batmagadanleadoff

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Mr. Hu sucks worse than a lamprey wearing vacuum-cleaner backpack, yes? I know that you really Dennis Millered that one, and I don't even know what a lamprey is.

And here's what I'm sure will be an unpopular opinion but I'm going to say it anyway (because 'controversy' is my middle name): Where does Jason Bay get off going on 4 days of Paternity Leave? Fucker's only been with the team for 10 days. He missed a million games last year and sucked in the one's he didn't. I would think he'd want to prove his worth / make up for lost time / earn his salary. It's not like it's his first kid and the wife needs him there to help out with the other two. This is his third kid, you want to be there for the birth - fine, but speaking from experience it's a lot less wonderment and a lot more disgusting smells. Whatever, to each his own. And whichever side you're on, it doesn't take an entire three game series (plus - ahem - an off day on Monday) to pop out a kid. Consider this: What would you think of Bay's paternity leave if it occurred during the last two weeks of the season and the Mets were in contention?

bmfc1 wrote: Since the President is in town, maybe he'll stop by CF for the last few innings. Have mercy. How many tragic sites can a fella visit in one afternoon?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Forgot about Cairo. You're right. Still, Manuel elevated it to dada-esque heights, didn't he? If you believe that AndyHandy and Argenis and Alex Cora should never ever have batted higher than 7th, then yes, Jerry did. And for singular moments of what the fuck is up with that lineup, Catalanotto in the four-hole is tough to trump. Wasn't that an extension on the second baseman bats second theme?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I know, but Jerry's the second-baseman-bats-second/first-baseman-bats-cleanup guy, whereas Willie would have Ike batting 7th or 8th, until he "earns" his way northward on the lineup card. Willie did the second baseman bats second thing, too (Matsui/Cairo). And Ike, ideally, shouldn't be batting sixth.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: If he's free to play his game, the crowd will want to hold on to their hats. Because he will make more wind than an electric fan at a chili cookoff. Great lineup, White Jerry. White Willie alliterates so much better.

soupcan wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Maybe we spoke too soon. What if there were unusual circumstances surrounding his newborn's birth? If that's the case all bets are off and I am totally on board with his missing as many games as necessary. ....but I haven't heard anything along those lines at all. Me neither. I'm just sayin'.....

Nice cards, as usual. You can correct Topps error in naming Gaby Sanchez the 2010 first baseman on their All-Rookie Team by putting the trophy where it belongs: on Ike's card.

soupcan wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Because the Mets wouldn't want to impose on the guy they paid 66 million dollars to play baseball. Maybe they could compromise and allow leave Bay to leave the game early -- say 9pm-ish. He could watch Letterman live. I'm starting to think that perhaps my position on Bay may in fact not be unpopular. Maybe we spoke too soon. What if there were unusual circumstances surrounding his newborn's birth?

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: I hate it when I care more about the Mets than the Mets do. I don't believe the Mets can/could possibly deny Bay his leave. It's an MLB thing. Yes, Ceetar I get that. I'm sure Bay's not being held prisoner in his home however. He's not sitting at home twiddling his thumbs either. Even if he were to 'pop over for the game' and ignore BP and all that, he'd still have to leave by like 5 and not get home until well after 11, if not longer. Because the Mets wouldn't want to impose on the guy they paid 66 million dollars to play baseball. Maybe they could compromise and allow leave Bay to leave the game early -- say 9pm-ish. He could watch Letterman live.

DATEMETS GAMES PLAYEDGAMES K-ROD FINISHEDON PACE TO FINISH...*4/1/111004/3/113004/6/1151324/8/1171234/14/11133374/17/11164404/24/1122 (9-13)6444/26/1123 (10-13)7494/27/1124 (11-13)8545/1/1128 (12-16)8465/3/1129 (12-17)845 I'm flip-flopping: I now root for K-Rod's option to vest. Because more Mets liabilities will make it harder for the Wilpons to retain majority ownership of the franchise. I've got priorities. *Remainders are always lopped off and never rounded up to the nearest whole number.

metirish wrote: that Wilpon statement illustrates the kind of work environment Booby was in...... As Doubleday's role as owner diminshed, I'd say that working conditions for Mets GM's and field managers under Wilpon were as treacherous as those in the House of Borgia. Wilpon appears not to trust his own employees, and thus creates indirect lines of authority where almost anyone in the organization can leapfrog his or her direct superiors. The system is ripe for backstabbing. Whether or not this is correct, I can't say for sure, but the results are very consistent with the conditions I described.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm going to go out on the limb and predict that Ike's road HR totals will be among the league's best. It's too bad about those CF dimensions. I'll wager $10 to the charity of your choice that Ike Davis does not finish in the top 10 in NL road home runs in 2011. OK. You're on. Are we talking about rates or raw #'s (as if it's gonna matter)? I forgot all about this nutty wager. The NL East is probably the toughest division to hit HR's in -- stadium wise. Still, in Ike, we might be witnessing the emergence of a real star.

