Benjamin Grimm

metsmarathon wrote: but what would you expect to come home with? They have a hot catching prospect or two, don't they?

I like the name "Gabriel Ynoa"

Gwreck awarded 12 points, and his votes were prorated as follows: hairston 2.5 reyes 1.67 turner 1.67 bay 0.42 beltran 0.42 acosta 0.83 beato 0.83 byrdak 1.11 isringhausen 0.56

Voting for all three games played this past weekend against the Los Angeles California Angels of Anaheim California will close on Wednesday morning. Please try to get any remaining votes posted today. Schaefer POTG 6/17/11 - Angels 4, Mets 3 Schaefer PotG, 6/18, Mets 6, Angels 1 Schaefer POTG 6/19/11 - Angels 7, Mets 3

Opened this past Friday. I think I'm gonna wait until it's on cable; it doesn't look like it's worth the price of the movie tickets. I'm willing to overlook that for a Marvel movie, but not so much for a DC movie.

Voting for the final two games played against the Braves last week will close on Tuesday morning. Schaefer POTG 6/15/11 - Mets 4, Braves 0 Schaefer POTG 6/15/11 - Mets 4, Braves 0

Beato 0.5 Beltran 0.5 Reyes 0.5 Tejada 0.5 Thole 0.5 Turner 0.5

I sit and pretend it's not happening -- I'm bitter. This one, but without the bitterness.

The park would have more Yankee fans in the seats than Mets fans that day, so of course there will be cheers.

Mike Pelfrey moves into a three-way tie with Tug McGraw and Jesse Orosco. Wins by a Mets pitcher: 1. Tom Seaver 198 2. Dwight Gooden 157 3. Jerry Koosman 140 4. Ron Darling 99 5. Sid Fernandez 98 6. Al Leiter 95 7. Jon Matlack 82 8. David Cone 81 9. Bobby Jones 74 10. Steve Trachsel 66 11. Tom Glavine 61 12. Craig Swan 59 13. Rick Reed 59 14. Bob Ojeda 51 15. John Franco 48 16. Tug McGraw 47 17. Jesse Orosco 47 18. Mike Pelfrey 47 19. Al Jackson 43 20. Pat Zachry 41 21. Gary Gentry 41 22. Johan Santana 40

Bay 0.7 Beltran 2 Pagan 0.5 Pelfrey 5.6 Reyes 0.7 Turner 0.5

True dat.

Acosta 1 Capuano 2.75 Pagan 2 Paulino 1.75

metirish wrote: Interesting indeed, I think Einhorn is betting against the Wilpon's as apposed to rooting for the team to lose. That sounds right to me.

Acosta 0.75 Bay 1 Beato 0.75 Beltran 1 Byrdak 1 Hairston 2.75 Isringhausen 0.5 Reyes 1.25 Turner 1

The only previous time that the Mets ever lost on a balk:

Ask him how he pronounces his name. I'm hoping it's "Leather Sick"

Yeah, but he could have waited two or three weeks to see what other teams were offering.

No, Piazza signed during that period between the end of the season and the time he was permitted to talk to other teams. I think it was while the playoffs were going on. My point in bringing that up is that not all players take the free agency plunge, even if they're only days away from being eligible. We can say, "Of course Reyes will test the market! Why wouldn't he?" And the answer could be the same reason (whatever it was) that Mike Piazza didn't test the market. (And many other players as well, I'm sure. Piazza is the one that comes first to mind for me.)

Mike Piazza never tested free agency in 1998. And he came a lot closer than Jose Reyes is now. (He was just a week or two away.)

Someone check my math here: I'm wondering about how 15 teams in each league would require interleague play throughout the season. To simplify things, let's just say that there are 162 days of action in the season, and on each of those 162 days, every team is playing. That means that of the 15 games played each day, 14 of them can be AL vs. AL and NL vs. NL. So the minimum number of interleague games that would have to be played during the season is 162. That comes out to an average of 5.4 games per team. Now, of course, they may opt to make interleague games more frequent, but they don't have to. It could be limited to five games for some teams and six games for other teams. It sucks that some of those games would have to be in late September, but no team would have to play more than three such games in September; not a huge impact on the pennant races at all.

