Ceetar

Nymr83 wrote: there were 2 outs, i'm sure the umps were trying to avoid the mess of awarding the mets the game by reason of rain and just let them get 1 out and everyone leaves. instead, they get an even bigger mess if they felt bad about that, they could just call it and Mets win. MLB rules (this has been confirmed) are that you can't have a suspended game as the last game between the two clubs. You can't suspend the game, therefore the rule I quoted above takes effect and the Mets win.

Edgy MD wrote: I have this weird expectation that it wouldn't be nearly as demoralizing to let the Pads leave town with the game suspended. There's no outcome, and the Mets only lose half a game instead of a full one in the standings. seems like they're just going to wait it out. Which feels like it kinda sucks for the Padres (not that they're getting out right now anyway..) since they have a 7pm game in Miami tomorrow. so much for getaway day.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: They blew a fucking 6 run lead. They deserve the L The Padres gave up 7 runs, they deserve the L. The umpires rushed them out onto the field for a brief window and it was already raining again.

of course, I'm not a rules expert. Maybe Sandy Alderson knows.

Frayed Knot wrote: They definitely used to do that last full inning stuff. Now I think their intent is to play it out and if I were the Nationals I'd make damn sure that's what happens. seems like we've got at least 2 more hours of rain. Yeah, that was the rule prior, now the rule is if the visitors score in the top of the inning it becomes a suspended game(instead of the Mets winning by the game being called) If the game is suspended though, the resumption rules take effect. They have to play it before the next game between the two clubs. But because that doesn't happen, their don't seem to be any rules that state they HAVE to resume it. Now obviously in the interest of fairness MLB tries to get every game to actually be played. But if there are no mutual off days for a west coast/east coast matchup and the Padres have no interest in coming to NY for a half inning on October 5th?

Centerfield wrote: I was wondering about that. Whatever. Fuck the rain. Let's walk off on Kimbrel. It's very..murky. baseball rules are confusing. I can't imagine they don't try to finish the suspended game (or finish it sometime today) but if they do suspend it..

(4) Any suspended game not completed prior to the last scheduled game between the two teams during the championship season shall become a called game, as follows: (A) If such game has progressed far enough to become a regulation game, and one team is ahead, the team that is ahead shall be declared the winner (unless the game is called while an inning is in progress and before the inning is completed, and the visiting team has scored one or more runs to take the lead, and the home team has not retaken the lead, in which case the score upon the completion of the last full inning shall stand for purposes of this Rule 7.02((4) (Rule 4.12((4)); So, let's hope they never play? I hear it's inconvenient for the Padres to return.

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, him. Just as I'm typing that I'm also hearing that Alex Wood is part of the re-vamped Marlins/Dodgers trade that now involves the Braves. which has been going on since early yesterday. Michael Morse made the last out in the Marlins game, so presumably not official yet either.

maybe he was traded.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Hey, they're doing that Orosco-on-his-knees bobble head idea we talked about before! and did you see who they're playing?

seawolf17 wrote: "We'll be getting Michael Cuddyer back, and that's like adding a superstar in trade. He got a ball through the infield MORE THAN ONCE already this season, and it's only July." David Wright's working out ,and if Cuddyer does come back with a healthy knee, that probably is plenty. Those are still various levels of 'IF' though.

Gomez missed most of 10 days (some DH time) because of a hip issue..6 weeks ago. Probably the only reason he wasn't DL'd (#LOLBrewers playing short) was because it'd look bad when they tried to trade him? And his stats are down this year. related? perhaps. It's certainly a cause for concern, and I haven't seen the medical report.

Montero 'had soreness' in his last workout. so.. Wonder how hardcore Sandy can be. Staunchly walk away from deal based on hip, and now that it's been so blown up, is anyone else going to match that offer? Can he come back tomorrow morning with like "fine, if you really want to deal him, you can have just Wheeler?"

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm surprised at how NOT secret clubs are at this sort of stuff. I mean I know they've got every reporter in the world sniffing around this kind of thing, especially during this week of the year. But at heart this should be a GM-to-GM negotiation which, unless no-trade clauses and the like are involved, shouldn't require that agents be kept informed or that strategic leaks need to be doled out to the press as some sort of catalyst to get the deal done. Instead, with the rare exception (maybe Reyes/Tulo qualifies), deals that are even remotely a surprise by the time it all goes down -- or, in the case of this one, doesn't go down -- just don't seem to happen these days to the point where the press, and by extension the fans, feel they have enough information they're confident in declaring still ongoing discussions as done deals. I mean, they leak stuff all the time for various reasons, so it doesn't seem like they really care about that. Plus they seemingly use it for negotiation purposes. But also once it gets further along, other people are always involved. "Hey intern, go pull the Wheeler medicals and fax it to the brewers" Intern goes to tech guy, tech guy pulls it up and prints it. Chats about it to his cubicle neighbor. All those guys could talk. Hell, if I was a reporter I'd reach out to all the interns and grease their palms a little. "Hey, I'll put a good word in for you at 'my paper/ESPN' when you graduate, keep me in the loop" Hell, you might be able to read a changed_by date in a database and see which players are drawing interest. Centerfield wrote: I wonder though, when you have health issues for both Wheeler and Gomez, why not look at medical records very early in the process? I mean, find out what you are getting before you bid. Maybe they did, and that's why Collins had no idea. You can't look at medical records until you agree on which players to look out (as reported, Herrera might have been being discussed) so "Okay, those players, now let's see" and that leaks as "deal is done, players decided". From there, there might have been other throw in players to compensate for red flags in medical reports, hence the deal not being done. "Oh, that hip? sorry, no Flores for that. How about this guy?"

