Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Megdal: Report: Jose Reyes to Marlins Done Deal

Joe Capozzi is Tweeting no…but…

Both Dino Costa of Sirius/XM Radio and Business of Baseball’s Maury Brown are reporting that Jose Reyes to the Marlins is complete. Terms still unknown, and each has a caveat (Costa says Hanley Ramirez needs to sign off on a move to third base, MLB Network Radio says it pending a physical).

I’ve made no secret here and in my other reporting how this seemed to be a near-certainty, given ownership’s financial situation. But my only reaction right now is anger that my daughter won’t get to grow up watching Jose Reyes play on a regular basis.

And if the deal is short, for more annual value, as has been rumored, the one remaining reason not to sign Reyes (beware the ides of long-term contracts) didn’t even apply here. Ridiculous.

Repoz Posted: November 13, 2011 at 11:48 PM | 90 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mets, miami

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. JJ1986 Posted: November 13, 2011 at 11:56 PM (#3992645)
############
   2. asinwreck Posted: November 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM (#3992648)
That would improve the Marlins' defense. Would Ramirez definitely go to third, or to center? They have holes at both positions, but Dominguez could come up to play third soon.
   3. ??'s Biggest Fan! Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:02 AM (#3992649)
my daughter won’t get to grow up watching Jose Reyes play on a regular basis.

Well, he would still be playing in the same division, so there is that...
   4. Dan Hirsch Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:09 AM (#3992651)
my daughter won’t get to grow up watching Jose Reyes play on a regular basis.


Boo hoo. It's called MLB.tv
   5. Repoz Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:13 AM (#3992652)
BTW...Matt Matheny has been named Cards manager.
   6. Brian C Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:15 AM (#3992654)
Costa says Hanley Ramirez needs to sign off on a move to third base...

Why? Does Ramirez have some weird contractual guarantee that he's the SS? Why else would they allow him to hold up a signing of a major free agent? What if Hanley "agrees" today and then changes his mind in the spring?
   7. Rough Carrigan Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:22 AM (#3992657)
#5. Gotta be a hell of a surprise to Mike Matheny. Was Pat even considered?
   8. Dan from NM Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM (#3992659)
Are either of these sources reliable? None of the big outlets have this.
   9. AROM Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:32 AM (#3992662)
I don't know who Costa is but if Maury Brown is posting this it's probably legit.
   10. Banta Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:38 AM (#3992666)
I might be becoming a Marlins fan.

Also, this ##### my fantasy keeper team, as Hanley is my shortstop. Ugh, what lousy news.
   11. TerpNats Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:45 AM (#3992672)
Not long ago, I said Jose Reyes and Hanley Ramirez on the left side of the infield would be the ARod and Jeter of the bizarro world. Well, based upon the Marlins' new uniforms and home run celebration, bizarro world has come to Little Havana.
   12. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:48 AM (#3992677)
From rotoworld:

"Jose Reyes and the Marlins have not agreed to contact terms, according to Joe Capozzi of The Palm Beach Post.
Capozzi cited a Marlins team source. Dino Costa of SiriusXM reported Sunday evening that Reyes had agreed to terms with the Marlins and Jorge Sedano of 790 AM The Ticket in Miami followed with a report that a deal was almost completed. But Capozzi is a far more reliable source. We'd expect Reyes to visit more teams before agreeing to a contract. "
   13. Sam M. Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:54 AM (#3992684)
Not going to erupt.

Yet.

But it wouldn't surprise me, frankly. Reyes strikes me as the kind of guy who would decide that a place and an offer suit him, and just say, "OK, let's do it." The whole FA magical mystery tour of cities just for the sake of being wined and dined and wooed doesn't seem like it would interest him at all.

He wants to win and be comfortable. I think he could easily be convinced those things are on the horizon in Miami with the offers on the table, some of the young talent he sees there, and especially in comparison to the situation he'd be leaving with the Mets.

We'll see how it develops, and if this is true. It may not be, but it certainly wouldn't shock me if it is.
   14. charityslave is thinking about baseball Posted: November 14, 2011 at 01:01 AM (#3992691)
Alot of young talented hitters. But big questions remain about the pitching staff, not the least of which is "What name should we sew on the back of our closers jersey?

Are they pursuing Vazquez? He was very good down the stretch, IIRC. And what is the situation with the player formerly known as Nunez? Is he coming back?
   15. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 01:05 AM (#3992697)
Marlins' new uniforms


Am I alone in finding these hideous?
   16. Brian C Posted: November 14, 2011 at 01:22 AM (#3992713)
Am I alone in finding these hideous?

Why do the home whites say "Miami"? The Rangers started this #### a couple years ago and it pisses me off. Home uniforms simply should not have the city/place name on the front.

(Similarly, all road uniforms should have city/place names on them, but there are several MLB offenders here.)
   17. Coot Veal and Cot Deal's cols=“100” rows=“20” Posted: November 14, 2011 at 01:23 AM (#3992715)
Am I alone in finding these hideous?


some of the variations work for me.
   18. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: November 14, 2011 at 01:49 AM (#3992731)
Why? Does Ramirez have some weird contractual guarantee that he's the SS? Why else would they allow him to hold up a signing of a major free


Hanley was interviewed Friday (I think) and it wasn't tough to read between the lines that he doesn't want to move to a new position. He made it a point to say that he sees himself as a short stop and "only" referred to Reyes as a "very good" player.
   19. Bob Tufts Posted: November 14, 2011 at 01:56 AM (#3992736)
Gotta be a hell of a surprise to Mike Matheny. Was Pat even considered?


Definitely a good manager for the heartland....
   20. Tripon Posted: November 14, 2011 at 01:57 AM (#3992738)
I wouldn't be surprised if Hanley was traded. Dude's in no position to demand anything.
   21. zachtoma Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:01 AM (#3992741)
Why would they let him hold this up? They can tell him where to play, and if he refuses to do it, they can just bite the bullet and trade him - might not be the worst solution in the world, his performance is trending downwards and they have a 3B waiting in the wings anyway. EDIT: Coke #20.
   22. zachtoma Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:05 AM (#3992746)
some of the variations work for me.


