Vic Sage

he did great last year; i've got no problem with Buddy taking a seat in the pen.

SIckels has put 7 mets in his top 100: "Like most of the major outlets, Sickels is very bullish on the Amazins' system, ranking seven Mets prospects in his top 100 and eight in his top 175. Right-handed pitcher Noah Syndergaard once again leads the pack at 13, followed by left-handed pitcher Steven Matz at 35. Second baseman Dilson Herrera is the first Mets position prospect to make the list, at 41, followed by outfielder Michael Conforto at 78, right-handed pitcher Rafael Montero at 82, outfielder Brandon Nimmo at 83, catcher Kevin Plawecki at 92..." and he notes 3 others: "... and right-handed pitcher Marcos Molina at 152. As if going 175 deep was not enough, Sickels's list also features an extensive section of honorable mentions, which includes Mets infielders Amed Rosario and Jhoan Urena."

I've seen us succeed in ST and fail in the regular season (and vice versa) too often to put much stock in these games, one way or the other. The goal is to get to Opening Day with the veterans healthy and with the youngsters having had enough reps to evaluate their skills.

of all the problems this franchise has, Terry Collins is among the least of them.

you forgot the 14th thing to think about: "Why am I watching this mediocre movie again?"

250 PA / .250 -10hr-35rbi can spot all 3 OF slots, and 1B, plus the LH off the bench. Age 27, coming into his own as a 4th OF with a quality bat.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I don't think telling anyone "STFU" changes anyone's mind. It just means they are bullied into not talking about their perspective. Society changes through a free exchange of ideas, not one side telling another not to express its thoughts. Especially when one side is demanding tolerance and acceptance -- as long as you agree with it. I'm proud the Mets have a Jackie Robinson Rotunda. Robinson didn't tell anyone to "STFU." He just demonstrated how they were wrong through his words and deeds and played an important role in society changing. I'd not defending a word of what Murphy said. I disagree with him entirely. I just don't think telling people "STFU" helps. If you cannot or will not see the qualitative difference between being intolerant of certain ideas that harm other people (like racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and homophobia) and being intolerant of other human beings for being what they are, if you insist on making this false equivalency, then our free exchange of ideas isn't going to get very far. If a philosophy requires Murphy to deny the humanity of others, then it's on MURPHY to change his philosophy, not on me or the rest of society to tolerate it. "I'm entitled to my opinion!" the hateful and stupid will always shout. And they are. I defend their right to be wrong, for Nazis to march in Skokie, for the Klan to don their robes at their local chapter meetings down at the Racoon Lodge. I've written amicus briefs for the ACLU defending that right. But their right is only to be free of governmental restriction or penalty for their views, not a right to avoid criticism. It's a right that is coupled with the requirement that they take responsibility for their words, should they choose to declare them publicly. And it is a perfectly fair and reasonable response for someone to respond to such bigotry with a "STFU you assclown" I'm all fore a free exchange of ideas. I'm a First Amendment absolutist with documentation to prove it. But the idea that certain people are lesser than because of who they are (not what they THINK, but who they ARE) is an idea that has been freely exchanged quite enough in human history. When people support such views with their holy books, rationality has flown out the window and debate is not possible. The more such ideas continue to be "freely exchanged", the more actual physical harm it does to actual real people. It ceases being a purely philosophical question. And society doesn't change by debating the undebatable (a debate is an argument based on rational and logical principles, not dogma derived from sacred texts whose truths are determined by faith, not reasoning). Society changes when it says "enough already with what you think your god thinks," and ceases to find such views acceptable in civilized company. Yes, telling a person to STFU doesn't change that person's mind. But it may change the mind of others who feel similarly about spouting their ignorance out loud. And if you can drive ignorance out of the public discourse, then after a few generations people wonder why anybody ever felt that way in the first place. Has racism disappeared? Of course not. But its certainly changed in the last 50 years, and for the better. Such views are whispered, not shouted, and they don't become legislation any more (accept among the "Tea Party", but that's a different conversation). But while there are still states in America that deny certain consenting adults the right to marry, while our high schools are still shutting down productions of a play because it may suggest that 2 men might be in love (see ALMOST, MAINE, in Maiden High School, NC - oh, wait, you couldn't; the church got the principal to cancel it), while gay-bashing is still a thing, while teachers and others hide in a closet for fear of losing their jobs or the respect of their communities, and while kids are still killing themselves because they've internalized this hate, then the time for tolerating intolerance is past (if there was ever any such time to begin with). And yes, your mileage may vary.

