batmagadanleadoff

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure how the "immoral" aspect is addressed by imposing a cap. A monopoly imposing price controls on the suppliers is the crux of the immorality. The idea is to strike a balance between allowing the amateur the freedom to choose his employer and yet preserving competitive balance. We all know that the real reason for the draft, despite what MLB has always claimed, is mainly to control salaries, and thus, team expenses. An amateur has no choice but to play for the team that drafted him or wait at least another year before another team drafts him, and then go through the same process again. But reverting to the pre 1965 way of doing things, where every amateur is essentially a free agent will likely result in the richest teams acquiring the cream of the crop almost always. The author addresses this concern. Thanks for summarizing, but I'm up for trashing the notion of competitive balance, too. Real competitive balance would allow any team that thought they could pull it off to park a stadium in greater New York and go head-to-head with the Yankees and Mets. You want competitive balance, then don't entertain notions of exclusive access to marketplaces. Greater New York could support six teams. I'm totally on board with that. But it's less likely to happen than blowing up the draft in the way that Jazayerli sugggests.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure how the "immoral" aspect is addressed by imposing a cap. A monopoly imposing price controls on the suppliers is the crux of the immorality. The idea is to strike a balance between allowing the amateur the freedom to choose his employer and yet preserving competitive balance. We all know that the real reason for the draft, despite what MLB has always claimed, is mainly to control salaries, and thus, team expenses. An amateur has no choice but to play for the team that drafted him or wait at least another year before another team drafts him, and then go through the same process again. But reverting to the pre 1965 way of doing things, where every amateur is essentially a free agent will likely result in the richest teams acquiring the cream of the crop almost always. The author addresses this concern.

