Centerfield

What he said. Except purpler and bigger.

Frayed Knot wrote: geez someone discovered a lot of really inappropriate, and really old, remarks on Haders twitter, evidently during the game! Two steps to take after becoming famous: Step One: Erase everything you've ever said or done on social media Step Two: See 'Step One' Alternatively, Step One: Don't be a racist, homophobic misogynistic dickhead Step Two: If you are one, don't post it on social media This will probably end up with him getting sensitivity training or something like that. Probably voluntarily. I can't imagine they can suspend him for something he did before he was in MLB. The guy said what he said, and posted it to the world. So he should get all the consequences that follow. That being said, it looks like he is sincerely apologetic, and has taken responsibility for what he said. His teammates seem to think this doesn't reflect who he is now. So there is that. Anytime something like this comes up, I thank god that there was no internet, camera phones, or any social media when I was in HS/college.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: That shirt will make less sense in November, after the Mets have just completed the most improbable championship comeback in history. It really turned around at the end of July when scientists unexpectedly found that fava beans magically cure spinal stenosis.

My thoughts: *Nothing wrong with displays of patriotism. *Nothing wrong with liking displays of patriotism. I'm one of those people. *Nothing wrong with questioning if the money generated by displays of patriotism actually end up helping veterans instead of ending up in the pockets of MLB and New Era. Though, if you work for an MLB team, you should probably question through private channels rather than broadcasting on social media. *Nothing wrong with an MLB team terminating an employee for publicly challenging whether funds reach veterans, especially if that employee had no basis to imply that the money wasn't reaching the stated target.

Are we attributing these negative traits to him because he was fired twice? Or is there something here I am missing? The guy could be a jerk or he may not be, but I can’t see how that conclusion can be drawn based on anything presented here.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Starting with that collapse, the Phillies won, what, five straight division titles? That seems unthinkable that the Mets would ever do that, but it shouldn't be. And that's the thing. It really shouldn't be. The Braves won the first 6 titles on this millenium. The Mets won once. Then it started the Phillies run of five. Since then the Nationals have won 4 of the last 6. The only team we have been more successful than is the Marlins. And they, despite actively tanking more often then not, can still boast about the World Series title they won in 2003. It's so frustrating. You almost have to try to be this bad.

Was talking with a friend yesterday about why I am so down on the Mets and why I feel like there is no hope. He pointed out that even with the Wilpons and a modest budget, the Mets were a few breaks away from winning the World Series in 2015. I realize that yes, a World Series title is obviously the ultimate goal, but just as important to me is a period of sustained success. I would love to reach a point in my fandom where I feel like the Mets have put themselves in a place where they can realistically compete for a championship for several years. He said to me, "Well then you just want them to be the Yankees." I don't think that's true. Sure, the Yankees are a good example of sustained success, but I think what I am asking for is not outlandish. So I started digging. Let's assume that sustained success is a 5 or 6 year period. I would say making the playoffs three of those years would qualify for sustained success. We already know that the Mets have never done this in their history. They have never made the playoffs more than 2 times in any decade. So I started checking to see how many teams would meet this criteria. For the purposes of this exercise, I looked up teams that made the playoffs 3 times over any 6 year period. And I figured we should limit this to recent success, so my look-back period is 2000 to today. During that time, 19 teams have had sustained success under the criteria I outlined (in fact, all of these qualified with at least 3 appearances in 5 years). Specifically: 1. Washington Nationals 2. Atlanta Braves 3. Philadelphia Phillies 4. Chicago Cubs 5. Cincinnati Reds 6. Pittsburgh Pirates 7. St. Louis Cardinals 8. LA Dodgers 9. SF Giants 10. Boston Red Sox 11. NY Yankees 12. Baltimore Orioles 13. Tampa Rays 14. Minnesota Twins 15. Texas Rangers 16. Detroit Tigers 17. Cleveland Indians 18. LA Angels 19. Oakland A's The strong teams blow my criteria out of the water, and have streaks of several year, or stretches where making the playoffs is the norm, with a few blips. But even some small market teams are able to squeak out periods of competitiveness where they find the postseason three times with the same core. That leaves 11 teams that have failed. Along with the Mets: 1. Royals 2. White Sox 3. Rockies 4. Marlins 5. Houston 6. Brewers 7. Arizona 8. Padres 9. Mariners 10. Blue Jays So in the end, I don't think I'm asking for too much. I'm basically asking the Mets, a big market team, to not be in the bottom third of success in MLB. They, along with the White Sox, are the only big market club to fall into this category. It really is just not acceptable.

Not a surprise. I guess you could make the case Kershaw deserved it over Harvey in 2013. It is what it is. But this year, it usually ends with Jake getting screwed.

Yeah, I don't know that he has either. But from what I'm hearing through the news, it seems like someone in management thinks that he's worth something. Again, pure speculation on my part. Really. I can't understand their logic behind Reyes and their unwillingness to play Smith. I get that he hasn't been good, but (1) he isn't going to get better without playing and (2) if he is this bad, this is info we need to know really really soon.

