Vic Sage

he's going to want 7 years at the least, and he'll likely get no less than 5. And if Pence is getting $18m/yr, he's going to want no less than 20M. With the Pence deal as his floor, he'll get in the range of 5-6 years, $18-$20m/yr. so we can talk about $12m/yr x 4, which i think approximates his worth at this point, but its unlikely to be meaningful in terms of reflecting what it will take to get him. just for the record, i agree with Meyers. Pass on Choo unless he falls into our lap with an Edgy-like deal.

yes, but for which team? I don't know where he has any connections or ties, besides Minny, Oakland, LA, Mets and D-backs. Maybe Seattle, since he was a former PCL manager of the year.

So, according to this chart -- [u:3t219tuc]Those not coming back (with job still open):[/u:3t219tuc] Davey Johnson, Nats - retiring Dusty Baker, Reds - should retire Dale Sveum, Cubs - coaching job Eric Wedge, Sea - ditto [u:3t219tuc]Signed only thru this season (with no new deal or options for next season):[/u:3t219tuc] Jim Leyland, Tigers - he'll be back if he wants to be Walt Weiss, Rockies - organization guy will get more than 1 year Ned Yost, KC - they may not extend him Bo Porter, Astros - what difference does it make? [u:3t219tuc]Team options for 2014 (not yet exercised):[/u:3t219tuc] Fredi Gonzalez, Braves - will be exercised after post-season Mike Metheny, Cards - ditto Don Mattingly, LA - ditto Bud Black, SD - i think they still like him but he's been there a long while now So that looks like 4-7 jobs open for next season. Who are the best current candidates for: Nationals - Reds - Cubs - Mariners - Royals - Astros - Padres -

"Best fans in baseball" vs "Worst fans in baseball"... feh. A plague on both their houses. Either way, i'm rooting for Boston against the NL... the enemy of my enemy is my friend. so i've always liked the Sox. especially when they let the 86 championship roll thru their legs.

ok, maybe not Maron (i didn't realize he was that bad this season); i guess he goes in the same category as Robles. But Aderlin Rodriguez and Cory Vaughn are still good hitting prospects. Vaughn's upside alone makes him one of the few decent OF prospects we have.

Sorry, my mistake then... i thought we had assumed his contract. Be that as it may, i don't think the $2m will have a significant impact on their off-season plans and the 2014 budget, one way or the other. Assuming it will be around $85M-$90M, that gives them $20M-$40M to spend this upcoming year, subject to arbitration results and contract renewal costs. If they non-tender a bunch of the arb-eligible guys and keep the others at a relatively low price (including the renewals) by populating the bench with kids instead of vets, then yes, $40m may be available. more likely, though, it'll be closer to $20-$25M.

I thank Jesus for my life today, but it was not always a life worth living. As a boy, I was a basketball star at Crenshaw HS in my native Los Angeles, determined to follow the footsteps of my hero, Crenshaw grad and NBA all-star Marques Johnson. But my jump shot didn't fall regular, and i didn't get no scholarship. My folks wanted me to go to Junior college and work at my game; they thought i could make it to the pros if i worked hard enough.. But me and my boy, teammate Chris Brown, we got to hanging out with the local guys. We sold coke to make a buck. But before you knew it, we was taking those bucks and buying more coke, but not to sell. I had a girl back then, Lisa, but I used to beat her when i was high, which was all the time. She wanted money for our babies, but i didn't give her any. When my money ran out, me and Chris got to sticking up other dealers. But they shot Chris, and I took off. I traveled a lot then... San Francisco, NY, back to LA for a while... taking odd jobs, doing stick ups, surviving, moving on. I ended up in Tampa where i met my buddy Dwight. He had a similar story to me. We took to each other right off, partnering up to run coke and whores. Them was some dark days and my recollections are cloudy, but i'm pretty sure i never hurt nobody on purpose. At some point, i got sick. They told me at the clinic i had cancer... probably too late to do anything, though. Then Dwight, he got a hot shot and died alone in an abandoned warehouse. I knew i'd follow him soon if i didn't do something. I went into a soup kitchen; they had a chapel room. I prayed. And Jesus found me. Or i found him. same thing, i guess. He sent me Tracy, a nurse working at the kitchen. She took to me, and helped me kick. Got me enrolled into a program. Helped get my cancer treated, too. I'm in full remission now. Been clean for the last 15 years. Tracy was an angel sent to save me and she did. We're married today, me and Tracy, living in NY. We run a mission and soup kitchen for Jesus. I tried to find Lisa a few years ago, and she is still in LA, married now. She told me about our boy DJ, that he had the jump shot that i didn't, and he'd made it all the way to the NBA, god bless him. He won't talk to me, but i understand. Every once in a while, though, i watch him play and see too much of me in him, and then i pray for him to be better than that. sometimes i pray all night, for him to have a life worth living... a life like i got now.

