Elster88

Rotblatt wrote: I'm not convinced that we need a "big bat;" I think if we had traded for Manny right before Cammy's injury then we probably make the playoffs.

]if we are going to use a blue chip prospect then I think we should at least get that "big bat" for him Me too.

metirish wrote: This smells of Rick Peterson all over...no thanks Which was the first? Zambrano? Not sure if that was Rick's idea. My main problem with Peterson is that whenever he goes out to the mound he puts his hand on the pitcher's shoulder and talks to him from about three inches away.

On the other hand, Zito did win a Cy Young Award, no? Heilman had a nice year last year, but he's not a guaranteed ace anymore than Zito (and probably less so.) The inclusion of Milledge kinda makes sense when remembering that Beltran is locked up in center for six years and some of our last "can't miss" outfield prospects have missed badly. Milledge is no sure thing either. We do have an excess of pitching, but Glavine is getting older, as are Pedro and Traxxxxxxx. And I don't really like Zambrano. Playing devil's advocate here.

Johnny Dickshot wrote: It;s not as if Drew, Bradley & Gagne suck. MATSUI SUCKS!!!! Shit, sorry. Wrong thread. I'm just on autopilot here. ________________________ This post had the designation 134) Ken Boyer

Valadius wrote: The first thing we need at second base is a glove. He has to play good defense. Next is hitting for average, followed by speed and power. I want a second baseman that'll hit .285 with 15 homers and 15 steals minimum. I'm sure everyone does. Now who can we find to do this? See that's the problem. Everyone wants a second baseman like this, or a first baseman who will make a run at the triple crown, or a starter who will accumulate 300 strikeouts. Simply saying "He should do this this and this" is a complete waste unless you have an idea for a particular player. Besides, I would say these numbers are within Matsui's capability. Maybe not 15 HRs, but with the right number of doubles and triples he'd make up for that if he only hit 5-8 HRs. It might be easier if morons weren't booing him at Shea or claiming that Miguel Cairo should start at second. (I'm not talking about you Valadius)

Nymr83 wrote: if you want to put forth some stats showing that none of the internal (or easily available external) options are better players i'm all ears It's been done. Ad nauseum. It all comes down to burden of proof. We have Matsui. If you want to propose someone you think is better (as Dickie Johnshot does with Ray Durham) then go ahead. It doesn't fall to me to show the guy is better than every 2Bman on another team or every middle infielder on the farm. Note: Anderson Hernandez's triple A stats don't count.

Kristin Benson is well known for his spirit and style. Gimme a Met who sounds like he'd be on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted list.

Nymr83 wrote: even with them his SLG% wasnt so good. besides which, that slg% wasn't even this year! this year he was down in the land of rey ordonez. Good point. But this does not mean he's "nothing".

Edgy DC wrote: ]he still had a disgusting .396 slg% So that whole thing about him hitting about in the middle of the pack for National League shortstops, that's just irrelevant? Instead you pick an isolated stat (and that slugging percentage alone is close to the middle of the pack also) and brandish it? That's analysis? The team has an investment here. That's no reason to play him if they have better options. But it is a reason to analyze him as closely as possible before making a decision on him. Closer than you seem willing to do, anyhow. How does your head feel? Are there any dents in the wall?

I still think the Marines, led by cleanup hitter Benny Agbayani, would get pasted. But I'd love to see it. I have no faith in Selig to get something like this done. I have little faith that he can even tie his own shoes.

Some have wondered if ARod should have been included since he was born in the US. I have wondered if anyone really cares.

Edgy DC wrote: He hit 32 doubles in 2004 in two thirds of a season. That still led the Mets and was well ahead of a record-setting pace for them. He hit about the middle of the pack for a starting National League shortstop. Not as much as I hope to see, but not so awful and certainly not nothing. He also stole at an effective rate. Between his injuries and his slowness to get untracked, he had little to offer this season. But having seen him play, I can't say he's shown nothing. Watching him play makes clear he's a wonderfully talented ballplayer, but the results aren't there. I've been saying all of this for the entire year. Trust me, with certain folks you'd have more fun banging your head against a wall. In general, it's much easier to say "Matsui sucks", and more fun to make up clever (SC=100000 on the word clever) nicknames like Matsucki, or Matbooi.

