Master Index of Archived Threads


A-Rod, Met Wannabe

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 25 2008 08:40 AM

Yeah well, too bad. Weepy Arod cries to John Harper how devastating it was rebuffing the Mets in 2000 for 252 Million dollars, and that his current Yankee love is just a way to make up for all that hurt. It seems also that he's continuing to sell the idea that his posturing last off-season somehow hurt his bargianing position with the Yankees, and Harper is continuing to buy it. In today's Snooze

AG/DC Mar 25 2008 08:49 AM

He's jumped ship twice, walked away from huge amounts of money on the table, and he talks about valuing loyalty. Even in his Detroit scenario, he doesn't discuss the cost of jumping to Detroit and sacrificing loyalty. He talks about what happens if he goes to Detroit and doesn't win. Remember that shortly after he signed with Texas he lobbied Boeing to move there also.

metirish Mar 25 2008 08:58 AM

Amazing this fella is, in the piece he says that his daughter telling him how much she missed her NYC bed make him sit up and say WTF am I doing , yeah really WTF man.

seawolf17 Mar 25 2008 09:12 AM

A-Rod should really just shut the hell up. No matter what he says, he comes across like a dingbat. Just say you refuse to talk to the media and be done with it. It's not worth it, dude.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 25 2008 09:14 AM

To me the real dingbats are guys like Harper who are willing to believe anything he says.

Fman99 Mar 25 2008 10:16 AM

Someone let me know once this becomes newsworthy in any fashion. Thanks.

Rockin' Doc Mar 25 2008 10:57 AM

Because he's PayRod, 99. When he speaks, the reporters just can't help themselves.

Frayed Knot Mar 25 2008 11:09 AM

I love this notion - also not questioned by Harper - about how he took a discount to remain a Yanqui; that there were $400mil offers just sitting out there waiting to be scooped up but passed over by the newly moralistic ARod. And who here (besides me that is) thinks all this 'I'm not even talking to Scott anymore on account of this opt-out business' is all a big PR ploy? Alex gets the contract he wants and Boras agrees to wear the black hat for the whole "misunderstanding" and timing of the opt-out drama -- but none of it matters since ARod's never going to need to negotiate another contract ever again. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Alex and Scotty are having slumber parties during the Yanx first west coast trip ... they're just going to have to keep it quiet.

AG/DC Mar 25 2008 11:17 AM

Does Boras get his cut of the deal or not? Isn't that all that matters?

metirish Mar 25 2008 11:25 AM

AG/DC wrote: Does Boras get his cut of the deal or not? Isn't that all that matters? I read when all this went down that Boras got his cut, 15%?

Frayed Knot Mar 25 2008 11:31 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 25 2008 11:37 AM

]Does Boras get his cut of the deal or not? Yes he does -- (although no way is it 15%, most sports agents are working for like 3-5%). Even though the ARod and Steinbrenner camps went out of their way to trumpet how Boras was shut out of the room during negotiations, Boras is still the agent of record and was in on approving the final deal even if he wasn't (directly or otherwise) part of hammering it out. It's just that, since then, ARod has managed to mention (in about 30 or 40 places) that he's no longer speaking to Boras over all of this, but personally I think that's all a pr ploy designed to build up ARod image and ain't buying it.

Centerfield Mar 25 2008 11:36 AM

You might not be buying it. Me neither. But Harper and everyone else in the press are buying it in bulk and then re-selling them on E-Bay.

AG/DC Mar 25 2008 11:38 AM

Well, then, if A-Rod wants to tell all his friends that I have cooties and a crappy collection of Atari cartridges, that's fine by me, as long as our financial understanding remains in place.

Fman99 Mar 25 2008 12:50 PM

="Rockin' Doc"]Because he's PayRod, 99. When he speaks, the reporters just can't help themselves. Well, that explains why it's in the paper. Not why it's worthy of being there.

Rockin' Doc Mar 25 2008 06:00 PM

True, Fman99. I guess I need to read more carefully in the future.

metsguyinmichigan Mar 26 2008 07:49 AM

Speaking of ARod, Canseco's book claims Alex not only was "A known supplier of steroids," but he also was trying to sleep with Canseco's wife!

TheOldMole Mar 26 2008 07:53 AM

she wouldn't take off the red dress?

Frayed Knot Mar 26 2008 08:06 AM

="metsguyinmichigan"]Speaking of ARod, Canseco's book claims Alex ... was "A known supplier of steroids Actually, what he is supposedly set to claim is that he introduced ARod to a known supplier. And while we're on that subject, it's time the media stops treating Canseco as if he's the lone "honest" voice in the wind on this issue -- acting as if some kiss-and-tell comments from his first book (some of which he exaggerated for effect) make him the voice of authority on steroids because *Some* of the names he named also showed up on the Mitchell report. Good thing we had him there or else we would have never come up with names like McGwire and Giambi, huh?. And has it occured to any of these guys lauding his "accuracy" why he knew of this ARod connection but somehow opted to omit the biggest name in the game from Book #1?

seawolf17 Mar 26 2008 08:24 AM

AG/DC wrote: Well, then, if A-Rod wants to tell all his friends that I have cooties and a crappy collection of Atari cartridges, that's fine by me, as long as our financial understanding remains in place. You still have your Atari cartridges? Sweet.

