Ceetar

Zvon wrote: Logo looks kool. For me this all hinges on who's gonna play Batman. too far away to get excited for me yet.

Edgy MD wrote: Jon Niese. Last I heard, he was "nearing mound work" on July 22. How ambiguous is that? According to that report, he wasn't expected back until well into August. What's he tweeting? Maybe they're talking location. He's working on his walking approach to the rubber for when he starts throwing. Or maybe the report was from a snapshot in time. Earlier in the day he'd been down in the trainers room, but now he's literally walking towards the mound and is about to throw. Or maybe his rehab regiment includes reshaping the mound and he's joined the groundscrew.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: /smashes head Why would you imagine Ike Davis is a .400 bunter? Is there any evidence to support that? There's no evidence at all to say anything at all about it. If they're over-shifting and he can do it, then HE SHOULD DO IT. If he can't, then he shouldn't, obviously. Last night wasn't a good attempt, but the logic of his quote is sound.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ike Davis isn't a .400 hitter. which is why if merely 4 of the bunts worked out of 10, it'd be fantastic and a probably a better option than swinging.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You are great with the magical thinking, Ceets. Bunting vs. the shift is great idea IF you make it. Neiuwenhuis is a great choice to hit against a lefty pitcher IF he gets on. There's a reason they are also dumb choices, you know. If it works 4 times in 10, it's a fantastic idea. The Kirk choice was something completely different, doesn't compare.

how many times do we get on guys like Carlos Delgado for not dropping down a bunt in the obvious 'free base' situations. (But Ike, practice will ya?) It's a GREAT idea. Don't pass up free bases if you can make it work, PLUS it affects your spray chart, meaning the more you do it, the less they overshift you, the more you can take real swings and get hits otherwise neutralized by the shift.

no one's older than father time.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I kinda have a thing for Cindy, the Lee's Toyota spokesbabe. You and car-company chicks, man. They really get his motor going.

Byrdak's been tweeting some funny stuff, I think he's still sorta rehabbing-like so I'm not quite sure he's on the promotion train yet.

Frayed Knot wrote: Rodriguez looking at a lifetime ban according to sources http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/07/23/report-yankees-alex-rodriguez-is-looking-to-make-a-deal-with-mlb/ Seems excessive and unlikely. I agree. I suspect MLB will threaten along those lines before settling for something significant, but ultimately less. A-Rod strikes me as the type of guy that will fight it tooth and nail to the last inch.

Kong76 wrote: Did Chewie sing God Bless America? Now that would be something to see and hear! Mercifully the Mets don't subject us to that during normal games.

Swan Swan H wrote: This was actually an earlier tweet: Andy Martino ?@MartinoNYDN 9m Told that #Mets will still pay Marcum's rehab and medical expenses. They didn't want him rehabbing in NY or PSL (more) _mistermet of Amazin' Avenue tweeting this: _mistermet's avatar Steve Smistermet @_mistermet "$500,000 apiece for being on active roster or DL for injury unrelated to right arm for 150 and 170 days. (The ML season is 183 days.)" Details 2h _mistermet's avatar Steve Smistermet @_mistermet "$375,000 apiece for 90 and 120 days on active roster, or on disabled list for injury unrelated to his right arm."

Edgy MD wrote: Anybody else going to Washington this weekend? I feel like cooking in the sun. Thought about it. If it's anything like it was here last week, bring LOTS OF WATER.

Swan Swan H wrote: That spot on the 40 may be needed for Friday's starter. Meija's already on it no?

Edgy MD wrote: I didn't think you could release a player under such circumstances. Why not release Johan, too? Johan's contract (and his 10/5 rights) might have better language in it? I think Marcum had performance bonuses that kicked in even on the DL, but I am surprised they can just waiver him from the DL. Opens up a 40 man spot though.

Edgy MD wrote: I just think Terry was a bit short-sighted and when he had to play catch-up in the ninth he ate the shit end of the stick. You've got a choice. Nieuwie vs. a lefty (a minus) plus the chance that he may face a righty later versus Lagares vs. a lefty (a plus) plus the bump in defense, minus the chance that he may face a righty later, minus the bench shortened by one guy. The Let's Make a Deal test seems to fall to Terry here. Lagares in that spot may help you lengthen the lead, and I'd understand if it was a RBI spot or something, but it was bases empty. the nature of the game at that time was already strongly leading towards the platoon advantage being more important in the 9th (or if it wasn't, it's because the Mets held the lead) But then again, you could've used Andrew Brown to pinch hit instead if you cared about that, and had Recker or Hefner pinch run. If you let Kirk hit, and he manages to get on, you can use Lagares in the pitcher's spot and perhaps make them make a move and use Satin anyway, or if he doesn't you can lead off the next inning with Satin or Lagares to maximize the platoon split that way in a bases empty no-out situation.

Swan Swan H wrote: So you're saying Edgy is old? I think that's what you're saying, isn't it, with all that "I'm still technically in my prime" stuff, implying Edgy is past his. Way past his prime, is the way I'm reading it. He falls somewhere between the royal baby thing and Scott Acthison. Atichson? Atichson..dammit, don't make me look this guy up. I'm running out of years I can play the 'sorta still young/prime' card. Gotta milk it for what it's worth.

