Frayed Knot

Well, shit, if we're going to track simple errors here we're going to need more bandwidth.

="Benjamin Grimm":wesessgo]I don't pay much attention to opposing players, but I remember a few years ago he seemed pretty dangerous. Hopefully he can return to that point.[/quote:wesessgo] Definitely dangerous, just not consistently so. bmfc1 Jul 10 2009 06:53 PM August 29, 2005 Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:00 PM ="Ceetar":321wp213]="Swan Swan H":321wp213]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:321wp213] I'm not the only one that wants Manuel out. More people jump on that 'bandwagon' every day. He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better. I've never been a fire Omar guy. There are some things that are circumspect..like this trade, rehiring Manuel after a second collapse, signing Mota after a steroids rap, Schoe for three years. But all in all I've thought he's done a fine job, and I don't know that there is someone glaringly better. yes, I think Murphy should play everyday. Manuel thinks he should play every day (he said so, if you can believe him), it's even more apparent now, and I've made that point pretty clearly too. Or do you think Tatis will suddenly be 2008 Tatis? Even from a long term solution, playing Murphy every day doesn't hurt you offensively or defensively (because alternative is Tatis, or I guess, Evans) and you learn about Murphy to say whether he's AAA fodder when Delgado comes back, back to LF experiment, or long term solution at first for next year as well. Maybe you think Francoeur will suddenly be 2007 Francoeur (not any better than Church 2007 btw) too? News Flash. It's 2009. These players suck. Argenis Reyes is still on this team, Castillo continues to sit. Tatis is a disaster, and Cory Sullivan is hitting 300 (so is Jesus Feliciano) Has Francoeur gotten better? to lead you to believe he's suddenly going to hit some magic age and be awesome? Neither player is probably much more than they are right now, but Church is a better play right now.[/quote:321wp213] Where to start... Tatis, the disaster, has an OPS 29 points higher than Murphy, which would make Murphy what, a catastrophe? A debacle? I don't have my thesaurus handy, so that's the best I can do right now. I wish Murphy was playing better, but an everyday first baseman with a .671 OPS is the real disaster. I agree that Murphy has more potential than Tatis for the future, but but get a grip. You sling around hyperbole that has no basis in fact. You blame Manuel for mismanaging, then talk about how bad the players are. Did Jerry build this roster? I disagree with a lot of his moves as well, but when he looks at the bench and sees what he sees, what can he do? I understand that Omar couldn't have planned for these injuries, but John McGraw couldn't goad this bunch into first place. Why are you putting 'bandwagon' in single quotes? Did I mention anything about a bandwagon? Do you not think the folks on this board know the term? metsguyinmichigan Jul 10 2009 07:01 PM Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:03 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1seevtwr]Swannie, are you saying Wes Helms is available? Hmmmmm.[/quote:1seevtwr] Hell, at this point I'd take him. DocTee Jul 10 2009 07:12 PM ]Walks less than a paraplegic. Slugs less than Church. This is the funniest comment I have read in ages. And it almost distracts me from the fact that I hat this transaction. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:15 PM ="Ceetar":34bzg42g]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:34bzg42g] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:21 PM ="Edgy DC":f7pn2b10]="Ceetar":f7pn2b10]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:f7pn2b10] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:f7pn2b10] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it? seawolf17 Jul 10 2009 07:24 PM I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:28 PM Let's get to the important stuff - what number will he wear? The conversation is already underway at MBTN. I'm guessing 4. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:29 PM ="Spacemans Bong":2y0d9r5p]="Edgy DC":2y0d9r5p]="Ceetar":2y0d9r5p]He continues to make mindbogglingly stupid decisions and no one has ever shown me something concrete he's made better.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] Maybe we can steer this conversation away from the word "mindboggling" and its varients.[/quote:2y0d9r5p] It boggles the mind that the Mets could trade for such a mind bogglingly bad baseball player. By the way, if my mind boggles, does Jeff Francoeur swing at it?[/quote:2y0d9r5p] I guess not. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:33 PM ="seawolf17":52topbyk]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:52topbyk] Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 07:38 PM ="Ceetar"]="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Church is what he is..better than Francoeur. he had two good years, not great, and Church had a better 2007 than he did anyway. And it's two down years. to answer Swan, I do think people on this board know the team..as well as anyone else, WFAN callers, Metsblog commenters or the random guy in the stands. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd rather have Tatis anywhere than Murphy? My point is Tatis is mainly a disaster. Murphy has had good stretches this year when he's played every day, and his potential to hit .300, this year, is greater than Tatis'. Besides the obvious bonuses of learning what Murphy can do for future decision making. Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. It's not such a huge difference when you realize Tatis is accustomed to being able to come off the bench and play less regularly, whereas Murphy is basically a rookie and is best suited for playing every day. The stats support this, and it's yet another failure of the manager to not utilize his players the way they will perform best. Not the TEAM, the TERM, the term bandwagon. Read, for Chrissakes. Oh, and this: ]Tatis has a higher OPS mainly because he swings hard and when he happens to make contact he gets doubles. May be the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. Besides, Tatis' OBP is higher than Murphy's which has nothing to do with doubles or swinging hard or whatever that is supposed to mean. And I still don't see how Church's 2007 was better than Francoeur's anyway. Spacemans Bong Jul 10 2009 07:39 PM ="seawolf17":14kh53td]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar.[/quote:14kh53td] Where are his two good years? metsmarathon Jul 10 2009 07:40 PM i'm not a fan of this trade. its not that i don't like jeff francoeur - i mean, i'm never gonna spell that correctly with any consistency whatsoever, but that's really besides the point - and if we had traded lastings milledge for jeff francoeur straight up, i'd be pretty ok with that trade. its just that i liked churchie, and felt like he didnt get enough of a chance to show how good of a player he really was, be it because of a pesky concussion or two, or a pesky relationship with a manager. i liked his defense - he had good range and a good arm, and can play centerfield in a pinch. can francoeur? jeff has power (which the team needs but shouldn't imo be the most important quality we look for in any player) and a big arm (which is important in this field), but i liked church's skill set just fine. i suppose i may come to like it, and it gives us a few things to track, but i don't like it right now, and would rather we had traded something like a pedro feliciano for him instead, tho that likely would not have gotten the deal done. on a scale of 1-5, i'm no higher than a 2. Ceetar Jul 10 2009 07:50 PM go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 07:58 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:07 PM ="seawolf17"]I like this trade. A lot. Church is what he is; he's not going to get any better. Francoeur is a kid who had two very good years, then a down year, which enabled the Mets to get him cheaply. Thanks, Omar. Here's the thing, though-- Francoeur really didn't have two very good years. He had a good Murphy-like dip platooning/mostly swinging from the heels with men on in 2005. He then proceeded to swing even harder at a lot more pitches, and had an SI cover because he looked like a Georgian Mickey Mantle and had hit a bunch of home runs in that first good half-season. His "good years" in 2006 and 2007? He slugged less than .450, had OPS+ ratings of 86 and 103, and was less valuable offensively than Church in both years, and a shit-ton other folk whose names you wouldn't immediately associate with not-shitting-themselves offensively. He had a walk rate of 6.1 percent in his putrid 2008 and it was a career high. Even worse, his strengths aren't strong, either-- he has an isolated power rate (SLG-AVG, so as to isolate XBH) of .158... Church, in more at bats, has a rate of .171. His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. I'm a little annoyed because I think Church could have been interesting trade bait for something else other than this. Omar just traded a decent if underwhelming outfielder for someone who's been perhaps the worst regular offensive player in the majors during the last two years-- Tony Womack-in-2001 bad, but more durable. He's young-ish yet; in 5 years, he may be better. I would feel confident wagering the life a beloved family pet that he won't be. (Plus, those vowels is gonna kills my spellings. "French" it'll have to be.) sharpie Jul 10 2009 08:02 PM It's not a question of Murphy vs. Tatis -- it's that both Murphy and Tatis don't equal a major league first baseman. Get Delgado back, then relegate them both to pinch hitting duties. And swapping Church for Francouer? Fine. Maybe it'll work 'cause what we got now aint' working. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:03 PM ] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 08:13 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 09:11 PM The point is not that the positions of Down with Jerry and Omar and Up with Murphy are invalid. The point is that seeing everything through that prism and everything as further evidence in that direction is irrational in a complex and random world and just just blinds one to the difficult nuances of the game and actually weakens the argument. (No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) Ceetar Jul 10 2009 08:17 PM ="Swan Swan H"]] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:18 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 10 2009 08:22 PM ="Edgy DC"](No GM, for instance, is disgraced by every single transaction -- not even Cam Bonifay.) "I beg to differ... and I would trade you Ziggy Palffy for a hamburger today." "I would add $30 million on top of that. Also, would you like to accompany me to a friend's truck party?" Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 08:20 PM FWIW, Francouer and the Braves have been going with 1-year (non-arb determined) contracts all along and he's currently playing for $3.375mil As mentioned before, he'll be under Met control for the remainder of this season plus two more. Methead Jul 10 2009 08:21 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"] His career slugging percentage is lower than Jay Payton's... hell, it's lower than Juan Uribe's. That line - that single line - just gave me an ulcer. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 08:35 PM ="bmfc1"] August 29, 2005 The editorial staff at SI occasionally makes errors in judgement. Swan Swan H Jul 10 2009 08:56 PM ="Ceetar"]="Swan Swan H"]] go ahead. tell me again how Tatis is a better player and should start and Murphy should go to AAA. Just further convince me you don't watch the game and watch Tatis do nothing of value. You don't get it, do you? Tatis is a disaster. The trade is mind boggling. Everything is Black and White. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that easy. Unless we're talking abut the Yankees, of course. Nothing is too extreme. Want to cherry-pick a game? How about April 29? Tatis was 3-4 with two runs and an RBI, a homer and a stolen base. Murphy was 1-3 with a sac bunt. Silly? Of course it is. Using one game to defend a position is like looking out the window once and saying the weather in this town sucks. I was using one game. How about Tatis' 11 GIDP, which is one of the reasons we were losing despite having the highest AVG in the majors, which i'm sure isn't the case anymore. Or batting a guy that's not hitting at all 4th or 5th, as Manuel did/does routinely. And April was the game you picked? was it because you couldn't find anything worthwhile since? He had that grand slam in may, but they lost that game. There is pretty much zero reason for Tatis to be a starting player on this team, injuries or no, and you could make a case he's not even worthy of the bench. (that's hard to do with Argenis still here though) Tatis has hit into six more DPs (11-5). Murphy has made six more errors (7-1), and can't play 2B or SS. What else ya got? Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 09:15 PM ]I was using one game. Yeah, we got that. The point is you don't do that when more data is available, unless you're so fixated on your point that you're willing to distort the facts to support it at all costs. Frankly, I like sticking with Murphy. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 10 2009 09:30 PM Murph versus Tatis, distorted perception, how much boggling can one trade engender... this thread got out of hand in a hurry. (I think Swanny killed a guy with a trident.) OlerudOwned Jul 10 2009 10:21 PM Jeff Francoeur has had 4 seasons, including this one, with 300 or more plate appearances. He OBP'd .300 or higher in one of them. He's an abhorrent hitter and he's made no strides at improving. The worst part is that I've had so much fun at his expense already. Now I'm sort of guilty. (Not my work.) Nymr83 Jul 10 2009 11:45 PM i dont have much to add, i'll just go on record as not liking it. metirish Jul 11 2009 07:10 AM blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Francouer[/url:1x30hppv] not surprisingly the fans their that responded to the blog think Francouer is the better player gerrard00 Jul 11 2009 08:41 AM How long before the first nasty tabloid back page making fun of Frenchy's willingness to swing at anything? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 11 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish"]blog for the Atlanta Constitution might shed some light on Francouer, or not... Yep, it does. ]He�s not a bad guy � on the contrary, he�s a fine fellow � but neither is he easy to coach. He�d been a success in every sport at every level but couldn�t master the adjustments every successful big-league hitter must make. It�s not that he didn�t try to change. He changed his swing several times. Trouble was, he couldn�t change himself. Francoeur is a baseball player with a football mentality, and that doesn�t cut it over the long haul. A baseball player must be measured in his approach. The same aggressiveness that made Francoeur one of the greatest high school football players this blessed state has ever seen... ultimately rendered him a substandard big-league hitter. Oh, and 85% of the paper's readers appear to be behind the trade. themetfairy Jul 11 2009 10:44 AM I think I initially posted this in the wrong thread, but The Dugout[/url:oq70zs26] had some fun with this trade. dgwphotography Jul 11 2009 12:16 PM ="Swan Swan H":2elfj25m]Fire Manuel. Fire Omar. Play Murphy every day. Rinse. Repeat.[/quote:2elfj25m] I can get behind that sort of agenda (at least until Murphy shows he can't play everyday) Willets Point Jul 11 2009 06:48 PM Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur Kong76 Jul 11 2009 06:56 PM That will help me remember how to spell his name when Schaefer voting. Franco e u r LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 12 2009 10:12 AM ="Willets Point":qi4r3fkj]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:qi4r3fkj] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no? Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 10:58 AM Murphy will not be a Mets starter next year..Frenchie will Ashie62 Jul 12 2009 11:05 AM Ryan Church was a part-time stiff..pleez...now Dump Muffy anf Fartman for Dunn and 1B is set for this year and next Nymr83 Jul 12 2009 11:49 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3ajyn4wm]="Willets Point":3ajyn4wm]Now the Mets have had every player in baseball history with Franco in their surname: John Franco Matt Franco Julio Franco Jeff Francoeur[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Forgetting a few Franco-nas, no?[/quote:3ajyn4wm] Terry Francona is the only one i can think of, but he counts, sorry mets DocTee Jul 12 2009 11:53 AM Tito Francona, too.

