RealityChuck

San Diego won their division, and had the second best record in the league. That adds to his value. Of those you mentioned, only Piazza played for a contender.

Just a lovely film. I wrote about it last year. It's one of the few documentaries with a surprise twist, too. And Connor is one of the most memorable characters in film.

I don't see Dawson as that bad a choice -- his numbers fit snugly among HOF players, and he played on some pretty bad teams almost his entire career, which hurt him. The fact that Blyleven and Alomar didn't get in has nothing to do with whether Dawson was a good choice. You're following the same logical fallacy as the people who refuse to vote for someone in his first year of eligibility.

Why anyone goes along with this "first ballot" crap is beyond me. If the person deserve to be in the HOF, then getting in on the first ballot is no different from getting in on the second. It's a hangover from the 40s when the hall was catching up on all the players who had been retired for years. Newly retired players had to wait, since the voters wanted to induct older players before they died. But it turned into the "Hank Greenberg didn't make it his first year, and you're no Hank Greenberg" fallacy.

Or because that's smart negotiating. Few fans seem to be able to grasp that concept -- that a smart GM doesn't talk about player acquisitions until the contract is signed. (And if he does say anything, it's as likely as not a strategy to get a more favorable contract for the players he does want.)

Do you mean evaluating past seasons, or trying to get an idea how a player will perform in 2010? If it's the former, it's a pretty solid statistic. If the latter, it has no predictive value for any given player than any other statistic about a player's past performance. A player with a high one last year may have a high one next year -- or he may not. As the stockbrokers are required to say, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Fernando Vina. Drafted by the Mets, lost to Seattle on Rule V, then sent back. He had been in 24 major league games when he debuted for the Mets.

Ashie62 wrote: Off topic but the Jets and Mark Sanchez suck it hardThat's unfair. The Jets have a serious long-term commitment to mediocrity, and have been outstanding in achieving it.

He wouldn't be our best player, but he should be just fine as our right fielder next year. His only crime seems to be heresy against the Church of SABR.

Kranepool WAS the Mets. And this isn't the See Vair forum.

The MFY have said they don't want Bay. It's far too early to speculate about what happens to F-Mart in 2011. He needs a year at AAA and the Mets needs an outfielder, so Bay makes sense. In 2011, you can think about trading him or Francour (though I would lean toward keeping both).

2007. The curve is overhyped as a crushing ending (the home run was much more crushing), but at least you felt that the season was an overall success and the team would be back the next year.

I was tempted to go with Julio Franco. He hadn't played 3B in a long time. A very long time. In fact, the last time he had played 3B in the majors was before his shortstop had been born.

Mike Piazza Frank Cashen Rube Walker Dwight Gooden Darryl Strawberry Davey Johnson Bobby Valentine Jane Jarvis

So do you have Prince Albert in a can?

Johnson, Piazza, Valentine, and, of course, Swoboda.

Darling, Ehrhart, Franco, and Gooden No way that Kingman would ever get my vote. He's one of the greatest wastes of talent in the history of baseball.

Hunt, Jarvis, Strawberry, and Walker.

Straw, Leiter, Stearns. McReynolds almost makes the cut.

MFS62 wrote: * = I don't care if he would become another Lou Brock - Halliday will be better than Ernie Broglio. This team needs a shakeup.People always seem to think the trade was a bad idea, but really, the Cubs were correct in trading Brock. People forget Brock was a terrible fielder (you can argue the importance of fielding average, but I don't think anyone would argue that an outfielder like Brock who fielded .959 is a good fielder -- and other fielding statistics confirm this). The only position he was able to play was LF -- and the Cubs had arguably a better player there (lifetime .OPS 100 points better; OPS+ of 133 vs. Brock's 109). Brock was traded mostly because there was no place to play him, not because he was great (or even potentially great) at his position. Broglio OTOH won 18 games the year before the trade and had a lifetime ERA+ up to that point of 120. No way anyone would have predicted he'd fall apart in Chicago. The moral: a perfectly reasonable trade (like the ones people are suggesting here) can look pretty terrible years later. If we were Cubs fans back in 1963, we'd be thinking that this was a steal.

The Farmer's Museum is worth a look, only for the Cardiff Giant.

1. There's no catcher available that would make that big a difference over what they have. 2. Thole is too promising to trade unless the team is getting a bona fide star. 3. The team shouldn't trade Santos because Thole should be in the minors next year. If Santos is gone, either Thole doesn't get the experience he needs or we still need to get another backup catcher. 4. The money for a catcher free agent would be better spent for a real slugger for LF or 1B.