User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4471 seconds
56 querie(s) executed
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. Bobby Bonilla's Annuity (Matt) Posted: September 08, 2008 at 07:14 PM (#2933139)Who pays the $11 million for next year?
The Phils were "cheap" and didn't want to go over 3 years. They ended up being "right" in their analysis, did they cut their noses to spite their faces?
Had they re-signed Wagner, they would have not moved Myers to the BP, etc.
I guess that GMs have sleepless nights and are very familiar with TUMS.
And he kept trying to come back? Or they didn't diagnose these things until now?
Curious.
Anyway, it was quite a ride with the Save Dwarf™. I think he was a divisive force in the clubhouse, but an important and valuable (if overrated) contributor on the field. One would have hoped -- in vain, alas -- that the Mets' success since he's been gone would have led someone (anyone) in the MSM to actually sit back and ask whether maybe (just maybe) the value of a Proven Closer™ is overrated even a tiny bit . . . instead, all we've heard are constant reassurances that any day now the Mets will collapse. Yessir, it's a dead-bang certainty they can't keep winning without their Relief Ace, because, well, because they just can't, that's why! It's conventional wisdom, and thus it must be right, and we won't let facts get in the way of our pre-set storyline. Bullpens by committee can't work, by gum, so this one can't be working. Even if it is. Harrumph.
Sigh.
I would certainly think so; they definitely are going to have their hat in the ring. What other teams are close to contention and will be without a set closer next year?
Yeah. It's just a pet peeve, the media's unwillingness to question CW. This was a perfect opportunity -- Wagner goes down, everyone forecasts gloom & doom, and you'd think (maybe) that when it didn't happen, somebody might say, "Huh. What do you know. Is there something to learn from that? Are bullpens, and proven closers in particular, really as important as I'd assumed?" But no.
Instead, we still hear people say that the Mets are doomed because of their bullpen. Why are people so reluctant to question their preconceived notions, even when an opportunity arises that almost begs them to do so?
Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Arizona
Atlanta, if they think they can bounce back next year. San Diego if they lose Hoffman and think they can bounce back. Texas, if they think they're close.
Now I'm really conflicted. I'd love to see a team disprove the Proven Closer™ myth, but let's not make it the Mets in 2008, OK? :)
Atlanta, if they think they can bounce back next year. San Diego if they lose Hoffman and think they can bounce back. Texas, if they think they're close.
hmmm, interesting list. I don't see Cleveland, Atlanta or SD (full-on rebuilding mode), and St. Louis is sort of grey (they like to build from within and let La Russa spin straw into gold). Arizona and Detroit make sense though.
Well, maybe you mean 2009, because the Mets are going to HAVE to disprove this now.
No Wagner obviously hurts the Mets chances, but if the Mets are going to win in the playoffs, I'll enjoy it more with someone other than Wagner finishing the games.
you haven't made the playoffs just yet.
See 2007.
I'm not saying you won't, but I wouldn't write it in ink yet.
Wagner is a rat. Burrell said so.
Why are people so reluctant to question their preconceived notions, even when an opportunity arises that almost begs them to do so?
- smile
because it is human nature
- i sure wish it was YOU running for president
The last thing the Braves need to do is invest tens of millions of dollars in a closer. They have major needs at both corner OF positions and in the starting rotation.
who was coming off cancer treatment.
In other words, I expect they will be spending a pretty penny this winter, even if they don't expect to contend in earnest until 2010.
Edit: Just my opinion, but I think the Braves need to do whatever it takes to sign CC this winter. He's the perfect guy to build the rotation around, especially once (IF) you get Hudson back and he's effective upon his return. A top 3 of CC, Lowe and Jurrjens would be great, and a top 4 of CC, Hudson, Lowe, Jurrjens in 2010 (with Hanson anchoring the fifth spot) would be excellent. Probably not going to happen (not with Steinbrenner itching to spend a billion dollars), but a wish nevertheless.
The Mets, right? They can't get insurance on a 4 year deal for a pitcher, can they?
Wagner is not HOF material IMHO.
