metsmarathon

iramets wrote: 2007 30 mil 2008 22 mil 2009 13 mil 2010 8 mil 2011 7 mi 2012 5 mil with a 5 mil buyout for 2013. i'd expect the curve to be a bit flatter, but its a realistic methodology. it may not be how the agent goes into the negotiations, but surely something akin to this is in his mind.

loretta hasn't signed anywhere.. yet... that i know of...

And one day later... NEW TEAM metirish sharpie DocTee Nymr83 smg58 metsmarathon cleonjones11

Frayed Knot wrote: maybe it noteworthy that almost all these supposed obsessions are Latin: Lugo, Manny, Vazquez, etc. and, despite opportunities so far, none have become mets. yet the stories persist...?

i'm still trying to figure out why baseball's being a safe choice for families and kids makes it a bad, doomed thing. i guess maybe that makes it trend towards uncool? but then, its most popular in new york and LA, the beacons of coolness in american culture - the trendsetters! and its the most popular amongst the most growingest demographic - hispanics - and another terrifically influencial fan base - 18-27 year olds.. so, its fan base is bot entrencd & stable, and growing and influencial, and its most popular in our traditional cultural bellwethers. and somehow it is dying. seriously. i do not get it. but 37,000 fans in philly is an empty stadium too.

SteveJRogers wrote: ]my head hurts from all of this. if the braves never sell out NLDS games, tehn they're static, and aren't gettingany worse are they? no problem there then. Oh lets see, were there empty seats at Yankee Stadium's afternoon ALDS game this past October? Last I checked the Yanks have made postseason play every year since 1995. the fullness of yankee stadium speaks to the relative ease of filling a stadium in new york as compared to a stadium in atlanta. the consistency with which that stadium is filled speaks to the local level of interest in both the specific team and how well they are performaning, and to a lesser extent in the sport in general. if the braves' ticket sales remain mostly static, then the interest level is also static, and we can assume that there is no appreciable loss in interest in the team and the sport. if your statement is correct, that the braves never sell out nlds games, then the problem is neither getting better nor worse in atlanta. should we lament that baseball isn;t the dangerous choice steve? i don't really see the Xgames picking up too much steam in the mainstream. maybe UFC has become more mainstream, but they had to clean themselves up, make their sport safer and more palatable for that to happen. so, i don't really know waht that means for you. and was the fanbase so heavily judaic, that an insufficient quantity of gentiles was available to fill the stadium in their absence? or were teh good christians observing as well, as a sign of good will and neighborliness? c'mon!

my head hurts from all of this. if the braves never sell out NLDS games, tehn they're static, and aren't gettingany worse are they? no problem there then. and now, baseball is both too entrenched and stale, and too trendy and faddish. pick your poison. i guess you're convinced that you've seen the canary in the coal mine, and its all around you, and its dropped dead. but for all your screaming about the peril that baseball is in, i don't see the nfl capable of sustaining a team in los freakin' angeles, the second biggest market in the country! and college football and nascar have no traction in the biggest market in the country, new york! middle america doesn't, for the most part, make the trends - its so cal and new york that establishes the trends that the rest of the country tries to catch up on. and there, baseball is doin' just fine. but, gosh, how can baseball survive for itself? since you are so acutely aware of baseball's problems, how would you fix it?

SteveJRogers wrote: ="Nymr83"]in Steve's mind the lack of attendance in a 95 degree building, with 99% humidity, in the sun, with a nearly gauranteed shower every afternoon in Miami means that attendance sucks league-wide. Okay, so why by the same token can they never get a new domed stadium pushed through. Using your logic the Marlins should never have been born. Come to think of it, that really has been one of baseball's problems, like the NHL they over-expanded. using your logic, because the marlins don't draw, the league is doomed. i don't see it.

