Ceetar

Woah that Casey Stengel image is huge!

="Edgy DC":2fnb9t9w]The Nats need infielders, not outfielders. The other thing is that similar mysteries plagued him in DC. Despite outhitting and outfielding his competition, he had to fight for any playing time he could get, and would be farmed out at the first sign of a slump while his lessers continued to enjoy major league concierge service. There were whispers of attitude issues and differences with his manager, but nothing specific. I had consigned it to the "Whatever" file. It's the Nats after all, but now I wonder if there may be something relevant there.[/quote:2fnb9t9w] The Amazin' Casey Stengel PostYou get a sense in baseball sometimes that there are certain people that there are certain attitudes that are expected, and ones that keep people on the outside. There is a lot of 'old school' type mentalities that are a little unfair, and I wonder if maybe Church is just a guy that doesn't fit the mold. It doesn't make him a bad player, but he may have trouble being 'liked' by certain 'baseball guys'. Ceetar May 19 2009 09:52 AM Woah that Casey Stengel image is huge! Frayed Knot May 19 2009 10:22 AM ="Edgy DC":1yt9vzvj]In fairness, that doesn't mean that the second-base guy wasn't following the play.[/quote:1yt9vzvj] No, the 3rd base ump was right there and it was he who made the call. Couldn't tell from the brief replay I saw whether he was looking directly at the foot and base at that moment but essentially it's his only job there so I suspect he was. In any case, I'd certainly believe he did before taking Boomer & Carton's word for it that he wasn't. That's generally not a call umps make when they only suspect a guy goofed. HahnSolo May 19 2009 10:24 AM ="Edgy DC":28jn3asd]In fairness, that doesn't mean that the second-base guy wasn't following the play.[/quote:28jn3asd] True, but on an appeal, can the ump ask for help? I was under the assumption that on an appeal play that base's ump had to make the call. Rotblatt May 19 2009 10:36 AM I haven't even seen the replay yet, but just given our penchant for mental errors so far this season, I'm willing to buy that he missed it. I'd be curious to know when the last time a call like that decided a game, and what that manager's reaction was: did he stick up for his player, or throw him under the bus? IIRC, Manuel never liked Church. Didn't he refuse to say that Church had the starting job this spring, even though he was hitting the cover off the ball? I like Church. He hit well pre-concussion for us, as well as this April (.845 OPS) and he's stellar defensively. I was really hoping that we'd be the first team to give him a full-time job, but obviously that's not gonna happen. If we're not going to use him, we might as well trade him, and we could certainly use a first baseman. Johnson would be expensive right now, though--he's hitting .336 with 24 RBIs--and like Edgy said, the Nats have more outfielders than they know what to do with. Benjamin Grimm May 19 2009 11:09 AM When you have outfielders, you play them in the infield. Rockin' Doc May 19 2009 11:25 AM The MLB website clip of Church running the bases is totally inconclusive. You can't really tell anything from that video. I think the most conclusive evidence (circumstantial as it may be) that he missed the bag is the immediate reaction of the Dodger players pointing to third base and calling for the appeal and the total lack of an argument by Church, Manuel, or any of the Mets coaches. I'm sure there must be better footage of the play than what is posted on MLB's website. Benjamin Grimm May 19 2009 11:26 AM I'm waiting to hear what Cookie Lavagetto has to say about it. gerrard00 May 19 2009 11:48 AM I really feel bad for Church, I don't think he was given a fair chance to succeed. Admittedly, missing third in that situation is inexcusable...but I'm not sure it's much worse than the new team wide aversion to sliding. Edgy DC May 19 2009 12:00 PM Yeah, it does hurt that one of the guys to express his open flabbergastment was Beltran. Frayed Knot May 19 2009 01:39 PM ="HahnSolo":3r9ecv1y]="Edgy DC":3r9ecv1y]In fairness, that doesn't mean that the second-base guy wasn't following the play.[/quote:3r9ecv1y] True, but on an appeal, can the ump ask for help? I was under the assumption that on an appeal play that base's ump had to make the call.[/quote:3r9ecv1y] If the umps had "rotated" on the play and the 3rd base ump's attention was diverted elsewhere as a result (ie. a hit into the LF corner where he runs out to check on fan interference while home ump covers 3rd) he simply would have deferred to his fellow ump once the appeal was made. Edgy DC May 20 2009 06:16 AM "When I asked my third-base coach if he missed the bag, he said he missed the bag," Manuel said. So what's Shines' responsiblity there? Should he be stopping his hourse in full gallop and making him turn back and retouch, or should he look away and hope he was the only one who noticed? Other Church bulletins: ="David Lennon"]Manuel denied Tuesday that there is a rift between him and Church - "I like Ryan" he said - and the outfielder played along. As for getting thrown under the bus after the game, Church shrugged. As for the perceived rift, which Church hears about from fans as well as media, he insists that's not the case. "People read too much into it,"Church said. "They're not in here. [Manuel] cares, he's got a good heart and he wants me to succeed." That doesn't mean Manuel can't get angry. And he explained away his skewering of Church by chalking it up to emotion. It's too early to know if they will be exchanging birthday gifts this year or following each other on Twitter. Neither Manuel nor Church used the term BFF to describe the other, in case you were wondering. "You're doggone right I was mad at him," Manuel said, smiling. "If he was my son, I would have strangled him." Anthony Manuel: "Errrr..."

Here's my rant on why we need to fire this bum. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/05/fire-jerry-manuel/ Easily the worst manager we've had in at least 15 years.

