stevejrogers

So I'm imagining the shots taken by national sports radio and TV shows then huh? So I'm imagining the ten year old shots taken by people like Colin Cowherd on the fact that the Mets had the Baha Men and "Who Let The Dogs Out" in the 2000 WS? So I'm imagining all the shots from Leno, Letterman, O'Brien and the "self loathing" shots from Stewart and Colbert?

While I am down for some Two Boots fun, may I suggest McFaddens on 42nd Street and 2nd Avenue. It looks like a cross between an Irish Tavern and a "family" style restaurant. My nomination of it for the meetup though is in honor of it having a location in Citi Field this season.

He's a YLDB If he was, even casually, I'm sure he'd be talking it up more, especially in relation to his self-loathing Jet fan ways. I'm sure he has more affinity for the Cubs based on his time in Chicago and the fact that the show does tons of remotes out there, but I could have sworn he goes Jets all the way with the Mets and Knicks as very distant second and third.

Some more sports talk radio guys: Don LaGreca and Bonnie Bernstein from 1050's Michael Kay show. As well as former WFANer, current 1050er Joseph Anthony Aloius McDonald Junior, aka Jody Mac as well. Tony Paige of WFAN overnights is also a Met fan as well, ditto Craig Carton and Boomer Esiason from the morning show. Speaking of morning shows, I can't quite confirm if Mike Greenberg of ESPN is a Met fan, big Jet fan but he never really shows his hand when talking baseball.

seawolf17 wrote: Plus, Mitchell was traded for a guy coming off a season in which he was FOURTH in the NL in SLG, and heading into his prime. I know the Mets would have loved those 49 home runs in 1989, but I'd make that trade over and over. I understand Big Mac Apologist, and I'd take what HoJo did over the course of the next 6 years or so (eh, except for the outfield experiment) over the entire career of Ray Knight, but the point was that Knight and Mitchell were personality guys that raised hell in the clubhouse while Mac made John Olerud seem like Rickey Henderson in the personality department! And on tonight's episode of "The Contradictor": I don't expect Omar to do any game changing moves anyway, he hasn't proven that he can do that so far in his Met tenure. ="SteveJRogers at 7]a sign that the Mets are committed to once again changing the culture of the clubhouse ... [a la] what happened in heading into 2005 when Martinez and Beltran were brought in.

Valadius wrote: Steve, by your logic, the Mets should jettison everybody with an ounce of personality or leadership. Last I checked, the human race had not yet invented baseball-playing robots. No, I was giving an example of a time when Fred Wilpon DID make a statement by changing up the clubhouse dynamic with the removal of a couple of guys perceived to be "bad seeds." Then it was totally unnecessary because they were coming off a Worlds Championship. Now it'd be necessary because in looking at how the Mets have played since 2007 and various comments they've said in the press there is something not right about the makeup of that clubhouse. Oh sure you can say that it's nothing winning won't fix, but they haven't won since the 2006 NLDS!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: SteveRogers wrote: Ray Knight and Kevin Mitchell were jettisoned in the same fashion, for the same reasons. What??? Ray Knight was a free agent, who the Mets chose not to resign because they rightly suspected that he had had his last good season. He wasn't a bad clubhouse guy. He provided a lot of the spark that made the 86ers what they were. Which is exactly why Freddie didn't want him around anymore and towards more safer players. You really think the Mets chose not to resign the reigning WS MVP because they figured that he was coming off his last good year in the bigs? They COULD have kept him, hell, even as a Rusty Staub role if it was clear that he was in decline. They didn't want him around to influence the clubhouse. Why they are letting the players influence the clubhouse today, I don't know, perhaps to prove that Omar has full control perhaps. Or maybe the clubhouse doesn't make as much noise as those 1986ers do.

DocTee wrote: You know, at what point do the Wilpons wake up and realize there is a difference between a smart big market team and making dumb big splashes Another reason why he should have been jettisoned is that it would have been a sign that the Mets are committed to once again changing the culture of the clubhouse So the Mets should jettison Castillo not in the name of improving the club's performance but to make a statement? When will they learn! Ray Knight and Kevin Mitchell were jettisoned in the same fashion, for the same reasons. Both those moves ended up helping the team in the short term, despite them being early signs of the Wilpon's desire to have a boring and uncaring ballclub.

