Ceetar

Packed house over at YSIII..but not sold out.

Actually, this one fits rather well. Tell them "Much like Jeter, paper newspaper subscriptions have long ago been due to be retired. Please cancel mine."

woah, a Flores walk.

please don't bunt. also, remember that offense from yesterday?

Stroop test uniforms. Also, runs! Also, where is my chinese food, I'm gonna finish my Anchor Big Leaf Ale before it gets here.

where's Kirk?

MFS62 wrote: They can help deGrom by keeping Hamilton at 55 SB. How? Start Juan Centeno. He was the only catcher in the majors to nab Hamiltion attempting to steal last year. Later Recker got him early this year. In fact, Hamilton leads the league in caught stealing. He's 57th of all MLBers in SB% with at least 10 SB.

d'Kong76 wrote: "The manager has his backers in the organization, and he has his detractors; both sides seem still to be discussing the future." - Martino Rivetting stuff! Is it seem still, or still seem? still seem i'm pretty sure? Yes. Shockingly, Mets are still discussing the future of a guy they have working for them. Bet no other companies do that.

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Because when somebody with a life to get back to has waited over five hours for the outcome of a game, only to see a guy he never heard of fumble the game away by playing like the minor leaguer he really is, the league is asking more from her fans than she is giving. I disagree. I see, so you want longer games AND lesser quality! No, but those are the extreme cases, and it's sorta like the exception that proves the rule. Baseball dominates life and part of that sometimes is those drawn out long games that go on for ever. That 2010 20 inning game against the Cardinals is burned into everyone's memory in an otherwise worthless season for example. It's sorta like a purple heart. a badge of honor. And the intense debate that rages over these things is part of the strength of baseball fandom. "That guy shouldn't even be in the majors!" "He throws 95! He could figure it out!" "Well he ain't figuring it out now. Throw a strike already!" I'd wager there are more people that will look back fondly on that LA/Was game last night then will grumble about it. Engaged fans don't grumble about the game still going on, they turn it off or leave. If you want a quick nip of sports entertainment in a pre-defined block at a convenient time with not too many games up against each other to steal you away from 'real life', try the NFL.

Edgy MD wrote: Because when somebody with a life to get back to has waited over five hours for the outcome of a game, only to see a guy he never heard of fumble the game away by playing like the minor leaguer he really is, the league is asking more from her fans than she is giving. I disagree.

of course, the other question is, why limit rosters? who cares? Why is having the 9th guy on the relief depth chart in the game something we need to avoid?

Edgy MD wrote: There would still be teams burning through long benches and deep bullpens. If teams could scratch a player from the eligibility roster on a daily basis, the first four guys they'd put on the taxi squad would be the four starting pitchers not going that day. Also, the relievers they burned out yesterday. Always have 7 -10 fresh arms. it's basically more hassle to try to put in a rule like that than it's worth probably. Unless you just didn't expand at all.

Gwreck wrote: It still baffles me that MLB won't require teams, in the age of expanded rosters, to elect a set 25 players to be eligible for any one game. I assume it's part of the CBA? If they did this, teams probably wouldn't call up prospects on 9/1, leaving them in the minors through end of season/playoffs (if at all) and then they wouldn't get the major league pay day, plus there would be a ton of end of the season manipulation of service time.

I had a Yankees el duque beanie baby tied up and hung in my room for a while. My college roommate made me take it home with me because a girl had given it to him and he didn't want his GF to know that. speaking of which, I accidentally acquired a ugly Yankees toy truck. What's the best way for me to destroy it utterly?

Lefty Specialist wrote: Corey Hart. Looks like a human assembled from a kit by a 10-year-old. Always had big hits against the Mets when in a Sudsmaker uniform. Plus there were all those bad '80's songs. So who's the unholy Padre? Jeff Francoeur and his unholy smile. Which Colorado Rockie gives you the symptoms of altitude sickness?

gotta hit this scrub.

seawolf17 wrote: seawolf17 wrote: This stupid patch bothers me a lot more than it should, and Megdal's right (and I hate agreeing with him) that Jeter should come out, publicly, and say this is too much. Why would he come out and say it's too much in a season that's basically been designed to be all about him? I know. It's already gone too far. I'm just saying. He's hoping they erect the (biggest one, and one of the first three you see when walking in) monument before the end of the season so he doesn't have to be bothered to show up again next year.

seawolf17 wrote: This stupid patch bothers me a lot more than it should, and Megdal's right (and I hate agreeing with him) that Jeter should come out, publicly, and say this is too much. Why would he come out and say it's too much in a season that's basically been designed to be all about him?

Was it Jeter that leaked all the celeb photos? oh wait, he's the one that's too paranoid to be within 20 feet of a cellphone right?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And what kind of available outfielder, one year removed from the major league minimum salary, do you think the Mets might pluck from some other team's trash pile? We can hope that the Mets might finally get on the right side of some Amos Otis to the Royals type deal, but me, I wouldn't count on something like that happening. You don't think a team would give up a young, promising OF'r for a young, promising catcher? Sure. And if the Mets think they have a surplus of young, major league caliber catchers, they can turn that excess into a strength. But if the hypothetical trade target isn't far removed from the major league minimum --like d'Arnaud-- then he's coming cheap. NTTAWWT! And that hypothetical move would probably be dictated by finances. How do I know this? Because the Mets are broke. But would the Mets trade d'Arnaud for a LF'er earning around $10M a year, assuming d'Arnaud is expendable? Probably. But it's the definition of expendable that's debatable here. And he wouldn't be traded straight up for a LFer, he'd either be traded for someone top of the line and much much better than he is, or they'd get more than a LFer back. Especially if they're taking on salary for it.

cute AT&T chick Lily *Milana Vayntrub* is a little quirky pitching the standard family cellphone plan like it's a deal. also apparently gets nosebleeds in the desert.

d'Kong76 wrote: I didn't know it was the Pepsi Rotunda? never heard that either.

I'm not positive deGromination shouldn't hit 6th.

Speaking of Plawecki, what's the first thing you do after getting drafted and showing up at Citi Field? why, talk to the Captain of course.

smg58 wrote: I just hope Terry spoke with d'Arnaud before speaking with the media. Otherwise, with Plawecki knocking on the door, it's worth discussing how to accommodate the both of them. Here's a thought though. I like d'Arnaud and think he's gonna be good. If Plawecki really does look good and promising, are the Mets better served trying to adjust the defense to get them both in there w/ LF time or whatever, or selling at the height of Plawecki's prospect value for an actual left fielder?