Mets Likely to Offer Wright a Long-Term Deal

[Vic Sage]

Death to modifiers!
Yes, i agree, "extremely poor" is inaccurate; i think "poor" covers it well enough.

In the 11 full seasons since our WS loss to the MFYs in 2000, we've had 8 seasons as total non-factors (finishing from 3rd to 5th), 2 frustrating near-misses and 1 post-season appearance. This year? We'll see.

And what this record signifies to me is over a decade of suckitude (albeit not "extreme suckitude"), with 1 post-season peekaboo that ended in heartbreaking fashion. If you want to salute this streak of 70+ win seasons as if its some sort of accomplishment, then knock yourself out.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: This is about the most contrived piece of dreck I ever heard. We should love the Wilpons because the Mets win more than 69 games a season?

Bull.

(1) That's cuh-learly not what I said. (2) It's doubly ironic that you respond to a plea for perspective by bloody doubling down on the distortions. Lighten up for once.

Vic Sage wrote: If you want to salute this streak of 70+ win seasons as if its some sort of accomplishment, then knock yourself out.

And you know well enough that I didn't "salute" anything.

Hey, let's play a game. You say something, and I'll pretend you said something else. And you pretend I said something else. And we all get to fight and act all goddamn right about everything! Let's call it "The Internet."

[batmagadanleadoff]

Vic Sage wrote: Death to modifiers! Yes, i agree, "extremely poor" is inaccurate; i think "poor" covers it well enough. In the 11 full seasons since our WS loss to the MFYs in 2000, we've had 8 seasons as total non-factors (finishing from 3rd to 5th), 2 frustrating near-misses and 1 post-season appearance. This year? We'll see. And what this record signifies to me is over a decade of suckitude (albeit not "extreme suckitude"), with 1 post-season peekaboo that ended in heartbreaking fashion. If you want to salute this streak of 70+ win seasons as if its some sort of accomplishment, then knock yourself out.

You really wanna knock yourself out? Since 1988, the Pittsburgh Pirates won the NL East twice as many times as the NY Mets. And Pitt hasn't been in the East for about 20 years, and hasn't finished over .500 since Barry Bonds signed with the Giants. Love the Wilpons? Really?

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, let's pretend I said that too.

[Vic Sage]

The team has eight straight years of over seventy wins. If they make it a ninth this year (and it certainly looks like they will), that'll tie them for the longest such streak in team history.

...it's on the verge of tying the longest streak in their history. If that's "extremely poor" then the definition of extreme has changed. Winning percentage wise, I'd imagine the Wilpon-Katz-Wilpon team has been more successful than any managing ownership group in the team's history.

Is "saluting" too strong a description? Ok. However you'd like to characterize it, it seems to me you're using "the streak" to rebut or at least blunt the anger directed at the Wilpons' ownership, but i think it is evidence in support of that anger.

[Edgy MD]

Is "saluting" too strong a description.

Please give me a break. Please? Is was a horseshit description full of unjustified smug sarcasm directed at me. And I'm beyond tired of it and its like.

[batmagadanleadoff]

So what did you say? It's obvious that according to you, we're not supposed to criticize something because the Mets win more than 69 games a season. So what kind of equity or goodwill do you suppose the Mets get for that streak?

Edited June 1, 2012 by Guest

[Vic Sage]

Please give me a break. Please? Is was a horseshit description full of unjustified smug sarcasm directed at me. And I'm beyond tired of it and its like.

whatever, dude.

i hereby rescind the use of "salute" in honor of national donut day.

instead i offer to replace it with the phrase: "mention for no apparent rhetorical purpose whatsoever".

now THAT was smug sarcasm... see the difference?

Edited June 1, 2012 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

Geez, all he was saying is that the Mets have been less than completely horrible.

[Edgy MD]

So what did you say?

I think you're more than capable of reading what I "said."

Or you can keep rephrasing it into something for you to attack.

I'd really like to ask again that you do the former. The internet has enough of the latter. If a coherent conversation is ever going to occur here again, I need you to try.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Great. "We can build a tiny 40,000 seat stadium in New York City because we're better than the '62 Mets. Mingle with your fellow pissers without mingling your actual piss."

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Great. "We can build a tiny 40,000 seat stadium in New York City because we're better than the '62 Mets. Mingle with your fellow pissers without mingling your actual piss."