Em, it goes towards the whole what the Cranepool of 1983 (probably just talk radio at that point) would be saying about feeling positive or negative towards the prospects of the 1984 Mets.

duan wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Steve, if you're going to dismiss the presence of Johan Santana with "Needs to stay healthy and stop making excuses for pitching poorly" while holding up Keith Hernandez as unblemished, if you're going to dismiss the presence of four guys aged 27, 27, 31, and 33 with 15 total All Star appearances as being somehow incomparable to one 30 year old with two, I don't know what to do. I honor you with logic and you cover me in shit. Everybody needs to stay healthy. what's hilarious about the Keith Hernandez line is that at that time he was DOING LOTS OF THEM and while I don't particularly care about recreational drug use, it could hardly be considered *the best thing* for an athlete to be engaged in if you're depending (pun not intended) on him, the way Steve Rogers seems to think everyone was. Fair enough duan, but was Keith's issues known by the public at large at the time or was that during the 1985 trials?

Valadius wrote: Valadius wrote: May I ask why we think second base is such a pressing priority, and why so many people think Orlando Hudson has remained in a state of suspended animation since 2005? Because Luis Castillo stinks and the 2010 Orlando Hudson is a more superior player. Orlando Hudson is only two years younger than Luis Castillo. He's 32. Not only that, but he's only marginally better than Castillo offensively. I'm of the opinion that there are more pressing priorities (namely catcher, first base, and pitching) than second base right now. Lest you forget, Luis Castillo finished fourth this year in Schaefer points. Now why would we give him so many Schaefer points if we all thought he was terrible? Seriously Val? You are basing Castillo's performance last year on a message board's PoTG voting? Another reason why he should have been jettisoned is that it would have been a sign that the Mets are committed to once again changing the culture of the clubhouse, which lets be honest really does need a good shake up. Ala what happened in heading into 2005 when Martinez and Beltran were brought in.

Valadius wrote: May I ask why we think second base is such a pressing priority, and why so many people think Orlando Hudson has remained in a state of suspended animation since 2005? Because Luis Castillo stinks and the 2010 Orlando Hudson is a more superior player.

Edgy DC wrote: Which, true or not, isn't what we're talking about. You're spinning out of control so rapidly, I imagine you've fallen to the ground and thrown up by now. Just keep the vomit off my hunnit dollas. It is relevant since you brought it up in comparative to the Mets having Keith Hernandez, who didn't lose any luster in 1983, on their 1984 roster.

Edgy DC wrote: I'll give you David Wright, Jose Reyes. Not to mention, it seems like maybe its time everyone realized that these guys aren't the guys that we thought they were going to be after 2006. That they are not going to be the legends that it seemed they were hyped to be in 2007.

Edgy DC wrote: You give me Ketih Hernandez, I'll give you David Wright, Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, and Johan Santana. Steve, if you're an Eeyore, it's because you woke up in the morning and decided to be an Eeyore. Left his swing in the parking lot Needs to stay healthy and stop sulking and dancing too much Needs to stay healthy Needs to stay healthy and stop making excuses for pitching poorly.

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, you don't see it, but it's all just a matter of opininon. It's all abstractions until the games are played. What did the Mets do in the 1983-84 offseason? It appeared pretty inactive. They dealt Bob Bailor and Carlos Diaz to the Dodgers for Sid Fernandez and Ross Jones. Their big free agent signees were Rafael Santana, Dick Tidrow, and Jerry Martin. They released Dave Kingman and Mark Bradley. Oh, yeah, they also lost their ace by accident. Judged at the time, it would be seen as far less impactful than this offseason. Yet the restraint was golden and they had a wonderful turnaround. They did crap-all in winter 1968-1969 also. BUT, they still had Keith Hernandez in the fold, they still had great blue chip prospects either on the 25 man roster (Strawberry) or about ready to be called up (Gooden) and the farm was far from as barren as it is today. There was no reason to be an Eeyore about the prospects for the 1984 Mets.

