Ceetar

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I sorta liked Citi of Nope as a headline, but then they went all negative slant and showed Granderson inset of all players so Nope. Maybe they shoulda stuck in a picture of Matt Franco singling off of Mariano, instead. The picture's fine without the negatively slanted blurb. Together it implies Granderson's an anemic bum. If you really want to put a Mets player dejected, there were better options. (Unless they didn't have access to a better pic?) They got no-hitted for christ's sakes. What did you expect, the Ed Charles dance of joy with Koosman and Grote in each other's arms on the mound in the background? how about crediting Heston instead of mocking the Mets? It's just poorly constructed, so I didn't vote for it.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: I sorta liked Citi of Nope as a headline, but then they went all negative slant and showed Granderson inset of all players so Nope. Maybe they shoulda stuck in a picture of Matt Franco singling off of Mariano, instead. The picture's fine without the negatively slanted blurb. Together it implies Granderson's an anemic bum. If you really want to put a Mets player dejected, there were better options. (Unless they didn't have access to a better pic?)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Was Granderson the last out in that game? Both Newsday and The Post included a photo of him walking away from the plate. There were a few HBP, so couldn't have been. looks like he was second to last.

I sorta liked Citi of Nope as a headline, but then they went all negative slant and showed Granderson inset of all players so Nope.

Nymr83 wrote: Schneiderman can go fuck himself. this is nothing but a dirt bag politician trying to make a name for himself and get his ugly face all over the media. Once people started suddenly deciding it was 'too much' advertising for daily fantasy, you just knew the politicians would jump up at the chance to pander.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: If the Mets were to sign Desmond, would that cancel out the draft pick the Mets would get for losing Murphy? Or would they lose their first round pick, but retain the supplemental pick they'd get for Murphy? they'd lose their first round pick, retain the supplemental.

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: Can we remember that Lagares hit better than Cespedes and Conforto in the postseason too maybe? Everyone remembers what Lagares did in the post-season. Everyone else, besides you, understands how much weight to give that small sample size. It is foolish to think Lagares is a better hitter than Conforto or Cespedes. And just so we are clear, Michael Cuddyer's full year is not a significant sample size to draw conclusions, but Lagares' work in October is? Gotcha. it wasn't a full year, it was full of injury, and he has literally thousands more at-bats suggesting he's better than he was in 2015 with a core and knee injury. The Mets can get offensive value from Cuddyer next year. No, but Lagares hit pretty well down the stretch in and October. His 2014 was pretty good. Going into his age 27 season, it seems like there's value to be had from playing Lagares. Michael Conforto is a talented player who probably got called up too soon, and still managed to have a month in there that was very good. He's not a lock or anything, but there's almost definitely value to be had there. Granderson is a very excellent player. There's literally no way to argue against that. That's 4 useful-very useful outfielders. It's entirely possible, I'd even say likely, that the Mets can get the offense they need out of those three positions with what they have. I'd look for a talented part-time player that can hit lefties as the 5th OF, because I'd be more concerned with the ability of Conforto, and to a lesser extend Granderson, to hit lefties than Cuddyer and Lagares to hit righties. I think the upgrade to a guy like Heyward over the various playing time situations you could build around the guys the Mets have now isn't super significant. I'm more concerned with the step down for the infield backups, and the higher value infield defense means.

Can we remember that Lagares hit better than Cespedes and Conforto in the postseason too maybe?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I think it says a lot about Granderson's ability to handle center field, and the Mets' feelings on the matter, that Cespedes was passing as a center fielder for two months with this squad over Granderson. I have no doubt Cespedes is a better CFer than Granderson, but I don't know that it'd be the end of the world if the Mets did something that forced Curtis there in 2016.

Centerfield wrote: At the end of the day, baseball brought this mess upon itself by looking the other way as steroids became rampant in the sport. It destroyed hallowed numbers like 61, 714 and 755. When I was growing up, everyone knew 755, 714, 660. What are the home run records now? Does anyone even know without looking? And by the same token, they fucked up the Hall of Fame as well. 762 and 73. without looking, yes. and in 20 years, so will EVERYONE. You had decades to memorize those other numbers. Bonds was the greatest baseball player ever. We got to watch him. He's a Hall of Famer.

yeah, but Adam Rubin is a troll, so..

Mex17 wrote: If this or something very similar to it does not occur, then what I am basically being told is that a New York-based franchise that just came off a pennant winning season cannot afford to even be in the middle tier of MLB payrolls. And if that is true, good luck keeping a fan base. They made it to the World Series. people are going to buy tickets ,and already have, regardless of what they do this offseason.

