The sad, sad truth, and the dirty Lowe-down

[metirish]

Here's a new wrinkle to the Lowe talks.

Jon Heyman

] Mets: Lowe-ball pitcher needed A secret batting practice session with David Wright, Daniel Murphy and Nick Evans last September at Citifield convinced all the players that the Mets' new home won't be the pitching park Mets people expected, but rather a launching pad for home runs. And some within their hierarchy have used this inside knowledge to stump for Lowe, a groundball pitcher, suggesting he might work better than Oliver Perez, a flyball pitcher. Lowe is far from a certainty to join the Mets, however. He is in play for the Braves and quite possibly the under-the-radar Phillies. The Brewers and Angels are outside possibilities (the Red Sox have to be out now after signing Cooperstown-bound John Smoltz). At this point, Lowe appears most likely ticketed for one of those three NL East teams. The Braves still have $60 million to $80 million left over from what they didn't spend on A.J. Burnett. But if Lowe goes to the world champion Phillies, that would give them a superb five-man rotation and put them in a dominating position to win the division for the third straight year. Even so, the Mets don't appear to be all in for Lowe to this point. GM Omar Minaya, who met with Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado during their recruitment periods and plans to meet soon with Pedro Martinez, has yet to meet with Lowe, who has huddled with the Braves and Phillies already. It seems that while some Mets people have stumped hard for Lowe, Minaya prefers the young left-hander Perez, which might explain their lukewarm $36-million, three-year offer to Lowe. Unless they change their stance, maybe Minaya will get his wish and be able to go after Perez after all.

I had not heard this before , I knew about the BP but not that CF might be a launching pad. Of course we won't know until actual play but still I shudder at the thoughts of that.

[Guest Edgy DC]

="Nymr83"]he doesn't count, he read the hit-piece that looks like it came straight from the wife's divorce lawyer.

Read it again. The depositions are open public records.

• That he threw his wife over for the FOX chick, that's public knowledge.
  
  
• That he was (is?) using Adderall, prescribed by a team doctor without an exam, that comes from his deposition.
  
  
• That the Red Sox suspected a drinking problem, his deposition also.
  
  
• That he got drunk in the clubhouse after games with the clubhouse manager, that comes from Trinka. But the manager disputes only the degrees, not the facts, though the degrees are higly relevant.
  
  
• That he was busted after a domestic disturbance, there's no independent source, but it can't be hard for a reporter to find one, and we don't get a denial.
  
  
• The explicitly segregated dinners, right out of the horse's mouth.

Not in that report, in March 2006, Lowe whined that "he just didn't care" and wanted to go on the disabled list with "emotional distress" because of the hard times brought on him when he was discovered to be a womanizing jock. I mean, carrying on with a TV reporter, who could have expected that to go public?

Edited January 12, 2009 by Guest

[smg58]

[url:1dwd0gfh]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:1dwd0gfh]

Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield.

[seawolf17]

="smg58":27rfu7sx][url:27rfu7sx]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:27rfu7sx] Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield.[/quote:27rfu7sx] That was what I remembered also, not the "launching pad" thing. Heyman's an ass.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:56 AM

="seawolf17":18o7iaxe] ="smg58":18o7iaxe][url:18o7iaxe]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:18o7iaxe] Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield.[/quote:18o7iaxe] That was what I remembered also, not the "launching pad" thing. Heyman's an ass.[/quote:18o7iaxe] I don't buy that linked story either, at least not all of it. I think we'll have to wait and see. I think stuff like the batter's eye and lighting has as much or more to do with it than fence heights and configurations. The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere. batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 09:57 AM ="smg58":1lloyi2s][url:1lloyi2s]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:1lloyi2s] Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield.[/quote:1lloyi2s] This was a good read. By the way, I was always under the impression that Citi Field would favor the pitcher slightly. So Heyman's piece notwithstanding, am I misremembering? metirish Jan 12 2009 09:58 AM No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad. Frayed Knot Jan 12 2009 10:01 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM According to the Mets, CitiField was designed to be, at worst, neutral and hopefully favoring pitchers somewhat. But like someone said above, the proof is in the playing and all kinds of things can affect the final outcome that may not have been thought of by the planners. It's a lot more than just the numbers on the wall. Was it the new place in Philly or in Cincy (or maybe both) where open areas behind home/3rd led to wind tunnels that carried the balls out towards RF much more than anyone thought. Neither was necessarily designed as homer-happy palaces. CF is going to be more enclosed than Shea and also turned some 25-30 degrees to the north. Not sure how much/if those will factor in. I think Heyman is taking a quickie impression based on an impromptu BP session and drawing a whole lotta silly conclusions from it. batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish":3lsk2pws]No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad.[/quote:3lsk2pws] I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season. TransMonk Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad". If I had to predict, I would say Citi will play similar to the new Ted in Atlanta. Similar elevation, dimensions and direction. Anything's possible depending on how the wind reacts, but I haven't seen much evidence to this point that Citi will favor HR hitters. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 10:09 AM ="TransMonk":2hobzjr5]I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad".[/quote:2hobzjr5] A single batting practice session with three players, that's why! seawolf17 Jan 12 2009 10:52 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":wqe3qe7s]The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere.[/quote:wqe3qe7s] I say they put them up when we're in the field, and down when we're at the plate. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 11:24 AM Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:45 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":ips0smpy]Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.[/quote:ips0smpy] yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers. Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:12 PM ="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching.. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall? Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval. Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly). MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet. Later Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM ="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

