ashie62

I'm beginning to pine for the DeRoulet years..With no expectations you could truly savor every win..And sit anywhere at Shea.. Steve Henderson, I miss you

="OlerudOwned":37869gxh]Jack Wilson wouldn't have helped much. He's not that good.[/quote:37869gxh] You are correct...Unfortunately the Mets are under a do not resuscitate order Nymr83 Jul 23 2009 05:18 AM ="OlerudOwned":1wbzyqkh]Jack Wilson wouldn't have helped much. He's not that good.[/quote:1wbzyqkh] He'd have been an upgrade over Cora a month ago assuming he could have been had for "nothing" if we paid his salary. But he's not really good. Theres no point in getting him now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 05:27 AM ="OlerudOwned"]Jack Wilson wouldn't have helped much. He's not that good. Look, if Cora went and got the surgery he needed Omar would have to have done something and Wilson being a good fielder and presumably available would have been a reasonable solution. In the meantime we'd have enjoyed the benefits of a 700 OPS guy vs. a 500 OPS guy; and a good fielder vs. a shitty fielder. It's all vomit under the bridge by now, but just saying. metirish Jul 23 2009 08:22 AM Chris Duncan is a meat head , or is that his brother?, either way I am surprised that the Sox got him for Lugo , or got anything at all. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 08:30 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 23 2009 08:40 AM I agree that allowing Cora to cowboy up (and batting him leadoff) has been terribly wishful thinking. I think we all need to realize that the real Cora is not as bad as this. But I think the Mets braintrust needed to realize that wishing that Cora could somehow summon his best game through the injury was too much risk for too little reward. Maybe the strong May for the team triggered a lot of wishful thinking. Nymr83 Jul 23 2009 08:34 AM ]I think we all need to realize that the real Cora is not as bad as this The Cora we've seen from 2005-2008 is almost as bad as this, unless you expect him somehow to become the decent player he was for LA in 03-04 Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 08:43 AM He's a better offensive player and particularly a better defensive player than this. And better used sparingly --- which he had been before he got hurt --- even at his best. Always good to be patronized by you, thanks. Nymr83 Jul 23 2009 08:57 AM that wasnt being patronizing. ]He's a better offensive player and particularly a better defensive player than this from 2005 to 2008 he hit .244/.309/.339 (68 OPS+) this year its .242/.322/.295 (66+) you want to show me that he was particularly better defensively, go ahead, but contrary to your assertion he's the same hitter now that he's been the last 4 years. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 09:19 AM ]unless you expect him somehow to become the decent player he was for LA in 03-04 Yeah, talking to me like I'm a twit is pretty uneccessarily insulting. I'm referring to way he's performed since he got off the DL (an activation that apparently shouldn't have happened). The numbers you quote are not part of my "assertion" but including the early part of the season when he played well. His numbers that I am "asserting" about are .212 // .274 //. 244 // .518. And the numbers that you are quoting about how he's been recently are weighed down by a season three years ago, while he's been better over the last two. To make a point of that season as speaking to who he is now, while making a crack about how I "somehow expect him somehow to become the decent player he was for LA in 03-04" is doubly insulting. Nymr83 Jul 23 2009 10:19 AM bottom line: he hasn't been even decent since 2004. the injury didn't cause him to suck. props to him for gutting it out anyway (but thumbs down to the mets for letting him.) its too late now anyway. unless the mets have a better option internally it is no longer worth obtaining one for just this year. ]I'm referring to way he's performed since he got off the DL that wasnt made clear, but he wasnt going to be an acceptable long-term replacement for Reyes to begin with, the only defense Omar has there is that he didn't know how long Reyes would be out ]And the numbers that you are quoting about how he's been recently are weighed down by a season three years ago, while he's been better over the last two. To make a point of that season as speaking to who he is now and you get to decide that the last 2 years are the relevant time period rather than the last 4? he's been BAD since leaving LA, that was why i picked four years, that was when he left LA. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 10:28 AM ="metirish"]Chris Duncan is a meat head , or is that his brother?, either way I am surprised that the Sox got him for Lugo , or got anything at all. There's a bit of lunk to the galoot. And the Cards need middle-infield depth a bit more than they need yet another backup-for-Pujols/sorta-sluggy* backup-corner OF-type. *In 2006-07, that is. He's slugging .389 this year, and David Wright has as many home runs. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 10:32 AM This is too ridiculous ]bottom line: he hasn't been even decent since 2004. No, it's not, because you decided to make hay over ]the real Cora is not as bad as this ] the injury didn't cause him to suck. It appears to have made him play worse. ]that wasnt made clear It was clear enough. ]but he wasnt going to be an acceptable long-term replacement for Reyes to begin with, the only defense Omar has there is that he didn't know how long Reyes would be out I think it's clear that I'm with you there. Maybe not. ]and you get to decide that the last 2 years are the relevant time period I didn't "decide" anything. You're the one who has been framing. My only timeframe was the period he has been hurt. Do I really have to spell everything out here? He's better as an uninjured backup shortstop than an injured fulltime one. I think that's a clear position and one I'm willing to defend. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 11:22 AM RRRRRRROW! smg58 Jul 23 2009 11:32 AM Wilson's a mediocre hitter but consistently one of the best defensive shortstops in baseball. That alone would have made him an upgrade. But there's really no point now. Cora was signed to be a backup, and if he were playing only as much as the Mets originally expected him to play nobody would be complaining that harshly. Plus, he might have been given more time off to heal properly if the Mets weren't utterly desperate, and his numbers might actually look better. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 11:33 AM I'm really not quite that hot, but thank you. Frayed Knot Jul 23 2009 11:43 AM ="metirish"]Chris Duncan is a meat head , or is that his brother? All Duncans are meat-heads. Including Sandy I'm told. ]I'm really not quite that hot, but thank you. Even when you do your hair like that? seawolf17 Jul 23 2009 12:14 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]There's a bit of lunk to the galoot. I like how the watermark makes it look like it's "proof" that he's a galoot. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 01:05 PM ="seawolf17"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]There's a bit of lunk to the galoot. I like how the watermark makes it look like it's "proof" that he's a galoot. The look on his face-- half "O" face, half confused St. Bernard-- helps. I hope he finds International League trophies just as fuckable-- by all reports, he's headed for RI. Ashie62 Jul 23 2009 08:50 PM ="Frayed Knot":p8keo0dg]="metirish":p8keo0dg]Chris Duncan is a meat head , or is that his brother?[/quote:p8keo0dg][/quote:p8keo0dg] All Duncans are meat-heads. Including Sandy I'm told. Would that be MFY AAA meathead Shelly Duncan or the pixie actress of stage and screen possibly? Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 10:54 AM ]The Athletics and Cardinals have completed a trade that sends outfielder Matt Holliday to St. Louis in exchange for third baseman Brett Wallace, outfielder Shane Peterson and right-handed pitcher Clayton Mortensen, sources confirmed to ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney. Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 11:05 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 11:10 AM ="Nymr83"]The Athletics and Cardinals have completed a trade that sends outfielder Matt Holliday to St. Louis in exchange for third baseman Brett Wallace, outfielder Shane Peterson and right-handed pitcher Clayton Mortensen, sources confirmed to ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney. Wallace is the interesting name here. Considered to be among the best college bats to come along in many years, he was passed over by a number of teams (StL got him with the #13 pick) out of concern for where he'd play. In short, he's HUGE!, and huge as in wide not as in tall (BB-Ref lists him at 6' 1" - 245). In 'Moneyball' terms (since he's headed to Oakland) "he wears a big pair of underwear". The thought is that he'll be a DH sooner rather than later which isn't a great thing to be saying about a guy not yet 23 y/o. For now, they say his hands are at least decent and he's not as immobile as he looks. But, above all, he can rake. Already at AAA barely a year after signing, he blew through three different levels in between and will probably be in Oakland before the year is out. But, man, Oakland sounds like they're putting together slow-pitch softball teams again. Between Giambi, Jack Cust, Daric Barton (also snagged in a trade w/StL - for Mulder) and now Wallace they've got at least 4 'stocky' (I'm being nice here) 1B/DH types not seen since the days when the brothers Giambi were teamed with Matt Stairs & John Jaha. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 11:09 AM I saw some on him. I liked his waddle. Like a lefthanded Bob Horner. Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 01:28 PM Or maybe the lefty who ate Bob Horner. A quick peak at a Cardinal board showed an overall (though not universal) negative reaction - more based on thinking they gave up too much for a 2-month rental whose XBHs have trended from 84, 92, 65, 60 (proj) over the last 4 years than it was in thinking that either of the top 2 prospects were sure-fire studs. This Shane Peterson who went in the deal was their 2nd round pick from '08, the one right after they selected Wallace. There's also a story (Heyman) that LaRussa pushed for this in part because he didn't like and wasn't consulted on the Chris Duncan/Julio Lugo swap (and I don't guess his pitching coach was too high on it either). And, of course, the deal is made just in time so the Yanx don't have to see Holliday as Oakland is in NYC starting tonight. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 01:48 PM ="Frayed Knot"]Or maybe the lefty who ate Bob Horner. A quick peak at a Cardinal board showed an overall (though not universal) negative reaction - more based on thinking they gave up too much for a 2-month rental whose XBHs have trended from 84, 92, 65, 60 (proj) over the last 4 years than it was in thinking that either of the top 2 prospects were sure-fire studs. This Shane Peterson who went in the deal was their 2nd round pick from '08, the one right after they selected Wallace. There's also a story (Heyman) that LaRussa pushed for this in part because he didn't like and wasn't consulted on the Chris Duncan/Julio Lugo swap (and I don't guess his pitching coach was too high on it either). And, of course, the deal is made just in time so the Yanx don't have to see Holliday as Oakland is in NYC starting tonight. Just goes to show you how much of a buyer's market this is; the sheer number of potential in-it-to-win-it teams the last two years has resuscitated the good-old-fashioned deadline deal, however briefly, even in the face of cost constraints and the rising value of FA-compensatory draft picks. (Although it kinda seemed from Day One that Beane had an eye toward Holliday's departure-- like they acquired him almost exclusively like a short-sell, either for the draft picks or the trade value-- didn't it?) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 01:24 AM Consider the source, but still-- Re-heeeeeally? ]The Rangers remain in the market for a bat, with the Indians' Ryan Garko and Mets' Gary Sheffield among their targets, even though Sheffield currently is on the disabled list. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9854856/BoSox-involved-in-Halladay-talks-and-more- seawolf17 Jul 27 2009 08:07 AM I wish he hadn't gotten hurt, because I think Sheffield -- and possibly Livan -- are the Mets two best trading chips right now. I read somewhere recently that Sheffield would revolt if he got dealt, though, so as always with him, it'd be buyer beware. Frayed Knot Jul 27 2009 08:42 AM Sheffield always threatens to revolt - but the thing is, this time he could easily make it stick. He was all but ready to retire anyway after being released by Detroit; he had $14mil coming to him and nothing monetarily to gain from playing unless he's really lying and is secretly dying to play next year too only for a fraction of this year's salary. But the Mets (he claims) were a good fit for him and so he took the gig when offered. But now if dealt somewhere he doesn't like (I don't think he has any No-Trade protection) he can simply walk-away rather than pull up stakes and move across the country for 9 weeks and not lost a thing except a possible shot at another ring.

