duan

she actually rocks and has a lot going on upstairs.

lady gaga was about 11 so I doubt it. for a bunch of new yorkers you're not very hip to one of your own who's sold over a million albums worldwide in the last 3 months.

weird trivia. I worked on the Hanson tour back in 1998 and they were very nice young gentlemen.

grim stuff isn't it.

="smg58":2izy9tct]Did the Mets need to open a spot on the 40? If not, why haggle over dollars with somebody slated to make roughly 0.1% of your payroll?[/quote:2izy9tct] yeah, I'm with you on this, why pay the initial 50,000 if you're not prepared to pay 167,000 to keep him? I know costs have to be watched across the board or they ratchet up, but that's a fairly weird mean spirited call. MFS62 Mar 18 2009 04:08 PM According to the baseball transactions page on Yahoo, the Mets released Rocky today. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 18 2009 04:26 PM ="MFS62":26lcn8c5]According to the baseball transactions page on Yahoo, the Mets released Rocky today. Later[/quote:26lcn8c5] They released him with the apparent aim of resigning him to a contract below the $167,000 he would have been due. (Hence the above conversation about jerking said Rock around.) Edgy DC Mar 24 2009 09:27 PM Minor league dealio with the Red Sock. The dream is dead. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 24 2009 09:37 PM Crap.

about the crowds - why in the name of jesus were they playing the games in Miami which has proven that it doesn't get excited about baseball.

that's a really really really bad job.

the pecota comps are not based on majors stuff, they're based on minors & majors.

1 Frank Catalanotto 1998 64 2 Brad Mills 1981 63 3 Mike Lamb 2000 59 4 Matt Stairs 1992 59 5 Benny Distefano 1986 58 6 Brian Traxler 1992 57 7 Jordan Brown 2008 57 8 Chad Tracy 2004 56 9 Matt Franco 1994 56 10 Shawn Hare 1991 55 11 Luke Allen 2003 55 12 Chris Padget 1987 55 13 Jamie Dismuke 1994 54 14 John Kruk 1985 53 15 Daryl Sconiers 1983 53 16 Ron Henika 1986 53 17 Barry Jones 1989 52 18 Matt Watson 2003 52 19 Jay Gibbons 2001 52 20 Scott Cooper 1992 51 is pecota's comparable list. Not much to get crazy optimistic about there, but if he is Frank Catalanatto that's worth something.

[url:3da1gbd5]http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=3035[/url:3da1gbd5] released by Phillies with 9 million owed or so. He's another reason why I shouldn't be a major league GM (fonzie was the first) as I'd have gladly signed him at the time.

