Willets Point

="Benjamin Grimm":333icjy9]Are there really two people who think Jay Bell belongs in the Hall of Fame?[/quote:333icjy9] Jay Bell's toddlers? Jay Bell's parents? Centerfield Jan 12 2009 12:55 PM I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 12:59 PM ="Centerfield":2jvc996l]="Edgy DC":2jvc996l]That's Nymr's line.[/quote:2jvc996l] Do you disagree with that? People who left Rickey off their ballot either know nothing about baseball, or refuse to follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. Either way, their voting privileges should be rescinded.[/quote:2jvc996l] Of course I disagree. There will always be a minority opinion. It's healthy for a democracy. And rescinding the rights of someone who departs with the majority position, no matter how compelling it is to the heart or mind, is akin to fascism. And again, while you nitpick over the non-harm done to Rickey Henderson's legacy, look at the true harm done to Tim Raines'. Fman99 Jan 12 2009 01:12 PM ="Benjamin Grimm"]Rickey, of course, deserves it without a doubt. I'm not so sure what I think about Rice. Since I don't have a vote I haven't given it much thought. Had I a vote, though, I think I would have done a "bullet ballot" with just Henderson's name on it. This is the part I'm happiest about: ] Mark McGwire 118 21.9% That's actually a decline from last year, isn't it? I think he was at around 23% his first two years. There were some flimsy rumors that McGwire might start to see a rise in vote totals, but as long as he stays far far away from 75% I'll be happy. Mac scored 128 votes each of his first two seasons, so he did lose a bit of ground this year. metirish Jan 12 2009 01:16 PM I's wrong but in the next few days there will probably be more column inches given to those voters than left Henderson of there ballot than to the players that failed to get in like Raines. Those voters shouldn't become the story. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 01:18 PM I don't care about Rickey Henderson's legacy. At least, not for the sake of this argument. I don't know enough about Tim Raines to know whether he should or shouldn't be in the Hall. But I don't lose sleep over the borderline guys. If they make it, great. If not, they're a borderline guy. I don't care. What I don't like are the idiots who can't follow simple rules. The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments. There can be no intelligent argument given for leaving Henderson off the ballot. He is just too good. The ones that leave him off have created their own criteria. (He's not a first-ballot guy, he is a first-ballot guy, but if Seaver wasn't unanimous, I don't want him to be either, bla bla bla) Out of the millions of people who follow baseball, these select 500 individuals are given the honor of selecting the people who are inducted into the Hall of Fame. If you can't follow simple rules, you should lose that honor. If they don't like the criteria, they are free to petition the Hall to change them. They can write articles (they are writers after all) about who deserves to be a first ballot guy etc. They can ask the Hall to introduce levels onto the ballot (First Tier Hall of Famer, Second Tier, Only getting in because of Sympathy Tier etc). But until the Hall does that, they should follow the fucking rules. I disagree that there are always minority opinions, but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound. Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong. If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law. Likewise, anyone who argues that Rickey Henderson is not a Hall of Famer should not be voting for the Hall of Fame. metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2009 01:20 PM ="Centerfield":1llejwm6]="Edgy DC":1llejwm6]That's Nymr's line.[/quote:1llejwm6] Do you disagree with that? People who left Rickey off their ballot either know nothing about baseball, or refuse to follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. Either way, their voting privileges should be rescinded.[/quote:1llejwm6] It's a tough call, because my idea of a no-brainer -- Seaver -- might be different from someone else's and you start down a slippery slope when you start stripping ballots. I favor making all the ballots public, so we know who voted for who. This isn't some governmental election. Then you can see who the dumbasses are and hold them accountable. Make them make a case for why they don't think Rickey Henderson or Tom Seaver or Hank Aaron or Willie Mays belongs. My buddy and I have been chatting about this, and here was his repsonse: I bet most of them are of the old-timer, "if Babe or Ty aren't unanimous neither is anyone else" ilk who refuse to vote for anyone, regardless, on the first ballot. There used to be a few who turned in blank ballots in protest of Pete Rose, but I doubt that's an issue any more. I suspect Ricky's "Today I'm the Greatest" speech turned off a lot of writers (aka dumbf***s) there. If Ripken couldn't get 100 percent, I don't see anyone else getting it, although how do you possibly vote against Maddux? (Even pre-McNamee, Clemens didn't have a shot because of his jerk status.) Depending on how he finishes his career, DFJ might come the closest of any current candidate: great numbers, Skank postseason mystique, no scandal of any kind, beloved by the media. He's sloughed off the past couple of years, but if he gets around 3,500 hits (a good chance, given good health) and the Yanks win another title or two with him as shortstop (unknown), then he'll be real close. Pujols might have a shot, but even if his totals end up near Bonds' level, the whispers of PEDs might be enough to keep him from 100 percent. A-Rod? See Postseason, choke; and Fodder, tabloid. And my own PS: If Rickey goes in wearing a Skank cap, I'm gonna hurl. batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 01:27 PM Not only was Yogi Berra not a unanimous ballot, but Yogi didn't even get into the Hall in his first year of eligibility. (ditto Diamggio and Hornsby and Ott) Talk about dumb. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 01:29 PM I would gladly allow the voter to justify his decision before stripping his voting rights. I suspect that their explanations would only confirm the dumb-assedness of their decision. metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2009 01:37 PM ="Centerfield":3a52kunr]I would gladly allow the voter to justify his decision before stripping his voting rights. I suspect that their explanations would only confirm the dumb-assedness of their decision.[/quote:3a52kunr] Would love to know if Klapisch has ever voted for a Met! When I worked in Flint, the sports editor would let me oogle the HoF ballot. You'd be surprised how very plain it is. Maybe its changed in the years since. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 12 2009 01:43 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":2g3fq09w]Not only was Yogi Berra not a unanimous ballot, but Yogi didn't even get into the Hall in his first year of eligibility. (ditto Diamggio and Hornsby and Ott) Talk about dumb.[/quote:2g3fq09w] Well, to be fair (and as I'm sure you know), the DiMaggio voting was all screwed up[/url:2g3fq09w]. That he didn't make it the first time is more likely because of a wacky system than voters' negligence. MFS62 Jan 12 2009 01:52 PM The Mea Culpa from on guy who didn't vote from Rickey (as seen on Yahoo): ]From the Oakland Tribune: "If I had properly researched the situation, I would have voted for Rickey Henderson if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," he said. "Imagine that. He'll be the first Hall of Famer to have a bronze bust with nine caps stacked on his head. "He was a wonderful player and I simply goofed. I voted for eight deserving men. I could have picked two more � and I wish to heck I had." Later Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 02:08 PM the ballots should be made public, this isnt a political election. metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2009 02:12 PM ="MFS62"]The Mea Culpa from on guy who didn't vote from Rickey (as seen on Yahoo): ]From the Oakland Tribune: "If I had properly researched the situation, I would have voted for Rickey Henderson if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," he said. "Imagine that. He'll be the first Hall of Famer to have a bronze bust with nine caps stacked on his head. "He was a wonderful player and I simply goofed. I voted for eight deserving men. I could have picked two more � and I wish to heck I had." Later A guy frm OAKLAND didn't vote for him?????? Are you freaking kidding me? You telling me his own paper didn't do several stories about how the hometown kid being up for the Hall this year? Idiot. metirish Jan 12 2009 02:13 PM ="MFS62"]The Mea Culpa from on guy who didn't vote from Rickey (as seen on Yahoo): ]From the Oakland Tribune: "If I had properly researched the situation, I would have voted for Rickey Henderson if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," he said. "Imagine that. He'll be the first Hall of Famer to have a bronze bust with nine caps stacked on his head. "He was a wonderful player and I simply goofed. I voted for eight deserving men. I could have picked two more � and I wish to heck I had." Later He's taking the piss right? Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 02:22 PM That's unreal. He's a baseball writer in Oakland. He needed to do "research" to know that Rickey belonged in the Hall. AND he voted for eight other guys instead. What a maroon. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 02:24 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 02:35 PM ="Centerfield"]I don't care about Rickey Henderson's legacy. At least, not for the sake of this argument. I don't know enough about Tim Raines to know whether he should or shouldn't be in the Hall. But I don't lose sleep over the borderline guys. I know plenty about Tim Raines and I don't think he's a bordeline case. ="Centerfield"]What I don't like are the idiots who can't follow simple rules. The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments. No, they don't. ="Centerfield"]There can be no intelligent argument given for leaving Henderson off the ballot. It's a pointless argument to entertain and I'd rather not be drawn into playing the devil's advocate against Rickey. My point is that the nature of democracy is to indulge the rights of people who you think are un-intelligent, and the system is designed to provide a margin of error --- on both sides --- to protect the mainstream from living under the whim of the minority opinion. ]I disagree that there are always minority opinions, Really? What do you know of that 500 people broadly selected agree on? ]but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound. No, it's not. ]Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong. No, they don't. ]If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law. And the system is designed to frustrate him. He will either come toward the mainstream or slide into greater irrelevancy. That's the nature of democracy. ]Likewise, anyone who argues that Rickey Henderson is not a Hall of Famer should not be voting for the Hall of Fame. Such a policy will do more harm than good. I don't know how you can't see that. You know, it's entirely possible that just as large a number of people who voted for Henderson voted for him for reasons you'd find just as intolerable. dgwphotography Jan 12 2009 02:28 PM That's offensive to maroons everywhere... Obviously Rickey is a no-brainer. I think Rice should have been a just-miss, but I'm not terribly upset by his enshrinement. As mentioned earlier, Bonds and Clemens should prove interesting. the argument can be made that Bonds had already achieved HOF credentials pre-steroids. I don't think any such case can be made for Clemens if the story of his use starting in Toronto are true. Either way, neither cheater should be allowed in now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 02:38 PM I think we as a people are eventually going to have to come to grips with the idea that everyone was cheating (or rightly should be suspected of cheating) at the same time as Bonds, Clemens and McGwire and like it or not we're going to have to hold our noses and consider their accomplishments in the context of their era. I think McGwire is destined to have an especially hard time of all of them since his best skill was the one most associated with PEDs, rightly or wrongly, and that he was a fraud who hid behind the poor-single-father facade and seemingly turned aside several chances to come clean including at a certain congressional dog-and-pony show. I think somewhere we have to remember that the pitchers trying to get Bonds and McGwire out were users, the opponents challenging them for records and contracts were users, and the minor leaguers who wantd their jobs were users too. Doesn't make it right, but adds context. Valadius Jan 12 2009 02:45 PM I am thrilled by the election of both Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice. Rice becomes only the third player elected in his final year of eligibility, joining Red Ruffing and Ralph Kiner. Grimmy, time to update the UMDB page on the Hall of Fame. And speaking of that, Gary Carter and Eddie Murray need their profiles filled out. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 02:46 PM Based on what I know and what I think I know of who used what and their career tracks: Bonds put up a Hall of Fame career if he never hears the word steroids. Clemens had a foot and a half in the door when he got to Toronto. McGwire is an early burnout who gets about as much support as he's getting now. That said, I think it's perfectly rational for writers to lock them all out based on what they know and what they think they know, and if they want to be selective, or even keep out most of an entire generation, they may try to do that, and it'll compel more players to play clean and come clean. If Mike Piazza used, there's got to be a dozen guys that know it, and if he gets support while somebody else does not because of suspicions, somebody will sing. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 02:56 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":rwd1ymci]I think somewhere we have to remember that the pitchers trying to get Bonds and McGwire out were users, the opponents challenging them for records and contracts were users, and the minor leaguers who wantd their jobs were users too. Doesn't make it right, but adds context.[/quote:rwd1ymci] True enough. But in my opinion, those two guys brought particular disgrace to the game, and I do give weight to the "Fame" part of "Hall of Fame." Despite their stats, I'd disqualify them for their infamy. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 03:00 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 03:02 PM ="Edgy DC"]I know plenty about Tim Raines and I don't think he's a bordeline case. Think what you will. I'm not arguing about Tim. ="Edgy DC"]No, they don't [state that if a guy is eligible, he is judged on his accomplishments. Then what is it based on? Singing voice? From the Hall's Website: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. To me, that sounds like you judge a player on how good he was. ="Edgy DC"]It's a pointless argument to entertain and I'd rather not be drawn into playing the devil's advocate against Rickey. My point is that the nature of democracy is to indulge the rights of people who you think are un-intelligent, and the system is designed to provide a margin of error to account for them --- on both sides. Voting for the Hall of Fame is not a democracy. You and I don't have the right to vote. The Hall of Fame voters are awarded that right because they are believed to be members of an elite group of educated, knowledgeable voters. (Oligarchy? I forget) If they demonstrate that they cannot follow the rules set for them, or in the case of the Oakland writer, that they are, despite their membership in the BBWAA, grossly underqualified to be voting, they should be stripped of that right. The whole point of limiting voting rights to the writers, and not the general public, is to eliminate the dumbass vote. ="Edgy DC"] Really? What do you know of that 500 people broadly selected agree on? Things that I would guess all 500 voters agree on: 1. You should not run over babies with your car. 2. I would rather eat cupcakes than eat dog poo. 3. Breaking your leg hurts. 4. Breathing air beats suffocating to death. ="Edgy DC"] CF: "but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound." No, it's not. I consider it the more pertinent issue. We could go back and I could come up with more examples of things everyone agrees on. ="Edgy DC"] CF: "Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong." No, they don't. Um. Ok. Everyone I've ever met agrees that speeding is wrong. ="Edgy DC"] CF: "If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law." And the system is designed to frustrate him. He will either come toward the mainstream or slide into greater irrelevancy. That's the nature of democracy. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. That it's better to leave the idiot in place, because it's harmless? I say it's better to remove him from Congress where he can be even more harmlesser and give the privilege of law-making to someone more qualified. ="Edgy DC"] Such a policy will do more harm than good. I don't know how you can't see that. What harm? No one has listed even one drawback of forcing people to follow the rules. ="Edgy DC"] You know, it's entirely possible that just as large a number of people who voted for Henderson voted for him for reasons you'd find just as intolerable. Sure. But I can't identify them yet. If they vote in a way that exposes them as idiots, then get ax them too. For instance, if one of the guys who voted for Rickey also voted for Jay Bell, I'd want him to lose his voting privileges because that exposes him as a moron. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 03:00 PM ="Valadius"]Grimmy, time to update the UMDB page on the Hall of Fame. Not yet. I'll wait until he's actually inducted. Remind me again in July. (I'm sure I won't really need to be reminded.) ="Valadius"]And speaking of that, Gary Carter and Eddie Murray need their profiles filled out. Yeah, I've been lazy about that, haven't I? Truthfully, I'm still not too motivated. If you (or anyone else) care to bang out a couple of paragraphs that puts the players Mets career into the context of their overall career (for Carter, Henderson, and Murray) feel free to do so. I can't promise I'll post it exactly as you write it, but I can't promise that I won't. Just try to keep it in the same spirit as the other entries on that page. Thanks! Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 03:37 PM ="Centerfield"]The rules state that if a guy is eligible, he is judged on his accomplishments. ="Edgy DC"]No, they don't ="Centerfield"]Then what is it based on? Singing voice? From the Hall's Website: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. To me, that sounds like you judge a player on how good he was. That, to me, sounds very different from "accomplishments," and very different from "how good he was." Nice try, but there is a world of difference beween six criteria, though they clearly overlap, and one. ="Edgy DC"]It's a pointless argument to entertain and I'd rather not be drawn into playing the devil's advocate against Rickey. My point is that the nature of democracy is to indulge the rights of people who you think are un-intelligent, and the system is designed to provide a margin of error to account for them --- on both sides. ="Centerfield"]Voting for the Hall of Fame is not a democracy. You and I don't have the right to vote. Universal suffrage is not the nature of democracy. The Hall of fame goes for a vote based on principles of democracy. I'm not arguing about what constitutes a democratic state, only pointing out what is inevetiable once you submit to those principles. Absolutely inevitable. Minority opinions that you don't like but are nonetheless impotent. ="Centerfield"]The whole point of limiting voting rights to the writers, and not the general public, is to eliminate the dumbass vote. You really think the general public would produce fewer dumbass votes? ="Edgy DC"]Things that I would guess all 500 voters agree on... Thanks for the absurdist positon. We'll see when it's voted on. ="Centerfield"]but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound." ="Edgy DC"]No, it's not. ="Centerfield"]I consider it the more pertinent issue. We could go back and I could come up with more examples of things everyone agrees on. I'm not arguing that all minority opinions are or aren't sound. I'm arguing that there are no victims to the minority opinion until they are joined by enough voices to validate themselves. It takes 75% to get in for God sakes. Henderson isn't a victim. Period. ="Centerfield"]Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong." ="Edgy DC"]No, they don't. ="Centerfield"]Um. Ok. Everyone I've ever met agrees that speeding is wrong. I'm calling bullshit. ="Centerfield"]"If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law." ="Edgy DC"]And the system is designed to frustrate him. He will either come toward the mainstream or slide into greater irrelevancy. That's the nature of democracy. ="Centerfield"]I'm not sure what you're arguing here. That it's better to leave the idiot in place, because it's harmless? I say it's better to remove him from Congress where he can be even more harmlesser and give the privilege of law-making to someone more qualified. His constuents will remove him if and when they're tired of how he represents their views. If he's removed for voting in the minority by the legislative body he is a part of, those constutents will be rightfully angry. ="Edgy DC"] Such a policy will do more harm than good. I don't know how you can't see that. ="Centerfield"]What harm? No one has listed even one drawback of forcing people to follow the rules. The rules are to cast your vote for zero to ten people. The criteria are listed. The harm is the tyranny of the majority. ="Edgy DC"] You know, it's entirely possible that just as large a number of people who voted for Henderson voted for him for reasons you'd find just as intolerable. ="Centerfield"]Sure. But I can't identify them yet. If they vote in a way that exposes them as idiots, then get ax them too. For instance, if one of the guys who voted for Rickey also voted for Jay Bell, I'd want him to lose his voting privileges because that exposes him as a moron. Good luck with that. You'd be standing alone on this planet with a worn-out ax. I'll tell you what, maybe you should find out who votes from your favorite paper, and threaten to withdraw your subscription, patronage of their sponsors, etc., if they don't vote according to your rationale. But Raines is the real victim here (and it's not enough to say you don't know enough about him, while crying out against the igorance of others). Anybody who would pooh-pooh somebody being absolutely screwed by the majority opinion while decrying the the lack of absolute consensus in another case would be the type of person who would, I don't know, place the sartorial importance of the entire Met uniform beneath that of the orange dot on the hat. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 04:07 PM Be honest with me, you're just arguing with me for the sake or arguing right? Have you been planted to distract me from my work? Crap. I need to get better at staying focused. Anyway, back to the argument. I don't see how this is a controversial position. As far as I know, the Hall of Fame has no obligation to grant the Writer's Association the privilege of selecting their inductees. It's bestowed upon them because, at some point, the Hall figured the writers were in the best position to judge who belongs and who doesn't. We can argue about the exact wording, but basically, the criteria seems to be: really really good baseball player that didn't do anything serious enough in his personal life to fuck things up. When a baseball writer, a member of this voting class, starts promoting absurd ideas, such as Rickey Henderson not belonging, or Jay Bell belonging, they are clearly underqualified to hold this right. They are, as I mentioned, either applying their own criteria or really dumb. Now, if the whole point of granting the vote to writers, and not fans in general (such as All-Star voting) was to eliminate the dumb votes, and the arbitrary votes, and the random preferences, I don't think it is odd to suggest that writers who exhibit this random voting behavior should be removed. I view the right to vote for the Hall of Fame as a responsibility to uphold the criteria set by the Hall. If one cannot abide by it, harmless or not, that person's vote should be given to someone who will. Maybe I'm showing my profession here, but it bothers me to no end when those given a position of authority feel that the rules don't apply to them and that they can make up their own standards. You're right. Rickey is not a victim here. I never said he was. I don't care where he ranks in percentage. I'm saying get these idiots out of the voting pool before they're put in a position where they can do real damage. Like Tim Raines. If I'm Tim, I want my credentials reviewed by a pool of people who are all bright enough to understand that Rickey is a Hall of Famer. I want those twenty some-odd people gone, and smarter people replacing them. I want the guy who voted for Jay Bell gone, and the guy who voted for Orosco. If I am a legitimate candidate, I want intelligent decision makers deciding my fate. Like I said, I don't know enough about Tim to know whether he belongs or not. That makes me unqualified to vote for the Hall of Fame. However, knowing that Rickey belongs and Jay Bell doesn't, makes me MUCH more qualified to vote than some of the dumbasses that did. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 04:26 PM ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]Be honest with me, you're just arguing with me for the sake or arguing right? Have you been planted to distract me from my work? Crap. I need to get better at staying focused.[/quote:2ucmatoa] I was going to ask the same. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]I don't see how this is a controversial position.[/quote:2ucmatoa] I happen to be a minority voter in much of my life, and I'm offended by the majority opinion attacking me with "too dumb to vote" arguments. I'm so smart I could shit a dictionary. It'd be a crude dictionary --- small and constructed entirely of shit --- but I could. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]When a baseball writer, a member of this voting class, starts promoting absurd ideas, such as Rickey Henderson not belonging, or Jay Bell belonging, they are clearly underqualified to hold this right. They are, as I mentioned, either applying their own criteria or really dumb.[/quote:2ucmatoa] And I think, when you're on the overwhelmingly winning side, you need to have enough security in that to humble yourself and be charitable about the continued existence of the minority. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]Now, if the whole point of granting the vote to writers, and not fans in general (such as All-Star voting) was to eliminate the dumb votes, and the arbitrary votes, and the random preferences, I don't think it is odd to suggest that writers who exhibit this random voting behavior should be removed.[/quote:2ucmatoa] It may not be odd, but it is dangerously intolerant. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]I view the right to vote for the Hall of Fame as a responsibility to uphold the criteria set by the Hall. If one cannot abide by it, harmless or not, that person's vote should be given to someone who will. Maybe I'm showing my profession here, but it bothers me to no end when those given a position of authority feel that the rules don't apply to them and that they can make up their own standards. [/quote:2ucmatoa] But it's pretty easy to argue that you made up your own standards. Six criteria exist. Everybody gives them different weight, including you. And somebody can weigh them so as to disclude almost anybody. The consensus prevailed, and that's the way things work. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]You're right. Rickey is not a victim here. I never said he was. I don't care where he ranks in percentage. I'm saying get these idiots out of the voting pool before they're put in a position where they can do real damage. Like Tim Raines.[/quote:2ucmatoa] But Tim Raines is not a victim of the outliers you declare to be unworthy of the vote. Tim Raines is a victim of the majority. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]If I'm Tim, I want my credentials reviewed by a pool of people who are all bright enough to understand that Rickey is a Hall of Famer. I want those twenty some-odd people gone, and smarter people replacing them. I want the guy who voted for Jay Bell gone, and the guy who voted for Orosco. If I am a legitimate candidate, I want intelligent decision makers deciding my fate.[/quote:2ucmatoa] And who is this body? ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]Like I said, I don't know enough about Tim to know whether he belongs or not. That makes me unqualified to vote for the Hall of Fame.[/quote:2ucmatoa] But you're qualified to vote on the voters? Minority votes are healthy, even when they're wrong. They force us to examine even our most sacred positions. I disagree with the elimantion of somebody who fails to garner 5% of the vote. Lou Whitaker got eliminated without reconsideration, while Ryne Sandberg is immoralized in bronze. metirish Jan 12 2009 04:36 PM You two should get a room, great reading btw. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 05:05 PM ]But you're qualified to vote on the voters? i see no contradiction here. he's not saying that if he had the right to vote that he wouldnt make it his business to become better informed on the players he is voting on. the guy who didn't vote for henderson and admitted he "didn't know" about him shouldn't be allowed to vote, because he's admitted that he doesn't care to take the effort to judge which players fit the criteria that was quoted above. SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 05:10 PM ="Edgy DC":19453cj2] Clemens had a foot and a half in the door when he got to Toronto. [/quote:19453cj2] I'm not so sure it was that close though. Oh he'd get in if he said he had enough before going to Toronto, but it would have been based on "legacy" voting rather than an actual analysis of what he accomplished. In other words, voters would be voting simply on his first few years, and ignoring the fact that he was an average pitcher by the end of his Red Sox days. metirish Jan 12 2009 05:13 PM Rickey on MLB Hot Stove talking about Rickey getting into the HOF. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 05:35 PM ="Nymr83"]the guy who didn't vote for henderson and admitted he "didn't know" about him shouldn't be allowed to vote, because he's admitted that he doesn't care to take the effort to judge which players fit the criteria that was quoted above. I got the impression that he either didn't double check his work and or didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot or played the first-ballot game, not that he was unaware of Henderson's career. Double checked and it seems to be a combination of the two. He overlooked it and then stubbornly refused to review when it was pointed out. http://www.insidebayarea.com/sports/ci_11408571 Old folks: trouble with ballots and stubborn as heck. What else is new? On the other hand, we screw up too. The guy is from The Tucson Citizen and not Oakland at all. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 05:36 PM ="SteveJRogers":2mcf9cv6]="Edgy DC":2mcf9cv6] Clemens had a foot and a half in the door when he got to Toronto. [/quote:2mcf9cv6] I'm not so sure it was that close though. Oh he'd get in if he said he had enough before going to Toronto, but it would have been based on "legacy" voting rather than an actual analysis of what he accomplished. In other words, voters would be voting simply on his first few years, and ignoring the fact that he was an average pitcher by the end of his Red Sox days.[/quote:2mcf9cv6] I don't care what it's based on. My point is that he would have gotten strong support, no matter the voters' motives, if his career petered out on it's tracjectory from that point with, say, 30 more victories. themetfairy Jan 12 2009 05:45 PM Fanhouse speculates on the content of Rickey's HOF acceptance speech[/url:25za1esj]. MFS62 Jan 12 2009 05:47 PM ="Edgy DC":ri22fmh2] Old folks: trouble with ballots and stubborn as heck. What else is new? [/quote:ri22fmh2] Watch it, you young whippersnapper. Er, I see your point. Later Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:06 PM ="Centerfield":o99zxfxb]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:o99zxfxb] There's a difference? metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 07:43 PM i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... that THT article is great. i've been wondering the same thing myself, as a result of an especially time-wasty hof-related project i'm miring myself in... SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:50 PM ="Gwreck":28khau2g]="Centerfield":28khau2g]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:28khau2g] There's a difference?[/quote:28khau2g] TECHNICALLY McGwire was only guilty of having a masking agent, which was legal in baseball at the time, in his locker. His name hasn't been officially named in any court document, or report. The only things people have on him is that his name is in the original Canseco book, anecdotal evidence (body size pre-Oakland, and post baseball) and "I'm not here to talk about the past." SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:52 PM ="metsmarathon":1fdxmugo]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... [/quote:1fdxmugo] I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 07:54 PM 162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:59 PM ="Nymr83":1u41q325]162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him[/quote:1u41q325] I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing why baseball writers, who care more about opp than ops+ or obp, would consider McGwire a lock if they weren't holding steroids against him. Which is different than why people who study stats and analysis would consider him a lock, or not. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:12 PM I may be smart enought to shit a dictionary, but I don't know what Steve is talking about. metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 11:08 PM ="SteveJRogers"]="metsmarathon"]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. should "magic numbers" or "saving baseball" be sufficient, steve, for a player to merit induction into the hall of fame? i'm asking for your own actual opinion here. not what you think might be the opinions of others whom you've never met, or the possible opinions you might've read somewhere on the internets. what do you yourself think, and why? ... as far as mcgwire goes, i'm overstating a bit my opinion on his hof merit. i showed a bit more of the reasoning way back over here: and so, here's a bit more intelligible way of looking at what i had said previously: ]per my methodology of using WARP3 and comparing those on the ballot to those who've already been voted in by the bbwaa... i look at career and peak value over 5, 7, and 10 year spans. i also take a look at a player's best individual season, just for kicks... among the other hitters, mark mcgwire is below average for a hall of famer in each measure save 7-year peak value, wherein he is in the bottom quarter. summing it up in that handy table... Player Career 5-yr peak 7-yr Peak 10-yr Plateau 1-yr Max henderson TOP 2nd 2nd 2nd TOP blyleven TOP 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd trammell 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd raines 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd bottom cone 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd mcgwire 3rd 3rd bottom 3rd 3rd mattingly bottom 3rd bottom bottom 3rd murphy bottom bottom bottom bottom 3rd dawson 3rd bottom bottom bottom bottom john 2nd out out out out morris bottom bottom bottom 3rd out rice bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom baines bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom grace bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom bell bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom williams bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom parker bottom bottom bottom out bottom smith bottom bottom bottom bottom out vaughn out bottom bottom out bottom gant out out out out bottom vaughn out out out out bottom orosco bottom out out out out plesac out out out out out he's basically a below average hall of famer. that's probably pretty good, overall. he's hurt by being hurt a lot, and having a relatively short career, and not playing generally good defense (gold glove not withstanding) i'm in the process of re-looking my methodology on the hall, and with baseballprospectus talking up some major, big changes to their WARP3 calculations, i might be forced to redo it all once i have it close to being finished... and we'll see what i come up with then... but right now, mcgwire would surely not top my ballot. imo there are easily four more hof-worthy players on the ballot. is that a fair cutoff? i'm not sure, as i'm not sure where my cutoff actually is. if i were a voter, would i really only vote for four players this year? i dunno. that sounds a bit harsh actually. so maybe mcgwire would get my vote afterall. the point i guess, is that i wouldn't consider him a lock, or a no brainer. i wish the voters were looking at the merits of his career instead of its provenance, as i think that's a more interesting conversation (within the context of baseball). the ped issue is more like arguing religion. or politics. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:16 AM ="Edgy DC"] I happen to be a minority voter in much of my life, and I'm offended by the majority opinion attacking me with "too dumb to vote" arguments. I'm so smart I could shit a dictionary. It'd be a crude dictionary --- small and constructed entirely of shit --- but I could. Those who voice minority opinions should be ready for criticism coming from the majority. Sometimes, minority opinions will be well articulated, valid points of view. Your's, I believe, would probably fall into this category. I encourage minority opinions. I'm in the minority often as well. Some minority opinions, however, are dumbass steaming piles of crap. And if their vote is bestowed upon them because of an expected level of expertise, they are too dumb to vote. So I want the voters who leave Rickey, or Hank Aaron, or Mays, or Ripken off their ballot to justify their reasons for doing so. If they really are taking a stance, they should relish the opportunity to be heard. I suspect, though, that they will be applying some "I didn't see him as a first-ballot guy" or "If Seaver wasn't unanimous, he shouldn't be either" criteria that is not set forth in the rules. Or you'll discover just plain idiots who didn't realize Rickey wasAnd if this is their justification, I say strip them of this privilege and give it to someone who will research and follow the rules. Who? You. Me. Anyone who will take the time to get educated on the subject and abide by the criteria set by the Hall. I said I didn't know enough about Raines to know whether he was worth of induction or not. But if you gave me the right to vote, I'd make sure to get educated on it before checking off any names. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:27 AM I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:29 AM ="Gwreck":1s58j1sc]="Centerfield":1s58j1sc]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:1s58j1sc] There's a difference?[/quote:1s58j1sc] Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:42 AM ="Edgy DC":3ihja6wu]I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted.[/quote:3ihja6wu] Who said anything about being reviewed by your opponents? How about this... Someone at the Hall (Board of Directors? Trustees? Important Hall People?) decided that the Writers' Association should have the right to vote on inductees. Those writers submitting questionable ballots (exclusion of Rickey, inclusion of Jay Bell) should have to justify their decision to a panel of Important Hall People (not fellow voters). If the IHP determine that the vote was justified, great. If not, the voter is put on probation, told to abide by the rules (or get educated). If the voter has a second transgression during the probation period, his vote is rescinded. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:48 AM Yeah, my response would be that Jay Bell appeared on the ballot as an eligible candidate, so blow me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:58 AM Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:33 AM I for one am vehemently opposed to keeping people out of the Hall of Fame purely on suspicion of steroids. If there's hard proof, I understand. But if suspicion of steroids is the sole reason behind keeping someone like McGwire out of the Hall of Fame, those voters don't deserve their voting privileges. They're journalists, after all - go get some solid facts. However, if they based not giving someone a Hall pass based on something tangible - in McGwire's case, his low batting average - I completely understand. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:41 AM How about the tangible facts of his testimony in Congress? I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:46 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":vgghykq1] I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game.[/quote:vgghykq1] Ditto. And double ditto for Bonds. Later Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 11:49 AM If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:51 AM If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. I must admit, I have a fondness for McGwire. I was 11 in 1998. The big home run chase was a big childhood memory for me. And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. If you want to debate a player's stats, fine. If there's definitive evidence that a player cheated, fine. But basing a vote on rumors and innuendo is destructive to the process. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:58 AM ]And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. It's not about you. Great players who disgrace the game don't get in. Pete Rose didn't get in. Shoeless Joe Jackson didn't get in. And I don't think that Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire are going to get in. Your generation won't get shut out. But even if it does, so what? It's not about you. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:09 PM ="Valadius"]If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. He was asked to explain himself, and he elected not to. A voter is asked to make a judgment call and they're making the logical one that the facts of his past incriminate him. Look at it this way, he said he didn't want to talk about the past. By not honoring his career and legacy by inducting him in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, those writers are honoring his request. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:28 PM ="Edgy DC":21bklxmx]If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler.[/quote:21bklxmx] no vote for you. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:48 PM i'd like to see what the reasoning behind some of the more interesting votes were - like the 6 yeses for mo vaughn and the 2 yeses for jay bell. at the very least, everybody got greg vaughn right, right? i'm also curious as to what the reasons are for not voting for either rickey or especially tim raines and bert blyleven. i think the thing that i'm most interested in seeing from the voters is internal consistency. if a guy voted for jay bell because he was a salt of the earth kind of guy, and didnt vote for rickey because he was a selfish player, then i'm okay with that (sortof), because it is a reasoned response to the judging criteria, wherin that voter has taken the liberty afforded him to weigh one factor far more heavily than another. because the criteria are so broad, nebulous, and essentially qualitative, it is the voter's right to apply his vote as he sees fit. i may argue with his weighting or reasoning, but at least there's reason applied. even if it's a simple dumb criteria like 'jim rice scared his opponents, and bert blyleven didnt' i can kindof live with it as long as the same criteria is applied evenly on a given ballot. but if you've denied ricky a vote because you don't believe that anybody should get in on their first try, but throw a bone to greg vaughn, well, then you're a fool, perhaps twice over. if you apply your reasoning evenly, than you can be argued with. and the greater point may even prevail. if the reasoning is not applied evenly, then the choices made are essentially illogical, and it becomes a waste of time to even bother discussing. i believe, too, that the voters should be voting on who they feel among the eligible were good enough to be in the hall of fame, not how long they should wait until they are enshrined, or by what percentage. that is really not what they are being asked to do, and that is what is frustrating. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:53 PM I'm frustrated that Jim Rice is on the inside when Tim Raines had a better career. Let us lobby the 380 voters who carry the day, not the 20 curiosities. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 01:25 PM ="Edgy DC"] Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. Are the selection criteria at issue here? I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? Because, in reality, standards have been set. A player's "record" has come to mean that there is an accepted level of performance deemed "Hall of Fame-worthy". When someone who falls near those guidelines gets in (or falls short) there will always be those who cry foul. Their point, and I believe your point, is that the voters got it wrong. I agree that the voters can get it wrong. In fact, I think they can be so wrong, they demonstrate they are in no position to be making these types of decisions. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Again, your logic contradicts itself. If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:09 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:32 AM ="Centerfield"]Are the selection criteria at issue here? You keep saying that voters broke the rules. I don't think it's cut and dried like that. ="Centerfield"]I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. I'm just responding to what you write. ="Centerfield"]When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. Apparently, we don't know, because what you wrote, to me, does not accurately paraphrase the criteria at all. ="Centerfield"]My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). You're arguing much more than that. You're arguing that voters should be made to justify their votes and that their voting privileges should be rescinded if they don't account for themselves to some star chamber's satisfaction. Certain voters, not all, but ones that trigger your sensitivities. ="Centerfield"]And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. By the same token, you made up your own. ="Centerfield"]You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." That's just the way the world is. We all understand things differently. ="Centerfield"] Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Easy. We say, "You got that wrong, and here's why," make an argument of our own, and lobby them. I didn't say we should always consider them right, I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. ="Centerfield"]Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? By making a rational argument that moves their heart. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. ="Centerfield"]Again, your logic contradicts itself. No it doesn't. And there's no again. Don't you think that would be farcical? I think it would be outrageous in the context of anything called an election. ="Centerfield"]If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. I didn't say anybody can't be wrong. I say the way to establish right from wrong is not to strip the minority of their votes, but to lobby those you disagree with until one side compels enough voters past the designated threshold established to determine an issue. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:18 PM i think there are a greater percentage, by an order of magnitude, of unfit voters participating in our presidential elections than there are in the hall of fame elections. ... i have a quick question that perhaps nobody here can answer. i was just reading an article on nytimes.com, and in it, ty kepner mentioned that he did not vote, though he received a ballot, because the times' policy will not allow it. and it got me thinking.. does a ballot unreturned count towards the total? if 25% of the ballots were never returned, would it then be impossible for the hall to elect anybody? and if not, is not the times policy self-defeating? instead of making news by voting for a player, are they not making news by not voting for a player? if there is no abstention, then a lack of a yes vote is a no vote. and this, then, might be the source of some of the "no" (or non-"yes") votes for rickey. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:22 PM The Times policy has been in place a while now, and I'm sure the Hall accounts for it. It's also a good retort to the idea that the New York media machine or somesuch inflates the prospect of New York athletes being enshrined in Halls of Fame. metirish Jan 13 2009 02:26 PM In his NY Times blog Kepner has this to say about Dawson. ] The New York Times does not allow its writers to vote for the Hall of Fame, but if I could have sent in my ballot, I would have checked Dawson�s name � and not just because of childhood impressions. it's not sent in so I doubt it's counted either way. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:34 PM from the hall's own rules: ]Any candidate receiving votes on seventy-five percent (75%) of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. well, that answers my question. thanks. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 03:00 PM I don't know how many more pages this thread needs to continue before you stop mis-stating my position. ="Edgy DC"]I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. I never said one should be stripped of their vote for being in the minority. Some people elected to keep Rice off their ballot and I have no problem with that. To be clear, my position is the following: Where voting rights are bestowed upon a select group of educated individuals because of their superior knowledge, if an individual within that group demonstrates that he does not have such superior knowledge, he should be stripped of that privilege to vote. He should not be stripped of his vote for being in the minority. He should only be stripped if he is stupid (or refuses to abide by the established criteria). To my understanding, Nobel prizes winners are selected by committees, made up of highly qualified individuals in each field. If, during the selection process, a member of the Physics committee says "Oh, I thought we were selecting psychics", then that guy should be off the committee. Of course, this rescission of votes for the stupid should only take place where the privilege of voting was bestowed upon them based upon an assumption of superior knowledge. So rights like voting for President, which are not based on merit, should not be stripped for being dumb. I'm assuming, here, that the Hall gave the vote to writers, and not to fans, because they wanted voters to be educated. I could be wrong. The Hall could come back and say "Nope. We picked the writers because some are smart, some are stupid, and we wanted a good mix of both." In that case, it makes no sense to get rid of the dumb guys. But if it was the Hall's intent to put this decision in the hands of an educated few, I say get rid of the ones that demonstrate their idiocy. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 03:08 PM maybe fans should get to pick the writers who get to vote. Rob Neyer deserves a vote over some old guy who thinks a "walk" is what you do to get back to the dugout after you strike out Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:35 AM Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or not exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. Gwreck Jan 13 2009 06:55 PM ="Centerfield":29tslt5o]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:29tslt5o] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:01 PM he's saying you shouldn't lump any of these guys together and say "they all used" but should instead consider only the evidence against each one. what were the exact circumstances of McGwire's testimony before Congress? was he subpoenad or did he appear on his own accord? if the former, i can understand his "i don't wanna talk about" answer which obviously would have come from his lawyer. if the latter he shouldnt have shown up voluntarily if he wasnt there to be honest and answer all questions. SteveJRogers Jan 13 2009 07:12 PM I'm pretty sure they all were subpoenad. Don't forget the Palmerio finger waging, Sosa forgetting that he is fluent in English and Schilling backing down from his original commentary on players who took steroids. The whole lot of them clearly got instructions from lawyers. Valadius Jan 13 2009 07:17 PM He was subpoenaed: ]Mar 16, 2005 1:18 pm US/Eastern Mark McGwire To Testify On Steroids Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig Will Testify NEW YORK (CBS) ― Mark McGwire plans to comply with a subpoena and attend Thursday's congressional hearing into steroid use in baseball, The Associated Press has learned. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:27 PM 1) Anyone who doesn't think Rickey belongs in the HoF doesn't understand Rickey's accomplishments and/or is unable to place them in the proper historical context. 2) Anyone who thinks Rickey belongs in the HoF but doesn't vote for him is using his vote for something other than what the vote is for. Anyone who falls into categories 1 or 2 shouldn't have a vote. CF is correct. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:37 PM Why is unanimity so important to you? Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:38 PM Are you addressing me? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:40 PM Yes, please. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:41 PM Unanimity is not important to me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:43 PM Then please accept a Hall of Fame without it. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:45 PM I do. Please don't bring up topics that have nothing to do with what I posted. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:57 PM It does not have nothing to do with what you posted. There is no crime and no damage done by a miniscule minority disagreeing with the mainstream. You want them disenfranchised, which does do harm by forcing a false consensus and chilling independent thought among all voters in all future elections. And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:00 PM You clearly have no idea what I want. You are reading what I said and extrapolating it incorrectly. I shall clarify one more time. I want the voters to be 1) people who understand the players' on the ballot and their careers 2) people who are able to place them in the proper historical context 3) people who vote "yes" if they think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame 4) people who vote "no" if they don't think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame Anyone who doesn't fit these criteria should not have a vote. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:01 PM ="Edgy DC":2jwfby5s]And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults.[/quote:2jwfby5s] Really? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 10:02 PM Great. Good night. metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 07:59 AM i think it is perfectly allowable for a voter to have such high standards that rickey henderson does not meet them, provided they consistently apply those standards to their ballot and have a good logical reason for it. granted, the only remotely logical reason would be something about holding the hall to the same high standards as the first two or three classes of inductees. and if that's their standard, then good for them. there's no reason that the voters have to be hog-tied to the precedents set by prior votes and voters. if they, for instance, think that the hall of fame voting started to go awry when they lowered their standards for george sisler and willie keeler in 1939, that those guys aren't good enough to share the room with the babe and the big train, and neither is rickey, then that is their right. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:33 AM ="Edgy DC"]Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or nto exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. However, if they have no valid explanation, then they should be punished. Probation perhaps, with another transgression leading to them being removed from the voting committee. This will force the voters to take more care. You won't see as many reporters like the one in Oakland who didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot. You won't see "He deserves to be in, but not first ballot" type votes. And if you do, and this voter repeats such behavior, he should be booted from the committee. You say that their voting record is insufficient to label them as idiots or insubordinates. I agree. That alone is not enough. That is why you get an explanation. After having heard the Oakland guy's explanation, I think we have enough here to label him "idiot". Not knowing Rickey was on the ballot is negligent to an incredible degree. This information could have been ascertained by: 1. Reading any article on the Hall of Fame candidates this year. (He is a writer after all) 2. Reading his ballot. By putting him before a committee, you let him know that his behavior is unacceptable. And if it happens again, he will be deemed unfit to vote in the future. On the other hand, let's assume the writer provides a explanation such as marathon's example. His voting history reflects that he voted for Aaron, Mays and no one else. Then, it's understandable that he didn't vote for Rickey. You and I can disagree with his application of the criteria, but at least he is applying the criteria. And unless the Hall specifies their criteria, they would have to live with such an application. (However, if his voting record showed he voted for Jim Rice, Tommy John and Burt Blylevin, the guy is a fucking fraud and should be booted.) Your argument seems to be that there is no pattern in which a voter can vote that would justify his removal from the committee, or even an investigation into his criteria. He could come out and say "I only like ballplayers who are Pisces" or "I didn't vote for Rickey because I don't like the way he spells his name." By your argument, that guy should be left alone. And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. Secondly, I listed the specific criteria, when you accused me of mis-stating it. And most importantly, save me the "not at all accurate" garbage. The criteria are: 1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. If I had said the criteria were shoe size, that would have been "not at all accurate." Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:39 AM ="Gwreck":1mvpbc6m]="Centerfield":1mvpbc6m]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] As Namor said, if one is going to decline to vote against McGwire, or Clemens, or Bonds, I would hope they would weigh the specific evidence against each individual rather than casting his name aside as "one of those steroid guys". If at the end of the day, a voter were to decide that the specific evidence against McGwire (evasive testimony, Canseco's book) were enough to ban him, I would have no problem with that. Obviously, I have no problem with a voter declining to vote for Clemens or Bonds considering the amount of evidence that exists against those two. HahnSolo Jan 14 2009 08:40 AM Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. Let's have more voices heard...why is it only the BBWWA? Some in this thread advocated for broadcasters, I agree. Why should Buster Olney have a vote and Gary Cohen not? If you've been broadcasting (radio or TV) for more than 10 years, or whatever limit you want to put on it, you get a vote. So come on down Vin Scully. I'd add internet writers. No vote for Rob Neyer? Boo. Am I sounding like Bill James now? Well, let's bring him and Bob Costas to the party. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 09:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM ="Centerfield"]I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. Actually, that's not what you were initially saying. What you originally said was, ="Centerfield"]Oh, and anyone stupid enough to leave Rickey Henderson off their ballot should have their voting rights rescinded. You've only softened your stance and complicated your system of bureaucratic review as your original position became untenable. ="Centerfield"]In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. Then you would call everyone in, but no, it's the gross minority that's rounded up. ="Centerfield"]If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. ="Centerfield"]I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. Then I ask you to think about it some more. ="Centerfield"]If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. Oh, how generous of you. The cleansing committee is just a forum for free thought. A Parisian salon! Come on, what professional writer with enough tenure to gain membership in the BBWAA needs a special forum to convey his or her position. It's about persecuting thought and purifying thought. The description of the punishment is too disheartening to respond to. ="Centerfield"]And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. You wrote it and I disagree with it. ="Centerfield"]1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. By your own estimation, you're merely half right. You get to meet with the review committee to see if you need to go on probation until you can show yourself to think like the group. ="Centerfield"]Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. I don't know that we agree. I bring it up because you mis-stated the criteria, and want to punish others for not abiding by criteria that you couldn't be bothered to get right. It's also helpful to my argument to make you understand the feeling of vulnerablity that you would seek to place upon voters. I understand you don't want to live under the reign of a pedant. Neither would I. Neither would I want voters to. You were wrong, and you would have been hung by your own system. It seems obvious (though I guess not), but a democratic system is not designed to generate unamity, but to produce credible decisions by assenting to the freely expressed will of the majority. Take freedom of expression out of the equation, and the credibility is shot, and the whole thing crumbles. Frayed Knot Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 10:40 AM ]Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. They recently did expand things a little. Several of the BP writers now have votes in an attempt to start admitting some "non-traditional" writers. Personally, I prefer public humiliation of bad voters over kicking them out. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 09:47 AM I can't understand why you keep bringing up ancillary points rather than focusing on the issue. 1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I don't give a shit about unanimity. Elster doesn't give a shit about unanimity. Distorting our position to discredit it is not productive. I want the select group of voters to be monitored to make sure they are competent and applying the correct criteria. If there is never a unanimous selection into the Hall of Fame, I will care less than Elster, who doesn't care at all. 2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: My first remark was obviously a throw-away statement meant to express my distaste with those voters. When you proposed a serious challenge to my idea, I gave you a system that was more thought through and less draconian. I went from an idealistic point of view, to a more rational, practical approach when you asked for one. 3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: Again, sure I wrote accomplishments. And when challenged on it, I gave you a more thorough answer. I see no reason why you continue to bring it up. It was a generalization. You say it is only half-right, but that is only the case if you believe that the six criteria are weighted evenly. In my experience, the accomplishments of a player are far more pertinent to the analysis than his character. Number of hits has been weighed far more than pats on the butt given to teammates. Secondly, I don't need to go before a review committee because I'm not a voter. If I were a voter, I certainly would get educated on the criteria before submitting my ballot. If I did not, and upon review, demonstrated that I did not know the criteria, I should be dealt with appropriately. 4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: Sifting through all these other points, I think the crux of our disagreement comes here: Edgy: Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. Simply stated, I disagree with you. I think the writers have a duty to be educated and follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. I think they should be monitored to make sure this is the case. If they demonstrate they are not so, they should be replaced. I think this applies to all situations where a select group of individuals, based upon their presumed knowledge or experience, is given the responsibility to make an educated, informed decision based upon the criteria set by an organization. Admissions officers to Universities should make educated and informed decisions based upon the University's guidelines. Officers who appear to stray from these guidelines should be monitored, and replaced if shown not to be worthy. They should not be allowed to not know a candidate's worthiness ("Oh I didn't read his transcript") or apply their own criteria ("We have enough redheads on campus already"). The same should hold true for the members of the Nobel Price selection committee, corporate settings, any situation where the select group of voters are asked to exhibit superior knowledge and judgment. Your way promotes free-thinking. My way promotes accountability. We disagree. Nymr83 Jan 14 2009 10:04 AM I agree with metsmarathon thats it is ok for a voter to have such high standards that Rickey doesn't meet them, as long as they apply such standards across the board (in which case the last player they should have voted for was likely Tom Seaver... or Ted Williams, because thats how great Rickey was) I would like to remove the ballot from people who don't use it properly. Properly doesn't mean "vote for who i would have voted for," it means "evaluate each player based on the criteria and decide if they should be in our out" its ok to change your mind on a guy, its not ok to forget to vote, be too lazy to properly reseaech each player on the ballot, or apply different standards to different players. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 10:07 AM ="Centerfield"]1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: Henderson was elected. The system worked. There's no need to stamp out dissedent thinking except intolerance. ="Centerfield"]2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: In other words, you softened my stance when your original position looks untenable. Why should I not point that out when you change your view and act as if I'm distorting your position, which you now explicitly accuse me of doing? I'm not. I'm responding to what you wrote. Because you move away from it doesn't erase your words and doesn't erase my response. ="Centerfield"]3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: I explain exactly why I bring this up. And even as you claim I shouldn't continue to bring it up because you've (again) moved away from it, you continue to defend it. Of course you're not a voter. It's an analogy, made to point out what one effect of such a system would be. An asshole with an agenda could toss you out for working with what you think is a most reasonable reading of the criteria. ="Centerfield"]4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: You don't monitor voters. You debate them. I think your admissions office metaphor is a fine one, but students are not admitted by a voting body of several hundred, and Hall of Famers (at least the first time up) are not admidded by an appointed panel of a very few. If you submit to the former system, you've got to tolerate differences. Got to. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 10:13 AM Was watching a SNY roundtable yesterday around 6:30 PM with 4 reporters/ writers/ sportstalk -type folks. Didn't get all the names. They were talking about HOF voting and one guy (didn't get his name) made what I thought was a good point. He said that as some of the older voters retire and no longer vote, they have been replaced by newer, younger voters who have only experienced the more recent eras. As a result, they may have different criteria for selection to the Hall. I just caught the end of it, but I think he was answering the question of why players get votes (like Jim Rice) after years of eligibility. This makes sense to me. I remember when I thought a player had to have close to, or over, a .300 career BA for consideration for the Hall. But as newer statistics have become available, there are more detailed ways to measure performance. I don't believe in "magic numbers" for automatic election. But if a player/ pitcher is the best (or one of the best) at his position for an extended time that he played, he deserves consideration. And by that I do mean consideration, not automatic election. Later metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 10:21 AM i don't necessarily buy that argument. doesn't it seem like the longer you're on the ballot, the more votes you get? do many candidates actually see their percentages move appreciably downward over the 15 years? i think its a softening of the criteria and an increase in the nostalgia for a given player moreso than looking at the numbers a different way. otherwise, we'd see players drop from near 70% to 20% as routinely as we seem to see the 20% guys rise up into contention. if i had the time, i'd look into that claim i just made. but i'll let others do the work for me. just this once. Benjamin Grimm Jan 14 2009 11:09 AM ]You don't monitor voters. You debate them. Our elected legislators vote on our behalf. And we do (or should) monitor their votes. And while we can and do debate them, we also can vote them out (or, take away their vote) if we don't feel they're voting properly. In my example, that could me wisely, correctly, or any number of things. But in the case of Hall of Fame voters, they should be qualified; they should have a strong knowledge of what they're doing and a consistent approach. Should there be no standard at all for Hall of Fame voters? It's not akin to the public voting in a democracy, I wouldn't say. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:15 AM A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber. Vic Sage Jan 14 2009 11:36 AM ="Edgy DC":2wrtve2y]A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber.[/quote:2wrtve2y] As long as you keep equating the voting RIGHTS of citizens in a democracy, with the voting PRIVILEGE of a small number of selectors for the HOF (or any other private selection process based on specified criteria), then no, it's not different. It's a constituency (whether citizens in a republic or members of the HOF administraton) monitoring and evaluating the performance of their chosen representatives. the BBWWA don't have a right to be enfranchised in this process. They'e been granted a privilege. The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes. If you don't agree that such a selection committee should have oversight, then we will need to agree to disagree on that point. If you DO think there should be oversight, then the discussion can shift to what form it should take, without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber". Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM Of course, it's different. Legislators are not electors, they are representatives of a constuency, empowered and disempowered by electors. The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. If a vote for Jay Bell is an indiscretion that will lead to your investigation and possible disenfranchisement, then his name should not be on the ballot. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 11:54 AM ="Edgy DC":scjwko15] The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. [/quote:scjwko15] Don't think that's exactly true. I believe it is granted to members of the BBWAA who have been covering baseball for at least ten years. Later Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:01 PM True enough. (Or sort of true enough. It's BBWAA membership plus 10 years as an active baseball writer that qualifies one.) Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:09 PM ="Edgy DC":gnqufv19]The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes.[/quote:gnqufv19] More importantly, I don't believe hauling people before a review committe for being in the extreme minority ensures the best possible outcomes, but undermines that. Democratic systems are designed to absorb such votes, and this one does it quite well. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:57 PM ="Vic Sage":2ifvditq]...without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber".[/quote:2ifvditq] If that comes out as uncivil, then please allow me to withdraw it with apologies.

