Ceetar

bmfc1 wrote: bmfc1 wrote: Time to welcome https://twitter.com/#!/joshlewinstuff to the Mets radio booth. isn't it only 'almost official' now? Did i see 1-year deal? if that doesn't say 'trial/transition' I don't know what does. Rubin: Wouldn't read too much into Josh Lewin reportedly getting 1-year deal. Don't believe WFAN officially has Mets rights beyond 2012 as of now. He's right. The Mets might be on ESPN-NY in '13 with the MFYs moving from CBS to FAN. We hear this every time the contract is up, hopefully not, signal sucks. It's not like they're going to jettison Howie if they switch is it? Why is Lewin different?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: metirish wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Those of us who care about this franchise should try to organize an Arab Spring. at Spring Training , take over the town of Tradition , how cool would that be? Our HQ could be that pizza joint made famous by Spencer and Garcia. How do you propose we mark our territory? The Wilpon regime sure does like to project the benevolent-baseball-man/magnanimous aura, but the regime's past and present actions sure do give the opposite impression. Honestly, a good portion of my weariness with them these days is about style-- I'd almost prefer a Steinbrenner type; he may have been an inveterate, irredeemable asshole, but he was a bit more up-front about it (blatantly illegal stuff notwithstanding). World was a different place back then, what with no internet or forums to talk about it, but did the insane stuff Steinbrenner did in the 80s/90s (before they were good) get this much buzz? Even some of the more innocuous stuff?

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: What if it was simply a move? may have been petty but does that make it wrong? You exist in quite the relativistic universe. Yes, it was wrong. Ceetar wrote: What if it's false redemption? Is it right for Vick or Jackson (or Paterno is another example) to eventually be redeemed? And you also spin things way off into the stratosphere away from the point. You brought those guys up. and we all exist in a relativistic universe. I'm just more wishy washy on taking a firm stance.

bmfc1 wrote: If the Wilpon's disagree, then I'm sure they can supply any evidence that Megdal might have overlooked or not known about. Yeah..but they're not going to provide it to Megdal, they're going to provide it to the court.

What if it was simply a move? may have been petty but does that make it wrong? What if it's false redemption? Is it right for Vick or Jackson (or Paterno is another example) to eventually be redeemed?

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: I think we're well beyond the 'living well' option as well. You really think that? My experience is that there's always room for redemption in public life --- particularly for the rich. George Steinbrenner went from untouchable outcast to secular saint in a few short years. Michael Jackson. Michael Milken. Michael Vick. While there's a pulse in the body, there's time for another act. Ceetar wrote: I don't know if it's Horwitz' fault or just that right now the Mets are really between a rock and a hard place and there really isn't a good solution (besides winning). In other words, living well. Interesting though, is who determines what 'redemption' is. Michael Vick has been redeemed by the NFL and it's sponsors and the media. But I talked to an Eagles fan friend this season who understand the whole "you root for the laundry not the player" concept but still felt wrong about it. He's certainly not redeemed in her eyes. Denying access to the clubhouse (which would've had zero affect on the book since it wasn't about the Mets players and most of them have as little insight to the matter as we do) is a petty move but it's not really a big deal because the fan base at large does not care about who's credentialed and their interactions with the club. G-Fafif wrote: Read the book. Thought it was strong, demystifying advocacy journalism. He's advocating a pretty anti-Wilpon stance though isn't it? Isn't it common sense for the Wilpon party to want to bar access when they can? This is where I get back to the BBWAA thing. The idea that the media is supposed to be this check on the subject it's covering. The BBWAA is (are they? I'm going off of Megdal's post here. Could the Mets legitimately revoke say David Lennon's credentials?) supposed to be the protection of the writer/reporter from the club, but since they're still seemingly behind the times, they don't care in this case. I'm not agreeing with the Mets here, because what they did was petty and vindictive without providing them any value, I'm just curious about how this whole thing shakes out. I'm interested in the evolution of the sports media and credentials and how they all interact.

has anyone read Megdal's book btw?

Edgy DC wrote: It may well be that it came from above Horwitz. It may even be probable. But if I'm the VP of PR with forty years of juice in the organization, I'm insisting to them that the best way to get ahead of this story is by engaging with the writer, not by freezing him. Remind them that living well is the best revenge. Klapisch still has his creds, and he's an assassin. Klapisch is a BBWAA member, which apparently makes you basically bulletproof? I don't know to what degree they gave info to Megdal but they certainly weren't going to give him every detail anyway. I think we're well beyond the 'living well' option as well. I don't know if it's Horwitz' fault or just that right now the Mets are really between a rock and a hard place and there really isn't a good solution (besides winning).