="Edgy DC":987xel92]It'd be nice to read Razor Shines saying that he has a responsiblity there also. I was long since unconscious. The video I saw this morning was inconclusive. Was it clear that he missed last night?[/quote:987xel92] It wasn't conclusive to me from the side. They never showed it from above. Did he brush up against it? of course, Church not arguing suggests that he did miss it. Razor apparently wasn't watching, but Torre and the Dodgers were.. Vic Sage May 19 2009 09:06 AM how about trading him back to the Nats for Nick Johnson? Swan Swan H May 19 2009 09:09 AM I said it in the IGT, but as I was watching I thought he missed it. His foot landed flat on the field level, and unless he just nicked the side of the base he certainly didn't step on it. I think the lack of argument from Church and Manuel speaks pretty clearly as to whether he missed it. Edgy DC May 19 2009 09:15 AM The Nats need infielders, not outfielders. The other thing is that similar mysteries plagued him in DC. Despite outhitting and outfielding his competition, he had to fight for any playing time he could get, and would be farmed out at the first sign of a slump while his lessers continued to enjoy major league concierge service. There were whispers of attitude issues and differences with his manager, but nothing specific. I had consigned it to the "Whatever" file. It's the Nats after all, but now I wonder if there may be something relevant there. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 19 2009 09:17 AM ="David Lennon"]Clearly, Church and Manuel don't have much of a relationship. Maybe it's distrust from the whole mess last year. Maybe it's because of playing time. It's kind of a chicken-egg situation. Did it go south because of the lack of playing time? Or was it bad and that's when Jerry stopped using him. Either way, Jerry was not pleased by the third-base blunder and I definitely see Church being moved in a deal. I think he has value, too. He's a good defensive rightfielder and in teh right spot, is a productive hitter. We've seen glimpses here. I like Church personally, as do many of his teammates, but he's probably better off somewhere else. metirish May 19 2009 09:44 AM I would have hoped that Manuel was above such nonsense and that this team had moved past this silly crap. HahnSolo May 19 2009 09:45 AM I watched it on Mets Fast Forward this AM, and it looked like he might have missed it. However, I also noticed, and it was also pointed out by Boomer and Carton, that the 3rd base ump did not appear to be looking at the base. Edgy DC May 19 2009 09:49 AM In fairness, that doesn't mean that the second-base guy wasn't following the play. Ceetar May 19 2009 09:51 AM ="Edgy DC":2fnb9t9w]The Nats need infielders, not outfielders. The other thing is that similar mysteries plagued him in DC. Despite outhitting and outfielding his competition, he had to fight for any playing time he could get, and would be farmed out at the first sign of a slump while his lessers continued to enjoy major league concierge service. There were whispers of attitude issues and differences with his manager, but nothing specific. I had consigned it to the "Whatever" file. It's the Nats after all, but now I wonder if there may be something relevant there.[/quote:2fnb9t9w] The Amazin' Casey Stengel PostYou get a sense in baseball sometimes that there are certain people that there are certain attitudes that are expected, and ones that keep people on the outside. There is a lot of 'old school' type mentalities that are a little unfair, and I wonder if maybe Church is just a guy that doesn't fit the mold. It doesn't make him a bad player, but he may have trouble being 'liked' by certain 'baseball guys'. Ceetar May 19 2009 09:52 AM Woah that Casey Stengel image is huge! Frayed Knot May 19 2009 10:22 AM ="Edgy DC":1yt9vzvj]In fairness, that doesn't mean that the second-base guy wasn't following the play.[/quote:1yt9vzvj] No, the 3rd base ump was right there and it was he who made the call. Couldn't tell from the brief replay I saw whether he was looking directly at the foot and base at that moment but essentially it's his only job there so I suspect he was. In any case, I'd certainly believe he did before taking Boomer & Carton's word for it that he wasn't. That's generally not a call umps make when they only suspect a guy goofed. HahnSolo May 19 2009 10:24 AM ="Edgy DC":28jn3asd]In fairness, that doesn't mean that the second-base guy wasn't following the play.[/quote:28jn3asd] True, but on an appeal, can the ump ask for help? I was under the assumption that on an appeal play that base's ump had to make the call. Rotblatt May 19 2009 10:36 AM I haven't even seen the replay yet, but just given our penchant for mental errors so far this season, I'm willing to buy that he missed it. I'd be curious to know when the last time a call like that decided a game, and what that manager's reaction was: did he stick up for his player, or throw him under the bus? IIRC, Manuel never liked Church. Didn't he refuse to say that Church had the starting job this spring, even though he was hitting the cover off the ball? I like Church. He hit well pre-concussion for us, as well as this April (.845 OPS) and he's stellar defensively. I was really hoping that we'd be the first team to give him a full-time job, but obviously that's not gonna happen. If we're not going to use him, we might as well trade him, and we could certainly use a first baseman. Johnson would be expensive right now, though--he's hitting .336 with 24 RBIs--and like Edgy said, the Nats have more outfielders than they know what to do with. Benjamin Grimm May 19 2009 11:09 AM When you have outfielders, you play them in the infield. Rockin' Doc May 19 2009 11:25 AM The MLB website clip of Church running the bases is totally inconclusive. You can't really tell anything from that video. I think the most conclusive evidence (circumstantial as it may be) that he missed the bag is the immediate reaction of the Dodger players pointing to third base and calling for the appeal and the total lack of an argument by Church, Manuel, or any of the Mets coaches. I'm sure there must be better footage of the play than what is posted on MLB's website. Benjamin Grimm May 19 2009 11:26 AM I'm waiting to hear what Cookie Lavagetto has to say about it. gerrard00 May 19 2009 11:48 AM I really feel bad for Church, I don't think he was given a fair chance to succeed. Admittedly, missing third in that situation is inexcusable...but I'm not sure it's much worse than the new team wide aversion to sliding. Edgy DC May 19 2009 12:00 PM Yeah, it does hurt that one of the guys to express his open flabbergastment was Beltran. Frayed Knot May 19 2009 01:39 PM ="HahnSolo":3r9ecv1y]="Edgy DC":3r9ecv1y]In fairness, that doesn't mean that the second-base guy wasn't following the play.[/quote:3r9ecv1y] True, but on an appeal, can the ump ask for help? I was under the assumption that on an appeal play that base's ump had to make the call.[/quote:3r9ecv1y] If the umps had "rotated" on the play and the 3rd base ump's attention was diverted elsewhere as a result (ie. a hit into the LF corner where he runs out to check on fan interference while home ump covers 3rd) he simply would have deferred to his fellow ump once the appeal was made. Edgy DC May 20 2009 06:16 AM "When I asked my third-base coach if he missed the bag, he said he missed the bag," Manuel said. So what's Shines' responsiblity there? Should he be stopping his hourse in full gallop and making him turn back and retouch, or should he look away and hope he was the only one who noticed? Other Church bulletins: ="David Lennon"]Manuel denied Tuesday that there is a rift between him and Church - "I like Ryan" he said - and the outfielder played along. As for getting thrown under the bus after the game, Church shrugged. As for the perceived rift, which Church hears about from fans as well as media, he insists that's not the case. "People read too much into it,"Church said. "They're not in here. [Manuel] cares, he's got a good heart and he wants me to succeed." That doesn't mean Manuel can't get angry. And he explained away his skewering of Church by chalking it up to emotion. It's too early to know if they will be exchanging birthday gifts this year or following each other on Twitter. Neither Manuel nor Church used the term BFF to describe the other, in case you were wondering. "You're doggone right I was mad at him," Manuel said, smiling. "If he was my son, I would have strangled him." Anthony Manuel: "Errrr..."

