stevejrogers

Valadius wrote: I don't even know why Biggio's even listed. He's retiring at the end of the year. Proceedural thing since this is the last year of his contract. See Clemens, Roger offseason of 2003-04 for the same type of senario. Clemens "retired" at the end of his contract. So technically he was a free agent and could sign with anyone without the Yankees receiving compensation. Same thing happened the last two seasons with Clemens. He signed a two year deal with the Astros, so he was a free agent in 05-06. Signed a one year deal after the deadline (or was serving a suspension if you believe that conspiracy theory) and did the same thing this past offseason. If you retire in mid-contract and decide that you want to come back, you have to return to the team you are signed to. Otherwise an agreement must be reached where you are released or traded.

vtmet wrote: ="Elster88"]Seven games in the last week of August is pretty close to hiding. Didn't the '73 Mets come back from a larger deficit? So did the '78 Yankees, '51 Giants, '14 Braves, '64 Cardinals (well them I don't know, but the Phillie collapse was so historic they need to be lumped in) ect, ect, ect. There is no need to feed the panic jumpers' paranoia by bringing up historic comebacks/collapses when there is no real context of doing so.

33 as the Phillies "keep pace" with a 15-3 loss to the Dodgers. Heh, you score 15 runs you'd think you win the most runs scored of a night title. Not this night Dodgers! Braves also lose 4-2 to the Reds which drops their tragic number to 31

Ha! Its not that I can't find him, its problems with the saving of the file. What is the context of that pic?

Mr. Reyes is elluding me, much like the real Jose Reyes elludes tags while on the basepaths. Will try a few more things before giving up the chase.

39 over the Braves... (ducks everything including the kitchen sink)

True, but its a good way to think on the bright side by thinking about things like magic numbers. For all the talk of how much last year reminded everyone of 1986, well this year isn't exactly 1987, on this date the Mets had close to the same record that they have today, but were 5.5 games back, and in third place!

Mets win (67-52), Phillies lose (63-56), but the Braves win (64-56)which means we've hit the To eliminate both the "battle tested" Braves and the "team to beat" (according to Jimmie Rollins) Phillies. The Braves are a half game (win) better than the Phillies at this moment, the number is now 32 to squish the Fish and 31 to end DC's hopes of its first postseason apperance since 1933.

There are two kinds of people I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of others and THE DUTCH! -Nigel Powers (Michael Caine) Austin Powers in Goldmember

Farmer Ted wrote: Do the MFYs put a black arm band on the other sleeve now? Seriously, I thought it sucked when he left the booth. He was the only enjoyable part of that team's broadcast through the 70s and 80s. Serious response, no, since Martin they've put the number in black on their sleeve so it will be a black 10 patch

Hey m.e.t.b.o.t. did you like that picture of you and some friends?

Edgy DC wrote: ]Even if they did, now it's gone to the other extreme. Who is being screwed? My guess is Val is talking about Ron Santo, Gil Hodges and others who haven't gotten in over the last couple of rounds.

metsmarathon wrote: ="SteveJRogers"]Okay, I'm going to do my own little barmoter going forward. You would think that if the Mets were doing 50,000 every night that all of the Upper Deck concession stands would be open. Especially on weekend afternoons/evenings. Ditto with the Yankees. I'm going to keep track of how many times they are actually open from now untill the new ballparks are open. An informal poll for sure, but if they are doing 50,000s you'd think the Upper Deck stands would be open, even if a 40,000s night is a rareity. i would suggest that your study would be meaningless without something to compare it against. ok, so there's some number, as you say, of upper deck conession stands that are not opened. is that number high? low? typical? have they added more vendors to offset the closed windows? without a baseline and some context against which to compare it, it really doesnt matter, does it? Okay, how about just the fact that the last sections on both the right field and left field lines are rarely filled during the spring and summer months? There is some context there.

Okay, but you haven't answered the question, other than shoehorning tons of luxury suites and restaurants and such (which could actually be the only reason) why then, if the Mets are getting 50s consistantly is Citi Field looking at a capacity crowd of 45,000 (plus they are going to have Wrigley style standing room according to the Mets.com website) Is it because they just aren't getting those extra 10,000 people on a consistant enough basis to have 81 near capacity dates?

