batmagadanleadoff

Really? Go crazy. It's actually saved at something like four times the size displayed above. I might have to pull to make it square, but I've done that before. It's the best copy of that photo I've seen. That's shrunk thru the board tho, right? Then if I save it, it should be the orig size unless you manually shrunk the pic yourself. I'm tempted to photoshop a man-bra on Rube but he doesn't really need one. re above: B.B.Ref is telling me Bob L made a stop in Detroit on his way to NY for his second stint. This is my fav home made OPChee card (so far) [fimg=200]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-IYND42cEkOM/UxrXnO9-dCI/AAAAAAAANZ4/5bj7AS9A-Cs/s800/72opcWILLIAMS-z14.png[/fimg] That's right. He came to the Padres from the Pirates. I probably got mixed up, being aware of that Pirate to Met transformation shown above. There ain't no Tiger card of Bob L. either,and if you check out Miller's record, you could see why. Watermarked Not Watermarked [fimg=333]https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8764/18252767710_ebb0e3e9fa_o.jpg[/fimg] That Williams card is going into the next Giants card thread, two opponents away.

Bob Miller's last card as an active player and the original image Topps used to make that card.

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't see what's so wrong with his piece. It's embarrassingly awful. Being insulting to the Mets' owners shouldn't make up for that. OK. Take out the shots at the owners, which I could see how someone other than me might deem gratuitous. So now what's so terrible?

That's super. That card's going into the big card post atop this thread. I can't wait! For the record, if you wanted to do an O-Pee-Chee version that's stylistically accurate, (and that's entirely up to you, I'm not asking - I'm totally fine with that 2d Miller card) you wouldn't want Miller in a Mets uniform. The photo's supposed to be dated. You could use that Miller/Padre photo, or any other photo of Miller before he joined the Mets. Since we're talking about replicating '73, that'd mean Miller in either a Padres or Pirates uniform, the two teams he played for in '73 before coming to the Mets. Then, you'd change the team name on the card you made from Padres to Mets. And finally, you'd add that OPC text over the photo, indicating that Miller is now a Met. That's the formula. 1. Current team name 2. Dated photo with prior team 3. Updating text

d'Kong76 wrote: What record, why do you have to be a constant dick with me? Just stop. Stop it NOW!!!! Constsant? Isn't it the other way around?

d'Kong76 wrote: Has nothing to do with you. I know. And for the record, it never does or did.

d'Kong76 wrote: This guy writes for Forbes? lol Yeah, I know what you mean. He probably snuck in one day, disguised as a pizza deliveryperson with an actual pizza and took over a desk and a computer when nobody was looking. He's been writing for Forbes ever since. I'll bet he didn't even finish Junior High School.

d'Kong76 wrote: This guy writes for Forbes? lol "Rinse, repeat. It was not surprising, or great tabloid copy, but what else is there to say or do?" You could just shut up! Why should he shut up? He needs your permission to cover Wright's comments? I don't see what's so wrong with his piece. That you're bothered by something I post that's critical of the W's is no surprise. You don't feel like starting with me so you take it out on the article I post, of course barnacling in on someone's elses post.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Why is Cadaver out to ight? This crappy bar I'm watching the game in doesn't have whatever channel this game is on. So it's Rangers - White Sox for me. He's got some minor thing, like soreness or something.

z ... This is getting complicated. Just take out the rogers text for the 2d version of the Miller card. It'll be a regular '73 Topps style Padres card of Bob L. That'd be great and much appreciated and all that other jazz.

Whatcha eating? I'm gonna make up a quiz in this thread and give out a jazzed up Klaus '69 Padres Topps card as the prize. The quiz is gonna be real easy. [fimg=333]https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7750/18247956120_e6a7ff7b64_o.jpg[/fimg]

Zvon wrote: I already had started it and went w/the Padres. I could just change the team and and have the notation say "Now With Mets". I didn't get to see those types of OPC cards til the later 80's and always have been a big fan of those. I thought I'd use the notation to make the card unique onto Mr. Rogers. But I wish I went the "Now With Mets" route. That would have been much cooler. That's great work. The '73 style's perfect. Topps occasionally used photos that were years old so there'd be nothing unusual about a '71 pic on a '73 card. I agree with you that "Now With Mets" is preferable. Maybe one card for Rogers (the one you made) and one for the thread just like the Rogers card, only swapping "Now with Mets" with the Rogers text --- but leave the Padres name on the card.

