batmagadanleadoff

Youse are gonna hafta up your games to win this quiz. Erhardt's sign was a lot more clevererer than the stuff youse are coming up with.

Frayed Knot wrote: THERE ARE NO WORDS That was Erhardt's sign after the last out of the '69 WS was recorded.

What's funny is I couldn't tell you what movie... Smart money says Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. The Expendables. Splendor in the Ass

What was the text or phrase on the sign that Karl "The Sign Man" Erhardt held up after the last out was made in the Mets pennant clinching 1973 playoff game against the Reds?

What happened to Cleon's glove? Did he have a catch with Herman Munster?

I never imagined that making custom Ceciliani cards would turn out to be so popular. [fimg=333:pcuvxtsz]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1527/24662360042_e100a055a6_o.jpg[/fimg:pcuvxtsz]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Simon sez "jump!" [fimg=544]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7339/16566442671_f2d9bd08b4_o.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=600]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1631/24145316734_e5caabb1f5_o.jpg[/fimg]

Simon sez "jump!" [fimg=544:2yj13j81]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7339/16566442671_f2d9bd08b4_o.jpg[/fimg:2yj13j81]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't know who has the penthouse offices. Every time I stop by, Maja never lets me past the front desk. I can assure you that if you can't get in, they'll never let me in there.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: As promised, the cover is on display in the lobby of the Kran Pool Forum Internationella Huvudkontoret, the CPF's International Headquarters, in Sweden's capital. Behind the desk is our lovely receptionist Maja. What's that room for on the left with the glass double doors? And who's in the penthouse offices?

cooby wrote: I remember this ad actually and others in the Sears catalog with him

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Zvon wrote: Bob Johnson. I never made a card for this guy? Somebody, gimme a color shot of Johnson! Bob Johnson's not the answer, and a tough Met get, picture wise. Fringe Mets from '67 and '68 might be the most difficult Mets to find pictures of. This is in part because, around that time, Marvin Miller, as new head of the player's union, embarked on his strategy to take on Topps as a way to enrich the union coffers, which were pretty barren when he took over. Miller's strategy was to angle for more money from Topps for the players and, as leverage, threatened to have players refuse to renew their contracts upon expiration. Around 1967, many players stopped posing for Topps even though they were still under contract. The Mets, pretty much as an entire team, stopped posing for Topps in early '67 and would not pose for Topps again until Spring Training '69. This is why photos of fringe players from those years are hard to come by and also, why there are so many dated, and re-used and capless head shots in the '68 and '69 Topps sets. It's also probably why as late as 1969, Mets acquired or re-acquired in between the '67 and '68 seasons still didn't get a proper picture on their Topps cards. (four or five year old picture of Jackson) The answer to the last part of this quiz is Tommie Reynolds, who was on the '69 A's for the entire season. Blue was promoted to the big club from Birmingham in mid '69, one day before the A's traded for Bob Johnson. So by one day, Johnson missed out on tying Reynolds for the honor of being Blue's first one-time Met teammate.

So what are the odds that the Mets trot out the old hideous black uniforms for the game that will played on this date?

Zvon wrote: Bob Johnson. I never made a card for this guy? Somebody, gimme a color shot of Johnson! Bob Johnson's not the answer, and a tough Met get, picture wise. Your best bet might be to colorize a B&W photo, like the team issued head shot, below. Fringe Mets from '67 and '68 might be the most difficult Mets to find pictures of. This is in part because, around that time, Marvin Miller, as new head of the player's union, embarked on his strategy to take on Topps as a way to enrich the union coffers, which were pretty barren when he took over. Miller's strategy was to angle for more money from Topps for the players and, as leverage, threatened to have players refuse to renew their contracts upon expiration. Around 1967, many players stopped posing for Topps even though they were still under contract. The Mets, pretty much as an entire team, stopped posing for Topps in early '67 and would not pose for Topps again until Spring Training '69. This is why photos of fringe players from those years are hard to come by and also, why there are so many dated, and re-used and capless head shots in the '68 and '69 Topps sets.

They will be worn proudly by the Columbia Fireflies: https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/columbia-fireflies-unveil-glow-in-the-dark-uniforms-and-caps-022819908.html Later Following some of the links in that piece will lead you to MLB's 2016 Spring Training caps and unis. Here's a sample:

G-Fafif wrote: Guy I really wanted to be right was Mike Torrez, but his claim to fame is having one of the best careers w/o an ASG appearance. Also wanted Art Shamsky to have been an All-Star as a Red, but I knew that was wrong. Others who crossed my mind sans proper credentials included Teddy Martinez and Alex Trevino (plus J. Alou). I didn't have to research every one of the 22 Mets teammates to determine which were all-stars. So for example, I could safely eliminate teammates like Rob Gardner, Gary Rajsich and Charlie Williams, who never came close to having an all star caliber season, without having to look up their careers. I did research Shamsky just to be on the safe side even though I suspected that he never made the all-star team as a Red. One player that I researched, believing that there was a reasonable chance he might've been an all-star (though he wasn't) was Juan Berenguer. Let's extend this quiz for one more question. Among one-time Mets, who was the first ever major league teammate of Vida Blue?

Gee, Howie waited to the second paragraph to mention Madoff. Here's the key sentence to me: If the Mets owners are taking in enough money to siphon off a bunch of it for their still-enormous debts, but still fielding a competitive baseball team financially, it really doesn't matter to fans, nor is it much of a story. So, Howie, you finally realized it. Now, STFU and go find another story line. Later If you're interested in this sort of stuff, Madoff isn't mentioned until the 11th paragraph. The above quote is merely an excerpt. And what is it that Megdal finally realized (after the Mets finally started spending)?

