batmagadanleadoff

G-Fafif wrote: Seaver, Mays, Carter, Piazza, Hernandez, Hodges. Get this thing started right. You're obviously one of those hardasses that purposely don't use all of their allotted votes, probably in order to draw attention to yourself. Can't come up with seven HOF'ers, even after a 50 year hiatus? Me, I woulda voted just like you did, but adding Ol' Case to the ballot.

Edgy MD wrote: It makes sense that history should stop after Pud. Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Seaver, Carlton, Schmidt, Henderson, Brett. How's that? That's eight. You gotta cut one. I got a hunch that Seaver's gonna do real fine on this forum. It's a tough vote, for sure. You omitted, among dozens of top tier HOF'ers, Williams and Musial.

As if you didn't know, that's the Baseball Hall of Fame's inaugural class (1936) -- often referred to as the greatest group of inductees ever. It is, but not because the early 20th century players were greater. It's the greatest class because it's the first class, culled from decades and decades of baseball without a Hall of Fame. If a 50 year HOF moratorium was imposed beginning today, the class of 2065 would be just as impressive as the class of 1936. Of course, I can't prove this because nobody's gonna put the 50 year kibosh on the HOF, and even if a 50 year moratorium was imposed, I don't think I'd be there to see the 2065'ers make their induction speeches. But we can pretend some and impose a make-believe moratorium to see how another group of HOF inductees would stack up against the class of '36. And that's what this exercise is all about. We're gonna pretend that the last HOF inductees were from the class of 1965, and that a 50 year moratorium on HOF voting was imposed right after ol' Pud Galvin was voted in as the lone selection for 1965. Your job is to make out a ballot for the fantasy post-moratorium 2015 class. Everyone that was eligible for induction beginning in 1966 is eligible for selection in this exercise. Under these rules, you can pick up to seven persons. Let's see whatcha got.

Ceetar wrote: market value continually goes up. (and one could argue, rightly) if 4/80 is market value for Ben Zobrist, than it is. Looks like it's not, but if Zobrist is the best fit, the Mets should pay whatever it takes to get him. I was thinking the same thing. Maybe that's today's fair market value, and not just another garishly overpriced contract (offer) that Met fans can easily dismiss.

Gwreck wrote: Yes, and David Wright could get run over by a city bus tomorrow too. I think we all understand the risks of long term contracts. I do not understand what you mean by the "trajectory his career is heading in now." I was surprised by the comment about his only having one all-star selection too. I see WAR of 4.6 (2010), 2.5 (2011), 5.8 (2012), 3.7 (2013), 6.2 (2014) and 6.5 (2015) and that certainly seems to me to be a player worth signing to a long term deal if he's only 26 years old. Totally agree with you. I didn't get that trajectory comment either, especially when we're juxtaposing Heyward with Zobrist. Did anyone take a look at Zobrist's "trajectory" ferchrissakes? Not that you'd need to. He'll be 35 early next season. That, alone, tells you just about everything you'd need to know and expect from Zobrist's trajectory. I think that a lot of these analyses are overly complicated. The issue is, if you had to choose between the two, which one's gonna improve the Mets more, not how many all-star games they're projected to make. I'd say Heyward, easily. Not that the Mets are gonna get Heyward anyway, so in a sense, this is just another time waster. Of course, a NY franchise that acts like a NY franchise wouldn't have to limit themselves to one or the other if it truly wanted both of these guys. If so, they'd make competitive offers to both players and would be able to afford to carry both should they both choose the Mets.

Greinke gets $33M/yr? Jeez, we better cherish this great Mets pitching staff while we got it because it ain't gonna last like Seaver and Koosman did.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Cool duds! Too bad they have no QB and need to play the 'Hawks and Rams twice a year, or they'd have a real shot at showing those off in the Super Bowl this year. Though I actually kinda like the color combo. Boy do I hate modern NFL uniforms. The Cards and the Vikes screwed up classic classics. I don't understood what the Titans unis are supposed to be representing and the Ravens have a dumb contrived crest kinda logo that doesn't scale well and is unreadable. And it's stupid. The Bengals have a genius big cat striping scheme but don't know how to work it in tastefully so it's all over the place. And more stupid stuff -- the last name fonts -- again, out of a comic book. Although I am warming up to that neon Seahawk color scheme.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Concerned not only for SA obviously but that the Mets haven't bothered yet to specify who's in charge in the meantime. That's a typical Met thing. “In the meantime, Sandy’s team and I will be coordinating closely with him and keeping him up to date on all baseball matters.” That's Jeff speaking. Jeff! Wowza. Get well Sandy. Not suprised about Jeff, though. He'll be making all the big decisions soon and inevitably. It's in his character and he can't help himself.

