Centerfield

According to this list, Boston is the #7 TV market in the US. https://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-marketshttps://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets It is the 21st largest city by population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_populationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population I would imagine Boston benefits from the relatively dense population in its surrounding area. So 21st is probably misleading. But there is no logical reason why a team from Boston should be able to outspend any NY team. NY's population is 8.6 million people. Boston has a population of 685,000. NY outnumbers Boston by 8 million people. This was from earlier in the thread. NY teams also benefit from CT, NJ, upstate NY and Long Island, but not sure how to do that math.

I read an interesting take in a column comparing Harper and Machado. The source -- who was anonymous, of course, since it was a sports column -- said Machado in a 10-year deal will give you eight All-Star seasons and one MVP-caliber season. Harper will give you five All-Star seasons, three MVP-caliber seasons and two "what the @!#%^ happened?" seasons. I'd sign up for either outcome right now. Maybe the scout knows something I don't. But except for 2014 when he had the torn thumb ligament, Harper has hit 20 HR's and surpassed an .800 OPS every year. If 2016 (24 HRs, .814 OPS) counts as a WTF year, yeah, I'm on board.

Frayed Knot wrote: But here I don't agree. Even those local writers who have covered the sport/team forever and will take on the Wilpons for all sorts of stuff consistently describe the fan complaints of 'don't care about the team' or 'not interested in winning' as false narratives; to a man the scribes will say how the not winning and the criticism which comes with it kills them. The problem is that the 'Pons haven't been savvy enough to build any kind of consistent success on their own while still holding onto the belief in themselves as astute baseball men in addition to being owners to the point that they're reluctant to turn over the direction of the club to someone else who might be better at it. But not being good at it isn't the same thing as not giving a shit - even if the results often look alike. Sure the Wilpons want the Mets to win. And I fully believe that they hate the criticism that comes from lack of winning. But do they care enough to eat into their profits? The answer is no. They want to keep their profits and win. And maybe this decision is a conscious one and they make this election knowing that they handcuff their team. Or maybe they're drinking their own kool-aid and are genuinely surprised when their team comes up short again and again and again. But at the end of the day, they would rather take home what they've been taking home rather than invest it into winning. And it's not like they're alone in this. I talk about teams that spend (LA, Boston, Wash, Cubs) but there are plenty that fall into the Wilpon mindset. Atlanta just won the division and won't make the financial investment to go the next level. Houston is the 4th largest city in the US, but until recently the owners acted like they played in Wyoming. And poor Pittsburgh. Their owners just outright lie to their fans year after year.

Signing a player to a long-term mega contract does not handcuff you from making future moves if they don't work out. I think the conversation would be more productive if we properly dismissed this misconception. It's an idea that owners want you to believe, and it's thrown around like it's common knowledge. But it's wrong. A team can sign players to long term deals, and reap the benefits if they're successful, and just eat the cost if they're not. And if the players are not successful or are no longer successful, then the team can just go out and sign better players. This is an article from March of 2018. It talks about the $61 million in dead weight the Red Sox were carrying. https://www.masslive.com/expo/erry-2018/03/ce33fa7563/how_are_boston_red_sox_paying.htmlhttps://www.masslive.com/expo/erry-2018/03/ce33fa7563/how_are_boston_red_sox_paying.html $18.5 million for Sandoval. $12 million for Rusney Castillo. $16 million for Dustin Pedroia. Any one of these deals could be used as justification for not spending. For not going after the top talent. The Wilpons would have made excuses from here to LA and half the fans and media would have eaten it right up. But Boston didn't do that. They went out and signed JD Martinez. They spent $230 million, told the luxury tax to go fuck itself, then they won 108 games and won the World Series. And I know people will say "Well we're not Boston." That's true. Boston plays in Boston. Population 685,000. The Mets play in New York. Population 8.6 million. I get that there is some point where resources are finite and teams won't be able to erase mistakes, but the Mets are nowhere near that point. Baseball teams make shitloads of money. Some teams choose to spend it to win. The Wilpons do not.

I'm starting to think we're not getting Harper.

19 votes! Amazing.

I don't see anything about being cheap. The apologists will advocate for a player from time to time. Even guys like Ehalt and DiComo have talked about the benefits of adding someone like Harper. But they do so in the context of either/or. In this article Martino talks about financial flexibility. As if this were a salary cap league. He would never write that the Mets should expand payroll. That they should fill all the holes they have and bring in depth, and also, bring in the superstar on top of that. He would never write that the Mets are too cheap to bring him in. And if he ever did, that would be the day I start liking him.

Tracky would never write such an article. He's running interference now trying sway public opinion against signing free agents. It's not like the Wilpons would have brought in someone else. If not Cespedes it would have been Madoff.

Have you read the recent articles on MLB revenue? The idea that a team loses money is a fallacy. Even more far fetched is the idea of a team losing value. The Mets were worth 2.1 billion. And this is separate from SNY. The Mets don't need to win to make money. In fact, just the opposite is true. They make money regardless of whether they win or not. This is why they can't be coaxed into spending more.

I've come to the realization that Fred's infatuation with the Yankees isn't really about winning. He's not jealous of their winning. If he were, he'd do what the Red Sox do, which is spend more and beat them. He's angry that they spend. That they're ruining it for the rest of the owners. It's hard to pretend like you have no money when the guy next door is spending like he prints the stuff.

