batmagadanleadoff

Edgy MD wrote: Well, apparently going from Inferno to Paradiso doesn't count if you have to pass through Purgatorio! I'll let Dante know! I can't give you credit for Shamsky, but I can give you credit for that response.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I didn't know that Art Shamsky was a 1972 Athletic. I mean, I guess I probably did know at one point, but I have no memory of that. You should read the "Who Am I?" thread more often. batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Toppless in Oakland. This ex-Mets' last paycheck as an active major leaguer was signed by Charles O' FInley. Probably grudgingly, like every other check he signed. I wonder if the ex-Met has an Oakland A's WS ring? Wouldn't be his first WS ring. Is that Art Shamsky? This might be the only color picture of Shamsky in an Oakland uniform on the web. And if it's not the only one, it might be the best one. He was with the A's for about two weeks. In 1972.

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, that's what I wrote Orosco for last night. I was confused. Art Shamsky! 1972 Swingin' A! October 18, 1971 New York Mets traded Art Shamsky, Rich Folkers, Jim Bibby and Charlie Hudson to the St. Louis Cardinals for Jim Beauchamp, Harry Parker, Chuck Taylor and Tom Coulter.

HahnSolo wrote: Kong? Played for Mets and Yanks in 1977, although not eligible for postseason. The Mets dealt Kingman to the Padres, thus breaking the Mets to WS champs chain.

It Doesn't Suck Anymore Tim Foli - 1979 - Pirates David Cone - 1992 - Blue Jays Randy Myers - 1990 - Reds Roger Craig - 1964 - Cardinals Angel Pagan - 2012 - Giants Jesse Orosco - 1988 - Dodgers

It Doesn't Suck Anymore Tim Foli - 1979 - Pirates David Cone - 1992 - Blue Jays Randy Myers - 1990 - Reds Roger Craig - 1964 - Cardinals Angel Pagan - 2012 - Giants

Maybe they're counting on runaway inflation and a MLB revenue stream that doubles every three years.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It Doesn't Suck Anymore Tim Foli - 1979 - Pirates David Cone - 1992 - Blue Jays Randy Myers - 1990 - Reds Roger Craig - 1964 - Cardinals

In this quiz, we're looking for Mets players that were sold or traded to a team that went on to win the World Series in the respective ex-Mets first season with their new team. It doesn't matter whether the transaction was made in-season or off-season. Like Tim Foli, for example, mentioned in an earlier quiz. In 1979, the Mets acquired Frank Taveras by dealing Foli to the Pirates, who We-Are-Familied their way to the 1979 WS crown. To qualify as an answer, the player had to have actually played for the Mets and the eventual WS team. This requirement would eliminate players like, for example, Roy Staiger, who, though dealt to the 1978 Yankees, never played for that team. It Doesn't Suck Anymore Tim Foli - 1979 - Pirates

