batmagadanleadoff

was ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rey Ordonez. http://www.overthemonster.com/2012/1/24/2729583/jose-iglesias-rey-ordonez-bobby-valentine-red-sox

Vic Sage wrote: They could even reclaim the "Oilers" name. or go with Tornadoes, or Power, or some other non-space age appellation. Power. That's good. How about the Houston Enrons?

Let's see whatcha got. We could do a show and tell thread. Im fine with just a show thread.

First Met named Casey since the first Casey. The new Casey pitched in a bumblefest of a game that was reminiscent of Ol' Case's Mets. Never appeared on a baseball card in a Mets uniform.

metirish wrote: Christ , one of these days we will go to CF and the place will be stripped. Yeah. Because the repo man's gonna take whatever's left that the Mets don't auction off.

And that rotunda. How insulting. You could fit over a dozen Mets Halls of Fame into just one of those rotundas for a Dodger. But finish this analogy: Fred Wilpon: New York Mets ����� Raoul Hirsch: _____________

Judge Rakoff denies immediate right of appeal. Trial likely this Spring. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/sports/baseball/judge-rejects-bid-by-madoff-trustee-to-appeal-ruling.html http://online.wsj.com/article/AP396d130c85f042399f6677deb46626ee.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/18/us-madoff-mets-idUSTRE80H04120120118 What goes unmentioned in all of these news recaps is that Picard can still appeal Judge Rakoff's rulings; those rulings limited the time frame under which Sterling's behavior might constitute culpable conduct, thus capping damages at about $386M instead of close to $1B. Picard will simply have to wait until the trial is over before appealing.

smg58 wrote: The Mets offense really is better than a lot of people think, the absence of a leadoff hitter notwithstanding. They outscored the Phillies last year in spite of the park, losing Davis for most of the year, another off year from Wright, and getting basically nothing from Bay. Pitching and defense are other matters entirely, however. I fear that bringing in the walls will expose our pitchers more than it helps our hitters. You would have to think the park is the only reason Wright and Bay have underproduced to think this will work in our favor with the team as it's currently structured, and I just don't see it. I'm not expecting miracles from Murphy at second, but I'm not expecting anything biblical in the other direction either. He'll be below average, but we haven't been above average at second since Valentin in 06 and Murphy can at least hit. I'm much more worried about Duda. I. The Mets are merely carving the cavern out of that cavernous ridiculousity they play in. They're not transforming Citi Field into a Little League-sized diamond, or even a modern Major League bandbox like Citizen's Bank Park. If Met pitchers can't pitch in CF II, that'll say more about their shortcomings than about the shorter dimensions. II. If it turns out that some Met batters altered their swings to combat Citi Field's daunting dimensions, then the new configuration should help the Mets more than their visitors, who were just passing through and, presumably, had no reason to screw around with their swings.

That Expos card on the left is so wrong... the 1972 series wouldn't have used an action shot on that card. Yes. And it would've been almost as unlikely for Topps to use an action shot of Staub shot in Jarry Park. All but 9 1/2 of the '72 Topps Expos cards were shot in spring training. The 9 1/2 that weren't were shot in a major league stadium, emphasis on "a", which rhymes with .... :

Benjamin Grimm wrote: That Expos card on the left is so wrong... the 1972 series wouldn't have used an action shot on that card. Yes. And it would've been almost as unlikely for Topps to use an action shot of Staub shot in Jarry Park.

Found these images on a site of "cards that never were": http://whitesoxcards.blogspot.com/2010/11/cards-that-never-were-by-tim-d.html

This one was a terrific read. I'd especially recommend it with a Prince foreword. The 1st ed. (2004, hardcover only) must have had a very short shelf life, because by the time I had decided to obtain a copy, not long after its release, the book was already OOP. It took me a while to find a used copy in very good condition and at a reasonable price. Even today, many sellers are asking for close to $200.00 for a 1st. ed. in newish condition. Here's the companion book: Tales of must have been some sort of a franchise because I recall numerous Tales of (fill in the sports team and bench) appearing mid-decade.

No current player has the juice to be making these remarks. I think that Wright has the clout to be heard, even though the actual comments point to many others as likelier, ahem, deepthroaters. No doubt, though the third-person Wright stuff eliminated him for this particular feature...unless he's Amazin'ly diabolical. I also considered Wright playing some misdirection. Whether or not Wright was the anonymous Met, Wright is likely to be the Met most affected by the departures of both Hojo and Reyes, given Wright's close relationship with each of them. OE: I wouldn't be shocked if privately, Wright is livid over Reyes' departure. And still burning over FWilpon's New Yorker comments. Plus, Wright strikes me as the type who would subscribe to New York magazine. NTTAWWT

G-Fafif wrote: G-Fafif wrote: No current player has the juice to be making these remarks. I think that Wright has the clout to be heard, even though the actual comments point to many others as likelier, ahem, deepthroaters. No doubt, though the third-person Wright stuff eliminated him for this particular feature...unless he's Amazin'ly diabolical. I also considered Wright playing some misdirection. Whether or not Wright was the anonymous Met, Wright is likely to be the Met most affected by the departures of both Hojo and Reyes, given Wright's close relationship with each of them. OE: I wouldn't be shocked if privately, Wright is livid over Reyes' departure.

G-Fafif wrote: No current player has the juice to be making these remarks. I think that Wright has the clout to be heard, even though the actual comments point to many others as likelier, ahem, deepthroaters.

Edgy DC wrote: Twitterverse on fire with flaming snarks at the expense of Fernando Martinez and the Mets. Didn't Alderson say about a month or two ago in a roundabout way that F-Mart was essentially done? FWIW, F-mart didn't even crack Sickels' list of the Mets top 20 (40?) prospects.

