Vic Sage

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: He's better than you think, I think It's not what i think... it's what the numbers say. The burden is on you to explain why he'd be better next year than he's ever been to date, much less qualify as the "#1 or 2" that your radical plan calls for. And if your only evidence is those 2 recent post-season games, than i call bullshit.

the sculpture was the only thing i liked about the Marlins.

Eovaldi? Seriously? SERIOUSLY? This guy has sucked since 2011, with a sub-4 era only once over a full season. He has a bad whip, a bad ERA+, unimpressive WAR... what is it exactly that makes you think he'd be a #2 starter for anybody? His 50 IP for the Bosox this year? His 2 recent post-season wins? THAT'S the sample size you're looking at? WTF, Johnny? i expect more from you.

Centerfield wrote: ...It would set us back 20 years... Well, that would be ok. 20 years ago, we got Piazza, then won the WC, then we appeared in the WS. It would be much worse if a Machado signing just left us where we were.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Daniel Dae Kim, formerly of Hawaii Five-0, has said that he'd love to play the Sub-Mariner. He observed that Namor is a character who looks like he could be played by an Asian actor, and he's right. Kim is 50 years old now, so he might be too old for the part by now, but that doesn't mean that another Asian actor can't play Namor if and when he eventually comes to the screen. It's a very good idea. No reason an Atlantean couldn't be played by an Asian actor, and they do have similar physical characteristics.

Centerfield wrote: I'd like to see one of them make it to the big screen. Hopefully without accents and all sorts of mystical kung fu stuff. What are you talking about? There was the Ancient One in Dr. Strange... oh, wait. Nevermind. Well, there was the Ghost in the Shell... oh, yeah. forget that one too. Well, PSylocke was played by... yeah, no. Anyway, here's an article from TWO YEARS AGO (!) with a Marvel VP talking about Asian superhero characters in films: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/564001/marvel-vp-hints-at-possibility-of-asian-superhero-in-cinematic-universe/story/ He's putting his money on Cindy Moon (aka, SILK) who is in the Spider-verse. In the meantime, we've got Colleen Wing in IRON FIST on TV, and Jubilee in the X-universe, and Mantis from Guardians, and Kitana from Suicide Squad. All of whom are supporting characters.

Centerfield wrote: smg58 wrote: The terrible optics notwithstanding, it's at least possible that his teammates saw Reyes making efforts to better himself, to an extent that the average fan would never have access to. That's possible. But that still doesn't make him a better person than the guy who didn't abuse his spouse in the first place. I think this is more than an "optics" issue. It's about respect. It's disrespectful to other victims of domestic abuse to actually honor this guy. Forgive him? Sure. Give him a second chance. But to honor him. Big, big mistake. The players who voted have to be better than this. CF, as almost always, is correct. Which means i agree with him.

Here are some superheroes that were conceived of as black characters (without the word "Black" or "Dark" in their names) Luke Cage Cyborg Vixen Static Steel Spawn Bishop Blade Falcon Cloak Deathlok Misty Knight Storm War Machine There have been many other superhero characters who were originally white that were later rebooted or reimagined or had spinoffs with black characters, including Green Lantern (John Stewart) and Spider-man (Miles Morales).

According to Spotrac, Mejia is a UFA this year. I don't think they'll be bringing him back. Flores is an Arb3, as is d'Arnaud, who will both be FAs after next year, so they'll probably non-tender d'Arnaud; maybe Wilmer, too.

lineup: Nimmo*- Cf McNeil*- 2b Machado - 3b [fa] Conforto*- Lf [Arb1] Grandal#- C [fa] Bruce* - Rf [$14m] Frazier -1b [$9m] [pitcher] Rosario- SS bench: Plawecki - C [Arb1] Lagares - Cf [$9m] Flores - IF [Arb3] TJRivera - Ut D.Smith* -1b/OF Rotation: deGrom [Arb3] Syndergaard [Arb2] Wheeler [Arb3] Matz* [Arb1] Vargas* [$8m] Bullpen: Kimbrel [fa] A.Ottavino [fa] J.Wilson* [fa] Swarzak [$8.5m] Gsellman Lugo Zamora* [DL - Cespedes] [$29m]

is strat-o-matic still a thing? I used to play it but i haven't seen or heard of anybody playing it since the 1980s. I also used to play Sports Illustrated baseball in high school, which was similar.

