Master Index of Archived Threads


Low Balled

Fman99 Dec 24 2015 05:16 PM

According to those ever present "sources," via Heyman, the Mets never went past "two or three" years in their offer to Cespedes. Coming off of a pennant, with increased revenue from tickets and merch, in the biggest market in the nation, and for a team with tons of young strong pitching, and a hole in the lineup, and a guy with a .900+ OPS in a Mets uniform who loved hitting at Citi, and that's the best you can scare up for the guy. SUCKY.

Nymr83 Dec 24 2015 05:21 PM Re: Low Balled

you know what i bet will be "SUCKY"? the WAR per $ produced when whatever contract Cespedes signs is up. and a guy with a .900+ OPS in a Mets uniform who loved hitting at Citi, and that's the best you can scare up for the guy. are you really advocating that the Mets pay him based on what he did for them this year rather than what they expect going forward?

Frayed Knot Dec 24 2015 06:05 PM Re: Low Balled

Yeah, I remember warning Met fans, even as it was ongoing, not to fall too much in love with what Cespedes was doing and expect that level of production to continue. His 942 OPS as a Met was great but it was a two month sample and was more than 80 points higher than at any season since his rookie year and more than 100 above anytime since. For 2013 + 2014 he combined for a 744 OPS. Not bad, but hardly superstar material. In addition I think they were wary of his CF defense coupled with his previous refusals to play RF. And then at one point last summer a NYM exec (anonymously) answered the question about how much Cespedes was worth with 'I'll tell you that once you tell me how old he really is' - so there may be some questions on that front which argue against a longer deal. iow, I'm not surprised.

Centerfield Dec 24 2015 06:11 PM Re: Low Balled

He's has a career OPS of over .800. And upgrades Lagares by 150 points. He's probably not the monster he looked to be, but he is still a very good hitter and a terrific all around player. As I've said he's not my first choice, but still a good option if you can get him for 5 years or less. Any speculation as to how he will age is just that, speculation. And sometimes you have to take chances like this to get you over the top. Past World Series winners are not immune from bad contracts.

Fman99 Dec 24 2015 06:15 PM Re: Low Balled

Nymr83 wrote: you know what i bet will be "SUCKY"? the WAR per $ produced when whatever contract Cespedes signs is up. and a guy with a .900+ OPS in a Mets uniform who loved hitting at Citi, and that's the best you can scare up for the guy. are you really advocating that the Mets pay him based on what he did for them this year rather than what they expect going forward? I'm worried about 2016, not 2021. They're replacing his bat with cream puffs and you know it. I'm advocating that they stop acting like penny pinching assholes and sign a marquee hitter of some kind.

Edgy MD Dec 24 2015 06:21 PM Re: Low Balled

I'm happy with putting "National League Champs" on the marquee. If he's good, he's good. If he's worth it, he's worth it. If he's not, he's not. But to heck with the marquee.

d'Kong76 Dec 24 2015 06:31 PM Re: Low Balled

Yeah, like when we were young and basked in the glory of 1973 for more than a decade. Good times.

MFS62 Dec 24 2015 06:44 PM Re: Low Balled

When I saw the thread title, I thought it was a spin off of Edgy's Valdespin comment in another thread. Anyhow, Heyman isn't worth what he'd want to get paid, either. He's a rabble rouser for a rabble rousing paper. Later

metsmarathon Dec 24 2015 07:03 PM Re: Low Balled

5-6 years would've been too much any ways. I would've aimed for 3-4 myself.

Mex17 Dec 24 2015 09:26 PM Re: Low Balled

I would have either locked up Cespedes or gone hard after Heyward. That said, I'm not going to say that the absence of either of those two things happening means an automatic relegation back to the days of a totally limp lineup. What Alderson is trying to do could work, I think that it has in the past for other teams (such as the one that just beat us in the World Series and perhaps other championship teams that have been assembled in Oakland in the past by Alderson and DePodesta).

Mex17 Dec 24 2015 09:55 PM Re: Low Balled

. . .and I would hope that they, at the very least, give us Raburn at this point as the "complimentary righthanded outfielder". Denofria's splits say that he is actually way better as a highhanded hitter against righthanded pitching. That does not really fit.

Edgy MD Dec 24 2015 10:04 PM Re: Low Balled

d'Kong76 wrote: Yeah, like when we were young and basked in the glory of 1973 for more than a decade. Good times. Your face is gonna get stuck like that.

RealityChuck Dec 24 2015 10:39 PM Re: Low Balled

Four years with an option for a fifth is the most anyone should go for Cespedis. Otherwise, you're probably stuck with overpaying him the last few years. Complaining about the offer means you want to go back to the Omar Minaya regime and its policies. The team will have to spend too keep any of their big five starters, and a big contract to Cespedis makes that even harder. If he got a long-term deal, in five years you'll be the first one bitching about how it's tying our hands.

Centerfield Dec 25 2015 12:33 AM Re: Low Balled

Fman99 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: you know what i bet will be "SUCKY"? the WAR per $ produced when whatever contract Cespedes signs is up. and a guy with a .900+ OPS in a Mets uniform who loved hitting at Citi, and that's the best you can scare up for the guy. are you really advocating that the Mets pay him based on what he did for them this year rather than what they expect going forward? I'm worried about 2016, not 2021. They're replacing his bat with cream puffs and you know it. I'm advocating that they stop acting like penny pinching assholes and sign a marquee hitter of some kind. Exactly. It's not just that they passed on Cespedes. It's that they passed on Heyward and Upton and Alex Gordon and Chris Davis in addition to passing on Cespedes. Hell they didn't even wait on a second tier guy like Denard Span. Their motto is basically "if you've heard of him, he's too expensive for us!"

Fman99 Dec 25 2015 02:51 AM Re: Low Balled

Centerfield wrote: Exactly. It's not just that they passed on Cespedes. It's that they passed on Heyward and Upton and Alex Gordon and Chris Davis in addition to passing on Cespedes. Hell they didn't even wait on a second tier guy like Denard Span. Their motto is basically "if you've heard of him, he's too expensive for us!" Yep, this is the sucky right here.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 25 2015 03:53 AM Re: Low Balled

RealityChuck wrote: If [Cespedes] got a long-term deal, in five years you'll be the first one bitching about how it's tying our hands. I'm so sick and tired of this line because, you know what, that should never be a New York City franchise's problem. Unless the whole goddamn team is made up of free agents signed in their 30's. Jeez, talk about lowered expectations.

Nymr83 Dec 25 2015 04:56 AM Re: Low Balled

great article here from ESPN discussing why Fangraphs projects Cespedes to have THE SINGLE BIGGEST DROPOFF IN WAR IN THE ENTIRE MAJOR LEAGUES from 2015 to 2016 [url]http://espn.go.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/14433674/yoenis-cespedes-numbers-project-fall-big-way-2016 Those projections have a particularly tough message for free agent Yoenis Cespedes and his fans. The flashy, power-hitting outfielder has the biggest gap between last year's production and next season's projections. He's supposed to fall off nearly four wins in production next year by FanGraphs' wins above replacement statistic, as projected by Steamer. As a free agent, that's a rough thing to be known for. but yeah, lets just throw money at him to show we can spend!

