One comment

1. Jon Springer says:

   December 1, 2013 at 1:33 am

   I’ll post more on this

   Submitted by Jon Springer on Sat, 03/29/2008 – 1:12pm.
   I’ll post more on this later, just testing comments here.
   delete edit reply report to Mollom
   Although I predicted #28

   Submitted by Ranjrz5 on Sat, 03/29/2008 – 6:40pm.
   Although I predicted #28 earlier, perhaps this move will free up #6 for Fernando Martinez…
   delete edit reply report to Mollom
   No. 6 is always

   Submitted by Jon Springer on Sat, 03/29/2008 – 10:46pm.
   No. 6 is always theoretically available.
   delete edit reply report to Mollom
   #6 better not be Fernando

   Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 03/30/2008 – 12:55pm.
   #6 better not be Fernando Martinez number. If the mets want to give him a low number then 2,3,9 would be better. I still say give him 24
   delete edit reply report to Mollom
   Wouldn’t be surprised if

   Submitted by Gene F. (not verified) on Sun, 03/30/2008 – 1:05pm.
   Wouldn’t be surprised if they’re fitting Brady Clark for 6 as we speak. I don’t think he’s getting 15 back.
   delete edit reply report to Mollom
   Brady Clark will suit up in

   Submitted by Matthew (not verified) on Sun, 03/30/2008 – 1:19pm.
   Brady Clark will suit up in #44
   delete edit reply report to Mollom
   Brady Clark will suit up in

   Submitted by Matthew (not verified) on Sun, 03/30/2008 – 1:19pm.
   Brady Clark will suit up in #44
   delete edit reply report to Mollom
   Thanks for the updates, will

   Submitted by Jon Springer on Sun, 03/30/2008 – 7:49pm.
   Thanks for the updates, will have a new roster up shortly.

   Reply