Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Sandy Alderson Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by trepye View Post
    Didnt he aquire through trade Ordonez, Cabrera, Austin Jackson and Max Scherzer? He has had a hand in some awesome trades. And created a consistent winning product with (gasp!) a field that has fences at about 430+ at its deepest points.
    Dombrowski is decent, but he has loads of money to work with.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
      Energy-challenged is a good point. I heard Alderson interviewed by Cohen/Darling/Hernandez during the last homestand. This was his chance to apologize to Mets fans for charging Major League prices and fielding a AAA team, and to assure us that changes were going to be made. But I didn't really detect any sense of urgency in his remarks, any indication that things would be getting better. I don't know what the plan is going forward, but I hope there is one.
      Now he needs to apologize because the owners let the team go to waste. Good grief.

      There is no urgency at all. Urgent to cut payroll? This team is going no where for a long time. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to have a cup of coffee.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by trepye View Post
        Didnt he aquire through trade Ordonez, Cabrera, Austin Jackson and Max Scherzer? He has had a hand in some awesome trades. And created a consistent winning product with (gasp!) a field that has fences at about 430+ at its deepest points.

        Silly rabbit. Even with 430 foot area it wasn't the penitentiary that Citi was. Seemingly 80 foot walls with barb wire.

        Funny how they actually able to pay for that talent along with acquiring it isn't it?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
          There is no urgency at all. Urgent to cut payroll? This team is going no where for a long time. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to have a cup of coffee.
          I agree that there's no urgency being shown by the front office. But I'm upset by that exactly because I think urgency - competent urgency - would go a long way. What you seem to be saying here is "urgency or not, without more $$$ to spend this team cannot improve for a long time", and that's just false. Because as the O's, A's, Cardinals, etc., etc., prove again and again, you can improve and improve rapidly without big FA spending or even big name landing.

          The Mets are gun shy of spending foolishly - fine. But "the plan" can't be "wait until 2014 when Wheeler and Harvey are anchoring the rotation and... And...?" Which to be fair I do NOT think is their plan, they're keeping their cards close to their vest or something... But what cards they ended up playing last winter was pretty badly misplayed (the bullpen retooling).

          The Mets don't need One Big Name or Two Big Names to Fix The Team, they need top to bottom average or average plus guys in the lineup and a good bullpen. And yes, a few young guys like Ike Davis or Lucas Duda to become steady and productive players at their positions.

          For example: supposing the Mets bring back Wright and Dickey (which they have to just to maintain their baseline of talent), and trade some of their "young pitching talent" not named Wheeler or Harvey for a decent but not superstar outfielder with power, preferably one who can bat righty, like Cody Ross (just as an example - I'm not actually keen on such a trade but he's the only name I can think of offhand who fits my description). They also "go cheap" and bring back Hairston and Shoppach on 1- or 2-year deals, with the lure of much more regular playing time with the Mets than elsewhere where they'd be on the bench a lot more.

          That's a minimum level of creativity, IMHO, but now the Mets' lineup looks far better than it did last year, when the offense from the bottom half of the lineup was the primary reason for the Mets' summer woes:

          SS Tejada (R)
          2B Murphy (L)
          3B Wright (R)
          1B Davis (L)
          CF Ross* (R)
          LF Duda (L)
          RF Hairston* (R)
          C Shoppach* (R) / Thole (L)

          *just example names of "second shelf guys who are miles better than whatever the Mets can run out there otherwise"

          Platoon Nieuwenhuis or Baxter as lefties with Hairston in RF or to spell Ross in CF from time to time, and the season becomes a bet on getting similar performance in 2013 from the other guys with Davis and Duda hopefully taking steps forward - it'd actually be a decent lineup. Compare that to the usual lineup we saw in the summer of:

          SS Tejada (R)
          2B Murphy (L)
          3B Wright (R)
          1B Davis (L)
          RF Hairston (R)
          LF Duda (L)
          RF Valdespin (L) / Bay (R) / Baxter (L)
          C Thole (L) / Nickeas (R)

          The rotation would be: Santana, Dickey, Niese, Harvey, Gee, and Wheeler can be tentatively penciled in for when Santana wears out or another pitcher goes down. If he doesn't, then wow, maybe he comes in the rotation and Gee becomes a long man.

