batmagadanleadoff

Ryan Braun and C.C. Sabathia have been named as the NL Player and Pitcher of the Month for July, 2008.

="G-Fafif"]Now that's some news as it Oughta Be. Not to look a gift Mike in the mouth, but why couldn't Baumbach write his story without including this bit of "oh by the way the Mets suck" disclaimer? ]Piazza's time with the Mets included its share of bozo moments, most notably the way bumbling Art Howe handled the whole switch-to-first-base disaster. And, no, Piazza didn't bring a championship here. What's wrong with "team closing stadium invites back well-loved player" instead of chiseling in the "Mets have no one except Seaver" angle? I'm really getting sick of these hack stories that make it into major newspapers. Does anyone really ever win a championship? Does this guy think that Babe Ruth at his very best would've brought a championship here if he was Torre's right-fielder instead of Elliott Maddox? In 2000, Piazza had his best season as a Met. He was the MVP front-runner going into September and had a season befitting of a Hall of Famer. Without Piazza, Valentine's playoff-less streak continues.

I wonder if Ollie told Wags not to get hurt? Maybe Wags shoulda told Ollie to tell him (Wags) not to get hurt. Then the Mets might be in first place.

metirish wrote: David Lennon blogs today that no matter what the MRI showed to expect Wagner to go on the DL. What do you prefer? That Wagner's recent inconsistencies were attributable to a decline in talent or to some physical problem that will heal itself in the next few weeks? (Assuming his arm does heal in a few weeks).

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I sort of believe now that Omar was Willie's only friend.... That's a sign of intelligence in the Mets organization.

="G-Fafif"]Well, they both like to bunt. Yes, and it's a real (ahem) drag when one of those two does so. What I really like about those '67 Topps' is the large canvas; how the photo takes up almost the entire card and doesn't compromise any space for text. They remind me of the great Sporting News covers from the late '60's through the mid 70's, or the classic Sports Illustrated covers before that mag started cluttering up its' covers with so much type, you could hardly see what the hell picture was on the cover anymore. There's a sweet Ozzie Sweet look to some of those cards, too.

Here's a modern '67 Toppish shot.

The '67 Topps' just might be my all-time favorites also, although I was too young to collect that set when it was originally out. An elegant, uncluttered design ... players' faces usually occupy at least 20% of the card ... all poses but I never did like those action shots where the player's head is not even half the size of a dime.

Cancel cancel's that inning. (Caught stealing third with two outs, J. Reyes on 1st and Wright at bat).

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="TheOldMole"]I woulda moved Beltran to second as soon as Delgado reclaimed cleanup. I like it. Especially with Tatis hitting lights out. I was wondering if perhaps, this Beltran in the #2 hole is really a Tatis vote of confidence -- a belief that Tatis' productive hitting is sustainable, and not a short-lived fluke. Or maybe not. Keith and Gary comments about Beltran reminded me that Manuel likes to let struggling hitters work out their kinks from the #2 hole. We shall see.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="TheOldMole"]I woulda moved Beltran to second as soon as Delgado reclaimed cleanup. I like it. Especially with Tatis hitting lights out. I was wondering if perhaps, this Beltran in the #2 hole is really a Tatis vote of confidence -- a belief that Tatis' productive hitting is sustainable, and not a short-lived fluke.

Delgado's fielding is improved as of late also. He's consistently making great scoops on throws and batted balls and in general, appears to be playing with an increased mobility, defensively.

G-Fafif wrote: Willie ... ays his guys on Mets were David, Marlon, Damion, Aaron. Infer what you will about who weren't his guys. Everybody else. I wonder if that statement was also a shot.

TheOldMole wrote: I woulda moved Beltran to second as soon as Delgado reclaimed cleanup. I like it. Especially with Tatis hitting lights out.

SteveJRogers wrote: Did you enjoy the 2000 National League Champions? Did you enjoy the 2003 and 2004 World Champs who beat the hated Yankees? FWIW the 2006 Cardinals DID win the Central that year. So like the 1973 Mets, they do represent the teams with the least amount of wins to win a non-strike division. I'm only addressing one point here -- or rather, one aspect of one of your points to be exact -- but your argument cuts both ways. The Mets were the best team in the National League in 2006, if not all of baseball. Under the previous playoff system, their chances of getting to the WS are deservedly better. Under the system before that one, the Mets are your 2006 NL pennant winners and the 2006 WS is another Subway Series. It makes no sense to assess the current system solely through the narrow prism of NY baseball.

