nymr83

Francoeur hits a 3-run bomb down the line, its had the distance all the way it was just a question of fair or foul. The Mets have now scored their allotment of 7 runs for the weekend.

]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season.

walks kill. come on Niese, bounce back next inning and don't give up free passes

Keith Hernandez gave us a nice little tidbit about our favorite douchebag, Roger "Roid Rocket" Clemens, who apparently went to the clubhouse to shave after he finished pitching in Game 6 so as to look good for the celebration, Keith said it got the Mets fired up. Personally I buy that players could NEED "firing up" to win a World Series game, but Clemens is still a douchebag.

if you pulled Wright one could honestly believe this was Buffalo's lineup.

Yeah I know they want him back for more than just Ws, but if he re-injures anything they'll really regret it. I want Minaya's head, along with the heads of anyone on the medical staff who approves it, if Reyes comes back this yaer at less than 100% healthy.

="Edgy DC":rxv5qb1y]But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis.[/quote:rxv5qb1y] I don't know if he's done his job or not. I think he needs to be fired for challenging minor leaguers to a fight in the clubhouse (the other incidents aren't as serious but show that it wasn't a one time lapse in judgment, like a car thief with a history of shoplifting) Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 12:06 PM ]what team in the league is getting NO contributions from recent (2004-06) draftees? Pelfrey = 2005 Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 12:38 PM I think I'm just caught in this cycle. - Fire him because of the incident. - Can we establish that? - Fire him becasue of failure. - Can we establish that? - Fire him because of the incident.Just plug in "Can we establish that first?" for my next ten posts, unless someone establishes that. Meantime: Products from the 2005 draft --- Pelfrey (1), Jonathan Niese (7), Bobby Parnell (9). Products from the 2006 draft --- Joseph Smith (2), Daniel Murphy (16). Products from the 2007 draft --- Eddie Kunz (1). Farmer Ted Jul 24 2009 12:51 PM Does Tony have input on the draft or just the development of the player after the draft? It is typically the responsibility of the minor league and roving coaching staffs to develop that talent thus simply making Tony (VP of Player Development) a mechanism of reporting back to the NY office. I could do that fucking job and I've never exposed my man boobs in a fit of rage. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 03:12 PM ="Edgy DC"]Well, it's possible to complain that the last three years haven't been productive and at the same time complain that the team has been over-aggressively promoting players, but they're a tough pair to keep in the air at the same time. As far as 2004, it's a non-issue, as he came on board in December of 2004. Even then, he was a special assistant to the general manager, and not yet VP of development. If we're going to do a comparitive study, let's do it scientifically and compare all teams, rather than just those we envy; include international signees, rather than just draftees; and include those contributing at the big-league level for other teams. But to declare that he hasn't done his job and needs to be fired for such in this atmostphere --- amid embarassing but disputed reports, and in the midst of a injury-plagued swoon by the big team --- seems more like a setup than analysis. Pelfrey's was a Boras client that dropped a bit because of expected contract demands; it's also the one year during the Omar era where the team (A) had a first round pick and ( aimed at the highest-ceiling guy on the board, regardless of projected signing cost. The others? They've all seen major-league time, granted. They've also produced either produced little or exeeded meager expectations at that level (Kunz hasn't even met those expectations). Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- of needing any warm body you can when your lineup includes as many Alous and Castillos, and your bench as many Easleys and Andersons, as the Mets have over the last two years-- rather than their forcing the issue with performance. More telling, as Ted points out, his job-- presumably-- is player development, not drafting. How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Pelfrey, sort of... but he's a high-resource-commitment first-rounder; it would be more of a story if he hadn't done anything. Bannister was already out of the oven, more or less, before Bernazard took his current position. Unless I'm forgetting someone... there isn't much else. (There are a few Heath Bells, Henry Owens, and Jason Vargases, though, currently thriving in other organizations these days.) Anyway... I'm not really arguing that he's failed-- I'm more arguing that he hasn't out-and-out succeeded. If half of the stories about his work style are true, then he would have to be exceedingly good, results-wise, to justify keeping around. (I mean, there's no established track record of success for the guy at prior gigs... because he doesn't have a player eval/development/analysis track record.) (NOTE: the reason I pulled out the Yanks, Sox and Angels is both because those guys approximate what we bring to the table, International-signing-money-wise, and because I figured including small-marketeers who concentrated primarily on stockpiling prospects-- Royals, Rays, Marlins, etc.-- might make the Met system look unfairly shitty. I do agree that, if you're evaluating his merits, you'd have to do a more comprehensive study of MLB team's development systems to have a control.) G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 04:33 PM So...is there gonna be an investigation or what? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:10 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues--[/quote:25chb1ol] Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":25chb1ol]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success?