2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 22

[Benjamin Grimm]

Vote for the tabloid covers that you like the best. You may select up to three choices. Voting will run for seven days.

HALL PASS
New York Daily News, January 6, 2016.



HALL ABOARD!
Newsday, January 7, 2016.



THAT'S TERRIFIC!
New York Daily News, January 7, 2016.



HALL OF JUSTICE
New York Post, January 7, 2016.



TOP HAT
Newsday, January 8, 2016.



HAT'S MORE LIKE IT
New York Daily News, January 8, 2016.



JUST SAY CES!
New York Daily News, January 17, 2016.



CAPITAL GAIN?
Newsday, January 22, 2016.



APPLE OF HIS EYE!
New York Daily News, January 22, 2016.



WORST NAT-MARE!
New York Daily News, January 22, 2016.



NATMARE
New York Post, January 22, 2016.

[Benjamin Grimm]

"Oh, Ashley! If Mr. Cespedes were to go to Washington, that would be mah worst natmare!"

[MFS62]

That's Terrific not only showed two great Hall Of Famers but it also happily reminded us that Bonds and Clemens didn't get there.
How close to perfect can one back page get?

Later

[bmfc1]

Photo-shopped images and pool photos (in more than paper) lose points for me.

[Centerfield]

That's terrific could have been a real prize. I hate that they loaded all that other info in the bullet point subheadlines.

Just the headline, the "At last..." blurb, and the picture might have won the whole tournament.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Aboard, Terrific, Ces for me... great timing starting this this morning as I
am in a grumpy-ass mood baseball wise... cuck the fubs!

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I went with the Cespedes ones because afaic, Piazza to the Hall of Fame was a story with no back-page worthy drama at all. He deserved in, got in, BFD. And boy I couldn't give less of a fuck what hat he wears.

[Edgy MD]

bmfc1 wrote: Photo-shopped images and pool photos (in more than paper) lose points for me.

Yeah, Photoshops disrespects your photographers' ability to tell a visual story without BS.

[Frayed Knot]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: And boy I couldn't give less of a fuck what hat he wears.

I passed over all 'HAT' covers for the same reason.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I just noticed that text at the bottom of TOP HAT:

SANDY: CESPEDES NOT RIGHT FOR METS

[Zvon]

For me Piazza into the Hall trumps anything Cespedes, and to have Mike and The Franchise together is as good as it gets.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I just noticed that text at the bottom of TOP HAT: SANDY: CESPEDES NOT RIGHT FOR METS

Just a reminder about all of the speculation last winter [Cespedes not right, not in the budget, Zobrist or dick!] and none of it was correct.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I cared about the cap.

I went with all the HOF covers, assuming that the Cespedes signs covers will be better and a thing of beauty to be treasured! Assuming those will be in the next batch.

[Edgy MD]

Apart from where one may stand of the significance of the hat issue, HAT'S MORE LIKE IT shows a facepalming inability to land a pun.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I cared about the cap. I went with all the HOF covers, assuming that the Cespedes signs covers will be better and a thing of beauty to be treasured! Assuming those will be in the next batch.

I cared about that cap too. Not to any great degree, but sure, I'd rather see an NY on his cap than an LA. Why wouldn't I? But when Gary Carter got an elb on his cap, I said to myself, "Oh well." No angst. No tooth-gnashing. The cap on the plaque is worth caring about, but only a little bit.

For some reason though, calling a baseball cap a "hat" seems wrong to me. I mean, technically it is a hat, but "cap" seems more correct.

And yes, the Cespedes signing will be in the next batch of covers. Come back tomorrow!

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Love this feature!

[Fman99]

I picked the three front runners -- the two HOF ones and the Cespedes one that was least obnoxious.

[Centerfield]

I just noticed that text at the bottom of TOP HAT: SANDY: CESPEDES NOT RIGHT FOR METS Just a reminder about all of the speculation last winter [Cespedes not right, not in the budget, Zobrist or dick!] and none of it was correct.

It's funny how two sides of a debate can look back a year later and both feel that they were completely right. I disagree. I think that the speculation surrounding each of those thoughts was 100% correct.