In today's era of coddled closers pitching one inning at a time, I'd say I'm against nearly all current relief pitchers in the HOF.
Anyway, this does hurt Wagner's Hall chances. Even with what closers are worth in the popular mind, I think he's going to need to get up to a thousand innings before he'd really get support. This is going to leave him at least two and a half seasons short of that, and he'll need to get it at age 38-40 coming off major surgrey. That's tough.
even if he had kept going at his normal pace for another 3-4 years, he would have been a tough sell for the HOF - ironically, since closers are overvalued so much nowadays it makes it HARDER to look like a HOFer, you really need to set yourself apart like Rivera or Hoffman.
and this is just an excuse for me to point out that Rivera is the ALL TIME LEADER IN CAREER ERA+
So's your mom.
I'm surprisingly indifferent about this.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Mets make a run without a closer. Will that convince them not to overpay for one this offseason?
I wouldn't be shocked to see Wagner make it back before the end of next season.
FWIW, Sam, I've written about the bullpen a few times. The issue wasn't that Wagner, the proven closer, was out and unlikely to return. It was that the entire bullpen had an ERA of 6 since the break. Now it stood to reason that the bullpen would pitch better than that- even the worst bullpens typically max out at around 4.5-5- but the Mets had been winning in spite of their bullpen, thanks to tremeodous starting pitching and tremendous offense, both of which seemed likely to come back to earth a bit. They have, particularly the starters (thanks to injury)- but obviously, the bullpen has been more than a little bit better, with a recent ERA of, well, 0.
Again, if no one in the bullpen can get an out, that is a huge problem. And there was no precedent for a team with a second-half bullpen ERA of 6 making the playoffs. That's quite a bit different from "no closer, Mets are sunk!"
Agreed. They don't play nearly enough, so a closer should have to pitch like Riviera in order to have a shot.
They'll overpay. Omar plays it safe on this stuff.
I don't think anyone has mentioned here that Wagner's yet another old guy who, predictably enough, got hurt and didn't given the Mets what they were hoping for.
I think it was a mix of both, Howard. You saw a lot of bemoaning of how sucky the Mets' other relievers were and how they couldn't win with such a motley assemblage, and you saw a lot of people writing conditional eulogies for the Mets when Wagner first went down, as if they were certain to be dead IF Wagner couldn't return.
And FWIW, you are hardly typical of what most folks write out there.
Why would anybody use the Mets situation to examine the importance of having an established closer in general rather than examining whether Wagner, and his <80% conversion rate, was a good candidate for that role? Or is the argument that having an established Closer is pointless when you're Closer is crappy?
Hey, I'd have been more than happy if some writer out there had been savvy enough to write an article challenging the CW along exactly THOSE lines: Given how the Mets have done without Wagner, is he really an "elite" closer in the first place? Let's take a closer look at the record.
Of course, his save conversion rate is only part of the story on that issue, but at least asking the question would have shown that the writer was willing to look at the Mets' post-Wagner success and say, "What does it mean -- if anything?"
I'm very much against most relief pitchers being in the HOF.
Wagner is not HOF material IMHO.
In today's era of coddled closers pitching one inning at a time, I'd say I'm against nearly all current relief pitchers in the HOF.
Ah, such an interesting debate. Is the HOF about honoring the players who are purely the most valuable (in which case a statistical view of closers and the limited value of their role, because of the number of innings they pitch if nothing else, would say they are out of luck)? Or is it something different?
I think it's something different. To me, it's about honoring the players who were the very, very best for a sufficiently long and consistent period of time in the role that -- during their era -- was deemed a core and significant part of the game. Now, there is something about closers that makes it more difficult for them to cross the line to HOF-worthiness: they don't seem to last long at HOF-caliber performance levels, at least not as many of them as at the other positions. But those that do, to me, deserve to be honored.
The game is played the way it is. We may believe it should be played differently, and that resources should be allocated in another way. But they are allocated to closers. Roster spots, dollars, draft picks. Major league baseball has developed in a way to define the role of "closer" as a very, very important part of the game, and the HOF should reflect that the way it has operated for the best players in every such role in every era in the past: it should induct them.