          Anyway this is just an example of "obvious" and easy improvements that would make the 2013, not the 2014+ Mets, respectable enough on paper that they'd be watchable and with a few things falling right, they could make a "magic run". This is using a minimum of creativity - re-signing Wright and Dickey, standing pat on the rotation, and succeeding in Try #2 to build just a league average bullpen. (Maybe use Mejia or Familia out of the 'pen if they're not part of a trade, who knows.)

          It's the front office's job to be MORE creative than this. Do better than Cody Ross in CF, do better than bringing back Hairston and Shoppach, get rid of Jason Bay for someone moderately useful on the bench or bullpen, ... SOMETHING. But the 2013 roster cannot be just throwing out the 2012 roster again and saying, "Hey, you'll see Wheeler out there by May". And it also can't be "Oh, we traded David Wright for minor league prospects who we promise you'll probably like in 2014 or 2015".
          «Telle est la vie des hommes. Quelques joies, très vite effacées par d’inoubliables chagrins. Il n'est pas nécessaire de le dire aux enfants...» (Marcel Pagnol)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by robardin View Post
            I agree that there's no urgency being shown by the front office. But I'm upset by that exactly because I think urgency - competent urgency - would go a long way. What you seem to be saying here is "urgency or not, without more $$$ to spend this team cannot improve for a long time", and that's just false. Because as the O's, A's, Cardinals, etc., etc., prove again and again, you can improve and improve rapidly without big FA spending or even big name landing.

            The Mets are gun shy of spending foolishly - fine. But "the plan" can't be "wait until 2014 when Wheeler and Harvey are anchoring the rotation and... And...?" Which to be fair I do NOT think is their plan, they're keeping their cards close to their vest or something... But what cards they ended up playing last winter was pretty badly misplayed (the bullpen retooling).

            The Mets don't need One Big Name or Two Big Names to Fix The Team, they need top to bottom average or average plus guys in the lineup and a good bullpen. And yes, a few young guys like Ike Davis or Lucas Duda to become steady and productive players at their positions.

            For example: supposing the Mets bring back Wright and Dickey (which they have to just to maintain their baseline of talent), and trade some of their "young pitching talent" not named Wheeler or Harvey for a decent but not superstar outfielder with power, preferably one who can bat righty, like Cody Ross (just as an example - I'm not actually keen on such a trade but he's the only name I can think of offhand who fits my description). They also "go cheap" and bring back Hairston and Shoppach on 1- or 2-year deals, with the lure of much more regular playing time with the Mets than elsewhere where they'd be on the bench a lot more.

            That's a minimum level of creativity, IMHO, but now the Mets' lineup looks far better than it did last year, when the offense from the bottom half of the lineup was the primary reason for the Mets' summer woes:

            SS Tejada (R)
            2B Murphy (L)
            3B Wright (R)
            1B Davis (L)
            CF Ross* (R)
            LF Duda (L)
            RF Hairston* (R)
            C Shoppach* (R) / Thole (L)

            *just example names of "second shelf guys who are miles better than whatever the Mets can run out there otherwise"

            Platoon Nieuwenhuis or Baxter as lefties with Hairston in RF or to spell Ross in CF from time to time, and the season becomes a bet on getting similar performance in 2013 from the other guys with Davis and Duda hopefully taking steps forward - it'd actually be a decent lineup. Compare that to the usual lineup we saw in the summer of:

            SS Tejada (R)
            2B Murphy (L)
            3B Wright (R)
            1B Davis (L)
            RF Hairston (R)
            LF Duda (L)
            RF Valdespin (L) / Bay (R) / Baxter (L)
            C Thole (L) / Nickeas (R)

            The rotation would be: Santana, Dickey, Niese, Harvey, Gee, and Wheeler can be tentatively penciled in for when Santana wears out or another pitcher goes down. If he doesn't, then wow, maybe he comes in the rotation and Gee becomes a long man.