Lotsa David Wright articles to read today, given last night's informal presser by David on the state of David. I choose to post this one below, because the writer works it into the story that the Mets are owned by a clown and a scumbag and it's my opinion that people should be reminded that the Mets are owned by a clown and a scumbag at every turn, even if they already know that the Mets are owned by a clown and a scumbag. David Wright's Bad Back, The Mets' Bad Luck, And Business As Usual June 3, 2015 Matthew Kory Somehow Mets phenom Noah Syndergaard struck out 10 Padres on Tuesday night, walked none, and also found time to give up 10 hits and seven runs in just four innings. The Mets, being the Mets�and, more to the point, a team that gave up seven runs in four innings�lost. Thor, as Syndergaard has been nicknamed, getting hammered wasn't the worst thing that happen to the franchise yesterday. It wasn't close. "We're just not talking about playing baseball," David Wright, the team's injured, menschy cornerstone, told the media before the game. "We're talking about walking and standing and being pain free." He was addressing the newly diagnosed medical condition that might end his career. Or keep him out until next month, it's unclear. Spinal Stenosis is a narrowing of the spine that, in essence, squeezes everything�nerves, blood vessels, everything�inside the spine. Unsurprisingly, having your nerves and blood vessels constricted on a constant basis is not that comfortable, and can make it difficult to do things like stand or lie down or move without pain, let alone go first to third on a single. It's a disease typically associated with people older than Wright, who's just 32. But Wright is a Met and these things should be accounted for. I don't mean to be glib about a man's life, it's just that this is the Mets. They are owned and run by a man who hires his son to mistreat employees and drop anonymous burns of his players. They're a team based in the financial capital of the world, and they're quite possibly broke because ownership was caught up in not just a financial scandal, but the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. They're cheap, often stupid, and sometimes sexist. They're the Mets. And in this mess, you have poor, poor David Wright. Wright is by all accounts a nice and decent person who genuinely enjoys New York and the people who live there, and wants to win. For the first time in a long time, he has a chance at it: the Mets were tied for first place when the first pitch was thrown on Tuesday. Syndergaard and Jacob deGrom have been more dazzling than not, Matt Harvey is back and Lucas Duda is hitting (and we will say nothing, absolutely nothing at all about Michael Cuddyer because why trample on the already injured?) and the Mets suddenly have a young core and young pitching just in time for the very end of David Wright's peak. And then Wright discovers he has a spinal condition threatening his career that most frequently attacks people two decades his senior. If it wasn't so horrible it would be the most Mets thing since the owners decided Bernie could consistently beat the entire stock market all by his lonesome. This doesn't get any easier to do if your spine is constricted, surprisingly. � Photo by Brad Penner-USA TODAY Sports Beyond the fact that the Mets have the privilege of paying Wright $100 million between now and 2020, there is little certainty to find, here, beyond the fact that, as Wright himself said several times, "it sucks." If the press conference was called for Wright to discuss his condition, his prognosis, and his ETA, the answers that emerged were Spinal Stenosis, no idea, and no idea. Wright emphasized repeatedly that he hopes to return to the team soon. He also emphasized that he has no idea when that will be possible. He wants to be pain free, not put himself at further risk, and be able to help the team when he gets back. Typical monstrously selfish athlete stuff, there. The first listing under "treatment" for spinal stenosis on the National Institute of Health's website is "back surgery." Wright may be in line for such a procedure, although he stated in his presser that he'll do everything he can to avoid it. The doctors have told him that a man his age should not have the surgery. The reason behind that was left unsaid, but it's fair to wonder about possible outcomes, up to and including the possibility that surgery would be a step towards solving the problem but make it such that Wright's baseball career would be all but impossible. For now Wright is staying as positive as he can, something he took great pains to point out at the presser. He's working hard and seeing more doctors than one might think humanly possible. He's hoping to return soon. Rinse, repeat. It was not surprising, or great tabloid copy, but what else is there to say or do? There are only so many answers when there are no real answers. In the face of such uncertainty and personal danger, in the face of the end of his life as he has always known it and potentially staring down professional destruction, Wright is maybe more fully the Mets in face and in deed than ever before. He's working hard, but it may not matter. He hopes for the best in the future, but that's not up to him. The man deserves his life to be as healthy and normal as it can be. The Mets are just a baseball franchise. And yet somehow both meet in this burning bummer of a Tomorrowland, made all the sadder for what could and indeed should have been. For Wright, this is tragic. It's tragic for the Mets, too, in large part because it all feels so familiar. https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/david-wrights-bad-back-the-mets-bad-luck-and-business-as-usual

