Ceetar

Centerfield wrote: Crazy. I didn't expect that they would sign Headley and give up on A-Rod at 3rd. Don't they already have Beltran at DH? Do they still have Ichiro? Sometimes I feel like the MFY's have more roster spots than everyone else. They're gonna run Beltran in the OF and break him, the bastards.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Oh, c'mon. These bullshitting Mets were as likely to get this guy as my mom going out and getting me an original Van Gogh for the holidays. I'm still waiting for the money saved from the Santana and Bay contracts to be put back into the payroll. This is a joke, right? The team might already be as much as 10 or 15% over budget and they tried to sell the public that there was a chance they'd pick up a $10M+/year* player. *Includes posting fees If that's true, they were already over budget and signed Cuddyer, so why would that prevent them from signing someone else?

The biggest reason I think this wouldn't happen today is because both leagues would realize the way to maximize revenue would be to NOT put two big draws up against each other. Also the logistics and police protection and all that are bigger considerations. I always wondered what sort of toll having 4 teams sharing one stadium had on Shea. I never remember Shea not feeling a little well-worn, and I wonder if that time had a large impact on that feeling.

G-Fafif wrote: BTW, I it took me 10 minutes between learning that news and applying it to baseball. Where the hell are my priorities? Yeah, if they normalize relations, how does that affect the Cuban players? It'll probably change the way they can enter the league. But it'll also allow for better scouting of them I'd think. In the meantime, could get some cool exhibitions against Cuban teams though.

actually, it WAS the end of the 70s, just not the end of the decade. Of course, When someone gives you a 'decades' trivia question they're usually doing 70-79, not 71-80. It's just a counting error of course, and one that doesn't really matter much. I guess because the ability to count to 2000 doesn't seem that tough to just gloss over. Of course, we're measuring years from a fictional event so... Anyway, spellcheck existed in 1999. I'm sure of it. Although Ben Baumer was quoted as saying the Mets barely had computers when he was hired in..2005? And my browser hasn't caught on that millennial is now also a noun.

G-Fafif wrote: Wishing you a Happy Holiday and an Amazin� New Millenium. That is the message that was printed in the holiday card that went out in December 1999. And, yes, the Mets misspelled millennium. Then again, they got one run out of a grand slam. Also wasn't the end of the millenium, so..

Lefty Specialist wrote: Vic Sage wrote: If he hits enough but can't play SS, then move him to 2b after Murphy leaves next year. If he can't hit or field well enough, then you move on. A big market team can afford the $30m to find out, but the Mets? Probably not. Isn't this exactly how Kaz Matsui played out? I'm more concerned about the 650 AB cost than the $30m cost.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Zvon wrote: A shortstop who does not like to dive to catch baseballs? I'll pass. The Yankees just retired the number of a guy like that. yeah, but he's not better than what we have either.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Why does this thread even exist? Is this guy willing to pay the Mets to play? That's about what it might take to get financial value equal to his production.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I'm listening to the Amazin' Avenue one and the dudes are knowledgeable, but I find I'm not getting hooked and this particular ep's an hour and forty-five minutes long. That's longer than the finale of an FX show. Any recommendations? well, it's the offseason. It's better when it's Jeff and Rob I think. In general it's a little too prospect oriented for my taste but it's probably the best one.

A lot seem to be saying he can't play the position.

The difference of course being that your 118 Mets ARE the 88 Mets if those signings don't work out, which for a third-place mid-70s win team, is quite a gamble. Are you actually better off with taking a shot and failing? Probably not. What you forget is that now you've got that dead spot on the roster, that it's rare for any team to just cut unless it's real close to the end of their commitment. With option 2, you still have to spend wisely. It's not free money to gamble with, you should still pick your spots. and sometimes that spot is next year. or via acquiring a player midseason that has a contract. Not only that, signing Abreu basically means jettisoning Ike DAvis for less, in Spring, because there is nowhere to play him. Duda too probably. So no, you probably don't get the playoffs. Because some of Abreu's production is going to come at the expense of Duda's. Most of it probably. Cruz doesn't hit 40 HR in Citi Field AND probably gives more of it back via defense. Especially over Chris/Eric Young and den Dekker and Nieuwenhuis. (presuming you mean instead of Chris Young)

well, that plane crash was fairly horrific with just about everyone getting hurt in '09 and even '10. Suddenly the slope on the backend of the mountain became a cliff. And the Mets kept running like Wile E. Coyote before they realized it. (i.e. Jason Bay)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: What do we really know about the Mets' revenue stream? They reportedly lost $10 million in 2013 on $238M in revenues. --Attendance and payroll were virtually unchanged in 2014, but all clubs got new boost as a result of new TV contract. So you figure they still lost something in 2014 but maybe not quite as much. (that is a wild guess tho, could be a lot of expenses in there wrt refinancing, harrassment lawsuits, ticket giveaways etc etc). But it's probably not a lot different than that. attendance was about the same and ticket prices didn't really change. There are things like power costs, property taxes, etc too. Raises for Citi Field employees, or layoffs of Citi Field employees. More office employees. You have to figure most of that's negligible though. But does that include ad revenue? did that go up or down? I presume they got a decent rent check from Amway. Does that include the naming right checks? money from SNY? who knows. Does it include debt payments? interest on those debts?

