batmagadanleadoff

This bunch sucks. I'm not voting for any of them.

What's the difference? Aren't we supposed to be voting for the best looking covers? The cleverest covers?

That Sandy Alderson Monty Hall cover is still the best one.

seawolf17 wrote: How the ever-loving frig is Will Clark an option and Keith Hernandez isn't? Because defense, especially from that era , is still grossly undervalued if it's even understood. Keith Hernandez was so far ahead of his time defensively that if he was born 35 years later and was playing today, he'd still be ahead of his time And Joe Carter. That's a fucking joke, right?

Lefty Specialist wrote: Alderson as Monty Hall is hilarious. Everything else was depressing. It's my favorite, too. In fact, it's the only cover I even like from this group.

Centerfield wrote: But if the Mets are serious about contending, and Brodie is able to get the Wilpons to open it up, then yes, you have to talk to Machado. And how does BVW do that without knowing how much money he has to work with? How much deGrom and Syndergaard will make? How much deGrom and Syndergaard will make if either or both of their contracts are reworked? How the hell can BVW do anything contract related or any kind of global budget planning and managing if he's supporting to (wink wink) recuse himself from any contract negotiations with his ex clients? The whole thing is asinine and the Mets explanation is fucking insulting. Not that this is my problem.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'd ask what it takes to make him our 3rd baseman. A buyout of the Wilpons.

Centerfield wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Then there are those days when I wonder if you're some mad genius and this all one big Andy Kaufman inspired put-on. Me too. At times it seems too out there to be real. Like he's a caricature instead of a real person. Yeah. Because as unlikely as that might be, the Andy Kaufman put-on scenario makes more sense than any of the stuff he's written on this topic.

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I cant respond to any of this because I truly have no idea what you're talking about.. yes, this is pretty obvious. It is. But you seem to be proud of this when you really shouldn't.

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: He didn't divest, because he has confidential information and knowledge which can't be un-remembered. (which is a word I like better than forgotten in this context) He just should not have this job. which may or may not even matter. He's going to _act_ as if he divested. He's NOT going to act on his fiduciary obligation to do what's best for deGrom. (or you know, Drew Pomeranz) Hence, no conflict. it's a technicality because it clearly doesn't matter does it? He IS the GM. He's got the job. It's done. We're past that. You can debate how serious a breach it is, but in the end, he's going to do what's best for the Mets with a singular purpose. You're going on and on about damn semantics. I shouldn't have bothered. I don't see any realistic scenario where this hurts the Mets, it can only help, as sleezy as it is (and it's still light years better than employing Jose Reyes). I guess he could piss off deGrom or someone and totally erode all players confidence in him but as long as he pays guys more/as much as other teams are offering, none of that'll come to pass. Is he gonna low-ball Drew Pomeranz because he secretly knows he wants to be a Met, have that get out, and then no one will ever sign here? seems unlikely. Syndergaard is so far from free agency that this will likely be old news. Even deGrom has two years. But yes, do some smoothing for those guys to make sure they're not pissy about it, which they seem not to be. As it stands, the Mets hired someone they like. I cant respond to any of this because I truly have no idea what you're talking about. Then there are those days when I wonder if you're some mad genius and this all one big Andy Kaufman inspired put-on.

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And the conflicted investor has to divest. Which, you know, "he did". I mean, yes, it's silly and he still technically/legally has the fiduciary duty. But like, it's pretty clear he's just going to violate that. He got all the sign-offs in order to do so. He's not going into negotiations "unofficially behind the scenes" thinking about that duty in any way. All the clauses and statements are about making sure it's not obvious that he's violating that duty. He is not conflicted. It's that lack of confliction that makes this sketchy, but again, everyone (including the players association, despite what public spin they want to put on it) signed off on it. Now, you tell me when that ends. deGrom's contract technically ends now, and he'll arbitrate a new one and then presumably someone at CAA takes over that duty?. Same with Thor, etc. Vargas and Cespedes aren't really going to be negotiating new contracts period, they're just status quo. There's nothing really to enforce/negotiate/conflict there right? because they _agreed_ that this is the mutual interests of both parties? He didn't divest, because he has confidential information and knowledge which can't be un-remembered. (which is a word I like better than forgotten in this context) He just should not have this job.

