Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

[Guest d'Kong76]

What's to like about them? I really can't think of anything.

[Edgy MD]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Again, which big free agent from this year, last year or even the year before did you want them to sign? Foolishly over-spending just to prove you are a big-market team doesn't make sense. It's not like they haven't offered a $100 million contract to any player recently. Just because it was one of our own guys -- Wright -- doesn't mean it didn't happen. And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. Recently, yes. We got deep into the playoffs in 2006 and would have been there again in 2007 and 2008 if not for the epic collapses. You are talking about 6 years of sucking. For a club rebuilding from the bottom up, I don't think that's unreasonable. Who knows what might have happened last year had the All-Star ace and closer not been lost to Tommy John surgery. Maybe I'm a little too removed, but I guess I don't see them as all that evil. Talk to a Marlins fan about evil.

Six years of coming up on the red side of the win-loss ledger, certainly. I'd dispute the notion that it has been six years of sucking.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: What's to like about them? I really can't think of anything.

I don't really think about them much. They're not even on the 40man.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back. No. Mets fans want the Wilpons to get the hell out of baseball. What's so hard about this? So you're saying it's not about the Mets then, you've just decided you hate the Wilpons. fine. Take it to a business forum, I thought this thread was at least tangentially about the Mets.

Oh. I see. Because the Wilpons aren't about the Mets. Not even tangentially. And this thread isn't about the Wilpons, who aren't about the Mets not even tangentially And the Mets puny payroll has nothing to do not even tangentially with the Wilpons finances. And that hideous scoreboard out in center field and its ridiculous sister scoreboard in right-center wasn't authorized by the Wilpons. And when the Mets once forced us mustard loving fans to put as much mayonnaise on our hot dogs as we put mustard on them just so that the team could save I don't know $45.00, that wasn't about the Wilpons either. Not even tangentially. And that stupid 42 in the rotunda, that just fell from the sky.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ceetar wrote: I don't really think about them much. They're not even on the 40man.

They don't think about you much either. Believe me.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: One first place finish in 26 years. In a division with mostly, just four other competitors. That's literally half my life. Half!

Oh, great. We're like the same age and all.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Edgy MD wrote: Again, which big free agent from this year, last year or even the year before did you want them to sign? Foolishly over-spending just to prove you are a big-market team doesn't make sense. It's not like they haven't offered a $100 million contract to any player recently. Just because it was one of our own guys -- Wright -- doesn't mean it didn't happen. And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. Recently, yes. We got deep into the playoffs in 2006 and would have been there again in 2007 and 2008 if not for the epic collapses. You are talking about 6 years of sucking. For a club rebuilding from the bottom up, I don't think that's unreasonable. Who knows what might have happened last year had the All-Star ace and closer not been lost to Tommy John surgery. Maybe I'm a little too removed, but I guess I don't see them as all that evil. Talk to a Marlins fan about evil. Six years of coming up on the red side of the win-loss ledger, certainly. I'd dispute the notion that it has been six years of sucking.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote:

And it's not like they've been utterly hapless.

Until they changed the format two years ago, first place wasn't the bee's all. They went to the World Series and deep into the playoffs the year before as the wild card.

And Edgy's right, they did finish second last year. A very soft second, to be sure. But having lived through the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the team was hopeless and pathetic, I don't see the Wilpons as anywhere near as bad.

[batmagadanleadoff]

You like everybody.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But having lived through the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the team was hopeless and pathetic, I don't see the Wilpons as anywhere near as bad.

My head is going to explode.

[Edgy MD]

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can. same thing.

Same thing? The Wilpons keeping the team and losing money and selling the team are the same thing???

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I think there's probably still room to argue whether the Wilpons are actually evil or not, but that they're incompetent, awful stewards of the Mets is almost beyond debate. They are absolutely the worst.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can. same thing. Same thing? The Wilpons keeping the team and losing money and selling the team are the same thing???

no, wanting them to operate at a loss and wanting them to sell in order to get someone in here who will operate them at a loss is the same thing.


And then what? They'll win if they spend more money? We know those things aren't directly correlated. They'll spend and suck but at least they SPENT! right? I see almost as much "Stupid Omar" stuff for doing just that as I do Wilpon hate.

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money.

[Centerfield]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Again, which big free agent from this year, last year or even the year before did you want them to sign?

We are not talking about any specific move. We are talking about having the financial flexibility to take chances and absorb those expenses should they not work out. You can do this with a large payroll. You cannot do this when you have no margin for error. But if you need examples, Nelson Cruz, Jose Abreu, Yasmany Tomas are a few. You could also trade for high-risk contracts like Jose Reyes or Matt Kemp. It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract.

Again, we are not talking about any specific move, it's about having the flexibility to make multiple moves and absorb the ones that don't work out.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Foolishly over-spending just to prove you are a big-market team doesn't make sense.

