MLB 2019 thread

[Cheeks]

Those '69 Mets were 100-62 in the regular season and won the division by 8 games - zero fluke. Now the 2006 Cardinals....

Going into that season they were expected to be a disaster, easy to say no fluke after they win it all.

Called the miracle Mets for a reason.

[shoothoops]

The Wild Card has won the World Series more than enough times for it to be taken seriously as a possible World Series Winner. Get in the playoffs and see what happens. Winning a mediocre division is again another viable way to do it. It’s a loooooooong regular season. And playoffs are a different entity entirely. Premature judgements often times do not come true.

Somehow the Cardinals sit in first place today. They won the World Series in 2006 despite only winning 83 regular season games that season. (which was somehow enough to win a division) and they lost multiple times with 100 plus win teams. In 2004 they won 105 regular season games only to lose in WS to a wildcard Boston team.

Long way to go in baseball’s regular season with many teams in contention. I’ve seen it way too many times to make any definitive statements at this time of the season.

I will say that Dish is no longer carrying Fox Regional Sports channels as of yesterday, and, that will hurt MLB ratings, along with Fox, and Dish. 15 million subscribers.

[dgies9156]

Long way to go in baseball’s regular season with many teams in contention. I’ve seen it way too many times to make any definitive statements at this time of the season.

You are absolutely right.

But, gosh, it seems nice that God's will in the NL Central is being borne out again.

It would be so nice to see that little Cardinal crap all over the Cubbie Bear's parade!

[Lennys Tap]

Going into that season they were expected to be a disaster, easy to say no fluke after they win it all.

Called the miracle Mets for a reason.

I know you're a big fan of preseason polls (LOL) but why not talk about what they did rather than what a few dimwitted sportswriters predicted they would do. They finished with the 10th best regular season winning % among WS champs in the last 50 years. Finished 8 games ahead of a really good Cub team and wiped out a borderline great Baltimore Oriole team 4-1 in the Series. They were legit, not lucky/fluky. Not surprised, though - you're quick to confuse skill and talent with luck, fluke and crapshoot.

[dgies9156]

I know you're a big fan of preseason polls (LOL) but why not talk about what they did rather than what a few dimwitted sportswriters predicted they would do. They finished with the 10th best regular season winning % among WS champs in the last 50 years. Finished 8 games ahead of a really good Cub team and wiped out a borderline great Baltimore Oriole team 4-1 in the Series. They were legit, not lucky/fluky. Not surprised, though - you're quick to confuse skill and talent with luck, fluke and crapshoot.

But for whatever reason, Met success was not sustainable. The Mets were a ugly step-sister to the Cincinnati Reds and Pittsburgh Pirates of that era. Only one other time did the core of that team make the World Series, 1973. And they lost to the Oakland As.

The Big Red Machine's core in the early 1970s went on to be the best team ever in 1976. The core of the Pirates won the World Series in 1971 and 1979 with Pops Stargell and before the tragic accident, with Roberto Clemente.

As for the Mets, Nolan Ryan was on the 1969 team, as was Tom Seaver. Ryan had control problems for much of the 1970s and Seaver may have been one of the best pitchers ever.

[Lennys Tap]

But for whatever reason, Met success was not sustainable. The Mets were a ugly step-sister to the Cincinnati Reds and Pittsburgh Pirates of that era. Only one other time did the core of that team make the World Series, 1973. And they lost to the Oakland As.

The Big Red Machine's core in the early 1970s went on to be the best team ever in 1976. The core of the Pirates won the World Series in 1971 and 1979 with Pops Stargell and before the tragic accident, with Roberto Clemente.

As for the Mets, Nolan Ryan was on the 1969 team, as was Tom Seaver. Ryan had control problems for much of the 1970s and Seaver may have been one of the best pitchers ever.

True that they weren't a dynasty.

True also that they weren't a fluke.

[muwarrior69]

But for whatever reason, Met success was not sustainable. The Mets were a ugly step-sister to the Cincinnati Reds and Pittsburgh Pirates of that era. Only one other time did the core of that team make the World Series, 1973. And they lost to the Oakland As.