This probably means Delgado will not hit 500 with the Mets.

="holychicken":16pq6d16]It is probably better for Murphy to take as many of his defensive lumps at this time of the year, very far away from the NY media, and while most NYM fans are asleep, instead of in September, in NY when all Mets fans are nearly suicidal just waiting for a collapse and someone to blame it on before it even comes. But I guess that would still be managing from fear. But considering the NY media, I don't blame him in this case.[/quote:16pq6d16] Well, Id' have no problem with that. If Delgado becomes done for the year, I think Murphy at first is probably the best long term option. Might as well get him at least the basis of experience there. holychicken May 18 2009 08:33 AM ="Ceetar":2g9k9ngw]="holychicken":2g9k9ngw]It is probably better for Murphy to take as many of his defensive lumps at this time of the year, very far away from the NY media, and while most NYM fans are asleep, instead of in September, in NY when all Mets fans are nearly suicidal just waiting for a collapse and someone to blame it on before it even comes. But I guess that would still be managing from fear. But considering the NY media, I don't blame him in this case.[/quote:2g9k9ngw] Well, Id' have no problem with that. If Delgado becomes done for the year, I think Murphy at first is probably the best long term option. Might as well get him at least the basis of experience there.[/quote:2g9k9ngw] Then playing him at first would be out of fear too. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Edgy DC May 18 2009 08:39 AM I'm not saying he's not fine. But why put a very good career outfielder at first, while you have a career infielder, if a fair one, playing outfield, where he's been playing poorly. Let's look at guys conservatively on the devensive scale of Poor(1)/Fair(2)/Average(3)/Very Good(4)/Excellent(5). Looking most generously at Manuel's strategy, let's rank Murphy as a Poor firstbaseman and a Fair leftfielder. We know Reed is at least a Very Good leftfielder, and we can't assume, due to his inexperience, that he can be considered any better than a Fair at first. (Again, I'm being generous to Jerry here.) With Murphy in left and Reed at first, you have two 2's in the lineup. The other way around, you have a 4 and a 1. And that, for the last time, is being generous to Jerry. I have little reason to think Murphy would be a poorer firstbaseman than he is a leftfielder. And value in left is worth more than value at first, according to the theory of the defensive spectrum. smg58 May 18 2009 12:35 PM I'm for making a trade. The way the Indians are juggling Ryan Garko with a couple of younger guys, I bet he could be had on the cheap. Outside of a really bad first half last year, he's been a decent hitter. Plus he mostly played catcher through the minors, and the Mets don't have a Victor Martinez (or even a Kelly Shoppach) keeping him from playing there if (and hopefully when) Delgado comes back. And while we're at it, we could ask the Indians if they're making Cliff Lee available yet. Edgy DC May 18 2009 01:20 PM ="holychicken":1t57xn2y]But I guess that would still be managing from fear. But considering the NY media, I don't blame him in this case.[/quote:1t57xn2y] I sure do. Media relations is spelled W-I-N. Nymr83 May 18 2009 01:56 PM ="Edgy DC":1qhwlapr]Media relations is spelled W-I-N.[/quote:1qhwlapr] Best quote ever. you could have stamped that to the asses of Eric Mangini, Herm Edwards, and Art Howe on their respective ways out of town. holychicken May 18 2009 02:19 PM ="Edgy DC":i66f7xyk]="holychicken":i66f7xyk]But I guess that would still be managing from fear. But considering the NY media, I don't blame him in this case.[/quote:i66f7xyk] I sure do. Media relations is spelled W-I-N.[/quote:i66f7xyk] Sure. But with all parts of managing, you have to look down the road as well. If the idea is to make Murphy your everyday left fielder, what better place to give him some extra time to learn the ropes than in the relatively obscure west coast? Doing it now means that every Mets fan isn't going to be holding their breath during every round-about route he takes to a ball and wondering what the heck he is doing out there in the first place. Really, if they think Delgado is going to be coming back, I don't see it as a bad idea to keep Murphy learning the position they want him to be playing. Ashie62 May 18 2009 02:32 PM Murphy may be odd man out for some time...barring a trade Reed/Tatis at 1B and Sheff daily in OF They seriously need to find this guy a position even if its at Buffalo Edgy DC May 18 2009 02:38 PM ="holychicken":w0mjtg4b]If the idea is to make Murphy your everyday left fielder, what better place to give him some extra time to learn the ropes than in the relatively obscure west coast?[/quote:w0mjtg4b] I think he's as likely to end up at first base as left field. We have surfeit of outfielders --- real ones --- and we need a firstbaseman now and perhaps for the forseeable future. I don't think hiding him on the west coast is going to make him a better outfielder. I think treating him like a man and using him where he best helps the team will. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 02:39 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 18 2009 03:28 PM If this past week is at all indicative of the way in which he'll be used going forward (unless he's smacking the holy hell out of the ball), I would advocate shopping Daniel Murphy for, say, Mark DeRosa right now (or as soon as the Wedge firing occurs/Cleveland fire sale begins). While I understand it's coincident with a quasi-slump/Sheffield's seizing of opportunity, it's rather strange that a rash of injuries has led to a drop in ABs for the guy. EDIT: Yick. Sherman agrees with me (sorta).[/url] holychicken May 18 2009 02:46 PM ="Edgy DC"]I think he's as likely to end up at first base as left field. And you may be right. However, if Jerry does not believe this then I think the move is not as nonsensical as you make it out to be. ]I don't think hiding him on the west coast is going to make him a better outfielder. I am not so sure about this. But even if you don't want to give any credence to the idea of hiding some of his almost gaffs out there, certainly you have to admit that the practice will make him better. ]I think treating him like a man and using him where he best helps the team will. And if the intent is to make him the everyday left fielder, why isn't more experience in left field the place for him? Edgy DC May 19 2009 05:40 AM Because experienced infielders in the outfield while experienced outfielders are staffing the infield is no way to win games.

Manuel manages like that too much. With fear. Like when he won't pull Feliciano because he's scared Cox would pinch hit Garret Anderson. I think Reed could be decent. and he played good defense yesterday actually. (Better than Tatis). I'm fine with rotating Reed and Tatis, (provided Reyes is in the lineup) and letting Murph get 90% of the starts in LF. On the other hand, I really think Murphy should get almost every start, and if Sheffield is going to be playing all these games as a OBP guy, than Murphy should be at 1B to be in the game.

