Edgy MD

Anybody see or hear any confirmation of the Naquinian news above?

I can see the sense in it. Before making a big decision, hearing from someone who's bullish and hearing from someone who is bearish certainly is justified. Beyond that, knowing the decision the Giants made is not the same as knowing all the information that fed into it. I can understand why an agent wouldn't like it, but interests naturally diverge.

No, I don't need to "deal with" hyperbole better. Nor do I need to be told what I need. I'm dealing fine. If someone writes something I agree with, I agree. If someone writes something I don't agree with, I disagree. If anybody seems curious as to why, I'll let them know why. It's kept me out of jail so far.

I don't need to understand hyperbole better. If nothing matters, because Cohen's super-rich, and bad moves are good moves, because he's rich, then there's little point in discussing anything here. We all understand the owner is fabulously wealthy.

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think anything needs to be re-defined. There's an upside to locking up players before free agency whether you are the wealthiest or the least wealthy owner Sure, and a downside too. I know there's a downside too. Upside and downside. That's why we don't have to redefine money, or redefine risk. But, you know, Fman made the suggestion, so he can sell it.

I don't think anything needs to be re-defined. There's an upside to locking up players before free agency whether you are the wealthiest or the least wealthy owner

As the Braves have demonstrated, frequently young, pre-free-agency players are signed above and beyond their arbitration value in exchange for an extension beyond their arbitration eligibility. That allows teams and players to split the risk. It's a path the Mets have only occasionally taken, but their young stars have frequently been pitchers, with whom the risk-reward ratio is different. But Alonso and/or McNeil would definitely be candidates for that sort of contract.

Kevin Pllar OPS'd over 1.000 for Oklahoma City last year. And sure, there was Oklahoma City inflation involved, but still, fix your star on Kevin Pillar!

You may have to expand your definition of "former glory" a little bit, but Kevin Pillar is still floating out there.

Here's the category where the contemporary class really shines. Times Hit by Pitch 1) Brandon Nimmo: 57 2) Pete Alonso: 51 3) Jeff McNeil: 50 (tied with Michael Conforto) 14) Mark Canha: 28 (tied with Jeff Kent and John Olerud) 43) Francisco Lindor: 15 (tied with Tommie Agee, Benny Agbayani, Justin Turner, Wilmer Flores, and Yoenis Cespedes) 53) Starling Marte: 13 (tied with Frank Thomas, Lee Mazzilli, Howard Johnson, Carl Everett, Carlos Beltran, and Asdrubal Cabrera)

If last year is any guide, the fourth outfielder may be Jeff McNeil, floating out there while a fifth infielder covers for him at second.

That's good stuff. And when the Rusty Staub Foundation gets relaunched, as it ought, Clark should be on the board.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=116662 time=1673569224 user_id=68] Still can't figure out why they got rid of JD Davis. I remember reading all season long right up until they traded him how his batted balls were among the hardest hit in the majors. And that's about as good an indicator as anything out there. Billy got soaked in that trade. Davis didn't produce reliably enough for a team with the Mets' ambition but to throw in Szapucki and NICK ZWACK was a crime. Giants with those guys and Conforto now. That will be a series

“Quality control coach,” the role inhabited by Luis Rojas prior to his elevation to manager, and Brian Schneider afterward, doesn't seem to exist at the moment. A day or two ago, I was reading some short-timer's story about his big league debut. He was warming up to go in relief against the Cubs at Wrigley. Schneider was catching him and when he didn't get his first warmup pitch over, Schneider refused to reach for it. This made the pitcher more jittery and he couldn't throw a strike, and Schneider just let every ball fly past him and roll toward the team's dugout. Schneider just said, "You're going into this game so you better start throwing strikes," while the fans in the front row just watched incredulously as he bounced he kept missing and told him how much he sucked, to which he could only respond, I know. Maybe that's Schneider's idea of quality control, and he's a born leader. The pitcher described it as being hazed. But he entered the game and got the first batter on a grounder for the third out. After the game, he proposed to his girlfriend. I don't know if The Schneid was invited to the wedding.

And they paid a premium for the honor.

