batmagadanleadoff

Frayed Knot wrote: Kay's rant and the idea that gimmicky rule changes are going to draw in young viewers in droves reeks of hopeful speculation being treated as fact. It reminds me somewhat of when some christian churches in the 1970's decided that updating the language in their prayer books and such was the key to drawing in the younger crowd only to find out that it did nothing of the sort and instead turned off some of those who were already attending and liked the services just as they were. What would likely happen if this rule is adopted, I would guess, is not much, fan-wise, other than griping about or applauding the new rule. The new rule will neither drive away old and established fans nor will it bring in new fans all on its own. Existing fans aren't going away no matter what they say. They're addicted to baseball the same way cigarette smokers are addicted to nicotine. And the owners know that better than the fans do. Even without any rule changes, the game is already drastically different than what it was 20, 25 years ago. Nothing lasts forever. If youse don't like this rule, maybe youse'd like a basketball rule where any player that takes a shot can't take another shot for two minutes. The argument that the rule is bad simply because it was never done that way before is an extremely weak argument.

I disagree we are the keepers of New York National League history. None of that history belongs to us simply because we play in the same city those teams left. Those franchises still exist. Their history belongs to them. I kind of always agreed with this. In fact, once the Dodgers and Giants left for California, they were both against the NL expanding to NY and the creation of the Mets franchise. When I read the post a few above this one about being the keepers of NL history, it came off as bullshit and word-salad to justify the retirement of Mays' and Jackie's #'s. It came off as reverse-engineered logic to justify the ends. (Of course, Jackie's # was retired globally and wasn't simply and solely a Mets decision). But where does it come from that the Mets are the keepers of NY NL history? It came out of somebody's ass -- that's where. You can say anything to justify anything. The President needs to run the country without being second-guessed. So let's let him commit crimes if that's what it takes to run the country. Whatever. If you wanna retire May's # to honor Payson's old promise, that's fine. Own up to it. But for the Mets to retire his # because the Giants used to play in NY? WTF? Didn't the Giants already retire Mays's number? Here's something to think about: Would the Mets have retired #24 for Willie Mays had Mays never played for the Mets? Had Mays remained a Giant for his entire playing career? And would it have been appropriate for the Mets to retire Mays's #24 even if he'd never played for the Mets? Because whether or not Mays played for the Mets, he still played in NY for a NL team. So what exactly does it mean to be "the keepers of NL history"?

=Centerfield post_id=180170 time=1733270811 user_id=65] I disagree we are the keepers of New York National League history. None of that history belongs to us simply because we play in the same city those teams left. Those franchises still exist. Their history belongs to them.

=MFS62 post_id=180162 time=1733266696 user_id=60] I still hat the DH rule, and I've told that to Ron Blomberg (the first ever DH). Since then he has written on his Facebook page that he hates the rule himself and wished it had never become a rule. He then (jokingly) asked forgiveness from all true baseball fans. Later

If this golden at-bat was implemented 125 years ago, nobody today would question the rule. The golden at-bat would be viewed as normal a tactic as the double-switch. And the poets would be waxing poetic about how perfect the game of baseball is with this golden at-bat. And if the Commissioner then decided today, to suddenly eliminate the golden at bat after 125 years of uninterrupted use and tradition and history, youse would all be going apeshit over the rule's removal.

I find it odd that -- assuming that both Wright and Carter's numbers are slated for retirement -- that the Mets would retire Wright's number before Carter's number. Given that Carter was inducted into Cooperstown before Wright's career even began, I figured that Carter's number would get the treatment first. I'm not complaining. I think it's appropriate. Wright is deserving of the honor while Carter clearly isn't. But I'm trying to make sense of this and what this means with respect to #8.