="RealityChuck":2qolk1xx]="Ceetar":2qolk1xx]if this becomes an issue, they'll probably have some crazy fix. Like have Church play SS and put Murphy in right.[/quote:2qolk1xx]A left-handed throwing shortstop is not an idea whose time has come.[/quote:2qolk1xx] That won't stop them. Besides, if you asked Keith, i'm sure he'd tell you that a "Right-handed first baseman is not an idea whose time has come." ;-) Actually, is that why Murphy and Reed are the two guys Manuel decided to mention about playing 1B? And..I've always wondered this, but why does Delgado play 1B righty? or why does he bad Lefty? which is it?! Edgy DC May 18 2009 08:22 AM ="Ceetar":32kkfa9d]Actually, is that why Murphy and Reed are the two guys Manuel decided to mention about playing 1B?[/quote:32kkfa9d] Since Murphy hasn't played yet, and Reed is behind Tatis, I'll guess not. DocTee May 18 2009 08:49 AM Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position! Nymr83 May 18 2009 09:35 AM ="DocTee":1a1olmaw]Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position![/quote:1a1olmaw] 15 years, 45 lbs, and a dozen injections ago maybe. Gwreck May 18 2009 10:29 AM ="DocTee":2fu35ilo]Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position![/quote:2fu35ilo] Hey, by that token, the solution is to put Delgado (once healthy) back at Catcher and use Tatis at first. No need to put Schneider, Castro or Santos in the lineup. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 11:47 AM ="Gwreck":35na9z32]="DocTee":35na9z32]Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position![/quote:35na9z32] Hey, by that token, the solution is to put Delgado (once healthy) back at Catcher and use Tatis at first. No need to put Schneider, Castro or Santos in the lineup.[/quote:35na9z32] Marketing slogan: "Just like 1986... minus all that annoying pitching!" Benjamin Grimm May 18 2009 11:50 AM You know, we'd all like to see Bobby Valentine come back. (I'm included in that group.) But I think I'd almost rather see Davey Johnson come back. I think he'd be a good for this particular team. Not at all likely to happen, of course, but if I were in charge, I'd consider reaching out to him. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 11:58 AM ="soupcan":30mmzwu6]What did I miss? Why are we talking about replacement shortstops? Jose's injury more serious than first thought? I haven't read or seen that anywhere. Cora's finger broke or something? Edgy just worrying too much?[/quote:30mmzwu6] Cora already sprained his left thumb during the game Saturday sliding after a double... then did the same to his right thumb last night in the first on the EXACT SAME PLAY. Headfirst slides and dumbshit plays make the Creepy Sun Baby cry. Ashie62 May 18 2009 02:38 PM Can Murphy learn short if Reyes is going on hiatus? Are we getting the Jose on DL after 9 days routine Elster88 May 18 2009 10:48 PM Two errors and some awful turns at the plate for Ramon. Early returns indicate he is not a major league shortstop. smg58 May 19 2009 06:56 AM I hope Minaya has Jose Valentin's number on speed dial. Elster88 May 19 2009 10:00 PM How many at-bats until Ramon Martinez gets his first hit? I say 25 or being sent back down to AAA, whichever comes first. Edgy DC May 22 2009 08:08 PM OK, time to talk shortstops. Part of me thinks Putz was held out because he's being dangled as trade bait. Tejada at Bingo: .236 / .301 / .356 // .657 in 36 games. Coronado at Bingo: .316 / .409 / .474 // .883 in six games, but... Coronado at Buff: .141 / .240 / .165 // .404 in 29 games. Gun to my head, I go with Jose over Ruben, but... John Cougar Lunchbucket May 22 2009 08:14 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 22 2009 08:18 PM Nevermind, just unnecessarily breaking nuts. Rockin' Doc May 22 2009 08:16 PM I'd go with whoever was the best defensively. It's not like their losing offense compared to Martinez. Martinez is not hitting (.063) and he has already committed 4 errors in roughly 25 innings. Edgy DC May 22 2009 08:30 PM My nuts have been busted to the consistency of baby powder already today. Edgy DC May 24 2009 09:45 PM Alexi Casilla, a prospect in the Luis Castillo mold who failed to replaced Luis when Castillo went to the Mets. Still young, played as much short as second in the minors, and is getting big league money to play down there now. Shot in the dark.

