Ceetar

we're at August 17th. There are various guys in the minors that will/can/should help probably more than random waiver pickups.

Parnell had Tommy John surgery 16 months ago. I think Matt Harvey again is making us take some things for granted. For now though, yes, it seems like Parnell should probably get some less high-leverage innings, but I'm more hesitant about this general feeling that he should be launched into the sun while he's still trying to find himself again.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Wow, they're imploding. Have to think they take it out on the Rockies this week, though. How long can the Mets rely on the kindness of strangers? I don't know, but I find it hard to worry about teams under .500.

he's improved each year, but only in the sense that he's crushing the ball more and more. walk rate has actually decreased. (he walked plenty in Cuba) his BABIP has gone up steadily too, which makes sense from a crushing the ball standpoint. Perhaps he's like a mini-Vlad? But I'm not sure he's a 'must have' or perennial mvp candidate or anything like that. i.e. I don't think it's a big deal if the Mets do end up, as is likely, not signing him for next year. Also that nice place (last?) night where he gunned out the guy at third as a result of maybe not reading the ball that well? That feels like a standard Puig move, err a bit to give up an extra base and then gun the guy down.

so they showed Duda maybe with a helmet on earlier, wouldn't that have been the spot to pinch hit him?

Edgy MD wrote: Holy crap, the chicks my cousin used to get when he was driving his Arquimedes Caminero. He beat up some asshole for keying it and it got seized when he went to prison. Were they all named Ariel?

Don't remember where I stumbled upon this: [fimg=500:244tymdh]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/IWiITW8-r-9jzwdZs5gjWG1L9CCqfApsFyb4dNf_u2uL=w1178-h663-no[/fimg:244tymdh] [fimg=500:244tymdh]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/cwFe9dzt8B2owfcHx-0FuMn42LiGssf8sBLqAR5nBXth=w1178-h663-no[/fimg:244tymdh] but I just stumbled across it again looking through some photos. There were some funny quotes too i think

Different with Plawecki is catcher AB seem to be more important because he's got so many other things to learn/perfect too as a catcher. Plus it's easier to get an outfielder games with 2 spots to play. I hadn't thought about Colon. Nobody uses 5 starters in the postseason. He's not going start over anybody else the Mets have. you have the same roster size so you could theoretically carry him, but you'd probably use Carlos Torres or even Verrett as the long reliever type. It's hard to see the Mets being all "thanks but get lost now" though. He probably takes a spot and just isn't used much.

Still considering Sunday (the prices!). Wife's feeling a little sick and might not be up for it, Daughter and I might go without her.

That's a 7.5 game swing in the standings over the last 17 games.

Tuesday August 19th,2008 for 12 over.

Frayed Knot wrote: Just keep putting up Ws in the eastern time zone while the Nats are out west knowing the best they can do is match. They hit SF tonight for the first of four. P.S. Blue Jays do the same this afternoon in advance of the Yanx game in Cleveland tonight. You gotta figure the Nats are just getting up and getting coffee and 'breakfast' and cursing at their phones when they see the score.

Let me paint you a picture.. Road trip to loser teams in hitters park followed by what should be a fun, crazy, completely sold out weekend at home against the Red Sox in which there's a fair shot DAVID WRIGHT MAY BE PLAYING.

Frayed Knot wrote: Gwreck wrote: The only thing that worries me is that the Nationals get to face the Rockies soon too. But so do we again - and they just went 1-2 against them right before we went 4-0 The Mets are soon to play a 9 game road trip to extremely hitter friendly parks. FIREWORKS. (Losing Duda for that would be tough, doubt it happens now though, since he can DH two of the five games the Mets have over the next week.)

Centerfield wrote: People talk about appreciating the beauty of a 1-0 game. I don't think enough appreciation is given to 12-3 blowouts where you abuse your opponents' bullpen. During the day, while drinking at a bar in NJ.

Edgy MD wrote: Whoah. What section is the royalty sitting in these days? Careful, he tends to pick sections with broken seats.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm in town, thinking of finally breaking the tape on Citi Field. I'm seeing 'em twice next week in Balto, so I'm not sure. do it do it do it

speaking of synergy, all 30 teams start at the same time on 10/4. Cool stuff.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I have a hunch that this is a bit more common in the NFL. Happens most Monday's and Thursdays!

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: I mostly agree too. But, when he says the forum doesn't get it all he's doing is looking to poke some of us with a stick. Fuck it, won't be the first time he's made me take some time off. Let's go Mets. So where did I write that "the forum" doesn't get it? Show me. Name names. I'm just tired of reading posts that state that money doesn't matter, that the Mets don't need to spend more money, that all the money in the world wouldn't improve this team be even one simple win. It's ridiculous. Take it up with them when you read their posts. You won't though, not in million years, because your responses are based on the poster and not the post. You're accusing me of poking sticks at you? That's even funnier than the idea that the Mets might get Jay Bruce this year. Look, it's REALLY REALLY simple. I want the Mets to field a winning ballclub consistently. I DON'T CARE how they do that. Money sometimes leads to winning, but it's the winning I care about. If they do it by spending tons of money, by developing prospects, by voodoo, by kidnapping Bryce Harper or developing super serum, it doesn't really matter. some people seem to be suggesting the Wilpons are the worst people ever based on solely the money part, but they've given me to this point what I want out of a baseball team. The Mets could've spent more money and been dominate, perhaps. As I mentioned earlier, take a flyer on Kang over Flores or sign Johnny Peralta. Both solid money moves that means not playing Flores and/or Tejada. But whatever, they're winning now. They've got enough offense elsewhere to fake it with the averagish Tejada and occasional Wilmer. You can resume your money-griping if they continue to not address that spot this offseason, despite the influx of cash.

