On Being A Mets Fan

[robardin]

In the past 6 months, my kids have taken (for some reason unnfathomable to me) to watching reruns of the Transformers cartoons from the 1980s on cable. At this point they've seen way more episodes than I did myself growing up in the early 1980s. My 8-year-old son mostly play-acts as being Starscream. Last night, he used up 10 minutes of my life asking me questions from some kind of Internet quiz to determine "Which Decepticon are you?".

I pointed out to him that the Decepticons were the "bad guys" on that show, and he said that they were much more interesting than the Autobots. And cooler. They can fly!

"OK, they can fly," I said, "but since they're the bad guys on the show they always lose. They never win. Why do you like to pretend to be one of them?"

"Don't you like to watch the Mets?" asked my boy. (He did not finish the obvious statement.) This from the boy who was at the no-hitter with me, whose room is decked out with Mets collectibles, and who was in fact wearing a "No-Han" T-shirt at the time. Was my son losing the faith?

"Yesss..." I said, "And don't you, too?"

"Yes!" he said. "And I like the Decepticons, too!"

Checkmate.

So it's come to this. To my boy, the Mets are like cartoon villains, never scripted to win. Except that they can't fly.

[milladrive]

In the past 6 months, my kids have taken (for some reason unnfathomable to me) to watching reruns of the Transformers cartoons from the 1980s on cable. At this point they've seen way more episodes than I did myself growing up in the early 1980s. My 8-year-old son mostly play-acts as being Starscream. Last night, he used up 10 minutes of my life asking me questions from some kind of Internet quiz to determine "Which Decepticon are you?".

I pointed out to him that the Decepticons were the "bad guys" on that show, and he said that they were much more interesting than the Autobots. And cooler. They can fly!

"OK, they can fly," I said, "but since they're the bad guys on the show they always lose. They never win. Why do you like to pretend to be one of them?"

"Don't you like to watch the Mets?" asked my boy. (He did not finish the obvious statement.) This from the boy who was at the no-hitter with me, whose room is decked out with Mets collectibles, and who was in fact wearing a "No-Han" T-shirt at the time. Was my son losing the faith?

"Yesss..." I said, "And don't you, too?"

"Yes!" he said. "And I like the Decepticons, too!"

Checkmate.

So it's come to this. To my boy, the Mets are like cartoon villains, never scripted to win. Except that they can't fly.

I love it! Thanks for sharing this. :cap:

[mandrake]

This is what is wrong with the Mets fan base; way too many people complain about comparisons with the NY Yankees, yet way too many people are just plain jealous of the NY Yankees ! Here is an example:

Matthew Cerrone , MetsBlog.com:

I hate that we have to have this conversation every year, but it is what it is… and I still love baseball.

That said, I never root for the Yankees in October unless they’re playing the Phillies. Otherwise, the sooner the Yankees are eliminated, the better. They’re success makes me feel worse about the Mets recent failures. I’m not proud of this, it’s not the ideal way to live, but it’s the truth. Frankly, they can’t be eliminated fast enough…

Joe Benigno rants the same stuff every season..... 'don't compare them to the Yankees, but root for them to lose to make yourself feel better'.:o

As for myself, I would love a GIANTS vs Yankees World Series, and I would root for the (nee NY) Giants for nostalgia reasons.

[Paulypal]

In the past 6 months, my kids have taken (for some reason unnfathomable to me) to watching reruns of the Transformers cartoons from the 1980s on cable. At this point they've seen way more episodes than I did myself growing up in the early 1980s. My 8-year-old son mostly play-acts as being Starscream. Last night, he used up 10 minutes of my life asking me questions from some kind of Internet quiz to determine "Which Decepticon are you?".

I pointed out to him that the Decepticons were the "bad guys" on that show, and he said that they were much more interesting than the Autobots. And cooler. They can fly!

"OK, they can fly," I said, "but since they're the bad guys on the show they always lose. They never win. Why do you like to pretend to be one of them?"

"Don't you like to watch the Mets?" asked my boy. (He did not finish the obvious statement.) This from the boy who was at the no-hitter with me, whose room is decked out with Mets collectibles, and who was in fact wearing a "No-Han" T-shirt at the time. Was my son losing the faith?