Yay for both of them. Hard to believe that Rickey isn't still playing.

="batmagadanleadoff":13zmwl5q]If I remember correctly, Berman's Bermanisms were funny because they were long. [/quote:13zmwl5q] Berman was funny? batmagadanleadoff Jan 07 2009 09:11 PM ="Willets Point":26u7xluz]Berman was funny?[/quote:26u7xluz] Go and ask Leather. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 11:44 AM CB: "... and the starter was relieved by Aaron Heil-Hitler-Man" (he wouldn't dare) batmagadanleadoff Jan 15 2009 11:44 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 03 2009 02:41 PM ="Frayed Knot"]CB: "... and the starter was relieved by Aaron Heil-Hitler-Man" I had a strong feeling that your post was gonna kill this thread. batmagadanleadoff Mar 03 2009 10:24 AM ="Iubitul":qzy0y9q0]Wayne when the moon is in the seventh Housie vs. Carlos In Delgado Da Vita[/quote:qzy0y9q0] Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Scott Workin' too hard can give you a heart attack a ka ka Kazmir Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 10:30 AM Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Chuck Baby You Can Drive My Carr dgwphotography Mar 03 2009 12:50 PM Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Hubie Babbling Brooks Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 01:25 PM Iubitul taking on the reigning champ Iubitul. Met Hunter Mar 03 2009 05:31 PM I will dethrone Carlos with a twofer Tuesday. Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Tommie This is the Dawning of the Agee of Aquarius Tommie This is the Dawning of the Agee of Aquarius vs. Pat People are Strange LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 07:09 PM Um... yeah. That's, like, against the rules. Carlos In Delgado De Vida vs. Endy-is Mama Cried Chavez Met Hunter Mar 04 2009 09:30 PM OK. Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Dan Keep Your Eyes on the Road Your Hands Upon the Wheeler. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 09:37 PM Carlos In Delgado De Vida versus Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da Edgy DC Mar 04 2009 09:47 PM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Shawn Bows and Flows of Angel Hare LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 10:32 PM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down/Of the big lake they call Kaz Ishii Edgy DC Mar 08 2009 05:37 AM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Ty I SAID, What's that on your HEAD?! A WIIIIIG!!-inton dgwphotography Mar 08 2009 05:44 AM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Rick "see ya later" Aguilera batmagadanleadoff Mar 08 2009 08:59 AM Iubi's really good at this. Met Hunter Mar 08 2009 05:27 PM Rick See Ya Later Aguilera vs. Rich Sweet Chiles of Mine dgwphotography Mar 08 2009 06:22 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":1jca620l]Iubi's really good at this.[/quote:1jca620l] I just remember a lot of the old Bermanisms. some of his originals were classics... LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 08 2009 06:38 PM Rich "Sweet" Chiles "of Mine" vs. Raul "Blame it on the" Casanova batmagadanleadoff Mar 08 2009 08:37 PM ="Iubitul":3nzo1sfn]="batmagadanleadoff":3nzo1sfn]Iubi's really good at this.[/quote:3nzo1sfn] I just remember a lot of the old Bermanisms. some of his originals were classics...[/quote:3nzo1sfn] You mean youve been plagiarizing from the man? Say it ain't so, Iubi! LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 16 2009 09:11 PM REBOOT: Rich "Sweet" Chiles "of Mine" versus J. J. Putz "the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again"

I actually think he got a raw deal.

I saw Manny kissing Santa Claus.

I suppose this means the Yankees will be hoisting the World Series trophy for the 27th time this coming October. Sigh.

