Centerfield

On this day, Lucas Duda, Jon Niese, Bobby Parnell, Travis d�Arnaud, Jeurys Familia and Rafael Montero, among others (including the Indians� Michael Brantley), went through the session with music from the likes of Naughty By Nature. Maybe we can finally retire "TCOB" as the after-win song. You down wit OBP? Yeah you know me!

I remember he gave up a bad HR to Raul Ibanez. Or was that Farnsworth? I forget. I'm not sure it matters. I remember thinking he would suck. Then thought for a moment "Hey he might not suck". Then thinking again "No, I was right. He sucks."

That is just not right. There are plenty of Yankees that deserve to be brutally beaten before you get to that kid.

The entire system is broken. In concept, it was a great idea. Let the Hall of Fame be determined by the baseball writers, professionals who covered the game and are in a position to know it the best. Baseball writers were guided by principles of journalism. Presumably they would carry that professionalism across to their voting. But baseball writers fail to uphold this standard. And as the integrity of journalism deteriorated, it got even worse. Writers started creating their own arbitrary distinctions. They let their personal feelings cloud their judgment. And now, they see no shame in making these arbitrary determinations public. They don't vote for certain worthy candidates because they don't believe that he's "first ballot material". They cast votes for unworthy candidates because they liked them, or covered them. And most importantly, they are arbitrarily including or excluding players based upon whispers and unfounded suspicion of steroids. If I were on the board of the HOF, I would be livid that writers are abusing the privilege that has been granted to them. The rules are simple, if a player is eligible, he is to be considered. If his performance warrants induction, the vote should be in favor. It doesn't matter if it's his first time on the ballot or not. I said it back when Rickey Henderson was up for induction and didn't get a unanimous approval. If a writer cannot recognize that Rickey Henderson is a Hall of Famer, that person has no business voting. I would love to see the HOF set up a steering committee, where writers are called in to defend egregious ballots. But it will never happen. And so the Hall of Fame will remain what it is...meaningless. Just a nice museum to go see old baseball shit.

I seem to be having issues with the embed code for this video. Can someone smarter help me? http://geekologie.com/2014/05/wife-gets-husband-millennium-falcon-for.php

[youtube:2gf7ijvs][/youtube:2gf7ijvs]

Gwreck wrote: Lots of strange things going on: 1. Clemens gets four more votes than Bonds. 2. Someone voted for Darin Erstad. 3. 4 people voted for Troy Percival. Once you do something as stupid as voting for Darin Erstad or Troy Percival, your right to vote should be revoked. Dumb system. Let me take that back, dumb writers. If I were the Mets, I'd retire Piazza's number this year anyway. And as part of the ceremony, I'd take select quotes from Marty Noble and illustrate the kind of idiots that are keeping Mike out of the HOF.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Of course, the downside of that would be having Jeff Wilpon for a father-in-law. Try not to get his daughter pregnant before you marry her. I hear he doesn't like that. Fantastic.

Edgy MD wrote: Zach Wheeler. He was solid last year for the Mets. But we ain't hoping for solid. I would love to think that the improvement is real, but nothing I see from Zach leads me to believe he will ever be more than just solid. His only plus pitch is his fastball, and even that is not "swing and miss" material. His command is inconsistent. He has too many baserunners, and his pitch count accumulates too fast. To me, he reminds me a lot of Pelfrey. I would love to be wrong here. And I don't pretend to be a scout by any means, but I wonder if we will look back on this offseason as a time when we could have sold high on Wheeler.

I'm surprised we gave up on him, as opposed to say, that Tovar guy who can't hit his weight. I liked his arm. Still think he can be good. Just that now, I'm actively rooting against it. How much $$$ did we get back? I look forward to the Wilpon revival of No No Nanette.

I voted No. I think there are big red flags about his health (See Kemp, Matthew). Plus, I think Syndegaard is going to be terrific. Still, it's a tough call. And if Noah ends up being Mike Pelfrey I'm going to be kicking myself.

That makes it worth discussing.

Edgy MD wrote: you're just arguing to argue. I like to think I'm advocating for facts. You'd like to think so. What you are actually doing is wasting your time. You're arguing with someone who argues simultaneously that: *He did not hit at all during the time that he was here. *He hit the ball hard. Nice contact. *It still was not good enough. *Well, maybe. I guess if you project those numbers over a full season, he hit good enough. But how can you draw conclusions on such a small sample size? *He is definitely not ready for the majors. *But he may only need 20-30 more games in the minors.

Edgy MD wrote: I see Dilson Herrera as a starting second baseman on a good team. I'm struggling over whether or not to infer the words "this season" in this statement. The question seemed to be talking about the present status. He said "good team". He's obviously not talking about this season, unless, wait...OMG HERRERA'S GOING TO BE TRADED.

