Master Index of Archived Threads


David Wright for Miguel Cabrera & Dontrelle Willis!

mlbaseballtalk Apr 15 2006 09:14 AM

From the mind of a wacky idea caller on 1050 ESPN Radio and parrotted by thought to be legendary broadcaster Warner Wolf (though that reputation is being tarnished every time he takes the mic on WABC radio and 1050 ESPN Radio) as a "You HAVE to make that trade" trade! This is amazing that the host actually agreed with a nutso caller "There are 29 GMs that would make that deal, except for the Marlins" Steve

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 01:14 PM

Of course you do that trade. Don't be silly.

seawolf17 Apr 15 2006 01:44 PM

I have a mancrush on David Wright and I'm not afraid to admit it. I still make that trade; it's a no-brainer. But nobody, not even the Marlins, are dumb enough to make that deal.

abogdan Apr 15 2006 02:12 PM

The trade makes absolutely no sense from the Marlins perspective.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 02:21 PM

Two (impending) huge salaries lost, one impending low salary for the next two years gained. They lose Willis and Cabrera anyway to FA, so why not expedite the process and gain a few years of Wright for peanuts? He's better than any draft choices they'd be getting, and all-but-guaranteed results besides.

Elster88 Apr 15 2006 02:23 PM

I'd love to see Wright play here 15 years and become the best Met hitter of all time, but you have to do that trade. Of course, we need to be guaranteed to sign them both. Without that the trade is not good for the Mets either, no?

Edgy DC Apr 15 2006 02:24 PM

This thread's getting more action than the IGT.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 02:27 PM

Well, we did get called "nutso" by someone talking a pretty nutso position. That's going to be seen as fairly provocative.

abogdan Apr 15 2006 03:23 PM

]Two (impending) huge salaries lost, one impending low salary for the next two years gained. They lose Willis and Cabrera anyway to FA, so why not expedite the process and gain a few years of Wright for peanuts? He's better than any draft choices they'd be getting, and all-but-guaranteed results besides. I understand why they would be interested in trading away Willis and Cabrera, but for only one player, who is only one year further away from just as large of a payday, doesn't make sense. All of Florida's moves this off-season have brought back multiple players at different stages of their development cycle. The only way Cabrera and Willis get dealt is if the Marlins get multiple players who they can have more than just one year of at minimum salary. For Delgado, they received three minimum wage years of Mike Jacobs and three minimum wage years of Petit. For Beckett, they got three minimum wage years of Hanley Ramirez, three minimum wage years of Anibal Sanchez, and got out of the nearly untouchable Mike Lowell contract. They shouldn't settle for just an extra minimum wage year from a stud third baseman in exchange for their own stud third baseman, and a 24-year old, left handed, 20-game winner.

KC Apr 15 2006 03:25 PM

I don't see it as quite the no-brainer as some of you. Trading the face of the new Mets who doesn't make much for two guys you have to wow the crap out of with new contracts to keep 'em? Wright likes it here, I like him here, I want him here for the majority of his career.

Nymr83 Apr 15 2006 03:32 PM

if The Marlins are going to lose them anyway why not keep Wright and sign Willis as a free agent?

KC Apr 15 2006 03:35 PM

Wright, I mean right.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 03:45 PM

It's a matter of allocating your resources. The Mets with Pedro and Delgado under contract are overspending for a playoff team now Not to boost your chances (while giving up very little, probably gaining a lot) in terms of your team's overall # of young stars makes it a no-brainer Which is not to say the Marlins will offer such a deal , nor that the Mets have the kind of brainpower required to jump at it before the Marlins change their mind.

KC Apr 15 2006 03:53 PM

How is giving up Wright anything approaching "very little". And who's gonna play third, trade for Ty Wigginton?

Nymr83 Apr 15 2006 03:55 PM

Cabrera is actually playing 3B this year for the fish, we'll see how that goes...

KC Apr 15 2006 03:57 PM

I'm thinking outfielder, and wanted to get the Ty joke in. Sorry.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 03:58 PM

KC wrote: How is giving up Wright anything approaching "very little". And who's gonna play third, trade for Ty Wigginton? Wigginton's actually off to a good start. You think maybe we could get him for Julio? That would be kinda sweet. But I think maybe we could get [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cabremi01.shtml] this[/url] guy to try playing third. I mean, as long as we have him on the roster and everything. OE: and to answer your question about losing very little: when you trade a 23-year old spectacular 3b man and you get a 23-year old spectacular 3b man back, and you pick up a great pitcher, most people consider that as a net gain. Of course Mets fans see that as a very even trade, but I'm not trained in analyzing the thought patterns of Mets fans,. Maybe JB could help you out there.

KC Apr 15 2006 04:09 PM

Oh well, here I am thinking we're talking baseball and that's nice (even though I got a little 3B egg on my face which I apologized for) and then you gotta be a dick again. Nice while it lasted, maybe we can try again tomorrow.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 04:12 PM

Well, I wrote that before I read your apology. (Is asking me a snide question about Wiggy "being nice"? I guess you have a different definition of "nice.") Here's a link for Wiggy's current stats, as a parting gift for playing the "Be Obnoxious to Sal and Get to Play the Victim Anyway" game: http://search.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=Wigginton&Find=Search&source=b_sportsindex_mlb

KC Apr 15 2006 04:29 PM

I was trying to be funny re: Ty. You have a long way to go before I'm going to be nice. You might want to change your sig line before you go pointing victim fingers. Have a nice evening, it's really quite lovely out today.

metsmarathon Apr 15 2006 04:44 PM

cabrera has all of 72 games under his belt at third, but in those 72 games, he seems to be a slightly about an average fielder. wright has 238 games at third and also seems to be an average fielder, if not statistically slightly behind cabrera, based on baseball prospectus' estimation. going off more traditional fielding stats, cabrera has an 0.892 f% and an 0.803 ZR, compared to wright's 0.948 f% and 0.767 ZR. i'm surprised wright's range is so relatively small. i would have expected better based on having watched him (tho i've not really watched much cabrera against which to make a comparison) so in a pure numbers sense, it appears that wright straight up for cabrera would be a slight upgrade. ... does cabrera have as good a reputation as a leader and potential future MVP as wright? i feel as if i've heard such things as intangibles mentioned, too? i dunno. also don't know if such a thing means all that much, or would even be based in as much reality, if it is just a function of a better PR machine... and so, trading wright for a slight upgrade in cabrera, and getting a cy young candidate in willis, would seem to be a no brainer. except that both teams would be trading the faces of their franchises, and fan favorites as well. the trade would likely be disastrous for the fish, and i'm sure there'd be some backlash from mets fans who'd like to see one of their own develop into an MVP, particularly for us, instead of bringing one in. met fans are emotionally invested in wright, and i think rightfully so. for that reason, i could understand reluctance to trade him away, regardless the returns. and i'm sure that met fans will view wright as more re-signable than willis/cabrera, wether or not that's really true, which will of course lead to complaints of trading away 15 years of the future for not more than three years of the present. i would not want to be the met gm who is forced to make a deicison if faced with this trade proposal. in the end, i'd likely ultimately pull the trigger, and hate myself in the morning.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 04:49 PM

KC wrote: I was trying to be funny re: Ty. You have a long way to go before I'm going to be nice. You might want to change your sig line before you go pointing victim fingers. You've changed your mind? Now it's okay that I spew crap from the past? I've never seen anyone who liked being quoted in sig lines less than you. Well, actually, I don't know how Edgy liked "What entertains you about loudly saying hostile things that are clearly untrue when measured by any sound elementary logic?"--Big Train, 7/22/04 but I know you definitely didn't appreciate the whole "Piazza is never going to be on another postseason Mets team" thing. So that's twice I've honored you by incorporating your words of wisdom in a sig line that you didn't like it much. Can't imagine why. Oh, don't give me that shit about trying to be funny. You weren't funny, you were just being snotty. What, you thought you'd crack us all up by forgetting Cabrera is a 3bman, so we'd have to get Wiggy? HAHAHA, I guess your lack of knowledge about Cabrera's current position is pretty funny, after all. Disingenuous horseshit, is what you're trying to peddle. Try elsewhere.

