nymr83

leaving aside McGwire for the moment, what happens when Palmiero, who did fail a test, is up for consideration? I suppose his numbers are borderline enough that leaving him out wouldn't be a complete vote against steroids. so i'll ask, assuming that you believe Palmiero's statistics to be hall-worthy should he get in? If so, what justification is there for continuing to keep Joe Jackson and Pete Rose out?

I hate to see Bradford go, but he's getting too long of a contract and I'm glad the Mets aren't trying to match it.

]I just don't see how Oh and Josh Gibson are all that different other thasn the continents they played on. Both played professionally at the highest level they could play, more or less, and were the best at their level. Gibson played in the United States, Oh didn't, thats all there is too it. The National Hall of Fame should include all leagues that play in the Nation (taking into account, of course, the relative importance and difficulty of those leagues.) Letting someone in for their off-the-field activities as an "emissary" or whatever is not the same as letting them in as a player. if Oh really made significant contributions to the American game then let him in, but I'd say he didn't, not even close. Josh Gibson on the other hand was a well-known player in this country and even putting statistics aside he probably contributed alot to the American game. If they wanted to change the HOF into some sort of international thing thats their business (though i would find it highly unnecessary...we don't need to tell the Japanese who the best players in the history of Japanese baseball were.) As it stands now, Oh has no business with a HOF plaque. A better idea, if you wanted to promote Oh and others within the existing framework, would be a mutual agreement between the HOF and its counterpart in Japan that created exhibits based on the other country's most famous players.

he had the most talented roster in the NL and no real pressure in the regular season, he made a couple of questionable postseason decisions. i'd guess this team would have done the same damn thing with any other manager at the helm.

i guess theres some logic to that, but i'd hesitate to give him 3 now with only a year under his belt. give him 1 more year while also raising his salary for this coming year as a reward for last year's success, that should keep him happy and keep the players knowing the organization has confidence in him without committing prematurely to a 3rd year.

I like Eaton but that looks like alot of money and worries me about Zito's price.

]basically, i looked at production after the all star game. took the 100 AL players with the most at bats. then i ranked them by: R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG OPS and took the average. theres many problems with this but here are a few: why only post all-star? if its because you believe the MVP is the guy who helped histeam down the stretch then you should eliminate players on bad teams and teams that coasted. weighing "CS" equal to any of these categories is probably a bad idea, you'd be better off with "net steals" in place of SB and CS. TB and SLG essentially double counts as does H and AVG (and to a lesser extent BB and OBP once you've already counted AVG) SO are arguably meaningless, if you're going to punish the guys who strike out you need to reward those who dont bounce into DPs (not coincidentally the same guys) OPS is obviously OBP+SLG so i dont know why you'd count it again seperately unless you're trying to give extra weight to them (a value judgment i'd agree with but still) i'd probably narrow it down to: R, RBI, OBP, and SLG. if you put a gun to my head and asked for 4 more i'd use PA, SB-CS, OPS+, and something that took defensive position into account if not defense itself (maybe using defense spectrum to assign a different multiplier to each position)

i'm not sure i'd bother extending him yet, the team had a good year but i don't know that he was any better than average, might as well take more time to evaluate him before committing to something longterm

TheOldMole wrote: This should be the year that Jim Rice gets his deserved enshrinement. i disagree, with Ripken and Gwynn shoe-ins, McGwire on the ballot, and Blyleven and Gossage all ready to get dissed again theres just too much going on for Rice. Rice (and Blyleven/Gossage) need a year with no 1st ballot guys because like it or not there are plenty of voters who feel the need to vote for somebody but also feel the need not to vote for too many guys at once,

and i'm going to recover the money, my crime hidden by the fire

Opinion: he'll regress in 2007, but will return to his 2006 production for several consecutive years after (a prediction is an opinion, right?) Fact: Carlos Beltran received $119 million over 7 years from the Mets, Carlos Lee received $100 million over 6 years from the Astros. (Omar looks like a genius now isn't part of the "fact" right?)

could we have kept this junk in one thread?

Opinion: thats just not fair, Rothlisberger and Kent both received less severe injuries in motorcycle accidents Fact: The Mets' new stadium will have about 10,000 less seats than Shea.

yeah, its mindless, but its funny, and the bear is cute. i'll warn anyone who wants to take children that this movie is NOT appropriate for them, alot of the jokes are racist and/or sexist and there is nudity. i'm actually a bit suprised that they managed to get only an "R" rating.

how exactly has the team gotten closer to a cast of "aging mercenaries" than it was before? (and why is it necessarily a bad thing if you've got a solid core?)

your liberal koolaid is too hard to stomach, i prefer the blue and orange stuff Sal accused everyone of downing. there is ZERO excuse for what the Times did.

finally saw it, it was funny but not THAT funny. it was full of good jokes but failed to remain good throughout

]And that is another lesson seemingly lost on the Mets. You sign a comparatively-young outfielder -- Soriano is 30 -- for seven years, you can bank on seven years of high-level production. 8 years. and we showed in the other thread how often teams regret deals like that one. passing on Soriano might make idiot writers mad in 2007, but when 2010 comes around and he's stinking up the joint you won't hear them apologizing, they'll be too busy ripping the mets for not signing another guy for too much money over too many years.

MFS62 wrote: I think this tells us its time to start testing GMs for drugs, too. Later those brownies that Boras sent out must have been funny brownies

Hockey has alot in common with the sports we love, for example FOX has found ways to fuck it up, from highlighting the puck to covering the lower 3rd of the screen with advertisement for FOX shows in a 3-2 game with little time left.

Frayed Knot wrote: The 10-year rule as a BBWA member is the minimum to get an HoF ballot. Once a writer has obtained that they don't lose it - although some choose to stop voting if they no longer feel they follow the sport closely enough. For the yearly awards I'm sure a seniority thing plays into it but I don't know of any strict cut-off date. The various BBW chapters distribute them in each city among the regular beat and all-purpose baseball writers on a rotating basis; ergo an overall columnist like Lupica wouldn't be in that rotation but strictly baseball guys like Klapisch, Madden, Heyman, etc., would even though they don't cover just one team specifically. i really feel that half the voters don't know whats going on outside their own city (and maybe its biggest rival(s).) they should let the managers or fellow players vote, if the players got it wrong i'd be more able to stomach it.

Iubitul wrote: ="Frayed Knot"]The NYTimes doesn't allow their guys to vote - trying to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. Why do I find this ironic and funny? because the Times is one of the most biased and slanted papers in existence, to the point that their anti-war views led them to omit any mention of a soldier from NY being post-humously awarded the congressional medal of honor for jumping on a live grenade to protect his fellow soldiers? but hey, its nice to know the sports section ain't conflicted, because thats whats really important

another deal that wasn't well thought out at all. this is looking more and more like a good time to "lay low" if you are a smart GM, the contracts so far this offseason have been out of control for questionable players.

i agree that being a DH should hurt you, but not more than being a terrible fielder, leaving Ortiz completely off the ballot isn't fair.

less talking, more voting.