Gwreck

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":9cwh7oib]I think the Delta 360 Club is the one limited to $100 ticket holders.[/quote:9cwh7oib] Not exactly. The "Delta 360 Club" (formerly the Sterling Club) is limited to Sterling-Level seat holders. Those are the seats on the lowest level, right behind the plate. Those tickets run $175/game on the low end. The Left Field Restaurant is limited to these seating categories: Sterling Club Platinum and Gold; Ebbets Club Gold; Excelsior Club Platinum and Gold; Metropolitan Box and Field Box. Of course, all of those levels are over $100 per seat. --- And yes, if you take a look here: http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/ticketing/season_plans.jsp, you'll see that the Mets have renamed the "Excelsior Level" the "Caesar's Level." Edgy DC Jan 22 2009 09:43 AM Suckers. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 09:45 AM ]The original apple first appeared at Shea to the right of the 410-foot sign in center field during the 1980 season as a marketing ploy to inject some excitement into a dreadful team that finished 67-95, in fifth place in the NL East. That team didn't hit many homers, either - Lee Mazzilli led the way with 16, while the Mets finished with just 61 and were mocked by a Daily News graphic that measured their homer output against Roger Maris' 1961 total. The Mets and Maris finished tied. Except the Apple was planted in 1981, the year after the admittedly power-starved Mets had some success with the marketing theme "The Magic Is Back," thus the top hat and the words Mets Magic. And while I wouldn't argue the historical verdict of "dreadful" against a fifth-place, 67-95 team, those Mets were winning back fans with an impressive midseason surge (a 47-39 run that put them in contention for a time) as that Maris vs. Mets graphic was running. Home runs aren't everything. Neither is accuracy at the Snooze, apparently. Benjamin Grimm Jan 22 2009 09:47 AM ="metirish"]I dunno but that just sounds like trouble to me , with it's expected weight and all. I'd hate to see Beltran and whoever is in RF get crushed by the apple. The apple won't be rising while the Mets are in the field. It's the opposing outfielders who have to fear the apple! Edgy DC Jan 22 2009 09:49 AM Can UMDB do a quick home/road split since 1981 and tell us which Mets have lit the apple the most? metirish Jan 22 2009 09:54 AM ="Benjamin Grimm"]="metirish"]I dunno but that just sounds like trouble to me , with it's expected weight and all. I'd hate to see Beltran and whoever is in RF get crushed by the apple. The apple won't be rising while the Mets are in the field. It's the opposing outfielders who have to fear the apple! LOL....of course.... Frayed Knot Jan 22 2009 09:57 AM Fortunately for me I've always been able to make it through a 3-hour baseball game without starving to death so I can still attend a game without paying for high-priced meals in up-scale restaurants that are restricted to only those with upper-priced seats. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 09:58 AM ="Gwreck":bglynpwb]you'll see that the Mets have renamed the "Excelsior Level" the "Caesar's Level."[/quote:bglynpwb] Will the games be renamed Bread And Circuses? Speaking of renaming, I haven't been able to find any trace of "Coogan's Landing" on the official seating chart or anywhere in the various propaganda save for the original unupdated fact sheet. I guess that one sop to NY Giants history has been quietly yet effectively disappeared. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 09:59 AM ]I'd hate to see Beltran and whoever is in RF get crushed by the apple. ]The apple won't be rising while the Mets are in the field. It's the opposing outfielders who have to fear the apple! Beltran, Don't Fear The Apple... Gwreck Jan 22 2009 10:01 AM ="Edgy DC":2op1dcbm]Can UMDB do a quick home/road split since 1981 and tell us which Mets have lit the apple the most?[/quote:2op1dcbm] I don't think you need UMDB to tell you it's 1. Darryl 2. Mike But after that... Benjamin Grimm Jan 22 2009 10:01 AM ="Edgy DC":2raunp2q]Can UMDB do a quick home/road split since 1981 and tell us which Mets have lit the apple the most?[/quote:2raunp2q] Piece of cake! Most Shea Stadium (regular season) Mets home runs since 1981: Darryl Strawberry 127 Mike Piazza 99 Howard Johnson 90 David Wright 70 Kevin McReynolds 65 Todd Hundley 57 George Foster 53 Edgardo Alfonzo 53 Carlos Delgado 51 Carlos Beltran 47 Cliff Floyd 44 Bobby Bonilla 40 Gary Carter 40 John Olerud 39 Dave Kingman 38 Keith Hernandez 38 Robin Ventura 36 Jeff Kent 34 Jos� Reyes 30 Mookie Wilson 28 G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 10:06 AM Has anyone ever noticed whether the Apple rose on Met Inside-the-Park HRs? Or was the Apple operator too overcome with shock to get the fruit up in the air? FYI, the following ITPHRs were hit at Shea in the Apple Era: Wally Backman, 7/31/82 Mark Bradley, 8/31/83 Darryl Strawberry, 5/3/89 Marlon Anderson, 6/11/05 Jose Reyes, 9/7/06 Centerfield Jan 22 2009 10:08 AM Never would I have guessed George Foster would be on that list. Edgy DC Jan 22 2009 10:09 AM Jeff Kent, apple polisher. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 22 2009 10:23 AM I was at the Mark Bradley ITPHR game. I don't remember if the apple went up because I was too busy razzing Dodgers RF Mike Marshall for making the poor decision to dive that led to it.

I believe that access to that restaurant is only for tickets that cost in excess of $100 per game.

I was at that arena in Kansas City this past summer and it is top-notch; even the upper level looks pretty good and is not way up in the clouds like so many of the newly-constructed arenas these days. Anyway, as to the Mets, if they left town I'd probably disown them forever and be a man without a team. I would still hate the Yankees however.

="metirish":2301kyuo]It actually looks somewhat better in cloth form.[/quote:2301kyuo] It's more the angle -- it's not at that ridiculous angle in that picture. themetfairy Jan 16 2009 06:31 AM ="Zvon":1sa3qaqn]Stephen Colbert took a shot at the patch tonight on his show. [/quote:1sa3qaqn] .cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30cTip/Wag - Monkey on the LamColbert at Christmas Colbert Christmas DVDGreen Screen Bill O'Reilly Interview Zvon Jan 16 2009 09:33 PM Thanks for posting that TMF. I really got a kick out of that bit. themetfairy Jan 17 2009 05:22 AM You're very welcome Zvon Farmer Ted Jan 27 2009 05:10 PM Still stuck with this horseshit logo. Embarrassed that the Mets haven't taken another look at this hunk of junk. metsguyinmichigan Jan 27 2009 09:02 PM Not gonna happen. They're already selling patches and jerseys. themetfairy Jan 27 2009 09:05 PM But is anyone buying it? DocTee Jan 27 2009 09:16 PM As Paul Lukas explains today, the Mets might be off the sartorial hook thanks to Texas awful new batting helmet: [url:3aj1ya7j]http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/090126&sportCat=mlb[/url:3aj1ya7j] Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 06:55 AM That's only 15% worse than the Mets two-toner. metsmarathon Jan 28 2009 08:09 AM well, the voting right now has the 1999 future uni's leading the way at 41.3%, with citifield patch holding onto second with 13% of the vote. the devil rays' inaugural duds are currently tied with the rangers' ugly hats for third, at 12.7%. the ugliness of the devil rays' uniforms is the only one of the four that the mets did not directly have a hand in. yay mets.

I think Oliver at a "decent" rate was/is clearly the plan B. I wonder if Sheets is Plan "C." Personally, I'd sign both if we can, especially if Sheets only takes a 2-year deal. We're already losing the draft pick on Rodriguez, so Sheets only costs us the 2nd round pick. (PS. Wouldn't that be a kick in the teeth for the Brewers? They don't get the MFYs 1st round pick -- it goes to the Angels -- and they don't get ours either if we get Sheets).

$2 million for this guy? Is the going rate that high for crappy bench guys? Wow. Joey's little brother, btw.

="Centerfield":29tslt5o]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:29tslt5o] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:01 PM he's saying you shouldn't lump any of these guys together and say "they all used" but should instead consider only the evidence against each one. what were the exact circumstances of McGwire's testimony before Congress? was he subpoenad or did he appear on his own accord? if the former, i can understand his "i don't wanna talk about" answer which obviously would have come from his lawyer. if the latter he shouldnt have shown up voluntarily if he wasnt there to be honest and answer all questions. SteveJRogers Jan 13 2009 07:12 PM I'm pretty sure they all were subpoenad. Don't forget the Palmerio finger waging, Sosa forgetting that he is fluent in English and Schilling backing down from his original commentary on players who took steroids. The whole lot of them clearly got instructions from lawyers. Valadius Jan 13 2009 07:17 PM He was subpoenaed: ]Mar 16, 2005 1:18 pm US/Eastern Mark McGwire To Testify On Steroids Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig Will Testify NEW YORK (CBS) ― Mark McGwire plans to comply with a subpoena and attend Thursday's congressional hearing into steroid use in baseball, The Associated Press has learned. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:27 PM 1) Anyone who doesn't think Rickey belongs in the HoF doesn't understand Rickey's accomplishments and/or is unable to place them in the proper historical context. 2) Anyone who thinks Rickey belongs in the HoF but doesn't vote for him is using his vote for something other than what the vote is for. Anyone who falls into categories 1 or 2 shouldn't have a vote. CF is correct. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:37 PM Why is unanimity so important to you? Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:38 PM Are you addressing me? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:40 PM Yes, please. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:41 PM Unanimity is not important to me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:43 PM Then please accept a Hall of Fame without it. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:45 PM I do. Please don't bring up topics that have nothing to do with what I posted. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:57 PM It does not have nothing to do with what you posted. There is no crime and no damage done by a miniscule minority disagreeing with the mainstream. You want them disenfranchised, which does do harm by forcing a false consensus and chilling independent thought among all voters in all future elections. And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:00 PM You clearly have no idea what I want. You are reading what I said and extrapolating it incorrectly. I shall clarify one more time. I want the voters to be 1) people who understand the players' on the ballot and their careers 2) people who are able to place them in the proper historical context 3) people who vote "yes" if they think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame 4) people who vote "no" if they don't think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame Anyone who doesn't fit these criteria should not have a vote. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:01 PM ="Edgy DC":2jwfby5s]And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults.[/quote:2jwfby5s] Really? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 10:02 PM Great. Good night. metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 07:59 AM i think it is perfectly allowable for a voter to have such high standards that rickey henderson does not meet them, provided they consistently apply those standards to their ballot and have a good logical reason for it. granted, the only remotely logical reason would be something about holding the hall to the same high standards as the first two or three classes of inductees. and if that's their standard, then good for them. there's no reason that the voters have to be hog-tied to the precedents set by prior votes and voters. if they, for instance, think that the hall of fame voting started to go awry when they lowered their standards for george sisler and willie keeler in 1939, that those guys aren't good enough to share the room with the babe and the big train, and neither is rickey, then that is their right. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:33 AM ="Edgy DC"]Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or nto exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. However, if they have no valid explanation, then they should be punished. Probation perhaps, with another transgression leading to them being removed from the voting committee. This will force the voters to take more care. You won't see as many reporters like the one in Oakland who didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot. You won't see "He deserves to be in, but not first ballot" type votes. And if you do, and this voter repeats such behavior, he should be booted from the committee. You say that their voting record is insufficient to label them as idiots or insubordinates. I agree. That alone is not enough. That is why you get an explanation. After having heard the Oakland guy's explanation, I think we have enough here to label him "idiot". Not knowing Rickey was on the ballot is negligent to an incredible degree. This information could have been ascertained by: 1. Reading any article on the Hall of Fame candidates this year. (He is a writer after all) 2. Reading his ballot. By putting him before a committee, you let him know that his behavior is unacceptable. And if it happens again, he will be deemed unfit to vote in the future. On the other hand, let's assume the writer provides a explanation such as marathon's example. His voting history reflects that he voted for Aaron, Mays and no one else. Then, it's understandable that he didn't vote for Rickey. You and I can disagree with his application of the criteria, but at least he is applying the criteria. And unless the Hall specifies their criteria, they would have to live with such an application. (However, if his voting record showed he voted for Jim Rice, Tommy John and Burt Blylevin, the guy is a fucking fraud and should be booted.) Your argument seems to be that there is no pattern in which a voter can vote that would justify his removal from the committee, or even an investigation into his criteria. He could come out and say "I only like ballplayers who are Pisces" or "I didn't vote for Rickey because I don't like the way he spells his name." By your argument, that guy should be left alone. And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. Secondly, I listed the specific criteria, when you accused me of mis-stating it. And most importantly, save me the "not at all accurate" garbage. The criteria are: 1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. If I had said the criteria were shoe size, that would have been "not at all accurate." Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:39 AM ="Gwreck":1mvpbc6m]="Centerfield":1mvpbc6m]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] As Namor said, if one is going to decline to vote against McGwire, or Clemens, or Bonds, I would hope they would weigh the specific evidence against each individual rather than casting his name aside as "one of those steroid guys". If at the end of the day, a voter were to decide that the specific evidence against McGwire (evasive testimony, Canseco's book) were enough to ban him, I would have no problem with that. Obviously, I have no problem with a voter declining to vote for Clemens or Bonds considering the amount of evidence that exists against those two. HahnSolo Jan 14 2009 08:40 AM Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. Let's have more voices heard...why is it only the BBWWA? Some in this thread advocated for broadcasters, I agree. Why should Buster Olney have a vote and Gary Cohen not? If you've been broadcasting (radio or TV) for more than 10 years, or whatever limit you want to put on it, you get a vote. So come on down Vin Scully. I'd add internet writers. No vote for Rob Neyer? Boo. Am I sounding like Bill James now? Well, let's bring him and Bob Costas to the party. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 09:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM ="Centerfield"]I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. Actually, that's not what you were initially saying. What you originally said was, ="Centerfield"]Oh, and anyone stupid enough to leave Rickey Henderson off their ballot should have their voting rights rescinded. You've only softened your stance and complicated your system of bureaucratic review as your original position became untenable. ="Centerfield"]In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. Then you would call everyone in, but no, it's the gross minority that's rounded up. ="Centerfield"]If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. ="Centerfield"]I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. Then I ask you to think about it some more. ="Centerfield"]If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. Oh, how generous of you. The cleansing committee is just a forum for free thought. A Parisian salon! Come on, what professional writer with enough tenure to gain membership in the BBWAA needs a special forum to convey his or her position. It's about persecuting thought and purifying thought. The description of the punishment is too disheartening to respond to. ="Centerfield"]And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. You wrote it and I disagree with it. ="Centerfield"]1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. By your own estimation, you're merely half right. You get to meet with the review committee to see if you need to go on probation until you can show yourself to think like the group. ="Centerfield"]Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. I don't know that we agree. I bring it up because you mis-stated the criteria, and want to punish others for not abiding by criteria that you couldn't be bothered to get right. It's also helpful to my argument to make you understand the feeling of vulnerablity that you would seek to place upon voters. I understand you don't want to live under the reign of a pedant. Neither would I. Neither would I want voters to. You were wrong, and you would have been hung by your own system. It seems obvious (though I guess not), but a democratic system is not designed to generate unamity, but to produce credible decisions by assenting to the freely expressed will of the majority. Take freedom of expression out of the equation, and the credibility is shot, and the whole thing crumbles. Frayed Knot Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 10:40 AM ]Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. They recently did expand things a little. Several of the BP writers now have votes in an attempt to start admitting some "non-traditional" writers. Personally, I prefer public humiliation of bad voters over kicking them out. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 09:47 AM I can't understand why you keep bringing up ancillary points rather than focusing on the issue. 1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I don't give a shit about unanimity. Elster doesn't give a shit about unanimity. Distorting our position to discredit it is not productive. I want the select group of voters to be monitored to make sure they are competent and applying the correct criteria. If there is never a unanimous selection into the Hall of Fame, I will care less than Elster, who doesn't care at all. 2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: My first remark was obviously a throw-away statement meant to express my distaste with those voters. When you proposed a serious challenge to my idea, I gave you a system that was more thought through and less draconian. I went from an idealistic point of view, to a more rational, practical approach when you asked for one. 3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: Again, sure I wrote accomplishments. And when challenged on it, I gave you a more thorough answer. I see no reason why you continue to bring it up. It was a generalization. You say it is only half-right, but that is only the case if you believe that the six criteria are weighted evenly. In my experience, the accomplishments of a player are far more pertinent to the analysis than his character. Number of hits has been weighed far more than pats on the butt given to teammates. Secondly, I don't need to go before a review committee because I'm not a voter. If I were a voter, I certainly would get educated on the criteria before submitting my ballot. If I did not, and upon review, demonstrated that I did not know the criteria, I should be dealt with appropriately. 4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: Sifting through all these other points, I think the crux of our disagreement comes here: Edgy: Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. Simply stated, I disagree with you. I think the writers have a duty to be educated and follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. I think they should be monitored to make sure this is the case. If they demonstrate they are not so, they should be replaced. I think this applies to all situations where a select group of individuals, based upon their presumed knowledge or experience, is given the responsibility to make an educated, informed decision based upon the criteria set by an organization. Admissions officers to Universities should make educated and informed decisions based upon the University's guidelines. Officers who appear to stray from these guidelines should be monitored, and replaced if shown not to be worthy. They should not be allowed to not know a candidate's worthiness ("Oh I didn't read his transcript") or apply their own criteria ("We have enough redheads on campus already"). The same should hold true for the members of the Nobel Price selection committee, corporate settings, any situation where the select group of voters are asked to exhibit superior knowledge and judgment. Your way promotes free-thinking. My way promotes accountability. We disagree. Nymr83 Jan 14 2009 10:04 AM I agree with metsmarathon thats it is ok for a voter to have such high standards that Rickey doesn't meet them, as long as they apply such standards across the board (in which case the last player they should have voted for was likely Tom Seaver... or Ted Williams, because thats how great Rickey was) I would like to remove the ballot from people who don't use it properly. Properly doesn't mean "vote for who i would have voted for," it means "evaluate each player based on the criteria and decide if they should be in our out" its ok to change your mind on a guy, its not ok to forget to vote, be too lazy to properly reseaech each player on the ballot, or apply different standards to different players. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 10:07 AM ="Centerfield"]1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: Henderson was elected. The system worked. There's no need to stamp out dissedent thinking except intolerance. ="Centerfield"]2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: In other words, you softened my stance when your original position looks untenable. Why should I not point that out when you change your view and act as if I'm distorting your position, which you now explicitly accuse me of doing? I'm not. I'm responding to what you wrote. Because you move away from it doesn't erase your words and doesn't erase my response. ="Centerfield"]3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: I explain exactly why I bring this up. And even as you claim I shouldn't continue to bring it up because you've (again) moved away from it, you continue to defend it. Of course you're not a voter. It's an analogy, made to point out what one effect of such a system would be. An asshole with an agenda could toss you out for working with what you think is a most reasonable reading of the criteria. ="Centerfield"]4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: You don't monitor voters. You debate them. I think your admissions office metaphor is a fine one, but students are not admitted by a voting body of several hundred, and Hall of Famers (at least the first time up) are not admidded by an appointed panel of a very few. If you submit to the former system, you've got to tolerate differences. Got to. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 10:13 AM Was watching a SNY roundtable yesterday around 6:30 PM with 4 reporters/ writers/ sportstalk -type folks. Didn't get all the names. They were talking about HOF voting and one guy (didn't get his name) made what I thought was a good point. He said that as some of the older voters retire and no longer vote, they have been replaced by newer, younger voters who have only experienced the more recent eras. As a result, they may have different criteria for selection to the Hall. I just caught the end of it, but I think he was answering the question of why players get votes (like Jim Rice) after years of eligibility. This makes sense to me. I remember when I thought a player had to have close to, or over, a .300 career BA for consideration for the Hall. But as newer statistics have become available, there are more detailed ways to measure performance. I don't believe in "magic numbers" for automatic election. But if a player/ pitcher is the best (or one of the best) at his position for an extended time that he played, he deserves consideration. And by that I do mean consideration, not automatic election. Later metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 10:21 AM i don't necessarily buy that argument. doesn't it seem like the longer you're on the ballot, the more votes you get? do many candidates actually see their percentages move appreciably downward over the 15 years? i think its a softening of the criteria and an increase in the nostalgia for a given player moreso than looking at the numbers a different way. otherwise, we'd see players drop from near 70% to 20% as routinely as we seem to see the 20% guys rise up into contention. if i had the time, i'd look into that claim i just made. but i'll let others do the work for me. just this once. Benjamin Grimm Jan 14 2009 11:09 AM ]You don't monitor voters. You debate them. Our elected legislators vote on our behalf. And we do (or should) monitor their votes. And while we can and do debate them, we also can vote them out (or, take away their vote) if we don't feel they're voting properly. In my example, that could me wisely, correctly, or any number of things. But in the case of Hall of Fame voters, they should be qualified; they should have a strong knowledge of what they're doing and a consistent approach. Should there be no standard at all for Hall of Fame voters? It's not akin to the public voting in a democracy, I wouldn't say. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:15 AM A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber. Vic Sage Jan 14 2009 11:36 AM ="Edgy DC":2wrtve2y]A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber.[/quote:2wrtve2y] As long as you keep equating the voting RIGHTS of citizens in a democracy, with the voting PRIVILEGE of a small number of selectors for the HOF (or any other private selection process based on specified criteria), then no, it's not different. It's a constituency (whether citizens in a republic or members of the HOF administraton) monitoring and evaluating the performance of their chosen representatives. the BBWWA don't have a right to be enfranchised in this process. They'e been granted a privilege. The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes. If you don't agree that such a selection committee should have oversight, then we will need to agree to disagree on that point. If you DO think there should be oversight, then the discussion can shift to what form it should take, without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber". Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM Of course, it's different. Legislators are not electors, they are representatives of a constuency, empowered and disempowered by electors. The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. If a vote for Jay Bell is an indiscretion that will lead to your investigation and possible disenfranchisement, then his name should not be on the ballot. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 11:54 AM ="Edgy DC":scjwko15] The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. [/quote:scjwko15] Don't think that's exactly true. I believe it is granted to members of the BBWAA who have been covering baseball for at least ten years. Later Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:01 PM True enough. (Or sort of true enough. It's BBWAA membership plus 10 years as an active baseball writer that qualifies one.) Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:09 PM ="Edgy DC":gnqufv19]The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes.[/quote:gnqufv19] More importantly, I don't believe hauling people before a review committe for being in the extreme minority ensures the best possible outcomes, but undermines that. Democratic systems are designed to absorb such votes, and this one does it quite well. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:57 PM ="Vic Sage":2ifvditq]...without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber".[/quote:2ifvditq] If that comes out as uncivil, then please allow me to withdraw it with apologies.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1c6xhf6t]I place Schneid alongside Castillo as guys who need to improve their games or else this year.[/quote:1c6xhf6t] I'm not sure if there's anything Schneider could do* in 2009 that would make me think a 2010 contract is justified. *Based on reasonable projections. I guess he could theoretically hit 30 homers but I'm not counting on it. attgig Jan 13 2009 08:27 AM ="Edgy DC":2mr3ppg9]="Nymr83":2mr3ppg9]="Edgy DC":2mr3ppg9]And I have it on good authority that Castro was the worst backup catcher in the league.[/quote:2mr3ppg9] whose authority is that? i'm sure you're not talking about me because i was probably calling for him to start most of the last 2 years[/quote:2mr3ppg9] Shee, paranoid much? ="attgig":2mr3ppg9]nobody has faith in schnied to produce offensively, and while castro COULD provide some pop, he just gets hurt too often (he must be the worst backup catcher in the league).[/quote:2mr3ppg9][/quote:2mr3ppg9] wow, thanks for considering me as good authority. If your job is to be a backup catcher, you better be ready, and not on the DL. Because Castro's inability to be a good BACKUP catcher, we've had to frequently have 3 catchers on our roster. I would actually think that Castro would make a better starting catcher, and then, when he does get hurt (not if), then, schneider would make a great backup catcher. if we have to carry 3 catchers again, the Castro has again failed at his job. attgig Jan 13 2009 08:37 AM so, collecting everyone's stats together, and marking those who matter and those who don't... Schneider doesn't help anyone on our staff, except for maybe pelfrey. that said, only 4 out of 12 pitchers fared better with Schneider. bad ratio for a starting catcher to have. Maybe they should listen to Delgado and get pudge. ="stats"] * SANCHEZ caught by CASTRO 65 ABs, allows 0 HRs and OPP SLUG%=292 caught by SCHNEIDER 108 ABs, allows 6 HRs and OPP SLUG%=454 --gone-- * HEILMAN caught by CASTRO 50 ABs , allows 0 HRs and OPP SLUG%=340 caught by SCHNEIDER 195 ABs, allows 9 HRs and OPP SLUG%=456 * FELICIANO caught by CASTRO 36 ABs, allows 0 HRs and OPP SLUG%=306 caught by SCHNEIDER 134 ABs, allows 6 HRs and OPP SLUG%=455 --injured-- * WAGNER caught by CASTRO 49 ABs, allows 0 HRs and OPP SLUG%=204 caught by SCHNEIDER 99 ABs, allows 3 HRs and OPP SLUG%=313 * SANTANA caught by CASTRO 333 ABs, allows 6 HRs and OPP SLUG%=297 caught by SCHNEIDER 524 ABs, allows 15 HRs and OP SLUG%=401 --most likely gone-- * PEDRO M caught by CASTRO 138 ABs, allows 2 HRs and OPP SLUG%=377 caught by SCHNEIDER 185 ABs, allows 15 HRs and OPP SLUG%=600 --lowe to atl, perez to us?-- Perez: Schneider (563 PA) - .358 (16 HR) Perez: Castro (221 PA) - .450 (7 HR) --homers vs slugging -- + pelf's hot streak. Pelfrey: Schneider (610 PA) - .379 (6 HR) Pelfrey: Castro (161 PA) - .345 (3 HR) Maine: Schneider (440 PA) - .402 (13 HR) Maine: Castro (65 PA) - .286 (2 HR) --gone-- Smith: Schneider (158 PA) - .321 (3 HR) Smith: Castro (52 PA) - .386 (1 HR) --gone-- Schoeneweis: Schneider (141 PA) - .323 (2 HR) Schoeneweis: Castro (53 PA) - .638 (4 HR) --too small-- Figueroa: Schneider (77 PA) - .459 (2 HR) Figueroa: Castro (2 PA) - .500 (0 HR) All pitchers splits are broken down by catcher on their baseball reference splits page for any given year. Zvon Jan 13 2009 03:11 PM I thought Schneids strong suit was supposed to be his work behind the plate. Yeech.