Is it just my imagination or are the bottom half of these innings each taking about 45 seconds to complete?

Plus 5 years in age difference. Of course you'll have to re-sign and/or extend him in order to take advantage of those years so maybe that won't matter.

="metsguyinmichigan"]Isn't he supposed to be a horrible fielder? Def not a bad fielder. GREAT athlete (Braves bought him out of a football scholarship at Clemson) w/a real good speed & arm. But I'm not sure I like this. Francoeur was a very highly rated prospect - mostly on account of that athleticism - who zoomed through the minors on those raw skills but (at least partially because of that early success) never really learned to control the strikezone. As mentioned above, never walks and, worse yet, has walked less and less as the seasons have gone on. I remember when Jay Bruce was struggling w/Cincy after his great initial splash last year some talking head (or writing head) was saying how that was a good thing because now he'll have to learn to adjust the way Francouer never did. I guess Church was a FA at the end of the year (or is it one more?) and JF should be still 2 years away so you can claim it's a future move to some extent - but I don't see how it helps now. Francouer is potentially better IMO but that doesn't mean he will be.

That was a wild back-and-forth game long before the Franco hit ended it - and I remember being so keyed up by the end of that game that I jumped on my bike in an attempt to ride off some of the pent-up energy. I spent the next 45 minutes or so pedaling away while replaying the thing in my head to the point where I was virtually oblivious to my surroundings. And then at some point I briefly lifted out of my fog to discover that; a) I was about 12 miles from home and that it was raining

The stupid thing is, interleague was originally 18 games (or close to it) only because it started as East vs East, Central vs Central, etc. Now that that format has been done away with they're still sticking with 18/year as if that number came down on a stone tablet and can never be altered. Years ago I suggested a compromise (since I know they'll never kill it altogether similar to the one Willets just did. Mine was to cut it down to 10/per; 4 between "natural rivals" plus 2 other 3-game series at random. That keeps both the automatic sell-outs and satisfies those who want a random new opponent thrown in. Then I'll take it one step further and say that the 'natural rival' series should be right after the AS break. That weekend virtually demands a 4 game series (close rivals can go NL - AL - NL - AL so both get a weekend game; more distant ones can alternate the 2 + 2) and both squads should have their best pitchers lined up to go head to head.

