duan

i do fear that the mets have got really innately conservative about positional stuff. I think a part of this is due to the media glare that you get in NYC, if ever an experiment is happening there's back page headlines awaiting when things go wrong and so on. at least in part they feel that they need to protect players from it, because it can start to impinge a player rather then not. So if they had a season at AAA for him, they'd be happy to keep the Murphy @ 2nd experiment going, but they're not going run the risk of him being exposed to booing, tabloid headlines and WFAN morons. Y'know back a few years ago they flipped Fonzie to 3rd to 2nd then to 3rd. Didn't do him much harm at that point.

you in Australia?

i could actually justify doing it with Alou too. Just as long as we build the redundancy.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: For example, if the Mets were to go to Mike Pelfrey after the 2009 season and offer him a five-year contract that would eat up one or two years of his free-agency, Boras would turn it down. If Pelfrey follows the track of other Boras clients, he won't sign anything that delays free agency and the Mets won't be able to guarantee his long-term Metness until after they've been forced to compete with other teams on the open market. No deals like the ones that Wright and Reyes got. that's a calculated risk on both sides. Because of his slightly more circuitous career path it's not a direct comparison (I didn't find one easily) but by your reckoning, Chris Carpenter would be (if represented by Scott Boras) facing into Free Agency this winter Instead he's 19 million into a 65 million deal. One that he's made 4 starts since signing.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think Boras' bad rep comes from the perception (and maybe it's true) that he'll always chase the last penny and disregards his client's wishes. For example, if the Mets were to go to Mike Pelfrey after the 2009 season and offer him a five-year contract that would eat up one or two years of his free-agency, Boras would turn it down. If Pelfrey follows the track of other Boras clients, he won't sign anything that delays free agency and the Mets won't be able to guarantee his long-term Metness until after they've been forced to compete with other teams on the open market. No deals like the ones that Wright and Reyes got. It's frustrating for the fans. If Pelfrey said, "Scott, I want to be a Met for a long time. Let's sign a six-year contract now" the perception (again) is that Boras wouldn't allow it. If in fact he doesn't consider any of the player's non-monetary desires, then it's up to the player to fire or replace or overrule him, like Alex Rodriguez appeared to do last year. I don't really think he should get any more "blame" than the players who go along with his plan. They're the bosses, after all, in the agent-player relationship. that's the thing isn't it. The senior player ALWAYS knows what the agent is doing (I'm sure there are some young ones who do get swept along). I guarantee you that Boras is more then happy to be the shield for his clients and indeed, that's probably part of the plan.

Iubitul wrote: 7. Revoking Scott Boras' license. I have to say, I don't understand the hatred for Scott Boras either. If his job is to get the best possible price for his players he's very good at it. The reality is, MLB will try and get the most for the TV rights it can - it doesn't go "hey it'd be great to have MLB on PBS because that would mean that a whole raft of people who don't get exposed to that kind of quality programming on a regular basis might hang around after watching the ball game and see what's on." Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that money *should* be the only motivation, but with people it often is.

by the way, I can't understand how american sports get away with 1) 18-22 year old athletes performing in a quasi professional environment for no compensation 2) The lack of rights for young workers - rights which are being signed away by the top 1% of their sport - that the draft involves 3) The lack of rights for any worker that 'trading' involves.

No - Nationals players go down with the Nationals , Scranton players come up with Scranton. You're right that the whole way that Major League Organisations get to control players rights for about 10 years would be junked. A contract is a contract so to speak. The way football deals with development is this, if a player is under the age of 24 and turns down an offer of a contract from his current club to sign for another club the other club have to compensate the club who 'developed him'. Mostly they'll actually agree a Transfer Fee, but sometimes it goes to a tribunal. Players move between clubs either at the end of a contract or during a contract (when the clubs again must agree a fee).

and before you go "but the playoffs ... etc etc etc" isn't the goal to decide *the best* team?

