Frayed Knot

="MFS62":11cjvs6r]="metirish":11cjvs6r] Not that I could spell it but I looked at that and thought that's not it.....so I looked it up. Jeff Samardzija[/quote:11cjvs6r] Ahhh. Now that I see the proper spelling, isn't he the guy who also was a promising football player for Notre Dame? I wondered why I didn't see his name in the NFL box scores this year.[/quote:11cjvs6r] Yup. Cubbies dangled some 10 million dollars in front of his face to lure him away from the NFL draft - although he did play one final season on the ND gridiron. Raw and a bit shaky following a short minor league 'career', but also showed flashes of being extremely nasty. metsguyinmichigan Jan 29 2009 09:01 AM ="Edgy DC":11154hl4] That's fine, though I'd like to see what those elipses replace. The problem there is that, if you believe the environment has consequences for some players, what's the Wrigley crowd going to do to him if he struggles at all?[/quote:11154hl4] Based on what I saw at Wrigley last year and the year before, the bulk of the people in attendance were barely aware that a game is going on. It was like a giant meat farm. My buddy Will says, "They're here for a game, but it's not the one we're watching."

="Edgy DC":3z4h1v4l]Donn, though, was fast as the wind as a young player. He still ran pretty fast for a thumper by the time he reached the Mets.[/quote:3z4h1v4l] So you're saying that you'd rather have Donn than Dunn? Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 07:56 AM Hard to vote against Donn, dead though he is, at the present time. Vic Sage Jan 29 2009 01:30 PM smg58: ]According to the Fielding Bible, Church's defense in RF was superior, Murphy's glove in left was above average (and far better than most people realize), and Dunn's glove was well below average no matter where he was put. I'm not sure Dunn would give the Mets anything with the bat that he wouldn't take away with the glove, especially in a more spacious park. The same applies to Abreu, and would have applied to Burrell, Ibanez, or Jermaine Dye. This kind of horsehockey makes my shorts steam. you're worried about corner of defense, when you've got a guy who averages 40hr/100+rbi/100+BB /year? Get Ollie & Dunn and be done! Nymr83 Jan 31 2009 11:56 PM come on Omar, slip it under the radar on superbowl sunday... Adam Dunn is a NYM. SteveJRogers Feb 01 2009 06:43 AM ="Nymr83":16qb9hum]come on Omar, slip it under the radar on superbowl sunday... Adam Dunn is a NYM.[/quote:16qb9hum] That will piss off the "We Want Manny" fanboys! Then again, they'll probably want Omar to act like the Yankees and say "Hey, why not get both!" Nymr83 Feb 01 2009 09:59 PM I'd rather have Dunn than Ramirez given their respective ages and attitudes. Dunn also has the added ability to play 1B, meaning that at the end of next season we can look to replace Delgado OR shift Dunn to 1B and find an outfielder. If we sign Manny we are locked in to replacing Delgado with a firstbaseman, and options are good to have. I admit that Ramirez's stats are more impressive and wouldn't fault anyone for preffering him. Number 6 Feb 01 2009 10:32 PM The biggest issue regarding Dunn would be the risk in a long-term deal (he's got a healthy dose of the dreaded "old-person skills"). None of the models available like his chances for maintaining his skill-set over the length of a 4-year contract. If he's available for 1 on the cheap though, somebody is getting a bargain. To me, this still all goes back to Perez. It seems like the Mets are not going to shoot their payroll far beyond $135 million, and if that's the case I'd much rather see them pick up Dunn and a pitcher, preferably Sheets on an incentive-laden "prove-it" contract, for a price possibly a few million more than what they'd pay for Perez. They'd do that without the risk inherent in doling out longer-term deals. If Sheets has a dynamite year - which he is clearly capable of provided he pitches - and meets his incentives, then you're quite possibly getting a positive return on investment anyway. I like Church a lot, but you just can't count on him to stay on the field. Right now, left field is stitched together with wishes and dreams. It's nice that we have 3 huge producers and 1 with potential, but that might not mean much if our offense is significantly below league-average in the other 4 lineup slots. Nymr83 Feb 02 2009 12:21 AM ="Number 6":2lro33xa]The biggest issue regarding Dunn would be the risk in a long-term deal (he's got a healthy dose of the dreaded "old-person skills"). None of the models available like his chances for maintaining his skill-set over the length of a 4-year contract. If he's available for 1 on the cheap though, somebody is getting a bargain. To me, this still all goes back to Perez. It seems like the Mets are not going to shoot their payroll far beyond $135 million, and if that's the case I'd much rather see them pick up Dunn and a pitcher, preferably Sheets on an incentive-laden "prove-it" contract, for a price possibly a few million more than what they'd pay for Perez. They'd do that without the risk inherent in doling out longer-term deals. If Sheets has a dynamite year - which he is clearly capable of provided he pitches - and meets his incentives, then you're quite possibly getting a positive return on investment anyway. I like Church a lot, but you just can't count on him to stay on the field. Right now, left field is stitched together with wishes and dreams. It's nice that we have 3 huge producers and 1 with potential, but that might not mean much if our offense is significantly below league-average in the other 4 lineup slots.