Dakines

Established Members
  • Content Count

    1,044
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About Dakines

  • Rank
    Superstar

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

657 profile views
  1. Yea, it's really just wishful thinking on my part at this point.. Per SNY/Metsblog, Callaway has indicated that Rosario will likely begin the year in the 8th spot.
  2. .301 is pretty bad - However, Reyes had a .300 OBP his first full year (2005). Mets stuck with him, and maybe they will let Amed have a chance to grow into a star there. We'll see. I like Nimmo a lot also, but I see him more as a Dave Magadan type of player, with a significantly more exuberance. I'm confident that Nimmo would make a fine leadoff hitter from a stats perspective, but I still feel (more like 'hope', rather than 'feel' if I'm being honest with myself...) like Rosario was a top ranked prospect for a reason (and Nimmo never was). Yes, the track record of Mets 'top ranked prospects' panning out is as close to zilch as you can get, but I'm the type of person that when I'm in a casino and I see a string of 'reds' at the roulette table, I'm absolutely putting my money on black. I like the 1,2,3 of Rosario, Nimmo, Cano. Lowrie can bat in the bottom half of the lineup. First game tomorrow, LGM!!
  3. He may get a day off here and there, but I can't see him losing playing time simply due to the alleged depth of IFs. If he struggles, maybe, but SS is clearly his position to lose, there is no battle for that spot. Not a fact, just my opinion. I see him as the leadoff hitter. He excelled there, and though I like Nimmo just as much as a player, if not more, I'd say Rosario's ceiling is higher, so why put his ceiling at risk? Nimmo seems like an easier lineup move, can swap him with Lowrie in my projected lineup: Amed Rosario - SS Brandon Nimmo- RF Robinson Cano- 1B Wilson Ramos- C Michael Conforto- LF Todd Frazier- 3B Jed Lowrie- 2B Juan Lagares- CF
  4. the Mets have said their philosophy is to build a winning team around pitching. the Mets manager was a former pitcher, then a pitching coach, and was brought in to manage; to help the team, specifically the pitchers, reach their potential. degrom is 29, and syndergaard is only 25. why in the world would they trade these guys away, their top two SPs? they'd be cornerstones of nearly any franchise. not only that, who could they possibly get in a trade that will help them in 2019?? it's a fantasy-world scenario; trading them makes no sense. Mets were in the World Series in 2015. What has hurt them the most, pun intended, these past two years: Injuries to their Pitchers Injuries to their Batters Weak lineup. If the Mets can figure out how stop getting injured, they just need a few consistent bats in the lineup to contend for playoffs. My two cents.
  5. Stashed this week also. At this point, very few pickups on the waiver wire that have the potential to put up some monster numbers during the final stretch. Maybe he'll be just meh, but here's to hoping he comes back healthy and is Cam's #1 for ROS
  6. Who knows if it is truly 95+%, but to say that something is 50/50 is disregarding reality. Simply because there are two outcomes does not make the likelihood of something 50/50. Are the chances of the Cleveland Browns winning the Super Bowl 50/50? No. That being said, as a Zeke/Alf/McFadden owner, I'm hoping for the suspension to start this week. My chances of a FF league championship are greater with Zeke in wks 15/16, vs having him secure a playoff berth but be suspended during fantasy playoffs. Though.. I can understand fantasy owners with a losing record wanting the suspension to be pushed out, since they almost certainly wont be in the playoffs w/o him.
  7. Reminds me of a certain fantasy site, which I will just say rhymes with JazzBall, with so much of this kind of unnecessary verbose commentary that makes an otherwise (sometimes) useful site, unsurfable. So much Yes. Your comment presumes one being upset due to 'right vs. wrong' blurbage, which is not what my post is about. Please re-read, especially the title, and let me know if you have any questions. Also, spell check is free.
  8. I can't be the only one who has noticed this right? What I'm referring to is the fact that clearly the RW blurbs are not written by the same person (and understandably so), but shouldn't definitive statements at least be consistent with one another? An example is for Jameer Nelson (I know, he's such a key cog in all of our fantasy teams. READ: sarcasm), but it was the most recent example I could pull: On Nov 13 - 1:24 PM, blurb says about Jameer: "... The 32-year-old is only averaging 7.5 points, 2.6 rebounds, 3.5 assists, and 1.9 treys through eight games, but he's still worth owning in all fantasy leagues as starting point guards don't grow on trees." Then, one day and one game later (Today, Nov 14 - 10:10 AM): "...Given Nelson's minimal contributions to the stat sheet this season, and the fact that he's only averaging 26 minutes a game (crowded backcourt), Nelson isn't worth owning in standard leagues." Since he was already pretty terrible, I disallow the rebuttal that yesterday's game was so bad that it justifies this change. So one day he is worth owning in ALL fantasy leagues, and the next, he is not worth owning in standard leagues. So what changed, did starting point guards start growing on trees overnight?