metsmarathon

Perez 1.1 Stokes 1.0 Parnell 1.0 Francoeur 0.6 Murphy 0.3

Pagan 3.1 Pelfrey 2.7 Green 1.1 Reed 0.8 Sullivan 0.4 Feliciano 0.3

Santos 3.7 Castillo 2.4 Wright 1.5 Stokes 1.0 Murphy 0.8 Feliciano 0.6

Hernandez 3.5 Pagan 1.7 Castillo 1.7 Green 1.1 Wright 1.0 Cora 1.0

Niese 3.3 Francoeur 1.9 Castillo 1.3 Wright 1.2 Pagan 1.2 Murphy 1.1

Tatis 3.5 Castillo 1.7 Francoeur 1.5 Stokes 1.3 Feliciano 1.1 Wright 0.9

Pelfrey 4.3 Murphy 2.2 Castillo 1.1 Feliciano 1.0 Francoeur 0.9 Cora 0.5

Santana 4.6 Sullivan 1.7 Pagan 1.3 Berroa 1.2 Wright 0.7 Murphy 0.5

Tatis 3.4 Wright 2.0 Green 1.6 Parnell 1.2 Castillo 1.0 Francoeur 0.8

i kindof think there's a difference between amusing anecdote that provides insight into the relationships and behaviors of some of our favorite and revered athletes, and pure fiction that offers none of that. but that's just me.

i generally feel that lefty-righty matchups are greatly overrated...

i am flat out awful at schaeffer voting this year. i need to get myself back on track...

of course, on the back of that black shirt with the orange pinstripes, is a big ol' sheffield's #10, with his picture in the number... i think i like maine's, and i definitely like murphy's. sheff's on the far right is fine from the front. of course, the mets.com shop must think that 50 is the right number of states, as there's no omir santos shirt there that i can see. oh, also, i really hate the camo that some of the players used. i guess since parnell wanted it to look hunty, its ok. putz's camo is awful. no soldier would wear that. if i were him, i'd've lobbied to get the sweet pixellated camo the military actually uses, or at least a cheap knockoff.

y'know, i may be an unabashed kool-aid drinker, but i think i can understand what omar was trying to say there in that debacle of a press conference, and i don't find too much fault with it. basically, his point was that, as part of a thorough investigation, they should at least consider the possibility that the primary messenger might have an ulterior motive. and considering that possibility (and presumably dismissing it as a course of the investigation) is not necessarily the same as accusing adam rubin of torpedoing tony bernazard, so much as it is covering all the bases. ideally, having brought it up in the press conference, omar's next statement should've been, that, though they felt they needed to consider that possibility, there was no factual basis for any such suspicions, and that adam reported the stories accurately and fairly. i guess more ideally, it should never have been mentioned in the first place, unless specifically inquired about by another news organization. so i don;t entirely think that having mentioned that they had to consider adam rubin's potential lack of objectivity in reporting on tony bernazard's actions should be a disgraceful, shameful, and unprofessional act, it was wholly unnecessary. and certainly embarrassing in the way it was actually done, and responded to, and responded to again and again and again. why the mets can't just send out a press release to announce the firing of a guy in the organization whose actual job duties, and how those duties translate to on-the-field success, the average fan doesnt really have an adequate grasp of, i just can't fathom. fire the guy quietly, send out a paragraph, and be done with it. do they need a friggin press conference when they take a dump, too? sheesh! firing omar over this would be an example of making the right decision for the wrong reason. you don;'t fire a gm because he made a boob of himself by butchering a press conference. you do it because he makes bad moves, signing hte wrong guys to the wrong contracts. firing him over this implies that part of what they cae about for the next guy is how he conducts himself in front of hte media. and really, i don't give a rats ass about that. give me a guy who knows how to sign the right players to the right contracts, and i'll be stinkin' thrilled.

well, that's helpful... those are the guys you want to be yelling at nowadays.

it was tony bernazard's radio that scott kazmir changed the station on.

no. i'm certain i would be thrilled in the short term. but i'd be a bit worried about those later years...

i'd be willing to give up three, but not necessarily four of those players. specifically, were the trade offer genuine, and according to keith law's tweet as linked above, i would prefer to keep one of parnell or niese. and while i think the rotation could be a beast when topped with doc and johan, in no particular order, i'm also torn up by the notion that the way certain teams seem to be in the thick of it each year is through the development of their own minor leaguers. in fact, i feel like every contending team save perhaps the yankees, is doing so on the backs of their own homegrown talent. and i'd like ot be like one of those teams. eventually. of course, if we were to get doc halladay, i think it would nicely prevent us from making a big huge mistake in trying to get matt holliday either this season immediately thereafter.

damn. i heard about this on the radio the other day, but never quite got around to looking into it. regardless, we already had plans for the weekend. maybe i'll hafta knock her up again next year in the hopes the cyclones repeat the thing!

i'm really rather disappointed that he doesn't have a timmy teuffel...

Murphy 2.2 Castillo 2.1 Pelfrey 1.8 Sheffield 1.5 Tatis 1.3 Wright 1.1

Santana 4.6 Pagan 2.0 Francoeur 1.0 Santos 1.0 Castillo 0.7 Feliciano 0.7

Nieve 2.7 Parnell 1.4 Green 1.0 Murphy 0.9 Feliciano 0.9 Pagan 0.5

not like. not hate, but definitely not like.

i remember how he was our best player last year until he got whacked in the head by a stinkin' brave. then i remember how he seemed to get hisself in hte managers doghouse for some unknowable reason. i still don't get how he hadn't played more this year. but then, i'm starting to realize that there's a lot unknowable about jerry's ways.