Master Index of Archived Threads


A Million Posts (Split from the Lee Signing)

Edgy MD Dec 14 2010 08:12 AM

Centerfield wrote: I appreciate the efforts to find a silver lining here, and maybe in a few years, this will bite the Phils in the ass, but for the next two or three years, this sucks royally for the Mets. Thank goodness for the Wild Card. Let's keep in mind that in 2009 and 2010 Lee has been merely a pretty good pitcher in the regular season and not knocking anybody's socks off until the post-season. That and a otherwise thin market gets him a nice payday and good for him, but it doesn't make him something greater than he is --- a pretty good pitcher who (1) got it all together for one awesome season a few years back and (2) has stymied the Yankees by the grace of God. He may yet dominate again certainly, but the Mets are righty-heavy and I don't fear him. They still have to play the games. Oh, and do the world a favor. When the Phillies come to town, treat Ms. Lee like a princess.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2010 08:16 AM Re: The Lee signing

Lee was better than Santana over the last three years, even without including the post-seasons.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2010 08:27 AM Re: The Lee signing

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Lee was better than Santana over the last three years, even without including the post-seasons. I know. You said that.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2010 08:30 AM Re: The Lee signing

Edgy DC wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Lee was better than Santana over the last three years, even without including the post-seasons. I know. You said that. Yeah, but I only said it when I said it. I didn't say it before I said it. What would you like me to say? That this is good for the Mets? Maybe if Lee pulls a Leary and blows out his arm in his first start ...

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2010 08:43 AM Re: The Lee signing

Okay ... here's your silver lining: The five man rotation of Gooden, Cone, Viola, Fernandez and Darling never went to the post-season. Happy, now?

Ceetar Dec 14 2010 08:47 AM Re: The Lee signing

Edgy DC wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Lee was better than Santana over the last three years, even without including the post-seasons. I know. You said that. Only because of injury. Santana's numbers are very similiar last year, in fact he was "worth more" WAR than Lee, despite the less appearances. In fact, his numbers in Texas aren't overwhelming at all. His greatest asset is he doesn't walk anyone so all the home runs he gives up there will be solo shots.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2010 08:49 AM Re: The Lee signing

Ceetar wrote: Edgy DC wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Lee was better than Santana over the last three years, even without including the post-seasons. I know. You said that. Only because of injury. Santana's numbers are very similiar last year, in fact he was "worth more" WAR than Lee, despite the less appearances. In fact, his numbers in Texas aren't overwhelming at all. His greatest asset is he doesn't walk anyone so all the home runs he gives up there will be solo shots. I said "over the last three years", not last one year. That Lee pitched in Texas (and Philly) while Santana pitched in the Grand Canyon of Willets Point, cuts against Johan.

Ceetar Dec 14 2010 09:01 AM Re: The Lee signing

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Lee was better than Santana over the last three years, even without including the post-seasons. I know. You said that. Only because of injury. Santana's numbers are very similiar last year, in fact he was "worth more" WAR than Lee, despite the less appearances. In fact, his numbers in Texas aren't overwhelming at all. His greatest asset is he doesn't walk anyone so all the home runs he gives up there will be solo shots. I said "over the last three years", not last one year. That Lee pitched in Texas (and Philly) while Santana pitched in the Grand Canyon of Willets Point, cuts against Johan. yes, but if you extend it back to say, 4 years, doesn't Santana have the edge again? Arbitrary end points.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2010 09:05 AM Re: The Lee signing

What topic are we on here?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2010 09:07 AM Re: The Lee signing

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Lee was better than Santana over the last three years, even without including the post-seasons. I know. You said that. Only because of injury. Santana's numbers are very similiar last year, in fact he was "worth more" WAR than Lee, despite the less appearances. In fact, his numbers in Texas aren't overwhelming at all. His greatest asset is he doesn't walk anyone so all the home runs he gives up there will be solo shots. I said "over the last three years", not last one year. That Lee pitched in Texas (and Philly) while Santana pitched in the Grand Canyon of Willets Point, cuts against Johan. yes, but if you extend it back to say, 4 years, doesn't Santana have the edge again? Arbitrary end points. And if you go back 40 years, Seaver's looking better than Johan. So is Carlton.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2010 09:33 AM Re: The Lee signing

Edgy DC wrote: What topic are we on here? The topic is Cliff Lee. You wrote a post that minimized, though didn't trash, Lee's recent accomplishments, ... (Lee was merely good and didn't knock anybody's socks off in the regular season). I countered that Lee was better than Santana over the recent past. I thought my post was effective because (I believe) you wouldn't write about Santana what you wrote about Lee if given a million posts. Ceetar wrote: yes, but if you extend it back to say, 4 years, doesn't Santana have the edge again? Arbitrary end points. I wasn't being arbitrary when I chose to compare Lee and Santana over the last three years. I chose Santana's years with the Mets.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2010 09:34 AM Re: The Lee signing

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: What topic are we on here? The topic is Cliff Lee. You wrote a post that minimized, though didn't trash, Lee's recent accomplishments, ... (Lee was merely good and didn't knock anybody's socks off in the regular season). I countered that Lee was better than Santana over the recent past. I thought my post was effective because (I believe) you wouldn't write about Santana what you wrote about Lee if given a million posts. Wow, you telling me what my position is! Stunning!