Centerfield wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Just because this happened before, doesn't make it right. You dont resolve conflicts of interest by putting the fiduciaries on the honor system and getting them to promise not to abuse their trusts. You eliminate the conflict. That means that the conflicted lawyer has to give up the case. The conflicted judge has to recuse herself. And the conflicted investor has to divest. And I agree with that criticism. But the Wilpons didn't set the rules. And if the Wilpons think (for whatever reason) that Van Wagenen is their best choice, they are acting properly within the current rules. They cannot be blamed for a set of rules that they did not institute. I'm not necessarily blaming the Wilpons. I think they made a sleazy move that wont hurt them but might benefit them if the Mets negotiate with BVW'S ex clients using confidential information gained by BVW acting as a former fiduciary. So good for the owners, I guess. If BVW truly won't involve himself in those specific negotiations, which I doubt and can't even see how that's possible, then I call more incompetence on the Wilpons.

Just because this happened before, doesn't make it right. You dont resolve conflicts of interest by putting the fiduciaries on the honor system and getting them to promise not to abuse their trusts. You eliminate the conflict. That means that the conflicted lawyer has to give up the case. The conflicted judge has to recuse herself. And the conflicted investor has to divest.

https://nypost.com/2018/11/01/mlb-should-be-ashamed-of-this-brodie-van-wagenen-mess/amp/ More BVW fallout, this time from the Post's Phil Mushnick, who calls the arrangement "preposterous "and relies on those so stupid that they would believe the nonsense line that BVW'S gonna recuse himself and won't participate in negotiations with his ex clients. Which is even more preposterous if, by some miracle, turns out to be true instead of horseshit nonsense. Only the Mets, kids. Only the Mets. The other thing I was thinking about, going back to yesterday's ridiculous discussions, is that critical thinking isn't even needed here. This is such a basic and obvious straightforward example of a conflict of Interest that almost any reasonably informed adult, no matter their background, should see.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: That Fangraphs article posted before had good insights into the legal messiness of the BVW hiring. This Ringer article is a good read, too (the Fangraphs piece is linked in there, as well). https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/10/31/18047740/new-york-mets-brodie-van-wagenen-gm Think about all the things in your personal life that you don’t talk about to your boss. Medical information, including mental health information, issues in your home life, legal problems, your emotional state, petty personal grievances against managers and coworkers. Modern player agencies don’t just negotiate contracts—they provide services to help players with day-to-day living, even set them up with doctors. Because an agent is a player’s advocate, a player might feel safe confiding information or sentiments in his agent that could be damaging if it reached his employers or the public. Teams already collect personal and medical information about players far beyond what any normal American employer knows about its workers—perhaps beyond what’s necessary or appropriate. But that information was gathered with the consent of the athletes. Van Wagenen has the opportunity to hand over his former clients’ private information to the Mets without those clients’ consent. Whether he intends to reveal or act on those confidences isn’t as important as the fact that he could if he wanted or needed to; if workers could rely on the rectitude and ethics of management, we wouldn’t have needed agents or labor unions in the first place. Haha. We both called horseshit, literally, on the bullshit that BVW's gonna recuse himself from negotiations where there's a conflict of interest.

Oooooh! It's illegal! What is that? The 41F goody goody gumdrops defense where we live in a world where everybody's oh so very good and nobody ever tells a lie? Then why even bother with law enforcement if nobody's ever gonna do anything illegal? The point isn't whether the former defense attorney now turned prosecutor will actually use info detrimental to his former client gained in confidence---- but whether he's in a position to use that info. It's the mere possibility of using that info against his former client that creates a conflict of interest. This is just one of a shtload of a multitude of incompehensibly gibberishy things you've written today.