[/quote:25chb1ol] Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:23 PM The Baseball Cube has a crude system of scoring draft success. They rank the team's Bernazard era drafts thusly: 2005: Fifth 2006: 17th 2007: 16th 2008: Not yet available. G-Fafif Jul 24 2009 05:54 PM I don't think we had this, from Adam Rubin last night: ]The scout dragged into the headlines when Mets VP for player development Tony Bernazard unleashed a verbal assault on another team official essentially confirmed the Daily News' exclusive report of the incident. Diamondbacks scout Carlos Gomez said Thursday that he didn't want to "pile onto Tony," but that he could not dispute The News' account. Gomez said his lone interest in speaking about the incident is to make it clear that he had no involvement in the confrontation. "Tony did not get into it with me at all," Gomez said. "He didn't address me. He didn't curse me out. We didn't have a spat. In no way did I feel Tony singled me out or treated me incorrectly." So he wasn't yelling at the scout, only the deputy, according to this. We now return you to your regularly scheduled shirt opera. Valadius Jul 24 2009 06:45 PM Then he's an abusive boss as well. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 08:24 PM As well as what? That's what the actual issue is. The rush to judgment here is getting absurd. Doesn't anybody wonder if Bernazard goes down as a scapegoat that it might actually perpertuate the orgazational issues and tenures you actually want to see confronted? Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 08:31 PM Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 09:21 PM ="Edgy DC"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Regardless of what you think their ultimate potential is, that's a big honking indicator of their promotion being a function of the team's depth issues-- Until we have a framework of years and a comparison to other teams, I'm not sure what it indicates. Pelfrey was the big project, and has sort of worked out. Smith and Parnell showed a little something in ST and limited trials-- enough to contribute on the squad. But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. ="Edgy DC"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]How many of the Classes of 2002-onward-- no brainers like Reyes and Wright aside-- have been brought up to the majors and met with success? Why are we going back to 2002? Are we still talking about Bernazard? If he's running player development, he's not just responsible for the progress of the guys drafted while he had the job. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 09:37 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]But you're telling me that Murphy and Evans and Kunz were promoted-- directly from AA-- because they were dominating their league at the time? That's revisionism. What in the world makes you think I'm telling you that? I'm not really telling telling you anything. I'm asking for a framework of what we're talking about. Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. SteveJRogers Jul 24 2009 10:12 PM ="Frayed Knot":121a00be]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs.[/quote:121a00be] When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:39 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 06:34 AM Yeah, I don't recall a witch hunt to purify the organization of Tim Teufel, Ron Darling, Rick Aguilera and Bob Ojeda when they got in a fight with a handful of police. This, of course, wasn't the first time that year a Met had manhandled a cop, as Dwight Gooden pleaded no contest to having assaulted not one, but two cops. And from my perspective, it's Met fans doing the piling on, not "non-Met fans." LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:47 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 10:51 PM ="Edgy DC"] Only way these guys came up is you claimed nobody has contributed from those drafts, and I reported on anybody from those drafts who has had a big league salad. It's hard enough to figure out whether a failed prospect is a failure on the scouting side or on the development side. (Or, similarly, to whose credit a success should go.) But it sure seems here folks are trying to just come up with enough information to meet a foregone conclusion. I think I was a bit unclear in that first post, and my meaning was missed. I wasn't stating that the Mets received no contribution from their recent draftees; rather, I was arguing that having a handful of players make the majors isn't indicative of a minor-league system's fertility... and that the performance of these guys, if anything, may point to the opposite. (May.) But, yeah, there's a whole bunch of rush-to-judgement here. What I'm advocating is a rush to scrutiny-- an actual investigation by the team-- and by fans-- of the system over the last 3 years. ="SteveJRogers"]And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW With all due respect, I disagree entirely. The amount and intensity of the pile-on is almost entirely a function of how little there is to talk about in terms of on-field positives; most of the stories-- and fan-talk, really-- seem to make the point, implicitly and explicitly, that the off-field disorder mirrors the on-field decrepitude. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 10:49 PM I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 10:52 PM ="Edgy DC"]I love scrutiny. I think I'm gonna name my kid Scrutiny. Girl? It's a little bit girly, is why I ask. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 05:53 AM ="SteveJRogers"]="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 04:44 PM ="Frayed Knot"]="SteveJRogers"]="Frayed Knot"]Met fans suddenly care a whole fuckin lot about the off-field actions of asst GMs. When it becomes public record, yeah, you'd bet they care a whole fuckin' lot about it. And yes, I do believe the reaction would be the same if the Mets were playing like the 1986 team, or even the 2006 team, FWIW Its causing the organization some embarrassment, right now it is just another reason for non Met fans to pile on about the disgrace that this organization has become. And when did this organization become "a disgrace"? --- Oh about the time they stopped winning games I'm gonna guess. Don t kid yourself that this has nothing to do with the W/L record. It shirley would be a story in any case, but it turns into an 8-page thread with demands for his immediate firing (if not deportation and/or execution) when it comes during a time when fans are looking for scapegoats to blame and otherwise anonymous asst GMs (like un-named doctors) make convenient targets. That Bernazard made himself an easy mark from the "street Spanish" days (and I don't think the fact that he's Spanish is a non-factor either) and seems to, at best, have an abrasive rep via the press contributes. But we're already in to a guilty before the facts mode where we know he's guilty of saying what he said to the players ... and even if he didn't what's he doing there anyway since he has nothing to do with player development? ... and even if he does the player development sucks ... and even where it doesn't suck he had nothing to do with the ones who did make it and everything to do with the ones who didn't. Winning teams have stories like players drinking in the clubhouse and making plane reservations out of town while a playoff game is going on turn into cute stories if they win. Had that team NOT won those stories take on a whole different shading. Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. And you also have to give the fact that in 1986 ESPN was yet to explode in terms of daily barrages of information to the mass audiences, WFAN was a year away from being born and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. In other words, it is hard to really say "well, would this have happened when the Mets were winning? I think not." Because certain avenues for fan venting and mass information consumption either hadn't open yet, or were some time from being prevalent. And things were being said back in 99-00 about how the Mets handled certain situations and the actions of one Bobby Valentine. Sure Met fans were probably going "LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU, how far back are we from the Braves today?" But the non fans were making comments about Valentine's nutty behavior, the Mets refusal to retaliate, especially against the Yankees, and other issues of note. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 05:24 PM BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series. dgwphotography Jul 25 2009 05:57 PM ="SteveJRogers":z2ocfwgg]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:z2ocfwgg] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born... SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:03 PM ="dgwphotography":2ddliwek]="SteveJRogers":2ddliwek]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:2ddliwek] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:2ddliwek] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident. Kong76 Jul 25 2009 06:08 PM dgw: This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born <<< Plus, they probably pick on him (like some of us) because he's a closet Yankee fan in Mets' clothing. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 06:30 PM ]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 06:58 PM ="Nymr83"]]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. you'd have to start the year 81-0 and lose to a team that started 0-81 in a one game playoff for the division in order to equal that yankee playoff collapse during the regular season. Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, but that is part of the point, what has been going on with this franchise has been just another opportunity after another for the organization to be considered an absolute utter disgrace. Hell, the Yankees did make it back to the postseason the following year, and three more years after that, and probably will make it again this year. That's more to the point where the Mets are seen as a joke in the eyes of many. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 07:30 PM ]The Yankees still got to the postseason, and even won a series, the Mets choked away a chance to be in, not just the postseason, but a one game playoff as well (so in a sense it was even worse than the 1978 Red Sox, 1951 Dodgers or any other team that got caught and a playoff game/series was necessitated. So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse, i don't agree. the Yanks had a better year (because they made a postseaon and won the frst round), but their collapse was still worse being that it took place in the postseason Kong76 Jul 25 2009 07:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 25 2009 07:48 PM *post removed, for duh-ness* SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 07:47 PM No, its worse because it continues to perpetuate the notion that the Mets are losers and a pathetic organization. Especially in light of what happened last year, and this current campaign. Again, the Yankees were back in the postseason in 2005-2007 and most likely will be in it again this season. Historically the Yankees losing the 2004 ALCS is a bump in the road, the 7 up with 17 to play 2007 Mets is yet another reason to say how the Met organization is a disgrace to professional sports. Frayed Knot Jul 25 2009 07:53 PM ][Fair enough, but then again perhaps you don't deal with constant barrages of "What a fucking disgrace of an organization you root for" type of comments by either MFY fan or non baseball fan co-workers. It wouldn't matter because I don't wrap my self-esteem up in the current status of a baseball team to the point where I react to taunting from those who do by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem. Besides, it wasn't a Yanqui fan that brought up the "disgrace" line it was y ... oh wait, nevermind. [walked into that one] Fman99 Jul 25 2009 08:23 PM ="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]="dgwphotography":1scxpm4q]="SteveJRogers":1scxpm4q]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:1scxpm4q] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:1scxpm4q] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:1scxpm4q] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people. Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 08:49 PM ] by demanding that some assistant be fired even though he may or may not be part of the problem i want him fired for trying to fight ballplayers, nothing else. is he "part of the [alleged] problem" in talent development? i don't know or care as long he's challenging our players to fights. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 08:57 PM ="Fman99":fvuk1kki]="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]="dgwphotography":fvuk1kki]="SteveJRogers":fvuk1kki]BTW, case in point of water cooler conversation, the fact that my co-workers think that this was worse than George Steinbrenner having a fight in an elevator with the marshmellow salesmen during the 1981 World Series.[/quote:fvuk1kki] That and $2.25 will get you a ride on the subway. This is probably ancient history to your co-workers, and depending on their age, it might have happened before some of them were born...[/quote:fvuk1kki] They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:fvuk1kki] I think you're problem is that you give a flying fuck what a Yankee fan thinks. Like they're people.