MLB announced the 2013 nominees for the Hank Aaron Award. I used to think the award was for the best hitters in each league, comparable to the CY for pitchers, leaving the MVP free to be awarded to any deserving player (pitchers and hitters alike). Except I now learn that it�s not. Apparently, there is one nominee from every team and the winner will be selected by a fan vote in combination with a vote of select Hall of Fame players. In other words, the award is total bullshit and represents nothing. So i once again employ "jury nullification" and ban pitchers from my own personal MVP consideration, since hitters still do not have a legitimate award to call their own. In my view, this year's top 5 Aaron finalists in each league should be* : AL: Trout, Cabrera, Davis, Cano, Donaldson NL: Goldshmidt, McCutchen, Gomez, Carpenter, Votto IN the NL, one could make an argument for Choo being nominated over Votto, or with him, but neither are eligible since the Reds sole nominee is Jay Bruce. This is what i'm talking about. Same with Pedroia being shut out from consideration by Ortiz in the AL. Personally, I'd vote for Trout / Goldshmidt (and for Cabrera / McCutchen as MVPs), but would feel ok if any of these guys got it. * [winners should be elected (as they should for all awards) by a panel of scholars, journalists, team/league management, and players, as selected by the BB HOF each year on a rotating basis]

Familia is coming back from injury and needs the work, and Robles needs to show them some reason to keep him on the roster. Satterwhite and Bradford are obscure relievers; i guess they just want to see what they have with these guys. But Maron, Rodriguez and Vaughn are all decent prospects eligible for the Rule V draft... why would the Mets showcase them like this unless they've already decided to add them to the 40-man?

According to Cots contracts (a pretty reliable source): Harang: 2014 mutual option between $7M and $8M ($2M buyout) 2014 option valued at: *$7M with 360 IP in 2012-13, including 175 IP in 2013 *$7.5M with 380 IP in 2012-13, including 180 IP in 2013 *$8M with 400 or more IP in 2012-13