            Anyway this is just an example of "obvious" and easy improvements that would make the 2013, not the 2014+ Mets, respectable enough on paper that they'd be watchable and with a few things falling right, they could make a "magic run". This is using a minimum of creativity - re-signing Wright and Dickey, standing pat on the rotation, and succeeding in Try #2 to build just a league average bullpen. (Maybe use Mejia or Familia out of the 'pen if they're not part of a trade, who knows.)

            It's the front office's job to be MORE creative than this. Do better than Cody Ross in CF, do better than bringing back Hairston and Shoppach, get rid of Jason Bay for someone moderately useful on the bench or bullpen, ... SOMETHING. But the 2013 roster cannot be just throwing out the 2012 roster again and saying, "Hey, you'll see Wheeler out there by May". And it also can't be "Oh, we traded David Wright for minor league prospects who we promise you'll probably like in 2014 or 2015".
            Wow. No.

            Duda is not a MLB player, neither is Kirk, Hairston is a bench player.

            Your looking for magic. I want a solid team with bench depth. I don't want The A's. They may be in last again next year. I want a consistent winner. Not a miracle and see you again in 10 years.

            I don't say spend 200m on 1 player but money must be spent. Wisely, but it must be spent.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
              Wow. No.

              Duda is not a MLB player, neither is Kirk, Hairston is a bench player.

              Your looking for magic. I want a solid team with bench depth. I don't want The A's. They may be in last again next year. I want a consistent winner. Not a miracle and see you again in 10 years.

              I don't say spend 200m on 1 player but money must be spent. Wisely, but it must be spent.
              AMEN.

              Without a single MLB outfielder, how do they compete. Better yet, they could have the 1927 Yankees out there but without a bullpen, they would end up blowing tons of games. Six straight years without the post season....and how has that bullpen looked over these past six seasons. Exactly.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
                Wow. No.

                Duda is not a MLB player, neither is Kirk, Hairston is a bench player.

                Your looking for magic. I want a solid team with bench depth. I don't want The A's. They may be in last again next year. I want a consistent winner. Not a miracle and see you again in 10 years.

                I don't say spend 200m on 1 player but money must be spent. Wisely, but it must be spent.
                Agree with Pauly - no. This doesn't get it done. I'd add: Ruben Tejada is a not a lead-off hitter for any good MLB team ever. You gotta get somebody up top (maybe one of the OF spots that need filling) who can run. Tejada should hit 8th.
                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.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
                  Now he needs to apologize because the owners let the team go to waste. Good grief.

                  There is no urgency at all. Urgent to cut payroll? This team is going no where for a long time. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to have a cup of coffee.
                  Well, if we're willing to accept the status quo, that's exactly what we'll get.
                  They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
                    Wow. No.

                    Duda is not a MLB player, neither is Kirk, Hairston is a bench player.

                    Your looking for magic. I want a solid team with bench depth. I don't want The A's. They may be in last again next year. I want a consistent winner. Not a miracle and see you again in 10 years.

                    I don't say spend 200m on 1 player but money must be spent. Wisely, but it must be spent.
                    I'm not "looking" for magic. Yes, I'd like more creativity than what I outlined, which is as I said, minimally creative and basically still betting on Duda growing into being a legitimate everyday player, and Hairston/Nieuwenhuis being a serviceable righty/lefty platoon in the outfield. I don't think that's a wild fantasy. And if Duda were to become a legitimate everyday player in 2013, then yes a Hairston/Nieuewenhuis platoon in RF would be perfectly serviceable - IF that was the one of the weakest parts of the lineup, i.e., with a better producing catcher than Thole and a 2012 Cody Ross type player in CF instead of a 2012 Andres Torres type player.

