Humber in the Dumper

[Elster88]

I'll go out on a limb and agree with Willets. I thought people might get offended by [u:af3c951122]my[/u:af3c951122] avatar, because the guy never hit really well.

[Guest Rotblatt]

]The Mets need to hire some smart guys. They certainly need to hire at least one.

Wasn't the guy who signed Reyes pretty smart? Or how about the guys who brought him to the majors despite being 20 years old and posting middling minor league stats? Or how about the scouts who told everyone that Reyes was a Big Deal and a Can't Miss Prospect so that fans like us could bitch and moan about how stupid our front office was by leaving him in the minors for an extra 160 at bats?

Unless, of course, your conclusion that Reyes could help our club in 2003 was based solely watching him play with your own eyes . . .

[Diamond Dad]

I recall seeing Reyes play in the "futures" game at the 2003 All-Star break. He hit a routine three-hopper to the shortstop and beat the throw to first for an infield hit. The shortstop played it flawlessly and made a good throw -- Reyes just beat it. Then he laced one in the gap his next at-bat and flew around the bases for a triple.

I recall remarking at the time, "Man, that boy can fly, and he can play shortstop -- we should call him up NOW."

But, I don't fault the Mets management -- they brought him up at a young age as it was, and he's had some growing pains. No compliants.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

KC wrote: I apologize if depicting you as a persecuted christ-like image insulted you. We used to have fun here by razzing each other.

Nope, totally cool with razzing and being razzed. Just pointing out that I'm not the first person to make fun of someone around here, nor the first to give a dig or cuss or exaggerate, so please stop pointing me out as an egregious violator of Emily Post's Etiquette Guide when I do it because you don't like what I'm saying but don't feel comfortable coming down on me for that. The avatar's just my way of accepting your razzing.

And my sig line's just my way of reminding myself that it's okay to use harsh words sometimes because it's done all the time around here ,and no one seems to mind very much, so I needn't pay scrupulous attention when someone scolds me for unprecedented harshness. I kind of like including my pals Duan and J. Dickshot and the Edgemeister in one sig line.

[Guest KC]

We could change your posting designation to "caustic fucktard" instead
of escalating through the ranks if you'd like.

lmk, cf

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

But then I'd lose Duan's contribution to my sig line, and Edgy's.

[Guest KC]

What I mean is, Einsteeen, is that instead of being '483) Tom Veryzer' you
can always just be 'caustic fucktard'.

I'm downsizing avatars that are over 100 pixels wide next week and putting
them on the kcmets server. Has nothing to do with you, so don't go slam-
ming another nail through your hand because I've been planning it for some
time but haven't gotten around to it.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

KC wrote: What I mean is, Einsteeen, is that instead of being '483) Tom Veryzer' you can always just be 'caustic fucktard'. I'm downsizing avatars that are over 100 pixels wide next week and putting them on the kcmets server. Has nothing to do with you, so don't go slam- ming another nail through your hand because I've been planning it for some time but haven't gotten around to it.

Listen, Copernicus, I get that idea, and I like it. What I was trying to say--and I'll talk reeeeeal slow here--is that if we did that, and --then--I--eliminate--the sig line--I would then lose Duan's and Edgy's amusing contributions to my sig line, which would be a shame. You wouldn't want me to keep the sig line if you were already reading "Caustic Fucktard" in the posting designation, right? OTOH, it's prolly worth it, both as a compromise and as a good idea in itself. And I would only lose Duan's, really. Edgy's could still stay.

So gopher it.

As to the nails through the palms, don't I have Roman centurions to help out with that stuff? That's not a one-man job.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

And if you think the avatar's too big now, you should ask Frayed Knot how it looked when I posted it full-size for a few hours.

Anyway, back to baseball (you remember baseball.) Rotblatt asked

"how about the scouts who told everyone that Reyes was a Big Deal and a Can't Miss Prospect so that fans like us could bitch and moan about how stupid our front office was"?

Okay, I accept that maybe the Mets have a smart scout or two at the lower levels. But if they were really assuring the top brass that he was a Can't Miss Prospect, the brass certainly weren't listening for the first few months of 2003. Can you really deny that they preferred (and some might still prefer) to play Rey F. Sanchez over Reyes? They had a choice to make, and instead of them making it, Sanchez's left quadruped (or whatever) made it for them.

[Frayed Knot]

Except that the team made it publicly clear as that season began that Reyes replacing Sanchez was merely a question of when, not if. Jose also started the year with one of his numerous (although more minor) leg inuries, didn't have a particularly good ST (IIRC) or that good a minor league start, and (once more with feeling) was a 19 y/o barely out of A-ball.
It's not a case where they "preferred" Sanchez over Reyes. It was clear that Sanchez was hired as a place-keeper - just as the Braves did when signing Jordan/Mondesi/Franco and not instantly handing jobs to Johnson/Francouer/Marte.

See also: Strawberry in '83, Mays in '51, etc.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

What I wouldn't give for some choice archives from spring of '03.

"Publicly clear"? This team hasn't made anything publicly clear since David Cone in the bullpen.

What they did issue was a lot of misleading, ambiguous remarks about their total commitment to Sanchez, their firm conviction that Reyes was in their future plans but not in their immediate future, yyybbb. If you could ever find the threads from then, you'd see that some folks went into panic mode when Sanchez went down, hysterical over entrusting even for a few weeks the ss position to a player as raw as Reyes. (I'm sure Edgy's still discussing his traumatizing anxiety attack over it with his shrink.) Best to peddle that revisionist alternative-world version of history to someone more gullible than--wait! You posted it on the CPF. That's the perfect place. It'll fly there, for sure.

