Frayed Knot

At the same time, many of the non-NYM 1B options for Pete are being erased daily as they're filled by someone else. And then there's the internal 1B option for the Mets: Mark Vientos This option becomes less attractive and less likely, IMO, as it looks increasingly apparent that Pete isn't going to see an offer north of five years that he (and we for that matter - read some of the early posts on this thread) thought, just a year or two ago, was likely heading his way.

I'm not worried about him declining in years one or two of the deal when he'll be only 30 & 31; it's more a potential year six thru eight that's the issue. I can live with five no matter how it's structured as getting through at least year four with Pete at or near his current self is a gamble I'd be willing to take. You can always eat a year or two of a contract without compromising elsewhere. It's those multiple years that become tough to chew.

I'd offer this and be surprised if he didn't snap it up. I didn't know you had $130-$135 million to offer. Mazel Tov!

Well it's not like he's ever denied it. He's said it into microphones, written it out over social media posts, and said as much amid drunken Irishmen in a pub. But there's wanting to stay here vs possibly giving up something to do so, and he certainly should be well aware that this could be his last contract in baseball. If someone offers him six years is he going to stay here for five? ... Probably not IMO. How about if someone else goes to seven? ... Oh **** No! is my guess. He's going to get a dump truck full of money in any case. But if offered a dump truck full of money vs 1.28 dump trucks full of money* which are you taking? * essentially the difference between a five year and seven year deal at similar per year terms Now, if someone does go to six years will the Mets chase that number? ... Maybe. Will they match it if things go to seven? I highly doubt it, and I'm not sure I'd want them to. So that's basically where we stand at this point, with the always relevant 'Whatthe****doIknow' corollary in effect.

That kind of structure has appeal for both sides. Pete gets the security of a five year deal plus if he puts together a couple good seasons he has the option to go FA again when he'll still be young enough at 32 y/o to get a multi-year offer. And the Mets get to keep their power guy without having to commit to the back half of his 30s As I said earlier on this thread, I thought the Mets w/should play it as if they were willing to let Pete walk if someone else was going to go north of five years. It's starting to sound like, unless someone is hiding in the weeds waiting for their moment, that teams are reluctant to go there.

Surprised he never became a Yankee. He did. The Bronx-born Colavito played his final 39 games for the Yanx in the second half of 1968. Great all-around athlete who possessed one of the legendary throwing arms from RF. Birth name: Rocco Domenico Colavito I think he was Irish.

Vinny Nittoli lives on the road His last ML game was some months ago Maybe he'll hook on, maybe he won't ... Cherchez la Fame

Ichiro, and I'm going to ponder over King Felix and C.C. His acceptance speech will be the first time most of the baseball world will ever hear Suzuki. Reportedly his English was always better than he let on but only in close quarters. He remained a cypher to the public for his entire career.

S-A-TUR-DAY ... NIGHT! After that the script gets a little thin. I'm sure there's a lot of excellent stuff in there, but I'm certain that there's going to be a lot of playing fast and loose with the facts. Pretty much yes to both. It is kind of a fun ride even if there are no groundbreaking reveals or insights. But do I believe that everything shown actually went on in the 90 minutes leading up to air time? Oh hell no! Did Belushi have doubts about whether what he was about to get himself into was going to let him fully sprout his wings? Quite possibly. Do I think he worked it out just prior to air time out on the Rock Center skating rink? Paint me less than convinced. I suspect the bits are a combo of things that did actually happen that night mixed with the type of stuff* that typically went on back stage. And then there's the whole down-to-the-wire changes, tech issues, and cuts to be made which, while probably real, were likely exaggerated. One thing if I'm not sure of (though I'm sure some reading could catch me up) is whether this should be read as a reminder of when the program was a truly subversive exercise, and therefore a call to arms, or an attempt to sell the notion that the show still is truly subversive. It doesn't get into any of that. The movie ends as the debut shows begins. It can largely be seen as a love letter to Lorne Michaels. But he/they don't really know what they've got yet except that they wanted a show that was different from what was on TV in that era. I mean, you don't hire Michael O'Donaghue as a writer if you don't want at least some subversion in your project. But one line Michaels uses as a pitch to network affiliate reps is that it's going to be a television show by and for the first generation that grew up with television. That's going to ruffle some feathers even if it falls short of full-on subversion. Side question: How inevitable was it that the show would become just another institution that won't die despite itself? I doubt anyone at the time would have predicted a ten year run much less fifty. Second side question that's already been asked: Is the first run of Saturday Night Live cocaine's greatest accomplishment? Possibly. There was more than a bit of it going on within the cast: Ackroyd, Belushi of course, someone from Billy Preston's band hooks Garrett Morris up. And George Carlin was the guest host so, 'nuff said. * pretty much confirmed in public remarks by Lorraine Newman