The bottom line is that the Mets (as a typical example) from 1969 thru 1992 had 11 opponents they'd play during a season. Since 1997 they've had 20. Obviously that results in fewer games per team and fewer trips per city - a fact that inter-league proponents always seem to skip as they like to pretend that IL games are somehow in addition to the regular schedule rather than instead of an equal number of games.

The CPF board has voted NOT to suspend or otherwise discipline Nymr83 for his mis-spelling of Cincinnati in the subject line of this KTE. There will, however, be a letter placed in his file which could be taken into consideration in future cases. In other words: This will be on your permanent record!!

I like the one where Washington won a home game in Houston while Pittsburgh's Joel Hanrahan got credit for the 'W' as he was taking a nap in a Philadelphia hotel room. Hanrahan - traded recently to the Pirates - had been the Nats' last pitcher during a game against the Astros that was suspended while tied after the top of the 10th inning back in May sometime. The scheduled conclusion was last night - in Houston - although the Nats were the home team batting in bottom 10. Nats scored and won the game in that first half inning making Hanrahan the pitcher of record.

Twins lose 457th consecutive game to the Yanx.

="MFS62":2y9du1rs]There were rumors (or maybe just snide speculation) a few years ago that she was George Steinbrenner's girlfriend.[/quote:2y9du1rs] That's just plainly absurd. Bob Raissman nicknamed her 'Georgie Girl' a bunch of years back, but he nicknames everyone and hung that one on her because of her see-no-evil approach to the Yanx - although that's pretty much required by everyone who does their games. There was also a time when Imus's gang was getting a kick out of some interview she did w/Steinbrenner while still with FAN which they thought was so soft that it was akin to post-sex pillow talk but no one took that seriously. I actually thought she was OK when she first started on FAN (and the fact that she was the first broadcaster on the "Mets station" was nothing more than it being her shift to do updates). Maybe I was giving her too much credit for being a chick in the sports business (though she did take a lot of shit for it) but she always seemed to know her stuff (both baseball & hoops) and I never minded hearing her. Her problem, as things went on though, was that she got too emotionally involved in the teams she was covering. First the Knicks when she was the FAN beat reporter for them during their almost hey-day of the early '90s*, and then later on with the Yanx. She even admitted to crying when the Knicks got knocked out of the playoff one year and we all heard the Clemens on-air orgasm thing. Her contributions now are really pretty minimal since Sterling handles every second of the play by play and hasn't missed a game since they hired him some 20 years ago. So her job mainly consists now of reading the umpteen promos and tie-ins that invade virtually every aspect of Yanqui-casts these days as they've 'billboard-ed' themselves to death. * How telling is it - not only in the fortunes of the Knicks & Yanx since the early '90s but also in baseketball and baseball in this town - that they didn't even send her to cover the Yanx until the Knicks season was over in those days - which was sometimes as late as June. FAN would just use fill-ins or sometimes no beat reporter at all for the first 1/3 of the MFY season. G-Fafif Jul 09 2009 09:20 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 09 2009 09:41 PM ="Gwreck"]="G-Fafif"]Also did an inning with GC in 2005 when, for fun, Mets and MFY casters joined each other during a Subway Series game. It was Gary and Suzyn, Howie and Sterling. I remember that but thought it was '06, and in the David Wright-Mariano Rivera game to boot. Is my memory failing me It was '05; in '06 Howie and Gary were not sharing the 'FAN booth. It was the Mr. Koo game (a Fox presentation, which meant I had the TV sound off). ETA: One supposes they could have repeated the gimmick in '06, but it would have been with Tom McCarthy, who presumably is still calling a play that was completed three years ago. G-Fafif Jul 09 2009 09:21 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]="G-Fafif"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]I am becoming a softie in my old age but I don't hate Waldman anymore either. I mean, I probably would if she was a Met announcer. Ah, but she was a Mets announcer, for one series in Houston when Murph had begun to not make some road trips and the Mets decided to try and make some history by having a woman in the booth. I'm fairly certain it was 1993, maybe even the series when Darryl Kile threw his no-hitter. The concept outpaced the delivery. ETA: It was June 1993, three months before the series with the no-hitter. She did color, no PBP, alongside Gary Cohen. Also did an inning with GC in 2005 when, for fun, Mets and MFY casters joined each other during a Subway Series game. It was Gary and Suzyn, Howie and Sterling. I remember the radio switcheroo, but never knew she filled in in 93. I was more or less out of the loop that year. If you missed 1993 the first time around, congratulations on getting a taste of its competitive contours since June 1. Gwreck Jul 09 2009 09:43 PM ="G-Fafif":osrg6an9]It was '05; in '06 Howie and Gary were not sharing the 'FAN booth. It was the Mr. Koo game (a Fox presentation, which meant I had the TV sound off).[/quote:osrg6an9] Thanks. Guess I had my memorable defeats of the MFYs confused.