I'm voting with my Mets heart -- Delgado! Sabathia for PitcherOTM. Some month for Fuentes, though. I wasn't even aware until I read marathon's post.

AG/DC wrote: I think a mature person is capable of disliking a system even when it serves his interests. Exactly.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: You don't have to be much above .500 to win the World Series. (See the 2006 Cardinals.) In fact, one of these days we'll see a sub-.500 team make the playoffs and perhaps win the whole thing. I've been hoping for this ever since '94 just to show up Selig. I don't like Wild Cards, Expanded Playoffs and the illogical Expansion plan that left MLB with a 14 team league and a 16 team league; a four team division and a six team division. Don't get me started on Interleague Play.

="soupcan":3i05ouqs]I know for a fact that one of the top brokerage firms gave up 4 premier seats that they had at Shea for at least the last 20 years solely because of Citi Field's price hike.[/quote:3i05ouqs] Me too. Full Season ticket holder for almost 20 years. No more. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 31 2008 10:37 AM Yeah, as I was saying before: the Mets and Yanks better hope they sell a lot of these tickets soon, because as I hear this economic fuckdown will continue through the end of '09 at least (that's a guess as to when the worst of the housing fallout passes). It's gonna be bread lines for the USA till then, brother. metirish Jul 31 2008 10:49 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2h1uuwrt]Yeah, as I was saying before: the Mets and Yanks better hope they sell a lot of these tickets soon, because as I hear this economic fuckdown will continue through the end of '09 at least (that's a guess as to when the worst of the housing fallout passes). It's gonna be bread lines for the USA till then, brother.[/quote:2h1uuwrt] John Mellencamp will be writing songs about how things used to be at old Shea. Nymr83 Jul 31 2008 10:51 AM Wally: ]Someday soon, spending a day at the ballpark will be the equivalent of yachting, playing croquet or pitching darts on the lawn of the family compound, an ultra-costly diversion enjoyed by the rich and privileged, fantasized about by the rest of us what a load of crap. there are still going to be seats under $20, thats by far cheaper than other sports. wally also decides not to point out that unlike the yankees and many other teams, the mets do, and will continue to, allow outside food into the stadium, a pretty significant cost savings for anyone who cares AG/DC Jul 31 2008 11:20 AM It's not about the Mets, or even the Yankees. Demand drives prices up, and that's a fact everywhere. The main issue is on the supply side, even as the economy threatens to reduce demand. G-Fafif Jul 31 2008 12:24 PM Swells who buy season tickets aren't enthusiastic fans based on their being swells? The 4,000 affordable (or most affordable) seats is a scary number. All the numbers are already scary and that's in the present tense. The price on my ticket to see Billy Joel, the rarest and biggest of events for Shea, was actually less than the price on my ticket to see the Mets and Phillies last week, which was one of 81 games, even if it was a fairly big one (I was somebody's Field Level guest or I wouldn't have been sitting there). And it's gonna cost more than that? Even though I know it and have known it, wow. I can see the theoretical comparisons between Citi and MSG (all sold out to alleged corporate stooges), except there are twice as many baseball games as basketball games and Citi is twice as big as the Garden. Novelty does wear off -- April and May weeknights take up a lot of the season -- and an aftermarket infrastructure is in place, one that sometimes provides an in at relative (relative) bargain prices. It's a shame it has to be that way, but it appear it is that way. It's laughable that the "team of the people" all but dismisses walkup sales as a relic and isn't particularly interested in accommodating (that is taking money from) partial plan holders. One way or another, life will be different. Gwreck Aug 14 2008 12:06 PM The NY Post had a story on the prices.[/url:3bny65jv] Notably, they are reporting a $19 pricepoint for promenade reserved, but I suspect that may be promenade reserved outfield and not infield. batmagadanleadoff Aug 27 2008 02:03 PM Yesterday, I ran into someone I know only casually and not all that well. What I do know about him is that for the past 10-15 years at least, he owned a pair of Shea Stadium field box season tickets very close to the Mets dugout. He's not renewing. According to him, He's "no Fortune 500 corporation and the Wilpons don't want fans in the stands anymore". Gwreck Aug 29 2008 09:44 PM In an interesting development, the other New York team announced its pricing structure today. In addition to offering full season tickets, they are offering 41, 20, 15, 12 and 11 game plans, all with postseason options (although only the 41 game plan has a guaranteed postseason option. Pricing, seating chart, etc. is here:http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/new_stadium_ticket_license_plans.jsp AG/DC Aug 29 2008 09:45 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":24dz924q]According to him, He's "no Fortune 500 corporation and the Wilpons don't want fans in the stands anymore".