Edgy MD

Eddie Williams at least still had some first-round luster. FaFiF came to the highly defensible conclusion that the guy you want to shake your head over is Ron Gardenhire. He had failed as a big leaguer for three consecutive seasons by then and would fail for two more. His health was as wobbly as his slugging percentage, and numerous guys had passed him on the organizational depth chart. One may speculate that his season of duty as one of Davey Johnson's Tidewater Warriors may have bought him an advocate in the organization, but beyond that, it's just headscratching.

Frank's Catholickness bursting through there.

seawolf17 wrote: Isn't it generally accepted that he was exposed because they thought nobody would eat his salary? Largely, yes, and I said as much.

Developing some serious antipathy for Kimbrel and his hawk pose.

Hey! A beisronner!

Walden looks like he slips off the rubber on every pitch.

Damn, you don't want to keep playing catchup against this pen.

�El Chico "Diga-Eh"! I'm spoiled, because I really did think he'd get to it. I didn't think Upton would get to the shot the half inning prior.

Some hard-hitties in the seventh, but nuttin'.

I think there was only one answer to that question going in. Matsuzaka would have had to throw a two-hitter or better for a chance of escaping that fate.

Vic isn't just part of their market for season tickets, but a guy who possibly holds the key to the Mets hosting industry events. "Playwrites Nite," "Dramaturge Day," "Librettist Weekend." The possibilities are endless. I'm sure if he plays his cards right, they'll show him where all the bodies are buried.

Chris Young, we need you more than that. Braves organist jamming the Violent Femmes.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote. Really? Come on. Something else to think about: do you even know which Met was protected at the risk of exposing Seaver? Yes.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your responses have nothing to do with anything I wrote. Really? Come on.

Listen, I was optimistic too, and with good reason. But the facts are the facts. batmagadanleadoff wrote: By the end of 1983, the Mets organization might've been baseball's richest. Prospects had to be protected. Sentimentality is the enemy of success. I'd say that trying to posture as being above sentimentality is just as blinding. Moreso. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Hard decisions would have to be made. This is beyond dispute. The Mets made the wrong one. The Sox made the right one. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't lose a second of sleep when the Mets left Seaver unprotected, and lost him to the White Sox. Neither did I, but let's stop congratulating ourselves. batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets were now in business and Seaver was an old pitcher and who wants an old pitcher? It depends on the old pitcher. The White Sox apparently saw one they wanted more than hundreds of other players. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I didn't think it would matter. You were incorrect. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Neither did the Mets, apparently. The historical record does not support this contention. batmagadanleadoff wrote: But it might have. It did. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Seaver, as it would turn out, had one last hurrah in his tank -- he was one of the AL's best pitchers in 1985. Not the best, or second best, but definitely near the top of the list. He had 11.6 pitching WAR from 1984-1986, more than any Met pitcher not named Gooden. The record is pretty clear that the Mets were disappointed by the claim, and that the claim ultimately hurt them.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: That's also interesting because, after Seaver was fumbled away.... I never bought the company line that Seaver was "fumbled" away ... that Seaver somehow got away from the Mets against their will or intent ... (we left Seaver tied to the mailbox, we were in the store for only three minutes, but when we came out, Seaver was gone. Gone). I think the Mets knew what they were doing all along, and it was calculated to the nth degree. They made the tough but unpopular decision to protect their young players over a fading legend and had their story about baseball customs, and oversights and unwritten rules and gentleman's agreements in place beforehand to try and deflect the negative press and sentiment that they knew would result. By all accounts, the Mets were trying to reacquire him immediately, and still were for two years after. They may have known the risks, but were far from pleased with the outcome. Were you pleased?

That's also interesting because, after Seaver was fumbled away, a common line (whether it was fed to reporters by anybody in management, I have no idea) held that Seaver was generally aloof toward the young pitchers, and that Torrez was more the mentor that management had hoped Seaver would be.

No, she's totally on staff {LINK REMOVED}. Fresh-faced and fresh out of school. (Beaten to the punch, here's the photo I was workin' with.) {PHOTO REMOVED}

In Terry Cashman's time, Met history ended with Frank Cashen. Some would say that's still true. Certainly, the future from that point began with him. The Bowtie, Cashman declared at the end of his Mets version of "Talkin' Baseball," wasn't finished yet. Now, alas, he is. And we struggle to find a way forward.

Hey man, she's only been there three weeks.

{NAME REMOVED} is my new favorite Met employee.

It's hard to not see him as Carlos Gomez five years from now. It's hard to not picture five years of waiting for him to become Carlos Gomez.

This very question was wrestled to the ground and subdued by Faith in Fear seven years ago. The thing is that Seaver wasn't left unprotected because he was valued less than player X, but rather because he was a veteran with a rich contract. This was briefly the tradition in the brief days of the compensation draft, to expose veterans with rich contracts, partially because few of them were thought to be worth it after a year or two, partially because budgets were set by January and teams were averse to budget-busting acquisitions, partially because of an unstated (and unheeded, in the end) understanding that teams just wouldn't grab these guys. Chicago did exactly what they should have done with that last bit.

seawolf17 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: List of misses has to include not protecting Tom Seaver. (Sentiment aside, it may have cost them 1985.) Gooden/Darling/Seaver/Sid/Aguilera would have been epic. It's an open question whether Aguilera or Lynch gets bumped to the pen.