My perverse wish

[Lefty Specialist]

They had pretty good odds of making the playoffs on September 12th, 2007. Their odds were pretty good after the 11-game streak, too. So odds one way or the other on July 9th are, what's the word?.......meaningless.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I thought he was talking about Simon Quitkowski... but agree it's
unclear as typed.

I'm not gonna say on 7/9 I want them to stay pat or do something,
never know what might present itself. It may be too good to pass
up. Like Al Swearengen once said, "Announcing your plans is a good
way to hear god laugh."

[Benjamin Grimm]

This thread seems to be worth bumping now.

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This thread seems to be worth bumping now.

Especially for the entertainment value.
Thanks.

Later

[Guest d'Kong76]

Repeated calls to Mr. Quitkowski's office remain unanswered.

[Edgy MD]

GOOD bump.

[Gwreck]

Happy to eat some crow here.

The point that the Mets would be better off with new ownership remains unassailable.

Still, happy to eat some crow.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: Happy to eat some crow here. The point that the Mets would be better off with new ownership remains unassailable. Still, happy to eat some crow.

well, they could definitely upgrade ownership, but 'new' covers a wide variety of outcomes.

but this is one of those butterfly effects. Anything different about this group this year likely means vastly players/outcomes. Maybe if they were super flush they take the risk on Gomez's bad hip and don't push for Cespedes.

Either way it's tilting at windmills. The Wilpons will continue to own the team for a long while.

[Edgy MD]

Gwreck wrote: Happy to eat some crow here.

That's good to hear. We've prepared a lot of it.

[Centerfield]

Centerfield wrote: This is really inexcusable. Five years of rebuilding and this is the lineup they put out there? Seriously. Fire everyone.

For the record, this is the lineup that spurred this post:

1. Granderson RF
2. Tejada 2B
3. Duda 1B
4. Flores SS
5. Ceciliani LF
6. Lagares CF
7. Monell C
8. Campbell 3B
9. Colon P

No matter how much faith the fans had, or how bad the Nationals were, this was not going to get it done. And sure, injuries play a part, but having a lineup where 3 of the 8 are not major leaguers, and another 3 are really part time players, is a failure on the part of a general manager.

Then, at the trade deadline, Sandy Alderson went on a tear. He traded for Uribe and Johnson. He called up Conforto. He traded for Yoenis Cespedes. He bolstered the bullpen with Clippard, and O'Flaherty and Reed. And when O'Flaherty sucked, he called up other candidates to replace him. And he did all of that without giving up any coveted prospects.

That's what we were hoping for when we hired Sandy Alderson.

I absolutely applaud Alderson for what he has done. Gwreck wrote in this thread that Alderson hadn't done anything useful with the resources that he had. Now he has done exactly that.

The only ones remaining on my shitlist for now are the owners. And they can get off of that if they raise the budget this winter and start acting like a big market team.

[Edgy MD]

Come on. Judging an entire organization and their activities over several years and demanding the firing of everyone over the day's lineup is the height of nearsightedness. This too was never going to get it done.

Calling for a 12-game losing streak because you believe nobody will see problems that need to be addressed any other way?

It's obviously untrue that Alderson hadn't done anything useful.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Isn't that the lineup that Terry went with to tell the front office
that the Mets suck as constructed and it's time to shit or get off
the proverbial toilet?

[TransMonk]

I'll eat crow here, too...and praise Alderson for filling needs without mortgaging too much future.

No matter what happens in October, the 2015 has exceeded my expectations from nearly every angle on multiple occasions.

[Benjamin Grimm]

TransMonk wrote: No matter what happens in October, the 2015 has exceeded my expectations from nearly every angle on multiple occasions.

I agree with that. In early August, when things were looking far from settled, I told myself that I'd be delighted with the division title and anything beyond that would be a bonus.

Now, of course, I want more than that. I want them to go deep into the playoffs. I want them to win the World Series. But even if they lose quickly in the first round, this has been a great season and a successful one. I'll be looking forward to 2016 more than I have any season in almost a decade.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Come on. Judging an entire organization and their activities over several years and demanding the firing of everyone over the day's lineup is the height of nearsightedness. This too was never going to get it done. Calling for a 12-game losing streak because you believe nobody will see problems that need to be addressed any other way? It's obviously untrue that Alderson hadn't done anything useful.

