Ceetar

Edgy MD wrote: People get around good laws through loopholes also, and oft with loopholes that are far sillier than the law. And in this case, the proposed loophole usage appears to be a rather dubious interpretation of the loophole. Which is rather my point. hardly the first one. And it's usually easier to just use the loopholes that get things done than it is to refine and revise law. There are already a couple of casinos in New York that are operated by Native Americans. full, regular casinos. (although no sports betting I don't believe, but that is seemingly operated under a different part of the law. as is horse racing) Foxwoods/Mohegian Sun are the same way. I obviously haven't studied it fully, but from what I understand you get the worst of both worlds this way, but using loopholes. You don't get the same regulation/control and tax income that you would legally, and often times the agreements signed with the tribe ends up not being overly beneficial to them either. In many cases they're being exploited in a whole different corporate America way. A casino in NYC makes a lot of sense though. You can see it coming, with all these slot parlors and 'almost' gambling halls with automated table games. There's one next to JFK. A casino seems to be floated in any major development. (the Lighthouse project/Islanders bits too) Plenty of people go down to Atlantic City or over to the CT ones. Pennsylvania is just over the Delaware water gap. New Jersey's ridiculously antiquated, but the pressure from PA and even Delaware down south might push them to open up gambling state wide, and sports betting too. The Meadowlands would be pretty good location for a casino. It'd just be nice to see a city get ahead of the curve instead of waiting for the curve to press them full against the wall and crushed under the tide of public pressure before they did anything.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm fascinated by the faint implicatoin that Native Americans' capacity to open casinos isn't something particular to the laws of their tribal land, but can be interpreted as rights that stay with them, even in jurisdictions that otherwise wouldn't allow that. No gambling in NYC? Get a couple of Shinnecocks to front for you're gold! Ka-ching! Sometimes the only way to get around silly laws is to exploit loopholes.

I'm not shocked my archetypal 'bad team' hasn't had as many players pushing whatever advantage they could get like the rest of the league.

Edgy MD wrote: If that line of reasoning gets a player two more dollars, I'm sure it's not beneath an agent to push it. I'm sure many have. Certainly not. I don't begrudge Boras saying whatever he wants. He's certainly good at his job. Just clarifying the phrasing. I tend to agree the Mets probably won't be pulled into a game of chicken. They've been perfectly clear about their intentions to probably not sign Bourn all offseason, and we're getting REALLY close to Spring Training now. I don't see how Boras has much leverage here and suspect he'll either take said attractive offer if it really exists, or cave and it'll basically be a done deal with the Mets in another day or two.

Boras used the word 'attractive' I read that as "Hey, the Mets suck, you should pay him MORE to play for you"

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I've only attended five games at Citi Field since it opened, but each time I was able to get one of those free under-the-overpass spots. This strongly depends on the game and time of course. It's bigger than it looks though, because you can go down for blocks, although I wouldn't recommend that with a low-bottom car like a Saturn SL2. But I do find most of those spots are gone an hour before.

Edgy MD wrote: Oh, sure, that list is so ridiculously incriminating-but-not-substantial that it's almost comic. Like finding a murder victim with a note in his hand that says "Sonny killed me." Obviously, we have to wait on all the facts. Damn facts. we just need to know if they've got any pimples on their back.

Did pretty well in my eyes. I don't think he was untrusted necessarily. Although his pitch to contact style did lead itself to the occasional problem. Mets are significantly shorter this year.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I know it's horrible to be stuck in the middle of a large parking lot after the game, but without that big lot there would be much more competition for the free "under the overpass" spots that I prefer. WHAT free "under the overpass" spots? 90% of those claimed by the Impark brigade. New York City doesn't need a football stadium. New York really doesn't need an Olympics. New York sure as shit doesn't need a motherfucking casino (even hypothetically). and stay off the lawn dammit.

