Things the Mets have done wrong in the Wilpon/Wilpon era

[Guest themetfairy]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: You didn't ask me but I got lotsa ideas. Here's one: I'd put up an installation with one Topps baseball card for every single Met ever. The cards would be organized alphabetically by the last name of each Met, and would be reorganized every time there would be additions to the exhibit. For the Randy Bobbs and Billy Cowans and Dave Schnecks and Bob Friends etc., who never got a Mets card, I'd pay Topps to go into their photo archives so that they could create cards for this installation. Every Met would be on that wall.

I love the idea, but would do the wall chronologically (but would have a corresponding list by name that would get updated with every new addition).

[Guest themetfairy]

G-Fafif wrote: A bit on the cereal thing here.

Yes - thanks G!

She probably lost the case on the ground that all employees are treated like crap so there was no differential treatment. (Actually, they probably settled with a nondisclosure clause (as is the case with the vast majority of these kinds of claims)).

[batmagadanleadoff]

themetfairy wrote: You didn't ask me but I got lotsa ideas. Here's one: I'd put up an installation with one Topps baseball card for every single Met ever. The cards would be organized alphabetically by the last name of each Met, and would be reorganized every time there would be additions to the exhibit. For the Randy Bobbs and Billy Cowans and Dave Schnecks and Bob Friends etc., who never got a Mets card, I'd pay Topps to go into their photo archives so that they could create cards for this installation. Every Met would be on that wall. I love the idea, but would do the wall chronologically (but would have a corresponding list by name that would get updated with every new addition).

Chronological's OK. But aesthetically, I'd like it more when the card styles and player eras are all mixed up. I'd like to see a Stengel Met right next to a Valentine Met, for example. That's the specific reason I went alphabetical. Also, I'd change some cards each year. Because, assuming this exhibit was real, when you first add a player to the existing exhibit, it would logically be his debut card. But a future card of his might be more appealing.

[G-Fafif]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: You didn't ask me but I got lotsa ideas. Here's one: I'd put up an installation with one Topps baseball card for every single Met ever. The cards would be organized alphabetically by the last name of each Met, and would be reorganized every time there would be additions to the exhibit. For the Randy Bobbs and Billy Cowans and Dave Schnecks and Bob Friends etc., who never got a Mets card, I'd pay Topps to go into their photo archives so that they could create cards for this installation. Every Met would be on that wall. I love the idea, but would do the wall chronologically (but would have a corresponding list by name that would get updated with every new addition). Chronological's OK. But aesthetically, I'd like it more when the card styles and player eras are all mixed up. I'd like to see a Stengel Met right next to a Valentine Met, for example. That's the specific reason I went alphabetical. Also, I'd change some cards each year. Because, assuming this exhibit was real, when you first add a player to the existing exhibit, it would logically be his debut card. But a future card of his might be more appealing.

Jason my blog partner has long advocated a wall in which every Met's name is engraved, like the Vietnam Memorial but only less depressing, he claims. I like that, but I think I like this one better, especially the creation of Topps cards for the non-Toppsers. Shoot, they create sad looking cards on the video screen for the guys who don't have them, so yes, do it up right.

Dave Schneck. How did Dave Schneck never get a card?

[Edgy MD]

A question that makes Jason toss and turn through the night, no doubt.

[Guest themetfairy]

Something relatively new on the giveaway front is that they are giving away some cool items, but only to people who buy the tickets through specific links. Here is one example. You only get the goods if you buy the tickets through the specific link, and you have to pick up your tickets day of game (so if you're going with a group of friends, either you all have to arrive together, or otherwise make sure that you use the Rotunda entrance and leave tickets at Will Call. Not an insurmountable chore, but much more of a hassle than just giving everyone their tickets ahead of time). Inevitably these promotions aren't well publicized, most people either don't know about them ahead of time, and the big winners are the people who sell the limited edition items on the secondary market.

================

On a different note, the introduction of Mrs. Met has been bass ackward. She appears sporadically and her evolving backstory makes her seem like a 50's era wife (we haven't seen her at all because she's been raising the kids/she needs to get dinner on the table for Mr. Met/etc.). And there is no Mrs. Met merch yet. I didn't notice myself, but I was at yesterday's game with a friend who REALLY wanted a Mrs. Met shirt. It seems like they re-introduced a potential icon but they have no game plan for promoting her.

