batmagadanleadoff

Ah, unfortunately the breakfast scones will be replaced by breakfast muffins. Additionally, meeting cantaloupe will unfortunately be eliminated. You're asked to bring in your own fruit, ah, perhaps even something handheld. Maybe that's an apple, ah for some that might be a banana. Alright, let's just keep it rollin, rollin, rollin. Page 79, um, unfortunately I'm called upon to review the dry erase board rules.

Fman99 wrote: Fuck. This article was the first thing that made me really believe in my heart that Jose Reyes would not be back in 2012. Dude, the Mets are preparing you for a 2012 payroll that might now all of a sudden be as low as $90M, not $100M or $110M. $90M. Because (according to them) they'll need the wiggle room to make (big giggle) mid season pennant chase moves. That's $90M ... and about 60% of the $90M will go to three guys (Santana, Bay and Wright) -- two of which might reasonably suck big time next year. They also will forego on Reyes because, among other reasons, they now admit that they don't see themselves contending in 2012 even though they need to get down to $90M to contend better. Because to contend, they need to jettison perhaps baseball's best shortstop, who's still only 28 years old. The team speaks from three or four sides of its mouth. They're fucking broke is what it is and any other explanation from them, though understandable, is still insulting.

"Dad, why can't we say that it was Omar, disguised as you, that made all those controversial statements to Toobin? "And if Omar doesn't go along with my plan, we'll fire him". Dad ... instead of selling 10 two percent shares for $20 million each, we could offer 200 two percent shares at just two million dollars each. We simply increase the supply and demand by a couple of octaves. As the Mets shed low-level employees, the Wilpons cast about for high-level help By Howard Megdal 1:18 pm Nov. 8, 2011 Ever since the collapse of a deal between Mets owner Fred Wilpon and Greenlight Capital's David Einhorn back in September, it's been clear that there would be negative financial consequences for the team's ownership group. It just wasn't clear what those consequences were going to be. After all, Einhorn's pact�which called for the hedge-fund manager to pay $200 million to receive a 33 percent stake in the team, with the right to increase that stake to majority ownership in five years for a token amount�was mostly about providing a means for Mets ownership to pay off short-term debts, such as a loan from Major League Baseball and the team's estimated $70 million in 2011 losses. But a pair of news items from late last week detailed exactly how rocky the short term will be for the New York Mets without David Einhorn's money. Late Friday afternoon, it was reported that the Mets were laying off approximately 10 percent of their staff. And the New York Post's Josh Kosman laid out the terms for minority-ownership stakes being offered by the team in hopes of attracting a replacement for Einhorn's investment. The first piece of news provides anecdotal insight into why retaining star player Jose Reyes this off-season will be so difficult for the Mets�a team cutting approximately 15 low-paying jobs would seem unlikely to turn around and invest $20 million per season in a shortstop. But it is the second piece of news that provides a fuller picture of just what a tough winter the ownership group of the New York Mets may be in for. The team is trying to sell minority shares of the team based upon a valuation of $950 million. While that may be high (Forbes had the team at $747 million as of April 2011, and the intervening events since certainly haven't increased that value), let's suppose for a moment that the figure is legit. It would mean that an investment of $20 million would be worth a little more than a two percent share in the team, while $30 million would get a minority owner a little more than three percent. While shares in a team that lost $50 million in 2010 and $70 million in 2011 (and which can expect a further drop in revenue next year if it doesn't have Jose Reyes to draw fans) may not seem like a great investment, the Mets are offering a sweetener that's the equivalent of a CD�three percent a year annually, now through 2017, paid back on top of the initial investment. The investor also has the option to keep the team stake, but forfeit the three percent annual interest. If the Mets, who have dropped in value from $912 million in April 2009 to $747 million in April 2011�a nearly 20 percent drop�continue to lose value, that minority stake would be worth significantly less over a six-year run with Wilpon ownership. The chances of receiving that three percent interest, on top of a return of principal, are not good. The buyer is required to believe that Wilpon and his partners will have money left over to pay interest in 2017, even though they still owe $430 million against the team, with the principal of that loan due in June 2014, and another $450 million against SNY, with the principal of that loan due in June 2015. A judgment or settlement with the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims Irving Picard, who is suing the Met owners for $386 million, (and potentially far more on appeal), would almost certainly also come in line ahead of any deal made with new minority owners now. Simply put, the Wilpon group's proposition calls to mind the one offered by Groucho Marx to the ambassador from Sylvania in Duck Soup: GROUCHO: Now, how about loaning this country 20 million dollars, you old skinflint? AMBASSADOR: 20 million dollars is a lot of money. I shall have to take it up with my minister of finance. GROUCHO: Well, in the meantime, could you let me have 12 dollars until payday? AMBASSADOR: 12 dollars? GROUCHO: Don't be scared, you'll get it back. I'll give you my personal note for 90 days. If it isn't paid by then, you can...keep the note. As much as the Mets' owners need someone to take them up on their offer, it's hard to see what anyone would, on anything like the terms they're talking about. While making payroll isn't currently a consideration, since it is the off-season, the Mets have a revenue-sharing payment due to Major League Baseball by the end of November of between $15-20 million, and owe around $26 million in their twice-annual debt payments on Citi Field to the city of New York on December 15. To date, MLB has been patient and forgiving of the Mets�a loan of $25 million due back at the end of the 2011 season hasn't been paid back yet, but Commissioner Bud Selig continues to support this ownership group publicly, if vaguely. But chances are the city of New York won't be as patient or forgiving, potentially triggering a rush from the other lenders to get what money they can now. Notice who the Kosman piece says Met ownership had to reassure about its minority owner plan�its other lenders. This head-just-above-water routine will continue for as long as the owners can keep it going. It was the decision to invest so much of their money with Bernie Madoff that put Wilpon and his partners in their current financial predicament; it may end up having been their decision to sabotage the Einhorn deal that drags them under. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/11/4062883/mets-shed-low-level-employees-wilpons-cast-about-high-level-help