[/quote:2lro33xa] "3 huge producers" is a bit optimistic as well. heres what i would consider a reasonable range of OPS+ numbers from our projected lineup, though of course you're free to disagree: SS Reyes (100-120) RF Church (100-135) 3B Wright (130-155) CF Beltran (120-140) 1B Delgado (100-140) LF Tatis/Murphy (90-120 from the LF spot combined) 2B Castillo (75-95) C Schneider/Castro (75-95 from the spot) obviously thats alot of range, but i think only 2 guys (Wright, Beltran) are capable of having a truly huge year, while 3 more (Delgado, Reyes, Church) are at least likely to be a positive force in the lineup. But you've got LF which is really a wild guess at this point, and C and 2B where you can pretty much expect a drag on the lineup. I realize that C is pretty much unaddressable at this point (look whose out there), but LF could be very easily addressed with players who would hit in the top 5 of any lineup (Ramirez, Dunn, Abreu) and 2B could at least be made into a great defensive strength with better offensive production than Castillo (Hudson) Number 6 Feb 02 2009 01:09 AM Yeah, the word "huge" was a bad choice, for several reasons. My fear is that we get significantly less from RF when we're playing back-ups due to injury, and I think we can reasonably expect less than the range you project for LF. Personally, I'd be surprised if the OPS+ we get from our LF platoon, as currently cast, approaches 100. Combine that with 2 other slots which I think you have pretty accurately down as offensive black holes, and it could get ugly. Yeah, it's a bad-case scenario, but I'd argue it's at least as likely as other probable outcomes. Even if we assume that Delgado, Wright, Reyes and Beltran are nearer to the upper bound of your ranges, can we expect that production to carry what could be some pretty hideous drag? Meanwhile, Dunn has averaged an OPS+ of 133 for the past 5 seasons. If it winds up being true that his price could come down to 1 year and $7 million or so, that's value, and it keeps us from needing to bank on the improbable. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 01:57 AM It would be nice to acquire Manny's next two seasons without having to pay for the two after that. But Manny and Dunn want long term deals. And if the price for either of those two drops low enough, then the Mets advantage in being one of baseball's wealthiest teams might be squandered, because at some point, even the Royals will put in a bid. Nymr83 Feb 02 2009 02:47 AM Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million (assuming they wanted to) then the Royals sure can't offer 2 years and 20 million either. Right now the Mets have an advantage because there are at least 3 reasonable hitting alternatives out there (Ramirez, Dunn, and Abreu) and it is very unlikely that all 3 of those players find a 3rd year somewhere, the Mets should be able to get one of them, even if its not their first choice, for 2 years. Theres also the pitchers that are still out there... Perez and Sheets are getting nothing right now from what i can tell of the rumor mill, its time the Mets made a "who can jump first" offer to the both of them. It really looks like the bargains are there to be had and now is the time to lock them in for a smart GM. A few teams will be patting themselves on the back next offseason when prices are higher and they've got these guys at cheaper rates for another year. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 07:09 AM And if all else fails ... Get Wiggy With It!!! batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 09:32 AM ="Nymr83":2s7x82mb]Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million...[/quote:2s7x82mb] This'll probably fall into that vast category of things I believe are true but can't prove, but if Manny can't get more than a two year $20M deal, I'd be very suspicious of a lot of other things besides the economy. And if a team's offering Manny $10M a year, then it can hardly be said that his price has dropped to $7M. metirish Feb 02 2009 09:37 AM Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:15 AM ="metirish":e0gp3ri2]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:e0gp3ri2] Probably. We were only "what iffing" on Manny's price. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 10:21 AM ="metirish":3ko8tdnw]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:3ko8tdnw] Yes, LA put that deal out there early on and is waiting for a counter-offer from Boras but hasn't heard anything. And word leaked out the other day that Manny supposedly let it slip via his buddy A. Pujols that he hasn't received an offer other than that one. The Giants showed some brief interest and continue to stick their nose in every once in a while but that now seems to be more in making sure the Dodgers don't get him cheaply than it is in snagging him for themselves. Presumably that same Dodger offer is still on the table although they might just reduce it themselves. Meanwhile Boras is still talking about wanting 4 years. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 08:35 PM From Jayson Stark - espn.com: A two-year, $45 million offer three months ago didn't get it done. So on Monday, the Los Angeles Dodgers made a new offer to Manny Ramirez -- for one year and $25 million, according to a major league source. Dodgers GM Ned Colletti confirmed to ESPN.com that he met with Ramirez's agent, Scott Boras, on Monday and presented the new offer in person. Colletti declined to confirm any details of the offer. But the offer was confirmed by another source with knowledge of the discussions. It's believed that Ramirez and Boras were given a 48-hour deadline to accept the offer. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2009 09:00 PM They stole my idea! metsguyinmichigan Feb 02 2009 09:35 PM That's more than the entire Marlins payroll. Number 6 Feb 02 2009 11:31 PM Of course, he could be referring to talks that happened a while ago, were not substantial, or are dead due to the Perez signing and/or Castillo, but Hudson is still name-dropping the Mets. http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200902023793126 Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 06:46 AM Manny/Boras turn down the Dodger proposal ... and the beat goes on. Benjamin Grimm Feb 03 2009 07:34 AM Report this morning that the White Sox have offered Abreu one year, $8 million. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM Take it, Bobby.

