Master Index of Archived Threads


A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

batmagadanleadoff May 03 2013 11:38 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 11 2013 09:16 AM

History in the Making for Marlon Byrd 03 May 2013 by Howard Megdal in Today's Mets headlines What outfield? I’ll tell you what outfield. It’s May 3, and Marlon Byrd is already close to setting a team record. Marlon Byrd, thanks to his strikeout on Wednesday, has now struck out in 12 straight appearances. This has mostly come in starts, but he’s also come off the bench for clutch strikeouts in a pair of games during the streak. No, he isn’t atop the team leaderboard just yet. In fact, if we include pitchers, he has a good distance to cover to match Gary Gentry’s 21 straight games with a strikeout, from May through September, 1969. The Mets won the World Series that year, you know. Coincidence? But let’s limit things to hitters. Where does Byrd’s streak rate? Just ahead of him, with 13 straight, are Ed Charles, 1967, Tommie Agee, 1970, Dave Kingman 1976, David Wright, in 2010 during his 161-strikeout year, and Lucas Duda, in the last 12 games he played in 2012 before getting sent down to Triple-A. Of that group, only Kingman walked less than Byrd over a similar span, and Kingman hit four home runs. If Byrd can strike out Friday, Jeff Kent’s 1995 streak of 14 is in reach on Saturday. Should he reach that, he’ll be trying to strike out Sunday to tie David Wright’s 15 straight in May 2010 (what an odd 2010 Wright had!), along with the 15 straight strikeout games for Kirk Nieuwenhuis had from April 24 through May 9, 2012, as major league pitchers began to find the holes in his swing. If he can strike out through the weekend, tying the team record for non-pitchers will be a single K away. It is held by: Todd Hundley, during his difficult 1998 comeback while simultaneously learning left field, Ryan Thompson in 1995, Dave Kingman from September 1975 through April 1976 (32 strikeouts in 16 games! Kingman always went big), and Donn Clendenon in September 1969. A month later, Clendenon was the MVP of the World Series. Will the same be true for Byrd? Hard to imagine, since the World Series isn’t played in June. But no one thought the 1969 Mets would win it all, either. What outfield! http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/05/03/h ... rlon-byrd/

Swan Swan H May 03 2013 07:50 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Bite me, Megdal, sez Byrd (and me)

Edgy MD May 03 2013 09:09 PM Re: Byrd Shit

No strikeouts, either.

batmagadanleadoff May 03 2013 09:35 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Byrd with the improbable homer today after Megdal's critical Byrd piece is posted here. And The Captain with his 2nd HR in as many days after we note a power outage in his game. Someone should alert Ike Davis to the Hot Seat Ike thread. Maybe we should start a Harvey Sucks thread, too.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 28 2013 11:17 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Byrd Shit Redux. You’re Going To Miss Marlon Byrd When He’s Gone 28 June 2013, 10:42 am by Howard Megdal Seriously, what were the odds I was going to need that headline. 15-1? 150-1? Marlon Byrd entered 2013 as a 35-year-old outfielder who posted an OPS+ of 32 in 2012, then got busted for using performance enhancing drugs. In other words: that 32 OPS+ was artificially inflated. But after last night’s heroics, the go-ahead two-run homer in the eighth, the perfect throw to cut down the would-be tying run in the ninth, Marlon Byrd is hitting .260/.312/.495, good for a 122 OPS+. That’s good for seventh-best among major league right fielders. And even the defense, per ultimate zone rating, grades out as slightly above average. Here were Byrd’s inspired words after Thursday night’s win: ”We didn’t come here to [have] a 100-loss season. We didn’t come here to just play for 4th place, 3rd place. We came here to win.” Which, you know, good for him. Center field may be a wasteland. Lucas Duda proved he can’t play the outfield sufficiently well to carry his bat, again. But Byrd in right field has worked out nicely. The question is whether the Mets learned from their odd decision not to trade Scott Hairston last summer. Hairston had an awfully similar 2012 to Byrd, with a slugging-heavy 118 OPS+. For some reason, Sandy Alderson refused to deal Hairston unless receiving a team’s “top-three prospect” in return, which, no. But the Mets are hardly overstocked with so much talent, particularly at the upper levels of the farm system, that more couldn’t have helped. Hairston’s contributions in August/September 2012 weren’t sufficient to justify not flipping him for anything, including a lottery pick like an A-ball pitcher, etc. The same is true of Byrd, of course, who is only signed through this year, whose power totals are inflated by an unsustainable 18.3% home run rate on fly balls, and whose previous 1,864 plate appearances of 97 OPS+ hitting from 2010-2012 are likely more predictive than the .881 OPS he’s put up in 156 plate appearances since May 1. Other teams know this, too, but could hope to catch lightning in a bottle and add some hitting down the stretch. Whatever is the best deal to be had for Byrd, the Mets ought to make it. And then, the offensive downgrade will be pretty steep in August and September. But doing things like giving regular at-bats to Kirk Nieuwenhuis, for instance, makes more sense when planning for 2014 anyway. Still: you’re going to miss Marlon Byrd when he’s gone. And who thought that was even possible back in March? http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/06/28/y ... -hes-gone/

Edgy MD Jun 28 2013 11:23 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Still: you’re going to miss Marlon Byrd when he’s gone. And who thought that was even possible back in March?