batmagadanleadoff Dec 25 2015 05:44 AM Re: Low Balled

Nymr83 wrote: great article here from ESPN discussing why Fangraphs projects Cespedes to have THE SINGLE BIGGEST DROPOFF IN WAR IN THE ENTIRE MAJOR LEAGUES from 2015 to 2016 [url]http://espn.go.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/14433674/yoenis-cespedes-numbers-project-fall-big-way-2016 Those projections have a particularly tough message for free agent Yoenis Cespedes and his fans. The flashy, power-hitting outfielder has the biggest gap between last year's production and next season's projections. He's supposed to fall off nearly four wins in production next year by FanGraphs' wins above replacement statistic, as projected by Steamer. As a free agent, that's a rough thing to be known for. but yeah, lets just throw money at him to show we can spend! That's not what I was getting at. This board is full of thoughtful posts opining why the Mets shouldn't pursue any of this year's top position playing free agents. The arguments against signing those players are as compelling as the arguments for. And I agree with many of the opinions here, on both sides of the issue. And I'm not advocating that the Mets should or should have specifically targeted Heyward or Yoenis or Upton or anyone else, either. In fact, I haven't participated meaningfully in any of this off season's exchanges here examining what the Mets would have to do, who they'd have to move or shift, who'd get reduced playing time and whose role would be mooted were the Mets to sign one of this off season's big catches. The reason I haven't participated in those exchanges is because, honestly, I'm not prepared to do so. And the reason I'm not prepared is because I haven't examined those issues as closely as I normally would. Why? Because in my heart, because of what I truly believe, because of the way I experience the Mets -- these Mets -- I think it's a total waste of my time. It's a waste of my time because I never thought, for even half of a second, ever, that the Mets would ever pursue any of those FA's -- never believed, for even half a second, that these Mets could afford any of those guys. And it doesn't matter to me that the Mets made dozens of millions of unanticipated extra dollars from their WS run. That's a one-year thing. But the debt is overwhelming. Enormous. Crippling. And it'll be there year after year after year. And to sign one of these so called big fish FA's is gonna take a lot more than, say $20M. It's gonna take $20 to $30M this year, and then next year, and then the year after that and the year after that etc., etc, etc. My big gripe is not that the Mets aren't necessarily pursuing Yoenis or Heyward, or anyone. My gripe is that if the Mets privately determined that any of these big fish were worth pursuing, they wouldn't be able to do a thing about it because they don't have the funds. They can't afford these guys, but let Fred bullshit everyone that all is well. Apparently, that line still works on many Mets fans. That's my gripe -- that they can't afford those guys. The team's broken, money-wise, and really, the owners should be forced to sell the team. This is no way to operate a NYC team in this era. The incoming owners would pay fair market value for the team, the lenders would get paid off because, presumably, they have priority on the sale of the team just the way that a bank on a first mortgage has priority on the sale of the mortgaged home. That debt load would come out of the owner's share, meaning that Fred and Saul and friends would walk away with a small percentage of the total sale price and they'd deserve it for their bumbling, reckless, incompetent handling of the team. The debt would we wiped away and the new owners would get to operate with a clean financial slate. So that's it. It's not that they aren't chasing Yoenis. It's that they can't afford him whether he's worth the money or not.

Centerfield Dec 25 2015 01:11 PM Re: Low Balled

This. A thousand times this. A million times this. I have been doing some reading on the debt the past couple of days, and from as many non-Megdal sources as possible. No one seems to know whether the Mets profit year to year or not. But it seems pretty widely reported that in the immediate wake of Madoff, the Wilpons took out huge loans against the Mets and SNY, and that these loans have been refinanced to push the due dates out. The terms are better than they were originally, but it still an enormous debt. The Mets may well have lost money for many years. But it is not primarily due to a downturn in attendance as has been suggested by the owners. It's because the owners took out loans, put that principal toward their personal debt, then saddled the Mets, their best asset, with those payments. The Mets operate like a small market team because the owners have crippled them with staggering overhead. Overhead that has nothing to do with baseball. I have been active in pushing for big name free agents. Because foolishly, I thought they could, and would, do it. But the events of this winter have shown the situation for what it is. I don't think anyone can reasonably refute that the Wilpons cannot, or will not, run this organization properly. This is bad. This is really bad. The Wilpons are the biggest obstacles a Mets fan faces. And I feel like an idiot for being so obtuse that I looked the other way for so long. SUCKY

Mex17 Dec 25 2015 02:28 PM Re: Low Balled Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Dec 25 2015 06:03 PM

Prior to working for my current organization, I spent ten years at a company that was privately owned by one guy. The guy was obviously successful in life. . .he had his own insurance company which employed around 300-400 people, he had his house in the Roslyn-Manhasset area, he had his Mercedes, he was able to send his kids to private schools, he even had a few race horses and a stable as a little side business. But he in no way has the capital that it would take to purchase and operate a Major League baseball team, and I am sure that he would be the first one to tell you that. This is the level that I have long suspected that the Wilpons are on in reality, and there is nothing to be ashamed of in reaching that level of success. . .it allowed Fred to get in initially in 1980 with that 1% or so stake in the team that he originally had. But then he got in with Madoff, and (again, this is my personal suspicion) Madoff artificially inflated the perception of what their worth was, artificially inflated their egos, and allowed them to do the 50% hostile takeover from Doubleday in 1986 and then the full buyout later on. So now it has all hit the fan, and we are stuck with a guy who is rich but not that rich owning the team, not being able to operate it properly, and too stubborn to bite the bullet and sell off (which would solve all the problems with his own personal debt, the team debt, and the operating budget going forward). At best, I think the Wilpons are comparable to Howard Milstein and Steven Gluckstern, two other rich but not that rich guys from Nassau's Miracle Mile area who tried owning the Islanders for awhile, realized that they in over their head, and promptly got out. The Mets started last season at around $100 million in payroll. In my world, they should be gradually going up an additional $20 million every year until they hit $180 or so, which is more than enough to field a competitive team if you are smart about it but with enough cushion that you are not up against the luxury tax threshold. Right now they are at around $107. If you add Raburn for $3 million that takes you to $110. Then it depends on whether or not they think there is a veteran reliever out there who is worth the investment over simply letting Robles/Montero/Gilmartin/Goeddel/Verrett compete for three slots in the bullpen as opposed to merely two to go along with Familia/Reed/Blevins/Torres. If they do determine that, then Alderson may still come in a few million bucks under a $120 million budget (if that is this year's number as I think it ought to be), but then that would be because he was screwed and not because there is a budget/financing problem in the first place. That is a debatable theory to be sure, but also IMO a plausible one. I guess I am acknowledging that there may be a real problem in the macro-analysis but also trying to say that there could be explainable and defensible baseball reasons why this winter is going the way is is going in the micro-analysis.

d'Kong76 Dec 25 2015 02:42 PM Re: Low Balled

Edgy MD wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Yeah, like when we were young and basked in the glory of 1973 for more than a decade. Good times. Your face is gonna get stuck like that. Laughing out loud at your smartphone in front of a kitchen full of nif's was pretty funny last evening.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 25 2015 07:52 PM Re: Low Balled

Centerfield wrote: I have been active in pushing for big name free agents. Because foolishly, I thought they could, and would, do it Yes, Virginia, ....

d'Kong76 Jan 01 2016 06:41 PM Re: Low Balled

Kallet: Mets Are Significantly Worse Than They Were After World Series

Edgy MD Jan 01 2016 07:45 PM Re: Low Balled

Kallet in January 2015: "Assuming Offseason Is Complete, Mets Are Not a Playoff Team" He then spent a good chunk of the season lobbying for Sandy Alderson to be fired.

d'Kong76 Jan 01 2016 08:04 PM Re: Low Balled

Well, they weren't a playoff-esque team until mid summer. Amirite?

Centerfield Jan 01 2016 08:24 PM Re: Low Balled

You are right. And so was Kallet. Both times. I don't see how anyone can realistically argue that the Mets are not worse now than they were when they left the field in October.

Edgy MD Jan 01 2016 08:28 PM Re: Low Balled

I know. Happy new year.

d'Kong76 Jan 01 2016 08:34 PM Re: Low Balled

I don't know why, perhaps it's the ball that dropped on my head last night; but I think the Mets are gonna sign Yo Yo to a reasonable contract after all the smoke clears.