I think the home uniforms look great, even though they say 'Miami', but it doesn't work quite as well on the road, and I wish they had gone back to teal as a basis for the alternate. The black alternates are probably the second best set. Overall, I like the new look, seems like the first team willing to try something new in uni design in far too long.
   23. Sweatpants Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:15 AM (#3992750)
Am I alone in finding these hideous?
I was horribly disappointed by them. All the talk here about the crazy logo and goofy light thing made me think they were gonna have these insane unis that were like nothing else in the majors. These are kind of plain.
   24. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:29 AM (#3992753)
Its all coming together. They will sign Albert tomorrow and take the rest of the winter off.
   25. Darren Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:29 AM (#3992754)
Shouldn't we all be predicting the contract now? 4/80?
   26. Tripon Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:33 AM (#3992757)
I'm guessing 5/110. The fewer number of years is a red herring, a player like Reyes wants both the numbers and years.
   27. Bruce Markusen Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:35 AM (#3992762)
Ridiculous that Hanley Ramirez has to "sign off" on playing third base. When did Ramirez become the manager? Better yet, when did he become a good defensive shortstop?
   28. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:35 AM (#3992764)
People, the story has been debunked.
   29. 1k5v3L Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:36 AM (#3992766)
Word is Reyes pulled a hamstring walking into Loria's office to sign his new mega-contract
   30. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:37 AM (#3992768)
I predict that the second after the details are released about a dozen fanbases will be pissed at their GM.
   31. Something Other Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:02 AM (#3992778)
my daughter won’t get to grow up watching Jose Reyes play on a regular basis.

Boo hoo. It's called MLB.tv
The writer is a solid fan of the team, he expresses sorrow over his child not being able to regularly see, in person, one of the most exciting players of his generation, and your response is to kick him in the nuts? Wow. I know this is the internet, but...

I'm guessing 5/110. The fewer number of years is a red herring, a player like Reyes wants both the numbers and years.
I would have thought the latter sentence was true, but I guess we'll see. Reyes may figure that a three or four year deal leaves him better placed to get one more big contract. If so, he's got a lot more faith in his hamstrings than I do.

The Mets don't have a chance to be good until the fourth or fifth year of a Reyes deal, if then. From a fan perspective, sure. Go ahead and top the Marlins' offer. From a baseball perspective, why would you do that? Who wants to be paying an aging Reyes 20m a year in 2015 and 2016, just when you'd really need the money to get solid players through free agency to support--we can hope--a good young core?

Shouldn't we all be predicting the contract now? 4/80?
Sounds about right, given the article. GMs may be slightly saner than previously, in that there's more of a tendency to take a big, unexpected walk year with a grain of salt, but I figured there'd be a few lunatics out there who haven't yet heard of BABIP, and it only takes one. If it's for four years it'll remind me a lot of the Mets deal for Pedro. You knew there was essentially zero chance whoever signed him was going to get four good years out of him, so the real question was, were you going to get two, or three? In either of those cases, in either two or three seasons or their games played equivalent, the Marlins won't get $80m worth of baseball out of Reyes, and it's probably not going to be close.
   32. Lassus Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:14 AM (#3992785)
The Mets don't have a chance to be good until the fourth or fifth year of a Reyes deal, if then.

Hyperbole like this always strike me as ridiculous. They have plenty of chances to be good before then.
   33. Something Other Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:26 AM (#3992787)
The Mets don't have a chance to be good until the fourth or fifth year of a Reyes deal, if then.

Hyperbole like this always strike me as ridiculous. They have plenty of chances to be good before then.
Content-free nonsense like this always strikes me as ridiculous. With a budget of $90-100m (and falling fast) going into 2012, at least two large contracts that substantially handicap the Mets through 2013, and no one--no one, genius--with a full season above A ball who projects as even a solid major league starter or solid major league position player, where O where are you suggesting the means of contention are going to arrive from? Last I heard the free agent fairy was dead.

I double dare you: let's see some content.
   34. Squash Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:33 AM (#3992790)
I'll guess he ends up getting 5/90 or whereabouts.
   35. bobm Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:41 AM (#3992794)
The Mets don't have a chance to be good until the fourth or fifth year of a Reyes deal, if then.

Hyperbole like this always strike me as ridiculous. They have plenty of chances to be good before then.


*Without a sale of the team by the Wilpons in 2012?
*Without rebuilding at the major league level, i.e., (a) diverting dollars, IP and PA away from the effort to win 70-80 games per year at the major league level, including trading away Wright after Reyes leaves and (b) investing in young players, collecting draft picks, etc., even if it means losing 100 games per year?

These things would maybe position them to be competitive in 2015. It seems like all the Wilpons plan to do is rebrand the Pepsi Porch at Citi Field as the "Kool-Aid Korner" and hope the fans drink it.
   36. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:44 AM (#3992796)
Marlins' new uniforms


Am I alone in finding these hideous?

Trust me, it could be worse. Much, much worse.
   37. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:46 AM (#3992797)
Why would they let him hold this up? They can tell him where to play, and if he refuses to do it, they can just bite the bullet and trade him - might not be the worst solution in the world, his performance is trending downwards and they have a 3B waiting in the wings anyway. EDIT: Coke #20.


Trading Hanley to sign Reyes would be a buy high, sell low move. I love Reyes but I'm fairly confident that the Marlins would regret that decision from the Hanley side of it.
   38. robinred Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:47 AM (#3992799)
What other teams are seriously interested in Reyes? I of course have fantasies about him in a Cincinnati uniform, but "fantasies" is the key word there. Boston? Cubs?
   39. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:50 AM (#3992800)
I think you guys are reading "signing off" on too literally. I'm guessing the conversation is pretty much:

Larry Beinfest: Hey, we're signing Jose Reyes. Will you move to third without being too much of a pain in the ass?

