Edgy MD

Look for me in Section 76, Row 12, Seat 19.

"According to an industry source..." That may not seem like much to you, but when your name is Mike F. Puma, you make the rules yourself with your own bare hands.

DUDA!!

TransMonk wrote: Yeah, it seems as if they are stretching the rules. "Elbow fatigue" is the official injury...though it appears "ineffectiveness" would be a better diagnosis. I'm not sure what the Mets were expecting from Parnell since his rehab appearances were very similar to what he was able to do in the majors. Well, let us keep in mind that he performed over his first 13 appearances, putting up 0.73 ERA, walking four and striking out eight in 12 1/3 innings. It's only over the last 10 appearances that things have gone hinky-shaped, walking eight and striking out two in 7 innings, while posting a 14.10 ERA. That's about as hinky as they come. It's hideous hinky.

Hard reporting from Mike Puma says that the Mets effectively put the screws to Parnell, telling him it was DFA, DL, or PCL, his choice.

I make no claims of Montero's condition one way or the other, but really, how can we possibly be clear?

Ceetar wrote: nope That's an argument? Ceetar wrote: and again this isn't really about Maine, Again? This is the first time you've made that claim. And you're the one who brought him up. If you have a larger point that his case doesn't support, you perhaps shouldn't bring him up. If his case does not support your larger point, your larger point is undermined. who they'd already run tests on and found nothing. He's been injured on and off for years at this point. He'd had a bone spur removed a year and a half earlier that was described by surgeons as the largest they'd ever extracted. They'd found plenty. Enough. Your example hurts your argument. You are still in there pitching it and you need to be removed from the game.

Just printed my tickets. It's Koosman against Cuellar tonight, I think.

In short, what we're talking about here is a player apparently (the story isn't yet clear) arguing that he's injured when the team cannot currently find anything. And the accusation that the team (in the person of the manager) is going to force him to "man up." What you describe is a player arguing that he's well, when the team insists he's injured. And him insisting on manning up against the wishes of his manager and pitching coach.

Ceetar wrote: no, actually, what happened is exactly as I describe, there was an injury that was discovered medically after repeated attempts to pitch. Which describes most injuries. It's not clear how repeated the attempts to pitch were. What is clear is that he was grinding against the reality of the injury at his insistence, not at the management's insistence. Difference = Large. Dan Fuckin' Warthan: "If he's throwing that way, then there's got to be something incorrect in that arm," Warthen said. "Something's not feeling correct. John's a habitual liar in a lot of ways as far as his own health. He's a competitor and a warrior. He wants to go out there and pitch. But we have to be smart enough to realize this guy isn't right, the ball's not coming out of his hand correctly." Completely vindicated. John Fuckin' Maine: "No, I didn't get a chance, and I think that's what I'm most upset about," he said. "They said they saw something, so they're taking me out. I'm a little hurt by that. It wasn't 100 m.p.h. the first pitch. I never got asked to really see how I was or anything like that. They just said I was out. That's what upset me the most." In denial. And Ceetar: The Mets kept finding nothing wrong with John Maine to the point of calling him a liar, turned out they needed to do a different type of MRI and he'd been injured all along. In denial.

Again, what you describe is the opposite of what happened. You describe Maine complaining that he was hurting and the Mets calling him a liar, and Maine being vindicated when it turned out he was hurt. What actually happened is that Maine "manned up" voluntarily insisting he wasn't hurting when his coaches and manager observed that he seemed to be. When they (responsibly) removed him quickly from the game, the word liar was used by his pitching coach as sort of a manly complement, if a frustrated one, as he insisted that Maine should have been honest. It's the manager and pitching coach who turned out to be vindicated.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think they would have to give permission, but it's very rare that those requests are denied. Yeah, but how often do they come in-season from the division rival/favorite sitting just behind you in the standings as the season's stretch run begins? It would take some hell of lot of moxie for the Nats to even ask.

He hadn't even occurred to me. Hasn't gotten out of Bingo yet, but why notski? He's 26 and he's striking people out.

John Harper trying to stir the pot by nominating Wally Backman to replace Matt Williams, even going so far as to cite a long-term relationship between Backman and Mike Rizzo. (Backman spent one year as an A ball manager with Arizona in 2004 when Rizzo was farm director.) Wouldn't the Mets have to give permission for a mid-season walkout by Backman? And wouldn't they be disposed against it?