KC Apr 15 2006 04:53 PM

Nope, really was just joking. That's quite an extensive archive you have there of things you're pissed off about. They must be neatly organized if you can whip them out so quickly. Thanks for adding another exhibit.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 04:57 PM

And while you're at it, could you explain the "Ty joke" to me? What, you think we could trade Julio (and Maine) and get him back or something? Or that you were ignorant about how well he's playing, in addition to your ignorance about Cabrera, and that's somehow amusing? You think maybe the money we pissed down a rathole signing Benson last year couldn;'t be spent on a FA now if we'd kept Ty all along? I'm not even seeing what's funny, or supposed to be funny, here, even if I believe you for a second that that was your intent.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 15 2006 05:08 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Well, we did get called "nutso" by someone talking a pretty nutso position. That's going to be seen as fairly provocative. I'm calling the caller into the show nutso because he is treated as such on the radio stations here in NYC, They call him "Steve The Idea Man" (no relation) and usually mock whatever hairbrained "Get rich quick" style scheme he has. Steve From Staten Island has to be one of the most annoying regular callers to either WFAN or 1050 ESPN Radio

KC Apr 15 2006 05:10 PM

The Ty joke (attempted and clearly failed joke) was I forgot that Miguel is not playing in the outfield and that if we traded Wright we wouldn't have a (probably all-star) 3B in David there and I know you like Ty and I don't think he'll really amount to much (and most baseball people don't either) I said we could trade for him. rofl lololol. You may not be angry, but you sound awfully angry and I think you're over- reacting. Again. I apologize and actually I said sorry earlier in the thread too.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 05:28 PM

mlbaseballtalk wrote: ="Bret Sabermetric"]Well, we did get called "nutso" by someone talking a pretty nutso position. That's going to be seen as fairly provocative. I'm calling the caller into the show nutso because he is treated as such on the radio stations here in NYC, They call him "Steve The Idea Man" (no relation) and usually mock whatever hairbrained "Get rich quick" style scheme he has. Steve From Staten Island has to be one of the most annoying regular callers to either WFAN or 1050 ESPN Radio You weren't disagreeing with the nutty caller? I read your initial post to mean that you were saying that he (and Wolf) were obviously insane for suggesting the Mets trade Wright for Cabrera and Willis. Isn';t that what you were saying?

mlbaseballtalk Apr 15 2006 05:50 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="mlbaseballtalk"] Bret Sabermetric wrote: Well, we did get called "nutso" by someone talking a pretty nutso position. That's going to be seen as fairly provocative. I'm calling the caller into the show nutso because he is treated as such on the radio stations here in NYC, They call him "Steve The Idea Man" (no relation) and usually mock whatever hairbrained "Get rich quick" style scheme he has. Steve From Staten Island has to be one of the most annoying regular callers to either WFAN or 1050 ESPN Radio You weren't disagreeing with the nutty caller? I read your initial post to mean that you were saying that he (and Wolf) were obviously insane for suggesting the Mets trade Wright for Cabrera and Willis. Isn';t that what you were saying? I actually didn't hear the entire call, maybe it made more sense I don't know, I just don't respect the knowledge of said caller and Wolf beyond the basics to talk local stars to make anything beyond the "you HAVE to make this trade" knee jerk reaction Thinking about it, if you can gaurantee we sign both to long term deals, and Cabrera doesn't become another Bobby Bonillia, it might be crazy enough to work. I was also coming at it from a "Can we not do what the Yankees, Knicks and Rangers have been doing" angle as well as this would be right out of that playbook of taking "home grown" stars and turning the team into a "Glorified ATM" Baseball move, yeah its a no brainer, but there are different angles and the Mets should fall into the "We make this deal because we can" way of doing things

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 06:07 PM

This is a silly point. Can you guarantee we'll sign Wright to a long-term deal? Of course not, and you don't even want to at this stage But you'll have exclusive negotiating rights to Dontrelle and Miguel (who's hispanic! Another giant plus!) for a while. You'd turn this deal down if you couldn't sign them up before finishing the trade? That's unbelievable. You don't ask a lot of questions if someone puts a diamond in your hand, you just take it. Unless you're a Mets fan. Then you ask so many questions that the seller gets hinckty and you're left with flat nothing

Elster88 Apr 15 2006 06:09 PM

I'm a lot more confident that we'd be able to sign Wright when he hits free agency than I would be about signing BOTH Miggy and Willis if we made that deal. I think any Met fan (or any Met-news followers) would say the same. No? And if you don't sign both then I think it's a bad trade for us.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 06:13 PM

Incredible. Just incredible. And to think I wondered why the Mets were a screwed up organization. It's because you want them to be screwed up, isn't it? Could we have a show of hands, please? How many would turn down WIllis and Cabreara straight up for Wright today, with no guarantees of anything other than that the deal will be taken off the table forever if you don't sign the papers right this second? I think I'll take a poll. This is unfuckingbelievable. You can't make up shit like this.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 06:27 PM

Willis and Cabrera combined for over 10 times the number of MVP votes that Wright got last year. They both made the All-Star team, while he did not. Cabrera is younger than Wright. (Willis is a few months older). I honestly wouldn't invent such a scenario where Mets fans would be thinking this wasn't a great deal, because no one could possibly believe I wasn't just talking idle and cruel smack about Mets fans's intelligence. http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_2005.shtml#NLmvp

mlbaseballtalk Apr 15 2006 07:23 PM

]I was also coming at it from a "Can we not do what the Yankees, Knicks and Rangers have been doing" angle as well as this would be right out of that playbook of taking "home grown" stars and turning the team into a "Glorified ATM" Baseball move, yeah its a no brainer, but there are different angles and the Mets should fall into the "We make this deal because we can" way of doing things Exactly how has this worked for the Rangers and Knicks in doing their rosters by this model? Ditto with all high payroll teams other than the Yankees/Red Sox since the 90's began?

metsmarathon Apr 15 2006 07:32 PM

can you imagine how those yankee fans would always say they'd never want to trade jeter for arod?

mlbaseballtalk Apr 15 2006 07:48 PM

metsmarathon wrote: can you imagine how those yankee fans would always say they'd never want to trade jeter for arod? Or how about Bernie for Bonds, and this was PRE Roids!

Bret Sabermetric Apr 15 2006 08:13 PM

metsmarathon wrote: can you imagine how those yankee fans would always say they'd never want to trade jeter for arod? You know, I don't even get your point. Are you omitting "and we'll throw in Pedro with Arod" because you think Willis is a small part of this projected trade, or because you think you're making some kind of point, or because you think this is pissing me off somehow? I don't see what you're doing besides making a parody of yourselves. Is this cleverer than I'm capable of imagining?

Elster88 Apr 15 2006 09:42 PM

What happens when the year ends, if we don't win the WS, and Miggy and Willis walk?

Nymr83 Apr 15 2006 09:46 PM

Elster88 wrote: What happens when the year ends, if we don't win the WS, and Miggy and Willis walk? Bret cites it as another example of why the Mets are stupid.

KC Apr 15 2006 10:07 PM

BS: >>>Is this cleverer than I'm capable of imagining?<<< I doubt anyone here can even approach knowing what you're capable of imagining.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 15 2006 10:14 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="metsmarathon"]can you imagine how those yankee fans would always say they'd never want to trade jeter for arod? You know, I don't even get your point. Are you omitting "and we'll throw in Pedro with Arod" because you think Willis is a small part of this projected trade, or because you think you're making some kind of point, or because you think this is pissing me off somehow? I don't see what you're doing besides making a parody of yourselves. Is this cleverer than I'm capable of imagining? As a baseball trade, Wells for Clemens and Soriano for ARod were stone cold great baseball moves, even worked out for the other team (in terms of success of the accquired player) But in the grand scheme of things they represented the "Once Again The Rich Get Richer" mentality of having an all-star at every position that makes the Yankees "The Evil Empire" and cause people to hate them, and in a large case hate baseball because they see only the good players flock to New York, Boston, St Louis, Chicago and LA Granted the Mets should never make a move based on public opinion, and maybe I'd feel better if it was Pelfrey and Millidge for Cabrera and Willis, but part of the joke would be "Yeah, and the Mets can move Cabrera back to the outfield when they sign Wright back as a FA in a couple of years" This trade is EXACTLY whats wrong with the system. Maybe there needs to be a cap, maybe not I don't know, but this kind of dealing does lead to more and more bad feelings about the Big Market Teams being the only players and teams like the Pirates, Rockies, Marlins, Royals be forever minor leagues to the Mets, Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, White Sox, Cardinals, Cubs and Dodgers. And will eventually continue to have MLB go down the road its currently in, it's ultimate destruction and ranking behind the PBA (bowling league) and Major Indoor Lacrosse in the national sports following conscience So yes, THAT is why the move is a dumb move. Not for the here and now with the Mets, but the future of the very sport, which gives me more and more reasons why I should just stop watching and caring. I'm not sure why I still do, but there have been plenty who HAVEN"T come back since 1994, there are probably many in KC, Philly, Pittsburgh, Toronoto, Baltimore, Houston, Arlington, Miami, Atlanta who haven't come back, who never WILL comeback and baseball is losing more and more fans every day, exactly because of deals like these! Steve Rogers

metsmarathon Apr 15 2006 11:12 PM

do we even know if cabrera and willis can handle new york?