I tried to import and join to a name lookup table to sub out the codes for ids, but it's seemingly hanging, so here it is in messy format for you, worst years with RISP in Mets history of guys that got at least one hit. (id,year,batting average,hits,AB) crair101 1962 0.04 1 25 seavt001 1976 0.0455 1 22 darlr001 1985 0.0455 1 22 ruscg001 2001 0.0476 1 21 santj003 2008 0.0476 1 21 darlr001 1986 0.05 1 20 reynr002 1983 0.05 1 20 cubbm101 1981 0.0526 1 19 coned001 1991 0.0556 1 18 leita001 2004 0.0556 1 18 koosj001 1972 0.0588 1 17 herna003 2006 0.0588 1 17 yoshm001 1999 0.0588 1 17 jorgm001 1970 0.0588 1 17 tracs001 2006 0.0588 1 17 cardd101 1968 0.0588 1 17 astap001 2002 0.0588 1 17 mainj001 2007 0.0588 1 17 clarm002 1997 0.0625 1 16 koosj001 1971 0.0625 1 16 matlj101 1975 0.0625 1 16 theog101 1974 0.0625 1 16

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: depends who you're replacing too. Often you can swap out a scrub outfielder, whereas many first baseman are "win it in one swing" guys who you want to get these late inning AB. The scenario is that you're stuck with the same seven other guys either way. So you're saying the position player is already burned/hurt/etc? I don't think I'd force an outfielder into the infielder or an infielder into the outfield if I could avoid it. So if it's an OF I'd leave the pitcher there, but if it's the 1Bman out then I'd leave the pitcher there.

Edgy MD wrote: And it was a homerun. Guy batted .063 with runners in scoring position. That's 1-16, but his one hit still didn't plate anybody. On the other hand, he did have one walk, one hit by pitch, and two successful sacrifice bunts. And that's only tied for 19th worst Mets season with RISP (and at least 1 hit)

depends who you're replacing too. Often you can swap out a scrub outfielder, whereas many first baseman are "win it in one swing" guys who you want to get these late inning AB. But there is probably value in it, not the least of which is pitchers generally have some height too them, allowing them to reach more throws from infielders in all directions. (except down I guess) guillermo mota used to take grounders at short.

Edgy MD wrote: Rubin, in an article I can't read, reports that the Mets' owners want a casino next to CitiField. Without reading anything but the headlines, my first reaction is booo! Like Moss Eisley, a casino in New York would be a hive of scum and villiany. My second reaction is... booo! Baseball's high and mighty position with gambling is impossible to maintain when owners get their thumbs in gambling's pie, or when gaming and the games are held in such close proximity, or with related landlords. I love the idea of a real casino in New York in virtually every conceivable way. But this is an old story/rumor/etc from what I understand and it's not something that's current. They thought about it, years ago, as part of the Willets Point proposal. Slow news day and poor headline language.

for a post I'm writing, Rey Ordonez has more IBB than David Wright.

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Mr. Met has to do all the dirty work. only when the cameras are on. Afterwards he just sits around with a big head.

Swan Swan H wrote: Has anyone been to Cards camp in Jupiter? Is the town worth spending all or part of a day, or is it kind of an outpost? We're thinking about sneaking in one more game while we're there, and Lakeland is just a bit too far out of the way. I didn't see much of Jupiter, although I think we stayed at the hotel off the highway there. I think it's just another typical suburban strip mall town in Florida. Technically I saw the _Marlins_ camp in Jupiter, but it's the same place. It's actually fairly nice as far as Spring Training stadiums go. If you're squeezing it in this won't matter to you, but plenty of Mets players (well visiting players, and probably Cards/Marlins too) drive there since it's so close. Right after the game (or hell, before if a guy's lifted early and looking to sneak away) they'll leave by a gate near the LF corner and walk across the street to the players parking lot. A lot of people hang out there for autographs (although often the players will only sign while walking the distance. Jose Valentin got pissed we didn't take the pen cap off for him)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: The team is budgeting each year individually, not spending this years money on next year, or next year's money on this year. That is Alderson's thing, and when he says it's his financial decision, that's what he means. He's not going to outspend revenue. Sandy always tells the truth. Everything he's ever said about Mets spending and Mets payroll has always come true. Sandy hasn't devolved into a fucking mouthpiece for the Wilpons. That scoreboard out in center field is a beaut. Clearly you believe he's a mouthpiece and everything is colored by that. But this particular bit is consistent with his statements about budgeting and payroll all along. Now, this "don't spend more than you make" philosophy may indeed just be his solution to the restrictions placed on him by the Wilpons finances. But just because he chooses to spend 100 million doesn't mean the Wilpons wouldn't have approved 110 (which means it WAS his decision to spend 100) but that also doesn't mean he could've spent 120. And I'm perfectly happy with the scoreboard, which is entirely subjective but it's seemingly one of your only two points. I want my scoreboard to give me as much info as possible and be right in line of sight. it does that .I haven't once longed for a different scoreboard of even for Shea's back since it's been built. works for me.