The Big Red Machine's core in the early 1970s went on to be the best team ever in 1976. The core of the Pirates won the World Series in 1971 and 1979 with Pops Stargell and before the tragic accident, with Roberto Clemente.

As for the Mets, Nolan Ryan was on the 1969 team, as was Tom Seaver. Ryan had control problems for much of the 1970s and Seaver may have been one of the best pitchers ever.

Yes, the best team in 1976; but not better than the 1906 Cubs, '27, '61 or '98 Yankees and 2001 Mariners.

[dgies9156]

Yes, the best team in 1976; but not better than the 1906 Cubs, '27, '61 or '98 Yankees and 2001 Mariners.

Agree to disagree. That team was a damn machine.

[Cheeks]

How can one properly determine the greatness of one team in one era vs another in a different era?  Different players, sometimes different rules, travel, opposition, scouting, etc.

Just impossible

[Cheeks]

I know you're a big fan of preseason polls (LOL) but why not talk about what they did rather than what a few dimwitted sportswriters predicted they would do. They finished with the 10th best regular season winning % among WS champs in the last 50 years. Finished 8 games ahead of a really good Cub team and wiped out a borderline great Baltimore Oriole team 4-1 in the Series. They were legit, not lucky/fluky. Not surprised, though - you're quick to confuse skill and talent with luck, fluke and crapshoot.

Ncaa basketball has 350+ teams, with massive player movement each year, that is why preseason polls are a joke.

Baseball has 30 teams, back then there were only 24 teams, baseball free agency started 6 years later in 1975.  Player movement was limited, much easier to gauge teams.  Not surprised you make a laughable comparison, not surprised at all.

The 1968 Mets were 73-89, the year prior to the miracle Mets.  The two years prior to that 66 and 61 wins.  Now is it difficult to make predictions on a league with 24 teams with very little player movement, or one with 350+ teams in which 25% of an average roster changes each year.  Hmmm.  Yes....hmmm.

After that miracle season, they never won more than 83 games until 1976....so tell me which season was the outlier?  1969.  The next time they won 100 games after 1969 was in 1986.  Hmmm.

[buckchuckler]

Yes, the best team in 1976; but not better than the 1906 Cubs, '27, '61 or '98 Yankees and 2001 Mariners.

Shouldn't you need to be the best team in a particular season to count as one of the best ever?

[wadesworld]

Might want to start walking those two guys...

Theo looks thrilled!

[Dr. Blackheart]

Might want to start walking those two guys...

Theo looks thrilled!

Time for Jed and Joe to move along.  Bad move after bad move. Will Theo have the nads to make these moves?

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

Cubs suck
Enjoying every minute of it!!

[Dr. Blackheart]

The cuckhold Jed Hoyer has on Theo borders on weird. Time for major management and clubhouse moves. Just a mess of an organization.

[Lennys Tap]

Ncaa basketball has 350+ teams, with massive player movement each year, that is why preseason polls are a joke.


The 1968 Mets were 73-89, the year prior to the miracle Mets.  The two years prior to that 66 and 61 wins.  Now is it difficult to make predictions on a league with 24 teams with very little player movement, or one with 350+ teams in which 25% of an average roster changes each year.  Hmmm.  Yes....hmmm.

After that miracle season, they never won more than 83 games until 1976....so tell me which season was the outlier?  1969.  The next time they won 100 games after 1969 was in 1986.  Hmmm.

1.The bottom 250 (sometimes much more) teams in NCAA basketball really don't matter.

2, The Mets rotation in 1966 was (drumroll):Jack Fischer, Dennis Ribant, Bob Shaw,Jack Hamilton, Rob Gardner and (at times) an over the hill Bob Friend. In 1969: Future HOF Tom Seaver, future HOF Nolan Ryan, Jerry Koosman, Don Cardwell and Gary Gentry. Four new regulars in the field (including Tommie Agee and Bud Harrelson), four holdovers who were babies in '66 (Kranepool 21, Swoboda 22, Cleon Jones and Jerry Grote 23. IOW, a completely different team.

As I said, the Mets were no dynasty (not many teams are), but they were no fluke either. Not that it particularly matters, but they were back in the WS and took a dynasty (Oakland) to game 7 only 4 years later.