WARP Speed Captain! Just for kicks; the 'WARP' projections (Wins above Replacement Player) from BP for 2009 FA LFers: Manny = 4.3 Dunn = 3.8 Abreu = 3.2 And, yes, WARP does take defense into account as well as hitting. IOW, Manny's projected 2009 season (using BP's system) would add approx 4-1/2 wins to your team over and above what using a "replacement" player (a readily available waiver pick-up) would bring. Dunn would add about half a win less, Abreu another half-win less. They mention that Manny WARP projection is only [u:11e8s8cy]a bit more than half[/u:11e8s8cy] what he provided in 2008 (7.8) but the system takes into account that he's probably unlikely to repeat his stunning 2nd-half rampage and even more unlikely to avoid turning 37.

Marty Noble writes: A report out of the Dominican Republic on Wednesday says Mets general manager Omar Minaya has expressed interest in re-signing Pedro Martinez. The report by The Associated Press cites no source and seems to represent a complete change of heart by the Mets, who had indicated repeatedly re-signing Martinez was unlikely. It then goes onto say that they have met with him although no offer has been made, nor has Pedro received offers from any other club. "It seems to me that "reports out of the Dominican Republic" have been notoriously inaccurate over the years. That this originated from the AP gives it some credibility I suppose but who knows where they got it from. I wouldn't be totally adverse to the idea with two conditions: 1) That this is in addition to, not instead of, signing a "real" mid-rotation guy like Sheets or Perez 2) That the team is willing to cut or sit him down if things don't work without fear of bruising his ego or deferring to his "veteran status"

