Edgy MD

I've long wanted to do something tlike this. My vision was a mini-SABR conference focused on the Mets, without the organizaiton's cooperation, but this sounds wonderful. I salute you, Professor Brand, and appreciate you alerting us. Please include updates in this thread, including any calls for session/workshop/presentation proposals. Because what's a conference without CFPs?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Or part of a three-headed part-time-2B-starter/infield-backup monster: Eamus covers 2B/3B, Murphy covers 2B/1B, and Tejada covers 2B/SS. (In this roster permutation, of course, Castillo covers his head with something other than a Mets cap.) The Projected 2011 Roster Update Thread (Pro-11 RostUp) isn't forecasting Ruben Tejada to make the opening day roster, but rather the sadly overlooked but out out-of-options Luis Hernandez.

I imagine 85% of the guys have "could" and "stick" in their assessments from Sickels.

It's like Charles in Charge said of the little sister of the family. It's beautiful for what it is, and what it's destined to become.

Took two more in the AAA phase NYM: Ronny Morla, RHP, Tennessee (CHC) NYM: Richard Brooks, RHP, Birmingham (CWS) And one more in the AA phase. NYM: Quintin Berry, OF, Lake Elsinore (SD) I didn't even know there was a AA phase. I go this from a report last year after Mora was nabbed in the Aaron Miles trade. Ronny Morla may be the key to the deal, and could be a good one. The 21 year old fireballer had an ERA near five in A-ball last year and a 1-7 record. So what am I talking about? First of all, learn to be open to ignoring crappy ERAs for low-level prospects. Yes, it�s always a good sign when the pitcher isn�t giving up runs, but sometimes, when the kid is, it�s not reflective of his ability. Sometimes he�s being instructed, and is working on certain things (new pitches, for example), which can result in runs given up. Also, the defense behind you isn�t quite the same caliber as you�ll see at higher levels. So why am I excited about this kid? Well, he�s struck out over 10 guys per 9 innings, and sports a 3 to 1 K:BB ratio, which means he has good stuff and good control. That�s a combination that I�ll take every time over low-level ERA and win/loss.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: How do you like that one August 1 start for Rusty Staub? How can you tell from the chart that it's Aug. 1? It might be, but the Mets first August game might've fallen on the second of the month. A rational guess.

How do you like that one August 1 start for Rusty Staub?

Outside of height, weight, birthday, and stats, I can't find one fact about Bradley Emaus.

I think the difference between three or four at-bats isn't really very meaningful (or, really, decipherable) to somebody who'd read this chart. I'd propose a two-tone system --- a dark color for starts and a lighter shade for appearances off the bench.

No, a lot of people use abaci.

I hadn't realized I had thrown Cora overboard.

Lucas Duda threatening David Wright on the gee whiz front.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Definitely a book-like movie, with a lot of stuff explored. Malkovich really knocks it out of the park in his role, most of the cast does in fact, but it's not an easy movie to watch all the same. Rated CCSW for ChaCha Shouldn't Watch. We've agreed that she won't be watching anything but Rankin & Bass productions for the time being.

Strange structure. It's a film that starts and stops and starts over again.

Ed Harris, Scott Glenn, Dennis Quaid, Fred Ward, and other 1980s badasses play the team of Mercury astronauts preparing to be the first men in space, and Sam Shepherd plays Chuck Yeager, the supersonic test-pilot and baddest cowboy of them all, left behind by history.

OK, let's look at anachronisms. "Where's the beef?" as a catchphrase debuted and peaked in 1984, and it had already jumped the shark when Walter Mondale used it against Ronald Reagan in 1984. Any college-aged ski-resort partying white dude who'd wear it on a tee-shirt in 1986 would have been one arch ironisst. Candy-colored hairband glam metal lite hadn't yet really asserted itself until 1987. College party dudes would have been rockin' out to U2, Peter Gabriel, and Robert Palmer --- and maybe a little Timbuk 3. If they had a dark side, they were rocking to the Cult, the Cure, and Siouxsie and the Banshees. Rap had transitioned from DMC's ascendency to the Beastie Boys' Licensed to Ill. If they were stupid party animals, how does that music not make an appearance? Meanwhile --- big error here --- the coming of Kid 'n' Play and the introduction of the oversized stovepipe fade was still two years off. Still enjoyed it more than other eighties flashbacks.

Well, nothing about their website banner suggests anyting untoward is going on, nosir!

This film was demographically aimed right between my eyes, so how come I identified mostly with the nephew? What's most eighties about this was the contained-environment aspect of it. Why would Poison play a ski resort? Why would SPIN --- still new, counter-cultural and college-oriented at the time --- dispatch a reporter to cover Poison playing at a ski resort? Because the producers got a ski resort and all action must definitively take place there, that's why. Very eighties. Add a half a star for William Zabka content.

And he made it clear that the issue was in part that it was a scoreless inning streak against Mexican League batters, and he wasn't so much opining on his own behalf, but speaking on behalf of what scouts, the Mets, and the questioner was concerned with.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Whatever yourself. I wrote the same thing you did and I get "whatever"? Give me a break. I'll rewrite my last post. [crossout]Whatever.[/crossout] But you're digressing. Because the issue you initially raised, I thought, was not what Minaya ought to have done but whether Perez's roster spot was justified. The back door politics that enabled Perez to remain on the 25 man roster for as long as he did is irrelevant. That's certainly not what I what I wrote.

Whatever yourself. I wrote the same thing you did and I get "whatever"? Give me a break.

I agree. If your GM is putting a player on your roster, and your manager is openly saying "I am not using this guy," then every game you lose, you're wasting that spot. That was the most frustrating thing for me with the Ollie/Warthen/Omar/Jerry demographic. If the guy's on your roster, you need to find a way for him (and your team) to be successful. If not, then something needs to give. Either the GM needs to get rid of the player, or if he feels that the player can still contribute, the manager/pitching coach. That's my contention. That it was Minaya's place to (a) release Perez, ( compell Manuel to use him, or © replace Manuel with someone willing to do his lord's will. Manuel's stupid doghouse sucked. Perez's spot on the roster was unjustifiable. Manuel appeared to have agreed with you and Minaya not, and I think that was the team's real problem. OE: I suppoe Minaya's superiors could have stripped him of the power to act against either Perez or Manuel.

It's not necessary to.

Sure they can. And do. As noted above, they weren't using Dessens either. And whether you develop that player into a more useful part of the team or simply save more effective arms by offering him the garbage innings that inevitiably arise, there is a payback for the team. A seemingly playoff bound Mets team carried Aaron Sele all year without giving him a high-leverage inning until the last week.

Adam Rubin wrote: Just got this from a person familiar with Ollie's winter-ball activity, since obviously velocity is more important than a scoreless-inning streak against Mexican Winter League batters. "Early velocties were 87-89, with an occasional 90 mph, all out of the pen. Starting velocity ... consistent 88 mph, but spikes are higher and more common. They are seeing occasional 91, 92."