Bad Parenting

[dgwphotography]

Youse guys make me proud to be a Mets fan...

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

You know how there's been a shift in childbearing philosophy over the last decade or two away from praising results ("good score," "nice grades") and toward praising effort?

Baseball fandom isn't about the winning... not at ne plus ultra, anyhow. (Right?) It's about getting up after a strikeout or a gut-punch loss or a brushback and, well, continuing. Persisting. Maintaining faith that tomorrow may be different, and working accordingly. The joys are in the tickertape and high-fives... but also embedded in the journey, of course. The point isn't just also the persistence... it is the persistence. It's about learning to find and appreciate the joy in the mundane, not just the highest highs (or operatic lows).

Some of the best people I know are Yankee fans. But I guaran-damn-tee you that-- whether they know it or not-- I got a hell of a lot more out of my fandom than they did.

[A Boy Named Seo]

Fboy in the Yo compression sleeve is one of my favorite tidbits of all the cool stuff in this thread.

[Centerfield]

So in the end, what it comes down to is the ability to separate the Mets from the Wilpons.

The Mets organization is owned by the Wilpons, and for the foreseeable future, they always will be. So how do you separate them out? You can't root for the Wilpons. They are crooks and despicable people. So how does one root for their organization.

But if you separate the Mets and the Wilpons, and view the Wilpons as just another obstacle for this noble team to overcome, I guess one can still justify rooting for the Mets.

I mean, in that case, we really are rooting for laundry.

[Edgy MD]

If the issue is that Wilpons are dispicable, you're not going to find a whole lot of true honorable types out there among sports owning billionaires.

You may differ, but beyond the Wilpons, I think there's a lot more to root for, to associate with, and take joy in associating with, than the laundry.

[Centerfield]

Both your points are correct.

The reasons the Wilpons are special, is that few owners actually hurt the on-field product through their despicable actions.

I rooted for the Indians even when that ex-showgirl wanted to move them to Miami. Precedent has been set.

[Guest 41Forever]

Centerfield wrote: So in the end, what it comes down to is the ability to separate the Mets from the Wilpons. The Mets organization is owned by the Wilpons, and for the foreseeable future, they always will be. So how do you separate them out? You can't root for the Wilpons. They are crooks and despicable people. So how does one root for their organization. But if you separate the Mets and the Wilpons, and view the Wilpons as just another obstacle for this noble team to overcome, I guess one can still justify rooting for the Mets. I mean, in that case, we really are rooting for laundry.

I take it you are too young to remember M. Donald Grant?

That gentleman was so out of touch that he allowed surrogates to beat down his best player -- the franchise icon in his prime -- in the press then trade him, and others, in a spit of spite. Then he refused to accept that the game had changed since the 1950s, thought a racing donkey would appeal to fans and could have realistically shut down the upper deck for two seasons. If I can survive that, you can survive these guys. There is no comparison.

If the alternative is the Steinbrenners, I'll take the Wilpons. Every day. Fred's never been given a lifetime ban for paying people to round up dirt on his own star players, or hired the same manager five times, or been suspended for other abuses or belittled a player as a "fat toad" or any of the other things the people owning the other team have been responsible for.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

Oh, please ferchrissakes, before I throw up in my mouth. Steinbrenner never knowingly put his and the Yankees money in the history of the world's biggest Ponzi scheme ever, blinded by greed and figgering his good friend Bernie Madoff would protect him when the shit hit the fan and the redemptions came a callin'. The only reason the Wilpons still own their MLB team and Frank McCourt doesn't is because eff Wilpon has better social skills.

Zip a dee doo dah, what a wonderful delusion world you see where eff Wilpon, Donald Trump and count Betsy Devos are the good guys.

[Centerfield]

I am too young to know Grant. I’ve read terrible things.

If I had to choose between the Wilpons and Steinbrenners I’d choose Steinbrenners any day.

George was disgraceful sure. But at the least he never wavered in his commitment to win. That’s the number one trait an owner should have.

And now that he’s gone the organization is top notch. Smart people at the helm. Well funded. No scandals. Give me that any day.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Centerfield wrote: I am too young to know Grant. I’ve read terrible things. If I had to choose between the Wilpons and Steinbrenners I’d choose Steinbrenners any day. George was disgraceful sure. But at the least he never wavered in his commitment to win. That’s the number one trait an owner should have.