                    Having a Hairston/Nieuwenhuis platoon in RF is not the tell-tale sign of a team with no hope for contention. Having Lucas Duda be the everyday LF is not the tell-tale sign of a team with no hope for contention. It's when "bench player" Scott Hairston is batting cleanup in 1/4 of the games in the season because he's actually the most productive hitting outfielder the Mets have, AND THE METS MAKE NO IN-SEASON MOVES to improve the outfield other than to insert an overaggressive, free-swinging rookie like Valdespin into the outfield, or occasionally the still-on-the-roster Jason Bay, or Fred Lewis (?!), that you know for sure this front office is not even trying to win in a given season.

                    And now it's the off-season. I'm watching to see what the 2013 Mets outfield will be like. That's what I mean by demanding something "minimally creative" - even if the Mets are selling the idea that a "solid core" is in the future pipeline (which I don't quite see either), the opposite of "minimallly creative" is to "stand pat with what we've got". If it's Duda, Nieuwenhuis and Valdespin, it would actually be WORSE than in the summer of 2012. Which would be, to me, utterly unacceptable because it's not like making it better would be all that hard.

                    Would it be unlike the Mets to be so lucky about Duda? Probably. But mind you, I'm not talking about him being an All-Star, just someone who gets on base and hits with some power, .350 OBP / .800 OPS / 20+ HRs. He WAS that in the second half of 2011. He was not that for most of 2012. He's 26 years old. So while obviously not a sure thing, not even an odds-on thing, to write him off completely for 2013 based on a down 2012 after a promising 2011 that is unnecessarily negative. Plenty of 26 year old third year players take that step to consistency in their baseball career. Especially when the Mets have so many holes, if they can only make one or two small moves to improve the outfield he's actually one of the better pieces to keep around rather than to discard.

                    While I'd of course choose to have a "consistent winner" over a miracle team that can't repeat for another 10 years, my point is that a GM's job can't be to keep selling "the future core of a consistent winner" based on prospects still 2+ years from the majors. Would his job be easier with a $200M budget? Of course. (Even then it could be spent unwisely...) But his job description, his mission statement should be not only to build a foundation for a future consistently winning team based on the draft, the way the Cardinals have done - who are winning not due to a core group of stars but a roster of outperforming average-plus-but-not-stars players at multiple positions mostly picked up in later rounds in the draft. His mission is also to field a team with a reasonable shot at being competitive every year.

                    And you "don't want the A's (or O's), they may be in last again next year"? Why would you write their 90+ win seasons off too? Just because they "shouldn't" have won 90 games based on the paper players in Spring Training?
                    Last edited by robardin; 10-20-2012, 06:17 PM.
                    «Telle est la vie des hommes. Quelques joies, très vite effacées par d’inoubliables chagrins. Il n'est pas nécessaire de le dire aux enfants...» (Marcel Pagnol)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by robardin View Post
                      I'm not "looking" for magic. Yes, I'd like more creativity than what I outlined, which is as I said, minimally creative and basically still betting on Duda growing into being a legitimate everyday player, and Hairston/Nieuwenhuis being a serviceable righty/lefty platoon in the outfield. I don't think that's a wild fantasy. And if Duda were to become a legitimate everyday player in 2013, then yes a Hairston/Nieuewenhuis platoon in RF would be perfectly serviceable - IF that was the one of the weakest parts of the lineup, i.e., with a better producing catcher than Thole and a 2012 Cody Ross type player in CF instead of a 2012 Andres Torres type player.