TheOldMole Apr 15 2006 11:38 PM

Is anyone discussing this seriously?

mlbaseballtalk Apr 15 2006 11:40 PM

TheOldMole wrote: Is anyone discussing this seriously? No, just a sports radio fantasy trade designed to give the Mets the 2006 World Championship

Johnny Dickshot Apr 15 2006 11:57 PM

Here'an idea: Let's keep talkradio on talkradio.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 16 2006 12:01 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Here'an idea: Let's keep talkradio on talkradio. Not when its describing a form of business that is leading to the destruction of the business as a whole. If you want an All Star Team, fine, just don't cry when the MLB goes to 4 team leagues and that MLB is trying to climb over MLS, Lacrosse and Bowling for main stream coverage, because trades like this are the reason why its going in that direction There is a bigger picture here that goes beyond a simple talk-radio suggestion

Nymr83 Apr 16 2006 12:40 AM

earth to mlbbaseballtalk: attendance is up league-wide.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 16 2006 01:22 AM

Nymr83 wrote: earth to mlbbaseballtalk: attendance is up league-wide. Oh don't listen to that malarkey! What about the raitings on TV? Wanna bet attendance drops once pro and college football return in August? Attendance is up. Is that ALL you have to prove that MLB is healthy? MLB has been dying a slow and painfull death since the day Donald Fehr took over the players union. It doesn't matter how many fannies are in the seats because the important stats are in the eyeballs and the CA-CHING of merchandice sold, and those are falling way behind. Baseball is all but D-E-A-D DEAD and a complete non-issue in Philly, KC, Toronto, Miami, Colorado, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit, San Francisco, Oakland, Houston, Arlington, Milwaukee, Tampa, San Diego, Washington DC, Seattle, Cincinnatti, Atlanta, Los Angeles ect. Basically EVERY FUCKING MARKET IN THIS COUNTRY EXCEPT New York, Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis. Baseball is a regional sport in fact its a ONE FUCKING REGION SPORT, the Northeast corridor known as New York-Boston, and the sooner people running that realize it and make the approriate changes I guaran FUCKING tee that MLB will be behind the MLS (and not because of the soccer surge thats been promised since the 1960's) and the WNBA within 5 years. If that means a salery cap, hell if that means pulling an NHL and cancelling an entire season or more just to restructure the whole system, then I am ALL FOR IT! The game is fucking dying, and its attitudes like the thought of even SUGGESTING this kind of deal are the reasons why

Edgy DC Apr 16 2006 01:33 AM

]I guaran FUCKING tee that MLB will be behind the MLS (and not because of the soccer surge thats been promised since the 1960's) and the WNBA within 5 years. If you reject the numbers offered, by what measure are you proposing this guarantee?

mlbaseballtalk Apr 16 2006 01:42 AM

Oh about those attendance figures, thats EXACTLY why Freddie Coupon (Yes I'm bringing the nickname back out of mothballs) wants a smaller fucking ballpark! The attendance figures are a figment of a giant scam that makes Enron look like a simple clerical error! Smaller ballparks=more dates with greater percentage of capcity. Don't get me wrong, I want a new Shea as much as the next guy, but don't believe the attendance is up, because its utter and complete bull crap foistered upon by a bunch of lying liars who are pretty much a bunch Kevin Bacons at the end of Animal House, chanting "All is well!" just before being steamrolled by an angry mob. Well that mob is the NFL, college football, college basketball, the NBA, the NHL, NASCAR, Golf, ect running over a dying carcas that is Major League Baseball. Kiss the game goodbye folks, its been a sham since coming back in 1994 because of the blind eye to steriods, its been a sham because of the eniquities in the system that lets the MFY BE the MFY. Hell remember the 1980's when the Yanks kept MISSING the playoffs? That won't EVER HAPPEN AGAIN because they (thanks to ideas like Sal's that lead to every good player becoming either a Yankee, Met or Red Sox) will replace one All Star with ANOTHER ALL STAR! And its been a sham because the last FUCKING chance MLB had to shut down and change the whole fucking structure was shot down because both sides were guilt-tripped into signing a flawed CBA that somehow KEPT THINGS THE WAY THEY HAVE BEEN thanks to 9/11! Okay, I'd be alittle outraged but you know what, NO ONE WOULD HAVE CARED IF YOU WENT OUT THAT SOON AFTER 9/11! BECAUSE HARDLY ANYONE GAVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR PATHETIC STUPID FAKE SPORT BEFORE 9/11 AND THEY WEREN"T GOING, AND THEY HAVEN"T AFTER 9/11! In other words, baseball since 1994 is no better than the XFL or any of the pro-wrestling circuts! Thats the bottom line. Thats why the deal is a moronic deal. THATS why it was moronic for that caller to suggest it and thats why its mornoic for people like Warner Wolf (who didn't know Francisco Rodriguez from Francisco Cordero) and Salamander Q to suggest that the Mets not hesitate if the Marlins bring it up!

mlbaseballtalk Apr 16 2006 01:46 AM

Edgy DC wrote: ]I guaran FUCKING tee that MLB will be behind the MLS (and not because of the soccer surge thats been promised since the 1960's) and the WNBA within 5 years. If you reject the numbers offered, by what measure are you proposing this guarantee? I'm rejecting the use of the numbers as an end-all be-all of the health of a dying professional sport. The measure I'll use is in national coverage (once the Northeast elitists in Bristol University realize that baseball is dead and stop covering it like people give a damn in New Mexico, Nebraska, Oregon, Kentucky, Philly, KC, Texas, Florida, ect) TV, radio and internet ratings, advertizing revenue and merchandise revenue

mlbaseballtalk Apr 16 2006 01:55 AM

metsmarathon wrote: do we even know if cabrera and willis can handle new york? Did we know David Wright could handle New York? Frankly I'm getting alittle sick of this reasoning as well. Yes there are the Ed Whitsons, Roy Smalleys, Bobby Bonillas or the world, but lets stop analysing trades, even hypotheicals with "But how would they handle New York?" Please just please.

Elster88 Apr 16 2006 09:49 AM

Bret, what happens when the year ends, if we don't win the WS, and Miggy and Willis walk? Then was it a good trade?

KC Apr 16 2006 02:40 PM

E: >>>Miggy and Willis walk? Then was it a good trade?<<< That's the beauty of being a baseball genius and constantly critical, you can never really be wrong. If that happens you start a thread saying the Mets lack the brainpower or the initiative to get things done. I remember a funny line by either ambler or maybe paulie back in the really olden days of Mets Online and we were going back and forth on something and one of them told me, "hey, you can be smart too - just start agreeing with us". I'm considering just giving up the ghost and agreeing with everything Bret says - I'm clearly outmatched, might as join up.

Elster88 Apr 16 2006 04:27 PM

I didn't realize that Cabrera and Willis are apparently not free agents until 2010 (from the other thread). If that's true, then you have to make the trade. But of course if that's true, then Florida is even less likely to make it. Not that it was likely in the first place.

KC Apr 16 2006 04:36 PM

But, but

Nymr83 Apr 16 2006 09:31 PM

]Baseball is all but D-E-A-D DEAD and a complete non-issue in Philly, KC, Toronto, Miami, Colorado, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit, San Francisco, Oakland, Houston, Arlington, Milwaukee, Tampa, San Diego, Washington DC, Seattle, Cincinnatti, Atlanta, Los Angeles ect. Basically EVERY FUCKING MARKET IN THIS COUNTRY EXCEPT New York, Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis. The attendance figures for the last decade disprove these bullshit allegations of yours, back it up or shut it up. ] Baseball is a regional sport in fact its a ONE FUCKING REGION SPORT, the Northeast corridor known as New York-Boston, and the sooner people running that realize it and make the approriate changes I guaran FUCKING tee that MLB will be behind the MLS (and not because of the soccer surge thats been promised since the 1960's) and the WNBA within 5 years. Any amount of money you want says that this isn't true. Put your money where your mouth is, we can put it in trust with a board member.

Nymr83 Apr 16 2006 09:33 PM

]Attendance is up. Is that ALL you have to prove that MLB is healthy? MLB has been dying a slow and painfull death since the day Donald Fehr took over the players union. It doesn't matter how many fannies are in the seats because the important stats are in the eyeballs and the CA-CHING of merchandice sold, and those are falling way behind. Show us these numbers, unless of course this is pure speculation on your part (which i'm sure it is.)

Frayed Knot Apr 16 2006 09:48 PM

Suffice to say that the 2006 award for the most unitelligible and irrational screed on the CPF has been locked up early this year.

Nymr83 Apr 16 2006 09:55 PM

I may launch a tirade against the Mets that dwarfs this rant if they ever put Julio into a big spot (barring his turning a corner FIRST.)

*62 Apr 16 2006 10:25 PM

Quick reality check ............ Last 5 World Series Champs Chicago Boston Florida Anaheim Arizona One region sport.

*62 Apr 16 2006 10:27 PM

Also, IMHO, this thread went from just plain dumb to frighteningly dumb on page three. But I'm just the new guy, right?

Johnny Dickshot Apr 16 2006 10:29 PM

I pretty much aggree with that. Started dumb, got even dumber. For awhile there the CPF was the worst message board in all of baseball. Fortunately, it's still early.

The Big O Apr 16 2006 10:32 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I pretty much aggree with that. Started dumb, got even dumber. For awhile there the CPF was the worst message board in all of baseball. Fortunately, it's still early. Here's hoping the CPF's quality isn't inversely proportional to the Mets' record.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 16 2006 11:16 PM

*62 wrote: Quick reality check ............ Last 5 World Series Champs Chicago Boston Florida Anaheim Arizona One region sport. How does the team that won dictate mainstream popularity and coverage? The New Jersey Devils won 3 Stanley Cups, and New York treats them SLIGHTLY better than the MLS MetroStars/Red Bulls. The WNBA Liberty went to a championship final, and they aren't even worth a mention beyond "In other scores" on the news Look, I still stand by my point that baseball is considered a joke nationally by fans and media. I went meltdown-ish due to the hour of the morning. Ratings are down, games are on too late, games take too long. Baseball really is a declining sport, they aren't getting new fans at all. I mean are they playing? Are they watching? Put it this way, more kids and teens know who Tony Hawk is more than they know Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis! And the more the game continues down this path, the "rich get richer" mentality, hell even if you want to say David Wright would be with the Marlins whenever they decided to start pushing for the title again, you can't say that such a deal would ever be good for the long term health of the sport. Thats the bottom line. The sport is dying in cities where the NFL draft is a bigger topic than the first week of the season. More people in Cincy care about Carson Palmer's health right now than they do about Ken Griffey Jr's In KC, people are more concerned about Herm Edwards right now than what the Royals are doing. You think Houston is thinking Astros right now? What with the prospects of Reggie Bush all but days away from being theirs? Hell, people in Miami are probably too concerned about what the hell Ricky Williams is going to end up doing, or costing the Dolphins, to even realize that the Marlins just had another fire sale and Miggy and D-Train are the last ones left! In Philly they care right now more about life without TO and if McNabb can pull the team together than Jimmy Rollins and his hitting streak. In Arlignton they care more about how TO and Tuna are going to get along now that their going to be together In Atlanta they care more about the coming season with Michael Vick than then do about the Braves! They probably don't even realize they are about to play the "First Place Mets" And all of this on April 15th. The draft is next Friday, and there is alot of spring and summer left untill Kickoff of the 2006 Football season. None of this happens in ANY of those cities when baseball is in hibernation. Am I'm not even talking about markets without baseball. You think New Mexico, Nebraska, Iowa, Oregon, Kentucky, Virgina, the Carolinas, the Dakotas, Montana, ect even give one flying you know what about the daily goings on in baseball? College Football and College Basketball (among other sports) have taken over baseball in all of those states and markets. Baseball has been considered a sham and a fraud, since the strike in 1994, and especially now with the steriod mess. And its the "rich get richer" mentailty, the fact that all the small market teams are really just minor leagues for the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, Angels and Dodgers puts more and more people off of baseball then you can even imagine. What should happen? Obviously a salary cap, a severe spending limit to stop the Yankees, stop the greed, and stop the "Only a handfull of teams can win in a given year" mentailty that has turned so many people off from the sport since 1994. Next CBA, shut the game down for a year. Come back with a salary cap. Come back without a TV contract. Thats right. Do be captive to the networks that demand commericals and other crap that push WS games to have first pitch at 9:05 on the East Coast and end some time around 2:00am in the East Coast. THAT would cut the "unmanageable" games down quite a bit. Its a dying sport, its about time some people started talking about the cold hard facts Thats the bottom line Steve J. Rogers

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 08:30 AM

="KC"]E: >>>Miggy and Willis walk? Then was it a good trade?<<< I'm considering just giving up the ghost and agreeing with everything Bret says - I'm clearly outmatched, might as join up. That's nice to hear, KC. As to Elster's question "What if Miggy and Willis walk?" I'd ask what if anything happens. What if Wright walks? Can you guarantee me he'll be here forever? Since you can't, why should I have to prove that Miggy and Willis won't walk? Think before you post. You make them a fair offer, based on market value, and you let them go (as you would let Wright go) if they're way off-line, that's what you do, only now you;ve got twice the chances (because you;ve got twice the number of 23 year old superstars) of signing one of them to a LT contract. Why do you contrive such easily refutable points, with such vehemence and arrogance? Do you think I'm not paying attention? Do you think your fellow CPFers will be impressed if you making arguments with gigantic logical holes in them? This whole stupid discussion is all about "our Davey Wright, our superstar in training, he's hands-off, no one's trading our little darling for anyone or anything, ever, no way, Jose, hooray, today, I'm gay." As long as that's the guiding principle of running your organization, you don't have much of an organization, do you? I think the world of Wright, but everyone and everything has a price. It's hard to see through those blue-and-orange glasses while drinking Koolaid and wearing your fuzzy Piazza pajamas and chanting LGM until your throat disintegrates, but it's out there nonetheless. One superstar is not as good as two superstars. Do the math.

KC Apr 17 2006 08:51 AM

BS: >>>It's hard to see through those blue-and-orange glasses while drinking Koolaid and wearing your fuzzy Piazza pajamas and chanting LGM until your throat disintegrates<<< Funny stuff. Frankly Bret, you're starting to worry me again. You're far to obsessed with the words typed on this forum and some of the participants. I think it's best that I abandon any hope that you and I can engage each other in conversation or that we can reconcile any of our differences so I'm afraid I'm going to just try to ignore you for a few weeks and see if that helps me and the state of forum.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 10:02 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 17 2006 12:17 PM

KC wrote: Frankly Bret, you're starting to worry me again. You're far to obsessed with the words typed on this forum and some of the participants. Now you're concerned that I'm obsessed with the words typed on this forum? I'll try looking for the pictograms, or secret doodles. Does that mean that you think I may have had a point here, and rather than deal with that shocking information, you want to give up and call it concern for my well-being? That's fine. You do whatever you need to do, KC, and call it whatever you need to call it.

KC Apr 17 2006 10:16 AM

No, you can call it whatever you want ... a) I'm tired of being treated like a piece of garbage. b) Our common friends are sick and tired of our constant bickering. c) I have a responsibilty as one of the senior members here not to drag down the level of conversation and I'm failing at that. d) I'm tired of being treated like a piece of garbage.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 10:33 AM

Nice to see my obsenity laden (and the one not so obsenity laden) tirade about this kind of trade leading to the downfall of the sport is completely no-sold

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 10:33 AM

Non-sarcastic response: I'll really miss our intelligent,stimulating and thoughtful exchanges about baseball. Sarcastic response: I'll really miss our intelligent, stimulating and thoughtful exchanges about baseball. A visit with one of jb's colleagues may help you with that self-esteem problem of yours. Just go in and say, "Doc, I really like to dish out abuse and go on irrational rants, but all my friends start treating me poorly whenever I do." They may have some words of advice for you.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 10:36 AM

How about Delgado and Wright for Pujols and Rolen?

KC Apr 17 2006 10:44 AM

I have no self-esteem issues, on the contrary. As for friends treating me poorly, you're the only one. We're not breaking any new ground here, you magnify everything ten times what it should be and dish out ten times more than you've ever gotten from me. Just let it go for a few weeks, please. I'm asking nicely, do it for some of the people here you still like.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 10:50 AM

Note to self, next time agree with Sal so my thread doesn't get hijacked by another KC-Sal hissy fit match

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 10:51 AM

David Wright for Baroid!

KC Apr 17 2006 10:52 AM

What's gotten into you, btw, Mr. Rogers?

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 10:55 AM

Nothing just bumping my post total, wondering how a simple rip of a sports radio caller's hypethical trade turned into an obsentiy ladened tirade by me on the downfall of MLB and a yet sniping match between you and Sal

Johnny Dickshot Apr 17 2006 10:57 AM

]Nothing just bumping my post total

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 10:58 AM

Like I said, I can't force you to respond to me, so it's completely up to you what you want to do. Typical KC: "I'm going to do XXX and YYY and ZZZ--if you were a decent human being, with regard for your fellow CPFers, you'd allow me to, you big bully." Like I could make you stop responding, or make you start responding, or make you stop responding after you've announced you'll not respond to me again. Whatever. You'll do what you want to do, and try to spin it like it's my responsibility. I guess that's another notch on my fusilage--I got Edgy to stop talking his nonsense to me, and now KC. Who's next? I got a nice big signup sheet here.

KC Apr 17 2006 10:59 AM

Typical Chubby Checker

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 11:00 AM

="Johnny Dickshot"] ]Nothing just bumping my post total Well if Bret and KC want to ignore my "This trade would be yet another reason for the death of baseball" tirades I might as well do some other things in this thread

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 11:01 AM

You're responding again. Or hasn't your hissy fit begun yet?

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 11:01 AM

Plus I wanted to see McKnightmare rather than Brent Mayne

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 11:02 AM

Oh please Edgy, WP please retire this thread to the archives before it gets even more wacky!

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 11:07 AM

mlbaseballtalk wrote: Plus I wanted to see McKnightmare rather than Brent Mayne You realize that you're mentally impaired, don't you, Steve J. Rogers? You start the thread by announcing that some moron caller on the radio stupidly suggested a foolish trade for the Mets, and you wonder why someone would be loony enough to think of the crazy idea of trading one good young star in exchange for two young stars. So I point out how it's not only not crazy, it's clearly a good idea. And now you have the nerve to wander back in here and wonder how this thread got off the rails? It got off the rails when your daddy's scumbag broke.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 11:16 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="mlbaseballtalk"]Plus I wanted to see McKnightmare rather than Brent Mayne You realize that you're mentally impaired, don't you, Steve J. Rogers? You start the thread by announcing that some moron caller on the radio stupidly suggested a foolish trade for the Mets, and you wonder why someone would be loony enough to think of the crazy idea of trading one good young star in exchange for two young stars. So I point out how it's not only not crazy, it's clearly a good idea. And now you have the nerve to wander back in here and wonder how this thread got off the rails? It got off the rails when your daddy's scumbag broke. It was more the fleecing of the FireSale Marlins that had me concerned for the health of the sport, the fact that it is a trade that would cause even more people to be turned off on the sport set me off If this was a trade the Marlins would make based on a gluttony of a position (starting pitching or OF/INFers) then yes, lets make the deal, but instead its a "Rich Get Richer AGAIN" deal that makes people hate the sport, hate certain teams that usually DO make the deal (Yankees) and in general think the sport's entire structure needs to be changed All I'm saying is that no one seemed to react to my "This will bring on baseball's EndTimes" posts but rather continued snipping by board members. In other words THATS what I'm amused at

metsmarathon Apr 17 2006 11:20 AM

y'know... this whole trade speculation thread is somewhat interesting, if i take a step beyond all the shenanigans going on within it. among the primary objections to the trade are: A) for the good of the game, the trade should not go through, as the weak get weaker and the strong get stronger. B) i feel we'd have a better chance of signing "our guy" to a long term deal than someone brought in from the outside. C) i hate that every time it seems we have another superstar in the wings, we trade him away, and i don't want to see that happen gain, this time. (i apologize for mischaracterizing or oversimplifying anyone's position.) i think that each one of those objections is entriely reasonable and legitimate. the rich getting richer, poor getting poorer is certainly a legit concern, and this trade would only exacerbate such a climate. and depending on how strong you view the game, you may more woefully consider the outcome of this move. surely, the concentration of power in the northeast does not benefit baseball as a whole. and maybe that's more of a macro view than the trade proposition was looking for. granted, i would suggest that it is better for baseball, if only marginally so, for these two players to land in flushing than in the bronx. and so long as teh current framework of baseball exists, wherin power can be concentrated in the northeast, the teams in the northeast should do well to take advantage of it lest their other northeasterly competitors beat them to the punch. as far as the baility of a team to re-sign a player who grew up with them, well, that's something that could probably be reserached, and conclusions drawn up in response. i would guess that teams are somewhat better able to retain players that gew up through their own farm systems than those who did not, but that it is not nearly so much of an advantage as fans like to think it is. i'm sure it would be possible to chart the probability or resigning a player in his initial free agency foray based on length of ML service with his current team. surely the benefit lies in the fact that the current team would have greater opportunity based upon a period of exclusive rights. but does that benefit exist only for players who are brough up through a given teams farm system, or does it also extend to those players brought in via trade, prior to the ripening of tehir free agency? i'm not sure how much benefit there is, and if it would outweigh the addition of two "stars" in excahnge for one. the final point is perhaps the most difficult to address. gone are the cal ripkens and tony gwynns of the world, for the most part. teams rarely have the opportunity to develop a superstar, and have him grow up and then old with teh same team. and fans dearly want it to happen. as a fan, you develop an emotional attachment to players on your team, you become invested in teh players - their potential is your hope for the future. you long to see one of "your guys" grow up into a superstar, and reap benefits for your team. you hate to see him go elsewhere as a hired gun. you root for your team, and you want to root for your players, too. you want to root for more than just the clothes on their back, and the grass under their feet, and the owner above tehm all in his skybox. you want to root for players. for people. for a kid you want to see mature. not for some hired gun - you root for them, too, when they wear your uniform, tread your grass, and draw your owner's payroll - but you want players of your own. you want your team to win more games, score more runs, sell more tickets, but at the same time you want to have players to root for. and sometimes those two desires contradict each other. because you have to get rid of the players you root for, sometimes, to win more games, score more runs, and selll more tickets. and then you have to choose. do you want to root for the team, or root for the result? this is not a position entirely unique to Mets fans. it is not some blue-and-orange bespectacled affliction. it is a condition of fans of all teams, save perhaps some of those who've bought into the presumed birthright of the pinstripes. fans of every team want to see their team bring up their playerrs, and have those players blossom on their field in front of their eyes trying to win games for their benefit. your guys are worth more to you than other players because they are "your guys" and it goes beyond wins and losses. you're an idiot if you think there's something wrong with met fans, and that it is something peculiar only to met fans, for thinking this way, about their guy, particularly about the one of their guys whose star shines brightest, perhaps brighter than any met position player ever before, whose promising future beckons the loudest, who's touted as one of the most promising young stars in the league, who playes the game the right way, who already is emerging as a leader on this team of veterans. Can you blame them for not wanting to jettison him, no matter what the return catch? Met fans would rather win 90 games with David Wright, than 95 games without him, because he is a Met. He's one of ours. I can't fault them for that. shame on you if you can. and check your logbooks. this tirade is from someone who would, ultimately, make the trade. (but not before i made damned sure that every single scout, coach, and trainer on my staff assured me that my concerns over dontrelle's long-term viability are unfounded, cos i'm just not a big believer in the kid, despite his considerable past results...)

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 11:26 AM

New sig line!! You've got to be fucking kidding me with this shit, right? I can't make up shit crazier than this. I simply lack that kind of imagination.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 11:30 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: New sig line!! You've got to be fucking kidding me with this shit, right? Heh! And I was about to rant about how much the "Guy that stayed with the team" is more of an aborration (sp there) among pro sports. Even among the great ones. Hell for every Ed Kranepool there is a Buddy Harrelson ending up in Philly, a Babe Ruth wrapping up a Brave! Yogi Berra playing the final games as a Met! But I think that sums up my thoughts!

Elster88 Apr 17 2006 11:31 AM

This from the guy who hates Kaz Matsui because it means Joel Cairo (still haven't figured out who Joel Cairo is) and Doug Minky can't be far behind.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 11:32 AM

Don't have time right now, but I'd wager that a large percent of Hall of Famers played for multiple teams, and not just one year "You mean he once played for us?" apperances at the beginning or ending. Mike Piazza: Florida Marlin really is the norm though

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 11:32 AM

I mean, you've stated perfectly the exact reason I can't be a Mets fan any more. And I love David Wright, but I can't willingly join the coalition of the self-destructive. I'm sorry and everything, but I just can't root for my team to win fewer games. Well, now, I can, but that's because the Mets are no longer my team.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 11:34 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: I mean, you've stated perfectly the exact reason I can't be a Mets fan any more. And I love David Wright, but I can't willingly join the coalition of the self-destructive. I'm sorry and everything, but I just can't root for my team to win fewer games. Well, now, I can, but that's because the Mets are no longer my team. So would you trade... Hmmm, actually the Sox traded most of their home grown guys, errr never mind! In fact NOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMAAAAHHHHHH! was the last one (well not counting "soon to be stars" like Hansley Ramierez)

Nymr83 Apr 17 2006 11:35 AM

mlbaseballtalk wrote: Note to self, next time agree with Sal so my thread doesn't get hijacked by another KC-Sal hissy fit match You hijacked the thread with your anti-baseball tirade, not the other way around.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 11:36 AM

Ahh, would you trade Trot Nixon for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle! Hell I'll do that trade just for Cabrera "Give us Trot for Miguel Cabrera an..." "DONE!"

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 11:36 AM

Elster88 wrote: (still haven't figured out who Joel Cairo is) Keep working on it. mm, I literally don't comprehend your point about mulitple team players. Have I stated somewhere that I think players shouldn't play on multiple teams, or that they don't, or that being traded is unAmerican, or something? I don't get where you're going or where you're coming from or what you're rattling on about at this point. Totally lost me.

metsmarathon Apr 17 2006 11:36 AM

when did the mets become your team again? enjoy the yankees, dude, cos you'll find sentimentaility amongst the ranks of fans of every other fucking team on the planet.

Yancy Street Gang Apr 17 2006 11:37 AM

metsmarathon wrote: gone are the cal ripkens and tony gwynns of the world, for the most part. teams rarely have the opportunity to develop a superstar, and have him grow up and then old with teh same team. I think too much is made of this. I remember when Mike Schmidt and George Brett retired, people said that they were the last superstars who would play their entire career with only one team. I also think (but I'm less sure) that they said the same about Carl Yastrzemski and Johnny Bench. And in the future they'll say the same about someone else, maybe Derek Jeter and Chipper Jones. I'd love for David Wright to be our Cal Ripken. And I think there's a decent chance that that will happen. Of course, given the chance to trade him for a Willis and a Cabrera, it would be hard to argue against it. If that trade did happen, I'd certainly feel a pang of regret at losing Mr. Wright. I felt that way about losing Hubie Brooks back in December of 1984, even though I was jubilant at the thought of getting Gary Carter. The thing though is that fans don't make the trades, GM's do. And if the GM is doing his job, he's not making the trade based on what they'll say in the papers and on the radio (and in these forums) the day after the deal is announced. Ideally, his decision is geared towards winning as many championships as possible over the next years or decades. And if that championship count is high enough, any deals that bring it about are going to be looked at as good ones.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 11:37 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Elster88"](still haven't figured out who Joel Cairo is) Keep working on it. mm, I literally don't comprehend your point about mulitple team players. Have I stated somewhere that I think players shouldn't play on multiple teams, or that they don't, or that being traded is unAmerican, or something? I don't get where you're going or where you're coming from or what you're rattling on about at this point. Totally lost me. I'm agreeing with your point against Marathon's "Don't trade homegrown Mets" Maybe I should stop posting

*62 Apr 17 2006 11:38 AM

mlbaseballtalk wrote: ="*62"]Quick reality check ............ Last 5 World Series Champs Chicago Boston Florida Anaheim Arizona One region sport. How does the team that won dictate mainstream popularity and coverage? blah blah blah blah ad nauseum There's nothing wrong with baseball that wouldn't be cured by eliminating guaranteed contracts, a la the NFL. Same could be said for the NBA, which lost my attention twenty years ago.

metsmarathon Apr 17 2006 11:43 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: The thing though is that fans don't make the trades, GM's do. well, exactly. if this were a GM forum, then i could see sal's incredulity. its a fan forum. fans like to keep their favorite players, win-based rationality be damned, often.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 11:43 AM

metsmarathon wrote: when did the mets become your team again?. They didn't. Did I say they had? . ] enjoy the yankees, dude, cos you'll find sentimentaility amongst the ranks of fans of every other fucking team on the planet. Oh, please. You're perilously close to making the hopeless losers' argument that the Mets are morally superior to the Yankees because they're not so coldly focused on winning and World's Championships and that crap. We lose because we like to lose, because being buddies and good people is more important than winning, and mainly because we know how to lose. Losing is a sign of virtue. Come on, take that one step further. I'll need another sig line eventually.

Nymr83 Apr 17 2006 11:44 AM

theres nothing wrong with gauranteed contracts and i'd hate to see everyone swinging for the nearest fence thinking "if i dont homer they'll cut me." Also you'd be giving cheapskate owners a nice new way out of any salary the arbitration process assigns that they don't like. Theres nothing (major) wrong with baseball, but if i had to do one thing to it i'd intitute a salary FLOOR, because kets face it, absent one of two really bad markets (the two in florida) all the owners could probably spend 50 mil on payroll without a problem, they're just too cheap to do it.

Yancy Street Gang Apr 17 2006 11:50 AM

Does that mean that there's nothing wrong with the NFL? *62, if you haven't done so already, your Schaefer vote for the Friday game against the Brewers needs editing, or it will be discarded when I do the tallying in an hour or two.

*62 Apr 17 2006 11:58 AM

done gracias

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 12:27 PM

Further I don't even get what marathon means. Is it somehow morally wrong that a team that has money should restrain itself from taking advantage of the needs of poorer teams? Who won the most recent World's Championship, the Mets or the Marlins? The Mets are supposed to take the high road because of what? All our recent success? I see your point about the Yankees. If we keep on buying championships and taking advantage of the poorer franchises, we'll be worse than them, but no sooner than October of 2031. Meanwhile the pathetic Marlins have won as manhy championships in the last 10 years as the Mets have in 43 years, but we shouldn't take advantage of their currrent financial weakness? Why is that? I started out disliking the Mets organization for their incompetence, but I'll end up disliking all Mets fans for their overt masochism. Maybe another poll is in order before I go that far.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 12:35 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Further I don't even get what marathon means. Is it somehow morally wrong that a team that has money should restrain itself from taking advantage of the needs of poorer teams? Who won the most recent World's Championship, the Mets or the Marlins? The Mets are supposed to take the high road because of what? All our recent success? I see your point about the Yankees. If we keep on buying championships and taking advantage of the poorer franchises, we'll be worse than them, but no sooner than October of 2031. Meanwhile the pathetic Marlins have won as manhy championships in the last 10 years as the Mets have in 43 years, but we shouldn't take advantage of their currrent financial weakness? Why is that? I started out disliking the Mets organization for their incompetence, but I'll end up disliking all Mets fans for their overt masochism. Maybe another poll is in order before I go that far. Heh, also the 1986 Mets benifited greatly from dumps for whatever reason. Neil Allen for Keith Hernandez because of Keith's off field issues (though turned out Allen had his own demons!) and Carter for Brooks was probably one of the first big Expos dumping of a superstar for cheaper talent Would MM want wager that the 1986 Mets would have been better off with Allen in the back of the pen and Lord knows WHO at 1st and behind the plate

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 12:38 PM

That would be Dave Kingman at 1B and Mike Fitzgerald at C. Baseball went down the toilet when the Mets lost those two.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 17 2006 12:46 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: That would be Dave Kingman at 1B and Mike Fitzgerald at C. Baseball went down the toilet when the Mets lost those two. Ahh give be Gibbons over Fitz, or maybe Hearn or Lyons! You think we'd still be carrying Kingman around by 86? You know what, never mind, this is my last post in this thread!