="G-Fafif":1n59fpds]Anybody seen Chris Woodward lately? Jorge Velandia? Luis Rivera? Rey Ordonez, even with birth certificate adjusted, is under 40. And he couldn't have possibly lost anything off his offensive game. Can't lose what ya don't got.[/quote:1n59fpds] Couldn't hurt to have a '99 Mets connection on the team. (No, Steve Phillips on the broadcast last night doesn't count.) if this becomes an issue, they'll probably have some crazy fix. Like have Church play SS and put Murphy in right. Frayed Knot May 18 2009 07:05 AM Jerry is quoted in today's NYPost at being slightly concerned with the "slow healing" of Reyes's calf strain. Nymr83 May 18 2009 07:40 AM ] Like have Church play SS doesnt he throw lefty? Edgy DC May 18 2009 07:40 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 18 2009 09:38 AM ]Jerry is quoted in today's NYPost at being slightly concerned with the "slow healing" of Reyes's calf strain. That does it. He's been dead for two days, and they're sitting on the story. RealityChuck May 18 2009 07:40 AM ="Ceetar":2rws4j9d]if this becomes an issue, they'll probably have some crazy fix. Like have Church play SS and put Murphy in right.[/quote:2rws4j9d]A left-handed throwing shortstop is not an idea whose time has come. Ceetar May 18 2009 07:42 AM ="RealityChuck":2qolk1xx]="Ceetar":2qolk1xx]if this becomes an issue, they'll probably have some crazy fix. Like have Church play SS and put Murphy in right.[/quote:2qolk1xx]A left-handed throwing shortstop is not an idea whose time has come.[/quote:2qolk1xx] That won't stop them. Besides, if you asked Keith, i'm sure he'd tell you that a "Right-handed first baseman is not an idea whose time has come." ;-) Actually, is that why Murphy and Reed are the two guys Manuel decided to mention about playing 1B? And..I've always wondered this, but why does Delgado play 1B righty? or why does he bad Lefty? which is it?! Edgy DC May 18 2009 08:22 AM ="Ceetar":32kkfa9d]Actually, is that why Murphy and Reed are the two guys Manuel decided to mention about playing 1B?[/quote:32kkfa9d] Since Murphy hasn't played yet, and Reed is behind Tatis, I'll guess not. DocTee May 18 2009 08:49 AM Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position! Nymr83 May 18 2009 09:35 AM ="DocTee":1a1olmaw]Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position![/quote:1a1olmaw] 15 years, 45 lbs, and a dozen injections ago maybe. Gwreck May 18 2009 10:29 AM ="DocTee":2fu35ilo]Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position![/quote:2fu35ilo] Hey, by that token, the solution is to put Delgado (once healthy) back at Catcher and use Tatis at first. No need to put Schneider, Castro or Santos in the lineup. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 11:47 AM ="Gwreck":35na9z32]="DocTee":35na9z32]Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position![/quote:35na9z32] Hey, by that token, the solution is to put Delgado (once healthy) back at Catcher and use Tatis at first. No need to put Schneider, Castro or Santos in the lineup.[/quote:35na9z32] Marketing slogan: "Just like 1986... minus all that annoying pitching!" Benjamin Grimm May 18 2009 11:50 AM You know, we'd all like to see Bobby Valentine come back. (I'm included in that group.) But I think I'd almost rather see Davey Johnson come back. I think he'd be a good for this particular team. Not at all likely to happen, of course, but if I were in charge, I'd consider reaching out to him. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 11:58 AM ="soupcan":30mmzwu6]What did I miss? Why are we talking about replacement shortstops? Jose's injury more serious than first thought? I haven't read or seen that anywhere. Cora's finger broke or something? Edgy just worrying too much?[/quote:30mmzwu6] Cora already sprained his left thumb during the game Saturday sliding after a double... then did the same to his right thumb last night in the first on the EXACT SAME PLAY. Headfirst slides and dumbshit plays make the Creepy Sun Baby cry. Ashie62 May 18 2009 02:38 PM Can Murphy learn short if Reyes is going on hiatus? Are we getting the Jose on DL after 9 days routine Elster88 May 18 2009 10:48 PM Two errors and some awful turns at the plate for Ramon. Early returns indicate he is not a major league shortstop. smg58 May 19 2009 06:56 AM I hope Minaya has Jose Valentin's number on speed dial. Elster88 May 19 2009 10:00 PM How many at-bats until Ramon Martinez gets his first hit? I say 25 or being sent back down to AAA, whichever comes first. Edgy DC May 22 2009 08:08 PM OK, time to talk shortstops. Part of me thinks Putz was held out because he's being dangled as trade bait. Tejada at Bingo: .236 / .301 / .356 // .657 in 36 games. Coronado at Bingo: .316 / .409 / .474 // .883 in six games, but... Coronado at Buff: .141 / .240 / .165 // .404 in 29 games. Gun to my head, I go with Jose over Ruben, but... John Cougar Lunchbucket May 22 2009 08:14 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 22 2009 08:18 PM Nevermind, just unnecessarily breaking nuts. Rockin' Doc May 22 2009 08:16 PM I'd go with whoever was the best defensively. It's not like their losing offense compared to Martinez. Martinez is not hitting (.063) and he has already committed 4 errors in roughly 25 innings. Edgy DC May 22 2009 08:30 PM My nuts have been busted to the consistency of baby powder already today. Edgy DC May 24 2009 09:45 PM Alexi Casilla, a prospect in the Luis Castillo mold who failed to replaced Luis when Castillo went to the Mets. Still young, played as much short as second in the minors, and is getting big league money to play down there now. Shot in the dark.

Andy Green didn't look great in Spring (although he signed my ball) if I ever see Argenis again, I might stop watching. Ramon Martinez might be an okay guy. Ruben Tejada impressed me, but I don't think he's ready to play at the major league level yet. (In fact, he didn't have a name on the back of his jersey, and wore either 86 or 87 depending on if it was available in the home/away color scheme) He always hasn't quite gotten comfortable turning a double play. I think Reyes and Cora will probably be fine. I didn't listen to postgame stuff, but it seemed like they took Cora out just precautionarily. You'd think Reyes would be back, but I don't know what's going on there..

anyone seen my broom?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I hereby eat my words-- or, rather, my snide pregame implications-- about Sheffield starting today. With Sheff heating up, this lineup is looking very, very livable. I agree with that...but. As Wright's leadership shows, this team doesn't need to be a bomber team. And Sheffield isn'tthat anymore either. He is doing well, getting singles, high OBP, but he's not hitting home runs, so to pretend he's in there for power..silly. But they can be a fast aggressive team, and win, without the power Delgado brings.

No more pulling Santana with like 95 pitches. He's going to get an extra day of rest this time through, so all the starters should be pushed just a little bit more.

I'm pretty sure Manuel makes these lineups using names out of a hat. Where's Murphy?

I agree. I know conventional 'logic' says bunt the go ahead run to third, but a sac fly can get the run to third, as can a grounder to the right side. Not like it's Cy Young pitching and you won't have a chance to score. At least tied it's understandable, I _hate_ giving away outs when you have a limited amount, such as Wednesday down 1 in the bot 12.

Come on..you'd really rather see Sheffield? Do we really think he'll even return to what he was three years ago? Whereas supposedly Murphy is in the long term plans of this team.

I haven't seen an official lineup either, but metsblog and twitter and a bunch of places seem to confirm it. Kevin Burkhart's twitter..you'd assume he'd know.

Whether you like Manuel or not, what's going on here? Why does he ignore church for days against righties, and then finally start him against the lefties (I don't even buy into he can't hit lefties, but if you're going to choose 2-3 days to sit him..) Where is Murphy? He hit a little slide, but why bench him for three days? Especially with the lineup short? Sheffield's coming around a bit, but he's still hitting .200. Murphy!! And Tatis has been pretty hot as of late, why sit him tonight, as much as I support getting Reed some AB cause he's been way overlooked.. If Manuel's serious about putting Murphy at first, why put Reed there tonight?

