Vic Sage

ok, that's your assumption and it may be true, and that's why i qualified my statement by saying "unless your getting back more than he's worth." Trades are made to (1) dump contracts, or (2) dump problem children, or (3) to get something for a guy your going to lose anyway, or (4) to deal from a surplus to get equal value at another position where you have greater need, or (5) because you see a player on another team who you really want and are willing to overpay to get him, or (6) if another team sees such a player on your roster and offers to overpay. Now the first 3 reasons don't apply to Parnell, and so I was ruling out reasons 4 and 5 as acceptable reasons as well, leaving only reason 6 as valid in his case. But that's not particular to Parnell; I would think just about ANY player would be available for a trade if a team wanted to overpay for him. I just don't want Sandy openly shopping Parnell to fish for such an offer beyond letting teams know that anybody on the roster is always up for discussion.

Vic Sage wrote: so your saying, therefore, that I'm not a sports fan. Edgy wrote: No I'm not saying that at all. All evidence flies in the face of that nition. major premise (mine): I'm rooted in the rational. minor premise (yours): no sports fan is rooted in the rational. Conclusion: I am not a sports fan. This is called a "syllogism", and, as you well know, it has been the fundamental logical structure of deductive reasoning since Aristotle (if not earlier). But then you turn around and say of this syllogism's necessary conclusion: "I'm not saying that at all". Whatever, dude.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think I said this in some other thread but the only way I trade Parnell is in a deal where the other guy totally overpays, like totally. No other reason to move him now. This. Parnell is part of the solution, not the problem. He's young, talented, relatively inexpensive, and still under team control. Why on Earth should they trade him unless they're getting more back than he's worth?

so your saying, therefore, that I'm not a sports fan. Or maybe not enough of a sports fan? or the right kind of sports fan? Or your kind of sports fan? Yes, i know that "fan" is short for "fanatic", but i don't think fanaticism, or blind optimism, or unquestioning loyalty to a sports logo is really a requirement to be a Mets fan. It's not a religion. At least not to me. Your mileage may vary.

your obstinate optimism is awe-inspiring and worthy of respect. you shoulder the heavy burden for those of us rooted in the rational. I salute you, dude. carry on.

Vic is, as almost always, the notable exception being his love of Jon Snow's redhead girlfriend, correct. A man must seek warmth; winter is coming. I make no apologies.

shut. up.

Swan Swan H wrote: Vic Sage wrote: Tender TiTTS... must be my time of the month. Just a thing? whatever, dude. A bad pun based on your former leadership of a worthwhile organization. Nothing personal meant. nothing personal was taken. the "whatever dude" wasn't directed at you.

careful, your anti-wilpon agenda is showing. zip up, dude.

Tender TiTTS... must be my time of the month. Just a thing? whatever, dude.

Sure sounds nitpickingly bitter to me. I mean, oh fudge, we might have had --- checking paper --- the likes of Ivan Pineyro. Or maybe not. Who's Ivan Pineyro? I don't know, but I'm going to spend years bemoaning his loss under the notion that he was a bird in hand even though we have no idea whatsoever. Anger at how the franchise makes decisions about building its team and replenishing its system is "nitpicking"? That is some huge fucking nit, my friend. That is the Godzilla of nits. As to who Ivan Pineyro is, check here: http://metsmerizedonline.com/2013/07/nationals-acquire-scott-hairston-from-the-cubs.html where it says: "Pineyro, 21, is 6-3 with a 3.24 ERA in 15 starts at Class-A and was named to this year�s South Atlantic League All Star Team. Going into this season, Hagerstown pitching coach told MLB.com, that if Pineyro continues to pitch the way he has been, he will be a big league pitcher." But that's not the point. the point is this is the value in the market for Hairston when he's making a few million this year AND next year, while hitting .170. So what was his value to pennant-contenders going down the stretch LAST year, when he was hitting well, and unencumbered by future contractual obligations? Do you seriously think it was LESS than this A-Ball all-star arm? That's the floor. How much more he was worth is anybody's guess, and only Sandy knows what he was offered. Although he's been quoted as saying he rejected offers because they matched what they already had in the system. Do you really think redundancy is a valid reason not to swap out such players? Well you don't think ANY trade is appropriate, but i mean from the team's viewpoint. Redundancy is essential, and you have posted as much on more than one occasion. So whether Pineyro becomes anything or not, at least the Cubs have a chance that he will... while we do not. Lets not make the same mistake AGAIN, is all i'm saying.

i wasn't trying to be coy about it. I'm just not as certain as you are where its all coming from. Sandy might be a reluctant captain following orders, or he might be directing this himself. Do i think its Fred? Actually, i'm starting to think Jeff has more control over things these days. But either way, it was some bad decision-making last year with Hairston and, if they repeat that process this year with Byrd, it'll be equally wrongheaded.

in fact, they might consider holding one of Bochy's kids hostage (does he have any kids?), until Harvey is returned unharmed and nearly unused.

metirish wrote: Would he not be over-rested for the ASG if he is skipped?(although I am sure he will keep himself busy) "over rested"? he should only have such a problem. They have him on an innings cap anyway. He's going to have to start missing some starts, or they'll shut him down in August and then there'll NO REASON to go to CitiField in September at all. And what he does or doesn't do in the AS game should be of no concern to the org, other than getting assurances he won't be used much.

potato, potahto...