batmagadanleadoff wrote: This is great. You have a couple of options with the Padre Miller. You could put him on a regular '73 Topps. Or you could do a '73 Topps O-Pee-Chee style card ("Now with Mets")-- Miller started that season as a Padre but ended it on the Mets. So there's another Met connection for you. Original Met a Met once more. Once a Met, always a Met. When you're a Met, you're a Met all the way. Or you could put Miller on a '74 Padres card with the "Nat'l Lea." designation instead of the team name, as Topps hedged their bet on the Pods potential move to DC. That fantasy card wouldn't be historically accurate or likely, though -- not that we wouldn't wanna see it anyways. Miller was two teams removed from the Padres when the '74 cards went to press, so there's no way Miller would've ended up on a Padres card in '74. [fimg=263]https://shlabotnikreport.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/1974-jones-wnl.jpg[/fimg] Good luck with this. Heads up. Change of plans. That Miller pic belongs on a '71 card. Miller was a two-time Padre ('71 & '73). He's pictured in a '71 uniform.

This is great. You have a couple of options with the Padre Miller. You could put him on a regular '73 Topps. Or you could do a '73 Topps O-Pee-Chee style card ("Now with Mets")-- Miller started that season as a Padre but ended it on the Mets. So there's another Met connection for you. Original Met a Met once more. Once a Met, always a Met. When you're a Met, you're a Met all the way. Or you could put Miller on a '74 Padres card with the "Nat'l Lea." designation instead of the team name, as Topps hedged their bet on the Pods potential move to DC. That fantasy card wouldn't be historically accurate or likely, though -- not that we wouldn't wanna see it anyways. Miller was two teams removed from the Padres when the '74 cards went to press, so there's no way Miller would've ended up on a Padres card in '74. [fimg=263]https://shlabotnikreport.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/1974-jones-wnl.jpg[/fimg] Good luck with this.

Per a uni listing of SD Pads on B-R, Sam Perlozzo, 1979. So much for the honor system. Hey Rogers: You still won the quiz. You did good, kid. You're all aces even if you essentially looked up the answer instead of relying on your facial recognition powers, which is sort of or exactly like cheating. Plus, now zvon gets to make us a card. How about instead of the Ron Taylor, we make your prize a '73 Bob Miller Padres Topps from the The Man From Topps image below? It's easier work than the Taylor because there's no watermark to remove. (For the first few months to maybe a year or so, Topps would release these archival images without any watermarks. The Miller is obviously an early toppsvault release). And this thread would look a whole lot better with a '73 Bob Miller. So everybody wins.

[fimg=444]https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8826/18221826828_2016847627_o.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=249]http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/54/67/full/34fklmt62f7bpq20uisaruz8d.png[/fimg][fimg=266]http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/54/74/full/2296.gif[/fimg]

Holy Moley! Howie Rose just said that the Mick Taylor years was the Rolling Stones best period.

SteveJRogers wrote: Per a uni listing of SD Pads on B-R, Sam Perlozzo, 1979. So much for the honor system.

Still jonesing for that '72 style Topps Padres card of Ron Taylor despite whiffing on the interloper quiz? No problem. Identify the Friar with the Mets connection pictured below and you can still win that card that zvon will make. And no, that ain't Matt Harvey's uncle.

