batmagadanleadoff

"Wanna see what the Mets new post-game smorgasbord buffet's gonna look like from now on"?

Look, Ma: No Madoff: ____________________ Player-funded workouts are latest P.R. debacle for the Mets By Howard Megdal 7:20 a.m. | Jan. 16, 2015 It probably seemed like a good idea on paper. But the latest P.R. initiative by the Mets is not going to end well. The Mets haven't had what you would call an active offseason. They signed Michael Cuddyer, a mid-grade free agent, but have done almost nothing since. (An MLB agent pointed out to me that they haven't signed a pitcher at any level all winter.) So with the fans and writers alike grumbling about the team's failure to add a shortstop, or another lefty reliever, both things the front office has made clear were areas in need of upgrade, thanks to ownership's financial limitations, it was time to change the subject. Accordingly, the Mets gave the Post's Kevin Kernan access to their off-season workouts in Port St. Lucie. Kernan, who has been critical of the Mets in the past, excels at writing the craft piece, and this one focused on David Wright's recovery from a shoulder injury that greatly curtailed his 2014. The story pointed out that the workouts, supervised by an outside trainer named Mike Barwis, had expanded significantly from last season, when a handful of Mets, such as Lucas Duda, trained with Barwis in Michigan. Barwis first came to the attention of Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon back in 2007 when Barwis was working with the University of Michigan football team, and Wilpon was attending a practice at the school his father attended, according to a story of last year's Mets workouts with Barwis that ran in the New York Times. This time, the group met at the team's spring training headquarters in Port St. Lucie, Fla. Not only the players were on hand. Mets general manager Sandy Alderson told Kernan the workouts are for players "to reach their full potentiality," which certainly makes it sound like the workouts�which must be voluntary or run afoul of the collective bargaining agreement with the major league players attending�will be used by the organization to measure player effort. Remember that participation in last season's workout by Ruben Tejada and Wilmer Flores came up repeatedly during the season, with front office members citing their participation as cause for better play and more opportunities. And Jeff Wilpon, largely out of sight this winter, was there too, telling Kernan he's "very excited for the season and this just adds to it. We have another six weeks before the team reports, and these guys are already down here working. Mike is doing this for the entire organization." So Barwis was running these workouts, but not gratis. How grateful are the Mets players? �We�re all paying to do this," Wright said. "To see the dedication of all the guys throughout the organization is pretty impressive." How much are they paying? Adam Rubin said an agent told him $1000 from their minor leaguers, a number I've since confirmed is what each player is paying. I reached out to the Mets on the subject, and a spokesperson responded to my questions by urging me to "Check out [Andy] Martino's column," referring to the ownership-friendly baseball writer for the Daily News. "It's a very accurate depiction of this." Martino wrote in his column that the Mets told him Barwis pays the Mets to rent the space, and the $1000 apiece from each player goes to Barwis, not the Mets. (One presumes Barwis pays the rent to the Mets out of his operating income, which in this case comes from the players.) And here's where we run into a problem of perception, and one of potential rule violations. The P.R. bump the Mets were hoping a big "best shape of their lives" piece would provide got shoved aside quickly by media outlets covering the embarrassing idea that the Mets were charging their own players $1000 to attend pseudo-voluntary workouts at the team's own complex. I spoke to a number of industry professionals, both on the team and agent side of things, and here's what I found out: Teams routinely split the cost of, say, housing with players who come in early for voluntary workouts. No one had heard of a team charging players for the workouts themselves. No one had heard of a team doing it on this scale in terms of number of players, with the greater number of participants increasing the pressure to attend the so-called voluntary workout. Garrett Broshuis is a former minor leaguer and attorney currently suing Major League Baseball over unfair working conditions and low pay for minor leaguers. His entire case revolves around the premise that this is systemic, a problem for all 30 teams. He's been collecting minor league horror stories for this case for the past several years. "It's not uncommon at all for teams to open up spring training early, and say you can work out here," Broshuis told me in a Thursday phone interview. "It's also not uncommon to make players pay for accomodations. I know a lot of guys who sleep on someone's couch." But what about charging players $1000 for the privilege? "This seems a lot more uncommon," Broshuis replied, saying he'd never heard of something like this. "'Deplorable' is the word I'd use." The Mets, by opening this up to players throughout the organization, and having their decision-makers present, are taking the voluntary part out of an activity taking place during time the players aren't paid. Worse yet, for minor leaguers who generally make very little money at all, coming up with $1000, plus housing, during the period of the offseason they're usually earning money at various jobs just to afford playing baseball is an enormous hardship. "Also, what if a senior sign wanted to go?" another MLB agent said, referring to the drafted college seniors who are usually given signing bonuses of around $1000 and are usually eager to prove their worth to a new organization. "He has to forfeit his signing bonus to attend?" As for the major leaguers, paying for the right to attend the workout is less of a financial hardship than it is a possible violation of the collective bargaining agreement they have, thanks to the advantage of a working union. (The minor leaguers are unrepresented by anyone.) Multiple people in baseball I spoke to described this workout as a potential violation. "Paying for workouts has got to be a CBA issue, right?" one agent said. "There are rules in place for 40-man [roster] guys." Issues raised ran the gamut from the length of the workouts (no more than seven days in a row permitted) to who can attend (only members of the 40-man roster) to the issue of just how voluntary they are. I reached out to Greg Bouris, spokesperson for the Major League Baseball Players Association, who said, "We are aware of this and we're looking into it." So in an effort to gin up excitement for the team, the Mets replaced the more traditional winter pastime of other teams, the acquisition of new players, with the more cost-effective one of showing the players already under contract working out early, possibly in violation of league rules. Which makes sense, apparently, only to the Mets. "I know everybody wanted Sandy to do this or do that to get something," Jeff Wilpon said in Kernan's piece, "but keeping your strength is important as well." http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/01/8560323/player-funded-workouts-are-latest-pr-debacle-mets