Benjamin Grimm Jun 28 2013 11:39 AM Re: Byrd Shit

I agree that trading Byrd is probably the wisest move, but I'm not convinced that he can't be a contributor to a 2014 contending Mets team, if such a thing should come to pass. He's certainly not a long-term answer in any way, but he could, maybe, be something like what Ray Knight was in 1986.

Swan Swan H Jun 28 2013 11:42 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Whatever is the best deal to be had for Byrd, the Mets ought to make it. No matter what it is. A warm bucket of piss, a deflated tetherball, the dusty bones of Carl Furillo, whatever is the best offer for Byrd, give him up. I'm not saying don't trade him, but even a modifier like 'reasonable' is too much for Megdal to manage. 97 OPS+ hitting from 2010-2012 are likely more predictive than the .881 OPS he’s put up in 156 plate appearances since May 1. Way to compare apples to pears. Now I have to do math. Still: you’re going to miss Marlon Byrd when he’s gone. And who thought that was even possible back in March? Or even way back on May 3, when you crucified the guy. Swan Swan H wrote: Bite me, Megdal, sez Byrd (and me) Again. Still. Always.

Ceetar Jun 28 2013 11:44 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Byrd, much like Hairston, is a free agent. Maybe the Mets feel 2014 is a more worthwhile year to invest a little extra in a good 4th outfield masher. Sandy wasn't thrilled with the offerings for Scott at the trade deadline though, and while Byrd is probably a bit better (And defensively too) I'm not sure anything useful is going to available this year either. I'm fine with him not dumping him for the sake of dumping him, but I know others would rather have anything at all that might possibly be of any value at any time ever. This is one of those minor things that I'm good with whatever Sandy decides.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 28 2013 12:08 PM Re: Byrd Shit

I can't imagine he'd bring back a whole lot in a trade even now when he's doing OK. That said, Downtown Brown could probably also do what he does for a half-season and if there's something there, then sure. The relentless angle-hammering really is getting tiresome.

Lefty Specialist Jun 28 2013 12:31 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Megdal seems to forget that other people have The Google too.

Swan Swan H Jun 28 2013 01:26 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Lefty Specialist wrote: Megdal seems to forget that other people have The Google too. Yeah. Maybe I'll make up a superterrific extra-clever nickname for him, like Batmags made up eff Wilpon for the team's owner. How about Hacky Megdull?

Ashie62 Jun 28 2013 01:28 PM Re: Byrd Shit

If you can get a decent prospect who is as far along as trying to master AA sell....Otherwise keep Byrd here and hope his head doesn't go 8 miles high.

Zvon Jun 28 2013 03:18 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Ceetar wrote: Byrd, much like Hairston, is a free agent. Maybe the Mets feel 2014 is a more worthwhile year to invest a little extra in a good 4th outfield masher. Sandy wasn't thrilled with the offerings for Scott at the trade deadline though, and while Byrd is probably a bit better (And defensively too) I'm not sure anything useful is going to available this year either. I'm fine with him not dumping him for the sake of dumping him, but I know others would rather have anything at all that might possibly be of any value at any time ever. This is one of those minor things that I'm good with whatever Sandy decides. I'm with Ceetar. Except that until we have a better right fielder I consider it more than minor. Not major issue though.

sharpie Jun 28 2013 03:33 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Not signing Hairston has turned out to be a good move. He's batting .160 with 6 home runs and only plays against lefties for a last place team.

dinosaur jesus Jun 28 2013 03:37 PM Re: Byrd Shit

If Byrd were doing this for the Yankees, it would just be further proof what a genius Cashman is. But in fact he's been better than any of those guys Cashman picked up. A lot better. That's fun to see. And I apologize to Marlon for thinking he was useless.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 28 2013 06:36 PM Re: Byrd Shit

sharpie wrote: Not signing Hairston has turned out to be a good move. He's batting .160 with 6 home runs and only plays against lefties for a last place team. The issue at hand, I believe, isn't whether the team should have SIGNED Hairy-- it's whether they should have tried harder to MOVE him last year (and, similarly, whether Byrd should be moved, even if you're selling for 5-6 jiao on the yuan). My answers? Yes, "we" should've, and yes, "we" should.