It wasn't just that day's lineup, and you are aware of that. It was the lineup they posted throughout the first four months of the season. That team was 52-50 at the trade deadline. It was supposed to be the culmination of 5 years of rebuilding, and instead it was a laughable offense. I was absolutely judging the organization over their work over several years. They developed great young pitching but brought in no hitters.

It was utterly predictable that the offense would be lacking before they played 1 game in 2015, and it was also true that Alderson's big acquisition over the winter was a 36 year old outfielder coming off a major injury.

I'm happy to give credit to Alderson for doing a great job since then, but I stand by my position that the front office deserved criticism.

[Ceetar]

The Mets scored 6 less runs than the Nationals in April, and no one else in the division scored more. They scored 97 runs in 23 games or just over 4 runs a game.

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: The Mets scored 6 less runs than the Nationals in April, and no one else in the division scored more. They scored 97 runs in 23 games or just over 4 runs a game.

If the point of your post is that the Mets offense was fine before the trade deadline moves, that might be the most asinine position you have taken since joining the Board.

And this includes gems such as "A higher budget does not lead to a competitive advantage" and "It is the burden of other posters to disprove my theories."

[Gwreck]

Edgy MD wrote: It's obviously untrue that Alderson hadn't done anything useful.

Selective quoting there.

My claim on June 24 was "But Alderson still hasn't done anything useful to upgrade the offense, even with whatever resources he does have. "

I think we can agree that he now has made substantial moves to upgrade the offense: trading for 3 players and calling up a fourth from the minors.

[Edgy MD]

Gwreck wrote: It's obviously untrue that Alderson hadn't done anything useful. Selective quoting there. My claim on June 24 was "But Alderson still hasn't done anything useful to upgrade the offense, even with whatever resources he does have. " I think we can agree that he now has made substantial moves to upgrade the offense: trading for 3 players and calling up a fourth from the minors.

Well, I was quoting it as Centerfield had it. He "hadn't done anything useful with the resources he had."

I disagreed then and disagree now. I think the offense has prospered thanks to his machinations. It just wasn't obvious at the time, as offense was lost to the disabled list or still cooking in the minors. If the point was that the team was struggling offensively at the time, certainly. I disagreed that it called for a blowing up of the organization or a 12-game losing streak.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: It wasn't just that day's lineup, and you are aware of that.

Well, that's what you wrote.

It was the lineup they posted throughout the first four months of the season.

No it wasn't.

That team was 52-50 at the trade deadline.

That's not so bad, in the scheme of things. It certainly didn't undermine where they are now.

It was supposed to be the culmination of 5 years of rebuilding...

It was far closer to a snapshot.

... and instead it was a laughable offense.

That's not all it was. It was also an outstanding pitching staff, with a fantastic farm system just then graduating some of their best. With enough redundancy throughout to add pieces without removing the best players. And obviously, some of the best hitters on the disabled list, and others who weren't performing but either were still worth having faith in or weren't. Which way does a person go? Tough choice to make. You called for blowing everything up.

I was absolutely judging the organization over their work over several years.

Well, here we are.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: It wasn't just that day's lineup, and you are aware of that. Well, that's what you wrote.

And you are well aware that my post, written out of frustration, was not meant to be taken literally. My position was based upon frustration over the state of the roster, not one particular lineup.

Edgy MD wrote: It was the lineup they posted throughout the first four months of the season. No it wasn't.

Again, it is silly to pretend not to know what I mean here. I am not saying that the lineup they posted that day was the lineup for the first four months of the season. That is a silly statement, if given a minute of thought, can clearly be determined to not be my point. "It", as written, means "The impetus behind my frustration" was the lineup they posted throughout the first four months of the season.

Edgy MD wrote: That team was 52-50 at the trade deadline. That's not so bad, in the scheme of things.