reached a minor league deal with Livian Hernandez

="duan":cxtxds99]i actually came here proposing a taking the salary off washington's hands move on Austin Kearns. Last year was his first actual bad year, but he carries a bit of a whiff of unfulfilled potential that has probably turned people off. I'd love to take a whirl on him being our lefty mashing outfielder to replace Church/Murphy or even Delgado.[/quote:cxtxds99] to explain, I mean that he's traditionally murdered lefties whereas they don't and that having him in the mix would give us a great threat. Frayed Knot Feb 13 2009 12:04 PM ="Vic Sage"]]Dunn probably more one-dimensional than ever feared. OB% = .381 SLG% = .518 looks pretty 2-dimensional to me... What I meant was that back when they were young pups Kearns was considered the better all around player/athlete while Dunn the better hitter but only a hitter. Now years later hiding his glove is becoming more of a problem than even previously imagined and I think part of the reason the offers were slow in coming. smg58 Feb 13 2009 12:47 PM Jay's 36? That's scary. I have to think that guys like Beimel and Ohman will take any major-league offer that comes their way at this point. I can't imagine Hudson will be too stubborn if presented with even a modestly decent offer, either. If we had $36M to throw at Ollie, I can't imagine we're too broke to even look at these other guys. smg58 Feb 13 2009 12:55 PM ="Frayed Knot":3973hsgs]What I meant was that back when they were young pups Kearns was considered the better all around player/athlete while Dunn the better hitter but only a hitter. Now years later hiding his glove is becoming more of a problem than even previously imagined and I think part of the reason the offers were slow in coming.[/quote:3973hsgs] I don't think his glove has necessarily gotten worse, so much as defensive value (or the lack thereof) has become better quantified. If the defensive numbers generated in places like the Fielding Bible are credible, then the old notion that you could stick a good bat/bad glove player in an outfield corner or first base and not have to worry about his glove hurting you that much has been discredited to at least some degree with particularly bad fielders. This applies to a number of players (like Dunn and Abreu) who were free agents this year. Frayed Knot Feb 13 2009 01:47 PM Yeah that's probably part of it. Plus there were several sources this winter saying that GMs are taking an increasingly close look at OF defense in particular and factoring that in to how much they would otherwise pay for bat-only FAs - something they could have affected the likes of not only Dunn but Abreu, Manny, Burrell, too. As for Dunn himself, he may not have gotten worse with the glove as much as the early hope that he'd at least grow into a mediocre glove at some position never materialized. Both defensive metrics and eye-ball observers rate him as a virtual train-wreck wherever you plop him. Edgy DC Feb 13 2009 01:52 PM The thing about the previous generation of defensive metrics is that they seemed to undervalue outfield defense by measuring balls caught against balls fielded by the same standard as those for infielders. What they missed was that a failure to field a ball by an infielder typically resulted in a single base, while a failure to field a ball by an outfielder resulted in two or three. cooby Feb 13 2009 05:43 PM Lady Caca? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 13 2009 08:23 PM Ladies don't caca; they perspire excrement. And speaking of excretions... with all this dancing around old friends (Stache, Pedro, Figueroa), Omar's got no room in his pay rolls for ol' Pee Hands? (I hate to repeat myself, but if we're not going hard after Ohman, and our other RH bat options are Nomar and those two... yeep.) Or, from the so-crazy-it-just-might-work department... Frank Thomas? (Still got a great eye, and could spell Delgado 1-2 times a week.) Gwreck Feb 19 2009 11:05 PM We got Alex Cora to back-up instead of Nomar? Seriously? Reyes is going to play 160 games or something, and if he gets hurt, then we can sign Alex Cora. I'd take my chances with giving Nomar the 5 starts at short we give Reyes off. Edgy DC Feb 20 2009 05:36 AM ="Gwreck":3u3fvm4z]Reyes is going to play 160 games or something, and if he gets hurt, then we can sign Alex Cora.[/quote:3u3fvm4z] How do you figure? Nobody's going to sign him? Ever? Gwreck Feb 20 2009 08:25 AM Maybe not Cora himself, but there'd likely be another no-hit, good-field middle infielder available somewhere, no? Edgy DC Feb 20 2009 08:30 AM But, for a reserve, Cora is actually a modest-hit, excellent field guy, and a rarer bird than you're giving him credit for. He's perfectly capable of stealing the second base job. Nomar remains what he's been the last couple of years --- a good enough hitter to demand more PT than a reserve infielder (five games? you think he'd go for that?), but no obvious position. Gwreck Feb 20 2009 10:15 AM I don't think Nomar would start only 5 games; I think he'd also spell Delgado occasionally against a tough lefty, and also serve as Wright's backup at third. He'd also be the primary pinch-hitting bat off the bench. The 5 games reference is that the Mets don't necessarily need a player taking up a spot on the bench, when all they require is a player who has the defensive skills to be a shortstop for about 5 games a year. I see the point about him being a good enough hitter to deserve more PT than a