Here is my understanding of the current 40-man roster (48, with 60day-DL guys), and my notes on who we should keep, drop and add: [u:zp3ynok7]current active pitchers (10)[/u:zp3ynok7] Niese - yes Wheeler - yes Torres - yes (useful) Black - yes (could close) Familia - probably (if healthy) German - maybe (not a lock) Robles - possibly (disappointing year) Burke - no (bad) Carson - no (bad) Henn - no (bad) [u:zp3ynok7]Current active players (14):[/u:zp3ynok7] d`Anaud - yes Recker - probably Centeno - maybe (Recker or Centeno could be backup, but may only keep 1) Wright - yes Flores - yes Satin - probably (good platoon partner, UT) Lutz - maybe (not as good as Satin) Tovar - maybe (can't hit) Lagares - yes (they like his D) Puello - yes (good prospect) Brown - maybe (did some good things) DenDekker - maybe (useful; flawed) Neiuwenheis - maybe (ditto) Valdespin - possibly (wore out welcome?) [u:zp3ynok7]60 Day DL (8) (must be added back onto 40-man within 5 days of end of WS)[/u:zp3ynok7] Harvey - yes (then will go back on 60-man DL, opening up another slot next year) Hefner - yes (ditto) Mejia - yes (starter) Parnell (arb eligible) - yes (closer) Davis (arb eligible) - probably (I doubt they'll just non-tender him) Edgin - maybe (they still like him i think, but he's replaceable) Rice - maybe (he was overused, but mostly ok) Santana - no [u:zp3ynok7]Arb-eligible (9, in addition to Ike and Parnell):[/u:zp3ynok7] Gee - yes Murphy - yes Young - yes (leading off until further notice) Duda - probably (like Davis, i don't think they're ready to just give him up) Tejada - probably (they have no other SS options at this point) Turner - maybe (paying arb price for a utility player?) Baxter - possibly (his roster spot is worth more than his play) Quintanilla - no Atchison - no [u:zp3ynok7]Free agents (7):[/u:zp3ynok7] Matsuzaka - maybe (they need another SP) Hawkins - possibly (good year... too good. Price will exceed his value) Feliciano - possibly (sentimentality?) Harang - no Aardsma - no Byrdak - no Francisco - no [u:zp3ynok7]Projected 40-man roster so far (x = 25-man roster):[/u:zp3ynok7] SP [7] - x-Niese x-Wheeler x-Gee x-Mejia x-Matsuzaka Matt Harvey (DL) Jeremy Hefner (DL) RP [8] - x-Parnell x-Black x-Familia x-Torres x-Edgin x-Rice x-German Robles C [3]- x-d`Anaud x-Recker Centeno IF [8]- x-Wright x-Davis x-Murphy x-Tejada x-Satin x-Turner Flores Tovar OF [6] - x-Lagares x-Young x-Duda x-Brown x-DenDekker or Nieuwenheis Puello [u:zp3ynok7]minor leaguers added [5]:[/u:zp3ynok7] Steven Matz (LSP) Jacob deGrom (RSP) Darin Gorski (LRP) Jeff Walters (RRP) Cory Vaughn (OF) [u:zp3ynok7]Players optioned to minors, cut, non-tendered, or 2014 option not picked up [10]:[/u:zp3ynok7] Santana (buyout) Harang (buyout) Atchison (non-tendered) Quintanilla (non-tendered) Henn (released) Burke (optioned) Carson (optioned) Baxter (optioned) Valdespin (optioned) DenDekker or Nieuwenheis (optioned) [u:zp3ynok7]FAs not re-signed [5]:[/u:zp3ynok7] Hawkins Aardsma Byrdak Feliciano Francisco TOTAL ROSTER = 37 [35, when Harvey and Hefner go back on 60-DL) [u:zp3ynok7]Guys still on the bubble:[/u:zp3ynok7] Matsuzaka Hefner Edgin Rice Germen Robles Recker Centeno Davis Duda Turner Lutz Tovar Brown den Dekker Nieuwenhuis [u:zp3ynok7]Other key "Rule V-eligible" minor leaguers:[/u:zp3ynok7] Goeddel Ceciliani Cesa Maron Kolarek Huchingson A.Rodriguez Dykstra Bennett Sandoval Cohoon

About $40M worth of 2013 payroll was tied up in dead contracts (Santana & Bay). So the Mets can get an additional $40M worth of talent without increasing payroll. well of course that's not true. Other than the expiring contracts, there are 8 guys up for arbitration (where salaries only go up), and 16 not yet arbitration eligible but still likely to get salary increases (if they make the team). There are only 2 under contract: Niese (5m) and Wright (20m). And they will still owe Santana $5.5m and Harang $2m to buy out their 2014 deals, giving them $7.5m of dead money on the budget for next year. So even if they sign nobody new, the payroll would end up in the range of $65m after all those salary bumps, by my rough calculations, to field this year's team next year. This would give them about $20-$25m to play with at most, assuming they plan to keep within the same mid-market budget range. That's enough for 1 big guy or a couple of smaller ones.

...and that Sears is worth shopping at.

i'm sorry, Edgy. While i was using comments in your post as a jumping off point, i wasn't necessarily disagreeing or criticizing your viewpoint. It's your viewpoint. I think our views overlap more than they don't, but i've heard some of the criticisms of the film you've offered more generally (which demonstrates that its not an unsupportable view) and so am responding to it generally. To say it "doesn't hit as deep as it could" certainly does not mean that it fails to hit deep at all, or that it's superficial, or that it has nothing on its mind but thrills. But i think the movie does hit deep. And there's the rub.

Loved it. I found that the film's "thriller" structure did not hinder character development; instead, it provided the reason for it. Frankly, i would classify this a character study, from a narrative structure POV... a thrilling one, to be sure. When she becomes an "embryo" (as a visual metaphor) we know we are going to witness her transformation, and we do. Clooney's good humored commander on one last mission did not strike me as oily in the least. He becomes (quite literally) the sympathetic voice in her head that drives her towards survival, in contrast to those voices from Earth which are entirely impotent. I care not a smidgen or a whit about distances between space stations or relative orbits of satellites. They were far enough away from each other to provide the necessary tension when they're hopping from one to the next, and that's what matters here. As to big questions, well no, it doesn't posit theories about the nature of evolution, or the need for conservation to save our blue planet, nor does it deal with our relative place in the universe, but it addresses the biggest questions and, frankly, the only ones that really matter... the ones about our humanity. How does a life go on when its soul has been frozen in place? How do we reach into ourselves and find the strength to keep going, every single day? How do you get up and walk on the shifting sands when the gravity of your life is literally pulling you down? It deals with pretty profound shit, emotionally speaking. I'm not saying it does so perfectly or deeply, but it's not just an empty thrill ride of a movie, despite its non-stop tension and velocity. It is an exhausting film to watch, though, as we watch Bullock's misfortunes accumulate relentlessly. For some, it's just too much (as it was for my wife); for others, its impact can be powerful. Other than SOLARIS and 2001 (already mentioned), and APOLLO 13 and MAROONED (these are obvious), GRAVITY evokes films about a person confronting themselves in a struggle to survive... 127 HOURS comes to mind. A MAN CALLED HORSE. The "real time" aspect heightens the tension, too, as it did in HIGH NOON. I don't know if it's strictly "real time", but it sure feels like it. By the way, it looks amazing and Bullock gives an award-winning performance.