Yancy Street Gang wrote: So you're saying that, even though the 2006 Mets had a higher total attendance over 81 home dates, the 1986 team had a higher average attendance per game? As faulty of a logic as that sounds, that is my story and I'm sticking with it! = Okay, I'm going to do my own little barmoter going forward. You would think that if the Mets were doing 50,000 every night that all of the Upper Deck concession stands would be open. Especially on weekend afternoons/evenings. Ditto with the Yankees. I'm going to keep track of how many times they are actually open from now untill the new ballparks are open. An informal poll for sure, but if they are doing 50,000s you'd think the Upper Deck stands would be open, even if a 40,000s night is a rareity.

="Frayed Knot"]"Even last year Shea wasn't quite filling the turnstilles like they where back in the Big 80s. " 1986 = 2.768 mil 2006 = 3.380 mil please stop before you mis-state again Those are totals, what was the average attendance for both years? Other than shoehorning more luxury boxes don't you think there is a reason why there are going to be 45,000 seats at Citi? Because the Mets just aren't drawing 50+ as consistantly as they once did.

Edgy DC wrote: ="SteveJRogers"]Well, New York is one huge exception to baseball's lack of a fanbase across the country. Ditto Boston, Chicago, ect. I thought the Mets had to be careful. I meant in terms of thinking Citi Field will be the automatic cash cow that Yankee Stadium III will be. Even last year Shea wasn't quite filling the turnstilles like they where back in the Big 80s. Shea doesn't and Citi won't have the same historic, tourist trap feel that the second YS has and the third will, and therefore the seats won't be filled to capacity if the Mets have a down year. They'll bounce back the next year and the fans will come back, but the Mets are fooling themselves if they share the Yankee belief that their new ballpark is guaranteed to be a cash cow, even if the team is playing lousy.

metsmarathon wrote: yeah, baseball's doing terrible in small markets like milwaukee, oakland, minnesota, and cleveland... the primary reason for the struggles of baseball in such small market teams as pittsburgh and kansas city is ineptitude and incompetence moreso than greed and financial inequity. Then why are Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon, Miguel Tejada, Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, and Mark Mulder playing elsewhere? Why are New York media members licking their chops for Johan Santana's debut on the free agent market? Why do we have Luis Castillio, Paul LoDuca and Carlos Delgado right now?

="Yancy Street Gang"]Economics and greed have been part of the game forever. When we're eight years old it's easy to be unaware of it. As we get older, if we're still paying attention, it becomes more and more obvious. But just because we each make this discovery on our own, doesn't mean it's anything new. Greed isn't going to kill baseball. It would be nice if the game was completely unspoiled by the realities of the business world, but that never will happen and it never was the case. That's why I don't like that HBO title "When it Was a Game." It's still a game, no more or less than it ever was. I hear you Yance, but the point I'm saying is that the economic structure of the game right now is hurting baseball more so then when it did back then. The reason why, even if the new owner is Michael Burke reincarnated, the Yankees will never spend more than a year or two outside of postseason play from now on (ditto the Mets) is because of the revenue streams that are at their dissposal now that never existed before. Back when the Yankees were the Evil Empire that made deals only with the KC A's, the streams were just the ballpark, radio & over the air TV (which all NY teams were slow to pick up on, but thats another tale). Now there is cable deals, exclusive deals with sporting goods, internet sales, video sales, and on and on. Unless the next owner of the Yankees is a David Glass/Tribune type who would rather keep the revenue streams for their own profit margin rather than put it back onto the field, the Yankees (and Mets) are never going to be second division teams for more than a year or two again. KC, Pittsburgh, Cincy, even Philly can not compete with the mega franchises that the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Angels, ect have become. Unless there is more equity among all teams, and yes I am talking about things like a real hard salary cap and even a floor, then this cycle is going to continue and yes MLB will in fact be considered a lesser sport (if its not already) in the eyes of mainstream America. And I'm not even getting into the points about how baseball is a slow sport, not readily accessible to be played in the cities, and that it just isn't bringing in the youth of this country (not just African-Americans) like it once did

Edgy DC wrote: ="SteveJRogers"]Edgy DC wrote: Unless nobody shows. I really don't see that happening anytime soon. Well, baseball is dying. Well, New York is one huge exception to baseball's lack of a fanbase across the country. Ditto Boston, Chicago, ect. Make a wise crack about baseball dying again when Philly gets themselves back into the race and doesn't sell out its NLDS games because a big Eagle game is that weekend. Give me that wise crack everytime Royal fans stage walkouts during Yankee games. Give me that wise crack when new stadiums like the ones in Pittsburgh, and Cincy do not have that "new ballpark" spike in attendance because they can't field a team. Healthier than ever? More like a house of cards because its still only popular in the biggest markets, or markets where baseball has become so damned ingrained that fans truely don't realize or care that they are watching a sport that is slowly devolving because of the economics and the greed of all sides.