Centerfield Jan 01 2016 08:41 PM Re: Low Balled

Would be something wouldn't it? Some articles say the price for Yo or Upton is dropping. I hope they have not spent too much on ancillary pieces already.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 01 2016 09:43 PM Re: Low Balled

Centerfield wrote: Would be something wouldn't it? Some articles say the price for Yo or Upton is dropping. I hope they have not spent too much on ancillary pieces already. Too much? By what measure? The Mets are in the bottom third in payroll.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 01 2016 09:51 PM Re: Low Balled

I'm not sure about a price drop, per se, but multiple sources do seem to indicate that-- with the Orioles nowhere near Cespedes at his reported asking price, and the White Sox unwilling to go above three years-- the market is softening significantly. That said, once one or more of the remaining big-ticket OF names picks a new home, that will probably change immediately. I don't see the Mets moving anywhere near aggressively enough on something like this to take advantage. Hell, there's been nothing to indicate they'd want to. Really, why am I even wasting the finger energy to type this? Why not just type random sequences of words--it would be likely just as useful or meaningful. Google cat scheduler barrelhead grant-writing fart shaggy mastodon, cocoa Venetian thirty-seven bailiwick shaved ape. SHAVED APE!

Edgy MD Jan 02 2016 12:46 AM Re: Low Balled

You had me until "cocoa," then you lost me big time.

Ceetar Jan 02 2016 01:08 AM Re: Low Balled

Centerfield wrote: You are right. And so was Kallet. Both times. I don't see how anyone can realistically argue that the Mets are not worse now than they were when they left the field in October. what does that even mean? It's a long season, and simply stating the year 'better on paper' than the team was when the season ended is pretty meaningless. You replay that World Series again immediately and the Mets could just as well win it. They had as much a chance as anyone in the playoffs. The team as it stands now is in a very very good position to make the playoffs and have that chance again. Better than last year. "on paper" the Mets rotation is easily 20% better just by the calendar saying 2016 instead of 2015. Just on the basis of who's going to pitch the ~1458 innings. I happen to believe the Mets could go 6 years on Cespedes and blow him out of the water if they really wanted to. But no matter what team you are, when you start doing that suddenly you have to do it again and again and those contracts start stacking and hurting. Yes, the Mets should be able to weather a couple of bad contracts, but they don't necessarily need to take them on just because they can. Certainly not for Cespedes. That stuff should be reserved for top 10 guys like Wright, and irreplaceable guys like Shortstops (Reyes would've been worth it still, imo), Catchers and Center Fielders. (which Cespedes isn't)

Nymr83 Jan 02 2016 01:47 AM Re: Low Balled

d'Kong76 wrote: Well, they weren't a playoff-esque team until mid summer. Amirite? i dont agree that the roster as constructed on april 1st wasnt playoff worthy, a full season of wright/d'arnaud probably equals the 2 great months of cespedes

Gwreck Jan 02 2016 04:41 AM Re: Low Balled

Ceetar wrote: It's a long season, and simply stating the year 'better on paper' than the team was when the season ended is pretty meaningless. You replay that World Series again immediately and the Mets could just as well win it. They had as much a chance as anyone in the playoffs. Yeah, well, they didn't win it, did they? And Isn't the point to make the team better so that they have a better chance than anyone in the playoffs? And can make the playoffs every season?

El Segundo Escupidor Jan 02 2016 04:52 AM Re: Low Balled

This offseason reeks of the same bullshit as the 2001 offseason where Appier (replacing Hampton) and Shinjo were the Wilpon's idea of acquiring the missing pieces to "go one better" the following year. Edit: Funnily enough it was the year they decided to pass up on A-Rod and Phillips' infamous "24+1" comment.

Centerfield Jan 02 2016 01:43 PM Re: Low Balled

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: You are right. And so was Kallet. Both times. I don't see how anyone can realistically argue that the Mets are not worse now than they were when they left the field in October. what does that even mean? It's a long season, and simply stating the year 'better on paper' than the team was when the season ended is pretty meaningless. You replay that World Series again immediately and the Mets could just as well win it. They had as much a chance as anyone in the playoffs. The team as it stands now is in a very very good position to make the playoffs and have that chance again. Better than last year. "on paper" the Mets rotation is easily 20% better just by the calendar saying 2016 instead of 2015. Just on the basis of who's going to pitch the ~1458 innings. I happen to believe the Mets could go 6 years on Cespedes and blow him out of the water if they really wanted to. But no matter what team you are, when you start doing that suddenly you have to do it again and again and those contracts start stacking and hurting. Yes, the Mets should be able to weather a couple of bad contracts, but they don't necessarily need to take them on just because they can. Certainly not for Cespedes. That stuff should be reserved for top 10 guys like Wright, and irreplaceable guys like Shortstops (Reyes would've been worth it still, imo), Catchers and Center Fielders. (which Cespedes isn't) It means that the NY Mets had better players in October of 2015 than they do now. As of now, their lineup is weaker, their rotation is weaker, and their bullpen is weaker. Their bench may be comparable. I get that they still have a good chance to make the playoffs next year, even though they are worse than last year. For me, that is not good enough. I think the goal of every offseason should be to get better. They've failed at this. In fact, as LWFS said, there's been nothing to indicate that getting better was even on their radar. If just being "good enough" is good enough for you, then I can see why you would be happy. I think they should try field the best team possible. And that is why this off-season is so frustrating for me. Unlike last off-season, better, easily obtainable options are everywhere. I agree with you that "better on paper" doesn't mean everything. Anything can happen in baseball. But it certainly means something. And since we don't have a crystal ball, that information, which is a compilation of s past performance, is our best indicator of future performance. That is why we can reasonably conclude that the Mets have better starting pitching than the Phillies. Or, why Jason Heyward gets multiple suitors around $200 million, while no team has offered me shit this offseason. At this point, indications are that you don't need to go 6 years on Cespedes. Four or five may get it done. And I certainly don't buy the logic that once you make a big deal, you have to keep making them.

Centerfield Jan 02 2016 01:55 PM Re: Low Balled

El Segundo Escupidor wrote: This offseason reeks of the same bullshit as the 2001 offseason where Appier (replacing Hampton) and Shinjo were the Wilpon's idea of acquiring the missing pieces to "go one better" the following year. Edit: Funnily enough it was the year they decided to pass up on A-Rod and Phillips' infamous "24+1" comment. And it's also reminiscent of the poor offseason following the 2006 season. It really does seem like the Wilpon philosophy is "Wow, we were great last year. We can afford to pull up a bit." At least in 2001 and 2007, the failures were somewhat defensible. In 2001 and 2007 the Mets had a top tier payroll (4th in MLB, 3rd in MLB respectively) and in both off-seasons there were a limited number of readily available options. This year, the core of young players is much better than those years, they have a low payroll, so there either is, or should be, money to spend, and there was a glut of talent available on the market. Some of it is even still there.

Edgy MD Jan 02 2016 02:27 PM Re: Low Balled

Kevin Appier's was a bad contract, but it certainly did less damage than Hampton's did. Even in the short term — the let's-build-on-last-year's-success term — Appier was unambiguously better than Hampton in 2001.

d'Kong76 Jan 02 2016 02:41 PM Re: Low Balled

Nymr83 wrote: Well, they weren't a playoff-esque team until mid summer. Amirite? i dont agree that the roster as constructed on april 1st wasnt playoff worthy, a full season of wright/d'arnaud probably equals the 2 great months of cespedes You thought so, a lot of us didn't...viewtopic.php?f=16&t=22510

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 02 2016 04:00 PM Re: Low Balled

I think you guys might be falling into the New York sports pundit trap of declaring the team a cheap disaster because it didn't land this or that free agent. It's Jan. 2. Opening Day is four months away. If everything is still weaker when things get serious, that's a problem. Today, not so much. I think that Sandy and gang get the benefit of doubt having gone to the World Series and all. But even still, I'm not sure the rotation is weaker. A healthy Matz is better than Niese. I'm not sure the bullpen is much weaker, especially if Blevins can successfully navigate curbs. Is Reed coming back? Is Walker a better fielder than Murphy? If so, that might be an upgrade there, which also helps your pitchers avoid four-out innings. I'd like to see a scary bat somewhere. The only place that can be is in the outfield, which means you have to deal Granderson and probably eat some salary. Noting that other teams aren't ready to hand Cespedes a mega deal shows that the Mets aren't wrong in their thinking.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 02 2016 04:12 PM Re: Low Balled

Reed is still around. And I think we'll see Hansel Robles step into a bigger role. And let's not forget Jim Henderson! I agree that it has not been an inspiring offseason. But I also agree that what we've seen so far is not the final word on what the 2016 team is going to look like. Let's see what happens. We don't really have any other alternative anyway.

