Vic Sage

yeah, i don't really think Valdy has a shot at putting up the numbers soriano has (and i don't even like soriano). They just strike me as similar baseball types: athletic power-speed guys, hackers from the DR ("you cannot walk off de island"), who started out as erratic 2bmen that got moved to the OF.

Valdespin reminds me of a poor man's Alfonso Soriano -- a bit smaller, a few less HRs and SBs, similar lack of glove with an excess of athleticism and a questionable attitude. Ultimately, if his bat justifies it, he might get a shot as a LFer. I'm not sold on even that, yet. He might end up a utility guy or end up cutting cane back in the DR.

i don't know that its in Sandy's job description to tell the public the truth about what he was and was NOT offered, especially if such facts might be used to embarrass his boss. that being said, it might be entirely true we were offered virtually (if not literally) nothing. And if was a baseball decision, then fine. But Sandy's been talking alot about winning down the stretch, and getting to 3rd place, and shit like that, that makes me suspicious. also, Piazza was a 30th round pick. Guys develop at different rates. One organization might prematurely bury a prospect that another team thinks has potential, and the change works wonders. I'm not saying its likely, i'm just saying it happens. Is it that less likely than re-signing a traded Hairston in the off-season? or signing an equivalent player, while getting the added value of a prospect? I don't think so. could be wrong. I'd be happy to just defer to Sandy, if i thought Sandy was in total control. but i don't think he is.

i quoted you verbatim. people can make of my responses what they will. I tried to be fair, and acknowledge points, but i'll accept your characterization of my characterization. However, I did not attempt to mischaracterize. As the founder of Trade In Tomorrow 4 Today Society (TITTS, for those of you of more recent acquaintance), i find it awkward to have to make this argument, but the Wilpons have changed the parameters under which the Mets operate and so must I, as a fan, in assessing their moves.