Pagan 0.50 Wright 0.25 Pelfrey 2 Reed 0.25

Clean house...From Minaya on down..No rash moves from here til the end of one of the most embarrasing years in team history. Let the schedule run out and enjoy the off season...This shit has got to stop

cooby wrote: we're not doing so well, are we? There's room for improvement. The very idea that our catching and catching moves is somehow responsible for this season is beyond the absurd.

Francouer 1 Murphy 1 Stokes 1 Parnell 1 Perez 1.5

Nymr83 wrote: Omar cites Santos as a positive. I see him as a negative because his little hot streak essentially forced a better player out of town and now he's showing his true colors. Ashie still thinks he's the MVP. I said ROY canidate..not MVP..get it right if you're going to diss me..Thanks

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2yv1ykdh]Well, it'll make the Phils pay more hopefully.[/quote:2yv1ykdh] J.A. Crap for sure seawolf17 Jul 20 2009 08:10 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1ep41fsk]Well, it'll make the Phils pay more hopefully.[/quote:1ep41fsk] I say Rollins, Victorino, Utley, Ibanez, Pat Burrell, Von Hayes, Jamie Moyer, the ghost of the Lenny/Roger for Juan Samuel trade, and the Phanatic seems like a fair trade for Halladay. Make it happen, Phillies! soupcan Jul 20 2009 08:15 PM Re: Mets reject Blue Jays on Halladay Package ="metirish":3kmo5wr4]F Martinez Niese Parnell Tejada [/quote:3kmo5wr4] That doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. OlerudOwned Jul 20 2009 08:29 PM Taken with a John Heyman sized grain of salt. seawolf17 Jul 20 2009 09:03 PM ="OlerudOwned":3k9llp1w]Taken with a John Heyman sized grain of salt.[/quote:3k9llp1w] How many grains of salt fit inside a douche bag that big? He's not a small man. OlerudOwned Jul 20 2009 09:19 PM ="seawolf17":162dac7x]="OlerudOwned":162dac7x]Taken with a John Heyman sized grain of salt.[/quote:162dac7x] How many grains of salt fit inside a douche bag that big? He's not a small man.[/quote:162dac7x] http://twitter.com/keithlaw/status/2750610015 2,750,610,015. I suppose. Gwreck Jul 20 2009 11:42 PM Re: Mets reject Blue Jays on Halladay Package ="soupcan":31694kki]="metirish":31694kki]F Martinez Niese Parnell Tejada [/quote:31694kki] That doesn't seem like a bad deal to me.[/quote:31694kki] Me either, but there's also the money. I figure he gets an extension that wipes out the last year and gives him another 5 at 18 million per. Nymr83 Jul 21 2009 03:50 AM ]Heyman reporting that the Jays tabled an offer to the Mets that would get the Mets Halladay F Martinez Niese Parnell Tejada i would have done it. not for this year but because Halladay is under contract still for next year. Frayed Knot Jul 21 2009 06:57 AM I think it's certainly a fair deal (even as its accuracy is questioned) and one that I could pull the trigger on and not have to swallow too hard. But I'm not too sure that the Mets are in a position where packaging and unloading prospects for post-30 players is the way to go right now. metsmarathon Jul 21 2009 07:03 AM 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. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 21 2009 07:08 AM I wouldn't have complained too loudly. You worry a little about getting hurt maybe in the coming years of the Halladay extension, whatever they may be, but aces don't grow on trees. metsmarathon Jul 21 2009 07:14 AM no. i'm certain i would be thrilled in the short term. but i'd be a bit worried about those later years... metirish Jul 21 2009 07:18 AM Nor would I have complained much , if at all. F Martinez I think will be a good major league player , Parnell is a reliever and I would never hesitate to throw one of those in a deal. The Jays might start him , whatever. Niese could work out and the other kid I have never seen. Frayed Knot Jul 21 2009 07:19 AM Of course part of this depends on what the theoretical extension would look like -- which in turn assumes that Halladay will demand one in return for his agreeing to the trade. I think everyone assumes that he'll do just that (it's not like his leverage is likely to go up from where it is now) but I don't know that he's outright stated it's a prerequisite. Edgy DC Jul 21 2009 07:40 AM We want a batter, not a wooden ladder. Centerfield Jul 21 2009 08:08 AM I would do that deal. I would not drive Pedro Feliciano to Colorado to make it happen, but I would do that deal. MFS62 Jul 21 2009 09:22 AM ="Edgy DC":hwzslqzr]We want a batter, not a wooden ladder.[/quote:hwzslqzr] Exactly. The team needs a hitter. But when you get right down to it, it may be a moot point. Its not up to Omar or the pimp (my Canadian friends' name for JP because he dresses so slickly). Halliday has complete veto rights over any trade, and it is doubtful he'd want to come to the Mets. (according to Steve Sommers last night on WFAN) Later Frayed Knot Jul 21 2009 09:31 AM ]Halliday has complete veto rights over any trade, and it is doubtful he'd want to come to the Mets. (according to Steve Sommers last night on WFAN) Oh well that settles it then. metirish Jul 21 2009 09:37 AM Steve Somers is like the Walter Cronkite of sports talk.....in age terms anyway Centerfield Jul 21 2009 09:48 AM I obviously don't disagree that this team needs a batter, but that doesn't mean this team doesn't need more pitching. Particularly, ace-level starting pitching. If the lineup were producing, we'd be lamenting having to start Nieve/Livan/Redding etc. The Mets are currently 19th in team ERA, despite playing in a great pitchers' park. I really dislike the notion of passing on good, productive players because "we need ____". This was my problem with not pursuing Texiera last off-season. We never made a run at him because of reasons like "we need to focus on the bullpen" and "we have a first-baseman". My philosophy is to get top-notch talent when it's available. Now that Delgado is likely done after this season, there are few good options out there at first for next year. Thinking that "the offense is fine" is what led to the lack of lineup depth. Which made us particularly vulnerable in the event some top guys went down. So if a 32 year old legitimate #1 is available, make a run at him. If he doesn't ask for the moon and stars in terms of an extension, ship out those four guys and let the Phils face Santana and Halladay back to back. Vic Sage Jul 21 2009 09:54 AM The TiTTS say: "Boo!" Edgy DC Jul 21 2009 10:09 AM Was pursuing Texiera really explicitly rejected because the team needs to focus on the bullpen? Obviously, talent is talent. I just think Halladay is old talent, and if the Mets don't find some way to generate offense, Halladay's effectiveness may well have expired by the time it could have made a difference. Personally, based on Martinez being injured, I think this report looks faulty. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 21 2009 10:55 AM ="Edgy DC"] Personally, based on Martinez being injured, I think this report looks faulty. It looks outright false. Leaving aside my own gut feeling of implausibility, hell, consider the source-- I know Keith Law's misled me a good deal less than Heyman has. ]Was pursuing Texiera really explicitly rejected because the team needs to focus on the bullpen? Pretty strong implicit tie at least, methinks. The publicly identified primary need area took precedence, and Omar had this year's solutions (presumably) at 1st and 2nd and OF already in hand for the season, if not beyond, so Teixeira and Hudson and Abreu/Dunn were extraneous and not worth a serious bid (even if they were markedly superior to our extant solutions there... and, in at least one case, more or less begging to come to New York). But yeah, that's bygones. Playing the what-if game, though... assuming the trade were to happen, we're looking at this team locked in as a poor man's 2001 D-Backs-- with Santana and Halladay's paychecks, and Reyes due to make open-market rates after 2011, there's no money to sign anything but replacement-level or steeply discounted (due to injury history, or "correctable" mechanical flaws) talent for C, 1B, and corner OF over the next several years. The offense would end up being even more top-heavy than we're used to-- Wright, Reyes and what's left of Beltran, surrounded by Castillo, Murphy, Evans, Ike Davis (maybe?), and a REALLY ugly bench-- wouldn't it? smg58 Jul 21 2009 11:29 AM The Blue Jays GM said last week that he was listening to offers, not making them. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 21 2009 11:37 AM Making a play for Teixera was probably a little more of a high-wire act than Omar had the stomach for. He'd have had to outbid the MFYs, O's and Bosox then find a trade partner for Delgado without any leverage. And if it didn't work out, deal with hurt feelings. I'm not saying it couldn't be done but that it would have been risky and expensive and they get a pass from me for not trying it. Besides, Teixiera's a douche. Knowing what we know now, I suppose the real dumb thing was not deciding on Murphy at 1B sooner and trading Delgado for what they could get. That would have provided more opportunities to upgrade the pen or rotation or gather in a prospect. Not that so vast a dropoff in production there has helped, just that we'd have gotten something in exchange for it. smg58 Jul 21 2009 11:42 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":lq51jb1x]Playing the what-if game, though... assuming the trade were to happen, we're looking at this team locked in as a poor man's 2001 D-Backs-- with Santana and Halladay's paychecks, and Reyes due to make open-market rates after 2011, there's no money to sign anything but replacement-level or steeply discounted (due to injury history, or "correctable" mechanical flaws) talent for C, 1B, and corner OF over the next several years. The offense would end up being even more top-heavy than we're used to-- Wright, Reyes and what's left of Beltran, surrounded by Castillo, Murphy, Evans, Ike Davis (maybe?), and a REALLY ugly bench-- wouldn't it?[/quote:lq51jb1x] The contracts for Beltran, Castillo and Perez run out after 2011 as well, so it's not like there's already zero payroll flexibility that far ahead. In the meantime, we're freeing up the money spent on Delgado, Wagner, and Schneider, plus Putz in all likelihood. It will also take more than one home run to justify tendering a contract to Francoeur. That's a quarter of the team's current payroll right there. I've got no problem with building a more balanced team, but I don't think a deal for Halladay necessarily rules that out. Edgy DC Jul 21 2009 12:14 PM This has surely morphed. If the Mets weren't going after the top two targets in the starting pitcher market, certainly Teixera wasn't in the cards under any circumstances, Omar or no Omar. Nymr83 Jul 21 2009 03:16 PM ]Was pursuing Texiera really explicitly rejected because the team needs to focus on the bullpen? they had to make a decision on Delgado' option before they could talk to Texiera, if Delgado had become a free agent they could have gotten outbid on Texiera anyway amd then had to give Delgado more years (which would have sucked imo), so i think they made the right move there. Centerfield Jul 21 2009 04:16 PM I didn't mean to re-hash the Delgado/Texiera arguments again. I realize the degree of difficulty was high on that one. I just wish we had a GM that was willing to explore it and not be constrained by "We are set at first"-type thinking. Similarly, I don't want the Mets to not pull the trigger on a Halladay deal (if one is, in fact, available to them) because of the mindset that "we need bats". We do need bats. But if we can get an ace, we should look to get that ace, then get bats with the money freed up when Wagner, Putz, Delgado, Schneider and Franceour come off the books. Edgy DC Jul 21 2009 04:44 PM Understood. To be fair, though, the extension that Halladay would require would eat up a fair chunk of that money.