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: All I'm saying is "no one has bothered to find out yet" if they're good or not. Yes, well, but his statement that you referenced was a lot longer than that, detailing several things that were true of Young and not true of those other guys. You know who else nobody has bothered trying to find out yet whether he's any good? ME. And I'm real bitter. Me neither, and I'm still technically "in my prime" or at least close to it and hey, I'm lefty. I thought if you were healthy and a lefty you were basically guaranteed a job in a bullpen? web of lies.

Edgy MD wrote: The Mets have Murphy, Tejada, and Turner all who can play second base. I'm not really sure that flexibility is a big factor here. Positional flexibility not mattering --- true or no --- is a very different argument from "you could say much the same [including apparently positional flexibility] about Collin Cowgill, Andrew Brown, Hoffman... . You can't. They're different players with different histories and profiles. All I'm saying is "no one has bothered to find out yet" if they're good or not. And we have a lot more data on Eric Young and over 1000 innings he's profiling okay at center and slightly below average defensively. Meanwhile the younger Collin Cowgill profiles better defensively although with a basically meaningless 250 AB. He hasn't shown anything near what Young did last year but he's had a quarter of the time.

Edgy MD wrote: Nieuwie couldn't touch lefties last season either. There's a long precedent for working young players in by initially placing them in situations where they are most likely to perform, and then expanding their role as they demonstrate their ability. Is there a long precedent? Suggestive results? Or is it just one of those things baseball managers do? Maybe the best way to get Nieuwenhuis to his lefties is to play him against lefties. repetition after all.. Or is the best time for him to learn to hit them after months of not seeing them at all? I remain unconvinced that 82 PA across two years means anything useful.

Edgy MD wrote: Collin Cowgill is a lot of things, but he never had any big league traction approaching what EY had last year, and he doesn't compare with regard to flexibility. The Mets have Murphy, Tejada, and Turner all who can play second base. I'm not really sure that flexibility is a big factor here.

Vic Sage wrote: Eric Young was not a total failure in Colorado. He never got more than 198 ABs in a season, and the following year he hit .315. He had a career BA there of over .260, which is about where he is now overall. I'm not saying he's a great hitter, or even a very good one, but no one has bothered to really find out yet. And with his speed and positional flexibility, i think it's worth finding out. . I mean, you could say much the same about Collin Cowgill, Andrew Brown, Hoffman and probably another guy or two in the minors. He had a good year last year in a limited role, but went back to struggling this year and the Rockies bet that it was the 200 AB last year that was the fluke, not that he'd suddenly turned a corner. His BABIP may in fact reflect that, plus it was Coors Field. I don't really think either of them is the answer, but I doubt Byrd falls off a cliff in a limited 4th OF type role next year if they were choosing between them for that. Young might OPS .600. I'll take the safer/power guy.

Edgy MD wrote: The platoon is working. It hopefully won't be necessary forever, but those two guys, outside of platoon protection, ain't working. Lagares vs Righties: .243 /.253 /.324 // .578 Lagares vs Lefties: .278 / .305 / .456 // .761 Nieuwenhuis vs. Righties: .222 / .312 / .395 // .707 Nieuwenhuis vs Lefties: .000 / .111 / .000 // .111 Let's not confuse Terry with anything else. Even if Byrd disappeared tomorrow, the platoon would/should likely/hopefully stay mostly intact, with Brown and Duda taking most of his time. sample size sample size sample size.

Swan Swan H wrote: Live, Turner's ball didn't look ripped - more of a medium fly that seemed to be headed for trouble - but that's not really the issue. The move I question is using Lagares to hit for Nooey in the seventh. It meant one less chip for the very late innings, plus it removes your second-best defensive outfielder from a 1-0 game. If he lets Nooey take his swings he could have run Lagares for Buck, which is a real speed upgrade, and then had Nooey up against Kimbrel in the ninth and Brown and Turner available to PH. And yes, Johnson was heading behind Hayward full speed. You never know where the ball ends up when a guy dives like that, but Johnson was where he was supposed to be. It was hard hit but was clearly hit in the air so there was going to be hang time. Turner just generally doesn't have the power to flick it to the wall, Brown takes that same swing it's to the track and down. Heyward was shifted the other way, so he ran real far to get there. I didn't see a replay but I'm sure the winning run ran just as far and was around third by that time. 2-outs and all, gotta dive. I agree on pinch-hitting Lagares there. I hate the idea of the platoon out there because I'd like to see both guys, Kirk more than Juan personally, as much as possible no matter how well Young and Byrd are doing. I almost want them to trade Byrd for literally nothing just to open up that spot. (And Duda will probably be back in a couple of weeks too.) It seemed like Terry was confident in the one run (And fine, it's Parnell, but Hawkins hadn't pitched yet) and wanted to take his shot there, in the 7th, never knowing what else could happen. But it led to the lesser matchup in the 9th against a struggling, wet closer in a key situation. He blew his managerial load in the 7th and was unloaded in the 9th.

Zvon wrote: Bad game for us, but great baseball. All of Terrys moves were working out fine. Got the ball to Parnell with a lead. Parnell was due, I guess. I don't buy into this "Parnell has finally become a real closer" club. Its the big games where he has to be the most effective. Its not a back breaking loss. But it would have been a wonderful win, and should have been. Score more runs all on the offense. Both closers were having trouble with the pitching, rough conditions and yet Parnell would've probably gotten out of it without the passed ball. He's always struggled with his defense behind (in front) of him. A couple of flares there too. shame.