Hanley Ramirez: Yea, I guess.
   40. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:50 AM (#3992801)
The only valuable, young commodity the Cubs have shares his position.
   41. Tripon Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:51 AM (#3992802)
Hanley is going to turn 29, getting really thick, and was a below average hitter last year. Hanley isn't Hanley unless he's hitting above a 140 OPS+, which he hasn't done in two years.
   42. Something Other Posted: November 14, 2011 at 04:15 AM (#3992816)
bobm, I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with all the projections below, but I think the following is a good faith effort to divine the best the 2012 Mets can reasonably do. It doesn't include such as Tejada putting up a HOF season, stuff like that, but I do think it's reasonable.

The Mets got two-thirds of two hall of fame seasons from departed players, had very good luck with the health of their starting pitchers, got the best year anyone this side of his mother could have expected from Chris Capuano, got as good seasons as they could have reasonably wished from FIVE of their young players (only one of whom has any real upside) and STILL won only 77 games. They may have a healthy Ike Davis back. Wright may be a couple of wins better. Santana might pitch 25 games with an ERA around 3.75. All those magical things that happened last season might also happen, again, as unlikely as that is. Then, despite the painful evidence of last season the FO might find a bunch of free agents with the $16m** they'll have to spend (they won't have that much, but where's the fun in that?), and be fortunate enough to have the new bunch overperform and add five wins to the team's total. Could happen. And with all those wonderful things happening the Mets just might be a .500 team.

That's how bad it is.

In other words, a little more concisely, without Beltran and Reyes the Mets are a 66 win team in 2011. Add two decent, projectable major league regulars at two wins each at those positions, and you get to 70. I don't know where they're coming from, but let's imagine it for the moment.

Santana? Let's give him 2.5 wins: 72.5.
Wright improves significantly: 74.5.
Bay also improves significantly: just kidding.
The Mets get five wins out of their modest FA budget: 79.5.
That assumes, btw, that the FO will pull the two two-win guys replacing Reyes and Beltran out of thin air.
Davis comes back, unaffected by his injury. Add 2.5 wins to his 2011 total: 82.

And we'll pretend nobody gets any worse. Nobody. Just for fun.
And all the departing free agents, all those role players who can easily run you $1m, $1.5m each? Let's say the FO can speak stentoriously and create them out of humble clay: no subtraction.

I'll be interested in the range of people's projections in March as we see how the roster fills out, but right now--since all the above surely isn't going to happen--without their two biggest stars the Mets are a 66 win team with the budget to add maybe, just maybe, one very good baseball player with a solid track record. Not an elite guy, but maybe someone, if he's willing to sign with a troubled club with no chance of contending, someone as good as Beltre, a $15m guy. They'll be filling all the remaining holes with guys off the scrap heap, the guys they had no luck with last season, but that's what a team with the Mets' payroll and prior commitments has to deal with. In seriousness, too, that $16m I pretended the Mets would have, they won't have. I'm fairly sure we're looking at an offseason very much like the last offseason. Filler, filler, and more filler. As of today, with median projections for all the guys currently on the roster, and making a few assumptions about the gaps they have to fill just to send 25 guys into the dugout in April, the Mets look an awful lot like a true talent 68 win team. You have to really squint to get them to 72 wins.

**BBRef projects the Mets to start the 2012 season with a $91.5m payroll. They have around $54m committed to Bay, Santana, and Wright. They'll pay Pagan and Pelfrey, like it or not, around $10m. They have around $4m in obligations to players who won't contribute and it may be worse than that if Beltran's $5m in deferred salary kicks in starting in 2012. They'll still have to pay their remaining 20 players something resembling hard currency. Even if on average they can get away with paying those players 750k each, that leaves them $8.5m to spend on free agents. Let's say $10m, since we might want to include something like three of those 750k players in the free agent category. So, the Mets are unlikely to be very close to my $16m figure, but let's pretend.
   43. Honkie Kong Posted: November 14, 2011 at 04:22 AM (#3992819)
The Mets don't have a chance to be good until the fourth or fifth year of a Reyes deal, if then.

Hyperbole like this always strike me as ridiculous. They have plenty of chances to be good before then.


Its not ridiculous if you take a step back and look at the rest of the division. Phillies are a powerhouse. Braves have young talent which is churning out 90 win seasons. Nationals have a good team, lots of good prospects and deep pockets.
Marlins might have less young talent than they usually have, but they suddenly seem to be willing to splurge on big FAs.

If you are the Mets, this is not looking rosy.
   44. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 04:52 AM (#3992828)
Hanley is going to turn 29, getting really thick, and was a below average hitter last year. Hanley isn't Hanley unless he's hitting above a 140 OPS+, which he hasn't done in two years.

He's going to turn 28 in December, not 29. I know he was a below average, injured hitter last year, which is why I think trading him now would be selling low. I can understand if you have health/conditioning concerns, but this is a guy who put up a 141 OPS+ from ages 23-26, entering what should be his offensive prime. Maybe you'd get better offers from him than I think, but if you sign Reyes and he won't play SS, then teams know you have to trade him which doesn't give you much leverage.
   45. billyshears Posted: November 14, 2011 at 05:44 AM (#3992834)
I wouldn't be surprised if Reyes ends up with the Marlins, but I would be surprised if it happened before any sort of roadshow. The Marlins' offer isn't going away (they aren't signing Pujols) and this is a reputation making contract for Reyes' agent. I highly doubt we would see any deal that falls short of the perceived market so soon.
   46. Benji Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:03 AM (#3992855)
Since the Mets always get rid of my favorite player, I have info for Fred and Jeff. My favorite player is a massive tie: Carrasco, Byrdak, Pagan, Pelfrey and Harris. Now I dare them to break my heart again!
   47. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:47 AM (#3992860)
So I'm penciling in the Mets for the 2013 WS, given what the minds of BTF are saying here.

Also, I love people talking about the Phillies as if they were the best team evar when their offense can't hit their way out of a paper bag.
   48. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:54 AM (#3992862)
Also, I love people talking about the Phillies as if they were the best team evar when their offense can't hit their way out of a paper bag.

