Master Index of Archived Threads


Nothing But Flores

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 21 2014 01:54 PM

That's the shortstop position in Vegas. Wilmer's only hitting a little, for him, so far but has played SS for 15 games and the Vegans are winning most of them. How soon do you dare?

seawolf17 Apr 21 2014 01:54 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Now. They shoulda stuffed Tejada in Ike's suitcase.

Edgy MD Apr 21 2014 02:05 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

It's up to Terry and what his stomach can handle. Fans have to be realistic too. I really think a young MLB-er needs to be told to consider his position as "hitter" and approach it that way. If you can figure out how to hit major league hitting, you can refine your defensive work later. If you can't, it doesn't matter. We'll figure out a position for you... IF you hit. In the meantime, you're young enough to get by defensively on your youthful spryness and vigor, and what you learned in the minors. So we should measure him that way. If we think he's right now a big league hitter, sure, plug him in at short a few days a week. As that's not particularly established, I think it's getting ahead of things to try him as a full-timer over there.

MFS62 Apr 21 2014 03:36 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: That's the shortstop position in Vegas. Wilmer's only hitting a little, for him, so far but has played SS for 15 games and the Vegans are winning most of them. How soon do you dare? When his OBP (now .338) exceeds Tejada's OPS. Should be any day now. Later

Vic Sage Apr 22 2014 08:37 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

tick, tick, tick... as soon as he gets on a roll down there, get his bat in our lineup. We're giving up too many ABs per game.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 22 2014 08:53 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

I'm glad they're trying this in Las Vegas. And I hope it works.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 22 2014 11:15 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Flowers are nice anytime.

vtmet Apr 22 2014 10:30 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Vic Sage wrote: tick, tick, tick... as soon as he gets on a roll down there, get his bat in our lineup. We're giving up too many ABs per game. IMO, games are won by outscoring your opponent, and then protecting the lead once you have one...even Tom Seaver couldn't win if the Mets were shutout... might as well use the Davey Johnson principle: use the offensive (but defensively challenged) shortstop to start the games; and if you have a lead when the bullpen comes in, replace him with Rafeal Santana, I mean Ruben Tejada... I would say give it until the beginning of May when it starts to warm up a bit in NY (offense typically sucks in Queens on April nights because it's too cold anyhow)...and then let Flores play the role of Hubie Brooks, Kevin Mitchell and Hojo...with Tejada or someone else, playing the role of late inning defensive understudy...

Vic Sage Apr 23 2014 09:41 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

yes, this was the plan i and others advocated in ST... except for the "wait for May" part.

Edgy MD Apr 27 2014 04:02 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Flores goes down with a jammed finger. Not expected to be serious, but they're sending him for X-rays.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 27 2014 07:56 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

CUT THE CRAP, DOCTOR, AND HIT ME WITH THE STRAIGHT TRUTHITUDE-- WILL HE EVER FIELD AGAIN???????

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 16 2014 07:31 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

So look guys, I like Flores. I'm about at the point where I've seen enough of him to say I think he can really hit. I'm open to the possibility of flipping him but think it's a no-brainer to keep him around as Plan A at second base next year (Herrera, who looks to me like he needs 4 months in AAA, is Plan B and Reynolds/whomever is Plan C. Muffy goes in a deal for a SS or relief pitcher or OF or whatever. Yes? No? Why?

Vic Sage Sep 16 2014 07:37 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

They should deal whichever they can get the most for, maybe in a package with an arm, to get either a legit lead-off guy or a slugger, one a SS the other a RFer. Then go out and get the other one, either thru trade or FA.

Ceetar Sep 16 2014 07:47 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: So look guys, I like Flores. I'm about at the point where I've seen enough of him to say I think he can really hit. I'm open to the possibility of flipping him but think it's a no-brainer to keep him around as Plan A at second base next year (Herrera, who looks to me like he needs 4 months in AAA, is Plan B and Reynolds/whomever is Plan C. Muffy goes in a deal for a SS or relief pitcher or OF or whatever. Yes? No? Why? Wait wait, you think he can really hit? What have you seen that I haven't? If anyone wants him and will give us something for him.. sell sell sell as fast as possible.

Edgy MD Sep 16 2014 07:47 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

I'm still open to him, but he seems like he's all arms up there. Not using his legs and torso, and can't really get good wood on anything that isn't in his wheelhouse. The hand-eye coordination is great, but that seems like the bulk of what he has. Square contact has often led to soft liners. He could put years into polishing his fielding, but what he's got to do is hit and hit and hit enough that his fielding doesn't particularly matter. If he can't OPS at .800 at least, he's not particularly of use, I think.