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: ... so much of the clamoring is really about using "shortstop" to beat up on the team for not being "serious." That article there demands the Mets pay $150 million to Ian Desmond or have the commissioner seize the team. It's stupid. If the team has $150 million to drop, I can think of a lot of other places I would have it spent without thinking too hard. Yeah, BB-Ref's 'Most Similar' list* for Desmond is topped with names such as JJ Hardy, Orlando Cabrera, Stephen Drew, Juan Uribe, Brandon Phillip & Khalil Greene. Anyone want to be paying $20 mil/yr for any of those guys in their 30's? Desmond will hit 30 just before becoming a FA and has seen his OPS+ slip 125 - 113 - 103 over the past three seasons. Still a serious upgrade over whatever we have there for 2015, but when it's framed as an 'All-in or bust' scenario [best prospect PLUS another top prospect PLUS full FA deal or you're not worthy of a franchise] I think that's overstating things more than just a bit. * Not the greatest judge of like-players IMO, but just a quickie example See, this is where things get all absurd for me. I mean, this whole analysis about why Desmond is too flawed to play shortstop for the Mets given his current price tag. Which the Mets can't afford anyway. And if Desmond was good enough to meet your standards, he'd be that much less affordable. Isn't it more efficient, more honest, to just recognize that the Mets can't afford Desmond and get on with hoping that their cheap bargain basement shortstop option, whoever that's gonna be, comes through?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Me personally, I suspect the Mets have to ditch both Murphy and Gee just to be able to afford the 2015 payroll. Do you really believe "the plan" is go into 2015/16 and still spend even less and less? To be fair, they'd have to ditch both just to be at/about the same payroll, owing to arbies/other salary increases. What Leiter said. I think the payroll's gonna be at about the same embarrassing level as last year. And because several sources are reporting that the current payroll level projects at about $10M or so more than last year's, the Mets are gonna hafta dump salary to get to the mid 80's. So I'm not necessarily predicting that 2015 payroll's gonna be even less. But if it was, why do you find this so surprising, or unbelievable? Are you saying that you're OK with a mid-80's payroll, but that you draw the line at anything less? Me, I expect the Mets to have one of baseball's top three payrolls every single season. That's the way it oughtta be, the way it must be, given the team's geographic location.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I don't think an extension is realistic given what we know about how the Wilpons are spending the $$, but maybe not out of the question down the road, particularly if the deal works out. In the meantime, you could pay for the guy with what they're throwing out there now if they only move to cut ties with 2 guys with no LT futures on this club anyway in Muffy & Gee. I'm making this deal whether the Nats are with me or not. QUIT HOLDING IT UP IT SANDY!!!!!11 Interesting. Me personally, I suspect the Mets have to ditch both Murphy and Gee just to be able to afford the 2015 payroll.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: But reading a Megdal piece about anything these days is like, well... it's like asking an overly-enthusiastic organic chemist about energy production, or snack cake nutrition, or seven-card no-limit Omaha. He'll tell you, "When you boil it down, it's really ALL about carbon," and he'll be right, mostly. But, y'know... Yeah, but that carbon-centric conversation wouldn't be anywhere near as absurd as all these posts in this thread premised on the delusion that the Mets can afford the eight-figure a year Desmond on a long-term contract. Same with Tulo. All the nitpicking about Tulo's age and durability and whatever his other flaws might be ... as if the Mets could even afford Tulo in his present condition, let alone if he was younger and healthier. This is like me telling you that the reason I'm not gonna purchase the Dallas Cowboys this coming weekend is mainly because I'd rather not have to spend so much of my time in Texas.