Whaaaat. The Phillies can't hit? You crazy. Ryan Howard says hello!
   49. Tripon Posted: November 14, 2011 at 08:06 AM (#3992863)
Didn't Ryan Howard ankle explode?
   50. Lassus Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:10 PM (#3992877)
Content-free nonsense like this always strikes me as ridiculous. With a budget of $90-100m (and falling fast) going into 2012, at least two large contracts that substantially handicap the Mets through 2013, and no one--no one, genius--with a full season above A ball who projects as even a solid major league starter or solid major league position player, where O where are you suggesting the means of contention are going to arrive from? Last I heard the free agent fairy was dead. I double dare you: let's see some content.

What I responded to was a one-off - "they have no chance be good for at least five years" - and provided no content in support, so check the mirror.

Now, outside of that, I know your answer already - "see, stupid, you can't" - but I see no point and therefore have no interest in providing any content to a rude, joyless dick. Spit at the earth and watch the grass turn black for all I care, but I'll absolutely express my opinion in response.
   51. Meramec Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:20 PM (#3992893)
Ryan Howard says hello!

Left handed RP's say hello.....dude is seriously limited in the late innings. The Phillies scored fewer runs/game than the Mets and their team OPS was barely better than the Cubs.

Would a more successful NYM team draw in more fans and revenues? Or are all the fans that would be thusly tempted to wear orange and blue already rooting for NYY? I don't know how the New York market works--is there a chance that it is different than other places where marginal wins matter in a more direct way?
   52. Elvis Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:26 PM (#3992896)
the Mets look an awful lot like a true talent 68 win team 


In 1983, the Mets won 68 games. Let's look at that roster and compare it to what the Mets are likely to play in 2012.

C - Ron Hodges - .695 OPS
1B - Keith Hernandez - .858 OPS
2B - Brian Giles - .606 OPS
SS - Jose Oquendo - .504 OPS
3B - Hubie Brooks - .604 OPS
LF - George Foster - .708 OPS
CF - Mookie Wilson - .666 OPS
RF - Darryl Strawberry - .848 OPS

The 2012 Mets should be easily better at 2B, SS, 3B and CF and essentially even at C and LF. The 1983 team's two best offensive players played partial seasons that year. Hernandez played 95 games and Strawberry played 122. What the Mets were getting at those positions when others played there was considerably less. Danny Heep had a .722 OPS and Dave Kingman had a .648 OPS.

Last year Duda had an .852 OPS and Davis had a .925 OPS. Regress both of them however much you feel appropriate for guys in their mid-20s. Even if your calculations come out that they are going to produce less than Kingman-Hernandez and Heep-Strawberry (which I don't see) the 2012 offense is still going to be better than the 1983 version.

By OPS+, the 1983 squad had seven of their top 9 players by PA under 100, including marks of 68, 70, 61 and 42. That worked out to 1,790 PA of absolute dreck. And that doesn't even count Junior Ortiz' 54 OPS+ in 190 PA. There's just no way the 2012 offense will be anything remotely like that. On the 2011 team, the lowest OPS+ mark of any hitter with at least 100 PA was the 85 that Ronnie Paulino put up.

Let's look at the pitchers. Here's the ERA+ of the starting five

Seaver - 103
Terrell - 102
Lynch - 85
Torrez - 83
Swan - 66

Only one pitcher besides these five made more than five starts and Brian Holman had a 1-6 record and a 4.02 ERA in 10 starts. Pelfrey was last year's worst starter with a 78 ERA+. The 2012 rotation should be better at the top with Dickey and Santana and at the bottom with Pelfrey (or whoever). The #3 and #4 SP should be similar.

The 1983 team, with Orosco, Sisk and Diaz, will have a huge edge in RP.

But I just don't see how an edge in RP is going to make up for both an inferior offense and inferior SP. No one is saying the 2012 Mets are world beaters but unless they get hit by a 2009-esque level of injuries (which is entirely possible) they are going to be better than a 68-win team.
   53. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: November 14, 2011 at 02:29 PM (#3992897)
Santana? Let's give him 2.5 wins: 72.5.
Wright improves significantly: 74.5.
Bay also improves significantly: just kidding.
The Mets get five wins out of their modest FA budget: 79.5.
That assumes, btw, that the FO will pull the two two-win guys replacing Reyes and Beltran out of thin air.
Davis comes back, unaffected by his injury. Add 2.5 wins to his 2011 total: 82.


The Mets' 2012 pythag was 79, not 77, so you're really at 84.
Now say they're overperforming their pythag, so they're on a pace to win 86.
This is where Jeff Wilpon makes sandy trade a top prospect for a real starter at the deadline. Maybe that gets you to 88.
Now imagine you're underestimating Niese or Pelfrey and/or that Matt Harvey is ready to contribute in June.

Look, I don't really think the Mets have any realistic chance in 2012, but to write off 2013 is premature.
   54. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:06 PM (#3992908)
The Mets are still a huge market and eventually they will spend money again giving them a reasonable chance to compete. To say they have little chance in the next five years is silly.
   55. zack Posted: November 14, 2011 at 04:41 PM (#3992981)
983 at-bats short of Kranepool for the Mets AB record. If he had played full seasons the last 3 years, he'd be ~250AB short.

Leads Wright by 36 runs for the runs record.

118 hits short of Kranepool for the hits record.

Beat Mookie for the triples and the steals records, 99-62 and 370-281.
   56. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 05:28 PM (#3993011)
When I think about whether a team can compete in the next three years, I often think about the 2010 Giants, who won the World Series.

In 2008, the Giants finished 72-90, with 68 Pythagorean wins. Yes, they had some great front-of-the-rotation talent in Lincecum and Cain, but even with that talent they still finished 72-90. Plus they had a GM who was a laughinstock around here for his penchant for old players. And from what I remember when some people were advocating trading Matt Cain after 2008, and doing so for prospects rather than one big bat because "the Giants are a long way from having a competitive lineup".

But two years later, they won the World Series. The main contributors to the change in fortune were:

Aubrey Huff ($3 million free agent on a 1-year contract)
Andres Torres (journeyman minor leaguer signed for the minimum in 2009)
Buster Posey (drafted in the 1st round in 2008)
Pat Burrell (signed in May 2010 after clearing waivers)
Jonathan Sanchez and Brian Wilson (both with the team, but improved significantly from 2008-2010),
Madison Bumgarner (2007 first rounder)

And of course, they still had Cain and Lincecum.