Vic Sage wrote: If i thought that any dollar the Mets didn't spend this year they would spend next year, or in upcoming seasons, then i might be persuaded to agree with the rabble on this topic. That's bad business. And it has nothing to do with the team/owner's current or future financial value (although it was probably precipitated by past finance issues) The team is budgeting each year individually, not spending this years money on next year, or next year's money on this year. That is Alderson's thing, and when he says it's his financial decision, that's what he means. He's not going to outspend revenue. Having an artificially high payroll next year by tacking on income from this year only means that the year after you're even more constricted. Ultimately you'd like spending money to lead to winning to lead to more revenue, but that's a gamble pretty much no team takes. They invest the money after they've raised revenue, not before. Vic Sage wrote: Knowing the restraints we're under, I'm just rooting for the maximum value for whatever dollars they do choose to spend. And putting it on bullpen arms is just about the single stupidest way of investing scarce dollars as i can think of. Gee, rooting for Value/$ sounds like a whole lot of fun. I'll stick to rooting for max value and letting Alderson worry about the specifics of payroll. Besides, money spent on the bullpen is not necessarily a waste. the Mets look tohave a pretty decent shot at a good bullpen this year, and if that's true, that's well spent. And if they spent a couple of bucks on the Hairston level guy (i.e. limited value platoon guys) the chances that the OF outperforms what you can do with guys like Brown, Cowgill and the incumbents are not enough to justify the expenditure.

Frayed Knot wrote: I liked all the close-up shots during the blackout of a befuddled Roger Goodell looking helpless to deal with the situation. Oh wait, this wasn't baseball & Selig, it's the NFL so that turned out to be the one time when the cameras were seemingly unable to find the commish. The cameras were unable to find much of anything. You got the same angle of the lights, little of the crowd and only the players in direct view. I guess they didn't have much access to the other cameras? or were just completely befuddled on what to do.

Yeah, I guess this is the time of year I'd steer more towards lesser "big name" movies that seem like filler. snapped this from a Time Out New York for you guys. I want to see World War Z and Man of Steel. I've loved the Wright-Pegg-Frost team so obviously I'm going to see The World's End. (although what's different than Shaun of the Dead here?) I'll respect my nerddom by seeing Star Trek, though I'm not much of a trekkie. Spring Breakers had me at bikini-clad coeds, but I doubt I'm going to make a special effort to see it. There's a curiosity to see how they did Gatsby, but much like Spring Breakers I probably won't. I didn't like the first Anchorman, so..

Frayed Knot wrote: I've seen very few movies so far in February. The problem with those released at this time of year is that they often suck almost be definition. Released too late to be eligible for the 2012 Oscars, not thought worthy enough to save for the summer season, and so early in 2013 that they'll be forgotten by the time the next award season comes around. February movies are the rough equivalent of new TV shows which are slated immediately for Friday nights; you know the studio has little or no faith in it. There's some truth to this, but just because the studio has no faith in it (or the Oscar voters, screw them) doesn't mean you can't get good stuff. Isn't this exactly the time for studios to be taking chances on what could be the next big writer/director/etc?

I don't think Rhodes has that much power.

bmfc1 wrote: I think that Sandy's logic is that if he can get a reliever for below market value now, and that reliever has a successful first half, he can trade the reliever for a prospect to a team that is in contention. The flaws with this: 1) you might get stuck with someone that has a lousy first half or 2) not get the value you think you deserve in return so you've spent $4M on something that you didn't need. Just like he swapped Francisco and Rauch last year. It's unlikely, barring someone pulling a Fernando Rodney, that anyone's giving up much worthwhile for a reliever in July, no matter how much people scream and yell about it. This also applies to platoon outfielders. Any acquisitions are made for depth and "throw it at a wall and see what sticks" purposes. Ashie62 wrote: This is a likely a punt year..why spend it at all? Because until you spend it's always going to be a punt year. You do what you can.

I slaughtered Matt den Dekker in words with friends back in 2011 and now he's on the cusp of the major league roster.