RealityChuck

I believe they're allowed one roster change.

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I was looking that stuff up btw. Hearn and one other player (who?) made the 86 WS/NLCS roster but didn't appear, if I counted right. I'm guessing Randy Niemann.

Oh, I'm sure teams go into it with only two catchers, but having a third is never a bad idea. ESPN has the roster here: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2006/news/story?id=2612496 Mets' postseason roster Pitchers (12): Chad Bradford, Pedro Feliciano, Tom Glavine, Aaron Heilman, Roberto Hernandez, John Maine, Guillermo Mota, Darren Oliver, Oliver Perez, Royce Ring, Steve Trachsel, Billy Wagner. Catchers (2): Paul Lo Duca, Ramon Castro. Infielders (6): Carlos Delgado, Julio Franco, Jose Reyes, Jose Valentin, Chris Woodward, David Wright. Outfielders (5): Carlos Beltran, Endy Chavez, Cliff Floyd, Shawn Green, Michael Tucker. El Duque is not on it.

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I agree with that. DiFelice would have been a waste of a spot anyway. Not at all. Without DiFelice, Ramon Castro never gets into a game unless he starts. You don't play in the postseason with no catcher on the bench. If you pinch hit Castro, and Lo Duca breaks a finger on a bad pitch, who replaces him? If it's the bottom of the ninth and you're down a run, then you can use your backup catcher, but without DiFelice, you have to think long and hard about bringing in Castro to pinch hit in the 7th inning -- even if you're desperate for him. Ultimately, which bat would you prefer to have out of the lineup: DiFelice's or Castro's?

That's how it always been reported: Heilman changed his delivery and wanted to stick to his old one despite the urgings of the entire coaching staff.

Show me evidence that Peterson has made a difference to a pitcher here in NY since he's been here.Telling Glavine to start using a curve ball. Glavine specifically cited Peterson as making the suggestion, which put him onto the All-Star team this year. Oliver Perez went from a washed-up AAA player in July to just short of making the postseason roster (and some reports say he'll be on it). I saw a scout's analysis online comparing video of Perez with the Pirates earlier this year with how he's pitching with the Mets (and with him a couple of years ago), showing that he's changed the way he pitches to more like he did when he won a dozen games and praising Peterson. Someone had to tell Perez what he was doing wrong, and Peterson is the obvious choice. Here's the analysis: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/mechanics/discussion/the_complex_case_of_oliver_perez/

I >NEVER< want to see the Yankees win. Anything.

Beltran 10 Reyes 9 Wright 8 Delgado 7 Wagner 6 Glavine 5 Trachsel 4 LoDuca 3 Chavez 2 Heilman 1

Well, at the time, the Jets made it very clear that they didn't like that situation (it was worse in '69, of course, when the Jets didn't play at home until Week 6 and 1973, when it was week 7), and eventually managed to negotiate to play a couple of home games in the first few weeks. It was Weiss who negotiated the contract with the city to make the Jets prime tenants, which put the Mets in the driver's seat, and he dictated the original terms. Categorizing it as the "initial step" is not out of line. Whether it had any effect on the Jets's seasons, the team resented the restriction and the fact that they were second-class tenants made it all that easier for them to be wooed by the Meadowlands.

Pedro's problems this year were pretty much bad luck -- starting with his slipping and hurting his hip in Florida. It's likely everything else stemmed from that, and certainly his current injury was related to his injury to his leg. Until the first, however, he was pitching just fine (yes, no wins in May, but he was pitching well). One he's fully healed over the winter, there's no reason to believe he won't be the pitcher he was last spring. He won't be the dominant Pedro of a few years ago, but he'll be a first-class starter for at least another year and probably until the end of his contract. The Red Sox could have used him.

Would vote in: Dick Allen -- one of the great hitters of his time Carl Mays -- a great pitcher, and the start of the "Curse of the Bambino" Tony Oliva -- the best pure hitter of the 60-70s. If he hit home runs, he'd be in already. Marty Marion -- The best shortshop of his era. Thurman Munson -- He'd be in already if he hadn't been killed. Sparky Lyle -- top reliever of his time. Close: Rocky Colavito -- Just short Joe Torre -- should get in as a total of his manager/playing career. Gil Hodges Ron Santo Jim Kaat Mickey Vernon Cecil Travis Maury Wills -- changed the way the game was played, but career just short of HOF.

Too late for me: Here I am hanging out with MFY fans.

I found this article that appeared in New York Magazine in 2004: http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/n_10297/index.html. It's just an amazing bit of prediction. Really too long to copy (it's four pages), but right on the money, including predictions that the Mets should acquire Carlos Delgado, Kris Benson, and Shawn Green.

I agree. People held on to these and were later added to collections by collectors. But that wasn't the claim. The claim was that there were collectors -- people searching out the "game-used" jerseys in the 19th century. It's not that the jerseys don't exist. I'm looking for proof that collectors of these jerseys existed in the 19th Century.

