Bad Parenting

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD 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.

Sure. That's fair. But I am asking you, and everyone else, to be cognizant of attacks that come in different forms.

"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."

"You're stupid. You secretly want to be a Yankee fan. We all know it."

These two convey the same insult. One insult is just wearing fancier clothes.

"I would counter that there are's a large contingent of Mets fans who feel any criticism of the team reveals a secret desire to root for another team. This preposterous idea helps justify their blind devotion to the Mets while willfully refusing to see any flaws."

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

Same insult. Fancier clothes.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I mean, if you want to go WAAAAY macro, recriminations-wise, you probably shouldn't get your kids into sports. Watching 'em, anyway. There are, like, a lot more productive/rewarding pathways towards which you could guide their leisure time.

We went this way, because this is the way we went.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Centerfield wrote: Sure. That's fair. But I am asking you, and everyone else, to be cognizant of attacks that come in different forms. "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."

I didn't view this as an attack on anyone here, and I agreed with it because
I believe it to be true. Soon as someone starts flipping the Yankees do this
and the Yankees do that cards I'll always say well go root for the Yankees if
you are in such an envy of the crosstown doings.

[Centerfield]

It was an insult directed at me.

Because I complained that are owners are shit people. Then someone else brought up the Steinbrenners, and said they were worse. And I said no, they're not, pointing out the obvious.

But now that makes me a wannabe Yankee fan.

At least my insults are direct and personal, rather than that passive aggressive shit.

[Guest 41Forever]

I brought up the Steinbrenners. If you're too young to remember M. Donald Grant, then you definitely didn't live through the utter nonsense of the Steinbrenners in the 1970s and early 1980s

I've touched on this before, but as I've gotten older, I see more of the gray, and not just sticking out from under my Mets cap.

I think when we start deciding that people are "shit people," it's as if we're saying they're all bad. I don't agree with everything the owners have done, but I've also lived through far worse. I'll always be grateful that the Wilpons bought the team from the previous group. We've had some amazing periods of success -- maybe more than a bunch of other teams -- and some awful down years. There are far, far worse owners and very few perfect ones.

But hey, I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I try to look for the good. We kicked some butt last night.

I do like the pet photos. My cat, Tug, won't wear anything cool.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Guest

[Guest d'Kong76]

Centerfield wrote: It was an insult directed at me.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I respectfully have to disagree.

[Centerfield]

41Forever wrote: I brought up the Steinbrenners. If you're too young to remember M. Donald Grant, then you definitely didn't live through the utter nonsense of the Steinbrenners in the 1970s and early 1980s I've touched on this before, but as I've gotten older, I see more of the gray, and not just sticking out from under my Mets cap. I think when we start deciding that people are "shit people," it's as if we're saying they're all bad. I don't agree with everything the owners have done, but I've also lived through far worse. I'll always be grateful that the Wilpons bought the team from the previous group. We've had some amazing periods of success -- maybe more than a bunch of other teams -- and some awful down years. There are far, far worse owners and very few perfect ones. But hey, I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I try to look for the good. We kicked some butt last night. I do like the pet photos. My cat, Tug, won't wear anything cool.

I get that it's a tough call between the two.

On the one hand, you have Fred and Jeff Wilpon who fail to spend like a big market team, throw tantrums when others do, meddle in medical decisions, alienate beloved former players, criticize a female employee for getting pregnant out of wedlock, fire her, and eventually settle with her when she brings a lawsuit, criticize their own players in a New Yorker article, build a ballpark in homage to the ballpark of another team, name their rotunda after a great player from that other team, take part in the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, get sued as a result of it, negotiate a secret loan from their buddy the Commissioner, and take out personal loans against the franchise, crippling the on-field product for the foreseeable future.

And on the other hand, Hal Steinbrenner is George's son.

I mean. How do you choose?

[Guest d'Kong76]

41Forever wrote: I'll always be grateful that the Wilpons bought the team from the previous group.

My brain just exploded; now if you'll excuse me, I have quite a mess here
to attend to...

[Benjamin Grimm]

I know. It's not like the Mets were on the verge of folding or relocating. If the Doubleday-Wilpon team hadn't bought the Mets, someone else would have. And we might have been better off under Robert Abplanalp. (Anyone else remember that name?)

[Guest 41Forever]

d'Kong76 wrote: 41Forever wrote: I'll always be grateful that the Wilpons bought the team from the previous group. My brain just exploded; now if you'll excuse me, I have quite a mess here to attend to...

Hey, M. Donald Grant scarred my childhood. I'm not over it yet.

[Centerfield]

Wasn't he a minority owner who had already been fired as team president by then?

My pre-'83 Mets history stinks. But that's what I understood.