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2010 10:10 AM Re: The Lee signing

Edgy DC wrote: Edgy DC wrote: What topic are we on here? The topic is Cliff Lee. You wrote a post that minimized, though didn't trash, Lee's recent accomplishments, ... (Lee was merely good and didn't knock anybody's socks off in the regular season). I countered that Lee was better than Santana over the recent past. I thought my post was effective because (I believe) you wouldn't write about Santana what you wrote about Lee if given a million posts. Wow, you telling me what my position is! Stunning! So then you concede that if Lee didn't knock anybody's socks off, then neither did Santana. Just putting Lee in perspective.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2010 10:14 AM Re: The Lee signing

Why don't you just put on a meditation tape and relax? My position is clear and has plenty worth challenging within it without having to cross-examine me on issues I didn't speak to.

Centerfield Dec 14 2010 10:15 AM Re: The Lee signing

Edgy DC wrote: Edgy DC wrote: What topic are we on here? The topic is Cliff Lee. You wrote a post that minimized, though didn't trash, Lee's recent accomplishments, ... (Lee was merely good and didn't knock anybody's socks off in the regular season). I countered that Lee was better than Santana over the recent past. I thought my post was effective because (I believe) you wouldn't write about Santana what you wrote about Lee if given a million posts. Wow, you telling me what my position is! Stunning! I know this is not my argument here, but isn't that a fair representation of your position? I mean, that's how I took your post.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2010 10:16 AM Re: The Lee signing

Really? Something in my post indicated what I would or wouldn't say about Johan Santana given a million posts? You're a lawyer. You know what a red herring is. And you know how batmagadan uses them. I didn't speak to Santana at all.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 14 2010 11:52 AM Re: The Lee signing

Edgy DC wrote: I would also. That 7.1 last year sure seems to come out of left field, though, doesn't it? Are they somehow including his post-season performances and amplifying them for the higher stakes? That would be interesting, but then he'd look even better in 2009. He was ridiculously good in the half-year with Seattle. Like, 1/2-a-walk-per-nine, 11 Ks/BB good. Like, his just-above-2 ERA-actually-underrated-his-gross-pitching-performance good. After that, he was just plain good with Texas (3.98 ERA, 4 K/BB), with the big difference being a few more HRs and a handful more walks over a similar time frame. 7.1 seems a little high... but the B-R number, even moreso, seems low.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2010 12:03 PM Re: The Lee signing

Edgy DC wrote: Really? Something in my post indicated what I would or wouldn't say about Johan Santana given a million posts? You're a lawyer. You know what a red herring is. And you know how batmagadan uses them. I didn't speak to Santana at all. It's not a red herring. You've written many glowing posts about Santana the Met over the last three seasons. Many of your glowing Santana posts, without doubt, imply that Santana, as a Met, was "knocking socks off". I would agree with many of them. Maybe most of them. Maybe even all of them. So now that Philly signs Lee, you write that Lee wasn't knocking anybody's socks off recently even though, by any measure, Lee was better than Santana over the last three regular seasons. Lee was also a monster in the post-season. Santana wasn't, and wouldn't have been even if the Mets qualified: Santana couldn't finish even one of his Mets season healthy enough to pitch in the post=season. Whatever.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2010 12:19 PM Re: The Lee signing

It's not a red herring. It's bizarre if it's sincere. It's a deliberate mis-direction otherwise. You've written many glowing posts about Santana the Met over the last three seasons. I would even agree with many of them. Maybe most of them. Maybe even all of them. But many of your glowing Santana posts, without doubt, imply that Santana was "knocking socks off". I'm curious as to what we're talking about. But it's certainly not facts. "Without doubt"? Really? What planet are you on? Santana is really really a non-issue. But obviously I am for some reason. So now that Philly signs Lee, you write that Lee wasn't knocking anybody's socks off recently even though, by any measure, Lee was better than Santana over the last three regular seasons. Yes, and I quite clearly, to any fair reading (which you won't seem to give me for reasons I have no idea of) used that term to describe the last two years (but nonetheless praise) while describing his season in 2008 as "awesome." So you come up with a three-season framework to contrast with my description of two while ignoring my description of a third. Because you have a problem with me... for what? Did I mistreat your sister? Lee was also a monster in the post-season. Of which I spoke, so what's your problem? Santana wasn't, and wouldn't have been even if the Mets qualified: Santana couldn't finish even one of his Mets season healthy. Which is on me how, you odd, odd man? Once more, I didn't bring the guy up. Whatever. Yes, make up shit I didn't say and dismiss it with whatever. Why don't you just argue with shadows in your room? Or find a forum where this act isn't played out?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2010 12:29 PM Re: The Lee signing