="metirish":1c6uovaw]Reyes ran last night and hurt the team, so as mentioned above it's focus with Reyes. Last season when Manuel took over this crap was supposed to be done with , Reyes had tuned Willie out they say and Jerry was going to get him focused , benched him his first game. But all that didn't work as he has proven since with several lazy, bad call them whatever plays. Swanie I don't know if you can punish a guy like that in baseball....it seems to be a point of pride in hockey that stuff. Do they have the kangaroo court these days?[/quote:1c6uovaw] He's not lazy. As much as he should 'bust it' on every AB, 99.9% of batters don't. You could argue that he learned the other day that that's not a triple off the bat. It wouldn't have been. it didn't cost us anything. As for his play advancing..well, yeah, it was bad. But it was also in the hole, maybe Reyes thought it was getting through, and if it wasn't Castillo running, Escobar may throw to first and Reyes is safe. It's pushing the envelope, which he needs to do, but maybe dumb right there. Reyes has never been a great baseball thinker, but he's learned and honed his instincts to adapt. But this is part of the problem with the Reyes-Manuel dynamic. Manuel has been holding him back in terms of 'picking spots' in stealing bases, and what not. But you can't get Reyes to think how Manuel is thinking, you have to set up the rules and what to look for, but that's not what Manuel's doing. He's not respecting Reyes ability as a basestealer, trying to fit him into how Manuel thinks he should be, rather than how Reyes thinks he should be. You could see it last year with the whole 'not dancing' fiasco early on, until Beltran righted him. The team had him scared to even do Professore Reyes, because he thought he had to 'focus on baseball' and couldn't do both. gerrard00 May 14 2009 09:52 AM ="holychicken":ffazqu5w]="Nymr83":ffazqu5w]i dont care what the anti-booing folks say, booing is a well-deserved and appropriate responce to a player not giving 100% effort.[/quote:ffazqu5w] I am against the booing of players that don't perform well. I believe it is more than justified for players who don't give it their all.[/quote:ffazqu5w] Maybe that's part of the problem. The crowds boo so often for things like "he tried his best but could not make the tough catch" that the boos become meaningless when someone really is not giving their all and deserves the business. G-Fafif May 14 2009 10:18 AM Getting booed is part of the game.[/url:slzjo9mo] Fman99 May 14 2009 10:32 AM ="holychicken":2g7tig2j]="Nymr83":2g7tig2j]i dont care what the anti-booing folks say, booing is a well-deserved and appropriate responce to a player not giving 100% effort.[/quote:2g7tig2j] I am against the booing of players that don't perform well. I believe it is more than justified for players who don't give it their all.[/quote:2g7tig2j] At the game, I only boo players on the other team. The Mets don't need to hear my boos or those from the home crowd to know when they're sucking wind. At home, or in the pool, I boo Mets heartily.