Shaun Fitzmaurice -- Charter Member of "The **** Club", rocking #5. . [FIMG=333]https://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/wp-content/uploads/fitzmaurice.jpg[/FIMG]

I doubt that you understand. The reason for my post is that David Wright is not a Hall of Famer. He was already done --- toast -- by his age 31 season, four years before he would officially retire, after having already missed large chunks of almost two seasons even before that. He had the talent and the character to make the HOF and was on a HOF trajectory for the first few seasons of his career. But he lacked luck. Injuries demolished whatever chances he once had of Cooperstown enshrinement. Career WAR (49.2) Average HOF 3B (68.4) JAWS (44.3) Average HOF 3B (55.8) But if youse wanna turn this into a Romper Room festival of giddy posts where every Met supposedly belongs in the HOF because they're Mets, go ahead. If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands. If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands. Ring around the rosey. Pocketful of poseys. Yay! I couldn't help but to revisit these posts. The idea that David Wright belongs in Cooperstown is almost as absurd as the notion that Gary Carter's Mets uniform should be retired.. if David Wright's a Hall of Famer, then so are Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry. This is mind bogglingly ridiculous. Wright and Carter were wonderful Mets deserving of much praise. But that's not enough. Some of youse insist on remembering them as if they were Willie Mayses and Mickey Mantles. And then the Beltran thing. If Derek Jeter was ever involved in a cheating scandal like Beltran was, you'd never hear the end of it from Zip a Dee Doo Dah. He'd be comparing Jeter to Charles Manson and Ted Bundy forever.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It's easy enough to ignore if you don't like it. Ignoring it wouldn't make it any shorter.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I love this contest but wonder if introducing ranked-choice voting and randomizing the preliminary groupings would be better I've suggested ranked choice voting before. I think it's difficult for BG to arrange that way. I think two covers advancing from each round would draw out the contest too long. Maybe if there was a way to collect a few Wild Card entries from strong second place showings. I think its already way too long and I've thought so for years. There. I've finally said it.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It can be frustrating, if you let it. Lately, whenever I search for news about the Mets, I get a flood of stories about trade proposals and predictions from "MLB insiders" who are working with little more than their imaginations. Yes!! I haven't bothered to even search for Mets articles for almost a month, now. It's all mostly, like you say, BS imaginary trade proposals, probably from teenagers typing from their mother's basements. Newsfeeds are becoming more and more like Amazon or Yelp reviews: you have no idea if the source is credible or a 12-year old.

Edgy MD wrote: Can you post the language you refer to? 　　Article XX 　　... 　　E. Individual Nature of Rights 　　(1) The utilization or non-utilization of rights under Article XIX(A)(2)* 　　and Article XX** is an individual matter to be determined solely by 　　each Player and each Club for his or its own benefit. Players shall not 　　act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert 　　with other Clubs. 　　* Refers to contract assignments. 　　** Refers to the general section heading of The Reserve System, which covers free agency. I just skimmed Article XX and couldn't find language like you refer to. I don't doubt that the language exists, but I'd guess that it's not as broad or as open-ended as your post suggests. You may well be right, as I certainly doubt my capacity for understanding legal language, but teams sharing their offers with each other sure sounds like collusion to me. I dunno. In this context, owners (or GM's) wouldn't be sharing info to fix prices or to set the market for a player or players. They're not sharing info to obtain an unfair competitive advantage - emphasis on the word "unfair". Besides, I think that the mere threat, the mere possibility that owners could share this info with each other is enough to keep the agents honest.

Edgy MD wrote: Not if you're a good bluffer. Agents don't have to bullshit. They just don't have to share. Agreed. I noted that. Edgy MD wrote: As for teams making each other aware, again, unless I'm misreading Article XX of the CBA, that would constitute working in concert, and would be an explicit violation. Can you post the language you refer to? I just skimmed Article XX and couldn't find language like you refer to. I don't doubt that the language exists, but I'd guess that it's not as broad or as open-ended as your post suggests. Still, sharing offers with other teams doesn't sound improper. This isn't an environment where the bids are improperly disclosed even though they're supposed to be secret, like with government contracts. Also, an owner could share the info with other owners after the deal was made to verify the honesty of the negotiations. It can't be improper to protect against ethical violations. This kind of behavior by owners doesn't restrict the market. They're not colluding to limit the amount of potential offers or to set a specific price.