Apparently, he's had a blister, which i hear with some relief. Maybe they can have him skip a start, and make sure he doesn't pitch more than 1 inning in the A-S game (whether he starts it our not). on edti: DOH! Collins beat me to it.

Or maybe just cynical, cynical Mets fans who think that management is loathe to trade in a single win in a losing season for even the prospect of an increased talent pool a few years down the road. And surely Sandy will be gone by then, if he doesn't start winning more now, so what does he care about the long-term? It's my fear (and that of some other fans) that the Mets engage in this type of short term thinking. It's not that we think Sandy must have been offered something better for Hairston but he turned it down because Mets are stupid/cheap/evil, etc., but when Sandy says he didn't trade Hairston last year because what he was offered was duplicative of what they already had, either he's stupid or thinks we are. Redundancy is essential, particularly at the lower levels of the minors. And Since Sandy obviously knows that, the only reasonable inference is that he chose to have Hairston on the roster to finish out the year, so they could possibly win a few more games... not because they were in a pennant race (god forbid), but because they wanted to sell a few more tickets, parking spaces, overpriced beers, and hotdogs, and hats. Now whether that was his choice (to increase job security) or a directive from above (to increase profitability), we cannot know, but i certainly have my suspicions, based on my respect for Sandy's baseball acumen. And if they pull the same shit with Byrd this year, many will feel that it'll be for the same bullshit reasons and yes, the hate will ensue... and will have been earned, in my view.

when ya got it, flaunt it baby, flaunt it!

You can shoot the messenger all you want, but the issue is not about Megdal. It's about maximizing assets so you can build a franchise that doesn't just win a few more games in a down year, but has a sustainable process in place to build winning teams over an extended period. We SHOULD have traded Hairston last year, since he was having the kind of "sell high" year that Byrd is currently having. Evidence for that is the fact the Cubs just got a live A-ball arm for him when he is hitting like shit, at a higher salary. And we should sell high on Byrd as well (in what one could easily consider a career year for him, when you compare CitiField with the launch pad of Arlington), before he turns back into a pumpkin. In this business, you maximize value and collect as many chips as you can when you can, thereby increase your odds of cashing them in down the road. Keeping the fans happy? Fans are going to be happy because we end up 5 games under .500 instead of 10 games under? I don't think so (even if Byrd ends up being worth 5 wins, which i doubt), but certainly not THIS fan, so you can speak for yourself on that point. I'd be happier knowing that the management had a consistent and sensible approach to team building (like, for instance, the Cardinals seems to), rather than clinging to a guy who was out of baseball last year, having a last hurrah on his way out the door, because he'll make Zach Wheeler feel better knowing how well the franchise is supporting him. Oh, and as for OFers I'd rather see getting the ABs currently going to Byrd, so the Mets could make some informed assessments going forward: Nieuhenheis, Valdespin, Lagares, Brown, DenDekkker, Duda (when he comes back), Satin (to see if he can play out there), and (eventually) Puello. Will any of these surpass Byrd's Herculean sub-.800 OPS in RF? NO, probably not, but at least one of them might surpass that fair-middling level of production next year and over the next few years, when the Mets have a shot at contention and Marlon is playing with his grandkids on the porch. So if we can turn him into a lively A-Ball arm at the deadline, we should do it. Whether that "duplicates" what we already have is entirely irrelevant, since redundancy is essential when the likelihood of players making it up through the system is so unpredictable (especially with pitchers), and top prospects crash and unheralded ones make the grade. You collect as many chips as you can and let the gods of chance sort it out.

Is it just me, or has Harvey simply come down to Earth? Is he a flawed mortal after all?

she'll be very popular in the prison yard.

Dan Uggla's all like "oh, Freddie Freeman deserves to be there" on Twitter. Shut up, Dan Uggla. Nobody wants to see Freddie Stupid Freeman. i'd rather see Freddie Fender... before the next teardrop falls.

Mike Young is still a good player; why would Philly give him away for a bag of crap?

uh, hate to mention it, but GEE has had incredibly mediocre numbers in the majors to date, with an overall ERA of 4.20 (4.6 this year), and a WHIP of 1.35. While those are not terrible numbers, they're not great either. In fact, Hefner has pitched better for the last 2 months than Gee has for any similar stretch of his career to date. I could be wrong. But I've been unimpressed by Gee since he showed up and, unlike my view of Hefner, i remain unimpressed. I hope his performance, however, forces me to offer him my formal apologies at some point.

if The Great Satin can really play major league defense at 2b, then that makes Murphy expendable. Maybe we can get a decent OFer for him. I say this for two reasons: 1) I like Satin 2) I don't like Murphy If Murphy can be replaced by either Satin or Young, or Wilmer Flores, and we can get something useful for him at the deadline, i think we should. Granted, those are both big "If"s.