I guess my point is that our ability to accurately forecast teams even 2-3 years out is limited. The projection models still give us our best estimate of what will happen, and you still need to take them into account when planning, but blanket statements like "they have no chance be good for at least five years" are way over the top. Simply punting on the next 5 years to rebuild seems like a terrible strategy, especially for a big market team like the Mets (current financial woes notwithstanding).
   57. KT's Pot Arb Posted: November 14, 2011 at 05:49 PM (#3993034)
The writer is a solid fan of the team, he expresses sorrow over his child not being able to regularly see, in person, one of the most exciting players of his generation, and your response is to kick him in the nuts? Wow. I know this is the internet, but...


He didn't express sorrow, he specifically used the term "anger", so yes the misplaced priorities of this mindless munchkin gets him a well deserved kick in the nuts.

Didn't Ryan Howard ankle explode?


Didn't you see the hindquarters it was forced to support?
   58. billyshears Posted: November 14, 2011 at 05:53 PM (#3993040)
I guess my point is that our ability to accurately forecast teams even 2-3 years out is limited. The projection models still give us our best estimate of what will happen, and you still need to take them into account when planning, but blanket statements like "they have no chance be good for at least five years" are way over the top. Simply punting on the next 5 years to rebuild seems like a terrible strategy, especially for a big market team like the Mets (current financial woes notwithstanding).


The 2010 Giants got lucky. This is not to say that they did not earn their luck, but a bunch of things happened for them that were unlikely to happen. So the question is do you sacrifice the future to some extent to put yourself in a situation where if six unlikely things happen, then you can make the playoffs and hope fate brings you a world championship, or do you accept the odds and go all in on a rebuild. I think when people, including me, say things like the Mets have "no chance" of being good for 3 - 5 years, we really mean that the chances that the Mets are good before that time are too small to be actionable.
   59. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 14, 2011 at 05:55 PM (#3993043)
And of course, they still had Cain and Lincecum.


Cain, Lincecum plus a little luck can go a long way...

The talk about trading Cain was silly because he is/was the type of guy you'd be looking to add when building-

The thing about luck-
Huff- 81-142-90, OPS+ that 142 was in 2010
Torres- 122 OPS+ in 2010, career 97, 2010 was his only year as a regular, as a quasi regular in 2011 put up an 82
Burrell- 81-122-113- that 122 was in 2010, but was 136 in 96 games for Giants
Sanchez- 127 ERA+ , career at 97,m his 2010 peripherals were pretty much the same as his career averages, but a BABIP plummet to a .257 can do wonders for your run prevention

of course it helps to have a core line Lincecum/Cain in place to take advantage of such luck, the 2003 Royals had a similar wave of luck- but all it got them was up to 83 wins, and some false hope...
   60. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:01 PM (#3993051)
Left handed RP's say hello.....dude is seriously limited in the late innings. The Phillies scored fewer runs/game than the Mets and their team OPS was barely better than the Cubs.

Serves me right for not being sarcastic enough.
   61. base ball chick Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:25 PM (#3993078)
Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot Posted: November 13, 2011 at 09:44 PM (#3992796)

Marlins' new uniforms


Am I alone in finding these hideous?

Trust me, it could be worse. Much, much worse.


- oh gawd yes - look at that riDICKulous batting helmet


and howard -
my sympathies. at least your daughter will get to watch a REAL baseball team which actually has a chance to become good once you get rid of the owner. MY baseball team is going byby

i DO like mike matheny, and i look teh HOTTTTT in red. If i do say so myself
   62. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:41 PM (#3993088)
So the question is do you sacrifice the future to some extent to put yourself in a situation where if six unlikely things happen, then you can make the playoffs and hope fate brings you a world championship, or do you accept the odds and go all in on a rebuild. I think when people, including me, say things like the Mets have "no chance" of being good for 3 - 5 years, we really mean that the chances that the Mets are good before that time are too small to be actionable.

What is "all-in" on a rebuild for a big-market team?

Barring Wilpon shenanigans, a team like the Mets doesn't need to cut payroll to fund drafting/signing/development. They can afford a full-bore drafting/signing/development budget. and maintain a $100M payroll. They are not the Pirates or Rays for whom it's either/or.

There is zero harm in signing some stop-gap FAs and keeping decent players who get expensive during the rebuild (rather than flipping them small-market style) in order to stay around 75-80 wins during the rebuild rather than 60-65.

The only benefit of getting awful is the draft picks, but the lost revenue from being a "no hope" team for 5 years, in NY, will more than offset that. Cutting payroll from $100M to $50M probably costs the Mets/SNY $100M+ in annual revenue.

That extra revenue can more than offset the lost draft talent through int'l FAs and ML FAs.
   63. bobm Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:02 PM (#3993112)
[56] And from what I remember when some people were advocating trading Matt Cain after 2008, and doing so for prospects rather than one big bat

Reyes and Wright were both age 28 in 2011 IIRC.

2008 was Cain's age 23 season and his 3rd ML season of 190+ IP.

Advocating trading a Reyes or Wright is not exactly a fair comparison to advocating trading a 23 year old.
   64. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:04 PM (#3993116)
I think snapper nails it in #62. If we were talking about whether to trade Reyes for real prospects, that would be one thing. But if we're talking about whether to sign him or not, I think you simply have to evaluate the player and contract terms on their merits.

Cain, Lincecum plus a little luck can go a long way...

So do Reyes and Wright, when healthy.

The talk about trading Cain was silly because he is/was the type of guy you'd be looking to add when building-

True, but I was pointing out the idea that you should trade Cain for prospects rather than someone who could make an immediate impact. Cain for Fielder, an idea that the author shoots down, wasn't crazy.
   65. bobm Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:22 PM (#3993135)
[62] There is zero harm in signing some stop-gap FAs and keeping decent players who get expensive during the rebuild (rather than flipping them small-market style) in order to stay around 75-80 wins during the rebuild rather than 60-65.

