batmagadanleadoff

1974 Rack packs were 39 cents. [fimg=444:n6gosvcg]http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2013images/Item_25272_1.jpg[/fimg:n6gosvcg] In 1974. Follow the link to the photo above and you'll discover that this lot of three unopened '74 rack packs sold at auction for $948.00. It couldn't have been the Ron Hodges card driving up the price.

Edgy MD wrote: Licensing and marketing mostly handled by the team, rather than MLB, making it clear that teams wanted to beat each other from the brand on down. Good one. I guess MLB can't trust one of its renegade owners to go and fuck up the brand. They can start with post-season tickets and programs. At least a team's still allowed to print its own regular season programs and yearbooks. Not that the Mets yearbooks are great shakes. I swear that the last two I bought, I did so out of habit and one of those, I still haven't even bothered to look at. Really. Still, they probably weight four or fives times what a 70's yearbook weighs and aren't remotely as interesting or engaging. So put me down for another one. Mets yearbooks like they were in the 60's and 70's. And Willard Mullin. And Bruce Stark. Whatever happened to sports cartoonists?

HahnSolo wrote: I know many calendars are available in retail in September. Not sure if that's the case here but might explain some things Yeah, we went through this last year. This is just one of several Mets calendars that'll hit the stores in the next few months.

In: Jonathon Niese Jenrry Mejia Zack Wheeler Michael Cuddyer Not In: Noah Syndergaard Jeurys Familia Stephen Matz Michael Conforto Looks like that list was made up in Spring Training, 2015.

Edgy MD wrote: I like that you can be retired but still need a few months of inactivity before you drop off the list completely. Still seeing his name in the rankings for a bit will probably help Dan Haren's transition. Well yeah. Because how the hell is the list supposed to know that Haren's retired? And what if Haren changes his mind or something. Nice find. Two thumbs up. I didn't even know that Bill James had a website.

Ceetar wrote: black uniforms. It figures.

Centerfield wrote: The Utley Rule. A baserunner who, in the ump's discretion, is being a dickhead, will be ruled out, and the DP will be awarded. Did MLB make a new rule? Because I thought that the existing rule regarding "out of baseline" baserunners was perfect. I thought that the problem was that the umps simply didn't enforce it consistently.

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I know ... one's a crime and the other's a civil matter. But I don't think those differences are meaningful in determining the proper approach baseball should take. Is the difference between employment discrimination and aggravated assault meaningful? You can find differences anywhere. But I don't think that one act (Chapman's. Allegedly.) merits MLB involvement whether or not there's legal intervention while in the other (the Jeff Affair) MLB does nothing under the premise (bullshit story) that MLB shouldn't interfere with the legal process. Knowing all along that Jeff was likely gonna essentially pay so that the courts wouldn't involve themselves. I guess MLB has different standards depending on whether the alleged wrongdoer is a player (labor) or an owner (management). Or whether the owner's a Wilpon or a McCourt. Look, I'm just ranting a little. Baseball's still an old boys club run like a college fraternity. It protects its own and applies the rules inconsistently whenever it sees fit. What I was getting at is that MLB should've investigated the Castergine matter. Not that I'm surprised that it looked the other way and whitewashed whatever was made public.

Frayed Knot wrote: There are currently no charges being filed in this case as there were conflicting stories on exactly what went down and it'll be tougher to make a case for a lengthy suspension if charges never are sought. No surprise here as everyone involved first hand seems to have done everything possible to keep the incident from ever getting out. It's funny how MLB decided to do nothing while the legal process played out in Jeff Wilpon's case, probably knowing all along that there was a high probability that the matter would settle before the courts got involved. Heck, I'd bet anything that privately, the commish told Jeff that he better settle that case so that nothing would escalate and the commish's hand wouldn't be forced. Of course the the legal process never played out because Jeff essentially paid for the legal system to go away. He may be as guilty as sin. Or as liable as sin. I know ... one's a crime and the other's a civil matter. But I don't think those differences are meaningful in determining the proper approach baseball should take.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Centerfield wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Classy or not... it's pretty smart. Cynical, mebbe, yeah, but smart. Clearly not classy. But I guess it's smart. They're up there with KC now. Worked out real great when 09 Mets had Krod and Putz. The thing to do is to get the reliever after he terrorizes his girlfriend, not before. That's where the Mets fucked up with K-Rod. But not Milwaukee. And Putz, well he's no wife-beater as far as I know so the Mets screwed that one up as well.

Centerfield wrote: But does anyone know how long the suspension will be for the domestic violence? This one seems like a pretty severe case. I'd go 162 at him if I were Manfred. Maybe MLB'll let Chapman buy his way out like they let Jeff Wilpon last year.

With Lagares and de Aza, those LaGuardia airplanes better watch out.

Plus, Murphy's new contract isn't prohibitively expensive. It surely isn't in the stratosphere. It's nowhere near what many experts were predicting, during the post-season and at the height of his powers, Murphy would get. It's the sort of contract a normal big market team gives out without blinking an eye. Not that money played a large role in the Mets decision to let Murphy go.