Interesting proposal from Rany Jazayerli to abolish the draft, make every amateur a free agent, and impose a cap on amateur spending ala the international draft. Abolish the MLB Draft! It doesn't work. It's quite possibly immoral. It's time to replace it. By Rany Jazayerli on June 6, 2013 Let's conduct a thought experiment. Let's say you're a computer whiz. I don't mean you were able to recover your Word document that one time when your Lenovo crashed � I mean you're an absolute prodigy in front of a laptop. You taught yourself to code your own website when you were 9 years old. By the time you were 11, you were running a profitable side business consulting on software issues for your parents' friends. You graduated from high school with straight A's because you hacked into the system after catching WarGames on late-night TV. ?By the time you finish college, you've established a reputation as one of the brightest young minds in the computing industry. Google is interested in hiring you. Bigwigs at Apple have met you on campus for several friendly chats. Facebook follows you constantly � well, they follow everyone constantly, but in your case they're tracking you with actual human beings. Yahoo sees you as a key piece in their rebuilding strategy. Twitter and LinkedIn have called. And then, a week after graduation, you get a phone call. Microsoft is on the line � you're their first-round pick! They've made you an offer for a fraction of what your value is worth on the open market. If you don't agree to their contract, then you can't work for any other tech company for another year � when some other company will draft you and you'll go through the same process all over again. You think Microsoft is terrible at developing programmers and that you won't learn anything while working there? Tough. You were hoping to settle in Silicon Valley and have no interest in moving to Redmond? Sorry, bub. It was your childhood dream to work for Google?1 [If you're 22, then you were 7 when Google went live, so this is actually plausible. Dammit, we're old.] Maybe you'll get to revisit that dream in 10 years, when you're finally free to work for whoever you want. Does this sound ridiculous? Congratulations! You've picked up on the inherent absurdity of the sports draft. We accept limitations on the rights of athletes to choose their employers in a way we never would accept on anyone else. We do so because we recognize that sports franchises do not compete with each other the way that companies in other industries do. When eToys.com went bankrupt, it didn't hurt business at Amazon. But if the Kansas City Royals ceased operations, the New York Yankees would be hurt by the loss of a "competitor" that they have made millions of dollars beating the crap out of. Like other sports leagues, Major League Baseball is a single entity composed of dozens of competing organizations that need each other to succeed. The health of the league is dependent on the health of each individual organization. Hence, we accept mechanisms that were put in place generations ago to ensure that health by giving the worst franchises a leg up on their opponents in procuring new talent. Well, that's the story they want you to believe, anyway. The reality is that MLB didn't institute the draft nearly 50 years ago as a way to promote competitive balance. That's a dandy byproduct of the draft, and one they've done their damndest to promote over the years. But the real reason is somewhat different. When the draft was created, Major League Baseball wasn't concerned so much with extending a hand to the downtrodden teams, but with cutting costs for all of them. Baseball teams had been trying to lower expenses on player acquisitions for decades before the draft was instituted. These were the days of the reserve clause, a prettied-up term for indentured servitude, when a team owned the rights to a ballplayer from the moment he signed until the moment he retired, and sometimes even after that. The decision to sign his first professional contract represented the only time a player had any real leverage. Well, that wouldn't do, so teams tried their best to restrict what little leverage players had. In 1947 MLB instituted the Bonus Rule, which mandated that any amateur player who received a signing bonus of more than $4,000 would be required to stay on his team's major league roster for two seasons before he could be sent to the minors. It remains one of the most spiteful, self-destructive rules ever passed by a professional sports league. The rule didn't even work to limit bonuses � teams still gave out big bonuses to players of particular promise. All it meant was that every player of particular promise was going to sit on a major league bench, his talent withering away for two years before he could be farmed out to start developing that talent, which hopefully had not atrophied by then. Occasionally a player was so talented that, even in his teenage years, he could hold his own in the majors. Sandy Koufax was put to work by the Brooklyn Dodgers right away, and even at age 19 he didn't embarrass himself. On the other hand, it would take him seven years to master his control and become Sandy Koufax, and it's not unreasonable to presume that some time in the minor leagues would have more quickly taught him to throw strikes. More common was the early experience of Harmon Killebrew, who was 17 when he signed with the Washington Senators in 1954. He got 93 at-bats over the next two years. Killer would bounce between the minors and majors for three more years before finally earning a full-time job in 1959, upon which he promptly led the AL in home runs. Killebrew ended up being the exception, because he made it; we can only wonder how many promising players were permanently damaged by wasting two years of their lives because they agreed to take a team's money. Even the teams realized how ineffective the Bonus Rule was, which is why it was rescinded and then reinstated multiple times over the years. Finally, in 1964, a bidding war broke out over University of Wisconsin two-sport start Rick Reichardt. The Los Angeles Angels won the bidding war with a record-breaking $205,000 offer,2 [Frequently lost in this story is the fact that Reichardt ultimately proved to be worth the money and then some. After wasting his first two years on the Angels' bench, he was an above-average left fielder for the team from 1966 through 1969, and then was traded for Ken McMullen, who started at third base from 1970 to 1972.] which was just the tip of the iceberg: The 20 major league teams spent more than $7 million combined on signing bonuses for amateur players that year, which was more than they spent on major league salaries. The Powers That Be were finally moved to act. In 1965, Major League Baseball got rid of the Bonus Rule and held its first amateur draft. The Kansas City A's used the first pick to select Rick Monday, who would go on to play 19 years in the majors. Monday, who had no leverage to sign with any other team, had no choice but to agree to a signing bonus of $104,000. The new system was intended to lower signing bonuses paid to players, and it worked. In fact, no amateur player exceeded Reichardt's signing bonus for 24 years, until 1988, when the no. 1 overall pick, Andy Benes, was able to snooker the San Diego Padres out of $235,000.3 [Technically, Bo Jackson didn't exceed Reichardt's signing bonus, but after he was selected by the Royals in the fourth round of the 1986 draft, he signed a major league contract (unprecedented for a draft pick) that guaranteed him more than a million dollars. Of course, he had a degree of leverage that was unique in the history of baseball.] The dam finally burst in the early 1990s because agents like Scott Boras insisted that their clients were worth significantly more money. The top signing bonus jumped more than 500 percent in three years; in 1991 the no. 1 overall pick, Brien Taylor, got $1.55 million from the New York Yankees when they took his threat to go to college seriously. By 1995, every first-round pick signed for at least $500,000, and eight players signed for $1 million. But the sudden increase in signing bonuses didn't mean that the draft was no longer suppressing costs � it just meant that owners had finally realized the value of top draft picks. And then in 1996, we finally found out how much a draft pick could be worth. While no. 1 overall pick Kris Benson signed for $2 million, Boras found a loophole in MLB's rules that allowed four first-round picks to be declared free agents, free to sign with any team.4 [Major League Baseball's own rules stated that if a player was not offered a formal contract in writing within 15 days of being drafted, he was a free agent. Teams had routinely missed this deadline for years, but no one called them on it. Boras did, and got pilloried in the press for it, but the people who deserved to get called on the carpet were the incompetent lawyers who created a loophole wider than the Kuiper Belt] One of them was no. 2 overall pick Travis Lee. He signed with the Arizona Diamondbacks � for $10.2 million. The other three guys got $10 million (Matt White), $6.075 million (John Patterson), and $3 million (Bobby Seay). If there was any doubt before that the draft suppressed signing bonuses, there wasn't anymore. The problem in proposing an alternative to the draft is that, as much as it limits the rights of baseball players to earn what the market will bear, it's hard to deny that the draft has also improved competitive balance by giving the worst teams first crack at the best new talent. Truly terrible teams have virtually disappeared from the baseball landscape. If we ignore expansion teams, in the 48 years from 1917 to 1964, 30 teams lost more than two-thirds of their games in a season. In the 48 years from 1965 to 2012 � the draft era � just three teams have done the same.5 [The 1996 Tigers, 2003 Tigers, and 2004 Diamondbacks can take a bow. This year's Miami Marlins are warming up offstage.] The incidence of truly terrible teams has declined 90 percent, even though there are nearly twice as many teams today as there were 60 years ago. So the draft, as constituted, saves teams a ton of money (which benefits the owners) and improves parity in the game (which benefits everyone else). If we're going to replace the draft with something better, it has to accomplish the former or the owners will never agree to do it, and it has to accomplish the latter or there's no point. Fortunately, just such a replacement exists, and it would be a relative breeze to set up. We're not going to keep you in suspense any longer. The draft alternative we're proposing is very simple: 1. Assign every team a spending cap. (This limits costs, which will please owners.) 2. Allot the spending cap for each team based on where they finished in the standings the year before, allowing the worst teams to spend more in the draft than the best teams. (This helps maintain competitive balance.) 3. Let the free market reign. This is not a radical concept. It's not even a particularly new one; David Rawnsley, then a writer for Baseball America and now the VP of player personnel for Perfect Game, suggested it more than a decade ago. But it's an idea whose time has come. First off, think of the benefits. From a player's perspective: You have the right to choose your employer. That's a pretty basic right enjoyed by almost all Americans, but one that has been denied pro athletes for too long. You grew up a Cubs fan and it would be a dream come true to sign with your hometown team? Give them a hometown discount, and it just might happen. Parents retiring to Arizona? Maybe you'll take a second look at what the Diamondbacks have to offer. You love the beach and warm weather? You can take the offer from the San Diego Padres, even if other teams are willing to pay more. (Also, hope you enjoy minor league pit stops in Fort Wayne, San Antonio, and Tucson!) On a less whimsical note, if you're a top collegiate hitter and the Seattle Mariners sidle up to you with truckloads of cash, would you sign? Or would you take a look at what's happened to Jesus Montero, Dustin Ackley, and Justin Smoak, and take less money to sign with an organization that has a proven track record of turning minor league hitting prospects into major league hitters? If you're a pitcher, would you sign with the Kansas City Royals, who haven't drafted a pitcher who has made even one start in the majors this year since 2004? In the current system, if you get drafted by a team whose developmental philosophy is diametrically opposed to your own, you have no recourse other than sitting out a year � or, in the case of a high school player headed to college, three years. This isn't a theoretical issue. The long-tossing revolution, in which pitchers train by throwing a ball 300 feet or even farther, has swept through the game over the past five to 10 years, with many first-round picks swearing by the training method as a way to keep their arms healthy. Meanwhile, more than a few major league teams were extremely skeptical of the new trend � they've almost all come around now � and forbade their pitchers from long-tossing. It became such an issue that two years ago, Trevor Bauer and Dylan Bundy � both pitchers who would be top-five picks in the draft � publicly stated that if any team wasn't willing to let them long-toss, that team shouldn't draft them. In the end, Bauer and Bundy landed with teams who were willing to let them long-toss and the sport avoided an embarrassing standoff. But the potential for this kind of conflict is always there when the teams that draft players hold all the leverage. And with very limited exceptions, draft picks can't be traded, which prevents a resolution along the lines of John Elway getting traded to the Denver Broncos or Eli Manning to the New York Giants. In the current draft system, a player has absolutely no say in his place of employment for roughly a decade � by which point the vast majority of draft picks have already left or been cut from the game. Eliminate the draft, and you give players at least one moment in their lives as professional ballplayers in which they have control of their career. On moral grounds alone, that justifies the switch. But as beneficial as abolishing the draft would be for players, it would have benefits for teams as well. In a draftless system, every team would at least theoretically have a crack at signing every player. Right now, if there's a specific player that your organization is absolutely in love with, you might not even get a chance to talk to him because you have the 13th pick in the draft and the team that drafts 11th fancies him too. Abolish the draft, and suddenly every player in the pool becomes accessible, so long as you're willing to accept the consequences of having less money to sign everyone else. Furthermore, making amateur talent a free-for-all allows teams to try radically different strategies that aren't feasible today. Your research department thinks you'll get a better rate of return by signing 20 guys for $400,000 each than by blowing half your budget on a single player? That's something you can do if the draft is abolished. Conversely, if there's one elite prospect who your organization is certain will be a star? In the current system, if you don't hold a top draft pick, you've got no shot. But eliminate the draft, and if you're willing to blow your entire budget on a single player, you just might. In a system where every player is a free agent and every team is free to sign him, there's no need for the draft shenanigans that happen every year. Never again will Scott Boras need to manipulate the draft to allow his client to sign with the team that will give him the most money � now he's free to negotiate with all 30 teams at once. You claim your client is a special, once-in-a-generation talent? Let the market decide. And in a system where every team has access to every player, luck becomes subordinate to competence. Right now, if there are three consensus franchise talents and you're drafting fourth, you're out of luck. In a draft-free system, you make your own luck. Smart teams will find new inefficiencies to exploit. The A's have found three since you started reading this. When Rawnsley first proposed this idea around the turn of the century, it was such a radical revision of the existing system that it was more of an idea bubble than a true proposal. But changes in the new collective bargaining agreement make the notion of abolishing the draft less far-fetched. For one thing, the new CBA placed a spending cap on all 30 teams in the draft. Every draft pick has been assigned a slot price, with the amount dropping with every pick. Teams are not required to spend all their slot money on that specific player; they can move the money around, getting one player to agree to take less than slot and then transferring the savings to another player. So prior to the draft, every team knows exactly how much money they can spend � the Astros, drafting first this year, have a bonus pool of $11,698,800, while the Nationals, drafting last, can spend $2,737,200. Teams are permitted to exceed their cap, but the penalties for exceeding it by more than 5 percent are so onerous that no team did so last season. Even the Pittsburgh Pirates, who drafted Mark Appel no. 8 overall, refused to break the cap in order to sign him, and Appel returned to Stanford; he may be drafted first overall tonight. So if the Astros have their bonus pool, and the Nationals have their bonus pool, what's the point of having a draft in the first place? In exchange for making the cap completely unbreakable � which will save the owners a little cash � eliminate the middleman. The Astros have their signing cap, the Nationals have theirs. Gentlemen, start your engines. In a sense, the Astros are already operating under a draft-free system. Last season, they had the first pick in the draft, but they elected to take Carlos Correa, who was not considered the best available, because Correa was willing to sign for a well-below-slot bonus of $4.5 million. This freed up millions of dollars for the Astros to use on other players, and they spent much of that excess on Lance McCullers, a high school right-hander who fell in the draft because of his bonus demands. Correa and McCullers are both top prospects today � and tonight, it's quite possible that the Astros will do the same thing again, using the no. 1 overall pick on a player, like UNC third baseman Colin Moran, who isn't the best available but who is a top-five talent willing to accept a below-slot deal, thus allowing the Astros to draft and sign more top prospects later in the draft. The Astros can use this tactic because, holding the first pick, they can launch their plot without being subject to the whims of other teams. Eliminate the draft and every team will be able to strategize this way. The draft is also used as a mechanism to punish or reward teams who are active in free agency � teams that sign a premier free agent lose a draft pick, while the team that loses the free agent gains a draft pick in compensation. There's no reason that compensation system can't be tailored to a draft-free system in which bonus pool dollars would substitute for draft picks. One of the biggest frustrations with the current system � for fans and many MLB front offices � is the limitation placed on trading draft picks. As the NFL and NBA have shown, the ability to trade draft picks adds intrigue and exposure to the draft, while granting teams the flexibility to acquire the talent they covet. Major League Baseball finally got around to dipping its toes in the water of draft pick trades, as the new CBA allows teams to trade certain "competitive balance" draft picks during carefully defined windows in the sport's calendar. But in a draft-free world, you don't have to worry about this issue. Instead, you can allow teams to trade bonus pool dollars. Now, if a contender wants to trade for Player X from a rebuilding squad in July, if they can't agree on a prospect, they can just come to terms on a dollar figure in the subsequent draft. It would be harder to make the case to abolish the draft if the draft were working � if the best players get picked first and on down the line. But it hasn't worked that way in at least a quarter century. Prior to the new CBA, some of the most highly regarded (and expensive) talents would tumble down the draft until they fell to a team willing to meet their demands, whether it was Rick Ankiel in 1997 ($2.5 million, drafted no. 72 overall) or Rick Porcello in 2006 ($7 million major league contract, drafted no. 27 overall). The new CBA limits that, but it has introduced new and unanticipated consequences. Last season, many teams elected to blow most of their bonus pool money on their first couple picks, then draft lightly regarded college seniors who would agree to minuscule bonuses. Maybe it's less broken than before, but when a team drafts a virtual unknown in the fourth round and signs him for $5,000 � as the Blue Jays did last year with Tucker Donahue � the draft is still broken. So blow it up. Give teams the freedom to make an offer to every player, and give players the freedom to accept any offer. The irony is that Major League Baseball already has this system in place � a system in which teams are allowed to sign any amateur player they want within the constraints of a bonus cap, and the players are allowed to sign with any team they want. It's just that this system applies only to international talent. As part of the new CBA, last year every team was capped6 at spending $2.9 million on international amateur talent, exempting players from certain Asian markets and Cuban defectors over the age of 23. The world did not end. The highest signing bonus was doled out by the New York Mets to Amed Rosario, a 16-year-old shortstop from the Dominican Republic, who received $1.75 million. Nine other players got seven-figure bonuses. The Yankees chose to spend $2.75 million on three players, leaving almost nothing for anyone else. Meanwhile, 16 teams elected to spread their money around, not spending even $600,000 on a single player. Different strokes for different folks. This year, each team's international signing cap will be determined by where they finished in the standings last season. The Astros can spend up to $4,943,700; the Nationals can spend only $1,846,900. Other than the signing cap, once the signing season opens on July 2, there are no restrictions. Teams can even trade bonus dollars. This is exactly the system we're advocating for Americans and Canadians subject to the draft. IT ALREADY EXISTS. But only for foreign ballplayers. Major League Baseball, bless its heart, is trying to synchronize the two systems. Only instead of synchronizing things by eliminating the draft for domestic players, naturally, they're trying to institute a draft on international players. It's difficult to articulate just how horrible this idea is; it's almost as bad as the Bonus Rule. Latin America is the Wild West of amateur baseball; signing a player frequently means dealing with the buscones who trained him since he was 11 years old and get a cut of his bonus, then waiting months for the player's date of birth and identity to be confirmed by the commissioner's office. Throughout this process, corruption � even, occasionally, among employees of the major league teams � is rampant. Virtually every scout in Latin America thinks implementing a draft there will be a disaster. Put it this way: If a draft is implemented, it's just a matter of time before two teams wind up accidentally drafting the same player, listed under two different names. If implementing an international draft would save teams money, at least you could justify it in pure Machiavellian terms. But now that a signing cap is in place, a draft wouldn't even do that. The high priority placed on this by the commissioner's office is bizarre. The good news is that MLB can't implement an international draft without the cooperation of the players' union, and last week the MLBPA vetoed the idea. (This, after more than 150 Latin American players on major league rosters signed a petition expressing their opposition to an international draft.) There's a good chance the specter of an international draft won't be brought up again until the next CBA is negotiated, by which time Selig is likely to have retired,7 and with any luck his successor won't have the same zeal for the draft. We can only hope that, instead of trying to expand the draft, the next commissioner will take a good, hard look at whether the draft is necessary at all. Because it's not. The draft is an idea whose time has passed. A signing cap would limit costs and improve competitive balance while offering amateur players the freedom to choose their employer. It would also inject an added dose of intrigue and strategy to the game. It's time to ditch the draft. The game of baseball will be better for it. www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9348666/th ... replace-it