Edgy MD Jan 02 2016 04:28 PM Re: Low Balled

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But even still, I'm not sure the rotation is weaker. A healthy Matz is better than Niese. I feel confident it isn't weaker. But the idea isn't to have the best record in December.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 02 2016 04:36 PM Re: Low Balled

A healthy Matz would be wonderful. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy we can count on for 28 to 30 starts, but stranger things have happened.

d'Kong76 Jan 02 2016 04:51 PM Re: Low Balled

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think you guys might be falling into the New York sports pundit trap of declaring the team a cheap disaster because it didn't land this or that free agent. I can guarantee you I'm not falling into any pundit trap. I don't need a newspaper or talk radio host to remind me that the Wilpons are broke and cheap. The team that we swept in the playoffs has improved them- selves and the Mets have penny-pinched so far this off-season. I also said that I felt they may still sign Yo Yo somewhere in this thread.

Centerfield Jan 02 2016 05:57 PM Re: Low Balled

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think you guys might be falling into the New York sports pundit trap of declaring the team a cheap disaster because it didn't land this or that free agent. This is just pointless and stupid. If you are going to dismiss us having fallen into some trap, at least take the time to read what we are saying. Not a single person here has declared this team a "cheap disaster". Even the harshest of critics here think that as of right now, the Mets are favorites to take the NL East. Our criticisms are not anything to do with one free agent or another. I think you might be falling into the trap of reading what you want to read, other than reading what people are actually saying. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: It's Jan. 2. Opening Day is four months away. If everything is still weaker when things get serious, that's a problem. Today, not so much. I think that Sandy and gang get the benefit of doubt having gone to the World Series and all. I know what date it is. I promise you that. I'm also aware that things might change between now and Opening Day. Again, if you read this thread, you would see the exchange between KC and I where we discuss the possibility of signing Cespedes. No one here is unequivocally saying that the Mets are done. And if they do what we want them to do, I assure you that criticism would disappear. Did you hear anyone complaining in August? If you want to hold off on any comments until Opening Day, that's your prerogative. Some here like to discuss things that happen in real time. (If we didn't, we would just shut down the board during the off-season.) We offer input, make suggestions, applaud and criticize as warranted. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But even still, I'm not sure the rotation is weaker. A healthy Matz is better than Niese. Matz was healthy in October and was very much a part of the rotation. I'm surprised you don't remember this. If they needed 5 starters, Niese would have been the fifth starter. But he is gone now, having been shipped out for Walker. So we are left with Colon. An entertaining player, but a worse pitcher. (And even if you disagree with this, having Colon and Niese both as options, is better than just having Colon.) Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I'm not sure the bullpen is much weaker, especially if Blevins can successfully navigate curbs. Is Reed coming back? I didn't say it was much weaker. I said weaker. Clippard, for all his faults, was one of our best relievers. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Is Walker a better fielder than Murphy? If so, that might be an upgrade there, which also helps your pitchers avoid four-out innings. What is the point here? That the lineup is better? You are ok with losing Cespedes because of the upgrade defensively between Walker and Murphy? Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I'd like to see a scary bat somewhere. The only place that can be is in the outfield, which means you have to deal Granderson and probably eat some salary. Wait, so the lineup is not better? I am losing your argument here. Or are you just typing random words like LWFS? SHAVED APE! Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Noting that other teams aren't ready to hand Cespedes a mega deal shows that the Mets aren't wrong in their thinking. So let me get this straight. Cespedes hasn't signed a deal anywhere. So this means that the Mets are right. But Cespedes, you'd have to think, will eventually sign a deal someplace. Will that mean the Mets are then wrong? No one is advocating that the Mets offer a "mega deal". In fact, the last few posts are about the falling market for Cespedes. This is not the first time I've questioned your reading comprehension skills. Is English not your first language?

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 03 2016 02:10 AM Re: Low Balled

This is not the first time I've questioned your reading comprehension skills. Is English not your first language? You know, Centerfield, if you want to have a good hot stove baseball discussion among friends, count me in. If you want to be unkind and hurl insults around, you're on your own.

Nymr83 Jan 03 2016 03:36 AM Re: Low Balled

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: This is not the first time I've questioned your reading comprehension skills. Is English not your first language? You know, Centerfield, if you want to have a good hot stove baseball discussion among friends, count me in. If you want to be unkind and hurl insults around, you're on your own. dont feel bad MGiM, a couple of guys here have gone off the deep end in their Wilpon-hate this offseason and will attack anyone who tries to reason with them.

d'Kong76 Jan 03 2016 04:12 AM Re: Low Balled

Well, attack is a little strong. I don't like to be told what I'm thinking or what trap I'm falling into. If anything, I feel the fans that turn their heads away from the fact that the team's owner's suck are the real lemmings that are in a trap. It's mind boggling that anyone would side with them.

Edgy MD Jan 03 2016 04:29 AM Re: Low Balled

Lemmings are perfectly noble little soft-furred herbivores that have been historically maligned by deliberately false reports of stupidity and mass suicide.

d'Kong76 Jan 03 2016 04:36 AM Re: Low Balled

Then substitute rats following the Pied Pipers of Flushing.

Edgy MD Jan 03 2016 04:51 AM Re: Low Balled

Yeah, I guess any dehumanizing metaphor will do. But let's not pretend that's not attacking, or in any way advances truth, clarity, or even simple dialogue. It just makes this place more exhausting and makes discussions impossible.

Centerfield Jan 03 2016 05:56 AM Re: Low Balled Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Jan 03 2016 06:10 AM

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: This is not the first time I've questioned your reading comprehension skills. Is English not your first language? You know, Centerfield, if you want to have a good hot stove baseball discussion among friends, count me in. If you want to be unkind and hurl insults around, you're on your own. Please. Spare me this. So you can come in with your passive aggressive bullshit, and when I call you on it, I'm the one that is unkind? Give me a fucking break. You know what makes a good discussion? Having the respect to read another person's point of view and not distorting it. If you want to criticize my thinking, have the courtesy to get it right. But this is just what you do. Let's recap. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think each winter meetings we seem to go into woe-is-me mode when other teams head from the hotels with shiny new toys and we're looking at the same toy box. Since we're a month out of playing in a World Series, I have to give our guys the benefit of the doubt and assume they know what they're doing. Let other teams overspend of some of these guys. I complained throughout the Winter Meetings that the Mets were missing an opportunity to improve the team. And gave good, solid reasons why I think they should have made those moves. But according to you, I am just in "woe is me mode". And I am jealous of "shiny new toys". YEAH, I CAN'T SEE HOW THIS IS FUCKING CONDESCENDING AT ALL. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I don't want them to sign a bunch of really bad deals now just to prove that they a big market team, then be saddled with bad contracts on old players when it comes time to ink the big deals for the young pitchers when they are ready to get paid. Yes, this was a really dumb idea of mine. I really regret starting the "SIGN A BUNCH OF REALLY BAD DEALS NOW!!!!" thread. What a fucking idiot I am. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think you guys might be falling into the New York sports pundit trap of declaring the team a cheap disaster because it didn't land this or that free agent. That's it. We're just dumb neurotic city folk who can't see things as clearly as you. Forget that NO ONE HERE HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING CLOSE TO THIS. See, unlike you, I've read your posts. And I know what you are all about. You've decided that that money does not equate winning. This is what people "in the know" understand. This is the "smart" point of view. And you look to LA's top payroll and the fact that they did not win the World Series as evidence for this. And you are correct. Having the top payroll does not guarantee you will win the World Series. But then, you conclude that payroll has nothing to do with winning. And that is where you derail. You ignore the fact that having a top payroll gives you a tremendous advantage both in making the playoffs, and winning the World Series. You've seen the mountains of evidence offered to support this. You've read my post that the teams with the top 5 payrolls have won 6 of the last 10 World Series. But you ignore this. You don't address those points head on. Because you know that if you do this, you will be proven wrong. And you're not about to let that happen. You really, really want to believe that payroll doesn't matter. That's why you use words like "overspend". So instead, you distort my ideas. You turn the ideas I have I have given lots of thought to into inane drivel. You turn "SPEND MONEY WISELY" into "SPEND MONEY JUST TO SHOW WE ARE RICH". You try to turn my opinions into that of a stupid WFAN caller, because that is the only guy you can beat in an argument. But I'm not stupid. I'm actually pretty fucking smart. And I call bullshit when I see it. And it's not just me. Others can see it too. Though admittedly they may not say it, and if they do, they will be nicer about it than I am. Don't like my tone? Boo fucking hoo. Maybe you should think twice about being a condescending know-it-all when you don't even take the time to read what I write.