reserve but submit that if he's unsigned, he's not getting PT anywhere. Nymr83 Feb 20 2009 12:24 PM ]situational lefties: Joe Beimel, RP (31) -type ( Dennys Reyes, RP (31) -type ( Will Ohman, RP (31) Someone brought up in the Griffey thread what they saw as a need for another lefty. I disagree. I thought one of the problems with the 2008 Mets was that Schoenweis and Feliciano were redundant- they both got lefties out but couldn't handle righties- and this forced the managers to use them in situations they weren't suited for, leading them to fail. One situational lefty is all I want to see on the team. If theres a Dennis Cook out there who can get righties out too that would be great, but I don't see him in these guys. Ohman and Reyes both get abused by righties, Beimel actually isn't too bad for his career but he was the past 2 years. attgig Feb 20 2009 01:13 PM hudson is apparently now a dodger. Nymr83 Feb 20 2009 01:19 PM it says he signed with LA on rotoworld but the terms of the deal havent been disclosed yet. smg58 Feb 20 2009 01:51 PM According to mlb.com, Hudson is getting one year and $3.4M, with up to $4.6M in incentives. If bringing in Ollie at 3 and 36 made it impossible to offer Hudson even that little, then the Mets should have settled for Garland at half the annual salary, or even Looper for less than that. Somebody else signing Ollie would have also gotten us two better draft picks than the one Hudson would have cost. Or perhaps Minaya is not yet willing to own up to the blunder he made in giving Castillo four years. Either way, I'm unhappy. metirish Feb 20 2009 01:55 PM I just can't accept or I don't buy the idea that the Mets couldn't offer Hudson a deal because they signed Perez to a reasonable deal.Maybe they just couldn't be arsed with him. I like Hudson but am not going to be thinking about him all season that's for sure. Frayed Knot Feb 20 2009 02:01 PM I don't think it's any one reason exclusively why they sidestepped Hudson -- I think it's the extra money, on top of the draft pick it would cost, on top of the fact that they'd either have to still pay Castillo and/or have two 2Bmen who both wanted to start. Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2009 02:05 PM I can't help but see Hudson as a missed opportunity, whatever the reasons. Hopefully Castillo will have three kick-ass seasons from 2009 through 2011 and make it all moot. (I can hope, can't I?) Frayed Knot Feb 20 2009 02:25 PM A good example of the adage about how it's easier to recover from the guy you fail to sign than it is to recover from the guy you sign at the wrong price. In this case the difference is made even more stark by throwing in a bad 1st year on top of a dramatic price fall in the market place overall. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 20 2009 04:42 PM ="smg58":jlankl2g] Or perhaps Minaya is not yet willing to own up to the blunder he made in giving Castillo four years. Either way, I'm unhappy.[/quote:jlankl2g] I think you've hit it exactly on the head. A hard head, at that. Tenuous job security-- like Omar's, after two disappointing near-misses-- tends to lead to a whole lot of good-money-after-bad-ing. Centerfield Feb 21 2009 05:29 AM It's because he's saving for Manny. Edgy DC Feb 21 2009 10:36 AM I'm going to insist on looking on the dark side with Hudson. He's two years removed from his last golden glove. He ended 2007 with a thumb injury that was listed as "day to day," but cost him the last three and half weeks of the season as his team finished a game and a half out. Then he started the season with recurring hammy problems, and ended it in August with a dislocated wrist, which is an injury that could give a man pause. Signing him costs that draft pick and means giving up pretty much on the duration of Castillo's contract, and perhaps the possiblity of transitioning Murphy over there this year, which the scoreboard shot suggests is maybe in the cards. Cheap, yeah, but I'm here to sing the praises of standing pat. I'm always here for that. Benjamin Grimm Feb 21 2009 03:48 PM And Hudson may be a free agent again after 2009. So we may have another shot at him. Nymr83 Feb 21 2009 04:07 PM a year older and possibly in a worse buyer's market. the Mets really dropped the ball here considering the price they paid for freakin Cora and the bargain rate at which Hudson signed. Edgy DC Feb 21 2009 06:10 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 21 2009 07:15 PM I don't think they dropped the ball at all. They made their choice decisively --- that they were looking to buy a new starter at second only if they could deal their current one. Argue against that, but let's not imply that the Mets pursued him and failed by misreading the market. Or bought somebody else high. Kong76 Feb 21 2009 06:43 PM smg58: Or perhaps Minaya is not yet willing to own up to the blunder he made in giving Castillo four years <<< I doubt that a guy running an ~ $200,000,000 business model let's that come into play. His fish will be fried on the outcome of 2009 and not owning up to prior poor signings will have nothing to with it. LWFS: Tenuous job security-- like Omar's, after two disappointing near-misses-- tends to lead to a whole lot of good-money-after-bad-ing <<< I typed five things and backspaced five times ... never mind. Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 06:08 AM Alou hinting at retirement after the WBC. Rockin' Doc Mar 03 2009 06:14 AM Alou has been semi-retired the past two seasons.