Edgy MD wrote: Are you saying that it says what your feelings are toward the non-Desmond deal? No, I didn't say that. But the piece does line up with my sentiments on the Mets ability to get a high priced player. It's a well balanced article, probably the best piece out there, to date, on that potential Mets-Desmond deal. Because let's be honest, you can't talk credibly about the Mets having to dole out that kind of money to get that kind of a player without referencing the financial mess that shall not be named here. Edgy MD wrote: I'm just not sure why somebody needed to post "this one." Because no one would've posted that article if I didn't. There's a solid contingent on this board that acts like headless chickens at the mere sight of a Megdal piece.

Nobody else here is gonna post this one, so here goes: Desmond non-deal shows cost of Mets' refusal to spend By Howard Megdal 7:42 a.m. | Jan. 13, 2015 In case you haven't heard, the New York Mets still don't have a starting shortstop. Yes, somebody will stand at the position when their 2015 season opens on April 6 in Washington, and right now, it looks like that somebody will be Wilmer Flores, a talented young hitter who no one, including essentially everyone in the Mets front office, thinks can play the position adequately defensively. Behind Flores is Ruben Tejada, someone who the Mets have publicly disparaged for the better part of the past two seasons. So you can understand the team's desire to get better at the position, a black hole, really, since Jose Reyes happened to hit free agency at the same time Mets ownership was lining up a bridge loan just to stay solvent through the winter of 2011. And when Ken Rosenthal reported this weekend that the Mets had a chance to get Ian Desmond, shortstop for the Washington Nationals, in a three-way trade that would have cost the Mets pitching prospect Noah Syndergaard and one other top prospect from a list of three, it's hard to fathom exactly why the Mets were the team saying no. But as you've probably guessed, yes, it's the money. Let's first understand just how great a fit Ian Desmond would be on the Mets. A team with a clear need at shortstop would add the winner of the Silver Slugger award in the National League three years running. Desmond's OPS+ of 113 over the past three years at the position trails only Troy Tulowitzki and Hanley Ramirez, who isn't really a shortstop anymore. (Jose Reyes is fourth over that time.) But while Tulowitzki has played in 264 games over those three years, Ramirez 371 and Reyes 396, Desmond's been in 442. He's also younger than the other three, and his defense is much better than that of Ramirez or Reyes. The argument against Tulowitzki, who the Mets could have added this winter for several prospects and a willingness to take on his six years and $114 million remaining on his contract, came down to the long-term commitment and concerns about durability. Desmond has neither issue. He's signed for one more year, at $11 million, and he's almost always in the lineup. Not only that, the Mets could always negotiate a window to negotiate with Desmond, if they chose, giving them 72 hours to either lock him up on a contract on their terms, or let him walk away. They did this successfully with Johan Santana back in 2008, and ultimately failed to acquire Barry Larkin after not agreeing to terms with him back in 2000. And here's where it gets tricky. The Mets, for their part, haven't gotten into the idea of Desmond in greater detail for a simple reason: ownership probably isn't going to pay what it would take to keep him. Desmond turned down a six-year, $90 million last winter, and with good reason. Salaries are exploding, and he is a rare commodity indeed: a power-hitting shortstop on the right side of 30 who seldom misses any time and fields his position quite well. For the Mets to keep him, they'd have to pay him around the six years, $114 million Tulowitzki has left on his deal. And ultimately, that was the bigger problem with Tulowitzki, even though there are justifiable concerns held by some in the Mets front office about Tulowitzki's durability and current health. The money made it a non-starter--then it simply became about finding a public justification for not paying him. Desmond, while not quite Tulowitzki's