batmagadanleadoff

="Edgy DC":1p8llt2g]Who were the two former Yankees on the 1962 Mets?[/quote:1p8llt2g] You're practically there. You need to tweak your response a little bit. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 09:27 AM Who were the two former Yankee champions on the 1962 Mets? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 09:29 AM ="Edgy DC":2lhxrwrv]Who were the two former Yankee champions on the 1962 Mets?[/quote:2lhxrwrv] No. Now you're getting colder. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 09:30 AM ...who are dead at the present time? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 09:34 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":3qwophn8]...who are dead at the present time?[/quote:3qwophn8] No. TheOldMole Jan 28 2009 09:52 AM Who pinch-ran for Joe DiMaggio? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 09:53 AM ="TheOldMole":nba0wf13]Who pinch-ran for Joe DiMaggio?[/quote:nba0wf13] That might be a correct response. But I wouldn't know. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 09:58 AM ="TheOldMole":nclxk085]Who pinch-ran for Joe DiMaggio?[/quote:nclxk085] Is that euphemism for making it with Marilyn Monroe? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:18 PM ="Edgy DC":2jrfxict]Who were the two former Yankee champions on the 1962 Mets?[/quote:2jrfxict] An acceptable response would have been: "Name the only two players on the '62 Mets to have played for the Yankees prior to 1962". You were very close and obviously on the right track. But your response, as phrased, could also include Casey Stengel (mgr.), Red Ruffing (coach) and George Weiss (front-office). The answer was just Woodling & Throneberry. Actually, "prior to 1962" is superfluous (but still technically correct) because no 1962 Met ever played for the Yankees after leaving the Mets. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:25 PM I'd have accepted my answer. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:29 PM Well, I'm throwing one out there anyhow. The answer is: Jim Kern and Ron Guidry. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:39 PM ="Edgy DC":1by4pahk]Well, I'm throwing one out there anyhow. The answer is: Jim Kern and Ron Guidry.[/quote:1by4pahk] Who are the two pitchers Lee Mazzilli reached base against in the 1979 AS Game? Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:44 PM Well, the judges were looking for "Who are the pitchers who yielded Lee Mazzilli's game-tying homer and go-ahead walk, respectively, in the 1979 All Star Game?" but they've been instructed to be more generous. You. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:53 PM I accept the crown. Deservedly so.

Let's play Mets Jeopardy. Here's the answer: Gene Woodling and Marv Throneberry. What's the question? (Hint: Quoting LunchBucket's post just above this one, verbatim, is an unacceptable response.)

Those items are worth more money than Woodling himself ever made in baseball.

Here's another hint: He didn't spend the entire season on the Mets and the Mets surely did not pay his entire salary.

The answer is so unlikely, that I'd suspect that anyone who gets it right had to have looked. I guess that's a hint, sort of.