Centerfield Jan 03 2016 06:01 AM Re: Low Balled

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, I guess any dehumanizing metaphor will do. But let's not pretend that's not attacking, or in any way advances truth, clarity, or even simple dialogue. It just makes this place more exhausting and makes discussions impossible. Got it. BEING A CONDESCENDING FUCK WHO CAN'T READ: Good. CALLING OUT THE CONDESCENDING FUCK FOR BEING A CONDESCENDING FUCK: Bad So noted.

Nymr83 Jan 03 2016 06:04 AM Re: Low Balled

Spare me this. So you can come in with your passive aggressive bullshit, and when I call you on it, I'm the one that is unkind? Give me a fucking break. who let SalamanderQ into Centerfield's account?

Centerfield Jan 03 2016 06:25 AM Re: Low Balled

Nymr83 wrote: Spare me this. So you can come in with your passive aggressive bullshit, and when I call you on it, I'm the one that is unkind? Give me a fucking break. who let SalamanderQ into Centerfield's account? Tone too harsh? Fine. I'll go with a more CPF-acceptable method of criticism. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think you guys might be falling into the New York sports pundit trap of declaring the team a cheap disaster because it didn't land this or that free agent. You know, MGIM, I'm not sure I agree with that. I fear you might be falling into a Michigan sports pundit trap of being a stupid dumbass who can't read what other people write. Sorry. Still working on my passive-aggressive voice.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 03 2016 09:32 AM Re: Low Balled

Not sure if seasonal-affectivity is coming into play here, but it may be time for everyone to take a deep breath or seventy.

El Segundo Escupidor Jan 03 2016 01:21 PM Re: Low Balled

Kevin Appier's was a bad contract, but it certainly did less damage than Hampton's did. Even in the short term — the let's-build-on-last-year's-success term — Appier was unambiguously better than Hampton in 2001. Appier and Trachsel were both astute pick-ups that offseason given some of the other choices, Ashby, Dreifort etc (I didn't realistically expect the Mets to give Mussina the sort of contract he received from MFY). But man, missing out on both Slappy and Manny was confirmation that the Wilpon's weren't really interested in returning to the WS in a hurry. I vividly recall Phillips' response when asked about Manny on the FAN: "Can he pitch?"

Benjamin Grimm Jan 03 2016 01:46 PM Re: Low Balled

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Not sure if seasonal-affectivity is coming into play here, but it may be time for everyone to take a deep breath or seventy. We're definitely heading into "Red Light Forum" territory here.

Centerfield Jan 03 2016 02:02 PM Re: Low Balled

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Not sure if seasonal-affectivity is coming into play here, but it may be time for everyone to take a deep breath or seventy. I wouldn't be surprised. I can add that to growing list of mental disorders. All kidding aside, a deep breath isn't going to cut it. I've seen this episode many times. This thread is just another re-run of what has been taking place all offseason. 1. Poster (here, Fman, but many times me) criticizes ownership for lack of spending 2. That poster is immediately criticized. Smugly. Passive-aggressively. Many times, unfairly. And when said poster fights back, is accused of making the forum "exhausting". Here, Fman is nice enough to just walk away. I'm usually not. Read back through this thread. After everyone jumped to the wrong conclusion and called Fman stupid, he clarified his point. Fman99 wrote: I'm advocating that they stop acting like penny pinching assholes and sign a marquee hitter of some kind. You know what happens in a respectable discussion? "Sorry man. I misunderstood. That makes a lot of sense." Or, alternatively, "I get what you are saying. I disagree. I don't think they need a marquee hitter. Here is why...." What actually happened? Edgy MD wrote: I'm happy with putting "National League Champs" on the marquee. If he's good, he's good. If he's worth it, he's worth it. If he's not, he's not. But to heck with the marquee. Let me be smug and point out we are NL Champs. A point completely irrelevant to the within discussion. Oh you know what would be great? Let's make a play on his word "marquee" and say we can put NL Champs on it. I bet this will go over great on a poster who is obviously already irritated at the offseason developments. And then let me recite meaningless platitudes that make me sound smart. Keep in mind that Edgy has, during this time, claimed to endorse bringing back Cespedes. Does this sound like it? Smug, condescending, passive-agressive attacks are also attacks. And if someone makes a payroll argument, you can bet they are coming. But this is all ok on CPF. One is free to condescend with no limit. But god forbid someone call them out on this. Address someone directly. That guy must be an asshole.

dgwphotography Jan 03 2016 02:07 PM Re: Low Balled

I love you, CF

Centerfield Jan 03 2016 02:25 PM Re: Low Balled

dgwphotography wrote: I love you, CF Lol. Thanks dgw. Nice to know I haven't alienated everyone.

d'Kong76 Jan 03 2016 02:53 PM Re: Low Balled

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, I guess any dehumanizing metaphor will do. But let's not pretend that's not attacking, or in any way advances truth, clarity, or even simple dialogue. It just makes this place more exhausting and makes discussions impossible. I think you're being far too dramatic. The Wilpons' Madoff excuse has expired, and people turning a blind eye to that is what I find 'exhausting.' As for 'impossible discussion', my keyboard seems to be working just fine.

themetfairy Jan 03 2016 02:58 PM Re: Low Balled

Centerfield wrote: Lol. Thanks dgw. Nice to know I haven't alienated everyone. You know that you haven't alienated me. Although michigan is also a friend of mine, and I know that you're both great people. I hate to see you guys disagreeing, and hopefully as LWFS suggested it's a SAD related thing and everyone will be in a better frame of mind when we get a little more sunlight in our lives.

d'Kong76 Jan 03 2016 03:01 PM Re: Low Balled

GAH, I just had an image of that sun baby some of you guys like. Make it stop NOW!!!

MFS62 Jan 03 2016 03:08 PM Re: Low Balled

d'Kong76 wrote: GAH, I just had an image of that sun baby some of you guys like. Make it stop NOW!!! GAAAAAHHH. Not the SUN BABY! I'd rather read this thread ten times and then run off to hug a Wipon than see the SUN BABY! Please. NO. Later

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 03 2016 03:19 PM Re: Low Balled

Centerfield wrote: You know, MGIM, I'm not sure I agree with that. I fear you might be falling into a Michigan sports pundit trap of being a stupid dumbass who can't read what other people write. Sorry. Still working on my passive-aggressive voice. I actually WAS a Michigan pundit until two years ago. Like I said, I'm all for a civil, spirited discussion about the team we all love. But there's no reason for insults.

Centerfield Jan 03 2016 03:43 PM Re: Low Balled

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Centerfield wrote: You know, MGIM, I'm not sure I agree with that. I fear you might be falling into a Michigan sports pundit trap of being a stupid dumbass who can't read what other people write. Sorry. Still working on my passive-aggressive voice. I actually WAS a Michigan pundit until two years ago. Like I said, I'm all for a civil, spirited discussion about the team we all love. But there's no reason for insults. I agree that there is no reason for insults. My point to you is that insults can come in many forms. They can come in my form (cursing, fist banging on the table, spit coming out of my mouth), and they can come in your form (soft voice, folded arms, know-it-all attitude with nose pointed in the air). When you accuse us of getting distracted by shiny objects that is insulting. When you distort my arguments into inane points, this is also insulting. And it's one thing if it happens once. If it happens multiple times, that is a pattern. Part of having a good discussion is having respect for your counterpart. Reading their point of view and giving it the credit it deserves. Ignoring their actual point, distorting it into something stupid, then dismissing it as simple-minded is not how good discussions are had. It will, invariably, lead to reactions like the one I gave you earlier.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 03 2016 04:12 PM Re: Low Balled

That's nonsense. I wasn't even commenting specifically to you, but to the overall theme of the discussion. There's no reason for the very personal, pointed insults. Let's talk baseball.