That's an old hat on a 2015 card. What is this, 1969 again, when Topps was low in new photo stock and hadda use old and repeated images?

dgwphotography wrote: It's Charlie Hayes, who never made it out of spring training. Winner. Winner. I thought I had a stumper but for the sharp eyes of the photographer. [fimg=555]http://media0.giphy.com/media/Qh5dZDCFqr1dK/giphy.gif[/fimg]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Jon Nunnally There are none Nunallies in that photo.

There ain't no picture of Butterball Field in this shot below, so this has to be a "Who Am I" post? So ... Who Am I? [fimg=444:3ivtj222]https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1531/23665421100_6ea2bf0123_o.jpg[/fimg:3ivtj222]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: G-Fafif wrote: Jessie Hudson Bob Apodaca John Mitchell David West Glendon Rusch Jorge Velandia Phil Humber Tim Stauffer The last Mets to make their first appearances in playoff-qualifying seasons. Of the eight, Stauffer was among the seven who didn't attend high school alongside Vida Blue. That would've made a great (and tough) trivia question. You coulda, for example, put that list out there and asked us what it signified. Or left Stauffer off the list and asked us to name the Met that continues the pattern. Don't tell me that you knew that list off the top of your head. Did you? He's human, after all. He misspelled Hudson's first name.

If you wanted to, you could probably talk yourself out of ever getting any free agent.

G-Fafif wrote: Jessie Hudson Bob Apodaca John Mitchell David West Glendon Rusch Jorge Velandia Phil Humber Tim Stauffer The last Mets to make their first appearances in playoff-qualifying seasons. Of the eight, Stauffer was among the seven who didn't attend high school alongside Vida Blue. That would've made a great (and tough) trivia question. You coulda, for example, put that list out there and asked us what it signified. Or left Stauffer off the list and asked us to name the Met that continues the pattern. Don't tell me that you knew that list off the top of your head. Did you?

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I didn't do that. You asked a question and I answered it. You didn't do ... what? Your last sentence in your prior post. Yeah. I wan't saying that you specifically were being contrary for the sake of being contrary. My bad if that's how that post reads. I was generalizing there, and not addressing any specific poster.

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And anyone who wants to pick nits here by reminding me that I don't know precisely how much money the Mets have or haven't because it's all so secret and private is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. no, that's not true. We DO know how much money the Mets have. and how much they make. We DON'T know how much the Mets owners have. You're demanding the Wilpons spend their own money above and beyond what the Mets asset brings in. In some cases this is fair, after all the money they make from SNY and such is a direct result of the Mets and you could maintain that using that revenue is sustainable because you're investing in the main product that's making you that money. But it's still not the Mets money nor is it within MLB's legal right to demand that they invest it that way. I don't care what the owners do with their money. I simply believe that they don't have the funds to run the team the way it should be run. I don't care where the money comes from or where it goes. But they don't have the money to run the team. Just look at their actions ever since the Madoff scandal broke. Their comments. The payroll level. Everything. They don't have enough money to run the team the right way. A little Occam's Razor here ferchrissakes instead of convoluted obfuscation and the ridiculous stretch of the imagination and absurd logic that because Megdal's pieces are flawed (I agree) the Mets have no financial problems and nothing that Megdal ever wrote has a ring of truth to it.

Edgy MD wrote: I didn't do that. You asked a question and I answered it. You didn't do ... what?

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I can't believe this is even a debate. Fred said that payroll was trimmed "in part" because of "debt". Does anyone here think that Fred wasn't referring to Madoff debt? The Mets sold 49% of the team a few years ago to a select group of investors, including Bill Maher. Does anyone think that the proceeds from those sales wasn't used to pay back Madoff debt -- i.e., non Mets related debt? Considering it was immediately reported afterwards that the team turned around and used that money to close the team's loans with MLB and Bank of America, with the balance going into then-current operating costs, and that several of the shares were bought by the family themselves, either directly or by SNY, yes, I think that money was used to cover team debt. Jeff and Saul and SNY buying new shares of the team to cover team debt is an example of them putting money into the team — not taking money out. In other words, it's an example of what you so desperately want them to do more of. Actually I don't want Jeff and Saul to increase their stake in the team, but I know whatcha mean. But besides, that MLB loan was necessitated because of the Madoff hit. That's why the Mets had to borrow money from MLB in the first place. Me, I don't have a problem with what the Mets do with their money and what goes where and where goes what. If Fred and Saul wanna blow it all on whores and whiskey, god bless 'em. It's their money. My problem is that they don't have enough money to run the team properly. This is not debatable. And anyone who wants to pick nits here by reminding me that I don't know precisely how much money the Mets have or haven't because it's all so secret and private is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Ceetar wrote: Considering the Mets lost money for most of the last 6 years, it's actually hurt them. What hurt them? What's "it's"?