1) He's the cleanup hitter. He's the hottest hitter. There is a value in winning games today, for tomorrow may never come. Even should it come, it may not come for me, and it may not come for you. Even as we post, there are fans out there for whom tonight is the last Mets game they'll ever see. There are others for whom tonight is the first game they'll ever see. Whether they see it live in San Francisco, or stay up late and tune in by cable television, radio, internet, for them and for all fans, but particularly for them, may it be a win. Yes, it's true, we could all be dead tomorrow, so lets live today to its fullest. Hakuna Matata. But given that, i still want my team to be smart, to plan long-term (even if an asteroid is on its way), and to make sacrifices in the short-term so that the team can benefit in the long-term. As for Hairston being the "cleanup hitter", that's an indictment of the lineup, not a testimonial for Hairston. That he's the "hottest" player is a description that implies its opposite; at some point he won't be, and the HUGE sample size that is his major league career to date indicates he'll revert to his mean level of production (i.e., a 100 OPS+ player, with a big platoon differential). 2) And each of those first-time fans may be a last-time fan if the team stinks tonight without Hairy. One could do the math and figure out exactly how many wins Scotty is worth over a replacement-level player, but i'm not going to. I have a hunch its a few; not many. And even in the Mets 100+ win seasons, they lost at least 60 games. If a first-time fan watched a losing game in `86, did he never watch another? Possibly, i suppose. But you don't make organizational plans around such eventualities. You try to build the best organization to produce the most wins OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, leading to chances at sustained post-season play. Sometimes that requires sacrifice in the short-term. 3) There is a value to the other members of the team in not selling strong teammates out from under them. It tells them their struggles are not in vain. It keeps them together and motivated. It reminds them that their GM and front office gives a shit, and it's good that they give a shit. If the value of that sort of morale boost is merely marginal this year, it has a long-term benefit beyond this year. Think , for instance, of what it could mean to David Wright --- who has slogged through all sorts of shit with this team and kep' a cheery face and been a model citizen with, at times, less positive reinforcing organizational feedback than he likely deserves. If re-signing him is the number-one organizational priority this off-season, why invest yourself these last two months in making things even harder for the guy to win? Why make his career even more Sysiphian? I think this is an excellent point. But players really have to think in the short-term; they only HAVE a "short-term" (though Edgy argues "so do we all" and metaphysically speaking, i can't argue with that). 4) "Might sign player to extension during balance of season/exclusive negotiating window." This shouldn't be poo-pooed. A player has a much greater history of returning to the team of his last contract than to the team who traded him mid-season the year before. I don't poo-poo it (despite my enjoyment of the phrase). I just don't think enough about Hairston's future to value it over the potential of a prospect. 5) Diminishing the team has an effect on the profitability of the team, which hurts the financial returns, which diminishes future investment. ah, now we're getting closer to the nub of it. the Wilpons want to get more money out of fans this season. Of course, losses this season would NOT necessarily diminish future investment, if he owner's had the wherewithal and willingness to withstand short-term losses to underwrite a plan for long-term success. But i've seen no indication that they have either the wherewithal or the willingess. And so my major complaint is that THIS is why Hairston (and the other aging part-timers with some residual value for a playoff team) were not moved. To cover Fred's financial ass. 6) The front office, doubtless, has done more than their share of professional calculations regarding how many wins keeping Hairston is worth and how many any potential packages (unbeknownst to us) were worth. They considered these using the best art and science of player evaluation and valuation that they keep privy to themselves, and were unimpressed with the birds in the bush vs. the bird in their hand. We all may disagree --- possibly correctly --- when applying our math, but it's wrong to think they haven't put a whole lot of thought into it with a whole lot more facts and data available to them. I will totally concede that Sandy & Co did their homework; i just don't know that they had the final say. If they wanted to write off the season to get some legit chips, do we think Fred and his idiot son would let him? I have my doubts. I'm not saying i KNOW, and i wouldn't put the onus on anybody to prove a negative, i just have my suspicions. I don't TRUST THEM. 7) Wins are wonderful things. The idea that a win isn't worth anything unless it is the margin between a playoff appearance and its lack is a joyless thing that takes the excellent wonder of baseball and guts the shit out of it. It's a sad thing to stand for. But then why are "wins" wonderful things? Can't you just enjoy the simple joy of the game without needing your team to win at all? There's a generation of Pirates fans who've grown up that way. But I doubt they're happy about it. No, I'm sorry, i don't go to church... whether its the church of baseball or otherwise. I don't require my team to win a championship every year (or any particular year), i just need to know that decisions are being made to get it into the best position possible, not just to make the owners the most money possible (these are not always the same thing). Then i'm more than happy to enjoy a season and let the chips fall where they may. Does that make me jaundiced, impure? Is that a position too "sad" for me to stand for? ok. 8) You invest in losing for later wins often enough, you just become a loser. Do this rarely and strategically. agreed. but mightn't this be such a time? 9) Keeping Hairston shows faith in the plan. Showing faith in the plan keeps everybody on project. On focus. Trades re-write the plan, throwing chaotic elements into the machine, throwing shadows of uncertainty on the clarity of the work day. you've advocated against trades pretty much under any and every circumstance, so i take this point with a grain of salt. If we can agree that Alderson's plan is about getting younger and building with kids... how does moving 30+ part-time players for A-ballers contradict that? The question is rhetorical. 10) Speaking of the plan, maybe that fucking blueprint gets all bolluxed up if you trade Hairball and have to promote Duda or Den Dekker when you really think it's healthier for them to be in the minors. Or maybe you pick up a similar spare part veteran, until they are. Meanwhile, you've continued to stock your low minors with lottery tickets. 11) Trades diminish team identity, watering down the brand. Maybe when you're the Yankees, it's cool that putting your logo on a mailbox will make the fans go and hump the mailbox. That's not the team I want to root for. I like continuity, and it can be maintained while progressing with team improvements. Your talking in generalities. The specifics of the players i've identified in this thread have nothing... NOTHING... to do with the Mets brand or identity. None of them came thru the system or are tied to long-term deals. 12) Maybe they just like Scott Hairston. He demonstrates great work habits for the younger players, buys them clothes, treats women well, but warns his teammates when negative women are hanging around. He puts long hours in ironing the rough spots off his game but takes a child-like joy in celebrating the things he does well. Maybe, if anybody is more enthusiastic about showing up to community events, then it's his wife. And he brings his father around, and Jerry tells his son's Met teammates about the history of the game, and growing up the son of a disappointed negro leaguer finally getting all of seven plate appearances in the bigs, and how proud his father was when Jerry finally got the chance he had been denied, and it makes everybody really appreciate the chance they have, and try harder to be worthy of it every day. And if they trade Scott, well, fuck it, maybe they fear it'll just tell the players all that stuff's for shit, and they're all going to look out for number one, because no matter ho much they sacrifice for the city and the organization, if the team is 8 1/2 out on July 31, no matter how well they're playing and how much they're bringing to the organization, they'll get sold down the river just like Scott did. a good point, but the Mets are not a civic works project. Unless all that good behavior translates into team success, i don't give a fuck. And the notion that trading a player is "selling him down the river" is just your own projection. He'd be going (in a deadline deal) to a team in a pennant race... you don't think players LIKE to be in pennant races? I think they do. If he loves NY so much, he can re-sign with us in the winter. I hear we'll have an opening in CF. 13) And a lucky number 13, maybe, just maybe, Scott Hairston knows where the bodies are buried. quite possibly. unfortunately none of the corpses are a Wilpon.