Mets averaged 41k or so (capacity of Citi is 41.8 and they could push that to 44 if they were selling out)

in 2006. they got higher in 2007 and 2008 but a large part of that was Shea Goodbye. They've never topped 40k without Citi Field looming. Why bother building another deck of further away crappy seats for people that are probably not going to come?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Great. "We can build a tiny 40,000 seat stadium in New York City because we're better than the '62 Mets. Mingle with your fellow pissers without mingling your actual piss." Mets averaged 41k or so (capacity of Citi is 41.8 and they could push that to 44 if they were selling out) in 2006. they got higher in 2007 and 2008 but a large part of that was Shea Goodbye. They've never topped 40k without Citi Field looming. Why bother building another deck of further away crappy seats for people that are probably not going to come?

They averaged 40K by drawing 50K on weekends and 25-35K on cold weekday night games. The smaller stadium discourages many fans from even considering attending a game. But the Wilpons couldn't give a shit so long as attendance multiplied by the price of admission is satisfactory. And they could care less about how much goodwill they squander in order to hit their goals.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Great. "We can build a tiny 40,000 seat stadium in New York City because we're better than the '62 Mets. Mingle with your fellow pissers without mingling your actual piss." Mets averaged 41k or so (capacity of Citi is 41.8 and they could push that to 44 if they were selling out) in 2006. they got higher in 2007 and 2008 but a large part of that was Shea Goodbye. They've never topped 40k without Citi Field looming. Why bother building another deck of further away crappy seats for people that are probably not going to come? They averaged 40K by drawing 50K on weekends and 25-35K on cold weekday night games. The smaller stadium discourages many fans from even considering attending a game. But the Wilpons couldn't give a shit so long as attendance multiplied by the price of admission is satisfactory. And they could care less about how much goodwill they squander in order to hit their goals.

And another thing --- how do you know that the Mets wouldn't have averaged 44K or 48K during Citi Field's first seasons, instead of 41K, if capacity was larger?

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: They averaged 40K by drawing 50K on weekends and 25-35K on cold weekday night games. The smaller stadium discourages many fans from even considering attending a game. But the Wilpons couldn't give a shit so long as attendance multiplied by the price of admission is satisfactory. And they could care less about how much goodwill they squander in order to hit their goals.

yup. That's every business ever. And it's a really sucky trend around baseball in general with all the payrolls and expenses skyrocketing the mean price for tickets goes up and up. It's also not just baseball. Right now there are scores of affordable seats thanks to sucking and economy. if they make the playoffs and are averaging 32k in September, next year it'll be a lot harder.

Personally I would've preferred they build an extra 10k seat upper deck with crappy views and cheap seats, but hell they were paying for it themselves and they would probably never even break even on the added construction costs and operation expenses of building that.

If the Mets start competing and maxing out, it's practically a given that they'll find a way to add a couple thousand extra seats.

They didn't sell the place out in 2009 despite coming off a competitive year and it being a new building and they were above .500 into July and only 2 games below going into August with still the hope of reinforcements and a run, so it's not like they completely sucked.

[Gwreck]

Edgy DC wrote: As for "extremely poor" performance, isn't it more fair to call the showing "disappointing," "uninspiring" or maybe "lackluster"?

I don't think "extremely poor" was an unfair description.

The team has eight straight years of over seventy wins. If they make it a ninth this year (and it certainly looks like they will), that'll tie them for the longest such streak in team history.

True, the Mets are better than they have been in the past.

But seventy wins itself is certainly not "good," and I'm not uncomfortable with deeming seventy wins "poor."

If folks don't want to support such a team, that's great. But it helps to keep perspective.

Folks do want to support such a team. The problem is that tickets to that team are priced as if the team has a regular streak of seasons with 82 or more wins.

[Edgy MD]

Gwreck wrote: Edgy DC wrote: As for "extremely poor" performance, isn't it more fair to call the showing "disappointing," "uninspiring" or maybe "lackluster"? I don't think "extremely poor" was an unfair description. The team has eight straight years of over seventy wins. If they make it a ninth this year (and it certainly looks like they will), that'll tie them for the longest such streak in team history. True, the Mets are better than they have been in the past. But seventy wins itself is certainly not "good," and I'm not uncomfortable with deeming seventy wins "poor." If folks don't want to support such a team, that's great. But it helps to keep perspective. Folks do want to support such a team. The problem is that tickets to that team are priced as if the team has a regular streak of seasons with 82 or more wins.

Thanks for responding. Unfortunately, through no fault of yours, I've lost all taste for discussing this.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: Edgy DC wrote: If folks don't want to support such a team, that's great. But it helps to keep perspective. Folks do want to support such a team. The problem is that tickets to that team are priced as if the team has a regular streak of seasons with 82 or more wins.