d'Kong76 wrote: What do we really know about the Mets' revenue stream? only what's reported...so nearly nothing. multiple places report how much they lost each of the last few years, but did little digging into what those numbers represent. To me, it seemed like they were reporting just revenue from MLB and fans in/at the park against just payroll. Which only tells you so much.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Do you know that the team from Tampa Bay, competing directly against Bosox and the Yanks has two first place finishes and two second place Wild Card qualifiying finishes in just the last seven seasons? And they did it primarily by spending money to fix mistakes. No. The Rays are smart, but also relatively poor, so they can't afford to make mistakes. The Mets should be able to afford mistakes. That's the rich team's cushion and it's built into their rich team top percentile payroll. Whatever the Mets 'should be' they're not due to sustained losing. The Rays in this situation probably would've had to cut ties with David Wright too. And Murphy, and wouldn't have signed Granderson. The Mets don't have that revenue stream, right now. They don't, or can't, operate at a loss trying to plug holes with money and get to a point where it's not a loss anymore. They're working to rectify that by making smarter investments over throwing money at it to see what sticks. I'm okay with that plan. You don't have to be, but you not liking that plan, for whatever reason, doesn't mean it's a horrible small-market plan beneath the New York market.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Do you know that the team from Tampa Bay, competing directly against Bosox and the Yanks has two first place finishes and two second place Wild Card qualifiying finishes in just the last seven seasons? And they did it primarily by spending money to fix mistakes.

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: I didn't really read that rant. And there is the reason that it is pointless to have a discussion with you. In order to have a productive discussion (or argument) there must be mutual respect between the parties. One demonstration of such respect is taking the time to understand the other side's position. You do none of this. In fact, it looks like you go out of your way to distort the other's position to give yourself credibility. This is why arguing with you is pointless and maddening. It's like trying practice tennis with a partner that continuously slugs the ball over the fence. Eventually you just want to strangle him. (And it's official, the thread has evolved into arguing about arguing. All threads lead to arguing about arguing.) Yes, but until we blow past the emotions and the hyperbole and get to actual facts what's the point really? The first two lines were inane, and wrong, and loud. I didn't feel like I was going to get anything from the rest of it.

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Because it's time. Pitchers don't take hitting seriously. Is there a full moon tonight? next full moon is January 5th. Got a Blue one in July.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The National League has avoided the DH for over 40 years. What makes you think that will change in the next few years? Because it's time. Pitchers don't take hitting seriously. They're ever looking for more ways to specialize them, much the way they don't have them hit in early Spring or early minor leagues, since they feel it's secondary (more like tertiary, at best) Interleague play is here anyway and the silliness of have two sets of teams play with different rules is that much more apparent. Oh, and a new commish may have different thoughts on the matter. By rule, it could still happen if 2015 if he feels like it.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Yes, the margin for error is smaller, but it's not as minuscule as you make it out to be. There's almost no margin for error because they're already tapped out. Unless they wanna trade their stud prospects. This is like those descendants of the Mayflower pilgrims having to sell their antique furniture to pay their bills because they've squandered their bank accounts. And fix those quote boxes. You've got me saying what you said and you saying what I said. Says who? They lost Harvey last year, spent money to sign Colon. They had no outfield and signed two guys. One worked, the other didn't, so they signed another guy this year AND another backup. Who says they're tapped out? I'm not saying they're flush, but a lot of evidence points to them having at least a little more cash, but you gotta wait for your the right cards before you put your last chips in.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Centerfield wrote: It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract. This is a great example. It's almost a guarantee that one of Niese or Gee, plus Murph, will be gone by Opening Day, if not shortly after. And make no mistake about it -- those moves'll be salary dumps forced, by more than anything else, the Mets poverty. (You've heard of the Mets and the Jets and the Sets and the Nets. Well, say hello to The New York Debts! Hah!) It may be true that the Mets think they now have a surplus of pitching and need to cut someone on the staff loose. And Sandy may very well get a useful piece or prosepct for Niese or Gee. But the Mets are so broke that they hafta get rid of one of those two, even if they didn't want to. Their payroll is at about $100M, chump change for a NY team, but the NY Debts can't afford that payroll, and probably need to trim down to the sub $90M level they've established in recent years. They might not be able to move Colon 'cause he makes $11M and who'd wanna pay Colon that amount? And the Mets are too broke to trade Colon and carry, say, half of his salary going forward. So because of their poverty, the Mets have to get rid of pitchers like it or not and also their second baseman, who though flawed as he is, isn't anywhere near the top of the list of the things the Mets need to fix. none of these things are actually true though.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money. Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money. Yeah, but that's extremely difficult --- a position the NY team should never be in. They gotta make every dollar count 'cause their payroll is in the bottom third. That's no room for error. None. Everything's gotta break. No injuries. No setbacks. Everybody plays at least as good as they did last year. And that's almost entirely unrealisitic and naive to expect. Money is what a team uses to fix those problesm .. to get another leftfielder when the first one doesn't pan out, etc.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: What the fark's all this you-can-always-move-him-because-there'll-be-a-vacancy-at-second shipoopi? Last I checked prospects don't always pan out. But then, sometimes you just sign the guy you have to a nice deal and don't worry about it. How about "You can always DH him when the NL adopts it"