Master Index of Archived Threads
In-Game Thread, 3/16/2007
| Edgy DC Mar 16 2007 07:30 PM |
|
Mets were up 4-0 behind Glavine after five. Heilman extended the shutout with an inning (tendonitis, my butt). Burgos then came on and served up a two-run homer. Now, in his second inning of work, he walks the leadoff guy. Valentin has a two-run homer. Reyes has two singles and a steal. Fernando Martinez is in now. He played a minor league game yesterday.
|
| Edgy DC Mar 16 2007 07:32 PM |
|
Two-run single by Mike Jacobs. We're tied. Randolph going out to the mound to kill Burgos.
|
| Edgy DC Mar 16 2007 07:56 PM |
|
Mets rallying in the ninth.
|
| Edgy DC Mar 16 2007 07:58 PM |
|
And... come up short. Burgos is in trouble.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Mar 16 2007 09:22 PM |
|
Lino Urandeta, come on down.
|
| Edgy DC Mar 16 2007 09:44 PM |
|
Yup. Looking up for Urdaneta and Smith right now.
|
| iramets Mar 16 2007 11:07 PM |
|
So far, Omar's waiting by the phone, hoping the Royals will give him Bannister back. I'm surprised Peterson's magic spell hasn't worked on Burgos yet, myself. "Eye of toad, and tail of dog/ help me turn this filthy hog/ with a nine zillion E.R.A./ into a pitcher today...Hraboski!! Huh, nothin' yet..."
|
| smg58 Mar 17 2007 09:09 AM |
|
We're talking about a guy who was closing for the Royals last year when he should have been in AA ball. (Insert snide comment about the Royals being an AA team here.) Good velocity or not, it's going to take more than two weeks of spring training to make Burgos an important part of a good team's bullpen. As for Bannister, they traded a ML-ready starter with limited upside for a reliever with high upside who's not there yet. I don't see any reason to think Bannister would be higher than Pelfrey on the depth chart right now, so he, just like Burgos at this point, would most likely be heading to New Orleans if he were here.
|
| iramets Mar 17 2007 09:57 AM |
|
Okay, so this team with a combination geriatric ward/nursery starting rotation unloaded all its starters between age 9 and age 90 so they can bolster their long-range bullpen in a year when they're defending the NL East title. So my question is: when do you expect Burgos to be able to contribute to the Mets on MLB level, not as a pheeeenom, not as a work-in-progress, not as someone wth outstanding potential to be good someday, but actually helping in the bullpen in key spots? This season? Next season? "Some day (my prince will come..)"? I'm sure you don't mind answering a specific question about your own expectations.
|
| Edgy DC Mar 17 2007 12:28 PM |
|
Bannister has been hit hard this spring also.
|
| Nymr83 Mar 17 2007 12:36 PM |
|
I'd expect Burgos to contribute later this year, but even if he doesn't I'm stil fine with the trade.
|
| iramets Mar 17 2007 02:15 PM |
|
|
Do I understand your position to be "If Burgos never gets a MLB hitter out, this was still a good trade"? Because I have no argument against that logic. And Edgy, Bannister has already shown he is capable of getting MLB hitters out--Burgos has not. That's a key difference in comparing springs.
|
| metsmarathon Mar 17 2007 03:15 PM |
|
in 2005, burgos had a 3.98 ERA in 68 innings. i guess bannister's 4.26 era in 38 innings last year was more convincing...?
|
| Nymr83 Mar 17 2007 03:30 PM |
||
|
you have a habit of putting absurd words in other people's mouths to try and make your "point" look right. i don't see the word "never" anywhere in my post, but then you're too stupid to read.
|
| iramets Mar 17 2007 03:57 PM |
|
So put an end time to your post. Don't blame me if you can't say what you mean. (That was all one-syllable words, so you should be able to read it just fine.)
|
| Edgy DC Mar 17 2007 04:06 PM |
|
Burgos has "shown" as much as Bannister, and is younger. Nymr was clear as day. Please don't be like that.
|
| iramets Mar 17 2007 04:15 PM |
|
I asked him politely if I was understanding his meaning, and he called me stupid. You want ME not to be "like that"? I mean, I could try to emulate him but then I'd have to call you an infantile name, and we don't want that.
|
| iramets Mar 17 2007 04:26 PM |
|
You only trade a guy coming off a good year (marred by minor injuries with 100% recovery associated with them) for a guy coming off an obscenely ineffective year if you believe you can turn him around. I'm asking what kind of time table you have in mind for Burgos--are you expecting him to pitch well this season? If not, when? If you really don't expect him to pitch well ever, then I think you would have been better off keeping Bannister. The Mets do not have their rotation issues solved by a long shot, and the longer Burgos takes in showing his ability, the more skeptical I am of this deal, and of Peterson's ability to diagnose the problems of young, potentially good pitchers. I mean, on the face of it, it's a phenomenally bad challenge trade. If I gave you JUST the 2006 stats, there would be NO way to justify trading the one guy for the other, so it must be something beyond how they did in 2006. You have bullpen needs, but too many starters? Maybe, but it sure doesn't look like this team has too many starters in their mid-twenties. Is it okay if I continue to explore this issue, or should I just shut up altogether?
|
| OlerudOwned Mar 17 2007 04:40 PM |
|
Or, you trade a guy who had a few flukey good starts in the majors (22 walks to 19 Ks!) for a 22-year old reliever with downright phenomenal stuff who was pushed to the majors by a desperate team despite the fact that his secondary pitches were still underdeveloped and he had only 12.2 (12.2!) career innings at the Double-A level. Burgos should be starting this season in New Orleans, where he hopefully will be working on his secondary stuff and gaining confidence in his ability to throw his downright devastating fastball in any count. And not to knock Bannister, but I don't see him having any more chance at being a reliable, end-of-the-rotation starter than Burgos has at being a reliable power-arm in the bullpen.
|
| soupcan Mar 17 2007 06:39 PM |
|
I never bought the theory that nobody recognized Superman simply because he put glasses on when he became Clark Kent. You want to conceal an identity you have to work harder than that.
|
| Edgy DC Mar 17 2007 08:12 PM |
||
|
This is a pretty distorted way of framing this. But not evil. On edit: so is:
You have a way of making two-page threads into ten-pagers, I'll give you that.
|
| Nymr83 Mar 17 2007 10:21 PM |
|
Bannister has shown that he's capable of a disturbing 22 BB and only 19K in 38 IP at age 26. Burgos has shown that at age 22 he can strike out a batter per inning over 70+ innings. i'd rather take my chances with burgos going forward. #5 starters are everywhere, the next armando benitez isn't.
|