Frayed Knot

What straw men? Soupcan is suggesting that the likes of Milledge shouldn't be deemed as "untouchable" because we don't know how good he's going to be and because the record of prospects in similar positions is sketchy at best. My response was that I wouldn't deal him in this particular rumored swap although I'd join him in the 'never-say-never' club. ]It's a dead-end path, trading rookie prospects routinely for veterans If you do it wrong it is. Like I said, the Cards have made a habit of doing just that in recent years (for Edmonds, Rolen, McGwire, Mulder, Rentaria) which has resulted in their farm system being often ranked at or near the bottom of the barrel. It's also resulted in them playing in or for the World Series in the last 3 seasons and in 4 of the last 6. That doesn't prove that that method is the only way to do things, just that it alone is not some kind of poison pill to be avoided on some kind of philosophical principle. And besides, no one sticks to only one method of player procurement. You use some combination of all of them and hopefully make the right decisions with each. ]Is "toolsy" really a word? In the world of baseball evaluations it is. Doubt the folks at SCRABBLE would accept it -- although probably only because none of them have thought of it yet.

]IIRC from economics, only one cable provider is allowed per area because it keeps from millions of cable lines crisscrossing the skies. Same with electricity and phones Yeah, that was the given reason for a single phone company for years. ATT essentially wired this entire country and so they were granted a legal monopoly to all long-distance service based on that. But they also had to deal with much more stringent price regulation while Cable has little or none. This is like having to worst of both worlds: no competition OR regulation to cap pricing. Of course ATT eventually abused their monopoly long enough to the point where they got a court-ordered breakup shoved down their throats. IIRC, Congress's one attempt to regulate cable prices made the matter considerably worse.

]I agree that the farm system should be teeming with prospects but isn't one of the functions of the farm system to provide tradeable chips? Yes it is, and some of the teams that have been at or near the top in recent years have done just that to get/stay there*. Ideally, what you want to do is hang on to the "real deals" and swap out the others as needed in order to fill the big team's holes. The trick, of course, is figuing out which ones are the true gems and which are expendable. A strong farm system is a great thing to have but sometimes I think fans tend to treat having one as if it's an end unto itself instead of a means to a different end: namely a good MAJOR league team. No one should be considered "untouchable". The problem with Kazmir for Zambrano wasn't a philosophical one of a prospect being dealt for an established ML player; it was with THAT prospect being dealt for THAT player. I wouldn't do that proposed 3-way deal w/Boston & Wash (which I don't believe is real anyway) but mainly because I don't trust Vidro's health and I'm not sure that Livan Hernandez is much younger than Keith Hernandez, not because I'm convinced Milledge (who I wouldn't recognize if stuck on a elevator with) is "a sure thing". * The Cardinals are a good example of a team that's used that strategy well in recent years. They kept Pujols (who oddly wasn't as high on the charts as some others early but became a star so quickly that it removed all temptation) but have had a lower-ranked farm system over the last few years because they've dealt most of the rest of their decent "parts" to net themselves some key components of their recent runs like Edmonds, Rolen, Mulder, et al. The early '90s Yanquis did much the same. Many MFY fans thought Gerald was the better Williams over Bernie and hated the Roberto Kelly for Paul O'Neill deal ... but the club made the right call both times. It's not always as easy as it looks in retrospect.

="seawolf17"]I like our system right now. Could be deeper, but at least there's something there. Well there's always something but this isn't a good system right now. Aside from Milledge - who's a legit top-15 in all of baseball kind of guy - I doubt we'll see anyone else in the top-100 lists that'll come out this Spring with the possible exception of Pelfrey who may find his way onto the middle/back of some lists based strictly on his potential & amateur career since obviously there's nothing else to go by at this point. Now if Pelfrey makes a huge splash and Humber bounces back quickly you've got the potential for a real big "top 3" a la Reyes/Wright/Kazmir, but we're a couple of 'ifs' away from that point and even then you've still got the depth question to contend with. I think Dickshot's point is that the lack of depth limits what you can do when a trade is needed since most of the guys would fall under the extremes of being either close to untouchable, or so far away to the point where they're not all that valuable. This wasn't a very highly rated system prior to dealing Petit, Jocobs, Hernandez, etc. and I'd be surprised if the mags that rate these things this Spring have it anywhere but the bottom 1/4 of their lists. ]FWIW -- Jacobs isn't going to be on BA's prospect list because he no longer qualifies. He has too much ML experience, I'd think. Most places define "prospects" the same way MLB does rookies, so Jacobs - with only 100 MLB ABs - would still be considered one.