And now, right on cue, comes comments from David Stearns this afternoon concerning the future of Pete as a Met: “He’s a great Met. I hope we have him back. I think we both understand this is a process and everyone’s got their own interests. Pete deserves to go out into the free-agent market and see what’s out there and then ultimately make the best choice for him and his family.” So what this implies is that the team is going to let him test the waters rather than starting the bidding themselves by making a preemptive offer. Nothing surprising there. Pete will file the day after the WS is over while the Mets monitor, as best you can in these situations, what's being offered and how they wish to counter. And while it's possible that they've already decided to let him walk and are merely saying here what they think the fans want to hear, I doubt their mind is made up one way or the other at this point. https://nypost.com/2024/10/23/sports/david-stearns-makes-mets-pete-alonso-intentions-clear/

As this past season was playing itself out I was thinking that Pete was likely costing himself money by going FA this year as opposed to signing L-T before it. That's all theoretical at this point especially since he only had one employer with which to negotiate last winter. But I suspect there might be fewer potential suitors this winter and/or that those that do kick his tires will be a bit more reluctant to bid as high or as long. Here's the chart I started this thread with nearly two years ago updated to include the past two seasons, and I doubt there's even any back of the ballot MVP votes for Pete this year. The good news for Pete is that he's not getting appreciably worse. On the other hand he's not getting any better either which implies that everyone has already seen his high water mark and that there's only one direction to move from there at a pace still to be determined. The initial comparison to Ryan Howard is no longer particularly relevant except to point out how pre-FA Pete never hit the heights of Howard, or those of other slugging corner 1Bs such as Freddie, Miggy, Albert, Votto, Goldschmidt etc. [avg age 29 OPS+ = 154.5] [td]AGE[/td][td]Ryan Howard[/td][td]OPS+[/td][td]Pete Alsonso[/td][td]OPS+[/td][td]24[/td][td]39 ABs[/td][td]122[/td][td]ROY-1, MVP-7[/td][td]147[/td][td]25[/td][td]88 G, ROY-1[/td][td]133[/td][td]Covid Season[/td][td]122[/td][td]26[/td][td]MVP-1[/td][td]167[/td][td][/td][td]133[/td][td]27[/td][td]MVP-5[/td][td]145[/td][td]MVP-8[/td][td]146[/td][td]28[/td][td]MVP-2[/td][td]125[/td][td]MVP-17[/td][td]123[/td][td]29[/td][td]MVP-3[/td][td]141[/td][td]-----[/td][td]123[/td][td]30[/td][td]MVP-10[/td][td]127[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]31[/td][td]MVP-10[/td][td]126[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]32[/td][td]71 G[/td][td]91[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]33[/td][td]80 G[/td][td]115[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]34[/td][td]153 G[/td][td]92[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]35[/td][td]129 G[/td][td]96[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td][td]36[/td][td]112 G[/td][td]85[/td][td]-----[/td][td]---[/td]

A look at the 90 minutes leading up to the 90 minute live debut of an experimental TV show now known as SNL, October 1, 1975 Hijinx, low budgets, unknown talent, skeptical network execs, uptight network censors, egos, jealousies, and doubt all ensue ... along with some drugs. Spoiler alert: They pull it off.

Tiant used to smoke post-game cigars (including in the shower) that were big enough for someone to hit .300 with.

Well then, that all makes this winter quite the conundrum, doesn't it?

Oh I know perfectly well Why they do it. I just refuse to participate.

I tend to avoid sequels almost entirely. If I didn't like the original then I'm not going to want to see the story continued. And if I did like the original I'm afraid that a bad or simply lesser version set the original back a peg or two. There's got to be some reason to make a sequel other than: 'We made a boat-load of cash on the first one so now we're back for a second boat'

Sometimes I think these long-delayed sequels come down to hitting a window where several of the principles simultaneously find themselves devoid of the kind of offers the way they used to get until they finally break and say, 'All right, I'll do it ... just give me the check!'