="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching.. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall? Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval. Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly). MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet. Later Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM ="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8]="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

="Centerfield":o99zxfxb]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:o99zxfxb] There's a difference? metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 07:43 PM i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... that THT article is great. i've been wondering the same thing myself, as a result of an especially time-wasty hof-related project i'm miring myself in... SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:50 PM ="Gwreck":28khau2g]="Centerfield":28khau2g]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:28khau2g] There's a difference?[/quote:28khau2g] TECHNICALLY McGwire was only guilty of having a masking agent, which was legal in baseball at the time, in his locker. His name hasn't been officially named in any court document, or report. The only things people have on him is that his name is in the original Canseco book, anecdotal evidence (body size pre-Oakland, and post baseball) and "I'm not here to talk about the past." SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:52 PM ="metsmarathon":1fdxmugo]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... [/quote:1fdxmugo] I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 07:54 PM 162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:59 PM ="Nymr83":1u41q325]162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him[/quote:1u41q325] I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing why baseball writers, who care more about opp than ops+ or obp, would consider McGwire a lock if they weren't holding steroids against him. Which is different than why people who study stats and analysis would consider him a lock, or not. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:12 PM I may be smart enought to shit a dictionary, but I don't know what Steve is talking about. metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 11:08 PM ="SteveJRogers"]="metsmarathon"]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. should "magic numbers" or "saving baseball" be sufficient, steve, for a player to merit induction into the hall of fame? i'm asking for your own actual opinion here. not what you think might be the opinions of others whom you've never met, or the possible opinions you might've read somewhere on the internets. what do you yourself think, and why? ... as far as mcgwire goes, i'm overstating a bit my opinion on his hof merit. i showed a bit more of the reasoning way back over here: and so, here's a bit more intelligible way of looking at what i had said previously: ]per my methodology of using WARP3 and comparing those on the ballot to those who've already been voted in by the bbwaa... i look at career and peak value over 5, 7, and 10 year spans. i also take a look at a player's best individual season, just for kicks... among the other hitters, mark mcgwire is below average for a hall of famer in each measure save 7-year peak value, wherein he is in the bottom quarter. summing it up in that handy table... Player Career 5-yr peak 7-yr Peak 10-yr Plateau 1-yr Max henderson TOP 2nd 2nd 2nd TOP blyleven TOP 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd trammell 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd raines 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd bottom cone 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd mcgwire 3rd 3rd bottom 3rd 3rd mattingly bottom 3rd bottom bottom 3rd murphy bottom bottom bottom bottom 3rd dawson 3rd bottom bottom bottom bottom john 2nd out out out out morris bottom bottom bottom 3rd out rice bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom baines bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom grace bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom bell bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom williams bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom parker bottom bottom bottom out bottom smith bottom bottom bottom bottom out vaughn out bottom bottom out bottom gant out out out out bottom vaughn out out out out bottom orosco bottom out out out out plesac out out out out out he's basically a below average hall of famer. that's probably pretty good, overall. he's hurt by being hurt a lot, and having a relatively short career, and not playing generally good defense (gold glove not withstanding) i'm in the process of re-looking my methodology on the hall, and with baseballprospectus talking up some major, big changes to their WARP3 calculations, i might be forced to redo it all once i have it close to being finished... and we'll see what i come up with then... but right now, mcgwire would surely not top my ballot. imo there are easily four more hof-worthy players on the ballot. is that a fair cutoff? i'm not sure, as i'm not sure where my cutoff actually is. if i were a voter, would i really only vote for four players this year? i dunno. that sounds a bit harsh actually. so maybe mcgwire would get my vote afterall. the point i guess, is that i wouldn't consider him a lock, or a no brainer. i wish the voters were looking at the merits of his career instead of its provenance, as i think that's a more interesting conversation (within the context of baseball). the ped issue is more like arguing religion. or politics. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:16 AM ="Edgy DC"] I happen to be a minority voter in much of my life, and I'm offended by the majority opinion attacking me with "too dumb to vote" arguments. I'm so smart I could shit a dictionary. It'd be a crude dictionary --- small and constructed entirely of shit --- but I could. Those who voice minority opinions should be ready for criticism coming from the majority. Sometimes, minority opinions will be well articulated, valid points of view. Your's, I believe, would probably fall into this category. I encourage minority opinions. I'm in the minority often as well. Some minority opinions, however, are dumbass steaming piles of crap. And if their vote is bestowed upon them because of an expected level of expertise, they are too dumb to vote. So I want the voters who leave Rickey, or Hank Aaron, or Mays, or Ripken off their ballot to justify their reasons for doing so. If they really are taking a stance, they should relish the opportunity to be heard. I suspect, though, that they will be applying some "I didn't see him as a first-ballot guy" or "If Seaver wasn't unanimous, he shouldn't be either" criteria that is not set forth in the rules. Or you'll discover just plain idiots who didn't realize Rickey wasAnd if this is their justification, I say strip them of this privilege and give it to someone who will research and follow the rules. Who? You. Me. Anyone who will take the time to get educated on the subject and abide by the criteria set by the Hall. I said I didn't know enough about Raines to know whether he was worth of induction or not. But if you gave me the right to vote, I'd make sure to get educated on it before checking off any names. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:27 AM I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:29 AM ="Gwreck":1s58j1sc]="Centerfield":1s58j1sc]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:1s58j1sc] There's a difference?[/quote:1s58j1sc] Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:42 AM ="Edgy DC":3ihja6wu]I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted.[/quote:3ihja6wu] Who said anything about being reviewed by your opponents? How about this... Someone at the Hall (Board of Directors? Trustees? Important Hall People?) decided that the Writers' Association should have the right to vote on inductees. Those writers submitting questionable ballots (exclusion of Rickey, inclusion of Jay Bell) should have to justify their decision to a panel of Important Hall People (not fellow voters). If the IHP determine that the vote was justified, great. If not, the voter is put on probation, told to abide by the rules (or get educated). If the voter has a second transgression during the probation period, his vote is rescinded. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:48 AM Yeah, my response would be that Jay Bell appeared on the ballot as an eligible candidate, so blow me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:58 AM Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:33 AM I for one am vehemently opposed to keeping people out of the Hall of Fame purely on suspicion of steroids. If there's hard proof, I understand. But if suspicion of steroids is the sole reason behind keeping someone like McGwire out of the Hall of Fame, those voters don't deserve their voting privileges. They're journalists, after all - go get some solid facts. However, if they based not giving someone a Hall pass based on something tangible - in McGwire's case, his low batting average - I completely understand. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:41 AM How about the tangible facts of his testimony in Congress? I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:46 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":vgghykq1] I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game.[/quote:vgghykq1] Ditto. And double ditto for Bonds. Later Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 11:49 AM If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:51 AM If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. I must admit, I have a fondness for McGwire. I was 11 in 1998. The big home run chase was a big childhood memory for me. And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. If you want to debate a player's stats, fine. If there's definitive evidence that a player cheated, fine. But basing a vote on rumors and innuendo is destructive to the process. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:58 AM ]And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. It's not about you. Great players who disgrace the game don't get in. Pete Rose didn't get in. Shoeless Joe Jackson didn't get in. And I don't think that Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire are going to get in. Your generation won't get shut out. But even if it does, so what? It's not about you. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:09 PM ="Valadius"]If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. He was asked to explain himself, and he elected not to. A voter is asked to make a judgment call and they're making the logical one that the facts of his past incriminate him. Look at it this way, he said he didn't want to talk about the past. By not honoring his career and legacy by inducting him in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, those writers are honoring his request. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:28 PM ="Edgy DC":21bklxmx]If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler.[/quote:21bklxmx] no vote for you. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:48 PM i'd like to see what the reasoning behind some of the more interesting votes were - like the 6 yeses for mo vaughn and the 2 yeses for jay bell. at the very least, everybody got greg vaughn right, right? i'm also curious as to what the reasons are for not voting for either rickey or especially tim raines and bert blyleven. i think the thing that i'm most interested in seeing from the voters is internal consistency. if a guy voted for jay bell because he was a salt of the earth kind of guy, and didnt vote for rickey because he was a selfish player, then i'm okay with that (sortof), because it is a reasoned response to the judging criteria, wherin that voter has taken the liberty afforded him to weigh one factor far more heavily than another. because the criteria are so broad, nebulous, and essentially qualitative, it is the voter's right to apply his vote as he sees fit. i may argue with his weighting or reasoning, but at least there's reason applied. even if it's a simple dumb criteria like 'jim rice scared his opponents, and bert blyleven didnt' i can kindof live with it as long as the same criteria is applied evenly on a given ballot. but if you've denied ricky a vote because you don't believe that anybody should get in on their first try, but throw a bone to greg vaughn, well, then you're a fool, perhaps twice over. if you apply your reasoning evenly, than you can be argued with. and the greater point may even prevail. if the reasoning is not applied evenly, then the choices made are essentially illogical, and it becomes a waste of time to even bother discussing. i believe, too, that the voters should be voting on who they feel among the eligible were good enough to be in the hall of fame, not how long they should wait until they are enshrined, or by what percentage. that is really not what they are being asked to do, and that is what is frustrating. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:53 PM I'm frustrated that Jim Rice is on the inside when Tim Raines had a better career. Let us lobby the 380 voters who carry the day, not the 20 curiosities. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 01:25 PM ="Edgy DC"] Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. Are the selection criteria at issue here? I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? Because, in reality, standards have been set. A player's "record" has come to mean that there is an accepted level of performance deemed "Hall of Fame-worthy". When someone who falls near those guidelines gets in (or falls short) there will always be those who cry foul. Their point, and I believe your point, is that the voters got it wrong. I agree that the voters can get it wrong. In fact, I think they can be so wrong, they demonstrate they are in no position to be making these types of decisions. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Again, your logic contradicts itself. If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:09 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:32 AM ="Centerfield"]Are the selection criteria at issue here? You keep saying that voters broke the rules. I don't think it's cut and dried like that. ="Centerfield"]I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. I'm just responding to what you write. ="Centerfield"]When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. Apparently, we don't know, because what you wrote, to me, does not accurately paraphrase the criteria at all. ="Centerfield"]My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). You're arguing much more than that. You're arguing that voters should be made to justify their votes and that their voting privileges should be rescinded if they don't account for themselves to some star chamber's satisfaction. Certain voters, not all, but ones that trigger your sensitivities. ="Centerfield"]And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. By the same token, you made up your own. ="Centerfield"]You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." That's just the way the world is. We all understand things differently. ="Centerfield"] Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Easy. We say, "You got that wrong, and here's why," make an argument of our own, and lobby them. I didn't say we should always consider them right, I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. ="Centerfield"]Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? By making a rational argument that moves their heart. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. ="Centerfield"]Again, your logic contradicts itself. No it doesn't. And there's no again. Don't you think that would be farcical? I think it would be outrageous in the context of anything called an election. ="Centerfield"]If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. I didn't say anybody can't be wrong. I say the way to establish right from wrong is not to strip the minority of their votes, but to lobby those you disagree with until one side compels enough voters past the designated threshold established to determine an issue. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:18 PM i think there are a greater percentage, by an order of magnitude, of unfit voters participating in our presidential elections than there are in the hall of fame elections. ... i have a quick question that perhaps nobody here can answer. i was just reading an article on nytimes.com, and in it, ty kepner mentioned that he did not vote, though he received a ballot, because the times' policy will not allow it. and it got me thinking.. does a ballot unreturned count towards the total? if 25% of the ballots were never returned, would it then be impossible for the hall to elect anybody? and if not, is not the times policy self-defeating? instead of making news by voting for a player, are they not making news by not voting for a player? if there is no abstention, then a lack of a yes vote is a no vote. and this, then, might be the source of some of the "no" (or non-"yes") votes for rickey. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:22 PM The Times policy has been in place a while now, and I'm sure the Hall accounts for it. It's also a good retort to the idea that the New York media machine or somesuch inflates the prospect of New York athletes being enshrined in Halls of Fame. metirish Jan 13 2009 02:26 PM In his NY Times blog Kepner has this to say about Dawson. ] The New York Times does not allow its writers to vote for the Hall of Fame, but if I could have sent in my ballot, I would have checked Dawson�s name � and not just because of childhood impressions. it's not sent in so I doubt it's counted either way. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:34 PM from the hall's own rules: ]Any candidate receiving votes on seventy-five percent (75%) of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. well, that answers my question. thanks. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 03:00 PM I don't know how many more pages this thread needs to continue before you stop mis-stating my position. ="Edgy DC"]I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. I never said one should be stripped of their vote for being in the minority. Some people elected to keep Rice off their ballot and I have no problem with that. To be clear, my position is the following: Where voting rights are bestowed upon a select group of educated individuals because of their superior knowledge, if an individual within that group demonstrates that he does not have such superior knowledge, he should be stripped of that privilege to vote. He should not be stripped of his vote for being in the minority. He should only be stripped if he is stupid (or refuses to abide by the established criteria). To my understanding, Nobel prizes winners are selected by committees, made up of highly qualified individuals in each field. If, during the selection process, a member of the Physics committee says "Oh, I thought we were selecting psychics", then that guy should be off the committee. Of course, this rescission of votes for the stupid should only take place where the privilege of voting was bestowed upon them based upon an assumption of superior knowledge. So rights like voting for President, which are not based on merit, should not be stripped for being dumb. I'm assuming, here, that the Hall gave the vote to writers, and not to fans, because they wanted voters to be educated. I could be wrong. The Hall could come back and say "Nope. We picked the writers because some are smart, some are stupid, and we wanted a good mix of both." In that case, it makes no sense to get rid of the dumb guys. But if it was the Hall's intent to put this decision in the hands of an educated few, I say get rid of the ones that demonstrate their idiocy. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 03:08 PM maybe fans should get to pick the writers who get to vote. Rob Neyer deserves a vote over some old guy who thinks a "walk" is what you do to get back to the dugout after you strike out Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:35 AM Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or not exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. Gwreck Jan 13 2009 06:55 PM ="Centerfield":29tslt5o]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:29tslt5o] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:01 PM he's saying you shouldn't lump any of these guys together and say "they all used" but should instead consider only the evidence against each one. what were the exact circumstances of McGwire's testimony before Congress? was he subpoenad or did he appear on his own accord? if the former, i can understand his "i don't wanna talk about" answer which obviously would have come from his lawyer. if the latter he shouldnt have shown up voluntarily if he wasnt there to be honest and answer all questions. SteveJRogers Jan 13 2009 07:12 PM I'm pretty sure they all were subpoenad. Don't forget the Palmerio finger waging, Sosa forgetting that he is fluent in English and Schilling backing down from his original commentary on players who took steroids. The whole lot of them clearly got instructions from lawyers. Valadius Jan 13 2009 07:17 PM He was subpoenaed: ]Mar 16, 2005 1:18 pm US/Eastern Mark McGwire To Testify On Steroids Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig Will Testify NEW YORK (CBS) ― Mark McGwire plans to comply with a subpoena and attend Thursday's congressional hearing into steroid use in baseball, The Associated Press has learned. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:27 PM 1) Anyone who doesn't think Rickey belongs in the HoF doesn't understand Rickey's accomplishments and/or is unable to place them in the proper historical context. 2) Anyone who thinks Rickey belongs in the HoF but doesn't vote for him is using his vote for something other than what the vote is for. Anyone who falls into categories 1 or 2 shouldn't have a vote. CF is correct. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:37 PM Why is unanimity so important to you? Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:38 PM Are you addressing me? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:40 PM Yes, please. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:41 PM Unanimity is not important to me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:43 PM Then please accept a Hall of Fame without it. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:45 PM I do. Please don't bring up topics that have nothing to do with what I posted. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:57 PM It does not have nothing to do with what you posted. There is no crime and no damage done by a miniscule minority disagreeing with the mainstream. You want them disenfranchised, which does do harm by forcing a false consensus and chilling independent thought among all voters in all future elections. And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:00 PM You clearly have no idea what I want. You are reading what I said and extrapolating it incorrectly. I shall clarify one more time. I want the voters to be 1) people who understand the players' on the ballot and their careers 2) people who are able to place them in the proper historical context 3) people who vote "yes" if they think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame 4) people who vote "no" if they don't think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame Anyone who doesn't fit these criteria should not have a vote. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:01 PM ="Edgy DC":2jwfby5s]And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults.[/quote:2jwfby5s] Really? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 10:02 PM Great. Good night. metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 07:59 AM i think it is perfectly allowable for a voter to have such high standards that rickey henderson does not meet them, provided they consistently apply those standards to their ballot and have a good logical reason for it. granted, the only remotely logical reason would be something about holding the hall to the same high standards as the first two or three classes of inductees. and if that's their standard, then good for them. there's no reason that the voters have to be hog-tied to the precedents set by prior votes and voters. if they, for instance, think that the hall of fame voting started to go awry when they lowered their standards for george sisler and willie keeler in 1939, that those guys aren't good enough to share the room with the babe and the big train, and neither is rickey, then that is their right. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:33 AM ="Edgy DC"]Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or nto exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. However, if they have no valid explanation, then they should be punished. Probation perhaps, with another transgression leading to them being removed from the voting committee. This will force the voters to take more care. You won't see as many reporters like the one in Oakland who didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot. You won't see "He deserves to be in, but not first ballot" type votes. And if you do, and this voter repeats such behavior, he should be booted from the committee. You say that their voting record is insufficient to label them as idiots or insubordinates. I agree. That alone is not enough. That is why you get an explanation. After having heard the Oakland guy's explanation, I think we have enough here to label him "idiot". Not knowing Rickey was on the ballot is negligent to an incredible degree. This information could have been ascertained by: 1. Reading any article on the Hall of Fame candidates this year. (He is a writer after all) 2. Reading his ballot. By putting him before a committee, you let him know that his behavior is unacceptable. And if it happens again, he will be deemed unfit to vote in the future. On the other hand, let's assume the writer provides a explanation such as marathon's example. His voting history reflects that he voted for Aaron, Mays and no one else. Then, it's understandable that he didn't vote for Rickey. You and I can disagree with his application of the criteria, but at least he is applying the criteria. And unless the Hall specifies their criteria, they would have to live with such an application. (However, if his voting record showed he voted for Jim Rice, Tommy John and Burt Blylevin, the guy is a fucking fraud and should be booted.) Your argument seems to be that there is no pattern in which a voter can vote that would justify his removal from the committee, or even an investigation into his criteria. He could come out and say "I only like ballplayers who are Pisces" or "I didn't vote for Rickey because I don't like the way he spells his name." By your argument, that guy should be left alone. And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. Secondly, I listed the specific criteria, when you accused me of mis-stating it. And most importantly, save me the "not at all accurate" garbage. The criteria are: 1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. If I had said the criteria were shoe size, that would have been "not at all accurate." Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:39 AM ="Gwreck":1mvpbc6m]="Centerfield":1mvpbc6m]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] As Namor said, if one is going to decline to vote against McGwire, or Clemens, or Bonds, I would hope they would weigh the specific evidence against each individual rather than casting his name aside as "one of those steroid guys". If at the end of the day, a voter were to decide that the specific evidence against McGwire (evasive testimony, Canseco's book) were enough to ban him, I would have no problem with that. Obviously, I have no problem with a voter declining to vote for Clemens or Bonds considering the amount of evidence that exists against those two. HahnSolo Jan 14 2009 08:40 AM Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. Let's have more voices heard...why is it only the BBWWA? Some in this thread advocated for broadcasters, I agree. Why should Buster Olney have a vote and Gary Cohen not? If you've been broadcasting (radio or TV) for more than 10 years, or whatever limit you want to put on it, you get a vote. So come on down Vin Scully. I'd add internet writers. No vote for Rob Neyer? Boo. Am I sounding like Bill James now? Well, let's bring him and Bob Costas to the party. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 09:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM ="Centerfield"]I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. Actually, that's not what you were initially saying. What you originally said was, ="Centerfield"]Oh, and anyone stupid enough to leave Rickey Henderson off their ballot should have their voting rights rescinded. You've only softened your stance and complicated your system of bureaucratic review as your original position became untenable. ="Centerfield"]In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. Then you would call everyone in, but no, it's the gross minority that's rounded up. ="Centerfield"]If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. ="Centerfield"]I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. Then I ask you to think about it some more. ="Centerfield"]If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. Oh, how generous of you. The cleansing committee is just a forum for free thought. A Parisian salon! Come on, what professional writer with enough tenure to gain membership in the BBWAA needs a special forum to convey his or her position. It's about persecuting thought and purifying thought. The description of the punishment is too disheartening to respond to. ="Centerfield"]And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. You wrote it and I disagree with it. ="Centerfield"]1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. By your own estimation, you're merely half right. You get to meet with the review committee to see if you need to go on probation until you can show yourself to think like the group. ="Centerfield"]Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. I don't know that we agree. I bring it up because you mis-stated the criteria, and want to punish others for not abiding by criteria that you couldn't be bothered to get right. It's also helpful to my argument to make you understand the feeling of vulnerablity that you would seek to place upon voters. I understand you don't want to live under the reign of a pedant. Neither would I. Neither would I want voters to. You were wrong, and you would have been hung by your own system. It seems obvious (though I guess not), but a democratic system is not designed to generate unamity, but to produce credible decisions by assenting to the freely expressed will of the majority. Take freedom of expression out of the equation, and the credibility is shot, and the whole thing crumbles. Frayed Knot Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 10:40 AM ]Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. They recently did expand things a little. Several of the BP writers now have votes in an attempt to start admitting some "non-traditional" writers. Personally, I prefer public humiliation of bad voters over kicking them out. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 09:47 AM I can't understand why you keep bringing up ancillary points rather than focusing on the issue. 1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I don't give a shit about unanimity. Elster doesn't give a shit about unanimity. Distorting our position to discredit it is not productive. I want the select group of voters to be monitored to make sure they are competent and applying the correct criteria. If there is never a unanimous selection into the Hall of Fame, I will care less than Elster, who doesn't care at all. 2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: My first remark was obviously a throw-away statement meant to express my distaste with those voters. When you proposed a serious challenge to my idea, I gave you a system that was more thought through and less draconian. I went from an idealistic point of view, to a more rational, practical approach when you asked for one. 3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: Again, sure I wrote accomplishments. And when challenged on it, I gave you a more thorough answer. I see no reason why you continue to bring it up. It was a generalization. You say it is only half-right, but that is only the case if you believe that the six criteria are weighted evenly. In my experience, the accomplishments of a player are far more pertinent to the analysis than his character. Number of hits has been weighed far more than pats on the butt given to teammates. Secondly, I don't need to go before a review committee because I'm not a voter. If I were a voter, I certainly would get educated on the criteria before submitting my ballot. If I did not, and upon review, demonstrated that I did not know the criteria, I should be dealt with appropriately. 4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: Sifting through all these other points, I think the crux of our disagreement comes here: Edgy: Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. Simply stated, I disagree with you. I think the writers have a duty to be educated and follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. I think they should be monitored to make sure this is the case. If they demonstrate they are not so, they should be replaced. I think this applies to all situations where a select group of individuals, based upon their presumed knowledge or experience, is given the responsibility to make an educated, informed decision based upon the criteria set by an organization. Admissions officers to Universities should make educated and informed decisions based upon the University's guidelines. Officers who appear to stray from these guidelines should be monitored, and replaced if shown not to be worthy. They should not be allowed to not know a candidate's worthiness ("Oh I didn't read his transcript") or apply their own criteria ("We have enough redheads on campus already"). The same should hold true for the members of the Nobel Price selection committee, corporate settings, any situation where the select group of voters are asked to exhibit superior knowledge and judgment. Your way promotes free-thinking. My way promotes accountability. We disagree. Nymr83 Jan 14 2009 10:04 AM I agree with metsmarathon thats it is ok for a voter to have such high standards that Rickey doesn't meet them, as long as they apply such standards across the board (in which case the last player they should have voted for was likely Tom Seaver... or Ted Williams, because thats how great Rickey was) I would like to remove the ballot from people who don't use it properly. Properly doesn't mean "vote for who i would have voted for," it means "evaluate each player based on the criteria and decide if they should be in our out" its ok to change your mind on a guy, its not ok to forget to vote, be too lazy to properly reseaech each player on the ballot, or apply different standards to different players. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 10:07 AM ="Centerfield"]1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: Henderson was elected. The system worked. There's no need to stamp out dissedent thinking except intolerance. ="Centerfield"]2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: In other words, you softened my stance when your original position looks untenable. Why should I not point that out when you change your view and act as if I'm distorting your position, which you now explicitly accuse me of doing? I'm not. I'm responding to what you wrote. Because you move away from it doesn't erase your words and doesn't erase my response. ="Centerfield"]3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: I explain exactly why I bring this up. And even as you claim I shouldn't continue to bring it up because you've (again) moved away from it, you continue to defend it. Of course you're not a voter. It's an analogy, made to point out what one effect of such a system would be. An asshole with an agenda could toss you out for working with what you think is a most reasonable reading of the criteria. ="Centerfield"]4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: You don't monitor voters. You debate them. I think your admissions office metaphor is a fine one, but students are not admitted by a voting body of several hundred, and Hall of Famers (at least the first time up) are not admidded by an appointed panel of a very few. If you submit to the former system, you've got to tolerate differences. Got to. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 10:13 AM Was watching a SNY roundtable yesterday around 6:30 PM with 4 reporters/ writers/ sportstalk -type folks. Didn't get all the names. They were talking about HOF voting and one guy (didn't get his name) made what I thought was a good point. He said that as some of the older voters retire and no longer vote, they have been replaced by newer, younger voters who have only experienced the more recent eras. As a result, they may have different criteria for selection to the Hall. I just caught the end of it, but I think he was answering the question of why players get votes (like Jim Rice) after years of eligibility. This makes sense to me. I remember when I thought a player had to have close to, or over, a .300 career BA for consideration for the Hall. But as newer statistics have become available, there are more detailed ways to measure performance. I don't believe in "magic numbers" for automatic election. But if a player/ pitcher is the best (or one of the best) at his position for an extended time that he played, he deserves consideration. And by that I do mean consideration, not automatic election. Later metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 10:21 AM i don't necessarily buy that argument. doesn't it seem like the longer you're on the ballot, the more votes you get? do many candidates actually see their percentages move appreciably downward over the 15 years? i think its a softening of the criteria and an increase in the nostalgia for a given player moreso than looking at the numbers a different way. otherwise, we'd see players drop from near 70% to 20% as routinely as we seem to see the 20% guys rise up into contention. if i had the time, i'd look into that claim i just made. but i'll let others do the work for me. just this once. Benjamin Grimm Jan 14 2009 11:09 AM ]You don't monitor voters. You debate them. Our elected legislators vote on our behalf. And we do (or should) monitor their votes. And while we can and do debate them, we also can vote them out (or, take away their vote) if we don't feel they're voting properly. In my example, that could me wisely, correctly, or any number of things. But in the case of Hall of Fame voters, they should be qualified; they should have a strong knowledge of what they're doing and a consistent approach. Should there be no standard at all for Hall of Fame voters? It's not akin to the public voting in a democracy, I wouldn't say. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:15 AM A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber. Vic Sage Jan 14 2009 11:36 AM ="Edgy DC":2wrtve2y]A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber.[/quote:2wrtve2y] As long as you keep equating the voting RIGHTS of citizens in a democracy, with the voting PRIVILEGE of a small number of selectors for the HOF (or any other private selection process based on specified criteria), then no, it's not different. It's a constituency (whether citizens in a republic or members of the HOF administraton) monitoring and evaluating the performance of their chosen representatives. the BBWWA don't have a right to be enfranchised in this process. They'e been granted a privilege. The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes. If you don't agree that such a selection committee should have oversight, then we will need to agree to disagree on that point. If you DO think there should be oversight, then the discussion can shift to what form it should take, without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber". Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM Of course, it's different. Legislators are not electors, they are representatives of a constuency, empowered and disempowered by electors. The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. If a vote for Jay Bell is an indiscretion that will lead to your investigation and possible disenfranchisement, then his name should not be on the ballot. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 11:54 AM ="Edgy DC":scjwko15] The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. [/quote:scjwko15] Don't think that's exactly true. I believe it is granted to members of the BBWAA who have been covering baseball for at least ten years. Later Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:01 PM True enough. (Or sort of true enough. It's BBWAA membership plus 10 years as an active baseball writer that qualifies one.) Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:09 PM ="Edgy DC":gnqufv19]The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes.[/quote:gnqufv19] More importantly, I don't believe hauling people before a review committe for being in the extreme minority ensures the best possible outcomes, but undermines that. Democratic systems are designed to absorb such votes, and this one does it quite well. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:57 PM ="Vic Sage":2ifvditq]...without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber".[/quote:2ifvditq] If that comes out as uncivil, then please allow me to withdraw it with apologies.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3sxv2q2s]By the way, I had no idea why they were showing this game, which was on a rainy April day in Pittsburgh. When Andre Dawson hit a grand slam in the top of the 12th, I thought that was why.[/quote:3sxv2q2s] Same thing here. Thanks for the recap. metirish Jan 13 2009 05:10 PM Bobby Valentine on the Hot Stove right now. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 05:32 PM the camera work on that show is unnecessarily jumpy. metirish Jan 13 2009 05:36 PM I hate to hear a guy like Barry Larkin call John Smoltz "Smoltzie". G-Fafif Jan 13 2009 05:56 PM MLBN's "Seasons" show highlights 1986 Wednesday night at 8:00. 1986...good season. metirish Jan 14 2009 06:58 PM A good show , I didn't know that Bruce Hurst had been voted series MVP when everyone thought they were going to win game six and the WS . Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 06:50 AM MLBN gets Bob Costas on board -- a logical choice that brings tiny Bob out of his baseball-less world (he'll still work for NBC) but still a good "get" for them. Will do p-b-p for some of their games as well as studio work - kicking off tomorrow with a one-hour Torre interview metirish Feb 04 2009 06:53 AM I have no memory of Costas doing p-b-p , has he been out of the picture that long , was he any good? Fman99 Feb 04 2009 06:54 AM ="Frayed Knot":2b44ozxk]MLBN gets Bob Costas on board -- a logical choice that brings tiny Bob out of his baseball-less world (he'll still work for NBC) but still a good "get" for them. Will do p-b-p for some of their games as well as studio work - kicking off tomorrow with a one-hour Torre interview[/quote:2b44ozxk] He's a pompous ass. Back to the shire with you, Costas. Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 07:15 AM ="metirish":10z02g9u]I have no memory of Costas doing p-b-p , has he been out of the picture that long , was he any good?[/quote:10z02g9u] Back when NBC had the national package he was their main guy for years. As with most guys he's going to have his fans as well as his detractors (see FMan). But at least with Costas he's one of the few national sports voices who doesn't either look down at baseball with barely disguised contempt or ignore it until there's a negative story (steroids, contract disputes) to stomp on with both feet. IOW, rather than being a network grunt only doing baseball because some media giant is paying him big bucks and therefore feels obligated to give him something do during the summer, he actually likes and knows the game. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 07:47 AM The guy has opinions, but he supports his positions with rational arguments, unlike "I'm Brockton T. Fuckin' Broadcaster, with thirty years in this business and a golden throat/All Star career background, so I know whereof I speak." Frayed Knot Feb 14 2009 06:18 AM An hour-long 1969 WS highlights show on today at 9:30 AM and again at 6:00 PM bmfc1 Feb 14 2009 08:42 AM Mr. Administrator, Can we please change the name of this thread to simply "MLB Network" as it is long since passed the preview stage? I appreciate this thread as my online TV Guide still doesn't include the program names for the channel. Thank you. Kong76 Feb 21 2009 12:12 PM Seaver's 300th win going to ninth inning NOW!!! at Yankee Stadium. Lindsey Freakin' Nelson in the booth! Frayed Knot Feb 24 2009 08:47 AM The name of the nightly show on MLBN has morphed from 'Hot Stove' to 'MLB Tonight' - something that sounds like thier way of acknowledging that games (even meaningless ones) are starting on a daily basis. And their nightly preview feature '30 Teams/30 Days' visits Port St. Lucie for their Mets run-down tonight (and likely repeated 7 or 8 times over the next few days). bmfc1 Feb 24 2009 09:34 AM It looks like the MLB Network will have 2 or 3 ST games each day, using a local feed. Friday's game will be on live, w/the SNY crew. metirish Mar 03 2009 01:15 PM I caught Sever on the other night , he was interviewed in Studio 42. At times it was painful to watch as the host tried to engage Seaver in some banter and getting curt responses in return. An ex pitcher whose name escapes me was also there and asked the usual questions about pitch counts that gets Seaver going , at times like that Seaver can be engaging . I was surprised that they got him out to Jersey for an interview. Frayed Knot Mar 03 2009 01:39 PM ]An ex pitcher whose name escapes me Joe McGrane - came up with the Cards in the late '80s/early '90s and I guy I thought was going to be real good, sort of a bigger, better Al Leiter-type. But his career never really panned out so he quickly turned his quotable personality and good looks into a broadcasting jobs almost immediately after he quit playing. apmorris Mar 03 2009 01:57 PM ="metirish":1gdycu5c]I caught Sever on the other night , he was interviewed in Studio 42. At times it was painful to watch as the host tried to engage Seaver in some banter and getting curt responses in return. An ex pitcher whose name escapes me was also there and asked the usual questions about pitch counts that gets Seaver going , at times like that Seaver can be engaging . I was surprised that they got him out to Jersey for an interview.[/quote:1gdycu5c] I thought he was pretty frank - especially concerning pitchers today and the overuse of set-up and closers. He did look a little uncomfortable. metirish Mar 03 2009 02:28 PM Uncomfortable yet confident enough to sport dark blue denim jeans with brown cowboy boots and a sleeveless zip up jacket thing.( wears similar sleeveless jackets a lot) metirish Mar 03 2009 04:33 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 03 2009 06:20 PM video Seaver[/url:2rm6m0xe] themetfairy Mar 03 2009 05:55 PM Irish - that's an adorable picture, but it's not video. Nor is it Seaver. metirish Mar 03 2009 06:21 PM Thanks metfairy.... themetfairy Mar 03 2009 06:26 PM Ah - much better. Thanks Irish apmorris Mar 03 2009 07:18 PM I haven't seen Al Leiter, who's always good, on MLBN yet but I have seen most of the rest of the crew. Let me break it down for you. MLBN, The Best Damn On-Air Personalities Period! Matt Vasgersian Theater Major (like most ESPN Anchoroons), has all the smarminess of Costas and is easily a half inch taller. Harold Reynolds is feeling it. Free from all ass-grabbing accusations, cutting lose and taking over every panel they put him on. He's so comfortable up there. maybe he can start working getting off whatever meds he's taking. Hazel Mae has a great name if you're the Weather chick on WSTRPPR in Cincinnati. Too much lip gloss to be taken seriously, seriously. BTW, some of my best friends are Polynesian. Mitch Williams has a bad attitude, which is always a plus. Barry Larkin is a mannequin or Yul Brynner in Westworld resurrected. Jon Heyman Great to see Heyman has no real solid leads or news or opinions on TV also. Trenni Kusnierek Hope home girl is using sun block 180. Joe Magrane can trigger epilepsy episodes with his misplaced pregnant pauses. Sounds like a fully recovered stutterer. Has a great head of hair, which may or may not be his own. Dan Plesac Hey, remember Dan from the Brewers in the 90s? ... me either. The 80s?. Seems like a nice guy. Scored high on the Wonderlic. more later .... http://mlbnetwork.mlb.com/network/personalities/ John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 03 2009 08:24 PM Vasgerian sounds like a treatment for that not-so-fresh feeling. Hazel Mae has nice pineapples. Gwreck Mar 03 2009 08:31 PM MLB Network is producing their own documentaries/features as well now: apparently there's one on the Young family (Dmitri and Delmon) and one on Josh Hamilton. Watched the Hamilton one (was ok, nothing special) except for the moment early on in the show when they're talking about Hamilton's various baseball skills and they mention his arm, and cut to a shot of him throwing out a runner at third. I mention I think we were there for the game...go quickly check the scorecard I kept, and yep, it was Hamilton throwing out Marco Scutaro, 9 to 5, top of the 6th inning on August 2nd of last year. All of this is mostly just a long way of saying that this channel is great and is my default "flip to" channel when whatever I'm watching goes to commercial, or is boring, or I can't find anything else to watch. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 03 2009 08:36 PM Yes, I'm liking it too. I'm gonna forget what channel espn was any day now. Fman99 Mar 04 2009 08:02 PM Just noticed that my cable provider has added the HD feed of MLB Network. Very happy about that. apmorris Mar 04 2009 08:07 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2yiupyby]Yes, I'm liking it too. I'm gonna forget what channel espn was any day now.[/quote:2yiupyby] Yes. I even went so far as to block ESPN. Don't need the hype machine no more. soupcan Mar 04 2009 08:17 PM Lost in the this thread is ap's excellent comedic analysis of the MLB Network on-air staff. You made me laugh anyway. Kong76 Mar 08 2009 11:08 AM Maybe it's a comment on my lack of a life, but that sound bite they play over and over and over and over for the 30 Clubs in 30 Days song is going to put me over the edge. Excellent show, they don't think the Mets will suck much either! Kong76 Mar 08 2009 12:09 PM F99: Just noticed that my cable provider has added the HD feed of MLB Network <<< Thanks for mentioning that, Cablevision snuck it onto channel 790 while I wasn't paying attention. Kong76 Mar 08 2009 01:10 PM Never mind HD, South Africa wouldn't look good in 3D Sensory Smellavision. themetfairy Mar 13 2009 06:02 PM Right now they're showing the MFY/BoSox game. Boston is up 7-1, and it's the NESN feed so we get to hear Jerry Remy's Bahston accent. Next to a Mets game, this is as good as it gets metirish Apr 07 2009 07:47 PM I hate the day after Opening Day but at least we have MLB Network. I've been watching their MLB Tonight 1st to 3rd show , love it. They pop back and forth between games , they just had a Milton Bradley AB against Wandy Rodriguez in a big spot in that game , two men on base. They showed the whole AB that ended with Matsui turning a sweet DP. themetfairy Apr 07 2009 07:54 PM Plus this is the free preview week for MLB Extra Innings, for out of market games. metirish Apr 08 2009 09:52 AM ="themetfairy":14hamc5h]Plus this is the free preview week for MLB Extra Innings, for out of market games.[/quote:14hamc5h] I was going through those too, Rob Dibble doing color for the Nats , he's as useless as tits on a bull. Watched some of the games featuring the Blue Jays at home and the Twins at home , I absolutely hate watching games on FieldTurf. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 08 2009 09:29 PM Vin Scully calling the Dodgers-Pods game, Padres wearing their fatigues. DocTee Apr 08 2009 09:31 PM ]Rob Dibble doing color for the Nats , he's as useless as tits on a bull. Quote of the year candidate right here. MFS62 Apr 09 2009 06:26 AM About how many games into the season do you think it will take for mlb network to realize that Bonds is no longer playing for SF, and therefore nobody cares about watching their games? Later Fman99 Apr 09 2009 06:28 AM ="MFS62":3q171fhs]About how many games into the season do you think it will take for mlb network to realize that Bonds is no longer playing for SF, and therefore nobody cares about watching their games? Later[/quote:3q171fhs] They actually have quite a few young talented hitters (Ishikawa, Sandoval, Lewis) a pretty solid rotation and a few live arms in their pen. They're missing a big bat though. themetfairy Apr 09 2009 06:39 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2znwpofn]Vin Scully calling the Dodgers-Pods game, Padres wearing their fatigues.[/quote:2znwpofn] I love listening to Scully call games. Centerfield Apr 09 2009 12:17 PM ="themetfairy":1dpmlfux]="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1dpmlfux]Vin Scully calling the Dodgers-Pods game, Padres wearing their fatigues.[/quote:1dpmlfux] I love listening to Scully call games.[/quote:1dpmlfux] Yup. ON EDIT: He's one of the handful of people who when I hear their voice makes me feel like a kid. Brent Musberger and Casey Kasem are some others. metirish Apr 24 2009 02:25 PM Nearly a month into the season and MLB Network is my default station. I love all the live look-ins to games , as soon as SNY goes to break I flip over to MLB. I don't watch Baseball Tonight anymore , no point really. HahnSolo Apr 24 2009 02:48 PM I agree, although none of the hosts/analysts have really grown on me. Larkin is about as bland as they come, and he seems to always be on. Harold Reynolds is OK. Frayed Knot Apr 24 2009 02:56 PM Neil Best in today's Newsday[/url:2aq3rzp9] on MLBN's nightly show. He does this every once in a while: goes the entire day (or a good portion of it) watching one sports-TV related thing just to see how sane he comes out on the other side. I know he's done the NFL draft (I'd shoot myself by hour 2) and once did MSG on a summer day not long after they lost the Mets and had nothing but the winter sports teams remaining. Lotsa informercials and cheesy in-house stuff IIRC. apmorris Apr 24 2009 09:21 PM I've had it on in the background since the season started. I agree about Larkin. The hosts for the most part are OK, this guy though has an acute case of Scott Van Peltism Edgy DC Apr 24 2009 09:45 PM Did you have to pick a wanking shot? G-Fafif May 06 2009 01:12 PM If you're outside the NYC area, you can watch Thursday night's game on MLBN, Bob Costas and Al Leiter at the mics. Blacked out here. Benjamin Grimm May 06 2009 01:17 PM I'm sure it will be blacked out in Philadelphia too. Since I don't have Comcast cable, I can't see most of the local Phillies broadcasts, except for the relatively few that are on the over-the-air channel. apmorris May 06 2009 01:31 PM MLBNetwork, The Best Damn On-Air Personalities Period! (part 3) Billy Ripken He got the job on his own merits, just like how he got his job with the Orioles. ps. Does MLBN know we have to look at him whens he talks? from G-Fafif May 06 2009 01:44 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":2rks6vvy]I'm sure it will be blacked out in Philadelphia too.[/quote:2rks6vvy] I suppose. It was hard enough to acknowledge there was a world outside of New York to remember another city might be involved. bmfc1 May 06 2009 05:07 PM Billy Ripken does a good job on MLBN, just as he does on XM Baseball. He is also a great teacher of the game at the Ripken Baseball Camp. Swan Swan H Jun 27 2009 10:48 AM Game 5 of the 1968 NLCS on NOW! It's the bottom of the 1st, and it's scheduled to run until 4:30, if you want to check in for the big finish.

I think Romero's beef is more with the Union than anyone. The MLB players union can't possibly be hurting for money -- I can't see why they wouldn't have full-time staff who can help players avoid these very problems.

"Outgoing" is definitely wrong. I think future is the right modifier there.

I'd take Perez over either.

This thing's starting up today. Appears in my channel listings (Time Warner NYC). Various programs being shown the first week: "Hot Stove Live" Larsen's perfect game (repeated 3 or 4 times over the first few days) Most of the WS games from 2008 and some LCS games as well "Cathedrals of the Game" - half hour "tours" of stadiums. The only two being shown so far are Busch Stadium and Citizens Bank Park. "Prime 9" - countdown of the "best." First two are "Centerfielders" and "Best Home Runs." "Red Sox Memories" - October Heroes, Parts 1 and 2 "Dodger Blues" - hour long history of the team Some other misc. stuff. Nothing explicitly Mets-related.