Frayed Knot Sep 16 2014 07:58 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

- I think he can play 2B - not sold on him as an everyday SS although more sold than I was that he can at least fake it there part time - not sure how big a hitter he'll eventually be - remember that he's still young, [u:31wfq433]several years[/u:31wfq433] younger than the likes of Lagares, deGrom, Harvey, Nieuwenhuis, Mejia, Familia, d'Arnaud, den Dekker, Satin, Campbell. Of current Mets, only Wheeler, Tejada & Montero are within a year and a half of his age, and only Herrera is younger. - I agree that Herrera needs a half year or more of AAA ball and so not to pencil into the April lineup All that said, I'm not averse to trading almost anyone for the right price and don't view Flores as a 'Must Keep'. As I and others have been saying much of this year, a lot of these decision pivot on Muffy.

Ceetar Sep 16 2014 08:38 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Frayed Knot wrote: All that said, I'm not averse to trading almost anyone for the right price and don't view Flores as a 'Must Keep'. As I and others have been saying much of this year, a lot of these decision pivot on Muffy. If we're desperate for salary manipulations, which I'm sure some feel that we are, than sure, you might go Flores and let Murphy walk, but it's hard to imagine trading Murphy for more offensive production unless some other team just has absolutely no one to play the position and feels they can spare an outfielder that's a little bit better for him, but then isn't any gain offset by the gamble that is playing Flores or Herrera?

Edgy MD Sep 16 2014 09:03 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Trading Murphy ain't letting him walk. is it a gamble? Sure, all trades are. Certainly with somebody as ridiculously consistent and reliable as Murphy. But can they get an offensive upgrade? By packaging him with Niese or Gee or Colon, they sure can.

Ceetar Sep 16 2014 09:14 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Edgy MD wrote: Trading Murphy ain't letting him walk. is it a gamble? Sure, all trades are. Certainly with somebody as ridiculously consistent and reliable as Murphy. But can they get an offensive upgrade? By packaging him with Niese or Gee or Colon, they sure can. Err, Murphy's not a free agent. We're not actually suggesting the Mets might just say "fuck it, no arb for you." are we? yes, sure, there are packages out that that might include Murphy, my point is simply that if you're trading offense to get offense, you better be getting a damn good player.

Frayed Knot Sep 16 2014 10:13 AM Re: Nothing But Flores Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 16 2014 10:41 AM

Dealing Murphy, if it happens, isn't about saving money, it's about deciding whether to make a long-term commitment to him or not. We--and Sandy, and Fred & Jeff, and everybody else in the world--know what Danny Boy is at this point. He'll turn 30 by opening day 2015 and can become a FA a year and a few weeks from now. The options are whether to keep him for another year, to sign him long term sometime in the next year, or to deal him away this winter in an effort to plug other holes while there appear to be several candidates who can play his position. I'm not advocating that one choice here is the lone correct one, only that a number of other moves may depend on how they pursue this one.

Ceetar Sep 16 2014 10:18 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Frayed Knot wrote: Dealing Murphy, if it happens, isn't about saving money, it's about deciding whether to make a long-term commitment to him or not. We, and Sandy, and Fred & Jeff, and everybody else is the world knows what Danny Boy is at this point. He'll turn 30 by opening day 2015 and can become a FA a year and a few weeks from now. The options are whether to keep him for another year, to sign him long term sometime in the next year, or to deal him away this winter in an effort to plug other holes while there appear to be several candidates who can play his position. I'm not advocating that one choice here is the lone correct one, only that a number of other moves may depend on how they pursue this one. It's this point I'm contesting. I don't know that any of the options would put up the production Murphy's almost a lock for next year. So I think any move to fill other holes potentially opens up another one.

Frayed Knot Sep 16 2014 10:29 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

'Play his Position' doesn't mean they'll replace him exactly, only that there are other options there and that even if there's a decline from him to [Fill in Blank] it may be worth it to strengthen the team elsewhere. The worst thing teams can do is to convince themselves that a particular player is irreplaceable. Very few are, and Murphy's not one of them. He hits but doesn't walk a lot; he hits doubles but not many HRs; he plays an up-the-middle position but not particularly well; he's on OK runner but gets dopey now and then; he's dependable except for when he's not (1 completely missed season and a big chunk of another); and he's about to turn 30.

