Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 63 of 63

Thread: So what exactly are the Mets doing, and what is being accomplished?

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    More ridiculousness from the island on which I live.

    Its not only about the WS ring -- its about being a competitive team. You know the word don't you..."compete"?

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compete

    I provided a definition for you...because after all in your new world doesn't everyone get a trophy for showing up. Awesome.

    Your ability to word "F" the posters on this board is as transparent as it possibly can be.

    If the Mets make the playoffs nobody on this board would say it doesn't mean anything.....your just inhaling too many gas fumes from the Long Island Expressway.
    I have no idea what you are saying, I was commenting on Mandrake's statement that the Mets have not won the WS in 27 years and counting, as if the Pennant in 2000 wasn't competitive. ( I looked up the word compete from your suggestion and I believe a pennant victory in 2000 means they were competitive).The playoffs in 2006 might even be competing. But I don't want to be too positive or complaints will be made from the "realists".
    Last edited by LI METS FAN; 10-07-2013 at 05:07 PM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    5,605
    Quote Originally Posted by LI METS FAN View Post
    I have no idea what you are saying, I was commenting on Mandrake's statement that the Mets have not won the WS in 27 years and counting, as if the Pennant in 2000 wasn't competitive. ( I looked up the word compete from your suggestion and I believe a pennant victory in 2000 means they were competitive).The playoffs in 2006 might even be competing. But I don't want to be too positive or complaints will be made from the "realists".
    Excellent. You are really good at skirting the point. Nobody is saying they didn't compete in 2006, did they? Your throwing that out there for some reason unknown to me.

    I am talking about 5 years of futility, and you keep skipping over those 5 years like they didn't happen. With that your assuming that I don't think they were competitive in 2006. Your going back 7 years to prove your point. Now you really don't have to go back that far....they were competitive in 2007 & 2008 -- misguided but competitive. So cmon stop being so negative you only have to go back 5 years.

    To Mandrakes point isn't 27 year a lot? Stop right there with what your thinking because I am going to tell you exactly what your next thought is because your a typical Fred Wilpon Met fan....here is what your thinking after you read the question I asked:

    Well the Cubs haven't won in 200 years...the Padres never won...., and then you will go make a list of teams that haven't won in more than 27 years...or at all.

    Amazing that I know what your thinking isn't it? Not really -- its a typical answer from fans that are forced to look at the bottom of the barrel to make themselves feel better about the history of their team.

    I know you say that the owner doesn't matter to you..so your not a typical Fred Wilpon Met fan...because he doesn't matter to you. Well he is the reason you root for a loser, and you not caring about him owning the team is the kind of fan he wants.

    I on the other hand tend to look upwards at organizations that are competitive every year...or rebound from down periods quicker than the Ice Age.....or the Mets.
    Last edited by Paulypal; 10-08-2013 at 05:40 AM.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange County NY
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    Excellent. You are really good at skirting the point. Nobody is saying they didn't compete in 2006, did they? Your throwing that out there for some reason unknown to me.

    I am talking about 5 years of futility, and you keep skipping over those 5 years like they didn't happen. With that your assuming that I don't think they were competitive in 2006. Your going back 7 years to prove your point. Now you really don't have to go back that far....they were competitive in 2007 & 2008 -- misguided but competitive. So cmon stop being so negative you only have to go back 5 years.

    To Mandrakes point isn't 27 year a lot? Stop right there with what your thinking because I am going to tell you exactly what your next thought is because your a typical Fred Wilpon Met fan....here is what your thinking after you read the question I asked:

    Well the Cubs haven't won in 200 years...the Padres never won...., and then you will go make a list of teams that haven't won in more than 27 years...or at all.

    Amazing that I know what your thinking isn't it? Not really -- its a typical answer from fans that are forced to look at the bottom of the barrel to make themselves feel better about the history of their team.

    I know you say that the owner doesn't matter to you..so your not a typical Fred Wilpon Met fan...because he doesn't matter to you. Well he is the reason you root for a loser, and you not caring about him owning the team is the kind of fan he wants.

    I on the other hand tend to look upwards at organizations that are competitive every year...or rebound from down periods quicker than the Ice Age.....or the Mets.
    Exactly. Mets fans should be looking up at the teams that are at least competing more years than they aren't. Yes, some teams have upswings and some have down swings.

