nymr83

This really underscores the need for us to buy up one of those abandoned spring training facilities, preferably the old Dodgertown, and create a camp for unsigned vets. I think they have this in Football and guys PAY you to show up and play, the business model is that you are promising your games (against the other guys in your facility) give these guys a higher level of competition to prove themselves against than they'd get anywhere else that isnt actually a major league camp. of course, if 2 or 3 super-agents were smart they'd band togther to do this themselves and be able to hold that out as one more reason to sign with them for fringe guys (and they hope one of these guy hits the lotto and pays for it all)

Better known as an X-Man, The Beast was once an Avenger a well..

Edgy MD wrote: Listen, if you want to argue for fewer restrictions on the talent marketplace, and every last vestige of the reserve clause destroyed, you've got no greater ally than me. My only point is that he wasn't a particular victim of collusion, beyond the greater collusion that is the restrictions of free agent system itself. Are you responding to me? I agree with you, when i said "no accident" i meant the cba was causing it,not collusion

Edgy MD wrote: If they were going to collude, why him and apparently only him? Why not Peralta? There's usually somebody left over around now. Last year it was Bourn, this year it's him. ESPN Ranked the Free Agents, of their top 50, 4 remain: 6- Ervin Santana 9- Stephen Drew 23- Nelson Cruz 25 - Kendry Morales All 4 have draft picks attached to them, which is no accident. Freddie Coupon has signed numbers 13, 15 and 34 on that list. the mets did not lose anyone on the list. not a bad offseason by most standards.

d'Kong76 wrote: I predict ownership collusion allegations ... this should be done, somewhere. Someplace. There are always allegations, but the CBA is to blame here, not collusion.

MFS62 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: I still think there's a feeling that his secondary pitches need some fine-turning that'll come with the sort of repetition that he can use from a half season at AA or AAA Some used to talk about his curve being too inconsistent but more recently, and even in Syndergaard's own words in a recent Q&A I read, it's the change-up that needs some work. Is Las Vegas really the place to develop a curve ball (Thin, dry air)? I'm not sure. Later Everyone I've seen who grades/talks prospects say he needs a little more work. Barring injury the Mets are set with Colon, Niese, Gee, and Wheeler. Even if they discarded Dice-K and Lannan the best young starter for RIGHT NOW is supposed to be Montero

For all Arod has done wrong it is worth remembering that he wanted to WIN and was willing to give up over 30 million dollars to get to a better team. He was also willing to switch positions for the good of the club. Did saint jeter ever do those things?

seawolf17 wrote: RealityChuck wrote: The Mets were the final team for the last active New York Giant (Willie Mays) and the last active Brooklyn Dodger (Bob Aspromonte), so maybe they can go for the trifecta. That's an interesting fact. I didn't know that. Not surprising at all, didnt the early Mets iintentionally collect these guys because they were giants and dodgers?

Edgy MD wrote: if he accepted the qualifying offer he'd have been back in the same spot next year, no? With $14 million more in his bank account, and possibly with a more appealing CV and a different market. Well, I don't think that even a good year (or a repeat of the best year he's had in the last 3 lets say) improves his market too much because of the draft pick compensation attached to him. The compensation kills mid-level free agents because its just not worth losing a 1st round pick to get 2-3 years of a 2-3 WAR guy at a reasonable contract number. There are probably about a half dozen guys strongly affected by this each year and that wasn't enough for the union to make it a sticking point (or they really got outfoxed in the last CBA, either way its bad for Drew). There are only 2 ways to get rid of that draft pick: sign with a team that agrees not to make a qualifying offer (and take less as a result) or get traded mid-season (compensation doesn't attach to someone you acquired this year). Drew can't control the 2nd option. Now Drew's loss could really be the Mets' gain here, because they look to be the only team that 1) really needs a shortstop and 2) would lose only a 3rd round pick. The Red Sox are the only other team that wouldn't lose a higher pick but they have a prospect they feel is ready and they "lose out" on the compensation pick if they don't let him go elsewhere. The system is kinda dumb, but the Mets need to be smart here and take advantage.

Frayed Knot wrote: If so he wouldn't be the first guy who had to settle for less by following Boras's strategy of waiting for the big deal that never arrived. He could just wind up with a one-year deal (in which case he would have been better off taking the qualifying offer from the BoSox) and then try the FA thing again next year. On the other hand, it's possible that the Jeter announcement (have you heard that Jeter is planning on retiring after this season?) makes the Yanquis suddenly more interested either now--fill in at other positions now kid and we promise to let you play SS full-time next year--or for 2015 if he accepted the qualifying offer he'd have been back in the same spot next year, no? what he really needs to do now, i think, is find a one year deal BUT with a team that agrees not to offer arbitration so that he wont have the draft pick attached to him again next offseason.

