Frayed Knot

I'd be shocked if he winds up with the Yanx. Between Teixeira signed for the next 65 years, Jesus Montero having a bat ready to go but no real position, and the luxury tax being beefed up in this latest CBA, I don't think it's in the cards for them. On the other hand, MLB.com is reporting that: "There is a "99 percent" chance that the Nationals will not sign free-agent first baseman Prince Fielder, according to a baseball source. The news comes a few weeks after ownership met with Fielder and his agent, Scott Boras, in the nation's capital. The article then goes on the point out that they don't want to sign him at the price he's looking for, meaning anything approaching Pujols years/numbers. Also with Morse & LaRoche on the roster it's not like the Nats are over a barrel here so Boras better find hisself a team that's desperate (???) or thinks they're one player away (Rangers?) or Prince is going to look very silly for turning down the money Milwaukee offered him last summer.

John Sickels goes through his year-by-year evaluations during Fartinez's prospect days.

Seems odd that the Phils would offer such a large deal only to back out on it. Thing is, we may never know the full truth of what went on here but, if the deal was truly on the table, it wouldn't be the first time that Boras cost one of his clients a pile of money by rejecting an early offer only to chase a bigger one which never materialized.

Note to self: sell any Yahoo stock. It's your Crane Pool Mets Crackpot Column of the Week. Let's just start with the opening paragraph, specifically the second sentence: "Martinez, the product of ex-GM Omar Minaya's unrealistic expectation of the deep pool of available talent in the Dominican Republic and other Central American locations," Ummm, are you arguing that the talent pool in the Caribbean and C. America isn't worth exploring or has been all mined out?!? "never materialized into a superstar. In fact, he never cracked a Mets' major league roster." Ummm, I didn't realize that all other outcomes other than "superstar" (by age 22 no less) for a player signed at age 16 represented failure. Oh yeah, and he did *IN FACT* crack the Mets' major league roster although I suppose it's possible you were busy that day. Oh wait, he totaled 150 plate appearances across three different seasons, played all three OF positions plus DH during numerous stints on the big league roster. But hey, anyone could have missed that, although it probably could be rectified by actually paying attention to the team you're writing about. There's probably more to pick apart but I didn't read any further.

I think the larger implication here is that Bud is sticking around because either the owners have no frickin' idea who they might want to replace him, or, more likely still, that they're split into two or more camps as to who they might want to replace him to the point where the competing factions prefer sticking with the comfortable old shoe rather than risk the unknown by accepting a choice they don't want.

seawolf17 wrote: If you told me in 1988 that Dale Murphy wouldn't even sniff the Hall, I would have kicked you in the nuts. Murphy to me is like Mattingly: Five or six HoF seasons to start off their careers but much closer to ordinary after that. Neither should be in IMO.

MFS62 wrote: Rizzuto was 16th on the list. He'd probably be 20th or so now (again, not counting Negro Leaguers), with Jeter having passed him, and probably Nomar Garciaparra and Omar Vizquel as well. OE: BB-Ref has them really close in WAR, with Garciaparra at 42.5, Vizquel at 42.3, and Rizzutto at 41.8. Hanley Ram�rez and Jos� Reyes each have 29.3 career WAR. Rizzuto was the glue of the infield that won many championships. Never flashy, always steady. He played in an era when shortstop was a defensive position, with hitting secondary. Considering the third and second basemen who played with him (BTW, third baseman Andy Carey passed away the other day) were constantly being platooned by Casey, he was the constant. The problem with that whole 'he played while they won' argument - especially as it's used for Rizzuto - is that Yanx won nine pennants in the ten years after Scooter was no longer their main guy (he never got as many as 400 ABs after 1953) including six of seven once the team (quite unceremoniously btw) dumped him for good. Tony Kubek for the Hall!!

MFS62 wrote: I thought that in their lexicon a "five star" prospect would translate to more than "at least a #3 starter". Kevin Goldstein (BP's prospect guy) does seem to dole out 'Five Star' ratings a bit too easily sometimes -- a lot more freely than, say, John Sickels gives out 'A' grades in his rankings. Still, calling a pitcher with one pro season under his belt "at least" a #3 and a chance to be better than that isn't exactly downplaying things, especially seeing as how #3 starters tend to be worth about $10 million/year on the open market.

