batmagadanleadoff

Best of the 90's: The AV Club's Top 50 50. Dead Man (1995) 49. American Movie (1999) 48. Ed Wood (1994) 47. Starship Troopers (1997) 46. Heavenly Creatures (1994) 45. The Limey (1999) 44. Metropolitan (1990) 43. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) 42. All About My Mother (1999) 41. Raise The Red Lantern (1991) 40. Trainspotting (1996) 39. The Blair Witch Project (1999) 38. Fast, Cheap & Out Of Control (1997) 37. Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) 36. L.A. Confidential (1997) 35. Naked (1993) 34. Seven (1995) 33. The Matrix (1999) 32. Close-Up (1990) 31. Paradise Lost: The Child Murders At Robin Hood Hills (1996) 30. The Thin Red Line (1998) 29. Irma Vep (1996) 28. Election (1999) 27. Short Cuts (1993) 26. Eyes Wide Shut (1999) 25. Fight Club (1999) 24. Crumb (1994) 23. Carlito�s Way (1993) 22. The Sweet Hereafter (1997) 21. Fargo (1995) 20. Red (1994) 19. Exotica (1994) 18. Schindler�s List (1993) 17. Safe (1995) 16. The Big Lebowski (1998) 15. Groundhog Day (1993) 14. Hoop Dreams (1994) 13. Boogie Nights (1997) 12. Miller�s Crossing (1990) 11. Barton Fink (1991) 10. Being John Malkovich (1999) 9. Rushmore (1998) 8. Unforgiven (1992) 7. Reservoir Dogs (1992) 6. Out Of Sight (1998) 5. Chungking Express (1994) 4. Dazed And Confused (1993) 3. Toy Story 2 (1999) 2. Pulp Fiction (1994) 1. Goodfellas (1990) http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-50-best-films-of-the-90s-1-of-3,86304/

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: So Megdal is taking the $100 million figure, and speculating that it could be for five, six or seven years? Does that make any sense? That makes sense to me. Megdal's covering every plausible length of proposed contract, assuming that the initial offer is for $100M, total. Megdal then reasons that $100M over six years, adjusted for inflation is no pay raise at all, and $100M over seven years is essentially a pay cut. Four years is too short an offer to make Wright a Met for life and $100M over eight years is too absurd, even by Mets standards to pass comment. I sort of agree with the premise of this piece -- namely that a $100M offer is ridiculously low, even if Megdal is still axeing his grind. At six years, Wright's probably worth in the neighborhood of $150M on the open market. And of course, beyond the financials, Wright also wants the Mets to convince him that they'll be playoff competitive in the near, if not immediate, term.

Swan Swan H wrote: So Megdal is taking the $100 million figure, and speculating that it could be for five, six or seven years? Does that make any sense? That makes sense to me. Megdal's covering every plausible length of proposed contract, assuming that the initial offer is for $100M, total. Megdal then reasons that $100M over six years, adjusted for inflation is no pay raise at all, and $100M over seven years is essentially a pay cut. Four years is too short an offer to make Wright a Met for life and $100M over eight years is too absurd, even by Mets standards to pass comment. I sort of agree with the premise of this piece -- namely that a $100M offer is ridiculously low, even if Megdal is still axeing his grind. At six years, Wright's probably worth in the neighborhood of $150M on the open market.

