seawolf17

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.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: What drives me nuts is that this team could be perfect underdog, easy to get behind, fighting through the adversity etc etc but they just haven't struggled all that admirably. That's just it. There's nothing endearing about them at all.

="Edgy DC":33yv314c]What I'd like to hear is that the Mets have gone back in time and retroactively signed Adam Dunn.[/quote:33yv314c] I'd like to investigate that possibility as well. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 08:49 AM Five bucks to the first deputy to tell a visibly impatient Tony Bernazard, "Keep your shirt on." Valadius Jul 24 2009 10:36 AM I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers. Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 10:54 AM ="Valadius":1uyyir7g]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:1uyyir7g] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure". Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 10:55 AM they also took 4 guys from the system to get Santana, so those guys had to be highly regarded enough to do that. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 11:39 AM ="Frayed Knot":2mcveioa]="Valadius":2mcveioa]I'd have him fired simply for his failure to do his job - develop ballplayers.[/quote:2mcveioa] The Mets are getting contributions this season from recent lower-round draft picks like Murphy (13th round) & Parnell (9th) and, to a lesser extent, Evans (5th) & Neise (7th). They're also getting nice progress from at least 2 of the few early picks they've had in recent years in Brad Holt & Ike Davis. It would always be nice if there were more of course, but in a business where misses are always going to out-number hits, the record during the time Bernazard has been here doesn't exactly qualify as "failure".[/quote:2mcveioa] Abject, I-pooped-in-my-hand-type failure? No. Comparative failure? Possibly. After all, what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Plus, those guys have played, but how well? However you might feel about Evans and Murphy, numbers-wise, they've performed at sub-replacement level on the field for their positions so far. Parnell's got a nice fastball, but with his iffy command/lack of any real secondary pitch, he may-- just may-- have already seen his peak. Simply ennumerating successes (and qualified ones, at that) is a bit like saying, "Well, our hitting coach isn't failing; after all, we got two hits just last night." (Without doing an in-depth examination, it seems that we've gotten less substantive input from internal products than a good number of the teams in our income bracket-- Sox, Yanks, Angels, etc.) Additionally, there's the issue of (over?)aggressive promotions... Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 11:51 AM Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 12:04 PM ="Edgy DC":rxv5qb1y]But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis.[/quote:rxv5qb1y] I don't know if he's done his job or not. I think he needs to be fired for challenging minor leaguers to a fight in the clubhouse (the other incidents aren't as serious but show that it wasn't a one time lapse in judgment, like a car thief with a history of shoplifting) Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 12:06 PM ]what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Pelfrey = 2005 Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 12:38 PM I think I'm just caught in this cycle. - Fire him because of the incident. - Can we establish that? - Fire him becasue of failure. - Can we establish that? - Fire him because of the incident.Just plug in "Can we establish that first?" for my next ten posts, unless someone establishes that. Meantime: Products from the 2005 draft --- Pelfrey (1), Jonathan Niese (7), Bobby Parnell (9). Products from the 2006 draft --- Joseph Smith (2), Daniel Murphy (16). Products from the 2007 draft --- Eddie Kunz (1). Farmer Ted Jul 24 2009 12:51 PM Does Tony have input on the draft or just the development of the player after the draft? It is typically the responsibility of the minor league and roving coaching staffs to develop that talent thus simply making Tony (VP of Player Development) a mechanism of reporting back to the NY office. I could do that fucking job and I've never exposed my man boobs in a fit of rage. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 03:12 PM ="Edgy DC"]Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Pelfrey's was a Boras client that dropped a bit because of expected contract demands; it's also the one year during the Omar era where the team (A) had a first round pick and ( aimed at the highest-ceiling guy on the board, regardless of projected signing cost. The others? They've all seen major-league time, granted. They've also produced either produced little or exeeded meager expectations at that level (Kunz hasn't even met those expectations). Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- of needing any warm body you can when your lineup includes as many Alous and Castillos, and your bench as many Easleys and Andersons, as the Mets have over the last two years-- rather than their forcing the issue with performance. More telling, as Ted points out, his job-- presumably-- is player development, not drafting. How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Pelfrey, sort of... but he's a high-resource-commitment first-rounder; it would be more of a story if he hadn't done anything. Bannister was already out of the oven, more or less, before Bernazard took his current position. Unless I'm forgetting someone... there isn't much else. (There are a few Heath Bells, Henry Owens, and Jason Vargases, though, currently thriving in other organizations these days.) Anyway... I'm not really arguing that he's failed-- I'm more arguing that he hasn't out-and-out succeeded. If half of the stories about his work style are true, then he would have to be exceedingly good, results-wise, to justify keeping around. (I mean, there's no established track record of success for the guy at prior gigs... because he doesn't have a player eval/development/analysis track record.) (NOTE: the reason I pulled out the Yanks, Sox and Angels is both because those guys approximate what we bring to the table, International-signing-money-wise, and because I figured including small-marketeers who concentrated primarily on stockpiling prospects-- Royals, Rays, Marlins, etc.-- might make the Met system look unfairly shitty. I do agree that, if you're evaluating his merits, you'd have to do a more comprehensive study of MLB team's development systems to have a control.) G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 04:33 PM So...is there gonna be an investigation or what? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:10 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues--[/quote:25chb1ol] Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success?[/quote:25chb1ol] Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:23 PM The Baseball Cube has a crude system of scoring draft success. They rank the team's Bernazard era drafts thusly: 2005: Fifth 2006: 17th 2007: 16th 2008: Not yet available. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 05:54 PM I don't think we had this, from Adam Rubin last night: ]The scout dragged into the headlines when Mets VP for player development Tony Bernazard unleashed a verbal assault on another team official essentially confirmed the Daily News' exclusive report of the incident. Diamondbacks scout Carlos Gomez said Thursday that he didn't want to "pile onto Tony," but that he could not dispute The News' account. Gomez said his lone interest in speaking about the incident is to make it clear that he had no involvement in the confrontation. "Tony did not get into it with me at all," Gomez said. "He didn't address me. He didn't curse me out. We didn't have a spat. In no way did I feel Tony singled me out or treated me incorrectly." So he wasn't yelling at the scout, only the deputy, according to this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled shirt opera. Valadius Jul 24 2009 06:45 PM Then he's an abusive boss as well. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:24 PM As well as what? That's what the actual issue is. The rush to judgment here is getting absurd. Doesn't anybody wonder if Bernazard goes down as a scapegoat that it might actually perpertuate the orgazational issues and tenures you actually want to see confronted? Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 08:31 PM Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 09:21 PM ="Edgy DC"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. Pelfrey was the big project, and has sort of worked out. Smith and Parnell showed a little something in ST and limited trials-- enough to contribute on the squad. But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. ="Edgy DC"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? If he's running player development, he's not just responsible for the progress of the guys drafted while he had the job. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 09:37 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. What in the world makes you think I'm telling you that? I'm not really telling telling you anything. I'm asking for a framework of what we're talking about. Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. SteveJRogers Jul 24 2009 10:12 PM ="Frayed Knot":121a00be]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs.[/quote:121a00be] When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:39 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 06:34 AM Yeah, I don't recall a witch hunt to purify the organization of Tim Teufel, Ron Darling, Rick Aguilera and Bob Ojeda when they got in a fight with a handful of police. This, of course, wasn't the first time that year a Met had manhandled a cop, as Dwight Gooden pleaded no contest to having assaulted not one, but two cops. And from my perspective, it's Met fans doing the piling on, not "non-Met fans." LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:47 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 10:51 PM ="Edgy DC"] Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. I think I was a bit unclear in that first post, and my meaning was missed. I wasn't stating that the Mets received no contribution from their recent draftees; rather, I was arguing that having a handful of players make the majors isn't indicative of a minor-league system's fertility... and that the performance of these guys, if anything, may point to the opposite. (May.) But, yeah, there's a whole bunch of rush-to-judgement here. What I'm advocating is a rush to scrutiny-- an actual investigation by the team-- and by fans-- of the system over the last 3 years. ="SteveJRogers"]And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW With all due respect, I disagree entirely. The amount and intensity of the pile-on is almost entirely a function of how little there is to talk about in terms of on-field positives; most of the stories-- and fan-talk, really-- seem to make the point, implicitly and explicitly, that the off-field disorder mirrors the on-field decrepitude. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:49 PM I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:52 PM ="Edgy DC"]I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. Girl? It's a little bit girly, is why I ask. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 05:53 AM ="SteveJRogers"]="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 04:44 PM ="Frayed Knot"]="SteveJRogers"]="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. And you also have to give the fact that in 1986 ESPN was yet to explode in terms of daily barrages of information to the mass audiences, WFAN was a year away from being born and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. In other words, it is hard to really say "well, would this have happened when the Mets were winning? I think not." Because certain avenues for fan venting and mass information consumption either hadn't open yet, or were some time from being prevalent. And things were being said back in 99-00 about how the Mets handled certain situations and the actions of one Bobby Valentine. Sure Met fans were probably going "LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU, how far back are we from the Braves today?" But the non fans were making comments about Valentine's nutty behavior, the Mets refusal to retaliate, especially against the Yankees, and other issues of note. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 05:24 PM BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series. dgwphotography Jul 25 2009 05:57 PM ="SteveJRogers":z2ocfwgg]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:z2ocfwgg] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born... SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:03 PM ="dgwphotography":2ddliwek]="SteveJRogers":2ddliwek]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:2ddliwek] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:2ddliwek] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident. Kong76 Jul 25 2009 06:08 PM dgw: This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born <<< Plus, they probably pick on him (like some of us) because he's a closet Yankee fan in Mets' clothing. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 06:30 PM ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:58 PM ="Nymr83"]]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, but that is part of the point, what has been going on with this franchise has been just another opportunity after another for the organization to be considered an absolute utter disgrace. Hell, the Yankees did make it back to the postseason the following year, and three more years after that, and probably will make it again this year. That's more to the point where the Mets are seen as a joke in the eyes of many. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 07:30 PM ]The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, i don't agree. the Yanks had a better year (because they made a postseaon and won the frst round), but their collapse was still worse being that it took place in the postseason Kong76 Jul 25 2009 07:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 07:48 PM *post removed, for duh-ness* SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 07:47 PM No, its worse because it continues to perpetuate the notion that the Mets are losers and a pathetic organization. Especially in light of what happened last year, and this current campaign. Again, the Yankees were back in the postseason in 2005-2007 and most likely will be in it again this season. Historically the Yankees losing the 2004 ALCS is a bump in the road, the 7 up with 17 to play 2007 Mets is yet another reason to say how the Met organization is a disgrace to professional sports. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 07:53 PM ][Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. It wouldn't matter because I don't wrap my self-esteem up in the current status of a baseball team to the point where I react to taunting from those who do by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem. Besides, it wasn't a Yanqui fan that brought up the "disgrace" line it was y ... oh wait, nevermind. [walked into that one] Fman99 Jul 25 2009 08:23 PM ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]="dgwphotography":1scxpm4q]="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:1scxpm4q] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:1scxpm4q] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:1scxpm4q] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 08:49 PM ] by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem i want him fired for trying to fight ballplayers, nothing else. is he "part of the [alleged] problem" in talent development? i don't know or care as long he's challenging our players to fights. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 08:57 PM ="Fman99":fvuk1kki]="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]="dgwphotography":fvuk1kki]="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:fvuk1kki] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:fvuk1kki] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:fvuk1kki] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people.[/quote:fvuk1kki] Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. Because clearly if Met fans shouldn't give a flying fuck about how the Mets are perceived by others, then why should we give a flying fuck about how the "Yankee Way" is a crock of shit? Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 09:43 PM Don't tell us what its ok to comment on. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 09:59 PM ="Nymr83":20535dbm]Don't tell us what its ok to comment on.[/quote:20535dbm] It relates to how the Mets are perceived as an organization by others. But if you are fine rooting for an franchise that is subject to slings and arrows on a seemingly endless basis and counter all those comments with "who gives a fucking rat's ass what the fuck you fuckers think" it really is tough to go the other way on subjects that have to do with other organizations. In other words, why should THEY, or anyone give a fucking rat's ass what the fuck any fucker says? SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 10:05 PM Look, this was a black eye for the organization that has way too much of them in recent years, that is the point I'm trying to make. Yes more is made because the team has been playing horribly, but the point I'm trying to make is that shit like this shouldn't be passed over by Met fans as "if we were winning, no one in the media, internet, sports radio, etc. would give a shit." Its because it is a black eye for the organization, and fodder for more shit from everyone from bloggers to late night comedians that make it a big deal and one that should be addressed and not swept away. Again, even if the Mets were leading the division by 20 games at this point. Frayed Knot Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM ]Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. No, we can comment on it all we want. The mistake, from the Yanqui viewpoint, would be for them to change how they do things solely based on our reaction. For the same reason, the Mets should decide what to do with Bernazard based on his performance and conduct rather than out of some silly notion that it's going to make MFY fans stop saying 'bad things 'bout the Mets'. And those Met fans who want to make Bernazard the fall-guy whether he deserves it or not are simply playing into the trap of doing things for pr reasons rather than solving the problem itself. Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 06:56 AM ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2ae45851] ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2ae45851] Pick a side, my son. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 11:49 AM ="Edgy DC":2etn8uzp]="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2etn8uzp] Pick a side, my son.[/quote:2etn8uzp] The hell is your point Edge? You have to be a Yanqui fan to consider the Met collapse in 2007 worse than the Yankees blowing the 2004 ALCS? Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 11:58 AM The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 12:11 PM ="Edgy DC":2xyqenpp]The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later.[/quote:2xyqenpp] Not really, I showed it as a recent example compared to dgw suggesting that they were not students of history (by saying Tony B's minors incident was worse than Steinbrenner's elevator fight) Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 12:53 PM My head hurts. metsguyinmichigan Jul 27 2009 12:56 PM Mets shame: -- Idiot front office type takes off shirt to yell at 20-something minor leaguers. -- Bad patch on sleeve -- Occasional lapses in fielding. Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? Valadius Jul 27 2009 03:42 PM Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 27 2009 08:15 PM ="Valadius":1xy2oval]Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling.[/quote:1xy2oval] ...and Georgie girl. I wouldn't take money to listen or her and Sterling. MFS62 Jul 27 2009 10:00 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":39c9vxup] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace?[/quote:39c9vxup] You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 10:05 PM ="MFS62"]="metsguyinmichigan"] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later Ahem. (I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 27 2009 10:10 PM Double post. G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM ](I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) He said "next to last," but Phillies and Tigers came after MFYs, then Red Sox. Old news, I'd have to say. Plenty to bash MFYs on in this century. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 11:08 PM Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension. Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:11 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3npdogpk]Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension.[/quote:3npdogpk] Or Bernazards emotions Edgy DC Aug 02 2009 01:55 PM Daily News (but not Adam Rubin) digging up a lot more PLT stories about Bernazard. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_tony_bern_out.html?page=0 Rockin' Doc Aug 02 2009 03:11 PM Hard to feel much sympathy for Bernazard the more stories you read of his vitriolic behavior toward players and staff of the Mets system. The more I read of his tirades, the more negatively Bernazard's tenure reflects upon Minaya and the Wilpons for allowing such an embarrassment to remain in their employ for as long as they did. Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2009 07:04 AM Huh! Edgy DC Aug 04 2009 07:08 AM Oh, you missed some shee-it. Ashie62 Aug 04 2009 12:58 PM A little league first fight in Princeton, NJ? Darling the Eli must love that one