[/quote:fvuk1kki] Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. Because clearly if Met fans shouldn't give a flying fuck about how the Mets are perceived by others, then why should we give a flying fuck about how the "Yankee Way" is a crock of shit? Nymr83 Jul 25 2009 09:43 PM Don't tell us what its ok to comment on. SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 09:59 PM ="Nymr83":20535dbm]Don't tell us what its ok to comment on.[/quote:20535dbm] It relates to how the Mets are perceived as an organization by others. But if you are fine rooting for an franchise that is subject to slings and arrows on a seemingly endless basis and counter all those comments with "who gives a fucking rat's ass what the fuck you fuckers think" it really is tough to go the other way on subjects that have to do with other organizations. In other words, why should THEY, or anyone give a fucking rat's ass what the fuck any fucker says? SteveJRogers Jul 25 2009 10:05 PM Look, this was a black eye for the organization that has way too much of them in recent years, that is the point I'm trying to make. Yes more is made because the team has been playing horribly, but the point I'm trying to make is that shit like this shouldn't be passed over by Met fans as "if we were winning, no one in the media, internet, sports radio, etc. would give a shit." Its because it is a black eye for the organization, and fodder for more shit from everyone from bloggers to late night comedians that make it a big deal and one that should be addressed and not swept away. Again, even if the Mets were leading the division by 20 games at this point. Frayed Knot Jul 26 2009 08:50 AM ]Then we shouldn't comment on how certain things are counter to the Yankees carefully crafted "image" of being the classiest organization in the game or whatever the fuck they are hyping themselves as. No, we can comment on it all we want. The mistake, from the Yanqui viewpoint, would be for them to change how they do things solely based on our reaction. For the same reason, the Mets should decide what to do with Bernazard based on his performance and conduct rather than out of some silly notion that it's going to make MFY fans stop saying 'bad things 'bout the Mets'. And those Met fans who want to make Bernazard the fall-guy whether he deserves it or not are simply playing into the trap of doing things for pr reasons rather than solving the problem itself. Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 06:56 AM ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2ae45851] ="SteveJRogers":2ae45851]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2ae45851] Pick a side, my son. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 11:49 AM ="Edgy DC":2etn8uzp]="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]They also (even the non-Yankee or non-baseball fans) think that the Mets collapse in 2007 was worse than the Yankees losing a playoff series after being up 3-0. Just to show where they are coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with remembering facts of a long ago incident.[/quote:2etn8uzp] ="SteveJRogers":2etn8uzp]Their point though is valid, it was still a POSTSEASON series. ...So yeah I actually do agree that the Met collapse was worse... .[/quote:2etn8uzp] Pick a side, my son.[/quote:2etn8uzp] The hell is your point Edge? You have to be a Yanqui fan to consider the Met collapse in 2007 worse than the Yankees blowing the 2004 ALCS? Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 11:58 AM The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later. SteveJRogers Jul 27 2009 12:11 PM ="Edgy DC":2xyqenpp]The hell is my point? Excuse me? My point is obvious. You seem to consider their perspective self-evidently flawed in one post, and agreeable later.[/quote:2xyqenpp] Not really, I showed it as a recent example compared to dgw suggesting that they were not students of history (by saying Tony B's minors incident was worse than Steinbrenner's elevator fight) Edgy DC Jul 27 2009 12:53 PM My head hurts. metsguyinmichigan Jul 27 2009 12:56 PM Mets shame: -- Idiot front office type takes off shirt to yell at 20-something minor leaguers. -- Bad patch on sleeve -- Occasional lapses in fielding. Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? Valadius Jul 27 2009 03:42 PM Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling. PiggiesTomatoes Jul 27 2009 08:15 PM ="Valadius":1xy2oval]Don't forget the incomparably annoying John Sterling.[/quote:1xy2oval] ...and Georgie girl. I wouldn't take money to listen or her and Sterling. MFS62 Jul 27 2009 10:00 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":39c9vxup] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace?[/quote:39c9vxup] You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 10:05 PM ="MFS62"]="metsguyinmichigan"] Yankee shame: -- Best player outed for using steroids -- Best pitcher outed for using steroids -- Best reliever has pool that kills people -- Michael Kay Tell me again which organization is a disgrace? You forgot : -- Being the next to last Major League team to have a Black player, even though they played in the city that had the first one. Later Ahem. (I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 27 2009 10:10 PM Double post. G-Fafif Jul 27 2009 10:09 PM ](I think that was Boston, with Pumpsie Green.) He said "next to last," but Phillies and Tigers came after MFYs, then Red Sox. Old news, I'd have to say. Plenty to bash MFYs on in this century. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 11:08 PM Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension. Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:11 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3npdogpk]Beer: not terribly helpful for reading comprehension.[/quote:3npdogpk] Or Bernazards emotions Edgy DC Aug 02 2009 01:55 PM Daily News (but not Adam Rubin) digging up a lot more PLT stories about Bernazard. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/08/02/2009-08-02_tony_bern_out.html?page=0 Rockin' Doc Aug 02 2009 03:11 PM Hard to feel much sympathy for Bernazard the more stories you read of his vitriolic behavior toward players and staff of the Mets system. The more I read of his tirades, the more negatively Bernazard's tenure reflects upon Minaya and the Wilpons for allowing such an embarrassment to remain in their employ for as long as they did. Benjamin Grimm Aug 04 2009 07:04 AM Huh! Edgy DC Aug 04 2009 07:08 AM Oh, you missed some shee-it. Ashie62 Aug 04 2009 12:58 PM A little league first fight in Princeton, NJ? Darling the Eli must love that one