="seawolf17":3nh2omhf]Would you trade our four for their four, right now, for 2009? I wouldn't.[/quote:3nh2omhf] I wouldn't either. Maybe Texeira over Beltran...maybe. Beltran's defense at an impact position may still make Carlos more valuable, even if he doesn't have quite the same offensive production as Texeira. The other 3? Forget it. (Yes, even Rodriguez, if only for the baggage he brings). Ashie62 Dec 25 2008 10:02 AM Teixeira sponsorship on Baseball_Reference Somebody got to this quicky..A Yanqui smackdown on www.baseball-reference.com ... seawolf17 Dec 25 2008 12:08 PM ="Edgy DC":25bor5gt]The Yankees really have to shore things up at second.[/quote:25bor5gt] Someone send Hank Steinbrenner a 2005 baseball card of Luis Castillo, then have Omar call him and offer him Castillo for Nady and Cano. Frayed Knot Dec 26 2008 10:54 AM And the last of the teams getting screwed by the Yanx signing Teixeira winds up being Milwaukee, plus, to a lesser extent, Toronto. With Sabathia, Burnett, & Teixeira all being Type-A FAs, obviously only one team can get the Yanx 1st round pick (mid-20s somewhere) in next June's draft. That team turns out to be the Angels based on Teixeira being the top-rated of all those FAs. Sabathia ranks next so the Brews get the Yanx 2nd rounder, while Toronto gets their 3rd round choice (probably up above pick #100) as compensation for losing Burnett. All three teams also get supplemental picks (in the same order I believe) after the end of the first round. So those Brew fans who consoled themselves by figuring they'd get a top-25 pick and a top-40 out of losing big CC wind up with one in the mid-60s or so to go along with the top-40. Oh well. Edgy DC Dec 26 2008 11:07 AM It would be maybe more coolio if maybe the second team who lost a type A to Team Y could get a pick right after the first team. Team Y, for their part, would sacrifice their first round pick for 2009 after signing the first, their first-round pick for 20010 after signing the second, etc. If Team Y is the Yankees, they'd be out first rounders up to 2051 by now, which would be such an abstraction to them, they'd care little, but they care little now anyhow, and at least the team losing their guy to the Yankees would get a prompt and fair (or more close to the intended fairness) compensation. The first year or two under this policy would lead to a bloated round one, but that would even out in subsequent years. metirish Dec 26 2008 11:24 AM Cashman is all about the farm , especially since he gained full control from the Tampa Rowdies a few years back.

I think it's probably just the backstop, from dugout to dugout. Similar to what they have at Wrigley and Busch Stadium. Only real injury threat might be to a catcher going back on a popup.

="Centerfield":3li9ifou]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3li9ifou] I'm not necessarily "comfortable" either, but we didn't lose in '08 because of the offense. The runs were scored. We lost because of the 'pen. Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 08:41 PM I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none? smg58 Dec 18 2008 07:34 AM Second base. It's by far the easiest position to upgrade. Castillo killed us with the glove and the bat last year. Ranking the other spots: Catcher. We're overpaying for what we're getting, but the defense is fine and there are not very many obvious upgrades out there. First base. Delgado concerns me a little bit. Then again, with Citifield being nine feet shorter down the rightfield line, the good Delgado could hit 40 if he shows up this year. Left field. Murphy has earned the right to play. His defense in left was actually plus, according to the Fielding Bible. Having a high OBP in the second spot in the lineup is a good thing. Right field. Church was very good when healthy, and he plays outstanding defense. A platoon partner might be in order, but I don't see anybody available who would still be an upgrade against righthanded pitching when defense is factored in. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 12:23 PM ="Nymr83":bgzpl293]Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for"[/quote:bgzpl293] ="Edgy DC":bgzpl293]I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?[/quote:bgzpl293] I believe Omar does not think we need anything more offensively because I have heard him say it and have not heard that he has taken any action contrary to his stated position. He has said publicly that he willl address the bullpen first, then starting pitching, and if there is anything left over, maybe the offense. So far he has done exactly that. While he goes about doing this, certain candidates that might have helped us offensively have signed with other teams. It's possible that these guys were never in the Mets plans anyway. But all signs point to Omar being content with the offense. I continue to hope that such is not the case, but it is my fear. As to him playing it coy, it defies common sense. Omar can deny as much as he wants...if he were to start making offers to free agents, or explore trades, everyone would know that the interest is there. If there really were an advantage to pretending you don't have an interest, then the strategy should have been employed with the bullpen and starting rotation as well. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 12:36 PM Here's some sense: "Right now, Castillo's going to be our second baseman," Minaya said. Now, isn't it sensicle to not undermine the guy while he's still your best bet? Is saying something is the higher priority really saying other priorities will be ignored? Remember when he said something akin to "If the right deal isn't there for relief help, we'll work more on the offense." No less than seven Met fans lit themselves on fire that night, aghast that he could even consider walking away without improving the pen. The offseason is long and hard. Johan Santana arrived in February, after a winter of the Mets being cool about how desperately they desired him. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 01:53 PM You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix." That undermines no one. There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation. The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM I'm sure Minaya has said more or less the same. dgwphotography Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM he he - Edgy put "ass" and "hole" in the subject... I would say that my most pressing concern is 2nd base - Castillo killed us in every possible way last year. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:11 PM ="HahnSolo":2hrybrte]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:2hrybrte] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:16 PM The issue with Hudson would be that signing him costs still more drafts next year. I am by no means a supporter of Castillo -- I was against signing him way back when he was good, even -- but if we just left him there and he was healthy I am CAHNfident he'll have a better year. I can't say that about any other player in the lineup 'cept maybe Church, and even then, I ain't sure. So yeah, the answer is left field, or if we trade Church, right field. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:24 PM Marty Noble, for what it's worth, is quite happy with the Mets in left field. (He was talking about it on Hot Stove Report a couple of weeks ago.) He likes platoons, and he thinks the Mets have it in the proper balance, with the older player being right-handed and not playing as often, and the younger guy being a lefty and getting more at bats. He thinks they'll be solid in left. I hope he's right. But it seems to me there's more than a decent chance that Tatis will decline and that Murphy's 2008 success won't carry over. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:36 PM Shane and Karim but me off of platooning a little. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:38 PM If one platoon works, how about two? Burrell can platoon with Murphy and/or Church. It would mean fewer starts for Tatis, but allows him to be the primary RH pinch-hitter we need and more of a 3B/RF/LF backup to all 3. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:44 PM My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright. HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:46 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":xjjhr5lh]="HahnSolo":xjjhr5lh]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM ="Edgy DC":1nhltiet]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:1nhltiet] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM I suppose if you bring in Burrell you play him most days and mostly in left. Then Murph could challenge either Church or Castillo. The other thing we gotta think about is first base in 2010 -- not many good FA's coming to market then, unless you count Delgado, so maybe this year's left fielder is next year's first baseman. That also looks maybe like a Burrell kinda job. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:37 PM 1B - we have relatively lower dollars tied up in all the other "trouble" positions, and if in-season moves are necessary, we won't be paralyzed by budgetary constraints to fix any of them, unlike our $12m 1bman. Also, none of the other positions are being counted on for middle-of-the-order production. So, if Delgado's 1st half becomes the first 2/3 of the 2009 season, it'll be hard for the Mets to come back. If his 1st half is replicated for the entire 2009 season, we're cooked. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:51 PM ]Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? that sounds like me. I'm surprised Barfield has not developed, but Shoppach sure showed some punch last year. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 08:05 PM From ESPN: The Red Sox, too, have bid aggressively, after having quietly targeted the switch-hitting, Gold-Glove caliber first baseman throughout this entire offseason. Teixeira, who turns 29 next April, has been among the most consistent hitters in the majors in recent years, thriving when he was traded to contenders twice in consecutive years -- first, in 2007, to the Braves, and then in 2008, to the Angels. Teixeira batted .358 in 54 games for the Angels, with 13 homers and 43 RBIs. When the Angels met the Red Sox in the postseason, Teixeira batted .467 with four walks in four games. If the Red Sox complete the negotiations for Teixeira, they presumably would shift Kevin Youkilis -- who finished third in the AL MVP voting in 2008 -- to third base, and look to deal veteran third baseman Mike Lowell, who is under contract through 2 010. The Red Sox have gauged the market enough to know that they can find a suitable deal for Lowell, if necessary. Boston may decide to keep Lowell into spring training, until they get a read on how effective Ortiz will be going into this season. The Red Sox became increasingly concerned about the quality of the middle of their lineup through the 2008 season, as David Ortiz struggled to come back from a wrist injury and after Manny Ramirez was traded. Is there any question that if Omar were the Sox GM, he would talk about how they are "set" at first and third? For the record, the Red Sox beat the Mets in just about every offensive category. I realize that there's that DH thing, but the Sox were second only to Texas in runs scored in the AL. They could have easily used that "we scored enough runs last year" logic if they so chose. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 08:37 PM Proof in pudding. Actions will speak. smg58 Dec 19 2008 05:25 AM For starters, the Red Sox are currently talking as though they've been seriously outbid. 8 years and $200M for Teixeira is looking likely. In addition, with a few third baseman on the market who won't make $24M over the next two years, will not cost players, and are not injury risks, don't assume that the Sox can sell Lowell for more than pennies on the dollar. The Mets would be in a similar position with Delgado; if teams looking for a DH/1B can get a year of Giambi for less money and no players, or three years of Dunn for less money per year and no players, pennies on the dollar is the most you can hope for. And that has to be factored into the final bill for Teixeira. And the Red Sox don't need more pitching as badly as the Mets, either. We need to add another lefty reliever, and right now we have two spots in the rotation to fill with only one rookie who's likely a year away in any position to fill one of them. metirish Dec 19 2008 07:14 AM Red Sox owner said in an email to reporters that they went to Dallas to meet with Texeria and Boras and quickly realized that they would not be a factor despite offering $160 million for eight years. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 07:48 AM They did a similar act with Dice-K before they wound up with him. Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 08:16 AM ="HahnSolo":sx1dmk2j]="Edgy DC":sx1dmk2j]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd say it's like that every year. Centerfield Dec 19 2008 11:21 AM ="Edgy DC":3a6v80an]Proof in pudding. Actions will speak.[/quote:3a6v80an] They've already acted. They don't have to actually land Texiera to act in the manner I want the Mets to act in. By exploring their opportunities, recognizing a valuable asset, gauging the market for Lowell, they've already done exactly what I've been saying Omar should do. If they get outbid, so be it. At least they've demonstrated an ability to be creative and not get boxed in with conventional thinking. They recognized how special Texiera was as a player. They recognized that, despite impressive offensive numbers last year, that the middle of their lineup could use upgrading. They did not allow that fact that they have players locked in at those positions prevent them from making a run at Texeira. And if, after all that, they get outbid, so be it. At least they tried. My point this whole offseason is that the Mets should have tried to make a run at him. They should have explored the market for Delgado. Even if they get nothing back for Carlos other than dumping his salary, and if they can find a taker for Schneider (Red Sox rumored to be interested), then that frees up $18 million. Backload an 8 year, 160 million dollar deal and that adds no additional payroll. It does not prevent them from pursuing a pitcher or three. Is there anyone on earth that wouldn't rather have a combination of Texiera/Castro rather than Delgado/Schneider? If that's the case, why not try? Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 12:22 PM I'm referring, I think it's clear in my tense, to the team having a full off-season in which to continue to pursue players. Do we really need more leaks out of Metland as proof of adminstrative action? Nymr83 Dec 19 2008 02:58 PM The proof will be in the roster that takes the field April 1st, at which time I'll criticize Omar (or praise him) for his roster moves, meanwhile he should keep his hand close to his chest.

="Centerfield":19xs1h3v]I went with First Base. I think second base and catcher will be our least productive, but first base concerns me the most because it seems like Omar is banking on Delgado being a middle-of-the-lineup run producer. If he sucks, we're in trouble.[/quote:19xs1h3v] Yes, if Delgado sucks, we have a problem. We also have a problem if Wright, or Reyes or Beltran suck. I think concern should be greater for those positions where the players we have are more likely to suck. I am going with left field. I don't have much confidence in a Tatis/Murphy combo. I want to see an everyday left fielder, one that gives us the option of using Tatis to spell Church against a lefty, and use Murphy at second base (at least part of the time). Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 03:06 PM Nothing is ever solved for ten years. At least, not until those ten years are behind you. Too much luck can undo even the bet of plans. The correct answer is left. Because, by bringing in a new leftfielder, Murphy and Tatis become insurance at left, right, third, second, and first. Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 03:08 PM any of those positions could suck for us (though Church will hit just fine if he's healthy) but i went with Catcher because its the only position that i'm sure will suck for us. G-Fafif Dec 17 2008 04:02 PM Oh, my worried ass. I'll say catcher 'cause when I read we might trade Schneider, I was surprised at how thrilled I was...and how much I hoped Castro would be gone, too. Fman99 Dec 17 2008 04:04 PM Ugh, half our lineup projects to be below average. And that's if Delgado can repeat his '08 numbers in '09. Second, catcher, left, right. Me no likee. So I'll pick RF as that's the spot least likely to get upgraded before March. Rockin' Doc Dec 17 2008 04:20 PM Second base and left field concern me the most. I'd feel better about hings if the Mets would get Hudson to play second and hit behind Reyes. There does not appear to be a great deal of help availbale for the outfield via free agency. Pat Burrell (or possibly Juan Rivera) seem to be the only upgrades available without going to a trade. Given those scenarios, I would lean toward signing Hudson and then prepare to swallow a fair amount of the money that the Mets stupidly agreed to pay Castillo and move on to the future. Centerfield Dec 17 2008 04:43 PM ="Gwreck":axj5ytme]="Centerfield":axj5ytme]I went with First Base. I think second base and catcher will be our least productive, but first base concerns me the most because it seems like Omar is banking on Delgado being a middle-of-the-lineup run producer. If he sucks, we're in trouble.[/quote:axj5ytme] Yes, if Delgado sucks, we have a problem. We also have a problem if Wright, or Reyes or Beltran suck. I think concern should be greater for those positions where the players we have are more likely to suck. I am going with left field. I don't have much confidence in a Tatis/Murphy combo. I want to see an everyday left fielder, one that gives us the option of using Tatis to spell Church against a lefty, and use Murphy at second base (at least part of the time).[/quote:axj5ytme] None of those three are as likely to suck as Delgado, who after his season and half of suck, has sucked half his time here. Signing a middle of the order run-producing leftfielder would assuage a lot of these worries too, as that would mean Delgado would move down in the order. But while there are a lot of good options in leftfield, there are no real great ones. Centerfield Dec 17 2008 04:44 PM By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one. OlerudOwned Dec 17 2008 04:46 PM Left field. It's a spot where you can sacrifice defense for a big bat, and we don't have too much of either there. Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 05:26 PM ="Centerfield":3ebynzom]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3ebynzom] Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for" Frayed Knot Dec 17 2008 05:42 PM After exactly 100 HRs, nearly 200 XBHs and better than .350 OBA/.500 Slugging over 3 seasons, I'd argue that Delgado has NOT "sucked half his time here". That's probably about average among 1Bmen and, considering that the best half-season might be the most recent, I'm not fearing the crash-n-burn as much as some others seem to be. LF & 2B are much more likely to be seriously below average IMO (offense & defense). Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 05:55 PM I worry that the Mets will "pencil in" Delgado for something similar to this past year's 2nd half and instead get what they got from him in 2007 (his worst year in the majors.) MFS62 Dec 17 2008 06:14 PM The team can platoon, or has semi-capable backups in left, at first and catcher. But second base troubles me the most. Even when Castillo has been healthy, he has been on a decline. His one asset was speed, on the bases and in the field. But as he gets older and loses his speed, what will he have left to contribute? And Omar seems to be placing all of his ova in that one basket. Later Gwreck Dec 17 2008 07:29 PM ="Centerfield":3li9ifou]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3li9ifou] I'm not necessarily "comfortable" either, but we didn't lose in '08 because of the offense. The runs were scored. We lost because of the 'pen. Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 08:41 PM I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none? smg58 Dec 18 2008 07:34 AM Second base. It's by far the easiest position to upgrade. Castillo killed us with the glove and the bat last year. Ranking the other spots: Catcher. We're overpaying for what we're getting, but the defense is fine and there are not very many obvious upgrades out there. First base. Delgado concerns me a little bit. Then again, with Citifield being nine feet shorter down the rightfield line, the good Delgado could hit 40 if he shows up this year. Left field. Murphy has earned the right to play. His defense in left was actually plus, according to the Fielding Bible. Having a high OBP in the second spot in the lineup is a good thing. Right field. Church was very good when healthy, and he plays outstanding defense. A platoon partner might be in order, but I don't see anybody available who would still be an upgrade against righthanded pitching when defense is factored in. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 12:23 PM ="Nymr83":bgzpl293]Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for"[/quote:bgzpl293] ="Edgy DC":bgzpl293]I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?[/quote:bgzpl293] I believe Omar does not think we need anything more offensively because I have heard him say it and have not heard that he has taken any action contrary to his stated position. He has said publicly that he willl address the bullpen first, then starting pitching, and if there is anything left over, maybe the offense. So far he has done exactly that. While he goes about doing this, certain candidates that might have helped us offensively have signed with other teams. It's possible that these guys were never in the Mets plans anyway. But all signs point to Omar being content with the offense. I continue to hope that such is not the case, but it is my fear. As to him playing it coy, it defies common sense. Omar can deny as much as he wants...if he were to start making offers to free agents, or explore trades, everyone would know that the interest is there. If there really were an advantage to pretending you don't have an interest, then the strategy should have been employed with the bullpen and starting rotation as well. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 12:36 PM Here's some sense: "Right now, Castillo's going to be our second baseman," Minaya said. Now, isn't it sensicle to not undermine the guy while he's still your best bet? Is saying something is the higher priority really saying other priorities will be ignored? Remember when he said something akin to "If the right deal isn't there for relief help, we'll work more on the offense." No less than seven Met fans lit themselves on fire that night, aghast that he could even consider walking away without improving the pen. The offseason is long and hard. Johan Santana arrived in February, after a winter of the Mets being cool about how desperately they desired him. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 01:53 PM You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix." That undermines no one. There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation. The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM I'm sure Minaya has said more or less the same. dgwphotography Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM he he - Edgy put "ass" and "hole" in the subject... I would say that my most pressing concern is 2nd base - Castillo killed us in every possible way last year. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:11 PM ="HahnSolo":2hrybrte]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:2hrybrte] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:16 PM The issue with Hudson would be that signing him costs still more drafts next year. I am by no means a supporter of Castillo -- I was against signing him way back when he was good, even -- but if we just left him there and he was healthy I am CAHNfident he'll have a better year. I can't say that about any other player in the lineup 'cept maybe Church, and even then, I ain't sure. So yeah, the answer is left field, or if we trade Church, right field. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:24 PM Marty Noble, for what it's worth, is quite happy with the Mets in left field. (He was talking about it on Hot Stove Report a couple of weeks ago.) He likes platoons, and he thinks the Mets have it in the proper balance, with the older player being right-handed and not playing as often, and the younger guy being a lefty and getting more at bats. He thinks they'll be solid in left. I hope he's right. But it seems to me there's more than a decent chance that Tatis will decline and that Murphy's 2008 success won't carry over. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:36 PM Shane and Karim but me off of platooning a little. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:38 PM If one platoon works, how about two? Burrell can platoon with Murphy and/or Church. It would mean fewer starts for Tatis, but allows him to be the primary RH pinch-hitter we need and more of a 3B/RF/LF backup to all 3. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:44 PM My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright. HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:46 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":xjjhr5lh]="HahnSolo":xjjhr5lh]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM ="Edgy DC":1nhltiet]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:1nhltiet] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM I suppose if you bring in Burrell you play him most days and mostly in left. Then Murph could challenge either Church or Castillo. The other thing we gotta think about is first base in 2010 -- not many good FA's coming to market then, unless you count Delgado, so maybe this year's left fielder is next year's first baseman. That also looks maybe like a Burrell kinda job. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:37 PM 1B - we have relatively lower dollars tied up in all the other "trouble" positions, and if in-season moves are necessary, we won't be paralyzed by budgetary constraints to fix any of them, unlike our $12m 1bman. Also, none of the other positions are being counted on for middle-of-the-order production. So, if Delgado's 1st half becomes the first 2/3 of the 2009 season, it'll be hard for the Mets to come back. If his 1st half is replicated for the entire 2009 season, we're cooked. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:51 PM ]Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? that sounds like me. I'm surprised Barfield has not developed, but Shoppach sure showed some punch last year. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 08:05 PM From ESPN: The Red Sox, too, have bid aggressively, after having quietly targeted the switch-hitting, Gold-Glove caliber first baseman throughout this entire offseason. Teixeira, who turns 29 next April, has been among the most consistent hitters in the majors in recent years, thriving when he was traded to contenders twice in consecutive years -- first, in 2007, to the Braves, and then in 2008, to the Angels. Teixeira batted .358 in 54 games for the Angels, with 13 homers and 43 RBIs. When the Angels met the Red Sox in the postseason, Teixeira batted .467 with four walks in four games. If the Red Sox complete the negotiations for Teixeira, they presumably would shift Kevin Youkilis -- who finished third in the AL MVP voting in 2008 -- to third base, and look to deal veteran third baseman Mike Lowell, who is under contract through 2 010. The Red Sox have gauged the market enough to know that they can find a suitable deal for Lowell, if necessary. Boston may decide to keep Lowell into spring training, until they get a read on how effective Ortiz will be going into this season. The Red Sox became increasingly concerned about the quality of the middle of their lineup through the 2008 season, as David Ortiz struggled to come back from a wrist injury and after Manny Ramirez was traded. Is there any question that if Omar were the Sox GM, he would talk about how they are "set" at first and third? For the record, the Red Sox beat the Mets in just about every offensive category. I realize that there's that DH thing, but the Sox were second only to Texas in runs scored in the AL. They could have easily used that "we scored enough runs last year" logic if they so chose. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 08:37 PM Proof in pudding. Actions will speak. smg58 Dec 19 2008 05:25 AM For starters, the Red Sox are currently talking as though they've been seriously outbid. 8 years and $200M for Teixeira is looking likely. In addition, with a few third baseman on the market who won't make $24M over the next two years, will not cost players, and are not injury risks, don't assume that the Sox can sell Lowell for more than pennies on the dollar. The Mets would be in a similar position with Delgado; if teams looking for a DH/1B can get a year of Giambi for less money and no players, or three years of Dunn for less money per year and no players, pennies on the dollar is the most you can hope for. And that has to be factored into the final bill for Teixeira. And the Red Sox don't need more pitching as badly as the Mets, either. We need to add another lefty reliever, and right now we have two spots in the rotation to fill with only one rookie who's likely a year away in any position to fill one of them. metirish Dec 19 2008 07:14 AM Red Sox owner said in an email to reporters that they went to Dallas to meet with Texeria and Boras and quickly realized that they would not be a factor despite offering $160 million for eight years. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 07:48 AM They did a similar act with Dice-K before they wound up with him. Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 08:16 AM ="HahnSolo":sx1dmk2j]="Edgy DC":sx1dmk2j]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd say it's like that every year. Centerfield Dec 19 2008 11:21 AM ="Edgy DC":3a6v80an]Proof in pudding. Actions will speak.[/quote:3a6v80an] They've already acted. They don't have to actually land Texiera to act in the manner I want the Mets to act in. By exploring their opportunities, recognizing a valuable asset, gauging the market for Lowell, they've already done exactly what I've been saying Omar should do. If they get outbid, so be it. At least they've demonstrated an ability to be creative and not get boxed in with conventional thinking. They recognized how special Texiera was as a player. They recognized that, despite impressive offensive numbers last year, that the middle of their lineup could use upgrading. They did not allow that fact that they have players locked in at those positions prevent them from making a run at Texeira. And if, after all that, they get outbid, so be it. At least they tried. My point this whole offseason is that the Mets should have tried to make a run at him. They should have explored the market for Delgado. Even if they get nothing back for Carlos other than dumping his salary, and if they can find a taker for Schneider (Red Sox rumored to be interested), then that frees up $18 million. Backload an 8 year, 160 million dollar deal and that adds no additional payroll. It does not prevent them from pursuing a pitcher or three. Is there anyone on earth that wouldn't rather have a combination of Texiera/Castro rather than Delgado/Schneider? If that's the case, why not try? Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 12:22 PM I'm referring, I think it's clear in my tense, to the team having a full off-season in which to continue to pursue players. Do we really need more leaks out of Metland as proof of adminstrative action? Nymr83 Dec 19 2008 02:58 PM The proof will be in the roster that takes the field April 1st, at which time I'll criticize Omar (or praise him) for his roster moves, meanwhile he should keep his hand close to his chest.

