Ceetar

Well Duda slumped the last two weeks or so, which wouldn't be so bad if someone else picked him up, or hell, maybe he wouldn't be slumping so hard in a better lineup (pressing, not getting as good pitches to hit, etc). I agree that the .777 he's slumped down to is probably too low for his defense, but if he can get back above .800 I think it works out nicely. Obviously you don't want him/that to be the best outfielder of the 42 the Mets have, but it should be a pretty solid contribution. He's clearly very bad at defense, but I think the defensive metrics might be overstating it just a tick. Last year I didn't think he was getting any better out there and was worried, but this year it does seem like he's grown a little.. One specific I've noticed is that he seems to be over-committing less than he was early on, but maybe that's just a sample size issue too. He seems to have a poor sense of when he can get to the ball with a dive, and a problem lining up his glove while he does so. I wonder if this is how all bad Outfielders eventually adjust; accept that you suck, stop trying to be Ron Swoboda or Endy Chavez and accept that those balls are going to fall in. Limit the singles from becoming doubles and triples, and his arm is at least decent that perhaps he can keep runners scoring from first on doubles.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: So you would keep everyone they have and hope that they get better? I think there are better odds of being a good team if you have guys who start hitting in April instead of July. you said yourself you can't replace all of them, so the point is to look at the guys that actually have potential instead of sweeping them all out with the trash. Marlon Byrd, John Buck fine. 1B is usually easier to fill, but Tejada for instance..where you finding someone even approaching his career numbers at a reasonable rate? Is that available? Or are you going to get stuck with Quintanilla there in the rush to cut out the problems?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm quite happy about their pitching prospects. I just think that there are too many needs for position players for there to be a quick (meaning next year) turnaround. I'm happy with Wright and Murphy and hope to be happy with d'Arnaud. Maybe Lagares too, if he gets a chance and makes the most of it. But Davis, Tejada, Byrd, Duda? We need to do better than that. Why? What if Davis does get it back together? Duda, after slumping for a bit now, is still 19% better than league average by OPS. That's certainly contributing. Yeah, You'd like .779 OPS to be the low point given his defense, but it seems like it is. Besides he fits the "contributing but we hate him" role on the roster that all Mets fans seem to need. Tejada is so young you could call him up for the first time now and you'd still say he was a young callup, maybe he shakes off whatever stupidity infected him early on and goes back to being an averagish defender with an okay bat at a prime position. If d'Arnaud makes an impact they could simply sign one very good outfielder and have a very good offense even if only some of these things happen. And a very good offense with the potential of this pitching staff is is a team that wins a lot of games. It's not all doom and gloom.

Our next Hall of Famer without Bacne is hitting .305/.339/.523 He's traded a few walks for home runs (14) so far this year, but still very good line. He's actually walking a little less with the Cardinals than he has anywhere else. That's 348 career homers, meaning his 350th could come here where his number will one day be retired after he's inducted. The other outfielders? Our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is playing Center Field and batting .256/.333/.356. Nothing great there. The resident travel agent in left field is off to a bit of a slower start, leading the lead in GiDP with 14 and hitting a still good .264/.354/.459. his babip is way down, so expect hits to start finding holes more often and those numbers come back up to normal. He's got 10 home runs. (That's Carlos Beltran, Jon Jay, and Matt Holliday from right to left if you couldn't decipher my code)

There was also the "I had Tommy John surgery and probably won't be available to pitch to start the season" bit with Pelfrey, but I guess we can gloss over that?

I really have no interest in Wally Backman.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: If, two or three years years ago, Perez was willing to acknowldege his knee injury and accept his Minor League reassignment, the response would have been more sympathetic and he might still be a Met today. His contract was guaranteed. Instead, he brought on all of the wrath by insisting on remaining with the big club, despite a fast ball that was almost 10 MPH slower and a total loss of pitch control. Another possibility would've been to actually DL him, have him actually rehab the knee, and work on regaining the velocity. And when you DL him, don't just ignore him and then randomly bring him back to the roster and stick him in the bullpen and forget about him. That was the most mind-boggling thing, that they knew his velocity was down, knew his knee was still weak, and did nothing about it. Of course, this is the same manager/pitching coach that saw symptoms of injury and velocity drops in Maine and decided to start him anyway..for 5 pitches and then changed their mind.

Omar Quintanilla � SS Jordany Valdespin � RF David Wright � 3B Daniel Murphy � 2B Mike Baxter � LF Ike Davis � 1B Anthony Recker � C Juan Lagares � CF Jonathon Niese � LHP

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I thought it was pretty good as a time travel thingy, but then, it was also a telekenisis thingy. Too many thingies for me. I like this in it hinted at evolution and how society might adapt to mutations and time travel and what not. The villain* so to speak was a more evolved version of it all it seemed, and it touches on the dual path that is often presented with such power to use it responsibly or for evil. I think BioShock Infinite spoiled it for me a bit though (Which is fine, it seems like some of the 'best' stories are video games, not movies, these days) and an aside, I don't know if this is the movie, or Starz, or what, but the volume of the conversations as compared to the action was jarring. I actually ended up putting on the closed captioning.