I'm sure he was among the first users to make drug-taking a full-time habit but the claim that he "introduced them" is probably more self-promotion than actual fact. Prior to that guys had experimented with all kinds of shit. Atlanta pitcher Tom House has admitted that he and several other were using some whacked out crap like horse steroids and that was back at the end of Aaron's era - some 15 prior to Canseco's rookie year. The manufacture and distribution of steroids specifically for athletic purposes was as unsophisticated back them as were the people taking them, but by the time Jose came on the scene in '87 he was at just the right time to be at least among the first to add them to their Wheaties as part of a training regimen from Day 1. Brian Downing was the first guy I remember who went away one winter and showed up the following spring looking incredibly bulked up (mid-'80s.) Whether that was roids or not is speculation ... but I'd bet on it.

Egg-zactly In the old days it was about selling tickets so they figured that having them too often would spoil the novelty and fans would no longer plan their ticket buying around them. Now they don't need them to fill seats so it's all about making money via the underwriting. They'd probably have them 81 times a year if they could find enough gizmos and sponsors.

="SteveJRogers":1opxjwwi]Perfect example, Jose Canseco was dead on accurate in his first book ...[/quote:1opxjwwi] No he wasn't. One of his first promo gigs was with '60 Minutes' where (Wallace?) read a passage about how he shot up McGwire "numerous times". After several attempts to get him to specify how many "numerous" was he was down to "well ... once, maybe twice". Embellishing a book makes it more notable or - hopefully for the author/publisher - also more sellable. Canseco wanted to pump up his name by making himself into (and got far too much credit for IMO) the 'hero' in the steroids story even as he is now getting around to distancing himself from some of the stuff he said in that book. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 02:11 PM I remember seeing Canseco on Letterman promoting his book, and he claimed to have been the one who introduced steroids to baseball, and that he wrote the book as a way of making amends. I didn't buy the "making amends" part at all, but I did wonder about how much truth there is in his claim about being the first steroid user. I am skeptical, but someone had to be the first. Could it have been him? Frayed Knot Jan 28 2009 02:26 PM I'm sure he was among the first users to make drug-taking a full-time habit but the claim that he "introduced them" is probably more self-promotion than actual fact. Prior to that guys had experimented with all kinds of shit. Atlanta pitcher Tom House has admitted that he and several other were using some whacked out crap like horse steroids and that was back at the end of Aaron's era - some 15 prior to Canseco's rookie year. The manufacture and distribution of steroids specifically for athletic purposes was as unsophisticated back them as were the people taking them, but by the time Jose came on the scene in '87 he was at just the right time to be at least among the first to add them to their Wheaties as part of a training regimen from Day 1. Brian Downing was the first guy I remember who went away one winter and showed up the following spring looking incredibly bulked up (mid-'80s.) Whether that was roids or not is speculation ... but I'd bet on it.

I remember when Imus used to say that 'Hand-gun Night' was coming up a Yankee Stadium. All those over 15 got a freebie but only if accompanied by their parole officer. Funny how give-away promotions have increased during a time when stadiums are closer to their capacity than ever in many cases, theoretically making the need for a come-on less necessary.

Various articles today (Olney & Wash Post) say that both Abreu & Dunn may be willing (read: have no choice) to take one-year deals.

David Segui, who was named by Radomski in the book and on an ESPN program a few days ago, has not only denied not buying stuff from Radomski but denies ever meeting him ... so somebody's obviously lying. I'll read the Torre book before this one.

Actions to take if you're on the Yanqui's mailing list: 1) Kill yourself 2) Do it again in case it didn't work the first time

Back in '86 my little circle of Met fan friends and I would use 1984 as a barometer. If you couldn't talk seriously about that team and that year we basically treated you like a bandwagon jumping newbie not worthy of our time. Yes, I was an elitist even back then.

