Ceetar

The real interesting part of this is that Bobby Bonilla was never actually a Met.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=c0f951bbf1&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1671118767424352978&th=173101aa3dd132d2&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ8rOY0n8q1iPJPryG7vujdsKe8EfCW6Y6k9XfNqAQWD-3qXpnBKjmwtOsfJa0ScvFZYZu_18Ftak0ZATaEfsNWvhDRWzHXf3zMy88JeWKlqz3BycdlJJ0Z2_xk&disp=emb> new book apparently.

anything can be a drum if you beat it hard enough.

Bonilla was intentionally walked 9 times for the 1994 Mets.

think it's technically going to be AA ball now right?

I'd like to hear about his Python coding.

37.5 K%. That's absurd. (Cole somehow topped this last year for the new SP record, 39.9) Only Benitez and Wagner had a better rate in '99. Big Unit was at 33.7 third for purely SP was Tim Hudson. 22.8. He was flat out unhittable. 9 home runs all season. That's good for 200th. (30 teams, 5 man rotations..150 pitchers.) 295th in slugging.

if that was a private conversation I imagine it wouldn't be as coded.

might be it for Zimmerman, period.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: He's fat and like 35 or 36 38. oh, you meant Melky? age 35 season.

hey look, they literally signed the replacement level player.

Melky seems more promising than Strickland, though not much. Needs to be more patient, but last year didn't even hit for power in a juiced ball year.

desperate enough to dig into his stats, but I don't really see anything that makes me think most of us will remember Hunter Strickland was a Met in 6 months.

that's just wrong.

but the owner's didn't want to play the season. The stands are closed. They're making no money off the number of games, they only make money from TV. The owners did impose it on the players. That's literally what happened. They're the ones that (under pressure) stopped the season, and then they're the ones that imposed it's length.

yeah, I don't give a crap about the NBA and I have probably about a low an opinion of the media's coverage of this stuff as anyone. I'm sure NBA would be crying about lost revenue too, but it's doesn't make it less disingenuous. There was an agreement in March, it's the agreement that we're working under now. These players have contracts and a union, and there's no reason they should take a paycut. MLB could've restarted at any time, but they decided that ~ 33% of pay was the most they were willing to pay, so here we are.

it's the disingenuous lies about profits and trying to play as much of possible not mattering because they couldn't make more money for 80 games than 50.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=39293 time=1593057452 user_id=68] =Ceetar post_id=39292 time=1593057284 user_id=102] But what about the idea that teams are potentially already planning to bring fans back this year? Is that revenue important? If they're bringing fans back this year, why would anyone lose money next year, which would presumably be completely normal?

bankers with knowledge of all teams finances? Even just saying that about the Mets is reaching, especially without any additional context or any attempt at explaining it by the authors of the piece. What if all teams aren't completely leveraged? What does the TV deals say about partial seasons and related revenue, what type of return on advertising are teams getting (interesting to find out if anyone sells like, the banner above the prom reserved to an empty or almost empty stadium). What about the windfall of the playoffs? Nah, this is three owners in a trenchcoat crying poor. Just like the 'source close to the sale' is a Mets employee, though if that means the information is spin, accurate or some combination. (The idea that the sale would be complete in time to give a new ownership group time to prepare for 2021 is certainly logical) What about labor strife? What if there is no 2022 season? What if the owners pre-anticipate a strike and don't sign free agents this off-season anyway? I'd love to know how _that_ is affecting the sale. This recent lack of negotiation couldn't have helped the idea that a strike is possible, even likely. Is the possibility of outlaying all that cash, getting one season in, and then being on the hook for an empty one, and potentially a less owner-friendly CBA afterwards going to affect sale price? this particularly article picks a new number for the money the Mets are losing, which of course is impossible to know and is certainly only part of the financial picture. But what about the idea that teams are potentially already planning to bring fans back this year? Is that revenue important? If they're bringing fans back this year, why would anyone lose money next year, which would presumably be completely normal? And of course, the obvious reason random banker that's an "insider" doesn't really know anything, is he's a banker not an epidemiologist. Are we going to have workable treatments and vaccines by next spring? Is the disease going to linger? do long term damage? ARE PLAYERS GOING TO GET IT? There's some talk of it affecting the brain stem, of lingering lung damage, of who knows what else. A few significant players getting seriously ill could definitely affect the short term health of the sport, and labor relations and grievances based on health protocols.

That's the clickbait, but they cite other sources that disagree, and other sources that sound an awfully lot like other owners crying poor. “MLB teams are going to be significantly cash flow negative for the next 2-3 years minimum.” who speaks like that? With that certainty?

i'm told by all the couch-experts that Cespedes is basically less likely to be able to hit again than David Wright. You gotta consider Alonso there though. 4-man rotations could make a lot of sense for a short workload, but I think ramping up to that given a quick start makes it harder too. I think baseball might just roll with infections. You know, like the rest of the country.

Draft is set for 7/1 at 9:00. I'm reluctant to change it because it means trying to find a time that works, but we'll have like no real info about stuff by then

=bmfc1 post_id=39252 time=1593017592 user_id=73] If Ramos makes the 3d out you don't want him planted on 2d

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Does this mean that you're also opposed to burning down their house? The Wilpons would probably welcome it. They'd probably make out in insurance, and it'd help them pay down loans.

it's the preceding person in the batting order, so yeah whoever made the last out or his replacement. It counts as 'reaching on an error' but there is no error assessed to anyone.