Ceetar

101.1 HD2

K% for qualifed Mets pitcher 1) Jacob deGrom 2018: 31.5% 2) Dwight Gooden 1984: 31.4% 3) Noah Syndergaard 2016: 29.3% 4) Jacob deGrom 2017 : 28.9% 5) Matt Harvey 2013 : 27.7% 6) Jacob deGrom 2015: 27.3% 7) DAvid Cone 1990: 27.1% 8) Sid Fernandez 1985 : 26.3% 9) Tom Seaver 1971 : 26.2% 10) David Cone 1992 : 25.8% Given the era, that Gooden K% is insane. Nolan Ryan was 25.9% that year, in second. Unless you lower the minimum to 50IP, then Ken Howell sneaks into second with 26.1%, and at 10 IP, Don Carman at 26.2%. If you drop it to 3IP both Ramon Romero and Curt Wardle sneak ahead of Doc with 33.3% and 3 and 5 strikeouts respectively.

You have to have the HD radio receiver to receive all the bonus channels/signals. It's weird-ish because you still tune to 104.3 but there's a side option for HD1, HD2, HD3 on the same frequency.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah what the hell is HD2. HD radio! all the rage! I dunno, my car has it. 104.3 HD2 is the digital signal of WOR. it's crystal clear.

he physically can't play. There was no risk of that.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: It would be great to get an FM counterpart. No static at all. It's 2018. 104.3 HD2

Benjamin Grimm wrote: No, but it's worthwhile to know what is and isn't realistic. Machado is possible. But he'll be highly sought after so 'realistic'? I dunno. depends how you define it. We start threads and debate endlessly based on a random journalist suggesting a player the Mets could acquire. That's less realistic than the talented ones that fit a need.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: But you really do have to have a sense of the budget to know whether or not a pursuit of Machado is even realistic. I'd love it if the Mets made a serious effort to sign Machado, but I don't expect it. And maybe I'm wrong not to expect it. I hope so! oh, so we only talk about realistic things here in Mets fandom?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's not murky. The more money a team spends, the better it does. That's a proven fact. The correlation might not be perfect, but it's positive. This holds even for teams spending enough to trigger the luxury tax. Teams also generate more revenue the more they spend on payroll. This has been proven in studies by MLB itself and by outsiders. And of course, a team can't spend more without the budget to do so. A team can succeed with a smaller payroll but it's harder to do so, and is a strategy that is more luck reliant over the long term, not in a given year. And yes, but we don't know the budget, we can only guess at the budget, it's a damn murky mess of creative accounting that no one even bothers to ask about. This offseason there are a lot of good players and the relationship between 2018-2019 spending and 2019 quality might be a little more direct, but hell the Mets were one of the bigger spenders last offseason and it didn't really work out. We don't know the budget so I don't know why it's interesting to discuss how much they'll spend over discussing that they should be targeting Machado level production as in infield acquisition. It simply being Machado is the easy way to achieve that, but there are certainly other acquisitions/trades/maneuvers that will work. (And, of course, you can never really know who is going to be perform in the future.)

Never pretended money doesn't matter. It's just not a one to one relationship, and is a rather murky one at that. Also, I don't throw a fit and spike my blood pressure every time the Mets sign someone when there was someone else out there that might not even be better but would've commanded more money. Or they don't get as much back as I expected and I desperately try to find a way to blame it on the Wilpons saving 20 bucks. It's boring and sloppy, isn't based in logic, reason, or even a quote. Like the trade deadline these past two years. We've gotten zero indication that the Mets could've gotten better prospects by eating some of the salary (and no one's explained why the other team would do that) but we see assert it like it's fact. But whatever, if building up this narrative around the murky details about the Mets finances interests you, have at it. It's extremely boring to me and I'd rather just discuss the players I think they can/should/will get.

seawolf17 wrote: smg58 wrote: At this point I'm all for extending Wheeler. I'm not sure how his camp will play it. His agent could be telling him to pitch a full season like this before signing anything, and you couldn't really blame him. But I'd be talking to them regularly. I think they need to get all three of the big guns extended STAT. Pay them what they're worth and plant some security in the rotation. I mean, maybe? but you've still got two years of deGrom and no matter how good he is, you're buying way high right now right? What do you think the odds are Syndergaard, throwing that hard, has impending tommy john? If it happens early on in a season you miss two seasons and they still control him for three. Buying out three years is trickier, though he's been one that's bristled at the forced contract bits, so maybe you could convince him to sell out some free agent years in deference to losing two UCL years?