smg58 wrote: The simple fact that K-Rod's contract gives him a financial motivation to throw gopher balls in tie games on the road should give the league sufficient justification to outlaw that kind of incentive as well. But that's not going to happen retroactively. If the validity of K-Rod's bonus clause ever becomes the subject of a grievance, the arbitrator hearing that case would have the authority to render a ruling that has retroactive effect. In other words, the arbitrator could, if he or she sees fit, declare the clause unenforceable. This wouldn't be unusual. In fact, even in the world of MLB, the most well-known ruling -- Peter Seitz's decision to interpret the reserve clause narrowly --consistent with the MLBPA's interpretation of the clause -- had retroactive effect. The owners rights over their players were instantly diminished after Seitz's ruling and not one single reserve clause was ever grandfathered in. I agree, though, that the league, by itself, couldn't void that clause retroactively -- not without the MLBPA's acquiescence, an unlikely scenario.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Interesting idea, BML. Precedent-breaking aside... would it matter that the Mets had proposed the "illegal" contract clauses originally? My hunch is that it wouldn't matter whether K-Rod or the Mets suggested the clause. If K-Rod signed the contract (which he did) then he agreed to the terms. K-Rod agreed to the terms just as much as the Mets did, and that's what matters. By the way, I also believe that those "milestone clauses" in A-Rod's contract should be voided. To illustrate: David Wright entered this season with 169 lifetime HR's as a Met, 23 HR's behind Hojo's 3rd place Met mark of 192 HR's. Wright must hit 24 HR's to pass Hojo in 2011. If a bonus clause in Wright's 2011 contract that vests if Wright hits 24 HR's is impermissible, the parties shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that prohibition by rephrasing the vesting condition as "passing Hojo's mark" instead of "hitting 24 HR's" -- no matter how that bonus is phrased, incentives would still exist for Wright to swing for the fences even when he shouldn't.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Seaver's controversial 1976 contract was loaded with performance boosters that resided on the very edge of legality. I do believe Seaver in an interview (where did I see this? I can't remember) said it was based on wins. Am I remembering this right? Perhaps the prohibition against stat based bonuses didn't exist in the mid-70's. I remember that Kingman's first contract with the Cubs included a bonus for breaking the franchise RBI record.

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: As we saw from last night's game, a road pitcher in the 9th inning of a tie game with a vesting option based on games finished -- like K-Rod-- might be inclined to blow the game intentionally in order to ensure another finish for himself, especially where that pitcher would likely be removed from the game once it goes into extra innings. Whether K-Rod himself would actually blow a game intentionally under those circumstances is irrelevant. The mere possibility that a player could do that should be enough to void performance bonus clauses based on games finished, for the same reason that most other stats can't be used to trigger bonuses. Yeah, I kinda think these clauses, all around baseball, are skirting the line of this rule. I'd prefer none of them be allowed, including games played/started. Who's to say pitchers can't lie about injury/fatigue and start the game? Good point.

Too bad you can't make the background bright red for any row in your table where the projected number is at 55 or above. It's not my table. I just post here. Feel free to contribute as you see fit. But I was thinking along the same lines. I never considered the background color, or even knew that the background color couldn't be adjusted. But I thought about making K-Rod's "on-pace" numbers black when over 54 and red when under 55. DATEMETS GAMES PLAYEDGAMES K-ROD FINISHEDON PACE TO FINISH...*4/1/111004/3/113004/6/1151324/8/1171234/14/11133374/17/11164404/24/1122 (9-13)6444/26/1123 (10-13)7494/27/1124 (11-13)8545/1/1128 (12-16)846 In the not-embarrassed-to-admit thread, I learned that in a MLB contract, performance bonuses cannot be based on statistics. I did a little bit of research, and was able to trace this to Major League Rule 3((5), which states: "No Major League Uniform Player's Contract or Minor League Uniform Player Contract shall be approved if it contains a bonus for playing, pitching or batting skill or if it provides for the payment of a bonus contingent on the standing of the signing Club at the end of the championship season." As was correctly pointed out by a few posters, an athlete might play selfishly, to the detriment of his team, in the self-centered pursuit of his performance goals. Hence the rule. Thus, for example, a player with a performance bonus based on the number of doubles he hits in a season might purposely play a triple into a two-base hit. The rule has developed to allow bonuses based on games played, innings pitched, and apparently games finished, presumably on the theory that a player cannot purposely compromise his team's ability to compete in the pursuit of those particular statistics. I say "presumably", because I was unable to find the specific language that created any of those exceptions. In light of all of this, if K-Rod finished more than 54 games this season, I would recommend that the Mets file a grievance on the theory that K-Rod's vesting option violates MLB Rule 3((5) and is therefore unenforceable. Or file the grievance right now instead of waiting to see how many games K-Rod might finish. As we saw from last night's game, a road pitcher in the 9th inning of a tie game with a vesting option based on games finished -- like K-Rod-- might be inclined to blow the game intentionally in order to ensure another finish for himself, especially where that pitcher would likely be removed from the game once it goes into extra innings. Whether K-Rod himself would actually blow a game intentionally under those circumstances is irrelevant. The mere possibility that a player could do that should be enough to void performance bonus clauses based on games finished, for the same reason that most other stats can't be used to trigger bonuses. *Remainders are always lopped off and never rounded up to the nearest whole number.