Edgy DC wrote: Great, we have a bet. You get to spend the season rooting for the Mets to suck. Let's go, Bets! Let's go, Bets! Don't twist my words big guy. It's all about me finding it strange about how you have almost Fran Healy-esque KAHN-fidence in the Mets this season, as they are presently constituted. When 99% of Met fandom (this forum seems to be that 1%), the media and other team's fans are going the other way when it comes to this club

Edgy DC wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: Of course, you have to add in the caveat that the roster remain for the most part unchanged. Orlando Hudson and a stud starter walk into the PSL clubhouse, or Citi Field in June, or something like that, changes the parameters of the bet. Steve, you weasel. Not saying that Hudson would be akin to a Mike Piazza, but you'd have to admit that reeling in a big fish as opposed to plugging in Proven Crap or making a sideways trade like Church for Francouer is a game changer when it comes to a season's outlook. Even if the season turns out as expected (1983). Alright fine then, forget the caveat. I don't expect Omar to do any game changing moves anyway, he hasn't proven that he can do that so far in his Met tenure.

SteveJRogers wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: Two or three holes. The team arguably filled two of them with signings and the offseason continues. Whatever. I hope they don't trade anybody. Yeah, Jason Bay wasn't a signing done to shut up "Mets aren't signing anyone/No one wants to come here" peeps and to give a nice shiny thing to market and sell tickets. Where else do you think the Mets improved? Sarge Jr.? More "Proven Crap" for the bullpen corps? You're going to call THAT filling holes? 2nd base and catcher are still major question marks, Reyes' health and Wright's mental state are also major question marks as well. To say nothing about the fact that the rotation is Santana, three question marks and who knows what as well as another go-round of a bullpen corps cobbled together with hope and prayers as a bridge to Rodriguez. How does this team look like anything resembling an over-.500 squad? Steve, I'm really not into indulging your sarcasm, but if you want to throw a hundred bucks on the line regarding the team exceeding (or not) .500, I'm all about that. Name your charity. There's no such thing, where I come, as successful offseasons. Games are still won on the field. Deal. We'll work out the details when it becomes mathematically impossible. Of course, you have to add in the caveat that the roster remain for the most part unchanged. Orlando Hudson and a stud starter walk into the PSL clubhouse, or Citi Field in June, or something like that, changes the parameters of the bet.

Edgy DC wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Two or three holes. The team arguably filled two of them with signings and the offseason continues. Whatever. I hope they don't trade anybody. Yeah, Jason Bay wasn't a signing done to shut up "Mets aren't signing anyone/No one wants to come here" peeps and to give a nice shiny thing to market and sell tickets. Where else do you think the Mets improved? Sarge Jr.? More "Proven Crap" for the bullpen corps? You're going to call THAT filling holes? 2nd base and catcher are still major question marks, Reyes' health and Wright's mental state are also major question marks as well. To say nothing about the fact that the rotation is Santana, three question marks and who knows what as well as another go-round of a bullpen corps cobbled together with hope and prayers as a bridge to Rodriguez. How does this team look like anything resembling an over-.500 squad? Steve, I'm really not into indulging your sarcasm, but if you want to throw a hundred bucks on the line regarding the team exceeding (or not) .500, I'm all about that. Name your charity. There's no such thing, where I come, as successful offseasons. Games are still won on the field. Deal. We'll work out the details when it becomes mathematically impossible.

Look, the point is that I really don't see how anyone can sit there and say that this off-season was a successful one, and that the Mets will be an improved team in 2010. The of-fseason has been an epic fail, and the Mets as presently constituted look like a team that will struggle to get to 70 wins, much less 81.

metirish wrote: What's wrong with Wright and mental issuses? Did you see Wright all year? The guy changed his swing heading into Citi Field and never got whatever it was that made him an MVP candidate back. Alright, its hyperbole, but the whole "messing with a swing" does sound more like a mental problem than messing with a pitcher's mechanics which could, and does, lead to actual physical issues.