Vic Sage Mar 26 2008 09:23 AM

]Someone let me know once this becomes newsworthy in any fashion. Thanks. ="Fman99"] ="Rockin' Doc"]Because he's PayRod, 99. When he speaks, the reporters just can't help themselves. Well, that explains why it's in the paper. Not why it's worthy of being there. it's "worthy" because the "worth" of news in our society is determined by its commercial value. Here's the syllogism: A-Rod is famous. A-Rod gives us an exclusive interview. Ergo, A-Rod's interview is not only "newsworthy", it should be the lead story on the back page. Any different determination of "newsworthiness" is oblivious to the time and place in which we live.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 14 2008 08:35 AM

="Frayed Knot"] And who here (besides me that is) thinks all this 'I'm not even talking to Scott anymore on account of this opt-out business' is all a big PR ploy? Alex gets the contract he wants and Boras agrees to wear the black hat for the whole "misunderstanding" and timing of the opt-out drama -- but none of it matters since ARod's never going to need to negotiate another contract ever again. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Alex and Scotty are having slumber parties during the Yanx first west coast trip ... they're just going to have to keep it quiet. I'll agree with you. I revived this old topic only because I came across the A-Rod Daily News interview for the first time just this morning. See what I'm missing because I didn't join the CPF until this week? Still, I always wondered what really went down when the Mets - A-Rod talks broke down? Steve Phillips and the Mets had their story about how Boras and A-Rod made unreasonable demands and the A-Rod camp countered with their own version, incompatible with that of the Mets. And how can us people with no access to the parties every truly know what happened in that off-season? When I saw him at Shea, attending the 2000 WS, I fantasized about a Met 2001 lineup featuring both A-Rod and Mike Piazza. Of course, A-Rod was still a shortstop back then so as an added treat, Ordonez would've been rendered superfluous, which to me, he always was anyway. So superfluous and at-batless, I should say. You don't suppose that in the end, the Mets simply decided that they were better off with Ordonez, do you? I hope it never emerges that that's the reason why the Mets backed off.

AG/DC Apr 14 2008 08:45 AM

I don't suppose that. I suppose they decided that they were better off inversting elsewhere the money and dignity A-Rod and Boras were asking for.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 14 2008 08:53 AM

="AG/DC"]I don't suppose that. I suppose they decided that they were better off inversting elsewhere the money and dignity A-Rod and Boras were asking for. I don't really suppose that either. But somebody up there in Met brass land was a huge Ordonez fan, disproportionately out of whack with Rey's -ahem- skills. I know that Valentine couldn't stand Rey.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 14 2008 09:00 AM

AG/DC wrote: I suppose they decided that they were better off investing elsewhere the money..... Yeah. Like in Todd Zeile over Olerud the off-season before. Or in the off-season after, Mo Vaughn, the overweight by about 100 pounds (not that those things really matter) first baseman who hadn't played a game in a year and a half. They got Alomar that same year also, didn't they? Well, Vaughn and Alomar certainly form the core of a terrific team. If it's 1995.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 14 2008 09:07 AM

1. As I recall, the Mets made Olerud a competitive offer. They weren't able to overcome his desire to play for his hometown Mariners. You're implying that they preferred Zeile to Olerud, and that's just not true. Maybe they should have pushed a little harder to keep Olerud, but in the era of free agency, no team can just decide to "keep" a player. Sometimes they're set on leaving. 2. Alomar was NOT seven years over the hill when the Mets got him for the 2002 season. He was still seen as a top player. (Look at his 2001 stats in Cleveland.) Nobody at the time was saying that getting Alomar was a bad move. It turned out badly, but it was not a foolish trade by any means.

AG/DC Apr 14 2008 09:24 AM

You're deliberately missing my point. I in no way said or implied that they made other good choices, so please hang your frustration over somebody else. Slappy's ship has sailed, as far as I'm concerned. if you want to dive in and swim after it, OK. But I didn't push you.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 14 2008 09:32 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 14 2008 09:38 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: 1. As I recall, the Mets made Olerud a competitive offer. They weren't able to overcome his desire to play for his hometown Mariners. You're implying that they preferred Zeile to Olerud, and that's just not true. You're absolutely right. But you are recollecting an accurate report of but one version of the Olerud negotiations. You might remember that there were also other reports circulating back then that the Mets didn't try hard enough, that Olerud was re-signable, and that the Mets waited until the very last moment to essentially match the Mariners' offer, or if not match the offer, then to increase it by only a nominal amount. In this other version, the Mets attempt at resigning Olerud was doomed to fail, given Olerud's family ties to Seattle and his verbal commitment to Seattle's earlier offer unless some other team were to step up and blow Seattle out of the water, which the Mets cetainly didn't. It's no surprise to me that in signing with Seattle, Olerud demonstrated that he was a man of his word, given what I saw in him during his too short three year Met stint. If you believe this version of the events, then you can reasonably argue that the Mets didn't want to resign Olerud at all, and instead, purposely extended an offer that the Mets knew would be rejected because all the Mets wanted here was plausible but insincere proof that they tried their best. This doesn't make much baseball sense because Olerud was one of the most effective Mets ever. But then again, these decisions are rarely about baseball only. I'm not in a position to positively tell you where the truth lies because I simply don't know.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 14 2008 09:34 AM