="Fman99":2t58bidg]="Ashie62":2t58bidg]Mets rejected..not Jays[/quote:2t58bidg] Good, it's too much. Keep Niese.[/quote:2t58bidg] Ojeda said the Mets need Halladay like a fish needs a bike.. Thats about how I feel...Let the year expire and rebuild John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 20 2009 08:07 PM Well, it'll make the Phils pay more hopefully. Ashie62 Jul 20 2009 08:08 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2yv1ykdh]Well, it'll make the Phils pay more hopefully.[/quote:2yv1ykdh] J.A. Crap for sure seawolf17 Jul 20 2009 08:10 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1ep41fsk]Well, it'll make the Phils pay more hopefully.[/quote:1ep41fsk] I say Rollins, Victorino, Utley, Ibanez, Pat Burrell, Von Hayes, Jamie Moyer, the ghost of the Lenny/Roger for Juan Samuel trade, and the Phanatic seems like a fair trade for Halladay. Make it happen, Phillies! soupcan Jul 20 2009 08:15 PM Re: Mets reject Blue Jays on Halladay Package ="metirish":3kmo5wr4]F Martinez Niese Parnell Tejada [/quote:3kmo5wr4] That doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. OlerudOwned Jul 20 2009 08:29 PM Taken with a John Heyman sized grain of salt. seawolf17 Jul 20 2009 09:03 PM ="OlerudOwned":3k9llp1w]Taken with a John Heyman sized grain of salt.[/quote:3k9llp1w] How many grains of salt fit inside a douche bag that big? He's not a small man. OlerudOwned Jul 20 2009 09:19 PM ="seawolf17":162dac7x]="OlerudOwned":162dac7x]Taken with a John Heyman sized grain of salt.[/quote:162dac7x] How many grains of salt fit inside a douche bag that big? He's not a small man.[/quote:162dac7x] http://twitter.com/keithlaw/status/2750610015 2,750,610,015. I suppose. Gwreck Jul 20 2009 11:42 PM Re: Mets reject Blue Jays on Halladay Package ="soupcan":31694kki]="metirish":31694kki]F Martinez Niese Parnell Tejada [/quote:31694kki] That doesn't seem like a bad deal to me.[/quote:31694kki] Me either, but there's also the money. I figure he gets an extension that wipes out the last year and gives him another 5 at 18 million per. Nymr83 Jul 21 2009 03:50 AM ]Heyman reporting that the Jays tabled an offer to the Mets that would get the Mets Halladay F Martinez Niese Parnell Tejada i would have done it. not for this year but because Halladay is under contract still for next year. Frayed Knot Jul 21 2009 06:57 AM I think it's certainly a fair deal (even as its accuracy is questioned) and one that I could pull the trigger on and not have to swallow too hard. But I'm not too sure that the Mets are in a position where packaging and unloading prospects for post-30 players is the way to go right now. metsmarathon Jul 21 2009 07:03 AM 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. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 21 2009 07:08 AM I wouldn't have complained too loudly. You worry a little about getting hurt maybe in the coming years of the Halladay extension, whatever they may be, but aces don't grow on trees. metsmarathon Jul 21 2009 07:14 AM no. i'm certain i would be thrilled in the short term. but i'd be a bit worried about those later years... metirish Jul 21 2009 07:18 AM Nor would I have complained much , if at all. F Martinez I think will be a good major league player , Parnell is a reliever and I would never hesitate to throw one of those in a deal. The Jays might start him , whatever. Niese could work out and the other kid I have never seen. Frayed Knot Jul 21 2009 07:19 AM Of course part of this depends on what the theoretical extension would look like -- which in turn assumes that Halladay will demand one in return for his agreeing to the trade. I think everyone assumes that he'll do just that (it's not like his leverage is likely to go up from where it is now) but I don't know that he's outright stated it's a prerequisite. Edgy DC Jul 21 2009 07:40 AM We want a batter, not a wooden ladder. Centerfield Jul 21 2009 08:08 AM I would do that deal. I would not drive Pedro Feliciano to Colorado to make it happen, but I would do that deal. MFS62 Jul 21 2009 09:22 AM ="Edgy DC":hwzslqzr]We want a batter, not a wooden ladder.[/quote:hwzslqzr] Exactly. The team needs a hitter. But when you get right down to it, it may be a moot point. Its not up to Omar or the pimp (my Canadian friends' name for JP because he dresses so slickly). Halliday has complete veto rights over any trade, and it is doubtful he'd want to come to the Mets. (according to Steve Sommers last night on WFAN) Later Frayed Knot Jul 21 2009 09:31 AM ]Halliday has complete veto rights over any trade, and it is doubtful he'd want to come to the Mets. (according to Steve Sommers last night on WFAN) Oh well that settles it then. metirish Jul 21 2009 09:37 AM Steve Somers is like the Walter Cronkite of sports talk.....in age terms anyway Centerfield Jul 21 2009 09:48 AM I obviously don't disagree that this team needs a batter, but that doesn't mean this team doesn't need more pitching. Particularly, ace-level starting pitching. If the lineup were producing, we'd be lamenting having to start Nieve/Livan/Redding etc. The Mets are currently 19th in team ERA, despite playing in a great pitchers' park. I really dislike the notion of passing on good, productive players because "we need ____". This was my problem with not pursuing Texiera last off-season. We never made a run at him because of reasons like "we need to focus on the bullpen" and "we have a first-baseman". My philosophy is to get top-notch talent when it's available. Now that Delgado is likely done after this season, there are few good options out there at first for next year. Thinking that "the offense is fine" is what led to the lack of lineup depth. Which made us particularly vulnerable in the event some top guys went down. So if a 32 year old legitimate #1 is available, make a run at him. If he doesn't ask for the moon and stars in terms of an extension, ship out those four guys and let the Phils face Santana and Halladay back to back. Vic Sage Jul 21 2009 09:54 AM The TiTTS say: "Boo!" Edgy DC Jul 21 2009 10:09 AM Was pursuing Texiera really explicitly rejected because the team needs to focus on the bullpen? Obviously, talent is talent. I just think Halladay is old talent, and if the Mets don't find some way to generate offense, Halladay's effectiveness may well have expired by the time it could have made a difference. Personally, based on Martinez being injured, I think this report looks faulty. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 21 2009 10:55 AM ="Edgy DC"] Personally, based on Martinez being injured, I think this report looks faulty. It looks outright false. Leaving aside my own gut feeling of implausibility, hell, consider the source-- I know Keith Law's misled me a good deal less than Heyman has. ]Was pursuing Texiera really explicitly rejected because the team needs to focus on the bullpen? Pretty strong implicit tie at least, methinks. The publicly identified primary need area took precedence, and Omar had this year's solutions (presumably) at 1st and 2nd and OF already in hand for the season, if not beyond, so Teixeira and Hudson and Abreu/Dunn were extraneous and not worth a serious bid (even if they were markedly superior to our extant solutions there... and, in at least one case, more or less begging to come to New York). But yeah, that's bygones. Playing the what-if game, though... assuming the trade were to happen, we're looking at this team locked in as a poor man's 2001 D-Backs-- with Santana and Halladay's paychecks, and Reyes due to make open-market rates after 2011, there's no money to sign anything but replacement-level or steeply discounted (due to injury history, or "correctable" mechanical flaws) talent for C, 1B, and corner OF over the next several years. The offense would end up being even more top-heavy than we're used to-- Wright, Reyes and what's left of Beltran, surrounded by Castillo, Murphy, Evans, Ike Davis (maybe?), and a REALLY ugly bench-- wouldn't it? smg58 Jul 21 2009 11:29 AM The Blue Jays GM said last week that he was listening to offers, not making them. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 21 2009 11:37 AM Making a play for Teixera was probably a little more of a high-wire act than Omar had the stomach for. He'd have had to outbid the MFYs, O's and Bosox then find a trade partner for Delgado without any leverage. And if it didn't work out, deal with hurt feelings. I'm not saying it couldn't be done but that it would have been risky and expensive and they get a pass from me for not trying it. Besides, Teixiera's a douche. Knowing what we know now, I suppose the real dumb thing was not deciding on Murphy at 1B sooner and trading Delgado for what they could get. That would have provided more opportunities to upgrade the pen or rotation or gather in a prospect. Not that so vast a dropoff in production there has helped, just that we'd have gotten something in exchange for it. smg58 Jul 21 2009 11:42 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":lq51jb1x]Playing the what-if game, though... assuming the trade were to happen, we're looking at this team locked in as a poor man's 2001 D-Backs-- with Santana and Halladay's paychecks, and Reyes due to make open-market rates after 2011, there's no money to sign anything but replacement-level or steeply discounted (due to injury history, or "correctable" mechanical flaws) talent for C, 1B, and corner OF over the next several years. The offense would end up being even more top-heavy than we're used to-- Wright, Reyes and what's left of Beltran, surrounded by Castillo, Murphy, Evans, Ike Davis (maybe?), and a REALLY ugly bench-- wouldn't it?[/quote:lq51jb1x] The contracts for Beltran, Castillo and Perez run out after 2011 as well, so it's not like there's already zero payroll flexibility that far ahead. In the meantime, we're freeing up the money spent on Delgado, Wagner, and Schneider, plus Putz in all likelihood. It will also take more than one home run to justify tendering a contract to Francoeur. That's a quarter of the team's current payroll right there. I've got no problem with building a more balanced team, but I don't think a deal for Halladay necessarily rules that out. Edgy DC Jul 21 2009 12:14 PM This has surely morphed. If the Mets weren't going after the top two targets in the starting pitcher market, certainly Teixera wasn't in the cards under any circumstances, Omar or no Omar. Nymr83 Jul 21 2009 03:16 PM ]Was pursuing Texiera really explicitly rejected because the team needs to focus on the bullpen? they had to make a decision on Delgado' option before they could talk to Texiera, if Delgado had become a free agent they could have gotten outbid on Texiera anyway amd then had to give Delgado more years (which would have sucked imo), so i think they made the right move there. Centerfield Jul 21 2009 04:16 PM I didn't mean to re-hash the Delgado/Texiera arguments again. I realize the degree of difficulty was high on that one. I just wish we had a GM that was willing to explore it and not be constrained by "We are set at first"-type thinking. Similarly, I don't want the Mets to not pull the trigger on a Halladay deal (if one is, in fact, available to them) because of the mindset that "we need bats". We do need bats. But if we can get an ace, we should look to get that ace, then get bats with the money freed up when Wagner, Putz, Delgado, Schneider and Franceour come off the books. Edgy DC Jul 21 2009 04:44 PM Understood. To be fair, though, the extension that Halladay would require would eat up a fair chunk of that money.