I have nothing to base this on, but I think that the club is very simple minded. *Flores and Cabrera have to play every day since they are trade bait. *Once they are gone, there will be plenty of time to play Dom Smith. No rush. We have the entire second half. *Reyes has to play every day because we have to get him going. Once all the trades take place, there will be little to hold fans' interest. So we can bank on his nostalgia to sell tickets in September.

Lefty Specialist wrote: I'm convinced that one of the reasons that the Mets runs scored and batting average is so low is that they refuse to do this. You have guys who hit into the shift over and over without ever thinking of changing their approach even occasionally. And as I mentioned in the other thread, you have guys who come to the bigs with this ability, and suddenly all they do when they get here is roll over into the shift. I really think this is an organizational philosophy. And a failing one.

Vic Sage wrote: we're going thru an adjustment period, as players and management are adjusting to what we're learning from analytics. The computer age has improved defensive positioning and hitters have not yet responded to it. They want a rule change to save them rather than "hitting them where they ain't", which has always been an important dictum in the game. So it'll suck for a while. But eventually GMs will catch on to the new "efficiency"... guys who can hit it the other way. We've already seen a decline in the value of 1-dimensional sluggers. A bunch of them were FAs over the winter and few of them got the kind of deals that HR/RBI counting stats used to command (except for the Mets, of course. Welcome back, Jay Bruce!) So, as teams start going back to finding players who can actually get on base by putting balls in play, more hitters will start hitting that way, and the defensive shifts will become less prevalent. And once again we'll find baseball lineups with a balance of table setters and sluggers, which has always been the most reliable way of scoring consistently. A rule change is an overreaction to this transitional period. I believe this will happen too. I'm shocked that it hasn't already. I don't know how fans of other teams feel, but I feel like the Mets are actually doing the opposite. The book on Conforto was that he could hit to all fields. And when he first came up, he dazzled with his opposite field power. It's only after he arrived at the big leagues that he started getting pull-happy. And I can't help but wonder if that is what is being taught on this club. Nimmo, Dom Smith...all these guys have the potential to hit to all fields. I can't understand for the life of me why they can't do so.

If you want to get an idea of how dumb the Mets are, look no further than Dom Smith. Even in a lost season, a smart franchise can start preparing to be successful again. One of the most precious assets during such a season are MLB plate appearances. They provide an opportunity to gauge young talent. But these moments are finite, and a smart franchise should be efficient with them. The Mets, despite going nowhere last year, waited too long to get a good read on Dom Smith. Now, they are giving away AB's to Jose Reyes while Smith sits on the bench. In this last four game series, he got one at bat. Jose Reyes has been playing every day. It's hard to believe a franchise can be this incompetent. I understand wanting to showcase Flores if they are trying to build his trade value. Flores can play 3B. Probably as well as Reyes at this point. Or Flores can play 2B, and move Cabrera to third. Either way, there is no excuse not to start Dom Smith at 1B every day and see what he can provide. We are going to have to make a decision on Smith/Alonso very soon. It's stupid not to give Smith at-bats.

I think I must be in a really bad place as a fan right now. I remember reading about Syndergaard pitching in this game and not only being excited for his future, but also thinking that brighter days were coming soon for the Mets. It's a much different feeling this time. I am still excited to see Peter Alonso play, and I have high hopes for his future. But I have no delusions that Alonso will be a cornerstone to a golden era of Mets contention. That someday we will see him, along with Nimmo, Rosario and Conforto retire with a dozen NL East pennants and a handful of championship rings. This is just not going to happen. It's far more likely that they will play their home grown star out of position, rush him back from injury. Trash him in the media directly, or indirectly, and when he leaves town they'll release dirt, real or imagined, to kick him in the ass on the way out. This is what I see for Peter Alonso. And Giminez. It's hard to get excited about a 120 lbs SS that doesn't hit .300.

Edgy MD wrote: End the absurd and anti-American practice of territorial exclusivity. End affiliation. End exclusive rights to call yourself a major league franchise. Go, free market, go! How would this work? I build a stadium, order uniforms, and declare myself an MLB team?

Your level of disdain for the Wilpons is not the issue. Though that is a nice attempt to pivot. I don’t care if you like the Wilpons or not. I care how you react to bad acts. I rip the bad actors. You spin and downplay the bad acts. I get that this comes naturally as this is part of your job. Condemning the bad acts is an afterthought, if it ever crosses your mind at all. I think that says something about you and the people you work for. You’re right. I guess we will just have to move on.