Howie's been a busy writer over the Columbus Day weekend. Getting those deals with Wright and Dickey over with, for better or worse By Howard Megdal 11:20 am Oct. 10, 2012 On Saturday, the New York Mets expressed urgency to get David Wright and R.A. Dickey, the team's best position player and pitcher, signed up long-term, indicating that they hoped to have deals in principle agreed to by the World Series. The initial offers to both players, however, don't indicate much urgency at all. Either the Mets are going to need to come up with more, quickly, or their offers are no different than the team's pursuit of Vladimir Guerrero back in the winter of 2003-04: window-dressing in lieu of an actual acquisition. Consider what Jon Heyman is reporting the Mets offered David Wright: "somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million." Now, this is awfully vague, but let's give that reading all the best possible imputations to maximize what the Mets are offering. Let's assume that keeps Wright's $16 million for 2013 as-is, and exists on top of his 2013 deal. If that $100 million (again, we don't know how far below $100 million "the neighborhood" stretches) is spread over six years, he'll be getting essentially no raise over his current salary. Over seven years, that's an average cut in pay over 2013's salary. Over five years, it would be a bump to $20 million per year, but five years simply isn't close to as much as he'd likely get on the free agent market. To get a sense of what Wright's value is likely to be, consider that he's coming off of an elite defensive season at a premium defensive position, along with a 143 O.P.S.+. Moreover, he is just 29 years old, and that season is right in line with his career O.P.S.+ of 135. Joey Votto, at age 28, following a 2011 that saw him finish with less total value than Wright in 2012 and an M.V.P. vote finish, sixth, likely at or below where Wright will land, signed a ten-year, $225 million extension. Votto plays first base, a less demanding defensive position with more talent around to fill it. It's hard to fathom Wright getting anything like half as much as Votto did. Heyman cites Ryan Zimmerman, the Washington Nationals' third baseman, as a comp for Wright. Zimmerman signed a six-year, $100 million extension this spring. But Zimmerman was coming off of an injury-plagued 2011 that limited him to 101 games, rather than a near-M.V.P. season. Moreover, Zimmerman's career O.P.S.+ of 121 is solid, but a good deal below Wright's 135. As for Dickey, Heyman cites a Mets source as looking to extend Dickey for "no more than two years." He also cites a rival G.M. as saying Dickey could command $15 million per year in annual salary, but adds the Mets "aren't believed to be thinking anywhere near that ballpark." The result of such thinking is almost certainly seeing Dickey pitch in a different ballpark. Though Dickey's age, 37, works against him, that he is a knuckleball pitcher works in his favor. And more to the point, he's been quite durable while pitching at an extremely high level for three years now. Last season, C.J. Wilson hit the free agent market following a strong season in 2011. It was just his second full year as a starter, and he pitched fewer innings, at a higher x.F.I.P., than Dickey did in 2012. He then received a five-year, $77.5 million contract from the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. That's the ballpark pitchers like R.A. Dickey are signed in, whether the Mets like it or not. Also, Heyman wrote: "The Mets may give talks about a month, until the point where they will pick up the two players' options in early November. If there are no new deals done by the time the team picks up the options (Wright's is for $16 million, Dickey's is for $5 million) the Mets may consider trades for the players. But particularly in Wright's case, the Mets might have to be overwhelmed to pull the trigger on a trade." If the Mets cannot extend Wright, that last sentence is almost certainly intended to prevent teams from lowballing them. The race will be on to either deal Wright, or lose him, like Jose Reyes, for nothing. Still, the pomp and circumstance surrounding comically low offers brings to mind not Reyes, who never received one at all, but Guerrero, the premier outfielder who was a free agent following the 2003 season. Guerrero had received a five-year, $65 million contract offer from the Baltimore Orioles, but appeared reluctant to sign it. Sensing an opportunity, the Mets swooped in, and after stories in the press about a possible offer, came up with one: for three years, $30 million guaranteed, or less than half the guaranteed value of the Orioles' deal. "If that's the case, it's not going to get it done for them," a source close to Guerrero said at the time, stating the obvious. Unsurprisingly, Guerrero did not become a Met, and ultimately signed with the Angels for five years, $71 million. You know, his market value. If the Mets are to avoid that fate with their two best players, they'll need to show the kind of urgency in increasing their offers to Wright and Dickey that they never did with Guerrero. Otherwise, the Mets are simply rushing to get the doomed-to-fail contract negotiations over with so their real work of trading Wright and Dickey can begin. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2012/10/6538048/getting-those-deals-wright-and-dickey-over-better-or-worse?sports-bucket-headline

(When [Dickey] signed a minor-league deal with the Mets, Chris "Mad Dog" Russo just read his name over and over and giggled, a second-grade comedy routine that kept me off WFAN for quite a while.) Did anyone click on the WFAN link embedded in Page's Deadspin piece? -hzI_aBATO8

