Master Index of Archived Threads
2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 22
HALL PASS (New York Daily News) | 0 votes |
HALL ABOARD! (Newsday) | 12 votes |
THAT'S TERRIFIC! (New York Daily News) | 13 votes |
HALL OF JUSTICE (New York Post) | 3 votes |
TOP HAT (Newsday) | 4 votes |
HAT'S MORE LIKE IT (New York Daily News) | 2 votes |
JUST SAY CES! (New York Daily News) | 9 votes |
CAPITAL GAIN? (Newsday) | 1 votes |
APPLE OF HIS EYE! (New York Daily News) | 7 votes |
WORST NAT-MARE! (New York Daily News) | 1 votes |
NATMARE (New York Post) | 1 votes |
Benjamin Grimm Nov 03 2016 10:47 AM |
|
Benjamin Grimm Nov 03 2016 10:50 AM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
|
MFS62 Nov 03 2016 01:21 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
That's Terrific not only showed two great Hall Of Famers but it also happily reminded us that Bonds and Clemens didn't get there.
|
bmfc1 Nov 03 2016 02:08 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
Photo-shopped images and pool photos (in more than paper) lose points for me.
|
Centerfield Nov 03 2016 02:18 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
That's terrific could have been a real prize. I hate that they loaded all that other info in the bullet point subheadlines.
|
d'Kong76 Nov 03 2016 02:49 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
Aboard, Terrific, Ces for me... great timing starting this this morning as I
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 03 2016 03:20 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
I went with the Cespedes ones because afaic, Piazza to the Hall of Fame was a story with no back-page worthy drama at all. He deserved in, got in, BFD. And boy I couldn't give less of a fuck what hat he wears.
|
Edgy MD Nov 03 2016 03:45 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
|
Yeah, Photoshops disrespects your photographers' ability to tell a visual story without BS.
|
Frayed Knot Nov 03 2016 03:47 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
|
I passed over all 'HAT' covers for the same reason.
|
Benjamin Grimm Nov 03 2016 03:49 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
|
I just noticed that text at the bottom of TOP HAT:
|
Zvon Nov 03 2016 07:34 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
For me Piazza into the Hall trumps anything Cespedes, and to have Mike and The Franchise together is as good as it gets.
|
Frayed Knot Nov 03 2016 07:36 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
||
Just a reminder about all of the speculation last winter [Cespedes not right, not in the budget, Zobrist or dick!] and none of it was correct.
|
Mets Guy in Michigan Nov 03 2016 07:49 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
I cared about the cap.
|
Edgy MD Nov 03 2016 08:21 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
Apart from where one may stand of the significance of the hat issue, HAT'S MORE LIKE IT shows a facepalming inability to land a pun.
|
Benjamin Grimm Nov 03 2016 08:28 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
|
I cared about that cap too. Not to any great degree, but sure, I'd rather see an NY on his cap than an LA. Why wouldn't I? But when Gary Carter got an elb on his cap, I said to myself, "Oh well." No angst. No tooth-gnashing. The cap on the plaque is worth caring about, but only a little bit. For some reason though, calling a baseball cap a "hat" seems wrong to me. I mean, technically it is a hat, but "cap" seems more correct. And yes, the Cespedes signing will be in the next batch of covers. Come back tomorrow!
|
Mets Guy in Michigan Nov 03 2016 09:01 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
Love this feature!
|
Fman99 Nov 04 2016 01:57 AM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
I picked the three front runners -- the two HOF ones and the Cespedes one that was least obnoxious.
|
Centerfield Nov 04 2016 03:38 AM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 04 2016 05:23 PM |
||||||||
It's funny how two sides of a debate can look back a year later and both feel that they were completely right. I disagree. I think that the speculation surrounding each of those thoughts was 100% correct. 1. Cespedes not a Good Fit Cespedes not being a good fit wasn't, in fact, speculation, but rather an idea conveyed by Sandy Alderson. The article the cover references is here: http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... 1.11303094 The idea conveyed by Alderson, was that it wasn't money that was preventing the Mets from pursuing Cespedes. It's that he would have to play centerfield, and although it made sense for a few months, it was not a good fit for five or six years. The speculation, conveyed here on this board, was that this was all bullshit. First off, there was no guarantee that Conforto was an everyday player (he was still not facing lefties). And at best, even if Cespedes had to play center, it would only be for a year or two until Granderson's contract expired, when either Ces, or Conforto, if he stuck, could move over to RF. The speculation was that Sandy was spewing garbage so as to not say we don't want to give him the big money deal. (I think one of my themes last winter was calling bullshit on Sandy Alderson.) And in the end, it was just that, bullshit. Ultimately, the Mets signed Cespedes, and stuck him right back in centerfield. Not because he magically got better in CF, or because a corner OF spot opened up, but because he came back to them and agreed to a short-term deal. Money, money, and money. Less Money = Good Fit The speculation was actually dead on accurate. 2. Cespedes Not In the Budget I don't know which specific statement you are referencing here, but the speculation I offered last winter was that there was absolutely, positively room for Cespedes in the budget. First off, a big market team should be able to afford Cespedes, even with everyone else they signed. Secondly, if the Mets were hamstrung by budget, they still could have afforded him by foregoing the De Aza/Cabrera/Blevins/Walker/Colon pu-pu platter. In fact, both statements were true. And thus, the speculation, was again correct. On Edit: Found the actual conversation:
What do you know? Turned out, there was room! 3. Zobrist or Dick So if you recall, and you should since it's been bumped to the front page again, the name of the thread is Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter Meaning it was John Ricco saying it was Zobrist or dick, not that I thought the offseason would yield Zobrist or dick. And it's hard to argue that my paraphrase was off. From the Times article:
Basically, the Mets are all in on Zobrist, and they have no real backup plan, and they had no real intention of pursuing an impact player. I don't know that there was any speculation offered here. It was more along the lines of: "Holy crap, I can't believe Ricco would just show his hand like that" and "The fucking Mets are assholes". Maybe some thought that he was not conveying what he was really thinking, or that he had more up his sleeve. But in the end, turned out he didn't. Basically everything he said was basically all he had. When Zobrist spurned them, they had no backup plan. From the Andy Martino Report following the Winter Meetings:
They didn't have a Plan B. They didn't immediately turn to the other options they had lined up. They looked at each other sadly, then got something to eat. It wasn't until the next morning when Huntington called and offered Walker for Niese that the Mets actually saw an option materialize before them. And as we saw after the winter played out, they never pursued Cespedes, or any other impact player. They didn't host his wife and daughter, they didn't take Yoenis on a tour of the NY area. In fact, they actually signed his low-budget replacement, the much maligned Alejandro De Aza, who became the aforementioned veteran who could platoon with the existing guys. The Mets did not "wait out" Cespedes thinking that the market wouldn't materialize. They wrote him off in November, then were surprised when he came back to them in January. Again, the thinking was pretty much right on the nose.
