metsmarathon

sigh. unlike mike cameron, i'm gonna miss carlos beltran.

if we were to get bumgarner, i'd hope that the beltran trade didn't garner a bum.

Murphy 2.9 Beltran 1.8 Byrdak 1.6 Acosta 1.4 Beato 1.3 Pridie 1.0

for what it's worth, pelfrey's list of similary pitchers through age 26 includes such names as todd stottlemyre, jason marquis, jason schmidt, pat hentgen, and john lackey. not necessarily world beaters, but some solid, if continually maddening, contributors.

Dickey 3.6 Murphy 1.9 Turner 1.4 Byrdak 1.1 Bay 1.0 Isringhausen 1.0

the good thing about murphy's knuckleheadedness is that it's seemingly borne out of trying really really hard. i think that he could be pretty ok given a more full-time assignment to second base, but we'd probably be better off with a murphy turner platoon for next year, with options in the minors.

Wright 5.0 Acosta 2.2 Beltran 1.2 Murphy 0.6 Pridie 0.6 Reyes 0.4

Reyes 4.3 Turner 1.9 Duda 1.8 Beltran 1.4 Wright 0.6

Turner 2.8 Isringhausen 1.8 Murphy 1.7 Parnell 1.7 Wright 1.1 Reyes 0.9

holy shit, i'm tied for first!

Carrasco 3.3 Pridie 1.3 Reyes 1.1 Duda 0.6 Turner 0.4

Isringhausen 3.3 Pagan 2.3 Beltran 1.6 Thole 1.2 Duda 0.8 Dickey 0.8

perhaps the correct algorithm for determining net games back should attribute only half a game back for htose interstitial teams you're behind in the standings. that might produce a response of a more intuitive scale. if you're 10 games behind the leader, but 8 games behind second place, my proposition would suggest that you're 14 NGB instead of 18. likewise, if you're 2 games back of the leader, but 1 game behind second place, i would suggest that you are 2.5 NGB instead of 3. but really, it doesn't matter. the intent is to show that instead of simply besting one team, there are other guys in the way whose performances are somewhat independent of your own and the leader's. and so it's not necessarily instructive to look simply at the GB column to ascertain how big a hurdle must be cleared.

Gee 3.6 Turner 1.5 Beltran 1.5 Isringhausen 1.4 Reyes 1.0 Parnell 1.0

Igarashi 1.8 Harris 1.8 Evans 1.4 Beato 1.0 Bay 0.8

Edgy DC wrote: But no blows. A man needs blows. yes. yes he does.

Murphy 3.3 Duda 1.8 Paulino 1.8 Isringhausen 1.1 Harris 1.1 Pagan 0.9

Beltran 3.1 Carrasco 1.5 Duda 1.0 Turner 0.8 Murphy 0.6 Harris 0.5

Niese 3.8 Hairston 2.5 Murphy 1.5 Turner 0.9 Evans 0.8 Parnell 0.5

i could see a 5 year old liking frankie. i don't think i had an analogue. i suppose the closest would be dykstra, but i was more than twice the kids age.

regardless of the writing, all the best to taylor.

Ceetar wrote: 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. would you favor trading away any and all players we have in our farm system for short term improvements to the current team, and repeating that strategy ad infinitum? that this trade only improves the probability that the mets will be better in the future than they would have been had the trade not been made makes me very much excited indeed. for this team they currently have. because now this season can be something to build upon. because this season is no longer an out of control train careening towards a hard stop at the end of the line. a hand is on the brakes and they're laying new track fast. a dark cloud has lifted, and the future is what sandy can make of it, not any longer just what omar had left for him.

Ceetar wrote: 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. i really wish you would not go back to this line of thinking. of course it is possible that the mets could have retained both krod and reyes. but the real issue is that if krod were to have gotten his $17.5M, then there would be exactly that much less of the total available budget to spend on other areas. and those other areas includes jose reyes. without krod, there is suddenly $17.5M to spend on, among other things, jose reyes. the only way this is not the case is if you believe that the mets budget would increase by $17.5M if they had to pay for krod, but otherwise would be $17.5M lower. that they would pursue the same players with the same contractual offers regardless of his presence. since we're doing analogies, lets pretend you're remodeling your bathroom. you have a pot of money available to spend on the project. one contractor offers to do the job on the cheap, but is including a solid shower stall, which increases the total cost of the project by some 20%. now, if you don't have that extra 20%, you can get him to substitute the golden shower for a cheaper plastic model for a few hundred. but if you do have the budget to afford the golden shower, wouldn't you want to spend that extra cost on better cabinets and tile? maybe if you have a whole ton of money, you can get the upgraded cabinets and tile as well as the gold stall, i guess. but as long as you can afford to pay for the solid gold shower stall, you can almost certainly spend that money more wisely. like a towel warmer, or radiant heat in the floor, or a solid gold toilet. frankie rodriguez is that golden shower. he might've kept us from getting nice tile or a sturdy vanity, or maybe he would've kept us from getting a toasty towel or warm feet, but he would've kept us from getting something, even if that something is a golden shitter.

Ceetar wrote: metsmarathon wrote: we had no leverage. plus, we just got $17.5M for next year. that seems like plenty. no leverage? I don't know about that. Alderson's never seemed worried about it, and it's July 13th. Leverage is created by more than one team being interested, which wouldn't have been impossible. no leverage meaning we needed to get out from under htat contract, like, fast. we could ill afford to play coy and wait for a better haul while the market disappeared. we needed a win-now team with an established closer looking for a top setup man. how many were there? we couldn't play there 'well, we'll just keep the player' card because to do so would be ruinous. and its not like we could really play the 'we're keeping him around for the fans' card because nobody is coming out to see frankie close games. nobody. and he's not even making the team appreciably better. there was no way we could keep him, no reason we would want to, and a thin market to trade him into. thus, no leverage. typically, the worst thing that can happen for a team in looking to trade away a veteran is that they fail to trade a player, and lose him at season's end, getting nothing in return. in our case, the worst thing that could have happened is we keep the player and are forced to pay him. thus, no leverage.

this year, izzy's shut down righties, while parnell shuts down righties. i'd be ok with using them based on the coming matchups. i'd be more in favor of using izzy in the 9th, but parnell in the high leverage situations that arise until izzy is traded.