Edgy MD Jun 28 2013 06:41 PM Re: Byrd Shit

And it's a tired issue, and any guy who sees Byrd almost singlehandedly turn a loss into a win with his offense and his defense, and decides to use it as a reason to re-animated the we-shoulda-traded-Hairy beast has his persepective seriously askew.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 08 2013 12:33 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Marlon Byrd Trade Primer 08 July 2013, 11:58 am by Howard Megdal Briefly, what you need to know: Marlon Byrd is 35 years old, makes $700,000 this season, and has an OPS+ of 121. Scott Hairston, just traded by the Cubs for a live A-ball arm, is 33 and has an OPS+ of 76. Here is the value Marlon Byrd provides the Mets beyond 2013: NOTHING. He will be a free agent, and 36 next year. Re-signing him makes little sense. Every at-bat he takes is one not taken by one of the other current Mets who might help in 2014. Now, the Mets elected not to deal Hairston for anything that wasn’t another team’s Top-3 prospect. I have no idea why: this system is in need of many things. Here’s a short list of things, off the top of my head, well short of a top-3 prospect that the Mets don’t have for 2014 in sufficient supply: 1. A center fielder likely to provide an OPS better than .600. 2. A few bullpen arms. 3. A corner outfielder likely to provide an OPS better than .700. If Cesar Puello isn’t that guy, two corner outfielders likely to provide an OPS better than .700. 4. A backup catcher to Travis d’Arnaud capable of respectable MLB production. If d’Arnaud’s injuries don’t allow him to catch regularly next season, two such catchers. 5. A first baseman, with apologies to Josh Satin, likely to provide even league average offense at the position, either as a fallback for Ike Davis, or to replace Ike Davis. (Note: Lucas Duda technically can fill role 3. if you ignore defense, otherwise role 5. But not both.) 6. A backup shortstop to Ruben Tejada, or if Tejada cannot arrest his decline, a starting shortstop of any kind. And so on. Incidentally, Sandy Alderson, when explaining why he elected not to deal Hairston last summer, said what he’d been offered was only duplicating what he already had in his system. The thing is, even duplicating what you already have is a better idea than ending up with nothing. And there’s no draft pick to be had here by letting Byrd sign elsewhere, nor was there with Hairston. The options are: whatever you can get for Byrd. Or nothing. Pretty obvious, right? http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/07/08/m ... de-primer/

Swan Swan H Jul 08 2013 12:41 PM Re: Byrd Shit

I don't need to know any of that.

Ceetar Jul 08 2013 12:48 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Duda will return to LF. Do we have two other outfielders we really want to see regularly? I'd like to see Nieuwenhuis play regularly the rest of the season, and even though I don't have a ton of faith in them amounting to a ton, I'd like to see Lagares and Baxter too. I don't think ending up keeping Byrd is negatively inhibiting anything in regards to figuring out the outfield for 2013 at least.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 08 2013 12:50 PM Re: Byrd Shit

I'm not 100 per cent convinced that Byrd can't be a contributor to a contending Mets team in 2014, should they actually be a contending team.

Swan Swan H Jul 08 2013 12:52 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Keeping Byrd negatively inhibits Hacky Megdull's agenda.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 08 2013 12:57 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Swan Swan H wrote: I don't need to know any of that. Howie Megdal sez: "Yes you do. Nuf ced."

Ceetar Jul 08 2013 12:59 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not 100 per cent convinced that Byrd can't be a contributor to a contending Mets team in 2014, should they actually be a contending team. That's true. I wouldn't start him, but he'd be a great 4th guy getting some starts, power off the bench, good defense. These are the types of guys that you find making contributions to winning teams. Sure, extend Byrd now!

batmagadanleadoff Jul 08 2013 01:02 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not 100 per cent convinced that Byrd can't be a contributor to a contending Mets team in 2014, should they actually be a contending team. If he plays like he's been playing over the last month, month and a half. But I think that's a big if. Your idea has chicken-egg all over it.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 08 2013 01:05 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Yes, but Byrd DOESN'T offer us anything beyond this season, and he CAN be brought back on a Hairston-like contract almost as easily after a trade as after none, should the Mets want to do so. If the Mets get red-hot between now and, say, July 25, maybe it's another story*. But otherwise, In terms of overall value, even 2-3 years of an okay, cost-controlled reliever from, say, 2015-2018 is worth more to the franchise than a bump from, say, 70 wins to 74 wins now (and that's assuming Byrd's performance bump is a lasting one). *Or maybe it's a month-long mirage. Dare to dream.

Ceetar Jul 08 2013 01:07 PM Re: Byrd Shit

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: cost-controlled reliever from, say, 2015-2018 is worth more to the franchise than a bump Sure, get us a live arm and we'll talk. This is probably the make or break point for me.

Swan Swan H Jul 08 2013 01:21 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Ceetar wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: cost-controlled reliever from, say, 2015-2018 is worth more to the franchise than a bump Sure, get us a live arm and we'll talk. This is probably the make or break point for me. Maybe we can call the Dodgers and see if that Puig guy is available? If they trade him they'll need a right fielder, won't they? I think I said the last time Batmags graced us with a Megdull piece, but trading Byrd is not in and of itself a good or bad idea. It's what you get that makes it good or bad, and the attitude of 'take whatever you can get' is not 'pretty obvious,' it is preposterous.