And now Baseball Prospectus weighs in with their list. System In 20 Words Or Less: With improvement coming via all three areas�draft, trades, international�the Mets are finally moving in the right direction. Five-Star Prospects 1. Matt Harvey, RHP 2. Zack Wheeler, RHP Four-Star Prospects 3. Jeurys Familia, RHP Three-Star Prospects 4. Brandon Nimmo, OF 5. Juan Lagares, OF 6. Jordany Valdespin, 2B 7. Jenrry Mejia, RHP 8. Reese Havens, 2B 9. Cesar Puello, OF 10. Michael Fulmer, RHP 11. Kirk Nieuwenhuis, OF Nine More: 12. Cory Mazzoni, RHP: 2011 second-rounder was great in brief debut; will move to rotation in 2012. 13. Akeel Morris, RHP: 20-year-old Virgin Islands native has big, but unrefined, power arm. 14. Darin Gorski, LHP: Had arguably the best stats of any pitcher in the system, but he�s older and has more finesse than stuff. 15. Phillip Evans, SS: Over slot 15th-rounder profiles as offense-oriented second baseman 16. Wilmer Flores, INF: Bat has never taken expected move forward while scouts see big moves down defensive spectrum. 17. Jefry Marte, 3B: Age and strong showing in Arizona Fall League saves him; some scouts still believe in the bat. 18. Juan Urbina, LHP: Shows flashes of high-ceiling potential, but not enough of them. 19. Chris Schwinden, RHP: Reached the big leagues, but what you see is what you get with potential to be a number-five starter. 20. Darrell Ceciliani, OF: Plus speed and a leadoff man's approach, but never got going with the bat in full-season debut. Then you need a subscription to see the profiles of players 2-10. Last year, for some reason, they inexplicably left the NYM list unprotected but all we get this year in detail is Harvey. 1. Matt Harvey, RHP DOB: 3/27/89 Height/Weight: 6-4/210 Bats/Throws: R/R Drafted/Signed: 1st round, 2010, University of North Carolina 2011 Stats: 2.37 ERA (76-67-24-92) at High-A (14 G). 4.53 ERA (59.2-58-23-64) at Double-A (12 G) Tools Profile: Pure power pitcher. * Year in Review: Seventh overall pick in the 2010 draft reached Double-A in debut and missed plenty of bats. * The Good: Harvey attacks hitters with a 92-95 mph fastball that can touch 97 and features plenty of life. His slider gives him a second bat-missing offering with its heavy two plane break, and Harvey is comfortable throwing it at any point in the count. He's an efficient pitcher who throws strikes and has the kind of body and delivery designed to handle a big league workload. * The Bad: Harvey's changeup continues to lag behind the rest of his arsenal and lacks deception or enough movement. His delivery is easy to pick up for left-handed hitters, which leads to some large platoon splits. * Ephemera: Rich Dotson (1977), who has a career losing record of 111-113, is the only seventh overall pick with more than 50 major league wins, but Clayton Kershaw (2006) should change that in 2012. * Perfect World Projection: At least a number-three starter with a good chance of become a number-two with some refinements. * Fantasy Impact: Harvey has the potential to be an early pick if he reaches his potential. * Path to the Big Leagues: Harvey will begin the year either back at Double-A or in Triple-A Buffalo and should reach the big leagues at some point during the season. * ETA: Late 2012.

Getting close to the limit: Morris has two years left on his eligibility; Dale Murphy just one Trammel has four; Lee Smith five

Martinez is no longer on lists of 'prospects' because he's exceeded the ML minimum limits for ABs and/or service time.

Top Ten Table PLAYERVOTESPCTBarry Larkin49586.4%Jack Morris38266.7%Jeff Bagwell32156.0%Lee Smith29050.6%Tim Raines27948.7%Alan Trammel21136.8%Edgar Martinez20936.5%Fred McGriff13723.9%Larry Walker13122.9%Mark McGwire11219.5% I would have preferred to see Raines over Larkin who I always thought missed too much time with injuries, but I don't have a big problem with it.

attgig wrote: NO love for mcgwire... lower than a whole lotta people. -- Well, we know what that's about. That's about the level he's been at for a couple years now. who voted for eric young? -- The hell with that, what FOUR GUYS voted for Bill Mueller? how does Burnitz, Jordan, Mulholland, Nevin, Sierra, and Womack get even on the ballot, but Olerud not? -- I don't even understand the reasoning behind this 'pre-vote' winnowing process. They used to put just about everyone who qualified on the ballot and let the voters eliminate the non-starters. As long as you played the required 10 years and didn't get caught sticking puppies into the microwave or playing with naked children in the shower you should get your day on the ballot.

LARKIN ... and him alone.

I get a kick out of the slant that a catcher who first had his mitt taken away then was increasingly shoved aside by his own team (see the 'Quit' link above) to the point where it was known all along that they weren't going to re-sign him, spending the first few months of the off-season trolling for offers (if not then why wouldn't he have retired during the first week of November?) then, when it's clear that none were forthcoming, is described as "going out on his own terms". Yeah, he is in the same way several recently deposed middle-east potentates did. I guess part of it is the relief to YLDBs that he isn't going to sully himself with a uniform other than the Yanqui pinstripes.

Cubs seemingly take themselves out of the Prince sweepstakes (assuming they were ever in) by swinging a deal for 1B prospect Anthony Rizzo. This marks the 2nd time GM Jed Hoyer has dealt for Rizzo in the last 13 months (he was part of the bait going to SD in the Adrian Gonzalez deal) and while he may not start the year in Chicago the 22 y/oRizzo is probably the best 1B prospect in the game right now.

