batmagadanleadoff

Zvon wrote: Was a '67 card right for him? He must be in that '67 SGT PEPPER parody cuz I know that ugly mug all too well. I don't know that any card's right for Ernie. Like Mike and Jerry above him, he never played for the Mets. Unlike most of the other Who Am I's in this thread, who played for the Mets but were never Toppsed -- Ernie did get a real 1966 Topps card.

RealityChuck wrote: I have a very restricted definition: a dynasty is a sports team that wins championships over a long period of time with no more than five years between championships, in which that nearly all of the players on the last championship team were not on the first championship team. Anything else is an excellent team. That only leaves: 1927-1964 MFY 1996-present MFY 1951-1979 Montreal Canadiens 1957-1986 Boston Celtics The Walsh/Siefert Montana/Young 49ers won Super Bowls in: 1981-82 1984-85 1988-89 1989-90 1994-95 and lost the NFC Championship in: 1983-84 1990-91 1992-93 1993-94 1997-98 (Mariucci, Coach) Dynasty, right?

Baseball�s Worst Contracts 1. 3B Alex Rodriguez, New York Yankees: four years, $61 million* So, let�s see. Even after a season-long 2014 suspension that takes the Yankees off the hook for almost all of his $25 million salary, Rodriguez will still make a tick more than $20 million a year through his 42nd birthday. Amid major hip problems and other maladies, it�s hard to know if he�ll ever be able to play anything close to a full season again, even after resting this year. The notion of A-Rod playing for the Yankees or anyone else again might be merely hypothetical at this point, anyway. Baseball colluded against Bonds after the home run king hit .276/.480/.565 in 126 games for the Giants in 2007. From a PR standpoint, A-Rod has been 10,000 times the pain in the ass Bonds was, and he�s nowhere near the hitter Bonds was when teams slammed the door in the San Francisco slugger�s face. In all likelihood, the Yankees are going to end up eating the rest of his contract. Given the expectations the fan base has, and given the big revenue hits the Bombers might suffer if they settle for third-place rosters, it would behoove the Yankees to ignore A-Rod�s sunk cost, embrace their Evil Empire reputation, and go buy more players who might one day appear on this list. *Well, four years and $63.9 million, if you want to get technical. While A-Rod�s 162-game suspension will cost him the bulk of his 2014 salary, a quirk will allow him to pocket $2.9 million this year. http://grantland.com/features/mlb-worst-contracts-alex-rodriguez-albert-pujols/

What Mike Joyce and Jerry Robertson said. Who am I?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Baseball card collectors of a certain age might think that I once played for the NY Mets. I didn't. Who am I? Another stumper. Youse might've recognized him if I airbrushed the logo right off of his baseball cap. [fimg=466]http://img.comc.com/original/968fc977-06c4-432f-a6ad-09d03209ec35.jpg[/fimg]

seawolf17 wrote: Going with my standard answer. McReynolds, Dykstra, Strawberry. I was expecting you. You got one of the three outfields (1987-'88). You had previously guessed that this was the Mets primary OF for three straight seasons, but you can thank Juan Samuel (CF-1989) for fouling up your earlier answer. The 1986 Mets primary OF was Foster/Dykstra/Strawberry.

Three Mets outfields qualified as primary regular alignment for two, but not three, consecutive seasons. Name them (one trio per post). Just give me the names, not the years.

This one, I thought, was easy. From 1968-'70, the Mets primary outfield was Cleon Jones, Tommie Agee and Ron Swoboda. [fimg=566:3cu58zsu]http://www.halloffamememorabilia.com/images/products/p-399170-tommie-agee-cleon-jones-ron-swoboda-autographed-8x10-photo-new-york-mets-aw-33934.jpg[/fimg:3cu58zsu]