I want Reyes traded..sorry

Mets rejected..not Jays

Hernandez 3 Murphy 1.5 Pagan 2 Castillo 0.5 Francoeur 2 S.Green 0.25 F Rodriguez 0.50

We have a stranglehold on 4th place

I believe that was an "in-season" vote of confidence In other news Mets reject Fmart-Niese-Parnell-Tejada for Halladay..

A condom game

Shall I drag out my Reyes and Delgado will never play as a Met post from a ways back?

Uncle Floyd among others would be proud

If anyone has seen the movie Tropic Thunder, one of Ben Stiller's characters is a smiling tard named "Simple Jim" I swear Francouer looks just like him

Edgy DC wrote: So I watch that Wings performance and there's absolutely no shots of lead guitarist Jimmy McCullough. He only accidentally ends up in the background of a shot of Denny Laine. What's up with that? Denny had ownership of some Wings songs..McCullough was treated like the Stones bassist after Wyman..invisible

That would end Sheffield's career as a Met

Slip Slidinn Away Slip Sliding away To that cellar destination not so far far away. The nice part is I no longer have expectations for this bunch...and when does football season start?

="Kong76":3j4rfayw]Everyone who they could trade to "stock the farm" is hurt. They can't get anything farm stocking worthy for the guys that most of us would be willing to unload. To me, it will be a lost season unless things luckily change the next week or so. They can't really do all that much to significantly improve the team (or the organization)[/quote:3j4rfayw] you betcha Kong76 Jul 17 2009 07:00 PM Lol, I was disagreeing with your post above mine. We don't 'get' each other, which is fine. OlerudOwned Jul 17 2009 07:01 PM ="MFS62":mb8arapi]Trading Schneider is an interesting situation. For this year, you would like to get a catcher in return. But that catcher (unless on an expiring contract like Schneider) might stand in the way of catching prospect Josh Thole by next year. 'Tis a puzzlement. When do you sell? When you have a buyer who will give fair return. Later[/quote:mb8arapi] I don't think we'd be getting a catcher in return for Schneider who would be good enough to force down a prospect, honestly. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 17 2009 07:13 PM ="OlerudOwned":1s5gndu1]="MFS62":1s5gndu1]Trading Schneider is an interesting situation. For this year, you would like to get a catcher in return. But that catcher (unless on an expiring contract like Schneider) might stand in the way of catching prospect Josh Thole by next year. 'Tis a puzzlement. When do you sell? When you have a buyer who will give fair return. Later[/quote:1s5gndu1] I don't think we'd be getting a catcher in return for Schneider who would be good enough to force down a prospect, honestly.[/quote:1s5gndu1] I don't think we care so much about getting a catcher in return, do we? Hell, if you're not trading for this year, might as well roll with Santos and Cancel. seawolf17 Jul 18 2009 02:42 PM Anyone and everyone, save Santana, Wright, and Reyes. Line 'em up and move 'em out. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 18 2009 02:46 PM ="seawolf17":24j9e4dx]Anyone and everyone, save Santana, Wright, and Reyes. Line 'em up and move 'em out.[/quote:24j9e4dx] Beltran's wondering if you've somehow misplaced his reservation (and points out that, if you're trading him due to injury-related hobbling, you're selling at a steep discount). .

="Edgy DC":3qka88xt]We're getting over-excited. He'll be here soon enough. A half a season isn't necessary for evaluation.[/quote:3qka88xt] Spot on..his time is near Nymr83 Jul 18 2009 08:15 PM ="Edgy DC":4b6h890u]We're getting over-excited. He'll be here soon enough. A half a season isn't necessary for evaluation.[/quote:4b6h890u] i don't know exactly how much time is needed but more is better and livan servees no purpose on a team going nowhere bmfc1 Jul 18 2009 08:30 PM Niese with a complete game (7 innings) shut out tonight. Figueroa, too. Niese should have the start on Monday. Edgy DC Jul 18 2009 08:37 PM If it's reasonably decided that he's the better bet for the team the rest of the season, than bring him to New York. Else, I don't know why it's so important to explicitly throw in the towel sooner, rather than later. Nymr83 Jul 18 2009 09:24 PM ="Edgy DC":kmzjopnx]If it's reasonably decided that he's the better bet for the team the rest of the season, than bring him to New York. Else, I don't know why it's so important to explicitly throw in the towel sooner, rather than later.[/quote:kmzjopnx] In light of Niese's recent performances and those of Livan it wouldn't be throwing in the towel, it would be the better move for both now and the future, though I'm looking more at the future here. bmfc1 Jul 19 2009 07:00 AM If you think that the Mets have no chance of making the playoffs, then you call Niese up to see if he can pitch on the Major League level over a long period of time, rather than one or two starts. If you think that the Mets have a chance, then you call Niese up because he's pitching great and Livan is not. Either way, Niese now. smg58 Jul 19 2009 07:22 AM Before his last two starts, Livan had some trade value. A good outing or two before the deadline might restore some of that value, and even a borderline prospect would probably be worth waiting till the end of the month to see Niese. Of course, if Livan blows up again in his next start, it's a moot point. metirish Jul 19 2009 08:04 AM Oh it would be borderline alright..... Edgy DC Jul 19 2009 12:14 PM ="Nymr83"]="Edgy DC"]If it's reasonably decided that he's the better bet for the team the rest of the season, than bring him to New York. Else, I don't know why it's so important to explicitly throw in the towel sooner, rather than later. In light of Niese's recent performances and those of Livan it wouldn't be throwing in the towel, it would be the better move for both now and the future, though I'm looking more at the future here. Well, that's what I said in my first sentence. The throwing in the towel phrase was deliberately prefixed with an "Else." If good judgement says he's the better Met down the stretch, sure, call on him. Edgy DC Jul 19 2009 04:39 PM We suddenly have an opening. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 19 2009 06:15 PM (Continuing to whistle, twiddle thumbs, and keep an eye on the road from Buffalo) OlerudOwned Jul 19 2009 06:45 PM Niese and Nieve are only one letter away. MFS62 Jul 20 2009 06:54 AM Apparently, Manuel isn't all that enthusiastic about bringing Niese up. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/mets/2009/07/braves-7-mets-1-nieve-to-niese.html#ixzz0LlrJ6kH1 Later metirish Jul 20 2009 07:13 AM I don't see what you mean by that...I think Manuel might be trying to temper expectations .As Rubin noted Jerry has all but named Niese the starter for Saturday. bmfc1 Jul 20 2009 07:17 AM Those quotes came before the game. He had to change course after the Nieve injury.

