Master Index of Archived Threads
Dillon Gee: Untouchable.
batmagadanleadoff Oct 29 2013 02:19 PM |
|
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... -1.6341513
|
Edgy MD Oct 29 2013 02:22 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
Worst thread title ever.
|
batmagadanleadoff Oct 29 2013 02:26 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
The interviewee barely left me any material to work with. He's about as articulate as Choo Choo Coleman.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 29 2013 02:36 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
Dillon Gee: Solidified On
|
Edgy MD Oct 29 2013 02:38 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
If Alderson showed up, it could have gone down as Sandy vs. Sandy.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 29 2013 02:49 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
He's really Showing Us The Plan there.
|
d'Kong76 Oct 29 2013 02:51 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
For sanity sake, I refuse to read anything Jeff or Fred
|
Vic Sage Oct 29 2013 03:15 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
excellent strategy, Kase. i concur.
|
Benjamin Grimm Oct 29 2013 03:20 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
I'm not at all impressed by the "glut" at first base. I hope the Mets don't really think that they're set at that position.
|
RealityChuck Oct 29 2013 03:55 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
That's not what he's saying. The Mets have at least five possible first basemen in house: Duda, Davis, Satin, Flores, and even Murphy in a pinch. There was no way to know how Abreu will do in the majors; his numbers look good, but there's no way of assessing the competition. He may be a star, or he may not be appreciably better than the ones they have in-house. If Abreu turns out to be mediocre in the majors, it just complicates things.
|
Edgy MD Oct 29 2013 04:36 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
He's clear that he doesn't consider them set at first. Of course he doesn't.
|
d'Kong76 Oct 29 2013 06:42 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Oct 29 2013 06:53 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|
I might have gone with Logjammin'.
|
Fman99 Oct 29 2013 07:13 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
I appreciate the metaphor of the Wilpons putting a fresh coat of paint on a waterlogged mess. Subtle.
|
Edgy MD Oct 29 2013 08:34 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
Winter reading.
|
MFS62 Oct 29 2013 10:10 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
If someone told Jeff that the best way to find players is to look within, he'd probably visit his Proctologist.
|
Ashie62 Oct 30 2013 12:24 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
Nothing in that short little interview to bother me..actually the opposite...
|
metirish Oct 30 2013 06:13 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|
Me too.. not exactly Thome and Howard.
|
Ceetar Oct 30 2013 06:43 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|
Part of the reason the medium is dying. What is the value to the consumer of big-wigs saying meaningless sound bytes and 17 different, more if you count the bloggers that then repost the same nothing, newspapers writing it up?
|
Edgy MD Oct 30 2013 07:17 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
I don't know, but if bloggers are re-posting it, it has value to somebody. And the bigger outlets are the only ones who can afford to keep a beat reporter or stringer showing up at stuff like a charity building rehab.
|
Mets Guy in Michigan Oct 30 2013 07:31 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
It seems like every year there are some free agents who the scribes feel the Mets should fixate on, and then pummel them when they go elsewhere. Note that Wilpon is put in a defensive mode here about not signing an unproven Cuban defector for a position at which they are well-stocked and have much more pressing needs.
|
MFS62 Oct 30 2013 07:37 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
Bravo!
|
seawolf17 Oct 30 2013 07:41 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|
Not for nothing, but this is half of the reason why I don't know why anyone DOES sign in New York. It's a no-win situation. (The other half is the douchebaggery element of our fan base that still hates Carlos Beltran.)
|
Edgy MD Oct 30 2013 07:46 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|
Are you thinking of Tommy Hanson? Latest case of the Braves dealing high on pitching that.
|
Benjamin Grimm Oct 30 2013 07:49 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
Well, I wouldn't say that the Mets are "well-stocked" at first base. They have quantity, but not a lot of quality. And other needs may be more pressing, but not by such a wide margin.