Gay Mets Fan Pens Open Letter to Daniel Murphy, from Mets Merized Online: To me, you are a great baseball player who has demonstrated commitment and determination when faced with adversity. I have followed you in your quest to become an All-Star second baseman and truly admire what you have accomplished. To my son, you are more � you are a role model. I understand that may not have been something you signed up for, but for better or worse, for him and others like him, you are larger than life. Let me try to explain why what you said was not an innocuous sound byte, but rather an offensive statement. First, I do not have a lifestyle. I didn�t choose my sexuality the same way you didn�t choose yours. Second, being gay is not what defines me, but rather it is just one important part of who I am. So when you say that you disagree with who I am, you are also disagreeing with my son and my family. We are not a lifestyle choice � we are a family. Even though I am extremely disappointed and hurt by your remarks, I am grateful that you spoke your mind, as it has started a national conversation. The discussions taking place today on social media, in bars and churches, and around the dining room table are exactly how GLBT progress is achieved. I know it is hard moving to an unfamiliar position (think about your transition to second base), but with faith, openness and commitment, positive change can truly happen. Some wonder how the gay rights movement has progressed so well so fast. To me it is quite simple: once you recognize that your brother, son, neighbor, or co-worker is gay, you don�t just continue to �love him� but you learn to actually accept and respect him for who he is as a person � and that changes everything. So Mr. Murphy, thank you for starting a very important dialogue. My son and I will be travelling out from San Francisco to root on our Mets this weekend in Port St. Lucie. If you are around we would love to meet you and continue the conversation in person. yes, i made these points 2 pages ago and nobody really responded to them. Ignorance isn't harmless. Religious fundamentalism isn't harmless. Not all opinions are created equal and it is not intolerant to decry intolerance. That's just bullshit sophistry and a false equivalency. You don't get to perpetuate false notions about homosexuality publicly because you think you have a sacred book that says you can. I have no idea what kind of guy Daniel Murphy is and, frankly, neither does anybody else here. But it's irrelevant. He made a public statement that is hurtful, regardless of what we may think his intentions were. He was not joking, or kidding around, or satirizing homophobia. He meant it. And you can parse "gay lifestyle" anyway you want, but the religious right has made its position pretty clear about what they mean by that phrase, and Murphy is parroting it. It's not just about "sex" per se (masturbation and blow jobs are sins of the flesh, too, but those folks don't try to pass laws banning them). Their issue is about gayness as a way of being. They think the very impulse, the innate preference (not just the act) is a sin in and of itself that can be prayed away, or counseled away. If your nature can't (or won't) change, you should simply abstain from loving other consenting adults who may love you, too, if they are of the same gender. And you certainly shouldn't have the civil right to MARRY them. But we love you, so we're not bad people. But this stuff stops getting propagated, and change happens, when enough people say STFU to people who spout this gibberish, not by minimizing and rationalizing this sort of harmful behavior. kids are still DYING over being who they are, some by their own hand because they can't take the ostracism and self-loathing anymore. This is not a little thing. Hey, Murph, STFU.

I was listening to some sports talk on this and its very frustrating to hear some fans responding to Murphy's kind of ignorance with "well, its what he believes; no big deal. I've heard worse. It's not really that offensive." Sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle", Murph. This is a known fact at this point of the 21st century. Just like gender, race, and ethnic background, orientation is a fundamental and irrevocable part of who a person is when they are born, over which that person had no choice. But, ironically, to publicly condemn someone's nature IS in fact a "lifestyle choice". Religious and political views are philosophies that a person can choose to accept or cast aside. Even when a person is raised with those ideas, or live in a community where those ideas are prevalent, it is still a matter of personal choice to maintain them as your own. And it is a choice that can be harmful to others in the world, so a person should be held accountable for their espoused philosophies... not by governments, but by the society at large. In the marketplace of ideas, not all ideas are created equal. And the answer to bad speech is more speech, not silence in the hope that it'll just go away, or minimizing or mollifying destructive ignorance in order to just get on with our lives. It is bigotry to judge someone based on their intrinsic nature, and prejudice to think that all people with this or that nature are of equivalent character. It is neither of those things to judge people on what they actually say and do. It is not "bigotry" to condemn philosophies that condemn the natures of others. But of course, that's just my philosophy.