"Yesss..." I said, "And don't you, too?"

"Yes!" he said. "And I like the Decepticons, too!"

Checkmate.

So it's come to this. To my boy, the Mets are like cartoon villains, never scripted to win. Except that they can't fly.

Now that's awesome

[Bklyn'55]

In the past 6 months, my kids have taken (for some reason unnfathomable to me) to watching reruns of the Transformers cartoons from the 1980s on cable. At this point they've seen way more episodes than I did myself growing up in the early 1980s. My 8-year-old son mostly play-acts as being Starscream. Last night, he used up 10 minutes of my life asking me questions from some kind of Internet quiz to determine "Which Decepticon are you?".

I pointed out to him that the Decepticons were the "bad guys" on that show, and he said that they were much more interesting than the Autobots. And cooler. They can fly!

"OK, they can fly," I said, "but since they're the bad guys on the show they always lose. They never win. Why do you like to pretend to be one of them?"

"Don't you like to watch the Mets?" asked my boy. (He did not finish the obvious statement.) This from the boy who was at the no-hitter with me, whose room is decked out with Mets collectibles, and who was in fact wearing a "No-Han" T-shirt at the time. Was my son losing the faith?

"Yesss..." I said, "And don't you, too?"

"Yes!" he said. "And I like the Decepticons, too!"

Checkmate.

So it's come to this. To my boy, the Mets are like cartoon villains, never scripted to win. Except that they can't fly.

Nice. I'm a Soundwave fan myself.

[Bklyn'55]

The Tigers - A's game was awesome. I forgot how great baseball can be because I literally can not watch the Mets. It pisses me off. I'm done being the loyal fan. If you're pathetic, I will not watch. I got better things to do. But I want to watch and I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. They either have no plan or it's so bad they don't want to say it.

I've said this before I think the Mets are becoming the Islanders. Worse than bad they're irrelevant. Looks like I'm stuck watching the Yankees.

[mandrake]

The Tigers - A's game was awesome. I forgot how great baseball can be because I literally can not watch the Mets. It pisses me off. I'm done being the loyal fan. If you're pathetic, I will not watch. I got better things to do. But I want to watch and I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. They either have no plan or it's so bad they don't want to say it.

I've said this before I think the Mets are becoming the Islanders. Worse than bad they're irrelevant. Looks like I'm stuck watching the Yankees.

There are a few of US that have said this for a while. The WSJ said they were irrelevant 2 years ago. Only the hard core fan base really cares at this point for either team. Just about every other NY area team is generating some sort of excitement over the past few years. Not the Mets. Not the Islanders.

As my dad has told me, even when the Dodgers were losing WS to the NYY annually, they were a super team and fought like hell. They never rolled over and died like the Wilpon Mets.

Loyalty is a 2 way street. Fans are brainwashed that they must always blindly root for the uniform, even if you don't like a guy like Roger Clemens or Bobby Bonilla, or like the antics of the coach like Rex Ryan, or don't want to give your ticket money to someone who was arrested.

I love playoff baseball. And since the Mets have only been involved in the playoffs 7 times over 51 seasons, I am used to watching other teams. There are some teams I just never cared for that are playing (i.e Detroit, Cincy, Baltimore) but the playoffs always seem intense no matter who is on the field.

The "Club Met" attitude that surrounds the franchise and a large part of its fan base has allowed this losing to go on and on ! 88 losses and people talk about all of the great moments this season. You think the Atlanta Braves and Texas Rangers are as happy and they made the playoffs? I think not.

You want to try and be the Yankees, or you want to try to be the Cubbies.

[Paulypal]

There are a few of US that have said this for a while. The WSJ said they were irrelevant 2 years ago. Only the hard core fan base really cares at this point for either team. Just about every other NY area team is generating some sort of excitement over the past few years. Not the Mets. Not the Islanders.

As my dad has told me, even when the Dodgers were losing WS to the NYY annually, they were a super team and fought like hell. They never rolled over and died like the Wilpon Mets.

