RealityChuck

1967 -- Tommy Davis

Who gives a rat's ass what number he chooses? Or for what reason? Man, you people go out of your way to get pissed off.

="Edgy DC":2sbbzi7w]I kind of do also, which sensibly makes that Harreslson and Boswell in the crosshairs, but I'm sticking to my guns on Kranepool vs. Shamsky, and could use some support on that one.[/quote:2sbbzi7w] Have to disagree with you. That's definitely Kranepool in the center and Shamsky by the edge. Benjamin Grimm Mar 31 2009 12:47 PM I agree. Kranepool, Grote, Jones, Koosman, Shamsky. Edgy DC Mar 31 2009 12:49 PM Thanks, both. I've already yielded the point. Zvon Mar 31 2009 01:41 PM ="Met Hunter"]I'm looking at my 1970 yearbook up close. This is how I see it. Horizontal Clendenon Seaver Agee Weis Gentry Ryan Boswell, Harrelson Swoboda McGraw Vertical Hodges Kranepool Grote Jones Koosman Shamsky Plus there's a good shot of The Glider with a big smile in the lower left hand corner. This is right on Edgy DC Mar 31 2009 01:42 PM Z in house. MFS needs a Brian Cole avatar, baby. Zvon Mar 31 2009 01:50 PM ="Edgy DC"]Z in house. MFS needs a Brian Cole avatar, baby. I'm on it. SteveJRogers Mar 31 2009 03:09 PM Well I can't contribute anymore seeing my flash drive with the file listing every freaking book crashed and I lost the file.

="TheOldMole":1wbwl9sx]I think any team that would start a guy named Brett over a guy named Melky has no poetry in its soul. The Twins have a player named Boof?[/quote:1wbwl9sx] Yes. John Wilkes Boof. Something of a hothead. OlerudOwned Mar 30 2009 06:02 PM Speaking of trades with the Twins, former Mets prospect and Castillo trade piece Drew Butera is apparently on the inside track to start the season in the majors to hold place for the injured Joe Mauer. Edgy DC Mar 30 2009 06:13 PM Some pretty shallow organizational depth they've got there. The guy his .219 last year while repeating AA. He did get his share of walks, but skipping a level is a tall order. Ashie62 Mar 30 2009 06:22 PM They say trade Potential for the Proven..give or take 20 Million..Nice deal for the Mets regardless of how the traded do. I have a soft spot for Carlos Gomez..I hope he can become a 20-20 guy. The speed is there Edgy DC Mar 30 2009 06:41 PM You actually said you wanted to undo this trade back when you were calling him "Carlos Lopez." You additionally said that "Lopez" would be a Yankee in a few years leading us all to fits of regret. Kong76 Mar 30 2009 06:52 PM ny83: i think any deal of "prospects for the best pitcher in the league" is one you'll make over and over again. the problem comes when you trade prospects for mediocrities. those prospects might not pan out, but i'd rather have them over the mediocrity. Yuh, duh, and wuh? ... in that order. Santana's Jay Horowitz impersonation tonight in a dugout interview was pretty damn funny too. Ashie62 Mar 30 2009 09:00 PM ="Edgy DC":3vitneyz]You actually said you wanted to undo this trade back when you were calling him "Carlos Lopez." You additionally said that "Lopez" would be a Yankee in a few years leading us all to fits of regret.[/quote:3vitneyz] Lighten up Francis...We've got a pennant to win..To the batcave!

="Gwreck":2wuna5hi]The gratuitous editorializing in the final sentence undermines the writer's authority by delving too far off topic.[/quote:2wuna5hi] It's a review. That's the point of a review -- to give an opinion. Gwreck Mar 17 2009 09:18 AM The review works when he offers opinions on topics in which he has expertise. Hence my criticism of the way he ended. Edgy DC Mar 17 2009 10:18 AM ="Vic Sage":3h6as05y]IMO, his point was not that asymmetry = character. To the contrary, i think. His point was that the assymetry of old ballparks were not merely an affectation.... they were the necessary consequence of urban ballparks having to adapt to very different urban landscapes. That those ballparks were integrated and a part of their urban settings made them more individualized, personal experience for their fans, and thus lovingly embraced ("even the ugly ones"), which is a perfectly valid architectural theory. It is one of the uniquey identifying charms of baseball that its outfield dimensions are unlimited, just as the lack of a clock renders the game theoretically unlimited. But his criticism of Citifield is that its asymmetry does NOT equal character; that it is, instead, an affectation that isolates it in its environment, and has been borrowed, instead, from a history that is not its own. Regardless, the stadium is attractive, and I'm still happy to have better sightlines and better amenities.[/quote:3h6as05y] Well, if that's his point, I agree with him, but the first sentence of paragraph four seems to suggest that Shea's a-symmetry was some sort of lamentable artistic mission of architects, rather than the natural response to a new reality, the park was built in a huge swath of land cleared for parking. He certainly alludes to the new paradigm two paragraphs down, but he's already made his seeming indictment of Shea '64 on those terms.

