Benjamin Grimm

I'm hoping that Sandy will have a say in picking his successor. I read a quote this offseason where Ricciardi said that he wouldn't have the patience that Sandy has shown, so I'd be wary of him becoming the GM. I have no desire to see the Mets rashly trade prospects. (Anyone remember Victor Zambrano?) I wonder if there's anything to be read from the fact that John Ricco seemed to take the lead in Nashville when Sandy wasn't able to attend the winter meetings? [edit: This sentence was posted before I saw Frayed Knot's previous post.]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: There have been 23 (out of 54) Mets seasons in which the Mets went the entire season without having had a Hall of Famer play in at least one game. Mike Piazza's induction this summer will only reduce that number by two, even though he played in eight seasons with the Mets. Here's the list. I noticed that each of the Mets post-season teams (except of course for 2015) has had at least one Hall-of-Famer. Will the 2015 team maintain the trend? It may not. I don't think any of the team's veterans are likely to go in, and it's way too early to project any of the younger players. (Thirty years ago, many would have assumed that Gooden and Strawberry would be in the Hall some day.) 1962 Ashburn 1963 Snider 1964 1965 Berra, Spahn 1966 Ryan 1967 Seaver 1968 Ryan, Seaver 1969 Ryan, Seaver 1970 Ryan, Seaver 1971 Ryan, Seaver 1972 Mays, Seaver 1973 Mays, Seaver 1974 Seaver 1975 Seaver, Torre 1976 Seaver, Torre 1977 Seaver, Torre 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Seaver 1984 1985 Carter 1986 Carter 1987 Carter 1988 Carter 1989 Carter 1990 1991 1992 Murray 1993 Murray 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Piazza 1999 Henderson, Piazza 2000 Henderson, Piazza 2001 Piazza 2002 Alomar, Piazza 2003 Alomar, Glavine, Piazza 2004 Glavine, Piazza 2005 Glavine, Martinez, Piazza 2006 Glavine, Martinez 2007 Glavine, Martinez 2008 Martinez 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Oops! I forgot Pedro Martinez! So 2008 is covered, leaving us only 20 seasons without a Hall of Famer. Sorry Pedro!

I think David does have a chance, but my hunch is that he won't make it. He'll probably fall well short of 3,000 hits and 400 homers. But he'll probably get some good-guy votes, and he does have a lot of All-Star appearances. And hopefully a few more trips to the World Series...

There have been 23 (out of 54) Mets seasons in which the Mets went the entire season without having had a Hall of Famer play in at least one game. Mike Piazza's induction this summer will only reduce that number by two, even though he played in eight seasons with the Mets. Here's the list. I noticed that each of the Mets post-season teams (except of course for 2015) has had at least one Hall-of-Famer. Will the 2015 team maintain the trend? It may not. I don't think any of the team's veterans are likely to go in, and it's way too early to project any of the younger players. (Thirty years ago, many would have assumed that Gooden and Strawberry would be in the Hall some day.) 1962 Ashburn 1963 Snider 1964 1965 Berra, Spahn 1966 Ryan 1967 Seaver 1968 Ryan, Seaver 1969 Ryan, Seaver 1970 Ryan, Seaver 1971 Ryan, Seaver 1972 Mays, Seaver 1973 Mays, Seaver 1974 Seaver 1975 Seaver, Torre 1976 Seaver, Torre 1977 Seaver, Torre 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Seaver 1984 1985 Carter 1986 Carter 1987 Carter 1988 Carter 1989 Carter 1990 1991 1992 Murray 1993 Murray 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Piazza 1999 Henderson, Piazza 2000 Henderson, Piazza 2001 Piazza 2002 Alomar, Piazza 2003 Alomar, Glavine, Piazza 2004 Glavine, Piazza 2005 Glavine, Piazza 2006 Glavine 2007 Glavine 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Interesting. A Yankee cap on Yogi would be the obvious choice. I wonder if the generic cap was because he was the Mets manager at the time he was inducted? Too bad he got in before the 1973 pennant could be added to his plaque.

It was never closed.

It's the middle of the day on Thursday and Edgy hasn't posted since Sunday night. I think that the last time he went this long without posting in this forum was back in the early 1940s.

Frayed Knot wrote: The HoF now has its first gay member!!!! What about this guy?

Frayed Knot wrote: As for the number retirement thing: it's fine with me if they do it but it's also fine if they don't. That's pretty much where I am. And as for the cap on the plaque, I hope it's a Mets cap. (Why wouldn't I? I'm a Mets fan.) But if it's not, it's not. No big deal. I've probably already made my final visit to Cooperstown anyway.

I know. I agree that Piazza is more worthy of a retired number than Carter is (although if it were up to me I don't think I would retire 31 either) but I'm just pointing out that we can't assume that the number will be retired.

They didn't do it for Gary Carter, even when he was dying, so it's not exactly a sure thing.

The winner of this poll will be the Group Four champion and will advance to the Final Four.

. Winner of Round 1.4.6 Winner of Round 2.4.4 Winner of Round 3.4.2 TEAM OF DESTINY New York Daily News, October 27, 2015 With the World Series about to begin, the Daily News publishes a special wraparound cover. Winner of Round 1.4.4 Winner of Round 2.4.2 Winner of Round 3.4.1 APPLE JACKS! New York Post, October 18, 2015 Home runs by the Mets raise the Citi Field apple as the Mets take NLCS Game 1 from the Cubs. . . . . . .

