Edgy MD

But, well, he doesn't have to produce similar results. Good ones will do.

So, everybody but me wants Kemp. I made up a BS package of den Dekker, Murphy, and Montero. But what actual package would you give up for him? Would you demand some money back as well?

I actually took a moment to follow him on Twitter. Oh well. Report I read said he went for a PtBNL.

metsmarathon wrote: so, what your saying is, that a catcher should be subject to the same provisions as a defender at any other base. is a first baseman allowed to take a throw to the bag where his positioning impedes the runner's progress? i know when runners are sliding into second to steal the bag, the covering infielder often has his feet astride the bag, where one foot or leg is in the way of hte runner (and likely when they know hte base stealer likes to slide headfirst into the bag, as most base stealers are wont to do). this, too, should be called obstruction. the runner is entitled to the base. the fielder's job is to tag him out before he gets there, not to prevent him from getting there in the first place. Unlike the catcher, the unarmored fielder at first, second, and third has a material disadvantage to the spike-bearing runner in a tag play at the bases. If he lowers his unarmored knee in the path of an oncoming pair of spikes, the runner's progress would be delayed little more than a few microseconds, but if the runner is sliding with anything like a head of steam, the knee is toast. But I believe under current rules, the right of way in the basepath belongs to the fielder if he's in possession of the ball. Current (and longstanding) practice at the plate would certainly seem to be an abuse of that rule, which is presumably written to give the fielder the right to make his play, not the right to interfere until he can position his hands to make the play.

C'mon, KEMP!

I'm a Colonist. I'm a Colonial. I'm a Bartolian.

The rules are the same at every base, as I understand it, but the interpretation is somewhat different, and the umps allow for leeway. Any catcher without the ball that comes into contact with a runner is called for obstruction. This is as the rule stands. Any catcher, even with the ball, that intentionally tries to impede a runner's progress to the plate, should be called for obstruction. This would be where it's new. The understanding now is that in the first instance, the baseline belongs to the runner and in the second instance, it belongs to the catcher, even if he has the ball and is not in a position to make the play, and I think MLB hopes to go where you're trying to go. Any runner intentionally running into a catcher who has the ball in an attempting to dislodge said ball should be out. Right, but there's ambiguity that needs to be reconciled, such as when the catcher is up the baseline, too far away from the plate for the runner to enter into his slide, but fielding the ball at a point that's too close in time for the runner's intersection with him for the runner to give himself up by running out of the baseline or slowing up or something. There's got to be some mutual obligation here on the catcher --- to position himself as he takes the throw so as not to impede the runner's progress.

Sometimes, maybe oftentimes, if you trade a $5 million player for a $2 million player, the difference goes into servicing debts. If we don't know the limit, and we only kinda think we do, cutting can be cutting to create leverage under that limit, or it can be cutting to reach that limit.

Looks like a starter to me.

Well presumably that body type is about more things than colliding. Besides, who needs another Harrelson in the lineup? Anyhow, I'm glad protections will be put in place before something happens to Anthony Recker.

He's 189-128 with a 3.94 ERA on his career. The PED thing will hurt him of course, but this is where his pitching could be the difference between the Hall of Fame and being a historical footnote for him.

It's hardly a parsing contest, but hell, folks are going to clarify a position if it's misrepresented.

I was ready to go two and $23 for him, so I've got to be happy. On the other hand, that's money that could have gone to Dickey. On the first hand though, Synderg'Arnaud.

Outside in and inside out, you're my Met! Fat and forty, but Lordy, you're my Met! From your feet to your head you knock me dead, you're my Met! I got you covered but baby, you're my Met! In the days of old, when fans were bold They were pious and modest I'm told Can't you see that couldn't be me? I'd have to talk about your yams and your big fat hams! It excites me so, because I know you're my Met! Fat and forty, but Lordy, you're my Met! In the days of old, when fans were bold They were pious and modest I'm told Can't you see that couldn't be me? I'd have to talk about your yams and your big fat hams! It excites me so, because I know you're my Met! Fat and forty, but Lordy,you're my Met! Fat and forty, but Lordy, Lordy. . . you're my Met!

Sometime around 2006, this, I think. http://img.spokeo.com/public/900-600/bryce_wilson_2006_03_09.jpg

HAH! Looks like I overbid.

And Bruce Wilpon was totally the shnizzle. With the crazy wife yanking his rich boy chain. Hope those two kids are still together.

Saw him go five sets in the Aussie open final one year against Lleyton Hewitt.

And here I am, the only one with the stones to put a dollar sign on the muscle.

Frayed Knot wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I know it's probably not the wisest move, but I'd kinda like to see Sandy drive up the market for Davis and Duda by signing Loney, thereby removing him as an option for the Brewers, the Rays, and whoever else. The only problem with that theory is that you then put yourself in the position where everyone knows you have to trade your guy - thereby increasing the odds that you'd be driving down the price you'd get for him instead of raising it. And that's also part of the problem with the 'Keep Both' school of thinking. Didn't we just recently pick-up as low-BA/hi-Slg type of 1st sacker to go along with the already crowded Duda + Davis + Allen Dykstra trio? I didn't know we were a school. I think I've tried extensively to make clear that the notion is you can keep both, not that you must keep both. So calling it a "'Keep Both' school" is a little unfair. As is the idea that that nameless first sacker (Brandon Allen) and Dykstra are somehow forcing the issue. For one, the latter has never until this been considered part of a "trio," a false equivalency made more risible by the fact that he's yet to appear in AAA, let alone the majors. For two, his name is "Allan." For three, he's got a broken fibula. And I love my Allan Dykstra!

It was just suddenly obvious that Yankee fans were right: that a frighteningly meaningful amount of Met fans were really would-be Yankee fans who were just too cheap to pay the rents or something.

Inspired the hateful-insane caucus of Mets fans to chant for Miguel Cairo.

Holy crap. That's it.

Should we propose doing a forum league?

seawolf17 wrote: Just scored a 100 out of 100 despite losing the seventh game of the 2005 World Series tonight to a juggernaut Twins team that repeated as Series champs. I loaded the bases down by a run in the ninth, but Freddy Sanchez struck out to end the Series. Tony Saunders, who won Game 7 of the NLCS behind seven shutout innings, took a 2-0 lead into the seventh but fell apart and gave up five runs. We chipped back with homers from Wright in the seventh and Piazza in the eighth, but couldn't come all the way back. Do you manage the team or just GM? I've been managing the team in games. The team refers to me as the GM and Terry Collins as manager, but Collins just retired on me. I guess, even if I'm making the game calls, a manager is useful as a head coach, so I'm weighing whether to go outside the organization for help or promoting Backman. Starting in 2012, my OotP universe didn't get the menu that the post-Madoff/post-Omar Mets were on an austerity kick. That terrible 1 out of 100 score was me trying to GM and manage on the real budget that the real Mets played under that year. For 2013 I worked under the generous budget the game gave me, but there was little left over after I signed Wright for a LTBB contract similar to the one he got in weal wife, and then Johan and his $25 million went down on opening day. This year, after not picking up Johan, and with Duda/Davis/Tejada having developed and produced far beyond their real world parallels, I have beaucoup bucks to play with, Lincecum and Hamilton on the market. I have a real chance to excel, and look forward to going all Minaya on the market, crashing and burning, and ending up with another terrible score, and promising my wife I won't waste another second on the evil game.