Ceetar

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: No, I just don't jump to preconceived conclusions based on a single statement from a Brewers beat writer presented with no evidence against actual quoted statements about Gomez having a bum hip and statistical trends of declining performance consistent with injury. Of course you don't. You, instead, jump to preconceived conclusions based on whatever Wilpon and the Mets say. Your definition of "facts" is whatever Fred and Jeff Wilpon say. I've never once quoted either of those people, nor do their quotes appear on baseball-reference.com or fangraphs.com. Neither of them is the manager of the Brewers either.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: . Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions. Except, you know, facts. Like you know the facts. There's no doubt that this issue is just another Rorschach test -- and I expected you, faster than anyone else to pop in here to defend the Great Wilpons. No, I just don't jump to preconceived conclusions based on a single statement from a Brewers beat writer presented with no evidence against actual quoted statements about Gomez having a bum hip and statistical trends of declining performance consistent with injury.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: . Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions. Except, you know, facts.

And we're capitalizing on it now. We just went to the World Series, which means the associated revenues will be HIGHER because we're in NY with 15million+ 'fans'. Arguably the most successful expansion franchise. If you spend with no concern it catches up with you and negates that advantage. The Yankees have managed to not completely suck by spending money, but they've been budget conscious for years. Let's give the Dodgers a few years to see if they continue this crazy spending spree. Let's see what happens if a key injury or two gives them a couple of albatrosses and a 83 win season and revenue starts trending the other way. There are a few gambles I'd have liked the Mets to take financial risks on, Kang for instance, but it's not like they're not signing players that should help.

Centerfield wrote: Reports are that the Mets are still mulling over the QO. Not sure that is true or not, but man, what is there to mull over. You extend the QO without question. Come on guys. Not if they get Murphy to sign a contract first. But that's mostly just GMs being unwilling to say outright what they're going to do. Unless there is something shady going on. "Hey Blue Jays, sure, we won't QO Murphy so you can sign him w/o losing a pick, BUT you're giving us a break on the deal for Tulo"

Edgy MD wrote: So what did we learn before and after the medical emergency? Is the staff (apart from perhaps Geren) expected to return? Is Laggy going in for surgery? What do we know about Cespedes' health? Is he on the back nine at Cherry Creek as we speak (or type)? How pissed were they at Wally for the 51s' collapse down the stretch? All staff invited back. Lagares getting evaulated, surgery not expected. Didn't hear anything on Cespedes but I didn't think either of his injuries were serious ones. Not sure if they mentioned Wally. Lots of stuff about "I don't see us trading our pitchers", "Payroll will probably start a little bit higher" and what not. You know, the public stuff GMs say that mostly means nothing.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I get the impression the Mets were exasperated with Montero, however. They felt like he was either dogging it or not forthcoming as to his health, and it was costly inasmuch as we couldn't execute the 6-man the way they wrote it up and wound up giving too many starts to an ineffective Gee. It's things like this that I wish the Mets reporters would actually dig deeper into, instead of say Harvey's sleeping habits or where Syndergaard eats lunch. What really happened the day he was shut down?

Lefty Specialist wrote: Daniel may be a good Christian boy, and he may love playing in New York, but he also has an agent. He'll never accept 3/$40 or even less. Daniel's got to strike while the iron is hot and I'd expect him to be somewhere in the 5/$70 range. Someone will pay it, and it won't be the Mets. Hell, he was making $8 mil this year and he had no leverage. He won't sign up to be Duda's and David's caddy either. He's gone, even if they give him the QO. I honestly don't see any scenario where he stays. Move on; there are other options. 5/70 AND perhaps losing a draft pick. I dunno, I don't see him getting that. I don't think GMs are dumb enough to be fooled by a hot stretch of games in the NLCS

