Elster88

ScarletKnight41 wrote: ="Elster88"]ScarletKnight41 wrote: The Internet is a series of tubes. LOL It was Ted Stevens' line. The sad thing about that is that he was serious. Yup. Have you seen the Jon Stewart video I posted? Stewart's expression after he listens to Stevens is hilarious.

cooby wrote: I am not trying to be snippy with you. I enlightened you about how I voted Fair enough. For myself, I just flipped a coin between Beltran and Wright. Their performances were very close. For Pedro, I was pleased that he settled in after the first, and his double and run scored obviously helped. But I'm big on overall numbers when it comes to pitchers. On many days, if you just pull out "the one bad inning" then the pitcher had a great day. I don't like pulling out the one bad inning myself, even when it's the first inning coming off of an injury break.

cooby wrote: I didn't know we were back to defending our choices again. Just once in my life I'd like to ask someone for an explanation of their opinion without them getting snippy and defensive. I don't think it's possible though.

That's your prerogative. I can respect it.

ScarletKnight41 wrote: The Internet is a series of tubes. LOL

From a pure numbers standpoint, I have to give the edge to Beltran so far.

Never mind.

Wright 2.25 Beltran 2 Franco 1.5 Reyes 1 Feliciano 0.75 Sanchez 0.75 Wagner 0.75 Nady 0.5 Martinez 0.5

Very tough call. I'm not sure why people are picking Pedro. Perhaps some folks could enlighten me?

Very tough call. I'm not sure why people are picking Pedro. Perhaps some folks could enlighten me?

Not my favorite Joel tune. Not terrible, though.

]Out of 21 starts, he's gone 7 or more innings 8 times and has gone fewer than 6 only 6 times. I would guess the majority of the 8 7+ inning starts were before June.

Depends on the minor leaguer. If we can get him for Lima, sure. But no one who I actually want sniffing the major league roster. I guess that makes me a no.

Willets Point wrote: An aged former Brave joining the Mets long after his most effective days are past him, making short starts that tire the bullpen, and not really improving the team? I get this feeling of deja vu. Glavine improved the team, at least. I don't see Maddux helping the team. We don't need a fifth starter, we need a third starter.

Um. Yes.

Considering how crappy some major league teams' broadcast teams are, I'm not surprised that SNY had to resort to them for the Cyclones game.

Vic Sage wrote: The question really is whether the mets are good enough to win the world series WITH Zito. I think they would be. And i don't think they can do it without him, or someone comparable. So do you pass on a legit shot at a WS to gamble not only on Milledge's future, but the future of the team as a whole to get back to a post-season again in the forseeable future, even with Milledge? There are no guarantees that we'll get back to this position again next year, or the year after. But we're here NOW, so you take a shot, and grab for it with both hands, and don't let go. Then you spend all that NY money to keep Zito here. Its not like we wouldn't be the favorites to re-sign him, because we have the resources, a winning team, a favored pitching coach, and extra $$ media opportunities not available elsewhere. Yeah, go for it. This is the best argument for doing such a deal. And with Pedro getting old, Glavine looking poor over his last few starts, and Traxx sucking, there is a very strong chance (in my pessimistic mind, at least) that when they are all a year older and when the NL teams retool next year that we may not have this chance again. I still say no, though.

I'll trade Heilman for Zito straight up.

No.

Centerfield wrote: We all know rally hats don't do dick either... Some people don't know this.

="Yancy Street Gang"]I don't think he flies the coop. I think the Mets will sign him in the off-season anyway. My objection is that Milledge isn't worth the two-plus additional months that we'd get out of Zito. Either way, I vote no. But I don't think he signs with the Mets either way.

No. Zito flys the coop once the season is over.

Yeah, would it have been that hard to make the historical teams right? I don't want to watch the 2000 wildcard race with Washington in it.

ScarletKnight41 wrote: I'll respectfully disagree. When an announcer can paint the picture of a no-hitter or a perfect game without using the words I find it to be a more satisfying listening experience. How else can an announcer paint the picture? "The pitcher hasn't given up a hit" "No Red has a hit." "No Red has reached base" "The pitcher hasn't allowed a base runner." These variations more satisfying than "The pitcher has a no-hitter going"?

ScarletKnight41 wrote: I prefer it when announcers don't use the term "No Hitter" when one is in progress. Aside from respect for baseball tradition, I appreciate the creativity that the better announcers display in explaining the situation to the listener without using the words. What creativity are you looking for? There's only so many ways that an announcer can say that a pitcher hasn't given up a hit yet, and I don't really see how any one is necessarily more creative than another.