No one has proposed this. And changing a thesis to make your position appear stronger is a sure sign that your position is weak. No one has said the Mets should foolishly over-spend. In fact, I've proposed just the opposite. They should wisely spend to the level you'd expect from a franchise playing in the biggest market in the world. And no one is saying that the goal here should be to prove they are a big market team. The goal is to make the team better.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: It's not like they haven't offered a $100 million contract to any player recently. Just because it was one of our own guys -- Wright -- doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Even with the contract, they are in the bottom tier of payrolls. I want them to spend more money, so we can get more good players.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. Recently, yes. We got deep into the playoffs in 2006 and would have been there again in 2007 and 2008 if not for the epic collapses. You are talking about 6 years of sucking. For a club rebuilding from the bottom up, I don't think that's unreasonable. Who knows what might have happened last year had the All-Star ace and closer not been lost to Tommy John surgery.

And if you are happy with how they have performed, then that's great. You are exactly the type of fan the Wilpons are looking form. I am not happy with their performance. I want better. I want more. Spending more money, I feel, will help accomplish that.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Maybe I'm a little too removed, but I guess I don't see them as all that evil. Talk to a Marlins fan about evil.

I don't think anyone in baseball is evil. I want them to spend money. If they are not able to do so, they are incompetent. I would like my favorite team to be run by competent people.

[Ceetar]

And the other thing is..Sandy Alderson. He's deep into a long-term plan, and while a new owner with money to burn will certainly help, it's not like he's going to be all "well NOW I'm going to sign Scherzer and Hanley and trade for Tulo and a doctor for him!"

Worse would be if a new owner decided he needed fresh blood. Then we're basically resetting the plan.

Alderson, while fallible, is a pretty good GM. He's a great ameliorate for disgust over Wilpon finances.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money.

Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: I don't really think about them much. They're not even on the 40man. They don't think about you much either. Believe me.

Of course not. The different is I don't expect them to.

I'll take what I can get and talk about the things I want, but I'm not going to go up in flames because the Wilpons used the wrong paint swatch in their building.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money.

Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money. Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money.

Yeah, but that's extremely difficult --- a position the NY team should never be in. They gotta make every dollar count 'cause their payroll is in the bottom third. That's no room for error. None. Everything's gotta break. No injuries. No setbacks. Everybody plays at least as good as they did last year. And that's almost entirely unrealisitic and naive to expect. Money is what a team uses to fix those problesm .. to get another leftfielder when the first one doesn't pan out, etc.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Centerfield wrote: It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract.

This is a great example. It's almost a guarantee that one of Niese or Gee, plus Murph, will be gone by Opening Day, if not shortly after. And make no mistake about it -- those moves'll be salary dumps forced, by more than anything else, the Mets poverty. (You've heard of the Mets and the Jets and the Sets and the Nets. Well, say hello to The New York Debts! Hah!) It may be true that the Mets think they now have a surplus of pitching and need to cut someone on the staff loose. And Sandy may very well get a useful piece or prosepct for Niese or Gee. But the Mets are so broke that they hafta get rid of one of those two, even if they didn't want to. Their payroll is at about $100M, chump change for a NY team, but the NY Debts can't afford that payroll, and probably need to trim down to the sub $90M level they've established in recent years. They might not be able to move Colon 'cause he makes $11M and who'd wanna pay Colon that amount? And the Mets are too broke to trade Colon and carry, say, half of his salary going forward. So because of their poverty, the Mets have to get rid of pitchers like it or not and also their second baseman, who though flawed as he is, isn't anywhere near the top of the list of the things the Mets need to fix.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Centerfield wrote: It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract. This is a great example. It's almost a guarantee that one of Niese or Gee, plus Murph, will be gone by Opening Day, if not shortly after. And make no mistake about it -- those moves'll be salary dumps forced, by more than anything else, the Mets poverty. (You've heard of the Mets and the Jets and the Sets and the Nets. Well, say hello to The New York Debts! Hah!) It may be true that the Mets think they now have a surplus of pitching and need to cut someone on the staff loose. And Sandy may very well get a useful piece or prosepct for Niese or Gee. But the Mets are so broke that they hafta get rid of one of those two, even if they didn't want to. Their payroll is at about $100M, chump change for a NY team, but the NY Debts can't afford that payroll, and probably need to trim down to the sub $90M level they've established in recent years. They might not be able to move Colon 'cause he makes $11M and who'd wanna pay Colon that amount? And the Mets are too broke to trade Colon and carry, say, half of his salary going forward. So because of their poverty, the Mets have to get rid of pitchers like it or not and also their second baseman, who though flawed as he is, isn't anywhere near the top of the list of the things the Mets need to fix.

none of these things are actually true though.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I would love to see the real set of books at this joint...
http://www.sterlingequities.com/index.php

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money. Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money. Yeah, but that's extremely difficult --- a position the NY team should never be in. They gotta make every dollar count 'cause their payroll is in the bottom third. That's no room for error. None. Everything's gotta break. No injuries. No setbacks. Everybody plays at least as good as they did last year. And that's almost entirely unrealisitic and naive to expect. Money is what a team uses to fix those problesm .. to get another leftfielder when the first one doesn't pan out, etc.