Edgy MD Jul 08 2013 01:23 PM Re: Byrd Shit

It's preposterous but it's supported it's own cottage industry for a year with regard to Hairston.

Swan Swan H Jul 08 2013 01:24 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Edgy MD wrote: It's preposterous but it's supported it's own cottage industry for a year with regard to Hairston. Not a cottage, a village, and Megdal is the... nah.

Ceetar Jul 08 2013 01:50 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Edgy MD wrote: It's preposterous but it's supported it's own cottage industry for a year with regard to Hairston. I'm sure it goes back longer than that. Trade Reyes for anything you can get.

Bitemegdalslegoff Jul 08 2013 02:49 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Previously I Said Marlon Byrd Sucks, But Now He Doesn't And He Should Be Traded by Hacky Megdull Briefly, what you need to know: Marlon Byrd is 35 years old, makes $700,000 this season, and has an OPS+ of 121. Scott Hairston, just traded by the Cubs for a live A-ball arm, is 33 and has an OPS+ of 76. Here is the value Marlon Byrd provides the Mets beyond 2013: NOTHING. He will be a free agent, and 36 next year. Re-signing him makes little sense, because no one ever had a good year at age 36. Ever. Don't check, because I'm just guessing here, but 36 is really old, right? Every at-bat he takes is one not taken by one of the other current Mets who might help in 2014, or by a guy who will not be part of the team and is just taking up space. Just like the ABs that would have gone to others in 2012. Vinny Rottino, anyone? Now, the Mets elected not to deal Hairston for anything that wasn’t another team’s Top-3 prospect. I have no idea why: this system is in need of many things. Here’s a short list of things, off the top of my head, well short of a top-3 prospect that the Mets don’t have for 2014 in sufficient supply: 1. Towels. All of the 2013 towels have the All-Star logo on them. They will be useless in 2014. 2. Sunflower seeds. New flavors are introduced all the time, and it would be just like the cheap-ass Wilpons to stick the Mets with plain seeds when teams like the Yankees and Phillies are giving their players buffalo-ranch and dill pickle . 3. Striped socks. I like striped socks. The Cardinals have striped socks. 4. A backup catcher to Travis d’Arnaud capable of respectable MLB production. If d’Arnaud’s injuries don’t allow him to catch regularly next season, two such catchers. How about four catchers? They could line up like an I-formation, and I bet they'd never have a passed ball. I am so much smarter than Sandy Alderson. 5. A first baseman, with apologies to Josh Satin, likely to provide even league average offense at the position, either as a fallback for Ike Davis, or to replace Ike Davis. But not Ike Davis, because, well, I'm not really sure. I know I'm ragging Satin here, but I did it to Byrd in May and look at him now. Oh, and Satin is way above league average, so let's trade him. (Note: Lucas Duda technically can fill role 1, because he uses his own bathrobe, which he bought for $85 at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta. Cheap-ass Wilpons made him buy his own robe.) And so on. Incidentally, Sandy Alderson, when explaining why he elected not to deal Hairston last summer, said what he’d been offered was only duplicating what he already had in his system. The thing is, even duplicating what you already have is a better idea than ending up with nothing, because you don't have rosters in the minors. Anyone can play. My ex-college roommate once walked on the field at a minor league game and they let him play third base for an inning. Well, that's what he said. He was pretty high at the time. And there’s no draft pick to be had here by letting Byrd sign elsewhere, nor was there with Hairston. Draft picks are important, as I was saying when I advocated giving up a pick to sign Michael Bourn, who has an OPS 22 points lower than Marlon Byrd. Is that helping or hurting my point? I forget now. The options are: whatever you can get for Byrd. Or nothing. Because winning games, pleasing your fans and providing the best support for your young pitchers never matters. Pretty obvious, right? http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/05/03/h ... rlon-byrd/

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 08 2013 02:59 PM Re: Byrd Shit

haha

Vic Sage Jul 09 2013 09:28 AM Re: Byrd Shit Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 09 2013 09:54 AM

You can shoot the messenger all you want, but the issue is not about Megdal. It's about maximizing assets so you can build a franchise that doesn't just win a few more games in a down year, but has a sustainable process in place to build winning teams over an extended period. We SHOULD have traded Hairston last year, since he was having the kind of "sell high" year that Byrd is currently having. Evidence for that is the fact the Cubs just got a live A-ball arm for him when he is hitting like shit, at a higher salary. And we should sell high on Byrd as well (in what one could easily consider a career year for him, when you compare CitiField with the launch pad of Arlington), before he turns back into a pumpkin. In this business, you maximize value and collect as many chips as you can when you can, thereby increase your odds of cashing them in down the road. Keeping the fans happy? Fans are going to be happy because we end up 5 games under .500 instead of 10 games under? I don't think so (even if Byrd ends up being worth 5 wins, which i doubt), but certainly not THIS fan, so you can speak for yourself on that point. I'd be happier knowing that the management had a consistent and sensible approach to team building (like, for instance, the Cardinals seems to), rather than clinging to a guy who was out of baseball last year, having a last hurrah on his way out the door, because he'll make Zach Wheeler feel better knowing how well the franchise is supporting him. Oh, and as for OFers I'd rather see getting the ABs currently going to Byrd, so the Mets could make some informed assessments going forward: Nieuhenheis, Valdespin, Lagares, Brown, DenDekkker, Duda (when he comes back), Satin (to see if he can play out there), and (eventually) Puello. Will any of these surpass Byrd's Herculean sub-.800 OPS in RF? NO, probably not, but at least one of them might surpass that fair-middling level of production next year and over the next few years, when the Mets have a shot at contention and Marlon is playing with his grandkids on the porch. So if we can turn him into a lively A-Ball arm at the deadline, we should do it. Whether that "duplicates" what we already have is entirely irrelevant, since redundancy is essential when the likelihood of players making it up through the system is so unpredictable (especially with pitchers), and top prospects crash and unheralded ones make the grade. You collect as many chips as you can and let the gods of chance sort it out.