NYGAMEUSED wrote: I see you didnt full read my reply by accident i posted my responses in the quote part - if you read through the last quote part I answered all your questions. You're right. Here it is: ]Yes collected sure as mentioned earlier these items out there, if no one collected them, then how would they exist today on the secondary markets?Not proof. Or, at least, no more proof than saying, "they exist, thus elves laid them on people's pillows." There are many ways these could have existed without active collectors -- they were kept by the players themselves, for example, or their relatives. You are claiming that there were actually people who went around gathering these items as part of a collection, not merely keeping one or two personal souveniers. ] I personally do not know the names of prominent 19th century collectors, but I can give you the name of my grandfather who passed down a collection to me of Game Used baseballs and a Jersey. Your grandfather was a 19th century collector? Really? My grandfather was born in 1899, so he couldn't be a collector in the 19th century, and I bet I'm older than you are. What year was your grandfather born? More likely, he started collecting well into the 20th century. That's does nothing to prove your claim. ]As stated before the phrase"Game Used" falls into the aspect of the business end of it. I don't know if there were periodicals back then for such an item as said before back then people collected these items, an actual sale didnt necessarilly take place. I SEE THIS IS A HARD CONCEPT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.And I don't see why it's so hard to come up with evidence to show that people did actually collect these items. I did not insist you show a market and sales, just some evidence to back your claim. And saying "What else could it be?" will result in the answer "elves." ]As far as me backing up what I said, that I did. As far as chaning the subject, I have not that's what you have been doing because you don't know the difference between Hobby collectiong and Business.All I'm asking is evidence that this purported hobby existed in the 19th century. You keep avoiding that and pretending that I'm asking the business existed. I am not asking that, and I never asked that. I'm asking for evidence OF THE HOBBY. I, too, am curious why you don't have this comprehnsion, but I see it's that you just want to evade the issue because you have no proof to back up your assertion.

NYGAMEUSED wrote: The insertion I made has nothing to do with the questions you ask. I stated it was a collectin hobby yet you keep referring to the business aspect of it. I dont understand why you can't comprehend the difference between someone just collecting something and a business saleSo? You haven't given any evidence that the hobby existed, either. I'm merely suggesting evidence that would prove it did, but if you can come up with something else, that's great: the name of a 19th century collector, for instance. Or any document from the time (e.g., a private letter) that talks about getting a "game-used jersey." Let's see some proof. You made an assertion, but keep changing the subject whenever I ask you to back it up.

NYGAMEUSED wrote: Actually I can give plenty of examples for one, they are out there floating around being sold just check ebay or any sports auction thats proof enough!! I didn't know they had eBay in the 19th Century. Live and learn. However, unless you are willing to make that claim, an eBay auction is no proof that the hobby existed in the 19th Century. NYGAMEUSED wrote: As far as actual paperwork showing People buying and selling - thats the business end of it I didnt say the business end of it existed back then I said the hobby did of people collecting these Game Used items.Attacking a straw man. I didn't ask for the sales paperwork. I asked for evidence that anyone was selling game-used jerseys in the 19th century. You have asserted people in the 19th century collected "game-used items." Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Any names of prominent 19th century collectors or dealers, for example. Any cites from a 19th century document that uses the phrase "game-used"? Any ads in Baseball periodical selling jerseys? You made an assertion. I have called it into question. Now, produce some evidence to prove me wrong.

NYGAMEUSED wrote: I am a bit confused from your statement your saying it brings Fantasy to Reality - but this hobby has been going on since the late 1800's people have been collecting Game Used item dating back to the Lemon Peel BaseballsCite? Or, in other words, can you give any evidence to back this claim? Any ads from the late 1800s selling these? Any dealers, buyers or sellers ever using the term "game-used" during that era?

My favorite tidbit: The last time Julio Franco started at third base, the guy playing to shortstop next to him hadn't even been born.

Both had lefthanded closers. Played home games at Shea Stadium. Had 25 players on the roster (40 in September).

Certainly he's a humanitarian, just like I am a vegetarian.

I haven't seen it, but Sandler was fine in "Spanglish." But whether you liked his performance or not, the point was that critics didn't pan it simply because Sandler was know for doing crap.

Sure, critics change their mind about directors/actors/playwrights. If someone with a long string of successes puts out crap, the critics will point it out. If Ed Wood ever did a first-class movie, then they will praise the film. Critics (well, the good ones) look at each film/play individually. For instance, critics hated Adam Sandler in all his roles until "Punch Drunk Love." Then they panned him in a series of films until "Spanglish." He got good notices in both "Punch Drunk Love" and "Spanglish." Critics loved Steven Spielberg for "Jaws," "The Sugarland Express," and "Close Encounters." Then he did "1941" and got ravaged. "Raiders" and "ET" got praised. Then they felt he need to grow as a filmmaker and was criticized for not doing serious themes, and later for trying to do serious themes and mucking them up. Then came "Schindler's List." At most, if Ed Wood had created a cinematic masterpiece, the critics would have mentioned how surprising this was given his track record, while praising the film.

="soupcan"]How does the top hat factor in? Was David Copperfield the mayor of New York City once and I missed it? No, but Jimmy Walker was.