Loyalty is a 2 way street. Fans are brainwashed that they must always blindly root for the uniform, even if you don't like a guy like Roger Clemens or Bobby Bonilla, or like the antics of the coach like Rex Ryan, or don't want to give your ticket money to someone who was arrested.

I love playoff baseball. And since the Mets have only been involved in the playoffs 7 times over 51 seasons, I am used to watching other teams. There are some teams I just never cared for that are playing (i.e Detroit, Cincy, Baltimore) but the playoffs always seem intense no matter who is on the field.

The "Club Met" attitude that surrounds the franchise and a large part of its fan base has allowed this losing to go on and on ! 88 losses and people talk about all of the great moments this season. You think the Atlanta Braves and Texas Rangers are as happy and they made the playoffs? I think not.

You want to try and be the Yankees, or you want to try to be the Cubbies.

Mandrake as usual we are on the same page. This is my favorite sports time of the year. Today for instance was awesome. I played two games of softball this morning - done at 11:30. Then go home- watch playoff baseball and football all day.

With that said I have learned to live without the Mets/Jets being really relevant. This time of year as far as baseball goes is simply just not for the Mets. I dont give a rats ass about the Astros. Cubs, Padres, etc etc sucking...and think "well the Mets have a better history than the bottom of the barrel" - so its ok. Baloney
Personally my saving grace is I like watching the Yankees so I have a rooting interest.

"Rooting for the Laundry" - is just something I am not capable of doing. The Mets for the better part of my life have sucked something fierce. When I was a kid I blindly rooted for them because they were the Mets. I use to convince myself that Mazzilli, Henderson, and Youngblood would find a way to get us 100 wins. Like I said I was a kid. When I got on this board in June/July and read that fans believe that the 2012 Mets had a shot at anything (even when they were 6 games over) I nod my head in disbelief. I mean yes miracles can happen, but this 2012 team stunk. In fact their 74 wins was well over their actual ability. The Mets over acheived in 2012 by a lot in my opinion....at least 5-10 wins.

I no longer blindly root for anything. I think the fans that go to Citi ARE THE PROBLEM. They support garbage...so why would garbage get better? Would you keep going to a restaurant if the food sucked? Probably not...I hope not anyway. So why throw good money away on Met garbage?

If I am David Wright I am telling Alderson and Wilpon this exactly "I want to stay here, but your signing me LAST. After you put what you feel is a playoff team together.....call me with an offer. I will decide what I am doing at that point".

The problem here is that Alderson said they are going to go hard after Wright/Dickey. I say 'big friggin deal'. Tell me what your doing after that. Thats what I want to hear. This team already sucked with Wright and Dickey on it......what are we doing not to suck? The bigger problem is that fans will get very excited if both get signed...........and then sign nobody else because Wilpon will not dole out anymore money because there is no more money to dole out. I am hoping that Wright is smart enough not to buy the garbage --- "David we have a lot of young pitching on the way to help you lead this team to a WS".

Mark my words...Watch this board if one or both get signed. You will see all kinds of virtual cheering etc.

[robardin]

The problem here is that Alderson said they are going to go hard after Wright/Dickey. I say 'big friggin deal'. Tell me what your doing after that. Thats what I want to hear. This team already sucked with Wright and Dickey on it......what are we doing not to suck? The bigger problem is that fans will get very excited if both get signed...........and then sign nobody else because Wilpon will not dole out anymore money because there is no more money to dole out. I am hoping that Wright is smart enough not to buy the garbage --- "David we have a lot of young pitching on the way to help you lead this team to a WS".

Mark my words...Watch this board if one or both get signed. You will see all kinds of virtual cheering etc.

Well, the point of my OP wasn't to start ranting or discussing this angle but...

I will cheer if they sign both Dickey and Wright because they are pretty much the only good things to build on coming out of 2012 - that and hoping that Ike Davis' first 3 months can be considered a Mulligan. It's treading water. It's not moving backwards. But after seeing Reyes walk away for nothing, it's a step in the right direction.

