stevejrogers

Got tickets for Sat June 2nd against the DBacks on the DBack dugout. Maybe I can yell at Randy Johnson for dissproving the notion that he still was a CY Young contender as a Yankee and therefore would be an unstoppable force in the NL, which caused me to pick his over-the-hill ass on my fantasy team!

="m.e.t.b.o.t."] additionally, m.e.t.b.o.t. has no known evil predecessors. Funny, m.e.t.b.o.t. kind of resembles this 'bot which was originally concieved as a kids toy, but soon had an evil edge

See thats the good thing about an Android like Data You can always rely on him to be on 24/7/365 Its a whole lot better than this guy though Because he might start shouting WE'RE DOOMED after every bad thing that happens in a Met game]

Nymr83 wrote: can kool-aid man pitch? he's got short arms and a Wells-like girth! There was a TV commerical, mid-80's with Pete Rose and the ad ended up with the Kool-Aid guy throwing a ball. Something akin to a Mr. Met shirt ball toss.

Spidey "got married" at Shea that day in 1987, (IIRC the same night Dwight Gooden returned from his suspenion) everyone got a free copy of the Amazing Spider-Man 1987 Annual that was the issue where Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson tied the knot. Hulk, Captain America and Spidey's "Amazing Friends" co-stars Iceman and Firestar also made apperances. (no fun and games with villians making apperances) Neat publicity tie-in though, but highly cheezy and not something that should ever occur again! Also Spidey was been spotted hanging with Mr. Met and crawling around Shea in help for the promotion of the first Spider-Man movie.

I blame whomever Morgan's or Morgan's ghost writer's editor was, clearly this sounds like a quick job by someone who worked with Morgan with either no knowledge or causual enough knowledge of baseball to think "hey it's a Hall of Famer and a "know-it-all" broadcaster, clearly he has an elephant's memory for this kind of stuff." Or they didn't want to change facts and incur the usual "I was misquoted in my own autobiography" flack that most autobiography ghost writers and editors get because the subject was so laissez-faire about the project that they just gave the people working for them a rough outline of their lives and forgot about the whole project untill it comes time to promote it.

Then again the Mets really wanted Pete Rose and Vladimir Guerrero when they made the two most famous lowballs in their history with free agency. Not to mention there was a segment of Met fandom who thought the Mets should have given ARod and Boras the oppertunity to turn them down rather than Phillips' "24 and 1" speech.

Now we know why Giambi didn't utter the "s" word! ] Let's break a deal Yanks may look to jettison Jason BY BILL MADDEN AND TERI THOMPSON DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITERS Sunday, May 20th 2007, 4:00 AM Jason Giambi's admission to USA Today that he once used steroids could lead to the Yankees taking another shot at voiding his contract. According to baseball sources familiar with the situation who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, the Yankees will revisit the possibility of terminating Giambi's deal if it is determined that he used illegal drugs after they signed him to a seven-year, $120 million contract in 2001. The commissioner's office is investigating Giambi's comments to the newspaper and will summon him to a meeting to discuss them. What he says in that meeting - or doesn't say - may go a long way toward determining how the Yankees proceed. Giambi was quoted in USA Today on Friday as saying that he "was wrong for doing that stuff," in reference to having used steroids, and said that "what we should have done a long time ago was stand up - players, owners, everybody - and said: 'We made a mistake.' We should have apologized back then and made sure we had a rule in place and gone forward. ... Steroids and all of that was a part of history. But it was a topic that everybody wanted to avoid. Nobody wanted to talk about it." Giambi declined to talk further about his comments as the Mets played the Yankees in the Subway Series this weekend but commissioner Bud Selig and the Yankees are most certainly interested in hearing what Giambi has to say, if anything. He may decline to talk at all on the advice of counsel. If the Yankees do proceed, it will be the second time they have considered such a move. The club looked into ending its relationship with the player in late 2004 after the San Francisco Chronicle reported that it had viewed transcripts in which Giambi told the grand jury investigating the BALCO steroid scandal in December 2003 that he had used steroids and human growth hormone before signing with the Yankees and while playing for them in 2002 and 2003. Had the Yankees tried to void his deal then, they would have faced considerable legal hurdles from the Players Association, as they would now. According to sources familiar with his contract, the deal contains language saying it can be voided if he uses illegal substances while with the club. But to win that battle, the Yankees would have to get past provisions in the collective bargaining agreement that the Players Association maintains supersedes those in a player's contract. Giambi had suffered a series of mysterious ailments during the 2004 season, including, as the Daily News first reported, a benign tumor on his pituitary gland. He missed 82 games, going from an MVP-caliber player to a .200-hitting part-timer. His grand jury testimony was then revealed in December, and the Yankees began considering ways to get out from under his deal. The first baseman/DH's salary is $21 million for this season and 2008, and the Yanks hold an $22 million option for 2009 with a $5 million buyout clause. Giambi showed up at spring training in 2005 slimmed down and less powerful, but as he began to come around, the Yankees abandoned their attempts to get rid of him. After getting off to a horrendous start, he eventually was named AL Comeback Player of the Year, hitting .271 with 32 home runs. Until his comments in USA Today, Giambi had never publicly admitted using steroids, although he made an unspecific apology at a press conference at Yankee Stadium after the Chronicle's report appeared. It was believed that the reason Giambi made no admission was that he wanted to avoid liability with his team and Major League Baseball.