He's the most successful crappy manager since Joe Torre.

These are the guys I would take from that list, if i had to pay the balance of their contracts (at the average annual price) from this point forward. First, i would eliminate any deal that has me paying big money [15+M] to guys into their late 30s (37+), unless i'm also getting their prime years (27-33); and i eliminate any catcher over 30, or anybody with recent chronic drug or injury problems or already showing a steady decline, unless their avg salary is under $15m and there's only 1-2 years left: [u:1z0buvo1]YES:[/u:1z0buvo1] ANTHONY RIZZO - Wow. Take this deal in a heartbeat. ADAM JONES - YES! ANDREW McCUTCHEN - Duh. JAY BRUCE - yup. MIGUEL CABRERA - the exception to every rule JUSTIN UPTON - coming into his prime. DAVID WRIGHT - too long, but we got his prime years, too, so i'm happy to keep the captain on board. So that's 6 of the 43 deals (plus Wright, whose deal i would not otherwise take). Not a great percentage. Of the rest: [u:1z0buvo1]MAYBE:[/u:1z0buvo1] EVAN LONGORIA - too long, and injuries, but I would still get his prime years BUSTER POSEY - ditto, and good enough bat to switch positions later and extend his career ELVIS ANDRUS - young, right length, maybe a bit pricey. If you think he can play, take him. I'm not sure i do. RYAN ZIMMERMAN - injuries may force him off 3B; i don't know that his bat plays well enough at 1B STARLIN CASTRO - young, right length, right price. If you think he can play, take him. I'm pretty sure i don't, but not positive. ADRIAN GONZALEZ - a little too old, too long and too much, plus injuries, but i've always liked him. JOSE REYES - $20m/yr for 4 more years (even if you don't factor in the back-loaded contract) to end up with a 35-year old speedster who is already declining in SBs is high risk investment... but it's Reyes. CARLOS GONZALEZ - Only question is if he's a Coors Field mirage; he may be. MIGUEL MONTERO - injuries, borderline age for a C; maybe. BRANDON PHILLIPS & IAN KINSLER - 2 middle-aged 2bmen with good bats and gloves; both still cheap enough to consider (Kinsler is a bit younger and a few $ cheaper). NICK MARKAKIS - seems to be declining already, but for 2 years i'd take a shot at his price. ALEX RIOS - Only 1 year left; maybe So there is another 10-15 borderline deals to consider, leaving about half of the total deals as outright NOs unless the other team ate huge parts of the contract and didn't want that much in return. Not a very good ratio, as far as i can tell.

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm not sure that Peralta's days as a SS aren't dwindling. I realize that now he's only being shifted off SS because the Tigers traded for the non-singing Iglesias during his suspension, but it wasn't like he was ever gold glove to start with and at 32 next spring he's not going to be getting any better. So I wouldn't be against looking at him but strictly on a shorter term basis. Stephen Drew should be in that category as well. i'm not really shilling for Peralta. I just don't want to rule him out until i know what the market is for him... and certainly not for character issues.

Man, if this guy doesn't play Mad-Libs by flashlight and keep a little notebook in his pocket cataloging his comics collection, then I don't know what. um... you just described my childhood. Why, I oughta punch Edgy right in the _________ (noun).

yes, abysmal would be an improvement.