Apparently, our trip last Friday to US Cellular Field was about six days too early. Congrats to Buehrle.

Well, he's not going to make them worse. I say go for it.

My wife loves the show, and she's tried to get me into it, but it just doesn't do anything for me. I still want a Mets fedora.

="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.

I want a Mets fedora.

Angel Pagan says "I do it myself."

Really, the only guy he's having a better season than in that infield is Ron Belliard. (Actually, I guess Guzman kinda sucks too.)

Seemed like such a good guy when I met him so many years ago. The question is, do I include the card he autographed for me that day in my Mets collection? I guess he counts, right? I have other front-office types.

Dammit! These guys need to stop dying before I can get them to sign cards.

="duan":15lo21u5]am I wrong in thinking that if he's traded he's the right to demand a trade in the offseason or something like that.[/quote:15lo21u5] Yes, b/c he's in the first year of a multi-year deal. Why the eff would you replace Santana with Halladay? That's insane. metirish Jul 22 2009 10:46 AM Apparently the Phiilies would not include Drabek in a deal for Halladay . Riccardi saying that a deal is now not likely, much posturing going on one would think. Santana has a full no trade and Rodriguez has a limited one where he can block a trade to ten teams. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 22 2009 10:48 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 22 2009 10:52 AM ="metirish":1eyasbe2]I'd keep Rodriguez , sometimes looking so closely at numbers drivers me nuts , especially when I need to google to see what a FIP is. Francisco is as advertised I think , gets the job done but walks the tightrope doing it most nights.[/quote:1eyasbe2] FIP (Fielding-Independent-Pitching statistic) is an attempt to provide an ERA-type metric (it's multiplied by a league-specific number to be scaled like ERA) that measures stuff (HR, BB, and K to be exact) that's under the direct control of pitchers... the idea being to remove the influence of the defense behind a pitcher on his stats. But, yeah, ultimately, that's peripheral. The main thrust is that even the greatest closer (Mariano last year, e.g.) is in real value less valuable than a pretty good position player virtually anywhere on the diamond... but the perception is that the closer is essential. That gap between perception and reality may be the key to extracting something worth something (Pence, e.g.) for a relatively low cost. Although the little kid in me would hate to see Santana go, I'd be intrigued by the idea of what we could get in return, baseball value for baseball value. That said, JCL, his contract severely reduces the market for him-- Halladay's relatively affordable yet, for a year-plus (plus playoffs?). Even then, Halladay's trade value is lower now than it was with, say, 2 1/2 years of that below-market contract If Toronto really is going to trade him, it's a shame for them they didn't seriously consider doing it last year. bmfc1 Jul 22 2009 10:49 AM Adam LaRoche to the Red Sox. We're awaiting comment on the Pirates from Carlos Beltran. G-Fafif Jul 22 2009 10:52 AM ="bmfc1":zqmjc72m]Adam LaRoche to the Red Sox. We're awaiting comment on the Pirates from Carlos Beltran.[/quote:zqmjc72m] LaRoche should retroactively express embarrassment that the Red Sox lost two of three to the Mets in May. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 22 2009 10:55 AM At last, our long national 2-"A LaRoches"-on-the-same-team nightmare is over. smg58 Jul 22 2009 11:03 AM The catch with K-Rod is that money is a big issue for most teams, and it's not clear that K-Rod was in anybody else's price range when it wouldn't have taken players to get him this past offseason. Now if somebody offered a similarly good but perhaps overpaid major leaguer you might have a match, but deals like that tend to happen in the offseason. There's also the glass-is-half-full way to look at his numbers: he's been very effective for us in a down year by his standards. smg58 Jul 22 2009 11:25 AM The Pirates' booty in the LaRoche deal consists of Argenis Diaz (a younger version of our Argenis, with almost as good a bat) and Hunter Strickland (finesse righty showing excellent control for a 20-year-old at AA, although homers are a concern). MFS62 Jul 22 2009 12:46 PM And the Bucs had shortstop Wilson sitting out today. Is he on the block? Later OlerudOwned Jul 22 2009 01:22 PM ="MFS62":qk01r3dh]And the Bucs had shortstop Wilson sitting out today. Is he on the block? Later[/quote:qk01r3dh] They way they've been running things this season, I'm sure they'll take whatever they can get for him and laugh all the way to the bank. smg58 Jul 22 2009 05:02 PM In hindsight, Jack Wilson would have been an excellent pickup for the Mets about six weeks ago. Especially if taking on his full contract would have meant no significant players getting dealt. In a bit of a surprise, Julio Lugo is a Cardinal; Chris Duncan heads to Pawtucket. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 22 2009 06:04 PM ="smg58":1f7j0xfg]In hindsight, Jack Wilson would have been an excellent pickup for the Mets about six weeks ago. Especially if taking on his full contract would have meant no significant players getting dealt.[/quote:1f7j0xfg] Yup. Cora being an injured hero was about the worst thing that happened to the Mets. Gwreck Jul 22 2009 11:53 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1wrfg6dm]Yup. Cora being an injured hero was about only the eighth or ninth worst thing that happened to the Mets.[/quote:1wrfg6dm] Fixed it for you. I agree that Cora's killing the offense (maybe slightly more than Murphy or Santos/Schneider) but Cora's poor performance also reflects on Jerry and Omar, I think. It's not like his hitting .240 is an aberration. OlerudOwned Jul 23 2009 12:56 AM Jack Wilson wouldn't have helped much. He's not that good. Ashie62 Jul 23 2009 01:54 AM ="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.

I have a message in with my B-Mets contact to see if he's willing to confirm this.

I was sure that was going to be a joke link. Holy moley.

