RealityChuck

The sensible thing is to let him try to get it together in Syracuse. It's certainly possible he needs more time to recover from the injury. If he's released, someone might pick him up for league minimum.

He has no options, so he has to pass through waivers.

Fore!

Have Trevor Rosenthal pitch to him. .000 BA vs. infinite ERA. Something's gotta give. Either that, or a black hole will form. https://sports.yahoo.com/trevor-rosenthal-washington-nationals-bullpen-craig-kimbrel-220425086.htmlhttps://sports.yahoo.com/trevor-rosenthal-washington-nationals-bullpen-craig-kimbrel-220425086.html

https://nypost.com/2019/03/30/ron-darling-lenny-dykstras-racist-tirade-helped-mets-win-world-series/https://nypost.com/2019/03/30/ron-darling-lenny-dykstras-racist-tirade-helped-mets-win-world-series/ Briefly, Ron Darling writes that Dykstra shouted a bunch of racist taunts at Oil Can Boyd when he was on deck for the third game of the 1986 WS.

Um, SI actually predicted that the https://www.si.com/vault/issue/40687/35Jets would win the Superbowl (cover date, December 9, 1968, which meant it was available in late November). Among other things, it predicted that Oakland would have to play KC to get to the Jets, that the winds would be a problem in Shea (not a difficult prediction), and that the Jets would face the Colts, that Unitas would replace Morrall (due to injury, not bad play), and that Johnny Sample would have an interception. Jets win 27-21 All played for laughs, of course, but still . . . Now I just have to find the Newsday article from April 1969 saying how the Mets won the World Championship. It got next to nothing right.

Frayed Knot wrote: I'd actually make the argument that one reason for the lack of CGs is that pitching staffs today are deeper than they've ever been, that the gap between the best pitchers on your staff and the back of the line guys isn't as stark as it once was. And if your good relievers aren't a step down from the starter (at least n the short run) then the replacement is actually a good bet to be even better than the starter who's 100 or so pitches into his day and seeing the lineup for the third time around. Back when hurlers 1, 2, and 3 were miles ahead of 9, 10, and 11 you'd be more reluctant to switch off of the top guys unless and until it couldn't be avoided. Chicken and egg. If your pitchers aren't throwing complete games, you want better relievers, which makes you more likely to pull the starter and the circle of life continues. It was a long-term trend, but Sparky Anderson's "quick hook" in Cincinnati showed it was a winning strategy.

At least it's not Jason Mendoza. [YOUTUBE]eAeUbM8PIkw[/YOUTUBE]

Pretty good film, though I think you need to be South African to get all the nuance. For instance, the name of the main character is generally used in jokes about stupid South Africans (think Polish jokes -- they are "van der Merwe" jokes in Afrikaans).

I don't think Dom was given a fair shot -- a weak September his first month up means little. Then the injury last year and the idea of making a him an outfielder (which definitely cost them defensively). At this point there are intriguing options. With a good spring, Smith will go north and they'll have to deal with Alonso later. It probably wouldn't hurt for him to spend a month or two in Syracuse to work on his fielding (and it would boost attendance in Syracuse).

Edgy MD wrote: Wouldn't they be worth LESS money if the younger players were taking more of the pie? Precisely right. Simple supply and demand says so. If there are two elite players available, they're going to command more money if there are 10 or 20. The overall effect would be to deflate salaries overall. I'm not sure when or how 10 or 20 elite players became or would become simultaneously available, but this isn't how supply and demand work. It's exactly how supply and demand works. If there is one item and multiple people wanting it, it drives the price up due to scarcity (small supply, big demand). Think of deBeers, which limits the supply to keep the price of diamonds up. The current rules and practices make it unlikely that multiple impact players are available. But if you granted free agency to the younger players, the supply would increase. Look at Harper. Several teams fought to get him, raising his price. He could say, "You're only giving me $100 million; Team B wants to give me $150 million. You've got to do better." And the team has to decide to match or beat the other bid. Now if there were four players the equivalent of Harper, then the teams have the whip hand. "$100 million? We can get player B for $85 million."

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They need to bring his mom to Port St. Lucie to cook for him. EDIT: Now the story is that it wasn't food poisoning, but a virus instead: https://www.si.com/mlb/2019/03/01/mets-brandon-nimmo-chicken-food-poisoning-virusIt Turns Out the Chicken Really Didn't Make Brandon Nimmo Sick And what exactly do you think food poisoning is? It's a virus or bacteria in the food. Calling it a virus is like insisting he's a lefty, not a southpaw.

Brandon Nimmo dealing with bad reaction to chicken he didn't thoroughly cook. Only the Mets, huh? Or anybody, actually. Every team has an instance of this every season. Usually they just call it "stomach flu," which isn't a thing.

Edgy MD wrote: =RealityChuck post_id=3400 time=1551107235 user_id=82]“Bohemian Rhapsody” -- Queen and Freddy Mercury don't mean much to many in the academy. I think Bryan Singer's sexuality was a whole lot more problematic. I certainly hope so.