You really have no fucking clue or idea as to what you're talking about and it's comically obvious.. Which is no shame. But you should take CFs advice and do some basic brushing up on conflicts of interest before you claim that you're the only one here who can think critically.

But it is about interests being conferred upon BVW, not that this alone necessarily defines a conflict of interest. Last week, BVW's goal was to get as much money for deGrom as possible. Now his goal is to sign deGrom for as little money as possible. To the extent that BVW succeeds, he will be deemed to have done a good job, gained some more job security and maybe even a raise. What If eff and Jeff tell BVW that for every dollar they think he'll have saved the Mets on deGrom's next contract, they'll give BVW 50 cents?

Ceetar wrote: Van Wagenen doesn't have any conflict of interest. The risk is one of spoiled confidences, trusted personal information that may have now be in the teams hand that otherwise wouldn't have, but we don't even know if there's much of that or what possible consequences it could have. Maybe he knows deGrom really really loves NY and has told him he'll take a hometown discount, and that'll cost him $30 million or something. Would a lawyer who's helped a person sue his employer later be allowed to become an executive at that same company? Are there legal grounds that prevent that? That's probably the parallel. I'm not even gonna bother to respond. Nope. Just not gonna do it.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I like how the Mets hired a GM who's supposedly gonna recuse himself from future negotiations with deGrom and Syndergaard, perhaps the most critical contract talks that are gonna come up near term -- to avoid conflicts of interest. Anybody who believes that horseshit about the recusing is a gullible fucking idiot. And if it turns out to be the truth, then the Mets owners are even bigger incompetent idiots than I ever imagined. It's mind boggling that BVW is even allowed to take the GM position. A lawyer would almost never be allowed to take on a case against a former client. But this is the world we live in where first count daughter Ivanka can be an unqualified top adviser to her daddy president while all the while retaining control of her vast business interests. Conflicts of interest are for the little people.

I like how the Mets hired a GM who's supposedly gonna recuse himself from future negotiations with deGrom and Syndergaard, perhaps the most critical contract talks that are gonna come up near term -- to avoid conflicts of interest. Anybody who believes that horseshit about the recusing is a gullible fucking idiot. And if it turns out to be the truth, then the Mets owners are even bigger incompetent idiots than I ever imagined.

No there won't. It's gonna be all rah rah pep rally bullshit with lots and lotsa adjectives. I truly don't know what everyone was expecting.

Edgy MD wrote: Seems like circular logic (or Catch-22 logic, at least) to suggest that the Mets hired the wrong guy which is demonstrable in that he was hired by the Mets. rrxlfvI17oY

Ceetar wrote: As much as I would've loved the Mets to find an up and coming minority or woman or other such underrepresented group and give them a chance, I think it's fairly misguided to criticize them for not ..... Fuck that. I could give a flying fuck about the ethnoracialsexualpreference of the GM. I want Theo Epstein but the catch-22 is that Theo Epstein is a brilliant GM who knows exactly what the fuck he's doing and any brilliant GM candidate who knows exactly what the fuck he's doing isn't going to work for the incompetent frauds and douchebags that own the Mets. Baseball exists today in an era where money never mattered more. Playing in a major market won't guarantee success (see, e.g., Mets, White Sox, Angels) because a team could easily squander its natural competitive advantages. But sustained success comes mainly from those large market teams that outspend everybody else, like the Dodgers, Yankees and Red Sox. A little Occam's Razor here, ferchrissakes sake. Meanwhile, it's been reported that BVW wants to convince the Wilpons to spend more money. This is sure to make a certain Trump loving Mets ownership shilling poster's head explode because how the hell is he gonna pick a side when all he can write is to go along with every single harebrained idea the Mets brass thinks?

I'm no even reading. you're copy and pasting the same stuff. If you really think the Mets are gonna win the World Series every single season, nothing has/will change, stop posting here? What's fantasizing about it to us going to do?