"Hi I'm Sandy Alderson. It is a pleasure to be your new GM. I have this great rebuilding plan that will have us finish with a losing record for the next four years. During that time we will say goodbye to fan favorites, build a great pitching staff, but field the worst lineup in the major leagues. That's right, in five years, I hope to be able to say our position is not so bad, in the scheme of things."

Edgy MD wrote: It certainly didn't undermine where they are now.

I am not talking about where they are now. I was criticizing where they were then. And where they were then is not acceptable. Perhaps I can illustrate this with another scenario.

We own a shoe company. Sandy is hired to manage the company. He tells us that for four years, the company will lose money. But in year five, it will take off. Sandy is wonderful at making left shoes. He is one of the best in the field, and others in the industry write what an amazing collection of left shoes Sandy has compiled. Unfortunately Sandy makes terrible right shoes. The worst in the industry. Halfway through year 5, the company is at break-even.

Sandy is criticized. It is demanded that he make better right shoes.

Shortly afterwards, Sandy improves his production of right shoes. He now makes shoes right shoes as well as he makes left shoes. With a strong collection of both left and right shoes, the company takes off and reaches new heights.

Sandy is applauded.

In my opinion, both the criticism of Sandy and the applauding of Sandy are justified.

Edgy MD wrote: It was supposed to be the culmination of 5 years of rebuilding... It was far closer to a snapshot.

Half a season is not a snapshot.

Edgy MD wrote: ... and instead it was a laughable offense. That's not all it was. It was also an outstanding pitching staff, with a fantastic farm system just then graduating some of their best. With enough redundancy throughout to add pieces without removing the best players. And obviously, some of the best hitters on the disabled list, and others who weren't performing but either were still worth having faith in or weren't. Which way does a person go? Tough choice to make. You called for blowing everything up.

I mentioned the pitching staff. Several times. You chose not to quote it.

My point was never that Sandy did absolutely nothing right. It's that he left out a key component needed to field a winning team.

Edgy MD wrote: I was absolutely judging the organization over their work over several years. Well, here we are.

Yes. Here we are. Because they finally made the moves I had been imploring them to make since last winter. They brought in two professional hitters to replace the non-major league talent they were trotting out there. They brought in the middle of the lineup hitter I had been begging for. They called up Conforto like I asked them to do.

Getting d'Arnaud and David back helped. But let's not pretend that keeping status quo would have put us where we are now. Halfway through the season, I demanded right shoes. We finally got them.

You cannot call my criticism unjustified by citing to success they have enjoyed by doing exactly what I asked them to do.

[Vic Sage]

CF is, as almost always (and like THIRTEEN used to be), correct.
Preach it, my brother from another mother.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Centerfield wrote: I'm happy to give credit to Alderson for doing a great job since then, but I stand by my position that the front office deserved criticism.

Maybe he had set up all the pieces and was just waiting for the right moment to pounce.

[Lefty Specialist]

Okay, I take it all back.

"Hsiw Esrevrep Ym!!!! Expellioso!"



By the power of the great Wizard Sedepsec I make this thread vanish!

[Centerfield]

I'm happy to give credit to Alderson for doing a great job since then, but I stand by my position that the front office deserved criticism. Maybe he had set up all the pieces and was just waiting for the right moment to pounce.

Absolutely a fair point. And this is really the best counter to my position.

If that were the case, and I don't actually believe that it is the case, it still warranted criticism. First off, I think it is risky. Secondly, Sandy had earned no benefit of the doubt.

Sandy's plan to wait and pounce relies upon:

1. The Mets managing to hang around for the first half.
2. Washington struggling, and
3. The deadline moves to be significant and have immediate impact.

Basically when trying to make the playoffs, I think it is too risky to do so by fielding a great team for half the season, rather than the full season. Even if the pricetag on the improvements is higher in December than it is in July, it is worthwhile to have them all year long.

But it worked out. Fine. I'm ok with how they did it. I'm just thrilled that they did it.

More importantly, nothing they had done in the past gave any indication that this administration was willing to go that extra mile. They had no prior history to give them an ounce of credibility.

But that has changed now. Next season, if we are in the same situation, I will likely say to myself "This sucks. I hope Sandy can come through again for us like he did last year."

