Ceetar

Strawberry.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: More likable as a CF than a LF/RF but what then of Lagares? The 1 year thing is interesting in that you could easily collect if the season doesn't go right. I guess I'm OK with this. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mets-land-bargain-in-chris-young/ he suggests the diminishing returns of playing two CF is overstated. Makes sense, Have Lagares (who hasn't proved he can hit enough) stand over towards one side a little more. Allows you to sign a more bat, less glove type corner too without losing too much defensively.

Frayed Knot wrote: They knew in advance that Selig wasn't showing. Sounds like they thought they could pressure him into showing. The lawyer said that he thought he'd show, and even the PA lawyers thought so. But yeah, my guess is that they planned the hissy fit in reaction to him ultimately not showing, knowing that that's probably how it would go, but are spinning it as not being planned because it was Bud's decision not to show up that started it.

Edgy MD wrote: Biggest salary handed out to an incoming free agent in the Alderson era. Frank Francisco's contract remains the largest total package. In fact, Frank Francisco remains a total package. Marcum's was probably..third? of course, Hairston and Byrd got very little and performed like you'd have wanted those two guys to have based on payment. Hopefully Young and whoever else they sign buck the trend.

metirish wrote: career low BABIP last year. Very good on defense. This one's growing on me. Lefty Specialist Nov 22 2013 09:22 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Can we just skip 2014 and go straight to 2015? Edgy MD Nov 22 2013 09:48 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Biggest salary handed out to an incoming free agent in the Alderson era. Frank Francisco's contract remains the largest total package. In fact, Frank Francisco remains a total package. Ceetar Nov 22 2013 09:53 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Edgy MD wrote: Biggest salary handed out to an incoming free agent in the Alderson era. Frank Francisco's contract remains the largest total package. In fact, Frank Francisco remains a total package. Marcum's was probably..third? of course, Hairston and Byrd got very little and performed like you'd have wanted those two guys to have based on payment. Hopefully Young and whoever else they sign buck the trend. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 22 2013 10:03 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation I have no idea if this guy is any good. Is he any good? Edgy MD Nov 22 2013 10:26 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Pretty solid .750 OPS/100 OPS+ guy, coming off a regrettable year. If he returns to his level, he's probably good, as half his value seems to be in his defense. But one will not like the trend lines. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 22 2013 10:54 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation More likable as a CF than a LF/RF but what then of Lagares? The 1 year thing is interesting in that you could easily collect if the season doesn't go right. I guess I'm OK with this. batmagadanleadoff Nov 22 2013 11:14 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation It's like getting the 1972 version of Tommie Agee. [fimg=333:2lrgkbdp]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3687/10997461183_78df5889ed_o.jpg[/fimg:2lrgkbdp] Ceetar Nov 22 2013 11:15 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: More likable as a CF than a LF/RF but what then of Lagares? The 1 year thing is interesting in that you could easily collect if the season doesn't go right. I guess I'm OK with this. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mets-land-bargain-in-chris-young/ he suggests the diminishing returns of playing two CF is overstated. Makes sense, Have Lagares (who hasn't proved he can hit enough) stand over towards one side a little more. Allows you to sign a more bat, less glove type corner too without losing too much defensively. Benjamin Grimm Nov 22 2013 11:16 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation My concern is that it takes too big a bite out of the budget. (If indeed, the budget is $30 million; that may not be accurate at all.) If 25 per cent of what they have to spend is going to players of this caliber, then we're going to have a fairly modest offseason. Can the Mets get another outfielder, a shortstop, and a starting pitcher for $22.75 million? I don't know; maybe they can. But I have my doubts. batmagadanleadoff Nov 22 2013 11:17 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's like getting the 1972 version of Tommie Agee. [fimg=333]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3687/10997461183_78df5889ed_o.jpg[/fimg] It's like getting [crossout]the 1972 version of[/crossout]Tommie Agee coming off his 1972 season. [fimg=333]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3687/10997461183_78df5889ed_o.jpg[/fimg] batmagadanleadoff Nov 22 2013 11:20 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Benjamin Grimm wrote: My concern is that it takes too big a bite out of the budget. (If indeed, the budget is $30 million; that may not be accurate at all.) If 25 per cent of what they have to spend is going to players of this caliber, then we're going to have a fairly modest offseason. Can the Mets get another outfielder, a shortstop, and a starting pitcher for $22.75 million? I don't know; maybe they can. But I have my doubts. Me too. Yesterday, I was working myself up to the idea that having $30M to spend on the team isn't as bad as it sounds. I figured that $7.5M, should yield a decent player, and that the Mets ought to get four decent players on that budget. It's not working out that way, so far. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 22 2013 12:19 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation More likable as a CF than a LF/RF but what then of Lagares? The 1 year thing is interesting in that you could easily collect if the season doesn't go right. I guess I'm OK with this. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mets-land-bargain-in-chris-young/ he suggests the diminishing returns of playing two CF is overstated. Makes sense, Have Lagares (who hasn't proved he can hit enough) stand over towards one side a little more. Allows you to sign a more bat, less glove type corner too without losing too much defensively. That's a pretty glowing review of our move there. Soundbites: this will likely go down as one of the best free agent signings of the off-season. League average hitters who can also play the outfield pretty well and add some baserunning value are nifty pieces. Last year, Cody Ross � same basic overall skillset, though with less defensive chops � got $26 million over three years. Ryan Ludwick, another average hitting RHB without as much defensive value, got $15 million over two years. Even Jonny Gomes, strictly a lefty masher who should probably DH, got $10 million over two years. For the Mets to land Young with only a single year commitment, even though he projects to be better than guys who got more money for more years, makes this a pretty great little deal. If Young has a big bounce back season, they can either flip him for prospects at the deadline or potentially extend a qualifying offer next winter, and maybe reap a draft pick as reward for their faith in his skills. Young isn�t a sexy addition, but this is the kind of solid low cost move that smart teams are making these days. If you just focus on what Young can�t do, you�ll ignore the fact that what he can do has value, and $7 million for what he brings to the table is one of the off-season�s better bargains. Edgy MD Nov 22 2013 12:32 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation If I was to think grandly, I'd think the plan was to go get Choo now and use the two of them, if not quite as a platoon, to provide some coverage for each. And heck, the platoon is a good fallback position if some of the Mets younger outfielders come quickly, or one or both of them absolutely tanks against same-side pitching. Lefty Specialist Nov 22 2013 12:43 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Dunno, I have a hard time getting excited about a career .235 hitter who hit .200 last year with a .280 obp, no matter how fast he is. Gwreck Nov 22 2013 12:55 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Benjamin Grimm wrote: $7.25 million dollars for a one-year deal. This guy had a WAR of 0 last year. (I do realize he did have 12.5 WAR for 2010-12). batmagadanleadoff Nov 22 2013 01:12 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation It seems that the Mets plan for 2014 is to hope to catch four Marlon Byrd's in a bottle. What'll Howie Megdal write about this deal? Vic Sage Nov 22 2013 01:55 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation I'm not averse to the signing. I've had my eye on this guy for years, because of his tools. And he's still only 30. But so far in his career, he's been mostly tools and not so much production. 2 decent years out of 8 is not something that makes one hopeful. But the upside on Young (without over-projecting) is a line of .250 /20hr /20sb /80r /80rbi, with a CF-caliber glove. Which, you know, doesn't suck. Of course, his downside is suckitude followed by the DL. I think he could end up playing well enough to be worth something to somebody by the end of the season, but you generally don't want to spend this much when you're just taking a flyer on a guy. Still, he's better than what we have, with the talent to be MUCH better. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 22 2013 04:44 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation At some point, the staying-healthy-thing becomes a characteristic, not bad luck, right? As for the two CFs thing... I like it just fine. Can we play the two of them deep and keep Eric Young in, like, short center? Ashie62 Nov 22 2013 04:48 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation The trend for Chris Young is rough..Oft injured and 4th of at best. C- Frayed Knot Nov 22 2013 06:00 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation So this gives the Mets (though not always at the same time): - two Chris Youngs - two Bob Millers - two Bobby Jones - two Mike Marshalls - two Pedro Martinez and probably a few others that I'm missing. Benjamin Grimm Nov 22 2013 06:35 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Bob Johnson Edgy MD Nov 22 2013 07:20 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Sandy Alomars. Centerfield Nov 22 2013 07:36 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation They had two Ike Davises. The good looking young player who hit for power and played great defense. And the squinty suckass guy. Frayed Knot Nov 23 2013 08:48 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Shawn/Sean Green x 2 Edgy MD Nov 23 2013 09:12 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's like getting the 1972 version of Tommie Agee. [fimg=333]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3687/10997461183_78df5889ed_o.jpg[/fimg] It's like getting [crossout]the 1972 version of[/crossout]Tommie Agee coming off his 1972 season. [fimg=333]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3687/10997461183_78df5889ed_o.jpg[/fimg] Perhaps indeed, but a lot of those other guys did better after 29. Agee was starting to put on the weight and I wouldn't be surprised to read he was in the onset stages of diabetes. Ashie62 Nov 23 2013 09:26 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation A starting OF of Young Jr. Lagares and Chris Young does little for me.. Now if they could get the Cruz fellow. Benjamin Grimm Nov 27 2013 07:23 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation This is now official, as of yesterday. I know that batmagadanleadoff is delighted about this, but the rest of us, it seems, are rather lukewarm about it. Hopefully there are better announcements to come. Mets press release wrote: METS SIGN OUTFIELDER CHRIS