The New Financial Story, In Brief Posted by: Howard Megdal - Posted in Today's Mets headlines on Oct 09, 2012 In case you missed it, Rich Sandomir had a great scoop on how the Mets plan to cobble enough money together to get through the offseason. 2010�s plan, an MLB loan, is apparently no longer available. 2011�s plan, a bridge loan ahead of a minority ownership sale, isn�t available for the simple reason that there aren�t more shares to sell. So 2012�s plan, according to Sandomir, is to borrow more against SNY. This is theoretically possible, since the Wilpon group has borrowed only $450 million against a 65 percent stake in SNY, and the company is believed to be worth over a billion dollars. What this will mean, though, is any additional borrowing, and/or time extension on repayment, almost certainly carries with it a higher interest rate. And that will cut into the margin of error the team has for losing money. But all of this requires a number of entities to sign off on the new debt: the debtholders on the SNY loan, the debtholders on the loan against the team ($320 million, roughly, due in June 2014), Major League Baseball (probably the easiest sell, given Bud Selig�s see-no-debt precedent with this ownership group), and Comcast/Time Warner, the Wilpon partners in SNY. And to sign off, they�ll all want a piece of the money coming in, making the ultimate payoff of the last profit spigot for Sterling that much smaller. Financially speaking, it�s epic drama. For the Mets to get back on firm financial footing, it�s probably just going to delay things a bit. The higher the ultimate amount of new money the owners squeeze out of this scenario, and that is if they do, the more likely it is to decimate annual profits from SNY to Mets ownership. But if they pull it off, ownership will manage, with few other options, to have grabbed tomorrow�s SNY profits today. In a sport where salaries appear set to rise exponentially because the other teams around MLB can take profits from local TV deals and put them into new player acquisitions, not financial survival, that�s a bad omen for the Mets, ompetitively. But then, that�s tomorrow�s problem, isn�t it? http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/10/09/the-new-financial-story-in-brief/ Sandomir's NYT piece implies, though, that if the Mets do refinance, it will be at an interest rate lower than the current one. Megdal is almost certain that the refinance rate will be higher. Megdal's follow-up: The Mets are building an October tradition, too By Howard Megdal 10:45 am Oct. 9, 2012 Who says the Mets don't have meaningful Octobers? While playoff teams struggle simply to raise a flag that will represent success for, at most, one season, the Mets are set to fight a pitched battle for ownership's financial survival, while at the same time, trying to keep the team's most valuable pitcher and everyday player for years to come. Now those are some high stakes. The October rush for survival money is becoming a tradition for the Mets, as much a part of the team's fabric these days as the postseason is to the Yankees. In 2010, the Mets addressed it with a loan from Major League Baseball. In 2011, they did so with a Bank of America bridge loan. How they hope to do so in 2012 was laid out by Richard Sandomir in the New York Times on Saturday. He wrote: "Under one option, SNY, the team�s lucrative cable network, would refinance its existing $450 million loan and borrow still more toward paying off some of the team�s heavy bank debt and toward other possible purposes, like day-to-day operating expenses or the twice-a-year payments on Citi Field�s bonds. The team�s owners, and their SNY partners, could also get cash dividends from the proceeds." Let's break down exactly what that option would entail. As it stood in 2012, the New York Mets lost $23 million. Much of that was due to roughly $20 million in interest payment from the approximately $320 million debt against the Mets due back in 2014, and $20 million in interest on a $450 million debt against SNY due back in 2015. But there were two reasons Fred Wilpon and his partners weren't forced into bankruptcy by the loss. One: A March infusion of minority owner cash, largely from SNY itself, helped pay down a portion of the team debt, outstanding loans to Major League Baseball and Bank of America, and interest on their large outstanding debts. Two: SNY earned a profit of $100 million, with Wilpon and his partners owning about 65 percent of SNY. Thus, $65 million in profit. Then, the $43.5 million in stadium debt came out of that chunk of profit, leaving around $21.5 million to go toward the losses of the Mets. But borrowing more against SNY, if that is ultimately even possible, changes the math. Exactly how much it changes things depends on how much a lender will value the 65 percent interest the Wilpon group have in SNY. If the company is valued at a billion dollars, for instance, that share would presumably be worth $650 million. But not only have the Mets owners already borrowed $450 million against that stake, they also have partners who would stand to be paid off from any dividend raised by additional borrowing, according to Sandomir. Finding money to pay day-to-day expenses in 2013, and enough money to convince their team debtholder to go along with the deal, and enough money to convince their SNY co-owners to go along with the deal; well, Wilpon and his partners need to make this money go a long way. The other thing to factor in, if the Mets owners borrow against SNY, is the likely effect it has on the annual payoff from SNY going forward. Banks don't generally give something for nothing; if the Mets borrow even more against SNY, and manage to get that 2015 date pushed back, the lender is almost certainly going to demand a much higher interest rate. More money borrowed, at a higher interest rate, means getting less in profits from SNY in 2013 and the years beyond. Considering the extent to which SNY's profits helped the owners survive until now, turning off that last Sterling spigot simply to cover day-to-day expenses doesn't seem to add up as a long-term play, unless the Mets can start to make money again. And about that: 2013 looks pretty grim, given static payroll and the current talent on hand, which just finished 74-88. But the Mets have been making loud noises about retaining David Wright and R.A. Dickey, the two brightest spots in 2012, for the long-term. Both players have options for 2013, and have expressed a desire not to negotiate in-season next year. So the Mets need to either sign them long-term this winter, or risk losing them next winter for nothing, Jose Reyes-style. Accordingly, a piece appeared in the New York Post the same day the Sandomir piece appeared stating this: "A baseball source with knowledge of the team�s thinking was more specific yesterday, saying it�s conceivable Wright and Dickey will have new deals in place, at least in principle, by the time the World Series begins later this month." Sandy Alderson has reportedly yet to reach out to Dickey's agent, and has had preliminary conversations with Wright's agent. But neither Wright nor Dickey would have much to fear, in terms of getting a bounced paycheck; M.L.B. would step in a guarantee payroll should current ownership falter. Both players have described a winning team as just as important to them as a big payday, however, and the Sandomir story simply reiterates the specifics of what Alderson meant when he said last week that the Mets "will not in the near-future have unlimited funds". Thus, the knock-on effect: it is up to Alderson to sell the future of the Mets to Wright and Dickey, and signing them would provide some measure of independent validation that someone other than the Wilpons themselves actually believes in the long-term prospects of the Wilpons. Securing them would make the Mets better on the field in 2013, and validate them in a significant way off the field as well. So they may not be contending for a championship in Flushing next season. But they'll be playing for a lot. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2012/10/6538003/mets-are-building-october-tradition-too