="Fman99":54u0pcb2]="metirish":54u0pcb2]With a speedy Reyes on second and Castillo hitting very well I thought it was a bad move , either way we got to get him home and we didn't.[/quote:54u0pcb2] I don't like the bunt in the 12th. Give your team one more chance to plate the run with an actual hit.[/quote:54u0pcb2] I agree, when you've only got three outs to spare, don't give them away for anything. Even if the pitchers spot was up, I'd probably have Santana swing away than bunt. To me, Manuel shows no confidence in his team to get a hit, or have big innings, by giving these outs away. But tell me this, why'd he pinch hit Castillo needing a sac fly on Tuesday, but not let him try to advance the running himself via grounder to the right side, sac fly, etc on Wednesday. Reyes was on second, I'd rather three chances to get a hit to likely tie it, than one shot to hit a fly ball. I have the same problem with intentionally walking guys to face the pitcher. You can make a case for it with guys like Niese, but like when Santana IBB'd Alfredo Amezega (no career AB against Santana) twice in the same game, that's ridiculous. I only like walks if it's setting up a double play with 1 out an a runner on third. I really don't like Manuel, He's one of the worst managers I've ever watched. I thought they should've ditched him at the same time they ditched Willie. (Although a hitting/pitching coaching change would've probably been good enough, and we probably could use that now. Warthen looks outclassed too) Elster88 May 15 2009 11:00 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 15 2009 11:05 PM 1st and 2nd, no out in the top of the 9th, Jerry calls for the bunt with a bad bunter (Church) up. Sheffield would've been out by 15 feet if not for the pitcher throwing it into left field. Oh yeah, and Church had two hits coming into that at-bat, and Santos hitting behind him was 0-3 with 3 strikeouts and a sacrifice fly. The fact that Santos had a sac fly already this game means nothing to me since he struck out three times. Edit: Grade N/A, since Manuel was not managing at the time. Elster88 May 15 2009 11:03 PM And Santos hits the sac fly anyway. I dunno. Ceetar May 15 2009 11:07 PM I agree. I know conventional 'logic' says bunt the go ahead run to third, but a sac fly can get the run to third, as can a grounder to the right side. Not like it's Cy Young pitching and you won't have a chance to score. At least tied it's understandable, I _hate_ giving away outs when you have a limited amount, such as Wednesday down 1 in the bot 12. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 03:47 PM It ain't a letter grade, but "Torborgian?" OUCH. From a BP chat earlier today: ]Dave (NJ): Starts Jermey Reed at 1b and Daniel Murphy in LF and Gary Sheffield in RF (go get 'em Carlos!) as Ryan Church sits the bench. Starts Gary Sheffield in RF at bats him 4th. Omir Santos starts again! Sacrifice bunts with no one out and a runner on second IN THE FIRST INNING. Pinch hits for Daniel Murphy with Angel F. Pagan with the bases loaded and one out in the 8th inning down by two. These are all things Jerry Manuel did JUST LAST NIGHT. Was he this bad in Chicago? BTW- Mets didn't score in the first (or ever for that matter.) Pagan grounded into a double play. Sheffield went 0 for 4 and left 4 on base. Christina Kahrl: He was, and he will be. That the Mets were impressed with him was proof they didn't remember that this was what happened last time around: Manuel aced his interview, says all the right things in a conference room, and then handicapped his ballclub with his fascination with ways of insinuating himself into the ballgame. I know it means something to Mets fans if I label the man "Torborgian," but that's what you're working with, with a dash of braggadocio to spice things up a bit. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 18 2009 04:09 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]It ain't a letter grade, but "Torborgian?" OUCH. From a BP chat earlier today: ]Dave (NJ): Starts Jermey Reed at 1b and Daniel Murphy in LF and Gary Sheffield in RF (go get 'em Carlos!) as Ryan Church sits the bench. Starts Gary Sheffield in RF at bats him 4th. Omir Santos starts again! Sacrifice bunts with no one out and a runner on second IN THE FIRST INNING. Pinch hits for Daniel Murphy with Angel F. Pagan with the bases loaded and one out in the 8th inning down by two. These are all things Jerry Manuel did JUST LAST NIGHT. Was he this bad in Chicago? BTW- Mets didn't score in the first (or ever for that matter.) Pagan grounded into a double play. Sheffield went 0 for 4 and left 4 on base. Christina Kahrl: He was, and he will be. That the Mets were impressed with him was proof they didn't remember that this was what happened last time around: Manuel aced his interview, says all the right things in a conference room, and then handicapped his ballclub with his fascination with ways of insinuating himself into the ballgame. I know it means something to Mets fans if I label the man "Torborgian," but that's what you're working with, with a dash of braggadocio to spice things up a bit. Yeah not for nothing,, I don't need a newstyled know-it-all sabersnark criticizing Manuel. We can do that ourselves with more precision. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 06:21 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2nw4wncc] Yeah not for nothing,, I don't need a newstyled know-it-all sabersnark criticizing Manuel. We can do that ourselves with more precision.[/quote:2nw4wncc] Kahrl's one of the driving forces behind the perennially kickass annuals for which BP gained initial renown and generally not given to undeserved sniping. But yeah, "braggadocio" might have been a but much. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 18 2009 06:24 PM Yeah I know. And the manhands and stuff. "They can't treat our pledges like that. Only WE can treat our pledges like that!" LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 06:30 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Yeah I know. And the manhands and stuff. "They can't treat our pledges like that. Only WE can treat our pledges like that!" Elster88 May 18 2009 10:25 PM Batting Pagan leadoff today looks like an A so far. Three hits, one double, scores the tieing run in the top of the eighth from second on a ball that barely gets out of the infield. (second baseman playing way over behind second, a seeing eye single by Sheff, second baseman gets there and throws it in, Pagan just beats the throw) Ashie62 May 19 2009 12:03 AM I still pine for Bobby V Benjamin Grimm May 19 2009 08:18 AM Ryan Church is actually fourth on the team in at bats. Only Beltran, Wright, and Reyes have more. Edgy DC May 19 2009 08:30 AM ="Elster88":3n11mbmf]Batting Pagan leadoff today looks like an A so far. Three hits, one double, scores the tieing run in the top of the eighth from second on a ball that barely gets out of the infield. (second baseman playing way over behind second, a seeing eye single by Sheff, second baseman gets there and throws it in, Pagan just beats the throw)[/quote:3n11mbmf] True, but it's fair to judge these things based on our view of his apparent thinking going in, rather than the outcome. Ceetar May 19 2009 09:01 AM Here's my rant on why we need to fire this bum. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/05/fire-jerry-manuel/ Easily the worst manager we've had in at least 15 years. Vic Sage May 19 2009 09:21 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1vr4gym4] Yeah not for nothing,, I don't need a newstyled know-it-all sabersnark criticizing Manuel. We can do that ourselves with more precision.[/quote:1vr4gym4] sabersnark? Bullet of cool, jonny. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 19 2009 09:25 AM ="Ceetar":2cpinc1g]Here's my rant on why we need to fire this bum. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/05/fire-jerry-manuel/ Easily the worst manager we've had in at least 15 years.[/quote:2cpinc1g] Managers rarely get fired for making dumb game decisions. It's when the players tune him out that he has to go. Edgy DC May 19 2009 09:32 AM Grady Little excepted. Ceetar May 19 2009 10:28 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2tdcmpvy]="Ceetar":2tdcmpvy]Here's my rant on why we need to fire this bum. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/05/fire-jerry-manuel/ Easily the worst manager we've had in at least 15 years.[/quote:2tdcmpvy] Managers rarely get fired for making dumb game decisions. It's when the players tune him out that he has to go.[/quote:2tdcmpvy] That's only a matter of time. I'd hard to think Murphy and Church, and even Reed and Reyes think he's a good manager. Gwreck May 19 2009 10:47 AM History tells us otherwise. It took an awful long time for Randolph to get fired and he wasn't exactly a master strategist. (And, of course, he wasn't really fired for his game decisions, either). LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 19 2009 12:42 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1cp3q3jf]Ryan Church is actually fourth on the team in at bats. Only Beltran, Wright, and Reyes have more.[/quote:1cp3q3jf] Everyone but Beltran, Wright and Reyes has been hurt, 40 years old, or Daniel Murphy. Benjamin Grimm May 19 2009 12:51 PM True, but it's kind of hard to argue that he's been buried when only one outfielder has had more playing time than he has. Edgy DC May 19 2009 12:59 PM Nah, I don't think so. He played a lot the first three weeks before the trend began. Since the trend began, he's been (1) frequently bumped in lieu of his apparent lessers, (2) seemingly drawn more lefthanders while Murphy and Reed draw the righties, and (3) slid down the batting order. Gwreck May 19 2009 01:03 PM April ABs Beltran 80 Murphy 68 Church 67 Sheffield 30 Tatis 23 Reed 11 May ABs Beltran 67 Church 49 Tatis 47 Sheffield 40 Murphy 40 Reed 18 Benjamin Grimm May 19 2009 01:03 PM Okay, but in May, he's fifth in at bats: Carlos Beltran 67 David Wright 63 Luis Castillo 54 Jos� Reyes 53 Ryan Church 49 Fernando Tatis 47 Gary Sheffield 40 Daniel Murphy 40 Ramon Castro 37 Alex Cora 30 Elster88 May 19 2009 08:27 PM Pagan had four hits yesterday. Reed threw a ball from the first base position to the backstop. So naturally Manuel starts Murphy in left and Reed at first. Seriously what the fuck is wrong with him? If you have to play Reed and Murphy (and sit Pagan) than at least switch the positions. And as I'm typing this I see Murphy commits a two-base error in left. This is comical. Ashie62 May 19 2009 08:38 PM Jerry Manuel...I think he's probably not much better or worse than anyone else out there. In game managing doesn't get people hired or fired. 41-41 at the break could be a breaking point Personally C- Edgy DC May 20 2009 11:15 PM Letting Murphy start at first. A-. The team was desperate for this. I'd give it a higher grade, but it's so overdue. Pinch-hitting for Churchie, but not Murphy. D+. If you want to pull one of your lefties, pull the first one, because then Torre can't change pitchers. Sending Tatis up there instead of Sheffield. D+. Tatis is your last shortstop in a game where pinch-hitting for your struggling current shortstop needs to remain an option and would eventually happen. Sheffield's position is a hitter, and we needed one of those. Lifting Livan. C-. I suppose it's defensible. But good God. Just once, let a starter at least hint at losing it. Edgy DC May 21 2009 08:25 AM And to clarify, pinching Tatis (the mnorst versatile guy left on the bench) in for Church doesn't have to be a problem, except that he was then double switched out. Why, oh why, do managers persist in double switching when they have seemingly no intention of letting their relievers pitch beyond the one inning? Benjamin Grimm May 21 2009 08:35 AM This push-button managing gets frustrating to watch. I yearn for a manager with above-average intelligence. I think the Mets have only had two guys who fit that description: Davey Johnson and Bobby Valentine. If I was hiring a manager I'd look for a smart guy who dared to be unorthodox. Edgy DC May 21 2009 09:20 AM The problem is that so many of them present as such. And because they are mostly old middle infielders and catchers, they supposedly have a broader understanding of the game. And as unconventional as they may fancy themselves, they end up under siege and paranoid from day one --- ripped if they do something out of the ordinary and it doesn't work, despite the fact that most moves dont' work and most games are won or lost by players no matter what the manager does. They get one tenth the salaries of their stars and maybe one third the contract length, they are utterly disposeable. In the end, they all end up like Willie --- acting inperturbable and above it all while inside you're clearly terrified. You bunt like crazy because you know you're one blown rally away from getting fired. Here's a crazy thought: If I found the guy who fit your description --- smart and daring enough to trust his smarts --- I'd pay him as much as I pay my richest player. Hopefully, knowing that it would be as hard for me to part with him as with Beltran --- harder, actually, as he would have no trade value --- he would be unafraid to act outside the box or discipline his players. Of course, then I might get a Tony LaRussa situation --- a detached freak who wears sunglasses at night, moves his pitchers up in the order, and drives drunk after the game. Benjamin Grimm May 21 2009 09:32 AM Yeah, I thought of LaRussa too. As the ugly downside of a guy who, at first glance, might appear to fit my description of the ideal manager. metirish May 21 2009 09:50 AM I'm not liking Jerry a lot this week , that as always is subject to change. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 21 2009 09:54 AM The thing that bothered me most was going to Putz like a kneejerk. Turns out he had a stiff neck ("the elbow is fine" he lied). I've about had it with Putz and with Jerry leaning on him like he has when it's obvious there may be better choices to be made. Nymr83 May 21 2009 09:59 AM ]Sending Tatis up there instead of Sheffield. D+. Tatis is your last shortstop in a game where pinch-hitting for your struggling current shortstop needs to remain an option and would eventually happen. Sheffield's position is a hitter, and we needed one of those Although i wanted him up there for Muphy, no Church, i have no problem using Tatis over Sheff. Tatis is the better hitter to me, especially a pinch-hitter (if the numbers dont back me up on that then maybe i'm wrong, this is just based on my perception) Edgy DC May 21 2009 10:24 AM I understand lifting Murph istead of Church (he could have lifted 'em both), but I'm trying not to make a deal over C decisions. It's spending his most versatile player that slayed us. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 21 2009 12:22 PM ="Nymr83":1fs6xos9] Although i wanted him up there for Muphy, no Church, i have no problem using Tatis over Sheff. Tatis is the better hitter to me, especially a pinch-hitter (if the numbers dont back me up on that then maybe i'm wrong, this is just based on my perception)[/quote:1fs6xos9] Sadly, the numbers seem to do great violence to you on that (although Tatis, in a teeny-tiny sample size, is doing a touch better, and putting the ball in play more): Tatis: 2009: 8 PA, 2 H, 1 BB, 2 R, 2 RBI .400a/.500ob/.400ops, 6 balls in play Career: 57 PA, 49 AB, 5 R, 5 RBI, 1 XBH, .204a/.281ob/.224ops Sheffield: 2009: 17 PA, 1 H (HR), 6 BB, 3 R, 1 RBI .091/.412/.364, 9 balls in play Career: 51 PA, 36 AB, 10 R, 11 RBI, 3 XBH, .278/.471/.444