="Edgy DC":10ymb8yd]I don't think it should have been priority number one. The Mets were second in the league in runs scored and sixth in runs yielded. They lost two division races in two years in the final weeks as their bullpens underwent serial failure. Yeah, not everything that went right last year will go right this year. Not everything that went wrong (and plenty did, offensively) will go wrong, either.[/quote:10ymb8yd] I haven't posted a single message on the Mets off-season roster revamping yet, but my sentiments were always pretty much in line with Edgy's post. The Mets have an excellent team. Their best four players are arguably better than any other team's best four. I think that the team has corrected what was, to me, their two biggest problems --the bullpen and Willie Randolph. Like Edgy said, this is a team that wasn't eliminated until the last day of the last two seasons. Luck, rather than talent, may have been the team's worst enemy. Ideally, I'd like management to acquire an All-Star for every position -- to assemble a team that, on paper, would appear to be flawless. But this is also an unreasonable expectation. Flawless teams are special and thus, rare. I think that this team is good enough to get into the playoffs, as is. And once in the playoffs, anythng goes. Even the powerhouse practically flawless '86 Mets needed a whole lotta luck, maybe even another miracle to bring back that WS trophy. While the Phillies are a formidable opponent, they're no powerhouse, WS crown notwithstanding. Their slim cumulative two season edge over the Mets isn't enough to proclaim superiority. As I see it, the Mets and Phils are two closely matched opponents, virtually inidistinguishable, talent-wise. Having Adam Dunn would be nice, though. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 08:53 AM Yeah, it'd be very nice. smg58 Jan 28 2009 10:49 AM ="DocTee":2eejdf5c]The need for a bat was/is obvoius and should have been priority number one. The difference between, say, Dunn and Murphy/Tatis is far greater, I think, than that between Putz and, say, Brandon Lyon.[/quote:2eejdf5c] According to the Fielding Bible, Church's defense in RF was superior, Murphy's glove in left was above average (and far better than most people realize), and Dunn's glove was well below average no matter where he was put. I'm not sure Dunn would give the Mets anything with the bat that he wouldn't take away with the glove, especially in a more spacious park. The same applies to Abreu, and would have applied to Burrell, Ibanez, or Jermaine Dye. The one noteworthy free agent with a better than average glove for left field is Ty Wigginton. The Mets could use another righthanded bat, and Wigginton had the fifth highest OPS among all regulars against lefthanded pitching last year. He could platoon in left, or start there if he outperforms Murphy, without forcing a guy who hit .312 with an .876 OPS for us to the bench or AAA whether he's hitting well or not. He'd allow Tatis to spell Church or Delgado against some lefties, and otherwise solidify a bench that's presently very short on pop and righthanded balance. And he'd cover the Mets at a variety of positions in case of injury or somebody becoming ineffective. There's your bargain. Plus, I would argue that the difference between Orlando Hudson and Luis Castillo is greater than the difference between even Manny and Murphy/Tatis. Partly because of defense, but mainly because Murphy really isn't that bad and Castillo really is that bad. A Boy Named Seo Jan 28 2009 10:55 AM ="smg58":fkqnfrbx]="DocTee":fkqnfrbx]The need for a bat was/is obvoius and should have been priority number one. The difference between, say, Dunn and Murphy/Tatis is far greater, I think, than that between Putz and, say, Brandon Lyon.[/quote:fkqnfrbx] According to the Fielding Bible, Church's defense in RF was superior, Murphy's glove in left was above average (and far better than most people realize), and Dunn's glove was well below average no matter where he was put. I'm not sure Dunn would give the Mets anything with the bat that he wouldn't take away with the glove, especially in a more spacious park. The same applies to Abreu, and would have applied to Burrell, Ibanez, or Jermaine Dye. [/quote:fkqnfrbx] Really? That's a lot of giving away Dunn would have to do. Looking beyond '09, he really is a pretty good fit. He could play 1 year in LF and slide over to first next year and the Mets could get a better gloving, less strike outing, more right handy guy for '10 in LF. Especially if he could be had for Pat Burrell money or close to it. He just turned 29 fer cryin' out loud. metirish Jan 28 2009 10:58 AM Dunn would need to drop a whole lot of balls to take away from what he would give you on offense , I would take him over Abreu. metsguyinmichigan Jan 28 2009 11:02 AM Abreu is slower than a slug going uphill. Plus, he's got Yankee taint. Dunn, meanwhile, is not the best fielder, but he'd be playing next to a Gold Glover with a lot of range. If Citi is a hitter's park as they suspect, he'd set the team home run record. And he could spell Delgado at first. And Delgado isn't exactly Mex around the bag, either -- though not as bad as people say. I'd take a one-year pact with him in a heartbeat. Frayed Knot Jan 28 2009 11:08 AM Various articles today (Olney & Wash Post) say that both Abreu & Dunn may be willing (read: have no choice) to take one-year deals. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2009 11:09 AM I think Dunn is a longer shot than Sheets, Manny and any of the other names talked about. He's just, the complete opposite of an Omar guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 11:10 AM Hudson's the position player I'd most like to see them get. Add Hudson and Sheets and I'll be ready to get 2009 underway. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 11:13 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":q4dmjolh]I think Dunn is a longer shot than Sheets, Manny and any of the other names talked about. He's just, the complete opposite of an Omar guy.[/quote:q4dmjolh] I agree with you. But is it good or bad to be an "Omar guy"? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2009 11:15 AM Well, I'd hold out more hope for Orlando Hudson, f'rinstance. Ashie62 Jan 28 2009 11:20 AM Well..K Rod & Putz are in the house. I just hope Krod's arm is OK Omar seems to be happy with the OF. I would like to see a power hitting LF but Manny, Dunn, Abreu. Not gonna happen.. attgig Jan 28 2009 12:10 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2009 12:21 PM yeah, I don't understand how he likes the OF that much. they're saying Dunn for 1 year at 5 mil. How is that not a steal? I was never a huge fan of Dunn cuz of his SO rate, but 1 year 5 mil for 40hr, 100+rbi, >350obp... heck, sign him for 3 years for 15 mil at that price Omar, for some reason, loves church, and has this idea that after signing a bench full of guys at 2 mil per season, one of them will pan out in LF. I don't get it. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:21 PM I'm guessing Opposite of an Omar Guy = not particlurly athletic for a professional athlete; limited number of skills but impressive showing in the skills he has; sabermetrically appealing; American-born whitey; no history of employment at Omar's previous stops in Montreal or Texas, or his first tenure with the Mets; a satisfyingly known quantity, rather than droolingly full of not-yet-realized potential; has a galootey-nickname like "Big Donkey" instead of something exotic and xexy like "El Matador." Nymr83 Jan 28 2009 01:19 PM ]Omar, for some reason, loves church his solid production might have something to do with it. I'm all in favor of Dunn, he'd be replacing the left field platoon, not church. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 01:24 PM I thought it was the music, meaningful sermons, and the sense of belonging. attgig Jan 28 2009 01:28 PM ="Nymr83"]]Omar, for some reason, loves church his solid production might have something to do with it. I'm all in favor of Dunn, he'd be replacing the left field platoon, not church. decent BA/OBP, OPS ~ 800, ~15 hrs a year for a corner outfielder? that's solid production? his best year was 07, after which Omar bought him high, and while he was on track to be a good fill-in in RF this past year before he got hurt, by no means was he a starting RF'er in a championship caliber club. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 01:48 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2009 01:48 PM Sheesh, before getting hurt, he was .316 / .385 / .469 // .855 in April and .299 / .364 / .612 // .976 in May. Can't ask for much more from a guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 01:48 PM Well, he was very solid before his concussion. Whether he would have sustained it over a full season remains to be seen. And so does whether or not he'll ever be healthy again. Church is certainly a question mark. He could be really good in 2009, or he could be really mediocre. If it's the latter, the rest of the lineup probably isn't deep enough to cover for him. Nymr83 Jan 28 2009 02:19 PM ]decent BA/OBP, OPS ~ 800, ~15 hrs a year for a corner outfielder? that's solid production? Career OPS+ 111. Yes that is in fact solid production. ]his best year was 07, after which Omar bought him high 07 was the first time he got to play every day, but his 05 and 06 stats supported 07 as not being a any kind of fluke. ]and while he was on track to be a good fill-in in RF this past year before he got hurt, by no means was he a starting RF'er in a championship caliber club Ryan Church (29) has a career 111 OPS+ and his in his prime, thus you can expect around that number out of him. the last 10 champions and their "championship caliber RFer" (with age and OPS+ for the year they won) 2008 PHI (Werth 29 121) 2007 BOS (Drew 31 105) 2006 STL (Encarnacion 30 93) 2005 CHW (Dye 31 118) 2004 BOS (Kapler 28 77) 2003 FLA (Encarnacion 27 97) 2002 ANH (Salmon 33 133) 2001 ARZ (Sanders 33 117) 2000 NYY (O'Neil 37 92) 1999 NYY (O'Neil 36 97) conclusion: a concussion-free Ryan Church is as good or better than "championship caliber" rightfielders. Ashie62 Jan 28 2009 02:44 PM conclusion: a concussion-free Ryan Church is as good or better than "championship caliber" rightfielders. You have to be kidding..Church concussion or not has not come remotely closed to any of the referenced numbers You say a concussion free Church IS as good or better...That can't be backed up now. He MAY be as good or better. Personally I doubt. but even just staying healthy is probably good enough. Yeah Adam Dunn strikes out too much, plays bad D..however.he is a legitimate power threat, comes cheap, and allows Murphy to season up at OF & 2B. We still have no real read on what Church can do. I have been impressed so far but you can't bank on it... smg58 Jan 28 2009 05:18 PM My one real concern about Church is his ability to hit lefthanders. Right now the team has nobody to spell either him or Delgado against a lefty, and if Tatis is starting the only righty on the bench will be the backup catcher. (I suppose Nick Evans has a chance of beating out all the lefty outfielders Minaya has brought in, but I'd much rather see him get full-time AB's at first base in AAA than warm the bench for the Mets.) I would consider another righthanded bat to be an imperative. Otherwise, like nymr says an OPS+ between 110 and 120 for Church would be perfectly consistent with his numbers for the Nats and his pre-concussion numbers with us last year. That, combined with ++ defense, would make him an asset. I realize the concussion still makes him a question mark, but given the much higher probability of inadequacy we currently have at second base, I'd direct my resources there. MFS62 Jan 28 2009 05:53 PM ="Edgy DC":22p77pkg] has a galootey-nickname like "Big Donkey" instead of something exotic and sexy like "El Matador."[/quote:22p77pkg] (I corrected "xexy" for ya'.) IIRC the first Met to be nicknamed "Big donkey" was Frank Thomas. LAter Nymr83 Jan 28 2009 06:09 PM ]You have to be kidding..Church concussion or not has not come remotely closed to any of the referenced numbers you've proven that you can't read and compare simple 2 and 3 digit numbers. i'm done with you. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 06:27 PM Must be baseball argot for "big slow slugger." Tom Seaver welcomes Donn Clendenon to the Mets. TS: Donn, guess who the first guy I struck out in the big leagues was? DC: Who? TS: You, you big donkey! DC: Well, you didn't get a virgin. A lot of guys have gotten me. I've gotten a lot of guys also. MFS62 Jan 28 2009 06:50 PM LOL! Guess it must be. And, I can just hear Donn saying that. Later Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 06:58 AM Donn, though, was fast as the wind as a young player. He still ran pretty fast for a thumper by the time he reached the Mets. Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 07:38 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 29 2009 08:19 AM WARP Speed Captain! Just for kicks; the 'WARP' projections (Wins above Replacement Player) from BP for 2009 FA LFers: Manny = 4.3 Dunn = 3.8 Abreu = 3.2 And, yes, WARP does take defense into account as well as hitting. IOW, Manny's projected 2009 season (using BP's system) would add approx 4-1/2 wins to your team over and above what using a "replacement" player (a readily available waiver pick-up) would bring. Dunn would add about half a win less, Abreu another half-win less. They mention that Manny WARP projection is only [u:11e8s8cy]a bit more than half[/u:11e8s8cy] what he provided in 2008 (7.8) but the system takes into account that he's probably unlikely to repeat his stunning 2nd-half rampage and even more unlikely to avoid turning 37. Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 07:38 AM ="Edgy DC":3z4h1v4l]Donn, though, was fast as the wind as a young player. He still ran pretty fast for a thumper by the time he reached the Mets.[/quote:3z4h1v4l] So you're saying that you'd rather have Donn than Dunn? Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 07:56 AM Hard to vote against Donn, dead though he is, at the present time. Vic Sage Jan 29 2009 01:30 PM smg58: ]According to the Fielding Bible, Church's defense in RF was superior, Murphy's glove in left was above average (and far better than most people realize), and Dunn's glove was well below average no matter where he was put. I'm not sure Dunn would give the Mets anything with the bat that he wouldn't take away with the glove, especially in a more spacious park. The same applies to Abreu, and would have applied to Burrell, Ibanez, or Jermaine Dye. This kind of horsehockey makes my shorts steam. you're worried about corner of defense, when you've got a guy who averages 40hr/100+rbi/100+BB /year? Get Ollie & Dunn and be done! Nymr83 Jan 31 2009 11:56 PM come on Omar, slip it under the radar on superbowl sunday... Adam Dunn is a NYM. SteveJRogers Feb 01 2009 06:43 AM ="Nymr83":16qb9hum]come on Omar, slip it under the radar on superbowl sunday... Adam Dunn is a NYM.[/quote:16qb9hum] That will piss off the "We Want Manny" fanboys! Then again, they'll probably want Omar to act like the Yankees and say "Hey, why not get both!" Nymr83 Feb 01 2009 09:59 PM I'd rather have Dunn than Ramirez given their respective ages and attitudes. Dunn also has the added ability to play 1B, meaning that at the end of next season we can look to replace Delgado OR shift Dunn to 1B and find an outfielder. If we sign Manny we are locked in to replacing Delgado with a firstbaseman, and options are good to have. I admit that Ramirez's stats are more impressive and wouldn't fault anyone for preffering him. Number 6 Feb 01 2009 10:32 PM The biggest issue regarding Dunn would be the risk in a long-term deal (he's got a healthy dose of the dreaded "old-person skills"). None of the models available like his chances for maintaining his skill-set over the length of a 4-year contract. If he's available for 1 on the cheap though, somebody is getting a bargain. To me, this still all goes back to Perez. It seems like the Mets are not going to shoot their payroll far beyond $135 million, and if that's the case I'd much rather see them pick up Dunn and a pitcher, preferably Sheets on an incentive-laden "prove-it" contract, for a price possibly a few million more than what they'd pay for Perez. They'd do that without the risk inherent in doling out