Frayed Knot wrote: Why can't options be based on statistcs? If not stats, then what? Because of the idea that a player would then play strictly for his stats and not for the team; ex: trying to hit HRs in situations that didn't call for it only because he's got a contract bonus that'll pay him if he does. Well then there's something that I'm not embarrassed to admit I didn't know. But I thought that so long as the contract guaranteed the minimum amount that the player was entitled to, per the CBA, than any additional amounts could be based on options, which in turn could be based on stats. If the team is worried that the option might induce the player to play selfishly to the team's detriment, then the team doesn't have to offer the particular option. I'll look this one up later on. Not that I doubt you, but just to read the controlling language.

This thread is a revelation because I thought that everybody here knew everything about everything. Why can't options be based on statistcs? If not stats, then what?

DATEMETS GAMES PLAYEDGAMES K-ROD FINISHEDON PACE TO FINISH...*4/1/111004/3/113004/6/1151324/8/1171234/14/11133374/17/11164404/24/1122 (9-13)6444/26/1123 (10-13)7494/27/1124 (11-13)854 ... on target, just about. *Remainders are always lopped off and never rounded up to the nearest whole number.

smg58 wrote: Somebody needs to explain to me how the Marlins are playing so well with Hanley in a rut, Infante not holding up his end of the Uggla deal, and an assortment of third basemen who belong in AA. Because Josh Johnson is pitching like the prime of Sandy Koufax and as any Mets fan of a certain age knows, when your ace is as dominant as Johnson is right now, you can contend, even if your offense is average.

metirish wrote: Can some financial wiz here clue me in as the machinations of owing Bret Saberhagen $250,000 annually through 2029? This seems to be chump change -- one brushstroke in the big picture. Among the Mets major financial problems are that they're projecting $70M losses for 2011 and that they owe MLB $25M. So even if they [crossout]sucker[/crossout] find a buyer that'll give 'em $200M for a non-controlling interest in the team, half of that $200M is already gone. That leaves $100M to cover debt service on the almost half a billion dollars in Mets over-leveraged loans and the $300M in alleged fictitious profits that Sterling is virtually sure to lose. The Picard lawsuit is all about how much over and above $300M will Sterling and the Mets ultimately owe. By the way, those projected losses for 2011 were made by people with access to the Mets' books -- either the Mets themselves, potential investors or bankers and lawyers in on the Mets' financial dealings.

DATEMETS GAMES PLAYEDGAMES K-ROD FINISHEDON PACE TO FINISH...*4/1/111004/3/113004/6/1151324/8/1171234/14/11133374/17/11164404/24/1122 (9-13)6444/26/1123 (10-13)749 Misallocated Resources? Once again, Izzy is asked to do the heavy lifting: he comes on in the eighth to face the heart of the opponent's order with the Mets up by two. K-Rod - presumably, the Mets best reliever - then closes out tonight's Mets win by holding the Nats 7-8-9-1 hitters to less than two runs (zero runs, to be exact). K-Rod saves the game. Hooray. K-Rod saves the game. Hooray. *Remainders are always lopped off and never rounded up to the nearest whole number.

Gwreck wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think Delgado must've really hated Willie. I wonder if that was an acquired hatred or if it played into Delgado's rebuffing the Mets' contract offer in the '04-'05 offseason. Randolph's strategy of reducing the #2 slot in the lineup to designated bunter and out-maker probably undermined Delgado's production more than any other Met.