ESPN's Matt Meyers two-parter on the Mets and the draft: Is there a draft in here? Part 1 June, 5, 2013 Jun 5 12:03PM ET By Matt Meyers | ESPNNewYork.com If, while walking across Shea Bridge, you asked the average fan why the Mets are in their current predicament, there�s a good chance the response would include an expletive and the words �Wilpon� and �Madoff.� More than anything else, the club�s financial constraints, caused by ownership's involvement in the ill-fated Ponzi scheme, are seen as the reasons why the Mets are in midst of what seems like an endless rebuilding cycle. Problem is, that theory doesn�t hold water. In fact, there is a very simple explanation for why the Mets, for lack of a better word, stink: the amateur draft -- this year's version of which begins Thursday night. For some reason, fans seem to think that you can build a winning team via free agency. Once upon a time, that may have been true, and the 2009 Yankees, who won the World Series after signing CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeira and A.J. Burnett, are the last good example. However, MLB clubs -- both big- and small-market -- are much smarter about locking up their top talent before it hits the market, which means having lots of moolah to spend in the offseason doesn�t really mean that much anymore. Exhibit A is the 2012 Marlins, Exhibit B is the 2012 and 2013 Angels. Both of those teams �won� the offseason with major free-agent signings and have nothing to show for it. In fact, both organizations are in much worse shape today than they were on the final day of the 2011 season. Since most guys are already past their prime by the time they reach free agency, the only way to acquire elite players is by drafting them, signing them as international free agents or trading for them. (But you need players from the first two groups to do much trading.) As David Schoenfield noted recently, the last time the Mets drafted a player who appeared in an All-Star Game was Scott Kazmir, back in 2002. Of course, he didn�t appear in the ASG until after being traded to Tampa Bay for basically nothing. The last player the Mets drafted who appeared in the Midsummer Classic in orange and blue is David Wright, a supplemental first-rounder in 2001. Wright�s success is a perfect demonstration of the misunderstanding of the Mets� woes. See, spending money has never been the Mets� problem. For years and years the pre-Madoff Mets threw money at free agents, just the wrong ones. In fact, some of the best moves the Mets made in recent years were free agent signings they didn�t make. The club dodged a bullet when the Giants outbid them for Barry Zito, and an even larger one when Mike Hampton chose Colorado�s dollars over theirs. As a bonus, the Mets received a supplemental draft pick when Hampton signed with the Rockies, which they used to draft Wright, only the most accomplished position player in franchise history. After Wright, it wasn�t until getting Matt Harvey in the 2010 that Mets drafted another player who looks like a real cornerstone, while whiffing on first-round picks time and again. (Remember Nathan Vineyard, the Mets� supplemental first-rounder in 2007? Problaby not, as he only pitched in two games above rookie ball.) Meanwhile, they wasted dollars on all sorts of free agents who failed to live up to their contracts -- K-Rod, Wagner, Castillo, Alou, Bay, Perez etc -- while their competitors built from within. Look at the best teams in the National League -- their foundation came via the draft. The Reds with Votto, Bruce, Bailey and Frazier. The Cardinals with Molina, Miller, Craig and Jay. The Braves with Freeman, McCann, Heyward, Simmons, Medlen, Kimbrel and Minor. Yes, these teams have spent money on free agents (or traded prospects for veterans to supplement their rosters), but only did that once they had a foundation built from within. Players' salaries are controlled for the first six years of their career, so if you can develop your own players you have the flexibility to spend when you need to fill a hole or two. And you also have the leverage to sign the best players to below-market long-term deals well in advance of free agency, which the Reds did with Votto and Cards did with Molina. Look at how the Mets operated for most of the past decade -- they spent a lot more on free agents than any other NL team and have nothing to show for it but one division title and a lot of disappointment. Want to know why they are unwatchable right now? It�s because they went seven years without drafting anyone who resembles an All-Star. (In Part 2 on Thursday, I�ll explain why the Mets' drafting has been so bad.) http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/68626/is-there-a-draft-in-here-part-1 Is there a draft in here? Part 2 June, 6, 2013 Jun 6 11:02AM ET By Matt Meyers | ESPNNewYork.com On Wednesday, I explained that the Mets� problems have a lot more to do with poor drafting than Bernie Madoff. The short version is as follows: There once was a time when big-market clubs could count on top young players hitting the market in their late 20s, but when you see the Reds and Rays locking up Joey Votto and Evan Longoria, respectively, you know that is no longer the case. To win, you have to build from within, which means drafting well. So why have the Mets been so bad in the draft over the past decade? It boils down to three reasons. 1. Punting draft picks The rules regarding free agency and draft picks have changed a bit over the years, but you have always run the risk of forfeiting a draft pick when you sign elite free agents. (Under the new CBA these are players who received a qualifying offer.) For years the Mets gave away first-round picks to sign free agents, many of whom simply were not worth it. They gave up a first-round pick in 2006 to sign Billy Wagner, in 2007 for Moises Alou and in 2009 for Francisco Rodriguez. If you�re giving up top picks you have a much lower chance of adding elite, cost-controlled talent to your organization. It�s one thing if you are adding a perennial All-Star in his prime, but in those instances the Mets gave up top picks for two relievers and a 40-year-old outfielder who played in a total of 102 games over the life of his two-year deal. That�s just bad business. Fortunately, the Mets seemed to have wised up in this regard. If you recall, they refused to sign Michael Bourn over the winter because they would have had to sacrifice the No. 11 overall pick to do it. As nice as a player as Bourn is, he would not have made this team a contender, and the player the Mets get at that spot on Thursday is probably going to be much more valuable to the future of the club than Bourn would have been. 2. Going cheap Oddly, even though the Mets were willing to pay through the nose for free agents such as Wagner, K-Rod and Jason Bay, they were among a group of teams that included the White Sox, Padres and Astros that were notorious for their unwillingness to spend big on the draft. For whatever reason -- most assumed it was the Wilpon�s cozy relationship with Bud Selig -- the club frequently refused to significantly exceed MLB�s bonus recommendations. This often meant missing out on blue-chip talent at the top of the draft as well as players who may have slid due to bonus demands. A perfect example is 2004, when the Mets had the No. 3 overall pick. That year, Jered Weaver and Stephen Drew were both seen as two of the top talents in the draft, but both were advised by Scott Boras and were demanding big bonuses. Many clubs were scared off by their demands -- this is how the Padres ended up taking Matt Bush at No. 1 overall -- and the Mets were no different. Weaver fell to the Angels at No. 12 and Drew to the Diamondbacks at No. 15 and held out for almost a year before signing just ahead of the 2005 draft for $4 million each. Philip Humber, whom the Mets took at No. 3, signed for $3 million. That�s a difference of $1 million, or roughly 1/16 of what the Mets are paying Jason Bay not to play for them this year. Per wins above replacement, Weaver and Drew are the second- and third-most valuable players in that class, trailing only Justin Verlander, the No. 2 overall pick. Funny thing is, the Mets did have some success when they went above slot in later rounds, most notably signing Jonathon Niese, a seventh-rounder in 2005, for fourth- or fifth-round money. Of course, his bonus was $175,000, not the kind of dollars that will cause too big of a stir in the commissioner�s office. The spending issue is somewhat moot under the new CBA, as teams have a spending cap and will incur harsh penalties if they exceed it, but the Mets were one of the only teams willing to play by the old rules, and it cost them. 3. Bad luck To be fair to previous Mets management, there were a few top picks that didn�t pan out that were probably just bad luck. While Weaver and Drew were considered better prospects, Philip Humber was far from a reach at No. 3 that year. The same can be said of Lastings Milledge (No. 12, 2003) and Mike Pelfrey (No. 9, 2005). Humber was part of the Johan Santana trade, Milledge was considered a top prospect until he got to the majors while Pelfrey was a serviceable starter for a couple of years. Of course, when you pick in the top 12 for three straight seasons and have nothing to show for it, that�ll sting. (Santana�s no-hitter was nice, but there�s a strong argument to be made the Mets would be better off now had they not made that trade. They�d have Carlos Gomez, a lot more payroll flexibility and just as many playoff appearances.) The good news for the Mets is that the draft has been kinder in recent years (Matt Harvey, FTW), and the Sandy Alderson regime seems focused on building from within. A cynic could say, �what choice does he have,� but the fact of the matter is that teams don�t build World Series winners through free agency anymore. So pay attention to the draft, starting tonight, because the club�s future depends on it. http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/68709/is-there-a-draft-in-here-part-2