That young '69 team started slowly and was 18-23 after 41 games. From then on they were (including the playoffs) 89-40. From mid August, they were an astounding 45-12.

Calling a team that so dominated one year, played in 2 World Series in 5 years, annihilated one near great team in 1 WS and went down to the wire with a dynasty team in the other a fluke is absurd. Any honest man would agree.

[Jockey]

1.The bottom 250 (sometimes much more) teams in NCAA basketball really don't matter.

.............

Silly boy, Lenny. Facts are meaningless.

[Cheeks]

Silly boy, Lenny. Facts are meaningless.

Let’s use Lenny’s “facts”.

We’ll go with his 100 teams....easier to predict 100 teams or 24?  Hmmmm

100 teams with 25% roster change each year or 24 teams with less change annually?  Hmmm.


The season(s) after the miracle Mets were barely .500.  Again, it was a massive outlier season which is why they are called the miracle Mets.  They didn’t get that moniker out of the blue.  Next thing you know we will hear how Sam Hauser and pressure works on the road.

[cheebs09]

I’d say the Mets have lost their mind, but this seems on brand.

[buckchuckler]

I’d say the Mets have lost their mind, but this seems on brand.

Yeah, what are they doing?  I'd say there has to be more to this, but it is the Mets...

[MUBurrow]

Not mutually exclusive with the Mets being insane, but for me this is as much an indictment on the Blue Jays as the Mets.  The return is fine, I guess, but outside of an injury to Stroman, there doesn't seem to be a ton of downside for the Mets here.  Its their Nos. 4 and 6 prospects, from traderumors:

In Anthony Kay, the Blue Jays will receive the Mets’ 4th-ranked prospect and top-ranked pitching prospect, according to MLB Pipeline. The Mets’ first-round draft selection in 2016, Kay is a 24-year-old left-hander who is pitching in the upper minors, a proximity arm who could earn a promotion this season. After dominating Double-A and earning a promotion to Triple-A, he has encountered some difficulty, as evidenced by his 6.61 ERA after 7 starts. Still, this is a prospect who is on the brink of cracking the Majors, and is viewed long-term as a back-end starter—a nice contrast with the second pitcher headed to the Blue Jays in the deal.

Woods Richardson, meanwhile, was the Mets’ No. 6 prospect and 2018 second-round draftee. Just 18 years old, he has risen up prospect lists after sriking out 97 batters in 78 1/3 innings at Low-A ball. His 4.25 ERA is not a sterling mark, but a 5.6 K:BB ratio in 2019 indicates that there is potential that perhaps has yet to be unlocked. MLB Pipeline touts his ceiling, noting that no “pitcher in the system can rival the young right-hander’s upside.” Between him and Kay, the Blue Jays will boost their minor-league pitching with a combination of Major-League readiness and high upside.

This seems like a package that the Jays could have gotten from a number of desperate contenders over the next three days, and that the Mets can get from someone else at the Winter Meetings. I'm sure more knowledgeable reports will prove me wrong, but my initial read is that in a very slow moving deadline, the Blue Jays blinked first. And with a player they didn't even have to trade now.

[Jockey]

Not mutually exclusive with the Mets being insane, but for me this is as much an indictment on the Blue Jays as the Mets.  The return is fine, I guess, but outside of an injury to Stroman, there doesn't seem to be a ton of downside for the Mets here.  Its their Nos. 4 and 6 prospects, from traderumors:

This seems like a package that the Jays could have gotten from a number of desperate contenders over the next three days, and that the Mets can get from someone else at the Winter Meetings. I'm sure more knowledgeable reports will prove me wrong, but my initial read is that in a very slow moving deadline, the Blue Jays blinked first. And with a player they didn't even have to trade now.

I agree. It was a decent return, but no reason to do this today. Why not wait and see what offers come before Wednesday?

[wadesworld]

https://mobile.twitter.com/br_mlb/status/1155573024407658496

What a nut.

[GB Warrior]

https://mobile.twitter.com/br_mlb/status/1155573024407658496

What a nut.

Hope David Stearns takes a hard pass

[buckchuckler]

https://mobile.twitter.com/br_mlb/status/1155573024407658496

What a nut.

Good throw though.