[Benjamin Grimm]

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I think the plan may have been to gice Reyes a little more time in AAA than he'd logged by the time Sanchez went to the DL. That the Mets hadn't publically anointed Reyes as the MLB SS in April made plenty of sense in the event he failed to make progress as quickly as he did. It takes real willfull ignorance to pretend that, even if it wasn't broadcast by club officials, that Sanchez was supposed to have been a guy who'd usher in Reyes when/if he was ready.

Just like the promotion of Strawberry, tho, circumstances (injury) and a strong need for a PR pop ultimately won the day it came to calling him up.

AS I recall it, everyone was excited to see Reyes here, even if there were good reasons to have reservations that he'd be an instant success (his OBP and XBH weren't very good vs. AAA pitching, especially at first). If he were overmatched, for instance, there was a fear he'd develop bad habits, etc. I think everyone could see he had real talent and with him up, hoped for the best.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I can't imagine anybody going into "panic mode" when Rey Sanchez got hurt.

[Guest KC]

I can't picture Edgy discussing his traumatizing anxiety attack over it with a shrink.

Stupid shit, getting stoopider by the day. Hope it ends soon.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

KC wrote: I can't picture Edgy discussing his traumatizing anxiety attack over it with a shrink. Stupid shit, getting stoopider by the day. Hope it ends soon.

Yet you can easily picture me shlepping a cross up to Gethsemene? Now, why is it that sometimes you're so good at clever exaggeration for effect, and other times so clueless? Could it be--a good thing when pro-Mets, a very bad thing when not?

What I want here is simple and obvious (to me): I want to see a ballclub capable of recognizing young talent and, assuming that ballclub has more holes than Albert Hall (as the Mets did and do), promoting that young talent instead of playing place-holding, inept veterans for the face-saving reason of being able to convince weak-minded fans that they're a seriously contending team when they are anything but.

Is that so tough? Do you really need to get your panties into a twist over that concept?

I guess one of the things I miss about the 1960s Mets is their comfort in recognizing that they have obvious gaping holes to fix, plainly worthless veterans all over the roster in desperate need of being thrown overboard, and a bad habit of finishing last, which they would like to end some day. The 2000-and-x Mets are pretty much the same, but clueless and timid and very uncomfortable in recognizing their needs, so instead of playing their Ron Swobodas and Ed Kranepools and Tom Seavers and Bud Harrelsons at the first opportunity, regardless of their minor-league-records, or their ages, or their play in Spring Training but simply by dint of their talent and high potential, they keep putting their Al Luplows and Roy McMillans and Dick Stuarts out on the field. Like I said, clueless.

[Guest Spacemans Bong]

Judging by Bret's posts, you'd think the Mets were headed for another 100-loss season.

And take off that bloody avatar. I'm trying not to puke.

[Guest KC]

>>>Now, why is it that sometimes you're so good at clever exaggeration for effect, and other times so clueless?<<<

I dunno. Why is it that you can be so nice is person and here you have to
be a caustic fucktard?

>>>Could it be--a good thing when pro-Mets, a very bad thing when not?<<<

Yeah, that's me ... posting pro-Mets stuff 24-7 ... you see things so clearly.

>>>Do you really need to get your panties into a twist over that concept?<<<

A perfect place to put and end to this once and for all. Archive that.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Spacemans Bong wrote: And take off that bloody avatar. I'm trying not to puke.

Yet nary a complaint or a pang of faint nausea when KC posted it at four times the size. That's a fair proportion for the ratio of even-handedness around here, >4x for a pro-Mets poster (you know you are, KC, that's why you're so beloved) to that of one critical of the Mets.

As to taking it off, I'm waiting for the promised, totally coincidental resizing process--maybe it'll be so small it will seem inoccuous and funny to you. (And I'm waiting for the "caustic fucktard" designation to remove my sig line--don't worry, I have another one ready to go, even wittier and more amusing than this current one.

[Elster88]

]I want to see a ballclub capable of recognizing young talent and, assuming that ballclub has more holes than Albert Hall (as the Mets did and do), promoting that young talent instead of playing place-holding, inept veterans for the face-saving reason of being able to convince weak-minded fans that they're a seriously contending team when they are anything but.

I easily can understand your frustration from the Mets based on last year's trading deadline moves, no matter how well Benson and Zambrano have pitched. But why keep going on and on about this? These trades have been lamented, ad nauseum, by many including myself. Why not wait until this year's trading deadlines to see how they do? Using Wright and Reyes as examples of the Mets inability to be what you mention in the quote is silly, IMHO.

]Yet nary a complaint or a pang of faint nausea when KC posted it at four times the size. That's a fair proportion for the ratio of even-handedness around here, >4x for a pro-Mets poster (you know you are, KC, that's why you're so beloved) to that of one critical of the Mets.

I think the difference here is that KC posted it once, whereas every post you've ever made now has this attached to it. Smaller size or no, it's the quantity, not the size that may be making Spaceman sick.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Elster88 wrote: I think the difference here is that KC posted it once

Of course you do.

[Elster88]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Elster88"]I think the difference here is that KC posted it once Of course you do.

I'm assuming this is a way of being derisive while totally ignoring my point. So much for trying to stick an objective nose in.