batmagadanleadoff

My memory is more contemporaneous: his public cry for a QO while saying that "it would be a tough pill to swallow not wearing a Mets jersey next year" and then signing elsewhere for more money without giving the Mets a chance to match or top the new offer. F him. Kinda where I'm at, but I'll stop short at 'F him' just yet. More on the story may come out of the weeds down the road. What's with the f him and more to this story? If it turns out that he influenced the Mets into QO'ing him, he didnt hurt the Mets by doing so. Me personally, I'm gonna guess that Syndergaard wanted out of the Mets organization. He'd been griping about this and that for years, expressing his unhappiness over many issues. Maybe he sees that many of those problem issues still exist even though the Wilpons are gone. Makes sense to me Lotsa things dont seem right with the Mets. The previous owners were so inept that the problems are likely deep-rooted and aren't going away overnight.

=metsmarathon post_id=81233 time=1637163614 user_id=83] they would lose the pick by not getting the pick that someone else would have given up for signing him. so, like, now, the mets have no syndergaard but they do have a 2nd round pick. if he accepted, they would have him, for a year, but no 2nd round pick for long term investment. him accepting the mets' QO would mean that the angels would keep their pick, instead of giving it to us. if we could have had our cake, we wouldn't get to eat it.

=nymr83 post_id=81188 time=1637098736 user_id=54] I love THOR, but objectively he has spent the past two years rehabbing and we don't know what he'll be. I'll take the draft pick and then hope Steve Cohen's money can two of Stroman and Scherzer/Gray/Rodon/Gausman to come here. The Mets were always going to be the worst match for Syndergaard if he didn't take the QO because the moment he rejected it the Mets would have to be thinking that THEY were the ones giving up a second rounder if they signed him.

=Centerfield post_id=80899 time=1636566150 user_id=65] He's a year older than Conforto. Has better numbers throughout his career, but I wonder if that holds if you factor in Wrigley vs. Citi.

Texas? They're like two days away from burning books over there. Aaron era throwbacks? The Braves are wearing Aaron era throwbacks right now. The Braves are wearing the same exact uni Aaron wore for almost his entire Braves career.

It's Paul Sewald all over again. Loup should've ran away with the reliever award Secretariat style. Blame the system that didn't penalize Diaz for his atrocious outings. Loup barely had any of those, if at all. Then blame yourselves. Youse voted.

Edgy MD wrote: I ain't cool. I just didn't know how to say please, please in an effective manner. =batmagadanleadoff post_id=78625 time=1632693074 user_id=68] =kcmets post_id=78623 time=1632692862 user_id=53] All of a sudden your reading comprehension skills diminish (EXPOnentially). Have a good evening. Yeah sure, whatever. Everything is the way you say things are just because you say so.

=kcmets post_id=78623 time=1632692862 user_id=53] All of a sudden your reading comprehension skills diminish (EXPOnentially). Have a good evening.

=kcmets post_id=78621 time=1632692456 user_id=53] =kcmets post_id=78619 time=1632692314 user_id=53] What is your fucking problem? It's a beautiful Sunday afternoon, LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!

=kcmets post_id=78604 time=1632671838 user_id=53] I'm all for baseball returning to Montreal, but not in this half-assed manner. I'm sure the players won't be particularly pleased being away from homes (if they live in the area) for another quarter of a year. Tampa/St Pete doesn't deserve a new stadium, Tropicana is just fine and it's not like the citizens of the area actually go to a lot of games.

I always thought to myself that Carmel had one of the greatest names ever among Mets.

Edgy MD wrote: I just ask that, if you really need to call me out as one, you give me enough tolerance to wait until I do something more egregious than starting too many IGTs. It's that and like a thousand other things. It's death by paper cuts with him.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I had no idea that "hogging up IGTs" was even a thing that anyone cared about. So if nobody's supposed to care, why do we even have rules or protocols for this? Why doesn't KC just start every IGT? I'd like that.

=kcmets post_id=78425 time=1632411315 user_id=53] [bLOCKQUOTE]Wow! There were three up-for-grab IGT's this week following Mets losses that you didn't hog up. That must be a record for you. I knew that the odds were almost 100% that you'd start today's IGT.[/bLOCKQUOTE] You've become the forum's Donald Trump. All smoke, no fire... a lot of hot air aimed solely at me. Assclown City, man...

Wow! There were three up-for-grab IGT's this week following Mets losses that you didn't hog up. That must be a record for you. I knew that the odds were almost 100% that you'd start today's IGT.

Edgy MD wrote: Yes, he did. The other parts of that play make it stand out. Extra innings, post-fight, players out of position, the secondbaseman finishing the play. But Keith was just doing what Keith did. What's overlooked about that DP is how early Keith got to the bunt: the batter was still in the batter's box when Keith fielded the bunt. That allowed Carter to receive Keith's throw so early that Carter was, very calmly, able to take a full step towards first base before making his relay throw. This not only shortened the throw to first base, but also allowed Carter to avoid having to deal with a potential take-out slide from Buddy Bell, the oncoming baserunner.