=================

BML - I love the idea of mixing up players' cards each year. It would give fans something new to see each season. And by mixing them up you could get a little bit of that card style/era juxtaposition (especially if you have a separate section for the coaches and managers).

[Ceetar]

themetfairy wrote: On a different note, the introduction of Mrs. Met has been bass ackward. She appears sporadically and her evolving backstory makes her seem like a 50's era wife (we haven't seen her at all because she's been raising the kids/she needs to get dinner on the table for Mr. Met/etc.). And there is no Mrs. Met merch yet. I didn't notice myself, but I was at yesterday's game with a friend who REALLY wanted a Mrs. Met shirt. It seems like they re-introduced a potential icon but they have no game plan for promoting her.

All-Star Game stuff probably kept people busy too and I wonder if no decisions were made early on when most t-shirt design stuff seems to happen? I'd expect to see more of her on objects next year, I hope anyway.

[batmagadanleadoff]

themetfairy wrote: And there is no Mrs. Met merch yet. I didn't notice myself, but I was at yesterday's game with a friend who REALLY wanted a Mrs. Met shirt. It seems like they re-introduced a potential icon but they have no game plan for promoting her.

What? Doesn't everyone own this big vinyl beach ball?

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: themetfairy wrote: And there is no Mrs. Met merch yet. I didn't notice myself, but I was at yesterday's game with a friend who REALLY wanted a Mrs. Met shirt. It seems like they re-introduced a potential icon but they have no game plan for promoting her. What? Doesn't everyone own this big vinyl beach ball?

Doesn't everyone get to snuggle and sleep with Lady Met?

[Edgy MD]

I think when the next bloggers' summit is convened, they'll need to come down decisively, speaking with one voice as to whether Lady Met and Mrs. Met are the same person.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: themetfairy wrote: And there is no Mrs. Met merch yet. I didn't notice myself, but I was at yesterday's game with a friend who REALLY wanted a Mrs. Met shirt. It seems like they re-introduced a potential icon but they have no game plan for promoting her. What? Doesn't everyone own this big vinyl beach ball? Doesn't everyone get to snuggle and sleep with Lady Met?

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

I'm curious what Mrs. Met's maiden name is. I'd like it better if it was Ms. Met. Then she could be Mr. Met's sister and it would explain why they both have giant baseballs for a head.

[Guest themetfairy]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Doesn't everyone get to snuggle and sleep with Lady Met?

No - only D-Dad does.

[batmagadanleadoff]

You didn't ask me but I got lotsa ideas. Here's one: I'd put up an installation with one Topps baseball card for every single Met ever. The cards would be organized alphabetically by the last name of each Met, and would be reorganized every time there would be additions to the exhibit. For the Randy Bobbs and Billy Cowans and Dave Schnecks and Bob Friends etc., who never got a Mets card, I'd pay Topps to go into their photo archives so that they could create cards for this installation. Every Met would be on that wall. I love the idea, but would do the wall chronologically (but would have a corresponding list by name that would get updated with every new addition). Chronological's OK. But aesthetically, I'd like it more when the card styles and player eras are all mixed up. I'd like to see a Stengel Met right next to a Valentine Met, for example. That's the specific reason I went alphabetical. Also, I'd change some cards each year. Because, assuming this exhibit was real, when you first add a player to the existing exhibit, it would logically be his debut card. But a future card of his might be more appealing. Jason my blog partner has long advocated a wall in which every Met's name is engraved, like the Vietnam Memorial but only less depressing, he claims. I like that, but I think I like this one better, especially the creation of Topps cards for the non-Toppsers. Shoot, they create sad looking cards on the video screen for the guys who don't have them, so yes, do it up right. Dave Schneck. How did Dave Schneck never get a card?

And since we're paying Topps to create authentic looking cards for the Toppless Davey Schnecks, I'd have Topps dip into the ol' archives once more to redo some of those ugly capless and headless shots, especially the ones where the Met isn't even shown in the proper uniform.

[Frayed Knot]

I remember in his original restaurant (73rd & 3rd) Rusty had a wall display where all 20-whatever of his baseball cards were lined up in chronological order.
That was pretty cool looking.

[Edgy MD]

Probably made the years he refused to be included seem a little awkward.