If you did agree with me from the start, it was not apparent. And when you refused to denounce those actions despite me asking you directly several times, then one can only conclude that you do not agree. Your one and only focus is on how to make those behaviors seem less bad. You sprinkle in a dash of “well I’ve lived through much worse”. All of this sends the message that not only do you not oppose the behavior, but that you tacitly condone it. If, as you say, you find the behavior offensive, then from a communications perspective, this needs to be made explicit in your initial statement. You have never done this. Not in this thread, not in any of our discussions before. I see that you concede that now. I think this will help our discussions going forward. I would also suggest, from a communications perspective, to leave all comparisons to Grant out of these discussions. The “Well I’ve seen worse” argument is not offered by anyone who agrees that the behavior is offensive. It’s offered by people who believe “what’s the big fucking deal”. Let me illustrate. Joe says: “Arod used steroids. What a shit person” Bob says: “well I’ve seen worse. Chad Curtis raped underage girls.” Do you believe that Bob thinks ARod did wrong? Or do you think Bob is making excuses for ARod? This is how it appears all those times you bring up Grant when the name Wilpon appears. In the end, only you know how you feel when no one else is looking. But I am telling you, as someone who has seen you react to multiple situations, the optics on your responses paint you in a bad light.

I’m glad we were able to agree at the end.

Read a blurb that says Zack learned from deGrom to throw his fastball exclusively to the glove side. Anyone know what that means?

And vulgarity? Really? Do my bad words offend you? All I know is this. When I see injustice, I say: "Holy crap, look at this fucked up bullshit. That shit needs to end right now." You say: "Wow, this is a shame. If those guys had just done X, they could have continued to do fucked up bullshit, without looking like they did fucked up bullshit. And should we really be saying "fucked up bullshit"? I mean, those are really bad words."

41Forever wrote: 41Forever wrote: I said exactly that, but without the vulgarity. I said running down the reputation of your top player is a bad thing. You have a visceral hatred of the Wilpons. I get it. I don't like everything they do, either. But I've lived through the M. Donald Grant era, so I know that things can be far worse. If you don't want engage in a discussion of communications practice then jump down to the next post. I thought some people might find it interesting. No. You said it was a bad business decision. Do you not see the difference? Have the Wilpons actually said anything about Cespedes, or are you basing that on something the former general manager said, and assumed he was following their marching orders? You certainly don't need my affirmation to hate anyone. And I can't figure out why you are making it personal. Right now Cespedes has a problem. I was noting how he got there and recommending how he and the Mets should solve it. I guess I look at stuff from a problem-solving approach. I'm quirky that way. You know, it really is shocking. How much you will dance around a simple question. Spinning and spinning and spinning, but never agreeing to (what I think) is a basic, irrefutable, truth. Whether it's the Wilpons or Alderson who believe it, it is a real shit thing to trash your own player, accuse him of dogging it, and suggest that his contract was a bad signing. You have suggested ways they can spin it, you have suggested ways Cespedes could have diffused it, you have claimed to have already agreed with me (you hadn't), and when called out, asked why I need your affirmation anyway (I don't). You have called into question why I'm "making it personal" and now you claim to be a problem solver who is "quirky". But you have never, not once, despite six responses in this thread, despite me specifically asking you a very direct question multiple times, ever said "You're right CF, that is a really shitty thing that they did." If you believe that, if you agree with that statement, it's incomprehensible why you resist saying so. It makes no sense. I mean, I guess maybe you don't agree with me. That's ok. Then own it. "Actually, CF, I disagree. I think it's totally cool to for an organization to make unwarranted attacks on their player's integrity. This is fine." I think I'd be better with that. At least that's an honest answer.

41Forever wrote: I said exactly that, but without the vulgarity. I said running down the reputation of your top player is a bad thing. You have a visceral hatred of the Wilpons. I get it. I don't like everything they do, either. But I've lived through the M. Donald Grant era, so I know that things can be far worse. If you don't want engage in a discussion of communications practice then jump down to the next post. I thought some people might find it interesting. No. You said it was a bad business decision. Do you not see the difference?

Our arguments basically follow the same path. CF: Wow, the Wilpons did this shitty thing. They are shit people. 41F: They should really speak to the press in this way. That way they will seem less shitty. My point is you never focus on the shitty behavior. Only on making the shitty behavior seem less shitty. I'm asking you this, this one time, admit, that trashing your player who is trying to get back from injury is a shit thing to do. Not to focus on perception, or give me a lesson on branding, but to say yes, CF. Trashing your player and insinuating that he is dogging it is a shit thing to do. Can you admit that?

I'm not calling you a shit person. I'm calling the Wilpons shit persons. I'm saying you never agree with that. You never focus on that.

41Forever wrote: The Mets should be caring about selling tickets, t-shirts, canary compression sleeves and such. Running down the reputation of your top player is a bad business decision. This is so frustrating. Yes, I agree that it's a bad business decision. The Wilpons haven't shows that they're very good at running a baseball team. But can we just take a moment and acknowledge that running down the reputation of your top (or any) player is just a shit thing to do. Unless your guy is actually dogging it, trashing him because of some latent resentment is wrong. It's morally wrong. I don't know why this is so hard for you to admit. Sometimes it's not about the message. Or perception. It's about actions, and things you should and shouldn't do. Even if no one is watching. Sometimes there is just the right thing to do, and a shit thing to do. And you shouldn't do the shit thing because that makes you a shit person.