What Yespedes means for the New York Mets and their owners By Howard Megdal 7:16 a.m. | Jan. 26, 2016 EXCERPT: Well, with the Cespedes 2016 contract number at a reported $27.5 million, the Mets will have a payroll north of $140 million. It still isn't remarkable by MLB standards, placing them somewhere around ninth in the league by 2015 standards, but no longer is the contrast between revenue and payroll so vast, and no longer is the team's roster starved of what it needs at a moment it can best take advantage of generational young talent. Ultimately, the years-long story of Mets ownership, Bernie Madoff and the lies that followed mattered only to the extent it led to a Mets team that operated primarily, if not exclusively, as a cash machine for ownership, rather than as a baseball team. If the Mets owners are taking in enough money to siphon off a bunch of it for their still-enormous debts, but still fielding a competitive baseball team financially, it really doesn't matter to fans, nor is it much of a story. And merely the ability to sign Cespedes is a welcome sign that the Mets at least have the capability to do this, though how fleeting that capability is, and how dependent on postseason revenues, is still a great unknown. If the Cespedes contract—a rare moment where the Mets, given a chance, significantly improved their team with nothing more than a huge outlay of money—is the new way the team is doing business, payroll will continue to rise accordingly. The young pitchers will be more expensive in the years to come, and a basic cost of doing business in MLB will be to extend at least some of them. Should Cespedes opt out, the Mets will need to sign him again, or replace him offensively. A return to even the 2015 payroll of $110 million would represent a continuing of the post-Madoff reality so many hope the Mets shattered Friday night, given the players on this team and what great talent costs. But that is for next offseason. And for now, the Mets have increased their payroll by approximately $30 million—nearly all of that increase coming in an 11th-hour acquisition of the team's best offensive player in 2015, all of which set off riotous celebration in a fan base that had come to believe such things were no longer possible. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2016/01/8589091/what-yespedes-means-new-york-mets-and-their-owners

They should angiogram Yoenis and do a live TV feed of the images recorded by the microscopic camera that they insert in Yo's body.

AP wrote: "I think the status quo on the DH has served the industry the well," he said. "I think it serves an important purpose in terms of defining the difference between the American League and the National League, and that league definition is important to us from a competitive perspective." I don't agree here. I like variety, but I think it's a dumb idea for the leagues to have materially different rules and that a team that is constructed under one rule should have to play meaningful games, maybe even World Series games, under the other rule. If I had the magic wand, I'd abolish interleague play and the DH, and contract back to 24 teams. In my dreams.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 27 sounds like a lot of pitching changes to me. 26 would be better, 25 best. Yeah, you're probably right that that's how it would play out. I'd like to see those two additional roster spots go to position players, and maybe they would, at first, but inevitably it would probably lead to a 14-man pitching staff. UGH! Since we're fantasizing anyway, why not tweak the rule so that rosters expand to 27, but a team may not carry more than, say, 13 players that are eligible to pitch? Then carve out an exception for blow-outs, so that if a team trails by x runs after y innings, a position player may pitch.

Absolutely nothing has gone right for the Nationals this winter [fimg=633]https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1DQlU3C9imYP_5--za3AMwnYMX4=/0x0:5992x3995/1310x873/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/48635621/usa-today-8791129.0.jpg[/fimg] Unless you're the biggest Daniel Murphy fan in the world, this winter has been more about what the Nationals haven't done instead of what they have done. http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2016/1/25/10827118/nationals-offseason-free-agents-yoenis-cespedes excerpt: What was the Nationals' plan if they were successful in their pursuit of Jason Heyward? Was he Harper insurance if their star left in two years? Was he part of the plan to entice Harper to stay? Or were they primarily focused on the present, with the future being left for the future? It doesn't matter. Heyward signed with the Cubs. The Nationals were curious about Justin Upton, and he signed elsewhere. They were curious about Wei-Yin Chen, which would have freed up one of their starting pitchers to trade. They were talking contract with Mike Leake for the same reason. They missed out on Ben Zobrist, Swiss Army knife of the gods. Darren O'Day turned them down to stay put. They thought they had a trade for Brandon Phillips, but he demanded an extension to waive his no-trade rights. The last of the bunch was the worst of the bunch, at least strategically. The Nationals were pursuing Yoenis Cespedes, which would have served a dual purpose of making their lineup stronger and poking the Mets in the eye. Instead, the Mets got Cespedes on what's essentially a one-year deal (assuming he opts out), which fits their needs and budget perfectly. The Nationals are instead left to hope for the best from a 37-year-old Jayson Werth as their main source of power after Harper. Every team missed out on a target or three. The Nationals missed out on targets spectacularly, though, right up to their final failed pursuit of a crucial NL East player. [***] After [bryce Harper] it's bleak. Zimmerman had a .308 OBP last year, and his body is an old soul. Murphy is a fine complementary player, but he makes you wince as a #5 hitter. Werth is coming off his worst season, and he's 37. Espinosa is coming off one of his best seasons, but that still makes him a defense-first player you hide at the bottom of the order. Ramos has been a net-negative hitter for two seasons now. The Nationals probably needed Cespedes more than the Mets did, really.

Zvon wrote: Gosger's hat looks like that because he (like many other players) would fold the hat backwards, folding the brim forward and under the bridge of the cap, wrapping it around the hat. Then they'd stick the folded hat in their back pocket. Interesting. I never thought of that. I've seen plenty of pictures of Mets caps folding in that fashion over the years. But in my mind, all of those pics are from the flannel uniform era. I figured that the 70's caps are different and don't leave those fold marks.

Centerfield wrote: When scrolling through the possibilities way back when, I really didn't think it would come down to these two. I don't think anybody did. The final covers so disappoint me that I don't even feel like voting anymore.