batmagadanleadoff

=MFS62 post_id=116466 time=1673376166 user_id=60] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=116465 time=1673376078 user_id=68] FO? Can I buy a vowel?

FO? Can I buy a vowel?

I'm still not over deGrom leaving.

One gets the feeling the News was taking its cue from SNY's deGrom reaction shot, which served to enhance the significance of Nimmo's catch from really nice play to season-defining moment if you were watching that night, as I imagine some in the paper's sports department were as they considered the back page. [FIMG=333]http://leaptoad.com/mets/covers/2022/20220901_NYDN_02.jpg[/FIMG] Enhancing the moment is fine by me. But I think the News smothered Nimmo and the moment in excessive deGrominess. The "de" in the headline was bad enough. Nimmo made that sensational catch. Not deGrom. That headline was a dealbreaker for me. And then the deGeom insert. But I didn't even mention the subheading. (Is that the right word -- "subheading"? Or maybe strapline?) Nimmo .. robs HR for Jake. Not for Nimmo's own glory. Or the team's. This was all for deGrom, is the vibe I'm getting from this back cover. It's all wrong.

[FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52615724561_6a78a75613_h.jpg[/FIMG]

I think every Met made this set. [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52615644179_361e7ef593_h.jpg[/FIMG] Wait a second!! He died three years ago? Edgy MD wrote: Fuck, they're dropping like flies. You mean dropped like flies.

I think every Met made this set. [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52615644179_361e7ef593_h.jpg[/FIMG] [media=youtube]LTe0aTxARj0[/media] [media=youtube]Jta56wBl7SM[/media] [media=youtube]hxXV2UftL7Q[/media]

The deGromification of that "Catch" cover is really annoying. Unfortunately, that cover says to me that Nimmo wouldn't have made the same effort for any other Mets pitcher. BS. That cover also tries very hard to make deGrom the star of that play. More BS. An insert of deGrom? The pitcher always benefits from a great defensive play. Would you include an insert of reliever Don Liddle on a back page headline of Willie Mays' famous WS catch of VIc Wertz's Polo Grounds shot? How about a "No Liddle Feat" headline? The misplaced focus is on deGrom and that deGrom's pitching win is more important than the Mets' team win. I get the sense that what the DN really wanted to do was to have that deGrom pic as the main one and the Nimmo catch as an insert. And the headline itself obscures Nimmo. Ugh. Plus, Baby Hold On is some top notch word play. Ideally, by now, surviving covers should be both strong visually and have excellent copy.

Frayed Knot wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=116216 time=1672989747 user_id=68] This situation is no different than if Coca-Cola owned SNY instead of Sterling/Wilpon. Except that Coca-Cola and Steve Cohen don't have (at least to my knowledge) prior bad blood between them. The pre-existing Cohen/Wilpon feud does add an extra element to things. Enough for the 'Pons to decide that a cheaper Keith replacement makes for a better SNY than one with Keith? Probably not. But if they were known for making the best decisions all the time then they'd likely still own the team.

I don't see where there's a conflict of interest here. The Wilpons sold the Mets. They no longer have any obligations or fiduciary duties or responsibilities to the Mets or their investors/shareholders. They can play this as cutthroat and as hardball as they see fit. (Not that I'm rooting for them). This situation is no different than if Coca-Cola owned SNY instead of Sterling/Wilpon.