Yeah, those things are often manipulated. I haven't seen Brokeback, for instance, but is Gyllenhall really only a supporting while Ledger is a lead? Sounds like a way to get more nominations to me.

]Can't you switch cable providers? Most cable providers have monopolies in those areas they cover, so no. The heart of the problem stems from the fact that these cable companies frequently are owners of the content (stations) they're providing in addition to being the distributor of them - and a momopoistic one at that. Last year's fight was based on Cablevision being the owner of MSG & FSNY channels (which carried some 120 NYM games) and what price they would charge to competing companies like Time-Warner & Comcast. Now, as TW & Comcast are partners w/the Mets on this new channel, the seller/buyer roles are reversed so Cablevision now not only has to buy the channel from the outside but it's a channel which is a direct competitor to it's owned stations and is carrying the programming that those stations used to have exclusive rights to. Some localities are slowly (VERY SLOWLY) allowing multiple cable vendors into some areas as the phone companies attempt to break into the cable TV biz but it's going to be a while before there's any real competition for consumers. Satellite TV is obviously an option but the new channel also has to strike a deal with them. It's gotta be one of the worst regulated industries in the country.

[tired joke]Oh sure, as soon as we trade for Delgado he turns to shit and shows even less HR power than Beltran[/tired joke]

"When it comes time to negotiate with Reyes and his agent next winter, are you willing to give him a multi-year contract? If so, how many years and how many dollars? " And that - as Seawolf points out - has already been discussed in great detail. It's the long-winded rants about why any answer which lies between offering a big buxx FA deal 3 years before it's required or kissing him goodbye is somehow unacceptable, unheard of, and unpossible that are making about as much sense as a conversation between George Bush and Courtney Love with a bottle of vodka thrown in.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

IIRC, the Mets were one of the later teams to even permit their players to "show" the shoes they were wearing. Prior to that - somewhere around the mid/late '70s I'd guess - they were in the "all black" mode. Players probably did wear the shoes of their choice but individual shoe contracts were unlikely since they were mostly indistinguishable with their stripes and other marks colored in.

"You're willing to commit or you're not" Or you're willing to commit but only up to a certain amount & length unless further progress is shown. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

]good signing for the padres, now i hope they are 20 games out july 31st and want to trade him to a contender for a guy like victor zambrano Obviously it'll depend on where each player & team stand at that time ... but I don't make that trade if I'm the Mets.

I hate sounding like I'm beating the same drum over and over here while coming off like some Selig marketing toady -- and I wouldn't if I didn't think some of the arguments against this thing are just so over the top: From the above piece: "It got worse as the tourney was slated for March, when pitchers are easing their arms back into shape, ripping up scar tissue and remembering what it’s like to be in pain every minute of every day from February to October." Hold all new entries! It's only January but the "overstatement of the year award" has already found it's winner. "There will be injured pitchers who don’t even reveal their injuries until June or July" As expected, all injuries are to be blamed on this no matter when they show up and regardless of whether cause can be determined. Nothing like starting with the conclusion and then retro-fitting the evidence to support it. "There will be pitchers who suffer wear and tear and stressful innings long before their shoulders are ready for such a burden." "All those innings" are going to number less than 10 for almost everyone and are going to occur in place of innings they'd be pitching anyway, not in addition to. "Players and execs alike are rolling their eyes but keeping their mouths shut on orders from above as the tournament approaches." The players and execs also signed off on this or it wouldn't be happening.

]Piersall swatted a bouncing ball over the fence for a ground-rule double in the bottom of the 9th I've never seen or heard of a fielder doing that before. I wonder if - either then or since - there's leeway in the rulebook for the umps to use their judgement (as in fan interference) to award the baserunner more than 2 bases if they feel the GRD was caused intentionally by the fielder.

You're so vain, I bet you think that post was about you ... doncha, doncha? In fact it wasn't, I was discussing my definition of "agenda" in general. Although, now that you bring it up ... "Every move the Mets make could be good or it could be bad--the CPF's stance on agendas, I find, is to label those opinions that the Mets have messed up an agenda, and that the Mets have done well an opinion." Y'know, you're right. No moves, trades, managerial decisions, hirings, firings, signings, or general directions are ever criticized or even objectively discussed here. I don't know what we'd do without you.

Oh so do I. It's just that, with the expanded number of opponents, those on the short end of the unblanaced have gone from 12 gms/yr down to as few as 5 while the intra-divisions have remained at or near 18/per. It's just MORE unbalanced now than it's ever been and that's a direct byproduct of expansion & interleague.