the Mets would be negligent to let anyone, particularly Reyes, rush back from an injury when they're ten games out. I'd be happy to shelve him for the year even just to make sure he's fine in 2010 when the Mets will next need him.

Totally off on a tangent here, one of Buehrle's "comparables" on B-R is our old friend Frank Viola, he had a nice career and a pretty good year for the Mets, where he finished 3rd in the CY Young voting behind Drabek and Ramon Martinez, can anyone explain how the hell Drabek cobbered Martinez in the voting that year? Martinez looks like he had the better year. [url:3ek53wb5]http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1990.shtml[/url:3ek53wb5]

they also took 4 guys from the system to get Santana, so those guys had to be highly regarded enough to do that.

]The Athletics and Cardinals have completed a trade that sends outfielder Matt Holliday to St. Louis in exchange for third baseman Brett Wallace, outfielder Shane Peterson and right-handed pitcher Clayton Mortensen, sources confirmed to ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney.

Boswell leads off the Met 12th with a single but Jones & Clendenon can�t get him in after a sac bunt BOOO bunting!

I already think the season isn't saveable, I just think that if everything we've heard is true that he's not a guy the organization needs around.

Wait, is this seperate from Bernazard's argument with Rodriguez that we already heard about? I know its hard to know what goes on behind closed doors, maybe this is par for the course in a major league organization and it just doesnt get out in most places, but I feel like I've heard enough "Bad Boy Bernazard" stories to wonder why the heck he is still here.

In fairness to Newsday I lifted the quote from CBS's fantasy sports pages, its possible the full Newsday article was more specific. I promise not to rehash my diatribe on looser standards in sports journalism.

="Frayed Knot":1zpxpp3f] Meanwhile he pitches 200+ innings and 30+ starts every single year for 8 seasons - has a 133 - 90 record plus a sub-4.00 career ERA (3.78) in the AL, in this era, and in a hitters' park - looks like he had only 1 off year (in 2006 - the year after the Sox WS win) when he recorded his only ERA over 4.1 (4.99) and his only losing season - and 4 AS teams and a top-5 CY year and just turned 30 Nice and even slightly under-the-radar pitcher that probably get over-looked by some of us NL fans. And maybe the best thing about him is the guy almost always pitches quick-ass games. Obviously today's game is special but it clocked in at a tidy 2:03 and a lot of his aren't much longer.[/quote:1zpxpp3f] he's remarkably consistent and very good, he really needs to run off a GREAT season or two to start getting some HOF attention, or he'll fall into the Blyleven-trap of being very good but not attracting the dinosaurs writers who get to vote. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 09:42 AM ="Nymr83":2qot5tn4]="Frayed Knot":2qot5tn4] Meanwhile he pitches 200+ innings and 30+ starts every single year for 8 seasons - has a 133 - 90 record plus a sub-4.00 career ERA (3.78) in the AL, in this era, and in a hitters' park - looks like he had only 1 off year (in 2006 - the year after the Sox WS win) when he recorded his only ERA over 4.1 (4.99) and his only losing season - and 4 AS teams and a top-5 CY year and just turned 30 Nice and even slightly under-the-radar pitcher that probably get over-looked by some of us NL fans. And maybe the best thing about him is the guy almost always pitches quick-ass games. Obviously today's game is special but it clocked in at a tidy 2:03 and a lot of his aren't much longer.[/quote:2qot5tn4] he's remarkably consistent and very good, he really needs to run off a GREAT season or two to start getting some HOF attention, or he'll fall into the Blyleven-trap of being very good but not attracting the dinosaurs writers who get to vote.[/quote:2qot5tn4] Buerhle's a solid pitcher, quite capable of amazing things. Bert Blyleven was a much, MUCH better pitcher than Mark Buerhle. Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 10:59 AM Totally off on a tangent here, one of Buehrle's "comparables" on B-R is our old friend Frank Viola, he had a nice career and a pretty good year for the Mets, where he finished 3rd in the CY Young voting behind Drabek and Ramon Martinez, can anyone explain how the hell Drabek cobbered Martinez in the voting that year? Martinez looks like he had the better year. [url:3ek53wb5]http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1990.shtml[/url:3ek53wb5]

bottom line: he hasn't been even decent since 2004. the injury didn't cause him to suck. props to him for gutting it out anyway (but thumbs down to the mets for letting him.) its too late now anyway. unless the mets have a better option internally it is no longer worth obtaining one for just this year. ]I'm referring to way he's performed since he got off the DL that wasnt made clear, but he wasnt going to be an acceptable long-term replacement for Reyes to begin with, the only defense Omar has there is that he didn't know how long Reyes would be out ]And the numbers that you are quoting about how he's been recently are weighed down by a season three years ago, while he's been better over the last two. To make a point of that season as speaking to who he is now and you get to decide that the last 2 years are the relevant time period rather than the last 4? he's been BAD since leaving LA, that was why i picked four years, that was when he left LA.

that wasnt being patronizing. ]He's a better offensive player and particularly a better defensive player than this from 2005 to 2008 he hit .244/.309/.339 (68 OPS+) this year its .242/.322/.295 (66+) you want to show me that he was particularly better defensively, go ahead, but contrary to your assertion he's the same hitter now that he's been the last 4 years.

]I think we all need to realize that the real Cora is not as bad as this The Cora we've seen from 2005-2008 is almost as bad as this, unless you expect him somehow to become the decent player he was for LA in 03-04

What do you have against Pagan? I think he's done a credible job as a backup outfielder when available.