Centerfield wrote: RealityChuck wrote: Wonder Woman gave me hope that a superhero film could be something important (even if the final fight scene was a mistake). After hearing the reviews, I thought this might be going down that path. Alas, it went right for the cookie-cutter. Agreed. Completely cookie-cutter. I mean, once you've seen one movie that celebrates black and African culture, smashes stereotypes, features a minority lead, with a minority-led cast, portrays its black characters as compassionate, powerful, educated and sophisticated rather than two dimensional stereotypes, empowers a generation of African-American kids who no longer have to be told "You can't be Superman, he's not black" and shoots down the idea that a movie with a non-white cast can't be a box office smash, basically you've seen them all. What you're talking about is the social, political and cultural importance and value of the film, which i agree with you about wholeheartedly. But what i think RC is reacting to is the film just as a narrative work in a particular genre, where it's not really breaking any new ground. Which i also agree with. But i don't think you can judge the film as a narrative in a vacuum; its cultural context is essential to appreciating and understanding it. To dismiss or ignore that context is to be the guy who said "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

over the last 2 weeks, i'd like to see Bruce and Smith play every day (one at 1b, the other in RF). If they hit, they'll be reestablishing their value for possible trade; if they don't... well, there value couldn't get much lower anyway.

yes, but buying out a guy's arbitration years generally costs MORE, not LESS, than the player would get in arbitration. A team pays more now so it can lock a player in at today's rates after he would've become a FA, and its generally worth it to the team because, if the player is good, you've got him for more years by paying more now and paying less than the market rate later, as salaries increase and his stays the same. The player is willing to trade a higher salary later for a better one now, because shit happens and later may never come. With deGrom, the question is do the Mets want to pay him at the top of the current market as he comes off a career year and likely CY (which is MORE than he'd get in arbitration over the next 2 years), so that we can have his years after age 33, and to have him at less than what the market may be for him at that point? That would work out well if he is on his way to a HOF career, since those are the sorts of pitchers who maintain a high level of production in their mid30s. Its the really-good-but-not-HOF guys whose careers start to decline at that point (some precipitously). If that happens, we're paying him more both now and later.

WS ring notwithstanding. a world series ring withstands everything. And K-Mac can suck my dick.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: First off, eff Wilpon's on the hook going back to the early 90's, when Doubleday relinquished many of his duties out of disgust and eff became the de facto majority owner, essentially running the team. So, having gotten that out of the way --- in this era, a team needs to click on all cylinders to generate sustained success. Usually, it won't be enough for a team to simply draft and develop its own players. The team's gonna hafta plug in its holes by bringing in outside talent, either through savvy trading or through the free agent market. Savvy trading was a hallmark of the Doubleday era, as GM Cashen brought in top tier talent like Keith, Carter, Cone, Ojeda and Mcreynolds to round out the team. Unfortunately, the Wilpon era Mets don't do anything particularly well, at least not over a sustained period of time. They haven't drafted well over 30 years, and pointing out to a Wright or a Reyes or a deGrom isn't much of a defense. They've made few blockbuster or key trades in the past 30 or so years. There's a domino effect here, too, because the Mets haven't drafted well and so haven't had the stock to acquire top tier talent via trades. And to the extent that the Wilpon Mets did have young talent, the team was usually so thin that it either couldn't have afforded to make those trades or it would have been pointless because the Wilpon Mets were usually more than one or two players away. Free agency is the other way to bring in outside talent. The Yankees are the extreme example of success here, as they haven't had a losing record since 1992 and not coincidentally, delve in free agency heavily. The Mets free agency approach is obviously infuriating as they almost always go for Joe Palookas and hope for a Hail Mary, this while playing in the same exact market as the Yankees, which happens to be the largest market in the country. The Wilpon Mets, for the most part, don't do anything right, at least not to the degree to generate sustained success. I'm not even gonna get into how fucking stupid ownership is and how it doesn't make a difference whether Sandy Alderson, one of MLB's most astute execs is the GM here, if Sandy needs Jeff's permission just to tie his own shoelaces. I think the best era under Wilpon was the end of the Shea era, when they had top home grown talent like Wright and Reyes, and brought in tremendous outside free agent talent like Pedro, Delgado and Beltran and even made a blockbuster trade for Johan. And then Madoff happened. Doubleday was still there in the 90s, and his role in the Piazza deal was widely reported. So while DD had relinquished day-to-day control, he still had some authority and exercised it to improve the team over Wilpon's initial objections. So i don't give Fred that much credit for the 99-00 teams. Yes, the Wright/Reyes/Beltran teams of 05/06 were his, as were the 15/16 teams. And he also gets the credit for their post-season failures, too.