    But why don't Mets fans looks at these type of franchises and question why the Mets can't seem to be in this group? The Yankees....hey, why worry about the Mets ! The Yankees did not make the post season. Time for a ticker tape. The Cardinals. Still alive and licking. The Braves...we know only one WS but about 22 years of being pretty competitive makes Braves fans smile a bit. Dodgers, back with a vengeance ! Unlimited income, can basically sign anyone they want for the next 20 years. Giants, two World Series in 3 years. Rangers have been competitive for a while, as are the Oakland A's. Sandy's old team is run better than Sandy's new team. Tigers have been competitive for a while. Angels too, as they aslo have drawn over 3 million a year for 11 years. Phillies had a very good run, etc.

    But for the Wilponzi fan, it is much more comforting to sit around and pretend other fan bases are jealous of the Mets success. From my own visits to places from Petco to Wrigley, opposing team fans always come up to me and say how jealous they are of the Mets.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by mandrake View Post
    Exactly. Mets fans should be looking up at the teams that are at least competing more years than they aren't. Yes, some teams have upswings and some have down swings.

    But why don't Mets fans looks at these type of franchises and question why the Mets can't seem to be in this group? The Yankees....hey, why worry about the Mets ! The Yankees did not make the post season. Time for a ticker tape. The Cardinals. Still alive and licking. The Braves...we know only one WS but about 22 years of being pretty competitive makes Braves fans smile a bit. Dodgers, back with a vengeance ! Unlimited income, can basically sign anyone they want for the next 20 years. Giants, two World Series in 3 years. Rangers have been competitive for a while, as are the Oakland A's. Sandy's old team is run better than Sandy's new team. Tigers have been competitive for a while. Angels too, as they aslo have drawn over 3 million a year for 11 years. Phillies had a very good run, etc.

    But for the Wilponzi fan, it is much more comforting to sit around and pretend other fan bases are jealous of the Mets success. From my own visits to places from Petco to Wrigley, opposing team fans always come up to me and say how jealous they are of the Mets.
    If I had to choose a type of fan to emulate, it would be a Cardinal fan. Like I said in post #34. Your posts #39 and #53 somehow mention a teams owner.
    Last edited by LI METS FAN; 10-08-2013 at 07:41 AM.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    Excellent. You are really good at skirting the point. Nobody is saying they didn't compete in 2006, did they? Your throwing that out there for some reason unknown to me.

    I am talking about 5 years of futility, and you keep skipping over those 5 years like they didn't happen. With that your assuming that I don't think they were competitive in 2006. Your going back 7 years to prove your point. Now you really don't have to go back that far....they were competitive in 2007 & 2008 -- misguided but competitive. So cmon stop being so negative you only have to go back 5 years.

    To Mandrakes point isn't 27 year a lot? Stop right there with what your thinking because I am going to tell you exactly what your next thought is because your a typical Fred Wilpon Met fan....here is what your thinking after you read the question I asked:

    Well the Cubs haven't won in 200 years...the Padres never won...., and then you will go make a list of teams that haven't won in more than 27 years...or at all.

    Amazing that I know what your thinking isn't it? Not really -- its a typical answer from fans that are forced to look at the bottom of the barrel to make themselves feel better about the history of their team.

    I know you say that the owner doesn't matter to you..so your not a typical Fred Wilpon Met fan...because he doesn't matter to you. Well he is the reason you root for a loser, and you not caring about him owning the team is the kind of fan he wants.
    I on the other hand tend to look upwards at organizations that are competitive every year...or rebound from down periods quicker than the Ice Age.....or the Mets.
    Still don't care what kind of fan the owner wants. I plan on being there on March 31st regardless who owns the team.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    998
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by LI METS FAN View Post
    Still don't care what kind of fan the owner wants. I plan on being there on March 31st regardless who owns the team.
    That's really all that matters isn't it? I am sure most of the negative crowd will be beating down the gates to get tickets if the team spends 50 mil this offseason. All will be forgotten and the dust will be brushed off the Mets gear. If that talent does not perform by June the boards of BBF will be full of criticism of those moves that were applauded only a few short months ago and the GM will be a moron and the owners should have spent 60 mil and the farm system should be revamped because there is not enough talent coming up. Can't you see we are shoveling Sh-t upstream debating these issues. I will root for my favorite team no matter how much a select few tell me I am crazy for doing so and will go and enjoy baseball at Citi. I will attempt to break into these Met bashing threads when I feel that same Sh-t is getting a little to deep. Until then, I will spend time on things I enjoy, I believe its a much better way to live life.