Mets Fun with the 11th pick: _____________________ Top stats to know: The No. 11 pick By Mark Simon | ESPNNewYork.com The Mets pick No. 11 in the 2013 MLB Draft tonight, so we offer up a list of five stats releated to that selection. 1-- From 1980 to 2008, there were 29 players selected No. 11 overall. Of those, 21 made the major leagues. That equates to a 72 percent reaching-the-majors rate. For comparison, the No. 9 and No. 10 pick are 49-for-58 (84 percent) in that span. The No. 12 pick and No. 13 picks are a combined 39-for-58 (67 percent). In all, that comes out to the ninth through 13th picks having about a 75 percent history of reaching the majors. 2-- The last time the Mets had a pick in the top 11, they hit the jackpot, taking Matt Harvey with the No. 7 pick in the 2010 Draft. The time prior to that, they landed Mike Pelfrey with the No. 9 pick of the 2005 Draft. In fact, the last seven times the Mets have had a Top-11 pick, they�ve taken a pitcher. Their last position-player selection in the top 11 was Preston Wilson (Mookie�s stepson) in 1992. Wilson would eventually net the Mets Mike Piazza in trade. 3-- There is nothing predictive in this stat, it�s just an odd quirk: There have only been six players drafted No. 11 overall to record at least 10 Wins Above Replacement in their careers. If you look at the history of the first 22 picks in the MLB Draft, the No. 11 pick ranks tied for the weakest in terms of 10-WAR players, and worst in terms of the average Wins Above Replacement for those players who did make the majors (4.4 WAR). The best No. 11 pick in terms of overall production is Greg Luzinski (26.1 WAR), though he'll soon be replaced by Andrew McCutchen (21.3). The top pitcher is Max Scherzer (13.1 WAR) 4-- Though Keith Law has the Mets taking a high school prospect�Domonic Smith-- some reports have the Mets targeting a college position player with their first pick. They�ve drafted 10 college position players with a first-round pick previously with mixed success. Their three most successful ones in terms of major-league production were Jeromy Burnitz (1990), Jay Payton (1994), and Hubie Brooks (1978). 5-- The Mets have had different strategies in Sandy Alderson/Paul De Podesta�s first two drafts. In 2011, their first two picks were high school players (Brandon Nimmo and Michael Fulmer), but seven of their next eight were four-year college players). In 2012, the Mets went with more of an even split�- five high school players (including top pick Gavin Cecchini), four four-year college players, and one junior college player. Multiple studies have gone over whether pursuing college players is better than drafting high school players (opinions vary), one of the most recent of which can be found here. http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/68706/top-stats-to-know-the-no-11-pick

I was hoping for one of these:

Zvon wrote: I have a special folder ... called Met Baseball Cards.... That folder has over 900 card images in it. Yikes. Sometimes I wonder if collecting baseball cards is a colossal waste of good money. The answer turns on whether I could load all my Mets card images in my computer, and enjoy the images just the same. My '63 Topps Duke Snider, for example, has rounded corners, which annoy me to no end yet I know that at this stage in my life, I'm never going to plunk down about $100+ to get a NM copy of that card. I bring this up because a few months ago, I discovered that Topps, in one of its recent sets, reprinted that card just as it originally appeared 50 years ago, without any tell-tale indication on the front that the card is a reprint. So I bought that Snider reprint and stuck it in my folder of '63 Topps cards. And I'm fine. The faux Snier doesn't bother me at all. 1963 Topps Duke Snider - price (NM) $100.00+ 2011 60 Years of Topps - '63 Duke Snider -- price 40 cents.

Zvon wrote: Four new Grimm cards.yay! I have collected 66. I fear some got buy me cuz I think you have made more than that. Grimm should print his cards. For distribution. G-Fafif wrote: After he and his brother Steve excelled in one of Ken's three or so games as a Met, Murph referred to them repeatedly as "the Henderson men". Then the Hendii went singular. I thought the Henderson v.K acquisition would be fruitful, though I preferred that Matlack stayed on. Henderson was a very solid if unspectacular outfielder and about as good as anybody the Mets had. Of course, those being the Mets, the de Roulet Mets, Henderson's career went into irreversible decline about as soon as the Mets got him.

G-Fafif wrote: Ken Henderson -- and in a nick of time! That's right. And Henderson the K, who never appeared on his own Topps Mets card, was on the Mets active roster for just a nick of time - less than a week of the '78 season.

G-Fafif wrote: Some of the pictures used in these glorious cards really driving home that Topps hardly ever used nighttime shots. Did they? The only Mets cards from the '70s that come to mind in that sense were the postseason cards from the '74 set. Here's a Topps shot that never made it into the final set. It might be a night-time shot, -- it's dark enough -- though my guess is just inadequate artificial or camera lighting because if it were night-time, there'd be more people in the stands. The shot was taken during the visiting Expos portion of batting practice,and BP always occurred in daylight, even during a night game, even during an early season night game. Who's the player? The uniform provides a clue as to the era.

Ceetar wrote: If you expected the Mets offense to be this bad you were being overly pessimistic or just flat out guessing. What were you thinking? That everything that could possibly go right with the Mets would go right? That each Met would perform to their most optimistic prognostication. That Ike, Duda and Wright would combine for 110 HR's and that Santana would get Cy Young Award votes?

Ceetar wrote: clearly. Not buying free agents really messed with Davis and his approach at the plate. Jeff Wilpon literally tore out Santana's capsule to sell on the black market and Tejada was so down on the idea of a reduced payroll he decide he didn't really need to hit or field anymore. That's not what I wrote. Davis has been wretched for two of the last three half seasons and thus, hardly a lock to be the next Carlos Delgado. And Santana's plight has little, if anything, to do with the state of the Mets offense. That the Mets biggest recent pffensive acquisitions are Andrew Brown and Andres Torres says it all. I doubt that the solution is to simply wait for Ruben Tejada to re-discover his 2012 self.

It's one of the worst hitting Mets team I've ever witnessed. Wright's all-star caliber season is more than offset and undermined by Ike's reversion to early 2012 form. But this was expected. Or should have been. This is what everyone ought to have known would happen, especially when payroll is cut by about $100M and there's no cavalry coming to the rescue from the Mets farm. Half the lineup is comprised of retreads, scrubs and guys that right now should be playing catch with their kids at home. They're unwatchable, really. And that's what I've been not doing. Except for Harvey starts. I still marvel at the way you guys can dissect pitchers like Lyon, Burke and Atchinson to the most infinite detail because I still haven't memorized what those pitchers even look like. They're just names. And barely at that.

Kinda ranted about this after a blogger ranted for anarchy by voting for Colin Cowgil Nor should it really be that big of a deal with whom starts, which is the reason for this campaign in the first place. Whenever I'm not sure, I use the he/him rule to determine whether the proper word is "who" or "whom". Thus, I would pretend that I've answered a question and then form the actual question to my supposed answer -- actually two forms of the same question -- a "he" version and a "him" version. Then I'd determine which of the variations is the proper form: 1. Is it a big deal if he starts? and then 2. Is it a big deal if him starts? If the "he" version is proper -- then the proper word is "who". If it's "him", then it's "whom". ... so "Nor should it really be that big of a deal with who starts, which is the reason for this campaign in the first place". Me -- I could use some occasional help with colons and semi-colons. Sometimes, I don't give a shit and will just throw one of the two down all willy-nilly without any regard for whatever consequences may unfold.

Perhaps the voting is a proxy for actual fannies in the seats tickets used turnstile count attendance figures.

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Nice scissor work, fellas! That picture's from a 1976 Dairylea Photo Album Stadium Giveaway.

