metsmarathon

i keep on forgetting that teixeira is signed for next year as well... i agree. bad, very bad. i'm more concerned about it for next year than this one, tho. the braves still need more pitching, and their 3 4 & 5 starters are chuck james, buddy carlyle and jo-jo reyes, with the "venerable" bob wickman coming in for the 9th inning, and apparently smoltzy might be coming down with a sore shoulder to boot. now, the mets do still need to make a move here, of course, but this is not the end of the world/season.

i wonder what jose canseco has to say about arod in his next book...

where's that ken griffey jr fellow? why do i have such a hard-on for that trade?

dang... must've missed that the first time around...

raise you're hand if you're endorsing the glavine signing as a great, super move that the mets should repeat again and again and again. anybody? anybody at all? you over there... is your hand up? no, just stretching then... hmm... i wonder what all the fuss is over...

bmfc1 wrote: Since Rickey took over at first, it seems like the Mets are caught more than they're successful. pre-asg, 83% success post-asg, 71% success

capitalization - bah! welcome abordick!

lofton was my guess as well... i wonder which inactive players have been allstars with 5 different teams.

i reject the notion that the yankees are built like a fantasy team. flat out reject it. the yankees are built like a kid collecting baseball cards, moreso than a by a roto-leaguer. in a roto league, you need balance and production out of all your guys, and you need depth too. if you're collecting baseball cards, balance is meaningless - you just want names. and besides, the yankees biggest issue this year is neither that they are unbalanced or have too many names, or whatever. its that they've made poor investments and poor decisions about players who don't produce well enough, consistently enough. if they were a fantasy baseball team, they'd've kept sheffield, or played cabrera, over abreu. also, and this might come as a suprise, but the players you'd most like to have on your fantasy baseball team, you know, the more productive players, are also the players you'd most like to have on your real baseball team. this gives me a fun idea - to build up a fantasy world wherein the real major league teams play against each other in fantasy baseball! i wonder if the results therein would prove similar to the results in real life...

Willets Point wrote: ="metsmarathon"] what this might mean is that the mets offense has been terrible, while glavine has been terrific. of course, it could also mean that glavine has been terrific, but the offense terrible. Aren't these the same thing? aw, fuck. should've proofread... meant to say that based on only a 57-54 record, you could determine that either: A) glavine good, offense bad glavine bad, offense good C) glavine average, offense average D) some combination thereof i do not think glavine has been terrific, nor do i think the offense has been to blame for his 57-54 record as a met to date. hope that helps.

iramets wrote: And as little relevant Edgy thinks Wins and Losses are, I still insist that if I told you Glavine's W-L record as a Met in advance, none of you (maybe not even Edgy) would have agreed to the signing. To lesser degree with Pedro, you were all nervous about commiting the kind of money Glavine got even when you thought his total wins over the contract would be much, much greater than it turned out to be. It's just in retrospect that you're okay with Glavine's generally awful career as a Met starter, and consider his signing to have been a savvy move. To me, Glavine's a disastrous Met, in a league of his own--well, maybe in the same league as Alomar and Vaughan and Matsui, players who I would have much rather seen the team avoid and instead use the grotesque sums of money acquiring and developing homegrown talent, who on balance would have given you performances on the field that were just as good as the big names gave you. Signing them is just CYA--when they fuck up big time, GMs can just throw up their hands and say "Who knew? Did you see the resume he had?" The answer to "Who knew?" is of course "It's your job to know, you mealy-mouthed shithead. Get a job." if you had told me only glavine's 57-54 w-l in advance, i could draw from it that glavine has allowed about the same amount of runs to be scored against him as for him. what this might mean is that the mets offense has been terrible, while glavine has been terrific. of course, it could also mean that glavine has been terrific, but the offense terrible. or it could mean that both have been, on the whole, middling. altogether, you could say that, regardless of the above three scenarios, that at the time, the mets needed either a better pitcher or a better offense, or both. and therefore that there were better places to put their investment than tom glavine. also, that glavine's been relatively healthy and that at the very least, they haven't been paying the guy to stay at home. and who among us is calling the glavine signing retroactively savvy?

wow. #5 is the only one close to chuckle-worthy

Reyes 3.3 Mota 2.1 Milledge 2.0 Easley 1.1 Perez 0.9 Castro 0.6

LoDuca 3.2 Glavine 2.1 Heilman 1.8 Milledge 1.1 Wright 0.9 Anderson 0.9

Maine 5.1 Milledge 2.2 Gotay 0.9 LoDuca 0.7 Reyes 0.6 Heilman 0.5

mccann either replaces jason bay directly in my util spot, or mike napoli gets dropped for the best available free agent hitter. also, its a keeper league, and bay, once a keeper of mine, is more replaceable than a mccann, i think.

in one of my many many other leagues, i'm trading mark teixeira and jason bay for albert pujols and brian mccann.

poo...

i wonder what the correlation is. perhaps you have some stats to share with us?

yeah, see, i'm just not comfortable with how much that sounds like a euphemism...

i... uh... went on vacation for a week and came to the realization that m.e.t.b.o.t.'s skate key just doesn't turn itself. then i thought i lost both the skate key AND my only memory stick which contains my overly complex formula. i was not happy. i wound up m.e.t.b.o.t and it looked almost as if his tinny little face was trying to express disappointment in me. i realize now that i need both a backup spreadsheet, and an auto-winder for m.e.t.b.o.t., kinda like they have for wristwatches... we're in catch-up mode, and will hopefully be able to contribute more meaningfully tonight

i like it. its a rather uniquely-met thing, and fun. i like hte bouncing apple hat graphic they play on the big screen when mets hit homers. i'd like to see the apple make the transition to citifield, but, um, not the current, ratty, beat up incarnation. a new apple and hat would be a good thing.

baseballreference.com agrees that it's george foster

i think it was his ball that was sinking...

Wright 2.6 Glavine 2.6 Delgado 1.6 Beltran 1.3 Sele 1.2 Reyes 1.1