                      Having a Hairston/Nieuwenhuis platoon in RF is not the tell-tale sign of a team with no hope for contention. Having Lucas Duda be the everyday LF is not the tell-tale sign of a team with no hope for contention. It's when "bench player" Scott Hairston is batting cleanup in 1/4 of the games in the season because he's actually the most productive hitting outfielder the Mets have, AND THE METS MAKE NO IN-SEASON MOVES to improve the outfield other than to insert an overaggressive, free-swinging rookie like Valdespin into the outfield, or occasionally the still-on-the-roster Jason Bay, or Fred Lewis (?!), that you know for sure this front office is not even trying to win in a given season.

                      And now it's the off-season. I'm watching to see what the 2013 Mets outfield will be like. That's what I mean by demanding something "minimally creative" - even if the Mets are selling the idea that a "solid core" is in the future pipeline (which I don't quite see either), the opposite of "minimallly creative" is to "stand pat with what we've got". If it's Duda, Nieuwenhuis and Valdespin, it would actually be WORSE than in the summer of 2012. Which would be, to me, utterly unacceptable because it's not like making it better would be all that hard.

                      Would it be unlike the Mets to be so lucky about Duda? Probably. But mind you, I'm not talking about him being an All-Star, just someone who gets on base and hits with some power, .350 OBP / .800 OPS / 20+ HRs. He WAS that in the second half of 2011. He was not that for most of 2012. He's 26 years old. So while obviously not a sure thing, not even an odds-on thing, to write him off completely for 2013 based on a down 2012 after a promising 2011 that is unnecessarily negative. Plenty of 26 year old third year players take that step to consistency in their baseball career. Especially when the Mets have so many holes, if they can only make one or two small moves to improve the outfield he's actually one of the better pieces to keep around rather than to discard.

                      While I'd of course choose to have a "consistent winner" over a miracle team that can't repeat for another 10 years, my point is that a GM's job can't be to keep selling "the future core of a consistent winner" based on prospects still 2+ years from the majors. Would his job be easier with a $200M budget? Of course. (Even then it could be spent unwisely...) But his job description, his mission statement should be not only to build a foundation for a future consistently winning team based on the draft, the way the Cardinals have done - who are winning not due to a core group of stars but a roster of outperforming average-plus-but-not-stars players at multiple positions mostly picked up in later rounds in the draft. His mission is also to field a team with a reasonable shot at being competitive every year.

                      And you "don't want the A's (or O's), they may be in last again next year"? Why would you write their 90+ win seasons off too? Just because they "shouldn't" have won 90 games based on the paper players in Spring Training?
                      How can Duda be an everyday outfielder? He is one of the worst FIELDING outfielders to ever roam Citi or Shea in a Mets uniform...somewhere between Todd Hundley and Dave Kingman. He will be 27 in Feb; how did he get through the minor leagues without learning how to judge a fly ball?

                      There are some interesting opinions on Duda's glove (and I did not write them) http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/pfx/foru...ets&tid=542399

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by robardin View Post
                        I'm not "looking" for magic. Yes, I'd like more creativity than what I outlined, which is as I said, minimally creative and basically still betting on Duda growing into being a legitimate everyday player, and Hairston/Nieuwenhuis being a serviceable righty/lefty platoon in the outfield. I don't think that's a wild fantasy. And if Duda were to become a legitimate everyday player in 2013, then yes a Hairston/Nieuewenhuis platoon in RF would be perfectly serviceable - IF that was the one of the weakest parts of the lineup, i.e., with a better producing catcher than Thole and a 2012 Cody Ross type player in CF instead of a 2012 Andres Torres type player.

                        Having a Hairston/Nieuwenhuis platoon in RF is not the tell-tale sign of a team with no hope for contention. Having Lucas Duda be the everyday LF is not the tell-tale sign of a team with no hope for contention. It's when "bench player" Scott Hairston is batting cleanup in 1/4 of the games in the season because he's actually the most productive hitting outfielder the Mets have, AND THE METS MAKE NO IN-SEASON MOVES to improve the outfield other than to insert an overaggressive, free-swinging rookie like Valdespin into the outfield, or occasionally the still-on-the-roster Jason Bay, or Fred Lewis (?!), that you know for sure this front office is not even trying to win in a given season.

