Frayed Knot

Bad week for the CPF as two lose a namesake player.

Keith was big-time friends with Gary Sr. ... not that that has anything to do with anything. For (virtually) free, I don't have any problem with this. I had already heard rumors of rumors about Castillo for Mathews which, predictably, some Met fans thought sounded delightful but would have, in fact, been idiotic to the Nth degree.

I don't either. That whole 'no budget revelation' article not only struck me as a whole lotta nuthin but also as nothing new. Met brass - whether it's the GM or one of the Wilpons - has always said that they're willing to spend if they think the player is worthwhile and, despite the fact that specific limits seem to get picked out of the air by fans and critics, they've never (at least publicly or that I can remember) mentioned a specific number that will not be crossed and, apparently, haven't mentioned one to Omar either. Of course there's a practical limit even if not a set-in-concrete one and I'm sure the lux-tax threshold is something they don't want to cross as then you're spending an extra dollar for every ten you spend (or whatever the specific pcts are).

If Chipper were available right now for 1st base duties I'd be all over him like ... well, like Chipper on a Hooters waitress.

It's just the old 'I just hadn't realized she feet' joke. Back in my sophmore year my roommate had a poster of a jungle scene where the sweat-tinged girl was all but busting out of the khaki shorts and unbuttoned shirt she was wearing while straddling atop a full-sized tiger. One of the girls from the dorm walks in and notices - as only a female would - that the girl and the tiger had the same color eyes. "Eyes?" I said, thinking my joke was pretty funny until Stevie dead-panned, "Tiger?"

Edgy DC wrote: Her feet look like tootsie rolls. Feet?

So now we've got grounds to convince Bobby that the NYM hierarchy would be an improvement in efficiency and stability as compared to what he's been used to. Now all we have to do is think of something to do with that Jerry fellow. Hmmmm ... get me Conan's agent on the phone.

My thesis here is that the benefits of instant replay work out better in theory than they do in practice precisely because these 'what if' situations are either dismissed or never considered. In the case of baseball, MLB was so anxious to correct the problem of a handful of bad calls over a short span that (like they did in 1981) they altered the rules within a season without addressing the potential problems that might result. So now, after a handful of more bad ump calls in the post-season started numerous tongues wagging about expanding the use of the replay rules, I'm fearful that further action will come with a similar short-sighted approach to the possibilities of unintended consequences by ignoring what's in the box that Pandora chick might be opening. The Pittsburgh situation is, among others, a cautionary tale worthy of consideration.

Sure they have, although at least (so far) in limited uses and only in dead ball situations and without ever addressing the possibility of the conflict of interests that invaded the hockey game in Pittsburgh because, at least in part, they implemented it so quickly in order to solve a pr problem of a handful of bad calls on national TV over a short period. It reminds me a bit of the time when the team with the best record got shut out of the 1981 post-season as a result of their hastily constructed 'solution' to the strike; most of the time that wouldn't happen but hoping that it won't (or never considering that it might) doesn't mean it can't. In the same vein there are numerous cries to expand MLB's use of replay, few if any of which consider the can of worms it can open while clinging to the incomplete argument of: 'anything that corrects one bad call is worth it'.

Plus I think Noble's larger point is that just because you disagree with the outcome, or even with some elements of how the outcome was reached, that shouldn't necessarily send out a call to blow up the entire process - and, this year in particular, seems to have generated an awful lot of noise about doing just that.

Both Phil Mushnick (NYPost) and Rob Raissman (NYDN) used their Sunday columns to note the recent incident involving a Pittsburgh Penguins game where a replay showing a nullified opponent's goal to actually be a goal remained un-shown until after the ruling of 'no goal' was confirmed. Several angles were shown during the stoppage that were inconclusive but the definitive one wasn't "found" until play had resumed. Turns out that a producer working for the Penguins' broadcast purposely withheld the telling angle, he has been suspended and some sort of investigation launched but of course it comes too late to change the result in this particular game. The larger point is the one where sports are increasingly embracing replay in cases where the home team not only controls the network responsible for the telecast but in some cases owns it and certainly has an interest in the outcome of the game. Anyone trust the Steinbrenners - who have shown themselves willing to control not only the spoken content at 'YES' but also the camera work over matters as silly as how much face time out-of-favor coaches get - to NOT interfere when a precious MFY win might hang in the balance? Shyeet, if the replay rule already existed I could see the tape of Delgado's shot to LF clanking off the YSIII foul-pole getting buried deeper than Jimmy Hoffa. One could argue that at least the NFL uses 'independent' networks to control what gets shown - although I remember a case from the first Gaints Super Bowl against Denver when the Gints were awarded a first-down on a pass play that otherwise would have resulted in a punt from deep in their own territory during the first half while the game was still close. There too a new angle magically popped up after play resumed which showed what the others didn't, that the ruling should have been for an incomplete pass. Little was made of it at the time (probably because it's the teflon NFL and that the play didn't involve either Farve or Ochocinco) but if I were a Broncos fan knowing that a NY-based network employee was likely the one responsible for not getting the truthful replay on air in time I would have been down at network headquarters the next day with a loaded uzi, Just other examples about how replay rules, IMO, always work much better in theory than they do in practice.

Only caught part of the GG awards show so my opinion here is incomplete - but based on what I saw it's a tie between Anna Paquin and Olivia Wilde for best display of the golden globes.

1) I agree, good riddance 2) This idea of publicly offering up your fandom isn't even remotely original 3) Fans who treat marketing slogans as "promises" deserve all the disappointment that can be heaped upon them with several dump-trucks

Yeah, I was gonna mention that for a guy who usually preaches the idea that those who put in the time have to be at least somewhat rewarded, you've got the 1, 3 & 4 guys in innings pitched (Pelfrey, Livan, Redding) buried behind a bunch of short-timers - Wagner was the most obvious, but also the likes of Dessens, Takahashi, Castro, etc.

Well either I was mis-reading the chart last night (always possible ... late at night, alcohol) or that first column has been fixed because the numbers looked out of order and I couldn't figure out what was what.

Does that come with a code translator or do we need security clearance first?

Dessens and Takahashi get big love from Grimm and Transmonk but a symbolic back of the hand from just about everyone else.

Sickels final grades: Mets had no 'A' or 'A-' prospects, but Sickels only handed out 18* of those total for all 30 teams so only about half the teams have one. He had 44 prospects ranked at 'B+' or better (or approx 1.5 per team) Mets had 3 The average team had 4 'B' or better prospects and the Mets also had 4 7.9 is the average for 'B-' or better, Sickels gave the Mets 7 And the average system had 15.8 guys at 'C+'or higher, the Mets had 12 So, at least according to Sickels, they lack any elite prospects at the moment, are a bit better near the top rung, are about average in what I guess we could call 'good' prospects, and are still lacking in some depth towards the middle of the system. * GRADE A (in no particular order) Jason Heyward, OF, Atlanta Stephen Strasburg, RHP, Washington Buster Posey, C, SF Brian Matusz, LHP, Baltimore Pedro Alvarez, 3B, Pittsburgh Jesus Montero, C, Yanx Desmond Jennings, OF, Tampa Neftali Feliz, RHP, Texas Carlos Santana, C, Cleveland GRADE A- Justin Smoak, 1B, Texas Madison Bumgarner, LHP, SF Aroldis Chapman, LHP, Reds Martin Perez, LHP, Texas Jeremy Hellickson, RHP, Tampa Wade Davis, RHP, Tampa Dustin Ackley, OF-2B, Seattle Chris Carter, 1B-OF, Oakland Mike Stanton, OF, Florida