[/quote:24dz924q] What does he do? themetfairy Oct 20 2008 02:08 PM I received a letter today that contained the following - ]We are pleased to advise that we will have a selection of Ticket Plan offerings at Citi Field for our loyal Ticket Plan account holders prior to the general public. Two 40-game and five 15-fame Plans will enable us to accommodate each 2008 Ticket Plan holder with a Ticket Plan purchase opportunity for our Inaugural Season at Citi Field. We will communicate these offerings to you in the weeks ahead. So it looks like the Sunday Only plan is a thing of the past. Benjamin Grimm Oct 20 2008 02:11 PM One of those five 15-game plans might be heavily oriented towards Sundays. The way I figure it, there are probably 13 home Sunday games on the schedule. Maybe one of the plans is 13 Sundays plus two "bonus" games. Please let us know when you find out more. themetfairy Oct 20 2008 02:17 PM Will do! Gwreck Oct 20 2008 03:13 PM I have my doubts about these plans. My worry is that only the 40-game plans will have guaranteed playoff purchase options. I doubt they would do a heavily-Sunday or heavily-Saturday plan; it would seem more likely they'd want to split up the weekend games so that all plans would be equally attractive to the buyers. Also, I wouldn't count on opening day being available in any of the plans. Gwreck Oct 20 2008 03:14 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":2vxwybpt]The way I figure it, there are probably 13 home Sunday games on the schedule. [/quote:2vxwybpt] You don't have to guess! Full 2009 schedule is already available: http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/schedule/index.jsp?c_id=nym&m=4&y=2009 Nymr83 Oct 20 2008 07:07 PM ]My worry is that only the 40-game plans will have guaranteed playoff purchase options and if more tickets were allocated to the eople who buy 15 game plans, there would be complaints by the people who don't buy any plan about how playoff tickets are unaffordable and unavailable... wawawa etc. The Mets' can't win there. Gwreck Oct 20 2008 07:14 PM ="Nymr83"]]My worry is that only the 40-game plans will have guaranteed playoff purchase options and if more tickets were allocated to the eople who buy 15 game plans, there would be complaints by the people who don't buy any plan about how playoff tickets are unaffordable and unavailable... wawawa etc. The Mets' can't win there. Not true. All they need to do is make a clear announcement and make the ticket allocation more transparent. Regardless, the point isn't that people will complain about playoff tickets being unavailable. The problem is that the Mets may or may not have used sufficient creativity in creating their partial plans. We won't know until the Mets get around to actually telling giving out meaningful information. John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 20 2008 07:35 PM I'd like to make a declaration of interest in buying into a very small part of someone's 40-game plan. I don't think I can afford or commit to more than a small handful next year, ISO same, etc etc. If there's enough of us... Rockin' Doc Oct 20 2008 07:44 PM Is it just me, or does anyone else find the concern over the availability of Mets playoff tickets be almost as pointless as Detroit Lion fans worrying about their access to Super Bowl tickets? It's probably just me. Watching a good young team like the Rays has made me rather cynical of late. Nymr83 Oct 20 2008 07:47 PM maybe you could try putting a group together on here to buy a 40 game plan (either 2 or 4 seats) and then divide up the games. John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 20 2008 07:53 PM Yeah, that's what I'm saying but I need someone who 1) is receiving this offer and 2) Can be trusted to cut the giant check. Nymr83 Oct 20 2008 08:07 PM i'm in a for a few (3-5) games as well if anyone wants to do this. Fman99 Oct 20 2008 08:28 PM ="Nymr83":27g5374t]i'm in a for a few (3-5) games as well if anyone wants to do this.[/quote:27g5374t] You could do a proportional buy-in, rate the cost per game, and divvy it up where any potential attendee could buy in even for 1-2 games. We probably won't go to more than 1-2 next year given the cost and distance. Fman99 Oct 20 2008 08:28 PM Oops double post. themetfairy Oct 20 2008 08:31 PM A complicating point is that, even within a plan, not all games are priced evenly. With my Sunday plan last year, the prices varied tremendously depending on what color coded ticket price applied to the date. Gwreck Oct 20 2008 08:56 PM I have a friend who does this with his Mariners season ticket group. I think they have something like 8 or 10 seats now but the concept stays the same: You have to buy in pairs; People commit to a set number of games at the start of the season; Snake-order draft to see who gets what games (ie. A, B, C, D, D, C, B, A); Draft position is determined by random chance; When it's your turn in the draft, you can take any game you want that's available (knowing that some games -- ie. Yankees, July weekends, etc -- cost more than others -- ie. April weeknights) Playoff games are determined by lottery, weighted by how many games in the plan you purchased. John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 20 2008 09:15 PM In Gwreck Oct 20 2008 09:20 PM I'd like to be "in" but I doubt that I can be the one to "cut the big check" unfortunately... John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 20 2008 09:21 PM Specially if you intend to collect from me. Nymr83 Oct 20 2008 11:04 PM i'm not sure who here can "cut the big check" or who would be willing to even admit it if they could. we could collect at least some money beforehand, or we could look at