Has anyone heard of a Pedro sighting so far this weekend? He was supposed to pop in http://www.nypost.com/seven/05192007/sports/mets/pedro_may_pay_a_visit_to_shea_mets_michael_morrissey.htm

Hey since I've been whooped so many times around here, I might as well give some constructive criticisim! =

Nymr83 wrote: had what finished? a copy + paste from the cbs scoreboard? Good point, and while I admit that I am guilty of doing the same thing from time to time, just posting something with no content or context is probably considered a sure sign of being a post whore. This is something that we can get anywhere on the Net. If you have something to say about the specific games then yeah feel free to post day old scores. But this is why there is an OoTS thread (or there usually is) around here and that is where the discussion of what happened (or happening) around the league takes place.

Wright 3.5 Glavine 2.5 Delgado 2.5 Chavez 1 Beltran 1

Boxscore

5/19 Mets 10 Yankees 7 Game 1 of a Double Header Red Sox 13 Braves 3

Speaking of Mathews, interesting thing about HOF pitchers is that for the most part, the only 19th century hurlers in the HOF are those with 300 or more wins Small exceptions of course for those whose careers started pretty late in the 19th Century like Rube Waddell (1897), Vic Willis (1898), Jack Chesbro, and Joe McGinnity, (both 1899) but the only 19th Century hurler to make it to the HOF and not win 300 is Amos Rusie who played from 1889 to 1901. He won 245 games in his career, but is probably best known for being traded from the Giants to the Reds for Christy Mathewson

Notice I didn't add the fact that Glavine is now 5 more wins shy of 300 And two more from Bobby Mathews

BTW the answer to the trivia question for the most future and/or current 300 game winners on a team's All Time Roster is the Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves with 8 Tom Glavine is bidding to join: Charles Radbourne 1886-1889 John Clarkson 1888-1892 Kid Nichols 1890-1901 Cy Young 1911 Warren Spahn 1942, 1946-1964 Phil Niekro 1964-1983, 1987 Gaylord Perry 1981 Greg Maddux 1993-2003 The Giants (Both in NY and SF) have 6, Cardinals and Indians with 5 The Mets are hoping to join the Phillies and Red Sox with 4, and are currently tied with the Athletics, Yankees, Senators/Twins, Astros and Reds, White Sox and Cubs

Probably either Yankee hating blinders on, or just not a Willie Randolph fan, especially when he talks in athlete-speak

iramets wrote: Also is he classifying the Mets as one of those organizations that lost out, when they ended up hiring Art Howe? I'd be interested in a specific rundown of these 11 organizations. Yes, AFAIK that the 11 organizations number was used right around the time he was looked at by the Mets back in 2004

iramets wrote: “It makes no difference what job you may have years from now: never give up,” Randolph said. “If I had given up, I would not be at Shea Stadium. If I had listened to the critics along the way, who knows where I might have wound up? I went on 11 managerial job interviews and was rejected on each one of them and it was their loss. The excuses were different, but the message was the same: ‘No job for Willie Randolph.’ ” Did Randolph not turn down the Cincinnati job that was offered to him because he wanted more money? How is that being 'rejected"? He may have been within to ask for more money, but isnt that him rejecting Cincy, not they him? The generally accepted story seems that it was an insultingly low offer, so it goes on the "Cincy probably didn't want him anyway and figured he'd decline the offer"

Edgy DC wrote: First of all, I didn't "hate on" anybody. Second of all, you have no idea what I'm willing to do. Third of all, you were saying quite a bit more. I'm talking in general terms, not Edgy In DC's terms.

I'm still sticking with Game 7 2006 NLCS. Yeah the pen blew it, and yeah he left with a tie ballgame, but that was one of the top postseason pitching performances we have ever had.

Edgy DC wrote: I take every case differently because every case is different. Easy to say when the only Mets busted have been scrubs and minor leaguers, and no Mets have been clear cases (aside from Len Dysktra who did not go the gradual, less noticable route of say a Howard Johnson) of "Oh yeah he juiced, I mean look at his baseball cards, look at his stats, look at..." Look I'm just saying don't hate on Giambi if you are not willing to hate on Piazza, or Hojo or whomever.

I was thinking the 86 clincher. 1986 NLCS Game 3

Edgy DC wrote: ="SteveJRogers"]="Yancy Street Gang"]And Hundley had nothing to do with the 2000 Mets NL Championship. I was fingering Piazza, Ventura, Hampton, Alfonzo, or anyonelse who may have suspicions and whispers considering their usage of performance enhancing substances. I'm not quite sure what you mean. But how can you not make a distinction between who has a confession hanging over him and a bunch of guys who have an idle accusation from yourself hanging over them? Okay fine, then why are Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa lumped in with Giambi and Bonds in terms of recepients of visceral hate due to the steroid era. If you want to play the "Yeah McGwire used" and the "Yeah Sosa used" cards, then why not use the Piazza used, Jeff Bagwell used, Edgardo Alfonzo used, Mike Hampton used, Len Dysktra used, Roger Clemens used, (fill in the blank) used cards. I'm saying you better not hate on a person just because they confessed and keep a blind eye on those who are only the receipents of idle (and not so idle in McGwire's Clemens' and Sosa's case) speculation. You shouldn't take every case differently just because you like the guy, hate the guy, like the team he played for, hate the team he played for. Conversly the Yankee fans who are saying they respect Giambi as a person after this better feel the same way if an Manny Ramirez or Mike Piazza did the same thing.