Edgy MD

Matt gave up a pair in the first, but then settled down. All part of the growth process, I say. 5 IP, 5 H, 2 ER, 9 K, 3 BB

Frayed Knot wrote: Does that mean Mike's a Scientologist now? btw, there's nothing worse than tabloids that refer to the kids of celebs by their first name only - and by extension the idea that that's all they have to do knowing that their readers are so tuned into these mini-celebs that first names are all that's required. Well, there's probably something worse.

Either you or Second Spitter better sign him up.

Nolan Ryan, hospitalized, believed to be heart-related. Shawn Estes, calling games for the Reno Aces. Mike Piazza, swinging play dates with an undernourished woman.

Scorcese doesn't do wild and zany comedy. He does dark and disturbing comedy. Even when he did the screwball comedy, with the greatest screwball in history in Jerry Lewis, he had that guy be the sap, and DeNiro be the screwb. What a sadist that guy is.

I tried to get one cop's attention, but failed. I figured that they didn't even know what they were wearing --- that Thursday was "Mets Day," as in "We have all our undercover boys in Mets jerseys today, men. For God's sake, if you think you have a perp, but he has a Mets jersey, he's probably one of ours. It could be an actual Met, but I just heard that they traded Rodriguez, so don't count on that."

Waiting in the courthouse to destify against my designated face puncher, I was surrounded by MPD officers waiting to testify in 10 different courtrooms. Many were in uniform, but a handful were in plainclothes. The baseball jersey count included one Nats, one Orioles, and two Mets --- a black home jersey and a classick road gray. Neither had any numbers on the front, and cops never show you their backs, apparently even when surrounded by other cops.

I have no doubt that Sanderson Alderson has Pelfrey off of the untouchable list. Whether he finds a good match or not is another matter.

I'm guessing that no, he wouldn't have done that for us, as we didn't have that sort of leverage.

It's sort of hate mail for yuppies, isn't it? You can't just be a day tripper in this world, buddy, trading on people's lives but not living one. It's like an ancient tale of a god who fell to earth and found himself in a mortal world he couldn't navigate, except Olympus is the world above Houston and earth is the world below. Anyhow, one more movie that couldn't take place in a world of cell phones.

I know hundreds of my Facebook friends want me to join in with them in celebrating the work of Bill Maher because, dammit, he zings Republicans, but he's insufferrable.

Sure, but Wright's been around the clubhouse playing his share of cards.

I would think so, and yet a strong willed manager like Valentine didn't think it worth it.

Ceetar wrote: Edgy DC wrote: That last line is kind of particuarly unfair --- to the team, to us, and to Manny Acosta. I don't get the hangup. He's pitched 12 innings this year. bad innings. and he's slated for more. What, I'm not allowed to think a particular reliever is particularly bad? Now, you're just being a martyr. You're allowed to think whatever you want. And we're allowed to respectfully criticize it. Come on. Do I really need to list everything and everyone --- good, bad, and indifferent --- that has been added to the team besides Manny Acosta? It's a completely unfair and unbecoming assertion.

That last line is kind of particuarly unfair --- to the team, to us, and to Manny Acosta. I don't get the hangup. He's pitched 12 innings this year.

Well, it's about self-promotion, of course. Look, they already got free advertising in this thread.

The almost certain probability that this ultimately makes the Mets better in the long run is not exciting. to be clear: the mets farm system is loaded with nothing more than the possibility that the mets will be better in the future. The Mets major league team is loaded with nothing more than the possibility that the Mets will be better in the future. Every event is merely a potential event until it happens. Every ball is unstruck until it is struck. Every dollar is an abstraction until it is spent. The GM's job is to measure that potential for greatness and meaning, and to stock the organization with greater potential with more meaning. The players still win the game, this year and next. The GM just tries to put the best resources in the best position. But I promise you that K-Rod won't be the difference.

