Willie Has Forgotten Last Season

[LouGehrig]

Unlike the Mets’ manager, the fans understand. They cannot forget the last two weeks of the 2007 season and Willie is upset that they won’t allow the Mets to forget it either.

http://baseball.suite101.com/article...en_last_season

[Captain Cold Nose]

So what do you propose Randolph do, act like it's 2007 all over again or actually do his job and manage the Mets in 2008? I think the fans would be angrier if they felt Randolph was letting the 2007 collapse affect him and how he handles whatever the Mets do this season. The fans can live in the past and get away with it. The people actually taking part in the the actual games can't.

[LostMet]

As I said in other threads...what do propose Willie do? He is making due with a poorly constructed team, and interference from the oragnization. He doesn't pitch, he doesn't hit. He uses what he has to work with.

Taking a big deep breath to relax for a moment...... If the Mets win today they would be 3-3 on the road against two very good teams. They would be over .500 and in the thick of the race even playing like "crap" and with all the "issues" flying around. So, yes they absolutely have to dial it up a couple of notches and hit, pitch and play better and I also think we all have to dial it down a bit too....at least until late August

[whoisonit]

Well, I finally broke down and read one of your articles. Frankly, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to even comment on it.

I thought it would be about Willie Randolph, but alas, he is dispensed with after the first few sentences. It took, what I thought would turn into an interesting turn comparing the teams of old who were together year after year to todays interchangable lineups. That too, abruptly ended when I was confronted with the question, are you railing against the Twins owner or Johan Santana ?

I guess my question is simple and two fold. What the heck is your point and are you, in fact, Wallace Mattews ?

[LouGehrig]

Willie is not what is important in the article. His statement is important. The point of the article is that today's fans, for many reasons, DO support their team, but loyalty to a player is minimal, just as a player's loyalty to a team is minimal. Things have changed. Some think it's for the better. Some think it's not.

2007 cannot be summarily dismissed and neither can the fans who won't let it die. The fact is, it will never die. A winner never puts a defeat behind him. He learns from the defeat, and becomes stronger from it.

As a Yankees' fan, 1956 does not eliminate 1955, 1961 does not eliminate 1960, and nothing will ever eliminate 2001. When the Yankees would beat Brooklyn in the WS, Brooklyn fans wanted their players to come back and win the next year. Following 1955, Yankees fans didn't say, "Let's get rid of Ford and Berra."

When Brooklyn won the 1952 pennant, that didn't change what happened in 1951. Brooklyn didn't let it ruin 1952, and Willie is not supposed to let it ruin 2008, but it will always be there, just as 1969, 1973, and 1986 will always be there.

New York fans, and almost all fans in the 1950s and 1960s supported both their teams AND their players. The 1951 and 1952 Dodgers and their fans support that contention. The 2007 and 2008 Mets, AND Yankees, and Red Sox, etc., etc., DO NOT.

Santana illustrates the values of today's players, and that is fine. Pohlad cannot claim poverty. For Santana, it was money and security first. No one can blame him, but that clearly demonstrates his priorities. Same for Pohlad. If he wanted to win, he would have kept Santana.

If the Yankees wanted to win, they would have made the trade for Santana and in few years, if Hughes developed, gotten him back from the Twins, who would have refused to meet Hughes' demands.

Finally, to whoisonit, there are few greater compliments than being asked if I were Wallace Matthews.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Willie is not what is important in the article. His statement is important. The point of the article is that today's fans, for many reasons, DO support their team, but loyalty to a player is minimal, just as a player's loyalty to a team is minimal. Things have changed. Some think it's for the better. Some think it's not.

2007 cannot be summarily dismissed and neither can the fans who won't let it die. The fact is, it will never die. A winner never puts a defeat behind him. He learns from the defeat, and becomes stronger from it.

As a Yankees' fan, 1956 does not eliminate 1955, 1961 does not eliminate 1960, and nothing will ever eliminate 2001. When the Yankees would beat Brooklyn in the WS, Brooklyn fans wanted their players to come back and win the next year. Following 1955, Yankees fans didn't say, "Let's get rid of Ford and Berra."

When Brooklyn won the 1952 pennant, that didn't change what happened in 1951. Brooklyn didn't let it ruin 1952, and Willie is not supposed to let it ruin 2008, but it will always be there, just as 1969, 1973, and 1986 will always be there.