1. Cespedes not a Good Fit

Cespedes not being a good fit wasn't, in fact, speculation, but rather an idea conveyed by Sandy Alderson. The article the cover references is here:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/sandy-alderson-explains-why-yoenis-cespedes-isn-t-a-good-fit-1.11303094

The idea conveyed by Alderson, was that it wasn't money that was preventing the Mets from pursuing Cespedes. It's that he would have to play centerfield, and although it made sense for a few months, it was not a good fit for five or six years.

The speculation, conveyed here on this board, was that this was all bullshit. First off, there was no guarantee that Conforto was an everyday player (he was still not facing lefties). And at best, even if Cespedes had to play center, it would only be for a year or two until Granderson's contract expired, when either Ces, or Conforto, if he stuck, could move over to RF. The speculation was that Sandy was spewing garbage so as to not say we don't want to give him the big money deal. (I think one of my themes last winter was calling bullshit on Sandy Alderson.)

And in the end, it was just that, bullshit. Ultimately, the Mets signed Cespedes, and stuck him right back in centerfield. Not because he magically got better in CF, or because a corner OF spot opened up, but because he came back to them and agreed to a short-term deal. Money, money, and money. Less Money = Good Fit

The speculation was actually dead on accurate.

2. Cespedes Not In the Budget

I don't know which specific statement you are referencing here, but the speculation I offered last winter was that there was absolutely, positively room for Cespedes in the budget. First off, a big market team should be able to afford Cespedes, even with everyone else they signed. Secondly, if the Mets were hamstrung by budget, they still could have afforded him by foregoing the De Aza/Cabrera/Blevins/Walker/Colon pu-pu platter.

In fact, both statements were true. And thus, the speculation, was again correct.

On Edit: Found the actual conversation:

They certainly have room in their budget to get a big name outfielder if they wanted one. And how is it that we know this? Because they are at $90 million now. Without the Cabrera signing they would be at $81 million. Even if you added Heyward's $23 million, you're still only at $103 million. Which is what the payroll was to begin 2015.

What do you know? Turned out, there was room!

3. Zobrist or Dick

So if you recall, and you should since it's been bumped to the front page again, the name of the thread is Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter Meaning it was John Ricco saying it was Zobrist or dick, not that I thought the offseason would yield Zobrist or dick. And it's hard to argue that my paraphrase was off.

From the Times article:

Ricco sat at the conference table and spoke to the news media for about 20 minutes, outlining what may be an important and busy week here, something of a new phenomenon for the Mets. The Mets’ plans, for the moment, hinge on what Zobrist decides. If Zobrist signs elsewhere, the Mets did not seem to have a clear fallback plan. The Mets would like to add complementary players in the bullpen and the outfield. Because they want to play Michael Conforto and Juan Lagares regularly, they are not looking for an “everyday” outfielder, Ricco said, but more of a veteran who could platoon with them. That definition effectively ruled out the possibility that the Mets would re-sign Cespedes, the outfield slugger who became a fan favorite last year. “I think it’s unlikely right now that he ends up a Met, I think that’s fair to say,” Ricco said. “I think we will end up meeting with his agent. Right now, I still think he’s looking at a deal that would be north of what we would consider.”

Basically, the Mets are all in on Zobrist, and they have no real backup plan, and they had no real intention of pursuing an impact player.

I don't know that there was any speculation offered here. It was more along the lines of: "Holy crap, I can't believe Ricco would just show his hand like that" and "The fucking Mets are assholes". Maybe some thought that he was not conveying what he was really thinking, or that he had more up his sleeve. But in the end, turned out he didn't. Basically everything he said was basically all he had.

When Zobrist spurned them, they had no backup plan. From the Andy Martino Report following the Winter Meetings:

Ricco does not have the luxury to wallow, or reflect; he has to communicate to an entire fan base...“He has some history with the manager in Chicago, it’s a little closer to home for him,” Ricco says of Zobrist, before pausing and conceding the emotional truth of a moment like this. “It’s disappointing, to be honest.” A few minutes later, most of the Mets’ front office staff has returned to the suite. A “what now?” vibe settles over them. “Hey,” says Ricciardi, a streetwise former infielder with a thick Massachusetts accent. “Let’s just get some dinner.”

They didn't have a Plan B. They didn't immediately turn to the other options they had lined up. They looked at each other sadly, then got something to eat.