I thought it was A-Rod taking shots, not K-Rod.

="holychicken":2nzm1mua]That isn't serious, is it?[/quote:2nzm1mua]Yes, it was. After Jim Palmer was a major success in selling men's underwear, Jockey added other baseball players. The key was that most underwear was purchased by wives for their husbands. They liked the beefcake (my wife though the Palmer ads were extremely sexy), so they bought. themetfairy Feb 20 2009 08:30 AM The Palmer ads were, indeed, extremely sexy. A lot of women who wouldn't know a balk from a bunt bought their husbands underwear based on those ads. holychicken Feb 20 2009 10:26 AM ="RealityChuck":1rhi458g]="holychicken":1rhi458g]That isn't serious, is it?[/quote:1rhi458g]Yes, it was. After Jim Palmer was a major success in selling men's underwear, Jockey added other baseball players. The key was that most underwear was purchased by wives for their husbands. They liked the beefcake (my wife though the Palmer ads were extremely sexy), so they bought.[/quote:1rhi458g] And those were the good old days? hhehehe Whenever I look at that, I can't help but think that it is Jack Black making fun of something. But it's real. . .and that's scary.

How was the BA in innings 1-6?

You can't discuss ballplayers endorsing underwear without this: Worked for Jim.

Yes. The Mets pen toward the end of the year was fully capable of blowing any lead in any inning.

But if Hampton had stayed with the Mets, Rick Peterson could have fixed his problems in ten minutes.

It took them this long?

The team might end up losing $20 million a year of income if the Citi Field naming rights thing falls apart (and it's looking more likely it will). They'll have to pony up at least that much a year for Manny, so the bottom line is they're probably out $40+ million. Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.

Gedankenexperiment: How many people at the "Sign Manny" rally will be booing if we sign him and he goes 0 for 12 in his first three games?

[url:17nnuur0]http://video.buffalonews.com/player/?id=80#[/url:17nnuur0] Though I'd never heard him called "Steady Eddie." That was Ed Bressoud.

Not likely I'd follow another team. Maybe Boston, but it'd be more likely I'd stop paying all that much attention. I don't follow sports too closely, so I'd just move on.

Agreed. The Mets would have loved to have kept Nady. But they liked Perez a lot, and thought they needed immediate bullpen help after Sanchez's injury.

. . . are the helmet and pads really necessary? See http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spbase055987750jan05,0,4423241.story?track=rss for the full story (if they haven't fixed the error).

Yes, but he'd have to be on the active roster for at least 90 days.

And Ken Berry.

Right. Everyone knows that's when you fire your manager.

Interesting, but I'm always skeptical of rumors of trades with more than two teams. They happen, but it's just too easy for them to fall apart. When was the last one the Mets pulled off? Was it the Armando Benitez trade?

