Edgy MD

Holy shit! She knows we're on to her!

The size of Justin's offseason ass is, um, trending...

Justin was livetweeting that Vegas trip, and he was operating in dangerous territory.

$140 million? That's a biggish number.

Rob Johnson, you third string maniac. Rob Johnson-official page Most of my posts are about baseball but for a minute I just want to congratulate my wife, Kristan, on her new business through Rodan + Fields. She partnered with the Drs. that created Proactiv and is joining them as they take over the sun damage/ anti age industry! I am amazed at her results... though her face was beautiful to start! I'll admit, even the guys before and after pics are incredible! On a side note, I am encouraged by the lives this business is changing. Both men and women are able to work part time from home and see their goals become reality. It's pretty cool. Our offseason family time is valuable so I like that they don't ask her to do parties and I don't have to lug a bunch of products across the country since they don't ask you to stock inventory. I'll get back to baseball soon, but if you or anyone you know may be interested in joining her or using the product you can contact her at kristanjohnson.rf@gmail.com Feel free to check out her website and view the products, but contact her first to get 10% off and free shipping.

Our sandlot crew had about a dozen kids --- eight Met fans, two YLDBs, an Orioles fan and a Red Sox fan. Nobody talked shit to the last two. If Butch Hobson turned into a disaster at third or Earl Weaver got his ass suspended, we felt their pain, even if we disagreed with them. They were pure, somehow.

seawolf17 wrote: I think I could switch under the right circumstances. If for example I lived in another city and they had an admirable team. I would also root for the Mets but I'd only rule out the MFYs and Cardinals probably. I intend to root for the O's. But I'm not sure how much I'll actually care. I think it's different when you have kids. YOU WILL ROOT FOR THE METS. One of my best friends lives outside Philly; his daughters are becoming Phillies fans by osmosis, as hard as he tries to fight it. Yeah, I think folks who move to say, Pittsburgh, claim to maintain Mets fandom, but start leaning toward the Pirates when their kid starts living a breathing Buccaneerness, did two things: 1) Kept their fandom on the shelf way too long, continuing to file as a Met fan at the end of the year, but otherwise being passive except for an occasional "are they doing any good?" peek at the standings. 2) Failed to do the heavy lifting of indoctrination during the child's formative years. I have to say, nothing is cooler than being that kid in class who loves an out-of-town team. You may not agree with them, but you respect them. (Unless it's the Yankees.)

Nobody ever gives a shit about the j's and x's. They need love too.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think I could switch under the right circumstances. If for example I lived in another city and they had an admirable team. I would also root for the Mets but I'd only rule out the MFYs and Cardinals probably. I intend to root for the O's. But I'm not sure how much I'll actually care. I think it's different when you have kids.

As noted this morning, News Corp and the New York Yankees are now awfully cosy. This news does not sit well with all Yankees fans, most notably our own Craig Robinson. 99% of Yankee fans: "What's News Corp?" 0.99% of Yankee fans: "I don't give a shit." Craig Robinson: "I need a new team."

Nymr83 wrote: I think Bagwell's career easily surpasses that of Galaragga and is ahead of McGwire and Palmiero while being slightly behind Thomas. But I do get your point. Yeah, I agree, but that requires actual analysis. In the class picture, he's part of a crowd. 1-and-done: Woody Williams Hater. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Batch Bigs Bags Bonds Rock A Hall of Fame ballot or an illicit drug order?

Bagwell did it all as just another power-hitting firstbaseman. That he was better than most and played half his career in the Astrodome is worth considering, but more likely his luster is dimmed by playing in the shadow of the Frank Thomases and Mark McGwires and Andres Gallaragas and Rafael Palmeiros, the roidy smell of many of whom sticks to the others. As a record-setting catcher, Piazza stands apart, I think. He may be a suspect by virtue of circumstancial evidence, but his records force the issue in a way that Bagwell doesn't. Does that make sense? I think he's a first-ballot dude.

Tear down his statue!

Excellent.

If the report is accurate and the Mets didn't pee in his lap during the negotiations. If they're paying him that kind of money he'd better make some AS teams. Which one might wish would obviate any need for such boni, but there's no shortage of contracts out there that pay a guy like an All Star and then give him a bonus if he happens to play like one.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: That should totally do it. Nope. Now it's time to talk extras. Sweets for my sweet and sugar for my honey. Or for my Sugar. All Star Boni. Post-Season Boni. Real estate options. A big fat donation to the David Wright Foundation Use of the facilities for DWF events. Tickets for DWF beneficiaries A big old C on the front of his jersey. "Bono. I fucking want to meet Bono." Whatever stupid shit Derek Jeter gets. metirish wrote: It's an infinitely better offer that the 6/100..... Ah, there's that word again. Nice.