I've always been amazed at the way College Athletes are wantonly fucked by the system.

i actually came here proposing a taking the salary off washington's hands move on Austin Kearns. Last year was his first actual bad year, but he carries a bit of a whiff of unfulfilled potential that has probably turned people off. I'd love to take a whirl on him being our lefty mashing outfielder to replace Church/Murphy or even Delgado.

was clearly rife with low end pharmaceuticals because there was no drug testing. I don't think there should be any *, because it was too prevalent to deem one person worse then the other, it was what it was and Sheehan is right, the writers knew more or less what was going on, maybe not names but they'd have a sense of the prevalence. Baseball 04-08 could be rife with high end pharmaceuticals and we wouldn't know it. There's no way to guarantee that it's clean, you can only do your best by putting in deterrents and testing. Is there a reason why baseball players couldn't give random blood tests? Is there a reason why they can't all give blood tests once a month and those tests get randomly analysed. No, there isn't. The MLBPA has to accept that it's going to get ugly for their cheating members, but the reality is for everyone of those members there's one guy who didn't at AAA level struggling to get on a 40 man roster. So how do you do it, make it a mandatory 2 year ban, make it clear that blood can be retro-analysed when new tests come out, make it 100% transparent how the testing system works and make it 100% random when it's happening. The players have to accept that anything he puts into his body COULD be a problem and the onus is on him to establish that it isn't, the "but it didn't say it was banned" won't wash.

i still can't believe I was so wrong. I suggested that Edgardo Alfonso get "Posada Money" at the time. 1-0 to steve phillips (if he were GM who let him go)

That Moises might be up for coming back in a kick ass pinch hitting odd start, DH in interleague play role. he'd be totaly savage.

sorry also I should reference that Cora fulfils the same function. We spent way too much time with Argenis Reyes being our good fielding reserve. Cora's your man that allows you to PH for Castillo with someone else when you need a sac-fly in the 8th inning. I'm not saying we'd be thrilled if Reyes' hammy pops and Cora's the replacement but having one defensive middle IF is ok because it allows you to fill the other bench slots with guys who's got different skill sets allow platoon matchups.

to be sure that we get more value out of the non-core players. Last year the mets didn't have a nearly Major League Average innings sponge for the 5th starter slot. Redding should give them that, but if something better comes along the 2-3 million spent on Redding will be used as longman/spot starter. Last season we had 4 people the we'd pulled in on minor league deals start 13 games, showing the problems we had finding satisfactory depth in the rotation. This year if we sign one of Perez/Wolf/Sheets we now have Redding & Niese to be the 5th slot and provide some injury cover. If Niese takes some lumps that's ok cause it can contribute to development a la Pelfrey. The money is fine as is the one year part of the equation.

take Pedro back - base salary of 2-3 million rising to 9? i just think he's cool.

i'm not sure if that's the way I read it. Either way, you're an athlete who gets drugs tested, ask that somethings ok to take from the people who make the rules, not from people who interpret them.

sorry I shouldn't be so flippant, but the reality is, Olympic athletes get pretty much EVERY SINGLE THING they put into their mouths approved by their federation's doctors. That's the way baseball players should think by default.