Edgy MD wrote: Unless his arm breaks in one of his two final starts, deGrom is going to get a hewj reward in arbitration. The reason why teams extend somebody in that situation is to trade some longer-term stability to him in exchange for that leverage he brings to the arbitration table, and to lock in cost-certainty during that period. The Mets will have to pay a great deal in arb, but still less than they would if they were bidding on him on the open market; and the same would be true of the year after that. An extension beyond the 2 years of arbitration works for deGrom because it will pay him more NOW than arb would for those 2 years, as well as guaranteeing him some more years on the back end (1 more? 5 more?). If he is actually on track for a HOF career, and we then pay him like he is right now, then he'll be getting underpaid vs the marketplace for those extended age 33+ years, which is a risk deGrom is probably willing to take and the risk would be worth it for the Mets, as well. But if he's just a very good pitcher having a career year, and we end up paying him like a future HOFer, we would be paying him more, both NOW and LATER. "Cost certainty" is not a plus if that cost is over the market.

Edgy MD wrote: Vic Sage wrote: I disagree that it's been a weakness for a long time. There have certainly been periods of success and periods of failure, with more success coming on the pitching side. I don't think we should look at 25 years as a monolith. But that's the point. Our "periods of success" have been less frequent and shorter in duration than more than 2/3 of all teams, putting us in the bottom tier of the league despite having top tier revenues. If we're still talking about success in scouting and development (and it suddenly doesn't seem like we are), I'm going to ask you to show your work. i'm sorry, i'm just talking about success of the franchise, not specifically about scouting. I guess the best way to assess our scouting in the Wilpon years is to look at all drafts/FA signings since 02 (Wilpon year zero), assign a value to each transaction based on the careers of those players, and compare that with every other franchise's performance over the same period. Even that wouldn't take into account the lost opportunity costs of picking a lesser player over a better player signed by another team after us. And this is all work i'm unprepared to do. So please continue.

i don't understand why they would extend either deGrom or Syndegaard. DeGrom is 30, in his prime and coming off a career year. We have him under control for 2 more seasons (ages 31-32), during which he'll be able to arbitrate to get a better salary, albeit less than he'd get on a strictly open market. Any extension would be equivalent to buying his ages 31-32 seasons at a higher salary, just to guarantee we can pay more for his ages 33+ years. But age 33 + is exactly when you DON'T want to have a high-contract pitcher on the payroll. He may well be past his prime at that point; most pitchers are. Sure, he may still be able to produce premium seasons at that point, but it's less likely. And yes, he may still be producing very good and above average seasons at that point, and that is certainly worth having, but they may have to overpay to get them. It's just not necessary to extend a guy who still has 2 more guaranteed seasons with us, and won't be a FA until he's 33. Now, i love deGrom as much as anybody, and it's not my money so I hope they pull the Brinks truck up to his door (as well as Syndy and Wheeler) but I've got timid and over-leveraged ownership who are not necessarily going to change their budgetary ways. If the Pons have $25-$30m tied up in a 35 year old pitcher, I don't think it's like they'll then spend more money on another $30m pitcher to make up for the natural dropoff in production that aging inevitably brings. Sure, i would hope they'd gamble on him having an extended prime, and be willing to cut their losses if they're wrong, but that's not the Pon way of doing business. And i don't believe FOR A SECOND that they'll pay all 3 of them now. As for Syndy, he's got THREE arb years left, after which he'll be 30 and still in his prime. Does it make sense to buy out his arb years to get his 30-32 years? Maybe it does. I would wait one more season to see how he holds up. A lot of scouts think his motion will cause serious debilitating injury, so its not certain that he gets thru his arb years with us, much less is still a premium pitcher at 30. Wheeler, for me, is the real question. He's got only 1 arb year left, and will become a FA at age 30 (like Syndy). If he has another year like this one, he'll get a FA deal for a GREAT DEAL of money in 2020. So, depending on whether they believe he's likely over his injuries and has turned the corner, and really is the Ace-type pitcher he's shown himself to be in the 2nd half, it may well be better to give him the raise next year, instead of in 2 years, in order to keep him off the market in 2020, where we'll have to bid for his services and pay even more to keep him.

1B Hernandez 2B Alfonso SS Reyes 3B Wright C Piazza RF Strawberry CF Beltran LF [crossout]McReynolds[/crossout] Jones SP Seaver SP Gooden SP deGrom SP Koosman SP Cone RHRP [crossout]Familia[/crossout] Benitez LHRP Franco There, CF, i fixed it for you.

I disagree that it's been a weakness for a long time. There have certainly been periods of success and periods of failure, with more success coming on the pitching side. I don't think we should look at 25 years as a monolith. But that's the point. Our "periods of success" have been less frequent and shorter in duration than more than 2/3 of all teams, putting us in the bottom tier of the league despite having top tier revenues. And that's not even including the franchises' first 6 years of comic ineptitude. Since Fred bought total control from Doubleday in 2002, they have only won 90+ games in 2 seasons (2006, 20015) over the last 16 years, with only 3 post-season appearances (2006, 2015-16) and no WS titles. Prior to that our last period of "success" was the 1999-2000 years, spearheaded by Piazza, who was brought to NY at the insistence of then-owner Doubleday over co-owner Wilpon's objections, who was eventually talked into the move.

somebody please explain why Flores is hitting 3rd and Nimmo 7th.

I enjoyed the book. Ethan Hawke? maybe.

If you endlessly extend any story about people's lives, the story will inevitably end in death. The same is metaphorically true of a Mets season, with only a few exceptions.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Unfair? Wright's one of about 1,000 people that got to play MLB every year, this out of a US population of over 320 million. When his contract is fully paid out, he'll have made over $200M from baseball. And he's not even 36 years old. He'll go down as the greatest position player in Mets history. Unfair? Talk to Bobby Valentine, a can't miss superstar phenom who destroyed his leg early in his career and was essentially a mediocre scrub the rest of the way. If Wright had the same career but was born 25 years earlier, all of his baseball money would be long gone by now and he'd have to work. To make a microscopic fraction of the money he's going to retire with. Talk to Johnny Bench and Mike Schmidt about that, players way better than David Wright. Unfair? David Wright wouldn't trade places with any one of us. It isn't unfair to him, it's unfair to us. He was on his way to a HOF career if injuries didn't start debilitating him after he turned 30. How much we would have loved seeing a Met position player play his whole career here and then go to Cooperstown? WE're still waiting for that.