="MFS62":3rvs0psj]="Willets Point":3rvs0psj]Oh man, Lowe needs $10 million just for booze alone.[/quote:3rvs0psj] Are you saying this because he associates with Scott Boras? Or is there something else you know about him? Later[/quote:3rvs0psj] Just a joke about Lowe's rumored love of the drink. Valadius Dec 26 2008 09:01 PM Randy Johnson will pursue his 300th win as a San Francisco Giant. Nymr83 Dec 27 2008 01:15 AM he could it be cutting it close with the type of run support the giants give their starters. he needs 5 wins, it took Matt Cain all year to get 8 wins for the Giants with an ERA+ the same as Johnson's last year. Frayed Knot Dec 27 2008 05:08 AM 'Randy Johnson is a Giant' is somewhat of a redundant headline. He's probably been called that since he was in the 4th grade. On the other hand, there must have been plenty in in the Castro district of SF who were excited to hear that someone called 'The Big Unit' was coming to their city. DocTee Dec 27 2008 09:16 AM FK with a late entry for post o' the year. The Giants have had a nice offseason (Renteria, Affeldt, Howry, Johnson) and if local rumors of them adding Adam Dunn are correct, they could be players in a weak West. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 27 2008 09:19 AM I agree. You can definitely quibble with the wisdom of a team's particular moves but I like to see franchises who've had bad years making a bunch of moves in the offseason, whether they are effective or not. Like the Giants... and the MFYs... Frayed Knot Dec 27 2008 03:49 PM X-Rockie, X-Astro OFer Wily Tavarez signs a two-year deal with Cincy. He's good at stealing bases and also .... ummmm, I'll think of something. And Kevin Mensch heads for Japan. The Japanese just might get a look at his monsterously huge head and add a second rising sun to their flag. I think that thing has its own gravitational pull. Frayed Knot Dec 29 2008 07:20 AM Penny for your Sox ... Brad Penny to Boston for 1 yr/$5mil -- pending a physical which could yet throw a wrench into the works. As mentioned elsewhere, this could keep them from chasing the likes of Lowe, Wolf, Ollie, etc. thus reducing the demand pool by one more team. Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 11:20 AM This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels. smg58 Dec 31 2008 12:29 PM The Cubs sign Aaron Miles for two years, then trade DeRosa to the Indians for three low level (not even top 20) prospects. At least it's not the Phillies, but that's one mild upgrade over Castillo and one significant upgrade who found takers at prices we could have afforded. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 12:30 PM Cubs 2B Mark DeRosa - long rumored as part of a Jake Peavy trade - dealt to Cleveland for a trio of minor league pitchers. smg58 Dec 31 2008 12:36 PM Fuentes got two years at $17.5M, plus a club option. Rotoworld says "Fuentes almost certainly took less money to play close to home," but I'm not sure who was competing with the Angels. Frayed Knot Jan 02 2009 05:47 AM Good news folks, Barry Bonds says that he should be fully recovered from the hip surgery he needs in time for opening day! Nymr83 Jan 02 2009 06:41 AM ="Frayed Knot":1xejc7ja]Good news folks, Barry Bonds says that he should be fully recovered from the hip surgery he needs in time for opening day![/quote:1xejc7ja] Better news- nobody really cares about him anymore, including it seems the GMs of all 30 teams. DocTee Jan 02 2009 04:46 PM Tony Clark returns to D-Baggs: 1 year, 800K. metirish Jan 02 2009 05:34 PM Watching MLB Network Hot Stove and they are reporting that San Francisco have offered Manny Ramirez a four year deal. Dodgers and A Jones have agreed to defer most of his money owed likely leading to him playing elsewhere. Scott Proctor to the Marlins for one year. Ashie62 Jan 03 2009 12:33 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":2ytj1poh]This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels.[/quote:2ytj1poh] This just in: Mets do nothing Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker metsmarathon Jan 03 2009 12:40 PM ="Ashie62":hblnrkgs]Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker[/quote:hblnrkgs] i don't believe that for a second. Edgy DC Jan 03 2009 12:58 PM ="Ashie62"]="Benjamin Grimm"]This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels. This just in: Mets do nothing Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker Yeah, the Mets by not getting a third closer, are doing nothing. Kong76 Jan 03 2009 01:36 PM Maybe the three closer thing is the way to go after the last two seasons. Ashie62 Jan 05 2009 02:37 PM ="Edgy DC"]="Ashie62"]="Benjamin Grimm"]This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels. This just in: Mets do nothing Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker Yeah, the Mets by not getting a third closer, are doing nothing. True..my impatience caused me to jump over Krod & Putz KP DOOTY...I'm just frustrated that the odds of landing a power corner and a decent SP , Sheets, Garland, Lowe..are diminishing and pray the Mets are not newly cash short Burrell has a rep for being a prick but if the Rays can land him at 16 million for 2 years I then wonder why the Mets wouldn't top that and not have to expect 150 games from Murphy and even let Murphy learn 2B at AAA as an experiment. smg58 Jan 05 2009 03:15 PM The Cubs apparently are giving 3 years and $30M to Milton Bradley. They expect him to play right field full time, even though he has had trouble staying in the lineup when he's been the DH. Given Burrell's deal and the fact that Abreu would have made much more sense for them, I really don't get this one. MFS62 Jan 05 2009 04:20 PM ="smg58":1gnuo0ct]The Cubs apparently are giving 3 years and $30M to Milton Bradley. They expect him to play right field full time, even though he has had trouble staying in the lineup when he's been the DH. Given Burrell's deal and the fact that Abreu would have made much more sense for them, I really don't get this one.[/quote:1gnuo0ct] Can't wait to see him go head-to-head with Pinella. Later smg58 Jan 07 2009 05:51 AM And the bargains continue. Jason Giambi returns to Oakland for a year and an option, and Jerry Hairston stays in Cincinnatti for a year and $2M. I don't get the Mets' lack of interest in Hairston at that price. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 07 2009 06:20 AM ="smg58":162h2ehz]And the bargains continue. Jason Giambi returns to Oakland for a year and an option, and Jerry Hairston stays in Cincinnatti for a year and $2M. I don't get the Mets' lack of interest in Hairston at that price.[/quote:162h2ehz] Makes ya crazy. Geez. I mean, about Hairston. Frayed Knot Jan 07 2009 07:18 AM Maybe Hairston gets a chance to start in Cincy and couldn't be sure of that here. Never did even hear a rumor of them looking at him though. Also: - Pavano to Cleveland for a year at a low base with lotsa IP incentives - Cubs deal Jason Marquis (de Sade) to Colorado for LH reliever Luis Vizcaino Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 07:42 AM Andy Pettitte turns down one year and $10 million from the Yanks in a declining market. Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 10:10 AM Yomiuri Giant Koji Uehara signs with Bal'more for two years. Reports say that he's the team's first Japanese player, but they forget Nippo-Hawaiian Len Sakata. Centerfield Jan 07 2009 10:41 AM Len was American. smg58 Jan 07 2009 10:58 AM ="Frayed Knot":2gsb44fr]- Pavano to Cleveland for a year at a low base with lotsa IP incentives - Cubs deal Jason Marquis (de Sade) to Colorado for LH reliever Luis Vizcaino[/quote:2gsb44fr] I'll laugh if Pavano gives the Indians 27 starts (i.e., more starts than he gave the MFY's in four years). The Marquis deal appears to leave Jorge de la Rosa out of the rotation in Colorado. I'd see what the asking price for him is; he finished very strongly last year, and he's at least as good as Tim Redding. Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 11:01 AM ="Centerfield":biqnwx39]Len was American.[/quote:biqnwx39] As I said. Frayed Knot Jan 07 2009 12:00 PM From the; 'How the (somewhat) mighty have fallen' department: 2B Marcus Giles signs a minor league deal with Philly MFS62 Jan 07 2009 12:14 PM ="Frayed Knot":3hnipcdi]From the; 'How the (somewhat) mighty have fallen' department: 2B Marcus Giles signs a minor league deal with Philly[/quote:3hnipcdi] Pure insurance with Utley out for the early part of the year due to surgery. Later metirish Jan 07 2009 08:04 PM From MetsBlog Mike Fitzpatrick of the Associated Press believes the Mets have made an offer to free-agent RHP Tim Redding, who was 3-1 with a 3.41 ERA in five starts against the Phillies last season Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 08:56 PM I'll give Redding this: with one inning and six runs, he may be the worst performing Yankee ever. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 07 2009 09:06 PM Bocco Radelli to the Sed Rox. Rockin' Doc Jan 07 2009 10:03 PM If Rocco Baldelli can be reasonably healthy, he could be a great pick up for the Red Sox. I hope he is healthy and has a great season for the Sox. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 07:39 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3gx2svou]Bocco Radelli to the Sed Rox.[/quote:3gx2svou] And quite possibly Smoltz too! Not official yet but several outlets are reporting it's 'bout a done deal. I guess they're promising him a starting job - don't think he would have jumped otherwise. Other reports have Trevor Hoffman going to the Brews ... although this is only one day after others had him headed to the Dodgers. Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2009 07:46 AM Sort of a homecoming for Smoltz. Didn't he start his career with the Braves when they were still playing in Boston? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 08 2009 07:50 AM No, the Tigers. Anywhoo, oughta soitenly remove Boston from the list of potential Lowe suitors (and cause me some concern too: Why don't any of Lowe's former employers want him back?) smg58 Jan 08 2009 07:50 AM The additions of Smoltz and Brad Penny probably take the Sox out of the discussions for Derek Lowe. Assuming Baldelli gets something like what Hairston got, I'd be a little annoyed that we didn't give him a look. We do need another righthanded bat. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 07:57 AM Yeah, I was half-hoping for Baldelli too. He's not a great player and has played fewer games in the last two seasons than Alou had in the two before we got him. But if this problem of his has finally been diagnosed correctly he could be a useful guy to have around. But Omar seems to be on this 'one problem at a time' schedule where nothing can even be talked about until the starter question is answered. metirish Jan 08 2009 08:01 AM Did bucket mis-read Ben's post? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 08 2009 08:02 AM Yes. Yes I did. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 08:14 AM I almost did too because I sometimes confuse the Smoltz trade with the Bagwell one from Boston. The Smoltz from Detroit for Denny Alexander trade happened around the same era as Bagwell for Larry Anderson. Both were done for pennant push help and in each case the minor leaguers were home-town guys (Smoltz is from Mich, Bags from Conn) who turned into HoF possibilities. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 08:17 AM Doyle Alexander. Now Denny McLain or somebody is getting into the conflation. metirish Jan 08 2009 10:25 AM Looking at a potential nightmare with outfield defense the MFY's are apparently looking to trade Swisher and Nady. Yankees fielding offers for Nady, Swisher Posted by: Jon Heyman The Yankees are fielding trade offers for corner outfielders Xavier Nady and Nick Swisher. There's been some speculation they might consider trading Hideki Matsui, too, but he has a full no-trade clause and is coming off knee surgery, so there's really no way to trade him. A logjam at the corners was created when the Yankees surprised a lot of folks and signed Mark Teixeira to an eight-year, $180 million contract. Swisher previously had been penciled in as the Yankees' first baseman but now becomes part of a crowded mix of accomplished corner outfielders. Swisher is a versatile player and can play some center field, as well. Some National League teams may be interested. However, Nady's trade value is higher after a better offensive season, so he may be just as likely to be dealt. Nady, acquired by the Yankees in a midseason trade with the Pirates, combined to hit .305 with 25 home runs and 97 RBIs for the year, while Swisher finished at .219 with 24 home runs and 69 RBIs for the White Sox before being dealt to the Yankees after the season Vic Sage Jan 08 2009 02:09 PM i'd sure take Nady back, to split time with Church, Murphy and Delgado. But no way the Yanx trade him cross town. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 02:30 PM You leave Tatis out of that mix. Nady gives you what Tatis gives you, only more and probably better and definitely younger. Tatis' only advantage is playing third. I'd love a Nady around because I think the best way to get something like last year's productivity out of Tatis is to make him earn every at-bat. Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2009 02:43 PM Maybe Murphy will do that, but I'm not counting on it. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 02:46 PM What's going down, and I think a lot of us feel it, is that a lot of things went kind of right in Omar's offense that could have easily gone wronger, and he's kind of seeming to kind of be counting on a lot of those same thingies to go right again. Fans be pessemistic creatures, of course. Vic Sage Jan 08 2009 03:21 PM Last year, i think we got about as much as we can reasonably expect this year from 1b, ss, 3b and CF. We got nothing from 2b and C, and RF was a mixed bag. But Murphy/Tatis in LF certainly outperformed all expectations and i do not believe for a minute we'll get similar production from that combo again this year. So, we either upgrade at 2b, c, and/or Rf to compensate, or replace the LF combo before it blows up in our faces. Or we go into the season with 1/2 the lineup very well likely to suck, to one degree or another, even as Omar whistles past the graveyard. attgig Jan 08 2009 03:29 PM ="Vic Sage":37m9y64n]Last year, i think we got about as much as we can reasonably expect this year from 1b, ss, 3b and CF. We got nothing from 2b and C, and RF was a mixed bag. But Murphy/Tatis in LF certainly outperformed all expectations and i do not believe for a minute we'll get similar production from that combo again this year. So, we either upgrade at 2b, c, and/or Rf to compensate, or replace the LF combo before it blows up in our faces. Or we go into the season with 1/2 the lineup very well likely to suck, to one degree or another, even as Omar whistles past the graveyard.[/quote:37m9y64n] and you have a wild card at 1b, so it's not even half a lineup. nobody has faith in schnied to produce offensively, and while castro COULD provide some pop, he just gets hurt too often (he must be the worst backup catcher in the league). 2b, nobody has faith in castillo, except he's saying all the right things. and Church... will his head be screwed on straight? it'll be an interesting few more weeks before spring training. Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2009 03:35 PM I agree with Vic, including about left field, but I'd be okay with giving Murphy/Tatis a chance to shine again. But in doing that, you have to protect yourself by beefing up some of the other positions. And as yet, the Mets haven't done anything towards that end. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 07:12 PM Ramon Castro, not the worst backup catcher in the league. DocTee Jan 09 2009 09:42 AM John Smoltz, Red Sock. metirish Jan 09 2009 12:35 PM Swisher the Yanks' preferred candidate over Nady BY KEN DAVIDOFF | ken.davidoff@newsday.com January 9, 2009 In their current roster logjam, the Yankees would strongly prefer to trade Xavier Nady and retain Nick Swisher, a person familiar with the club's thinking said yesterday. General manager Brian Cashman has received more requests for Swisher than for Nady. With spring training more than a month away and the season opener just about three months away, however, there is no imperative to execute a quick trade. The Mets enjoyed having Nady on their club for the first four months of the 2006 season, and they inquired about him last July, when the Yankees wound up getting him from Pittsburgh. For now, however, the Mets are focused on their starting rotation and are not looking to acquire a bat either through free agency or through a trade. Frayed Knot Jan 09 2009 01:54 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 09 2009 02:02 PM Swisher switch-hits, and is better and more versatile defensively. He's also signed for the next few years which could be either good or bad depending on whether he regains his hitting from last season's off year. Nady is more likely to hit better (though walk less) and would only be for one year at a price to be determined by arbitration then would be a FA after that. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 09 2009 01:59 PM If we weren't already loaded with lefthanded hitting outfielders, I'd take Godzilla as a LH bench masher in the Franco/Staub mold. Frayed Knot Jan 09 2009 02:04 PM As long as the Cranks would pay 90% of the freight and expect nothing back in return, sure. (OK, maybe 70% with a throw-in going the other way would do) Ashie62 Jan 09 2009 05:10 PM I feel safe to say Tatis has had his middle aged career year..I wouldn't put too high a ceiling there. Daniel Murphy needs more seasoning and I still advocate a year at AAA to learn 2B Mr. Nady..wasn't he a Met who know has Yankee cooties? metirish Jan 11 2009 03:46 PM Source: Martinez talking to Marlins By Enrique Rojas ESPNdeportes.com SANTO DOMINGO, Domican Republic -- Pedro Martinez and the Florida Marlins are believed to be in the beginning stages of negotiating a contract and could meet next week, a source told ESPNdeportes.com Saturday night. The Marlins have spoken with Martinez's agent. Martinez, 37, has won three Cy Young awards and has a career record of 214-99, with a 2.91 ERA and 3,117 strikeouts in 17 seasons with Los Angeles, Montreal, Boston and the New York Mets. Martinez struggled last season to a 5-6 record with a 5.61 ERA with the Mets, after battling injuries and dealing with the death of his father. In his first year with the Mets, Martinez won 15 games and struck out 208 batters in 217 innings. But he has been 17-15 in the last three seasons. Martinez owns a house in Miami. Fman99 Jan 11 2009 07:52 PM ="metirish"]Source: Martinez talking to Marlins By Enrique Rojas ESPNdeportes.com SANTO DOMINGO, Domican Republic -- Pedro Martinez and the Florida Marlins are believed to be in the beginning stages of negotiating a contract and could meet next week, a source told ESPNdeportes.com Saturday night. The Marlins have spoken with Martinez's agent. Martinez, 37, has won three Cy Young awards and has a career record of 214-99, with a 2.91 ERA and 3,117 strikeouts in 17 seasons with Los Angeles, Montreal, Boston and the New York Mets. Martinez struggled last season to a 5-6 record with a 5.61 ERA with the Mets, after battling injuries and dealing with the death of his father. In his first year with the Mets, Martinez won 15 games and struck out 208 batters in 217 innings. But he has been 17-15 in the last three seasons. Martinez owns a house in Miami. Pedro really looked spent in 2008, after having a respectable September prior. I don't think he has much in the tank and I would not miss all the drama. Rockin' Doc Jan 11 2009 09:29 PM Marlins not interested in signing Pedro By Joe Frisaro / MLB.com MIAMI -- Don't look for Pedro Martinez to wind up with the Marlins. A day after a report stated the Marlins were in the mix for the 37-year-old right-hander, a league source confirmed to MLB.com on Sunday that Florida has zero interest. Reports in the Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post and SunSentinel also ruled out the possibility of Martinez joining the club. On Saturday night, a report on ESPNdeportes.com stated the Marlins had discussions with agent Fernando Cuza regarding Martinez. The report added Florida may have begun preliminary contract talks, and that the two sides were expected to continue talking this week. As of late Sunday afternoon, the Marlins were not considered a possible fit. Martinez has a home in Miami, and he has expressed privately a desire to pitch for the Marlins. On Monday, Cuza is expected to have discussions with the Mets about a possible return to New York. The right-hander also is expected to test the free-agent market. Hampered by injuries last year, Martinez was 5-6 with a 5.61 ERA in 20 starts. He threw 109 innings. Working with minimal financial resources, the Marlins are looking for affordable free agents. The team did explore adding veteran Carl Pavano, who signed with the Indians. The Marlins are prepared to head into Spring Training with a rotation that includes Josh Johnson, Ricky Nolasco, Chris Volstad, Andrew Miller and Anibal Sanchez. Nolasco, eliglbe for arbitration, still has not signed. Florida continues to explore depth at catcher. The team is looking for low-priced options there. A free agent that could be a fit is Ivan Rodriguez, but only if his price tag continues to drop this month. Frayed Knot Jan 12 2009 07:01 AM IOW, the earlier story was an agent plant. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:20 AM Yeah, use the threat of the Daddy Warbucks Marlins to trigger a false bidding war. That's the ticket. Rockin' Doc Jan 12 2009 11:09 AM I think that Pedro had far more interest in the Marlins than they had in him. I believe that Pedro is desperate to play another season, but I don't think teams throughout the league are very interested in signing him. Pedro was once a dominant, HOF caliber pitcher, but he seems to be the one person that doesn't see how far removed from his former greatness he now is. metirish Jan 12 2009 11:17 AM If Pedro Martinez retired tomorrow he would surely be in the HOF at first ballot , wouldn't he? Rockin' Doc Jan 12 2009 11:21 AM I was not inferring that Pedro Martinez was not worthy of enshrinement in Coopperstown. He has had a tremendous career and was arguably one of the top 2 or 3 pitchers in MLB for several seasons. I would vote for him (if I had a vote) when his name comes up on the HOF ballot. I was simply stating that he is not nearly the dominant pitcher he once was. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 11:22 AM I think he's pretty aware of what happened last year. If he didn't still believe he could turn it around, he wouldn't be the great pitcher he is. What's more, I believe he could turn it around. In his prime, he had an unprecedented four killer pitches, so it's not like he was fastball-reliant. It's a matter of finding what he can do with what's left of his fastball and using it to complement the rest of his arsenal. That's a far ways from saying he will return to a productive level, but I'm certain he can. Glavine continued to pitch effectively with a powder puff fastball and a change. While his control was still very good, Pedro's has always been even better. And if I'm the Mets, I'm willing to spend some change to find out. Giving him Redding's money with an automatically vesting bonus year of $9 million if he gets 180 innings? Yeah, go for it. I'm certain he can do as well as Redding in 2009, and a damn fine bet to do better. The only thing Redding has over him is a better doctor's report. metirish Jan 12 2009 05:05 PM Michael Young wants out of Texas , can play 2nd base. I should add that Heyman just said on the Hot stove that he has %62 million left on his big contract. smg58 Jan 12 2009 05:22 PM Young's expensive, and the dropoff in his numbers over the past three years has been precipitous. Even if they took Castillo it would still be a $10M payroll hit, and he's just not that good anymore. Frayed Knot Jan 15 2009 01:14 PM Dodgers reportedly to release Andruw before today is out Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2009 01:52 PM Wow. He's horrendously overpaid, but they're going to have to eat that contract anyway. Is there no hope of him having a bounceback year? Someone will be able to pick him up for minimum wage, and they may get a hell of a bargain at the Dodgers expense. metirish Jan 15 2009 01:56 PM Jones was on MLB Network the other night talking about how he would love to go back to the Braves. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 02:01 PM No doubt. metsmarathon Jan 15 2009 02:28 PM i'd give andruw a shot, for minimum wage... Frayed Knot Jan 15 2009 05:45 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":2v9kwf3v]Wow. He's horrendously overpaid, but they're going to have to eat that contract anyway. Is there no hope of him having a bounceback year?[/quote:2v9kwf3v] I guess not enough of a chance in their minds to make carrying him all year worth it. They restructured his deal last week with a release in mind so I assume they're going to do similar thing to what we did with Bonilla (only on a much bigger scale): pay out the remainder over a long period to avoid getting hit with it all at once. Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2009 08:34 AM The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting today that the Phillies are aggressively trying to sign Moises Alou. metirish Jan 23 2009 08:36 AM Would Alou be a starter there or would he be in a limited role , who's in the outfield there along with Ibanez?...Dobbs?....Victorino? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 23 2009 08:37 AM Watch him hit .500 and stay healthy all year. Bastard. Frayed Knot Jan 23 2009 08:44 AM He wouldn't start there - but he'd be a potentially good RH bat off the bench for a predominately lefty hitting squad. Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2009 08:51 AM The three options (Perez, Wolf, and Sheets) may be soon reduced to two: ="MLB.com":2t16pb69]The deep freeze that's been the Major League free-agent market this winter has shown indications a thaw is coming -- at least for starting pitchers. On the heels of the Mets reaching an apparent agreement on a Minor League deal with right-hander Freddy Garcia, it looks like the Dodgers have taken the inside track in the competition for lefty starter Randy Wolf's services. According to sources for FoxSports.com, Wolf could most likely be signed to a one or two-year deal. Wolf previously pitched for Los Angeles in 2007 and was 12-12 with a 4.30 ERA in a combined 33 starts last season for the Padres and Astros. FoxSports.com said Wolf would get less than the three-year, $28 million offer the pitcher turned down from Houston earlier this winter. [/quote:2t16pb69] metsguyinmichigan Jan 23 2009 08:57 AM Supposedly, Sheets is meeting with the Rangers. metirish Jan 23 2009 08:58 AM Wolf turned down an offer for that much? , and I was thinking he could be had for a song on a one year deal. sharpie Jan 23 2009 08:58 AM Fine. I actually saw Wolf pitch twice last year, at the only game I attended at MFY Stadium and at the game I attended at Petco. Both time he got shellacked. smg58 Jan 23 2009 09:34 AM There are a number of available starters who can give you at least a league average ERA, several of whom have the upside to do significantly better. Randy Wolf is not one of them. I see no point in pursuing a demonstrably inferior pitcher just because he's a lefty. Edgy DC Jan 23 2009 09:59 AM I don't think anybody but Wally Matthews is arguing that his leftiness is important, and Wally is only throwing that pitch to drum up "Mets Gotta Steal Pettitte" angles. Who do you have your eye on? metirish Jan 23 2009 08:11 PM Just turned over to MLB Network after watching "What Not To Wear" and heard Tom Verducci say that Perez is moving closer to signing with the Mets. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 23 2009 08:59 PM Here's the source: Jon "Boras Boy" Heyman ]Mets extend offer to Perez, their top target The Mets have placed an offer on the table for free-agent lefthander Oliver Perez, SI.com has learned, and are hopeful to have an answer in coming days regarding their prime pitching target. The Mets are believed to have improved their original thought, which was for about $30 million over three years. But it isn't certain what their latest offer is. Perez remains the Mets' top choice for the final spot in their rotation, though the team has remained in contact with three other free-agent pitchers -- Randy Wolf, Jon Garland and Ben Sheets. They know they'd have competition for Wolf (Dodgers), Garland (Diamondbacks) and Sheets (Rangers, possibly Yankees) but aren't sure what other teams are competing for Perez. The Mets had been hopeful to land free agent Derek Lowe earlier but were surprised when the rival Braves outbid them by $24 million, landing Lowe with a $60-million, four-year contract. Perez, 27, is eight years younger than Lowe, though not quite as consistent. Mets GM Omar Minaya would love to import Perez, so the Mets are not likely to take one of the other pitchers unless he feels his chances for Perez are gone. Nymr83 Jan 24 2009 12:14 PM I hope "the mystery team" comes and raises perez's price too high so we can sign Sheets. Then Boras and Perez can admit there was no mystery team and we get both at a reduced rate! MFS62 Jan 24 2009 01:21 PM If money is the issue, I'd like to see the Mets sign Sheets and with any Ollie Perez money left over, go out and sign Odalis Perez. His ERA was only .10 worse than Ollie's last year, is still only 32 years old, and probably be signed for far less money than any of the other names that have been in the press lately. Later MFS62 Jan 24 2009 01:21 PM Oops. Dupe Sorry Later seawolf17 Jan 30 2009 01:00 PM Varitek back to Boston for one year, $5 million. Frayed Knot Jan 30 2009 02:36 PM Varitek's (read: Boras's) threat to sit out the season and/or retire didn't get the Sox to budge I see. Tek is one of several who turned down arbitration offers this winter only to wind up not only with a much smaller deal than arb would have snagged him but didn't get the multi-year deal either. Now it's hope you play well and the economy improves when you can do the same dance next year. Ashie62 Feb 02 2009 03:56 PM Anyone for Varitek via trade and a pay raise? Fman99 Feb 02 2009 07:27 PM ="Ashie62":2t5ssjz6]Anyone for Varitek via trade and a pay raise?[/quote:2t5ssjz6] .220 metirish Feb 02 2009 07:43 PM Is that his weight or his average? , sucks either way though. metirish Feb 04 2009 11:35 AM ]Left-hander Chase Wright was traded by the New York Yankees to the Milwaukee Brewers on Wednesday for outfielder-catcher Eric Fryer. metirish Feb 07 2009 02:23 PM Andruw Jones turns down non-roster spring training invite from the MFY's. Rockin' Doc Feb 07 2009 05:10 PM metirish - "Andruw Jones turns down non-roster spring training invite from the MFY's." Good to see that Jones has his pride. Better to go unsigned than sell one's soul by possibly donning a Yankee uniform. I suddenly have a new sense of respect for Jones. MFS62 Feb 08 2009 07:35 AM ="Rockin' Doc":2e2xwbch]metirish - "Andruw Jones turns down non-roster spring training invite from the MFY's." Good to see that Jones has his pride. Better to go unsigned than sell one's soul by possibly donning a Yankee uniform. I suddenly have a new sense of respect for Jones.[/quote:2e2xwbch] B'sides, they couldn't have the signing photo op soon anyhow. They'd first have to send out Cecil Fielder's uni to have the seams let out to fit Jones. Later Frayed Knot Feb 08 2009 08:45 PM Andruw to the Rangers - apparently gets a ML deal for low-end money (500K) plus incentives. 15mil to practically minimum wage in one year is tough to do. Fman99 Feb 09 2009 06:44 AM ="Frayed Knot":1zv55w66]Andruw to the Rangers - apparently gets a ML deal for low-end money (500K) plus incentives. 15mil to practically minimum wage in one year is tough to do.[/quote:1zv55w66] Yeah, poor guy. My heart breaks for him. /sarcasm Edgy DC Feb 09 2009 07:07 AM It's not like he doesn't get to keep the 15 miills. Vic Sage Feb 09 2009 09:08 AM yeah, i mean basically he just got a raise! Frayed Knot Feb 09 2009 09:26 AM Sure, it just shows a helluva difference between what someone thought he was worth last year vs what they think he's worth barely a year later. How the mighty (and fat) have fallen.