New York fans, and almost all fans in the 1950s and 1960s supported both their teams AND their players. The 1951 and 1952 Dodgers and their fans support that contention. The 2007 and 2008 Mets, AND Yankees, and Red Sox, etc., etc., DO NOT.

Santana illustrates the values of today's players, and that is fine. Pohlad cannot claim poverty. For Santana, it was money and security first. No one can blame him, but that clearly demonstrates his priorities. Same for Pohlad. If he wanted to win, he would have kept Santana.

If the Yankees wanted to win, they would have made the trade for Santana and in few years, if Hughes developed, gotten him back from the Twins, who would have refused to meet Hughes' demands.

Finally, to whoisonit, there are few greater compliments than being asked if I were Wallace Matthews.

So does this mean the Yankees aren't going to win because they didn't get Santana.

The fans can live in the past, Lou. The players cannot. All your talk about winners and what it takes to be a winner really is kind of hollow considering you're trying to dictate from a non-perfomer's persepctive how the actual performer should do things. A right you really haven't earned.

[LouGehrig]

The fans can live in the past, Lou. The players cannot. All your talk about winners and what it takes to be a winner really is kind of hollow considering you're trying to dictate from a non-perfomer's persepctive how the actual performer should do things. A right you really haven't earned.

Getting Santana guarantees nothing, but NOT getting him makes it virtually impossible for the Yankees to win the WS.

Remembering and being affected by the past is NOT living in the past. When the "past" is only 7 or 8 months passed, it becomes even more difficult to forget.

My point is that by remembering the past and the mistakes that led to disaster, some individuals can do things to avoid repeating those mistakes. Simply repressing them does no good and can do much harm.

An excellent example occurred on June 21, 1961. The Yankees were in KC. In the bottom of the ninth, Wes Covington hit a game winning home run off Luis Arroyo.

Two day later, in the bottom of the ninth, Arroyo again faced Covington. There were two outs, but this time Luis struck out Covington. After the game, Luis said that he had to strike him out because Covington had beat him two nights before, and Luis had to show who was the better man.

Winners learn from their defeats and become stronger.

And by the way, I am NOT a dictator. I do not dictate. We have the right to form our own values and draw conclusions with respect to how players have performed and to interpret the results of those performances.

Gil Hodges wasn't the only one in the ballpark on July 30, 1969 to know that Cleon Jones didn't have his mind on the game and that the way he was doing things wasn't the way a performer should do things. I was there, and I knew it too, even though I was not a performer.

And there have been a few non-performers who have done quite well, including Joe McCarthy, Buck Showalter, Jim Leyland, and Earl Weaver.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Getting Santana guarantees nothing, but NOT getting him makes it virtually impossible for the Yankees to win the WS.

Remembering and being affected by the past is NOT living in the past. When the "past" is only 7 or 8 months passed, it becomes even more difficult to forget.

My point is that by remembering the past and the mistakes that led to disaster, some individuals can do things to avoid repeating those mistakes. Simply repressing them does no good and can do much harm.

An excellent example occurred on June 21, 1961. The Yankees were in KC. In the bottom of the ninth, Wes Covington hit a game winning home run off Luis Arroyo.

Two day later, in the bottom of the ninth, Arroyo again faced Covington. There were two outs, but this time Luis struck out Covington. After the game, Luis said that he had to strike him out because Covington had beat him two nights before, and Luis had to show who was the better man.

Winners learn from their defeats and become stronger.

And by the way, I am NOT a dictator. I do not dictate. We have the right to form our own values and draw conclusions with respect to how players have performed and to interpret the results of those performances.

Gil Hodges wasn't the only one in the ballpark on July 30, 1969 to know that Cleon Jones didn't have his mind on the game and that the way he was doing things wasn't the way a performer should do things. I was there, and I knew it too, even though I was not a performer.

And there have been a few non-performers who have done quite well, including Joe McCarthy, Buck Showalter, Jim Leyland, and Earl Weaver.

Managers are not non-performers. Their job takes place on the field. Fans who equate themeselves to the actual team as if they are part of what is happening, though, are.

How many W.S. rings does Santana have? Not having him certainly does not guarantee anything but not having him.

I need to remember to just not respond to this sort of self-entitled, propagandic, simple, parasitic viewpoint.

[LouGehrig]

I need to remember to just not respond to this sort of self-entitled, propagandic, simple, parasitic viewpoint.

But you won't for obvious reasons.