Voting for Tuesday night's win in Atlanta will close on Friday morning. Schaefer POTG 6/14/11 - Mets 4, Braves 3

Here's how the last five years might have played out under the different proposed scenarios. (Not accounting, of course, for the fact that the won-lost records would have been different with a different schedule.) For each year, in the first section I show, for each league, the four playoff teams, and in brackets who the fifth team would have been if there was provision for a second wild card. I then show, in the "Single Division" section, who would have made the playoffs if the five teams with the best records qualified. In some years, there's no difference, but sometimes there are a few different teams qualifying. The 2007 NL race would have been incredible. 2010 in the NL would have been essentially unchanged. 2010 NATIONAL LEAGUE 1. Phillies (97) 1. Reds (91) 1. Giants (92) W1. Braves (91) {W2. Padres (90)} Single Division: 1. Phillies (97) 2. Giants (92) 3T. Braves (91) 3T. Reds (91) 5. Padres 90 AMERICAN LEAGUE 1. Rays (96) 1. Twins (94) 1. Rangers (90) W1. Yankees (95) {W2. Red Sox (89)} Single Division: 1. Rays (96) 2. Yankees (95) 3. Twins (94) 4. Rangers (90) 5. Red Sox (89) 2009 NATIONAL LEAGUE 1. Phillies (93) 1. Cardinals (91) 1. Dodgers (95) W1. Rockies (92) {W2. Giants (88)} Single Division 1. Dodgers (95) 2. Phillies (93) 3. Rockies (92) 4. Cardinals (87) 5. Giants (88) AMERICAN LEAGUE 1. Yankees (103) 1. Twins (87) 1. Angels (97) W1. Red Sox (95) {W2. Rangers (87)} Single Division 1. Yankees (103) 2. Angels (97) 3. Red Sox (95) 4T. Twins (87) 4T. Rangers (87) 2008 NATIONAL LEAGUE 1. Phillies (92) 1. Cubs (97) 1. Dodgers (84) W1. Brewers (90) {W2. Mets (89)} Single Division 1. Cubs (97) 2. Phillies (92) 3. Brewers (90) 4. Mets (89) 5T. Astros (86) 5T. Cardinals (86) AMERICAN LEAGUE 1. Rays (97) 1. White Sox (89) 1. Angels (100) W1. Red Sox (95) {W2. Yankees (89)} Single Division 1. Angels (100) 2. Rays (97) 3. Red Sox (95) 4T. Yankees (89) 4T. White Sox (89) 2007 NATIONAL LEAGUE 1. Phillies (89) 1. Cubs (85) 1. Diamondbacks (90) W1. Rockies (90) {W2. Padres (89)} Single Division 1T. Diamondbacks (90) 1T. Rockies (90) 3T. Phillies (89) 3T. Padres (89) 5. Mets (88) AMERICAN LEAGUE 1. Red Sox (96) 1. Indians (96) 1. Angels (94) W1. Yankees (94) {W2. Tigers or Mariners, (88)} Single Division 1T. Red Sox (96) 1T. Indians (96) 3T. Angels (94) 3T. Yankees (94) 5T. Tigers (88) 5T. Mariners (88) 2006 NATIONAL LEAGUE 1. Mets (97) 1. Cardinals (83) 1. Padres (88) W1. Dodgers (88) {W2. Phillies (85)} Single Division 1. Mets (97) 2T. Padres (88) 2T. Dodgers (88) 4. Phillies (85) 5. Cardinals (83) AMERICAN LEAGUE 1. Yankees (97) 1. Twins (96) 1. Athletics (93) W1. Tigers (95) {W2. White Sox (90) Single Division 1. Yankees (97) 2. Twins (96) 3. Tigers (95) 4. White Sox (90) 5. Angels (89)