Ceetar

guys, guys, I know we're all at the game or at the Baltimore game but um, hey, let's talk about this one maybe? ;-) Mets are losing 3-0, but seem to be seeing the ball well off Alverez.

seawolf17 wrote: seawolf17 wrote: Have two tickets for tonight sitting in my shirt pocket. Have two kids, however, and society frowns on leaving one in the car while the other one is inside the stadium. buy a crappy ticket at the gate? Thinking about that, yeah. We'll see if they're up for making the drive in. woah woah, dialogue with your children? Does Adrian Peterson know you're allowed to do that?

seawolf17 wrote: Have two tickets for tonight sitting in my shirt pocket. Have two kids, however, and society frowns on leaving one in the car while the other one is inside the stadium. buy a crappy ticket at the gate?

themetfairy wrote: I think that KB's greatest asset is the ability to break away from his sideline reporting to tell us when something is happening on the field. Most sideline guys can't seem to manage that. And it's the attention to the action I think that keeps what he's doing from being too detracting from the actual game.

Kim Jones on FAN with Carlin a few years ago. she seemed okay. Actually the occasional women they've had on have been decent imo (I haven't listened in years now) but I guess there's a higher bar they probably have to reach. She, if I recall correctly, was accusing, or convicted, of feeding Girardi softball questions in postgame interviews.

I look forward to one day telling the younger generation how good Burkhardt was back in the day and he wasn't always this old crotchety guy like people tell me about McCarver and others.

Edgy MD wrote: Playing Houston, too. But the Astros' September lineup may be stronger than their April-August lineup. Springer shut down though.

Zvon wrote: I'd be okay if they used a special alt logo for a special occasion from time to time but the basic logo should never be changed. You don't mess with perfection. yeah, no reason not to have some fun with it. Of course, once you do that you'll inevitably get the sponsorship stuff. YOu'll get one with Spiderman swinging on one of the buildings, and whoever owns that giant residential building in midtown will want a logo and a sponsorship..

umm.

Gary, Keith and Ron: Gold. I wish they didn't tend to do so many games not as a trio. Gary Apple: Same. Kerith Burke: She's fine. Bob Ojeda: Despise him. He can go. old-school blow-hard in my opinion and I usually make a point to turn off the tv before post game because of him. Chris Carlin:" Adds nothing in terms of insight or analysis. Not an unlikeable guy, but just a very strange pick for such a frontline position at the network. " Pretty much. I don't really have a problem with him, you do needs guys to sorta state the obvious and lead the conversation, but isn't that basically what Gary Apple is for? Michelle Yu: I'm drawing a blank on who she is. I really don't watch SNY for non-games. Jim Duquette: Okay in a limited role. He's on SNY? Thought he was on WOR? I don't even feel like looking up the names, but none of the fill-ins for Burkhardt are worth keeping.

Flores is out of options too, which clearly factors in.

Edgy MD wrote: I'd probably disagree with that too, thus the thread. I mean, what is knowable about the future? But it is true that they've seen far more of him than den Dekker, and you've got to make assessments with what little PT you have to go around. Still, he's starting less than Recker. Or Tejada. Or Young. Satin, on the other hand. He's REALLY buried. I've been sorta busy, but has Satin been here since 9/1?

guess that makes sense. I'd disagree that they know enough about Kirk and feel like the extra 100 or so AB he could've gotten would've been more useful, but alas. anyway: Since being called up in June of last year, Kirk Nieuwenhuis: 201 PA 6 HR .228/.328/.427 111 wRC+

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah I think the Mets have decided he's too whiffy and too vulnerable to LH pitching and curveballs overall. They also want to give dD the bigger shot but to my eyes he's failing too. The notion addressed in another thread that Terry was unaware of the team's W-L record when Niewy starts is dumb for a lot of reasons. yes, but the notion that Kirk has the highest OPS on the team and has 100 PA this season (which isn't..nothing) and did well in the second half of last year and is not bad on defense and is the same age as den Dekker..(almost exactly) So really the only thing Matt has over him is some defense.

More than I would've guessed as well. Is that accurate? I know sites do defense weird. Sometimes they count a guy's total production if he played there even a little. Like, Eric Campbell didn't put up nearly 200 AB in left field. B-R has the total at 2.6 WAR, but again, that's counting all of Campbell

My theory is that by his occasional success pinch-hitting he's been type-cast as a guy that's able to come off the bench therefore that's what he'll do.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm confused too. If you trade a guy worth 4.5 wins, you either get a package back worth the same (replaced!) or more (shwing!), or less (doh!). They get worse maybe at second but improve somewhere else, or perhaps don't improve but cut salary to be invested somewhere else. The Yankees traded Alfonso Soriano in his beautiful youthful prime. That was 5.4 wins going out the door. Who were they going to replace him with? Miguel Cairo? Seriously? Booo! But then, the guy they traded him for, Alex Rodriguez, produced 7.6 wins. Yayyy! I mean, Booo!!! well, assuming they need to cut salary to invest elsewhere, that's something else. And that's what that A-Rod Soriano trade was. And required some shuffling AND a sacrifice of defensive value on A-Rods part by playing a lesser player at his best position. But if you put together a package and trade 4.5 wins of player and get back 5.5, but end up playing a 3.5 win player where that 4.5 guy was.. What have you really accomplished. I'm not saying there aren't trades to be made. But I think Flores might be the more valuable trade pawn anyway. He's the young guy with tools, Murphy's the known quantity with a year left before FA. You're better off trading for the best plug for the LF (or SS) hole rather than trying to spread it around. Too often they've traded the most talented guy in the deal though. McHugh, Pagan. Doesn't always work.

