Centerfield

I feel like Kathy Bates could do a good job on Payson.

Gotta pinch hit here. Not impressed with Rojas.

From what I read online, 3 weeks for a mild one. 4-6 for moderate. Severe is 3-4 months. Let's hope his Mets career isn't over.

Hey guys. Would love to join but it's my daughter's birthday. You should invite metfairy. I bet she would love to catch up.

I don't see why Cohen would bid here. As a part owner, I'm sure he'd get info on all bids. Doesn't it suit him to wait and see where the bids fall, then bid higher?

Anyone dumb enough to make the Cano trade can't be part of my team. I don't know who is smart and who is available but I know Brodie ain't it. Other things I do on my first day: 1. Call MLB/New Era and inform them we will be wearing first responder caps on 9/11/2020 and every year thereafter. Go ahead and fine me or try to block me in Court. I will shame you 24/7 until you concede. 2. Remove the orange dot from the blue cap. 3. Spend the rest of the day taking BP and shagging balls on the field. Promise the players this won't be a regular thing.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Deepest pockets, I guess. Pretty much. All I ask of an owner is that they spend money and stay out of the way. Cohen seems the best bet for this. The other groups don't have nearly as much money from what I hear. And of course J-Rod are not doing this so they can stay out of the spotlight.

Frayed Knot wrote: https://nypost.com/2020/07/06/steve-cohen-is-making-another-big-push-to-buy-mets/He's Baaaaaaack!! "Sources close to billionaire hedge-fund manager Steve Cohen told The Post he will bid on the Mets this week ..." Imagine. In 2021, we could have a vaccine, a new president, our jobs back, and Steve Cohen as owner of the NY Mets.

I'll ignore your silly statement that my post is all wrong and just focus on the returns. If I invest $6M for a decade and make 10% returns each year, but then lose my principal because it's a Ponzi scheme, then I haven't made 10% returns. I've given the fund an interest free loan for 10 years. If I lose my returns (or any portion thereof) in a clawback lawsuit, I've now lost even more money. Please stop trying to tell me it's regular practice for teams to follow the path of incompetence that I just laid out.

Also. I've written this before, but the Bonilla deal deserves all its criticism. Here's why. 1. It starts with trading for an expensive middle reliever. Mel Rojas. Relief pitchers are notoriously unreliable. And Rojas was terrible. 2. In 1999, Rojas had one year, $4.5M left on his contract. Seeking to salary dump, the Mets traded for an even worse contract. Washed up Bonilla and his 2 year contract, $5.9M each year. 3. Bonilla was terrible. And so after paying him $5.9 in 1999, he was owed $5.9 in 2000. Enter the payout. The Wilpons thought this deal made sense because they would save money in the long run because of Madoff. This separates the Bonilla deferrals from, say Max Scherzer. With Scherzer, you agree to pay the piper later in order to sign an elite player now. Bonilla wasn't about that. He wasn't a star. He wasn't going to bring short term gain. In fact, he was released. The whole payout was “this deal may look bad on its face, but silly you, I know a guy”. 4. That guy was Madoff. And the present value calculations used to measure whether it was a good deal or not all go out the window when you lose all your money in a Ponzi scheme. And so that's why it deserves ridicule. Trading for an expensive middle reliever, then turning a $4.5M debt into $5.9M in 1999, and 30M over 25 years. Genius.

Bobby Bonilla Day gets the fivethirtyeight treatment - with a video! Here's something to consider -- the Mets deferred the money owed Bonilla after the 1999 season to hold onto the $5.9M at stake and re-invest it in the team. The Mets then signed one of MLB's best and most sought after pitchers, Mike Hampton, who led the Mets to the 2000 World Series. When Hampton left via free agency, the Mets used their compensation draft pick for Hampton's deparure to select David Wright. So how bad did the Mets really do here? The Bobby Bonilla Retirement Plan: Quit Baseball In 2001, Get Paid Until 2035 Bobby Bonilla hasn't played in a professional baseball game since 2001, yet on July 1 of this year, the New York Mets paid him $1.19 million. And they will every July 1 until 2035, as part of a deferred contract that the Mets negotiated with Bonilla after the 1999 season. Instead of paying him $5.9 million that year, the Mets would owe Bonilla almost $30 million over the course of the deferred contract. How'd that happen? Watch the video [linked below] to find out. https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/the-bobby-bonilla-retirement-plan-quit-baseball-in-2001-get-paid-until-2035/https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/the-bobby-bonilla-retirement-plan-quit-baseball-in-2001-get-paid-until-2035/ This Hampton/Wright justification has been making its rounds the last few years. Unfortunately it can't be true. The deferred money was invested in the Madoff fund. Investing the money is the only way to justify the terms of the payout. If the money was invested, it couldn't have been used to pay Hampton. Hampton (and Wright) is a wholly unrelated transaction. “Down the line” justifications are usually a stretch to begin with. This one is unique in that it starts with a premise that is impossible.

Seems like a great kid. That being said, at number 19, you'd think we could get a guy with no question marks about his hitting. Hope he proves me wrong.