longer-term deals. If Sheets has a dynamite year - which he is clearly capable of provided he pitches - and meets his incentives, then you're quite possibly getting a positive return on investment anyway. I like Church a lot, but you just can't count on him to stay on the field. Right now, left field is stitched together with wishes and dreams. It's nice that we have 3 huge producers and 1 with potential, but that might not mean much if our offense is significantly below league-average in the other 4 lineup slots. Nymr83 Feb 02 2009 12:21 AM ="Number 6":2lro33xa]The biggest issue regarding Dunn would be the risk in a long-term deal (he's got a healthy dose of the dreaded "old-person skills"). None of the models available like his chances for maintaining his skill-set over the length of a 4-year contract. If he's available for 1 on the cheap though, somebody is getting a bargain. To me, this still all goes back to Perez. It seems like the Mets are not going to shoot their payroll far beyond $135 million, and if that's the case I'd much rather see them pick up Dunn and a pitcher, preferably Sheets on an incentive-laden "prove-it" contract, for a price possibly a few million more than what they'd pay for Perez. They'd do that without the risk inherent in doling out longer-term deals. If Sheets has a dynamite year - which he is clearly capable of provided he pitches - and meets his incentives, then you're quite possibly getting a positive return on investment anyway. I like Church a lot, but you just can't count on him to stay on the field. Right now, left field is stitched together with wishes and dreams. It's nice that we have 3 huge producers and 1 with potential, but that might not mean much if our offense is significantly below league-average in the other 4 lineup slots.[/quote:2lro33xa] "3 huge producers" is a bit optimistic as well. heres what i would consider a reasonable range of OPS+ numbers from our projected lineup, though of course you're free to disagree: SS Reyes (100-120) RF Church (100-135) 3B Wright (130-155) CF Beltran (120-140) 1B Delgado (100-140) LF Tatis/Murphy (90-120 from the LF spot combined) 2B Castillo (75-95) C Schneider/Castro (75-95 from the spot) obviously thats alot of range, but i think only 2 guys (Wright, Beltran) are capable of having a truly huge year, while 3 more (Delgado, Reyes, Church) are at least likely to be a positive force in the lineup. But you've got LF which is really a wild guess at this point, and C and 2B where you can pretty much expect a drag on the lineup. I realize that C is pretty much unaddressable at this point (look whose out there), but LF could be very easily addressed with players who would hit in the top 5 of any lineup (Ramirez, Dunn, Abreu) and 2B could at least be made into a great defensive strength with better offensive production than Castillo (Hudson) Number 6 Feb 02 2009 01:09 AM Yeah, the word "huge" was a bad choice, for several reasons. My fear is that we get significantly less from RF when we're playing back-ups due to injury, and I think we can reasonably expect less than the range you project for LF. Personally, I'd be surprised if the OPS+ we get from our LF platoon, as currently cast, approaches 100. Combine that with 2 other slots which I think you have pretty accurately down as offensive black holes, and it could get ugly. Yeah, it's a bad-case scenario, but I'd argue it's at least as likely as other probable outcomes. Even if we assume that Delgado, Wright, Reyes and Beltran are nearer to the upper bound of your ranges, can we expect that production to carry what could be some pretty hideous drag? Meanwhile, Dunn has averaged an OPS+ of 133 for the past 5 seasons. If it winds up being true that his price could come down to 1 year and $7 million or so, that's value, and it keeps us from needing to bank on the improbable. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 01:57 AM It would be nice to acquire Manny's next two seasons without having to pay for the two after that. But Manny and Dunn want long term deals. And if the price for either of those two drops low enough, then the Mets advantage in being one of baseball's wealthiest teams might be squandered, because at some point, even the Royals will put in a bid. Nymr83 Feb 02 2009 02:47 AM Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million (assuming they wanted to) then the Royals sure can't offer 2 years and 20 million either. Right now the Mets have an advantage because there are at least 3 reasonable hitting alternatives out there (Ramirez, Dunn, and Abreu) and it is very unlikely that all 3 of those players find a 3rd year somewhere, the Mets should be able to get one of them, even if its not their first choice, for 2 years. Theres also the pitchers that are still out there... Perez and Sheets are getting nothing right now from what i can tell of the rumor mill, its time the Mets made a "who can jump first" offer to the both of them. It really looks like the bargains are there to be had and now is the time to lock them in for a smart GM. A few teams will be patting themselves on the back next offseason when prices are higher and they've got these guys at cheaper rates for another year. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 07:09 AM And if all else fails ... Get Wiggy With It!!! batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 09:32 AM ="Nymr83":2s7x82mb]Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million...[/quote:2s7x82mb] This'll probably fall into that vast category of things I believe are true but can't prove, but if Manny can't get more than a two year $20M deal, I'd be very suspicious of a lot of other things besides the economy. And if a team's offering Manny $10M a year, then it can hardly be said that his price has dropped to $7M. metirish Feb 02 2009 09:37 AM Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:15 AM ="metirish":e0gp3ri2]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:e0gp3ri2] Probably. We were only "what iffing" on Manny's price. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 10:21 AM ="metirish":3ko8tdnw]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:3ko8tdnw] Yes, LA put that deal out there early on and is waiting for a counter-offer from Boras but hasn't heard anything. And word leaked out the other day that Manny supposedly let it slip via his buddy A. Pujols that he hasn't received an offer other than that one. The Giants showed some brief interest and continue to stick their nose in every once in a while but that now seems to be more in making sure the Dodgers don't get him cheaply than it is in snagging him for themselves. Presumably that same Dodger offer is still on the table although they might just reduce it themselves. Meanwhile Boras is still talking about wanting 4 years. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 08:35 PM From Jayson Stark - espn.com: A two-year, $45 million offer three months ago didn't get it done. So on Monday, the Los Angeles Dodgers made a new offer to Manny Ramirez -- for one year and $25 million, according to a major league source. Dodgers GM Ned Colletti confirmed to ESPN.com that he met with Ramirez's agent, Scott Boras, on Monday and presented the new offer in person. Colletti declined to confirm any details of the offer. But the offer was confirmed by another source with knowledge of the discussions. It's believed that Ramirez and Boras were given a 48-hour deadline to accept the offer. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2009 09:00 PM They stole my idea! metsguyinmichigan Feb 02 2009 09:35 PM That's more than the entire Marlins payroll. Number 6 Feb 02 2009 11:31 PM Of course, he could be referring to talks that happened a while ago, were not substantial, or are dead due to the Perez signing and/or Castillo, but Hudson is still name-dropping the Mets. http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200902023793126 Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 06:46 AM Manny/Boras turn down the Dodger proposal ... and the beat goes on. Benjamin Grimm Feb 03 2009 07:34 AM Report this morning that the White Sox have offered Abreu one year, $8 million. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM Take it, Bobby.