="seawolf17":18o7iaxe] ="smg58":18o7iaxe][url:18o7iaxe]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:18o7iaxe] Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield.[/quote:18o7iaxe] That was what I remembered also, not the "launching pad" thing. Heyman's an ass.[/quote:18o7iaxe] I don't buy that linked story either, at least not all of it. I think we'll have to wait and see. I think stuff like the batter's eye and lighting has as much or more to do with it than fence heights and configurations. The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere. batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 09:57 AM ="smg58":1lloyi2s][url:1lloyi2s]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:1lloyi2s] Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield.[/quote:1lloyi2s] This was a good read. By the way, I was always under the impression that Citi Field would favor the pitcher slightly. So Heyman's piece notwithstanding, am I misremembering? metirish Jan 12 2009 09:58 AM No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad. Frayed Knot Jan 12 2009 10:01 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM According to the Mets, CitiField was designed to be, at worst, neutral and hopefully favoring pitchers somewhat. But like someone said above, the proof is in the playing and all kinds of things can affect the final outcome that may not have been thought of by the planners. It's a lot more than just the numbers on the wall. Was it the new place in Philly or in Cincy (or maybe both) where open areas behind home/3rd led to wind tunnels that carried the balls out towards RF much more than anyone thought. Neither was necessarily designed as homer-happy palaces. CF is going to be more enclosed than Shea and also turned some 25-30 degrees to the north. Not sure how much/if those will factor in. I think Heyman is taking a quickie impression based on an impromptu BP session and drawing a whole lotta silly conclusions from it. batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish":3lsk2pws]No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad.[/quote:3lsk2pws] I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season. TransMonk Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad". If I had to predict, I would say Citi will play similar to the new Ted in Atlanta. Similar elevation, dimensions and direction. Anything's possible depending on how the wind reacts, but I haven't seen much evidence to this point that Citi will favor HR hitters. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 10:09 AM ="TransMonk":2hobzjr5]I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad".[/quote:2hobzjr5] A single batting practice session with three players, that's why! seawolf17 Jan 12 2009 10:52 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":wqe3qe7s]The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere.[/quote:wqe3qe7s] I say they put them up when we're in the field, and down when we're at the plate. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 11:24 AM Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:45 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":ips0smpy]Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.[/quote:ips0smpy] yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers. Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:12 PM ="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching.. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall? Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval. Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly). MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet. Later Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM ="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

[batmagadanleadoff]

="smg58":1lloyi2s][url:1lloyi2s]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:1lloyi2s] Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield.[/quote:1lloyi2s] This was a good read. By the way, I was always under the impression that Citi Field would favor the pitcher slightly. So Heyman's piece notwithstanding, am I misremembering?

metirish Jan 12 2009 09:58 AM

No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad.

Frayed Knot Jan 12 2009 10:01 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM

According to the Mets, CitiField was designed to be, at worst, neutral and hopefully favoring pitchers somewhat. But like someone said above, the proof is in the playing and all kinds of things can affect the final outcome that may not have been thought of by the planners. It's a lot more than just the numbers on the wall. Was it the new place in Philly or in Cincy (or maybe both) where open areas behind home/3rd led to wind tunnels that carried the balls out towards RF much more than anyone thought. Neither was necessarily designed as homer-happy palaces. CF is going to be more enclosed than Shea and also turned some 25-30 degrees to the north. Not sure how much/if those will factor in. I think Heyman is taking a quickie impression based on an impromptu BP session and drawing a whole lotta silly conclusions from it.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM

="metirish":3lsk2pws]No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad.[/quote:3lsk2pws] I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season. TransMonk Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad". If I had to predict, I would say Citi will play similar to the new Ted in Atlanta. Similar elevation, dimensions and direction. Anything's possible depending on how the wind reacts, but I haven't seen much evidence to this point that Citi will favor HR hitters. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 10:09 AM ="TransMonk":2hobzjr5]I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad".[/quote:2hobzjr5] A single batting practice session with three players, that's why! seawolf17 Jan 12 2009 10:52 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":wqe3qe7s]The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere.[/quote:wqe3qe7s] I say they put them up when we're in the field, and down when we're at the plate. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 11:24 AM Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:45 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":ips0smpy]Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.[/quote:ips0smpy] yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers. Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:12 PM ="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching.. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall? Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval. Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly). MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet. Later Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM ="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

[metirish]

No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad.

[Frayed Knot]

According to the Mets, CitiField was designed to be, at worst, neutral and hopefully favoring pitchers somewhat.
But like someone said above, the proof is in the playing and all kinds of things can affect the final outcome that may not have been thought of by the planners. It's a lot more than just the numbers on the wall.

Was it the new place in Philly or in Cincy (or maybe both) where open areas behind home/3rd led to wind tunnels that carried the balls out towards RF much more than anyone thought. Neither was necessarily designed as homer-happy palaces.

CF is going to be more enclosed than Shea and also turned some 25-30 degrees to the north. Not sure how much/if those will factor in.

I think Heyman is taking a quickie impression based on an impromptu BP session and drawing a whole lotta silly conclusions from it.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

="metirish":3lsk2pws]No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad.[/quote:3lsk2pws] I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.

TransMonk Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM

I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad". If I had to predict, I would say Citi will play similar to the new Ted in Atlanta. Similar elevation, dimensions and direction. Anything's possible depending on how the wind reacts, but I haven't seen much evidence to this point that Citi will favor HR hitters.

Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 10:09 AM

="TransMonk":2hobzjr5]I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad".[/quote:2hobzjr5] A single batting practice session with three players, that's why! seawolf17 Jan 12 2009 10:52 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":wqe3qe7s]The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere.[/quote:wqe3qe7s] I say they put them up when we're in the field, and down when we're at the plate. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 11:24 AM Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:45 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":ips0smpy]Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.[/quote:ips0smpy] yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers. Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:12 PM ="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching.. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall? Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval. Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly). MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet. Later Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM ="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

[TransMonk]

I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad".

If I had to predict, I would say Citi will play similar to the new Ted in Atlanta. Similar elevation, dimensions and direction.

Anything's possible depending on how the wind reacts, but I haven't seen much evidence to this point that Citi will favor HR hitters.

[Guest Edgy DC]

="TransMonk":2hobzjr5]I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad".[/quote:2hobzjr5] A single batting practice session with three players, that's why!

seawolf17 Jan 12 2009 10:52 AM

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":wqe3qe7s]The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere.[/quote:wqe3qe7s] I say they put them up when we're in the field, and down when we're at the plate. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 11:24 AM Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:45 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":ips0smpy]Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.[/quote:ips0smpy] yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers. Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:12 PM ="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching.. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall? Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval. Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly). MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet. Later Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM ="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

[seawolf17]

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":wqe3qe7s]The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere.[/quote:wqe3qe7s] I say they put them up when we're in the field, and down when we're at the plate.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 11:24 AM

Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.

Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:45 PM

="Benjamin Grimm":ips0smpy]Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.[/quote:ips0smpy] yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers. Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:12 PM ="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching.. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall? Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval. Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly). MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet. Later Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM ="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place.

Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.

[nymr83]

="Benjamin Grimm":ips0smpy]Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.[/quote:ips0smpy] yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.

Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:12 PM

="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching.. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall? Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval. Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly). MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet. Later Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM ="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

[Gwreck]

="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited.

Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM

Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching..

Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM

is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall?

Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM

I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM

I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval.

Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM

Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly).

MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM

Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet. Later

Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM

but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea

Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM

Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM

="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching..

[nymr83]

is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall?

[Guest Edgy DC]

I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval.

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission.

All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly).

[MFS62]

Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet.

Later

[nymr83]

but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium.

i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea

[Centerfield]

Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets?

metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM

In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done.

seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM

Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html

Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM

Welcome back, Ollie!

Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM

Yuck.

seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM

="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

[metirish]

In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done.

[seawolf17]

Lowe's a Brave:

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html

[Guest Edgy DC]

Welcome back, Ollie!

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yuck.

[seawolf17]

="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119

bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM

Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM

For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.

metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

[bmfc1]

Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said:

"A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...."

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html

I wonder if he was referring to Heyman.