batmagadanleadoff

The Angels have reportedly (supposedly?) (allegedly?) offered Alonso more money, more years and at a higher AAV than the Mets --- 4/$100M https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/mlb/news/angels-shock-the-baseball-world-with-100m-offer-to-pete-alonso-is-this-the-move-that-changes-everything/articleshow/117520201.cms

So what? That doesn't justify excluding Aaron and Robinson from the HOF ballot.

This answer might lie in Attachment 49 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Why Steve Cohen’s ‘brutally honest’ comments on Alonso negotiations were so unusual, plus more MLB notes https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6090542/2025/01/27/mets-alonso-astros-bregman-dodgers-pirates-skenes/

Still not sure why Cohen is referring to these negotiations as "asymetrical". What does Cohen consider to be "asymetrical" about these negotiations? Unless Cohen specifically explains as much, I don't think it's that clear. Cohen has all the right in the world to reject Boras's demands, or to criticize Boras's demands and to not like them, but that does not make them asymetrical. Who has more leverage in these negotiations? Who has more clout, more bargaining power? Do the Mets need Alonso more than Alonso needs the Mets? How many other teams have stepped up to even match the Mets offer, let alone top it?

I wasn't sure what Cohen mean by "asymetrical" . I thought Cohen meant that Alonso's demand to other teams (like the Blue Jays, I guess) was different, less expensive than the demand made to the Mets. But now it seems that the gripe is that Alonso's demand differs from the demand(s) of other player(s). I don't see what's wrong with that and if that's the case, I don't side with Cohen and the Mets. Each player is unique and presents his own unique sui generis case.

Not really. If there are 11 Hank Aarons on the ballot, eleven candidates who clearly belong in the HOF, then it's understandable that one of those eleven might not get inducted, given that each voter may only vote for 10 candidates. Here's the 1982 HOF vote tallies: https://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_1982.shtml Nine voters omitted Aaron from their ballots. 45 voters couldn't bring themselves to vote for Frank Robinson. I wonder why.

Right? This is why I think all of the info that's come out these last few weeks is straight from the Boras camp. If anything came from the Mets, they would have leaked the Boras demands that are outrageous (or at least, what they view as outrageous) and then all public sentiment would have swung back to the Mets. Here's what I think happened. The Mets don't leak. I think the Mets are being extremely courteous to Boras rather than that the Mets are supposedly discrete. Maybe they're thinking long term, being that Boras represents so many top players and the Mets intend to compete for future top-tier free agents. This is not the most logical answer. Boras isn't going to reject a Mets offer that tops all others just because of a past slight or disagreement. Besides, he's ethically obligated to pass along all offers to his client(s). But I cant figure out what the downside is to disclosing Boras's demand here. Maybe so as not to further embarrass Alonso, who's already had to swallow an enormous amount of humble pie this off-season. No team think he's as good or as valuable as he thought he was. And with Soto coming on board, it definitely won't be Alonso's team anymore, assuming that Lindor hadn't already taken over that role.

I suspect an Astro. I don't see how this is even an issue. I don't see how the HOF even lets Wagner have a a say in the matter. Nine years with the Astros. Two with the Phillies. A little more than three with the Mets. What am I missing?

Just finished reading that piece. Here's the link: https://nypost.com/2025/01/25/sports/brutally-honest-steve-cohen-prepared-for-mets-life-without-pete-alonso/ If Boras's demand is so outrageous (and I tend to believe the Mets more so than Boras), I don't get why the Mets haven't disclosed the details of the Boras/Alonso demand. I totally get Cohen's resistance if Boras's demand truly is asymetrical; that is, if it's higher than what Boras would demand from the other teams. Cohen has to take a stand and demonstrate that he's not gonna pay free agents whatever the hell they ask for just because he's baseball's wealthiest owner and can afford it. It's a matter of self-preservation and besides that, there are still luxury tax penalties to contend with even if Cohen can afford to pay Alonso 100 times what he's asking for.

I think Pete's in a tough bind. His best opportunity to get a better offer, I think, was at the beginning of the off-season, when there were more than a half a dozen teams looking for a solution at first base. With so many teams in the hunt for a first baseman, the thinking would've been that to get Alonso, a better offer would've had to have been extended to win out over all of the competition for Alonso. That market and that dynamic doesn't exist anymore. Pete's current market has been reduced to the Mets and a few other teams that either don't have a smooth opening within which to fit Alonso or don't have the money that Boras is presumably asking for.

Nobody's demanding unanimous thought, but we've had a spat of bad-faith detractors over the last few decades that use that same argument to justify a lot of attention and time to batshit crazy things. Exactly. It's not about forcing unanimous thought. The guy's equating absurd, irrational ideas with legitimate debate and disagreement. Some things are just not up for debate.