As for Noah, it sucks he hurt his arm and has to rehab in Florida. None of that is his landlord's fault. Offering to pay 2 months when you signed on for 8 is nowhere near fair or good faith. Pay your rent.

=41Forever post_id=37331 time=1590421396 user_id=69] =Ceetar post_id=37325 time=1590412746 user_id=102] probably. this is a country run by and for rich people, and if you own a building like that, you're almost without a doubt in the 1%. no doubt.

Which team plays out of Pusan?

I'm still Team Cohen.

Can't we just keep the games and require everyone to attend in hazmat suits?

A little down. .260/.400/.415

Maybe messages are getting jumbled. I don't buy MLB's excuse for excluding the media from the clubhouse. It's likely something they've wanted to do for selfish reasons for some time and are likely using this as an excuse. That being said, for other reasons, I think clubhouse interviews should end anyway. It puts female reporters in a situation that ranges from kinda uncomfortable to outright harassment. There are lots of other options that make sense. And I think sports journalism will survive even if beat guys can't sit around half naked with their bros anymore.

Conforto's injury throws this into question. But if he's ok: 1. Nimmo - CF 2. Davis - LF 3. McNeil - 3B 4. Alonso - 1B 5. Conforto - RF 6. Ramos - C 7. Cano - 2B 8. Rosario - SS If Conforto is out you replace him with Dom Smith and switch him with Cano in the lineup. If Ces is healthy then you start him instead.

I mean, the gist of this seems to be: I'm a male sports writer and I think locker room access is crucial. Sure, some women may get harassed a bit, but it's not bad and much better than it used to be. In the end, hanging out with naked dudes gives me insight, and that makes me a better writer.

Edgy MD wrote: Reporters are always going to want one-on-one time. They're going to avoid asking good questions, or something with an angle they have and no one else has, in a group setting. Just two questions, both of more of a practical nature than a philosophical one, and sort of on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, how is a theoretical media lounge allowing for less one-on-one time than a locker room? In theory, they're both openly filled with subjects and reporters criss-crossing and stepping on each other, with some media crowded around one blowhard big shot and others scrounging around the fringes to get a discrete quote from an overlooked source. In theory, Centerfield's version of such a space could even be about the same size, only more comfortable. The main difference would perhaps just be shlongs? On the other hand, how is the theoretical lounge any less of a Petri dish of a contamination hot zone? Is the fear that flying beads of sweat, discarded towels and vapor coming off a recently showered naked torso is significantly worse than a fully clothed cocktail party format? Being dressed makes a huge difference. No, it won't eliminate harrassment, but the venue change at least stops openly inviting it. You get photographed fully clothed, speaking to a woman at a cocktail party. No issue. You get photographed, half naked, schlong hanging out of your towel, speaking to a woman at a cocktail party. Big issue.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Finally they're all pros in there, scribes and sluggers alike, and much of the fretting over "wanna interview this?!" is long since over. For real? https://www.si.com/media/2017/11/27/female-sports-reporters-sexual-harassment-media-circushttps://www.si.com/media/2017/11/27/female-sports-reporters-sexual-harassment-media-circus

I get that being allowed unfettered access to the locker room will foster relationships and allow some sports writers to get to know players on a different level. Whether I have actually seen the benefit of that in sportswriting I can't really say. I don't know what the quality of sportswriting would be without it. I'm not sure anyone knows. But what I do know is that it's silly to pretend that interviewing athletes when they are in various stages of undress is in anyway ideal for a female sports reporter, and the idea that allowing them access to the locker room somehow evens this playing field is silly. Female reporters should be able to do their jobs without being forced to see the subjects of their reporting naked, or having to deal with the uncomfortable dynamic that creates. It's a hostile environment for them. I can't see how anyone can realistically argue this point. If I sat in my office and insisted on working in my boxer shorts, there would be lawsuits within minutes. If the relationship between reporter and athlete is critical, find a non-naked way to form this. Simple as that. Men's sports could take a cue from the WNBA. The locker room is open to the media for a period of time. The athletes stay dressed, answer questions, tell jokes, form bonds whatever, then the locker room closes, and they go off and shower in private. It's such a simple system. It can be in place tomorrow. And as far as I know, there are no complaints that the coverage of the WNBA is inferior in any way to men's sports.

I didn't say women don't belong in the locker room, I said interviews don't belong in the locker room. The "customary way" is an antiquated tradition started by men. And if male sports reporters feel like they need to be able to hang out wearing towels with their junk hanging out to get a story, then they'll have to change with the times. In a way, the locker room is a great analogy for how women reporters have been treated by sports in general. "You don't belong here. We'll let you in since you fought so hard for the right to be here, and we'll look like dicks if we don't, but understand that this place is for men, and a lot of guys in here are never going to be comfortable with this." This is what women have to put up with just so they can do their job on equal footing as their male counterparts. It's such a simple fix. Create a "media" room. Players are obligated to report to the room before or after they dress. Answer questions, mingle. You can make it comfortable, with couches, food, drinks, etc. Once a player is finished, they can go. If a player fails to report, then reporters can trash him in the papers if they're so inclined. It would be one of those things that once it happens, people will wonder why it was ever done any other way.