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm beginning to wonder if Krane's record will ever be broken in my lifetime. It is becoming abundantly clear that Ed Kranepool pulls the strings of history. Pool deh streeng, Edd-dee. yNiVpnVcxiM

smg58 wrote: I'd argue that the prime of a player whose game revolves around speed is more likely to end at 30 than begin. Baseball players' overall peak (that's peak, not prime years) is at about 30; a tad earlier for triples; a tad later for walk rate, among other stats. Given this, it's not unreasonable for a player's prime years to be his early thirties: if his 31-32 years are closer in performance to his 30/peak than his 28-29 years, than his prime would be 30-32. Of course it'll be years before we can identify Reyes' peak or prime, or whether Reyes' next deal will have been worth it. I agree that Reyes might have already peaked, if that's what you're suggesting, not that I really know for sure.. All I'm saying is that I believe that some owner is going to lavish him with an amount of money that the Mets can't match. What I've been saying all along is that I believe that the Mets won't be able to retain Reyes even if they privately want to go all Mo Vaughn on him.

METS ALL-TIME HIT LEADERS Through 2011 Season 1. Ed Kranepool 1,418 2. JOSE REYES 1,300 3. DAVID WRIGHT 1,248 I hope there are more round numbers in Jose's future...of this kind, I mean. I'm beginning to wonder if Krane's record will ever be broken in my lifetime. excerpt: Mets willing to trade Wright: source Word continues to circulate in baseball circles that the Mets will be willing to discuss David Wright in trades this offseason as part of a complete facelift/rebuild away from Wright and Jose Reyes. �We will listen on Wright for sure,� a Mets official told me during the week. �We know we are not going to win it all in 2012. We have to hope the Phillies get old and we are in position to take advantage of that in 2013-14, and we have to figure out ways to speed the process to get there.� In other words, if the Mets could find the young, defensive-oriented center fielder they crave plus an arm or two in exchange for Wright, they will seriously consider it. The team the Mets are focusing upon the most is the Angels, who they know have had interest in Wright previously and, in Mike Trout and Peter Bourjos, have two young center fielders. The Angels will not move Trout, who made his major league debut at 19 last year and is seen as a five-tool cornerstone to their future. But Bourjos is a possibility. Two different talent evaluators told me they thought Bourjos was one of the three best defensive center fielders in the majors last year. Bourjos, who turns 25 in March, also hit .271 with 12 homers and 22 steals. If the Mets are able to get Bourjos and one or two arms from a group that includes Tyler Chatwood, Garrett Richards and John Hellweg, it could be enticing because there also would be a significant amount of saved money for 2012 � take your pick if that ends up in ownerships� pockets or reinvested in payroll. Dealing a popular established player such as Wright for relative unknowns would be a hard sell to an already embittered Mets fans base � especially if it coincides with losing Reyes this offseason, as well. However, officials who have worked with Mets general manager Sandy Alderson depict a leader unafraid to make unpopular decisions if he believes it will be in the long-term good of the team. It is clear that Alderson is trying to accumulate as much high-level, cost-certain talent as possible to build around as a way to gain both long-term financial flexibility and the ability to make trades from a storehouse of strength. * Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/source_mets_open_to_wright_deal_UJ6FhfhAW6PtCnXHrS3CXJ#ixzz1cwFbcozJ

Edgy DC wrote: Please do less. Moderate this. (Please).