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: I hate the idea that they're somehow worse because they dared to get caught. Like it's somehow okay if you're GOOD at taking steroids, but if you pick the wrong trainer, shame on you! I don't know anyone who thinks this. At least I think I don't. Dared? GOOD? I don't get it. Plenty of people point to "oh, but he failed a test/admitted it/etc" as reasoning. They're not out and out saying "don't get caught" but it's what they're implying by being okay with voting for some 'steroid era' guys and not others. Ceetar wrote: shame is of course, subjective. As is fame. The whole thing is subjective. Indeed. Mike Piazza IS a Hall of Famer in my view of baseball. I don't need a subjective group of writers to say so. Hall of Fame, to me, means the cream of the crop of baseball history. I'm over it. Personally, I think this poll should be edited to remove the guys we voted for successfully last year. The majority of Poolers have Mike in the hall, therefore he's in.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Bonds and Clemens (and McGwire) brought a level of embarrassment to the game that Griffey and Piazza did not. I know I'm in a minority here, but I think Shame negates Fame. shame is of course, subjective. I hate the idea that they're somehow worse because they dared to get caught. Like it's somehow okay if you're GOOD at taking steroids, but if you pick the wrong trainer, shame on you!

I don't read these rags, but I thought they did a punnier job, but so far it doesn't feel like it.

Centerfield wrote: Why stop at allowing sponsorship of the upper deck? Why not the entire field? 1st Base - Brought to you by Scope 2nd Base - Sponsored by Victoria Secret 3rd Base - Guess Jeans what are we, the Yankees?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm sure whatever replaces it will be worse. pretty much. I did like that it fit the other Pepsi sign, as far as big corporate signs go. The Citi arch would certainly fit on top of that pretty easily. And would be nice and ugly. One thing to think about here is the flag poles. They cut them lower and moved the flags around when the realized it was blocking the Pepsi sign, but now they could go back to making them normal sized and spread out the banners and what not. I figure it's 2:1 odds it's Budweiser anyway. 3:1 that they turn it into a bar/SRO area. (which, besides not having good beer, would be pretty cool imo) 1:2 that if they do that, we get big long tables along the back of the seats and ushers leading down to the seats to prevent people like me from wandering down there to take pictures.

I've never really liked Desmond, can't put my finger on it. I didn't like him last year in the rumors (particularly for the asking price) either and that was before he continued his downward trend. He actually had less fWAR than Flores. (though granted, a higher fWAR/g) But that's mainly because it gave them about equal credit defensively. I know Desmond WAS that bad early on, but I thought he played well afterwards. maybe not. At this point, feels like paying for reputation and eh. If we're going to upgrade SS, and I think it should be a legitimate question since I don't particularly trust Flores, I'd like to get at least above average hitting or defense.

Chris Davis is basically a first baseman. (I'll take Duda, thanks) I hate looking at free agents a year out. You never really know who's going to break out, who's going to break, etc. Like say Michael Saunders, maybe he plays everyday and has a monster year. going into his age 30 season for 2017, he could suddently be a great pickup. Neil Walker's pretty good, Valbuena is too. they'll both be early 30s, so maybe that's a flag. But, hey, maybe that's a hedge that if Herrera/Flores/Reynolds/etc doesn't work in 2016..

Edgy MD wrote: Whoah. Sandy and myself as well. #solidarity wait, has anyone seen Edgy and Sandy in the same place at the same time?

"You have tried to vote for too many options."

rather target Matt Carpenter. Johnny Peralta. Xander Bogaerts.

Vic Sage wrote: I'm less convinced that he's a stud so much as the best available guy on the market. That may be true. I'll trust Sandy on this. But if a 5+WAR season is considered an "all-star" year by stat guys, Jason's had 2 consecutive seasons of that, and he's still just 26, so I'd put my money on him. or more accurately, Fred's money. depends how much of All-Star you consider defense, etc. I don't think Adam Jones is it, and i do kinda like Heyward, but the argument for a trade is that the Mets do in fact have pieces, like Niese and Plawecki, that are more valuable to someone else, and you might be able to increase the overall value for your 25 guys that way. And perhaps it's possible to find a guy that fits the team in a more flexible way with fewer risks. Our money or not, broke or not, if you can get similar production without committing 7 years to a player that's not special. Heyward's very good, and can probably play a plus, or at least averagish CF, for at least a few more years, but there are other ways to go.

Jones strikes me as a guy who's power would dry up at Citi Field and he doesn't walk enough, which means most of his value is going to be defensive and you'd be getting him perhaps just as that starts to ebb?

Tried to apply all my money to Alpine Albatrosses, but it wouldn't let me. Really want that team to be full of Albatross contracts, damn defending champs.