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/theres-definitely-something-strange-about-citi-field/

Wheeler's 5th in fWAR in the second half. He's cut out the walks by a ton, which is the big difference. He's got a high strand rate though, 89%, and his K% is just shy of elite. He's been great and it's great, but he has been playing over his head a bit. But hell, he's the guy you should extend. He's shown a lot but it's still a limited sample so it's not like he can point to years of dominance and demand 5/120 or something, but if you can get him to agree to like 3/$45? I mean, he's only going to make like $4 next year so you're basically paying him for say two elite years in 2020/2021 but getting the extra year to spread it out.

well, David blames Carlos Lee. Genetics is culpable too.

d'Kong76 wrote: Centerfield wrote: I hope that hanging them up was his decision and no one else's. I'm not getting any whiff of any fishy vibe here at all. It's time, nice to see he'll get a send-off on the field instead of off. Good for him. Next time he hits the field, next summer, when the number goes up. It'll probably be this time next year. They seem to like to do these things at the end of the year (Piazza too) and then Wright can officially announce his retirement for the end of the season and all. But I guess it's up to Jay and David. Would kind of be cool for him to come up here for the end of the season and be in the dugout for one last playoff run maybe, even if he's just on the 40 man and not the 25?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Are they actually waiting for the last day of the season? What if it rains? Saturday, and there's a game Sunday. they'll find time to get one in.

d'Kong76 wrote: DiComo on MLB/Mets sez Señor Wright will play in two games in the final home stand. News conference is at 1:45 PM. welp, cancel the news conference then.

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield (way back on page 3) wrote: There is a large contingent of fans that, despite wanting to win, are completely indifferent to whether or not the Mets spend like a big market club. I don't really get why. Maybe they believe there is no actual advantage offered by spending? I don't know. If they do, then they're wrong. But more often than not I get the feeling they know the truth, but elect to use twisted logic to justify a logically unjustifiable position. Emphasis added. emphasis all you like, as long as you look in a mirror.

you're boring me. What's "Extra"? beyond the arbitrary revenue of the Mets? Sure. That'd be nice. I'm not sure what right I have to demand it though. the correct answer is C of course. I want the Mets to acquire Machado or a similarly talented level of player to add to the roster on the infield. I don't care what they pay him.

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: yes, obviously, you haven't introduced any of the downside yet. Where's the part where they demand you trade your nearly as valuable infielder in order to afford that stud outfielder? Nobody is making any demands on you. Remember, you are the GM of the Angels, not the Mets. All you are getting is extra money each year. So if you agree that extra money is an advantage to making the playoffs in one year, and extra money is an advantage to making the playoffs in a 5 year period, are you willing to agree that generally, extra money is an advantage? Or the Yankees I guess. I think I already stated extra money is obviously an advantage in building a team. That's not what you asked when you went off on this tangent. Ceetar wrote: yes, obviously, you haven't introduced any of the downside yet. Where's the part where they demand you trade your nearly as valuable infielder in order to afford that stud outfielder? I don't think anyone's saying that more money is *everything.* But having a larger budget is unquestionably a benefit. I can't see how it makes any sense to say different. I didn't. I said that the team with the larger payroll isn't necessarily the better team. They don't necessarily have the advantage, once the offseason is done and games begin, in the division/league. I mean, hell, the Mets spent more last offseason, by far, than the Nationals, though the Nationals retained the higher payroll. There's definitely a more specific advantage to a immediate spending, and given the way service time works right now, the farther removed you are from actually committing to that money the less of an advantage, and often a detriment, it is. Think Pujols. I also said that said payroll is so far removed from my actual enjoyment of the team and the game that it's importance to me is very limited.

yes, obviously, you haven't introduced any of the downside yet. Where's the part where they demand you trade your nearly as valuable infielder in order to afford that stud outfielder?

Centerfield wrote: Was thinking about this last night. As much as I'd love to see this guy come in and whip the Wilpons into shape, in the end, this is not realistic. Specifically, *No one this smart and this strong would want to work for the Wilpons. *The Wilpons would never hire a guy like that. *Even if by some miracle it happened, the Wilpons would eventually meddle and fuck everything up. *I think the Wilpons are really overleveraged. And no GM in the world can fix that. *They're hiring Mark Shapiro or someone worse. *Plenty of smart and strong people do in fact work for the Wilpons. Whether or not these specific asshole billionaires are better or worse than others is minor compared to holding down this highly coveted job. *If they think he's the right guy, sure they would. *Everyone meddles. I thought he was strong enough to resist meddling? *I mean, maybe they are personally, but the Mets themselves aren't. A new GM is going to have the ability to do some things at least, even if it's not pushing the payroll to 200. *No they're not.

Centerfield wrote: Does the extra $90 million increase the chances you make the playoffs in 2019? Probably? It's impossible to tell for sure unless you're outlining the exact players. Rampant spending certainly increases your chances of signing the players you want. But signing Machado for $150 million instead of $120 doesn't make him 25% better. It's the getting the player that actually raises the playoff odds. So sure, yes, if we're only examining it in this very granular spot, having $90 more to toss around increases your chances at making the playoffs.

smg58 wrote: He's had issues with his shoulder holding up for nine innings, and he wasn't allowed to dive for anything in his rehab games. So he's still fairly limited. Having said that, my guess is that the organization would like to see him play a game, presumably with Reyes at short, at home before the season wraps up. And then we'll see where he is in February. It seems like 90% of the coverage of this is anger at the Mets, but having to dive is pretty important.. unless you're a DH. Coming this weekend.

Centerfield wrote: Why would you pick B? I interpreted your question as a one-year, one-off type thing. A use it or lose it type situation, so why not use it? Sign two guys to fill every hole and then move 'em around or cut the ones that suck. outbid everyone by 25% for the piece you want. etc. That's not how a baseball team is run of course, and if you then told me my payroll has to be the same in 2020, I'm probably not spending anywhere near all of it in 2019.