44 Here ya go! Excellent choice on the 44. A coupl'a pre Citi Field 44's made their way into this years Rock and Roll set. And too bad Darryl Strawberry never wore 44 for the Mets. He was made for 44. He was the archetype for 44. A menacing longball hiter with a lethal swing. But it wasn't to be and besides, Ron Darling, some other not too shabby prospect had the number by the time Straw was called up. This post is now bringing up some bad memories of losing a Batman set Al Schmelz card to a computer crash right around when the Covid lockdowns first went into effect. I loved that Schmelz card. Maybe now I'll get around to seeing if I can that Schmelzie back. [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52605435012_843f4ad4b8_h.jpg[/FIMG] [media=youtube]LBtuk4JcYTs[/media] [media=youtube]0ihcv7k9xu8[/media] [media=youtube]fJ9rUzIMcZQ[/media] [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52605937136_a2b8fa26d2_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52605937231_2fe40ff567_h.jpg[/FIMG] [media=youtube]4vRUnT-TeRg[/media] [media=youtube]4gLVqjIvokc[/media] [media=youtube]Uhpu2N4rQZM[/media] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52606439148_dcc1806900_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52606358685_a410374c36_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52606461323_d775ddc7e2_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52605940936_b9ce54236b_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52605439137_a2bbecceb7_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52606513743_9138770305_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52605440052_3fe37245c7_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52606199274_a2ed1ec570.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=322]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52606363125_01483e2390_c.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52605944016_0f76b88fe3_b.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52606445933_999698ef65_b.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52606100811_c77aa5cbc0_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52607101377_3968de59be_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52606364705_11e2c33b79_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Never really had a place once Pete hit 53 home runs. Wish him well, but wish he'd gone out of division. I'm betting he has a great year with a steady job on a no-pressure team. I could see this. First base is his natural position and he's a damn good fielder. Way better than Alonso. Less pressure when you're not out of position.

Why not? The art's worth 10, maybe 20 times what the residence is worth. Besides, you think someone's gonna steal the whole house? Ay-GEE! Ay-GEE! (Shea Stadium cheer).

=nymr83 post_id=115938 time=1672772438 user_id=54] But then, it might not even be the most expensive one he owns?

=nymr83 post_id=115938 time=1672772438 user_id=54] a painting that expensive probably has its own pair of $75,000/year armed guards who each stand next to it in 12 hour shifts, just far enough away that they aren't obstructing Steve's staring at it. But then, it might not even be the most expensive one he owns? And this is why our payroll is monopoly money.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: For some reason, the artwork has been pixelated. It might lead me to think that he owns art that he's not supposed to own, but I doubt that's the case. Maybe he's worried that thieves might target specific pieces? Cohen owns one of the five existing "original" Andy Warhol Marilyn Monroes. [FIMG=444]https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/05/09/arts/09warhol-auction-1/merlin_206146221_67a27ce3-5706-4937-ac27-170d46f782b9-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp[/FIMG] The last Marilyn to sell fetched $195M. So Cohen's Marilyn is worth more than most MLB teams' entire payrolls. I'd pixelate that artwork. No, actually if it was me, I wouldn't want my home(s) photographed for the public at all.

=whippoorwill post_id=115894 time=1672703133 user_id=79] This is a great idea!

Typewriter Chewing Gum, covering the Citi Field era Mets, celebrates every Citi Field Met player to have worn uniform #23. Because it's 2023. [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52602813606_4363f2abd2_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52603239605_7b9a013c78_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52602818861_0b36c466fe_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52602819466_99ab2a0e91_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52602326982_aeef2f7632_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52603246045_391c74eda3.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52603246740_6ebe80f3df_b.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52603247015_b8f22c2160_b.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52603080999_862a2ee2a7_c.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52603080729_f21dde1914_b.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52603073834_76eed936db_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52603241165_e3e1431bbd_h.jpg[/FIMG]

[FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52607704717_b54427de48_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52588340085_50c0f9f7f5_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=394]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52587908181_04aaa74870_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Edgy MD wrote: If you want me to pretend one thing is another thing when it's not, I'm not going to, and neither is anybody else. The world doesn't work that way. Please stop looking for fights where there are none to be had. A new year lies ahead and it's filled with so much potential. I wasn't looking for fights. You were. And as between you and me, you'd just the same extend a disagreement for two or three pages with baseless conclusions rather than ever concede anything to me. You've done it a zillion times already with me, going back to year one. I'm not looking for fights with anybody. I have issues with certain posters who indisputably started with me, and did so viciously and without any provocation on my end. These were arguments way beyond the boundaries of a baseball disagreement. These were repeated vicious personal attacks. Well, one guy not so viciously but just as bad because mocking me for ten years is pretty awful in and of itself. The only reason my disputes with that poster weren't these over the top armageddon flame wars was because I totally ignored him for 10 years. With him, it was more of a cumulative effect. Gimme a break already with how difficult it'd be for Steve Cohen to recover from a bad Correa deal or how a bad Correa deal might set precedents and how nobody ever said that. He just finished paying the Orioles $19 million dollars to take James McCann, please. I woulda done it for a quarter of one million dollars. After signing Verlander and Senga and then a third baseman, Correa, whom he probably doesn't even need. This after making Scherzer, a 40 year old pitcher, the highest paid player in MLB history. Remember when Cohen signed Lindor? That felt like eons ago. To tell you the truth, I can't wait till next off-season so I can see if the Mets sign Ohtani. The games themsleves are suddenly so anti-climactic. The Mets will likely make the playoffs and then probably get eliminated somewhere down the line. Yawn.

Edgy MD wrote: This is what I was mainly addressing. That Cohen won't be able to recover from the Correa deal if it goes through and then goes bad? Nobody wrote that. Nobody. Oh really? Nobody wrote that? My post in question came immediately after this: Frayed Knot wrote: Yes it will, and maybe not signing Correa will ultimately be the better move given the MONEYBALL adage about it being easier to recover from the player you fail to sign than it is to recover from the one you sign at the wrong price. which I was kind enough to reprint for a second time said quote about RECOVERING from the Correa deal after you first questioned my post. So now what? You're gonna split hairs and now say that no one said that the Mets wouldn't recover from a bad Correa deal, but that instead, it'd be difficult? It won't be difficult. It won't be difficult for a guy to whom thirty million dollars might as well be a bag of potato chips. Now what? Now you're gonna tell me again that you don't wanna be reminded about just how rich Steve Cohen is? Tough on you. Then don't create issues that can best be answered by demonstrating just how rich Steve Cohen is.