Grant was awful, but pales in awfulness next to eff Wilpon, which is the worst thing to happen to the Mets in their entire history, not even close. And Grant's reign was limited to a handful of years until Doubleday bought the Mets.

And you nailed Steinbrenner-- above all, he wanted to win and to be the top NY dog. His plan wasn't to assemble an 83 win team and hope for lotsa luck. And Madoff. (see my post above yours).

[nymr83]

George might have sone some sleazy shit, but Hal Steinbrenner is pretty much the model of good ownership

[Ceetar]

Nymr83 wrote: George might have sone some sleazy shit, but Hal Steinbrenner is pretty much the model of good ownership

lol. he's a sleezy rich profit-monger just like the rest of them.

[seawolf17]

Ceetar wrote: Nymr83 wrote: George might have sone some sleazy shit, but Hal Steinbrenner is pretty much the model of good ownership lol. he's a sleezy rich profit-monger just like the rest of them.

Unquestionably, yes, but he doesn't seem to let it affect the product on the field. If Cashman goes to him and says "I need $400M for Harper" next off-season, he'll get it.

[Guest 41Forever]

What's a profit-monger?

[seawolf17]

41Forever wrote: What's a profit-monger?

Profit uber alles. And admittedly, that's their job as owners. But that doesn't mean we have to swear blind allegiance. Even though I still totally do.

[metirish]

For whatever reason at Lorcan's school( St. Theresa Bronx) several of the teachers are big Mets fans, his current 5th Grade teacher a die hard, so that helps...also helps that the only reason why Lorcan likes the Mets is because of me....but honestly he doesn't watch when they are on, never asks me the score...so in that respect it doesn't bother him and that is good.

[Ceetar]

41Forever wrote: What's a profit-monger?

Hal would cut payroll to 4 million and tell MLB to fuck off with the complaining about them taking money and not spending it on the team if he felt like a 4 million payroll makes him more money than a 204 million one. Without a hesitation.

seawolf17 wrote: Unquestionably, yes, but he doesn't seem to let it affect the product on the field. If Cashman goes to him and says "I need $400M for Harper" next off-season, he'll get it.

maybe. I still don't see that, especially given the Stanton trade.(Machado would actually be their guy unless these prospects really really work out) But it helps to have 'acquired' the team when he did. Already running with a huge profit margin. And if you think he's not making all sorts of investments all over the place that are skirting laws and loopholes, you're kidding yourself. It's just that his 'Madoff' is slightly to the otherside of the legality line. So far. Well, if there exists a line anymore. Certain people are working to make sure people like Steinbrenner and Wilpon get much much richer, but that's more for the politics thread.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure what we're talking about.

If we prefer the Yankees, we prefer the Yankees. If not, why lionize Hal Steinbrenner?

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure what we're talking about. If we prefer the Yankees, we prefer the Yankees. If not, why lionize Hal Steinbrenner?

there's a strong, large, and persistent faction of the Mets fanbase that wishes they were Yankee fans and it's only stubborn pride, opportunity, or tradition that keeps them from making the switch.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I would give up my interest in MLB, before I would become a Yankee fan.

[Centerfield]

The original point is whether making our kids Mets fans was the right thing to do. We subject them to losing and ridicule. Is it worth it?

Overcoming adversity and teaching against entitlement are good life lessons. And I can definitely get behind that. But with the Mets, it’s clouded once you realize that the adversity they have to overcome is self-inflicted by fraudulent behavior.

So I think the emotional connection comes from whether you can separate the Mets (the team? The laundry? The history?) from their owners.

An argument was made that our owners were better than the owners across town. That argument was shot down. Our owners are much worse. It’s not even close. I guess that qualifies as “lionizing”.

And now the familiar argument comes up that if we want our owners to act like the Yankee owners, we secretly want to be Yankee fans.

No dumbass. We want our organization to have good, smart owners who are committed to winning and don’t engage in fraud.

[Ceetar]

I mean, hell, it's tough. The Wilpons are not good people, and if that's enough for you to not want to support the product that's fine. Same could be said for quite a few corporations, and it's a tough road sometimes. Hobby Lobby, Chick Fil-A, Walmart, etc. I'm reluctant to support those, which are probably worse than the Wilpons.