those numbers convert roughly to an extra 12 million in income. of course, it comes with other things. the purchases in the park, surely. Ad revenue both on SNY and in the park advertisements. That's where any gripe should come. It makes fiscal sense, regardless of ownership, to not spend more than you pull in and all signs point to that. But what numbers do you use? Does the stadium sponsorship come in? Ad revenue from SNY? I don't think they're counting that, and I contend that they should. I'm okay with them spending down loan and debt associated with the stadium and the team itself. Sure, if you want to apportion the sponsorship to paying the stadium loan, go for it. I don't need them paying off Sterling loans. But who's to say? No one has access to those numbers. We know they're spending the direct revenue from the team, but what about the rest of it? Have YOU seen their books? Why is even worth speculating? They run their business that I'm a fan of, and they're clearly doing a good job of it. They got a pretty damn good result and I'm happy with that.

seawolf17 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I voted for N.Y. CITI because it was the most eye-catching, and MATT SIGNS because I liked the unorthodox angle. I noticed that of all of these early Harvey covers, there's no mention yet of Batman. It will be interesting to see when that first surfaces. (I've collected these covers but haven't analyzed them at all.) I suspect that as we get deeper into the season, it will be a rare Matt Harvey cover that doesn't allude to Batman in some way. Wasn't the Daily News instrumental in coining the phrase if I recall? I wouldn't be surprised if it only shows up there. I thought it came from the SI article, whenever that was. right, right. I mix up my worthless publications.

RealityChuck wrote: The quality of puns in the tabloids has gone way down. to be fair so far we've only really gotten the Spring Training filler stuff.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I voted for N.Y. CITI because it was the most eye-catching, and MATT SIGNS because I liked the unorthodox angle. I noticed that of all of these early Harvey covers, there's no mention yet of Batman. It will be interesting to see when that first surfaces. (I've collected these covers but haven't analyzed them at all.) I suspect that as we get deeper into the season, it will be a rare Matt Harvey cover that doesn't allude to Batman in some way. Wasn't the Daily News instrumental in coining the phrase if I recall? I wouldn't be surprised if it only shows up there.

I find myself picking the 'least bad' one so far. Also some damn poor photoshopping on some of these.

MFS62 wrote: A procedural question here. Cespedes was acquired with a clause in his contract that said any team of which he is a member at the end of the season had five days to sign him or not be able to re-sign him until next April. Mets fans breathed a sigh of relief when that restriction was renegotiated. But, IIRC, there was another restriction. Because he played for several teams this year, he is not eligible to receive a qualifying offer. A qualifying offer would entitle the Mets to receive a compensatory draft pick. The reason I'm asking is I have heard several of the WFAN and ESPN talking heads say that if the Mets make one to him and Murphy, at least they would gain a draft pick My question, was that non-compensation waived in Conforto's deal as well? (Or is it mandatory in the CBA?) A huge one year qualifying offer might make resigning with the Mets very attractive to him. Later You mean Cespedes in your question. It's a mandatory part of the CBA. Players traded mid-season are not eligible for qualifying offers. The Mets get nothing if/when Cespedes signs with another team. The rule that required them to sign him within 5 days was a little more complicated and seemed to be part of some older rules/pre-QO put in place. I don't recall the exact reasons since it doesn't matter, but the crux of it was that teams that didn't retain their own guys had to wait until May 15th to re-sign them. Mets will get the draft pick for Murphy if he signs elsewhere after they make him the QO. They almost definitely won't make anyone else an offer (like Parnell or Colon)

Edgy MD wrote: Well, keeping in mind that I was tongue-in-cheek speculating there, as I was throughout the post, I'm thinking three years, $39 million. Throw in a few incentives that could bring the total to $45 million (but never will) and NOTARIZE THAT SHIT. I think that's a wee bit on the far end. was thinking 3/36 as the max I'd go. And yea, incentives. MVP votes! ASG appearances! appeal to his sense of thinking he's better than he is with false value.