Tickets are priced as an entertainment option in NYC. We've had this discussion before, but especially this year tickets are extremely affordable. Yes, you need to pay more for more access and closer and better games but there are so many under $20 tickets that get you a very good view of the game.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

LET'S! GO! ARGUE ABOUT MODIFIER USAGE FOR HOURS!

I didn't like the misbegotten birthing of the thing. But it's miles more comfortable, now appropriately "home"y (really, with the Museum/various adornments, it's decor does more to celebrate Met history than Shea did), and the food/beer may be a little overcelebrated, but it's generally excellent.

Shea felt like home, yes. So, too, does a jail cell to the instiitutionalized, or a padded one to those become a certain kind of psychological support.

Also... I think that it's great that the Mets are likely to offer DW an extension.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Last year I took my son to a game in the 500s for $15 a ticket. Sat right behind homeplate and had a great view of everything. And despite being near the back row, I still felt closer to the action than the the front row of the Upper Deck at Shea. I like the ballpark, and as I've said before the main thing I'd would've liked is a more of a neighborhood location rather than the same old sea of parking that surrounded Shea Stadium.

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: LET'S! GO! ARGUE ABOUT MODIFIER USAGE FOR HOURS! I didn't like the misbegotten birthing of the thing. But it's miles more comfortable, now appropriately "home"y (really, with the Museum/various adornments, it's decor does more to celebrate Met history than Shea did), and the food/beer may be a little overcelebrated, but it's generally excellent. Shea felt like home, yes. So, too, does a jail cell to the instiitutionalized, or a padded one to those become a certain kind of psychological support. Also... I think that it's great that the Mets are likely to offer DW an extension.

I could care less about modifiers. I'm simply not on board with the absolutely ridiculous pollyanna notion that it's supposed to be some cause for celebration should the Mets spend the rest of eternity going 71-91 every goddamn season. Quite frankly, everything about the Mets is not good and anyone who thinks otherwise has no credibility. And nobody here should have to walk on eggshells when the mood strikes them to quite accurately point out that Alex Cora sucked.

[Edgy MD]

And I'm not on board with you mischaracterizing me. Over and over and over and over and over. I'm so not on board with it. I ask you and ask you again. Kindly as I can in the midst of you piling such utter nonsense on top of nonsense on top of me.

I don't need to be re-assured that I have credibility with you. I really don't. Just please cut the game with misrepresentation in order to give you a target for your crusade. I'm not playing that role for you. Find another shop for that. Or please just stop. You're smart enough that you don't need to play that game to get your point across.

I agree with you on like 80% of all issues. You realize this, right?

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm simply not on board with the absolutely ridiculous pollyanna notion that it's supposed to be some cause for celebration should the Mets spend the rest of eternity going 71-91 every goddamn season.

Pollyanna? There are very many people who've been telling me since the start of 2011 that the Mets will suck for a couple of years and that's okay because there's a shot they'll be starting to be good in 2014 or so.

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Last year I took my son to a game in the 500s for $15 a ticket. Sat right behind homeplate and had a great view of everything. And despite being near the back row, I still felt closer to the action than the the front row of the Upper Deck at Shea. I like the ballpark, and as I've said before the main thing I'd would've liked is a more of a neighborhood location rather than the same old sea of parking that surrounded Shea Stadium.

Shea didn't celebrate history at all except for some hard to see banners as you went (often walked) up huge escalators.

Obviously the neighborhood was/is the same and they're "working on it" or whatever. I wonder what the general fan perception would've been if they'd moved elsewhere in Queens in order to find a better neighborhood? or *gasp* Brooklyn. That place the Nets are going probably would've been a fairly decent location, Sterling-wise. Would've been able to have all sorts of business ventures and apartments and what not around the stadium right?