[Zvon]

d'Kong76 wrote: Isn't that the lineup that Terry went with to tell the front office that the Mets suck as constructed and it's time to shit or get off the proverbial toilet?

IIRC that was this lineup:

1. Curtis Granderson (L) RF
2. Ruben Tejada ® SS
3. Wilmer Flores ® 2B
4. John Mayberry Jr. ® LF
5. Eric Campbell ® 3B
6. Lucas Duda (L) 1B
7. Juan Lagares ® CF
8. Anthony Recker ® C
9. Bartolo Colon ® P

[Frayed Knot]

I'm happy to give credit to Alderson for doing a great job since then, but I stand by my position that the front office deserved criticism. Maybe he had set up all the pieces and was just waiting for the right moment to pounce.

That may actually not be too far off.
Not the part about having all the pieces lined up (after all, we know the situation was certainly fluid right up until the deadline itself - ask Wilmer about it, he'll tell you) but that at a time when many were screaming at him to do some deal he had the patience to wait for the right deal and knew that what road he took would depend on various factors including what I assume would have been a very different course had the Nationals caught fire in May and ran away with the division as was widely predicted.


Bottom Line: What this season shows is that rooting for roof collapses because you think it'll shake things up on the mgmt and/or ownership level (like they don't know the situation as well as we do) is rarely a good idea because as much as we like to think we know what's going to happen, we don't. I remember NY Giants fans from a bunch of years ago rooting for late season losses because, at best, making the playoffs would result in a one and out situation plus it would improve their draft position for a team that so obviously had the wrong quarterback and the wrong coach to ever win. That was the season of the first of Manning & Coughlin's Super Bowl wins.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I've never understood the blow-it-all-up-and-start-over impulse. I mean, I suppose there are times when such an approach is warranted, but usually that wouldn't be the case. It always sounds overly masochistic to me.

I don't get why angst is such a big part of sports fandom for many people. I don't know who it was, and I'm not going to try to dig it up, but I'm pretty sure that some people here were saying that the Mets wouldn't contend again for the duration of David Wright's contract.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: CF is, as almost always (and like THIRTEEN used to be), correct. Preach it, my brother from another mother.

I don't get it. You (Centerfield) insist that you stand by what you wrote. What you wrote is everybody should be fired. It should all be blown up. That should mean you disown everything going forward if they don't blow up the organization.

And here we are. If you embrace where we are, then you must certainly embrace that you weren't really right then.

Otherwise, you can never really be wrong. That's no way to be.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Vic Sage wrote: CF is, as almost always (and like THIRTEEN used to be), correct. Preach it, my brother from another mother. I don't get it. You (Centerfield) insist that you stand by what you wrote. What you wrote is everybody should be fired. It should all be blown up. That should mean you disown everything going forward if they don't blow up the organization. And here we are. If you embrace where we are, then you must certainly embrace that you weren't really right then. Otherwise, you can never really be wrong. That's no way to be.

I wrote that everybody should be fired. I never said anything about blowing up anything. Figuratively or literally. We have great pitchers. There is no point in dumping them.

My post was written in frustration seemingly following a loss. The larger point and rationale behind it was the the front office had done a terrible job. After four years of rebuilding, this is an unacceptable lineup to put out on the field. Except for posts written out of frustration, as this one, I have never seriously advocated for Alderson's dismissal. Mainly because I don't know anyone who might be a better candidate.

Still, if you are going to take the post literally, even though I hadn't seriously advocated for it, I would have been fine with firing Alderson and his entire staff. They had years to turn this team into a strong contender and failed to do so. They failed to make any aggressive or creative moves to upgrade the lineup and showed no signs of changing course.

I see no reason why I have to disown anything good that may have come afterwards. Especially if they turn around takes place after they do exactly what I have been advocating for them to do. Doesn't the turn around, in fact, prove me right?

If Sandy is driving a bus aimlessly around town, I can advocate that he should lay out the resources to buy a map. If he refuses to do so I can take the position that he should be fired. If afterwards, he pulls out a map and takes us home, why do I have to disown the result?