The only benefit of getting awful is the draft picks, but the lost revenue from being a "no hope" team for 5 years, in NY, will more than offset that. Cutting payroll from $100M to $50M probably costs the Mets/SNY $100M+ in annual revenue.


This rebuilding model probably works better in the NBA with limited player development and playoff spots available to every .500 team. In the end, however, even the Knicks--who are owned by the owners of MSG network/Cablevision--tanked two seasons rather than try to change the tires on a moving car.

Further, if you have major-league ready young players, giving PA/innings to stop-gap players insteading of developing rookies doesn't seem to make much sense in building a winner, short term ticket sales excepted.
   66. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:28 PM (#3993143)
This rebuilding model probably works better in the NBA with limited player development and playoff spots available to every .500 team. In the end, however, even the Knicks--who are owned by the owners of MSG network/Cablevision--tanked two seasons rather than try to change the tires on a moving car.

The NBA is much different b/c you need 1-2 superstars to win, and those guys only come through top draft packs, or clearing lots of cap.


Further, if you have major-league ready young players, giving PA/innings to stop-gap players insteading of developing rookies doesn't seem to make much sense in building a winner, short term ticket sales excepted.


Who said you should block your good prospects? You sign FAs to fill the spots where you have no good prospects, so you're not playing the suspects, just b/c they're young.
   67. billyshears Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:38 PM (#3993164)
I think snapper nails it in #62. If we were talking about whether to trade Reyes for real prospects, that would be one thing. But if we're talking about whether to sign him or not, I think you simply have to evaluate the player and contract terms on their merits.


I don't think it's quite that simple. Typically, the value (if any) in FA contracts is on the front end. By the time you reach the back end of the deal, the player is usually declining and not producing appropriate value for their salary. So if the Mets are not likely to be good for 3 years, a $20 mil commitment to Reyes for 2015-16 may hinder the Mets' effort to build a competitive team, even if a 5 year/$100 mil deal makes sense in the abstract. And I still want the Mets to sign Reyes (if the deal isn't batshit crazy), but I think you have to recognize that almost any time you sign a FA to a multi-year deal, you're probably robbing from the future for the benefit of the present.
   68. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:45 PM (#3993174)
What if something like 6/105 gets it done - spread the pain a little thinner?
   69. Ravecc Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:48 PM (#3993179)
Olney is saying it's closer to 95/5.

Personally I think Jose will go Kovalchuk and not even pick up the phone for anything less than $100m.
   70. Lassus Posted: November 14, 2011 at 08:05 PM (#3993215)
95 years, $5 million dollars? Sold! :-)
   71. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 08:36 PM (#3993271)
Olney is saying it's closer to 95/5.


That's a good price for Reyes, keeping in to only 5 years.
   72. formerly dp Posted: November 14, 2011 at 09:05 PM (#3993321)
Post says the Mets will go with Murphy at 2B and Tejada at SS if Reyes leaves. I'd rather see someone other than Murphy as Plan A at 2B, but would like to see Tejada given a chance at SS. He really seemed to grow a lot at the plate last year, and with the new dimensions at Citi might be able to crack single digits in HR...
   73. Something Other Posted: November 15, 2011 at 12:58 AM (#3993584)
What I responded to was a one-off - "they have no chance be good for at least five years" - and provided no content in support, so check the mirror.

Now, outside of that, I know your answer already - "see, stupid, you can't" - but I see no point and therefore have no interest in providing any content to a rude, joyless dick. Spit at the earth and watch the grass turn black for all I care, but I'll absolutely express my opinion in response.
Moron, your relentless projection is infinitely tiresome. All you do in your posts on this site are take a one-line #### on someone or something, and when you're challenged with actual detail you inevitably resort to ad hominem attacks. That bad boy, hit and run posting is spectacularly infantile, but admit at least that it's your signature and that you have little more to offer anyone. Despite your whining, no one has denied you your right to an opinion. It'd just be terrific if your opinions weren't so always utterly useless.

Sorry that your worldview is so fekking tender that actual analysis that supports the plain fact that the Mets aren't very good throws you into a dead faint, but there it is. You're a loser who's incapable of rational analysis. Why do you even post here, since you can't afford the entry fee for any of the conversations, which is the simple ability to muster facts, and then opine in at least some relation to those facts? Were you banned from YahooSports? You're one of those guys who made everyone's life in your wing of the psych hospital dramatically less pleasant than otherwise, and sported quarterly reports complaining that "Lassus engages in excessive subjectivity, to the detriment of unit morale".

I don't imagine it will help you modify your behavior, but perhaps over time you'll note things like, I simply stated where I thought the Mets would be as part of a broader point, and you decided to begin the unpleasantness. [Cue Lassus bringing up completely vague, extracontextual, probably imaginary past history to "justify" his inability to bring reasoned argument into the Baseball for the Thinking Fan tent, in 3...2...1...]
   74. Something Other Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:17 AM (#3993591)
[Long, thoughtful analysis closing with] But I just don't see how an edge in RP is going to make up for both an inferior offense and inferior SP. No one is saying the 2012 Mets are world beaters but unless they get hit by a 2009-esque level of injuries (which is entirely possible) they are going to be better than a 68-win team.

Elvis, I think your analysis is interesting--seriously--but I do think bringing into the discussion a parallel team and trying to project based on that brings so dramatically many more variables to the table that the analysis veers out of control. Much simpler and more accurate, imo, especially since the Mets roster is so unlikely to change much by April 2012 (little money, no impact players in the upper minors) to project from the 2011 roster.