                        And now it's the off-season. I'm watching to see what the 2013 Mets outfield will be like. That's what I mean by demanding something "minimally creative" - even if the Mets are selling the idea that a "solid core" is in the future pipeline (which I don't quite see either), the opposite of "minimallly creative" is to "stand pat with what we've got". If it's Duda, Nieuwenhuis and Valdespin, it would actually be WORSE than in the summer of 2012. Which would be, to me, utterly unacceptable because it's not like making it better would be all that hard.

                        Would it be unlike the Mets to be so lucky about Duda? Probably. But mind you, I'm not talking about him being an All-Star, just someone who gets on base and hits with some power, .350 OBP / .800 OPS / 20+ HRs. He WAS that in the second half of 2011. He was not that for most of 2012. He's 26 years old. So while obviously not a sure thing, not even an odds-on thing, to write him off completely for 2013 based on a down 2012 after a promising 2011 that is unnecessarily negative. Plenty of 26 year old third year players take that step to consistency in their baseball career. Especially when the Mets have so many holes, if they can only make one or two small moves to improve the outfield he's actually one of the better pieces to keep around rather than to discard.

                        While I'd of course choose to have a "consistent winner" over a miracle team that can't repeat for another 10 years, my point is that a GM's job can't be to keep selling "the future core of a consistent winner" based on prospects still 2+ years from the majors. Would his job be easier with a $200M budget? Of course. (Even then it could be spent unwisely...) But his job description, his mission statement should be not only to build a foundation for a future consistently winning team based on the draft, the way the Cardinals have done - who are winning not due to a core group of stars but a roster of outperforming average-plus-but-not-stars players at multiple positions mostly picked up in later rounds in the draft. His mission is also to field a team with a reasonable shot at being competitive every year.

                        And you "don't want the A's (or O's), they may be in last again next year"? Why would you write their 90+ win seasons off too? Just because they "shouldn't" have won 90 games based on the paper players in Spring Training?
                        Duda, Ross, Kirk, and the 12 Apostles......it's all about hoping.

                        Your looking for something different than I am. Your trying to catch lightning in a bottle and shock the world like the A's and O's did. The problem with that is success is fleeting. It doesn't last. The A's may come in dead last in 2013.

                        I want a consistent winner. A team that in March is always favored to be in the now 33% playoff pool.

                        Duda Kirk Ross and Hairston just don't butter the biscuit in my opinion to get that done.

                        Comment


                        • We all want a consistent winner, the debate is how we get one. The Yankees have had a consistent winner and they are currently being killed by there fans and todays "experts" are calling for a rebuild and to go with young players. The Mets franchise has been killed for the last few years (with some merit) for the way they have handled there rebuilding. Fans have given up there tickets, vowing "never to go see the Mets again" while spending more time complaining then watching the games. I wonder just how empty Yankee Stadium would be if they decided to rebuild? Taking into account that most young prospects never become quality major leaguers. How long would it take to get Brian Cashman and Randy Levine run out of town? How long would it take for some 22 year old who has never seen his team lose call the owners cheap when they balk at signing an aging player to a ridiculous long term contract? Should we as Met fans, step back a second and think about what we want our team to be and realize it may not be such a bad option to actually find some enjoyment in a team that had a pitcher throw a no hitter, a pitcher that should win a Cy Young and saw a rookie who looks like he can develop into a ace. Sorry for clearing the clouds on the pity party.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjsallstars View Post
                            We all want a consistent winner, the debate is how we get one. The Yankees have had a consistent winner and they are currently being killed by there fans and todays "experts" are calling for a rebuild and to go with young players. The Mets franchise has been killed for the last few years (with some merit) for the way they have handled there rebuilding. Fans have given up there tickets, vowing "never to go see the Mets again" while spending more time complaining then watching the games. I wonder just how empty Yankee Stadium would be if they decided to rebuild? Taking into account that most young prospects never become quality major leaguers. How long would it take to get Brian Cashman and Randy Levine run out of town? How long would it take for some 22 year old who has never seen his team lose call the owners cheap when they balk at signing an aging player to a ridiculous long term contract? Should we as Met fans, step back a second and think about what we want our team to be and realize it may not be such a bad option to actually find some enjoyment in a team that had a pitcher throw a no hitter, a pitcher that should win a Cy Young and saw a rookie who looks like he can develop into a ace. Sorry for clearing the clouds on the pity party.
                            NY Yankees 17 post season trips in 18 years. 7 Pennants. 5 World Series champs.