Oh man, Lowe needs $10 million just for booze alone.

="Centerfield":3bs7sdlk]Holy crap that sucks. They might as well just wear a patch of my ass.[/quote:3bs7sdlk] Doesn't Ralph's ass have priority? Centerfield Dec 22 2008 12:51 PM All threads eventually lead... Edgy DC Dec 22 2008 01:50 PM ="SteveJRogers"] Is the Citifield infield really going to be surrounded by brick walls? soupcan Dec 22 2008 02:34 PM I think so. Edgy DC Dec 22 2008 02:42 PM If I'm Dabidrye's knee, I'm feeling vulnerable. metsmarathon Dec 22 2008 03:24 PM maybe it'll be padding, with brick printed upon it Gwreck Dec 22 2008 04:02 PM I think it's probably just the backstop, from dugout to dugout. Similar to what they have at Wrigley and Busch Stadium. Only real injury threat might be to a catcher going back on a popup. Edgy DC Dec 22 2008 06:21 PM Other big problems I have with Citifield 2009 is the proliferation of 1) folks paying no attention to a play at the plate. 2) bearded men of color doing that arm-twirly thing. I see about nine of those guys, and at least tree sweatshirt guys simultaneously knocking back a drink. Way to sell all the best seats to a cult, Mets. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 09:20 AM Uni Watch sez: http://lp.imageg.net/prod?set=key[name],value[KICK%20ME]&set=key[number],value[00]&set=key[displaysize],value[500]&load=url[http://chains.imageg.net/graphics/dynamic/chains/pG01-5461419_customback.chain] themetfairy Jan 09 2009 09:22 AM Blech! metirish Jan 09 2009 09:23 AM The patch looks too small on the right sleeve , make it bigger . Actually it looks horrible. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 09:27 AM Lukas is brutal. Like Klapisch brutal, only fair and honestly so. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/090109&sportCat=mlb John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 09 2009 09:35 AM It's thisclose to an actual ad on the uni, of course, and that makes it all the more sadder. batmagadanleadoff Jan 09 2009 09:43 AM At least they ditched the black on that patch thing. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 09:43 AM Which Horowitz can't say, of course, so he says nothing. How about saying, "I retire"? batmagadanleadoff Jan 09 2009 09:46 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3l874qhx]It's thisclose to an actual ad on the uni, of course, and that makes it all the more sadder.[/quote:3l874qhx] My theory is that Citi had significant input into that design. I think that the Wilpons are ruthless businessmen who put the dollar ahead of every single damn thing they ever do with this team -- not that this behavior is unusual but that the Wilpons operate out of greed even more than is to be reasonably expected from MLB team owners. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 09:52 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":1q3q58va]My theory is that Citi had significant input into that design.[/quote:1q3q58va] I'm guessing you're far from alone. As an opinion, that practically qualifies as a fact. attgig Jan 09 2009 12:08 PM ="SteveJRogers"]This would have been a better choice, from a Photoshop expert on Baseball-Fever.com or how about this that they already have: metsguyinmichigan Jan 09 2009 12:47 PM That routunda design is so much better. I would love to hear someone justify picking the rectagle over this. (And you can easily take off the Citi name on top) soupcan Jan 09 2009 01:06 PM Okay - no corporate logos on uniforms? No problem. I did this in 30 seconds - nobody associated with the team could come up with this? Inexcusable. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 01:21 PM Well, an excuse for not using that logo is that they've stilpulated and exclusive license that doesn't allow that logo to be used on any merchandise except that bought within the mallpark. The excuse for using the logo that resembles the corporate one is because they're getting a lot of money to do that. Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2009 01:32 PM But it doesn't resemble Citi's logo: It just resembles the Citi Field logo, the tilted rectangle. I don't see how THAT has a whole lot of corporate value. If it only represents the ballpark (and as far as I know that's true) then I'm not sure what this is all about. soupcan Jan 09 2009 01:38 PM Agree wholeheartedly with Grimm. This: Does not resemble this: The logo that they will use on the merchandise is nicer and makes a lot more sense. They're using it on the merchandise - throw it on the unis! Synergy baby. You can't fight that. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 09 2009 01:50 PM But that diamond shape is the "citi field" logo, which is, more or less, a secondary logo for citibank. We've seen it Zvon Jan 09 2009 02:22 PM This patch gets the lame award for 2009 and we are only nine days into the new year. Compared to the other inaugural stadium patches I've seen over the last bunch of years, this is a disgrace in concept and design. And if its the Citi Bank people that pushed it on the team, they suck. It IS close to an ad, and a cheap bumper sticker kind of ad to boot. mario25 Jan 12 2009 04:07 PM The logo is awful, I agree with Lukas. It is a sell out to Citibank. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:15 AM Patchless so far: John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:17 AM Mets by the Numbers is reporting that Redding is the third player on the current 40-man roster who can make a claim to to the No. 44 jersey. Knight wore it most recently, and Kunz wore it prior to that. Knight initially was 28 but that went to Murphy while Knight was in Bejing. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:22 AM He seems to have something on the uniform top there. Mets.com lists him as --. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:35 AM Yes, that's a 44 jersey, you can tell in other photos and on the video of him at mlb.com Fman99 Jan 13 2009 10:34 AM More humor at the patch's expense, some entertaining 'discarded' patch ideas.[/url:f79je3a2] Oh good, it's been a few months since someone laughed at the expense of a Mets fan. Fuck. soupcan Jan 13 2009 12:38 PM Possible that all this 'outcry' over the patch forces the Mets hand and they consider changing it?[/url:1ki8azaz] Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:45 PM That blog has nothing supporting that possibility. soupcan Jan 13 2009 12:50 PM i know the blog didn't say it but I was just wondering since the fugly patch has become the topic du jour among the diehards and is finding some ink in the media. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:50 PM ]They could've held a coloring contest among preschoolers and still ended up with a better design than the one above. they could've held a writing contest by preschoolers and come up with a better punchline than the one above... MFS62 Jan 13 2009 12:51 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 13 2009 12:54 PM Remember when MLB was going to put Spiderman on the bases? There was a tremendoud hue and cry from the fans, and the idea was killed. Maybe the front office will back off on this idea as a result of reactions such as the stories we've seen linked here. At least, we can hope. Later metirish Jan 13 2009 12:52 PM I know it's ugly but is it really the laughingstock of MLB , will there be soccer style chanting at opposing stadiums ridiculing the Mets about the patch? DocTee Jan 13 2009 01:12 PM It's a patch. It takes up like 2% of the uniform, and will be gone in ten months. Yes, they could've done better. Yes, I hope they change it. No, I'm not losing sleep over it. It's a patch. SteveJRogers Jan 13 2009 06:54 PM ="MFS62":3grqchiz]Remember when MLB was going to put Spiderman on the bases? There was a tremendoud hue and cry from the fans, and the idea was killed. Maybe the front office will back off on this idea as a result of reactions such as the stories we've seen linked here. At least, we can hope. Later[/quote:3grqchiz] That is probably a reason for the reaction that it is garnering. Basically people with opinions thinking they can get a grass roots movement going. Hey its better than that article in the Post the other day that was bashing the Mets because rust has been forming on Citi Field's exposed steel beams. themetfairy Jan 14 2009 07:10 AM The Dugout rips into the patch[/url:3nnav038]. Benjamin Grimm Jan 14 2009 07:21 AM It really doesn't matter a whole lot to me, but there would appear to be hope of some kind of a change. The revulsion has been pretty wide-spread, and since the real point of the logo is to move merchandise, then I would think the Mets would have to weigh that very few people will be buying t-shirts, mugs, caps, and beach towels with the boring ugly logo. I don't know whether or not it's too late to make a change. I know that anything that appears on the uniform has to be approved by MLB, and they may have missed a deadline for a new sleeve patch, but maybe they can call an emergency meeting or something. soupcan Jan 14 2009 07:34 AM EMERGENCY SLEEVE PATCH MEETING!!! seawolf17 Jan 14 2009 07:40 AM That Dugout is hilarious. I need to catch up on their stuff. themetfairy Jan 14 2009 08:40 AM This one made me laugh - metirish Jan 14 2009 08:45 AM How about no patch ? dgwphotography Jan 14 2009 09:17 AM They should have a patch designed like the old World's Fair patch from '64 celebrating the demise of the chop shops across the street... Rockin' Doc Jan 14 2009 11:34 AM I agree that the patch is pretty ugly and a far better design could and should be designed, but I agree with DocTee's sentiment that it's not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. I'm far more concerned wirth the quality of the collective players that will be wearing the uniform than I am the logo on the sleeve. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM ="themetfairy"]This one made me laugh - Fantastic! Centerfield Jan 14 2009 11:44 AM ="Rockin' Doc":1ly46k5l]I agree that the patch is pretty ugly and a far better design could and should be designed, but I agree with DocTee's sentiment that it's not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. I'm far more concerned wirth the quality of the collective players that will be wearing the uniform than I am the logo on the sleeve.[/quote:1ly46k5l] Wait, you're not going to obsess over every minute detail of this team from the speaking patterns of our GM to colored dots on hats? Dude, you're like, not going to fit in around here at all. Frayed Knot Jan 14 2009 02:57 PM ="Rockin' Doc":1brfj8rx]I agree that the patch is pretty ugly and a far better design could and should be designed, but I agree with DocTee's sentiment that it's not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. I'm far more concerned wirth the quality of the collective players that will be wearing the uniform than I am the logo on the sleeve.[/quote:1brfj8rx] It's not just that the design is ugly (or plain, or unimaginative, or whatever adjective you want to throw in there) it's that the design is ugly because it's essentially advertising and they're not wearing it to celebrate the opening of the stadium as much as they're wearing it because they struck a deal with the (broke) company that's paid for the naming rights for the damn thing. soupcan Jan 15 2009 08:30 AM The 'controversy' hits the mainstream media... ] January 15, 2009 Mets� Latest Off-Season Problem? A Dull Patch By TYLER KEPNER The Mets unveiled their primary logo on Nov. 16, 1961, and it has gone virtually unchanged. With the team�s name scripted across a city skyline and above a bridge on an orange-laced baseball, the trademark is timeless. The Mets� most recent design has not been as warmly embraced. The uniform patch that commemorates the opening of Citi Field has caused a stir on the Internet, with ESPN.com calling it �the worst sleeve patch in M.L.B. history.� Dave Howard, the Mets� executive vice president for business operations, said the Mets signed off on the design presented to them by Citigroup, which is paying the team $400 million over the next 20 years for naming rights to the stadium. �Everyone has their own point of view,� Howard said. �Taste is very subjective, and we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� The sleeve patch is a variation of the official Citi Field logo introduced last year, with the words Inaugural Season in white letters on a blue square. Below is an orange square that says 2009, also in white. In recent seasons, the Astros, the Phillies, the Cardinals and the Nationals have all used distinctive ballpark elements in their commemorative patches; the Astros showed their roof in silhouette, the Cardinals their arched entryway. The Yankees� 2009 patch prominently features the rooftop facade of the new Yankee Stadium. The Mets� patch seems to take minimalism to the extreme. Baseball forbids teams putting corporate names on uniforms, but Citigroup wanted the patch to evoke the company�s general branding. The Mets did not object. Citigroup itself is in financial distress and is planning to dismantle part of its corporate empire. But the patch remains the patch, for better or worse. �It is compatible and consistent with Citigroup�s overall branding and graphic design elements,� Howard said. �That�s the connection. The Citi logo is a fairly simple logo. It�s �citi� in lowercase, with a red arc. So they have more of a minimalist style to their brand and their logo. Obviously, as our partner for Citi Field, we�re going to give substantial deference to their design and graphic treatment.� The official Citi Field logo has been widely panned as drab and too evocative of the Domino�s Pizza logo. But fans will have to get used to it, because it will be affixed to the side of every other seating row at the ballpark and used extensively in marketing and promotions, assuming the Citi name survives. Howard said the Mets were flattered that Citigroup designed a logo that incorporated the team�s blue and orange colors. That is not always the case; the logo for Petco Park in San Diego has the corporate name in red, even though the Padres do not wear that color. Then again, that logo also includes a Padres insignia and two palm trees, while the Citi Field trademark looks painfully plain. The Mets do have an alternate inaugural season logo that features the windows of the distinctive rotunda at Citi Field. But Howard said that logo would be available only on merchandise sold at the ballpark. He added that the team would not change the sleeve patch, which will be used for all home games. The Yankees� 2009 uniform patch, left, depicts the facade of the team�s new stadium. The Mets� uni- form patch for the season displays ... words. metirish Jan 15 2009 08:36 AM It actually looks somewhat better in cloth form. Farmer Ted Jan 15 2009 08:47 AM Fire Dave Howard NOW!! Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 08:52 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 15 2009 09:03 AM What's amazing is that they got the Mets to admit two basic truths that --- though as big and glaring as Dave Kingman's feet --- I fully expected them to talk around: ]Dave Howard, the Mets� executive vice president for business operations, said the Mets signed off on the design presented to them by Citigroup, which is paying the team $400 million over the next 20 years for naming rights to the stadium. ]The Mets� patch seems to take minimalism to the extreme. Baseball forbids teams putting corporate names on uniforms, but Citigroup wanted the patch to evoke the company�s general branding. Where Howard is lost is this: ]�Everyone has their own point of view,� Howard said. �Taste is very subjective, and we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� No, actually, this time, everyone seems to have the same point of view. The funny thing is that Wilpon put his heart into evoking the aesthetic he wanted, but took the queen's shilling and is now letting her wreck his whole palace. OE: Maybe MLB will step in and end this nonsense. metirish Jan 15 2009 08:57 AM I hadn't thought about it like that , very lame from the Mets. Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2009 08:59 AM ]"we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� Or, it's good that everyone hates this patch! It shows that they care! Centerfield Jan 15 2009 09:27 AM That MFY Patch is really nice. Dear Dave Howard: My ass is still available if you want to do some last minute revisions. Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2009 09:31 AM I hope, for their sakes, that they're not printing up too many t-shirts and mugs with that logo on it. It's the New Coke of baseball logos. metsmarathon Jan 15 2009 09:32 AM y'know, they could've at least had the lettering be in lowercase. that way, not only would it be more in line with the citi logo, but it would also appeal to my narrow sensibilities. Fman99 Jan 15 2009 09:42 AM ] Dave Howard, the Mets� executive vice president for business operations, said the Mets signed off on the design presented to them by Citigroup, which is paying the team $400 million over the next 20 years for naming rights to the stadium. �Everyone has their own point of view,� Howard said. �Taste is very subjective, and we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� What an ass. They can't even admit that it's a shitty patch. This is like standing pat with a half a lineup full of duds and washed up vets. Oh wait. G-Fafif Jan 15 2009 10:14 AM ]Obviously, as our partner for Citi Field, we�re going to give substantial deference to their design and graphic treatment. Good god, do they ever fucking learn? You tell The Paper Of Record that you're deferring to a discredited corporate fat cat on an issue of what goes on your very own uniforms? Jesus fucking crackers, I swear with this organization. Oh, and this: ]Howard said the Mets were flattered that Citigroup designed a logo that incorporated the team�s blue and orange colors. Gee, that was mighty blue and orange of them! WHY SHOULDN'T THEY? There'd be no Citi FUCKING Field without a team to play in it. Good god, Mets. Pull up your pants and stand up straight for once. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 10:25 AM See, maybe my standards have fallen, but I'm just happy he didn't say, "I am standing, and those, um, aren't my pants." attgig Jan 15 2009 11:42 AM lol that dugout chat was hilarious. Zvon Jan 15 2009 09:55 PM Stephen Colbert took a shot at the patch tonight on his show. I'll link the segment when/if its on the shows site. Should be up sometime tomorrow. http://www.colbertnation.com/home Gwreck Jan 16 2009 12:07 AM ="metirish":2301kyuo]It actually looks somewhat better in cloth form.[/quote:2301kyuo] It's more the angle -- it's not at that ridiculous angle in that picture. themetfairy Jan 16 2009 06:31 AM ="Zvon":1sa3qaqn]Stephen Colbert took a shot at the patch tonight on his show. [/quote:1sa3qaqn] .cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30cTip/Wag - Monkey on the LamColbert at Christmas Colbert Christmas DVDGreen Screen Bill O'Reilly Interview Zvon Jan 16 2009 09:33 PM Thanks for posting that TMF. I really got a kick out of that bit. themetfairy Jan 17 2009 05:22 AM You're very welcome Zvon Farmer Ted Jan 27 2009 05:10 PM Still stuck with this horseshit logo. Embarrassed that the Mets haven't taken another look at this hunk of junk. metsguyinmichigan Jan 27 2009 09:02 PM Not gonna happen. They're already selling patches and jerseys. themetfairy Jan 27 2009 09:05 PM But is anyone buying it? DocTee Jan 27 2009 09:16 PM As Paul Lukas explains today, the Mets might be off the sartorial hook thanks to Texas awful new batting helmet: [url:3aj1ya7j]http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/090126&sportCat=mlb[/url:3aj1ya7j] Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 06:55 AM That's only 15% worse than the Mets two-toner. metsmarathon Jan 28 2009 08:09 AM well, the voting right now has the 1999 future uni's leading the way at 41.3%, with citifield patch holding onto second with 13% of the vote. the devil rays' inaugural duds are currently tied with the rangers' ugly hats for third, at 12.7%. the ugliness of the devil rays' uniforms is the only one of the four that the mets did not directly have a hand in. yay mets.

Predictable, but good performances capture the tension in the family dynamics making this movie better than it should be.

MR. MET: "Merry Christmas, you old wonderful savings & loan!"

I love the name Rocco Baldelli. It's a name made for New York.

That's not photoshop. It's airbrush.

="soupcan":1k1wbb9f] Is that the ugliest damn rug you've ever seen or what?[/quote:1k1wbb9f] The carpet will be vastly improved by frequently soaking it in champagne. Farmer Ted Dec 13 2008 06:47 PM I was living in NC in the mid 90s and in charge of putting on a sports-related banquet. The Yankees had a minor league team in Greensboro for a number of years and the committee board voted to have a former Yankee or a current member of the organization to be the featured speaker. I swallowed my pride and called the Bronx. The PR office hack said someone would be in touch in a few days. Phone rings 20 minutes later. Pepitone on the other end. No shit. I explain we're looking for a speaker yadda yadda yadda and he says "I'll do it (basically volunteering himself). We can work on a fee but you need to fly me down there. Great times I had in that town." Apparently he had the gig of lining up the Yankees alumni for public appearances. I went back to the committee and told them Pepitone was the best I could do (not that I tried any harder). The room busted into hysterical laughter and we found someone else from a different sport to speak. Edgy DC Dec 13 2008 07:03 PM There was an episode of Mad About You where Jamie asked what ballplayer they can get for a personal appearance on a limited budget. Paul's answer was an aging swinger of a sixties Yankee firstbaseman clearly based on the Pep. cooby Dec 13 2008 07:56 PM I swear I was thinking about Joe Pepitone this morning. And why? Ashie62 Dec 17 2008 07:05 AM ="cooby":3lcpnzjo]I swear I was thinking about Joe Pepitone this morning. And why?[/quote:3lcpnzjo] Did you wake up with a woody? Rockin' Doc Dec 17 2008 10:24 AM I believe that would be a physical impossibility for cooby. metsmarathon Dec 17 2008 11:46 AM well, this thread sure has taken some strange strange turns hasn't it? Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 07:49 AM NEW YORK-- Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration will forgo luxury boxes at the new Yankees and Mets ballparks, the city said Tuesday after months of criticism about its handling of the stadium projects. The administration has worked out a new deal with the Yankees to get extra money, instead of a luxury box. A separate and similar agreement is being worked out with the Mets for their new park, a Bloomberg spokesman said. Senior Bloomberg aides had fought hard to get the luxury boxes, describing the perk in internal e-mails as "a big issue to the mayor" during negotiations with the teams in 2006. That battle for the boxes only recently came to light as state and federal lawmakers launched investigations into how the teams and the administration went about making those deals. The decision to give up the luxury boxes comes as Bloomberg seeks reelection this year and repeatedly cites the city's enormous budget shortfalls. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 07 2009 07:56 AM They gave it up at the same time they were forced to cough up reams of smoking guns on how filthy the whole thing was, including begging by the MFYs to increase their duistribution of public $$ to cover shit like their scoreboard and video board. Mets are also asking for more but about half the MFYs overall since the project was so much less expensive. Centerfield Jan 07 2009 03:17 PM I think the Mets should sign Manny and ask the public to pick up the tab.