a 15-game plan to split up instead of a 40, it really all depends on how much interest we have. themetfairy Oct 21 2008 05:12 AM If it helps, they accept credit card payment for tickets. That just means that someone has a large enough credit limit to handle the transaction and trusts everyone else enough to pony up their share quickly. Fman99 Oct 21 2008 06:45 AM ="Gwreck":f4a68j0e]I have a friend who does this with his Mariners season ticket group. I think they have something like 8 or 10 seats now but the concept stays the same: You have to buy in pairs; People commit to a set number of games at the start of the season; Snake-order draft to see who gets what games (ie. A, B, C, D, D, C, B, A); Draft position is determined by random chance; When it's your turn in the draft, you can take any game you want that's available (knowing that some games -- ie. Yankees, July weekends, etc -- cost more than others -- ie. April weeknights) Playoff games are determined by lottery, weighted by how many games in the plan you purchased.[/quote:f4a68j0e] Yep. My cousin and her husband are in a group in the DC area that does this with four Nats season tickets. Benjamin Grimm Oct 21 2008 06:57 AM Are you guys talking about splitting up a 40 or a 15? And how many seats for each game? And how much would the "big check" be for? John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 21 2008 07:09 AM 2 tixx for 40 games at Citifield would be 3 grand or something at least? soupcan Oct 21 2008 07:52 AM I got two tix for all 81 games in whatever they are calling the upper deck. Don't yet know whether they are in left or right. I gave them a $250.00 deposit per ticket and they will contact me at some future date to let me know where I'll be. The total cost will be about $1,500.00 each. I'm sure I won't even be close to using all of them so if anybody's interested in taking a few off my hands, that's cool. Kong76 Oct 23 2008 02:45 PM I read thread quickly and see 81 and 40 games plans mentioned. I got a letter today that say there will also be five 15 game plans available to people with Mets accounts in the coming weeks ahead. If I can get a 15 game plan I'd be super happy and also willing to share or just meet for some games. Kong76 Oct 23 2008 03:04 PM Re-reading, I didn't go far enough back ... I can't keep up lately. I'll be happy to be offered something is where I was going with this, I really thought most plan holders were going to be left out completely. (and that may have been the original plan before we all became poorer the last couple of months) sharpie Oct 23 2008 03:59 PM I'd be in for buying into a larger plan. Or buying some Soup tix. Vic Sage Oct 24 2008 01:51 PM me, too. soupcan Oct 24 2008 02:02 PM Great, I'll keep you all posted. Farmer Ted Nov 12 2008 11:39 AM Doesn't look like Boston is going after any high-priced free agents. That, or they have a ton of cash stuffed away. BOSTON (AP) -- For the first time in 14 years, the Boston Red Sox aren't increasing any ticket prices at Fenway Park for the 2009 season. Prices range from $12 to $125 for tickets bought after Dec. 17. There is a discount for earlier purchases once tickets go on sale Dec. 13. Red Sox President Larry Lucchino says the team knows that fans are facing challenging economic times and wanted to give them a break. Fans with contracts for premium seats can keep their ticket prices the same if they agree to extend those contracts for one year. The team plans to add about 350 seats at Fenway Park before next season. themetfairy Nov 26 2008 01:20 PM Here are the Partial Season Ticket Plans[/url:205v8hxo]. Partial season ticket holders can make their purchases based on a seniority system. I'm not a long term season ticket holder, so I have to wait until December 10th to purchase my tickets. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 01:28 PM I don't think seniority has anything to do with it -- I think it's based on what you had in 2008. Order is: 1. Full Season Holders from 2008 who did not renew for a Full Season 2009 2. Weekday Plan Holders from 2008 3. Mini and Tuesday/Friday plan holders from 2008 4. Saturday and Sunday plan holders from 2008 Kong76 Nov 26 2008 02:34 PM Got the email earlier and the regular letter just now. Seems to me that if I log at 10am on 12/5 I should be able to get my single seat Sunday ticket and if I got lucky I could get two extra seats? I mean really, if they can't give me one seat after 5-6 years of full season and another 5 or so of plan seasons they can gobble my turkey neck and lick my giblets. themetfairy Nov 26 2008 03:10 PM If Kase can log in on 12/5, then seniority does matter. Kong76 Nov 26 2008 03:24 PM I'll post an image of the letter I got a little later. Kong76 Nov 26 2008 04:25 PM Gwreck Nov 26 2008 10:49 PM ="themetfairy":2gwrrk6t]If Kase can log in on 12/5, then seniority does matter.[/quote:2gwrrk6t] Indeed. Can't believe the Mets managed to get that one right (!). SI Metman Nov 26 2008 11:26 PM yep, I've only been a Sunday plan holder for 2 1/2 years and got the 10th on my letter. Fortunately they are sparing us from going to the last Sunday game in '09. Kong76 Dec 05 2008 08:15 AM Scored two seats, Sun+ plan, front row of the highest level, in the outfield. mezzman is now promresman Vic Sage Dec 05 2008 09:53 AM my friend can't buy tix till the 12th. shoot. themetfairy Dec 05 2008 09:56 AM ="Vic Sage":f2arzhqv]my friend can't buy tix till the 12th. shoot.[/quote:f2arzhqv] It's nice to know that I have priority over somebody.