Check out the big brain on Brian! It is indeed Jack Heidemann. Heidemann came to the Mets from the Cardinals in December of 1974 along with the Mike Vail, in exchange for Teddy Martinez. Vail had an outstanding season in �75, setting what was then an MLB rookie record with a 23-game hitting streak, and finishing with a .302 average. Heidemann served as a utility player on the �75 team, hitting .214 in limited use. Heidemann appeared on a 1975 Topps card as a member of the Cardinals, but Topps decided not to include him in the 1976 set. (This picture was taken during spring training of 1976.) He then appeared on his final Topps card in the 1977 set, where he was pictured as a member of the Brewers. Heidemann appeared on 5 different Topps cards over the course of his career (1971-1973, 1975, and 1977), but was never pictured as a Met� http://mets360.com/?p=15103

Who am I? Ah, spring training, when a young man�s fancy turns to thoughts of a great season to come. The team has provided you with new dress whites, a fresh stiff-brimmed cap, sharp blue spats� the works. Maybe you�ll hold on to your grungy nondenominational batting glove, which saw you through the previous season in good stead� And hey, here comes the Topps photographer. He wants to take your picture for an upcoming set. Suggests a few standard poses, among them this follow-through swing. He doesn�t worry much about shooting too wide� the production department can crop out the milling onlookers/players in the background when the time comes. But alas, sometimes the promise of spring is nothing more than a promise, and circumstances conspire in such a way that this photo is not used on a Topps card. In fact, as fate will have it, you�ll never appear on a real Topps card in your Mets uniform. And all that remains now are color negatives like this one from that long-ago March afternoon. Leaving a random blogger years later to pose a contest question: Who are you, long-maned Met from days gone by? First person to leave the correct answer in the comments section below by Wednesday, March 6 wins a 1972 Topps Ed Kranepool card, graded PSA 7.

I�ve had this exact conversation with a good friend/Mets fan a few months ago. We were baffled and for all the reasons given in the article posted above, could not come up with even one reason as to why the Mets would locate their AAA affiliate in that environment. In fact we couldn�t understand why any team, but especially an east coast team would place their AAA affiliate in Vegas. Of course, we didn�t know about the musical chairs dynamic to AAA baseball, and that essentially, one team has to play there. On another note, the article suggests that Jeff Wilpon, immediately upon assuming greater responsibilities with the franchise, destroyed an almost 30 year relationship with the Mets most logical AAA affiliate ever, Tidewater/Norfolk. Why am I not surprised? For most of my Mets rooting life, Tidewater/Norfolk was the most consistent, most reliable aspect about the Mets franchise. There used to be a bar in the Hamptons named The Tidewater, supposedly after the Mets farm team. And though I had driven past it more times than I can recall, I never went in the joint.

Made in Queens How a diehard Mets fan turned his love for the team into a new career Originally Published: June 3, 2013 By Kevin J. Ryan | ESPN The Magazine T-shirt impressario Darren Meenan wears his passion for the Mets. IT'S OPENING DAY at Citi Field, and the centerfield grandstands feel like the student section at a college arena. Hundreds of fans in matching orange shirts are standing on their feet, chanting "Let's go Mets" at the top of their lungs while banging thunder sticks together. From the first row, 32-year-old Darren Meenan leads the chorus, voice blaring. The energy appears spontaneous, but it actually took Meenan four years to coordinate this scene. In fact, this is now part of his job, surely one of the coolest in sports. Flash back to 2009. At the end of another hugely disappointing season, Meenan wore a T-shirt he designed to a Mets game. The front read i survived, which was above a list of the many calamities Mets fans have endured. When fellow diehards commiserated and asked Meenan where he'd bought it; he sensed a business opportunity. The 7 Line Inside Darren Meenan's t-shirt business. Gallery HD Photo Gallery The Queens native had learned how to print T-shirts in a high school art class. So after that 2009 game, he used an old press he bought on eBay and started creating textile tributes to his favorite team, working out of his parents' basement near the ballpark. He named his fledgling operation the 7 Line, after the subway branch to Citi Field, and he designed a few more shirts, making sure not to use the word "Mets" to avoid licensing issues. After Meenan appeared on TV holding a sign with his website, 7 Line shirts began springing up all over the ballpark. "I was seeing people I didn't know wearing them," he says. Sales picked up, so he relocated his operation to a nearby warehouse and expanded into hats, sunglasses and a 2013 calendar. The former bartender's hobby became a full-time job as revenues climbed: The 7 Line has sold more than 50,000 shirts since 2009 to customers from Astoria to Australia. Meenan still makes every shirt himself, by hand, but has hired a friend to help with mailing. Both of Meenan's grandfathers worked at Shea Stadium, so he admits, as one of his earlier designs bemoans: "I was Born Into This Mess." But the shirts don't just lament; they also commemorate and celebrate. After former Mets catcher Gary Carter died of brain cancer in 2012, Meenan memorialized the Hall of Famer with a shirt that features a No. 8 with a teardrop. That shirt became one of the line's top sellers after pitcher Johan Santana wore it to a news conference. (Meenan donated all proceeds to the Gary Carter Foundation.) During warmups, other players regularly sport new releases, with slogans like, "The Duda-Bides," a Big Lebowski-inspired play on the name of outfielder Lucas Duda. Creativity and wit are certainly keys to the customers' hearts. But a few beautiful women don't hurt either. Arguably the most hyped The 7 Line product is its calendar, displaying a different model each month in flattering-fitting T7L shirts. True to the company's "For the fans, by the fans" mantra, the women aren't professionals -- they're fellow Mets fans, self-submitted and then handpicked online by voters. Not shockingly, the players approve: Several players hang the merchandise in their lockers. Despite his ambitiousness, Meenan has no plans of expanding the brand. For a while, he extended it to the Jets and Knicks, but he backed off pretty quickly. "It really didn't make sense," he says. "The 7 Line is just Mets, and that's all it's ever going to be." He's clear on this final point. In the FAQ section of his website, the final question reads, "Do you sell Yankees shirts?" The answer from Meenan, with no risk of confusion: "No." Meenan dubbed his newfound fan following the 7 Line Army and organized a group outing last September. He bought out two full sections in centerfield and packaged the tickets with a T-shirt. The Mets office was so impressed, it agreed to sell him all 860 centerfield seats for several 2013 games, including the ones on Opening Day, which sold out within 23 hours. "It's pretty cool to see them all wearing the same shirts and being loud," says Mets infielder Justin Turner. "They spark some energy into the stadium that wasn't there before." All by design.