that leaves me with murphy. yeah, i'm going to nominate him for hte job. he's more of an ideal 2-hitter, but i feel like he does have the obp tool in his kit, he just needs to dust it off. i suggested this in another thread and was met by a less than enthusiastic response. But his lifetime OB% of .333 (it was .332 last year) is higher than the league average for OB% among leadoff hitters (.327) and is in the .330-.340 range that Terry was quoted as looking for. Is he ideal? Of course not. But better suited than Lagares, at least at this point in their careers. I would bat Lagares 9th and move everybody up a slot (more or less). I also don't think it makes a huge difference one way or the other. 1) Murphy 2) Cuddyer 3) Wright 4) duda 5) D'arnaud 6) granderson 7) Flores 8) [pitcher] 9) Lagares

i've got that 1-sheet lovingly framed, and though sentimental, schmaltzy and dated (many of Ford's films are all of these), i've watched it many times over the years and it never fails to delight. THis is the movie that made me fall in love with redheads.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm not a true believer in Lagares yet. As you know from previous forecasts, I'm wildly optimistic about the Mets this year but if there's one area that's a concern for me its that we really don't have an ideal leadoff hitter and I worry about effects of pretending Lagares is or can be one. Sure Terry asked him to steal more and he did, but he's got to reach base more often and he was helped by a 342 BABIP last season (average is around 300). I'd really prefer a lineup where he could hit 7th or 8th and let him reveal his upside there. I'd say 245/300/375 with 9 homersapiens and 20 steals. Not horrible, but not great. There will be times that Nieuwy will look like a better choice. This.

9-7, 3.50 ERA. After 25 inconsistent starts, he blows out his elbow again in Early August and needs another surgery. He comes back in 2016, but is never really the same.

.230 / 25hr /80runs / .340 OBP / .410 slg He'll start as #6 hitter, then tried again as a leadoff hitter when Lagares proves to be inadequate, but he too will fail and flail before settling in as the #2, behind Murphy, who is the only guy on the roster who can work the count, get on with some consistency and run ok... until he's traded and Herrera comes up.

Obviously the evaluation of the player is paramount. Spending doesn't mean spending for the sake of spending, at least not to me. But we finally have a GM i trust to make these judgments, so if he determined that this guy is either more hype than substance, or simply not what the scouts say he is, then i'm totally fine with that. But if he really liked this guy and simply wasn't given the resources to pursue him, then i would be pissed. And whatever other prospects we have in our system is irrelevant. If you think a guy can be great, you get him if you can. And I don't think the presence of Herrera on our 40-man roster, or Uhrena or any other 2b/3b prospects in our system would be any reason not to pursue a 5-tool IFer. And a "hard cap" is bullshit. Its not a hard cap. Its a threshhold amount over which you pay a tax. So its just more money that they could choose to spend, just as Boston did in this situation where they were facing the exact same circumstance. Of course a 19-year old from Cuba is a risk. I'd even say a high risk. But that is EXACTLY the kind of edge a big revenue team should have over other teams, the ability to take financial risks and, if they don't pan out, still be able to move on to the next plan. Budgets aren't infinite and costs matter, but they should be less of a constraint here than many other places because of a NY franchise's potential revenue streams. Yet the recent consistency of our annual payrolls in the $80-$100m range (in the lower half, and sometimes the lower third of team payrolls in all of MLB), while other top teams are in the $150m range (with 2 over $200m), along with the documented financial woes arising out of their Madoff dealings, cannot help but make reasonable people suspicious of their decision-making process. Oh, and as far as risks go, the price of 30-year old FAs are a hell of a lot more, and are alot more short-term and alot riskier (with an established track record of failure) than pursuing a 19-year old with long term potential. so a preference for spending the money on Bonillas and Colemans of the world strikes me as the kind of thing we used to do and shouldn't do any more. Do we know if the Mets were actively in on the bidding? No we don't, though other teams were reported to be actively in pursuit and the Mets were reported to be "not interested" from the jump. And if the Mets lack of interest was purely Sandy's player evaluation, then fine, move along, nothing more to see. But my suspicion is this more a financial constraint imposed by the corrupt WontPons than a baseball decision. I can't know, and neither can anyone else, but the circumstantial evidence supports that conclusion. To which i say, at the risk of repeating myself, Fuck you Freddie... sell the team and let me breathe again.