I've formulated a lot of Danny Barnes theories and none of them hold up very well. He's a begrudging diversity hire. It's not too far-fetched. That's a typical move for an organization that wants to get PR points/coverage — hire someone from outside the old boys network, but don't give him a particular assignment. "I don't care if we hire a Martian, J.B., but he's not going to run MY department!" "Well he's certainly not going to run MINE!" Except he doesn't appear to be a female, or anything ethnically more exotic than a redbearded Irish-American guy. I can't find record of him being married, so maybe he's orientational diversity. But not likely. He's a begrudging nepotism hire. As above, that's a hackneyed move — hire some bigwig's nephew, but don't let him handle anything he can break. That would mean we'd have to find who he's related to, though. Maybe Jeremy Barnes? Would Jeremy really have the juice to strongarm the Mets into hiring his cousin? I don't think so. He's future managerial material that the Mets want shadowing Buck. Barnes is a Princetonian who reached the majors, so he's a rare breed of athletic prowess and big-braininess. But he comes from the pitching side of the game, so the Mets might think a few years studying under a crusty mentor before getting his first dugout in the minors may help him be ready by the time Buck hangs 'em up. Maybe his pre-game assignment is throwing batting practice, but he's basically a managerial intern. The downside of that is all the other coaches would resent him and possibly alienate him. He's a go-between atwixt the coaching staff and the players. Danny's only 33. He's more a peer to the players than the coaches, so maybe if he works out with players, dresses with the players, drinks after the game with the players, he can help the staff understand what's going on with the team, what the players will accept, what they won't accept, what's eating at them and needs to be addressed, what's keeping their morale up and shouldn't be messed with. That's a tough arrangement though, because the players would see him as a narc and steer clear of him. He's a go-between atwixt the coaching staff and the front office. Coaches have a lot to do during games. If the dugout is getting a call from upstairs that Joe Musgrove's spin rate is suspiciously distinct from his usual numbers and his ears are shiny and glowing like the Heat Miser's, Buck can't spend the whole game on the phone. Somebody's job should be to field that information, process it, contextualize it, and deliver it to Buck at an appropriate time, in an appropriate manner. Let's get that guy from Princeton. That's workable. I'm not even sure he gets a dugout seat during the game, but it's workable. He's actually a narc. Rich men can be paranoid and maybe he's keeping an eye on Cohen's investments. Again, the players would suss that out. Young men on drugs can be paranoid too. He's a gofer/secretary to Buck. Buck can't be everywhere at once. Maybe he's the legs bouncing between different units and departments, as well as the keeper of Buck's journal of stars. But in consideration of that notion, ... Buck is older, but he's not decrepit. I can see the use of such a person, but why should Buck Showalter be the first to get an official sidekick like that? We've seen older managers like Jim Leyland and Frank Robinson and Charlie Manuel slowed to a standstill, and folks openly questioned whether Tony LaRussa was fully engaged, so I'm not sure Buck is the one who needs a personal assistant. These are my Danny Barnes theories. As noted, I haven't landed strongly on any one, but hope to narrow it down. Also, whenever his name comes up, he puts me in mind of Australian rock singer Jimmy Barnes, who is sort of the Bon Scott of pub rock down there.

His role was so ambiguously defined as to almost be suspicious. “He's played in the big leagues, knows his way around the major league locker room. …We didn't get too titled up. … He can do a little bit of everything.” — Buck Showalter

He joined the staff last year with that title.

I kinda expected him to have gotten a big chair by now with somebody. While his equity is with the Cards, Mets, and now the White Sox, I kinda thought he'd be a Phillies manager.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=116614 time=1673537296 user_id=68] I imagine that Alvarez will play somehow or other. Because he has to. I cant see Alvarez making the team just to play once or twice a week.

I'm not sure I'm going to put my ducats on "very likely" to be better than Ruf. But likely? I'll take that. Ruf probably ain't the guy we saw last season. But he probably ain't that much better. He could hit five homers in a week and then disappear into the same hole he fell into in August. He's the same age as McCutcheon, though he probably has less mileage. I think McCutcheon's an upgrade, but I kind of like the Ruf fighting for his last bit of baseball and being pressed from behind. That's certainly not ideal, but I like it better than Ruf being bigfooted out of the picture by somebody who isn't much better but is more likely to last the full year. A lot depends on the Mets' disposition toward Francisco Álvarez and his readiness, and they ain't talking.

Some really good Parody Challeng concepts are coming forward here.

I expect a pretty good year from Correa. I really do. But I'd expect the same plate appearances given to Baty+Vientos+Escobar+Guillorme to put us somewhere in the neighborhood of Correa's output. Maybe that's overly ambitious but I like quality out of quantity. By year two and three, forget about it.

As we approach the days when everybody in baseball will be named Zack or Zach, let us consider news that the Mets have expressed interest in Zack Britton. ZB pitched for seven seasons for Baltimore under somebody named Buck Showalter, and during that time he transitioned from a forgettable showing as an indifferent lefthanded starter to a few years as an utterly indomitable reliever, climaxing in 2016 when he put together a total Dennis of a season, saving 47 games with a 0.53 ERA. Now, 2016 is a time ago, but the odd thing was that he achieved those highs without unGodly strikeout numbers or insanely low walk numbers, but his hard sinker keeps the ball on the ground, where the outs are easier to come by, and the extra bases harder. He's been with the Yankees since 2018, and that's profane, but we all deserve a chance at redemption. Reduced to the second or third best option for closing a game, he's still been mostly effective-plus when healthy. The last few years, he hasn't always been that. He had Tommy John surgery, along with a bone-chip removal, in September of 2021, but managed to get back on the field at the very end of 2022, and had trouble finding the plate. He walked three in his first game back, two in his second, and one in his third and last, and YOU'VE GOT TO LOVE THOSE TREND LINES! Speaking of trends, adding Britton after Dellin Betances and David Robertson would give the Mets a rep for going for good-get-if-he-can-stay-healthy-type longtime high-profile Yankee relievers. If they start sniffing around Joba Chamberlain, folks might start getting suspicious. [fimg=600]https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/fetch/w_2000,h_2000,c_fit/https%3A%2F%2Fthebaltimorewire.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fgetty-images%2F2017%2F07%2F666297902.jpeg[/fimg]

Future star of Manager Carlos Beltran's Kinda-Sorta-Almost-a-Met Squad.