In addition to the loans and mounting debt, general manager Sandy Alderson said the team lost $70 million in 2011 And, if that's the main source, I wonder if it's not a number put out there for public consumption while all this haggling goes on. I have no doubt that there's probably losses involved and that the $70mil figure is probably one someone can point to on some spreadsheet, but of course a good accountant can make just about any P&L say just about anything he wants. In short, I'm just wary of taking that number as a stone cold fact, especially seeing as how it may be in the interest of several parties to make it seem that way. I wonder how many of the expensive seats will be sold this coming season, I think that's a huge worry for them, not guys like me not going to two or three games a year. The expensive seats and the luxury boxes are where the big money is as far as attendance money goes and there's no doubt that that's where the biggest portion of their hit came from. Coming into the new stadium the Mets* anticipated more demand for those premium seats then there actually was and when the economy cratered they had to slash prices meaning they got both lower volume and fewer dollars per sale that they did get. * The Yanx, Jets & Giants did the same thing and probably to a greater degree. The Yanx wanted, what?, like $2,500 per seat at first for the ones behind the dugout and the football teams got far less demand for those PSLs than they thought even to the point of having to admit that the "bids" for the first seat licenses were rigged so as to simulate intense competition for them. Now all those teams probably had a bigger buffer to start with financially but I still don't hear any of them complaining about drowning in red ink.

Edgy DC wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: When exactly did this team start "hemorrhaging money" as I believe Fred once put it? According to this hotshot, the pendulum swing in 2010. So, assuming that we're to take those figures as accurate, we need to simply accept that, with virtually no change in expenses, revenues for the club suddenly fell by over 100 million dollars (or close to 25%) in the span of one year (and then further after that) as this club flipped from being in a positive-$50mil situation to a negative-$50mil in the blink of an eye. Attendance fell approx 20% between 2009 & 2010 which, when combined with lower prices, could put a dent in finances. But the paid gate is only a portion of income (it certainly is a much smaller portion than in previous eras) and if the set-up of this team is such where anything short of 3+mil asses-in-seats each year (essentially its capacity*) leaves the club swimming in red ink then we're back to my earlier question about how the team stayed afloat this long or could reasonably expect to in the future. * 42K x 81 games = 3.4 million

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think it's possible in this case. For one they had a guaranteed $-maker in Madoff, which was so effective it basically became their only financial strategy (according to the trustee complaint, anyway). Take that away and they were subject to the risks of a shitty stock market like the rest of us schnooks. Second, I suspect they must have badly overestimated the revenues the new stadium would deliver. I am certain they drew up their gameplans with the assumption they'd sell close to every seat in the new joint at the prices they initially set, not to mention the possibility they'd rake in the $$ with postseason games, etc. That they failed to reach any of these goals is partly a result of bad timing with the economy, exacerbated by terrible job of marketing and bad decisions on the baseball front. They failed in almost every way. I get all that -- but $70 Million?!?!?! (on top of maybe $50mil the year before) Assuming those numbers are even close to correct it's hard to see how this owner or any owner EVER made money running this franchise or, if this was all triggered by over-reaching in the stadium deal, how this or any other owner ever could.

Here's the part I'm having trouble grasping (about the whole deal, not just this recent development if this really is a development): When exactly did this team start "hemorrhaging money" as I believe Fred once put it? I mean if you're losing $70 mil a year on a high but not extremely so payroll with decent attendance, fairly high ticket prices, and a what has to be a favorable TV deal, how is it possible that this operation ever ran a profit or ever could in the foreseeable future? Cutting payroll $30-40 mil only means a smaller but still huge loss, especially since it probably means a corresponding loss in attendance. And while I realize that the stadium added a chunk of obligations, if that's what threw the team into the red how is re-organizing things going to change the math? And if that math is what it is why do the current owners want to hang onto the team so badly? And none of this (or very little) has anything to do with Madoff! Bottom line (pun intended) is that something's fishy here, and when I say fishy that doesn't necessarily mean crooked but more like I don't take the numbers and claims being thrown as gospel. There clearly are financial problems but the picture being painted here is one where things went from one extreme to the other with very little to explain how or why.

bmfc1 wrote: Liked it a lot until the ending and then I didn't like it as much. I had trouble at first identifying which young male corresponded with the older version. The ending seemed contrived and unrealistic. Exactamundo!! Started a bit slow ... built into something really good ... then failed at the payoff.

Hated the first one, have ignored the series since. Maybe I'll catch it when it comes to cable and I happened to be strapped to a chair unable to move or change the channel, but other than that ...

I know that I must do what's right Sure as Kilimanjaro rises like Olympus above the Serengeti yjbpwlqp5Qw&feature=fvst

Excerpts from BP: Over the past two seasons, Zambrano accrued 2.4 WARP, much of it due to his performance at the plate. Chris Volstad was worth 2.2. That doesn�t mean the two are equally talented; for one thing, Zambrano put together that total in about 65 fewer innings (albeit because he was so often unable or unwilling to pitch). But even if Volstad isn�t the pitcher Zambrano was and perhaps could be again, he�s five years younger, under team control through 2014, and much less likely to punch someone in the face before then.

Mossad agents, an unrepentant ex-Nazi doctor, love triangles, botched operations, flashbacks, and long-buried dark secrets. Intrigue, but not much hilarity, ensues.