If You�re Keeping Score At Home� Posted by: Howard Megdal - Posted in Today's Mets headlines on Oct 10, 2012 Payroll was $91.6 million in 2012, and is to remain static in 2013. If the other 15 players are all minimum salary players, at $490,000, that�s another $7,350,000, or a total of $96.35 million. Somethig doesn�t add up here. And the ludicrously underwhelming offers to Wright and Dickey make it fair to wonder if the Mets plan to cut salary by eliminating two of their salary obligations for 2013 that are movable via trade. It also explains the Ike Davis/Jon Niese trade talk. http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/10/10/if-youre-keeping-score-at-home/ Or the Mets might go with a $96M payroll. If the Mets refinance, $96M is do-able, given the team's comments about 2013 payroll possibilities.

If You�re Keeping Score At Home� Posted by: Howard Megdal - Posted in Today's Mets headlines on Oct 10, 2012 Just some basic facts and figures to keep in mind, courtesy of the amazing people at MLBTradeRumors.com. The Mets, if we assume they are letting Mike Pelfrey, Andres Torres, Rob Johnson, Manny Acosta and Fred Lewis go without qualifying offers, will be on the hook for an estimated $8.5 million to four players: Ike Davis, Daniel Murphy, Bobby Parnell and Josh Thole. Add that to the $80.5 million due to Johan Santana, Jason Bay, Jon Niese, Frank Francisco, R.A. Dickey and David Wright, and you get $89 million for 10 players. Payroll was $91.6 million in 2012, and is to remain static in 2013. If the other 15 players are all minimum salary players, at $490,000, that�s another $7,350,000, or a total of $96.35 million. Somethig doesn�t add up here. And the ludicrously underwhelming offers to Wright and Dickey make it fair to wonder if the Mets plan to cut salary by eliminating two of their salary obligations for 2013 that are movable via trade. It also explains the Ike Davis/Jon Niese trade talk. http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/10/10/if-youre-keeping-score-at-home/

Yesterday, I was thinking of creating a quiz in the style of your current one. I was looking at the display of baseball cards in the most lifetime hits quiz thread and wondering to myself if anyone would've been able to figure out the question or theme by simply looking at the cards. Anyways, I've spent about 20 or 30 minutes on your quiz, and am no closer to solving it now then when I first logged on to your page. No ideas. Stumped for now.