metsmarathon Apr 17 2006 02:43 PM

i'll just bang away some more on my keyboard, and have my words not be understood, and have y'all make more silly proclamations as to the nature of all mets fans based upon my typings. this'll be fun. where exactly do i say that the mets are morally superior, particularly for their losing? what i did say was that fans of most teams grow to like the players on their team, often preferring them to players on other teams who may even sometimes be superior to those players. its a natural human response. familiarity, fondness, etc. fans often like to see players they've come to like, to look forward to, etc. to stick around with their team, instead of being traded away for some other piece. (and those fans, in the wake of such a trade, may often come to like the new player even more than the old player, pending the results!) fans often tend to like continuity from one year to the next in the form of successful players returning for another year of action. fans often tend to like to see their own team develop its own star players instead of importing them via trade or free agency, despite the often lesser liklihood of doing so. (and those fans also often will tend to like those imported players too, if they're good) fans also like to see their baseball teams make player/personnel moves which will improve the team, and improve the liklihood of winning a world's championship, either in a given year, or in the forseeable future. i guess if you've not payed any attention to fans of whatever team you're a fan of these days, you'd understand a little better that humans have all sorts of motivations and rationales for their actions and decisions and interests. maybe you disagree with those people. wonderful. you can't tell me that its unfathomable that they could react that way. ... i see now that my critical mistake was in not qualifying this a bit more: ]Met fans would rather win 90 games with David Wright, than 95 games without him, because he is a Met. He's one of ours. it wasn't meant to be a blanket statement of all met fans, or even of this met fan in particular. some met fans would rather keep a star, future superstar, player that's come up through their own system, that's they've been looking forward to, that they've come to think of as one of their own, then to get rid of him coldly, even if it is for an upgrade. i admit. i am among those met fans who wish we had a superstar player developed in our own minor league farm system, and keep him long term through his free agency. however, and i'm sure i've said this before. i make the trade, loathe as i am to make it. maybe i haven't said that enough to allow y'all to not misconstrue my point. there are reasons some met fans wouldnt make the trade, and i think those reasons are legitimate. different strokes for different folks, i guess. i'd still make the trade. ... i guess chipper jones and bernie williams are no more rare commodities in baseball today than they were in the past, and i'm sure some research could lend some support to the notion, but am i crazy in saying that the general perception is that players don't stay with teh teams they came up with, as much as they used to? i feel like i hear that rather often, alongside escalating player salaries and the DH rule, as reasons for baseball's supposed decline across these great states. i guess i'm crazy for thinking that fans like to see top prospects come up through the farm system, develop into star players, and ultimately retire all for the same team. i don't know where i could possibly have gotten that from. but then, i also don't know where i ever say that teams shouldn't trade away future stars for current stars, and more of them. after all, i'd make the trade. i don't thik i ever characterize those trades as a bad thing, aside perhaps from a general "good of the game" standpoint, in which case, its reallly more the commisioner and the union who should be involved in putting together a framework whereby such trades are less necessary for the weaker teams to remain marginally profitable. if these trades are indeed a bad thing, the commish and the MLBPA should come up with a new CBA that helps the weaker teams get stronger. i don't think i ever say that the mets shouldnt make a trade that would weaken another team. that would be dumb. in fact, i imply that it would e better for baseball for miggy and dontrelle to land in flushing, compared to the alternative of them landing in the bronx. if any strong team is to benefit from a weak team, then i want it to be my strong team. because i would make the trade. ... but then, i'm not sure also where its suddenly become my cause celeb that the mets "dont trade homegrown mets" because i'd make the trade. i guess its that i feel fans like to hold onto their star players insteaed of trading them away. but that's really more a preference than hard-fast rule, and certainly i'd trade away homegrown players to make the mets better. afterall, i'd make the trade. and i don't quite know how my already stated position that i would trade david wright for miguel cabrera and dontrelle willis would really address my feelings for the building of the 1986 championship mets. i guess since i would trade david wright for miguel cabrera and dontrelle willis, then surely i would not have traded for keith hernandez or gary carter. ... i don't know why i bothered with any of this shit.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 02:55 PM

metsmarathon wrote: 1) i'll just bang away some more on my keyboard, and have my words not be understood, and have y'all make more silly proclamations as to the nature of all mets fans based upon my typings. ... 2) i don't know why i bothered with any of this shit. 1) Because you unambiguously typed some nonsense that you'd prefer not to have attributed to you now? 2) because you've got a lot of diging to do?

metsmarathon Apr 17 2006 03:01 PM

(snippy remark edited out. replaced with long topic for discussion) i hate this thread. i'm particularly hateful of my getting into it with sal, instead of sticking to the actual points i was trying to make. i probably should let this thread die, and what not. who knows. i'm still bugged by one thing. basically, one of the objections to the proposed wright trade is the ability to resign him versus the ability to resign willis and/or cabrera. i think that argument was stronger when those making it thought miggy and willis would be gone after this year, and not next. (i'm pretty sure it is next year that their free agent clocks expire after, meaning if we were to trade for them, we have them for the remainder of this season, plus 2007, before we have to worry about resigning them) and i wonder if that is more a matter of perception, or misperception, that players who comes through the farm system of a given team are more likely, or signficantly more likely, to re-sign with the team than a player brought in from another team, even if that player spends a year or more with us. i mean, sentimentality aside, that would seem to be the strongest objection to such a fanciful, unrealistic wright for cabrera/willis trade, right? personally, i'm not so sure that the mets would be any more likely to re-sign wright than they would to re-sign either cabrera or willis, despite the fact that i'd like to imagine a world where players are loyal to the teams (and fans) that brought them up and stuck with them to the point that such loyalty would make them less likely to test the free agent waters and seek the best deal out there wheresoever it may take them. so, that's about it. this is all just a likely-much-too-late attempt to bring this discourse back into the realm of baseball discussion. but have at it. any differing opinions? anyone think that teams are more likely to resign their own players than imported players? has anyone ever conducted, or dug up, some research or what-not which would lend some insight into the issue? sigh.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 17 2006 06:49 PM

I don;'t know why you would be reluctant to "get into it" with me. If you're willing to defend your statement, I'll argue it with you, or if you want to change it or retract it, I'm fine with that (as long as you acknowledge the changes and not try to tell me you were really saying something other than what you said.) Why would a Met fan say that homeboys tend to sign with their organiations? You don't remember Fonzie or Straw? Popular homegrown stars whom the fans loved, and whom the Mets organization heaped money all over? Didn't help. Not that I'm trying to malign either of those players. But the market is what it is. One organization is likely to find Fonzie roughly as valuable as another, and he's going to want to sign the best deal he can. His agent is certainly going to push him in that direction. And the odds of positive ties to the organization seem to me about equal to having a negative history with the organization. IOW, I think it's romantic sentimental crap to expect that this week's adulation of Wright is going to mean very much when he goes FA. The only advantage the Mets have in signing Wright before his FA years lies in their exclusive negotiating wrights to him until he goes FA. But even there they have to come close to matching what the market would yield for Wright.

Nymr83 Apr 17 2006 07:02 PM

]and i wonder if that is more a matter of perception, or misperception, that players who comes through the farm system of a given team are more likely, or signficantly more likely, to re-sign with the team than a player brought in from another team, even if that player spends a year or more with us. I don't want to make generalizations about players in general, but when it comes to David Wright who grew up a Mets fan and is universally loved by the fans (who chant M-V-P for him in April, had to stick this in somewhere haha,) I think it is reasonable to assume that he will play his career here unless the Mets say otherwise (ie with insulting below-market value offers or by trading him.)

metsmarathon Apr 17 2006 08:49 PM

="Bret Sabermetric"]I don;'t know why you would be reluctant to "get into it" with me. If you're willing to defend your statement, I'll argue it with you, or if you want to change it or retract it, I'm fine with that (as long as you acknowledge the changes and not try to tell me you were really saying something other than what you said.) "get into it" meaning arguing angrily as opposed to discussing calmly. i think i threw in an ad hominem. that's what i regret. sorry. ]Why would a Met fan say that homeboys tend to sign with their organiations? You don't remember Fonzie or Straw? Popular homegrown stars whom the fans loved, and whom the Mets organization heaped money all over? Didn't help. well, i don't think its a met fan thing specifically, but rather a baseball fan thing. i think that in general, there is an idea out there, maybe its just a hope, that by sticking with a player, he will be more likely, if not terribly much moreso, to re-sign with a given team instead of test the free agent waters. but i think i've thrown enough qualifiers in there to make certain that i have no idea how much more likely i, or other fans in general, think players are more or less likely to re-sign with their teams, and i also think that i've thrown out enough qualifiers to make it certain that the above statement is not representative of all fans or all met fans. heck, i'm not sure how much i even believe it. but i'm sure some people out there do. [qoute]Not that I'm trying to malign either of those players. But the market is what it is. One organization is likely to find Fonzie roughly as valuable as another, and he's going to want to sign the best deal he can. His agent is certainly going to push him in that direction. And the odds of positive ties to the organization seem to me about equal to having a negative history with the organization.

well, clearly the hope is that you'd develop a positive relationship with teh player. if you'd developed a negative relationship, i'm not sure how much you'd really want him back...