="HahnSolo":eyhnn3x9]I too wonder why they haven't even begun to dismantle the old stadium yet.[/quote:eyhnn3x9] I'd heard that they're waiting as it's the "backup plan" in the event something went wrong with construction at Citi Field or the new house of evil. Frayed Knot Dec 17 2008 09:23 AM ="HahnSolo":1ohewife]I too wonder why they haven't even begun to dismantle the old stadium yet.[/quote:1ohewife] They haven't finished milking it yet. Last I heard it's likely to remain standing throughout next season. metirish Dec 17 2008 09:24 AM They just had the last official tour recently. Valadius Dec 17 2008 09:50 AM Again, the new MFYS looks like the Sarlacc pit monster. Farmer Ted Dec 17 2008 12:23 PM Where's George gonna get his calzones now? soupcan Feb 13 2009 12:36 PM Yankee Summer Home... Yankees Building New Vacation Stadium In The Hamptons TheOldMole Feb 14 2009 12:37 PM That is great. metirish Feb 14 2009 08:02 PM Can't stop laughing..... metirish Mar 25 2009 07:43 AM Hard Rock Cafe vendors behind the bleachers A view of the great hall in the new Yankee Stadium. Jeter's locker metsguyinmichigan Mar 25 2009 07:54 AM Could that place be any more tacky? Typical Yankees. Everything in your face. soupcan Mar 25 2009 08:35 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":3f8733ov]Could that place be any more tacky? Typical Yankees. Everything in your face.[/quote:3f8733ov] Now, now... It's a nice-looking place. A bit more grandiose than our little ballpark but still very nice. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 25 2009 08:46 AM I'm trying not to be biased but I would suspect when all is said and done that MFYs will realize a ton of cash for this whole new stadium thing but will have sacrificed an advantage over the competition that they will never get back. Yes, they surrendered much in the 1970s too but they could at least pretend the bones were authentic. But from now on, there's no pretending there's any real history in their building -- which was an enormous tenet of the Yankee Brand (TM) message -- and also, no assurances they'll have even the best park in their city which is a claim they could have made forever and might now might never be able say again. metsguyinmichigan Mar 25 2009 09:28 AM I bet they don't even have a Wiffle Ball field! Plus, at Citi I can get a new (at least to me) muffler or tire rims across the street while watching the game. SteveJRogers Mar 25 2009 09:50 AM ="metirish"]A view of the great hall in the new Yankee Stadium. I think I'll take this Great Hall Benjamin Grimm Mar 25 2009 09:54 AM Or this one: Edgy DC Mar 25 2009 09:56 AM Which brings to mind the Yankees original domed design. They even had a cap redesign to go with it. If I joined the Legion of Doom, I'd always end up sitting between the mantis and the gorilla at the board meetings. metsguyinmichigan Mar 25 2009 10:51 AM Sweet SuperFriends references. And, not the hijack the thread, but what the hell was the deal with the Wonder Twins? I get Wendy and Marvin and WonderDog. The were to provide comic relief. But the whole, "Wonder Twins powers activate! Shape of a tree! Form of a Pinto with a leaky gas tank!" stuff, I never got into that. Edgy DC Mar 25 2009 11:04 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 02 2009 09:22 AM Well, I don't think there was anything to get. She could become any animal, and he could become any form of water. Placing teen characters into adult adventures has always been important, allowing the junior viewer an oppotunity to project themselves into the story. But, the strangely parentless (and deluded) Wendy, Marvin, and Wonderdog served that purpose, yet they got fired for teens with real superpowers. I honestly think that the Superfriends producers had data showing that their target audience were big Donnie and Marie fans. Zan and Jana seem highly modeled on them, in look and personality. Here's my issue. In the secondary stories, they worked in peripheral heroes --- some already established in the DC universe, some not --- to get some needed diversity into the Justice League. But (1) why couldn't they work them into the major storylines? and (2) why did they have to underscore their ethnicity so damn much? Couldn't they have a guy who shoots streams of acid who just happens to be Thai, without calling him Bangkok BadAss or some shit? I always wanted to hear an exchange like: "Black Vulcan, do you copy?" "Yes, White Batman, I hear you." Oh and um, Yankees. Boo. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 25 2009 11:07 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":3mhc4q58]I bet they don't even have a Wiffle Ball field! Plus, at Citi I can get a new (at least to me) muffler or tire rims across the street while watching the game.[/quote:3mhc4q58] Or, you know, you can buy your old ones back. (Never have I rooted for "eminent domain" to prevail... before last year. The one advantage the MFYs do have over us-- and the New Yorker article pointed this out sharply-- is location... if nothing else, they're where a ballpark should be, smack in the middle of a city.) Benjamin Grimm Apr 02 2009 05:55 AM Get a load of the view from these seats in the new Yankee Stadium: The seats, according to the New York Times, only cost five bucks, but geez, you're unable to see about a third of the field. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/sports/baseball/01seats.html?_r=1&ref=baseball metirish Apr 02 2009 07:01 AM I'm not an architect , hell I'm not even a doctor but I don't know why these new stadiums have any such seating like above. Edgy DC Apr 02 2009 07:20 AM Quirky has a price. G-Fafif Apr 02 2009 09:14 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1rdpk7hv][/quote:1rdpk7hv] The less one has to see of the MFYs, the better. Benjamin Grimm Apr 02 2009 09:19 AM I guess some Yankee fans may prefer those seats because they won't be able to see Alex Rodriguez when he's playing third base. metsguyinmichigan Apr 02 2009 09:26 AM Yup. It's a "True Yankee Filter." You pay more for that. seawolf17 Apr 02 2009 12:08 PM ="metirish":uoy3pvzx]I'm not an architect , hell I'm not even a doctor but I don't know why these new stadiums have any such seating like above.[/quote:uoy3pvzx] I have to say I agree. They made a big fucking deal about having less seats, and angling them toward home plate, and so on... and you have this obstructed-view bullshit? Eff that. seawolf17 Apr 02 2009 08:02 PM A 76.3% increase?!?! Eff you, Yankees. You too, Johnny Damon. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4036916 metirish Apr 02 2009 08:08 PM Wankers - $41.40 to $72.97 - suckers Rockin' Doc Apr 02 2009 08:08 PM Damon should stick to doing Gieco commercials. seawolf17 Apr 02 2009 08:48 PM ="Rockin' Doc":lhs13t5x]Damon should stick to doing Gieco commercials.[/quote:lhs13t5x] Seriously. That pissed me off. "I mean, really, fuck the little guy. I make $13 million a year, guaranteed. So I don't care if they can't afford tickets; I wipe my ass with $1,000 bills." Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2009 04:52 AM A 76.3% increase in the cost of the average ticket for a seat at Yankee Stadium is once again, proof positive that it sucks to be a Yankees fan. Johnny Damon, it seems safe to conclude, is not exactly a thinking man. His comments are insensitive and out of touch with the day to day struggles of the common working man or woman. Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2009 05:51 AM ="Johnny Damon":1g3apd5t]"It's tough. New York can withstand it," he said. "Coming to this plush building, I think it's definitely something that people want to see. I mean, those are great seats. It's going to be tough for a family to afford but, you know, but we'll let the people upstairs worry about that."[/quote:1g3apd5t] Clearly, the people upstairs don't give a damn either. Nymr83 Apr 03 2009 06:18 AM In the post this morning Sherman says bad things about the New Yankee stadium while Kevin Kernan has some faint praise for Citi Field (though more dumping on Shea) soupcan Apr 03 2009 07:00 AM Times has its architectural reviews of both stadia today... ] April 3, 2009 Architecture Review Two New Baseball Palaces, One Stoic, One Scrappy By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF American stadium design has been stuck in a nostalgic funk, with sports franchises recycling the same old images year after year. Still, if you have to go with a retro look, New York City could have done worse than the new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field. Both were designed by Populous (formerly known as HOK Sport Venue Event) and are major upgrades over the stadiums they replaced, which had been looking more and more dilapidated over the years. Both should be fine places to spend a few hours watching a game. What�s more, each stadium subtly reflects the character of the franchises that built them. Yankee Stadium is the kind of stoic, self-conscious monument to history that befits the most successful franchise in American sports. The new home of the Mets, meanwhile, is scrappier and more lighthearted. It plays with history fast and loose, as if it were just another form of entertainment. Yankee management started talking about replacing the old stadium more than a decade ago, and this seemed to be the tougher challenge: the stadium sparkled with the memories of 26 World Series championships. Architecturally, however, the stadium was charmless. Renovation in the 1970s may have made it more comfortable (fans loathed the painful wooden seats of the original version), but it also destroyed many architectural features. The original copper frieze that lined the stadium�s upper deck was ripped out. (A partial concrete replica was added later.) The monuments that had once stood in the deepest recesses of center field were moved to an insipid space behind the left-center field fence and named Monument Park. The little personality the stadium had came from its site: a tight urban lot framed by elevated subway tracks on one side and a city park on the other. The new stadium, which stands across the street from the old one, spruces up that image while reviving some of the lost history. The towering arched windows that dominated the original exterior, an echo of the Roman Colosseum, have been recast in a mix of limestone, granite and cast stone, and they are as imposing as ever. A small urban plaza, raised just above the level of the sidewalk, faces the bars and souvenir shops along River Avenue and the entry to the elevated train, strengthening the structure�s relationship to its urban setting. The city has also promised to build a park and several ball fields just to the south of the stadium in an effort to put a more community-friendly face on the project. A broad pedestrian walkway will eventually link the stadium to the fields and a Metro-North station farther to the south. The biggest improvements, however, are the interiors, which have been organized with an eye to the fans. The concourses are broad open spaces, with concession stands set along the perimeter so that they don�t obstruct views down to the field. More seats are concentrated below the mezzanine level, closer to the action. Even the luxury suites, which suddenly look like a holdover from the era of corporate excess, are discreetly set back so that they don�t detract from the shared intimacy of watching the game. There�s history here, too, or at least a facsimile of it. The Yankees have brought back the old manually operated scoreboards in left and right field, a feature that was last used in the 1960s. A replica of the old frieze sits along the top of the upper deck. Best of all, the slot that separated the scoreboard from the right-field stands in the old stadium has been recreated, so you can still catch glimpses of the subway rumbling by � a reminder that the stadium has been carved out of the heart of a living, thriving city. All in all, the new Yankee Stadium may be an austere, even intimidating place, but there�s nothing tacky about it. It�s straightforward, paint-by-numbers architecture. Getting to Citi Field is a more drawn-out aesthetic experience. Descending from the elevated 7 train in Queens, you have to cross a wide landscaped plaza before arriving at the main entry gate. A sea of parking stretches out in both directions. A pile of rubble (once the old Shea Stadium) currently lies just beyond the parking to the left. The building fits comfortably in this setting. Yankee Stadium�s facade is dominated by vertical lines, which emphasize its monumentality. Citi Field�s facade, which is loosely modeled on Ebbets Field, the former home of the Brooklyn Dodgers, is more low-key. Its brick cladding gives it a warmth that Yankee Stadium doesn�t have. A pre-cast concrete band cuts across the arched exterior, breaking down the structure�s scale and emphasizing its horizontality. History also feels less heavy here. Like the Yankees, the Mets built broad concourses that open up to the field so that you feel close to the game even while you�re standing in line for a beer. But the design is far more eclectic. A porch that cantilevers out over right field is modeled on the old Tiger Stadium. Big steel trusses conjure the structure that supports the nearby elevated train. A soot-colored pedestrian bridge that spans the bullpen behind center field is a miniature version of the Hell Gate Bridge. Even the color of the seats � dark green � was copied from somewhere else: the Polo Grounds, where the New York Giants baseball team played and the Mets played their first two seasons. The casual mood is reinforced by a number of spaces that have little to do with watching a baseball game: an auditorium, a Wiffle ball field � even an event room for weddings or parties. What saves the design from becoming completely hokey, however, is its openness to the real world outside. Most of Queens, from the faded remnants of the 1964 World�s Fair to the Whitestone Expressway and the muddy waters of Flushing Bay, is visible from the main concourse level. Farther up, you can see the Manhattan skyline several miles away. The visitors� bullpen has a view of dilapidated garages and auto body shops across 126th Street to the northeast. The reality of this working-class landscape tempers the artificiality of the interior. Even so, most serious architects today strive to create buildings that reflect the values of their own era, not a nostalgic vision of the past, no matter how open they may be toward their surroundings. And in that regard both stadiums will be a disappointment to students of architecture. For us, the buildings are just another reminder of the enormous gap that remains between high design and popular taste. dinosaur jesus Apr 03 2009 07:12 AM ]Even so, most serious architects today strive to create buildings that reflect the values of their own era, not a nostalgic vision of the past, no matter how open they may be toward their surroundings. The whole game of baseball is a nostalgic vision of the past. What values of our own era do we really want to bring to it? Frayed Knot Apr 03 2009 07:20 AM I like the part where Hankenbrenner (or was it Hal-enbrenner?) says; 'yeah, we overpriced some of the seats and as a result they're not selling as well as we hoped ... but we didn't misread the market!' Umm, yeah ya did. In fact, that's kind of the definition of misreading the market. Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2009 07:20 AM ="dinosaur jesus"]]Even so, most serious architects today strive to create buildings that reflect the values of their own era, not a nostalgic vision of the past, no matter how open they may be toward their surroundings. The whole game of baseball is a nostalgic vision of the past. What values of our own era do we really want to bring to it? I don't know enough about architecture to explain why I agree with that statement, but I do. I would rather the Mets had built a stadium the reflects early 21st Century architecture, whatever it is. Citi Field looks like a nice place to watch a game, and it's visually appealing, but it also has a Disney feel to it, like you're in "Baseball Land." soupcan Apr 03 2009 07:35 AM These two come to mind when I think about new stadiums with a modern bent. Target Field, which is the new stadium now being built for the twins in Minnesota. Nationals - Edgy DC Apr 03 2009 08:00 AM Glass façades and baseball go together like bleach and baby baths. Even if there's no real threat of the two actually coming together --- and even if the vulnerable element is reinforced against the dangerous element --- it creates an atmophere of anxiety. Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2009 08:19 AM I kinda like the Minnesota park. The Nationals less so, but it's not bad either. soupcan Apr 03 2009 08:19 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 03 2009 08:21 AM ="Edgy DC":292rjkrd]Glass fa�ades and baseball go together like bleach and baby baths. Even if there's no real threat of the two actually coming together --- and even if the vulnerable element is reinforced against the dangerous element --- it creates an atmophere of anxiety.[/quote:292rjkrd] That's an interesting point, but perhaps the juxtaposition of those types of elements is what appeals to an architect trying to make a statement? I'm certain Art Van DeLay would find a way to make it work, soupcan Apr 03 2009 08:20 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":3rv0nqrw]I kinda like the Minnesota park. The Nationals less so, but it's not bad either.[/quote:3rv0nqrw] Yeah - the Minnesota park has a sort of retro Jetsons feel to it. Edgy DC Apr 03 2009 08:29 AM The Nats park has like five different tiers, each one more heavily raked than the one below it. Sometimes the price of everybody being closer to the field horizontally is that you get some crazy options vertically. I'm sure you'll hear Keith complain this season about the vertigo-inducing situation of their press box. That is, if Mr. Fancy Pants makes a road trip to Washington. HahnSolo Apr 03 2009 01:35 PM Hmm. I guess my perception of Nationals Park was different. I took the Metro to the game and walked in through the CF promenade. And we sat field level, so I didn't notice the slopes in the upper reaches. I never saw the glass encasings in the photo above, and liked the interior of the ballpark. metirish Apr 03 2009 06:33 PM ="Nymr83"]In the post this morning Sherman says bad things about the New Yankee stadium while Kevin Kernan has some faint praise for Citi Field (though more dumping on Shea) Sherman just about takes a dump on the doorstep of the new MYF stadium I'm biased of course but I have tuned into YES a few times and if I didn't know better I would think they were playing the the MFYII.... IN TOUGH TIMES, A MONUMENT TO GREED ] IT IS beautiful, of course. But in the way that a woman who went to the world's best plastic surgeon might be beautiful. It is supposed to remind you of the previous incarnation, and ends up feeling artificial and overdone. The new Yankee Stadium has just about everything you would want in a modern sports facility, except charm and a sense of proportion. If you can afford the prices, you should have a good time there. The sightlines are wonderful. The large screen in center field is so clear you really do feel as if you could reach out and touch the people on it. The concourses are wide, and the food choices abundant. Yet the place brought nausea, not nostalgia. It just feels like the wrong time in the history of this country and this city to be opening up the George Mahal. When the project was initiated 2 � years ago, the Yankees could not have known what the state of the economy was going to be now. But this is about more than wrong place, wrong time. The Yankees' sense of entitlement and unrestrained excess is timeless. They will tell you they built this stadium for the everyman, stressing what they consider still affordable pricing and amenities. But this stadium, in actuality, was built for a moneyed class that in many respects does not even exist in this city any longer. Those $2,625-per-game Legends tickets behind home plate are selling slowly, and that certainly is because there is a whole class of banking/Wall Street/real estate mogul who would have scooped them up but has gone the way of flannel uniforms. But also because those seats not long ago would have screamed status, and now speak only to greed. The working world will not look onto those sitting there with envy. They will wish that those seats came with a dunk tank, not waiter service. The Yanks also want to make you believe that the history and romance could be easily shipped from the old place to the new one simply by recreating dimensions, reconstructing the facade or replanting Monument Park. However, the new Stadium didn't make me think of the place just across the street. It made me think about Vegas or Disney World, since it made me think of a fake place designed to manipulate my emotions and get into my wallet. "We don't see it as ostentatious or flashy," Hal Steinbrenner said. "We see it as classy." For me, class is out. In truth, sadly, the Yanks have conjured up a building that defines them: cold, corporate, over-privileged. At a financially distressed time in which Bud Selig has appealed to teams and players to be more fan friendly than ever, the Yanks have constructed even more of a moat between their players and those paying for all the goodies. For example, Yankee executives see it as a positive that the players now have underground parking rather than in the old place, where they had to walk 50 feet outdoors from the parking lot to the Stadium. In those 50 feet, fans held back by barricades could scream to their favorite players and -- if one of those players indulged -- get an autograph or two. Now the interaction between fans and players, and media and players, will be less than ever. I know no one sheds a tear for the media, but I think the new clubhouse, overstocked with off-limits areas and clandestine exits, only leads to a group that will feel less accountability. And an over-privileged nature and lack of accountability have hurt recent editions of the Yankees. "We are not a regular team," Brian Bruney said. "We are the New York Yankees, and it has to be nicer." Nice is in the eye of the beholder, and if you work for one of those few places left where the corporate card is still set on unlimited, then the new Yankee Stadium is for you. For many others, this place will have all the charm of Bernie Madoff. seawolf17 Apr 03 2009 06:44 PM And Brian Bruney, you're an overpaid tub of goo who can't find the strike zone with a guide dog who's lucky the Yankees wouldn't know pitching talent if it punched them in the neck, or you'd find yourself pitching for the Sioux City Sand Gnats. So shut the hell up and join Caveman on the Ass Line. Edgy DC Apr 03 2009 08:16 PM Wolfie, save something for the regular season. MFS62 Apr 03 2009 08:56 PM I just went on mlb.com to check the box scores. I noticed that the Mets' game tonight was played at "CitiField". The Yankees' game tonight was played at "New Yankee Stadium". Is that going to be the official name of that place? Later seawolf17 Apr 03 2009 08:57 PM Didn't they call it "New Comiskey" for a while too? themetfairy Apr 03 2009 08:58 PM ="seawolf17":3ge41hzz]Didn't they call it "New Comiskey" for a while too?[/quote:3ge41hzz] Yes - that's what it was called when I visited the park in 1991. seawolf17 Apr 03 2009 09:08 PM ="Edgy DC"]Wolfie, save something for the regular season. I know, but again, this stuff pisses me off. Who the hell is Brian Bruney? Good thing crappy middle relievers don't bat in the American League, or if I'm Lou Piniella tomorrow, I buzz an exhibition fastball right past his manboobs. You are "a regular team," Bruney. You're one of 30 teams that all need each other, or professional baseball doesn't exist. MFS62 Apr 04 2009 06:27 AM ="seawolf17":11yncmqm]Didn't they call it "New Comiskey" for a while too?[/quote:11yncmqm] Who is they? The White Sox? White Sox fans? The fans in Chicago? The papers in Chicago? But this is the official website of major league baseball itself. And that's why I asked if anyone knew if this is the official name of that place. Not just what some may call it. Later Frayed Knot Apr 04 2009 06:44 AM No, I don't believe 'New' is part of the official name. 'Fucking Gargantuan Edifice to Conspicuous Consumption' may be, although I'd have to check on that to be sure. SteveJRogers Apr 04 2009 06:45 AM ="MFS62":2qks5l00]="seawolf17":2qks5l00]Didn't they call it "New Comiskey" for a while too?[/quote:2qks5l00] Who is they? The White Sox? White Sox fans? The fans in Chicago? The papers in Chicago? But this is the official website of major league baseball itself. And that's why I asked if anyone knew if this is the official name of that place. Not just what some may call it. Later[/quote:2qks5l00] Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Reinsdorf didn't sell the naming rights until 2003. So it was Comiskey II from 1991 through 2003. G-Fafif Apr 04 2009 06:55 AM I believe that someday Seawolf will punch that arrogant Brian Brueny at New Yankee Stadium on his fat nose. MFS62 Apr 09 2009 06:56 PM Here's one you might not have heard about. (Thank you, Onion) http://www.theonion.com/content/video/yankees_buil ding_new_vacation Later Kong76 Apr 09 2009 08:39 PM Dude, your link actually pointed to this: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/study_children_exposed_to Figure out how to work stuff, child porn humor ain't for here. Later metsguyinmichigan Apr 09 2009 10:01 PM I clicked the link and thought, "Damn, the bleeping Yankees really ARE trying to appeal to everyone. Now I know why they have that massive video board in center." MFS62 Apr 10 2009 07:36 AM Let's try that again. And let the ad finish. http://www.theonion.com/content/video/yankees_building_new_vacation EDIT: I tried it after I re-posted and it worked. Later

Strikes me that there aren't a lot of minor league affiliates that have the same color scheme as the parent club. Pawtucket Richmond Iowa MFY Affiliate Don't think there are many others.