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: Mets drew 400k more fans last year, and presumably locked in a bunch of 2016 deposits and expect a bump next year. Say 800k. so 800x whatever the average ticket price works out to be. $30? Should expect a modest 20million bump in expected revenue and therefore expenditure, give or take a little based on leaving room for mid-season acquisitions or whatever. You could dig a little more into the exact numbers there, but it hardly seems like something with a lot of meat to write about. I want you to understand that I am a fan of the New York Mets. And I am writing on a message board that I wish our team had the financial capability of the Kansas City Royals. I wish I had a crystal ball to know which pitchers would get hurt in 2016. And I'd like to know which games the Mets will win and which they will lose so I can plan my trips to Citi accordingly.

Mets drew 400k more fans last year, and presumably locked in a bunch of 2016 deposits and expect a bump next year. Say 800k. so 800x whatever the average ticket price works out to be. $30? Should expect a modest 20million bump in expected revenue and therefore expenditure, give or take a little based on leaving room for mid-season acquisitions or whatever. You could dig a little more into the exact numbers there, but it hardly seems like something with a lot of meat to write about.

Yawn.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Fair enough. Even in a world WITH Grantland in it, that was a worry. right. There's plenty of fault with the way ESPN promoted it, but it doesn't speak well that they feel people yelling about which QBs are more elite than others and draftkings sleepers is more of people want than nuanced analysis.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Barnwell's stuff will find an audience somewhere. So will Keri and Baumann and the rest of the pretty damn excellent baseball writing staff. I'm not as concerned about quality writing finding an outlet as much as quality writing finding adequate compensation to make it a meaningful pursuit in the mainstream.

Zvon wrote: If KCs scouts had Duda as a bad first baseman then their reports were old and out of date. Duda has become a fine first baseman since Ike left. He is calm around the bag and has not displayed the poor footing we saw at first, at 1st. 9 out of 10? I'll go as far as to say he makes that throw 99 out of 100 times. Duda's fielding around first base is no longer a concern, and that's what KCs scouting report should have reflected. So them and their scouts suck. The 'we scouted him' is cover for making an over-aggressive perhaps game-ending decision. And is also cover for Hosmer basically not trusting Gordon to come through. In retrospect, I wonder if it would've been wiser for Duda to come in towards David and abandon first, saving a few split seconds on his throw home.

86-Dreamer wrote: You are right about his 2016 trade value but I don't want to trade him - I want to win the 2016 World Series. I think a relief role fits in nicely with his skills, the Mets needs and a reduced post surgery workload. He could always go back to starting in spring training 2017. Well we saw how Parnell did with his control in relief upon return, no saying we want someone still getting used to things in that role necessarily. And there's an argument to be made about getting Wheeler lots of reps so he's not hampered in 2017. But sure, if we get to July/August and the rotation is rolling and we need a reliever, it's certainly something to consider.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't remember, where did we leave off with Montero? Was there something that indicated that he wasn't too enthusiastic about pitching? He was complaining about pain, they couldn't find anything, there were insinuations that he was being lazy about ramping up his workload, they got on the same page about him getting into games, and then he was pulled/pulled himself from a game and all we got was a curt 'his season is over' from the Mets. I may have missed something since though.

Nymr83 wrote: 86-Dreamer wrote: I hope they point Wheeler to the pen right from the start of his throwing program. Montero as well, but I've long thought Wheeler's power arm and high pitch counts were better suited to relieving than starting. Colon would be a nice luxury as long man / spot starter. Add in Blevins or another loogy and they should not have to add much to be solid. I think it would be a big mistake to shift Wheeler to the pen. If you really don't like him as starter the better move would be to wait until hes made some starts and then trade him, the trade value of "healthy Wheeler the starter" has got to be higher than the value of "Wheeler the reliever" aka the Familia route. Probably best to assume Wheeler isn't part of the plan and who knows if he'll need a little more time to 'get right' after Tommy John. If the Mets get to the Wheeler return date without a pitcher injury opening a slot for him, we can worry about it then. Seems unlikely.

It does really depend on what the market is for him. He's still a good player. Especially since he cooled down in September and October (but you know, was hurt..) I doubt people are looking to give him 6 years. But perhaps his passable CF raised his value and who knows if it'd drop to what might actually be a reasonable price.