="Nymr83":34f8hfa5]thats just absurd.[/quote:34f8hfa5] no, it's true. duan Jan 06 2009 09:31 AM sorry I shouldn't be so flippant, but the reality is, Olympic athletes get pretty much EVERY SINGLE THING they put into their mouths approved by their federation's doctors. That's the way baseball players should think by default. Edgy DC Jan 06 2009 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 06 2009 11:30 AM Lost in the shuffle here is that Sergio Mitre has gone down the same way. GNC is next to Scores in places that indicate highly questionable judgment for a professional athlete even to show up at. There's some loose threads here. If I'm reading the report correctly, Romero told a team trainer what he intended to take, the trainer inquired with the league, the league said no, and the trainer apparently never got back to JC or any other placers with that info. metsmarathon Jan 06 2009 09:55 AM i would think it would behoove the various professional unions to establish a laboratory whose sole purpose would be to certify the cleanliness of OTC supplements. players could either submit a sample of a purchased supplement for analysis prior to use, or the supplement manufacturers could submit to random analysis of a given lot of supplement in return for a handy certification of goodness. jc romero, it appears, tried to do the right thing, and got fucked by a shady supplement. if he had the ingredients checked, and they checked out, then the manufacturer put something in there that shouldn't have been. currently, there's really no recourse for romero, but perhaps to sue the manufacturer. my way, he'd still have to be proactive and have the stuff checked out, but it would be a more vigorous analysis than just looking at the stated ingredients, and should prevent a player from taking supplements contaminated by the supplier. a further offshoot of this strategy would be to see teams stock up on the certified good stuff for their players to use with a clear conscience. and it really makes no sense as to why the fda stays the fuck out of the "nutrition" business. duan Jan 06 2009 09:58 AM i'm not sure if that's the way I read it. Either way, you're an athlete who gets drugs tested, ask that somethings ok to take from the people who make the rules, not from people who interpret them. Edgy DC Jan 06 2009 09:58 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 06 2009 10:01 AM ="metsmarathon":36ldnps5]and it really makes no sense as to why the fda stays the fuck out of the "nutrition" business.[/quote:36ldnps5] Prediction: that'll change soon. metsguyinmichigan Jan 06 2009 10:00 AM So JC was taking these "supplements" because he thought they'd keep him healthy, like my psyllium seed husk tablets, or because he thought they were a legal way to enhance his performance? Frayed Knot Jan 06 2009 11:01 AM ="duan"]... Olympic athletes get pretty much EVERY SINGLE THING they put into their mouths approved by their federation's doctors. That's the way baseball players should think by default. And they'll likely get to that point, only now they're still a bit new at this. As is, apparently, their union. It sounds like Romero at least tried to do things the right way. I'd fight it if I were him too, although ultimately he may not have enough to stand on. metsmarathon Jan 06 2009 11:17 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":2oiioy1d]So JC was taking these "supplements" because he thought they'd keep him healthy, like my psyllium seed husk tablets, or because he thought they were a legal way to enhance his performance?[/quote:2oiioy1d] for the same reason that i drink gatorade when i run. to supplement his nutritional intake in order to maximize either his potential for performance or his ability to recover afterwards. ain't nothing wrong with supplements, in general, unless suddenly we think that our professional athletes should be strict organic locavores. Frayed Knot Jan 06 2009 11:27 AM Will Carroll from BP: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1141 J.C. Romero was suspended for fifty games under terms of MLB�s drug policy. Just before it was handed down, Romero made his case public, the same one that the arbitrator rejected. With the NFL�s drug policy currently under attack in the Starcaps case, where six players took a supplement that was tainted with a diuretic but unknown to the players, this type of defense might hold water. Until you learn what Romero tested positive for. According to multiple sources, Romero tested positive for 6-OXO Extreme, a product that enhances testosterone production in ways very similar to anabolic steroids. While legal and still available at your local GNC, 6-OXO Extreme* has always carried a warning that it could result in positive tests. If you look at the above link, you�ll be able to find the same warning in the online information. But it gets better, or worse, if you�re Romero. 