Vic Sage wrote: i was 12 in 1973, and that was very much my team (more so than even `69, when i was not quite so absorbed by my Metdom). But the 73 team was a mediocre .500 team that overachieved by beating the big red machine in the playoffs. I had no expectation of winning against the As in the series, and have no great need to right that "wrong", where the better team won. any of you who lived through 2000 and yet are still willing to pick any other year to change the result of, are dead to me... dead to me, i tell you. That's 10 of you so far... i'm keeping track. oh wait, Gweck said he meant to vote 2000 but accidentally voted 2006. So he's alive again. But the other 9 of you... dead to me. I'm leaning towards picking 2000 for the Mets 3d WS. In doing so, I'm sacrificing my personal needs for the greater good of the Mets community. I sure as hell wasn't no wide-eyed and still mostly innocent elementary schooler in 2000 -- like I was in 1973 -- but many other Met fans were. I disagree passionately with your idea about the '73 Mets being a mediocre team. I still see them as a solid pennant contender ravaged by injuries, 82 wins notwithstanding. Though I enjoyed Prince's article immensely, I wish he didn't include the possibility of ripple effects. I would've preferred the sole option of addding one extra WS, without changing the outcomes of any of the other seasons. Because as it is with the ripple effect, I feel as if I'm now in one of those who would win a fight between Aquaman and Wonder Woman discussions.

Valverde's the perfect acquisition for the times. The Mets are still essentially penniless and so must take chances on these sort of cheap players with high upsides (high upsides relative to their costs). Besides, it's a Minor League deal so what's the fuss?

I split htis off from the hypothetical championship because I didn't want to hijack it with a separate interesting discussion. The Mets --- Tom Seaver's Mets -- are now their own dynasty, having won two World Series in five seasons. Thats a very loose "Dynasty", 2 WS wins in 5 years and no other playoff appearances nearby? How do you define "Dynasty"? Boy do I feel bad. 'Cause I meant to write: "The Mets --- Tom Seaver's Mets --- are now sort of their own dynasty ....."

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years? Because the rules say you only get one more World Series in this fantasy scenario, not two. Therefore, wishing that 1999 WS trophy on the Mets guarantees that the Yanks beat the Mets in the 2000 fantasy rematch. Plus, you know, if the Mets had won it all in '99, they'd still be wearing those hideous black drop-shadow things. The attraction to wishing for a '99 crown here, as far as the MFY's are concerned, is that the Mets and MFY's are now tied in WS series wins against each other and that the MFY's WS edge against our Mets is erased, if not the 2000 series loss itself. I've given thought to this one extra World Series fantasy in the past. My fantasy, though, has one wrinkle not included in G-Fafif's premise, which I'll reveal and elaborate on later. I'm having trouble deciding this one. I agree strongly with what Vic already wrote about the need to reverse the outcome of the 2000 WS, mainly because of who the Mets lost to. Also, it'd be an added bonus to be able to say that the Mets won the crown during the interregnum in that fucking fraud Ordonez's reign of terror. But then, like Grimm wrote, I'm not so sure that a 2000 WS crown would have mattered to me as much as, say, a '73 or '88 crown would have, when I was younger and much more obsessed. I just don't know. I stand corrected. The premise does allow for a ripple effect... Just to be clear, none of this dislodges 1969 or 1986. Everything you know about those two championship seasons stays exactly as is. It�s just that they now have a brother. And none of this necessarily affects 2014 and beyond.... [but] [y]ou�re welcome to your ripple effect in that you can speculate as to how the Mets winning in this other year altered history, that perhaps winning that one time led to a string of successes�or somehow backfired and brought on dark times. Or you could decide that everything is as it�s always been�except now instead of the franchise narrative reading, �The Mets won the World Series twice,� it will be thrice. - ... albeit an unusual ripple of butterfly effect in that you can rewrite history all you want so long as the '69 and '86 WS crowns are preserved. Which I don't get because, for example, a '73 Mets WS crown, among other things, enhances the already legendary reputation of its undisputed star and leader, Tom Seaver, who has now twice led his very imperfect Mets to WS victories over two superior and heavily favored opponents. The Mets --- Tom Seaver's Mets -- are now their own dynasty, having won two World Series in five seasons. So maybe the Mets aren't so willing to trade him away four years later. Maybe the FO reaches some sort of compromise with its superstar, thus avoiding the acrimony of 1977. Of course, Seaver alone, won't be enough to transform the de Roulet Mets into contenders. But perhaps those alternate Mets, with Tom Seaver, aren't as bad as they actually were. And maybe the Mets don't get to draft the most coveted prospect of the 1980 amateur draft, Darryl Strawberry. And maybe the de Roulets get to hold on to the team a little bit longer. And Team Doubleday, including his crack GM Frank Cashen, doesn't come on board after the 1980 season, if ever at all. And maybe the Mets don't get to draft Dwight Gooden either, or the numerous other amateurs that would rapidly transform the Mets farm and ultimately, the Major League team, into baseball's best. So maybe, just maybe, a '73 WS crown means the Mets suck throughout the 1980's. I don't like the ripple effect. Be careful what you wish for,