Four months ago, after a numbing 1-0 Mets loss to Washington, Billy Wagner lashed out in the clubhouse at teammates who, in his mind, had been too quick to depart after the game.
In his expletive-laced comments, Wagner did not cite anyone by name. But he seemed to be singling out the empty locker of Carlos Delgado, who had been playing dismally and who had indeed dressed and left without speaking to reporters.
There was just too much of that from Billy the Kid. Too many times when he couldn't help himself but to knock a teammate, call out a Lastings Milledge or Carlos Delgado because he didn't behave the way Billy Wagner thought he should. It's one thing to be honest behind closed doors, when the situation demands it. It's another to do it to the media, or in a way that it is inevitable the media will learn about and report -- especially in Tabloid Central. He never sank to the level in my mind of Leiter or Franco as clubhouse cancer, but I sure won't regret his departure.
Yeah, I have to admit, when you slip on a banana peel in the street you look a lot better sprawled all over the ground if some other guy does the same thing the following day. Look, I love B.J. Ryan with a disturbing intensity, but even I recognize the signing wasn't prudent.
Know your place, rook! HEH HEH. Why is the kid so upset? I'm only teasing! He needs to grow up.
####### #########.
There's really no chance the Cardinals go after Rodriguez--the ownership has shown no interest at all in going after big-name free agents.
To provide balance to the ticket, I recommend John Edwards as his running mate.
But those that do, to me, deserve to be honored.
Yeah, sure, but it's only 1,000 IP. That's barely enough to even know if they're any good (in most cases).
And the "role that -- during their era -- was deemed a core and significant part of the game" is quite the facile argument. For the first 100 years of baseball there were only 9 such roles. They added a 10th with the DH but at least they still play every day. There's actually no precedent for recognizing "significant new roles" especially not part-time ones. We all know nobody would take the idea of enshrining bench players or pinch-hitters. Baseball had a number of years to enshrine the best relievers and only Wilhelm was ever deemed worthy.
It's not a new role, it's a new usage pattern and, most significantly, a new statistic. When they start enshrining set-up men and LOOGYs (a significant new role), then I'll believe it's something other than the existence of the save statistic.
ALL TIME LEADER IN CAREER ERA+
So f'in what? Quiz and Wilhelm are tied for 5th. Wagner would be #2. I would guess he's barely ahead of Gossage ages 23-33 (ignoring his year as a starter). Mark Eichhorn would be #11; the immortal Steve Reed would be tied with Maddux (and Tekulve!).
Relieving is easy, always has been.
Plus I think Yunel will do really well with Ozzie as his manager.
And even though Lowe would be a good signing, I rather that I didn't have to root for that douche.
Say no to Furcal and Burrell. One is not really needed, the other looks like a contract year mirage.
But the elephant in the room for the Braves is what to do free swinging brainless hick in RF. Apart from trading him to the Falcons for a hammer and few nails
EDIT : Improbable trade thought. Various rumours this season had the Royals interested in Frenchy. Yunel + Frenchy + random arm for Greinke?
Same here. Let's Go Mets.
I'm not sure whom you think is having a contract year mirage -- Furcal, with his missing most of the year or Burrell with his 125 OPS+, following years of 128/122/127.
Oh he has come down, has he. haven't followed much since the ASB. And he was rockin it then...
C- McCann
1B- Kotchman
2B- Kelly Johnson
3B- Chipper for 120 games;
SS- Escobar
LF-
CF-
RF- Golden Boy
Good looking infield, major needs in the outfield. That's not even mentioning the holes in the rotation: Jurrgens, Jorge Campillo and Jo-Jo Reyes will be in there. I'm not sure how much to count on any of those three.
It's not a new role, it's a new usage pattern and, most significantly, a new statistic. When they start enshrining set-up men and LOOGYs (a significant new role), then I'll believe it's something other than the existence of the save statistic.