Put in Blaine Beatty

="metirish":2ah23jzr]I don't see Francouer , Pagan or Maine going anywhere. What would you get for Francouer and Pagan that would make you move them?, I'm just thinking out loud here . Both are young with some upside , neither I would think will bring back a high prospect and wants the point in trading them for a like player. Maine is injured so that rules him out.[/quote:2ah23jzr] I'm just thinking out loud also, which may be a dangerous thing. I guess as a Mets fan I've never seen them in such a high market position and wonder if that means you never ever give up..you buy and hope. It might be nice to stock the farm with some prospects and maybe a couple will make it worth the while..Gives Fmart some extended time. Probably helps the club get a better feel about Muffy etc. Of course a 10 game winning streak makes this a moot point Kong76 Jul 17 2009 02:44 PM Everyone who they could trade to "stock the farm" is hurt. They can't get anything farm stocking worthy for the guys that most of us would be willing to unload. To me, it will be a lost season unless things luckily change the next week or so. They can't really do all that much to significantly improve the team (or the organization) Nymr83 Jul 17 2009 02:56 PM ]Everyone who they could trade to "stock the farm" is hurt. They can't get anything farm stocking worthy for the guys that most of us would be willing to unload. i'm not asking for good prospects, i'm just pointing out some teams that could use guys that we probably wont bring back next year anyway. all i'd want in return is a "project" guy. i dont have time now but i'm sure you could go back and find the equivalent of this year's Sheffield/Schneider getting dealt for something usable. HahnSolo Jul 17 2009 03:22 PM What about Livan? I know he's had some sucky outings of late, but isn't he the kind of guy that GMs of teams in contention just love to have: the so-called veteran, innings-eating, crafty guy to trot out there every fifth day. Now, who the contender is who would want him I have no idea (Brewers? Rangers? White Sox?). Nymr83 Jul 17 2009 04:24 PM i think his ERA shot up too much, he might have been usable bait a month ago, but i think all the GMs had to have the same idea that most of us did that it would all come crashing down eventually. MFS62 Jul 17 2009 04:29 PM Trading Schneider is an interesting situation. For this year, you would like to get a catcher in return. But that catcher (unless on an expiring contract like Schneider) might stand in the way of catching prospect Josh Thole by next year. 'Tis a puzzlement. When do you sell? When you have a buyer who will give fair return. Later Mex17 Jul 17 2009 05:08 PM How about a thread discussing when the TEAM should be sold? Kong76 Jul 17 2009 05:10 PM There are buttons on the forum called, "new topic." Start one. Ashie62 Jul 17 2009 06:54 PM ="Kong76":3j4rfayw]Everyone who they could trade to "stock the farm" is hurt. They can't get anything farm stocking worthy for the guys that most of us would be willing to unload. To me, it will be a lost season unless things luckily change the next week or so. They can't really do all that much to significantly improve the team (or the organization)[/quote:3j4rfayw] you betcha Kong76 Jul 17 2009 07:00 PM Lol, I was disagreeing with your post above mine. We don't 'get' each other, which is fine. OlerudOwned Jul 17 2009 07:01 PM ="MFS62":mb8arapi]Trading Schneider is an interesting situation. For this year, you would like to get a catcher in return. But that catcher (unless on an expiring contract like Schneider) might stand in the way of catching prospect Josh Thole by next year. 'Tis a puzzlement. When do you sell? When you have a buyer who will give fair return. Later[/quote:mb8arapi] I don't think we'd be getting a catcher in return for Schneider who would be good enough to force down a prospect, honestly. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 17 2009 07:13 PM ="OlerudOwned":1s5gndu1]="MFS62":1s5gndu1]Trading Schneider is an interesting situation. For this year, you would like to get a catcher in return. But that catcher (unless on an expiring contract like Schneider) might stand in the way of catching prospect Josh Thole by next year. 'Tis a puzzlement. When do you sell? When you have a buyer who will give fair return. Later[/quote:1s5gndu1] I don't think we'd be getting a catcher in return for Schneider who would be good enough to force down a prospect, honestly.[/quote:1s5gndu1] I don't think we care so much about getting a catcher in return, do we? Hell, if you're not trading for this year, might as well roll with Santos and Cancel. seawolf17 Jul 18 2009 02:42 PM Anyone and everyone, save Santana, Wright, and Reyes. Line 'em up and move 'em out. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 18 2009 02:46 PM ="seawolf17":24j9e4dx]Anyone and everyone, save Santana, Wright, and Reyes. Line 'em up and move 'em out.[/quote:24j9e4dx] Beltran's wondering if you've somehow misplaced his reservation (and points out that, if you're trading him due to injury-related hobbling, you're selling at a steep discount). .