Ceetar

HahnSolo wrote: I'm OK with fair/foul replays. For the most part, we can get a replay that is pretty definitive (OK maybe not when the ball travels OVER the pole, but most of the time). Catches/traps are a bit tougher. I swear there are some replays I see where one angle looks definitely like a catch and another it appears to be a trapped ball. Also what about the balls that hit the glove and bounce up, giving it the appearance of being a trap. I say nay on the catch/trap replay. Balls that hit the glove and bounce up are most likely to be called a trap by the naked eye and more easily overturned via replay.

Edgy DC wrote: The players are bargaining with the rights of the now-amateurs that will come after them. Not cool. NFL did this too right? and NBA talking about it?

And the important info, Reyes 11th with 31 (behind Howard..hah..) and Beltran grabbed an 8th placer, for 3 points.

Anyone want to hazard a guess at Reyes's showing? (cuz no other NYM is getting anywhere near the list) If so then, prior to today's 2PM announcement, take a stab at: 1) Placement 2) Top 5 votes 3) Total number of points Winner, as always, receives absolutely nothing. I'll go with 8th, none, and 75 7th, 7, 77. (I actually created a poll at the end of the season for this ,externally: http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2011/09/28/poll-where-does-reyes-finish-in-mvp-race/)

MFS62 wrote: IIRC, the Cy Young was institiuted by Ford Frick when he noticed that hitters were winning the majority of MVP awards. It was meant to be a separate award. IMO, a pitcher should win the MVP in the first year a cat wins the Westminster Kennel Club Show. Later It is a separate award. If pitchers weren't meant to win the award, they wouldn't be eligible. they are eligible. They don't let cat's into the Westminster show, but if they did, and it outperformed the dogs, it should win. cats are more fun anyway.

didn't think he was. But the other details still seem fuzzy and i'm not sure how much of a difference it's really going to make. I know _I_ wanted a hard cap. err, hard slot not hard cap.

Edgy DC wrote: I'm going to say boo on the luxury tax thingie. I'm gonna hold off for specific details before I boo or yay or eh it. (unless you were hoping for a hard cap or something) seems the details are still fuzzy on how much, etc.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The owners and players are set to announce a new Collective Bargaining Agreement on Tuesday of next week. It will run through 2016, which will mean 21 years without a work stoppage in baseball. There's something they can be legitimately proud of, especially as the NBA seems to be going down the tubes right now. There will be blood testing for HGH, and some rather complex rules for slotting of draft picks. There will be a luxury tax if you overspend on draft picks, but there are exceptions (I think) for early rounds, and the penalties are higher for teams that don't get the early round picks. The most interesting wrinkle to me is the one about compensation for Type A free agents. Previously you had to offer arbitration to the player in order to qualify for the compensation pick. Now, you'll have to offer a guaranteed contract for at least one year, $12 million. Some 'grandfathering' here supposedly, with the compensation. But basically eliminates the middle relievers giving anyone draft picks. Carlos Beltran may not have gotten the Mets a draft pick this year anyway under these rules. And unfortunately, I think it means the Phillies do not have to give up a draft pick for Papelbon.

metsmarathon wrote: i'm a little surprised that ellsbury didn't get it. i wonder what difference one win might've made for him. Huge. He played well in September, so he would've been credited with saving the Red Sox from collapse. (Also see: David Wright, 2007)

I'd consider writing/participating in some way, for sure.

seawolf17 wrote: And Justin Verlander gets an MVP Award to go with his Cy, the first pitcher to win both since Eck in 1992. I don't understand why David Robertson gets to cast a vote in these things. He's got a 10th place vote for MVP as well. Twitter abuzz with "Michael Young with a first place vote?!?"

seawolf17 wrote: "@SI_JonHeyman: Bobby valentine is expected to meet monday w/ #redsox. as only known new candidate, he looks like possible favorite" Favorite to Heyman anyway.. Probably mostly because he knows just saying that will tweak Mets fans. "possible favorite" Does that even mean anything? Couldn't you say that about any candidate? Hell, they haven't ruled me out. It's possible I could be interviewed and chosen to be the favorite if they start considering blogger of other teams as managerial candidates.

