Elster88

]making about as much sense as a conversation between George Bush and Courtney Love with a bottle of vodka thrown in That is a very impressive analogy. Full marks.

]You really think I'm equally safe in discussing Omar's faults as GM as I am in discussing George Weiss's?Have you really not seen the backlash against Omar from these recent trades?

I think the games are definitely fun. But I'm wondering about the practices. Has anyone ever been to one?

I've never watched a practice before. I wonder if it would be fun or just boring.

Thanks, Scarlet. Of course the opposing argument is that I should reread my original posts before hitting submit and avoid stupid remarks ahead of time. :-)

From Roger Ebert's mailbag, regarding Woody Allen: Q. I took a few friends -- none of whom had never seen a Woody Allen film -- to see "Melinda and Melinda." They loved it. They said it was the best movie they had seen in 2005. They wondered why no one was talking about the film. Radha Mitchell was brilliant, they said. Goes to show, if this were the first Woody Allen film to be released, we'd be throwing bouquets at his feet. I think of Allen films as a great jazz piece -- say, "Kind of Blue." All the movies share a melody, but each is its own instrument putting down a harmony. I am hopeful that Americans will learn again to appreciate one of our great artists, Woody Allen. Tim Varner, Toledo, Ohio A. Oddly enough, much the same thing was said at Cannes about Allen's newest film, "Match Point." Had it been signed with another name and entered in the competition, some thought, it might have won. Woody has made so many films over so many years that, as A.O. Scott observed a few months ago in the New York Times, we have come to take him for granted and even resent his productivity. The challenge in marketing "Match Point" will be to tell potential customers: You think you know all about Woody Allen and you think the returns are in, but has he got a surprise for you.

="Vic Sage"]so, you dump a bucket of sarcasm on my head, then call me a complete prick for responding? I acknowledged my own sarcasm. You're right, calling you a prick after being so sarcastic is stupidly hypocritical. ="Vic Sage"]I'd say i was only a partial prick. But you've sure got a lot of balls. I'm not sure about that. It doesn't take a lot of balls to call names on a website. I'd just say that I'm a prick too. ="Vic Sage"]Inferences about how guys might've performed, or how the Mets might've won even MORE (despite the fact that they were the WINNINGEST TEAM IN BASEBALL during Davey's tenure) if Davey had done this or that are pure speculation. He could've walked Straw into AA meetings and ended up with the same result. I realize it's speculation. But do you have to completely ignore the situation, as it seemed Davey did, just because it might not help? He could've tried something. ="Vic Sage"]Jeffries might have BEEN a complete jerk who deserved whatever hazing he got. Or Davey might've seen it as a standard right of passage that all jocks endure, to some degree. (by the way, we don't really KNOW what Jeffries endured, beyond heresay and innuendo, do we?) Jeffries didn't just blossom when he left. He was actually pretty good HERE, but he came up pretty young, and the Mets got tired of tolerating his glove in the infield and lost patience with him just as he was approaching his peak years. I wasn't surprised he blossomed once he was relieved of defensive obligations and got to play everyday in a park suited to his gap power bat. But you seem to want to credit his improved performance to the fact that Ron Darling wasn't around anymore to pick on him. Hmmm. Ok. I'm sure there were other factors that went into Jefferies improved performance. I'm sure one of them was that the Mets hated him and he was able to get away from that. If this originated out of nothing but Jefferies being overly sensitive to rookie hazing, then Davey still could've helped, as I said. He could've pulled Jefferies aside and told him to grow up. ="Vic Sage"]I'm only basing my evaluation of Davey based on what he did, not on what i think he should've done. I know other teams and other players have blossomed and succeeded without a manager acting in loco parentiis, and i know that the Mets won more during his tenure than they ever did before or since, and i know post-season can be largely a crapshoot, so i'm not going to sit here 20 years later and say: "gee, davey, if you just sat on those boys more on flights, we'd have had more world series wins." You, apparently, want to conflate your moral judgments about how athletes comport themselves with their on-field productivity and draw some conclusions about it. I don't. Some athletes are dickheads. Some of them get wasted and try to bang hot stewardesses when they are in a drunken stupor. I realize this and it doesn't bother me. This is nothing about moral judgements. If I was a ballplayer making millions I'd probably be doing much of the same, though I probably wouldn't whip it out on the plane. The specific examples I am using are just examples of their wildness that I am using to illustrate my point. What does bother me is that they built a talent pool that comes along once in a lifetime and only won one WS. You make the point that the postseason is a crapshoot. My point is that they should've reached the postseason more than twice. They certainly had the talent to do more. The problem wasn't a lack of talent. So what else could've helped? Davey Johnson taking a more hands-on approach could've helped. I don't think this is an unfair or illogical conclusion. And I've already said a million times I love Davey. This particular debate didn't come from any dislike for him or the late eighties teams. The first post of yours that I disagreed was when you said he wasn't a den mother and apparently wanted to leave it at that. My argument is that there are degrees. This team, and teams in general, could be better served with a manager that could've calmed down some of the off-the-field shenanigans. This is not a stretch of my imagination or the result of a prudish, holier-than-thou background.