Not only did I not see the original, but I also have no idea what it was all about. And I'm not really asking for an explanation here cuz I have no intention of seeing this one either. But what I find fascinating is that there were 36 years (1988 - 2024) between the original and this currently running sequel! That seems very odd to me. Hollywood originality marches on!

There are Always holes in the lineup/rotation/pen that need to be replaced. Every season, every team. But the biggest mistake GMs make (both actual GMs and us amateur ones) is in thinking that someone is irreplaceable and therefore needs to be kept at all costs. Stearns et al have a decision to make with Pete at the end of the year and Pete has a say in how that all goes. But if the choice comes down to signing a 30 y/o 1B/DH, whose best statistical season is still his first and the current one arguably his worst, to an expensive and long term deal it then makes sense to consider options that move forward without him. Vientos's emergence and the possibility of moving him across the diamond while replacing him with someone else (Baty?, Acuna?, trade/FA?) provides them with one additional such option that few if any even considered just four months ago.

"The Mets are better with Pete than without" -- Sure. But it's not as simple as merely saying: 'Mets w/Pete in 2025 > Mets w/o Pete in 2025'. It's about how long you have to commit to Pete in order to keep him a NYM in 2025. There is a point -- there's ALWAYS is a point -- at which it's smart to say 'No', either because of dollars or length or both, and walk away. "It's almost impossible to replace that type of power." -- Until you look across the diamond where we find a guy who's five years younger, under team control thru 2029, is probably 1/20th of the price right now, and has 75% as many HRs this season compared to Pete in 60% of the plate appearances. I'm not saying it's a case of either/or but replacing P.A. with M.V. is an option that wasn't even on the radar when I started this thread some 20 months ago, and it's one that's worth considering. "The ball is pretty dead this year." -- I have no idea if that's true but, even if so, it's true across the board. "Steve Cohen is 10 billion dollars richer since he bought the Mets." -- Again, no idea if that's accurate but it's largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned as to what they do with Pete. I'm not trying to save Uncle Steve money here, I'd just like to see them make the best baseball decision for the team in both short and long term. "If winning is a serious goal, there seems to be zero reason to let Alonso get away." -- Nobody is irreplaceable. The Braves thrive without both Freddie Freeman and Dansby Swanson. San Diego is near the top without Soto or Blake Snell. The Cards allowed Albert Pujols to walk and went to the playoffs eight times in eleven years (much better than the team who signed him) despite his departure. The Nats won a WS the year after Harper left. anyway, it's a topic to be revisited in the winter of '24-'25

Chris Russo was a minute or two into announcing Billy Beane's death on air before HE realized that he was talking about the wrong Billy Bean. Being first, rather than accurate, is the new media standard.

But not while he was still playing.

I read it too. Thought it was good, but, yeah, maybe not great. The book and the docu had virtually the same title, but there's no credit that I can find showing that the author had any input into the film.

Just finished watching it last night. It ends with Rose claiming he quit gambling six months ago (not clear specifically when he said that). But,as one of the Cincy area writers said, 'If there's a Liar's HoF Rose would have been in years ago', so there's little reason to believe that his claim is anything more than just one last shot (he'll turn 84 next April) at reinstatement and then possible HoF induction (two different things). Mostly he and the whole sordid story come off as just sad. Living out in Vegas because -- well first because it is/was the best access to sports gambling -- but also because it's where he can make the most money from card shows, ball/memorabilia signings, and video birthday recordings, most of them seemingly for men not much younger than him. And while it's hard to tell, you wonder to what extent he needs the money.

I think Spotrac, whoever that is, is way off, unless perhaps those numbers were calculated prior to the 2024 season. I would be very surprised if he got anything close to that. And even if that $32.9 number is in the ballpark of where his Current value is, that doesn't mean it's a smart idea to simply take that and multiply it by eight for Pete to sign on the bottom line. My guess is that the Mets will look to go much shorter term. That starts with the one-year Qualifying Offer and from there discuss three to four years. Boras isn't going to like that but if I'm Stearns/Cohen I'm daring some team to offer Pete five-plus and would be willing to wave bye-bye if one did.