Edgy MD wrote: I strongly doubt that in the insular world of MLB, where there are only a few dozen teams to begin with and usually no more than a tiny handful of those teams pursing the same free agent, it happens anywhere remotely like you describe it. I don''t think that there's any bullshitting going on as to what kind of other offers a player is entertaining. It would be a misrepresentation of a material fact ... a misrepresentation of a material element of the contract. And the owners wouldn't allow that to happen to themselves. That's not in their interest. They're not gonna allow themselves to hafta bid against imaginary and fabricated offers. They'll get together on that point and cooperate with each other and compare notes and take away an agent's license, maybe even his law license if they try and pull that crap. Well, the language is legalese, but from what I have read of the Basic Agreement, I understand to forbid clubs from working in concert with each other in such a manner, and a deft agent can play a team into bidding against themselves. And — putting aside the "gajillion" thing — why, as a player or player's agent, would you feel obliged to disclose the details of other offers freely? In the real world, you wouldn't. That kind of bullshitting that you described happens all the time. But in the closed world of MLB, the owners protect themselves from that by cooperating with each other. That's not collusion because the stated goal is to ensure that the negotiations are honest. And so the agents are on notice and avoid that kind of conduct. The owners insisted on an amateur draft, a soft salary cap with luxury tax penalties and all kinds of hurdles to a player's free agency -- all legally permissible tactics to keep the price of player salaries down. They're not gonna let themselves bid against fabricated offers that are technically ethical and legal violations. To your other question, an agent isn't obligated to reveal the details of competing offers from other teams. But that would be counterproductive. Don't you think?

Edgy MD wrote: I strongly doubt that in the insular world of MLB, where there are only a few dozen teams to begin with and usually no more than a tiny handful of those teams pursing the same free agent, it happens anywhere remotely like you describe it. I don''t think that there's any bullshitting going on as to what kind of other offers a player is entertaining. It would be a misrepresentation of a material fact ... a misrepresentation of a material element of the contract. And the owners wouldn't allow that to happen to themselves. That's not in their interest. They're not gonna allow themselves to hafta bid against imaginary and fabricated offers. They'll get together on that point and cooperate with each other and compare notes and take away an agent's license, maybe even his law license if they try and pull that crap. Well, the language is legalese, but from what I have read of the Basic Agreement, I understand to forbid clubs from working in concert with each other in such a manner, and a deft agent can play a team into bidding against themselves. And — putting aside the "gajillion" thing — why, as a player or player's agent, would you feel obliged to disclose the details of other offers freely? In the real world, you wouldn't. That kind of bullshitting that you described happens all the time. But in the closed world of MLB, the owners protect themselves from that by cooperating with each other. That's not collusion because the stated goal is to ensure that the negotiations are honest. And so the agents are on notice and avoid that kind of conduct. The owners insisted on an amateur draft, a soft salary cap with luxury tax penalties and all kinds of hurdles to a player's free agency -- all legally permissible tactics to keep the price of player salaries down. They're not gonna let themselves bid against fabricated offers that are technically ethical and legal violations.

Edgy MD wrote: Every team has a ceiling on what they'll offer. And everybody, no matter how rich, has a reason to be hush-hush about the level of that ceiling. If the agent says, "Your offer is very generous, but we've got more impressive offers from other teams," they have no motivation to actually explicitly share who they were offered more money from and how much that is, or to even be truthful that any such offer exists. If the Mets say, "Our owner is crazy rich, and if you tell us what the biggest offer you have on the table is, he's willing to top it by $5 million," the correct response from any worthwhile agent, is "OK, well, our biggest offer to date so far is a gajillion dollars from the Boise Bumblebees, and we'll be happy to sign for a gajillion and five." It's a game of dollars, but it's also a game of brinkmanship and a game of bluffing. I strongly doubt that in the insular world of MLB, where there are only a few dozen teams to begin with and usually no more than a tiny handful of those teams pursing the same free agent, it happens anywhere remotely like you describe it. I don''t think that there's any bullshitting going on as to what kind of other offers a player is entertaining. It would be a misrepresentation of a material fact ... a misrepresentation of a material element of the contract. And the owners wouldn't allow that to happen to themselves. That's not in their interest. They're not gonna allow themselves to hafta bid against imaginary and fabricated offers. They'll get together on that point and cooperate with each other and compare notes and take away an agent's license, maybe even his law license if they try and pull that crap.