It looks like the Mets are going to take a pass here. I can't blame them for this. Kang's 38 HR's last year are the exception, not the norm. It looks like he is more of a 15 HR guy, even in Korea. If he were a terrific defensive player, then it might be worth considering, but as of now, he is not likely to be better than Flores either offensively or defensively. On the plus side though, I imagine he'd generate a lot of revenue from the Korean population in Flushing.

Mets � Willets Point wrote: I miss the Rey Ordonez Deathwatch web page. Can you imagine how simple the Great Rey Debates would have been if WAR was around then?

Crazy. I didn't expect that they would sign Headley and give up on A-Rod at 3rd. Don't they already have Beltran at DH? Do they still have Ichiro? Sometimes I feel like the MFY's have more roster spots than everyone else.

G-Fafif wrote: BTW, I it took me 10 minutes between learning that news and applying it to baseball. Where the hell are my priorities? For real. Cigars first. Baseball second. Duh.

d'Kong76 wrote: Don't delete rants! Ranting makes the world go round! Yeah, for real. I would have read it.

I don't think I changed the thesis at all. The criticism was that the team is cheap because it is not spending a lot of money. My point is that there were not players worth spending a lot of money on becoming available in recent years. And if you are spending money on players who aren't worth it, you're spending it foolishly. When I asked which players you wanted to spend it on, I'd say Nelson Cruz was a big risk because of PED taint. Abreu appears to be the real deal, but international players with no major league experience are a huge risk and not that many have delivered over time, like Ichiro has. Tomas is a big question mark. You just named two players that could have been the difference between making the playoffs, and having another mediocre season. I would venture to say if they had signed Cruz and Abreu, they would have made the playoffs. Those additions add $20 million to the payroll, which would have put them at 14th in the league. Let me repeat that, if you added $20 million to the payroll, they still would have only been 14th in the league. If you invested in Cruz and Abreu, these players were certainly worth this money. You say they are a huge risk. They are only a huge risk if you are short on money. To the $88 million small market Mets, these players were too risky, and were not options. To the $118 million big-market Mets (the team I want) these players are, perhaps, worth the risk. And the upside is huge. The fact of the matter is that there are good buys and bad buys in every off-season. A team with resources can afford to take gambles. Some work out, some don't. But the team with resources is playing. Let me illustrate this with an example. You have two options prior to the 2014 season: Option 1: The Mets have 88 Million Dollars. They spend money prudently. They develop their talent. Focus on scouting. They build their team the "right way without trying to buy a pennant". Option 2: The Mets have 88 Million Dollars. They spend money prudently. They develop their talent. Focus on scouting. They build their team the "right way without trying to buy a pennant". But all of a sudden, they find an extra $30 million dollars. Money they can use to gamble on free agents. Do you take the extra money and take Option 2? Or do you still stick with Option 1? Only a fool would choose Option 1. Let's take it one step further. What if, with that extra money, the Mets had invested in Cruz and Abreu. Do you still take Option 1? No. Of course you take Option 2. Now, instead, of Cruz and Abreu, let's say that the Mets had foolishly given all of the money to Shin Soo Choo (by all means, a bust). Do you take Option 1 or Option 2? You still take Option 2. Because as bad as Choo was, he still would have tied Granderson for the highest OPS among Met outfielders. In Option 2, you have blown all your money on garbage, leaving you only $88 million to spend wisely. In Option 1, you only have $88 million. But you are no worse off. Even if your gamble goes horribly wrong, you are arguably better than the team with no money to begin with. It's not like the Wilpon Mets have never spent on big contacts. Beltran, Pedro, Bay, Santana, the Wright extension were all with these guys. Granderson was a fairly big name and contract. No one ever said the Mets never spent money on big contracts. The criticism was that the Mets should be in a position to spend more. Does it suck that they helped build a new stadium and got sucked into a Ponzi scheme right as the great recession hit? Absolutely. But it seems like after bottoming out, they're rebuilding the team the right way and not trying to buy a pennant. Even the Yankees are at a point where they are having trouble hiding all their mistakes. Every club in baseball suffered the same recession. Half of those clubs in the top half have new stadiums. None of that has stopped them from spending money. St. Louis and San Francisco develop talent, spend money, and win. They do not make excuses. The Mets did not get sucked into a Ponzi scheme. The owners did. And the owners should be capable enough to put a profitable high-payroll team on the field regardless of their personal finances. None of these are excuses for not increasing the payroll. It's true that the Yankees are having trouble hiding their mistakes. But this is yet another example of you citing foolish spending to counter my argument for wise spending.

Ceetar wrote: I didn't really read that rant. And there is the reason that it is pointless to have a discussion with you. In order to have a productive discussion (or argument) there must be mutual respect between the parties. One demonstration of such respect is taking the time to understand the other side's position. You do none of this. In fact, it looks like you go out of your way to distort the other's position to give yourself credibility. This is why arguing with you is pointless and maddening. It's like trying practice tennis with a partner that continuously slugs the ball over the fence. Eventually you just want to strangle him. (And it's official, the thread has evolved into arguing about arguing. All threads lead to arguing about arguing.)