="Centerfield":34sf7zpi]Finding a way to trade Delgado for a usable part, unloading Brian Schneider, then using that money to pick up Mark Texiera is asking too much of him.[/quote:34sf7zpi]And if Texiera decides to go elsewhere, where does that leave us? If you want to trade Delgado, you'd be an idiot not to have someone in place who's clearly better. I love it that all the people who were wrong about Delgado last year think they're absolutely right about him this year (for the record, I said early on that I didn't think Delgado was through, because his record in 2007 showed he still could hit; alas, sabrheads don't pay attention to the statistics they profess to worship). In any case, trading Delgado without Texiera's name on a contract is an idiot's move. While there may be questions about Carlos, no one in the Mets organization could be expected to do better. Gwreck Dec 08 2008 02:00 PM Might be tough to deal with Minnesota for a little while. TransMonk Dec 08 2008 02:01 PM Wish we could get in on that Dye action. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 08 2008 02:10 PM I'm pretty sure the sabrheads understood Delgado's return toward career norms better than many fans. It also doesn't take a degree from Bill James University to understand that Texiera is a better player now and and that improving the O through first base is an attractive option if you could do it. And you don;t trade anyone without a Plan B. Centerfield Dec 08 2008 02:19 PM Re: I'm getting the feeling he's not bluffing ="RealityChuck":2p7tsblc]="Centerfield":2p7tsblc]Finding a way to trade Delgado for a usable part, unloading Brian Schneider, then using that money to pick up Mark Texiera is asking too much of him.[/quote:2p7tsblc]And if Texiera decides to go elsewhere, where does that leave us? If you want to trade Delgado, you'd be an idiot not to have someone in place who's clearly better. I love it that all the people who were wrong about Delgado last year think they're absolutely right about him this year (for the record, I said early on that I didn't think Delgado was through, because his record in 2007 showed he still could hit; alas, sabrheads don't pay attention to the statistics they profess to worship). In any case, trading Delgado without Texiera's name on a contract is an idiot's move. While there may be questions about Carlos, no one in the Mets organization could be expected to do better.[/quote:2p7tsblc] The Winter Meetings are a great venue to do simultaneous trades/signings. If need be, scope out the interest for Delgado first, get some trades out there in the hypothetical. Once Texiera signs, pull the trigger. If you can't pull the trigger right away, sign Texiera and carry Delgado until someone in the AL loses their power hitter to a hammy injury. Worst case scenario, eat some contract and trade him to one of those teams that lose out on Texiera. I never claimed to be absolutely right about Delgado, this year or last. My point is that there is a way, with similar money, to get a guy who you can reasonably expect to improve your offense for the upcoming year and beyond. I'm saying that given the choice, you'd be a fool to take Delgado and Schneider over Texiera. I'm looking for the above-average GM that can figure out a way to make those changes. I'm not sure why you bring up the SABR guys. It has nothing to do with my post. Good for you (and I mean that, not trying to be snide) if you thought Delgado had more in the tank. I certainly didn't, and it didn't look like he did for the longest time. All I'm saying is that being that bad for that long a time makes me believe that there is a strong possibility that the bad Delgado could return. And I want to avoid having to rely on someone like that. smg58 Dec 08 2008 02:46 PM We scored just as many runs as the Phillies did last year, despite the ballpark differences. Our offense didn't beat us, pitching did. We could even afford a slightly worse offense than we had last year, if we make good decisions on the pitching front. The one thing all the available outfielders have in common (Manny, Dunn, Ibanez, Dye, Young) is that they suck defensively. If the Fielding Bible is a reliable measure of defensive worth, our current outfield defense is better than people realize in left, and outstanding in center and right. The only one of those guys I'd consider still a significant upgrade when defense is factored in is Manny. Do we have question marks at the corners and first base? Yes, but there's more unambiguous room for improvement at other positions and the bullpen, a big vacancy in at least one starting rotation spot, and a finite amount of resources. It may be hard to move Castillo, but given his (and Easley's) offensive and defensive output last year, it shouldn't require much of an expense at all to produce a clear improvement at second base. Catcher is trickier. Laird's numbers have been up and down, and were likely enhanced by the ballpark in Texas, so it's not clear that he would have been an improvement over Schneider. The Indians have a glut of catchers both at the top level and in their system, but I'm not sure what we have that they'd want. (They've been looking mainly for relievers.) Plus we'd need to find a taker for Schneider. attgig Dec 08 2008 02:47 PM he's working too hard to drive the prices on closers down, that if he goes and signs big money on texiera, it'll piss off all the closers, and it'll screw up all that negotiating. I think things will happen once we get the closer situation settled. Delgado could be traded, but who would want an aging 1b due 12 mil, who's a question mark? how much salary would we have to eat? what would we seriously get in return? I don't think we need to or should think about moving Delgado, unless everyone in the mets front office has a serious hardon for Tex. If he's not #1 priority, trading delgado will get us so little/nothing that it won't be worth it. of course, there is the question of who's gonna be 1bman in 2010....would carp be ready/be able to hold his own? attgig Dec 08 2008 02:53 PM ="smg58":24up5h6j]The one thing all the available outfielders have in common (Manny, Dunn, Ibanez, Dye, Young) is that they suck defensively. If the Fielding Bible is a reliable measure of defensive worth, our current outfield defense is better than people realize in left, and outstanding in center and right. [/quote:24up5h6j] is delmon young really that bad in the OF? i know the other guys are, but I thought Delmon was a 5 tool guy. his character would worry me, especially coming to NY, and he's still such a kid. that's the biggest reason why I would say no to him. Oddly enough, I think Milton Bradley should be looked at. he gets a bad rap, but from reading/interviews this past season, it sounded like the clubhouse loved him, and the media just presses his buttons in a way that gives this incredibly negative portrayal of him. + he's older, and it seems like he's getting a bit wiser (heard nothing bad about him this past year). give him a one year + options, and I would love to see what he could do in LF at citi. Frayed Knot Dec 08 2008 03:09 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 09 2008 06:24 AM ]Do we just not have the prospects to get it [a deal for Delmon Young] done? Well, if you're working on the notion that he's a stud OFer to be than they'll need something back on a similar level. Not sure who that would be. F. Martinez hopes to be Delmon Young but is 4 years behind in development so it'll be him plus probably a pitching prospect. Are you willing to go Fartinez & Niese? ]Is there something terrible that I don't know about young Mr. Young? There's the lunkhead issue: ie. the bat-throwing deal that cost him a half-season of minor league ball and valuable developmental time. Other than that the knocks are that he really hasn't developed as predicted back when he was made the #1 overall pick in the nation. He doesn't walk very often [walk rate ~ .030-.040] and the power hasn't really shown up yet either [isoP ~ .110] - both well below average particularly for a corner OF. Right now he's sort of Lastings Milledge with a better BA but fewer walks and slightly less power. On the other hand he's still only 23 y/o so there's certainly still time. But, if he really is on the market, it might say something that two orgs have had their fill of him by such a young age. Edgy DC Dec 08 2008 04:35 PM If what we're complaining about here is that the Mets aren't leaking their plans, I'm OK with that. *62 Dec 08 2008 06:43 PM Can someone point me towards the final tally for Schaefer P.O.Y.? Can't seem to find it. Frayed Knot Dec 08 2008 06:52 PM ="*62":2ilr4dff]Can someone point me towards the final tally for Schaefer P.O.Y.? Can't seem to find it.[/quote:2ilr4dff] It's hanging with the archives in the 'Player of the Game' fourm. http://cranepoolforum.qwknetllc.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=10350