I thought Hojo, and only Hojo, as soon as I read the confession earlier this morning.

How many here knew that John Olerud was originally drafted by the NY Mets?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: If I buy at all, I'm buying eBay or otherwise direct-from-ticketholder. (StubHub kicks money back the Mets' way, which I dislike on principle under normal circumstances.) I agree there, but the small percentage of the transaction fee that's kicked back to the Mets won't make or break 'em. What I did dislike about buying off of StubHUb is that (so I heard) some of the tickets the site offered were team controlled unsold tickets, rather than secondary market tickets. So buying a Met-owned ticket on StubHub was like buying directly from the Mets ticket office. Anyway, the Mets will use a different online service in 2012, right?

The S&P weighs in: S.&P. also described as �aggressive� Queens Ballpark�s preliminary projection that attendance will rise to 2.5 million in 2012 from 2.29 million last season. It said that attendance was likely to keep falling and that a third of its luxury suites are up for renewal in 2012. http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/s-p-outlook-on-citi-field-bonds-sours/

Edgy DC wrote: The news today is that bonds on CitiField have been downgraded by S&P. I'm openly quite ignorant on these matters, and am not sure what this means to the Wilpons.... It means that the bonds will now cost less. And if you know anything about supply and demand, you'd know that more investors will now want the bonds. Because they cost less. Not that this is any of your business. Don't you know that we're a private company?

A few months ago, the Mets sent a letter to Dickey's agent warning him that they reserve the right to void the remaining year on his contract if he is injured on the mountain. They can't stop him from going, but they clearly would prefer he did not. It's gotta be at least 50/50 that this year's Mets are rooting for a contract voiding injury. Andrew Marchand made more or less the same crack in what was ostensibly a news story. Jinx! _______________ December 28, 2011 The BP First Take Wednesday, December 28 by Daniel Rathman The Mets are struggling financially and on thin ice with their fans, so you�d think that when one of their players spends his offseason preparing to do something generous and cool, the front office would praise him and consider opportunities to market it. There are few major leaguers whose careers and stories are more intriguing than those of R.A. Dickey. He was born without an ulnar collateral ligament, couldn�t cut it as a regular pitcher, transformed himself into a knuckleballer, and spent more than a decade as a journeyman searching for a multi-year contract. The Mets finally gave Dickey a stable home with a two-year, $7.8 million deal last offseason, and he has since become a fan favorite. Now, Dickey is trying to use his newfound fame to give something back. His attempt to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro is meant to benefit Bombay Teen Challenge, a charity that aims to help victims of human trafficking. He has devoted hours to conditioning himself for the challenge, and to minimizing the already low risk involved. That�s the glass-half-full view; the Mets have chosen the glass-half-empty one. They aren�t happy with Dickey�s plans, sent him a letter requesting that he abandon them, and told the Wall Street Journal about it. Given all that has gone wrong in recent years, the team�s concerns are understandable. But, if anything, these matters should have been handled internally, in a way that would have left the door open for the Mets to piggyback on a potentially great story. By publicly chiding Dickey for what they deem an unnecessary risk, the Mets have thrown away the chance to generate positive attention from it. With the Wilpons� fiasco still unfolding, the fans reeling from the departure of Jose Reyes to a division rival, and a full-scale rebuilding process underway, the Mets need all the feel-good stories they can get. Yet, they�ve managed to spin Dickey�s climb as something both the pitcher and the fans should feel bad about. The open threat to void Dickey�s contract if he suffers an injury that prevents him from pitching is both pointless and wrongheaded. There is far more on the line for Dickey�who had few guarantees during his first 14 years in professional baseball�than for the Mets, and his runs with an oxygen-limiting mask are proof that he understands both the challenge of climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro and how much he risks by doing it. His desire to do it anyway is selfless. The Mets� attempt to stop him is just another example of the selfishness that got them into their current hole. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15739

A few months ago, the Mets sent a letter to Dickey's agent warning him that they reserve the right to void the remaining year on his contract if he is injured on the mountain. They can't stop him from going, but they clearly would prefer he did not. It's gotta be at least 50/50 that this year's Mets are rooting for a contract voiding injury.

So what do you think is the better deal from the team's perspective: Beltran 2 yrs at $13M a season* or Reyes 6 yrs at $17.67M a season* *average season per entire contract

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: What guarantee will the minority owners be given for their respective $20M investments against a bankruptcy? I don't understand the legal mumbo jumbo, but I'm pretty sure that's protected. I asked a rhetorical question. The investors have no guarantee in a bankruptcy because there, the owners will owe a lot more money than they have to pay out. The Mets have two large creditors that are owed about $400M --each-- and we know that those banks didn't lend the Mets those huge sums of money without reserving for themselves the right to approve or veto any subsequent loan to the Mets. They have that clout because of the money they lent to the Mets. And they're not gonna approve any new loans that further compromise their own chances of being repaid. This wouldn't ordinarily matter so much except that if the numbers being cited by the NYT, Megdal, et.al. are reasonably accurate, then there is a very realistic chance that the Mets end up in bankruptcy if they don't first sell the team. The Mets appear to be at the mercy of their large creditors. And unless those creditors are willing to restructure when the principal payments become due (beginning about two seasons from now) Fred and Saul won't be able to retain the team. The big black hole, though, in all of these forensic studies of the Mets finances is how much money the owners have access to outside of their baseball operations. No one knows for sure, and this could change things drastically, though it's a good guess that they're tapped out all around because why else would they need to borrow from MLB, or take out a bridge loan, or just now decide to eliminate a whole minor league team? All this, without even accounting for a single penny of damages from the Picard suit. The Mets are trying to sell between 40% and 48% of the team just to keep the lights on for another 10 months. Financially, they appear to be in a death spiral.