AG/DC wrote: You're deliberately missing my point. I in no way said or implied that they made other good choices, so please hang your frustration over somebody else. I know that. I wasn't trying to disagree with you. I was merely using your quote as a starting point to point out what to me, were some of the other Met failures of that era. It was a nice seque from the Mets decision not to pursue A-Rod. I should have made that clearer.

Triple Dee Apr 15 2008 12:45 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 15 2008 01:04 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: 2. Alomar was NOT seven years over the hill when the Mets got him for the 2002 season. He was still seen as a top player. (Look at his 2001 stats in Cleveland.) Nobody at the time was saying that getting Alomar was a bad move. It turned out badly, but it was not a foolish trade by any means. I didn't hear a single Met fan complain at the time of the trade, even though it involved the Mets giving up the former darling-of-the-farm-system in Alex Escobar. It wasn't Phillips' fault that Alomar had a crisis of conscious and decided to give-up PEDs.

Triple Dee Apr 15 2008 12:50 AM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I know that Valentine couldn't stand Rey. Gee, which is more surprising; 1. The Genius disliking one of his own players; or 2. Somebody else disliking Rey-Rey.

AG/DC Apr 15 2008 06:25 AM

Can we stick to truisms that have some substantive support before accepting them as facts?

batmagadanleadoff Apr 15 2008 06:50 AM

Triple Dee wrote: I didn't hear a single Met fan complain at the time of the trade, even though it involved the Mets giving up the former darling-of-the-farm-system in Alex Escobar. I know. I admit that I was analyzing that acquisition with my hindisght goggles over my eyes. But still, does this mean that now and forever, no one is allowed to chartacterize the Alomar pickup as a Met failure?

batmagadanleadoff Apr 15 2008 06:54 AM

AG/DC wrote: Can we stick to truisms that have some substantive support before accepting them as facts? Aren't all truisms, by definition, true? Still, which "truism" are you referring to?

Triple Dee Apr 15 2008 07:05 AM

Nowadays circumstantial evidence seems sufficient to try ballplayers. If others are fine by that, then so am I.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 15 2008 07:09 AM

Triple Dee wrote: Nowadays circumstantial evidence seems sufficient to try ballplayers. If others are fine by that, then so am I. Whaddya mean? And whaddya mean by this: Triple Dee wrote: Gee, which is more surprising; 1. The Genius disliking one of his own players; or 2. Somebody else disliking Rey-Rey. Who's "somebody else"?

AG/DC Apr 15 2008 07:17 AM

What circumstandical evidence? What the hell are we talking about? If somebody states that Willie Randolph hates David Wright and somebody else starts talking about it as if it's accepted fact and building other arguments on that, I think we want to back up and get some support and sourcing before we inculturate it as a given.

Triple Dee Apr 15 2008 07:22 AM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Triple Dee"]Nowadays circumstantial evidence seems sufficient to try ballplayers. If others are fine by that, then so am I. Whaddya mean? I was replying to Edgy who commented on my assertion about Alomar and PEDs. batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Triple Dee"] 2. Somebody else disliking Rey-Rey. Who's "somebody else"? Everybody.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 15 2008 07:26 AM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: But still, does this mean that now and forever, no one is allowed to chartacterize the Alomar pickup as a Met failure? Failure, yes; dumb move, no.

Triple Dee Apr 15 2008 07:26 AM

AG/DC wrote: What circumstandical evidence? What the hell are we talking about? If somebody states that Willie Randolph hates David Wright and somebody else starts talking about it as if it's accepted fact and building other arguments on that, I think we want to back up and get some support and sourcing before we inculturate it as a given. I thought you were talking about the statement I made about Alomar -- in the words of the Immortal Bard, "my bad".

batmagadanleadoff Apr 15 2008 07:48 AM

Triple Dee wrote: I thought [AG/DC was] talking about the [PED] statement I made about Alomar I thought he was talking about my "Valentine hated Rey" comment.

AG/DC Apr 15 2008 07:49 AM

I'm talking about a lot of assertions we're runnign wth in this thread. Yeah, truisms are supposedly things widely accepted as true, though they aren't established enough to qualify as facts. I guess that even by calling them truisms, I'm given some assertions more credence than they deserve.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 15 2008 09:47 AM Me and Bobby McVee.