It wasn't until the next morning when Huntington called and offered Walker for Niese that the Mets actually saw an option materialize before them. And as we saw after the winter played out, they never pursued Cespedes, or any other impact player. They didn't host his wife and daughter, they didn't take Yoenis on a tour of the NY area. In fact, they actually signed his low-budget replacement, the much maligned Alejandro De Aza, who became the aforementioned veteran who could platoon with the existing guys.

The Mets did not "wait out" Cespedes thinking that the market wouldn't materialize. They wrote him off in November, then were surprised when he came back to them in January.

Again, the thinking was pretty much right on the nose.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Guest

[Zvon]

That's an excellent post CF.

[Centerfield]

Zvon wrote: That's an excellent post CF.

Thanks Z!

[Frayed Knot]

Look, I don't want to log up the Tabloid thread with a lot of strategy talk (so if someone wants to spin this off then fine).

This isn't about who was right or wrong nor about things said on this board specifically.
My point is that there is A TON of speculation every winter and MOST OF IT winds up wrong. Even the insider media who are there are often speculating about what they think is going to happen (Mets don't seem to have a Plan B) and then fans speculate off that speculation and wind up treating whatever they saw/read last as if the gospel truth.

So when leading sub-headlines like 'Cespedes not Right for Mets' get dangled on back pages it tends to get combined with often pre-conceived notions (ie. more speculation) about what ownership can or will spend and many fans (I'd say MOST - including some here) just KNEW that Cespedes would never be a Met again, a fact which was true right up until it wasn't precisely because nobody knows how things will play out.
So while I'm sure the brass was disappointed when Zobrist took Chicago's offer, the fact that the writer there sensed that there was no 'Plan B' doesn't mean there wasn't and when they wound up with a different switch-hitting 2B with a near identical career OPS (and five years younger) a mere 24 hours later it indicates that just maybe going home and drinking a bottle of bleach wasn't the only alternative to the dream girl turning down the prom invitation.

[Ceetar]

And don't forget nothing the Mets/Alderson say publicly is their deepest held beliefs. In all likelihood, Sandy WOULD have preferred a different answer than Cespedes, but it didn't present itself. (The same case can be made this year) It's all part of negotiating. "Hey, here's a serious issue that we'd like to address that you don't fill. That's why you're not worth X"

[Edgy MD]

It wasn't even Alderson picking up the phone then.

[Centerfield]

This isn't about who was right or wrong nor about things said on this board specifically.

Are you sure about that? Because to me, it sounds very much like a "Ha ha, I was right, you were wrong" type of post. And your post specifically quotes me. So if it wasn't meant to be about who was right or wrong, or my post specifically, it sure did seem like it.

My point is that there is A TON of speculation every winter and MOST OF IT winds up wrong.

Sure. Speculation, by it's nature, is speculative. But it just so happens that you cited to three examples of speculation where:

1. I was the one speculating
2. You were challenging the conclusions drawn from such speculation
3. You have now declared those conclusions wrong
4. When, in fact, those conclusions were correct. On all 3 counts.

Even the insider media who are there are often speculating about what they think is going to happen (Mets don't seem to have a Plan B) and then fans speculate off that speculation and wind up treating whatever they saw/read last as if the gospel truth.

None of the examples you cite were based upon insider media, or prognostications of what beat writers thought might happen. These were actual quotes from Ricco and Alderson. And I don't remember anyone treating those words like gospel. The discussion that ensued was my assessment of their mindset when making these statements. And in the end, my assessments of their mindset, were dead on.

So when leading sub-headlines like 'Cespedes not Right for Mets' get dangled on back pages it tends to get combined with often pre-conceived notions (ie. more speculation) about what ownership can or will spend and many fans (I'd say MOST - including some here) just KNEW that Cespedes would never be a Met again, a fact which was true right up until it wasn't precisely because nobody knows how things will play out.

The pre-conceived notion was that the Wilpons did not want to sign Cespedes to a long-term contract. The reality ended up being that the Wilpons did not want to sign Cespedes to a long-term contract. The Mets got lucky when Cespedes came back to them on a short-term deal. That is why the headlines in today's batch of covers includes variations on the word "stun".

Again, those that speculated, were correct.