="OlerudOwned":1wbzyqkh]Jack Wilson wouldn't have helped much. He's not that good.[/quote:1wbzyqkh] He'd have been an upgrade over Cora a month ago assuming he could have been had for "nothing" if we paid his salary. But he's not really good. Theres no point in getting him now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 05:27 AM ="OlerudOwned"]Jack Wilson wouldn't have helped much. He's not that good. Look, if Cora went and got the surgery he needed Omar would have to have done something and Wilson being a good fielder and presumably available would have been a reasonable solution. In the meantime we'd have enjoyed the benefits of a 700 OPS guy vs. a 500 OPS guy; and a good fielder vs. a shitty fielder. It's all vomit under the bridge by now, but just saying. metirish Jul 23 2009 08:22 AM Chris Duncan is a meat head , or is that his brother?, either way I am surprised that the Sox got him for Lugo , or got anything at all. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 08:30 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 23 2009 08:40 AM I agree that allowing Cora to cowboy up (and batting him leadoff) has been terribly wishful thinking. I think we all need to realize that the real Cora is not as bad as this. But I think the Mets braintrust needed to realize that wishing that Cora could somehow summon his best game through the injury was too much risk for too little reward. Maybe the strong May for the team triggered a lot of wishful thinking. Nymr83 Jul 23 2009 08:34 AM ]I think we all need to realize that the real Cora is not as bad as this The Cora we've seen from 2005-2008 is almost as bad as this, unless you expect him somehow to become the decent player he was for LA in 03-04 Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 08:43 AM He's a better offensive player and particularly a better defensive player than this. And better used sparingly --- which he had been before he got hurt --- even at his best. Always good to be patronized by you, thanks. Nymr83 Jul 23 2009 08:57 AM that wasnt being patronizing. ]He's a better offensive player and particularly a better defensive player than this from 2005 to 2008 he hit .244/.309/.339 (68 OPS+) this year its .242/.322/.295 (66+) you want to show me that he was particularly better defensively, go ahead, but contrary to your assertion he's the same hitter now that he's been the last 4 years. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 09:19 AM ]unless you expect him somehow to become the decent player he was for LA in 03-04 Yeah, talking to me like I'm a twit is pretty uneccessarily insulting. I'm referring to way he's performed since he got off the DL (an activation that apparently shouldn't have happened). The numbers you quote are not part of my "assertion" but including the early part of the season when he played well. His numbers that I am "asserting" about are .212 // .274 //. 244 // .518. And the numbers that you are quoting about how he's been recently are weighed down by a season three years ago, while he's been better over the last two. To make a point of that season as speaking to who he is now, while making a crack about how I "somehow expect him somehow to become the decent player he was for LA in 03-04" is doubly insulting. Nymr83 Jul 23 2009 10:19 AM bottom line: he hasn't been even decent since 2004. the injury didn't cause him to suck. props to him for gutting it out anyway (but thumbs down to the mets for letting him.) its too late now anyway. unless the mets have a better option internally it is no longer worth obtaining one for just this year. ]I'm referring to way he's performed since he got off the DL that wasnt made clear, but he wasnt going to be an acceptable long-term replacement for Reyes to begin with, the only defense Omar has there is that he didn't know how long Reyes would be out ]And the numbers that you are quoting about how he's been recently are weighed down by a season three years ago, while he's been better over the last two. To make a point of that season as speaking to who he is now and you get to decide that the last 2 years are the relevant time period rather than the last 4? he's been BAD since leaving LA, that was why i picked four years, that was when he left LA. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 10:28 AM ="metirish"]Chris Duncan is a meat head , or is that his brother?, either way I am surprised that the Sox got him for Lugo , or got anything at all. There's a bit of lunk to the galoot. And the Cards need middle-infield depth a bit more than they need yet another backup-for-Pujols/sorta-sluggy* backup-corner OF-type. *In 2006-07, that is. He's slugging .389 this year, and David Wright has as many home runs. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 10:32 AM This is too ridiculous ]bottom line: he hasn't been even decent since 2004. No, it's not, because you decided to make hay over ]the real Cora is not as bad as this ] the injury didn't cause him to suck. It appears to have made him play worse. ]that wasnt made clear It was clear enough. ]but he wasnt going to be an acceptable long-term replacement for Reyes to begin with, the only defense Omar has there is that he didn't know how long Reyes would be out I think it's clear that I'm with you there. Maybe not. ]and you get to decide that the last 2 years are the relevant time period I didn't "decide" anything. You're the one who has been framing. My only timeframe was the period he has been hurt. Do I really have to spell everything out here? He's better as an uninjured backup shortstop than an injured fulltime one. I think that's a clear position and one I'm willing to defend. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 11:22 AM RRRRRRROW! smg58 Jul 23 2009 11:32 AM Wilson's a mediocre hitter but consistently one of the best defensive shortstops in baseball. That alone would have made him an upgrade. But there's really no point now. Cora was signed to be a backup, and if he were playing only as much as the Mets originally expected him to play nobody would be complaining that harshly. Plus, he might have been given more time off to heal properly if the Mets weren't utterly desperate, and his numbers might actually look better. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 11:33 AM I'm really not quite that hot, but thank you. Frayed Knot Jul 23 2009 11:43 AM ="metirish"]Chris Duncan is a meat head , or is that his brother? All Duncans are meat-heads. Including Sandy I'm told. ]I'm really not quite that hot, but thank you. Even when you do your hair like that? seawolf17 Jul 23 2009 12:14 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]There's a bit of lunk to the galoot. I like how the watermark makes it look like it's "proof" that he's a galoot. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 01:05 PM ="seawolf17"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]There's a bit of lunk to the galoot. I like how the watermark makes it look like it's "proof" that he's a galoot. The look on his face-- half "O" face, half confused St. Bernard-- helps. I hope he finds International League trophies just as fuckable-- by all reports, he's headed for RI. Ashie62 Jul 23 2009 08:50 PM ="Frayed Knot":p8keo0dg]="metirish":p8keo0dg]Chris Duncan is a meat head , or is that his brother?[/quote:p8keo0dg][/quote:p8keo0dg] All Duncans are meat-heads. Including Sandy I'm told. Would that be MFY AAA meathead Shelly Duncan or the pixie actress of stage and screen possibly? Nymr83 Jul 24 2009 10:54 AM ]The Athletics and Cardinals have completed a trade that sends outfielder Matt Holliday to St. Louis in exchange for third baseman Brett Wallace, outfielder Shane Peterson and right-handed pitcher Clayton Mortensen, sources confirmed to ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney. Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 11:05 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 24 2009 11:10 AM ="Nymr83"]The Athletics and Cardinals have completed a trade that sends outfielder Matt Holliday to St. Louis in exchange for third baseman Brett Wallace, outfielder Shane Peterson and right-handed pitcher Clayton Mortensen, sources confirmed to ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney. Wallace is the interesting name here. Considered to be among the best college bats to come along in many years, he was passed over by a number of teams (StL got him with the #13 pick) out of concern for where he'd play. In short, he's HUGE!, and huge as in wide not as in tall (BB-Ref lists him at 6' 1" - 245). In 'Moneyball' terms (since he's headed to Oakland) "he wears a big pair of underwear". The thought is that he'll be a DH sooner rather than later which isn't a great thing to be saying about a guy not yet 23 y/o. For now, they say his hands are at least decent and he's not as immobile as he looks. But, above all, he can rake. Already at AAA barely a year after signing, he blew through three different levels in between and will probably be in Oakland before the year is out. But, man, Oakland sounds like they're putting together slow-pitch softball teams again. Between Giambi, Jack Cust, Daric Barton (also snagged in a trade w/StL - for Mulder) and now Wallace they've got at least 4 'stocky' (I'm being nice here) 1B/DH types not seen since the days when the brothers Giambi were teamed with Matt Stairs & John Jaha. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 11:09 AM I saw some on him. I liked his waddle. Like a lefthanded Bob Horner. Frayed Knot Jul 24 2009 01:28 PM Or maybe the lefty who ate Bob Horner. A quick peak at a Cardinal board showed an overall (though not universal) negative reaction - more based on thinking they gave up too much for a 2-month rental whose XBHs have trended from 84, 92, 65, 60 (proj) over the last 4 years than it was in thinking that either of the top 2 prospects were sure-fire studs. This Shane Peterson who went in the deal was their 2nd round pick from '08, the one right after they selected Wallace. There's also a story (Heyman) that LaRussa pushed for this in part because he didn't like and wasn't consulted on the Chris Duncan/Julio Lugo swap (and I don't guess his pitching coach was too high on it either). And, of course, the deal is made just in time so the Yanx don't have to see Holliday as Oakland is in NYC starting tonight. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 01:48 PM ="Frayed Knot"]Or maybe the lefty who ate Bob Horner. A quick peak at a Cardinal board showed an overall (though not universal) negative reaction - more based on thinking they gave up too much for a 2-month rental whose XBHs have trended from 84, 92, 65, 60 (proj) over the last 4 years than it was in thinking that either of the top 2 prospects were sure-fire studs. This Shane Peterson who went in the deal was their 2nd round pick from '08, the one right after they selected Wallace. There's also a story (Heyman) that LaRussa pushed for this in part because he didn't like and wasn't consulted on the Chris Duncan/Julio Lugo swap (and I don't guess his pitching coach was too high on it either). And, of course, the deal is made just in time so the Yanx don't have to see Holliday as Oakland is in NYC starting tonight. Just goes to show you how much of a buyer's market this is; the sheer number of potential in-it-to-win-it teams the last two years has resuscitated the good-old-fashioned deadline deal, however briefly, even in the face of cost constraints and the rising value of FA-compensatory draft picks. (Although it kinda seemed from Day One that Beane had an eye toward Holliday's departure-- like they acquired him almost exclusively like a short-sell, either for the draft picks or the trade value-- didn't it?) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 27 2009 01:24 AM Consider the source, but still-- Re-heeeeeally? ]The Rangers remain in the market for a bat, with the Indians' Ryan Garko and Mets' Gary Sheffield among their targets, even though Sheffield currently is on the disabled list. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9854856/BoSox-involved-in-Halladay-talks-and-more- seawolf17 Jul 27 2009 08:07 AM I wish he hadn't gotten hurt, because I think Sheffield -- and possibly Livan -- are the Mets two best trading chips right now. I read somewhere recently that Sheffield would revolt if he got dealt, though, so as always with him, it'd be buyer beware. Frayed Knot Jul 27 2009 08:42 AM Sheffield always threatens to revolt - but the thing is, this time he could easily make it stick. He was all but ready to retire anyway after being released by Detroit; he had $14mil coming to him and nothing monetarily to gain from playing unless he's really lying and is secretly dying to play next year too only for a fraction of this year's salary. But the Mets (he claims) were a good fit for him and so he took the gig when offered. But now if dealt somewhere he doesn't like (I don't think he has any No-Trade protection) he can simply walk-away rather than pull up stakes and move across the country for 9 weeks and not lost a thing except a possible shot at another ring.