Frayed Knot wrote: "But Murphy machinations aside, this is about Flores, and him not having shown anything approaching major league ability. -- I don't buy that at all. sorry sorry. He hasn't shown anything approaching major league production. He might have the skillset to hit. He's certainly still young. But that's not a gamble I'm willing to take. I'd rather trade a better prospect or pay more money or whatever is need for a left fielder than try to include Murphy and roll with Flores.

Frayed Knot wrote: 'Play his Position' doesn't mean they'll replace him exactly, only that there are other options there and that even if there's a decline from him to [Fill in Blank] it may be worth it to strengthen the team elsewhere. The worst thing teams can do is to convince themselves that a particular player is irreplaceable. Very few are, and Murphy's not one of them. He hits but doesn't walk a lot; he hits doubles but not many HRs; he plays an up-the-middle position but not particularly well; he's on OK runner but gets dopey now and then; he's dependable except for when he's not (1 completely missed season and a big chunk of another); and he's about to turn 30. I'm not saying he's irreplaceable, I'm saying at the moment the Mets don't have the parts to replace him with and his contributions are very much needed. I mean, the next best option right now is probably Tejada. But Murphy machinations aside, this is about Flores, and him not having shown anything approaching major league ability.

Frayed Knot wrote: Dealing Murphy, if it happens, isn't about saving money, it's about deciding whether to make a long-term commitment to him or not. We, and Sandy, and Fred & Jeff, and everybody else is the world knows what Danny Boy is at this point. He'll turn 30 by opening day 2015 and can become a FA a year and a few weeks from now. The options are whether to keep him for another year, to sign him long term sometime in the next year, or to deal him away this winter in an effort to plug other holes while there appear to be several candidates who can play his position. I'm not advocating that one choice here is the lone correct one, only that a number of other moves may depend on how they pursue this one. It's this point I'm contesting. I don't know that any of the options would put up the production Murphy's almost a lock for next year. So I think any move to fill other holes potentially opens up another one.

Edgy MD wrote: Trading Murphy ain't letting him walk. is it a gamble? Sure, all trades are. Certainly with somebody as ridiculously consistent and reliable as Murphy. But can they get an offensive upgrade? By packaging him with Niese or Gee or Colon, they sure can. Err, Murphy's not a free agent. We're not actually suggesting the Mets might just say "fuck it, no arb for you." are we? yes, sure, there are packages out that that might include Murphy, my point is simply that if you're trading offense to get offense, you better be getting a damn good player.

Frayed Knot wrote: All that said, I'm not averse to trading almost anyone for the right price and don't view Flores as a 'Must Keep'. As I and others have been saying much of this year, a lot of these decision pivot on Muffy. If we're desperate for salary manipulations, which I'm sure some feel that we are, than sure, you might go Flores and let Murphy walk, but it's hard to imagine trading Murphy for more offensive production unless some other team just has absolutely no one to play the position and feels they can spare an outfielder that's a little bit better for him, but then isn't any gain offset by the gamble that is playing Flores or Herrera?

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: Indeed and if Citi's not really associated with it anymore I'm not sure this can be chocked up to 'corporate relationships' or any such. Citi is associated with it. "Chocked up"? chalked up. I don't speak so right. They _were_ associated with it. but no longer. Why would they push for an old building of theirs to be added? Why would they push at all, given how subtle the advertising would be? Why isn't this being chalked up to mere conspiracy theory? Wasn't another one of those buildings slowly changed over the years?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: So look guys, I like Flores. I'm about at the point where I've seen enough of him to say I think he can really hit. I'm open to the possibility of flipping him but think it's a no-brainer to keep him around as Plan A at second base next year (Herrera, who looks to me like he needs 4 months in AAA, is Plan B and Reynolds/whomever is Plan C. Muffy goes in a deal for a SS or relief pitcher or OF or whatever. Yes? No? Why? Wait wait, you think he can really hit? What have you seen that I haven't? If anyone wants him and will give us something for him.. sell sell sell as fast as possible.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: As for the logo, the Citicorp Center is an iconic building. The only way I knew that building on the end was the UN was because I know my Mets logo history. It's not the iconic part of the UN. But if they are going to monkey around with the logo, at least add the Freedom Tower in some way. Indeed and if Citi's not really associated with it anymore I'm not sure this can be chocked up to 'corporate relationships' or any such. I don't think I can be worked up about it, since it's hardly official, nor is much more than sloping a roof. But I agree, would like to see the Freedom Tower added. I'd like to see the whole skyline on the building above the Shea Bridge actually. (Where supposedly they're building a garden but I've seen no sign of it)