Edgy MD wrote: In the second installment of Once Upon A Time In Queens, while they showed that crazy e-5-4 DP against the Reds, the context is that they won despite the post-fight ejections forcing them to use Carter at third and McRoscoe in the outfield. Do any of the later episodes include a chapter specifically highlighting Hernandez' fielding contributions? I don't specifically remember, but I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that Keith probably made highlight reel worthy mind-blowing defensive gems like that 3-5-4 DP every single week. He was transcendent on defense.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Yes I think the way things are going Keith'll get in there.... Keith'll end up in Cooperstown. He's the best fielding first baseman in baseball history. His defense was so revolutionary, so far ahead of its time, that watching Keith play first base for the first time must've been as eye-opening as seeing Jimi Hendrix play mod-England in 1966. If Keith never existed and came up today for the first time ever as a young twentysomething first baseman, he'd still be ahead of his time. His defense alone should've gotten him more than halfway into Cooperstown. Bill Mazeroski, ferchrissakes, is a HOF'er. https://www.amny.com/sports/no-question-why-keith-hernandez-belongs-in-hall-of-fame/https://www.amny.com/sports/no-question-why-keith-hernandez-belongs-in-hall-of-fame/ Check out Keith's "runs from fielding" stat. Keith's is the best in baseball history at his position. Meanwhile , Carter was the last piece to the puzzle. (If you ignore Teufel, Mitchell and Ojeda). Keith was only a regular piece to the puzzle. Carter got here after, instead of before Keith. And Carter had like a fifth of the Mets career Keith did. So let's retire Carter's Mets uni.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=78177 time=1632020302 user_id=68] Wow! Just wow! McCann, the big free agent haul the Mets were in such a hurry to sign is pinch hit for in the last of the 9th. He's looking every bit like the scrub he's been for his entire career except for last year. The joke, as almost always, is on us.

Punch drunk Lenny.

Wow! Just wow! McCann, the big free agent haul the Mets were in such a hurry to sign is pinch hit for in the last of the 9th. He's looking every bit like the scrub he's been for his entire career except for last year. The joke, as almost always, is on us.

Edgy MD wrote: I think they do all the time. If you look at the list of guys left unprotected, virtually all teams included one or two veterans with contracts that were thought of as large at the time, thinking teams would stay away from budget-busters. I believe the Mets left Kingman and possibly Foster exposed also. Probably Staub too. OE: http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2007/11/18/saving-ron-gardenhire-instead-of-tom-seaver/Here's the column. And yeah, Staub, Kingman, and Foster were all exposed. I just read that piece. The real shocker was that Foster was left unprotected, only after his second Mets season. If you asked me in January of '84, I'd've rather kept Foster over Seaver if I had to choose between those two. Of course, the White Sox had that same choice and they didn't choose Foster. Not then, anyways. Maybe the ChiSox needed pitching more than hitting or outfielding. Also, another way to look at the Mets approach to that draft is to separate the roster into pitchers and catchers. And also, maybe, Gooden stays in Tidewater in '84 if Seaver's still a Met.

Edgy MD wrote: I could relate to one of the narrators questioning Frank Cashen's honesty about the Mets supposedly screwing up by leaving Tom Seaver unprotected after the '83 season - exposed to then being claimed by the White Sox. The implication was that the Mets didnt screw up but made an intentional decision to expose Seaver because the team believed it had more useful players to protect than a past his prime Seaver. The suggestion was that Cashen was engaging in calculated PR to assuage the portion of the fan base that the Mets expected to be disappointed by the loss of Seaver. I could relate to this because that's exactly what I believed was happening when Cashen issued his mea culpa on behalf of the Mets. And I wasn't bothered in the least by the Mets losing Seaver. I figured he'd get worse every season and was there mostly for sentimental reasons and as a fan attraction. Greg's done a review of this premise by revisiting every player the Mets ended up protecting, and it certainly seemed to make the position hard to sustain. As does trying to reimagine the 1984 and 1985 Mets record with Tom Seaver's numbers from those seasons added in. Well, that's hindsight, even if a worthwhile exercise. For me, at the time, the issue wasnt whether the Mets got it right, or would get it right, but whether Cashen was being honest with the fanbase. Organizations don't make those kinds of "mistakes ". Just like the Mets didn't "inadvertently" issue #24 to Kelvin Torve. The Mets either misread the room or used Torve as a Guinea pig or canary in the coal mine to gauge fan reaction. Nobody forgets that Willie Mays wore #24. That claim strains all credibility. In fact, 30 years ago, there probably wasnt an athlete in all of sports more closely associated with his uniform # than Mays and #24.

I could relate to one of the narrators questioning Frank Cashen's honesty about the Mets supposedly screwing up by leaving Tom Seaver unprotected after the '83 season - exposed to then being claimed by the White Sox. The implication was that the Mets didnt screw up but made an intentional decision to expose Seaver because the team believed it had more useful players to protect than a past his prime Seaver. The suggestion was that Cashen was engaging in calculated PR to assuage the portion of the fan base that the Mets expected to be disappointed by the loss of Seaver. I could relate to this because that's exactly what I believed was happening when Cashen issued his mea culpa on behalf of the Mets. And I wasn't bothered in the least by the Mets losing Seaver. I figured he'd get worse every season and was there mostly for sentimental reasons and as a fan attraction.

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=78075 time=1631904396 user_id=119] Cohen's response turned what would have been a one-day issue in a Puma column into a multi-day issue with other outlets covering it. I can definitely see how that might give a potential executive pause. He should have ignored it. Rookie mistake, and I hope he is learning from these. I don't have a problem with Puma writing the column, but I do think he and his sports opinion brethren grossly overuse anonymous sources. It would have been a stronger, more credible column with someone talking on the record. The team's not going to say who it has in mind if those potential targets are working somewhere else at the present time.