I just want to rail vociferously against the idea that a team runs out of effective relievers in a war of attrition and the answer is to find one more reliever. No, the answer is to keep the manager from having to go to a reliever everybody knows is scuffling in a game situation. Pick that guy up and score some runs before his name even gets called. It's always "one more reliever." No, man. Execute. The eternal quest for a still more perfect bullpen gets good men killed. KILLED!

Unable to sleep last night, I tried naming all the 2000 Mets. I couldn't for the life of me remember that reliever from Oakland we gave up Terrence Long for and who gave us nothing. I flopped around for a half hour but couldn't remember. Got in this morning and checked. It was Billy Taylor. And he was a 1999 Met, not a 2000 one. And we gave up Jason Isringhausen for him. Oops. Oh, and Taylor, unlike the guy I was picturing in my head, was white. I'd totally conflated him with Chuck McElroy, a completely different 1999er we got from Colorado (and who, unlike Taylor, actually contributed).

He was probably #6 on the depth chart for opening day, 2016. Now he seemingly falls back to the pack with Verrett, Gabriel Ynoa, possibly Sean Gilmartin, and others. And that's assuming whatever complications we're talking about won't interfere with opening day 2016. Big if. For this season, well, it definitely leads me to take Tim Stauffer a lot more seriously.

I don't know what the limit is on rehab assignments, but if Nieuwenhuis has to rejoin before 9/1 and it is desirable that Wright rejoin before 9/1, there's going to be a roster pinch. Whoever comes first can replace Conforto for a week or or (though many will scream), but what about the other guy? Will Kirk get activated and immediately DFA'd? Again? Is Kelly Johnson vulnerable? TransactionSent To Las Vegas On Rehab AssignmentPosition=#0000FF]Outfielder[fimg=90]http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/images/players/head_shot/543590.jpg[/fimg]NameKirk NieuwenhuisDoB8/7/87 #9

He does!

And then Twitter users assume he's got character and "head" issues.

Come out to Bal'mer and the first round's on me Root on deGrom and then cheer Bobby Pee Pray for sweet healing for Duda's sweet neck And then scream as his drives bounce into the top deck

I imagine he could turn his season around. Happens all the time and stuff. Has Logan Verrett learned to pitch with both arms?

Getting a little ahead of the rehab pack. TransactionSent To Binghamton On Rehab AssignmentPosition=#FF8000]Relief Pitcher[fimg=90]http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_592340.jpg[/fimg]NameEric GoeddelDoB12/20/88 #62 I maintain that when the opposition 'splodes in the late innings to take a low-scoring affair, the bullpen draws a disproportionate share of the blame, compared to the guys who let it be a low-scoring affair in the first place. But, you know, come back soon, baboon.

Like with the documentary about the Sherman brothers, this film is both blessed and cursed by being directed by the son of one of the principles. It's blessed by his connections and family archives, but cursed by being over-attached to Tedesco's angle. Great to hear them sit around and tell stories of the records, but a narrative and a timeline are lacking. They go from a record that seems 1964 to a record that seems 1968-ish, and then double back to 1958. They all admit that they're not quite sure who counted as being in the Wrecking Crew, and who didn't, but they never really apply the sort of scholarship to figure it out. With some of the players � Tedesco, Carol Kaye, Plas Johnson � you get some of the backstory of where they were from and how they came to Hollywood, but others arbitrarily just seemed to materialize there. And that's the magic, the American dream of going out to Hollywood, starving for a few years, but one day pulling out your baritone sax and playing lead on the Pink Panther theme. Heck, if they just went record by record and listed who was on it, the narrative would have taken care of itself.

Frayed Knot wrote: And while we can blame sloppy play and Bobby Parnell all we want, the bottom line on this series is that they totaled 5 runs in 17 innings off the fearsome trio of Happ, Morton, & Locke (who had given up a combined 13 runs in 15 IP in their previous starts) and followed that up with ZERO runs in 12-2/3 innings (and counting) vs the Pitt pen. Happ, Morton, & Locke are one of the most reliable solicitor firms in Hertefordshire.