[batmagadanleadoff]

You didn't ask me but I got lotsa ideas. Here's one: I'd put up an installation with one Topps baseball card for every single Met ever. The cards would be organized alphabetically by the last name of each Met, and would be reorganized every time there would be additions to the exhibit. For the Randy Bobbs and Billy Cowans and Dave Schnecks and Bob Friends etc., who never got a Mets card, I'd pay Topps to go into their photo archives so that they could create cards for this installation. Every Met would be on that wall. I love the idea, but would do the wall chronologically (but would have a corresponding list by name that would get updated with every new addition). Chronological's OK. But aesthetically, I'd like it more when the card styles and player eras are all mixed up. I'd like to see a Stengel Met right next to a Valentine Met, for example. That's the specific reason I went alphabetical. Also, I'd change some cards each year. Because, assuming this exhibit was real, when you first add a player to the existing exhibit, it would logically be his debut card. But a future card of his might be more appealing. Jason my blog partner has long advocated a wall in which every Met's name is engraved, like the Vietnam Memorial but only less depressing, he claims. I like that, but I think I like this one better, especially the creation of Topps cards for the non-Toppsers. Shoot, they create sad looking cards on the video screen for the guys who don't have them, so yes, do it up right. Dave Schneck. How did Dave Schneck never get a card? And since we're paying Topps to create authentic looking cards for the Toppless Davey Schnecks, I'd have Topps dip into the ol' archives once more to redo some of those ugly capless and headless shots, especially the ones where the Met isn't even shown in the proper uniform.

And one more thing I left out: Those Mets whose only Topps appearance was on a portion of a rookie card, shared with other players, like Les Rohr, or Jesse Hudson or Bart Shirley ---



I'd have Topps create full cards for them, too. And if Topps doesn't have unused Mets photos of those players, they could simply use the photo already used on their original rookie cards, but uncropped, and bigger, to fill out the whole card.

[Zvon]

You didn't ask me but I got lotsa ideas. Here's one: I'd put up an installation with one Topps baseball card for every single Met ever. The cards would be organized alphabetically by the last name of each Met, and would be reorganized every time there would be additions to the exhibit. For the Randy Bobbs and Billy Cowans and Dave Schnecks and Bob Friends etc., who never got a Mets card, I'd pay Topps to go into their photo archives so that they could create cards for this installation. Every Met would be on that wall. I love the idea, but would do the wall chronologically (but would have a corresponding list by name that would get updated with every new addition). Chronological's OK. But aesthetically, I'd like it more when the card styles and player eras are all mixed up. I'd like to see a Stengel Met right next to a Valentine Met, for example. That's the specific reason I went alphabetical. Also, I'd change some cards each year. Because, assuming this exhibit was real, when you first add a player to the existing exhibit, it would logically be his debut card. But a future card of his might be more appealing. Jason my blog partner has long advocated a wall in which every Met's name is engraved, like the Vietnam Memorial but only less depressing, he claims. I like that, but I think I like this one better, especially the creation of Topps cards for the non-Toppsers. Shoot, they create sad looking cards on the video screen for the guys who don't have them, so yes, do it up right. Dave Schneck. How did Dave Schneck never get a card? And since we're paying Topps to create authentic looking cards for the Toppless Davey Schnecks, I'd have Topps dip into the ol' archives once more to redo some of those ugly capless and headless shots, especially the ones where the Met isn't even shown in the proper uniform. And one more thing I left out: Those Mets whose only Topps appearance was on a portion of a rookie card, shared with other players, like Les Rohr, or Jesse Hudson or Bart Shirley --- I'd have Topps create full cards for them, too. And if Topps doesn't have unused Mets photos of those players, they could simply use the photo already used on their original rookie cards, but uncropped, and bigger, to fill out the whole card.

Did Topps save everything?

Hard to find a decent color pic of Warren to use. I made this before you posted that one above, which is nice but not desirable. I will see how it looks in the border cause like Yogi said, you're never know how something will look until you see it.

[Zvon]

Now Ive got a little snap to fit Met border kit. Hey, it don't suck.
Looks like he's getting ready to do what he did, which was leave town.