Really this problem started when Joan Payson failed to raise her children as avid Mets fans. Bad parenting.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Oh! So now eff Wilpon is getting the undeserved credit of saving the Mets from the de Roulets and M. Donald Grant? He had a tiny ONE percent stake in the Mets as a courtesy favor from Nelson Doubleday when the Doubleday Group bought the Mets in 1980 ferchrissakes. You think Doubleday was so strapped for cash that he needed eff's 1% to complete the sale? It was eff Wilpon who didn't have the money for a larger stake in 1980 and in fact, probably never had the money when he took over the team years later, cutthroatting his way to full ownership and screwing Doubleday, the man that gave Wilpon access, relying instead on bogus exaggerated financial statements based on non existent Madoff gains-- the investment vehicle that Wilpon absolutely knew or had to know was a scam. He knowingly invested in humanity's biggest scam and Steinbrenner's worse because he fired his fucking managers? (Firing his fucking managers all the way to the World Series every fucking year while the Mets played Funiculi Funicula with Tom Hausman). Steinbrenner got Reggie Fucking Jackson and we got Tom Hausman.

[G-Fafif]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: He had a tiny ONE percent stake in the Mets

Five percent, I believe.

It took several decades for my goodwill toward Mets owners for simply not being deRoulet (or Steinbrenner) to completely wear away, so I understand the impulse toward vestigial gratitude. It may not be operative at this stage of the franchise's development, but I get it in a vacuum.

[Edgy MD]

The case against Steinbrenner is certainly not limited to the fact that he impulsively fired his managers. But if you like him, you like him.

[batmagadanleadoff]

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: He had a tiny ONE percent stake in the Mets Five percent, I believe. It took several decades for my goodwill toward Mets owners for simply not being deRoulet (or Steinbrenner) to completely wear away, so I understand the impulse toward vestigial gratitude. It may not be operative at this stage of the franchise's development, but I get it in a vacuum.

I thought so. But I googled a few pieces to write that post and they said one percent. Actually, I thought it was closer to 10%.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: The case against Steinbrenner is certainly not limited to the fact that he impulsively not that he fired his managers. But if you like him, you like him.

Agree. I was being customarily and stylistically snarky. But Madoff. Likely knowingly. Top that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Steinbrenner was an asshole whose teams made the playoffs. Wilpon's a douchebag whose teams usually never make the playoffs. The douchebaggy character flaws cancel each other out and whaddya got left? Reggie and Catfish and Winfield against Michael Cuddyer and Jason Vargas.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Edgy MD wrote: The case against Steinbrenner is certainly not limited to the fact that he impulsively fired his managers.

I think of Steiney and I think of the pussy grabber in the WH.

[Edgy MD]

You're hardly alone. The president himself has called Steinbrenner his best friend.

[fimg=500:2m8rst26]https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/images/1998-George-Steinbrenner-wife-Joan-Donald-Trump-05936993.jpg[/fimg:2m8rst26]

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: You're hardly alone. The president himself has called Steinbrenner his best friend. [fimg=500]https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/images/1998-George-Steinbrenner-wife-Joan-Donald-Trump-05936993.jpg[/fimg]

If there was a Mt. Rushmore of detestable, I feel like those two would be the first two heads.

In fact, I'm struggling to think of two more that are comparable.

[Centerfield]

Back to the larger point, the Mets owners are shit people. Just because there may have been other shit owners doesn't change that.

[seawolf17]

Centerfield wrote: Back to the larger point, the Mets owners are shit people. Just because there may have been other shit owners doesn't change that.

True.

[Guest cooby]

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You're hardly alone. The president himself has called Steinbrenner his best friend. [fimg=500]https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/images/1998-George-Steinbrenner-wife-Joan-Donald-Trump-05936993.jpg[/fimg] If there was a Mt. Rushmore of detestable, I feel like those two would be the first two heads. In fact, I'm struggling to think of two more that are comparable.

Please, put it somewhere even more remote than South Dakota

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The case against Steinbrenner is certainly not limited to the fact that he impulsively not that he fired his managers. But if you like him, you like him. Agree. I was being customarily and stylistically snarky. But Madoff. Likely knowingly. Top that.

If only Steinbrenner had cared enough about winning to do whatever it took to make a few extra bucks for years. It's impossible to know because these are all private finances, but maybe Mike Piazza doesn't happen without Madoff.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The case against Steinbrenner is certainly not limited to the fact that he impulsively not that he fired his managers. But if you like him, you like him. Agree. I was being customarily and stylistically snarky. But Madoff. Likely knowingly. Top that. If only Steinbrenner had cared enough about winning to do whatever it took to make a few extra bucks for years. It's impossible to know because these are all private finances, but maybe Mike Piazza doesn't happen without Madoff.

If you can justify investing with Madoff knowing it was a scam all along because it yielded Piazza, then where do you get off panning anything Steinbrenner ever did?

[Ceetar]

I'm really doing neither, I think they are/were both out of touch old white men that cared primarily about status and profit. Like many rich folk, their various successes have a lot to do with already being rich, luck, and circumstance.