I love that "classy" still gets used for the guy who gave gift bags to his Fuck Buddies and the use isn't even sarcastic.

Under: Rays, Nationals, Athletics Over: Mets, Astros, Rangers

Maybe we should induct Smoltz and Jones this summer with Maddux Glavine and Cox too? Im already sick of this. Its going to be a long year.

I'd like the Mets to win the World Series. Short of that, I can't think of anything baseball-related that would give me greater enjoyment than undeniable proof than Jeter Juiced.

G-Fafif wrote: Actually, all Jeter did was announce he'd be out in the winter of 2014/15. So the hell with him. Did you actually think he would just retire without a victory lap? No way

I remember reading last year that his fastball was dead.

I split htis off from the hypothetical championship because I didn't want to hijack it with a separate interesting discussion. The Mets --- Tom Seaver's Mets -- are now their own dynasty, having won two World Series in five seasons. Thats a very loose "Dynasty", 2 WS wins in 5 years and no other playoff appearances nearby? How do you define "Dynasty"? Factors I'd consider in decreasing order of importance: 1) number of championships and their proximity to each other (and i dont care what else you've done, without at least 2 championships you can't be a "dynasty" in my mind) 2a) number of near-championships in proximity to the championships 2b) number of playoff appearances or good pennant races* also in proximity (this is where the era you played in matters, with the modern post-strike playoffs you need to get in while i wont hold finishing 2nd against you if only 1 team makes the WS from each league) 3) average regular season wins over he course of the dynasty 4) consistency of roster, or at least of "core" players

Edgy MD wrote: Yes, but then the Grand Slam Single isn't just important-to-Met-fans weirdness, it's the nationally-famous keystone of a Met comeback, Kirk Gibson and Dave Roberts in '04 wrapped into one. Fonzie's slam in NLDS Game 1, Pratt's in Game 4... these are Moments now. And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years? This of course, speaks to any year, but yes, winning in 1999 perhaps means Olerud and Phillips find enough common ground for him to return. It perhaps means the Mets' purse swells to the point where they sign A-Rod after 2000. It might mean they not only trade for Hampton in 2000, but foolishly retain him afterwits. Maybe Rickey gets an extension. And maybe they ride out Bonilla's contract to the bitter end rather than jumping in on that foolhardy bailout. It's so hard to unscramble the eggs. Maybe at the private owner's party after the win, Bernie Madoff gets drunk and comes clean, but it is safe to assume that winning in 1999 puts the team in a better position to win in 2000. Whether they'd take advantage of that better position or go all stupid, it's hard to say. Using the dynasty in the making argument, i think the 1987 1988 teams had the biggest chance if things went right, beacuse instead of asking about hypothetical signings and yankee money down yhe drain after 1999, ask what could have been if the late 80s Mets had all suddenly decided to behave like adults

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, the draft pick associated with signing Drew can range anywhere from #11 overall to maybe 80th or so, so obviously the value is going to vary widely depending on which team does the inking. Also, by linking this process to Career WAR assumes that the team that foregoes the FA to make keep that pick is going to get all that value, something that's not likely. IOW, your mileage may vary. Sorry, they actually used the first x years of war covering the pick through arbitration, though most pf the value probably comes from pre arb superstars.

Theres a great insider article today about how valuable draft picks are based on the expectd career WAR of a pick and what you would pay for that in the open market... the vonclusion is that most of these free agents with draft picks attached have very little value. Signing Drew is actually a NEGATIVE VALUE proposition top any of the teams who lose a first rounder. For the Mets it's ok since they only lose a third, but not on what works out to a 1 year.

2000. Fuck the yankees.

1. Duda 2. Tejada 3. Granderson-C. Young- with E. Young and Lagares splitting time 4. They start the season with an extra reliever, Matsuzaka or Lannan comes up and makes a few bad starts once they need a 5th starter, Mejia gets his shot but ultimately ends up in the pen by mid-May, and Montero makes the most starts of anyone not named above by Edgy (Colon, Niese, Gee, Wheeler) 5. Recker

smg58 wrote: Cruz has a career OPS+ of 114. So does Duda. Davis is 112. And that's ignoring the elephant in the room when discussing Cruz, More importantly it ignores that Davis is a good defender and Cruz doesnt play the position

Ceetar wrote: well yes, but if it's a three year deal, (say 3/30 ) he's not opting out of 2/20 to accept 1/15. And he has to decline the 1/15 before fishing for better than 2/20. Why would he not? 1.15 is better than 2.20 for 95 % of players.