nymr83

Word to the wise: we aren't all old enough (or in-tune enough with older music) to guess your song... If you don't provide a youtube link, or just name the song so I can google it myself, I'm voting for the guy whose song I recognize auotmatically!

metirish wrote: MVP shares?, if you got to root that deep into the bullshit bag to validate a guy then he's just not a HOF player. Laughed out loud at "the bullshit bag"

As Edge said, it's been a WHILE since ticket sales were sub-2 million, and all but ten teams topped it last year (Christ, the Marlins drew 1.5). Ticket prices are comparable to the movies, or beach pricing, or other summer family/date/group outing options. If the weather is nice, a day at the bargain-basement-tickets-priced-to-move ballpark makes for a nicer outing than a trip to see Elongated Man: The Movie or Saw 7: Murdering the Chicks From Those WB Shows in Increasingly Lurid/Creative Ways. I'll go with 2.3ish announced. The movies have a huge advantage all summer long: air-conditioning

Edgy DC wrote: Well, they've already lowered ticket prices. But when the losing comences people wont see last year as a baseline when looking for a bargain, I think the team will have to lower them beyond their listed prices at the beginning of this year.

Whether a guy dominated and whether the writers who vote for the awards were recognizing that dominance are not the same question. "award shares" answers the 2nd question not the first.

I can see them salvaging 2.1 with late season moves like "bring the kids 2 for 1" and the old $5 nights like they had at Shea. The team is going to be BAAAAD and they'll soon realize that lower ticket prices and a prayer for concessions revenue may be their best bet.

I barely read Law's articles but I love him on the 'Baseball Today' podcasts also produced by ESPN. I selfishly hope he doesn't go to Houston

I wanted Matt Holliday and all I got was Jason BOOOOOay... You could see the bad direction the Mets were taking even then.

THE GREAT JOHN OLERUD Well, not really, but this writer convincingly states that he was better than Jim Rice. And when was the last time an article was written about John Olerud?

I know it makes Wilpon look like a scrooge, but I think the Mets did the right thing here in warning their employee that they believe his proposed course of action may violate his contract. Let him make an informed decision about going. And, if something does happen and the Mets attempt to void it (good luck with that), I feel better that he was warned.

Go tell the '97 Marlins that you can't let your best players all leave at once... If the Mets plan not to keep Wright there's nothing wrong with doing it now if they feel they can get the best package while more teams might still have the combination of 1) the need at 3B, 2) the budget room for Wright's contract, and 3) still consider themselves contenders for this year. Waiting until July might raise the price some teams will pay (particularly if a contending Giants team loses Sandoval or the Yankees lose Arod to injury) but it may also lower the number of suitors. Wright's value may also go down if he doesn't show he can hit like the 'old wright' in the new field. I don't care about the Reyes-thing either, each move needs to be evaluated on its own merits and not in the light of past mistakes. If the Mets were holding onto Wright while his value is highest (not saying it necessarily is) just to avoid further angering the pitchfork-bearing fans angry about Reyes, they'd be stupid. Sure I'd hate Wilpon more if he let's Wright go, but so what? I can't swear off the team I'm already not giving money to right? Might as well get all the hate out of the way at once!

It would seem appropriate for the Mets to alienate the fans even further by sending Wright to a division rival. I'd rather see him as a YANKEE!

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: What guarantee will the minority owners be given for their respective $20M investments against a bankruptcy? I don't understand the legal mumbo jumbo, but I'm pretty sure that's protected. I really wouldn't assume that.

