Ceetar

Edgy MD wrote: I feel a compulsion to be where the incoherent idiots aren't. I tried that. got lonely.

Edgy MD wrote: Quintanilla may be the second-best option remaining on the market. Let's offer a minor-league deal to Jeter. and then a job in the front office when he retires again after 7 games. We can call the Marty Special.

Edgy MD wrote: Ah, makey more sense there. I'd certainly like to bring in Everth or some other ML vet to keep the heat on Tejada. He's certainly shown that heat can keep him focused. some nicely timed BABIP regression certainly helps with that perception. Yes, they definitely should have more than 2 possible SS around on the 40 man. If I hear 'Omar Quintanilla' floated should someone get hurt I might cry.

rather Tejada than Evereth.

Edgy MD wrote: They'll have other things to write about on April 1. January is dead time for baseball writers. Pretty much. I've always found it hard to want to read the forced/filler posts, even if they're good. I'm just stubborn though, don't like being told what the topic of discussion is for this week. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'd probably give them more a C. I'd bet anything that if SI gave the Mets a "C", then you woulda given the Mets a "B". Nope, I just like the Cuddyer signing more than most and realize Granderson wasn't bad and trust/hope in David Wright to not be injured. I like Mayberry as a good bench guy. Don't think the rotation needs to be immediately pruned.

I'd probably give them more a C. I know Spring Training starts in like 3 weeks, but what is it about this week that has everyone writing about offseason grades like the season starts tomorrow?

Edgy MD wrote: I would put it that way, though. He's not "Hanley," so much as "Hanley?," in that he comes with that question mark attached. Flores may not be a shortstop, but none of the other 29 teams seem to have thought Ramirez was one either. So I guess the main Hanley question is whether he gives you more bang for your buck in the outfield than Cuddyer. He's an appealing asset, but maybe not as obvious a fit as all that. And he cost the Sox four years and $87,800,000 with a vesting option for a fifth year at $22,000,000, while Cuddyer was a total of two years and $21,000,000. He's certainly meaningfully younger and therefore a better hope over the long haul, but, well... remember when one of the reasons folks decried Mets management was the lack of foresight Omar had in tacking all those damn extra years and vesting options at the end of contracts, leaving the team with one more year and one more year carrying an albatross? well, Hanley? then. I was on board, but I don't think the Mets really considered him a SS (But if they consider Flores one..I dunno) I just feel like he's the only legitimate and proven hitter that's played SS that the Mets could've reasonably (i.e. not trade two trucks worth of prospects for Tulo) acquired. I'm not screaming at them for not doing it, I just think he's the best/most interesting "Sandy should've 'gone for it'" discussion. We might have pondered about that contract but I don't think many would say that gamble was a horrible one.

seawolf17 wrote: I'm not displeased with this offseason. I don't want to make moves just to make moves; it's not about cutting the Wilpons slack -- I can't stand the Wilpons -- but all the big names available were starting pitchers, and we don't *need* any of that. Hanley?

believe keeper deadline is Friday or Saturday, better drop those bums you hate.

Nymr83 wrote: Of course, the Yankees can say that talent, not contract size, determines playing time and let him rot on the bench. Sure his lawyers could sue and claim he was benched only to avoid hitting contract milestones, but then the burden of proof is on him rather than on the Yankees. It wouldnt even be all that unreasonable to say that Headley won the 3B job outright because we expect him to produce better than a guy who turns 40 in July and didnt play all of last year. My guess is Arod gets the 6 million for 6 more homers but never reaches the incentives after that. so what, they're going to play with 24 men for 3 years to save 6million?

Also lefties have the platoon advantage as batters more often.

d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I don't really root for the improvement that comes through offseason dealings. To my thinking, that's just what a team does in accepting that they've failed at something in building the team. When a team has the best minor league record of all 30 teams, I'm not in a rush to force them to admit that. A lot of the best Mets teams came after doing little transacting in the offseason. A lot of the most improved ones and the best overall ones. And a lot of the crappiest teams have come after an offseason of copious transacting. Transacting ain't winning. It's... shuffling. And not transacting certainly isn't doing nothing. What's your stance on copious scoreboard upgrades? [crossout]When[/crossout] If the Nationals win the division, we'll talk about transacting ain't winning? Cubs? The fans that habitually cut the Wilpons some slack have gotten to me so much this off-season I can't even begin to explain how aggravating it is. Not transacting certainly is doing nothing. Transact not, improve not. fixed that.

