when Bob agreed to allow two, but only two, of his performances into the picture ... and the rest is history.

So despite not giving up a HR, the six batters he put on base somehow all managed to score.

Jim Callas profiles ten players who mlb.com had unranked in their pre-season Top-100 who then made the biggest jumps onto their recently released mid-season re-ranking. And three of them are Mets. Carson Benge, OF, Mets (No. 20) Benge snuck onto the Top 100 in a rare March move related to injury and spent the next few months asserting himself with authority, courtesy of one of the best offensive seasons in the Minors this year. The 22-year-old really turned it on after a midseason promotion to Double-A Binghamton, where he homered eight times in 32 games (double his homer output at High-A in almost half the games) to earn another promotion to Triple-A Syracuse. All told, the '24 first-rounder was hitting .308/.413/.513 with 12 homers and 19 steals across three levels during his first full pro season at the time of the rerank. Nolan McLean, RHP, Mets (No. 37) The Mets have had a recent trend of top pitching prospects struggling in their first taste of Triple-A, but not McLean. After an uneven first full season in '24, the '23 second-rounder reached the Minors' highest level after only five starts and emerged as one of the best pitchers in the International League, posting a 2.78 ERA with more than a strikeout per inning across 16 appearances (13 starts). McLean's best weapon is his 70-grade sweeper, which he can spin at upward of 3,000 rpm. And it's hurtled him to The Show, he's expected to make his MLB debut on Saturday against the Mariners. Jonah Tong, RHP, Mets (No. 44) Three of the 10 players on this list are Mets, and Tong is the epitome of a breakout prospect with his Tim Lincecum comps and eye-popping strikeout numbers. The 22-year-old reached Double-A down the stretch last season and absolutely dominated the level this year, posting a 1.59 ERA in 20 starts before heading to Triple-A with Benge and others to start the week. He leads the Minors with 162 strikeouts -- 27 more than the next closest pitcher at the time of our rerank. https://www.mlb.com/news/biggest-breakouts-on-new-top-100-prospects-list-2025?t=mlb-pipeline-coverage And a link to the entire new Top-100 released earlier this week: https://www.mlb.com/milb/prospects/top100/

Most teams when they get a 6-run lead you assume they're going to win. For us you just hope they'll last until the 9th. For the Mets you just hope they'll just last until the next inning.

Even our hits w/runners in scoring position don't score runners in scoring position. It was a worthwhile send but it didn't work.

I can't believe we're losing this ****in' game!!!