Yes, the margin for error is smaller, but it's not as minuscule as you make it out to be.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Centerfield wrote: It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract. This is a great example. It's almost a guarantee that one of Niese or Gee, plus Murph, will be gone by Opening Day, if not shortly after. And make no mistake about it -- those moves'll be salary dumps forced, by more than anything else, the Mets poverty. (You've heard of the Mets and the Jets and the Sets and the Nets. Well, say hello to The New York Debts! Hah!) It may be true that the Mets think they now have a surplus of pitching and need to cut someone on the staff loose. And Sandy may very well get a useful piece or prosepct for Niese or Gee. But the Mets are so broke that they hafta get rid of one of those two, even if they didn't want to. Their payroll is at about $100M, chump change for a NY team, but the NY Debts can't afford that payroll, and probably need to trim down to the sub $90M level they've established in recent years. They might not be able to move Colon 'cause he makes $11M and who'd wanna pay Colon that amount? And the Mets are too broke to trade Colon and carry, say, half of his salary going forward. So because of their poverty, the Mets have to get rid of pitchers like it or not and also their second baseman, who though flawed as he is, isn't anywhere near the top of the list of the things the Mets need to fix. none of these things are actually true though.

None? Wow.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Guest

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Oh, great. We're like the same age and all.

I was born in 1962, same year as the Mets.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Yes, the margin for error is smaller, but it's not as minuscule as you make it out to be. There's almost no margin for error because they're already tapped out. Unless they wanna trade their stud prospects. This is like those descendants of the Mayflower pilgrims having to sell their antique furniture to pay their bills because they've squandered their bank accounts. And fix those quote boxes. You've got me saying what you said and you saying what I said.

Says who? They lost Harvey last year, spent money to sign Colon.

They had no outfield and signed two guys. One worked, the other didn't, so they signed another guy this year AND another backup.

Who says they're tapped out? I'm not saying they're flush, but a lot of evidence points to them having at least a little more cash, but you gotta wait for your the right cards before you put your last chips in.

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: I didn't really read that rant.

And there is the reason that it is pointless to have a discussion with you. In order to have a productive discussion (or argument) there must be mutual respect between the parties. One demonstration of such respect is taking the time to understand the other side's position. You do none of this. In fact, it looks like you go out of your way to distort the other's position to give yourself credibility. This is why arguing with you is pointless and maddening. It's like trying practice tennis with a partner that continuously slugs the ball over the fence. Eventually you just want to strangle him.



(And it's official, the thread has evolved into arguing about arguing. All threads lead to arguing about arguing.)

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: I didn't really read that rant. And there is the reason that it is pointless to have a discussion with you. In order to have a productive discussion (or argument) there must be mutual respect between the parties. One demonstration of such respect is taking the time to understand the other side's position. You do none of this. In fact, it looks like you go out of your way to distort the other's position to give yourself credibility. This is why arguing with you is pointless and maddening. It's like trying practice tennis with a partner that continuously slugs the ball over the fence. Eventually you just want to strangle him. (And it's official, the thread has evolved into arguing about arguing. All threads lead to arguing about arguing.)

Yes, but until we blow past the emotions and the hyperbole and get to actual facts what's the point really? The first two lines were inane, and wrong, and loud. I didn't feel like I was going to get anything from the rest of it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. One first place finish in 26 years. In a division with mostly, just four other competitors.

Until they changed the format two years ago, first place wasn't the bee's all. They went to the World Series and deep into the playoffs the year before as the wild card.

If the Mets finished in first in 2007 and '08, they wouldnt'a hadda worry about qualifying as a Wild Card and the infamous and terrible collapses wouldn'ta happened. Is it too much to ask of the NL team from NY to top their division of four competitors more than once in 26 years? Because the Wilpons weren't given enough competitive advantages to field a team good enough to beat just four other teams?

Even the Pirates won the NL East more often than the Mets in that time span, and the Pirates haven't been in the division in over 20 years.

Who the hell has to primarily rely on a Wild Card finish to get into the playoffs? I'll tell ya who: poor teams from small markets. And even the team from Tampa Bay figured out how to compete against the behemoth Yankees. Do you know that the team from Tampa Bay, competing directly against Bosox and the Yanks has two first place finishes and two second place Wild Card qualifiying finishes in just the last seven seasons?

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Do you know that the team from Tampa Bay, competing directly against Bosox and the Yanks has two first place finishes and two second place Wild Card qualifiying finishes in just the last seven seasons?

And they did it primarily by spending money to fix mistakes.