Master Index of Archived Threads


Pelfrey's in - starters set

Frayed Knot Mar 25 2007 10:31 PM

No real surprises at this point. Presumably this means that Pelfrey will be on the [url=http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070325&content_id=1859150&vkey=spt2007news&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym]25-man from the beginning of the season[/url] w/o spending the first two weeks in N.O. Mike Pelfrey allowed four runs in five innings on Sunday against the Astros ... but shortly after the game, his mood brightened markedly when manager Willie Randolph told him that he has made the starting rotation. Randolph invited Pelfrey into his office, broke the news, then shook his hand. "He's still a work in progress, like a lot of our young players, but I feel like he can help us." Randolph also said that Tom Glavine, Orlando Hernandez, Oliver Perez and John Maine would be the team's other starters to open the season. No order has been established.

iramets Mar 26 2007 12:21 AM

Raising the question of why Willie was discussing this point, which Omar wouldn't touch with a stick a few hours earlier. I mean, who's on the roster is the GM's call, correct? It's Willie's job to play with the guys Omar gives him, right? So why is Willie announcing who has made the team, and why won't Omar answer it earlier the same day? (See my "Omar's interview" thread, if you have the stomach, to see him saying absolutely nothing about nothing, including whether they'll go north with 11 or 12 pitchers.) Of course Willie's announcement may be some clever misdirection, intended to deke the other teams out of their athletic supporters.

Nymr83 Mar 26 2007 12:40 AM

maybe they felt that willie should tell pelfrey what was going on before omar told the world? maybe willie and omar got together and made the final decision AFTER the game? nah, that makes too much sense.

Gwreck Mar 26 2007 12:56 AM Re: Pelfrey's in - starters set

Frayed Knot wrote: Presumably this means that Pelfrey will be on the [url=http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070325&content_id=1859150&vkey=spt2007news&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym]25-man from the beginning of the season[/url] w/o spending the first two weeks in N.O. I don't see anything in that article to support that presumption. Adam Rubin speculated on his blog earlier this week that Pelfrey would indeed start the year as a Zephyr with Milledge making the 25-man roster initially.

Nymr83 Mar 26 2007 01:20 AM

which makes more sense when you have a 5th starter with options left, the only reson to carry 5 before you need them is if theres an options issue

iramets Mar 26 2007 08:01 AM

Nymr83 wrote: maybe they felt that willie should tell pelfrey what was going on before omar told the world? maybe willie and omar got together and made the final decision AFTER the game? nah, that makes too much sense. Willie can blow any smoke he likes up any player's ass any time he likes. This is about announcing roster decisions to the public. You really think Omar was sitting on the edge of his chair, wondering if Pelfrey would come north, in the fourth inning wth Keith and Gary, and this issue only got resolved in a post-game conference with Willie? Would you be interested in buying a bridge?

Frayed Knot Mar 26 2007 09:15 AM

]I don't see anything in that article to support that presumption. Not specifically, but "you've made the team" kind of implies it as opposed to "well you've made the team ... but not quite yet". Not that it's a big deal if Pelfrey first pitches around April 5th or not until April 15th - it just sounds like yesterday's "announcement" makes it seem like he'll be there from the beginning.

seawolf17 Mar 26 2007 09:18 AM

First, who gives a rat's ass when the decision was made? Second, why are we surprised that anyone involved in sports management uses doublespeak? This isn't some great revelation. Some of the most "beloved" figures in sports have never said anything worthwhile.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 26 2007 09:18 AM

Did he say, "You've made the team" or "You've made the rotation"? I assume he meant the latter. If he's going to be idle until the Mets need a fifth starter, then he might as well get a tuneup start for New Orleans before his 2007 Mets debut. On the other hand, maybe they'll go with five guys from the very beginning. It wouldn't be a bad idea. It'll let the old guys like Glavine and Hernandez get an extra day of rest for their first couple of April starts.

iramets Mar 26 2007 09:21 AM

seawolf17 wrote: isn't some great revelation. Some of the most "beloved" figures in sports have never said anything worthwhile. Correct. I'm just pointing out how Omar's still an illustrious member of that club. Our little point, Seawolf, seems to upset some people inordinately.

86-Dreamer Mar 26 2007 09:34 AM

Does anyone think that Franco's roster spot should be in jeapordy this season? I know they have made it a point to play him at 3B, but I think our SP mix of 40'somethings and 20'somethings will make it very difficult to carry someone with such a limited role, on what I think will need to be a short bench in order to carry a 12 man staff. edit - changed "could" to "should" in first paragraph

Nymr83 Mar 26 2007 09:38 AM

his spot should be in jeoprady, i have no idea whether it is. ask ira though, he seems to think that the organizations exact plans must be laid bare to the public and the competition.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 26 2007 09:39 AM

yes.

iramets Mar 26 2007 09:41 AM

Well, as long as you're asking, the whole appeal of Julio seems to lie in his clubhouse leadership. Of course, this could be obtained by having him as a coach, which is basically the function he served last year and will serve this year, but the Mets seem determined to pay top dollar (plus a roster spot) for a DH in a DH-less league. Just my IMO, of course.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 26 2007 09:44 AM

Top dollar? Please don't waste people's time by making them coorrect you every time you want to pop off. Just look it up first, thanks.

seawolf17 Mar 26 2007 09:46 AM

Payment's not the issue. Fred Wilpon craps million-dollar bills. I'm more worried about the roster spot, which is basically a hole. I'd much rather have a functioning bat in the spot.

iramets Mar 26 2007 09:47 AM

Compared to what a coach gets, not a player, Johnny. My main point is the roster spot, anyway.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 26 2007 09:49 AM

Can Ben Johnson play first base? A RH backup there seems to be the only "strategic" argument in Franco's favor anymore.

iramets Mar 26 2007 09:55 AM

You can train most dogs to play first base in three weeks, if they're motivated. Any infielder should be able to play first with about a week of prep. Easley or Valentin could probably fill in there today, if both Delgado and Green are unavailable. Franco (who BTW makes over mil per year, meaning that they committed to two million dollars for maybe 200 ABs, which they could have gotten from a minimum-wager with some potential) is about as useless a player as I can imagine. He fills no need, plays no position, doesn't hit, can't run...and the Mets can't live without him. Go know.

MFS62 Mar 26 2007 09:58 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Can Ben Johnson play first base? A RH backup there seems to be the only "strategic" argument in Franco's favor anymore. We're still trying to figure out if he can play the outfield. I was listening to the radio yesterday when the announcers spent a bit of time telling us what a curious route he took on the hit scored a double against Pelfrey in the 4th (?) inning. Of course, it didn't help matters when Alou got a late start on that ball, too. Later

Nymr83 Mar 26 2007 12:28 PM

i doubt the Mets care about the million dollars or so they are paying him. its all about the roster spot.