The list of so-called perks makes it clear that these people are to be treated like glorified season ticket holders with a very expensive PSL, not co-owners of the team. "Minority owner," to me, means all the rights of ownership except for making business and personnel decisions on your own. That means full access to Citi Field when YOU want, access to Alderson/Collins on demand, all the merchandise and food you want (with perhaps the one proviso that you can't just grab a bunch of swag and re-sell it.) I'm sure Prokhorav (sp?) doesn't treat JayZ this way.

bmfc1 wrote: With the elimination of the Gulf Coast Mets, the Mets have 8 minor league teams. They quickly remind us that most teams have 7 but that doesn't eliminate the fact that there are now 25 or so fewer minor leaguers in the organization which makes it that much tougher to find the next Wright or Reyes. Sell the team Fred. http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/37292/mets-slash-gcl-team While I certainly agree with the sentiment of "sell the team Fred", neither Wright nor Reyes was ever as lowly regarded as the 25 players who won't have jobs in the GCL as any true prospects will just end up in Brooklyn or Kingsport instead. Even if the occassional above-average major leaguer is sometimes found among this group the move is a long, long, long way from making it "that much tougher to find" a star player.

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: It's going to be inevitable. Runner on second 1 out, bottom nine, tie game. fly ball to center field that's called an out. runner retreats from near third back to second. replay indicates it was a fair ball. You could give the guy one base, but chances are the game should've been over. But then, it's one of those things to argue about. I assume you meant to say trapped where you wrote fair, but, yeah, that situation would result in there being at least as many arguments after the play is corrected as there might have been before the wrong call was righted and that'll be true no matter how it's corrected. Personally I'd rather argue about the call itself than about how and if the chessmen were artificially moved around after the fact. I'm not really worried about this situation, because although the run doesnt score, the outcome post-replay is still better than pre-replay (1st and 3rd with 1 out instead of runner on 2nd [3rd if he tagged] and 2 out.) If thats the rule post-replay (everyone gets one base) then its still strictly better than the botched call every time even if its not as good as the right call getting made in the first place. Its the opposite situation that concerns me. the ball is initially called trapped, so the runner scores... on replay they call it back and say it was a catch... then what? if you leave the runner at 2nd you are precluding the possibility that he would have been thrown out either retreating to 2nd or advancing to 3rd and the possibility that he would have safely advanced to 3rd anyway.

turning a "catch" call into a "no catch" call seems easy enough... you advance everyone one base.... sure you might have scored/advanced farther, but at least the team that suffered from the wrong call is aways getting a better result than the out would have been. the problem seems to be the reverse, if you suddenly rule a "non-catch" to be a "catch", how do you determine who would have advanced without prejudicing the team that made the catch? i'd hate to see a game-winning run sent home from 3rd y the umpire's discretion that he would have tagged up and scored.

Vic Sage wrote: BUMP. I just like having this thread title at the top of the first page. convince the author to sticky it.

Best career OPS vs. Willis (minimum 20 plate appearences)? Moises Alou!

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Here's a thought: Maybe the Mets held on to Reyes at last year's trading deadline, not because they intended to milk him for whatever he was worth through season's end, but because the Mets hoped to make a competitive offer for Reyes with money earmarked from Einhorn's doomed investment. If so, then it's likelier that it was Einhorn, and not the Mets, that broke off the $200M negotiations. Interesting thought. Probably something to that Thats a disturbing thought to me and, if true, would confirm our worst fears: that the decision to let Reyes go wasn't based on the belief that an oft-injured player whose game relies entirely on maintaining his current speed wasnt worth a 6 year risk, but was based on Wilpon's inability to afford the contract.

Accidentally voted in vic sage vs old mole on blackberry... subtract one from old mole's final total and i'll refrain from voting on that one. (or start a new thread) thanks

Vic Sage wrote: Disney doesn't have to be the pure embodiment of evil. Agreed they don't have to be... they just choose to be. Time and time again. How, exactly, has Disney been "evil" (in the context of The Muppets)? Why does it matter if they made the movie to make money? Isn't that why 99% of films get made? All that should really matter is how much you liked it.

One thing I won't miss is listening to Reyes speak.

The Marlins are handing out not just money, but YEARS, like an ownership group that doesn't expect to be around long. Maybe the SEC investigation thing is really serious?

Edgy DC wrote: Well, he came up initially in May and June. Great, so my memory is just going! Let's not let silly things like facts get in the way of finding more reasons to villify Wilpon!