.280/20 hr, 120 games.

.250/25hr/85rbi, eventually benched against LHP

30-0 / 0.01 ERA /CY and MVP awards, then leads the parade down the canyon of heroes, getting the key to the city and a blow job by ScarJo on the steps of city hall. Oh, wait. that was me, last night. But then i woke up. Damn. 15-11 / 3.2 ERA / 200 IP / 190K

.265/ 20 hr /30 2b/60 rbi .300/.450 = .750 ops Lack of range compensated for by steady play, good arm, and proper positioning. Eventually gets pushed to 2b by Rosario (in 2 years) and becomes a perennial silver slugger 2bman and becomes the Jeff Kent that Jeff Kent could have been here.

Gilliam was only responsible for the first monkey; the other monkeys just saw and did. He currently has a sequel in the works... 13 MONKEYS. As you can see, he plans to have one more monkey. If he can't get that extra monkey, he's going to go with a courtroom drama remake... 12 ANGRY MONKEYS. He's also considering another version, in light of the success of 50 SHADES OF GRAY, called SPANKING THE MONKEY. Or, in deference to last year's Oscar winner, 12 YEARS A MONKEY. He thinks it'll be real Oscar bait.

i don't care what position he plays. If he really has 5-tool all-star potential then we should have tried to acquire him. And if all he costs is money, not players or prospects, then a NY team should be able to outbid their Bostonian brethren. But nooooooooooo, not our Won'tPons. If i've said it once, i've said it a million times.. fuck you, Freddie.

Lana > Larry Warchowski

i haven't seen it since its initial release, but i remember it fondly, for whatever that's worth. And i thought at the time that the HEAVEN'S GATE-like response to it was entirely disproportionate to its alleged aesthetic sins. But just remember, i liked NATE & HAYES.

CIVIL WAR makes more sense for SPIDER-MAN than INFINITY WAR. He is not particularly relevant to that storyline, and is in no way a "cosmic" character. He's a street-level crimefighter.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: There might be something to the Mets players pay to work out thing if the NYT is reporting on it about a month after the story first broke: the money quote: Asked why the Mets had not subsidized the entire program so that players would not have to pay Barwis at all, Alderson said the club felt that would be counterproductive. �We didn�t cover all the costs because we want the players themselves to be invested in their careers and in their off-season development,� Alderson said. �We want them to have something at risk as far as their commitment is concerned. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/sports/mets-players-pay-for-off-season-training-at-team-complex.html?_r=0 I have no problem with Barwis charging the players and I agree that his fee shouldn't be the Mets expense, BUT I don't think the Mets should be charging him rent (because then the money from the players is flowing to them), and i don't think anyone from management should have access to the program in any way (as would be true if players stayed home and worked out), to ensure its "voluntariness." By doing it the way they're doing it, they've certainly left themselves open to reasonable skepticism and eye-rolling, from its fanbase, from the player & agent community, from the union, and from the media. But what REALLY ticks me off is Sandy's quote above about wanting the players to have skin in the game, as it were, when its literally the player's skin in the game already. The notion that they don't have "something at risk" or any incentive to improve conditioning and rehab injury when their physicality is their LIVING is just so condescending and insulting that, if i were a player, i would specifically NOT go to this camp just because he said that. And if i were the kind of moron who needed further incentive, laying out a $1000 when the major-league minimum is $500+k isn't going to do it. And minor-league players desperate to get to "the show" are doing everything they can to do so, but $1000 cost might actually PREVENT them from attending. This was just stupid on so many levels.