nymr83

Elster88 wrote: I got a ring tone of Gary calling a Piazza homer against the Braves. Not sure what game it is. i have a bottle-opener that calls one against what i think is the Giants every time you use it (or press the button)

you might want to edit your post, i see "nymr83 wrote:" and then a big block of text from ira, i'd hate to have his words associated with me.

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Tanyon Sturtze to the Braves! the over/under on the Mets homerun total for 2007 just went up

there is no valid analogy between the current pitching staff and the '69 staff. now you want to analogize to '67? that '67 staff could have used a Tom Glavine signed to a 1 year deal. how can you possibly believe that the out of the options the Mets had pre-glavine signing (Maine, Perez, Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, etc) that more than 3 of them will be successful in 2007 given their collective track records? signing Glavine (and hopefully getting one more good veteran) doesn't prevent the good young pitchers from getting their starts, it only prevents the Mets from being forced to start FIVE unproven guys at once when they can start THREE of them and still have the other 2 around if anyone falters. i'm glad you aren't running this team.

can the admins confirm/deny something like that (assuming he was accessing the site from the same place?) the date he joined the forum is suspicious too.

hmm, platoon with Valentin or is he being supplanted after being resigned?

ira thinks that Maine, Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, and Perez is the '69 Mets rotation, he also thinks the earth is flat.

Vic Sage wrote: As former MoFo-er THIRTEEN was almost always right, so is 83 almost always wrong. In fact, if i'm ever unsure about what position to take on any issue, 83 is my perfect reverse barometer. although i'd agree with 2 8-team divisions rather than 4 4-team divisions. thats a compliment, i'd hate to agree with a socialist.

good deal for the Giants imo.

SteveJRogers wrote: And yes I know I did that whole countdown thread, but still, should that really be THAT big of a deal for fans? if he had won most or all of those 300 as a Met i'd make a deal out of it, sure. but considering that 240+ of those wins came for the arch-rival braves i don't really care care to celebrate his 300th. ="iramets"]Kaz Matsui? The Mets continued to play him for years--years!--after he demonstrated that he was an awful mistake in judgment on their part, but when they still owed him a huge salary. He's your poster boy for someone who was demoted despite being owed a huge salary? The defense rests, your honor. I'm the biggest Matsui-hater on the board, they made a huge mistake in signing him... but given the talent on in the organization, continuing to play him was not an awful decision (it wasn't a particularly good one either, but there was nobody waiting who could have done much better.) if the defense rests the judge should instruct the jury "please dont make us pay for another lunch before you find for the plaintiff"

theres a whole lot to respond too but heres some random bits and pieces: -i hate the idea of eight divisions with four teams each, i'd rather see four divisions that each have 7 or 8 teams. -i like the playoffs as is, 3 rounds, though i wouldnt mind lengthening the 1st round and/or a wildcard play-in game the day after the season ends. -i don't like any of vic sage's socialist ideas, revenue between the owners/players should be split in whatever way they contractually agree upon, we can also let the 30 owners divide up visiting team revenue as they see fit, if the small market owners wanted to change things they sure have the numbers to do it. -i don't like willet's free agency every year idea either, first of all its terrible for the already degraded sense of continuity of teams, but more importantly it wouldnt just allow players to make more money off a good year, it would prevent players from signing multi-year deals that provide them with financial security and the club with certainty as to salary costs. multi-year deals benefit everyone. -no way should there be any rules, as vic proposes, about municipalities paying for stuff, if taxpayers dont like it they can vote people out of office, but if a particularc ity feels that building a park is what they want thats their business. -an article in The Post today about Selig's retirement claimed annual revenue is 5.2 billion league wide up from under 2 billion in 1992 when Selig tookover, sorry SteveRogers, i know you hate math and statistics since they are always against you. -i wish this thread hadn't declined into steve's bullshit for 2 pages when it started out so well -i'd like to see the DH gone but the union would feel they need something in return since that would essentialy replace a multi-million dollar starting player with a bench guy on every roster. i'd offer them a raise in the minimum salary along with a roster expansion to 26, maybe some sort of pension increase thing too. -i'd get rid of losing draft picks for free agent singings, though i'd still give "supplemental" picks to the teams that lose guys. -i'd expand the draft internationally, i can't see how this would hurt the current players, the clubs, or american amateurs, and i couldn't care less if it economically hurt international free agents, we have no reason to look out for them. -i'd work out some sort of agreement with Japan, the current "posting" system isn't working properly and is in fact a huge detriment to small market teams (can they potentialy give Matsuzaka what Boston gives him, sure. can they pony up 51 million before that? not quite as easily.) i don't have any great ideas here (just letting the players come here without the japanese consent opens up a door that i wouldnt want to go through.) -set and enforce minimum dimensions for new ballparks, dont allow anyone who doesnt already have turf to install it, go back to the less-tightly wound baseball from years ago, raise the mound to its pre-1969 height -in the next contract with FOX/whoever tell them they cannot superimpose advertising behind homeplate, they can't let commercials cause the fans to miss pitches, and they need to show every pitch from over the pitcher's shoulder (no dumb angles)

cleonjones11 wrote: Elster88 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: that was just a reference to cleonjones being stupid in another thread. Haha, you'll need to be more specific than that. Kevin Elster was a walking out as a Met... Cleon Jones hit only .234/.321/.362 in 47 World Series At-Bats... ...see? other people can make pointless offtopic posts too!

good. now get me zito.