YOUNG The New York Mets today announced the club signed outfielder Chris Young to a one-year contract. Young, 30, appeared in 107 games with Oakland last season, hitting .200 (67-335) with 12 home runs and 40 RBI. The 6-2, 190-pound native of Houston, TX, who throws and bats right-handed, hit double-digit home runs for the seventh consecutive season in 2013. He finished with 33 extra-base hits, the second most in the American League among players with 335 at-bats or less. Originally selected by the Chicago White Sox in the 16th round of the 2001 First-Year Player Draft out of Bellaire High School in Houston, Young was traded to Arizona in 2005 as part of a deal for righthanded pitcher Javier Vazquez. He made his major league debut in 2006 with the Diamondbacks, and the next season, he hit 32 home runs and stole 27 bases to finish fourth in the Rookie of the Year voting. Young became the first rookie in major league history to hit 30 home runs and steal 25 bases in a season. He was an All-Star in 2010. The A's acquired him in 2012 for infielder Cliff Pennington and minor league infielder Yordy Cabrera. Young owns a .235 (825-3,508) lifetime average with 144 home runs and 122 stolen bases. He is one of 17 active major leaguers, along with teammate David Wright, to have at least 140 home runs and 120 stolen bases. His lifetime OPS against lefthanders is .838 (on-base percentage, .363; slugging percentage, .475). John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 27 2013 07:37 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation I kinda feel about Chris Young the way I did about Xavier Nady and also, Ryan Church. You know, a newly arriving, young-ish vet, corner outfielder who might be good. Or, might not. It's impossible to tell. Ceetar Nov 27 2013 07:51 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I kinda feel about Chris Young the way I did about Xavier Nady and also, Ryan Church. You know, a newly arriving, young-ish vet, corner outfielder who might be good. Or, might not. It's impossible to tell. Chris Young is way better than those guys (although I still believe Church would've turned in some good years sans-concussion) MFS62 Nov 27 2013 07:52 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation There's been some form of announcement of this deal every day since November 22nd. Memo to Sandy: Announcing the signing of the same player for five straight days is not the same as signing five different players. Later Benjamin Grimm Nov 27 2013 07:53 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation I have no problem with taking a flyer on a guy like him. My issue is that it's using up $7.25 million of the offseason budget. It remains to be seen how much that will handcuff the Mets from any future moves, but right now that's where my concern is. Ceetar Nov 27 2013 08:11 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Benjamin Grimm wrote: I have no problem with taking a flyer on a guy like him. My issue is that it's using up $7.25 million of the offseason budget. It remains to be seen how much that will handcuff the Mets from any future moves, but right now that's where my concern is. I mean, no one's aware of the budget more than the guys that signed him. They have a plan and he fit into it. It's not like they're walking down aisles "Ooh, Chris Young, put him in the cart!" and then get to the Granderson aisle and realize they can't afford it. The interesting part is they insinuated to him that he might play CF. If anything, that indicates that we could see TWO more outfielders, not just pencil in Lagares as 2014's Rey Ordonez. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 27 2013 08:19 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Ceetar wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I kinda feel about Chris Young the way I did about Xavier Nady and also, Ryan Church. You know, a newly arriving, young-ish vet, corner outfielder who might be good. Or, might not. It's impossible to tell. Chris Young is way better than those guys (although I still believe Church would've turned in some good years sans-concussion) Don't get me wrong -- just comparing my feeeeeelings on Young to those on Nady and Church. Ceetar Nov 27 2013 08:21 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I kinda feel about Chris Young the way I did about Xavier Nady and also, Ryan Church. You know, a newly arriving, young-ish vet, corner outfielder who might be good. Or, might not. It's impossible to tell. Chris Young is way better than those guys (although I still believe Church would've turned in some good years sans-concussion) Don't get me wrong -- just comparing my feeeeeelings on Young to those on Nady and Church. I don't even remember acquiring Nady myself. Just all of a sudden he was playing and it was like "Hey, he's doing pretty good ain't he? oh wait now he's a Pirate" Edgy MD Nov 27 2013 08:23 AM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation I kinda wonder if giving up Cameron for Nady and half of Milledge for Church was just as big (and unpopular) of a commitment as giving up a chunk o' budget for Young. Both those trades turned out OK for the Mets though, even if both their Metly careers were cut short. Ashie62 Nov 27 2013 07:05 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Benjamin Grimm wrote: I have no problem with taking a flyer on a guy like him. My issue is that it's using up $7.25 million of the offseason budget. It remains to be seen how much that will handcuff the Mets from any future moves, but right now that's where my concern is. It's alot of money for a guy who will accept a minor league invite n two years...2007 &10 he was terrific..2012 & 13 he fell off the map. Putting him in as a starting OF does not feel like an upgrade. prove me Chris.. Edgy MD Nov 27 2013 07:11 PM Re: Chris Young: The Next Generation Well, he ain't being paid for what he'll be in two yearsies. The Mets went into the offseason aiming at two outfielders. The idea that we got the hopefully lesser one first shouldn't be color the view of it.