Edgy MD wrote: I was speaking at the time to the question about whether the Mets ever produced a player as good as Juan Soto. Depends on how you phrase things. I guess we truly won't know for sure until Soto's career is over. But sticking with your seven year theme because that's how many seasons Soto currently has under his belt --- how would David Wright fare in today's market if he were a 28 year old free agent today after his seventh or 2010 season? Going into 2011, he'd yet to show any signs of the back injury that would destroy the rest of his career. His numbers were down in his seasons six and seven, but only because he was playing in the original Citi Field configuration, which suppressed offense significantly. But relative to Citi Field, his numbers were still very productive.

It's Soto's future that is being sought after. Soto may not have even entered his prime yet. Soto might plausibly put up Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays like numbers for the next five or eight seasons. All of your Mets other than Seaver had already peaked and were past their prime by the time they had accumulated the stats you show. If you included the ages of these players at the time those stats were accumulated, Soto would be the youngest -- easily so.

The only Met that ever got "hosed" in MVP voting was Dwight Gooden, who should've won the 1985 award in a unanimous landslide sweep. You could make a very plausible case that Albert Pujols was better than both Wright and Rollins in 2007.

Jim Bowden, writing for The Athletic, believes that the Mets are the favorites to land Soto. (long read) Excerpt: I predicted a 15-year, $622 million contract when I finalized my top free agent ranking in late October. I believed Soto would get $622 million because he is only 26, has one of the best hit tools the game has ever seen, and should age well. Fifteen years makes sense when you consider many superstar players have signed deals that run until they're at least 40, even though the backends of those contracts rarely work out well for the teams. Those are eye-popping numbers, but they're really not surprising given the player. [***] 1. New York Mets The Mets are my favorites to sign Soto because I believe if their owner, Steve Cohen, wants him, he will make the highest bid — offering the most dollars and years — and if he does that and no other team matches it, I think he's getting his man. Cohen was the highest bidder last offseason for Yoshinobu Yamamoto before the Dodgers matched the Mets' bid, and his offer two years ago to Brandon Nimmo (eight years, $162 million) far exceeded any other the outfielder had received. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5935858/2024/11/21/mlb-juan-soto-free-agency-teams-suitors/https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5935858/2024/11/21/mlb-juan-soto-free-agency-teams-suitors/

=ashie62 post_id=179532 time=1732228709 user_id=90] I'd be happy with Lindor getting a couple of firsts

Good work. I would guess that Seaver also was tops for '68-'77 and '69-'78.

I read somewhere that Steve Cohen will not be outbid for Soto.... that he will offer $50M more than the next highest bidder for Soto. If this is accurate and it's mainly about money, that would make the Mets the favorites to land Soto, I would think.

I doubt that you understand. The reason for my post is that David Wright is not a Hall of Famer. He was already done --- toast -- by his age 31 season, four years before he would officially retire, after having already missed large chunks of almost two seasons even before that. He had the talent and the character to make the HOF and was on a HOF trajectory for the first few seasons of his career. But he lacked luck. Injuries demolished whatever chances he once had of Cooperstown enshrinement. Career WAR (49.2) Average HOF 3B (68.4) JAWS (44.3) Average HOF 3B (55.8) But if youse wanna turn this into a Romper Room festival of giddy posts where every Met supposedly belongs in the HOF because they're Mets, go ahead. If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands. If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands. Ring around the rosey. Pocketful of poseys. Yay!

I guess your rule is that if you were a Met, you could engineer one of the most disgraceful cheating scandals in sports history and still get into the HOF. Because you were a Met! And what do you suppose they'll discover about Wright that they don't already know? A secret stash of 200 HR's that he's been secretly hoarding from the public?