Edgy MD Jul 09 2013 09:33 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Vic Sage wrote: You can shoot the messenger all you want, but the issue is not about Megdal. He's awful. He's getting worse. And the continued reposting of his articles here diminishes us all.

metirish Jul 09 2013 09:38 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Edgy MD wrote: Vic Sage wrote: You can shoot the messenger all you want, but the issue is not about Megdal. He's awful. He's getting worse. And the continued reposting of his articles here diminishes us all. This reposting of articles is a trend I have noticed among the several baseball writers I follow on Twitter....it's kind of annoying.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 09 2013 09:44 AM Re: Byrd Shit

“The most important things are the hardest to say, because words diminish them” Stephen King A blister, not an ESPN photo shoot, explains Matt Harvey's performance By Howard Megdal 9:51 am Jul. 9, 2013 It's a testament to Matt Harvey that his competent outing on Monday night against the Giants alarmed Mets fans, and prompted Harvey to try to explain himself afterward. He pitched seven innings, gave three earned runs and had one walk and six strikeouts. This would be considered a good line for most pitchers halfway into their first full season in the major leagues. For Harvey, though, it was uncharacteristically poor. He missed spots with pitches that hadn't missed all year. A fastball in on Buster Posey wasn't in enough, and Posey homered in the first. Harvey labored through an eight-pitch at-bat against poor-hitting pitcher Tim Lincecum, before inducing a lineout to end it. The encounter reminded me of his ten-pitch struggle against Ross Detwiler, the Nationals' pitcher, two starts ago. Both were notable because Harvey, who has been overpowering everybody this year, couldn't find the pitch to end either at-bat. Harvey found a rhythm in the later innings, but even then, his next at-bat against Lincecum also went eight pitches (before Harvey found that elusive put-away fastball). And when manager Terry Collins, after Harvey had thrown 107 labor-intensive pitches (the laboring produces more stress on the arm than the pitch-count alone) through six innings, sent him in for the seventh, it was clear Harvey shouldn't have returned, missing with most of his pitches and escaping after giving up a run. This followed an outing against the Diamondbacks that started well, but ended up with Harvey allowing five runs, the most he's given up in his career. The Mets won the game in 16 innings, but the questions remained: Had the best Mets pitcher in 30 years lost his mojo? Had fame gone to his head? Was he enjoying the spotlight too much, posing in ESPN's Body Issue and a New York Post fashion photo shoot? Of course it's too soon for that sort of panic, which makes even less sense once Harvey revealed, following the game, that he's been suffering from a blister over the last three starts. That makes perfect sense. His velocity has been consistent, but his pinpoint location has been off. "It's no excuse for my poor pitching," Harvey said after the game, almost apologizing for a three-game span with 26 strikeouts and four walks over 20 innings. "I feel fine with it, so I've just got to figure some things out and get back out there." Collins had reassuring things to say about workload. After letting the guy with the blister throw 121 pitches, he explained that this weekend, "We're probably going to back him off or not have him pitch, one or the other." Here's hoping the Mets choose the latter. Let Harvey's blister heal. This team isn't contending in 2013. No one has seen a phenomenon quite like Matt Harvey. And the idea that Harvey would make adjustments to deal with an easily remedied, short-term problem like a blister is horrifying. No one should make adjustments when pitching like Matt Harvey. Realistically, taking extra precautions with Harvey would have meant not having him pitch with a blister, and letting it heal. But the Mets don't seem to go in for the preventative thing. Maybe seeing Matt Harvey look like a human pitcher for consecutive starts will be enough to change the team's mind. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... erformance

metirish Jul 09 2013 09:47 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Realistically, taking extra precautions with Harvey would have meant not having him pitch with a blister, and letting it heal. But the Mets don't seem to go in for the preventative thing. Maybe seeing Matt Harvey look like a human pitcher for consecutive starts will be enough to change the team's mind. lol, Megdal is consistent......