The Ollie (or whoever) signing will probably bring them up to around where the payroll was last year and, new stadium or not, it's not hard to see them wanting to hold the line on expenses given the current economy and a more than slightly grumpy fan base. On the other hand, with so many players still on the market (96 FAs acc to something I saw the other day - although that may include a few never to play again types) chasing a limited number of openings I think an offensive addition is still possible - even if it won't be the 'WOW' player many folks wanted. I don't know who or at what position or how much of an upgrade it'll be -- but there's bound to be a whole lotta last minute scrambling going on in the next 3 weeks and a few players are going to be left standing when the music stops.

Manny (Boras) is reportedly still insisting about wanting a 4-5 year deal. I wouldn't touch him at more than 2 - but I have a feeling he's not in their budget in any case.

According to Newsday(Anthony Rieber) the Mets are "a little bit closer" to re-signing lefthander Oliver Perez, but also are continuing talks with three other remaining free-agent pitchers ... adding that; the Mets are "having dialogue" with the agents for pitchers Ben Sheets, Randy Wolf and Jon Garland and expect to have the open hole in their rotation filled before the official opening of spring training on Valentine's Day.

="SteveJRogers"]I guess that is what you get when you create a system that rewards the here and now over the whole picture of a Metly career. Actually the system specifically takes into account the "whole picture of a Metly career" so I don't know WTF you're talking about. And, no, I don't want an explanation because I don't think you do either so a follow up will probably just make us both more confused.

="batmagadanleadoff":126e1iwf]So what wine goes well with a rubbery hot dog that has the inside texture of fried Jello?[/quote:126e1iwf] Red, of course. Duh! G-Fafif Jan 26 2009 05:29 PM The Mets' lateral movement in the standings from '07 to '08 and this newfound appreciation of wine would seem to indicate they will continue to go Sideways in '09. SteveJRogers Jan 26 2009 05:30 PM I sense a comedy pyramid is forming!

Even if using YSII was the on-paper 'just-in-case' backup plan in the event that some wild mishap went on with the construction of either of the new stadiums the virtually ZERO chance such a plan would ever be put into place has now shrunk to roughly that of the Lions being put into next week's Super Bowl were a case of bubonic plague to sweep through either the Steeler or Cardinal camp. And, as the article mentions, they've yet to even select a company that would do the deconstruction or set a date as to when it might start. So the reason it's not only still up but will be so for at least another year has everything to do with the fact that they haven't finished milking the old girl for every cent she's worth and if that means that the city that just re-re-issued more tax-free bonds as the price climbed over a billion dollars and the local kids in the neighborhood they claim to care so much for (whenever they weren't threatening to leave that is) go without a public park for the next few years well then that's none of their damn business.

Whenever I think of fine wines [u:2ffcec5q]Aramark[/u:2ffcec5q] is always the first name that pops into my head.

Right now Tom Brokaw is saying; "Rat bastard, that was going to be MY next book ... I called dibs!!!!"

btw, Harvey Araton tees off the Yanx in a piece in Sunday's NYTimes. Specifically it's the sweet time they're taking in getting rid of the old park even though the new one is nearly finished and that the whole deal was based on trading stadium space for park land, park land that now seems destined for 2011 at the earliest. Their answer as to when they'll get around to even starting deconstruction is essentially "when we fuckin' get around to it - now go away and stop bothering us", even as they had no problem making a public spectacle about marching their offices across to the new digs the street last week. "Mayor Bloomberg, tear down this stadium"