Vic Sage wrote: You went to Lincoln HS, like my brothers and Koufax, you douchebag! /quote] Edgy MD Jun 04 2013 05:41 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Remember the jokes we used to make about "Senator" Al Leiter. Well, that's now moved into the realm of the possible, with the job open, and Leiter being crazy qualified: [list:20f3726p][*:20f3726p]rich,[/*:m:20f3726p] [*:20f3726p]famous,[/*:m:20f3726p] [*:20f3726p]Republican,[/*:m:20f3726p] [*:20f3726p]no political past[/*:m:20f3726p] [*:20f3726p]living under a Mets fan governor who has the power to make the appointment.[/*:m:20f3726p][/list:u:20f3726p] Also has juice with both Mets and Yankee fans now. Philly fans will have to deal. I think last time his potential candidacy came up a few years back, however, he was officially a Florida resident. Aren't they all? Chad Ochoseis Jun 05 2013 03:19 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Leiter mentioned in the NYT as a possible candidate. On the Republican side, some lawmakers are reportedly considering running for the Senate, along with some political outsiders, including Al Leiter, a former major league pitcher who is now a broadcaster. Conservative activist Steve Lonegan, a former mayor of Bogota, N.J., said he is gathering signatures and raising money for a run. Zvon Jun 05 2013 03:32 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Vic Sage wrote: You played on the same little league field, Gil Hodges field (later renamed with grotesque genuflection as Joe Torre Stadium), as I did, you fuck. Nice and enjoyable rant. A triboro Bridge too far. Classic. But this^ What's the point of naming a place in someones memory- to be there and forever remind us of this person- if you are going to change it! There are plenty of other fields out the that could have been named after Torre. Those fucks. G-Fafif Jun 05 2013 04:55 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Sandy, like his buddy Fred, went to Lafayette. But WTF Joe Torre Field? G-Fafif Jun 05 2013 04:57 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 For the longest time, an array of Als would show up in tabloid headlines -- Sharpton, Gore, D'Amato -- and I would inevitably guess wrong when I just glanced before knowing the story. Moving Leiter from the sports page anywhere else (not that I'm spending a lot of time reading tabloids these days) would reignite my confusion. Vic Sage Jun 06 2013 08:25 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 G-Fafif wrote: Sandy, like his buddy Fred, went to Lafayette. DOH! "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" "Germans?" "Shut up, he's on a roll..." Lets change that line to "you went to Lincoln HS, like my brothers and Arthur Miller, you douchebag!" Edgy MD Jun 06 2013 08:31 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Mets from Lincoln: Lee Mazzilli Nelson Figueroa Benjamin Grimm Jun 06 2013 08:41 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 And Clem Labine! Edgy MD Jun 06 2013 08:49 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Others Brooklyn Schoolboys: Boys Tommy Davis James Madison Joe Torre Lafayette Bob Aspromonte Kevin Baez Benny Distefano Pete Falcone John Franco Sandy Koufax Fred Wilpon LaSalle Academy John Candeleria Thomas Jefferson Shawon Dunston Tilden Willie Randolph Westinghouse Joe Pignatano Xaverian Pedro Beato All broke your heart, to one degree or another. Except maybe Piggie. MFS62 Jun 06 2013 09:05 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Did some of this thread get lost? I posted something about a week ago, and its not here. (OK, maybe I had a senior moment, so here goes again.) Bud Harrelson is an executive, and third base coach, for the Long Island Ducks. You can follow their games on 103.9 on your FM dial. Later Mets � Willets Point Jun 06 2013 09:07 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 You previously posted that in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18924&p=515766&hilit=bud+harrelson#p515766 Works well in both spots. Benjamin Grimm Jun 06 2013 09:09 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 MFS62 wrote: Did some of this thread get lost? I posted something about a week ago, and its not here. (OK, maybe I had a senior moment, so here goes again.) Bud Harrelson is an executive, and third base coach, for the Long Island Ducks. You can follow their games on 103.9 on your FM dial. Later And... today is his birthday! Frayed Knot Jun 06 2013 09:25 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Benjamin Grimm wrote: MFS62 wrote: Did some of this thread get lost? I posted something about a week ago, and its not here. (OK, maybe I had a senior moment, so here goes again.) Bud Harrelson is an executive, and third base coach, for the Long Island Ducks. You can follow their games on 103.9 on your FM dial. Later And... today is his birthday! Yup, 69 years old - and I know that without looking it up as Bud was born not just on an anniversary of D-Day but on the actual D-Day G-Fafif Jun 06 2013 09:27 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 There is a 2013 version of this thread that seems to have been obscured by the magic that was 2012, here. Edgy MD Jun 06 2013 09:38 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Brace yourself for a merger. batmagadanleadoff Jun 13 2013 04:52 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 I got no beef with Les Rohr By Rob Neyer on Jun 13 2013, 5:15p ? @robneyer + Back in the1980s when David Letterman and Jay Leno were still pals, Leno was a regular on Letterman's show. And part of his schtick was that he's complain about some silly little something. Dave would ask him about it, and Jay would say, "What's my beef, Dave?" And then there would be much laughter and rejoicing throughout the land. Today and most days, my beef is Americans who think they deserve something beyond the most basic human needs (food, shelter, education, decent health care, Jon Miller). Which is almost all people, of every age and creed and political persuasion. Makes me nuts, especially when the sense of entitlement is paired with rank hypocrisy. As it so often is. But enough about me. It's just so refreshing when you find someone who seems to take the opposite tack. Les Rohr, for instance. In 1965, the Mets chose Rohr with the second pick in the very first amateur draft. That didn't work out so well for them, as Rohr won exactly three games in the majors. His last action with Mets (or anyone else) came in 1969, when he got into one game, briefly. A few years ago, the Mets invited him to New York to celebrate the 40th anniversary of their first World Championship. He didn't go. For whatever reason, Rohr never got a World Series ring. About which he seemed unconcerned. From an article in the Billings Gazette: He was with New York during a portion of its amazing run to a National League pennant and World Series championship 40 years ago. "But I don't consider myself a Miracle Met, because I really did nothing," he said. "I was just lucky to be there." That's why he said he won't be attending the team's '69 Anniversary Celebration, which is scheduled for Aug. 22 at New York's new Citi Field. "They wanted me to come back," Rohr said. "I just told them there isn't any reason I should be back there with all those ballplayers that actually won the World Series. They're the ones that deserve it." --snip-- He said the Mets offered to "pay for everything" to get him to attend the reunion. And some would suggest that he is being unassuming and humble to a fault. "Yeah, I know," Rohr said. "But this is just how I feel." --snip-- And, to this day, it seems a bit unusual that Rohr doesn't have a World Series ring. He just shrugs that off and says he has no hard feelings. "It's only a material thing, just a hunk of metal," he said. "It doesn't bother me at all. If it does show up in my mailbox one day, I'll be surprised. Somebody's got it." Rohr laughed when he said that, but later added: "I was measured for a ring. I'm sure there's a ring out there with my name on it. I don't know where it is." Yes, this article is four years old but I just found it. Maybe the Mets can send Les Rohr a World Series ring, finally? I'm sure the money can't be an issue. Oh. Right. Dang it. http://www.baseballnation.com/hot-corner/2013/6/13/4427850/les-rohr-mets-world-series-ring Edgy MD Jun 14 2013 08:15 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Reports saying that Dykstra is getting sprung on Sunday. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 15 2013 10:24 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Edgy MD wrote: Reports saying that Dykstra is getting sprung on Sunday. I just hope for Juan Samuel's sake it's not a trade. TransMonk Jun 23 2013 08:37 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Guided by Sheffield, Journeyman Pitcher Is Now a Star G-Fafif Jul 07 2013 07:23 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 All-Star Ron Hunt reminisces in the Daily News. Ron Hunt calls it �alley ball� and it�s how he first started learning baseball from his grandfather. From the time Hunt learned to walk, he and his grandpa, Walter Gronemeyer, found places to play the game on the streets of St. Louis, all part of the education of a future big leaguer. So on the eve of the 1964 All-Star game, Hunt delivered a special treat to the man who had given him so much. Hunt, the first Met ever elected to start the Midsummer Classic, brought his grandfather for a grandson-guided tour of Shea Stadium, where Hunt and the rest of the game�s best would play the next day, July 7. Hunt�s pals among the grounds crew �turned the lights on for Grandpa,� Hunt recalls. �Oh, I thought that was outstanding. I had learned so much from him. It was hard to tell when Grandpa was thrilled, but he was thrilled to no end.� It�s one of the most vivid memories the now-72-year-old Hunt has of the last time the Mets hosted an All-Star game � and the only time it was at Shea � nearly 50 years before they host this year�s version at Citi Field July 16. Hunt, who started at second base, went 1-for-3 in the game and can still recite the pitch he hit for a third-inning single off AL starter Dean Chance. �3-1 slider, high and inside,� he says. Hunt and his wife, Jackie, will be at Citi Field this year, but it will be hard to top his experience in 1964, an electrifying 7-4 National League victory that came on a walk-off homer by Philadelphia�s Johnny Callison off Boston�s Dick Radatz. Hunt, who was in his second season in the majors, still recalls the surge of awe he felt sharing a clubhouse with the likes of Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente and Hank Aaron, and seeing stars such as Mickey Mantle and Harmon Killebrew across the field. The Mets, who were in their third season when they hosted the game, had had All-Stars the previous two years, but Richie Ashburn, a reserve in 1962, and Duke Snider, a sub in �63, had been stars with other franchises. The 23-year-old Hunt, however, belonged to the Mets, which meant something in another lost season (the Mets were 23-58 at the All-Star break, halfway to a last-place finish with 53-109 record). As Norm Miller wrote in the Daily News when Hunt was elected by his fellow players, who had the vote back then: �Hunt is the first Met to be elected strictly on his exceptional merit. It�s almost like putting a man on the moon.� Hunt, who was batting .311 at the break, got 172 votes, easily topping runner-up Bill Mazeroski, who had 52. Hunt and his wife were going out to shop for an air conditioner when they got the news. There were 270 votes cast by NL players who could not pick their teammates, which means the rest of the league appreciated Hunt�s talents, including the toughness that would later lead to Hunt becoming one of the all-time leaders in getting hit by pitches. �He had no power and choked up a lot, but he was a good little hitter,� All-Star teammate Joe Torre says. �He was a guy you�d want on your side � he�d do anything to win. He never gave in at second base. He was a gashouse-type guy,� a reference to the rugged Cardinals teams of the 1930s. To this day, Hunt credits Casey Stengel with helping him get elected because the garrulous, crafty Met manager stumped for Hunt during a mid-June trip to Pittsburgh. �He told the writers if I wasn�t starting in the All-Star game, there was something wrong,� Hunt remembers. �I was having a helluva year. I guess Casey rang a bell or two.