Ceetar wrote: Yes, the Mets, despite the huge amount of better things to do with the money, could still mis-spend it, out of bad luck or poor wisdom. But this isn't optimism. At all. And if you think that a team shouldn't avoid tremendously bad investments because they're only going to find worse ones, then you shouldn't be a GM. K-Rod (God forbid) could die in a car wreck just as easy as the guy they otherwise sign. That risk is on both sides of the equation, for God's sake. Ceetar wrote: The almost certain probability that this ultimately makes the Mets better in the long run is not exciting. Is it the emotional argument or the logical one you're going to stick to, because you keep conceding the latter to return to the former only to re-assert the latter. I'm really not sure I'm _arguing_ anything. I'm confessing and opinion that I don't find this anything to get excited about. Yes, their is risk on both sides of the equation. But I'm not going to get excited about the unknown one merely on a pile of cash that may or may not be used. And really, this has nothing to do with Rodriguez. The Mets no longer have him. It's over. I'm not overly excited about the Mets ability to spend 40 million instead of 30, or however it ultimately works out. If the Mets bring in a pitcher, say Kuroda, as the first name off the top of my head, and I think he can help, I'm not going to be less excited about it if he makes 9 million instead of 6. When Sandy Alderson selects a player from the Brewers, and I can look him up and think "Hey, maybe that guy could get some people out with that curve ball!" I'll get excited about it. Thus the return to the emotional argument when the rational one is unsustainable. And I'm here to remind you that the 2011 Mets will be fine. They may finish in the money, and they may finish out, but the difference is so totally unlikely be to be presence of Francisco Rodriguez that you needn't trouble your sleep. I'd say it's more likely that the sudden available funds and the emotional eruption that comes from a newly signed Reyes (to be announce within 18 hours) is what put them over the top.

Cars or toilets or fridges. We've narrowed this down to one point. What we're talking about is hard goods.

Ceetar wrote: I don't see why you're insistant on extrapolating on what I'm saying. All I'm saying is this news does not mean "yay, now we get Reyes!" We could still not get him. We could've gotten him anyway. It means it's $17.5 million dollars more likely. That's how the game works. It's also not a given that the 17.5 is more value than K-Rod provides. It so totally is. Ceetar wrote: (If you need an example, What if last year the Yankees had decided not to spend the 15mill on Mariano and had used it to sign Feliciano and Soriano? Are you contending that good is bad because we're only going to make a worse investment with it? Because chances are huge we won't. I guess you are. Yes, the Mets, despite the huge amount of better things to do with the money, could still mis-spend it, out of bad luck or poor wisdom. But this isn't optimism. At all. And if you think that a team shouldn't avoid tremendously bad investments because they're only going to find worse ones, then you shouldn't be a GM. K-Rod (God forbid) could die in a car wreck just as easy as the guy they otherwise sign. That risk is on both sides of the equation, for God's sake. Ceetar wrote: The almost certain probability that this ultimately makes the Mets better in the long run is not exciting. Is it the emotional argument or the logical one you're going to stick to, because you keep conceding the latter to return to the former only to re-assert the latter.

No, no. This is the takeaway: frankie rodriguez is that golden shower.

And only he knows what he's going to spend it on. I don't think it's mincing words at all. That money has a tremendous real world value expressed in dollars or win shares or what have you. It's worth more as potential in pocket than it is invested in Rodriguez. I don't get this default to "only Sandy knows" over and over. Good is good and bad is bad. Are you contending that good is bad because we're only going to make a worse investment with it? Because chances are huge we won't.

We all know. It's $17.5 million large. That's exactly how large it is.

Of course there's a relationship between every single transaction. But it's never been a K-Rod or Reyes situation. It was never that he had to trade him to sign Reyes, or itw ouldn't happen, or that Reyes couldn't decide to leave anyway, regardless of K-Rod. Reyes being resigned is going to be the result of a ton of different things, and freeing up payroll with Frankie is one small indirect part of it. Seems pretty large to me. $17.5 million large.

I agree Beltran will hurt more, but he's got no contract for next year that we need to escape. So the pressure to shed him isn't nearly as acute, and there's no harm in waiting a week or two to see how things shake out. And it won't kill us to keep him. I don't think you need to pretend that there's a relationship between shedding Rodriguez and signing Reyes. There is.