I could do more.

Edgy DC wrote: And letting the market come to you, while terribly risky, is in no way analogous to setting your price ceiling at $5,000 at a Mercedes Benz dealership. Most obviously, the Mets haven't set a ceiling --- not one that he or I are privy to. Seriously, Sherman? I will guess that we will never officially learn the Mets top number for signing Reyes. This way, they can always claim, after they get blown out of the waters, that they had a competitive offer but chose not to sign Reyes. On Sherman ... well , yeah ... the Mets won't offer Reyes $5,000. Sherman's $5,000 was not literal, dont'cha think? $5,000.00 was simply a figure of speech, applied to something to which the figure is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance. You know, like a metaphor. I think that what Sherman is really saying is that the Mets can't afford Reyes but have too much pride to admit it, so they engage in, or will engage in these machinations to make it appear that they are in complete control of the situation.

Vic Sage wrote: Ceetar wrote: well, comparing him to say..Jose Reyes, he didn't. But he still pretty much played above average level for SS. yeah, no. he didn't. July = ops+ 62; August = 63, and that's over a combined 100 PAs for the 2 months, which is 1/2 of the PAs you get from the "average level for ss". in other words, he was mediocre when he played, but he didn't play much. Guys aren't great when they don't play. Except Capuano. Apparently, according to m.e.t.b.o.t., the less he pitches the more he helps the team. So if he's out for the season, he becomes the team MVP. But when Reyes showed up, from 2005-2008, he was an MVP candidate and the kind of guy you could build around. the guy who has otherwise played 120-140 games? Not so much. Even when he produces at a great rate, as he did this past season, his 2nd half coincided with their decline from .500 team to stinky cheese. Winning a batting title on your ass is all well and good, but you don't win a division that way. It's well established by now, as you'd probably agree, that when healthy, Reyes is a superstar MVP caliber player. I say well established because it's based, not only on his 2011 batting champ campaign, but on Reyes's last six seasons (06-11). And he's still 28. Of course, a rational person shouldn't discount the injury history but I'm guessing that when 31 potential bidders are in the mix, someone's gonna bust their budget for Reyes. Barring collusion, has their ever been an offf-season where at least one free agent didn't sign a contract that exceeded expectations?

The Mets insist they want to retain Jose Reyes, but at their reasonable price and, well, they really should stop saying that. It is akin to going into a Mercedes dealership, badly wanting a new model and telling a salesman you are willing to go as high as $5,000 to get one. Free agency has begun and, thus, the fantasy that Reyes will fit into some bargain slot for the Mets is over. Whatever his injury history -- and it is concerning -- Reyes is one of the three or four most attractive players on the market and is going to have multiple bidders for his services. That combination will assure his payday soars well above the Mets� budget. As a Mets official told me this week after the familiar mantra of we want him at our price, �I think he will be blown away by someone else.� Another Mets official said, �My instinct is no shot. Rest of article at http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/trickle_down_economics_G5wFhNifw09CEk4T1NzDSP#ixzz1ckZzar4T I'm posting this excerpt from Joel Sherman's piece mainly because it's perfectly consistent with what I believe. I think Reyes will get a huge contract offer, hammies notwithstanding. For two months last year, Reyes was baseball's best player. He's now the reigning batting champ, and baseball's most exciting player. He's a shortstop ferchrisakes. He's still only 28 and won't turn 29 until about the middle of next season. And if you believe that a baseball player's prime begins at 30, as many do, well then Reyes' prime won't begin until ... ah, do the math. I'm speculating that the Mets, privately, probably believe that they have no realistic chance at all of retaining Reyes.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: that list basically flips upside down for Zone Rating. which is part of the problem. And how's that? (Though I did notice that Jeter is tops in ZR. Explain that one) Well, that's just it. Is Jeter a top SS because of that zone factor? which means more? Jeter apparently fields all the balls in his defined zone. But he doesn't get a lot of Assists or Put Outs after fielding them? I don't watch every Yankees games, but this would seem to suggest to me that he fields a lot of balls but has no play? Or is it a factor of strikeout/flyball pitchers that he just doesn't have a lot to do? After all, RF in this case is simply A+PO/9. This seems like a lot to do with the pitcher. in fact, a lot of fielding statistics seem to have a lot to do with the pitching staff the guy playing behind. Before this discussion spins out of control, let's organize ourselves. So now we're discussing two items: one - reconciling RF and ZR; and two - what does argument #1 have to do with your idea that in 2011, Reyes was a top, GG caliber fielding shortstop? How does your criticism or skepticism of ZR and RF support your argument for Reyes, other than for you to simply dismiss the numbers altogether and tell us that to your eyes, Reyes was GG in 2011?

