Ceetar

Edgy DC wrote: So who do I gotta sleep with to be a project? grab your glove. we'll have a CPF baseball game and tweet at all the scouts to come watch.

bmfc1 wrote: I guess Shorty didn't see what I saw last night: Davey using any one of his FOUR lefties to plow through Murphy, Davis and Thole. Or he saw Davey not having the righties up in those spots and sees it as a prime way to pinch hit and have Bay finish the game defensively with him?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: bmfc1 wrote: We're on the same wavelength Ceetar. You guys are in outer space. Half the team is on the disabled list and you're arguing they should have cut one guy before the season began. I didn't want them to cut him, I wanted them to not promote him to the 40 man roster. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me, if you're going to cut him this fast. If this is all you thought his upside was, why not keep F-Mart instead?

bmfc1 wrote: We're on the same wavelength Ceetar. I have no idea how the lineup is make out tonight. 2 righthanders. Bay obviously playing. Presumably Ike gets one of the days and Nieuwenhuis the other?

bmfc1 wrote: I have trouble with the concept that Satin was important enough to get a key AB in last night's game and yet be insignificant enough to be discarded the day after. This is my point. If he's just disposable depth anyway, why ever add him to the 40 man? Why bring him up after the Mets were eliminated last year. Save the 40 man spot. He's DFA'd now anyway, if someone wants him, he's gone. If someone wanted him this offseason, they would've had to keep him on the major league roster or give him back, so if you don't think he's a full time player anyway, chances are you'll get him back if someone does claim him. Now someone can claim him and he can be that AAAA guy for them, as long as they have the roster flexibility the Mets don't.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Why take him off the roster in November when you needed him in June? "Need" him? What did he get, one AB? Isn't it entirely possible he was promoted because he was on the 40man and that if he was never put on it, they'd have added someone else?

why what?

bmfc1 wrote: Bay and Beato are back, C. Young is on paternity leave and Satin was DFA'd. I hope that Satin gets through waivers. Satin's a weird guy. I guess you can blame drafting him but he tore it up last year in the minors, they added him to the 40 man, and now he's expendable? Feels like they should've just taken the chance no one would take him rule-5 and leave him off the roster.

Vic Sage wrote: as far as IF defense goes, where was that post where Ceetar proclaimed Valdespin an adequate everyday SS option, in Tejada's absence? Doubt it exists. and I if said adequate I was thinking more Justin Turner levels than Me playing there levels. (I would've gotten that ball) I knew the guy had a made a billion errors at SS. I've never thought he's even deserved a callup.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm more curious, I think, about who they would trade rather than who they would get. I don't think the Mets are inclined to deal their top prospects (nor should they be) and beyond that, who can they trade? Maybe they have a few guys who are not quite blue chip, but who would have some trade value. (Nieuwenhuis? Gee?) But I don't see that players of that caliber can be traded for a real difference maker. would resolve some 40man issues though. I thought they'd pull of some prospects for help moves this offseason for that reason. But I don't think they'll necessarily be moving guys that are helping.

Nymr83 wrote: Buster Olney says that 25 or so teams are close enough that they aren't ready to be sellers yet, so who are the 5 potential sellers? I'm seeing the Cubs, A's, Mariners, Twins, and Padres as the best possibilities. Any Metly interest in their guys? Garza?

metirish wrote: . Are they flip floppers if they send him down?, should Ike approach them and asked to be sent down as advocated by Boomer and Carton this morning? They'd absolutely kill him for that later on for having no 'competitive fire' or whatever. And I get that I guess. I don't see Ike, or really any professional athlete that hasn't hit absolutely rock bottom (and maybe he has), ever thinking "I should go away and work on some things" over "I've been putting my work in, TODAY is the day I break out." They're not flip-floppers though, if they do. No decisions are ever final. If you let him last through the little league park in the Bronx and he still looks bad, give him 2 weeks in Buffalo and recall him for the Wrigley Field series. My impression the last couple of days weren't so much that he was missing things, but more that he was guessing wrong and taking at the wrong times. Gary or Keith or someone has mentioned this. He'll take that easy to hit pitch early, and he keeps getting in these 0-2 counts where the pitchers are that much harder. sometimes he fights back to 2-2 but usually thats because the pitcher missed, and he's going to miss outside because it's a pitcher's count. So he's got three tries to make the perfect pitch and usually either Ike swings at the pitch that drops out of the zone, or it nicks the corner and he's out looking.

metirish wrote: About last night Terry? Was Terry putting Valdespin in over Quintinilla doublespeak going against his "he's not a SS" line or was it a measure of accountability for Q? "You make an error, you don't get to play"? Of course, the infield's gonna only have David Wright on it tonight if that's the logic.