|
Ceetar Oct 30 2013 08:02 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|
well, it has value to bloggers in that it creates a thread on a site to keep Mets fans at to keep talking about the Mets, whether or not it's on topic. But really a "morning applesauce" thread has the same sort of effect. You'd be surprised at how few beat reporters are showing up at charity building rehab stuff or what not. Rubin's model is good for 'clickable' but maybe really what's needed in a reporter these days. Take the scorpion bite story that he blew out of proportion because it was something he could put on a page to get hits. The story persisted well past the original retraction and even past Rubin's (which I believe was in a different post, meaning you only saw it as a 'reader' of his site, not if you followed one of the original circulated links) correction because he decided to drum up something. That's fine from a let's create noise and Mets chatter standpoint, because Mets fans will yammer on about anything, which was why his "Mets passed on Ortiz" tweet/post continued to generate buzz despite being about as stupid a tweet as you can make.
|
Edgy MD Oct 30 2013 08:19 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
No, I wouldn't be surprised at the paucity of beat reporters at a charity event. To the rest of your post, I am struggling to suss out what you're getting at.
|
Edgy MD Oct 30 2013 09:14 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|
Daily News runs with their own distortion:
|
Ceetar Oct 30 2013 10:18 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|
that there's a difference between value to consumer and value to producer. A lot of this stuff is simply generating traffic, but it's fluff content and empty calories creating a smokescreen. Execs are giving beat guys sound bytes so that they can write columns, and then they use those columns to generate questions to ask execs to generate more sound bytes to generate more columns. Why? Because they have to? This is the same thing sports radio does. And yes, we're consuming it so that seems to imply that it must have value to us, but I disagree. I think if you replaced it all with something better no one would miss it. Maybe they should actually send beat reporters to more of the charity events and minor appearances. Hell, Harvey's appearance at a Rangers game generated at least as much buzz and interest as an overly digested spun Wilpon quote.
|
batmagadanleadoff Oct 30 2013 10:33 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|||
Me neither.
[youtube]nWoCJjz6He8[/youtube]
Same here,too.
|
batmagadanleadoff Oct 30 2013 10:43 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
Mets’ Wilpon Says Only ‘3 Or 4’ Players On Solid Footing
|
batmagadanleadoff Oct 30 2013 11:07 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
||
And another thing: Wasn't the Wilpon line that Alderson had permission to spend whatever he saw fit and that the Mets reduced payroll (reduced by an amount that was historical) was Sandy's decision?
|
Edgy MD Oct 30 2013 11:18 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
I'm sure Sandy was free to spend money, within a context --- that it could be demonstrated that the money would come back to them in the short-term and stem their increasingly widening shortfalls. Priority one was to close the shortfall. Clearly they did it by cutting.
|
G-Fafif Oct 30 2013 12:04 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
Jeff's non-pronouncement pronouncement brings to mind that Joe McDonald, in his first winter as GM, explicitly referred to only three Mets as "untouchable" -- Seaver, Matlack and Koosman. Then he traded approximately a third of the team.
|
G-Fafif Oct 30 2013 02:26 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|
Metstradamus figures out what's going on.
|
Mets – Willets Point Oct 30 2013 02:32 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
Two pages in and no one as photoshopped Dillon Gee into an Eliot Ness fedora and overcoat. Disappointed.
|
duan Oct 30 2013 05:04 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
||
I'm thinking he's referencing the great Joel Pineiro pursuit of Winter 2009. Or was it Joe Blanton last year? was anyone actually saying that'd be a good idea?
|
Edgy MD Oct 30 2013 06:48 PM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
Metstradamus hurt my brain. Kardashipon?
|
Ceetar Oct 31 2013 07:31 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
|
I believe Fred got criticized a couple of years ago for NOT discussing business during a UConn/SNY conference or something.
|
batmagadanleadoff Nov 01 2013 09:47 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
||
Best quote of the interview. It's probably sanitized, too. Jeff probably said "And then I was like, to have all the kids come in later will be really neat. You know?"
|
metirish Nov 01 2013 09:50 AM Re: Dillon Gee: Untouchable. |
Mar Simon and our own Ceetar are going on about David Murphy over on Twatter......Simon likes,Ceetar not so much.
|