.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/stats3.shtml Based upon Baseball Almanac's definitions for Range factor and Zone Rating (Stats Inc.), I could explain how Jeter could score very high (highest actually) in ZR, yet score lowest in RF. Jeter, likely, is making an extremely high percentage of routine plays, but virtually no plays over and beyond the routine. I can't, however, explain how Tulowitzki, as one example, could score so high in RF yet so low relative to the other SS's in ZR. Tulo's numbers indicate that he is making a high number of extraordinary plays but has extreme difficulty with the ordinary play. This makes no sense to me. Anyone here got any other ideas?

Ceetar wrote: that list basically flips upside down for Zone Rating. which is part of the problem. And how's that? (Though I did notice that Jeter is tops in ZR. Explain that one: Contrived tiny zone designed especially for Jeter? So that he could lead the league in something?)

he gets to more balls than the average SS, especially this past year. Can you show that? Me, I can't show that. Of the major league shortstops who played enough to qualify for the 2011 batting title, Jose Reyes ranks quite average at 11th (out of 22) in range factor. But take a look see who was 2011's worst. By far. http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding/_/position/ss/order/true

metirish wrote: metirish wrote: I joined around opening day, 2008, and you definitely weren't here before me. With this user name you mean?, as a poster you have been around forever right? Forever's a long time. But no, I never used another handle here and never posted before 2008. my whole world just got turned upside down this is not you iramets/Bret Sabermetric...Salamander Q/dog c/Demeter Vs. Phoebus...Doc G/R Kivest viewtopic.php?f=7&t=307&start=100 Not me. So does this change your ... ummm.. perception of me?

GM Sandy Alderson says Mets plan to make low contract offer to free agent SS Jose Reyes http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/gm-sandy-alderson-mets-plan-contract-offer-free-agent-ss-jose-reyes-article-1.970263 My take on this is that the Mets don't expect to retain Reyes and are now clearly in face saving mode. To me, this business about not extending an offer to Reyes during their exclusive period or going out of their way to announce it whenever they can -- like every four seconds -- that if they do make an initial offer, it'll be on the lowball side, is to save themselves the embarrassment of being blown out of the water by competing offers that they won't be able to afford to match. This way, they'll say that they had more money to offer Reyes but decided not to because the market got out of control. "It's not that we can't afford Reyes, but that we choose other options", is what they'll likely say, more or less. The way I see it, if Reyes is still a Met next year, it'll be because he's a Met at heart, a Met all the way, and is willing to leave mucho bucks on the table to stay here.

metirish wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I joined around opening day, 2008, and you definitely weren't here before me. With this user name you mean?, as a poster you have been around forever right? Forever's a long time. But no, I never used another handle here and never posted before 2008.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Question for those of you who've joined in the last few years: How'd you find us? I think I found this place from one of the side links on JCL's MBTN site. I'm still not sure if I should thank Lunchie or hate him. You guys might hate Lunchie for that one, also.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Question for those of you who've joined in the last few years: How'd you find us? I think I found this place from one of the side links on JCL's MBTN site. I'm still not sure if I should thank Lunchie or hate him.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Slow growth rate. Or maybe no growth rate at all. I can name a few members who stopped posting over the last four seasons: Swan Swan, Zvon, now Willets. There's probably a few others I'm omitting.

Ceetar wrote: I've been here since 1969! I don't know why my profile says that, nor when I actually started. I did a brief search and couldn't seem to isolate what my first posts were. it was probably sometime 2007-2008. You started posting in 2009, I believe. I joined around opening day, 2008, and you definitely weren't here before me. Vince Coleman Firecracker came on board a few weeks or months after me. Me and VCF are the only regulars, or semi-regulars from the class of '08. You and Leiter started posting in '09. Lefty Specialist came on in '10, I believe. That's five regular or semi-regulars in the last four seasons. Slow growth rate.

G-Fafif wrote: Does extending the Mo's Zone inward negate the ersatz Tiger Stadium Pepsi Porch effect J. Wilpon so craved from his childhood summers in Michigan? I hope so. And it's gonna look Little Rascalish what with these piecemeal ramshackle extensions, changes and additions. This is what happens when you let some unqualified hack play Frank Lloyd Wright with his daddy's money. I'm just grateful that Fred Jr. merely summered in Detroit. Because otherwise we'd have what? An Al Kaline rotunda? And the two ugly scoreboards are too close to each other.

Even Ramon Castro would be able to rob a would be HR off of an eight foot high wall. (For comparison's sake, a basketball rim is 10 feet off the ground). I'm guessing that the depth or thickness of the new walls won't interfere with HR robbing plays. Those renderings are just that -- renderings not based on official measurements.