Frayed Knot wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Wonder if that interview with Mike F was planned, too... Seeing as how, at the same time that ARod and one lawyer were talking with Mike F., another one of his lawyers was across town talking to Michael Kay on his talk show, I'm going to venture a 'Yes' on that. Lawyer this morning kept saying he was offended when Carton kept insisting that. But yeah, seems likely. Maybe they didn't plan it quite when/how it happened, but simply as a planned reaction when/if Selig didn't show.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Edgy MD wrote: And let's be honest. Wright can never mean as much to us as Seaver meant when we were ten. Definitely. I liked having Mike Piazza as a Met, for example, but he never meant as much to me as he did to some of the forum member (like Valadius) who are quite a bit younger than me. yeah, I mean if we're making this personal Wright surpassed Seaver in 2006 for me and I'd probably say he's past Piazza too at this point. In terms of fondness, we'll need a WS from Wright I think. In terms of performance? I dunno, when he takes the HR title seems like a good one.

It does suck for Andrew Brown, but hey, there's not exactly a glut of good hitting outfielders on the team right now. Hell, I think our top two _hitting_ guys who have played OF are Duda and Murphy still.

caught some of A-Rod's lawyer on with the WFAN guys this morning. Guy sounds like a real sleezeball, so I like Alex's chances. I didn't realize that whoever stole the documents tried to bribe A-Rod with them first. Are we sure this isn't the first couple of episodes of the new 24 season?

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: ... but hell, if this is a big story that deserves regular attention, I'd like someone to at least investigate the details for me. Except that the details of a employer/employee discipline deserve to be kept confidential particularly when it comes to things like drug use. Well yeah, and that includes the appeals process and the procedures involved in that appeal/test. And fighting for that right was what got Braun the poor reputation to begin with.

Frayed Knot wrote: The idea that only MLB's campaign against Rodriguez is weak, made-up, grandstanding, whatever, would seem odd to say the least. Maybe the size of the penalty is over-reaching (I've thought so all along) and the fact that he's fighting this makes it more likely that details will leak so maybe we will get a peak under the hood eventually, but that's not the same as saying there's no evidence or that it's not incriminating or that it doesn't fit the drug agreement in the CBA. of course not. But inferring the depth of it by the parties reaction is faulty. I understand MLB is not a court of law, and that MLB doesn't have to reach a certain point before they can accuse and penalize a player. That's what the union is there for, and presumably if it was trumped up they would've fought for it, but hell, if this is a big story that deserves regular attention, I'd like someone to at least investigate the details for me. I guess there just aren't enough facts for me to get angry at any of these guys for cheating nor do I think the crime is a big deal anyway. Is A-Rod just a blustering idiot or is the evidence not actually that overwhelmingly damning? Or did the insane and arbitrary length of the punishment pretty much force his hand? it's like $35-40 million right? That's probably the #1 reason he's fighting it.

