batmagadanleadoff

I'd love it. Two divisions of six in each league would be even better. I can't even remember how the hell the Brewers got back into the NL to begin with. Was it one of those supedupertopsecret polls that only Bud Selig got to audit? The poll that only Bud Selig knew about? The poll that no one ever remembers even voting on? You know .. the one where "the fans voted for it". Now if you could do all that, then killing IL play should be a cinch for you.

Actually, Jayson Stark of ESPN recently wrote that the new schedule may well eliminate those extra "rivalry" games. Apparently, the schedule under consideration is: 18 games against each of the other 4 teams in your division (72) 6 games against each of the other 10 teams in your league (60) 3 games against each of the other 5 teams in the corresponding division in the other league (15) 3 games against each of the other 5 teams in another division from the other league (15) Total: 162 I like this proposal. Of course, I don't like interleague play at all. And I don't like that the leagues consist of an odd-number of teams. But given that we're stuck with those parameters, that schedule works for me.

I repeat: There are no plans to bring back any of the black elements. Keep repeating. It can't be said often enough. One thing not mentioned is stirrups. Will you pick a song already?

Mets black jersey will be an alternate and used on the road and sparingly in 2012. The black jersey will then be ditched in 2013. Mets uni changes announced yesterday are not a one-off set for 2012: those jerseys (below) are the new unis. from Uni Watch: Now Just Fire Wayne Hagin Already and We'll Be All Set By Paul Lukas, on November 17th, 2011 For a time, life was Good. Or at least it seemed Good, because for the most part it looked Good. So even when fate threw various obstacles in our path � which, in retrospect, happened more often than not � at least the tableau unfolding before us was generally pleasing to the eye. But then the Dark Plague began its devastating infestation. The first symptom was the appearance of blackened pustules on the chest. These soon spread to the extremities, and before long the malignancy had proliferated throughout the body. So began the dire times we have experienced, lo these past dozen years. Despite our best efforts to fight the Dark Plague, it has proven to be a resilient enemy. And so even in those fleeting moments when life was Good, it usually did not look Good, and consequently it did not feel Good. Although there have always been those of us who refused to give up hope, deep down we wondered if we would ever live to see the day when the Dark Plague finally succumbed to the forces of Good. My friends, that day is finally at hand. Any way you slice it, the news coming out of Shea yesterday (which was 50 years to the day after they unveiled their first logo, incidentally) was a win-win. Or maybe a win-win-win-win-win-win. Here�s rundown of the developments, nearly all of them positive: � The black drop shadow has been removed from the white, pinstriped, and gray jerseys. You can see high-res versions of those jerseys here, here, and here. � The black/blue hybrid cap (which had been the official road cap but was also frequently worn at home) has been eliminated. The blue cap will now be worn with the white, pinstriped, and gray jerseys. � The black undersleeves and socks, which were always worn on the road and sometimes at home, have been eliminated. The white, pinstriped, and gray jerseys will now be paired with blue accessories. � The herringbone-patterned glacier twill lettering fabric has been eliminated. The new jerseys are using conventional tackle twill. (Here�s how it looks on the script.) � Although all of these changes are being introduced to coincide with the team�s 50th anniversary, they are not one-year changes. I have confirmed through a team source that the plan is to retain all of the above-listed changes for the long term. I repeat: There are no plans to bring back any of the black elements. � The team has a new anniversary logo, which is being worn as a sleeve patch on the jerseys. Interestingly, there�s a slight discrepancy between the logo and the patch: Note the color of the baseball stitching on the left side. The version on the left is how it�s shown in the style guide. Weird. � The anniversary logo is also being worn as a rear cap patch. Can�t say I�m 100% in love with this, but it�s better than putting a patch on the side of the cap (I hate that look � always makes the cap feel unbalanced), and I think this execution is much better than the giant patch the Yankees used a few years ago. Disappointments? I count three, all fairly minor: (1) The black alternate jersey and solid-black cap have not been eliminated � yet. They�ll be used sparingly on the road in 2012, and then scrapped altogether in 2013. (2) I was hoping they�d go back to a blue squatchee for 2012, but they�re sticking with orange. (3) I was also hoping they�d restore the little �NY� to the skyline logo, but no dice. In the grand scheme of things, however, I can live with all of these. And there you have it. After a dozen years of campaigning for most of these moves, I don�t mind saying that the long-awaited ditching of the black � VB Day � tastes pretty sweet. Today my giant souvenir Mets cup is filled with champagne. (Actually, I don�t own a souvenir cup, and I don�t particularly like champagne. But you get the idea.) My thanks to everyone else who�s helped with the cause over the years, especially Shannon Shark over at Mets Police (who, unlike me, has actually been diplomatic enough to break bread with some of the team�s front office types and, I�m fairly certain, has made them take this kind of stuff more seriously). Enjoy the moment, people � an all-too-rare triumph of Good over Stupid.

