Centerfield

Is this the record for "new guy hurts himself"? What are, we one week into spring training?

Jed Lowrie's knee hurts. Will have an MRI.

=smg58 post_id=3143 time=1550613474 user_id=62] If Machado doesn't start out at third for the Padres, he will move there as soon as Tatis is ready. So position ultimately had nothing to do with where he signed.

Edgy MD wrote: Cool Gregor Blanco trivia: I have a twin brother named Gregory and a younger brother named Gregsman. And you thought Endy Chavez had a weird mother. Did he have another brother Benny who lived in the Bronx?

Wait, seriously? We gave him #7?

Yes, agreed on that. The Mets should be able to outspend Atlanta and really, every other city. But the article touches on my feelings on how owners collectively view things. That they're a business first and that it's better to make money while losing baseball games than to lose money under any circumstances. Books have been written about that and the business of baseball is best understood if you view it through that lens as well. There have been some crazy, loose cannon owners who seem to not care about how much money a team makes as long as the team wins — the Braves, actually, used to have one (link to Ted Turner) — but they are exceptions to the rule, historically, and as of now none seem to exist.

That picture is weird. The way it's laid out, it looks like Flexen started as a chubby white guy, turned into a super-ripped black guy, then ended up as a not quite as ripped but better than the first pic white guy.

This article is about the Braves, who, thankfully, have spent even less than the Mets. But a lot of the same principles apply and better illustrates some of the thoughts I'm trying to convey. https://sports.yahoo.com/braves-think-fans-idiots-150337296.htmlhttps://sports.yahoo.com/braves-think-fans-idiots-150337296.html

I think this line from dgw's post was particularly illustrative. I am so fucking sick and tired of the tail wagging the dog... This is typical - I have a nut allergy so you can't have any... This is not about peanuts. Obviously. This is about a frustration, an erosion of patience felt by some at having to change their way of life. The fortunate many feel like they are being put out again and again to accommodate the less fortunate few. That's why seemingly innocuous changes are met with such resistance. The "Seriously? What's next?!?!?" reaction. And I get it. Things are tougher now. You can't eat peanuts at the ballpark. You have to ask guests in advance about dietary restrictions. You can't smoke at bars and restaurants because those in the food service industry don't want lung cancer. You have three bathrooms to choose from now, and when you finally make your way inside, one of the stalls has bars on the side, a toilet that's a too high to be comfortable, and is way too wide for no reason. Good stairway space is lost to ramps, boys' athletic teams have lost funding because girls want to play sports, and you can't even end your Kiss-Cam segment with a light-hearted homophobic joke. During the holidays, you are forced to either consider the faith of the person you're addressing, or go with the generic "Happy Holidays" when all you're trying to do in the first place is be nice. You have to give women equal pay, you can't grab them unless they want to be grabbed, people give you shit about preying on underage girls even if it was a really, really long time ago. You can't ask Asian people "no where are you really from", you have to give gay couples marriage licenses and wedding cakes, you have to say IL instead of DL, you can't wear blackface, I mean, when is it going to end? And no, I'm not trying to attack DGW or NYMR or anyone else. I'm just saying there should be perspective. Open-mindedness on both sides. In any debate there will be irrational response on each extreme. Everyone should strive to be one of the rational ones in the middle.

=nymr83 post_id=2863 time=1550097685 user_id=54] what about other allergies? we can have food-free stadiums that nobody attends!

Edgy MD wrote: Release younger players from the bonds of controlled salaries and and sole rights and the older players will be worth more money. Oh please. "the bonds of controlled salaries"? Maybe you can put out a late night ad like ASPCA - "for only $20 a month, you too can help these poor suffering, underpaid ballplayers..." Nobody is saying the ballplayers need a fundraiser. Or any money from the general public. The argument is that young MLB ballplayers should get more of the profits generated by their sport and billionaire owners should get less. MLB is comprised of the top 750 players in the world. They are the elite of the elite. Imagine telling anyone from another field "Hey I know you're the greatest X in the whole world, but for 6 years, you have to work for this company, in this city and you'll be paid a fraction of what you'd make on the open market." Everyone always says "I can't believe these ballplayers. Making $20 million a year and they're still not happy. I'd play for half of that." And while that may be true, no one ever says "I can't believe these owners. Making $100 million a year and they're still not happy. I'd own a team for half of that."

=dgwphotography post_id=2849 time=1550081714 user_id=78] I am so fucking sick and tired of the tail wagging the dog... This is typical - I have a nut allergy so you can't have any... Here's an idea, how about declaring sections nut free instead of an entire stadium? My God-daughter has a horrific nut allergy, so much so, that my sister-in-law was able to get funding for a service dog especially trained to detect nuts. So we are very much in tune with what has to be done for her. But this is fucking nuts.

