batmagadanleadoff

These might be the first Topps base set cards to use photographs taken at Shea.

Of course. Anyone who plays for the Mets is good. If it's us, it's always good. If it's them, then it's bad.

I thought this thread was gonna be about when the Astros got rained out in the Astrodome. That Murphy piece is from last week. Here it is in more readable style. http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/90454/hack-reveals-mets-talked-murph-with-astros I wasn't surprised to read that piece. I figger that Murph's gonna be history soon enough (/congratulating myself) being that he's getting closer to commanding free agent money and the Mets are broke. If the Mets ain't gonna, or can't re-sign him, they should get a body in return while they can, right?

d'Kong76 wrote: [fimg=222]http://i.imgur.com/ZGdNdQn.png[/fimg]

� On Friday the Mets will add a Frank Cashen memorial patch. It will just feature his initials, but Phil came up with a much better design. [fimg=322]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrkGqxPCUAAKw_q.png[/fimg]

d'Kong76 wrote: SEE!!! I'm done, people get turned off by this nonsense. I don't know what your problem is. If I didn't already know that all of your responses to my posts are personal, thinly veiled premises to Nelson Muntz me, I'd say you're a crazy idiot. I write a post expressing my indifference at the Mets failure to protect Seaver. I also opine that a year later, Seaver was one of the AL's 's best three or for pitchers -- thus acknowledging, at least by implication, that the Mets decision to leave Seaver unprotected was a bad one. And for that, I'm scolded for "congratulating myself", after which, you jump in to tell me that I'm also a clusterfuck starter, because that's how I roll. Two days after you know which way I swing. And you're tired of this nonsense?

d'Kong76 wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Teams don't divulge that type of info, do they? It was even less likely before the info-age that that type of stuff would be leaked or speculated upon as fact on six different social media venues. We chose to protect player x over The Franchise ... sorry fans but that's what we did. Really? What part do you not understand? What part do you think I don't understand?

d'Kong76 wrote: It was a legitimate post, no reason to paint it otherwise. Of course. And mine's a clusterfuck starter. Because that's how I roll. Right?

d'Kong76 wrote: Teams don't divulge that type of info, do they? It was even less likely before the info-age that that type of stuff would be leaked or speculated upon as fact on six different social media venues. We chose to protect player x over The Franchise ... sorry fans but that's what we did. Really? Really? I think I knew that. If you weren't so busy responding to the post, instead of to the poster, your post would've come out a lot different.

d'Kong76 wrote: Not everything has to be a circuitous cluster fuck to drive home various agendas either, but that's how some roll. Cluster fuck? "Some roll?" Your buddy goes out of his way to write a dumb combative post just to get in that line on me about how I shouldn't congratulate myself for agreeing with something the Mets did. Not that he'll ever admit wrong, not to me anyway. And then, as always, you pile on with the Nelson Muntz bit, because this involves me. It's about time someone called the Mets on the gentleman's agreement not to draft Seaver. Why didn't the Mets leave Keith unprotected? Or Darryl? What? There wasn't a gentleman's agreement not to pick those players? But there was one for Seaver? It's the lamest thing I ever heard. I'm sure the Mets wanted Seaver. Just not badly enough. I'm sure the Mets wanted everybody. I'm sure if it was up to them, the Mets would've protected 75 players instead of 25. And you, you're still a fucking jackass. Write something interesting ferchrissakes, instead of spending all your time here figuring out how to try and offend me. Can you do that?

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver? Murray Chass had it in a Sporting News column shortly after the fact. Yeah, but do you know who was the last player to make the protected list? I assume that Seaver was the last unprotected guy. Otherwise, the Mets claim that they really wanted to keep Seaver is undermined, at least somewhat, anyways. So if Seaver was the last unprotected guy, it had to be at the expense of the last player the Mets decided to protect, right? It had to come down to a final choice between Seaver and the last player to make the protected list, right? So who was that last guy?