Edgy DC wrote: Some interesting FA options, with some chances to go big. Marlon BoidMichael BournCurtis Granderson (Yanks have $15 million option)Josh HamiltonTorii Hunter (not playing center in recent years)Angel PaganB.J. UptonShane Victorino A lot of legs that have seen more mileage than Torres', also. If I'm shopping, I probably focus on Bourn as maybe the best value/$. I have a pretty baseless suspicion that the Mets would like Upton. don't forget Scott Hairston. I hear he's invaluable.

i love that they got Mcgehee. He sucks. I hope he plays every day.

Gwreck wrote: If there's no reason to believe trades will get you to the playoffs this year, why are we keeping upcoming free agents with trade value? Edgy wrote: I can think of at least a half dozen reasons. Ceetar, your 2-4 reasons are only factors related to the increased signability of a FA if you keep him rather than trade, but that's all just 1 reason. Lets assume, arguendo (as they say in my biz), that it's true; keeping a FA rather than trading him makes it more likely we can re-sign him. So what? Hairston is a platoon OFer; he'll be 33 at the start of next season with a career OPS+ right at 100. He's a nice extra piece but not a starter, and not somebody you either build around or worry overmuch about losing. But if a playoff-bound team needs a RHed bat off the bench right now (or has had an injury and needs another OFer), then he is worth more to them than he is to us because we're not going anywhere this year. I REPEAT. WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE THIS YEAR (Those of you who are not suffering from delusions can continue). Ergo, you extract the extra value. That extra value is likely to take the form of a low-level minor leaguer who is projectible but a while away. It's not guaranteed value, but then again neither is Hairston's production guaranteed to the Mets next year (or to anyone else for that matter). And this same analysis is true for Byrdak, Cedeno, Torres, Rauch, Francisco and Ramirez. The only reason the Mets are keeping these guys around is either (1) they literally have NO offers for them (which is entirely possible), or (2) the team believes these guys will make the marginal difference between the Mets losing 80 games or losing 90. and That's only about how many more dollars the Wilpons can squeeze out of the fanbase. Personally, i'd rather see us bite the bullet and take the 90 losses while turning a few of our older short-term assets into younger long-term prospects than cling to the likes of Scott Hairston so we can make a desperate bid for a .500 season.

i care not one iota about the rest of this season and would hope they'd trade anybody over 30 on a 1-year contract for the slightest of prospects, on the off-chance that they could find somebody to help them down the road when it will matter.

could he still be traded?

the guy produced double digit HRs, 2bs, and 3Bs for three straight years, while maintaining a good but not great OB% of around .350. I will concede that that may not be "IDEAL" #3 hitter, but it would have best utilized his talents to have him bat behind somebody other than the pitcher.

IMDB implies it's not even a Bourne movie though, which sorta ruins the whole story imo. Not that the story every really mattered in this franchise, but they're definitely misleading us via the trailers. i'm not sure what you mean that "its implied it's not even a Bourne move". The trailer makes no secret of the fact that it's not about Jason Bourne, and is not the least misleading that it is. The trailer depicts Jeremy Renner's character as an assassin, created by the same program that created Bourne, going on the run, and its an action/spy thriller with a romantic angle, just as the Bourne movies are, with many of the same supporting characters and actors, written by Tony Gilroy, the guy who co-wrote all the other Bourne movies, and this time directed by him, too (he directed MICHAEL CLAYTON, which i think is a good thing). Might it be a bomb anyway? Sure. But i''m willing to give it a try, based on Renner and Gilroy.