Frayed Knot wrote: I don't believe that there are super secret meetings where the owners are saying "hey, no one sign Bryce Harper". But I do believe there is a collective effort on the part of owners to suppress players' salaries overall. And a combination of shrewd moves by the owners and lack of pushback from the union has now led to this situation where good and great players are getting tepid or no interest. They're getting screwed. Not sure how this "collective effort" is manifesting itself in the case of these two unless somehow the league got together and decided that only certain clubs would be in on the bidding. Harper, by announcing goals of $400 million ("and why stop there?") ahead of time, rejecting an offer of $300 right out of the gate, and now announcing that he won't accept short(er) offers, has effectively eliminated potential employers. Machado, according to his father, has "four or five" firm offers and that statement goes back at least a month now. But he too is holding out for something different than what he's already heard. In fact I suspect that each one is, in effect, in competition with the other so as to "win" the FA season meaning the waiting has as much to do with the other player as it does with the various teams. All perfectly within each of their rights of course, but the definition of collusion doesn't involve a situation where you don't get everything you want, when you want it, and in your choice of colors. Bottom line is, it's tough to make the case that the top two FAs being unsigned at this late date points to a "broken" system (acc to Justin Verlander) when each has either rejected, or is currently sitting on, multiple options. Your comeback to this is that more teams should be both willing and anxious to pay the players' demands and therefore are either dumb or evil for not doing so. That may or may not be true but I'd hardly consider it a stone-cold fact and am guessing they'd disagree with the assessment. The rest is essentially explaining why the system should be different going forward than it is now, something that's fine with me but that doesn't have any bearing on this particular off-season. Your points, in order: Not sure how this "collective effort" is manifesting itself in the case of these two unless somehow the league got together and decided that only certain clubs would be in on the bidding. I specifically said I don't think there was a secret meeting about Harper. I guess I didn't mention it specifically, but to clarify, I don't think there have been any meetings about Machado either. I have no idea if there is any truth to these rumored offers or where things stand with either of these two. So I have no idea if the general trend I was speaking of has manifested itself with these two or not. But a general trend doesn't have to manifest itself in any one instance. (Like the way individual cold days don't mean there hasn't been a general warming trend). But there is, unquestionably, a smaller market for free agents in recent years. And the reasons that I state above are why I think it's happening. Your comeback to this is that more teams should be both willing and anxious to pay the players' demands and therefore are either dumb or evil for not doing so. That may or may not be true but I'd hardly consider it a stone-cold fact and am guessing they'd disagree with the assessment. I don't think teams, or specifically owners, are dumb. In fact, I said they have made a series of shrewd moves to put themselves in this situation. This situation where their revenues are soaring but players' salaries are not growing proportionately. And I don't know if looking to maximize profits qualifies as "evil". I think that's just business. But it's important for fans to understand that owners are not on their side. The only thing that I guess comes close to evil is when the Mets publicly assailed Cespedes' dedication when they knew he was dealing with a crippling heel condition. And that gutless move was limited to our owners. I don't know if other owners similarly throw their players under the bus to sway public opinion.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: One theory for the uptick in peanut allergies is that Americans especially eat so little non-processed foods, while our fresh food undergoes such cleanliness/safety rigor, that our bodies own defenses against weird organisms in food have nothing to do anymore, whereas in the past they helped cavemen survive. Peanuts being one of the funkier and "earthiest" foods we have anymore triggers that primal defense You make it sound like it has nothing to do with getting rid of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools.

"buy me some peanut-free cracker jack..." boom, done. give me money. (Puts pencil down. Pouts.) This will make a bunch of folks (older, no peanut allergy) irrationally unhappy. But good for the team. Whether the uptick in peanut allergies is due to coddling parents creating a generation of pussies or not, alienating a big portion of the public for an antiquated tradition is silly. My nephew has a peanut allergy. And even though he stays nut-free, sometimes all the shells on the floor and in the aisles bothers him. Whenever he comes with us to games we replace that line with "Buy me some nut-free snacks and, um, other nut free snacks...." He's a good sport about it.

Moving from one billion dollar organization to another is not the same as working against an individual to which you had a fiduciary duty three months ago. Boras was absolutely right. How can any player have confidence in CAA if their agents could potentially end up sitting across from you as you negotiate the one big contract you've been building your whole life to get? I don't know what ethics apply here, but if Brodie had an ounce of integrity, he'd step aside, whether he was allowed to participate or not. The ultimate power move would be for Jake to go public. "I don't see the point of negotiations. Brodie was my agent. He knows what my bottom line is. Either he offers it or not."