SteveJRogers wrote: ="martin"] arent the attendance numbers for baseball rising? Take away the big markets and the increase really is "smoke and mirrors" Look at my Philly example somewhere in this thread. NO ONE was going to the ballpark to see the Phils this past September when they were in the middle of a "down to the final day" chase for the wild card, with Ryan Howard making a charge for 50+ homers, and they entered September with a sliver of hope of catching the Mets. Reverse the situation, Shea is PACKED 55,000 strong every night, no one is paying attention to the start of the Giants and Jets untill after the Mets just run out of time on the last day of the season. good gravy, steve, what the fuck games were you looking at? behold, a breakdown of mets and phillies attendance, both home and away, for the september of 2006. mets mets phillies phillies home road home road Friday 1-Sep 35,548 31,717 Saturday 2-Sep 43,218 28,600 Sunday 3-Sep 43,018 37,044 Monday 4-Sep 42,428 44,674 Tuesday 5-Sep Wednesday 6-Sep 40,536 33,521 Thursday 7-Sep 48,583 12,712 Friday 8-Sep 52,077 21,432 Saturday 9-Sep 47,064 27,444 Sunday 10-Sep 48,760 20,308 Monday 11-Sep 13,725 Tuesday 12-Sep 15,163 Wednesday 13-Sep 20,225 22,239 Thursday 14-Sep 19,346 Friday 15-Sep 24,410 41,432 Saturday 16-Sep 37,623 41,002 Sunday 17-Sep 34,866 41,170 Monday 18-Sep 46,729 31,101 Tuesday 19-Sep 42,407 31,892 Wednesday 20-Sep 37,911 35,269 Thursday 21-Sep 44,966 Friday 22-Sep 42,788 44,737 Saturday 23-Sep 45,245 37,055 Sunday 24-Sep 44,543 44,772 Monday 25-Sep 34,027 44,688 Tuesday 26-Sep 22,607 18,960 Wednesday 27-Sep 23,177 21,809 Thursday 28-Sep 22,944 18,324 Friday 29-Sep 27,805 23,417 Saturday 30-Sep 30,449 20,992 Sunday 1-Oct 29,044 36,768 average 44,147 28,255 37,089 25,824 the only time the cbp went empty was when the phillies were out of town. they averaged 37,000 fans per home game in september! no, they didnt match the draw of superduper-big-market team the mets, but, damn, 37,000! that ain't empty, dude. is it too much to ask that you check your own damned facts? ]Baseball attendance is pure smoke and mirrors. Take out NY, take out Boston, take out LA/Anaheim, take out Chicago and you have a House Of Cards. steve, do me (us) a favor. look at the trend for the attendance at ALL teams, and then come back to this point. given how ludicrous your assertion about the phillies are, i hesitate to give you any amount of credence on the attendance figures around the rest of baseball.

edgy's lucky he's not playing, or i'd snap at him, too! i keep forgetting to correct piazza, tho it is technically true that his previous team was the dodgers (and the marlins, and the mets), it just wasn't his last team. cleon hasn't yet suggested a new home for piazza that i might've missed, has he?

not with an attitude like that! my bad. it's fixed now.

As of the morning of 5 december... NEW TEAM metirish sharpie DocTee Nymr83 smg58 metsmarathon cleonjones11

also, and i think edgy had a similar point - what does it matter if people like football better? that seems to be a bigger problem for basketball and hockey than it is for a sport that it barely competes against for viewership and attendance.

one important take-away from that harris poll - baseball is the number one sport in two of the most influencial and growing-in-influence demographics - echo boomers and hispanics. 18-27 year olds love baseball, and the nations' growing hispanic population loves baseball. it ain't so dire is it? also, i'd like to know how this poll looks if you factor in those who only follow ONE sport (25% of respondents), as well as a poll that asks "what sports do you follow" because that would tell a lot more about the popularity of baseball and its pervasity (i made up a word) in our sporting society.

player age year level ERA IP Seaver 21 1966 AAA 3.13 210.0 Koosman 21 1965 A 4.71 107.0 AA 3.75 12.0 22 1966 A- 1.38 170.0 23 1967 AAA 2.43 178.0 Gentry 20 1967 AA 1.59 79.0 21 1968 AAA 2.91 198.0 Maine 21 2002 A- 1.74 10.1 A 1.36 33.0 22 2003 A 1.53 76.1 A+ 3.07 70.1 23 2004 AA 2.25 28.0 AAA 3.91 119.2 MLB 9.82 3.2 24 2005 AAA 4.56 128.1 MLB 6.30 40.0 A+ 0.00 5.0 25 2006 AAA 3.49 56.2 MLB 3.60 90.0 Perez 18 1999 Rk 5.08 28.1 19 2000 Rk 4.07 24.1 AAA 4.36 43.1 20 2001 A 3.46 101.1 A+ 2.72 53.0 21 2002 A+ 1.85 48.2 AA 1.17 23.0 MLB 3.50 90.0 22 2003 AAA 3.02 47.2 MLB 5.87 23.0 MLB 5.38 103.2 23 2004 MLB 2.98 196.0 24 2005 AAA 9.90 10.0 MLB 5.85 103.0 25 2006 AAA 8.63 32.0 AAA 6.05 19.1 MLB 6.38 36.2 MLB 6.63 76.0 Humber 22 2005 A 6.75 4.0 A+ 4.99 70.1 AA 6.75 4.0 23 2006 Rk 6.75 4 A+ 2.37 38 AA 2.88 34.1 MLB 0.00 2 Bannister 22 2003 A- 2.15 46 23 2004 A 4.06 44.1 A+ 4.24 110.1 AA 4.06 44.1 24 2005 A 2.56 109 AA 2.56 109 AAA 3.18 45.1 25 2006 A+ 1.50 12 AAA 3.86 30.1 MLB 4.26 38 Pelfrey 2006 A+ 1.64 22 AA 2.71 66.1 AAA 2.25 8 MLB 5.48 21.1 how the mets' baby pitchers compare to the baby mets of the late 60's. i've got the late 60's pitcher minor league stats in there first, and below that i've got the current bumper crop's stats to date. i think its a little incorrect to say that 21 year old minor leaguers throwing 200 innings of 2.91 ERA in AAA amounts to coming out of nowhere. nor 180 innings of 2.43 ERA from a 23 year old.