Centerfield Jan 03 2016 04:43 PM Re: Low Balled

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: That's nonsense. I wasn't even commenting specifically to you, but to the overall theme of the discussion. There's no reason for the very personal, pointed insults. Let's talk baseball. Yes. That is correct. You did not direct this specifically at me. You talked down to everyone in the discussion. Do you really not see what you did? What you have done many times? You speak in a condescending tone, you are dismissive of our thoughts, and you couch us as having proposed dumb ideas that LITERALLY NO ONE HAS EVER SAID. And then you stand flabbergasted that someone might get upset at this. If you can't see what is wrong with this, then I don't know what else to tell you.

d'Kong76 Jan 03 2016 04:45 PM Re: Low Balled

I think you're being a little over-sensitive MGiM, but that's just me. When you tell a group of people (who are already frustrated by this off-season for a list of things I'm not going to repeat here) that they can't think for themselves and are getting suckered by pundits someone is bound to react. The it's only January, and they may do more, and they won the pennant crowd is the deluded bunch of fans in my opinion. I know what freakin' month it is, and a team can always do more, and they luckily made it to the playoffs last year. What they didn't do (like the Cubs) is spend some money and make themselves better by getting a star player. That fucking aggravates me. I've smelled the off-season and I loved the ride and I wanna go back on it a couple more years while this awesome young pitching staff is still around. Because, ya know, they ain't gonna pay them when that time comes. (posted before reading last post)

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 03 2016 05:28 PM Re: Low Balled

I appreciate the tone, d'Kong. I do think there's room for people to disagree respectfully. I realize that you and some others are frustrated that the team didn't do more so far. My point was that I'm not sure there were any huge moves out there for us to make. I know they went hard after Zobrist, but I get that they were outbid. I don't think he's the kind of player you break the bank over. I agreed that they need a scary bat. You generally see scary bats at the outfield and infield corners. We're set at third and first in the infield, and, I think, left. I don't think you can move Granderson without eating a bunch of his money. As for Cespedes, that fact that no team seems to be offering him a monster deal shows that the Mets' thinking of his value was in line with what other teams think. If we could get him for three years, great. But, his Gold Glove notwithstanding, we've seen his defensive issues in center. He's probably a better fit for an AL team. They replaced Murphy with a guy who can hit well and can field better than Murph, and we got him for a spare part of the rotation. They upgraded at shortstop, though I know people can debate whether he's better than Wilmer. They got a guy to platoon with Lagares, though I know he's a guy who should probably be on the bench. The bullpen needs some attention, as always. We do have some good arms at Triple A and there always seems to be a Blevins type of guy out there to grab. I don't think it's lucky that they made the playoffs last year. They were better than the Nationals, better than the Dodgers and better than the Cubs. My fear is that they go back to the days where they made bad signings for the best player out there in a particular year. I'm talking the Vince Coleman type of signings. I know no one here advocates for bad signings, but I'm a fossil and remember those days. You break the bank -- or move an established player -- for someone who is special and will make the difference. Signing Beltran and the trade for Piazza are what I'm thinking about. I don't think any of the players out there this off season are those kinds of players. So they're going to make the Bob Ojeda and Tim Teufel types of deals that aren't very exciting but pay off later.

El Segundo Escupidor Jan 03 2016 07:04 PM Re: Low Balled

dgwphotography wrote: I love you, CF nttawwt

d'Kong76 Jan 03 2016 07:12 PM Re: Low Balled

d'Kong76 wrote: I've smelled the off-season and I loved the ride and I wanna go back on it a couple more years while this awesome young pitching staff is still around. Freudian slip, the off-season has been smelly but I of course meant post season.

Centerfield Jan 03 2016 08:10 PM Re: Low Balled

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I appreciate the tone, d'Kong. I do think there's room for people to disagree respectfully. I realize that you and some others are frustrated that the team didn't do more so far. My point was that I'm not sure there were any huge moves out there for us to make. I know they went hard after Zobrist, but I get that they were outbid. I don't think he's the kind of player you break the bank over. I agreed that they need a scary bat. You generally see scary bats at the outfield and infield corners. We're set at third and first in the infield, and, I think, left. I don't think you can move Granderson without eating a bunch of his money. As for Cespedes, that fact that no team seems to be offering him a monster deal shows that the Mets' thinking of his value was in line with what other teams think. If we could get him for three years, great. But, his Gold Glove notwithstanding, we've seen his defensive issues in center. He's probably a better fit for an AL team. They replaced Murphy with a guy who can hit well and can field better than Murph, and we got him for a spare part of the rotation. They upgraded at shortstop, though I know people can debate whether he's better than Wilmer. They got a guy to platoon with Lagares, though I know he's a guy who should probably be on the bench. The bullpen needs some attention, as always. We do have some good arms at Triple A and there always seems to be a Blevins type of guy out there to grab. I don't think it's lucky that they made the playoffs last year. They were better than the Nationals, better than the Dodgers and better than the Cubs. My fear is that they go back to the days where they made bad signings for the best player out there in a particular year. I'm talking the Vince Coleman type of signings. I know no one here advocates for bad signings, but I'm a fossil and remember those days. You break the bank -- or move an established player -- for someone who is special and will make the difference. Signing Beltran and the trade for Piazza are what I'm thinking about. I don't think any of the players out there this off season are those kinds of players. So they're going to make the Bob Ojeda and Tim Teufel types of deals that aren't very exciting but pay off later. See? Now this is much better. Had you led with this it could have been a happy day.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 03 2016 08:50 PM Re: Low Balled

Centerfield wrote: See? Now this is much better. Had you led with this it could have been a happy day. . Not sure that is true. There is never a reason for the insults. We can disagree without insulting each other. I'd love to move on.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 03 2016 09:49 PM Re: Low Balled