I do agree though that the Mets' FO needs to send a different vibe, and publicly espouse a different philosophy. As you say, the only thing we have really heard from Alderson and co. in the past 2+ years was "we have some good pitching coming in the pipes to lay a solid foundation for the future". What the heck all does that mean? Even if it's 100% true, which no projection of pitching prospects ever really is (and Mets fans have not forgotten "Generation K"), it's an abdication of ambition.

As far as concrete moves, I understand that the Mets' finances are not good, and they don't want to spend $50M more in contract money to go from 75 to 85 wins, they want to have a core of 85 wins and spend to get to 95 wins. Fine.

Here's my problem though: People talk like the Mets going from 75 wins to 95 wins without raising payroll in one season is a ridiculous goal. That's fine for Yankees-centric talking heads and lazy sports writers to keep pounding home. My problem is the Mets' ownership and front office seems to have bought into that angle as well.

Remember Wilpon's stated goal of "playing meaningful games in September"? That's basically the vague, wishy-washy mandate for the Mets' front office - to look respectable for the short term, and hope that enough prospects pan out to get approval to expand payroll for FAs to get beyond respectable to contending.

But that should not be the goal for the Mets' front office. That is not or should not be what their JOB DESCRIPTION is. It should be to figure out how to go from 75 wins to 95 wins, not in 2-3 years if unspecified stuff works out, but NEXT YEAR - and if that falls short, to retool for the same goal the year after that.

Why? Because almost EVERY SINGLE SEASON, a non-Mets team does it! That's right - going from 75 to 95 wins in one season without raising payroll significantly not only isn't a jaw droppingly rare event, but 10 times in the past 13 regular seasons (2000-2012), some team in baseball (sometimes more than one in a season)has done exactly that (based on USA Today's MLB team payroll data)! Forget whining about unfair comparisons to the Yankees and their nigh unlimited financial resources or Tradition Of Winning or whatever - I'm talking about comparing the Mets to teams like the Orioles and the Athletics of this year, or the Cardinals, the Tigers, the Rockies, the Reds, from past years. Comparing, and asking what can they learn from what these other teams have done, that the Mets have not done?

The Mets' Front Office should have a Mission Statement with this data listed on it and a hand embroidered framed motto by the Wilpons reading:

WHY NOT US?
WHY NOT THIS YEAR?
HOW CAN IT BE DONE?
LET'S GET IT DONE!

In 2012, two teams have done it: the Baltimore Orioles and Oakland A's.

Orioles: +24 wins while spending almost $4M less (69 wins on $85.3M => 93 wins on $81.4M)
Athletics: +20 wins while spending about $11M less (74 wins on $66.5M => 94 wins on $55.4M)

Everyone's gaga about how remarkable the teams' turnarounds are, but as I said, every year it seems to happen to some team or other. Here is a list every MLB season since 2000 giving a playoff bound team with the biggest change in games won from the previous year, along with their change in payroll in rounded up millions from the previous season. Bold faced are the teams that turned around by 18 or more games while raising payroll by less than either $10M flat or 10% (either of which should be within reach or budget for a team like the NY Mets):

2000: +20 White Sox (24.5 -> 31.1), Cardinals (46.2 -> 63)
2001: +21 Astros (52 -> 60.4)
2002: +24 Angels (47.7 -> 61.7)
2003: +21 Cubs (75.7 -> 79.9)
2004: +20 Cardinals (83.8 -> 83.2)
2005: +12 White Sox (65.2 -> 75.2)
2006: +24 Tigers (69.0 -> 82.6)
2007: +19 Cubs (94.4 -> 99.7)
2008: +21 Rays (24.1 -> 43.8)
2009: +18 Rockies (68.7 -> 75.2)
2010: +13 Reds (73.6 -> 71.8)
2011: +19 Brewers (81.1 -> 85.5), D-Backs (60.7 -> 53.6)

So to recap, TEN DIFFERENT TEAMS IN 13 SEASONS have pulled off 18+ game turnarounds to vault into the playoffs with financial constraints well within the 2013 Mets' reach (10% or $10M rise in budget).

None of them were the New York Mets. Why not?

And forget how not... Ask, HOW SO?