� And made Met fans happy. Torre recalls the applause Hunt got from the 50,850 fans at Shea as �huge. It was a proud moment for the newly minted Met fan, who were basically (Brooklyn) Dodger and (New York) Giant fans rolled into one,� Torre says. �He got a tremendous ovation in the introductions.� In the game, the American League took a 4-3 lead into the bottom of the ninth inning and Radatz, an imposing, 6-foot-6 reliever nicknamed �The Monster,� stayed in for a third inning. Orlando Cepeda knocked in the tying run with a no-out single, and Callison homered with two men on and two out. Just before the Callison homer, Hunt was pinch-hit for by one of the game�s immortals. Hunt, who went on to a lengthy career running a youth baseball program, would tell his kids, �Guy by the name of Hank Aaron pinch-hit for me.� Aaron struck out, but Callison clinched the victory with a deep drive to right, prompting a celebration at the plate. �It wasn�t that beat him in the head stuff, or hit him in the gut, like now,� Hunt says. �It was shaking hands. �We played for the fans back then,� Hunt adds. �I don�t know what they play for now. I appreciated the fans of New York. I was glad to be able to show them my appreciation, playing the All-Star Game at home in front of them. That was a terrific feeling.� Jackie Hunt still has the ticket stub from her front-row seat, right behind home plate. The price? About eight bucks. Hunt also has a sterling silver punch bowl, the player gift Jackie chose. �We still have it in a trophy case,� Jackie says. �It�s in what I call, �Ron�s room� that has all his memorabilia. He has a bat with all the guys� signatures from that All-Star game and a picture of him and Mickey Mantle that says, �New York�s Finest.� I�ve got a picture of him in the on-deck circle, getting ready to go up to hit, too.� Hunt had a career average of .273 and a career on-base percentage of .368 in his 12 years in the majors, including 1963-66 with the Mets. He made the All-Star team in 1966, too, and is sixth all-time with 243 HBPs. �I wish I could�ve spent more time in New York,� Hunt says. �I never got into the postseason. I would�ve loved to do it for Mets fans, but it didn�t happen.� Hunt was stunned when he got a call from a sportswriter in November of 1966, telling him he�d been traded to the Dodgers along with Jim Hickman for Tommy Davis and Derrell Griffith. He still says, �I can�t understand why I was traded. I was broken hearted.� When he saw Mets owner Joan Payson in the stands one year later, he says, �I took my hat off and went over to her and told her I thought it was pretty poor that a writer had to tell me about the trade. She said she wasn�t aware of that, but I did also tell her that I appreciated everything the Mets had done for me.� After one season with the Dodgers, Hunt played mostly for the Giants and Expos and even says he thought the 1969 Giants could�ve perhaps won the NL pennant instead of the Miracle Mets if San Francisco had retained Herman Franks as manager. He appeared in 12 games for his hometown Cardinals in 1974 � he names the number of days he was on their roster, 28 � but when they wanted to cut his salary in spring training the next year, �I went home and I never did regret it,� Hunt says. �We were raising our kids. We did our thing as a family.� Nowadays, Hunt has a 110-acre farm with cattle and hay in Wentzville, Mo. Because of a back operation, he says he�s not as mobile as he used to be. �What used to take me a few hours to do takes me all day now,� Hunt says. �I�m glad I�m self-employed and have good friends.� After 18 years of running his youth baseball program the Ron Hunt Eagles Baseball Association, Inc., he stopped in 2003, though he still does an occasional clinic. Not bad for a coaching career that started years ago with a batting tee fashioned out of radiator hose by his father-in-law. It�s clear he�s still proud of coaching. �We put 98% of our kids in college with some kind of scholarship help,� he says. �We played 150-200 games a summer, everybody played and for 18 years I never (hurt) an arm because we had a pitch count. I walked off the field in the sixth or seventh or eighth inning if we didn�t have any more pitchers.� Sometimes, he says, kids would ask him about the big leagues. New Yorkers who went west to spend a summer playing for Hunt asked about the All-Star game at Shea. �I�d tell them about my career, how I got started, how I got help,� Hunt says. �I was an open book. Coaching helped me pay back some of my IOUs in the game.� batmagadanleadoff Jul 07 2013 10:31 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 All-Star Ron Hunt reminisces in the Daily News. Ron Hunt calls it �alley ball� .... Neat pictures, too. Ron Hunt was the only Met to play in the 1964 All-Star Game at Shea Stadium, becoming the first Met to start in the Midsummer Classic. Now, living on a ranch in Wentzville, Mo., the former infielder has plenty of mementos from that game, including a photo of himself in the on-deck circle. A bat from the 1964 All-Star Game (r.) is on display at Ron Hunt's Wentzville, Mo., home. Part of Ron Hunt's personal collection from the 1964 All-Star game is this picture with Yankees center fielder Mickey Mantle. An engraved silver punch bowl was a gift Ron Hunt received for playing in the All-Star Game. ________________ Not pictured or mentioned in the article: Look whose helmet Johnny Callison was wearing when he hit his game winning HR. Edgy MD Jul 07 2013 08:38 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 That's a great shot. Assume that Domonic Brown will have to wear a stray Mets helm`this year as well. G-Fafif Jul 12 2013 08:24 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Darryl Strawberry, playin' for the Lord, but not into baseball anymore. The four-bedroom, two-story modest house sits on a corner in this planned bedroom community, and when this 6-6 muscular-toned man welcomes you inside his home, there is no evidence Darryl Strawberry the player ever existed. There are no pictures of Strawberry in a baseball uniform. No trophies. No plaques. None of his four World Series rings. Nothing from his eight All-Star Games. None of his 335 home run balls. "I got rid of it all. I was never attached to none of that stuff," says Strawberry, 51, wearing a North Carolina jersey with Michael Jordan's No. 23. "I don't want it. It's not part of my life anymore." Darryl Strawberry, the former outfield great, is no longer. Darryl Strawberry, the ordained minister in this town 30 miles west of St. Louis, is very much alive. "I'm over 'Strawberry,' " he tells USA TODAY Sports. "I'm over Mets. I'm over Yankees. I don't want to exist as Darryl Strawberry, the baseball player. "People don't understand that's no longer you. I'm not a baseball player, anymore. "That person is dead." Well, not that dead... "I never wanted to exist as Darryl Strawberry, the baseball player," he says. "I wanted to let go that identity. It's not who I am. "I love that I was a great player, and won championships, and did all these great things, but I was always more driven. I knew there had to be more than just putting on a uniform and hitting grand slams and making millions of dollars. "I always believed there was a greater purpose to life." Strawberry, who remains proud of his baseball career, realizes there could be awkward moments this weekend when he travels to New York with 13-year-old daughter Jewel to the All-Star festivities and game at the Mets' Citi Field. There will be plenty of autograph and photo requests, and fans wanting to talk about the Mets' glory days when they won the 1986 World Series. There will be corporate parties, some that are mandatory, as part of his obligation with the Mets. But this is a man uncomfortable re-living the past, knowing he can change the future. "I used to be a big shot, let's put it that way," Strawberry says. "But I want nothing to do with baseball now. I have no desire to be working in baseball. No desire at all." batmagadanleadoff Jul 12 2013 12:19 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 All-Star Ron Hunt reminisces in the Daily News. Ron Hunt calls it �alley ball� .... Neat pictures, too. ________________ Not pictured or mentioned in the article: Look whose helmet Johnny Callison was wearing when he hit his game winning HR. Paul Lukas chronicles the history of players in mismatched batting helmets at the MLB ASG. Johnny Callison's is apparently the first known instance. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/38106/uni-watch-all-star-helmet-mix-ups G-Fafif Jul 23 2013 01:43 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Dwight Gooden talks to Alec Baldwin. Transcript here. Alec Baldwin: So when you�re facing a batter have you pre-assessed before a game every single batter you�re gonna face in that game? Dwight Gooden: The thing was I only had two pitches, fastball and curve. So a lot of times they�re like, �This guy�s a great fastball hitter and can�t throw this guy curve ball for strikes,� so I�m thinking, �Well, I shouldn�t be pitching. I�m done,� but basically always pitched to my strength and made the hitters adjust. A lot of times what I would do also I used to like watch in box scores. If I knew I was gonna face the Cardinals say three days from now I also watch the box scores seeing who�s hot, who�s doing what a couple days before that so I have an idea which guy�s swinging the bat well. Alec Baldwin: So you have � I�m not a baseball player. I love going to the ball game. I love watching a baseball game live. It�s a great treat. So you�re standing there and you�re at the top of your game. Now you�re 20 years old. You�re in your second season, you�re more confident, and you look in your mind at imaginary strikes on the knees, to the shoulders, you got the home plate there. In those four corners, high and tight, high and outside, low and tight, low and outside, can you basically throw the ball in a fastball anywhere you want it? You can make it go where you want it to go? Dwight Gooden: 1985 without a doubt. 1985 it was right from the first game to the � my last start. Alec Baldwin: You picked your spot. Dwight Gooden: I was just right there, didn�t think about it. Everything just came. Alec Baldwin: And the ball would go where you made it go? Dwight Gooden: And the ball basically go right there. I would say probably � Alec Baldwin: How many miles an hour? Dwight Gooden: Oh, I was anywhere from 95 to 98. SteveJRogers Aug 05 2013 03:57 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 = http://www.csnphilly.com/baseball-philadelphia-phillies/todd-pratt-reveals-hes-also-been-battling-cancer smg58 Aug 14 2013 09:26 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 http://magazine.columbia.edu/college-walk/summer-2013/safe-home Pete Falcone gets a brief mention in this interesting article about his son, a 27-year-old DH for the Columbia University Lions. Edgy MD Aug 14 2013 09:35 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Wasn't there another story of recent vintage of an ex-Met who had a son who was an older-than-usual college baseball player? I'm thinking he was back in school after the military and playing for Wagner or another Staten Island school. Edgy MD Aug 14 2013 09:36 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Oh, there it is. It must be him. He transferred from CoSI. G-Fafif Aug 29 2013 11:04 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Benny Ayala remembers his big splash 39 years later. Don�t rock the boat. Everyone was saying that in August 1974 � it was from one of the most popular songs that summer. I wanted more than anything to get called up and play for the New York Mets. I had 11 home runs, among the league leaders that year for AAA Tidewater, tops on my team. I felt I was ready. I didn�t speak up much that year, but when I was with my teammates, I would tell them how I felt, in the dugout, our small clubhouse, in the local bars of Norfolk, Va, where you could hear the song. Their response was always the same; you will get to New York very soon. Don't rock the boat. The whole organization was having a tough season. The parent club had just come off an amazing 1973, coming within a game of the World Championship against the Oakland A�s. The next year, the bullpen was much worse, Tom Seaver and Jerry Koosman had off seasons. Jon Matlack may have been the best pitcher in baseball, but the bullpen and batting order let him down again and again. The team was really out of the pennant race by the middle of August. Soon it would be time for them to call up players from Tidewater. I tried to be as patient as possible, but it wasn�t easy. I arrived at Metropolitan Memorial Park in the early afternoon on August 27th, 1974. The ballpark was ideally located very close to the airport in Norfolk. This was the first thing on my mind right after my manager John Antonelli called me into his office. �Benny, you�re in the starting lineup for the Mets tonight,� he said, �There�s a plane ticket waiting for you at the airport to Queens. Go right now.