[metsmarathon]

knocking down houses would've been another thing to kill the wilpons over.

the thing about shea was that the whole thing opened up around you. it was expansive. it was overly large and it surrounded you. i was awed the first time i stepped onto the field in a run to home plate. it was enormous.

i think that's what i don't like about citi. it feels like we traded down. it's also a little bland on the inside, though i haven't been there this year to experience the blue walls. it lacks architecture. it has some design, but it lacks architecture, and therefore character. it feels more like a replica than an authentic construct, though that's fairly true of all ballparks today (i actually feel like ysiii is worse in that respect)

shea was familiar to us. we knew it well. it's hard to replace that. it was a dump, though i didn't mind it too much. i felt that it could have been rehabilitated, though that probably would have cost as much as building a new stadium.

the wilpons are awful. i like the mets despite my dislike of them. the mets were here first, and i trust they'll be here last. the wilpons have done a shit job building a stadium, maintainting a fanbase, and, for hte most part, building a long-lasting competitor. my only hope is that somehow, the thought process whereby they added sandy alderson and his compatriots may signal some sort of enlightenment whereby they are open to not only new but good ideas.

and indeed, tehy are not the worst ownership group in sports, nor are they the worst ownership group in this sorry little team's sorry little existence. i do not cheer them for this fact, i allow it to temper my disregard for them.

i don't know what this has to do with anything, because i don't know what any of all of this has to do with anything. but i sure as hell hope they find a way to resign david wright at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I sort of miss everything that Shea stood for. It was big and welcoming, so that everyone who wanted to see a game could see it. It wasn't pretty but it was practical with the idea that it could be a football stadium with a little imagination, or a concert venue, or a wrestling arena. It wasn't "home" for the Mets; it was home for the fans of the Mets. It was blue and orange like the Mets and the official colors of the city. To the extent it was designed, it was in the style of the early 1960s, perfectly appropriate and contemporary.

The Wilpons (like owners before them) turned these quaint ideas of practical hospitality and utility on their ear and made a stadium whose purpose was to exclude fans, reduce utility, recall a completely different era design-wise, dress in black and sand, pretend to be a restaurant, sell advertising inside and out, provide luxury for the richest and spoil the ballplayers.

Other than that it's a great place to watch a game.

[metirish]

As Gary just said lost in the shuffle last night was Wright saying on the WFAN pre-game that he will not be talking extension/contract during this season...or next


here it is

y Matt Ehalt | Special to ESPNNewYork.com NEW YORK -- New York Mets third baseman David Wright will not discuss his contract with the team during this season or next, and will engage in contract talks only during the offseason, he told WFAN radio Friday. Wright has a $16 million team option for the 2013 season. "I think that there's too much good going on right now with this team and so many positive vibes with this team right now that it wouldn't be fair to my teammates; it wouldn't be fair to this team to do something as selfish as talk about a contract for me," Wright said. "It doesn't just affect me, it affects the guys in the clubhouse and it affects the vibe that's in the clubhouse. "Like I said, it's part of the business but in the same hand, it's selfish when I feel I'm discussing me when we should be discussing we as a team, especially the good start we've gotten off to." Wright said his previous experience signing a deal in 2006 helped lead him to this decision. He understands the difficulty of having to prepare for a game while dealing with contract talks. He stressed winning and his love for the organization, and added that the Mets did not come to him regarding putting off the talks. "I want to win and I want to win badly and this takes away from the way we prepare every day. Having other guys in this clubhouse have to answer about me, I was in this situation last year," Wright told the radio station. "I had to answer about Jose Reyes and I know the last thing I want to do some days is talk about another guy's contract. I don't want those guys to continue to have to talk about this. We have a good thing and I don't want to selfishly put me ahead of the rest of the guys in this clubhouse." Mets general manager Sandy Alderson said Tuesday that he planned to talk to Wright's agents during the season, although he didn't specifically say an offer would be made. Mets COO Jeff Wilpon said the team will let it play out and "there's no gun to anybody's head," meaning there's no rush to complete a deal. When asked about Wilpon's comments, Wright said he considers Wilpon a close friend, and that the right time will have to be the offseason to have these talks. The 29-year-old third baseman, who entered Friday night's game with a .365 average, second highest in the National League, wants to be able to help the Mets become a contender. "I've said it once, said it a million times, I love it here," Wright said. "I want to be a big reason why we get this thing turned around and headed in the right direction and, of course, I want to be a part of it. Those discussions, we'll wait into the offseason when we can kind of delve into that headfirst and not have to worry about Adam Wainwright's curveball and what's going on behind doors with the contract talk."

[Edgy MD]

Well, almost 100% of every other free agent says the same. He signed his last contract in-season however.

But it's probably best for both him and the team to wait 'til the offseason. Not best for me, though.almost

[Frayed Knot]

Remember the other thing Gary said about that Wright statement: that it's the right thing to say even if it's not true because it gets everyone to stop asking all the time.

IOW, I don't think this tilts the final 'will he or won't he?' decision even an inch one way or the other.

[Edgy MD]

(Yeah, I tried to imply that to some extent with my second sentence.)