Wilpons Channel Inner Barnum The Stoop By Mark C. Healey “There is a sucker born every minute! Each time the second hand sweeps to the top, like dandelions up they pop, their ears so big, their eyes so wide, and though I feed’em bonafide baloney, with no truth in it, why you can bet I’ll find some rube to buy my corn. Where's the story? ‘Cause there’s a sure-as-shooting sucker born a minute, and I’m referrin’ to the minute you was born.” – opening lyrics, “Barnum,” the musical. I once played P.T. Barnum, and got to know and understand the character pretty well. He was basically the best con artist ever, and the owners of the Mets are pretty much right behind him. Fred Wilpon was a minority partner – some 2 to 5 percent to be specific – when Nelson Doubleday’s company bought the Mets for $22 million in 1980, but as all good con artists have done, they – with cooperation from clueless media – they rewrite history. Much like Dave Kaplan in the New York Daily News on Sept. 13, 1992. “When the deep-pocketed partnership of Nelson Doubleday and Fred Wilpon bought the franchise for just under $22 million, there was light at the end of the Dark Ages. Scouts were hired. The farm system was rebuilt. Solid baseball people were put in charge. The Mets became 90-game winners in `84. A world championship would come two years later.” The deep pockets of Fred Wilpon didn’t become so deep until he met Bernie Madoff in 1985. Then, a year later, after the Mets had won a World Series, Wilpon had managed to purchase a full partnership. In 2002, Wilpon – flush with Madoff cash, and bolstered by the support of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig – bought out Doubleday. Then the con trotted out a new narrative in the Gray Lady. “The departure of Doubleday, who often had an antagonistic relationship with Wilpon, has helped redefine the way the Mets operate. General Manager Steve Phillips had needed approval from both owners before making major decisions. Now he needs only to consult with one Wilpon or the other. The chain of command, which resembled a warped family tree, is more clear-cut.” – “Wilpon Struts at Front of Caravan,” Rafael Hermoso, New York Times, (Jan. 28, 2003). It is hard not to giggle when you read that idiocy. Yes, getting rid of Doubleday made it easier to have a chain of command. Actually, it made it easier for new COO Jeff Wilpon to play GM, and he was horrible at it. But it gets better. We return to the Times: The Dominican trip was part of what Fred Wilpon called "a whole new era." He spoke recently of improvements in lighting, graphics and signs at Shea Stadium. "That's all part of being a world-class organization," he said. "When you go to Disneyland or Disney World, you don't come back and say, `Well, the events were great and the rides were great, but we didn't have a great time,' do you?" That was just 13 years ago, before the Madoff scandal blew wide open. According to Forbes.com, the Wilpon and Katz empire lost $500 million when the Madoff Ponzi scheme collapsed. Of course they denied that amount for months and eviscerated anyone who suggested otherwise. They also told fans – as they were taking out two loans that totaled over $800 million – the Mets operations wouldn’t be affected. Well, the Mets were very fortunate in 2015, winning the NL pennant despite not spending any real money to do so. But have they bolstered their pennant winning team to make a run at the 2016 title? Not so far. As our colleague Howard Megdal wrote this week on Vocativ.com, the Wilpons are running the Mets like a Ponzi scheme. Ever since [Madoff], the Mets have managed to get by annually by diverting revenue from their baseball and television operation into the financing of debt. Prior to the refinancing of the past two years, the annual interest on these two loans plus debt balloon payments of more than $43 million have exceeded team payroll itself. The refinancing of the two loans has extended their due dates out five years, so this arrangement is set to continue for a long time to come. And the debt balloon payments run until December 2045, when currently youthful pitching ace Steven Matz will be 54 years old.” In 2013, Wilpon admitted to reporters that payroll had shrunk as ownership paid down debt. “That’s what made us tight,” Wilpon, 76, said. “We were still getting revenues, lots of revenues, but those revenues were going to pay off debt. That’s done.” Apparently, the 40-60 million the Mets reportedly made during their postseason run has been used to do the same, as popular sluggers Yoenis Cespedes and homegrown Daniel Murphy will, likely be playing elsewhere in 2016. But a con can only succeed if there are marks willing to go along with the bamboozle in the first place. The family is in great shape,” Wilpon said in 2013. “We had to stay very tight on everything that was happening. So who would know? Real estate has gone zimbo, OK? We have many, many, many apartment buildings around the country. There is no building, so they are all rented. SNY has done spectacularly. The stock market is up. So we benefitted from all those things.” So, as the Mets fail to build an offense to support their wonderful pitching staff, where do you stand? http://www.rockawave.com/news/2015-12-2 ... arnum.html

Edgy MD Jan 03 2016 10:56 PM Re: Low Balled

d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, I guess any dehumanizing metaphor will do. But let's not pretend that's not attacking, or in any way advances truth, clarity, or even simple dialogue. It just makes this place more exhausting and makes discussions impossible. I think you're being far too dramatic. The Wilpons' Madoff excuse has expired, and people turning a blind eye to that is what I find 'exhausting.' As for 'impossible discussion', my keyboard seems to be working just fine. This isn't about Wilpons. It's about ad hominem attacks and the standards of how we talk to one another. It's a standard we've long held. I've certainly objected when people have come at you with them.

d'Kong76 Jan 03 2016 11:45 PM Re: Low Balled

You don't need to use me as an example to fortify whatever statement or position you're trying to make by red-lighting this thread.

Edgy MD Jan 04 2016 12:32 AM Re: Low Balled

I'm not using you at all. I responded to your post and its characterization of me. I'm not making a statement by red-lighting this thread. I did what I understand to be the role of a moderator. Feel free to re-instate the thread to the Baseball Forum in part or in whole.

d'Kong76 Jan 04 2016 01:12 AM Re: Low Balled

Lemmings are perfectly noble little soft-furred herbivores that have been historically maligned by deliberately false reports of stupidity and mass suicide That's not passive aggression in the context that you posted it in? Then I joke about the Pied Piper and you whip out dehumanizing metaphors and pretending I'm not attacking while not advancing truth, clarity, or dialogue. Wtf, dude?

Edgy MD Jan 04 2016 01:57 AM Re: Low Balled

I'm not sure what folks mean by passive-aggressive, except to claim they were provoked in their attacks. I certainly deny that. Calling folks lemmings, or rats, is an an insult. An aggressive-aggressive one. Quite literally a dehumanizing one. I said so, neither passively nor aggressively, but factually and sadly. It makes me sad to read. I know how much it hurts when people get attacked like that by folks they thought were their friends. I understand we have standards discouraging that sort of thing. Don't we?

d'Kong76 Jan 04 2016 02:05 AM Re: Low Balled

Like I said, you didn't have to use me as an example. But I guess it's come to that for you and whatever you're trying to drive home.

Edgy MD Jan 04 2016 02:10 AM Re: Low Balled

And like I said, I didn't use you as anything. I have no idea what that means. I just responded to your post. Listen, I'll see you. Somewhere.

d'Kong76 Jan 04 2016 02:37 AM Re: Low Balled

Edgy MD wrote: Listen, I'll see you. Somewhere. Front Street in front of The Long Branch at noon. No weapons.

Centerfield Jan 04 2016 03:06 AM Re: Low Balled

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure what folks mean by passive-aggressive, except to claim they were provoked in their attacks. I certainly deny it. Calling folks lemmings, or rats, is an an insult. An aggressive-aggressive one. Quite literally a dehumanizing one. I said so, neither passively nor aggressively, but factually and sadly. It makes me sad to read. I know how much it hurts when people get attacked like that by folks they thought were their friends. I understand we have standards discouraging that sort of thing. Don't we? You know exactly what folks mean by passive aggressive. And you know what your intent was in accusing Kong of "attacks". Calling folks lemmings or rats is an insult. That is correct. So is calling folks too dumb to think for themselves. But you say nothing about this insult. Because it's a position that you happen to agree with. Funny how this is not called out as an attack. Funny how this doesn't make you sad. Does it not affect you that someone is calling KC dumb? Is he not your friend? I disagree that KC's statement was an attack. More accurately, it's a counter attack.

Edgy MD Jan 04 2016 03:22 AM Re: Low Balled

Centerfield wrote: You know exactly what folks mean by passive aggressive. And you know what your intent was in accusing Kong of "attacks". I've already answered that. There was nothing passive or aggressive in my statement. So no. There is nothing funny about any of this.

Centerfield Jan 04 2016 03:30 AM Re: Low Balled

Do you not see that MGIM's initial statement was insulting? That it is incredibly condescending? He's basically calling us lemmings incapable of thinking for ourselves. But because KC actually used the word, he is the attacker? That is some self-serving logic right there.

Edgy MD Jan 04 2016 03:46 AM Re: Low Balled

I don't need to serve myself. I'm just the moderator. I just checked the thread. Nobody used the word "dumb" except you. I get it. You've gone Defcon One because you think you were provoked. The real attacks were on you. I get it. But I've had you put enough words in my mouth the last few months, and been falsely accused of way too much nonsense, that I have no desire to convince you otherwise. It is exhausting. All I was doing now is what I think my job is: (1) discouraging ad hominem attacks, (2) red lighting a thread when it gets repeatedly ad hominem, and (3) denying things I'm accused of in short, simple declarative sentences, using as few words as possible. You've got far more strength for this than I do. Clearly, you've won. You're getting love notes in-thread, while I'm brought down as passive-aggressive. While I don't think the forum can go on like this, it's clearly not an argument I'm winning, so do what you will. As I said, KC's welcome to restore the thread in whole or part. It's clear where I stand with you.

Centerfield Jan 04 2016 03:56 AM Re: Low Balled

Please don't pretend to be "just the moderator". No one gets this mad at people who are actually neutral. And more importantly, you're avoiding the question. Do you think MGIM's initial statement was insulting or not?