here's why i don't have the same affection for Keppinger, though i totally understand why you or others might: * he was drafted in middle rounds out of a good college program (unlike Scutaro, who was an undrafted FA); * he came to the Mets with Kris Benson in a trade that cost us Jose Bautista, Ty Wiggenton and Matt Peterson (unlike Scutaro, who we signed for nothing off the scrap heap); * he came up to the majors at age 24, with his prime years ahead of him (not 27, like Scooter); * we later traded him for Ruben Gotay, turning that trade thread into a nightmare (Bautista > Keppinger > Gotay) * i don't think he ultimately got all he could out of his talents (Scutaro's major league numbers much more closely his minor league numbers; Keppinger was better in the minors) so Keppy leaves me cold.

as a met, Reyes showed legit power after his first few years, and though he was of course an elite base stealer, his OB skills remained modest. I thought he was developing into an ideal #3 hitter, but i recall articles where he was unhappy about the prospect of such a change and neither Randolph, Manuel nor Collins had the balls to force the issue.

i know Scutaro didn't do much in NY, but i liked him at the time and was a little sorry to seem him go. He was one of those scrappy AAAA-type players who hung around long enough to get a shot in the majors, and then the more he played, the better he got. He was like a SuperJoe McEwing (also on the team at the time), but a better hitter. And when compared to Rey Ordonez and Robbie Alomar, i was excited for ANYBODY who would reduce their playing time. He peaked later with Toronto and Boston, and while he didn't really have the range for SS and didn't hit well enough for 2B, he did a bit of everything and seemed like a guy who helped a team, at least a little. A .270/10hr middle infielder who puts the bat on the ball, catches what he gets to, and plays with some spark, is surely worth something to a winning team. So, good luck to Scooter in SF.

i hear the voice over as Sam Waterston, or Morgan Freeman. all voice over sounds better if narrated by Morgan Freeman.

but POINT BLANK, the first adaptation, didn't use "Parker" either.

PAYBACK was based on Donald Westlake's novel "The Hunter", featuring his "Parker" character whom he used in a series of books in the 60s-70s (which he wrote as "Richard Stark"). A few of the Parker books have been turned into films, but none of them called him "Parker". I wonder why? POINT BLANK (based on "The Hunter")(1967) with Lee Marvin as "Walker" - the best of the bunch, directed by John Boorman PILLAGED (based on "The Score") (1967) with Michel Constantin as "Georges" - an obscure French adaptation THE SPLIT (based on "The Seventh") (1968) with Jim Brown as "McClain" - Jim Brown was a great football player, but as an actor... THE OUTFIT (based on "The Outfit") (1973) with Robert Duvall as "Macklin" -solid little revenge thriller, with Duvall PAYBACK (also based on "The Hunter") (1999), with Mel Gibson as "Porter" - surprisingly OK Apparently, however, there is a PARKER movie coming out Jan/13, with Jason Statham as Parker himself...Finally. Co-starring J-Lo (oy!), and directed by Taylor HACKford (2x oy!).

the season in microcosm: estimable starting pitching undermined by dire defense and combustible bullpen, unsupported by punchless bats.

to pitch around him would have been... unmanly.

Murph and Valdy should be flipped in the order

i say let their beards duke it out. winning facial follicles gets the W.

But RA is currently signed, is very affordable, is not faltering... Depends on your definition of "faltering", i guess. 5 of his last 6 starts, going back a month, have been crappy, with an ERA over 5, and a WHIP around 1.4. I don't mean its time to "dump" him, but he has clearly come back to Earth. He can be part of a successful rotation, but not the FRONT of such a rotation, and if we can obtain a valuable piece for him, he should clearly be on the table.

(I can sing the whole song word for word still) You mean there are people who can't? (aside from these freakin' kids I mean) Wikipedia claims she was just 16 y/o when filming started on that show. with prompting..maybe? I used to watch it on Nick at Night like twenty years ago when I was a kid. can't recall the song at all though. Can recall very little about the entire show actually, besides that I liked it. speaking of Wrangler Jane and F-TROOP, i just put up a "60s sitcom babes" poll; go there to vote! viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18283

But Rhas Al Ghul isn't Irish. And the Russian sub commander played by Sean Connery wasn't Scottish. It's all good, if the actor is good. There was no particular reason Bane had to be any particular nationality.