="Benjamin Grimm":13b2f06a]I really wanted the Mets to replace Oliver Perez with somebody better.[/quote:13b2f06a] Your options were CC Sabathia and AJ Burnett. ="Benjamin Grimm":13b2f06a]Doesn't look like that's going to happen.[/quote:13b2f06a] Not as such, no. Edgy DC Dec 14 2008 03:53 AM A healthy Ben Sheets might be better. I think he's pretty comparable, no? MFS62 Dec 14 2008 08:05 AM ="Edgy DC":3w4qau61]A healthy Ben Sheets might be better. I think he's pretty comparable, no?[/quote:3w4qau61] One of the radioheads in New York had been saying that Sheets is actually a better investment than Burnett. He's a Yankee fan (Max Kelerman- mid day on ESPN radio), so he eased off when the Yanks signed Burnett. Of course, with Sheets, there's the caveat emptor thingie - frequent injuries. Later Nymr83 Dec 14 2008 11:49 AM ="Edgy DC":jsxxb7kc]A healthy Ben Sheets might be better. I think he's pretty comparable, no?[/quote:jsxxb7kc] Sheets is way better than Perez when healthy, but has Sheets ever stayed healthy for long? A Boy Named Seo Dec 16 2008 12:36 PM Sheets had a 3 year run of good health from 02-04. Last year he made 31 starts before he got shut down at the end of the year. He's a question mark for sure, but a sexy one. Daily News sez Mets thinking about Tim Redding. ]STARTING THE SEARCH: The Mets' primary concern this week is to address their starting pitching needs and team officials met Monday to go over free agents. They will look at numerous pitchers, said a baseball official familiar with their thinking. Randy Wolf, Oliver Perez and, if the price is right, Derek Lowe, are among the possibilities. The Mets have not done anything on Ben Sheets, though they'll "look at everyone on the list," the official said. Among the new free agents who hit the market when their old teams did not offer them 2009 contracts, the Mets have expressed interest in Tim Redding, according to another baseball official. Redding was 10-11 with a 4.95 ERA for the Nationals last season, making 33 starts and pitching 182 innings. Redding, 31 in February, is 34-51 with a 4.92 ERA in parts of seven seasons with the Astros, Padres, Yankees and Nats. He might be attractive to the Mets because he was 3-1 with a 3.41 ERA in five starts against the Phillies last season. ... The Mets will introduce K-Rod at their annual holiday party for kids tomorrow. Manager Jerry Manuel, Mike (Santa) Pelfrey and John Maine will also be in attendance. I hope they sneak a look at that Daniel Cabrera, late of Baltimore. He seems like the kinda guy the Mets loved to pick up for a while there. Hard-throwing, high-ceiling, but erratic. He was non-tendered by the O's. Benjamin Grimm Dec 16 2008 12:49 PM ="A Boy Named Seo":qtbgj35j] He's a question mark for sure, but a sexy one. [/quote:qtbgj35j] A sexy question mark. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 16 2008 12:52 PM seawolf17 Dec 16 2008 12:59 PM I don't know who that is, but wow, that's a lecherous look from the dude in the car. I like Redding a lot -- he's a Rochester guy -- but bleh on him joining the Mets, except as a Tony Armas-type emergency guy. Benjamin Grimm Dec 16 2008 01:20 PM I concede to Johnny Lunchbucket in the sexy question mark photo hunt competition. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 16 2008 01:56 PM She's some English soccer player's wife. You can tell because she's trying to sneak a few soccer balls into the costume party. metirish Dec 16 2008 02:13 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2pdsn56e]She's some English soccer player's wife. You can tell because she's trying to sneak a few soccer balls into the costume party.[/quote:2pdsn56e] Otherwise known as a WAG. A Boy Named Seo Dec 17 2008 10:42 AM Daily News and Newsday both run starting pitching articles today and both basically say the same. Ollie's the preference, Lowe's nice, but too expensive, Wolf, and Redding, and Niese, etc. Kawakami is the 39-year old dude, no? Sheets not on the radar according to the Snooze. "Boo!!!!" sez me. ]The Mets spent Tuesday again discussing starting pitching options and today will formally introduce someone who should make being a member of the Met rotation a bit more comfortable - new closer Francisco Rodriguez. Rodriguez is making an appearance at the Mets' annual holiday party, along with Jerry Manuel, GM Omar Minaya, Mike Pelfrey (who will play Santa Claus) and John Maine. After sampling a few candy canes, Minaya will get back to work sifting through the starting pitchers available on the free-agent market. "We're going to look at everyone on the list," Minaya said. Re-signing Oliver Perez, which Minaya called "50-50" at the winter meetings, seems to be their first choice, but the Mets have inquired about several other pitchers, as well, and there are other intriguing names available since last week's non-tender deadline. The Mets are interested in Derek Lowe, although Minaya has acknowledged that he is likely to soar out of their price range. Still, if Lowe's price doesn't get too exorbitant, the Mets would be a suitor. Others in the mix include lefty Randy Wolf, whom the Mets have shown interest in, according to a baseball official. They also have expressed interest in Tim Redding, who was non-tendered by the Nationals last week. Japanese import Kenshin Kawakami might be a fallback option, too, and the Mets have long admired Freddy Garcia. Ben Sheets, a high-reward, high-risk free agent, is not on the Met radar, according to a baseball official. Daniel Cabrera, who was not tendered a contract by the Orioles last week, was slated to pitch in a winter-league game in the Dominican Republic last night and could be a possibility. With teams eyeballing him in person, bidding could heat up quickly for Cabrera. Johan Santana, Maine and Pelfrey are the Mets' top three starters right now, and the team figures it will add another starter this winter. The Mets could use some rotation depth, in part to have several candidates to compete with Jon Niese for the fifth spot in the rotation, and in case any of the primary arms get hurt during the season. Newsdaymentions Bartolo Colon and Eric Milton as filler candidates. ] The Mets have two slots in their starting rotation to fill, and they know what they want to do with the more important one. To replace Oliver Perez, who had become a vital pitcher, they want either Perez himself or Derek Lowe. To replace the diminished Pedro Martinez, however, the Mets are internally debating their options. Some team officials want to hand the fifth starter's job to lefthander Jon Niese, while others want to create some competition for Niese, 22, and ideally have the rookie begin the 2009 season with Triple-A Buffalo. The Mets could pursue a low-risk, high-reward starting pitcher - among the free agents fitting that category are Bartolo Colon, Freddy Garcia and Eric Milton - and hold a competition pitting such veterans against Niese in spring training. If the veteran wins the spot, then Niese can get more seasoning in the minor leagues. If Niese pitches better, then he might possess increased confidence. Niese made three starts for the 2008 Mets and posted a 1-1 record and 7.07 ERA. He allowed 20 hits and eight walks, striking out 11, in 14 innings. Before his big-league call-up in September, Niese made 22 starts for Double-A Binghamton (he went 6-7 with a 3.04 ERA, striking out 112 and walking 44 in 124 1/3 innings) and seven starts for Triple-A New Orleans (he went 5-1 with a 3.40 ERA, striking out 32 and walking 14 in 39 2/3 innings). The decision on Niese and his potential competition likely won't come until January, or even early February. For now, the Mets are focusing on acquiring a top-flight starter. Lowe's price could fall to a place where the Mets are more comfortable. And if Lowe's doesn't, then Perez's could. The Mets would consider free agents Randy Wolf and Jon Garland only if they whiff on Lowe and Perez. As another fallback, they have reached out to Tom O'Connell, the agent for Tim Redding, whom the Nationals non-tendered last Friday. Redding, 30, pitched 182 innings for Washington, posting a 10-11 record and 4.95 ERA. "So far, we've been contacted by at least 10 teams," said O'Connell, an alumnus of Shoreham-Wading River High School. "[Redding] had a very solid year. He could've easily won 15 games. I think he's going to be an outstanding pitcher in this market." metirish Dec 17 2008 10:50 AM Not surprised that Sheets is not in the plans , the Mets never sign FA starting pitchers that are injury prone. Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2008 11:03 AM ]The Mets could pursue a low-risk, high-reward starting pitcher - among the free agents fitting that category are Bartolo Colon, Freddy Garcia and Eric Milton - and hold a competition pitting such veterans against Niese in spring training. Pedro Martinez would fit that category too. metsmarathon Dec 17 2008 11:31 AM i really wish we'd look at sheets, and bring in a backup plan as well. Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 11:35 AM Every time somebody posts in this thread, those things hit me in the head. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 17 2008 11:56 AM Her name is Alex Curran and she's the WAG of Steven Gerrard, who plays for Liverpool. A Boy Named Seo Dec 17 2008 12:13 PM Well Augmented Gal? metirish Dec 17 2008 12:17 PM WAG = Wives & Girlfriends But you knew that right? A Boy Named Seo Dec 17 2008 12:19 PM No, I didn't know that. But I do know that WAG's are absolutely not invited to the Man U. Christmas party. A Boy Named Seo Dec 17 2008 12:32 PM ="metsmarathon":qboxnn2q]i really wish we'd look at sheets, and bring in a backup plan as well.[/quote:qboxnn2q] I'm wichoo. Johan's the only guy we know exactly what we're getting from. Hopefully Pelfrey won't regress. I don't think he will. I guess him being the second most known quantity on the staff makes me a little uneasy is all. I don't see how Maine can be counted on for 30 starts at this point. We should really have at least six viable options. Maybe, like, more. I still would like to see Ollie, Sheets, Niese, and as many non-roster scrubs as they can stitch uniforms for. seawolf17 Dec 17 2008 12:44 PM ="A Boy Named Seo":20g5adgv]I still would like to see Ollie, Sheets, Niese, and as many non-roster scrubs as they can stitch uniforms for.[/quote:20g5adgv] /starts throwing long toss /starts developing knuckleball A Boy Named Seo Dec 17 2008 12:48 PM And Seawolf and Dennis Springer. metsmarathon Dec 17 2008 01:23 PM or that japanese chick! MFS62 Dec 17 2008 07:06 PM John Maine Interview: http://www.wfan.com/pages/744514.php Later Benjamin Grimm Dec 24 2008 06:36 AM Today's buzz has the Mets becoming serious about negotiating with Lowe. While I do like the idea of getting a pitcher who'll be the Number 2 guy (as opposed to a Number 4 guy) I'm concerned that Lowe will be too old and expensive. Especially if he ends up with a five-year deal. I think I'd rather seem them put that money towards Randy Wolf and Orlando Hudson. seawolf17 Dec 24 2008 07:20 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"] I just wanted to make sure she was at the top of page 3 of the thread also. Nymr83 Dec 24 2008 07:51 AM good idea, i say we make the hot bimbo the banner on top of the forum! Bunt the First Two Dec 24 2008 08:15 AM If you're going to overpay Overpay for Ollie Christmas eve is here today And Christmas should be jolly Ollie can be widely variant But Lowe's an obnoxious wiener And I know what Keith and Gary meant When they praised young Ollie's demeanor So, I'm clinging to the familiar And I fear the enemy hireling You may find my perspective sillier My wife does; as does my sireling Lowe's not alone in adulte-ray To think so would be rank folly But if you're going to overpay Overpay for Ollie Joyeux No�l Benjamin Grimm Dec 24 2008 08:21 AM How is it possible that Bunt the First Two, who's been here for three and a half years, only has 9 posts? (And a very nice avatar, by the way.) seawolf17 Dec 24 2008 08:38 AM I thought BtF2 was someone's nym. TransMonk Dec 24 2008 10:53 AM Metsblog linking to The Boston Globe[/url:a9uzs6db] reports that the Mets are close to a 3-4 deal with Lowe for 14-16 Mil per. metirish Dec 24 2008 11:06 AM Could we not sign Perez for that money? Benjamin Grimm Dec 24 2008 11:07 AM I have to confess that I don't know much about Lowe, but I'm so done with Oliver Perez. Benjamin Grimm Dec 24 2008 11:16 AM Just in case this is true, here's a tidbit from Wikipedia for the Wifey Watch: ]On August 3, 2005, FSN West in Los Angeles announced that "Dodger Dugout" anchor Carolyn Hughes had been suspended pending an investigation into a potential relationship between her and Lowe. Shortly thereafter, the pitcher filed for divorce from his wife of seven years, Trinka Lowe, with whom he fathered two children. Hughes' husband had also filed for divorce and, as of early 2006, Lowe and Hughes were living together. Lowe and Hughes were married on December 13, 2008 at The Henry Ford in Dearborn, Michigan. TransMonk Dec 24 2008 11:21 AM ="metirish":20spwfpg]Could we not sign Perez for that money?[/quote:20spwfpg] Maybe, but Lowe's more of a sure thing than Perez IMO (at least for 2009-10). Perez is younger and a lefty, but Lowe has averaged 200 IPs with a mid 3 ERA for the past 4 years. He won't K as many batters as Perez, but he will also walk about half as many. The problem with Lowe is that he will turn 36 this year....so by the end of the contract he will be 40ish. But you can't argue with his consistency. Nymr83 Dec 24 2008 01:06 PM A 4 year contract to Lowe now could easily turn into the equivalent of the 4 year deal given to Glavine at age 36 following the 2002 season. Glavine's ERA+ the 4 years before the Mets contract: 109, 135, 125, 140 Lowe's ERA+ the past 4 years: 114, 124, 118, 131 Glavine IPs: 234, 241, 219, 224 Lowe's IPs: 222, 218, 199, 211 Glavine's ERA+ the first 4 years with the Mets: 93, 119, 116, 114 Glavine IP the first 4 years with the Mets: 183, 212, 211, 198 They're pretty similiar pitchers and Lowe is around the same place in his career now that Glavine was when he became a Met (though he was probably a bit better then than Lowe is now.) Were you happy with how that 4 year contract to Glavine turned out? A Boy Named Seo Dec 24 2008 01:23 PM I thought of Glavine this morning when I read the Mets were maybe close on Lowe. I like Lowe and I think he'd be fine, but don't want him instead of Ollie. I want him along with Ollie. Edgy DC Dec 24 2008 01:58 PM Glavine didn't become fat until his second year he was with the Mets. Lowe = already fat. Oliver Perez is the way to go. MFS62 Dec 24 2008 07:07 PM According to a report on WFAN (or was it ESPN radio?) tonight, the Mets are one of three teams still negotiating for Lowe. Later John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 24 2008 08:29 PM I'd prefer Ollie if we only got one of them, too. I'm not a Lowe hater, necessarily, tho I do recall the Mets beating the crap out of him once in '07. Anyone remember that game? TransMonk Dec 24 2008 09:10 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2k22o8do]I'd prefer Ollie if we only got one of them, too. I'm not a Lowe hater, necessarily, tho I do recall the Mets beating the crap out of him once in '07. Anyone remember that game?[/quote:2k22o8do] Yup...and Glavine got his ass kicked about as badly in this game too.[/url:2k22o8do] Vince Coleman Firecracker Dec 25 2008 10:46 AM Derek Lowe for Christmas? ESPN says no. ]ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney reports the Mets ARE NOT close to a deal with free agent pitcher Derek Lowe. Sources tell Olney the Mets HAVE NOT made an offer to Lowe...and are still seriously considering free agent pitchers Randy Wolf and Oliver Perez., among other pitching options. The Boston Globe reported the Mets would offer Lowe $14-16 million per season. Lowe just finished up a four year deal, $36 million deal with the Dodgers. Newsday also says no. It seems they are speaking, though. ="Kat O'Brien"]"We're talking, we're having discussions, but nothing's going to happen in the next day or two," Minaya said by phone Wednesday afternoon. Maybe for Boxing Day? Edgy DC Dec 25 2008 05:52 PM Nowe Lowe! Frayed Knot Dec 26 2008 07:14 AM Newsday: The Mets continue to try to sign one more starting pitcher, but general manager Omar Minaya said nothing is imminent. "We're talking, we're having discussions, but nothing's going to happen in the next day or two," Minaya said by phone Wednesday afternoon. Several reports online had the Mets close to agreement on a four-year deal with righthander Derek Lowe. Minaya said Lowe is just one of several pitchers the Mets are in negotiations with, along with Oliver Perez and Randy Wolf. The Mets stand a strong chance of eventually signing one of those three starters. Minaya said it wouldn't happen in the immediate future, though, urging: "Go enjoy the holiday." Benjamin Grimm Dec 27 2008 05:11 PM ="Buster Olney":1q35kutm]There are other market forces in play now. The Mets would like a starting pitcher, but just as they ascertained before delving into the bidding for a closer, they realize that they might be the only team ready to give out a sizable multiyear contract for a starting pitcher -- especially in the aftermath of the Yankees' signing of Mark Teixeira, which is likely to compel the Bombers to fill the last spot in their rotation with a youngster. The Mets have surveyed the rest of the market, and they see that the Cardinals are not ready to hand out a massive deal for a starter, nor are the Milwaukee Brewers or the Dodgers. The Braves have money to spend but have reportedly determined that they are not interested in signing Derek Lowe. So the Mets can sit back and pluck the best of the starting pitchers, at their price, just as they did with K-Rod; in this case, their choices are likely (1) Oliver Perez, (2) Lowe or (3) Randy Wolf. Heck, the Mets might find themselves in a position to take advantage of a two-for-one sale. That is how far the prices have been depressed. The Mets will be patient, writes Mike Puma. [/quote:1q35kutm] Nymr83 Dec 28 2008 12:35 AM sounds good to me, lets see what happens Rockin' Doc Dec 28 2008 07:13 AM Damn, I knew this day would come. This thread has finally turned the page and now the mysterious honeydew smuggler has gotten away. It's a sad day I tell you. Benjamin Grimm Dec 28 2008 07:19 AM ="seawolf17"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"] I just wanted to make sure she was at the top of page 3 of the thread also. Centerfield Dec 28 2008 09:47 PM Ken Rosenthal reporting that the Red Sox are close to signing Brad Penny. You'd have to think this bodes well for us on the Lowe front. metirish Dec 30 2008 09:01 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"] Her husband just got charged with assault and affray after spending the last 24 hours in jail following a beating of a DJ in a pub after Liverpool FC beat Newcastle Sunday. Gerrard along with five others got arrested in the early hours Monday morning after allegedly beating the DJ up , apparently the DJ wouldn't let Gerrard spin his favorite tunes. His favorite singer is Phil fucking Collins , hard to blame the DJ on that. Vince Coleman Firecracker Dec 30 2008 09:39 AM Phil Collins' solo efforts seem to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying in a narrower way, especially No Jacket Required and songs like "In the Air Tonight" and "Against All Odds" (though that song was overshadowed by the masterful movie from which it came) and "Take Me Home" and "Sussudio" (great, great song; a personal favorite) and his remake of "You Can't Hurry Love," which I'm not alone in thinking is better than the Supremes' original. But I also think that Phil Collins works better within the confines of the group than as a solo artist- and I stress the word artist. In fact it applies to all three of the guys, because Genesis is still the best, most exciting band to come out of England in the 1980s. Frayed Knot Dec 30 2008 09:43 AM Beating up a DJ is like the guy who shot someone in a movie theatre the other day for yapping too much: either may be justifiable depending on the specifics. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 30 2008 09:47 AM ="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]Phil Collins' solo efforts seem to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying in a narrower way, especially No Jacket Required and songs like "In the Air Tonight" and "Against All Odds" (though that song was overshadowed by the masterful movie from which it came) and "Take Me Home" and "Sussudio" (great, great song; a personal favorite) and his remake of "You Can't Hurry Love," which I'm not alone in thinking is better than the Supremes' original. But I also think that Phil Collins works better within the confines of the group than as a solo artist- and I stress the word artist. In fact it applies to all three of the guys, because Genesis is still the best, most exciting band to come out of England in the 1980s. Wait, what? Edgy DC Dec 30 2008 10:02 AM I heard the guy beat up the DJ after he played Jay-Z's new joint, "The Riddler Got Some Titties." VC Firecracker, meanwhile, just made the Oddest Stories of the Year list. Vince Coleman Firecracker Dec 30 2008 10:07 AM Sorry, I just always think of Patrick Bateman when I hear that someone likes Phil Collins. Or Huey Lewis. metirish Dec 30 2008 10:16 AM ="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]Phil Collins' solo efforts seem to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying in a narrower way, especially No Jacket Required and songs like "In the Air Tonight" and "Against All Odds" (though that song was overshadowed by the masterful movie from which it came) and "Take Me Home" and "Sussudio" (great, great song; a personal favorite) and his remake of "You Can't Hurry Love," which I'm not alone in thinking is better than the Supremes' original. But I also think that Phil Collins works better within the confines of the group than as a solo artist- and I stress the word artist. In fact it applies to all three of the guys, because Genesis is still the best, most exciting band to come out of England in the 1980s. In the article I read which I can't be bothered to look for it mentioned that his favorite album ever is Phil Collins "Hits" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hits_(Phil_Collins_album) Centerfield Dec 30 2008 07:30 PM Three year, $36 million offer to Lowe says Tom Singer at Mets.com. It cites a Times report but I couldn't find the article. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081230&content_id=3730397&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 30 2008 07:38 PM ]Mets Offer Lowe a Deal: 3 Years and $36 Million By JACK CURRY Published: December 30, 2008 After methodically studying the starting pitchers left on the free-agent market, the Mets have determined that Derek Lowe would be the best addition to their club. The Mets have shown that by offering Lowe a three-year contract for about $36 million, according to people who have been briefed on the discussions. As the Mets try to add a reliable starter, they have marked Lowe as their priority over Oliver P�rez, who has pitched for them since 2006. Lowe, a durable pitcher with a superb sinker, was 14-11 with a 3.24 earned run average for the Los Angeles Dodgers last season. Scott Boras, the agent who represents Lowe and P�rez, would not comment specifically about the Mets� offer to Lowe. But he said, �Obviously, we�ve taken offers from a number of teams.� Boras also said he was still talking to teams and was in the process of establishing Lowe�s value. Lowe is believed to be seeking a five-year, $90 million deal. The Mets do not want to offer Lowe more than three guaranteed years, so if he holds firm in his pursuit of five years, he may not be close to signing. Lowe, who turns 36 in June, has averaged more than 200 innings and 15 wins the last seven seasons. When the Mets pursued the free agent Francisco Rodr�guez, they benefited from being one of the only teams willing to spend for a closer. Before the season ended, there was speculation that Rodr�guez would receive a $75 million deal. The Mets signed Rodr�guez for about half that, giving him a three-year, $37 million deal. The Mets are hoping the same happens with Lowe, and that he eventually falls to them for less than the $18 million a year he is seeking. Boras would not say how many teams had made offers to Lowe, but he said there were more teams involved in talks with Lowe than a week ago. Boras will probably remind teams that Ryan Dempster, a converted closer who had a stellar year as a starter with 17 victories, received a four-year, $52 million deal from the Chicago Cubs last month. The Mets have emerged as the favorites to sign Lowe, but the Boston Red Sox and the Philadelphia Phillies have also expressed interest. It is unclear if either team would outbid the Mets or offer more than three years. Lowe pitched for the Red Sox from 1997 to 2004 and has spoken about his desire to return to Boston. If the Mets are unable to sign Lowe, they will pursue P�rez, who was 10-7 with a 4.22 E.R.A. They may also go after Randy Wolf, who, like P�rez, is left-handed. Wolf was 12-12 with a 4.30 E.R.A. for the San Diego Padres and the Houston Astros. But by making their first offer to Lowe, the Mets have told him and Boras that Lowe is the pitcher they would prefer. Before that can happen, the Mets and Boras need to agree on Lowe�s value. Frayed Knot Dec 30 2008 07:46 PM Beats the hell out of both the asking price (5x$18) and the widely rumored price (4x$15). Maybe we wind up getting trumped here, but I'd have trouble going more than 3 years. Guess that's what they mean by 'Going Lowe' on a bid. Rockin' Doc Dec 30 2008 08:30 PM The Mets should give Lowe and Borass a few days to respond, then if they don't get a response that looks favorable they should offer Oliver Perez an offer in the neighborhood of 4 years for $36 mil. and tell Boras that the first accept will get the one rotation slot available. I would love to see a few of Boras' high profile clients get stuck because of his blustering and posturing. I believe Manny Ramirez just may be the one to lose big because of Boras overplaying his hand in these difficult financial times. Nymr83 Dec 30 2008 09:16 PM ="Rockin' Doc":sf7zf4o4]The Mets should give Lowe and Borass a few days to respond, then if they don't get a response that looks favorable they should offer Oliver Perez an offer in the neighborhood of 4 years for $36 mil. and tell Boras that the first accept will get the one rotation slot available. I would love to see a few of Boras' high profile clients get stuck because of his blustering and posturing. I believe Manny Ramirez just may be the one to lose big because of Boras overplaying his hand in these difficult financial times.[/quote:sf7zf4o4] i would love to play Boras' clients against each other by making reasonable offers to both pitchers and say its first come first served. this puts Boras in a position where he can't do right by both clients. MFS62 Dec 31 2008 06:42 AM Now we're going to find out if Omar has friends in Lowe places. Later Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 07:15 AM ="Nymr83":jqmfi9t3]i would love to play Boras' clients against each other by making reasonable offers to both pitchers and say its first come first served. this puts Boras in a position where he can't do right by both clients.[/quote:jqmfi9t3] Well, he can advise them both to hold out for more. I'm not saying it'll work, but he's got a corner of the market by holding the best two remaining pitchers. Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 07:19 AM I notice the article says the Mets don't want to guarantee more than three years. My prediction: They'll sign him to a deal that guarantees $39 million over three years, with a clause that gets him a fourth year (at another $13 million) based on some innings pitched criteria. An article in the Daily News this morning said that the Mets were the lone remaining suitor. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is Boras will, of course, try to get them to bid against the mysterious phantom team. metirish Dec 31 2008 07:23 AM Thankfully Minaya is't Cashman who at this point with no other suitors would sweeten the pot by at least $60 million. soupcan Dec 31 2008 07:50 AM I'd love to see Boras get his comeuppance as well but it just doesn't happen. We all thought the A-Rod opt-out would backfire and that certainly did not. Boras turned that around from a disaster to friggin' no-holds barrred success. Boras is a smart guy - he knows exactly what he is doing and always gets the most for his clients. As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 08:03 AM I'm perfectly happy seeing Boras clients walk off with all the money they can get --- as long as my team drives a harder bargain than everybody else's. He got the Yankees to bid against themselves to pay Alex Rodriguez more, even though everybody hates the guy? I applaud him. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 08:09 AM ="soupcan":388olj2s]I'd love to see Boras get his comeuppance as well but it just doesn't happen.[/quote:388olj2s] It does occasionally. A couple years back he was telling anyone who would listen that he had a multiple 5-year offers for Kenvin Millwood at something like $15 per. Millwood eventually settled for a one-year arbitration settlement for around $10 or so. And there have been others as well - usually with smaller/mid-range clients. It's the big boys who generate most of the publicity and those are the ones he hits on - but, of course, it's a lot easier when you've got the goods. What remains to be seen here is whether this year is going to be a downward trend after several years of rapidly rising salaries like happened a few years ago following the 1999-2001 spending boom. So far the only player for whom there was a serious bidding war was Teixeira. Sabathia certainly got a chunk of change but it's not clear whether than was necessary, and guys like F Rodriguez got a whole lot less than what was suspected even 2-3 months ago. Centerfield Dec 31 2008 08:24 AM ="soupcan":1gdt0nu9]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy.[/quote:1gdt0nu9] Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? metsmarathon Dec 31 2008 08:41 AM i only hate him when players i want the mets to get have him as their agent, and that drags out the process of signing said player, and typically means that, if we do get said player, its at a higher cost and because we offered the most money (as opposed to the fictional world i wish to live in where free agents choose the mets not for the most money but because they're the awesomest destination, and do so cheaply and before christmas). soupcan Dec 31 2008 08:45 AM ="Centerfield"]="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 08:50 AM ="soupcan":f7bp71p6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:f7bp71p6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise Centerfield Dec 31 2008 09:08 AM ="soupcan"]="Centerfield"]="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game. Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 09:14 AM One reason not to like Boras: He represents Mike Pelfrey. If Pelfrey continues to develop into the pitcher we'd like him to be, we have little to no hope that he'll sign a contract like Wright and Reyes did. He'll do the arbitration thing each year that he can, and then he'll test the market. It makes it just a teeny bit harder to get attached to a home-grown player. attgig Dec 31 2008 10:29 AM ="Edgy DC":6u8g9kac]="soupcan":6u8g9kac]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:6u8g9kac] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:6u8g9kac] not only demand, but supply. all these new ballparks have less seats. friggin owners. BUT, I would love to see how ticket prices changed from before Free Agency to the early nineties (when contracts started going into the millions). soupcan Dec 31 2008 10:58 AM ="Edgy DC":2ijnmyx6]="soupcan":2ijnmyx6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor. ="Centerfield":2ijnmyx6]So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] Word. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 11:14 AM ="soupcan":osy3ctu2]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:osy3ctu2] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable. soupcan Dec 31 2008 11:29 AM ="Edgy DC":r44vyrx7]="soupcan":r44vyrx7]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:r44vyrx7] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable.[/quote:r44vyrx7] It's not like their salary caps have kept those other sports salaries low either though. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 12:07 PM Not low, but lower than they'd be under a true open market -- and yet the NFL with its hard cap and often elusive FA system has still managed to be the sport to virtually invent and exploit things like seat licensing and mandatory pre-season buys.