If Piazza does get elected today, the next "hot topic" will be what cap he wears on his plaque. The Los Angeles Times has already started the discussion: The Dodgers' uncomfortable winter could take a bitter turn Wednesday, when the best hitter the team has developed since moving to Los Angeles could be elected to the Hall of Fame and promptly remind the world he wants to be immortalized in the cap of the New York Mets. Full article: Mike Piazza's desire to enter Hall of Fame in a Mets cap speaks volumes about the Dodgers' ills

The cover that wins this poll will be the Group Three champion and will advance to the Final Four.

. Winner of Round 1.3.6 Winner of Round 2.3.4 Winner of Round 3.3.2 CAPITAL THRILL! New York Post, September 8, 2015 A three-run 7th inning gives the Mets an 8-5 win over the Nationals in Washington. Winner of Round 1.3.7 Winner of Round 2.3.3 Winner of Round 3.3.1 YES-PEDES New York Daily News, September 10, 2015 Helped by an 8th-inning two-run homer by Yoenis Cespedes, the Mets beat the Nationals 5-3 in Washington, completing a key September series sweep. . . . . . .

I don't pay that much attention to who's who in the front office, so now that he's gone, can anyone tell me... What did Paul DePodesta actually do?

Well, he has a funny name, for one thing. And it seems there's a chance that he may become a New York Met: Buster Olney wrote: The Orioles and Mets have been among those teams involved in talks with lefty reliever Antonio Bastardo. Very strong second half in 2015.

I'm kinda hoping that the New York Giants lure Terry Collins away as their new head coach. He's probably qualified; he has the same initials as the guy who just resigned.

Is it really January 1976? I'm confused. If I'm twelve years old, why do I see grey hairs in my beard when I look in the mirror?

I went with neutral. I wish they had done more, but it may turn out that what they've done is sufficient to win a championship. Time will tell. I don't think they'll be a raging hot as they were in August and into September, but if they're not as stone cold as they were in June and much of July, it could balance out. The Mets hit 177 homers in 2015. If they can get roughly the same number in 2016, but more evenly spread out over the six months of the season, and the starters stay (mostly) healthy, then things can turn out okay. I don't worry about what the Chicago Cubs have done. The Mets will only play them six or seven times in the regular season, and perhaps not at all in the postseason. And even if they do meet in the NLDS or NLCS, I still think the Mets can beat them in a best-of-five or best-of-seven series. It will depend on the pitching.

The winner of this competition will be the Group Two champion and will advance to the Final Four.

. Winner of Round 1.2.7 Winner of Round 2.2.4 Winner of Round 3.2.2 CON4TO! New York Daily News, July 26, 2015 Michael Conforto goes 4 for 4 and scores 4 runs in a 15-2 Mets win over the Dodgers at Citi Field. Winner of Round 1.2.8 Winner of Round 2.2.3 Winner of Round 3.2.1 "U" DA MAN! New York Daily News, July 27, 2015 A walk-off hit from Juan Uribe in the 10th inning gives the Mets a win over the Dodgers. . . . . . .

RealityChuck wrote: it's not a copyright violation. I'm not stealing anything. I'm reading it in a forum. What if you printed it out and handed it to me? nope, not a violation.Unless you have permission from the copyright holder, you can't republish their work. Printing it out is not republishing it. What if was broadcast on my TV and I recorded it and showed it to all of you in my home? nope, not a violation.TV has a special dispensation; you are allowed to make a home recording for home use (but not for public performance). That doesn't apply to written text. My thoughts here are primarily about the news/beat type articles which are more amenable to fair use anyway.There's not clearcut rule, but fair use only allows you to use portions of a work, not its entirety. I have a hard time calling an Adam Rubin post about the '86 celebrations on Memorial Day with a few mentions about what they did in '06 as 'content' except in the strictest sense. There's not a lot of artistic work going on in a news report.Doesn't matter. It's protected by copyright. I understand that it gets murkier as it's further editorialized, but as all we're doing is furthering the discussion of a news item, with credit!, I find it hard to really worry about whether or not I clicked through to the original source or not. Technically this is a public site, and that's where the violation would come in, but it's really more of a small isolated group. It's not even crawled that well. Have there been any salient court cases differentiating a message board/forum from a more standard website/blog? I view this as much of a private discussion among like-minded individuals, like an email newsgroup or a Slack group or chat room. Any re-post is at least three clicks from a homepage. And it's like like we're setting up an RSS feed of a writer's work.Lots of rationalization here, but ultimately, the law is the creator holds the copyright and is the one who decides how the work can be reused. Not you. It's not the writer we're interested in, it's the content itself. we're discussing it. we're _transforming_ it into a discussion of the news item at hand. When I repost Rubin's 30th anniversary post and comment about how I really like the replica ring giveaway and it's much better than the lame video programming they did in 2006 that's fair use. This is news propagating and commenting and criticism and all those things governed by fair use. And there's nothing inherently special about using Rubin instead of say Maria Guardado's post on the same topic. Another example of fair use because the work itself isn't particularly creative. I suggest you actually look up fair use: § 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Note #3. And #4 also comes into play, since the website is selling ads, and posting the article means fewer people see them -- which hurts them financially. I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty sure I've never copy and pasted an entire article here, I usually link and comment. I just happen to be interested in the evolving nature of media and content and how it's governed.As am I, but the difference is that I look at what the law actually says, instead of making pronouncements about how I want it to be. I think this is a great change, not only due to the law, but due to the fact that it's silly to copy an entire article to comment on it. If someone is too lazy to click on a link, that's too bad. It's also silly (and lazy) to do what I just did. I used the quote feature on an entire lengthy post when it's the post previous to mine and I'm only commenting on a small part of it.

I think he was.