Edgy MD Sep 16 2014 10:33 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Trading Murphy ain't letting him walk. is it a gamble? Sure, all trades are. Certainly with somebody as ridiculously consistent and reliable as Murphy. But can they get an offensive upgrade? By packaging him with Niese or Gee or Colon, they sure can. Err, Murphy's not a free agent. We're not actually suggesting the Mets might just say "fuck it, no arb for you." are we? The term "let Murphy walk" originated with your post.

Frayed Knot Sep 16 2014 10:47 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Ceetar wrote: Trading Murphy ain't letting him walk. is it a gamble? Sure, all trades are. Certainly with somebody as ridiculously consistent and reliable as Murphy. But can they get an offensive upgrade? By packaging him with Niese or Gee or Colon, they sure can. Err, Murphy's not a free agent. We're not actually suggesting the Mets might just say "fuck it, no arb for you." are we? As if this needs answering: No, no one is suggesting non-tendering him this winter.

Ceetar Sep 16 2014 11:35 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Frayed Knot wrote: 'Play his Position' doesn't mean they'll replace him exactly, only that there are other options there and that even if there's a decline from him to [Fill in Blank] it may be worth it to strengthen the team elsewhere. The worst thing teams can do is to convince themselves that a particular player is irreplaceable. Very few are, and Murphy's not one of them. He hits but doesn't walk a lot; he hits doubles but not many HRs; he plays an up-the-middle position but not particularly well; he's on OK runner but gets dopey now and then; he's dependable except for when he's not (1 completely missed season and a big chunk of another); and he's about to turn 30. I'm not saying he's irreplaceable, I'm saying at the moment the Mets don't have the parts to replace him with and his contributions are very much needed. I mean, the next best option right now is probably Tejada. But Murphy machinations aside, this is about Flores, and him not having shown anything approaching major league ability.

Frayed Knot Sep 16 2014 12:33 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

"I'm not saying he's irreplaceable, I'm saying at the moment the Mets don't have the parts to replace him with and his contributions are very much needed. I mean, the next best option right now is probably Tejada." --- So you're not saying that he's irreplaceable, only that the Mets' current situation makes him currently irreplaceable. Again, you need to avoid getting hung up on that idea. They have several in-house options to replace him and then there's always outside help. Maybe the options don't exactly match current production but that's hardly a given. "But Murphy machinations aside, this is about Flores, and him not having shown anything approaching major league ability. -- I don't buy that at all.

Ceetar Sep 16 2014 12:48 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Frayed Knot wrote: "But Murphy machinations aside, this is about Flores, and him not having shown anything approaching major league ability. -- I don't buy that at all. sorry sorry. He hasn't shown anything approaching major league production. He might have the skillset to hit. He's certainly still young. But that's not a gamble I'm willing to take. I'd rather trade a better prospect or pay more money or whatever is need for a left fielder than try to include Murphy and roll with Flores.

Edgy MD Sep 16 2014 01:07 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

I'm confused too. If you trade a guy worth 4.5 wins, you either get a package back worth the same (replaced!) or more (shwing!), or less (doh!). They get worse maybe at second but improve somewhere else, or perhaps don't improve but cut salary to be invested somewhere else. The Yankees traded Alfonso Soriano in his beautiful youthful prime. That was 5.4 wins going out the door. Who were they going to replace him with? Miguel Cairo? Seriously? Booo! But then, the guy they traded him for, Alex Rodriguez, produced 7.6 wins. Yayyy! I mean, Booo!!!

Ceetar Sep 16 2014 01:13 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Edgy MD wrote: I'm confused too. If you trade a guy worth 4.5 wins, you either get a package back worth the same (replaced!) or more (shwing!), or less (doh!). They get worse maybe at second but improve somewhere else, or perhaps don't improve but cut salary to be invested somewhere else. The Yankees traded Alfonso Soriano in his beautiful youthful prime. That was 5.4 wins going out the door. Who were they going to replace him with? Miguel Cairo? Seriously? Booo! But then, the guy they traded him for, Alex Rodriguez, produced 7.6 wins. Yayyy! I mean, Booo!!! well, assuming they need to cut salary to invest elsewhere, that's something else. And that's what that A-Rod Soriano trade was. And required some shuffling AND a sacrifice of defensive value on A-Rods part by playing a lesser player at his best position. But if you put together a package and trade 4.5 wins of player and get back 5.5, but end up playing a 3.5 win player where that 4.5 guy was.. What have you really accomplished. I'm not saying there aren't trades to be made. But I think Flores might be the more valuable trade pawn anyway. He's the young guy with tools, Murphy's the known quantity with a year left before FA. You're better off trading for the best plug for the LF (or SS) hole rather than trying to spread it around. Too often they've traded the most talented guy in the deal though. McHugh, Pagan. Doesn't always work.