[Zvon]

The biggest thing the Wilpons did wrong was shaft Doubleday. I liked that guy and he knew baseball. I imagine this vid has been posted here before...oh, maybe not. Just posted last week. A great slice of Mets here and the start of the Wilpon era. I haven't even finished watching this yet. I like the yearbooks.
[youtube:zp8nuwju]JIY7laphVSk[/youtube:zp8nuwju]

[Frayed Knot]

The biggest thing the Wilpons did wrong was shaft Doubleday. -- I've heard this a number of times before but how this supposed shafting took place has yet to be explained to me. Fred, as a minority owner, had a clause in the contract that if a certain pct of the team were to be sold then he had the right of first refusal to buy that portion. That Nelson failed to know this or was mad because he didn't want Fred to be an equal partner is his fault and certainly nothing underhanded from Wilpon.

I liked that guy and he knew baseball -- I have and had no opinion of Doubleday personally, but he never struck me as a guy who knew baseball particularly well. Owning a team to him seemed much more of the rich guy's toy than any kind of lifelong dream.

[Edgy MD]

Ding and ding.

The idea that in Doubleday must be made a victim or a paragon just doesn't float. The sooner that notion dies the better.

[ashie62]

Frayed Knot wrote: The biggest thing the Wilpons did wrong was shaft Doubleday. -- I've heard this a number of times before but how this supposed shafting took place has yet to be explained to me. Fred, as a minority owner, had a clause in the contract that if a certain pct of the team were to be sold then he had the right of first refusal to but that portion. That Nelson failed to know this or was mad because he didn't want Fred to be an equal partner is his fault and certainly nothing underhanded from Wilpon. I liked that guy and he knew baseball -- I have and had no opinion of Doubleday personally, but he never struck me as a guy who knew baseball particularly well. Owning a team to him seemed much more of the rich guy's toy than any kind of lifelong dream.

Spot on... Nelson was pretty detatched...

[Zvon]

Then I stand corrected. As I've said here before, I'd have liked to see how things would ahve went had he stayed on.

[Edgy MD]

I can't imagine it'd've been pretty, but it'd've been interesting.

I guess we should include hiring Randolph, a decision sold on that stupid winner label, but seemingly based on the Mets' desire to get good with the league by getting ahead of their affirmative action program. Neither was a particularly good motivation for the hire.

[stevejrogers]

Edgy MD wrote: Ding and ding. The idea that in Doubleday must be made a victim or a paragon just doesn't float. The sooner that notion dies the better.

Just tell Fatso to stop repeating the often told legend that he and Doggie had a hand in the Mets landing Piazza based on Doubleday hearing them disscuss the idea of the Mets going after him.

Which come to think of it, should make Doubleday seem less of a baseball guy, and more in line of the Steinbrenners and other owners who react to what media members "tell" them to do. The fact that the move worked out splendidly, as oppose to the "Wilpon directed" decision to ride out Hundley's time on the DL, is besides that point.

[Lefty Specialist]

My wife worked for Doubleday Publishing back in the day. He sold the book company to Bertelsmann in 1986 so that he could concentrate on his polo ponies, the Mets, and drinking, not necessarily in that order.

He wanted to own the Mets, but he didn't want to [u:3lzczo08]run[/u:3lzczo08] the Mets. He wasn't driven to do it like Fred was. Nelson first thought of Wilpon as an annoyance, but as the loss of his control became more apparent, he grew hostile to the Wilpons. Fred didn't want to sign Piazza, Nelson did, and he did it as much to stick Fred with the bill as anything else. Nelson finally cashed out in 2002.

Doubleday was a little like Mrs. Payson- he thought of the team as a rich man's toy. Not that he didn't want them to win, but he didn't like getting his hands dirty in the day-to-day. Fred, for all his faults, was a self-made guy and wanted to know the details. Nelson inherited his family's company and sold it off because he couldn't be bothered running it. If only we could be so lucky with Jeff.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Doubleday was a little like Mrs. Payson- he thought of the team as a rich man's toy. Not that he didn't want them to win, but he didn't like getting his hands dirty in the day-to-day.

This was probably what made the Mets the powerhouse organization they became by the mid-1980's. Doubleday hired great baseball people, and then got the fuck out of the way.

[Edgy MD]

We're doing it again.

[HahnSolo]

Trying to force an "8th-inning song" on us, because Oh My God the Red Sox have Sweet Caroline so we have to find a song too.