="Met Hunter"]Most cards were photographed in NY cause Topps operated out of Brooklyn. Any Chicago shots were probably taken from photog George Brace's massive inventory. I say it's Shea. It's definitely Shea. FAFIF already nailed the photograph, down to the precise date. At the very top of the Perry card, you could also see the bottom of some of those vertical railings just underneath the Loge level near the end of the stadium rim on the fair ball side of the right field foul pole. Those railings are mostly obscured today but were in full view in the 70's. A good number of photos for the Topps cards were also taken in the Bay Area (Candlestick Park & Oakland Alameda County Stadium) because like New York, the location was home to a stadium from each league and thus, provided coverage for all of MLB. I'd say that the number of shots from the Bay Area exceeded those from Chicago.

Shea Stadium right field corner brickwork.

Second time this week ([u:7514acc599]See[/u:7514acc599], Ozzie in Japan) this forum was able to date a photograph based upon the Padres one-year style 1979 road uniform.

AG/DC wrote: You're stretching your point. I think you should take positions about regarding that thread in that thread. I disagree. Why would general observations about a reliever's volatility in performance from season to season belong in the 1990 thread? I wouldn't base my 1990 Cy Young vote on what Eck did in seasons prior to 1990 or on what I might project Eck to do after 1990. You're stretching your argument.

Relievers performances are usually the most volatile from season to season, thus making relief pitching the most difficult role to assess in all of baseball. This is because (and here comes a tie-in to the recent 1990 AL Cy Young Award thread) of the limited number of innings relievers pitch. It's the old small sample size bugaboo. A reliever's entire season might qualify as a small sample size.

="Frayed Knot"]I think fans think they're being proactive that way; 'Don't just stand there, do something'! I always thought that was a factor. Willie (or fill-in the name of another applicable manager) asks for a sac bunt that's successful. Then a ground out to the right side and then the run driving sac fly. And then Willie's preening at the post-game conference as if he himself engineered a run that wasn't there. As if Willie made that run happen with his genius skills even though the strategy, when used repeatedly without much discretion, takes runs off the board in the long run. It's an expensive psychological boost for the manager - expensive because the strategy diminishes overall team scoring. Usually, the most intelligent thing that a manager could do when considering whether to sac bunt or not is to do nothing -and simply let the batter hit. The manager who does nothing and understands why he is doing nothing, is often making a profound informed decision.