I guess I'd have to read it, but presumably they have to furnish this "outside evidence" to someone? Otherwise this 65 games feels like a plea bargain type deal where you aren't actually found guilty. anyway, I really just want to actually see the evidence. If A-Rod hadn't fought it, no one would've. Presumably now at least the arbiter has seen it. The line for outside evidence isn't exactly clear cut. Take that doctor from Toronto that A-Rod and Reyes and a bunch of others were messing around with. (this was before this CBA, so probably slightly different wording?) That never amounted to anything that I recall, but MLB presumably could've tried to punish them as well. I dunno, I just feel like we're getting all the guilt trips and admonishments without the evidence. the media, and even baseball, seem more interested in just telling us these guys are the bad guys than actually delving into details.

Edgy MD wrote: Betting his life: it's in the video. Transmonk his the right to kill him: Satirical comment based on his statement that he was willing to bet his life. Did you watch the video? ahh, no. headphones, work, etc. Probably watched it originally. clarified. thank you.

Edgy MD wrote: Fine and understood, but how about not jerking me around by pretending to not know what I'm writing when it's plain and clear? I'm not, I really have no idea what you meant by gambling with his life and Transmonk as the right to kill him stuff.

Edgy MD wrote: I don't know what we're talking about. I could just respond to every line in your post because it's all goofy but what's the point? There's really no point. I don't hold anything against players for the BS they spout. I'd prefer them to be nice friendly non-hateful people, but the legal/PR angles they take mean absolutely nothing.

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: I have no idea what this means. irrelevant or not, the tester DID violate the rules. Braun certainly took it way too far, made it way too personal and hateful, but that doesn't mean he was wrong to fight it or to challenge the process or tester. That he's an asshole isn't really of concern to me, since I'm not hanging out with him. Really? You really have no idea? Because I really don't want to spend all day on this if you're just feigning confusion. You claim that everybody would and does behave as Braun did. I think that's plainly untrue. the bet his life bits. Who comes out and says "oh, you're accusing me..you're right I did it." I get that afterwards some people confess and apologize. But they're apologizing for what they got caught doing, not for doing it. They don't mean it. I don't get why people dismiss these guys like all is forgiven just because they mouth some words some PR guy handed them. It's all spin afterwards, and it's all the same whether they apologize or feign ignorance or claim they're really innocent. Braun, Pettitte, Clemens..all the same in my eyes. So yeah, maybe Braun took it further beyond where most would've given up and admitted guilt. But of course, he did eventually get to the point where the test was ruled invalidated. And had the private medical results not been leaked, you never would've known. So why should he have proclaimed himself guilty of something we shouldn't even know about?

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: ... but arbitrarily going after the 'big guys' on possibly sketchy (or no) evidence is about putting forth an effort more than cleaning anything up. I don't believe that they're arbitrarily going after 'big guys'. This biogenesis stuff landed in their lap courtesy of a small Miami newspaper and they're simply prosecuting the names who got caught up in it. Fernando Martinez got snagged in the net the same way ARod & Braun did. If the evidence against Rodriguez is truly lacking then I hope that comes out, although count me among those who don't tend to believe the angle that Selig & MFY mgmt concocted this whole thing out of personal hatred coupled with an attempt to reign in big salaries. Remember also that Selig et al have A TON to lose in credibility if they swing and miss on this. The fact that the other dozen or so guys took their punishment without a fight (including Braun who took a longer punishment despite showing the willingness to fight) suggests that evidence is there. Could you imagine the shit-storm if they opted NOT to pursue this? oh, no I don't mean it's concocted or personal hatred or anything, I think there's just a lot of grandstanding going on. Yes, they're just prosecuting what sorta fell in their lap, but what they're doing with it is not simply "here's our evidence, you violated the rules, here's the fine as it's been collectively bargained" What they did to Braun and A-Rod is additional and focused. And we've seen no evidence or reason why they should get worse penalties than Fernando Martinez. Braun's reputation is so low because of the other thing that he just took it, but A-Rod definitely is being targeted specially and has every right to make MLB show their hand. And how about an answer to this..if Braun fails a test this year, how many games is he suspended for? Is this part of the three strike policy or no? He's never been found guilty of failing a test. (or however you want to word that) Edgy MD wrote: Braun didn't do this. He, in fact, bet his life, among other ridiculous and nasty and damaging things. This means not only does Trans Monk get to ridicule him, he can actually legally take Braun's life if he is of a mind to. I have no idea what this means. irrelevant or not, the tester DID violate the rules. Braun certainly took it way too far, made it way too personal and hateful, but that doesn't mean he was wrong to fight it or to challenge the process or tester. That he's an asshole isn't really of concern to me, since I'm not hanging out with him.