Vic Sage wrote: ]What, do you expect these managers to be den mothers? They're grown men. So what if the entire dugout takes a dislike for one poor rookie prick? No need for Davey to get involved. If it effects a rookie's ability to perform, or even if a manager thinks it might, he should get involved. Some players have tougher skin than others. But its not about off-the-field activity. Its about on-the-field performance. So what are you saying? Jefferies' on the field performance wasn't affected? So why did he instantly become a better player when he switched teams? That's one fucking amazing coincidence. Maybe Davey could've some of the veterans aside and said, "Why don't you lay off the poor bastard?" He could've taken Jefferies aside and said "Stop being a whiny bitch." Vic Sage wrote: ]So what if Darryl is showing up hungover to games? No reason for Davey to get involved. I don't think Casey got too involved with Mick's hangovers, either. Didn't stop them from winning a WS or 2, did it? So to paraphrase: "My young player with immortal HOF talent is damaging his career and the team's performance by drinking too much and showing up hung over at games. But it's okay because Mickey Mantle did it." Yeah, good argument. Vic Sage wrote: ]So what if the team destroys an airplane? Some people like Jeff Pearlman think this is cool and want to hang out with those guys. No reason for Davey to get involved. The Oakland As, the Yanks of the Bronx Zoo, the Dykstra/Kruk/Daulton Phillies.... there have been skads of winning teams that acted like ANIMAL HOUSE. No, i don't think Davey needed to get involved. So by this do you mean: "Let the team I'm managing behave like assholes, trash planes and ask stewardesses for blow jobs while on a team flight. As long as they keep winning like the A's, Yanks, and Phillies, I'm all for it!"? That's what Pearlman seems to think, too. I don't agree with this. I don't think I need to explain why. It seems to be a very bad belief. Vic Sage wrote: ]He's not a den mother for crying out loud. that's the only correct thing you said in your post. No need to be a complete prick. Maybe I was overly sarcastic in my post, but at least I didn't blindly dismiss what you were saying. I feel the need to reiterate: I like Davey. I'm only using the behavior of the Mets from the late '80s as examples. I agree that managers don't need to be baby-sitters. But the complete non-interference policy that Vic is advocating and Davey followed is going too far to the other extreme. I'd like to think that managing a team is more than just putting a lineup together and teaching fundamentals. Davey should've done more off-the-field than he did. There are plenty of reasons why that team only won one WS, but one of the main reasons they didn't reach their potential was that they ran wild off the field. The manager could've helped. _____________ This post had the designation 70) Doug Flynn

] it's just so much easier to say "sure, whatever, omar" I begin to see Bret's point. I was wrong every time that I argued that there is no one here who blindly will accept any trade that is made. But to what JD was saying, I think almost all of the people on this board to not have the "sure, whatever" attitude. ]actually, i probably do have an agenda. and its probably an apologist agenda. i'll admit it. i try to make sense of the moves the mets make. it seems to me a more interesting exercise than reacting instantly and loudly. It's not an interesting exercise if the move makes no sense whatsoever.