O's are going back to cartoon bird on their hats. Astros 50th anniversary logo: Astros to wear throwbacks every home Friday -- throwbacks will represent every uni era in team history:

http://www.worldseriesrings.net/

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'm not being optimistic about it, I'm simply pointing out that the Mets have little to gain from pretending to find minority investors or from only offering options that are completely unrealistic. Just because a bunch of sports writers don't think it's a good investment that anyone would want to take doesn't mean the millionaires and billionaires out there think the same way. There is just so much murkiness and unknowns there, including not even knowing how the Madoff situation will be settled and for how much. Yes, it seems pretty likely they dropped payroll projections (at least, the numbers they talk about, it's yet to be determined) by 20+ million after they lost Einhorn, but that doesn't mean all is completely doomed and we're just in a waiting game here. And another thing. (As John Madden used to say). The Mets never specifically said that they obtained any additional financing through this plan to sell small shares to investors. They merely said that things were going well, or other words to that effect --- words so vague and open-ended that they could be taken to mean anything. When pressed by the press for more specific information, charming Jeff Wilpon fell back on the privacy bs, essentially stating that it wasn't any of our business to know. So if the Mets did obtain more financing, why wouldn't they come out and say it? Plan B to Raise $200 Million for Mets Is Going Slowly The New York Times wrote: Just over two months ago, the Mets watched the $200 million they sorely needed vanish. Their deal to sell one-third of the team to the hedge fund manager David Einhorn had fallen apart after months of negotiations. Confidently, they put Plan B into action, and their investment banker on the sale even stated that this was the way they should have raised money from the start. This time, they would not look for a single powerful buyer. This time, they would raise the $200 million by selling 10 limited partnership units, or shares, in the Mets for $20 million apiece. So, 10 weeks later, how is that plan going? The answer is slowly. At this point, none of the units have been sold, said two people briefed on the status of the sales who spoke on the condition of anonymity. They added that there were strong buyer commitments for as many as seven of the shares. However, until there are equally firm offers for the other units, it is possible that none of them will be sold. �These things can drag on for months and months,� said Robert Boland, a sports business professor at New York University�s Tisch Center. �Usually, it�s about the parameters of the contract.� Earlier this month, Jeff Wilpon, the Mets� chief operating officer, said that the team had an �internal timetable� for completing the sales that it was not going to share with the public. �There�s not a deadline,� he said. �There�s not a date circled, or anything like that.� If the Mets are successful in finding buyers for all 10 units, there is talk they could even sell two more, raising their take to $240 million. But for the moment at least, the large cash infusion that the Mets have needed since early this year remains out of reach. And all of this is occurring as the Mets contemplate how much they might be willing, or able, to spend to keep the free-agent shortstop Jose Reyes in a Mets uniform. Would the Mets be more aggressive on the Reyes front if the sales of the limited partnerships had already been completed? That�s not clear. What is certain is that the Mets have had three straight losing seasons at Citi Field, marked by continually declining attendance. And without Reyes � and any expectations that 2012 will be a more competitive season � ticket sales could plummet further. Meanwhile, Major League Baseball has been waiting patiently for the Mets to get a handle on their financial problems. To a considerable degree, the office of Commissioner Bud Selig has been preoccupied lately with the more serious, and sensational, financial problems of the Los Angeles Dodgers and their owner, Frank McCourt, who has now agreed to sell the team. Nonetheless, the Mets still owe baseball $25 million that they borrowed a year ago, when they had a cash shortage. They were told to repay the loan by the end of June, when, they presumably believed, they would have the $200 million in hand from Einhorn. They have now been delinquent for more than four months, but baseball has not chosen to respond by deducting any of the Mets� share of national income from such revenue sources as television and licensing. By selling units costing $20 million each, the Mets have been betting that they could attract wealthy investors who are also fans and who would be intrigued by investing a large amount of money � but not $200 million � to be part of ownership. Those in the pool of possible investors rounded up by the Mets� adviser, Allen & Company, can buy a full unit or a partial one in conjunction with several other people. �My sense is the Wilpons, who used stakes and options to get control of the team, would prefer to have a lot of small partners than one big one,� Boland said. Several sports business experts said that it would be prudent for Allen & Company to wait until all 10 units are accounted for before selling them so as to avoid any negative implications that they can�t raise all the money they need. Marc Ganis, president of SportsCorp, a Chicago-based consulting firm, said he doubted Major League Baseball would even approve a piecemeal approach. �In order to assure the Mets have sufficient liquidity to address their financial problems fully and avoid having another cash-flow problem next year,� Ganis said, �it�s unlikely M.L.B. will allow a sale of interests unless the minimum needed, which they�ve said is $200 million, is brought in.� Boland and Ganis added that concern about the management of the team, which has presided over an estimated $120 million in losses the past two seasons, might be causing some potential investors to balk at committing their own millions. Still looming for Wilpon and Saul Katz, the Mets� co-owner, is a lawsuit filed by the trustee for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff�s Ponzi scheme. The trustee is seeking $83 million to $386 million from the Mets� owners � well below the $1 billion the trustee originally sued for. Meanwhile, the Mets are offering incentives to make potential investors comfortable. For one thing, the investors will not be asked to kick in any extra money for six years in the form of capital calls, the Sports Business Journal first reported. Second, investors have an option to get their money back in five years, with 3 percent interest compounded annually.