equal when he's on the field, addresses all of the team's concerns. But this is a Mets team, right now, that can't even afford to take on Desmond's below-market $11 million contract for 2015 without dumping another salary, even with a payroll in the bottom third of major league baseball. The post-Madoff tradition of the Mets' owners paying more to finance their debts than to put together their baseball team looks safe to continue in 2015. Realistically, Desmond for just a year probably isn't worth giving up two of the team's top three prospects, though it is tempting. Without a change in financial wherewithal, the Mets are going to see their pre-arbitration players begin to hit arbitration. If enough of them develop to turn this Mets roster into a winning core, without an ability to increase payroll, they're going to have to start trading players off once again, a kind of permanent rebuild. So bringing in Desmond, while the gang's all here in 2015, wouldn't be the worst bet if the future holds the same level of financial limitation thanks to ownership's crippling debt load. But the more infuriating aspect of this for Mets fans is pretty simple. They've been told for years now that the Mets are about to start spending again, as if the decision not to is some kind of front office wisdom and not enforced upon ownership by its many creditors. Now, despite those restrictions, the Mets are a few players away from contention, since Sandy Alderson's built a farm system of note to pair with the bounty he's received from dealing some of the team's vaguely high-priced stars, like Carlos Beltran and R.A. Dickey. But Troy Tulowitzki, a shortstop who would make the Mets favorites in the National League East if healthy? Signed for too long. Ian Desmond, who would do the same? Not signed for long enough. Jhonny Peralta, a front office favorite? Signed for too much last winter, according to Alderson, four years, $53 million with the St. Louis Cardinals. One year and a 5.8 Wins Above Replacement season later, no one is saying Peralta got overpaid anymore. (Flores, in a half-season last year, posted a WAR of 0.2.) Even the dearly departed Jose Reyes would make the Mets contenders in 2015. These are the deals the 1980s-era Mets made, the deals that turned a young group of talented prospects into a National League juggernaut from 1984-1990. These are the deals, in general, that teams at the Mets' stage of development always make. These are deals that nearly every team in baseball is making these days, in a sport flush with television money, money that for 29 other teams goes to baseball operations, not to financing hundreds of millions in debt against the team, the television network, the stadium. And the young, pre-arbitration shortstops who actually fit the Mets' budget? The really good ones, frankly, no one is trading. Contenders need players like that. Rebuilding teams need players like that. They simply aren't traded very often, especially in this offense-starved era. So instead the Mets will hope that Wilmer Flores lives up to his offensive projections in 2015, and doesn't miss too many balls with what is a consensus sub-shortstop range. They'll hope that the pressure of being the stated public reason for not bringing in all star after all star doesn't make Noah Syndergaard's transition to the big leagues more difficult. The 2015 Mets have talent, almost enough to win, but not quite. Teams like that sometimes win anyway. Not usually, though. And the Mets had a chance to put the odds in their favor, only to have the limitations of a financially compromised owner throw the chance away. We're about to see how much that ends up costing the team. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/01/8560005/desmond-non-deal-shows-cost-mets-refusal-spend

Sheffield just might be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Look at that ballot. I bet you could make the case for there being 10 more deserving candidates than Sheffield. Here's a hypothetical: what if 11 deserving Hall of Fame inductees are on the same ballot, and one of those deserving candidates is clearly the 11th best of the bunch. If every writer voted correctly and efficiently, that 11th best HOF candidate wouldn't receive a single vote and his candidacy would be terminated.

