Frayed Knot

I'm wondering if the Mets -- or anyone for that matter seeing as how there are suddenly now THREE teams in search of managers despite it being mid-January -- go with a 'safe' choice like Showalter even though I can't remember if anyone even gave him a sniff during managerial sweepstakes time back in October/November. Cuz when your first choice turns out to be crooked, the way to go just might be to hire the guy who gets upset when players wear their hats crooked. And if you're Boston & Houston, can you really give it to whatever bench coach in waiting you've got on your staff as if HE wasn't also aware of what was going on?

2. Yes, he was specifically named, and maybe one can infer that he was more heavily involved than other players, but that is a pretty significant assumption to make when dealing with someone's career and reputation. As Chuck noted, the behavior he is cited for is not illegal. I think this is pretty sloppy on the Commissioner's part. If Beltran did something illegal, or more culpable than the other players, then it should be so listed. If he did not, his name shouldn't be included as it gives an implication of wrongdoing. One school of thought is that he was the only player specifically named because he is no longer a player, w/Houston or elsewhere. There may be a few others in that category as well but he stayed in the game and has been 'management' ever since (first Yanquis, now field manager) so maybe that made him a prime target. MLB stated that it was going after "those in charge" -- Manfred's words from back after the 'Apple Watch' scandal in Boston -- in the event of further electronic hi-jinx, specifically NOT mentioning players. I think at least part of that deals with the difficultly they'd have in going after players, between union protection and the need to prove how much each player did/didn't participate and/or use the ill-gotten info it would be a logistical nightmare to find the biggest villains and have enough proof to make it stick. And you know the players aren't going to rat on each other.

Who's your cuter Cora? [FIMG=150]https://d3k2oh6evki4b7.cloudfront.net/req/202001060/images/headshots/4/41c9bb58_davis.jpg[/FIMG] Joey? [FIMG=150]https://d3k2oh6evki4b7.cloudfront.net/req/202001060/images/headshots/5/5f1f7f47_davis.jpg[/FIMG] or Alex? I either never knew, or did but had since forgotten, that there's over a ten year age gap between the brothers (currently 54 and 44) and that their ML paths barely crossed. Alex's ML debut w/the Dodgers came just three months prior to Joey's final game (for Cleveland) in June and Sept of 1998

Wow, four years for Donaldson! At a just-turned 34 he's not that old, but at this time last year the one-year deal he got from the Braves was considered risky on account of age and past injuries.

Still young, had successes early on as coach/manager, and seemingly a lot of good times ahead ... and now is not only out of a job but is going to be radioactive for some time to come.

So what's their new slogan going to be?: Same bank you've known for years ... only now with a much shittier corporate moniker!

So SunTrust, a large bank with a major presence in that area, are out after just a THREE YEAR sponsorship of a brand new stadium?!?!?

Regardless, the commissioner seems to want to pretend he's "resolved" this by telling other teams to stop talking about it. lalala nothing to see here, we made a big show of punishing the Astros and now it's all fine. Tough to make the case that suspending for an entire year (and in effect breaking up) what had been the most successful Mgr/GM tandem in recent years, on top of imposing the maximum allowable fine under MLB's constitution and the taking away of four top draft picks is the equivalent of wallpapering over a bad paint job. And beyond just the immediate penalties, do you think Hinch and Luhnow, or Cora for that matter, are getting jobs in MLB again? Or that Houston's lone championship after nearly 60 years of existence isn't tainted by all this? Or that this doesn't set the future of the franchise back by several years? I mean, short of taking the franchise away from Jim Crane, I'm not sure what else Manfred was supposed to do; maybe get Trump to order a drone strike on the city of Houston?

Does this also mean that they'll change the team color to crimson?

my guess that they just figured since everyone does it no one would really make a big deal or a big punishment of it, much like amphetamines, or pine tar, or pretending to, or purposely getting hit by, baseballs to get one base. Except that this went WAY beyond any of those. If a sport doesn't have its integrity then it has nothing, or it simply becomes a spectacle like WWE or a vehicle for gambling like, well, football*. And baseball doesn't lend itself very well to being a spectacle or as a gambling sport. As Al Davis used to say in a voice that betrayed his native Brooklyn: 'The opposing Quarterback must go down and he must go down hard'. Well the perpetrators of this scheme, as well as those in charge who did nothing to stop it, must go down and they must go down hard. Not that I think the NFL is corrupt or anything, although I'm always amazed by the number of football fans who believe it IS and yet continue to watch, follow, AND gamble on it anyway.

=smg58 post_id=29629 time=1578948685 user_id=62] Wow, I figured they'd get a week.

BAM!!!!

I was surprised at how quick he was as you don't usually see guys his size with that kind of speed. [FIMG=300]https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03551/hagegrty1_3551031b.jpg[/FIMG]

=HahnSolo post_id=29588 time=1578849458 user_id=63] Wang and Tanaka both got hurt on the basepaths. But they were Yankees, so I laughed.