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by rjsallstars View Post
    That's really all that matters isn't it? I am sure most of the negative crowd will be beating down the gates to get tickets if the team spends 50 mil this offseason. All will be forgotten and the dust will be brushed off the Mets gear. If that talent does not perform by June the boards of BBF will be full of criticism of those moves that were applauded only a few short months ago and the GM will be a moron and the owners should have spent 60 mil and the farm system should be revamped because there is not enough talent coming up. Can't you see we are shoveling Sh-t upstream debating these issues. I will root for my favorite team no matter how much a select few tell me I am crazy for doing so and will go and enjoy baseball at Citi. I will attempt to break into these Met bashing threads when I feel that same Sh-t is getting a little to deep. Until then, I will spend time on things I enjoy, I believe its a much better way to live life.
    Yep, you are right.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange County NY
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by rjsallstars View Post
    That's really all that matters isn't it? I am sure most of the negative crowd will be beating down the gates to get tickets if the team spends 50 mil this offseason. All will be forgotten and the dust will be brushed off the Mets gear. If that talent does not perform by June the boards of BBF will be full of criticism of those moves that were applauded only a few short months ago and the GM will be a moron and the owners should have spent 60 mil and the farm system should be revamped because there is not enough talent coming up. Can't you see we are shoveling Sh-t upstream debating these issues. I will root for my favorite team no matter how much a select few tell me I am crazy for doing so and will go and enjoy baseball at Citi. I will attempt to break into these Met bashing threads when I feel that same Sh-t is getting a little to deep. Until then, I will spend time on things I enjoy, I believe its a much better way to live life.
    You do know that in the past admins on here have posted that we can not use words like that even if they are misspelled or an asterisk is used, or even if the word is not completely spelled out. Remember, there could be little kids reading these and baseball fever is family friendly.

    And you go right ahead and root for your favorite team anytime you want to. We are all Mets fans here on this forum.



    I think the price of free agents has gone up: The Giants and right-hander Tim Lincecum agreed to a two-year, $35 million deal Tuesday, pending a physical. A two-time Cy Young Award winner, Lincecum was days away from becoming a free agent for the first time but bypassed that process to re-sign with the organization that drafted him 10th overall in 2006. In seven seasons with the Giants, Lincecum, 29, has been a key contributor to two championship clubs.

    The Chicago White Sox have agreed to a six-year, $68 million contract to acquire Cuban first baseman Jose Abreu, according to multiple reports, in a signing that will be the largest initial free-agent contract given to an international player


    The Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Red Sox, Phillies, etc are yet to be heard from.........The Mets are in Vegas ready to play the nickel slots thinking they are high rollers.
    Last edited by mandrake; 10-23-2013 at 07:45 AM.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    near JFK airport ,NYC
    Posts
    1,214
    this thread has a great title for me to post this comment

    So what exactly are the Mets/MLB doing and what is being accomplish

    by wearing/promoting these ULGY so call military uniform
    if they want to honor the military, there are soooooooooooo many ways to do that
    without wearing a uniform or uniform pattern that is NOT used and
    will NOT be use by the military as new all-service multi-cam will be coming out soon.

    Mets military uniform version, IMO worse then the black uniform

    http://mlb.si.com/2013/11/11/mets-go...onor-military/
    military (air force, army, navy, marines) combat uniforms


  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7,123
    Blog Entries
    4
    I believe it's called getting suckers to buy jerseys under the guise of a "noble" cause. Same with the pink stuff, etc.

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by PVNICK View Post
    I believe it's called getting suckers to buy jerseys under the guise of a "noble" cause. Same with the pink stuff, etc.
    I think it's an insult to the men and women who have to wear camouflage as part of their service. A bunch of cosseted millionaire athletes playing dress up like soldiers is the last thing fans need to see.

    That said, the Mets commitment to veterans is one of the (few) great things ownership of this team does. But now they're trying to "sell" it, and frankly, it's all rather hideous.
    Cleon Jones catches a deep fly ball in F. Scott Fitzgerald's Valley of the Ashes, and a second-grader smiles in front of the black and white television.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    998
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawman View Post
    I think it's an insult to the men and women who have to wear camouflage as part of their service. A bunch of cosseted millionaire athletes playing dress up like soldiers is the last thing fans need to see.

    That said, the Mets commitment to veterans is one of the (few) great things ownership of this team does. But now they're trying to "sell" it, and frankly, it's all rather hideous.
    Agreed. I think it is meant to honor them but it is too much. I like what the Padres do every Sunday but they do have one of the largest military bases a few miles from there ballpark.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,002
    Quote Originally Posted by PVNICK View Post
    I believe it's called getting suckers to buy jerseys under the guise of a "noble" cause. Same with the pink stuff, etc.
    Reminds me of how, when the fans browbeat them into finally putting in a Hall Of Fame, they had the exit flow directly into the Team Store.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •