Master Index of Archived Threads


Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

41Forever Jan 22 2018 11:38 AM

The Pioneer Press in the Twin Cities is reporting that Bartolo and the Mets have had conversations about a reunion. According to the story, Colon wants six wins to pass Dennis Martinez and become the Latin American pitcher with the most victories, then would retire. I don’t know how much Bartolo has in the tank and we seem to have an abundance of decent starting pitching. And we’re losing people from the 40-man roster that we’d rather keep. Don’t know about this one.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2018 01:14 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

I think, somewhere in the rumors, it has been said that he'd be willing to take a minor league deal.

Centerfield Jan 22 2018 02:28 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Minor league deal means not giving up a roster spot right? I guess it's a "no downside" move, and one that I'd like in a vacuum. Everyone loves Bartolo. But if the Mets spin this as "rotation insurance" or "bolstering the starting pitching" it's a big problem. I can see the spin now. "We started by saying we needed a Bartolo Colon-type. What better way to meet that need than to sign Bartolo himself." More than anything else, the starting pitching demonstrates the payroll constraints. A team serious about contending for a championship would be talking to Arrieta or Darvish if they just had the pitching performance the Mets had. Because of the return of Jake and Noah, I guess Lance Lynn or Cobb would be ok. But to add Colon or nothing falls way short.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 22 2018 02:34 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

And the whole "six wins and then he retires" thing seems too gimmicky, if true. (I'm skeptical about that.) If the team is trying to get a post-season slot, why give a spot to someone who, in theory, might retire in July?

Ceetar Jan 22 2018 02:39 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Maybe, if he'll take a minor league deal and won't force the roster crunch unless we needed him, there's some value in a mop-up type 2-3 IP reliever for spots. He could bogart some wins that way too, he definitely has a better shot getting wins as a reliever, as long as you could convince him of that.

Nymr83 Jan 22 2018 03:10 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

He is welcome to a minor league deal and a spring invite. Barring a bunch of injuries, he shouldn't see the big league roster at all.

metirish Jan 22 2018 03:11 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Been there , done that, thank you for the memories. These reunions rarely work out good, and at his age?

Edgy MD Jan 22 2018 03:52 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

If the team thinks he could help, and he only costs a minor league contract, I'm all for it. Considering his style, I'd imagine he'd be pretty vulnerable to a double-digit ERA if he got a Vegas assignment, and if that's the case, no promotion will come. If he does somehow get signed and manage to pitch his way onto the roster and perform effectively, I certainly wouldn't take that second hand report as a statement of intent to retire after six wins. If he did that while the team was pursuing something, and he was their best asset to help them pursue it, he'd go into retirement looking like a real turd.

smg58 Jan 22 2018 04:38 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Edgy MD wrote: If the team thinks he could help, and he only costs a minor league contract, I'm all for it. Considering his style, I'd imagine he'd be pretty vulnerable to a double-digit ERA if he got a Vegas assignment, and if that's the case, no promotion will come. If he does somehow get signed and manage to pitch his way onto the roster and perform effectively, I certainly wouldn't take that second hand report as a statement of intent to retire after six wins. If he did that while the team was pursuing something, and he was their best asset to help them pursue it, he'd go into retirement looking like a real turd. Presumably he'd retire after the season if he got at least six wins (or if it became clear that he can no longer pitch at a level that would make six major league wins possible). But what do I know? I'd have no problem with a minor league, zero expectations deal. But the key phrase in that sentence is "zero expectations." FWIW, he'd be a great pickup for the Long Island Ducks.

d'Kong76 Jan 22 2018 04:45 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Minor league deal is fine with me. With the rate that Met pitchers get hobbled, one more big-sexy body in the corral can't hurt. Him getting his six wins would be exciting and all, but not so sure it's in the cards. When it's all done, I hope to see him in some kind of coaching/instructional role for the organization.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2018 04:52 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

"And that's ball four, and P.J. Conlon looks a little rattled. That's an unusually high three walks for him already in this game and we're only in the fourth inning. And here comes Colón. Manager Mickey Callaway has sent his pitching coach out to settle down the young pitcher. There he goes. Remember, there's a clock on how long a pitching coach's trip can last this year. Bartolo has just crossed the foul line. No warning will come from the ump; the clock just buzzes and you're done. Colón is just now reaching the mound, and has just enough time to wave at Conlon before he is forced to turn around head right back to the dugout."

Zvon Jan 22 2018 04:54 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Centerfield wrote: Minor league deal means not giving up a roster spot right? I guess it's a "no downside" move, and one that I'd like in a vacuum. Everyone loves Bartolo. But if the Mets spin this as "rotation insurance" or "bolstering the starting pitching" it's a big problem. I can see the spin now. "We started by saying we needed a Bartolo Colon-type. What better way to meet that need than to sign Bartolo himself." More than anything else, the starting pitching demonstrates the payroll constraints. A team serious about contending for a championship would be talking to Arrieta or Darvish if they just had the pitching performance the Mets had. Because of the return of Jake and Noah, I guess Lance Lynn or Cobb would be ok. But to add Colon or nothing falls way short. I haven't even read the rest yet but, yea, totally this^

Zvon Jan 22 2018 05:03 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

"And that's ball four, and P.J. Conlon looks a little rattled. That's an unusually high three walks for him already in this game and we're only in the fourth inning. And here comes Colón. Manager Mickey Callaway has sent his pitching coach out to settle down the young pitcher. There he goes. Remember, there's a clock on how long a pitching coach's trip can last this year. Bartolo has just crossed the foul line. No warning will come from the ump; the clock just buzzes and you're done. Colón is just now reaching the mound, and has just enough time to wave at Conlon before he is forced to turn around head right back to the dugout." lol. Yikes, and I agree with 99% of what u guyz say in this thread. This is an exceptional day. But it's early yet. Made by demand (

seawolf17 Jan 22 2018 05:04 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

As others have said, I'd be happy to bring him on a minor league deal with no promises. But if we're counting on Bartolo to provide major innings for this team, we're even more broken than we think.

Centerfield Jan 22 2018 06:09 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Wait, let me clarify. We are not relying on him for rotation insurance. That would be silly. Bartolo will be our primary right-handed pinch hitter. His athleticism allows him to field a variety of positions and I think we can agree that the power swing speaks for itself...

Ceetar Jan 22 2018 06:47 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

It's somewhat tedious to ascribe off-hand quote from a 'source' as a part of a plan instigated by the Wilpons.

d'Kong76 Jan 22 2018 07:04 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

I dunno, if I was a billionaire I'd surely be having better hair days than Jeff does.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 22 2018 07:15 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

d'Kong76 wrote: I dunno, if I was a billionaire I'd surely be having better hair days than Jeff does.

d'Kong76 Jan 22 2018 07:20 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

To Shea!

Zvon Jan 22 2018 08:04 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Centerfield wrote: Wait, let me clarify. We are not relying on him for rotation insurance. That would be silly. Bartolo will be our primary right-handed pinch hitter. His athleticism allows him to field a variety of positions and I think we can agree that the power swing speaks for itself... LOL! Saving that image for a futurememe!

Frayed Knot Jan 22 2018 08:05 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

As far as I can tell, the basis for this whole "rumor" stems from some off-hand remarks given to the Pioneer Press by Twins hurler Ervin Santana. [u:29rghps1]HE[/u:29rghps1] mentioned Colon and the Mets but it's not apparent that either Colon or the Mets have yet to mention each other. * and the Mets now claim to be surprised by the mentioned and deny even thinking about it

Zvon Jan 22 2018 08:34 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

I dunno, if I was a billionaire I'd surely be having better hair days than Jeff does. I saw Trump live at a golf course where I worked the grounds crew back in the mid 1990's in Galloway township. They'd had an annual LPGA tourney there back then (maybe still do). Beautiful freakin course and VERY expensive. I could golf there free twice a week, a major reason I took the job that summer. I haven't golfed in many a moon but, by God, I love golfing. All that green grass and fresh air. I was a serious golfer, but when working I was like Bill Murray in Caddyshack. Trump: In shorts, tee, and a baseball cap (not close enough to see if it was actually for baseball-it was light blue, so probably not- I doubt very much that it said MAKE AMERICA GREAT on it). No traces of orange whatsoever. He looked like the pastiest, plump white man that I had ever seen in my life. When I saw him he was heading to the woods to retrieve his golf ball. On foot. No cart. Maybe 2 or 3 people with him. No Big entourage. If you have read about all the celebs/players/etc. that I have met over the years, and in some cases talked with or even just shaken hands with, you will agree that I am the Forrest Gump of the CPF. And I'm sure that I've posted about some because this board is all about me. ;)

Rockin' Doc Jan 23 2018 02:00 AM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

I would rather the Mets sign Bartolo as a roving pitching instructor and future pitching coach than as an actual pitcher at this point. Always enjoyed watching him. He seems like a fun guy and a great teammate, but I think his time as an actual viable pitcher are done.

Centerfield Jan 23 2018 02:49 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Kristie Ackert says no Colon. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... -1.3772046 Source reiterates the party line that the starting pitching is just fine. Mets starters ranked 27th out of 30 teams. This is supposed to be the strength of the rotation.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2018 02:58 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

I partially agree. Colon is not the answer to the Mets rotation problems, but thinking things are "just fine" is way too optimistic. With luck, it could turn out that way, but importing another pitching option would help the odds.

Ceetar Jan 23 2018 03:03 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Centerfield wrote: Kristie Ackert says no Colon. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... -1.3772046 Source reiterates the party line that the starting pitching is just fine. Mets starters ranked 27th out of 30 teams. This is supposed to be the strength of the rotation. good news, 2017 is not 2018 and pitchers won't exactly replicate those results. especially Thor. and the 'party line' has always been that the Mets would like a reliable veteran arm.

41Forever Jan 23 2018 03:38 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Frayed Knot wrote: As far as I can tell, the basis for this whole "rumor" stems from some off-hand remarks given to the Pioneer Press by Twins hurler Ervin Santana. HE mentioned Colon and the Mets but it's not apparent that either Colon or the Mets have yet to mention each other. * and the Mets now claim to be surprised by the mentioned and deny even thinking about it The value here is that it was sourced, rather than the typical "according to a person close to the Mets" nonsense that we normally get from sportswriters. Sourcing allowed us to see where the information was coming from and make our own judgement as to its accuracy.

MFS62 Jan 23 2018 03:39 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Ceetar wrote: and the 'party line' has always been that the Mets would like a reliable veteran arm. I have a reliable veteran arm. I think they'd prefer one that can get batters out. Later

Centerfield Jan 23 2018 03:40 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

I know I have the burden of proof here when I say that certain members of the media are compromised, but (for me at least) it's hard not to read that article without getting this impression. But this is a Mets team that needs a resurrection of its own pitchers more than a good human interest story this season. The Mets need the starters they already have on the roster to stay healthy and productive. Could they use a veteran starter, considering they have no idea what they will be getting from Steven Matz (coming back from elbow surgery) and Matt Harvey (who struggled last season coming back from 2016 Thoracic Outlet Syndrome surgery)? In an ideal offseason, sure. But considering their limited budget, a veteran starter is way down on the priority list. The use of that wording makes her intent unmistakable. People only use that when they are implying that something is a bonus, not a necessity. How are you feeling Frank? Great! Could I stand to lose a few pounds? In an ideal world, sure! But I got no complaints! How are things are work Billy? All good. Could I use a raise? Ideally, sure! But it ain't happening with my company. What are you gonna do? Judging from that conversation, Frank is in pretty good shape, and Billy's job is pretty decent. But the Mets, who were ranked 27th in starter ERA, are in the bottom 10% of their field. That means Frank is grossly out of shape, and Billy is badly underpaid. See, the reason that I ask Frank, is that I'm looking at your chart. Your BMI is in the 90th percentile. It's more than just a few pounds, you have to start an aggressive program of diet and exercise. I'll tell you what you're going to do Billy, you're going to fire up that resume and get your name out there because your company is not paying you to industry standard. It doesn't help that planted within the quoted text, there is a link to another Ackert column: Tim Tebow adds needed entertainment value to Mets big-league camp

41Forever Jan 23 2018 04:02 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

But the Mets, who were ranked 27th in starter ERA, are in the bottom 10% of their field. That means Frank is grossly out of shape, and Billy is badly underpaid. See, the reason that I ask Frank, is that I'm looking at your chart. Your BMI is in the 90th percentile. It's more than just a few pounds, you have to start an aggressive program of diet and exercise. I'll tell you what you're going to do Billy, you're going to fire up that resume and get your name out there because your company is not paying you to industry standard. It doesn't help that planted within the quoted text, there is a link to another Ackert column: Kristie Ackert wrote: Tim Tebow adds needed entertainment value to Mets big-league camp Yeah but, they were ranked 27th in starter ERA because all but one of the starters spent significant time on the DL and we had to trot Adam Wilk, Tommy Milone, and others in the long-gone club out there. The season was (hopefully) an aberration based on the the many injuries. A rotation with a relatively healthy deGrom, Syndergaard, Matz, Harvey and Wheeler is nowhere near 27th in ERA. You're applying last year's struggles to this year's rotation. And her statement about Tebow is insulting to him. He's not there for entertainment.

Ceetar Jan 23 2018 04:07 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

41Forever wrote: And her statement about Tebow is insulting to him. He's not there for entertainment. he's there to promote his own brand and image. also, they're all there for entertainment. That's what baseball is.

Centerfield Jan 23 2018 04:12 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Let's look at the rotation. 1. deGrom: Was healthy last year. But had elbow surgery in 2016. We need him to be a horse, because in this group, he is considered "reliable". 2. Syndergaard: Coming off of major injury where he missed the majority of the season. He is also in our "reliable" group. 3. Matz: Was hurt all last year. Coming off elbow surgery. History of injuries. 4. Harvey: Complete unknown. Still recovering from TOS surgery with no idea what his end result will be. 5. Wheeler: Has not been healthy since 2014. And wasn't good when healthy. 6. Lugo: Partially torn UCL that will not heal itself. 7. Gsellman: sucked. But yes, let's pretend that all of our injury issues are behind us. I would love to see the basis on why you think we will be relatively healthy this year.

Ceetar Jan 23 2018 04:17 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

all our injury issues ARE behind us. Everyone finished the season active or at least recovering right? That's ahead of the game with a rotation these days. I'm sure we'll lose at least one before Opening Day, just by odds. there are also injury issues in front of us. they may or may not be related. there isn't a guy out there that doesn't come with that risk either. Mickey has already discussed possibly putting one of those starters in the bullpen. If you sign another guy, you do have to deal with the idea of putting some of those guys in the minors. Maybe one of Wheeler, Matz, Harvey. I haven't looked at what options they have, but demoting guys like that isn't a decision you make likely, all merit based arguments aside.

Centerfield Jan 23 2018 04:27 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Ceetar wrote: Everyone finished the season active or at least recovering right?. That is literally everyone in baseball except Jennry Mejia. Even David Wright is "recovering".

Ceetar Jan 23 2018 04:30 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: Everyone finished the season active or at least recovering right?. That is literally everyone in baseball except Jennry Mejia. Even David Wright is "recovering". no it's not. guys have surgery in the offseason. Michael Conforto's timeline is April-May and he hasn't yet done baseball stuff. I think all the pitchers are either healthy or they had minor procedures that they've recovered from, it's just the offseason so they don't pitch. We're not waiting on status updates from any of them.

Centerfield Jan 23 2018 04:37 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Michael Conforto had surgery in early September. By season's end, he was "recovering". So were Matz and Wheeler, who were shut down. Syndergaard was "active", in that he was good for one inning a week, and Harvey was throwing but terrible. Lugo's UCL tear is not behind us. And Gsellman's hamstring is presumably healed but he's still suffering from hesucksitis.

Ceetar Jan 23 2018 04:56 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

yes, my point was we're not expecting updates on these guys, we expect them ready to go. They're "fine" Conforto's not, we're still waiting on an update on the success of the surgery and a timeline. Syndergaard threw with no pain in a major league game. He's no more at risk next year than anyone else. Lugo is dealing with a UCL tear, as are dozens of active major league pitchers. Matz had surgery and is expected to be fine and ready to go. Wheeler had some bumps and bruises that were attributed to not pitching in two years. He was also ineffective, which could be the same thing. That's a concern, but it's an ongoing one. Harvey is obviously an unknown too, but again, not really injured. You can rely on deGrom and Syndergaard as much as you can rely on any pitcher. so that's two. a real good two. I think Matz and Lugo are what they are. You try to manage their injury risk I guess, and see what you can get out of them. they seem the top two candidates for improvement with the new staff. Harvey had life and movement on his pitches, he just struggled with command. Hopefully this is something a year removed and a new outlook will help. maybe not. Who knows about Gsellman and Montero. You lean towards "they're bad" but they're better than Adam Wilk level depth at least. Flexen may or may not have some potential. You could certainly mix in a Lance Lynn type into that mix. but no starter is without his own question marks. I advocated for signing Darvish though, personally I think risking money on a higher-upside guy is better than getting another mid-rotation guy to this mix.

Frayed Knot Jan 23 2018 07:57 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

As far as I can tell, the basis for this whole "rumor" stems from some off-hand remarks given to the Pioneer Press by Twins hurler Ervin Santana. HE mentioned Colon and the Mets but it's not apparent that either Colon or the Mets have yet to mention each other. * and the Mets now claim to be surprised by the mentioned and deny even thinking about it The value here is that it was sourced, rather than the typical "according to a person close to the Mets" nonsense that we normally get from sportswriters. Sourcing allowed us to see where the information was coming from and make our own judgement as to its accuracy. Yes it was 'sourced', but that source was nothing more than Colon's buddy saying that he thought Bartolo might like to go back to the Mets. No Mets sources were involved (or even ones 'close to their thinking') nor was Colon himself. That doesn't make the article false, it just means that any conclusions drawn from it -- **THE METS ARE MAKING LIKE TIMBERLAKE AND TRYING TO BRING SEXY BACK** -- are like third generation speculation. And while the Minnesota paper didn't appear to check with the Mets for comment, when Ackert (NYDN) did their response was basically: "Huh, we're doing what now?"

Centerfield Jan 23 2018 09:44 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

As far as I can tell, the basis for this whole "rumor" stems from some off-hand remarks given to the Pioneer Press by Twins hurler Ervin Santana. HE mentioned Colon and the Mets but it's not apparent that either Colon or the Mets have yet to mention each other. * and the Mets now claim to be surprised by the mentioned and deny even thinking about it The value here is that it was sourced, rather than the typical "according to a person close to the Mets" nonsense that we normally get from sportswriters. Sourcing allowed us to see where the information was coming from and make our own judgement as to its accuracy. Yes it was 'sourced', but that source was nothing more than Colon's buddy saying that he thought Bartolo might like to go back to the Mets. No Mets sources were involved (or even ones 'close to their thinking') nor was Colon himself. That doesn't make the article false, it just means that any conclusions drawn from it -- **THE METS ARE MAKING LIKE TIMBERLAKE AND TRYING TO BRING SEXY BACK** -- are like third generation speculation. And while the Minnesota paper didn't appear to check with the Mets for comment, when Ackert (NYDN) did their response was basically: "Huh, we're doing what now?" That's not what the article said. Santana did talk last week with former Twins pitcher Bartolo Colon, who turns 45 in May but wants to supplant Dennis Martinez as the winningest pitcher from Latin America. Santana mentioned Colon, whose 240 career victories are five behind Martinez, has drawn interest from the New York Mets about a potential reunion. According to the Pioneer Press, Santana said that he spoke with Colon, and that Colon has drawn interest from the Mets. Santana could be wrong, or Colon could be lying, but the article suggests that it was more than just Santana speculating that Bartolo would like to return.

Ceetar Jan 23 2018 09:51 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

so either way a completely unsourced second or third hand rumor of 'interest' generated mounds of #content for a lot of people. This is about as valid as if someone heard Sandy Alderson say "Thanks Neal" on the phone as he hung up on line at Starbucks and when he tells his friend back at the office he reports the Mets talking about Harrison again.

Centerfield Jan 23 2018 09:57 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Ceetar wrote: so either way a completely unsourced second or third hand rumor of 'interest' generated mounds of #content for a lot of people. This is about as valid as if someone heard Sandy Alderson say "Thanks Neal" on the phone as he hung up on line at Starbucks and when he tells his friend back at the office he reports the Mets talking about Harrison again. No, it is sourced. It is a second hand, sourced account. The public can decide to give it whatever weight it wishes, but the source of the information is there for all to see. Ackert's on the other hand, is unsourced. And unlike the Bartolo to Santana account, we have no way of knowing whether it's accurate or if the source has motivations to be untruthful. Your "Thanks Neal" comment is not anything like what happened here.

Ceetar Jan 23 2018 10:04 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

There's a source for the quote, not a source for the rumor. same as in my example. The source for the quote is the guy on line at Starbucks. The writing infers that there was some other, non quoted, discussion about who he'd been talking to. But Santana is not a reporter. This is burying a rumor in layers to obscure that it actually has no factual backing. Santana said that Bartolo said 'Mets are interested' is not actually a source. Literally I know a guy who knows a guy who's said that the Mets are interested. Would that fly anywhere else?

41Forever Jan 23 2018 11:50 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Having a source identified is way, way better than a sportswriter doing the "someone who is familiar with the Mets' thinking" anonymous source thing -- which happens all the time. Santana saying that this is something his friend told him. That's legit. He may be wrong, and Bartolo might be wrong. But it's different than an overheard conversation -- and worthy of discussion.

Ceetar Jan 24 2018 02:53 AM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

41Forever wrote: Having a source identified is way, way better than a sportswriter doing the "someone who is familiar with the Mets' thinking" anonymous source thing -- which happens all the time. Santana saying that this is something his friend told him. That's legit. He may be wrong, and Bartolo might be wrong. But it's different than an overheard conversation -- and worthy of discussion. gimme the first any time. if it's from someone I trust, at least I know their reputation. they're probably not making it up. crazy random speculation from random players/people is worthless.

Zvon Jan 24 2018 03:18 AM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Having a source identified is way, way better than a sportswriter doing the "someone who is familiar with the Mets' thinking" anonymous source thing -- which happens all the time. Santana saying that this is something his friend told him. That's legit. He may be wrong, and Bartolo might be wrong. But it's different than an overheard conversation -- and worthy of discussion. gimme the first any time. if it's from someone I trust, at least I know their reputation. they're probably not making it up. crazy random speculation from random players/people is worthless. Both are a crock of shit. In the case of the first: I don't like it. I want to know the source. I'll make up my own mind as to if the source is reliable or not. I'm sick of writers hiding their sources behind "someone who is familiar with the Mets". How much vaguer can you get! I'm familiar with the Mets. I'd be a HORRIBLE source! Well, a little better from reading youz guyz. But I skew half of what I read. In the case of the second: I don't like it. That's hearsay. Before you write it give the Mets a call. Or ring up Colon. Odds are good a phone is right in your freakin' pocket. If you have to dig thru connections to get the number you need, do it. If you have no connections, get some or find a new profession. Reaching the Mets tho, should be no problem. Just take the time to do it, and do it. Many writers are in a rush to beat the other to the punch. If you wanna score a knockout, don't be taking quick unfounded jabs.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2018 03:38 AM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Sheesh, let's start a journalism sourcing sub-forum.

Nymr83 Jan 24 2018 04:25 AM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

I feel like we have been over this a million times. Some journalists can be sloppy about sources. That percentage is, in my opinion, much higher amongst sports writers. When you are blowing the whistle on the polluting factory or the criminal activity of a politician, I will accept there may be some legitimate need for protection. When you are reporting that the Mets might be interested in signing a player, I consider it purely unsubstatiated rumor unless a source is named with a high likelihood of being totally false. Doesnt mean it wont sell advertising or make for interesting off-season conversation at the CPF. But the opinions of everyone here are likely just as valid as the "source" and are even generally more interesting.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2018 04:52 AM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I partially agree. Colon is not the answer to the Mets rotation problems, but thinking things are "just fine" is way too optimistic. With luck, it could turn out that way, but importing another pitching option would help the odds. I'm not sure anything is ever just fine. Good pitching is ephemeral. All rotations are held together by spit and duct tape You try and build up redundancies, but there's only so much that can be effected by signing veterans. Sometimes you are just burying developing talent underneath somebody else's broken pitcher. The window to break through is short, so you've got to show some faith or lose your guy. But yeah, I'm all for pursuing Darvish.

Centerfield Feb 05 2018 02:32 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

All my Sexy's live in Texas. http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2232 ... eague-deal

MFS62 Feb 05 2018 03:18 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion? Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 05 2018 03:19 PM

Centerfield wrote: All my Sexy's live in Texas. http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2232 ... eague-deal As noted in the "Wrong Trousers" thread. But I guess anyone as big and sexy as Big Sexy deserves it to be said twice. Later

Centerfield Feb 05 2018 03:18 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Oops. Sorry. Big trousers.

G-Fafif Feb 05 2018 08:03 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Reading the subject line and contemplating what one who is unfamiliar with the nickname would make of a "Big Sexy reunion".

Edgy MD Feb 05 2018 09:24 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Reunited and it feels so GOOD!

Nymr83 May 17 2018 04:11 PM Re: Should we be talking about a Big Sexy reunion?

Bartolo took a line drive to the stomach... I love this guy Big Sexy wrote: The important thing is we won the game and I was able to get the out, He got me on the side. It was not in the middle. And I have a big belly, so I can [handle] it.