Olerud and Baerga were the two highest paid 1997 Mets. Who was third?

="G-Fafif"]But wait, I thought that was 1968: I think that 1969 was the U.S. release year of Curious (Blue and Yellow). http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/260 But where's the Fifth Dimension?

So what wine goes well with a rubbery hot dog that has the inside texture of fried Jello?

="Centerfield":11j9ihkf]Is a torn flexor tendon what knocked out Wagner? The article doesn't make it clear whether the Rangers are concerned because he had a torn flexor tendon, or whether they feel he still has a torn flexor tendon.[/quote:11j9ihkf] Flexor Shmexor. I'm worried that Johan Santana might've sustained some permanent and irreversible diminishment of his abilities as a result of the surgery to repair his torn left meniscus. I realize that his injury is considered minor but still, it's Johan's rear pitching leg. On the other hand, no one else seems to be making a big deal about the surgery. And Santana did pitch his best game of last season while injured. So maybe there's not much to this. Frayed Knot Jan 26 2009 10:58 AM ="Centerfield":11erg5gp]Is a torn flexor tendon what knocked out Wagner? The article doesn't make it clear whether the Rangers are concerned because he had a torn flexor tendon, or whether they feel he still has a torn flexor tendon.[/quote:11erg5gp] Wagner's was a ligament tear. That's what TJ surgery is needed to fix. Sheets' flexor tendon tear did not have surgery - probably meaning it isn't thought to be severe enough and he can still pitch with it while it heals or remains strong enough on its own. Maybe it can but that's a risk whoever signs him is going to need to consider. Edgy DC Jan 26 2009 11:17 AM He may want to pull an Astacio and do some showcase pitching in the Caribbean. smg58 Feb 05 2009 11:56 AM [url:2ctckaya]http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090205&content_id=3801488&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp[/url:2ctckaya] The poor guy just can't buy a break. Nymr83 Feb 05 2009 12:47 PM sounds like a good time to sign him for cheap and hope he can help out in the second half or even for 2010 seawolf17 Feb 05 2009 01:36 PM ="Nymr83":3bzpskk2]sounds like a good time to sign him for cheap and hope he can help out in the second half or even for 2010[/quote:3bzpskk2] Bingo! Two-year, backloaded deal. Didn't the Yankees do that with Jon Lieber? Frayed Knot Feb 05 2009 02:38 PM Re: Leiber; yes, but I think it was post-surgery and not pre. Plus you don't want to do this at a time when it'll cost you a draft pick. So maybe after the cut-n-slice sounds like it worked and after the draft is done in June and you're off the hook for compensation it may be time to look into a rehab signing. Nymr83 Feb 05 2009 02:40 PM its strange that Sheets, if he knew he might need surgery, didn't accept arbitration from the Brewers. attgig Feb 05 2009 03:03 PM perhaps he had differing opinion vs the rangers doctors. him/his doctors didn't think he needed surgery, but the rangers docs did. and once ONE team's docs blackball you, it's gonna be impossible to get anything from any other team. Ashie62 Feb 05 2009 03:50 PM Sheets out 4-6 months for partially torn flexor tendon That answers that DocTee Feb 05 2009 04:20 PM Tough break. You know who I'd like to see the Mets take a flyer on: Mark Mulder. Centerfield Feb 06 2009 08:00 AM ="Ashie62":k5uv0414]Sheets out 4-6 months for partially torn flexor tendon That answers that[/quote:k5uv0414] That makes no sense. If that was the prognosis, why not have the surgery back in October? John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Centerfield":125azak8]="Ashie62":125azak8]Sheets out 4-6 months for partially torn flexor tendon That answers that[/quote:125azak8] That makes no sense. If that was the prognosis, why not have the surgery back in October?[/quote:125azak8] Apparently the injury was revealed as part of a physical examination the Rangers required as a condition of a 2-year contract offer, now revoked. There is a question as to whether the Brewers will pay the doctor bills, paper sez. Nymr83 Feb 06 2009 08:38 AM thats going to be a question for the collective bargaining agreement, his last contract, and/or worker's comp laws. this is probably a good opportunity for the brewers to sign him for 2 years backloaded for cheap, maybe with a semi-expensive option for 2011 that kicks in with 200 innings in 2010. they'll probably be paying for his rehab anyway so they might as well be able to direct it and benefit from it

Luis Alvarado and Cheech

I used to conflate Neil Allen and Tim Leary. I'm so over that, now.

Mrs. Jerry Manuel (on the left):

Duaner Sanchez's wife is holding the baby.

Mrs. Crucifix is Damion Easley's wife. Some of the women pictured are not Mets wives.

How come microphone at her mouth wife also has a vaginal microphone?

Here's a gaggle of Met wives. Or a google of Met wives. Name 'em.

Another "classic" tonight on SNY from the Wee Willie years -- the 2006 Mets come back from a 4-0 1st inning deficit to defeat Randy Johnson and the MFY's. You knew the Mets were in it as soon as the MFY's plated their fourth run of the first inning. This effectively took away Willie's cherished though moronic let's sac bunt in the first inning strategy and forced Lo Duca to hit away after Reyes led off the home first with a walk. Lo Duca singled and came around to score on Beltran's homer. I always rooted for a big first inning from Met opponents during the Randolph era.