Edgy MD wrote: None of those claims make this the right move if it's not. Of course the future is unknowable, which you state even as you make another statement about the future that, aside from being beside the point, you make with such certainty that you can't possibly see any other outcome. Edgy MD wrote: My point is certainly clear. The subject of the thread is this deal. We know, certainly, that Steve Cohen is fabulously rich. I thought I was being on point all along and staying on the subject of the thread - the Mets Correa deal. I'll explain. We'll start with this post: Frayed Knot wrote: Yes it will, and maybe not signing Correa will ultimately be the better move given the MONEYBALL adage about it being easier to recover from the player you fail to sign than it is to recover from the one you sign at the wrong price. Theoretically this will come down to two factors: the determination of the NYM GM/medical people and whether Borrea has another fish on the line (Boras will of course claim he does) to pivot to if and when the Mets start making noises about fewer years and/or less money. My fear is that Cohen may want the big splash/surprise heroics of all this too much and decide to go ahead with the deal even if the advice of his paid experts tells him otherwise. Even if his side winds up being right in the long run it still sets an uneasy precedent. So FK expresses some concern that the Correa deal might turn out badly for the Mets. Whatever. You could say that about any trade, I said, because the future is unknowable. Any deal could go bad and Cohen's not immune from those risks no matter how much money he has. The Mets made deals for Jason Bay and David Wright, for example, that turned out to be disastrous -- like Hindenburg-level disasters. It happens. I could give plenty more examples. But this is fine. This is the Correa Mets deal thread and this is the place to opine on that deal and discuss it. But these two lines: Yes it will, and maybe not signing Correa will ultimately be the better move given the MONEYBALL adage about it being easier to recover from the player you fail to sign than it is to recover from the one you sign at the wrong price. and My fear is that Cohen may want the big splash/surprise heroics of all this too much and decide to go ahead with the deal even if the advice of his paid experts tells him otherwise. Even if his side winds up being right in the long run it still sets an uneasy precedent. This is what I was mainly addressing. That Cohen won't be able to recover from the Correa deal if it goes through and then goes bad? That a bad Correa deal would then doom Cohen to making bad deals forever and ever, going forward? I just thought that was too much and making too much of a big thing out of a possible bad outcome. And stressing Cohen's wealth wasn't straying from the topic, because Cohen's wealth is inextricably inked to the topic. In fact, Cohen's wealth is the topic. Much more so than acquiring Correa. Cohen's wealth would make it pretty easy to recover from a Correa deal gone bad. Cohen's a unicorn. Just like the laws of physics on this planet Earth don't apply to Superman or Clark Kent or anybody else from the planet Krypton, the regular laws of money and finance don't apply to Cohen they way they'd apply to most everybody else. It makes no sense to expect Cohen to spend his money like most everybody else. And it's starting to wear thin on me that people (not necessarily on this forum) everywhere treat Cohen like he is everybody else. He's a unicorn. If the rules permitted, he could own three MLB teams instead of just one. And then, the three teams with the highest payrolls would be the three teams that Cohen owns. He could recover from a bad Correa deal if it should go bad, easier than most people could recover from having to replace their refrigerator, ferchrissakes. So please spare me from the woe's me, he just spent $30 million on that player when $30M to Cohen is like a take-out pizza pie to just about anybody else. Wake me when the Mets payroll reaches three or four billion dollars and then maybe I'll show some concern. Maybe. Steve Cohen's not gonna be here forever. He'll be 70 soon enough. This isn't like Nelson Doubleday, Jr. and Fred Wilpon buying into the Mets as relatively young men in their 40's. Let Cohen enjoy his money. Because he might not even have 10 years to bring home a WS title. Who knows?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=115534 time=1671938221 user_id=68] I'd bet anything that Cohen is going to shatter the Wilpons' record of, what was it, two first place finishes in 32 seasons? And by shatter, I mean in a good way. The Wilpons made plenty of bad deals by being frugal. In fact, there's a strong correlation there. You tend to get what you pay for. In just two full seasons, Cohen's Mets already have one division title. And a 101-win season, the second most one-season wins in franchise history.

[FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52584824690_301e31115f_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Edgy MD wrote: None of those claims make this the right move if it's not. What's your point? That a Correa signing could turn out badly? I agree. Where did I say otherwise? I simply think that it's a lot easier to recover from your mistakes when you're one of the richest guys on the whole damn planet. I'm sure Jeff Bezos doesn't have to worry at all about buying a brand new top of the line automobile that turns out to be a lemon. Edgy MD wrote: Of course the future is unknowable, which you state even as you make another statement about the future that, aside from being beside the point, you make with such certainty that you can't possibly see any other outcome. Because I feel certain. Of course, I could be wrong. Of course the Wilpons' reign could turn out to be more successful than Cohen's will. But not bloody likely so long as Cohen is given a reasonable chance. What's your point here? I'm not allowed to have an opinion? What's the point of this whole exchange? That the Correa deal could turn out badly for the Mets? And that then what? That Cohen should never sign another free agent? That if the Correa deal turns out to be a bad deal for the Mets, every other deal Cohen makes from here on out is also gonna turn bad? That it'd then be likely that the Wilpons will have been the more successful Mets owners when it's all said and done if the Mets sign Correa and the deal goes bad? If Correa turns into another Jason Bay, you wanna know what'll probably happen? Cohen'll probably eat Correa's salary and move on to the next third baseman. And the more I think of this, as I write it out in this here post, the more I hope that that's exactly what ends up happening so I can get to see it and read all the nutty takes about how much money Cohen's spending even though Correa's annual Mets salary is like one annual trip to Burger King for lunch for someone like me and by the time Correa's deal goes bad, if it ever does, Cohen'll probably have another two billion dollars to his name in addition to what he already has.