RealityChuck

Two excellent examples. I finally went for 2011 since disembodied heads are creepy.

1967. The art is mediocre, as usual, but 2013 is a design nightmare -- far too busy.

1974. The flag says it all.

Much better graphics in 1999. [youtube:j14f8m2j]rblt2EtFfC4[/youtube:j14f8m2j]

Neither is particularly good, but Mullen is a pretty mediocre artist. He should not have been doing covers.

That's it!

1998. Far better design. classy and understated. 1981 looks like the cover of a high school literary magazine.

At least they used decent photos in 1985. But the design of 1994 is superior.

I much prefer the blue design to a group of awkwardly stages photos. It at least looks like the actually hired a graphic designer that year.

Brentz cleared waivers. He can refuse the AAA assignment, but considering the fact that no one claimed him, he's likely to take it.

Two excellent designs. I prefer 2010 because of the clean design; the photo in 1970 makes it too busy. Still, the 1970 one is in the top half of what we've seen so far.

That's just a terrible photo of Joe Torre: his eyes staring off at different angles far from the camera. What's he looking at? The ceiling? And the expression?

The 1990 edition is just plain ugly. Random panels of color? And green in the upper right? The weirdly boxed photo? Awful.

I've bounced around on this. It's interesting. Among the big stories of expansion, division play, the raising of the mound to try and swing the pendulum away from the Year of the Pitcher, and the alleged 100th anniversary of professional baseball (if not league play), scribes seem to have gotten away with writing their season previews without making predictions as to who will be the pennant winners. Baseball Digest picked the Tigers and Giants to go to the WS. Oakland and Chicago would win their divisions. As for the actual division champions. their predictions were: Mets -- 6th, Orioles -- 3rd, Braves --3rd, and Twins -- 2nd

Just read the full Baseball Digest summary. Even the main article had them last. They discuss the pitching; going by this their idea of a lineup was Starters: Seaver, Koosman, McAndrew, Cardwell, Gentry, Ryan are all mentioned RPs: Ron Taylor and Cal Koonce get the best comments, along with Al Jackson and Bill Short Catcher: "Jerry Grote is fine. But there's little quality help for Grote, although J.C. Martin is long on experience." "The infield is a puzzle, beginning with shortstop Bud Harrelson, who shouldn't be." "First base is nothing to brag about, although Ed Kranepool has been on the job, more or less, for five seasons. Kranepool has to provide more power or the Mets have to provide a replacement." They aren't sure Boswell will be able to handle the job at second, and pencil in Ed Charles at third, in competition with Kevin Collins, Bob Heise, Ted Martinez, and Wayne Garrett. As for the outfield, "Each year [Agee] has gotten worse. . . . Swoboda has been a continued disappointment." I also have a clipping of their opening day roster: Pitchers Cardwell Gentry Al Jackson Cal Koonce Koosman McAndrew McGraw Ryan Seaver Taylor Catchers Dyer Grote Martin Infielders Boswell Charles Kevin Collins Garrett Harrelson Kranepool Otis Weis Outfielders Agee "Who the hell is" Rod Gaspar Jones Shamsky Swoboda Note the change in roster construction: only ten pitchers, and 26 men on opening day (I think it went down to 25 on May 1).

I have a the season preview issue from Baseball Digest that year. In the capsule summary, the comment on the Mets was "Back in the cellar again." Yes, they thought they'd do worse than the Expos. The fuller summary seemed to say they would finish 5th if things broke right. They acknowledged Seaver and Koosman were going to give them good starting pitching and they had some promising young players. But if you look at the personnel in spring training, they were weak at first base (Clendenon was added in June), third base (of course), center field (Agee had been awful the previous year), and right (neither Swoboda nor Shamsky inspired confidence). Other than the big two, the rest of the starters were untried (Gentry, Ryan, McAndrew) or league average (Cardwell). They probably expected Al Jackson to be in the mix. Most of the starting lineup played better than they had the year before; the untried pitchers turned out to be good enough to carry the team, and Taylor and McGraw made an effective fireman duo. If you look at all the players, it's amazing how many had their best year in 1969.

I remember when he was the team's fireman, earning the nickname "Hairbreadth Harry." He'd come in a game nursing a one-run lead and then walking the bases full before getting a strikeout to get out of the inning. If he came in with a two-run lead, he'd let a run come in before shutting down the side. It's tough that he'll be remembered for one bad pitch.

I'd put Matz before Harvey. At this point, he's a better pitcher and he has more upside. Harvey, at best, can be expected to be middle rung. He should beat out Wheller. Gsellman and Lugo to the bullpen or Las Vegas. Montero to the bullpen unless they can unload him on someone else.

I think Douglas Adams has the last word.

I will say that with this, it's been a pretty good off-season.

bmfc1 wrote: Panik is a better fielder than Cabrera so if they can move Cabrera then bring Panik home! https://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=11936&position=2B Fielding ratings over the last 2 years: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=2b&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2017&month=0&season1=2017&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0 When this was being reported, there were also reports of trading Cabrera to the MFY for relief pitching. In that light, it's a decent idea, but I'm betting the MFY never gave the Mets anything worthwhile, which made the Panik trade moot.

bmfc1 wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/AnthonyDiComo/status/964136514895728642[/tweet] The Mets are back to a three small "d" team. Typical frugality: they had paid someone to make a small "d" for the uniforms, and wanted to get the most out of it.

According to the Mets Twitter feed: We’ve acquired LHP Daniel Zamora and cash considerations from Pittsburgh in exchange for LHP Josh Smoker. #Mets Looks like it's how they're finding room on the 40-man for Reyes.

Looks like there may be more memories created: Mets Bring Back Ty Kelly on Minors Deal

I'm surprised at the vitriol over Tebow's inclusion. The two complaint are 1. Other, better players weren't invited and 2. He'll be a media distraction. For point 1, AFAIK there's no limit to spring training invites, so he's not taking a spot from anyone else. Essentially, the Mets said, "Let's invite our best prospects and also Tim Tebow." You can mention other players, but the team wasn't going to invite them, Tebow or not. So it's a nonissue. 2. Media distraction. Right. The media wouldn't be filling the clubhouse if it weren't for him. They wouldn't be interviewing Syndergaard about if he feels healthy, or Harvey about how his arm is doing, or DeGrom over whether it's easier to pitch with shorter hair, or Dom Smith about how he feels about Gonzalez, or Gonzalez about how he feels about Smith, or Conforto about when he'll return, or Cespedes about what he drove to spring training. No. Not at all. Why without Tebow, you could roll a bowling ball down the locker room after a game and not hit a reporter. It's nonsense. He'll bring in more fans and be useful for split squad games (since the team is short on outfielders).