Edgy DC wrote: Unless nobody shows. I really don't see that happening anytime soon. YS has been a major tourist trap during since 1998 and I don't see the Yankees ever taking too much of a step backwards that could see late 80s-early 90s levels of attendance. Especially with the "newness" of the park. The Mets though, they need to careful. Citi Field could become like Shea because it doesn't have the YS "Tourist Trap" cache. Because of it's acclaim as one of the most historic venues around (even with the knowledge that the current structure really is 31 years old, not 84) Yankee Stadium now will always be full. So if the Mets ever did go through a 2002-2004 tailspin (Because of the economics of the game, the dark times of 1974-1983 will never happen again to this franchise, so if anything I can see just a three year cycle of 2nd division-dom), I could see fans staying away from CF in droves like many of the new ballparks like PNC, Great American Ballpark, ect where the bloom is off the rose because of a lousy team.

She does have Friends

Frayed Knot wrote: The Braves are beating the Mets because they 'have their number' ... except that they must have lost the number last year and now I guess they found it again. How does that happen anyway and why don't they just keep that number in a safer place? In other words, that explanation works ....except for the times when it doesn't. The other faulty part of the logic is this, that "Team A has Team B's number" statement also implies that the two teams still have the same roster makeup since the last time that was a vaild argument. Take for example, Braves vs. Mets. Chances are the "rivalry" that people still bring up when they say "The Braves STILL have the Mets number" is the run from 1998 to, lets say 2001. In 2001 the Mets finished in third but still were over .500 and had an outside shot of the postseason heading into the final week or so. We all know what has happened since. Anyway, the last 2001 Met to be on the Mets was Steve Traschel, and both he and Mike Piazza were the only ones left on the 2005 Mets, when you can say their recent "era" began. Hence all the Mets since know is that the Braves just were the top dog for all those years. Now lets look at the Braves since 2001: Bobby Cox Chipper Jones John Smoltz Andruw Jones Brian Jordan was reaccquired in 2005 and I presume retired after last season. Julio Franco was around untill 2005, went back last month but has since been DFA'd. Rafael Furcal, Wilson Betemit, and Marcus Giles were around untill 2006. Not too many holdovers from the "glory days" when Braves-Mets was considered one of the hottest rivalries in sports. Why was it considered? I'm not really sure. In any event, that should officially discredit any notion that the Braves "know how to beat the Mets because they've done it SO many times in the past" the way the "UGH, The Braves ALWAYS have the Mets number" crowd says.

="Frayed Knot"] btw, Chipper has good numbers against the Mets mainly because he has good numbers against everyone! They're slightly better against NY compared to a random expectation but only slightly: He has 9.17% of his ABs against the Mets with 10.04% of his hits, 9.87% of his HRs, and 9.14% of his RBIs. Whoop-de-damn-doo That is something that annoys me whenever someone makes lists of (insert team here) Killers. The reason such a term should exist is for the likes of; Tommy Hutton with Tom Seaver, or Joe McEwing with Randy Johnson. Guys who usually are mediocre or terrible players, whom for whatever reason just play better against that pitcher (or hitter) or team. You shouldn't lump a pretty darn decent player like a Chipper Jones (or dare I say Derek Jeter) into that category, because he does the same to every other team. Chipper is a Met villian, he named his kid "Shea" and I'm sure he enjoys beating the Mets more than most teams in the league. However, the term "Met Killer" almost implies that the Mets are the only team that he does well against.

Mookie Wilson was on 1050 ESPN Radio with Brandon Tierney & Brandon Steiner, and apparantly he is in the tractor trailer trucking business. I can't seem to find any online reference for it, but on his Wiki page does reference that he does have a truckers license since 1999. ]In 1999, Wilson obtained a license to drive tractor-trailer trucks and began hauling freight in the offseason, a job he stated his intention to keep if and when he left professional baseball.[1]