One down. Any skywriters out there? Mets Fan Raising Money For Billboards In Effort To Get Wilpons To Sell Team December 24, 2014 12:03 PM [fimg=533]https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/127517148.jpg?w=620&h=349&crop=1[/fimg] Fans of the New York Mets sit alone in the upper deck during the game against the Cincinnati Reds at Citi Field on September 28, 2011 NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) � It�s no secret that Mets fans have been frustrated with their team�s owners for years and eagerly want the Wilpons to sell. Well owners can�t be fired, but one disgruntled Mets fan is determined to get Fred and Jeff out of Queens. Gary Palumbo, who describes himself as a �long-suffering Mets fan that grew up in Fairfield County and now reside(s) in the great state of NH,� has started a Kickstarter campaign in an effort to make Mets fans� wishes comes true. The title of Palumbo�s page on Kickstarter is entitled �FreeMetsFans Sell The Team! Billboard.� On the page, which you can visit here, Palumbo writes the following: I love the Mets and believe the owners are not responsible stewards of the team. Their poor decisions have placed the team into a position where they no longer invest in a manner of placing the team in contention for the playoffs. They manage the team simply to keep it as a family heirloom. This project is simple, I would like us to create a message and place it on the billboard. Something like: #FreeMetsFans Sell The Team! or #FreeMetsFans New Owners Needed! Two billboards on Roosevelt avenue are currently placed on hold to see if we can raise the funds over the next 30 days. The launch date for them is tentatively scheduled for 03/30/2015 (MLB opening day) and would remain in place for four weeks. Once funding is raised, I would like all of the contributors to recommend a message and we can vote on the best ones along with voting of how the design will look. The money needed is $5000. Renting the two billboards will cost $4000 for 4 weeks. There is a $450 charge to print and install the images onto the boards. The rest of the money will go to cover the Kickstarter commission and production of thank you gifts to the contributors. The main goal for my project is for us to come together with a collective voice and be able to represent our frustration. It�s also about having fun and not being hateful. It�s just a game, BUT I really want the Mets to be better at it with long term continued success. As of Wednesday afternoon, the cause had 48 backers. A sum of $1,159 of the pledged $5,000 goal has been raised. There are 23 days left to donate. During the NFL season, a group of Jets fans raised money for billboards in an attempt to get general manager John Idzik fired. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/24/mets-fan-raising-money-for-billboards-in-effort-to-get-wilpons-to-sell-team/ [fimg=544]https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/projects/1537238/photo-1024x768.jpg?1418870901[/fimg]

Edgy MD wrote: The problem there is that he uses "would" when the more honest term is "could" or "might." You don't think the Mets would qualify as a contender with Tulowitzki? Yet you predicted the Mets would win about 100 games in last year's prediction thread.

Or Giancarlo Stanton.

Or Clayton Kershaw.

The same could be said about David Wright.

Where do I get one of those?