Swan Swan H Jul 09 2013 09:49 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Yet the legend of Nolan Ryan pitching through his blister issues on testosterone and pickle juice lives on. OE: And what does this have to do with Marlon Byrd?

batmagadanleadoff Jul 09 2013 09:52 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Swan Swan H wrote: And what does this have to do with Marlon Byrd? metirish wrote: Realistically, taking extra precautions with Harvey would have meant not having him pitch with a blister, and letting it heal. But the Mets don't seem to go in for the preventative thing. Maybe seeing Matt Harvey look like a human pitcher for consecutive starts will be enough to change the team's mind. lol, Megdal is consistent...... Megdal's flexible, though. I coulda put this piece in the "Everything' Harvey" thread, or in the "Megdal goes all Megdal on the Mets & Mets Docs" thread. Instead, I put it in the "Byrd Shit" Thread, which has morphed into the "Someone Here Better Stop Posting Megdal's Articles In This Here Forum. I Urge You" thread.

Swan Swan H Jul 09 2013 09:56 AM Re: Byrd Shit

If you're gonna wallpaper the board with Megdal shit, at least use some good tools. Grainger is a first-rate supply house.

Ashie62 Jul 10 2013 07:35 PM Re: Byrd Shit

Byrd leads the team in HR and RBI'S ...WOW

Centerfield Jul 11 2013 07:43 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Vic Sage wrote: You can shoot the messenger all you want, but the issue is not about Megdal. It's about maximizing assets so you can build a franchise that doesn't just win a few more games in a down year, but has a sustainable process in place to build winning teams over an extended period. We SHOULD have traded Hairston last year, since he was having the kind of "sell high" year that Byrd is currently having. Evidence for that is the fact the Cubs just got a live A-ball arm for him when he is hitting like shit, at a higher salary. And we should sell high on Byrd as well (in what one could easily consider a career year for him, when you compare CitiField with the launch pad of Arlington), before he turns back into a pumpkin. In this business, you maximize value and collect as many chips as you can when you can, thereby increase your odds of cashing them in down the road. Keeping the fans happy? Fans are going to be happy because we end up 5 games under .500 instead of 10 games under? I don't think so (even if Byrd ends up being worth 5 wins, which i doubt), but certainly not THIS fan, so you can speak for yourself on that point. I'd be happier knowing that the management had a consistent and sensible approach to team building (like, for instance, the Cardinals seems to), rather than clinging to a guy who was out of baseball last year, having a last hurrah on his way out the door, because he'll make Zach Wheeler feel better knowing how well the franchise is supporting him. Oh, and as for OFers I'd rather see getting the ABs currently going to Byrd, so the Mets could make some informed assessments going forward: Nieuhenheis, Valdespin, Lagares, Brown, DenDekkker, Duda (when he comes back), Satin (to see if he can play out there), and (eventually) Puello. Will any of these surpass Byrd's Herculean sub-.800 OPS in RF? NO, probably not, but at least one of them might surpass that fair-middling level of production next year and over the next few years, when the Mets have a shot at contention and Marlon is playing with his grandkids on the porch. So if we can turn him into a lively A-Ball arm at the deadline, we should do it. Whether that "duplicates" what we already have is entirely irrelevant, since redundancy is essential when the likelihood of players making it up through the system is so unpredictable (especially with pitchers), and top prospects crash and unheralded ones make the grade. You collect as many chips as you can and let the gods of chance sort it out. Vic is, as almost always, the notable exception being his love of Jon Snow's redhead girlfriend, correct.

Lefty Specialist Jul 11 2013 08:46 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Trading Beltran didn't change their fortunes in 2011. But we're all glad they did it now. Byrd's at just about peak value. If he can be turned into anything remotely useful down the road, pull the trigger. I'm hoping Sandy's burning up the phone lines setting up a bidding war.

metirish Jul 11 2013 08:49 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Byrd is "great in the clubhouse" too, that's gotta be worth something.....

Vic Sage Jul 11 2013 08:53 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Vic is, as almost always, the notable exception being his love of Jon Snow's redhead girlfriend, correct. A man must seek warmth; winter is coming. I make no apologies.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 11 2013 08:55 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Among NL right-fielders, only Gerardo Parra has a higher WAR than Byrd. Byrd's on pace to finish the season with 28 HR's. I can't figure how Byrd's WAR is higher than Beltran, being that WAR is a counting stat and Byrd trails Beltran by about 50 PA's and has worse across the board slash lines.