It's not a red herring. It's bizarre if it's sincere. It's a deliberate mis-direction otherwise. You've written many glowing posts about Santana the Met over the last three seasons. I would even agree with many of them. Maybe most of them. Maybe even all of them. But many of your glowing Santana posts, without doubt, imply that Santana was "knocking socks off". I'm curious as to what we're talking about. But it's certainly not facts. "Without doubt"? Really? What planet are you on? Santana is really really a non-issue. But obviously I am for some reason. So now that Philly signs Lee, you write that Lee wasn't knocking anybody's socks off recently even though, by any measure, Lee was better than Santana over the last three regular seasons. Yes, and I quite clearly, to any fair reading (which you won't seem to give me for reasons I have no idea of) used that term to describe the last two years (but nonetheless praise) while describing his season in 2008 as "awesome." So you come up with a three-season framework to contrast with my description of two while ignoring my description of a third. Because you have a problem with me... for what? Did I mistreat your sister? Lee was also a monster in the post-season. Of which I spoke, so what's your problem? Santana wasn't, and wouldn't have been even if the Mets qualified: Santana couldn't finish even one of his Mets season healthy. Which is on me how, you odd, odd man? Whatever. Yes, make up shit I didn't say and dismiss it with whatever? Why don't you just argue with shadows in your room? Or find a forum where this act isn't played out? I'm not making up any shit. Lee was the better pitcher over the last three seasons. But when comparing your Lee post of today with most of your Santana posts of the last three years, one wouldn't think so. I have trouble believing that you don't understand what I'm writing here. But if you want to continue with this theme that if it's the Mets, it's always good, I'll play along. Alex Cora is good. Sean Green is good. Chris Carter deserves 300 plate appearances. I'll think happy thoughts. So you don't wish me into the cornfield. Or you could try writing that Alex Cora sucks once in a while. It's not such an bad thing to write. Try it.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2010 12:33 PM Re: The Lee signing

And you respond to nothing I actually wrote. Again. Go fuck with somebody else.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2010 12:37 PM Re: The Lee signing

I responded to everything you wrote. I can use Sean Green as a metaphor or an analogy even though you never mentioned Sean Green. But you'll probably answer by claiming that now I'm putting arguments into your mouth.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2010 12:38 PM Re: The Lee signing

Go. Fuck. With somebody. Else.

Ceetar Dec 14 2010 12:39 PM Re: The Lee signing

I'm actually looking forward to the Mets getting their hands on him. I think he's one of those guys they'll handle well, particularly without Castillo

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2010 12:40 PM Re: The Lee signing

Edgy DC wrote: Go. Fuck. With somebody. Else. This is how you concede. Grudgingly.

TheOldMole Dec 14 2010 12:46 PM Re: The Lee signing

I'd be the one to attack on these grounds. I have a total Pollyanna attitude. Mets - good. Everyone else - bad. And I don't try to defend it with logical or statistical proof.

Centerfield Dec 14 2010 12:52 PM Re: The Lee signing

Really? Something in my post indicated what I would or wouldn't say about Johan Santana given a million posts? You're a lawyer. You know what a red herring is. And you know how batmagadan uses them. I didn't speak to Santana at all. I don't think his position was that you said anything about Santana. The way I read it, magadan said the following about your position: The topic is Cliff Lee. You wrote a post that minimized, though didn't trash, Lee's recent accomplishments, ... (Lee was merely good and didn't knock anybody's socks off in the regular season). Then magadan went on to explain his position: I countered that Lee was better than Santana over the recent past. I thought my post was effective because (I believe) you wouldn't write about Santana what you wrote about Lee if given a million posts. Whether you agree with that, I don't know. I don't know about the topic of discussion, and I don't know if there is some history between you guys (seems like there might be). But to me, this just seems like a non-combative discussion. Just wondering if I am mis-reading something. In any case, as you were.

Willets Point Dec 14 2010 03:16 PM Re: A Million Posts (Split from the Lee Signing)

Woah! A real Red Lighter!

d'Kong76 Dec 14 2010 08:27 PM Re: A Million Posts (Split from the Lee Signing)

A 3.5 on the 1 to 10 Red Light Scale.

Nymr83 Dec 15 2010 06:09 PM Re: The Lee signing

Edgy DC wrote: Go. Fuck. With somebody. Else. why doesn't "with" get its own line and period too? all the other words did! you're being very unfair to one of my favorite words!

seawolf17 Dec 15 2010 06:34 PM Re: A Million Posts (Split from the Lee Signing)

Seriously, this is the lamest RLF fight since CF called FK a "cotton-headed ninnymuggins" over the Olerud-to-Seattle signing.

Edgy MD Dec 17 2010 08:53 AM Re: A Million Posts (Split from the Lee Signing)

Well, it wasn't a red-light fight, so much as a side-argument that I stuck here because it interrupts the flow of a thread that makes better sense without it.