]IOW, I think it's romantic sentimental crap to expect that this week's adulation of Wright is going to mean very much when he goes FA. The only advantage the Mets have in signing Wright before his FA years lies in their exclusive negotiating wrights to him until he goes FA. But even there they have to come close to matching what the market would yield for Wright.

if you listen to players in st louis, the positive experience they have with the team and its fans bbbyyy make them more likely to want to re-sign with the team. i'm not sure how much it really sways them, or how many players it sways even some, but its not crazy to think that positive experiences with a given team would cause some influence, however small or infinitesimal, in having a player re-sign with a given team.

and wouldnt it be nice to take every advantage possible in gettting good players to sign, or resign with your team?

how pertinent is this to wright/cabrera/willis? no clue, really. since in both cases, you'd have time to develop a relationship with the player. the only big difference is that wright came up through the system, and the other two wouldn't've.

again, not sure how much positive effect that has. i also don't think that whatever minimal effect would be enough to sway one, or, rather, me, from thinking that if omar were presented with an offer tomorrow of david wright for miguel cabrera and dontrelle willis, that he should pull the trigger.

its romantic. its sentimental. its not entirely crap.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 18 2006 07:53 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 18 2006 12:08 PM

="metsmarathon"]"get into it" meaning arguing angrily as opposed to discussing calmly. i think i threw in an ad hominem. that's what i regret. sorry.. No problem. I much prefer calm discussion. ]well, i don't think its a met fan thing specifically, but rather a baseball fan thing. i think that in general, there is an idea out there, maybe its just a hope, that by sticking with a player, he will be more likely, if not terribly much moreso, to re-sign with a given team instead of test the free agent waters well, it's just elementary economics and common sense to say that re-signing with a given team is appealing, but only up to a point. If the money's the same, and the environment is okay, some players will choose to stay where they are. But there's the whole grass is greener scenario, and often the money a different offers IS greener, because the can see your numbers but not always your flaws that are well known to your old team. So, as we saw with Straw and Fonzie, there's player movement even from teams that badly want to keep their players. Nothing you can really do about it. ]how pertinent is this to wright/cabrera/willis? no clue, really. since in both cases, you'd have time to develop a relationship with the player. the only big difference is that wright came up through the system, and the other two wouldn't've. again, not sure how much positive effect that has. i also don't think that whatever minimal effect would be enough to sway one, or, rather, me, from thinking that if omar were presented with an offer tomorrow of david wright for miguel cabrera and dontrelle willis, that he should pull the trigger. its romantic. its sentimental. its not entirely crap. I'll buy that for a dollar--it's not entirely crap. BTW, when I said you have to do this deal right this second, I think you took that presumed rudenesss ("Hello, Omar, you fucking idiot, do this deal or you can drop dead, okay? I'm hanging up unless I hear a YES" etc) as an excuse to turn the deal down. Often the right-this-second stuff sounds very polite ("Hello, Omar, I'm doing you a big favor by calling you up first, but if you can't answer, my boss wants me to call the other 28 teams immediately before I call you back, and some of them will probably take WiIlis and Cabrera off my hands, so please give me a Yes so we can get you these ballplayers...") but the effect is the same. My biggest problem with your thinking (tell me if I'm wrong) is that you perceive a problem with the big market bullies vs the small market victims that you think is Not Good For Baseball, and you want to fix it starting with the Mets not bullying the weaker teams. This is a fine impulse but the way to address it, IMO, is to change the rules by which MLB teams operate, not by changing one team at a time. As long as avariciousness is legal, you've got to be as rapacious as the Yankees are, precisely because you want them not to be the only MLB team operating under a crooked legal system. If you rape the weak teams with equal dedication, you can show the Yankees that outspending your budget isn't necessarily the path to the World's Series and maybe you can introduce an alternate system. But by addressing it in tems of whether the Mets should or should not make a particular deal that favors them is silly, in my view.

metsmarathon Apr 18 2006 09:02 AM

well, the "this second" thing was more a response to the poll, not this threa. here, i said i'd make the trade. as far as the "Good of the Game" argument as a reason not to make the trade, it really wasn't even mine to begin with. i just tried to expand on another poster's, and likely to ill effect. i mean, i think that the rich getting richer at the expense of the weak getting weaker in what seems like (but isn't necessarily) an endless feedback loop is very likely bad for the game, and may well be killing the game in small markets, and markets without major league teams. however, so long as we are among the ranks of the rich, i see no reason why we should not take advantage of the system while the system hands us these advantages. if not us, then the yankees, right? so, in conclusion, the "good of the game" was never a factor in my own decision to make the trade.

Bret Sabermetric Apr 18 2006 11:08 AM

Ok, so fill me in on what we're supposedly in disagreement about. We seem to agree that some Met fans would rather keep David Wright than win the next fifteen pennants. I think that these Mets fans are terminally stupid, and they make me ashamed to be a biped, or any life-form, really, but you may not agree with my degree of shame at sharing DNA with such creatures. We agree that MLB shouldn't be structured to allow the rich teams to dominate the poor teams and treat them like a free talent resource, yanking their best players away in lopsided deals in exchange for lesser and cheaper talents, but as long as them's the rules the Mets should particpate in such unequal deals when they're to their advantage. Are we agreed that trading Wright for Cabrera and Willis even up is a deal the Mets would have to make if the Marlins ever offered it to them? Maybe. Perhaps we're disagreeing on the business of whether a player's home team loyalty works to the great advantage of the home club in re-signing him when FA looms? I'm maintaining that the exclusive negotiating rights help a little, the chance to forge a good comfortable relationship with the player probably helps more than it hurts (but sometimes animosity prevails, so it's not an unblemished advantage), but that market economic limits the degree that the home team will make out financially. No FA, however good the relationship, is going to piss away millions of bucks just to hang out with his buddies in a city that's nice to him. I think we've seen the limited power of that appeal, and I'd mark it below the multi-million dollar level. In fact, I'd put it at just about the level where money becomes significant. If the money's roughly a wash, then that stuff might have an effect. If there's a significant $ difference, the $ difference will usually carry the day. So what's our ferocious argument here?

OlerudOwned Apr 23 2006 12:39 PM

http://www.newsday.com/sports/printedition/ny-sbmside234714144apr23,0,946343.story?coll=ny-sports-print They should've thrown in Cabrera.

abogdan Apr 23 2006 01:04 PM

What about Dontrelle Willis for Jose Reyes? Which team says no to that?

Nymr83 Apr 23 2006 01:43 PM

most likely the mets, though i'd do it in a heartbeat. on edit- I'm Todd Pratt!

metsmarathon Apr 27 2006 08:54 AM

hmm.. good thing i was perusing the RLF today... i'm not quite sure how i missed bret's response to me up there. honestly, bret, i'm not sure what we were actually arguing about, except perhaps degrees of reactions. the biggest thing would likely be my lack of shame in other met fans who have prioritites other than winning the world series at all costs. met fans are a diverse group. in that diverse group, i'm sure there are many varied reasons and motives behind why we root for a given team, and what we root for that team to do, and how we hope that team accomplishes said goal, and with what business practices, and to what priority we hold each of these factors. the loyalty thing is a minor point, and one that i'm more curious about hte actual effects of han suggesting that important business and player-personnel decisions be made based upon it. i'd love to have the mets win the next 15 pennants. if trading wright for miggy and willis bings that to fruition, i'd still love it, just a little less, because it means the trading away of a player whom i like, whom i look forward to rooting for, and whom i look forward to seeing play for the mets for a very long time. - am i correct in saying that the mets have sorely lacked such a player, particularly a position player, who ultimately pans out, for a very long time? - stupid mixed priorities!

Bret Sabermetric Apr 27 2006 09:28 AM

Sorry to take so many of you fine folks over the side with me... mm, do you really suppose the mets and other teams are mere "content providers"? The analogy would be to televised wrestling matches, where entertianment, and not genuine competition, is that main attraction. Can you really root for a team if you know that they've accepted a non-competitive status? "We're just providing you with viewing material between commercials, which purports to be a competitive baseball game, and occasionally the weaker team will win a few games, but we all understand how this will come out, and we're fine with that." The whole interest from my POV lies in thinking that every single person in the Mets organization is obsessed with winning the Division, whatever that takes, at the soonest point possible. If you believe strategically that we're a few years away, and so you think we need to build a team that's competitive in 2012, I'm fine with that. If you think we're a win-now that can take the 2006 pennant, I'm fine with that. I disagree with both, but you're still focussed on winning, so we're just disagreeing about strategy. But if you're claiming that the really important part is getting to see widdle Davey Wright grow up and make a bar mitzvah speech in a Met uniform, and winning pennants is just so much gravy, well, you're not a mets fan, as far as I can tell. I don't know what you are (or why you are that way), but I have very little use, and no kinship, with you. You're not someone whose goals I share on the most fundamental level.

metsmarathon Apr 27 2006 09:41 AM

to an extent, they are exaclty content providers. thier primary focus should be, and i hope usually is, to win baseball games, and lots of them. they tehy must also be focused on having players that fans will like, and come back for, etc. because even if the best laid plans for baseball world domination fail, you still want the fans to come out to the park, right? and really its a matter of degrees. the really important part is winning pennants. watching widdle davey wright step up to the altar in his pretty white dress and receive first communion is a nice to have. for some, i assume, its nicer than for others. for me, i'd much rather win than see any of the current players in a dress. but i'd still one day like to walk a grown up davey down the aisle. i'm gonna regret these analagies, aren't i?