G-Fafif wrote: Bonus points for the first Mets bobblehead that looks remotely like its subject. I know you're talking about the 50thAnn. bobbles, but I nominate the Bob Murphy half of the Kiner/Murph bobble for these bonus points. I believe that Murph already won the damn bonus points.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: HahnSolo wrote: Good thinking about Carter. If not Piazza, then who for the 90s? Alfonzo, Franco, Leiter? They could do Piazza 90's/Jackie Robinson 00's. They probably wanna do that. Even odds on whether the unis say Mets or Dodgers.

HahnSolo wrote: Good thinking about Carter. If not Piazza, then who for the 90s? Alfonzo, Franco, Leiter? They could do Piazza 90's/Jackie Robinson 00's. They probably wanna do that.

If it was up to me, I'd go: 60's - Throneberry 70's - Theodore 80's - Keith 90's - AY 00's - Madoff -- who might yet turn out to be the biggest hero in Mets history.

HahnSolo wrote: Good thinking about Carter. If not Piazza, then who for the 90s? Alfonzo, Franco, Leiter? I dunno. Piazza/Wright is a stronger combination than Piazza/any '90s Met. I guess that the three Mets you mentioned (Alfonzo, Leiter, Franco) are the likeliest of the 90's Mets to be given a historical bobble. Maybe Hundley. Personally, I'd like to see an Olerud bobble. Or an Anthony Young. But that's me.

I'd guess Piazza for the 00's. Wright isn't exactly historical. But he could be by the time the 00's bobble is made available. Tough decision for the '80's. I'd ordinarily go with Mex, but this year, I'd guess Kid.