]The fact that a baseball team can have a salary budget of less than that, and claim that they have lost money, is hubris. Baseball teams do incur other expenses besides salaries.

You are not Squid. You are a toaster.

I believe in Kaz. I am a fool. At least I outlasted the "I believe in Miggy" group.

Yancy Street Gang wrote: It was a yes-no question, but I think Elster read it as an either-or and thought I gave a smartass response. Oh crap. Yeah I did. My bad. Wow I'm really getting smacked around (deservedly) today.

I think of them as an American team because MLB is American. I know, it really doesn't make sense.

Rotblatt wrote: ="Elster88"]Of course, that $35 payroll included Giambi, Tejada, Hudson, Mulder and Zito (and Foulke?). It's pretty damn near impossible to get 5 players like that for under 40 million, let alone a team to play with them. That's again speaking right to my point. You have to be extremely good (or lucky) to get a cheap team with talent like that. And three years later they will all be gone. Sure, but so long as small market teams draft (and trade for) and develop players well, they'll always have a pool of good young talent to draw from. Oakland won 102 games in 2001, 103 in 2002 (without Giambi), 96 in 2003, 91 in 2004 (without Tejada) & 88 in 2005 (without Hudson or Mulder). Meanwhile, they've got Street, Haren, Blanton, Harden & Crosby ushering in the new era, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them be in the mid-90's in wins again next year. Time will tell, I suppose . . . All true. Again, it's only the A's and Twins who seem able to do this. There's some schmuck in Tampa that wants his team to win. Rotblatt wrote: ]You know (and for some reason I'm being ignored in this discussion), logic would suggest that just because some teams succeed despite being forced to play under a more restrictive set of rules doesn't mean that it's OK to continue to force them to. Sure, I don't have a problem with trying to establish a little more equity in payrolls. I just didn't want my favorite AL team getting their good reputation tarnished by Elster88. ;-) Haha. Hey, I respect Minnesota a lot. I don't think it's fair that their forced to play under this system, and I just thought that they were playing over their heads the past few years.

I don't consider those team(s) to be Canadian.

]Oakland, with their $35M payroll, outscored, outhit & outpitched the $100M Yankees. Yes, they lost the series in 5, but that series could easily have gone either way. Of course, that $35 payroll included Giambi, Tejada, Hudson, Mulder and Zito (and Foulke?). It's pretty damn near impossible to get 5 players like that for under 40 million, let alone a team to play with them. That's again speaking right to my point. You have to have an extremely good (or lucky) fromt office to get a team with that talent for that little cash. And three years later they will all be gone. That's why I consider teams like that to be the exception for the small-budgeters, not the rule.

Edgy DC wrote: You know (and for some reason I'm being ignored in this discussion), logic would suggest that just because some teams succeed despite being forced to play under a more restrictive set of rules doesn't mean that it's OK to continue to force them to. YES!!!! Why couldn't I have put it that way? Edgy how much to hire you to regularly take an incoherent set of five pages of thoughts and sum them up in one sentence?

Yancy Street Gang wrote: ="metirish"]Did he sign with the Mets out of High School or College? NO. HAHAHAHA. "Dammit stop wasting our questions"

Well, those numbers are basically torpedoing my thoughts. Some more of them: I still say it sucks to be a Pirate fan. I consider Anaheim and Florida to be large budget teams. Minnesota and Oakland are the exceptions, not the rules when it comes to small-market, small-payroll teams. I'd say it's a lot harder to build a team that way then to build one with a huge budget. Maybe that's the crux of what I am trying to get at. Teams with more money have a HUGE advantage over the smaller market teams. It's very hard for a Minny or an Oaktown to emerge and compete with the New Yorks, Bostons, and Atlantas. I think I'll go with this: Teams with more money have a HUGE advantage over the smaller market teams. Not fair to Royal-fans. Please continue to destroy what I am saying. _____________________________ This post had the designation 135) Mackey Sasser

Rotblatt wrote: Well, clearly he's engaging in some hyperbole, Elster, but I would LOVE to see a Universe Series Me too. I just don't think it'd be competitive. Rotblatt wrote: (or whatever the hell they'd call it--the REAL World Series? The Trans-Pacific Series?). Haha, yeah, keeping it at World Series would be fine. This would just be the first time other countries were invited.