Megdal on Tulo and the Mets. Guess how many paragraphs you have to read before encountering the word "Madoff"? _________________________________ Can the Mets afford to miss Troy Tulowitzki? By Howard Megdal 12:25 p.m. | Dec. 23, 2014 The idea of the Mets acquiring Troy Tulowitzki is all-consuming these days�to fans, to writers, to many in the front office as well. And judging from a conversation I had with a Mets official, the front office believes the team has the players to get a deal for Tulowitzki done. But the team's ability to go out and get the four-time All-Star Rockies shortstop will depend on the finances of its owners. Judging by the owners' recent track record, this is not a good thing. The Mets have spent the past half-dozen years in the baseball wilderness, as Fred Wilpon and his associates have treated the team less like a big-market contender than an asset required to finance their enormous debt load. They have had no playoff appearances or even so much as a winning record to show for their on-field efforts since the moment in December 2008 when their off-field financier, Bernie Madoff, was revealed to be a fraud. Under general manager Sandy Alderson, the team's farm system has gotten much stronger, from bottom-five to top-five, by most credible estimates. A roster with young talent won 79 games last season, and while the team's starting pitching is its strength, the lineup is also filled with competent performers at nearly every position. The one exception is shortstop. There's something poetic in this. The Mets could be entering next season with precisely the team they have now, plus the best shortstop in franchise history, Jose Reyes, at short, if the team's owners hadn't been so strapped for cash that they took out an emergency loan to pay operating expenses back in the 2011 offseason, while Jose Reyes signed with the Miami Marlins. In subsequent seasons, the payroll dropped further, but as those young players Alderson acquired in trades and drafted began to reach the major leagues, the effect of the money issue was mitigated. The Mets have some real talent heading into next season. Add a healthy Matt Harvey and newly acquired Michael Cuddyer to a 79-win team, and they're a competent shortstop away from looking like a legitimate playoff contender. Which brings us to that one spot, and how the Mets can fill it. Troy Tulowitzki clearly represents a best-case scenario for the team. The Mets have a gaping hole at shortstop, with real questions about whether Wilmer Flores can play the position defensively. Tulowitzki is the finest shortstop of his generation. Over the past six seasons, he's posted a 137 OPS+. Only Hanley Ramirez, no longer really a shortstop, is close, at 130. Jose Reyes is third... at 113. Generally speaking, the best player at a given position, let alone one where talent is as scarce as shortstop, simply isn't available in trade or free agency. Teams keep those players. But Tulowitzki happens to play for a team in Colorado that's been utterly directionless. And the Mets, by virtue of hoarding their young, cost-controlled talent, could provide plenty of it to the Rockies to jump-start their rebuild. The problem is money, and the owners' need to devote so much of it financing the interest on massive debt against their team and regional TV network, along with twice-annual debt balloon payments on Citi Field. To put it in perspective: the city confirmed receiving $21.9 million from Queens Ballpark Company LLC, a subsidiary of Mets parent company Sterling Equities, on December 15, a payment made twice a year. Troy Tulowitzki will make $20 million, total, in 2015. So for baseball ops to recommend acquiring Tulowitzki, it means evaluating risk beyond just whether the oft-injured Tulowitzki can stay healthy enough to earn the $118 million left on his contract over the next six seasons. As it stands now, the team payroll is just under $100 million. This would be the highest it's been in several years, and accordingly, the team is looking to trim it further through a salary dump of a good starting pitcher, such as Dillon Gee. With a payroll akin to, say, the Washington Nationals, who spent just under $135 million in 2014 on player salaries, the Mets could not only afford Tulowitzki, but also add depth to this year's team behind injury-prone catcher Travis d'Arnaud or David Wright, returning from a shoulder injury that ruined his 2014 season. They could even add some pitching down the line to replenish the depth lost in a Tulowitzki trade. Alderson, though, isn't merely working with a smaller budget. He's working without a set budget at all, forced to get approval for each player acquisition individually. All of which is to say much of the potential risk in a Tulowitzki deal is self-inflicted by ownership. "I think it's fair to say most things change, including risk associated with various players' health and contract amounts if you can expand payroll that significantly," a Mets official said to me when I put forward the Nationals' example. Another way the payroll issue can mitigate the possible upside of a Tulowitzki deal is if the Mets are forced to offload some salary to take him on. For instance, Tulowitzki would be a massive upgrade from Flores. But much of that gain could be given back if the team needs to, say, trade Daniel Murphy for salary reasons in the process, and hope young Dilson Herrera can fill in for the team's lone 2014 All-Star. Then there is the risk inherent in Sandy Alderson losing the confidence of ownership. At the moment, cooperation is at an all-time high, with Alderson and Jeff Wilpon making the rounds together in meetings like sponsorship and even radio partner discussions. But it is worth remembering that Omar Minaya, Alderson's predecessor, didn't lose the confidence of ownership when he failed to do things like develop a steady stream of major league talent, or leverage a then-reasonable New York payroll sufficiently to allow the Mets to avoid starting pitchers like Brian Lawrence and Dave Williams down the stretch for teams that finished a game out of the playoffs. No, it happened once the Mets traded for Johan Santana, and in those salad days of early 2008, when the Bernie Madoff money was still flowing, signed him to a massive contract extension. Once Santana's injuries caught up with him, the relationship with Minaya soured to the point that the Mets made a change. If the Wilpons even have the capability to add Tulowitzki's salary�they'd need to do it as they simultaneously attempt to refinance a debt of greater than $600 million coming due in 2015 against S.N.Y.�it's easy to imagine them ignoring all the work Alderson's done should a deal for Tulowitzki turn out to cost them money in exchange for an injured player. Baseball ops has yet to pose the question to ownership. So there will likely be plenty of talk about risk in the coming weeks as it relates to Tulowitzki, a player who would lift the Mets from intriguing young team to preseason playoff contender. But there's also the risk, without Tulowitzki, that the Mets' austerity period will prove to have left them too far behind wealthier and better-run teams to contend for anything, and that their long, painstaking rebuild will have been for nothing. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2014/12/8559136/can-mets-afford-miss-troy-tulowitzki