Nobody's paying set-up men and LOOGYs $10M a year, Walt. The market is telling us that the closer role is much closer in value to that of full-time position players and starting pitchers than it is to part-timers and set-up men. If you want to believe that this is a mass delusion created by the save statistic and that GMs and owners all throughout baseball are irrationally approaching this issue, well fine. But the HOF's decisions, in my view, should reflect the game as it is and not the game as Walt Davis (or I) might think it should be. And the game as it is has made reliable, long-term closers significant. And I strongly doubt it's going to change.
Your approach, in effect, would render the HOF a kind of bizarre relic of the game that no longer is. Closers are a huge part of the way rosters are put together, the way managers handle in-game strategy, the way drafts are handled -- it is the modern game. To say it's not a significant role is just not true. And to say it's because of the save statistic is just an explanation, rather than any sort of persuasive refutation of my point. OK, even if it IS because of the stat . . . so what? The stat has changed the game. Let's assume that's the reason. The point remains: the game has changed. Closers are a huge part of it. The Hall should reflect that. The best of them should go in.
1B- Kotchman
2B- Kelly Johnson
3B- Chipper for 120 games;
SS- Escobar
LF-
CF-
RF- Golden Boy
Infante has been a very good pickup, so he is going to be there as 3B/OF backup. CF is going to be some combo of Schafer and Blanco/Anderson.
They need bop, big time in LF. I rather we sign Dunn than Burrell. And Swisher would be good too.
I haven't followed Furcal as closely since he's been in LA, but a cannon-armed shortstop with good speed and some pop? Yes, please.
I like Raffy but a SS who has suddenly become injury prone and on the wrong side of 30 looking for a big deal. Pass.
Plus we have more pressing problems than our infield
They would still have Lillibridge/Prado/Jones to fill up the roster. I say, Dunn and Sabathia
It'd make me happy and I'm a Met Fan. Escobar plays a tremendous shortstop and has a very nice OBP of .371 in 920 PA. He's a fine player and much cheaper than Swisher as well.
Jordan Schafer might fill that need, albeit in CF. I have a feeling that he'll be out there sometime before the All-Star break in 2009.
-- MWE
It is a mass delusion- just as in the 60s/70s/80s most teams thought it was a good idea to bat the likes of Omar Moreno lead-off- they became besotted with a statistic- SBs
You really think he's going to fill the need for a "slugger," Mike??? He had a nice season in AA for a 21 year old, and he certainly looks like he'll be able to handle the offensive responsibilities for a center fielder, at least eventually. But I just don't see him filling their need for a genuine power hitter.
Yes, and if any of those players had actually been good at the role of lead-off man/offensive catalyst, they would have been HOF-worthy. Actually, a couple were -- Raines and Rickey.
There are several reasons why the closer role is going to be with us a lot longer than the SB phenomenon. First, the value of (and emphasis on) steals was always going to be vulnerable to a resurgence of the power game, whenever it came. Eras where speed is king have always given way to power. Second, it's hard to see the counter-trend that is going to make closers go the way of the color line -- unless you think the complete game is going to make a comeback any time soon. Third, the players who fill the closer role are (often) actually good at what they do. They may be pampered, they may be overrated, they may not be able to do anything else. But they are providing positive value as closers. You can't say that about Omar Moreno. Believe me -- I remember what THAT was like, except ours was called "Frank Taveras."
Also, I'm not sure 1000 IP is going to be a yardstick. Sutter just barely has 1000, and I can see the bar going lower for a guy who puts up Rivera-type numbers.
well "we" were actually grooming a whole army of them
Stanley Jefferson, Marvell Wynn, Chuck Carr, Herm Winningham, Terry Blocker...
Just wave after wave of these guys.... the only one better than Mookie was Dykstra
Yeah, talk about getting slapped in the face by reality. If ever there was a cautionary tale about the limits of projections this is it.
Oh, and I'm with Sam on the hall of fame.
I think their plan is to move Alexi Ramirez to SS next season. Not sure what their plan for 2b is though.
The Mets have a Proven Veteran™, nice OBP, only slightly dinged up. I'm sure Kenny and Ozzie can have him for a reasonable price.
As in, just pay (some of) his remaining contract, and he's yours.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main