Btw, when I wrote,
As of today, with median projections for all the guys currently on the roster, and making a few assumptions about the gaps they have to fill just to send 25 guys into the dugout in April, the Mets look an awful lot like a true talent 68 win team. You have to really squint to get them to 72 wins,
I meant that the gaps they fill would be with guys already in the system, for the sake of simply getting a sense of where the team currently is. As of today, in other words. And, unfortunately, as of today the Mets OF is Bay, Pagan, and Duda, with no one likely to help much. I don't see Niewenhuis contributing much, and I think the Mets will be making a Minaya-sized mistake not letting him get a full season in AAA. Niewenhuis has had 221 PAs at AAA where he didn't utterly suck. His instincts in CF still seem weak. It'd be smart for the Mets to give him one more shot to learn to play CF, it that's still possible, and a real shot to turn into a major league hitter at an OF corner, if that's still possible.
   75. Something Other Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:52 AM (#3993608)
Uh, you guys do realize that Lassus simply made up that quote, right? That his "they have no chance be good for at least five years" is simply Lassus making up a quote. He wrote:

What I responded to was a one-off - "they have no chance be good for at least five years" - and provided no content in support, so check the mirror.
Look, buddy, if this doesn't get through to you, nothing will: you simply made this up, argued nastily against your own made up quote--blaming someone else for it, remarkably enough--then advised, "check the mirror". Can you not see what you're doing?

The Mets are still a huge market and eventually they will spend money again giving them a reasonable chance to compete. To say they have little chance in the next five years is silly.
Yup. Couldn't agree with you more. Whom are you arguing with, btw? As I went through the thread the most extravagant, actual claim seems to be a tie for mine, that the Mets don't have any real chance to be good before 2015. That includes the next three years.

I guess my point is that our ability to accurately forecast teams even 2-3 years out is limited. The projection models still give us our best estimate of what will happen, and you still need to take them into account when planning, but blanket statements like "they have no chance be good for at least five years" are way over the top. Simply punting on the next 5 years to rebuild seems like a terrible strategy, especially for a big market team like the Mets (current financial woes notwithstanding).
Still just curious--who's touting five years?

edit: for clarity
   76. Lassus Posted: November 15, 2011 at 02:22 AM (#3993634)
If you find me that boring and stupid, put me on ignore. Or keep loading up the nerf gun with your insults. Your opinions of me could not possibly matter less.

If you get so bent at someone telling you that a no-doubt five-year projection of hopeless for a team like the Mets with a better system than they've had in years is hyperbolic, I don't know what to tell you. (You never did show up in that thread.) Not only that, but as already mentioned, the Mets are not the Pirates, they aren't the Marlins, and they aren't the Royals. I'll grant you that a fall to $91.5 million is pretty awful, but even that based on only eyeballing 2011 (I am, alas, too stupid to find where $91.5M puts them in relation to everyone else at the start of 2012 on BBRef) that places them still clearly in the top half.

I found your post in #31 of "no chance to be good" in 2015 or 2016 to be hyperbolic, and ridiculously so. Why? CONTENT FOLLOWS:

- The Mets currently, right now, have a good minor-league system which has a decent probability of providing either major-league players or trade chips. See cite above.
- Sandy Alderson has made the minor leagues one of his priorities, which means that this year is not lucky in that regard, and the Mets' system will - at a high probability - continue to get better.
- The Mets are still a (no, not "the") flagship team in the richest city in America. Barring worldwide financial collapse they will not be in the bottom half of payroll ever, and will most likely be back in the top 20% sooner rather than later. (Coke to RoyalsRetro.) If the Wilpons lose the team outright in two or three years, I somehow doubt whatever Einhorn or Cuban is waiting in the wings will leave us in the middle of the pack.

I have seen your reasons why we're a 68-win team next year, and why the year after, with aging players and insane financial hangover from the Wilpons make the team difficult to improve. Oddly, you seem to have missed I took no issue with this.

What I did take issue with is your certainty in predicting the three years that follow those two as "no chance at good". That was it. I would like to see your content that gives weight to this prediction for these two years in particular, as you are so certain.


In response to #75 - You wrote this:
The Mets don't have a chance to be good until the fourth or fifth year of a Reyes deal, if then.

And I said you wrote this:
What I responded to was a one-off - "they have no chance be good for at least five years"

I apologize for misquoting you. I admit I see little difference in those, but it was indeed a misquote.


Still just curious--who's touting five years?

You are - see above. "fourth or fifth year of a Reyes deal, if then." How the frack is that not five years? "If then" even implies LONGER than five years.
   77. Srul Itza Posted: November 15, 2011 at 02:26 AM (#3993637)
75. something other - Bigot Hunter! Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:52 PM (#3993608)
Uh, you guys do realize that Lassus simply made up that quote, right? That his "they have no chance be good for at least five years" is simply Lassus lying about what someone said right?



31. something other - Bigot Hunter! Posted: November 13, 2011 at 09:02 PM (#3992778)

. . .The Mets don't have a chance to be good until the fourth or fifth year of a Reyes deal, if then.


So we're talking three or four years, instead of five.
   78. Lassus Posted: November 15, 2011 at 02:36 AM (#3993642)
EDIT: Being really, really dumb and reading poorly.
   79. Something Other Posted: November 15, 2011 at 03:51 AM (#3993666)
If you find me that boring and stupid, put me on ignore. Or keep loading up the nerf gun with your insults. Your opinions of me could not possibly matter less.
If they could not possibly matter less, WHY DO YOU KEEP STARTING THINGS WITH ME?
If my opinion couldn't matter less, WHY NOT FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE? The "ignore" button is right there.
Buddy--IT'S ALWAYS YOU. YOU ALWAYS START IT, then when called on it and treated exactly as you've treated me, when I mock you by simply holding up the mirror and challenging you to actually stop the ad hominem attacks, you invariably start whimpering that you're being mistreated. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? You're this Bizarro character who takes a piss and when you get pissed on in return, screeches "You're pissing on me!!" It'd be funny if it wasn't absolutely freaky. Get some perspective, understand your behavior, and change.

It also seems to be the hallmark of a certain kind of abuser, to pretend that their starting something isn't starting something. Change.

31. something other - Bigot Hunter! Posted: November 13, 2011 at 09:02 PM (#3992778)

. . .The Mets don't have a chance to be good until the fourth or fifth year of a Reyes deal, if then.


So we're talking three or four years, instead of five.
Dent the truth much? You're smart enough to know better than this. The difference between THREE YEARS and FIVE in terms of projecting team performance is huge. Please. We can read. LASSUS MADE UP A QUOTE, THEN HE BLASTED THE PERSON HE "QUOTED". Find someone else to go down the rabbit hole with.