Al Holland Mark Portugal Edwin Correa (OK, I'm stretching a bit here)

]I think it's Bud's "unbalanced" schedule more than interleague play No, it's more inter-league play. That and expansion. Think about it; the Mets (and all other NL teams) had 11 opponents prior to the '93 expansion (Fla & Colo). Now they have 20!! There's just no way to do that w/o fewer games per club. The unbalanced sked has existed in one form or another since they split into divisions in 1969. ]The Mets would have been prohibited from resigning him beyond a 20% paycut, or else wait till May 1. Well, they could have signed him to any amount once the FA period began. The problem, of course, is that he would have had to agree to it prior to the arb-offering date and at that time he still had bigger $tar$ in his eyes.

"But if the choice is between someone having a position that he or she is willing to defend, and someone having no position at all ... it's really no contest for me. " And I've discouraged people from spewing opinions and arguing for them when exactly? Lord knows I've spouted enough of my own around these parts. "Agenda" has come to mean "an opinion I don't agree with," which does it a disservice." Like I said, in this context it's come to me to mean some "fact" that the spewer not only won't get off of but has no intention of ever doing so no matter what's brought up for discussion. It's not the conclusion he/she has reached after examining the evidence, it's the conclusion they've started with and a prism though which all evidence new or old will be viewed. I've used the Kennedy assisination conspiracy theorists example here before. When new papers are released which contradict something in the Warren Commision report it's "proof" to said theorists that evidence was being hidden all along and who knows what else is still out there. But if these new releases should contradict their already-reached conclusion, then "it's proof" that a conspiracy not only exists but that the info which shows it is still being actively suppressed.

I guess that, during my half-decade or so of posting on Met-related boards, I've slapped the more negative sounding label "agenda" on someone's viewpoint when the person spouting it has seemingly no interest in even hearing or discussing anything that might upset his/her already reached conclusion.

]Young David isn't going to enter this silly tournament, right? He's on the current (50 man?) roster which will eventually be cut down to 30 and DW himself has speculated that the late addition of Sir Alex of Arodia might spell his exit from the final squad.

Which is pretty much what started this part of the discussion ... but if Pedro (or anyone for that matter) decides to play through an existing injury then shame on them and let's then blame stupidity for their loss rather than the existance of the WBC. Besides, his toe is being monitored and Omar has already said he's no better than 50/50 to play at this point. But y'know what, if Pedro's toe is going to be a problem after 5 months off then it's going to be a problem all year long. So rather than feeling grateful that he'll be taking the WBC off I'd be worried that he felt he had to and that he's not going to be ready for the season. I'm going to trust Petey and the powers at be to make the right call on this one.

I do realize that this tourney means more to the smaller countries than it does here. Essentially, this tourney exists for the benefit of the smaller countries. I just don't equate "getting more revved up" to increased injuries. The main chance of that happening is if pitchers were over-extended too early but they've put the rules in to prevent that. Pedro's not going to be pitching to ARod in the late innings because he'll either be long out of the game by then or it will be in the finals in late March when he'll have built up to near full-game strength anyway. These will be squads carrying 4-5 closers on their rosters and I suspect the usage will be closer to that of AS games then it will to late-Sept pennant drive contests. Even a star pitcher will be used in this tourney for at most portions of 3 games. It's not like they're going to undergo a month-long diet of high-tension games. Again, it's not that I'm all jazzed up over this, I just think that much of the worry about it is overblown.

Keep in mind also that Crisp is 26 y/o and will be under club control for at least another 3 years at arb-determined prices -- as opposed to Cameron who's in his 30's at a FA salary and could up and leave after just a year. There are also two other players going to Boston in the swap; the reliever Riske turned in almost 80 IPs last year of 3.10 ERA and has had 2 of his last 3 seasons w/a sub-1.00 WHiP. That's better than a mere throw-in.

But you'd be pitching to the likes of Albert Pujols in reg ST also. The only real argument for increased injuries due to the WBC is the notion that these players are going to "try too hard" in March above and beyond what they normally would, a speculative point IMO and something that can be "solved" simply by everyone keeping their collective heads about them. Again, this is a handful of games (3-8 per team) involving a small pct of the MLers (15%?) that are being played once every couple of years at a time when the players would pretty much be doing the same thing anyway - just in a different format. And it's not like I'm getting all gung-ho over this, it just seems as if the case is being made in advance from many quarters to blame all potential injuries on the WBC as if they'd be non-existant otherwise because reg ST is nothing but a leisurely day at the park. Except that there was Mookie's eye injury - and at least one of Payton's elbow blowouts - and Trax & Benson last year - and Ventura's devastating ankle w/the ChiSox - and when Chipper's ML career was delayed an entire year when he blew out his knee sliding - or hell, let's throw in Ray Fosse's, Ted Williams' and Harmon Killebrew's AS Game injuries and ban that.