The lack of a host was a good idea. Instead of the host coming on for irrelevant "humourous" bits that extended the show, they kept everything moving; it was the tightest Oscar telecast in years, and that was after they allowed the Best Actor/Actress winners ramble on for far more time than usual (I think they were worrying that they might finish too early). I only saw a handful of the films, so I can't comment on Green Book, but I can see the objections. In a year where cultural representation was big,* it's surprising the Academy was willing to go for it. Still, most of the other films had their "flaws," while Green Book worked as a well-made film with a message, something the Academy has always loved. It's also due to a flaw in the voting method. The Academy uses a simple plurality of votes. When you have eight films, that means a film could theoretically win with only 13% of the vote. If it gets 25%, it's a shoo-in. But that means 75% of the voters thought another film was better. So it's quite likely a majority of the academy understood the issues with Green Book, but the minority that didn't were enough to vote it in. Here are the "flaws" that voters might have caused them to vote for Green Book (Note: I am not necessarily agreeing with these, just showing the thinking involved) “Black Panther” -- superhero film “BlacKkKlansman” -- Spike Lee is something of a polarizing figure. “Bohemian Rhapsody” -- Queen and Freddy Mercury don't mean much to many in the academy. Mercury's sexuality also might be an issue. “The Favourite” -- too bawdy “Green Book” “Roma” -- isn't based on a strong plot (silly reason) and isn't in English. IIRC, no foreign language film has ever won. “A Star Is Born” -- The third remake of the story. I don't think a remake has ever won. “Vice” -- too political (and events were too recent). Remember, it doesn't take a lot of voters to be turned off to a film for any of these reasons. I think that Green Book will go into history as a bad choice, but then, some movies people think were bad choices were really quite good ones. *It was the main reason that Black Panther was so well regarded. I think it's great that there was a Black superhero and the way the characters were portrayed (when they were portrayed as anything other than punching machines) was a step forward, but the story was as cliched and predictable as any other superhero film (if you wonder why Oscar doesn't like them, it's because they all have the same plot). It's the Jackie Robinson of superhero films -- if Jackie Robinson couldn't hit above the Mendoza line.

King Phil called out for green spaghetti (taxonomy of biology) How I need a drink! Alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics (digits of pi).

Edgy MD wrote: Release younger players from the bonds of controlled salaries and and sole rights and the older players will be worth more money. Wouldn't they be worth LESS money if the younger players were taking more of the pie? Precisely right. Simple supply and demand says so. If there are two elite players available, they're going to command more money if there are 10 or 20. The overall effect would be to deflate salaries overall. When Charles Finley suggested this to the owners when free agency first came up, Marvin Miller of the Player's Association got nightmares. Luckily for the players, the owners didn't grasp that it would save them money. The other issue is that it would mean the end of the minor leagues. What team is going to sign a high school or college player to a contract when they don't get any benefit from it? The player always could be a bust, but now you risk losing him as soon as he shows sign of success. Most minor league teams need MLB support to stay in business and it's very likely that will be reduced.

One of two Mets pitchers to get a win over Sandy Koufax. I was at that game. Also notable in that he was traded from the MFY to the Mets in midseason. He may have been the first.

I think it's going to be an uphill battle. 1. Gonzalez wants a long-term contract; they Mets only want one year. Any team that offers two or more has an advantage. 2. Gonzalez would expect to be in the starting rotation. He can see that it might not happen: it depends on Vargas and injuries. Any team that can say, "Sure, you'll start" also has an advantage.

=kcmets post_id=1825 time=1548441643 user_id=53] =RealityChuck post_id=1824 time=1548440168 user_id=82]Most of the team's big contracts ended with disappointing results, so the Wilpons, quite rightly, don't want to jump in an get burned again.

I think the big issue is not that the Wilpons are afraid of spending, but that they're wary of it. Most of the big contracts they handed out turned out to be busts (the exceptions are Beltran and Piazza). But big contracts to Cespedes, Wright, Santana, Martinez, Bonilla, Bay, and others turned out to be a lot of wasted money as people went on the DL. Most of the team's big contracts ended with disappointing results, so the Wilpons, quite rightly, don't want to jump in an get burned again.

I still am amused at the doom-and-gloom contingent who said that the team had to avoid arbitration or else DeGrom would be unhappy and not sign a long-term contract. This is the obvious way to prevent it: offer him a massive raise. He goes away happy and has a positive attitude toward the way the team treated him.

The Mets dealt Plawecki to Cleveland in exchange for right-hander Walker Lockett and minor league infielder Sam Haggerty. Lockett was 0-3 with 9.60 ERA for the Padres last year. What's very noticeable this year is that with all the deals the Mets made this off-season (except for Cano), nothing about them leaked. The first anything was mentioned was when the deal was announced.

Hey, he can also relieve. He can replace Jose Reyes on the pitching staff.

It's probably a moot point now they have Broxton, but why is Kevin Kaczmarski listed as being on the Active Roster? The team web page doesn't even have him listed on the 40-man.