[fimg=566]https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8833/18372908025_c9707e9659_o.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=249]http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/54/67/full/34fklmt62f7bpq20uisaruz8d.png[/fimg][fimg=266]http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/54/74/full/2296.gif[/fimg] [fimg=505]https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7739/18372908005_f1a5e7cb47_o.jpg[/fimg]

[fimg=366]https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7756/17749263164_d39b0a29a3_o.jpg[/fimg]

So ... the four interlopers are.... [fimg=255]https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8892/18319120892_342fa0798c_o.jpg[/fimg] Marvell Wynne -- one of many 1980's Mets major-league likely prospects, occasionally and optimistically compared to Mookie Wilson. Marvell never made the Mets big club. You say Jerry, I say Gerry Moses -- not technically a Met, but a Phantom Met, which makes him an interloper here. I guess if you're talking about players who never played for the Mets, then I'd agree with Moses's designation as not a Met. Moses never got into a Met game so yeah, he never played for the Mets. But he was on the major league 25 man roster; he took batting practice with Dave Kingman and Joe Torre and probably warmed up Tom Seaver and Jerry Koosman and got to eat from the post-game buffets; if the Mets were on the road during his stay, Moses flew first class with the Mets and checked into the Mets hotel and was assigned a Mets roommate. And so in my book, which no one is reading, that makes Moses a Met. He's a Met --- just not a Met that played for the Mets. Jesse Gonder -- Gonder's MLB career ended in 1967, two years before the Padres inaugural season. I struggled to find any evidence linking Gonder to the expansion Padres or any of their minor league farm teams. I did discover that Gonder was the league MVP for the San Diego Padres --- but that was in the AAA PCL, in 1962. Back then, the San Diego Padres were a Reds affiliate. So that wouldn't explain Gonder's appearance on a 1969 Topps Padres card. After some further poking around the net, I found this article from Ebony Magazine's 1969 Baseball Preview Issue, linking Gonder to the expansion Padres. [fimg=404]https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8804/18365023702_768e02cd44_o.jpg[/fimg] Obviously there's a connection between Gonder and the '69 Padres given that Topps card and Gonder's appearance in Ebony Magazine, modeling a Padres batting helmet. But what's the connection? Gonder never played for the Pods, and the Padres don't even appear in Gonder's baseball-reference transactions section. Some more poking and voila! Apparently, Gonder was to the Padres what Moses was to the Mets -- a major league catcher on his team's 25 man roster who never got into a game -- a Phantom Padre. And therefore, an interloper here. Bobby Klaus -- Klaus's major league career ended in 1965, so, like Gonder, he couldn't have played for the Padres either. So why would Topps make a 1969 Padres card for Klaus four years after he'd played his last Major League game? Here's why: Klaus stayed in baseball after his major league career ended, hanging on with several minor league teams. In 1968, the Padres acquired Klaus from the Phillies organization in the Rule 5 draft. I'd bet that Topps then carded Klaus, believing that his Rule 5 status would guarantee the veteran Klaus playing time on the nascent expansion team, with virtually every position, starting and bench, up for grabs. It never happened. But you already knew this because I told y'all that Klaus's MLB career ended in '65. A few days before the start of the '69 season, the Padres traded Klaus to the Pirates for ex-Met Chris Cannizzaro and Tommie Sisk.

Zvon wrote: Meh, if it's not a Met it's no fun.

Zvon wrote: Batmags:I will make a rare exception and do that thing that involves making a Padre card. I'll do it, but my heart won't be in it. It'll be a heartless card. Looks like you'll be off the hook anyways, unless you wanna do this for the fun of it: Nobody's nailed the interloper question yet and I'm in the mood to post the answers soon. The Mets next opponent is the Diamondbacks and I'm probably not gonna do a card thread for that team. They've been around for less than 20 years, which means that most of the cards shown will be of the ugly and busy and garish and difficult to read variety. Plus, if there aren't any players from the late '60's and early '70's, I lose a lot of interest and these card threads are mostly about me anyhow. I mean, I get a big kick out of seeing Ron Taylor or Don Hahn in an opponent's uniform just because it's Ron Taylor or Don Hahn. But some fringe player from the '90's or 00's -- and let's face it, most of baseball's players are fringy -- I'm getting to the point where I can barely remember a good number of them as Mets, let alone as a member of some other team. Steve Reed? I'm talking about you, for example.