Find something actually worth defending.
   80. Banta Posted: November 15, 2011 at 03:57 AM (#3993673)
IT'S YOU GUYS ARGUING THAT MADE JOSE RUN AWAY!!! I HATE YOU!!!!

*runs into bedroom, sobbing*
   81. Lassus Posted: November 15, 2011 at 04:04 AM (#3993674)
LASSUS MADE UP A QUOTE, THEN HE BLASTED THE PERSON HE "QUOTED".

I'm apologize if calling what you wrote hyperbolic to a ridiculous degree was too harsh a blast. But I still don't understand where I lied. Really, I am seriously lost. Could you please reply to this, so I can understand why I was called a liar?

Still just curious--who's touting five years?

You are - see above. "fourth or fifth year of a Reyes deal, if then." How the frack is that not five years? "If then" even implies LONGER than five years.

I admitted my mis-quote, but where is my lie? You used a word that means counting to five when talking about how long then Mets would be not good, and then even used words that meant it might be longer.

If you didn't mean five years, what did you mean when you said "fifth" year of a Reyes deal? Would that deal not start next year?

EDIT: Actually, you asked for content, and I tried to provide in #76, if you'd care to answer. If I've bothered you too much to answer, I repeat my apology. It was never my intent.

EDIT 2 - Oh, I missed this: "It also seems to be the hallmark of a certain kind of abuser, to pretend that their starting something isn't starting something." Nice.
   82. formerly dp Posted: November 15, 2011 at 04:07 AM (#3993675)
I'm not sure why SO predicts doom for the Mets, given that they've finally started churning out average-ish position players from the minors. The last two years have yielded a SS, C, RF, and 1B. None of these guys look to be superstars (Davis maybe, though he's a long way from there now), but if they can be average for their positions for the next few years, it'll give the Mets the ability to spend big at the other spots. 2 years is a long time in baseball and a lot can happen. The Mets are going to have so much payroll trimmed that they can go on a spending binge when the ownership situation gets resolved, and while that may not bode well for the long-term of the team, that can turn them from also-ran into contender pretty quickly, especially if they take on talent from giving another team salary relief.

I'm probably not adding much beyond what Lassus posted in #76, but I think he's dead on there.

All of this said, if I'm Jose I run away from this team as fast as my dried and cracking hamstrings will let me...
   83. Lassus Posted: November 15, 2011 at 04:22 AM (#3993687)
All of this said, if I'm Jose I run away from this team as fast as my dried and cracking hamstrings will let me...

Unless I've missed it, I think that no real statement of any sort regarding his "desire to stay with the team if possible" blah blah blah is telling. I mean, those things are often lip service, but when they don't seem to show up at ALL there's trouble.
   84. Something Other Posted: November 15, 2011 at 05:16 AM (#3993713)
LASSUS MADE UP A QUOTE, THEN HE BLASTED THE PERSON HE "QUOTED".

I'm apologize if calling what you wrote hyperbolic to a ridiculous degree was too harsh a blast. But I still don't understand where I lied. Really, I am seriously lost. Could you please reply to this, so I can understand why I was called a liar?
Reread the thread. This isn't interesting.

Seriously--we can stop right here. We never have to do this again. It's not the worst thing in the world but it's not the most productive use of either of our time. Shall we simply not reply to each other in the future--what do you say?
   85. PreservedFish Posted: November 15, 2011 at 06:02 AM (#3993740)
Shall we simply not reply to each other in the future--what do you say?


A number of people might sign up for this deal.
   86. a bebop a rebop Posted: November 15, 2011 at 07:13 AM (#3993765)
Hey guys, Bigot Hunter is a dick!
   87. Lassus Posted: November 15, 2011 at 12:27 PM (#3993780)
bebop has reminded me that my name-calling in #50 should also be apologized for - that was poor behavior, and I'm sorry.


Reread the thread. This isn't interesting.

I'd disagree, actually. And I still would be interested in your response to #76.
   88. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:13 PM (#3993783)
something other should probably be the next addition to the site's highly selective banned list - abusive non contributor
   89. Lassus Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:38 PM (#3993787)
Disagree. Although he's relentlessly negative, he contributes a great deal, IMO.
   90. formerly dp Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:49 PM (#3993792)
Disagree. Although he's relentlessly negative, he contributes a great deal, IMO.

Absolutely.

bebop has reminded me that my name-calling in #50 should also be apologized for - that was poor behavior, and I'm sorry.

I find your reasonableness and civility offensive and inappropriate.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBud Selig calls replay start 'remarkable'
(15 - 3:39am, Apr 16)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(91 - 3:26am, Apr 16)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogGothamist: Yankee Stadium Is Selling Nachos In A Helmet For $20
(31 - 3:19am, Apr 16)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(211 - 3:18am, Apr 16)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(129 - 3:11am, Apr 16)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 14, 2014
(140 - 2:35am, Apr 16)
Last: Dan

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(82 - 2:08am, Apr 16)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogNY Post: Davidoff: Why the Yankees are using the shift more than ever
(5 - 1:54am, Apr 16)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogRight-hander Joe Blanton retires
(37 - 1:39am, Apr 16)
Last: Zach

NewsblogJoe Torre: John Farrell Will Be Fined By MLB For His Replay Criticism
(36 - 1:29am, Apr 16)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1271 - 12:06am, Apr 16)
Last: OCF

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-15-2014
(20 - 11:11pm, Apr 15)
Last: greenback likes millwall

NewsblogKimbrel given night off with soreness in shoulder | braves.com: News
(10 - 11:07pm, Apr 15)
Last: greenback likes millwall

NewsblogCalcaterra: "An embarrassing mishmash of fringe ranting and ill-informed, shrill bomb-throwing"
(99 - 8:40pm, Apr 15)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogBrewers win ninth straight game behind dominant Lohse
(31 - 7:17pm, Apr 15)
Last: STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.1099 seconds
52 querie(s) executed