People who get Horwitz' cooperation all rave about him. I wonder sometimes if there's not a lot of shit he does right, even batting .300 on clusterfuck scandals with the Wilpons in charge would keep a man very busy. No doubt. I'm thinking what he does right is feed you stories on days when you've got to file and you've got nothing. "Hey, know what Vance Wilson's vanity plates mean?" "I bet you didn't know that Manny Acosta's father is baker in Managua whose pastries were favored by both the Contras and the Sandanistas." "Scott Hairston's name, when you rearrange the letters, spells Trots into Cash. It's true!" I'm also thinking maybe a lot of the ravers are fellow dinosaurs. I still think it's probably from above Horwitz' that the call came from. The "Don't like your reporting" comment seems like his own spin on perhaps more colorful words about the book behind the scenes. But maybe that's his way of covering himself blocking access thinking he's "protecting" the club? *shrug* Eventually they'll probably have to cave and give him access..or maybe not. Did Chris Botte ever re-get credentials the the Islanders? (Different issue, but same club reaction)

bmfc1 wrote: Time to welcome https://twitter.com/#!/joshlewinstuff to the Mets radio booth. isn't it only 'almost official' now? Did i see 1-year deal? if that doesn't say 'trial/transition' I don't know what does.

bmfc1 wrote: The Mets have denied credentials to Howard Megdal for the upcoming season: http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/02/06/a-note-on-access-and-the-mets/ I don't know what the standards are for credentials but if he received credentialing last year, then not giving it to him this year is vindictive and petty. If the Mets have a problem with his writing, then sue him for libel or get another reporter to give their "side of the story." It's petty but i'm not sure I blame them either. He was at the December blogger meetup, so it's undoubtedly about his book. And it may very well have come from above but the real issue here is with the membership of the BBWAA. I get that someone like me isn't eligible for membership but Megdal is clearly (to me anyway) on the other side of the line. Can't sue him for libel if he was careful (which I assume he was) about not asserting any of the billion things we know with very little certainty but I imagine it was the negative slant of those uncertainties that pissed them off.

Edgy DC wrote: I think the Wilpons come out of this. I've always thought that, I just hope it's not one of those paddling at the edge of the waterfall things. (well it is already, I just hope they grab the damn rope soon and climb out, or go over)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: metirish wrote: It's really interesting though. 3% of 3 billion is 90k. The Mets are selling 3% shares at 20k. Three percent of 3 billion is 90 million. right duh. but hell, even if the Mets were only valued at 1billion those they're basically selling 30million for 20 million aren't they? Wouldn't the guaranteed 3% increase in value (or whatever they're pitching as the return on investment on these) then become worthless if they're already "on sale"?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: not sure how much the paid-for status matters. That's obvious. No really, how much does it matter when projecting a value of a stadium? This stuff is way above my pay grade. % matters too right? how much of the stadium is paid off? Then you get into stuff like were they paying interest or principle? (I'm looking to buy a house soon..guess I'll learn all about that..) And how does that affect bankruptcy? Is it a wiser deal to try to string this process along until they own more of the stadium/just before the next big payment is due? or after it? in terms of filing for it?

Frayed Knot wrote: The Dodger selling price also includes a paid-for stadium plus some surrounding (primo location) land - so be careful about drawing too many equivalencies to the Mets. not sure how much the paid-for status matters. It's about potential revenue isn't it? Pretty sure a capacity Citi Field makes more than a capacity Dodger stadium. I imagine the property Citi Field sits on is pretty valuable too. Also, more Heyman, but I'm not sure how much money the Mets have lost in comparison to the Dodgers matters either. A lot of that money was/could've been/who knows related to their existing debts and expenditures, not because they're not bringing in a lot of revenue/potential revenue. But as with most of this stuff, it's all financial mumbo jumbo and sports writers are not financial gurus and shouldn't act like one.

metirish wrote: Having a hard time believing that the Mets are worth anywhere near $2 billion... There is tremendous value there. They're definitely worth more than the Dodgers. It's really interesting though. 3% of 3 billion is 90k. The Mets are selling 3% shares at 20k.

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Why is there a Jason Isringhausen card? The set usually reflects the prior year. I like that there's an Izzy card. I bought some packs today and snagged a Wright and Justin Turner. Will post them later. There should be a Castillo and a Perez then too right?

I'm playing around here and I'm starting to think we should just friend @miss_met or @tholemoley since they both seem to show up as friends to every minor leaguer I seem to stumble across.

His (sister?) Jess. (middle)

Here's Matt with his mother.

Another one in Matt's albums

Why'd we leave out our friend Matt den Dekker? Also this facebook page called Mini Mets Pipeline looks interesting: http://www.facebook.com/MiniMetsPipeline?sk=wall

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Keep your ENTIRE 40-man for next year? Sign me the heck up, I love deep leagues and I love leagues with long term keeper decisions. Let's do it! i would imagine if its truly realistic some players would be due raises? I don't know this. Also, can't imagine you'd wanna keep all 40 but some stability is a good thing. Not sure. I think their value does go up and that affects the cap or whatever. there's a drop deadline every spring. for most leagues it was last week. I saw something about voting off players on the other teams too. I guess that's akin to offering them bigger contracts to leave.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'd imagine the Rangers are concerned, but would be far more worried about whether he's getting on 'base. Well, there's a difference between relapsing in behavior and what apparently went on here. He's 'proven' to himself in the past that he's not the type of guy that has one drink and walks away again without getting drawn into previous lifestyles, but one tug down that path (during the offseason) isn't quite 'relapsing' in the sense that the Rangers have to be real worried. Kinda sucks that one little incident makes news for him though. (Unless that helps motivate him..i dunno) What's next, are we gonna report that he was staring forlornly at a Bud Light ad and thinking about having a drink?

attgig wrote: Ceetar wrote: pretty sure it's going to be disappointing to 4 of them. mmmm, probably 3. wildcard is probably good enough for most teams, and wc is prolly coming out of the east. but yeah... of all the years that the Marlins picked to make a splash in the headlines and get hype for their team, the Nationals seem to be going out and trying to steal the headlines away. I'd be surprised if the Nationals (or the Marlins) made a serious playoff run.