Chad Ochoseis Jul 11 2013 09:16 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Among NL right-fielders, only Gerardo Parra has a higher WAR than Byrd. Byrd's on pace to finish the season with 28 HR's. I can't figure how Byrd's WAR is higher than Beltran, being that WAR is a counting stat and Byrd trails Beltran by about 50 PA's and has worse across the board slash lines. This is why I don't take black box statistics like WAR too seriously. For what it's worth, BBRef has Beltran's dWAR at -0.8 and Byrd's at +0.6, which would explain the difference. Byrd a better defensive outfielder than Beltran. Who would've thunk?

batmagadanleadoff Jul 11 2013 09:18 AM Re: Byrd Shit

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Among NL right-fielders, only Gerardo Parra has a higher WAR than Byrd. Byrd's on pace to finish the season with 28 HR's. I can't figure how Byrd's WAR is higher than Beltran, being that WAR is a counting stat and Byrd trails Beltran by about 50 PA's and has worse across the board slash lines. This is why I don't take black box statistics like WAR too seriously. For what it's worth, BBRef has Beltran's dWAR at -0.8 and Byrd's at +0.6, which would explain the difference. Byrd a better defensive outfielder than Beltran. Who would've thunk? Yeah ... I considered this but didn't bother to look it up, figuring that there's no way Byrd makes up the apparent offensive deficit with his glove.

Ceetar Jul 11 2013 09:27 AM Re: Byrd Shit

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Chad Ochoseis wrote: Among NL right-fielders, only Gerardo Parra has a higher WAR than Byrd. Byrd's on pace to finish the season with 28 HR's. I can't figure how Byrd's WAR is higher than Beltran, being that WAR is a counting stat and Byrd trails Beltran by about 50 PA's and has worse across the board slash lines. This is why I don't take black box statistics like WAR too seriously. For what it's worth, BBRef has Beltran's dWAR at -0.8 and Byrd's at +0.6, which would explain the difference. Byrd a better defensive outfielder than Beltran. Who would've thunk? Yeah ... I considered this but didn't bother to look it up, figuring that there's no way Byrd makes up the apparent offensive deficit with his glove. Yeah, the +.6 is really helping Byrd, and while that feels about right, I don't think it feels right that he's more valuable than Beltran. I also doubt it will end that way, which is only lending more fuel to the 'trade him' fire. Beltran, and Hairston, were both a little more consistent and reliable overall, and you knew what you were giving up. With Byrd I think it's definitely possible to convince other teams you're selling more than you really are.

Edgy MD Jul 11 2013 07:16 PM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

Maybe Byrd is carrying around fewer defensive skills than Beltran, but has outperformed him nonetheless. We know for a fact that inferior batsmen frequently have better hitting seasons than inferior ones. For some reason, we're prone the belief that ability and performance align nicely on defense, even though we know better. Lord knows, the men who hand out the Gold Gloves have been historically so prone.

smg58 Jul 11 2013 07:39 PM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

It's not like we've had a close look at Beltran to see how his legs are holding up. Beltran was an elite centerfielder once, but Byrd was not so bad there himself and has not had the same injury record.

Ashie62 Jul 11 2013 08:05 PM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 12 2013 10:30 AM

Byrd is career wise Beltran-lite..very light.. I love Marlon, but I don't think he would command much at the deadline..

metirish Jul 11 2013 08:42 PM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

FWIW, likely nothing, but Martino on SNY right now does not think Byrd gets traded......offered no reason. He mentioned that several teams are calling about Parnell.

Ashie62 Jul 11 2013 09:06 PM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

metirish wrote: FWIW, likely nothing, but Martino on SNY right now does not think Byrd gets traded......offered no reason. He mentioned that several teams are calling about Parnell. SELL!![/bigpurple]

metirish Jul 12 2013 06:24 AM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

Thoughts on trading Parnell? what to expect in return?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 12 2013 06:59 AM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

I think I said this in some other thread but the only way I trade Parnell is in a deal where the other guy totally overpays, like totally. No other reason to move him now.

Edgy MD Jul 12 2013 07:48 AM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

If we don't get Lyle Overbay for him, I'd totally be pissed.

Vic Sage Jul 12 2013 08:24 AM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think I said this in some other thread but the only way I trade Parnell is in a deal where the other guy totally overpays, like totally. No other reason to move him now. This. Parnell is part of the solution, not the problem. He's young, talented, relatively inexpensive, and still under team control. Why on Earth should they trade him unless they're getting more back than he's worth?

Ceetar Jul 12 2013 08:28 AM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

Vic Sage wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think I said this in some other thread but the only way I trade Parnell is in a deal where the other guy totally overpays, like totally. No other reason to move him now. This. Parnell is part of the solution, not the problem. He's young, talented, relatively inexpensive, and still under team control. Why on Earth should they trade him unless they're getting more back than he's worth? because there is a good chance you'll get back more than he's worth do to the overvalued nature of closers.

Vic Sage Jul 12 2013 09:13 AM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

ok, that's your assumption and it may be true, and that's why i qualified my statement by saying "unless your getting back more than he's worth." Trades are made to (1) dump contracts, or (2) dump problem children, or (3) to get something for a guy your going to lose anyway, or (4) to deal from a surplus to get equal value at another position where you have greater need, or (5) because you see a player on another team who you really want and are willing to overpay to get him, or (6) if another team sees such a player on your roster and offers to overpay. Now the first 3 reasons don't apply to Parnell, and so I was ruling out reasons 4 and 5 as acceptable reasons as well, leaving only reason 6 as valid in his case. But that's not particular to Parnell; I would think just about ANY player would be available for a trade if a team wanted to overpay for him. I just don't want Sandy openly shopping Parnell to fish for such an offer beyond letting teams know that anybody on the roster is always up for discussion.

duan Jul 12 2013 10:57 AM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

I think if you could turn Bobby Parnell into a young potentially high impact outfielder you should do it. I don't think you'd get a Nick Castellanos but if Detroit were offering him I'd definitely strongly consider it.