[fimg=333]http://a1.nyt.com/assets/foundation/20140326-140711/images/logos/nyt-logo-185x26.svg[/fimg] Baseball|Preview Looking Adrift at Citi Field, Mets Keep Their Wallet Closed By RICHARD SANDOMIR and KEN BELSONMARCH 27, 2014 Outfielder Juan Lagares amid swirling trash as the Braves visited Citi Field last May. Attendance has fallen by 32.5 percent since the stadium opened in 2009. Keeping a lid on player payrolls in the nation�s top market means different things to the Yankees and the Mets. The Yankees feigned salary restraint for months to avoid a big luxury-tax hit � until they signed Masahiro Tanaka for $155 million. But the Mets are acting with almost as much fiscal restraint as the Oakland Athletics and the Tampa Bay Rays, who lack modern stadiums or their own cable TV networks � factors that should enable the Mets to spend more freely. Instead, their 2014 payroll � somewhere short of $90 million � is not much different from last year�s. Yet the team is approaching this season with significant holes in its lineup that could have been addressed through free-agent acquisitions and might have improved the Mets� long-shot chances to contend for a playoff spot. The payroll modesty continues even as the Mets � and the 29 other major league teams � will receive equal portions of new television contracts whose annual average payments are doubling this season to $1.5 billion from $750 million, and despite the recent refinancing of a $250 million loan, at a lower rate, that removes the pressure the Mets were under to repay it in full later this year. But even as money is looser and banks are no longer huffing and puffing at the door of the Mets co-owner Fred Wilpon, the Mets seem to be staying cautious about spending. A sparse crowd at Citi Field for a game last June. Last week, General Manager Sandy Alderson said the team�s plan was �a consequence of trying to be somewhat prudent about the money we spend.� Later, he added, �Our goal is to spend money and add payroll every year, not just once every so often, as has been the case the last three or four years.� It is understandable that Mets fans are restless and frustrated with this approach. Five consecutive losing seasons followed the revelation that Bernard L. Madoff�s multibillion-dollar swindle had devastated the finances of the Mets� owners. Two years ago, the Mets settled a lawsuit filed by the trustee for Madoff�s victims that had sought as much as $1 billion, accusing Wilpon and others of being willfully blind to warnings that Madoff was engaged in wrongdoing. With that chapter closed, fans expected the Mets to again pursue elite players. Instead, the Mets have continued to stoke suspicions that they remain financially strapped. �When are we going to shake off the Madoff hangover?� Jack Webb, a Mets fan who grew up in the Bronx and lives in Jacksonville, Fla., said at a spring training game last week. �I think they are holding off. They have a fiduciary responsibility to spend money. If it�s about the money, sell the team.� His son, Eamon, added, �How long are you going to be a second-rate team in your own city?� The Mets� front office has inadvertently fueled fan frustration with statements about improved financial health that, in retrospect, seem to have been overly rosy. At spring training last year, Wilpon said that the financial pain of the past was over and that real estate, the basis of his wealth, had turned �zimmo.� Soon enough, he promised, �the payroll will be commensurate with anything we�ve ever done, because we can do it.� Seven months later, Alderson declared that in 2014, �we will have more payroll flexibility than we�ve had since I�ve been here.� But the flexibility that fans have seen amounts to reinvesting about $40 million in contractual obligations that came off their books after last season � the biggest item being the $25.5 million paid last year to the injured left-hander Johan Santana � in three new players. The Mets signed the slugging outfielder Curtis Granderson for $60 million over four years; the 40-year-old starter Bartolo Colon for $20 million over two years; and the veteran outfielder Chris Young for $7.25 million for one year. But that was it, although the roster could clearly use more help. Alderson said: �We�re trying to ladder our obligations so we can be in the market every year.