Yeah, the recent snubs are really the result of folks not having their shit together enough to know what their role is.

Vic Sage wrote: I think we can all agree that (1) is not a very good option. Lets call it the Reyes Option, in which we are likely to turn an asset into nothing whatsoever. Well, they got Kevin Plawecki and Matt Reynolds. It's something, but the compensation rules are changing monthly these days.

Vic Sage wrote: While i wouldn't be thrilled with having a 38-year old making $17m... . Hopefully we'll get enough thrills between now and then, and the economy will have recovered enough in the interim, that $17 mills to the 38 year-old will feel like a generous tip at the end of a satisfying meal. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I never had any doubt they would get something done with Shug. Then Megdal isn't working hard enough.

Keith Olbermann asks to be punched a bunch of times before ever getting to his point.

In 1904, Cy Young won 26 games at the age of 37. He had 9.0 WAR. The next two years, he had 7.1 and 1.8. It's tough to sustain, that level of performance. But he found himself again, and in 1907, at the age of 40, he had 21 wins. That year, he achieved 7.3 WAR. He followed that with 9.3 and 3.0. If you guessed that he pulled it off again in 1908, you were right. In 1908, he had 21 wins again, at the age of 41. That (as noted) gave him 9.3 WAR. The next two years, he had 3.0 and 2.2. That's Cy Young --- the greatest old pitcher ever. But even he, when reaching peak performance, had trouble sustaining it, averaging a 48.4% dropoff in productivity in the two years following his 20-win seasons. Let's go on. In 1915, a 37-year-old George McConnell (who?) won 25 fluffernutting games. Twenty-five!! The next year he won four, dropping his WAR from 2.5 to 1.9. (Hmmm...) The year after that, he was done in the bigs. How did he pull that off? Well, his 25 win season happened in the Federal League, which wasn't really a major league. So, this isn't really an illustrative example at all, but I started typing before I realized that his 25 wins were in a dubious scenario. We bounce ahead to 1982. Steve Carlton won 23 games at the age of 37. He had 5.2 WAR. His next two seasons, he had 5.1 and 2.0 --- an average of a 31.7% dropoff in productivity from his 20-win season. Warren Spahn. Spahnnie. Now we're in Met territory. Warren won 23 games in 1963 at the ripe old age of 42. Of course, two were against the Mets and four against the Colts, but what an accomplishment. He wuldn't have known it, but that was good for 3.7 WAR. His next two years, he clocked in with -2.1 and 0.4, a heartbreaking 123.0% decline in productivity over the next two seasons, on average. I could go on: Phil Niekro and his knuckler, Gaylord Perry and his greaser, or Roger Clemens and his steroids, but I have a job, and I hope my point is taken. I want R.A. Dickey re-signed. I love him and want to be held by him when I cry. But any move that considers his sustained level of productivity to be locked in over even the short-term ignores history.

If there's any lesson of the last few years, it's that money isn't infinite.

Ceetar wrote: The pursuit of wins. That's it, but that's not what we're after. We're after actual wins... Sheesh. You're talking to me like I'm a moron and not reading what your write yourself. Being in pursuit of something and being after something are the same thing. Ceetar wrote: and the probability (which is all we have to work with really) is higher that Dickey gives them to you. This, of course, depends on who you get, what he costs, and how well your scout him. Ceetar wrote: No matter what you think about Myers potential. What if he's the most phenomenal athlete ever? Ceetar wrote: Trading a guy Dickey's age for a guy Myers age which his potential and financial commitment is easy if 2013 and 2014 don't exist. but they do. And what happens in those years greatly influences what happens in 2015. You really seem to know what happens in 2013 and 2014. I could say Myers hits 300 homers between the next two seasons, and the money saved is spent on another guy who hits 301 homers, just to be difficult, and Dickey quits baseball to become an astronaut. I have no clue. But there is room for professional speculation based on historical data. Ceetar wrote: I'm sure I can dig up a lot of business jargon articles too. Gotta spend money to make money, respect the customers you have NOW, etc. I didn't say you gotta do anything. Ceetar wrote: If you're just going to make fun of my attempt to simplify a numerical representation of my point, I'll just stop here. I didn't just do that. I genuinely take issue with your model. I outline my concerns above. Please don't play the martyr card again.

Back enough for me. Good to see you. Tom and Eddie need to keep ownership out of their union meetings.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: there is no salary cap, hence infinite. Do you have infinite money to spend? Sure. I could go to the bank. I could take out a loan. I could sell my car. I could get a second job. I'll get a paycheck on Friday with more money. two weeks from then I'll get another one. Infinite amounts of cars? Infinite amounts of houses to mortgage? Infinite amounts of paychecks to borrow against? I've decided I don't want to marry you.