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: That's kind of a glass half-empty butterfly effect chain reaction scenario. Here's my much happier one: .... Oh, Michigan! I am so humbled that I will be your man-servant. Rub my belly and I will grant you your wish. Your wish is my command.

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote. Really? Come on. Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver? I don't remember. I don't even remember if this was ever disclosed. But what if it was Lenny Dykstra? Or Floyd Youmans? What if the Carter deal couldn't have been completed without Youmans? Maybe keeping Seaver means Kevin Mitchell never gets to play for the Mets. Or the Mets never get Bobby Ojeda? Maybe Seaver's veteran presence on the '84 Mets is Cashen's excuse to delay Gooden's promotion to the 25. Maybe Seaver sets off some butterfly effect chain reaction that prevents the Mets from winning the WS in '86. You can't simply swap in Seaver's '85 stats into the Mets for the weakest link and then say that the Mets should've kept Seaver.

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote. Really? Come on. I changed "nothing" to "little" before I saw this last post of yours. But I stand by "nothing" as much as by "little".

Edgy MD wrote: Listen, I was optimistic too, and with good reason. But the facts are the facts. batmagadanleadoff wrote: By the end of 1983, the Mets organization might've been baseball's richest. Prospects had to be protected. Sentimentality is the enemy of success. I'd say that trying to posture as being above sentimentality is just as blinding. Moreso. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Hard decisions would have to be made. This is beyond dispute. The Mets made the wrong one. The Sox made the right one. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't lose a second of sleep when the Mets left Seaver unprotected, and lost him to the White Sox. Neither did I, but let's stop congratulating ourselves. batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets were now in business and Seaver was an old pitcher and who wants an old pitcher? It depends on the old pitcher. The White Sox apparently saw one they wanted more than hundreds of other players. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't think it would matter. You were incorrect. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Neither did the Mets, apparently. The historical record does not support this contention. batmagadanleadoff wrote: But it might have. It did. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Seaver, as it would turn out, had one last hurrah in his tank -- he was one of the AL's best pitchers in 1985. Not the best, or second best, but definitely near the top of the list. He had 11.6 pitching WAR from 1984-1986, more than any Met pitcher not named Gooden. The record is pretty clear that the Mets were disappointed by the claim, and that the claim ultimately hurt them. Your responses have little to do with anything I wrote. The Mets thought it was wiser to protect young promising high ceiling players whose futures were ahead of them than to protect one fading Hall of Famer whose future was behind him. At the time the Mets decided to leave Seaver unprotected, I happened to agree. Congratulating myself? For what? For a move the Mets FO made? Or because there, I was on board with the company line? What? I'm not allowed to relay that the Seaver move didn't bother me? I get my balls busted here enough when I disagree with what the Mets say or do. Now apparently, I can't agree with the FO either. Anybody here who thought Seaver had another Cy Young award caliber season left in him after 1983, and was an adult back then, step right up. I already acknowledged that Seaver was one of the AL's best hurlers in '85, probably worthy of picking up Cy young votes, and that as things turned out, the Mets could have used that talent in '85 when they fell to the Cards at season's end. At least you didn't accuse me of putting arguments into your mouth when you weren't' looking, or offending your intelligence, whatever that's supposed to mean. However the move turned out for the Mets was hardly the point of my post.

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: That's also interesting because, after Seaver was fumbled away.... I never bought the company line that Seaver was "fumbled" away ... that Seaver somehow got away from the Mets against their will or intent ... (we left Seaver tied to the mailbox, we were in the store for only three minutes, but when we came out, Seaver was gone. Gone). I think the Mets knew what they were doing all along, and it was calculated to the nth degree. They made the tough but unpopular decision to protect their young players over a fading legend and had their story about baseball customs, and oversights and unwritten rules and gentleman's agreements in place beforehand to try and deflect the negative press and sentiment that they knew would result. By all accounts, the Mets were trying to reacquire him immediately, and still were for two years after. They may have known the risks, but were far from pleased with the outcome. Were you pleased? I think I was indifferent. Really. The Mets were on to something -- I was as optimistic and as hopeful as Keith Hernandez's dad, and I didn't envision Seaver as being a part of that future. I didn't see the timing. Tom Seaver was the greatest Mets ever, but Tom Seaver wasn't Tom Seaver any more. I probably regarded Seaver in '84 the way I might think of Bartolo Colon today, notwithstanding that this analogy has its flaws -- like that the Mets immediate future in between the '83 and '84 seasons was looking much brighter than that of the present Mets.