Time to cut A. Reyes loose. This ESPN article says in relevant part: Also Friday, the Mets decided not to offer 2009 contracts to right-hander Ambiorix Burgos and infielder Argenis Reyes. Both became free agents.

Seems to me he pitched just fine in August and September of '07 as well -- he just earned a bad rap (deservedly) that he was completely unable to shake (undeservedly).

="Edgy DC":1wn8w6gz]Head, slammed through wall.[/quote:1wn8w6gz] Rollins Ibanez Utley Howard Werth Victorino Dobbs/Feliz Ruiz Ouch. Only consolation is that it's a left-heavy lineup. Centerfield Dec 12 2008 09:45 AM Ibanez basically replaces Burrell's production. Meaning the Phils will return a very similar lineup to last year's. Mark Texiera still available. Edgy DC Dec 12 2008 09:45 AM I'm slamming my head through a wall because of the proliferation of posting without reading. smg58 Dec 12 2008 09:45 AM Evans belongs at Buffalo playing first base. With Carp gone and Delgado in his walk year, he should be getting full-time AB's at his best position. The Mets need more lefthanded pitching. Burrell might not be better than Ibanez when you factor in ballparks. But both might hurt (might have hurt, in Ibanez' case) the Mets defensively more than they'd help offensively. The Mets absolutely need another righthanded bat in the outfield, but not at a cost that's disproportionate to the benefit. sharpie Dec 12 2008 10:24 AM Ibanez is a pretty good fielder, certainly not a guy you have to take out in the late innings. TransMonk Dec 12 2008 03:13 PM Looks like the Yanks will overpay for Burnett[/url:3vyw4v5q] rather than overpay for Lowe. Holy wallets. Valadius Dec 12 2008 03:47 PM Good. Burnett breaks down virtually every year. metirish Dec 12 2008 04:33 PM Of all the crazy things , I guess they won the bidding war again. Frayed Knot Dec 13 2008 06:50 AM So the Yanx had themselves a 1/4 Billion dollar week. Or, as they say in the Bronx, a good starting point. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 13 2008 06:58 AM Here's hoping Burnett is even a bigger bust than Pavano. He's apparently a bigger idiot, and already a bigger injury risk. smg58 Dec 13 2008 08:27 AM The non-tenders are headed rather shockingly by ex-Met Ty Wigginton, after a very strong year with the bat. He's not that good defensively in the infield, but I have to think it had more to do with money. I also can't imagine that none of the teams in the market for a third baseman (the Twins, the Indians, the Giants) wouldn't have given him a look. I've always thought Ty could be the 10th man on a good team, and the Mets have room for him (as primarily an outfielder), but somebody might still pay him a starter's salary. Other noteworthy non-tenders include Chris Capuano (still recovering from TJS but might be worth a long-term look) and Takaishi Saito (his worth depends entirely on the status of his elbow). The only Met I saw was Argenis Reyes. If that's it, that would mean that Stokes (a good move) and Robinson Cancel (a bit surprising, unless they know they can move one of the other catchers) are staying on the 40. Nymr83 Dec 13 2008 12:59 PM i would LOVE to bring Wiggy back as a bench player, he has the pop that this bench needs and can play 2B/3B when needed (though not necessarily well) Valadius Dec 13 2008 01:20 PM I'd plug Wiggy into Easley's spot in a heartbeat. OlerudOwned Dec 13 2008 02:47 PM I'm a lot happier with Ibanez in Philly than as a Met, especially at 3 years. Keith Law calls it "absurd[/url:20pumd9t]." Ashie62 Dec 14 2008 06:30 PM What about Burrell for an everyday LF and Jon Garland as an SP? Edgy DC Dec 14 2008 07:37 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 14 2008 07:48 PM ="Valadius":2u4mpb0q]I'd plug Wiggy into Easley's spot in a heartbeat.[/quote:2u4mpb0q] We'll be competing to buy him as a super-sub against teams looking for a starting thirdbaseman. You'd probably have to be thinking of him as your starting secondbaseman when you sign him. Aaron Miles, meanwhile got non-tendered. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 14 2008 07:47 PM Besides Easley's role also included backing up Reyes at SS and Wiggy is an unrealistic option there. Edgy DC Dec 14 2008 07:56 PM Miles plays everywhere, shortstop (and mopup pitcher) included. He's pretty similar from both sides of the plate. He can take lefties away from Castillo (against whom Luis is historically weaker), pressing him for the full-time job, backup at shortstop, and fill in elsewhere as needed. He's pretty analogous to Super Joe, with a little more average and a little less power, but has more starting experience and is less likely to be over-exposed by over-use. Ashie62 Dec 15 2008 04:19 AM Miles would come cheap and would be a rich mans superjoe I'd prefer Wiggy cause he can play anything..maybe even left or RF when Murphy or Church have problems Don't we need to focus on a full-time outfielder? Relying on Church & Murphy for 150 games seems a stretch. I'd love Burrell..surly as he is and as far as a SP goes..wait til Most of The A pitchers go and go after Sheets or Garland. metirish Dec 15 2008 06:55 AM Alex Cora was again mentioned in a report today. smg58 Dec 15 2008 07:24 AM Miles is another player who would be an upgrade over Castillo. He has similar hitting numbers to Castillo from a few years ago. He's also at least average with the glove, which Castillo can no longer say. He'd be worth bringing in for something like two years and $5M, although I might go higher than that if there are no other viable 2B options. He's not Orlando Hudson, but he could present significant value. I'd be willing to go 2 years and $6M for Wigginton's services, even if I could only guarantee him starts against lefties (in the outfield). Somebody like him or Juan Rivera would boost our bench, enable us to platoon Ryan Church, and provide cover if something goes wrong with Murphy, Church, or Delgado. I'm not sure that would be enough, but nobody jumped at the chance to trade for him. Edgy DC Dec 15 2008 07:35 AM Unless and until Castillo and/or Delgado are dealt, we've got to be thinking shortstopability in our next infielder. MFS62 Dec 15 2008 07:45 AM ="Edgy DC":1omuczeq]Unless and until Castillo and/or Delgado are dealt, we've got to be thinking shortstopability in our next infielder.[/quote:1omuczeq] I agree. B'sides, if the Mets sign Cora, we might be subjected to pictures of him with his brother. I'd get flashbacks of images of Joe Torre and his sister. Hide the eyes of the chill'uns. Miles gets my vote. Later MFS62 Dec 15 2008 08:54 AM Righthander Chan Ho Park said in a press conference in Seoul today that he has agreed to a 1-year contract with the Phillies. According to the Korea Times, Park, 35, will have a base salary of $2.5 million with incentives that could push the total package to $5 million. There had been reports that the Phillies were close to coming to terms with Park to improve their bullpen. However, the pitcher said he opted for the Phillies in part because they viewed him as a starter. �I was a little worried about the Citizens Bank Park, the home of the Phillies, which is hitter-friendly,� he said. "But as they considered me a starter, I signed with Philadelphia.� http://www.philly.com/philly/b...l_for_Park.html Later Frayed Knot Dec 15 2008 05:29 PM The Pettitte camp (acc to WFAN) says it has a 3-year/$36mil offer from ... well, they're not saying, but I don't think it's the Yanx who are supposedly sticking w/1 year. I hope it's not us either. Centerfield Dec 15 2008 07:32 PM It was me. I had some extra money lying around and I figured, "Oh what the hell." themetfairy Dec 15 2008 07:37 PM ="Centerfield":38yhgguz]It was me. I had some extra money lying around and I figured, "Oh what the hell."[/quote:38yhgguz] I love you, Man. Your posts always make me laugh. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 15 2008 08:19 PM ="Frayed Knot":uz2je510]The Pettitte camp (acc to WFAN) says it has a 3-year/$36mil offer from ... well, they're not saying, but I don't think it's the Yanx who are supposedly sticking w/1 year. I hope it's not us either.[/quote:uz2je510] Go, Theo, go. Frayed Knot Dec 16 2008 06:36 AM Phils re-up 95 y/o Jamie Moyer for 2 years. OK, he's really only 46. Fman99 Dec 16 2008 06:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2wijd3xl]="Frayed Knot":2wijd3xl]The Pettitte camp (acc to WFAN) says it has a 3-year/$36mil offer from ... well, they're not saying, but I don't think it's the Yanx who are supposedly sticking w/1 year. I hope it's not us either.[/quote:2wijd3xl] Go, Theo, go.[/quote:2wijd3xl] I would not be surprised if Houston was the team not being mentioned. He pitched well down there for them and they don't have a whole lot of starting pitching depth after Oswalt. Edgy DC Dec 16 2008 06:46 AM I'm OK with Pedro. I said it. Just, you know, sign a bunch of other guys also. Farmer Ted Dec 16 2008 08:51 AM I have no problem with Petey in the #5 slot to start the season. I'm more worried with the durability of Maine and whether the other teams catch up with Pelfry's stuff. metsguyinmichigan Dec 16 2008 09:28 AM Any day the Phils resign Jamie Moyer and add Chan Ho Park is a good day for us! Edgy DC Dec 16 2008 09:31 AM The Phils trying to get two more years out of an ancient lefty strikes me as one more good reason for us to Burrell up. DocTee Dec 19 2008 09:14 AM Knucksie in Dixie: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/18/SPMQ14QQMI.DTL John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 09:31 AM Never made any sense to me that Lance Neikro wasn't a knuckleballer to begin with. IIRC, he had a big hit vs. the Mets (was it a game-winning HR or something?) when he first came up with the Giants and I naturally assumed he was on his way to major stardom. Fman99 Dec 21 2008 10:55 AM Fireballer Daniel Cabrera goes to the Nats, 1 year, 2.6 million. Valadius Dec 21 2008 10:55 AM Ha, good luck with that. Guy's a head case. Fman99 Dec 21 2008 10:57 AM ="Valadius":2pz740g9]Ha, good luck with that. Guy's a head case.[/quote:2pz740g9] I think people were saying that about Ollie Perez before the Pirates sent him to us. Talented, strikeout pitcher, control issues, high ERA, etc. metsguyinmichigan Dec 21 2008 10:29 PM OK, now both the Angels and the Red Sox say they're not going after Texiera anymore. Has Boras finall pushed people over the edge, or is this all just negotiating ploys? Frayed Knot Dec 22 2008 07:05 AM The Angels are claiming that their offer is "off the table" and that there'll be no further negotiating - which at least doesn't sound like a ploy. Boston, for its part, isn't claiming that, only that they think they're not going to be his choice due to other teams raising their offers beyond where they're willing to go. That leaves Teixeira in the position of either taking Boston's "low" offer or going the Baltimore/Washington route which kind of flies in the face of his 'I wanna be a contendah' pledge. Supposedly this was going to be wrapped up by Xmas but it wouldn't be the first time Boras has over-played his hand. Benjamin Grimm Dec 22 2008 07:07 AM There's still Baltimore and Washington. Boras isn't quite out of options yet. metsguyinmichigan Dec 22 2008 07:19 AM Speaking of Boras... Murray Chass MurrayChass.com Now that CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett have signed, other pitchers on the free-agent list are expected to follow. Derek Lowe is probably next on the list in terms of interest, but the interest has been all talk and no offers. His agent's asking price is said to be the reason. Scott Boras has told clubs he wants Barry Zito money for the 35-year-old Lowe, which means $18 million a year. Clubs interested in Lowe have not rushed forward with such offers. The slow-moving market may be just what the Mets want. ...Barry Zito isn't worth Barry Zito money. But Derek Lowe? Is he nuts? Edgy DC Dec 22 2008 01:44 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 22 2008 02:20 PM I'm not sure I'd support the Mets spending $18 million a year for two Derek Lowes. Valadius Dec 22 2008 02:04 PM The MOST I'd spend on Derek Lowe is $8 million a year. $18 million is beyond rationality. Willets Point Dec 22 2008 03:01 PM Oh man, Lowe needs $10 million just for booze alone. MFS62 Dec 23 2008 07:36 AM ="Willets Point":2bf2t6s1]Oh man, Lowe needs $10 million just for booze alone.[/quote:2bf2t6s1] Are you saying this because he associates with Scott Boras? Or is there something else you know about him? Later smg58 Dec 23 2008 11:23 AM Guys who can consistently give you 200+ IP with 15 wins and a sub-4 ERA are worth plenty more than 8 million. I wouldn't go four years with Lowe, on account of his age, but I'd much rather have him than Ollie. Willets Point Dec 23 2008 03:04 PM ="MFS62":3rvs0psj]="Willets Point":3rvs0psj]Oh man, Lowe needs $10 million just for booze alone.[/quote:3rvs0psj] Are you saying this because he associates with Scott Boras? Or is there something else you know about him? Later[/quote:3rvs0psj] Just a joke about Lowe's rumored love of the drink. Valadius Dec 26 2008 09:01 PM Randy Johnson will pursue his 300th win as a San Francisco Giant. Nymr83 Dec 27 2008 01:15 AM he could it be cutting it close with the type of run support the giants give their starters. he needs 5 wins, it took Matt Cain all year to get 8 wins for the Giants with an ERA+ the same as Johnson's last year. Frayed Knot Dec 27 2008 05:08 AM 'Randy Johnson is a Giant' is somewhat of a redundant headline. He's probably been called that since he was in the 4th grade. On the other hand, there must have been plenty in in the Castro district of SF who were excited to hear that someone called 'The Big Unit' was coming to their city. DocTee Dec 27 2008 09:16 AM FK with a late entry for post o' the year. The Giants have had a nice offseason (Renteria, Affeldt, Howry, Johnson) and if local rumors of them adding Adam Dunn are correct, they could be players in a weak West. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 27 2008 09:19 AM I agree. You can definitely quibble with the wisdom of a team's particular moves but I like to see franchises who've had bad years making a bunch of moves in the offseason, whether they are effective or not. Like the Giants... and the MFYs... Frayed Knot Dec 27 2008 03:49 PM X-Rockie, X-Astro OFer Wily Tavarez signs a two-year deal with Cincy. He's good at stealing bases and also .... ummmm, I'll think of something. And Kevin Mensch heads for Japan. The Japanese just might get a look at his monsterously huge head and add a second rising sun to their flag. I think that thing has its own gravitational pull. Frayed Knot Dec 29 2008 07:20 AM Penny for your Sox ... Brad Penny to Boston for 1 yr/$5mil -- pending a physical which could yet throw a wrench into the works. As mentioned elsewhere, this could keep them from chasing the likes of Lowe, Wolf, Ollie, etc. thus reducing the demand pool by one more team. Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 11:20 AM This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels. smg58 Dec 31 2008 12:29 PM The Cubs sign Aaron Miles for two years, then trade DeRosa to the Indians for three low level (not even top 20) prospects. At least it's not the Phillies, but that's one mild upgrade over Castillo and one significant upgrade who found takers at prices we could have afforded. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 12:30 PM Cubs 2B Mark DeRosa - long rumored as part of a Jake Peavy trade - dealt to Cleveland for a trio of minor league pitchers. smg58 Dec 31 2008 12:36 PM Fuentes got two years at $17.5M, plus a club option. Rotoworld says "Fuentes almost certainly took less money to play close to home," but I'm not sure who was competing with the Angels. Frayed Knot Jan 02 2009 05:47 AM Good news folks, Barry Bonds says that he should be fully recovered from the hip surgery he needs in time for opening day! Nymr83 Jan 02 2009 06:41 AM ="Frayed Knot":1xejc7ja]Good news folks, Barry Bonds says that he should be fully recovered from the hip surgery he needs in time for opening day![/quote:1xejc7ja] Better news- nobody really cares about him anymore, including it seems the GMs of all 30 teams. DocTee Jan 02 2009 04:46 PM Tony Clark returns to D-Baggs: 1 year, 800K. metirish Jan 02 2009 05:34 PM Watching MLB Network Hot Stove and they are reporting that San Francisco have offered Manny Ramirez a four year deal. Dodgers and A Jones have agreed to defer most of his money owed likely leading to him playing elsewhere. Scott Proctor to the Marlins for one year. Ashie62 Jan 03 2009 12:33 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":2ytj1poh]This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels.[/quote:2ytj1poh] This just in: Mets do nothing Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker metsmarathon Jan 03 2009 12:40 PM ="Ashie62":hblnrkgs]Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker[/quote:hblnrkgs] i don't believe that for a second. Edgy DC Jan 03 2009 12:58 PM ="Ashie62"]="Benjamin Grimm"]This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels. This just in: Mets do nothing Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker Yeah, the Mets by not getting a third closer, are doing nothing. Kong76 Jan 03 2009 01:36 PM Maybe the three closer thing is the way to go after the last two seasons. Ashie62 Jan 05 2009 02:37 PM ="Edgy DC"]="Ashie62"]="Benjamin Grimm"]This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels. This just in: Mets do nothing Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker Yeah, the Mets by not getting a third closer, are doing nothing. True..my impatience caused me to jump over Krod & Putz KP DOOTY...I'm just frustrated that the odds of landing a power corner and a decent SP , Sheets, Garland, Lowe..are diminishing and pray the Mets are not newly cash short Burrell has a rep for being a prick but if the Rays can land him at 16 million for 2 years I then wonder why the Mets wouldn't top that and not have to expect 150 games from Murphy and even let Murphy learn 2B at AAA as an experiment. smg58 Jan 05 2009 03:15 PM The Cubs apparently are giving 3 years and $30M to Milton Bradley. They expect him to play right field full time, even though he has had trouble staying in the lineup when he's been the DH. Given Burrell's deal and the fact that Abreu would have made much more sense for them, I really don't get this one. MFS62 Jan 05 2009 04:20 PM ="smg58":1gnuo0ct]The Cubs apparently are giving 3 years and $30M to Milton Bradley. They expect him to play right field full time, even though he has had trouble staying in the lineup when he's been the DH. Given Burrell's deal and the fact that Abreu would have made much more sense for them, I really don't get this one.[/quote:1gnuo0ct] Can't wait to see him go head-to-head with Pinella. Later smg58 Jan 07 2009 05:51 AM And the bargains continue. Jason Giambi returns to Oakland for a year and an option, and Jerry Hairston stays in Cincinnatti for a year and $2M. I don't get the Mets' lack of interest in Hairston at that price. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 07 2009 06:20 AM ="smg58":162h2ehz]And the bargains continue. Jason Giambi returns to Oakland for a year and an option, and Jerry Hairston stays in Cincinnatti for a year and $2M. I don't get the Mets' lack of interest in Hairston at that price.[/quote:162h2ehz] Makes ya crazy. Geez. I mean, about Hairston. Frayed Knot Jan 07 2009 07:18 AM Maybe Hairston gets a chance to start in Cincy and couldn't be sure of that here. Never did even hear a rumor of them looking at him though. Also: - Pavano to Cleveland for a year at a low base with lotsa IP incentives - Cubs deal Jason Marquis (de Sade) to Colorado for LH reliever Luis Vizcaino Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 07:42 AM Andy Pettitte turns down one year and $10 million from the Yanks in a declining market. Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 10:10 AM Yomiuri Giant Koji Uehara signs with Bal'more for two years. Reports say that he's the team's first Japanese player, but they forget Nippo-Hawaiian Len Sakata. Centerfield Jan 07 2009 10:41 AM Len was American. smg58 Jan 07 2009 10:58 AM ="Frayed Knot":2gsb44fr]- Pavano to Cleveland for a year at a low base with lotsa IP incentives - Cubs deal Jason Marquis (de Sade) to Colorado for LH reliever Luis Vizcaino[/quote:2gsb44fr] I'll laugh if Pavano gives the Indians 27 starts (i.e., more starts than he gave the MFY's in four years). The Marquis deal appears to leave Jorge de la Rosa out of the rotation in Colorado. I'd see what the asking price for him is; he finished very strongly last year, and he's at least as good as Tim Redding. Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 11:01 AM ="Centerfield":biqnwx39]Len was American.[/quote:biqnwx39] As I said. Frayed Knot Jan 07 2009 12:00 PM From the; 'How the (somewhat) mighty have fallen' department: 2B Marcus Giles signs a minor league deal with Philly MFS62 Jan 07 2009 12:14 PM ="Frayed Knot":3hnipcdi]From the; 'How the (somewhat) mighty have fallen' department: 2B Marcus Giles signs a minor league deal with Philly[/quote:3hnipcdi] Pure insurance with Utley out for the early part of the year due to surgery. Later metirish Jan 07 2009 08:04 PM From MetsBlog Mike Fitzpatrick of the Associated Press believes the Mets have made an offer to free-agent RHP Tim Redding, who was 3-1 with a 3.41 ERA in five starts against the Phillies last season Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 08:56 PM I'll give Redding this: with one inning and six runs, he may be the worst performing Yankee ever. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 07 2009 09:06 PM Bocco Radelli to the Sed Rox. Rockin' Doc Jan 07 2009 10:03 PM If Rocco Baldelli can be reasonably healthy, he could be a great pick up for the Red Sox. I hope he is healthy and has a great season for the Sox. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 07:39 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3gx2svou]Bocco Radelli to the Sed Rox.[/quote:3gx2svou] And quite possibly Smoltz too! Not official yet but several outlets are reporting it's 'bout a done deal. I guess they're promising him a starting job - don't think he would have jumped otherwise. Other reports have Trevor Hoffman going to the Brews ... although this is only one day after others had him headed to the Dodgers. Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2009 07:46 AM Sort of a homecoming for Smoltz. Didn't he start his career with the Braves when they were still playing in Boston? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 08 2009 07:50 AM No, the Tigers. Anywhoo, oughta soitenly remove Boston from the list of potential Lowe suitors (and cause me some concern too: Why don't any of Lowe's former employers want him back?) smg58 Jan 08 2009 07:50 AM The additions of Smoltz and Brad Penny probably take the Sox out of the discussions for Derek Lowe. Assuming Baldelli gets something like what Hairston got, I'd be a little annoyed that we didn't give him a look. We do need another righthanded bat. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 07:57 AM Yeah, I was half-hoping for Baldelli too. He's not a great player and has played fewer games in the last two seasons than Alou had in the two before we got him. But if this problem of his has finally been diagnosed correctly he could be a useful guy to have around. But Omar seems to be on this 'one problem at a time' schedule where nothing can even be talked about until the starter question is answered. metirish Jan 08 2009 08:01 AM Did bucket mis-read Ben's post? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 08 2009 08:02 AM Yes. Yes I did. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 08:14 AM I almost did too because I sometimes confuse the Smoltz trade with the Bagwell one from Boston. The Smoltz from Detroit for Denny Alexander trade happened around the same era as Bagwell for Larry Anderson. Both were done for pennant push help and in each case the minor leaguers were home-town guys (Smoltz is from Mich, Bags from Conn) who turned into HoF possibilities. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 08:17 AM Doyle Alexander. Now Denny McLain or somebody is getting into the conflation. metirish Jan 08 2009 10:25 AM Looking at a potential nightmare with outfield defense the MFY's are apparently looking to trade Swisher and Nady. Yankees fielding offers for Nady, Swisher Posted by: Jon Heyman The Yankees are fielding trade offers for corner outfielders Xavier Nady and Nick Swisher. There's been some speculation they might consider trading Hideki Matsui, too, but he has a full no-trade clause and is coming off knee surgery, so there's really no way to trade him. A logjam at the corners was created when the Yankees surprised a lot of folks and signed Mark Teixeira to an eight-year, $180 million contract. Swisher previously had been penciled in as the Yankees' first baseman but now becomes part of a crowded mix of accomplished corner outfielders. Swisher is a versatile player and can play some center field, as well. Some National League teams may be interested. However, Nady's trade value is higher after a better offensive season, so he may be just as likely to be dealt. Nady, acquired by the Yankees in a midseason trade with the Pirates, combined to hit .305 with 25 home runs and 97 RBIs for the year, while Swisher finished at .219 with 24 home runs and 69 RBIs for the White Sox before being dealt to the Yankees after the season Vic Sage Jan 08 2009 02:09 PM i'd sure take Nady back, to split time with Church, Murphy and Delgado. But no way the Yanx trade him cross town. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 02:30 PM You leave Tatis out of that mix. Nady gives you what Tatis gives you, only more and probably better and definitely younger. Tatis' only advantage is playing third. I'd love a Nady around because I think the best way to get something like last year's productivity out of Tatis is to make him earn every at-bat. Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2009 02:43 PM Maybe Murphy will do that, but I'm not counting on it. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 02:46 PM What's going down, and I think a lot of us feel it, is that a lot of things went kind of right in Omar's offense that could have easily gone wronger, and he's kind of seeming to kind of be counting on a lot of those same thingies to go right again. Fans be pessemistic creatures, of course. Vic Sage Jan 08 2009 03:21 PM Last year, i think we got about as much as we can reasonably expect this year from 1b, ss, 3b and CF. We got nothing from 2b and C, and RF was a mixed bag. But Murphy/Tatis in LF certainly outperformed all expectations and i do not believe for a minute we'll get similar production from that combo again this year. So, we either upgrade at 2b, c, and/or Rf to compensate, or replace the LF combo before it blows up in our faces. Or we go into the season with 1/2 the lineup very well likely to suck, to one degree or another, even as Omar whistles past the graveyard. attgig Jan 08 2009 03:29 PM ="Vic Sage":37m9y64n]Last year, i think we got about as much as we can reasonably expect this year from 1b, ss, 3b and CF. We got nothing from 2b and C, and RF was a mixed bag. But Murphy/Tatis in LF certainly outperformed all expectations and i do not believe for a minute we'll get similar production from that combo again this year. So, we either upgrade at 2b, c, and/or Rf to compensate, or replace the LF combo before it blows up in our faces. Or we go into the season with 1/2 the lineup very well likely to suck, to one degree or another, even as Omar whistles past the graveyard.[/quote:37m9y64n] and you have a wild card at 1b, so it's not even half a lineup. nobody has faith in schnied to produce offensively, and while castro COULD provide some pop, he just gets hurt too often (he must be the worst backup catcher in the league). 2b, nobody has faith in castillo, except he's saying all the right things. and Church... will his head be screwed on straight? it'll be an interesting few more weeks before spring training. Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2009 03:35 PM I agree with Vic, including about left field, but I'd be okay with giving Murphy/Tatis a chance to shine again. But in doing that, you have to protect yourself by beefing up some of the other positions. And as yet, the Mets haven't done anything towards that end. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 07:12 PM Ramon Castro, not the worst backup catcher in the league. DocTee Jan 09 2009 09:42 AM John Smoltz, Red Sock. metirish Jan 09 2009 12:35 PM Swisher the Yanks' preferred candidate over Nady BY KEN DAVIDOFF | ken.davidoff@newsday.com January 9, 2009 In their current roster logjam, the Yankees would strongly prefer to trade Xavier Nady and retain Nick Swisher, a person familiar with the club's thinking said yesterday. General manager Brian Cashman has received more requests for Swisher than for Nady. With spring training more than a month away and the season opener just about three months away, however, there is no imperative to execute a quick trade. The Mets enjoyed having Nady on their club for the first four months of the 2006 season, and they inquired about him last July, when the Yankees wound up getting him from Pittsburgh. For now, however, the Mets are focused on their starting rotation and are not looking to acquire a bat either through free agency or through a trade. Frayed Knot Jan 09 2009 01:54 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 09 2009 02:02 PM Swisher switch-hits, and is better and more versatile defensively. He's also signed for the next few years which could be either good or bad depending on whether he regains his hitting from last season's off year. Nady is more likely to hit better (though walk less) and would only be for one year at a price to be determined by arbitration then would be a FA after that. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 09 2009 01:59 PM If we weren't already loaded with lefthanded hitting outfielders, I'd take Godzilla as a LH bench masher in the Franco/Staub mold. Frayed Knot Jan 09 2009 02:04 PM As long as the Cranks would pay 90% of the freight and expect nothing back in return, sure. (OK, maybe 70% with a throw-in going the other way would do) Ashie62 Jan 09 2009 05:10 PM I feel safe to say Tatis has had his middle aged career year..I wouldn't put too high a ceiling there. Daniel Murphy needs more seasoning and I still advocate a year at AAA to learn 2B Mr. Nady..wasn't he a Met who know has Yankee cooties? metirish Jan 11 2009 03:46 PM Source: Martinez talking to Marlins By Enrique Rojas ESPNdeportes.com SANTO DOMINGO, Domican Republic -- Pedro Martinez and the Florida Marlins are believed to be in the beginning stages of negotiating a contract and could meet next week, a source told ESPNdeportes.com Saturday night. The Marlins have spoken with Martinez's agent. Martinez, 37, has won three Cy Young awards and has a career record of 214-99, with a 2.91 ERA and 3,117 strikeouts in 17 seasons with Los Angeles, Montreal, Boston and the New York Mets. Martinez struggled last season to a 5-6 record with a 5.61 ERA with the Mets, after battling injuries and dealing with the death of his father. In his first year with the Mets, Martinez won 15 games and struck out 208 batters in 217 innings. But he has been 17-15 in the last three seasons. Martinez owns a house in Miami. Fman99 Jan 11 2009 07:52 PM ="metirish"]Source: Martinez talking to Marlins By Enrique Rojas ESPNdeportes.com SANTO DOMINGO, Domican Republic -- Pedro Martinez and the Florida Marlins are believed to be in the beginning stages of negotiating a contract and could meet next week, a source told ESPNdeportes.com Saturday night. The Marlins have spoken with Martinez's agent. Martinez, 37, has won three Cy Young awards and has a career record of 214-99, with a 2.91 ERA and 3,117 strikeouts in 17 seasons with Los Angeles, Montreal, Boston and the New York Mets. Martinez struggled last season to a 5-6 record with a 5.61 ERA with the Mets, after battling injuries and dealing with the death of his father. In his first year with the Mets, Martinez won 15 games and struck out 208 batters in 217 innings. But he has been 17-15 in the last three seasons. Martinez owns a house in Miami. Pedro really looked spent in 2008, after having a respectable September prior. I don't think he has much in the tank and I would not miss all the drama. Rockin' Doc Jan 11 2009 09:29 PM Marlins not interested in signing Pedro By Joe Frisaro / MLB.com MIAMI -- Don't look for Pedro Martinez to wind up with the Marlins. A day after a report stated the Marlins were in the mix for the 37-year-old right-hander, a league source confirmed to MLB.com on Sunday that Florida has zero interest. Reports in the Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post and SunSentinel also ruled out the possibility of Martinez joining the club. On Saturday night, a report on ESPNdeportes.com stated the Marlins had discussions with agent Fernando Cuza regarding Martinez. The report added Florida may have begun preliminary contract talks, and that the two sides were expected to continue talking this week. As of late Sunday afternoon, the Marlins were not considered a possible fit. Martinez has a home in Miami, and he has expressed privately a desire to pitch for the Marlins. On Monday, Cuza is expected to have discussions with the Mets about a possible return to New York. The right-hander also is expected to test the free-agent market. Hampered by injuries last year, Martinez was 5-6 with a 5.61 ERA in 20 starts. He threw 109 innings. Working with minimal financial resources, the Marlins are looking for affordable free agents. The team did explore adding veteran Carl Pavano, who signed with the Indians. The Marlins are prepared to head into Spring Training with a rotation that includes Josh Johnson, Ricky Nolasco, Chris Volstad, Andrew Miller and Anibal Sanchez. Nolasco, eliglbe for arbitration, still has not signed. Florida continues to explore depth at catcher. The team is looking for low-priced options there. A free agent that could be a fit is Ivan Rodriguez, but only if his price tag continues to drop this month. Frayed Knot Jan 12 2009 07:01 AM IOW, the earlier story was an agent plant. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:20 AM Yeah, use the threat of the Daddy Warbucks Marlins to trigger a false bidding war. That's the ticket. Rockin' Doc Jan 12 2009 11:09 AM I think that Pedro had far more interest in the Marlins than they had in him. I believe that Pedro is desperate to play another season, but I don't think teams throughout the league are very interested in signing him. Pedro was once a dominant, HOF caliber pitcher, but he seems to be the one person that doesn't see how far removed from his former greatness he now is. metirish Jan 12 2009 11:17 AM If Pedro Martinez retired tomorrow he would surely be in the HOF at first ballot , wouldn't he? Rockin' Doc Jan 12 2009 11:21 AM I was not inferring that Pedro Martinez was not worthy of enshrinement in Coopperstown. He has had a tremendous career and was arguably one of the top 2 or 3 pitchers in MLB for several seasons. I would vote for him (if I had a vote) when his name comes up on the HOF ballot. I was simply stating that he is not nearly the dominant pitcher he once was. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 11:22 AM I think he's pretty aware of what happened last year. If he didn't still believe he could turn it around, he wouldn't be the great pitcher he is. What's more, I believe he could turn it around. In his prime, he had an unprecedented four killer pitches, so it's not like he was fastball-reliant. It's a matter of finding what he can do with what's left of his fastball and using it to complement the rest of his arsenal. That's a far ways from saying he will return to a productive level, but I'm certain he can. Glavine continued to pitch effectively with a powder puff fastball and a change. While his control was still very good, Pedro's has always been even better. And if I'm the Mets, I'm willing to spend some change to find out. Giving him Redding's money with an automatically vesting bonus year of $9 million if he gets 180 innings? Yeah, go for it. I'm certain he can do as well as Redding in 2009, and a damn fine bet to do better. The only thing Redding has over him is a better doctor's report. metirish Jan 12 2009 05:05 PM Michael Young wants out of Texas , can play 2nd base. I should add that Heyman just said on the Hot stove that he has %62 million left on his big contract. smg58 Jan 12 2009 05:22 PM Young's expensive, and the dropoff in his numbers over the past three years has been precipitous. Even if they took Castillo it would still be a $10M payroll hit, and he's just not that good anymore. Frayed Knot Jan 15 2009 01:14 PM Dodgers reportedly to release Andruw before today is out Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2009 01:52 PM Wow. He's horrendously overpaid, but they're going to have to eat that contract anyway. Is there no hope of him having a bounceback year? Someone will be able to pick him up for minimum wage, and they may get a hell of a bargain at the Dodgers expense. metirish Jan 15 2009 01:56 PM Jones was on MLB Network the other night talking about how he would love to go back to the Braves. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 02:01 PM No doubt. metsmarathon Jan 15 2009 02:28 PM i'd give andruw a shot, for minimum wage... Frayed Knot Jan 15 2009 05:45 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":2v9kwf3v]Wow. He's horrendously overpaid, but they're going to have to eat that contract anyway. Is there no hope of him having a bounceback year?[/quote:2v9kwf3v] I guess not enough of a chance in their minds to make carrying him all year worth it. They restructured his deal last week with a release in mind so I assume they're going to do similar thing to what we did with Bonilla (only on a much bigger scale): pay out the remainder over a long period to avoid getting hit with it all at once. Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2009 08:34 AM The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting today that the Phillies are aggressively trying to sign Moises Alou. metirish Jan 23 2009 08:36 AM Would Alou be a starter there or would he be in a limited role , who's in the outfield there along with Ibanez?...Dobbs?....Victorino? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 23 2009 08:37 AM Watch him hit .500 and stay healthy all year. Bastard. Frayed Knot Jan 23 2009 08:44 AM He wouldn't start there - but he'd be a potentially good RH bat off the bench for a predominately lefty hitting squad. Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2009 08:51 AM The three options (Perez, Wolf, and Sheets) may be soon reduced to two: ="MLB.com":2t16pb69]The deep freeze that's been the Major League free-agent market this winter has shown indications a thaw is coming -- at least for starting pitchers. On the heels of the Mets reaching an apparent agreement on a Minor League deal with right-hander Freddy Garcia, it looks like the Dodgers have taken the inside track in the competition for lefty starter Randy Wolf's services. According to sources for FoxSports.com, Wolf could most likely be signed to a one or two-year deal. Wolf previously pitched for Los Angeles in 2007 and was 12-12 with a 4.30 ERA in a combined 33 starts last season for the Padres and Astros. FoxSports.com said Wolf would get less than the three-year, $28 million offer the pitcher turned down from Houston earlier this winter. [/quote:2t16pb69] metsguyinmichigan Jan 23 2009 08:57 AM Supposedly, Sheets is meeting with the Rangers. metirish Jan 23 2009 08:58 AM Wolf turned down an offer for that much? , and I was thinking he could be had for a song on a one year deal. sharpie Jan 23 2009 08:58 AM Fine. I actually saw Wolf pitch twice last year, at the only game I attended at MFY Stadium and at the game I attended at Petco. Both time he got shellacked. smg58 Jan 23 2009 09:34 AM There are a number of available starters who can give you at least a league average ERA, several of whom have the upside to do significantly better. Randy Wolf is not one of them. I see no point in pursuing a demonstrably inferior pitcher just because he's a lefty. Edgy DC Jan 23 2009 09:59 AM I don't think anybody but Wally Matthews is arguing that his leftiness is important, and Wally is only throwing that pitch to drum up "Mets Gotta Steal Pettitte" angles. Who do you have your eye on? metirish Jan 23 2009 08:11 PM Just turned over to MLB Network after watching "What Not To Wear" and heard Tom Verducci say that Perez is moving closer to signing with the Mets. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 23 2009 08:59 PM Here's the source: Jon "Boras Boy" Heyman ]Mets extend offer to Perez, their top target The Mets have placed an offer on the table for free-agent lefthander Oliver Perez, SI.com has learned, and are hopeful to have an answer in coming days regarding their prime pitching target. The Mets are believed to have improved their original thought, which was for about $30 million over three years. But it isn't certain what their latest offer is. Perez remains the Mets' top choice for the final spot in their rotation, though the team has remained in contact with three other free-agent pitchers -- Randy Wolf, Jon Garland and Ben Sheets. They know they'd have competition for Wolf (Dodgers), Garland (Diamondbacks) and Sheets (Rangers, possibly Yankees) but aren't sure what other teams are competing for Perez. The Mets had been hopeful to land free agent Derek Lowe earlier but were surprised when the rival Braves outbid them by $24 million, landing Lowe with a $60-million, four-year contract. Perez, 27, is eight years younger than Lowe, though not quite as consistent. Mets GM Omar Minaya would love to import Perez, so the Mets are not likely to take one of the other pitchers unless he feels his chances for Perez are gone. Nymr83 Jan 24 2009 12:14 PM I hope "the mystery team" comes and raises perez's price too high so we can sign Sheets. Then Boras and Perez can admit there was no mystery team and we get both at a reduced rate! MFS62 Jan 24 2009 01:21 PM If money is the issue, I'd like to see the Mets sign Sheets and with any Ollie Perez money left over, go out and sign Odalis Perez. His ERA was only .10 worse than Ollie's last year, is still only 32 years old, and probably be signed for far less money than any of the other names that have been in the press lately. Later MFS62 Jan 24 2009 01:21 PM Oops. Dupe Sorry Later seawolf17 Jan 30 2009 01:00 PM Varitek back to Boston for one year, $5 million. Frayed Knot Jan 30 2009 02:36 PM Varitek's (read: Boras's) threat to sit out the season and/or retire didn't get the Sox to budge I see. Tek is one of several who turned down arbitration offers this winter only to wind up not only with a much smaller deal than arb would have snagged him but didn't get the multi-year deal either. Now it's hope you play well and the economy improves when you can do the same dance next year. Ashie62 Feb 02 2009 03:56 PM Anyone for Varitek via trade and a pay raise? Fman99 Feb 02 2009 07:27 PM ="Ashie62":2t5ssjz6]Anyone for Varitek via trade and a pay raise?[/quote:2t5ssjz6] .220 metirish Feb 02 2009 07:43 PM Is that his weight or his average? , sucks either way though. metirish Feb 04 2009 11:35 AM ]Left-hander Chase Wright was traded by the New York Yankees to the Milwaukee Brewers on Wednesday for outfielder-catcher Eric Fryer. metirish Feb 07 2009 02:23 PM Andruw Jones turns down non-roster spring training invite from the MFY's. Rockin' Doc Feb 07 2009 05:10 PM metirish - "Andruw Jones turns down non-roster spring training invite from the MFY's." Good to see that Jones has his pride. Better to go unsigned than sell one's soul by possibly donning a Yankee uniform. I suddenly have a new sense of respect for Jones. MFS62 Feb 08 2009 07:35 AM ="Rockin' Doc":2e2xwbch]metirish - "Andruw Jones turns down non-roster spring training invite from the MFY's." Good to see that Jones has his pride. Better to go unsigned than sell one's soul by possibly donning a Yankee uniform. I suddenly have a new sense of respect for Jones.[/quote:2e2xwbch] B'sides, they couldn't have the signing photo op soon anyhow. They'd first have to send out Cecil Fielder's uni to have the seams let out to fit Jones. Later Frayed Knot Feb 08 2009 08:45 PM Andruw to the Rangers - apparently gets a ML deal for low-end money (500K) plus incentives. 15mil to practically minimum wage in one year is tough to do. Fman99 Feb 09 2009 06:44 AM ="Frayed Knot":1zv55w66]Andruw to the Rangers - apparently gets a ML deal for low-end money (500K) plus incentives. 15mil to practically minimum wage in one year is tough to do.[/quote:1zv55w66] Yeah, poor guy. My heart breaks for him. /sarcasm Edgy DC Feb 09 2009 07:07 AM It's not like he doesn't get to keep the 15 miills. Vic Sage Feb 09 2009 09:08 AM yeah, i mean basically he just got a raise! Frayed Knot Feb 09 2009 09:26 AM Sure, it just shows a helluva difference between what someone thought he was worth last year vs what they think he's worth barely a year later. How the mighty (and fat) have fallen.