fwiw here's how I'd have it. 16 team top division play each other a number of games home and away (same) top team WINS bottom 2 get relegated to Major League Division 2 Major League Division 2 is 16 teams and so on down. in England there are 92 clubs in the main "football league" pyramid structure. Then as you start getting to what would most often be called "non league" it becomes a slightly more convoluted pyramid, with it being regionally broken up at what could be called the 6th or 7th divisions away from the top flight. Two good examples of how this all works http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_conf/default.stm 20 years ago Oxford Utd were in the top division of English Football. They're now in the bottom half of "The Conference" - essentially the 5th Division. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/table/default.stm Whereas here, you can see Hull City - who 5 years ago were in the 4th division of English Football are now sitting in 3rd place in the top division. How did those two things happen? Good quality scouting, good quality player development and investment by owners in Hulls case. Chronic mismanagement - in particular financially but player wise too - in Oxford's case. When the Pittsburgh Pirates are so BAD at being a baseball team, why doesn't somebody else get a chance?

wouldn't getting rid of the anti-trust measures probably mean that all bets are off in relation to player contracts, minimum/maximum salaries, revenue sharing etc. The way to punish owners who don't spend money is to stop their team eating at the top table. The way to do that is to have promotion and relegation in a pyramid system.

http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&line=250905&id=3105 "The Arizona Republic speculates that the Diamondbacks may try to trade Eric Byrnes during the offseason. The newspaper notes that Byrnes may be tough to deal because he's owed $22 million over the next two seasons, but suggests that "the club could look to match up his contract with another team's bad contract, like that of Mets second baseman Luis Castillo." Cause 4th outfielders who can play all 3 positions adequately with a bit of pop are more useful then clunky 2nd basemen who can only slap singles or walk.

a brilliant pitcher and worth all the money and talent we used to get him.

Tatis ain't gonna have another season like that, but I've no problem with him in the $2-3 million range as a 4th OF/PH/Spot Starter. If someone gets silly and offers him loads, or a 3 year deal let them off. 2 years I'd be worried about but at the right price I'd think about it. Evans needs a lot more work. Angel Pagan is Endy but with more power potential and less actual track record. Now, the one person who could fit nicely in our oft injured but heck of a hitter when fit Left Fielder model, (witness Floyd, Cliff & Alou, Moises) is Milton Bradley. If we're keeping Jerry Manuel, I think he can bring him in to be gangsta I think Milton would love New York.

they're definitely going to pick up delgado's option. only issue is might they try and negotiate 2 year deal at lower average instead of picking it up. The interesting dilemmas are about guys who came up and succeeded, for me specifically Tatis and Murphy. I really think we should be getting Murphy to go and work out at 2nd base.

be great to jump out to an early lead so that we have the brewers seeing numbers early.

how far off from starting are we?

this is shocking.

i'm watching this with the sound off so what the hell happened with the umpire and manuel in the 5th inning.

can anyone get this on mlb.tv i can't figure out how.

that cubs series looms very large doesn't it

are you trying to make people throw up?

well in my and your books $1.75 million and $2.5 million are pretty decent raises!!!

the worst example was Beltran *nearly* getting picked off, not noticing the ball had gone into centre-field, Milledge starting to trundle in for it, Beltran having time to dust himself down, get shouted at by Tatis, get up and get to third. All while lastings ran in and fell over trying to pick the ball up. I did feel sorry for him then. Elijah Dukes is a dick though.

soupcan wrote: ="metirish"]Ok so that's confirmed , regardless don't the Mets have a lot of money potentially coming of the books? I think 'money coming off the books' is a misconception. Yes, they won't be paying Pedro, but don't Reyes and Wright get significant raises? If they are able to trade Castillo you know they'll have eat a lot of that contract. Ollie's going to cost them big time, they still owe Randolph over $2 million. Where's the money coming off of? David Wright 07:$1M, 08:$5M, 09:$7.5M, 10:$10M, 11:$14M, 12:$15M, 13:$16M club option ($1M buyout) Jose Reyes 07:$2.5M, 08:$4M, 09:$5.75M, 10:$9M, 11:$11M club option ($0.5M buyout) Omar Minaya's two best moves.