Swan Swan H wrote: So go in the back way, like Robinson used to have to do. through the junk yards. Bad idea if you go this weekend, they have no drainage and will have standing water.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Sheesh, it's like tax law. You claim it's designed to help the poor, but all it does is encourage the rich to come up with ever-more-sophisticated dodges. Isn't it a little more even-handed? The real trick seems to be to draft someone who'll sign for, say, a million or two under slot in the first*, then use that million to tempt a couple more iffy-signability types from their verbal commitments in the middle rounds. Expand the middle-class! Hand up, not hand out! *Assuming there's no once-in-a-generation type up when your team is scheduled to pick _That_ is what the Astros did. Basically got two first round picks that way .

Game time Saturday: 76, partly cloudy, precipitation chance down to 10%. Plus the sun icon on weather.com in Zip Code 11368, thank you very much. That was actually my zip when I lived in NYC. 98-40, 57th Avenue (IIRC). Okay fellow fans. Use tonight to stuff the All Star Game ballet boxes with the Wright stuff. Shouldn't we wait until AFTER the last ballot update to avoid a counterattack?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't know if it's coincidence or design, but they're drafting older players in the later rounds. The first four guys were all born in 1994 or 1995, but the next four were 1990, 1991, 1992, 1991. the 'trick' last year at least was to draft college seniors in the 7-10th round or so because they have zero leverage and will sign for whatever you tell them. You then take that money and give it to the high rounders, or a gamble pick at 11-15 to entice someone away from going to college.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Does no one know the answer to this? I know that there are basketball fans here... Benjamin Grimm wrote: Breaking the theme of this thread a little bit... There's an SNY commercial that says that if you stack all 29 New York City basketball players, they'd be able to reach the Statue of Liberty's nose. Why does New York City have an uneven number of basketball players? Don't the Knicks and Nets have the same number of players on their rosters? The rules says the roster size is 12+1 inactive so it must be including inactive players and development league guys so probably just an uneven number of inactive/injured players.

I'm sure this system would have plenty of problems, although it does sound better. Here's something to ponder. I'm an owner, I spend millions upon millions of dollars to found a private baseball academy. Best equipment, personal trainers, nutritionists, guest appearances by MLB alums from my organization. And then spend 4 years before the draft molding these players into the best players they can be all while indoctrinating them to 'my way'. And do my best to keep other teams scouts and officials from knowing much about them as much as I can. You'd lose some anyway, but less than you think. Look at the 'long toss' example from that Grantland post. The kids will be used to preparing and working out the way I've told them is the best, and when they learn other teams don't do it that way? Not to mention that richer teams might be able to simply afford to hire more scouts and send them to lesser 'hot beds' of players and sign a guy that's actually legitimately talented for peanuts because no one knows he exists. Didn't the Cardinals do this at one point? Just sign a billion guys, make a billion minor league teams and end up with more talent out of it?

Edgy MD wrote: Flawless game for Turner in left. didn't get on base once though.

I love baseball.

Fman99 wrote: Marcum vs Gonzalez. Discuss amongst yourselves. frankly, I don't want either of them to streak.

Edgy MD wrote: Hi, my name is Rob Carson. Have you seen my shit? I'm trying to find it. I"ve seen it. it's in pieces. Maybe you should get it together. Books. Lagares!

Vic Sage wrote: Ceetar wrote: If you expected the Mets offense to be this bad you were being overly pessimistic or just flat out guessing. Ha ha ha. you're funny. yes, this was totally unforseeable. And if you DID forsee it, you're a poopy pants. Your logic is positively Ceetardian. It wasn't unforeseeable, it was just pretty unlikely. And I'll add that it's pretty unlikely it stays this way too.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: There is, you know, a middle ground between "everything going right" and "everything going wrong." Correct, and while some things have gone as expected with regards to the offense, nothing has gone better than expected and quite a bit has gone wrong.

If you expected the Mets offense to be this bad you were being overly pessimistic or just flat out guessing.

clearly. Not buying free agents really messed with Davis and his approach at the plate. Jeff Wilpon literally tore out Santana's capsule to sell on the black market and Tejada was so down on the idea of a reduced payroll he decide he didn't really need to hit or field anymore.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: If Marcum has any trade value (and I emphasize the "if") then that option should get some consideration. I'm sure it will be. (and I suspect he will) But it might have to be Gee or Hef to the bullpen in the meantime, not sure the market picks up for a trade until July.

G-Fafif wrote: Ceetar wrote: Suddenly we've got too much depth? (unless Niese's tendinitis flares..) Potentially six starters for five slots isn't too much depth. It's just depth. never too much depth, true. I just meant we're potentially facing the 'hard decisions'