Edgy MD Sep 16 2014 01:30 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Ceetar wrote: But if you put together a package and trade 4.5 wins of player and get back 5.5, but end up playing a 3.5 win player where that 4.5 guy was.. What have you really accomplished. Question mark. Well, you could argue you've broken even (though I wouldn't), until you factor in what the previous productivity was at the position the 5.5-win guy has been plugged into. Huh? HUH?! HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM HOMERUN APPLES?! More seriously, right now, I think we're looking at about 2.1 WAR total out of left field, which is higher than I would have guessed.

Ceetar Sep 16 2014 01:52 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

More than I would've guessed as well. Is that accurate? I know sites do defense weird. Sometimes they count a guy's total production if he played there even a little. Like, Eric Campbell didn't put up nearly 200 AB in left field. B-R has the total at 2.6 WAR, but again, that's counting all of Campbell

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 16 2014 01:56 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

I'm not with 28. Sorry, Muffy. Mets have enough to absorb the "loss" at 2B and help themselves more by redeloying the Muffy $$ elsewhere. That's what I think. Ceetar is on the other side. Anyone else have an opinion?

Edgy MD Sep 16 2014 02:05 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Sometimes they count a guy's total production if he played there even a little. Yeah, I suspect as much too. Still the bulk of that is Young and he's almost all LF. So if it's even lower --- 1.8, 1.9 --- trading Daniel for his equal in left field value is an upgrade, assuming that the 3.5 that they get more than 1.8 or 1.9 at second. And considering the options available at second, that wouldn't be the craziest gamble.

Edgy MD Sep 16 2014 02:08 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm not with 28. Sorry, Muffy. Mets have enough to absorb the "loss" at 2B and help themselves more by redeloying the Muffy $$ elsewhere. That's what I think. Ceetar is on the other side. Anyone else have an opinion? I don't disagree. At least, I don't disagree that they're assets and the relative costs of them suggests that this is a reasonable course of action. But you seem to have more confidence than the room --- and a lot more than Ceetar --- in Flores himself. Can you elaborate on what inspires this confidence?

Vic Sage Sep 16 2014 04:32 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

you mean besides youth and talent? i don't have any projections for Flores, but trading Murphy doesn't scare me as much as going into next season with those 2 major holes still in the lineup. According to ESPN, Murphy has put up 2 WAR, and has averaged around 1.5/full season, and is currently ranked 12th in WAR, with the top 7 2bmen putting up 2x-3x as much. Even with bounce-back years from Wright and Granderson, and our great pitching, Murphy is not getting us over the top. But there are 47 OFers who have put up at least that much WAR, and the top end is even larger proportionally. I want me some of that.

Edgy MD Sep 16 2014 05:47 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

I hear all of that. I was just hoping Bucket could elaborate on what he sees in Flore at second or short. Youth? Well, they all have youth until they don't. That ain't enough. Talent? As I said, the talent I see so far is mostly expressed in solid hand-eye coordination. What he mainly has going for him is a minor track record. And in that rather solid track record, he's almost never hit as soon as he's gotten called up a level, but 100 or 200 plate appearances in, he turns a corner and doesn't look back, so I'm willing to wait him out. What I'm not so thrilled about doing is giving him a job outright, when his only real weapon --- hitting a doubly .300 --- hasn't been unpacked yet. Let's see some torque in that swing and see some more balls land in the gap.

Edgy MD Sep 16 2014 07:25 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

There you go, Wilmer! I mean, that TOTALLY was a hanger in his wheelhouse, but I like the notion that his line tonight is him turning the corner.

Ashie62 Sep 16 2014 07:35 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

I'd hate to see Wilmer Flores breakout as a hitter with another team. He could be a very nice core player for the 2015 championship Mets.

Mets Guy in Michigan Sep 16 2014 08:15 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Heck, that double almost left the yard, too!