But then there are the other people. the employees, the players, the workers at the stadium. They benefit by your support of the team. exponentially less than the Wilpons sure, but that's life. Do we stop watching House of Cards because Spacey is a predator? What about all the other actors, the behind the scenes people working on the set, the writers, that might just be flat out out of a job if we don't?

I don't know what to tell you. The difference between the Wilpons and the Steinbrenners, the Mets and the Yankees, hell the Mets and the Padres, is way less than you're making it out to be, and the reasons to follow the Mets/baseball is generally so far removed from overall record during the years you follow and the owners pocketbooks. But if it's not, sure, step away.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield, you've come at one guy this morning as being "stupid and lazy," and another as a "dumbass."

I'm sorry the team has played poorly of late, but please lets try to be cool to one another.

[Guest d'Kong76]

This thread is really all over the map. I kinda didn't keep up because I felt
like the underlying premise by CF was that he did something wrong to his
wonderful sounding kid by thrusting Met fandom on him and I guess I find
that notion kind of absurd.

Ceetar wrote: there's a strong, large, and persistent faction of the Mets fanbase that wishes they were Yankee fans and it's only stubborn pride, opportunity, or tradition that keeps them from making the switch.

Absof'nlutely!

Two more cents, the only time I ever think about the Wilpons is when they
come up here.

[A Boy Named Seo]

I am also conflicted as to whether my parenting is any good. My friends brought this gift for my pooch, Willie Nelson, but now I am a person who has put clothes on a dog. #conflicted

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield, you've come at one guy this morning as being "stupid and lazy," and another as a "dumbass." I'm sorry the team has played poorly of late, but please lets try to be cool to one another.

I agree that we should be cool to one another. But "cool" should go beyond "don't use bad words".

At the end of this thread, after reading all the feedback, I accepted that you can justify rooting for the Mets by teaching your kid the lesson of overcoming adversity. And if you can separate the club from its owners, the Madoff scandal, the Castergine lawsuit, etc., then all the shortcomings of the Wilpons, can be viewed as obstacles facing the Mets, rather than character traits of the Mets.

Simply put:

Scenario A: The Mets engaged in fraud, and have now put themselves at a disadvantage competitively. They also tend to be dicks to pregnant women. Can you justify rooting for the Mets? No way.

Scenario B: The Mets are a noble team that have been handcuffed by their crooked owners. Can you justify rooting for the Mets? Absolutely.

End of discussion really, for my purposes.

Then, it was suggested that the Wilpons are not so bad. In fact, they are better than the owners across town. This is patently not true. Even during the George years, you never questioned his desire to win above all else, even if the method was crooked. And certainly since then, they have not been anything but a solid, well run team. Pointing this out is not "lionizing" anyone. Nor is it indicative of some secret desire to be a Yankee fan. Both ideas are an insult far worse than "dumbass". You don't have to use potty words to be a jerk.

So when I say that the person who conveyed this idea is a dumbass, it's an expression of anger reacting to a stupid accusation.

I want my team to have smart, ethical, trustworthy, competent ownership. That doesn't make me a secret Yankee fan.

I stand by the idea that the post in the other thread is stupid and lazy. There are two pages of posts all talking about the need to commit to one philosophy or the other. A post the comes in and refutes a theory that literally no one has proposed is dumb and a waste of time.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield, you've come at one guy this morning as being "stupid and lazy," and another as a "dumbass." I'm sorry the team has played poorly of late, but please lets try to be cool to one another. I agree that we should be cool to one another. But "cool" should go beyond "don't use bad words".

Resisting such attacks would be a lovely place to start. It's pretty much all we've ever asked.

[Guest d'Kong76]

[fimg=250:2fqzr8sf]http://i.imgur.com/3f1BBVDl.jpg[/fimg:2fqzr8sf][fimg=250:2fqzr8sf]http://i.imgur.com/aqGqH6ul.jpg[/fimg:2fqzr8sf]
I just love these, great shots!

[Fman99]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I am also conflicted as to whether my parenting is any good. My friends brought this gift for my pooch, Willie Nelson, but now I am a person who has put clothes on a dog. #conflicted

Can he play SS?

[G-Fafif]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I am a person who has put clothes on a dog.

I am a person who attempted dozens of times to put a hat on a cat, yet rarely succeeded. But Bernie did allow it...once.

[fimg=500]http://i65.tinypic.com/2drcbw5.jpg[/fimg]