Edgy MD Jan 04 2016 04:05 AM Re: Low Balled

I'm not avoiding the question. I again answered in plain words. Nobody used the word "dumb" but you. You can keep re-writing for people all you like. I've been down that road. I'm not interested at all. I'm not pretending anything. You won. The idea that I must be guilty because you're mad is amazingly backwards logic, but you're welcome to be as mad at me as you like, for whatever reason you've got. The people have spoken. It's your time. Enjoy it. Seriously. But I've got no time and no heart for this.

Centerfield Jan 04 2016 04:12 AM Re: Low Balled

I didn't ask you who used the word "dumb". You know the question, and you're still avoiding it. Do you think MGIM's initial statement was insulting or not?

Nymr83 Jan 04 2016 04:15 AM Re: Low Balled

Centerfield wrote: Do you not see that MGIM's initial statement was insulting? That it is incredibly condescending? He's basically calling us lemmings incapable of thinking for ourselves. But because KC actually used the word, he is the attacker? That is some self-serving logic right there. ' MGiM's initial statement: I think you guys might be falling into the New York sports pundit trap of declaring the team a cheap disaster because it didn't land this or that free agent saying you are falling into the same trap as the pundits is not the same as saying you are following the pundits thoughts (or lack of any rational thoughts at all in one particular pundit's case) like lemmings.

Centerfield Jan 04 2016 04:24 AM Re: Low Balled

Nymr83 wrote: Do you not see that MGIM's initial statement was insulting? That it is incredibly condescending? He's basically calling us lemmings incapable of thinking for ourselves. But because KC actually used the word, he is the attacker? That is some self-serving logic right there. ' MGiM's initial statement: I think you guys might be falling into the New York sports pundit trap of declaring the team a cheap disaster because it didn't land this or that free agent saying you are falling into the same trap as the pundits is not the same as saying you are following the pundits thoughts (or lack of any rational thoughts at all in one particular pundit's case) like lemmings. You're right. There are two interpretations: 1. You are lemmings falling into the cheap disaster trap set by NY sports pundits. Or 2. You are falling into the same trap NY pundits fall into by calling the team a cheap disaster just because it didn't sign a particular free agent. The idea behind both possible interpretations is the same. "You are simple-minded. I know better than you." Such a statement is particularly infuriating when not a single person has ever called the team a cheap disaster.

Nymr83 Jan 04 2016 04:32 AM Re: Low Balled

Do you not see that MGIM's initial statement was insulting? That it is incredibly condescending? He's basically calling us lemmings incapable of thinking for ourselves. But because KC actually used the word, he is the attacker? That is some self-serving logic right there. ' MGiM's initial statement: I think you guys might be falling into the New York sports pundit trap of declaring the team a cheap disaster because it didn't land this or that free agent saying you are falling into the same trap as the pundits is not the same as saying you are following the pundits thoughts (or lack of any rational thoughts at all in one particular pundit's case) like lemmings. You're right. There are two interpretations: 1. You are lemmings falling into the cheap disaster trap set by NY sports pundits. Or 2. You are falling into the same trap NY pundits fall into by calling the team a cheap disaster just because it didn't sign a particular free agent. The idea behind both possible interpretations is the same. "You are simple-minded. I know better than you." Such a statement is particularly infuriating when not a single person has ever called the team a cheap disaster. you might not have, but others here have certainly called the team variations of "cheap" and "disaster", he didn't call you out personally. and its just as reasonable to say that MGiM meant to say "hey guys, i know you are smarter than knuckleheads like and you don't need to sell papers/get ad clicks in January, so why not reconsider that line of thinking?" i'm just saying there are interpretations that dont go down the Red Light road and MGiM certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt as one of the nicer guys here.

Centerfield Jan 04 2016 04:37 AM Re: Low Balled

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not avoiding the question. I again answered in plain words. Nobody used the word "dumb" but you. You can keep re-writing for people all you like. I've been down that road. I'm not interested at all. I'm not pretending anything. You won. The idea that I must be guilty because you're mad is amazingly backwards logic, but you're welcome to be as mad at me as you like, for whatever reason you've got. The people have spoken. It's your time. Enjoy it. Seriously. But I've got no time and no heart for this. Look. It's late. I'm headed to bed. I don't want this to stretch into tomorrow. Let me say a few things to close this out. 1. I think MGIM's initial statement was insulting. His position, not coincidentally, is in line with your's. I think it is no accident that you call out KC for "attacking" but say nothing about his comment. That is why I don't buy your claim of neutrality. 2. In my opinion, a reasonable person would find MGIM's comment at least mildly offensive. Passionate, frustrated fans, who did not actually say what he accused us of saying will react more aggressively. 3. You continuously claim not to have the time or heart for this. You talk about exhaustion. But you insert yourself into each of these discussions. Your comments, whether intentional or not, are inflammatory. I cannot stress how annoying your "marquee" comment is earlier in this thread. 4. You seem convinced this is some sort of personal battle. It is not. I have never started an "anti-Edgy" thread. My criticism has always been about the Wilpons or management. When I react to posters here, it is just that. A reaction. 5. Insults can come in all shapes and forms. Sometimes insults are profanity-laced tirades. Some are calm, condescending and arrogant. If you are preaching respect for others, I ask you to keep your eyes open for all forms.

Centerfield Jan 04 2016 04:45 AM Re: Low Balled

Do you not see that MGIM's initial statement was insulting? That it is incredibly condescending? He's basically calling us lemmings incapable of thinking for ourselves. But because KC actually used the word, he is the attacker? That is some self-serving logic right there. ' MGiM's initial statement: I think you guys might be falling into the New York sports pundit trap of declaring the team a cheap disaster because it didn't land this or that free agent saying you are falling into the same trap as the pundits is not the same as saying you are following the pundits thoughts (or lack of any rational thoughts at all in one particular pundit's case) like lemmings. You're right. There are two interpretations: 1. You are lemmings falling into the cheap disaster trap set by NY sports pundits. Or 2. You are falling into the same trap NY pundits fall into by calling the team a cheap disaster just because it didn't sign a particular free agent. The idea behind both possible interpretations is the same. "You are simple-minded. I know better than you." Such a statement is particularly infuriating when not a single person has ever called the team a cheap disaster. you might not have, but others here have certainly called the team variations of "cheap" and "disaster", he didn't call you out personally. and its just as reasonable to say that MGiM meant to say "hey guys, i know you are smarter than knuckleheads like and you don't need to sell papers/get ad clicks in January, so why not reconsider that line of thinking?" i'm just saying there are interpretations that dont go down the Red Light road and MGiM certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt as one of the nicer guys here. If this were the first instance, I would have let it go. Read my earlier post in this thread where I quote his earlier stuff. This is a continuation of the winter meetings discussion. This is the third time. And that's why I took it to the red light level. I can only listen to a guy distort my point and condescend for so long.

Vic Sage Jan 04 2016 04:13 PM Re: Low Balled

hey guys, i've been away. what's new?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 04 2016 04:26 PM Re: Low Balled

People's butts hurt.

Ceetar Jan 04 2016 05:13 PM Re: Low Balled

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: People's butts hurt. it's cause I fell on the ice last winter I think though.

d'Kong76 Jan 06 2016 01:39 AM Re: Low Balled

d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Listen, I'll see you. Somewhere. Front Street in front of The Long Branch at noon. No weapons. I was there, and have Festus and Quint for witnesses. I don't really get why this particular dust up seems to be bigger than others. Just come back Edge, and I'll wade back in sometime soon.

d'Kong76 Jan 06 2016 04:18 PM Re: Low Balled

Edgy, I apologize for being a total dick on Sunday. I was immature, used bad judgement and overreacted completely. It's bad for the forum, it's bad for the posters, and it's unnecessary behavior for a representative of this place. Again, please accept my apology and while I'm at it I apologize to everyone else too.

Fman99 Jan 11 2016 03:18 AM Re: Low Balled

Yeah this went all kinds of sideways, didn't it? Holy moly.