="AG/DC"]What circumstandical evidence? What the hell are we talking about? If somebody states that Willie Randolph hates David Wright and somebody else starts talking about it as if it's accepted fact and building other arguments on that, I think we want to back up and get some support and sourcing before we inculturate it as a given. *** I'm talking about a lot of assertions we're running with in this thread. That you might be challenging my Bobby-Rey observation is fair enough and deserves some followup over and above the flippant and unsupported comment that I wrote earlier: ("I know that Valentine couldn't stand Rey") I'd be the first to tell you that I don't know Valentine personally, never even met the man, and so unfortunately, could never supply you with a secret stash of first-hand Bobby V quotes that would settle this matter once and for all. And so there's not gonna be any wild first-hand account here about me and Bobby V. celebrating a Met win by carousing late at night in the back of our limo, surrounded by a pleasant mix of some of the hottest supermodels of that month and those wild and barely legal DeRoulet women, with Bobby V all the while standing straight up through the limo's open sun-roof and into the night air, shouting through the streets of late night New York City that "Rey Ordonez sucks". "Ordonez is an asshole and me saying so is proof that I don't like Rey". Over and over and over again. Or how New Yorkers would shout back at us: "Big effin deal. We know Ordonez sucks. We're smart trendy New Yorkers. And besides, isn't it a truism that Rey Ordonez sucks? So quit boring us sophisticated New Yorkers with your tired cliches (which is a lot like like a truism - true but so obvious that it's not worth mentioning) about how Ordonez sucks and how it proves that you, Bobby V., don't like Rey and just tell us if A-Rod's demands were really unreasonable. Or is it that you work for a bunch of cheap bastards who like to show up at the Ferrari dealership to brag about how much money they have and then all they ever do in the end is kick the tires around a little bit. Because A-Rod is the thread topic so tell us about that, Bobby V". So did Valentine dislike Ordonez? It's my opinion that he disliked Rey, hence the "I know" in my quote. Perhaps it's the way Valentine would shoot down Ordonez to the press whenever members of the media would cite Rey's RBI totals as evidence of Ordonez's supposed improved hitting skills. Valentine would remind the press that RBI's are contextual by nature, and have as much if not more to do with the batters in front of Rey. In that situation, wouldn't just about every other manager that ever existed simply agree with the press (sincerely or insincerely) just to throw a compliment to the player (whether deserved or not). Perhaps it's the way those two would alway clash on those all too few days when Ordonez would be rested. Rey would pout as if he was Lou Gehrig in the middle of a consecutive games played streak, putting up such a stink over being rested that you'da thought he was leading the league in Home Runs or something. A few times, Rey demonstrated his displeasure at being rested by feigning injuries, as if to show that he couldn't play anyway because he wasn't 100% (I don't think Rey could play at 250% - haha), not because he was being benched. (and don't start up with me about prove the feigning) And so then, Bobby would respond by extending Rey's rest for yet another game. And then Rey would pout some more about being benched some more even though he wasn't supposed to be able to play anyway (here I mean literally as opposed to qualitatively) on account of him being hurt. According to him. Perhaps it's the way it appeared, especially after the 1999 season that Valentine couldn't compliment Rey in the press unless it was done so grudgingly. Or that during the month of Melvin Mora at shortstop, when the majority of the press argued that Mora wasn't as effective as Ordonez, Valentine not only defended Mora, but referred to Rey in the press not by his name but as "that other guy" and with a look of bothered displeasure at the notion that someone could even dare to think that Rey was better than Mora. I don't know that any of these facts individually, proves that Valentine disliked Rey. But cumulatively, and especially given Rey's dreadful performance, they lead me to believe that Valentine was no fan of Rey. And so, I can write that "I know that Valentine disliked Rey" comfortable in the sincerity of my beliefs, and that my beliefs are based on something tangible, as well as an instinct that overall, Ordonez sucked and that somebody had to see it like this besides me. Just because Ordonez was an everyday player doesn't automatically mean that Valentine was going along with it. Look, I know that Ordonez is a very controversial Met topic. Ask a random sample of Mets fans to give you their Ordonez opinion and you are bound to elicit answers that vary in the quality of opinion, maybe more so than for any other Met ever. I could write five more pages here, filled with statistical details, facts, notions, superstitions number crunching and all-around bullshit to explain my Ordonez opinion, which most of you already figured out, is not too high. But I don't need to do that because you are all very knowledgeable Met fans. Some of you might not agree with my ultimate opinion of Rey, or anticipate the precise minutiae that I would rely on to justify my less than stellar opinion of Rey, but given your impressive Mets knowledge, you would all surely agree that any discussion of Ordonez would begin with the irrefutable facts that he was a bad hitter and a good fielder. That's the starting point and I'm sure nobody here would disagree. The battles would then be fought over trying to determine just how bad of a hitter he was? Or just how good of a fielder he was? And overall - ("overall" being the key word because really, you can't separate Ordonez in two, filtering out the bad and keeping whatever good one might think there is or ever was) - overall, was Ordonez good enough of a fielder to compensate for his ineptness at the plate and justify his playing time. I'll save that one for another day, content to simply write that Ordonez sucked when the mood strikes me without beating a dead Ordonez to death.

