RealityChuck

soupcan wrote: 2 years? So much for 'whatever my family wants'. My goodness. Do you mean to imply a player might say something in order to enhance his negotiating position? I'm shocked, shocked. Almost as shocked as when I discovered there was gambling going on here.

Yancy Street Gang wrote: "Baltimore has a nice Aquarium and we're famous for our crabs."Then he should fit in well in the clubhouse. "Yes, we serve anyone. Sit down.

Elster88 wrote: Mota's another one that confuses the hell out of me. He got the everloving crap kicked out of him for half a year and then pitched well for us.Turned out he was tipping his pitchers. Pedro noticed it when he came over. Once he fixed that, he pitched just fine.

Except none of those are actually malapropisms. It is abused to say so.

Yes. The worst thing to do when negotiating is to make it clear you really want a player. If you're willing to throw money at him, then fine, but if you want to keep to a budget, saying you're not interested can make a difference. If I were Omar, I'd certainly say I'm not that interested in Zito. Then when Scot Boras calls, you say "Well, OK" and try to get him for less. As a second bonus, it also doesn't raise expectations among fans. If the team says they're really going after Zito, and we don't get him, it's perceived as failure. If we say, "we're not interested" and end up with him anyway, it's perceived as a nice bonus.

Frayed Knot wrote: The 'announcer-less' football game was nothing more than an experiment from producer Don Ohlmeyer. He wanted to check out some things with crowd and other ambient noises so he took an otherwise-nothing game towards the end of the season and ran his trial w/o having to deal with any voices getting in the way and, in turn, generated a ton of publicity for himself and the network. It was never meant to be any kind of trend-setting statement.But NBC afterwards said that they learned a lot from the game and started using silence more effectively. They often pointed to the game as influencing how they had people call the game, and I'm sure others in the announcing field made note of it. The "describe everything" school was due to the fact that sports started out on radio, where it was necessary. It took a long time before TV announcers (many of whom started in radio), learned that there were times when saying nothing was the best way to go.

cooby wrote: Fabulous. The last two minutes was no commentating at all. Some announcers know when to let the moment just happen. Thank the New York Jets. In 1979, NBC experimented with broadcasting the final Jets-Dolphins game without announcers. I actually thought it was interesting, but they never repeated the experiment. However, they did learn that you did not have to talk all the time, and that it was much better for announcers to say nothing after a particularly exciting play (especially if it benefits the home team). It started out in football, but I'm sure Scully knew about it by 1986, and certainly the director in the booth told him to wait a bit before talking.

There's also http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I love the name Ham Fighters. If Virginia ever gets an MLB team (less likely now that the Nationals are in place) I'd want them to be named the Virginia Ham Fighters. But, of course, the name isn't "Ham Fighters." It's just "Fighters." They're owned by Nippon Ham; all Japanese baseball teams are named after the corporation that owns them.

seawolf17 wrote: Topps did a ton of airbrushing back in the day; they weren't shy about airbrushing out a logo on a hat. I guess it was easier (and cheaper?) than getting a new photo. Both. Topps sent their photographers out once a year. They'd take two photos: one with the hat, and one without. If the player was traded, then he'd be hatless on the card and they wouldn't need to airbrush. Also, in the 50s, they wouldn't photograph (or even sign) all players. This ended when a Dodgers official told them that Maury Wills would never make the team. Once Wills made the team, he refused to sign with Topps, so there was no baseball card of him until 1967, when he was traded to the Pirates. From then on, Topps would sign up all players to an exclusive contract. This also effectively prevented others from selling baseball cards (they were allowed for some uses, but not with gum) until a court case ruled Topps contract illegal; players could sign nonexclusive contracts from then on and the mult-manufacturer boom had begun.

The Topps first series (it was sold in series those days) was out around spring training. No chance to get a picture in a Mets uniform. Later series could get the players in uniform. We should play Guess the Uniform: Charlie Neal -- Dodgers Elio Chacon -- Pirates Stengel -- MFY Felix Mantilla -- Milwaukee Braves Drake -- Cubs.

Add Rube Walker and Eddy Yost to the end.

Elster88 wrote: You guys saw Willie Mays play? You're old. Sure I saw Willie play -- even when he was good. Hell, I remember one comedian in the mid-60s doing a joke newscast: "In sports news, the Giants traded Willie Mays to the New York Mets -- for the entire New York Mets team."

HahnSolo wrote: Willie did play (allegedly) in the 1973 series.What "allegedly"? He drove in the run that put them ahead in game 2, and scored what proved to be the game winner. And despite the fact he was 42, he was a better player than Don Hahn.

sharpie wrote: Also, big dropoff in defense with Belliard from Valentin. Plus, that sticking his tongue out thing is disgusting.Maybe that's why they want him. He can join Wright and Pelfrey.

1. Steinbrenner buys the Mets. 2. Jose Lima is named the team's ace pitcher. 3. Trade Wright and Reyes for ARod. 4. Delgado demands a trade; Mo Vaughn out of retirement to replace him.