Frayed Knot wrote: So Harper/Boras have rejected (at least one) long-term deal and say they won't accept a short-term one? Tough to claim collusion with that mind-set. I don't believe that there are super secret meetings where the owners are saying "hey, no one sign Bryce Harper". But I do believe there is a collective effort on the part of owners to suppress players' salaries overall. And a combination of shrewd moves by the owners and lack of pushback from the union has now led to this situation where good and great players are getting tepid or no interest. They're getting screwed. Bryce Harper is one of the elite players in the game. For his entire career, his salary has been artificially suppressed and he's been under team control. Now that he's a free agent, he should be getting long term offers from every team, with the exception of those that already have an outfield full of elite players. (Maybe 2-3 teams tops) We all kinda laughed when Fred talked about "meaningful games in September". But really, that's all owners want now. Before the wild card, if you wanted to make the post-season, your goal had to be the mid 90's in wins. In the 10 years before the '94 strike, the NL East Champion won 95+ games in 9 of 10 years. They went 100+ 3 times. An 86 win team was going to get you nowhere. But now with the Wild Card (and certainly with 2 Wild Cards) an 86 win team can conceivably stay in the race until the end, and even sneak in from time to time. There is little incentive for owners to go beyond this. And with the revenue sharing and TV money contracts making ticket sales less and less relevant...well that's how we end up here. The only thing working to keep owners in check was that they somehow had to save face. It's hard to stand in front of fans and say "Well, we've crunched the numbers and frankly winning isn't worth it so, um. (shrug)" Which is where the efforts at salary suppression come into play in the form of several well accepted lies. 1. "We can't afford them! Only big market teams can afford to pay these big salaries!" Bullshit has been called on that. There are articles about the incredible spike in revenues seen by MLB. The owners are raking in more than they ever have and are spending less and less, percentage-wise, on player salaries. Player salaries are splashed all over the news, but the boatloads of profits owners pocket are kept far away from the eyes of the public. Remember, every team got a $50 million revenue sharing check for doing nothing last year. 2. Analytics. Sure. Generally players in their 30s aren't as valuable as players in their 20s. But that doesn't mean that they're not valuable. Certainly paying older players is better than putting that money in the owners' pocket. But somehow this is used as evidence that owners have gotten "smart". And worse, fans that buy into this think they're smart. It's idiotic. Keith Law tweeted the other day that "analytics" say you should sign Bryce Harper. And I get that there are some guys who hit free agency later, and the analytics say they're not worth it. I get that. But a system is broken if owners get to suppress salaries during a player's prime, then brush them aside when they finally hit the open market. Like Edgy says, get rid of team-controlled years and then a lot of this fixes itself. 3. "We're rebuilding." I've already addressed this myth in a separate thread. Bullshit. You can rebuild and still put a competitive team on the field. No need to tank and lose 100 games. If the union were smart, they'd take away this excuse to put a shit team on the field. 4. The bias of fans against highly paid players. This one isn't a lie so much as it is a pre-exisiting Joe Bloggs mentality to be jealous of highly paid ballplayers. But man do the owners take advantage of it. "Who wants to root for Bryce Moneybags, the spoiled rich superstar and his gold chains? Come root for our underdog team, with Scrappy McHustle and Jimmy PreArbitration!" You saw it last year. The insinuations that somehow Cespedes was dogging it while keeping his heel situation private. It's sickening.

She's already held the Wilpons to talk more than her predecessor ever did. It will be interesting with the SNY/DN affiliation whether they will reign her in or let her run with that.

=seawolf17 post_id=587 time=1546645549 user_id=91] Shit, they literally made a movie ABOUT FEELINGS. I cried the whole damn time.

Joins lesser known brother Ender as a coach in the Mets organization.

.244/.306/.508 31 HRs. Is slow and clumsy around 1B but catches most of what he gets to.

Gotcha. Some were saying Vientos has passed him.

Edgy MD wrote: Hi, I'm not only the considered by consensus to be one of the Mets' two hottest prospects, I'm easily the closer to majors of the two. Who is the other one?

[CROSSOUT]ROAD. TRIP.[/CROSSOUT] PLANE. TRIP.

Is Ben Grimm live on site at the protests? Maybe he has some images of the Roessler fans to share with us. My heart skipped a beat when I saw the thread title. I thought for a second he had been traded.