[fimg=666:1k6az6o3]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7425/12472487573_f8f9bff568_o.jpg[/fimg:1k6az6o3]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: seawolf17 wrote: McReynolds, somebody (Dykstra?), Strawberry, from 1987-1989. That's not a full answer, is it? But if your answer is McReynolds, Dykstra and Strawberry (1987-'89), that's incorrect.

seawolf17 wrote: McReynolds, somebody (Dykstra?), Strawberry, from 1987-1989. That's not a full answer, is it?

The outfield of George Foster (LF), Mookie Wilson (CF) and Darryl Strawberry (RF) was the Mets primary regular alignment outfield for three straight seasons (1983-'85). So was one other Mets outfield. Give me the three outfielders and the three seasons in question for full quiz credit.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Nine [crossout]Eight[/crossout] Mets led the team in games started in a single season at two outfield positions. One of the nine [crossout]eight[/crossout] Mets did it in the same season, and is the answer we're still looking for in Quiz #1. Who are the other eight [crossout]seven[/crossout]? One guess per post. I don't need the specific OF positions or the seasons. Just names.

Name the Met who led his team in starts at a specific outfield position with 30 one season. 30 starts! The lowest number of starts at a specific outfield position that nevertheless, led the team that season. Hint: Everybody on this forum saw this player play for the Mets live. In his 2008 rookie season, Daniel Murphy led all Mets with 30 starts in LF.

We were looking for Johnny Lewis who, in 1965, led the Mets in CF starts (45) and RF starts (81).

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Okay. We'll declare Vic the winner here. The 1983 Mets regular alignment outfield combined to start 409 games, a franchise record. Foster (LF) 151 games Wilson (CF) 144 games Strawberry (RF) 114 games. Which Mets outfield finished in second place in this category? The Mets outfield that finished second in this category to the '83 Mets OF was the following season's OF. The 1984 Mets primary outfield of Foster, Wilson and Strawberry started 408 games, one less than their 1983 counterparts.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: And, more to the point: who's to say '00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on '99? Who's to say the MFYs don't make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who's to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who's to say 1999 isn't a magic bullet for BOTH years? Because the rules say you only get one more World Series in this fantasy scenario, not two. Therefore, wishing that 1999 WS trophy on the Mets guarantees that the Yanks beat the Mets in the 2000 fantasy rematch. Plus, you know, if the Mets had won it all in '99, they'd still be wearing those hideous black drop-shadow things. The attraction to wishing for a '99 crown here, as far as the MFY's are concerned, is that the Mets and MFY's are now tied in WS series wins against each other and that the MFY's WS edge against our Mets is erased, if not the 2000 series loss itself. I've given thought to this one extra World Series fantasy in the past. My fantasy, though, has one wrinkle not included in G-Fafif's premise, which I'll reveal and elaborate on later. I'm having trouble deciding this one. I agree strongly with what Vic already wrote about the need to reverse the outcome of the 2000 WS, mainly because of who the Mets lost to. Also, it'd be an added bonus to be able to say that the Mets won the crown during the interregnum in that fucking fraud Ordonez's reign of terror. But then, like Grimm wrote, I'm not so sure that a 2000 WS crown would have mattered to me as much as, say, a '73 or '88 crown would have, when I was younger and much more obsessed. I just don't know.

2009: Frenchlick, Beltran, Pagan Close enough. We were looking for the injury ravaged year of the ambulance - 2009 - the Citi Field inaugural season Domino's Pizza Commemorative Citi Patch Castillo dropped the ball the wall's too high the wall's too far blah blah blah. The Mets primary starting OF'ers were Sheffield LF (44 games) Beltran CF (77) Francoeur RF (74)

HahnSolo wrote: I'll go back to Bobby V's interchangeable outfields. 2001 - Agbayani, Timo, Payton It's not 2001. And the primary starting 2001 OF'ers were Agbayani (LF 82 games), Payton (CF 90) and Lawton (RF 46).

HahnSolo wrote: Victor Diaz?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Bonilla?