Still think they need to fire Manuel, but at least the Mets are too good for him to bring them down.

Even Yankee fans are down on their team this year. It makes guys vote less (see the Mets last year). Is there a SS that can take it away from Jeter? How about Bartlett from the Rays? He's definitely the smart choice at this early juncture. Do the Rays have enough fans to get him on there? I know generally when I vote, after the first standings are released, I vote for the guys that could take spots away from the Yankees.

I made a couple of basic wagers online, as outlined in this post: http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/04/worst-day-of-the-year/ 2009 MLB Regular Season Wins - Team Must Play 160 Games Atlanta Braves Over 84.5 I think the Braves are more talented than people think. Barring injury. 2009 MLB Regular Season Wins - Team Must Play 160 Games New York Mets Over 89.5 This should be an easy one. The Mets are obviously seriously talented. 2009 MLB Regular Season Wins - Team Must Play 160 Games New York Yankees Under 95.5 I think the Yankees have a lot of issues, especially if Pettitte is old and wears down, Joba is restricted, Wang is not quite back to form and A.J. Is the new Pavano. Especially if A-Rod isn�t fully recovered. 2009 MLB Regular Season Wins - Team Must Play 160 Games Philadelphia Phillies Under 88.5 The Phillies got lucky with their bullpen and had a dozen guys over perform last year. They�re a pretty soft team in general and I think they mail it in early this year. Cole Hamels - Total Regular Season Wins Regular Season Wins Under 15.5 (-135) Hamels has already started injured. 16 is a lot of wins, especially for a team that won�t top 85 wins. Jose Reyes - Total Regular Season Hits Regular Season Hits Over 188.5 (-115) This might be the easiest bet. Reyes is only getting better. 2009 World Series Championship New York Mets 6 � 1 Because I had to.

="metsguyinmichigan":2w0p9ocs]Hey now. Have all the fun you want with the American League ballot. But we need the best NLers out there because I want home field advantage when we're in the World Series this fall.[/quote:2w0p9ocs] Nah. if the Mets have home field advantage they'll clinch on the road in game four. Much rather them be home. seawolf17 May 08 2009 12:07 PM Yeah, what's wrong with you people? Vote all Mets in the NL, and the worst possible players in the AL. Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:09 PM ="seawolf17":25cthrrd]and the worst possible players in the AL.[/quote:25cthrrd] but what if I don't want to see Jeter that night? metsguyinmichigan May 08 2009 12:27 PM ="Nymr83":10ijqdy2]="seawolf17":10ijqdy2]and the worst possible players in the AL.[/quote:10ijqdy2] but what if I don't want to see Jeter that night?[/quote:10ijqdy2] Oh, I yearn to hear what falls on Jeter like soft rain when he's introduced in St. Louis. Actually, those fans are pretty respectful. Ceetar May 08 2009 12:41 PM other AL Shortstop? Even Yankee fans are down on their team this year. It makes guys vote less (see the Mets last year). Is there a SS that can take it away from Jeter? How about Bartlett from the Rays? He's definitely the smart choice at this early juncture. Do the Rays have enough fans to get him on there? I know generally when I vote, after the first standings are released, I vote for the guys that could take spots away from the Yankees. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:01 PM Jeter gets too many votes from women and gay men to be overcome by an actual ballplayer. That, plus the lack of a marquee alternate at that position in the AL, near-guarantees the soft rain continue. I will rain down vomit.

If we really want to expose the joke of it, don't vote for Milledge, do a write-in for Rick Astley. Citi's scoreboard prompted me to vote for Sheffield last night. He's not even on the ballot.