Edgy DC wrote: And I think it was the wrong confluence of circumstances. Was Young really on a 75-pitch limit? 90 I thought. He was up to..83?

Edgy DC wrote: I don't think it "just so happened" that Davey's last pitcher was a "long-reliever type." well, generally your long-reliever is a "hey, that guy sorta sucks" guy that you don't want to use elsewhere. In the Mets case, given Johan and Young starting today first game back and pitch counts and all that, Terry was set to use Miguel, also back from injury, early to keep his 'good' bullpen guys from getting overworked from here. not that it "just so happened" but it was the right confluence of circumstances. I disagree without double-switching out Duda too.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: We all knew the D was gonna be lousy this year, it's just so disheartening to see it play out. there's a difference between 'subpar' and what happened last night. plus it was Quintinilla and Valdespin who weren't exactly the ones in the equation. Tejada, Cedeno or Turner and we win that game.

On Dickey, I suspect he threw a bullpen or something earlier in the day. I know it's a knuckleball, but he's still 37. his legs are 37. etc. I'm sure they figured with Batista doing the long relief if Young went short they'd be fine playing two short in the pen. (also Batista was just back, so who even knows what he would give you) But managers rarely plan for extra innings it seems, and this was where it was shortsighted. At the time of using Batista he was barely considering the option of it. It's one of those 'use everybody every day' thing. Davey did the same, it just so happens his last guy was a long reliever type. We'd have had Hefner (or he'd be down for another reliever) if not for Johan sadly enough. I would've DL'd Rauch given that he hasn't been effective, the pen is short, and it's not like "uhh, just sit there for three days" is a guarantee cure. hate the bunt, particularly at the bottom of the order like that. Hefner probably would've been a wise call. Especially after the tie when you needed him anyway if you were going to win. I know it messes up tomorrow, and there really aren't any starters and its' a mess and whatever (I don't think you bring Dickey back on short rest without preparing. Someone floated the idea of a spot start for Familia tomorrow. one and done since it was his day anyway and he's on the 40 man) but Hefner probably could've given you plenty of innings and suddenly the Mets have the bullpen advantage as their guy was tiring as well. Plus Hefner hit a home run the other day, maybe he would've put bat on ball and gotten lucky in the top of the inning.

Edgy DC wrote: Tim Teufel, I'm sure, is a great leader of men, but he was also the worst in the league at turning two. I'm glad to see him on the Mets staff, but I can think of two dozen men without trying that I'd rather see as our big league infield instructor. is there a correlation? between the physical ability to do it and the ability to teach others to do so?

metirish wrote: Listened tonthe last four innings in bed, good radio, Elvin in the long term will help this team more than hurt, got good stuff and hopefully learns from his tough introduction to the big leagues. yeah, I actually don't really blame the bullpen here. Parnell was real good. Elvin wasn't horrible, and I suspect that was waaay out of his comfort zone there and I imagine he was more gassed than anything at the end. People were criticizing the Nats for swinging, but kudos to Ramirez for getting it at least close enough and hard enough to get them to swing. (although I have no idea what the pticher was doing with the bunting) The game-winning hit was really just a soft liner.

http://www.amazon.com/Diggin-Jr-Big-Boom-Bat/dp/B001648Z9W

Elvin Ramirez is due up fourth.

Edgy DC wrote: The Mets have something of a cycle. All four infield positions have butterfingered this game. did I miss a Wright misstep?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: We need to recruit a GIF-maker. Because that Charlie Brown face Zimmermann just made watching SugarPants' fly leave the park is so good, it should require confession afterward. do any of you have an MLB.TV account? sorta required. *checks for a gif making program* I can use PHotoshop right?