Vic Sage wrote: nonononononononono. Our offense went up in smoke this post-season partly because Valentin and Chavez were overexposed and returned to the mean, dragging down the whole bottom 1/2 of the lineup. And this is why sabermetrics is so completely bogus. Baseball Prospectus was delighted that Chavez was replacing Floyd, because all the statistics said he was the better outfielder and the team was better with him in the outfield. So now it can be played both ways: if Chavez plays well, they can claim, "see, we said he was better than Floyd." If he plays badly, they can say, "returned to the mean." The real answer ("We're taking a guess and were wrong,") is never mentioned. The assumption is that the sabermetrics is always right, and if it's wrong, then it's still right. Anything can be rationalized.

And if the pitch had been called a ball, would it have been a bad choice? It was a tough curve ball; Carlos (or just about any batter) thought it wouldn't be a strike. There was no point in swinging at a bad ball. I suppose if he had a few days to think about it, he might have agreed it would be better to swing, too. But he had to make the decision is a somewhat shorter time frame.

="Elster88"]]BTW, let's put a rest to the story that Perez was a throw-in. Minyana kept trying to wrest him from the Pirates, but they wanted Nady and Omar wouldn't trade Nady him one-for-one. Once Sanchez was hurt, Omar went back and asked them to throw in Bert to make the deal I never once heard the story described this way. Not even remotely. I can't take it just on your say-so. When and where did Omar say this? Quoted by Murray Chass in today's Times (bolding added): http://tinyurl.com/trmd5 ]�Maine came to the Mets with Jorge Julio from Baltimore for Kris Benson in the off-season, and P�rez came from Pittsburgh with Roberto Hern�ndez for Xavier Nady on July 31. Neither Maine nor P�rez was an accidental acquisition. �I was talking to the Pirates for a while about Oliver P�rez,� Minaya said. �Oliver P�rez was the opening-day starter for the Pirates. I�m of the belief that left-handers take longer to develop.� In 2004 Perez had a 12-10 record and a 2.98 earned run average for the Pirates and struck out 239 in 196 innings. But he followed that performance with a poor season and a half for the Pirates and was back in the minor leagues when the Mets lost S�nchez for the season in a taxicab accident. They needed a substitute relief pitcher, and Minaya identified Roberto Hern�ndez as the pitcher he wanted. Before that development, Minaya said, his talks with the Pirates about P�rez stalled because the teams couldn�t agree on names. �Dave Littlefield and I had talked about P�rez for about a month,� Minaya said. �I�m always shopping for guys who are down but can pick up. �I thought a change of scenery might help P�rez,� he added. �I thought our environment with Tommy Glavine and Pedro and all that might help.� Until he had a need for a reliever, Minaya said, he wasn�t going to trade Nady for P�rez straight up. �It wasn�t going to happen,� Minaya said. �You don�t give up a guy in the major leagues for someone who�s in the minors.�

Much as I'd love to have Floyd in the clubhouse, I think yesterday was his last AB for the Mets. Age and injuries have caught up with him. It's been great, but I don't see the Mets going with him. Now, if he were interested in retiring and coaching, that could be possible. Maybe replacing Acta if he gets a manager job.

All right, it may be a mistake to name a thread after a song by a group of Blockheads, but here they are: 1. Oliver Perez 2. John Maine 3. Reyes and Wright are only 23 4. Humber and Pelfrey in 2008 5. Pedro back in June 6. Did we really expect to do this well this year?

I always felt Perez was a strong candidate. The postseason only makes him stronger. Until Pelfrey is ready (and I think he probably needs another year in the minors), he's got the most heat on the staff, and once he breaks his bad habits from Pittsburgh, he can be great. The Mets desperately need a pitcher or two who can throw heat (if only in contrast to their other finesse pitchers), and Perez certainly will do. BTW, let's put a rest to the story that Perez was a throw-in. Minyana kept trying to wrest him from the Pirates, but they wanted Nady and Omar wouldn't trade Nady him one-for-one. Once Sanchez was hurt, Omar went back and asked them to throw in Bert to make the deal. I really like the team's young pitchers, but for 2008, when both Pelfrey and Humber should be ready.

I've been a fan of Dillon since [url=http://www.sff.net/people/rothman/GBF/bodyguard.htm]My Bodyguard[/url]. He's a fine actor, and obviously smart enough to be a Mets fan.

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Chuck, you're not allowing a spot for a veteran aquisition. I'm sure there will be one. If we get someone, great. If not, I'd be happy with the rotation I mentioned.

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I can guarantee you that the Mets won't go into 2007 with a rotation of Glavine and four kids. They're going to add at least one experienced starter (Schmidt, Zito, or the Japanese guy), and may retain Orlando Hernandez as well. Maine will probably be in the rotation, which would leave Bannister, Perez, Pelfrey, Humber, and whoever else competing for just one spot.Most likely: Glavine, Hernandez, Maine, Perez, Bannister. Pelfrey and Humber need one more year in the minors. Bannister gets sent down once Pedro returns.