Frayed Knot wrote: Harper in the NYDN had the Braves talking trade with the Yanx - dangling the likes of IF Eduardo Nunez and maybe Swisher for the very talented but oft-injured and now arb-eligible Jair Jurrgens. Nunez can hit a bit and is only 24 but was an error machine at both SS & 3B filling in for the two old men in the Bronx this past summer. Braves seem to think he'll get more consistent with steady playing time but if I'm Cashen none of those types being mentioned keeps me from pulling the trigger on that deal. Jurrgens is still just 25 (26 by opening day). yeah, the Braves better get more than backup infielder if they do that. Maybe if it happens Jurrgens can be next years Vazquez.

Edgy DC wrote: Last I heard, they don't have a shortstop. Yikes. haha, Wiggy at Short? Tejada for Worley?

smg58 wrote: The Phillies get Ty Wigginton from the Rockies for a six-pack of Coors Light and a bag of pretzels to be named later. It's bad enough to be sent off along with half your salary and not knowing who, if even anybody, is going the other way, but to the Phillies? Poor Ty. He'll see playing time. Howard's out to start and 2B/3B are injury/aging guys.

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, well, all these (relatively) sensible moves can get framed as "we need to tweak our great idea --- you know, to make them greater." Trashing the designated rivalries would be acknowledging the truth that maybe that great idea was actually ill-conceived from the start. Maybe next commissioner. Bud Selig has basically been commissioner as long as I can remember. Will be interesting next year.

metsmarathon wrote: and just how in the hell do we not have a "mets re-sign reyes" thread? we're slipping in our second decade. slipping. I can't deal with that heart-attack everytime I come into the forum.

I would hope not. I hope everyone else thinks he's a malcontented clubhouse cancer and refuses to sign him.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7247519/major-league-baseball-some-major-changes Stark's column breaks it down. Sounds like the exact scheduling is not quite decided.

but does 72, 75, 15? I know it adds to 162, but does it comfortably fit into a 54 series over ~182 days so that each team can play 5 series AND there is always an interleague series? I think a 1-game barnstorming thing would be interesting for sure, but these one-game are not really the way things are done in a long season. already iffy about the 1-game playoff thingy, which is going to create a lot of 'collapse' type feelings with teams that are in it (particularly if they've got a good 4 game lead in the first WC or something) Like the Mets in 2007 or the Reds in 1999. I think that one game series creates a ton of heartbreak, but very little elation in the winner. not that that's necessarily bad.

Frayed Knot wrote: Framing the issue to note that upping the number of IL games to 30 per/team is close to double what exists now, is about 18 or so more than what will be required by this new set-up, and is no closer to "balanced" than would others with fewer IL games could be is simply stating fact. The part of this that's my opinion is that this seems to me to be coupled with Bud's ongoing campaign to blur the lines between the leagues and that the percentage of fans who prefer more IL play to less is countable on one hand and quite possibly one finger. Does lesser work? For balance I mean. If you dropped it to 15 games, one series against a rotating AL division, each team would play 15 IL games. I'm failing on the math/schedule in my head, but could you do that exact many games and still maintain the one IL game a day necessary? There may not be a ton of fans clamoring for more interleague, but I think you're underestimating the number of fans that really just don't care whether the Mets have another series against the Giants or the As.

Frayed Knot wrote: And I fail to see how putting those "extra" ten games into cross-league play is any more balanced then distributing those games within the league. All divisional teams play the same schedule of teams.

Gwreck wrote: Note that I realize the interleague schedule as proposed above is not truly balanced but it's better than what exists now. Balanced w/in division, i.e. emphasizing importance on division. Not that 'balance' means anything when teams are often vastly different in April and September.

scape-goat third base coach for the Red Sox back in 2004 wasn't he? I vaguely remember being up there, listening to the endless radio calls about how he sucked at the job.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: If Reyes doesn't sign, and Havens survives ST/the season's first right weeks, don't you kinda have to give him a whirl in the service of resource evaluation? is Havens one of the "needs to be on the 40 man" guys? still, probably hold off a month or so for service time type reasons.