="Frayed Knot":2ivynf2i]="batmagadanleadoff":2ivynf2i]I'm exaggerating a little just to make a point here, but watching these Mets Classics reruns, you'd think that the Mets history consists of once beating the Yankees on a Matt Franco pinch hit, a hiatus, and then coming into full-time existence during --ugh!-- the Willie Randolph era.[/quote:2ivynf2i] It's not that the Willie Randolph era fascinates them so much it's that running games they already own the rights to is so much easier ... and profitable.[/quote:2ivynf2i] I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the team owns the audio and video rights to every single Met game ever played, no matter how it was broadcast. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 02:35 PM I noticed that when Mets Weekly did wrapup stuff in '06 for best games of the year they didn't use anything that aired on Fox or ESPN; for example, the eleven-run inning game against the Cubs, which was a Sunday nighter, went unmentioned. Later, there was a show (under the UltiMET umbrella) devoted to great home runs of 2006 and they entirely skipped the three-HR inning at Wrigley with the two grand slams -- ESPN. Must be a rights fee issue, though you'd figure it's all part of the same consortium. metirish Jan 22 2009 02:36 PM Wasn't there an issue a few years ago regarding SNY and WPIX , something about SNY trying to buy the WPIX Mets games or a question about ownership. Edgy DC Jan 22 2009 02:38 PM ="metirish":23uzvoxc]Video constraints here at work mean that I can't partake in the Seaver crotch viewing , describe please what I am missing?[/quote:23uzvoxc] It's real, and it's spectacular. Frayed Knot Jan 22 2009 02:38 PM And, likewise, I suspect there's some negotiating to be done for the stuff that originally aired under the Cablevision banner. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 22 2009 02:39 PM Re: Mets Classics ="batmagadanleadoff":37dsjy4t] I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the team owns the audio and video rights to every single Met game ever played, no matter how it was broadcast.[/quote:37dsjy4t] I asked a SNY guy about this and he said MLB owns the whole shebang these days -- or at least what of that shebang still exists. My brilliant idea of replaying Random Crappy Met Games from the past as cheap SNY programming seems like a pipe dream. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 02:40 PM The '86 San Diego game is Channel 9; '88 Clincher is SportsChannel; several of the later Bobby V games are FSNY; a little Fox network is thrown in. Very much a hodgepodge. Seems to me they can get done what they want to get done. Maybe a new year brings a new slate. Gwreck Jan 22 2009 02:44 PM ="G-Fafif":2hielg5a]The '86 San Diego game is Channel 9; '88 Clincher is SportsChannel; several of the later Bobby V games are FSNY; a little Fox network is thrown in. Very much a hodgepodge. Seems to me they can get done what they want to get done. Maybe a new year brings a new slate.[/quote:2hielg5a] I'm sure it's a money thing. And with MLB network starting now, I bet they're going to keep the first right to games they want rather than allowing SNY to air them. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 04:19 PM There are certain SNY shows that use almost no postseason footage even when it is called for. Instead you see still photos as if video has yet to be invented. That is most definitely rights fees-related. batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2009 06:10 PM Another "classic" tonight on SNY from the Wee Willie years -- the 2006 Mets come back from a 4-0 1st inning deficit to defeat Randy Johnson and the MFY's. You knew the Mets were in it as soon as the MFY's plated their fourth run of the first inning. This effectively took away Willie's cherished though moronic let's sac bunt in the first inning strategy and forced Lo Duca to hit away after Reyes led off the home first with a walk. Lo Duca singled and came around to score on Beltran's homer. I always rooted for a big first inning from Met opponents during the Randolph era. metirish Jan 22 2009 06:17 PM 4 to 3 now in the second.....come on you Mets.... Edgy DC Jan 23 2009 07:01 AM I don't want to defend Willie too much, but I went back and checked Lo Duca's record. He had 10 sacrifice hits. All but one of them was to advance a runner from second with no outs --- not to advance a guy from first. I think three of them were in the first, and the rest were in late and close situations. Fman99 Jan 23 2009 07:56 AM Re: Mets Classics ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2vnfd2jw]="batmagadanleadoff":2vnfd2jw] I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the team owns the audio and video rights to every single Met game ever played, no matter how it was broadcast.[/quote:2vnfd2jw] I asked a SNY guy about this and he said MLB owns the whole shebang these days -- or at least what of that shebang still exists. My brilliant idea of replaying Random Crappy Met Games from the past as cheap SNY programming seems like a pipe dream.[/quote:2vnfd2jw] I would love that. Monday-Thursday, 7 PM, put on random Mets games from last year. Did they win or lose? I don't remember, let's watch! Their original content is still just a lot of blather meant to distract from the fact that, yes, it is still winter outside and no, you are not watching baseball right now. Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2009 08:24 AM I'd rather see a random game from 20 or 30 years ago than one from last season, but maybe that's just me. metirish Jan 23 2009 08:33 AM I like the random recent game idea , I don't tune into SNY much these days as I get my baseball information from MLB Network. G-Fafif Feb 09 2009 12:02 PM The 1969 World Series returns to SNY tonight through Thursday night at 7:30, Games Two through Five. Mets in four...those four. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 09 2009 12:22 PM Longest. Offseason. Ever. Gwreck Feb 16 2009 10:39 PM MLB Network is showing a game that SNY hasn't aired: Opening Day '85. This Saturday at 11:00 AM. batmagadanleadoff Mar 02 2009 03:31 PM Grab some popcorn and fire up the ol� DeLorean Time Machine because tonight, SNY and the Mets dig deep into yesteryear�s archives to shake the cobwebs from your memories. Does anyone still remember the iPhone? How about the Iraqi war? Tonight, it�s another Mets Classic from 2007 -way way back when the uniforms were black and the President was white. It�s the Mets vs. the Rockies tonight, all over again. Don�t bother looking for Jane Jarvis. Also starring Willie �I Will Sac Bunt for Food� Randolph as the manager and Burt Mustin as the batboy Gwreck Mar 02 2009 04:35 PM I believe that game was won on a bunt, actually. batmagadanleadoff Mar 02 2009 04:45 PM ="Gwreck":2ktjqog1]I believe that game was won on a bunt, actually.[/quote:2ktjqog1] But was it a base-hit bunt, or the out-making kind of bunt that Willie loved? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 02 2009 05:47 PM Walk-off bunt single. Endy's second finest moment in blue y orange. batmagadanleadoff Mar 02 2009 06:09 PM I knew that. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 02 2009 06:10 PM I was at this game. I have to say, Easley's HR was a much bigger thrill. It was the absolute last thing I expected. Guy on 3rd, tie game in the home 12th, you're gonna win somehow. Edgy DC Mar 02 2009 06:42 PM Damion Easley, still jobless. Gwreck Mar 02 2009 07:13 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3g7r2yy9]I was at this game. I have to say, Easley's HR was a much bigger thrill. It was the absolute last thing I expected.[/quote:3g7r2yy9] So was I. My recollection was that Easley was down to his final strike with 2 outs as well, with Fuentes pitching. We were packing up to go home when he hit it out. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 02 2009 07:50 PM Just turned this on only to find they're showing Game 1 of the 06 NLCS instead. Gwreck Mar 02 2009 08:51 PM I can't remember them ever showing that before. One of Glavine's finest pitching performances as a Met. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 02 2009 09:34 PM Oh, sorry. I meant the Dodgers series. I think that's the one where John Maine gets his butt saved by the Dodgers' 3rd base coach. themetfairy Mar 02 2009 09:42 PM Yes - the double play at home plate was a thing of beauty. batmagadanleadoff Mar 03 2009 01:15 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":38thmw2y]Just turned this on only to find they're showing Game 1 of the 06 NL[D]S instead.[/quote:38thmw2y] It's obvious that SNY read my post and decided to get with it and show some older games.

I'm impressed. Do you keep a list? And didn't they once show Opening Day '83 (Seaver's return)?

But do you know how many times each game was shown?