Putz is perhaps the first Mets relief pitcher to come with a built-in derogatory nickname for when he blows a save.

I think the first place to look is with relief pitchers the Mets already have. Who among the veteran relievers has been most reliable over the past 2-3 seasons, is most reliable and durable? Who among relievers who appeared for the first time last season or in the minors is ready to step up? Once 2-4 pitchers from this group are added to K-Rod, then look to see what holes can be filled by trades and FA. At least I hope Omar's looking at it that way.

="Farmer Ted":2usynfgr]Con: Born in San Dimas. Likely a Bill and Ted co-conspirator with George Carlin in re-shaping the world as we know it.[/quote:2usynfgr] How did the World Series of 80's movies miss Bill & Ted's Excellent Journey? John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 05 2008 01:21 PM Um.... uh... I believe the term is "sucked giant donkey cock." soupcan Dec 05 2008 01:23 PM ="Willets Point"]="Farmer Ted"]Con: Born in San Dimas. Likely a Bill and Ted co-conspirator with George Carlin in re-shaping the world as we know it. How did the World Series of 80's movies miss Bill & Ted's Excellent Journey? Excellent Adventure Bogus Journey *62 Dec 08 2008 06:36 PM I'm surprised no one has been there yet, so here goes ..... ]Like the latest fashion Like a spreading disease The kids are strappin on their way to the classroom Getting weapons with the greatest of ease The gangs stake their own campus locale And if they catch you slippin then its all over pal If one guys colors and the others dont mix Theyre gonna bash it up Hey - man you talkin back to me ? Take him out You gotta keepem separated Hey - man you disrespecting Take him out You gotta keepem separated Edgy DC Apr 28 2009 10:55 AM J.J. Franco, making his own mark at Poly Prep. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 28 2009 11:08 AM He would have a best friend named Richie Carbone. HahnSolo Apr 28 2009 11:39 AM Alma mater of sports and entertainment icons Ken Dashow, Joakim Noah, Larry Bud Melman, and the one and only Rich Kotite. seawolf17 May 01 2009 08:58 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 09:20 AM While scouring the Atlantic League rosters this morning, I found Jerry Manuel's son, Anthony, a middle infielder with the star-studded Newark Bears for 2009. He'll play with former Mets Alberto Castillo, Michael Tucker, Carl Everett, and Abraham Nunez, as well as Ozzie Smith's son Dustin. http://www.newarkbears.com/thebears/currentroster/ Anthony Manuel (date of birth 8-17-82) enters his fourth season of professional baseball. Originally signed by the New York Mets in 2005, Manuel played 36 games in the Appalachian League in 2005, batting .246 with 1 homerun and 11 runs batted in. In 2006, Manuel played another 34 games in the Appalachian League, batting .245 with 18 runs batted in, before being promoted to the South Atlantic League for 8 games. In 2008, Manuel played 2 games for the Schaumburg Flyers of the Northern League. Over the course of 3 seasons, Manuel has played in 80 games, batting .232 with 1 homerun and 29 runs batted in. Defensively, Manuel can play second base, shortstop, and third base. Manuel is the son of current New York Mets manager, Jerry Manuel. (Merged from Offspring Splitoff, 5/1/2009) Edgy DC May 01 2009 09:08 AM Found a home for it. seawolf17 May 01 2009 09:20 AM Thanks. I knew it existed somewhere, but couldn't find it.

What Edgy really meant to say: "You don't know Freddy? I do!"

Have you seen The Clash: Westway to the World. It's a pretty straight-forward documentary directed by Don Letts. Lots of good concert footage and interviews with band members and others. No campfires that I recall.

="Vic Sage] And i don't know if Delgado, at 37, will repeat his 2nd half performance or his 1st half. How about both?

="Nymr83":284lle58]I agree, one country per person.[/quote:284lle58] Except for Obama, who will be elected President of Kenya in 2016. soupcan Dec 05 2008 08:43 AM I was under the impression that ARod was Cuban. Not the case? Edgy DC Dec 05 2008 08:47 AM Alex is an American born to Dominican native parents --- Victor and Lourdes Rodriguez --- in Washington Heights, Manhattan. When he was four, the family moved back to the DR. When he was seven, they moved to Florida. At about ten, he and the family were deserted by Victor, who moved to New Jersey and probably became a Yankee fan. holychicken Dec 05 2008 10:24 AM He is American, was born in the US, played for the US already, makes (effectively) all his money in the US, and lives in the US. I see absolutely no reason why he would even consider playing for another team at this point or how he should possibly be even eligible for another team at this point. His ability to ride the fence in an attempt to not offend anyone all the while offending everyone is unparalleled. I almost feel bad for him. . .it is like the harder he tries not to be a douche, the more he becomes one. Benjamin Grimm Dec 05 2008 10:31 AM At least he lived there for three years. (And attended a Muslim pre-school, if I have my facts straight.) Him playing for the DR makes a little more sense than Mike Piazza playing for Italy last time around. Edgy DC Dec 05 2008 10:38 AM Mike Piazza playing for Italy was at least somewhat consistent with some long-established Olympic and Copa Mundial standards. He hadn't previously competed for the US. The US wasn't interested in his services. Centerfield Dec 05 2008 12:20 PM It may be similar to those standards but it's still a dumb rule. If your passport says United States, that should be the only team you're allowed to play for. Edgy DC Dec 05 2008 12:26 PM Do you approve of the US incenting (yeah, it's a word) the Freddie Adus of the world to get US passports in order to play under our flag? Centerfield Dec 05 2008 12:38 PM I don't know who that is, or anything about that situation, so I can't comment. I will say that if Freddie is willing to become a US citizen, and meets the requirements therefor, he should be allowed to play for the United States. Edgy DC Dec 05 2008 12:40 PM You don't knoow Freddy Adu? Willets Point Dec 05 2008 12:44 PM What Edgy really meant to say: "You don't know Freddy? I do!" Edgy DC Dec 05 2008 12:47 PM Hat-trickin' Poland Benjamin Grimm Dec 05 2008 12:53 PM I don't know Freddy either. I think, as CF said, that if someone decides for whatever reason to become a U.S. citizen and then does so, sure, he can and should be eligible for the country's Olympic team. But if the U.S. Olympic committee is luring athletes to become citizens so that they field a better team, then I don't like that. A big country like the United States has a huge population from which to draw quality athletes. We don't need to be stealing the best athletes from smaller countries. I think a gold medal win means a lot more to a country like Poland than it does to us. Edgy DC Dec 05 2008 12:57 PM Or Ghana. In Freddy's case, it's not about a gold medal, but a World Cup trophy.

="Edgy DC":h0g9fccu]You've been reading my blog.[/quote:h0g9fccu] I want to read this blog. Valadius Dec 04 2008 04:02 PM I like the use of brick on the inside of the stadium rather than just the facade. Rockin' Doc Dec 04 2008 05:23 PM No one will ever pull an Endy on that left field wall. How tall is that wall in left field? Zvon Dec 04 2008 05:33 PM What I like: almost everything. It looks beautiful, real low to the ground. User friendly for the fan. On the whole a nice new home for my Metsies. What I don't like: I've never been a fan of the two tier bullpen. Hate em! Bullpen fights could make things exciting though. I really like the use of chain link fence here, but that one outjutting looks like trouble to me. Once again, the whole right field set up should make things exciting. (I'm not against "exciting", I just do not like silly injuries) I like an outfield wall where there's always a possibility of pulling one back into the park. So I'm not too thrilled with the height of that left field wall. I am assuming that these are the outfield walls (that there wont be wooden ones placed a foot or so in front of those we see, which I think I'd prefer). I'm sure that if they go with these concrete walls that will be padded with the best material available, but I still don't like the idea of a wall with absolutely no give to it. Don't mind me. Im just being an idiopathic idiosyncrat. themetfairy Dec 04 2008 05:57 PM Not at all Zvon - I enjoyed your illustrative input. Edgy DC Dec 04 2008 06:05 PM I like an outfield wall with a hidden door that an outfielder can suddenly disappear through. Valadius Dec 04 2008 06:36 PM It's almost like they're setting up for a Field of Dreams cornfield stunt. Frayed Knot Dec 04 2008 09:20 PM Or a Manny signing. soupcan Dec 07 2008 04:02 PM Old Apple goes here? Benjamin Grimm Dec 07 2008 05:23 PM My understanding (could be wrong, though) is that the old apple is going to be inside the stadium but somewhere in centerfield. Edgy DC Dec 07 2008 05:36 PM That'll be an all-nu apple. soupcan Dec 07 2008 05:42 PM You saying all-nu inside or all-nu outside? Edgy DC Dec 07 2008 07:15 PM All-nu inside. soupcan Dec 07 2008 07:21 PM Right - but that podium or hole or whatever is outside, so I'm thinking that's where the old one will go. Or a statue..? Frayed Knot Dec 07 2008 07:23 PM Yeah, my understanding was nu-apple inside, apple-classic on view somewhere outside. G-Fafif Dec 07 2008 08:08 PM Both will be out in center, according to Metsblog, which was on the media tour last week. ]For starters, Jeff Wilpon told reporters that the old Home-Run Apple from Shea Stadium will be on display in back of the concourse in center field, which was good to hear. However, a new Apple will pop up from a concrete cannister beneath the center-field scoreboard. That thing they're building outside, obviously, is a kiddie pool. soupcan Dec 12 2008 02:41 PM So the outside is an homage to Ebbets. The green seats are supposedly a nod to the Polo Grounds. Where's Shea? Oh there it is, on the floor of the locker room. Is that the ugliest damn rug you've ever seen or what? Edgy DC Dec 12 2008 02:44 PM That honor still belongs to the late Joe Pepitone. Zvon Dec 12 2008 02:49 PM That is one ugly rug. So Shea gets the honor of being stepped on? Valadius Dec 12 2008 04:58 PM Pepitone's rug looks like Blagojevich's. metirish Dec 12 2008 05:03 PM ="Edgy DC":befgt7hd]That honor still belongs to the late Joe Pepitone. [/quote:befgt7hd] Very funny. dgwphotography Dec 12 2008 05:11 PM ="Edgy DC"]That honor still belongs to the late Joe Pepitone. I'm think Phil here would give Joe a run for his money: themetfairy Dec 12 2008 05:14 PM That has to be Phil's own hair. Nobody would construct a toupee THAT ugly! metsguyinmichigan Dec 12 2008 05:43 PM ="metirish":3bn5ocf6]="Edgy DC":3bn5ocf6]That honor still belongs to the late Joe Pepitone. [/quote:3bn5ocf6] Very funny.[/quote:3bn5ocf6] WOW. And the rug on the guy on the right in the tan coat is horrible, too! And if I were Phil Spector's attorney, I'd go for the insanity defense and just point to him sitting there with that 'do and sit back and wait for the acquittal. soupcan Dec 12 2008 07:11 PM Pepitone's dead? Edgy DC Dec 12 2008 07:59 PM Guess not. My boo-boo. Sorry, Joe. I just sent a white elephant Christmas gift to my sister's Yankfan boyfriend. It was a Yankee hat that my brother got Pepitone's autograph on. What did he ever think I'd want with that. One time Pepitone, after missing a ballgame with a niggling injury while playing in Japan, was photographed at a disco later, out dancing with his wig. To this day, supposedly, American players who come to Japan and play the diva are called "Pepitones." Willets Point Dec 13 2008 05:52 PM ="soupcan":1k1wbb9f] Is that the ugliest damn rug you've ever seen or what?[/quote:1k1wbb9f] The carpet will be vastly improved by frequently soaking it in champagne. Farmer Ted Dec 13 2008 06:47 PM I was living in NC in the mid 90s and in charge of putting on a sports-related banquet. The Yankees had a minor league team in Greensboro for a number of years and the committee board voted to have a former Yankee or a current member of the organization to be the featured speaker. I swallowed my pride and called the Bronx. The PR office hack said someone would be in touch in a few days. Phone rings 20 minutes later. Pepitone on the other end. No shit. I explain we're looking for a speaker yadda yadda yadda and he says "I'll do it (basically volunteering himself). We can work on a fee but you need to fly me down there. Great times I had in that town." Apparently he had the gig of lining up the Yankees alumni for public appearances. I went back to the committee and told them Pepitone was the best I could do (not that I tried any harder). The room busted into hysterical laughter and we found someone else from a different sport to speak. Edgy DC Dec 13 2008 07:03 PM There was an episode of Mad About You where Jamie asked what ballplayer they can get for a personal appearance on a limited budget. Paul's answer was an aging swinger of a sixties Yankee firstbaseman clearly based on the Pep. cooby Dec 13 2008 07:56 PM I swear I was thinking about Joe Pepitone this morning. And why? Ashie62 Dec 17 2008 07:05 AM ="cooby":3lcpnzjo]I swear I was thinking about Joe Pepitone this morning. And why?[/quote:3lcpnzjo] Did you wake up with a woody? Rockin' Doc Dec 17 2008 10:24 AM I believe that would be a physical impossibility for cooby. metsmarathon Dec 17 2008 11:46 AM well, this thread sure has taken some strange strange turns hasn't it? Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 07:49 AM NEW YORK-- Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration will forgo luxury boxes at the new Yankees and Mets ballparks, the city said Tuesday after months of criticism about its handling of the stadium projects. The administration has worked out a new deal with the Yankees to get extra money, instead of a luxury box. A separate and similar agreement is being worked out with the Mets for their new park, a Bloomberg spokesman said. Senior Bloomberg aides had fought hard to get the luxury boxes, describing the perk in internal e-mails as "a big issue to the mayor" during negotiations with the teams in 2006. That battle for the boxes only recently came to light as state and federal lawmakers launched investigations into how the teams and the administration went about making those deals. The decision to give up the luxury boxes comes as Bloomberg seeks reelection this year and repeatedly cites the city's enormous budget shortfalls. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 07 2009 07:56 AM They gave it up at the same time they were forced to cough up reams of smoking guns on how filthy the whole thing was, including begging by the MFYs to increase their duistribution of public $$ to cover shit like their scoreboard and video board. Mets are also asking for more but about half the MFYs overall since the project was so much less expensive. Centerfield Jan 07 2009 03:17 PM I think the Mets should sign Manny and ask the public to pick up the tab.

NYC's City Hall sucks at graft these days. Boss Tweed would've had a marble box with gold-leafed mahogany panels and embossed leather chairs. And pocket a few hundred thou in the process.

When are they going to sell single-game tickets?