|
Zvon Nov 04 2016 03:58 AM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
That's an excellent post CF.
|
Centerfield Nov 04 2016 04:12 AM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
|
Thanks Z!
|
Frayed Knot Nov 04 2016 01:24 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
Look, I don't want to log up the Tabloid thread with a lot of strategy talk (so if someone wants to spin this off then fine).
|
Ceetar Nov 04 2016 01:42 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
And don't forget nothing the Mets/Alderson say publicly is their deepest held beliefs. In all likelihood, Sandy WOULD have preferred a different answer than Cespedes, but it didn't present itself. (The same case can be made this year) It's all part of negotiating. "Hey, here's a serious issue that we'd like to address that you don't fill. That's why you're not worth X"
|
Edgy MD Nov 04 2016 01:46 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
It wasn't even Alderson picking up the phone then.
|
Centerfield Nov 04 2016 03:42 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
||||||||
Are you sure about that? Because to me, it sounds very much like a "Ha ha, I was right, you were wrong" type of post. And your post specifically quotes me. So if it wasn't meant to be about who was right or wrong, or my post specifically, it sure did seem like it.
Sure. Speculation, by it's nature, is speculative. But it just so happens that you cited to three examples of speculation where: 1. I was the one speculating 2. You were challenging the conclusions drawn from such speculation 3. You have now declared those conclusions wrong 4. When, in fact, those conclusions were correct. On all 3 counts.
None of the examples you cite were based upon insider media, or prognostications of what beat writers thought might happen. These were actual quotes from Ricco and Alderson. And I don't remember anyone treating those words like gospel. The discussion that ensued was my assessment of their mindset when making these statements. And in the end, my assessments of their mindset, were dead on.
The pre-conceived notion was that the Wilpons did not want to sign Cespedes to a long-term contract. The reality ended up being that the Wilpons did not want to sign Cespedes to a long-term contract. The Mets got lucky when Cespedes came back to them on a short-term deal. That is why the headlines in today's batch of covers includes variations on the word "stun". Again, those that speculated, were correct. When Sandy gave us the lame centerfield argument, we called him out on his bullshit. In the end, it was bullshit. They signed Cespedes and put him in center. It was never about the position. It was about money. But it wasn't universal, there were some that bought into the OF position line of thinking. Someone, who, incidentally, seemed pretty sure that Lagares wouldn't be relegated to a backup position, meaning no premiere OF was coming.
Once Cespedes dropped his price, the Mets were like "Have a seat Juan!"
I think you are mistaken on the facts. It was not that a writer "sensed" there was no plan B. Ricco held a press conference and showed his entire hand. Much to the surprise of all the reporters and us here on the Board. And it wasn't that Andy Martino speculated the reaction in the room. He was there, saw it, and reported it. This was not his opinions or musings. This was his first hand observation. It was also his first hand observation that the Walker deal did not materialize until the next morning when Neal Huntington dropped it into his lap.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/news- ... -1.2469431 Not convinced?
Things that guys with a plan say: 1. Hey, did they really take Niese? LOLOLOL 2. It looks like Plan B is well underway! 3. Awesome! Did the Neil Walker deal that we totally had thought through come to fruition during my hours of absence? What the Mets said: "What's that?"
|
Ashie62 Nov 04 2016 04:06 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
Is this worth arguing about? Geezuz
|
Centerfield Nov 04 2016 05:35 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
|
No. It doesn't. But I am incapable of just letting it go when people say I was proven wrong when: 1. It's a year later 2. It's unprovoked, in a nice little thread about tabloid covers 3. I was right!
|
Frayed Knot Nov 04 2016 06:12 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
CF, I can't possibly follow your earlier post and at this point have totally lost track of what your point is.
|
Centerfield Nov 04 2016 07:37 PM Re: 2016 Tabloid Cover Derby Round 1.1.1 Jan 6 through Jan 2 |
Here is the Cliff Notes version.
|