Gwreck wrote: Ken Rosenthal now claiming the Mets backed out due to concerns over Gomez' hip. I also put this mess on the media. Also, I remain confused how Flores knew he was being traded if this was going down during the game. Flores found out from the fans. Some yelled it to him as he came off the field, plus the standing ovation. At least Sherman got the info out first though, that's what matters here.

figure Todd Helton and Jason Giambi have some chance.

Mets lead all expansion teams with 14. Mets also lead all expansion teams with 2 WS wins. (Well, tied)

seems to be. One for the Marlins and for the Rays.

Centerfield wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Papelbon has a no-trade clause and he is supposedly invoking it in order to guarantee that he's to be used as the closer. Wonder how manager Matt Williams views a player dictating how and when he's used? ... not to mention what incumbent Drew Storen thinks about it as he's certainly not done anything to lose that job. How could that possibly be enforced? Does he get to go back to Philly if the phone rings in the 8th? he could throw a hissy fit.

Frayed Knot wrote: Just to clarify, the reports on this deal say it would be: Morse + Latos + One 'competitive balance'* pick going from Miami to Los Angeles in exchange for three (yet to be named) minor league pitchers heading to south Florida Given that neither Morse or Latos are having a particularly good year, it seems like a bit of a tame trade for the Dodgers now that the Giants are hot on their heels. * 'CB' picks, though I don't claim to understand exactly what the criteria are for handing them out, are given to smaller market teams so there's no way the Dodgers would ever have one of their own Something to do with market share and blah blah blah. varies slightly each year. Could probably look it up, but it's not super important. Think it's pick like ..35? practically a first rounder. Somewhere around where Wright got picked originally. (They called them sandwich picks back then, but now that 'is a hot dog a sandwich' debate has gotten heated, they did away with that terminology) most people framing this is pretty bad from the Marlins standpoint. think I agree.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'd still argue he's more tradeable today that he was 3 or 4 weeks ago, no? well, marginally. I don't think anyone's super changed in opinion on him over that small a time frame. But it's certainly lower than it was in April before he didn't really hit much in the majors. I think he's always been a high candidate for trade though, the week or two of decent production probably re-ignited a few things though, sure.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I wonder if Plawecki's ascent to non-suckiness has made him more chippable in that giant trade we're making later this week. You'd have to figure if d'Arnaud never got hurt he'd be among the best things we have to offer. that ascent may have just been him standing on tiptoes. he's not hitting well over the last week or two.

Frayed Knot wrote: In the transaction, the Nats agreed to pick up Papelbon's 2016 option (though at a reduced rate and with deferred money) so we best get used to seeing him there for a while. The Phils also pay part of this year's freight and it doesn't sound like the minor leaguer they got back for him is much to crow about. So the main attraction for the Phils seems to be that they got a malcontent out of their clubhouse and got out from under the option which would have kicked in automatically with a certain number of games closed -- but that's what tends to happen when closers get signed to long-term deals. Stupid broke Wilpons always needing the other team to throw in money.

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: (And the morality clause is a joke). But other people's standards are arbitrary? the entire damn think is arbitrary and I wish it wasn't. The morality clause has no part in baseball, put the best players in the Hall. As stated, there are poor moral characters already in. dozens of them. why include some and not others? Personal reasons. And a couple of writers personal morality should not attempt to prevent millions from celebrating a great baseball player. There's a difference between inner circle baseball players and the list of an arbitrary group of people's list of favorite players.

I mean, part of the problem is there is no such thing as a 'young' voter. The guys I'm talking about are in their 30s and can't vote for years. Though this is another mark against the BBWAA as authority on anything. Seriously, guys writing about baseball on this internet thing couldn't vote, but guys covering golf for 30 years? no problem! I shouldn't need to dig up ballot quotes to suggest that dropping the latter as the former start getting votes is going to give a more 'true' result. Murray Chass is presumably not losing his vote, but you should be familiar with his ignorance. It's not a catch-all either, here's Kirby Allen doing it justice despite being a golf writer: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/01/08/baseballs-hall-of-fame-voting-is-broken/ I vehemently disagree with any stance against steroids, but at least it's fact based for Kirby. (i.e. guys that have undeniably been linked to steroids. Oh, and a dig at Chass.) He'll likely lose his vote, so there goes 1 for Piazza. Maybe I'm wrong. I can't find a solid breakdown of all the ballots easily right now, but find plenty of ignorant ballots from people that still technically cover baseball (if not well). I'd like to see the museum we have truly represent the inner circle of baseball players. I'm even okay with Pete Rose, because it's a museum (And the morality clause is a joke). Don't let him work in/near baseball, but in a museum to the game that he was clearly a big part of? But whatever, it's a club of randomly selected people. It's like a fraternity. I don't need their approval to call Bonds and Piazza Hall of Famers.