="themetfairy":3funch2w]="batmagadanleadoff":3funch2w]I'm not gonna ruin the ending.[/quote:3funch2w] Oops - too late....[/quote:3funch2w] That's OK. If that game is supposed to be considered a classic, and on a very short list of games being rerun, then this franchise has no history. This is the kind of game I'd expect the Rays to be re-running. By the way, I suspect that the '73 RoseBud game has been long lost, misplaced or deteriorated beyond repair. I haven't seen video of that game since the '70's. themetfairy Jan 22 2009 02:01 PM I'd love to see Seaver's Imperfect Game, if the footage still exists. metirish Jan 22 2009 02:02 PM IIRC that game( the Floyd game) was tagged as an " instant classic" . G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 02:05 PM Edited 5 time(s), most recently on Jan 24 2009 03:13 AM Dave O'Brien not being Gary Cohen calling Marlon Anderson is always a disappointment when it's on. I counted recently and came up with 41 different Mets Classics/UltiMET Classics that have run in the course of SNY history. Nine were the '86 division clincher and eight postseason wins from that year; four were the '69 Series wins. Those seem to have been removed from circulation. Likewise the three '06 NLDS games. That's 16, leaving 25 games that seem to rotate, 14 of them pre-Snigh. 1986: The Padres game that ends on the 8-2-5 DP. 1988: Division clincher 1991: Darryl's return with Dodgers; Cone's 19-K game 1997: Mlicki shuts out MFYs 1998: Piazza's first game 1999: Matt Franco game; Ventura first game Grand Slam doubleheader; Leiter two-hitter to clinch Wild Card 2000: Benny hits grand slam in Tokyo; Ten-running inning 2001: Post-9/11 game 2005: Marlon Anderson game; Mister Koo game Eleven from the SNY era: 2006: Pedro's 200th win; Brian Bannister/Barry Bonds [played to death in a way the others haven't been, even the ones that have been played as much -- it seems to have been retired finally]; Wright beats Mariano; Beltran 16th inning HR [which I don't recall seeing since 2006]; Beltran walkoff vs. Cardinals; division clincher 2007: Endy bunt to beat Rockies; Five-run ninth to beat Cubs; Delgado walkoff following Armando balks 2008: Tatis walkoff from May; Johan three-hit masterpiece from Setpember ETA Mets Classics that occurred to me after the fact: Ventura, Koo, Leiter metirish Jan 22 2009 02:06 PM You Sir are a wealth of knowledge. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 02:06 PM And/or watch a lot of TV. batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2009 02:07 PM But do you know how many times each game was shown? G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 02:09 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":2kvq7ghb]But do you know how many times each game was shown?[/quote:2kvq7ghb] Almost all of them have been shown too much to truly surprise, but on the other hand, a Mets win can't be shown nearly enough. When you can't be specific, at least be zen. batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2009 02:12 PM I'm impressed. Do you keep a list? And didn't they once show Opening Day '83 (Seaver's return)? Edgy DC Jan 22 2009 02:16 PM Here's a Mets Classic. Tom Seaver and Pete Rose on the Mike Douglas Show in 1977. Seaver starts talking about the trade about 4:00 Carrie Fisher stares at Seaver's crotch about 5:00. Mike Douglas is a sexist around 7:10. Rose is a jerk pretty much from 0:00. What's with the sherriff's badge pendant? Frayed Knot Jan 22 2009 02:18 PM Re: Mets Classics ="batmagadanleadoff":mqoaopu1]I'm exaggerating a little just to make a point here, but watching these Mets Classics reruns, you'd think that the Mets history consists of once beating the Yankees on a Matt Franco pinch hit, a hiatus, and then coming into full-time existence during --ugh!-- the Willie Randolph era.[/quote:mqoaopu1] It's not that the Willie Randolph era fascinates them so much it's that running games they already own the rights to is so much easier ... and profitable. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 02:19 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":1070xs1a]I'm impressed. Do you keep a list? And didn't they once show Opening Day '83 (Seaver's return)?[/quote:1070xs1a] Working from memory. I'd plotz if they ever showed Seaver's return. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to join Carrie Fisher. themetfairy Jan 22 2009 02:21 PM ="G-Fafif":3zka4awh]="batmagadanleadoff":3zka4awh]I'm impressed. Do you keep a list? And didn't they once show Opening Day '83 (Seaver's return)?[/quote:3zka4awh] Working from memory. I'd plotz if they ever showed Seaver's return. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to join Carrie Fisher.[/quote:3zka4awh] SNY didn't show Seaver's return. A poster on YouTube named JPhillips41 had footage from Seaver's return until MLB made him take it down (bastages!). Edgy DC Jan 22 2009 02:22 PM More on the trade here. Around 1:30 Douglas presciently points out that Rose will attempt to play into his fifties. Gay innuendo between Seaver and Rose at 5:00. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 02:24 PM That Pete Rose, he was quite the "free agent". You ladies know what I'm talking about. Maybe you don't. Tom, could you explain it to Carrie? Edgy DC Jan 22 2009 02:26 PM I got the idea that JPhillips41 taped the Seaver return 25 years ago. metirish Jan 22 2009 02:26 PM Video constraints here at work mean that I can't partake in the Seaver crotch viewing , describe please what I am missing? batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2009 02:29 PM Re: Mets Classics ="Frayed Knot":2ivynf2i]="batmagadanleadoff":2ivynf2i]I'm exaggerating a little just to make a point here, but watching these Mets Classics reruns, you'd think that the Mets history consists of once beating the Yankees on a Matt Franco pinch hit, a hiatus, and then coming into full-time existence during --ugh!-- the Willie Randolph era.[/quote:2ivynf2i] It's not that the Willie Randolph era fascinates them so much it's that running games they already own the rights to is so much easier ... and profitable.[/quote:2ivynf2i] I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the team owns the audio and video rights to every single Met game ever played, no matter how it was broadcast. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 02:35 PM I noticed that when Mets Weekly did wrapup stuff in '06 for best games of the year they didn't use anything that aired on Fox or ESPN; for example, the eleven-run inning game against the Cubs, which was a Sunday nighter, went unmentioned. Later, there was a show (under the UltiMET umbrella) devoted to great home runs of 2006 and they entirely skipped the three-HR inning at Wrigley with the two grand slams -- ESPN. Must be a rights fee issue, though you'd figure it's all part of the same consortium. metirish Jan 22 2009 02:36 PM Wasn't there an issue a few years ago regarding SNY and WPIX , something about SNY trying to buy the WPIX Mets games or a question about ownership. Edgy DC Jan 22 2009 02:38 PM ="metirish":23uzvoxc]Video constraints here at work mean that I can't partake in the Seaver crotch viewing , describe please what I am missing?[/quote:23uzvoxc] It's real, and it's spectacular. Frayed Knot Jan 22 2009 02:38 PM And, likewise, I suspect there's some negotiating to be done for the stuff that originally aired under the Cablevision banner. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 22 2009 02:39 PM Re: Mets Classics ="batmagadanleadoff":37dsjy4t] I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the team owns the audio and video rights to every single Met game ever played, no matter how it was broadcast.[/quote:37dsjy4t] I asked a SNY guy about this and he said MLB owns the whole shebang these days -- or at least what of that shebang still exists. My brilliant idea of replaying Random Crappy Met Games from the past as cheap SNY programming seems like a pipe dream. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 02:40 PM The '86 San Diego game is Channel 9; '88 Clincher is SportsChannel; several of the later Bobby V games are FSNY; a little Fox network is thrown in. Very much a hodgepodge. Seems to me they can get done what they want to get done. Maybe a new year brings a new slate. Gwreck Jan 22 2009 02:44 PM ="G-Fafif":2hielg5a]The '86 San Diego game is Channel 9; '88 Clincher is SportsChannel; several of the later Bobby V games are FSNY; a little Fox network is thrown in. Very much a hodgepodge. Seems to me they can get done what they want to get done. Maybe a new year brings a new slate.[/quote:2hielg5a] I'm sure it's a money thing. And with MLB network starting now, I bet they're going to keep the first right to games they want rather than allowing SNY to air them. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 04:19 PM There are certain SNY shows that use almost no postseason footage even when it is called for. Instead you see still photos as if video has yet to be invented. That is most definitely rights fees-related. batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2009 06:10 PM Another "classic" tonight on SNY from the Wee Willie years -- the 2006 Mets come back from a 4-0 1st inning deficit to defeat Randy Johnson and the MFY's. You knew the Mets were in it as soon as the MFY's plated their fourth run of the first inning. This effectively took away Willie's cherished though moronic let's sac bunt in the first inning strategy and forced Lo Duca to hit away after Reyes led off the home first with a walk. Lo Duca singled and came around to score on Beltran's homer. I always rooted for a big first inning from Met opponents during the Randolph era. metirish Jan 22 2009 06:17 PM 4 to 3 now in the second.....come on you Mets.... Edgy DC Jan 23 2009 07:01 AM I don't want to defend Willie too much, but I went back and checked Lo Duca's record. He had 10 sacrifice hits. All but one of them was to advance a runner from second with no outs --- not to advance a guy from first. I think three of them were in the first, and the rest were in late and close situations. Fman99 Jan 23 2009 07:56 AM Re: Mets Classics ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2vnfd2jw]="batmagadanleadoff":2vnfd2jw] I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the team owns the audio and video rights to every single Met game ever played, no matter how it was broadcast.[/quote:2vnfd2jw] I asked a SNY guy about this and he said MLB owns the whole shebang these days -- or at least what of that shebang still exists. My brilliant idea of replaying Random Crappy Met Games from the past as cheap SNY programming seems like a pipe dream.[/quote:2vnfd2jw] I would love that. Monday-Thursday, 7 PM, put on random Mets games from last year. Did they win or lose? I don't remember, let's watch! Their original content is still just a lot of blather meant to distract from the fact that, yes, it is still winter outside and no, you are not watching baseball right now. Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2009 08:24 AM I'd rather see a random game from 20 or 30 years ago than one from last season, but maybe that's just me. metirish Jan 23 2009 08:33 AM I like the random recent game idea , I don't tune into SNY much these days as I get my baseball information from MLB Network. G-Fafif Feb 09 2009 12:02 PM The 1969 World Series returns to SNY tonight through Thursday night at 7:30, Games Two through Five. Mets in four...those four. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 09 2009 12:22 PM Longest. Offseason. Ever. Gwreck Feb 16 2009 10:39 PM MLB Network is showing a game that SNY hasn't aired: Opening Day '85. This Saturday at 11:00 AM. batmagadanleadoff Mar 02 2009 03:31 PM Grab some popcorn and fire up the ol� DeLorean Time Machine because tonight, SNY and the Mets dig deep into yesteryear�s archives to shake the cobwebs from your memories. Does anyone still remember the iPhone? How about the Iraqi war? Tonight, it�s another Mets Classic from 2007 -way way back when the uniforms were black and the President was white. It�s the Mets vs. the Rockies tonight, all over again. Don�t bother looking for Jane Jarvis. Also starring Willie �I Will Sac Bunt for Food� Randolph as the manager and Burt Mustin as the batboy Gwreck Mar 02 2009 04:35 PM I believe that game was won on a bunt, actually. batmagadanleadoff Mar 02 2009 04:45 PM ="Gwreck":2ktjqog1]I believe that game was won on a bunt, actually.[/quote:2ktjqog1] But was it a base-hit bunt, or the out-making kind of bunt that Willie loved? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 02 2009 05:47 PM Walk-off bunt single. Endy's second finest moment in blue y orange. batmagadanleadoff Mar 02 2009 06:09 PM I knew that. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 02 2009 06:10 PM I was at this game. I have to say, Easley's HR was a much bigger thrill. It was the absolute last thing I expected. Guy on 3rd, tie game in the home 12th, you're gonna win somehow. Edgy DC Mar 02 2009 06:42 PM Damion Easley, still jobless. Gwreck Mar 02 2009 07:13 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3g7r2yy9]I was at this game. I have to say, Easley's HR was a much bigger thrill. It was the absolute last thing I expected.[/quote:3g7r2yy9] So was I. My recollection was that Easley was down to his final strike with 2 outs as well, with Fuentes pitching. We were packing up to go home when he hit it out. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 02 2009 07:50 PM Just turned this on only to find they're showing Game 1 of the 06 NLCS instead. Gwreck Mar 02 2009 08:51 PM I can't remember them ever showing that before. One of Glavine's finest pitching performances as a Met. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 02 2009 09:34 PM Oh, sorry. I meant the Dodgers series. I think that's the one where John Maine gets his butt saved by the Dodgers' 3rd base coach. themetfairy Mar 02 2009 09:42 PM Yes - the double play at home plate was a thing of beauty. batmagadanleadoff Mar 03 2009 01:15 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":38thmw2y]Just turned this on only to find they're showing Game 1 of the 06 NL[D]S instead.[/quote:38thmw2y] It's obvious that SNY read my post and decided to get with it and show some older games.

I'm not gonna ruin the ending.

If anyone's interested, there's a Mets Classics on SNY right now -- the June 11, 2005 game against the Angels. Another game from the Wee Willie Small Balls era. What a surprise. I'm exaggerating a little just to make a point here, but watching these Mets Classics reruns, you'd think that the Mets history consists of once beating the Yankees on a Matt Franco pinch hit, a hiatus, and then coming into full-time existence during --ugh!-- the Willie Randolph era. How about Pedro Borbon eating Buzz Capra's cap or something?

Bumgarner in High School (according to the photo-hoster)