Sublimated shmublimated. It can't hide the fact that the D'Backs wear baseball's ugliest uniforms. And that idiotic "D'back" abbreviation. WTF!?! can't fit that long name on the jersey front? Well they shoulda thought of that when they decided to name the team in the first place. What are those players supposed to be, professional athletes or some gone awry hip version of action heroes from some cheesy comic book? Those unis aren't as stupid as the Mets in black and purple set, but thank god I don't have that to kick that around anymore.

[fimg=444:17cmqyfn]http://larrybrownsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Steve-Phillips-Stephen-Strasburg.jpg[/fimg:17cmqyfn]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I love "Landslide" as much as the next guy with ears and a heart, but come on. The deGrom pic is FANTASTIC. degrom photographs very well in baseball action. I think that's the best angle to shoot him from, too. You won't see it in that shot because it's kinda tight, but deGrom's pitching motion coupled with his longness and leanness makes for some amazing composition. Benjamin Grimm wrote: I agree that the deGrom page is much better. And as for the captions, I'll take a reference to Bogart and Bergman over Fleetwood Mac nine days per week. [fimg=292]http://www.cornel1801.com/1/c/Casablanca/quotes/Here_s_looking_at_you_kid.jpg[/fimg] Oh yeah. Plus I deducted points from the Matz cover because "Stevie Nixed" isn't original. The same tagline was used when the Mets jettisoned Steve Phillips. I think these tabloids keep reference lists of taglines. I think they create a lot of them in advance, weeks or months or years, and have 'em ready, just waiting for the right occasion to present itself.

I'm still trying to figure out which part of that story is the one that gave the Mets a scare.

Bruce Markusen on his all-time favorite baseball card, the 1972 Topps Bob Oliver. The colors are so smooth and saturated, that Oliver's photograph looks as if it were painted. http://baseballhall.org/discover/card-corner/king-ollie [fimg=533]http://caimages.collectors.com/psacertimages/37671_945x1600.jpg[/fimg] excerpt: Then there is the actual photograph of Oliver, which saturates us in the style of the 1970s and the old school manner of Topps photography. We see Oliver wearing a bright satin windbreaker, as so many players did in Spring Training during that era. (This must have been considered a standard way to sweat off some excess poundage accrued during the winter months.) Oliver is also wearing a helmet while taking his fielding position, in a way that is reminiscent of two of his contemporary first basemen: Dick Allen and George �Boomer� Scott. And then we have the overly exaggerated pose, with Oliver stretching his front leg far for an imaginary throw, as if he were playing in an actual game. This kind of photograph typifies the over-the-top postures that Topps once preferred. Just to add to the fun, the angle of the Topps camera creates the illusion of a first baseman�s mitt that is significantly larger than what the rules would allow. Oliver�s mitt appears so oversized that it could be used to cook up a pancake; it might have had the length and width of your standard kitchen frying pan. As a final touch, Topps provides us with the backdrop of Spring Training, where so many of their photographs were shot in the early seventies. The presence of bright blue skies and palm trees, not to mention what appears to be some kind of storage shed deep in the background, tell us clearly that this is a Spring Training practice field, far removed from the rigors of the regular season at Royals Stadium. When you�re collecting baseball cards during the last vestiges of winter in February and March, there is nothing better than seeing cards that have been photographed in the warmth of Florida.

I thought I was pretty clever for coming up with this headline [fimg=303]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5701/23396272351_ee2399a3a8_o.jpg[/fimg] but those tabloid guys are pros at this

d'Kong76 wrote: Yo, Destiny ... that double cover is cool. If they had won, I'd like to have one of those framed. Maybe next year. I bought that Daily News, specifically because of the wrap-around Mets double cover. It's probably the only Daily News I bought in over a year.