Hanley Ramirez For Ramirez, [2013] was a tale of heroism and seduction, bookended by injuries. He tore a ligament in his thumb during the World Baseball Classic and missed the first 24 games of the regular season, and was back in action for just five days before a strained hamstring sent him back to the disabled list. He finally returned on June 4th, one day after Yasiel Puig made his debut, and the pair of sluggers proceeded to ignite something special. Ramirez was a monster, accumulating more offensive VORP than any shortstop in baseball despite appearing in just 86 games, posting a TAv that trailed only Mike Trout and Miguel Cabrera and flashing a surprisingly nimble glove for the first time in years. Alas, he was pelted by a Joe Kelly two-seamer in the first game of the NLCS, fracturing a rib that compromised his play at the plate and in the field. This is his walk year, the final season in a six-year deal that looked like a bargain, then a burden, and now a crazy steal once more. He's been hurt in two of the past three seasons, and mediocre in two of the past three seasons, and it's not a stretch to say that he'll double his next contract by being neither in 2014. Troy Tulowitzki Tulowitzki has now topped 150 games just once since 2008. In 2013, the cause of dearth was a rib fracture that held him out from mid-June through mid-July. Despite the slew of unrelated injuries Tulowitzki has suffered over the years, there remains nobody in the league who can come close to topping him at the position. Since 2008, only on-again off-again shortstop Hanley Ramirez has a superior TAv. Tulowitzki is by far the superior defender, and there's a strong argument he's the best player in the National League when healthy. PECOTA says so, and who are we to say otherwise?

Somebody give me a cheeseburger.

SteveJRogers wrote: Why does it bother you if someone disses the Wilpons? They deserve all the dissing there is to diss. What are they, your kinfolk or something? If this was a problem on the Mets level, sure blame the person whom supposedly the buck stops with, be my guest. There are plenty of CEOs who will bite the bullet when something falls in the organizational chain. But this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE METS! Nada, zip, ziltch. But because it happened to a Met fan when purchasing a ticket plan online, it doesn't get the "D'OH! YOU HAD ONE JOB!" type of yuks that other teams would get, especially since it was a glitch in the confirmation mailing system, probably a coding error. But it gets the "blame the Wilpons, 'cause they are EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVIIILLLLLLLL" response because they are currently the laughingstock of MLB. This part, I get. I don't need the 300 word explanation. SteveJRogers wrote: BTW, you calling me out for seemingly having a hard on, which I don't, I'm just poking fun at an obvious troll's obvious behavior, suggests that you seem to have more of a problem with people mentioning the Wilpons in a positive manner. I thought I was poking some fun, too. But this is getting even funnier now, the way you're getting all over the top riled up over this. And your cock innuendos (which, to be truthful, I don't even understand). Whatever. Go ahead and defend the Wilpons all you like. It really didn't bother me. I won't lose sleep over it. And I wasn't going for such an overreaction. If I ever run into you at Citi Field, I'll treat you to a hot dog with all the dijonnaise your heart desires. Peace. I wish I never wrote that first post in the first place.

Why does it bother you if someone disses the Wilpons? They deserve all the dissing there is to diss. What are they, your kinfolk or something?

That costs money. So 0 to 5% on that idea.

Can somebody explain to me, the difference between 0 and 5%? Not in real math and stuff, but in MetSpeak.