And was immediately met with all sorts of spin articles from the local guys. It's crazy how the Wilpons control the narrative with some of these guys.

4 years. $50 million are the early reports.

Brad Brach to Cubs. 1 year, $3 million. Kinda seems like a steal there.

I wasn't crazy to get Pollock, but this move hurts because I think this was, realistically, as high as the Mets were going to go. I guess there's time, but the options are thinning.

What do those letters spell out? I like that he's hitting a zero. Which is what the Mets season was.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I voted SMILE HIGH, but I may end up wavering. Some of the arguments for MIDNIGHT BADNESS are compelling. My only problem with MIDNIGHT BADNESS is the contorted Conforto. (CONTORTO?) It makes for an ugly cover. SMILE HIGH is much more visually appealing, and the look of the cover is as important to me as anything else that it may convey. Yeah. I'm with you on this. The photo itself is not a great one.

It's funny that Badness has only six votes, but all six of us have been vocal about it in this thread. Smile High, meanwhile, has a silent, confident majority. I agree about the Russian interference. Clear as day.

MIDNIGHT BADNESS is quintessential late-period News, true to its tabloidity, and communicates not just the game, but the moment the Mets were in, which is why I found myself breaking for BADNESS. The only thing I don't like (besides any MFY mention, but that comes with the territory) was the phrase "gets shaft". Earlier today, I heard Meat Loaf's "I Would Do Anything For Love," and was struck how, after 25 years, the lyric, "sooner or later, you'll be screwing around" still sounds cheap, crass and hurried. "Gets shaft" hits me the same way, as if they were rushed...which they might have been given the length of the game and the impending deadline, but still. Yeah. That subheadline is terrible. Coulda gone with: Collapse continues as Mets waste deGrom gem in 14 inning loss.

Frayed Knot wrote: What's the Over/Under on the number of injuries, diseases, or medical conditions that we've never ever heard of before? It really is just amazing. And not just that they are rare, but they absolutely wipe out a career. I've been watching baseball since the early 80's. But in the last five years watching the Mets, I learned about: 1. Valley Fever. Career ending 2. Spinal Stenosis. Career ending. 3. Thoracic Outlet Syndrome. Not career ending, but debilitating. 4. Hand foot and mouth disease. Couple of days. 5. Heel calcification. 6-8 months or forever. Who knows. 6. Strained finger ligaments. A start or two.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This is Michael Conforto's second trip to the finals, by the way. He also made it in the inaugural year of 2015, with the much more flattering CON4TO cover, which lost to YES-PEDES by a vote of 11 to 8. And although Jacob deGrom won't appear on the winning cover this year, at least we're sure that his name will be there. I found that interesting. And justice will be served if the one where he got screwed wins over the one where he finally got run support.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Badness. Take off your shirt. Stand still. BG is coming over with the paint.

I agree with Lunchbucket too, though the Smile High girls are pretty hot. The Badness cover is definitely weak as far as winning covers go. The subheadline is too wordy. The picture isn't great, and Conforto is one of the few Mets that did produce. But head to head against Smile High, it's no contest. I'm Team Badness. Someone body paint my gut.

Yeah. It's annoying that the unanimous thing had to be a Yankee. But I guess it's better that it's Rivera instead of Jeter. I was hoping Griffey would have been the one to do it. Stupid writers. It's silly that it took this long to get a unanimous vote. I said way back when that if a writer doesn't recognize that Rickey Henderson is a Hall of Famer, then he's too stupid to get a vote. And I think the only reason that a unanimous vote resulted is not because of the greatness of Rivera, but because vote shaming has become a thing. I have to admit, I am legitimately jealous of Yankee fans when it comes to the Hall of Fame. Going to Cooperstown is a blast. Taking the kids, showing them the special exhibit for Mike Piazza. Taking them to see the plaques. Yankee fans will get to do that this year with Rivera and Mussina. They'll get that experience again with Jeter, and then A-Rod after that. It's a regular thing for them. My kids will experience it once during their childhood. And sure, I've heard the argument that doing it once makes it more special. It's bullshit. If something is great, you want to do it more than once. Maybe someday with deGrom. I don't know. Can you make the Hall with 84 career wins and a 1.89 ERA?

Markakis went back to the Braves yesterday on a one year deal for $6 million. If I'm reading between the lines, I think this could be a good sign. Number one, this move probably means that the Braves are done upgrading offensively. Markakis was good for them last year, but is older and tailed off in the second half. So hopefully the Braves will remain at status quo. As it pertains to us, Markakis is such a Wilpon move. Older player, short term deal. Good production last year. "Not only does this move make us better, it makes the Braves worse at the same time..." Blah blah blah. The fact that we weren't in on Markakis is encouraging, I think. I have a hard time believing we really are going into the season with Broxton/Lagares as our starting centerfielder. I think they have another move coming. So maybe the fact that they passed on Markakis is a sign that they're aiming a little higher. Fingers crossed.

I guess betting now means you lay down your money before the rosters are set. So if you're Philly, you take the over and hope for Harchado I guess. I would take the over as of today. I think that the Mets are realistically about 86-87 wins. That will change depending on what the rest of the division does between now and Opening Day.