Edgy MD wrote: That's also interesting because, after Seaver was fumbled away.... I never bought the company line that Seaver was "fumbled" away ... that Seaver somehow got away from the Mets against their will or intent ... (we left Seaver tied to the mailbox, we were in the store for only three minutes, but when we came out, Seaver was gone. Gone). I think the Mets knew what they were doing all along, and it was calculated to the nth degree. They made the tough but unpopular decision to protect their young players over a fading legend and had their story about baseball customs, and oversights and unwritten rules and gentleman's agreements in place beforehand to try and deflect the negative press and sentiment that they knew would result.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: The Seaver move hurt, but I understand his thinking. By the end of 1983, the Mets organization might've been baseball's richest. Prospects had to be protected. Sentimentality is the enemy of success. Hard decisions would have to be made. I didn't lose a second of sleep when the Mets left Seaver unprotected, and lost him to the White Sox. The Mets were now in business and Seaver was an old pitcher and who wants an old pitcher? I didn't think it would matter. Neither did the Mets, apparently. But it might have. Seaver, as it would turn out, had one last hurrah in his tank -- he was one of the AL's best pitchers in 1985. Not the best, or second best, but definitely near the top of the list.

According to the NY Historical Society, Frank Cashen was born on September 13, 1925, in Baltimore, MD. http://sports.nyhistory.org/tag/frank-cashen/

d'Kong76 wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: It would be hard to imagine a wool uniform quite that vibrant! Why? You think that wool can't be brightly colored? I know which way you must swing. Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. (NTTAWT) I guess I think that polyester is shinier and vibrant than the old wool unis. I think Zvon meant the same? Now I know for sure which way you must swing. Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. (NTTAWT)

d'Kong76 wrote: Sound pretty tuned in for someone who wants to sound tuned out. Does it? I don't need more than two seconds to identify an early 70's Pirate uniform, or a Pittsburgh Crawfords uniform. How much time do you need? An entire game?

Zvon wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Can't say I've been watching these games much more than to catch a random at bat or two while whizzing by channel surfing. But thumbs up to Pittsburgh for the retro Crawfords unis and early 70's Stargell/Clemente polyester pullover tops. Same goes for the Royal Giants retros the Mets were wearing, even though Pittsburgh, as the host team, paid for those. Don't expect that from the Mets for their home fans. The seven thousand bucks the Mets'd hafta spend might break their budget for acquiring a key mid-season piece for the stretch run. I have one question. Were the original Royal Giants unis really that blue? Or do modern materials make it look different? I dunno. But some negro league uniforms were quite colorful, or garish, depending on your tastes, for the times. Those Royal Giants retros the Mets wore wouldn't look so out of place today, though. Well, maybe the top and bottom mono combo might be a bit harsh, but I'd say that every team except the Yankees wears brightly colored tops nowadays.

d'Kong76 wrote: It would be hard to imagine a wool uniform quite that vibrant! Why? You think that wool can't be brightly colored? I know which way you must swing. Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. (NTTAWT)

Can't say I've been watching these games much more than to catch a random at bat or two while whizzing by channel surfing. But thumbs up to Pittsburgh for the retro Crawfords unis and early 70's Stargell/Clemente polyester pullover tops. Same goes for the Royal Giants retros the Mets were wearing, even though Pittsburgh, as the host team, paid for those. Don't expect that from the Mets for their home fans. The seven thousand bucks the Mets'd hafta spend might break their budget for acquiring a key mid-season piece for the stretch run.

d'Kong76 wrote: Guess we know which side of the plate you swing from. Nttawwt Have no idea what you're talking about, but coming from you, it can't be anything good.