Seven moves Jim Bowden would like to see made right now: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6085178/2025/01/24/mlb-trade-signing-extension-scenarios/

So it's OK for many people to think that the way to stave off Covid is to shoot bleach up your ass and to take horse medicine. Because their President, your President, told them so. It's also OK for some people to think that one plus one equals three and that the Earth is flat. Let's let those people build our bridges and highways. There's no rational argument or justification for withholding a HOF vote from baseball's very-most elite players --- players who punched their ticket into the HOF five, six, seven, maybe even ten years before they retired. Any voter who doesn't think that Hank Aaron deserves a HOF vote doesn't deserve to have a vote in the first place. It's a litmus test --- as it should be. Just like if you wanna pass your college math test, you have to provide the proper, precise, exact answers to the questions asked. If you think that two plus two equals five, then yes, you are an outlier and you will be ostracized -- you will receive a failing grade.

Sure. Especially if everyone were to think that Hank Aaron deserved to be inducted into baseball's Hall of Fame. How dangerous! That's your rationale? That it's dangerous for every HOF voter to believe that Hank Aaron or Stan Musial or Willie Mays belongs in the HOF? That makes no sense whatsoever. Is it also dangerous for everybody to believe that two plus three equals five? Or that the Earth isn't flat?

Correction: they used to get snow-outs. The stadium's domed. Still, it gets very cold there. The weather doesn't care that you might live in one of the nicest houses in the city.

It's definitely not a smooth fit. And for all of that, I don't see Toronto blowing away the Mets offer. As was already discussed, is Alonso really gonna choose Toronto over NY for a little bit more money? And it's like 10-15 degrees colder there at the beginning and end of the season. We get rain-outs. Toronto gets snow-outs. It's the coldest weather city in all of baseball. The stadium's indoors but Pete and his family still have to live there.

I agree. It's a tough squeeze. It looks like Alonso's playing time in Toronto will come at the expense of someone who's already expected to play many games. And on top of that, the signing is gonna cost them a draft pick. Maybe they're fairly certain that Guerrero will eventually leave. I dunno. I guess they could move Guerrero to third base, too.

That's right. I should've written "for the most part" instead of "that's right". On occasion, the HOF worthiness of a candidate is in reasonable doubt or question. So it's understandable when some players are inducted into the HOF with less than 100% of the vote. But there's no reasonable argument for withholding a vote from Seaver. Or Mays. Or Mantle. Or dozens and dozens of other players. Including Ichiro. You just fabricated some standards out of thin air to rationalize Ichiro's non-vote.

That's right. I get it when a player doesn't get 100% of the vote because a voter isn't sure if that player is a HOFer. And some voters come around. They believe, initially, that the player isn't HOF worthy but are persuaded over time that he is. But what's the logic for not voting for Warren Spahn? Or Rickey Henderson? Or Hank Aaron? Or Ted Williams? In the entire history of baseball, Mariano Rivera was the only player who deserved to go in unanimously on his first ballot?

That's right. I get it when a player doesn't get 100% of the vote because a voter isn't sure if that player is a HOFer. And some voters come around. They believe, initially, that the player isn't HOF worthy but are persuaded over time that he is. But what's the logic for not voting for Warren Spahn? Or Rickey Henderson? Or Hank Aaron? Or Ted Williams?

That's nonsense. A non-vote for Ichiro is a statement that Ichiro is not a HOFer. If every voter held that absurd view, Ichiro wouldn't have gotten a single vote. Which would have removed him from the ballot and from HOF consideration for decades.

That's nonsense. A non-vote for Ichiro is a statement that Ichiro is not a HOFer. If every voter held that absurd view, Ichiro wouldn't have gotten a single vote. Or did Mariano Rivera win the Cy Young award in his last season? Babe Ruth didn't deserve to go in unanimously? Willie Mays? Yogi Berra? Tom Seaver? A player is either a HOFer or he isn't.

Can't believe all this radio silence and apparent inactivity in the Alonso negotiations. Maybe the Alonso camp really overplayed its hands. Pete's OPS+ has been dropping for four straight seasons and he looked like absolute horseshit for many long stretches of last season -- like the worst side of Dave Kingman. By most fielding metrics, he's about the worst fielding every-day first baseman in baseball. What's Boras's backup plan? Some desperate hail mary wish that Freddie Freeman sustains a terrible injury in ST and the Dodgers and all their money come to the rescue?

I didn't say there was a fuss over it. I said the information was leaked. Yes, parties can divulge information. If they do it publicly, it's a disclosure. If they do it anonymously it's a leak. I'm of the belief that parties leak information with intent. When I wrote about the "fuss" over these disclosures, I was writing about you. I thought you were making a big fuss over these disclosures. Which is fine. That's what makes these boards interesting. But to me, these leaks or disclosures or whatever are one big nothing-burger as far as I'm concerned. I don't think there was any strategy or chess game being played by the release of that info. I think that it's somebody privy to the negotiations deciding to disclose some of that info to the press anonymously and nothing more. I never thought the disclosures were going to cause the Mets to crumble or fold or to weaken their bargaining position. And more importantly, I never thought that the Boras/Alonso camp ever thought that, either. It's just info being released. Any reasonably sentient fan knows that without knowing Boras's demands, the info is practically useless anyway. Me personally, I don't think these talks are dead and there's a very good chance that Alonso and the Mets finally come to an agreement. I say this because Alonso wants very badly to remain a Met and everybody knows this. Alonso has made no attempt to hide this. If the Mets offer was unreasonably low, some other team would've topped it by now.

Cohen made that much money in the time it took you to write this. He probably did.