Edgy MD Jul 12 2013 11:11 AM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

Castellano seems like a guy wiithout a position to me, gravitating like Wilmer Flores toward 1B/DH, with a bat that would look good any other place but there. I like that he seemed to have lost his batting eye in 2012, and then found it again this year.

duan Jul 12 2013 11:46 AM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

I suppose I was looking at definite contending clubs that needed "a closer" who had OF's near to ML level that could be well above average. He was first one to jump out.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 12 2013 12:22 PM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

July 11, 2013 11:00 PM Will Mets trade Marlon Byrd? Explaining their deadline approach BY Andy Martino Marlon Byrd is the perfect candidate to be traded this month, right? A veteran on a one-year contract, distinguishing himself with dynamic play for the non-contending Mets and not a part of their future -- that’s a guy who moves to a better team before the July 31 trade deadline. Except that he probably isn’t. According to a person with direct knowledge of the Mets’ thinking, the club is far more likely to duplicate its approach with Scott Hairston last year, holding onto Byrd in an effort to be respectable in the second half. This info provides a good jumping-off point to unpack what the Mets mean by “standing pat” at the deadline, which they are likely to do. For several years, it has been the team’s style to avoid shaving decent pieces from the roster mid-season, and this summer is no different, team insiders say. The Mets, as we have reported, have always been more inclined to add players this season, but have found that top targets like Giancarlo Stanton and Carlos Gonzalez are unavailable at the moment. The team was never serious about selling, so in the absence of attractive buying possibilities, they have told other teams that they will, as the saying goes, stand pat. The reluctance to hang a For Sale sign around Byrd, Daniel Murphy, Bobby Parnell and others has been met with some skepticism around the league. Said one rival scout: “I’m hearing they want to stand pat, but I can’t read whether that’s posturing to drive up prices.” Time will tell on that, but the Hairston model is an instructive one, and more appropriate for the Mets this season than last. Unlike in 2012, the 2013 Mets failed to create much hope or energy in the first few months (“we’re going to lose 100 games this year,” a player groaned to me -- in May). But in recent weeks, that has changed. Sandy Alderson’s re-arranging of the roster deck chairs a few weeks ago seemed to energize the team; Lucas Duda and Ruben Tejada gave way to Eric Young Jr. and Omar Quintanilla, making the Mets a more athletic team, and far sleeker defensively. Pitching coach Dan Warthen has helped to squeeze the most from Jeremy Hefner and Dillon Gee, and Zack Wheeler has shown improvement of late. Because of these factors, the Mets have a chance to reverse the trend of recent seasons, finishing with more energy than they began -- which could, incidentally, save the job of an excellent manager in Terry Collins. Moving Byrd and others (especially Parnell, who the Daily News reported last week is highly likely to stay), would crush any hope of that. It is debatable whether the Mets could even receive a decent piece in exchange for Byrd. Here, Hairston is once again a useful example. A few days ago, Chicago traded Hairston to Washington for Single-A pitcher Ivan Pineyro. A Cubs insider told us that Pineyro is a prospect, but “a few years away.” Is it worth it for the Mets to move Byrd for an arm that might or might not be useful in 2016? The team would rather try to win a few more games this summer. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/baseba ... nous-injur

metirish Jul 12 2013 12:35 PM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

Hey guys, with a respectable second half our beloved Mets could finish 4th......I say, stand pat then......

Ceetar Jul 12 2013 12:42 PM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

I’m hearing they want to stand pat, but I can’t read whether that’s posturing to drive up prices. Good job Sandy. Keep 'em on their toes.

Lefty Specialist Jul 12 2013 12:55 PM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

Ceetar wrote: I’m hearing they want to stand pat, but I can’t read whether that’s posturing to drive up prices. Good job Sandy. Keep 'em on their toes. This. I think if anything, Sandy learned the lesson that NOT moving Hairston at the deadline was a mistake. He didn't make the team any more competitive, and he signed elsewhere in the off-season.

Ceetar Jul 12 2013 01:14 PM Re: A Byrd in the Hand (Formerly Byrd Shit)

Lefty Specialist wrote: Ceetar wrote: I’m hearing they want to stand pat, but I can’t read whether that’s posturing to drive up prices. Good job Sandy. Keep 'em on their toes. This. I think if anything, Sandy learned the lesson that NOT moving Hairston at the deadline was a mistake. He didn't make the team any more competitive, and he signed elsewhere in the off-season. maybe, but had he moved Hairston perhaps random official doesn't make the above quote/have that uncertainty.