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Again, which big free agent from this year, last year or even the year before did you want them to sign? We are not talking about any specific move. We are talking about having the financial flexibility to take chances and absorb those expenses should they not work out. You can do this with a large payroll. You cannot do this when you have no margin for error. But if you need examples, Nelson Cruz, Jose Abreu, Yasmany Tomas are a few. You could also trade for high-risk contracts like Jose Reyes or Matt Kemp. It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract. Again, we are not talking about any specific move, it's about having the flexibility to make multiple moves and absorb the ones that don't work out. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Foolishly over-spending just to prove you are a big-market team doesn't make sense. No one has proposed this. And changing a thesis to make your position appear stronger is a sure sign that your position is weak. No one has said the Mets should foolishly over-spend. In fact, I've proposed just the opposite. They should wisely spend to the level you'd expect from a franchise playing in the biggest market in the world. And no one is saying that the goal here should be to prove they are a big market team. The goal is to make the team better. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: It's not like they haven't offered a $100 million contract to any player recently. Just because it was one of our own guys -- Wright -- doesn't mean it didn't happen. Even with the contract, they are in the bottom tier of payrolls. I want them to spend more money, so we can get more good players. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. Recently, yes. We got deep into the playoffs in 2006 and would have been there again in 2007 and 2008 if not for the epic collapses. You are talking about 6 years of sucking. For a club rebuilding from the bottom up, I don't think that's unreasonable. Who knows what might have happened last year had the All-Star ace and closer not been lost to Tommy John surgery. And if you are happy with how they have performed, then that's great. You are exactly the type of fan the Wilpons are looking form. I am not happy with their performance. I want better. I want more. Spending more money, I feel, will help accomplish that. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Maybe I'm a little too removed, but I guess I don't see them as all that evil. Talk to a Marlins fan about evil. I don't think anyone in baseball is evil. I want them to spend money. If they are not able to do so, they are incompetent. I would like my favorite team to be run by competent people.

I don't pretend that any of our bitching will actually convince them to sell the team. But as fans of the team, I don't see why we are not all calling them out on it. Constantly. It is the biggest obstacle facing this franchise. It is far more central (and pressing) than getting a shortstop or a right handed bench player. So much focus has been about the Madoff scandal, and how the Mets owners have been affected by it. But let's remove Madoff for a second. How is it acceptable that a team playing in NY had to invest their money with a Ponzi scheme, in order to support a competitive payroll? Shouldn't they be able to support a large payroll without illegal returns?

Vic Sage wrote: All i'm saying here is that an owner of a franchise in NYC that can't afford to spend enough to be in the top 1/3 of payrolls instead of the bottom 1/3 should be facing an outcry demanding he sell the team. There should be skywriting and billboards and photobombs and every other form of fan revolt conceivable. It should not be dismissed easily with "well, that's the way it is", and it especially shouldn't be lauded as a good strategy of wise restraint. And its not that spending more guarantees anything, but its supposed to be one of the competitive advantages a big-market team should have, and we as fans that pay the highest prices in the league for EVERYTHING have a right to expect. And when they don't, its entirely appropriate to call them on it, not excuse them for it. And not because fan protests will force a change of direction, much less a sale, but because it makes us feel better to call them on it. Let the truth be spoken for its own sake. It will help us sleep better at night. In three succinct paragraphs, Vic has summed up the biggest problem of this Wilpon regime. Sure, the Wilpons get a ton of criticism, but in fact, they deserve more. How are they not being run out of town? If they cannot, as owners, figure out a way to carry a high payroll when the team is located in New York, they really have no business owning that team.

I think this is one of those threads that is getting muddled by multiple different perspectives. I'm not sure who I'm arguing with and who I'm supporting, though I think KC is somewhat in my corner. To clarify: Tulowitzki: I'm not at all endorsing this particular move. Long contract, hip surgery. Costs tons of good, young players. Gun to my head, I think I pass on this. Overall Philosophy: All I'm saying here is that I'd like the payroll to increase, while still keeping smart people at the wheel. Basically, do exactly what they are doing now but increase the budget by $30 million. This will lead to a better team. Sometimes it means passing on the big player to keep your prospects. Sometimes you have to let a few prospects go for the right guy. But an increased budget allows you to take risks without losing your minor leaguers (such as the Cuban guy). Can the Wilpons really sustain an increased budget? I have no idea, but I can't see why they couldn't. We are in NY. If they can't take a team in the largest market and figure out a way to generate revenue, it is inexcusable. Both LA teams, both Chicago teams, Philadelphia, Boston, even Toronto figures out a way to do this. I can't figure out why the Mets have to reside in the lower tier. Why are we accepting of this?