="Centerfield":11erg5gp]Is a torn flexor tendon what knocked out Wagner? The article doesn't make it clear whether the Rangers are concerned because he had a torn flexor tendon, or whether they feel he still has a torn flexor tendon.[/quote:11erg5gp] Wagner's was a ligament tear. That's what TJ surgery is needed to fix. Sheets' flexor tendon tear did not have surgery - probably meaning it isn't thought to be severe enough and he can still pitch with it while it heals or remains strong enough on its own. Maybe it can but that's a risk whoever signs him is going to need to consider. Edgy DC Jan 26 2009 11:17 AM He may want to pull an Astacio and do some showcase pitching in the Caribbean. smg58 Feb 05 2009 11:56 AM [url:2ctckaya]http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090205&content_id=3801488&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp[/url:2ctckaya] The poor guy just can't buy a break. Nymr83 Feb 05 2009 12:47 PM sounds like a good time to sign him for cheap and hope he can help out in the second half or even for 2010 seawolf17 Feb 05 2009 01:36 PM ="Nymr83":3bzpskk2]sounds like a good time to sign him for cheap and hope he can help out in the second half or even for 2010[/quote:3bzpskk2] Bingo! Two-year, backloaded deal. Didn't the Yankees do that with Jon Lieber? Frayed Knot Feb 05 2009 02:38 PM Re: Leiber; yes, but I think it was post-surgery and not pre. Plus you don't want to do this at a time when it'll cost you a draft pick. So maybe after the cut-n-slice sounds like it worked and after the draft is done in June and you're off the hook for compensation it may be time to look into a rehab signing. Nymr83 Feb 05 2009 02:40 PM its strange that Sheets, if he knew he might need surgery, didn't accept arbitration from the Brewers. attgig Feb 05 2009 03:03 PM perhaps he had differing opinion vs the rangers doctors. him/his doctors didn't think he needed surgery, but the rangers docs did. and once ONE team's docs blackball you, it's gonna be impossible to get anything from any other team. Ashie62 Feb 05 2009 03:50 PM Sheets out 4-6 months for partially torn flexor tendon That answers that DocTee Feb 05 2009 04:20 PM Tough break. You know who I'd like to see the Mets take a flyer on: Mark Mulder. Centerfield Feb 06 2009 08:00 AM ="Ashie62":k5uv0414]Sheets out 4-6 months for partially torn flexor tendon That answers that[/quote:k5uv0414] That makes no sense. If that was the prognosis, why not have the surgery back in October? John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Centerfield":125azak8]="Ashie62":125azak8]Sheets out 4-6 months for partially torn flexor tendon That answers that[/quote:125azak8] That makes no sense. If that was the prognosis, why not have the surgery back in October?[/quote:125azak8] Apparently the injury was revealed as part of a physical examination the Rangers required as a condition of a 2-year contract offer, now revoked. There is a question as to whether the Brewers will pay the doctor bills, paper sez. Nymr83 Feb 06 2009 08:38 AM thats going to be a question for the collective bargaining agreement, his last contract, and/or worker's comp laws. this is probably a good opportunity for the brewers to sign him for 2 years backloaded for cheap, maybe with a semi-expensive option for 2011 that kicks in with 200 innings in 2010. they'll probably be paying for his rehab anyway so they might as well be able to direct it and benefit from it

I conflate ... but only in private and with consenting adults.

I hope Heilman does OK too -- although doing so will only feed the perception that he was a can't pitch in NYC guy, despite turning in a 3.27 ERA/1.13 WHiP over a 3-year span leading up to last season.

Shit hitting fan: Day 1 "Sources close to Alex" are saying this is all a bunch of nonsense from a bitter man trying to sell books. None of that is directly from A-Fraud himself but it oughta be fun the first time he gets a mike stuck in his face. Co-author Verducci is quick to claim via SI.com that this book is not a rip-job and that the handful of lines leaked via the papers need to be taken in context. At least to an extent he's right. The headline-making lines always consist of the most salacious stuff quick readers of the first copies can find. Joe, for instance, isn't the one who calls him A-Fraud, only pointing out that some of the players did so as an example of his trouble fitting in. Might be fun though to see if either author takes credit for the 'Single White Female' line. Cashman says Joe phoned him after the first stories trying to defuse any potential hard feelings. The book is apparently not written in the first person, although Joe would be best not to try and hide behind that if/when the fur starts flying. His name is still on the book "and Tom Verducci" so it should be assumed that everything in it had his approval. It's not a Verducci-penned book about the MFYs in the Torre years, it's a Joe Torre book and he's going to have to take the heat for it. And several writers are taking, "Why Joe, why?" approach, thinking that this will ruin his NYY legacy no matter how he intended it to come out.