Rockin' Doc Apr 15 2008 05:16 PM

Personally, I loved the Alomar, Bacsik, and Peoples for Escobar, Lawton, Riggan, Traber, and Snyder trade when it was finalized*. It seemed like a real no brainer trade for the Mets to pull the trigger on. I thought it would be a coup for the Mets and that Alomar would invigorate the line up. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Luckily, none of the players the Mets surrendered in the trade really went on to do much. I was never a big fan of Rey rdonez. He made some spectacular plays defensively, but I never thought he was quite as good with the glove as most Met fans did. Offensively, he was a black hole in the line up. *Thanks to UMD for providing the principals of the trade.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 08:42 AM

Rockin' Doc wrote: I was never a big fan of Rey Ordonez. He made some spectacular plays defensively, but I never thought he was quite as good with the glove as most Met fans did. Offensively, he was a black hole in the line up. That about perfectly sums up what I think. The absolute worst hitter I ever saw in my entire life of baseball watching, and a flashy though spectacularly overrated fielder.

AG/DC Apr 16 2008 08:51 AM

He was not specatacularly over-rated. The over-rated under-rated argument is such a tirelessly pointless exercise. And I'll add that he wasn't likely the worst hitter you ever saw. It's bad enough that half of Shea has forsaken any obligation to exercise perspective.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 09:06 AM

AG/DC wrote: And I'll add that he wasn't likely the worst hitter you ever saw. It's bad enough that half of Shea has forsaken any obligation to exercise perspective. He was the worst because in the super-secret imaginary ranking system of bad hitters that I keep inside of my head, Rey racks up major bonus points for the unjustifiable amount of playing time that he got. There were surely worse hitters than Ordonez whether I saw them or not, or whether I even want to admit that they exist. But no one that bad gets to play everyday for as long as Ordonez did. Besides, it's no fun to pick on some scrub who for his career, was a cup of coffee in the big leagues.

AG/DC Apr 16 2008 09:11 AM

Well, sheesh, if you won't let me in your head,...

batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 09:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 16 2008 09:24 AM

="AG/DC"]He was not specatacularly over-rated. The over-rated under-rated argument is such a tirelessly pointless exercise. I happen to agree with you a whole lot about the pointlessness of the over/under rated arguments. Still, I used the term to describe Rey's fielding skills, so now I'm sorta stuck. But according to some of the hype that was out there during the reign of Rey, he was supposed to be the best fielding shortstop. Ever. The Babe Ruth of shortstop defense. And yet one could argue, and back it up with statisitcs, that Rey was never even the league's best fielder. Not even for one season. Not ever and not by the combination of measures used to rate fielders. I don't want to make too big a deal of this because, like I said, I painted myself into the corner of over/under ratedness and in that corner, I'd be obligated to not only define his ability, but then correllate those actual skills with his percieved skills. And who am I to do that? Anyone is entitled to their opinion. And besides, I have no problem agreeing that Rey was a very good fielder. Just, you know ... overrated.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 09:21 AM

AG/DC wrote: Well, sheesh, if you won't let me in your head,... It's for your own good. Trust me.

Triple Dee Apr 16 2008 09:23 AM

Career OPS+: 59. Debate over. Btw, his B-R page is available for sponsorship, a bargain at $15.

AG/DC Apr 16 2008 09:25 AM

Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60.

AG/DC Apr 16 2008 09:29 AM

Tony Suck was a 25.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 16 2008 09:30 AM

Yeah, but Doug Flynn loved his dog, and Rey Ordonez abandoned his family in Cuba and sent them $1 per month, or something ridiculous like that. It wasn't just his weak bat that made Rey unlikeable. He was also a bit of a punk.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 09:34 AM

AG/DC wrote: Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60. Yeah, Doug Flynn's a powerfully strong contender. But he racks up good points for being a good guy; for clocking in only 3 three full seasons as a Met where he played enough to qualify for the Batting Title; for playing on Met teams so pathetically bad that it wouldnt'a mattered if you swapped Flynn for Babe Ruth. In that case, the Mets would've merely been a better bad team. Flynn's Mets were irrelevant. Ordonez's Mets mattered. Check out the 1999 NLCS. Plus there's some regular poster here who recently wrote that Flynn was his favorite player, so I don't wanna get on that poster's s**t list. And also, 30 years ago I might have rooted for Flynn because back then I was young and stupid (instead of being 30 years older and stupid) . I didn't know any better back then.

AG/DC Apr 16 2008 09:39 AM

Flynn was my favorite also. Still is and I do know better. We're livnig in an era where a guy fails and we want to abuse him and find all sorts of moral reasons to attack him when the real reason is "boo-hoo, I want to win and he isn't helping me." The divorce thing is nonsense. My favortie, of course, is the self-serving process where a guy plays poorly, we boo him, give him a lousy enviornment in which to perform, he plays worse, and we boo him, because his inablility to climb over the emotional obstacle course we placed in his way. Now we have a moral failing we can really hang the guy for, because we flatter ourselves that we're sophisitcated people who don't merrely hate over pedestrian thing like batting average, but over moral shortcomings that hurt the commonweal. It's bullshit. We're part of a culture of mooks. Either own it or change it, but don't lie about it.