]is the reason behind the trade sound? i actually think it is. i think we had more of a need for bullpen depth than we do of extra rotation-bailout-options that would be ill-suited to relief duty. Just reading this post makes me angry. You are arguing that it helps the team by trading to add a pitcher to the bullpen, if dealing from a position where there is more players (here the starting rotation). And we lowered payroll as a bonus. How can you not see the fundamental flaw in your argument? By your argument, trading Pedro for Julio would make sense. In fact, it would make more sense because that's even more financial flexibility. We got a shitty reliever. And the pitcher we gave up was average to above average. Adding "bullpen depth" does not help if you are adding crap. Removing a good player just because you have other options at the same position does not help. There is no goddam reason under the sun why this trade makes sense. If you want to add bullpen depth, do so by trading away a player who is equal in value to the one you are acquiring. Seriously, I just don't know how else to say it. From any logical standpoint this trade makes no sense. Not seeing that this trade is horrible is showing a complete lack of knowledge in the sport of baseball. (This entire post is operating in the assumption that we are not adding another pitcher. Which is a very safe assumption to make, IMO. Until we add a starter, this post is completely true.)

MFS62 wrote: One example of incompetence I recall (I googled it and didn't find anything) was something I read involving Mookie Wilson and Frank Howard. Mookie never had the strongest arm when he came up, and one year he suffered an injury to his throwing arm. Next year in ST, Howard told Mookie something like- "the only way it will get better is by stretching it out". But instead of easing Mookie into a regimen prescribed by team trainers, Howard took Mookie into the outfield and started him out by having him make long tosses (the number 250 feet sticks in my mind). Not only did that not help him get it back to its original strength, but Mookie's arm was never the same after that. Is that the kind of stuff you were looking for? Later I read something like this in The Bad Guys Won. Frank put rain-soaked balls in a dryer, and had Mookie throw those. The extra weight helped mess up Mookie's arm.

Baseball is a bunch of businessmen running a team trying to make a profit paying a bunch of businessmen a lot of money to play a game. This is nothing really new. There's not much you can do. Either accept it and watch, or don't. Regarding Bagwell, I'm on Bagwell's side. If he had signed a long term contract when salaries were low, they wouldn't be paying him extra. Fuck the owners. They can afford to pay him what the contract says.

]I forget who it was, but over in the MOFO someone in a simillar thread suggested that if Johnson was better at handling young talents maybe Gregg Jefferies may have reached his potential if he was handled the way Jose Reyes and David Wright have been instead of mocked and riddiculed by the veterans in Davey's clubhouse What, do you expect these managers to be den mothers? They're grown men. So what if the entire dugout takes a dislike for one poor rookie prick? No need for Davey to get involved. So what if Darryl is showing up hungover to games? No reason for Davey to get involved. So what if the team destroys an airplane? Some people like Jeff Pearlman think this is cool and want to hang out with those guys. No reason for Davey to get involved. He's not a den mother for crying out loud.

]"Agenda" has come to mean "an opinion I don't agree with," which does it a disservice." Agenda has come to mean: Pushing your belief and your opinions about baseball and other posters without reading what they write or even considering their opinion. By that definition I say nay. For me, when someone says they like the Benson for Julio trade, it's hard to take them seriously. So I'm guilty of ignoring other opinions as much as anyone.

]The contract includes an $8 million mutual option for 2007. Whoa. It's 7 games, not 6, but whatever. No difference.

I've thought all along that Anna was simply an idiot. I thought it was a common conclusion.

]Davey was smart, tough, funny and took the Mets from winners to losers. I still give more credit to Frank. He built the team. Davey took it and did a lot of things wrong. He wasn't the best in-game manager. And he was unable to keep Doc and Darryl from ruining their careers. I don't blame Davey for their problems, that would be unfair. But he sure as hell didn't help them. But when it comes down it he managed the only World Series championship for my favorite team in my lifetime. So I love him.