iramets wrote: I don't know if you were saying this or not, but a lot of Mets fans were saying that Pedro was indispensable to the team's chances. he was. or at least we thought he was. not having him for most of last season showed that we could win without him, or that by not having him didn't necessarily mean that we couldn't win. ]Now that he's hurt, I'm hearing a lot of "Oh, we don't really need Pedro in 2007, it would be nice to have him, of course, but this is no big deal." 'tis true. mostly because we know we won't have him well enough in advance of the start of the season that we can plan around his absence and build a rotation, hopefully, that treats any eventual appearance by pedro as a bonus, and not a necessity. ]When he started talking being back by June, was the coverage mostly "This is foolhardy and unlikely, because when X and Y and Z went down with the same injury they missed a year," or was it taken at face value? i dunno what the coverage was. i assumed from the get go that we wouldn't see him in '07, and i hope the mets do too. ] I don't remember him getting much flak on being back by June. nor should he for looking optimistically upon his hopes of recovery. ]Also if he misses the whole year, it's pretty likely that he's simply finished, no? That was a hell of a lot of money to pay for two partial years. i don't think that's the case at all. if he misses the whole year, it really only means that he misses the year. i mean, if he misses the year because he comes back from the surgery and his arm never feels right, or doesn't heal right, or he's got neither strength nor endurance in his shoulder, then, yes, that bodes ill for the remainder of his career. but i don't think that missing a year, even at his age necessarily means anything about his chances of returning to any specific level of ability. maybe i'm wrong, but that's simply because i'm not going out and looking for either anecdotal or comprehensive eveidence either way.

"doc", in this case, means "doc g", the mofo handle of he whom we might know better as "sal q" and if you're new enough to not even know who sal is, then don't even worry about it. its not sal tho. there's no caustic fucktardiness.

nah. i don't buy it.

iramets wrote: I think the data that he's gone 48-48 n a Met uniform is meaningful. during the time he was in a mets uniform, the mets lost 13 more games than they won. that context makes glavine's record more meaningful, and means that if he were on a better team, he would have won more games. ]I also think that if he'd gone 58-38, his supporters would be citing it as valid. if he had gome 58-38 for bad tems, then yes. if he had gone 58-38 on a team that won 100 games every year, then it wouldn't be terribly great shakes, now would it? citing a pitcher's record absent the context of the team with which that record was achieved is meaningless, whether it supports my position on a pitcher or does not. ]third paragraph--I want the Mets' rotation to have fewer grey hairs in 2007. Zito or someone close to Zito in age and quality--get him, by hook or crook or free agency or trade. Give Maine a full shot at a rotation spot. Give Perez and Bannister shots as well. i want the mets rotation to allow fewer runs in 2007. please, that means barry zito. maine deserves a shot. perrez and bannister can battle it out. between them, i'm not sure we have a complete pitcher. ]That's why I'm pretty sure Pedro will get at least 15 starts--I've heard no rational arguments that his injury will keep him on the DL much past June serious injury, expensive player with another expensive year on his contract, player considered by some to be fragile, rotation hopefully won't need him to step in. the mets are a better team if they don't need to rush pedro back. taking them one at a time... pedro went down with a serious injury. one that usually takes about a full year to recover from, but optimism allows you to suggest that he could be back in june. reality is an entirely different thing than optimism. the reality is that hopefully he will be back to his old self in 2008. and hte best chance for that, and the mets know this, is if he does not rush back from injury and try to pitch while his body isn't ready. which leads me to my second point. pedro is expensive, and has 2008 on his contract. if the mets rush him back, or allow him to rush back, in 2007, when his arm isnt ready, tehn they run a terrific risk of either having him unavailble for 2008, or simply ineffective. it is more worth their money to let him rest up and be ready to play 2008 healthy, than to try to hurry him into the rotation for 2007. i'm not sure if pedro's fragile reputation, which mightn't be earned nor deserved, will really factor into the mets decisions or not, but it might factor into yours when you consider whether or not you think pedro will be healed in time for 2007. the more holes, the more question marks we have in our rotation, the more antsy the mets are going to get about brining pedro back. without glavine and (hopefully) zito, the mets could see young pitcher after young pitcher falter and fail, and, seeing their season slip away between their fingers, could end up doing somethign stupid, like rush pedro. and finally, if the mets have a solid enough rotation, with zito (again, hopefully), glavine, el duque, maine, and one of perez, bannister, etc flourishing in the 5th spot, we'll be likely having a commanding season, and won't NEED to rush pedro back into the rotation. maybe we can have him put in some innings in the pen to get his game back for late in the season, and have him in our back pockets as a late season/postseason secret weapon. or whatever metaphor makes better sense. but you get my drift, i assume. that the mets WILL rush pedro back is an assumption that i don't think has all too much merit. not if they don't need to. and his salary is only more of a reason not to rush him, than it is to bring him back too early.