Showcasing him as a throw-in for a minor trade, maybe? Either way, I picked up his autograph during the off-season, so I'm glad he made it up so he can go from the trade box to the Mets collection.

="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.

="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.

Looking at the pitching matchups, it is highly likely that the Mets walk out of Washington with a sweep this week. And I don't mean in a good way. This Martin kid is going to throw seven innings of four-hit baseball tonight.

Anyone and everyone, save Santana, Wright, and Reyes. Line 'em up and move 'em out.

Fuck, I didn't even think of that. You know the Wilpons will fucking screw it up and celebrate the fucking Dodgers. DAMMIT, Fred, I'm mad at you already and this hasn't even happened.

Right, but we know all about him already. We should call Jeff Francoeur and ask him to do a special guest KTE.

="Edgy DC":tzmk4ok3]I hope he stays where is and beats the Yankees six times a year.[/quote:tzmk4ok3] Eff that. I hope he comes to the Mets and beats the Phillies six times a year. Who cares who beats the Yankees? Mex17 Jul 15 2009 07:53 AM ="Edgy DC"]Technically, that is Omar's fault, if you believe it's true. It also needs to be weighed against how you value what that talent was given up for --- be it minor leaguers traded for Johan Santana or the draft pick they gave up signing Francisco rodriguez. Or, if you want to dig back futher, players given up for Delgado and LoDuca and picks given up for martinez and Beltran. Throw Church-Schneider/Milledge in there also. Two things. . . 1) I understand that it may not be possible to be at the top of the pack farm system-wise when you are in "win now" mode, but that does not mean that you have to be at the bottom either. I don't subscribe to Baseball America but if anyone does can they please post where they have the Mets ranked right now (say what you will about the NY tabloids and their agendas but what BA says is another matter entirely). I would say that they can be in the top 3/5th of MLB even when taking into account trading prospects in blockbusters and losing draft picks on account of FA signings. If they are below the 60th percentile then I think that someone is not doing their job. 2) The Red Sox seem to have a top notch system in spite of winning two titles this decade and remaining as one of the top teams in the league. Edgy DC Jul 15 2009 07:54 AM I don't care about who beats the Yankees so much as who beats people for the Mets. I care that the Mets triumph on their own terms and with their own players. If he comes here, I'll support him. Until then, he's the enemy and I view him at best with a heap of suspicion only slightly tinged with a grudging respect. Frayed Knot Jul 15 2009 07:56 AM ="Mex17"]Since the Halladay trade talk has started, I havebeen hearing a lot about the Mets barren farm system and how there is no help on the horizon nor anything to trade from the system. The pre-season assessment on the Met system, by those who pay attention to this sort of thing, was around average or a bit below (17th overall by BA for instance). A far cry from "barren" despite what you may hear from the barons of talk radio whose level of expertise generally includes having a vague idea of where one or two of the Mets farm teams are located. ]Technically that is Omar's fault, but the reason why am mentioning it in this old thread is because I have to wonder how exactly Omar is being held accountable for it. He'll be accountable for it just like he's accountable for everything else in the player development system. It'll be part of his final grade if you will. But at the same time it's not like having a strong farm system should be an end unto itself. The goal is to have a good ML team, the farm system is merely one way to help that along. But there are also various ways to do that. So if that system is weaker at any particular moment because it's been tapped to provide players for the 2009 big league squad (Murphy, Niese, Parnell); or because others were sent away in order to fetch players from other orgs (Putz, Santana, Delgado, and virtually everyone else not named Reyes & Wright); or while still others were brought up to cover for injuries (Martinez, Evans) then the farm system is, in effect, doing its job. What would be really stupid would be having a strong farm system while the ML team rots on the vine, an idea that reminds me a bit of the time Frank Burns was adverse to giving out the 4077's supply of excess insulin to an aid station because then "we'd have nothing to inventory". smg58 Jul 15 2009 09:01 AM ="seawolf17":15pnzoax]="Edgy DC":15pnzoax]I hope he stays where is and beats the Yankees six times a year.[/quote:15pnzoax] Eff that. I hope he comes to the Mets and beats the Phillies six times a year. Who cares who beats the Yankees?[/quote:15pnzoax] I hope he beats the Phillies six times and the Yankees twice. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 15 2009 09:42 AM ="smg58":2jjhq1hq]The guy to watch for in the system is Jennry Mejia. He's holding his own since the promotion to AA (3.74 ERA, 24 K's in 21 IP), and he doesn't turn 20 until October.[/quote:2jjhq1hq] And he'll be in Triple-A by then, and in the majors by mid-next year, and "flamed out" by September, and traded in October. Then he'll be an All-Star. [And the system also looks barren because its high-ceiling guys-- Martinez aside-- aren't the ones who've seen major-league time. (Compare Evans, Murphy and Niese to Alvarez, Bard, Buchholz, Jayson Heyward, Feliz, McCutchens, Buster Posey or any of the Giant pitchers.) Benjamin Grimm Jul 15 2009 09:47 AM Buster Posey? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 15 2009 09:58 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":2fume5nr]Buster Posey?[/quote:2fume5nr] Giants catching prospect with live arm (he pitched in college), great batting eye and stroke. Could probably be a good backup in the majors right now. Edgy DC Jul 15 2009 10:06 AM I doubt any of the OBGYN columinists who've declared barren-ness the last week or so know crap about the Giants' system. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 15 2009 10:19 AM ="Edgy DC":2sv7tji6]I doubt any of the OBGYN columinists who've declared barren-ness the last week or so know crap about the Giants' system.[/quote:2sv7tji6] Hell, I doubt they know crap about the Giants beyond Lincecum (maybe). To those who actually do pay attention, though, the fact that we've got a bit of a Dannon system-- fruit on the bottom-- is a valid sticking point, and a big reason the system as a whole doesn't grade out higher. Frayed Knot Jul 15 2009 12:03 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]To those who actually do pay attention, though, the fact that we've got a bit of a Dannon system-- fruit on the bottom-- is a valid sticking point, and a big reason the system as a whole doesn't grade out higher. True, the best ones (aside from Martinez) in terms of high ceiling are generally further away. That's also a reason why some* hear the phrase; 'no one ready to step in now' and translate that into "barren" since for teams wanting a haul of ML-ready players in exchange for their Halladays or Hollidays there's not a match in the Met system. * Francesa, just to name one, has been dismissing Fartinez for about two years now based on the reasoning that; 'if he was any good he'd be here already' Edgy DC Jul 15 2009 12:09 PM Because there are so many 18-year-olds in the league. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 15 2009 03:21 PM Thought someone would have mentioned this-- yipes: ]I never met him, never talked to him. We�d get the monthly statement. He was kind of like a mystery man. He�d turn down people. My brother said, �Can I get to invest with him?��he turned him down. I think that added to the mystique.� King mentions that the man who got King with Madoff, New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon, lost $700 million. �Freddie says he�s not angry,� King says, �he�s betrayed.� http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_9237&pageNum=12 So... we're not going to be buyers at the deadline, then? Mex17 Jul 24 2009 04:05 PM And now the new Bernazard things. . .with the reports that he probaby will not get the ax because he is "Jeff's guy". . .along with Phillips commenting on the "collegial atmosphere" and how it does not work for the team. I'm just gonna keep collecting my evidence in this thread I guess. Mex17 Jul 26 2009 07:02 AM http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262009/sports/mets/amazins_next_moves_will_be_more_of_same_181474.htm?page=0 metirish Jul 26 2009 07:57 AM Steve Phillips: The most trusted name in baseball. Nymr83 Jul 26 2009 08:22 AM Steve Phillips: The most trusted name in baseball Met-bashing. Mex17 Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM He may have a point regardless. Overly-lenient parents usually result in disobedient children. metirish Jul 26 2009 10:02 AM Steveo certainly had a fun time working there , at least until he was dragged into court. Mex17 Jul 26 2009 11:04 AM ="metirish":2bhds3vd]Steveo certainly had a fun time working there , at least until he was dragged into court.[/quote:2bhds3vd] With all due respect, you're still ducking the issue. Tabloid sensationalism and personal agenas from critics notwithstanding, there is too much smoke around this front office/ownership group to ignore the presense of a fire. Kong76 Jul 26 2009 11:15 AM It's largely your issue (here), people don't need to entertain it if they don't want to. Valadius Jul 26 2009 03:09 PM I'm just scared what happens when Daddy Wilpon is no longer around and Jeffy takes total control.

Bud Harrelson? He sucked offensively. Say, 1971?

Rey Ordonez, 1999