Trachsel My Tears Sep 16 2014 08:23 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Edgy MD wrote: Let's see some torque in that swing and see some more balls land in the gap. Asked and answered.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 16 2014 08:24 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

I really meant to reply but was on a train and my signal was going in and out. I do believe he's out homered Muffy already. Very nice right handed swing, very good track record, youth, affordability, size -- he's not far from being a real monster, given his height. To me he looks like the kind of guy you don't give up on right away.

Nymr83 Sep 16 2014 08:26 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

really like this guy, even if his defense never justifies starting him full time i think we'll be happy to have him on the roster until he gets priced off the team

Zvon Sep 16 2014 10:51 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Those feets are made for trotting.

themetfairy Sep 17 2014 06:31 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Why yes, I'm smiling. I had the game of my life last night!

Edgy MD Sep 17 2014 07:26 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Nymr83 wrote: really like this guy, even if his defense never justifies starting him full time i think we'll be happy to have him on the roster until he gets priced off the team If the bat plays, few are gonna care much about the glove.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 17 2014 07:57 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Here's where you say, "Murphy is our second baseman. We have no plans to trade him this offseason." And then wink, like, so hard you go Popeye for a day or two from the aftereffects. You don't want to Ike your trading leverage like last time. Murphy is what he is, and at absolute best maybe a little more, and he'll begin to get increasingly expensive (and approach decline) really soon. It's not just the ceiling of Flores that makes this doable-- we've also got the floor of a good-glove, on-base-y Herrera.

Mets Guy in Michigan Sep 17 2014 08:07 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

I like Murphy a bunch. This team needs power, which he doesn't supply a lot of. You need to have guys on base to have the power guys drive home. But I don't know about a long-term commitment to a guy Murphy. If we can make him part of a package to get a power bat, I'd be for that. But I also think the Mets tried to trade him all last winter and came up empty.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 17 2014 08:13 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

To be fair, he's pushing thirty hard, and even if you JUST take offense into account, he isn't a perennial-all-star level piece. (And as for defense, well... never mind Herrera; Flores is already Murph-plus with the glove.) He's a good hole-filler, really, and not the centerpiece of anything. But, yeah, combine with Niese, or-- better-- a young arm like Montero, and...

Centerfield Sep 17 2014 08:19 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Here's where you say, "Murphy is our second baseman. We have no plans to trade him this offseason." And then wink, like, so hard you go Popeye for a day or two from the aftereffects. You don't want to Ike your trading leverage like last time. Murphy is what he is, and at absolute best maybe a little more, and he'll begin to get increasingly expensive (and approach decline) really soon. It's not just the ceiling of Flores that makes this doable-- we've also got the floor of a good-glove, on-base-y Herrera. Yup. I know this maybe somewhat reactionary, but I think I am willing to go into next year with Flores, Matt Reynolds and Tejada at SS. There are only a few difference makers at SS around, and I don't think any are available (except maybe Hanley, but there is a lot of baggage there). If I had to make a choice, I'd go with the in-house candidates at SS and go all in on a stud LF. Of course, I'd love for the Mets to one day realize they are a big market team, and sign Hanley, sign the Cuban LF guy, then win the World Series.

Edgy MD Sep 17 2014 08:24 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Well, Reynolds would likely have to start the season at AAA, as having three shortstops really handicaps your bench. (Nobody to handle the Satin/Campbell job of right-handed alternative to Duda.) Important to consider about last night's productivity is that, while it may be representative of a bright beginning for Flores, it's probably as easily understood as a bitter end for Brad Penny.

Nymr83 Sep 17 2014 08:25 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Edgy MD wrote: Nymr83 wrote: really like this guy, even if his defense never justifies starting him full time i think we'll be happy to have him on the roster until he gets priced off the team If the bat plays, few are gonna care much about the glove. Well yeah, we certainly have evidence across town that a subparagraph defender can stick around at SS for a l o n tv time if he hits enough.

Edgy MD Sep 17 2014 08:29 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

I love that spellcheck has corrected "subpar" in your post to "subparagraph." Derek Jeter is totally subparagraph.

Ceetar Sep 17 2014 08:42 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Flores is out of options too, which clearly factors in.

Nymr83 Sep 17 2014 02:54 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Edgy MD wrote: I love that spellcheck has corrected "subpar" in your post to "subparagraph." Derek Jeter is totally subparagraph. Haha

MFS62 Sep 18 2014 05:47 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Talking about Flores' defense, specifically range, here are the numbers for shortstops who have played more than 400 innings this year. He stacks up pretty well. Not as bad as many thought. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?p ... &sort=25,d Later

G-Fafif Sep 18 2014 10:32 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Hasta la vista, baby! [youtube:7r4xt99c]uOdo3o5Un4k[/youtube:7r4xt99c]

Edgy MD Sep 18 2014 10:40 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

That was a real hangerino from Penny, am I right?