6-OXO is a product of Ergopharm. Ergopharm is owned and operated by a guy you might remember: Patrick Arnold. Yes, that one. Arnold was the source for the THG used by BALCO. Arnold served several months in jail due to his involvement and is now back in business. If Romero didn�t know what he was taking, he sure got unlucky in picking the product marked �for hardcore users only� and with a connection that baseball fans would rather forget. metsmarathon Jan 06 2009 11:32 AM ooh! i was just reading the same thing. apparently, the bottle that romero had did not contain the cited warning about the potential to test positive for banned substances, and its entirely likely that that warning was added to the bottles after the bottle romero had purchased was put on store shelves. the provenance of the company, while titillating, is really nothing that i would expect an athlete to look deeply into... metsmarathon Jan 06 2009 11:44 AM =" the philly inquirer[/url:8k89gky3]":8k89gky3]A new supplement Romero said he went to the store to look for a supplement in July, the time of year he typically starts weight training again. He went to the shelf where his usual supplement was stocked and noticed a new product, 6-OXO Extreme, next to it. Because the familiar supplement required him to take eight large pills a day, he was intrigued by the other product. The Major League Baseball Players' Association has told players that supplements purchased in U.S. retail stores should be safe and within the guidelines of baseball's drug-testing program. The union acknowledged giving that advice in a letter it sent out to players and their advisers in November. That letter, which arrived too late to help Romero, informed players that three over-the-counter supplements were found to create positive tests under baseball's drug program. In July, Romero showed the new supplement to Phillies strength coach Dong Lien, who recommended that Romero get a second opinion before using it. Romero then showed it to his personal nutritionist, "the guy I've been working with since I've been in major-league baseball," Romero said. That nutritionist checked the product's label and saw nothing on MLB's banned list. Romero began taking the supplement at that point. Meanwhile, according to the arbitrator's report, Lien sent a sample of the supplement to MLB for testing. The tests showed the supplement contained a substance that could result in a positive drug test. A copy of those results was sent to commissioner Bud Selig's office in July. Considering it was the first time a banned substance was found in an FDA-regulated, over-the-counter supplement - one available to every major-leaguer and millions of youths - that should have sounded alarms. But no one from MLB, the players' association or the Phillies told Romero that there was a problem with the supplement. So where was the negligence? With Romero? With Lien? With MLB? With a union that told Romero and other Latin players they could trust products in U.S. stores such as Vitamin Shoppe (where Romero purchased the supplement) or GNC?[/quote:8k89gky3] Centerfield Jan 06 2009 12:21 PM ="SteveJRogers":t4clidsw]="attgig":t4clidsw]Sounds like the suspension in the NFL this past year. bunch of players (like Deuce McAllister) took a OTC dieuretic that was not in any banned substance list, but they suspended him anyway. The NFL didn't publish that drug because it helps to hide steroids in the blood. But then they suspend people anyways because they took it without knowing. in this case, it sounds like the players union screwed up and didn't get the info from MLB over to all the players.[/quote:t4clidsw] In other words we have a misleading thread title![/quote:t4clidsw] Steve, why are you such a tool? Gwreck Jan 06 2009 07:03 PM I think Romero's beef is more with the Union than anyone. The MLB players union can't possibly be hurting for money -- I can't see why they wouldn't have full-time staff who can help players avoid these very problems.

If you asked me to compare the following for their value over the next 3/4 years (when contracts start running out on either side!) Alex Rodriguez v David Wright. Even Derek Jeter v Jose Reyes. Reyes Mark Texiera v Carlos Beltran Even CC Sabathia v Johan Santana Even The 4 yankees have the highest contracts in baseball. We're doing ok in the big ticket areas, we just have to be sure our spoorting cast is better.

i'm kinda sad about this, Cameron's was an easy guy to like, even if he was prone to using amphetamines.