� It was calling it very close for an 8:05 game time in New York. No cell phones to call loved ones from the car to let them know what�s happening. No time to grab my glove & favorite bats. Only time to shake my kind manager�s hand and offer a sincere �Thank you.� Antonelli shook my hand and pointed to the door. �Go now,� he smiled, �The game starts in four hours.� John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 29 2013 11:13 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Nice job by Benny. Edgy MD Aug 29 2013 11:27 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 He might've hit the homer before anybody in his family knew he was a big leaguer. batmagadanleadoff Aug 29 2013 11:32 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 G-Fafif wrote: Benny Ayala remembers his big splash 39 years later. Nice story. John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 05 2013 10:54 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Sitting in the Lowe's Broadcast Booth with John Sterling last night: CJ Nitkowski, subbing for Suzyn Waldman. He wasn't so bad, deep voice, enlightened-jock takes, evidence of some sense of humor. John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 01 2013 07:21 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 batmagadanleadoff wrote: G-Fafif wrote: Benny Ayala remembers his big splash 39 years later. Nice story. Even more Benny here in this really great bio. "He�s so good he knocks himself out of games." http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/d7be841b Edgy MD Oct 21 2013 02:46 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 The Rangers gain a new coach for their bench, and his name is Tim Bogar. Wash was a Mets minor league coach when Bogar was coming up. Edgy MD Oct 28 2013 06:23 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Ken Davidoff takes advantage of a trip to St. Loo to catch up with an overall-clad Ron Hunt. Hey, since when is Davidoff with The Post? MFS62 Oct 28 2013 07:08 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Edgy MD wrote: Ken Davidoff takes advantage of a trip to St. Loo to catch up with an overall-clad Ron Hunt. Hey, since when is Davidoff with The Post? It would be easier for Ron to lead the league in getting hit by pitches with that new profile. Later John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 28 2013 09:01 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Davidoff moved to the Post more than a year ago I believe. Edgy MD Oct 28 2013 09:05 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Not only hard to detach Davidoff from Newday in my mind, but it's surprising to think of sports columnists still jumping papers. If he was going to jump anywhere, I'd figure it'd be to an online-only outlet. Benjamin Grimm Oct 28 2013 09:22 AM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 I'm afraid that newspapers are becoming "online outlets" that just happen to also have a printed version. Mets Guy in Michigan Oct 28 2013 12:10 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm afraid that newspapers are becoming "online outlets" that just happen to also have a printed version. This is true. The goal is to give you the news in whatever format you want to read it in. Last year, mobile accounted for about half of our readership. Edgy MD Oct 28 2013 12:26 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Yes, but I spoke explicitly about "online-only" outlets. The dailies still have the high profile of their centuries-old brand, and I'd rather be a columnist for the Daily News than Gotham Baseball (or even a more national site like SB Nation), even if I'm getting most of my readership online either way. ESPN.com, similarly, has the authority of being linked to the unbreachable broadcast anchor-entity. I therefore imagine it's tough for columnists to jump from one local paper to another anymore, as the main value of their name brand is their association with the paper's brand. Would Newsday jump at the chance to grab Bill Price if he became available? If he worked for something like an entry-level wage maybe. Mets Guy in Michigan Oct 28 2013 12:36 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 I think a part of the problem is that there are fewer two-paper towns any more, and there are fewer places to jump if you don't want to uproot. G-Fafif Oct 30 2013 12:14 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Listening to one of the late-season Mets-Giants games at which Giants fans outnumbered Mets by a ratio of at least 54:1, Howie recalled the late Vic Ziegel writing about his love of the New York Giants (while missing the fact that he despised their San Francisco successors). Some platitudes ensued directly between Howie and Josh about how great it is to live in New York where the papers have columnists like George Vecsey and Steve Jacobson, while it was acknowledged both were basically retired (at least from their longtime gigs). So to sum up, the greatest columnists in town, by the announcers' reckoning, were two who are no longer plying their craft and one who is no longer with us. Oh, here's that Jon Matlack feature story you were looking for from the Saratogian. Forty years ago this month Jon Matlack helped lead the Mets all the way to Game 7 of the World Series. One of his favorite memories from that 1973 campaign was playing for manager Yogi Berra, whose verbal idiosyncracies are the stuff of baseball legend. For good reason, Matlack sometimes couldn�t understand Berra when he came out to the mound. Exasperated, he finally turned to Hall of Fame hurler and teammate Tom Seaver for help. �It�s real easy,� Seaver said. �What do you mean, it�s easy?� Matlack responded. �When Yogi comes out to the mound and says whatever he says, if he doesn�t put his hand out, just say OK. He�ll go back to the dugout. If he puts his hand out, put the ball in it and you go back to the dugout. It�s that simple.� Matlack, who lives in Johnsburg, still smiles when recalling Seaver�s advice. Other than that, he thrived under Berra�s managerial style. �Yogi was a gem,� he said. �Yogi would not over-manage. By today�s standards he would under-manage. It was, �Let�s put the right people on the field and let them play the game. Maybe we�ll make a change here or there.� He was very easy to play for and work with.� Of the many changes in baseball since Matlack hung up his spikes, the one he laments most is the �SABR-metrics� approach to handling pitching staffs, where managers rely more heavily on spreadsheets and computer data than a hurler�s talent, heart and will to win. �Today, if the computer says this pitcher is most likely to get so-and-so out with a curveball at 4 o�clock on a Tuesday, when the sun isn�t shining, that�s who you go with,� Matlack said. �There�s so much emphasis on who faces who. It�s almost like Fantasy Baseball is being played on the field instead of baseball being played on the field.� He firmly believes, to his chagrin, that this limits a young pitcher�s progress and development over the long run. �The reason is that he gets no blame, no responsibility, or credit because all the information comes from the dugout,� Matlack said. �All he does is follow the script like a machine. If he�s wrong, all the people in the dugout didn�t know what they were talking about. If he�s right, �Oh, he�s supposed to do that.� They�re supplying me with all the information, the stats.� �So instead of having that chess match at 90 mph that used to take place, I think it�s just figuring the odds and following them, which is a shame,� he said. After his playing career, Matlack spent many years as a pitching coach at both the major and minor league levels. One of his longest assignments was with the Detroit Tigers, where he mentored all minor league hurlers, including Justin Verlander, who�s now one of the game�s premier pitchers. In 2012, Matlack held a similar position with the Astros and would periodically come to Troy to work with young Tri-City Valley Cats prospects, Houston�s affiliate in the NY-Penn League. This season was his first away from organized baseball in almost 20 years and at 63, he�s uncertain about his future in the game. Despite a proven track record of success, mountains of hard-won experience and a knack for conveying such knowledge to young people, Matlack finds himself on the outside looking in. �I may be permanently retired, who knows?� he said. �It seems very strange. �Forty-somethings are more popular than 60-somethings. There�s a whole different thought process these days.� "SABR-metrics" is not only not a word, but implies advanced statistics are a product of the Society for American Baseball Research. Edgy MD Oct 30 2013 12:23 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 I like that the success they cite is his work with Justin Verlander. I mean, good for him, but the guy was a #2 overall pick with a spectacular collegiate career and a brief, comet-like run in the minors. It's sort of the like the joke about private-school admissions: "Give us your brightest most successful students and we'll make successes out of them!" John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 30 2013 12:27 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Gee I dunno, Jon. Maybe they won't hire you because you come off exactly like a grouchy old man reluctant to understand, much less embrace, the modern game. seawolf17 Oct 30 2013 01:14 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 G-Fafif wrote: "SABR-metrics" is not only not a word, but implies advanced statistics are a product of the Society for American Baseball Research. Well, they are, aren't they? Edgy MD Oct 30 2013 01:24 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Not very much. "Sabermetrics" was goofy word coined by Bill James as a fun tribute to his colleagues that he's long expressed regret over, because it mis-represents both the science being entirely (or even mostly or primarily) emanating from one outlet, and the purpose of the organization as scientific stat crunching, which is a very small part of what they are about. G-Fafif Oct 30 2013 01:43 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 And even if it was all SABR's doing, the guy on the paper upstate should know that it's cspelled sabermetrics. I've been a member of SABR for only a few years, but never once have I been given the impression that what "we" do is solely or mostly about statistics. SteveJRogers Oct 30 2013 08:03 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Seaver gets a street named for him! http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/09/26/3520416/fresno-city-council-puts-pitcher.html G-Fafif Nov 09 2013 02:35 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Lee Mazzilli chats with Ron Darling on MLB Network. Neither Walt Terrell nor Howard Johnson joins them. Edgy MD Nov 09 2013 04:32 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Mitchell looks like he's biting at the bottom of that pile. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 09 2013 07:10 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Lee belongs to the 70s but his brain belongs to the 50s. Edgy MD Nov 09 2013 08:32 PM Re: Rico Brogna and the Long Sunset: Mets in Retirement, 201 Only a few seconds, but that footage of Mays teaching the basket catch to Mazz was golden. Where's that from? The 1976 highlight film? Not so golden is the shot of Lee's shorts the day the got traded.

one of our own -- Daniel Murphy -- on pace to hit 57 doubles.

MFS62 wrote: I'm not a cover keeper. But the one SI cover I have (somewhere in my house) is a picture of Gary Carter in Montreal catcher's gear. And the cover article is "Why The National League is Better". Later

Good point. Yon't even find the odd "Chico' out there anymore. I was curious. Last MLB Chico: Walker, 1993. (Unless you count Jose Lind, who lasted until 1995.) Before that: Chico Ruiz, 1980. Last MILB Chico: Cortez, PHI, 2005. Before that: three guys in the mid-90s. That's it. I had so many of these as a kid:

to award the NL pitcher of the month award. Can Harvelous repeat?