going back to 1986, the only time the phillies had a higher attendance than they had in the past two years was when they won the division, and came oh so close to winning it all. in fact, in the 8 years i just looked at, they averaged maybe less than 2 million, and in the past two years, its been more like 2.7 million. attendance-wise, they seem to be doing rather fine.

you miss my point about the record. i tend to ignore wins and losses by a pitcher - they tell me little about how good he really was or wasn't, instead telling me more about how good his team was and how much run support he got. and these are hardly things i think we should be basing personnel decisions on. you make a good point with the draft picks. they are a valuable commodity, and are important to the future of the team. i think there's a fair amount of confusion in this thread. namely, i have no idea what you want our offseason pitching acquisitions to look like. do you feel that the team would be better served by adding one or two veteran pitchers to what we've already got on the books? instead of framing this argument around tom glavine specifically, i'm actually more interested in the generality for a moment. i think i'm correct in saying that we both want the mets to sign barry zito (or consolation prize jason schmidt, to a shorter commitment). where my confusion comes in is whether you think the team needs to bring in another pitcher to the mix - be that pitcher ted lilly, vicente padilla, jeff suppan, tom glavine, whoever - or do you think that if we get zito, then our rotation is set. see, i think that we need another pitcher after the top line guy. i don't expect to get more that one full starter between pedro and el duque. that leaves us three holes in the rotation. maybe maine fills one of them - but he's no given, and i don't that he's all that highly thought of in the baseball world. i think that we have enough question marks for two spots in the rotation, and do not want to go into 2007 thinking that i'm going to need pelfrey or humber to step up big time. because, really, rookie pitchers don't often do all that well, no matter what their upside. i think we'll be lucky if two of the young guys can contribute meaningfully and positively to the 2007 mets. as for 2008, i expect we'll get a full season between pedro and el duque again, with pedro hopefully getting the lion's share this time. so that still leaves us with plenty of room for the young guys then, too.

i blame kchttp://www.kcmets.com/1977rankings.html

="iramets"]How about this--if Glavine weren't a Met, if he'd spent the last four years putting up these numbers as a Brave, do you suppose you'd want to sign him at these rates? Don't you think you'd be MUCH more skeptical about signing a guy with a .500 record over the last 4 seasons and expecting him to be your rotation stopper? I do. gosh, a .500 record! well, if that ain't the be all and end all... over the past three seasons, he's averaged a 3.65 ERA, and 207 innings. he played poorly in his first year, but was also on a shitty team, and a slightly less-shitty team the second year. therein lies the answer to his record. the ERA is a far better indication of his abilities than the record. and i don't expect him to be the "stopper" i expect us to bring in a true stopper. and glavine. or somebody else - i'm not picky. the way i look at it, it's not choosing between tom glavine and barry zito or maybe jason schmidt. it's choosing between tom glavine and ted lilly or vicente padilla. and at least there you have a conversation. we need an ace pitcher a the top of the rotation. that pitcher is not tom glavine. we ALSO need another pitcher a step down from there. and that pitcher could be tom glavine, and in my opinion, we'd be foolish to dismiss him.

iramets wrote: And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before. maybe that's you're john maine analogue? is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew? that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year.

the knicks' and bruins' don't strike me as great uniforms. especially not some of the variations the knicks have put out lately. also, i think that if the celtics sucked, and had no history, the green wouldn't look anywhere near as good. but its still a good call.