]I have to say that I'm not sure what people are looking for from Omar Minaya. People seem want action --- and maybe more immediate relief and not over-prizing prospects. But by remaining deliberate in the face of the current crisis, he's working against the interests of his own job security and in favor of the longer-term interests of the club. A month ago this team needed help desperately (I'd say this team went from 'in trouble' to 'desperate' when Beltran went down), at that time I wanted Minaya to find help. Right now I think its gone too far and the season (as far as contending goes) is over. I no longer want him to trade anything of future value away to try and win this year. I'd be happy if he got something of future use for Sheffield/Schneider/etc. But at this point inaction is just fine.

="Ashie62":1aeu3aot]I hate that show. I felt the need to share. Thank you[/quote:1aeu3aot] I don't know anything about it, but "Mad Men" already run the Mets. Fman99 Jul 23 2009 06:23 AM I assumed this was another Tony Bernazard thread. Edgy DC Jul 23 2009 07:40 AM Sounds like a dumb idea. seawolf17 Jul 23 2009 07:53 AM I want a Mets fedora. bmfc1 Jul 23 2009 08:19 AM Fantastic show. The new season starts August 16. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 23 2009 08:46 AM I gave Mad Men a good shot, and I loved the look, and the performances, but, I gotta say it, I lost interest. I have to ask -- Would the show be that much less interesting without the wrinkle of Draper's "true identity"? I don't think so. I mean, I know they're trying to say something about the power of salesmanship and influence of image advertising, but doing it that way is unnecessary and a little over the top, IMO. I also find myself wanting the show to be less characters-at-home, more characters-in-the-office. RealityChuck Jul 23 2009 08:59 AM The show lost me in the first episode, where they used a ludicrous anachronism in order to solve the problem, sort of like having Babe Ruth show up on our doorstep and win the pennant this year. I don't mind minor anachronisms, but when a show bases a major plot point on one it's just plain sloppy writing. I also find they have absolutely no feel for the period and don't bother to do any research at all. It's all stereotypes of how they imagine it was without an ounce of reality to it. The characters are all shitheads, too. TheOldMole Jul 23 2009 10:03 AM I love Mad Men, and I want the fedora. I think it's a kinda neat promo. Promos aren't supposed to not be dumb. Frayed Knot Jul 23 2009 11:29 AM ="RealityChuck":320umjik]The show lost me in the first episode ...[/quote:320umjik] I lasted 3 or 4 but am otherwise in agreement with you. It seemed like they spent weeks on end beating us over the head with how politically incorrect 1960 was: everyone smoked, everyone drank, women treated like shit, etc.. Hell, they even had to obligatory kids without seatbelts and kids playing with plastic bags scenes. Then of course there were the products the firm were in bed with: cigarettes, aerosol sprays, and even (gasp!) Richard Nixon! seawolf17 Jul 23 2009 12:15 PM My wife loves the show, and she's tried to get me into it, but it just doesn't do anything for me. I still want a Mets fedora. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 23 2009 12:18 PM ="RealityChuck"]The show lost me in the first episode, where they used a ludicrous anachronism in order to solve the problem, sort of like having Babe Ruth show up on our doorstep and win the pennant this year. I don't mind minor anachronisms, but when a show bases a major plot point on one it's just plain sloppy writing. I also find they have absolutely no feel for the period and don't bother to do any research at all. It's all stereotypes of how they imagine it was without an ounce of reality to it. The characters are all shitheads, too. I can think of a couple of reasons to dislike the show-- some of which have been outlined by the folk here-- but dramatic license? Come on, man. And plenty of my favorite novels, songs and drama focuses on (or comes from) misbehaving shitheads. There's some good stuff they're doing, there; the acting is generally impeccable-- Hamm, Moss and Slattery in particular. The production design, acting, and the office interplay (as written AND performed) had me watching for a good portion of the first season; now it's strictly happenstance watching. I'm with Wolf on the Met fedora. G-Fafif Jul 23 2009 04:09 PM Immersed in Season Two DVD commentary. Takes place in 1962 and yes, your expansion Mets are mentioned. Farmer Ted Jul 23 2009 04:51 PM I was hanging onto this show simply for the weekly January Jones fix. Found myself not caring about the show three epidoes into the 2nd season. Why the fuck would you cheat on this lovely? http://www.filmfestivals.com/images/tiff2005galery/images/January%20Jones%20at%20the%20Three%20Burials%20of%20Melquiades%20Estrada%20%20conference.jpg Valadius Jul 23 2009 06:44 PM You know, I'm of the opinion that if fedoras came back, they'd bring a whole bunch of jobs with them, what with lots of new haberdasheries springing up. Frayed Knot Jul 23 2009 07:10 PM Supposedly the biggest blow to the men's hat industry was JFK giving his inauguration speech bare-headed despite it being a freezing cold day in DC and also that he wore a top-hat and tails for the trip over. But I guess when you have a great head of hair and are telegenic you can't let frozen ears and a fashion faux-pas get in the way of a good photo-op. The brim might cast a shadow on your face after all. Prior to that, men wore hats outside virtually all the time. Check photos of ball games from the 1950s and earlier, almost everyone in the stands has one. Ashie62 Jul 23 2009 08:56 PM The official Mets fedora would be that of ex-signman Karl Ehrhardt?

Huff, please.