CC Sabathia's actual answers: Favorite Michael Jackson song -- Eat It I wish I could transform into -- Size 58 pants or smaller I get the chills when I think of -- An empty fridge Bottles of water I drank today -- 24 ... oh wait, you said water? Best tearjerker movie -- Failure to Lunch

That wasn't a casual play. Castillo had to wait until Cora got there. Everything was perfect IMO except the call. ('nother story w/Sheffield in RF). And I know it especially seems this way when you're losing, but it sure seems like we're getting dicked on a lot of calls lately.

If nothing else, 'Kung Fu Panda' has got to be the most perfect nickname for the very athletic yet chunky Sandoval. I think peeps should vote for him just on that basis alone.

]... and Tony Womack was one of the worst regulars in baseball Except for that game-tying double in the 9th/game 7 which not only was the biggest hit in the inning that made the Yanx lose both the game and the series but also caused them to sign him to an over-priced 2-year contract a few seasons later (cuz he's clutch don't cha know). Helluva guy if you ask me.

Perez - 1.6 Parnell - 1.0 Murphy - 2.0 Wright - 1.4 Reed - 1.6 Schneider - 1.0 Castillo - 1.0 Green - 0.3 Feliciano - 0.1

I think we should kick Randy Wolf's ass twice this game. Once for him and once for his brother's shitty game last week.

Let it rain!!

OlerudOwned wrote: Well, I walked in for the Loretta and Martin at-bats. Looked pretty good there even though he gave up a hit, though I'm sure he didn't seem so hot while he was walking two batters. First one (Furcal) was on four pitches. The next guy at least had to work for his.

Maybe - although you didn't chime in during this thread one way or the other. Nymr83 gets the prescient award on this topic: "that is a shitload of years and money. toronto will come to regret that contract in a few years i think."

5-year deals for relievers usually are dumb - especially for big money (of course if it were small money he wouldn't be getting a 5-year deal in the first place). That he needed major surgery a short time into the deal obviously didn't help things.

G-Fafif wrote: July 8's a good day to get to work on a miracle. Now if only we could get Joe Torre to start Don Young in center. I was at that game!

Pie reminds me a bit of Wily Mo Pena; an uber-tooled OFer who was rated on everyone's prospects lists as a teenager based purely on potential alone but as time went on never really seemed to get the hang of ... well, hitting. As for the original WATP: Wilson's a great fielder (though a bit of a hot-head) who would provide a bit more pop than Cora but probably make more outs in the process. I'm not sure I'd be spending any precious chips (or even semi-precious ones) on just a partial upgrade for a short time problem. He's also making a decent amount of smack. Snell, OTOH, is intriguing.

Heard Buster Olney on the radio earlier saying the same thing about Halladay, that the Phils are the best match-up on the surface. Whoever wants him reportedly has to be willing to part with "three top prospects" and be able to pick up the contract. Those two conditions alone eliminate a number of clubs but probably not the Phils who are actively looking for starting pitching (they're looking at Pedro just this week). On the other hand, the "Halladay is on the block" quotes that came through late yesterday are a little more breathlessly definitive than what Toronto GM JP Riccardi is actually quoted as saying; "I don't think anything has changed, I just think: 'You know what, why not listen? The worst we can say is no' ... If someone wants Roy and they're willing to blow us away we'd be willing to listen, that's all I'm saying. That doesn't mean we'd trade him, that doesn't mean we're looking to trade him. All it means is we'd be willing to listen."