Pedro is my main concern too.

="Frayed Knot"]Which is pretty much what started this part of the discussion ... but if Pedro (or anyone for that matter) decides to play through an existing injury then shame on them and let's then blame stupidity for their loss rather than the existance of the WBC. Besides, his toe is being monitored and Omar has already said he's no better than 50/50 to play at this point. But y'know what, if Pedro's toe is going to be a problem after 5 months off then it's going to be a problem all year long. So rather than feeling grateful that he'll be taking the WBC off I'd be worried that he felt he had to and that he's not going to be ready for the season. I'm going to trust Petey and the powers at be to make the right call on this one. You're probably right. I heard on the FAN today that even though Pedro is so huge in the DR and even though he really wants to play he might call it off because of his Shaqtoe. I should stop acting like Little Petey is a porcelain doll too. He's a grown man. He just acts like a silly kid.

Frayed Knot wrote: I just don't equate "getting more revved up" to increased injuries. The main chance of that happening is if pitchers were over-extended too early but they've put the rules in to prevent that. Yeah, I'm really only speculating that getting worked up makes it more likely for someone to get hurt. I was just making the conclusion that "playing harder --> increased injury change", which is admittedly somewhat shaky. I get very nervous when it comes to Pedro. I want him to play the whole of the 2006 season. Frayed Knot wrote: Pedro's not going to be pitching to ARod in the late innings because he'll either be long out of the game by then or it will be in the finals in late March when he'll have built up to near full-game strength anyway. Your main point is a good one. I hope the managers are careful not to overextend or even just regular-extend these guys. Like I said, I'm just extra nervous about Pedro. And Delgado. And anyone else that is a key to 2006. Young David isn't going to enter this silly tournament, right?

I think what we Americans don't realize is how much this tournament means to other countries. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that someone like Pedro is going to be pushing himself a lot harder in the WBC then in a split squad game. Yes, obviously Pujols plays in spring training. But I don't get why people don't believe that competing in the WBC is much different than in ST. Players only play half games, or even a couple of innings in some ST games. Players will take games off all the time. Pujols or another nasty hitter is getting more at-bats in the WBC, and is going to be playing more games. You're going to see him more often, and thus be trying to get him out in tight spots more often. Everyone is going to be playing harder. I repeat: Do you really not think that a player, playing for his country, is going to get more revved up then he will for a split squad game in Port St. Lucie? You don't think they're going to care more when it's 2-2 in the ninth? You really think they give a crap if they win or lose ST games? If you don't think there is a difference between WBC and ST and the effort put forth in those two types of games (and thus the increased chance for injury), then I don't know how to argue my point. But I think the difference between ST and WBC is huge, and obvious. Just one man's opinion.

]The nay-sayers for this tourney are acting as if the players ** Oh God, they might get hurt!!!!" ** would be sunning themselves on the beach otherwise and have already set-up the scenario to blame the WBC for every injury that occurs. Trachsel & Benson, you may recall, each got hurt last Spring w/o ever leaving the Sunshine State. There's a huge difference between pitching to Albert Pujols in a WBC game and the Norfolk Tides in a normal spring training game. The yay-sayers for this tourney act like the players would put the same effort into a WBC game when they are representing their country as they would if they were just playing against Cleveland's split squad team in a regular spring training game.

Edgy DC wrote: Depending on whether he gets bumped up a notch or two if you buy packrat's claim that he's "good" defensively (rpackrat's word Not too much of a bump. TORVO.

8th out of 16 is pretty much the definition of adequate. I guess that's better than barely adequate. One point in favor of the LoDuca trade was that it curtailed the rise in price on FA catchers this year. It might've cost more for Hernandez than it did if we had gotten into a bidding battle.

I don't know what the Mets were thinking getting rid of him. They should have given him at least three years to develop instead of dumping him. __________________ This post had the designation 72) Jeff Innis