Eaton gets hurt alot, thats still a deal i'd have signed though.

i liked him alot but good teams dont give middle relievers deals like that.

metsmarathon wrote: ="iramets"]And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before. maybe that's you're john maine analogue? is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew? that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year. well put marathon. any analogy of the current youth to seaver/koosman/ryan is wishful thinking... or the result of one too many bong hits... hey where'd spaceman's bong go anyway?

the fact that Soriano and Danys Baez are worth the same type of compensation is a joke.

metirish wrote: Best Dressed i have to disagree with the inclusion of so many home-white (or road-white depending on the sport) uniforms. every team has one and theres no reason that the the Red Sox look any better than the Royals. i counted 4 white baseball uniforms alone, how about the Grays?

i agree with marathon, any strategy that counts on Pedro in 2007 is a bad strategy. the money is gone already, act like he's not going to be back and be pleasantly suprised if he's able to make a positive contribution in the latter half of the season. counting on Hernandez for 30 starts is a bit overboard too but thats not really the point, the point is what kind of quality do you expect out of those starts? expecting anything better than a whole lot of 5 inning 3 run appearences with a couple of 6 inning 1 run gamnes mixed in (an ERA around 4.50 or higher) is a pipe dream. you say you're counting on Maine, Perez, and Bannister for 75 starts. well fine, i'll count of 25-30 starts out of Maine and i'll hope that we won't be disappointed int heir overall quality, but to count on 20-25 each from Perez and Bannister is a joke, unless you just want the innings without regard to how they are going to perform. this team needs at least TWO starters right now, Zito/Schmidt alone elps but neither can solve the problem. ]Give me a maximum figure, please, that you would invest in Glavine for 2007 and 2008. I'd give him 11 million for the two years, and I think he'd walk away from that offer so fast you're probably better off making him no offer at all. He thinks he's a 15-7 pitcher, and I think he's a 12-12 pitcher. records are in large part a result of run support so they really aren't indicative of his remaining talent. i think Tom Glavine is still a guy who will go out there 30 times and give you an ERA around 3.75-4.00, worth 10 million in this market. i really don't care how much money they give him for 2007, the Mets arent going to hurt themselves with a big 1 year deal, what would worry me is seeing him signed for 2 years with an easy to reach option that kicks in automatically for year 3, i havent heard anything about that. Glavine of course isn't the complete solution to the Mets problems, but with whats out there he's a decent step in the right direction, provided that Mets management doesnt use his resigning as an excuse not to pursue another pitcher (Omar isn't that dumb even if some of his predecessors would have been.) ]Oh yea, Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, Perez, Maine, Vargas, will see there share of starts...Its the nature of the position. sure they will, but when you are startig your season by slotting 4 or 5 guys from that list into your rotation you are in VERY bad shape.

iramets wrote: ="Frayed Knot"]iramets wrote: I'd have been comfortable going into the 2007 season with a rotation of Maine and Perez and Bannister and Pelfrey and Humber You do realize that this backs are absolutely ready for prime-time 'win now' offense with 5 unproven, or barely proven, hurlers with even worse in reserve don't you? But you've got Hernandez already signed for 2007, and Pedro's going to get a bunch of starts, and I'm advocating signing Zito, if possible, and/or getting a first rank younger pitcher in a deal. Maine's earned a full shot already, I think Perez has too, and I'd give one to Bannister as well. If one of those falters, you've got Pelfrey, and if another falters you've got Humber. I believe that Glavine is expecting front-line starter money, not completely unreasonably given his w-l record last year, and will try to get at least two years on his next deal. That money could be better spent elsewhere.If we can sign him for middle (or back) of the rotation money, I'd go for that, but I don't believe that's what he's looking for. ok 1 at a time here... so what if you'v got hernandez signed? he's not very good. you can't count on Pedro getting "a bunch of starts" or on those starts being of his usual quality. yeah, Maine has earned a shot. Perez hasn't, one playoff game doesn't make you a #2 starter (as he would be with that circus of a rotation listed above) Perez should ideally be one of several candidates for 4/5. Bannister was smoke and mirrors, like Perez he's a 5th starter candidate not a guy to be relied upon. Pelfrey and Humber have shown nothing in the majors, they look like they still need time, to count on both of them along with these other guys is suicidal. now look, if you sign Zito and Glavine the rotation suddenly looks good and deep, but neither is on board yet and right now the Mets rotation looks like it belongs in Norfolk (its gonna take some time for me to get used to saying New Orleans btw)

the Mets look stuck though. its a good thing they have some depth or they'd be looking at Jose Lima as serious rotation option, the Mets NEED to get Zito/Schmidt or make a trade for an equivalent guy. I'd like to bring Glavine back for 1 more year but he's not the answer by himself.

the (strong) suspicions of steroid use have to be part of the equation- but only part of it. i personally dont think they are enough alone to keep him out, but i won't criticize any voter who thinks otherwise. If he had actualy gotten caught by a test for something that was illegal (and i mean ILLEGAL, the fact that baseball didn't ban something doesnt give a player the right to use a substance controlled by Congress) or legal but banned by baseball at the time he used it then i would keep him out no questions asked.

but when did GGs get turned over to the managers, i thought it was after/as a result of Palmiero.

i really thought the writers gave Palmiero the GG, can you please confirm it was the managers?

i might be remembering incorrectly but doesn't a player need 10 years in the majors to appear on the ballot at all?