Is interest in Reyes cooling down? Competition for free agent Jose Reyes narrows as general managers say no way Excerpt: M ILWAUKEE - Amid a Fox Sports report that the money-waving Miami Marlins were already out there with a six-year, $90 million offer for Jose Reyes, there were some initially projected suitors for the Mets free agent shortstop at the GM meetings Tuesday saying they had other priorities. For those keeping score, count the Giants, Angels, Brewers and Nationals all out. Giants GM Brian Sabean�s priority is to lock up his two-time Cy Young Award-winning ace, Tim Lincecum, to a long-term deal. He also looking for a power outfield bat to replace Carlos Beltran, whom he deems too expensive. Angels rookie GM Jerry DiPoto, when asked if his deep-pocketed team might be shopping in the high-end free-agent market for a Reyes, Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder said: �I don't see it right now. I�m looking to create more (payroll) balance and not lock up a good deal of capital by chasing the biggest fish.� Brewers GM Doug Melvin, when asked if the rumors about Milwaukee being active Reyes chasers had any validity, shook his head. �As I�ve been saying, I know all the players out there,� he said, �but what I don�t know are the numbers.� And Nationals GM Mike Rizzo said he was happy with his shortstop incumbent, Ian Desmond, and sees him improving defensively. Assuming all these GMs are not just playing it coy, it could well be that the Mets� only competition for Reyes will be the Marlins. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/competition-free-agent-jose-reyes-narrows-general-managers-article-1.978216#ixzz1dqYl27GO

Boy oh boy is that a recently haunted number. As if Frenchy the ********** isn't bad enough, I was reminded of the SmallBalls jackass.

Vic Sage wrote: MFS62 wrote: Holy Gears and Sprockets, Batman! Have we all mised this? While the baseball world has for years been trying to come up with a fair measure for "clutch", it appears m.e.t.b.o.t has come up with a way to quantify the "anti-clutch". I can see it all now. Instead of just saying a player is a "gagging motherfucker", we will now be able to say how the player ranks on m.e.t.b.o.t's scale of suckitude. Get an oil change and a lube, you mechanical marvel, and send the bill to SABR. You've earned it. Later i think you misunderstand the SABRmetric understanding of "clutchiness". It is not a matter of debate that, in retrospect, a given player may have hit better than his standard production in variously defined "clutch" situations. The problem is, this analysis is (1) dependent on the definitions of clutch situations, and (2) retrospective. "Clutch" is a way of characterizing past performance, not a projection of future performance. That there is little consistency from season to season of a particular player's production in "clutch" situations is indicative of the influence of sample size and luck, i.e., randomness, in their production. In other words, with few exceptions, "clutch" is not a character trait (that would therefore be predictable and repeatable) but randomness (therefore irrelevant to future performance). Clutch hits exist. Clutch hitters don't.

Ceetar wrote: I'd imagine the Mets (But not necessarily Alderson) would prefer more years and less money. It only makes sense. To the owners, it does. What buyer wouldn't want to pay less for more? But try getting Reyes to take less money for more years.

Why should Reyes have his RankSquared multiplied by 77(wins)? He was on the DL for a good number of those wins. Same for David Wright. And Ike Davis. Especially Ike Davis.

seawolf17 wrote: I don't think 4/70 gets him. They'll have to top $90M, regardless of years. He's not leaving money on the table. I agree. I threw out "4/70" only to show that I finally got what JCL was talking about with the less years. But the more I look at 4/70 (which again, is a totally hypothetical offer), the more competitive I think it is. For Reyes to accept a 4/70 deal, Reyes would be gambling that he could average at least more than $10M five and six years out from now. Put that way, 4/70 wouldn't be such an unreasonable offer, though there would be some risk involved, should Reyes accept it. 4/72 or 4/75 would be even more competitive, but at those numbers, the Mets are probably better off matching the 6/90. Anyways, assuming the 6/90 is accurate, it's only the opening offer. Those numbers should move up some during the process.

No numbers on the front? (NTTAWTT)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: No I was just relaying what Tracky was telling me this morning in the Snooze about the Mets preferring not to exceed 4 years for Reyes. I see. More money per season/less seasons. So something like 4/70, perhaps.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Mets would prolly prefer more $$, fewer years. I don't get it. You mean like Mets: We'll pay you more than $90M. But you can leave before the sixth season?