When Sandy gave us the lame centerfield argument, we called him out on his bullshit. In the end, it was bullshit. They signed Cespedes and put him in center. It was never about the position. It was about money.

But it wasn't universal, there were some that bought into the OF position line of thinking. Someone, who, incidentally, seemed pretty sure that Lagares wouldn't be relegated to a backup position, meaning no premiere OF was coming.

OK, I'll try once more. The Mets currently have three OFs under multi-year deals plus Conforto, which means that if they go out to sign a premier FA OF it's not going to be in addition to what they already have but instead of one or more of them. If you want to argue for that strategy then fine, but a top FA isn't coming here to platoon and the team isn't moving Granderson (their best offensive player this past year) nor LAGARES (a 26 y/o GG CF) to a backup/PH role. If you want to keep those guys and merely reduce their roles then it's going to be for a lesser, more platoon-type of import, not the likes of Heyward or Upton or Adam Jones.

Once Cespedes dropped his price, the Mets were like "Have a seat Juan!"

So while I'm sure the brass was disappointed when Zobrist took Chicago's offer, the fact that the writer there sensed that there was no 'Plan B' doesn't mean there wasn't and when they wound up with a different switch-hitting 2B with a near identical career OPS (and five years younger) a mere 24 hours later it indicates that just maybe going home and drinking a bottle of bleach wasn't the only alternative to the dream girl turning down the prom invitation.

I think you are mistaken on the facts. It was not that a writer "sensed" there was no plan B. Ricco held a press conference and showed his entire hand. Much to the surprise of all the reporters and us here on the Board. And it wasn't that Andy Martino speculated the reaction in the room. He was there, saw it, and reported it. This was not his opinions or musings. This was his first hand observation.

It was also his first hand observation that the Walker deal did not materialize until the next morning when Neal Huntington dropped it into his lap.

Mid-morning on Wednesday, Ricco is on a conference call on his cell, when Pirates general manager Neal Huntington calls. It goes to voicemail, then Ricciardi’s phone rings. It’s Huntington. “Would you consider Walker for Niese?” Huntington asks Ricciardi, referring to Jonathon Niese, a 29-year-old lefthanded pitcher. Niese is solid but unspectacular, and has put off teammates by complaining about their defensive play. The decision to part with him is not difficult, Mets officials later admit privately.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/news-lifts-curtain-backstage-drama-mlb-winter-meetings-article-1.2469431

Not convinced?

A few minutes later, a team official who’d been away for a few hours returns to the suite and sees Walker’s name back on the whiteboard. “What’s that?” he says. “We’re getting him,” another official answers.

Things that guys with a plan say:

1. Hey, did they really take Niese? LOLOLOL
2. It looks like Plan B is well underway!
3. Awesome! Did the Neil Walker deal that we totally had thought through come to fruition during my hours of absence?

What the Mets said:

"What's that?"

[ashie62]

Is this worth arguing about? Geezuz

I'll Thats Terrific" largely because of the photo of Piazza and Seaver.

[Centerfield]

Ashie62 wrote: Is this worth arguing about? Geezuz

No. It doesn't. But I am incapable of just letting it go when people say I was proven wrong when:

1. It's a year later
2. It's unprovoked, in a nice little thread about tabloid covers
3. I was right!

[Frayed Knot]

CF, I can't possibly follow your earlier post and at this point have totally lost track of what your point is.
Specifically the part about how you think this is about me bragging about being right as I made no predictions about what was going to happen so wouldn't be right whether the team lost Cespedes, resigned Cespedes, or gave a multi-year deal to Vladimir Putin.

1. It's a year later -- yes, and the covers of nearly a year ago brought the topic of Cespedes back up

2. It's unprovoked, in a nice little thread about tabloid covers -- I wasn't "provoking" anything, I was observing how at-the-moment off-season speculation often looks in hindsight

3. I was right! -- I have no idea what you were right about unless the team adding Walker, Cabrera, and then re-adding Cespedes is somehow proof that last off-season was destined to be Zobrist or nothing

[Centerfield]

Here is the Cliff Notes version.

FK: Ha! Look at those things CF said last year. OMG he was so wrong.

CF: Are you serious? I wasn't wrong, I was right. Here's the proof....links....quotes...facts...evidence....

FK: Dude, like what are you like even talking about? I don't get your point.