Triple Dee Apr 16 2008 09:42 AM

AG/DC wrote: Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60. Considering they didn't play at the same time as Rey-Rey, how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular he ever saw (ignoring the OPS+ 32 he put up in 1997)?

batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 09:46 AM

Triple Dee wrote: ="AG/DC"]Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60. Considering they didn't play at the same time as Rey-Rey, how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular he ever saw (ignoring the OPS+ 32 he put up in 1997)? By the way, where are you getting those stats from, and are they adjusted stats that may be compared against stats from other seasons?

AG/DC Apr 16 2008 09:47 AM

I don't know who he saw. But neither was his statment about regulars. The worst hitter I ever saw was Keith Neumann in ninth grade. Linda Roth whacked me with a stickball bat in fifth grade and I went down like a ton of bricks. The lingering brain damage is probably why I'm continuing this foolishness. I didn't like her stroke too much at all.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 16 2008 09:47 AM

AG/DC wrote: We're livnig in an era where a guy fails and we want to abuse him and find all sorts of moral reasons to attack him when the real reason is "boo-hoo, I want to win and he isn't helping me." The divorce thing is nonsense. So we shouldn't dislike players who play poorly, and it's nonsense to dislike them because of off-the-field reasons. If I'm reading you right, it sounds a bit like the old Kool-Aid and pajama argument. How about this? Like and dislike are visceral emotions that we don't need to justify with concrete reasons. I didn't like Rey Ordonez. I liked Doug Flynn well enough, but he was never my favorite. I liked John Stearns, but I didn't like Lenny Dykstra. Am I right to like Flynn and Stearns, but wrong to dislike Ordonez and Dykstra? Who's to say?

Triple Dee Apr 16 2008 09:49 AM

AG/DC wrote: I don't know who he saw. But neither was his statment about regulars. The worst hitter I ever saw was Keith Neumann in ninth grade. Linda Roth whacked me with a stickball bat in fifth grade and I went down like a ton of bricks. The lingering brain damage is probably why I'm continuing this foolishness. I didn't like her stroke too much at all. Ha Ha -- I have absolutely no comeback to that. Well played, sir.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 09:50 AM

AG/DC wrote: We're living in an era where a guy fails and we want to abuse him and find all sorts of moral reasons to attack him.... Not me. I would just like to say that Ordonez sucked. And even then, I say so only because Ordonez sucked. I probably wouldn't say that Ordonez sucked if only Ordonez didn't suck.

Triple Dee Apr 16 2008 09:51 AM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Triple Dee"] ="AG/DC"]Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60. Considering they didn't play at the same time as Rey-Rey, how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular he ever saw (ignoring the OPS+ 32 he put up in 1997)? By the way, where are you getting those stats from, and are they adjusted stats that may be compared against stats from other seasons? Baseball Reference. Yes, the OPS+ statistic is adjusted.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 09:53 AM

AG/DC wrote: I don't know who he saw.... The worst hitter I ever saw was Keith Neumann in ninth grade. Linda Roth whacked me with a stickball bat in fifth grade.... I'm still good. Never did get see Neumann. Or Roth.

AG/DC Apr 16 2008 09:53 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 16 2008 12:11 PM

You're right if you're honest. You're right if you're fair. You're right if you exercise the sort of perspective you expect anybody to have in a social situation. If you're booing Beltran and then calling him worthy of the booing because he's pussy who can't take the booing (an arugment a lot of people made), you're not being honest. If Jose Reyes gets booed when he's hitting .220 because he occasionally dogs it to first, but not when he's hitting .350, though he still occasionally dogs it to first, you're not being honest.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 09:54 AM

AG/DC wrote: You're right if you're honest. You're right if you're fair. You're right if you exercise the sort of perspective you expect anybody ot have in a social situation.... If Jose Reyes gets booed when he's hitting .220 because he occasionally dogs it to first, but not when he's hitting .350, though he still occasionally dogs it to first, you're not being honest. Okay. But Ordonez sucked. Right?

AG/DC Apr 16 2008 09:59 AM

I think his fielding was usually spectacular and his hitting was consistently bad. In his best year, his net value would have him scratching the average range of National League shortstops. More often, I would place him in the bottom third. He was replaceabale throughout most of his tenure, but the Mets found other priorities and instead hoped to improve his batsmanship. But nobody else did what he did, and I delighted in it, even if that meant learning to love the pain of the greater part of his game.

metsmarathon Apr 16 2008 11:22 AM

rafael belliard, career OPS+ 46

soupcan Apr 16 2008 12:07 PM

I didn't think Beltran was a pussy because he didn't like that I booed him. I also liked Rey Ordonez. Sorry, I did. batmagadan seems very familiar to me....

Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 12:12 PM

soupcan wrote: batmagadan seems very familiar to me.... to me as well, and i'm pretty sick of the "secret identities" BS. edgy changed his name recently as have many others, but all were upfront about it. if magadan is who i think he is this is the 2nd if not 3rd time that he has returned to the board under a new name without letting us know who he is. i find that dishonest and pretty damn annoying and i think there should really be a policy against that. and magadan, if you are not who i think you are, and are in fact a new member of the board, i apologize.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 12:15 PM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Apr 16 2008 12:22 PM

Nymr83 wrote: and magadan, if you are not who i think you are, and are in fact a new member of the board, i apologize. Apology accepted, I suppose. Even though you offend me first, publicly, and then include a" just in case I'm wrong I'm sorry" at the tail end of your insult. What am I like, the only Met fan who ever hated Ordonez? Or that everyone who hates Ordonez has to be the same poster? I'd like to know who you think I am, even though it sounds like the person you think I am wasn't so hot.

soupcan Apr 16 2008 12:15 PM

I don't have a problem with it, I just think it's interesting.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 16 2008 12:16 PM

I think he's a new guy. If he was the One Who Shall Not Be Named, and we knew it, he'd be immediately zapped. The One To Whom You're Referring has reached the three strikes and you're out threshold. But I'm pretty sure that Batmag isn't him.

soupcan Apr 16 2008 12:17 PM

My bad for bringing it up then. Didn't mean too piss anybody off, sorry.

AG/DC Apr 16 2008 12:21 PM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Nymr83"] and magadan, if you are not who i think you are, and are in fact a new member of the board, i apologize. Apology accepted, I suppose. What am I like, the only Met fan who ever hated Ordonez? Or that everyone who hates Ordonez has to be the same poster? I'd like to know who you think I am, even though it sounds like the person you think I am wasn't so hot. Wait a minute. Are you hot?

batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 12:23 PM

="AG/DC"] ="batmagadanleadoff"] Nymr83 wrote: Wait a minute. Are you hot? Am I hot? How the hell do I know? I don't even know if I'm me anymore. Rockin' Doc Apr 16 2008 05:32 PM Ben Grimm - "It wasn't just his weak bat that made Rey unlikeable. He was also a bit of a punk." I feel much the same way, but I initially tried to critique Rey only on the quality of his play. I got the impression that rdonez was a selfish player and a bit of an ass. Of course, I may be mistaken in my impression, but I stand by my assessment of his value as a player. I'm not crazy about Jeff Kent's personna either, from what I have seen and read, but I'm willing to acknowledge his talent and productiveness throughout his career. Rockin' Doc Apr 16 2008 05:41 PM I don't believe magadan is amphibious. I get the impression that he truly is a new guy.* *If however, he is who some seem to suspect, then I still don't see where is has written anything confrontational or combative in the time he has been here. cooby Apr 16 2008 06:44 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"] ="AG/DC"] batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Nymr83"] Wait a minute. Are you hot? Am I hot? How the hell do I know? I don't even know if I'm me anymore. Funny. I loved Rey Ordonez. I still want him back. Number 6 Apr 16 2008 09:53 PM Hal Lanier, career OPS+ of 49. To put it in context, though, I think giving playing time to Lanier and Rafael Belliard-types is less defensible now. It's just less acceptable to employ good glove/no hit middle infielders. The mold has been broken to some extent; GM's are better at evaluating net contributions from players and not falling back on narrow definitions of their positional roles. This isn't just a major-league thing; I don't think it's too controversial to assume that there are a lot more options at shortstop these days because they're not shunted off to third when they eclipse 6'2" or develop some power. I always thought that the Mets, given that this movement was in full force at the time, should have known better than to run Rey out there and expect the net impact of his skills to be positive, and that their willingness to do so may have rested on some old-timey assumptions about what a shortstop does. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 07:09 AM Number 6 wrote: I think giving playing time to Lanier and Rafael Belliard-types is less defensible now. Yeah. Lanier especially. He's almost 70. soupcan Apr 17 2008 07:15 AM I've always been partial to infielders who flash leather. Flynn, Ordonez, Bowa, Belanger - loved to watch them all. I mentioned once on this board that Reyes was the player I'd been waiting all of my Met fan life for. Not only does he have a great glove but he's a hitter. Who knew you could have both? On the Mets? When Doug Flynn won his Gold Glove there was no one prouder than me. Not even Doug's mom. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 07:22 AM Ozzie Smith was pretty amazing too. As for me, I think I get more of a buzz from outfield defense. I love it when Carlos Beltran runs down a fly ball that's been hit over his head, and I get a kick out of seeing old clips of Willie Mays and Sandy Amoros and Ron Swoboda and Tommie Agee. soupcan Apr 17 2008 07:32 AM Yeah Ozzie too. I spent some time in San Diego and remember when he was a Padre before the Cards traded Templeton for him. While he was always a crowd pleaser he was a bit unheralded in SD and actually worked a second job while he was a Pod to make ends meet. Wish I could remember what the job was but I'm drawing a blank. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 07:34 AM Yeah, Ozzie was probably at the tail end of the era when players had to have offseason jobs. I remember that "offseason jobs" was typical trivia fodder for the little cartoons on the backs of baseball cards. One of the most famous examples from my lifetime is, of course, Richie Hebner and his grave digging. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 09:54 AM Triple Dee wrote: Considering [Lanier and Ordonez] didn't play at the same time...., how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular [BML] ever saw I'm aware of Lanier's hitting ineptidute. And I did see him play, if only literally. I have no lingering memories of any Lanier at-bats, and in any event, would have been too young to appreciate his prowess as an out making machine when I did see Lanier play during that brief period of time when his stint as a SF Giant and my interest in baseball overlapped. (Edit: I just remembered that he was a Yankee, too. But still, no visual memories. Lanier's Yankees, like Lanier's Lanier, sucked. Thanks, in part, to Lanier himself, who contributed in his own small and out-making Lanierish ways to ensure that his Lanier Yankee teams would suck. There were no Mays's and McCoveys and Marichals and Cepedas and Perrys and all the 27 other Hall of Famers a team would need to cover up for Lanier being Lanier just to break even on account of having Hal Lanier in there. And so even Yankee fans ignored the Yankees back then. So why would a Met fan bother to take notice? I don't remember this Hal Lanier.) I did however collect his baseball cards. Not that I purposely sought them out, but that I wanted them, needed them really, as we used to say, in the completist sense. Also, I managed Lanier in my 1971 Strat-O-matic set for years and years. And years. Alan Gallagher was the better Giant third baseman in 1971. (1971 Strat-O-Matic SF Giant - Met-centric related notes: Dave Kingman's rookie year. He was a devastating destroyer of LHP in that season, albeit in a limited number of at bats. Kingman even hit for average against lefties (over .400!) If you could get him a full season's worth of AB's against lefties only, his final numbers would constitute an awesome almost Ruthian season combined with the best of Ted Williams (Well, more Ted than Babe really, but I temporarily shifted into hype mode just now, not that settling for Ted instead of the Babe is supposed to be some sort of booby prize)..... Fran Healy backed up Dick Dietz.... Willie Mays' last full season as a Giant and his last overall effective season.... Very respectable year for the future Met Ken Henderson.... George Foster's first full MLB season began in SF but ended in Cincy, where he accumulated the majority of his '71 AB's. As one would expect, Foster was not represented as a Giant in that SOM set, assuming anyone actually ever does any "expectering", anticipating whether some player will ultimately be included in this team's SOM set or that team's SOM set which probably wouldn't matter as much as I'm making all of this sound anyway because most SOM players eventually assemble their own teams from scratch anyhow. But for the record, George Foster was mostly a real Red in 1971 as well as an SOM Red. Therefore, this George Foster SOM Met centric note is tenuous and somewhat contrived because, like I said, Foster's '71 card was as a Red, and not as a Giant. After his Red Stint, George would go on to play for the New York Mets. Many fans thought Foster sucked as a Met. Most Met fans were willing to at least concede that even if Foster didn't suck, he was a disappointing Met who played well below expectations. Still, the acquisition of Foster, one of baseball's best hitters at that time, was a clear indication that the new Mets management was serious about building a contender. Foster's SOM cards during his years as a Met were, as one would expect, also as a Met. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 03:50 PM soupcan wrote: batmagadan seems very familiar to me.... Hey Soupcan guy: I was poking around the CPF today, especially what with me being new here and all and having a free day (stuck in the home but free) and so I ventured into the forums in which I've never participated or even browsed, and, well in short, I think I discovered who it was that you might think I am even though I'm only myself and really am a brand new poster here. Anyway, if I'm right about who that poster is that according to Grimm, no one should mention his name and so I won't either out of respect, well if it is that guy, I'm OK with it and not as pissed off as I was yesterday. Because that guy had a heck of a lot of funny posts, even though he did melt down here and there and not all of his posts were funny, but some sure were. I realize me saying this might bring even more suspicion that I really am that guy who I think was supposed to be me yesterday, even though like I said, I'm only me. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 04:11 PM His name can be mentioned. metsmarathon Apr 17 2008 04:22 PM its more fun not to, though. AG/DC Apr 17 2008 05:24 PM Let's not make legends of anybody. soupcan Apr 18 2008 07:23 AM batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="soupcan"]batmagadan seems very familiar to me.... ...well if it is that guy, I'm OK with it and not as pissed off as I was yesterday. Never meant to piss you off, I never had an issue with him. Just mentioned it because your posts seemed very similar to his - but different. metirish Apr 18 2008 08:46 AM Back to A-Rod , can I mention his name?..... [url=http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Best_deal_Boston_never_made.html?c=y&page=1]Best Deal Sox never made[/url] batmagadanleadoff Apr 18 2008 09:31 AM soupcan wrote: Never meant to piss you off, I never had an issue with him. Just mentioned it because your posts seemed very similar to his - but different. I know. You did post that you were fine with it in any event, assuming I was him even though I'm not. It was really the accumulation of several posts on this thread plus that I was newer here two days ago than I am today, and that today, I at least have a theory as to who that other poster is. There's no problem and there never really was. metirish Apr 18 2008 09:33 AM Anyway that other fella liked the bunt play so you can't be him. batmagadanleadoff Apr 18 2008 09:36 AM metirish wrote: Anyway that other fella liked the bunt play so you can't be him. Did he? Well now I'm pissed off again that I would be compared to that sac bunt lovin' guy. Plus he's got those nuclear meltdowns that I never displayed.