Centerfield wrote: My idea of offseason shenanigans is a team that claims to be on the verge of contention "improving" their team over the winter by signing a 36 year old OF'er coming off a significant injury and doing dick otherwise. And still not spending any money. 'significant'? He broke his shoulder diving for a ball, and had a little hamstring thing. Those aren't really significant.

d'Kong76 wrote: Does that come in a can?! Nope. I do have a can of Beast Mode though.

d'Kong76 wrote: "Woman holding can of beer, circa 1950s." People get paid to write these captions?? Case of cold cans is on the shopping list for tonight. It's gonna snow! I plan to drink a Troegs Blizzard of Hops to pair with the blizzard. Outside.

d'Kong76 wrote: I doubt it could be kept up all year. They actually make pills for that now.

man, they made a couple hundred thousand dollars more to this point than last year, That's enough to have paid Hanley Ramirez right? Oooh, and skimmed that article and it's nice to see it's not even factually accurate. It seems to imply that Leigh invented select-a-seat, which is just false.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Let's debate my Segura idea instead. Curious about Segura. Didn't know about the personal stuff last year, but the year before he was pretty good (And the year before, his first, he was Ruben Tejada) He's got more speed though, and last year his babip was a blip lower. decent walker. I'm not trading Gee AND Tejada for that. (Tejada will be a very good SS/2B backup guy this year) But I'd do it if they threw in a prospect of sorts. Doesn't have to be top flight guy, just someone. Or maybe a solid lefty pen guy?

the rules are NOT the same for every team. Some teams have already violated the cap. Those teams will already be hard-capped after July 2nd. They have no further penalty to signing Mancada whereas the Mets would get hard-capped for those 2 periods. So, money aside, if there is a player to be had in those next two signing periods the Mets could actually be better off waiting, in a signing period with less teams that can sign a guy demanding a signing bonus, to make a play on a big guy. It's messy, and there is obvious pairing between the Mets need for a SS right now and Mancada, but it's hardly just a "nah, they're broke" situation.

Edgy MD wrote: Those rules are miserable, aren't they? pretty much, yeah. one guy saying Mancada is going to be the top prospect in MLB is just one guy saying that. Doesn't mean he's a slam dunk to be their answer this year even if he is. While I doubt the Mets can/will afford ~$60 for a signing bonus (including fees) anyway, there is also the restraint on the next two signing periods to consider that applies to the Mets but NOT to some other teams. It's not just about money. And even if it were, that's a hell of a lot of cash to spend on a signing bonus.

HahnSolo wrote: I don't consider this a huge marketing misstep, but I also don't think the change in the scoreboard is dramatic enough to warrant a major announcement from the team. They emailed a newsgroup. Isn't not like they held a press conference.

I'd be all set to go all-SNY. I bet Fman would be too. Of course, my dream is that they open up MLB.TV for locals and I cut out cable all together. But yeah, coexisting for now seems like what's gonna happen.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I call BS on the criticism or any alleged marketing blunders. There are people who will criticize the Mets anything. If it had not been the day of the Nationals signing, it would been "How can they, in the week of the week of the Nationals signing." If they had signed Scherzer themselves, it would have been "Why didn't they sign a hitter." If they had signed (another) hitter, it would have been "Why didn't they trade for a shortstop." That's just the way it is right now, until they start winning. Winning silences a lot of stupidity. Agreed. just because a small (and yes, Twitter is small) segment of the fanbase claims it's a marketing blunder, doesn't mean it is. If anything, it's the opposite because it's keeping people talking about the Mets. There can't be people that are going to now tune out because the Mets announced a Citi Field improvement, and almost without fail everyone that can get worked up about the Mets anything in mid-January is going to come running back when they're winning again. Social media augments the volume of the vocal minority, but that doesn't mean their way is the right way or even a good way.

I like it. 1.5 million pixels!

and apparently they're going to pay him that money over 14! years.