="attgig":3ey6ofss]="RealityChuck":3ey6ofss]The money is distributed as the team sees fit, so batboys and front office secretaries, etc. are usually given something. Full shares usually go to those on the roster plus coaches; partial shares go to people who only got a cup of coffee or were traded mid-season (unless the team is being generous). It used to be the players that voted on who got shares; I don't know if that's changed.[/quote:3ey6ofss] that's how it was with nomar when he got traded, and the sox won the series. nomar got a full share cuz they all voted. I don't think anything's changed since then.[/quote:3ey6ofss] It was pretty common for a team to be generous when it hasn't won in awhile, giving full shares to people traded in midseason and half shares to people on the 40-man roster who never actually got to play. When you tended to win a lot, it sometimes got ugly. The MFYs in the early 60s occasionally would create clubhouse controversy by forgetting about players who were traded or giving less than full shares to some players who probably would have gotten them on other teams. Frayed Knot Dec 14 2008 02:31 PM Just happened to see a 'this date in baseball history' note on this recently discussed topic: 1911 - Pittsburgh Pirates owner Barney Dreyfuss proposes that each team in the World Series be required to turn over one-fourth of its share of the gate to the league, to be divided among the other teams. Until now, ten percent of the gross went to the National Commission, 60 percent to the players, and the rest to the two pennant-winning clubs. The National League will pass the resolution and send it to the American League. It marks the beginning of changes that ultimately give players of the first four clubs a percentage of the World Series money.