Centerfield wrote: Mets have been involved in discussions with every player available this winter except the three or four that can actually make them better. Don't worry. The Mets have a great plan in place, at least according to the tabloids. The Mets intend to lure Ben Zobrist, their main target, by offering him less money and less years than he'll likely get from every other team interested in him. If that plan fails, and me, personally, I don't see how, but still, if they can't get Zobrist, they'll try to re-sign Murphy by offering him less money and less years than he'll surely get from every other team interested in him. Isn't this great?

Centerfield wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I wouldn't expect the Mets to crow about their payroll. I'm gonna take that as an "agree" on the rest of what I wrote. I can't speak for Edgy, but I don't think the Mets will crow about their payroll, and I don't think that the extra $5 million or $10 million is a best case scenario. Even this past season they took on additional salary. I'd say best case scenario is $120 or $125 million. Maybe I'm dumb, but I still hold out hope that the Wilpons will come through for us. I was joking about the crow part. Isn't that obvious? What am I -- a madman? Taking on salary --- I doubt it. I think they used the money saved on Mejia and received from Wright's insurance policy to pay for Cespedes and the other add-ons. I wouldn't be surprised if their end of season payroll was lower than what they started with.

Edgy MD wrote: I wouldn't expect the Mets to crow about their payroll. I'm gonna take that as an "agree" on the rest of what I wrote.

Vic Sage wrote: C'mon, Fred, put on your big boy pants. Sign Zobe and Heyward and we'll be good to go. It would probably put our payroll at around $120M next year (or thereabouts), which still wouldn't have been in the top 10 last year. Boy is this sad but true, when a $120M payroll is, for the Mets, lofty and probably unobtainable. Best case scenario for payroll, I predict, is that they'll raise it by five to ten mil and crow about it like they outspent the Dodgers. Meanwhile, with all the extra unanticipated dough the Mets made this year from their WS run, and from more baseball $$ because the sport is a cash cow breaking revenue records every year, the payroll increase will be like those minimum wage increases that don't keep pace with the cost of living and inflation.

[fimg=284:1nwo13yc]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/577/23063056680_b97840f53b_o.jpg[/fimg:1nwo13yc] [fimg=344:1nwo13yc]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5623/23063056720_b4bd326ae9_o.jpg[/fimg:1nwo13yc]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: I mean, you'd have to get a damn awesome package. And even then, it's probably prospects. So it's the wrong time. I hate trading established stars for even high-upside prospects. risky. At least with 3 years of control left. Maybe next season, or if the Mets aren't in the hunt at the deadline in 2017. What if it's, say, a close-to-fully-cooked someone like Addison Russell, or Byron Buxton? I dunno, I think I might be more skeptical of guys that weren't impressive in their first taste of the majors. Granted they're young, but that last step is the hardest. I mean, you're talking a top 10 NL pitcher here. You're only really hoping Buxton or Russell could approach that, and that's not worth a couple of years of control. Throw someone else in. Why do you say that the Mets would probably be limited to receiving prospects for Harvey?

Amazin' Avenue is reviewing each player's season. They're on Harvey. (Spoiler Alert: It doesn't end well.) "Borderline"?

Leathersich '66 [fimg=355:37yj2tc2]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5632/22838481290_0bb2b0692f_o.jpg[/fimg:37yj2tc2]

Zvon wrote: I'll take a Duda please [fimg=555]http://media.giphy.com/media/etmqZvzyywRRS/giphy-facebook_s.jpg[/fimg] Winner, winner. Chicken supper. [fimg=344]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5805/23074407635_8b7153f069_o.jpg[/fimg]

He said he never played for the team in whose uni he's pictured in, so whoever that is was never a Brewer. Of course, it's Pfeil. I guess making all those cards made you a whiz at recognizing Met faces. Winner Winner. Want a Padres Bob Miller card with Rogers's name on it as a prize? How about a Lucas Duda? We have an overstock of DIY Duda's.