The New Financial Story, In Brief Posted by: Howard Megdal - Posted in Today's Mets headlines on Oct 09, 2012 In case you missed it, Rich Sandomir had a great scoop on how the Mets plan to cobble enough money together to get through the offseason. 2010�s plan, an MLB loan, is apparently no longer available. 2011�s plan, a bridge loan ahead of a minority ownership sale, isn�t available for the simple reason that there aren�t more shares to sell. So 2012�s plan, according to Sandomir, is to borrow more against SNY. This is theoretically possible, since the Wilpon group has borrowed only $450 million against a 65 percent stake in SNY, and the company is believed to be worth over a billion dollars. What this will mean, though, is any additional borrowing, and/or time extension on repayment, almost certainly carries with it a higher interest rate. And that will cut into the margin of error the team has for losing money. But all of this requires a number of entities to sign off on the new debt: the debtholders on the SNY loan, the debtholders on the loan against the team ($320 million, roughly, due in June 2014), Major League Baseball (probably the easiest sell, given Bud Selig�s see-no-debt precedent with this ownership group), and Comcast/Time Warner, the Wilpon partners in SNY. And to sign off, they�ll all want a piece of the money coming in, making the ultimate payoff of the last profit spigot for Sterling that much smaller. Financially speaking, it�s epic drama. For the Mets to get back on firm financial footing, it�s probably just going to delay things a bit. The higher the ultimate amount of new money the owners squeeze out of this scenario, and that is if they do, the more likely it is to decimate annual profits from SNY to Mets ownership. But if they pull it off, ownership will manage, with few other options, to have grabbed tomorrow�s SNY profits today. In a sport where salaries appear set to rise exponentially because the other teams around MLB can take profits from local TV deals and put them into new player acquisitions, not financial survival, that�s a bad omen for the Mets, ompetitively. But then, that�s tomorrow�s problem, isn�t it? http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/10/09/the-new-financial-story-in-brief/ Sandomir's NYT piece implies, though, that if the Mets do refinance, it will be at an interest rate lower than the current one. Megdal is almost certain that the refinance rate will be higher.

Swan Swan H wrote: Oh, and as far as the site being useful, it's not just for hacky quizzes. I'm out there all the time. Me too. That site's a Mets treasure.

Edgy DC wrote: First future Met to win an MVP award Boyer. (Or Berra.) Am I losing my mind or was your answer to this question originally simply "Ken Boyer"?

Joe McEwing?

Give yourselves a hand. Nice playin'. Carlos Delgado was 26th, with 2,038 career hits. I'm surprised that no one guessed K-Mac, or George Foster, especially at the end, with my hint suggesting that the last Met might've been Carter's teammate.

Edgy DC wrote: That's not a real card.

The Hit List 1. Willie Mays - 3,283 2. Eddie Murray - 3,255 (Chad86) 3. Rickey Henderson - 3,055 (Chad86) 4. Roberto Alomar - 2,724 (Edgy) 5. Rusty Staub - 2,716 (Edgy) 6. Gary Sheffield - 2,689 (HahnSolo) 7. Julio Franco - 2,586 (JCL) 8. Richie Ashburn - 2,574 (Chad86) 9. Jeff Kent - 2,461 (Chad86) 10. Brett Butler - 2,375 (Edgy) 11. Joe Torre - 2,342 (HahnSolo) 12. Tony Fernandez - 2,276 (Chad86) 13. John Olerud - 2,239 (Chad86) 14. Willie Randolph - 2,210 (CF) 15. Larry Bowa - 2,191 (Edgy) 16. Keith Hernandez - 2,182 (Edgy) 17. Yogi Berra - 2,150 (Fman99) 18. Ken Boyer - 2,143 (Swan) 19. Moises Alou - 2,134 (Edgy) 20. Mike Piazza - 2,127 (Edgy) 21. Tommy F! Davis 2,121 (Edgy) 22. Duke Snider - 2,116 (Edgy) 23. Garry Templeton - 2,096 (Edgy) 24. Gary Carter - 2,092 (Swan) 25. Carlos Beltran 2,064 (HahnSolo) The No-Hit List Gil Hodges - 1,921 (Edgy) Luis Castillo - 1,889 (Chad86) Tim Foli - 1,515 (Edgy) Ken Singleton - 2,029 (Edgy) Amos Otis - 2,020 (JCL) Vince Coleman - 1,425 (Chad86) Lee Mazzilli - 1,068 (CF) Shawn Green - 2,003 (Edgy)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Hint: Two of the remaining three were Mets teammates. So either one of the remaining two was a Carter Mets teammate, or the remaining two were Mets teammates who did not play for the '85-'89 Mets. If you think that the remaining two were Mets teammates, you may submit them together as guesses in one post. If you're paying attention, you oughtta have figgered that the remaining player was either a Mets teammate of Gary Carter or of Ken Boyer.