TransMonk wrote: "If I had done this intentionally or unintentionally, I'd be the first one to step up and say, 'I did it'." "I truly believe in my heart, and I would bet my life that this substance never entered my body at any point." It's fine if players want to argue their case within the rules that apply to the crime...but they shouldn't then say shit like this that is blatently not true. That's all I'm saying. He got off on a technicality the first time, but that's not the same as being innocent. He proclaimed innocence before he got off on that technicality. Everyone claims they're innocent when they're not. I mean, the only other option was to go full-on "no comment" and it's not like that really would've been received differently.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I disagree with that. If they only wanted the game to "look" clean they'd be like the NFL or NBA and pretend random testing is doing the job. If anything, baseball's pursuit of high-profile takedowns has had the effect of magnifying this idea there's a steroid issue unique to baseball. Because the people, media, etc, care more about steroids in baseball. but arbitrarily going after the 'big guys' on possibly sketchy (or no) evidence is about putting forth an effort more than cleaning anything up. This is ONE doctor/clinic that got around that would provide good stuff. How many other clinics around the country do you think there are? (And if Jetes was such a good leader, wouldn't he make sure his teammates had the names of the 'secret' ones?)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The whole culture of doping is such that the robbers are always a few steps ahead of the cops. "Arbitrary witch hunts" on shaky evidence are one of the few techniques at MLB's disposal with the goal not of justice necessarily but to cripple the movement by making pariahs of users they can snare. which is why it's a perception fight and one A-Rod and Braun should absolutely fight if they don't want to be the pariahs. They have rights too. but then the goal isn't actually to make the game clean but to look like they want to make the game clean.

Lefty Specialist wrote: You go the Melky Cabrera route. You admit wrongdoing immediately, apologize to your teammates and you take your punishment without whining even a little tiny bit. He could have fought his suspension but didn't. After his suspension was over, he was eligible to return for the postseason, the Giants said no, and he again accepted it and kept his mouth shut. If you're caught, don't act like an asshole. It's fairly simple. also, create a fake website and pretend you bought it there. The first one was more ridiculous, this biogenesis stuff is an arbitrary witch hunt. Braun took a suspension longer than he deserved until the rules for a failed test, which he doesn't have. Of course he should've fought it. going the anti-semite route was too far, but not fighting it. sure, he got off the same way you get off when you fight a speeding ticket and the cop doesn't show up to court, but in the end you don't have a speeding ticket, and Braun got his paycheck for 50games and no suspension on his record.

Lefty Specialist wrote: As far as Syndergaard goes, I'm sure hoping 'off-limits' really means 'off limits', not 'we're saying he's off-limits to drive up his eventual trade value'. I'd trade him for Braun in a heartbeat.

well sure, half the knock on Lucas Duda is that he's not an egotistical maniac and therefore has "confidence issues"

Kong76 wrote: Pre-planned? Ya think? I can't help but imagine if this was all going on and he was on the Mets. There were so many outraged people that he was never landed years ago. I can't look at him without wanting to spit. never would've happened with the Mets (nevermind that the Mets aren't are run a little big smoother, and with a wee bit more compassion. not much, but the Yankees set a low bar) things would've been different, but it just never would've evolved that way. Sure, he still would've cheated, just like all the other players who are still cheating and not getting caught because they picked doctors better at covering their tracks, but he never would've gotten a 10 year contract with opt-outs and the Mets wouldn't have then redoubled his contract in 2007. He'd probably still be a Yankee now, them having picked him up after the Mets realized playing an aging player with no DH was a bad idea, ala Piazza.

this one too The Mets do have pitching prospects with which to sweeten the pot, though.