                            NY Mets 6 straight years without a post season. 26 years without a WS championship. 4 straight losing years. Last 3 seasons: 83 losses, 85 losses, 88 loses.Right direction?

                            I would rather have the Yankees track record. People and the media are complaining about the Yankees; some of it from bandwagon fans and some are spoiled from winning. Notice not much complaining about the Mets incompetence? That's because to the general public, the Mets are invisible and irrelevant.

                            Enjoying a season that despite a handful of good moments, still managed to go 30-51 in the 2nd half and lose 88 games...even with a CY YOUNG candidate on the staff all season. The Mets are still 13 games better than the Chicago Cubs, so keep the faith and stay the course.:gt

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mandrake View Post
                              NY Yankees 17 post season trips in 18 years. 7 Pennants. 5 World Series champs.

                              NY Mets 6 straight years without a post season. 26 years without a WS championship. 4 straight losing years. Last 3 seasons: 83 losses, 85 losses, 88 loses.Right direction?

                              I would rather have the Yankees track record. People and the media are complaining about the Yankees; some of it from bandwagon fans and some are spoiled from winning. Notice not much complaining about the Mets incompetence? That's because to the general public, the Mets are invisible and irrelevant.

                              Enjoying a season that despite a handful of good moments, still managed to go 30-51 in the 2nd half and lose 88 games...even with a CY YOUNG candidate on the staff all season. The Mets are still 13 games better than the Chicago Cubs, so keep the faith and stay the course.:gt
                              Excellent point - all the "pressure" is on Brian Cashman for his failed 95-win team and not Sandy Alderson for his 88-loss squad.
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mandrake View Post
                                NY Yankees 17 post season trips in 18 years. 7 Pennants. 5 World Series champs.

                                NY Mets 6 straight years without a post season. 26 years without a WS championship. 4 straight losing years. Last 3 seasons: 83 losses, 85 losses, 88 loses.Right direction?

                                I would rather have the Yankees track record. People and the media are complaining about the Yankees; some of it from bandwagon fans and some are spoiled from winning. Notice not much complaining about the Mets incompetence? That's because to the general public, the Mets are invisible and irrelevant.

                                Enjoying a season that despite a handful of good moments, still managed to go 30-51 in the 2nd half and lose 88 games...even with a CY YOUNG candidate on the staff all season. The Mets are still 13 games better than the Chicago Cubs, so keep the faith and stay the course.:gt
                                I am not trying to compare the Mets to the Yanks. My main point is, how do you expect to please any NY based teams fanbase when you can have a track record like the Yankees and still have to deal with empty seats for the playoffs (not only the expensive ones), complaining about a brand new stadium, having no loyalty whatsoever to players as soon as they slump, all with an ownership willing to outspend the rest of baseball by millions? I guess it comes down to the type of person you are. Some people are never happy. You talk about the Cubs. They have been a losing team for years, play in a old stadium with small seats, bad sightlines, hardly any restrooms in a climate where it is either to cold or to hot and they manage to sell out and thoroughly enjoy themselves when they go to a game. The Cubs are "losers" but there fans are "winners". I wish the same could be said about most NY fans.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X