1 The Hit List 1. Willie Mays - 3,283 2. Eddie Murray - 3,255 (Chad86) 3. Rickey Henderson - 3,055 (Chad86) 4. Roberto Alomar - 2,724 (Edgy) 5. Rusty Staub - 2,716 (Edgy) 6. Gary Sheffield - 2,689 (HahnSolo) 7. Julio Franco - 2,586 (JCL) 8. Richie Ashburn - 2,574 (Chad86) 9. Jeff Kent - 2,461 (Chad86) 10. Brett Butler - 2,375 (Edgy) 11. Joe Torre - 2,342 (HahnSolo) 12. Tony Fernandez - 2,276 (Chad86) 13. John Olerud - 2,239 (Chad86) 14. Willie Randolph - 2,210 (CF) 15. Larry Bowa - 2,191 (Edgy) 16. Keith Hernandez - 2,182 (Edgy) 17. Yogi Berra - 2,150 (Fman99) 18. Ken Boyer - 2,143 (Swan) 19. Moises Alou - 2,134 (Edgy) 20. Mike Piazza - 2,127 (Edgy) 22. Duke Snider - 2,116 (Edgy) 23. Garry Templeton - 2,096 (Edgy) 24. Gary Carter - 2,092 (Swan) 25. Carlos Beltran 2,064 (HahnSolo) The No-Hit List Gil Hodges - 1,921 (Edgy) Luis Castillo - 1,889 (Chad86) Tim Foli - 1,515 (Edgy) Ken Singleton - 2,029 (Edgy) Amos Otis - 2,020 (JCL) Vince Coleman - 1,425 (Chad86) Lee Mazzilli - 1,068 (CF) Shawn Green - 2,003 (Edgy)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: What's with the creepy Bowa fake card? Larry Bowa was a Met for like 10 minutes. So there are no real cards of Bowa as a Met. I found that Bowa DIY on the web. It's a good thing that Jeff Conine just missed the top 25. He was a Met for even less time than Bowa was. I doubt anybody went to the trouble of making and then uploading a fake Conine Mets card.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: What's with the creepy Bowa fake card? Larry Bowa was a Met for like 10 minutes. So there are no real cards of Bowa as a Met. I found that Bowa DIY on the web.

1 The Hit List 1. Willie Mays - 3,283 2. Eddie Murray - 3,255 (Chad86) 3. Rickey Henderson - 3,055 (Chad86) 4. Roberto Alomar - 2,724 (Edgy) 5. Rusty Staub - 2,716 (Edgy) 6. Gary Sheffield - 2,689 (HahnSolo) 7. Julio Franco - 2,586 (JCL) 8. Richie Ashburn - 2,574 (Chad86) 9. Jeff Kent - 2,461 (Chad86) 10. Brett Butler - 2,375 (Edgy) 11. Joe Torre - 2,342 (HahnSolo) 12. Tony Fernandez - 2,276 (Chad86) 13. John Olerud - 2,239 (Chad86) 14. Willie Randolph - 2,210 (CF) 15. Larry Bowa - 2,191 (Edgy) 16. Keith Hernandez - 2,182 (Edgy) 17. Yogi Berra - 2,150 (Fman99) 18. Ken Boyer - 2,143 (Swan) 19. Moises Alou - 2,134 (Edgy) 20. Mike Piazza - 2,127 (Edgy) 22. Duke Snider - 2,116 (Edgy) 23. Garry Templeton - 2,096 (Edgy) 24. Gary Carter - 2,092 (Swan) 25. Carlos Beltran 2,064 (HahnSolo) The No-Hit List Gil Hodges - 1,921 (Edgy) Luis Castillo - 1,889 (Chad86) Tim Foli - 1,515 (Edgy) Ken Singleton - 2,029 (Edgy) Amos Otis - 2,020 (JCL) Vince Coleman - 1,425 (Chad86) Lee Mazzilli - 1,068 (CF)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Hint: Two of the remaining three were Mets teammates. So either one of the remaining two was a Carter Mets teammate, or the remaining two were Mets teammates who did not play for the '85-'89 Mets. If you think that the remaining two were Mets teammates, you may submit them together as guesses in one post.