� The Mets would not respond to any specific financial questions. The decision to remain prudent and not risk any of the new national TV money means two gaping holes are left in the infield. By not pursuing a credible free-agent first baseman like James Loney, who ultimately re-signed with the Rays, the Mets have chosen to stick with the underachieving Ike Davis and Lucas Duda. By not signing the free-agent shortstop Stephen Drew, who has evidently priced himself out of the Mets� range, they are left with the disappointing Ruben Tejada. If the Mets appear to have a definable strategy, it is to build around pitching. Wilpon and Alderson envision the rise of a young, inexpensive staff that could be a dominant force for years. But for that to happen, Matt Harvey has to make a successful return from Tommy John surgery in 2015; Zack Wheeler has to build on his impressive rookie season; and the very promising minor leaguers Noah Syndergaard and Rafael Montero must show they can excel in the majors. Until then, the mainstays will be the ancient Colon, the young veteran Dillon Gee and the effective, but fragile, Jon Niese. Perhaps Wilpon will not resume the aggressive spending of past years � the Mets� payroll peaked at nearly $150 million in 2009 � until the pitching staff becomes an attraction that makes the team a contender and brings fans and revenue back to Citi Field. The banks that are refinancing the $250 million loan will probably appreciate the Mets� safe spending. Banks routinely refinance loans to sports teams that are seeking lower rates or additional money, and the Mets got the better rate from a syndicate of banks that was larger than the previous one � an indication that the team�s financial state has improved. In recent years, the Mets needed short-term bridge loans to finance losses and to provide working capital; the owners then had to sell shares to limited partners to raise money to repay the bridge loans and some of its longer-term debt. Brad Rangell, a former managing director of Citi Private Bank�s sports finance and advisory practice, said that when lenders assess whether to refinance a team�s loan, they look at the �overall credit quality of the team, the owners, and the track record of ownership actually doing what they said they were going to do: Have they met projections? How do they react when things go wrong?� According to two people briefed on the terms of the Mets� refinancing, the responsibility for making sure it is repaid will shift from a Mets holding company to Wilpon and Saul Katz, a co-owner and Wilpon�s brother-in-law. The banks required that they put up more collateral, provide personal guarantees of repayment and sign an ownership support agreement that compels them to use whatever assets are necessary to make sure the loan is paid. Ownership support agreements have become more widespread in baseball since the recession and the bankruptcy of the Texas Rangers. The banks did not impose a salary cap on the Mets as a condition of the refinancing, but, as a practical matter, they did not have to. Raising payroll sharply to lure expensive free agents before attendance recovers is a formula to generate the sort of steep losses that peaked at $70 million for the Mets in 2011. Meanwhile, the drop in average attendance at Citi Field to 26,366 last season � it has fallen by 32.5 percent since the stadium opened in 2009 � has created a predictable downward spiral of ticket, parking and concession revenue. There are no public profit-and-loss statements available for the Mets that would show the impact of selling fewer and fewer seats at the 42,000-seat ballpark. But a partial snapshot of Citi Field business � which excludes revenue from more than 30,000 seats and player payroll � is available in reports that the team files annually because the ballpark�s tax-exempt bonds were issued by New York City. Those documents show that revenue from the stadium�s 10,635 most expensive seats has fallen 58 percent, to $41.8 million from $99.3 million in 2009. In that period, concession sales have decreased 29 percent and parking revenue has dropped 20 percent. Luxury suite revenue inched up a bit to $8.9 million in 2013, but about 10 of the 49 suites � which initially rented for as much as $500,000 a season but cost more each season � are essentially out of circulation; they were given to the limited partners whose investments in 2012 helped repay some debt. The Mets could be hurt by not being able to rent those suites if the team�s fortunes turn positive, and also by any loss of suite holders who did not renew their rentals after their leases expired last season. (Lease lengths vary.) Jodi Hecht, an analyst for Standard & Poor�s, said she had projected a drop in the 2014 cash flow earmarked to make the annual debt payments of about $43 million. The rating agency reaffirmed its BB rating � two levels below junk � of Citi Field bonds last December. But the agency lifted its formerly negative outlook on the bonds, based on the belief that cash flow will eventually stabilize. In the stands, a negative assessment may persist. The Mets have won no more than 79 games in any of the past five years. �They can�t spend enough,� Steve Attias, a Mets fan from Syosset, said during a game at Port St. Lucie last week. �You can�t expect to be on the back pages in New York if you�re not spending.� http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/sports/baseball/looking-adrift-at-citi-field-mets-keep-their-wallet-closed.html?_r=0

It still sucks to be here Duke Snider - 1963 - Dodgers Scott Atchison - 2013 - Red Sox Andres Torres - 2012 - Giants George Altman - 1964 - Cardinals John Franco - 1990 - Reds Ramon Ramirez - 2012 - Giants Graeme Lloyd - 2003 - Marlins (Free Agent) It sucks less, unless you're Richie Hebner Jesse Orosco John Candelaria Howard Johnson I've got six more of these on my list.

G-Fafif wrote: Mo Vaughn (did not play for 2001 Angels due to injury but came to the Mets in the offseason of 2001-02) We'll accept Vaughn. Even though he was inactive in 2001, he played for the Angels and came to the Mets from the Angels, who won the WS in Vaughn's first Met season.

It still sucks to be here Duke Snider - 1963 - Dodgers Scott Atchison - 2013 - Red Sox Andres Torres - 2012 - Giants It sucks less, unless you're Richie Hebner Jesse Orosco Orosco only had one stint with the Mets, which included his rookie season and major league debut. He didn't play for any team before he got here.

One guess per post. Here, we're looking for players who came to the Mets during the off-season, coming over from a team that would go on to win the World Series during their first Met season. So for example, Duke Snider would qualify as a correct answer, because he joined the Mets before the start of the 1963 season, coming over from the Dodgers, who would go on to win the WS in '63. Two of the Mets who qualify as answers in this category didn't get to stick around till the end of the season. This is the variation that mm came up in the Part I quiz even though it didn't apply there. But it comes up in this one. Twice. It still sucks to be here Duke Snider - 1963 - Dodgers Of course, most of youse are asleep by now. What'll probably happen is that Prince'll log on at about 3AM and run the table on this quiz in about four minutes, and just for the heck of it, probably come up with a correct answer that I omitted. I shoulda waited until tomorrow morning to post this quiz.

Ceetar wrote: this sign said Schaefer but I was too crappy a photographer or had had one too many Lunch's to get it to come out correctly I own lotsa Rheingold themed Mets related memorabilia. And some Budweiser stuff, too. But no Schaefer.

metsmarathon wrote: and he'll be our #5 starter, too!

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: One more hint: the missing player came to the Mets sometime during the last 15 years. And he's still active. And he's still with the Mets.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: One more hint: the missing player came to the Mets sometime during the last 15 years. And he's still active.

One more hint: the missing player came to the Mets sometime during the last 15 years.

G-Fafif wrote: G-Fafif wrote: G-Fafif wrote: I don't know if this qualifies as a hint, but I thought that the last remaining Met in this quiz would've been the first one solved. What a perfectly benign clue. Well here's another clue for you all, besides that the walrus was Paul. The last Met to this quiz made the cover of Sports Illustrated. As a Met? How would I know? Here's another hint. Our one-time SI cover boy fits the definition posted at the top of this thread, in that the last team he played for before coming to the Mets in-season were the eventual WS champs of his first Met season. But ---- this player -- this former SI cover boy -- belonged to another team in between his stints as a Met and that WS winning team. But he never played for that intermediate team. Did the man from Topps ever take his photo in the Sadecki Spot? I'm not sure. You should ask Zvonnie. He might be more up on the Sadecki Spot than I am. OE. After actually considering your query, I'd guess no. I'm pretty sure it's no, but how can I really be sure without having seen every single photo ever taken by The Man From Topps?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know if this qualifies as a hint, but I thought that the last remaining Met in this quiz would've been the first one solved. What a perfectly benign clue. Well here's another clue for you all, besides that the walrus was Paul. The last Met to this quiz made the cover of Sports Illustrated. As a Met? How would I know? Here's another hint. Our one-time SI cover boy fits the definition posted at the top of this thread, in that the last team he played for before coming to the Mets in-season were the eventual WS champs of his first Met season. But ---- this player -- this former SI cover boy -- belonged to another team in between his stints as a Met and that WS winning team. But he never played for that intermediate team.

metsmarathon wrote: metsmarathon wrote: [crossout]david justice[/crossout] oops. not "acquired during a season". dangit. And he never played for the Mets either. he was acquired by the mets. i don't think you explicitly stated that hte player played for the mets, though it is implied by "metly season" although is it absolutely necessary that the player finished hte season as a met? could a player have been acquired from an eventual world series winner, and subsequently traded to another team, and still be considered a viable answer to this quiz? Why? Can you name a player that fits that definition? Because I haven't found one. So it's moot, unless I missed someone.

G-Fafif wrote: G-Fafif wrote: I don't know if this qualifies as a hint, but I thought that the last remaining Met in this quiz would've been the first one solved. What a perfectly benign clue. Well here's another clue for you all, besides that the walrus was Paul. The last Met to this quiz made the cover of Sports Illustrated. As a Met? How would I know?

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know if this qualifies as a hint, but I thought that the last remaining Met in this quiz would've been the first one solved. What a perfectly benign clue. Well here's another clue for you all, besides that the walrus was Paul. The last Met to this quiz made the cover of Sports Illustrated.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Duke Snider? You jumped the gun with the Duke. Snider is a correct answer in Part II of this quiz -- players who came to the Mets in the off-season from teams that would go on to win the WS in their first seasons as Mets.