Betts winds up signing a one-year contract w/Boston. Now I suppose they could still trade him, but all indications are that he'll play out 2020 w/the Sawx and hit the FA market next winter.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: An MLB team really needs to explore that claret-and-sky blue color scheme so many EPL clubs use. I've noted in the past how I think MLB teams are missing out by having an over-reliance on red and blue. Off the top of my head I think only the O's, Giants, Pirates, Rox & A's have NO blue or red in them while the rest have some form of one or the other with many relying on nothing but blue AND red [Nats, BoSox, Braves, Indians, Rangers, Phils] And then even those clubs which start out with a color scheme different from the norm [Marlins, Astros, Padres, Rays] seem to morph towards conformity over the years. To the extent its interesting the clubs have more leeway to make their own uni-deals. In MLB that would be rough on the small market clubs As it does over there. Uni deals, I'm sure, only account for a tiny portion of it, but the gap in income/budgets between teams in the EPL and in other European leagues is much larger than here.

[FIMG=800]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MTaniAV7954/XSSAH12rl5I/AAAAAAACATU/XYM5-jaYJLoK0_FEdrbvpKChbWLY_qDgwCLcBGAs/s1600/4.jpg[/FIMG]

just look at European soccer jerseys. the sponsor IS the jersey and maybe if you are lucky there is a team patch. Wow. When did this happen? That is just ridiculous. They are walking billboards. I don't ever remember that NOT being the case with Euro-soccer (although there are more knowledgable futbol guys here than me). There is always a team crest (left chest I believe) with the EPL logo (think MLB logo or NFL 'shield') on the other side but the main sponsor (and there are several) is the big one right up front and center. I guess it's the price they pay for having games that last less than two hours an no in-game commercials except for during halftime. [FIMG=450]https://www.imagehandler.net/?istyle=0000&fmt=jpg&w=2000&h=2000&cmp=85&c=999&img=A1025006000&iset=0100&iindex=0007&retBlank=1x1[/FIMG] This is the home jersey of current EPL-leading (by a lot!) Liverpool FC (team nicknames are less official over there). As you can see, New Balance is up there bigger than the MLB/Nike swoosh (the EPL patch must be on the shoulder) while Standard Chartered (have seen that 1,000 times and have no idea what it is although I'm sure all their fans do) dominates the front complete with their logo. To further frighten baseball purists, many of these teams main sponsors are on-line betting services and mid-east airlines.

=G-Fafif post_id=29246 time=1578094819 user_id=55] Whoever had “trying to tame wild boar” wins the pot.

[FIMG=300]https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-ydriczk/images/stencil/608x608/products/55162/55007/ss2762981_-_photograph_of_george_c_scott_as_gen_george_s_patton_jr_from_patton_available_in_4_sizes_framed_or_unframed_buy_now_at_starstills__34981__60451.1394491490.jpg?c=2[/FIMG] Hernandez, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK!! And, besides, has anyone ever listened to 'Dark Side' while NOT stoned?

Besides, this doesn't mean the Mets have lost on the order of $50 million dollars every year over the decades. I'm not even saying that they lost that over the last two seasons, only that because we hear/read such wildly conflicting info from various sources means I'm not going to treat any of it as fact. And, yes, most of the profit motive in owning a sports franchise comes from the idea of it appreciating over time and a great return on the investment at the end. But that's a lot different from saying that all these teams are locked into profits running into the tens (hundreds?) of millions each year simply be opening the gates and turning on the lights.

Every baseball team makes tons of money each year. This statement: "... it is now being reported that the Mets have lost more than $100M dollars over the last two seasons.", suggests otherwise. You can choose to believe either side, I don't care. I'm just not taking either one of them as a definitive statement of fact.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=29002 time=1577409749 user_id=68]Also, it is now being reported that the Mets have lost more than $100M dollars over the last two seasons.

https://nypost.com/2019/12/28/the-evidence-yoenis-cespedes-could-make-mets-comeback-valuable/Jose Sherman talks about players who have had big HR years following a long amount of missed time -- for suspensions, for retirements, for injuries -- as a basis of comparison to what Cespedes is trying to do (and is already talking about doing).

Yeah, this anti-ump sentiment is a bit misplaced as not a whole lot is going to change here. I've been for this simply because for 150 years, the best method for determining Ball and Strike calls has been the trained man standing behind the catcher. But it's the 21st century now and I don't think that's the case anymore. It's just too tough for the human eye to judge pitches that are just hitting (or not) the "corners" of a not-marked box while dipping and diving at 100 mph I believe the more egregious acts of umps during the '90s openly admitting, if not bragging about, the fact that they set their own strike zone have been over for a while now. But even in the couple of quotes from AFL'ers in the AP piece liked the idea of greater consistency, presumably both between umps and by one ump within a single game. So, between this news and the Cohen/Wilpon news of a couple of weeks ago, we can slightly alter THE WHO's lyric to: So you think '25 is going to be a good year? Our original Robo-Ump thread (much of it me yapping): http://archives.thecranepool.net/24800/f1_t24819.shtmlhttp://archives.thecranepool.net/24800/f1_t24819.shtml