2 1 The Hit List 1. Willie Mays - 3,283 2. Eddie Murray - 3,255 (Chad86) 3. Rickey Henderson - 3,055 (Chad86) 4. Roberto Alomar - 2,724 (Edgy) 5. Rusty Staub - 2,716 (Edgy) 6. Gary Sheffield - 2,689 (HahnSolo) 7. Julio Franco - 2,586 (JCL) 8. Richie Ashburn - 2,574 (Chad86) 9. Jeff Kent - 2,461 (Chad86) 10. Brett Butler - 2,375 (Edgy) 11. Joe Torre - 2,342 (HahnSolo) 12. Tony Fernandez - 2,276 (Chad86) 13. John Olerud - 2,239 (Chad86) 14. Willie Randolph - 2,210 (CF) 15. Larry Bowa - 2,191 (Edgy) 16. Keith Hernandez - 2,182 (Edgy) 17. Yogi Berra - 2,150 (Fman99) 19. Moises Alou - 2,134 (Edgy) 20. Mike Piazza - 2,127 (Edgy) 22. Duke Snider - 2,116 (Edgy) 23. Garry Templeton - 2,096 (Edgy) 24. Gary Carter - 2,092 (Swan) 25. Carlos Beltran 2,064 (HahnSolo) The No-Hit List Gil Hodges - 1,921 (Edgy) Luis Castillo - 1,889 (Chad86) Tim Foli - 1,515 (Edgy) Ken Singleton - 2,029 (Edgy) Amos Otis - 2,020 (JCL) Vince Coleman - 1,425 (Chad86)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Hint: Two of the remaining three were Mets teammates. So either one of the remaining two was a Carter Mets teammate, or the remaining two were Mets teammates who did not play for the '85-'89 Mets.

2 1 The Hit List 1. Willie Mays - 3,283 2. Eddie Murray - 3,255 (Chad86) 3. Rickey Henderson - 3,055 (Chad86) 4. Roberto Alomar - 2,724 (Edgy) 5. Rusty Staub - 2,716 (Edgy) 6. Gary Sheffield - 2,689 (HahnSolo) 7. Julio Franco - 2,586 (JCL) 8. Richie Ashburn - 2,574 (Chad86) 9. Jeff Kent - 2,461 (Chad86) 10. Brett Butler - 2,375 (Edgy) 11. Joe Torre - 2,342 (HahnSolo) 12. Tony Fernandez - 2,276 (Chad86) 13. John Olerud - 2,239 (Chad86) 14. Willie Randolph - 2,210 (CF) 15. Larry Bowa - 2,191 (Edgy) 16. Keith Hernandez - 2,182 (Edgy) 17. Yogi Berra - 2,150 (Fman99) 19. Moises Alou - 2,134 (Edgy) 20. Mike Piazza - 2,127 (Edgy) 22. Duke Snider - 2,116 (Edgy) 23. Garry Templeton - 2,096 (Edgy) 24. Gary Carter - 2,092 (Swan) 25. Carlos Beltran 2,064 (HahnSolo) The No-Hit List Gil Hodges - 1,921 (Edgy) Luis Castillo - 1,889 (Chad86) Tim Foli - 1,515 (Edgy) Ken Singleton - 2,029 (Edgy) Amos Otis - 2,020 (JCL)