Let's stick some more Padres (with a Mets connection) stuff in this thread, this being a slow news month for baseball. Greatest Moments In Padres History #6: Randy Jones� 20-Win Seasons Truth be be told, it was �Dandy� Randy Jones that put the San Diego Padres on the map. Hell, he might have even saved the team from being relocated Washington D.C. back in its early days. See, Jones did one thing well, two actually, in this case, where one led to the other. The southpaw threw a nasty sinker, which resulted in ground balls. Lots of ground balls. �It�s almost uncanny the way he can consistently keep that ball around the knees,� Chicago Cubs Manager Jim Marshall told Baseball Digest in 1976. �It�s just tough to hit a fly ball off him.� Originally a 1972 fifth round pick out of Chapman University, Jones joined the big club in 1973, skipping Triple-A, and making his debut on June 16 just in time to lose 10-2 to the Mets. As luck would have it, the Padres were well on their way to the first of back-to-back 60-102 seasons, which may have actually worked in Randy Jones favor because Don Zimmer and John McNamara, the Padres Managers in �73 and �74, needed pitchers, especially young ones who could eat up innings. And could this 23-year-old ever devour innings. As a rookie he pitched 139.2 innings, going 7-6, with a 3.16 ERA. His sophomore season, he pitched 208.1 innings, going 8-22, with a 4.45 ERA. His eight wins were only one off of the team lead Entering the 1975 season, the Padres had gone a combined 354-608 in their first six years, and with no emergence of a true star no the mound, it was Dandy Randy�s time to shine. In 1975, Jones pitched in 37 games, starting 36. He pitched 18 complete games and threw 285 innings. Overall, we went 20-12 with a 2.24 ERA � becoming the first San Diego Padre to win 20 games. Additionally, he pitched the final inning of the All-Star Game, a 6-3 National League win, giving up a hit and no runs, finished 10th in NL MVP voting and finished second to future Hall of Famer Tom Seaver in NL CY Young voting, who had gone 22-9 with a 2.38 ERA. It turned out Jones was just getting warmed up. In 1976, from May 17 through June 26, 68 innings in all, Jones did not walk a single batter, which tied Christy Mathewson�s 63-year-old National League record. Furthermore, in �76, he started 40 games and pitched an incredible 25 complete games, to go along with 315.1 innings. On the year, he went 22-14, with a 2.74 ERA. To put that into perspective consider the stats of the last five National League Cy Young Award winners: 2014 Clayton Kershaw 21-3 1.77 ERA 198.1 innings 27 starts *six complete games 2013 Clayton Kershaw 16-9 1.83 ERA 236 innings 33 starts three complete games 2012 R.A. Dickey 20-6 2.73 ERA *233.2 innings *33 starts *five complete games 2011 Clayton Kershaw 21-5 2.28 ERA 233.1 innings 33 starts five complete games 2010 Roy Halladay 21-10 2.44 ERA *250.2 inning 33 starts *nine complete games * Led the National League On July 12, 1976 he became the first Padre to appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated, under the title, �THREAT TO WIN 30,� with a sub heading of �San Diego�s Confounding Randy Jones.� Deservedly, he was named the starter of the 1976 All-Star Game, in Philadelphia, after starting 16-3. In the game, he threw three innings, allowing two hits, no runs and picked up the win for the National League, which went on to a 7-1 victory � and, as result, owns the prominence of recording a save in the previous All-Star Game and being the winning pitcher in the next. In �76, Jones also set the Major League record for most chances by a pitcher without an error, and registered a 1.000 fielding percentage. And finally, in 1976 Randy Jones won his Cy Young Award, receiving 96% of the vote. Overall, Jones also won the Sporting News Pitcher of the Year, was named pitcher of the month in both April and May of 1976, and again finished 10th in NL MVP voting on a 73-89 team. In his career, he was named the player of the week four times in two different decades, and finished with a career ERA of 3.42 , and won 100 games over 10 years. In the Padres record books, he ranks: 1st in innings 1766 1st in complete games 71 1st in shutouts 18 2nd in wins 92 5th career ERA 3.30 Runner Up: Padres win their only World Series game in 1984. In the magical year that was 1984, �Dirty� Kurt Bevacqua, who was starting as designated hitter due to antiquated baseball rules, homered helping to led the Padres to a 5-2 win, which is only game the Padres have won in a total of nine Fall Classic games. In the series, Dirty Kurt hit .412 with two homers and four RBIs, and wasn�t afraid to blow kisses to the crowd, which I got the impression pissed Kirk Gibson off. http://friarsonbase.com/2014/12/17/greatest-moments-padres-history-6-randy-jones-20-win-seasons/ [fimg=455]http://ericscards.com/bd0876.jpg[/fimg]

Queens Library Fires Its Boss After Reviewing His Spending SOME EXCERPTS: Thomas Galante, who has served as the library's president and CEO for more than a decade, had been under fire for months for his salary and spending, including $140,000 for renovating his office at the library's main branch in Jamaica.... ...Galante spent more than $40,000 on his library credit card for dining and entertainment. The decision comes amid a series of ongoing investigations by the city's Department of Investigation and the FBI probing the library over its construction spending. City Comptroller Scott Stringer also conducted an audit, which showed that Galante used his organization�s money to pay for lavish dinners, concert tickets, furniture and Mets memorabilia. http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141218/jamaica/queens-library-fires-its-boss-after-reviewing-his-spending

G-Fafif wrote: Checked with a Season Ticketholder buddy: It has been a long time since I received a paper card from the Mets. Don�t remember if there was a reasoning (if there was, no doubt flawed) that they stopped doing so. Bastards. First Tidewater. Then WFAN. And now this. Bah!