Don't ask me for suggestions, either. It's not my job. My problem here is, I don't see that anybody in the Mets' organization is stepping forward to say, "That's my job". Nor the owner putting it out there that that should be the GM's job mission, instead of "give me a few years to make it [incrementally] better".

[mandrake]

Robardin

Yes there are always cinderella stories. Look no further than the 1969 Mets. 73 and 89 in 1968. 100 and 62 in 1969, basically picking up a clutch hitting first baseman in June and playing with the same 1968 team.

However, the Mets had Seaver, Koosman, Gentry, and a fireballer named Ryan. They had some great vets like Caldwell, and Koonce, and some young guys like McAndrew. Their starting pitching was much better than the 2012 staff. And the bullpen....do we even want to compare McGraw and Taylor and co to the current disaster?

Catching..one of the greatest defensive players at that position ever. Don't take it from me, take it from Tom Seaver and/or Johnny Bench. Backing him up, JC Martin who is as good as any catcher the Mets have now. And a 3rd string young Duffy Dyer.

Out field...nobody on the 2012 Mets can carry Tommie Agee's glove. Period. End of that story. And Cleon was no slouch, and he hit .340 in LF..which equals TWO Jason Bays. In RF, I'll take Swoboda/Shamsky over anything Duda and whoever put out.

Yes, teams can have great improvements...but you have to have a base. Can you really name 10 Mets out of the 25 man roster who could even make the Yankees? Can you name even 6? Even as bench players ?(Wright, Murph, Davis, Tejada?, Dickey.....I'm stuck).

You bring up a great point...Mets finances. Yet, the Mets front office is either lying about not being in bad shape, or they are in denial. They want it both ways ,cutting payroll yet telling everyone that they are in good fiscal shape. Even somehow signing every single guy on the team still makes this an 88 loss team.

[LI METS FAN]

Mandrake as usual we are on the same page. This is my favorite sports time of the year. Today for instance was awesome. I played two games of softball this morning - done at 11:30. Then go home- watch playoff baseball and football all day.

With that said I have learned to live without the Mets/Jets being really relevant. This time of year as far as baseball goes is simply just not for the Mets. I dont give a rats ass about the Astros. Cubs, Padres, etc etc sucking...and think "well the Mets have a better history than the bottom of the barrel" - so its ok. Baloney
Personally my saving grace is I like watching the Yankees so I have a rooting interest.

"Rooting for the Laundry" - is just something I am not capable of doing. The Mets for the better part of my life have sucked something fierce. When I was a kid I blindly rooted for them because they were the Mets. I use to convince myself that Mazzilli, Henderson, and Youngblood would find a way to get us 100 wins. Like I said I was a kid. When I got on this board in June/July and read that fans believe that the 2012 Mets had a shot at anything (even when they were 6 games over) I nod my head in disbelief. I mean yes miracles can happen, but this 2012 team stunk. In fact their 74 wins was well over their actual ability. The Mets over acheived in 2012 by a lot in my opinion....at least 5-10 wins.

I no longer blindly root for anything. I think the fans that go to Citi ARE THE PROBLEM. They support garbage...so why would garbage get better? Would you keep going to a restaurant if the food sucked? Probably not...I hope not anyway. So why throw good money away on Met garbage?

If I am David Wright I am telling Alderson and Wilpon this exactly "I want to stay here, but your signing me LAST. After you put what you feel is a playoff team together.....call me with an offer. I will decide what I am doing at that point".

The problem here is that Alderson said they are going to go hard after Wright/Dickey. I say 'big friggin deal'. Tell me what your doing after that. Thats what I want to hear. This team already sucked with Wright and Dickey on it......what are we doing not to suck? The bigger problem is that fans will get very excited if both get signed...........and then sign nobody else because Wilpon will not dole out anymore money because there is no more money to dole out. I am hoping that Wright is smart enough not to buy the garbage --- "David we have a lot of young pitching on the way to help you lead this team to a WS".

Mark my words...Watch this board if one or both get signed. You will see all kinds of virtual cheering etc.

Paulypal- for a person who no longer blindly roots for anything you show a lot of angst over the state of the NY Mets and the fans that go to Citi. Apathy--- you don't have it.