d'Kong76 wrote: 3. Mets 3B David Wright, who underwent spinal stenosis surgery earlier this season, went 1-for-3 with a walk in his first rehab start with Single-A St. Lucie on Monday. *buzzer sounds*

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm going to disagree with the "unavoidable" part, except where the fact that the Wilpons being incompetent means fucking things up is unavoidable. I mean, everything's avoidable. They could've put more of the stadium burden on the fans/city. They could've decided to build, and pay for, it a few years earlier rather than right as the economy was collapsing. They could've been the smartest people in (on?) Wall Street and dumped Madoff before he was caught. But it feels unlikely.

Centerfield wrote: The counter-arguments about money poorly spent are distractors and irrelevant. No one here is advocating that the additional money be spent poorly. As far as I know, there is no requirement attaching the extra money to poor decisions. What batmags, and Vic, and many others here want is for the Mets do everything that they have done to maximize their resources, and also have at their disposal, the financial capability of a big market team. It's not a fucking roadmap. A lot of the money is spent poorly. Spending poorly and then covering up that poor spending with more spending is one of the melange of things that got the Mets into this sticky situation. You're almost obligated to throw more money after bad money to try to justify it all in aggregate. (again, see Jason Bay. Good decision in a vacuum, probably a poor one combined with everything else) So what can you do but spend the money with the maximum return? Go for it when you've got a shot (The Johan Santana example. Bad in a vacuum, probably good overall) Regardless, the Mets and Wilpons OWE US NOTHING. It's a business. There are very few, if any (Dodgers?), run the way you propose. The Mets, through a collection of mostly unavoidable circumstances, got themselves into a sticky situation financially where they DON'T have the mythical 'vast resources' of a NY team in a big market. (again, some creative accounting here, of which we're so far removed from we really, Megdal included, have no idea about) But guess what? the Mets (and by Mets I mean the Mets not Sterling/Wilpon/etc) ARE IN FACT doing everything they can to maximize their resources and revenue streams. Many of the signs point towards light at the end of the tunnel and coming out of the 'rebuilding period' or whatever you want to call it. To suddenly demand they sling money around like the Dodgers in advance of maximizing those resources and revenues is foolish. Yes, maybe if they had money to burn and less loans they could do that and taking a higher percentage shot this/recent years, but they didn't. It's over. The Wilpons will own the team the rest of our lives. The next few years are set up to be pretty good and it seems endlessly tiring to constantly harp on HOW the Wilpons aught to spend their money

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I guess you and a couple of others here must believe that it wouldn't make a difference if the Mets had an additional 30 or 40 or 50 million dollars a year to spend on payroll ... that those dozens of extra millions of dollars a year wouldn't be able to improve the team at all. You mean like in 2010: "hey we had an off year full of injuries, let's sign a power All-Star bat with a 134 OPS+ who's only 30!" Maybe it's just that I've made my piece with the Mets, at least for now, only spending what they pull in. Attendance is booming as are ticket sales. That'll continue, they'll spend. They've spent to improve the team the last few years. They filled holes in the middle of this one. They weathered injuries. They're in first place. I see no reason to believe they won't do something this offseason as well, but I don't really care if they push the budget to the max and leverage every inch of revenue. Isn't over-leveraging what got them into this mess?

Carlos Gomez came into Friday 0 for 12 with eight strikeouts against Washington starter Jordan Zimmermann. But the reason he�s out of the lineup for the third consecutive game was a troublesome right hip that�s been bothering him for the past couple weeks. �I�ve been playing with a wrap around it for the last two weeks,� he said. �I don�t like to (complain) about it, but I haven�t been completely 100 percent. I�d be feeling it running to first base and it got worse, so we stepped back and I�m resting. �I could play through it, but it�s better to play one or two less days (than make it worse).� That's from the Journal Sentinel in Milwaukee. With quotes from Gomez. About his hip. About it hurting. About not being 100%. About missing time. He had an MRI on his hip. When you try to trade damaged goods, you don't get top prospects* in return. The Mets have a bunch of homegrown players. And they have contributors via free agency in Cuddyer, Granderson, Colon. They've got guys in trades. Cespedes, d'Arnaud, Johnson, Syndergaard, Uribe. I'm not really sure what the point of being at the top of the payroll standings does for the Mets exactly. Whatever the cause of it (Yes, mostly money. Maybe all money. We don't know the specifics or how much), the Mets chose to run the team a different way than flat out spending. It's working. THAT is the goal, not the spending. The Mets will spend more, as needed, in the next few years because the financial boon from this run (provided they do actually make the playoffs) will make it impossible to 'hide' money. They've reported losses or minimal gains the last few years, in part due to creative accounting (hint: everyone does this), but they won't be able to fudge that when the flat out ticket sales eclipse the payroll. So they'll reinvest (some of) that money. It's not really that complicated. But the goal isn't to have a top payroll, it's to have a top team. Also, it's not like they're spending nothing.