I do think Hamilton is a better bet than Cruz to perform at career-norm levels next season. I don't know why you think so, but Hamilton's performance level NOW is still better than Cruz's average season (.260/25-30hr), but i'm not interested in either of them. They're 32 with drugs and injuries in their recent past. But that wasn't the point i was making anyway. I don't have a problem with giving guys second chances. I'm against giving multi-year deals to guys for whom expecting performance to stay at recent levels is unrealistic, even if you take character completely out of the equation. Again, i agree, but you're the one who brought character INTO the equation, which was my point. And Hamilton is as likely to be an example of this problem as Cruz, Peralta, Cabrera, Byrd or anybody else, as he's a junkie owed $104M over the next 4 years, from age 33-36. Even at half that price, i'd avoid him. and not for character reasons. Just as i'd avoid the Pujols contract, even with his solid reputation for character. Peralta will probably perform at the .700 OPS level he played at in 2009 and 2010. Somebody is likely to pay him for more than that, and I hope it isn't us. Or he might play like the .775-.805 OPS player he was for the 2 seasons before that (2007-08), or the .885 player he was in 2005, 2 years prior to THAT. No way to know, i guess, but, if you don't have to overpay to find out, I'd sure be interested (character issues aside, of course). Because if Tejada or even Drew are your best alternatives, then Peralta starts looking like a pretty good risk to take.

i would agree with most of this analysis too, but i'm confused by one point. you suggest we avoid Cruz and Peralta for "character reasons", but then petition for us to take a shot at Josh Hamilton. Is there anybody less reliable than a hardcore drug addict? He's taking one day at a time (and good for him), but we should pick up the tab for his next few years? Yeah, no thanks. And describing Byrd as "once a good player"... well, ok. i guess it depends on what you mean by "good". This career year he's having is not indicative of his career overall (OPS+102 for a corner OFer), even before he became an old, broken down PED user on the scrap heap. And what about HIS "character issues"? It was ok for Mets to overlook them because we were desperate? But not for a .280/20hr SS, when that is (arguably) the single greatest need for the franchise?

if winning more games would be easy, why haven't they?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: After his stint on the bike, [Jeff Wilpon'll] hit the computer and scan the net, Googling for everything related to the Mets that day, until exhausting his search to the point where he has nothing left to read anymore. I wonder if Jeff lurks here. Sounds like he would. He probably hates me if he does. (Like just about everybody else here) Don't make yourself a martyr, it's unattractive. And i assure you everybody here doesn't hate you. Most folks just don't give you (or me, or anybody else) a second thought, one way or the other. I'm sure only those who really know you have any interest in hating you.

There are the films from the period: WILD IN THE STREETS (68), THE ACTIVIST (69), MEDIUM COOL (69), RPM (70), GETTING STRAIGHT (70), STRAWBERRY STATEMENT (70) and ZABRISKIE POINT (71), and you can also include HAIR (79), which came out later but was very much a work of the 60s. But it's the RETURN OF THE SECAUCUS 7 (79), coming out the same year as HAIR, that is really the beginning of the retroactive introspection of middle-aged filmmakers about the impact of the 60s on their lives and the culture to come. A few years later, THE BIG CHILL (83) offered Kasdan's watered down apologia, suggesting that social activism of the SECAUCUS 7 was just a fashion of the time, and not genuine commitment to certain values (values which Kasdan had himself sold out by going from a college activist to a Madison Ave ad man). The 80s also brought SMALL CIRCLE OF FRIENDS (80), DANIEL (83) and BIRDY (84), with 1988-89 offering a final burst of movies that dealt with the issues of the period: PATTY HEARST (88), RUNNING ON EMPTY (88), HAIRSPRAY (88), 1969 (88), MISSISSIPPI BURNING (89), RUDE AWAKENING (89), BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY (89). A few more came in the 90s: FORREST GUMP (93), GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI (96), PANTHER (95) The trickle continuing into the "oughts": STEAL THIS MOVIE (00), TAKING WOODSTOCK (09), THE HELP (10), and now COMPANY YOU KEEP (12). Most of these films are better, or at least more interesting, as sociological artifacts then they are as movies, especially the films from that period. But i would recommend HAIR, BIRDY, HAIRSPRAY and FORREST GUMP for their entertainment value (BIG CHILL, too, i guess, but solely on that basis, despite its moral reprehensibility). I also have a nostalgic affection for SMALL CIRCLE OF FRIENDS and SECAUCUS 7, despite their not being great movies. BORN ON THE 4TH and MISSISSIPPI BURNING, too, have their adherents; I'm not among them. RUNNING ON EMPTY, though not great, is a decent drama and substantially similar to COMPANY YOU KEEP in its narrative and themes about our radical 60s past haunting our current life.