[robardin]

Robardin

Yes there are always cinderella stories. Look no further than the 1969 Mets. 73 and 89 in 1968. 100 and 62 in 1969, basically picking up a clutch hitting first baseman in June and playing with the same 1968 team.

However, the Mets had Seaver, Koosman, Gentry, and a fireballer named Ryan. They had some great vets like Caldwell, and Koonce, and some young guys like McAndrew. Their starting pitching was much better than the 2012 staff. And the bullpen....

Wait. You're comparing the 1969 Mets to the 2012 Mets, when what I'm talking about (by analogy) is comparing what changed the 1968 -> 1969 Mets and considering what would be similar changes for the 2012 -> 2013 Mets.

For example, you name Seaver, Koosman, Gentry, and Ryan. Well, Seaver, Kooz and Ryan were also on the 1968 Mets that won 73 games to the 1969 Mets winning 100 games. So what does that say? That Gentry was the linchpin?

A few other names you throw out there as key '69 Mets: Caldwell, Koonce, McAndrew, Agee, Swoboda, Shamsky, McGraw, Taylor. Only three of those guys were new to the 1969 team: Caldwell, Shamsky and McGraw. Did one or more of the other guys have a freakish career year in 1969? Or was (say) McGraw really the linchpin acquisition?

I'm not saying any of this as an argument starter, just showing how I'd go about thinking about how to look at the 2012 Mets and thinking about 2013. Yes, "there are always Cinderella stories". To me it would be a mistake is in assuming "Cinderella magic" is capricious, random, stars aligning, some fairy waving a wand and saying Bibbity-Bobbity-Boo. For example, if you go back to 2006 - the last year the Mets made the playoffs - you'll see the Tigers as another long dysfunctional team that made the playoffs for the first time in a long time in 2006. They had another downturn, but not as severe as the Mets - they've had only 1 losing season since then - and 2 years ago, bounced up from an 81 win season in 2010 to reenter the playoffs in 2011 with a 95 win season (+14 turnaround from 2010) while spending $17.2M less than 2010.

In a sense the Mets did it in 2006 by spending $$$ that paid of for one year (2006), almost paid off two more years (2007-2008) while failing down the stretch due to holes not covered... What did the Tigers do to get out of that hole in 2010?

Could it even be addition by subtraction? Some fans I know are calling for Jason Bay to be waived (and his final $16M for the 2013 season eaten) as an air-clearing gesture, and to demonstrate that they "get" the value of roster space versus dead weight occupied by money already spent one way or the other.

This is the attitude I want to see the front office and ownership project. Whatever I write on this topic on an internet discussion board is just that - internet chitchat. It means nothing and affects nothing. But what means something to me as a fan would be to see the front office not act like engineering a 15-20 game turnaround is off the table or an impossibly unreasonable task, when it literally happens almost every single season. So it's easy to do by accident, and impossible to do by design? Does that mean we should replace the Mets' GM with a Magic 8 Ball?

[Paulypal]

Paulypal- for a person who no longer blindly roots for anything you show a lot of angst over the state of the NY Mets and the fans that go to Citi. Apathy--- you don't have it.

Of course I dont have it. If I did I wouldnt post on here about the team that much would I? I would love for them to do well, but I dont hold my breath on the issue. I am passionate about my opinion on what would make them better, and get into very passionate discussions with fans on here when the believe the mirage they see is a playoff caliber team. I guess what I have done mostly on here is talk about how good they ARENT when others were over estimating them.

One day they will be that and we will all know it...instead of hope it.

What you perceive as angst is nothing more than an observation without emotion as to what is wrong while wondering why others cant see the obvious. In my opinion of course.

[Strawman]

Robardin

Yes there are always cinderella stories. Look no further than the 1969 Mets. 73 and 89 in 1968. 100 and 62 in 1969, basically picking up a clutch hitting first baseman in June and playing with the same 1968 team.

However, the Mets had Seaver, Koosman, Gentry, and a fireballer named Ryan. They had some great vets like Caldwell, and Koonce, and some young guys like McAndrew. Their starting pitching was much better than the 2012 staff. And the bullpen....do we even want to compare McGraw and Taylor and co to the current disaster?

Catching..one of the greatest defensive players at that position ever. Don't take it from me, take it from Tom Seaver and/or Johnny Bench. Backing him up, JC Martin who is as good as any catcher the Mets have now. And a 3rd string young Duffy Dyer.

Out field...nobody on the 2012 Mets can carry Tommie Agee's glove. Period. End of that story. And Cleon was no slouch, and he hit .340 in LF..which equals TWO Jason Bays. In RF, I'll take Swoboda/Shamsky over anything Duda and whoever put out.

Yes, teams can have great improvements...but you have to have a base. Can you really name 10 Mets out of the 25 man roster who could even make the Yankees? Can you name even 6? Even as bench players ?(Wright, Murph, Davis, Tejada?, Dickey.....I'm stuck).

You bring up a great point...Mets finances. Yet, the Mets front office is either lying about not being in bad shape, or they are in denial. They want it both ways ,cutting payroll yet telling everyone that they are in good fiscal shape. Even somehow signing every single guy on the team still makes this an 88 loss team.

This.

Is exactly what I've been saying for two years now. OK, so maybe I can't stand Alderson's holier-than-thou West Coast advance man personality - guilty of focusing a hair too much on that. But this is exactly what drives me crazy about the front office in general - it seems to be stuck in a dishonest roulette wheel. Jose Reyes is a "special player." Reyes is a "foundation" player, a "homegrown star" who is "very hard to replace." The budget is $140-130-120-110-100-90.... "We're evaluating" - and "looking at parameters."

It's all doublespeak. And attendance is down almost one million people a year!

Even now the dishonesty rankles. The Mets are "moving swiftly" to extend David Wright - but will this front office address his one non-negotiable? That is - making the team better? C'mon. Unless they go to $200M he's going to test free agency. It's obvious. Yet we get this fake movement, this faux action - which is not movement at all, not action at all. It's just posing. The merest band-aid over a gaping wound.

[Paulypal]

This.

Is exactly what I've been saying for two years now. OK, so maybe I can't stand Alderson's holier-than-thou West Coast advance man personality - guilty of focusing a hair too much on that. But this is exactly what drives me crazy about the front office in general - it seems to be stuck in a dishonest roulette wheel. Jose Reyes is a "special player." Reyes is a "foundation" player, a "homegrown star" who is "very hard to replace." The budget is $140-130-120-110-100-90.... "We're evaluating" - and "looking at parameters."

It's all doublespeak. And attendance is down almost one million people a year!

Even now the dishonesty rankles. The Mets are "moving swiftly" to extend David Wright - but will this front office address his one non-negotiable? That is - making the team better? C'mon. Unless they go to $200M he's going to test free agency. It's obvious. Yet we get this fake movement, this faux action - which is not movement at all, not action at all. It's just posing. The merest band-aid over a gaping wound.

I agree listening to Alderson is a moving target. We just dont know what the budget is or where its going to end up. I agree with you on that 100%.

Here is the thing...and I have been saying this for two years: Wilpon is his boss, and signs his checks. Now add into the fact that Wilpon is a criminal. Criminals are not up front, they dont give you the facts. Therefore why should we expect them from an employee of a criminal? We really cant.

Alderson is the front man and paid to take the bullets for his criminal boss. If he just comes out and says "Jose Reyses is a great player, but we are not signing him because we are looking to cut payroll"....what happens? He exposes his criminal boss, no longer has a job, and hurts his chances with any future employer.

We are all adults here and we have all worked for someone (at least I have) that we probably didnt like very much, but didnt start blurting out all company facts and information.

For some reason some expect the GM of the Mets or any other team to be on a pedestal. When in fact they are someone that has a job like anyone else. Yes its high profile, and yes we would like to think everything is on the up and up and we can take everything they say to the bank.....but cmon get real...this is real life.

I have said for a long time now - I think Alderson can be a very talented GM, but we probably will never find out as long as Mugsy, and Three Fingers are his bosses.