Johnny Lunchbucket

We have lost 6 of our last 9

First pitch swinging, Zimmo puts this one into the books. The books of SUCK, amirite?!!

Top of the order here.

Here we go. DOMMY off the 🧱

Put on those rally jocks. 2 out, 0 on, down by 4 Discouraging when you get a lead on a guy that's hard to get a lead on, then lose that lead.

Neglected to promptly update this week's edition of the Luis Castillo Watch but on Wednesday he whiffed 11 in 6 Innings in a win over the Cubs. Mets "looking" at him, says Jon Heyman. Thanks Jon

b. 00 kz

Who the fuck is RJ Alverez?

What I need is a maxi-pad here from Cahna

Edgy MD wrote: Man, the Mets are hitting into double plays these days like it's a matter of pride. Yup, and Gitmo looks like the wear and tear of making awesome plays allatime is beginning to really wear on that briefly fearsome bat he showed

Ahhh 🍎. Don't have that

FWIW and not to be mean but the reason I said the "successor" was that this fuckin phone auto corrected me to distraction anytime I try to type a name it doesn't know, like scheffing and turns it into a word like "scheming." The one thing I'll add to the rest of the discussion is, who did value Herzog? Bing Devine, that's who.

Sorry guys, I didn't wanna go off on you. I'm trying very hard to understand where baseball is going, and to that end that article was extraordinary and incredibly informative and I was dismayed a little to see some of the reaction not any more nuanced than "I was right all along" or an opportunity to make a joke, or to somehow take it as a personal insult to be so informed this way. I realize also I might have given off the wrong impression--I've re-read the article 2X and there's no doubt in my mind that it raises a very troubling disconnect going on with Manfred and the impression among so many fans that they love baseball but baseball doesn't love them, but I'm also interested in why this is. It's a little because Manfred lacks the interpersonal skill and doesn't;t project the image. But he say a lot about the commissionership here: "Every time it's me, it ain't one of those 30 guys -- that's good," Manfred says. "Look, who the hell am I? I don't have $2 billion invested in a team. I'm just a guy trying to do a job. I mean it. They deserve that layer. I believe they deserve that layer of protection. I'm the face of the game, for good or for bad." So you're all forgiven for my earlier overreaction, there's a lots of interesting remarks above my remark didn't also acknowledge. But let's go back to that quote. if you're an owner and read that, how do you take that? Manfred is lying on the tracks for you, but that secret is now out, and as the surrounding article makes clear, he's not especially good at the "face of the game" part. I guess what I'm asking is, does he get fired? Or is he ordered to fire his director of communications?

Yes I know who scheffing is, and that he was thrust into position, but in a sense Johnny Murphy was as well, and it would seem the need for executive bench strength heightened given the fact that was so old. History gives Murphy a lot of credit, but he was basically in the right place at the right time to benefit from the moves Devine made and the halo around the 69 club. I'm not suggesting he was incompetent, in fact it could be argued that he was wise to leave well enough alone until taking advantage of an opportunity in the Clendonon trade. But not hiring his own successor was a mistake that doubled down on the fact that he too was an unexpected appointee due to Devine's sudden departure. In my mind, the Mets ought to have done more to make Devine happy inasmuch as he would prove to have a very long and successful career ahead of him... and came from a point of view that the GMs job was to improve the club not just be sure the players don't get paid well. Instead they seemed to say let's give this important job to whoever the senior guy who happens to be around is, and the problem with that was Murphy didn't seem to have his successor in mind either, as the next man up, Scheffing, also wasn't destinted for success. Consequential decisions post 69 were nearly all pretty bad. Berra hiring, drafting and scouting deteriorated, one bad trade trade after another, wrong posture and behavior once the player union made progress, wrong GM, wrong manager, and it sorta all points to there not really being an overarching guiding philosophy that was imaginative and forward looking, and that wasted of the potential of a young World Series winner that should have plowed their momentum into getting better all around. This same kind of pattern would repeat itself often in the Wilpon era.

Otis was a guy who for whatever reason, got on Gils bad side and was fumbled away. I wanna pin the Ryan trade on the GM who succeeded Johhny Murphy, but i don't know how much he vs. Gil was actually responsible. One thing I've detected at times in Mets history was, a lack of "bench strength" when front office people get whacked, or die

[bLOCKQUOTE]So me and my fellow Mets fan friends (not that there were many Yankees fans my age in NYC in 1970) never got to see Pfeil live and in real time in a Mets uni in 1970. Eventually, an urban legend began to spread in my neighborhood and at the school I attended that the reason Pfeil was no longer on the Mets was that during the wild 1969 World Series celebration, some fan stole Pfeil's batting helmet and so the Mets, suddenly unable to properly clothe Pfeil, were forced to trade him, an absurd tale, but maybe one that a grade schooler might fall for. Anybody else ever heard this tale?[/bLOCKQUOTE] No-- but this is great story

I think, generally, I'm on board with how DiComo lays things out here: --Bullpen looks WERRYSOME right now --Starting pitching --Carrasco + what else can go wrong looks WERRYSOME --BIG opportunity to dangle Davis/Smith to upgrade at DH https://www.mlb.com/news/mets-possible-trade-deadline-moves-2022https://www.mlb.com/news/mets-possible-trade-deadline-moves-2022

I hate to remind my friends here of this, but you are old white men, and old white men's perception of how things "ought to be" is at the heart of interfered-with progress everywhere you look right now, and it's tedious. My boy Lunchpail, who's 16, feels like he's inherting a world on fire not only from us, but *because of us* and it's true. These attitudes, even if you're like me and disagree with Manfred's tactics, are all filtered through this stubbornness "established fact" jokes, etc etc -- It's really like "the wave" the only thing that's worse than the wave is how reliable and ineffectual complaining about the wave is. Is anyone here willing to admit it's at the very least useful to learn where Manfred is coming from, or is it just easier to hate on him?

seriously this is an eye-opening article guys and as a fan of baseball and journalism--exactly the kind of article I've wanted to read for a long time. I'll share more about my personal connection to this when the time is right.

Timely post thanks. (Quiet please-- on my way later today to interview a heavy hitter in mlb marketing for a work thing)

Crowd was big, everyone was excited over the testimony (seemed like), demanding revenge from a shit showing last week, then-- can't turn the DP, Alonso seemed to dive over--a ball he should have got, and boom. Crowd out of it. Ambler... the Ambler was supposed to stop by but didn't. Shreve couhed ot up big time, McCann sucked the big one, now I'm sitting on a delayed 7 local with a bunch of Boomhauers

Going Righty-Strong, fellas.

The Tuesday Night Mets Club's relentless pursuit to support an Amazin' year of Tuesday Nights from all angles assembles this evening in section 138 (field level, center field) to take in tonight's tilt featuring lefty Framber Valdez opposing Carlos "my back is fine, it was just a thing, but thanks for asking" Carrasco. LGM, YGB etc

Does anyone have this book? https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3376833-the-miracle-has-landedThe Miracle Has Landed: The Amazin' Story of How the 1969 Mets Shocked the World by Matthew Silverman (Goodreads Author) (Editor) I have it but can't find it. Pretty sure a couple of regulars here contributed. Pissing me off because all my Mets books are in one place and it's a large book kind hard to misplace... I have a copy on the shelf right behind me. Some shitty writers contributed to that one

=Fman99 post_id=97578 time=1656422288 user_id=86] He's funny but I am already tired of him. Internet commentary is generally too vapid for me, unless, of course, we're talking about the Mets on Tap podcast (episode 52 being recorded tonight, subscribe and rate us on bleh bleh fnerp fnerp)