G-Fafif Sep 18 2014 10:44 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Brad Penny establishes a very select group comprised solely of pitchers twho have given up one or more home runs as a Florida Marlin youngster to New York Met veteran Todd Zeile and as a Miami Marlin veteran to New York Met youngster Wilmer Flores.

Edgy MD Sep 18 2014 01:43 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

themetfairy wrote: Why yes, I'm smiling. I had the game of my life last night! Is this your shot? Because it appears to have been used by New York Sports Day.

themetfairy Sep 18 2014 02:03 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

It is indeed my shot! Do you have a link to the article?

Edgy MD Sep 18 2014 02:42 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Sorry, meant to include a link.

themetfairy Sep 18 2014 04:01 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Nice - thanks Edgy!

MFS62 Sep 18 2014 04:06 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

themetfairy wrote: Nice - thanks Edgy! And a well done to you, MF. Later

Ashie62 Sep 18 2014 05:21 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

I remember when that photo of a budding star came out. Real nice.

themetfairy Sep 18 2014 06:11 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Thanks guys! That was from Spring Training. Wilmer saw me taking pictures and flashed me a big smile - it made my day.

Edgy MD Sep 19 2014 10:37 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

Off-day. No game for the beat writers, leavin' 'em all scrounging for stories, and they all end up running up the same tree. For us, that means the Wilmer Question is everywhere this morning. [list][*]New York Daily News: "Mets' Wilmer Flores is no Troy Tulowitzki, but can he be shortstop of 2015?," by John Harperino[/*:m] [*]Newsday: "Wilmer Flores the long-term answer at shortstop for Mets?," by Marc Carig[/*:m] [*]The Wall Street Journal: "In Wilmer Flores, Mets Hope They Have Found Their Shortstop," by The Other Jared Diamond[/*:m][/list:u] Unless you see something I'm missing, there doesn't seem to be any great (or new) insight in any of them. They could be the same article. Carig's is probably the best of the lot, including statements by Alderson and speculation around options, but man, guys, find me something.

Ceetar Sep 19 2014 11:18 AM Re: Nothing But Flores

here's something. K/9: (2014 MLB average 7.71. of starters, 7.34) deGrom 8.98 Wheeler 8.93 Harvey last year 9.64 That's a lot of balls NOT put in play. Perhaps defense is less important on the Mets than other teams. This might give Flores a leg up. Of course, he still needs to, you know, hit.

dinosaur jesus Sep 19 2014 02:39 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

There's something about Wilmer's body language that bothers me. It's so sloppy-floppy, gangly and stooped-over at the same time. He just doesn't look like a good player. He reminds me of a kid in the college dance program where my wife teaches. He was an excellent dancer, I was told. But I found him ugly to watch, with his shoulders around his ears and his head thrust forward and his arms dangling like a flaccid Slinky. In the concerts he'd be in every damn piece, since there's always a shortage of boys who know what they're doing. It made me cringe every time he came on stage. Obviously Wilmer is a terrific athlete, whether or not he's a major league-quality player. And I really shouldn't be judging him by my own weird aesthetic standards. But seeing him just doesn't inspire me with confidence. Prove me wrong, Wilmer. Stand up for all the clumsy guys who aren't really clumsy at all.

sharpie Sep 19 2014 02:50 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

On the other hand, Ryan Thompson really looked like a great player. I'll take sloppy Wilmer and hope for good times.

Fman99 Sep 19 2014 07:55 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

Seriously. It all looks the same once the pump is primed. Put a bag on it and do your business. Wait, what are we talking about?

Edgy MD Sep 19 2014 07:59 PM Re: Nothing But Flores

I got into the car today singing "Nothing but Flowers." Headed out to dinner, but stopped into a second-hand clothing store before dinner, and strangely, they were playing "Nothing but Flowers." Wasn't the only rock'n' coincidence of the night. Two days ago, for no reason, my wife and I stayed up looking up facts about the life and death of Randy Rhoads. Then after dinner we went to a furnishing store, and chatted up a couple who had dinner in the same restaurant. The guy, it turned out, was a founding member of Quiet Riot in high school with his friend, Randy Rhoads.